Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2016 May 16;30(8):918–926. doi: 10.1037/fam0000217

Longitudinal Associations Between Relationship Quality and Coparenting Across the Transition to Parenthood: A Dyadic Perspective

Yunying Le 1, Brandon T McDaniel 2, Chelom E Leavitt 3, Mark E Feinberg 4
PMCID: PMC5112151  NIHMSID: NIHMS781942  PMID: 27183188

Abstract

The couple and coparenting relationship are theorized to influence one another in a reciprocal manner over time. Empirical evidence demonstrates cross-sectional associations between the two as well as prospective predictions of coparenting by relationship quality and vice versa. However, less is known about the longitudinal reciprocity between the couple relationship and coparenting from the perspective of both parents. The current study sought to examine longitudinal associations between relationship quality and coparenting support/undermining across the transition to parenthood from a dyadic perspective. Participants were 164 cohabitating heterosexual couples expecting their first child assessed during pregnancy and at 6 and 36 months after birth. Actor Partner Interdependence Modeling (APIM) was used to examine, for both men and women, (1) stability over time in relationship quality and coparenting; (2) reciprocal associations between relationship quality and coparenting support/undermining; as well as (3) the gender differences in those associations. Moderate rank-order stability in relationship quality and coparenting support/undermining across the first three years of parenthood was demonstrated. For women, but not men, findings suggested longitudinal reciprocal associations between relationship quality and coparenting support/undermining. Specifically, our findings suggested that prenatal relationship quality sets the stage for coparenting functioning after birth for both men and women but that coparenting functioning is then connected to subsequent feelings about the romantic relationship only for women.

Keywords: Relationship Quality, Coparenting, Transition to Parenthood, Dyadic, Love

Coparenting can be broadly defined as the extent to which parents work together to fulfill their responsibilities as parents and to meet the needs of their children (Feinberg, 2003; Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001). Coparenting was originally studied in the context of divorce, and these studies have demonstrated the importance of supportive, cooperative coparenting relationships between ex-spouses for children's (Sobolewski & King, 2005) and adult family members' well-being (Schrodt, Miller, & Braithwaite, 2011). Subsequently, a growing body of research has focused on coparenting within two-parent families (e.g., Feinberg, 2002; Margolin et al., 2001; McHale, Salman-Engin, & Coovert, 2015; Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, & Frosch, 2001).

Among two-parent families, coparenting is associated with parenting quality, child adjustment, and couple functioning. For example, evidence suggests that coparenting mediates the relation between marital functioning and parenting (Bonds & Gondoli, 2007; Pedro, Ribeiro, & Shelton, 2012; Margolin et al., 2001), and a body of research suggests that coparenting plays a role in child adjustment, attachment security, behavior problems, and academic adjustment—with better child outcomes seen in families where coparenting is more supportive and less conflictual (for review, see Teubert & Pinquart, 2010). Moreover, coparenting dimensions such as support, undermining, childrearing agreement, and fairness in the division of labor (Feinberg, 2003) have been found to be associated with marital functioning (Chong & Mickelson, 2013; Don et al., 2013; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2004; Van Egeren, 2004). In general, both research and theory suggest bidirectional associations between coparenting and couple relationship functioning (e.g., Bonds & Gondoli, 2007; Minuchin, 1988; Morrill et al., 2010; Van Egeren, 2004), yet there has been limited examination of this bidirectionality through the perspective of both parents and from before to after birth. The current study directly examines the reciprocal associations between couple relationship quality and coparenting functioning for both men and women across the first three years of parenthood.

Relationship Change Across the Transition to Parenthood

The transition to parenthood has long been established as a challenging turning point in couples’ relationships (e.g. Roy, Schumm, & Britt, 2014), as ongoing adjustments are required for both the mother and father as they take on new roles and responsibilities (e.g., Cowan & Cowan, 2000). Some studies have shown that compared with childless couples, couples transitioning to parenthood experience steeper declines in relationship satisfaction across time (Keizer & Schenk, 2012; Lawrence, Rothman, Cobb, Rothman, & Bradbury, 2008). However, the average experience of declining relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood (Belsky & Hsieh, 1998; Don & Mickelson, 2014; Lawrence et al., 2008) is not fully representative of all couples; evidence indicates heterogeneity (e.g., steep declines, moderate declines, no change, and moderate increases) in the course of relationship satisfaction for new parents (Belsky & Rovine, 1990; Don & Mickelson, 2014).

Early work identified multiple variables associated with changes in relationship quality across this transition, such as coparenting behaviors, parenting agreement, infant temperament, changes in household workload, spouses’ prenatal expectations, and violations of those expectations (e.g., Belsky & Rovine, 1990; Chong & Mickelson, 2013; Don et al., 2013; Lawrence, Rothman, Cobb, & Bradbury, 2010; Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, Frosch, & McHale, 2004). Among these variables, the coparenting relationship is especially noteworthy for two reasons. First, the coparenting relationship is longlasting and important for children’s development. After the birth of the first child, couples are confronted with a new identity as coparents in addition to their role as romantic partners. Once the coparenting role is established, couples may still need to fulfill their responsibility as coparents even if their romantic relationship is later terminated. In fact, the coparenting relationship has been documented to influence children’s adjustment and parents’ wellbeing regardless of couples’ relationship status (Don et al., 2013; Schrodt et al., 2011; Sobolewski & King, 2005). Thus, maintaining a satisfying and high quality coparenting relationship is important for both couple and child functioning.

