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. 2022 May 19;36(7):1132–1141. doi: 10.1037/fam0001002

The Interplay Between Father-Adolescent Phenotypic Resemblance and Interparental Conflict in Predicting Harsh Discipline

Cory R Platts 1, Melissa L Sturge-Apple 1, Patrick T Davies 1, Meredith J Martin 2
PMCID: PMC9724236  NIHMSID: NIHMS1847858  PMID: 35587887

Abstract

Phenotypic resemblance refers to the degree of physical and behavioral similarity between parent and child. Evolutionary approaches to the determinants of parenting have consistently found father-child phenotypic resemblance to serve as a risk factor for harsh discipline, but we still know little about the mechanisms underlying these associations. To address this gap in the literature, the present study employed a mediated moderation model to understand how interparental conflict and dysfunctional child-oriented attributions for children’s misbehavior can help explain associations between father-child phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline during the period of adolescence. Participants included 151 parents of adolescents (Mage = 12.3, range = 12–14) recruited from a Northeastern region in the United States. Fathers reported on father-child phenotypic resemblance, interparental conflict, dysfunctional child-oriented attributions, and harsh discipline. Structural equation modeling analyses revealed a significant moderating role of interparental conflict in amplifying associations between phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline in a for-better-and-for-worse manner over a one-year period. In support of mediated moderation, we further found that the interaction between phenotypic resemblance and interparental conflict in predicting harsh discipline was partially accounted for by increases in dysfunctional child-oriented attributions over a one-year period, which in turn, was associated with harsh discipline concurrently. Findings are discussed within evolutionary and developmental frameworks.

Keywords: fathers, phenotypic resemblance, harsh discipline, attributions, adolescence

Harsh discipline characterized by overt hostility and physical punishment has been linked to adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors (e.g., Hinnant et al., 2015; Pinquart, 2017). Given these links, extensive research from a social-contextual perspective has sought to identify the multitude of risk factors that give rise to parental harsh discipline (e.g., Belsky & Jaffee, 2006). However, a reliance on the examination of maternal parenting practices has hampered our understanding of the unique determinants of paternal harsh discipline. This gap is notable as prior research has not only identified risk factors for harsh discipline that operate similarly across parent sex (e.g., Jansen et al., 2012) but others that are unique to fathers (e.g., Sturge-Apple et al., 2020). An evolutionary approach to the determinants of parenting may offer additional insights into the sources of risk associated with harsh discipline for fathers by recognizing the evolutionary pressures that shape parental caregiving operate differently across the sexes. For example, viewing parenting through an evolutionary lens has revealed phenotypic resemblance – defined as physical and behavioral similarity between parent and child – as a consistent and unique predictor of harsh discipline among fathers (e.g., Burch & Gallup, 2000) but not mothers (e.g., Li & Chang, 2017).

Despite this, the mechanisms supporting associations between phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline remain unclear. Moreover, little work has conceptualized these processes during the period of adolescence when children experience puberty and exhibit changes in physical and behavioral phenotypes which can impact their resemblance to parents. The present study addressed these gaps in the literature by examining the moderating and intervening processes that help to explain why father-child phenotypic resemblance is associated with harsh discipline during the period of early adolescence. In particular, we examined interparental conflict as a moderator of associations between father-child phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline given the importance of the interparental relationship in providing a context for the development of sensitive paternal care (e.g., Geary, 2016). Furthermore, we explored dysfunctional child-oriented attributions regarding adolescent misbehavior as an intervening mechanism accounting for the moderating role of interparental conflict on associations between phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline.

Phenotypic Resemblance and Harsh Discipline

Developmental conceptualizations of the determinants of parenting rooted in a social-contextual perspective have identified characteristics of the child (e.g., difficult temperament) as a proximal domain of influence in explaining individual differences in dysfunctional parenting behaviors (Belsky, 1984; Belsky & Jaffee, 2006). Evolutionary approaches to the determinants of parenting offer an alternative, yet complementary, perspective by providing greater specificity into the risk factors for dysfunctional parenting unique to fathers. Specifically, parental investment theory posits parents should preferentially allocate time and resources (i.e., parenting) to biological offspring in order to maximize reproductive fitness – defined as the ability to propagate one’s genes to future generations (Trivers, 1972). Although mothers are assured of maternity due to internal gestation, fathers have greater difficulty in ascertaining paternity due to the risk of cuckoldry where a father unknowingly provides care to offspring conceived outside the interparental relationship. As a result, it is proposed that fathers have evolved a relatively “automatic” sensitivity towards cues of phenotypic resemblance as a means to estimate biological relatedness (Daly & Wilson, 1998). Phenotypic resemblance refers to the physical (e.g., facial features, height, etc.) and behavioral (e.g., behavioral tendencies, emotionality, etc.) characteristics of the child that serve as potential markers of underlying genetic relatedness to the parent. Consequently, the fewer physical and behavioral resemblance cues perceived in putative offspring, the less certain fathers can be of biological relatedness.

Research examining links between father-child phenotypic resemblance and paternal investment is extensive in providing support for father-child phenotypic resemblance as a proximal determinant of paternal caregiving (for a review, see Franklin & Volk, 2018). Moreover, a relatively consistent finding in the literature has been associations between father-child phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline (e.g., Burch & Gallup, 2020). For example, Li and Chang (2007) found that fathers of pre-school aged children ascribing physical resemblance to the mother were more likely to utilize harsher discipline. Burch and Gallup (2000) had fathers retrospectively rate the degree of physical resemblance between themselves and their own fathers and found that less similarity was associated with more physical punishment as a child. Lastly, numerous studies have shown that stepparents, who can be absolutely sure of biological unrelatedness, tend to exhibit harsh discipline and abuse towards non-biological children (e.g., Radhakrishna et al., 2001). Overall, the research suggests that a lack of phenotypic resemblance is associated with a divestment in caregiving as reflected by harsher parenting practices.

What remains to be seen is whether phenotypic resemblance remains a proximal determinant of harsh discipline during adolescence. This gap is notable as adolescence is characterized by the onset of puberty when children begin to develop adult-like traits that better approximate the physical and behavioral characteristics of their parents (Kazem et al., 2018). This suggests that adolescence may be a period when cues of phenotypic resemblance become increasingly salient to fathers. Consistent with this, a study by Bressan and Dal Pos (2012) had a sample of fathers and non-fathers match children’s faces across several age groups to their biological parents. Their findings revealed that fathers, more so than non-fathers, were better able to discriminate between biological and non-biological offspring as children aged with effects most pronounced during adolescence. Despite this finding, the only study to date to examine associations between father-child phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline during adolescence found that resemblance was associated with sensitive parenting but not harsh discipline (Yu et al., 2019). However, this result may be misleading as fathers’ reports of phenotypic resemblance were averaged across all children in the household and were not specific to a particular child. The present study addressed this gap in the literature by examining whether father-child phenotypic resemblance toward a particular target child was associated with harsh discipline during the period of early adolescence.

The Moderating Role of Interparental Conflict

Both social-contextual and evolutionary accounts of the determinants of parenting share the premise that parenting is multiply determined (e.g., Belsky, 1984; Cabeza de Baca et al., 2012). Therefore, additional factors beyond the father’s ability to detect biological relatedness based on physical and behavioral cues may be operating to amplify or attenuate associations between phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline. In particular, the interparental relationship is regarded as a primary source of support in promoting adaptive caregiving (Belsky, 1984). An evolutionary perspective further underscores the importance of this relationship by suggesting the pair-bond between mother and father serves as an impetus for the elicitation and maintenance of paternal investment in biological offspring (e.g., Geary, 2016; Hrdy, 2008). However, disruptions to this pair-bond, such as those posed by interparental conflict, can undermine paternal care by compromising the capacity for fathers to respond to stressful child-rearing contexts with sensitive and responsive parenting (e.g., Davies et al., 2009). For example, extensive research has shown that destructive interparental conflict, a significant risk factor for marital dissolution (e.g., Birditt et al., 2010), amplifies harsh parenting practices with these effects most pronounced for fathers (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). Thus, it may be that destructive interparental conflict serves as a vulnerability factor in moderating associations between phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline by eroding the foundations of the interparental pair-bond which serves to maintain sensitive paternal care.

To date, no attempts have been made to understand how interparental conflict moderates associations between phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline. Despite this, research in the broader parenting literature suggests that the influence of child-based characteristics on parenting becomes amplified under contexts of heightened marital discord (Reiss, 1995). For instance, Ulbricht and colleagues (2013) investigated the interplay between marital conflict and child-based genetic effects on parental negativity during adolescence. Findings revealed that fathers were especially vulnerable to the effects of marital conflict such that conflict amplified associations between nonshared environmental effects and father’s negative parenting behaviors. In interpreting this finding, the authors speculate that nonshared environmental effects could reflect a lack of physical similarity between father and child to which fathers become sensitized under contexts of heightened marital discord. This may suggest that disruptions to the interparental relationship amplify perceptions of aversive child characteristics (i.e., a lack of phenotypic resemblance) which leads to dysfunctional parenting. We tested this hypothesis by examining whether interparental conflict served as a vulnerability factor amplifying associations between father-child phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline over a one-year period.

Mediated Moderation: The Role of Dysfunctional Attributions

The examination of the moderating role of interparental conflict is only a first step in understanding why phenotypic resemblance confers risk of engagement in harsher discipline. To better elucidate the mechanisms underlying these associations, we further explored dysfunctional attributions for children’s misbehavior as an intermediary mechanism accounting for the interaction between interparental conflict and phenotypic resemblance on harsh discipline. According to cognitive models of parenting, the manifestation of harsh discipline is a product of various social cognitive processes (Azar et al., 2008). In particular, parental attributions for children’s misbehavior have been identified as an explanatory process underlying dysfunctional parenting behaviors (e.g., Sturge-Apple et al., 2020). Attributions reflect the causal inferences parents make about children’s misbehavior, and these attributions influence how parents respond to such events (Bugental & Corpuz, 2019). Attributions characterized by the belief that children’s misbehavior is an intentional act and under a high degree of control have been referred to as “dysfunctional child-oriented attributions” and are linked to the greater use of overreactive and punitive discipline (e.g., Leung & Slep, 2006; Slep & O’Leary, 1998).

Although previous research has demonstrated links between dysfunctional child-oriented attributions and harsh discipline, associations between phenotypic resemblance and dysfunctional child-oriented attributions remain unexamined. Despite this, there is preliminary evidence to suggest associations. First, a large body of experimental work has shown that the experimental manipulation of child faces to resemble the faces of adult participants leads to increases in social cognitive attributions such as attractiveness and trustworthiness and decreases in resentment (for a review, see DeBruine et al., 2008). Of direct relevance to the present investigation, a study by Platek and colleagues (2002) found that adult men were less likely to attribute self-resembling children as deserving of punishment in a hypothetical discipline scenario. Second, research with stepparents, who are absolutely sure of biological unrelatedness, has found that stepparents are more likely to blame stepchildren for transgressions and attribute such transgressions as an act of intention and under a high degree of control (Stratton, 2003). Taken together, these findings point towards possible associations between father-child phenotypic resemblance and dysfunctional child-oriented attributions. Moreover, interparental conflict may amplify these associations. For instance, Fincham & Grych (1991) found that couples experiencing marital difficulties were more likely to rate children’s misbehavior as global (i.e., overly influential in affecting family life) compared to spouses not currently experiencing marital distress. Therefore, fathers experiencing heightened levels of marital discord may be less sensitive to children’s developmental capabilities and rely on parent-centered interpretations of children’s misbehavior (Fincham & Grych, 1991).

The exploration of dysfunctional child-oriented attributions as an intermediary mechanism is also based on previous research suggesting that parents perceive children as having more volitional control over their own behavior during adolescence (e.g., Sturge-Apple et al., 2020). For instance, Dix and colleagues (1986) examined dysfunctional child-oriented attributions for children’s misbehavior across three developmental periods. It was found that parents were more likely to attribute children’s misbehavior to stable personality characteristics and as an intentional act of defiance during adolescence compared to earlier developmental periods. Accordingly, adolescence may be a period when attributional associations become increasingly prevalent as parents expect adolescents to be more accountable for their behavior. Coupled with prior work demonstrating the effects of dysfunctional attributions on harsh discipline, these combinations of findings highlight the plausibility that interparental conflict amplifies associations between phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline by fostering dysfunctional attributions when inferring the reasoning for adolescent misbehavior.

The Present Study

To summarize, the present study utilized an evolutionary approach to the determinants of parenting to better understand how fathers’ perceptions of phenotypic resemblance, interparental conflict, and dysfunctional child-oriented attributions are associated with harsh discipline during adolescence. To do so, we first examined whether interparental conflict moderated associations between father-child phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline by making resemblance cues more salient. We hypothesized that lower levels of phenotypic resemblance would be associated with harsher discipline over a one-year period only for fathers experiencing high levels of interparental conflict. Next, we explored dysfunctional child-oriented attributions as an intervening process underlying the moderating effect of interparental conflict and phenotypic resemblance on harsh discipline. We also included several covariates in our analyses to provide a more rigorous test of our hypotheses. First, we included father-adolescent attachment security as phenotypic resemblance during adolescence may simply reflect individual differences in attachment representations consolidated over prior developmental periods. Second, father involvement in childcare duties was included as previous work has shown that more involved fathers tend to perceive greater phenotypic resemblance in children (Volk et al., 2010). Third, adolescent pubertal development was included to control for individual differences in pubertal maturation. Lastly, we controlled for parental age and cohabitation length as these characteristics of the interparental relationship can impact parenting quality (e.g., Cabeza de Baca et al., 2012).

Methods

Participants

Participants included 151 families recruited from a city in the Northeastern United States as part of a broader study examining aspects of the parent-adolescent relationship. Inclusionary criteria included: (1) having an adolescent between the ages of 12 and 14; (2) the target adolescent and two parental figures had been living together for at least three years prior to participation; (3) at least one parental figure was the biological parent of the adolescent; (4) all participants were fluent in English; (5) the target adolescent had no significant cognitive impairments; and (6) both parents were biological parents. Sample size was determined by adequate power to detect effects. Families participated in two waves of data collection spaced approximately one-year apart. At Wave 1, fathers averaged 45.3 years of age (SD = 5.85) and mothers averaged 42.8 years of age (SD = 5.42). Adolescents averaged 12.3 years of age (SD = 0.50) and girls comprised 46.4% (N = 70) of the sample. Median household income ranged from $75,000 to $99,999 and families largely identified themselves as White (82.1%) or Black (13.2%) and some identified as being of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (6.6%).

Procedures

At each wave of data collection, two parental figures and their adolescent visited the laboratory for a single, 3-hour visit. The lab included comfortable rooms for participants to complete surveys. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Rochester (Protocol RSRB00030791; Title: Family Relationships in Early Adolescence) and parents provided consent. Families received monetary payment for their participation.

Measures

Father-Child Phenotypic Resemblance

At Wave 1, fathers completed the Phenotypic Resemblance Questionnaire (PRQ; Martin & Sturge-Apple, 2012). The PRQ is a self-report measure of perceived parent-child phenotypic resemblance consisting of six items that reflect physical and behavioral resemblance. The items include: “How much does your teen look like you?”, “How much does your teen act like you?”, “To what degree does your teen express his/her emotions like you?”, “To what degree does your teen share the same likes and interests as you?”, “Overall, how much do you think your teen resembles you?”, and “Compared to your teen’s mother, is your teen more or less like you?”. Fathers rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). To determine whether the 6 items loaded onto a single factor, a principal component analysis was performed. The results suggested a one-factor solution accounting for 49.37 percent of the variance in the items with factor loadings ranging from .56 to .85. Based on these results, the six items were averaged to create a measure of father-child phenotypic resemblance (α = .78).

Interparental Conflict

At Wave 1, fathers first completed the Verbal and Physical Aggression subscales of the Conflict and Problem-Solving Scale (CPS; Kerig, 1996). Fathers reported on their own and their partner’s conflict behavior in the past year on a scale from 0 (never) to 3 (often). The Verbal Aggression subscale was composed of 8 items reflecting verbal attacks (e.g., “Raise voice, yell, shout”) whereas the Physical Aggression subscale consisted of 7 items reflecting physical violence (e.g., “Throw something at partner”). Father reports of their own and their partner’s conflict behavior were averaged together to form composite scales for verbal (α = .89) and physical aggression (α = .87). Second, fathers completed the Resolution subscale of the Conflict and Problem-Solving Scale (CPS; Kerig, 1996). The scale consists of 13 items rated on a Likert scale from 0 (never) to 3 (usually) with 8 items reflecting destructive or unsuccessful ways of ending conflict (e.g., “We stay mad at one another for a long time”) and 5 items reflecting constructive ways of ending conflict (e.g., “We feel closer to one another than before the fight”). The 5 items reflecting constructive means of ending conflict were reverse-scored and summed with the 8 destructive items to form a measure of destructive interparental conflict (α = .88).

Harsh Discipline

At Waves 1 and 2, fathers completed the Overreactivity subscale of The Parenting Scale (PS; Arnold et al., 1993), assessing the degree to which parents exhibit anger, meanness, and irritability in response to child misbehavior. Fathers were asked to think about the target child’s misbehavior over the past two months and to rate their style of parenting in response to child misbehavior. Nine items assessed the degree to which fathers responded to misbehavior in a harsh, overreactive manner (e.g., “When my child misbehaves, I raise my voice or yell”, and “When my child misbehaves, I spank, slap, grab, or hit my child”). All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale with higher scores reflecting greater endorsement of harsh discipline. Reliability was acceptable at Waves 1 and 2 (α’s = .74 and .80, respectively).

Dysfunctional Child-Oriented Attributions

At Waves 1 and 2, fathers completed the Dysfunctional Child-Responsible Attributions subscale of the Parent Cognition Scale (PCS; Snarr et al., 2009), a measure assessing the degree to which parents attribute child misbehavior to factors under the child’s control. Fathers were asked to think about the target child’s misbehavior over the past two months and to rate various causes for the misbehavior on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (always true) to 6 (never true). Ten items attribute misbehavior to factors under the child’s control such as children’s willful intent to misbehave and the child’s desire to have a negative effect on the parent (e.g., “My child purposefully tries to get me angry”). Reliability was acceptable at Waves 1 and 2 (α’s = .88, .89, respectively). Items were recoded so that higher scores reflected greater dysfunctional child-oriented attributions.

Covariates

Father-Adolescent Attachment

At Wave 1, fathers completed the Parental Attachment Security Scale (Davies et al., 2002) to assess parent-child attachment relations. Fathers completed a 9-item scale rated from 1 (not at all like my child) to 5 (a whole lot like my child) with items assessing the child’s emotionality (e.g., “My child appears comfortable sharing thoughts and feelings with me”) and secure-base behavior (e.g., “When my child is upset, he or she goes to me). Items were summed with higher scores reflecting greater attachment security (α = .90).

Father Involvement

At Wave 1, fathers completed a survey to assess their overall involvement in childcare duties (Ahrons & Wallisch, 1987). Fathers completed an 8-item scale assessing how involved fathers are across various caregiving contexts (e.g., “Disciplining the children”, “Helping children with homework) on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all involved) to 5 (very much involved). Items were summed with higher scores reflecting greater involvement (α = .81).

Adolescent Pubertal Development

At Wave 1, mothers answered two questions related to their child’s physical and behavioral development relative to other kids: (1) “I think my child’s PHYSICAL development is…”; and (2) “I think my child’s EMOTIONAL development is…”. Each question was rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (much earlier than other boys/girls his/her age) to 5 (much later than other boys/girls his/her age). Mother reports of adolescent physical and emotional development were significantly correlated (r = .37, p < .001). The two questions were reverse-scored and averaged with higher scores reflecting earlier pubertal development.

Interparental Cohabitation Length

At Wave 1, fathers completed a demographic interview and reported the number of years they had been living with their partner.

Data Transparency

This study was not preregistered. Data are available by emailing the corresponding author.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Missing data in the current study came from two sources. First, our measure of father-child phenotypic resemblance was added to the assessment battery following the beginning of data collection leading to missing data for 37 of 151 fathers (24.5% of the sample at Wave 1). A comparison of fathers with and without data on the PRQ revealed no significant differences across all variables included in the primary analyses. Second, data were missing for 24 fathers at Wave 2 of data collection due to attrition. Little’s MCAR test (Little, 1988) revealed that data for the present study were missing completely at random (MCAR) as indicated by a non-significant chi-square statistic, χ2(95) = 106.11, p = .205. Overall, data were missing for 5.41% of all values (range = 0 to 24.5% for single variables). We utilized full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) in Mplus Version 8.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2019) to account for missing data in the sample. FIML is an appropriate tool for estimating covariance matrices in a manner that reduces Type 1 error rates and produces less biased parameter estimates when missing data is less than 20% (Schlomer et al., 2010). In addition, variances for all exogenous variables were estimated to retain all cases for analyses through missing data estimation.

Analytic Plan

To elucidate the interplay of phenotypic resemblance and interparental conflict in the prediction of harsh discipline, we employed a mediated moderation model within a structural equation model framework. For each model, covariances were estimated between all exogenous predictors (i.e., covariates, primary study variables). In the first analytic model, father-child phenotypic resemblance and interparental conflict were mean centered and a cross-product interaction term was computed before examining the moderating effect of interparental conflict on associations between phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline over a one-year period. In the second step, the intermediary variable of dysfunctional child-oriented attributions was added to the model. A visual depiction of mediated moderation is provided in Figure 1. Support for mediated moderation is garnered if the moderating effect of interparental conflict on phenotypic resemblance predicts the intermediary mechanism (i.e., dysfunctional child-responsible attributions) which, in turn, predicts harsh discipline (e.g., Edwards & Lambert, 2007). For each step, standard model fit criteria were used to evaluate the fit of each model. Acceptable model fit values are generally a non-significant chi-square value, root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) values less than .05, and a comparative fit index (CFI) of .95 or higher (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Conceptual Model Depicting Pathways Examined When Testing for Mediated Moderation

Note. W = Wave.

Primary Analyses

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for the study variables are presented in Table 1. As a first step in our mediated moderation model, we examined whether interparental conflict moderated associations between phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline. The model was fully saturated resulting in perfect model fit. Findings are displayed in Table 2 – Model 1. Results revealed a significant main effect of phenotypic resemblance (β = − .15, p = .015) in predicting harsh discipline which was qualified by a significant interaction term between phenotypic resemblance and interparental conflict (β = −.13, p = .041). Simple slope analyses were performed at one standard deviation (SD) above and below the mean of interparental conflict using an online statistical software (Preacher et al., 2006). Simple slope analyses revealed no associations between phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline when conflict was low (B = −.05, p = .660). In contrast, under high levels of interparental conflict, father-child phenotypic resemblance was significantly associated with harsh discipline at Wave 2 controlling for the autoregressive effect at Wave 1 (B = −.36, p = .004).

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Between Primary Study Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. W1 Phenotypic Resemblance —
2. W1 Interparental Conflict −.01 —
3. W1 Phenotypic Resemblance X IC .02 −.03 —
4. W1 Harsh Discipline −.08 .35* −.03 —
5. W2 Harsh Discipline −.23* .28* −.13 .75* —
6. W1 Dysfunctional Attributions −.11 .26* −.04 .47* .45* —
7. W2 Dysfunctional Attributions −.20 .35* −.20* .41* .51* .75* —
8. W1 Father-Adolescent Attachment .18 −.23* .13 −.43* −.44* −.50* −.37* —
9. W1 Father Involvement .19* −.24 .17 −.29* −.30* −.22* −.26* .49* —
10. W1 Adolescent Pubertal Development .06 −.08 −.19* –.07 −.03 −.21* −.15 .12 −.02 —
11. W1 Father’s Age −.02 .00 −.01 −.00 −.20* .02 −.13 −.05 .04 −.05 —
12. W1 Mother’s Age −.04 −.06 .10 −.00 −.16 −.03 −.08 .04 .02 −.03 .71* —
13. W1 Cohabitation Length −.01 −.08 .04 .00 .03 .04 .07 −.04 −.06 −.04 .38* .47* —
  Mean 0.00 0.00 −0.01 2.86 2.77 2.76 2.67 33.67 30.10 3.07 45.32 42.76 18.25
  SD 0.64 3.28 2.26 0.82 0.86 0.83 0.84 6.61 5.14 0.73 5.85 5.42 3.95
  N 114 149 113 142 127 151 127 151 151 151 151 151 149
Open in a new tab

Note. IC = Interparental conflict; W = Wave.

*

p < .05.

Table 2.

Pathway Coefficients Testing the Moderating Effect of Interparental Conflict (Model 1) and the Mediated Moderated Effect (Model 2) on Harsh Discipline

β SE p
Model 1: Moderation
Dependent Variable: Wave 2 Harsh Discipline
  Wave 1 Harsh Discipline 0.70 0.06 <.001
  Cohabitation Length 0.14 0.06 .030
  Mother’s Age −0.04 0.09 .625
  Father’s Age −0.15 0.08 .058
  Adolescent Pubertal Development 0.01 0.06 .883
  Father Involvement 0.03 0.07 .621
  Father-Adolescent Attachment −0.09 0.07 .185
  Phenotypic Resemblance −0.15 0.06 .015
  Interparental Conflict −0.03 0.06 .686
  Phenotypic Resemblance X Interparental Conflict −0.13 0.06 .041
Model 2: Mediated Moderation
Dependent Variable: Wave 2 Harsh Discipline
  Wave 1 Harsh Discipline 0.66 0.06 <.001
  Cohabitation Length 0.11 0.06 .066
  Mother’s Age −0.06 0.08 .458
  Father’s Age −0.10 0.08 .184
  Adolescent Pubertal Development 0.04 0.06 .491
  Father Involvement 0.03 0.06 .662
  Father-Adolescent Attachment −0.06 0.07 .386
  Phenotypic Resemblance −0.13 0.06 .031
  Interparental Conflict −0.07 0.06 .285
  Phenotypic Resemblance X Interparental Conflict −0.10 0.06 .088
  Wave 2 Dysfunctional Attributions 0.20 0.06 .002
Mediating Variable: Wave 2 Dysfunctional Attributions
  Wave 1 Dysfunctional Attributions 0.71 0.05 <.001
  Cohabitation Length 0.05 0.06 .376
  Mother’s Age 0.14 0.08 .084
  Father’s Age −0.25 0.08 .001
  Adolescent Pubertal Development −0.05 0.06 .342
  Father Involvement −0.03 0.06 .606
  Father-Adolescent Attachment 0.05 0.07 .475
  Phenotypic Resemblance −0.12 0.06 .058
  Interparental Conflict 0.13 0.06 .033
  Phenotypic Resemblance X Interparental Conflict −0.17 0.06 .005
Open in a new tab

Note. Significant pathways are bolded for clarity.

To better characterize the nature of interactions, Roisman and colleagues (2012) recommend plotting interactions at values two SDs above and below the mean of the independent variable. We plotted phenotypic resemblance at +/− 1.88 SD from the mean since no value exceeded +1.88 SD (x = 1.20). Visual inspection of the plot (Figure 2a) revealed a crossover effect (i.e., disordinal interaction) suggesting that interparental conflict may be operating as a susceptibility factor altering associations between phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline in a for-better-and-for-worse manner similar to differential susceptibility models (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). Although visually consistent as a susceptibility factor, we also calculated the proportion of interaction (PoI) value as it is considered the preferred measure for establishing differential susceptibility (Del Giudice, 2017). The PoI value indicates the proportion of the total interaction representing the for-better portion (i.e., high phenotypic resemblance is associated with less harsh discipline when interparental conflict is high) with values between .20 and .80 providing support for differential susceptibility (Del Giudice, 2017). PoI calculations provided a value of .62 suggesting the moderating role of interparental conflict operates in a for-better-and-for-worse manner. Thus, under high levels of interparental conflict, less phenotypic resemblance is associated with greater harsh discipline while greater phenotypic resemblance is associated with less harsh discipline.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

(a) Plot of the Interaction Between Father-Child Phenotypic Resemblance and Interparental Conflict on Harsh Discipline. (b) Plot of the Interaction Between Father-Child Phenotypic Resemblance and Interparental Conflict on Dysfunctional Child-Oriented Attributions

The final analytic step in our mediated moderation model tested whether the interaction between phenotypic resemblance and interparental conflict in predicting harsh discipline was transmitted through dysfunctional child-oriented attributions. Results of the final mediated moderation model are displayed in Table 2 – Model 2. The final model yielded good fit to the data with the inclusion of dysfunctional child-oriented attributions as an intermediary variable, χ2(2) = 0.71, p = .700, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00, SRMR = 0.003, N = 151. Analyses revealed that the interaction between phenotypic resemblance and interparental conflict was significantly associated with dysfunctional child-oriented attributions at Wave 2 (β = −.17, p = .005) after controlling for the autoregressive effect at Wave 1. In turn, dysfunctional child-oriented attributions at Wave 2 were significantly associated with harsh discipline at Wave 2 (β = .20, p = .002) after controlling for the autoregressive effect of harsh discipline at Wave 1. Simple slope analyses were again conducted to probe the nature of the interaction. Results indicated no association between phenotypic resemblance and dysfunctional attributions when conflict was low (B = .06, p = .601). However, phenotypic resemblance and dysfunctional attributions were significantly associated when conflict was high (B = −.36, p = .001). The interaction was plotted at +/− 1.88 SD from the mean of phenotypic resemblance (Figure 2b). Visual analysis of the plot revealed an ordinal interaction with a PoI value of .14 suggesting that interparental conflict serves as a vulnerability factor by amplifying associations between phenotypic resemblance and dysfunctional child-oriented attributions for children of less phenotypic resemblance.

As a final definitive test of mediated moderation, the indirect effect through dysfunctional child-oriented attributions was subjected to a bootstrapping test with RMediation software (Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011). A significant indirect effect emerged such that associations between father-child phenotypic resemblance, dysfunctional child-oriented attributions, and harsh discipline were significant at high levels of interparental conflict, 95% CI [−.149, −.019] but not at low levels of conflict, 95% CI [−.034, .063].

Discussion

Although father-child phenotypic resemblance has been identified as a risk factor for harsh discipline, we still know very little as to why this association emerges. The present study employed a longitudinal, mediated-moderation model to better understand the complex interplay of father-child phenotypic resemblance with interparental conflict and dysfunctional child-oriented attributions in the prediction of harsh discipline during adolescence. Findings revealed that interparental conflict served as a susceptibility factor in amplifying associations between phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline in a for-better-and-for-worse manner over a one-year period. Furthermore, dysfunctional child-oriented attributions about the causes of children’s misbehavior served as an intermediary mechanism partially accounting for the moderating role of interparental conflict.

In our first analytic step, we examined interparental conflict as a moderator of associations between phenotypic resemblance and harsh discipline given the importance of the interparental relationship in providing a context for the development of paternal care (Geary, 2016). Contrary to hypotheses, findings revealed that interparental conflict acted as a susceptibility factor in amplifying the effect of phenotypic resemblance on harsh discipline in a for-better-and-for-worse manner over a one-year period. Specifically, fathers experiencing high levels of interparental conflict exhibited higher levels of harsh discipline towards children perceived to be of less phenotypic resemblance while exhibiting considerably lower levels of harsh discipline towards children perceived to be of greater phenotypic resemblance. It is possible this finding reflects parental salvaging (Reiss & Neiderhiser, 2000) where fathers preferentially attend to offspring with more “positive” characteristics (i.e., greater resemblance) and divest in offspring perceived as possessing more “aversive” characteristics (i.e., less resemblance) as the interparental relationship deteriorates (Ulbricht et al., 2013).

A complementary interpretation is offered by parental investment theory which states that fathers are more likely to prioritize mating over parenting effort given the greater frequency at which men can reproduce (Trivers, 1972). However, Anderson and colleagues (1999) argue that within the confines of a stable interparental relationship, both parenting and mating (relationship) effort can be maximized. Specifically, sensitive care devoted to offspring, whether biological or not, may improve the quality of the interparental relationship as women select for and prefer men who demonstrate a sensitivity to children’s needs. In other words, men demonstrate sensitive care to offspring when the interparental relationship is stable as a way to maintain access to the resources afforded by a stable pair-bond (e.g., sexual activity, emotional support, etc.). This interpretation is consistent with the finding that phenotypic resemblance did not predict harsh discipline at low levels of interparental conflict. In contrast, under high levels of interparental conflict, continuing to provide care to children less likely to be genetically related would lead to a loss in reproductive fitness as the costs of investment begin to outweigh the benefits gained through the interparental relationship (Anderson et al., 1999). Therefore, fathers become sensitized to cues of phenotypic resemblance to maximize reproductive fitness by ensuring sensitive care is allocated to biological offspring. Importantly, this interpretation will require further investigation.

In the second step of our mediated moderation model, we explored dysfunctional child-oriented attributions as one underlying process through which phenotypic resemblance transmits risk of engagement in harsh discipline. Findings revealed interparental conflict served as a vulnerability factor by amplifying associations between phenotypic resemblance and dysfunctional attributions such that fathers only endorsed greater levels of dysfunctional attributions towards children perceived to be of less phenotypic resemblance. This may suggest that the tension and negative affect arising from chronic interparental conflict erodes the regulatory processes needed to interpret and respond to emotionally-charged parenting contexts (Brock & Kochanska, 2016; Davies et al., 2009). As a result, fathers may be less sensitive and understanding in trying to understand reasons for misbehavior among children of less perceived relatedness which could stem from a lack of solicitude (Daly & Wilson, 1998). In turn, increases in dysfunctional child-oriented attributions were associated with increases in harsh discipline concurrently which is consistent with previous research (e.g., Leung & Slep, 2006). In light of these results, it is important to note that the moderating role of interparental conflict operated as a susceptibility factor for harsh discipline and a vulnerability factor for dysfunctional child-oriented attributions. This reflects inconsistent moderation such that dysfunctional child-oriented attributions can help to explain why fathers experiencing interparental conflict exhibit harsh discipline towards children lacking in resemblance but does not explain why fathers exhibit less harsh discipline towards children of greater resemblance. Future work will need to examine how interparental conflict attenuates risk of harsh discipline for children of greater resemblance.

The overall findings also bear important implications for the assessment of father-child phenotypic resemblance during adolescence as prior research has tended to focus on resemblance during childhood (Franklin & Volk, 2018). Our results suggest that phenotypic resemblance remains a proximal determinant of paternal parenting during early adolescence. Given that infants and young children evidence more amorphous physical and behavioral features, it could be that fathers rely on verbal confirmation of paternity given by close kin to assess biological relatedness during these early years (McLain et al., 2000; Pagel, 1997). However, fathers may become increasingly tuned to indicators of phenotypic resemblance with the onset of adolescence as children’s physical and behavioral characteristics mature into adult-like forms (Bressan & Dal Pos, 2012). Moreover, if fathers are particularly sensitive to cues of phenotypic resemblance during early adolescence, then this could have important implications for caregiving as the parent-child relationship undergoes considerable reorganization during this period (Branje, 2018). Therefore, perceptions of phenotypic resemblance during a period of heightened parent-child relationship instability could alter parenting at the cognitive (i.e., dysfunctional attributions) and behavioral level (i.e., harsh discipline).

Despite the potential utility of the present research, there are several limitations that warrant discussion. First, the primary variables measured were based on father reports which may have biased parameter estimates in our analyses. Despite this, we believe that fathers’ perceptions of father-child phenotypic resemblance, interparental conflict, and dysfunctional attributions matter most in understanding the determinants of parenting. Future research will need to reproduce these findings using more diverse methods of assessing harsh discipline (e.g., observation, mother-report) as fathers may not be the most accurate perceivers of their own parenting. Second, the final link in our mediated moderation model between dysfunctional child-oriented attributions and harsh discipline was correlational in nature. Although previous research has experimentally demonstrated that dysfunctional attributions can precede harsh discipline (e.g., Slep & O’Leary, 1998), we urge caution when attempting to establish directionality among these associations. Third, maternal reports of phenotypic resemblance were unavailable which precluded the examination of these questions among mothers. In spite of this, previous research has shown that phenotypic resemblance does not predict parenting in mothers (e.g., Li & Chang, 2007), but this does not suggest that this association would not emerge under contexts of interparental discord. Lastly, we urge caution when extending these findings to cultures and societies outside of the United States as phenotypic resemblance may not be a salient predictor of parenting within cultural contexts characterized by polygyny or social fatherhood.

In summary, the current study highlights the utility of an evolutionary framework for understanding the determinants of paternal harsh discipline. Overall, the results indicate that disruptions to the interparental relationship evidenced by hostile and unresolved conflict can amplify harsh discipline practices and dysfunctional attributions for children of less phenotypic resemblance. Efforts to improve the means through which parents handle conflict should be considered an important target for intervention work as fathers experiencing lower levels of conflict endorsed less harsh discipline and fewer dysfunctional attributions towards children of less perceived relatedness. Lastly, although the current study did not separate distinct facets of resemblance (e.g., physical resemblance versus behavioral resemblance), the results may suggest that intervention work directed at improving father-child relations may benefit from having father and child focus on identifying and strengthening commonalities between each other as a way to foster deeper connections.

Acknowledgments

This study was not preregistered. Data for this study are available by emailing the corresponding author. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. The ideas and data presented in this manuscript have not been previously disseminated. This study was conducted at Mt. Hope Family Center and supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development awarded to Melissa L. Sturge-Apple and Patrick T. Davies (R01 HD060789). We are incredibly grateful to the adolescents and parents who participated in this project and to the staff and student researchers who helped to make this research possible.

References

  1. Ahrons CR, & Wallisch L. (1987). Parenting in the binuclear family: Relationships between biological and stepparents. In Pasley K. & Ihinger-Tallman M. (Eds.), Remarriage and stepparenting: Current research and theory (pp. 225–256). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson KG, Kaplan H, Lam D, & Lancaster J. (1999). Paternal care by genetic fathers and stepfathers II: Reports by Xhosa high school students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(6), 433–451. 10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00022-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnold DS, O’Leary SG, Wolff LS, & Acker MM (1993). The Parenting Scale: A measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 137–144. 10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.137 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Azar ST, Reitz EB, & Goslin MC (2008). Mothering: Thinking is part of the job description: Application of cognitive views to understanding maladaptive parenting and doing intervention and prevention work. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 295–304. 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.04.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Belsky J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55(1), 83–96. 10.2307/1129836 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Belsky J, & Jaffee SR (2006). The multiple determinants of parenting. In Cicchetti D. & Cohen DJ (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 38–85). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  7. Belsky J, & Pluess M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 885–908. 10.1037/a0017376 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Birditt KS, Brown E, Orbuch TL, & McIlvane JM (2010). Marital conflict behaviors and implications for divorce over 16 years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1188–1204. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00758.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Branje S. (2018). Development of parent–adolescent relationships: Conflict interactions as a mechanism of change. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 171–176. 10.1111/cdep.12278 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bressan P, & Dal Pos S. (2012). Fathers see stronger family resemblances than non-fathers in unrelated children’s faces. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(6), 1423–1430. 10.1007/s10508-012-9983-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brock RL, & Kochanska G. (2016). Interparental conflict, children’s security with parents, and long-term risk of internalizing problems: A longitudinal study from ages 2 to 10. Development and Psychopathology, 28(1), 45–54. 10.1017/S0954579415000279 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bugental DB, & Corpuz R. (2019). Parental attributions. In Bornstein MH (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Being and becoming a parent (pp. 722–761). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. 10.4324/9780429433214-21 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Burch RL, & Gallup GG Jr. (2000). Perceptions of paternal resemblance predict family violence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21(6), 429–435. 10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00056-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Burch RL, & Gallup GG Jr. (2020). Abusive men are driven by paternal uncertainty. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 14, 197–209. 10.1037/ebs0000163 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cabeza De Baca T, Figueredo AJ, & Ellis BJ (2012). An evolutionary analysis of variation in parental effort: Determinants and assessment. Parenting: Science and Practice, 12(2–3), 94–104. 10.1080/15295192.2012.680396 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Daly M, & Wilson M. (1998). The truth about Cinderella: A Darwinian view of parental love. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. 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–115. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Davies PT, Sturge-Apple ML, Woitach MJ, & Cummings EM (2009). A process analysis of the transmission of distress from interparental conflict to parenting: Adult relationship security as an explanatory mechanism. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1761–1773. 10.1037/a0016426 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Little AC, & Perrett DI (2008). Social perception of facial resemblance in humans. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(1), 64–77. 10.1007/s10508-007-9266-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Del Giudice M. (2017). Statistical tests of differential susceptibility: Performance, limitations, and improvements. Development and Psychopathology, 29(4), 1267–1278. 10.1017/S0954579416001292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dix T, Ruble DN, Grusec JE, & Nixon S. (1986). Social cognition in parents: Inferential and affective reactions to children of three age levels. Child Development, 57(4), 879–894. 10.2307/1130365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Edwards JR, & Lambert LS (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22. 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fincham FD, & Grych JH (1991). Explanations for family events in distressed and nondistressed couples: Is one type of explanation used consistently? Journal of Family Psychology, 4(3), 341–353. 10.1037/0893-3200.4.3.341 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Franklin P, & Volk AA (2018). A review of infants’ and children’s facial cues’ influence on adults’ perceptions and behaviors. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 12(4), 296–321. 10.1037/ebs0000108 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Geary DC (2016). Evolution of paternal investment. In Buss DM (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology: Foundations (pp. 524–541). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hinnant JB, Erath SA, & El-Sheikh M. (2015). Harsh parenting, parasympathetic activity, and development of delinquency and substance use. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(1), 137–151. 10.1037/abn0000026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hrdy SB (2008). Cooperative breeding and the paradox of facultative fathering. In Bridges R. (Ed.), The neurobiology of the parental brain (pp. 407–416). New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hu LT, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Jansen PW, Raat H, Mackenbach JP, Hofman A, Jaddoe VW, Bakermans‐Kranenburg MJ, ... & Tiemeier H. (2012). Early determinants of maternal and paternal harsh discipline: The generation R study. Family Relations, 61(2), 253–270. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00691.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kazem AJ, Barth Y, Pfefferle D, Kulik L, & Widdig A. (2018). Parent–offspring facial resemblance increases with age in rhesus macaques. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285(1886), 20181208. 10.1098/rspb.2018.1208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. 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]
  32. Krishnakumar A, & Buehler C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49(1), 25–44. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00025.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Leung DW, & Slep AMS (2006). Predicting inept discipline: The role of parental depressive symptoms, anger, and attributions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(3), 524–534. 10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.524 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Li H, & Chang L. (2007). Paternal harsh parenting in relation to paternal versus child characteristics: The moderating effect of paternal resemblance belief. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(3), 495–501. [Google Scholar]
  35. Little RJ (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. 10.2307/2290157 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Martin MJ, & Sturge-Apple ML (2012). Phenotypic Resemblance Questionnaire. Unpublished Survey. University of Rochester. [Google Scholar]
  37. McLain DK, Setters D, Moulton MP, & Pratt AE (2000). Ascription of resemblance of newborns by parents and nonrelatives. Evolution and Human behavior, 21(1), 11–23. 10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00029-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (1998-2019). Mplus User’s Guide. Sixth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pagel M. (1997). Desperately concealing father: a theory of parent–infant resemblance. Animal Behaviour, 53(5), 973–981. 10.1006/anbe.1996.0317 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Pinquart M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with internalizing symptoms in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Marriage & Family Review, 53(7), 613–640. 10.1080/01494929.2016.1247761 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Platek SM, Burch RL, Panyavin IS, Wasserman BH, & Gallup GG Jr. (2002). Reactions to children’s faces: Resemblance affects males more than females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(3), 159–166. 10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00094-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Preacher KJ, Curran PJ, & Bauer DJ (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. [Google Scholar]
  43. Radhakrishna A, Bou-Saada IE, Hunter WM, Catellier DJ, & Kotch JB (2001). Are father surrogates a risk factor for child maltreatment? Child Maltreatment, 6(4), 281–289. 10.1177/1077559501006004001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Reiss D. (1995). Genetic influence on family systems: Implications for development. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(3), 543–560. 10.2307/353911 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Reiss D, & Neiderhiser JM (2000). The interplay of genetic influences and social processes in developmental theory: Specific mechanisms are coming into view. Development and Psychopathology, 12(3), 357–374. 10.1017/S0954579400003060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Roisman GI, Newman DA, Fraley RC, Haltigan JD, Groh AM, & Haydon KC (2012). Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis-stress: recommendations for evaluating interaction effects. Development and Psychopathology, 24(2), 389–409. 10.1017/S0954579412000065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. 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]
  48. Slep AMS, & O’Leary SG (1998). The effects of maternal attributions on parenting: An experimental analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 12(2), 234–243. 10.1037/0893-3200.12.2.234 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Snarr JD, Slep AMS, & Grande VP (2009). Validation of a new self-report measure of parental attributions. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 390–401. 10.1037/a0016331 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Stratton P. (2003). Causal attributions during therapy II: Reconstituted families and parental blaming. Journal of Family Therapy, 25(2), 161–180. 10.1111/1467-6427.00242 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Sturge-Apple ML, Li Z, Martin MJ, Jones-Gordils HR, & Davies PT (2020). Mothers’ and fathers’ self-regulation capacity, dysfunctional attributions and hostile parenting during early adolescence: A process-oriented approach. Development and Psychopathology, 32(1), 229–241. 10.1017/S0954579418001694 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Tofighi D, & MacKinnon DP (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 692–700. 10.3758/s13428-011-0076-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Trivers RL (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ulbricht JA, Ganiban JM, Button TMM, Feinberg M, Reiss D, & Neiderhiser JM (2013). Marital adjustment as a moderator for genetic and environmental influences on parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(1), 42–52. 10.1037/a0031481 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Volk AA, Darrell-Cheng C, & Marini ZA (2010). Paternal care may influence perceptions of paternal resemblance. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 516–529. 10.1177/147470491000800316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Yu Q, Zhang Q, Xiong Q, Jin S, Zou H, & Guo Y. (2019). The more similar, the more warmth: the effect of parent-child perceived facial resemblance on parenting behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 358–362. 10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES