Table 4.

Results of the structural paths for the five LDS models of children’s temperament as predictors of children’s social defense profiles of reactivity to interparental conflict.

Structural Paths for Each Temperament Model	LDS Change Outcomes From Wave 1 to Wave 2
	Δ Secure	Δ Mobilizing	Δ Dominant	Δ Demobilizing
Model 1: Approach
Autoregressive Path	−.63**	−.62**	−.69**	−.63**
Interparental Conflict History	−.09	.07	−.08	.16**
Proximal Interparental Conflict	−.12*	.16**	.00	−.06
Child Gender	.00	−.01	−.07	.03
Parent Occupational Prestige	.05	.00	.00	−.05
Family Income Per Capita	.02	.02	.04	.02
Temperamental Approach	−.08	.20**	.21**	−.20**
Model 2: Frustration Proneness
Autoregressive Path	−.63**	−.62**	−.65**	−.62**
Interparental Conflict History	−.09	.06	−.07	.17**
Proximal Interparental Conflict	−.12*	.16**	−.03	−.06
Child Gender	.01	−.03	−.06	.05
Parent Occupational Prestige	.03	.03	.01	−.09
Family Income Per Capita	.03	−.01	.03	.04
Frustration Proneness	−.11	.21*	.09	−.20*
Model 3: Positive Affect
Autoregressive Path	−.63**	−.62**	−.65**	−.62**
Interparental Conflict History	−.10	.13*	−.05	.11*
Proximal Interparental Conflict	−.10	.14**	−.03	−.04
Child Gender	−.01	.01	−.05	.02
Parent Occupational Prestige	.06	−.05	−.01	−.02
Family Income Per Capita	.02	.02	.04	.02
Positive Affect	.00	.19**	.00	−.14*

Note. For clarity, significant structural paths between the temperament factors and the SDS profiles are bolded.

^*p ≤ .05;

^**p ≤ .01