Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233480587

Experiencesofdaycarechildrenofdivorce

ArticleinEarlyChildDevelopmentandCare·July2012

DOI:10.1080/03004430.2011.585238

CITATIONS

11

READS

276

4authors,including:

IngunnStørksen

UniversityofStavanger(UiS)

32PUBLICATIONS256CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

StevenRBrown

KentStateUniversity

55PUBLICATIONS1,726CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

AllcontentfollowingthispagewasuploadedbyStevenRBrownon04December2016.

Theuserhasrequestedenhancementofthedownloadedfile.

This article was downloaded by: [T&F Internal Users], [Mr Susan Cullen]On: 18 July 2012, At: 07:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

Experiences of daycare children ofdivorceIngunn Størksen a , Arlene Arstad Thorsen a , Klara Øverland a &Steven R. Brown ba Centre for Behavioural Research, Faculty of Arts and Education,University of Stavanger, Norwayb Department of Political Science, Kent State University, Kent,OH, USA

Version of record first published: 15 Jul 2011

To cite this article: Ingunn Størksen, Arlene Arstad Thorsen, Klara Øverland & Steven R. Brown(2012): Experiences of daycare children of divorce, Early Child Development and Care, 182:7,807-825

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2011.585238

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Experiences of daycare children of divorce

Ingunn Størksena∗, Arlene Arstad Thorsena, Klara Øverlanda and Steven R. Brownb

aCentre for Behavioural Research, Faculty of Arts and Education, University of Stavanger,Norway; bDepartment of Political Science, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA

(Received 18 February 2011; final version received 28 April 2011)

Research shows that children of divorce are at risk of adjustment problems andschool problems. In previous studies of young children of divorce, most oftenparents or teachers have supplied data. In this study, we explore the children’sown feelings and experiences through Q methodology with visual images. Thestudy includes 17 children of divorce and 20 living with both biological parents.Three child viewpoints were detected: the first was characterised by many happyfeelings, and few sad or angry feelings. The second was more mixed with avariety of feelings. The third view was characterised by several sad and lonelyfeelings among adults and child. Children of divorce seemed to be more prone toend up on the two latter factors. Possible implications are discussed.

Keywords: young children; divorce; child-centred approach; Q methodology

Introduction

School children and adolescents of divorce are at increased risk of psychosocial adjust-ment problems such as anxiety and depression, conduct problems, and school-relatedproblems (Amato, 2001; Breivik & Olweus, 2006; Størksen, Røysamb, Holmen, &Tambs, 2006). Research also indicates that young children of divorce may show anelevated rate of behavioural and emotional problems (Cheng, Dunn, O’Connor, &Golding, 2006) and a more insecure attachment (Gloger-Tippelt & Konig, 2007;Nair & Murray, 2005). Another study has shown that having been separated from aparent (for any reason, although a large proportion had experienced divorce) wasassociated with learning difficulties and pre-literacy problems at entrance to kindergar-ten (Jee et al., 2008). Furthermore, a study found that divorce was associated withlowered well-being, and that this decrease in well-being to some extent couldexplain the connection between divorce and lower academic achievement in children(Potter, 2010). The results seem to imply that young children of divorce can haveemotional, behavioural, and academic problems that can affect their current andfuture school success. In order to target the actual problems that these children facethrough interventions, we argue that it is crucial to grasp their own experiencesrelated to parental divorce.

Studies of timing indicate that an early divorce is more related to adjustment pro-blems than is a divorce for older children (Landsford et al., 2006; Pagani, Boulerice,

ISSN 0300-4430 print/ISSN 1476-8275 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2011.585238http://www.informaworld.com

∗Corresponding author. Email: ingunn.storksen@uis.no

Early Child Development and CareVol. 182, No. 7, July 2012, 807–825

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

Tremblay, & Vitaro, 1997). In a review study, it is concluded that the main focus withinthe divorce field has been on adjustment and various reactions among older children(Leon, 2003). Leon argues that reactions seen among the youngest children may bedifferent than among older ones due to the former’s egocentric thought and cognitivedevelopment. Finally, the review study points to limitations in some of the existingliterature due to shared method variance, where all information of adjustment in thefamily relies on reports from one person – usually the mothers (Leon, 2003).

Prevalence of divorce

The total number of divorces in Norway is relatively high (Statistics Norway, 2009) asit also is in many other Western countries (OECD Family Database, 2008; US Depart-ment of Health and Human Services, 2009). In Norway, it is anticipated that 24% of allmarriages may end in divorce within the first 10 years of marriage (Statistics Norway,2004). Thus, many young children experience divorce. Furthermore, we see an increas-ing number of childbirths among cohabiting couples (Jensen & Clausen, 1997;Kiernan, 2001). In Norway, cohabitation is both accepted and common (Noack,2001). High numbers of cohabiting parents place young children at high risk of parentalseparation, due to elevated dissolution rates in these families (Jensen & Clausen, 1997;Manning, Smock, & Majumdar, 2004). It has been claimed that controlling only fordivorce underestimates actual family instability for children (Raley & Wildsmith,2004). In this paper, we focus on Norwegian five-year-old children and any kind of sep-aration – either from marriage or cohabitation – of their biological parents. Since coha-bitation is so common in Norway, the term ‘divorce’ or another term (‘samlivsbrudd’)is widely used for any kind of dissolution among couples. Therefore, in this paper, welabel all kinds of parental separations as ‘divorce’ regardless of the status of the parentsbefore they split up, and regardless of whether the divorce is legally fulfiled.

Mediating factors

Although parental divorce is complex, several factors have been identified that explainthe mechanisms through which the divorce affects young children. For instance,research results have shown that the more insecure attachment that exists among chil-dren with divorced parents compared to others can be explained partly by different par-enting styles among divorced parents and others (Nair & Murray, 2005). In a study ofthree-year-olds, the effect of family structure (single, divorced, or two-parent family)was completely ruled out by controlling for maternal income, education, ethnicity,child-rearing beliefs, depressive symptoms, and behaviour (Clarke-Stewart, Vandell,McCartney, Owen, & Booth, 2000). However, in another study that followed childrenfrom age 4 to 7, parental separation was associated with an increase in behavioural andemotional problems even after controlling for such related variables (Cheng et al.,2006). These results indicate that the parental separation in itself can be seen as arisk factor for young children.

