Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2021 Nov 29;36(7):1142–1153. doi: 10.1037/fam0000937

Family Origins of Distinct Forms of Children’s Involvement in Interparental Conflict

Morgan J Thompson, Patrick T Davies, Jesse L Coe, Melissa L Sturge-Apple 1
PMCID: PMC9720877  NIHMSID: NIHMS1847574  PMID: 34843325

Abstract

Previous research has highlighted the value in parsing unidimensional assessments of children’s involvement in interparental conflict into distinct forms for advancing an understanding of children’s development; however, little is known about the underlying antecedents of distinct forms of involvement. The present study provides the first systematic analysis of the interparental conflict and parenting predictors of residualized change in maternal reports of three forms of children’s involvement in interparental conflict (i.e., cautious, caregiving, coercive). Participants in this multi-method, multi-informant longitudinal study included 243 preschool children (Mage=4.60 years), mothers, and their partners from racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse backgrounds. Multivariate analyses demonstrated selectivity in links between interparental conflict and parenting and children’s involvement in interparental conflict. Findings from the interparental conflict analyses revealed that Wave 1 constructive conflict uniquely predicted lower Wave 2 cautious involvement, and Wave 1 hostile conflict uniquely predicted greater Wave 2 coercive involvement. Findings from the parenting analyses indicated that Wave 1 maternal responsiveness uniquely predicted lower Wave 2 cautious involvement and Wave 1 maternal vulnerability uniquely predicted greater Wave 2 coercive involvement. Although interparental conflict and parenting antecedents did not predict caregiving involvement, a series of follow-up analyses individually examining each form of interparental conflict and parenting as a predictor of children’s involvement revealed that greater Wave 2 caregiving involvement was predicted by higher levels of Wave 1 disengaged conflict and lower levels of Wave 1 constructive conflict. Findings are interpreted in the context of developmental psychopathology models that emphasize children’s response patterns to family adversity.

Keywords: interparental conflict, parenting, involvement in interparental conflict, children, child coping responses

Children’s involvement in interparental conflict, characterized by direct behavioral efforts to intervene in parental disputes, has been identified as a consistent predictor of children’s subsequent mental health problems (for a review, see Rhoades, 2008). Recent empirical efforts have highlighted the developmental and clinical value of distinguishing between forms of involvement for enabling greater precision in understanding unique configurations of developmental sequelae (Thompson et al., 2021). By utilizing thematic analysis to identify variations in children’s forms of involvement, Thompson and colleagues (2021) identified three relatively distinct patterns during early childhood: (a) coercive reflecting a bossy, authoritarian pattern of behavior designed to undermine parental authority in an attempt to interrupt or end parental disputes, (b) caregiving characterized by the child functioning as the primary caregiver to provide instrumental and emotional support to parents, and (c) cautious consisting of an apprehensive, vigilant, and guarded involvement strategy manifested in simultaneous impulses to avoid and intervene in parental disputes. Forms of involvement were subsequently quantified and examined as unique predictors of children’s developmental sequelae 2 years later. Whereas coercive involvement selectively predicted children’s externalizing problems, callousness, and extraversion, cautious and caregiving involvement each predicted children’s greater separation anxiety. Cautious involvement was also a unique predictor of children’s later social withdrawal.

Although each form of involvement has unique implications for development, little is known about their antecedents. The primary aim of this study was to provide the first systematic analysis of the family antecedents of each form of involvement. Because no formal conceptual models exist for identifying possible family precursors of different forms of involvement, our aims are exploratory in nature. Multiple theories (e.g., family systems, emotional security, and role-confusion frameworks) share a related emphasis on understanding children’s reaction patterns and role boundaries in contexts of family challenges (Cummings & Davies, 2010; Davies & Martin, 2013; Kerig, 2016; Macfie et al., 2015). We draw on these theories as a guide to identify the interparental conflict (i.e., an assessment of the dyadic interparental relationship) and parenting processes that may underpin coercive, caregiving, and cautious involvement.

Interparental Conflict Antecedents

Previous research supports links between children’s exposure to hostile (i.e., verbal and physical anger and aggression), disengaged (i.e., detachment, withdrawal, dysphoria), and constructive (i.e., resolution, cohesion, problem-solving) forms of interparental conflict and unidimensional assessments of their involvement (e.g., Davies et al., 2002; Kerig, 1996) and response processes (i.e., hostile and fearful reactivity) that are integral parts of the three forms of involvement (e.g., Davies et al., 2012, 2016). Although these preliminary findings do not provide enough evidence to form specific hypotheses on links between particular interparental conflict dimensions and forms of involvement, the existing findings highlight potential common and distinct roles of different forms of interparental conflict as predictors. For instance, drawing on the developmental psychopathology concept of equifinality (i.e., multiple antecedents preceding the same outcome; Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1996), one possibility is that multiple forms of conflict may predict the same form of involvement. Some studies provide some support for equifinality, demonstrating links between both constructive and hostile forms of conflict and unidimensional assessments of involvement (Davies et al., 2002; Kerig, 1996) and fearful reactivity (Davies et al., 2009, 2012; Koss et al., 2011). According to emotional security frameworks, highly agonic family environments characterized by elevated levels of interparental hostility and minimal sources of solace likely trigger children’s camouflaging, reticent, and fearful behaviors (Davies & Martin, 2013; Davies & Sturge-Apple, 2007). Translated to our present aims, constructive and hostile forms of conflict may both be associated with children’s cautious involvement.

Alternatively, some of the associations may support a multifinality model characterized by a single form of interparental conflict predicting multiple forms of involvement (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1996). For example, in addition to cautious involvement, diminished levels of constructive conflict have been linked to children’s hostile forms of reactivity that may underpin children’s coercive involvement (e.g., Cummings et al, 2006; Davies & Forman, 2002). Therefore, constructive conflict may predict cautious and coercive involvement. Developmental psychopathology models further consider the possibility that a particular antecedent may be selective in its prediction of a single or delimited subset of sequelae (Cicchetti & Cohen, 1995). In support of this model, disengaged conflict has been specifically associated with children’s endorsement of caretaking behaviors in response to interparental conflict vignettes (Keller et al., 2007). Family systems theory posits that interparental disengagement signifies parents’ emotional unavailability to children who, in response, adopt adult roles in the family to increase their proximity to parents and preserve a sense of security (Byng-Hall, 2002). In contrast, some research suggests that interparental disengagement is not a predictor of a key component of coercive involvement (i.e., hostile reactivity; George et al., 2014). Thus, it is also plausible to expect that some forms of conflict may selectively predict specific forms of involvement.

