A Longitudinal Study of Interparental Conflict, Emotional and Behavioral
Reactivity, and Preschoolers’ Adjustment Problems Among
Low-Income Families
The deleterious effects of conflict
on children are reflected in the long history of research documenting the
positive relationship between interparental conflict
and child adjustment problems. Parental
discord has been associated with a wide range of negative outcomes in children,
including externalizing (Jenkins & Smith, 1991; Jouriles,
Murphy, & O’Leary, 1989) and internalizing behavior problems (Johnston,
Gonzalez, & Campbell, 1987; Long, Slater, Forehand, & Fauber, 1988). In
addition, parental conflict has been shown to be related to poor child outcomes
across different family structures, including divorced, separated, and
two-parent samples (Emery, 1988; Grych & Fincham, 1990).
In recent decades, researchers have
turned from documenting the relationship between conflict and behavior problems
to establishing possible mechanisms by which these factors are related. Davies and Cummings (1994) have proposed a
model based on emotional-security, which hypothesizes that children are
distressed by interparental conflict because it
threatens their sense of emotional security, either by threatening personal
safety, or threatening their relationship with caretakers. Thus, conflict is highly aversive,
and children are motivated to react emotionally and instrumentally to reduce
their distress. Behaviors that succeed
in reducing distress are maintained and repeated at future exposures to
conflict. Over time, children’s negative
reactions to witnessing parental conflict may become automatic, and generalize
to other conflict situations such as with teachers or peers. Thus, Davies and Cummings hypothesize that
exposure to high levels of interparental conflict
jeopardizes children’s emotional security, which in turn increases their risk
for developing behavior problems.
A large body of research, primarily
conducted by Cummings, Davies, and colleagues, has demonstrated that children
exhibit significant emotional and behavioral reactions when exposed to interadult conflict in analogue experiments. In these studies, specific types of coping
styles (e.g., preoccupation/vigilance, aggression) have been related to interparental conflict (Cummings, Ianotti,
& Zahn-Waxler, 1985; Cummings, Vogel, Cummings,
J.S., & El-Sheik; 1989; Cummings & Davies, 1998; J. S. Cummings, Pelligrini, Notarius, &
Cummings, 1989; Jenkins, Smith, & Graham, 1989). However, the majority of the studies have
examined these processes in relatively small samples of married, middle-class,
primarily Caucasian families using cross-sectional designs. Furthermore, less work has investigated these
processes in preschool age children in relation to child adjustment
problems.
In the context of more severe family
adversity, it is unclear whether relations between children’s reactivity and
parental conflict would be similar. It
has been hypothesized that low-income parents are faced with unique stressors
(e.g., fewer childcare resources, more crowded living space; Sameroff, 1983) that may contribute to increased interparental tension and aggression (Emery, 1988;
Hennessy, Rabideau, Cicchetti,
& Cummings, 1994; McLoyd, 1990),
that in turn, affects children’s adjustment. Relatively few studies are available that
focus on the effects of marital discord in low SES families even though lower
SES has been associated with increased physical aggression between partners and
higher rates of child behavior problems (Straus, 1991; for exceptions, see
Cummings, Hennessy, Rabideau, & Cicchetti, 1994b).
Perhaps relations between conflict and reactivity are stronger, given
the potentially higher occurrence of interparental
violence in these contexts. Still, it is
possible that for children living in high risk environments, characterized by a
myriad of other anxiety-provoking stimuli (e.g., harsh parenting, exposure to
neighborhood violence; McLoyd, 1990), parental conflict may be less strongly associated with the
development of emotional security and child psychopathology. In contrast, for middle-class children,
parental conflict may stand out because of its high intensity relative to other
interactions children have at home, and its direct challenge to children’s
emotional security.
The present study examines the
utility of the emotional security model in a relatively large sample of
children at risk for child psychopathology.
The sample included only boys because the study’s original intent was to
investigate externalizing problems, for which boys are at higher risk than
girls. Previous research also suggests a
more consistent relationship between exposure to parental discord and behavior
problems for boys (Emery & O’Leary, 1980; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox,
1982; Porter & O’Leary, 1980), and an increased tendency for boys to
perceive threat in reaction to interparental conflict
(Cummings, Davies, & Simpson, 1994a).
This study seeks to replicate the previous findings that emotional and
behavioral reactivity to exposure to conflict is related to both history of interparental conflict and the development of behavior
problems. The present investigation adds
to prior research by: 1) investigating this model in a high-risk sample of
young children; 2) examining longitudinal relations among these three
constructs across a three year period; and 3) examining direct, additive, and interactive
(i.e., moderating) effects in addition to mediating effects of reactivity on
the relation between interparental discord and
behavior problems. Additionally,
secondary hypotheses regarding the effects of persistence of interparental conflict over time on children’s reactivity
and behavior problems are examined.
Interparental Conflict, Children’s Reactions to
Conflict, and Child Adjustment Over Time
Although parenting practices,
attachment history, and affective quality of other relationships in the family
are also hypothesized to affect emotional security, the central component of
the emotional security model involves the history of interparental
conflict. Davies and Cummings (1994)
have proposed that children’s emotional security is most compromised by
destructive interparental relations in the early
years. There is consistent support from
longitudinal studies of divorce (Hetherington et al., 1982) for the hypothesis
that long-term exposure to parental conflict affects children more adversely
than less frequent or intense exposure.
Other longitudinal studies of child development and parent-parent
relations have also demonstrated a higher risk for negative outcomes (e.g.,
behavior problems) when interparental conflict was
frequent, intense, and experienced over a long period of time (Chess, Thomas, Mittelman, Korn, & Cohen,
1983; Crockenberg & Forgays,
1996; Katz & Gottman, 1995).
Cummings, Davies, and others have
posited that repeated exposure to interparental
discord affects children by sensitizing them to conflict, whereby their
responses are intensified at subsequent exposure (Davies & Cummings, 1994;
El-Sheikh & Cummings, 1992; Zillman, 1983). Therefore, one might expect that children who
have been exposed to a longer, more persistent history of interparental
conflict may be particularly at risk for developing behavior problems because
of increased opportunities to witness and become emotionally aroused by
negative interactions. There is some
evidence that children’s reactivity differs as a function of history of marital
conflict. In a study of 4 to 9 year-old
children and their responses to background anger involving their mother, J.S.
Cummings and colleagues (1989) found that certain response strategies were
predicted by reports of recent physical and verbal aggression witnessed between
their parents. However, they did not
assess how long the children had been experiencing conflict in the home. It is possible that children who have been
witnesses of chronic conflict might exhibit different, and perhaps more
maladaptive, response strategies than children who have witnessed less
prolonged conflict. Little is known
about the cumulative effects of exposure to conflict and consequent child
reactivity.
Although direct relations between interparental conflict, child reactivity, and behavior
problems are hypothesized in the emotional security model, only one study has
found significant relations among these three constructs. Cummings and Davies (1998) demonstrated
direct, cross-sectional associations among destructive parental conflict, child
reactivity when exposed to an interadult conflict
paradigm (as reflected by observed vigilance, distress, and hostility), and
children’s externalizing and internalizing behavior problems in a sample of 6
to 9 year-old children. Structural
equation modeling supported their hypothesis that emotional reactivity
partially mediated the relation between conflict and child adjustment. The mediational
model was more strongly predictive of children’s internalizing symptoms than
externalizing problems.
However, other studies have shown
mixed results. O’Brien, Margolin, and John (1995) investigated the relations among
preadolescent children’s reports of the frequency and intensity of interparental conflict they witnessed, their coping
strategies, and symptoms of behavior problems.
They found that while children’s ratings of marital conflict were not
significantly correlated with child coping strategies, self-reported coping
responses were significantly related to behavior problems.
Additionally, there is some evidence
to suggest that hypothesized patterns among interparental
conflict, emotional reactivity, and child adjustment may vary across different
contexts. For example, Cummings and
colleagues (1994b) found that physically abused boys from low-income families
exhibited higher frequencies of certain types of reactions to interadult anger (i.e., coping, aggression) than nonabused boys. In
this small sample, physical abuse status contributed to the prediction of
reactivity above and beyond that of concurrent interspousal
conflict. Therefore, it is possible that
experiencing more chronic and violent interparental
conflict may affect children’s proneness to distress when exposed to
anger. An extensive history of interparental conflict and proneness to reactivity in
response to conflict may interact in a synergistic way to leave children
vulnerable for the development of behavior problems. For example, a child who has witnessed
extensive aggression and violence between his parents and exhibits high
levels of distress or maladaptive coping responses to threatening stimuli may
be more likely to show elevated levels of behavior problems than a child who
experiences only one of these risk factors (e.g., high interparental
conflict but low reactivity). For
children who are more likely to be exposed to many other risk factors (e.g.,
depression, poor parent-child relations, dangerous neighborhood environments),
such as those from low-income backgrounds (McLoyd,
1990; Furstenberg, 1993), perhaps being exposed to interparental
conflict or being prone to exhibit distress and poor coping response alone does
not result in behavior problems.
