Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Child Fam Stud. 2022 Feb 4;31(3):649–663. doi: 10.1007/s10826-022-02249-6

Parental Conflict in the Context of Multiethnoracial Relationships

Christina A Rowley 1, Alexandrea L Craft 1, Maureen Perry-Jenkins 1
PMCID: PMC9544355  NIHMSID: NIHMS1778186  PMID: 36213085

Abstract

The percent of families with parents from different racial or ethnic backgrounds has risen exponentially in the last decades. Approximately 14% of children were born into multiethnoracial (MER) families in the United States in 2015, more than double the rate from 1980. Studies show that MER couples are more likely to separate or divorce than their monoethnoracial (MoER) counterparts. With the growing rates of MER couples, there has been increased interest and research addressing the unique benefits and challenges of being in a MER relationship. It is likely that the challenges that arise in MER families peak across the transition to parenthood when couples must negotiate how to merge their respective values, behaviors, and beliefs into a new family unit. Our study examines how the ethnoracial composition of couples (i.e., same versus different racial/ethnic backgrounds) predicts levels and increases in coparental conflict across early parenthood; and, in addition, the role of familial support as both a mediator and moderator of this relationship. We found that mothers in MER dyads report more coparenting conflict and lower familial support than their MoER counterparts across early parenthood. Additionally, fathers in MER dyads had marginally lower family support than their MoER counterparts predicting greater coparenting conflict across early parenthood. Identifying the processes linking couples’ ethnoracial composition to the quality of family relationships could help inform parent interventions to better support MER parents across the transition to parenthood.

Keywords: multiethnoracial, coparenting conflict, family support, low-income, transition to parenthood

Approximately ten percent of marriages in the United States in 2015 were between people of different races or ethnicities, more than double the rate of 1980 (Bialik, 2017). These rates are projected to increase exponentially in decades to come. This increase has brought attention to some benefits of multiethnoracial (MER) relationships (defined below), such as enhanced consciousness of racial or ethnic issues and the ability to identify commonalities across cultures (Crippen & Brew, 2013); it has also highlighted some challenges associated with being in MER relationships (Kroeger & Williams, 2011), such as lower relationship satisfaction and higher rates of dissolution compared to couples from the same racial or ethnic background (Fu, Tora, & Kendall, 2001; Zhang & Van Hook, 2009). These negative outcomes for MER couples may be due to greater conflict stemming from differing values, coping strategies, and conflict management styles (Crippen & Brew, 2013).

It is likely that relationship challenges may worsen for MER couples as they become new parents and must incorporate the values, behaviors, and beliefs of two unique cultures into a new family system. The transition to parenthood is a challenging time, marked by a general decrease in marital satisfaction and positive communication (Medina, Lederhos, & Lillis, 2009) and increases in conflict. In addition, the perinatal period (extending from pregnancy to one-year postpartum) is an important period of development for the child. The developing fetus and newborn are especially vulnerable to environmental effects, including maternal stress (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). Therefore, it is important to understand how the challenges facing MER couples, such as differences in cultural values, communication patterns, and conflict styles, may increase their risk for conflict and dissolution.

Research also indicates that MER couples experience decreased social support compared to monoethnoracial (MoER) couples (Bratter & Whitehead, 2018). Social support is a protective factor for parents during the transition to parenthood and is associated with improved quality of parenting behavior (Burchinal, Follmer, & Bryant, 1996), improved parent-child relationship quality (Armstrong, Birnie-Lefcovitch, & Ungar, 2005), and decreases in parental depressive symptoms (Bost, Cox, Burchinal, & Payne, 2002). MER dyads may perceive less social support from family (due to disapproval of MER relationships) leading to higher levels of coparenting conflict (Bratter & Whitehead, 2018). On the other hand, high levels of social support may buffer the effects of ethnoracial composition on coparenting conflict. For MER dyads, social support may be especially protective since they are at greater risk for experiencing isolation from their family, friends, and the community (Ngai & Ngu, 2014). The proposed study examines how ethnoracial composition of couples (i.e., same versus different race/ethnicity) predicts levels and increases in coparenting conflict across the transition to parenthood. The role of familial support is also examined as a link (mediator) of couples’ ethnoracial composition to coparenting conflict, and as a possible buffer (moderator) of the negative connection between ethnoracial match and conflict.

Defining Multiethnoracial Relationships

Different terms have been used to describe couples in which partners are from two different racial or ethnic backgrounds such as: intermarriage (Yahirun, 2019), cross-cultural (e.g., Falicov, 1995), cross-national (e.g., Seto & Cavallaro, 2007), biracial (e.g., Roy & Rollins, 2019), interracial (e.g., Usita & Poulsen, 2003), mixed-race (e.g., Bratter & Whitehead, 2018), and multiracial (e.g., Wilt, 2011). The term “intermarriage” is broad in scope and refers to individuals from two different racial or ethnic backgrounds, in addition to different religious, socioeconomic, or national backgrounds (Yahirun, 2019). The terms “cross-cultural” and “cross-national” usually refer to couples from two different racial or ethnic backgrounds but might include people from different countries. These terms are not appropriate for our study as couples from different countries have their own unique sources of stress (Seto & Cavallaro, 2007). “Interracial” has historically been used to describe relationships between people of different races, yet this term conjures up political ideologies and a historical legacy of racism (Legal Information Institute, 2016).

Finally, the term “multiracial” has been used by many scholars (Thomas, Wetchler, & Karis, 2014; Wilt, 2011) to represent both racial and ethnic identity since people with various ethnic identities (i.e., Latinx) often identify with their ethnicity and not a race. Race and ethnicity are both socially constructed categories that are historically linked to the color of a person’s skin (Burton, Bonilla-Silva, Ray, Buckelew, & Freeman, 2010). Given the broad and changing meanings of both race and ethnicity in American society, however, the term “multiracial” does not fully capture ethnicity. Thus, the term “multiethnoracial” (MER) will be used in this study to describe couples from different racial and ethnic backgrounds. This term is most appropriate given that race and ethnicity are the focal points of the study, instead of nationality, religion, or socioeconomic status, and this term allows us to consider couples in which one or both partners may be multiracial individuals themselves.

Challenges in Multiethnoracial Relationships

Most couples entering relationships experience adjustments and conflict as they merge their separate backgrounds. These adjustments might involve negotiations about maintaining or integrating friend networks, balancing time with their own and their partner’s extended family (Kearns & Leonard, 2004), and negotiating the division of household tasks (Yavorsky, Kamp Dush & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2015). Multiethnoracial (MER) couples, while dealing with these typical adjustments, have an added level of complexity related to merging different cultural backgrounds. Culture is broadly defined as the shared values, traditions, and ways of relating to people that are learned within social groups (e.g., race/ethnicity, nationality) and passed down generationally (American Psychological Association, 2017). In our study, culture refers to the norms, values, traditions, and ways of relating to others that are typically shared within different racial or ethnic groups. Although there is variability within cultures related to family values and traditions, cross-cultural studies consistently show that people from similar nationalities or racial/ethnic backgrounds cluster together along cultural values (Minkov & Hofstede, 2012).

The transition to parenthood is a time when cultural differences may become magnified. Expectant and new parents must negotiate several issues and decisions during the transition such as the naming of their children, beliefs about spoiling, sleeping, and eating, the expectations they will have of their children (such as their sense of obligation to the family), and the method by which the children should express themselves. Parents from different racial or ethnic backgrounds may struggle as their expectations are violated and differences require greater negotiation and compromise than their monoethnoracial (MoER) counterparts.

Importantly, cultural beliefs (i.e., independence vs. interdependence, obligation toward family) have also been shown to differ by social class (Kraus, Piff, & Keltner, 2011; Lareau, 2011). For example, research has shown that in middle- and upper-class families, boundaries between parents and children are less clear, and children can negotiate and reason with their parents, while in lower class families the boundaries are more defined, with less negotiation between parents and children (e.g., whining and badgering from children) (Lareau, 2011). The current study examines the experiences of MER families in a working-class sample, essentially controlling for social class, isolating the effects of racial/ethnic match between partners on family support and parental conflict.

Conflict in Multiethnoracial Relationships.

Individuals from different racial or ethnic groups often differ in their concepts of self (Markus & Kitayama, 2010), communication styles (Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, & Chua, 1988), conflict styles (Hammer, 2005), and experiences of discrimination and privilege (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002). All these characteristics inform how individuals perceive and react to their experiences and influence how they interact with their partner (Crippen & Brew, 2007). Although several researchers theorize that these dissimilarities result in greater conflict for individuals in MER relationships (Bratter & King, 2008; Crippen & Brew, 2013; Kang Fu & Wolfinger, 2011), few studies investigate whether relationship conflict is higher in MER couples compared to MoER couples. More often researchers focus on outcomes like personal distress and mental health. Being in a MER relationship is related to greater levels of personal distress (Bratter & Eschbach, 2006; Kroeger & Williams, 2011), although this seems to vary by ethnoracial composition. Specifically, Bratter and Eschbach (2006) found that White women in relationships with Black men, Native-American men in relationships with women from any other background, and Latinx individuals in a relationship with individuals from any other background experience the greatest levels of distress and depression compared to individuals in other ethnoracial dyads. Additionally, Kroeger and Williams (2011) found that non-Black individuals with Black partners experience the greatest depression and lowest marital satisfaction. Thus, being in a MER relationship may present more challenges, although the reasons are not yet clear. Moreover, conflict or strain may be more evident in certain ethnoracial compositions than others.

Coparenting in Multiethnoracial Relationships.

The coparenting relationship, which is distinct from the marital relationship, refers to how parents support or undermine each other to fulfill their parental responsibilities and work together to meet their children’s needs (Le, McDaniel, Leavitt, & Feinberg, 2016). A supportive coparenting relationship predicts better child adjustment, evidenced by greater academic achievement, fewer behavior problems, more secure attachments to caregivers, and lower internalizing and externalizing difficulties (Teubert & Pinquart, 2010). Williams (2018) found that couples with a more positive coparenting relationship have lower depression. In addition, when couples become new parents, greater coparental support is related to positive couple communication contributing to greater satisfaction in the romantic relationship over time (Le et al., 2016).

To date, few studies explore how coparenting may differ for monoethnoracial (MoER) and multiethnoracial (MER) couples. In an important exception, Bhugun (2017) conducted in-depth, qualitative interviews with fourteen intercultural parents (partners from different nationalities, religion, ethnicities, and/or racial identities) living in Australia. Parents in intercultural couples describe struggling with similar parenting experiences compared to intracultural couples, such as having to negotiate disciplinary strategies for correcting behavior, whether parents agreed upon the child co-sleeping with them, and other socialization processes. Intercultural couples also differed from monoracial couples in the extent to which they argued about educational expectations, language and communication, expectations of children’s role in the family, and involvement of extended family. Intercultural couples believed that their cultural differences intensified the degree to which they disagreed about and struggled with parenting decisions. The few studies about MER parents’ experiences raising children describe different ways that parents perceive and cope with their differences (Crippen & Brew, 2007; Edwards, Caballero, & Puthussery, 2009), but no study specifically investigates coparenting conflict. It is also important to examine specific factors that may exacerbate or buffer coparenting conflict, namely social support. To date, no studies have examined differences in coparental conflict between MER and MoER couples; one aim of our study is to address that gap in the literature.

Social Support in Multiethnoracial Relationships.

Social support includes support received or perceived by family, partners/spouses, friends, or neighbors/communities (Collins, Dunkel-Schetter, Lobel, & Scrimshaw, 1993; Procidano & Heller, 1983; Wellman & Wortley, 1990). Types of support parents can receive include emotional (i.e., feelings of trust, care, empathy, and esteem), informational (i.e., providing information or advice), appraisal (e.g., someone to provide evaluative feedback), and/or instrumental support (i.e., providing financial support or other tangible resources such as housing or food) (House, 1981). Social support has been assessed through both the quantity of social relationships (e.g., family members, friends) as well as the quality of relationships (House, 1981); both are important to overall well-being (Gremigni, Mariani, Marracino, Tranquilli, & Turi, 2011) and family relationships (Armstrong et al., 2005). At least one study found that during the transition to parenthood, the effects of quality of support outweighed quantity in social relationships (Collins et al., 1993). Support received over the transition to parenthood from spouses and family (Bost et al., 2002), friends (Goldstein & Genero, 1995), and the community all contributed to greater parenting satisfaction and lower parenting stress.

Social support could function in two distinct ways for multiethnoracial (MER) parents. First, social support may act as a protective factor that buffers the relationship between ethnoracial composition and conflict (Ngai & Ngu, 2014). Greater social support is associated with better relational outcomes, such as reduced conflict and increased marital satisfaction (Ngai & Ngu, 2014). One possible mechanism by which social support buffers the negative effects of marital conflict during the transition to parenthood is that greater social support increases parents’ coping resources when overwhelmed by the demands of parenting (Armstrong et al., 2005).

A second way that social support might impact MER families is in reduced access to social support from extended kin (Bratter & Whitehead, 2018). Individuals who enter relationships with someone from a different racial or ethnic background are more likely to face parental disapproval, decreased social support from friends and family, and negative attitudes from the community (Bell & Hastings, 2015; Stuberfield, 2017). This might differ by the ethnoracial composition of the dyad, such that social support and acceptance from friends, family, and the community, might differ if the dyad includes a White partner and a partner of color or individuals from two different minority groups. Stuberfield (2017) surveyed 82 bi-racial/bi-ethnic undergraduates in relationships and compared them to their peers in same race/ethnic relationships. Bi-racial/bi-ethnic couples, on average, reported less support and acceptance from family and friends. However, White participants in bi-racial relationships viewed their community as less accepting of bi-racial relationships than all other racial groups.

In a related study, Bratter and Whitehead (2018) found that the ethnicity of the mother in interracial unions plays a role in shaping experiences of social support. White mothers in MER relationships perceived less support after the birth of their child and one-year post-birth compared to White mothers whose infants had White fathers. Black and Latinx mothers in MER dyads did not report this same decline in support compared to mothers in monoethnoracial (MoER) dyads. We did not address how fathers in MER unions perceive social support nor whether social support for one parent influences the other parent; our study seeks to address these gaps.

Transition to Parenthood

On average, the transition to parenthood negatively affects the quality of parent relationships (Belsky, Spanier, & Rovine, 1983). Relationship quality decreases because of the increased demands of parenthood, changes in the division of household labor (Yavorsky et al., 2015), decreased sleep (Medina et al., 2009), and change in the focus from the couple to caring for the baby.

Multiethnoracial Dyads and the Transition to Parenthood

Limited research has investigated how diverse families, characterized by race or ethnicity and social class, differentially experience the transition to parenthood (Perry-Jenkins & Shoppe-Sullivan, 2019). Even less is known about the experiences of multiethnoracial (MER) couples. Few studies have explored the experiences of MER parents and the transition to parenthood, and the few that exist focus on mothers’ experiences during this time, neglecting both fathers’ experiences and possibly crossover partner effects (Roy, Mitchell, James, Miller, & Hutchinson, 2019). Roy and colleagues (2019) conducted two semi-structured interviews and a focus group with twelve first-time mothers. Eight of the mothers were in biracial relationships, defined as “couples from different racial/ethnic backgrounds,” and four of the mothers were in monoracial relationships. All mothers discussed the importance of family support, however, mothers in biracial relationships described difficulties with their husbands’ family of origin with differences rooted in their cultural upbringing. There were several points of conflict that were unique to mothers in biracial relationships compared to mothers in monoracial relationships: 1) disagreements regarding discipline or how to respond to a fussy baby, 2) greater conflict around the division of household labor, and 3) more stress in terms of micro- and macro-aggressions from family, friends, and people within the community.

This qualitative research highlights the added conflict women in MER couples face across the transition to parenthood (Roy et al., 2019), and that they perceive the added conflict arising from differences in cultural perspectives and upbringings (Crippen & Brew, 2013; Edwards et al., 2009). Meanwhile, MER parents often have less support from their families than monoethnoracial (MoER) parents. These additional stressors may explain the increased rates of dissolution among MER dyads compared to MoER dyads (Fu et al., 2001; Zhang & Van Hook, 2009). Our study explores the experience of MER parents compared to MoER parents during the transition to parenthood in a sample of 207 new parents with the aim of confirming preliminary themes about parental conflict during new parenthood and to better understand the unique challenges MER families face.

The Current Study

We examined differences in levels of and increases in coparenting conflict across the transition to parenthood for multiethnoracial (MER) and monoethnoracial (MoER) parents. A second aim is to examine familial support as a possible mediator and moderator of the relationship between family racial composition (MER vs. MoER) and coparenting conflict (Bratter & Whitehead, 2018). Using data from a longitudinal study of 207 parents from low-income households experiencing the transition to parenthood, we conducted secondary analyses to address the following questions:

Question 1:

Is there a difference in the amount of and change in parental conflict reported by mothers and fathers in MER and MoER relationships one-month through one-year postnatally? We expected that parents from differing racial or ethnic backgrounds will have higher levels of parenting conflict at baseline and will continue to have higher levels of parenting conflict one year after birth (Bhugun, 2017; Crippen & Brew, 2013; Edwards et al., 2009). In addition, it is expected that parents in MER relationships will have greater increases in parental conflict from one-month to one-year postnatally compared to parents in MoER couples.

Question 2:

Does social support moderate and/or mediate the relationship between couple racial composition and co-parenting conflict? Research suggests that social support buffers parental conflict for young parents, especially in families at greater risk for experiencing conflict (Ngai & Ngu, 2014). We hypothesized that social support would moderate the relationship between ethnoracial composition and parenting conflict. Specifically, we expected that social support would have a more salient role for MER dyads experiencing stress compared to MoER dyads, since they are at greater risk for having the least access to support overall and the most isolated from social support networks.

MER dyads also experience decreased levels of family support than their MoER counterparts (Bratter & Whitehead, 2018) which would suggest that familial support will mediate the relationship between family racial composition and coparenting conflict. We predicted that MER dyads would perceive less social support than MoER dyads which would lead MER dyads to have greater levels of coparenting conflict across early parenthood. Partner effects (i.e., the effect of each partner’s perceptions of social support on their partner’s perceptions of conflict) were also explored since partners’ perspectives of social support likely influence the conflict their partner experiences.

Method

Participants

Participants for the present study were part of a larger longitudinal study of 207 diverse, low-income parents experiencing the transition to parenthood. Parents were recruited during their third trimester of pregnancy from prenatal education classes, prenatal clinics, local community centers, OB/GYN offices, and Women Infant and Children (WIC) offices primarily in Western Massachusetts. Couples were included if they met the following criteria: (a) they were in their third trimester of pregnancy, (b) both members were employed at least 20 hours per week and planned on returning to work within six months of the child’s birth, and (c) they were “working” class defined by educational attainment of an associate’s degree or less and employment in an unskilled or semiskilled occupation. Of the 207 families, 16% were married, 40% were cohabiting and 44% were single mothers. Since our study’s focus is on parental dyads, non-romantically involved single parents were excluded from the analysis, resulting in a final sample of 142 dyads All dyads were involved in romantic relationships having categorized themselves as either “romantically involved on a steady basis” or in an “on-again off-again” relationship. In the final sample, there was a marginally significant trend that MoER dyads (26% married, 49% cohabiting, 25% single) were more likely to be married than MER dyads (12% married, 57% cohabiting, 31% single); F(1, 158) = 3.05, p = .08..

The median family income was $34,423. The majority of mothers (51%) and fathers (64%) held a high school or general equivalency diploma. While 40% of mothers had some type of vocational training or held a 1- or 2-year associate’s degree, only 16% of fathers attained the same level of educational. Mothers were on average 25 years-old (SD = 5.76) and fathers were on average 27 years-old (SD = 6.19). The sample was racially/ethnically diverse for mothers (41% White, 32% Latina, 21% African American/Black, 6% Mixed/Multiracial) and fathers (37% White, 31% Latino, 27% African American/Black, 5% Mixed/Multiracial).

Of the 142 dyads, there were 17 variations in ethnoracial composition of couples. Sixty-four percent (n = 92) of parent dyads were monoethnoracial (MoER; i.e., parents of same race/ethnicity, while the remaining 36 percent (n = 50) of the parent dyads were multiethnoracial (MER). A majority of the couples fell into either Latinx and White dyads (33%), Latinx and Black dyads (23%), or Black and White dyads (12%). The number of dyads that include one White parent and one parent of color (n = 26) were about equal to the number of dyads with two parents of color (n = 25) (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Breakdown of Multiethnoracial and Monoethnoracial Couples
N %
Monoethnoracial (N = 92)
 White 38 41%
 Latino 29 32%
 Black 25 27%
Multiethnoracial (N = 5G) (female-male)
 White-Latino 14 27%
 White-Black 4 8%
 White-Multiracial 2 4%
 Latina-White 3 6%
 Latina-Black 11 21%
 Latina-Multiracial 3 6%
 Black-White 2 4%
 Black-Latino 1 2%
 Black-Multiracial 1 2%
 Multiracial-White 1 2%
 Multiracial-Latino 2 4%
 Multiracial-Black 5 10%
 Multiracial-Multiracial 1 2%
Open in a new tab

Note. MER dyads are organized by mother race first followed by father race

In terms of marital status, there was no difference based on ethnoracial composition for mothers (F(1, 158) = 3.05, p = .08), but fathers in MER dyads were more likely to be married than MoER dyads (F(1, 118) = 6.30, p = .01). When married, however, MER parents (M mothers= 6.19 years; Mfathers = 7.20 years) were married for longer than their MoER counterparts (Mmothers = 2.70 years; Mfathers = 2.52 years); Fmothers(1, 29) = 5.82, p = .02; Ffathers(1, 25) = 8.41, p = .01. In addition, fathers in MER dyads (M = 1.18) lived with more children in their household than fathers in MoER dyads (M = 0.64); F(1, 118) = 6.30, p = .01.

Procedures

Data used for the current study were collected between 2003 and 2009. We utilized data from only four of the original five phases of data, excluding the prenatal data, since coparenting conflict was measured only after the birth. Couples were interviewed separately in their homes by trained graduate students; data from the four time points included: (a) Time 1: one-month postpartum, (b) Time 2: one month after returning to paid work (approximately 4 months postpartum), (c) Time 3: a six-month mail-in survey, and (d) Time 4: one-year postpartum (See Figure 1). The Time 3 mail-in survey had a lower completion rate than our in-home interviews at all other phases. Since this study only used four phases of the data, phases two through five will be from this point forward labeled as Time 1 through Time 4. Secondary analyses were conducted on this data for the current study.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The figure illustrates differences in coparenting conflict across time for mothers in MoER and MER parent dyads.

Measures

Demographics

At baseline, both parents reported demographic information, including their relationship status (e.g., in a romantically stable relationship, in an on-again off-again relationship, just friends), their ethnic/racial identity, an estimate of their income, length of time they lived together prior to pregnancy, and the number of children living in the household. Ethnoracial composition of each dyad was constructed using mothers’ and fathers’ reported racial or ethnic identity at baseline (third trimester of pregnancy). First, mothers’ and fathers’ racial and ethnic identity was matched. If their racial and ethnic identity was the same, the dyad was categorized as monoethnoracial (MoER). If their racial and ethnic identity were not the same, they were categorized as multiethnoracial (MER).

Co-parental Conflict

The Co-parenting Conflict sub-scale from the Quality of Co-parental Communication scale (Ahrons, 1981) was used to assess coparental conflict. This measure was completed by both mothers and fathers at Time 1 through 4. This subscale is made up of four items (e.g., “When you and your partner discuss parenting issues, how often does an argument result?” and “How often is the conversation stressful and tense?”). Items were rated on a five-point scale (1 = never to 5 = always). A total score was created by averaging the four items. Higher scores reflect higher conflict. Adequate internal consistency was found (mothers α = .79-.85; fathers α = .76-.86) subscales.

Family Social Support

Family support was measured with an adapted version of the Perceived Social Support Scale – Family (Procidano & Heller, 1983). For this study, family support was measured at Time 1. Mothers and fathers rated 20 statements regarding the degree of support they receive from family members. Items were rated on a four-point scale (1 = generally false, 2 = more false than true, 3 = more true than false, 4 = generally true). Sample items include, “Most other people are closer to their family than I am” and “There is a member of my family I could go to if I were just feeling down, without feeling funny about it later.” A total score was created by averaging the items. Higher scores reflect greater familial support. Adequate internal consistency was found (mothers α = .71; fathers α = .76).

Data Analyses

Multilevel modeling (MLM) was used to investigate the research question and was facilitated by the Mplus 8.1 program (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). Family support and coparenting conflict were both transformed due to issues of skewness and kurtosis. Family support was negatively skewed meaning that participants in our study tended to report high levels of family support overall, therefore the scores were squared. Meanwhile, coparenting conflict was positively skewed meaning that participants tended to report low levels of coparenting conflict, therefore the square root of the scores were calculated. After both transformations, the data were normally distributed. A Missing Value Analysis indicated that the data were not missing completely at random; Χ2 79.14, DF = 58, p = .03. Two-level models were used to estimate within-person change over time at level 1 and between-person differences at level 2. This analytic technique allowed for the examination of both interindividual differences and intraindividual change. MLM adjusts for dependency in the data due to the nesting of individuals within dyads, and longitudinal dyadic multilevel models (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) were used to allow for simultaneous estimation of conflict level and change for both dyad members. Additionally, we used the Bayesian estimator in Mplus because this approach does not assume normality and instead provides the entire distribution for estimates (Muthén & Asparouhov, 2012). Bayesian estimates are full-information estimates which are robust to missingness.

We used a series of models to fit to the data. First, the unconditional model determined the trajectory of each individual parent while accounting for dyadic interdependence. Next, the conditional models were built from the best-fitting growth curve model by adding specific predictor variables (i.e., couple ethnoracial composition, family support at T1) that could explain between-person differences in both levels of (i.e., intercept) and change in (i.e., slope) coparental conflict assessed at four different time points across the first year of parenthood.

Two separate two-level models were run to test whether monoethnoracial (MoER) and multiethnoracial (MER) couples differed in levels of conflict. The first tested whether there were significant differences in parental conflict at baseline (approximately one-month post-birth) and the second at the final time point (one-year post-birth) between MoER and MER families. To test if MER parents have greater increases in parental conflict compared to MoER parents, the average growth trajectories from Time 1 through 4 for the two groups were examined.

To test whether social support moderated the relationship between family ethnoracial composition and coparenting conflict, additional between-person predictors (family support and the interaction of family support and family ethnic compositions) of parenting conflict level (intercept) and change (slope) were added to the model. Finally, to test whether social support (Time 1) mediated the relationship between ethnoracial composition and coparenting conflict, multilevel structural equation modeling was used (MLSEM; Preacher, Zyphur, Zhang, 2010). The key test of the mediational hypothesis was whether the indirect effect of family ethnoracial composition on parental conflict was mediated through parent reports of family support. Models accounted for the direct effect of family ethnoracial composition on conflict to ensure a valid test of the mediational (indirect) process (Hayes, 2017).

Finally, since both partners’ perspectives of social support likely influence the conflict perceptions of their partners, we also explored Actor Partner Interdependence Models (APIM; Cook & Kenny, 2005) to test for partner effects in all models. More specifically, APIM allowed for the simultaneous estimation of actor effects (i.e., the effect each person’s perceptions of social support on his/her own perceptions of conflict) and partner effects (i.e., the effect of each dyad member’s partner’s perceptions of social support on his/her own perceptions of conflict).

Results

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for mothers’ and fathers’ average family support across the transition to parenthood, in addition to coparenting conflict over the five time points of measurement. We found no differences found between mothers’ and fathers’ family support and coparenting conflict. Moreover, in the unconditional model the linear rate of change was significantly different from zero for mothers (B = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.05], p < .001) and fathers (B = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.04], p < .001).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Mothers’ and Fathers’ Family Support and Coparenting Conflict by Ethnoracial Composition

Monoethnoracial Multiethnoracial
N M SD N M SD
Mothers
 Family Support T1 89 3.29 .54 44 3.07 .58
 Coparenting Conflict T1 88 1.91 .67 35 2.17 .69
 Coparenting Conflict T2 81 2.21 .81 39 2.37 .87
 Coparenting Conflict T3 57 2.20 .81 32 2.37 .71
 Coparenting Conflict T4 66 2.26 .72 35 2.37 .78
Fathersa
 Family Support T1 57 3.23 .50 25 3.14 .54
 Coparenting Conflict T1 65 2.07 .62 29 2.12 .70
 Coparenting Conflict T2 66 2.31 .81 33 2.36 .85
 Coparenting Conflict T3 37 2.15 .70 14 2.23 .83
 Coparenting Conflict T4 53 2.29 .74 25 2.37 .75
Open in a new tab

Note.

a

Fathers have a lower sample size than mothers because they were less likely to participate in the study or complete all the questionnaires associated with the study at each time point.

Coparenting Conflict in Multiethnoracial and Monoethnoracial Parent Dyads

For mothers, the ethnoracial composition of the dyad was positively associated with coparenting conflict one-month postpartum (B = 0.08, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.15], p = .02), and marginally associated at one-year (B = 0.08, 95% CI = [−0.01, 0.14], p = .05) after the birth. As seen in Figure 1, mothers in MER dyads (Mmonth = 1.96; Myear = 2.28) reported greater coparenting conflict than mothers in MoER dyads (Mmonth = 1.74; Myear = 2.04). For fathers, however, ethnoracial composition was not related to coparenting conflict at one-month (B = 0.05, 95% CI = [−0.02, 0.11], p = .18) nor at one-year (B = 0.05, 95% CI = [−0.02, 0.12], p = .24) after the birth of the child. See Models 1 and 2 of Table 3 for a report of the unstandardized associations from this model.

Table 3.

Unstandardized Associations Between Ethnoracial Composition on Mothers and Fathers Coparenting Conflict

Mothers Fathers
Model Coefficient (SD) 95% CI Coefficient (SD) 95% CI
Model 1 – Centered at Time 1
 Baseline Coparenting Conflict 1.32 (0.04) * [1.24, 1.39] 1.37 (0.03) * [1.31, 1.44]
 ERC → Coparenting Conflict 0.08 (0.03) * [0.03, 0.16] 0.05 (0.04) [−0.02, 0.11]
Model 2 – Centered at Time 4
 Baseline Coparenting Conflict 1.43 (0.04) * [1.34, 1.50] 1.42 (0.04) * [1.36, 1.49]
 ERC → Coparenting Conflict 0.08 (0.04) * [−0.01, 0.14] 0.05 (0.04) [−0.02, 0.12]
Model 3 – Slope
 Baseline Coparenting Conflict 1.52 (0.03) * [1.48, 1.57] 1.52 (0.03) * [1.47, 1.58]
 Δ Coparenting Conflict 0.06 (0.02) * [0.04, 0.10] 0.03 (0.01) * [0.00, 0.05]
 ERC → Δ Coparenting Conflict −0.03 (0.02) [−0.05, −0.001] −0.01 (0.02) [−0.04, 0.02]
Open in a new tab

Note. ERC = Ethnoracial composition of dyad. Mothers’ and fathers’ coparenting conflict were correlated in each of the models. Each model controlled for number of kids in the household.

†

p < .10

*

indicates that the 95% Bayesian CI does not include zero.

To test whether MER parents have greater increases in parental conflict during early parenthood compared to MoER parents, the average growth trajectories for these two groups were examined. Contrary to what we hypothesized, analyses revealed that mothers in MER families had smaller average increases in coparenting conflict than mothers in MoER families (B = −0.03, 95% CI = [−0.05, −0.001], p = .03), and there was no difference in change in coparenting conflict for fathers based on ethnoracial composition (B = −0.01, 95% CI = [−0.04, 0.02], p = .65). See Model 3 of Table 3 for a report of the unstandardized associations from this model.

Moderation Models

Next, social support was examined as a moderator of the relationship between couple ethnoracial composition and co-parenting conflict. We hypothesized that under conditions of high family support, the relationship between ethnoracial composition and parental conflict would decrease for parents in MER versus MoER families. Given the small group sizes in the current sample, the model was simplified with a posteriori trimming of pathways. The non-significant effects of mothers’ family support on coparenting conflict and the interaction between ethnoracial composition and mothers’ family support were removed (for full models ask author).

A crossover effect emerged with a significant interaction between mothers’ family support and couples’ ethnoracial match predicting fathers’ coparenting conflict. As shown in Figure 2, mothers’ high family support buffered the relationship between ethnoracial match and fathers’ coparenting conflict at Time 1 (B = 0.02, 95% CI = [0.002, 0.04], p = .04) in MoER families but not MER families. Specifically, under conditions of mothers’ high family support, fathers in MoER dyads had low conflict, whereas fathers in MER dyads had similar levels of conflict regardless of mothers’ family support. There was also a marginally significant trend for this same relationship for fathers coparenting conflict 1-year postpartum (B = 0.02, 95% CI = [−0.002, 0.04], p = .10). There was no interaction between fathers’ family support and ethnoracial match predicting fathers’ coparenting conflict (see Table 4).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

The figure illustrates the interaction effect of family support and family ethnoracial composition on coparenting conflict at T1 for fathers.

Table 4.

Unstandardized Interaction Between Ethnoracial Composition and Family Support

Time 1 Time 4
Model Coefficient (SD) 95% CI Coefficient (SD) 95% CI
Mothers
 ERC → Conflict 0.08 (0.04) † [−0.01, 0.14] 0.08 (0.04) † [−0.01, 0.15]
 Mean Coparenting Conflict 1.33 (0.04)* [1.26, 1.40] 1.43 (0.04)* [1.36, 1.51]
Fathers
 ERC → Conflict 0.04 (0.04) [−0.03, 0.13] 0.04 (0.04) [−0.03, 0.13]
 FFS → Conflict −0.02 (0.01)* [−0.03, −0.01] −0.02 (0.01)* [−0.03, −0.003]
 MFS → Conflict −0.01 (0.01) [−0.02, 0.003] −0.01 (0.01) [−0.02, 0.003]
 ERC × FFS → Conflict −0.01 (0.01) [−0.04, 0.01] −0.01 (0.01) [−0.04, 0.01]
 ERC × MFS → Conflict 0.02 (0.01)* [0.002, 0.04] 0.02 (0.01)† [−0.002, 0.04]
 Mean Coparenting Conflict 1.37 (0.03)* [1.31, 1.43] 1.45 (0.03)* [1.38, 1.50]
Open in a new tab

Note. ERC = Ethnoracial composition of dyad; MFS = Mother Family Support; FFS = Father Family Support.

Family support was grand-mean centered in each of the models. Mothers’ and fathers’ coparenting conflict were correlated in each of the models. Each model controlled for number of kids in the household.

†

p < .10

*

indicates that the 95% Bayesian CI does not include zero.

Mediation Models

Finally, to test whether social support mediated the relationship between family ethnic composition and coparenting conflict a multilevel structural equation modeling was used (MLSEM; Preacher et al., 2010). There was no indirect effect of ethnoracial composition on coparenting conflict found for mothers. Despite no mediation findings for mothers, ethnoracial composition was significantly negatively associated with maternal family support (B = −1.17, 95% CI = [−2.00, −0.27], p = .01), but not to coparenting conflict (B = 0.05, 95% CI = [−0.04, 0.14], p = .19), when controlling for partner effects and depression. Mothers in MER dyads experienced 1.17 units less family support than mothers in MoER dyads. However, mother’s family support was not related to coparenting conflict (B = −0.01, 95% CI = [−0.02, 0.003], p = .17).

The trimmed model, although non-significant, did reveal a marginal trend-level indirect effect of ethnoracial composition on coparenting conflict through family support for fathers (B = 0.02, 95% CI = [−0.01, 0.06], p = .09). Fathers in MER dyads had less family support than MoER dyads (B = −0.94, 95% CI = [−2.09, 0.12], p = .09) which in turn was associated with greater coparenting conflict one-year postpartum (B = −0.02, 95% CI = [0.03, −0.01], p < .001). Partner effects were estimated, but no partner effects were significant. See Table 5 for unstandardized coefficients from this model.

Table 5.

Unstandardized Associations Among Ethnoracial Composition, Family support, and Coparenting Conflict
Model Coefficient (SD) 95% Cl
Mothers
 ERC → Conflict (c’ path) 0.05 (0.04) [−0.04, 0.14]
 MFS → Conflict (ba path) −0.01 (0.01) [−0.02, 0.003]
 FFS → Conflict (bp path) −0.01 (0.01)† [−0.03, 0.00]
 ERC → MFS (a path) −1.17 (0.46)* [−2.00, −0.27]
 Mean Family Support 12.12 (0.63)* [10.82, 13.26]
 Mean Coparenting Conflict 1.66 (0.11)* [1.42, 1.86]
Fathers
 ERC → Conflict (c’ path) 0.03 (0.04) [−0.04, 0.11]
 MFS → Conflict (ba path) −0.01 (0.01) [−0.02, 0.01]
 FFS → Conflict (bp path) −0.02 (0.01)* [−0.03, −0.01]
 ERC → FFS (a path) −0.94 (0.58)† [−2.09, 0.12]
 Mean Family Support 11.30 (0.64)* [10.16, 12.63]
 Mean Coparenting Conflict 1.72 (0.10)* [1.54, 1.92]
Open in a new tab

Note. ERC = Ethnoracial composition of dyad; MFS = Mother Family Support; FFS = Father Family Support. c’ = direct effect of the predictor (ERC) on outcome (Coparenting Conflict) controlling for actor and partner mediators (MFS and FFS); b = the effect of the mediators (MFS and FFS) on the outcome (Coparenting Conflict), controlling for the predictor variable (ERC); a = the effect of the predictor (ERC) on the mediators (MFS and FFS), controlling for the outcome variable (Coparenting Conflict). Mothers’ and fathers’ coparenting conflict and family support were correlated in each of the models. Each model controlled for number of kids in the household.

†

p < .10

*

indicates that the 95% Bayesian CI does not include zero.

Exploratory Analyses

We conducted exploratory analyses to examine if the type of ethnoracial couple match mattered for family support and coparental conflict. None of these differences reached statistical significance, however, sample sizes for these analyses were small, and results point to areas for future study. Looking first at social support, analyses revealed a trend such that White Mothers in MoER dyads (M = 3.44) reported higher family support than those in MER dyads (M = 3.13); F(4, 136) = 2.17, p = .09. Meanwhile, fathers of color partnered with White mothers (M = 3.56) perceived more support than fathers in any other MER dyad types (W-POC M = 2.89; W-POC; F(4, 77) = 2.83, p = .07) (POC-POC M = 2.98; F(4, 77) = 2.83, p = .05).

In regards to coparenting, fathers of color/mother of color MER dyads (M = 2.76) had more coparenting conflict than fathers of color/White mother MER dyads (M = 1.90) (F(4, 94) = 2.48, p = .04) and fathers of color in MoER dyads (M = 2.13) (F(4, 94) = 2.48, p = .10). No other differences in family support and coparenting conflict were found. Changes in coparenting conflict over time was also examined. Fathers’ coparenting conflict increased more over the transition to parenthood for White mother/father of color dyads compared to mother of color/White father dyads (B = 0.11, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.21], p = .04). Both partners in White mother/father of color dyads reported low conflict immediately after the birth but reported steady increases in conflict over time; while parents in mother of color/White father dyads reported high conflict immediately after birth but steady declines in conflict. MER dyads with two parents of color had more variable perceptions of coparenting conflict in which their conflict initially increased but then decreased and increased again by one-year. These findings suggest there might be different processes occurring in different types of MER couples. It also suggests that gender and ethnicity/race may interact and be important to examine simultaneously in studying family processes in different ethnoracial dyads.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is among a handful of investigations to explore coparenting conflict during the transition to parenthood for MER families (other examples are included in this special issue). Confirming findings from previous qualitative studies on multiethnoracial (MER) families (Bratter & King, 2008; Crippen & Brew, 2013; Kang Fu & Wolfinger, 2011), mothers in MER dyads reported more coparenting conflict than their MoER counterparts, both right after the birth and one-year postpartum. In contrast, fathers’ coparenting conflict did not differ by the ethnoracial composition of the dyad. Studies on coparenting conflict for fathers have primarily been conducted later in parenthood, the earliest being around two-years postpartum (Bronte-Tinkew, Scott, Horowitz, & Lilja, 2009). Little is known about coparenting conflict in infancy for fathers, so it may be that fathers’ coparenting conflict does not increase until later in childhood (e.g., two years postpartum). Fathers tend to perform less physical care than mothers during early infancy (e.g., changing diapers, feeding the baby). As children enter toddlerhood, research indicates that fathers tend to become involved with more activities such as playing or reading to their child (Fagan & Cabrera, 2012). Therefore, examining coparenting conflict within the first year of infancy may not capture disruptions in coparenting that happen with fathers. Future longitudinal research that extends into toddlerhood might provide insight into the development of coparenting conflict for fathers.

Our findings did not support the hypothesis that parents in MER dyads would report steeper increases in conflict compared to MoER dyads. Instead, mothers in MER dyads had a less steep increase in coparenting conflict compared to MoER dyads. Given that mothers in MER dyads started with higher levels of conflict at the beginning of the study, one possible explanation is that mothers in MER dyads start high on coparenting conflict and do not have the same growth potential as mothers in MoER dyads who start with lower coparenting conflict. These findings also suggest that MER dyads have higher conflict very soon after the birth compared to MoER dyads, raising questions about whether their couple conflict may have already been higher pre-birth than MoER dyads. MER parent dyads may head into the rocky transition to parenthood already in an unsteady position in their relationship.

Fathers’ change in coparenting conflict did not differ by ethnoracial composition. Exploratory analyses suggested, however, that coparenting conflict may change in different ways for different MER family types. Specifically, fathers in White mother/father of color dyads initially started with low levels of coparenting conflict which increased over the first year of parenthood, while fathers in mother of color/White father dyads initially started with high levels which decreased over the first year of parenthood. These signals in our data suggest that change in coparenting conflict for MER families may not be accurately captured by grouping these different types of families together.

Why might these differences occur? It may be that early in parenthood, maternal characteristics, support, and stressors are most salient to the family’s functioning (Van Egeren, 2003). However, as father engagement becomes more integral over time, fathers may experience increasing conflict over parenting beliefs. For instance, Roy et al. (2019) specifically describes instances of conflict between white mothers and fathers of color over the issue of child discipline. For example, in a focus group conducted with mothers in biracial relationships it was found that White mother/father of color dyads have greater conflict over disciplining children and spoiling which may not emerge until later in childhood. Meanwhile, mother of color/white father dyads may experience high conflict earlier in infancy due to violated expectations regarding new tasks of childcare. Bolzendahl and Gubernskaya (2016) found that gender and race interacted to influence the amount of housework completed by women, such that when White women were partnered with Black men they did less housework then if partnered with White or Latino men. This same phenomenon may be at play, wherein women of color are completing more childcare-related tasks than expected had they been parenting with someone from the same racial/ethnic background. Violated expectations are understudied in MER families and may help to explain high coparental conflict for certain compositions of families.

Two possible methods by which social support could function for multiethnoracial (MER) and monoethnoracial (MoER) parents were examined. Specifically, we hypothesized that under conditions of high family support coparenting conflict would be low for MER dyads, whereas under conditions of low family support coparenting conflict would be especially high since they are the most isolated from social support networks (Ngai & Ngu, 2014). Contrary to what we expected, ethnoracial composition and family support did not interact to predict coparenting conflict for mothers. However, a cross-over effect was found such that mothers’ high family support buffered the relationship between ethnoracial composition and coparenting conflict for fathers in MoER couples. Meanwhile, fathers in MER dyads had equivalent levels of coparenting conflict regardless of mothers’ family support. Family support may not be enough to buffer fathers’ coparenting conflict in MER dyads when experiencing repeated exposure to prejudice and discrimination (Brummett & Steuber, 2014). The presence of family support in MER dyads may be complicated. For example, the benefits of family support may not be as high if the two people in the dyad do not value family involvement the same. Individual partners within MER dyads may also have different experiences of discrimination and privilege which may be an explanatory factor for differences in conflict between MER and MoER parent dyads (Roy et al., 2019; Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002). That is, if fathers experience prejudice or discrimination outside the home, they may be more stressed and vulnerable to conflict with their partner. In addition, when partners in MER dyads experience prejudice or discrimination, some have described their partner as not being supportive because they have not experienced racial discrimination specifically, especially for White/Person of Color dyads (Roy & Rollins, 2019). Therefore, discrimination and prejudice may be an important factor to study when understanding MER family dynamics and outcomes.

We also examined whether being in a MER dyad predicted less family support leading to greater coparenting conflict. Although being in a MER dyad was related to less family support for mothers, family support was not subsequently related to coparenting conflict. One explanation for this unexpected result may have to do with our measure of family support. We examined emotional support which has previously been related to coparenting conflict (Bost et al., 2002). However, for parents in our study, who were all low-income families and all returning to work soon after birth, instrumental types of support, like childcare or financial help, could be more critical than emotional support (Sousa & Rodrigueus, 2009). Future studies might benefit by examining both instrumental and emotional support and coparenting conflict for families in low-income communities.

Similar to Bratter and Whitehead (2019), our study found that mothers in MER dyads experienced less family support compared to MoER mothers. Greater family support, especially during the transition to parenthood, is protective against stress and conflict, improves parenting sensitivity/effectiveness and improves health outcomes (Ngai & Ngu, 2014; Wandersman, Wandersman, & Kahn, 1980). One reason mothers in MER dyads may experience lower family support is that their extended kin (e.g., grandparents, aunts) may disapprove of their relationship by nature of being with a partner from a different ethnoracial background (Bell & Hastings, 2015). MER couples are more likely to face disapproval and stigma about their relationships, due to a legacy of racism (Brummett & Steuber, 2014). Future studies should investigate couples’ experiences of prejudice and discrimination and other factors that might illuminate why MER families are experiencing less family support than MoER families.

The hypothesis of a mediated pathway linking ethnoracial match to coparenting conflict via less family support received partial support. A trend indicated that fathers in MER couples reported less family support which, in turn, led to greater coparenting conflict. This difference in family support between MER and MoER dyads has been documented for mothers (Bratter & Whitehead, 2019); our study extends these findings to fathers.

Our findings suggest that merging MER couple types may wash out differences within different types of MER couples. Unfortunately, group sizes within MER dyads were too small to fully address this question. Fathers in mother of color/White father dyads experienced the least family support of any composition, whereas fathers of color coupled with White mothers had the most support of any composition. From a social exchange perspective, this may be related to status (Kalmjin, 1993; Hou & Myles, 2013). Men of color may experience positive outcomes in MER relationships with White women since they are increasing their access to social resources or capital (Cheng & Powell, 2007). Fathers in dyads with two people of color (POC-POC) experienced the lowest levels of family support. This is meaningful since families of color (e.g., Latinx, Asian) tend to expect and value higher levels of family support than White families (Taylor, Chatters, Woodward, & Brown, 2013).

The primary limitation of this study was that the group sizes of multiethnoracial (MER) families were too small to examine within-group differences more systematically. Another barrier was related to the measurement of family support. We did not have information on parents’ ideas regarding what level and kind of family involvement or support they expected once their child was born, the different kinds of supports they receive from their family, and what their family support was like prior to entering in their relationships. Knowing parents’ values regarding support they expected to receive from family may be important to differentiate which dyadic compositions might be more affected by lack of family support.

Another issue is that changes in family support likely happened earlier when couples first entered into their relationship. In short, MER couples in this study may have experienced a decline in family support when first becoming a couple. Related to the issue of timing, parents in our study were relatively young (early to mid 20s). Due to the limited age of our sample, the results are not generalizable to older parents in different life stages. Finally, we did not tap into the salience of racial or ethnic identity for parents. The importance of one’s racial and ethnic identity to a sense self may be important to investigate; if partners do not strongly identify with their racial or ethnic heritage there may be less conflict between partners related to cultural differences.

We focused primarily on conflict in MER families for this study. Future research would benefit in also focusing on the positive aspects of being in an MER couple. The self-expansion theory posits that peoples’ behaviors are motivated to improve themselves by broadening their own perspective (Aron & Aron, 1996). This theory may help to explain motivations of people who enter in MER relationships. Choosing a partner from a different cultural background than one’s own may be an opportunity to explore a different life perspective.

Mothers in multiethnoracial (MER) dyads experienced greater coparenting conflict and lower familial support than their monoethnoracial (MoER) counterparts during the transition to parenthood. In addition, when mothers’ family support was high, fathers in MoER dyads reported less coparenting conflict, while fathers in MER dyads had the same level of coparenting conflict regardless of mothers’ family support. Last, fathers in MER dyads experienced less family support than MoER dyads which in turn led to greater coparenting conflict for fathers. It is clear from our exploratory work that MER and MoER families are not monolithic. MER families are composed of a great variety of compositions of race and ethnicity that are influenced by partner gender as well. These different compositions influence the kind of family support the parent dyad receives, as well as the kinds of conflict they might have. It will be imperative moving forward to continue to examine these issues with larger national datasets to understand these complexities.

Our study was one of the first to quantitatively examine coparenting conflict and confirm theories suggesting that conflict may be one possible explanatory factor for instability in MER couples. In addition, we extended the study of MER families to the transition to parenthood which is a critical transitionary period for parents and developmental period for children. With higher conflict and lower family support, MER families are at greater risk for stress and, subsequently, poor familial, developmental, and health outcomes. Currently, there is a lack of attention given to research on the unique experience of MER families. It is imperative to understand the unique family processes for MER families experiencing unique stressors in addition to the normative transitionary challenges all couples face, that place them at risk for relationship dissolution and poorer well-being. When working with MER families, it is critical that family practitioners, first, consider that MER families are not monolithic and, then, attend to cultural values that may influence their conflict and subsequently their overall well-being.

Highlights.

  • Multiethnoracial (MER; e.g., Black-White, Latino-Black, etc) families are not a monolithic group.

  • This study is one of the first quantitative studies to investigate coparenting conflict during the transition to parenthood for MER families.

  • Mothers in MER dyads experience greater coparenting conflict and lower familial support than their monoethnoracial (MoER) counterparts.

  • Fathers in MER dyads experience less family support than MoER dyads which in turn leads to greater coparenting conflict for fathers.

References

  1. Ahrons CR (1981). The continuing coparental relationship between divorced spouses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51(3), 415–428. doi: 10.1037/t01210-000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychological Association (2017) Multicultural Guidelines: An Ecological Approach to Context, Identity, and Intersectionality. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/about/policy/multicultural-guidelines.pdf
  3. Armstrong MI, Birnie-Lefcovitch S, & Ungar MT (2005). Pathways between social support, family well being, quality of parenting, and child resilience: What we know. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14(2), 269–281. doi: 10.1007/s10826-005-5054-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Aron A, & Aron EN (1996). Self and self-expansion in relationships. In Fletcher GJO, & Fitness J. (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach, (pp. 325–344). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc [Google Scholar]
  5. Bell GC, & Hastings SO (2015). Exploring parental approval and disapproval for Black and White interracial couples. Journal of Social Issues, 71(4), 755–771. doi: 10.1111/josi.12147 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Belsky J, & Pluess M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological bulletin, 135(6), 885–908. doi: 10.1037/a0017376 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Belsky J, Spanier GB, & Rovine M. (1983). Stability and change in marriage across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 567–577. doi: 10.2307/351661 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bhugun D. (2017). Intercultural parenting in Australia: Managing cultural differences. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 25(2), 187–195. doi: 10.1177/1066480717697688 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bialik K. (2017). Key facts about race and marriage, 50 years after Loving v. Virginia. Fact Tank—Our Lives in Numbers, Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/12/keyfacts-about-race-and-marriage-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/ [Google Scholar]
  10. Bolzendahl C, & Gubernskaya Z. (2016). Racial and ethnic homogamy and gendered time on core housework. Socius, 2, 1–15. doi: 10.1177/2378023116676277 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bost KK, Cox MJ, Burchinal MR, & Payne C. (2002). Structural and supportive changes in couples’ family and friendship networks across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 517–531. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00517.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bratter JL, & Eschbach K. (2006). “What about the couple?” Interracial marriage and psychological distress. Social Science Research, 35(4), 1025–1047. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.09.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bratter JL, & King RB (2008). “But will it last?”: Marital instability among interracial and same-race couples. Family Relations, 57(2), 160–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00491.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bratter JL, & Whitehead EM (2018). Ties that bind? Comparing kin support availability for mothers of mixed-race and monoracial infants. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80(4), 951–962. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12485 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bronte-Tinkew J, Scott ME, Horowitz A, & Lilja E. (2009). Pregnancy intentions during the transition to parenthood and links to coparenting for first-time fathers of infants. Parenting: Science and Practice, 9(1–2), 1–35. doi: 10.1080/15295190802656729 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Brummett EA, & Steuber KR (2014). To reveal or conceal?: Privacy management processes among interracial romantic partners. Western Journal of Communication, 79(1), 22–44. doi: 10.1080/10570314.2014.943417 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Burchinal MR, Follmer A, & Bryant DM (1996). The relations of maternal social support and family structure with maternal responsiveness and child outcomes among African American families. Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 1073–1083. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.1073 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Burton LM, Bonilla-Silva E, Ray V, Buckelew R, & Hordge Freeman E. (2010). Critical race theories, colorism, and the decade’s research on families of color. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 440–459. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00712.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cheng S, & Powell B. (2007). Under and beyond constraints: Resource allocation to young children from biracial families. American Journal of Sociology, 112(4), 1044–1094. doi: 10.1086/508793 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Collins NL, Dunkel-Schetter C, Lobel M, & Scrimshaw SC (1993). Social support in pregnancy: Psychosocial correlates of birth outcomes and postpartum depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(6), 1243–1258. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cook WL, & Kenny DA (2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101–109. doi: 10.1080/01650250444000405 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Crippen C, & Brew L. (2007). Intercultural parenting and the transcultural family: A literature review. The Family Journal, 15(2), 107–115. doi: 10.1177/1066480706297783 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Crippen C, & Brew L. (2013). Strategies of Cultural Adaption in Intercultural Parenting. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 21(3), 263–271. doi: 10.1177/1066480713476664 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Edwards R, Caballero C, & Puthussery S. (2009). Parenting children from „mixed’racial, ethnic and faith backgrounds: Typifications of difference and belonging. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(6), 949–967. doi: 10.1080/01419870903318185 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Fagan J, & Cabrera N. (2012). Longitudinal and reciprocal associations between coparenting conflict and father engagement. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(6), 1004–1011. doi: 10.1037/a0029998 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Falicov CJ (1995). Cross-cultural marriages. In Clinical Handbook of Couple Therapy. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Fu X, Tora J, & Kendall H. (2001). Marital happiness and inter-racial marriage: A study in a multi-ethnic community in Hawaii. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32(1), 47–60. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41603728 [Google Scholar]
  28. Goldstein LM, & Genero N. (1995). Parenting hassles and friendship support as predictors of depressive symptoms in mothers of young children. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gremigni P, Mariani L, Marracino V, Tranquilli AL, & Turi A. (2011). Partner support and postpartum depressive symptoms. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 32(3), 135–140. doi: 10.3109/0167482X.2011.589017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gudykunst WB, Ting-Toomey S, & Chua E. (1988). Culture and Interpersonal Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hammer MR (2005). The intercultural conflict style inventory: A conceptual framework and measure of intercultural conflict resolution approaches. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 675–695. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.08.01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hayes AF (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  33. House JS (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wealey. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kearns JN, & Leonard KE (2004). Social networks, structural interdependence, and marital quality over the transition to marriage: A prospective analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(2), 383–395. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kraus MW, Piff PK, & Keltner D. (2011). Social class as culture: The convergence of resources and rank in the social realm. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 246–250. doi: 10.1177/0963721411414654 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kroeger RA, & Williams K. (2011). Consequences of Black exceptionalism? Interracial unions with Blacks, depressive symptoms, and relationship satisfaction. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(3), 400–420. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01212.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lareau A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Le Y, McDaniel BT, Leavitt CE, & Feinberg ME (2016). Longitudinal associations between relationship quality and coparenting across the transition to parenthood: A dyadic perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(8), 918–926. doi: 10.1037/fam0000217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Loving v. Virginia. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1
  41. Markus HR, & Kitayama S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430. doi: 10.1177/1745691610375557 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Medina AM, Lederhos CL, & Lillis TA (2009). Sleep disruption and decline in marital satisfaction across the transition to parenthood. Families, Systems, & Health, 27(2), 153–160. doi: 10.1037/a0015762 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Minkov M, & Hofstede G. (2012). Is national culture a meaningful concept? Cultural values delineate homogeneous national clusters of in-country regions. Cross-Cultural Research, 46(2), 133–159. doi: 10.1177/1069397111427262 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Muthén LK and Muthén BO (1998–2017). Mplus User’s Guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ngai FW, & Ngu SF (2014). Predictors of family and marital functioning at early postpartum. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(11), 2588–2597. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Perry-Jenkins M, & Schoppe-Sullivan S. (2019). The transition to parenthood in social context. In Fiese BH, Celano M, Deater-Deckard K, Jouriles EN, & Whisman MA (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology series. APA handbook of contemporary family psychology: Foundations, methods, and contemporary issues across the lifespan (pp. 463–482). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association [Google Scholar]
  47. Preacher KJ, Zyphur MJ, & Zhang Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. doi: 10.1037/a0020141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Procidano ME, & Heller K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from friends and from family: Three validation studies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1007/BF00898416 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Roy RN, & Rollins A. (2019) Biracial Families: Crossing Boundaries, Blending Cultures, and Challenging Racial Ideologies, New York City, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  50. Roy RN, Mitchell Y, James A, Miller B, & Hutchinson J. (2019). Experiences of family and social support during the transition to motherhood among mothers of biracial and monoracial infants. In Transitions into Parenthood: Examining the Complexities of Childrearing. Emerald Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar]
  51. Schmitt MT, & Branscombe NR (2002). The meaning and consequences of perceived discrimination in disadvantaged and privileged social groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 167–199. doi: 10.1002/0470013478.ch6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Seto A, & Cavallaro M. (2007). Cross-national couples in the mainland United States. The Family Journal, 15(3), 258–264. doi: 10.1177/1066480707301315 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Sousa L, & Rodrigues S. (2009). Linking formal and informal support in multiproblem low-income families: The role of the family manager. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(5), 649–662. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20313 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Stuberfield AR (2017). The relation between societal attitudes and the success of interracial relationships (Unpublished master thesis). Lamar University, Beaumont, TX. Retrieved from https://illiad-library-umassedu.silk.library.umass.edu/illiad/AMH/illiad.dll?Action=10&Form=75&Value=1516221 [Google Scholar]
  55. Taylor RJ, Chatters LM, Woodward AT, & Brown E. (2013). Racial and ethnic differences in extended family, friendship, fictive kin, and congregational informal support networks. Family Relations, 62(4), 609–624. doi: 10.1111/fare.12030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Teubert D, & Pinquart M. (2010). The association between coparenting and child adjustment: A meta-analysis. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10(4), 286–307. doi: 10.1080/15295192.2010.492040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Thomas V, Wetchler JL, & Karis T. (2014). Assessment and Intervention with Black-White Multiracial Couples. In Clinical Issues with Interracial Couples (pp. 129–192). London, UK: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  58. Usita PM, & Poulsen S. (2003). Interracial relationships in Hawaii: Issues, benefits, and therapeutic interventions. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 2(2–3), 73–83. doi: 10.1300/J398v02n02_06 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Van Egeren LA (2003). Prebirth predictors of coparenting experiences in early infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal: Official Publication of The World Association for Infant Mental Health, 24(3), 278–295. doi: 10.1002/imhj.10056 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Wandersman L, Wandersman A, & Kahn S. (1980). Social support in the transition to parenthood. Journal of Community Psychology, 8(4), 332–342. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Wellman B, & Wortley S. (1990). Different strokes from different folks: Community ties and social support. American Journal of Sociology, 96(3), 558–588. doi: 10.1086/229572 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Williams DT (2018). Parental depression and cooperative coparenting: A longitudinal and dyadic approach. Family Relations, 67(2), 253–269. doi: 10.1111/fare.12308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wilt J. (2011). Normal families facing unique challenges: The psychosocial functioning of multiracial couples, parents and children. The New School Psychology Bulletin, 9(1), 7–14. Retrieved from http://www.nspb.net/index.php/nspb/article/view/188/116 [Google Scholar]
  64. Yahirun JJ (2019). Intermarriage and mother-child relationships. Social Science Research, 78, 203–214. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.12.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Yavorsky JE, Kamp Dush CM, & Schoppe-Sullivan SJ (2015). The production of inequality: The gender division of labor across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(3), 662–679. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12189 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Zhang Y, & Van Hook J. (2009). Marital dissolution among interracial couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(1), 95–107. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00582.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES