Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Mar 5.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Issues. 2011 Jun 13;33(2):115–135. doi: 10.1177/0192513x11412037

Intimate Partner Violence and Coparenting across the Transition to Parenthood

Marni L Kan 1, Mark E Feinberg 2, Anna R Solmeyer 3
PMCID: PMC12959796  NIHMSID: NIHMS2138383  PMID: 41788740

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) between parents has been linked to negative parenting and child maladjustment, yet the mechanisms underlying this association are not fully understood. Based on a theory that violence among parents disrupts the coparental alliance – which has been linked to parenting quality and child adjustment– we examined the effect of pre-birth violence on coparenting across the transition to parenthood. A community sample of 156 couples reported on IPV prior to the birth of their first child and on coparenting at child age 1 year. Both men and women’s violence perpetration were related to coparenting relationship quality. Couple relationship quality and parent mental health problems accounted for the links between prenatal IPV and coparenting. This study adds to our understanding of the associations between IPV and family functioning across the transition to parenthood, and has important implications for preventive intervention.

Keywords: Coparenting, intimate partner violence, transition to parenthood

A substantial proportion of dating and married couples engage in intimate partner violence (IPV), which often has negative consequences for the health and well being of the partners involved as well as for their children (Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2006). Children often experience inter-parental violence as a traumatic event and exhibit internalizing and externalizing symptoms as a consequence (Anderson & Cramer-Benjamin, 1999). The mechanisms through which IPV affects children likely include both direct exposure and indirect pathways (e.g., through disruptions in parenting quality; Anderson & Cramer-Benjamin, 1999). We propose that one indirect pathway occurs when violence undermines the quality of the coparenting relationship, which is defined as the ways in which couples coordinate their roles as parents (e.g., Katz & Low, 2004; Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001). The quality of the coparenting relationship, in turn, has been linked to parental negativity and warmth towards children (e.g., Abidin & Brunner, 1995; Floyd, Gilliam, & Costigan, 1998; Margolin et al., 2001). Moreover, the influence of IPV on coparenting may itself operate through ongoing associations with couple relationship quality and parental adjustment (e.g., depression, stress). Thus, the current study extends research on the implications of IPV by examining the associations between IPV and coparenting across the transition to parenthood, as well as investigating potential mechanisms of such associations.

Intimate Partner Violence and the Transition to Parenthood

The prevalence and frequency of IPV peak during early adulthood; estimates of the prevalence of IPV among dating, cohabiting or married young adults range from about 22 to 55 percent (e.g., Low, Monarch, Hartman, & Markman, 2002; Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi, Newman, Fagan, & Silva, 1997). Early adulthood is also a time when many couples experience the transition to parenthood, which is itself stressful for individual and couple well-being (e.g., Feinberg, 2002). That young adulthood is a period during which IPV rates are high and a period when substantial numbers of couples become parents suggests that it is important to understand the impact of IPV on early parenthood and young children. However, much of the work examining links between IPV or couple conflict, family functioning, and child outcomes has been cross-sectional and/or has focused on parents with children in early and middle childhood (e.g., Holden & Ritchie, 1991; Kaczynski, Lindahl, Malik, & Laurenceau, 2006; Katz & Low, 2004; Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 2001; Slep & O’Leary, 2005; Sturge-Apple, Davies, & Cummings, 2006). Relatively little longitudinal research has examined the influence of violence during the family formation period. According to a developmental perspective on family life, successful transition and adaptation to new stages (such as parenthood) in part depends on functioning in prior stages (e.g., Duvall, 1988). Early parenthood is a period of reorganization and change of the family system to accommodate the infant. Mutual support and problem solving of differences in expectations and parenting beliefs may be especially helpful during the stressful period when new parents learn to attend to infants’ needs for security and nurturing (Feinberg, 2002). There is evidence that negativity in the couple relationship during pregnancy predicts difficulties in later triadic interaction among both parents and the child (Lindahl, Clements, & Markman, 1997; McHale et al., 2004). By increasing levels of hostility and tension among partners and/or leading to withdrawal out of fear for safety or as an attempt to manage conflict, violence may inhibit open discussion and problem solving (Katz & Low, 2004). Thus, prior or current IPV may prevent partners from displaying mutual support and coordinating parenting roles, in turn impeding their adjustment to parenthood.

Documenting associations between IPV and family processes across the transition to parenthood would have important implications for prevention. For example, the prevention of violence before a child is born could have a positive impact on coparenting, parenting, and child adjustment over time (Cowan & Cowan, 1995; Feinberg, 2002). An understanding of other malleable family characteristics that may account for the links between prenatal IPV and coparenting may offer additional targets for prevention.

Intimate Partner Violence and Coparenting

As mentioned above, the effect of violence on children may occur through the direct witnessing of violence, as well as through indirect pathways. Studies linking IPV and conflict to negative parenting and parent-child relationships strongly suggest the presence of indirect effects. For example, IPV is associated with harsh or inconsistent discipline, insecure attachment relationships, and child abuse and neglect, which in turn predict child maladjustment (Anderson & Cramer-Benjamin, 1999; Holden & Ritchie, 1991; Kaczynski, et al., 2006; McGuigan, Vuchinich, & Pratt, 2000).

We propose that one mechanism by which IPV may negatively impact parenting is through disrupted coparenting. Coparenting refers to the ways in which partners relate to one another as parents, and includes agreement about parenting practices, supportive versus undermining behaviors, division of parenting work, and joint family management (Feinberg, 2003). The coparenting relationship is distinct from (but related to) the overall couple relationship (McHale, 1995; Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, Frosch, & McHale, 2004), and research has demonstrated that coparenting quality is consistently associated with parenting and child adjustment, even more closely than other elements of couple relationships (e.g., Abidin & Brunner, 1995; Feinberg, Kan, & Hetherington, 2007; Floyd et al., 1998; Margolin et al., 2001).

Only one study has examined the links between IPV and coparenting: In a cross-sectional study of parents with preschool-age children, marital violence was associated with both positive and hostile-withdrawn coparenting (Katz & Low, 2004). Moreover, coparenting mediated the effects of violence on children’s anxiety and depression. Other work with related constructs also supports a meditational role for coparenting. For example, coparenting has been shown to mediate the influence of couple conflict and hostility on parenting quality (Floyd et al., 1998; Margolin et al., 2001; Sturge-Apple et al., 2006). Based on this research, we hypothesized that IPV during pregnancy would predict later coparenting quality (path a in Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Conceptual Model of Intimate Partner Violence, Coparenting, and Parenting

Note. This figure shows a mediational chain of effects from IPV to coparenting, which is in turn expected to impact parenting. The current study tested associations represented by paths a through e. Path a represents the direct effect of IPV on coparenting. This effect is mediated by couple relationship quality and parent mental health, represented by paths b, c, d, and e.

Mediating Variables

Conceptual models of coparenting suggest that multiple characteristics of both partners and their relationship may together impact coparenting quality (Feinberg, 2003). Therefore, in addition to examining the potential link between IPV and coparenting, we also sought to examine the mechanisms through which IPV may impact coparenting. Although no work has studied mediators of the links between IPV and coparenting, a great deal of research has examined correlates of both IPV and coparenting and can be used to make predictions about factors that may account for associations between violence and coparenting across the transition to parenthood. Based on this work, we predicted the existence of two mediating pathways (paths b-e in Figure 1).

Couple Relationship Quality.

Compared to other couples, violent couples have been characterized as having more relationship problems overall, including conflict, difficulty in communication and problem solving, and less support and affection (Burman, Margolin, & John, 1993; Low et al., 2002; Sagrestano, Carroll, Rodriguez, & Nuwayhid, 2004). Violence is also associated with behavioral indicators of poor relationship quality, such as negative couple interaction, and greater reciprocity and escalation of negativity (Burman et al., 1993; Gottman & Notarius, 2002; Sagrestano et al., 2004). In turn, poor relationship quality is associated with negative and undermining coparenting relationships (Belsky & Hsieh, 1998; Katz & Gottman, 1996; McHale, 1995; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2004). It is therefore important to distinguish between IPV and general couple relationship quality in predicting coparenting: If IPV predicts coparenting above and beyond the effect of couple relationship quality, then violence itself should be included as a focus of prevention. In the current study, self-reported couple love and conflict were examined as mediators of the IPV-coparenting association.

Parent Mental Health.

Violence victimization in couple relationships is associated with low self-esteem and increased depressive symptoms, anxiety, and post traumatic stress disorder (Anderson, 2002; Campbell, 2002; Jasinski, 2004). In general, there is a gap in the literature regarding the implications of IPV for mental health among male partners and couples. Some research has found links between IPV and well-being for both male and female victims (Coker et al., 2002), but other work has found that women experience larger decrements in mental health related to victimization than men (Anderson, 2002; Beach et al., 2004). Mental health problems are also a risk factor for perpetration of IPV (e.g., Tolan et al., 2006). In addition, elevated depression and anxiety may limit parents’ ability to support their partners’ parenting and resolve childrearing differences with their partners (Feinberg, 2003). Although parents’ personality characteristics have been linked to coparenting in prior work (Belsky & Hsieh, 1998; Van Egeren, 2003), this study is the first to examine parent mental health as a predictor of coparenting. We examined whether depressive symptoms and anxiety mediated associations between violence and coparenting.

The Current Paper

In sum, this study examined violence prior to the birth of a first child as a predictor of coparenting quality when children reached one year of age in a community sample of first-time parents. Whereas many studies have focused on mothers as victims of violence, this study focused on the coparenting of mothers and fathers who may be involved in mutually violent relationships (Johnson, 1995); therefore, both partners’ reports of violence and coparenting were included.

In studying associations between IPV and coparenting, we also examined the role of demographic variables, including parent age, education, income, and marital status. Prior work has identified socioeconomic status as a correlate of violence (Cunradi, Caetano, & Schafer, 2002; Tolan et al., 2006). If demographic variables are also related to coparenting, they may represent third-variable confounds for the associations of interest. Therefore, we examined the extent to which demographic variables were related to coparenting, and included them as control variables in subsequent analyses where necessary.

Finally, we predicted that mental health and couple relationship quality from the prenatal period to child age 6 months would mediate the associations between prenatal IPV and coparenting at child age 1 year. Although mental health problems and couple relationship quality are conceptualized in this study as mediators in the pathway from IPV to coparenting, it is important to note that these factors are likely to exhibit bidirectional associations with IPV across the transition to parenthood. Given that we expected mental health and couple relationship quality to be fairly highly correlated from the prenatal to postpartum period (Belsky, Lang, & Rovine, 1985; Perren, von Wyl, Bürgin, Simoni, & von Klitzin, 2005), we combined measures across waves in order to test whether these factors account for the IPV-coparenting link. The implications of this approach, and alternative directions of associations between the constructs in our conceptual model, are considered further in the discussion.

Method

Participants

Participants were heterosexual couples that were expecting their first child and participating in a randomized study testing an intervention program for first-time parents that aimed to improve coparenting relationships (Feinberg & Kan, 2008; Feinberg, Kan, & Goslin, 2009). Couples were primarily (81%) recruited from childbirth education programs at two hospitals located in small cities. All other couples were recruited from doctors’ offices or health centers (8%), newspaper ads or flyers distributed in public places (7%), or by word of mouth (3%). Eligible couples were living together, at least 18 years old, and expecting their first child. Couples recruited from childbirth education programs were sent a letter and then contacted by phone. Couples recruited through health centers returned a postcard, and all other couples called the program office if they were interested in participation. Of eligible couples contacted by phone, 23% agreed to participate. A total of 169 couples completed a prenatal interview.

Participating couples resided in rural areas, towns, and small cities. At the prenatal interview (Time 1), 82% percent of couples were married and the majority of participants (91% of mothers and 90% of fathers) were Non-Hispanic White. Median annual family income was $65,000.00 (SD = $34,372.79), with a range of $2,500.00 to $162,500.00. Average educational attainment was 15.06 years for mothers (SD = 1.82) and 14.51 years for fathers (SD = 2.19); 14.4% of mothers and 29.3% of fathers did not complete any college. Mean ages were 28.33 (SD = 4.93) years for mothers and 29.76 (SD = 5.58) years for fathers.

Data for this study were taken from three time points: prenatally (Time 1), 4 to 8 months after the birth of the baby (Time 2), and approximately 13 months after the birth of the baby (Time 3). Of the 169 couples who participated at Time 1, one couple was excluded from the study after Time 1 because the mother was deceased; another was excluded because of the child’s congenital health problems. Of the remaining 167 couples, 11 couples (6.6%) did not participate at Time 3 and were therefore excluded from main effects analyses for the current study (n = 156). An additional 10 couples (6.0%) did not participate at Time 2 and were excluded from mediation analyses (n = 146). There were no differences in parent age or family income as a function of participation at each wave. However, mothers in couples who participated at both follow-up waves had more education (M = 15.26; SD = 1.76) than mothers in couples who did not (M = 13.91; SD = 1.81), t(1,163) = 3.28, p < .01; fathers in participating couples also had more education (M = 14.77; SD = 2.10) than nonparticipating fathers (M = 12.95; SD = 2.20), t(1,163) = 3.69, p < .01. Couples who participated at both follow-up waves were also more likely to be married (87%) than couples who did not (57%), χ2 (1, 167) = 11.72, p < .01. Thus, the samples that were included in analyses were slightly more educated and more likely to be married than the full sample.

Procedure

Data were collected during home interviews at Time 1 and Time 3, and through mailed questionnaires at Time 2. Human subjects procedures were reviewed and couples were paid an honorarium for their participation ($200 total across the three waves). Mothers and fathers separately completed questionnaires regarding their relationship experiences, individual qualities and attitudes, and individual well-being.

Measures

Intimate partner violence was assessed at Time 1 with the physical assault subscale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). Mothers and fathers completed eight items about their own behavior perpetrated toward their partner and the same eight items about their partner’s behavior toward themselves. Three of the eight items assess minor violence (e.g., pushing or shoving, twisting arm or hair) and five items assess severe violence (e.g., choking, beating up). All items are on a 7-point scale ranging from 0 times to More than 20 times in the past year. Prevalence of violence was a dichotomous score; if respondents indicated that a behavior had happened in the past year, prevalence was coded 1, otherwise it was coded 0. Frequency of violence was calculated by recoding each item score as the midpoint of the response category (i.e., 0 times = 0, 1 time = 1, 2 times = 2, 3 to 5 times = 4, 6 to 10 times = 8, 10 to 20 times = 15, and more than 20 times = 25).

Given the possibility of underreporting of violence and in order to simplify the analyses, mothers’ and fathers’ reports of violence were combined using a method consistent with previous research (e.g., Heyman & Schlee, 1997; Slep & O’Leary, 2005). Specifically, if either parent reported that a behavior had occurred in the past year, that behavior was considered to have occurred. The highest frequency reported by either parent was also used as the frequency for that behavior. These scores can be considered upper bound estimates of the true prevalence and frequency of violence in the sample (Schafer, Caetano, & Clark, 2002; Szinovacz & Egley, 1995). Cronbach’s alphas were .77 and .81 for prevalence and .92 and .76 for frequency for mothers’ and fathers’ behaviors, respectively.

Information about both severity and frequency may be important in measuring IPV; we utilized both in constructing the violence scores used in analyses. A frequency score consisted of the sum of the item frequency scores; and an overall severity score was created by summing item severity scores, which had values of 1 for presence of minor and 2 for presence of severe violence. The violence score used in analyses consisted of the frequency score multiplied by the severity score. This scoring method is highly correlated with violence frequency and severity and was chosen because it is sensitive to both aspects of violent behavior and avoids grouping individuals. Partners’ perpetration scores were significantly correlated, r = .66, p < .01; scores were log transformed to reduce skew.

Coparenting was assessed among mothers and fathers at Time 3 using a measure developed for the study and adapted from previous measures of coparenting and the parental alliance (Abidin & Bruner, 1995; Cordova, 2001; Frank, Jacobson, & Avery, 1988; Margolin, 1992; McHale, 1997). The measure consists of 47 items on a 7-point scale from not true of us to very true of us, and exploratory factor analyses revealed the following subscales with adequate internal consistency for mothers and fathers: agreement (e.g., “My partner and I have the same goals for our child”), parenting brings us closer (e.g., “My relationship with my partner is stronger now than before we had a child”), exposure to conflict (e.g., “How often in a typical week, when all 3 of you are together, do you yell at each other within earshot of the child?”), support (e.g., “My partner supports my parenting decisions”), and undermining (e.g., “My partner does not trust my abilities as a parent”). Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .71 to .89 for mothers and from .64 to .88 for fathers. To reduce the number of analyses undertaken and because all five subscales loaded on a single factor in exploratory factor analyses, composite scores representing coparenting for mothers and fathers were created, in which subscale scores were standardized, weighted on the basis of factor loadings, and averaged. Cronbach’s alphas for the composites were .82 and .78 for mothers and fathers, respectively; partners’ scores were correlated, r = .43, p < .01. Higher scores indicated more positive coparenting.

A composite measure of relationship quality included couple love and conflict at Time 1 and Time 2. Love and conflict were measured using the Marital Interactions Scale (Braiker & Kelley, 1979). Love was measured as the sum of nine items, (e.g., “How close do you feel toward your partner?”) and conflict was measured as the sum of five items, (e.g., “How often do you and your partner argue with one another?”). Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .78 to .87 for love and from .70 to .81 for conflict. These two scales were significantly intercorrelated for both parents at both time points (rs ranged from −.36 to −.55) and scores were significantly correlated across time (rs ranged from .47 to .59). The four scores loaded on a single factor for each parent in exploratory factor analyses and were standardized, weighted on the basis of factor loadings, and averaged separately for mothers and fathers. Higher composite scores reflected better relationship quality. Partners’ composite scores were highly correlated, r = .70, p < .01.

Depressive symptoms were measured at Time 1 and Time 2 with seven items from the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Howe, Levy & Caplan, 1999; Radloff, 1977). Items referred to symptoms experienced during the past week (e.g., “How often did you feel sad?”) and were answered on a 4-point scale. Anxiety was measured at Time 1 and Time 2 with the 20-item short form of the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS), which measures chronic anxiety (Bendig, 1956; Taylor, 1953). Items were asked in a dichotomous yes/no format (e.g., “I am a high-strung person.”) Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .66 to .84 for depressive symptoms and from .74 to .85 for anxiety. Depressive symptoms and anxiety were significantly correlated with each other for both parents at both time points (r ranged from .54 to .67) and scores were significantly correlated across time (rs ranged from .49 to .62). The four scores loaded on a single factor for each parent in exploratory factor analyses so separate composite scores representing mental health problems for mothers and fathers, in which the four scores were standardized, weighted on the basis of factor loadings, and averaged, were used in analyses. Partners’ composite scores were not significantly correlated, r = .15.

Demographic Variables. Parent age, years of education, annual family income, and marital status were collected at Time 1.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

The upper bound prevalence and frequency measures of violence revealed substantial perpetration—29.8% of mothers and 17.3% of fathers enacted at least one violent behavior in the past year. Average number of behaviors in the past year across the full sample was 2.60 (SD = 8.03) for mothers and 1.55 (SD = 5.61) for fathers.

Approximately half of the couples involved in the study were randomly assigned to a treatment condition and thus participated in some or all of an intervention that aimed to improve coparenting. Indeed, our research has found self-reported and observed improvements in parent mental health, coparenting, and parenting as a function of the intervention (Feinberg & Kan, 2008; Feinberg et al., 2009). Nonetheless, including study condition (i.e., treatment versus control) in analyses to control for group differences on post-birth variables did not modify the results. To test whether the intervention weakened the links between violence prior to the birth of the child and post-birth experiences, condition was examined as a moderator of the associations between violence and coparenting and between violence and the mediator variables. No interaction terms were significant, and the condition variable was dropped from analyses.

Finally, mothers’ education was significantly correlated with mothers’ coparenting. When partialled out, the remaining candidates for control variables were not significantly correlated with coparenting. Therefore, mothers’ education was included as a control variable in all analyses.