Alternatively, perhaps in the context of poverty, interparental
conflict is relatively less salient because it is one of several challenges to
the child’s psychological and/or physical well-being on a daily basis (e.g.,
harsh parenting; Brooks-Gunn & Furstenberg, 1987).
In sum, the data suggest that
children’s emotional and behavioral reactions to interparental
conflict are often related to dimensions of interparental
discord and child behavior problems.
However, the validity of this model is yet to be established in
longitudinal studies using at-risk children.
The aim of this study is to examine the longitudinal relations among interparental conflict, children’s responses to interadult anger, and child behavior problems in a
low-income sample of preschool boys. As
hypothesized by Davies and Cummings (1994), it was expected that destructive interparental conflict, children’s reactivity to interadult anger, and child behavior problems would be
positively associated. Interparental conflict was assessed at ages 2 and 3-1/2,
emotional reactivity and behavioral response to interadult
conflict was assessed at age 3-1/2, and internalizing and externalizing
behavior problem scores were assessed by maternal report at age 3-1/2, and by
both mothers and fathers at age 5. In
order to explore potential differences in these relations, two additional
questions were examined. First, was
chronic and persistent interparental conflict over
the preschool years predictive of child emotional reactivity to anger and/or
adjustment problems? Second, did
reactivity moderate relations between conflict and behavior problems (i.e.,
interact to account for variance in behavior problems, above and beyond that
explained by their direct effects)?
Method
Subjects
Subjects were recruited from Women, Infant,
and Children Nutritional Supplement Program (WIC) clinics in the metropolitan
Pittsburgh area. The WIC program
provides financial and nutritional resources to low-income families. Mothers with young boys between 6 and 17
months of age and another sibling living at home were asked to participate in a
longitudinal study examining the development of behavior problems in young
children (Shaw, Winslow, Owens, & Hood, 1998). Participants in this study included a subset
of the 310 sample participants, 129 participants who lived in two-parent
families throughout the data collection period.
The sample was restricted to two-parent families in order to increase
the homogeneity of family structure and to allow for comparison with previous
studies (J.S. Cummings et al., 1989; Cummings et al., 1994b), and to those with
complete data across the three assessments.
Thus, the sample was comprised of families in which the mothers were
married or lived with a partner and completed the ages 2 and 3-1/2 assessments,
and for which at least one report of the child’s behavioral adjustment at age 5
was available. The sample primarily
consisted of Caucasian and African-American families (77% and 20%,
respectively, 3% other). At the age 2 visit, mothers’ and fathers’ average educational level was
12.6 years, and the mean family income for the subsample
was $1360 per month. At recruitment, the
per capita income for the entire sample was $2892 (approximately $11, 616 per
year for a family of four). This amount
was well below national poverty level standards (i.e., $13,924 for a family of
four; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991).
Families that were included in the present analyses differed from those
not included on a few demographic characteristics; they had significantly
higher socioeconomic status scores and were more likely to be European American
than African American.
Procedures
The age 2 assessment
was comprised of two parts. The first
part took place in the family’s home, during which mothers completed
questionnaires. Mothers and their sons
were then escorted to the laboratory, whereupon mothers completed additional
questionnaires. The age 3-1/2 assessment
consisted of one laboratory visit. It
began with the mother and examiner completing questionnaires while the target
child played with a set of toys. As part
of both the age 2 and 3-1/2 assessments, the mother and son were asked to
perform various structured tasks. Of
these, one is of interest in the present study.
At the age 3-1/2 session, as he played with a set of toys, the target
child was exposed to experimental manipulations of background friendly, angry,
and apologetic interactions involving the examiner and his mother (J.S.
Cummings et al., 1989). Both laboratory
assessments were videotaped through a one-way mirror.