Second, the coparenting relationship is modifiable. Couples attending Family Foundations, a couple-based psychoeducational program provided during the transition to parenthood that specifically targets coparenting, reported significantly higher levels of coparenting support than couples in a randomly-assigned control group (Feinberg & Kan, 2008). Other interventions which focus on coparenting have shown additional positive effects on couple dynamics in both coparenting and couple functioning (e.g., McHale et al., 2015). Thus, understanding how coparenting manifests after birth and relates to couple functioning more generally can provide meaningful insights for intervention efforts with families with young children.

Relationship Quality and Coparenting Functioning

Marital behaviors and coparenting within two-parent families are often highly correlated (Bonds & Gondoli, 2007; Morrill et al., 2010; Pedro et al., 2012; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2004). Consistent with family systems theory (Minuchin, 1988), which posits that all parts of the family system are interconnected, interrelatedness between couple relationship quality and coparenting in two-parent families is expected. However, couple relationship quality and coparenting are also conceptually and empirically distinct from one another. Conceptually, coparenting is different from the romantic dimension of the couple relationship because one involves parenting and childrearing issues whereas the other does not (e.g., Feinberg, 2003). Empirically, some studies have found coparenting to be more influential on parenting and child outcomes than the quality of the marital relationship (i.e. Baril, Crouter, & McHale, 2007; Margolin et al., 2001). In fact, a growing body of research demonstrates coparenting to be a more proximal predictor of child outcomes by mediating the relation between marital functioning and parenting quality (e.g., Bonds & Gondoli, 2007; Morrill et al., 2010).

Although couple relationship quality and coparenting quality are conceptually and empirically distinguishable, they are nonetheless theorized to influence one another in a reciprocal manner (Feinberg et al., 2012). On the one hand, prenatal relationship quality sets the tone for the developing coparenting relationship (McHale et al., 2004), such that couples with high relationship quality prenatally are able to work together in a more constructive and supportive manner in their coparenting after birth (Bonds & Gondoli, 2007; Morrill et al., 2010; Van Egeren, 2004). On the other hand, Belsky and Hsieh (1998) proposed that coparenting quality might play an important role in altering the trajectory of future relationship quality. Some studies have identified aspects of coparenting that predict later couple relationship quality with perceived fairness of childcare, parenting agreement and coparenting support being positively associated – and coparenting undermining being negatively associated – with relationship functioning (Chong & Mickelson, 2013; Don et al., 2013; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2004).

However, the existing literature is limited in terms of demonstrating the often-theorized reciprocal association between romantic relationship quality and coparenting. For example, research has failed to control for prior levels of coparenting and couple functioning when exploring the longitudinal relation between the two (e.g. Chong & Mickelson, 2013; Don et al., 2013). Thus, it is unclear whether the longitudinal association between coparenting and couple relationship quality is due to the overlapping variance shared between the two at an earlier time point or whether they each play a unique role in predicting the other at subsequent times. Although Van Egeren (2004) demonstrated fluctuations in post-birth marital experience to be predictive of fluctuations in coparenting, the possible bidirectional relations between marital quality and coparenting over time were not directly modeled. To date, the only work that directly addressed the question of a reciprocal association between coparenting and relationship quality found early coparenting quality to be predictive of later relationship quality but not the other way around (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2004). However, this study was limited by a small sample size, which could limit the ability to detect potential effects. To further examine the reciprocity, or bi-directionality, between coparenting functioning and relationship quality across time and specifically during the transition to parenthood, longitudinal data on both coparenting and relationship quality are necessary.

A Dyadic Approach

It is important to note that romantic relationships and coparenting fundamentally occur at a dyadic level. As family system theory suggests (Minuchin, 1988), individuals within the same dyad are by nature interdependent. Thus, it is possible that one’s experience of the romantic relationship is linked not only to one's own coparenting experience across time (actor effects), but also to one's partner’s experience of coparenting (partner effect). Similarly, one’s experience of coparenting may also be linked to one’s partner’s experience of the romantic relationship across time (partner effects) in addition to one’s own experience of romantic relationship (actor effects). Existing literature demonstrates some evidence indicating partner effects in the association between coparenting and relationship quality. For example, fathers’ perceived parenting agreement and fairness of household labor predict mothers’ relationship satisfaction (Don et al., 2013; Chong & Mickelson, 2013) and mothers’ perceived fairness of household labor predicts fathers’ emotional spousal support (Chong & Mickelson, 2013).

If one partner has positive feelings about the romantic relationship, he/she may be more supportive and less undermining in coparenting; as a result, the partner then likely perceives more support and less undermining in coparenting. At the same time, if one partner perceives the other to be supportive in coparenting, he/she may then be more likely to provide affection and warmth to the partner, which would increase the partner’s positive feelings about the romantic relationship. The current study examines such potential longitudinal associations between coparenting and relationship quality using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) to account for the interdependence between partners and to test for possible actor and partner effects (Cook & Kenny, 2005).

