Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2019 Jul 22;33(8):945–953. doi: 10.1037/fam0000555

The role of coparenting in the association between parental neuroticism and harsh intrusive parenting

Bharathi J Zvara 1, Lauren E Altenburger 2, Sarah N Lang 2, Sarah J Schoppe-Sullivan 2
PMCID: PMC6878119  NIHMSID: NIHMS1035731  PMID: 31328943

Abstract

This study examined the moderating role of the coparenting relationship in the associations between neuroticism and harsh intrusive parenting for mothers and fathers. Data came from a longitudinal study of 182 US dual-earner, primiparous couples and their infant children and were derived through self-report and observational assessments across three waves of data collection. Sequential regression analyses indicated that greater undermining coparenting behavior was positively associated with maternal harsh intrusive behavior. Moderation analyses revealed that only when undermining coparenting was high was maternal neuroticism significantly associated with greater harsh maternal intrusiveness. We did not find associations of father neuroticism and coparenting with paternal harsh intrusive parenting behavior. Findings suggest that undermining coparenting behavior has both theoretical and practical significance for understanding the associations between maternal neuroticism and mothers’ harsh intrusive parenting.

Keywords: Neuroticism, Mothers, Fathers, Coparenting, Harsh intrusive parenting

Parenting is a complex phenomenon that involves a multifaceted set of behaviors influenced by numerous interacting factors and environments (Belsky, 1984). A large literature provides evidence that the ways in which parents interact with children is linked to child adjustment in multiple domains, as well as to the development and maintenance of psychopathology (Bornstein, Hahn, & Haynes, 2011). Much parenting research, however, has focused primarily on the domain of sensitive caregiving. More recent research suggests that exposure to harsh intrusive parenting, or parenting that is emotionally negative (i.e., angry and hostile), behaviorally intrusive, and controlling, may increase children’s risk for adjustment problems independent of parental warmth and sensitivity (Zvara et al., 2014).

As evidence continues to mount indicating that harsh intrusive parenting is related to poor developmental outcomes in children (Cox & Harter, 2003; Grolnick, et al., 2002), a key task for researchers is to determine the conditions under which parents employ negative parenting behaviors. Belsky (1984) theorized that parenting behavior is determined by a combination of three subsystems: parent characteristics (e.g., parents’ personalities and developmental histories), child characteristics (e.g., child temperament, gender, age), and aspects of the broader social context (e.g., quality of the partner relationship). Of these, Belsky proposed that the subsystem comprising parental psychological characteristics was the most influential for parental functioning. His central premise was that parental psychological characteristics such as personality may be directly related to parenting behavior, but the role of psychological characteristics in parenting can be influenced by other factors that strengthen or diminish this association.

Despite the prominent role that Belsky’s (1984) process-model of parenting has played in advancing our understanding of the determinants of parenting behavior, studies examining the associations between maternal and paternal personality traits and parenting behavior are relatively few in number given the central role of parental psychological characteristics in Belsky’s (1984) process-model of parenting. Prinzie and colleagues (2009) found in their meta-analysis that the number of studies reporting an association between parental personality traits and parenting behavior ranged from 10 to 21 depending on the personality trait studied (Prinzie, Stams, Deković,Reijntjes, & Belsky, 2009). Moreover, much of the existing work examining personality-parenting associations, however, has focused on main effects of personality, and has not addressed the conditions under which personality characteristics may explain parenting behavior (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005).

Parental Personality and Parenting Behavior

Belsky’s (1984) model of parenting posited that parents’ personality is the most significant determinant of parenting behaviors. Personality is broadly described as a set of psychological characteristics that lead one to behave in meaningfully consistent ways (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Although past work explored many definitions and models of personality, the Five-Factor Model (FFM) has gained acceptance as a comprehensive map of personality and includes the following dimensions of personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Allik & McCrae, 2004). Different dimensions of personality are believed to be associated with how individuals respond to stimuli or situations. For example, common characteristics of people who exhibit high levels of neuroticism include feeling anxious or nervous, being prone to stress and guilt, and having experiences of frustration or anger. Given that neuroticism involves a proneness to experience negative emotions such as anxiety, sadness, and hostility, as well as a tendency towards emotional instability (Vondra & Belsky, 1993), parents characterized as high in neuroticism may be more likely to adopt an intrusive and controlling style of parenting (Clark et al., 2000).