The identified mediating factors in the studies mentioned above fit well with ‘Thedivorce-stress-adjustment perspective’ outlined by Amato (2000), where the divorceprocess is thought to activate several stress factors that can negatively affect adultsand children. There are reasons to believe that families that separate may have a setof already existing or divorce-related stressors that affect children in various ways.However, in the present study, we do not focus on specific causal pathways for distress

808 I. Størksen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

among children of divorce. We wish to emphasise that in this study, we are simplyinterested in exploring the lived world, feelings, and experiences of these young chil-dren from their own subjective point of view. In a childcare setting, the staff will oftenhave limited information concerning mediating factors (conflict, depression, pooreconomy, etc.) but will only know that the child has experienced parental divorce. Astudy that focuses on the subjective experiences and feelings among young childrenof divorce may be useful when tailoring interventions in daycare. The present studyis a smaller part of a larger project in which the main focus is on interventions for chil-dren of divorce. Especially, daycares request interventions for children who haverecently witnessed their parents’ divorce. Research indicates that the divorce processmight cause relief for some, temporary distress for quite a few, and long-term distressfor just a subgroup (Amato, 2000; Emery & Forehand, 1996). In the present study,attention will be given to children of divorce in general, and also more specificallyto children who have recently experienced divorce.

Methodological challenges

The relative lack of research focused on the adjustment of younger children after par-ental divorce (Leon, 2003) is related, in part, to methodological challenges. Children atthis age are normally incapable of filling in questionnaires or attending to time-consum-ing qualitative interviews, and even if parents can be presumed to be the ones whoknow their child best, there might be factors that can bias their reports of the child’sadjustment (Leon, 2003). For instance, divorcing parents may feel badly about the situ-ation and strongly wish that the child is managing well; or conversely, they may fearthat the unhappy incident has destroyed their children completely. Moreover, teachersor other caregivers may lack the time or skills needed to produce reliable reports ofchild adjustment.

The participants themselves normally give reports of personal adjustment in studiesthat include school children, adolescents, and adults (e.g. Peets, Hodges, & Salmivalli,2008; Størksen et al., 2006). Among young children, however, it is common for tea-chers or parents to supply data on children’s behalf (e.g. Cote, Borge, Geoffroy,Rutter, & Tremblay, 2008; Stene-Larsen, Borge, & Vollrath, 2009). In this study, wedemonstrate the possibility of young children supplying data concerning their emotionsand experiences following parental divorce. From the literature we know that by the ageof three, children display a wide and differentiated range of human emotions (Lewis,2000), and that children begin to express and report on their own and other people’sfeelings almost as soon as they are able to talk (Harris, 2000). Furthermore, Harris(2000) states that children aged four to five years understand and report complex con-cepts such as desires, beliefs, and expectations.

A child-centred approach

Traditional developmental psychology has been criticised for being more concernedwith valid and reliable variables and scientific status than with children themselves(Greene, 2006) and for not taking full account of children as active social agents(Hood, Kelley, & Mayall, 1996) in constructing their own subjective realities(Emond, 2006; Greene, 2006). A complementary approach would be to respect andstudy children’s lives as the children themselves experience and construct them(Greene, 2006, p. 9). Children’s right to express their views is accentuated in the

Early Child Development and Care 809

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

Convention on the Rights of the Child (Office of the United Nations High Commis-sioner for Human Rights, 1989).

Q methodology

In the present study, we pursue methodological, ethical, epistemological, and practicalchallenges by applying an alternative methodology. In Norway, five-year-old childrenhave not yet started school, and traditional questionnaires would be too challenging. Asintroduced above, research indicates that children of this age may show various behav-ioural and emotional reactions to parental divorce (Cheng et al., 2006; Landsford et al.,2006; Nair & Murray, 2005; Pagani et al., 1997) and therefore, qualitative interviews onthis sensitive theme may be overwhelming. In this study, an approach has thereforebeen adopted in which Q methodology and visual images are utilised. Q methodologyhas been applied in child studies previously, both with verbal (Sickler et al., 2006) andvisual statements (Stephenson, 1980; Taylor & Delprato, 1994). In at least two studies,the conclusion has been reached that even children as young as three or four years arecapable of attending to the Q sorting procedure with visual images (Stephenson, 1980;Taylor & Delprato, 1994). Q methodology has also been suggested for the study ofrelated areas, such as in the study of child–father attachment (John & Halliburton,2010). Q sorting has been emphasised as a gentle way of gathering sensitive data(Ellingsen, Størksen, & Stephens, 2010). There is at least one other instrument inwhich children supply data on their own adjustment, namely the Berkeley Puppet Inter-view (BPI) (Arseneault, Kim-Cohen, Taylor, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2005; Measelle, Ablow,Cowan, & Cowan, 1998). A study showed high reliability scores (typically above 0.70)for this instrument for four-and-a-half- and seven-and-a-half-year-old children(Measelle et al., 1998). This study indicates that young children can supply reliableinformation of their adjustment. However, it is important to note that in the presentstudy, we do not aim at measuring any psychological dimension. We are simplyinterested in exploring children’s own experiences.

Objective

The aim of the study is to explore reactions, experiences, and feelings among five-year-old children of divorce in their everyday settings, both at home and in daycare. A groupof children who has not experienced divorce is also included. A special focus will bedirected towards children who have experienced very recent separations of theirparents.

Method

Q methodology has not been very commonly applied within educational research, butits application within this field seems to be appropriate (Stephenson, 1980) and increas-ing (see, e.g. Allgood, 1999; Ramlo, McConnell, Duan, & Moore, 2008; Wheeler &Montgomery, 2009). Q methodology (Stephenson, 1953) involves sorting cards withsubjective content, and these Q sorts are then Q factor analysed with individualsbeing subjected to factor analyses rather than items as in traditional factor analyses.Results reveal individuals that share common feelings, beliefs, opinions, or preferences.There are five steps in a Q study (Brown, 1980; Previte, Pini, & Haslam-McKenzie,2007; Stenner, Watts, & Worrell, 2008; van Exel & de Graaf, 2005).

