Parental Drinking and Observations of Parent-Child Problem Solving Discussions: Do Drinking Motives Matter?

Abstract

Alcohol is often used for emotion regulation purposes, yet there has been little research on how emotion-regulation drinking motives relate to parenting. The current study addresses this gap by investigating possible interactions between parent drinking and drinking motives in the prediction of parenting and child affectivity during a problem-solving interaction. Participants included 199 two-parent families with a child between the ages of six and 12 years. Mothers and fathers self-reported their drinking and drinking motivations, and each parent separately took part in a 5-minute parent-child problem solving discussion about a topic that the parent identified as a frequent source of conflict. These discussions were later coded for parent rejection and coercion and child positive and negative affectivity. Father enhancement motives were independently related to father harsh parenting and indirectly related to lower child positive affect and greater child negative affect. Mother drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions interacted with mother drinking in association with mother harsh parenting, father harsh parenting and child positive and negative affect during father-child interactions. Although the pattern of these interactions differed, the combination of mother greater drinking and coping or enhancement motives tended to have higher harsh parenting, child positive affect, and child negative affect. These findings indicate that parents’ emotion-regulation motives for drinking warrant greater attention from researchers to understand the impact of parent drinking on parenting and emotional development of children.

Many children are exposed to parental drinking: 55 and 46% of men and women, respectively, have consumed alcohol in the past month (White, 2020). Although parental alcohol use disorder has well-established associations with child mental health issues (e.g., internalizing and externalizing symptoms; Oro et al., 2021), sub-clinical levels of alcohol use that are common in the general population may also have adverse effects on children. Alcohol has complex acute effects on cognition, emotion, and behavior that may lead to incidents that are detrimental to the parent-child relationship. The reasons why parents drink may be important in understanding the role of parent drinking for family relationships. Alcohol is often used to regulate emotions and drinking to regulate emotions is often associated with negative consequences for drinking (Paulus et al., 2021). The current study therefore considers how drinking motives may independently or interactively predict harsh parenting and child affectivity during parent-child discussions. In addition, mother and father drinking and drinking motives are examined as predictors of both their own and their spouses’ harsh parenting.

The acute effects of alcohol are wide ranging and result from central nervous system depression and stimulation (Deitrich & Erwin, 1995). For example, alcohol consumption produces feelings of sedation, difficulties with divided attention, loss of motor control and postural stability, slurred speech, memory impairments, slower reaction time, behavioral disinhibition, and decreased sensory perception (Zoethout et al., 2011). These effects are greater at higher doses of alcohol, although there are large individual differences in the blood alcohol concentrations that produce symptoms of intoxication (Olson et al., 2013). Therefore, a single incident of alcohol consumption can result in illegal activity (e.g., 5% of women and 10% of men report driving while intoxicated in the past year; White, 2020), aggression toward family members, and long-lasting embarrassment or loss of interpersonal status (Kuypers et al., 2020). For children, this may mean a reduction in family resources, increased parental stress, separation from a parent who has been arrested, exposure to marital conflict or parental aggression, and a loss of trust and security.

Although sub-clinical levels of parent drinking have not been studied as extensively as parental problem drinking, prior research does indicate associations with parenting. For example, subclinical levels of father drinking predict decreases in parental warmth over a one-year period and subclinical levels of mother drinking predict increases in parental psychological control, controlling for earlier parenting, drinking of the other parent, parental depression, and marital conflict (Keller et al., 2008). Increases in parental alcohol consumption from child first to eighth grade are associated with significant declines in positive parenting and supervision during this same period (Tildesley & Andrews, 2008). Greater frequency of parent alcohol use is significantly related to greater tension in relationships with adolescents, higher use of discipline, fewer shared activities, and lower monitoring; similar associations were found for frequency of parent alcohol intoxication (Latendresse et al., 2008)

The current study advances research by incorporating parent drinking motives as an important feature of parent drinking that may relate to parenting difficulties and child affect. Motives for consuming alcohol have emerged as an important factor that distinguishes between people who do and do not experience negative consequences from drinking (Bresin & Makawi, 2021). The dominant theory proposes four common drinking motives (Cooper, 1994; Cooper et al., 1992). The first two are approach-related motives to increase positive experiences: social motives (drinking to promote or improve social interactions) and enhancement motives (drinking to promote positive emotions and sensations). The second two are motives to avoid negative experiences: coping motives (drinking to reduce negative emotions or sensations) and conformity motives (drinking to avoid social exclusion).

Importantly, the reasons why people drink are more strongly associated with negative drinking consequences than is the quantity of alcohol consumed, with coping and enhancement motives being most strongly linked to negative consequences than social or conformity motives (Cooper et al., 1988). Controlling for drinking quantity, drinking in social and solitary contexts, other drinking motives, and prior levels of negative consequences, coping motives are associated with increases in negative drinking consequences such as interpersonal problems, academic and employment difficulties, lack of self-care, and risky behavior (Waddell et al., 2021). Days on which coping and enhancement motives are higher are associated with greater negative drinking consequences (Patrick & Terry-McElrath, 2021).

However, there have been no empirical studies linking parent drinking motives to parenting. Drinking to enhance positive or decrease negative emotions may indicate that a person does not have adequate alternative emotion regulation skills (Paulus et al., 2021) and may become especially dysregulated during parent-child interactions when alcohol is not available. Furthermore, coping and enhancement motives are associated with multiple types of negative drinking consequences that may impact parenting ability over the long term (Waddell et al., 2021). Serious negative events that occur during a single drinking episode may result in lingering feelings of shame or guilt, lead to ongoing conflict with a spouse, or increase daily hassles by having to cope with the aftermath. In turn, parents may find it difficult to engage in consistent, healthy parenting. Finally, the negative consequences of drinking may include acts of hostility toward the child, failure to fulfill parental obligations at an important moment, risky behaviors that harm parent health or result in child injury, or exposing children to intoxicated behavior that children find erratic and unpredictable (Bryant et al., 2020). Children may lose trust in the parent-child relationship, develop feelings of insecurity, and have difficulties regulating their own emotions.

The current study also examined partner effects of parent drinking and drinking motives on parenting. In a spillover process, there may be a partner effect of drinking on the parent-child relationship, although such effects have primarily been studied for father problem drinking (Taber-Thomas & Knutson, 2021). The negative consequences of drinking may impact both partners in a relationship (Ekstrom & Johansson, 2021). Alternatively, couples may form a drinking partnership in which drinking behavior and drinking motivation of each partner is mutually reinforcing (Kehayes et al., 2019). Couples who are similar in their drinking behavior report greater marital satisfaction (Homish & Leonard, 2007). It is therefore possible that the associations between mother (or father) drinking and drinking motives are less negative in the context of similar drinking and drinking motives for the father (or mother).

The current study has the following goals: (1) examine whether there are independent associations between emotion-regulation drinking motives and harsh parenting or child affect during problem solving discussions, controlling for parent drinking; (2) examine whether parent drinking motives moderate associations between parent drinking and parenting or child affect; (3) determine whether harsh parenting serves as an intervening variable in associations between parent drinking motives and child affect; and (4) consider whether drinking motives or drinking in one parent is associated with harsh parenting and child affect during the discussion with the other parent (i.e., partner effects of parent drinking and drinking motives), or whether mother and father drinking and drinking motives interact with each other in a way consistent with concordance being protective.

The aspects of harsh parenting assessed in the current study are parental rejection and coercion, as both of these are strongly tied to socioemotional problems in children (e.g., Akcinar & Shaw, 2018). We therefore expect that greater harsh parenting (higher rejection and coercion) will be associated with greater child negative affect and lower child positive affect during discussions. Furthermore, child affect during parent-child interactions is important for study in the context of parent emotion-regulation drinking motives, as such study can shed light on the possible intergenerational transmission of emotional difficulties that underlie hazardous drinking (e.g., Keller et al., 2022). There appears to be parent-to-child transmission of drinking motives (Mares et al., 2013; Windle & Windle, 2012), and child affect may be an important mechanism of this transmission.

It was expected that greater coping and enhancement motives would be associated with greater harsh parenting, which in turn would be related to lower child positive affect and greater child negative affect in the discussions with the same parent and other parent. It was also expected that associations of parent drinking with parenting and child affect will be especially strong for parents who have greater coping or enhancement motives. However, as there are mixed findings for differences in parent drinking effects based on parent gender (e.g., Homel & Warren, 2019; Li et al., 2017; Oro et al., 2021), no differences in associations between mothers and fathers were hypothesized. Tests of interactions between mother and father drinking and drinking motives were also considered exploratory.

Method

We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, and all measures that were included in the analyses for this manuscript. This study was not preregistered.

Participants

Participants are 199 mother-father-child triads from two-parent families who had been living together for at least two years. One child (aged 6 to 12 years, M_age = 8.41; 50% female) per family participated along with their mother and father. The sample size was determined based on power analyses for the hypothesis tests making up the original objective of the federally funded study. The sample was drawn from a small city and surrounding rural areas in the Southeastern US. Inclusion criteria were: child in target age range, child did not have a developmental disability or ADHD and was not exposed to alcohol in utero, child was not taking medications that interfered with assessment of study constructs (e.g., allergy medications), and child did not have an acute or chronic health condition. Most parents were biologically related to the participating children (91% of mothers; 79% of fathers). Families were recruited through fliers, school systems, after school programs, mailed post-cards, and referral from other families.

