In the current study, children’s reactions to video messages from their incarcerated par- ents were evaluated. Previous research has yielded mixed results when it examined the impact of contact between incarcerated parents and their children; one reason for these

mixed results may be a lack of attention to the quality of contact. This is the first study to examine the actual content and quality of a remote form of contact in this population. Participants included 186 incarcerated parents (54% mothers) who participated in a film-

ing with The Messages Project and 61 caregivers of their children. Parental mood prior to filming the message and children’s mood after viewing the message were assessed using the Positive and Negative Affect Scale. After coding the content of 172 videos, the data

from the 61 videos with caregiver responses were used in subsequent path analyses. Ana- lyses indicated that when parents were in more negative moods prior to filming their mes- sage, they displayed more negative emotions in the video messages ( = .210), and their children were in more negative moods after viewing the message ( = .288). Considering

that displays of negative emotion can directly affect how children respond to contact, it seems important for parents to learn to regulate these emotional displays to improve the quality of their contact with their children.

T his study examined both the content and quality of aunique form of parent–child communication (video mes-sages) and factors that contribute to how children react to the message in a sample of children with incarcerated parents. In

conjunction with the Messages Project, we evaluated the quality and affective content of the video messages incarcerated parents sent to their children and examined the content in relation to chil- dren’s emotional reaction to watching the taped message and

their likelihood to watch the recording multiple times. We specifi- cally examined the content of videos for qualities of positive interactions, including warmth, expressions of love, and appreci-

ation; recorded messages were also coded for expressions of neg- ative emotion, including crying, anger, and anxiety. In addition, this study investigated how participation in parenting education

programs and parental mood immediately prior to recording a video message related to the content and quality of the messages.

Contact Between Incarcerated Parents and Their Children

More than 75% of the nearly 809,800 incarcerated parents

being held in the nation’s prisons at midyear 2007 reported having

some form of contact with their children during the time of their

incarceration (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Maintaining contact during this time is a key issue for many children, parents, and caregivers impacted by parental incarceration (see Poehlmann,

Dallaire, Loper, & Shear, 2010, for a review of this literature). Traditional forms of contact, including visitation, phone calls, and letter writing, as well as more technologically advanced and emerging contact opportunities (e.g., video conferencing, sending

audio or videotaped messages) offer distinct opportunities for incarcerated parents and their families to maintain and rebuild connections. However, all of these forms of communication have

unique obstacles that must be overcome for contact to result in a meaningful, positive experience for parents and children.

Visitation

Physical visitations allow parents and children to see each

other in person, even if they are not permitted to have physical contact with each other. Unfortunately, most state and federal prisons are located more than 100 miles from where an offen- der’s family lives (Poehlmann et al., 2010). Visitation requires

both time and money—resources that may be limited for many caregivers of prisoner’s children. In addition to being costly, visitation experiences are often not child-friendly. Traditional

visitation may include long waits in uncomfortable visiting rooms and invasive security procedures (Arditti, 2003; Tewks-

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Danielle

Dallaire, College of William and Mary, Psychology, Williamsburg, VA

23185. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry � 2012 American Orthopsychiatric Association 2012, Vol. 82, No. 4, 529–541 DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01179.x

529

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

bury & DeMichele, 2005). The amount of physical contact pro- vided by visitation may also be limited. Although many federal

prison facilities allow physical contact during the course of a visit, most local and regional jail facilities do not (Poehlmann et al., 2010). As such, visits often occur through plexiglass bar-

riers, which can be confusing to children who cannot under- stand why they cannot touch their parents or be held by them. The time and expense involved with bringing children to a jail or prison facility, the sometimes invasive security procedures,

and lack of, or limited amount of, physical contact that is allowed may discourage some from visiting their incarcerated loved one.

Phone Calls

Phone calls allow a conversation between parents and chil- dren of most ages from the safety and comfort of the child’s home. Children can hear their parents’ voices without going

through the potentially negative experience of visitation. It also requires less of a time and financial commitment from the pris- oner’s family. However, this form of contact does not allow nonverbal communication, making it difficult for parents to

read emotional cues sent by their children and vice versa. Pris- oner-initiated phone calls are extremely expensive as well, because correctional facilities typically require prisoners to call

caregivers and children collect (Christian, Mellow, & Thomas, 2006). Because of this cost, caregivers may not be willing to accept many, if any, phone calls from incarcerated parents.

Letters

Letter writing creates temporal and emotional distance, allow-

ing both parents and children time to reflect on information and consider their responses. This in turn allows more opportunity for less emotionally reactive responses (Tuerk & Loper, 2006).

Letter writing also provides an opportunity for more private communication and more personalized messages to multiple children. Often with visitation and phone calls, the time limit

and cost make it necessary for parents to focus on everyone at once, or just one family member. Letter writing is the cheapest form of contact for prisoners, and there is less of a restriction

on the frequency or length of communication. However, letter writing does not allow direct communication or problem solv- ing. It is typically a one-sided conversation, and there is no guarantee that the child will respond to the parent’s letter.

Letter writing is also primarily limited to children who are old enough to read.

Emerging Technologies and Remote Forms of Contact

New opportunities to have contact with children have emerged as correctional departments and volunteer programs have adapted more technologically advanced modes of commu-

nication. One example is the Storybook Project, which allows incarcerated parents to audio record themselves reading bedtime stories to their children. The tape and storybook are sent to the children who can follow along and listen to the story read by

their incarcerated parent. A qualitative study of incarcerated

mothers in Iowa reported that mothers found the program helped to strengthen their relationships with their children, and

mothers felt that it allowed them to practice their parenting skills (Trost, 2009). This type of communication allows children to hear their parents’ voices whenever they want to and to have

a transitional object during the separation. Video visitation, in which family members can talk to inmates

using a computer-based communication system, is quickly becoming a preferred form of contact (Dallaire, Poehlmann, &

Loper, 2011). The family goes to the nearest institution- approved communication center, which is usually located in a community center or church, to use secure computer equipment

to both talk to and see the inmate. This practice was adapted from other forms of telecommunication that were already occur- ring in correctional facilities—such as telemedicine and jail-to-

courtroom communication (Gramlich, 2009). One of the many benefits of telecommunication is that it saves money for every- one involved. Caregivers save expenses associated with travel

and phone calls, and the institution spends less on security per- sonnel for on-site visitation. Additionally, children and parents get to talk to one another face to face, in a private and more child-friendly environment. Although there cannot be physical

contact, the child also does not have to go through the stressful and sometimes invasive security required for on-site visitation. Currently, this form of communication is so new that little is

known about how children or parents react to it or the potential positive or negative outcomes. Although less interactive than video conferencing, video-

recorded messages allow children to both hear and see their par- ents. One project that allows incarcerated parents to connect with their families through video messages is the Messages Project

(http://themessagesproject.org). This program allows incarcer- ated parents to send personal, video-recorded messages to their children. The program was founded in Virginia and has extended to other states, including California, Missouri, and Nebraska.

Inmates are given 15 min to record a message to their children and are provided with colorful backgrounds, books to read, and props to make their message more child-friendly.

These technological advances have made it possible for par- ents and children to see one another while not having to deal with the challenges of going to the correctional facilities. They

also give researchers an opportunity to examine the content and quality of the parent–child contact. Video-recorded messages in particular allow researchers an opportunity to evaluate the qual- ity and emotional content of the contact in ways that are nearly

impossible using traditional modes of live contact or even tele- conferencing technologies. This study is one of the first to exam- ine children’s reactions to a remote form of contact in relation

to the quality and emotional content contained within the recorded message. Although the content and quality of letters can be examined, video messages allow researchers to examine

nonverbal emotional cues (e.g., body language, tone of voice). In this study, we examined features of recorded messages that characterize high-quality interactions, which we operationally

define as the presence of positive interaction qualities (e.g., a parent telling a child that the parent loves him or her, express- ing gratitude or appreciation, expressing interest in the child and his or her activities) and the lack of expression of negative

emotionality (e.g., expressions of anger, sadness, anxiety). By

530 FOLK, NICHOLS, DALLAIRE, AND LOPER

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

examining the content and quality of contact, we may be better able to predict how children will react to the contact.

Reactions to Contact by Children and Parents

Numerous studies have attempted to examine children’s reac- tion to contact with their imprisoned parents and what factors promote positive outcomes, with mixed results. Both Dallaire, Ciccone, and Wilson (2012) and Poehlmann (2005) measured

children’s attachment representations in relation to frequency of visitation with their incarcerated parent. They both found asso- ciations between frequency of visitation and insecure attachment

representations. Landreth and Lobaugh (1998) conducted an enhanced visitation intervention for 16 incarcerated fathers and their children (4–9 years old) to see whether a child-friendly visi-

tation environment would improve children’s reactions to con- tact. Although they observed that children in the intervention group had higher self-esteem, too many participants dropped

out of the study to determine whether the increase was signifi- cant compared with the control group. Other findings indicated that contact can be beneficial. For

example, Trice and Brewster (2004) studied school-aged children

with incarcerated mothers and found that more frequent contact (visits, phone calls, letters) was associated with lower rates of school dropout and suspensions. Shlafer and Poehlmann (2010)

surveyed 57 child participants in a mentoring program for chil- dren of incarcerated parents about their experiences with visita- tion and contact with the incarcerated parent. All of the 24

children who reported having no contact with their parents also reported feeling alienated from them. Dallaire, Ciccone, and Wilson (2010) reported that teachers observed improved behav- ior in the classroom when children received a letter from their

incarcerated parent. Unfortunately, the literature looking at the effect of visitation

and contact with an incarcerated parent on child outcomes is

limited by the small, unrepresentative nature of the samples. Furthermore, there is virtually no information about the quality of such contact. This omission from the research literature may

help explain some of the mixed results that have been obtained. Similarly mixed results have been obtained when looking at

parental reactions to contact. Bales and Mears (2008) found

that increased child visitation was associated with increased recidivism using administrative data from the Florida Depart- ment of Corrections. Casey-Acevedo, Bakken, and Karle (2004) surveyed 158 released female prisoners and found that mothers

who had child visitations were more likely to engage in violent or serious infractions while incarcerated than those who were not visited by children. However, when looking at mail contact

in particular, Loper, Carlson, Levitt, and Scheffel (2009) inter- viewed 211 incarcerated parents and found that greater mail contact was associated with lower parenting stress.

Taken together, these mixed findings indicate that factors that mediate the relation between contact and outcomes should be examined. A key mediator and the focus of this investigation is

the quality of such contact. Previous research has almost exclu- sively focused on quantity of contact or lack of contact between children and their incarcerated parents with little attention to the characteristics that may contribute to high-quality contact

between parent and child.

Factors That Mediate Children’s Reactions to Contact With Their Incarcerated Parent

A number of factors, including caregiver–parent relationship,

parent–child cohabitation or coresidence, parent gender, and the quality of parent–child contact, may influence the impact of contact on child and parent outcomes. Caregivers are important in arranging opportunities for incarcerated parents and their

children to have contact; they dictate the frequency of visits, phone calls, and letters for most children. They have to consider practical concerns about what is best for the children, as well as

their own feelings toward the parent (Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010). Caregivers are needed to provide emotional support to children as they go through the visitation process, as well as to

help them process the experience afterward (Poehlmann et al., 2010). Therefore, the relationship between the caregiver and the parent plays a large role in not only the frequency of contact,

but how the child experiences and processes parent–child con- tact. It may to some extent determine the effects of contact on child outcomes. Quality of parent–caregiver relationships prior to incarcera-

tion may determine the level of contact during the separation and has also been associated with familial relationship quality postrelease. Parents who have more consistent, positive relation-

ships with the child’s caregiver have more frequent communica- tion with their children through mail and phone calls (Tuerk & Loper, 2006). Evidence suggests that positive family relation-

ships combined with visits from partners lead to higher postre- lease parent–child relationship quality (La Vigne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005). However, when there were lower levels of family relationship quality before incarceration, visits from

partners predicted even lower levels of quality following release. Effects of contact, as well as frequency of contact, may also

be influenced by parent gender and whether or not the parent

and child lived together before the current incarceration. It is a different experience for both parent and child when the incarcer- ated parent lived with the child prior to his or her incarceration.

Mothers are more likely to live with their child prior to incarcer- ation (60%) compared with fathers (42%; Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Additionally, fathers are less likely to have contact with

their children than mothers while in state prisons (Maruschak, Glaze, & Mumula, 2010). The focus of this study is on the role of quality of contact

and children’s reactions to that contact. For contact to be bene-

ficial for the child, the interaction should include opportunities for a parent to reinforce his or her connection with the child and family members and establish and maintain a positive mood

during the interaction (Henggeler, Schoenwald, Borduin, Row- land, & Cunningham, 2009). Although incarcerated parents may not be actively participating in the structure and discipline in

their children’s lives, they can demonstrate healthy involvement by inquiring about various aspects of their children’s lives. Quality interactions would not include blaming, shaming, or

any other negative expression that may damage the parent–child connection or suggest that the parent is unsafe. Both parent and child factors contribute to the quality of contact, but ultimately, the parents’ knowledge of how to positively interact with their

children in an age-appropriate and meaningful way may be one of the most influential factors. Even though incarcerated parents

EVALUATING MESSAGES FROM INCARCERATED PARENTS 531

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

miss out on ‘‘in the trenches’’ parenting for a certain period of time, this does not mean they are unable to be involved in their

children’s daily lives; contact makes it possible for them to stay actively involved provided they have the skills to establish and maintain harmonious interactions. Furthermore, because many

institutions offer parenting classes to inmates, incarcerated parents may use this time to increase their knowledge about positive parenting behaviors.

Parenting Classes for Incarcerated Parents

Incarceration can provide an opportunity for parents to learn

techniques to improve their parenting abilities and to better manage their emotions when faced with parenting challenges. Currently, many institutions in the United States offer some

type of parenting training for prisoners. However, there is con- siderable variability in the content of such programs, and most do not include an interactional component for parents to prac-

tice their newly learned or refined skills (Loper & Novero, 2010; Sandifer, 2008). A recent survey of national parenting programs found that parenting classes that do not directly involve chil- dren were offered in 51% of male facilities, 90% of female facil-

ities, and 74% of coed facilities (Hoffmann, Byrd, & Kightlinger, 2010). In contrast, programs involving children were offered in 10% of male, 33% of female, and 15% of coed

facilities. When children are not directly involved in the pro- gram, parents may not have the opportunity to practice their newly learned skills and to practice emotion management tech-

niques. Consequently, the positive effects intended from such programs may not be realized. Because improving parent–child relationship quality is one of the major goals of a parenting intervention, this finding stresses the importance of contact dur-

ing the periods of incarceration. Evaluations of participants in the Parenting from Prison

(PFP) program revealed that mothers who had no contact

with their children exhibited lower levels of self-esteem than mothers who had a least some visits with their children or had frequent letter exchanges (Thompson & Harm, 2000).

Mothers who did not receive any visits from their children reported clinically significant low levels of self-esteem, even after completing PFP (Thompson & Harm, 2000). In contrast,

mothers whose children visited reported an increase in the fre- quency of visits and improvement in the quality of both in- person interactions and letter writing. Mothers who had fre- quent visits showed the greatest improvement in parenting

knowledge, especially compared with those who had little or no contact with their children and therefore did not have the opportunity to practice the learned skills or learn from nurtur-

ing experiences. A review of literature on parenting classes for prisoners by

Loper and Novero (2010) found that, although most studies

document an increase in parenting knowledge and sometimes a decrease in parenting stress, no studies to date document whether the parenting class results in a change in the prisoner’s

actual parenting abilities or behavior. We expect parents in this study who have taken a parenting class while incarcerated will send their children higher quality videotaped messages charac- terized by more positive interaction qualities (e.g., warmth,

appreciation) and fewer negative emotional displays.

The Current Project

In this study, we examined the emotional content and quality of incarcerated parents’ video messages sent to their children in

relation to children’s reactions to the recording. We also exam- ined potential influences on the content of the parent’s message, specifically self-report of parent mood and completion of a par- enting class.

In regard to the child’s reaction to the video message, we expected:

• Children would react more positively (e.g., watch the DVD more frequently, be in more positive and less nega- tive moods after viewing the message) when parents send messages characterized by positive interaction qualities, including warmth, expressions of love, and appreciation.

• Children would react negatively (e.g., watch the DVD less frequently, be in less positive, more negative moods) when parents send messages characterized by displays of nega-

tive emotions (e.g., crying, anxiety, anger). • We did not expect parental mood before filming the mes-

sage and children’s reactions to the message to be directly

correlated. However, we expected this relation to be medi- ated by the content and quality of the taped message.

In regard to the influence of completion of a parenting class on the content of a parent’s recorded messages, we expected:

• Parents who completed parenting programs would send higher quality messages characterized by positive interac- tion qualities (e.g., warmth, appreciation) and fewer nega- tive emotional displays (e.g., crying, anxiety, anger).

• Parents who completed parenting education programs would report being in more positive and less negative moods prior to the filming of their video message.

• We did not expect completion of a parenting class and chil- dren’s reaction to the taped message to be directly corre- lated. However, we expected this relation to be mediated by the content and quality of the video-recorded message.

Method

Participants

Participants included 186 parents (56% women) incarcerated in the state of Virginia. Thirty-six participants were incarcerated

at a regional jail facility (19.4%) and 150 at a Department of Corrections facility (80.6%). Seventy-seven parents reported that this was their first incarceration. Of the 109 incarcerated

parent participants (IPP) who reported having been previously incarcerated, the number of previous sentences ranged from 1 to 10 (M = 3.41, SD = 1.68). The majority of IPP (60.2%)

reported living with their children prior to their sentencing. See Table 1 for demographic characteristics of incarcerated parents. Sixty-one caregivers participated by completing question-

naires mailed to their homes. Demographic characteristics of caregiver participants (CP) can be seen in Table 2. Caregivers had various relationships with the incarcerated parent and the

532 FOLK, NICHOLS, DALLAIRE, AND LOPER

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

child to whom the message was sent, including children’s mother (11.5%), grandmother (29.5%), grandfather (1.6%), aunt (4.9%), great grandmother (3.3%), great grandfather (1.6%), friends of their parents (9.8%), cousin (1.6%), and other adults

(36.1%). The other adult caregivers included relatives from the parent’s prior marriages (i.e., ex-mother-in-law, ex-husband), the children’s siblings, step-parents, the parent’s current signifi-

cant other, and one foster parent. Caregivers answered questions about themselves and the child

to whom the message was sent. If the parent had multiple chil-

dren, caregivers were asked to complete the questions for the child whose birthday comes first in the year. On the basis of caregivers’ reports, children’s mean age was 7.60 (SD = 3.95),

and 47.4% were male.

Procedure

After human subjects approval was obtained from Institu- tional Review Boards at the two participating institutions, approval was also received from the Virginia Department of Cor-

rections (DOC) and the regional jail for the research to be con- ducted at these facilities. Parents were selected and recruited by program staff at each facility using the following criteria: (a)

Inmates had a child under the age of 18; (b) they were considered in good standing because of their good behavior; and (c) they had never been accused of child abuse or neglect. Recording of the messages and completion of the research protocol occurred

between November 2009 and December 2010. Staff members from the Messages Project were present at all recordings, along with the authors and trained graduate and undergraduate

research assistants. Parents were explicitly told that they could participate in the Messages Project and not participate in the research portion of the project. Overall, 85% of individuals who participated in the Messages recordings participated in some

aspect of the research portion of the project. After completing the informed consent granting permission

for self to participate by completing questionnaires, IPP were

asked to sign two additional permission forms to allow research- ers to copy the DVD of their message and to contact the adult to whom the message was sent. IPP completed all questionnaires

prior to making their messages and then completed brief inter- views after the taping. IPP could agree to one portion of the research without agreeing with the others (e.g., having their

message copied, but not contacting the caregiver). Permission to contact CP was granted by 82.8% of IPP, and 94% agreed to have their message copied (and subsequently coded). Typically, 1–2 weeks elapsed from the time the parent made

the video message to the time the DVD was sent in the mail to the family, as we had to copy the tape and prepare the question- naire package. Along with the recorded message, questionnaires

were sent to the 154 CP of the IPP who agreed to allow us to

Table 1. Inmate Parent Participants’ Descriptive Data

Characteristic

Incarcerated mothers Incarcerated fathers

(n = 105) (n = 81)

M (SD) M (SD)

Age 32.4 (6.53) 31.8 (7.7)

Ethnicity

Caucasian (%) 48.6% (n = 51) 24.7% (n = 20)

African American (%) 41.9% (n = 44) 60.5% (n = 49)

Hispanic (%) 1.9% (n = 2) 8.6% (n = 7)

Other (%) 3.8% (n = 4) 3.7% (n = 3)

Educational attainment

Some high school (%) 24.8% (n = 26) 14.8% (n = 12)

Technical or trade

school (%)

1.9% (n = 2) 4.9% (n = 4)

High school diploma

or GED (%)

37.1% (n = 39) 53.1% (n = 43)

Some college (%) 22.9% (n = 24) 19.8% (n = 16)

College degree (%) 3.8% (n = 4) 4.9% (n = 4)

Graduate degree (%) 2.9% (n = 3) —

Marital status

Single (%) 50.5% (n = 53) 64.2% (n = 52)

Married (%) 23.8% (n = 25) 24.7% (n = 20)

Divorced (%) 17.1% (n = 18) 7.4% (n = 6)

Widow (%) 2.9% (n = 3) —

Number of children 2.3 (1.3) 2.7 (1.5)

First time incarcerated

Yes (%) 42.9% (n = 45) 29.6% (n = 24)

No (%) 51.4% (n = 54) 67.9% (n = 55)

Parenting class (Yes) 41.9% (n = 44) 46.9% (n = 43)

Table 2. Caregiver Participants’ Descriptive Data

Characteristic

Caregivers for

children of

inmate mothers

Caregivers for

children of

inmate fathers

(n = 37) (n = 24)

M (SD) M (SD)

Sex (female) 80.0% (n = 28) 100.0% (n = 24)

Age 47.4 (13.6) 33.4 (9.6)

Ethnicity

Caucasian (%) 51.4% (n = 18) 21.7% (n = 5)

African American (%) 48.6% (n = 17) 43.5% (n = 10)

Hispanic (%) — 21.7% (n = 5)

Other (%) — 13.0% (n = 3)

Educational attainment

Some high school (%) 8.9% (n = 3) 22.7% (n = 5)

High school

diploma or GED (%)

29.4% (n = 10) 36.4% (n = 8)

Some college (%) 41.2% (n = 14) 18.2% (n = 4)

College degree (%) 20.6% (n = 7) 18.2% (n = 4)

Other (%) — 4.5% (n = 1)

Marital status

Single (%) 32.4% (n = 12) 39.1% (n = 9)

Married (%) 40.5% (n = 15) 43.5% (n = 10)

Divorced (%) 8.1% (n = 3) 8.7% (n = 2)

Separated (%) 5.4% (n = 2) —

Widow (%) 13.5% (n = 5) 4.3% (n = 1)

Relationship to inmate

Wife (%) — 25.0% (n = 6)

Husband (%) 2.7% (n = 1) —

Mother of child — 29.2% (n = 7)

Mother (%) 37.8% (n = 14) 16.7% (n = 4)

Father (%) 2.7% (n = 1) —

Grandmother (%) 5.4% (n = 2) —

Grandfather (%) 2.7% (n = 1) —

Sister (%) 5.4% (n = 2) 4.2% (n = 1)

Aunt (%) 5.4% (n = 2) —

Cousin (%) 2.7% (n = 1) —

Friend (%) 13.5% (n = 5) 4.2% (n = 1)

Other (%) 21.6% (n = 8) 20.8% (n = 5)

EVALUATING MESSAGES FROM INCARCERATED PARENTS 533

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

send the CP questionnaires. If the CP did not return the ques- tionnaire after 1 month, a second set of questionnaires was sent.

Of the 154 questionnaires that were sent, 61 (40%) were returned. CP received a $10 gift card for their participation.

Measures

Incarcerated parent participants and CP completed a demo- graphic questionnaire regarding their age, ethnicity, education,

information about the children, and children’s parents’ history of incarceration. Both IPP and CP were asked to report who the child currently lives with, if the parent lived with her or his

child prior to the current incarceration, and how involved the IPP was in the child’s daily life prior to the incarceration. CP and IPP were also asked about the frequency of the parents’

contact with their children during the incarceration through visi- tation, phone calls, and mail communication.

Frequency of contact with the IPP. Incarcerated par- ent participants and CP were asked to report how frequently the parent and child were in contact during the last month and during the last year via mail, phone, and physical visitation.

Respondents rated how frequently the parent and child were in contact using a 10-point scale from 0 (never) and 10 (daily). Aggregate scores were used to create four total contact vari-

ables: CP report of monthly contact, CP report of yearly con- tact, IPP report of monthly contact, and IPP report of yearly contact. These reports were significantly positively correlated (rs

ranged from .62 to .74). IPP reports of monthly and yearly con- tact were higher than CP reports of contact. Paired sample t-tests showed no significant differences in IPP and CP reports of monthly contact, but IPP reported significantly more yearly

contact than did CP, t(19) = 3.5, p = .003.

Parenting class. Incarcerated parent participants reported whether or not they had ever taken, or were currently taking, a parenting class. They were asked the name of the class and how long it lasted and were asked to provide a brief

description of the program. Because of the diverse nature of IPP program experiences, responses were coded into ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ based on whether participants reported having ever taken

a parenting class. Responses indicating that the course was pri- marily focused on addictions counseling (e.g., AA or NA) were not counted as being a parenting class. Of the 182 IPP who answered this question, 87 (52.2%) responses were coded as

‘‘yes.’’

Parent and child mood. All participants completed the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Survey (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). This 20-item questionnaire was used to assess current mood, including the extent to which the parents

and children were feeling 10 positive emotional states (e.g., atten- tive, proud, inspired) and 10 negative emotional states (e.g., dis- tressed, hostile, scared). IPP completed the PANAS immediately

prior to taping their messages. CP completed the PANAS about the child who had just watched the taped message. IPP rated the extent to which they were currently feeling each emotional state on a 5-point scale, 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely), and CP did the

same for the child. Previous research has utilized parent report

of child affect with this measure (i.e., B. M. Phillips, Lonigan, Driscoll, & Hooe, 2002). There is support for the reliability and

validity of the same affect items in the parent report version as in the self-report version. Overall findings show that there is higher agreement on reports of positive affect, because it may be more

easily observable. The PANAS scale has high scale and item validity, and the intercorrelations and internal consistency reli- abilities are all acceptably high (ranging from 0.86 to 0.90 for Positive Affect (PA) and 0.84 to 0.87 for Negative Affect (NA;

Watson et al., 1988). In the current sample, alpha reliability ran- ged from 0.85 (parent) to 0.91 (caregiver) for PA and 0.84 (par- ent) to 0.91 (caregiver) for NA. PA and NA scale scores were

created for all IPP and children. In addition to PA and NA scale scores, an overall mood score was calculated by subtracting the NA scale score from the PA scale score.

Quality of video message. Four graduate student researchers at the participating institutions coded the messages

of the IPP who consented to have their videos copied and used for research purposes. A coding scheme was developed to quan- tify the quality, verbal, and affective content of the IPP video messages. The coding scheme was designed to capture themes of

positive and negative interaction qualities. In particular, we identified occasions when the inmate expressed positive or nega- tive attitudes toward the child, the caregiver, the institution, or

themselves. We also captured references made to inmates’ desires for active involvement with their children. We initially focused on 32 behaviors that we believed captured these ele-

ments. We pilot-tested these categories on seven tapes by sepa- rate independent observations by five members of our collaborating laboratory. We then discussed difficulties with the

coding, clarified meanings, and created a codebook describing our final set of 38 behaviors. Coders assessed the presence or the absence of 38 behaviors, some of which are presented in Table 3 (e.g., parents telling the children they miss or love them

or expressing interest in the children’s activities). Videos were no more than 15 min long. Coders received approximately 2 hr of training and utilized a codebook throughout the coding pro-

cess. For the variables being considered in this study, interob- server agreement data for 10% of the videos yielded kappa coefficients for each of the 15 coded behaviors between 0.59 and

0.94. Of the 186 parents who participated in this project, 172 videos

were coded. Data from 10 videos were not included because the parent did not agree to have the message copied, two tapes were

damaged and rendered uncodable, one parent sent the message to a grandchild rather than child, and one parent did not speak English in the message. Of the tapes coded, 170 parents (98.8%)

told their children they loved them, 121 parents (65.1%) told their children they missed them, and 78 parents (45.3%) read books to their children. Gender differences in message content

are shown in Table 3. Composite variables were created to account for message

positive interaction quality and parent’s expression of negative

affect. The composite variable for displays of positive interac- tion quality consisted of the following six codes: reassuring the child about their well-being; complimenting, praising, or thank- ing the child; expressing appreciation or empathy toward the

caregiver; discussing the child’s interests and activities; telling

534 FOLK, NICHOLS, DALLAIRE, AND LOPER

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

the child the parent misses him or her; and telling the child the parent loves him or her. Scores ranged from 1 to 6 (M = 3.46, SD = 1.24). The composite variable for displays of negative emotion included the following six codes: crying, telling the

child the parent is sad or depressed, expressing anxiety about the taping, expressing negative emotion or attitude toward the child, expressing negative emotion or attitude toward the care-

giver, and including inappropriate themes or content (e.g., refer- ence to caregiver sexual relationships). Scores ranged from 0 to 5 (M = 0.85, SD = 0.96). The composite coded variables

assessing display of positive interaction quality and expression of negative emotion were significantly positively correlated, r(172) = .28, p = .00.

Caregiver reports of message quality and child reaction to message. On the basis of CP responses to the question, ‘‘In your own words, please describe the quality of the

message,’’ a trichotomous Caregiver Report of Message Quality variable was created (values = positive, mixed, negative). Most CP (n = 41, 73.2%) described the messages as positive. An exam-

ple of responses coded as positive included: ‘‘I loved it; it really touched the kids’ hearts.’’ Eleven caregivers (19.6%) described the message as being of mixed quality. An example of responses coded

as mixed included: ‘‘Sad, but glad to see her.’’ Four CP (7.1%) described the message quality as negative. An example of responses coded as negative included: ‘‘Mostly false statements.’’ On the basis of CP responses to the question ‘‘In your own

words, please describe child’s reaction to the message,’’ a tri- chotomous Caregiver Report of Child Reaction to Message var- iable was created (values = positive, mixed, negative). Most

(n = 33, 60%) caregivers described children’s reactions after viewing their message as positive. Examples of responses that were coded as positive included: ‘‘She really enjoyed it.’’ Thir-

teen caregivers (23.6%) described the children’s reaction as mixed. Examples of responses that were coded as mixed included: ‘‘Surprised, happy, joyful, sad.’’ Nine caregivers

(16.4%) described the child’s reaction to the message as nega- tive. Examples of responses that were coded as negative included: ‘‘She was a little upset and began to cry.’’ A graduate student researcher initially coded all of the care-

givers’ qualitative responses. A second coder then coded 100% of the responses and had over 85% agreement. Discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion and creation of an

agreement code that was then used for analyses.

Results

Plan of Statistical Analyses

Prior to performing path analysis models that tested our pri- mary hypotheses of interest, preliminary analyses were con- ducted to investigate factors that could potentially influence message content as well as children’s responses to their parent’s

message (i.e., child’s mood, how frequently the child viewed his or her parent’s message). First, we examined differences in IPP characteristics between the parent participants whose caregivers

returned questionnaire packets and those who did not. Next, we used independent samples t-tests to determine whether gender differences existed in parents’ mood prior to filming their mes-

sages or in the content of parents’ messages, particularly in regard to our codes of positive interaction qualities and expres- sions of negative affect. Independent samples t-tests were also conducted to determine whether parent’s prior history of coresi-

dency with the child or incarceration history had an impact on the child’s mood after viewing his or her message or how fre- quently he or she watched the message. Lastly, we examined

whether prior contact, taking a parenting class, parents’ mood prior to filming their messages, or parents’ displays of negative emotions had an impact on child outcomes. Guided by the out-

comes of these preliminary analyses, covariates were added to the path analysis models, which tested the hypothesized rela- tions between taking a parenting class, parents’ displays of

Table 3. Gender Differences in Message Content

Variable Inmate mothers Inmate fathers

v2 p-value(n = 98) (n = 74)

Qualities of positive interaction

Reassure about well-being 23.5% (n = 23) 24.3% (n = 18) 0.017 .896

Compliment ⁄ praise ⁄ thank child 61.2% (n = 60) 56.8% (n = 42) 0.349 .555 Express appreciation ⁄ empathy toward caregiver 58.2% (n = 57) 51.4% (n = 38) 0.791 .374 Discuss child’s interests ⁄ activities 34.7% (n = 34) 43.2% (n = 32) 1.303 .254 Tell child they miss them 73.5% (n = 72) 66.2% (n = 49) 1.063 .302

Express love for child 98.0% (n = 96) 100.0% (n = 74) 1.528 .216

Negative expression of emotions

Cry 32.7% (n = 32) 12.2% (n = 9) 9.751 .002

Tell the child they are sad ⁄ depressed 10.2% (n = 10) 4.1% (n = 3) 2.282 .131 Express anxiety about taping 30.6% (n = 30) 10.8% (n = 8) 9.605 .002

Express negative attitude toward child 12.2% (n = 12) 17.6% (n = 13) 0.962 .327

Express negative attitude toward caregiver 2.0% (n = 2) 8.1% (n = 6) 3.500 .061

Inappropriate themes ⁄ content 13.3% (n = 13) 10.8% (n = 8) 0.237 .626 Other behaviors parents did in the taped messages

Read book 36.7% (n = 36) 56.8% (n = 42) 2.649 .009

Include drawings ⁄ pictures 6.1% (n = 6) 18.9% (n = 14) 6.719 .010 Include singing 11.2% (n = 6) 6.8% (n = 14) 2.465 .015

EVALUATING MESSAGES FROM INCARCERATED PARENTS 535

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

positive interaction qualities and expression of negative emo- tions, and children’s mood after viewing their message.

Preliminary Analyses

Participants from jail versus a prison facility. To ensure that there were no significant differences between the 36 IPP recruited from a jail and the 150 IPP recruited from a

prison facility, a series of independent samples t-tests and chi- square tests were conducted. No differences emerged between these groups on parental mood, coded content of the video mes-

sages, parent report of prior contact, caregiver participation, or participation in a parenting class. Only two significant differ- ences emerged. Parents who were recruited from jail were more

likely to have been previously incarcerated, v2 = 12.546, p = .000. Parents recruited from jail also tended to have served significantly more sentences, t(157) = )3.483, p = .001. Because there were no significant differences on any of the main study variables, IPP recruited from jail and from prison facilities are included together in the subsequent analyses.

Missing caregiver data. Further analyses were con- ducted to ensure that there were no significant differences between the 61 IPP whose children’s caregivers participated and

the 93 IPP whose children’s caregivers did not participate. A ser- ies of independent samples t-tests and chi-square tests revealed no differences in prior incarceration history, parent report of

prior contact, or in parenting class enrollment. In addition, the relationship of the children’s caregiver to the parent was compa- rably distributed among both groups. Lastly, no differences emerged between these groups on any measure of parental mood

or coded content of the video messages. These results are avail- able upon request. Only the IPP whose children’s caregivers par- ticipated were included in the subsequent path analyses.

Gender differences. Independent samples t-tests revealed significant gender differences between mother and

father IPP. Compared with male IPP, mothers reported higher mean level NA PANAS scores, t(170) = 3.32, p = .001, d = 0.52, and higher mean overall mood PANAS scores,

t(169) = 2.24, p = .027, d = 0.35. On the basis of the coding of the caregiver’s report of message quality, women’s messages were described as significantly less positive, t(53) = 2.71, p = .009, d = 0.66. In addition, codes of the videos revealed

that mothers displayed significantly more negative emotion than men, t(170) = 2.57, p = .01, d = 0.40. There were no signifi- cant gender differences in our code of positive interaction qual-

ity. Because of these gender differences, parent gender is entered as a covariate in the analyses that follow.

Factors Impacting Message Quality and Child Reactions to Taped Messages

Coresidence and incarceration history. An indepen- dent samples t-test revealed that when parents reported living with their children prior to their incarceration, children tended

to be in better moods after viewing their message, t(43) = 2.39,

p = .021, d = 0.73. Coresidence did not significantly affect par- ent mood or emotional displays or any other child outcome.

Parents who reported a history of prior incarceration tended to have children who viewed their message significantly more fre- quently, t(44) = 2.126, p = .039, d = 0.31. The correlations

between number of previous incarcerations and child outcome variables were all nonsignificant.

Prior contact. Correlations showed no relation between prior contact and any child outcome variables, based on the parent and caregiver aggregate reports of monthly and yearly contact (Table 4). One-way ANOVAs also showed no signifi-

cant influence of prior contact on CP description of the child’s reaction or the message quality.

Parent mood and message quality. A correlation matrix is presented in Table 4. In support of our hypotheses, parents who scored higher on the PANAS NA subscale dis-

played significantly more negative emotions in their recorded messages, r(160) = .209, p = .01. Parents who scored higher on the PANAS NA subscale tended to have caregivers who described their messages in negative ways, F(2, 51) = 6.220,

p = .004, g2 = .170. Using the trichotomous rating of care- giver report of message quality, we found that video messages containing more negative emotions were rated as more negative

by caregivers, F(2, 50) = 3.095, p = .05, g2 = 0.144. However, parents’ overall mood and PANAS PA subscale scores were not significantly correlated with their displays of negative emotion

or our rating of positive interaction quality. As expected, corre- lational analyses revealed that parent and child mood were not directly related.

In support of our hypotheses, we found that the coded qual- ity of the video messages was related to child outcomes. Chil- dren who watched video messages rated high in negative emotional content were more likely to be rated by their caregiv-

ers as being in significantly more negative moods after viewing their message, r(54) = .324, p = .017. By contrast, parents who displayed more positive interaction qualities in their video mes-

sages tended to have children who watched the message signifi- cantly more frequently, r(46) = .366, p = .012.

Taking a parenting class. Comparisons between IPP who had and had not taken a parenting class are shown in Table 5. None of our three hypotheses regarding the impact of parenting class was supported; that is, parents who had taken a

class did not produce higher quality tapes nor did they report being in better moods before making the recording. However, an independent samples t-test revealed a direct relation between

taking a parenting class and children’s mood after viewing the DVD, such that when parents had taken a parenting class, the caregivers of their children reported that the children were in

significantly less negative moods after viewing their message, t(53) = 2.051, p = .046, d = 0.53. Chi-square tests revealed no significant influence of taking a parenting class on CP descrip-

tion of the message quality or the CP description of the child’s reaction. On the basis of independent samples t-tests, taking a parenting class did not produce significant differences in the fre- quency at which the child viewed the DVD (d = 0.09) or the

child’s overall PANAS score (d = 0.33).

536 FOLK, NICHOLS, DALLAIRE, AND LOPER

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

T a b le

4 . S u m m a ry

o f C o rr el a ti o n s,

M ea n s,

a n d

S ta n d a rd

D ev ia ti o n s fo r a ll

V a ri a b le s A cr o ss

In m a te

( n =

1 7 2 ) , C a re g iv er

( n =

6 1 ) , P a rt ic ip a n t,

a n d

O b se rv ed

V a ri a b le s

M ea su re

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

M S D

P a re n t re p o rt

o f in vo lv em

en t

1 . P ri o r in v o lv em

en t

— .2 8 5

.4 2 2 * *

.2 0 4 *

) .1 6 2 *

.1 6 8 *

.5 4 1 * *

.2 2 3

.3 7 2 * *

.1 9 2

.0 7 9

.2 9 1 *

.0 3 2

.0 2 9

) .0 6 3

3 .2 9

0 .9 9

2 . L ev el

o f m o n th ly

co n ta ct

— .7 0 9 * *

.1 3 1

) .1 0 8

.0 8 9

.3 5 7

.6 4 7 *

.4 4 4

) .1 5 1

.2 1 7

) .0 9 2

.1 4 7

) .2 1 0

.0 2 6

5 .8 5

3 .6 4

3 . L ev el

o f y ea rl y co n ta ct

— .4 0 3 * *

) .3 7 7 * *

.2 7 3 *

.5 7 7 * *

.4 9 7

.7 7 5 * *

) .1 2 0

.4 0 8

.1 7 5

.1 6 3

) .2 0 7

) .2 0 6

1 8 .1 0

6 .2 6

P a re n t re p o rt

o f m o o d

4 . P A N A S o v er a ll m o o d

— ) .8 1 4 * *

.7 5 2 * *

.1 2 1

) .3 3 4 *

.1 1 7

.0 4 6

.0 3 7

.0 9 2

) .1 4 8

.0 0 2

) .1 5 0

1 .8 7

1 .1 7

5 . P A N A S n eg a ti v e m o o d

— ) .2 2 9 * *

) .1 2 1

.3 1 9 *

) .1 7 4

.0 0 5

) .0 4 3

) .0 2 8

.1 3 3

.0 1 6

.2 0 8 * *

1 .2 0

0 .7 9

6 . P A N A S p o si ti v e m o o d

— .0 9 0

) .2 1 0

.0 2 5

.0 8 7

.0 1 4

.1 2 7

) .0 8 5

.0 1 9

) .0 1 9

3 .0 7

0 .7 0

C a re g iv er

re p o rt

o f in vo lv em

en t

7 . P a re n t’ s p ri o r in v o lv em

en t

— .2 8 9

.4 3 9 * *

.3 4 6 *

.0 8 4

.4 4 7 * *

.2 1 5

) .0 3 3

) .0 3 1

3 .0 5

1 .1 6

8 . L ev el

o f m o n th ly

co n ta ct

— .5 7 6 * *

.0 3 1

) .0 2 7

.0 2 8

.0 4 0

.2 3 0

) .0 1 3

8 .5 1

9 .3 7

9 . L ev el

o f y ea rl y co n ta ct

— .0 2 3

.2 1 1

.1 7 4

.0 4 9

.1 2 1

.1 1 2

1 8 .8 3

6 .8 9

C a re g iv er

re p o rt

o f ch il d m o o d

⁄o u tc o m es

1 0 . P A N A S o v er a ll m o o d

— ) .4 8 2 * *

.8 2 2 * *

.2 9 6 *

.0 3 9

) .1 7 1

1 .9 0

1 .1 9

1 1 . P A N A S n eg a ti v e m o o d

— .1 0 3

.0 5 7

.1 2 4

.3 2 4 *

0 .4 3

0 .6 8

1 2 . P A N A S p o si ti v e m o o d

— .3 2 2 *

.1 0 0

.0 1 6

2 .3 1

1 .0 4

1 3 . F re q u en cy

o f v ie w s

— .3 6 6 *

.1 4 4

4 .1 3

3 .4 6

O b se rv er

ra ti n g o f vi d eo

co d es

1 4 . P o si ti v e in te ra ct io n q u a li ti es

— .2 8 3 * *

3 .4 6

1 .2 4

1 5 . D is p la y s o f n eg a ti v e em

o ti o n

— 0 .4 9

0 .9 6

* * p <

.0 1 . * p <

.0 5 .

N o te . P ri o r in v o lv em

en t: p a re n ts ’ re p o rt

o f h o w

in v o lv ed

th ey

w er e w it h th e ch il d p ri o r to

th ei r in ca rc er a ti o n ; P A N A S : P o si ti v e a n d N eg a ti v e A ff ec t S ca le ; P a re n t’ s p ri o r in v o lv em

en t:

ca re g iv er ’s re p o rt

o f h o w

in v o lv ed

th e p a re n t w a s p ri o r to

in ca rc er a ti o n ; F re q u en cy

o f v ie w s: ca re g iv er ’s re p o rt

o f h o w

fr eq u en tl y ch il d v ie w s th e m es sa g e.

EVALUATING MESSAGES FROM INCARCERATED PARENTS 537

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

Path Analyses

We further tested our hypotheses using path analysis. Path

analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Amos 19 (Amos Devel- opment Corp., Crawfordville, FL) to test a model including both mother and father participants. Path analysis was used because it

can assess the effects of variables simultaneously. Parameter esti- mates were derived using full information maximum likelihood. Two models were tested: One model examined the impact of

positive interaction qualities (as coded from IPP tapes) on chil- dren’s mood and likelihood to view the DVD (with parent mood, gender, parenting class, and prior residency also included in the

model); the second model examined the expression of negative emotion in video messages in relation to children’s negative mood following viewing the DVD (with parent mood, parenting class, and parent gender also in the model). Only the model

examining the expression of negative emotion on children’s nega- tive mood showed significant relations and will be explored fur- ther (more information about the model with expression of

positive interaction qualities is available upon request). For the model examining the impact of the expression of neg-

ative emotions in IPP taped messages, we first tested a fully

saturated model, v2(2, N = 186) = 0.676, p = .676, followed

by a model where nonsignificant paths were trimmed, v2 (4, N = 186) = 2.582, p = .630. Only two paths were trimmed in the second model, and model comparison showed that this did not significantly change the model fit. The first path removed

was from parent PANAS NA to child PANAS NA. As expected, these two variables were not directly related, esti- mate = )0.071, p = .513. The second path removed was from parenting class to displays of negative emotion. Contrary to what we expected, this path was also nonsignificant, esti- mate = )0.067, p = .644. Because removing these paths did not significantly impact the model fit, the model with the trimmed paths, shown in Figure 1, is reported. The model presented in Figure 1 provided an excellent fit to

the data. The chi-square was not statistically significant, v2(4, N = 186) = 2.582, p = .63, suggesting no statistically signifi- cant discrepancies between the model and the data. The com- parative fit index and the incremental fit index for the trimmed

model were equal to 1.000 and 1.037, respectively, both of which indicate a good model fit. The root mean squared error of approximation of the residuals was 0.000 (95% confidence

interval = 0.000 to 0.106), also indicating that the model is a good fit to the data per degree of freedom. Standardized param- eter estimates for the model appear in Figure 1.

Table 5. Differences Based on Taking a Parenting Class

Variable Parenting class No parenting class

v2 p-value47.8% (n = 87) 52.2% (n = 95)

Parent report

Parent gender (% male) 49.4% (n = 43) 40.0% (n = 38) 1.633 .201

First time in jail 37.9% (n = 33) 36.8% (n = 35) 0.012 .911

Live with child prior to incarceration 59.8% (n = 52) 61.1% (n = 58) 1.577 .209

Caregiver report

Description of message quality

Positive 77.3% (n = 17) 72.7% (n = 24) 3.120 .210

Mixed 22.7% (n = 5) 15.2% (n = 5)

Negative — 12.1% (n = 4)

Description of child reaction

Positive 54.5% (n = 12) 66.7% (n = 22) 0.888 .642

Mixed 27.3% (n = 6) 18.2% (n = 6)

Negative 18.2% (n = 4) 15.2% (n = 5)

M (SD) M (SD) t p-value

Parent report

PANAS-P 1.97 (1.20) 1.78 (1.15) 1.079 .282

Negative mood-P 1.13 (0.80) 1.24 (0.74) 0.859 .391

Positive mood-P 3.11 (0.69) 3.03 (0.72) 0.802 .423

Video codes

Positive interaction qualities 3.51 (1.23) 3.43 (1.28) 0.414 .678

Expression of negative emotion 0.78 (0.78) 0.90 (1.09) 0.849 .397

Caregiver report

PANAS-Ch 2.15 (1.38) 1.74 (1.04) 1.249 .217

Negative mood-Ch 0.24 (0.40) 0.58 (0.81) 2.051 .046

Positive mood-Ch 2.39 (1.15) 2.29 (0.98) 0.324 .747

Frequency of views 4.41 (3.26) 4.07 (3.62) 0.325 .747

Frequency of views: caregiver’s report of how frequently child views the message.

Note. Description of message quality: caregiver’s description of the message; Description of child reaction: caregiver’s report of how the child reacted;

PANAS-P: parent’s mean overall mood based on the Positive and Negative Affect Scale; Negative mood-P: parent’s mean negative mood based on

the PANAS; Positive mood-P: parent’s mean positive mood based on the PANAS; PANAS-Ch: child’s mean overall mood based on the PANAS;

Negative mood-Ch: child’s mean negative mood based on the PANAS; Positive mood-Ch: child’s mean positive mood based on the PANAS;

538 FOLK, NICHOLS, DALLAIRE, AND LOPER

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

The standardized estimate of the effect of parent’s PANAS NA on expression of negative emotions in the taped messages was significant, estimate = 0.210, p = .028. Parent’s expression of negative emotion in the message was a significant predictor of

child’s PANAS NA score, estimate = 0.288, p < .001. Although taking a parenting class did not directly impact parents’ mood or expression of negative emotions in the message, there was a direct

impact of taking a parenting class on child’s PANAS Negative Mood score, estimate = )0.298, p = .067, indicating that children of parents who had taken a parenting class were in less

negative moods after viewing the recorded message.

Discussion

This study was the first to evaluate the content of a remote form of contact between incarcerated parents and their children, providing unique insight into why children may react to contact

in certain ways. A particular strength of this study is the inclu- sion of parent and CP as well as independent observers of par- ent behavior; such a multimodal approach has rarely been

utilized with this population (a notable exception includes Poehlmann, 2005). Although previous research has examined the impact of quantity of contact (e.g., Shlafer & Poehlmann,

2010), this is the first study to examine the impact of the quality of contact. Results support our hypothesis that when parents expressed negative emotions in their video messages, their chil- dren were in more negative moods after viewing the recording.

Although we expected that parents who had taken a parenting class would produce higher quality messages characterized by more positive interaction qualities (e.g., expressions of love,

appreciation) and fewer negative emotional displays, we did not find this to be the case. However, there was a direct link between taking a parenting class and children’s negative mood,

suggesting that there may be a benefit to improving children’s

reaction to contact by taking a parenting class that was not cap- tured in the current data set. Also, as predicted, there was a direct link between parents’ negative mood and their expression of negative emotions such that when parents were in a worse

mood before filming their message, they tended to show more negative emotions both in our coded responses and according to caregivers. The impact of parent negative mood on child nega-

tive mood was mediated by their expression of negative emotion in the recorded message. Video messages characterized by more positive interaction qualities were more likely to be watched

more frequently by children. Lastly, there were important gen- der differences, as women were more likely to be in worse moods before filming, they were more likely to express negative

emotions in their messages, and their children were more likely to be in more negative moods after viewing the message. Displays of negative emotion included factors that could cause

a child to become concerned about his or her parent’s well-being,

as well as expressions of negative emotions or attitudes toward the child or caregiver. When a parent is incarcerated, children may have concerns about their parent’s safety and well-being (Phil-

brick, 2002), and such concerns could turn into feelings of anxiety or depression. As a result, when parents did things like cry, tell the child they were sad or depressed, or express a negative emotion or

attitude toward the child or caregiver, they may have inadvertently elicited some of these negative emotions in their children. Parents were more likely to do these things if they self-reported being in negative moods prior to filming their messages. If children perceive

their parent to be dysphoric, it could increase concerns for their parent’s well-being or elicit similar feelings in themselves. This could lead to more negative feelings about contact with the incar-

cerated parent and a desire to avoid future contact. In regard to expressions of positive interaction qualities, par-

ents who did things like tell the child that they loved the child

and express appreciation and concern for the child had children

Parenting Class 0=No 1=Yes

Displays of Negative Emotion

Negative Mood Negative Mood

.360*.305*

.210* .288**

-.298 t

.097**

-.025

-.025*

Parent Gender 0=Male;

1=Female

Figure 1. Path analysis model for negative emotions wuth unstandardized retgression weights.

t = p < .10; *p £ .05; **p £ .01; v2(2, N = 186) = .676, p = .713; CFI = 1.000; IFI = 1.037; RMSEA = .000.

EVALUATING MESSAGES FROM INCARCERATED PARENTS 539

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

who watched the message more frequently, but it did not seem to affect the child’s mood. There was a significant correlation

between displays of positive interaction qualities and expression of negative emotions, so it is possible that displaying negative emotions outweighed any positivity the parents expressed in

regard to children’s mood. The hypothesis that parent and child mood would not be

directly correlated was supported. It appears that parental dis- plays of negative emotion, which are influenced by the parent’s

mood, are the mediating factor in predicting children’s negative mood after viewing the message. The results of this study suggest that, if parents’ moods can be improved prior to filming their

messages, they may send videos with fewer negative emotions, and children may respond more positively to this form of contact. It is important to note that there was not a significant relationship

between parent overall mood or positive mood and children’s mood after viewing the message. As a result, it may be more important to decrease the negative feelings parents are experienc-

ing, rather than simply increasing their positive emotions. Parents who participated in parenting programs tended to

have children who were in less negative moods after viewing their messages. However, taking a parenting class was not

directly linked to displaying more positive interaction qualities or less negative emotions in the taped messages. This suggests that there are other factors about parenting classes to consider

(factors not assessed in this study), which may account for this result. We hypothesized that parents who took a parenting class would produce higher quality videos and report being in more

positive, less negative moods prior to recording their message; these hypotheses were not supported by the results of this study. This may be partially because of the variability in our sample in

terms of the structure, curriculum, duration of the parenting classes our participants reported taking, and whether or not contact was a part of the parenting program. Of the participants in this sample, some had completed parenting classes in the

past, possibly during previous incarcerations, whereas others had recently finished or just begun their class. Some of the par- ticipants completed a program that involved an enhanced par-

ent–child visitation component. It is also possible that the timeline of their participation relative to the filming of their messages affected how able they were to regulate displays of

negative emotion in particular. Because of the variability in pro- graming, we were unable to assess the degree to which the var- ied parenting programs focused on teaching skills in regulating their emotions during parent–child contact. However, these

results are consistent with a model for parenting training in prison that includes such attention to the parents’ own emo- tional distress (Loper & Tuerk, 2011). Future research should

examine this issue in more depth, as emotional displays during contact seem to be a strong predictor of children’s reactions to the contact.

Future research should also further consider parental gender differences. Our results suggest that mothers are at particular risk of expressing negative emotions to their children during

their contact with them. Women in particular may benefit from emotional management training as part of a parent-education program. Although men and women were equally represented in this study, previous research has shown that fathers are less

likely to participate in parenting classes than mothers (11% vs.

27%). However, overall, more fathers take part in classes than mothers because the vast majority of incarcerated individuals

are men (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Specifically, using Bureau of Justice Statistics (2007) estimates of the 744,200 incarcerated fathers and 65,600 incarcerated mothers, 81,862 fathers took a

parenting class in 2007, compared with 14,432 mothers. Although it is important to recognize that incarcerated mothers and fathers may face different parenting challenges, and their separation may have different impacts on their children, it is

equally important to ensure that the large numbers of incarcer- ated fathers are not overlooked when providing child-related services and research (S. D. Phillips, 2010).

This study examined one specific form of contact, but the find- ing that displays of negative emotions directly influenced chil- dren’s reactions to the contact may be generalizable to other

forms of contact. Future research is needed to determine whether similar processes are occurring in other forms of contact as well. Previous research has demonstrated the benefits of having con-

tact, but no study has looked at the quality or content of the con- tact. One reason quality of contact has not been examined in prior research with incarcerated populations is that researchers may infringe on the privacy and intimacy if they observed or

recorded most traditional forms of live contact (e.g., phone calls and visits). With proper permission, the quality and content of letters could be examined unobtrusively in future research.

One limitation of this study is the relatively small number of CP. Caregiver reports were used to assess children’s reactions to the messages, so a more limited number of responses resulted in

a loss of power. However, we hasten to note that with 61 CP, our sample size was adequate to detect large effects and is com- parable or slightly larger than the majority of studies examining

the impact of incarcerated parent–child contact (see Poehlmann et al., 2010). Nonetheless, it was extremely challenging to have responses from caregivers, even when an incentive was provided and follow-up phone calls and mailings were made. However,

having a larger response rate could have produced more vari- ability and allowed for the detection of smaller effects. Perhaps the most important realization of this study is how

parental displays of negative emotions can affect children’s responses to contact with their incarcerated parent. This find- ing supports the claim that the quality of contact does matter,

not simply the quantity; it cannot be assumed that more con- tact will predict better outcomes for children, especially if there is substantial negativity being displayed by the parent. It could be advantageous for parenting programs both with and with-

out child involvement to include contact components such as video messages or video conferencing, especially when the cur- riculum focuses on teaching parents how to regulate their nega-

tive emotions. If parents and children engage in more regular contact throughout parenting program participation, there will be more opportunities for parents to practice parenting skills

and display more positive interaction skills and fewer negative emotions. We would hope that more consistent and more posi- tive contact would lead to better outcomes for children during

the difficult time of separation from parents during parents’ incarceration.

Keywords: incarcerated parents; children of incarcerated parents; caregivers; parenting classes; prison visitation; Messages Project

540 FOLK, NICHOLS, DALLAIRE, AND LOPER

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

References

Arditti, J. A. (2003). Locked doors and glass walls: Family visiting at a

local jail. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 8, 115–138. doi: 10.1080/

15325020390168735

Bales, W. D., & Mears, D. P. (2008). Inmate social ties and the transi-

tion to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research

in Crime & Delinquency, 45, 287–321.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007). Prison and jail inmates at midyear

2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Casey-Acevedo, K., Bakken, T., & Karle, A. (2004). Children visiting

mothers in prison: The effects on mothers’ behaviour and disciplinary

adjustment. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37,

418–430. doi: 10.1375/0004865042194412

Christian, J., Mellow, J., & Thomas, S. (2006). Social and economic

implications of family connections to prisoners. Journal of Criminal

Justice, 34, 443–452.

Dallaire, D. H., Ciccone, A., & Wilson, L. C. (2010). Teachers’ experi-

ences with and expectations of children with incarcerated parents.

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 404–418. doi:

10.1016/j.appdev.2010.04.001

Dallaire, D. H., Ciccone, A., & Wilson, L. (2012). The family drawings of

at-risk children: Concurrent relations with contact with incarcerated par-

ents, caregiver behavior and stress. Attachment & Human Development,

14, 161–183. doi: 10.1080/14616734.2012.661232

Dallaire, D., Poehlmann, J., & Loper, A. (2011, September). Issues and

recommendations related to children’s visitation and contact with incar-

cerated parents. Written submission included in the United Nations

Committee on the Rights of the Child, Day of General Discussion,

Children of Incarcerated Parents, Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved

from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/discussion2011_submi

ssions.htm

Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Parents in prison and their

minor children. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.

Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/

pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf

Gramlich, J. (2009, May 12). Telemedicine: Lessons from state prison.

TS-SI News Service. Retrieved from http://ts-si.org/horizons/4755-

telemedicine-lessons-from-state-prison

Henggeler, S., Schoenwald, S., Borduin, C., Rowland, M., & Cunning-

ham, P. (2009). Multisystematic therapy for antisocial behavior in chil-

dren and adolescents, (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Books.

Hoffmann, H. C., Byrd, A. L., & Kightlinger, A. M. (2010). Prison pro-

grams and services for incarcerated parents and their underage chil-

dren: Results from a national survey of correctional facilities. The

Prison Journal, 90, 397–416. doi: 10.1177/0032885510382087

La Vigne, N. G., Naser, N. G., Brooks, L. E., & Castro, J. L. (2005).

Examining the effect of incarceration and in-prison family contact

on prisoners’ family relationships. Journal of Contemporary Criminal

Justice, 21(4), 1–22.

Landreth, G. L., & Lobaugh, A. F. (1998). Filial therapy with incarcerated

fathers: Effects on parental acceptance of child, parental stress and child

adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 157–165.

Loper, A. B., Carlson, L. W., Levitt, L., & Scheffel, K. (2009). Parenting

stress, alliance, child contact, and adjustment of imprisoned mothers

and fathers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 483–503. doi:

10.1080/10509670903081300

Loper, A. B., & Novero, C. (2010). Parenting programs for prisoners:

Current research and new directions. In J. Poehlmann & M. Eddy

(Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 189–216). Washington,

DC: The Urban Institute.

Loper, A. B., & Tuerk, E. (2011). Improving the emotional adjustment

and communication patterns of incarcerated mothers: Effectiveness of

a prison parenting intervention. Journal of Child and Family Studies,

20, 89–101. doi: 10.1007/s10826-010-9381-8

Maruschak, L. M., Glaze, L. E., & Mumula, C. J. (2010). Incarcerated

parents and their children: Findings from the Bureau of Justice Statis-

tics. In J. Poehlmann & M. Eddy (Eds.), Children of incarcerated par-

ents (pp. 33–55). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Philbrick, K. (2002). Imprisonment: The impact on children. Issues in

Forensic Psychology, 3, 72–81.

Phillips, B. M., Lonigan, C. J., Driscoll, K., & Hooe, E. S. (2002). Posi-

tive and negative affectivity in children: A multitrait-multimethod

investigation. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31,

465–479. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3104_6

Phillips, S. D. (2010). The past as prologue: Parental incarceration, ser-

vice planning and intervention development in context. In. J. Poehl-

mann & M. Eddy (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 13–32).

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Poehlmann, J. (2005). Representations of attachment relationships in

children of incarcerated mothers. Child Development, 76, 679–696.

doi: 10.111/j.1467-8624.2005.00871x

Poehlmann, J., Dallaire, D., Loper, A. B., & Shear, L. D. (2010). Chil-

dren’s contact with their incarcerated parents. American Psychologist,

65, 575–598. doi: 10.1037/a0020279

Sandifer, J. L. (2008). Evaluating the efficacy of a parenting program

for incarcerated mothers. The Prison Journal, 88, 423–445. doi:

10.1177/0032885508322533

Shlafer, R. J., & Poehlmann, J. (2010). Attachment and caregiving rela-

tionships in families affected by parental incarceration. Attachment &

Human Development, 12, 395–415. doi: 10.1080/14616730903417052

Tewksbury, R., & DeMichele, M. (2005). Going to prison: A prison visi-

tation program. The Prison Journal, 85, 292–310. doi: 10.1177/

0032885505279525

Thompson, P. J., & Harm, N. J. (2000). Parenting from prison: Helping

children and mothers. Issue in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 23,

61–81. doi: 10.1080/01460860050121402

Trice, A. D., & Brewster, J. (2004). The effects of maternal incarceration

on adolescent children. Journal of Policy and Criminal Psychology, 19,

27–35. doi: 10.1007/BF02802572

Trost, B. C. (2009). Mothering from prison: Using narratives in

a mother-child support program. Journal of Family and Consumer

Services, 101(3), 32–38.

Tuerk, E., & Loper, A. (2006). Contact between incarcerated mothers

and their children: Assessing parenting stress. Journal of Offender

Rehabilitation, 43, 23–43. doi: 10.1300/J076v43n01-02

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-

dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS

scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

EVALUATING MESSAGES FROM INCARCERATED PARENTS 541

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

View publication statsView publication stats

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232064121