University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Emotional, Physiological, And Cognitive Reactions Of Boys And Girls From High-Conflict And Low-Conflict Homes To Simulated Marital Conflict

(USC Thesis Other)

The Emotional, Physiological, And Cognitive Reactions Of Boys And Girls From High-Conflict And Low-Conflict Homes To Simulated Marital Conflict

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back o f the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600

THE EMOTIONAL, PHYSIOLOGICAL, AND COGNITIVE REACTIONS
OF BOYS AND GIRLS FROM HIGH-CONFLICT AND LOW-CONFLICT HOMES
TO SIMULATED MARITAL CONFLICT
by
Mark A. Laumakis
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(Psychology)
December 1994
Copyright 1994 Mark A. Laumakis
UMI Number: 1378420
UMI Microform 1378420
Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. AH rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
U N IV E R S IT Y O F S O U T H E R N C A LIF O R N IA
T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L
U N IV E R S IT Y P A RK
LO S A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This thesis, written by
tm .M U M A K IS .....................................................
under the direction of h..XS....Thesis Committee,
and approved by a ll its members, has been pre
sented to and accepted by the Dean of The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of the
requirements fo r the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Dean
Date...J$QYJ?.3?ber_,l6A _1994
raESIS C O M M ITTEE
LAiMMlm
f . / Chairmar/
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
i i
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Contents............................................................................................................ i i
List of Tables.................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures................................................................................................................... i v
Abstract............................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction........................................................................................................................ 2
Method................................................................................................................................. 1 2
Subjects................................................................................................................ 1 2
Procedures........................................................................................................... 1 6
Measures.............................................................................................................. 1 7
Results................................................................................................................................. 21
Emotional Reactions.......................................................................................... 21
Physiological Reactions................................................................................... 2 5
Cognitive Processing........................................................................................ 3 0
Discussion.......................................................................................................................... 3 8
References......................................................................................................................... 4 8
Appendix A: Demographic Characteristics of Stage I Non-Returners and
ATSS Sample...................................................................................................... 5 5
Appendix B: Conflict Tactics Scale: Child Version.................................................. 5 6
Appendix C: ATSS Follow-Up Questionnaire............................................................ 5 8
Appendix D: ATSS Instructions to Child Subjects................................................... 6 0
Appendix E: ATSS Tape Transcripts........................................................................... 6 1
Appendix F: Coding System for ATSS Tapes............................................................. 6 6
Children’s Reactions to Marital Conflict
List of Tables
Page
Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations of Sample’s Demographic
Characteristics 1 5
Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations of Positive Emotional Reactions 2 3
Table 3: Means and Standard Deviations of Negative Emotional Reactions 2 4
Table 4: Means and Standard Deviations of Self-Reported Physiological
Reactions 2 6
Table 5: Means and Standard Deviations of Pulse Readings 2 8
Table 6: F-values for Main Effects and Interactions for Coded Data of
Children’s Cognitive Processing 3 7
Children’s Reactions to Marital Conflict
i v
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1: Pulse Reading Changes from Baseline.................................................... 2 9
Figure 2: Negative Evaluation...................................................................................... 3 3
Figure 3: Positive Evaluation....................................................................................... 3 3
Figure 4: Negative Outcome.......................................................................................... 3 4
Figure 5: Positive Outcome.......................................................................................... 3 4
Figure 6: Prescription..................................................................................................... 3 5
Figure 7: Intervention.................................................................................................... 3 5
Figure 8: Problem-Solving........................................................................................... 3 6
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
1
Abstract
This study investigated children’s immediate emotional, physiological, and
cognitive reactions to episodes of simulated marital conflict. Seventy-four nine- to
thirteen-year-old children (4 0 girls, 34 boys) previously exposed to different levels
of marital conflict took part in a modified version of the Articulated Thoughts During
Simulated Situations (ATSS; Davison, Robins, & Johnson, 1983) procedure. The
children listened to audiotapes of simulated marital conflict reflecting different conflict
styles. Results indicate that name-calling, threatening to leave, and physical aggressive
conflict styles are particularly upsetting to children. The findings also suggest that,
regardless of their own previous exposure to marital conflict and regardless of their
gender, children demonstrate many similarities in their patterns of emotional and
physiological responding to and cognitive processing of episodes of marital conflict. This
study highlights the significance of conflict style as a new dimension of marital conflict
which influences how children process and respond to episodes of marital conflict.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
2
Introduction
In recent years, a considerable amount of research has investigated the
association between marital conflict and children's adjustment. Studies have addressed
this topic by taking one of two routes -- either by examining the link between marital
conflict and children's adjustment in both intact and divorced families or by examining
the effects of marital violence on children. Numerous studies have documented the
negative impact of marital conflict and marital violence on children. The research
evidence for the association between marital conflict and children's adjustment may be
summarized in the foliowing way: (a) children exposed to more frequent episodes of
marital conflict exhibit high levels of distress and a greater amount of behavior
problems than children not exposed to marital conflict; (b) children exposed to more
intense forms of marital conflict (e.g., conflict involving physical aggression) exhibit a
greater amount of behavior problems than children not exposed to these more intense
forms of marital conflict; (c) more intense forms of marital conflict are more upsetting
to children than less intense forms of marital conflict; and (d) marital conflict is
associated with maladjustment in both boys and girls (Emery, 1982; Grych & Fincham,
1990).
It is important to examine whether children's previous exposure to marital
conflict influences how they cognitively process and emotionally and physiologically
respond to marital conflict. Does previous experience with interparental conflict
influence how children respond to new episodes of interparental conflict? From a
theoretical standpoint, increased exposure to interparental conflict might lead to
reactions indicative of either habituation or sensitization. The habituation hypothesis
suggests that children exposed to greater amounts of marital discord would, after some
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
3
time, show decreased reactivity to it. That is, they would show lower levels of emotional
and physiological arousal in response to the same eliciting stimulus (i.e., marital
conflict) after repeated exposure to it. The sensitization hypothesis, in contrast, posits
that those children who are exposed to greater amounts of marital discord would, over
time, become more vulnerable to the effects of marital discord. That is, they would show
elevated levels of emotional and physiological arousal in response to the same eliciting
stimulus (i.e., marital conflict), even after considerable exposure to it. The existing
literature supports the sensitization hypothesis over the habituation hypothesis
(Fincham & Osborne, 1993). Children's history of exposure to marital conflict
influences their emotional reactions and coping attempts when faced with angry behavior
between other people (Cummings, Zahn-Waxler, & Radke-Yarrow,1981; Cummings,
Pellegrini, Notarius, & Cummings, 1989). In short, it seems that increased exposure
to interparental conflict sensitizes children to these conflicts and increases the
likelihood of greater emotional reactivity to these conflicts (Cummings et al., 1981).
Our understanding of how marital conflict affects children might best be obtained
by examining children's immediate reactions following exposure to conflict. In a series
of studies of children's reactions to expressions of anger between adults, Cummings and
his colleagues investigated the ways in which children cognitively process and react to
anger in the laboratory setting (Cummings, 1987; Cummings, Ballard, El-Sheikh, &
Lake, 1991; Cummings, lannotti, & Zahn-Waxler, 1985; Cummings, Pellegrini,
Notarius, & Cummings, 1989; Cummings, Vogel, Cummings, & El-Sheikh, 1989;
Cummings et al., 1981; El-Sheikh, Cummings, & Goetsch, 1989). Their results
suggest that increased exposure to angry interactions between adults sensitizes children
to these conflicts. In addition, this line of research has clearly demonstrated that
children show signs of heightened emotional arousal in response to background anger,
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
4
even in the laboratory setting (Cummings, 1987). Because actual episodes of marital
conflict represent a more potent and proximate stimulus for children, the implication of
these findings is that exposure to marital conflict is indeed a significant stressor for
children.
One dimension of marital conflict which has received considerable attention in
the research literature is the intensity of the conflict. Conflict involving physical
aggression is more upsetting for children and may be more closely associated with
behavior problems than less intense forms of marital conflict (Grych & Fincham,
1990). Researchers have repeatedly found that conflict episodes which include physical
aggression result in greater amounts of reactivity and distress in children compared
with episodes that do not include these more intense ingredients (Cummings et al.,
1981; Cummings, Pellegrini, Notarius, & Cummings, 1989; Cummings, Vogel,
Cummings, & El-Sheikh, 1989). Elsewhere, the marital violence literature further
demonstrates the negative impact of high intensity conflict on children (Fantuzzo &
Lindquist, 1989; Fantuzzo, DePaolo, Lambert, Martino, Anderson, & Sutton, 1991;
Holden & Ritchie, 1991; Hughes, 1988; Hughes & Barad, 1983; Jaffe, Wolfe, Wilson, &
Zak, 1986a, Jaffe, Wolfe, Wilson, & Zak, 1986b; Rosenberg, 1987; Wolfe, 1987;
Wolfe & Mosk, 1983; Wolfe, Jaffe, Wilson, & Zak, 1985; Wolfe, Jaffe, Wilson, & Zak,
1988). These studies have found that children who are exposed to marital violence
exhibit numerous adjustment problems, including significantly more internalizing and
externalizing behavior problems, fewer social competencies, poor peer relationships,
and impaired moral development. Despite these strong findings in the literature, other
researchers have failed to replicate these findings of greater problems in children from
abusive homes (Hershorn & Rosenbaum, 1985; Jouriles, Barling, & O'Leary, 1987;
Rosenbaum & O'Leary, 1981; Wolfe, Zak, Wilson, & Jaffe, 1986). Thus, there is
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
5
equivocal evidence for greater reactivity and adjustment problems in children who are
exposed to more intense forms of marital conflict. Furthermore, little is known about
children's immediate reactions to episodes of marital conflict.
With respect to gender differences in response to marital conflict, no clear
picture emerges of whether or how boys and girls may respond differently. A survey of
the research results in almost equal numbers of studies on both sides of the question
about whether gender differences exist. Some researchers have suggested that boys may
be more susceptible to the effects of marital discord than are girls. Boys may exhibit
more externalizing, undercontrolled behaviors, whereas girls may exhibit more
internalizing, overcontrolled behaviors (Bates, Bayles, Bennett, Ridge, & Brown,
1991; Burman, John, & Margolin, 1987; Cummings et al., 1985; Cummings, Vogel,
Cummings, & El-Sheikh, 1989; Dadds, Sheffield, & Holbeck, 1990; Emery & O'Leary,
1984; Emery, Joyce, & Fincham, 1987; Forehand, Long, Faust, Brody, Burke, &
Fauber, 1987; Jouriles et al., 1987; Margolin, 1981; Porter & O'Leary, 1980; Reid &
Crisafulli, 1990; Rutter, 1970; Wolfe et al., 1988). Other researchers, however,
have failed to find evidence of gender differences in children's reactions to marital
discord and divorce (Dadds & Powell, 1991; El-Sheikh et al., 1989; Emery, 1982;
Fantuzzo et al., 1991; Forehand, McCombs, Long, Brody, & Fauber, 1988; Grych &
Fincham, 1990; Grych & Fincham, 1993; Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992; Johnston,
Gonzalez, & Campbell, 1987; Jouriles, Pfiffner, & O'Leary, 1988; Jouriles, Bourg, &
Farris, 1991; Kurdek, 1991; Zaslow, 1988). Ironically, at times, the same
researchers have found themselves on both sides of the issue of gender differences in
response to marital conflict (e.g., Burman et al., 1987; Cummings et al., 1985;
Cummings, Vogel, Cummings, & El-Sheikh, 1989; Margolin, 1981). Nevertheless, in
both major review articles (Emery, 1982; Grych & Fincham, 1990) and a recent
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
6
meta-analysis (Reid & Crisafulli, 1990) of the association between marital conflict and
children's adjustment, the authors have stated that marital conflict is associated with
adjustment problems in both boys and girls. At this point, the best conclusion is
Emery's (1 9 8 2 ) statement that: "it may be that there is a gender difference in response
to marital discord, but the difference is in how and how much boys and girls respond, not
whether they do" (p. 31 6).
The present study addresses various shortcomings in the literature about
children's reactions to marital conflict. First, there has been little investigation of
children's cognitive processing of marital conflict (Grych & Fincham, 1990), besides
Grych and Fincham's (1 9 9 3 ) recent study and the work of O'Brien and her colleagues
(O'Brien, Margolin, John, & Krueger, 1991).
Grych and Fincham (1 9 9 3 ) recently published two studies which examined
children's appraisals of simulated marital conflict. Their findings suggest that child-
related conflict (e.g., disagreements about child rearing), as compared with nonchild-
related conflict (e.g., disagreements about family finances), results in significantly
more feelings of shame and fear of being drawn into the conflict by children. They also
discovered that intense simulated conflicts lead to greater negative affect and perceived
threat. The researchers conclude in this way: "These findings show that appraisals of
marital conflict are influenced by its content, intensity, and cause and suggest that the
meaning of conflict to children is an important determinant of its impact" (p. 215).
Despite these intriguing findings, some limitations of Grych and Fincham's work should
be noted. First, the samples used in the studies were both small and homogeneous --
only 45 children participated in the first study, all of whom were white and from
middle-class, two parent families and more than 90% of the 112 children in the second
study were white. Because of this sampling problem, the generalizability of Grych and
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
7
Fincham's findings is in question. Second, Grych and Fincham's assessment of children's
cognitions was limited, because it required children to respond within pre-determined,
experimenter-selected categories. An unstructured format for providing cognitions may
be more desirable (Davison, Navarre, & Vogel, in press). Finally, Grych and Fincham's
measure of children's affect, which consisted of a physical measurement of the location
of a mark made by the child on a bipolar scale anchored by the wordsiot at all and very
much, is less than satisfying.
O'Brien et al. (1 9 9 1 ) completed the only other investigation of individuals'
cognitive and emotional reactions to simulated marital conflict. Studying sons and
mothers from homes with physically aggressive, verbally aggressive, and low-conflict
marital relationships, these researchers described how individuals cognitively process
marital conflict. The results of this study suggest that sons of physically aggressive
couples, compared to sons in the other two groups, engage in more self-interference and
self-distraction, are more aroused, and are less critical in reaction to simulated
parental conflict. Boys from low-conflict homes made more predictions of positive
outcome and significantly more positive evaluations in response to simulated marital
conflict. In this way, the O'Brien et al. study provided some preliminary evidence that
experiences with conflict at home affect cognitive processing of and reactions to new
episodes of conflict. Again, however, the limitations of this study should be noted. First,
O'Brien et al.'s sample size was quite small. Only 35 mother-son pairs participated in
the study. Second, the sample did not include girls, who may or may not differ from boys
in their cognitive processing of marital conflict. Finally, the distinctions between high-
conflict and low-conflict simulated conflicts were somewhat limited.
Other researchers have studied the role of cognitive processing in the
development of aggressive behavior in children (Bice Pitts, 1993; Crick & Dodge,
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
8
1994; Dodge, 1980; Dodge, Price, Bachorowski, & Newman, 1990; Dodge & Crick,
1990; Dodge & Somberg, 1990; Quiggle, Garber, Panak, & Dodge, 1992; Steinberg &
Dodge, 1983). In this domain, research has consistently shown the important role of
social information processing and hostile attribution biases for aggressive children.
Especially in ambiguous situations, aggressive children respond to peers as if peers had
acted towards them with hostile intent (Bice Pitts, 1993; Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge,
1980; Dodge et al., 1990; Dodge & Crick, 1990; Dodge & Somberg, 1990; Quiggle et al.,
1992; Steinberg & Dodge, 1983). Despite this progress in our understanding of the
role of cognitive processing in the development of aggressive behavior, little systematic
investigation of children's cognitive processing of marital conflict has been
accomplished. In short, there are significant gaps in the existing literature regarding
children's cognitive processing of stressful events such as marital conflict (Grych &
Fincham, 1990; O'Brien et al., 1991). In much the same way that aggressive children
possess unique styles of cognitive processing, it may be that children who have been
exposed to different levels of marital conflict possess distinct styles of cognitive
processing of episodes of marital conflict. In light of the important role of cognitive
processing in mediating the impact of environmental events on individuals (Ellis, 1962;
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), the existing literature's failure to examine cognitive
processing of marital conflict is significant. If it is through cognitive processing that
marital conflict exerts its influence on children, then a more complete understanding of
these important cognitive processes is essential.
Building upon this foundation, the present study extends and improves upon
previous ones of children's cognitive processing of marital conflict. In particular, this
study uses an adaptation of the Articulated Thoughts During Simulated Situations (ATSS;
Davison, Robins, & Johnson, 1983) paradigm to assess children's immediate thoughts
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
9
and feelings in response to marital conflict. As noted above, little is known about these
immediate reactions to episodes of marital conflict. The ATSS procedure has been
utilized in many other studies (Bates, Campbell, & Burgess, 1990; Bice Pitts, 1993;
Davison, Feldman, & Osborn, 1984; Davison, Haaga, Rosenbaum, Dolezal, & Weinstein,
1991; Davison & Ziegelboim, 1987; O'Brien et al., 1991; White, Davison, Haaga, &
White, 1992; Williams, Davison, Nezami, & DeQuattro, 1992) . (For a thorough
review of the ATSS paradigm, see Davison, Navarre, & Vogel, in press.) As noted by
Davison and his colleagues (Davison et al., 1987), the advantages of the ATSS paradigm
include the following: (a) it permits open-ended verbal responding that parallels, as
much as possible, ongoing thought processes; (b) it does not constrain subjects in what
they report; (c) it allows the experimenter to specify and manipulate the situations to
which subjects are reacting; (d) the situations presented are sufficiently realistic and
complex; and (e) the procedure is not prohibitively expensive in terms of time or
money. ATSS has been used primarily with adults, with the exceptions of O'Brien et al.
(1 9 9 1 ) and Bice Pitts (1 9 9 3 ), who studied aggressive children's cognitive processing
of simulated school-based social interactions. Bice Pitts found that the ATSS procedure
was a more sensitive measure of children's cognitive processing than self-report
questionnaire measures. For the purposes of this present study, ATSS permits an
exploratory look at how children from family backgrounds with different levels of
conflict cognitively process episodes of marital conflict.
In addition to inadequate attention to children's cognitive processing of marital
conflict, the existing literature has also failed to consider certain features of marital
conflict. Whereas much has been written on the intensity, content, duration, and
resolution of marital conflict, no one has yet attempted to describe the differential
effects of marital conflict characterized by different styles of conflict. This study
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
10
examines how children react to simulated marital conflicts reflecting different conflict
styles that are employed in them. These conflict styles include positive affect, negative
voice and negative affect, name-calling, threatening to leave, and physical aggression.
In this way, this study is a step in a new direction in the investigation of children's
reactions to marital conflict.
This study also includes physiological data about children's reactions to marital
conflict, something which researchers (e.g., O'Brien et al., 1991) have suggested . Few
studies in this area of research, with the notable exception of El-Sheikh et al. (1 9 8 9 ),
have included direct physiological measures of children's heart rate, blood pressure, and
skin conductance. El-Sheikh and her colleagues found that children's systolic blood
pressure was higher and children's diastolic blood pressure showed a trend toward being
higher in response to angry adult interactions, as compared with their reactions to
friendly adult interactions. Findings regarding heart rate changes in response to angry
adult interactions were more complex and related to individual differences in responding
to such interactions. Such measures of physiological arousal may lead to a more
complete understanding of children's reactions to episodes of marital conflict.
Finally, there are obvious contradictions in the existing literature with respect
to both the question of gender differences in children's reactions to marital conflict and
the question of increased maladjustment and distress in children in response to more
intense conflicts. This study provides additional data about gender differences in
response to marital conflict and it demonstrates which styles of marital conflict are
more distressing for girls and boys.
The present study was designed to: (1 ) investigate children's cognitive
processing of marital conflict by using the open-ended structure provided by the ATSS
paradigm; (2 ) examine the differential effects of marital conflict characterized by
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
11
different styles of conflict; (3 ) incorporate direct physiological measures of children's
reactions to marital conflict; (4 ) explore further the effects of previous exposure to
marital conflict on children's reactions to new episodes of marital conflict; and (5 )
provide additional data about the possible differences between boys and girls in their
reactions to marital conflict. This study seeks to answer three questions about
children's emotional, physiological, and cognitive reactions to simulated marital
conflict: (1 ) What types of simulated marital conflict result in the greatest levels of
emotional, physiological, and cognitive reactivity in children? (2 ) Do children exposed
to different levels of marital conflict show differences in their emotional and
physiological reactions to and cognitive processing of simulated marital conflict? (3)
Do boys and girls show different emotional and physiological reactivity to and cognitive
processing of simulated marital conflict?
With respect to these questions, it is first hypothesized that simulated marital
conflict characterized by strategies such as name-calling, threatening to leave, and
physical aggression will result in greater levels of emotional, physiological, and
cognitive reactivity in children, in comparison with simulated marital conflicts without
these features. This hypothesis is based on research suggesting a link between a child's
exposure to more intense forms of marital conflict and child maladjustment. Second, it
is hypothesized that children from high-conflict homes will report and evidence greater
emotional and physiological reactivity to simulated marital conflict than children from
low-conflict homes. This hypothesis is based on past research which has demonstrated
the negative effects of exposure to parental conflict for children. No specific hypothesis
is offered about children's cognitive processing of simulated marital conflict as a
function of their previous exposure to marital conflict. Because there is little available
research evidence about children's cognitive processing of marital conflict, this study is
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
12
an exploratory and descriptive one with respect to this question. Third, it is
hypothesized that there will be no gender differences in children's reactivity to
simulated marital conflict. Previous research on this question is equivocal; however,
whenever gender differences do appear, they generally indicate that boys show greater
reactivity.
Method
Subjects
The children who took part in this study were drawn from a large sample of
families who have taken part in the Family Studies Project at the University of Southern
California. One hundred eighty-one intact families with a child between ages 8 and 11
(91 girls, 90 boys) were recruited through various public announcements and direct
mailings in the Los Angeles area. The criteria for participation in the original study
(Stage I) included the following: having at least one child between the ages of 8 and 11,
currently living in a two-parent family where both parents are the child's biological
parents, having a telephone, not having any family members hospitalized for major
psychiatric disorder, and speaking English as the primary language in the home. One
hundred twenty-three families were invited back for Stage II. Ninety-one families
elected to take part in Stage II.1 Of the 32 families who did not come back for Stage II,
1 Appendix A contains a table displaying the demographic characteristics of the children
and parents who were invited back for Stage II but did not return compared with the
demographic characteristics of the current ATSS sample of children and their parents.
These comparisons were made using data gathered at Stage I. The children in the ATSS
sample (M =9.4, SD= 1.1) were not significantly older than these other children
(M =9.5, SD=1.1), t (1 0 3 ) = .72, n.s. On the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children-Revised (WISC-R; Wechsler, 1974) Information subtest, the children in the
ATSS sample (M =12.2, SD=2.7) scored higher than these other children (M =10.9,
SD=2.7), t (1 0 3 ) = -2.28, p <.05.
Fathers of children in the ATSS sample (M =41.5, SD=5.9) were significantly
older than fathers who did not return for Stage II (M =37.7, SD=5.8), t (1 0 3 ) = -3.01,
p c .0 1 . Mothers of children in the ATSS sample (M =15.1, SD=2.0) had significantly
more years of education than those mothers who did not return for Stage II (M=1 3.9,
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
13
19 declined to participate and 13 had problems scheduling or canceled their scheduled
appointments more than twice. Of the 58 families not invited back for Stage II, 42 had
moved in the interim and could not be reached, 14 were ineligible because it had been
more than two years since their participation in Stage I, and two others were used only
as pilots for Stage I. A sample of 75 children (4 0 girls, 35 boys) from Stage II of the
Family Studies Project participated in the ATSS procedure. Sixteen children did not
participate because the ATSS procedure had not been finalized prior to their date of
participation.
The high-conflict / low-conflict distinction for this sample of 75 children was
made on the basis of scores on a child's version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS;
Straus, 1979). (A copy of the CTS has been included in Appendix B.) The child's report
was selected as the measure for exposure to conflict because of the overall focus in this
study on the child's perspective on marital conflict. The child's version of the CTS
requires each child to report on the occurrence (never, once, a few times, lots of times)
of six forms of verbal and eight forms of physical conflict to which he or she may have
SD=2.2), t (1 0 2 ) = -2.72, p <.01. Finally, the parents of children in the ATSS sample
(M =14.7, SD=4.2) were married longer than those parents who did not return for Stage
II (M = l2.3, SD=3.1), t (1 0 3 ) = -2.93, p < .0 1 .
Scores on the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979) of the ATSS sample and
CTS scores of those families who were invited back for Stage II but did not return were
compared. Again, these comparisons were made using data gathered at Stage I. CTS
verbal subscale scores (M=7.4, SD=5.8), physical subscale scores (M=1.6, SD=4.3),
and total CTS scores (M=9.0, SD=9.1) of the ATSS sample did not differ from the verbal
subscale scores (M =8.8, SD=5.9), physical subscale scores (M =1.0, SD=1.6), and
total CTS scores (M =9.8, SD=6.7) of children who were invited back for Stage II but did
not return.
Parents' overall marital satisfaction was measured using the Dyadic Adjustment
Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976). The DAS scores of husbands and wives in the current ATSS
sample (M =106.7, SD=14.3 and M =107.2, SD=14.7, respectively) did not differ from
the DAS scores of husbands and wives who were invited back for Stage II but did not
return (M =103.8, SD=18.5 and M=107.7, SD=17.3, respectively).
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
14
been exposed. Each item was rated for mothers and fathers and scored for each on a
four-point scale: never (0); once (1); a few times (2); and lots of times (3).
The criteria used to split the sample of children into high-conflict and low-
conflict groups were as follows: high-conflict children were those who received scores
of greater than or equal to 5 on the verbal subscale of the CTS or who endorsed any item
on the physical subscale of the CTS; low-conflict children were those who received
scores of less than 5 on the verbal subscale of the CTS and did not endorse any items on
the physical subscale of the CTS. Based on these criteria, 35 children were placed in the
high-conflict group (19 girls and 16 boys) and 39 children belonged to the low-conflict
group (21 girls and 18 boys). (The total sample size was reduced to 74 because one
child did not wish to complete the CTS in full.)
The low-conflict group represents a group of children which has been exposed to
relatively low levels of verbal conflict between their parents and to no physical conflict
between their parents. For this sample, the high-conflict group's mean score on the
verbal subscale was 10.77 (SD = 6.04) and the mean score on the physical subscale was
1.17 (SD = 2.43). The low-conflict group had a mean score of 2.31 (SD = 1.75) on the
verbal subscale and, by definition of this group, reported no physical conflict. These
groups are significantly different in their verbal subscale scores, t (7 2 ) = 8.00, p
<.01, in their physical subscale scores, t (72) = 2.85, p <.01, and in their total CTS
scores, t (7 2 ) = 8.29, p <.01.
ATSS Sample Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations of the
demographic characteristics of the ATSS sample of children and their parents. 2 X 2
(Conflict Exposure X Gender) ANOVAs were performed on these data. The majority of
these analyses showed no significant differences between the groups on these
demographic characteristics. The groups differed on only two demographic variables,
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
15
namely, mother's age and parents' years married. For mother's age, the mothers of the
children in the low-conflict group were older than the mothers of the children in the
high-conflict group, F (1 ,7 0 ) = 4.69, p <.05. For parents' years married, parents of
the children in the low-conflict group were married longer than parents of the children
in the high-conflict group, F (1 ,7 0 ) = 6.36, p <.05.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Sample’s Demographic Characteristics
Low-Conflict Group High-Confiict Group
Girls (n==21) Boys (n= 1 8 ) Girls (n==19) Boys (n = 1 6)
Demographic Characteristic M SD M SD M SD M SD
Mother's Age 39.8 4.6 42.5 4.1 38.0 3.4 39.5 6.5
Father's Age 43.1 6.0 44.6 5.7 40.7 4.2 43.2 7.3
Mother's Years of Education 15.5 2.0 15.2 2.2 14.5 1.5 15.1 2.4
Father's Years of Education 15.2 2.7 15.3 2.4 15.3 2.3 15.2 2.4
Family Gross Monthly Income 4,511 1,798 5,027 2,265 4,414 2,379 4,326 2,893
Parents' Years Married 16.1 3.7 18.5 4.2 14.9 2.7 14.8 5.1
Child's Age 11.2 1.2 11.3 1.2 11.1 1.1 11.6 1.2
Child's WISC-R Info. Score 12.0 2.2 12.1 3.1 12.3 2.7 12.4 2.9
Child's WISC-R B. D. Score 11.3 3.4 11.9 4.7 11.9 3.4 11.1 3.0
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
16
Ages of the children in the current sample ranged from 9 .4 to 13.4 years for
girls (M = 1 1.2, SD= 1.1) and from 9.4 to 13.2 years for boys (M =11.4, SD=1.2). The
ethnic composition of the sample was as follows: 68% Caucasian, 23% African-
American, 1 % Hispanic, and 8% from other groups. Chi-square tests revealed no
significant differences between the different groups for ethnicity.
Procedures
Articulated Thoughts Purina Simulated Situations (ATSS1. Each child in Stage II
of the Family Studies Project came to the laboratory session with both parents. Each
child completed several questionnaires and participated in a videotaped discussion with
his or her parents. For the ATSS part of the procedures, the experimenter took each
child into the ATSS room and showed him or her the equipment in the room, including
headphones, pulse monitor, microphone, and tape recorders. After describing the
equipment, the experimenter then fit the pulse monitor finger-wrap securely to the
index finger on the child's non-dominant hand. At this point in the procedures, the child
was told to sit quietly for three minutes while the experimenter recorded three
measures of a resting pulse rate. Throughout the ATSS procedure, the experimenter
remained in the room, sat on the other side of the cubicle at which the child was seated,
and recorded the child's pulse rate during the playing of each of the six stimulus tapes.
Having adjusted and fit the headphones on the child's head, the experimenter read a
standardized set of instructions stating that the child should imagine overhearing the
taped conversation between his or her parents. After listening to the conversation, a
high-frequency tone was heard to cue the child to articulate his or her thoughts and
feelings for 30 seconds, at which point a second tone indicated that the child could stop
speaking. (The complete instructions given to each child are included in Appendix D.)
Five of the six ATSS tapes were presented in random order, following the no-conflict
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
17
simulation tape designed to orient the child to the ATSS task, which was always presented
first. The five randomized tapes were designed to represent five different conflict
styles, including positive affect, negative voice and negative affect, name-calling,
threatening to leave, and physical aggression. The transcripts of the six ATSS tapes are
included in Appendix E.
Pulse Readings. Pulse readings were taken throughout the ATSS procedure from
the Labtron 0 2 -1 0 0 1 N pulse monitor, which was connected to the child's index finger.
As noted above, a three-minute baseline pulse rate was recorded before the playing of
the tapes. Pulse readings were recorded by the experimenter throughout the playing of
each of the six stimulus tapes. Three standardized readings were taken at specific key
words on each of the six tapes. In total, 18 standard pulse readings were taken for each
child. Pulse readings were not taken during the time when the child was filling out the
ATSS Follow-Up Questionnaire.
ATSS Follow-Up Questionnaire . At the conclusion of the 30-second interval for
articulating thoughts and feelings, each child completed the ATSS Follow-Up
Questionnaire (Appendix C). Each child completed the questionnaire six times, once
after each of the stimulus tapes. A fter the first stimulus tape, the experimenter
administered the questionnaire. Thereafter, the child filled out the questionnaire
independently.
Measures
Emotional Data The ATSS Follow-Up Questionnaire (Appendix C) provides self-
report information on emotional reactivity. Emotional reactions are rated on a five-
point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). Items on the ATSS Follow-Up
Questionnaire that target this affective dimension of children's reactions to the simulated
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
18
marital conflicts include, among others, the following: How happy did you feel? How sad
did you feel? How scared or frightened did you feel? and How mad or angry did you feel?
The items on the ATSS Follow-Up Questionnaire tap a range of emotional
reactions to simulated marital conflict. Based on the results of a factor analysis, the
scores were collapsed into two summary categories of emotions.2 A positive emotional
score was calculated by summing each child's responses to the following items: How
happy did you feel? and How hopeful did you feel? Cronbach's alpha for this scale was
.50. A negative emotional score was calculated by summing each child's responses to the
following items: How sad did you feel? How scared or frightened did you feel? How mad
or angry did you feel? How nervous or worried did you feel? How helpless did you feel?
Cronbach's alpha for this scale was .92.
Physiological Data . Data measuring the physiological reactions of the children in
response to the tapes of simulated marital conflict come from two sources: (1 ) the self-
report responses of physiological arousal, as indicated on the ATSS Follow-Up
Questionnaire, and (2) pulse readings recorded while the child listened to each of the six
stimulus tapes. On the ATSS Follow-Up Questionnaire, physiological arousal includes
physical sensations experienced in response to the tapes of simulated marital conflict.
These sensations are tapped by the first 1 2 questions on the ATSS Follow-Up
Questionnaire. Examples of these items include the following: How much did your face
feel hot or flushed (get red)? How much did your hands or body g et sweaty? How much
did you get a lump in your throat and/or your eyes get teary? and How much did your
body feel restless? Cronbach's alpha for this scale was .91. Again, each response is
rated on a five-point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). Self-reported
2 The item How surprised did you feel? loaded moderately on both the positive emotional
scale and the negative emotional scale. Consequently, it was not included in subsequent
analyses.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
19
physiological reactions for each of the six stimulus tapes were measured by calculating a
total score across the 12 physiological items on the ATSS Follow-Up Questionnaire.
Pulse readings are available from only 61 of the total sample of 75 children who
took part in the ATSS procedure, because this component was not included at the
beginning of the data collection procedures. The pulse readings include three baseline
readings recorded during the preliminary three-minute rest period at the beginning of
the ATSS procedure and three standard readings that were taken at specific key words on
each of the six stimulus tapes. For each child in the sample, the average of these three
standard readings was calculated at baseline and for each tape. Thus, each child had a
total of seven pulse scores, one at baseline and one for each of the six stimulus tapes.
These pulse readings directly tap the autonomic nervous system, so they
represent a more direct measure of reactivity and arousal than self-report instruments.
Research has demonstrated the validity and reliability of portable pulse monitors of the
kind used in this study (Follick, Ahern, & Gorkin, 1985). Other research has shown
that different emotions, such as anger, fear, and sadness are characterized by elevations
in autonomic nervous system activity, particularly in increased heart rate (Ekman,
Levenson, & Friesen, 1983; Levenson, Ekman, & Friesen, 1990).
Cognitive Data Each child's responses3 to the six ATSS tapes were transcribed
and then coded using a slight modification of an earlier version of a coding system used
with ATSS audio tapes (O'Brien et al., 1 9 9 1).4
3 N=71 for these analyses, because the audiotaped responses of three subjects were
unable to be coded due to technical difficulties.
4 Several codes from this original coding system were eliminated, including self
distraction, democracy, and autocracy. A negative outcome code was added. The
intervention code used in the coding system for this study is equivalent to the self
interference code used by O'Brien and her colleagues.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
20
The codes used in this study include the following: (1 ) Negative Evaluation
(negative evaluation and attribution of blame) reflects criticism specific to the incident
on the tape directed toward the actors in the simulated conflicts; (2 ) Positive Evaluation
(positive evaluation and support) reflects praise of the actors; (3 ) Negative Outcome
pertains to pessimistic predictions about how the conflict will end; (4 ) Positive
Outcome pertains to optimistic predictions about how the conflict will end; (5 )
Prescription includes value-based, generic statements or descriptions concerning how
conflict, family life, or marital relationships should, ought, or must be; (6)
Intervention reflects active attempts to intervene verbally or physically by the
respondent in the context of the events occurring on the stimulus tape; and (7)
Problem-Solving includes suggestions of alternative behaviors or coping responses that
actors in the simulated conflicts could have utilized.
Reading the transcripts first and then listening to the recorded responses, three
coders independently rated each complete articulated response to each tape for every
child on all seven dimensions. Each complete articulated response during the 30-second
response interval received one rating on each of these seven codes. For the first five
coding categories, the coder rated the response on a four-point rating scale. A rating of
0 (not at all) indicated that the code was not relevant to the response, while a rating of 3
(a lot) indicated that the code was strongly related to the response. For the final two
codes, intervention and problem-solving, a simple yes-or-no decision was made about
the presence of these two kinds of articulated thoughts. These two codes were rated in
this manner because of the dichotomous nature of the two categories. Coders rated
responses based on a global consideration of the combined elements of the response,
including its content, tone, and the frequency of specific types of statements. Coding time
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
21
was approximately 20 minutes per subject. A copy of the ATSS Coding Manual and ATSS
Coding Sheet is included in Appendix F.
Reliabilities for the codes were calculated using the intraclass correlation
coefficient, as detailed by Shrout and Fleiss (1 9 7 9 ). The resulting reliabilities were as
follows: Negative Evaluation=.86, Positive EvaIuation=.86, Negative Outcome=.88,
Positive 0utcom e=.91, Prescription^ 54, Interventions87, and Problem-Solving=.83.
Results
The emotional, physiological, and cognitive reactions of children to the simulated
marital conflicts on the ATSS tapes were examined through 6 X 2 X 2 (Conflict Style X
Conflict Exposure X Gender) repeated-measures multivariate analyses of variance
(MANOVAs). Conflict Style was a repeated measure, whereas Conflict Exposure and
Gender were between-subjects factors.
Emotional Reactions
Positive Emotional Reactions. Table 2 displays the means and standard deviations
of the children's positive emotional reactions to the six tapes of simulated marital
conflicts reflecting different conflict styles. The MANOVA revealed a significant effect of
conflict style, F ( 5,70) = 55.14, p < .01. This main effect was further analyzed using a
slight modification of Tukey's HSD test of all pairwise comparisons (Gravetter &
Wallnau, 1988). Results of this analysis indicated that children reported significantly
more positive emotional reactions in response to the non-conflictual simulation than in
response to the conflict with positive affect, which, in turn, received more positive
emotional reactions than any of the other tapes, which did not differ from each other.
This analysis did not indicate any main effect or interactions for conflict exposure on
children's positive emotional reactions to simulated marital conflict (all F s < 1). The
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
22
main effect for gender approached significance, F (1 ,7 0 ) = 3.05, p <.10. Boys tended to
report more positive emotional reactions than did girls.
Negative Emotionai Reactions Table 3 displays the means and standard deviations
of the children's negative emotional reactions to the six tapes of simulated marital
conflict. The MANOVA revealed a significant effect of conflict style, F (5 ,7 0 ) = 56.59, p
<.01. Tukey's HSD test indicated that children reported significantly more negative
emotional reactions in response to simulated marital conflicts characterized by negative
voice and negative affect and those including name-calling than in response to either
conflicts with positive affect or to non-conflictual simulations. Furthermore, children
reported more negative emotional reactions to the conflicts with name-calling, threats
to leave, and physical aggression, as compared with each of the other three simulated
conflicts. The MANOVA did not indicate any main effects or interactions for either
conflict exposure or gender on children's negative emotional reactions to simulated
marital conflict (all F s < 1, except for the interaction of conflict style and gender, F
(5 ,7 0 ) = 1.29, n.s.).
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of Postive Emotional Reactions
Low-Conflict Group High-Conflict Group Entire Sample
Conflict Style
Girls (n=21) Boys (n==18) Girls (n=T 9 ) Boys (n==16) (N=74)
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
No Conflict 3.62 2.60 4.61 2.20 3.63 1.92 3.25 2.52 3.78a 2.33
Positive Affect 1.57 1.63 1.83 2.12 1.32 1.53 1.88 2.09 1.64b 1.82
Negative Voice / Affect 0.62 1.24 1.44 1.50 0.53 1.07 1.25 2.08 0 .9 3 c 1.51
Name-Calling 0.95 1.60 1.50 1.51 0.47 0.96 1.38 2.09 1.05c 1.59
Threatening to Leave 0.71 1.35 1.00 1.33 0.74 1.15 0.81 1.38 0.81 c 1.28
Physical Aggression 1.00 1.58 1.28 1.45 0.37 0.76 1.31 2.18 0.97 c 1.56
Note Means with different subscripts differ significantly at p <.05.
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations of Negative Emotional Reactions
Conflict Style
Low-Confiict Group High-Conflict Group Entire Sample
Girls (n=21) Boys(n=18) Girls (n==19) Boys (n==16) (N=74)
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
No Conflict 0.52 0.87 1.17 2.28 0.53 0.70 2.00 1.97
1.00a
1.64
Positive Affect 1.86 2.46 4.44 4.42 2.74 3.41 2.19 3.47
2.78b
3.54
Negative Voice / Affect 6.57 6.34 6.56 4.64 6.47 5.11 5.81 5.72 6.38c 5.41
Name-Calling 6.81 6.56 8.06 5.41 6.32 5.24 6.75 5.84 6.97 cd 5.72
Threatening to Leave 9.33 7.45 8.56 6.04 8.58 5.91 6.94 7.30
8.43d 6.63
Physical Aggression 8.14 6.91 9.33 6.38 9.05 6.28 7.44 6.44 8.51 d 6.43
Note Means with different subscripts differ significantly at p <.05.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
25
Physiological Reactions
Self-Reported Physiological Arousal . Table 4 displays the means and standard
deviations of the children's self-reported physiological reactions to the simulated
marital conflicts. The MANOVA revealed a significant effect of conflict style, F (5 ,7 0 ) =
15.91, p <.01. Tukey's HSD test indicated that children reported significantly more
physiological arousal in response to the simulated marital conflict including threats to
leave and physical aggression than in response to any other styles of conflict, especially
conflicts with positive affect or non-conflictual simulations. The MANOVA did not
indicate any main effects or interactions for either conflict exposure or gender on
children's self-reported physiological reactions to simulated marital conflict (all F s <
1, except for the main effect for conflict exposure, F (1 ,7 0 ) = 2.44, n.s.).
Children's Reactions t o Marital Conflict
ID
CM
Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations of Self-Reported Physiological Reactions
Low-Conflict Group High-Conflict Group Entire Sample
Conflict Style
Girls (n=21) Boys (n=18) Girls (n=4 9) Boys(n=16) (N =74)
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
No Conflict 2.71 4.42 3.33 4.00 4.68 5.52 4.88 5.58 3.84a 4 .88
Positive Affect 2.19 4.48 3.39 4.68 5.53 5.58 5.75 7.83
4 -1 1ab
5.76
Negative Voice / Affect 4.43 5.86 5.00 6.47 8.00 8.05 6.56 7.52
5.95bc
6.99
Name-Calling 3.76 5.65 6.94 9.01 7.63 7.91 7.63 9.64 6 .37 c 8.06
Threatening to Leave 5.48 7.07 6.61 9.21 9.53 11.01 8.63 10.34 7-47cd 9.38
Physical Aggression 6.19 7.03 9.83 12.28 9.95 10.00 10.19 9.16
8.91 d
9.67
Note Means with different subscripts differ significantly at p <.05.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
27
Pulse Readings. Table 5 displays the means and standard deviations of the
children's pulse readings taken during the playing of each of the six stimulus tapes of
simulated marital conflict. The MANOVA examined the changes in the children's pulse
readings from baseline across the six stimulus tapes. Figure 1 displays the changes in
the girls' and boys' pulse readings from their baseline readings. The effect of conflict
style approached significance, F ( 5, 57) = 2.20, p < .10. The MANOVA did not reveal
any main effects or interactions for conflict exposure on children's pulse readings
(all F s < 1). The main effect for gender approached significance, F (1 ,5 7 ) = 3.35, p <
.10. Across all six tapes, boys' pulse readings showed a trend toward increasing more
than did girls' pulse readings (see Figure 1).
Children's Reactions t o Marital Conflict
c o
C VJ
Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations of Pulse Readings
Low-Confiict Group High-Conflict Group Entire Sample
Girls (n==17) Boys (n==12) Girls (n==17) Boys (n >=15) (N =61)
Conflict Style M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
No Conflict 77.16 14.42 71.75 10.42 75.31 8.92 74.13 10.44 74.84 11.21
Positive Affect 77.84 8.26 72.89 9.92 76.41 7.16 72.51 9.28 75.16 8.67
Negative Voice / Affect 76.06 7.42 72.78 12.28 77.28 7.49 71.64 9.90 74.67 9.26
Name-Calling 79.11 10.13 74.42 12.61 79.24 7.17 74.56 8.54 77.10 9.63
Threatening to Leave 77.84 8.28 72.89 12.56 75.37 6.75 72.20 8.55 74.79 9.03
Physical Aggression 76.45 8.91 71.00 8.04 76.08 6.86 71.57 7.36 74.12 8.01
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
29
Figure 1: Pulse Reading Changes from Baseline
1
m Boys
Tape 1 Tape 2 Tape 3 Tape 4 Tape 5 Tape 6
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
30
Cognitive Processing
Coded data were averaged across the three coders and separately for each of the
six ATSS tapes. Figures 2 through 8 display the means of the children's coded ATSS
responses for all seven dimensions and Table 6 shows the F -values for the coded data.
Negative Evaluation. The MANOVA revealed a significant effect of conflict style,
F ( 5,67) = 54.1 5, p <.01. Tukey's HSD test indicated that children made the most
negative evaluation statements about the conflict which included physical aggression.
Furthermore, they evaluated the conflicts with negative voice and negative affect,
name-calling, and threatening to leave more negatively than either the conflict with
positive affect or the non-conflictual simulation. As revealed in Figure 2 and confirmed
by a significant main effect for conflict exposure, children from high-conflict homes
evaluated the tapes of simulated marital conflict more negatively than did children from
low-conflict homes, F (1 ,6 7 ) = 4.14, p <.05. A significant Conflict Exposure X Gender
interaction indicated that, among the children from low-conflict homes, girls responded
more negatively than did boys; in contrast, among the children from high-conflict
homes, boys responded more negatively than did girls, F ( 1 ,67) = 5.13, p <.05. There
was no significant main effect for gender on children's negative evaluations of simulated
marital conflict, F (1 ,6 7 ) = 1.46, n.s.
Positive Evaluation . This analysis revealed a significant effect of conflict style, F
(5 ,6 7 ) = 29.77, p <.01. The post-hoc test indicated that children evaluated the non-
conflictual interaction more positively than the conflict with positive affect, which, in
turn, they evaluated more positively than any of the other styles of conflict. The
MANOVA did not indicate any main effects or interactions for either conflict exposure or
gender on children's positive evaluations of simulated marital conflict (all F s < 1).
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
31
Negative Outcome The MANOVA revealed a significant effect of conflict style,
F ( 5,67) = 12.94, p <.01. A subsequent Tukey's HSD test indicated that children
predicted more negative outcomes for conflicts characterized by styles of threatening to
leave and physical aggression than for either the conflict with positive affect or the non-
conflictual simulation. The MANOVA did not indicate any main effects for either conflict
exposure or gender. The interaction of conflict exposure and gender approached
significance, F (1 ,6 7 ) = 3.08, p <.10. Among the children from low-conflict homes,
boys showed a trend toward making more predictions of negative outcome than did girls,
whereas among the children from high-conflict homes, girls tended to make more
predictions of negative outcome than did boys. The interaction of conflict style and
gender also was marginally significant, F (1 ,6 7 ) = 1.93, p <. 10. In response to the no
conflict tape, girls tended to make more predictions of negative outcome than did boys,
whereas, in response to the other tapes (with the exception of the conflict with positive
affect tape), boys tended to make more predictions of negative outcome than did girls.
Positive Outcome The MANOVA indicated a significant effect of conflict style,
F (5 ,6 7 ) = 4.21, p <.01. Tukey's HSD test indicated that children predicted more
positive outcomes for the non-conflictual simulation than for each of the following:
conflict with negative voice and negative affect, conflict with threats to leave, and the
physically aggressive conflict. This analysis did not reveal any main effects or
interactions for either conflict exposure or gender on children's predictions of positive
outcome for episodes of simulated marital conflict (all F s < 1, except for main effect for
gender, F (1 ,6 7 ) = 2.28, n.s.).
Prescription . The MANOVA indicated a significant effect of conflict style, F
(5 ,6 7 ) = 2.52, p <.05. Tukey's HSD test indicated that children distinguished most
clearly between the non-conflictual simulation and the simulated conflict characterized
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
32
by threatening to leave. Children made significantly more prescriptive statements in
response to the latter. Each of the other styles of conflict did not differ significantly
from each other. No main effects or interactions for either conflict exposure or gender
on children's prescriptive statements in response to simulated marital conflict were
demonstrated by the MANOVA (all F s < 1, except for main effect for conflict exposure, F
(1 .6 7 ) = 1.01, n.s.).
Intervention . The main effect for conflict style approached significance, F
(5 .6 7 ) = 2.1 3, p <.10. The MANOVA did not indicate any main effects or interactions
for either conflict exposure or gender on children's statements indicating a desire to
intervene in episodes of simulated marital conflict (all F s < 1).
Problem-Solving _. Whereas the MANOVA did not reveal any main effects or
interactions for either conflict exposure or gender on children's problem-solving
statements (all F s < 1), the analysis did indicate a significant effect of conflict style,
F (5 ,6 7 ) = 8.27, p <.01. A subsequent Tukey's HSD test indicated that children clearly
distinguished between the non-conflictual simulation and each of the other simulated
marital conflicts. They made more problem-solving statements in response to these
other simulations than to the non-conflictual simulation.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
33
Figure 2: Negative Evaluation
Tape 1 Tape2 Tape3 Tape 4 Tape 5 Tape 6
■
L-C Girls
I I
L-C Boys
H I
H-C Girls
m
H-C Boys
Figure 3: Positive Evaluation
Tape 1 Tape2 Tape3 Tape 4 Tape 5 Tape 6
H
L-C Girls
u
L-C Boys
m
H-C Girls
n
H-C Boys
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
34
Figure 4: Negative Outcome
Tape 1 Tape2 Tape3 Tape 4 Tape 5 Tape 6
Figure 5: Positive Outcome
Tape 1 Tape2 Tape3 Tape 4 Tape 5 Tape 6
■
L-C Girls
u
L-C Boys
S f
H-C Girls
m
H-C Boys
■
L-C Girls
n
L-C Boys
R S B
t/S B B t
H-C Girls
B
H-C Boys
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
35
Figure 6: Prescription
0.35
Tape 1 Tape 2 Tape 3 Tape 4 Tape 5 Tape 6
Figure 7: Intervention
0.12
Tape 1 Tape 2 Tape 3 Tape 4 Tape 5 Tape 6
■
L-C Girls
n
L-C Boys
BH
H-C Girls
m
H-C Boys
■
L-C Girls
I B
L-C Boys
■
H-C Girls
m
H-C Boys
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
36
Figure 8: Problem-Solving
0.05-
i I
Tape 1 Tape 2 Tape 3 Tape 4 Tape 5 Tape 6
■
L-C Girls
H I L-C Boys
B
H-C Girls
m
H-C Boys
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
37
Table 6
F -values for Main Effects and Interactions for Coded Data of Children's Cognitive
Processing
Main Effects Interactions
Conflict Conflict
Conflict Conflict Gender* 5 Style X Style X
Code Style3 Exposure* 5 Conflict Gender* 5
Exposure* 5
Negative Evaluation
54.1 5 ** 4 .14 *
1.46
5.13*
Positive Evaluation
2 9 .7 7 **
Negative Outcome
1 2 .9 4 ** 1.93c 3 .0 8 c
Positive Outcome
4 .2 1 **
2.28
Prescription
2 .5 2 *
1.01
Intervention
2 .1 3C
Problem-Solving
8 .2 7 **
Note All missing F's <1. No 3-way interactions are significant.
acff= 5, 67. bdf= 1,67. cp <.10.
*p < . 05. **p <.01.
Conflict
Exposure
X Gender* 5
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
38
Discussion
The results of this study provide partial support for the hypothesis that
simulated marital conflict characterized by name-calling, threatening to leave, and
physically aggressive conflict styles would result in greater levels of emotional,
physiological, and cognitive reactivity in children, as compared with conflicts without
these features. First, children report more positive emotional reactions to non-
conflictual interactions and more negative emotional reactions to more conflictual
interactions, such as those including name-calling, threatening to leave, and physical
aggression. Second, with respect to physiological reactivity, children consistently
report the highest levels of physiological arousal in response to the simulated marital
conflict which included physical aggression. This self-report data on physiological
arousal was not corroborated by direct pulse readings. These pulse readings indicated
that conflicts that include name-calling are particularly upsetting to children. Third, in
a manner consistent with their emotional reactions, children cognitively process non-
conflictual interactions and conflicts with greater negativity in quite different ways.
For instance, they make more negative evaluations of physically aggressive conflicts and
more predictions of negative outcomes for conflicts which include threats to leave, as
compared with other styles of conflict. In this way, even in their initial thoughts in
response to episodes of marital conflict, children are sensitive to different conflict
styles.
The results of this study provide virtually no support for the hypothesis that
increased previous exposure to marital conflict sensitizes children to these conflicts.
The only significant effect of prior exposure to marital conflict was found in children's
cognitive processing of simulated marital conflict. This effect was most marked in
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
39
children's negative evaluations of the conflict episodes. Children from high-conflict
homes consistently expressed more negative evaluations of the parents in the simulated
marital conflicts than did children from low-conflict homes. Across all other
modalities, in their emotional reactions, self-reported physiological reactions, and
direct pulse readings, children from high-conflict homes did not differ in any systematic
way from children from low-conflict homes.
The hypothesis that there would be no gender differences in children's reactions
to simulated marital conflict was largely supported by the results of this study. The
only gender difference suggested by the results of this investigation was a nonsignificant
trend indicating that, in their pulse readings, boys show greater physiological reactivity
to simulated marital conflicts than do girls. There was no evidence of significant gender
differences in children's emotional reactions to the conflict simulations, nor was there
evidence of gender differences along any dimension of their cognitive processing of these
simulated marital conflicts.
The major finding of this study is that different conflict styles consistently show
differential effects on children across different domains, including their emotional,
physiological, and cognitive reactions to episodes of simulated marital conflict. Conflict
style represents a new dimension of marital conflict for study. As other researchers
have suggested (Grych & Fincham, 1990), other aspects of conflict intensity must be
considered if we are to come to a fuller understanding of the effects of marital conflict on
children. Conflict style represents just such a new aspect of marital conflict. The
importance of this study lies in its preliminary description of the differential effects of
marital conflicts reflecting different conflict styles employed in them. Comparing the
present findings about conflict style with the results of other studies of other dimensions
of marital conflict demonstrates how the present investigation of conflict styles extends
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
40
this previous work and increases our understanding of how children react to episodes of
marital conflict. Specifically, the findings about children's emotional reactions to
conflicts characterized by different styles of conflict parallel much of the existing
research about children's reactions to marital conflicts of different intensity. With
respect to this dimension of marital conflict, researchers have found that more intense
forms of marital conflict are more upsetting to children than less intense forms of
marital conflict (Grych & Fincham, 1990). Cummings and his colleagues have
demonstrated that children are particularly sensitive to physically aggressive
conflictual interactions between adults (Cummings et at., 1981; Cummings, Vogel,
Cummings, & El-Sheikh, 1989; Cummings, Pellegrini, Notarius, & Cummings, 1989).
Elsewhere, other researchers recently extended Cummings' results about angry adult
interactions to children's appraisals of marital conflict (Grych & Fincham, 1993).
Grych and Fincham found that high intensity conflicts, as compared to low intensity
conflicts, resulted in more negative emotional reactions, such as anger, sadness, worry,
and shame.
Overall, these findings suggest that, regardless of their own previous exposure to
conflict and regardless of their gender, children demonstrate striking similarities in
their characteristic patterns of emotional and physiological responding to and cognitive
processing of episodes of marital conflict. With the exception of children's negative
evaluations of episodes of marital conflict, children's past experience of high or low
levels of conflict in the home did not affect in any way how they reacted to new simulated
marital conflicts. Likewise, girls and boys did not demonstrate any systematic
differences in their reactions to conflict episodes. This finding that children from high-
conflict homes do not differ in almost any way from children from low-conflict homes
contradicts earlier findings about the effects of increased exposure to marital conflict.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
41
In particular, the research of Cummings and his colleagues has suggested that increased
exposure to interparental conflict sensitizes children to these conflicts (Cummings et
al., 1981; Cummings, Pellegrini, Notarius, & Cummings, 1989). Regarding children's
emotional and physiological reactions to simulated marital conflict, the results of the
present study support neither the sensitization hypothesis nor the habituation
hypothesis. Instead, these findings and the recent findings of other researchers (Grych
& Fincham, 1993) suggest that children share similar patterns of responding to
episodes of marital conflict, regardless of their previous history of exposure to marital
conflict.
The only exception to this finding of consistency in responding regardless of
previous exposure to marital conflict occurred in children's cognitive processing of
episodes of simulated marital conflict. Specifically, the results indicated that children
from high-conflict homes consistently expressed more negative evaluations of the
parents in the simulated marital conflicts than did children from low-conflict homes.
This finding contradicts the results of O'Brien et al.'s (1 9 9 1 ) study. Their results
indicated that sons of physically aggressive parents evaluated high-intensity simulated
conflicts less negatively than did sons of verbally aggressive parents. These researchers
suggested that sons of physically aggressive parents reacted less negatively to these
high-intensity conflict episodes because they viewed them as normative and,
consequently, less worthy of such criticism. The differences in the findings of the
current study and O'Brien et al.'s study may be explained in part by the different
stimulus tapes used in the two studies. The tapes used in the current study, especially
those portraying the name-calling, threatening to leave, and physically aggressive
conflict styles, are more negative and more intense than the high-intensity tapes used in
O'Brien et al.'s study (G. Margolin, personal communication, May 9, 1994). In
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
42
addition, the overall procedures in the two studies were quite different. These
differences may also account for the discrepancies in the results obtained in each study.
Nevertheless, the current finding of more negative statements by children from high-
conflict homes merits further attention. In some ways, this finding makes intuitive
sense. It seems reasonable to expect that children from high-conflict homes would
evaluate new conflict episodes more negatively than would children from low-conflict
homes. Still, this begs the question, why? It may be that one consequence of previous
exposure to increased levels of interparental conflict is that children formulate their
own negative evaluations of such behavior. Later, when faced with a new conflict
episode, these previously formulated negative evaluations may be more readily available
to children from high-conflict homes than to children from low-conflict homes. As a
result, these easily accessible negative evaluations are more frequently expressed by
children from high-conflict homes than by children from low-conflict homes.
The present finding of virtually no gender differences in children's emotional,
physiological, and cognitive reactions to simulated marital conflict further complicates
the already complex picture of the ways in which girls and boys may respond differently
to episodes of marital conflict. Subtle differences between boys and girls were evident in
their physiological reactions to the episodes of simulated marital conflict. In
comparison to their baseline pulse readings, boys tended to show greater increases in
their heart rates than did girls. Interestingly, however, in an absolute sense, girls'
heart rates remained higher than boys' heart rates throughout the procedures. This
difference is explained by the fact that females and males show different resting heart
rates, with girls and women showing a faster resting heart rate than boys and men
(Anderson & McNeilly, 1991). Consistent with this pattern, girls' baseline heart rates
were higher than boys' baseline heart rates. The direction of this gender difference,
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
43
with boys showing greater physiological responding than girls, fits with the somewhat
inconsistent finding of boys' greater susceptibility to the effects of marital discord. The
significance of the present study's finding of a trend toward gender differences in
children's physiological reactions to marital conflict lies in the fact that this study is
only the second available one to include data on children's physiological reactions to
conflictual interactions. The only other investigation of children's reactions to adults'
angry behavior to include physiological measures failed to find any significant gender
differences in children's heart rate, blood pressure, and finger pulse volume (El-Sheikh
et al., 1989). In fact, the present study is unique in the investigation of children's
reactions to marital conflict for its inclusion of physiological data, because El-Sheikh et
al.'s (1 9 8 9 ) study focused on children's physiological reactions to interadult anger and
not specifically episodes of marital conflict.
The major implication of this study is the significant effect of conflict style on
how children emotionally, physiologically, and cognitively respond to episodes of marital
conflict. Across each of these domains, children reacted in qualitatively different ways
to conflicts characterized by different styles of conflict employed in them. In
particular, the conflict styles of threatening to leave and physical aggression caused the
most negative reactions in children. Pre-teen children seem to be especially sensitive
to these two styles of conflict. These findings may alert mental health professionals who
work with conflictual families and parents themselves to the destructive effects of these
two styles of conflict on children who are exposed to them. Building on this initial
investigation of these important conflict styles, future research may seek to refine our
understanding of this aspect of marital conflict and the ways in which it may function
together with other dimensions of conflict, such as frequency, content, and resolution.
Two other implications of this study merit attention as well. First, this study
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
44
demonstrated a surprising level of consistency in children's reactions to episodes of
marital conflict. Regardless of their own previous exposure to conflict at home and
regardless of gender, children demonstrated a strikingly uniform pattern of responding
to new conflictual interparental interactions. This uniformity suggests that, contrary to
previous research findings, knowing about a child's prior experiences with marital
conflict at home and about purported gender differences in response to marital conflict
may not provide additional information about how a child may respond to future episodes
of marital conflict. Second, this study provided a preliminary description of how
children cognitively process stressful events such as marital conflict. The results
indicate that negative evaluation is a salient dimension for children in their cognitive
processing of episodes of marital conflict, especially for children from high-conflict
homes. This and other dimensions of children's cognitive processing remain to be
investigated more fully by future researchers.
Despite the improvements in this study over the methods used in previous
research, several notable limitations remain. First, the measure of children's positive
emotional reactions to the simulated marital conflict episodes was somewhat limited.
This measure consisted of only two items from the ATSS Follow-Up Questionnaire. A
more thorough and complete assessment of this aspect of children's reactions to marital
conflict would have been preferable. Second, the portable pulse monitor used in this
study was not a sophisticated psychophysiological measuring device. Other physiological
measures in addition to heart rate, such as blood pressure and skin conductance, are
necessary for a more complete understanding of children's physiological reactions to
episodes of marital conflict. Third, this study did not include any direct behavioral
measures of children's reactions to the episodes of simulated marital conflict. Future
studies should include behavioral measures like those used by Cummings and his
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
45
colleagues (Cummings et al., 1985; Cummings, Pellegrini, Notarius, & Cummings,
1989; Cummings et al., 1981; El-Sheikh et a!., 1989), such as smiling, facial
distress, crying, and postural distress. Finally, this study is limited by the use of
simulated marital conflicts, instead of studying children's reactions to real-life episodes
of marital conflict. Creativity and new technologies may someday make it possible to
study how children react to marital conflict between their real parents in their own
homes.
Notwithstanding these limitations, this study is valuable and important because
of several methodological and conceptual strengths. First, this study included a
relatively heterogeneous sample of children. Nearly one-third of this sample was non-
Caucasian, including almost 25% African-Americans. This nonclinic, community
sample is more representative of the population than the largely Caucasian samples used
in other studies. Second, this study used a measure of the level of marital conflict to
which the child reports having been exposed. Measures of marital conflict are
preferable to more global measures of marital satisfaction (Grych & Fincham, 1990;
Grych et al., 1992). Furthermore, measures of exposure to marital conflict are better
than measures of the mere presence of conflict in the home, because conflict which is
expressed openly has been shown to be more strongly associated with adjustment
problems in children than conflict of which children are either unaware or from which
children are shielded (Emery et al., 1987). Using the child's report of interparental
conflict is also advantageous in light of research documenting the relatively low levels of
interspousal agreement on events in their relationship in general (Jacobson & Moore,
1981) and on reports of the occurrence of marital violence in particular (Jouriles &
O'Leary, 1985; O'Brien, John, Margolin, & Erel, in press). The conceptual
contribution of this study to the existing research literature is its initial investigation
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
46
of the new dimension of marital conflict termed conflict style. This strength of the
present study should encourage further empirical research in order to refine our
understanding of the different dimensions of marital conflict. A fourth strength of this
study is its inclusion of both a self-report measure of physiological arousal and direct
physiological measures of children's reactions to episodes of simulated marital conflict.
This is an important improvement on previous research in this area, because only
O'Brien et al.'s (1 9 9 1 ) study had included a self-report measure of physiological
arousal and only El-Sheikh et al.'s (1 9 8 9 ) study had included direct physiological
measures of children's reactions to conflictual interactions. Finally, the modified
version of the ATSS paradigm adopted for this study was advantageous for the following
reasons: it permitted an open-ended, wide sampling of children's cognitive processing; it
allowed for experimenter manipulation of the realistic and complex simulated marital
conflicts; it is preferable to retrospective reports of children's reactions to
interparental conflicts, because it taps the immediate processing of such conflicts; and,
lastly, it has been shown to be applicable to research with children (Bice Pitts, 1993;
O'Brien et al., 1991).
The findings of this study set the stage for future research about children's
reactions to marital conflict. First, the questions about the effects of previous exposure
to marital conflict and possible gender differences remain slippery. Future research
must address the question of whether or not previous exposure to marital conflict
sensitizes children to these conflicts. The equivocal findings of previous research
demonstrate the complexity of the issue of gender differences in children's reactions to
episodes of marital conflict. Second, the complicated findings of the present study with
respect to the question of children's physiological reactions to episodes of marital
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
47
conflict highlight the need for a more comprehensive, multi-modal assessment approach.
Multiple measures of physiological responses may allow for a more sophisticated
understanding of the psychophysiology of children's emotions. In addition, the inclusion
of self-report measures of physiological reactions may help to clarify questions about
the association between self-reports of physiological arousal and direct physiological
measurements. Third, it is obvious that further investigation of children's cognitive
processing of marital conflict is of utmost importance. If it is through such cognitive
processing that marital conflict affects children, then a more complete understanding of
this cognitive processing is essential. Fourth, as suggested earlier, given the ethical
considerations of exposing children to marital conflict, future research will require
great foresight and creativity in order to be able to study children's reactions to actual
episodes of marital conflict that occur in the course of their daily lives. The use of
videotapes of marital conflicts within the ATSS paradigm may represent an interesting
stepping-stone to these kinds of investigations. Fifth, researchers must continue to keep
the developmental stage of children in mind. Future research should seek to find and to
describe the qualitative differences across children of different ages and developmental
stages in their reactions to episodes of marital conflict. Finally, the important task of
bridging the gap between empirical research and clinical intervention remains to be
addressed in a more comprehensive fashion. By doing additional research on dimensions
of marital conflict such as styles of conflict, we can come to a more complete
understanding of the association between marital conflict and children's adjustment.
Information from such research can build the foundation for effective interventions with
conflictual families.
Children’s Reactions to Marital Conflict
48
References
Anderson, N.B. & McNeilly, M. (1 9 9 1 ). Age, gender, and ethnicity as variables in
psychophysiological assessment: Sociodemographics in context. Psychological
Assessment 3. 376-384.
Bates, G.W., Campbell, I.M., & Burgess, P.M. (1 9 9 0 ). Assessment of articulated
thoughts in social anxiety: modification of the ATSS procedure. British Journal
Q f. Clinical Psychology, 2 1 L 91-98.
Bates, J.E., Bayles, K., Bennett, D.S., Ridge, B., & Brown, M.M. (1 9 91 ). Origins of
externalizing behavior problems at eight years of age. In D.J. Pepler & K.H.
Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aooressiofop. 93-
120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bice Pitts, T. (1 9 93 ). Cognitive and psvchophvsioloaical differences in proactive and
reactive aggressive bovs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Burman, B., John, R.S., & Margolin, G. (1 9 87 ). Effects of marital and parent-child
relations on children's adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology . 1, 91-108.
Crick, N.R. & Dodge K.A. (1 9 94 ). A review and reformulation of social information-
processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin .
115. 74-101.
Cummings, E.M. (1 9 8 7 ). Coping with background anger in early childhood. Child
Development 5 8 . 976-984.
Cummings, E.M., Ballard, M., El-Sheikh, M., & Lake, M. (1 9 91 ). Resolution and
children's responses to interadult anger. Developmental Psychology. 2 7 . 462 -
470.
Cummings, E.M., lannotti, R.J., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1 9 8 5 ). Influence of conflict
between adults on the emotions and aggression of young childrenDevelopmental
Psychology. 2 1 , 495-507.
Cummings, J.S., Pellegrini, D.S., Notarius, C.I., & Cummings, E.M. (1 9 89 ).
Children's responses to angry adult behavior as a function of marital distress and
history of interparent hostility. Child Development. 60. 1035-1043.
Cummings, E.M., Vogel, D., Cummings, J.S., & El-Sheikh, M. (1 9 89 ). Children's
responses to different forms of expression of anger between adults.Child
Development 60. 1392-1404.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
49
Cummings, E.M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1 9 8 1 ). Young children's
responses to expressions of anger and affection by others in the family. Child
Development 52. 1274-1282.
Dadds, M.R. & Powell, M.B. (1 9 9 1 ). The relationship of interparental conflict and
global marital adjustment to aggression, anxiety, and immaturity in aggressive
and nonclinic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology . 19. 553-567.
Dadds, M.R., Sheffield, J.K., & Holbeck, J.F. (1 9 9 0 ). An examination of the differential
relationship of marital discord to parents' discipline strategies for boys and
girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology . 1&, 121-129.
Davison, G.C., Feldman, P.M., & Osborn, C.E. (1 9 84 ). Articulated thoughts, irrational
beliefs, and fear of negative evaluation. Cognitive Therapy and Research. &,
349-362.
Davison, G.C., Haaga, D.A.F., Rosenbaum, J., Dolezal, S.L., & Weinstein, K.A. (1 9 91 ).
Assessment of self-efficacy in articulated thoughts: "states of mind" analysis and
association with speech-anxious behavior. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy:
An international Quarterly . 5., 83-92.
Davison, G.C., Navarre, S.G., & Vogel, R.S. (in press). The articulated thoughts in
simulated situations paradigm: a think-aloud approach to cognitive assessment.
Current Directions in Psychological Science .
Davison, G.C. Robins, C., & Johnson, M.K. (1 9 83 ). Articulated thoughts during
simulated situations: a paradigm for studying cognition in emotion and behavior.
Cognitive Therapy and Research 7 _ , 17-40.
Davison, G.C., & Ziegelboim, V. (1 9 8 7 ). Irrational beliefs in the articulated thoughts of
college students with social anxiety. Journal of Rational-Emotive Therapy . H,
238-254.
Dodge, K.A. (1 9 8 0 ). Social cognition and children's aggressive behavior. Child
Development ILL, 162-170.
Dodge, K.A. & Crick, N.R. (1 9 9 0 ). Social information-processing bases of aggressive
behavior in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin . 1 £ , 8-22.
Dodge, K.A., Price, J.M., Bachorowski, J., & Newman, J.P. (1 9 9 0 ). Hostile
attributional biases in severely aggressive adolescents. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology. 9 9 . 385-392.
Dodge, K.A. & Somberg, D.R. (1 9 8 7 ). Hostile attributional biases among aggressive
boys are exacerbated under conditions of threats to the selfChild Development.
213-224.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
50
Ekman, P., Levenson, R.W., & Friesen, W.V. (1 9 83 ). Autonomic nervous system
distinguishes among emotions. Science. 221. 1208-1210.
Ellis, A. (1 9 6 2 ). Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel.
El-Sheikh, M., Cummings, E.M., & Goetsch, V.L. (1 9 8 9 ). Coping with adults' angry
behavior: behavioral, physiological, and verbal responses in preschoolers.
Developmental Psychology. £5., 490-498.
Emery, R.E. (1 9 8 2 ). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce.
Psychological Bulletin . 2 2 , 310-330.
Emery, R.E., Joyce, S.A., & Fincham, F.D. (1 9 87 ). Assessment of child and marital
problems. In K.D. O'Leary (Ed.), Assessment of marital discord (pp. 2 2 3 -2 6 1 ).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Emery, R.E. & O'Leary, K.D. (1 9 82 ). Children's perceptions of marital discord and
behavior problems of boys and girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology . 10.
11-24.
Emery, R.E. & O'Leary, K.D. (1 9 8 4 ). Marital discord and child behavior problems in a
nonclinic sample. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology . 1 2. 4 11 -4 2 0.
Fantuzzo, J.W., DePaola, L.M., Lambert, L., Martino, T., Anderson, G., & Sutton, S.
(1 9 9 1 ). Effects of interparental violence on the psychological adjustment and
competencies of young children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology .
59, 258-265.
Fantuzzo, J.W. & Lindquist, C.W. (1 9 8 9 ). The effects of observing conjugal violence on
children: a review and analysis of research methodology. Journal of Family
Violence. 4 , 77-93.
Fincham, F.D. & Osborne, L.N. (1 9 9 3 ). Marital conflict and children: retrospect and
prospect. Clinical Psychology Review . J jl, 75-88.
Follick, M.J., Ahern, D.K., & Gorkin, L. (1 9 85 ). Reliability and validity of portable
blood pressure/pulse units during a competitive challenge. Behavior Research
Methods. Instruments. & Computers. 17. 4 45 -4 4 9.
Forehand, R., Long, N., Faust, J., Brody, G.H., Burke, M. & Fauber, R. (1 9 8 7 ).
Physical and psychological health of young adolescents: the relationship to
gender and marital conflict. Journal of Pediatric Psychology . 1 2 . 191-201.
Forehand, R., McCombs, A., Long, N., Brody, G.H., & Fauber, R. (1 9 8 8 ). Early
adolescent adjustment to recent parental divorce: the role of interparental
conflict and adolescent sex as mediating variables. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology . 2 £ , 624-627.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
51
Gravetter, F.J. & Wallnau, L.B. (1 9 8 8 ). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd
ed.). St. Paul: West.
Grych, J.H. & Fincham, F.D. (1 9 9 0 ). Marital conflict and children's adjustment: a
cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin . 1 0 8 . 267-290.
Grych, J.H. & Fincham, F.D. (1 9 9 3 ). Children's appraisals of marital conflict: initial
investigations of the cognitive-contextual framework. Child Development. 64.
2 15-230.
Grych, J.H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F.D. (1 9 92 ). Assessing marital conflict from the
child's perspective: the children's perception of interparental conflict scale.
Child Development. £3., 558-572.
Hershorn, M. & Rosenbaum, A. (1 9 8 5 ). Children of marital violence: a closer look at
the unintended victims. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry . 5 5 . 260-266.
Holden, G.W. & Ritchie, K.L. (1 9 9 1 ). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing,
and child behavior problems: evidence from battered women. Child Development.
££., 3 11-327.
Hughes, H.M. (1 9 8 8 ). Psychological and behavioral correlates of family violence in
child witnesses and victims. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry . 58. 77-89.
Hughes, H.M. & Barad, S.J. (1 9 8 3 ). Psychological functioning of children in a battered
women's shelter: a preliminary investigation. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry. £ £ , 525-531.
Jacobson, N.S. & Moore, D. (1 9 8 1 ). Spouses as observers of the events in their
relationship. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology . 4 9 . 269-277.
Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D.A., Wilson, S.K., & Zak, L. (1986a). Family violence and child
adjustment: a comparative analysis of girls' and boys' behavioral symptoms.
American Journal of Psychiatry . 1 4 3 . 74-76.
Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D.A., Wilson, S.K., & Zak, L. (1986b ). Similarities in behavioral and
social maladjustment among child victims and witnesses to family violence.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry . 5 6 . 142-146.
Johnston, J.R., Gonzalez, R., & Campbell, L.E. (1 9 87 ). Ongoing post-divorce conflict
and child disturbance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology . 15. 497-509.
Jouriles, E.N., Barling, J., & O'Leary, K.D. (1 9 87 ). Predicting child behavior
problems in maritally violent couples. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology .
1 £ , 165-173.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
52
Jouriles, E.N., Bourg, W.J., and Farris, A.M. (1 9 9 1 ). Marital adjustment and child
conduct problems: a comparison of the correlations across subsamples. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 5 9 . 354-357.
Jouriles, E.N., O'Leary, K.D. (1 9 85 ). Interspousal reliability of reports of marital
violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology . 53. 419-421.
Jouriles, E.N., Pfiffner, L.A., & O'Leary, S.G. (1 9 8 8 ). Marital conflict, parenting, and
toddler conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology . 16. 197-206.
Kurdek, L.A. (1 9 9 1 ). Differences in ratings of children's adjustment by married
mothers experiencing low marital conflict, married mothers experiencing high
marital conflict, and divorced single mothers: a nationwide study. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology. 1 2 , 289-305.
Lazarus, R.S. & Folkman, S. (1 9 84 ). Stress, appraisal, and cooing . New York:
Springer.
Levenson, R.W., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1 9 9 0 ). Voluntary facial action generates
emotion-specific autonomic nervous system activity. Psychophysiology. 27,
363-384.
Margolin, G. (1 9 8 1 ). The reciprocal relationship between marital and child problems.
In J.P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family intervention, assessment, and theory.
Vol. 2 (pp. 131-182). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
O'Brien, M., John, R.S., Margolin, G., & Erel, 0. (in press). Agreement between parents
and children regarding the occurrence of marital violence. Violence and Victims
O'Brien, M., Margolin, G., John, R.S., & Krueger, L. (1 9 9 1 ). Mothers' and sons'
cognitive and emotional reactions to simulated marital and family conflict.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology . 5 2 , 692-703.
Porter, B. & O'Leary, K.D. (1 9 80 ). Marital discord and childhood behavior problems.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology . S., 287-295.
Quiggle, N.L., Garber, J., Panak, W.F., & Dodge, K.A. (1 9 9 2 ). Social information
processing in aggressive and depressed children. Child Development. 63. 1305-
1320.
Reid, W.J. & Crisafulli, A. (1 9 90 ). Marital discord and child behavior problems: a
meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology . 1 8 . 105-117.
Rosenbaum, A. & O'Leary, K.D. (1 9 8 1 ). Children: the unintended victims of marital
violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry . 5 1 , 692-699.
Rosenberg, M.S. (1 9 8 7 ). Children of battered women: the effects of witnessing violence
on their social problem-solving abilities. Behavior Therapist . ±, 85-89.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
53
Rutter, M. (1 9 7 0 ). Sex differences in children's responses to family stress. In E.J.
Anthony & C. Koupernik (Eds.), The child in his family . NY: Wiley.
Shaw, D.S. & Emery, R.E. (1 9 87 ). Parental conflict and other correlates of the
adjustment of school-age children whose parents have separated. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology. 1 5 ., 269-281.
Shrout, P.E. & Fleiss, J.L. (1 9 79 ). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater
reliability. Psychological Bulletin . 8 6 r 4 20 -4 2 8.
Spanier, G.B. (1 9 7 6 ). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the
quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family . 38.
1 5-28.
Steinberg, M.S. & Dodge, K.A. (1 9 8 3 ). Attributional bias in aggressive adolescent boys
and girls. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology . 1, 312-321.
Straus, M.A. (1 9 7 9 ). Measuring intrafamilial conflict and violence: the conflict tactics
(CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family . H , 75-88.
Wechsler, D. (1 9 7 4 ). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-
Revised. NY: Psychological Corporation.
White, J., Davison, G.C., Haaga, D.A.F., & White, K. (1 9 9 2 ). Cognitive bias in the
articulated thoughts of depressed and nondepressed psychiatric patientsJournal
of Nervous and Mental Disease 180.. 77-81.
Williams, M.E., Davison, G.C., Nezami, E., & DeQuattro, V.L. (1 9 9 2 ). Articulated
thoughts of type a and b individuals in response to social criticism. Cognitive
Therapy and Research. 16. 19-30.
Wolfe, D.A. (1 9 8 7 ). Child abuse: implications for child development and
psychopathology Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Wolfe, D.A., Jaffe, P., Wilson, S.K., & Zak, L. (1 9 8 5 ). Children of battered women: the
relation of child behavior to family violence and maternal stress. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology . . 5 1 , 657-665.
Wolfe, D.A., Jaffe, P., Wilson, S.K., & Zak, L. (1 9 8 8 ). A multivariate investigation of
children's adjustment to family violence. In G.T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J.T.
Kirkpatrick, & M.A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its conseouences: new
directions in research (pp. 2 28-241). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wolfe, D.A. & Mosk, M.D. (1 9 83 ). Behavioral comparisons of children from abusive
and distressed families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology . 51.
702-708.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
54
Wolfe, D.A. Zak, L., Wilson, S.K., & Jaffe, P. (1 9 8 6 ). Child witnesses to violence
between parents: critical issues in behavioral and social adjustment. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology. 14. 95-104.
Zaslow, M. (1 9 8 8 ). Sex differences in children's response to parental divorce: 1.
research methodology and postdivorce family forms. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry. 58, 355-378.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
55
Appendix A
Demographic Characteristics of Stage I Non-Returners and ATSS Sample
(measured at Stage I)
Stage I Non-Returners ATSS Sample
(n = 31) (n=74)
Demographic Characteristic M SD M SD
Mother's Age 36.6 6.0 38.5 4.9
Father's Age 37.7 5.8 41.5 5.9
Mother's Years of Education 13.9 2.2 15.1 2.0
Father's Years of Education 14.9 2.7 15.3 2.4
Family Gross Monthly Income 5,261 3,953 5,166 5,544
Parents' Years Married 12.3 3.1 14.7 4.2
Child's Age 9.5 1.1 9.4 1.1
Child's WISC-R Info. Score 10.9 2.7 12.2 2.7
Child's WISC-R B. D. Score 12.1 4.1 11.6 3.6
Page 1 o f 2
Family ID#________
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
Appendix B
Conflict Tactics Scale
Child Version
Now I am going to ask you some questions about your parents. We know that children sometimes
wonder whether its okay to tell us certain things about their parents. Naturally, what you tell us is up to
you. However, I want you to know that there is nothing that you can tell me about your parents' arguing
or about what your parents may have done to each other in the past that would get you or your parents
into trouble. Do you have any questions about this?
No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree on major decisions, get
annoyed about something the other person does, or just have spats or fights because they're in a bad
mood, or tired, or for some other reason. Couples use many different ways of trying to settle their
differences.
Below, you will find a list of some things that your parents might do when they have an argument. You
will find that some of the things may be true for your family while others are not. Please be sure to
consider all items, even if they seem extreme.
In reading each item you are to think about arguments between your parents and ask yourself two
questions. First, how often does vour mother do each behavior? Second, how often does your father do
each behavior?
revised 3/8/91
_ Children's React
Column A
ons to Marital Conflict
Column B
How often does vour mother How often does you#7ather do
do this? this?
a. Discuss the issue calmly
Never
0
Once A few
times
1 2
Lots
of
times
3
Never
0
Once A few
times
1 2
Lots
of
times
3
b. Got information to back up his/her
side of things
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
c. Brought in or tried to bring in
someone to help settle things
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
d. Insulted or swore at the other one 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
e. Sulked and/or refused to talk
about It
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
f. Stomped out of the room or house
(or yard)
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
g-
Cried 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
h. □id or said something to spite the
other one
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
i. Threatened to hit or throw
something at the other one
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
i-
Threw or smashed or hit or kicked
something
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
k. Threw something at the other one 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
1 . Pushed, grabbed, or shoved the
other one
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
m. Slapped the other one 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
n. Kicked, bit or hit with a fist 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 . Hit or tried to hit with something 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
P.
Beat up the other one 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
q -
Threatened with a knife or gun 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
r. Used a knife or gun 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
s. Other (explain) 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Appendix C
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
ID #_________ _
Tape #______
ATSS Follow-Up Questionnaire
Think about the discussion you just heard. How much did you feel the following as
you listened to the discussion?
O H M
not it all a llttla
soma
wnat
qulto
a bit a lot
1. How much did your face feel hot or flushed (get red)? 0 1 2 3
X
2. How much did your hands or body get sweaty?............ 0 1 2 3 4
3. How much did you get a lump in your throat
and/or your eyes get te a ry ? .................................................... 0 1 2 3 4 .
4. How much did your body feel restless?............................. 0 1 2 3
4
5. Haw much did you need to go to the bathroom?.............. 0 1- 2 3
4
6. How much was your heart beating faster, pounding,
orbeating louder?...................................................... .............. 0 1 2 3
4
7. How much were you breathing faster?............................... 0 1 2 3
4
3. How much did you feel a rush of energy?........................... 0 1 2 3
4
9. How much did your jaw tighten or your teeth gnnd?. . . 0 1 2 3
4
10. How much did your muscles tighten?................................... 0 1 2 3 4
11. How much did you clench your fists?................................... 0 1 2 3
4
12. How much did you feel twitches or tics?............................. 0 1 2 3
4
13. How hanov did you feel?.........................................................
0 1 2 3
4
14. How satl hid you feel?.............................................................
0 1 2 3
4
1 S. How scared or -pglftsp.eg did you feel?.............................
0 1 2 3
4
16. How mad.gf ^pgry. hid you feel?............................................
0 1 2 3
4
17. How nervous or womed did vou feel?..................................
0 1 2 3
4
18. How heloless did you feel?.....................................................
0 1 2 3
4
19. l-'ow gpjEGSfifl did you feel?................................................... 0 1 2 3
4
20. How hopeful did you feel?...........................
0 1 2 3
4
21. How much is the wife to blame m this discussion?.. . .
0 1 2 3
4
22. How much is the husband to blame in this discussion?
0 1 2 3 4
23. If you were to continue hearing the rest of this argument, what do you think would
happen/how do you think it would end? Chj|dren,s Reactjons t0 Maritg| Conf|ict
24. How happy or unhappy is this couple?
---------1 ----1 - ------ ' - ! --- ----- !
very unhappy somewhat unhappy neither a little happy
1 --
very happy
25. Is this couple going to resolve or solve this disagreement?
definitely no probably no possibly probably yes
1
definitely yes
26. Is this couple going to stay married?
I I 1 1
definitely no probably no possibly probably yes definitely yes
26. How much do these people love each other?
not at all a little somewhat quite a bit a lot
27. If you overheard this discussion, what are all the things you would have done to deal
with the situation?
a) . . . .
b)
c)
27. How often have you heard your parents argue in ways similar to this?
I 1 1 1 .....
never once twice several times
■ 1" r
a lot of times
28. Do you think your parents could argue like this?
-------- 1 ..............................1 ------------- --------------- 1 ------------------ ------ 1 ______ ......... .i . ... , ,
definitely no probably no possibly probably yes definitely yes
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
60
Appendix D
ATSS INSTRUCTIONS TO CHILD SUBJECTS
You are about to listen to six conversations between a mom and a dad. Imagine you
are at home in the bedroom and you overhear this conversation between your mom and
your dad. We want you to tell us what is running through your mind as you are hearing
them. Really notice what you are thinking and feeling. You will hear a tone at the end of
each conversation. At that time please say out loud whatever is going through your mind.
Please try to be as open as possible with your thoughts, and try to fill up the whole time
with as many of your thoughts and feelings as you can. Please stop when you hear the
second tone.
There are no right or wrong answers, so don't worry about what you say. Please
do not retell the story or summarize what you just heard. Just tell us what you're
thinking and how you are feeling. After 30 seconds, you will hear the tone again—
signaling the time to talk is up. Any questions?
O.K. Now remember, tell us what is going through your mind when you hear the
tone.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
61
Appendix E
TAPE 1 - No Conflict
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN
MAN:
WOMAN
MAN:
WOMAN
MAN:
WOMAN
MAN:
WOMAN
MAN:
WOMAN
MAN:
WOMAN
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
What if I put some balloons over here?
Oh, that's a good idea. What about the yellow ones by the window,
and maybe all the blue ones by the door.
The trouble is then Harry can see them from outside.
Oh, yeah. That'll ruin the surprise. Well. . . .hm m m m .. .
What if we pull the drapes? Then he can't see in..........
Don't 'cha think he'd guess?
Nah, he'll be so tired after long drive he won't notice a thing.
So, the yellow ones are there, the blue ones are here. . .
How many pizzas should I order?
Maybe 4. Don't'cha think?
Kay. Sounds right.
Half cheese, half pepperoni?
Maybe one sausage.
Kay.
Can I order in advance?
I dunno. Call and find out.
O.K. Now let's go over the surprise part one more time. I'm gonna take
Harry to the Museum and you're gonna. . .
I'm saying I have a headache.. .
Right. So you stay home and. . .
Doris and Bill are coming at 6:30 . . .
TAPE 2 - Positive A ffect
(DOORBELL)
MAN:
(OPENS DOOR)
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
Coming. . .
Hon, where's your purse? I need a few bucks for the newsboy.
I thought you were gonna pay for that. . .
Yeah. Well, I'm a little short, you have a few bucks? He's waiting.
I don't have any cash. Where's the twenty I gave you yesterday?
Hmmmm. I dunno. Bought some soft drinks, and some gas. You had
another fifty yesterday. What happened to that?
I bought that cologne for your mother, that new brand "Whisper" or
whatever it's called. . .That was over 20, then I got some. . Hey, wait a
minute. . .We're not talking about ME - YOU'RE the one who ran out of
bucks. . . You're supposed to pay for magazines out of. . .
Cologne? You bought her cologne? My mom's allergic to cologne. I
thought we were gonna get her that new murder m ystery.. .
Hon, she spoke to me last week and she SPECIFICALLY told me she
needed perfume. . .and I thought.. .
Ok, ok. So you don't have any money either. Maybe we can write
a check. . .
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
62
WOMAN: (LAUGHING) A check for $3.00? This is crazy.
MAN: You'd rather I use VISA? Hey, here's your purse.. .
WOMAN: The change purse is in that little compartment with the zipper. . .
MAN: Yeah, I got i t . . . Oh, wow! You've got a grand total of 36 cents.
WOMAN: Can't we pay the rest next month? I know! Tell him to come back
tomorrow.
MAN: That's awfully embarrassing. You wanna tell him?
WOMAN: Uh uh. This is your job.
MAN: OK. I'm writing a check.
WOMAN: This wouldn't happen if you would stick to your end of things.
MAN: (KIDDING) I keep my word. . .
WOMAN: You don't budget - you don't stick to our plans about money.
MAN: Now, just hold on. You run through fifty bucks as if it's growing on trees.
WOMAN: That fifty was mine . . .your twenty was OURS.
MAN: Oh. I see.
TAPE 3 - Negative Voice / Negative Affect
MAN: Let's see. A check for three hundred, thirty four, sixty seven on the 1 1th,.
WOMAN: Did you see the business section? Didn't I put it by the counter?
MAN: On the 1 1 th .. .that's when we were trying to save up for our vacation. ..
WOMAN: Never mind. I'll just start with the funnies.
MAN: Three hundred, thirty four. . .made out to cash. . .for what? You didn't
enter it... in the checkbook.. .
WOMAN: (RUSTLES PAPER) O.K. Charlie Brown. What's up?
MAN: Are you listening? What did you spend three hundred thirty four dollars.
WOMAN: Three hundred thirty fo u r.. .what're you talking about?
MAN: Look. Right here. On the 11 th. What did you spend three hundred thirty
four dollars on? You didn't enter it. What kind of dumb thing is that?
WOMAN: So you're gonna start this again, huh?
MAN: What?
WOMAN: Start this. . .this blame business. I do one little thing you don't like and
all of a sudden I'm dumb.
MAN: You're not dumb, you just don't pay attention to the real world. You're
irresponsible.
WOMAN: You know, you're a jerk! Look at you! Ranting and raving about some
ridiculous mistake. . .
MAN: Your ridiculous mistake.
WOMAN: Oh, now I'm ridiculous. Are you calling me ridiculous?
MAN: You know, you have a lousy way of twisting everything I say.
TAPE 4 - Name-Calling
MAN: OK. The car's gonna be ready in an hour or two. Needs brakes. It's gonna
cost a fortune. Al said they were so low you were riding the drums.
WOMAN: Wow. Bad luck, huh?
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
TAPE 5 -
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
63
You know, we've been through this before. If you would just take the car
in regularly.. .
I took it in a few weeks ago.
That was the generator. You know the difference? Brakes STOP the car.
The generator gets it GOING.
I'm not a child. Don't use that tone of voice with me.
What's the matter with you? I'm just trying to explain.. .
I take the car into Al's, which means I rearrange my whole day, the
kids' whole day, everyone's day.
Al said...
Al didn't check it out, so now I have to do it all again and you're gonna
blame me?
If you would JUST.. .
You are! You're gonna blame me, aren't you?
Well, . . .
Everything's MY fault.
I didn't say that.
You meant it. Somehow I'm supposed to do carpools, do shopping,
(MUTTERS UNDER HIS DIALOGUE), .go to the recycler, get shots for the
dog, pick up the 2 by 4's, drop off the laundry. ..
Just take the car in every 4 ,0 0 0 miles! That's all you're supposed to do!
What's the problem?
(CONTINUING) . . .take your suits to the cleaners, and all this extra
time I have, take the car in. . .
Yes, if you would take the car in. IT'S TWO BLOCKS. Two lousy block's to
Al's.
How're the kids supposed to get home from school? Fly?
Do I get a turn here? Or does the world stop while you talk and talk and
talk? Hey, WORLD! Are you listening? Important stuff going on!!
Everybody quiet.
Threatening to Leave
I told the boys they could stop by after the game.
What game?
The Lakers. Friday night. We got tickets.
Tickets? How can we afford that?
I told you; Terry got a bunch of freebees from his uncle, so I told the
guys at work. . .
You were going to save Friday night for my sister. It's the last
chance we have to see her before she goes back to New York.
That's this Friday?
This Friday.
Hey, I mean, nothing against your sister, but these tickets are gold.
So's my sister.
You're telling me -- we've already spent a small fortune on her:
Disneyland, eating out. . . .It's my turn to have a good time.
And I'm not part of your good time, right? You just hop in and out
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
64
of here whenever you feel like it. This isn't a marriage, it's a . . . it's a
hotel!
MAN: What're you talking about?
WOMAN: You're not here for me. 1 have to beg you to do things that are
important to me.
MAN: 1 picked your sister up at the airport. . .
WOMAN: See? You want an award — for something 1 shouldn't even
have to ask you.
MAN: 1 left work early to make our dinner reservations. . .
WOMAN: You don't get it, do you? This is just one of a million
times when you've let me down. 1 can't take it.
MAN: When? When do 1 let you down? Name one time 1 let you down? You
got it easy, kiddo. You don't know how easy you got it.
(SCUFFLING SOUNDS)
WOMAN: (TO HERSELF) I'm sick of it. Where's the red suitcase?
MAN: What're you doing?
WOMAN: Packing. 1 can't stay here with you. 1 should've left a long time
ago. You treat me like some kind of a . . .a thing — I'm a person.
MAN: Of course you're a person. You're gonna walk out on me because of a
Lakers game?
WOMAN: You don't get it. . .and you never will. (UNDER HER BREATH)
1 should get a divorce.
MAN: Hey, wait. Hey. . .(SLAM)
TAPE 6 - Physical Aggression
MAN: So, what's for dinner? Anything special?
WOMAN: That chicken and noodle thing you like. (PAPER RUSTLES)
MAN: Hey, look at all those packages. You got to the May Company sale?
WOMAN: Ummmhmmm.
MAN: Did you get those t-shirts I wanted?
WOMAN: Oh, I forgot.
MAN: So what's in the packages? (RUSTLE) Shoes? I don't need shoes.
WOMAN: I do. Do you like them? They were half price.
MAN: You got a closet full of shoes, I'm walking around wearing rags.
WOMAN: They match my red dress.
MAN: Pretty fancy stuff.
WOMAN: Uh huh.
MAN: We don't have the money for fancy stuff right now.
WOMAN: It was a good deal. They'll last forever. You know, you spend money like
water when you see something you want.
MAN: You were supposed to buy me t-shirts. So take the shoes back.
WOMAN: Forget it. I like them and I'm gonna keep them.
MAN: What? (Pounds glass on table)
WOMAN: Stop banging that glass, you'll break it. I can buy shoes if I want to.
MAN: Oh, you can, can you? Got big plans, have you? Well, I'll tell you what's
gonna happen to those shoes.. .I'm just gonna throw them in the garbage
where they belong. (SCUFFLING NOISES)
WOMAN: No, you're not, no you're not. . .get away!!
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
MAN:
WOMAN:
MAN:
WOMAN:
65
What! Hey WH . .(RRRIPPPPP). .Now my shirt's ripped! This is my best
sport shirt. What'd you do that for?
Give me my shoes!!
Here's what I think of your new shoes. (CRASH)
You. . .ooh N 000! Look out!! (CRASH!) Oh my God...
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
66
Appendix F
Coding System for ATSS Tapes _
The coding system presented here is based on an earlier version of a coding
system used with ATSS tapes. That coding system was used in a study of the cognitive and
emotional reactions expressed by sons and mothers to low-conflict and high-conflict
family discussions (O'Brien, Margolin, John, & Krueger, 1991). I have eliminated
several codes from that coding system, including self-distraction, democracy, and
autocracy. The codes in this coding system include the following:
1) Negative Evaluation: (negative evaluation and attribution of blame); reflects
criticism specific to the incident on the tape directed toward the actors in the simulated
conflicts.
2 ) Positive Evaluation: (positive evaluation and support); reflects praise of the
actors.
3 ) Negative Outcome: pertains to pessimistic predictions about how the conflict will
end.
4 ) Positive Outcome: pertains to optimistic predictions about how the conflict will
end.
5) Prescription: includes value-based, generic statements or descriptions
concerning how conflict, family life, or marital relationships should, ought, or must be.
6 ) Intervention (similar to self-interference in O'Brien et al.): reflects active
attempts to intervene verbally or physically by the respondent in the context of the
events occurring on the stimulus tape.
7 ) Problem-Solving: includes suggestions of alternative behaviors or coping
responses which actors in the simulated conflicts could have utilized.
First, coders will read the transcript of each response. Then, they will listen to
the audiotaped response and follow along on the transcript. At the conclusion of each
response segment on the audiotape, the first five codes will be rated on a four-point
scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (a lot). Ratings will be based on a global
consideration of the combined elements in the response, including its content, tone, and
the frequency of specific types of statements. The last two codes, intervention and
problem-solving, require a simple yes-or-no determination of their presence in the
response being coded. See attached coding sheet.
Examples of the Codes :
1) Negative Evaluation:
1) The husband isn't treating the wife fair.
2) The husband is mean to the wife.
3) The husband gets mad too easily.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
67
I don't think that's right.
That wife got too angry and she got her husband on the defensive right away.
Positive Evaluation:
Well, I think they're going pretty fine.
They seem to be getting along nicely.
I think that the mom and dad handled it very well.
I like how they're being considerate of each other.
Negative Outcome:
I felt like their marriage was gonna go down the drain.
One of them might just leave right then.
I don't think they're gonna stay together.
I think that maybe they would get divorced.
I'm afraid that someone might get hurt and have to go to the hospital if they don't stop
fighting like that.
Positive Outcome:
It's going to be a nice party
I'm thinking that they're going to get along for the rest of the day.
I'm sure that they'll be able to work out their finances so that both people are
satisfied.
It sounds like they're going to have a nice time from now on.
They'll probably handle this problem better the next time it comes up.
Prescription:
Husbands should have more respect for their wives.
They should sit down and pay the bills together.
Married people shouldn't really fight like that.
People have to learn to take turns when they're having a discussion like that.
I think they ought to go see a priest or a counselor or someone, because they're
fighting like that.
Intervention:
I'd try to help the mother.
I'd go in there and ask them to stop fighting.
I think I might try to distract my parents by asking them to help me with my
homework.
I guess I could try to go in there and stand between them so they'd stop.
I could go in the kitchen and spill something, so they'd have to stop with
their arguing and come and help me.
Problem-Solving
If they hadn't spent that money, then they would have had money to pay the boy.
Next time, instead of yelling and screaming, the husband could have tried
to discuss it out calmly.
They could try to put aside five dollars each week.
Maybe they should take time to make sure that the other person really knows what
they want to do on the weekend.
Children's Reactions to Marital Conflict
ATSS Codinq Sheet
ID #
Tape # 0
not at all
1
somewhat
2
moderate
3
a lot
Negative Evaluation 0 l i l l l l l l l i l i i 3
Positive Evaluation 0 2 3
Negative Outcome 0 wi MmmmmmIXmmMmttmmrn 3
Positive Outcome 0 ■ i 2 3
Prescription
intervention
Problem-Solving
0
Y
Y
N
N
l l l i l i l i i i l i i l l l l l l i i l ! 3
Tape # 0
not at all
i
somewhat
2
moderate
3
a lot
Negative Evaluation 0 l l l l i l l i i i l l l i 3
Positive Evaluation 0 i 2 3
Negative Outcome 0 3
Positive Outcome 0 2 3
Prescription
Intervention
Problem-Solving
0
Y
Y
N
N
■ iM ffliia
3
Tape # 0
not at all
i
somewhat
2
moderate
3
a lot
Negative Evaluation
0 i n i P H K l l i i i i i p i i i i i i i i 3
Positive Evaluation 0 i 2 3
Negative Outcome 0 i l l l l i l i l i l l l i l i i i i i i l l i i i l l l i l 3
Positive Outcome 0 1 2 3
Prescription
Intervention
Problem-Solving
0
Y
Y
N
N
im m m m zm i
3
Tape # 0
not at all
1
somewhat
2
moderate
3
a lot
Negative Evaluation 0 l l i i i i i l i l l i i l l
'wmSmmmmm&m 3
Positive Evaluation 0 i 2 3
Negative Outcome 0 l l i l i i i i l i l l i l i 3
Positive Outcome 0 i 2 3
Prescription
Intervention
Problem-Solving
0
Y
Y
N
N
llliilillillllll 3
Tape # 0
not at all
i
somewhat
2
moderate
3
a lot
Negative Evaluation
0
■ m iiii 3
Positive Evaluation 0 i 2 3
Negative Outcome
0 i l l ii ll ll a il ii ll il ii ii 3
Positive Outcome 0 1 2 3
Prescription
0 i i i i l l i i i l i l l
3

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Children's immediate reactions to interparental conflict

PDF

Affection and conflict in family relationships

PDF

Violent environments and their effects on children

PDF

Cognitive Assessment Of Reactance Using The Articulated Thoughts In Simulated Situations Paradigm

PDF

Mood Induction As An Analog To Depression In Older Adults: Aspects Of Depression And Cognitive Effects

PDF

Predictors of pretend play in Korean-American and Anglo-American preschool children

PDF

Emotion regulation as a mediator between family-of-origin aggression and marital aggression

PDF

A typology of maritally violent men and correlates of violence

PDF

Money Makes The World Go 'Round: Mother-Custody Families And Downward Mobility

PDF

The effects of family environment variables on young children's school behavior and peer interactions

PDF

Sexuality, Quality Of Life, And Emotional Distress Following Radical Prostatectomy For Carcinoma Of The Prostate

PDF

Content analysis of articulated thoughts of chronic worriers

PDF

Hostile family environments and children's perceptions of social support

PDF

Personality Characteristics: Ideal And Perceived In Relation To Mate Selection

PDF

Smoking And Cognitive Functioning In Non-Demented Swedish Twins

PDF

Articulated thoughts about intentions to commit anti-gay hate crimes

PDF

Articulated thoughts regarding cognitions toward older adults

PDF

Health And Well-Being By Marital Status: The Effect Of Age, Sex, Income And Social Support. Study Of 1985 Gss Data

PDF

Rationalizing risk: sexual behavior of gay male couples

PDF

Meta-analysis on the misattribution of arousal

Asset Metadata

Creator Laumakis, Mark Anthony (author)

Core Title The Emotional, Physiological, And Cognitive Reactions Of Boys And Girls From High-Conflict And Low-Conflict Homes To Simulated Marital Conflict

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, developmental,psychology, social,sociology, individual and family studies

Format masters theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Margolin, Gayla (committee chair), Davison, Gerald C. (committee member), Manis, Frank (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-8572

Unique identifier UC11357861

Identifier 1378420.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-8572 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1378420-0.pdf

Dmrecord 8572

Document Type Thesis

Format masters theses (aat)

Rights Laumakis, Mark Anthony

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA