Interparental Discord and Parenting: Testing the Moderating Roles of Child and Parent Gender

This article was downloaded by: [ ]On: 24 October 2011, At: 07:55Publisher: Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

ParentingPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpar20

Interparental Discord andParenting: Testing theModerating Roles of Child andParent GenderMelissa L. Sturge-Apple, Patrick T. Davies, Steven M.Boker & E. Mark Cummings

Available online: 18 Nov 2009

To cite this article: Melissa L. Sturge-Apple, Patrick T. Davies, Steven M. Boker & E.Mark Cummings (2004): Interparental Discord and Parenting: Testing the ModeratingRoles of Child and Parent Gender, Parenting, 4:4, 361-380

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0404_7

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpar20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0404_7

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

Interparental Discord and Parenting:Testing the Moderating Rolesof Child and Parent Gender

Melissa L. Sturge-Apple, Patrick T. Davies,Steven M. Boker, and E. Mark Cummings

SYNOPSIS

Objective. This multimethod, prospective study examined whether child andparent gender moderate the relation between interparental discord andchanges in parenting practices over a 1-year time span. Design. Self-reportquestionnaires of interparental discord and parenting as well as an observa-tional measure of interparental discord were collected from a sample of 226mothers and fathers of kindergarten children. Results. Multigroup analyses us-ing structural equation models indicated that the relation between amultimethod assessment of interparental discord and changes in parent-re-ported childrearing practices varied significantly as a function of child genderonly. Interparental discord predicted decreases in parental responsiveness toboys’ distress while predicting increases in parental responsiveness to girls’ dis-tress. Moderating analyses further indicated that interparental discord pre-dicted significant increases in parental use of psychological control with boysonly. Conclusions. The considerable heterogeneity in previous research exam-ining prospective linkages between interparental discord and parenting prac-tices may be attributable, in part, to the moderating role of child gender. Differ-ences in the moderating role of child gender across separate dimensions ofparenting highlight the importance of distinguishing among specific parentingpractices in examining gender differences in family pathways.

INTRODUCTION

Interparental discord is linked with parenting difficulties, including pa-rental emotional unavailability (Owen & Cox, 1997), rejection (Fauber,Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990), inconsistent discipline (Stoneman,Brody, & Burke, 1989), and psychological control (Fauber et. al, 1990).However, the moderate magnitude of the association between inter-parental and parent – child relationships indicates that there is apprecia-ble variability in the childrearing practices of parents who experience

PARENTING: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.October–December 2004 Volume 4 Number 4 Pages 361–380

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

similar levels of interparental discord (Erel & Burman, 1995). Accord-ingly, identifying precise conditions that attenuate or amplify interrela-tions among interparental and parent – child relationships constitutes acritical next step in the family systems literature (Cox, Paley, & Harter,2001; Grych, 2002). Consistent with this aim, various conceptual modelshave cast parent and child gender as potential sources of variability inassociations between interparental and parent – child relationships (e.g.,Davies & Lindsay, 2001; Jouriles & Norwood, 1995). Guided by thesegender-differentiated models of family process, the aim of the currentstudy was to examine whether the role of parent gender, child gender, orthe match between parent and child gender moderated associations be-tween interparental discord and parenting practices. These various mod-els provide a conceptual basis for three distinct classes of hypotheses onthe moderating role of gender in associations between interparental rela-tionships and parenting difficulties: the parent gender hypothesis, thechild gender hypothesis, and the parent and child gender hypothesis(Davies & Lindsay, 2001).

The parent gender hypothesis posits that interparental discord may bemore likely to undermine paternal parenting practices than maternalparenting practices (Belsky, Youngblade, Rovine, & Volling, 1991; Brody,Arias, & Fincham, 1996). Support for the elevated vulnerability of paternalparenting practices in high-conflict homes is derived from several theories(Cummings & O’Reilly, 1997). Drawing from social role theory, womenmay be better able to compartmentalize their spouse and parenting rolesthan men. For example, in keeping with traditional gender roles, parentingroles and responsibilities may be more clearly scripted and assume a morefundamental role in the lives of women than men (Thompson & Walker,1989). Thus, the greater significance and clarity of the parenting role forwomen may attenuate spill-over of hostility, distress, and discord from theinterparental relationship to maternal parenting (Belsky et al., 1991). Alter-natively, evidence indicating that husbands are more physiologically vul-nerable to interparental discord than wives may suggest that husbandsmay have greater difficulty regulating spousal generated distress in thefamily (Levenson & Gottman, 1983). In accordance with these explana-tions, some empirical findings lend support to the hypothesis that associa-tions between interparental discord and parenting difficulties are moreconsistent for men than women (e.g., Cowan, Cowan, & Kerig, 1993; Katz& Gottman, 1996).

In contrast, the child gender hypothesis postulates that the interdepen-dence among interparental difficulties and parenting practices varies de-pending on whether the child in the family is a boy or girl (e.g., Jouriles,Pfiffner, & O’Leary, 1988; McHale, 1995). Multiple explanations share the

362 STURGE-APPLE ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

specific hypothesis that the link between interparental discord andparenting difficulties is stronger in magnitude for sons than for daugh-ters. For example, some studies have indicated that boys are more likelythan girls to physically intervene in interparental difficulties (Laumakis,Margolin, & John, 1998). By extension, boys’ risk of becoming targets ofparental hostility in childrearing contexts may increase. Empirical linksbetween interparental aggression and parent – child aggression havebeen demonstrated to be stronger for boys than girls in samples of bat-tered women (Jouriles & Norwood, 1995). Likewise, associations be-tween interparental discord and children’s report of parental coercivediscipline are significantly more pronounced for boys than for girls(Dadds, Sheffield, & Holbeck, 1990).

The parent and child gender hypothesis posits that the relation betweeninterparental discord and parenting may vary as a function of specificcombinations between parent and child gender. Although studies exam-ining interactions between parent and child gender have been sparse,some theoretical accounts address why such gender combinations maybe important in the study of relationships between the marital and par-ent – child systems (Cox et al., 2001; Grych, 2002). Psychoanalytic andfamily systems theory formulations share the assumption that parentsexperiencing marital problems may project greater negativity toward op-posite-sex children because they are more reminiscent of the perceivedshortcomings of their partners (O’Leary, 1984; Osborne & Fincham,1996). Assuming an involved role as a parent in gender-differentiatedtasks may also be an especially challenging task for opposite-sex parents,particularly without access to the consistent support, knowledge, andguidance of same-sex parents in discordant marriages. Kerig, Cowan,and Cowan (1993) reported that marital distress was linked with signifi-cantly higher levels of parental negativity in different-gender dyads (i.e.,father – daughter) than same-gender dyads (i.e., father – son).

Although previous research has provided varying support for all threegender-specific models, inconsistent and null findings have made it diffi-cult to draw definitive conclusions about the nature and existence of gen-der differences in pathways between interparental discord and parentingdifficulties (e.g., Davies & Lindsay, 2001). At a conceptual level, progress inspecifying gender differences in family dynamics has been hindered by thetacit treatment of gender as a nuisance variable that is either ignored alto-gether, utilized as a covariate, or examined as a secondary or backgroundvariable in conceptual models. In addition, discrepancies in these findingsalso may be attributable to analytic limitations inherent in previous re-search including an absence of systematic tests of the relative viability ofthree primary classes of gender hypotheses and the predominant reliance

INTERPARENTAL DISCORD AND PARENTING 363

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

on collecting data at a single time point. Complicating the picture, littleconceptual effort has been devoted to the possibility that the inconsisten-cies in gender differences may be due, in part, to variations across studiesin the specific dimensions of parenting examined (e.g., warmth, psycho-logical control, discipline; Brody et al., 1996; Fauber et al., 1990).

Accordingly, this study directly examined parent and child gender asmoderators in the prediction of three dimensions of parenting (i.e., re-sponsiveness, psychological control, punitive parenting) over a 1-yearspan in early childhood. To examine the nature of gender differences inthe spillover from the interparental relationship to parenting, we con-ducted a series of autoregressive models examining gender differences inassociations between interparental discord at Time 1 and subsequentparenting at Time 2 (i.e., 1 year later) after controlling for Time 1parenting. Figure 1 provides an illustration of the conceptual modeltested in this study. To provide an authoritative test of the moderatingrole of gender, we specifically use a likelihood ratio test of the fit of eachof the three gender models relative to one another. Support for the childgender hypothesis requires Paths A and B to be significantly different inmagnitude from Paths C and D. Conversely, the validity of the parentgender hypothesis is contingent on demonstrating that Paths A and C aresignificantly different from Paths B and D. Finally, evidence for the par-ent and child gender hypothesis would be obtained if Paths A and Dwere significantly different from Paths B and C. Guided by previouswork on associations between interparental discord and parenting diffi-culties (Cowan & Cowan, 1992; Engfer, 1988), we hypothesized thatinterparental discord would reliably predict greater parenting difficultiesover the subsequent year, in the form of diminished parental responsive-ness and greater psychological control and punitive parenting. Given in-consistencies in the literature we made no a priori hypotheses about thenature of the moderating effect of gender on this relationship.

METHODS

Participants

The data for this study were drawn from a larger, prospective projectdesigned to assess linkages between family relationships and children’scoping and adjustment. The original pool of participants consisted of 236mothers, fathers, and children. The retention rate from the first to secondmeasurement occasion was 95%, resulting in a sample of 227 families for


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

our prospective analyses. One family, who was identified as a multi-variate outlier across all three parenting models, was excluded from theanalyses. The final sample for this study consisted of 226 mothers, fa-thers, and children (125 girls and 101 boys). The average age of boys andgirls at Wave 1 was 6.03 years (SD = .54) and 5.97 years (SD = .43), re-spectively. Median family income fell between a range of $40,000 and$54,000, with 13% of the sample reporting household income less than$23,000. Mothers and fathers completed on average 14.54 (SD = 2.33) and14.68 (SD = 2.69) years of education, respectively. A large proportion ofthe sample was European American (77.3%), followed by smaller per-centages of African American (15.9%), Latin American (4.0%), AsianAmerican (1.1%), Native American (0.2%), and other racial (1.5%) fami-lies. Children lived with their biological mother in 95.2% of cases. Fur-


FIGURE 1Conceptual Model Outlining the Moderating Effect of Gender on the Relationship Be-tweenInterparentalDiscordandParentingPractices.PathsareLabeledforReference.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

ther demographic details can be found in Davies, Sturge-Apple, andCummings (in press).

Procedures

Data on family variables for this study were collected at two measure-ment occasions spaced 1 year apart. During the first measurement occa-sion, mothers and fathers participated in a dyadic task in which they at-tempted to manage and resolve two common, intense interparentaldisagreements that they viewed as problematic in their relationship. Thecouples were instructed to discuss each topic for 10 min as they normallywould at home. Videotaped records of the interactions were obtained forlater coding of interparental conflict behavior. At both measurement occa-sions, mothers and fathers independently completed survey assessmentsof interparental discord and parenting difficulties.

Interparental Discord

Multiple informants and methods were used to form a latent constructof interparental discord at the first wave. First, mothers and fathers eachcompleted the O’Leary-Porter Scale (OPS; Porter & O’Leary, 1980) to assessthe frequency of interparental hostility. Each item (e.g., “How often do youand/or your partner display verbal hostility (e.g., raised voices, criticism,etc.) in front of your child?”) is rated on a 4-point scale of 0 (never) to 4 (veryoften). Test-retest reliability, internal consistency (αs ranged from .78 to .81for this sample), and the concurrent validity of the OPS are well docu-mented (e.g., Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992).

Raters, who were blind to the characteristics of the family and the hy-potheses of this study, coded the mother and father conflict behaviorduring the interparental conflict task using the Verbal Aggression scalefrom the System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID; Malik &Lindahl, 1996). The Verbal Aggression Scale is specifically designed to as-sess the degree to which partners express hostility and aggression to-ward each other during interactions through content and tone of verbal-izations, facial expressions, and gestures. On a 5-point scale, ratingsrange from 1 (very low) to 5 (high). Intraclass correlation coefficients,which indexed interrater reliability for 25% of the families, ranged from.85 to .94 for mothers and fathers across each of the two interactions.Given the empirical overlap between observational ratings of motherand father verbal aggression across the two interactions (rs range from


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

.38 to .72), mothers’ and fathers’ ratings across the two interactions weresummed to form a single measure of observed interparental negativity.

Parenting Practices

Mothers and fathers completed parenting surveys at both measurementoccasions.

Responsiveness. To assess parental responsiveness, mothers and fatherscompleted the Expressive Encouragement, Problem-Focused Reactions,and Emotion-Focused Reactions Subscales from the Coping withChildren’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES; Fabes, Eisenberg, &Bernzweig, 1990). The CCNES assesses parental reports on the likelihoodof responding to child distress with various childrearing practices using a7-point likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely). TheExpressive Encouragement Subscale reflects the degree to which parentsencourage and validate child expressions of negative affect. The Emo-tion-Focused Reactions Subscale assesses the degree to which parents usestrategies designed to help the child feel better. Finally, the Problem-Fo-cused Reactions Subscale assesses the degree to which parents help thechild to solve the problem causing the distress. The psychometric proper-ties of each of the subscales have been documented, with evidence of valid-ity, internal consistency subscales (αs between .74 and .90 in this study),and test-retest reliability (Fabes, Poulin, Eisenberg, & Madden-Derdich,2002). Given the magnitude of intercorrelations among the subscales formothers (rs from .45 to .71) and fathers (rs from .47 to .81), the threesubscales were summed to form composites of mother and father respon-siveness. Internal consistency coefficients of the subscales comprising themother and father composites were satisfactory (αs ≥ .77).

Punitive parenting. Measures of harsh, punitive parenting were obtainedfrom mother and father reports on the Punitive Reactions Subscale from the(CCNES;Fabesetal., 1990).ThePunitiveReactionsSubscale,whichassessesthe degree to which parents respond to 12 hypothetical situations involvingchild negative affect in punitive or harsh ways, has good internal consis-tency (αs ≥ .70 in this sample) and test-retest reliability (Fabes et al., 2002).Support for the validity of the subscale is evidenced by its significant associ-ations with other measures of punitive parenting (e.g., Fabes et al., 2002).

Psychological control. Mothers’ and fathers’ reports of their own use ofpsychologically controlling parenting behaviors with their child were mea-sured using the Control Through Guilt and Instilling Persistent Anxiety


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

Subscales from the Child Report of Parenting Behaviors Inventory (CRPBI;Margolies & Weintraub, 1977; Schludermann & Schludermann, 1970). Itemson each of the subscales were rated on 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1(never) to5(always).TheControlThroughGuiltSubscalecontains5 itemsde-signed to assess parental psychological control strategies that induce guilt.The Instilling Persistent Anxiety Subscale is comprised of 5 items indexingpsychological control strategies that are likely to evoke considerable worryon the child’s part. The subscales each have been shown to possess satisfac-tory internal consistency, and previous research has supported the conver-gent and discriminant validity of the measures (Schwarz, Barton-Henry, &Pruzinsky, 1985). Given the magnitude of associations among the twosubscales for mothers and fathers (rs range from .61 to .66), subscales weresummed to form composites of maternal and paternal psychological con-trol. Internalconsistencycoefficientsof thesubscalescomprisingthemotherand father composites were satisfactory (αs ≥ .75).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For descriptive purposes, means, standard deviations, and intercorrela-tions among interparental discord and parenting variables are providedfor boys and girls in Table 1. Because the SCID Verbal Aggression variablehad a skewed distribution, logarithmic transformations were performedon this variable to increase the normality of the distribution for the struc-tural equation models.

Structural equation modeling using maximum likelihood performedwith AMOS software (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) was used to examinewhether associations between interparental discord and each of the threeparenting characteristics differed as a function of parent and/or child gen-der. The model in Figure 1 was estimated simultaneously for boys and girlsfor each of the three measures of parenting. To conduct tests of moderation,we first specified a fully constrained model in which the coefficients of ev-ery cross-lag path between interparental discord and parenting variableswere set to be equal (i.e., paths A, B, C, D). We then compared the relativeempirical fit of the fully constrained model to a nested, free-to-vary modelin which all cross-lag paths between Time 1 Interparental Discord andTime 2 Parenting were allowed to freely vary (i.e., paths A, B, C and D).Possible gender differences would be demonstrated if the empirical fit ofthe free-to-vary model was significantly better than the fully constrainedmodel (Maruyama, 1998). Significant differences between the models werefollowed up with a series of planned model comparisons to identifywhether the pattern of the moderating effect was consistent with the child


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

369

TABLE 1Descriptive Statistics and Associations Among Study Measures

Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 M SD

1. OPS-T1-M — .58* .30* –.03 –.12 .26* .26* .30* .13 –.13 –.21* .25* .42* .40* .20* 11.51 5.45

2. OPS-T1 –F .64* — .31* .05 –.06 .13 .18 .25* .15 .02 –.09 .18 .26* .28* .18 11.86 5.10

3. SCID-T1 .36* .35* — –.02 –.11 .08 .09 –.01 .05 –.05 –.01 .11 .10 .02 .05 6.17 2.94

4. RSP-T1-M .01 –.08 –.01 — .44* –.27* –.21* –.02 .01 .73* .43* –.27* –.13 –.02 .14 202.71 24.23

5. RPS-T1-F –.02 –.09 –.02 .26* — –.08 –.20* –.01 .27* .36* .76* –.17 –.20* –.02 .21* 182.23 26.55

6. PP-T1-M .17 .02 .06 –.35* –.09 — .50* .33* .16 –.29* –.07 .65* .27* .28* .13 26.71 8.95

7. PP-T1-F –.02 .02 –.04 –.12 –.30* .23* — .33* .25* –.21* –.19 .36* .60* .27* .28* 29.56 9.25

8. PC-T1-M .14 .10 –.05 .02 .01 .22* .14 — .33* –.06 .01 .26* .33* .72* .38* 22.35 5.72

9. PC-T1-F .04 .15 –.04 .07 –.06 –.03 .32* .32* — .11 .22* .11 .23* .23* .70* 23.40 6.64

10. RSP-T2-M .17 .13 .06 .56* .09 –.18* –.03 .15 .05 — .36* –.21* –.15 .05 .11 198.46 24.20

11. RSP-T2-F .04 –.03 .03 .28* .58* –.11 –.19* .05 .06 .17 — –.12 –.39* –.01 .19* 175.69 27.34

12. PP-T2-M .17 .15 .12 –.24* –.14 .54* .20* .23* .03 –.05 .02 — .35* .35* .14 26.27 8.03

13. PP-T2-F .07 .20* –.03 –.17 –.29* .08 .53* .09 .20 –.04 –.36* .11 — .39* .36* 29.78 9.72

14. PC-T2-M .10 .09 .02 .11 .13 .22* .21* .70* .34* .10 .11 .20* .14 — .37* 21.30 5.34

15. PC-T2-F –.05 .05 –.08 .11 –.04 –.03 .26* .28* .75* .02 .09 –.02 .21* .35* — 22.32 6.42

M 12.24 12.07 6.49 201.15 183.61 26.64 31.10 22.81 23.37 199.81 181.38 26.61 31.12 22.04 22.96

SD 5.51 5.16 3.09 22.87 24.20 7.59 10.05 6.45 6.42 22.34 25.33 7.66 10.15 5.60 6.15

Note. For boys, N = 101, above the diagonal; for girls, N = 125, below the diagonal. M = Mother, F = Father, T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2, RSP = Responsiveness, PP= Punitive Parenting, PC = Psychological Control.

*p < .05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

gender model, the parent gender model, or the parent and child gendermodel. Any specific gender model comparison that yielded a significantlybetter fit than the fully constrained model was then evaluated against thefree-to-vary model. If the specific gender model fully accounts for theoverall moderating effect, there should be a nonsignificant difference be-tween the separate chi-square statistics of the two models. Tests of the mea-surement models for all three parenting models prior to specification of thestructural paths yielded evidence for good model fit (χ2 > .05; GFIs > .98;RMSEAs < .01; Browne & Cudeck, 1993), and the factor loadings for themanifest indicators of each latent variable were all significant and positive.

Responsiveness Model

A series of nested model comparisons examined the moderating role ofgender in paths between interparental discord and parental responsive-ness (see Table 2). We first compared the fully constrained model in which


TABLE 2Fit Indexes for Nested Sequences of Model Tests

Model χ2 df RMSEA GFI χ2 diff ∆df

Responsiveness1. Fully constrained model 28.18 23 .03 .97 — —

Free-to-vary model 18.86 20 .001 .98 9.32* 32. Fully constrained model 28.18 23 .03 .97 — —

Gender as moderator modelsa. Parent gender 27.05 22 .03 .92 1.13 1b. Child gender 20.57 22 .001 .97 7.61* 1c. Parent/child gender model 26.69 22 .03 .97 1.49 1

3. Child gender model 20.57 22 .001 .97 — —Free-to-vary model 18.86 20 .001 .98 1.71 2

Punitive parenting1. Fully constrained model 20.88 23 .001 .97 — —2. Free-to-vary model 16.34 20 .001 .98 4.54 3

Psychological control1. Fully constrained model 28.17 23 .03 .97 — —

Free-to-vary model 19.55 20 .001 .98 8.62* 32. Fully constrained model 28.17 23 .03 .97 — —

Gender as moderator modelsa. Parent gender 25.98 22 .03 .97 2.19 1b. Child gender 21.38 22 .001 .97 6.79* 1c. Parent/child gender model 28.07 22 .04 .97 0.10 1

3. Child gender model 21.38 22 .001 .97 — —Free-to-vary model 19.55 20 .001 .98 1.83 2

Note. * p ≤ .05

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

all cross-lagged paths between Time 1 Interparental Discord and Time 2Responsiveness were constrained to be equal across groups with the free-to-vary model in which the paths between Time 1 Interparental Discordand Time 2 Responsiveness were freely estimated across groups. Table 2indicates that the free-to-vary model provided a significantly better fit tothe data than the fully constrained model, χ2 diff (3, N = 226) = 9.32, p < .05.Follow up tests to identify the locus of the moderating effect of genderwere conducted with nested model comparisons between each of the gen-der models and the fully constrained model. Results indicated that onlythe child gender model provided a significantly better fit to the data, χ2 diff(1, N = 226) = 7.61, p < .05. The child gender model is presented in Figure 2,and unstandardized coefficients with standard errors in parentheses areprovided for comparison. To further test whether the child gender modelwas the most parsimonious, best-fitting model, we compared its fit withthe free-to-vary model and the results indicated that the child gender andfree-to-vary models were statistically indistinguishable, χ2 diff (2, N = 226)= 1.71, p > .05 (Table 2). Thus, the child gender model provided the mostparsimonious yet equally valid explanation of the relations in the data(Figure 2).

Consistent with the spill-over hypothesis (Engfer, 1988), examination ofthe path coefficients in child gender model indicated that interparental dis-cord predicted significant decreases in parental responsiveness to boys’distress over the subsequent year, γ = –.59, t = –2.20, p < .05. In contrast,interparental discord was associated with increases in parental responsive-ness for girls over the subsequent year, γ = .75, t = 2.09, p < .05. The findingsfor girls lend support to the compensatory hypothesis in which parents’who exhibit difficulties in the interparental relationship may expend great-er efforts to forge positive parent – child relationships (e.g., Belsky et al.,1991; Engfer, 1988). But why might boys and girls from high-conflicthomes experience such markedly different patterns of parental respon-siveness over time? Consistent with many theoretical accounts (e.g.,Jouriles & LeCompte, 1991; Jouriles & Norwood, 1995), boys’ dispropor-tionate experiences with diminished parental responsiveness in discor-dant homes may result from their propensity to respond with high aggres-sion and conduct problems. These disruptive forms of reactivity mayspecifically increase their salience as targets of hostility, particularly byparents who are already experiencing distress stemming from bouts ofinterparental discord. By extension, the greater likelihood of girls to dis-play forms of distress such as sadness, fear, and withdrawal in the face ofinterparental discord may evoke greater empathy and responsivenessfrom parents (Cohn, 1991; El-Sheikh, 1994; Emery, 1982; Zahn-Waxler,1993). Guided by these gender-differentiated portrayals, parents of girls in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

high-conflict homes may expend extraordinary efforts towards being vigi-lant and responsive to perceived vulnerabilities of their daughters (Davies& Lindsay, 2001; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974).

To examine the magnitude of the moderator effect, we next evaluatedthe change in variance explained when comparing the fully constrainedmodel to the child gender-as-moderator model for each Time 2 measure ofparental responsiveness. Increases in the child gender model accountedrelatively small increases in variance explained across the different mod-els, ranging from 1% to 2%.


FIGURE 2Structural Equation Model Linking Time 1 Interparental Discord With Time 2Responsiveness With Autoregressive Paths Between Time 1 and Time 2Responsiveness Included. Straight lines represent predictive paths whereas curvedlines represent correlations. Unstandardized coefficients with standard errors in pa-rentheses are provided for comparison across boys and girls data. ID = interparentaldiscord; OPS = O’Leary Porter Scale; SCID = System for coding interactions in dyads;M = Mother report; F = Father report; T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2. *p ≤ .05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

Punitive Parenting Model

The next set of nested model comparisons examined the moderating roleof gender in paths between interparental discord and punitive parenting.The fully constrained model in which all cross-lagged paths were con-strained to equality was first compared with the free-to-vary model. The fitstatistics inTable2indicatethatbothmodels fit thedatawellandthat thetwomodelswerestatisticallycomparabletoeachother,χ2 diff (3,N=226)=4.54,p> .05. Because this comparison indicates that parent and child gender werenot significant moderators in associations between interparental discordand parenting difficulties, no further tests were conducted. These resultsreplicate and extend the earlier empirical delineation of concurrent linkagesbetween interparental discord and parenting by demonstrating thatinterparental discord was related to prospective increases in punitiveparenting, regardless of gender, over a span of 1 year (e.g., Fauber et al.,1990).However, thefailureto identifygenderasamoderatorraisesconcernsabout the validity of some early conclusions about gender differences in as-sociations between interparental and parent – child relationships. Withoutthe use of explicit tests of moderation as a guide, simply inspecting the pathcoefficients in Figure 3 may lead to the erroneous conclusion that prospec-tive associations between interparental discord and punitive control are es-pecially pronounced for fathers and same-gender (i.e., mother – daughter,father – son) dyads. Thus, inconsistencies between our study and earlierstudies may be attributable, in part, to the failure of many earlier studies toexplicitly test for the moderating effects of gender. In conjunction with pre-vious research recommendations (e.g., Davies & Lindsay, 2001), these re-sults underscore that progress in identifying the potential moderating roleof gender in the link between interparental and parent – child relationshipshinges on the explicit use of moderator tests.

Psychological Control Model

A final set of model comparisons examined the moderating role of gen-der in associations between interparental discord and parental psychologi-cal control. Following procedures used in the first two models, the fit of thefully constrained model was compared with the fit of the free-to-varymodel. Although the fit statistics in Table 2 indicated that both models fitthe data well (e.g., GFI ≥ .97, RMSEA ≤ .03), the free-to-vary model pro-vided a significantly better fit to the data than the fully constrained model,χ2 diff (3, N = 226) = 8.62, p < .05. These results indicated that gender mod-erated paths between interparental discord and psychological control.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

To identify the locus of the moderating effect of gender, follow-up anal-yses compared the fit of each of the three gender models in relation to thefully constrained model. Nested model comparisons indicated that onlythe child gender model provided a significantly better fit to the data thanthe fully constrained model, χ2 diff (1, N = 226) = 6.79, p < .05. To provide afurther test of whether the child gender model was the most parsimonious,best-fitting model, we compared its fit with the free-to-vary model. Table 2shows that the child gender and free-to-vary models were statistically in-distinguishable, χ2 diff (2, N = 226) = 1.83, p > .05. Thus, the child gender


FIGURE 3Structural Equation Model Linking Time 1 Interparental Discord With Time 2 PunitiveParenting With Autoregressive Paths Between Time 1 and Time 2 Punitive ParentingIncluded. Straight lines represent predictive paths whereas curved lines represent cor-relations. Unstandardized coefficients with standard errors in parentheses are pro-vided for comparison across boys and girls data. ID = interparental discord; OPS =O’Leary Porter Scale; SCID = System for coding interactions in dyads; M = Mother re-port; F = Father report; T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2. * p < .05. †p < .10.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

model provided a more parsimonious yet equally valid explanation of re-lations in the data when compared to the free-to-vary model.

Examination of the path coefficients in the child gender model shown inFigure 4 indicates that interparental discord was associated with signifi-cant increases in parental use of psychological control for boys, γ = .23, t =2.78, p = .001, but not girls, γ = –0.05, t = –0.70, p = .48. This pattern of genderdifferences in the prospective linkages between interparental discord andparental use of psychological control shared many similarities with thefindings of the parental responsiveness model. The nature of the moderat-


FIGURE 4Structural Equation Model Linking Time 1 Interparental Discord With Time 2Psychological Control With Autoregressive Paths Between Time 1 and Time 2Psychological Control Included. Unstandardized coefficients with standard errors inparentheses are provided for comparison across boys and girls data. ID = interparentaldiscord; OPS = O’Leary Porter Scale; SCID = System for coding interactions in dyads;M = Mother report; F = Father report; T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2. *p < .05. †p < .10.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

ing role of gender indicated that interparental discord was a significantpredictor of increases in parental psychological control over the subse-quent year for boys but was a negligible predictor of psychological controlfor girls. Comparable evidence of elevated male vulnerability to spill-overfrom the interparental to parent – child subsystems may indicate that simi-lar mechanisms account for the moderating role of child gender across dif-ferent forms of parenting difficulties. For example, child aggression andconduct problems have been identified as key antecedents of parental useof psychological control (Pettit & Laird, 2002; Pettit, Laird, Dodge, Bates, &Criss, 2001). Thus, perhaps greater aversive behavior of boys may increasetheir salience as potential targets of psychological control for parents hav-ing to cope with high levels of interparental discord (e.g., Davies & Lind-say, 2001; Jouriles & Norwood, 1995).

To examine the magnitude of the moderator effect, we next evaluatedthe change in variance explained when comparing the fully constrainedmodel to the child gender-as-moderator model for each Time-2 measure ofparental psychological control. Increases in variance accounted for by thechild gender model in the prediction of maternal and paternal psychologi-cal control for boys and girls ranged from 2% to 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the hypothesis that child gender is a significant mod-erator in pathways between interparental discord and changes in par-enting practices. Specifically, interparental discord was a significantlystronger predictor of decreases in parental responsiveness to child distressand increases in parental psychological control for boys than for girls. Incontrast, the findings failed to identify parent gender or the interaction be-tween parent and child gender as moderators of interparental discord.

Several limitations should be taken into consideration in interpretingour results. First, despite appreciable sociodemographic diversity (e.g.,ethnicity, income, education level) in our sample, care should be taken ingeneralizing these findings to other samples. Exploring whether ourfindings apply to clinical, minority, and low-SES samples may be a fruit-ful direction for future research. Second, although interparental discordwas assessed using multiple methods and informants, maternal and pa-ternal parenting practices over the 1-year span of the study were as-sessed using self-report measures. Utilizing a multitrait, multimethoddesign for each of the key constructs in the analytic models may help toclarify links between interparental discord and parenting difficulties.Third, because our focus on three dimensions of parenting is not exhaus-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

tive, it is possible that gender may moderate interparental discord indifferent ways for other dimensions of parenting. Along these lines, sep-arate dimensions of interparental discord, such as withdrawal anddysphoria, may differentially impact mothers and fathers parenting ofsons and daughters. Fourth, the results from the SEM analyses indicatedthat the moderating effect of child gender accounted for small increasesin variance for each of the parenting variables, ranging from 1% to 3%.However, given the difficulties of detecting moderator effects in field re-search (r2 values are typically less than .03) and the conservative natureof our autoregressive analyses, even interactions of small magnitude arenoteworthy (Davies & Lindsay, 2001; Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn,Costa, & Turbin, 1995; McClelland & Judd, 1993). In the aggregate, thesmall magnitude of the moderating effects suggests that our resultsshould be interpreted with caution until they are replicated.

These limitations notwithstanding, the conceptual value of this studylies in its attempt to generate and test three specific gender hypotheses de-rived from the integration of gender role and family theories. To ourknowledge, this was the first study to simultaneously delineate whetherchild gender, parent gender, and the combination of parent and child gen-der moderated the effects of interparental discord on parenting practices.The results of this study indicated that the heterogeneity in prospectivelinkages between interparental discord and parenting difficulties may beattributable, in part, to the moderating role of child gender. Furthermore,differences in the moderating role of gender across parenting practiceshighlight the importance of distinguishing between specific parentingcharacteristics in examining gender differences in family pathways. In fu-ture research, cataloging the role of gender in interdependencies amonginterparental and parent – child subsystems will remain an important em-pirical task. However, progress in understanding the role of gender in thefamily will ultimately hinge on identifying the mechanisms that accountfor why the link between interparental discord and parenting difficultiesdiffers as a function of gender.

AFFILIATIONS AND ADDRESSES

Melissa Sturge-Apple, Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psy-chology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, 14627. E-mail:[email protected]. Patrick T. Davies is at the University ofRochester. Steven M. Boker and E. Mark Cummings are at the University ofNotre Dame.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health(Project R01 MH57318) awarded to Patrick T. Davies and E. MarkCummings. Melissa Sturge-Apple was supported by the National Instituteof Mental Health (F32 MH66596). The authors are grateful to the children,parents, teachers, and school administrators who participated in this pro-ject. Their gratitude is also expressed to the staff who assisted on variousstages of the project, including: Courtney Forbes, Marcie Goeke-Morey,Amy Keller, Michelle Sutton, and the graduate and undergraduate stu-dents at the University of Rochester and University of Notre Dame.

REFERENCES

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 User’s Guide. Chicago: Smallwaters Corpora-tion.

Belsky, J., Youngblade, L., Rovine, M., & Volling, B. (1991).Patterns of marital change and par-ent-child interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 487–498.

Brody, G. H., Arias, I., & Fincham, F. (1996). Linking marital and child attributions to familyprocesses and parent-child relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 408–421.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen &J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cohn, L. D. (1991). Sex differences in the course of personality development: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 109, 252–266.

Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1992). When partners become parents: The big life change for couples.New York: Basic Books.

Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Kerig, P. K. (1993). Mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters: Gen-der differences in family formation and parenting style. In P. A. Cowan, D. Field, D.Hansen, A. Skolnick, & G. Swanson (Eds.), Family, self and society: Toward a new agenda forfamily research (pp. 165–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cox, M., Paley, B., & Harter, K. (2001). Interparental conflict and parent-child relationships. InJ. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development (pp. 249–272).New York: Cambridge.

Cummings, E. M., & O’Reilly, A. W. (1997). Fathers in family context: Effects of marital qualityon child adjustment. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp.49–65). New York: Wiley.

Dadds, M. R., Sheffield, J. K., & Holbeck, J. F. (1990) An examination of the differential rela-tionship of marital discord to parents’ discipline strategies for boys and girls. Journal of Ab-normal Child Psychology, 18, 121–129.

Davies, P. T., & Lindsay, L. (2001). Does gender moderate the effects of conflict on children? InJ. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Child development and interparental conflict (pp. 64–97).New York: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, P. T., Sturge-Apple, M. L., & Cummings, E. M. (in press). Interdependencies amonginterparental discord and parenting practices: The role of adult attributes and relationshipcharacteristics. Developmental Psychopathology.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

El-Sheikh, M. (1994). Children’s emotional and physiological responses to interadult angrybehavior: The role of history of interparental hostility. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,22, 661–678.

Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce. Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 92, 310–330.

Engfer, A. (1988). The interrelatedness of marriage and the mother-child relationship. In R.Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp.83–103). New York: Oxford University Press.

Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations:A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108–132.

Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., & Bernzweig, J. (1990). Coping with children’s negative emotions scale(CCNES): Description and scoring . Tempe: Arizona State University.

Fabes, R. A., Poulin, R., Eisenberg, N., & Madden-Derdich, D. (2002). The coping with nega-tive emotions scale: Psychometric properties and relations with social competence. Mar-riage & Family Review, 34, 3–11.

Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A., & Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model of the im-pact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The roleof disrupted parenting. Child Development, 61, 1112–1123.

Grych, J. H. (2002). Marital relationships and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook ofparenting (2nd ed., pp. 203–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspec-tive: The children’s perception of interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63, 558–572.

Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J., Vanderryn, J., Costa, F. M., & Turbin, M. S. (1995). Protective factorsin adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change. Develop-mental Psychology, 31, 923–933.

Jouriles, E. N., & LeCompte, S. H. (1991). Husbands’ aggression toward wives and mothers’and fathers’ aggression toward children: Moderating effects of child gender. Journal ofConsulting & Clinical Psychology, 59, 190–192.

Jouriles, E., & Norwood, W. D. (1995). Physical aggression towards boys and girls in familiescharacterized by the battering of women. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 69–78.

Jouriles, E. N., Pfiffner, L. J., & O’Leary, S. G. (1988). Marital conflict, parenting, and toddlerconduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 197–206.

Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1996). Spillover effects of marital conflict: In search of parentingand coparenting mechanisms. New Directions for Child Development, 74, 57–76.

Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Buffering children from marital conflict and dissolution,Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 157–171.

Kerig, P. K., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (1993). Marital quality and gender differences inparent-child interaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 931–939.

Laumakis, M. A., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1998). The emotional, cognitive and coping re-sponses of preadolescent children to different dimensions of marital conflict. In G. W.Holden & R. Geffner (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence: Theory, research, and appliedissues (pp. 257–288). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1996) Marital interaction: Physiological linkage and affec-tive exchange. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 45, 587–597.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

Malik, N. M., & Lindahl, K. M. (1996). System for coding interactions in dyads (SCID). Unpub-lished manual, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.

Margolies, P., & Weintraub, S. (1977). The revised 56-item CRPBI as a research instrument: Re-liability and factor structure. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 262–271.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and

moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.McHale, J. P. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital

distress and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 31, 85–996.O’Leary, K. D. (1984). Marital discord and children: Problems, strategies, methodologies, and

results. New Directions for Child Development, 24, 35–46.Osborne, L. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1996). Marital conflict, parent-child relationships, and child

adjustment: Does gender matter? Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 42, 48–75.Owen, M. T., & Cox, M. J. (1997). Marital conflict and the development of infant-parent attach-

ment relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 152–164.Pettit, G. S., & Laird, R. D. (2002). Psychological control and monitoring in early adolescence:

The role of parental involvement and earlier child adjustment. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intru-sive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 97–123). Wash-ington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pettit, G. S., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Criss, M. (2001). Antecedents and behav-ior-problem outcomes of parental monitoring and psychological control in early adoles-cence. Child Development, 72, 583–598.

Porter, B., & O’Leary, K. D. (1980). Marital discord and childhood behavior problems. Journalof Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 287–295.

Schludermann, E., & Schludermann, S. (1970). Replicability of factors in children’s report ofparent behavior (CRPBI). Journal of Psychology, 76, 239–249.

Schwarz, J. C., Barton-Henry, M. L., & Pruzinsky, T. (1985) Assessing child-rearing behaviors:A comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child, and sibling on the CRPBI. Child De-velopment, 56, 462–479.

Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., & Burke, M. (1989). Marital quality, depression and inconsistentparenting: Relationship with observed mother-child conflict. American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry, 59, 105–117.

Thompson, E., & Walker, A. (1989). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work,and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 845–872.

Zahn-Waxler, C. (1993). Warriors and worriers: Gender and psychopathology. Developmentand Psychopathology, 10, 61–85.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 07:

55 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

011

Interparental Discord and Parenting: Testing the Moderating Roles of Child and Parent Gender

Documents

Transcript of Interparental Discord and Parenting: Testing the Moderating Roles of Child and Parent Gender