To obtain sufficient variability in parent drinking, families were recruited so that 1/3 of participating families included at least one parent meeting criteria for heavy drinking based on CDC and NIAAA criteria (cdc.gov; niaaa.nih.gov), 1/3 of families included both parents who were light drinkers or nondrinkers, and the remaining families included at least one parent who met criteria for moderate drinking and neither met criteria for heavy drinking. Classifications were used only for recruitment purposes; drinking behavior encompasses additional characteristics beyond drinking quantity and frequency. Parent drinking indices were assessed and analyzed as continuous variables in the study according to best statistical practice and the full sample was included to help avoid restriction in range for parent drinking. Most children identified as white (77%), with 14% of children identifying as Black/African American, 7.5% identifying as multi-racial, 0.5% identifying as Asian, 0.5% identifying as Hispanic and 0.5% identifying as other racial/ethnic identity. Median family annual income was between $40,000 and $54,999.

Procedure

This study was approved by the university Institutional Review Board. Informed consent and assent were obtained upon arrival to the laboratory for a single session. Data were collected from 2010 through 2013. Each parent completed a problem-solving discussion separately with the child (i.e., discussions were dyadic) in random order. Parents were told to select a topic “that typically is a problem or is hard to handle with your child.” They were provided with a list of possible discussion topics to help them but were not required to use a topic on the list. Parents discussed the selected topic with their children as they normally would at home for five minutes and the discussions were videorecorded. During the visit, parents also completed questionnaires about their drinking motives and problem drinking. Families were provided with monetary compensation, and children were provided with a $10 toy. The procedures involved no manipulations.

Measures

Drinking Motives

Parents completed the Drinking Motives Questionnaire (DMQ; Cooper, 1994) subscales for coping and enhancement motives for drinking. Each subscale includes 5 items rated on a scale from 1 (almost never/never) to 5 (almost always/always) regarding how often the respondent drinks for the reason described. Example items include “to forget your worries” (coping motives) and “because it gives you a pleasant feeling” (enhancement motives). Scores were computed by averaging the item responses, and higher scores indicate greater drinking for that motivation. The internal consistency was excellent for the two subscales for mother self-report (α = .90 and .83, respectively) and for father self-report (α = .91 and .88).

Parental Drinking

Parents completed the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; Saunders et al., 1993). This widely used measure was developed by the World Health Organization and includes 10 items assessing the frequency and amount of consumption, loss of control over drinking, failure to fulfill obligations as a result of drinking, black-outs, feelings of guilt or shame about drinking, and receiving recommendations to cut down on drinking. Internal consistency was .76 for mothers and .83 for fathers.

Coding of Problem-Solving Discussions

Six trained research assistants coded the parent-child discussions using the System for Coding Interactions and Family Functioning (SCIFF; Lindahl & Malik, 2000). SCIFF was designed to assess family functioning during problem-solving discussions. All codes (see below) are scored on a scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (high), in the use of the behavior or affect expression. A random 20% of videos were independently coded by all coders to compute inter-rater reliability. Reliability ranged from ICC = .77–.96 across all mother, father, and child codes.

Parenting Behaviors.

The Rejection and Invalidation code and the Coercion code were utilized. Rejection and Invalidation refers to parent behavior that is cruel, blaming, critical, insulting, insensitive and dismissive of child emotions. It can be evident in verbal (e.g., “You are such a slob!”) and nonverbal (e.g., condescending tone) expressions. Coercion refers to parent behavior that is threatening, highly punitive, dictatorial, and manipulative. It can also be evident through verbal (e.g., “I make the rules, you follow them.”) and nonverbal (e.g., intimidating body posture) expressions.

Child Affect.

The child Positive Affect code rated the extent to which children exhibited emotionally positive vocal tone, body language, and facial expressions. Examples of positive affect include smiling, laughing, and giving affection. Child negative affect was based on the average of Sadness and Anger/Frustration. The Sadness code is based on the extent to which the child makes verbal and nonverbal expressions of sadness, anguish, or despair. Examples of sadness include crying, sad frowns, and slumped posture. The Anger/Frustration code is based on the extent to which the child makes verbal and nonverbal expressions of anger, frustration, tension, and irritation. Examples of anger/frustration include whining, complaining, and yelling.

Data Analysis Plan

Initial analyses described the extent of problem drinking in the sample. Hypotheses were tested with structural equation modeling using AMOS (v. 26; Arbuckle, 2019). Prior to fitting models, data were examined for outliers, missing data, and univariate non-normality. Outliers were detected using the Mahalanobis Distance (Mahalanobis, 1936). Ten participants had distances with p < .001 and were removed from the analyses. Thus, the final sample for data analysis consisted of 189 families (mother, father, child). Missing data ranged from 0%–11.1% per variable. Single imputation using the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm was performed (Moon, 1996). Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables were also computed. All study variables were skewed, indicating that the maximum likelihood assumption of multivariate normality was likely violated. Therefore, asymptotically distribution free (ADF) estimation, which does not assume multivariate normality, was used.

A total of 14 models were fit to the data. Seven models included mother parenting and child affect in the mother-child discussion and seven models included father parenting and child affect in the father-child discussion. Within each group of seven models, (1) one model included mother drinking and coping motives, (2) another included mother drinking and enhancement motives, (3) another included father drinking and coping motives, (4) one included father drinking and enhancement motives, (5) one included mother and father drinking; (6) one included mother and father coping motives, and (7) the last model included mother and father enhancement motives. Separate models were fit for coping and enhancement motives because these are conceptually distinct motives according to theory and the factor structure of the Drinking Motives Questionnaire, as well as to avoid multicollinearity concerns that may be especially severe when two cross products involve the same variable and two strongly correlated variables. Harsh parenting was modeled as a latent variable indicated by rejection and coercion, and direct and indirect pathways (through harsh parenting) from the parent drinking variables and child positive and negative affect were estimated. The correlation between child positive and negative affect residuals was estimated in all models. The following variables were also considered as covariates: family income, child sex (male = 1, female = 0), child age, and whether the parent was biologically related to the child (biological = 1, not biological = 0). Models were considered an excellent fit to the data if the model χ² was not significant. However, if this criterion was not met, models were also considered a good fit to the data if they met the following criteria: χ²/df < 2.00, CFI > .95, and RMSEA < .08 (Kline, 2015). Because robust estimation procedures prevent bootstrapping, the significance of indirect associations was tested conservatively with Sobel (1982) using an online calculator (quantpsy.org; Preacher & Leonardelli, 2003). Significant interactions were plotted at +1 and −1 SD of the moderating variable, and regions of significance were obtained using an online utility (quantpsy.org; Preacher et al., 2006).

Table 1 provides correlations, means, and standard deviations, which can be used to analyze the data. Raw data and analysis code are available from the first author by sending an email request to the corresponding author.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables

Variable	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.	12.	13.	14.
1. Mother AUDIT
2. Mother Coping	.63***
3. Mother Enhanc.	.68***	.60***
4. Father AUDIT	.33***	.19**	.34***
5. Father Coping	.25***	.23**	.16*	.51***
6. Father Enhanc.	.37***	.28***	.41***	.72***	.55***
7. Mother Rej.	.34***	.24**	.18*	.14	.12	.09
8. Mother Coerc.	.18*	.15*	.15*	.09	.16*	.03	.51***
9. Father Rej.	.13	.08	.09	.09	.18*	.16*	.22**	.13
10. Father Coerc.	.18*	.22**	.14	.04	.18*	.12	.23**	.32***	.74***
11. Child Pos w/M	−.07	−.05	−.04	−.07	−.01	−.05	−.18*	−.22**	−.05	−.11
12. Child Neg w/M	.09	.02	−.05	−.03	−.05	−.01	.42***	.22**	.12	.16*	.35***
13. Child Pos w/F	−.01	−.08	.06	.02	−.12	−.01	−.13	−.13	.44***	.46***	.19*	−.16*
14. Child Neg w/F	.17*	.14	.02	−.03	.18*	.05	.20**	.16*	.63***	.69***	−.06	.20**	.67***
M	2.29	7.21	9.50	3.19	7.36	10.80	1.41	1.14	1.85	1.69	1.99	1.95	2.27	2.26
SD	2.13	3.50	4.59	3.12	3.14	5.32	0.62	0.37	1.03	1.01	1.09	1.18	1.07	1.25

Note. AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test; Enhanc. = Enhancement, Rej. = Rejection, Coerc. = Coercion, Pos = positive affect, Neg = negative affect, w/M = mother-child discussion, w/F = father-child discussion;

^*p <.05;

^**p <.01;

^***p <.001.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Consistent with prior research, there were significant positive associations between mother and father drinking, as well as between mother and father drinking motives (see Table 1). For mothers and fathers, the average drinking frequency was between less than monthly and 2–4 times per month; the average drinking quantity was 1–2 drinks per drinking occasion. Approximately 22% of mothers engaged in heavy drinking at least occasionally, 6% of mothers reported being unable to stop drinking, 10% reported drinking interfering with their responsibilities, 11% reported feeling regret about their drinking, and 6% reported memory loss due to drinking. Approximately 40% of fathers engaged in heavy drinking at least occasionally, 7% reported drinking interfering with their responsibilities, 12% reported feeling regret about their drinking, 7% reported memory loss due to drinking, and 6% reported that others were concerned about their drinking.

Models of Mother Drinking and Associations with Mother Parenting

Table 2 shows the coefficients and Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of tested models along with the results for the model with mother coping motives. Both models met criteria for excellent fit. There was a direct association between mother enhancement motives for drinking and lower child negative affect. Mother drinking was associated with harsh mother parenting in both models, and harsh mother parenting was related to lower child positive affect (only in model with coping motives) and greater child negative affect. These findings suggest a possible indirect association between mother drinking and child affectivity during discussions via mother harsh parenting, but a significant interaction was also observed.

Table 2.

Model Coefficients and Fit Indices for Models of Mother and Father Drinking Relations with Their Own Parenting and Child Affect

	Mother Drinking and Mother-Child Interactions		Father Drinking and Father-Child Interactions
Estimate	Coping Motives	Enhancement Motives	Coping Motives	Enhancement Motives
Parenting Factor Loadings
Rejection	1.00f	1.00f	1.00f	1.00f
Coercion	0.28***	0.22*	1.06***	1.06***
Predictors of Harsh Parenting
Drinking	0.09***	0.08*	−0.01	−0.04
Motive	0.00	0.00	0.06*	0.04*
Drinking x Motive	0.01	0.01**	0.00	0.00
Family Income	−0.03*	−0.03	−0.04	−0.05*
Child Age	0.05**	0.04
Child Male	0.08	0.12
Biological Parent	0.26*	0.24*
Predictors of Child Positive Affect
Drinking	−0.02	−0.07	0.04	0.01
Motive	0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.01
Drinking x Motive	0.00	0.01	−0.01	0.00
Harsh Parenting	−0.32*	0.28	−0.65***	−0.67***
Family Income	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Child Age	−0.06	−0.07
Child Male	−0.12	−0.11
Biological Parent	−0.09	−0.07
Predictors of Child Negative Affect
Drinking	−0.01	0.04	−0.06*	−0.03
Motive	−0.04	−0.06*	0.03	0.00
Drinking x Motive	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.00
Harsh Parenting	0.90***	0.88*	1.11***	1.13***
Family Income	0.00	0.01	−0.02	−0.02
Child Age	−0.01	0.00
Child Male	0.42*	0.37*
Biological Parent	0.10	0.04
Model Fit
Model x2	11.03	14.92	1.99	2.09
X2/df	1.23	1.66	0.40	0.42
CFI	.992	.982	1.000	1.000
RMSEA	.035	.059	.000	.000

Note. f = parameter fixed to 1 for identification purposes;

^*p < .05,

^**p < .01,

^***p < .001.

Coefficients are unstandardized and were estimated with asymptotically distribution free estimation.

Figure 1.

Harsh Parenting as an Intervening Variable in Relations Between Mother Problem Drinking and Child Negative and Positive Affect

Note. f = parameter fixed to 1 for identification purposes; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Nonsignificant paths are not included to simplify presentation.

Specifically, there was a significant mother enhancement motives x drinking interaction related to mother harsh parenting (see Figure 2). Consistent with hypotheses, the association between mother drinking and greater harsh parenting is stronger when mothers drink for enhancement motives; the association is significant when mothers drink for enhancement motives that are −0.54 SD from the mean and higher. Furthermore, the indirect association between mother drinking and child negative affect through harsh parenting was significant when mother enhancement drinking is high, Z_SOBEL = 2.04, p = .041, but not when mother enhancement drinking was low, Z_SOBEL = 1.19, p = .233. There was no significant indirect association for child positive affect.

Figure 2.

Mother Enhancement Motives Moderates Associations Between Mother Problem Drinking and Mother Harsh Parenting

Note. Association between mother problem drinking and mother harsh parenting is significant at values of mother enhancement motives −.54 SD and higher; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Models of Father Drinking and Associations with Father Parenting

Table 2 provides coefficients for the models of father problem drinking. Models were identical in form to those in Figure 1, with the exception that child age, child sex, and father biological status were not included as covariates for parsimony; no associations between these variables and parenting or child affect were observed. Both models met criteria for excellent fit.

There was a direct association between father drinking and lower child negative affect but no other associations involving father drinking. There were also no associations involving father coping motives. However, father enhancement motives were independently associated with greater father harsh parenting and greater father harsh parenting was related to lower child positive affect and greater child negative affect in discussions with fathers. These findings suggest a possible indirect association between father enhancement drinking motives and child affectivity during interactions via father harsh parenting. The indirect association was significant for lower child positive affect, Z_SOBEL = 1.97, p = .049, and for higher child negative affect, Z_SOBEL = 2.02, p = .043.

Models of Mother Drinking and Associations with Father Parenting

The two models of cross-partner effects of mother drinking on father harsh parenting and child affect during the father-child discussion were an excellent fit to the data (see Table 3). Mother drinking was related to greater child positive affect when interacting with fathers. There were also five significant interactions between mother drinking and mother drinking motives, including all four interactions predicting child affect during the father-child discussion. First, mother coping motives interacted with mother drinking in relation to child positive affect (Figure 3A). Unexpectedly, mother drinking was associated with greater child positive affect when mother coping motives were lower (−.03 SD from the mean and lower) but not when coping motives were higher. Second, mother coping motives interacted with mother drinking in association with child negative affect (Figure 3B). Consistent with expectations, mother drinking related to greater child negative affect when mother coping motives were high (simple slope becomes significant at +1.83 SD from the mean and higher); but was related to lower child negative affect when mother coping motives were −2.09 SD from the mean and lower. Third, mother enhancement motives interacted with mother drinking in association with child positive affect (Figure 3C). Interestingly, mother drinking was associated with greater positive child affect when mother enhancement motives were lower (simple slope becomes significant at −0.76 SD and below). Fourth, mother enhancement motives interacted with mother drinking in relation to child negative affect (Figure 3D). Consistent with expectations, mother drinking was significantly related to greater child negative affect when mother enhancement motives were higher (simple slope is significant at +1.44 SD and higher).

Table 3.

Model Coefficients and Fit Indices for Models of Mother and Father Drinking Relations with Cross-Partner Parenting and Child Affect

Estimate	Mother Drinking and Father-Child Interactions		Father Drinking and Mother-Child Interactions
	Coping Motives	Enhancement Motives	Coping Motives	Enhancement Motives
Parenting Factor Loadings
Rejection	1.00f	1.00f	1.00f	1.00f
Coercion	1.11***	1.08***	0.23*	0.25*
Predictors of Harsh Parenting
Drinking	0.06	0.12*	0.01	0.00
Drinking Motive	0.05	0.01	0.01	0.01
Drinking x Motive	−0.01	−0.01*	0.00	0.00
Family Income	−0.04	−0.05	−0.03	−0.03
Child Age			0.04	0.05*
Child Male			0.06	0.06
Biological Parent			0.28**	0.27**
Predictors of Child Positive Affect
Drinking	0.09*	0.07	−0.06	−0.03
Drinking Motive	0.01	0.03	0.02	−0.01
Drinking x Motive	−0.02*	−0.01**	0.01	0.00
Harsh Parenting	−0.70***	-0.73***	−0.29*	−0.28*
Family Income	−0.01	−0.01	0.01	0.01
Child Age			−0.07	−0.08
Child Male			−0.14	−0.14
Biological Parent			−0.08	−0.09
Predictors of Child Negative Affect
Drinking	0.00	0.02	0.00	−0.02
Drinking Motive	−0.05*	−0.05**	−0.02	0.01
Drinking x Motive	0.02*	0.01**	−0.01	0.00
Harsh Parenting	1.15***	1.17***	0.85***	0.84***
Family Income	−0.02	−0.02	−0.01	−0.01
Child Age			0.01	0.01
Child Male			0.39*	0.39*
Biological Parent			0.12	0.15
Model Fit
Model x2	8.19	0.46	12.36	11.52
X2/df	1.64	0.19	1.37	1.28
CFI	.995	1.000	.982	.991
RMSEA	.058	.000	.045	.039

Note. f = parameter fixed to 1 for identification purposes;

^*p < .05,

^**p < .01,

^***p < .001.

Coefficients are unstandardized and were estimated with asymptotically distribution free estimation.

Figure 3.

Interactions Predicting Characteristics of Father-Child Interactions.

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Lastly, there was a significant interaction between mother drinking and mother enhancement motives in association with father harsh parenting (Figure 3E). Unexpectedly, mother drinking was associated with greater father harsh parenting only when mother enhancement motives were lower (simple slope is significant at values less than .5 SD above the mean). In addition, father harsh parenting was associated with lower positive affect and greater negative affect in the father-child discussion, raising the possibility of indirect associations. When mother enhancement motives were lower, there was a significant indirect association between mother drinking and lower child positive affect, Z_SOBEL = 2.99, p = .003, and higher child negative affect, Z_SOBEL = 3.14, p = .002. There were no indirect associations when mother enhancement motives were higher.

Models of Father Drinking and Associations with Mother Parenting

The two models in which father drinking was considered in association with mother harsh parenting and child affect during the mother-child discussion were an excellent fit to the data (see Table 3 for results). However, father drinking, father coping motives and father enhancement motives were not significantly associated with mother harsh parenting or child affect during the mother-child discussion, nor were there any significant interactions between father drinking and father drinking motives.

Models of Interactions Between Mother and Father Drinking

Five of the six models were an excellent fit to the data; one model had a significant model X², but the other fit indices indicated a good fit to the data. Model coefficients are provided in Table 4. There was only one significant interaction; mother and father AUDIT scores interacted in association with child negativity in the father-child interaction. This interaction is shown in Figure 3, panel F. There was no significant association between father drinking and child negativity for lower levels of mother drinking. Although the association between father drinking and child negativity was only marginally significant at +1 SD of mother drinking, this association becomes significant at +1.27 SD of mother drinking. Thus, at higher levels of mother drinking, father drinking is associated with significantly lower child negativity.

Table 4.

Model Coefficients and Fit Indices for Models of Interactions Between Mother and Father Drinking

	Models of Mother-Child Discussion			Models of Father-Child Discussion
	Drink X	Coping X	Enhance X	Drink X	Coping X	Enhance X
Estimate	Drink	Coping	Enhance	Drink	Coping	Enhance
Parenting Factor Loadings
Rejection	1.00f	1.00f	1.00f	1.00f	1.00f	1.00f
Coercion	0.33***	0.35***	0.49***	1.06***	1.09***	1.07***
Predictors of Harsh Parenting
Mother	0.09**	0.05**	0.02	0.07*	0.04	0.02
Father	−0.01	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.04	0.02
M x F	−0.01	−0.01	−0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00
Income	−0.04*	−0.04*	−0.04*	−0.04	−0.04	−0.05*
Child Age	0.04	0.04	0.03
Child Male	0.06	0.03	−0.03
Bio. Parent	0.24	0.25*	0.21
Predictors of Child Positive Affect
Mother	−0.01	0.00	0.00	0.04	0.01	0.03
Father	−0.05	0.01	−0.02	−0.02	−0.01	0.01
M x F	−0.02	−0.01	−0.01	−0.02**	0.00	0.00
Parenting	−0.45*	−0.41**	−.48***	−0.68***	−0.67***	−0.69***
Income	0.00	−0.01	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00
Child Age	−0.08	−0.06	−0.07
Child Male	−0.17	−0.09	−0.15
Bio. Parent	−0.02	−0.04	−0.06
Predictors of Child Negative Affect
Mother	−0.01	−0.03	−0.04	0.04	−0.01	−0.02
Father	0.00	−0.03	0.01	0.00	0.01	−0.01
M x F	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.00
Parenting	0.89***	0.87***	0.94***	1.11***	1.13***	1.14***
Income	0.00	0.00	0.01	−0.02	−0.03	−0.02
Child Age	0.00	−0.01	0.00
Child Male	0.45**	0.43*	0.46**
Bio. Parent	0.08	0.12	0.08
Model Fit
Model x2	13.72	13.90	17.55*	2.90	8.00	5.42
x2/df	1.52	1.54	1.95	0.58	1.60	1.08
CFI	.978	.961	.961	1.00	.993	.999
RMSEA	.053	.054	.071	.000	.056	.021

Note. Drink X Drink = model includes interaction between mother and father AUDIT scores; Coping X Coping = model includes interaction between mother and father coping motives; Enhance X Enhance = model includes interaction between mother and father enhancement motives; Mother = Mother report of drinking variable; Father = Father report of drinking variable; M x F = interaction between mother and father report; f = parameter fixed to 1 for identification purposes;

^*p < .05,

^**p < .01,

^***p < .001.

Coefficients are unstandardized and were estimated with asymptotically distribution free estimation.

Discussion

The current study tested whether mother and father drinking motives were independently or interactively associated with harsh parenting and child affect during problem-solving discussions. Father enhancement motives were indirectly related to child lower positive and greater negative affect during discussions via greater father harsh parenting but were directly related to greater child positive affect. Mother enhancement motives moderated associations between mother drinking and mother harsh parenting, father harsh parenting, child negative and positive affect during father-child discussions. Mother coping motives also moderated the association between mother drinking and child negative and positive affect during father-child discussions, and mother drinking moderated the association between father drinking and child negative affect during father-child discussions. Finally, there was also a direct association between mother enhancement motives and lower child negative affect during mother-child interactions.

Findings indicate that parent drinking motives may play an important role in the effects of parent drinking on parenting and child development, although not always in the expected way. As expected, father enhancement motives were related to greater harsh father parenting even after controlling for father drinking, and father enhancement motives were indirectly related to greater child negative affect and lower child positive affect via father harsh parenting. Enhancement drinking motives involving drinking to increase positive affect, perhaps to compensate for deficits in emotion regulation abilities. As these maladaptive emotion regulation behaviors become habits, they may narrow the repertoire of emotion regulation behaviors and compromise parenting.

Although father enhancement motives were indirectly related to lower child positive affect and higher child negative affect during the discussion, there was an unexpected direct association between father enhancement motives and lower child negative affect. We offer some reasoning as to why this association was observed, but additional research is needed to replicate the finding: There is evidence that enhancement drinking motives are associated with extraversion (Kuntsche et al., 2006). Extraverted parents demonstrate greater warmth and behavioral control toward children (Prinzie et al., 2009). Thus, the direct association may be the result of a third variable (extraversion). In other words, the same fathers who drink for enhancement motives may also be more sociable and engage more with their children, leading to more positive relationships with them. Such an association may be observed only after controlling for harsh parenting perhaps because this variable suppresses the direct association.

Mother enhancement drinking motives moderated the association between mother drinking and mother and father harsh parenting, but in opposite ways. Mother drinking was associated with greater mother harsh parenting for higher levels of mother enhancement motives. This finding is consistent with hypotheses that the negative consequences of mother drinking are higher in the context of enhancement motives.

In contrast, mother drinking was associated with greater father harsh parenting only for lower levels of mother enhancement motives. This was unexpected and it is important to replicate these findings in future research. Nevertheless, one possible explanation is that fathers may engage in gentler and more accepting parenting to compensate for mother harsh parenting that results from mother drinking and enhancement motives. A non-drinking parent can serve as a source of support when the other parent engages in problem drinking (Alexanderson & Nasman, 2017) and this may also be the case with subclinical levels of drinking. Fathers may see less need to compensate for mothers when mother enhancement motives are low, as mother drinking is not associated with mother harsh parenting in that context.

Mother drinking motives also moderated associations between mother drinking and child affect in discussions with fathers. Mother drinking was associated with greater positive child affect when mother coping motives were lower, and a similar association was observed when mother enhancement motives were lower. It is especially interesting that when mother enhancement motives were lower, mother drinking was related to greater father harsh parenting. Thus, fathers were harsher, but children were more positive. Children may be using emotion regulation to reduce their risk of father aggression. Alternatively, children exposed to mother drinking and father harsh parenting may be especially dysregulated, that is, exhibiting inappropriate emotional expressions. Additional research is needed to consider these speculative explanations.

Interactions predicting child negative affect were more difficult to interpret. Mother drinking was associated with greater child negative affect with fathers only when mother coping and enhancement motives were high. However, when mother coping and enhancement motives were lower, child negative affect was consistently high regardless of mother drinking. It may be more valuable to examine mother drinking motives in relation to child negative affect, with mother drinking as the moderator (i.e., distance between the lines in the interaction Figures.) Differences are significantly larger when mother drinking is lower compared to when mother drinking is higher, suggesting that mother drinking motives are more influential when mothers are low in drinking. Perhaps mother enhancement and coping motives expose children to more positive and less negative affective expressions (at least in the absence of clinical problem drinking), socializing children to make fewer expressions of negative affect. A similar examination of the interactions predicting child positive affect supports this conclusion.

Only one interaction between mother and father drinking was observed, suggesting that drinking concordance between mothers and fathers may play relatively little role in the associations between parent drinking, parenting, and child affect. The observed interaction was with child negative affect in the father-child discussion: father drinking was related to lower child negative affect only when mother drinking was also high. One interpretation of this finding is that the combination of higher mother and father drinking may result in a more harmonious marital relationship (Homish & Leonard, 2007), promoting feelings of child security. An alternative explanation is that this combination results in an environment in which expression of negative affect toward parents is risky and maladaptive (Davies et al., 2023).

Some practical implications of findings can be highlighted. First, the parents in the current study were generally low in problem drinking. Nevertheless, significant associations were observed. The implication is that sub-clinical levels of alcohol use may pose a risk for children. Second, drinking motives were directly and interactively associated with parenting and child affect. Clinical assessment of parent drinking may need to include assessment of drinking motives. For example, if drinking is motivated by a need to enhance positive experiences, clinicians may be able to help patients find alternative and healthier means of doing so. Relatedly, several significant associations involving enhancement motives were observed. Clinicians have traditionally focused on coping motives as a factor in problem drinking and may view enhancement drinking as normal and benign. This view may need to change.

Findings should be interpreted considering study limitations. First, the cross-sectional design prevents inferences about causality, and it is likely that there are bidirectional associations among these variables (Pelham & Lang, 1999; Yan & Ansari, 2016). Second, results should not be generalized to the population of clinical problem drinkers. It is possible that among persons with severe problem drinking, the role of drinking motives is overshadowed and diminished by extensive impairments. Third, future research is needed to examine whether drinking for emotion-regulation purposes is associated with other emotion regulation problems, with them perhaps playing a causal role in coping and enhancement drinking motives, or perhaps mediating associations between these motives and parent behavior. Finally, the sample was mostly white and middle class, and findings may not generalize to different populations. Future research is also needed, as cultural norms for alcohol use differ, as do the negative consequences of drinking in minority populations (Pittman et al., 2019).

In conclusion, the current study provides some of the first evidence that parent drinking to regulate emotions is a meaningful aspect of parent drinking for families and children. We observed that harsh parenting may have an important role as a mediator of the effects of parent drinking and drinking to regulate emotions. Father drinking to regulate emotions was directly related to father harsh parenting. In contrast, mother drinking to regulate emotions interacted with mother drinking in relation to mother harsh parenting, father harsh parenting, and child affect during the father-child interaction. These interactions followed different patterns, but the combination of high mother drinking and drinking motives tended to have higher predicted levels of harsh parenting, child positive affect, and child negative affect.