The APIM within a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) framework also makes it possible to directly test gender differences in actor and partner effects. As suggested by social structure theory, men and women may take on different roles as they transition to parenthood (Eagly & Wood, 1999) and experience the transition differently given potential differences in role expectations as well as differences in the salience of the parenting role to women's and men's identities (Katz-Wise, Priess, & Hyde, 2010). In general, women in Western societies are often socialized to take greater responsibility for parenting and household labor (Dempsey, 2002) and are often expected to perform this new parenting role with more immediate and greater competence than men (Cowan & Cowan, 1998). Due to socialization, the parent and caretaker role may be more central to women's identity whereas men’s participation in childcare is often more elective and viewed as helping or supporting the mother (Cowan & Cowan, 1998). Although men have become more involved in childrearing over the past decades, there is still less societal pressure on—as well as support for—men to engage in parenting with the same level of involvement and responsibility as women (Dempsey, 2002; Larossa, 1998; Riina, & Feinberg, 2012). Consequently, as women take on more responsibility during the transition to parenthood, they may care more deeply about how supportive their partners are in helping them to fulfill their role as a parent and caregiver. This may also lead women's feelings about their romantic relationship to be more closely tied than men's to the quality of the coparenting they experience with their partner.

The Present Study

In the current study, the associations between men's and women’s reports of relationship quality and their perception of coparenting support and undermining across three time points (prenatal, 6 months after birth, 3 years after birth) are examined after controlling for the intervention status. Coparenting support is defined as the extent to which one perceives his/her partner to be facilitating as he/she fulfills the parenting role, whereas undermining is the extent to which one perceived his/her partner to be impeding parenting (e.g., Feinberg et al., 2012; Van Egeren, & Hawkins, 2004). Coparenting support and undermining were selected because similar work on these constructs has been conducted with a smaller sample size and observational data (Schoppe et al., 2004). The current study also examines actor and partner effects and tests for gender differences in these effects to further understand the associations between relationship quality and coparenting across time and in a dyadic context.

Based on the prior research mentioned in the Introduction, we hypothesize that:

H1: For both men and women, we expected moderate stability in relationship quality and coparenting support/undermining over time.

H2: For both men and women, relationship quality at pregnancy will be positively associated with coparenting support and negatively associated with coparenting undermining at 6 months after birth, and the same patterns of associations are expected from 6 months to 3 years after controlling for coparenting support/undermining at 6 months.

H3: For both men and women, controlling for relationship quality at 6 months, perceived coparenting support (undermining) at 6 months is hypothesized to be positively (negatively) associated with relationship quality at 3 years.

H4: It is hypothesized that coparenting support/undermining will more strongly influence later relationship quality for women than men.

In addition, we also explored partner effects for all associations among coparenting and relationship quality across time points.

Method

Participants

This study investigated 169 co-resident heterosexual couples; both partners were first time parents. Only 164 dyads were included in the analysis because five pairs dropped out of the study after the birth of the child and therefore did not provide data on their coparenting relationship. Eighty two percent of couples were married upon enrollment in the study. They were recruited for a randomized study evaluating a transition to parenthood intervention, Family Foundations (Feinberg & Kan, 2008). Couples were randomly assigned to the Family Foundations (FF) intervention group (n = 87) or no-treatment control group (n = 77). FF is a family intervention that consists of 4 prenatal and 4 postnatal sessions aimed at improving coparenting relationships. For the current study, we utilized data collected at 3 different time points: pregnancy (average weeks gestation = 22.9, SD = 5.3, T1), approximately 6 months after birth (T2), and approximately 3 years (T3) after the birth. Men and women were all 18 years old or older. The mean age of the women and men upon recruitment was 28.33 (SD = 4.93) and 29.76 (SD = 5.58) years old, which is fairly representative of the U.S. average age at first birth (Hamilton et al., 2015). This is a well-educated sample, with 85.6% of women and 70.7% of men having completed some post-secondary school education. Annual family income ranged from $2,500 to $162,500 with a median income of $65,000 (M = $64,062, SD = $34,372). The majority of the couples were European American (91% of women and 90% of men). Couples were recruited through childbirth education programs at 2 hospitals (81%), healthcare providers (8%), advertisements and flyers (7%), word of mouth (3%), or by other/unknown means (1%). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Pennsylvania State University.

Measures

Coparenting support and undermining

The Coparenting Relationship Scale (Feinberg et al., 2012) was used to assess coparenting functioning. It is a 35-item self-report measure of the coparenting relationship and includes items assessing coparenting agreement, closeness, support, undermining, child exposure to conflict, endorsement of partner's parenting, and perceived fairness in the division of parenting labor. For the current study, we examined the support subscale (7 items, e.g., “My partner makes me feel like I’m the best possible parent for our child”) and undermining subscale (6 items, e.g., “My partner sometimes makes jokes or sarcastic comments about the ways I am as a parent”), as we were interested in extending prior work which also examined support and undermining (e.g., Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2004). Each item is scored on a 7-point Likert scale (0 = not true of us, 6 = very true of us) and higher average scores indicate better coparenting support or greater coparenting undermining. Participants responded to these items at 6 months (support: men: α = .86, women: α = .85; undermining: α = .78 and .80) and 3 years after birth (support: α = .86 and .82; undermining: α = .79 and .84). For coparenting support and undermining, 9.8% and 21.6% of data were missing for men, while 7.3% and 15.2% of data were missing for women, at 6 months and 3 years respectively.

Couple relationship quality

The love subscale from the Relationships Questionnaire (Braiker & Kelley, 1979) was used in the current study to represent couple relationship quality. This subscale consists of 9 items touching on aspects such as love, commitment and belongingness (e.g. To what extent do you love your partner at this stage?). Each item is scored on a 9-point scale (e.g. 1 = not at all, 9 = very much; or 1 = very infrequently, 9 = frequently). Higher sum scores indicate higher relationship quality. Participants responded to these items during pregnancy (men: α = .78, women: α = .79) and at 6 months (α = .80 and .87) and 3 years after birth (α = .92 and .94). For relationship quality, 0.61%, 9.15%, and 22.56% of data were missing for men, while none, 9.15%, and 28% of data were missing for women, at pregnancy, 6 months, and 3 years respectively.

Covariates

Intervention status (0 = control, 1 = intervention), marital status (0 = not married, 1 = married) before the birth of the child, household income, and social desirability were controlled in the initial models. Social desirability, measured with Crowne and Marlow’s (1960) 33-item social desirability scale, was also controlled. Control variables were later removed in the final models as results did not change when controls were entered.

Data Analysis

In order to examine our hypotheses regarding the reciprocity between couple relationship quality and coparenting support/undermining, we utilized Actor-Partner Interdependence Models (APIMs) to explore both actor and partner effects (Cook & Kenny, 2005) within a SEM framework in Mplus (7.31; Muthén & Muthén, 2012). A maximum likelihood estimator with robust standard errors (MLR) was used to account for any non-normality of the study variables. MLR is an extension of maximum likelihood, thus, all missing data were assumed missing at random and properly handled. SEM is particularly advantageous in the current study because it allows us to simultaneously estimate the potential bidirectional associations between couple relationship quality and coparenting support/undermining across time, while also accounting for the interdependence among women and men within families. The Chi-square difference test (adjusted for the use of MLR) was used to make model comparisons. The more parsimonious model was retained when the fit of the model with fewer paths estimated did not degrade significantly. We ran one model for coparenting support and one model for coparenting undermining. The final models presented in the paper did not include covariates because the pattern of findings did not differ between models with and without covariates. Figure 1 presents the results (standardized estimates) of the SEM for prenatal relationship quality predicting perceived coparenting support and relationship quality at 6 months, which then predicts coparenting support and relationship quality at 3 years; Figure 2 presents the results of the same model but with coparenting undermining. Non-significant adjusted chi-squares, as well as other model fit indices, suggested that the models fit the data well (for coparenting support, χ2 (27) = 36.39, p = .11; RMSEA = .05 [90% CI = .00, .08], CFI = 0.97; for coparenting undermining, χ2 (32) = 38.84, p = .19; RMSEA = .04 [90% CI = .00, .07], CFI = .97).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Longitudinal associations between relationship quality and perceived coparenting support across the first 3 years of transition to parenthood.

Note. Standardized parameter estimates are presented. *p < .05. Correlations between predictor variables and residual covariances as well as the paths for control variables are not displayed. N = 164 couples.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Longitudinal associations between relationship quality and perceived coparenting undermining across the first 3 years of transition to parenthood.

Note. Standardized parameter estimates are presented. *p < .05. Correlations between predictor variables and residual covariances as well as the paths for control variables are not displayed. N = 164 couples.

Results

Bivariate Correlations

Table 1 presents the correlations among study variables as well as the means and standard deviations. In general, women's relationship quality was always significantly associated concurrently and across time with their perceptions of coparenting support (rs = .34 to .64, ps < .05) and undermining (rs = −.28 to −.50, ps < .05). Men's relationship quality was often significantly associated concurrently and across time with their perceptions of coparenting support (rs = .24 to.57, ps < .05) and undermining (rs = −.20 to −.52, ps < .05), although a few associations were non-significant for men, suggesting that coparenting and relationship quality may sometimes be less intricately tied together for men as compared with women.

Table 1.

Correlations Among Measures of Relationship Quality and Coparenting Support/Undermining

Men
Women
Preg.
6 months
3 years
Preg.
6 months
3 years
RQ RQ CS CU RQ CS CU RQ RQ CS CU RQ CS CU
Men
  Pregnancy RQ --
  6 months
  RQ .47* --
  CS .24* .46* --
  CU −.26* −.42* −.45* --
 3 years
  RQ .34* .39* .17 −.15 --
  CS .28* .30* .31* −.26* .57* --
  CU −.14 −.20* −.16 .34* −.52* −.58* --
Women
  Pregnancy RQ .50* .40* −.16 −.20* .35* .19* −.23* --
  6 months
  RQ .32* .60* .20* −.20* .41* .26* −.27* .56* --
  CS .13 .32* .23* −.13 .33* .26* −.20* .34* .50* --
  CU −.31* −.28* −.30* .32* −.20* −.17 .27* −.36* −.43* −.45* --
  3 years
  RQ .18* .29* .08 −.22 .41* .15 −.18* .45* .53* .44* −.49* --
  CS .16 .20* .02 −.09 .25* .30* −.30* .48* .43* .53* −.34* .64* --
  CU −.14 −.14 −.09 .11 −.24* −.22* .30* −.28* −.28* −.39* .45* −.50* −.50* --
M 71.58 69.07 4.99 0.68 64.5 4.71 0.73 73.63 68.92 4.85 0.52 64.53 4.71 0.63
SD 6.59 7.74 0.78 0.83 11.95 0.88 0.92 6.74 9.14 1.15 0.76 15.75 0.96 0.93
Open in a new tab

Note. Preg. = Pregnancy; RQ = Relationship Quality; CU = Coparenting Undermining; CS = Coparenting Support;

*

p < .05;

N ranges from 118 to 164.

H1: Continuity Across Time in Relationship and Coparenting Quality

Our first hypothesis concerning moderate stability in relationship quality and coparenting support and undermining from occasion to occasion was confirmed (H1). For both men and women, prenatal relationship quality was positively associated with relationship quality at 6 months postpartum which, in turn, predicted relationship quality at 3 years, after controlling for men’s and women’s perceived coparenting support/undermining at 6 months. Controlling for relationship quality at 6 months, coparenting support and undermining at 6 months were positively associated with the same variables at 3 years. Chi-square difference tests adjusted for the use of MLR found no differences in the strength of associations by time or gender (statistics available upon request).

H2 and H3: Reciprocity Between Relationship Quality and Coparenting Quality

Our next set of hypotheses concerned the reciprocity between couple relationship quality and coparenting support/undermining across the first 3 years of the transition to parenthood (H2 and H3). Hypothesis 2, that relationship quality would predict subsequent coparenting quality, was confirmed for coparenting support and partially supported for coparenting undermining. Prenatal relationship quality significantly predicted coparenting support and undermining in both men and women. Relationship quality at 6 months also predicted coparenting support at 3 years; however this was not the case for coparenting undermining. A Chi-square difference test suggested that results did not differ by gender (statistics available upon request) and that the strength of the associations between relationship quality at one time point and coparenting support and undermining at a subsequent time point were stronger from prenatal to 6 months postpartum compared to the association from 6 months to 3 years postpartum (for the support model, χ2 (1) = 4.27, p = .04; for undermining, χ2 (1) = 4.73, p = .03).

Hypothesis 3, that coparenting quality would predict subsequent relationship quality, was confirmed for women but not for men. That is, only women’s perceived coparenting support and undermining at 6 months were predictive of women’s reports of relationship quality at 3 years. Chi-square difference tests confirmed that the association was stronger for women as compared with men between coparenting support at 6 months (χ 2(1) = 4.06, p = .04) and coparenting undermining at 6 months (χ2 (1) = 9.45, p = .002) with subsequent relationship quality at 3 years. This result also supports hypothesis 4 that the effect of coparenting on relationship quality would be stronger for women as compared with men.

Exploring Potential Partner Effects

Overall, there was evidence indicating a relation between one’s relationship quality at one time and one’s partner’s relationship quality at a subsequent time point. This influence of partner effects in relationship quality did not differ by gender or time period (statistics available upon request). In our data, there is no evidence indicating cross-variable partner effects from one’s relationship quality to partner’s subsequent coparenting support or undermining, or from one’s coparenting support or undermining to partner’s subsequent relationship quality.

Discussion

The present study examined the longitudinal associations between relationship quality and coparenting functioning (i.e., support and undermining) in a dyadic context (including both men's and women's reports) during the transition to parenthood. Of particular importance, we found evidence of associations across time between relationship quality and coparenting functioning and, for women but not men, from coparenting functioning back to relationship quality. We also found evidence of moderate stability in relationship quality and coparenting functioning over the first three years of parenthood and longitudinal interdependence between partners in relationship quality.

Stability in Relationship Quality and Coparenting Functioning

Our first hypothesis examined the stability of relationship quality and coparenting support and undermining over the first 3 years of the transition to parenthood. Consistent with the existing literature (e.g., Laxman et al., 2013; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2004; Van Egeren, 2004), we found moderate rank-order stability for both men’s and women’s relationship quality and coparenting from pregnancy to 6 months and 3 years postpartum. These results suggest both that there is continuity and change in family life across these periods. Future work might investigate more deeply whether there are substantial differences across families in the degree of stability and change over time.

Reciprocity in the Associations Between Relationship Quality and Coparenting

Prior work has theorized that coparenting and the couple relationship have a reciprocal influence over time such that the couple’s prenatal relationship quality sets the stage for coparenting functioning after birth, and in turn coparenting functioning then influences the couple’s romantic relationship (e.g., Belsky and Hsieh, 1998; Feinberg, Brown, & Kan, 2012; McHale et al., 2004). We found evidence of this reciprocity for women, but not men.

The effect of relationship quality on subsequent coparenting

Consistent with existing empirical work (e.g., Van Egeren, 2004), the current study found evidence supporting the influence of prenatal relationship quality on coparenting support and undermining for both men and women, such that those who were high in relationship quality before birth tended to perceive more coparenting support and less coparenting undermining six months after birth. Further, relationship quality at 6 months was found to be predictive of both men’s and women’s perception of coparenting support at 3 years, but not undermining at 3 years after taken into account coparenting functioning at 6 months.

These results also carry implications for the question of whether coparenting support and undermining should be considered as two separate dimensions (e.g., Margolin et al., 2001; McHale, 1995) or as different poles on the same continuum. We consider the difference in the associations of relationship quality with coparenting support and undermining after birth to support the view that support and undermining are correlated but distinct constructs. Although a low level of positive feelings about one’s romantic relationship may lead to less supportive coparenting, it may not necessarily trigger dysfunctional coparenting behaviors such as undermining.

The effect of coparenting on subsequent relationship quality: A gender difference

Our third hypothesis examined whether coparenting had a reciprocal influence on couple relationship quality. In both models (support and undermining), we found evidence indicating that coparenting uniquely contributes only to women’s subsequent feelings about their romantic relationship with their partner.

This finding is consistent with both theory and research. According to identity theory (Katz-Wise et al., 2010), parenthood often plays a more central role in women's identity than it does in men's identity (Maurer, Pleck, & Rane, 2001; Simon, 1992). Therefore, we expected women to be more sensitive to the influence of coparenting quality as it is likely that women place greater importance on how and whether their partner assists or impedes them in fulfilling the parenting role. Additionally, women often devote more time than men in parenting (Yavorsky, Kamp Dush, & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2015; Zick & Bryant, 1996); thus, they are more likely to be exposed to stress related to the transition to parenthood. As a result, women may evaluate the quality of key relationships, especially their romantic relationship, in part as a function of how those relationships support their parenting role.

Our findings are consistent with emerging work, and may indicate the presence of a general gender difference in the relations between parenting-related factors and romantic relationships. For example, a recent study with the same dataset shows that parenting stress experienced by women during the transition to parenthood influences women's feelings about the sexual dimension of the romantic relationship, whereas men's parenting stress does not influence men’s sexual satisfaction (Leavitt, McDaniel, Maas, & Feinberg, under review). Our results also align with work by Don et al. (2013) who found that women’s perceived parenting agreement, a dimension of coparenting functioning, is predictive of women’s subsequent reports of marital satisfaction. However, this was not the case for men. Future studies should continue to explore these potential gender differences and the ways in which stronger or weaker identification with the parenting role may influence these associations between relationship quality and coparenting in both men and women.

Partner effects

We find consistent evidence of partner effects in relationship quality over time; that is, one’s report of relationship quality at one time point predicted one’s partner’s report of relationship quality at a subsequent time point—over and above the influence of the partner’s own earlier report of relationship quality. It is easy to see why this would be the case. For example, it is likely that those who are very happy with their romantic relationship will engage in more affectionate behavior, which would then influence their partner's feeling about the relationship in a further positive direction. Prior research has noted the way that negativity can escalate between partners (Gottman, 1979); we refer to this dynamic as positive reciprocity. These results support the call that has been made by others (e.g., Cook & Kenny, 2005) to take a couple-based (dyadic) approach in both basic research on couples as well as practical intervention efforts with couples and families.

However, we found no evidence of partner effects in the cross-variable relationship between relationship quality and subsequent coparenting quality (or the reverse). This is consistent with emerging work by Christopher and colleagues (2015) looking at the influence of change in marital conflict on coparenting during the transition to parenthood where partner effects were also not found. However, our sample and design may have been underpowered to detect partner effects. Therefore, we explored partner effects but are leery of drawing firm conclusions concerning the lack of influence of one's partner in a relationship. Given our findings of partner effects in the longitudinal associations in relationship quality, we still believe it is important to take a dyadic perspective when examining relationship processes. Overall though, our results suggest that one's own feelings and perceptions were more influential than one's partner's feelings in explaining subsequent coparenting quality.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations associated with the current study. First, this study relied on men’s and women’s self-reports of their perceived coparenting support and undermining rather than their observed supporting or undermining behaviors in coparenting. Future studies could include both perceived and enacted coparenting to better explore whether it is the perceived behaviors, observed behaviors, or discrepancy in these assessments of coparenting that is most predictive of relationship quality. Second, although our sample ranged in terms of income, the sample was relatively homogeneous with respect to education and ethnicity. Future studies with a larger and more diverse sample are needed to better illuminate whether these bidirectional associations exist in all samples. For example, spillover between family subsystems may be more pronounced in low-income families who may experience greater stress and strain in the first year post-pregnancy. Third, although the current study contained a sample of families larger than many studies of coparenting, given the complexity of the model, it may be that we were underpowered to detect partner effects. Finally, the current study assessed families three times across three years, which allowed us to capture these couple and coparenting dynamics over fairly long periods of time; but our data cannot capture short-term associations between relationship and coparenting quality. Considering that coparenting and couple interactions occur on a daily basis—with some work suggesting that daily fluctuations in coparenting quality are tied to similar fluctuations in daily couple relationship feelings (McDaniel, Teti, & Feinberg, under review)—future studies could utilize daily diary methods to further explore the reciprocity between the couple relationship and coparenting across shorter periods of time.

Understanding the distinctiveness of the romantic relationship and coparenting functioning, as well as the close relation between the two, provides important implications for prevention efforts in improving couple functioning and child development. Communication and parenting skills have been the focus of the majority of the premarital relationship education programs hoping to enhance/maintain relationship quality. However, few programs have addressed the coparenting relationship specifically (for an exception, see Solmeyer et al., 2014).

The current study adds to the coparenting and couple relationship literatures by demonstrating reciprocity between relationship quality and perceived coparenting support/undermining during the first three years of parenthood. Especially for women, we found that prenatal relationship quality predicted coparenting functioning after birth, and the amount of support and undermining women perceived from their partner was predictive of women’s later feelings about their romantic relationship. This represents a full cycle from romantic relationship quality to coparenting and back to relationship quality. Future studies should continue to explore this topic at the dyadic level and examine the underlying mechanisms for this reciprocity and differences between men and women. The reciprocity between coparenting and the couple relationship should also be tested beyond the transition to parenthood (such as during the elementary or adolescent years) to examine the continuity or discontinuity in the mutual influence of coparenting on the romantic relationship across the life span.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K23 HD042575) and the National Institute of Mental Health (R21 MH064125-01) to Mark E. Feinberg. Additionally, time on the preparation of this paper was partially supported for Brandon T. McDaniel by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Award Number: T32 DA017629). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Drug Abuse or the National Institutes of Health. Time on statistical analyses consultation from Timothy Brick was supported by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through Grant UL1 TR000127. We gratefully acknowledge Steffany J. Fredman for reading the paper and providing feedback. We also want to thank Michelle Hosteler for her help with the Family Foundations project.

Footnotes

Dr. Feinberg created Family Foundations and is the owner of a private company that disseminates the program. The Institutional Review Board and the Conflict of Interest Committee at The Pennsylvania State University have reviewed Dr. Feinberg’s company for potential financial gain.

Contributor Information

Yunying Le, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University.

Brandon T. McDaniel, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University

Chelom E. Leavitt, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University

Mark E. Feinberg, Prevention Research Center, The Pennsylvania State University

References

  1. Baril ME, Crouter AC, McHale SM. Processes linking adolescent well-being, marital love, and coparenting. Journal of Family Psychology. 2007;21:645–654. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Belsky J, Hsieh KH. Patterns of marital change during the early childhood years: Parent personality, coparenting, and division-of-labor correlates. Journal of Family Psychology. 1998;12:511–528. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.12.4.511. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Belsky J, Rovine M. Patterns of marital change across the transition to parenthood: Pregnancy to three years postpartum. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1990;52:5–19. doi: 10.2307/352833. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bonds DD, Gondoli DM. Examining the process by which marital adjustment affects maternal warmth: The role of coparenting support as a mediator. Journal of Family Psychology. 2007;21:288–296. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Braiker HB, Kelley HH. Conflict in the development of close relationships. In: Burgess R, Huston T, editors. Social Exchange in Developing Relationships. Academic Press; New York, NY: 1979. pp. 135–168. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chong A, Mickelson KD. Perceived fairness and relationship satisfaction during the transition to parenthood the mediating role of spousal support. Journal of Family Issues. 2013;18:1–26. doi: 10.1177/0192513X13516764. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Christopher C, Umemura T, Mann T, Jacobvitz D, Hazen N. Marital Quality over the Transition to Parenthood as a Predictor of Coparenting. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2015:1–16. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0172-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cook WL, Kenny DA. The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2005;29:101–109. doi: 10.1080/01650250444000405. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cowan CP, Cowan PA. Who does what when partners become parents: Implications for men, women, and marriage. Marriage & Family Review. 1988;12(3-4):105–131. doi: 10.1300/J002v12n03_07. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cowan CP, Cowan PA. When partners become parents: The big life change for couples. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; Mahwah, NJ: 2000. [Google Scholar]
  11. Crowne DP, Marlowe D. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1960;24:349–353. doi: 10.1037/h0047358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dempsey K. Who gets the best deal from marriage: women or men? Journal of Sociology. 2002;38:91–110. doi: 10.1177/144078302128756525. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Don BP, Mickelson KD. Relationship satisfaction trajectories across the transition to parenthood among low-risk parents. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2014;76:677–692. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12111. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Don BP, Biehle SN, Mickelson KD. Feeling like part of a team Perceived parenting agreement among first-time parents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2013;30:1121–1137. doi: 10.1177/0265407513483105. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Eagly AH, Wood W. The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist. 1999;54:408–423. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Feinberg ME. Coparenting and the transition to parenthood: A framework for prevention. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 2002;5:173–195. doi: 10.1023/A:1019695015110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Feinberg ME. The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting: Science and Practice. 2003;3:95–131. doi: 10.1207/S15327922PAR0302_01. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Feinberg ME, Kan ML. Establishing family foundations: Intervention effects on coparenting, parent/infant well-being, and parent-child relations. Journal of Family Psychology. 2008;22:253–263. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.2.253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Feinberg ME, Brown LD, Kan ML. A multi-domain self-report measure of coparenting. Parenting. 2012;12:1–21. doi: 10.1080/15295192.2012.638870. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gottman JM. Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. Academic Press; New York: 1979. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJK, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: Final data for 2014. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2015;64(12) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Katz-Wise SL, Priess HA, Hyde JS. Gender-role attitudes and behavior across the transition to parenthood. Developmental Psychology. 2010;46:18–28. doi: 10.1037/a0017820. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Keizer R, Schenk N. Becoming a parent and relationship satisfaction: A longitudinal dyadic perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012;74:759–773. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00991.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. LaRossa R. Fatherhood and social change. Family Relations. 1988;37:451–457. doi: 10.2307/584119. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lawrence E, Rothman AD, Cobb RJ, Rothman MT, Bradbury TN. Marital satisfaction across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology. 2008;22:41–50. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lawrence Erika, Rothman Alexia D., Cobb Rebecca J., Bradbury Thomas N. In: Strengthening couple relationships for optimal child development: Lessons from research and intervention. Schulz Marc S., Pruett Marsha Kline, Kerig Patricia K., Parke Ross D., editors. American Psychological Association; Washington, DC, US: 2010. pp. 97–114. [Google Scholar]
  27. Laxman DJ, Jessee A, Mangelsdorf SC, Rossmiller-Giesing W, Brown GL, Schoppe-Sullivan SJ. Stability and antecedents of coparenting quality: The role of parent personality and child temperament. Infant Behavior and Development. 2013;36:210–222. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Leavitt CE, McDaniel BT, Maas MK, Feinberg ME. Parenting stress and sexual satisfaction among first-time parents: A dyadic approach. (under review) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  29. Margolin G, Gordis EB, John RS. Coparenting: a link between marital conflict and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology. 2001;15:3–21. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.15.1.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Maurer TW, Pleck JH, Rane TR. Parental identity and reflected-appraisals: Measurement and gender dynamics. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2001;63:309–321. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00309.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. McDaniel BT, Teti DM, Feinberg ME. Assessing coparenting relationships in daily life: The Daily Coparenting Scale. doi: 10.1007/s10826-017-0762-0. (under review) Retrieved from http://www.btmcdaniel.com. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  32. McHale JP. Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital distress and child gender. Developmental Psychology. 1995;31:985–996. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.31.6.985. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. McHale JP, Kazali C, Rotman T, Talbot J, Carleton M, Lieberson R. The transition to coparenthood: Parents' prebirth expectations and early coparental adjustment at 3 months postpartum. Development and Psychopathology. 2004;16:711–733. doi: 10.1017/s0954579404004742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. McHale JP, Salman-Engin S, Coovert MD. Improvements in unmarried African American parents' rapport, communication, and problem-solving following a prenatal coparenting intervention. Family Process. 2015 doi: 10.1111/famp.12147. Advance online publication. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Minuchin P. Relationships within the family: A systems perspective on development. In: Hinde RA, Stevenson-Hinde J, editors. Relationships within families: Mutual influences. Oxford University Press; New York: 1988. pp. 7–26. [Google Scholar]
  36. Morrill MI, Hines DA, Mahmood S, Córdova JV. Pathways between marriage and parenting for wives and husbands: The role of coparenting. Family Process. 2010;49:59–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01308.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s guide. 2012;7 http://statmodel2.com/virg_nov_course.shtml. [Google Scholar]
  38. Pedro MF, Ribeiro T, Shelton KH. Marital satisfaction and partners' parenting practices: The mediating role of coparenting behavior. Journal of Family Psychology. 2012;26:509. doi: 10.1037/a0029121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Riina EM, Feinberg ME. Involvement in childrearing and mothers' and fathers' adjustment. Family Relations. 2012;61:836–850. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00739.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Roy RN, Schumm WR, Britt SL. Transition to parenthood. Springer; New York: 2014. [Google Scholar]
  41. Schoppe-Sullivan SJ, Mangelsdorf SC, Frosch CA, McHale JL. Associations between coparenting and marital behavior from infancy to the preschool years. Journal of Family Psychology. 2004;18:194–207. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Schoppe-Sullivan SJ, Mangelsdorf SC, Frosch CA. Coparenting, family process, and family structure: Implications for preschoolers' externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology. 2001;15:526–245. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Schrodt P, Miller AE, Braithwaite DO. Ex-spouses' relational satisfaction as a function of coparental communication in stepfamilies. Communication Studies. 2011;62:272–290. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2011.563453. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Simon RW. Parental role strains, salience of parental identity and gender differences in psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1992;33:25–35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2136855. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sobolewski JM, King V. The importance of the coparental relationship for nonresident fathers’ ties to children. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005;67:1196–1212. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00210.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Solmeyer AR, Feinberg ME, Coffman DL, Jones DE. The effects of the family foundations prevention program on coparenting and child adjustment: A mediation analysis. Prevention Science. 2014;15:213–223. doi: 10.1007/s11121-013-0366-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Teubert D, Pinquart M. The association between coparenting and child adjustment: A meta-analysis. Parenting: Science and Practice. 2010;10:286–307. doi: 10.1080/15295192.2010.492040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Egeren LA. The development of the coparenting relationship over the transition to parenthood. Infant Mental Health Journal. 2004;25:453–477. doi: 10.1002/imhj.20019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Egeren LA, Hawkins DP. Coming to terms with coparenting: Implications of definition and measurement. Journal of Adult Development. 2004;11:165–178. doi: 10.1023/B:JADE.0000035625.74672.0b. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Yavorsky JE, Kamp Dush CM, Schoppe-Sullivan SJ. The production of inequality: The gender division of labor across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2015;77:662–679. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Zick CD, Bryant WK. A new look at parents' time spent in child care: Primary and secondary time use. Social Science Research. 1996;25:260–280. doi: 10.1006/ssre.1996.0012. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES