Received: 3 May 2022
| Accepted: 24 January 2024
DOI: 10.1111/jora.12920
EMPIRICAL ARTICLE
Adolescents' belonging in post-­divorce families: Examining
residential and digital contact with mothers and fathers
Zoë Rejaän
| Inge E. van der Valk | Susan Branje
Department of Child and Adolescent Studies,
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Correspondence
Zoë Rejaän, Department of Child and
Adolescent Studies, Utrecht University,
Heidelberglaan 1, 3584 CS Utrecht, The
Netherlands.
Email: z.rejaan@uu.nl
Abstract
Using data of 166 adolescents from divorced families, this study examined longitudinal
associations between the quantity and quality of adolescents’ residential contact and
digital contact with parents, and their sense of family belonging. Cross-­lagged panel
models showed concurrent associations among adolescents’ residential and digital
contact with each parent, yet positively for fathers and negatively for mothers. Some
cross-­lagged paths revealed that higher-­quality interactions may contribute to positive
changes in contact. Although there were effects of parent-­adolescent contact on family
belongingness, over time belongingness was mostly predicted by the general quality of
contact. The results suggest that post-­divorce relationships require frequent and meaningful time together, the effects of which, however, do hardly transfer over time in terms
of adolescents’ belongingness.
K EY WOR DS
family belonging, parental divorce and separation, parent-­child contact
The need to belong is considered a fundamental human
need and an important aspect of psychological functioning throughout the lifespan (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;
Baumeister et al., 2007). Having strong and enduring
interpersonal bonds with others can serve as a protective mechanism against a range of emotional, behavioral,
and academic problems, particularly during adolescence
(Jose et al., 2012; Witherspoon et al., 2009). For youth, the
family is typically the primary and most proximal social
context in which belongingness takes place (Law et al.,
2012; Baumeister & Leary, 1995). For adolescents growing
up in divorced or separated families, family belongingness can be threatened. Studies indicate that they tend to
perceive lower levels of belonging than their peers from
intact families, and this partially accounts for the lower
average levels of adjustment post-­
d ivorce (Aslantürk
& Mavili, 2020; King et al., 2018; Rejaän, van der Valk,
Schrama, et al., 2021). From a family systems theory perspective (Minuchin, 1985; Cox & Paley, 2003), these lower
levels of belonging can only be understood in the context
of the whole family system, including the transactional relationships between youth and their parents. As a parental divorce often puts strain on parent–child relationships
(Amato, 2010), and close relationships appear fundamental in predicting positive family belongingness (King &
Boyd, 2016), we must better understand how and which
aspects of their transactional relationship, in other words,
their contact, can exactly help meet adolescents' need for
belonging after a divorce.
Regarding this contact, both its quantity and quality can
be considered prerequisites for the belongingness of youth
after divorce. First, contact has to be ongoing (Baumeister
& Leary, 1995), ensuring that parents can be present and involved in their children's lives (Soenens et al., 2017). Second,
these frequent interactions have to be affectively pleasant
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). This means that the quality of
parental presence and involvement needs to be sufficiently
high, or at least has to be received and perceived that way
by adolescents themselves (Adamsons & Johnson, 2013;
Bastaits & Pasteels, 2019).
This work has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. This manuscript has been seen and reviewed by all authors, and all
authors have contributed in a meaningful way.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Research on Adolescence published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Research on Adolescence.
568
| wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jora

J Res Adolesc. 2024;34:568–583.
RESIDENTIAL AND DIGITAL CONTACT POST-­DIVORCE
Having established the principles of how parent-­
adolescent contact may contribute positively to adolescents' sense of family belonging after a divorce, the way
it is operationalized in the context of present-­d ay family
life needs refinement. Typically, post-­d ivorce contact is
examined through custody or residence arrangements, as
they determine the amount of time children stay with each
parent over the course of a week or month (Nielsen, 2014;
Steinbach & Augustijn, 2021). Yet, this residential contact
may only be an approximation of actual contact quantity.
Nowadays, digital media are intertwined in contemporary
family life and change the way family members communicate with each other, creating new opportunities for interaction (Baude et al., 2022; Williams & Merten, 2011). That
is, phone calls, video calls, and text messages can connect
users when physically apart (Ryan et al., 2017), and digital
contact may therefore be an important form of contact to
consider too. Despite the growing research interest in the
use and impact of digital media in reorganizing family relationships after parental divorce (Saini et al., 2013), empirical studies on the subject are scarce. A recent scoping
review (Baude et al., 2022) identified only six studies on
the use of information and communication technologies
(ICT) in the context of parental divorce, thereby emphasizing the need for more knowledge on the effectiveness
of digital communication after divorce, and how it can
best be used to support the maintenance of family relationships. In line with this notion, the present study aimed
to contribute to the existing literature on perceptions of
belongingness in adolescents from divorced families, by
examining the predictive value of how they perceive the
quantity and quality of residential contact and digital contact with their fathers and mothers, as well as the interrelations between these different aspects of contact.
Adolescents' sense of family belonging
after divorce
The concept family belonging broadly refers to one's feelings
of being at home within the family: of being paid attention
to, being understood, having fun together, and wanting to
be present (Leake, 2007). The drastic changes and negative
family processes that often take place in families after a parental divorce or separation can pose lasting and recurring
challenges for the sense of belonging of youth (for a review,
see Rejaän, van der Valk, Schrama, et al., 2021). A parental
divorce should not just be viewed as a stressful life event for
youth, but rather as an ongoing reorganization that is often
followed by future transitions in family life (Amato, 2010).
The current study thus focuses on post-­divorce belongingness during adolescence, referring to the developmental time
that extends roughly from age 12 to the late teens. It marks
a critical point in the life course for accomplishing key developmental tasks (Smetana et al., 2006), which may further
complicate family interactions in divorced families, as adolescents develop autonomy and increasingly spend time with
| 569
peers outside the family context. Throughout the multiple
transitions and challenges that adolescents from divorced
families are faced with, their sense of belonging may be a
common thread in their functioning.
Because the meaning of home is centered around family relationships, it may shift when common divorce-­related
events occur, like when parents re-­partner and move in together and the new family expands (Campo et al., 2020).
Qualitative findings emphasize the importance of parental
“proximity” (physical closeness) and “presence” (being emotionally and mentally aware of each other) as a constant factor in youth's sense of home after parents separate (Campo
et al., 2012, 2020). Likewise, cross-­
sectional quantitative
evidence on divorced families in the 1990s demonstrated
how both the amount and subjective experience of contact
matter. It showed that the quality of adolescents' relationship
with their resident biological parent, contrary to the nonresident biological parent, was the strongest predictor of adolescents' belongingness to the single-­parent families or married
stepfamilies in which they resided (King et al., 2018; King &
Boyd, 2016).
Since the 1990s, shared parenting after divorce has gradually become more common in many Western countries
(Steinbach et al., 2020), making the distinction between resident and nonresident parents less meaningful today. In the
Netherlands and Sweden, for example, one-­third of youth
from post-­divorce families live about the same amount of
time with both parents (Poortman & Van Gaalen, 2017;
Turunen et al., 2017). Moreover, arrangements in which
children spend at least 30% of their time with both parents—also referred to as “shared residence” or “asymmetric
joint physical custody”—are even more prevalent (Steinbach
& Augustijn, 2021). With many youths alternating between
both their parents after divorce, ergo between two families which often also include new family members (Sanner
et al., 2018), it is warranted to examine adolescents' post-­
divorce belongingness to each household, as well as the
predictive role of their transactional relationship with each
parent, separately. Studies that distinguished between adolescents' feelings of maternal and paternal family belonging
showed positive links with beneficial adolescent adjustment
outcomes but also revealed that adolescents generally experience stronger feelings of belonging to maternal than paternal households (Aslantürk & Mavili, 2020; Rejaän, van der
Valk, & Branje, 2021).
Post-­divorce contact quantity and quality
These differences in adolescents' maternal versus paternal
sense of family belonging are likely connected to differences in mother-­adolescent versus father-­adolescent contact
after divorce. That is, children typically still reside a greater
amount of time with their mothers than with their fathers
after divorce (Poortman & Van Gaalen, 2017; Steinbach
et al., 2020). Associations between residence arrangements
and youth outcomes have been studied extensively, mostly
570
| suggesting that those in shared arrangements generally
have better psychosocial outcomes and better relationships
with both parents (Nielsen, 2014). At the same time, meta-­
analytic results show that even within shared arrangements,
the strength of these associations varies by the amount of
time that children actually spend with each parent (Baude
et al., 2016). More equal arrangements provide the best
framework to shape or maintain strong relationships with
each parent (Bastaits & Pasteels, 2019; Baude et al., 2016).
And, especially for fathers, shared arrangements increase
the likelihood that they will be involved in their children's
lives following divorce (Fabricius et al., 2012; Sobolewski
& King, 2005). The perspectives of youth on post-­divorce
contact, however, are still understudied, while they can
give important insights into the interrelatedness of contact
quantity and quality when growing up in two households
(Marschall, 2014).
An important benefit of frequent residential contact and
overnight stays is that it enables family members to experience the natural rhythms of everyday life together, including
routines of sharing meals, doing homework, and enjoying
leisure time (Cashmore et al., 2009; Lamb, 2018; Lamb &
Kelly, 2001). Families need such everyday interactions in
order to foster close relationships and a sense of home after
divorce (Campo et al., 2020, 2021; Rodriguez, 2014). For
youth, however, being with one parent also means being separated from the other, which can result in a perpetual state
of longing for one parent, despite shared enjoyment with the
“present” parent (Sadowski & McIntosh, 2015). Further, not
residing in the same household can inhibit children from
communicating with their parents about important issues
(Bjarnasson & Arnarsson, 2011). Vice versa, it limits parents'
ability to be aware of mundane details of their children's
lives, which can make it harder to relate to each other after
periods of absence (Rodriguez, 2014; Yarosh et al., 2009).
This interplay between absence and presence is a fact of everyday life for many divorced families (Marschall, 2014).
Connecting through digital media
Missing each other can be an incentive for adolescents and
parents to find other ways to check in with each other regularly (Marschall, 2014). With the increasing affordability and
availability of digital communication technologies, there are
now new opportunities for contact that are unconstrained by
physical proximity (Valkenburg & Piotrowski, 2017). In fact,
the current generation of adolescents is accustomed to communicating online: Messaging and (video)calling are the
most common internet activity, for example through applications such as WhatsApp, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, and
Instagram (Spies Shapiro & Margolin, 2014; Van Herk, 2019).
This has opened a new area of research to explore how digital
media use can promote resilience in individuals that have
encountered challenges (Stavropoulos et al., 2021), for example, youth who need to reorganize their family relationships
after a divorce (Saini et al., 2013).
REJAÄN et al.
Overall, the few studies on the use and impact of ICT in
divorced families document their potential benefits for supporting family connections. These include the ability to stay
connected, have more frequent contact, and maintain an
emotional bond (for a review, see Baude et al., 2022). At the
same time, the benefits of digital media use will likely vary
based on how they are used. In a review study on ICT use in
parent–child relationships after divorce (Saini et al., 2013),
an important distinction was hypothesized between “transitional” and “replacement” digital media use. The purpose
of transitional digital media use is to maintain contact between regular residential stays as a way to stay connected
when apart (Saini et al., 2013). According to this hypothesis,
digital contact bridges and complements in-­person contact.
Parents, for instance, expressed that digital contact extended their physical contact and made them feel closer to
their children (Wolman & Pomerance, 2012). Applying this
line of reasoning to adolescents from divorced families, this
could hypothetically imply a joint, reinforcing effect of frequent digital and frequent residential contact with a parent
on their relationship quality and sense of family belonging
to that parental household. Contrarily, replacement use substitutes regular residential contact with digital contact, for
example, due to significant geographic distance between
parents and children (Baude et al., 2022; Saini et al., 2013).
Reasoning from this hypothesis, it might have become the
main way for some families to stay connected, due to limited
or completely lacking face-­to-­face time. Children, however,
stated that actual time with parents should not be replaced
by digital contact on a regular basis, because digital contact
felt superficial and not facilitative of enduring relationships
by itself (Gollop & Taylor, 2012; Saini et al., 2013). In line
with this, professionals working with families stress the importance of ICT as a means to positively enhance existing
contact between parents and children, and not to replace it
(Saini & Polak, 2018). Given that more and more adolescents
spend time in both parental homes after divorce, it appears
that the opportunity to digitally engage in relationships is
particularly beneficial for relationships that are already
largely maintained live, in other words, transitional use.
Therefore the current study will test this hypothesis in the
context of divorced families.
The hypotheses on transitional and replacement use illustrate how the quantity and quality of different types of
contact might be interrelated (Saini et al., 2013). In line
with this, there is some empirical evidence regarding joint
effects of the frequency and quality of media use on adolescents' psychosocial functioning. Even though longitudinal
evidence is scarce and does not demonstrate significant effects over time, findings indicate that the combination of
frequent digital contact and higher-­quality relationships
between its users is most optimal for adolescents' psychological outcomes (Liu et al., 2019; Ryan et al., 2017). Overall,
it seems that when media are used to facilitate meaningful relationships (i.e., transitional use), they are found to
improve well-­being, whereas they may decrease well-­being
when they replace time interacting with important others
RESIDENTIAL AND DIGITAL CONTACT POST-­DIVORCE
in real life (Allen et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2019). However, for
families who are motivated to sustain close relationships
while apart, for instance, because of military deployment,
it appears that digital tools can facilitate frequent and emotionally warm and supportive communication between
parents and children (Friedman et al., 2017; Sigelman
et al., 2018), and can generate a sense of co-­presence while
being apart (Baldassar, 2016; Nedelcu & Wyss, 2016).
Thus, in exploring adolescents' digital contact quantity
and quality with parents after divorce, it is important to
also consider how they are associated with the quantity of
their residential contact and the general quality of their
relationship, also when examining the role of contact in
adolescents' post-­d ivorce family belongingness.
The current study
The rise of digital media use has changed the way family
members communicate with each other, especially in the
context of divorce, where adolescents generally do not see
both of their parents on a day-­to-­day basis. The general objective of the current study was to extend our knowledge on
the ways in which experiences of contact with parents can
positively contribute to adolescents' experiences of belonging when growing up in a divorced family. With many of
these adolescents nowadays alternating their time between
both parental residences, and digital media use in families
increasing, this study took an innovative approach by examining whether and to what extent digital media are used
transitionally, as a means to maintain contact during times
spent apart.
To learn more about their digital media usage, our
first exploratory step entailed identifying patterns of use
in this sample, based on the frequency and experience of
contact as reported by adolescents. Specifically, we tested
cross-­lagged associations between the quantity and general quality of their residential contact, and the quantity
and quality of their digital contact over two measurement
waves. Previous studies found strong, mostly concurrent,
mutual reinforcing associations between the quantity and
quality of residential contact (e.g., Bastaits & Pasteels, 2019;
Nielsen, 2014), and we expect this to also apply to digital contact. Thus, we hypothesized positive bidirectional
associations between quantitative and qualitative aspects
of both types of self-­reported contact. Furthermore, as
proposed by Saini et al. (2013), we expected that digital
media would generally be used as a transitional tool, and
hence hypothesized positive bidirectional associations between their residential and digital contact quantity. Given
the common finding that adolescents on average spend a
greater amount of time in maternal households, we hypothesized that digital media may be more important in
facilitating adolescents' relationships with fathers than it
is for facilitating relationships with mothers.
Our second step entailed investigating the potential
benefits associated with digital media use in the context
| 571
of divorce. Therefore, to answer the main research question, we tested the predictive value of adolescent-­reported
residential and digital contact with mothers and fathers
for their sense of belonging to the respective households.
In addition to these main effects, interaction effects were
tested to examine whether digital contact moderated
the effects of residential contact on adolescents' sense of
family belonging. In other words, we examined whether
digital media could be a tool for promoting adolescents'
belongingness in divorced families, as a way to cope with
the partial parental absence that comes with growing up
in two homes. Differences based on adolescents' gender,
age, and time since the divorce were tested by adding them
as covariates to the models predicting adolescents' sense
of belonging. That is, prior studies found lower levels of
belonging in older adolescents (Rejaän, van der Valk, &
Branje, 2021), higher average belongingness among girls
compared to boys (King & Boyd, 2016), and finally, we expected that adolescents' contact with parents and feelings
of belongingness may be under more pressure in more recently divorced families.
M ET HOD
Procedure
We used self-­report data of adolescents from the research
project “Where do I belong?”, a longitudinal study with 9-­
month intervals and at that time two available waves, collected between January 2019 and July 2021. To optimize
sample size and heterogeneity, divorced families throughout
the Netherlands were recruited in a variety of ways: Through
schools, legal and health care professionals, targeted print
and online advertisements, and snowball sampling. After
receiving detailed information about the study, parents and
adolescents each signed an online informed consent form.
Respondents individually filled out online questionnaires,
taking 40–60 minutes, and received a small monetary compensation for their contribution (€10) in each measurement
wave. Families could withdraw their participation at any time
during or after completing the questionnaires, and without
stating reasons. This research protocol was approved by the
Faculty Ethics Review Board (FERB) of the Social Sciences
Faculty of Utrecht University (Protocol code: FETC18-­008).
Sample
The study sample consisted of 166 adolescents from 129 families, among which 96 families with one participating child,
29 families with two participating children, and 4 families
with three participating children. Among participating adolescents were 65 boys and 101 girls (60.8%), aged 11–18 years
old at Wave 1 (M = 14.34, SD = 1.84). The majority (89.2%)
attended secondary school, with 21.2% of them following the
pre-­vocational education track, 26.5% the pre-­professional
572
| track, and 41.5% the pre-­academic track. The remaining respondents attended the final year of primary education (3%),
higher education (6.6%) or no education (1.2%). As to their
cultural background, 98.2% identified as (partly) Dutch,
and most considered themselves non-­religious (77.4%) or
Christian (17.9%).
Among the 129 divorced families, 72.1% of parents used
to be legally married, whereas 27.9% were never married. On
average, adolescents were 7.73 years old (SD = 3.93) during
the parental divorce, and the time since divorce ranged
from 0 to 16 years 1 (M = 6.61, SD = 3.94). As to their residence arrangements, 27 adolescents (16.3%) reported living solely [100% of the time] with their mother, 46 (27.7%)
living mostly [67–99%] with their mother, 84 (50.6%) living
with both parents [33–66%], and 9 (5.4%) living mostly or
solely with their father (see Residential Contact Quantity
under Measures). Most adolescents reported having siblings
(partly) residing with their mother (86.0%) or father (78.3%),
and many also reported at least one stepparent, half-­or stepsibling (partly) residing in their mother's (49.6%) or father's
household (67.5%).
Measures
Residential parent–adolescent contact
Residential contact quantity
The amount of residential contact between adolescents
and parents was measured with the Residential Calendar
(Sodermans et al., 2014). This is a visual depiction of four
regular weeks in which respondents were asked to indicate
whether they stay with their mother or their father, for each
day and night. Based on this measure, we calculated the proportion of time that participants on average spent with each
parent over the course of a week. This resulted in two separate, opposing variables ranging from 0 to 7 days/nights per
week: Residential contact quantity with mothers (M = 4.67)
and fathers (M = 2.33).
General relationship quality
Adolescents' perceived relationship quality with each parent was measured by two scales of the Coparenting Behavior
Questionnaire (CBQ; Schum & Stolberg, 2007): Parental
warmth and parental involvement. Participants were asked
to assess items on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost
never) to 5 (almost always). Warmth was measured by 7
items, such as “My father/mother enjoys spending time with
me”. Involvement was measured by 5 items, such as “My
father/mother knows my teachers and how I am doing at
school”. Correlations between scales for each parent in each
wave ranged from r = .40 to r = .60 (p = .000), and internal
consistency of the 12 items was good for mothers (α = .89,
α = .86) and fathers (α = .92, α = .91) in both waves, respectively. Therefore, items were combined into average scores,
with higher scores indicating stronger relationship quality
with each parent.
REJAÄN et al.
Digital parent–adolescent contact
Digital contact quantity
The amount of digital contact during times spent apart was
assessed by the following question: “When residing with
your father/mother, how often did you interact with your
mother/father in the following ways: (a) through phone
calls, (b) through video calls, or (c) messages”. Thus, digital
contact quantity in this study refers to the amount of digital
contact with one parent, when residing with the other parent. For each type of contact, adolescents assessed the frequency during the past month, ranging from 1 (not at all) to
6 (multiple times a day). Ratings of phone calls, video calls,
and messages were combined into an average score, ranging from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating more frequent
digital contact with parents.
Digital relationship quality
Adolescents' perceived digital relationship quality with each
parent was assessed by two scales from an instrument that
was initially designed to measure the affective costs and benefits of communication technologies (Yarosh et al., 2014).
Participants were asked to evaluate a total of 7 statements
regarding their digital contact with each parent, on a Likert
scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Their sense of
“presence-­in-­absence” was measured by three items, starting with “After using digital media together…”: (a) “I feel
close to my parent,” (b) “I often think about the things my
parent and I shared with each other,” and (c) “I feel more
connected to my parent.” Perceived social support through
digital media was measured by four items: (a) “Contact with
my parent makes me feel special”, (b) “My parent is there for
me over digital media when I need her/him”, (c) “Contact
with my parent through digital media helps me feel better
when I'm having a bad day”, and (d) I worry less about things
after interacting with my parent through digital media.”
Correlations between scales for each parent in each wave
ranged from r = .65 to r = .72 (p = .000). Internal consistency
of the seven items was good for mothers (α = .86, α = .87) and
fathers (α = .85, α = .86) in both waves and were combined
into average scores with higher scores indicating stronger
digital relationship quality with each parent.
Family belonging to both parental households
Perceptions of family belonging were measured as a mean
score of four items, each with five response options (1 = very
little, 5 = very much), based on King and Boyd (2016).
However, instead of reporting on their sense of belonging to
the divorced family as a whole, adolescents reported separately on their sense of belonging to each household: “How
much do you feel your family in your father's/mother's home
understands you?” “How much do you feel you and your
family in your father's/mother's home have fun together?”
“To what extent do you feel your family in your father's/
mother's home pays attention to you?” and “How much do
RESIDENTIAL AND DIGITAL CONTACT POST-­DIVORCE
Digital
Contact
Quantity T1
| 573
Digital
Relationship
Quality T1
Residential
Contact
Quantity T1
General
Relationship
Quality T1
Family
Belonging T2
Family
Belonging T1
Covariates T1
•
Adolescent age
•
Adolescent gender
•
Time since divorce
FIGU R E 1
Conceptual Model for RQ.2: Main and Joint Effects of Parent-­Adolescent Contact on Adolescents' Family Belonging.
you feel you want to leave your father's/mother's home? (reversely coded). Internal consistency was good for mothers'
(α = .78, α = .74) and fathers' households (α = .86, α = .87) in
both waves, respectively.
Statistical analyses
Preliminary analyses
Since this study sample included adolescents of both formerly married and never-­
married parents, we explored
whether there were any differences in their reports on the
primary study variables. Only one out of nine independent t-­
tests was found to be significant: Adolescents from formerly
married families reported more frequent residential contact
with their mothers than with their fathers at T2 (M = 4.77,
SD = 1.62) than peers whose parents were never married
(M = 4.01, SD = .97), t(73.56) = 3.11, p = .003.
Of all 166 participants, 139 (83.7%) participated in both
measurement waves. There were no differences in any of the
background characteristics at Time 1 between those who
participated in one versus two waves. However, participants
with data on two waves had higher levels of family belonging to mother's home at T1 (M = 4.33, SD = .58), than those
with only one wave of data (M = 3.97, SD = .82), t(164) = −2.70,
p = .008. No differences were found on any of the other study
variables at T1.
Next, missing data patterns were examined. In total,
16.4% of data was missing. This was partly due to participant dropout at T2 and partly due to the (temporary) lack
of digital contact between some adolescents and their parents in one or both waves, resulting in missing values on
the digital quality measure. In addition, some missing data
were due to the questionnaire design at T2, as digital contact quantity with mothers at T2 was not measured among
adolescents who indicated living mostly or solely with their
mothers. Similarly, digital contact quantity with fathers at
T2 was not measured among adolescents who indicated
living mostly or solely with their fathers. A lack of digital contact resulted in 16.9% and 19.3% missing values on
adolescents' digital relationship quality with mothers and
fathers at T1, respectively. At T2, all variables had missing
data, ranging from 19.3% (general relationship quality with
mothers) to 41.6% (digital contact quantity with mothers).
Due to participant dropout and the aforementioned design issue, digital contact quantity with mothers had 41.6%
missing values, and digital contact quantity with fathers
had 22.9% missing values.
Little's missing completely at random test (1988) was
significant, however, the normed chi-­square of 1.29 was acceptable (i.e., χ2/df <2; Bollen, 1989). For sensitivity reasons,
differences in outcomes and background characteristics
were examined between adolescents with and without missing data on each variable, and missingness was mostly related to lower family belonging and being older. We used Full
Information Maximum Likelihood estimations to account
for missing data (FIML; Muthén & Muthén, 1998-­2017).
Strategy of analyses
Multiple adolescents from the same family were included
in the study, which violates the assumption of independence of the data. Within-­family dependency was accounted
for by using the “complex” sample cluster feature in combination with the Maximum Likelihood Robust (MLR)
estimator. This is a conservative clustering procedure that
provides unbiased estimates of the standard errors (Muthén
& Muthén, 1998-­2017).
To examine the first research question, cross-­lagged path
analyses were conducted for adolescents' contact with fathers and mothers separately, testing concurrent and over
time associations between residential contact quantity, general relationship quality, digital contact quantity, and digital
relationship quality.
574
| Regarding the second research question (Figure 1), we first
tested the concurrent effects of adolescents' contact with parents on their sense of belonging. Using structural equation
modeling, we tested the main effects of each aspect of post-­
divorce contact at T1 on adolescents' levels of family belonging at T1. Further, the model included joint effects of digital
contact and residential contact, using 4 two-­way interaction
terms that each represent the product of two main observed
predictors, for instance, “residential contact quantity*digital
contact quantity.” Lastly, adolescents' age, gender, and time
since divorce were included in the model as covariates, together with correlations between moderating variables.
These models were tested separately for adolescents' sense
of belonging to paternal and maternal households. In a second and final step, we repeated these analyses, but this time
testing the main and joint effects of adolescents' contact with
parents on their sense of belonging over time, from T1 to T2.
R E SU LT S
Descriptive statistics and correlations
In Table 1, the correlations and descriptive statistics of the
study variables are presented separately for adolescents' contact with both parents after divorce. Results showed that according to participants' self-­reports, they on average spent
one-­t hird of the week in their fathers' residence, and the remaining time in their mothers' residence. The quantity of
digital contact with mothers and fathers was approximately
equal and ranged from once to several times per week. For
descriptive purposes, we also looked at the amount of digital
contact per medium, which showed that text messages were
most frequently used in contact with mothers and fathers
(M = 3.82; 3.85, respectively), followed by (online) phone
calls (M = 2.48; 2.52), and video calls (M = 1.44; 1.40). On average, adolescents perceived the quality of their relationship
with mothers to be higher than with fathers, both generally
and digitally. Likewise, the reported level of belonging to the
mother's family was higher than to the father's family.
There were moderate to strong positive correlations between all aspects of mother-­adolescent and father-­adolescent
contact, but only small (T1) and moderate (T2) associations
between maternal and paternal family belonging. Of the
covariates, age was significantly associated with study variables, with older adolescents reporting a weaker general relationship quality with mothers and fathers, and lower levels
of belonging to both households. Furthermore, time since
divorce was positively associated with the amount of time
adolescents spent in mothers' residence at T2, and therefore
negatively with the amount of time in fathers' residence.
Correlations between study variables for each parent were
mostly significant and in the expected direction: The quantity and quality of both types of contact (i.e., regular and
digital) were positively and significantly bidirectionally associated with perceptions of family belonging, concurrently
and over time, for fathers as well as for mothers.
REJAÄN et al.
In addition, there were several differences between mothers and fathers. Whereas for fathers, more residential contact
was associated with a stronger general father-­adolescent relationship quality, the correlation between residential contact quantity and the general quality of the relationship with
the mother was nonsignificant. Furthermore, while levels of
residential contact with fathers at T1 were positively associated with the amount of digital father-­adolescent contact,
levels of residential contact with mothers were negatively
associated with their amount of digital contact. Thus, the
more time adolescents from divorced families spent with
their fathers, the more they engaged in digital contact with
both of their parents. At T2, the latter associations were nonsignificant. Finally, although digital contact quantity and
general relationship quality each were positively correlated
with the quality of adolescents' digital contact with parents,
correlations were considerably stronger for fathers than for
mothers.
Cross-­lagged path analyses for fathers and
mothers
Concurrent and over time associations between all aspects
of post-­divorce contact were further examined using separate cross-­
lagged path analyses for fathers and mothers
(Figure 2). With regard to the stability of the variables for
fathers over time, the amount of residential contact was
the most stable, whereas the amount of digital contact was
the least stable of all aspects of father-­adolescent contact.
Only one of the cross-­lagged paths reached significance:
Adolescents' digital relationship quality with fathers significantly and positively predicted their subsequent general relationship quality (β = .16, p = .004).
Regarding adolescents' contact with mothers, the
amount of residential contact was also the most stable over
time, and the amount of digital contact was the least stable. Two cross-­lagged paths were significant. The quality
of adolescents' general relationship with mothers significantly and positively predicted their digital relationship
quality (β = .22, p = .004), and the quality of adolescents'
digital relationship with mothers significantly and positively predicted their amount of digital contact 9 months
later (β = .27, p = .023).
Regression analyses for adolescents' contact
with fathers
In separate regression analyses, we estimated the proportion of variance in adolescents' post-­d ivorce paternal
and maternal family belonging that could be accounted
for by their reports of residential and digital contact with
each parent, concurrently (see Table 2, Model 1) and over
time (see Table 2, Model 2). Concurrently, the model accounted for 56% of the variance in adolescents' paternal
family belongingness at T1. Regression results for fathers
.42**
.05
.11
.19*
2.33b
1.63
10. T2 General RQ
11. T2 Digital CQ
12. T2 Digital RQ
13. T2 Family Belonging
M
SD
.82
3.84b
.51**
.41**
.32**
.81**
.47**
−.11
.72**
.50**
.28**
.46**
.82
2.63a
.22*
.41**
.56**
.30**
.12
−.01
.09
−.05
.30**
.55**
.44**
.18*
−.21**
3
.79
2.69b
.30**
.69**
.36**
.49**
.33**
−.09
.04
−.11
.47**
.66**
.29**
.32**
.11
4
.91
3.84b
.72**
.36**
.29**
.65**
.35**
−.09
−.07
−.24**
.15*
.31**
.22**
.64**
.27**
5
1.84
14.34
−.24**
.02
−.15
−.28**
−.04
.24**
.13
-­
−.21**
−.08
−.09
−.29**
.01
6
.49
.61
−.08
.04
.04
−.01
.07
.04
-­
.13
.01
.12
.08
.08
−.06
7
3.94
6.61
.00
.02
.02
−.11
−.19*
-­
.04
.24**
.06
−.05
.01
−.04
.07
8
1.53
2.40b
.25**
.04
.04
.42**
-­
.19*
−.07
.04
.08
−.23*
−.33**
−.01
.86**
9
.79
3.78b
.67**
.50**
.37**
.56**
.06
−.03
.11
−.24**
.37**
.32*
.28**
.62**
−.01
10
.78
2.50a
.26**
.35**
.70**
.33**
−.08
.05
.14
−.10
.15
.39**
.53**
.24*
−.02
11
.82
2.79b
.34**
.82**
.30**
.46**
.01
−.05
.06
−.04
.22*
.65**
.20*
.32**
−.08
12
.89
3.79b
.36**
.35**
.37**
.64**
.10
.02
−.07
−.33**
.59**
.24**
.23**
.49**
.11
13
4.18a
2.94a
2.59a
4.27a
4.60a
6.61
.61
14.34
4.27a
2.82a
2.52a
4.33a
4.67a
M
.63
.82
.78
.51
1.53
3.94
.49
1.84
.63
.85
.93
.54
1.63
SD
Note: Statistics related to the relationship with mothers are shown above the diagonal, whereas statistics related to the relationship with fathers are shown below the diagonal. Statistics within the diagonal are correlations between mother
and father variables. Adolescents' gender is dummy coded (0 = boys, 1 = girls). Variable means for mothers and fathers that do not share the same subscript differ at p < .05, as indicated by paired samples t-­tests.
Abbreviations: CQ, contact quantity, RQ, relationship quality.
*p < .05; **p < .0.
.86**
9. T2 Residential CQ
.03
−.01
6. T1 Age
.06
.31**
5. T1 Family Belonging
−.08
.22**
4. T1 Digital RQ
7. T1 Gender
.16*
3. T1 Digital CQ
8. T1 Time Since Divorce
−.22**
.48**
2. T1 General RQ
.09
-­
1. T1 Residential CQ
2
1
Correlations between study variables for mothers and fathers (N = 166).
Variable
TA BL E 1
RESIDENTIAL AND DIGITAL CONTACT POST-­DIVORCE
| 575
576
| REJAÄN et al.
Residential
Contact
Quantity with
Father T1
.82**
Residential
Contact
Quantity with
Father T2
.02
.48**
-.05
General
Relationship
Quality with
Father T1
.16*
-.11
.03
.07
.76**
.13
General
Relationship
Quality with
Father T2
-.06
.11
.28**
.20*
-.28*
.20*
-.09
Digital Contact
Quantity with
Father T1
.46**
.54**
-.10
.51**
.05
.13
Digital Contact
Quantity with
Father T2
.16*
.28*
.15
.09
Digital
Relationship
Quality with
Father T1
.63**
Residential
Contact
Quantity with
Mother T1
.85**
Digital
Relationship
Quality with
Father T2
Residential
Contact
Quantity with
Mother T2
.05
-.03
.09
General
Relationship
Quality with
Mother T1
-.21*
.08
.05
.03
.22*
.63**
.10
General
Relationship
Quality with
Mother T2
.18*
-.10
-.06
.22*
.25*
-.04
.38**
Digital Contact
Quantity with
Mother T1
.31**
.10
.49**
-.03
-.04
.08
Digital Contact
Quantity with
Mother T2
.35*
.11
.27*
Digital
Relationship
Quality with
Mother T1
.60**
Digital
Relationship
Quality with
Mother T2
F I G U R E 2 Standardized model results for adolescents' contact with fathers and mothers. Black arrows indicate significant paths while gray arrows
indicate non-­significant paths. *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .001.
demonstrate that adolescents' general relationship quality
with fathers significantly accounts for variability in their
sense of paternal family belonging. In addition, there was
one significant interaction-­term. Although correlational,
this significant estimate may suggest a moderating role
of adolescents' digital relationship quality with fathers in
the association between their general relationship quality
and adolescents' sense of belonging. Specifically, this estimate indicates that the positive role of adolescents' general relationship quality with fathers tended to decrease as
adolescents reported higher-­quality digital relationships
with fathers. This means that in terms of experiencing belongingness, adolescents who had relatively strong digital
relationships with their fathers, appeared to benefit less
RESIDENTIAL AND DIGITAL CONTACT POST-­DIVORCE
TA BL E 2
| 577
Regression results for parent-­adolescent contact on family belonging at T1 (Model 1) and T2 (Model 2).
Paternal family belonging
Maternal family belonging
B
SE B
β
p
B
SE B
β
p
−.04
.03
−.09
.135
−.01
.02
−.04
.532
2
Model 1 (R = .56**/.53**)
Age
Gender
−.14
.10
−.07
.161
−.06
.07
−.05
.406
Time since divorce
.00
.01
.01
.905
.01
.01
.05
.400
T1 Residential CQ
−.01
.04
−.02
.801
.10
.02
.25
.000
T1 General RQ
.66
.07
.59
.000
.64
.09
.54
.000
T1 Digital CQ
.09
.07
.08
.193
.11
.05
.16
.011
T1 Digital RQ
.13
.08
.12
.092
.11
.06
.15
.052
T1 Residential CQ × Digital RQ
.10
.06
.16
.097
−.06
.03
−.16
.011
T1 Residential CQ × Digital CQ
−.01
.05
−.01
.914
.00
.02
−.01
.844
T1 General RQ × Digital RQ
−.21
.09
−.19
.020
.01
.08
.01
.895
T1 General RQ × Digital CQ
.01
.10
.01
.899
−.13
.09
−.10
.129
Model 2 (R 2 = .57** / .53**)
Age
−.03
.03
−.05
.427
−.08
.02
−.21
.001
Gender
−.02
.11
−.01
.870
−.04
.09
−.03
.669
Time since divorce
.01
.02
.05
.443
.02
.01
.09
.112
T1 family belonging
.76
.09
.77
.000
.42
.11
.39
.000
T1 residential CQ
−.00
.04
−.01
.930
.05
.03
.12
.092
T1 general RQ
.07
.13
.06
.610
.26
.12
.21
.022
T1 digital CQ
−.13
.08
−.12
.109
.11
.08
.14
.196
T1 digital RQ
−.09
.08
−.08
.249
.02
.08
.03
.765
T1 residential CQ × digital RQ
−.03
.05
−.05
.500
.02
.04
.03
.676
T1 residential CQ × digital CQ
.01
.04
.01
.911
−.06
.04
−.14
.092
T1 General RQ × Digital RQ
.13
.11
.12
.223
−.04
.13
−.04
.741
T1 general RQ × digital CQ
.26
.13
.18
.053
.08
.12
.05
.515
Note: Adolescents' gender is dummy coded (0 = boys, 1 = girls). Correlations between residential CQ, general RQ, digital CQ, and digital RQ are included in the model.
Significant results are bold.
Abbreviations: CQ, contact quantity; RQ, relationship quality.
from having strong overall relationships with fathers at
that time, than those who had qualitatively weaker digital
relationships with their fathers. The second model, testing
effects of post-­d ivorce contact over time, explained 57%
of the variance in paternal family belonging at T2. In this
model, adolescents' prior sense of belonging was its sole
significant predictor. Thus, neither residential nor digital
father-­adolescent contact predicted relative change in adolescents' paternal family belonging.
Regression analyses for adolescents' contact
with mothers
Once again, Table 2 shows both the concurrent (Model 1)
and longitudinal effects (Model 2) of adolescents' contact
with mothers on their sense of belonging. Concurrently,
the model accounted for 53% of the variance in adolescents' maternal family belongingness. Regression results
showed three significant main estimates: The quantity of
residential contact, the quantity of digital contact, and the
general relationship quality with mothers, which all positively predicted adolescents' sense of family belonging, of
which the general relationship quality as its strongest predictor. In addition, there was a significant interaction-­term
between adolescents' residential contact quantity and the
digital relationship quality, which indicated that the positive role of higher quality digital relationships with mothers
generally tended to decrease as adolescents spent more time
in their mothers' homes. This means that in terms of experiencing belongingness, adolescents who spent less time
with mothers appeared to benefit more from having strong
digital relationships with mothers at that time, compared
to adolescents who spent less time in their mothers' homes.
Further, none of the other factors or interaction terms were
significant.
The second model, testing effects of post-­divorce contact
over time, also explained 53% of the variance in maternal
family belonging at T2, with prior belonging as its strongest
significant predictor. Additionally, adolescents' age and the
578
| REJAÄN et al.
general quality of the mother-­adolescent relationship remained significant, indicating that being younger and having stronger quality relationships with mothers positively
contributed to changes in adolescents' sense of maternal
family belonging over time.
parent-­adolescent relationships for predicting adolescents'
sense of family belonging over time.
DISC US SION
Digital media were regularly used by adolescents to communicate with parents, with text messaging being the
most frequent use, followed by phone calls and then video
calls. In line with our expectations, we found a positive association between the amount of residential and digital
father-­
adolescent contact after divorce. This means that
adolescents who resided a greater amount of time with their
fathers, generally also engaged in more frequent digital contact with them during times spent apart. This is consistent
with the hypothesis of digital media being used as a transitional tool, in extension of regular face-­to-­face contact (Saini
et al., 2013; Wolman & Pomerance, 2012). This mutually reinforcing effect of residential and digital contact indicates
that digital media could be instrumental in sustaining enduring relationships with fathers after divorce (Fabricius
et al., 2012; Kalmijn, 2015). The strong and positive concurrent associations among and across the quantity and quality
of residential and digital contact support prior findings that
the quantity and quality of contact with fathers are strongly
related (Bastaits & Pasteels, 2019; Sobolewski & King, 2005),
and shows this also holds true for post-­divorce digital contact. Moreover, we found a small but significant cross-­lagged
effect over time, namely that higher-­quality digital relationships with fathers contributed to an overall stronger father-­
adolescent relationship.
As for mothers, there was a negative concurrent association between the amount of residential and digital contact, indicating that adolescents who spent more time in
their mother's residence on average engaged less in digital
contact with mothers when apart. Put differently, more
face-­to-­face contact was associated with less digital contact. Further, the quantity and quality of digital contact
were concurrently positively associated with each other,
as well as with the general mother-­adolescent relationship quality. However, adolescents' residential time with
mothers was not related to the quality of their general or
digital relationship. This negative association between the
quantity of residential and digital contact initially may
seem in line with the replacement use hypothesis by Saini
et al. (2013). Yet, even though we cannot rule out that digital contact substitutes some adolescents' in-­person contact with mothers, we can conclude that it has not replaced
their time with mothers entirely, or even excessively. The
adolescents in our sample on average still spent two-­t hirds
of the week in their mother's homes. Therefore, there
might be less need for digital media as a tool for adolescents to stay in touch with their mothers. These results
thus indicate neither replacement nor transitional digital
media use between adolescents and their mothers after
divorce. Nevertheless, our results demonstrated some
For many divorced and separated families, the interplay between physical presence and absence is a fact of everyday life
that can put pressure on adolescents' intrinsic need to belong.
This study aimed to examine the role of parent-­adolescent
contact in adolescents' sense of belonging to paternal and
maternal family households post-­divorce. In addition to investigating the associations between the quantity and quality of time adolescents spent residing with their parents, we
also included the quantity and quality of their digital interactions between residential stays as a form of contact. By
including digital interactions, the current study adheres to
the importance of considering the role of digital technology
in fostering and maintaining family relationships (Baude
et al., 2022). Drawing on self-­reports of 166 adolescents from
divorced and separated families, we tested whether online
messages, phone calls, and video calls during times spent
apart facilitated adolescents' relationships with mothers and
fathers, and their sense of belonging to the respective households, concurrently and longitudinally.
Overall, results showed that digital media were regularly
used to communicate with mothers when residing with fathers and vice versa, and that the quantity and perceived
quality of residential and digital contact were concurrently
interrelated, although differently for fathers and mothers.
Furthermore, we found some over time associations between these different aspects of parent-­adolescent contact,
suggesting that for fathers, higher-­quality digital interactions can facilitate higher-­quality father-­adolescent relationships. This is important, because for fathers, the association
between residential contact and general relationship quality
is much stronger than for mothers, presumably because adolescents on average reside less days and nights with fathers
than they do with mothers. Finally, the results demonstrated
several ways in which having more and more positive contact with parents can help adolescents experience a stronger
sense of belonging at that time. In particular, the quality of
the overall relationships with parents appeared important
in this respect. Also, interesting joint effects emerged regarding the role of adolescents' digital relationships on their
sense of belonging. Having higher-­quality digital relationships with fathers reduced the importance of having higher-­
quality overall relationships with fathers at that time, and
having higher-­quality digital relationships with mothers was
less important the more time adolescents resided with their
mothers. Longitudinally, there was no evidence for the existence of unique or joint effects of digital parent-­adolescent
contact on adolescents' family belongingness, and only
tentative evidence substantiating the importance of strong
Post-­divorce residential and digital contact with
fathers and mothers
RESIDENTIAL AND DIGITAL CONTACT POST-­DIVORCE
longitudinal associations relating to adolescents' digital
media use with mothers. Higher-­
quality general relationships appeared to contribute to higher-­quality digital
relationships over time, and higher-­quality digital relationships were positively associated with the amount of
digital contact with mothers. Overall, these interrelations
between various aspects of parent-­adolescent contact are
consistent with previous findings suggesting that parent–
child relationships after divorce require continuing, frequent, and meaningful time with parents (Adamsons &
Johnson, 2013; Bastaits & Pasteels, 2019), and show that
this also applies to digital contact.
Parent–adolescent contact and post-­divorce
family belonging
In line with hypotheses and prior research (e.g., King
et al., 2018), we found that the overall quality of parent-­
adolescent relationships was strongly related to adolescents'
concurrent belongingness. With respect to adolescents'
sense of maternal family belonging, we additionally found
a significant positive effect of residential contact. The fact
that we did not find a similar effect of contact for paternal
family belonging, once again emphasizes the importance
of quality over quantity for fathers after divorce (Fabricius
et al., 2012). This study also provided new empirical insights regarding the role of digital contact in adolescents'
sense of belonging, such as the positive association between
digital contact and family belongingness for mothers, but
not for fathers. Furthermore, our findings demonstrated
how digital media are indeed intertwined in post-­divorce
adolescents' family life (Saini et al., 2013), and can make
adolescents feel close to and supported by their parents
despite not seeing them on a day-­to-­day basis. Regarding
adolescent-­father contact, cross-­sectional results indicated
that for adolescents who had relatively strong digital relationships with their fathers, the overall relationship quality
with fathers was less strongly related to paternal belongingness. With regard to adolescent-­mother contact, the cross-­
sectional results indicated that experiencing higher-­quality
digital relationships was more strongly related to belongingness when adolescents spent less time in their mothers' homes at that time. Future longitudinal studies are
needed to provide insight into the temporal ordering and
bi-­directionality of these findings.
The current study did not provide evidence for the hypothesis that digital media could be a transitional tool for
promoting adolescents' post-­divorce sense of family belonging over time. With regard to paternal family belongingness,
prior belongingness was its only predictor, and so neither experiences in residential nor digital contact predicted any relative change in adolescents' belongingness 9 months later. As
to maternal family belongingness, the general quality of the
mother-­adolescent relationship also accounted for substantial variance, together with some smaller effects of residential contact quantity and adolescents' age. This means that
| 579
the quality of adolescents' relationships with mothers was
associated with a relative increase in their sense of belonging
to their maternal home. The finding that the quality of adolescents' relationships with each parent is strongly associated
with their sense of belonging to the respective households
extends previous research that considered post-­
divorced
families as a single-­family system (King et al., 2018; King &
Boyd, 2016), translating them to present time during which
many adolescents reside in two households post-­
divorce
(Steinbach et al., 2020). Despite expectations, however, we
found no other longitudinal effects of parent-­
adolescent
contact on adolescents' family belongingness.
Similar to previous research, adolescents on average experienced higher levels of belonging to maternal than paternal households, and standard deviations showed that there
was less inter-­individual variability in maternal than in
paternal belonging (Rejaän, van der Valk, & Branje, 2021).
Yet, adolescents' belonging to mothers' homes appeared less
stable over time and was more strongly and directly dependent on the quality of the overall relationship with mothers than father-­adolescent relationships were for paternal
family belonging. The negative effect of age on maternal
family belonging could be the underlying factor that explains the greater importance of adolescents' relationship
quality for post-­d ivorce maternal family belonging. That
is, adolescents increasingly strive to develop a balance between autonomy and relatedness as they mature, which
is often characterized and accompanied by conflicts in
the parent-­adolescent relationship (Branje, 2018; Deci &
Vansteenkiste, 2004). Since adolescents generally resided
most of their time with mothers after divorce, it is reasonable to assume that such conflicts occur more in interactions with mothers than fathers, but future research is
required to substantiate this. Perhaps it could also apply to
father-­adolescent relationships for adolescents who reside
with fathers the majority of their time.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
The present study adds to existing literature by focusing
on adolescents' perspectives of parent-­adolescent contact
after divorce, including their residential contact as well as
digital contact in between residential stays, taking into account both quantitative and qualitative aspects of contact,
and differentiating between paternal and maternal family
belongingness after divorce. At the same time, the study
design has certain limitations that should not be overlooked. First of all, there were large amounts of missing
data for some variables, and particularly for digital contact between adolescents and parents at T2. Due to the
questionnaire design, there were no data available on the
amount of digital contact that adolescents had with the
parent they predominantly lived with, during the small
amount of time they were with their other parent. It is
difficult to determine whether and how this affected the
findings of this study. One of the main objectives of this
580
| study was to examine whether digital media were used
transitionally to help adolescents stay connected with a
parent when apart, especially with the parent they have the
least amount of contact with. It is exactly these data that
were not systematically missing. Data that were missing
were handled with FIML (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-­2017),
meaning that all available information in the dataset was
used to estimate the model. Second, our longitudinal
study only included two assessment moments, thereby
limiting us to using cross-­lagged panel models for estimating directional effects among aspects of parent-­adolescent
contact, despite an ongoing debate about the model's merits (e.g., Lucas, 2022; Orth et al., 2021). Ideally, the associations in the current study are tested using at least three
measurement waves, as this allows for the disentangling
of between-­family differences from within family-­effects.
Further, whereas the current study focuses on the complex
context of adolescents growing up in divorced families, it
may also be valuable to test the predictive effects of parent-­
adolescent contact on adolescents' relationships and sense
of family belonging from other angles. For example, during specific moments in adolescents' lives, such as transitional periods from pre to post-­d ivorce families, or with
shorter time intervals, like a week or a month. Finally, our
sample size was relatively small and consisted of relatively
many shared parenting families.
Nevertheless, this study offers a point of departure
for future research. It would be interesting to replicate
our study in a larger, potentially more heterogeneous,
and less harmonious sample, which would also allow for
more complex model testing. Situational factors, such as
the distance between parents' homes and the number of
transitions that adolescents have to make between homes,
are likely to play a role in how post-­d ivorce contact takes
shape (Steinbach & Augustijn, 2021). Moreover, throughout the divorce process, certain aspects of the interparental relationship, like conflict, cooperation, and parental
gatekeeping, may play a critical role in how (flexible) their
children's living situation is arranged and the extent to
which (digital) time with the other parent is encouraged
(e.g., Fabricius et al., 2012; Saini et al., 2013). Additionally,
interparental conflicts may interact with the quality
of parent-­
adolescent relationships to further increase
the variability in adolescents' sense of family belonging
(Cao et al., 2022). Together, these suggestions constitute
a promising direction for future research. On the other
hand, it may be that there are other variables beyond
parent-­adolescent contact that might better explain adolescents' sense of family belonging after divorce, like the
substantial changes in various aspects of children's lives
after divorce have been linked to their post-­d ivorce adjustment, such as (step)family composition and relationships (e.g., Amato, 2010; Sanner et al., 2018).
As for post-­divorce digital media use, future studies
should also take into account how individual characteristics may moderate the effects of digital contact. For example, the belongingness theory argues that although the
REJAÄN et al.
need to belong is universal, the strength of individual's need
for regular contact may differ (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
Further, some more specific characteristics of parent-­
adolescent digital media use may be relevant to take into account, such as who initiates contact, the duration of contact
(whether lengthy or fleeting), and how each specific moment of contact is experienced, rather than measuring the
quality of digital contact more generally. Finally, parents or
adolescents may also perceive burdens with regard to digital
media use that could detract from some of the positive sides
of digital contact. It could be that experiences are largely
shaped by factors inherent to the media or devices that are
used (Baude et al., 2022). Thus, rather than focusing solely
on the potential affective benefits of digital media use, it
would be valuable to examine whether today's availability
of digital media also introduces unwanted obligations to
connect, whether feelings of privacy are threatened, and
whether youth are at risk of feeling guilty or disappointed
(Yarosh et al., 2009, 2014).
C ONC LUSION
Taken together, this study confirms the assumption that divorced families widely use digital media to maintain contact in between residential stays (Baude et al., 2022) and
that the quantity and quality of their digital contact is associated with the quantity and quality of their residential contact. Further, our study shows that higher-­quality
parent-­
adolescent interactions can also facilitate positive
changes in post-­divorce contact over time, such as more frequent digital contact with mothers. More importantly, we
found that higher-­quality digital relationship seem to reinforce adolescents' ties with fathers. However, although the
quantity and quality of digital contact are cross-­sectionally
related to stronger perceptions of family belonging, more
and/or more positively perceived digital contact does not appear to strengthen belonging over time. It rather seems that
digital media may bring about a sense of ‘connected presence’ (Baude et al., 2022; Licoppe, 2002), which is characterized by mostly short and frequent communication, thereby
creating a continuous flow of interaction that helps conserve
the relationship with parents, without seeing each other on
a day-­to-­day basis.
In response to the need for empirically substantiated
recommendations on practices with regard to the use
of digital communication in divorce situations (Baude
et al., 2022), the current study indicates that media should
not be regarded as a sole means for post-­d ivorce contact,
but as an additional and easy-­accessible tool. That is, it
seems that communication technologies offer additional
methods for adolescents to communicate with parents, especially fathers, which may help them to remain in regular and consistent contact with both parents. This may be
particularly helpful for youth who have to cover greater
distances when alternating homes, as they generally make
fewer transitions between parental homes, and therefore
RESIDENTIAL AND DIGITAL CONTACT POST-­DIVORCE
have to deal with longer periods of absence from the other
parent (Steinbach & Augustijn, 2021). That being said, having the opportunity to text, call, or video message someone in any given place and time, should not justify a parent
to relocate a child away from the other parent, as has been
debated in the past (e.g., Gottfried, 2012; Saini et al., 2013).
Neither should it be considered a substitute for in-­person
contact. In line with prior research, our findings further
highlight that adolescents continue to require meaningful
time with parents in order to experience a sense of home
after the divorce (King et al., 2018), with the routines
of daily life as an important basis (Campo et al., 2020).
Nevertheless, digital media are and will also remain a
major part of everyday life, and so more research on their
benefits, risks, and conditions of use in the context of parental divorce is required. Ultimately, this will hopefully
contribute to both the scientific and clinical field in our
joint efforts to improve adolescents' adjustment after a parental divorce or separation. For now, our understanding
is that post-­d ivorce parent-­adolescent contact and qualitative appraisals thereof mostly appear to reinforce adolescents' concurrent experiences of belonging. Investing in
adolescents' in-­person quality time with each parent seems
most promising in meeting their need to belong.
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
This study was supported by a grant from Dynamics of
Youth, a strategic theme of Utrecht University.
ORC I D
Zoë Rejaän https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4427-7696
Susan Branje https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9999-5313
R EFER ENCES
Adamsons, K., & Johnson, S. K. (2013). An updated and expanded meta-­
analysis of nonresident fathering and child well-­being. Journal of
Family Psychology, 27(4), 589–599. https://​doi.​org.​ezpro​x y1.​lib.​asu.​
edu/​10.​1037/​a0033786
Allen, K. A., Ryan, T., Gray, D. L., McInerney, D. M., & Waters, L.
(2014). Social media use and social connectedness in adolescents:
The positives and the pitfalls. The Australian Educational and
Developmental Psychologist, 31(1), 18–31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​
edp.​2 014.​2
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1741-­​3737.​2010.​0 0723.​x
Aslantürk, H., & Mavili, A. (2020). The sense of family belonging in university students from a single parent family compared with those from
a two-­biological-­parent family. Current Psychology, Early Access, 39,
2026–2039. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s1214​4 -­​020-­​0 0725​-­​0
Baldassar, L. (2016). De-­demonizing distance in mobile family lives: Co-­
presence, care circulation and polymedia as vibrant matter. Global
Networks, 16(2), 145–163. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​g lob.​12109​
Bastaits, K., & Pasteels, I. (2019). Is joint physical custody in the best interests of the child? Parent-­child relationships and custodial arrangements. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(11–12), 3752–
3772. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02654​07519​838071
Baude, A., Henaff, G., Potin, E., Bourassa, A., Saint-­Jacques, M., & Noël, J.
(2022). Information and communication technology use among children separated from one or both parents: A scoping review. Family
Relations, 2023(72), 601–620. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​fare.​12831​
| 581
Baude, A., Pearson, J., & Drapeau, S. (2016). Child adjustment in joint
physical custody versus sole custody: A meta-­a nalytic review. Journal
of Divorce and Remarriage, 57(5), 338–360. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
10502​556.​2016.​1185203
Baumeister, R. F., Brewer, L. E., Tice, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (2007).
Thwarting the need to belong: Understanding the interpersonal and
inner effects of social exclusion. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 1(1), 506–520. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1751-​9004.​2007.​
00020.​x
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). Need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0 033-­​
2909.​117.3.​497
Bjarnasson, T., & Arnarsson, A. M. (2011). Joint physical custody and
communication with parents: A cross-­national study of children in
36 western countries. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 42(6),
871–890. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​41604494
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​97811​18619179
Branje, S. J. T. (2018). Development of parent–adolescent relationships:
Conflict interactions as a mechanism of change. Child Development
Perspectives, 12, 171–176. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​cdep.​12278​
Campo, M., Fehlberg, B., Millward, C., & Carson, R. (2012). Shared parenting time in Australia: Exploring children's views. Journal of Social
Welfare and Family Law, 34(3), 295–313. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
09649​069.​2012.​750480
Campo, M., Fehlberg, B., Natalier, K., & Smyth, B. M. (2020). The meaning of home for children and young people after separation. Journal
of Social Welfare and Family Law, 42(3), 299–318. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​09649​069.​2020.​1796218
Campo, M., Fehlberg, B., Natalier, K., & Smyth, B. M. (2021). Exploring
separated fathers' understandings and experiences of ‘home’ and
homemaking. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 43(3), 291–
306. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09649​069.​2021.​1953857
Cao, H., Fine, M. A., & Zhou, N. (2022). The divorce process and child
adaptation trajectory typology (DPCATT) model: The shaping role
of predivorce and postdivorce interparental conflict. Clinical Child
and Family Psychology Review, 25, 500–528. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s1056​7-­​022-­​0 0379​-­​3
Cashmore, J., Parkinson, P., & Taylor, A. (2009). Overnight stays and children's relationships with resident and nonresident parents after divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 707–733. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
01925​13X07​308042
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 193–196. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1111/​1467-​8721.​01259​
Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-­determination theory and
basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di Psicologia, 27(1), 23–40.
Fabricius, W. V., Sokol, K., Diaz, P., & Braver, S. (2012). Parenting time,
parent conflict, parent-­child relationships and children's physical
health. In R. Kuehnle & R. Drozd (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations:
Applied research for the family court (p. 88 214). Oxford University
Press.
Friedman, S. L., Sigelman, C. K., Rohrbeck, C. A., & del Rio-­Gonzalez,
A. M. (2017). Quantity and quality of communication during parental deployment: Links to adolescents' functioning. Applied
Developmental Science, 21(4), 285–300. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10888​
691.​2016.​1207536
Gollop, M., & Taylor, N. (2012). New Zealand children and young people's perspectives on relocation following parental separation. In M.
Freeman (Ed.), Law and childhood studies: Current legal issues (Vol.
14, pp. 219–242). Oxford University Press.
Gottfried, S. (2012). Virtual visitation: The new wave of communication
between children and non-­
custodial parents in relocation cases.
Family Law Quarterly, 36(3), 475–485.
Jose, P. E., Ryan, N., & Pryor, J. (2012). Does social connectedness promote a greater sense of well-­being in adolescence over time? Journal
582
| of Research on Adolescence, 22(2), 235–251. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​
1532-​7795.​2012.​0 0783.​x
Kalmijn, M. (2015). Father-­child relations after divorce in four European
countries: Patterns and determinants. Comparative Population
Studies, 40(3), 251–276. https://​doi.​org/​10.​12765/​​CPoS-­​2015-­​10
King, V., & Boyd, L. M. (2016). Factors associated with perceptions of family belonging among adolescents. Journal of Marriage and Family,
78(4), 1114–1130. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jomf.​12322​
King, V., Boyd, L. M., & Pragg, B. (2018). Parent-­adolescent closeness, family belonging, and adolescent well-­being across family structures.
Journal of Family Issues, 39(7), 2007–2036. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
01925​13X17​739048
Lamb, M. E. (2018). Does shared parenting by separated parents affect the
adjustment of young children? Journal of Child Custody, 15(1), 16–25.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15379​418.​2018.​1425105
Lamb, M. E., & Kelly, J. B. (2001). Using the empirical literature to guide
the development of parenting plans for young children: A rejoinder to Solomon and Biringen. Family Court Review, 39(4), 365–371.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​174-­​1617.​2001.​tb006​18.​x
Law, P. C., Cuskelly, M., & Carroll, A. (2012). Young people's perceptions
of family, peer, and school connectedness and their impact on adjustment. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 23(1),
115–140. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​jgc.​2012.​19
Leake, V. S. (2007). Personal, familial, and systemic factors associated with family belonging for stepfamily adolescents. Journal of
Divorce and Remarriage, 47(1–2), 135–155. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1300/​
J087v​47n01_​0 8
Licoppe, C. (2002). Sociabilité et technologies de communication: Deux modalit_Es d'entretien des liens interpersonnels dans le contexte du d_
Eploiement des dispositifs de communication mobiles Sociability and
communication technologies: Two ways of maintaining interpersonal
links in the context of the deployment of mobile communication devices. R_Eseaux, 112–113(2), 172. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3917/​res.​112.​0172
Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01621​459.​
1988.​10478722
Liu, D., Baumeister, R. F., Yang, C., & Hu, B. (2019). Digital communication
media use and psychological well-­being: A meta-­a nalysis. Journal of
Computer-­Mediated Communication, 24(5), 259–274. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1093/​ccc/​zmz013
Lucas, R. (2022). It's time to abandon the cross-­lagged panel model. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​31234/​​osf.​io/​pkec7​
Marschall, A. (2014). The time-­shared child: Exploring children's perspectives on everyday life with two households (no. 20114/7). [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Copenhagen].
Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations
from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289–302.
https://​w ww.​jstor.​org/​stable/​1129720
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus User's Guide (8th ed.).
Muthén & Muthén.
Nedelcu, M., & Wyss, M. (2016). “Doing family” through ICT-­mediated
ordinary co presence: Trans-­national communication practices of
Romanian migrants in Switzerland. Global Networks, 16(2), 202–218.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​g lob.​12110​
Nielsen, L. (2014). Shared physical custody: Summary of 40 studies on outcomes for children. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 55(8), 613–
635. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10502​556.​2014.​965578
Orth, U., Clark, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2021). Testing
prospective effects in longitudinal research: Comparing seven
competing cross-­lagged models. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 120(4), 1013–1034.
Poortman, A., & Van Gaalen, R. (2017). Shared residence after separation:
A review and new findings from The Netherlands. Family Court
Review, 55(4), 531–544. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​fcre.​12302​
Rejaän, Z., van der Valk, I. E., & Branje, S. (2021). The role of sense of belonging and family structure in adolescent adjustment. Journal of
REJAÄN et al.
Research on Adolescence, Early Access, 32, 1–15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1111/​jora.​12694​
Rejaän, Z., van der Valk, I. E., Schrama, W., van Aalst, I., Chen, A., de
Jeppesen Boer, C., Houtkamp, J., & Branje, S. (2021). Adolescents'
post-­
d ivorce sense of belonging: An interdisciplinary review.
European Psychologist, 27(4), 277–290. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1027/​1016-­​
9040/​a000444
Rodriguez, S. (2014). “We'll only see parts of each other's lives:” the role of
mundane talk in maintaining nonresidential parent-­child relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(8), 1134–1152.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02654​07514​522898
Ryan, T., Allen, K. A., Gray, D. L., & McInerney, D. M. (2017). How social
are social media? A review of online social behaviour and connectedness. Journal of Relationships Research, 8(8), 1–8. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1017/​jrr.​2017.​13
Sadowski, C., & McIntosh, J. E. (2015). On laughter and loss: Children's
views of shared time, parenting and security post-­
separation.
Childhood, 23(1), 69–86. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​09075​68215​570072
Saini, M., Barnes, J., Mishna, F., & Polak, S. (2013). Parenting online: An
exploration of virtual parenting time in the context of separation and
divorce. Journal of Child Custody, 10(2), 120–140. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​15379​418.​2013.​796265
Saini, M., & Polak, S. (2018). The benefits, drawbacks, and safety considerations in digital parent-­child relationships: An exploratory survey
of the views of legal and mental health professionals in family law.
Family Court Review, 56(4), 597–606.
Sanner, C., Russell, L. T., Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. (2018). Half-­sibling
and stepsibling relationships: A systematic integrative review.
Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10, 765–784. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1111/​jftr.​12291​
Schum, L., & Stolberg, A. L. (2007). Standardization of the co-­parenting
behavior questionnaire. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 47, 103–
132. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1300/​J087v​47n03_​06
Sigelman, C., Friedman, S., Rohrbeck, C., & Sheehan, P. B. (2018).
Supportive communication deployed parents and children is
linked to children's adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 58, 18–27. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​appdev.​2018.​08.​0 02
Smetana, J. G., Campione-­Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of
Psychology, 57(1), 255–284. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​a nnur​ev.​psych.​57.​
102904.​190124
Sobolewski, J. M., & King, V. (2005). The importance of the coparental
relationship for nonresident fathers' ties to children. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 67, 1196–1212. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1741-­​
3737.​2005.​0 0210.​x
Sodermans, A. K., Vanassche, S., Matthijs, K., & Swicegood, G. (2014).
Measuring postdivorce living arrangements: Theoretical and empirical validation of the residential calendar. Journal of Family Issues, 35,
125–145. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01925​13X12​464947
Soenens, B., Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2017). How parents contribute to children's psychological health: The critical role of psychological need support. In M. Wehmeyer, K. Shogren, T. Little, & S. Lopez
(Eds.), Development of self-­
determination through the life-­
course.
Springer.
Spies Shapiro, L. A., & Margolin, G. (2014). Growing up wired: Social networking sites and adolescent development. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 17(1–18), 1–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s1056​
7-­​013-­​0135-­​1
Stavropoulos, V., Motti-­Stefanidi, F., & Griffiths, M. D. (2021). Risks and
opportunities for youth in the digital era: A cyber-­developmental approach to mental health. European Psychologist, 2021, 86–101. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1027/​1016-­​9040/​a000451
Steinbach, A., & Augustijn, L. (2021). Post-­separation parenting time schedules in joint physical custody arrangements. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 83(2), 595–607. /10.1111/jomf.12746
Steinbach, A., Augustijn, L., & Corkadi, G. (2020). Joint physical custody
and adolescents' life satisfaction in 37 north American and European
RESIDENTIAL AND DIGITAL CONTACT POST-­DIVORCE
countries. Family Process, 60(1), 145–158. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​
famp.​12536​
Turunen, J. (2017). Shared physical custody and children's experience of
stress. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 58(5), 371–392. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​10502​556.​2017.​1325648
Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2017). Plugged. In How media attract and affect youth. Yale University Press.
Van Herk, R. (2019). Jaarrapportage Landelijke Jeugdmonitor 2019.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
Williams, A. L., & Merten, M. J. (2011). iFamily: Internet and social media
technology in the family context. Family and Consumer Sciences
Research Journal, 40(2), 150–170. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1552-­​3934.​
2011.​02101.​x
Witherspoon, D., Schotland, M., Way, N., & Hughes, D. (2009). Connecting
the dots: How connectedness to multiple contexts influences the
psychological and academic adjustment of urban youth. Applied
Developmental Science, 13(4), 199–216. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10888​
69090​3288755
Wolman, R., & Pomerance, R. (2012). Telepresence technology in divorce
and separation. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 4, 51–68.
| 583
Yarosh, S., Chew, Y., & Abowd, G. (2009). Supporting parent–child communication in divorced families. International Journal of Human-­
Computer Studies, 67(2), 192–203. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijhcs.​
2008.​09.​0 05
Yarosh, S., Markopoulos, P., & Abowd, G. D. (2014). Towards a questionnaire
for measuring affective benefits and costs of communication technologies. In CSCW'14. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 84–96). ACM.
How to cite this article: Rejaän, Z., van der Valk, I. E.,
& Branje, S. (2024). Adolescents' belonging in post-­
divorce families: Examining residential and digital
contact with mothers and fathers. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 34, 568–583. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jora.12920
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the
accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.