810 I. Størksen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

(1) The first consists of defining the concourse, which refers to the flow of commu-nicability surrounding any given topic. The concourse contains an infinite number ofpossible subjective opinions that people might express regarding the topic. Gatheringthe concourse is frequently accomplished by conducting personal interviews with sta-keholders, or by searching research or literature on the topic (Thorsen, 2006). (2) Thenext step is to develop the Q sample (or a set of statements). The statements in the Qsample must be self-referential or subjective in nature (Stephenson, 1980). The devel-opment of a Q sample consists of identifying which statements should be used to rep-resent the complexity of the concourse, but in a limited number. (3) The third stageconsists of defining the P set, which refers to the respondents in the study. Since theaim of a Q study is to determine neither cause nor prevalence with regard to largerpopulations, and since Q studies are primarily inductive (Stephenson, 1980), thenumber of participants in the P set is usually limited compared to quantitativestudies. (4) In the Q sorting phase, respondents are presented with the Q sample state-ments, each on an individual card, and a distribution grid (see e.g. Figures 1–3). Par-ticipants are instructed to sort the cards according to their own subjective standpointand in accordance with a specific instruction. Subsequently, the cards are to be distrib-uted on the distribution grid with the number of spaces corresponding to the number ofcards in the Q sample. (5) The final step consists of analysis and interpretation of theresults. All Q sorts are entered into the PQMethod software program (Schmolck,2002) and are analysed using by-person factor analysis (Watts & Stenner, 2005)with results revealing factors representing clusters of subjective viewpoints relativeto the topic under investigation. The program calculates factor scores (e.g. from 23to +3) for each of the statements in each of the factors, and these provide the basisfor factor interpretation. Post-sorting interviews may be conducted (van Exel & deGraaf, 2005). Details of the current study follow.

Definition of concourse

The concourse was based on the findings from studies of older children of divorce andfindings from previous studies of younger children of divorce where parents or othercaregivers have typically been informants. After controlling for overlap between ident-ified statements, a total of 31 subjective statements related to experiences at home andin daycare were identified. The statements were converted to a straightforwardlanguage suitable for transfer into visual images.

Development of Q sample

In order to limit the number of statements to a manageable size for Q sorting by five-year-olds, the sample was restricted to 20 statements which were structured accordingto a Fisherian balanced-block design (Stephenson, 1993/1994). The literature points totwo reactions to divorce: inter-individual (relational), e.g. attachment-related problems(Nair & Murray, 2005), and intra-individual, e.g. emotional problems (Cheng et al.,2006). Furthermore, the adjustment among children of divorce can be both positiveand negative (Amato, 2000). A 2 × 2 cross-table of these two dimensions gave riseto the four categories shown in Table 1. Five representative statements were selectedfor each category, resulting in 20 statements. We chose those five statements foreach category that we judged to represent the category in a good way. Thus, in the cat-egory at the upper left (a combination of adjusting well at the interpersonal level), we

Early Child Development and Care 811

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

chose the most clear-cut statements for this category among the 31 original statements,e.g. ‘I feel close to my mother’ and ‘I have many friends in daycare’. A professionaldesigner then converted the statements to visual images, each on a separate card. Achild with androgynous looks was designed as the main character in order to enableidentification on the part of the children. After piloting the cards with five children,some of the cards were adjusted in order to remove distracting and unclear content.

P set/participants

A total of 17 children with divorced or separated biological parents and 20 children stillliving with both biological parents were recruited from 10 collaborating daycarecentres. Recruitment was restricted to children in their last year of daycare, which inNorway means children who already are or are to become five years old during thefirst semester (fall) of the ‘daycare year’ (fall/spring). Data collection was carriedout both during fall and spring of the ‘daycare year’, but all children were in theirlast year before entering school.

Recruitment of daycare centres was done by calling the directors of the centres inthe recruitment area in two municipalities – one small and one larger – in the southwestof Norway. The daycare centres are fairly representative of Norwegian daycare centres,since all are obliged to carry out their work in accordance with the National frameworkplan. None of the participating centres offers special programs for children of divorce.

Daycare centre personnel recruited children by informing all parents of children inthis age group about the study, and by asking if any families would volunteer to par-ticipate. Those who volunteered filled in questions about whether biological parentslived together, and – for those who lived apart – when they moved apart. When wehad reached a sufficient number of children in the group with parents still livingtogether, we continued recruitment by inviting solely children with divorced parents.For descriptive data, see Table 2.

Q sorting with children

The Q sorting was conducted individually with each child in the daycare institutionswhere the children belonged. Before conducting the Q sorts, in order to ensure thatthe children knew and could explain basic feelings, they were asked if they couldmake facial expressions of various feelings such as angry, happy, sad, or afraid/anxious. All children in our study were able to make facial expressions of these

Table 1. Fisher balanced block design of statements in the final Q sample.

Inter-individual Intra-individual

Well-adjusted 14. I feel close to my mother 6. I have fun in daycare18. I feel close to my father 8. I believe my parents

collaborate well12. Daycare personnel help and support me 7. I am happy and satisfied13. I have many friends in day care 1. I enjoy food

4. My extended family loves me 15. I play and have fun

Adjustmentproblems

17. There is a lot of conflict in my house 5. I am anxious/scared/afraid20. My mother is sad and I have to comfort her 11. I am noisy

3. My father is sad and I have to comfort him 2. It is my fault9. I feel lonely/isolated from others 16. I feel angry

19. I often end up in conflict with other children 10. I am sad and I cry

812 I. Størksen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

feelings. Subsequently, we started the Q sorting procedure, and each child wasinstructed as follows: ‘Let’s pretend this is you’, referring to the main character inthe cards. Together with the researcher, each child looked through all 20 cards accord-ing to their arbitrarily numbered order. For every card, the child was asked, ‘If wepretend this is you, how do you think you feel inside?’ or ‘What kind of feelings doyou think you have in this situation?’ Initially, some children became preoccupiedwith arbitrary details such as toys or other details in the cards. However, when askedagain specifically about feelings, they were all able to recognise and report – insimple or more advanced ways – the basic emotions in the cards.

