Table 5.
Group differences on relationship variables based on MANOVA followed by Univariate Analyses
| Non-challenged | Troubled | Resilient | Vulnerable | F value | Partial eta sq | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relationship Variables | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | ||
| F to M CTS | .59 (1.7)a | .75 (1.1)a | 1.2 (2.6)a | 2.3 (4.1)b | 4.7** | .07 |
| M to F CTS | 1.4 (3.4)a | 2.3 (3.5)c | 2.6 (4.1)b | 4.0 (6.27)b | 4.6** | .07 |
| F marital sat. | 111.2 (19.5) a | 103.9 (25) | 103.5 (15.6) | 97.8 (25.2) b | 3.5* | .06 |
| M marital sat. | 109.9 (22.9) a | 103.6 (20.4) a | 97.8 (26.6) | 91.2 (25.6) b | 5.9** | .09 |
| F aggravation | 2.6 (.46) a | 2.7 (.60) | 2.6 (.48) a | 2.8 (.51) b | 2.6* | .04 |
| M aggravation | 2.6 (.53) | 2.7 (.51) | 2.8 (.52) | 2.8 (.54) | .85 | .01 |
| PC Interactions | ||||||
| M harshness | 4.6 (.30)a | 4.5 (.45)a | 4.5 (.33)b | 4.6 (.42) b | .67 | .01 |
| M warmth | 4.2 (.53)a | 4.2 (.52) | 3.9 (.57)b | 4.1 (.62) | 2.2+ | .04 |
| M sensitivity | 4.1 (.53) | 4.1 (.50) | 4.0 (.42) | 4.1 (.49) | .43 | .01 |
| MC dyadic rec. | 3.3 (.19)a | 3.3 (.22) | 3.2 (.21)b | 3.2 (.22) | 3.0* | .05 |
| F harshness | 4.5 (.40) | 4.6 (.25)a | 4.4 (.34)b | 4.4 (.35) | 2.3+ | .04 |
| F warmth | 4.0 (.54)a | 4.2 (.45)a | 3.6 (.61)b | 3.7 (.62)b | 7.8** | .12 |
| F sensitivity | 4.1 (.53) | 4.2 (.36) a | 3.9 (.43) b | 3.9 (.48) b | 3.8** | .06 |
| FC dyadic rec. | 3.3 (.22)a | 3.3 (.20)a | 3.1 (.23)b | 3.1 (.21)b | 8.18** | .12 |
Note.
p < .10
p < .05
p < .01
One MANOVA was conducted for the parent-parent relationship variables, one for maternal parenting variables, and one for paternal parenting variables. Univariate analyses were conducted only if the overall multivariate effect was significant for these variables. CTS: Conflict Tactics Scale; PC: Parent-Child; F: Father, M: Mother; C: Child; NA: negative affect; PA: positive affect; rec: reciprocity. Higher scores on all parent-child interaction scales are positive regardless of scale label (e.g., high scores on harshness indicated low harshness; response range = 1 to 5). Response range on the MAT varied by item with ranges such as 0 = always disagree to 5 = always agree. Response range on the CTS was from 0 = this has never happened to 6 = more than 20 times in the past year (or past 6 months for follow-up assessments). Response range on the PACR was from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. The bolded numbers reflect significant group differences between resilient and vulnerable groups. Results remained unchanged with child gender as a covariate.