Indeed, maternal neuroticism in particular has been consistently linked with less optimal parenting behaviors. Early work by Kochanska, Clark, and Goldman (1997) with a sample of preschoolers provided evidence that maternal neuroticism was associated with less adaptive qualities of parenting. Specifically, they reported that mothers high in self-reported neuroticism displayed significantly more observer-rated negative affect and less adaptive parenting over the course of interactions with their child, both at home and in a lab setting. Clark et al. (2000) reported that high levels of neuroticism were related to expressing negative affect towards one’s 13-month-old infant, as well as to being intrusive in interactions with the infant. Further, a recent meta-analytic review by Prinzie et al. (2009) of studies of parenting in samples of families with children from infancy through adolescence supported these earlier findings such that neuroticism was related to more negative, intrusive, and overcontrolling parenting (e.g., Kochanska, Aksan, & Nichols, 2003; Smith, Spinrad, Eisenberg, Payne, Gaertner, & Maxon, 2007). Additionally, the limited research examining the role of fathers’ personality characteristics in paternal parenting has shown mixed results. Kochanska and colleagues reported that fathers’ neuroticism was not related to the emotional quality of the father-child dyad (Kochanska, Friesenborg, Lange, & Martel, 2004). In contrast, Metsäpelto and Pulkkinen (2003) reported associations between personality traits and parenting behavior was similar for both mothers and fathers.

Further, despite some progress linking personality traits and parenting behavior (Belsky & Barends, 2002; Clark et al., 2000; Kochanska, Aksan, Penney, & Boldt, 2007), the conditions under which particular personality traits may explain parenting behavior are not yet clear (Caspi et al., 2005). For example, most of the studies included in the Prinzie et al. (2009) meta-analysis focused on the main effects of personality characteristics on parenting. Such a focus does not account for the possibility that the way adult personality shapes parenting may depend on other factors.

The Moderating Role of the Coparenting Relationship

Family systems theory (e.g., Minuchin, 1974) is used as a framework for conceptualizing the coparenting relationship, or the relationship between parents with respect to parenting (Feinberg, 2003). Coparenting refers to the coordination between two adults who are raising a child together as parents (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). Family systems theory gives special importance to the coparenting relationship, referring to it as the family’s executive subsystem. Coparenting relationships are related to, yet distinct from marital and parent-child relationships and may be one of the conditions that shape how personality is related to parenting behavior. Briefly, a coparenting relationship exists when individuals share caregiving responsibilities and its quality can be characterized by the extent to which parents support or undermine each other’s parenting efforts (Feinberg, 2003). Supportive coparents value each other’s contributions to parenting, respect each other’s authority, and are cooperative and warm when interacting with their child together. In contrast, parents who undermine each other do so through criticism, blame, or disparagement of the other parent, competing for the child’s attention, or disregarding the other’s authority.

Conceptualizing coparenting using Belsky’s model (1984) would suggest that the quality of the coparenting relationship can operate in either a supportive mode or a stressful mode, thereby providing mothers and fathers with support or stress in their roles as parents. From this perspective, parents with neurotic personality traits would be expected to demonstrate less competent parenting in the presence of undermining coparenting, as the negative coparenting experience may exacerbate neurotic parents’ tendencies to control interactions with their children. Specifically, the stress from undermining coparenting dynamics is expected to relate to greater harshness and intrusiveness in parenting behaviors. In contrast, a supportive coparenting relationship may mitigate the negative influence of parental neuroticism on harsh intrusive parenting by acting as a supportive buffer of parenting behavior.

The Current Study

In light of the theory and prior work highlighted above, the present study addresses an important gap in the parenting literature by examining the associations between maternal and paternal neuroticism and harsh intrusive parenting and the moderating role of the coparenting relationship in these associations. We focused on neuroticism as compared to other domains of personality based on previous research suggesting that the underlying aspects of neuroticism may be particularly important to harsh intrusive parenting. For example, Smith (2010) reported neuroticism was associated with more controlling behaviors above and beyond numerous determinants of parenting behaviors including maternal stress, social support, and SES. Based on theory and extant research, we put forward the following hypotheses. (1) higher parental neuroticism will be related to observed ratings of greater harsh intrusive parenting behavior; (2) undermining and supportive coparenting will moderate this association, such that more neurotic mothers and fathers will display significantly greater harsh intrusiveness when they are embedded in coparenting relationships characterized by greater undermining but, in contrast, they will display significantly less harsh intrusive parenting when they are in supportive coparenting relationships. Given that relations between parental personality and harsh intrusive parenting may depend on other aspects of the family ecology (Doherty, Kouneski, & Erickson, 1998), particularly the coparenting relationship, we conceptualized coparenting as a contextual variable.

Method

Sample

The sample for the current study was comprised of one hundred eighty-two married or cohabiting dual-earner, different-sex couples followed across the transition to parenthood during 2008–2010. Recruitment for the study used multiple methods including childbirth education classes and via word-of-mouth in a large midwestern U.S. city and surrounding area. Eligibility criteria included couples (a) expecting their first child, (b) the biological parents of the child they were expecting, (c) both contributing to the household income and planning to return to work after their infant was born, (d) at least age 18, and (e) able to read and speak English. In the third trimester of pregnancy, 86.3% of couples reported being married. The median level of education for mothers and fathers was a bachelor’s degree, with 75.3% of mothers and 65.3% of fathers having obtained at least this level of education. The median annual family income reported by participants during the third trimester of pregnancy was $80,000. Thirty-seven mothers and 25 fathers did not report their precise household income, and instead reported their household income range.

