Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Maternal Parenting Stress Following Paternal or Close Family Incarceration: Bayesian Model-Based Profiling Using the HILDA Longitudinal Survey

  • Revisions
  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To: (1) examine the existence and extent of heterogeneity in effects of paternal incarceration (PI) or close family incarceration (CFI) on maternal parenting stress; (2) identify key variables related to the effect of PI and CFI on maternal parenting stress.

Methods

Using data from HILDA, an Australian longitudinal survey, we investigate changes in maternal parenting stress for mothers who experienced either PI or CFI. There were 15 demographic and stress-related explanatory variables. Using Bayesian profile regression, we examine the average changes in maternal parenting stress after incarceration compared to the mother’s average level of parenting stress in prior waves, simultaneously with model-based clustering to characterise the profiles of mothers having a different degree of change.

Results

Three profiles of mothers were identified: (1) A small decrease in parental stress levels (n = 112); (2) No measurable average change in parental stress levels (n = 46); (3) A small increase in parental stress levels (n = 117). Only for the second cluster did the 95% posterior credible intervals for the means include zero as a plausible value. The estimated means for clusters 1 (decrease) and 3 (increase) did not overlap and are clearly separated.

Conclusions

Neither PI nor CFI helped profile mothers. Thus, research should examine wider family incarceration effects on children and caregivers. Prior adversity, wellbeing and family demographics contributed to the cluster profiles. Parenting stress is heterogeneous and improved methods are needed to disentangle the effects of incarceration from other contextual, recent and cumulative adverse events in people’s lives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Australian imprisonment rate is currently 221 prisoners per 100,000 adults (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018), which is much lower than the US imprisonment rate of 458 prisoners per 100,000 adults in 2015 (Carson 2016), though well above a global average of 144 per 100,000 (Coyle et al. 2016).

  2. The term ‘jail’ was used in the interview but refers broadly to imprisonment. In Australia, all remand (unsentenced) and sentenced individuals are detained in prisons, regardless of sentence length.

References

  • Arditti JA (2005) Families and incarceration: an ecological approach. Fam Soc 86(2):251–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Arditti JA (2015) Family process perspective on the heterogeneous effects of maternal incarceration on child wellbeing: the trouble with differences. Criminol Public Policy 14(1):169–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Arditti J (2016) A family stress-proximal process model for understanding the effects of parental incarceration on children and their families. Couple Fam Psychol Res Pract 5(2):65–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018) Prisoners in Australia, 2018 (4517.0). Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4517.0. Accessed 10 April 2019

  • Beeber LS, Schwartz TA, Martinez MI, Holditch-Davis D, Bledsoe SE, Canuso R, Lewis VS (2014) Depressive symptoms and compromised parenting in low-income mothers of infants and toddlers: distal and proximal risks. Res Nurs Health 37(4):276–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Besemer KL, Dennison SM (2018) Family imprisonment, maternal parenting stress and its impact on mother-child relationship satisfaction. J Child Fam Stud 27:3897–3908

    Google Scholar 

  • Besemer K, Dennison S (2019) Intergenerational social exclusion in prisoners’ families. In: Hutton M, Moran D (eds) The Palgrave handbook on prison and the family. Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp 479–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Besemer K, Dennison S, Bijleveld CCH, Murray J (in press) Effects of parental incarceration on children: lessons from international research. In: Eddy JM, Poehlmann-Tynan J (eds) Handbook on children of incarcerated parents: research, policy, and practice, 2nd edn. Springer

  • Besemer S, van de Geest V, Murray J, Bijleveld CCJH, Farrington DP (2011) The relationship between parental imprisonment and offspring offending in England and the Netherlands. Br J Criminol 51:413–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Boss P (2002) Family stress management: a contextual approach, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretherton I (1992) The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Dev Psychol 28(5):759–775

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson EA (2016) Prisoners in 2015 (NCJ 250229). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Celeux G, Forbes F, Robert CP, Titterington DM (2006) Deviance information criteria for missing data models. Bayesian Anal 1(4):651–673

    Google Scholar 

  • Celeux G, Fruewirth-Schnatter S, Robert CP (2018) Model selection for mixture models: perspectives and strategies. Arxiv preprint arXiv: 1812.09885

  • Comfort M (2016) A twenty-hour-a-day job: the impact of frequent low-level criminal justice involvement on family life. Ann Acad Polit Soc Sci 665:63–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper CE, McLanahan SS, Meadows SO, Brooks-Gunn J (2009) Family structure transitions and maternal parenting stress. J Marriage Fam 71:558–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Core Team R (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle A, Fair H, Jacobson J, Walmsley R (2016) Imprisonment worldwide: the current situation and an alternative future. Policy Press, Bristol

    Google Scholar 

  • Deater-Deckard K (1998) Parenting stress and child adjustment: some old hypotheses and new questions. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 5(3):314–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennison S, Stewart A, Freiberg K (2013) A prevalence study of children with imprisoned fathers: annual and lifetime estimates. Aust J Soc Issues 48(3):339–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Etz A, Vandekerckhove J (2018) Introduction to Bayesian Inference for Psychology. Psychon Bull Rev 25(1):5–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabry J, Simpson D, Vehtari A, Betancourt M, Gelman A (2019) Visualization in Bayesian workflow. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Stat Soc) 182(2):389–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand AE, Sahu SK (1999) Identifiability, improper priors, and gibbs sampling for generalized linear models. J Am Stat Assoc 94(445):247–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller A, Garfinkel I, Cooper CE, Mincy RB (2009) Parental incarceration and child well-being: implications for urban families. Soc Sci Q 90:1186–1202

  • Gelman A, Shalizi CR (2013) Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics. Br J Math Stat Psychol 66(1):8–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A, Stern HS, Carlin JB, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB (2013) Bayesian data analysis, 3rd edn. New York, Chapman and Hall/CRC

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordano PC (2010) Legacies of crime: a follow-up of the children of highly delinquent girls and boys. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordano PC, Copp JE (2015) ‘Packages’ of risk: implications for determining the effect of maternal incarceration on child wellbeing. Criminol Public Policy 14(1):157–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordano PC, Copp JE, Manning WD, Longmore MA (2019) Linking parental incarceration and family dynamics associated with intergenerational transmission: a life-course perspective. Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green KM, Ensminger ME, Roberston JA, Juon H (2006) Impact of adult sons’ incarceration on African American mothers’ psychological distress. J Marriage Fam 68(2):430–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofferth S, Davis-Kean PE, Davis J, Finkelstein J (1997) The child development supplement to the panel study of income dynamics: 1997 user guide. Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter BH, Kennedy S, Smith D (2003) Household composition, equivalence scales and the reliability of income distribution: some evidence for Indigenous and other Australians. Econ Rec 79(244):70–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffee SR, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Taylor A (2003) Life with (or without) father: the benefits of living with two biological parents depend on the father’s antisocial behaviour. Child Dev 74:109–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson EI, Easterling B (2012) Understanding unique effects of parental incarceration on children: challenges, progress, and recommendations. J Marriage Fam 74:342–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee H, Wildeman C, Wang EA, Matusko N, Jackson JS (2014) A heavy burden: the cardiovascular health consequences of having a family member incarcerated. Am J Public Health 104(3):421–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Liverani S, Hastie DI, Azizi L, Papathomas M, Richardson S (2015) PReMiuM: an R package for profile regression mixture models using Dirichlet processes. J Stat Softw 64(7):1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Low-Choy S, Riley T, Alston-Knox C (2017) Using Bayesian statistical modelling as a bridge between quantitative and qualitative analyses: illustrated via analysis of an online teaching tool. Educ Media Int 54(4):317–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackintosh VH, Myers BJ, Kennon SS (2006) Children of incarcerated mothers and their caregivers: factors affecting the quality of their relationship. J Child Fam Stud 15(5):581–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsiglio W, Amato P, Day RD, Lamb ME (2000) Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. J Marriage Fam 62:1173–1191

    Google Scholar 

  • Mash EJ, Johnston C (1990) Determinants of parenting stress: illustrations from families of hyperactive children and families of physically abused children. J Clin Child Psychol 19(4):313–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Matejka J, Fitzmaurice G (2017) Same stats, different graphs: generating datasets with varied appearance and identical statistics through simulated annealing. In: Proceedings, ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.autodeskresearch.com/publications/samestats. Accessed 8 May 2019

  • Molitor J, Papathomas M, Jerrett M, Richardson S (2010) Bayesian profile regression with an application to the National Survey of Children’s Health. Biostatistics 11:484–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray J, Farrington DP (2005) Parental imprisonment: effects on boys’ antisocial behaviour and delinquency through the life-course. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 46:1269–1278

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray J, Farrington DP (2008) Parental imprisonment: long-lasting effects on boys’ internalising problems through the life-course. Dev Psychopathol 20:273–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray J, Janson C-G, Farrington DP (2007) Crime in adult offspring of prisoners: a cross-national comparison of two longitudinal samples. Crim Justice Behav 34(1):133–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray J, Bijleveld CCJH, Farrington DP, Loeber R (2014) Effects of parental incarceration on children: cross-national comparative studies. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2019) Society at a Glance 2019: OECD Social Indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/soc_glance-2019-en

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Papathomas M, Molitor J, Richardson S, Riboli E, Vineis P (2011) Examining the joint effect of multiple risk factors using exposure risk profiles: lung cancer in non smokers. Environ Health Perspect 119:84–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Papathomas M, Molitor J, Hoggart C, Hastie D, Richardson S (2012) Exploring data from genetic association studies using Bayesian variable selection and the Dirichlet process: application to searching for gene-gene patterns. Genet Epidemiol 36:663–674

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker JS, Benson MJ (2004) Parent-adolescent relations and adolescent functioning: self-esteem, substance abuse, and delinquency. Adolescence 39(155):519–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Pooley CM, Marion G (2018) Bayesian model evidence as a practical alternative to deviance information criterion. R Soc Open Sci 5(3):171519

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez N (2016) Bridging the gap between research and practice: the role of science in addressing the effects of incarceration on family life. Ann Acad Polit Soc Sci 665:231–240

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute Inc (2011) SAS/QC® 9.3 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Retrieved from https://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/qcug/63964/PDF/default/qcug.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2019

  • Schore JR, Schore AN (2008) Modern attachment theory: the central role of affect regulation in development and treatment. Clin Soc Work J 36(1):9–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Siennick SE, Stewart EA, Staff J (2014) Explaining the association between incarceration and divorce. Criminology 52(3):371–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith BJ (2007) boa: an R package for MCMC output convergence assessment and posterior inference. J Stat Softw 21(11):1–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Turanovic J, Rodriguez N, Pratt TC (2012) The collateral consequences of incarceration revisited: a qualitative analysis of the effects on caregivers of children of incarcerated parents. Criminology 50:913–959

    Google Scholar 

  • Turney K (2014) The consequences of paternal incarceration for maternal neglect and harsh parenting. Soc Forces 92(4):1607–1636. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turney K, Wildeman C (2013) Redefining relationships: explaining the countervailing consequences of paternal incarceration for parenting. Am Sociol Rev 78(6):949–979

    Google Scholar 

  • Turney K, Wildeman C (2015) Detrimental for some? Heterogeneous effects of maternal incarceration on child wellbeing. Criminol Public Policy 14(1):125–156

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Programme (2018) Human development indices and indicators: 2018 statistical update. United Nations Development Programme, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Schoot R, Kaplan D, Denissen J, Asendorpf JB, Neyer FJ, Van Aken MA (2014) A gentle introduction to Bayesian analysis: applications to developmental research. Child Dev 85(3):842–860

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield S (2016) Changing the ties that bind: distinguishing the connected from the disconnected and accounting for the burdensome. Criminol Public Policy 15:543–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield S, Wildeman C (2014) Children of the prison boom: mass incarceration and the future of american inequality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield S, Lee H, Wildeman C (2016) Tough on crime, tough on families? Criminal justice and family life in America. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 665:8–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Ware J, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson N, Wooden MP (2012) The HILDA survey: a case study in the design and development of a successful household panel survey. Longitud Life Course Stud 3(3):369–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildeman C (2010) Paternal incarceration and children’s physically aggressive behaviors: evidence from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Soc Forces 89:285–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildeman C, Schnittker J, Turney K (2012) Despair by association? The mental health of mothers with children by recently incarcerated fathers. Am Sociol Rev 77(2):216–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins R, Warren D (2013) Families, incomes and jobs, volume 8: A statistical report on waves 1 to 10 of the household, income and labour dynamics in Australia survey. Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, Faculty of Business and Economics, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams KJ, Low-Choy S, Rochester W, Alston C (2012) Using Bayesian mixture models that combine expert knowledge and GIS data to define ecoregions. In: Perera AH, Drew CA, Johnson CJ (eds) Expert knowledge and its application in landscape ecology. Springer, New York, pp 229–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooden M (2003) Balancing work and family at the start of the 21 st century: Evidence from wave 1 of the HILDA survey. Paper presented at the 2003 Melbourne Institute Economic and Social Outlook Conference. Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/assets/documents/hilda-bibliography/conference-papers-lectures/2003/Wooden_Balancing_Work_and_Family.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2017

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper uses unit record data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The HILDA Project was initiated and is funded by the Australian Government Department of Social Services (DSS) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (Melbourne Institute). The findings and views reported in this paper, however, are those of the authors and should not be attributed to either DSS or the Melbourne Institute. We thank Nicole White and Clair Alston-Knox for helpful discussions, as well as Robert Apel and the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

Funding

Funding was provided by Australian Research Council (Grant No. FT0991557).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt Campus, Mt Gravatt, Brisbane, Queensland, 4122, Australia

    Susan Dennison & Kirsten Besemer

  2. Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    Susan Dennison & Kirsten Besemer

  3. Office of the Vice Chancellor, Arts/Education/Law, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    Samantha Low-Choy

  4. Researcher Education and Development (RED) Unit, Office of Research, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    Samantha Low-Choy

Authors
  1. Susan Dennison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kirsten Besemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samantha Low-Choy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Dennison.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dennison, S., Besemer, K. & Low-Choy, S. Maternal Parenting Stress Following Paternal or Close Family Incarceration: Bayesian Model-Based Profiling Using the HILDA Longitudinal Survey. J Quant Criminol 36, 753–778 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-019-09430-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-019-09430-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation