Table 2.

Guided Cognitive Reframing by Father with Family Type by Ethnicity Mean Scores Comparisons

Indicators of Guided Cognitive Reframing	Family type	Mean (SD)	Main Effect by Ethnicity	Main Effect by Father Type	Ethnicity by Father Type Interaction
1. Frequency of talking to father  Scoring: (1) never to (7) almost always	EA/Intact	4.01 (1.29)	ns	ns	ns
	EA/Step	4.52 (1.42)
	MA/Intact	4.76 (1.35)
	MA/Step	4.38 (1.15)
	Total	4.58 (1.30)
2. He provides a reason  Scoring: (1) never to (7) almost always	EA/Intact	5.53 (1.43)	ns	ns	ns
	EA/Step	5.19 (1.18)
	MA/Intact	5.26 (1.36)
	MA/Step	5.52 (1.18)
	Total	5.40 (1.32)
3. Father’s response to request for reframing  Scoring: (1) very likely to apologize to (7) very likely to defend himself	EA/Intact	2.07 (1.00)	ns	F (1, 147) = 5.47*	ns
	EA/Step	2.67 (1.21)
	MA/Intact	1.97 (1.03)
	MA/Step	2.24 (1.21)
	Total	2.19 (1.10)
4. Feel better about father after reframing by father  Scoring: (1) a lot worse about relationship to (5) a lot better about relationship with father	EA/Intact	4.26 (0.73)	ns	F (1, 147) = 7.43**	ns
	EA/Step	3.63 (1.04)
	MA/Intact	4.18 (0.83)
	MA/Step	3.96 (1.15)
	Total	4.07 (0.93)
5. Feel better about self after reframing by father  Scoring: (1) a lot worse about self to (5) a lot better about self	EA/Intact	4.05 (0.86)	F (1, 147) = 5.66*		F (1,147) = 4.51*
	EA/Step	3.52 (0.98)
	MA/Intact	4.09 (0.83)
	MA/Step	4.21 (0.94)
	Total	3.00 (0.91)

Note: EA = European American; MA = Mexican American; Intact = two biological parent families; Step = the mother is a biological parent and the father is a non-biological stepparent; N = 151 (n = 61 for EA/Intact; n = 27 for EA/Step; n = 34 for MA/Intact; n = 29 for MA/Step)

^*p < .05;

^**p < .01;