Associations between Intimate Partner Violence and Coparenting

Given that our data included partners nested within couples, a multilevel modeling strategy was used for all analyses. Specifically, a series of random intercept multivariate models was estimated in which mothers’ and fathers’ reports of coparenting were treated as two dependent measures. This approach accounted for dependencies in the data (i.e., within-family correlations between partners). To test whether estimates differed significantly for mothers’ versus fathers’ reports of the dependent variables, fixed effects were parameterized as main effects, which represented the effects for mothers, and interactions of predictors with a dummy-coded parent variable, which represented the difference between the effect for mothers and the effect for fathers. If the difference was significant, the effects were re-parameterized as interactions with dummy-coded variables representing mothers’ and fathers’ reports; that is, separate fixed effects were estimated for each parent. If the difference was not significant, the interaction term was dropped so that the main effect represented the effect across both parents’ reports.

Parameter estimates for the main effects models predicting coparenting are presented in Table 1. Mothers’ and fathers’ violence were entered in separate models because of their intercorrelation. Controlling for mothers’ education at Time 1, mothers’ and fathers’ violence perpetration at Time 1 both negatively predicted coparenting at Time 3. There were no significant interactions between violence and parent: Mothers’ and fathers’ violence significantly predicted both parents’ reports of coparenting.

Table 1.

Results of Violence Perpetration Predicting Coparenting, Couple Relationship Quality, and Mental Health Problems

Model 1: Main Effects on Coparenting Model 2: Couple Relationship Quality Model 3: Mental Health Problems
B SE t B SE t B SE t
Mother Violence −0.16 0.05 −3.02** −0.27 0.05 −5.28** 0.19 0.04 4.49**
Father Violence*Mother −0.23 0.07 −3.50** −0.27 0.07 −4.15** 0.40 0.07 5.89**
Father Violence*Father 0.18 0.07 2.61**
Open in a new tab

Note. Model 1 included 156 couples; Models 2 and 3 included 146 couples. Interaction terms with mother and father are the effects of violence on each parent’s report of the dependent variable; when there is no corresponding interaction with father, the interaction with mother represents the effect across both parents’ reports.

**

p < .01

Mediation Analyses

Multivariate multilevel models were examined to test the associations between violence and the mediators (see Table 1). Both parents’ violence perpetration negatively predicted relationship quality across both parents’ reports. Mothers’ violence positively predicted mental health problems across both parents’ reports and fathers’ violence positively predicted mothers’ more strongly than fathers’ mental health problems. These variables remained candidates for mediation.

To test for mediation, a series of four path analyses were conducted using full information maximum likelihood estimation (LISREL 8.8). We included all possible paths, resulting in saturated models. Two models tested mediation of the associations between mothers’ violence and both parents’ coparenting (through both parents’ reports of relationship quality and mental health problems), and two models tested mediation of the associations between fathers’ violence and both parents’ coparenting. All models included mothers’ education as a covariate.

Table 2 presents the direct and indirect (mediated) effects of violence on coparenting through relationship quality and mental health problems. Standard errors were calculated using Sobel’s (1982) formula. There was a significant mediation effect in all four models. Relationship quality fully mediated the associations between mothers’ and fathers’ violence and coparenting, such that violence was no longer related to coparenting when relationship quality was in the model. Mental health problems fully mediated the association between mothers’ violence and coparenting, and mental health problems fully mediated the association between fathers’ violence and mothers’, but not fathers’, coparenting. That is, a direct link between father’s violence and father’s coparenting remained even when mental health problems were included in the model.

Table 2.

Direct and Indirect (Mediated) Effects of Violence on Coparenting through Couple Relationship Quality and Mental Health Problems

Direct Effects Indirect Effects
Estimate SE Critical Ratio Estimate SE Critical Ratio
M Violence
 Relationship Quality
  M Coparenting 0.01 0.05 0.17 −0.13 0.05 −2.79*
  F Coparenting −0.04 0.06 −0.62 −0.14 0.04 −3.67*
 Mental Health
  M Coparenting −0.02 0.05 −0.43 −0.10 0.03 −3.38*
  F Coparenting −0.09 0.06 −1.61 −0.08 0.03 −2.93*
F Violence
 Relationship Quality
  M Coparenting −0.004 0.07 −0.06 −0.17 0.06 −2.99*
  F Coparenting −0.10 0.08 −1.35 −0.16 0.04 −3.66*
 Mental Health
  M Coparenting −0.01 0.07 −0.11 −0.17 0.04 −3.99*
  F Coparenting −0.14 0.08 −1.86† −0.12 0.04 −2.80*
Open in a new tab

Note. M = Mother; F = Father. n = 146

†

p < .10.

*

p < .01.

Discussion

This study examined whether prenatal IPV is linked to later difficulties in the coparenting relationship, which has been shown to influence both parenting and child adjustment (e.g., Abidin & Brunner, 1995; Feinberg et al., 2007; Floyd et al., 1998; Margolin et al., 2001). Consistent with prior research and our expectations, pre-birth IPV significantly predicted parents’ perceptions of the coparenting relationship at child age one year. Thus, results support our theoretical model describing how coparenting may play a role in the link between IPV and family functioning across the transition to parenthood. More complete support for this model awaits further research which examines the full pathway from prenatal IPV to coparenting difficulty to parenting, and eventually, child outcomes. The current study began to unpack the relation between IPV and coparenting: We found that relationship quality, and to some extent, mental health problems, accounted for the associations between IPV and coparenting. These results build upon past research with families of young children and add to our understanding of the implications of violence for emerging family systems.

The consistent associations found in this study between IPV and coparenting support a family systems perspective (Minuchin, 1974) and suggest that pre-existing couple relationship conflict spills over to parents’ early coparenting subsystem. Our findings are consistent with prior cross-sectional work on links between marital violence and coparenting (Katz & Low, 2004), and extend such work by examining these associations longitudinally across the transition to parenthood. Although the design of our study (i.e., that violence and coparenting were each measured only once) limits us from drawing conclusions about causal associations, the results suggest that working with couples to curtail or prevent violence in their relationships before the birth of their child may have positive implications for the development of coparenting relationships after the child is born (Cowan & Cowan, 1995; Feinberg, 2002).

Mechanisms of Association

Couple relationship quality was a consistent mediator of the links between IPV and perceptions of coparenting. This finding accords with Levendosky and Graham-Bermann’s (2001) cross-sectional finding that marital satisfaction mediated the association between domestic violence and parenting in a sample of women, and extends these results to coparenting and to fathers. That IPV did not predict coparenting after accounting for relationship quality suggests that violence could be addressed in preventive interventions that focus primarily on enhancing the overall couple relationship at the transition to parenthood. Indeed, universal prevention programs aimed at improving couple relationships by teaching conflict management and problem solving skills and helping to increase positive interaction may have concomitant effects on IPV (e.g., Low et al., 2002). Future research should examine similar mediation processes using measures of coparenting that are more distinct from relationship quality than ours (cross-sectional correlations were .72 for mothers and .66 for fathers in this sample). Additionally, we acknowledge that the associations demonstrated in this study could represent bidirectional pathways of influence between IPV and couple relationship quality. It is likely that poor prenatal couple relationship quality puts couples at risk of engaging in IPV, which further deteriorates relationship quality across the transition to parenthood. Because of the high correlation of relationship quality over time, we were unable to tease apart these associations in the current study. Instead, our findings suggest that it is the ongoing associations between IPV and couple relationship quality across the transition to parenthood that account for the link between prenatal IPV and later coparenting.

It is notable that fathers’ violence predicted mothers’ mental health more strongly than fathers’ mental health (though both associations were significant). This finding partially accords with prior studies that have found stronger mental health implications of violence for women than for men (e.g., Anderson, 2002; Beach et al., 2004), and suggests that the effects of IPV on each partners’ mental health should be examined closely in community samples. It is possible that men and women experience and react to violent acts differently, or that women’s mental health is more sensitive to relationship disturbances (Anderson, 2002).

Parental mental health fully mediated the association between mothers’ violence perpetration and both parents’ reports of coparenting quality. It seems that mothers’ violence is related to couple difficulties that impair or are affected by the mental health of both partners, and that these difficulties account for poorer coparenting. In contrast, mental health problems fully mediated the association between fathers’ violence perpetration and mothers’, but not fathers’, report of coparenting. The stronger associations between fathers’ violence and mothers’ as compared to fathers’ mental health may also mean that mothers’ perceptions of coparenting are more reactive to violence as a function of decrements in mental health. Alternatively, the mental health problems that give rise to violent behavior among fathers may also impact mothers’ perceptions of the coparenting relationship. These findings adds to prior work on violence, mental health, and parenting among women (Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 2001), and suggest that the processes linking violence and coparenting may differ somewhat for men versus women. Future research should investigate mothers’ versus fathers’ experiences of and reactions to IPV in relation to mental health and relationship outcomes, and should attempt to tease apart the direction of effects between IPV and mental health in the prediction of coparenting quality.

Limitations and Future Directions

The questions raised by this study suggest several directions for future research. First, the generalizability of the results is limited due to the nature of the sample. This sample was comprised of primarily White couples and, although there is a wide range of age, income, and education, on average the couples were well-educated and middle-class. It is possible that different associations between violence and coparenting would be evident among couples of different backgrounds, or in a sample in which violence is more prevalent or severe (Johnson, 1995; Szinovacz & Egley, 1995). The patterns of violence reported herein suggest that the families in this sample primarily reported common couple violence, which refers to violence mutually perpetrated by both members of a couple in the context of conflict, as opposed to the less prevalent “patriarchal terrorism” type of recurring and largely male-perpetrated violence (Johnson, 1995). Thus, replication of this study with different samples is needed. Nonetheless, it is notable that associations between violence and perceptions of coparenting were detected in a community sample of couples, even after controlling for socioeconomic status. We also note that the couples volunteered to participate in this randomized trial of a prevention program. However, these couples exhibited a similar prevalence of violence as that reported in other studies of community samples (e.g., Katz & Low, 2004; Slep & O’Leary, 2005); therefore the effects of selection bias may be limited.

The conclusions drawn from this study are limited by the sole use of self-report measures. A previous study has found links between violence and observed coparenting (Katz & Low, 2004); replicating this association across the transition to parenthood, using observational data, is an important direction for future work. Additionally, the use of the CTS2 to measure IPV limited us to an understanding of the occurrence of violent acts. Future work should focus on the meaning of violent behaviors (Johnson, 1995), and potential differences among couples in which women, men, or both exhibit violence, when predicting family processes across the transition to parenthood. For instance, it is important to understand whether mothers’ violence is in retaliation for fathers’ violence among some couples, which could have different implications for mental health and coparenting and might contribute to an explanation of the different pathways through which mothers’ versus fathers’ violence are associated with coparenting.

As discussed above, although the theoretical model underlying this study proposes that prenatal violence impacts parental and couple functioning from the prenatal to the postpartum period, which in turn has implications for coparenting at child age 1 year, alternative directions of effect between these constructs are plausible and cannot be ruled out by the present study. Couple relationship quality could be a cause or result of violence, coparenting, or both; mental health problems could contribute to violence perpetration and result from victimization, and could be a cause or result of coparenting. In addition, the influence of prenatal IPV is likely to depend on whether violence persists after the transition to parenthood; measurement of IPV at later stages would allow for a better understanding of the ongoing role of IPV in family life. The current study tests a theoretically grounded model using measurements of family processes at specific points in time, but future work should explore alternative explanations for the observed associations.

Similarly, the proposed mediators of the violence-coparenting link were measured at the same time point. In fact, it is likely that there are bidirectional influences between mental health and relationship quality. Future research should aim to establish clearer evidence of causality in the prediction of coparenting by these constructs over time. Nonetheless, that couple relationship quality and mental health problems accounted for the associations between violence and coparenting suggests that they are likely to be useful foci for intervention.

Finally, this study only tested the first part of the conceptual model that we proposed, in which coparenting is a mediator of the associations between violence and parenting. Further work should test the full mediation model by examining the degree to which violence impacts parenting through coparenting. Additionally, the proposed model is not exhaustive, and there may be reciprocal relations among many of the variables in the model as families deal with the challenges of the early family formation period.

This study covered new terrain in the field of violence and family systems by studying the longitudinal implications of IPV for coparenting across the transition to parenthood. Couple relationship quality and parent mental health in particular were uncovered as possible mechanisms linking violence with coparenting quality. The results of this study suggest that decrements in coparenting may be an important pathway through which IPV impacts family functioning, and this result has important implications for preventive intervention with couples during the transition to parenthood.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the families who participated in this study. We thank Jesse Boring, Megan Goslin, Carmen Hamilton, Richard Puddy, Carolyn Ransford, and Samuel Sturgeon for their assistance in conducting this study and Donna Coffman for assistance with analysis. This study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Development (1 K23 HD042575) and the National Institute of Mental Health (R21 MH064125–01), Mark E. Feinberg, principal investigator.

Contributor Information

Marni L. Kan, RTI International, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194

Mark E. Feinberg, The Pennsylvania State University, 109 S. Henderson Building, University Park, PA 16802

Anna R. Solmeyer, The Pennsylvania State University, 110 S. Henderson Building, University Park, PA 16802

References

  1. Abidin RR, & Bruner JF (1995). Development of a Parenting Alliance Inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 31–40. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson KL (2002). Perpetrator or victim? Relationships between intimate partner violence and well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 851–863. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson SA, & Cramer-Benjamin DB (1999). The impact of couple violence on parenting and children: An overview and clinical implications. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beach SRH, Kim S, Cercone-Keeney J, Gupta M, Arias l., & Brody GH (2004). Physical aggression and depressive symptoms: Gender asymmetry in effects? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 341–360. [Google Scholar]
  5. Belsky J, & Hsieh K (1998). Patterns of marital change during the early childhood years: Parent personality, coparenting, and division-of-labor correlates. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 511–528. [Google Scholar]
  6. Belsky J, Lang ME, & Rovine M (1985). Stability and change in marriage across the transition to parenthood: A second study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 47, 855–865. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bendig AW (1956). The development of a short form of the Manifest Anxiety Scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20, 384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Braiker H, & Kelley HH (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In Burgess RL & Huston TL (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships. (pp. 135–168). New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Burman B, Margolin G, & John RS (1993). America’s angriest home videos: Behavioral contingencies observed in home reenactments of marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 28–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Campbell JC (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359, 1331–1336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Coker AL, Davis KE, Arias I, Desai S, Sanderson M, Brandt HM, & Smith PH (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260–268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cordova AD (2001). Teamwork and the transition to parenthood. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61, 5052. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cowan CP, & Cowan PA (1995). Interventions to ease the transition to parenthood: Why they are needed and what they can do. Family Relations, 44, 412–423. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cunradi CB, Caetano R, & Schafer J (2002). Socioeconomic predictors of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Family Violence, 17, 377–389. [Google Scholar]
  15. Duvall EM (1988). Family development’s first forty years. Family Relations, 37, 127–134. [Google Scholar]
  16. Feinberg ME (2002). Coparenting and the transition to parenthood: A framework for prevention. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 5, 173–195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Feinberg ME (2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3, 95–132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Feinberg ME, & Kan M L. (2008). Establishing family foundations: Effects on coparenting, parent/infant well-being, and parent-child relations. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 253–263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Feinberg ME, Kan ML, & Goslin MC (2009). Enhancing coparenting, parenting, and child self-regulation: Effects of family foundations 1 year after birth. Prevention Science, 10, 276–285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Feinberg ME, Kan ML, & Hetherington EM (2007). The longitudinal influence of coparenting conflict on parental negativity and adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 687–702. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Floyd FJ, Gilliom LA, & Costigan CL (1998). Marriage and the parenting alliance: Longitudinal prediction of change in parenting perceptions and behaviors. Child Development, 69, 1461 – 1479. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Frank SJ, Jacobson S, & Avery C (1988). The Family Experiences Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, East Lansing, MI. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gottman JM, & Notarius CI (2002). Marital research in the 20th century and a research agenda for the 21st century. Family Process, 41, 159–197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Heyman RE, & Schlee KA (1997). Toward a better estimate of the prevalence of partner abuse: Adjusting rates based on the sensitivity of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 332–338. [Google Scholar]
  25. Holden GW, & Ritchie KL (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing, and child behavior problems: Evidence from battered women. Child Development, 62, 311–327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Howe GW, Levy, & Caplan RD (1999). CES-D. Unpublished measure, Couples Unemployment Project. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jasinski JL (2004). Pregnancy and domestic violence: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 5, 47–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Johnson MP (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kaczynski KJ, Lindahl LM, Malik NM, & Laurenceau J (2006). Marital conflict, maternal and paternal parenting, and child adjustment : A test of mediation and moderation. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 199–208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Katz LF, & Gottman JM (1996). Spillover effects of marital conflict: In search of parenting and coparenting mechanisms. In McHale J & Cowan P (Eds.), Understanding how family-level dynamics affect children’s development: Studies of two-parent families (pp. 57–76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Katz LF, & Low SM (2004). Marital violence, co-parenting, and family-level processes in relation to children’s adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 372–382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Levendosky AA, & Graham-Berman SA (2001). Parenting in battered women: The effects of domestic violence on women and their children. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 171–191. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lindahl KM, Clements M, & Markman H (1997). Predicting marital and parent functioning in dyads and triads: A longitudinal investigation of marital processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 139–151. [Google Scholar]
  34. Low S, Monarch ND, Hartman S, & Markman H (2002). Recent therapeutic advances in the prevention of domestic violence. In Schewe PA (Ed.), Preventing violence in relationships: Interventions across the life span. (pp. 197–221). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  35. Magdol L, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Newman DL, Fagan J, & Silva PA (1997). Gender differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21-year olds: Bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 68–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Margolin G (1992). Coparenting Questionnaire. Unpublished instrument, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. [Google Scholar]
  37. Margolin G, Gordis E, & John R (2001). Coparenting: A link between marital conflict and parenting in two parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 3–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. McGuigan WM, Vuchinich S, & Pratt CC (2000). Domestic violence, parents’ view of their infant, and risk for child abuse. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 613–624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. McHale JP (1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital distress and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 31, 985–996. [Google Scholar]
  40. McHale JP (1997). Overt and covert coparenting processes in the family. Family Process, 36, 183–201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. McHale JP, Kazali C, Rotman T, Talbot J, Carleton M, Lieberson R (2004). The transition to coparenthood: Parents’ prebirth expectations and early coparental adjustment at 3 months postpartum. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 711–733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Minuchin S (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  43. Perren S, von Wyl A, Bürgin D, Simoni H, & von Klitzing K (2005). Depressive symptoms and psychosocial stress across the transition to parenthood: Associations with parental psychopathology and child difficulty. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 26, 173–183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Radloff LS (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sagrestano LM, Carroll D, Rodriguez AC, & Nuwayhid B (2004). Demographic, psychological, and relationship factors in domestic violence during pregnancy in a sample of low-income women of color. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 309–322. [Google Scholar]
  46. Schafer J, Caetano R, & Clark CL (2002). Agreement about violence in U.S. couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 457–470. [Google Scholar]
  47. Schoppe-Sullivan SJ, Mangelsdorf SC, Frosch CA, & McHale JL (2004). Associations between coparenting and marital behavior from infancy to the preschool years. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 194–207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Slep AMS, & O’Leary SG (2005). Parent and partner violence in families with young children: Rates, patterns, and connections. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 435–444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Sobel ME (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In Leinhardt S (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). Washington DC: American Sociological Association. [Google Scholar]
  50. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, Sugarman DB (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sturge-Apple ML, Davies PT, & Cummings EM (2006). Hostility and withdrawal in marital conflict: Effects on parental emotional unavailability and inconsistent discipline. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 227–238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Szinovacz ME, & Egley LC (1995). Comparing one-partner and couple data on sensitive marital behaviors: The case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 995–1010. [Google Scholar]
  53. Taylor JA (1953). A personality scale of manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 285–290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Tolan P, Gorman-Smith D, & Henry D (2006). Family violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 557–583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Egeren LA (2003). Prebirth predictors of coparenting experiences in early infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24, 278–295. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES