Remarriage, Cohabitation, and Changes in Mothering Behavior

Author(s): Elizabeth Thomson, Jane Mosley, Thomas L. Hanson, Sara S. McLanahan

Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 63, No. 2 (May, 2001), pp. 370-380
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654598
Accessed: 27/01/2010 00:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org
 ELIZABETH
THOMSONUniversityof Wisconsin-Madison

JANEMOSLEY MidwestResearchInstitute*

THOMASL. HANSON WestEd**

SARAS. MCLANAHANPrincetonUniversity***

andChangesin
Cohabitation,
Remarriage,
MotheringBehavior

Weuseddatafrom two wavesof the NationalSur-
vey of Families and Household to investigate
changes in motheringbehavior associated with
remarriageor cohabitationby single mothers.We
considered three dimensions of mothering:(a)
timeand supervision,(b) harshdiscipline,and (c)
relationshipquality.Mothersand childrenagreed
that motherswho remainedin new partnerships
used harshdisciplinelessfrequentlythanmothers
who remainedsingle or whose new partnership
had ended by the second interview.Mothersre-
ported less supervisionif they had experienceda
disruptedpartnership,whereaschildrenreported
less supervisionif their mothers remainedin a
newpartnershipat the second interview.Children
but not mothersreportedbetterrelationshipswith
Departmentof Sociology, 1180 ObservatoryDrive,University
of Wisconsin,Madison,WI 53706 (thomson@ssc.wise.edu).
*Midwest Research Institute, 425 Volker Avenue, Kansas
City, MO 64110.
**WestEd, 4665 Lampson Avenue, Los Alamitos, CA
90720.
***Office of PopulationResearch,Notestein Hall, 21 Pros-
pect Avenue, PrincetonUniversity, Princeton,NJ 08540.
Key Words: cohabitation, divorce, parent-child relation-
ships, remarriage.
mothersin partnershipsat the second interview,
comparedwith childrenwhose mothersremained
single or whose newpartnershiphad ended.Only
a smallpart of the differencesin harshdiscipline,
and none of the otherobserveddifferences,could
be explainedby maternalorfamilycharacteristics
or by motheringbehaviorand relationshipsin the
first interview.Althoughcohabitingpartnerships
were more likely to end than were marriages,we
found no differencesin effects of cohabitingor
maritalpartnerships,net of theirstatusat the sec-
ond interview.
Demographictrendsin cohabitation,marriage,di-
vorce, andremarriagehave changedchildren'sex-
perienceof family life (Bumpass,1994; Cherlin,
1992; Manning& Lichter,1995). Gone for most
childrenarethe days of living with two biological
parentsuntil age 18 (Bumpass,Raley, & Sweet,
1995; Graefe & Lichter, 1997). Many children
whose parentsdivorceor end theircohabitingre-
lationshipor who were born to unmarried,non-
cohabitingmotherswill experiencefurtherfamily
change when a parentremarriesor cohabitswith
a new partner (Cherlin; Norton & Moorman,
1987).
In this article,we use panel datafromthe Na-
tional Survey of Families and Households

370 Journalof Marriageand Family63 (May 2001): 370-380

Cohabitation and Changes in Mothering Behavior
(NSFH)to estimateeffects of mothers'new part-
nerships,cohabitingor marital,on motheringbe-
havior.We examinethreedimensionsof children's
experienceswith theirmothers:(a) mother'stime
and supervision;(b) harshdiscipline,and (c) re-
lationshipquality.Ourstudymakestwo important
contributions.First,the panel design of NSFH al-
lowed us to measure mothers' behaviors and
mother-childrelationshipsbefore mothersform a
new partnership.We could thereforecontrol for
potential selection of particulartypes of single
mothers into partnerships,going beyond cross-
sectional analyses of differencesbetween single
andremarriedor repartnered mothers.Second,be-
cause both the motherand a focal child were in-
terviewed, we had a more complete picture of
motheringat the secondinterviewthanwe would
have with only mothers'reports.
Why might one expect motheringto change
when a woman enters a new partnership?First,
new partnersbringaddedincome into the house-
hold. Remarriagein particularis associatedwith
a large increase in family economic well-being
(McLanahan& Sandefur,1993). Low levels of in-
come increaseparentalstress, which in turnmay
lead to poorerparenting(Elder,1974;McLeod&
Shanahan,1994; McLoyd & Wilson, 1991). An
increasein income and economic securityshould
lower stressand therebyimprovemothering.
New partnersalso bringa secondpairof eyes,
ears, and hands to the childrearingtask. Cross-
sectionalanalyses show that the presenceof an-
otheradultin the householdis associatedwith in-
creased supervision (Thomson, McLanahan&
Curtin,1992). A new partnermay engagedirectly
in childrearingtasks or take over some of the
household and daily life tasks so that a mother
can devote more time to children.
Third,a spouseor partneroffers social support
for the mother (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). He may
be helpful in making difficult childrearingdeci-
sions and in strengtheningher authority.He may
be a sourceof comfortwhenparentingis stressful.
All of these supportsmay benefitthe mother'spar-
enting and her relationshipwith her child(ren).
New partnersmay also inhibitnegativeresponses
towardchildren,simplybecausethey are thereto
observethem.Motheringis in a sense morepublic
in a new relationshipthan when mothers live
alone with theirchildren.
Not all of the hypothesizedeffects of new part-
nershipsare positive,however.New partnersnec-
essarilytake time away from motheringand may
not transferthe same amountsof their own time
371
to children(Hetherington& Jodl, 1994). Remar-
riage or cohabitationmay mean a change of res-
idence for the motherand her child(ren),and at
the very least a change in daily routines.Such
changes may be stressful for both mother and
child(ren),producingpoorermotheringandmoth-
er-childrelationships.Becausesingle mothersand
their childrenoften develop a particularlyclose
and interdependentrelationship(Ganong & Co-
leman, 1994), new partnersmay be viewed as
competitionfor the mother'saffectionandperhaps
also to theirrelationshipwith a nonresidentfather
(Crosbie-Bumett& Ahrons, 1985). As a result,
they may behave badly and make the mother's
parentingtask more difficult.Finally, cohabiting
partnershipsand higher ordermarriagesmay be
less stable than first marriages.If a relationship
ends, the stressof two majorfamily changesin a
relativelyshortperiod of time may adverselyaf-
fect motheringand the mother-childrelationship.
In addition,if the new partnershipprovidedim-
provementsin mothering,its disruptioncould re-
verse those effects.
Cross-sectionalanalysesusuallyfinddifferenc-
es in parentingor parent-childrelationshipsacross
family types (e.g., Kurdek& Fine, 1988; Peek,
Bell, Waldren,& Sorrell, 1993; but see Amato,
1987). Furstenbergand Spanier(1984) reported,
for example, that remarriedparents were more
likely thanparentsin originalmarriagesto report
parentingburdens,while at the same time report-
ing that remarriagehelped in the raisingof their
children. Thomson, McLanahan, and Curtin
(1992) foundthat single mothersspentmoretime
with children than did remarriedor cohabiting
mothersbut that remarriedmothershad stricter
rules and supervisedchildrenmore closely than
single or cohabitingmothers.
Finding differences in parenting behavior
acrossfamily types does not, however,tell us that
family structureor the associatedexperienceof
family formationor separationcauses changesin
parentingbehavior.Instead,we could be observ-
ing an associationproducedby selection of par-
ticulartypes of parentsinto separation,new part-
nerships, or both. Whatever unobserved
characteristicsunderlieparentingbehaviorcould
also make parentsmore attractivepartnersor less
interestedin living alone.
Data collected by Hetheringtonand her col-
leagues provide some of the limited information
on remarriageand motheringbehaviorusing lon-
gitudinaldata (Hetherington,1989; Hetherington
& Clingempeel,1992;Hetherington,Cox, & Cox,
372
1982). They arguedthatthe additionalstressorsof
remarriageoverridein the shorttermany benefits
due to additionalincome or the presenceof an-
otheradult.They reportedthatthe relationshipbe-
tween mothersand childrendeclinedafterremar-
riage but recoveredwithin two years. They also
found that remarriedmotherswere less involved
than divorced single mothersin their children's
lives (Hetherington& Clingempeel).The limita-
tions of theirwork are thatthe samplesare rather
small and composed predominantlyof White,
middle-classfamilies.
In an earlieranalysis,we used paneldatafrom
the NSFH to simulatechanges in motheringbe-
haviorbeforeandafterdivorce,includingchanges
associatedwith the cohabitationor remarriageof
divorcedmothers(Hanson,McLanahan,& Thom-
son, 1998). Beginningwith a sample of married
mothers,we followed them throughdivorce,co-
habitation,remarriageor a combinationthereof.
Divorce between interviewswas associatedwith
increased frequency of child activities and re-
duced supervision.Motherswho subsequentlyre-
marriedreportedthe same elevatedfrequencyof
child activitiesbut less supervisionthandid moth-
ers who remainedsingle. Thus, remarriageor co-
habitationdid not lead to a "recovery"of predi-
vorce mothering.
In this article,we investigatethese inferredef-
fects of cohabitationor remarriageby directlyob-
servingchangesin motheringamongwomenwho
were single at the firstNSFH interview.This de-
sign allows us to observe potential changes in
motheringbehaviorandmother-childrelationships
for women who had never been marriedas well
as those who had been divorcedfor a longer pe-
riod of time than was the case in our previous
analysis.The design also enablesus to controlfor
motheringbehavior observed during singlehood
but before remarriageor cohabitation,thus con-
trollingfor the potentialselectionof differentsorts
of mothersinto new partnerships.
SAMPLEANDMEASURES
We used data from the two waves of the NSFH,
a nationallyrepresentativesurvey of U.S. adults
with a double sample of single-parentfamilies.
The responserate to the initial survey conducted
during 1987-1988 (NSFH1) was 74% (Sweet,
Bumpass,& Call, 1988). If respondentsreported
any childrenunderage 19 living in the household,
one child was randomlyselected as a focal child.
Ouranalyticsampleconsistsof motherswho were
Journal of Marriage and Family
living with the focal child but withouta partner
at the firstinterview;who participatedin the fol-
low-up survey during 1992-1994 (NSFH2) and
whose focal child was living with them and was
age 10-17 at thattime.
About four fifths (81%) of the single mothers
at NSFH1 were interviewedin NSFH2. As ex-
pected, almost90% of focal childrenaged 10-17
at NSFH2 were living with their mothers(N =
417). About three fourthsof these childrenalso
participatedin the NSFH2 survey (N = 316). We
investigatedpotentialnonresponsebias with lo-
gistic regressionmodelsof maternalresponseand
of focal child response, contingenton maternal
response. Education and home ownership in-
creasedthe likelihoodof maternalresponse,and
AfricanAmericanmotherswere morelikely to re-
spondthanwereWhitenon-Hispanicmothers.No
differencesin response were found by mother's
marital experience, including recentness of di-
vorce, focal child'sage or sex, sibshipsize or sex
composition,maternalemployment,religion, or
presence of anotheradult (not a partner)in the
householdat the firstinterview.Two indicatorsof
motheringbehaviormeasuredin the first survey
were also associatedwith responseto the second
survey:Enjoyabletimes with the focal child were
associatedwith a lowerlikelihoodof response,fo-
cal child supervisionwith a higher likelihoodof
response.Focal child responsewas also positively
associatedwith mother'seducationand activities
with children.As for mothers,child responsewas
negativelyassociatedwith maternalreports(in the
firstinterview)of enjoyabletimes with the child.
We investigatedthe potentialbias in models
estimatedfrom panel data by includingthe pre-
dicted likelihoodof responsein our models. For
children'sreports,we includedtwo separatepre-
dictedvalues,one for maternal,the otherfor child
response. Estimates of other structuraleffects
were not altered when predictedresponse vari-
ables were included. We thereforepresent esti-
matesfrom models withoutthose variables.
We includedin our analysismeasuresof three
dimensionsof mothering:investmentsof time and
supervision, harsh discipline, and relationship
quality.In preliminaryanalyses,we also investi-
gated indicatorsof milder forms of discipline,
findingno significantdifferencesby mother'spart-
nership experience. (Analyses available on re-
quest.) Because we did not have good indicators
of mild disciplinein the firstsurvey,we focus in
this article on the dimensionsof motheringfor
which we have repeatedor similarreportsfrom
Cohabitation and Changes in Mothering Behavior
the motherin both surveysandparallelresponses
from the motherand child in the second survey.
We attemptedto develop a smaller numberof
scales thanpresentedhere, but exploratoryfactor
analyses showed that very few indicatorswere
sufficientlystronglyassociatedto representa sin-
gle latent construct.To create multi-itemscales,
we averagedvalid item scores; respondentswho
providedvalid responsesfor at leasthalf the items
in a scale receiveda valid score. In the following
paragraphs,we firstdescribemeasuresof each di-
mensionof motheringin the secondinterviewand
then parallelor similarindicatorsof motheringin
the firstinterview.
Mother'sTimeand Supervision
In the follow-upinterview,mothersandfocal chil-
drenwere asked to reporton the amountof time
together,thatis, how manyhourseach week they
spenttime together,one-on-one,up to a maximum
of 50 hours.Because the tail end of the distribu-
tion was long andthin,we truncatedthe maximum
numberof hoursat 10 per week. Amongmothers,
13%reportedzero hours,20% 10 or more hours,
with a relativelyeven distributionbetween 1 and
9 hours per week. Mothers were also asked to
indicatewhetherthe focal child was allowedto be
at home alone in the afternoon,after school, late
in the evening,or overnight.Supervisionat home
is scored 1 if the child was allowed home alone
overnight,2 if allowed home alone late in the
evening but not overnight, 3 if allowed home
alone in the afternoonbut not in the evening or
overnight,and4 if not allowedhome alone at any
of these times. Focal childrenwere askedhow of-
ten they were left at home alone during these
times;we categorizedeachresponseas anytimeor
never and constructeda scale parallelto that for
mothers.
Measuresof time and supervisionin the first
interview were not completelyparallel.Mothers
were not asked the same questionaboutone-on-
one time with the focal child. They were, how-
ever, asked to reporthow often they engaged in
four differenttypes of activitieswith one or more
of their children (leisure activities away from
home, at home workingon a projector playing
together,having privatetalks, helping with read-
ing or homework),with responseoptionsranging
from never = 1 to almost every day = 6. The
averagedscale, child activities,has an estimated
reliabilityof .70. The same questionsabout su-
pervision were asked in the first interview,and
373
we constructeda scale identicalto thatconstructed
fromthe secondinterview.An additionalindicator
of prior supervision(not asked in the second in-
terview)is also includedin our analysis.Mothers
reportedhow often the focal child was requiredto
inform parentsof her or his whereaboutswhen
away from home, rangingfrom hardlyever = 1
to all of the time = 4.
HarshDiscipline
In the follow-up interview,motherswere asked
"When (child) does something especially bad,
how often do you yell at him or her? Spank or
slap him or her?"and "How muchof the time do
you yell or shout to get (child) to do what you
want or not to do what you don't want?" Re-
sponse options for both questions ranged from
never = 1 to always = 5, with abouthalf the time
at the midpoint.Mothers were also asked how
many times within the past week they had
spankedor hit the focal child when he or she be-
haved badly, scored from none = 1 to three or
more times = 4. We averagedpairs of items re-
ferringto yelling and to spankingor hitting,pro-
ducing scales with estimatedreliabilitiesof .80
and .92, respectively.
Focal childrenwere askedhow often theirpar-
ent(s) used yelling to influencethe child'sbehav-
ior, with responsesrangingfrom never = 1 to all
the time = 5 and how many times they had been
spankedor hit in the past week. Only 5% of the
children reportedrecent spankingor hitting, so
this indicatorwas dichotomized.
Indicatorsof parentaldisciplinewere extreme-
ly limitedin the initialinterview.Mothersreport-
ed how frequentlythey yelled at or spankedor hit
one of the children,responsesrangingfromnever
= 1 to very often = 4. In addition,they were
askedhow manytimes they had spankedthe focal
child in the past week (for focal childrenunder
age 12), with no spankingor hitting= 1 andthree
or more times = 4. Yelling was thereforemea-
sured with a single indicatorfrom the initial in-
terview, spankingby an average of the two re-
sponses,havingan estimatedreliabilityof .57. As
notedabove,we do not presentanalysesfor mild-
er forms of discipline in our analyses (e.g., de-
nying privileges, explaining why behavior is
wrong) because we do not have good indicators
of those forms in the firstinterview.
374
TABLE 1. MOTHERS'NEW PARTNERSHIPS
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
PartnershipExperience Number Percent
Remained single 229 54.9
Cohabited,partnershipended 51 12.2
Married,marriageended 23 5.5
Cohabited,partnershipintact 29 7.0
Married,marriageintact 85 20.4
Total 417 100.0
Relationship Quality
In the follow-up interview,motherswere asked:
"Duringthe last 30 days, how often did you and
(child) talk about somethingthat was worrying
him or her? .... thathe or she was excited about
or interested in?" (1 = never ... 6 = almost
every day). Childrenwere asked: "If you had a
majordecision to make.... felt depressedor un-
happy ...., how likely would you be to talk to
your mother?" (1 = definitely wouldn't .... 5 =
definitelywould).We averagedeach pairof items
to measurethe extentto which the motherserved
as a confidantfor the child, producingscales with
estimatedreliabilitiesof .51 and .71, respectively.
As a measureof theirglobal relationshipmothers
and childrenwere asked: "Takingall things to-
gether,on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 is really
bad and 10 is absolutelyperfect,how would you
describeyour relationshipwith (child/yourmoth-
er)?"
In the firstinterview,mothersreportedthe fre-
quencyof "enjoyabletimes" with the focal child
duringthe past month,rangingfromnever = 1 to
almost every day = 6. They also provided an
overall ratingof their relationshipwith the focal
child, ranging from very poor = 1 to excellent =
7. And finally,they indicatedthe frequencywith
which they praisedor hugged a child (not neces-
sarily the focal child), from 1 (never) to 4 (very
often), producinga scale of warmthwith an esti-
matedreliabilityof .48.
At NSFH2, mothersprovidedinformationon
all cohabitingand maritalpartnershipsbetween
interviews. Table 1 shows the distributionof
union experience.More than half of the mothers
remainedsingle throughoutthe periodbetweenin-
terviews, about one fifth cohabitedand did not
marry,andmorethanone quartermarried(usually
precededby a period of cohabitation).One fifth
of the marriagesand morethanhalf of the cohab-
iting partnershipsthat did not result in marriage
had dissolved before the second interview. Di-
Journal of Marriage and Family
vorced women were more likely to form a new
partnership,more likely to marry,and less likely
to separatefrom a new partnerthanwere women
who had not marriedby the time of the first in-
terview (dataavailableon request).
ANALYSES AND RESULTS
Exceptfor the modelof child'sreportof spanking,
estimatedwith logistic regression,models were
estimatedwith ordinaryleast-squaresregression.
As shown in Table 1, we could classify mothers'
partnershipexperience along two dimensions-
whethera partnershipwas cohabitingor marital
and whetherit had ended by or was intactat the
second interview.Net of partnershipstatus (dis-
rupted,intact),we foundno significantdifferences
betweeneffects of cohabitingand maritalpartner-
ships. Ouranalysisthereforefocuses on effects of
disruptedandintactpartnerships, ignoringthe dis-
tinctionbetweenmarriageandcohabitation.Note,
however,that cohabitingpartnershipswere more
likely to end thanwere marriages.
We conductedpreliminaryanalysesto identify
demographicand socioeconomic characteristics
that were significantlyassociatedwith mothering
at NSFH2. We considerednot only focal child's
sex andage at NSFH2but also measuresof family
and maternalcharacteristicsat NSFH1: sibship
size and sex compositionandage of youngestsib-
ling; mother'smaritalstatusand recentnessof di-
vorce; mother'seducation,home ownership,eth-
nicity, and religion; and whether anotheradult
(not a partner) lived with the mother and
child(ren).Parallelmeasuresat NSFH2 were not
includedbecausethey could be the consequences
ratherthan causes of partnershipexperiencebe-
tween interview.Final models includeonly char-
acteristicsthat were statisticallysignificantlyas-
sociated with NSFH2 motheringor that altered
coefficients for partnershipexperiencewhen in-
cluded in the model. We note in particularthat
motherswho hadbeen divorcedfor shorteror lon-
ger periodsat NSFH1 did not differin mothering
at NSFH2, net of othereffects; significantdiffer-
ences werefoundbetweenmotherswho hadnever
been marriedand those who were divorced at
NSFH1. Parallelanalyses were conductedto se-
lect appropriate controlsfor motheringat NSFH1.
We considerednot only indicatorsfrom the same
domain of mothering,but also indicatorsfrom
otherdomains.In most cases, the strongestor only
statisticallysignificantassociationswere between
parallelmeasuresat NSFH1 and NSFH2.
Cohabitation and Changes in Mothering Behavior 375

TABLE 2. MOTHERING BEHAVIOR AND MOTHER-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS BY PARTNERSHIP EXPERIENCE

Remained Disrupted Intact

Single Partnership Partnership All Mothers
M SD M SD M SD M SD N
NSFH1 Mothering
Child activities 4.68 0.90 4.65 0.95 4.70 0.89 4.68 0.90 402
Supervision at home 3.63 0.58 3.61 0.59 3.60 0.60 3.62 0.58 348
Parentsinformed 3.89 0.43 3.98 0.13 3.92 0.31 3.91 0.37 357
Yelling 2.91 0.75 2.86 0.78 2.75 0.72 2.86 0.75 400
Spanking/hitting 1.37* 0.71 1.54* 0.74 1.25* 0.68 1.37 0.72 417
Global relationship 6.48 0.81 6.47 0.83 6.42 0.82 6.46 0.81 377
Enjoyable times 5.13 1.14 4.95 1.43 5.10 1.00 5.09 1.16 416
Warmth 3.77 0.36 3.80 0.33 3.81 0.33 3.79 0.35 401
NSFH2 Mothering
Time together
mother 4.56 3.46 4.27 3.59 4.09 3.43 4.37 3.46 361
child 3.21 4.40 3.27 4.11 2.57 4.52 3.02 4.39 296
Supervision at home
mother 2.71 0.97 2.59 0.94 2.70 0.97 2.68 0.97 361
child 2.79 1.11 2.79 1.18 2.58 1.00 2.73 1.09 311
Yelling
mother 3.06* 1.19 3.25* 1.13 2.60* 1.12 2.97 1.18 363
child 2.45* 1.18 2.65* 1.16 2.02* 0.94 2.35 1.13 307
Spanking/hitting
mother 1.29* 0.52 1.31* 0.61 1.09* 0.22 1.23 0.48 363
child 0.01 0.24 0.10 0.31 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.23 308
Confidant
mother 3.94 1.21 4.14 1.15 4.02 1.00 4.00 1.14 413
child 3.81 1.02 3.77 0.95 3.98 0.87 3.86 0.97 309
Global relationship
mother 8.43 1.52 8.36 1.72 8.44 1.57 8.42 1.57 413
child 8.16* 2.10 8.67* 1.52 8.72* 1.41 8.41 1.85 306
*p < .05.

In both interviews,a relativelylarge number
of respondents(10-15%) did not provideanswers
to one or anotherquestionpresentedin self-enu-
merated questionnaires.Unfortunately,several
questions about motheringwere presentedthis
way, ratherthan in the personalinterview. For
some mothers,moreover,the focal child was a
year or so too young (supervision)or too old
(spanking)at the first interviewfor the question
to have been asked. To maximizethe size of our
analytic sample, we used scores predictedfrom
demographicand socioeconomic characteristics
(includingthe child's sex and age at NSFH1) to
substitutefor missing data on motheringat the
first interview and includeddummyvariablesin
ourmodelsto identifycases withpredictedscores.
Remainingdifferencesbetween the total and an-
alytic samples are due to nonresponseon mea-
sures of motheringat NSFH2 or, in a very small
numberof cases, to missing informationon edu-
cation,employment,or home ownership.
The primaryadvantageof paneldatafor study-
ing effects of partnership
experienceand statuson
motheringis that we can control for mothering
behaviorbefore the formationor dissolutionof a
new partnership. Motheringbehaviormay varyby
a woman's capacity for interpersonalrelation-
ships,herrelativeinterestin findinga new partner,
and a varietyof otherdispositionsthat could de-
terminewhethershe entersa new partnershipand
whetherthat partnershipsurvives to the second
interview.If we controlfor motheringat the initial
interview,we are in effect controllingfor a major
form of selectioninto andout of new partnerships
andcan makestrongerinferencesaboutthe effects
of partnershipexperienceon motheringat the sec-
ond interview than when only socioeconomic
characteristicsare controlled.
To identifypotentialselectionof differentsorts
of mothersinto and out of new partnerships,we
estimatedassociationsbetweenmotheringbehav-
ior and mother-childrelationshipsat the first in-
terview and the mother'spartnershipexperience
between interviews.We estimatedthe zero-order
association and associations adjusted for the
child'sage at the firstinterview,andwe compared
376 Journal of Marriage and Family

TABLE3. EFFECTS
OFPARTNERSHIP TIMEANDSUPERVISION
ONMOTHERS'
EXPERIENCE
Time Together Supervision at Home
Mother's Report Child's Report Mother'sReport Child's Report
B SE B SE B SE B SE

Disruptedpartnership -.484 .503 .352 .739 -.325** .101 189 .160

Intact partnership -.645 .421 -.658 .581 -.008 .085 -.338** .125
Child age in years -.007 .083 .161 .123 -.224** .024 -.216** .036
Female child -.486 .366 .133 .871 -.006 .074 .003 .182
Never marriedNSFH1 -.416 .413 .396 .600 .001 .097 -.006 .150
NSFH1 Mothering
Child activities .551** .220
Supervision at home .328** .080 .007 .116
Parentsinformed .181* .106 .294** .149
Global relationship .409 .332 .008* .048
Enjoyable times .157 .167
Praise, hug .874 .569 -.300 .163
Constant -1.174 2.734 -3.656 3.357 3.649** .782 7.144** 1.303
Adjusted R2 .060** .028* .527** .304**
Valid cases 345 287 341 297
Note: Ordinaryleast squares regression estimates. Other control variables measured at NSFH1 include time together,
mother'sreport(any religion); time together,child's report(mother'semployment,sibship gender composition);supervision,
mother's report (mother's education, race/ethnicity, any religion, sibship size); supervision, child's report (same as for
mother's reportplus sibship gender composition). All models include indicatorsof predictedNSFH1 motheringvariables.
*p < .10 (two-tailed). **p < .05 (two-tailed).

results for the observed indicatorsand measures
that includedpredictedvalues for initial mother-
ing behaviorand relationships.Very few associ-
ations were found. Mothers'partnershipexperi-
ence was not associatedwith measuresof time
and supervisionor the mother-childrelationship
at the firstinterview.As shownin Table2, we did
find evidence of selection on harsh discipline.
Motherswhose new partnerships wereintactat the
secondinterviewhadreportedthe lowest levels of
spankingor hitting and yelling (not statistically
significant)at the first interview, whereasthose
who formedand dissolved a partnershipbetween
interviewshad reportedthe highestlevels of harsh
discipline.
The bottomhalf of Table2 reportszero-order
associationsbetween mothers'partnershipexpe-
rience and motheringat the second interview.
Here we find that harshparentingis also greater
at the second interview for motherswho ended
new partnerships,as well as for motherswho re-
mainedsinglebetweeninterviews.Althoughzero-
order associationsare not significantlydifferent
from zero, parameterestimates suggest reduced
time with children-and perhaps less supervi-
sion-when mothers'new partnershipsare intact
at the second interview.On the otherhand,focal
childrenreport significantlyhigher quality rela-
tionshipswith motherswho formed a new part-
nershipbetween interviews, whether or not the
couple separated.
Table 3 reportskey model parametersfor in-
dicatorsof mothers'time and supervision.As in
Table 2, coefficientssuggest less time with chil-
drenfor motherswhose new partnerships werein-
tact at the second interview.Again, however,we
cannotrejectthe hypothesisof no difference.The
measureof mothers' activities with all children
has a relativelylargeeffect on hourswiththe focal
child, showingcontinuityin mothers'investments
of time in childrearing.Otherindicatorsof moth-
ering do not have significanteffects net of mater-
nal and family characteristics.
Accordingto mothers,partnerships thatformed
and dissolved between interviewsreducedchild
supervision; according to children, however,
motherswho remainedin partnershipsat the sec-
ond interviewprovidedthe least supervision.The
differencebetweenthese models and the zero-or-
der associationspresentedin Table2 is primarily
due to controlsfor child'sage. Becauseolderchil-
dren are less strictly supervisedand also inhibit
the formationof new partnerships, the directneg-
ative effect of partnershipexperience is sup-
pressedin the zero-orderassociation.Indicatorsof
supervisionat the initialinterviewhavethe largest
direct effects on supervisionat the second inter-
view.
Cohabitation and Changes in Mothering Behavior 377

TABLE4. EFFECTS
OFPARTNERSHIP ONHARSHDISCIPLINE
EXPERIENCE

Yelling Spanking/Hitting
Mother's Report Child's Report Mother's Report Child's Report
B SE B SE B SE B SE

Disruptedpartnership .209 .165 .186 .189 .000 .062 .143 .664

Intact partnership -.315** .139 -.314** .150 -.162** .053 -.963 .805
Child age in years -.001 .026 .002 'A0 -.004** .010 -.193 .137
Female child .389** .193 .266 .219 .006 .045 -.583 .567
Never marriedNSFH1 .188 .134 -.001 .173 .118** .057 .769 .595
NSFHI mothering
Yelling .467** .085 .177* .095
Spanking/hitting .159** .032 .314 .358
Constant 1.185** .597 1.391** .629 1.577** .174 -2.199 2.358
AdjustedR2 .125** .064** .207** .055*a
Valid cases 352 300 354 298
Note: Ordinaryleast squares regression estimates, except for child's report of spanking (logistic regression estimates).
Other control variables measured at NSFH1 include yelling, mother's report (mother's education, sibship size and gender
composition); yelling, child's report (home ownership, mother's race/ethnicity, sibship gender composition); spanking,
mother's report (mother'srace/ethnicity);spanking, child's report (mother's education, employment). Models also include
indicatorsof predictedNSFH1 motheringvariables.
aCox and Snell estimate.
*p < .10 (two-tailed). **p < .05 (two-tailed).

Table4 shows thatmothersand childrenagree
abouteffects of new partnershipson harshdisci-
pline. Motherswhose partnerships remainedintact
yelled and spanked or hit less thanthose who re-
mained single between interviews.The fact that
coefficients from the logistic regressionmodels
for children'sreports do not attain significance
could be due to poor measurementin the child's
interview,wherespankingor hittingwas reported
only for the past week. Althoughcoefficientsfor
disrupted partnershipsare positive, yelling or
spankingor hitting were not significantlymore
commonfor those mothersthanfor motherswho
remainedsingle betweeninterviews.Harshdisci-
pline at the first interviewis stronglyassociated
with harshdisciplineat the second interviewand
accounts for about one quarterof the effect of
partnershipexperienceon harshdiscipline.(Mod-

TABLE5. EFFECTS
OFPARTNERSHIP ONTHEMOTHER-CHILD
EXPERIENCE RELATIONSHIP

Confidant Global Relationship

Mother's Report Child's Report Mother's Report Child's Report
B SE B SE B SE B SE

Disruptedpartnership .239 .153 -.006 .160 -.122 .187 .448 .294

Intact partnership .002 .130 .218* .124 .194 .161 .631** .227
Child age in yrs .000 .025 -.008** .026 -.000 .045 -.211** .048
Female child .423** .183 .115 .109 -.007 .136 -.247 .201
Never marriedNSFH1 -.007 .128 -.003 .143 .208 .177 .009 .263
NSFHI mothering
Enjoyable times .132** .050 .008 .048 .229** .061 .157* .090
Praise, hug .334* .174
Global relationship .549** .092 .374** .135
Supervision at home .471** .148
Constant 1.529* .853 4.508** .533 2.417* 1.281 8.397** 1.331
AdjustedR2
.046** .075** .274** .168**
Valid cases 404 302 401 299
Note: Ordinaryleast squaresregressionestimates. Othercontrol variablesmeasuredat NSFH1 include: confidant,mother's
report (sibship sex composition); confidant,child's report (mother'srace/ethnicity);relationship,mother's report (mother's
race/ethnicity,other adult in household);relationship,child's report(mother'srace/ethnicity).Models also include indicators
of predictedNSFH1 motheringvariables.
*p < .10 (two-tailed). **p < .05 (two-tailed).
378
els that controlonly for child's age and sex and
maternalsocioeconomiccharacteristicsproduced
estimatedmeandifferencesvery close to thosere-
portedin Table2.)
As shownin Table5, childrenbut not mothers
reportcloser and bettermother-childrelationships
when the motherremainedin a new partnership
at the secondinterview,comparedwith remaining
single or separatingfroma new partner.Indicators
of relationshipqualityat the first interviewhave
directeffects on both mothers'and children'sre-
ports of relationshipquality at the second inter-
view. In addition,motherswho reportedgreater
supervisionwhen the child was younger report
better relationshipsin adolescence.The positive
coefficientfor intact partnershipsis largerin the
full model thanin the model controllingonly for
child'sage and sex (analysesnot shown).This re-
sult is consistentwith a selectionprocessin which
close mother-childrelationshipsinhibit the for-
mationof new partnerships.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Is remarriageor repartneringgood for mothers
and theirchildren?The answeris yes, if our pri-
maryconcernis mothers'harshdisciplineandthe
mother-childrelationship.Ourclearestresultsare
thatmothersless often yell, spank,or hit children
if they are living with a new husbandor partner.
In addition,from the child'spoint of view, a new
intact partnershipimprovesthe mother-childre-
lationship.
If we are more interestedin supervision,how-
ever,remarriageor repartnering may not be good
for children.We foundthatsupervisionis greatest
in stable single-motherfamilies,but mothersand
childrendifferin reportingthatcontinuingor dis-
ruptedpartnerships producethe least supervision.
The comparisonwith intactpartnershipsdoes not
correspondto results from cross-sectionalanaly-
ses in which stepfamiliesprovide greatersuper-
vision thando single-parentfamilies(Thomsonet
al., 1992). The results are, however, consistent
with our simulatedchangeanalysis(Hansonet al.,
1998) in which cohabitationor remarriageaccel-
erateddeclines in supervisionfollowing divorce.
It may be thatfamily stability,ratherthannumber
of parents,facilitatesarrangementsfor children's
supervisionat home. Residentialandotherhouse-
hold changesassociatedwith the formationof new
partnerships may disruptwell-establishedpatterns
of supervision(Hansonet al.).
Anotherpossible explanationfor differentre-
Journal of Marriage and Family
suits is that cross-sectionalanalyses include sin-
gle-motherand stepparentfamiliesof varyingdu-
rations,whereaspanelanalyseslimit the degreeof
variationat the secondpointof observation.In our
currentand previous(Hansonet al., 1998) anal-
yses, partnershipsobserved at the second inter-
view are of relativelyshortduration.After a lon-
ger period of time, we might observe greater
supervisionin the stable remarriedor cohabiting
families,comparedwith those of long-termsingle
mothers.(Sample size constraintspreventedour
distinguishingeffects of partnershipsformed or
disruptedmoreor less recentlyin referenceto the
point at which motheringwas measured.)On the
otherhand,Thomsonet al. (1992) did not findany
differencesin family effects linked to the timing
of partnershipformationor disruption.
We expectedthat our use of panel datawould
show the extent to which selection of different
sorts of mothersinto cohabitingpartnershipsor
marriageand,for some, into a subsequentdisrup-
tion, could account for parentingvariationsby
family structureobservedin cross-sectionalanal-
yses. Althoughwe found that motherswho used
less harsh discipline were more likely to be in
stable partnershipsat the second interview,other
dimensionsof motheringwere not associatedwith
partnership experience.Andharshdisciplineat the
firstinterviewaccountedfor only a quarterof the
association between partnershipexperience and
harshdisciplineat the secondinterview.Thesere-
sults imply that analyses of cross-sectionaldata
may providereasonableestimatesof partnership
effects on motheringbehaviorand mother-child
relationships.They could also, however, reflect
poor measurementof mothering(and therefore
poor estimatesof a selectionprocess) at the first
interview.
We were surprisedto findno differencesin ef-
fects of cohabitationor remarriageon mothering.
We know that cohabitingpartnersmay not have
the samecommitmentto a mother'schildrenas do
stepfathers,andwe observedthatcohabitingpart-
nershipswere less stablethanmarriages.(See also
Bumpass & Sweet, 1989.) It could be that our
sampleis too small to detectdifferencesbetween
maritaland cohabitingpartnerships.Only a small
numberof cohabitingpartnerships remainedintact
withouthaving been transformedinto marriages,
and only a small numberof marriagesendedbe-
fore the second interview.With a largersample,
it maybe possibleto identifydifferencesin effects
of partnershipformationor disruptionfor cohab-
iting and marriedcouples.
Cohabitation and Changes in Mothering Behavior
The fact thatNSFHincludesbothmothers'and
children'sreportsof motheringand the mother-
childrelationshipstrengthensourfindingsin some
respects.Mothers'andchildren'sreportsproduced
the samepatternsfor harshdiscipline;butmothers
and childrendid not agree on the particularex-
periencesassociatedwith reducedsupervisionor
relationship quality. Limiting the analysis of
mothers' reportsto those whose child had also
participateddid not alterthese results.The differ-
ence between the two reports of supervision-
mothers'reportingon rules, childrenon events-
may account for differences in those results.
Womenwhose partnershipsended may admit to
less strict rules but in fact leave their children
aloneno less often thando motherswho remained
single. Womenin partnershipsmay in fact leave
theirchildrenalone more often thantheir "rules"
dictate.On the otherhand,no such differencesin
measurementcould accountfor the fact thatwom-
en in partnerships don'tperceivethe enhancedre-
lationshipqualityperceivedby theirchildren.
Anothersource of differencesin resultsbased
on mothers'and children'sreportsis thatwe have
only mothers'reportsof motheringat the firstsur-
vey. In almost every case, the estimatedcoeffi-
cients for indicatorsof NSFH1 motheringwere
largerfor mothers'than for children'sreportsof
the same underlyingvariable.To the extent that
we have inadequatelycontrolledfor selection of
differentsortsof mothersinto andout of new part-
nerships,our estimatesof partnershipeffects may
be biased.
It is importantto keep in mindthroughoutthis
analysisthatwe arenot comparingsingle mothers
with mothersin originaltwo-parentfamilies.Once
a motheris single-through divorceor an unpart-
neredbirth-she does not usuallyhave the choice
of reforminga partnershipwith her child(ren)'s
biological father.The choice is to remainsingle
or to cohabitwith or marrya new partner.Stable
single motherhoodmay provide advantagesin
termsof supervision,avoidingthe risk of a sub-
sequent partnershipdisruption with its added
stresson mothersandchildren.On the otherhand,
marriagesor stable partnershipsappearto offer
advantagesfor childrenin reducingharsh disci-
pline and increasingchildren'spositive feelings
abouttheirmothers.
Our results for harsh discipline appearto be
the most consistent,robust,and theoreticallysen-
sible. They imply thatit is the presenceof a part-
ner ratherthanthe processof formingor dissolv-
ing a partnershipthat inhibits harsh discipline.
379
What we don't know is how partnerpresence
might exert such an effect. Differentmechanisms
have differentimplicationsfor single mothers.If
partnersinhibit harsh discipline simply as wit-
nesses to the mother'sbehavior,otheradultsin the
householdmight serve the same purpose.If part-
ners' economic contributionto the householdre-
duces maternalstress,we can envisionalternative
supportsto single mothers,includingdirectpublic
transfers,good jobs and high-quality,inexpensive
childcare.If it is directhelp with or indirectsup-
port for the mother'schildrearingresponsibilities
that makes motheringeasier,we may need better
community resources for single mothers and
greaterpublicsupportfor the difficultjob they do.
NOTE
This researchwas supportedby GrantNos. HD29601
andHD19375fromthe Centerfor PopulationResearch,
NationalInstituteof Child Health and HumanDevel-
opment.The NationalSurvey of Families and House-
holds was supportedby NIH/NIAGrantNo. HD21009.
REFERENCES
Amato, P R. (1987). Family processes in one-parent,
stepparent,and intact families: The child's point of
view. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 327-
337.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human de-
velopment: Experiments by nature and design. Cam-
bridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Bumpass,L. (1994). The decliningsignificanceof mar-
riage: Changing family life in the United States.
NSFH WorkingPaper66. Madison:Centerfor De-
mographyand Ecology, Universityof Wisconsin.
Bumpass,L. L., Raley, R. K., & Sweet, J. A. (1995).
The changingcharacterof stepfamilies:Implications
of cohabitationand nonmaritalchildbearing.Demog-
raphy, 32, 425-436.
Bumpass,L. L., & Sweet, J. A. (1989). Nationalesti-
mates of cohabitation. Demography, 26, 615-625.
Cherlin, A. J. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage.
Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Crosbie-Burnett,M., & Ahrons, C. (1985). From di-
vorce to remarriage:Implicationsfor therapywith
families in transition. Psychotherapy and the Family,
1, 121-137.
Elder, G. (1974). Children of the Great Depression: So-
cial change in life experience. Chicago: University of
ChicagoPress.
Furstenberg,F, & Spanier,G. B. (1984). Recyclingthe
family: Remarriage after divorce. Beverly Hills:
Sage.
Ganong,L. H., & Coleman,M. (1994). Remarriedfam-
ily relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Graefe,D. R., & Lichter,D. T. (1997). Life coursetran-
sitions of Americanchildren:Parentalcohabitation,
marriage and single motherhood.Population Re-
searchInstituteWorkingPaper,97-08. StateCollege:
PennsylvaniaStateUniversity.
380
Hanson, T. L., McLanahan,S. S., & Thomson, E.
(1998). Windowson divorce:Beforeandafter.Social
Science Research, 27, 329-349.
Hetherington,E. M. (1989). Coping with family tran-
sitions:Winners,losers and survivors.ChildDevel-
opment, 60, 1-14.
Hetherington,E. M., & Clingempeel,W G. (1992).
Coping with maritaltransitions.Monographsof the
Society for Research in Child Development, 57, Serial
no. 227.
E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1982). Effects
Hetherington,
of divorceon parentsandchildren.In M. Lamb(Ed.),
Nontraditional families: Parenting and child devel-
opment(pp. 233-285). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
E. M., & Jodl,K. M. (1994). Stepfamilies
Hetherington,
as settingsfor child development.In A. Booth & J.
Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies: Who benefits? Who does
not? (pp. 55-79). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
Kurdek,L. A., & Fine, M. A. (1993). The relationbe-
tween family structureand young adolescents'ap-
praisals of family climate and parentingbehavior.
Journal of Family Issues, 14, 279-290.
Manning,W D., & Lichter,D. T. (1995). Parentalco-
habitationand children'seconomicwell-being.Jour-
nal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 998-1010.
Journal of Marriage and Family
McLanahan,S. S., & Sandefur,G. D. (1994). Living
with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cam-
bridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
McLeod,J. D., & Shanahan,M. (1993). Poverty,par-
entingand children'smentalhealth.AmericanSocio-
logical Review, 58, 351-366.
McLoyd,V., & Wilson,L. (1991). The strainof living
poor: Parenting,social support and child mental
health.In A. Huston(Ed.), Childrenin poverty(pp.
105-135). Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniver-
sity Press.
Norton,A. J., & Moorman,J. E. (1987). Currenttrends
in marriageand divorce among Americanwomen.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 3-14.
Peek, C. W., Bell, N. J., Waldren,T, & Sorrell,G. T
(1988). Patternsof functioningin families of remar-
ried and first-marriedcouples. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 50, 699-708.
Sweet, J., Bumpass,L., & Call, V. (1988). The design
and contentof the NationalSurvey of Familiesand
Households.NSFHWorkingPaper1, Madison:Cen-
ter for DemographyandEcology,Universityof Wis-
consin.
Thomson,E., McLanahan,S. S., & Curtin,R. B. (1992).
Family structureand parentalsocialization.Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 54, 368-378.