Mothers were between age 18 and 42 (M = 28.24 years, SD = 4.02). Fathers were between age 18 and 50 (M = 30.20 years, SD = 4.81). The majority of participants who identified with a race were White (85% of mothers and 86% of fathers), with the remaining participants coming from other racial backgrounds (6% of mothers and 7% of fathers self-identified as Black, 3% of mothers and 3% of fathers self-identified as Asian, 2% of mothers and 4% of fathers identified as other races, and 4% of mothers and 1% of fathers self-identified as more than one race). In addition, 4% of mothers and 2% of fathers identified themselves as Hispanic. Approximately 1% of fathers did not identify with any race.

From the original sample, 170 families participated in the observational assessment at 3-months postpartum, and 156 mothers and 153 fathers participated in the observational assessment at 9-months postpartum. Most families who chose not to participate at the 3-or 9-month follow-up time points indicated they were too busy to stay involved in the study. To determine if participating parents differed significantly from non-participating parents on variables of interest, attrition analyses were conducted on the raw data. Results revealed that mothers who participated in the observational assessment at 3-months postpartum (t(177) = 0.15, p = 0.88) or 9-months postpartum (t(177) = −0.59, p = 0.56) did not have higher levels of prenatal neuroticism. In terms of education level, participating mothers did not differ from non-participating mothers at 3-months postpartum (t(180) = −1.17, p = .24) or 9-months postpartum (t(180) = −1.47, p = 0.14). Participating fathers did not differ from non-participating fathers at 3-months postpartum (t(173) = −0.82, p = 0.41) or 9-months postpartum (t(173) = −0.05, p = 0.96) on prenatal neuroticism. There were also no differences between the education level of participating and non-participating fathers at 3-months (t(180) = −0.08, p = 0.94) and 9-months (t(180) = 0.39, p = 0.70).

Procedures

The New Parents Project, from which these data were drawn, is approved by the Ohio State University’s Behavioral and Social Science Institutional Review Board under protocol #2007B0228. Data for the current study were derived from the prenatal assessment in the third trimester of pregnancy, and the 3-month and 9-month postnatal assessments. Specifically, during prenatal data collection, both parents individually completed an assessment of their personality and also reported demographic information. At the 3-month in-home visit, mothers and fathers jointly participated in a structured clothes-changing task with their infant to assess coparenting behavior, and during the 9-month observational visit mothers and fathers individually participated in a structured play task with their infants to assess harsh intrusiveness.

Measures

Parental personality.

In the third trimester of pregnancy, expectant parents separately completed the NEO Five Factor Inventory to assess dimensions of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992). For the current study, we used the neuroticism scale, which consists of 12 items that measure how prone an individual is to feeling stressed, anxious or nervous, and having experiences of frustration and anger. Reliability for mothers (α = .87) and fathers (α = .85) was acceptable. Sample items for the neuroticism subscale included, “I often feel inferior to others”; “I often feel tense and jittery”; “I often feel helpless and want someone else to solve my problems”. Responses on the items ranged from ‘‘1’’ strongly disagree to ‘‘5’’ strongly agree, and scores on individual items were summed to create a total score.

Coparenting behavior.

Coparenting behavior was assessed using observations of a triadic structured interaction between the mother, father, and their 3-month-old infant. Specifically, parents were asked to work together to change their infant’s clothing. Parents were given a onesie (infant bodysuit) and the following specific instructions: “We now ask that you take a few minutes to change [child] into this onesie together. We would like one of you to undress the child and the other to dress the child. You can choose your roles. We will leave the room. Please signal us when you are finished”. Two trained research assistants coded episodes using a previously validated coparenting coding system (Schoppe et al., 2001). Reliability between the coders was acceptable, with gammas ranging from .64-.99 on scales of interest (i.e., cooperation, competition, pleasure, warmth, coldness, and displeasure). Coders overlapped on 86 families or approximately 50.6% of the sample of participating parents at 3-months postpartum.

Coders scored each interaction on a series of 1 to 5 scales, where higher scores indicated greater displays in intensity and/or frequency of the behaviors of interest, and lower scores indicated less intense and/or frequent occurrences of the behaviors of interest. For the present study, we focused on cooperation, warmth and pleasure as indicators of supportive coparenting. Cooperation, coded at the level of the coparenting team, represents the degree to which parents display instrumental and emotional support to one another in the interaction. Warmth, coded at the individual level, is the degree to which parents display affection and positive regard for each other, and pleasure, also coded individually, is the degree to which each parent enjoys watching the other interact with the infant and collaborating in his/her parental role. To construct the “support” variable, mothers’ and fathers’ warmth were averaged and summed with a score indicating mothers’ and fathers’ average pleasure, as well as the team’s score on cooperation.

In contrast, parents’ competition, coldness, and displeasure were indicators of undermining coparenting. Competition, coded at the level of the coparenting team, represents the extent to which parenting partners vie for the infant’s affection or attention, and/or interfere with each other’s parenting actions. Coldness, coded at the individual level, represents a parent’s display of distance and lack of affection or response to the other partner, and displeasure, also coded individually, is the degree to which the parent expresses a dislike for the other parent’s relationship with the child, and/or his/her behaviors with the infant. To construct a composite “undermining” variable, mothers’ and fathers’ coldness were averaged and summed with a score indicating mothers’ and fathers’ average displeasure, as well as a score indicating parents’ level of competition.

Prior research on observational assessment of coparenting lends support to using these individual scales as indicators of the constructs of supportive and undermining coparenting, respectively (Altenburger, Schoppe-Sullivan, Lang, Bower, & Kamp Dush, 2014).

Harsh intrusive parenting.

Parents’ harsh intrusive parenting was determined using an observational assessment composed of a structured play task, in which parents were asked to play separately with their 9-month-old infant using a shape sorter or stacking rings (specific toy was randomly assigned). Each parent was instructed to try to teach their baby how to play with either a shape sorter or stacking rings. These 5-minute, digitally recorded interactions were later coded by trained research assistants who were unaware of other information about the families.

The coding scales used in the current study were adapted from those used by the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD ECCRN, 1999). A composite score for harsh intrusive parenting was created by summing the intrusiveness and negative regard indicators. This overall composite score was used in the analysis and this approach is consistent with other publications utilizing this approach (e.g., Zvara, Mills-Koonce, Heilbron, Clincy, & Cox, 2015). Similar to the coparenting scoring, each indicator was rated on a 1 to 5 scale and a parent scoring high on a particular indicator displayed more of the behaviors of interest, either in intensity and/or frequency. Intrusiveness was the degree to which a parent displayed behaviors that are more parent-centered than child-centered. Parents high in intrusiveness demonstrated a lack of respect for the child as an individual and failed to understand and recognize the child’s effort to gain autonomy and self-awareness. Negative regard was the degree to which the parents demonstrated negative affect in verbal or non-verbal ways to the child, e.g., by being abrupt, harsh, or calling the child names. The episodes were coded by two independent research assistants and reliability between the coders was acceptable; gammas for the indicators of mothers’ intrusiveness and negative regard were 0.78 and 0.93, respectively. Gammas for the indicators of fathers’ intrusiveness and negative regard were 0.57 and 0.92, respectively.

Control variables.

In order to rule out alternative explanations of the proposed associations, parents’ depressive symptoms and education were included as control variables. Parental education was measured prenatally via an ordinal variable where 1 = less than a high school degree/GED, and 8 = a doctorate degree. Depressive symptoms were assessed with a brief, 5-item measure adapted from the CESD (CES-D; Radloff, 1977), where parents indicated on a scale of 0 (i.e., rarely or none of the time) to 3 (i.e., most or all of the time), the extent to which they experienced elements of sadness or happiness in the past week (e.g., “I had crying spells”). We used the assessment of depressive symptoms mothers (α = .74) and fathers (α = .56) completed at 9-months postpartum. We also controlled for child gender given previous research suggesting an association with coparenting and parenting behaviors (Brown, Schoppe‐Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, & Neff, 2010).

Data Analysis Plan

Missing data analysis.

Prior to the preliminary and main data analyses, data were assessed for missing values at 3-and 9-months postpartum. In examining the usable missing values of interest, there was a modest percentage of missingness at 3-months postpartum (6.6%) and a moderate percentage of missingness at 9-months postpartum, ranging from 14.3% to 17.6%. The pattern of missing responses was arbitrary. Because ignoring missing data can produce biased estimates (Enders, 2010), missing data were imputed using the multiple imputations technique in IBM SPSS Statistical Package Subscription. The multiple imputation technique is a valuable strategy for handling data sets with missing values. In contrast to other approaches for handling missing data, such as listwise deletion, pairwise deletion, or regression imputation, multiple imputation replaces each missing value with plausible alternative versions of the complete data in a number of data sets pre-specified by the researcher.

The results of Little’s MCAR test were non-significant (χ2 (4,937) = 4,991.825, p > .05). As outlined by Yuan (2000), the number of imputations (m) is a function of the “relative efficiency” desired, where the rate of missing data (λ) is considered in the following formula:

Relative Efficiency=(1+λ/m)−1

Using this formula, one could determine that, with a maximum rate of missing data of 17.6% at 9-months postpartum, 5 imputations will approximate the values created in a data set of infinite imputations with approximately 96.6% efficiency. Thus, missing values were imputed on 5 data sets. Although regression analyses conducted in SPSS can produce a pooled estimate of the multiply imputed data sets, Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2017), which we used to probe the interactions at the mean levels of coparenting, as well as one standard deviation above the mean and at the lowest observed value of undermining coparenting, cannot produce pooled estimates of multiply imputed data sets. Rather than using listwise deletion, which significantly increases bias in statistical estimates, we combined imputed values across data sets to create a final data set that could be used to probe the statistically significant interaction in PROCESS. Other researchers have utilized this approach to use imputed data in analyses for which statistical methods for analyzing pooled data have not been developed (Altenburger, Lang, Schoppe-Sullivan, Kamp Dush, & Johnson, 2015; Jensen & Shafer, 2013). Combining imputed data into a single data set does not change conclusions substantially, as the maximum median differences between imputed data sets were relatively small. Thus, the median values across all imputed data sets were used to obtain a single value for each variable. Standardized beta coefficients change in R2 and F values, and graphs of significant interactions were computed on the aggregate, combined dataset.