Parenting Antecedents

According to emotional security frameworks and family systems theory (Cummings & Davies, 2010; Davies & Martin, 2013; Kerig, 2016), parenting characteristics are another possible family antecedent of children’s responses to interparental conflict. Multiple studies provide initial evidence for links between parental responsiveness (i.e., sensitivity, warmth), harshness (i.e., anger, intrusive, controlling), and vulnerability (i.e., dysphoria, fear, helplessness) and children’s general involvement in interparental conflict (e.g., Fosco et al., 2014; Franck & Buehler, 2007). Additional research has further suggested that other dimensions of children’s reactivity (e.g., hostility, fear) that are part of the three forms of involvement are also predicted by these parenting practices (Davies & Forman, 2002; Davies et al., in press). However, questions remain as to how parental responsiveness, harshness, and vulnerability will be specifically linked with coercive, caretaking, and cautious forms of involvement. Guided by the equifinality model of risk (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1996), one possibility is that multiple parenting characteristics may serve as common antecedents of a single form of involvement. For example, some studies have shown that parental harshness and responsiveness both predict children’s fearful distress and global involvement (e.g., Buehler & Welsh, 2009; Fosco et al., 2014; Franck & Buehler, 2007). If these dimensions of reactivity are coupled together in reflecting a higher-order pattern of involvement, it may be that parental harshness and responsiveness both increase the likelihood that children adopt a more cautious, fearful approach to involvement. However, at this early stage of research, multifinality may also be operating. For example, because diminished parental responsiveness has also been linked with higher levels of hostile reactivity (Davies & Forman, 2002), it may also predict children’s coercive involvement.

Other research indicates that there may be some specificity in relations between parenting antecedents and forms of involvement. For example, whereas some studies suggest that proxy indicators of parental vulnerability (e.g., depressive symptoms) were higher among children exhibiting hostile responses to interparental conflict (Davies & Forman, 2002), other studies have found null associations between proxy indicators of parental vulnerability and children’s fearful distress responses and general involvement during interparental conflicts (e.g., Buehler & Welsh, 2009; Franck & Buehler, 2007). Thus, it is possible that some types of parenting (i.e., displays of vulnerability) may be uniquely related to specific types (e.g., coercive) of child involvement in conflicts. However, the research in this area is limited and has not directly examined specific forms of child involvement as sequelae of parenting. Accordingly, at this early empirical juncture, we do not offer any hypotheses on the patterns of associations among parental responsiveness, harshness, and vulnerability and children’s forms of involvement.

In identifying parenting antecedents of the three forms of involvement, we specifically examined both mothers’ and partners’ child-rearing practices in our study. Although recent scientific calls underscore the value of examining paternal as well as maternal parenting characteristics in models of children’s functioning (Cabrera et al., 2018), the limited research including both mother and father parenting behaviors does not provide a strong enough empirical base for formulating hypotheses on their roles as antecedents of children’s forms of involvement. Findings from some studies highlight the possibility that maternal parenting characteristics may be a more consistent predictor of the form of involvement children display. For example, maternal, but not paternal, responsiveness has been linked to both children’s fearful distress and their general involvement in interparental conflict (Davies et al., in press; Franck & Buehler, 2007). However, results from other studies underscore the possibility that paternal parenting may play a key role in shaping response processes that underlie children’s forms of involvement. For example, Fosco and Grych (2010) found that parental responsiveness predicted children’s general involvement more consistently for fathers than mothers. Still other empirical evidence points to maternal and paternal parenting each playing roles as predictors of involvement. For instance, some studies have shown that maternal and paternal vulnerability and harshness were relatively comparable in their consistency as predictors of children’s general involvement in interparental conflict (Buehler & Welsh, 2009; Fosco & Grych, 2010). In sum, our aim of examining both mothers’ and partners’ child-rearing practices as antecedents of children’s forms of involvement is designed to advance the inconclusive findings from prior research.

Present Study

Utilizing a multi-method, multi-informant, longitudinal design, this exploratory study aimed to provide the first examination of underlying family antecedents of children’s coercive, caregiving, and cautious involvement in interparental conflict. We examined interparental conflict (i.e., constructive, disengaged, and hostile) and parenting (i.e., mothers’ and partners’ responsiveness, harshness, and vulnerability) characteristics as predictors of maternal reports of children’s involvement in conflict during the early school years for several reasons. First, early socialization contexts are proposed to organize children’s early coping behaviors into coherent patterns of regulation around the time of preschool entry (Repetti et al., 2011). Second, children’s insecure-coping strategies have demonstrated moderate stability from preschool to the early school years and may reflect canalization of early patterns of stress reactivity that are used as templates for responding to extrafamilial challenges (e.g., peers; Macfie et al., 2015; Moss et al., 2005; Repetti et al., 2011). Third, during this development period, children are more likely to become involved in interparental conflict than they are during earlier and later years (Davies & Cummings 1994), likely due to improved social perspective taking abilities across toddlerhood to the preschool age (Cummings & Davies, 2010).

This study provides the first systematic test of family antecedents of children’s involvement in interparental conflict, and due to the exploratory nature, we do not offer formal hypotheses. At this early stage of research on dimensions of involvement, our aim was to identify a set of promising interparental conflict and parenting antecedents of each form of involvement. To maximize the rigor of our analyses, we utilized a comprehensive battery of interparental conflict assessments that was multi-informant (i.e., trained raters, mothers) and multi-method (i.e., observation, interview, survey). To complement the observational component of the interparental conflict antecedents, we utilized trained raters’ observational assessments of parenting antecedents. As the only psychometrically sound approach for distinguishing between these three forms of involvement, we specifically used a semi-structured interview assessment of involvement. Interview approaches are advantageous in providing parents the opportunity to describe children’s behaviors in a way that minimizes differences between parents’ interpretation of the meaning of questionnaire items while also capturing maternal portrayals of children’s characteristic forms of involvement in conflict in the home (Fiese & Spagnola, 2005). In further strengthening our analyses, we included Wave 1 autoregressive paths for forms of involvement to capture residualized change and specified child sex, household income, parent education, and marital status as covariates to account for demographic characteristics (Macfie et al., 2015).

Method

Participants

Participants included 243 families (i.e., mother, intimate partner, child) from the Northeastern United States. To obtain a demographically diverse sample, we recruited families through multiple outlets, including local preschools, Head Start agencies, and public and private childcare providers. Children had to be 4 or 5 years old at Wave 1 and expected to enroll into kindergarten within the year (M age = 4.60, SD = .44 at Wave 1). About half of the children (56%) were girls. Median household income was $36,000 per year (range = $2,000 - $121,000), and over half of families (69%) received public assistance. Median parental education consisted of a GED or high school diploma, and about 19% of parents received less than a high school diploma or GED. Just under half of the families were Black or African American (48%), and the remaining families were White (43%), multi-racial (6%), or another race (3%). About 16% of the family members identified as Hispanic. Families were eligible to participate if mothers, partners, and children had regular sustained interactions as a triad (i.e., at least 2 to 3 days per week) for the past year. On average, families had daily contact as a triad with their child (range = daily to two or three days a week). At Wave 1, 99% of mothers and 74% of intimate partners were the child’s biological parent. About 99% of mothers and partners were in different-sex relationships (remainder headed by same-sex female couples). Parents were either married and living together (49%), unmarried and cohabitating (44%), or maintained separate households (7%).

Procedures

Families visited a research laboratory at two waves of data collection spaced 1 year apart (retention rate = 91%) and were compensated $200 at Wave 1 and $240 at Wave 2. Research procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Rochester prior to conducting the study (Title: “Children’s Development in the Family”; Approval #: 00030261).

Questionnaires

During Wave 1, mothers completed the Conflict and Problem-Solving Scales (CPS; Kerig, 1996), Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2; Straus et al., 1996), and a survey measure of demographic characteristics. The CPS and CTS-2 have demonstrated adequate internal consistency and discriminant and convergent validity (Davies et al., 2002; Hentges et al., 2015).

Family Interaction Task

During Wave 1, observational assessments of mothers’ and partners’ parenting behaviors were captured during a 10-min family interaction task (FIT; Schoppe et al., 2001; Westerman, 2001) that instructed families to work together to build a house using LEGO blocks. The LEGO model was designed so that children could not successfully build the house on their own and required some assistance from their parents. The task was video-recorded for later coding.

Interparental Problem Solving Task

To capture observational assessments of parents’ interparental conflict tactics at Wave 1, parents completed a 10-min interparental problem solving task (IPST; Gordis et al., 2001; Grych, 2002). Experimenters instructed parents to discuss common, problematic disagreements in their relationship as they normally would at home. Before experimenters brought children to the room, parents selected multiple problematic disagreements to discuss, enabling them to move on to another topic if they finished discussing a previous topic. Parents were permitted to discuss any topic that they felt comfortable addressing in front of their child. Once experimenters brought the child to the room, introduced them to a set of toys, and left the room, parents began their conflictual interactions. The problem solving task was recorded for later coding.

Interparental Disagreement Interview

At Waves 1 and 2, mothers completed the Interparental Disagreement Interview (IDI), a semi-structured, narrative interview administered by a trained experimenter. The IDI is a well-established measure (Hentges et al., 2015; Thompson et al., 2021) designed to capture (a) the frequency, course, and aftermath of common interparental disagreements and (b) children’s emotional and behavioral reactivity during and immediately following parental disputes. Mothers responded to a series of open-ended research questions pertaining to the nature of the conflicts that occur in front of their children (e.g., “How would you describe your disagreements over [topic]?” “How do you/your partner typically feel during these disagreements?”) and children’s behavioral (e.g., “During these disagreements that [child] sees or hears, how does s/he respond?”) and emotional (e.g., “How do you think [child] feels during these disagreements”) reactivity to the conflicts. Interviews were video recorded for later coding.

Measures

Parenting

Trained coders rated mothers’ and partners’ parenting behaviors separately during the FIT along 9-point molar scales adapted from the Iowa Family Interaction Scales (IFIRS; Melby & Conger, 2001). Scales ranged from 1 (Not at all characteristic) to 9 (Highly characteristic).

First, mothers’ and partner’ vulnerability were each rated using the Vulnerability scales indexed by signs of anxiety, dysphoria, fear, helplessness, and submissiveness through facial (e.g., diverted gaze), postural or gestural (e.g., rocking), or verbal (e.g., negative statements about the self) expressions.

Second, mothers’ and partners’ responsiveness dimensions were each composed of the Disengagement, Sensitivity, and Warmth scales. The Disengagement scales indexed the degree to which the parent was unresponsive, apathetic, disinterested, and uninvolved, whereas, the Sensitivity scales reflected the parent’s attunement to the child’s needs, moods, interests, and capabilities in a way that promoted synchrony in the interaction (e.g., anticipating the child’s response, timing activities to reflect the child’s interests). Finally, the Warmth scales indexed parental expressions of liking, appreciation, care, or concern through verbalizations (e.g., words of encouragement), gestural or facial expressions (e.g., thumbs up sign, smiles), and behaviors (e.g., hugs). The Disengagement scales were reverse scored so that higher scores reflected responsive, engaged parenting behaviors and lower scores reflected unresponsive, apathetic parenting behaviors. To obtain parsimonious assessments of mothers’ and partners’ responsiveness, the Warmth, Disengagement, and Sensitivity codes were averaged together to create a manifest measure of mothers’ responsiveness (α = .86) and a manifest measure of partners’ responsiveness (α = .93).

Lastly, mothers’ and partners’ harshness dimensions included the Anger, Disorganization, and Intrusive-Controlling scales. The Anger scales were defined by parental signs of tension, frustration, ire, or anger through facial expressions (e.g., clenching teeth), verbalizations (e.g., blaming statements), and posture or gesture (e.g., clenched fists). The Disorganization scales indexed highly volatile, unpredictable, and chaotic parental affect and behavior that are not coherently tied to the nature of the child’s behavior (e.g., punishment or threats when the child is well-behaved). The Intrusive-Controlling scales reflected intrusive and over-controlling, parent-centered behaviors employed in a harsh, negative manner (e.g., lecturing or berating the child). To obtain parsimonious assessments of mothers’ and partners’ harshness, the Anger, Disorganization, and Intrusive-Controlling codes were averaged together to create manifest measures of mothers’ harshness (α = .72) and fathers’ harshness (α = .73).

Interrater reliability for the FIT scales was calculated based on a random subset of the videos (i.e., 21%) that the reliability and primary coder overlapped on. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged from .76 to .95 for mothers and from .75 to .96 for partners.

Interparental Conflict

We utilized a multi-method, multi-informant approach to assess interparental conflict, including coder ratings of maternal narratives from the IDI, observer ratings from the IPST, and maternal survey reports. For consistency across forms of conflict, each form was indexed by four interview coder ratings, four observational coder ratings, and two scales derived from maternal survey reports. The 10 variables for each constructive, disengaged, and hostile forms of conflict were standardized and averaged together to form manifest composites.

Constructive Conflict.

For the interview component of the constructive conflict measurement battery, trained coders separately rated mothers’ and partners’ problem-solving, and couples’ dyadic conflict resolution and cohesion along 7-point molar scales (0 = None; 6 = High) in mothers’ IDI narratives. The Problem-Solving scales reflected mothers’ and partners’ constructive conflict tactics that are likely to be effective in managing and resolving disputes (e.g., constructive expression of opinions). The Conflict Resolution scale examined the degree to which partners made appreciable and concerted efforts to resolve the dispute in a mutually satisfactory way (e.g., openness to change). The Cohesion scale reflected partners’ display of mutual support, closeness, and unity during the disagreement (e.g., appreciation of each other).

The observational component consisted of trained coders’ ratings of each mothers’ and partners’ problem-solving and positive affect along 9-point molar scales (1 = Not at all characteristic; 9 = Highly characteristic) in the IPST from the Interparental Conflict Expressions (ICE; Davies et al., 2016; Davies & Sturge-Apple, 2013) coding system. The Problem-Solving scales assessed partners’ utilization of constructive tactics that likely contribute to the effective management and resolution of the interparental problem (e.g., implementing solutions). The Positive Affect scales reflected expressions of positive affect through verbalizations (e.g., joking), facial expressions (e.g., smiling), or body language (e.g., hugging).

For the survey component, mothers responded to the Cooperation scale from the CPS (Kerig, 1996) for themselves and their partners. The Cooperation scales captured the use of mothers’ and partners’ reasoning, problem-solving, and cooperative efforts to solve interparental problems (16 items; e.g., “Try to find a solution that meets both needs equally”).

Disengaged Conflict.

Trained coders rated maternal narratives in the IDI to separately assess mothers’ and partners’ detachment and dysphoria along 7-point molar scales (0 = None; 6 = High). The Detachment scales reflected partners’ attempts to distance or disengage him/herself from the disagreement (e.g., becoming quiet in an attempt to acquiesce to the partner). The Dysphoria scales indexed mothers’ and partners’ expressions or verbalizations of sadness, pain, hopelessness, and remorse (e.g., crying).

For the observational component of the disengaged conflict measurement battery, trained raters coded the IPST for each mothers’ and partners’ detachment along 9-point molar scales (1 = Not at all characteristic; 9 = Highly characteristic) from the ICE (Davies et al., 2016; Davies & Sturge-Apple, 2013), and mothers’ and partners’ affective indifference along 9-point molar scales (1 = Not at all characteristic; 9 = Highly characteristic) adapted from the System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID; Malik & Lindahl, 2000). The Detachment scales reflected mothers’ and partners’ failure to devote energy, attention, or concern toward their partner during the disagreement through indifferent, unresponsive behavior or displays of helplessness and resignation. The Affective Indifference scales indexed mothers’ and partners’ apathetic, callous, and unresponsive behavior that can potentially undermine their partner’s viewpoint.

For the survey component, mothers responded to the CPS Avoidance scale (Kerig, 1996) for themselves and their partners. The Avoidance scales indexed the use of strategies to ignore, avoid, or escape the disagreement (16 items; “Change the subject”).

Hostile Conflict.

For the interview component of the hostile conflict measurement battery, trained coders rated both mothers’ and partners’ anger and aggression in maternal narratives in the IDI along 7-point molar scales (0 = None; 6 = High). The Anger scales reflected partners’ signs of frustration, ire, and tension (e.g., angry verbalizations). The Aggression scales assessed the degree of mothers’ and partners’ verbal or physical hostility and aggression directed toward their partner (e.g., name-calling).

The observational component consisted of trained coders’ ratings of both maternal and partner aggression and controlling behavior during the IPST along 9-point molar scales (1 = Not at all characteristic; 9 = Highly characteristic) from the ICE (Davies et al., 2016; Davies & Sturge-Apple, 2013). The Aggression scales were defined by mothers’ and partners’ verbalizations and behavioral displays intended to psychologically or physically harm their partner (e.g., name-calling, threats, cruel remarks). The Controlling Behavior scales assessed mothers’ and partners’ coercive, controlling, or aversive behavior through complaints, protests, or dogmatic, selfish, and rigid assertions of their viewpoint.

In the survey portion of the hostile conflict measurement battery, mothers completed the Mild Psychological Aggression scale from the CTS-2 (Straus et al., 1996) for themselves and their partners. The Mild Psychological Aggression scale assessed mothers’ and partners’ verbal and psychological hostility (eight items; “Shouted at partner”).

For the IDI, ICCs assessing interrater reliability among trained coders who overlapped on over 30% of interviews ranged from .80 to .94 across the 12 scales. ICE interrater reliability, based on ICCs of independent ratings on 30% of interactions, ranged from .68 to .94 across the 12 codes. Finally, internal consistencies for questionnaire assessments ranged from .68 to .86 across the six scales. To create single indices of constructive, disengaged, and hostile conflict, interview, observational, and survey measures were standardized and aggregated together (α = .81, .64, and .81, respectively).

Maternal Report of Children’s Involvement in Interparental Conflict

The three forms of involvement assessed in this study were identified through thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2012) described in Thompson and colleagues (2021). Trained coders rated forms of involvement from maternal narratives from the IDI along 5-point molar scales (1 = Not at all characteristic; 5 = Highly characteristic) and supplemented continuous ratings by coding the presence (1) or absence (0) of nine behaviors across the entirety of the IDI. Approximately 90% of children were described as directly intervening in parental disputes.

First, molar ratings of coercive involvement indexed children’s attempts to interrupt or end parental disputes by undermining parental authority through physical or verbal means (e.g., talking over parents, misbehaving). Presence/absence coding for coercive involvement included (a) anger, descriptions of frustration, irritation, or fury expressed through facial, postural or gestural, or verbal expressions; (b) aggression, descriptions of verbal or physical hostility; and (c) authoritarian, descriptions of behaviors that undermine parental authority through the use of power and coercion.

Second, molar assessments of caregiving involvement were characterized by children providing for the instrumental or emotional needs of one or both parents (e.g., comforting parents, acting as a confidante). Presence/absence coding for caregiving involvement included (a) comfort, descriptions of the child providing verbal or physical support to one or both parents; (b) sadness, descriptions of overt expressions of feeling down or dejected expressed through facial, postural or gestural, or verbal expressions; and (c) problem-solving, descriptions of the child actively involved in generating solutions to interparental problems.

Lastly, molar assessments of cautious involvement reflected children’s reserved approach to parental conflict through maintained heightened awareness of danger and threat accompanying parental interactions (e.g., slowly approaching parents, hiding behind a parent). Presence/absence coding for cautious involvement included (a) vigilance, descriptions of the child as watchful or on high alert; (b) self-protection, descriptions of the child displaying attempts to preserve their safety; and (c) distress, descriptions of the child displaying anxiety, fear, or worry.

Three coders independently rated 100% of the interviews at each wave. Molar ratings of involvement had resulting ICCs ranging from .74 to .89 at Wave 1 and .80 to .89 at Wave 2. Presence/absence tallies were summed and ranged between 0 and 3 resulting in ICCs ranging from .87 to .92 at Wave 1, and from .89 to .92 at Wave 2. Molar ratings and tallies were standardized and aggregated to form single indices of children’s coercive, caregiving, and cautious involvement at Waves 1 (αs ranged from .80 to .89) and 2 (αs ranged from .71. to .91).

Demographic Covariates

Four covariates were extracted from the maternal demographic interview: (a) child sex (0 = female, 1 = male), (b) household income per capita, calculated as the ratio of total income relative to the number of individuals living in the home, (c) parent education, ranging from 1 (7th grade or less) to 7 (graduate degree), and (d) marital status (0 = not married, 1 = married).

Data Transparency

This study was not preregistered. Data are available at the Open Science Framework.

Results

Supplemental Table 1 provides the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the primary study variables. Data were missing completely at random, based on Little’s MCAR test, χ2(79) = 89.65, p = .19 (Little, 1988; Schlomer et al., 2010). Full information maximum likelihood (FIML) approaches provide accurate parameter estimates for all types of missing data when the amount of missing data is less than 20% (Schlomer et al., 2010). Given that 1.9% of the data in our sample were missing, we used FIML to retain the full sample for primary analyses. All primary analyses were conducted using AMOS 27.0 software (Arbuckle, 2020).

Primary Analyses

We examined interparental conflict (i.e., constructive, disengaged, hostile) and parenting (i.e., mothers’ and partners’ responsiveness, harshness, and vulnerability) dimensions as predictors of maternal reports of children’s coercive, caregiving, and cautious involvement in two successive multivariate path models. In the interparental conflict model, we specified three forms of conflict as predictors of each form of children’s involvement at Wave 2, and in the parenting model we specified three parenting behaviors each for mothers and partners as predictors of each form of children’s involvement at Wave 2. In each model, we specified four covariates (i.e., child sex, household income per capita, parent education, marital status) as predictors of children’s involvement. To predict variance not explainable by Wave 1 forms of involvement, we captured residualized change by estimating an autoregressive path between Wave 1 and Wave 2 forms of involvement. We specified correlations (a) between all exogenous variables and (b) between the residual errors of the forms of involvement. See Figure 1 for a conceptual depiction of the interparental conflict model. Standardized path coefficients for the two multivariate models are provided below and in Table 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Conceptual depiction of the path analysis models utilized for primary analyses. Specified correlations (a) between exogenous predictors and (b) between residual errors of endogenous variables are not illustrated for clarity. Solid arrows represent hypothesized paths. Dotted arrows represent autoregressive and covariate paths.

Table 1.

Standardized Path Coefficients for Structural Paths Across Models of Interparental Conflict and Parenting as Predictors of Children’s Involvement.

Structural Paths for Interparental Conflict and Parenting Predictors of Involvement Wave 2 Cautious Involvement Wave 2 Caregiving Involvement Wave 2 Coercive Involvement
Interparental Conflict Model
 Autoregressive Path .38** .44** .30**
 Child Sex −.08 −.01 .05
 Parental Education .23** .07 −.12
 Household Income Per Capita −.03 −.04 −.12
 Marital Status −.09 −.05 .03
 Constructive Conflict −.17 * −.11 .02
 Disengaged Conflict .11 .09 −.03
 Hostile Conflict −.04 −.02 .23 **
Parenting Model
 Autoregressive Path .42** .45** .34**
 Child Sex −.08 −.02 .06
 Parental Education .26** .05 −.17
 Household Income Per Capita −.04 −.06 −.10
 Marital Status −.09 −.08 .01
 Mother Responsiveness −.22 ** −.06 .14
 Partner Responsiveness .05 .02 −.04
 Mother Harshness .07 −.03 .02
 Partner Harshness −.01 −.00 −.09
 Mother Vulnerability −.05 .04 .21 **
 Partner Vulnerability −.00 −.10 −.02
Follow-Up Analyses by Individual Interparental Conflict and Parenting Predictors
 Model 1: Constructive Conflict
  Autoregressive Path .39** .44** .35**
  Child Sex −.08 −.01 .04
  Parental Education .22** .06 −.10
  Household Income Per Capita −.04 −.05 −.10
  Marital Status −.09 −.05 .04
  Constructive Conflict −.21 ** −.15 * −.12
 Model 2: Disengaged Conflict
  Autoregressive Path .38** .44** .35**
  Child Sex −.07 −.00 .05
  Parental Education .22** .06 −.11
  Household Income Per Capita −.03 −.04 −.09
  Marital Status −.12 −.07 .02
  Disengaged Conflict .19** .14 * .10
 Model 3: Hostile Conflict
  Autoregressive Path .38** .44** .30**
  Child Sex −.07 −.01 .05
  Parental Education .18* .04 −.11
  Household Income Per Capita −.06 −.06 −.11
  Marital Status −.11 −.06 .03
  Hostile Conflict .12 * .10 .21 **
 Model 4: Maternal Responsiveness
  Autoregressive Path .41** .46** .36**
  Child Sex −.09 −.01 .05
  Parental Education .26** .05 −.16
  Household Income Per Capita −.03 −.05 −.11
  Marital Status −.09 −.07 .01
  Maternal Responsiveness −.22 ** −.06 .07
 Model 5: Partner Responsiveness
  Autoregressive Path .41** .46** .37**
  Child Sex −.07 −.01 .04
  Parental Education .18* .03 −.13
  Household Income Per Capita −.05 −.06 −.10
  Marital Status −.13 −.09 .02
  Partner Responsiveness −.01 .04 −.00
 Model 6: Maternal Harshness
  Autoregressive Path .42** .46** .37**
  Child Sex −.07 −.01 .04
  Parental Education .21* .03 −.13
  Household Income Per Capita −.05 −.06 −.10
  Marital Status −.10 −.08 .03
  Maternal Harshness .13 −.01 .02
 Model 7: Partner Harshness
  Autoregressive Path .41** .46** .37**
  Child Sex −.07 −.01 .04
  Parental Education .18* .03 −.15
  Household Income Per Capita −.05 −.06 −.11
  Marital Status −.13 −.08 .02
  Partner Harshness .01 −.01 −.06
 Model 8: Maternal Vulnerability
  Autoregressive Path .41** .46** .36**
  Child Sex −.07 −.01 .04
  Parental Education .18* .04 −.11
  Household Income Per Capita −.05 −.05 −.08
  Marital Status −.13 −.08 .02
  Maternal Vulnerability .01 .05 .18 **
 Model 9: Partner Vulnerability
  Autoregressive Path .41** .45** .37**
  Child Sex −.07 −.01 .04
  Parental Education .18* .03 −.13
  Household Income Per Capita −.05 −.07 −.11
  Marital Status −.13 −.08 .02
  Partner Vulnerability −.01 −.11 −.02
Open in a new tab

Note: For clarity, significant structural paths between interparental and parental characteristics and forms of involvement have been bolded.

*

p ≤ .05

**

p < .01.

Interparental Conflict

The resulting model had excellent fit, χ2 (6) = 1.83, p = .94, RMSEA = .00, CFI = 1.00, and χ2/df ratio = .31. Accounting for covariates and other forms of conflict: (a) Wave 1 constructive forms of conflict uniquely predicted residualized change in Wave 2 cautious involvement, β = −.17, p = .05, and (b) Wave 1 hostile forms of interparental conflict uniquely predicted residualized change in Wave 2 coercive involvement, β = .23, p = .01. Wave 1 forms of interparental conflict did not predict Wave 2 caregiving involvement.

Parenting

The model fit the data well, χ2 (6) = 8.66, p = .19, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .99, and χ2/df ratio = 1.44. Accounting for covariates and other forms of mothers’ and partner’s parenting: (a) Wave 1 maternal responsiveness uniquely predicted residualized change in Wave 2 cautious involvement, β = −.22, p = .01, and (b) Wave 1 maternal vulnerability uniquely predicted residualized change in Wave 2 coercive involvement, β = .21, p < .001. Wave 1 forms of parenting did not predict Wave 2 caregiving involvement.

Follow-Up Analyses

At this early stage of research, the conservative nature of our additive effects analyses may dilute the identification of antecedents of involvement due to shared variance. Consequently, we conducted a series of follow-up path analyses that individually examined each form of interparental conflict and parenting as a predictor of maternal reports of children’s coercive, caregiving, and cautious involvement in nine successive models. Consistent with the multivariate models, we specified child sex, household income per capita, parent education, and marital status as covariates and estimated residualized change in maternal reports of children’s involvement. We specified correlations (a) between all exogenous variables and (b) between the residual errors of the forms of involvement. The nine successive path analysis models examining interparental conflict and parenting predictors of children’s involvement in interparental conflict provided a good representation of the data (see Supplemental Table 2). Standardized path coefficients across the nine successive path models are provided below and in Table 1.

Interparental Conflict

After controlling for covariates: (a) Wave 1 constructive forms of interparental conflict predicted residualized change in Wave 2 cautious, β = −.21, p < .001, and caregiving, β = −.15, p = .02, involvement, (b) Wave 1 disengaged forms of conflict predicted residualized change in Wave 2 cautious, β = .19, p = .003, and caregiving, β = .14, p = .02, involvement, and (c) Wave 1 hostile forms of interparental conflict predicted residualized change in Wave 2 coercive, β = .21, p = .001, and cautious, β = .12, p = .04, involvement.

Parenting

After controlling for covariates: (a) Wave 1 maternal responsiveness predicted residualized change in Wave 2 cautious involvement, β = −.22, p = .002, and (b) Wave 1 maternal vulnerability predicted residualized change in Wave 2 coercive involvement, β = .18, p = .004. Wave 1 maternal harshness and partners’ parenting did not predict Wave 2 involvement.

Discussion

Although research has shown that coercive, caregiving, and cautious forms of involvement in interparental conflict have a unique set of developmental sequelae, little is known about the precursors to each form of involvement. Studies have found that disengaged, hostile, and constructive forms of conflict and parental responsiveness, harshness, and vulnerability are important predictors of unidimensional assessments of children’s involvement and their response processes (i.e., hostile and fearful reactivity) central to the three forms of involvement. However, it remains unclear how dimensions of interparental conflict and parenting behaviors map onto the three forms of involvement. To address this gap, our multi-method, multi-informant study examined associations between different dimensions of interparental conflict and parenting and maternal reports of three forms of children’s involvement in interparental conflict one year later. Multivariate analyses provided support for specificity in links between interparental conflict and parenting antecedents and children’s involvement. For instance, in the interparental conflict model, hostile conflict uniquely predicted children’s coercive involvement and in the parenting model maternal vulnerability uniquely predicted children’s coercive involvement. Follow-up analyses provided evidence for multifinality with some family antecedents (e.g., constructive conflict) predicting more than one form of involvement (e.g., cautious and caregiving).

Findings from multivariate and follow-up analyses revealed that hostile conflict and maternal vulnerability each significantly predicted children’s coercive involvement. In line with emotional security theory, family environments characterized by interparental hostility and parental vulnerability are proposed to engender children’s hostile reactivity patterns (Davies & Martin, 2013; Davies & Sturge-Apple, 2007). Interparental hostility is proposed to present a threat or challenge to children’s acquisition of power that over time may result in children’s internal scripts for behavioral strategies related to achieving power (Johnson et al., 2012; Davies & Martin, 2013). Thus, children’s coercive and controlling strategies for regulating interparental conflict may reflect children’s attempts to gain or maintain power in the family. Furthermore, parental vulnerability is posited to reflect a weakness in the family power hierarchy, which is proposed to intensify children’s tendency to blunt vulnerable emotions and downplay the emotional significance of family relationships engendering children’s callous, domineering, and coercive behaviors (Davies & Martin, 2013; Davies & Sturge-Apple, 2007). Although some theories (i.e., role-confusion) hypothesize that parental indices of vulnerability may be more salient predictors of children’s caregiving behaviors (Lyons-Ruth et al., 2002), our findings are consistent with emotional security frameworks (Davies & Martin, 2013; Davies & Sturge-Apple, 2007), which suggest that children may perceive parental vulnerability as an opportunity to more easily and successfully enact controlling strategies to regulate family events. Thus, as a potential avenue for achieving power in family dynamics, children may engage in coercive involvement strategies in response to hostile conflict and parental vulnerability.

An alternative explanation rooted in social learning theory is that vicarious and enactive learning processes may increase children’s coercive involvement (Eron et al., 1991). With respect to vicarious learning processes, children’s increases in coercive involvement following exposure to interparental hostility may reflect their modeling of antagonistic behaviors displayed by parents (Cox et al., 2001). As a complementary process, the enactive learning component of social learning theory posits that hostile patterns of responding to interparental conflict may intensify through negative reinforcement contingencies (Cox et al., 2001; Patterson, 1982). More specifically, children may be more likely to enact coercive behaviors in subsequent conflicts because they serve to distract parents and reduce their exposure to the aversive conflicts (Cox et al., 2001; Patterson, 1982). Thus, from this perspective, primary caregivers who are more submissive and vulnerable in child-rearing practices may be more likely to become distracted from their conflicts with partners and negatively reinforce children’s coercive behaviors.

Multivariate models revealed that low levels of constructive conflict and maternal responsiveness were associated with higher levels of children’s cautious involvement, and follow-up analyses further revealed that disengaged and hostile forms of conflict may be important predictors of children’s cautious involvement. According to emotional security frameworks, children’s reactivity patterns characterized by fear, reticence, and inhibition emerge in the context of interparental hostility and little or no displays of support or responsiveness (Davies & Martin, 2013). Highly agonic family environments with no source of solace are proposed to trigger children’s camouflaging, reticent, and inhibited behaviors (Davies & Martin, 2013; Davies & Sturge-Apple, 2007). These behaviors may reduce children’s salience as targets of threatening caregiving behaviors by masking overt signs of distress and suppressing motivations to acquire resources in threatening contexts. Extended to children’s involvement in interparental conflict, high levels of interparental hostility and minimal levels of interparental support and parental responsiveness may possibly engender children’s underlying fear and inhibition increasing children’s reticent and guarded forms of involvement.

In line with family systems theory, results from follow-up univariate analyses revealed that disengaged and constructive conflict significantly predicted children’s caregiving involvement. Family systems theory suggests that family environments characterized by unsupportive and disengaged interparental conflict underpin children’s caregiving behaviors in the broader family context (Byng-Hall, 2002; Macfie et al., 2008). Unsupportive and disengaged interparental relationships are proposed to signify parents’ emotional unavailability and preoccupation with unresolved emotional issues in the interparental subsystem making it difficult for parents to nurture children (Byng-Hall, 2002). To increase their proximity to parents and opportunities to receive support, children may adopt caretaking roles to fulfill parents’ unmet needs and preserve a sense of security in family relationships before tension escalates (Byng-Hall, 2002; Macfie et al., 2008). Therefore, unsupportive and disengaged interparental conflict may promote children’s preoccupation with the interparental subsystem and increase their caregiving involvement in interparental conflict.

Our findings indicated that mothers’ parenting characteristics were more consistent predictors of children’s involvement than partners’ parenting characteristics; however, more research is needed before ruling out partners’ parenting as a salient precursor of forms of children’s involvement in interparental conflict. Research suggests that mothers and fathers play distinct, yet complementary roles in children’s socialization experiences (Yaffe, 2020). Thus, one possibility is that the power to detect effects for partners’ parenting characteristics is a function of mothers’ gatekeeping behaviors that can potentiate partners’ parenting efficacy through “gate opening” behaviors or, alternatively, dampen partners’ involvement in parenting through “gate closing” behaviors (Schoppe‐Sullivan et al., 2015). Maternal gatekeeping behaviors may be amplified in triadic interaction tasks that are inherently designed to capture multiple dyadic as well as triadic processes allowing less time for interaction between individual dyads and allowing the behaviors of one individual to alter the quality of the interaction for the remaining dyad (Szabó et al., 2011). Thus, incorporating dyadic interaction tasks in future research may more sufficiently capture partners’ parenting behaviors in the absence of mothers.

Several study limitations must be considered. First, despite our recruitment of a relatively racially and socioeconomically diverse sample, it is unclear how the findings of this study will generalize to other samples (e.g., clinical). Second, the goal of the current study was to provide a first step in identifying a set of promising antecedents of children’s involvement in interparental conflict; however, the antecedents examined in the current study were neither exhaustive nor definitive. Null findings for caregiving involvement in multivariate models may indicate a need to further explore more specific forms of interparental conflict or parenting (e.g., intrusiveness), or alternative classes of antecedents (e.g., parental psychopathology). Furthermore, the multivariate interparental conflict model revealed several null findings for cautious and caregiving involvement that were significant in follow-up univariate analyses. This pattern of results suggests that cautious and caregiving involvement may be predicted by shared variance between forms of conflict that is diluted in additive effects models. Future work may benefit from utilizing pattern-based analyses (e.g., latent profile analysis) to identify whether higher order profiles of interparental conflict or parenting are precursors of forms of involvement. As a complementary approach, another critical next step is to characterize the multiplicative interplay among the key antecedents delineated in this paper. In underscoring the value of examining moderation analyses, children may be disproportionately more likely to adopt cautious forms of involvement when faced with interparental conflict that is low in constructive properties and high in hostility. Fourth, because assessment batteries do not include partner report, we cannot rule out the possibility that the null associations between partners’ parenting and children’s involvement may be due to our use of maternal interview assessments of involvement. Lastly, although there are advantages to semi-structured interviews, future research should include additional methods (i.e., questionnaire, observational) for assessing forms of involvement.

This study provides the first test of the family antecedents of children’s coercive, cautious, and caregiving involvement in interparental conflict. Although previous research highlights the distinct developmental implications of the three forms of involvement, little is known about the developmental antecedents that give rise to them. Building on previous research that has identified disengaged, hostile, and constructive forms of conflict and parental harshness, vulnerability, and responsiveness as important predictors of children’s global involvement and emotional reactivity, we identified patterns of associations among dimensions of interparental conflict and parenting behaviors and maternal reports of children’s coercive, cautious, and caregiving involvement. At a translational level, identifying family precursors of children’s involvement may help to identify children most in need of prevention and early intervention programs and aid the development of clinical tools and targets that interrupt the cascade of processes that increase the three forms of involvement and their subsequent mental health problems. For instance, our findings revealed that higher levels of constructive conflict and maternal responsiveness were associated with decreases in children’s caregiving and cautious involvement. Implementing interventions and parenting programs designed to teach problem-solving and communication skills (e.g., Goodman et al., 2004) and facilitate responsive parenting behaviors (e.g., Landry et al., 2008) may reduce children’s caregiving and cautious involvement strategies and, ultimately, their subsequent anxiety and social withdrawal problems (Thompson et al., 2021). These early empirical tests are a critical first step in the refinement of a formal process-oriented theory examining the multivariate interplay of children’s early socialization experiences, involvement in interparental conflict, and subsequent mental health outcomes.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Material 1
Supplemental Material 2

Acknowledgments

This study was conducted at the Mt. Hope Family Center and supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD065425) awarded to Patrick T. Davies and Melissa L. Sturge-Apple. We would also like to thank Mike Ripple and the Mt. Hope Family Center Staff and the families who participated in the research.

Footnotes

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

This study was not preregistered and data have been made publicly available at the Open Science Framework and can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RH2QJ. The ideas and data presented in this manuscript have not previously been disseminated.

References

  1. Arbuckle JL (2020). AMOS (Version 27.0) [Computer Program] Chicago, IL: IBM SPSS. [Google Scholar]
  2. Braun V, & Clarke V (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Braun V, & Clarke V (2012). Thematic analysis. In Cooper H, Camic PM, Long DL, Panter AT, Rindskopf D, & Sher KJ (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, (Vol. 2, pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/13620-004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Buehler C, & Welsh DP (2009). A process model of adolescents’ triangulation into parents’ marital conflict: The role of emotional reactivity. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(2), 167–180. 10.1037/a0014976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Byng-Hall J (2002). Relieving parentified children’s burdens in families with insecure attachment patterns. Family Process, 41(3), 375–388. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41307.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cabrera NJ, Volling BL, & Barr R (2018). Fathers are parents, too! Widening the lens on parenting for children’s development. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 152–157. 10.1111/cdep.12275 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cicchetti D, & Cohen DJ (1995). Perspectives on developmental psychopathology. In Cicchetti D & Cohen DJ (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (Vol. 1, pp. 3–20). John Wiley & Sons Inc. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cicchetti D, & Rogosch FA (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8(4), 597–600. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, & Aiken LS (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cox MJ, Paley B, & Harter K (2001). Interparental conflict and parent–child relationships. In Grych JH & Fincham FD (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 249–272). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cummings EM, & Davies P (2010). Marital conflict and children: An emotional security perspective Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cummings EM, Schermerhorn AC, Davies PT, Goeke-Morey MC, & Cummings JS (2006). Interparental discord and child adjustment: Prospective investigations of emotional security as an explanatory mechanism. Child Development, 77(1), 132–152. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00861.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Davies PT, Cicchetti D, & Martin MJ (2012). Toward greater specificity in identifying associations among interparental aggression, child emotional reactivity to conflict, and child problems. Child Development, 83(5), 1789–1804. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01804.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Davies PT, & Cummings EM (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 387–411. 10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.387 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Davies PT, & Forman EM (2002). Children’s patterns of preserving emotional security in the interparental subsystem. Child Development, 73(6), 1880–1903. 10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00512 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Davies PT, Harold GT, Goeke-Morey MC, Cummings EM, Shelton K, & Rasi JA (2002). Child emotional security and interparental conflict. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(3), i–127. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Davies PT, Hentges RF, Coe JL, Martin MJ, Sturge-Apple ML, & Cummings EM (2016). The multiple faces of interparental conflict: Implications for cascades of children’s insecurity and externalizing problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(5), 664–678. 10.1037/abn0000170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Davies PT, & Martin MJ (2013). The reformulation of emotional security theory: The role of children’s social defense in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4 Pt 2), 1435–1454. doi: 10.1017/S0954579413000709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Davies PT, & Sturge-Apple ML (2007). Advances in the formulation of emotional security theory: An ethologically-based perspective. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 35, 87–137. 10.1016/B978-0-12-009735-7.50008-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Davies PT, Sturge-Apple ML, Cicchetti D, Manning LG, & Zale E (2009). Children’s patterns of emotional reactivity to conflict as explanatory mechanisms in links between interpartner aggression and child physiological functioning. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(11), 1384–1391. 10.1111/j.1469 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Davies PT, Thompson MJ, Coe JL, & Sturge-Apple ML (in press). Maternal and paternal unsupportive parenting and children’s externalizing symptoms: The mediational role of children’s attention biases to negative emotion. Development and Psychopathology [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Eron LD, Huesmann LR, & Zelli A (1991). The role of parental variables in the learning of aggression. In Pepler DJ & Rubin KH (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 169–188). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fiese BH, & Spagnola M (2005). Narratives in and About Families: An Examination of Coding Schemes and a Guide for Family Researchers. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(1), 51–61. 10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.51 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fosco GM, & Grych JH (2010). Adolescent triangulation into parental conflicts: Longitudinal implications for appraisals and adolescent-parent relations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(2), 254–266. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00697.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Fosco GM, Lippold M, & Feinberg ME (2014). Interparental boundary problems, parent-adolescent hostility, and adolescent-parent hostility: A family process model for adolescent aggression problems. Couple and Family Psychology, 3(3), 141–155. 10.1037/cfp0000025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Fosco GM, Xia M, Lynn MG, & Grych JH (2016). Triangulation and parent-adolescent relationships: Implications for adolescent dating competence and abuse. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(3), 524–537. 10.1111/jora.12210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Franck KL, & Buehler C (2007). A family process model of marital hostility, parental depressive affect, and early adolescent problem behavior: The roles of triangulation and parental warmth. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 614–625. 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. George MW, Fairchild AJ, Mark Cummings E, & Davies PT (2014). Marital conflict in early childhood and adolescent disordered eating: Emotional insecurity about the marital relationship as an explanatory mechanism. Eating Behaviors: An International Journal, 15(4), 532–539. 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2014.06.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Goodman M, Bonds D, Sandler I, & Braver S (2004). Parent psychoeducational programs and reducing the negative effects of interparental conflict following divorce. Family Court Review, 42(2), 263–279. 10.1111/j.174-1617.2004.tb00648.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gordis EB, Margolin G, & John RS (2001). Parents’ hostility in dyadic marital and triadic family settings and children’s behavior problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(4), 727–734. 10.1037/0022-006X.69.4.727 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Grych JH (2002). Marital relationships and parenting. In Bornstein MH (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 4, pp. 203–225). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hentges RF, Davies PT, & Cicchetti D (2015). Temperament and interparental conflict: The role of negative emotionality in predicting child behavioral problems. Child Development, 86(5), 1333–1350. 10.1111/cdev.12389 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Johnson SL, Leedom LJ, & Muhtadie L (2012). The dominance behavioral system and psychopathology: Evidence from self-report, observational, and biological studies. Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 692–743. 10.1037/a0027503 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Keller PS, Cummings EM, Davies PT, & Lubke G (2007). Children’s behavioural reactions to marital conflict as a function of parents’ conflict behaviours and alcohol problems. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4(2), 157–177. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kerig PK (1996). Assessing the links between interparental conflict and child adjustment: The conflicts and problem-solving scales. Journal of Family Psychology, 10(4), 454–473. 10.1037/0893-3200.10.4.454 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kerig PK (2016). Family systems from a developmental psychopathology perspective. In Cicchetti D (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 580–630). John Wiley & Sons Inc. [Google Scholar]
  37. Koss KJ, George MRW, Bergman KN, Cummings EM, Davies PT, & Cicchetti D (2011). Understanding children’s emotional processes and behavioral strategies in the context of marital conflict. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(3), 336–352. 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Landry SH, Smith KE, Swank PR, & Guttentag C (2008). A responsive parenting intervention: The optimal timing across early childhood for impacting maternal behaviors and child outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1335–1353. 10.1037/a0013030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Little RJA (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lyons-Ruth K, Lyubchik A, Wolfe R, & Bronfman E (2002). Parental depression and child attachment: Hostile and helpless profiles of parent and child behavior among families at risk. In Children of depressed parents: Mechanisms of risk and implications for treatment (pp. 89–120). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/10449-004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Macfie J, Brumariu LE, & Lyons-Ruth K (2015). Parent–child role-confusion: A critical review of an emerging concept. Developmental Review, 36, 34–57. 10.1016/j.dr.2015.01.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Macfie J, Houts RM, Pressel AS, & Cox MJ (2008). Pathways from infant exposure to marital conflict to parent-toddler role reversal. Infant Mental Health Journal, 29(4), 297–319. 10.1002/imhj.20181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Malik NM, & Lindahl KM (2004). System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID). In Kerig PK & Baucom DH (Eds.), Couple observational coding systems (pp. 173–188). Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410610843 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Melby JN, & Conger RD (2001). The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales: Instrument summary. In Kerig PK & Lindahl KM (Eds.), Family observational coding systems: Resources for systemic research (p. 33–58). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  45. Moss E, Cyr C, Bureau J, Tarabulsy GM, & Dubois-Comtois K (2005). Stability of attachment during the preschool period. Developmental Psychology, 41(5), 773–783. 10.1037/0012-1649.41.5.773 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Patterson GR (1982). Coercive family process Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  47. Repetti RL, Robles TF, & Reynolds B (2011). Allostatic processes in the family. Development and Psychopathology, 23(3), 921–938. 10.1017/S095457941100040X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Rhoades KA (2008). Children’s responses to interparental conflict: A meta-analysis of their associations with child adjustment. Child Development, 79(6), 1942–1956. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01235.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Schlomer GL, Bauman S, & Card NA (2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 1–10. 10.1037/a0018082 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. 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. 10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.526 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, & Sugarman DB (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. 10.1177/019251396017003001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Szabó N, Dubas JS, Karreman A, van Tuijl C, Deković M, & van Aken MA (2011). Understanding human biparental care: does partner presence matter? Early Child Development and Care, 181(5), 639–647. 10.1080/03004431003717631 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Thompson MJ, Davies PT, Hentges RF, & Sturge-Apple ML (2021). Delineating the developmental sequelae of children’s risky involvement in interparental conflict. Development and Psychopathology 10.1017/S0954579420001959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  54. Westerman MA (2001) Measuring triadic coordination in mother-father-child interactions. In Kerig PK Lindahl KM (Eds.), Family observational coding systems: Resources for systemic research (pp. 243–257). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  55. Yaffe Y (2020). Systematic review of the differences between mothers and fathers in parenting styles and practices. Current Psychology 10.1007/s12144-020-01014-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Material 1
NIHMS1847574-supplement-Supplemental_Material_1.pdf (88.4KB, pdf)
Supplemental Material 2
NIHMS1847574-supplement-Supplemental_Material_2.pdf (73.4KB, pdf)

RESOURCES