Furthermore, the child was explained the idea of having a nodding head (most likeme) at the rightmost end and a shaking head (most unlike me) at the leftmost end ofthe scoring continuum. The cards were then spread out on the table, and the child wasasked to look for the two cards most similar to the way the child normally felt. Thecards that were chosen were placed on the rightmost column labelled ‘most like’(nodding head). Likewise, the child was asked to look for the two most dissimilarof all the cards, which were placed on the leftmost column labelled ‘most unlike’(shaking head). By moving back and forth in this manner, it was obvious whichcards gave meaning to the child by appearing most like or most unlike, and whichcards did not seem to give any specific associations for the child (to be placed inthe middle area of the distribution grid) (see Figures 1–3). This way of breakingdown the Q sorting to smaller parts has been utilised in previous studies withyoung children (Stephenson, 1980; Taylor & Delprato, 1994), and this techniquemade the cognitive task of Q sorting 20 cards according to seven columns manageablefor the children. Comments made by the children during the card sorting procedurewere recorded for use in the interpretive phase of the study.

Analysis and interpretation

All 37 Q sorts were entered into the PQMethod program (Schmolck, 2002), and the 37× 37 correlation matrix was subjected to a principal components analysis with varimaxrotation. Interpretation of the factors was based on the visual configurations of thefactors, the comments of children loading on the factors, and distinguishing and con-sensus statements. The children were only exposed to the visual images in thisstudy, and they were allowed to understand the images from their own standpoint(although we did a check to see if they understood the basic feelings expressed inthe cards). In the interpretation phase, we emphasised the visual configuration of thecards in the matrixes (Figures 1–3) and factor scores. One example of divergencebetween written statement and the interpretation among the children is card 15, ‘Iplay and have fun’. Our impression (through comments by children) was that the

Table 2. Descriptives.

No parental divorce Parental divorce

Total number of children 20 17

Girls/boys 11/9 8/9

Average age 5.17 years 5.15 years

Average time since parents moved apart – 1.9 years (SD ¼ 1.5)

Early Child Development and Care 813

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

reason why most children placed this card in the neutral zone of the grid was that thetoys in this image did not seem age appropriate for the children. The children did notgenerally deny ‘having fun’ in daycare.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for this study was given by the The National Committees for ResearchEthics in Norway and The Norwegian Social Science Data Services. A professionalwithin the field of special education or a psychologist helped individual children withthe Q sorting. Informed consent was gathered from both parents. The children wereinformed verbally and asked if they were willing to participate. We had an idea that sen-sitive feelings could be easier to express through Q sorts rather than through direct ver-balisation, and generally, our experience seemed to confirm this. There was scheduledtime to deal with difficult feelings that could be evoked in the Q sort situation. All infor-mation was handled with strict confidentiality (see also Thorsen & Størksen, 2010).

Results

Although several of the factors had eigenvalues in excess of 1.00 (in fact, all eight unro-tated factors had eigenvalues above 1.00), many of these consisted of only one child.After examination of various solutions, a three-factor solution with varimax rotationwas judged the most meaningful (see Table 3). This solution explained 64% of the var-iance, and each factor was defined by several children’s Q sorts. Since we only had 20items in our Q sample, we applied a strict significance level and hand-flagged Q sortsthat were associated with the factor at a significance level of p , 0.01, see Table 3.Child number 32 loaded almost exactly equally on Factor 1 and Factor 3 and was there-fore not flagged on any factor. Factor scores for statements/images on the three factorsare shown in Figures 1–3.

The correlation between factor scores were r ¼ 0.37 (between Factor 1 and Factor 2),r ¼ 0.22 (between Factor 2 and Factor 3), and r ¼ 0.53 (between Factor 1 and Factor 3).The correlation between Factor 1 and Factor 3 is relatively high. Also, Factor 3 is onlydefined by two children. Therefore, we considered a two-factor solution. However,Factor 3 revealed some interesting, and quite different, viewpoints that we wished toreport. The statistically distinguishing statements on this factor seemed very loaded withemotions that seemed qualitatively very different from what was seen in the two otherfactors. Statistically distinguishing statements with positive loadings for Factor 3include: ‘20. My mother is sad and I have to comfort her’ (+3), ‘9. I feel lonely/isolatedfrom others’ (+2), ‘3. My father is sad and I have to comfort him’ (+ 2). A visualcomparison of the three factors gives quite different impressions (see Figures 1–3).A special concern about sadness among parents was not seen among any of the otherchildren in the study and seemed unusual for such young children. Therefore, we stillconsidered it meaningful to report Factor 3 because of its unique content on the positiveend of the matrix.

Factor 1, ‘well adjusted’

Factor 1 is defined by 18 children (7 boys and 11 girls), five of whom have experiencedparental divorce. Factor 1 is characterised by many happy feelings, and no difficult orconflicting feelings (see Figure 1). The children defining this factor emphasise

814 I. Størksen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

relationships with friends and family. A child who loaded highly on this factor initiallywas asked: ‘Do you know what feelings are? What kinds of feelings can we have?’ Thespontaneous answer was: ‘Happy feelings . . .’

Statistically distinguishing statements with positive or negative values for Factor 1include: ‘4. My extended family loves me’ (+3), ‘13. I have many friends in day care’(+2), ‘20. My mother is sad and I have to comfort her’ (21), and ‘10. I am sad and Icry’ (22).

Factor 2, ‘mixed feelings’

Factor 2 is defined positively by four children. Among these, one child has not experi-enced parental divorce, while three children have such experiences. Totally three girlsand one boy define the factor positively, and one additional child (of divorce) is associ-ated with the factor negatively. Thus, Figure 2 must be interpreted reversely for thischild. Generally, Factor 2 is characterised by mixed feelings: Children on this factorexpress that they often can feel happy, anxious, angry, or sad. Close relationships donot seem very dominant for children on Factor 2, and the mother seems quite distantfor these children. For the child who defines the factor negatively, several lonely,sad, and angry feelings seem to dominate the way the child normally feels.

Statistically distinguishing statements with positive or negative values for Factor 2include: ‘6. I have fun in daycare’ (+3), ‘5. I am anxious/scared/afraid’ (+3), ‘16. I

Figure 1. Factor 1 with factor scores and placement of cards in original grid.Note: Numbers are scaled up in this illustration.

Early Child Development and Care 815

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

feel angry’ (+2), ‘2. It is my fault’ (21), ‘14. I feel close to my mother’ (21), and ‘9. Ifeel lonely/isolated from others’ (23).

Factor 3, ‘sadness’

Factor 3 is defined by two children of divorce. This factor is characterised by severalsad and lonely feelings both among the adults and the child. Actually, the childrenon this factor can seem more concerned with sorrow and grief of the parents, thanthey are of their own sadness. In relation to a situation where the child could needcomfort, one of these children responded: ‘Nobody could comfort me because theywere simply too busy!’ Also, one child commented ‘It is really true!’ when rankingthe card ‘20. My mother is sad and I have to comfort her’ positively. However,Factor 3 also indicates that the children feel close to both parents and they expressthat the parents cooperate well.

Statistically distinguishing statements with positive or negative values for Factor 3include: ‘20. My mother is sad and I have to comfort her’ (+3), ‘9. I feel lonely/iso-lated from others’ (+2), ‘3. My father is sad and I have to comfort him’ (+2), ‘7. I amhappy and satisfied’ (21), and ‘5. I am anxious/scared/afraid’ (22). Only two chil-dren define this factor, and therefore, there is some uncertainty related to whetherthis is a view that could be held by many children of divorce.

Figure 2. Factor 2 with factor scores and placement of cards in original grid.Note: Numbers are scaled up in this illustration.

816 I. Størksen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

Consensus

There were some statements in our study that showed consensus between all threefactors. Three consensus statements were quite neutral: ‘12. Daycare personnel helpand support me’ with factor scores (0), (22), (21), ‘15. I play and have fun’ (0),(1), (21), and ‘18. I feel close to my father’ (1), (1), (1). Toys in the two first cardsmay have seemed ‘too childish’, and this may have made it hard for some to relateto these cards. Actually, some of the children commented on this. Some degree of clo-seness to father seemed to be something that many of the children could agree upon.

Three other consensus statements seemed easier to interpret: ‘8. I believe myparents collaborate well’ (1), (2), (2), ‘17. There is a lot of conflict in my house’(21), (0), (22), and ‘19. I often end up in conflict with other children’ (22), (22),(23). A general interpretation could be that the children in this study mainly had afeeling of collaboration between parents, and that they seldom experienced conflictat home or in daycare.

Spreading of the children across the three factors

There seemed to be a somewhat uneven spreading of the children in the two groupsacross factors, see Table 4. In this study, the children of divorce seem to be lessprone to end up on Factor 1 (adjustment and happy feelings). The children ofdivorce seemed to report more worries about family, and more distressed or angry feel-ings than did the children with no divorce experience.

Figure 3. Factor 3 with factor scores and placement of cards in original grid.Note: Numbers are scaled up in this illustration.

Early Child Development and Care 817

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

Recent divorces

Although all the parental divorces in this study must be considered quite recent (thechildren were only five years old), there were some of the divorces that were veryrecent in time. A total of 5 of the 17 children of divorce had experienced that the

Table 3. Factor matrix with an X indicating a defining Q sort.

Child code Factor 1, ‘well adjusted’ Factor 2, ‘mixed feelings’ Factor 3, ‘sadness’

1D 0.6606X 0.2067 0.5656

2D 0.1537 0.7226X 0.0430

3D 0.2781 0.7707X 0.2324

4D 0.5264 0.3187 0.3686

5D 0.4414 0.5674 0.0731

6N 0.8552X 0.2347 0.0472

7D 0.1963 0.2562 0.7374X

8D 0.2198 20.0816 0.7837X

9N 0.4838 0.4274 0.3705

10N 0.8997X 20.0214 0.1295

11N 0.6129X 0.5844 0.1211

12N 0.7169X 0.3486 0.3604

13N 0.5617 0.3599 0.3743

14N 0.6739X 0.3293 0.4409

15N 0.6442X 0.2871 0.5554

16N 0.7011X 0.1621 0.4884

17D 0.6384X 20.0967 0.3578

18D 0.0622 0.0212 0.4706

19N 20.0674 0.5199 0.3907

20N 20.2187 0.6246X 20.3301

21N 0.5432 0.5584 0.0810

22D 0.5760 20.0875 20.4038

23N 0.6325X 0.1155 0.4800

24D 0.4041 0.4887 0.5391

25N 0.7173X 0.2121 0.2889

26N 0.6679X 0.1537 0.6006

27N 0.8114X 20.0838 0.0459

28N 0.6884X 0.3555 0.4148

29D 0.6380X 0.2738 0.4295

30N 0.4060 0.0446 0.3790

31D 20.0420 20.7679X 20.0157

32N 0.5898 0.2272 0.5945

33N 0.6917X 0.2160 0.4988

34D 0.6983X 0.3934 0.4117

35D 0.6966X 0.3326 0.4886

36D 0.5548 0.2222 0.0844

37D 0.1601 0.6323X 0.3008

Note: N, no divorce; D, parents have divorced; X, significant factor loadings with p , 0.01.

818 I. Størksen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

parents moved apart very recently. Among these, one child did not load significantly onany of the factors, one child loaded positively on Factor 2, while one child loaded nega-tively on Factor 2. Finally, two of the children with recent separation experiencesloaded significantly on Factor 3. In summary, the children with recent divorces inthis study seemed especially prone to report worries about family, and distressed orangry feelings.

Discussion

What was discovered?

Results from this study reveal that young children of divorce report a variety ofexperiences and feelings. Some of the children seemed to report that they werehappy and content. Others clearly stated that they had many different feelings –both difficult and happy feelings. These children reported happy, anxious, angry,and sad feelings. Still others were mostly preoccupied with the grief of theirparents. There seemed to be more distressed and/or angry feelings among thosewith a divorce experience than among the other children. Among the children witha very recent experience of parental separation, there were especially many angryand sad feelings. It is important to note that generalisation of prevalence from asmall-scale study such as this is impossible. However, the results seem to fit wellwith research (Amato, 2001; Leon, 2003) and with theory (Amato, 2000). Accordingto Amato, we can expect more adjustment problems among children of divorce thanamong other children, and among those with divorced parents, there is a great varietyof adjustment.

Several of the children with divorced parents seemed to report that they were happyand content. It is important to note that even among the children who were associatedwith Factors 2 and 3, there seemed to be some happy feelings and close relationships.Also, several of the children of divorce in our study were either partly or very stronglyassociated with Factor 1. Resilience among children of divorce has been emphasised(e.g. Emery & Forehand, 1996). Amato (2000) states that several kinds of resourcesmay reduce the effects of risk factors that are evoked by parental divorce, and thatmost children of divorce actually manage well – despite the elevated risk of adjustmentproblems among these children (Amato & Keith, 1991).

It is still important to note that some children can seem to do well and still haveinner worries that are not so obvious to the surroundings in daycares and athome (Emery & Forehand, 1996). This might be true for the two children on Factor 3.These children did not report any externalising behaviour, but solely a feeling of

Table 4. Spreading of the children in the two groups across factors.

Group

Factor 1,‘well

adjusted’ Factor 2, ‘mixed feelings’Factor 3,‘sadness’

No significantloading on any

factor

No divorce(20children)

13 1 – 6

Divorce (17children)

5 4 (including one negative loading) 2 6

Early Child Development and Care 819

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

loneliness or sorrow. They were also very concerned with their parents’ grief. Concernand attention of parental grief among such young children has not been widelydescribed before, and this topic cannot be seen in recent reviews (Leon, 2003).However, depression among mothers has previously been described as a factor thatcan mediate the negative effects of divorce (Clarke-Stewart et al., 2000). Being con-scious of such inner worries among young children of divorce may be important forthe daycare practices. Such subtle feelings among children may easily ‘drown’ in abusy and noisy daycare department. Only two children in this study loaded onFactor 3, and some uncertainty related to this factor exists.

Q methodology and a child-centred approach

In the introduction, we argue for a child-centred research approach and suggest Q meth-odology with visual images as a possible solution. There are many ethical reasons tolisten to children and to consider them as active social agents who are able to reportmeaningfully from their lived lives (Greene, 2006). We sincerely believe that it isimportant to have knowledge of the children’s experienced worlds, and not just ofepidemiological risk factors and mediators. There might also be reasons to includethe children as respondents in studies of child adjustment, since the children themselvesare closest to their own subjective experiences. Our general impression is that the chil-dren responded well to the Q sort procedure. Obviously, an essential question iswhether they reported their subjective feelings in a reliable way. A study relying onthe BPI instrument gives good indications that young children can supply reliable infor-mation of their adjustment (Measelle et al., 1998). In the present study, a pair of siblingswas included in the P set. These children had experienced the same family history. Thecorrelation between the two individually conducted Q sorts was relatively high, r ¼0.68. Although the siblings did not experience their situation exactly similar, therewas quite a strong resemblance. This could be an indication of reliability in the Qsorts. Also, in some cases, the parents contacted us with questions after the Qsorting. Generally, the parents seemed to recognise their children very well throughthe children’s Q sorts, and we did not experience that any of the parents that wetalked to were surprised by the way the children had sorted the cards. These experiencesstrengthen our belief in the reliability of the present study.

Our conclusion is that Q studies with visual images might serve well as supplementto other more traditional studies of young children’s adjustment. However, cautionmust be taken in the development of the Q sample, ensuring that the images are nottoo ambiguous or contain many details. Also, it is important to note that a few of thechildren struggled somewhat with the cognitive and the emotional challenge of the Qsort procedure. For some children, it was hard to concentrate on going through all20 cards and then Q sorting them according to our instruction. Therefore, in general,five years may represent a lower limit when it comes to Q studies of complex and sen-sitive issues such as subjective feelings. More research is needed to gain experience ofthe use of Q methodology and visual images with young children.

What’s new?

One intriguing question remains. Did we learn anything new? Did not the children onlyconfirm what is already known from other studies? First of all, we would like to empha-sise that we consider this confirmation from the children as an important finding in

820 I. Størksen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

itself. There are also other aspects that we consider as especially interesting in thisstudy. The study revealed a mix of feelings among some of the children of divorce.Among the children reporting distressing feelings, the expressions were not ‘one-dimensional’ in the sense that they would fit well with any known diagnosis oruniform psychological scale or variable. Additionally, they reported some closerelationships. This finding challenges a view of children as either ‘internalising’ or‘externalising’. Also, even the children with some distressing feelings sometimes felthappy and content. Several of the children with parental divorce reported solelyhappy and content feelings.

Furthermore, we discovered some children who seemed to worry about grief andsorrow among their parents. Conflict among parents has previously been describedas a major risk factor related to parental divorce (Amato & Keith, 1991). As far aswe know of the research literature, much less attention has been given to worriesamong children concerning their parents’ well-being, especially when it comes toyoung children. However, depression among mothers has been found to be a mediatorbetween parental divorce and child adjustment (Clarke-Stewart et al., 2000). In thepresent study, conflict among parents was not emphasised by the children of divorce.Limiting parental conflict in the post-divorce family has been a general message inNorway in recent years, and results from the present study may reflect this knowledge.

Finally, we would like to mention that many of the children with recent parentaldivorces seemed to report quite a lot of distressing feelings. Also, the daycare centreaspect was introduced in this study. Playing with friends in daycare was a typicalpreferred statement for children on Factor 1 as opposed to children on Factors 2and 3. Several children of divorce loaded on Factors 2 and 3. This may imply thatsome children of divorce – at least in periods of their adjustment after divorce –find it hard to engage in normal play with friends.

Practical implications of our study

The children of divorce in this study seem to express a variety of feelings and experi-ences. Parents, daycare staff, and other professionals that work with young children ofdivorce should be aware that children may react in many different ways to parentaldivorce. Sometimes, these reactions are not very visible or outspoken to adults. Chil-dren may have worries for their parents, or they may feel sad or lonely, withoutacting this out in daycare or at home. Adults should address these issues actively.Our experience from the present study is that visual material such as pictures ofemotions or picture books may help children express some of their feelings. Thismay make it easier for adults to understand and help children in the aftermath ofdivorce. The study indicates that children who have recently experienced parentaldivorce may be quite distressed by the new life situation and may need special atten-tions by adults in daycare. Helping young children express and deal with distressseems crucial. Theory (Amato, 2000) indicates that helping children understand anddeal with divorce may prevent long-term adjustment problems. This study is asmaller part of a larger research and development project. As a result of the presentstudy and other related studies, we are working on a picture book for children andguidelines for both daycare staff and parents in relation to family breakup situations.

We are also considering adjusting the cards in the Q sample applied here by omit-ting cards specifically related to divorce and replacing with more neutral feelings thatmany children can relate to. In this way, the Q sample can be used in future studies of

Early Child Development and Care 821

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

young children’s adjustment in daycare and school in general. Q studies allow for mul-tiple conditions of instructions, and various application areas seem possible. In futurestudies with young children, we will avoid distracting details in the images we use.

Limitations and strengths

A convenience sample of five-year-old children from volunteering families wasapplied. This gives a chance of selection bias, where conflict and distress may havebeen a reason for some families to resist to participating. If so, the study may representan underestimation of actual feelings that children may have in relations to parentaldivorce. Few Q studies with young children have been conducted previously, andsome uncertainty exists regarding the children’s capability of responding to such astudy. Our main impression is that the children understood and responded adequatelyto the Q sort procedure. This was also confirmed by comments from those parents whowere in contact with us after the Q sorting. However, some children seemed distressedby emotionally loaded images, and for a few children, it could seem like they avoideddifficult feelings. Strengths of the study include our effort towards a child-centredapproach through the utilisation of Q methodology with visual images.

Conclusion

Results showed that children from divorce seemed to have more anxious, sad, angry,and lonely feelings than the children in the comparison group, and that some childrenwere very concerned with their parents’ grief and sorrow. Even among the children withdistressed feelings, there was also report of happy feelings. Also, several children ofdivorce seemed to do very well and reported of solely happy feelings and close relation-ships. Among those with very recent divorces, four out of five reported various kinds ofdistressed or angry feelings. The findings indicate that parents and daycare institutionsshould be aware of young children of divorce and help them understand and cope withdistressing experiences and emotions related to divorce.

AcknowledgementsThis study is a smaller part of the Bambi-project at the University of Stavanger (UiS), see http://saf.uis.no/research. The Research Council of Norway supports the project through grant187572/S20. Appreciation is expressed to daycare centres and children who kindly helped usby participating in this study. Illustrations are by Ole Andre Hauge and belong to Centre forBehavioural Research at UiS.

Notes on contributorsIngunn Størksen has a PhD in psychology and is an associate professor at the Centre for Behav-ioural Research (CBR) at the University of Stavanger (UiS), Norway. She is the project leader oftwo daycare research projects: the BAMBI-project and the SKOLEKLAR-project.

Arlene Arstad Thorsen has a PhD in special needs education and is an associate professor atCBR, UiS, Norway. She is the main contributor to the knowledge and use of Q methodologyat the UiS, and she is a researcher in the BAMBI-project and the SKOLEKLAR-project.

Klara Øverland is a research fellow in the BAMBI-project at CBR, UiS, Norway. She hasworked as a psychologist with young children at Stavanger University Hospital and for theregional offices for Children, Youth and Family Affairs.

822 I. Størksen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

Steven R. Brown is a professor at the Department of Political Science, Kent State University,OH, where he teaches and conducts research in the areas of political psychology, policy, andmethodology. He is one of the main contributors in spreading and teaching the ideas of theinventor of Q methodology, Professor William Stephenson, worldwide.

ReferencesAllgood, E. (1999). Catching transitive thought through Q methodology: Implications for coun-

selling education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43(2), 209–225.Amato, P.R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage

& Family, 62(4), 1269–1287.Amato, P.R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991)

meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(3), 355–370.Amato, P.R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analy-

sis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46.Arseneault, L., Kim-Cohen, J., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T.E. (2005). Psychometric

evaluation of 5- and 7-year-old children’s self-reports of conduct problems. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 33(5), 537–550.

Breivik, K., & Olweus, D. (2006). Children of divorce in a Scandinavian welfare state: Are theyless affected than US children? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 61–74.

Brown, S.R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cheng, H., Dunn, J., O’Connor, T.G., & Golding, J. (2006). Factors moderating children’sadjustment to parental separation: Findings from a community study in England. Journalof Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(2), 239–250.

Clarke-Stewart, K.A., Vandell, D.L., McCartney, K., Owen, M.T., & Booth, C. (2000). Effectsof parental separation and divorce on very young children. Journal of Family Psychology,14(2), 304–326.

Cote, S.M., Borge, A.I., Geoffroy, M.C., Rutter, M., & Tremblay, R.E. (2008). Nonmaternalcare in infancy and emotional/behavioral difficulties at 4 years old: Moderation byfamily risk characteristics. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 155–168.

Ellingsen, I.T., Størksen, I., & Stephens, P. (2010). Q methodology in social work research.International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(5), 396–409.

Emery, R.E., & Forehand, R. (1996). Parental divorce and children’s well-being: A focus onresilience. In R.J. Haggerty, L.R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, riskand resilience in children and adolescents. Processes, mechanisms, and interventions(pp. 64–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Emond, R. (2006). Reflections of a researcher on the use of a child-centred approach. The IrishJournal of Psychology, 27(1–2), 97–104.

Gloger-Tippelt, G., & Konig, L. (2007). Attachment representations in 6-year-old children fromone and two parent families in Germany. School Psychology International, 28(3), 313–330.

Greene, S. (2006). Child psychology: Taking account of children at last? The Irish Journal ofPsychology, 27(1–2), 8–15.

Harris, P.L. (2000). Understanding emotion. In M. Lewis & J.M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.),Handbook of Emotions (2nd ed., pp. 281–292). New York, London: The Guilford Press.

Hood, S., Kelley, P., & Mayall, B. (1996). Children as research subjects: A risky enterprise.Children and Society, 10, 117–128.

Jee, S.H., Conn, K.M., Nilsen, W.J., Szilagyi, M.A., Forbes-Jones, E., & Halterman, J.S. (2008).Learning difficulties among children separated from a parent. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 8(3),163–168.

Jensen, A.M., & Clausen, S.E. (1997). Barns familier: Samboerskap og foreldrebrudd etter1970 (NIBR prosjektrapport; 1997:21 (pp. 73)). Oslo: Norsk institutt for by- ogregionforskning.

John, A., & Halliburton, A.L. (2010). Q methodology to assess child-father attachment. EarlyChild Development and Care, 180(1), 71–85.

Kiernan, K.E. (2001). The rise of cohabitation and childbearing outside marriage in WesternEurope. International Journal of Law and the Family, 15(1), 1–21.

Early Child Development and Care 823

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

Landsford, J.E., Malone, P.S., Castellino, D.R., Dodge, K.A., Pettit, G.S., & Bates, J.E. (2006).Trajectories of internalizing, externalizing, and grades for children who have and have notexperienced their parents divorce or separation. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(2), 292–301.

Leon, K. (2003). Risk and protective factors in young children’s adjustment to parental divorce.Family Relations, 52, 258–270.

Lewis, M. (2000). The emergence of human emotions. In M. Lewis & J.M. Haviland-Jones(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 265–280). New York, London: The GuilfordPress.

Manning, W.D., Smock, P.J., & Majumdar, D. (2004). The relative stability of cohabiting andmarital unions for children. Population Research and Policy Review, 23, 135–159.

Measelle, J.R., Ablow, J.C., Cowan, P.A., & Cowan, C.P. (1998). Assessing young children’sview of their academic, social, and emotional lives: An evaluation of the self-perceptionscales of the Berkeley Puppet Interview. Child Development, 69(6), 1556–1576.

Nair, H., & Murray, A.D. (2005). Predictors of attachment security in preschool children fromintact and divorced families. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(3), 245–263.

Noack, T. (2001). Cohabitation in Norway: An accepted and gradually more regulated way ofliving. International Jouranl of Law and the Family, 15, 102–117.

OECD Family Database. (2008). Marriage and divorce rates (L. a. S. A. Social Policy Division– Directorate of Employment, Trans.). OECD.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1989). Convention on theRights of the Child. Retrieved from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

Pagani, L., Boulerice, B., Tremblay, R.E., & Vitaro, F. (1997). Behavioural development in chil-dren of divorce and remarriage. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 38(7), 769–781.

Peets, K., Hodges, E.V.E., & Salmivalli, C. (2008). Affect-congruent social-cognitive evalu-ations and behaviors. Child Development, 79(1), 170–185.

Potter, D. (2010). Psychosocial well-being and the relationship between divorce and children’sacademic achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(4), 933–946.

Previte, J., Pini, B., & Haslam-McKenzie, F. (2007). Q methodology and rural research.Sociologia Ruralis, 47(2), 135–147.

Raley, R.K., & Wildsmith, E. (2004). Cohabitation and children’s family instability. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 66(1), 210–219.

Ramlo, S., McConnell, D., Duan, Z.-H., & Moore, F.B. (2008). Evaluating an inquiry-basedbioinformatics course using Q methodology. Journal of Science Education andTechnology, 17(3), 219–225.

Schmolck, P. (2002, November 28). PQMethod (version 2.11), download mirror. Retrieved June27, 2006, from http://www.lrz.de/~schmolck/qmethod/downpqx.htm

Sickler, J., Fraser, J., Webler, T., Reiss, D., Boyle, P., Lyn, H., & . . . Gruber, S. (2006). Socialnarratives surrounding dolphins: Q method study. Society & Animals, 14(4), 351–382.

Statistics Norway. (2004). Berekna prosent ekteskap som vil bli oppløyst, saframt skilsmalsratersom i det einskilde ar. 1960–2003 [Calculated future divorce rates, if rates continue as ineach year. 1960–2003]. Retrieved from http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/02/30/ekteskap/arkiv/tab-2004-09-02-08.html

Statistics Norway. (2009). 25,100 marriages and 10,200 divorces. Retrieved from http://www.ssb.no/ekteskap_en/

Stene-Larsen, K., Borge, A.I., & Vollrath, M.E. (2009). Maternal smoking in pregnancy andexternalizing behavior in 18-month-old children: Results from a population-based prospec-tive study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(3),283–289.

Stenner, P., Watts, S., & Worrell, M. (2008). Q methodology. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology. Los Angeles,London, New Dehli, Singapore: SAGE Publications.

Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Stephenson, W. (1980). Newton’s fifth rule and Q methodology – Application to educationalpsychology. American Psychologist, 35(10), 882–889.

Stephenson, W. (1993/1994). Introduction to Q-methodology. Operant subjectivity, 17(1/2),1–13.

824 I. Størksen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012

Størksen, I., Røysamb, E., Holmen, T.L., & Tambs, K. (2006). Adolescent adjustment and well-being: Effects of parental divorce and distress. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47,75–84.

Taylor, P., & Delprato, D.J. (1994). Q-methodology in the study of child phenomenology.Psychological Record, 44(2), 171–184.

Thorsen, A.A. (2006). A pathway to understanding Q-methodology. Journal of HumanSubjectivity, 4(2), 33–53.

Thorsen, A.A., & Størksen, I. (2010). Ethical, methodological, and practical reflections whenusing Q methodology in research with young children. Operant Subjectivity: TheInternational Journal of Q Methodology, 33(1/2), 3–25.

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). National vital statistic reports – Births,marriages, divorces, and deaths: Provisional data for October 2008 (Vol. 57, Report No.19). Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_19.htm

van Exel, J., & de Graaf, G. (2005). Q methodology: A sneak preview. Rotterdam: Erasmus MC,Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Department of Health Policy &Management (BMG). Retrieved from http://www.qmethodology.net/PDF/Q-methodology%20-%20A%20sneak%20preview.pdf

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation.Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 67–91.

Wheeler, D.L., & Montgomery, D. (2009). Community college students’ views on learningmathematics in terms of their epistemological beliefs: A Q method study. EducationalStudies in Mathematics, 72(3), 289–306.

Early Child Development and Care 825

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 07:

58 1

8 Ju

ly 2

012