Main analyses.

Next, descriptive statistics were computed for all variables, and associations among control variables (parental education, depressive symptoms), parental neuroticism, observed supportive and undermining coparenting behavior at 3 months postpartum, and observed harsh intrusive parenting at 9 months were computed. A series of sequential linear multiple regression analyses predicting mothers’ harsh intrusive parenting from maternal neuroticism and both coparenting variables were conducted. Additionally, a series of sequential linear multiple regression analyses predicting fathers’ harsh intrusive parenting from fathers’ neuroticism and both coparenting variables were conducted. Predictors were mean-centered prior to regression analyses.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

Descriptive statistics for the variables of interest and bivariate correlations among control variables, observed coparenting behavior, parental neuroticism, and harsh intrusive parenting behavior at 9-months postpartum are provided in Table 1. Although the means for maternal (M = 3.81, SD = .97, range = 2.50 – 8.50) and paternal harsh intrusive parenting (M = 3.52, SD = .67, range = 2.50 – 6.0), and undermining coparenting (M = 3.36, SD = .73, range = 3–7.50) in our sample were relatively low, which would be expected in a non-clinical sample, there was still variability amongst the participants. Control variables were associated with variables of interest. Namely, higher levels of maternal education were associated with higher levels of supportive coparenting at 3-months postpartum (r = .15, p <. 05), whereas maternal depressive symptoms were associated with mothers’ neuroticism (r = .44, p < .001). Similarly, paternal education was positively related to supportive coparenting (r = .24, p <. 01) and inversely related to undermining coparenting (r = −.17, p <. 05) and fathers’ harsh intrusive parenting (r = −.22, p <. 01). We further noted that undermining coparenting was significantly related to harsh intrusive parenting for mothers (r = .27, p < .01) and fathers (r = .17, p < .05).

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Key Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prenatal
1. Neuroticism (M) --
2. Neuroticism (F) .06 --
3. Education (M) −.09 .02 --
4. Education (F) −.03 −.09 .61*** --
Three Months
5. Supportive Coparenting −.09 .06 .15* .24** --
6. Undermining Coparenting .11 −.02 −.10 −.17* −.45*** --
Nine Months
7. Depressive symptoms (M) .44*** .09 −.15 −.13 −.09 −.01 --
8. Depressive symptoms (F) .07 .43*** .01 −.04 −.09 .16 .05 --
9. Harsh Intrusiveness (M) .13 −.09 −.15 −.14 −.09 .27** .02 .19* --
10. Harsh Intrusiveness (F) −.08 .13 −.14 −.22** −.17* .17* .04 .16 .30*** --
n 179 175 182 182 170 170 154 150 156 153
Mean 2.53 2.41 5.86 5.45 8.76 3.36 1.95 1.90 3.81 3.52
Standard Deviation .66 .63 1.37 1.54 2.13 .73 2.26 1.74 .97 .67
Theoretical Range 1–5 1–5 1–8 1–8 3–15 3–15 0–15 0–15 2–10 2–10
Range 1.2–4.6 1.3–4.6 1–8 1–8 3.25–15 3.0–7.5 0–11 0–8 2.5–8.5 2.5–6
Open in a new tab

Note. mos = months

*

p < .05

**

p < 0.01

***

p < .001; The bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics depicted above were conducted prior to imputing missing values. M = Mothers; F = Fathers

Sequential Regression Analyses

To determine if the variables of interest could uniquely predict parental harsh intrusiveness at 9 months postpartum, we conducted a sequential linear multiple regression analysis, entering the control variables (i.e., parental education, depressive symptoms, and child gender) within step one, neuroticism measured prenatally in step 2, and observed coparenting behavior measured at 3 months in step 3. To determine whether different aspects of coparenting moderated the association between neuroticism and harsh intrusive parenting, we entered interaction terms, neuroticism X undermining coparenting and neuroticism X supportive coparenting, into respective regression models in step 4.

As shown in Table 2, results from sequential regression analyses indicated that greater maternal neuroticism (β = .14, p < .10) was marginally linked to mothers’ harsh intrusive parenting behavior. However, supportive coparenting was not associated with harsh intrusive parenting. As depicted in Table 2, higher levels of undermining coparenting behavior (β = .23, p < .01) were positively associated with maternal harsh intrusive behavior. Furthermore, the interaction term for maternal neuroticism and undermining coparenting was significant (β = .29, p < .01). When the coparenting interaction terms were added to the model, the R-square increased by 6%. Furthermore, the interaction term between maternal neuroticism and undermining coparenting was statistically significant in the original data set, as well as each of the 5 imputed data sets.

Table 2.

Coparenting and Mothers’ Neuroticism as Predictors of Mothers’ Harsh Intrusiveness at 9 months

Harsh Intrusiveness at 9 mos
Model 1 β Model 2 β Model 3 β Model 4 β
Maternal Education, Prenatal −.097 −.093 −.078 −.079
Maternal Depressive symptoms at 9 mos .018 −.029 −.033 −.028
Child Gender −.058 −.050 −.046 −.028
Maternal Neuroticism, Prenatal .144t .123 .152 t
Supportive Coparenting at 3 mos .014 .015
Undermining Coparenting at 3 mos .225** .130
Maternal Neuro X Support .113
Maternal Neuro X Undermining .289**
Total R2 .015 .033 .080 .142
Δ R2 .015 .018 .047 .062
ΔF .851 3.202t 4.331* 6.009**
Open in a new tab

Note. Neuro = Neuroticism; X = interaction among variables of interest; Support = supportive coparenting; mos = months. Standardized Beta, R2, and F values were computed using an aggregated data set of all multiple imputations. There were 182 total participants in the aggregated data set.

t

p < 0.10

*

p < 0.05

**

p < 0.01

***

p<.001

To further analyze this interaction, we conducted simple slopes analysis with the use of PROCESS (Hayes, 2017), controlling for maternal education assessed prenatally, child gender, maternal depressive symptoms assessed at 9 months, coparenting support, and the interaction between maternal neuroticism and coparenting support. Results revealed that only when undermining coparenting behavior was high was mothers’ neuroticism significantly and positively associated with greater maternal harsh intrusiveness (see Figure 1). Specifically, a simple slopes analysis indicated that the slope of the line representing high levels of undermining coparenting (one standard deviation above the mean) was significantly different from zero, t(167) = 3.47, p < .01. When undermining coparenting behavior was average or at the lowest observed value there was no significant association between maternal neuroticism and maternal harsh intrusiveness.

Figure 1.

Interaction of Maternal Neuroticism and Undermining Coparenting to Predict Harsh Maternal Intrusiveness at Nine Months

Note. In probing this interaction we controlled for maternal education, level of depressive symptoms, child gender, coparenting support, and the interaction between coparenting support and maternal neuroticism.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

In contrast to the findings for mothers, we did not find an association between paternal neuroticism and harsh intrusiveness, nor did coparenting moderate the association between paternal neuroticism and harsh intrusiveness. We did note however, that paternal education and depressive symptoms remained a significant predictor of harsh intrusive parenting even when controlling for fathers’ neuroticism and child gender.

Discussion

The present study represents an advance in our understanding of potential influences on harsh intrusive parenting. Using self-report and observational assessments and a longitudinal design, the findings from this study indicate that the coparenting relationship may be a key moderator in the relations between maternal personality and subsequent harsh intrusive parenting behavior. More specifically, findings revealed that coparenting behavior that is characterized by hostility, withdrawal, and competitiveness may exacerbate the negative affective state of a mother high in neuroticism, thereby influencing her interactions with her child. Although previous research has shown that personality uniquely contributes to parenting behavior, this study is among the first to document the conditions under which this association may be most pronounced, specifically, coparenting relationships characterized by high levels of undermining behavior.

Belsky (1984) argued that parents’ personal psychological resources are the most influential determinants of parenting behavior. Consequently, we hypothesized that maternal neuroticism would be related to greater harsh intrusive maternal parenting behavior. The direct effect hypothesis was not supported; however, the association between maternal neuroticism and harsh intrusive parenting approached significance. As such, our findings are not necessarily in conflict with prior research that has reported that higher levels of maternal neuroticism are related to greater levels of intrusiveness and power assertion (Kochanska et al., 1997; Clark et al., 2000).

We further tested the conditions under which maternal personality characteristics may be related to poor parenting behavior. We found a significant association between maternal neuroticism and harsh intrusive parenting in the presence of high levels of undermining coparenting. It may be that the stress associated with undermining coparenting behavior amplifies the stresses that more neurotic mothers are susceptible to, thereby affecting mothers’ parenting behavior negatively. Our hypothesis that supportive coparenting would attenuate the effect of neuroticism on maternal harsh intrusive parenting behavior was not supported. Why supportive coparenting did not moderate the effects of neuroticism is not clear; perhaps the negative affect states experienced by mothers higher on neuroticism may overwhelm the benefits of a supportive coparenting relationship.

With regard to fathers, no associations were found between paternal neuroticism and harsh intrusive parenting behavior, nor did we find a significant moderating effect of coparenting. Early work by Belsky, Cmic, and Woodworth (1995) found that personality traits predicted mothering more strongly than fathering, and that somewhat different personality factors were significantly related to the parenting of mothers than of fathers, but that neuroticism was an important factor in predicting both mothers’ and fathers’ parenting. More recent work by Fagan and Lee (2011) found that adolescent fathers’ parenting behaviors were more significantly influenced by coparenting context when compared to adult fathers. To achieve a more complete understanding of the associations between personality and parenting in fathers, future research should examine additional personal factors, such as fathers’ beliefs about paternal role and work-related stress that may moderate the associations between paternal personality and subsequent parenting.

The current findings have both theoretical and practical implications. Given that neuroticism is characterized by a propensity for negative emotionality, mothers who are higher in neuroticism by definition experience negative emotions more frequently, which may often be manifested in interactions with their partners and their infants. Therefore, although these longitudinal findings are consistent with Belsky’s (1984) model of parenting behavior, it is also likely a mother’s personality may influence the quality of relationship she has with her partner, which in turn would be expected to influence her parenting. Our findings suggest that practitioners may be well warranted to target their interventions by addressing not only maternal personality but also coparenting relationships. The evidence from this study reveals that the presence of undermining behavior in the coparenting relationship may exacerbate the effects of maternal neuroticism by making mothers more harsh and intrusive in their parenting behavior.

A key strength of the current study was its longitudinal design, which allowed us to consider parental characteristics and coparenting quality as antecedents of parenting behavior. However, the observational assessments of parenting and coparenting used in the current study were relatively brief, and not measured repeatedly across time, thus, more complex models could have been examined and more robust results may have been obtained with multiple assessments. Similar to other studies using non-clinical, community samples, our assessment of undermining behavior showed low variability. It is also important to bear in mind that characteristics of the present sample may have affected the findings obtained. The participants in this study consisted of dual-earner couples experiencing the birth of their first child who were married or cohabiting and willing to participate in this type of intensive study. Thus, these findings may not be generalizable to clinically referred families, families with nonresident fathers, or those with more diverse structures. Replication with more diverse samples may further expand our understanding of the predictors of harsh intrusive parenting.

Despite its limitations, the results of this study provide important information about factors that may predict maternal harsh intrusive parenting behavior. This study provides evidence that the coparenting subsystem is a key factor to understanding parenting behavior. Practitioners guiding the development and refinement of parenting interventions may find it prudent to include the coparenting subsystem when working with families. Importantly, mothers high on neuroticism and their coparenting partners may need greater support in cultivating constructive strategies to handle coparenting conflict to mitigate stress that may have a negative impact on mothers’ parenting. Developing a better understanding of how personality traits are associated with parenting behavior, uniquely and/or in common with other contextual factors, will inform clinicians on how best to target interventions designed to improve parenting outcomes.

Table 3.

Coparenting and Fathers’ Neuroticism as Predictors of Fathers’ Harsh Intrusiveness at 9 months

Harsh Intrusiveness at 9 mos
Model 1 β Model 2 β Model 3 β Model 4 β
Father Education, Prenatal −.185* −.180* −.140t −.148t
Father Depressive symptoms at 9 mos .182* .164* .137t .144t
Child Gender .037 .032 .038 .018
Father Neuroticism, Prenatal .048 .074 .074
Supportive Coparenting at 3 mos −.123 −.130
Undermining Coparenting at 3 mos .059 .033
Father Neuro X Support −.113
Father Neuro X Undermining −.153t
Total R2 .071 .073 .095 .117
Δ R2 .071 .002 .022 .021
ΔF 4.385** .349 2.097 2.003
Open in a new tab

Note. Neuro = Neuroticism; X = interaction among variables of interest; Support = supportive coparenting; mos = months. Standardized Beta, R2, and F values were computed using an aggregated data set of all multiple imputations. There were 182 total participants in the aggregated data set.

t

p < 0.10

*

p < 0.05

**

p < 0.01

***

p<.001

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation (Grant CAREER 0746548, awarded to Sarah J. Schoppe‐Sullivan), with additional support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Grant 1K‐1HD056238, awarded to Claire M. Kamp Dush), and The Ohio State University’s Institute for Population Research (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Grant R24HD058484). We also acknowledge Claire M. Kamp Dush’s invaluable contributions to the design and execution of the New Parents Project. The findings presented in this manuscript were previously presented at the International Congress on Infant Studies in 2016.

References

  1. Allik J, & McCrae RR (2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(1), 13–28. [Google Scholar]
  2. Altenburger LE, Lang SN, Schoppe-Sullivan SJ, Kamp Dush CM & Johnson S (2017). Toddlers’ differential susceptibility to the effects of coparenting on social-emotional adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41(2), 228–237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Altenburger LE, Schoppe-Sullivan SJ, Lang SN, Bower DJ, & Kamp Dush CM (2014). Associations between prenatal coparenting behavior and observed coparenting behavior at 9-months postpartum. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), 495–504. Doi: 10.1037/fam0000012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Belsky J (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child development, 83–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Belsky J, & Barends N (2002). Personality and parenting handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (pp. 415–438). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  6. Belsky J, Cmic K, & Woodworth S (1995). Personality and parenting: Exploring the mediating role of transient mood and daily hassles. Journal of Personality, 63, 905–929. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bornstein MH, Hahn CS, & Haynes OM (2011). Maternal personality, parenting cognitions, and parenting practices. Developmental psychology, 47(3), 658–675. doi: 10.1037/a0023181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown GL, Schoppe‐Sullivan SJ, Mangelsdorf SC, & Neff C (2010). Observed and reported supportive coparenting as predictors of infant–mother and infant–father attachment security. Early child development and care, 180(1–2), 121–137. doi: 10.1080/03004430903415015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Caspi A, Roberts BW, & Shiner RL (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual. Review. Psychology, 56, 453–484. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141913 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark LA, Kochanska G, & Ready R (2000). Mothers’ personality and its interaction with child temperament as predictors of parenting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 274–285. Doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Costa PT Jr, & McCrae RR (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665. Doi: 0.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141913 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cox MJ, & Harter KSM (2003). Parent–child relationships. In Bornstein MH, Davidson L, Keyes CLM, & Moore KA (Eds.), Wellbeing: Positive development across the life course (pp. 191–204). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  13. Doherty WJ, Kouneski EF, & Erickson MF (1998). Responsible fathering: An overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 277–292. [Google Scholar]
  14. Enders CK (2010). Applied missing data analysis New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fagan J, & Lee Y (2011). Do coparenting and social support have a greater effect on adolescent fathers than adult fathers?. Family Relations, 60(3), 247–258. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00651.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Feinberg ME (2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3(2), 95–131. doi: 10.1207/S15327922PAR0302_01 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Grolnick WS, Gurland ST, DeCourcey W, Jacob K, 2002. Antecedents and consequences of mothers’ autonomy support: an experimental investigation. Developmental Psychology 38, 143–155. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.1.143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hayes AF (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hayes AF, Matthes J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods 41, 924–936. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.3.924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jensen TM, & Shafer K (2013). Stepfamily functioning and closeness: Children’s views on second marriages and stepfather relationships. Social Work, 58, 127–136. doi: 10.1093/sw/swt007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kochanska G, Aksan N, & Nichols KE (2003). Maternal power assertion in discipline and moral discourse contexts: commonalities, differences, and implications for children’s moral conduct and cognition. Developmental Psychology, 39(6), 949–963. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39.6.949 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kochanska G, Aksan N, Penney SJ, & Boldt LJ (2007). Parental personality as an inner resource that moderates the impact of ecological adversity on parenting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 136–150. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kochanska G, Friesenborg AE, Lange LA, & Martel MM (2004). Parents’ personality and infants’ temperament as contributors to their emerging relationship. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(5), 744–759. Doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.744 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kochanska G, Lee Clark A, & Goldman MS (1997). Implications of mothers’ personality for their parenting and their young children’s developmental outcomes. Journal of Personality, 65(2), 387–420. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00959.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Krishnakumar A, & Buehler C (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta‐analytic review. Family Relations, 49(1), 25–44. Doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00025.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Metsäpelto RL, & Pulkkinen L (2003). Personality traits and parenting: Neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience as discriminative factors. European Journal of Personality, 17(1), 59–78. [Google Scholar]
  27. McCrae RR, & Costa PT Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 53(2), 509–516. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Minuchin S (1974). Families and Family Therapy Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1999). Chronicity of maternal depressive symptoms, maternal sensitivity, and child functioning at 36 months. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1297–1310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Prinzie P, Stams GJJ, Deković M, Reijntjes AH, & Belsky J (2009). The relations between parents’ Big Five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 351–362. Doi: 10.1037/a0015823 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Radloff LS (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depressive symptoms scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. [Google Scholar]
  32. Scheffer J (2002). Dealing with missing data. Research Letters in the Information and Mathematical Sciences, 3(1), 153–160. [Google Scholar]
  33. Schoppe SJ, Mangelsdorf SC, & Frosch CA (2001). Coparenting, family process, and family structure: Implications for preschoolers’ externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(3), 526–545. Doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.526 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Smith CL, Spinrad TL, Eisenberg N, Payne TK, Gaertner BM, & Maxon E (2007). Maternal Personality: longitudinal relations to Parenting behavior and maternal emotional Expressions toward toddlers. Parenting Journal of Science and Practice, 7(3), 305–329. Doi: 10.1080/15295190701498710 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Vondra J, & Belsky J (1993). Developmental origins of parenting: Personality and relationship factors. In Luster T & Okagaki L (Eds.), Parenting: An ecological perspective (pp. 1–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  36. Yuan YC (2000). Multiple imputation for missing data: Concepts and new developments (Version 9.0). In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference (Paper N. 267). Cary, NC: SAS Institute. [Google Scholar]
  37. Zvara BJ, Mills-Koonce WR, Garrett-Peters P, Wagner NJ, Vernon-Feagans L, Cox M, & Family Life Project Key Contributors. (2014). The mediating role of parenting in the associations between household chaos and children’s representations of family dysfunction. Attachment & Human Development, 16(6), 633–655. doi: 10.1080/14616734.2014.966124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Zvara BJ, Mills‐Koonce WR, Heilbron N, Clincy A, & Cox MJ (2015). The Interdependence of Adult Relationship Quality and Parenting Behaviors among African American and European Couples in Rural, Low‐Income Communities. Infant and Child Development, 24(3), 343–363.doi: 10.1002/icd.1919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES