Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Child Fam Stud. 2017 May 3;26(8):2152–2165. doi: 10.1007/s10826-017-0737-1

Couple Conflict in Parents of Children with versus without Autism: Self-Reported and Observed Findings

Sigan L Hartley 1, Lauren M Papp 1, Iulia Mihaila 1, Paige M Bussanich 1, Greta Goetz 1, Emily J Hickey 1
PMCID: PMC5661987  NIHMSID: NIHMS873409  PMID: 29097880

Abstract

We compared the couple conflict of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to a comparison group of parents of children without disabilities using self-reported and observational measures. In total, 178 couples who had a child with ASD (aged 5–12 years) and 174 couples who had children without disabilities (aged 5–12 years), recruited from a Midwestern state in the United States, reported on couple conflict in everyday life and engaged in an observed couple conflict interaction. Parents of children with ASD reported more frequent, severe, and unresolved couple problems than the comparison group. Parents who had a child with ASD were observed to have less engaged, balanced, and cooperative couple conflict interactions, but demonstrated more positive affect and sensitivity towards one another, than parents in the comparison group. Group differences had small effect sizes. Findings have implications for marital therapy and relationship education programs.

Introduction

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by deficits in social communication and restricted/repetitive interests and behaviors (American Psychological Association, 2013). In addition to these ASD symptoms, one-third to one-half of children with ASD have an intellectual disability (Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network [ADDM], 2014) and more than half of children with ASD exhibit co-occurring behavior problems or psychiatric conditions (e.g., Maskey, Warnell, Parr, Le Coutuer, & McConachie, 2013; Park, Kim, Koh, Song, & Leventhal, 2014). These child-related challenges are associated with increased levels of parenting stress (e.g., Hayes & Watson, 2013), symptoms of psychopathology (e.g., Kuusikoo-Gauffun et al., 2013), and poor physiological health (e.g., Dykens & Lambert, 2013) in parents of children with ASD. Little is known about the impact of child-related challenges associated with ASD on other family dynamics, including parents’ marital relationship. According to the family systems perspective, stressors in one family subsystem influence the functioning of other subsystems (e.g., Cox, Paley, & Harter, 2001); high child-related challenges within the parenting subsystem may thus lead to high couple conflict within the marital subsystem.

Arguably, theory and research on the general population indicate that the most robust predictor of marital quality is couple conflict (e.g., Fincham & Beach, 1999; Gottman, 2014; Kliem, Weusthoff, Hahlweg, Baucom, 2015). How frequently and severely couples disagree and how couples manage these disagreements (i.e., conflict resolution strategies) are critical to healthy, satisfying, and long-lasting relationships. Indeed, longitudinal studies on the general population indicate that couple conflict predicts change in marital adjustment and marital satisfaction across time, as well as the likelihood of divorce (e.g., Finkel, Slotter, Luchies, Walton, & Gross, 2013; Gottman, 1993; Park, & Unutzer, 2014).

Substantial research on the general population has documented that a high level of couple conflict and the use of maladaptive conflict resolution strategies by parents negatively impacts child functioning and behavior problems (e.g., McCoy, George, Cummings, & Davies, 2013; Stroud, Meyers, Wilson, & Durbin, 2014). On the other hand, there is also evidence that contexts of high child-related challenges put parents at risk for frequent, intense, and unresolved couple conflict. Within community samples, child externalizing problems have been found to predict an increased level of couple conflict across time (Schermerhorn, Cummings, DeCarlo, & Davies, 2007), and in particular an increased level of couple conflict over child issues (Jenkins, Simpson, Dunn, Rasbash & O’Connor, 2005). Moreover, disruptive child behaviors associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) were found to be related to a higher level of argumentative couple communication broadly (Sochos & Yahya, 2015; Wymbs & Pelham, 2010), and during couple discussions about child issues (Wymbs & Pelham, 2010). Thus, a context of high child-related challenges may lead to more couple disagreements about child issues. In addition, child-related challenges associated with externalizing behaviors and ADHD have been shown to contribute to parental stress and psychopathology (e.g., Theule, Wiener, Tannock, & Jenkins, 2013), which are known risk factors for maladaptive couple conflict processes (e.g., Krannitz, Grandey, Liu, & Almeida, 2015; Najman et al., 2013).

To date, virtually nothing is known about couple conflict in parents who have a child with ASD; it is unclear if the high child-related challenges associated with ASD put parents at risk for frequent, intense, and unresolved couple conflicts. A handful of studies have examined marital quality more broadly in parents of children with ASD relative to comparison groups of parents of children without disabilities. These studies are limited to markers of marital stability (i.e., divorce/separation) or self-reported global marital satisfaction or marital adjustment. In the majority of these studies, parents of children with ASD were found to have a higher rate of divorce (Hartley et al., 2010) or a lower self-reported level of global marital satisfaction or marital adjustment (Brobst, Clopton, & Hendrick, 2009; Gau et al., 2012; Higgins, Bailey, & Pearce, 2005; Santamaria, Cuzzocrea, Gugliandolo, & Larcan, 2012) than parents of children without disabilities. Yet, a smaller number of studies found no group differences (Freedman, Kalb, Zablotsky, & Stuart, 2012; Ramisch, Onaga, & Oh, 2014; Rodriguez, Morgan, & Geffken, 1992). No studies have compared couple conflict in parents of children with ASD to that of comparison groups. However, in an ASD-group only study, Hartley et al. (2016) found that across a 14-day daily diary, parents reported that the most common topic of problem-solving interactions was the child with ASD (25% of the days, on average). In this same study, mothers of children with ASD reported experiencing fewer positive marital interactions (e.g., joking or doing something fun) following a day with high parenting stress (Hartley, Papp, & Bolt, 2016). These findings suggest that couple disagreements about child issues may be frequent and that stress generated from parenting negatively affects parents’ couple interactions.

Taking a more nuanced approach to identifying the specific aspects of the couple relationship, such as couple conflict, that go awry in parents of children with ASD is essential for designing interventions. Several marital therapies and relationship education programs designed for the general population (e.g., Finkel et al., 2013; Halford, Markman, Kline & Stanley, 2003) target couple conflict, and have been shown to result in increased marital adjustment and satisfaction (Blanchard, Hawkins, Baldwin, & Fawcett, 2009). Thus, elucidating potential vulnerabilities in the couple conflict processes of parents of children with ASD may offer a modifiable treatment target for improving broader marital outcomes.

Couple conflict can be assessed through varied methodologies. Self-report measures, which are often based on broad experiences, are used to capture an individual’s perception of couple conflict in everyday life (Heyman, 2001). Therefore, subjective perceptions of couple conflict often differ among partners within couples (Christensen & Nies, 1980; Jacobson & Moore, 1981), given the attributional biases and selective attention of each partner. Observational lab-based interactions that approximate naturalistic couple conflict situations, in contrast, provide an outsider rating of the actual verbal and nonverbal behaviors exhibited in a specific context (Blanchard et al., 2009; Heyman, 2001). Studies on the general population have shown that observational lab-based couple conflict interactions are able to capture couple disagreements, in that these interactions elicit behaviors such as criticism and disparaging remarks as well as increased physiological arousal in partners (e.g., Rodriguez & Margolin, 2013). In general, there are moderate associations between self-reported and observational measures of couple conflict (Heyman, 2001) and both predict change in marital quality across time (e.g., Amato & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007; Backer-Fulghum, & Snadford, 2015; Gottman, 1993). Studies involving both self-reported and observed methods are thus arguably ideal for capturing the fullest picture of couple conflict.

The purpose of the current study was to compare the couple conflict of parents of children with ASD to that of a comparison group of parents of children without disabilities using self-reported and observed measures. We hypothesized that parents of children with ASD would self-report a higher frequency and severity and lower resolution of couple conflicts and a higher use of maladaptive conflict resolution strategies than the comparison group. Parents of children with ASD were expected to exhibit more maladaptive couple interaction behaviors during the observed couple conflict interaction than parents in the comparison group.

Method

Participants

Participants were part of an ongoing longitudinal study that originally included a community sample of 183 couples who had a child with ASD and a comparison group of 182 couples who had a child without a disability. Recruitment strategies included mailings to schools and childcare programs, fliers posted at ASD clinics and in community settings (e.g. libraries, YMCA), and research registries. All couples had a child aged 5–12 years (study focus). In the ASD group, the child must have previously received a diagnosis of ASD as documented in medical or educational records (records had to indicate that the Autism Diagnosis Observation Schedule [ADOS; Lord et al., 2000] was used in the diagnostic assessment). In addition, parents completed the Social Responsiveness Scale – Second Edition (SRS2; Constantino & Gruber, 2012), to verify the child’s ASD symptoms. Five children in the ASD group had a Total SRS2 T-score < 60 (cutoff for ASD), and were removed from the sample. The comparison group was recruited to provide a one-to-one match a child in the ASD group based on child sex and age (in years). A rigorous set of screening questions was used to ensure that the couple in the comparison group did not have any children with a diagnosed or suspected developmental disability nor had they received birth-to-three or special education services. The SRS2 was also completed by parents to verify a lack of ASD symptoms. Eight couples in the comparison group had a child with a Total SRS2 T-score ≥ 60 (although they did not have a suspected or diagnosed disability and had never received birth-to-three or special education services); these couples were removed from the sample.

Twelve couples had multiple children with ASD in the age range; the oldest child was selected as the target child, as this was when stressful parenting associated with ASD began. In six families (4 ASD group and 2 comparison group), the target child had been adopted (occurred at least 5 years prior). Five couples (2 ASD group and 3 comparison group) were not married but had lived together for at least 5 years. In 21 families (12 ASD group, 9 comparison group) one parent was a stepparent who had been married to the biological parent for at least 3 years.

Data for the present study were taken at one time point in the study (Time 1). The socio-demographics for 178 couples with a child with ASD and 174 comparison group of couples with of child without disabilities are displayed in Table 1. Independent samples t-tests and chi-square comparisons indicated that that there were not significant group differences in parent age or race/ethnicity (Caucasian, non-Hispanic vs. other), paternal education, family size (i.e., number of children in the family), or couple relationship length. Parents of children with ASD had a significantly lower household income and a trend for lower maternal education level than the comparison group. As expected, the target child in the ASD group had a significantly higher level of behavior problems on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescolra, 2000; 2001), a higher severity of ASD symptoms on the SRS2, and a lower level of adaptive behavior on the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System–Second Edition (ABAS-2; Harrison & Oakland, 2003) than the target child in the comparison group. In the ASD group, 112 (67%) children had ASD symptoms in the severe range (33% had symptoms in the mild to moderate range) on the SRS2, 60 (34%) children had clinically significant behavior problems based on the CBCL Total score, and 122 (69%) children had marked impairment in adaptive behavior (General Adaptive Composite ≤ 70). About one-third of the children with ASD had been given a diagnosis of intellectual disability (ID) based on review of medical records. There was a significant difference in overall level of couple relationship satisfaction between parents of children with ASD and comparison group on the Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk & Rogge, 2007). Overall, 32.8% of parents of children with ASD and 19.3% of the comparison group had a 32-item total CSI score at or below the relationship distress cutoff (Funk & Rogge, 2007).

Table 1.

Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Comparison Groups

ASD (n = 178) Comparison (n = 174) t value or χ2 , p value
Mother
 Age in years (M [SD]) 38.71 (5.59) 38.76 (5.99) t (350) = 0.32, p = .75
 Race/Ethnicity (N [%])
  White, Non-Hispanic 160 (89.9%) 150 (86.2%) χ2 (2, N = 351) =1.13, p = .29
  Other 18 (10.1%) 24 (13.8%)
 Education (N [%])
  No HS Degree 3 (1.7%) 5 (2.9%) χ2 (5, N = 349)=9.70, p = .05
  HS Degree or equivalency 11 (6.2%) 10 (5.7%)
  Some college 31 (17.1%) 19 (10.2%)
  Associates or Bachelor’s degree 96 (53.9%) 81 (46.6%)
  Graduate degree 37 (20.8%) 59 (33.9%)
 Couple satisfaction 114.11 (30.47) 124.53 (29.32) t (350) = 3.37, p <.01
Father
 Age in years (M [SD]) 40.44 (6.24) 40.51 (6.58) t (350) = 0.33, p = .74
 Race/Ethnicity (N [%])
  White, Non-Hispanic 156 (87.6%) 146 (83.9%) χ2 (2, N = 350)= 1.01, p = .32
  Other 22 (12.4%) 28 (16.1%)
 Education (N [%]))
  No HS Degree 10 (5.6%) 4 (2.3%) χ2 (5, N = 349) = 7.22, p = .12
  HS Degree or equivalency 22 (12.4%) 14 (8.0%)
  Some college 25 (14.0%) 23 (13.2%)
  Associates or Bachelor’s degree 88 (49.4%) 85 (48.9%)
  Graduate degree 33 (18.5%) 48 (27.6%)
 Couple satisfaction 116.36 (26.62) 125.66 (25.00) t (350) = 3.49 p < .01
Relationship Length (M [SD]) 11.30 (5.23) 11.91 (4.64) t (350) = 1.17, p = .24
Household income (M [SD]) 9.00 (3.19) 10.63 (2.85) t (349) = 5.06 p < .01
Number of Children (M [SD]) 2.41 (1.08) 2.55 (1.05) t (350) = 1.22, p = .22
Target Child
 Male (N [%]) 155 (87.3%) 146 (83.4%) χ2 (2, N = 351) = .75 p = .39
 Age in years (M [SD]) 7.88 (2.24) 7.99 (2.35) t (351) = 0.39, p = .70
 Birth order (N [%])
  Oldest 110 (61.8%) 105 (60.3%) χ2 (2, N = 351) = .01 p = .95
 ID (N [%]) 65 (34.4%) 0 (0%) χ2 (2, N = 351) = 77.44, p < .01
 SRS (M [SD]) 77.03 (11.48) 49.81 (8.25) t (351) = 18.25, p <.01
 CBCL (M [SD]) 64.80 (9.63) 49.61 (10.38) t (350) = 20.76, p <.01
 ABAS (M [SD]) 64.47 (17.38) 100.58 (16.18) t (351) = 18.79, p <.01
Open in a new tab

Note. HS = High school; ID = intellectual disability; SRS = Social Responsiveness Scale total t-score score; CBCL = Child Behavioral Checklist total T-score; ABAS = Adaptive Behavior Assessment System Standardized General Adaptive Composite score. Couple Satisfaction assessed through the Couple Satisfaction Index (Funk & Rogge 2007).

Procedure

Parents were interviewed and independently completed questionnaires about family socio-demographics, the target child, and their couple relationship. Parents then engaged in a 7-minute videotaped couple conflict interaction. Parents were each paid $50 for this portion of the study.

Measures

Family Socio-demographics

The race/ethnicity of each parent was coded as Caucasian, non-Hispanic (0) versus other (1). Parent educational level was coded less than high school degree (0), high school diploma or General Equivalency Diploma (1), some college (2), college degree (3), some graduate school (4), and graduate/professional degree (5). Family size, operationalized as the number of children in the family, and duration of the relationship, defined as number of years in a committed relationship (coded in years), was jointly reported on by mothers and fathers. The date of birth of the target child was used to calculate child age (in years). Children with ASD were considered to have ID if they had a medical diagnosis of ID and/or met criteria for ID based on review of medical and/or educational records reporting IQ and adaptive behavior testing. Parents reported on their household income, coded from 1–14, starting at ≤$9,999 (1) and increasing by $10,000 to $20,000 intervals to ≥$160,000 (14).

Self-Reported Couple Conflict

The Conflict and Problem-Solving Scale (CPS; Kerig, 1996) is a measure of multiple dimensions of couple conflict (Frequency, Severity, Efficacy, and Resolution) and resolution strategies (Collaboration, Avoidance, Stalemate, Physical aggression, Verbal aggression, and Child Involvement). Frequency is a rating of the number of times parents engage in major and minor conflicts in a year (possible range of 3 to 18). Severity is the average degree to which parents report disagreeing about each topic/content area (possible range of 0–100). Efficacy is the average proportion of couple problems parents report that they are able to solve (possible range of 0–100%). Resolution is the summed rating provided for 13 statements regarding the extent to which parents experienced positive versus negative emotional outcomes following problem-solving attempts on a 4-point scale (possible range of 0–39). An example of a Resolution item includes “We feel closer to one another than before the fight.”

The CPS also includes 44 items that assess conflict resolution strategies and parents rate how frequently each was used in the previous year. These items are summed into six conflict resolution strategy dimensions (Collaboration, Avoidance, Stalemate, Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, and Child Involvement) based on one’s own and partner’s use.

The CPS has been found to have strong reliability and convergent validity (Kerig, 1996; 1998). In the current sample, internal consistency for the conflict and resolution strategy dimensions were adequate for both the ASD (Cronbach’s α = .76 to .95) and comparison (Cronbach’s α = .80 to .95) groups. The CPS couple conflict dimensions were significantly correlated with each other in expected directions (r = .29 to .58, p <.01). Providing evidence of convergent validity, the CPS Frequency, Severity, and Resolution scores were significantly (p < .01) negatively correlated with the CSI in parents of children with ASD (r = −.41 to −.62) and the comparison group (r = −.50 to −.68). Moreover, the CPS Efficacy score was significantly positively (p < .01) correlated with the CSI in parents of children with ASD (r = .56) and the comparison group (r = .69).

Observed Couple Conflict

Couples engaged in a 7-minute video-taped couple conflict interaction in which they discussed a topic of disagreement (e.g., something needed to be worked out or didn’t see eye to eye, etc.). This videotaped interaction was independently coded using well-established criteria (Frosch, Mangelsdorf, & McHale, 1998; 2000). Coded dimensions were rated on a 7-point scale (from 1 [“very low”] to 7 [“very high”]) and included: Engagement (i.e., interpersonal involvement and partner-directed behaviors such as initiating conversation, body language, visual regard, etc.), Enjoyment (i.e., pleasure and enjoyment expressed such as smiling, laughter, etc.), Mother Positive Affect and Father Positive Affect (i.e., partners responded positively to one another through smiling, laughing, and signs of affection, individually rated), Irritation (i.e., overall negative tone of interaction and extent to which partners displayed overt anger or hostility, negative comments or frowning at the couple level), Mother Negative Affect and Father Negative Affect (i.e., expressions of negative affect such as frowning, eye rolls, and antagonism, individually rated), Cooperation (i.e., couple had joint focus and exhibited a sense of “we-ness”), Balance (i.e., relative contribution of each partner to the interaction, including factors such as control, dominance, and turn-taking), Sensitivity (i.e., partners affirmed and expressed consideration for each other’s statements and feelings), Conflict Resolution (i.e., couple smoothly and efficiently came to a resolution in a manner that was satisfying for both partners), and Global Quality (i.e., overall quality of the interaction, including the extent of liking, caring, and positive emotional commitment). Each interaction was independently coded by the same three trained researchers for the ASD group and at least two (one of whom was consistent) trained researchers for the comparison group. A two-way mixed absolute agreement single-rater interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) at a 95% confidence interval (Hallgren, 2012) was adequate for the ASD group (ranging from .58 to .77). A one-way random single-rater ICC at 95% confidence interval was also adequate for the comparison group (ranging .56 to .77). Analyses are based on the ratings of the one coder who coded all the interactions.

The topic of the observed couple conflict interaction was independently coded into 11 topics, based on Kerig (1996) definitions, by two or three trained research staff. Topics included: Habits/Personality (i.e., habit or personality trait of a partner), Work (i.e., job, time spent at work, and issues related to work), Target Child (i.e., behaviors, parenting, discipline, or care of target child), Other Parenting (i.e., issues related to another child or parenting broadly including discipline or care), Intimacy /Commitment (i.e., issues related to closeness, sex, affection or commitment), Relatives (i.e., issues related to family or in-laws), Leisure/Friends (i.e. recreational activities, friendships, time or activity with friends), Communication (i.e., styles and amount of communication), Money (i.e., spending, wages, salary, or bills), Chores (i.e., household activities and responsibilities), and an Other category. A one-way random single-rater ICC at a 95% confidence interval was adequate for the ASD (.82) and comparison (.80) groups for topic. Analyses are based on the coded topic of the one researcher who coded all the interactions.

Data Analyses

Overall, 3% of parents had an individual item missing on the CPS. In all but 3 cases, at least 90% of the items on the relevant dimension had been completed and thus the mean score on the dimension was imputed for the missing items. Eight couples (5 in ASD group and 3 in comparison group) were not included in the observed couple conflict interaction analyses; the interaction was inadvertently not recorded in four couples, and the remaining couples opted to not complete the interaction. There were no significant differences in socio-demographic characteristics (child age, parent education, parent race/ethnicity, household income, relationship duration, or family size) or in self-reported couple conflict on the CPS dimensions or on the CSI between these couples and the couples included in the observed couple interaction analyses.

Analyses were first conducted to examine group (parents of children with ASD versus comparison group) differences in self-reported couple conflict. Given that these are individual-level data, multilevel models (MLM) were run using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) software (Raudenbush et al., 2011), which allowed models to be tested for mothers and fathers simultaneously, yet account for the yoked nature of data from couples (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). Intercept-only unconditional MLMs were first conducted for each CPS dimension followed by MLMs that included the Level 2 group variable (parents of children with ASD = 1; comparison group = −1) to examine the variance accounted for by group status. Full MLM models were then conducted including Level 1 variables of mother (mother = 1, father = 0) and father (father = 1, mother = 0), un-centered. Level 2 variables included group (parents of children with ASD = 1; comparison group = −1) and family socio-demographic variables (i.e., parent race/ethnicity, parent education, relationship duration, household income, family size, and child age) to assess and account for their between-couple effects on the couple conflict dependent variables. Level 2 continuous variables were grand-mean centered. Given multiple MLM analyses, the Benjamini and Hochberg (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995) false discovery rate test correction was used to determine significance for the examined 20 group effects (n = 10 in mothers; n =10 in fathers). All other effects were interpreted as significant at p <.01 level. Finally, as a follow-up analysis, the above MLM was re-run to include overall couple relationship satisfaction (CSI total) in Level 2, in order to understand if group effects could be attributed to a group difference in overall couple relationship satisfaction.

Analyses were then conducted to examine group differences in the observed couple conflict interaction. These data are couple-level data (with the exception of positive and negative affect which are assessed in each partner), and thus a one-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted in which the observed coded dimensions were the dependent variables, group (parents of children with ASD versus comparison) was the fixed factor, and family socio-demographic characteristics (i.e., parent race/ethnicity, parent education, relationship duration, household income, family size, and child age) were covariates. Bonferroni-corrected univariate analyses were used to determine which dimensions had a significant group effect. As a follow-up, the above model was re-run to include overall couple relationship satisfaction (CSI total) as a covariate, in order to understand if potential group differences could be attributed to a difference in overall couple relationship satisfaction. Finally, a chi-square test of independence was conducted to examine whether there was a difference in the topic of the observed couple conflict interaction by group.

Results

Self-Reported Couple Conflict

Table 2 displays the means and standard deviations for the self-reported couple conflict dimensions in mothers and fathers of children with ASD and the comparison group. There was a significant within-couple, mother-father, positive association between the CPS Frequency, Severity, Efficacy, and Resolution dimensions in parents who had a child with ASD (r = .21 to .50, p < .01) and the comparison group (r = .24 to .57, p < .01). Similarly, there were significant within-couple, mother-father, positive associations between the CPS conflict resolution dimensions of Verbal Aggression, Physical Aggression, Stalemate, Collaborate, Avoidance, and Child Involvement in parents who had a child with ASD (r = .19 to .44, p < .01) and the comparison group (r = .20 to .49, p < .01).

Table 2.

Range, Mean, and Standard Deviation for Self-Reported Couple Conflict in Mothers and Fathers of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Comparison Group

ASD Comparison
Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers
Possible Range M (SD) Range M (SD) Range M (SD) Range M (SD) Range
Nature of Conflict
 Frequency 3–18 8.69 (3.28) 3–16 8.70 (3.26) 3–16 8.17 (3.20) 3–18 7.78 (3.05) 3–18
 Severity 0–100 26.83 (14.41) 0–65 23.94 (15.49) 0–78 20.26 (15.81) 1–100 18.88 (1427) 0–70
 Efficacy 0–100 63.22 (23.18) 0–128 69.54 (20.710) 5–100 74.02 (20.17) 1–100 74.45 (16.42) 29–100
 Resolution 0–39 27.41 (6.25) 12–39 27.50 (6.40) 9–38 28.74 (6.34) 11–39 28.85 (6.08) 13–39
Resolution Strategy
 Verbal aggression 0–48 22.91 (9.33) 0–45 21.01 (9.53) 2–45 23.08 (9.47) 2–48 20.70 (8.47) 0–42
 Physical aggression 0–42 1.85 (3.26) 0–17 1.84 (3.77) 0–28 1.33 (3.96) 0–40 1.09 (2.95) 0–29
 Collaboration 0–48 36.36 (6.01) 23–48 36.83 (5.74) 19–48 37.89 (5.96) 15–48 38.12 (5.92) 19–48
 Stalemate 0–42 13.01 (7.04) 0–30 13.08 (6.99) 0–34 12.91 (7.04) 0–36 11.16 (6.30) 0–29
 Avoidance 0–48 25.41 (7.24) 5–42 24.05 (6.69) 4–38 25.73 (6.93) 4–40 23.50 (6.76) 0–38
 Child involvement 0–30 8.18 (5.29) 0–24 8.13 (5.48) 0–24 8.13 (5.69) 0–30 7.31 (4.86) 0–22
Open in a new tab

Intercept only MLMs were conducted to examine variability in the CPS dimensions in unconditional models. Then, these MLMs were re-run including the group variable (parents of children with ASD = 1; comparison group = −1) at Level 2. Group accounted for only a modest level of the variance in CPS dimension scores: Frequency (19%) Severity (21%), Efficacy (18%), Resolution (9%), Verbal Aggression (10%), Physical Aggression (9%), Stalemate (13%), Collaboration (18%), Avoidance (14%), and Child Involvement (16%).

Table 3 presents results of the full MLMs examining group differences on the CPS conflict dimensions for mothers and fathers, controlling for between-parent family socio-demographic characteristics. For the Frequency score, there was a significant group effect for fathers; fathers of children with ASD reported a higher frequency of couple conflicts than fathers in the comparison group. For the Severity score, there was a significant group effect for both mothers and fathers; mothers and fathers of children with ASD reported a higher severity of couple conflicts than mothers and fathers in the comparison group. For the Efficacy score, there was a significant group effect for mothers; mothers of children with ASD reported that a lower percentage of couple problems were resolved than mothers in the comparison group. There were not significant group effects for mothers or fathers on the Resolution score. As a follow-up analysis, the full MLM for the CPS conflict dimensions was re-run to include the CSI total score on the Level 2 intercept of the mother and father variables. The pattern of significant group effects in Severity (mothers: unstandardized coefficient = .48, SE = .17, p = .001; fathers: unstandardized coefficient = .43, SE = .20, p = .002) and Efficacy in mothers (unstandardized coefficient = .28, SE = .13, p = .001) remained, however there was no longer a significant group effect in Frequency for fathers (unstandardized coefficient = .38, SE = .17, p = .032).

Table 3.

Multilevel Models of Self-Reported Couple Conflict Differences between Mothers and Fathers of Children with Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and Comparison group

Nature of Conflict
Unstandardized Coefficients (Standard Error)
Frequency Severity Efficacy Resolution
Unstandardized
Coefficient (SE)		 P
Value		 Effect
size r		 Unstandardized
Coefficient (SE)		 P value Effect
size r		 Unstandardized
Coefficient (SE)		 P
value		 Effect
size r		 Unstandardized
Coefficient (SE)		 P
value		 Effect
size r
Level 1
Mother intercept 8.99 (0.42) <.001 .74 28.28 (3.35) <.001 .45 66.00 (3.36) <.001 .72 26.85 (0.99) <.001 .82
Father intercept 8.49 (0.45) <.001 .68 20.22 (2.45) <.001 .39 7271 (3.68) <.001 .72 29.13 (0.94) <.001 .85
Level 2
Mother
 Group 0.23 (0.18) .201 .07 2.89 (0.83) <.001 .18 −5.27 (1.16) <.001 .24 −0.58 (0.31) .094 .09
 Relationship length −0.04 (0.03) .244 .06 −0.05 (0.16) .743 .02 0.25 (0.24) .308 .05 −0.03 (0.08) .667 .01
 Parent education 0.13 (0.10) .202 .07 0.75 (0.48) .115 .07 0.35 (0.81) .665 .02 −0.07 (0.20) .739 .02
 Parent ethnicity −0.48 (0.49) .327 .05 −4.54 (2.83) .109 .08 3.99 (3.56) .262 .06 1.33 (1.06) .212 .07
 Household income −0.08 (0.06) .197 .07 −0.74 (0.30) .020 .13 −0.03 (0.47) .943 .00 0.14 (0.12) .233 .06
 Family size 0.05 (0.15) .722 .02 −0.03 (0.66) .962 .00 −0.86 (1.12) .441 .04 0.26 (0.30) .375 .05
 Child age −0.15 (0.08) .084 .09 −0.67 (0.37) .068 .10 0.85 (0.53) .113 .10 0.10 (0.16) .523 .03
Father
 Group 0.47 (0.17) .009 .12 2.48 (0.84) .002 .15 −2.02 (1.05) .056 .10 −0.62 (0.33) .067 .10
 Relationship length −0.03 (0.04) .427 .04 0.08 (0.21) .657 .02 0.17 (0.22) .452 .04 −0.10 (0.07) .184 .07
 Parent education −0.02 (0.09) .872 .01 0.73 (0.43) .077 .09 0.87 (0.57) .129 .08 0.13 (0.18) .464 .04
 Parent ethnicity 0.39 (0.75) .453 .04 1.66 (2.65) .532 .03 −1.04 (3.92) .791 .01 −0.25 (1.01) .807 .01
 Household income −0.02 (0.14) .712 .02 −0.50 (0.31) .109 .08 0.37 (0.41) .371 .05 0.09 (0.13) .476 .04
 Family size 0.12 (0.14) .394 .04 1.43 (0.78) .067 .10 −1.06 (0.90) .237 .06 −0.33 (0.32) .294 .05
Child age −0.14 (0.07) .080 .10 −0.01 (0.38) .978 .00 0.01 (0.45) .986 .00 0.15 (0.14) .301 .05
Open in a new tab

Note. Bolded p values are significant group effects based on Benjamimi-Hochberg false discovery rate. All other effects were interpreted as significant at p < .01.

Group = Parents of Children with ASD (1) vs. Comparison group of parents of children without disabilities (−1). Effect size was calculated with the following equation: r = sqrt [t2/(t2 + df)]; small effect: r >.10, medium effect: r >.24 and large effect r >.37 (Kirk, 1996). In follow-up analyses controlling for overall couple relationship satisfaction in Level 2, group effects remained significant at p < .01 for severity in mothers and fathers and Efficacy in mothers.

Table 4 presents that the full MLMs for the CPS conflict resolution strategy dimensions. There was a significant group effect for fathers on Stalemate, such that fathers of children with ASD reported higher Stalemate than the comparison group. There were not significant group effects for Verbal Abuse, Physical Aggression, Collaboration, Avoidance, and Child Involvement. At the between-parent level, there was a significant negative association between household income and mothers’ rating of Physical Aggression. There was a significant positive association between child age and mothers’ rating of Collaboration. There was a significant positive association between child age and fathers’ rating of Child Involvement. As a follow-up analysis, the full MLM for the CPS conflict resolution strategy dimensions was re-run to include the CSI total score on the Level 2 intercept of the mother and father variables. With the inclusion of the CSI as a between-family control variable, there was no longer a significant group effect in Stalemate for fathers (unstandardized coefficient = .22, SE = .14, p = .043).

Table 4.

Multilevel Models of Self-Reported Couple Conflict Resolution Style Differences between Mothers and Fathers of Children with Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and Comparison group Conflict Resolution Styles

Unstandardized Coefficients (Standard Error)
Verbal Aggression Physical Aggression Collaboration Stalemate Avoidance Child Involvement
Unstandardized Coefficient (SE) P value Effect size r Unstandardized Coefficient (SE) P value Effect size r Unstandardized Coefficient (SE) P value Effect size r Unstandardized Coefficient (SE) P value Effect size r Unstandardized Coefficient (SE) P Value Effect size r Unstandardized Coefficient (SE) P value Effect size r
Level 1
Mother intercept 27.22 (1.28) <.001 .73 2.84 (0.81) <.001 .18 37.89 (0.99) <.001 .89 15.34 (1.03) <.001 .61 27.13 (0.88) <.001 .85 9.83 (0.93) <.001 .49
Father intercept 23.05 (1.34) <.001 .66 1.82 (0.56) <.001 .17 39.25 (1.01) <.001 .88 13.84 (1.09) <.001 .56 25.69 (0.92) <.001 .82 8.46 (0.83) <.001 .47
Level 2
Mother
 Group −0.13 (0.49) .829 .01 0.14 (0.20) .314 .04 −0.66 (0.32) .063 .11 −0.03 (0.37) .693 .00 −0.09 (0.37) .530 .01 0.03 (0.30) .695 .00
 Relationship length −0.08 (0.10) .484 .04 −0.04 (0.03) .410 .07 −0.06 (0.06) .131 .05 −0.11 (0.09) .153 .07 0.04 (0.09) .828 .02 0.03 (0.06) .450 .03
 Parent education 0.24 (0.27) .352 .05 −0.11 (0.14) .312 .05 −0.08 (0.22) .704 .02 −0.25 (0.21) .340 .06 0.28 (0.22) .627 .07 0.19 (0.19) .117 .06
 Parent ethnicity −2.92 (1.39) .137 .11 −1.40 (0.81) .124 .09 0.31 (1.03) .934 .02 −2.54 (1.38) .043 .10 −1.79 (0.99) .160 .09 −1.97 (0.97) .023 .11
 Household income −0.16 (0.16) .361 .05 −0.06 (0.04) .140 .10 0.23 (0.12) .306 .10 −0.11 (0.13) .327 .05 −0.16 (0.14) .758 .06 −0.13 (0.10) .182 .06
 Family size −0.19 (0.48) .596 .02 −0.05 (0.14) .667 .02 −0.19 (0.29) .655 .03 0.06 (0.36) .831 .01 0.12 (0.41) .693 .01 0.12 (0.32) .734 .02
 Child age −0.16 (0.23) .466 .04 −0.06 (0.09) .483 .04 0.37 (0.12) .002 .06 −0.19 (0.17) .279 .04 0.07 (0.17) .256 .02 0.11 (0.14) .246 .04
Father
 Group 0.19 (0.25) .441 .02 0.21 (0.19) .425 .06 −0.62 (0.33) .227 .10 0.29 (0.14) .009 .13 0.33 (0.36) .452 .05 0.51 (0.28) .026 .09
 Relationship length −0.14 (0.06) .017 .10 −0.04 (0.02) .040 .09 −0.05 (0.18) .122 .02 −0.06 (0.09) .998 .04 0.03 (0.08) .784 .02 −0.01 (0.05) .930 .00
 Parent education 0.01 (0.27) .989 .00 −0.11 (0.05) .014 .10 0.06 (0.18) .317 .02 −0.27 (0.19) .134 .07 −0.27 (0.19) .352 .08 0.02 (0.15) .784 .01
 Parent ethnicity −1.53 (1.46) .356 .05 −0.40 (0.58) .737 .04 −0.21 (1.07) .569 .01 −1.98 (1.15) .318 .09 −2.27 (1.07) .230 .11 −0.72 (0.89) .721 .04
 Household income 0.02 (0.18) .563 .01 −0.12 (0.06) .274 .09 0.04 (0.11) .321 .02 −0.03 (0.13) .415 .01 0.06 (0.14) .893 .02 0.03 (0.09) .451 .01
 Family size 0.20 (0.48) .924 .02 −0.10 (0.18) .286 .03 −0.10 (0.28) .982 .02 0.15 (0.36) .904 .02 −0.03 (0.31) .693 .00 0.32 (0.28) .076 .06
 Child age 0.13 (0.24) .663 .02 0.11 (0.11) .193 .05 0.16 (0.14) .438 .06 −0.04 (0.18) .693 .01 −0.18 (0.18) .992 .05 0.36 (0.11) .009 .15
Open in a new tab

Note. Bolded p values are significant based on Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate. All other effects were interpreted as significant at p < .01. Group = Parents of Children with ASD (1) vs. Comparison group of parents of children without disabilities (−1). Effect size was calculated with the following equation: r = sqrt [t2/(t2 + df)]; small effect: r >.10, medium effect: r >.24 and large effect r >.37 (Kirk, 1996). In follow-up analyses controlling for overall couple relationship satisfaction in Level 2, group effects remained significant at p < .01 for Stalemate.

Observed Couple Conflict

Table 5 displays the means and standard deviations for the observed couple conflict interaction. A one-way MANCOVA controlling for family socio-demographic characteristics indicated a significant group (i.e., parents of children with ASD versus comparison group) difference in the coded ratings (F (1,328) = 6.66, p < .01). Univariate tests indicated that couples of children with ASD exhibited a significantly higher level of Mother Positive Affect (F (1,328) = 10.36, p < .01), Father Positive Affect (F (1,328) = 9.89, p < .01), and Sensitivity (F (1,328) = 5.89, p = .02) than the comparison group. In contrast, couples who had a child with ASD exhibited a significantly lower level of Engagement (F (1,328) = 8.19, p < .01), Balance (F (1,331) = 4.71, p = .04), and Cooperation (F (1,328) = 5.73, p = .02) than the comparison group. As a follow-up analysis, the mother and father CSI Total scores were included as covariates in the MANCOVA. The overall one-way MANCOVA remained significant (F (1,328) = 6.66, p < .01). However, significant univariate tests were limited to Mother Positive Affect (F (1,328) = 8.22, p < .01), Father Positive Affect (F (1,328) = 8.45, p < .01), and Sensitivity (F (1,328) = 5.01, p = .03); parents in the ASD group had higher levels than the comparison group on all of these dimensions.

Table 5.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Multivariate Analysis of Covariance analysis for Observed Quality of Couple Interactions for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Comparison Group

ASD N = 173 Comparison N = 171 F value P Value η2p
Engagement (M, [SD]) 4.54 (1.01) 4.89 (0.94) 9.82 <.001 .03
Enjoyment (M, [SD]) 3.30 (1.36) 3.20 (1.36) 0.98 .325 .00
Mother Positive Affect (M, [SD]) 3.08 (1.50) 2.70 (1.30) 7.05 .006 .02
Father Positive Affect (M, [SD]) 2.83 (1.43) 2.42 (1.24) 8.16 .002 .03
Mother Negative Affect (M, [SD]) 2.44 (1.33) 2.25 (1.08) 0.53 .472 .00
Father Negative Affect (M, [SD]) 2.19 (1.19) 2.13 (0.98) 0.02 .883 .00
Irritation (M, [SD]) 2.42 (1.19) 2.26 (0.96) 0.77 .381 .00
Cooperation (M, [SD]) 4.45 (0.95) 4.75 (1.00) 5.24 .022 .02
Balance (M, [SD]) 4.88 (0.84) 5.11 (0.66) 4.71 .034 .01
Sensitivity (M, [SD]) 3.76 (1.07) 3.54 (1.06) 4.98 .031 .02
Conflict Resolution (M, [SD]) 4.17 (0.98) 4.32 (0.88) 1.12 .292 .00
Global Quality (M, [SD]) 4.51 (1.15) 4.44 (1.00) 0.68 .413 .00
Open in a new tab

Note. Covariates included parent race/ethnicity, parent education, relationship duration, family size, household income, and child age. η2p = partial eta squared. In follow-up analyses including overall couple relationship satisfaction as a covariate, group differences remained significant for Mother Positive Affect, Father Positive Affect, and Sensitivity. Finally, in a follow-up analysis, group differences in positive and negative affect were examined in a multilevel model using Hierarchical Linear Modeling software as these two dimensions were coded for each parent, within couples. The group effect remained significant for positive affect.

The topics of the observed couple conflict interactions for the ASD and comparison group, respectively, were - Habits/Personality: n =16 (9.2%); n =16 (9.0%); Work: n =11 (6.2%); n = 22 (12.2%); Target Child: n = 26 (14.6%); n =15 (8.6%); Other Parenting: n =17 (9.6%); n = 23 (13.2%); Intimacy/Commitment: n =7 (3.9%); n = 6 (3.4%); Relatives: n =18 (10.1%); n = 13 (7.5%); Leisure/Friends: n =19 (10.7%); n =20 (11.5%); Communication: n = 26 (14.6%); n =14 (8.0%); Money: n =15 (8.4%); n = 21 (12.1%); Chores: n =23 (12.9%); n = 23 (13.6%); and Other: n = 2 (1.2%); n = 4 (2.3%). The Other category had cell counts of less than five (expected cell count), and thus was excluded from analysis. A 2 x 10 chi-square test of independence revealed that group and topic were independent of one another (χ2 (9) = 13.55, p = .14, Phi = .20).

Discussion

Couple conflict has been shown to play an integral role in the quality and survival of marital relationships in studies on the general population (Fincham & Beach, 1999; Gottman, 2014; Kliem et al., 2015). Parents of children with ASD have been found to be at risk for poor marital outcomes including low marital satisfaction, poor marital adjustment, and divorce (e.g., Brobst et al., 2009; Gau et al., 2012; Hartley et al., 2010; Santamaria et al., 2012). Findings from the present study suggest that in part, maladaptive patterns of couple conflict may contribute to these poor marital outcomes and may be a modifiable target for interventions.

On self-reported measures of couple conflict, fathers of children with ASD reported experiencing more frequent couple conflict and both mothers and fathers of children with ASD reported experiencing more severe couple conflict than the comparison group. This finding is in line with findings from other contexts of high child-related challenges (e.g., ADHD and high externalizing problems), in which parents were found to have an increased level of couple conflict (Sochos & Yahya, 2015; Wymbs & Pelham, 2010). Follow-up analyses indicated that the group difference in self-reported frequency, but not in severity, of couple conflict became non-significant once controlling for between-couple differences in overall couple relationship satisfaction. Thus, parents of children with ASD may be vulnerable to experiencing intense couple conflict beyond what would be expected given their level of couple relationship satisfaction. One possibility to examine in future longitudinal studies is whether a context of high child-related challenges (a stressor external to the couple relationship) reduces parental emotional resources that make parents prone to highly distressing couple disagreements (either due to perceiving couple disagreement as more distressing and/or engaging in couple behaviors that escalate intensity), relative to parents with low overall couple relationship satisfaction due to factors intrinsic to the couple relationship.

The group differences that emerged in self-reported couple conflict resolution strategies were small in scope and effect size, and thus their clinical relevance is not clear. As a group, parents of children with ASD have slightly more difficulty settling couple problems relative to their peers who have children without disabilities. Specifically, mothers of children with ASD reported a lower Efficacy (i.e., average proportion of couple problems solved) than mothers in the comparison group and fathers of children with ASD reported a greater use of Stalemate (i.e., standoff in which each partners’ goal is to maintain their position as opposed to compromising to resolve the issue) than fathers in the comparison group. The group difference in Efficacy, but not in Stalemate, remained in follow-up analyses controlling for between-couple overall couple relationship satisfaction. Thus, in part, difficulty resolving couple conflict appears to be in line with the lower average-level of couple relationship satisfaction in parents of children with ASD, and may be related to having more frequent couple conflicts. However, a context of high child-related challenges due to ASD also appears to add unique risk for poor couple conflict resolution, perhaps due to drained emotional resources.

Yet, despite being unable to resolve the actual couple problem to the same extent as their peers, parents of children with ASD appear to be able to end couple conflicts in a meaningful and positive way. On the self-reported measure, there was not a difference in how parents’ feelings about how couple conflicts ended (i.e., Resolution score) between parents of children with ASD and the comparison group; the average for both groups was above the mid-point on the scale indicating a largely positive rating of how the couple conflict ended. Thus, although the couple problem itself may more often remain unsettled, parents of children with ASD appear to employ adaptive strategies to ensure that the couple interaction ends on a positive note.

Findings from the observed couple conflict interaction presented a similar pattern of both vulnerability and resiliency in parents of children with ASD. As with the self-reported measure, group differences were small in effect size. Parents of children with ASD were rated as being less engaged, less cooperative, and as having a less balanced interaction than parents in the comparison group. In other words, parents of children with ASD did not become fully involved in a joint back-and-forth problem-solving dialogue to the same extent as their peers who have children without disabilities. In follow-up analyses controlling for overall couple relationship satisfaction, these group differences became non-significant. Thus, the increased level of these maladaptive couple conflict behaviors appears to be accounted for by the lower group-level overall couple relationship satisfaction of parents of children with ASD. On the other hand, parents of children with ASD were rated as having a higher level of positive affect and as demonstrating more sensitivity toward one another than were parents in the comparison group. These group effects remained even after controlling for the lower average-level of overall couple relationship satisfaction in parents of children with ASD. In some ways, the shared experience of having a child with ASD may bring couples together by fostering positivity and sensitivity toward one another. This possibility should be examined in future longitudinal studies.

There was not a group difference in the topic of the observed couple conflict interaction. Indeed, parents of children with ASD and parents in the comparison group were equally likely to discuss the target child, or parenting more broadly, as well as other topics (e.g., money, work, chores, etc.). Thus, in contrast to findings on parents of children with ADHD (Jenkins et al., 2005; Wymbs & Pelham, 2010), parents of children with ASD may not be more likely have couple disagreements about child issues relative to their peers who have children without disabilities. Instead, high child-related challenges associated with ASD may lead to poor marital outcomes indirectly through higher parental stress and psychopathology (e.g., Theule, Wiener, Tannock, & Jenkins, 2013), which are known risk factors for couple conflict (e.g., Krannitz et al., 2015; Najman et al., 2013). However, further research is needed as the current study cannot speak to how frequently couple disagreements about the target child occur in everyday life.

Overall, findings from the present study indicate that parents who have a child with ASD exhibit both risk and resiliency in regard to couple conflict. Findings are relevant to the design of marital therapies and relationship education programs for parents of children with ASD. There are several brief, low-cost therapy and relationship education programs that address couple conflict that have been designed for and shown to be effective in the general population (e.g., Jacobson, Christensen, Prince, Cordova, & Eldridge, 2000; Finkel et al., 2013; Larson et al., 2007). These therapies and programs could be modified for parents of children with ASD and designed to build on their resiliency. Acceptance and change-based marital therapies (e.g., Jacobson et al., 2000) may be a particularly good fit for parents of children with ASD by guiding parents in accepting unchangeable child-related challenges that may be the source of recurrent couple disagreements and instead focusing efforts on modifying changeable child-related challenges. Additionally, utilizing the already heightened levels of positivity and sensitivity among parents of children with ASD may be used to build tolerance and compassion for differences between partners.

There are several strengths to the present study. We included a relatively large sample of parents of children with ASD and a comparison group of parents of children without disabilities in longstanding couple relationships. Our sample represents families of children with ASD who are being diagnosed with ASD by independent health providers (using the ADOS), and reflects a range of children demonstrating mild to severe ASD symptoms. The inclusion of self-reported and observed measures allowed for an understanding of both the subjective perspectives of parents broadly and the actual verbal and non-verbal behaviors exhibited in a specific context. In addition, self-reported measures of couple conflict were collected from both mothers and fathers and MLMs were used to account for the linked nature of dyadic data.

There were also study limitations. The sample consisted primarily of Caucasian, non-Hispanic and well-educated parents. In part, this sample is reflective of the Midwestern state from which the sample was drawn, as well as population-level trends in diagnosis of ASD (i.e., Caucasian, Non-Hispanic children are significantly more likely than African American children and Hispanic children to be diagnosed with ASD [ADDM, 2014]); therefore, additional research is needed to examine couple conflict in diverse groups and geographical locations. Moreover, this sample largely reflects parents who remained married to the same partner until their child with ASD was aged 5–12 years. Parents who separate or divorce prior to this stage may have employed more maladaptive patterns of couple conflict. The present study is cross-sectional, and thus cannot determine causal pathways between child-related challenges and couple conflict. Indeed, it is possible, and likely, that couple conflict influences the severity of challenges exhibited by the child with ASD.

Future studies should examine same-sex partnerships and should include larger samples of unmarried couples. Future research should also take a within-group approach to examine why some parents of children with ASD fare better in terms of couple conflict than others, as group status (ASD versus comparison) only explained 9–21% of the variability in self-reported couple conflict. Indeed, it is likely that variability in child challenges (e.g., severity of ASD symptoms and/or co-occurring behavior problems) and/or support services predict differences in couple outcomes among parents of children with ASD. We framed our discussion in terms of the impact of child-related challenges on couple conflict. Yet, given genetic underpinnings of ASD (Abrahamson & Geschwind, 2008), it is also possible that some parents of children with ASD were at risk for couple conflict due to their own personality traits and interpersonal difficulties. Thus, future within-group studies are needed to examine the extent to which parent characteristics and personality traits independently contribute to couple conflict, as well as how these characteristics and traits may interact with child-related challenges to impact couple conflict. Finally, the present study provides a snapshot of couple conflict in parents of children with ASD at one point in time. Further studies are also needed to explore whether group differences between parents of children with ASD and parents of children without disabilities become exaggerated over time and predict change in marital quality and divorce. While the present study focused on parents of children with ASD, findings may be relevant for the broader literature examining couple conflict in the context of other types of high child-related challenges (e.g., ADHD and externalizing behaviors).

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH009190 to S. Hartley) and National Institute of Child Health and Development (P30 HD03352 to A. Messing).

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest: Hartley, Papp, Mihaila, Bussanich, Goetz, and Hickey declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval: All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author Contributions:

SH: designed study, took lead on data analyses, and wrote the paper. LP: collaborated with the design of the study and data analyses. IM: assisted in conducting the study and writing of the study. PB: assisted in conducting the study and writing of the discussion. GG: assisted in conducting of the study and writing of the study. EH: assisted in writing of the study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards: This study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH009190) and National Institute of Child Health and Development (P30 HD03352).

References

  1. Abrahamson BS, Geschwind DH. Advances in autism genetics: On the threshold of a new neurobiology. Nature Review Genetics. 2008;9:341–355. doi: 10.1038/nrg2346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA. Manual for the ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  3. Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA. Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  4. Amato PR, Hohmann-Marriott B. A comparison of high and low-distress marriages that end in divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2007;69:621–638. [Google Scholar]
  5. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  6. Autism and developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network. Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders – autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, United States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2014. 2014;63:1–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Backer-Fulghum LM, Sanford K. The validity of retrospectively reported conflict interactions in couples. Journal of Family Psychology. 2015;29:253–262. doi: 10.1037/fam0000057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: a Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B. 1995;57:289–00. [Google Scholar]
  9. Blanchard VL, Hawkins AJ, Baldwin SA, Fawcett EB. Investigating the effects of marriage and relationship education on couples’ communication skills: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Family Psychology. 2009;23:203–214. doi: 10.1037/a0015211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bolger N, Laurenceau J. Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brobst JB, Clopton JR, Hendrick SS. Parenting children with autism spectrum disorders: The couple's relationship. Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities. 2009;24:38–49. [Google Scholar]
  12. Christensen A, Nies DC. The Spouse Observation Checklist: Empirical analysis and critique. American Journal of Family Therapy. 1980;8:69–79. [Google Scholar]
  13. Constantino JN, Gruber CP. Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition (SRS-2) Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cox MJ, Paley B, Harter K. Interparental conflict and parent-child relationships. Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and applications. 2001:249–272. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dykens EM, Lambert W. Trajectories of diurnal cortisol in mothers of children with autism and other developmental disabilities: Relations to health and mental health. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2013;43:2426–2434. doi: 10.1007/s10803-013-1791-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fincham FD, Beach SH. Conflict in marriage: Implications for working with couples. Annual Review of Psychology. 1999;50:47–77. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Finkel EJ, Slotter EB, Luchies LB, Walton GM, Gross JJ. A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality overtime. Psychological Science. 2013;24:1595–1691. doi: 10.1177/09567961247938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Freedman BH, Kalb LG, Zablotsky B, Stuart EA. Relationship status among parents of children with autism spectrum disorders: A population-based study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2012;42:539–548. doi: 10.1007/s10803-011-1269-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Frosch CA, Mangelsdorf SC, McHale JL. Correlates of marital behavior at 6 months postpartum. Developmental Psychology. 1998;34:1438–1449. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.34.6.1438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Frosch CA, Mangelsdorf SC, McHale JL. Marital behavior and the security of preschooler–parent attachment relationships. Journal of Family Psychology. 2000;14:144–161. doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.14.1.144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Funk JL, Rogge RD. Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology. 2007;21:572–583. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gau SS, Chou M, Chiang H, Lee J, Wong C, Chou W, Wu Y. Parental adjustment, marital relationship, and family function in families of children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2012;6:263–270. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gottmann JM. The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1993;61:6–15. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.61.1.6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gottman JM. What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. New York: Psychology Press; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  25. Halford KW, Markman HJ, Kline G, Stanley SM. Best practice in couple relationship education. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2003;29:385–406. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2003.tb01214.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hallgren KA. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutor Quantitative Methods in Psychology. 2012;8:23–34. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Harrison PL, Oakland T. Adaptive Behavior Assessment – Second Edition Manual (ABAS II) San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hartley SL, Barker ET, Seltzer MM, Floyd F, Greenberg J, Orsmond G, Bolt D. The relative risk and timing of divorce in families of children with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Family Psychology. 2010;24:449–457. doi: 10.1037/a0019847. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hartley SL, Papp LM, Bolt D. Spillover of marital interactions and parenting stress in families of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2016 doi: 10.1080/15374416.2016.1152552. Published online. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hartley SL, Papp LM, Blumenstock S, Floyd F, Goetz G. The effect of daily challenges in children with autism on parents’ couple problem-solving interactions. Journal of Family Psychology. doi: 10.1037/fam0000219. (in press) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hayes SA, Watson SL. The impact of parenting stress: A meta-analysis of studies comparing the experience of parenting stress in parents of children with and without autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2013;43:629–642. doi: 10.1007/s10803-012-1604-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Heyman RE. Observation of couple conflicts: Clinical assessment applications, stubborn truths, and shaky foundation. Psychological Assessment. 2001;13:5–35. doi: 10.1037//1040-3590.13.1.5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Higgins DJ, Bailey SR, Pearce JC. Factors associated with functioning style and coping strategies of families with a child with an autism spectrum disorder. Autism. 2005;9:125–137. doi: 10.1177/1362361305051403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Jacobson NA, Christensen A, Prince SE, Cordova J, Eldridge K. Integrative behavioral couple therapy: An acceptance-based, promising new treatment for couple discord. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2000;68:351–355. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.68.2.351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.2.351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Jacobson NS, Moore D. Spouses as observers of the events in their relationship. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1981;49:269–277. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.49.2.269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Jenkins J, Simpson A, Dunn J, Rasbash J, O’Connor TG. Mutual influence of marital conflict and children’s behavior problems: Shared and nonshared family risks. Child Development. 2005;76:24–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00827.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kerig PK. Assessing the links between interparental conflict and child adjustment: The conflicts and problem-solving scales. Journal of Family Psychology. 1996;10:454–473. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kerig PK. Gender and appraisals as mediators of adjustment in children exposed to interparental violence. Journal of Family Violence. 1998;13:345–363. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kliem S, Weusthoff S, Hahlweg K, Baucom KJW, Baucom BR. Predicting long-term risk for relationship dissolution using nonparametric conditional survival trees. Journal of Family Psychology. 2015;29:807–817. doi: 10.1037/fam0000134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Krannitz MA, Grandey AA, Liu S, Almeida DA. Workplace surface acting and marital partner discontent: Anxiety and exhaustion. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2015;20:314–325. doi: 10.1037/a0038763. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kuusikko-Gauffun S, Pollock-Wurman R, Mattila ML, Jussila K, Ebeling H, Pauls D, et al. Social anxiety in parents of high-functioning children with autism and Asperger Syndrome. Journal of Autism and Development Disorders. 2013;43:521–529. doi: 10.1007/s10803-012-1581-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Larson JH, Vatter RS, Galbraith RC, Holman TB, Stahmann RF. The RELATionship Evaluation (RELATE) with therapist assisted interpretation: Short-term effects on premarital relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2007;33:364–374. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00036.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lord C, Risi S, Lambrecht L, Cook EJ, Leventhal BL, DiLavore PC, Pickles A, Rutter M. The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule—Generic: A standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2000;30:205–223. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Maskey M, Warnell F, Parr JR, Le Couteur A, McConachie H. Emotional and behavioral problems in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2013;43:851–859. doi: 10.1007/s10803-012-1622-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. McCoy KP, George MRW, Cummings EM, Davies PT. Constructive and destructive marital conflict, parenting, and children’s school and social adjustment. Social Development. 2013;22:641–662. doi: 10.1111/sode.12015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Najman JM, Khatun M, Mamun A, Clavarino A, Williamsn GM, Scott S, O’Callaghan M, Hayatbakhsh R, Alati R. Does depression experienced by mothers lead to a decline in marital quality: A 21-year longitudinal study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2013;49:121–132. doi: 10.1007/s00127-013-0749-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Park JH, Kim YS, Koh YJ, Song J, Leventhal BL. A contrast of comorbid condition and adaptive function between children with autism spectrum disorder from clinical and non-clinical populations. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2014;8:1471–1481. [Google Scholar]
  48. Park M, Unützer J. Hundred forty eight more days with depression: The association between marital conflict and depression-free days. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2014;29:1271–1277. doi: 10.1002/gps.4107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Ramisch JL, Onaga E, Oh SM. Keeping a Sound Marriage: How Couples with Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders Maintain Their Marriages. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2014;23:975–988. [Google Scholar]
  50. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS, Cheong AS, Fai YF, Congdon RT, du Toit M. HLM 7: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rodriguez AJ, Margolin G. Wives’ and husbands’ cortisol reactivity to proximal and distal dimensions of couple conflict. Family Processes. 2013;52:555–569. doi: 10.1111/famp.12037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Rodriguez JR, Morgan SB, Geffken GR. Psychosocial adaptation of fathers of children with autism, Down syndrome, and normal development. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1992;22:249–263. doi: 10.1007/BF01058154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Santamaria F, Cuzzocrea F, Gugliandolo MC, Larcan R. Marital satisfaction and attribution style in parents of children with autism spectrum disorder, Down syndrome and non-disabled children. Life Span and Disability. 2012;15:19–37. [Google Scholar]
  54. Schermerhorn AC, Cummings EM, DeCarlo CA, Davies PT. Children’s influence in the marital relationship. Journal of Family Psychology. 2007;21:259–269. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Sochose A, Yahya F. Attachment style and relationship difficulties in parents of children with ADHD. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2015;24:3711–3722. [Google Scholar]
  56. Stroud CB, Meyers KM, Wilson S, Durbin S. Marital quality spillover and young children’s adjustment: Evidence for dyadic and triadic parenting as mechanisms. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2014;44:800–813. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2014.900720. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Theule J, Wiener J, Tannock R, Jenkins JM. Parenting stress in families of children with ADHD: A meta-analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2013;21:13–17. doi: 10.1177/1063426610387433. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Wymbs BT, Pelham WE. Child effects on communication between parents of youth with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2010;119:366–375. doi: 10.1037/a0019034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES