University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Marital conflict and parenting: moderating effects of ethnicity and parent sex

(USC Thesis Other)

Marital conflict and parenting: moderating effects of ethnicity and parent sex

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content MARITAL CONFLICT AND PARENTING: MODERATING EFFECTS OF
ETHNICITY AND PARENT SEX

by

Angèle Fauchier

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(PSYCHOLOGY)

December 2006

Copyright 2006 Angèle Fauchier
ii
Dedication

To my husband Jonah Keri, not just because he has dedicated several books to
me, but because he supports all of my endeavors wholeheartedly; picks up the slack
that qualifying exams, dissertations, and internships seem to create; repeatedly
relocates thousands of miles for the sake of my career; inspires me with his own
success; and makes me laugh every day.
iii
Acknowledgements
First, my advisor Gayla Margolin has provided tremendous support for all of my
goals over the past seven years. Her flexibility and seemingly endless storehouse of
data have enabled me to explore varied interests in family research and find my niches.
One of Gayla’s best attributes is her ability to select outstanding graduate
students. I have been so lucky to be surrounded by incredible labmates. In particular,
Laura Proctor is a gifted editor, delightful coauthor, and ideal friend. Elana Gordis has
taught me most of what I know about coding, intraclass coefficients, and treating
everyone as an equal; spending time with her family is like attending a master class in
parenting. Pam Oliver was instrumental in my training in observational research, and her
warmth and perspective have made me a saner graduate student and a better person.
Sarah Duman has provided help with a smile, especially as I completed the dissertation
from Seattle and needed “just one more thing” from a hard drive or file cabinet in the
lab. Anna Marie Medina has been a tremendous collaborator, and she brings her
inspiring intellectual curiosity to every conversation. Many other labmates, including
Debbie Chien, Adabel Lee, Martha Rios, and Katrina Vickerman, have helped to build
our lab’s reputation as the nicest in SGM. It means a great deal that these women are
among my closest friends; it means even more that their husbands and children are also
good friends.
I was fortunate to have a wonderful team of coders. Thanks for your many, many
hours of careful coding, diligence, lively debate, and good humor.
Many thanks to my committee: Shannon Daley, Jerry Davison, Tom Lyon, and
Frank Manis, who have offered numerous helpful insights and questions throughout the
years.
iv
Innumerable thanks go to our participant families, most of whom I have come to
know well over the years. It is quite a feat to drag your whole family to the lab, usually
on a weekend, to answer thousands of questions and conduct family discussions in front
of a video camera, then answer more questions every day for two weeks after that. It is
even more of a feat to keep coming back every year to do it all again.

v
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
Abstract x
Chapter 1: Background/Significance 1
Marital Conflict and Parenting 2
Ethnicity and Parenting 4
Parent Sex and Parenting 9
Ethnicity by Sex Interactions 11
Reporter Effects 13
Present Study 14
Chapter 2: Research Design and Methods 17
Overview 17
Participants 18
Procedures 19
Triadic Discussion Coding 23
Parenting Factors 29
Marital Conflict Measure 38
Chapter 3: Results 40
Preliminary Analyses 40
Data Analytic Strategy 42
Link Between Marital Conflict and Parenting Factors 45
Moderating Effect of Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict and
Engagement/Discipline 46
Moderating Effect of Parent Sex on Link Between Marital Conflict and
Engagement/Discipline 48
Interaction Between Parent Sex and Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict
and Engagement/Discipline 48
Moderating Effect of Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict and Parent-
Child Conflict 48
Moderating Effect of Parent Sex on Link Between Marital Conflict and Parent-
Child Conflict 48
Interaction Between Parent Sex and Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict
and Parent-Child Conflict 50
Moderating Effect of Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict and Negative
Coparenting/Boundaries 52
Moderating Effect of Parent Sex on Link Between Marital Conflict and Negative
Coparenting/Boundaries 52
vi
Interaction Between Parent Sex and Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict
and Negative Coparenting/Boundaries 57
Moderating Effect of Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict and Attunement 57
Moderating Effect of Parent Sex on Link Between Marital Conflict and
Attunement 57
Interaction Between Parent Sex and Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict
and Attunement 57
Main Effects of Sex and Ethnicity on Parenting 59
Summary of Results 63
Chapter 4: Discussion 64
Potential Mediators of the Link Between Marital Conflict and Parenting 69
Limitations 71
Strengths and Limitations of Observational Measure of Parenting 74
Directions for Future Research 78
References 81
Appendices 91
Appendix 1. Topics for Family Change 91
Appendix 2. Discussion Follow-up 92
Appendix 3. Frequency of responses about discussions’ typicality, impact on
family, satisfaction, and emotional impact among mothers, fathers, and
children. 93
Appendix 4. Triadic Discussion Coding Manual: Molar Ratings (5-Minute
Segments) 95
Appendix 5. Triadic Discussion Coding Manual: Molecular Ratings (1-Minute
Segments) 100
Appendix 6. Domestic Conflict Index (DCI) 104
vii
List of Tables
Table 1: Constructs Assessed, Sources of Information, and Timing 18
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of discussions’ typicality, impact on family,
satisfaction, and emotional impact according to mothers, fathers, and
children. 21
Table 3: Descriptive statistics of discussions’ typicality, impact on family,
satisfaction, and emotional impact according to mothers, fathers, and
children in each ethnic group. 22
Table 4: Descriptive statistics for individual molar parenting codes. 25
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Molecular Parenting Codes Across Time
Segments for Mothers and Fathers 27
Table 6: Factor loadings for parenting codes across time segments 30
Table 7: Definitions of Molar and Molecular Codes Comprising the Four
Parenting Factors 34
Table 8: Intraclass Correlations for Parenting Factors Across Time Segments
For Mothers and Fathers 38
Table 9: Descriptive statistics for marital conflict behaviors using maximum of
mothers’ and fathers’ reports. 39
Table 10: Correlations among combined, mothers’, and fathers’ marital conflict. 39
Table 11: Correlations among observational parenting factors, by parent. 41
Table 12: Correlations between mothers’ and fathers’ observational parenting
factors. 41
Table 13: Explanation of HLM terms as they relate to HLM models presented in
Tables 15 through 18. 43
Table 14: Correlations between marital conflict and mothers’ and fathers’
parenting. 46
Table 15: Hierarchical model for engagement/discipline. 47
Table 16: Hierarchical model for parent-child conflict. 49
Table 17: Hierarchical model for negative coparenting/boundaries. 53
Table 18: Hierarchical model for attunement. 58
viii
Table 19: Descriptive statistics by ethnicity and group comparisons for parenting
factors. 60
Table 20: Correlations between marital conflict and mothers’ and fathers’
parenting, separated by ethnicity. 62
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Interaction between parent sex and African American ethnicity on the
link between marital conflict and parent-child conflict. 51
Figure 2: African American ethnicity as moderator of link between marital conflict
and negative coparenting/boundaries. 54
Figure 3: White ethnicity as moderator of link between marital conflict and
negative coparenting/boundaries. 55
Figure 4: Link between marital conflict and negative coparenting/boundaries in
Latino and non-Latino families. 56
Figure 5: Main effect of White ethnicity on negative coparenting/boundaries, by
child sex. 61
x
Abstract
Marital conflict has been linked with many different dimensions of parent-child
relations, but the bulk of existing research has focused on Caucasian families, and
many studies have failed to include both mothers and fathers. This study examined
parent sex and ethnicity as determinants of parenting and as moderators of relations
between marital conflict and parenting. An ethnically diverse sample of 97 couples with
preadolescent children reported about their marital conflict. Approximately one year
later, the families participated in triadic family discussions, and trained coders evaluated
parents' engagement/discipline, parent-child conflict, negative coparenting/boundaries,
and attunement. Marital conflict was related to negative coparenting/boundaries, but
contrary to expectation, marital conflict was not related to other aspects of parenting.
Ethnicity moderated the link between marital conflict and negative
coparenting/boundaries, such that there was a stronger link for White than for non-
White parents, and a weaker link for African American parents than for non-African
American parents. Exploratory analyses also pointed toward a combined moderating
effect of ethnicity and parent sex on the connection between marital conflict and parent-
child conflict. In addition, there were main effects of ethnicity on some parenting
dimensions. These results contribute to the literature by suggesting that the link
between marital conflict and some dimensions of parenting may vary by parent gender
and ethnicity. Because prior literature examining the impact of marital conflict on
parenting has been based on largely White samples, those findings may not apply to
families of all ethnic backgrounds. Future research would benefit from inclusion of more
ethnically diverse samples, as well as examination of factors that may explain ethnic
differences.
1
Chapter 1: Background/Significance
Parenting is a complex and widely studied construct, both because of the
importance of the parent-child relationship in a child’s life, and because of the socializing
influence the relationship has on the child’s future interactions (for reviews, see
Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000; Lamb, Hwang, Ketterlinus, & Fracasso, 1999). A
multiply determined set of behaviors, parenting can be influenced by factors within the
parent, characteristics of the child, and various contextual factors including other family
relationships (Belsky, 1984). In particular, marital conflict has been been found to impact
parenting. Disruptions in parenting have been theorized and shown empirically to
mediate the impact of marital conflict on children, in that marital conflict leads to
disrupted parenting which in turn leads to child problems (Buehler, Benson, & Gerard,
2006; Chang, Lansford, Schwartz, & Farver, 2004; Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, &
Wierson, 1990; Margolin, Oliver, & Medina, 2001; Schulz, Waldinger, Hauser, & Allen,
2005). Thus, the relationship between marital conflict and parenting is crucial to
understanding the impact that marital conflict has on children (for reviews of the link
between marital conflict and child problems, see Davies & Cummings, 1994; Grych &
Fincham, 1990).
Because of the central role that parenting plays in child development, it is crucial
to establish the factors that influence parenting. Both theoretical and empirical
perspectives point to a link between marital conflict and parenting. The present study
investigates the influence of marital conflict on specific dimensions of parenting, and
explores the link across different ethnic groups and across mothers and fathers within
the same families.
2
Marital Conflict and Parenting
It has been widely found that the marital relationship is associated with
characteristics of the parent-child relationship (for reviews, see Cox, Paley, & Harter,
2001; Erel & Burman, 1995). One theory that explains the relationship between marital
and parent-child relationships is transmission of affect, or “spillover.” Affect can be
transmitted from one aspect of a person’s life to another, such as from work to family
interactions (Repetti, 1989), or from one type of family interaction to another. Two meta-
analyses provided support for the hypothesis that the marital relationship (Erel &
Burman, 1995), and marital conflict more specifically (Krishakumar and Buehler, 2000),
“spills over” into the parent-child relationship, such that parent-child relationships are
characterized by more negative or positive affect when similar types of affect are
occurring in the marital relationship. This transmission of affect may work via several
mechanisms (Margolin, Oliver, & Medina, 2001). For example, Easterbrooks and Emde
(1988) describe a socialization mechanism of spillover, in which marital discord leads to
inconsistent parenting and decreased emotional availability to children. In turn, social
learning takes place as children enact the affective behaviors their parents have
modeled. The common-factor mechanism suggests that one person’s personality
characteristics can influence his or her interactions with each member of the family
(Engfer, 1988).
The compensatory hypothesis posits the opposite of the spillover hypothesis;
instead of transmitting similar affect, parents may compensate for negative marital affect
by seeking love and intimacy with their children (Erel & Burman, 1995). Although several
studies have found support for the compensatory hypothesis (e.g., Belsky, Youngblade,
Rovine, & Volling, 1991; Brody, Pellegrini, & Sigel, 1986), the bulk of the literature
3
supports the spillover hypothesis, according to the meta-analyses by Erel and Burman
(1995) and Krishnakumar and Buehler (2000). These studies found the magnitude of
the spillover effect to be d = .46 for overall marital relationship to parent-child
relationship quality (Erel & Burman, 1995) and d = -.62 for the link between marital
conflict and parenting (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). According to Krishnakumar and
Buehler (2000), marital conflict affects acceptance (d = -.73) and harsh punishment (d =
-.80) somewhat more than lax control (d = -.53) and parenting quality (d = -.50).
Although most investigations have focused on couples that were inherently
higher or lower in conflict, research also suggests that inducing marital conflict can
negatively impact parent-child interactions. Kitzmann (2000) used an experimental
paradigm in which both pleasant and conflictual marital interactions were induced in the
same couples. Positive versus negative marital interactions were counterbalanced. Each
marital interaction was then followed by a period of interaction with the child. Kitzmann
reported that within the same families, a significant number of parents showed more
negative parenting after the conflictual discussion than after the pleasant discussion.
Thus, specific instances of marital conflict, as well as a general climate of conflict, can
spill over into parenting behaviors.
In addition to affecting parenting more broadly, marital conflict shows a particular
negative association with positive coparenting, which is defined as couples functioning
effectively and collaboratively as parents (Brody, Stoneman, Smith, & Gibson, 1999;
Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001). In part, this is an intuitive connection because conflict
over parenting is one of the central elements of coparenting. However, marital conflict
and coparenting are not interchangeable. Coparenting has been found to mediate the
connection between marital conflict and other aspects of parenting (ibid.). Coparenting
4
has also been tested as its own parenting outcome. For example, McHale (1995)
observed parents of infants during marital and triadic interactions one week apart;
couples with high marital distress showed more hostile-competitive coparenting,
according to both self-report and observational ratings.
It should be noted that some aspects of parenting are not necessarily affected by
marital conflict. For example, Jouriles and Farris (1992) did not find a difference in
parents’ use of positive reinforcement with their sons following conflictual versus
nonconflictual marital interaction. Mann and McKenzie (1996) did not find a connection
from marital conflict to mothers’ rejection, fathers’ rejection, or fathers’ inept discipline,
though there was a correlation between marital conflict and mothers’ inept discipline.
Thus, marital conflict appears linked to some dimensions of parenting more than to
others, suggesting that it is important to break down components of parenting for
investigation. These findings echo the recommendations of numerous authors (e.g.,
Darling & Steinberg, 1993) that parenting be broken down into its component parts for a
better understanding of family processes. Therefore, the present study examined four
specific dimensions of parenting: engagement/discipline, parent-child conflict, negative
coparenting/boundaries, and attunement.
Ethnicity and Parenting
There is evidence that ethnicity exerts main effects on parenting, as well as
moderating effects on links between parenting and other variables such as marital
conflict. Differences among ethnic groups are typically thought to derive from cultural
variations in attributes such as boundaries, emotional expressiveness, extent of
hierarchy within family structures, values, and activity orientation (Santisteban, Muir-
Malcolm, Mitrani, & Szapocznik, 2002). For example, clinical findings suggest that Latino
5
(Falicov, 1996) and African American families (Brice-Baker, 1996; Hines & Boyd-
Franklin, 1996) value parental roles more than spousal roles and place a higher priority
on the parent-child relationship than on the marriage, as compared to White families.
Close attention to the role of ethnicity in relations between marital conflict and
parenting is warranted for several reasons. A large and growing proportion of the US
population is non-White (approximately one-fourth racially, with an additional 12.5% of
Hispanic origin according to the 2000 US Census), yet the majority of extant studies
have focused exclusively on White samples. Research examining parenting in diverse
families has typically used less sophisticated methodology than those focusing on White
samples (McLoyd, Cauce, Takeuchi, & Wilson, 2000). Although numerous parenting
differences across ethnic groups have been found, clear patterns have not yet emerged
from the literature. At the same time, many investigations have not found parenting
differences across groups, but often it is unclear whether there are truly no differences
or whether there are methodological explanations such as low power and lack of
measurement equivalence for different populations. Many of the studies that have
included diverse samples have underrepresented ethnic diversity of the populations
studied, whether due to use of convenience samples or because of barriers to
recruitment of certain groups (Karney, Krietz, & Sweeney, 2004). Finally, the impact of
parenting practices on children’s outcomes has been found to vary across ethnic groups
in important ways. For example, it has been widely found that the negative impact of
corporal punishment (Whaley, 2000) and of authoritarian parenting practices (Baumrind,
1993) on White children do not hold true for African American children.
A number of differences in parenting behaviors have emerged among parents of
different ethnic backgrounds. Several investigators have found that White parents are
6
more likely to use corporal punishment than parents of other ethnic backgrounds
(Cazenave & Straus, 1990; Hashima & Amato, 1994; Straus, 1994), though other
investigators have found White parents less likely than African American parents to use
mild and severe corporal punishment (Dietz, 2000; Wolfner & Gelles, 1993). Puerto
Rican American parents self-report higher levels of consistency than African American
parents do (Fagan, 2000), and White mothers describe themselves as more consistent
than do Chinese American mothers (Kelley & Tseng, 1992). Although all groups rated
the development of their children’s autonomy as important, Latino parents rated it higher
than did White or Asian American parents (Okagaki & Frensch, 1998). However,
another study found that White parents gave their children more autonomy than did
African American, Latino, or Asian American parents (Bulcroft, Carmody, & Bulcroft,
1996). Task demands and child performance were found to interact to impact parenting
during a simulated teaching task with immigrant and native-born Mexican American
mothers and White mothers (Chavez & Buriel, 1986). African American and Latino
fathers report more monitoring of children than White fathers, and Latino fathers spend
more time with children than White fathers (Toth & Xu, 1999).
Some researchers have found that ethnicity interacts with socioeconomic status
(SES) to predict parenting. For example, Hill and Sprague (1999) found that upper
middle class African American parents were more likely to withdraw privileges or spank,
whereas upper middle class White parents were more likely to reason with children.
There were no differences between the two ethnic groups when comparing working
class and lower middle class families (Hill & Sprague, 1999). Because of possible
interactions between ethnicity and SES, the present study will conduct analyses
controlling for SES, in addition to analyzing solely by ethnicity.
7
In addition to the main effects of ethnicity described above, there is also
theoretical and empirical support for the notion that ethnicity may moderate relations
between marital conflict and parenting. One way in which ethnicity may moderate this
link is through the type of influence; parents of some ethnicities may show a spillover
effect, others might show a compensatory effect, and others may exemplify the
common-factor hypothesis.
Clinical findings suggest that parents of some ethnicities, such as African
Americans, have a greater tendency than parents of other ethnicities to place children in
parental roles (Hines & Boyd-Franklin, 1996). Parentification can cause a disruption in
typical parenting practices but can also lead to increased parent-child intimacy as
parents seek social support from their children. In an atmosphere of high marital conflict,
parenting practices might be disrupted even further; alternatively, parents might seek
additional social support from parentified children around the issue of marital problems.
Empirical investigation of boundary violations (of which parentification is one type) in a
White sample indicated that couples who violated intergenerational boundaries with their
four-year-old children were more overcontrolling and intrusive with each other and
undermined each others’ parenting more than couples with intact intergenerational
boundaries (Fish, Belsky, & Youngblade, 1991). Extended to families of other ethnic
backgrounds, these results suggest that marital conflict and negative coparenting may
be linked in families that tend to parentify children.
For Latino families, the cultural value of familism has been posited as a strong
influence on marital relationships (Oropesa, Lichter, & Anderson, 1994) as well as on
parenting behaviors such as increased involvement (Toth & Xu, 1999). The role of
familism in both marital and parent-child relationships may explain some of the ethnic
8
differences between Latinos and other groups, although it may not fully explain within-
group differences nor would it account for change over time in individuals.
Results from a large, cross-national comparison shed some light on the potential
moderating role of ethnicity in links between marital conflict and parenting. Bradford and
colleagues (2003) compared families in nine countries across five continents in terms of
the impact of marital conflict on parenting. Overall they found remarkably similar
patterns of effect sizes for different aspects of parenting across nations. However, the
cross-national comparison contains the confound of substantial cultural differences
among nations. Therefore, the study also compared three ethnic groups within one
nation: Black, White, and mixed race families from South Africa. Although the effects of
covert marital conflict on parenting were similar across ethnic groups, there were
differences in terms of South African Black families’ overt marital conflict impacting
psychological and behavioral control less than South African White and mixed race
families. Another study comparing spillover of interparental conflict into parenting in
African American and White families in the United States found that the rate of spillover
in the two groups was comparable for most aspects of mothers’ parenting, including lax
control, parent-child conflict, monitoring, and psychological control; the one difference
concerned acceptance, which showed more spillover in White families than African
American (Krishnakumar, Buehler, & Barber, 2003). These results highlight the
importance of considering both ethnicity and specific dimensions of parenting in the
study of marital conflict and parenting.
An additional group rarely studied in parenting or other family literatures is that of
mixed ethnicity, including multi-ethnic individuals and couples of two or more ethnicities.
When they have been included as participants in related research, researchers have
9
ignored the multi-ethnicity and counted couples with, for example, one African American
partner as being an African American couple (Kaczynski, Lindahl, Malik, & Laurenceau,
2006). According to the 2000 Census, 2.4% of the population, or 6.8 million people,
come from more than one “racial” group; people were not able to indicate more than one
race choice on previous versions of the Census, and so rate of growth is difficult to
estimate although it is clear that the proportion is increasing. Furthermore, the current
Census definitions do not account for mixed heritage relating to Hispanic origin. Aside
from the growing number of individuals of mixed heritage, an additional five percent of
marriages are estimated to involve partners of different ethnicities as of 2000 (Wright et
al., 2003). Although it is impossible to formulate hypotheses about mixed families
because of the lack of empirical foundation, it is important to fill this gap in the literature
by including mixed families among other ethnic groups as well as focusing on them
more specifically.
Parent Sex and Parenting
Differences between the parenting of mothers and fathers have been a topic of
much research; although many similarities exist, a variety of differences have emerged.
These differences may take the form of main effects of sex on parenting, as well as
moderating effects on relationships of parenting with other variables such as marital
conflict.
The overall factor structure of fathers’ and mothers’ parenting is similar
(Baumrind, 1971). Researchers have not found differences between mothers and
fathers in terms of self-reported or observed disciplinary consistency (Arnold & O'Leary,
1997; Fagan, 2000; Stoneman, Brody, & Burke, 1989). McHale (1997) factor analyzed
mothers’ and fathers’ coparenting questionnaires, and found that overall men and
10
women defined coparenting similarly. However, fathers seemed to make a greater
distinction between overt and covert support than mothers, who viewed the two types of
support as a more unitary construct than did fathers. Studies have found that fathers
report a stronger parenting alliance (Floyd & Zmich, 1991) and more cooperation from
their spouses (Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001) than mothers do. This difference has
also been found in observations of family interaction, in which fathers have been found
to support mothers twice as often as mothers supported fathers; fathers also
undermined mothers less than mothers did fathers (Gable, Belsky, & Crnic, 1995).
During observations of family interactions, mothers showed children more positive
reinforcement than fathers, though both mothers and fathers showed high levels in
general (Russell, 1997). It is important to note that many of the differences previously
found between mothers and fathers have been confounded with caregiving roles and
the amount of time spent with children (Maccoby & Martin, 1983); although the amount
of time that fathers spend with children has been increasing, on average fathers still
spend far less time with children than mothers (Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004).
In terms of moderation, the evidence indicates that marital conflict generally
affects fathers’ parenting more than mothers’ in divorced families; in intact families, the
differential impact of marital conflict on parenting in fathers versus mothers is mixed
(see Coiro & Emery, 1998, for a review). A meta-analysis did not find overall that parent
sex moderates the relationship between marital quality and parenting (Erel & Burman,
1995). However, marital conflict specifically may impact parenting more than other
aspects of marital interaction, such as marital quality, satisfaction, and distress (Coiro &
Emery, 1998). Several studies (e.g., Belsky et al., 1991; Brody et al., 1986; Lindahl &
Malik, 1999) have found evidence that marital conflict has more detrimental impact on
11
fathers’ parenting than on mothers’. The discrepancy seems to increase with declining
marital quality (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Raymond, 2004), and moderation is most
pronounced for divorced families (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). Several reasons
have been suggested as to why fathers’ parenting might be more affected by marital
conflict than mothers’. Because mothers typically are more involved in parenting than
fathers, they are less able than fathers to withdraw from parenting tasks during times of
marital stress. Fathers may also depend more on mothers than vice versa for guidance
in their parenting roles, due to the less common socialization of men as caregivers
(Coiro & Emery, 1998). Men may also differentiate their roles as spouse and parent less
than women (Belsky et al., 1991). The mechanism is unclear, although there are clear
theoretical reasons why fathers’ parenting might be impacted more by marital conflict
than mothers’.
Due to some evidence that the match between parent sex and child sex is
important (Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000; Davies & Lindsay, 2001; Stoneman,
Brody, & Burke, 1989), exploratory analyses will examine this effect; however, this
question is not the primary focus here.
Ethnicity by Sex Interactions
There have been few studies that examined the link between marital conflict and
parenting in mothers and fathers of different ethnicities. Lindahl and Malik (1999) did not
find any main effects of ethnicity on marital conflict or parenting, but they did find that
ethnicity moderates the effect of marital conflict style on parenting. Specifically, marital
conflict was related to parental withdrawal for Caucasian mothers but not Hispanic
mothers. Ethnicity did not moderate this relationship for fathers. Kaczynski and
colleagues (2006) examined marital conflict and parenting in mothers and fathers of
12
Black, Hispanic, and European American ethnicity but did not find any main effects of
ethnicity; they did not examine ethnicity as a moderator nor the interaction between
ethnicity and parent sex. At the meta-analytic level, ethnicity does appear to moderate
the link between marital conflict and most aspects of parenting, in that Caucasian-only
samples tend to have larger effect sizes than mixed samples (Krishnakumar & Buehler,
2000). However, ethnicity does not appear to moderate the impact of marital conflict on
lax control, though it should be noted that accurate effect sizes for ethnically mixed
samples are hard to obtain because the number of studies is small (in the case of lax
parenting, three ethnically diverse samples compared to 18 Caucasian-only samples). It
should also be emphasized that the moderating effect of ethnicity was conducted at the
study level rather than within studies, because there was insufficient information
published in the studies (and frequently, insufficient sample sizes for within-study
comparison).
Furthermore, the direction of the effect (spillover versus compensatory) may be
different among mothers and fathers of different ethnicities. The centrality of the mother-
child, and especially the mother-son, bond in Latino families may cause a tendency to
compensate for negative marital interactions by intensifying the mother-child relationship
even more (Falicov, 1996), and therefore Latino mothers may be more likely to show a
compensatory rather than spillover effect. Buehler and Gerard (2002) did find similar
patterns for mothers’ and fathers’ parenting (including harsh discipline, involvement,
physical presence, and parent-child conflict) and marital conflict in a nationwide sample
of families of different ethnicities, though among parents of preschoolers they did find
less evidence of spillover in non-White than in White families.
13
The present study will examine whether there are different magnitudes as well as
different directions of effect by mothers and fathers of different ethnic groups on the
relationship between marital conflict and parenting. Because of empirical evidence that
SES either mediates ethnic differences or interacts with ethnicity, analyses will be
conducted with and without controlling for SES.
Reporter Effects
The source of data on family interactions appears to be crucial in investigating
relationships. Family members often disagree about the presence and extent of family
conflict and violence (Jouriles & O'Leary, 1985; Moffitt et al., 1997; O'Brien, John,
Margolin, & Erel, 1994; Paikoff, Carlton-Ford, & Brooks-Gunn, 1993; Sternberg, Lamb,
& Dawud-Noursi, 1998; Sugarman & Hotaling, 1997), as well as positive interactions
(Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992; Jacobson & Moore, 1981; McCloskey, Figueredo, &
Koss, 1995). Trained observers can be an important source of information about family
interactions. Observations can separate people’s behavior from self-reports influenced
by appraisals of their own behavior (Kerig, 2001). Ratings of trained observers can put
family members’ behaviors in context, circumventing response biases such as the
tendency for parents and children to report extreme ratings (Fauchier & Margolin, 2002).
Observers’ ratings and self-reports have been found to correlate on some parenting
variables but not others, suggesting that both are valuable in evaluating different
aspects of parenting.
Furthermore, methodology has been found to serve as an important moderator.
The meta-analysis by Erel and Burman (1995) found that there was a lower effect size
for the link between marital quality and parent-child relations when reporters for the two
constructs were independent than when the same person reported on both.
14
Krishnakumar and Buehler (2000) found in their meta-analysis that the effect size from
marital conflict to parenting was greatest for observational data, followed by
questionnaire data, with interview data showing the smallest effect. Use of reports from
multiple family members as well as independent coding of observational data allows for
reduction of potential reporter effects.
Present Study
The present research project examines effects of marital conflict, parent sex,
ethnicity, and interactions among these variables on parenting. Marital conflict has been
assessed via mother- and father-report during the first year of data collection. Specific
dimensions of parenting were assessed approximately one year later using observers’
ratings during triadic family interactions.
The present study examined four sets of questions.
(1) What is the link between marital conflict and each aspect of parenting? We
hypothesized that marital conflict would be positively associated with parent-child conflict
and negative coparenting/boundaries; we hypothesized that marital conflict would be
negatively associated with engagement/discipline and attunement.
(2) What is the role of ethnicity in the link between marital conflict and parenting?
Based on clinical evidence that the parent-child relationship has a relatively higher
priority compared to the marital relationship in Latino, African American, and Asian
American families than in White families as well as some empirical evidence indicating a
moderating effect of ethnicity, marital conflict was hypothesized to impact parenting in
African American, Latino, and Asian American families less than in White families. Due
to the lack of prior research, we did not predict how mixed-ethnicity families would
compare to other ethnic groups. Because of some prior research indicating that
15
socioeconomic status (SES) may play a mediating role in some parenting differences
among different ethnic groups, analyses were conducted both controlling for SES and
without SES modifications.
(3) What is the role of parent sex in the link between marital conflict and
parenting? Based on prior research that marital conflict impacts the fathers’ parenting
more than mothers’, we hypothesized that parent sex would moderate the relationship
between marital conflict and parenting, such that the effect would be more pronounced
in fathers than in mothers.
(4) Is there an interaction between ethnicity and parent sex in moderating the link
between marital conflict and parenting? We will examine moderating interactions
between parent sex and ethnicity on the link between marital conflict and parenting,
though no predictions about the interactions have been made due to lack of clear
findings in previous research.
In addition to these hypotheses, main effects of parent sex and ethnicity on
parenting were examined, though no specific differences were hypothesized.
Additionally, analyses were conducted to determine whether there are any effects of
child sex. It should be noted that we refer to ethnicity throughout the study rather than
race; although ethnicity and race have been treated as distinct in some research, such
as Hispanic/non-Hispanic as ethnicity and Black/White/Asian as race, we will refer to all
of these groups as well as mixed couples as ethnic groups. Particular strengths of this
study include the use of reports from multiple family members for assessing marital
conflict; use of observational data for assessing parenting variables, the ethnic diversity
of participants, a 2-year age span for children to limit developmental heterogeneity,
assessment at two time periods approximately one year apart, and the use of a
16
community sample with the accompanying variability in marital conflict and parenting
practices.
17
Chapter 2: Research Design and Methods
Overview
This study was conducted within the context of a larger ongoing longitudinal
investigation of the effects of family and community stressors and supports on children
and on family relationships, the USC Family Studies Project. Families were recruited
from schools, community centers, libraries, professional offices such as pediatricians
and dentists, and advertisements in newspapers and family magazines. Families
entered the Project when children were aged nine or ten. Each family will participate a
total of six times, with approximately one year between visits. The data used for the
present study were collected during the first and second visits. During the first year of
data collection, 119 families participated. One hundred and two families, or 86%,
returned for the second year of data collection. Reasons for attrition included refusal to
participate further (n=1), inability to contact (n=13), scheduling difficulties (n=2), and
failure to show up for multiple appointments (n=1). Families who returned for the second
year did not differ from those who did not on the basis of income, parental age, child
age, or marital conflict in the first year. Attrition was significantly more likely for African
American families (Odds ratio = 4.15), but other ethnic groups were equally likely to
participate as not. Of the 102 families who participated, 3 did not complete a triadic
discussion because only one parent and the child participated in the second year (n=1),
both parents and the child participated but the parents had separate appointments due
to divorce (n=1), or the family did not consent to a recorded discussion (n=1). Two other
families completed the discussion but the recording had technical difficulties that
precluded coding, including no sound or failure to record. The present study includes
data from the 97 families with data available from the first two waves of data collection
18
including the triadic discussion. Marital conflict was assessed at the first time point and
parenting was assessed at the second time point. Table 1 lists the constructs, reporters,
and timing of assessment.

Table 1: Constructs Assessed, Sources of Information, and Timing
Construct Measure Reporter Timing
Marital Conflict
Mothers’ and fathers’ behaviors
Domestic
Conflict
Inventory
Mother and
father (maximum
report)
Wave 1
Parenting

Engagement/discipline
Parent-child conflict
Negative coparenting/boundaries
Attunement
Triadic
observation
Independent
coders
Wave 2
Participants
Participants include 97 families, each consisting of a mother, a father, and at
least one child. Criteria for inclusion in the first wave of the study were: (a) child must be
nine or ten; (b) if either parent is not the child's biological mother or father, both parents
must have been living with the child for at least the past three years; (c) children must
speak English well enough to complete the procedures; and (d) parents must speak and
read English well enough to complete the procedures. Children were 57% boys (n = 55)
and 43% girls (n = 42). Each parent's ethnicity was determined according to self-report.
19
In 16% of couples (n = 15), both spouses were African American; in 24% of couples (n =
23) both were White; in 23% of couples (n = 22) both were Latino; in 9% of couples (n =
9) both were Asian American; 28% of couples were mixed including 15% of couples (n =
15) with spouses of two different ethnicities, and 13% of couples (n = 13) in which one
or both partners were of mixed heritage. Reported gross family income ranged from
both parents unemployed to $165,000, with a median of $63,700 and mean of $70,332
(SD = $35,950). At the time of their initial visits, mothers’ mean age was 38.5 (SD = 6.0;
range = 25 to 53), and fathers’ mean age was 40.9 (SD = 6.8; range = 24 to 59). All
children were 9 or 10 (M = 10.0 years, SD = .6) during their initial visits. Average length
of time between the first and second visits was 1.1 years (SD = .2).
Procedures
General Procedures. During each data collection, participation in the full study
consisted of a 3- to 5-hour laboratory visit involving the two parents and the child, as
well as questionnaires completed by parents prior to the laboratory visit. Subsequently,
each family member completed two weeks of daily diaries at home. During the
laboratory visit, parents completed some questionnaires on paper and others by
entering their answers directly into a computer. Each family’s visit was managed by two
interviewers, who were graduate students or masters-level staff. An interviewer helped
each child complete questionnaires by reading the questions to the child and assisting
with use of the computer, as needed. Parents and children underwent several individual
interviews. During the second visit, families also completed a 15-minute triadic
discussion. Families received a total of $100 for the first laboratory visit and $125 for the
second laboratory visit, with an additional $20 available at each visit for arriving on time
for the first scheduled appointment. At the beginning of each visit, informed consent was
20
obtained from both parents, and assent was obtained from children. All participants
were informed that their participation was voluntary and could be discontinued at any
time.
Triadic Family Discussion. Each family member received a list of 21 topics for
discussion, relating to family rules and practices that family members might like to
change, such as chores, allowance, time spent together, use of telephone, bedtime, and
need for privacy (see Appendix 1 for items). Topics were chosen to address areas of
frequent conflict between parents and pre-adolescent children, and to encompass areas
that both parents and children might seek to change. Interviewers instructed each family
member to check off all topics that they might like to see change in their family, and then
to select the two that are most important.
Following the choice of topics, interviewers instructed families to spend 15
minutes discussing “one or more of these topics in a way you think will be most helpful
to your family.” Interviewers videotaped the discussions and monitored through the
video monitor and a one-way mirror. Following the discussion, families were debriefed to
address any sensitive issues that may have arisen. Family members also completed
questionnaires addressing how typical the discussion was of their family conversations,
how satisfied they were with the discussion, how much the discussion impacted them
emotionally, and how much of a difference they believed the discussion would make in
their family (see Appendix 2).
Family members reported finding the discussions to be fairly typical and
satisfactory (see Table 2). Mean ratings across all family members for typicality of
discussions placed the discussions between somewhat and fairly typical. Family
members expected that the discussions would make some difference in their families.
21
On average family members reported being fairly satisfied with the discussions. Family
members reported that the discussion made them feel somewhat good. There were no
differences among mothers, fathers, and children. For the frequency of each response
to these questions, please see Appendix 3. Table 3 presents ratings of typicality and
satisfaction for each ethnic group. There was no significant effect of ethnicity for any of
the four questions.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of discussions’ typicality, impact on family, satisfaction,
and emotional impact according to mothers, fathers, and children.
Mothers Fathers Children Total
Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
How typical was this discussion of other
family discussions you have had?
0 = not at all typical
1 = slightly typical
2 = somewhat typical
3 = fairly typical
4 = very typical
2.64
(1.18)
2.64
(1.08)
2.57
(1.11)
2.62
(1.12)
How much will this discussion make a
difference in your family?
0 = no difference
1 = small difference
2 = some difference
3 = substantial difference
4 = major difference
2.29
(1.09)
2.28
(.92)
2.58
(.99)
2.38
(1.01)
How satisfied were you with this discussion?
0 = not at all satisfied
1 = slightly satisfied
2 = somewhat satisfied
3 = fairly satisfied
4 = very satisfied
2.68
(1.10)
2.89
(.89)
2.93
(.99)
2.83
(1.00)
How did the discussion make you feel?
–2 = really bad
–1 = somewhat bad
0 = not good or bad
1 = somewhat good
2 = really good
1.07
(.88)
1.19
(.62)
1.10
(.81)
1.12
(.78)
Note. N = 97 families.
22
Table 3: Descriptive statistics of discussions’ typicality, impact on family, satisfaction,
and emotional impact according to mothers, fathers, and children in each ethnic group.
Mothers Fathers Children
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
How typical was this discussion of other family discussions you have had?
Mixed 2.89 (1.03) 2.64 (1.13) 2.71 (1.05)
Asian American 2.78 (1.09) 2.78 (.83) 2.33 (1.12)
African American 2.20 (1.27) 2.60 (1.12) 2.47 (1.19)
White 2.91 (1.13) 2.87 (.76) 2.87 (.82)
Latino 2.27 (1.32) 2.36 (1.36) 2.23 (1.34)
How much will this discussion make a difference in your family?
Mixed 2.46 (1.20) 2.29 (.76) 2.64 (.91)
Asian American 2.56 (.53) 2.22 (.97) 2.44 (.88)
African American 2.33 (1.35) 2.47 (1.30) 2.47 (1.36)
White 2.00 (.85) 2.09 (.79) 2.70 (.88)
Latino 2.23 (1.15) 2.36 (.95) 2.50 (1.01)
How satisfied were you with this discussion?
Mixed 2.68 (1.28) 2.71 (1.01) 3.14 (.85)
Asian American 3.00 (.50) 2.78 (.97) 2.22 (.97)
African American 2.60 (1.35) 3.07 (.80) 3.13 (1.06)
White 2.70 (.88) 3.04 (.77) 2.91 (1.00)
Latino 2.59 (1.14) 2.86 (.89) 2.82 (1.05)
How did the discussion make you feel?
Mixed 1.04 (.96) 1.07 (.60) 1.29 (.66)
Asian American 1.22 (.44) 1.22 (.44) .56 (1.13)
African American 1.00 (1.00) 1.20 (.78) 1.33 (.90)
White 1.09 (.73) 1.26 (.54) 1.13 (.63)
Latino 1.09 (1.02) 1.23 (.69) .91 (.87)
Note. N = 97 families. Mixed n = 28, Asian American n = 9, African American n = 15,
White n = 23, Latino n = 22.
23
Triadic Discussion Coding
Discussions were coded using two separate coding systems at the molecular
(every 60 seconds) and molar (every 5 minutes) levels. The two systems were
developed by the author and a small team of coders prior to the coding process using
the coding system from a similar sample and task as a springboard (Gordis & Margolin,
2001). Undergraduate and post-bachelor coders were trained on a set of similar family
discussions from a different sample until intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC’s) above
.8 were obtained. Once reliability was established, two raters coded each discussion
with each system. Each family’s discussion was coded by six different coders: two with
the molar system rating mothers, two with the molar system rating fathers, and two with
the molecular system rating all family members. To prevent “observer drift” (Margolin et
al., 1998), coders participated in weekly meetings throughout the coding process to
address interrater reliability, discrepancies, and questions. Because some hypotheses
concern participants' ethnicities, efforts were made to ensure ethnic diversity among
coders. The entire coding team of 13 people included 2 men and 11 women, with 4
coders (31%) of Caucasian background, 5 coders (39%) of Asian American
background, 2 coders (15%) of Latino background, 1 coder (8%) of Middle Eastern
background, and 1 coder (8%) of mixed ethnic background.
The molar coding system (see Appendix 4) focused on parenting behaviors as
exhibited during the triadic discussion. Longer 5-minute time segments were used for
parenting behaviors because they occur with less frequency than the affective and
problem-solving dimensions coded in the molecular system. Coders watched each
segment once and completed coding before watching the next segment; coders could
watch a segment again before moving on to the next segment if needed to complete the
24
coding. Each behavior was coded on a scale from 0 to 3, with 0 indicating that there was
no evidence for the behavior or that the behavior did not come up during that segment,
1 indicating some evidence during the time segment, 2 indicating substantial evidence,
and 3 indicating extreme evidence. The behaviors rated included: effortful discipline, lax
discipline, power-assertive discipline, monitoring, consistency within one’s own
disciplinary style, inconsistency, good use of contingencies, poor use of contingencies,
instrumental involvement at home (as discussed during the segment), fostering
autonomy, discouraging autonomy, responsiveness to child’s needs, conflict with the
child, dominance/control, rejection of the child, enjoyment of the child, emotional
attunement, child-orientation during the discussion, adult-orientation during the
discussion, and three coparenting codes: undermining/conflict, triangulation, and
working together. Means, standard deviation, and ranges for each code are provided in
Table 4. There were no significant differences between mothers’ and fathers’ molar
codes with the exception of instrumental involvement, t(96) = 2.40, p < .05.
The molecular coding system (see Appendix 5) focused on affective and
problem-solving dimensions and qualities of interactions that occurred throughout the
discussion. These codes were appropriate for molecular rating because of their higher
base rate relative to most of the molar parenting codes. However, among the molecular
codes, the frequency with which they appeared in different dyads varied greatly, with
some codes rated with non-zero values consistently in each segment and others rated
only in a few segments for some families and not at all for other families. The molecular
codes were rated for each dyad: mother to child, mother to father, father to child, father
Table 4: Descriptive statistics for individual molar parenting codes.
Mothers Fathers
Code Mean SD Range % > 0 Mean SD Range % > 0
Effortful discipline 4.74 1.15 1.5 to 6.5 100 4.59 1.13 1.5 to 6.5 100
Lax discipline .06 .22 0 to 1 7.2 .09 .48 0 to 4.5 7.2
Power-assertive discipline .03 .13 0 to 1 4.1 .06 .30 0 to 2.5 5.2
Monitoring 3.80 1.11 1 to 6 100 3.69 1.18 .5 to 6 100
Consistency within own style 3.05 1.01 0 to 6 99.0 2.92 .86 .5 to 6 100
Inconsistency .32 .69 0 to 5 33.0 .36 .60 0 to 3 37.1
Good use of contingencies .94 .98 0 to 4 67.0 .86 .89 0 to 4.5 68.0
Poor use of contingencies .20 .46 0 to 2 19.6 .15 .38 0 to 2 18.6
Instrumental involvement* 3.52 1.03 1 to 6 100 3.18 1.09 .5 to 6 100
Fostering autonomy 2.65 1.40 0 to 7 96.9 2.65 1.23 0 to 5.5 97.9
Discouraging autonomy .26 .47 0 to 2 30.9 .16 .39 0 to 2 18.6
Nonresponsiveness to child’s needs .78 1.13 0 to 6.5 55.7 .84 .99 0 to 4 58.8
Responsiveness to child’s needs 3.28 1.23 0 to 6 99.0 3.08 1.27 0 to 5.5 96.9
Conflict .26 .75 0 to 4 15.5 .22 .70 0 to 5 16.5
Dominance/control .23 .50 0 to 3 24.7 .18 .56 0 to 3.5 15.5
Rejection .07 .35 0 to 3 7.2 .06 .30 0 to 2 6.2
Enjoyment 3.77 1.38 0 to 6.5 99.0 3.63 1.07 1.5 to 6 100
Emotional attunement 2.88 1.43 0 to 6 95.9 2.68 1.28 0 to 6 96.9
Child orientation during discussion 4.84 .98 2 to 6 100 4.88 1.12 1.5 to 6 100
Adult orientation during discussion 2.86 1.63 0 to 7 92.8 2.65 1.68 0 to 7 91.8
Coparenting: undermining/ conflict .92 1.44 0 to 7.5 56.7 .89 1.38 0 to 5.5 45.4
Coparenting: triangulation .16 .49 0 to 3.5 16.5 .09 .29 0 to 1.5 11.3
Coparenting: working together 3.73 1.17 .5 to 6 100 3.74 1.13 1 to 6 100
Note. N = 97 families. Possible range is 0 to 9. “% > 0” refers to the percent of people coded as showing the behavior at some point
during the discussion; this column has been included to address the low base rate of some codes.
*Mothers’ instrumental involvement was significantly higher than fathers’, p < .05. There were no other significant differences
between mothers’ and fathers’ molar parenting codes.
25
26
to mother, child to mother, and child to father. Instead of focusing on one actor or one
dyad, coders rated all dyads. Coders first watched each one-minute segment without
coding anything. Next, coders watched the same segment again, focusing on one actor
(for example, the mother), then would code that actor’s behavior toward the other two
family members (for example, mother to child and mother to father). Coders watched
the same segment again two more times, focusing on the other two actors. The order in
which dyads were rated was counterbalanced. Thus, coders watched each segment at
least four times, and they were able to rewatch a segment immediately if necessary for
coding (for example, if the audio was difficult to hear). Coders did not watch the
subsequent segment until they had completed recording all codes for the current
segment. Two coders rated each family independently. Each code was rated on the
same 0 to 3 scale as the molar codes, with 0 signifying no evidence and 3 indicating
substantial evidence. Table 5 presents means, standard deviations, and ranges for each
molecular code. Mothers were rated significantly higher than fathers on several
molecular codes, including: warmth, t(96) = 3.28, p < .01; support, t(96) = 2.26, p < .05;
conflict/affective disagreement, t(96) = 2.09, p < .05; and attempts to correct behavior,
t(96) = 2.50, p < .05. It should be noted that although all dyads were rated, only mother-
to-child and father-to-child codes have been included in the present study; although
some codes such as mother-to-father affective conflict are relevant to coparenting, we
have excluded all parent-to-parent codes so as to keep parenting variables distinct from
marital conflict.

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Molecular Parenting Codes Across Time Segments for Mothers and Fathers
Mothers Fathers
Code Mean SD Range % > 0 Mean SD Range % > 0
Problem solving/
identification
21.28 5.12 6.5 to 31.5 100 20.33 5.51 4.5 to 30 100
Coming to decision 1.81 1.94 0 to 8 75.3 1.87 2.10 0 to 9 71.1
Assertion 16.89 5.63 3 to 31.5 100 16.43 5.95 4.5 to 30 100
Warmth** 17.81 6.67 1.5 to 31 100 16.28 6.01 3 to 29 100
Validation .74 1.03 0 to 4 49.5 .86 1.32 0 to 5.5 51.5
Support of ideas* 2.77 2.50 0 to 11 85.6 2.38 2.45 0 to 11 77.3
Neutral disapproval 8.96 5.91 0 to 25 99.0 7.84 5.15 0 to 23 99.0
Disagreement over content 3.95 3.41 0 to 17 86.6 3.53 3.32 0 to 14 84.5
Conflict/affective
disagreement*
1.34 2.25 0 to 12 49.5 .84 1.92 0 to 11.5 39.2
Insults/demeaning .29 .85 0 to 5 18.6 .34 .86 0 to 4.5 20.6
27
Table 5: Continued
Mothers Fathers
Code Mean SD Range % > 0 Mean SD Range % > 0
Laying down the law 2.59 3.31 0 to 19.5 83.5 2.79 3.84 0 to 22 74.2
Gestures to shut down .05 .21 0 to 1.5 6.2 .09 .31 0 to 2.5 11.3
Ignoring/ not listening .13 .37 0 to 2.5 15.5 .14 .31 0 to 1.5 19.6
Withdrawal .07 .32 0 to 2 6.2 .27 1.31 0 to 10.5 10.3
Negative coalition .13 .36 0 to 2 16.5 .11 .34 0 to 2 12.4
Leading questions 1.59 2.17 0 to 12 64.9 1.31 1.81 0 to 9.5 60.8
Dismissal .44 .83 0 to 4 34.0 .45 .86 0 to 4.5 33.0
Avoidance .11 .48 0 to 4 8.2 .10 .35 0 to 2.5 10.3
Attempts to correct
behavior*
1.14 1.41 0 to 6 57.7 .75 1.27 0 to 7.5 43.3
Note. N = 97 families. Possible range 0 to 45. “% > 0” refers to the percent of people coded as showing the behavior at some point
during the discussion; this column has been included to address the low base rate of some codes.
*p < .05, **p < .01.
28
29
Parenting Factors
To reduce the number of variables and to capture higher-order parenting
constructs, we conducted a factor analysis of the molar and molecular parenting codes
across parents to reduce the complexity of the data. Principal axis factoring was
indicated because data are non-normal. We used promax rotation because oblique
rotation is indicated when factors are not orthogonal (Fabrigar et al., 1999). Table 6
depicts the optimal factor structure, with factor loadings reflecting the loading of each
variable on its factor, partialling out the influence of the other variables. Variables were
included in factors if their loadings were .3 or higher. Two variables (coparenting:
working together and emotional attunement) loaded onto two factors and for theoretical
reasons were included with the factor with the second-highest loading. Four other
variables (discouraging autonomy, inconsistency, coming to a decision, and power-
assertive discipline) loaded onto a factor with which they were theoretically incompatible
and were dropped. Five additional variables (gestures to shut down, poor use of
contingencies, ignoring, avoidance, and rejection) did not have any factor loadings
above .3 and were not included in further analyses. In combining molecular and molar
codes into factors, we rescaled the molecular codes onto 0 to 9 scales instead of 0 to
45. The two factors were coded on the same scale for each time segment, but molar
codes had been recorded every 5 minutes out of the 15 minute observation, whereas
molecular codes had been recorded every minute.

30
Table 6: Factor loadings for parenting codes across time segments
Factor 1 2 3 4
Child orientation during discussion .802 .037 .011 .056
Monitoring .785 .042 .087 .152
Effortful discipline .743 .095 .005 .205
Fostering autonomy .729 -.117 -.058 .142
Instrumental involvement .721 -.131 .156 .007
Responsiveness to child’s needs .716 -.377 .080 -.102
Problem solving/identification .577 .386 -.203 -.110
Assertion .547 .445 -.159 .029
Consistency within own style .364 .066 .034 -.044
Validation .328 -.079 -.077 -.102
Withdrawal -.317 -.076 -.180 .198
Good use of contingencies .303 .032 -.052 .051
Lax discipline -.301 -.111 -.208 .222
Disagreement over content -.067 .934 -.047 -.250
Conflict/affective disagreement -.117 .777 .062 -.096
Disapproval .152 .729 -.133 -.084
Insults/demeaning .020 .612 .291 .038
Dismissal -.102 .500 .143 -.043
Leading questions .048 .489 .016 -.031
Conflict .002 .449 .109 .285
Laying down the law .231 .408 -.035 .206
31
Table 6: Continued
Factor 1 2 3 4
Dominance/control .129 .357 .338 .156
Attempts to correct behavior .108 .340 .059 -.118
Coparenting: Undermining/conflict -.009 .144 .769 .129
Adult orientation during discussion -.165 -.010 .586 -.004
Negative coalition .051 .179 .580 -.241
Coparenting: Triangulation .051 -.030 .421 .180
Coparenting: Working together .442 -.127 -.304 -.113
Nonresponsiveness to child’s needs -.034 .301 -.078 .624
Warmth .136 .121 -.124 -.595
Support of ideas .017 .198 -.017 -.507
Emotional attunement .603 -.265 .077 -.350
Enjoyment .228 .002 .049 -.345
Discouraging autonomy .228 -.078 .058 .480
Inconsistency .149 -.011 .183 .343
Coming to a decision .100 .122 -.079 -.306
Power-assertive discipline .203 -.035 .418 .188
Gestures to shut down -.144 .293 .064 -.128
Poor use of contingencies -.124 .258 -.217 .223
Ignoring -.174 .183 .130 .067
Avoidance -.188 .184 -.021 -.020
Rejection .007 .199 -.050 .225
Note. Principal axis factoring using promax rotation.
32
In general, we attempted to create factors that were as coherent as possible
while encompassing the most codes with adequate factor loadings. However, it should
be noted that some factors, particularly Engagement/Discipline, are fairly heterogeneous
compared to the way they have been defined in other studies. Furthermore, the Parent-
Child Conflict factor encompasses codes ranging from neutral disagreement to
demeaning. With only five codes each, the Negative Coparenting/Boundaries and
Attunement factors are relatively more homogeneous.
Table 7 presents explanations of each code; descriptions relating to the way
codes were operationalized in the present study unless otherwise noted. In addition to
loading on the same factor for the present study, engagement and discipline have been
linked as positive elements of the broader parenting dimension of control (Darling &
Steinberg, 1993). This factor reflects proactive engagement with the child, both during
the discussion and in daily life.
Conceptually similar to marital conflict but involving a different dyad, the overall
construct of parent-child conflict is operationalized as unpleasant interactions
accompanied by negative affect. Disagreements can be mutual or can be one-sided.
The parent-child conflict factor comprises a range of expressions of conflict.
According to Margolin, Gordis, and John (2001), coparenting includes three
dimensions: conflict over parental issues; cooperation over parenting; and triangulation.
These three coparenting variables could be coded if the parent displayed the behavior
during the triadic discussion or if the family members made reference to the behavior
occurring outside of the discussion; children could be observers or could be directly
involved in the display of these behaviors. In addition to these three aspects of
33
coparenting, two additional codes, adult orientation and negative coalition, reflect
boundary issues that may negatively impact the child.
Attunement encompasses codes related to the well-established parenting
dimension of warmth/responsiveness (Baumrind, 1996; Darling & Steinberg, 1993). It
should be noted that the factor analysis depicted in Table 6 loaded the variables that
comprise attunement in the reverse direction, such that nonresponsiveness to child’s
needs loaded positively and the other variables loaded negatively to indicate lack of
attunement; we have reversed the direction of all codes to increase interpretability as
well as comparability to the warmth/responsiveness literature.
Table 8 presents the intraclass correlations for the parenting factors, summed
across time segments. A one-way random effects model was used to measure absolute
agreement. Because two coders rated each parenting code, the average measure ICC
(ICC(k)) was calculated to measure agreement (McGraw & Wong, 1996).
Table 7: Definitions of Molar and Molecular Codes Comprising the Four Parenting Factors
Factor Code Definition
Engagement/
discipline
Child orientation during discussion Tries to engage the child in the observed triadic discussion
Monitoring Combines child-centered awareness of the child’s activities with caution
over the child’s safety and well-being (Maccoby & Martin, 1983)
Effortful discipline Setting standards for children and following through with those standards in
a rational and consistent manner (Simons, Whitbeck, Beaman, & Conger,
1994)
Fostering autonomy Tailoring the child’s experiences appropriately to the developmental stage
Instrumental involvement Spending time with the child engaging in constructive and enjoyable
activities, as well as spending time apart from the child in activities directly
relevant to the child, such as meetings at the child’s school (Russell, 1997)
Responsiveness to child’s needs Acknowledging and acting flexibly to accommodate the child’s needs,
accounting for the child’s age, developmental stage, and unique personality;
in contrast to many of the attunement variables, which focus on emotions,
responsiveness emphasizes actions the parent takes to respond to the
child’s needs
Problem solving/identification Engaging with the child in the observed triadic discussion.
Assertion Expressing one’s own opinions to the child
Consistency within own style Exhibiting predicable and systematic parenting, as well as following through
with negative consequences for rule violation (Metzler, Biglan, Ary, & Li,
1998); consistency encompasses both completing consequences that have
been stated or begun, as well as showing similarity in discipline from one
infraction to the next
Validation Actively engaging with the child in addressing the child’s emotions during
the observed triadic discussion.
Withdrawal (Reverse-scored) Actively disengages during the discussion
34
Table 7: Continued
Factor Code Definition
Good use of contingencies Providing positive feedback and consequences following desired behaviors
by the child (Metzler, Biglan, Ary, & Li, 1998) as well as appropriate
consequences for undesired behaviors; this code reflects discipline
practices that are well-informed by behavioral principles in terms of
contingence, predictability, timing, and proportional relationship between
behavior and consequence
Lax discipline (Reverse-scored) Failing to place any demands on child
Parent-child
conflict
Disagreement over content Disagreeing with the child in the presence of non-negative affect
Conflict/affective disagreement Disagreeing with the child in the presence of negative affect
Disapproval Telling the child something the parent does not like in the presence of
neutral affect; parent refrains from ad hominem attack or display of strong
affect
Insulting Criticizes the child personally; making negative comments about the child’s
behaviors as reflective of something unfavorable about the child;
patronizing, belittling, or humiliating
Dismissal Downplaying or negating the child’s ideas
Leading questions Asking questions designed to elicit a specific response; coded when
questions were phrased as leading without any apparent intent to be
leading, as well as when questions appeared to be tactics of persuasion or
steamrolling
Conflict Displays negative affect toward child during discussion; rated at the molar
level, code intended to capture broader displays of negative affect than the
molecular conflict code
Laying down the law Lecturing, patronizing, condescension, or disallowing negotiation by the
child
Dominance/control Pulling rank, stating superiority, or otherwise exerting control over the child
during the discussion
35
Table 7: Continued
Factor Code Definition
Attempts to correct behavior Making verbal or nonverbal overtures to impact the child’s behavior during
the discussion, ranging from asking the child to speak more loudly to
corrections with a physical prompt to blatant criticism of habits like nail-
biting that the child showed during the discussion
Negative
coparenting/
boundaries
Coparenting: Undermining/ conflict One parent’s arguing or disagreeing with the other parent about the child;
undermining the other parent (Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001)
Adult orientation during discussion Focusing on interacting with other parent during discussion rather than with
child; although adult orientation in other contexts is appropriate and
necessary to marital interactions, during the triadic discussion high levels of
adult orientation suggest that the child is being excluded from the
discussion despite being physically present and having identified topics that
he or she would like to discuss; some parents who showed high adult
orientation excluded the child from discussion despite the topic concerning
the child directly and/or despite the child’s attempts to participate in the
discussion.
Negative coalition Ganging up with the child against the other parent; attempting to draw the
child into taking a position against the other parent; similar to triangulation
code, but reflecting in-the-moment rather than more global triangulation; it
should be noted that a child’s attempts to establish a coalition with one
parent against the other would not have been coded for the parent (and
thus would not contribute to this factor) unless the parent reciprocated.
Coparenting: Triangulation Distorting boundaries between parents and children, such as by drawing the
child into a conflict between parents or pressuring child or trying to get child
to take sides against the other parent
Coparenting: Working together (Reverse-scored) Supporting other parent about parenting or issues related
to child; collaborating with other parent; working as a parenting team;
conveying being on the same page as other parent
36
Table 7: Continued
Factor Code Definition
Attunement Nonresponsiveness to child’s
needs
(Reverse-scored) Failing to respond to the child’s demonstrated needs,
both emotionally and behaviorally
Warmth Displaying positive affect toward the child during the triadic discussion
Support of ideas Agreeing with something the child said; complimenting the child’s
statement; helping the child develop and convey an idea
Emotional attunement Showing awareness of the child’s emotional needs; attempting to fulfill the
child’s emotional needs
Enjoyment Displaying a positive experience of interaction with the child; although
related to warmth, enjoyment focuses on the parent’s observed experience
rather than emotions that the parent is conveying to the child
37
38
Table 8: Intraclass Correlations for Parenting Factors Across Time Segments For
Mothers and Fathers
Factor Mother ICC Father ICC
Engagement/ discipline .725 .744
Parent-child conflict .721 .725
Negative coparenting/ boundaries .862 .847
Attunement .615 .528
Note. N = 97 families.

Marital Conflict Measure
Parents completed the revised version of the Domestic Conflict Index (DCI;
Margolin, Burman, John, & O'Brien, 2000). The DCI is a 61-item measure of marital
conflict, including some items from the Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus, 1979) and the
Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1995).
Each spouse completed the DCI twice: once for the spouse’s behavior, and once for
his/her own. Fifty-six of the items concern conflict behaviors; five items concern positive
aspects of marital interaction and have been excluded from the present study. Conflict
items range from verbal conflict (e.g., scream or yell) to mild physical conflict (e.g.,
push, grab, or shove) to severe physical conflict (e.g., beat up, threaten with a knife or
gun). Respondents indicated whether the behavior has ever happened, and if so,
whether it has happened in front of their child and how many times it has occurred in the
past 12 months. Frequency responses, rated from 0 to 5, include, “Not at all,” “Once,” “2
to 5 times per year,” “6 to 12 times per year,” “2 to 4 times per month,” and “More than
once per week” (see Appendix 6 for items; note that each spouse completes the items
listed for his or her own behavior and again for the spouse’s behavior). Based on
39
evidence that people tend to underreport rather than overreport marital aggression
(Arias & Beach, 1987; Dutton & Hemphill, 1992; Margolin, 1987), for each of the 56
items we took a maximum across the two parents’ reports, then summed all of the max
reported items. Table 9 presents descriptive statistics for mothers’, fathers’, and
combined behaviors. Internal consistency for the 56 negative conflict items was high
(alpha = .97 for wives’ behavior and .97 for husbands’ behavior in the current sample
during the first visit). Table 10 presents correlations among mothers’, fathers’, and
combined conflict.

Table 9: Descriptive statistics for marital conflict behaviors using maximum of mothers’
and fathers’ reports.
Code Mean SD Range
Mothers’ behavior 74.45 48.48 4 to 233
Fathers’ behavior 63.33 42.52 2 to 212
Combined behavior 137.78 84.28 10 to 402
Note. N = 97 families.
The maximum possible score for each spouse’s marital conflict was 280, and the maximum possible for the
combined score was 560.

Table 10: Correlations among combined, mothers’, and fathers’ marital conflict.
Mothers Fathers Combined
Mothers’ behavior .714*** .936***
Fathers’ behavior .915***
Combined behavior
Note. N = 97 for all cells.
*** p < .001.
40
Chapter 3: Results
Preliminary Analyses
Prior to addressing hypotheses, descriptive statistics for all variables were
examined and Pearson correlations among parenting factors have been provided.
Correlations among parenting factors appear in Tables 11 and 12. Correlations within
parent appear in Table 11, whereas correlations across parents appear in Table 12.
Within parents, the magnitude of correlations among the factors are small to moderate;
although distinctiveness of factors is important, prior research has not found different
aspects of parenting to be completely orthogonal. The present data reflect the modest
intercorrelations commonly found among aspects of parenting. Although most of the
correlations are in expected directions, the positive correlation between engagement/
discipline and parent-child conflict is somewhat contrary to expectation. However, both
are consistent with the broader construct of parenting control.
In Table 12, correlations between mothers and fathers for the same parenting
factor are found along the diagonal; although it would generally be expected that similar
factors would be more highly correlated across parents than dissimilar factors, this
pattern did not emerge. The exception involves negative coparenting/boundaries, which
is correlated at a high level (r = .760). This is likely due to the dependent nature of
coparenting; although it is theoretically possible for one parent to exhibit high negative
coparenting and boundary violations while the other parent attempts to coparent
positively, a more typical pattern is for mothers’ and fathers’ coparenting to be correlated
(e.g., Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001).
41
Table 11: Correlations among observational parenting factors, by parent.
Engagement/
discipline
Parent-child
conflict
Negative
coparenting/
boundaries
Attunement
Engagement/
discipline
.317** -.432*** .344**
Parent-child conflict .335** .080 -.265**
Negative
coparenting/
boundaries
-.386*** -.031 -.381***
Attunement .454*** -.272** -.394***
Note. Correlations among mothers’ parenting appear above the diagonal. Correlations
among fathers’ parenting appear below the diagonal.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
N = 97 for all cells.

Table 12: Correlations between mothers’ and fathers’ observational parenting factors.
Mothers’
engagement/
discipline
Mothers’
parent-child
conflict
Mothers’ negative
coparenting/
boundaries
Mothers’
attunement
Fathers’ engagement/
discipline
.156 -.189 -.389*** .202*
Fathers’ parent-child
conflict
-.002 .333** -.006 .008
Fathers’ negative
coparenting/
boundaries
-.529*** -.116 .760*** -.281**
Fathers’ attunement .081 -.178 -.317** .400***
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
N = 97 for all cells.
42
Data Analytic Strategy
The primary analyses to address the hypotheses of this study utilized
Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). HLM is designed to
account for and capitalize on nonindependent data such as individuals nested within
families or students nested within classrooms nested within schools. That is, rather than
nonindependence serving as a nuisance by violating assumptions of a statistical test, it
is a central feature and benefit of HLM (Wendorf, 2002). In addition, failure to account
for this nonindependence between spouses can bias significance tests and lead to
spurious results (Kenny, 1996), and the common practice of examining husbands and
wives separately does not maximize potential power (Barnett, Marshall, Raudenbush, &
Brennan, 1993).
The present study used the MIXED function within SPSS 13.0 to conduct HLM.
1
The initial focus of the HLM model is the nesting of data. Although the primary
hypothesis of the present study concerns the effect of marital conflict, not parent sex, on
parenting, the process of nesting mandates addressing parent sex prior to other
variables. The Level 1 analysis provides a mean for couples on the parenting variable
under examination (via the Level 1 Intercept) as well as an estimate of the difference
between fathers’ and mothers’ parenting for each couple (via the Level 1 slope). The
Level 1 slope provides the equivalent of a main effect for parent sex. Table 13 provides

1
Although the procedures differ slightly, the end result is the same as with other
software programs such as HLM, SAS Proc Mix, or MPlus. The most notable difference
is that HLM focuses separately on Level 1 and Level 2 effects; although SPSS conducts
the same sets of tests, it does not make the same Level 1 and Level 2 distinction. For
the sake of comparability to other HLM studies, we will refer to Level 1 and Level 2 as
they pertain to the conceptual model and results.
43
a listing of the meaning of each aspect of the HLM analysis to provide greater clarity in
interpreting Tables 15 through 18.
Level 2 analyses compare across families (specifically, across mother-father
pairs) on the basis of between-family variables including marital conflict, ethnicity, and
parent sex. Ethnicity and parent sex are considered fixed effects because we have
represented all levels of sex and all levels of ethnicity. Marital conflict is defined as a
random effect because it is a continuous variable that does not necessarily represent all
possible levels in the population; defining it as random rather than fixed allows us to
extrapolate to the larger population rather than only to families that share the same
marital conflict distribution.

Table 13: Explanation of HLM terms as they relate to HLM models presented in Tables
15 through 18.
HLM term Explanation
Level 1
Intercept Coefficient Mean of parenting factor across mothers and fathers
Intercept SE Variance of parenting factor across mothers and fathers
Intercept T and p
value
Test of whether parenting factor value is significantly different
from 0
Slope Coefficient Estimate of difference between mothers’ and fathers’
parenting
Slope SE Variance of estimate of difference between mothers’ and
fathers’ parenting
Slope T and p value Main effect of parent sex: test of significance of parent sex
main effect
44
Table 13: Continued
HLM term Explanation
Level 2
Marital Conflict
Coefficient
Parenting mean at the average level of marital conflict (this
coefficient is 0 for all analyses because variable was
standardized for analysis)
Marital Conflict SE Variance of parenting at average level of marital conflict (this
coefficient is 0 for all analyses because mothers and fathers
within the same family have the same value for marital
conflict, and therefore there is no variation between mothers’
and fathers’ marital conflict across sex)
Marital Conflict Z
and p value
Main effect of marital conflict: Test of significance of marital
conflict main effect (uses Wald Z test rather than F because
marital conflict is a random effect not fixed effect)
Ethnicity coefficient Parenting mean for members of the specified ethnic group
Ethnicity SE Variance of parenting for members of the specified ethnic
group
Ethnicity F and p
value
Main effect of ethnicity for the specified ethnic group: Test of
significance of ethnicity main effect
F and p value for all
interactions
Interaction between parent sex, ethnicity, or both: Test of
moderators
45
Per Bryk and Raudenbush (1992), we first ran a baseline model to obtain an
estimate of the association between and extent of variation in the Level 1 intercept and
Level 1 slope. That is, we wanted to evaluate the couple mean as well as compare
mothers and fathers. This baseline model allowed us to account for interdependencies.
In the baseline models, variance components for all four parenting factors were
significantly different from zero; as a result, we were able to add predictors to the model
to explain the variance in the couple mean and sex difference.
We reran the models including controls for income and child sex, based on prior
literature that SES sometimes accounts for ethnic differences as well as literature that
has found child sex to moderate the link between marital conflict and parenting.
Because almost all of these analyses showed identical patterns of findings with and
without controls for income and child sex, for the sake of clarity we have omitted these
variables except when such controls impacted the nature of the results. Income was
entered as a random effect and child sex was a fixed effect.
Link Between Marital Conflict and Parenting Factors
The correlations between marital conflict and mothers’ and fathers’ parenting are
depicted in Table 14. Although these relationships are also addressed in the full
hierarchical models, the correlations are provided for the sake of clear interpretability.
Consistent with the Hypothesis 1, marital conflict showed a moderate link with negative
coparenting/boundaries for both mothers and fathers. However, contrary to
expectations, marital conflict was not significantly related to engagement/discipline,
parent-child conflict, or attunement for either parent.
46
Table 14: Correlations between marital conflict and mothers’ and fathers’ parenting.
Parent Parenting Factor r with Marital Conflict
Mothers Engagement/Discipline -.167
Parent-Child Conflict -.093
Negative Coparenting/Boundaries .318**
Attunement -.009
Fathers Engagement/Discipline -.117
Parent-Child Conflict .069
Negative Coparenting/Boundaries .386***
Attunement -.152
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
N = 97 for all cells.

Tables 15 through 18 also depict the links between marital conflict and each
parenting factor. Rather than separating mothers and fathers, they nest mothers and
fathers hierarchically within families, thus accounting for interdependence between
members of the same family. Using this strategy, there is an identical pattern of findings
to that shown in Table 14. Specifically, there is a main effect of marital conflict on
negative coparenting/boundaries, Wald Z = 9.80, p = .000.
Moderating Effect of Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict and
Engagement/Discipline
Results addressing Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 are presented separately for each
parenting factor rather than by hypothesis, to parallel the organization of results in
Tables 15 through 18. Contrary to Hypothesis 2, ethnicity did not moderate the
connection between marital conflict and engagement/discipline (see Table 15).
47
Table 15: Hierarchical model for engagement/discipline.
Effect Group Coefficient seZFTp
value
Level 1 Intercept 3.94 .06 64.60 .00
Level 1 Slope (Parent
Sex)
.06 .04 1.91 .17
Marital Conflict .00 .00 .53 .60
Ethnicity Mixed 4.00 .09 .00 .97
Asian
American
3.93 .15 .22 .64
African
American
3.82 .12 2.62 .11
White 4.21 .09 6.83 .01
Latino 3.92 .10 .82 .37
Sex*Marital Conflict .10 .75
Marital
Conflict*Ethnicity
Mixed 2.15 .12
Asian
American
2.02 .13
African
American
2.20 .11
White 2.74 .07
Latino 2.48 .09
Sex*Marital Conflict* Mixed .08 .78
Ethnicity Asian
American
.19 .67
African
American
3.45 .07
White .55 .46
Latino .16 .69
Note. N = 97 families. Mixed n = 28, Asian American n = 9, African American n = 15,
White n = 23, Latino n = 22.
48
Moderating Effect of Parent Sex on Link Between Marital Conflict and
Engagement/Discipline
Parent sex did not moderate the connection between marital conflict and
engagement/discipline (see Table 15); results do not support Hypothesis 3.
Interaction Between Parent Sex and Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict
and Engagement/Discipline
Although we did not establish any specific hypotheses about the interaction
between parent sex and ethnicity as moderators, we examined the three-way
interactions on an exploratory basis (Hypothesis 4). As shown in Table 15, there was no
significant 3-way interaction among marital conflict, parent sex, and ethnicity on
engagement/discipline.
Moderating Effect of Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict and Parent-Child
Conflict
As shown in Table 16, ethnicity did not moderate the connection between marital
conflict and parent-child conflict, failing to lend support to Hypothesis 2.
Moderating Effect of Parent Sex on Link Between Marital Conflict and Parent-
Child Conflict
Contrary to Hypothesis 3, parent sex did not moderate the connection between
marital conflict and parent-child conflict (see Table 16).
49
Table 16: Hierarchical model for parent-child conflict.
Effect Group Coefficient se Z F T p
value
Level 1 Intercept .40 .03 11.46 .00
Level 1 Slope (Parent
Sex)
.04 .01 2.09 .15
Marital Conflict .00 .00 1.73 .08
Ethnicity Mixed .39 .05 .60 .44
Asian
American
.39 .09 .15 .70
African
American
.51 .07 1.44 .23
White .41 .06 .11 .74
Latino .45 .06 .17 .69
Sex*Marital Conflict 1.68 .20
Marital
Conflict*Ethnicity
Mixed 1.21 .31
Asian
American
.11 .90
African
American
.89 .42
White .16 .85
Latino .11 .89
Sex*Marital Conflict* Mixed 1.36 .25
Ethnicity Asian
American
.07 .80
African
American
4.30 .04
White .45 .50
Latino 2.06 .65
Note. N = 97 families. Mixed n = 28, Asian American n = 9, African American n = 15,
White n = 23, Latino n = 22.
50
Interaction Between Parent Sex and Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict
and Parent-Child Conflict
As shown in Table 16, there was a significant 3-way interaction among marital
conflict, parent sex, and African American ethnicity for parent-child conflict, F(1,95) =
4.30, p = .041. Figure 1 depicts the interaction: African American mothers show a
positive correlation between marital conflict and parenting (r = .281) and African
American fathers show a negative correlation (r = -.101); there is an opposite pattern for
non-African American mothers (r = -.161) and fathers (r = .099). However, due to the
small sample size of the African American group, the differences among the correlations
are not statistically significant with Fisher’s R to Z transformation.

51
Figure 1: Interaction between parent sex and African American ethnicity on the link
between marital conflict and parent-child conflict.
African American (n = 15 families)
400 300 200 100 0
2
1
0
Fit line for fathers
Fit line for mothers
Fathers
Mothers
Mothers r = .281
Fathers r = -.101

Non-African American (n = 82 families)
400 300 200 100 0
2
1
0
Fit line for fathers
Fit line for mothers
Fathers
Mothers
Mothers r = -.161
Fathers r = .099
Parent-Child Conflict Parent-Child Conflict
52
Moderating Effect of Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict and Negative
Coparenting/Boundaries
Consistent with Hypothesis 2, there was a significant interaction for negative
coparenting/boundaries for African American (F(2,158.7) = 3.97, p = .024) and White
families (F(2,139.1) = 4.44, p = .016; see Table 17). Figure 2 depicts the moderating
effect of African American ethnicity, consistent with the recommendations of Aiken and
West (1992) to aid interpretation of interactions via graphical plots. As Figure 2
illustrates, non-African American families show a modest correlation between marital
conflict and negative coparenting/boundaries (r = .442); conversely, there is a zero
correlation for African American families (r = -.009). According to Fisher’s R to Z
transformation, the correlations are significantly different (p = .02). Figure 3 depicts the
pattern for White families. In this case, the link is stronger for White families (r = .664)
than for non-White families (r = .282). These correlations are also significantly different
(p = .003). Figure 4 depicts the pattern for Latino families; although the moderator effect
was not significant, these scatterplots are provided as a comparison with Figures 2 and
3. It should be noted that Figures 2, 3, and 4 depict the same data but differ in terms of
the ethnic groupings.
Moderating Effect of Parent Sex on Link Between Marital Conflict and Negative
Coparenting/Boundaries
As shown in Table 17, parent sex did not moderate the connection between
marital conflict and negative coparenting/boundaries, which does not support
Hypothesis 3.
53
Table 17: Hierarchical model for negative coparenting/boundaries.
Effect Group Coefficient seZFTp
value
Level 1 Intercept 1.78 .07 24.30 .00
Level 1 Slope (Parent
Sex)
.40 .07 1.67 .20
Marital Conflict .00 .00 9.80 .00
Ethnicity Mixed 1.82 .13 .00 1.00
Asian
American
1.78 .23 .03 .87
African
American
2.05 .17 2.07 .15
White 1.58 .14 3.64 .06
Latino 1.92 .14 .62 .43
Ethnicity, controlling
for child sex
White 1.57 .14 4.09 .04
Sex*Marital Conflict .41 .52
Marital
Conflict*Ethnicity
Mixed 2.64 .08
Asian
American
2.58 .09
African
American
3.97 .02
White 4.44 .02
Latino 3.00 .06
Sex*Marital
Conflict*Ethnicity
Mixed .00 .97
Asian
American
.22 .64
African
American
.72 .40
White .19 .66
Latino .06 .81
Note. N = 97 families. Mixed n = 28, Asian American n = 9, African American n = 15,
White n = 23, Latino n = 22.
54
Figure 2: African American ethnicity as moderator of link between marital conflict and
negative coparenting/boundaries.
African American (n = 15 families)
400 300 200 100 0
Marital Conflict
5
4
3
2
1
0
Negative Coparenting/Boundaries
R Sq Linear = 7.738
E-5
R = -.009

Non-African American (n = 82 families)
400 300 200 100 0
Marital Conflict
5
4
3
2
1
0
Negative Coparenting/Boundaries
R = .442

55
Figure 3: White ethnicity as moderator of link between marital conflict and negative
coparenting/boundaries.
White (n = 23 families)
400 300 200 100 0
Marital Conflict
5
4
3
2
1
0
Negative Coparenting/Boundaries
R = .664

Non-White (n = 74 families)
400 300 200 100 0
Marital Conflict
5
4
3
2
1
0
Negative Coparenting/Boundaries
R = .282

56
Figure 4: Link between marital conflict and negative coparenting/boundaries in Latino
and non-Latino families.
Latino (n = 22 families)
400 300 200 100 0
Marital Conflict
5
4
3
2
1
0
Negative Coparenting/Boundaries
R = .152

Non-Latino (n = 75 families)
400 300 200 100 0
Marital Conflict
5
4
3
2
1
0
Negative Coparenting/Boundaries
R = .427
57
Interaction Between Parent Sex and Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict
and Negative Coparenting/Boundaries
There was no significant 3-way interaction among marital conflict, parent sex,
and ethnicity on negative coparenting/boundaries (see Table 17).
Moderating Effect of Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict and Attunement
Contrary to Hypothesis 2, ethnicity did not moderate the connection between
marital conflict and attunement (see Table 18).
Moderating Effect of Parent Sex on Link Between Marital Conflict and
Attunement
Parent sex did not moderate the connection between marital conflict and
attunement, failing to support Hypothesis 3 (see Table 18).
Interaction Between Parent Sex and Ethnicity on Link Between Marital Conflict
and Attunement
As seen in Table 18, there was no significant 3-way interaction among marital
conflict, parent sex, and ethnicity on attunement.
58
Table 18: Hierarchical model for attunement.
Effect Group Coefficient seZFTp
value
Level 1 Intercept 3.64 .08 46.53 .00
Level 1 Slope (Parent
Sex)
.36 .05 3.34 .07
Marital Conflict .00 .00 .06 .95
Ethnicity Mixed 3.84 .12 1.30 .26
Asian
American
3.80 .22 .16 .69
African
American
3.30 .16 8.04 .01
White 3.99 .13 5.39 .02
Latino 3.54 .14 2.14 .15
Sex*Marital Conflict .98 .33
Marital
Conflict*Ethnicity
Mixed .75 .48
Asian
American
1.57 .23
African
American
1.04 .37
White 1.97 .16
Latino .61 .55
Sex*Marital Conflict* Mixed .04 .84
Ethnicity Asian
American
1.18 .28
African
American
.25 .62
White .70 .40
Latino .25 .62
Note. N = 97 families. Mixed n = 28, Asian American n = 9, African American n = 15,
White n = 23, Latino n = 22.

59
Main Effects of Sex and Ethnicity on Parenting
Although not central questions of the present study, we examined main effects of
sex and ethnicity on parenting. As shown in Tables 15 through 18, there were no
significant main effects of sex on any of the parenting factors. There were several
significant main effects of ethnicity. Specifically, there was an effect of White ethnicity
on engagement/discipline, such that White parents showed higher levels than other
parents, F(1,95) = 6.83, p = .010 (see Table 15). Table 19 depicts the means for
parenting of mothers and fathers in each ethnic group. There was no main effect of
ethnicity for parent-child conflict. Ethnicity did not have a significant effect on negative
coparenting/boundaries; however, when child sex was included in the analysis, there
was a significant effect of ethnicity for White parents (F(1,96) = 1.57, p = .046; see
Table 17). Figure 5 depicts the levels of negative coparenting/boundaries toward boys
and girls among the different ethnic groups. Specifically, White parents expressed more
negative coparenting/boundaries toward sons than daughters, whereas non-White
parents did not show differential levels of negative coparenting/boundaries toward sons
versus daughters. Table 20 depicts the correlations between marital conflict and each
parenting factor for each ethnic group. There were main effects of African American
(F(1,95) = 8.04, p = .006) and White ethnicity (F(1,95) = 5.39, p = .022) on attunement
(also see Table 18). Specifically, African American families showed lower attunement
than other ethnic groups whereas White families showed higher attunement.
60
Table 19: Descriptive statistics by ethnicity and group comparisons for parenting factors.
Mothers Fathers F
Mean SD Mean SD
Engagement/Discipline
Mixed 4.14 .58 3.86 .56 .00
Asian American 3.99 .35 3.87 .60 .22
African American 3.89 .71 3.76 .93 2.62
White 4.15 .55 4.26 .45 6.83*
Latino 3.97 .66 3.87 .45 .82
Parent-Child Conflict
Mixed .44 .33 .34 .23 .60
Asian American .36 .21 .42 .21 .15
African American .54 .51 .47 .37 1.44
White .46 .39 .35 .30 .11
Latino .44 .31 .45 .44 .17
Negative
Coparenting/Boundaries

Mixed 1.81 .60 1.83 .62 .00
Asian American 1.82 .47 1.75 .42 .03
African American 2.17 1.10 1.92 .86 2.07
White 1.68 .55 1.49 .68 3.64
Latino 1.87 .80 1.96 .82 .62
Attunement
Mixed 3.97 .80 3.71 .64 1.30
Asian American 3.92 .96 3.68 .35 .16
African American 3.43 .89 3.17 .69 8.04*
White 3.98 .80 3.99 .67 5.39*
Latino 3.59 .69 3.50 .82 2.14
Note. F refers to comparison between ethnic group listed and all other ethnic groups,
repeated from Tables 15 to 18. The F statistic accounts for nesting of mothers and
fathers in the same families.
N = 97 families. Mixed n = 28, Asian American n = 9, African American n = 15, White n
= 23, Latino n = 22.
*p < .05.
61
Figure 5: Main effect of White ethnicity on negative coparenting/boundaries, by child
sex.

White non-White
non-White vs White families
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Mean Negative Coparenting/Boundaries
Male
Female
Sex of Target Child

Note. Non-White n = 74 (31 girls, 42 boys). White n = 23 (11 girls, 12 boys).
62
Table 20: Correlations between marital conflict and mothers’ and fathers’ parenting,
separated by ethnicity.
r with Marital Conflict
Parent Parenting Factor Mixed Asian
American
African
American
White Latino
Mothers Engagement/Discipline -.288 -.062 .241 -.440* -.088
Parent-Child Conflict -.321 .008 .281 -.013 -.219
Negative
Coparenting/Boundaries
.625*** .260 .044 .669*** .138
Attunement -.059 .436 .122 -.340 .069
Fathers Engagement/Discipline -.166 -.191 -.221 -.241 .084
Parent-Child Conflict .119 .549 -.102 .015 .064
Negative
Coparenting/Boundaries
.671*** .599 -.077 .681*** .166
Attunement -.262 -.136 -.167 -.359 .021
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
N = 97 families. Mixed n = 28, Asian American n = 9, African American n = 15, White n
= 23, Latino n = 22.
63
Summary of Results
In sum, negative coparenting/boundaries was the only aspect of parenting that
was correlated with marital conflict. There were main effects of ethnicity on
engagement/discipline and attunement; there was also a main effect of ethnicity on
negative coparenting/boundaries, but only when accounting for child sex. Ethnicity
moderated the link between marital conflict and negative coparenting/boundaries. There
was a combined moderating effect of ethnicity and parent sex on the connection
between marital conflict and parent-child conflict. Income did not account for any of the
ethnic differences found. The implications of these results are discussed below.
64
Chapter 4: Discussion
This study examined the role of parent ethnicity and sex in hypothesized
relations between marital conflict and parenting. The link between marital and parent-
child relationships has alternatively been explained by the spillover hypothesis, in which
parents’ affect is transmitted from one type of family interaction to another, and the
compensatory hypothesis, in which parents may compensate for negative marital affect
by seeking love and intimacy with their children (Erel & Burman, 1995). In the present
study, contrary to expectation, marital conflict was related to negative coparenting/
boundaries but not to other aspects of parenting. Ethnicity moderated the link between
marital conflict and negative coparenting/boundaries, such that there was a stronger link
for White than non-White parents, and no link for African American parents as
compared to non-African American parents. There was a combined moderating effect of
ethnicity and parent sex on the connection between marital conflict and parent-child
conflict, with more evidence for spillover in African American mothers than fathers and
some compensatory evidence for non-African American mothers. These results suggest
that the well-established link between marital conflict and some dimensions of parenting
may vary by parent gender and ethnicity, and raise the possibility that different
explanatory models may apply to different groups.
Contrary to expectations, marital conflict showed a significant direct effect on
only one aspect of parenting, negative coparenting/ boundaries. Marital conflict was not
directly linked to engagement/discipline, parent-child conflict, or attunement. However, it
should be noted that variations in methodology for measuring marital conflict and
parenting often impact effect sizes (Erel & Burman, 1995; Krishnakumar & Buehler,
2000). For example, Erel and Burman found an overall effect size of r = .26 when the
65
same rater reported on marital conflict and parenting, but the effect size dropped to r =
.16 when reporters were different. The latter effect size is comparable to several of the
nonsignificant correlations in the present study. The present study employed a
particularly rigorous test of these hypotheses by combining multiple methods with a
longitudinal design. It does not appear, however, that the time span between
measurement of marital conflict and parenting influenced results substantially, since
marital conflict showed high test-retest reliability for an approximately one-year interval
(r = .650 from Wave 1 to Wave 2). This suggests that the current findings are not the
result of lack of consistency of marital conflict across time. In general, meta-analytic
investigations have converged on a small but significant link between marital conflict and
parenting, and although the present study did not find significant correlations for several
aspects of parenting, most of the obtained effect sizes are consistent with the meta-
analytic confidence intervals and would have been significant with larger sample sizes.
Given the effect sizes found in these meta-analyses, it seems that the strength of the
connection between marital conflict and parenting may have been overstated in the
literature.
Although there were no moderating effects of ethnicity for the three aspects of
parenting that did not have direct links with marital conflict, there were moderating
effects of ethnicity for White families and for African American families on the link
between marital conflict and negative coparenting/boundaries. There was no link
between marital conflict and negative coparenting/boundaries for African American
families (r = -.009) but a moderate link for non-African American families (r = .442).
Conversely, for White families, the difference was one of effect size, with a steeper
slope for White (r = .664) than non-White families (r = .282). The latter finding is
66
consistent with previous evidence that marital conflict is associated with negative
parenting among White but not Hispanic mothers (Lindahl & Malik, 1999). Overall, there
is more evidence of spillover of marital conflict into negative coparenting/boundaries for
White families than for other ethnic groups; the extent of spillover is comparable for
other aspects of parenting, which is consistent with prior literature (Krishnakumar,
Buehler, & Barber, 2003). It is unclear from the available data what factors may be
mediating the zero correlation that African American families exhibit. It may be the case
that non-White families are buffered from the negative impact of marital conflict on
parenting as a result of observed cultural differences such as strong familism and
prioritization of the parental rather than spousal roles.
Another goal of the study was to evaluate the moderating impact of parent sex
on the link between marital conflict and parenting. Contrary to expectations and prior
literature (Erel & Burman, 1995; Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000), parent sex did not
moderate this link, and the results do not indicate differential spillover or compensatory
effects for mothers than fathers. Coiro and Emery (1998) noted greater differences
between the effect sizes for mothers and fathers in distressed couples such as those in
the process of divorcing; the lack of moderation in the present study may result from our
sample’s composition of intact couples that were not selected for high marital distress.
Although main effects of ethnicity on parenting were not central foci of the
present study, several patterns were noted. There was a main effect of White ethnicity
on negative coparenting/ boundaries, but only when accounting for child sex. There
were also main effects of White ethnicity on engagement/discipline, and of White and
African American ethnicity on attunement. It is notable that ethnicity main effects
occurred for White and African American families but not for Latino, Asian, or mixed
67
groups, although the small number of families in the Asian subsample would likely have
prevented any differences from being detected. This finding is consistent with previous
research that has failed to find differences in parenting between Hispanics and
Caucasians (Lindahl & Malik, 1999). In general, White families showed the highest
levels of positive and lowest levels of negative parenting behaviors, whereas African
American families showed the opposite pattern. These results were the same when
controlling for income, suggesting that socioeconomic differences among the groups did
not drive the ethnic differences. These findings are consistent with previous evidence
that White parents are less likely than African American parents to use mild and severe
corporal punishment (Dietz, 2000; Wolfner & Gelles, 1993). Akin to the research that the
negative effects of authoritarian parenting do not apply to African American children the
same way they do to White children (Baumrind, 1993), the present results suggest that
for non-White families, marital conflict does not have the same detrimental impact on
parenting that prior research has found in White families. It is likely that many aspects of
family relationships may have different meanings for different ethnic groups, and we
should exercise caution with implicit value assumptions originally based on research
with predominantly White samples.
Additionally, the role of child sex was relevant in the present study, in that White
parents’ negative coparenting/boundaries with sons was more similar to other ethnic
groups’ but with daughters was notably lower. It appears that White parents are
effectively protecting their daughters but not their sons from negative
coparenting/boundaries. Child sex differences in coparenting are not typically found in
the literature, though most studies of coparenting tend to include younger children such
as infants and toddlers (e.g., Belsky, Putnam, & Crnic, 1996; McHale, 1995; McHale et
68
al., 2000). One study which examined coparenting during middle childhood found that
less triangulation is directed toward girls than toward boys, though in that study the
difference existed for mothers but not fathers (Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001). The
pattern of coparenting across developmental stages with daughters versus sons is an
area in need of further examination.
Finally, we conducted exploratory analyses of the combined moderating effects
of ethnicity and sex; analyses were exploratory because of small sample size for
detecting three-way interactions and because prior literature did not lead to clear
hypotheses. There was an interaction between the moderators of African American
ethnicity and parent sex on the link between marital conflict and parent-child conflict. A
pattern emerged in which African American fathers show a stronger positive link (r =
.28) between marital conflict and parent-child conflict relative to African American
mothers (r = -.10), although the post-hoc difference between the two correlations was
not significant due to the small sample size of the African American group. In contrast,
non-African American parents showed the opposite pattern, though mothers and fathers
again did not differ from each other. If we interpret the marginal findings, it appears that
African American fathers exhibit a spillover effect with parent-child conflict but mothers
do not; non-African American mothers exhibit a small compensatory effect. There is
insufficient prior data on the interaction between ethnicity and parent sex to connect
these findings to broader themes in the literature, but they do provide an interesting
basis for future research with larger samples of African American families.
It is important to emphasize that the observed differences in White and African
American parents’ behavior in the present study do not imply differences in child
outcomes. Previous research has found that corporal punishment (Whaley, 2000),
69
authoritarian parenting practices (Baumrind, 1993), and harsh discipline (Pettit, Bates, &
Dodge, 1997) affect White children more negatively than they do African American
children. Several authors (e.g., Chao, 1994) have highlighted the importance of
considering social context and the cultural meaning of dimensions of parenting rather
than imposing value judgments. As much as possible, we have tried to avoid value
judgments in constructing the observational coding system, but some judgments have
been inevitable. Referring to “good” versus “poor” use of contingencies was based on
parents’ adherence to operant behavior principles, but the labels do imply judgments.
Identifying collaboration as positive coparenting and triangulation and undermining as
negative coparenting is consistent with the entirety of the coparenting literature, but this
literature, like most family research, is an extension of prior research conducted by
primarily White investigators using primarily White samples. Although current family
systems and behavior therapy theories maintain that the “negative” aspects of
coparenting are detrimental to the child and/or family relationships, it is conceivable that
they have positive impacts in some cultures. The observational task itself, asking
parents to discuss family topics with their child present, is likely more culturally valid for
some ethnic groups than others.
Potential Mediators of the Link Between Marital Conflict and Parenting
It is outside the scope of the present study to identify mechanisms through which
marital conflict affects parenting. However, consideration of possible mediators not
examined in the present study may elucidate the present findings as well as inform
future research. One mediator previously posited is parental depression, given the large
literature illustrating the impact of depression on parenting (Lovejoy, Graczyk, O’Hare, &
Neuman, 2000). Davies and colleagues (2004) did find an interaction between marital
70
conflict and depression on both acceptance and discipline, but their study examined
depression as a moderator rather than a mediator. Social learning theory suggests that
modeling could be additional mechanism that may describe the connection between
marital and parent-child relationships. It may be that the marital relationship serves as a
model on which the parent bases the parent-child relationship, as well as the basis of all
of the child’s close interactions (Emde & Easterbrooks, 1985).
Another potential mediator is coparenting, as several researchers have treated
coparenting as a mediator of the link between marital conflict and other aspects of
parenting rather than as a parenting outcome per se (Davies, Sturges-Apple, &
Cummings, 2004; Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001). Boundary disturbances across
generations were integrated into the same parenting factor as coparenting in the
present study, but boundary styles such as parentification and cross-generational
alliances could be another possible mediator. To the extent that boundaries serve to
separate the marital and parent-child subsystems, disruptions in boundaries can lead to
greater similarity in the two sets of dyads (Jacobvitz, Hazen, Curran, & Hitchens, 2004).
Many of the mechanisms just described may also explain the moderating effect
of ethnicity. Depressive symptoms are more prevalent in African American, Latino, and
American Indian adults than in White adults (Plant & Sachs-Ericsson, 2004). As such, if
it is the case that depression mediates the link between marital conflict and parenting, it
would follow that the effect size would be larger for groups such as Latino parents, as
was found in the present study. Based on clinical literature, parentification may occur at
differential rates among various ethnic groups, and may be particularly prevalent in
African American families (Hines & Boyd-Franklin, 1996). Again, if it is the case that
71
parentification mediates the effect of marital conflict on parenting, the effect would be
higher in the groups where parentification is most prevalent.
Limitations
The present study has several limitations. The largest limitation is the sample
size, particularly for the purposes of ethnic comparisons. The power for all ethnicity
analyses was limited, but it was especially problematic for the Asian American group,
which included only 9 families. A larger sample size would also have enabled a broader
choice of analytic strategies to address the many outcome variables, main effects, 2-
way interactions, 3-way interactions, and covariates.
There are several possible limitations concerning methodology and choice of
questions to examine. Use of self-report instead of observation for marital conflict could
be a limitation. Observational data were not obtained in the first year of data collection;
such data (either triadic with child present or dyadic between mothers and fathers)
would have contributed to the robustness of the marital conflict data. However, reporter
biases have been circumvented somewhat through use of both parents’ reports of
marital conflict. Furthermore, the nature of marital conflict displayed during an observed
interaction likely differ from the conflict that couples show at home; in particular,
retrospective self reports allow for assessment of more severe aspects of conflict such
as physical aggression. Finally, combining self-report with observational data has
resulted in a more rigorous cross-methodological design.
It was necessary to exclude non-English-speaking families from the present
sample for the sake of methodological consistency. Further, observational measurement
of family discussions that occurred in multiple languages would have presented
tremendous logistic difficulties. Nonetheless, this exclusion criterion limited
72
generalizability of present results to families with some level of English proficiency. This
is particularly relevant given that acquisition of the new country’s dominant language (in
this case, American English) is considered a crucial marker of acculturation (Phinney,
1990).
An additional limitation is the unavailability of ethnic identity measures which
might shed light on within-group variability. Ethnic identity can affect the salience of
ethnicity to a given individual (Phinney, 1996) and has also been shown to influence
marital satisfaction (Leslie & Letiecq, 2004). Extent of parents’ identification with their
ethnic group(s) or level of acculturation could have served as covariates for ethnicity
effects.
One possible limitation of the present sample is also one of its strengths. This
community sample offers a wide range of marital conflict and parenting behaviors. Over
30% of the partners had used physical aggression against their spouse in the past year,
with 17% having used one or more forms of severe physical aggression. Frequency of
conflict behaviors ranged from more than once per week to no conflict of any kind
reported in the last year. In contrast, many prior studies have sampled exclusively from
high-risk populations (e.g., Jouriles & LeCompte, 1991) or have compared high-risk and
control families (e.g., Floyd & Zmich, 1991; Holden & Ritchie, 1991). Although the use of
a community sample limits the number of families at the tails of the conflict and
parenting distributions, it also provides a more generalizable estimate of the effect sizes
under examination.
In the present study, as many others have done, we have treated marital conflict
as the predictor and parenting as the outcome, largely because the marital relationship
predates the existence of children and therefore any aspects of parenting. However, the
73
large literature on marital changes following the birth of a child (for a brief review, see
Demo & Cox, 2000) suggest that although the marital relationship itself may predate
parenting, marital conflict qualities may follow the onset of parenting. However, prior
longitudinal research on the potential reciprocal influence of marital conflict and
parenting has found that although marital conflict predicts subsequent changes in some
parenting dimensions, parenting does not predict subsequent marital conflict (Davies,
Sturge-Apple, & Cummings, 2004). Based on this evidence, it does appear that the
present study’s approach of defining marital conflict as the predictor and parenting as
the outcome is theoretically and empirically reasonable. However, these data do not
allow us to examine the same marital conflict measures at both time points to test
directionality more directly.
Another issue outside of the scope of the present study is the transactional
nature of parent-child relationships. In addition to parenting influencing the marital
relationship, it is also clear that children influence the parenting they receive (Sameroff
& MacKenzie, 2003). A variety of child characteristics and behaviors could have
influenced each of the parenting factors. For example, during the observed triadic
discussion when parents were coded as showing negative alliances with the child
against the other parent, in many cases the child was the one to initiate the alliance, and
the parent was taking the child’s lead. For each of the individual parenting codes, one
can imagine child factors that would be more or less likely to elicit the behavior from a
parent. However, although child factors are important determinants, parental and
contextual factors such as marital interactions add other important pieces of the puzzle.
A fuller picture might have emerged by including individual child and child-to-parent
relational variables in the present study.
74
An additional limitation concerns Type I error, given the large number of
analyses conducted. Each model was run separately for the four parenting factors. In
addition, these models were re-run on an exploratory basis to evaluate the possible
roles of child sex and income. Because of power concerns, we maintained a p level of
.05 rather than reducing the p value to address Type I error concerns, but this decision
may have resulted in inflated Type I error risk. However, it is important to note that HLM
models have a lower likelihood of Type I error than the same analyses done separately
(Raudenbush, 1988). Thus, the Type I error rate in the present study is lower than it
would have been if we had used, for example, traditional regression analyses.
Strengths and Limitations of Observational Measure of Parenting
Although observational measurement of parenting is one of the strengths of this
study, it also introduces several possible limitations. In family research, observational
coding is widely considered the gold standard (Kerig, 2001; Margolin et al., 1998).
Observational coding allows for objective measurement of family members’ behavior as
compared to the rest of the sample, and removes some of the reporter biases inherent
in self-report questionnaires. Use of two coders for the entire sample (a total of six
coders per family) bolstered reliability, and interrater reliability was quite high. In
addition, use of a diverse team of coders likely reduced systematic biases due to coder
ethnicity, and the extent of training prior to coding likely reduced bias further, given
research that ethnic biases among coders decline over the course of training (Melby,
Hoyt, & Bryant, 2003). However, not all ethnic groups were represented among the
coders, nor was the proportion of coders of each ethnic group comparable to the
distribution among participant families.
75
Quality of observational measurement is limited to the strength of the coding
system. Margolin and colleagues (1998) recommend creation of new coding systems in
cases when existing systems do not adequately address research questions. In the
present study, changes in the observed task, combined with research questions that
focused more on parenting than existing coding systems, mandated creation of a new
system. Margolin and colleagues (1998) note that when different coding systems
converge on similar results it bolsters the conclusions research can make, but when
different coding systems produce dissimilar results it is unclear whether actual
substantive difference are the reason or whether differences have emerged because of
sample or any number of variations in measurement. It is unclear to what extent findings
more consistent with prior literature might have emerged if we have used a different
coding system. Furthermore, use of a different factor structure for combining codes may
also have led to different results. As mentioned previously, some of the factors, most
notably attunement/discipline, are relatively heterogeneous. It may be the case that
marital conflict affects some aspects of the dimension more than others, which may
have obfuscated the findings.
Use of triadic rather than dyadic interactions presents a potential confound, as
we were not able to evaluate mothers’ and fathers’ parenting in the absence of the other
parent. It may be the case that many parents would have behaved differently alone with
their children than in the presence of their spouses. The way that parenting was
operationalized would also have changed if we had used dyadic observation. In
particular, coparenting when alone with a child takes the form of statements about the
other parent rather than the combination of statements about the other parent to the
child, statements to the other parent, and affective expressions toward the other parent
76
used in the present study. Nonetheless, this format is ultimately a strength, as
observation of coparenting in the presence of the other parent provides an opportunity
for assessment of coparenting in action, including characteristics about which parents
might not be able to report accurately such as disengagement with the other parent,
triangulation, exclusion of the child from the discussion, and undermining the other
parent.
Another major concern is the lack of validation for the coding system, since the
system was created for this study. Although outside the scope of the present study,
some information to validate the system via self-report measures from parents and
children is available in the data set for future investigation. Although reliability is high,
because validity cannot be established, it is unclear to what extent the findings
generalize. Furthermore, we have not established measurement invariance across the
different ethnic groups; it could be the case that experiment-wise error is greater for
some families in the sample than for others.
The observational task itself is another feature that may have affected results.
Compared with previous tasks conducted on similar samples from this group of
investigators (Gordis & Margolin, 2001), this task was less likely to evoke negative
affect. Previous tasks have allowed parents but not children to select discussion topics,
focusing the discussion on aspects of the child’s behavior and parent-child interactions
with which the parents are dissatisfied. These previous tasks have also been preceded
by discussion of these topics by the two parents prior to the child’s entrance, which often
set the child up to enter an already affectively charged situation. In contrast, in the
present study the parents and children all chose topics at the same time. The task
provided space for children’s dissatisfactions and active engagement, rather than
77
placing them on the defensive as previous tasks have done. The change in task was
initiated in large part due to human subjects concerns that the old format was too
distressing for some participants, particularly children. The present task did elicit
negative affect in many participants, but all participants reported that negative feelings
had been resolved adequately following debriefing by the interviewers.
Other aspects of the discussion format may also have impacted the results.
Conducting the discussion in the laboratory rather than a naturalistic setting such as
home, and use of a structured rather than unstructured task, can impact results
(Gardner, 2000). However, research seems to indicate that the position of participants
within the sample distribution tends to be similar across settings, even when sheer
number of behaviors differ (ibid.). In the present study, increased control over the setting
and task outweighed a more naturalistic format.
Use of a 15-minute time sample rather than another duration may also have
impacted results. In some instances, a longer duration is recommended because
reactivity declines over the course of the observation, and thus a longer segment allows
researchers to discard the first few minutes (Gardner, 2000). However, in the present
task, 15-minutes seemed to be an appropriate length for the task. A few families had
completed their discussions and by the end of the 15 minutes were sitting in silence.
Many more families had finished discussing the selected topics and moved on to other
topics on the list. During the debriefing by interviewers, some families expressed relief
that the time had ended, though others clearly had not completed their discussions, and
a few even requested additional time to keep talking.
One of the possible strengths of observational coding, examination of time
sequences, was not employed in this study. Some investigation would have been
78
possible using the 15 1-minute time segments, but more typically time sequence studies
use smaller moment-to-moment increments such as floor switches (Margolin et al.,
1998). This type of analysis allows more detailed investigation of interaction patterns
and might enable a sequential investigation of the extent to which changes in parenting
directly follow instances of marital conflict.
Directions for Future Research
The present study focused on preadolescent children with a 24-month age span.
However, the age of the child appears to moderate the link between marital conflict and
parenting, such that the association is stronger for children in middle childhood and
adolescents than for young children (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). Future studies
should examine parent sex and ethnicity differences in cross-sections of different ages.
Even better would be to follow a large sample of diverse families longitudinally to track
the change in the marital conflict-parenting link across time.
Although the present study considered coparenting to be one aspect of
parenting, coparenting straddles the line between the marital relationship and parenting.
If indeed coparenting reflects the marital relationship more than parenting, the portion of
this study that examines coparenting might be a study of the impact of marital conflict on
another aspect of the marital relationship, rather than on parenting. However, prior
research indicates that coparenting is a feature of the entire family system, rather than a
feature of the marital dyad (Gable, Belsky, & Crnic, 1992). Further research examining
data from this sample could elucidate the distinction among marital, coparenting, and
parent-child processes during triadic interactions as well as according to self-report.
The heterogeneous nature of ethnic groupings provides an inevitable series of
challenges. Some researchers in related areas of investigation have addressed the
79
issue by focusing on more homogenous groupings, either on their own (e.g., Simons et
al., 2002) or in comparison to White families (e.g., Bornstein & Cote, 2004; Chao, 2001).
Given that within-group differences are already broad, expanding the definitions of
groups can only serve to introduce additional variability. Within each ethnic group,
heterogeneity stems from issues such as country of origin, timing of immigration, and
level of acculturation.
Couples of mixed ethnicity raise another area in tremendous need of further
research, not just in terms of marital conflict and parenting but all aspects of family
psychology. In the present sample, 13% of couples consisted of at least one individual
from a mixed ethnic background, and 15% of couples consisted of partners of different
ethnicities. However, although we have grouped these families together, they represent
almost every imaginable combination of ethnicities and share little in common in terms
of immigration statuses, linguistic backgrounds, etc. Detailed examination of multi-ethnic
parents, couples, and children is vital to understanding the family relationships of this
diverse “group.” Future studies with larger sample sizes can begin to answer questions
about whether the marriage of two people from different ethnic backgrounds more
closely resembles the relationships of couples from one or the other ethnic group, other
mixed couples of different backgrounds, or something else entirely. Unfortunately the
present study cannot address such questions due to sample size and lack of data about
details about individuals’ backgrounds, but hopefully these questions can serve as a
springboard for a new branch of family research.
Although the link between marital conflict and parenting has been examined
frequently in previous literature, the present study makes a contribution to this body of
knowledge by including and examining mothers and fathers and different ethnic groups.
80
Testing these sex and ethnic differences was one of the central features of the present
study, but we believe that it is necessary to study diverse samples even if the diversity
aspects are not directly examined. We hope that it will become more common practice
in future research to include mothers and fathers of diverse ethnic backgrounds, as this
will extend the applicability of this research area to a broader array of families.

81
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Arias, I., & Beach, S. (1987). Validity of self-reports of marital violence. Journal of Family
Violence, 2, 139-149.
Arnold, E. H., & O'Leary, S. G. (1997). Mothers' and fathers' discipline of hard-to-
manage toddlers. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 19(3), 1-11.
Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L., Raudenbush, S. W., & Brennan, R. T. (1993). Gender
and the relationship between job experiences and psychological distress: A study
of dual-earner couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 794-
806.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monographs, 1, 1-103.
Baumrind, D. (1993). The average expectable environment is not good enough: A
response to Scarr. Child Development, 64, 1299-1317.
Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45, 405-
414.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development,
55, 83-96.
Belsky, J., Putnam, S., & Crnic, K. (1996). Coparenting, parenting, and early emotional
development. New Directions for Child Development, 74, 45-55.
Belsky, J., Youngblade, L., Rovine, M., & Volling, B. (1991). Patterns of marital change
and parent-child interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 487-498.
Bornstein, M. H., & Cote, L. R. (2004). Mothers’ parenting cognitions in cultures of
origin, acculturating cultures, and cultures of destination. Child Development, 75,
221-235.
Bradford, K., Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A., Maughan, S. L., Erickson, L. D., Ward, D., &
Stolz, H. E. (2003). A multi-national study of interparental conflict, parenting, and
adolescent functioning: South Africa, Bangladesh, China, India, Bosnia,
Germany, Palestine, Colombia, and the United States. Marriage and Family
Review, 35, 107-137.
Brice-Baker, J. (1996). Jamaican families. In M. McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & J. K. Pearce
(Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (pp. 85-96). New York: Guilford.
82
Brody, G. H., Pellegrini, A. D., & Sigel, I. E. (1986). Marital quality and mother-child and
father-child interactions with school-aged children. Developmental Psychology,
22, 291-296.
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., Smith, T., & Gibson, N. M. (1999). Sibling relationships in
rural African American families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 1046-
1057.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and
data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Buehler, C., Benson, M. J., & Gerard, J. M. (2006). Interparental hostility and early
adolescent problem behavior: The mediating role of specific aspects of
parenting. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 265-292.
Buehler, C., & Gerard, J. M. (2002). Marital conflict, ineffective parenting, and children’s
and adolescents’ maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 78-92.
Bulcroft, R. A., Carmody, D. C., & Bulcroft, K. A. (1996). Patterns of parental
independence giving to adolescents: Variations by race, age, and gender of
child. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 866-883.
Cazenave, N. A., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Race, class, network embeddedness, and
family violence: A search for potent support systems. Journal of Comparative
Family Studies, 10, 280-299.
Chang, L., Lansford, J. E., Schwartz, D., & Farver, J. M. (2004). Marital quality, maternal
depressed affect, harsh parenting, and child externalizing in Hong Kong Chinese
families. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 311-318.
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style:
Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child
Development, 65, 1111-1119.
Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for
Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832-
1843.
Chavez, J. M., & Buriel, R. (1986). Reinforcing children's effort: A comparison of
immigrant, native-born Mexican American and Euro-Ameican mothers. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 8, 127-142.
Coiro, M. J., & Emery, R. E. (1998). Do marriage problems affect fathering more than
mothering? A quantitative and qualitative review. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 1, 23-40.
83
Cox, M. J., Paley, B., & Harter, K. (2001). Interparental conflict and parent-child
relationships. In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and
child development: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 249-272).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cummings, E. M., Davies, P. T., & Campbell, S. B. (2000). Developmental
psychopathology and family process: Theory, research, and clinical implications.
New York: Guilford.
Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Raymond, J. (2004). Fathers in family
context: Effects of marital quality and marital conflict. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The
role of the father in child development, 4th ed. (pp. 196-221).
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.
Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An
emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387-411.
Davies, P. T., & Lindsay, L. L. (2001). Does gender moderate the effects of marital
conflict on children? In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict
and child development: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 64-97).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, P. T., Sturge-Apple, M. L., & Cummings, E. M. (2004). Interdependencies
among interparental discord and parenting practices: The role of adult
vulnerability and relationship perturbations. Development and Psychopathology,
16, 773-797.
Demo, D., & Cox, M.J. (2000). Families with children: A review of research in the 1990s.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 876-895.
Dietz, T. L. (2000). Disciplining children: Characteristics associated with the use of
corporal punishment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 1529-1542.
Dutton, D. G., & Hemphill, K. J. (1992). Patterns of socially desirable responding among
perpetrators of and victims of wife assault. Violence and Victims, 7, 29-39.
Easterbrooks, M. A., & Emde, R. N. (1988). Marital and parent-child relationships: The
role of affect in the family system. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.),
Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 83-103). Oxford: Clarendon.
Emde, R. N., & Easterbrooks, M. A. (1985). Assessing emotional availability in early
development. In W. K. Frankenburg, R. N. Emde, & J. Sullivan (Eds.), Early
identification of children at risk: An international perspective (pp. 79-101). New
York: Plenum.
84
Engfer, A. (1988). The interrelatedness of marriage and the mother-child relationship. In
R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual
influences (pp. 105-118). Oxford: Clarendon.
Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child
relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108-132.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating
the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological
Methods, 4, 272-299.
Fagan, J. (2000). African American and Puerto Rican American parenting styles,
paternal involvement, and Head Start children's social competence. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 46, 592-612.
Falicov, C. J. (1996). Mexican families. In M. McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & J. K. Pearce
(Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (pp. 169-182). New York: Guilford.
Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M., & Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model of
the impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced
families: The role of disrupted parenting. Child Development, 61, 1112-1123.
Fauchier, A., & Margolin, G. (2002). Affection and conflict in marital and parent-child
relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30, 197-211.
Fish, M., Belsky, J., & Youngblade, L. (1991). Developmental antecedents and
measurement of intergenerational boundary violation in a nonclinic sample.
Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 278-297.
Floyd, F. J., & Zmich, D. E. (1991). Marriage and the parenting partnership: Perceptions
and interactions of parents with mentally retarded and typically developing
children. Child Development, 62, 1434-1448.
Gable, S., Belsky, J., & Crnic, K. (1995). Coparenting during the child's 2nd year: A
descriptive account. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 609-616.
Gardner, F. (2000). Methodological issues in the direct observation of parent-child
interaction: Do observational findings reflect the natural behavior of participants?
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3, 185-198.
Gordis, E. B., & Margolin, G. (2001). The family coding system: Studying the relation
between marital conflict and family interaction. In P. K. Kerig & K. M. Lindahl
(Eds.), Family observational coding systems: Resources for systemic research
(pp. 111-126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children's adjustment: A
cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290.
85
Hashima, P. Y., & Amato, P. R. (1994). Poverty, social support, and parental behavior.
Child Development, 65, 394-403.
Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1992). Coping with marital transitions.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(2-3), 1-242.
Hill, S. A., & Sprague, J. (1999). Parenting in Black and white families: The interaction of
gender with race and class. Gender and Society, 13, 480-502.
Hines, P. M., & Boyd-Franklin, N. (1996). African American families. In M. McGoldrick, J.
Giordano, & J. K. Pearce (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (pp. 66-84). New
York: Guilford.
Holden, G. W., & Ritchie, K. L. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing,
and child behavior problems: Evidence from battered women. Child
Development, 62, 311-327.
Jacobvitz, D., Hazen, N., Curran, M., & Hitchens, K. (2004). Observations of early triadic
family interactions: Boundary disturbances in the family predict symptoms of
depression, anxiety, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in middle
childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 577-592.
Jacobson, N. S., & Moore, D. (1981). Spouses as observers of the events in their
relationship. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 269-277.
Jouriles, E. N., & Farris, A. M. (1992). Effects of marital conflict on subsequent parent-
son interactions. Behavior Therapy, 23, 355-374.
Jouriles, E. N., & LeCompte, S. H. (1991). Husbands’ aggression toward wives and
mothers’ and fathers’ aggression toward children: Moderating effects of child
gender. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 190-192.
Jouriles, E. N., & O'Leary, K. D. (1985). Interspousal reliability of reports of marital
violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 419-421.
Kaczynski, K. J., Lindahl, K. M., Malik, N. M., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2006). Maternal
conflict, maternal and paternal parenting, and child adjustment: A test of
mediation and moderation. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 199-208.
Karney, B. R., Krietz, M. A., & Sweeney, K. E. (2004). Obstacles to ethnic diversity in
marital research: On the failure of good intentions. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 21, 509-526.
Kelley, M. L., & Tseng, H.-M. (1992). Cultural differences in child rearing: A comparison
of immigrant Chinese and Caucasian American mothers. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 23, 444-455.
Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 13, 279-294.
86
Kerig, P. K. (2001). Introduction and overview: Conceptual issues in family observational
research. In P. K. Kerig & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Family observational coding
systems: Resources for systemic research (pp. 1-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and
psychological adjustment: A meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural
studies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 54-64.
Kitzmann, K. M. (2000). Effects of marital conflict on subsequent triadic family
interactions and parenting. Developmental Psychology, 36, 3-13.
Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors:
A meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49, 25-44.
Krishnakumar, A., Buehler, C., & Barber, B. K. (2003). Youth perceptions of
interparental conflict, ineffective parenting, and youth problem behaviors in
European-American and African-American families. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 20, 239-260.
Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C. P., Ketterlinus, R. D., & Fracasso, M. P. (1999). Parent-child
relationships: Development in the context of the family. In M. H. Bornstein & M.
E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (4th ed., pp.
411-450). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Leslie, L. A., & Letiecq, B. L. (2004). Marital quality of African American and white
partners in interracial couples. Personal Relationships, 11, 559-574.
Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (1999). Observations of marital conflict and power:
Relations with parenting in the triad. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 320-
330.
Lovejoy, M. C., Graczyk, P. A., O’Hare, E., & Neuman, G. (2000). Maternal depression
and parenting behavior: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 20,
561-592.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-
child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Socialization, personality, and
social development (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 1-101). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mann, B. J., & McKenzie, E. P. (1996). Pathways among marital functioning, parental
behaviors, and child behavior problems in school-age boys. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 25, 183-191.
Margolin, G. (1987). The multiple forms of aggressiveness between marital partners:
How do we identify them? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 77-84.
Margolin, G., Burman, B., John, R. S., & O'Brien, M. (2000). Domestic Conflict Index.
Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
87
Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: A link between marital
conflict and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15,
3-21.
Margolin, G., Oliver, P. H., Gordis, E. B., O'Hearn, H. G., Medina, A. M., Ghosh, C. M.,
& Morland, L. (1998). The nuts and bolts of behavioral observation of marital and
family interaction. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 195-213.
Margolin, G., Oliver, P. H., & Medina, A. M. (2001). Conceptual issues in understanding
the relation between interparental conflict and child adjustment: Integrating
developmental psychopathology and risk/resilience perspectives. In J. H. Grych
& F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Child development and interparental conflict (pp. 9-38).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCloskey, L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss, M. P. (1995). The effects of systemic family
violence on children's mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239-1261.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass
correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46.
McHale, J. P. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of
marital distress and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 31, 985-996.
McHale, J. P. (1997). Overt and covert coparenting processes in the family. Family
Process, 36, 183-201.
McHale, J. P., Kuersten-Hogan, R., Lauretti, A., & Rasmussen, J. L. (2000). Parental
reports of coparenting and observed coparenting behavior during the toddler
period. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 220-236.
McLoyd, V. C., Cauce, A. M., Takeuchi, D., & Wilson, L. (2000). Marital processes and
parental socialization in families of color: A decade review of research. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62, 1070-1093.
Melby, J. N., Hoyt, W. T., & Bryant, C. M. (2003). A generalizability approach to
assessing the effects of ethnicity and training on observer ratings of family
interactions. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 20, 171-191.
Metzler, C. W., Biglan, A., Ary, D. V., & Li, F. (1998). The stability and validity of early
adolescents' reports of parenting constructs. Journal of Family Psychology, 12,
600-619.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Krueger, R. F., Magdol, L., Margolin, G., Silva, P. A., & Sydney,
R. (1997). Do partners agree about abuse in their relationship? A psychometric
evaluation of interpartner agreement. Psychological Assessment, 9, 47-56.
O'Brien, M., John, R. S., Margolin, G., & Erel, O. (1994). Reliability and diagnostic
efficacy of parents' reports regarding children's exposure to marital aggression.
Violence and Victims, 9, 45-62.
88
Okagaki, L., & Frensch, P. A. (1998). Parenting and children's school achievement: A
multiethnic perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 123-144.
Oropesa, R. S., Lichter, D. T., & Anderson, R. N. (1994). Marriage markets and the
paradox of Mexican American nuptiality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56,
889-907.
Paikoff, R. L., Carlton-Ford, S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1993). Mother-daughter dyads view
the family: Associations between divergent perceptions and daughter well-being.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 473-492.
Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Supportive parenting, ecological
context, and children's adjustment: A seven-year longitudinal study. Child
Development, 68, 908-923.
Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.
Phinney, J. S. (1996). Understanding ethnic diversity: The role of ethnic identity.
American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 143-152.
Plant, E. A., & Sachs-Ericcson, N. (2004). Racial and ethnic differences in depression:
The role of social support and meeting basic needs. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 72, 41-52.
Pleck, J. H., & Masciadrelli, B. P. (2004). Paternal involvement by U.S. residential
fathers: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed)., The role of the
father in child development, 4th ed. (pp. 222-271).
Raudenbush, S. W. (1988). Educaitonal applications of hierarchical linear models.
Journal of Educational Statistics, 13, 85-116.
Repetti, R.L. (1989). Effects of daily workload on subsequent behavior during marital
interaction: The roles of social withdrawal and spouse support. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 651-659.
Reyes, M. B., Routh, D. K., Jean-Gilles, M. M., Sanfilippo, M. D., & Fawcett, N. (1991).
Ethnic differences in parenting children in fearful situations. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 16, 717-726.
Russell, A. (1997). Individual and family factors contributing to mothers' and fathers'
positive parenting. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 111-
132.
Sameroff, A. J., & MacKenzie, M. J. (2003). Research strategies for capturing
transactional models of development: The limits of the possible. Development
and Psychopathology, 15, 613-640.
89
Santisteban, D. A., Muir-Malcolm, J. A., Mitrani, V. B., & Szapocznik, J. (2002).
Integrating the study of ethnic culture and family psychology intervention
science. In H. A. Liddle, D. A. Santisteban, R. F. Levant, & J. H. Bray (Eds.),
Family psychology: Science-based interventions (pp. 331-351). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Schulz, M. S., Waldinger, R. J., Hauser, S. T., & Allen, J. P. (2005). Adolescents'
behavior in the presence of interparental hostility: Developmental and emotion
regulatory influences. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 489-507.
Simons, R. L., Murry, V., McLoyd, V., Lin, K.-H., Cutrona, C., & Conger, R. D. (2002).
Discrimination, crime, ethnic identity, and parenting as correlates of depressive
symptoms among African American children: A multilevel analysis. Development
and Psychopathology, 14, 371-393.
Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Beaman, J., & Conger, R. D. (1994). The impact of
mothers' parenting, involvement by nonresidental fathers, and parental conflict
on the adjustment of adolescent children. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
56, 356-374.
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent
achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 6, 723-729.
Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., & Dawud-Noursi, S. (1998). Using multiple informants to
understand domestic violence and its effects. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner, & E.
N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence: Theory, research, and
applied issues (pp. 121-156). Washington, DC: APA.
Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., & Burke, M. (1989). Marital quality, depression, and
inconsistent parenting: Relationship with observed mother-child conflict.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 105-117.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics
(CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
Straus, M. A. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American
families. New York: Lexington Books.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1995). The Revised
Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory.
Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1997). Intimate violence and social desirability.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 275-290.
Toth, J. F., Jr., & Xu, X. (1999). Ethnic and cultural diversity in fathers’ involvement: A
racial/ethnic comparison of African American, Hispanic, and White fathers. Youth
and Society, 31, 76-99.
90
Wendorf, C. A. (2002). Comparisons of structural equation modeling and hierarchical
linear modeling approaches to couples’ data. Structural Equation Modeling, 9,
126-140.
Wolfner, G. D., & Gelles, R. J. (1993). A profile of violence toward children: A national
study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 197-212.
Whaley, A. L. (2000). Sociocultural differences in the developmental consequences of
the use of physical discipline during childhood for African Americans. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6, 5-12.
Wright, R., Houston, S., Ellis, M., Holloway, S., & Hudson, M. (2003). Crossing racial
lines: Geographies of mixed-race partnering and multiraciality in the United
States. Progress in Human Geography, 27, 457-474.

91

Appendices
Appendix 1. Topics for Family Change
Please read the list below. Put a checkmark next to all the items you want to see
changed in your family as a whole, or in any one person.
___ Family rules
___ Spending time together as a family
___ Use of telephone
___ Meal times or eating habits
___ Bedtime
___ Work or schoolwork
___ Keeping the house clean
___ Chores
___ Allowance
___ TV Watching (choice of shows, amount of time)
___ Going out
___ Spending money
___ Annoying habits
___ Videogames
___ Use of computer
___ Not listening
___ Disregard for each other’s belongings
___ Fighting
___ Being late
___ Need for privacy
___ Appearance and clothes
Now, please circle the 2 items that are most important to you.
92
Appendix 2. Discussion Follow-up

1. How typical was this discussion of other family discussions you have had?
Not at all Slightly Somewhat Fairly Very
typical typical typical typical typical
0 1 2 3 4
I______________I______________I_______________I_______________I

2. How much will this discussion make a difference in your family?
No Small Some Substantial Major
difference difference difference difference difference
0 1 2 3 4
I______________I______________I_______________I_______________I

3. How satisfied were you with this discussion?
Not at all Slightly Somewhat Fairly Very
satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied
0 1 2 3 4
I______________I______________I_______________I_______________I

4. How did the discussion make you feel?
Really Somewhat Not good Somewhat Really
bad bad or bad good good
-2 -1 0 1 2
I______________I______________I_______________I_______________I
93
Appendix 3. Frequency of responses about discussions’ typicality, impact on
family, satisfaction, and emotional impact among mothers, fathers, and children.

Mothers FathersChildren Total
n n n n (% of total
participants)
How typical was this discussion of other family discussions you have had?
Not at all 6 6 5 17 (6%)
Slightly 9 7 12 28 (10%)
Somewhat 28 23 23 74 (25%)
Fairly 25 41 37 103 (35%)
Very 29 20 20 69 (24%)
How much will this discussion make a difference in your family?
No difference 7 5 2 14 (5%)
Small difference 14 6 9 29 (10%)
Some difference 32 53 37 122 (42%)
Substantial difference 32 23 29 84 (29%)
Major difference 12 10 20 42 (14%)

94
Appendix 3: Continued

Mothers FathersChildren Total
n n n n (% of total
participants)
How satisfied were you with this discussion?
Not at all 3 1 1 5 (2%)
Slightly 13 6 7 26 (9%)
Somewhat 22 20 24 66 (23%)
Fairly 33 46 31 110 (38%)
Very 26 24 34 84 (29%)
How did the discussion make you feel?
Really bad 1 0 2 3 (1%)
Somewhat bad 3 1 1 5 (2%)
Not good or bad 19 8 12 39 (13%)
Somewhat good 39 60 52 151 (52%)
Really good 35 28 30 93 (32%)
95

Appendix 4. Triadic Discussion Coding Manual: Molar Ratings (5-Minute
Segments)
Coding procedures:
For each family, mother and father are each coded by two separate people (four
people total). Each coder is assigned to either a mother or father for a given
family.
All segments are 5-minutes long, with 3 segments for each family.
Watch the first segment, paying attention to the parent’s behavior toward the
child and how the parent interacts with the other parent.
You can take notes while watching, but do not record codes until you have
watched the entire segment.
If you need to watch the segment again to complete the codes, you may.
Proceed to the next segment.

All global ratings are coded 0, 1, 2, or 3.
0: No evidence during this segment or topic did not come up during segment
1: Some evidence during this segment
2: Substantial evidence during this segment
3: Extreme evidence during this segment

Effortful discipline
Works to set and enforce clear rules.
Examples: “Schoolwork is the top priority. That’s why you can’t watch TV until all of
your homework is done.”
“If you’re not tired you can read for a while, but you need to be in bed at 9
o’clock.”

Lax discipline
Parent leaves discipline decisions to other parent. Parent fails to discipline altogether.
Examples: “I don’t know about that, that’s your mother’s department.”
“I don’t really care what your grades are.”

Power-assertive discipline
Shows evidence of punitive discipline techniques. Evidence of physical discipline such
as spanking, or threats to withdraw love, kick child out of house, punish physically, etc.
Examples: Parent refers to spanking.
“If you can’t learn to clean your room, maybe you can learn at military
school.”

Monitors child
Shows awareness of child’s activities, friends, etc. Parent values knowing where child is,
who s/he is with, and what s/he is doing.
Examples: “Either your mother or I always have to meet one of your new friends and
their parents before you can stay at their house.”
96
“I don’t feel comfortable with you using the stove unless I’m in the
kitchen.”
“At your age, if you want to go to a dance, I would like to be a
chaperone.”
“It’s really important that you call me first if you’re at Lisa’s house and the
two of you decide to go to the park.”

Consistency within own disciplinary style
Sticks to the rules s/he has set and the way s/he enforces them. Shows consistency in
level of strictness, use of discipline, and rules.
Examples: “Everyone in this family has to do it the same way.”
“That’s the rule. If you make a mess, you have to clean it up right then,
even if you have something better to do.”

Inconsistency within own disciplinary style
Gives mixed messages to child about discipline. Behaves inconsistently over time.
Related to code “Poor use of contingencies,” but also includes other aspects of
discipline such as level of strictness, monitoring, and family rules.
Example: Child: “How come when Mike got a C, you didn’t do anything, but when I
got a C, you grounded me for 2 weeks?”

Good use of contingencies
Consistently delivers positive reinforcements, punishment, or response cost contingent
on child’s behaviors. There is a clear, predictable relationship between child’s behavior
and the parent’s response. A given contingency is proportional to the behavior.
Examples: Child receives allowance when chores are done, but receives no money if
chores are not done.
“If you can get a B on the next math test, we’ll go to the toy store together
and get you a pack of Yu-Gi-Oh cards.”
“If you get all A’s for the semester, we’ll buy you a new Playstation.”
“No TV until your homework is done. Once it’s done, you can watch
whatever you want for 1 hour.”

Poor use of contingencies
Does not deliver positive reinforcements, punishment, or response cost that are
contingent on child’s behaviors. Relationship between child’s behavior and parent’s
response is not clear and predictable (either erratic or non-existent response). A
contingency is too much or too little in proportion to the behavior. Related to the code
“Inconsistency within own disciplinary style,” but more focused on contingencies.
Examples: Child receives allowance even if chores are not done.
Child does not always receive allowance after completing assigned
chores.
“We shouldn’t have to pay you to take out the trash, you should want to
take out the trash.”
“If you can get a B on the next math test, I’ll buy you a plasma TV.”
“If you get all A’s for the semester, we’ll go to the park and play catch.”

Instrumental involvement at home
97
Gets involved in child’s daily life, as referenced during the discussion.
Examples: Mentions attending school functions.
Helps with homework daily.
Does activities with child.
Drives child to soccer games, practices with child in the park.

Fosters autonomy in child
Encourages child to behave autonomously. Emphasizes child’s learning of
independence and mastery of new situations. Without unreasonable expectations or
disregard for safety, attempts to give child a sense of competence and responsibility.
Examples: “You need to learn to wake up on time without me. You need to set your
alarm clock and then actually get up.”
“I think you’re old enough to do the laundry by yourself.”
“I’m not comfortable with you using the barbeque, but I think if you want
to use the stove it’s ok if one of us is home.”
“Unless there’s a real problem, you don’t need to come and get me every
time your sister bugs you. I’d like the two of you to learn to work it out on
your own.”

Discourages autonomy in child
Discourages child’s independence. Encourages asking for help and doing things in
presence of adult. Intervenes rather than allow child to do things on his/her own. Goes
beyond reasonable offers of help, undermining child’s competence.
Examples: “You need to learn to wake up on time. When I come to get you in the
morning, you need to get up.”
“Just come and get me when you can’t figure it out.”
“I don’t think 11 is old enough to do the laundry on your own. What if you
mess up and put the bleach in with the colors?”

Nonresponsive to child’s needs
Rigidly applies parenting style regardless of appropriateness for child. Fails to
acknowledge child’s needs.
Examples: “I don’t care how old you are. All of you go to bed at 8:30.”
“That’s the rule, and in this family rules are non-negotiable.”
“That’s the way it was for your brother, and that’s how it is going to be for
you.”

Responsive to child’s needs
Acknowledges child’s needs and acts flexibly to accommodate them. Takes child’s age
and developmental stage into account. In contrast to “Emotional attunement” code,
emphasis is on actions parent takes to remedy a situation more than parent’s dealing
with the child’s emotions.
Examples: “Since your sister is 3 years younger than you, I can agree to move your
bedtime half an hour later than hers.”
“I hadn’t realized that you had such a hard time getting your homework
done in the kitchen. Can you think of a place that would work better?”

Conflict with child
98
Engages with child in strong disagreements. Expresses upset or displeasure to child.
Also, any raised voices, yelling, etc. Disagreements about content without any negative
affect (i.e., with only positive or neutral affect) would not be coded in this category.
Examples: “If that’s your attitude, we’re not going to get anywhere.”
“I’m sick of your bad grades.”
“It really makes me mad when you’re like that.”
(with negative affect) “That’s not true. I always have to remind you.”

Dominance/ control
Shows dominance and control through not letting child talk, pulling rank, stating
superiority over child, etc.
Examples: “I don’t need to hear what you think.”
“I’m your father and you’ll do what I say.”
“You don’t know as much as I do.”

Rejection of child
Conveys displeasure at interacting with child. Shows negative flavor to interactions. If
stating disapproval of something about child, focuses on qualities of child him/herself
more than child’s behavior.
Examples: “That’s just like you, you never listen to what I say.”
“You are so rude sometimes.”
Parent rolls eyes when child is talking.
“I need some time away from you kids.”
“Why do you have to be so lazy?”

Enjoyment of child
Appears to enjoy interaction with child.
Examples: “I always like it when you do that.”
Frequent smiling.
Laughing.
Physical display of affection such as touching child’s shoulder.
Displays willingness to spend more time with child.

Emotional attunement
Shows awareness of child’s emotional needs. Tries to fulfill child’s emotional needs. In
contrast to “Responsive to child’s needs” code, emphasis is on child’s emotions.
Examples: “You’re saying that you’d like us to spend more time together. Let’s think
of some activities we can all do.”
“I know how important privacy is at your age.”
“What can we do to make this situation better for you?”

Child-oriented during discussion
Includes child throughout discussion. Steers conversation toward topics relevant to
child. Makes efforts to include child in the discussion even when topic does not
specifically concern child. When talking to other parent, treats partner as child’s parent
(e.g., daughter’s mother) more than spouse (e.g., wife).
Examples: (to child) “How does this change affect you?”
(to child) “Where would you like to go for these family outings?”
99
(to child) “What do you think about your father’s new work schedule?”

Adult-oriented during discussion
Parent focuses on interacting with other parent during discussion rather than with child.
At extreme, excludes child even when child attempts to enter discussion. When talking
to partner, focused on partner’s role as spouse (e.g., wife) over role as child’s parent
(e.g., daughter’s mother).
Examples: Talking to other parent about topic which does not concern child, with
little attention paid to child.
Talking to other parent about topic relevant to child without involving child
in discussion – acts almost as if child weren’t present.

Coparenting: Undermining other parent/ conflict over parenting
Undermines other parent; shows open conflict with other parent about child-rearing.
Examples: Mother: “She needs to clean her room every day.” Father: “You’re too
strict, a kid’s room doesn’t have to be spotless all the time.”
“I don’t have a problem with it, but your father seems to think that you use
the phone too much.”

Coparenting: Triangulation
Draws child into marital conflict. Tries to get child to take sides against other parent.
Gangs up with child against other parent.
Examples: “Don’t you think your father makes too much noise?”
(to other parent) “See, even [child] thinks you never help around the
house.

Coparenting: Working together as parents
Support of other parent. Collaborates with other parent, working as a team. Parent
conveys that they are on the same page as the other parent in terms of goals for child,
rules, etc. Overt supportive statements are not necessary for a high code if parents give
clear impression of working together.
Examples: “Your mother is right.”
Father: “Probably not more than 2 hours a day.” Mother: “Ok, so no more
than 2 hours of TV a day. That sounds good.”
“Your father and I always tell you that your schoolwork is the first priority.”
100

Appendix 5. Triadic Discussion Coding Manual: Molecular Ratings (1-Minute
Segments)

Coding procedures:
Follow coding sheet for the ID number to determine order of family members for
coding.
All segments are 1-minute long, with a total of 15 segments for each ID
Watch first segment once through without coding anything.
When the first minute is over, watch the same segment again, this time coding for
the first family member’s behavior toward the other two. For example, if the mother
is the first person to be coded, watch the segment paying attention to her behavior,
then code her behavior toward the child and toward the father
You can take notes while watching, but do not record codes until you have watched
the whole minute.
If you need to watch the segment again to complete the codes for that person, you
may.
Subsequently code for the other two family members for that minute.
Proceed to the next minute.

All molecular rating are coded 0, 1, 2, or 3.
0: No evidence during this segment
1: Some evidence during this segment
2: Substantial evidence during this segment
3: Extreme evidence during this segment

Problem solving/ identification
Lays out parameters of problem or helps another family member do so. Asks
questions to get information or help solve a problem. Problem should be relevant to
discussion – solving the problem of opening a drink during the discussion would not
qualify. Should be coded when a family member is actively engaged in the process of
solving the problem, even if their tactics are problematic or ineffective.
Examples: “I circled ‘use of computer’ because when I need to work, either
you or your brother is using it to play a game.”
“What about that don’t you like?”

Coming to decision
Makes decision about an issue. Accepts solution that they or another family
member have proposed.
Example: “So we agree, 1 hour per day on school days and 3 hours on the
weekend.”

Assertion
Attempts to assert own ideas. States own opinion. This code would not be given
if a person is playing devil’s advocate or if the person only asks questions without
stating any of their own thoughts.
Examples: “I think he should do more.”
101
“I don’t think that’s fair.”
“I would like to start at 8:00.”

Warmth
Displays affection and warmth to family member. Coded for a general atmosphere of
warmth from one person to another, rather than one specific statement.
Examples: Smiling
Loving words.
Affectionate laughter.

Validation
Affirms other person’s feelings.
Examples: “You sound angry.”
“That must be frustrating.”
“I know how important this is to you.”

Support of ideas
Supports other person’s ideas. Also coded if person is helping another family
member convey something to the third person, as long as they seem to be going along
with the idea rather than contradicting.
Examples: “That’s a good idea.”
“You’re right.”
“I agree with your father.”
“Your mother has said many times that you’re not old enough.”

Neutral disapproval
Identifies something they don’t like about another person’s behavior, but does not attack
the person. This code requires neutral or positive affect.
Examples: “I don’t like it when you put your feet on the furniture.”
“Your grades are a problem.”

Disagreement over content
Disagrees with another over facts, statements, etc. This code requires neutral or
positive affect.
Examples: “No, it wasn’t Friday, it was Saturday.”
“This is a problem.” “Actually I think she’s been doing better.”

Conflict/ affective disagreement
Regardless of content, expresses upset, strong disagreement, displeasure, etc.
Examples: “If that’s your attitude, we’re not going to get anywhere.”
“I’m sick of your smoking.”
“No it’s not.” “Yes it is.” “No it’s not.”
Insults/demeaning
Criticizes another person- critical of the person themselves, or critical of behaviors in a
global, sweeping sense. Tries to depict another person in negative light. Patronizes,
belittles, humiliates. Portrays the other person as worthless, stupid, etc.
Examples: “You never do anything right.”
102
“You don’t listen. I have to tell you something 3 or 4 times. The
same thing.”
“What is it you do that deserves an allowance? It’s so trivial, I
can’t even think of it.”

Laying down the law
Demands action or puts forth a plan that allows no room for negotiation or discussion.
Has a demanding and overbearing quality. Also coded if person lectures another, telling
what the other “should” do. Generally conveys a patronizing or condescending attitude.
Examples: “You’re going to bed at 9:30 and that’s final.”
“You should try harder, because you’re never going to get
anywhere in life with that attitude.”

Gestures to shut down the other
Makes physical gesture to shut down the other person.
Examples: Puts hand up to stop other person’s talking.
Turns away from person who is talking.
Shakes head while another person is talking.

Ignoring/not listening
Actively refuses to listen, ignores what another is saying or doing. Can still be engaged
in discussion, but not with that person.
Examples: Turns away from family member talking.
Covers ears.
Fails to acknowledge what another family member just said.

Withdrawal
Pulls self out of discussion. Shows that they are not part conversation. Not coded only
on the basis of silence- for example, not coded if the person seems that they would like
to say something but others aren’t letting the person get a word in.
Examples: Puts head on table.
Plays intently with object.
Hides face behind hat.

Negative coalition
Gangs up with another person against the third, or attempts to draw another person into
taking a position together against the third. If attempts to draw other person are not
reciprocated, code should be scored for the person making attempt but not for person
resisting attempt.
Examples: “I don’t like it when he does that. Didn’t you tell me last week you
didn’t like it when he does that either?”
“See, even [child] thinks so.”

Leading questions
Asks questions designed to elicit a specific response. Asks questions that have
only one acceptable answer.
Examples: “Don’t you think that if you need to be reminded every day to do
your chores, you don’t deserve allowance?”
103
“Don’t you agree that you need more sleep than you’ve been
getting?”

Dismissal
Dismisses other person’s solutions, ideas, comments, etc. Indicates that they are not
interested in hearing what another person has to say, or that they think another person’s
ideas are without merit.
Examples: “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
“You don’t mean that.”
“This is a huge problem.” “Oh, it’s not that big a deal.”
Says, “nope, nope, nope,” while another person is talking.

Avoidance
Avoids talking about something.
Examples: “That’s not important now.”
“We’ll talk about that at home.”

Attempts to correct behavior during discussion
Verbally or physically attempts to correct or control other person’s behavior during the
discussion.
Examples: “Sit up straight.”
“Don’t talk with you mouth full.”
Physical motions to correct behavior such as pulling other
person’s hand away from his/her face, adjusting other person’s
clothing, etc.
104
Appendix 6. Domestic Conflict Index (DCI)
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. People have
many different ways of expressing frustration, annoyance, or hostility with one another.
Attached you will find a list of some things that you and your partner may have done.
You will find that some of these items apply, while others do not. Please be sure to
consider all items, even if they seem extreme.

First, decide if this behavior has ever occurred. If yes, indicate whether or not it
happened in front of your child. Next, indicate how frequently this behavior occurred
within the last year (regardless of child’s presence).

If the behavior has never occurred in the history of your relationship, circle “No” under
“Ever” and go on to the next question.
From one year ago until today...
Have you: Ever? In front of your
child?
0
per
year
1
per
year
2-5
per
year
6-12
per
year
2-4 per
month
>1
per
week
1. screamed or yelled at your
spouse
No Yes No Maybe Yes
2. insulted or swore at your
spouse
No Yes No Maybe Yes
3. damaged a household
item, or some part of your
home, out of anger
towards your spouse
No Yes No Maybe Yes
4. withheld affection from
your spouse
No Yes No Maybe Yes
5. deliberately disposed of or
hid an important item of
your spouse’s
No Yes No Maybe Yes
6. sulked or refused to talk
about an issue
No Yes No Maybe Yes
7. monitored your spouse’s
time and made him or her
account for where he/she
was
No Yes No Maybe Yes
8. made plans that left your
spouse feeling excluded
No Yes No Maybe Yes
9. left your spouse and were
unsure whether you were
going to return
No Yes No Maybe Yes
10. been angry if your
spouse told you that you
were using too much
alcohol or drugs
No Yes No Maybe Yes
105
11. been very upset if dinner,
housework, or home
repair work was not done
when you thought it
should be
No Yes No Maybe Yes
12. done or said something
to spite your spouse
No Yes No Maybe Yes
13. been jealous and
suspicious of your
spouse’s friends
No Yes No Maybe Yes
14. purposely hurt your
spouse’s pet
No Yes No Maybe Yes
15. purposely damaged or
destroyed your spouse’s
clothes, car, and/or other
personal possessions
No Yes No Maybe Yes
16. insulted or shamed your
spouse in front of others
No Yes No Maybe Yes
17. locked your spouse out
of the house
No Yes No Maybe Yes
18. told your spouse that
he/she could not work,
go to school, or go to
other self-improvement
activities
No Yes No Maybe Yes
19. tried to prevent your
spouse from
seeing/talking to family
or friends
No Yes No Maybe Yes
20. had an extramarital affair No Yes No Maybe Yes
21. restricted your spouse’s
use of the car or
telephone
No Yes No Maybe Yes
22. made threats to leave
the relationship
No Yes No Maybe Yes
23. blamed your spouse for
your problems
No Yes No Maybe Yes
24. tried to turn family,
friends, or children
against your spouse
No Yes No Maybe Yes
25. ordered your spouse
around
No Yes No Maybe Yes
26. been insensitive to your
spouse’s feelings
No Yes No Maybe Yes
27. frightened your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
28. treated your spouse like
he/she was stupid
No Yes No Maybe Yes
29. given your spouse the
silent treatment/cold
shoulder
No Yes No Maybe Yes
30. criticized your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
106
31. called your spouse
names
No Yes No Maybe Yes
32. stomped out of the room,
house, or yard
No Yes No Maybe Yes
33. stayed away from the
house
No Yes No Maybe Yes
34. ridiculed your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
35. physically twisted your
spouse’s arm
No Yes No Maybe Yes
36. threatened to hit your
spouse or throw
something at him/her in
anger
No Yes No Maybe Yes
37. pushed, grabbed, or
shoved your spouse
No Yes No Maybe Yes
38. slapped your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
39. physically forced sex on
your spouse
No Yes No Maybe Yes
40. burned your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
41. shaken your spouse No Yes No Maybe Yes
42. thrown, smashed, hit, or
kicked something
No Yes No Maybe Yes
43. prevented your spouse
from getting medical
care that he/she needed
No Yes No Maybe Yes
44. thrown or tried to throw
your spouse bodily
No Yes No Maybe Yes
45. thrown an object at your
spouse
No Yes No Maybe Yes
46. choked or strangled your
spouse
No Yes No Maybe Yes
47. kicked, bit or hit your
spouse with a fist
No Yes No Maybe Yes
48. hit your spouse, or tried
to hit your spouse, with
something
No Yes No Maybe Yes
49. beat up your spouse
(multiple blows)
No Yes No Maybe Yes
50. threatened your spouse
with a knife or gun
No Yes No Maybe Yes
51. used a knife or a gun on
your spouse
No Yes No Maybe Yes
52. used humiliation to make
your spouse have sex
No Yes No Maybe Yes
53. used threats to make
your spouse have sex
No Yes No Maybe Yes
54. coerced your spouse to
engage in sexual
practices he/she did not
want
No Yes No Maybe Yes
107
55. slammed your spouse
against the wall
No Yes No Maybe Yes
56. physically prevented your
spouse from leaving an
argument or blocked
his/her exit
No Yes No Maybe Yes
57. showed your spouse that
you cared even though
the two of you disagreed
No Yes No Maybe Yes
58. showed respect for your
partner’s feelings about
an issue
No Yes No Maybe Yes
59. suggested a compromise
to a disagreement
No Yes No Maybe Yes
60. agreed to a solution your
partner suggested
No Yes No Maybe Yes
61. took responsibility for
your part in a problem
No Yes No Maybe Yes

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Marital conflict has been linked with many different dimensions of parent-child relations, but the bulk of existing research has focused on Caucasian families, and many studies have failed to include both mothers and fathers. This study examined parent sex and ethnicity as determinants of parenting and as moderators of relations between marital conflict and parenting. An ethnically diverse sample of 97 couples with preadolescent children reported about their marital conflict. Approximately one year later, the families participated in triadic family discussions, and trained coders evaluated parents' engagement/discipline, parent-child conflict, negative coparenting/boundaries, and attunement. Marital conflict was related to negative coparenting/boundaries, but contrary to expectation, marital conflict was not related to other aspects of parenting. Ethnicity moderated the link between marital conflict and negative coparenting/boundaries, such that there was a stronger link for White than for non-White parents, and a weaker link for African American parents than for non-African American parents. Exploratory analyses also pointed toward a combined moderating effect of ethnicity and parent sex on the connection between marital conflict and parent-child conflict. In addition, there were main effects of ethnicity on some parenting dimensions. These results contribute to the literature by suggesting that the link between marital conflict and some dimensions of parenting may vary by parent gender and ethnicity. Because prior literature examining the impact of marital conflict on parenting has been based on largely White samples, those findings may not apply to families of all ethnic backgrounds. Future research would benefit from inclusion of more ethnically diverse samples, as well as examination of factors that may explain ethnic differences.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Parents' attunement: relation to adolescent problem behavior and the moderating role of marital conflict

PDF

Emotion regulation as a mechanism linking parents’ marital aggression to adolescent behavioral problems: a longitudinal analysis

PDF

Couples’ neuroendocrine activity in response to family conflict discussions: the role of self-reported anger and previous marital aggression

PDF

Prenatal predictors of parental sensitivity in first-time mothers and fathers

PDF

Couple conflict during pregnancy: Do early family adversity and oxytocin play a role?

PDF

Student, staff, and parent perceptions of the reasons for ethnic conflict between Armenian and Latino students

PDF

The successful African American Parenting (SAAP) Program: an evaluation of a culturally sensitive parenting intervention

PDF

Family conflict, negative mood, and adolescents' daily problems in school

PDF

A multiple systems approach to examining physiological stress and its association with internalizing disorders in adolescence

PDF

Adjustment of high school seniors and the marital adjustment of their parents in a Southern California city

PDF

Evaluating a cultural process model of depression and suicidality in Latino adolescents

PDF

Outlaw mothers: marital conflict, family law, and women's novels in Victorian England

PDF

The role of parenting style, ethnicity, and identity style on identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy

PDF

Child psychopathy and orienting: novel support for electrodermal hyporeactivity

PDF

Attachment style as a predictor of group conflict, post-conflict relationship repair, trust and leadership style

PDF

Mediators and moderators in the link between maternal psychological control and peer victimization for Hong Kong Chinese boys

PDF

Risky behaviors, interpersonal conflict, and their relation to fluctuations in adolescents’ diurnal HPA rhythms

PDF

The link between maternal depression and adolescent daughters' risk behavior: the mediating and moderating role of family

PDF

Examining the longitudinal relationships between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior among a sample of maltreated and non-maltreated adolescents

PDF

Actual and perceived social reinforcements of weight-related cognitions and behaviors in adolescent peer groups

Asset Metadata

Creator Fauchier, Angèle (author)

Core Title Marital conflict and parenting: moderating effects of ethnicity and parent sex

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 11/19/2006

Defense Date 06/12/2006

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

Tag coparenting,domestic conflict,Fathers,Mothers,OAI-PMH Harvest,Parenting

Language English

Advisor Margolin, Gayla (committee chair), Daley, Shannon E. (committee member), Lyon, Thomas D. (committee member), Manis, Franklin R. (committee member)

Creator Email angele.fauchier@unh.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m171

Unique identifier UC1176720

Identifier etd-Fauchier-20061119 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-27187 (legacy record id),usctheses-m171 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Fauchier-20061119.pdf

Dmrecord 27187

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Fauchier, Angèle

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu