Children's perceptions of marital conflict, parent -child relations and anxiety in children: A proposed systemic model

This study tested a systemic model in which internalizing behaviors in a clinically-referred sample of children are predicted by children's perceptions of marital conflict in the context of three additional, well-researched, familial variables: parent-child relations, mother's emotional functioning, and children's perception of social support. After finding preliminary support for the model, its generalizability was tested in a combined sample of the clinically-referred group and a community-based group of elementary school children. ^ The clinical group consisted of 31 participants from a specialty clinic for children's anxiety disorders: 15 boys and 16 girls, aged 6 to 16, from both intact and divorced homes. Children's reports and mothers' reports of children's internalizing behaviors were submitted to separate analyses. Mothers' reports of children's internalizing behaviors were predicted only by mothers' emotional functioning. As hypothesized by the model, children's own reports of their internalizing behaviors were predicted significantly by children's perceptions of marital conflict. Parent-child relations, children's perception of social support, and one interaction term, children's perception of marital conflict x children's perception of parental rejection, contributed to the regression solution, while mother's emotional functioning failed to meet entry criterion. ^ The combined sample added 37 community-based children, 18 boys and 19 girls, aged 6 to 11, creating a total of 68 subjects. The model was replicated on the combined sample. ^ Findings of the study suggest child perceptions of marital conflict have a strong direct effect on child internalizing behaviors, accounting for 28% of the variance between marital conflict and child outcome in the clinical sample and 42% in the combined sample. In the past only about 10% of the variance in children's internalizing behaviors was explained by marital conflict. Importance implications are made for optimal assessment and specific treatment strategies for children and families experiencing marital conflict, especially for those at risk for anxiety disorders. ^

What does board capital really bring to the table? Exploring the effect of directors' human and social capital on effective governance during international expansion

What constitutes effective corporate governance? Which director characteristics render boards effective at positively influencing firm-level performance outcomes? This dissertation examines these questions by taking a multilevel, multidisciplinary approach to corporate governance. I explore the individual-, team-, and firm- level factors that enable directors to serve effectively as strategic resources during international expansion. I argue that directors' international experience improves their ability to serve as effective strategic consultants and resource providers to firms during the complex internationalization process. However, unlike prior research, which tends to assume that directors with the potential to provide important resources uniformly do so, I acknowledge contextual factors (i.e. board cohesiveness, strategic relevance of directors' experience) that affect their propensity to actually influence outcomes. I explore these issues in three essays: one review essay and two empirical essays.^ In the first empirical essay, I integrate resource dependence theory with insights from social-psychological research to explore the influence of board capital on firms' cross-border M&A performance. Using a sample of cross-border M&As completed by S&P 500 firms from 2004-2009, I find evidence that directors' depth of international experience is associated with superior pre-deal outcomes. This suggests that boards' deep, market-specific knowledge is valuable during the target selection phase. I further find that directors' breadth of international experience is associated with superior post-deal performance, suggesting that these directors' global mindset helps firms in the post-M&A integration phase. I also find that these relationships are positively moderated by board cohesiveness, measured by boards' internal social ties.^ In the second empirical essay, I explore the boundary conditions of international board capital by examining how the characteristics of firms' internationalization strategy moderate the relationship between board capital and firm performance. Using a panel of 377 S&P 500 firms observed from 2004-2011, I find that boards' depth of international experience and social capital are more important during early stages of internationalization, when firms tend to lack market knowledge and legitimacy in the host markets. On the other hand, I find that breadth of international experience has a stronger relationship with performance when firms' have higher scope of internationalization, when information-processing demands are higher.^

What Does Board Capital Really Bring to the Table? Exploring the Effect of Directors’ Human and Social Capital on Effective Governance During International Expansion

What constitutes effective corporate governance? Which director characteristics render boards effective at positively influencing firm-level performance outcomes? This dissertation examines these questions by taking a multilevel, multidisciplinary approach to corporate governance. I explore the individual-, team-, and firm- level factors that enable directors to serve effectively as strategic resources during international expansion. I argue that directors’ international experience improves their ability to serve as effective strategic consultants and resource providers to firms during the complex internationalization process. However, unlike prior research, which tends to assume that directors with the potential to provide important resources uniformly do so, I acknowledge contextual factors (i.e. board cohesiveness, strategic relevance of directors’ experience) that affect their propensity to actually influence outcomes. I explore these issues in three essays: one review essay and two empirical essays. In the first empirical essay, I integrate resource dependence theory with insights from social-psychological research to explore the influence of board capital on firms’ cross-border M&A performance. Using a sample of cross-border M&As completed by S&P 500 firms from 2004-2009, I find evidence that directors’ depth of international experience is associated with superior pre-deal outcomes. This suggests that boards’ deep, market-specific knowledge is valuable during the target selection phase. I further find that directors’ breadth of international experience is associated with superior post-deal performance, suggesting that these directors’ global mindset helps firms in the post-M&A integration phase. I also find that these relationships are positively moderated by board cohesiveness, measured by boards’ internal social ties. In the second empirical essay, I explore the boundary conditions of international board capital by examining how the characteristics of firms’ internationalization strategy moderate the relationship between board capital and firm performance. Using a panel of 377 S&P 500 firms observed from 2004-2011, I find that boards’ depth of international experience and social capital are more important during early stages of internationalization, when firms tend to lack market knowledge and legitimacy in the host markets. On the other hand, I find that breadth of international experience has a stronger relationship with performance when firms’ have higher scope of internationalization, when information-processing demands are higher.