At the age 5 assessment,
each mother was interviewed about her child’s behavior in the home, and whenever
possible, a second assessment involving the father and/or alternate caregiver
was carried out approximately two weeks later.
For some subjects for whom second assessments were not possible, fathers
completed questionnaires sent by mail.
Attrition for the entire sample from ages 2 to 5 was low, with some data
available on 95.2% of the sample at the 5 year assessment. Data were available from the husband or
partner living in the home for 97 of the 129 two-parent families (75%).
Measures
Self-Report
Hollingshead Four Factor Index of Social Status (Hollingshead,
1975). Mothers provided information about their own
and their partner’s educational level and employment at the age 2 assessment. The Hollingshead index is widely used, and allows for calculation
of socioeconomic status scores for both one- and two-parent families. The index has been shown to be highly
correlated with an occupation index designed by the National Opinion Research
Center (r=.92).
Child-Rearing Disagreements Scale (CRDS) (Jouriles
et al., 1991). The CRDS consists of 30
items regarding child-rearing issues about which caregivers commonly
disagree. This questionnaire was
administered when the child was 2 years old.
Caregivers indicate how often they have disagreed about each issue in
the past 6 months, as well as how often the child witnessed those
disagreements. The measure results in
two scores: overall frequency of disagreements between caregivers, and
frequency of child-witnessed disagreements.
In order to strengthen the construct and because the two scores were
highly intercorrelated (r=.89), the sum of the
frequency and exposure scores were used.
The CRDS demonstrates high reliability, correlates significantly with
other measures of marital functioning, and has been found to account for unique
variance in child problem behavior after accounting for the general marital
satisfaction (Jouriles et al., 1991). Cronbach’s alpha
for the CRDS is .86 (Jouriles et al., 1991).
Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS-Form N) (Straus, 1979). The CTS assesses the use of verbal reasoning,
verbal aggression, and violence within the family. This questionnaire was administered at the
age 3-1/2 visit. The CTS consists of 26
items, which measure the frequency of conflict resolution tactics used by
partners over the past year. For each
item, the subject also reports how often the child witnesses the behavior. Although the CTS yields several factors, verbal
and physical aggression are the factors most consistently related to behavior
problems (Fantuzzo et al., 1991) and have been shown
to be associated with child responses to conflict (J. S. Cummings et al., 1989;
E. M. Cummings et al., 1994b). Thus, to
better capture the level of verbal and physical aggression, we used the
sum of four factor scores: Frequency and Exposure to Verbal Aggression and
Physical Aggression. These factors were
moderately to highly intercorrelated (r’s ranged from .37 to .83). The CTS is widely used and has been
demonstrated to have adequate reliability and validity. The alpha coefficients for the Verbal and
Physical Aggression subscales are high (ranging from .77 - .88) in large
nationally represented samples (Straus, 1979; Straus, 1991).
Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 2-3
and 4-11 (CBCL)
(Achenbach, 1991; 1992). The CBCL for ages 2-3 (consisting
of 108 items) and for ages 4-11 (consisting of 112 items) assesses behavioral
and emotional problems in young children.
The age 2-3 CBCL was completed by the mother at the age 3-1/2
assessment, and the age 4-11 version was completed by caregivers at the 5 year
assessment. Two broad-band factors,
Internalizing and Externalizing problems, are derived
from the measure, and were utilized in the present study. Both factors show high validity and
reliability (see Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell,
1987, for a review).
Behavioral Observation
Anger Exposure Paradigm (J.S. Cummings et al., 1989).
This measure involves exposing the child to experimentally-manipulated
background emotions. At the age 3-1/2
visit, a 15-minute version of the paradigm was used in which the child
witnessed three types of live interactions between his mother and the examiner:
friendly, angry, and apologetic. Mothers
were used as confederates in the procedure.
During the interaction, the child had access to various toys (e.g., Bobo doll, medical kit, animals). The three emotion simulation periods lasted
1½-minutes. Each simulation period was
followed by a 3-minute interval in which the examiner was not in the room. The examiner and mother amiably discussed
instructions for questionnaires during the first simulation. During the second simulation, the examiner
entered the room and became verbally angry at the mother, accusing the mother
of being late to the session and forgetting to complete questionnaires. Mothers were instructed not to respond and
not to laugh during the anger simulation.
After 3 minutes, the examiner re-entered the room for the third
simulation and apologized for becoming angry.
During the intervals in which the examiner was not in the room, mothers
were instructed to respond naturally to their child, but were asked to not
initiate interaction. Interactions were
videotaped for later coding.
Children’s responses to the
background emotion simulations were coded by the first author and two trained
research assistants who were blind to the child’s parental status and behavior
problem scores. Consultation on
behavioral codes was provided by E. Mark Cummings. As in previous research (see J.S. Cummings et
al., 1989; Cummings et al., 1994b), data were grouped for analysis into three 4
½-minute periods: friendly, angry, and
resolution. Each period consisted of
nine 30-second intervals, for which the presence or absence of 19 observable
behaviors was coded (e.g., observing interaction, expressing concern about
conflict, crying).
Seventeen of these behavioral codes directly correspond to those
observed in the study by J. S. Cummings and colleagues (1989). Two additional behaviors were coded (interrupting
the interaction and object aggression) based on the findings of E. M. Cummings
and colleagues (Cummings et al., 1994b) and the suggestion of Dr.
Cummings. The scheme of one-zero coding
for each period was chosen due to the relatively brief periods, infrequency of
behaviors observed within each period, and for comparability to the previously
mentioned studies. The frequencies of
these coping behaviors during the angry period were summed and collapsed into four
specific a priori sub-factors based on previous research and
consultation with Dr. Cummings -- preoccupation with conflict, active concern,
intervention, and aggression (Cummings et al., 1994b; J.S. Cummings et al.,
1989; O’Brien et al., 1995). Twenty-three
percent of the larger sample, or 30 tapes, were rated by two or more
independent observers in order to determine interrater
reliability. The overall Cohen’s kappa
coefficient, computed based on the overall rates of agreements on occurrence,
agreements on nonoccurrence, and disagreements (occurrence/ nonoccurrence;
nonoccurrence/occurrence), equaled .82. Kappas for each individual code across all periods attained
“fair” to “good” levels, ranging from .48 to 1.00 (Bakeman
& Gottman, 1987; J. S. Cummings et al.,
1989). In addition, confirmatory factor
analyses were performed to ascertain that the present factors were appropriate,
discriminating, and consistent with other research. The factor analyses were supportive of the
current factor structure (behavioral codes exhibited loadings of at least .3 or
higher on designated factors).
In order to demonstrate that the
angry interaction was emotionally distressing to the children, comparisons of
means of each factor score across the three periods were conducted with
ANOVAs. For three of the four factors
(i.e., preoccupation/distress, active concern, and aggression), means were
higher in the angry period than the resolution period. However, only two of the four factors
demonstrated significantly higher means in the angry versus the friendly and
resolution periods: preoccupation with conflict and active concern (F =
15.33, p < .001; and F = 4.38; p < .01,
respectively, both significantly different from other periods at the p
< .05 level using Tukey’s HSD). Thus, these two factor scores were used to
examine differences in types of coping in the following analyses (See Table 1
for description of factors). Children
who were hypervigilant but not verbally expressive in
their reactions had higher scores on the preoccupation/distress factor, while
those children who were more verbally dysregulated
and sought out attention from their mother had the highest scores on the active
concern factor. One code, expressing
concern about the questionnaires, did not occur across any period within the subsample, and another code, comforting mother physically,
did not distinguish across periods.
Thus, these codes, along with the intervention factor, were not included
in analyses.
______________________________
Insert Table 1 about here
______________________________
Results
Results are presented in four stages:
(1) descriptive statistics for the independent and dependent measures, (2)
direct relations among parental conflict, observed emotional and behavioral
response to conflict, and behavior problems, (3) the effects of persistence of interparental conflict on child emotional reactivity and
behavior problems, and (4) mediating and moderating (interactive) effects of interparental conflict and child emotional and behavioral
response on child adjustment.
Descriptive statistics for ratings of
interparental conflict at ages 2 and 3-1/2, observed
emotional and behavioral factors from the anger paradigm at age 3-1/2, and
mother- and father-rated behavior problem scores at ages 3-1/2 and 5 are
presented in Table 2. On a few measures
which have been used in prior research, subjects’ scores differed from the
normative samples. The average scores
for Verbal and Physical Aggression on the CTS at age 3-1/2 were at the 80th and
90th percentiles, respectively (Straus, 1979). Approximately half (52%) of the subsample reported some physically aggressive behavior
between partners. In addition, mother-
and father-ratings of externalizing behavior problems at age 5 were .4 to .6
standard deviations higher than the national average. Additionally, the sample’s average
socioeconomic status was low (i.e., semi-skilled workers; Hollingshead,
1975). These scores reflect the
presence of significant risk factors for behavior problems in this sample. Subjects’ scores on other measures fell
within the normative range.
______________________________
Insert Table 2 about here
______________________________
Relations between interparental conflict, child reactivity to observed conflict, and child
adjustment
Pearson Correlation Coefficients were
used to test the hypothesis that interparental
conflict scores at ages 2 and 3-1/2, child reactions to observed conflict at
age 3-1/2, and child adjustment problems at ages 3-1/2 and 5 would be
positively related. Table 3 summarizes
these correlations. Relations among
predictor and child outcome factors and SES were also computed to test for
“third variable” effects; however, no significant relations with SES
emerged. Age 2 and age 3-1/2 interparental conflict scores were associated (r=.43,
p < .01), suggesting moderate stability across the 1-1/2 year
period. Both age 2 and age 3-1/2
conflict scores were positively correlated with ratings of concurrent and later
behavior problems, ranging from .10 to .30 (11 of the 12 correlations were
significant at at least the p < .05
level). Overall, reactivity to conflict
was not related to ratings of interparental conflict
(correlations ranged from -.14 to .11, all ns). Reactivity to conflict was also not
consistently related to ratings of behavior problems.
______________________________
Insert Table 3 about here
______________________________
Effects of Persistence of Parental Conflict on Child
Adjustment and Reactivity
The hypothesis that associations
between conflict and adjustment problems would be greater for those subjects
who had experienced a longer history of, and high
levels of parental discord was explored next.
A series of hierarchical regressions was performed in which child
behavior problems at ages 3-1/2 and 5 were predicted by entering the age 2 and
age 3-1/2 conflict scores individually and then their interaction term. After entry of main effects, interaction
terms of the two conflict measures contributed significantly to mother’s ratings
of internalizing (multiple R = .34; R2 = .11; R2
change = .05, p < .01) and externalizing (multiple R = .33, R2
= .11, R2 change = .05, p < .01) behavior problems
at age 3-1/2. Likewise, significant
interactive effects of the parental conflict measures were demonstrated for
maternal ratings of internalizing (multiple R = .41; R2
= .17, R2 change = .07, p < .01) and externalizing
(multiple R = .42, R2 = .17, R2
change = .06, p < .01) behavior problems at age 5.
In follow-up analyses, patterns of
interaction effects were examined using a method described by Aiken and West
(1991). To examine the interaction
between interparental conflict at ages 2 and 3.5,
each behavior problem score was regressed on parental conflict at age 2, at 1
standard deviation above and below the mean of parental conflict at age
3.5. The resulting simple slopes were
then plotted at 1 standard deviation above and below the mean of interparental conflict at age 2. These analyses resulted in similar patterns
for internalizing and externalizing behavior problems at ages 3-1/2 and 5. Figure 1 demonstrates the interactive effects
of parental conflict on externalizing problems at age 5, which indicates that
behavior problem scores were lower only for those children experiencing low
levels of interparental conflict at both age 2 and
age 3-1/2, t = 3.30, p < .01.
At high levels of parental conflict at age 3-1/2, changes in behavior
problem scores were nonsignificant, t = -.25, ns. The size of the difference in externalizing
behavior problem scores between low and high interparental
conflict at ages 2 and 3-1/2 was about .7 standard deviations. Follow-up tests for internalizing problems at
age 3-1/2 and age 5 and externalizing problems at age 3-1/2 (not shown here)
demonstrated comparable findings -- those children with low parental conflict
scores at both time points had significantly lower behavior problem scores than
those experiencing high conflict at one or both time points. While main effects of interparental
conflict at age 2 and/or age 3-1/2 on father’s CBCL ratings at age 5 were
significant, interaction effects were not.
As with the hypothesized relations
between persistence of conflict and behavior problems, it was expected that
associations between emotional and behavioral reactivity to exposure to
conflict and interparental conflict would be greater
for those experiencing more persistent conflict. This hypothesis was tested using the method
described above. First, a series of regressions
were computed in which the two reactivity factors, preoccupation with conflict
and active concern, were predicted by entering the conflict scores at age 2 and
age 3-1/2 individually, and finally, entering their interaction term into
hierarchical regressions. Neither reactivity factor was predicted by the independent
variables and no interactions between the two conflict scores predicted
significant variance above and beyond that already accounted for by the other
variables.
Interactive Effects of Parental Conflict and Child Reactivity
on Child Adjustment
Based on previous research (Cummings,
Zahn-Waxler, & Radke-Yarrow,
1981; 1998), it was expected that reactivity to conflict would mediate the
relations between conflict and child behavior problems, both concurrently and
longitudinally. However, the mediating
hypothesis could not be tested because no positive associations between
reactivity to the anger exposure procedure and interparental
conflict were found, and only a few weak associations between aggression (which
did not discriminate across simulation periods) and mother-rated externalizing
behavior problems were evident (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Nonetheless, a theoretically-based hypothesis
regarding the potential interactive (i.e., moderating) effects of reactivity
and interparental conflict in predicting behavior
problems was investigated. Hierarchical
regressions were computed in which mother’s and father’s reports (examined
separately) of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems at ages 3-1/2
and 5 were predicted by entering first the individual interparental
conflict scores at age 2 and age 3-1/2, then the reactivity factor score (e.g.,
preoccupation/distress or active concern), then each of the resulting two-way
interaction terms, and lastly, the three-way interaction.
The most robust findings were
demonstrated for those regressions utilizing the active concern factor in
predicting maternal ratings of externalizing problems (see Table 4). Main effects for parental conflict at age 2
were demonstrated for both behavior problems at age 3-1/2 (R=.22, R2
change=.04, p < .05) and age 5 (R=.27, R2
change =.07, p < .01), and for age 3-1/2 parental conflict on
externalizing problems at age 5 (R=.33, R2 change=.04,
p < .05). Main effects for the
active concern factor were not significant when entered following the conflict
scores at ages 2 and 3-1/2. The
interaction between conflict at age 2 and age 3-1/2 contributed significant
variance to the prediction of externalizing problems at age 3-1/2 (R=.36,
R2 change=.04, p < .05) and age 5 (R=.42, R2
change=.18, p < .01). When
added last, the three-way interaction between interparental
conflict at ages 2 and 3-1/2 and active concern contributed unique variance to
ratings of externalizing problems at age 3-1/2, but not at age 5. Similar patterns for maternal ratings of
internalizing problems were demonstrated:
significant main effects for interparental
conflict at ages 2 and 3-1/2, significant interactive effects for interparental conflict at two time points for predicting
both age 3-1/2 and age 5 internalizing problems, and a significant three-way
interactive effect for internalizing problems at 3-1/2.
______________________________
Insert Table 4 about here
______________________________
To understand the nature of these
effects, follow-up simple slope analyses were computed as described above. In order to ensure that the extreme values in
the simple slope analyses represented adequate numbers of children, significant
effects were detected and plotted at .75 standard deviations above and below
predictor mean values (Aiken & West, 1991).
The pattern of the interaction is depicted in Figure 2. A test of the significance of the slopes
indicated that as levels of parental conflict at age 2 increased, ratings of
externalizing problems increased for children who exhibited high active concern
and experienced low parental conflict at age 3-1/2, t = 2.71, p
< .01. The lowest score was
demonstrated by the children who were low on parental conflict at age 3-1/2 and
exhibited less active concern, with increasing levels of parental conflict at
age 2 associated with higher externalizing scores, t =1.84, p
< .10. Other slopes were not
significantly different from zero. These
effects were similar for internalizing problems. The pattern suggests that experiencing either
interparental conflict at age 2 or at age 3-1/2 and
exhibiting high active concern at age 3-1/2 or interparental
conflict at both time points regardless of reactivity, increases vulnerability
for behavior problems. Children who
experienced low levels of interparental conflict at
both age 2 and age 3-1/2 had the lowest externalizing scores. The results are consistent with a
multiplicative-effects model; the presence of two of the three risk factors
(high interparental conflict at age 2, age 3-1/2, or
high reactivity) predicted greater problem scores than having one risk factor
alone.
______________________________
Insert Figure 2 about here
_______________________________
Regression analyses of interactive
effects of interparental conflict and active concern
on paternal ratings of behavior problems at age 5 showed both similarities and
differences to maternal ratings. For
both internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, main effects of interparental conflict at age 2 were demonstrated (R=.22,
R2=.05, R2 change = .05, p < .05
for internalizing scores; R=.29, R2=.08, R2
change=.08, p < .01 for externalizing scores). In addition, the interaction between interparental conflict at age 3-1/2 and active concern
accounted for a significant amount of variance in internalizing problems (R=.33,
R2 = .11, R2 change=.05, p < .05)
and a trend level amount of variance in externalizing problems (R=.41, R2=.17,
R2 change=.03, p < .10). Simple slope analyses of these effects showed
that experiencing both high interparental conflict at
age 3-1/2 and high active concern in response to the anger paradigm elevated
the risk for paternal ratings of behavior problems at age 5 (the predicted
score for this configuration was approximately .5 standard deviation larger
than the next highest score).
As with active concern, significant
main and interactive effects for the interparental
conflict scores were found in analyses utilizing the preoccupation/distress
factor and interparental conflict scores in
predicting maternal and paternal ratings of behavior problems. Surprisingly, the preoccupation/distress
factor did not contribute unique variance, and no two-way or the three-way
interaction terms involving the preoccupation/distress factor were significant.
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to
examine the longitudinal relations among interparental
conflict, emotional and behavioral reactions to conflict, and the development
of behavior problems in preschool-age, at-risk children. As expected, rates of interparental
conflict were positively related to both concurrent and later behavior
problems, according to ratings of child behavior by mothers and fathers among
two-parent families. The strength of the
relations was consistent with concurrent relations reported for other smaller,
preschool-age samples (Fantuzzo et al., 1991; Jouriles, Pfiffner, &
O’Leary, 1988) and for samples of older children and adolescents (Cummings
& Davies, 1998; Jenkins & Smith, 1991; Rossman
& Rosenberg; 1992). Additionally,
patterns of parental conflict over time had important effects in predicting
child adjustment; although a different pattern than expected emerged. Analyses indicated a significant decrease in
behavior problems as a function of the level of conflict, with those
experiencing the least persistent conflict having the lowest rates of
mother-reported behavior problems at age 3-½ and 5. A pattern of high conflict at one or both
time points did result in elevated problem scores (generally about .5 standard
deviations higher than normative samples), but these differences were not
statistically significant. These
findings are important because they suggest a protective effect of low levels
of conflict over time not previously documented for preschool-age children (Strassberg, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992). Thus, this study supports the notion that
children exposed to interparental conflict in the
early years of life are negatively affected by it, and suggests that low levels
of conflict may protect against later behavior problems.
This study also attempted to
replicate previous findings documenting direct positive associations between interparental conflict and children’s reactions to observed
anger in two-parent families (Cummings et al., 1985; Cummings & Davies,
1998; J.S. Cummings et al., 1989; Davies & Cummings, 1994). Hypotheses based on an emotional-security
model were tested, in which children’s reactivity to conflict was expected to
mediate the relation between conflict and concurrent and later child adjustment
(Davies & Cummings, 1994). While
significant concurrent and longitudinal relations were observed between rates
of interparental conflict and behavior problems,
direct relations between children’s emotional and behavioral response to
conflict and these two variables were not consistently found. Thus, the mediating hypothesis could not be
tested.
The predominantly null findings
regarding direct relations among children’s emotional and behavioral
reactivity, interparental conflict, and child
adjustment were surprising. Children
from low-income families were reactive when exposed to interadult
conflict involving their mothers, and their responses were similar to patterns
found in other two-parent, middle-class samples (Cummings & Davies, 1998;
J.S. Cummings et al., 1989). In the
present study, emotional and behavioral response to conflict was not related to
reported history of interparental conflict or child
behavior problems, as found in numerous investigations (Cummings et al., 1981;
Cummings, Ballard, & El-Sheikh, 1991; J.S. Cummings et al., 1989; Cummings
& Davies, 1998). Furthermore, more
persistent and severe conflict was not predictive of children’s
reactivity. The lack of significant
correlations between reactivity and child adjustment is equally
surprising. Although previously untested
in preschool-age children, theoretical arguments based on Davies’ and Cummings’
emotional-security hypothesis (1994) and research with older samples suggested
that emotional and behavioral response to anger would be positively related to
behavior problems. In the present
investigation, however, significant positive relations did not emerge between
preoccupation/distress and active concern and behavior problems, despite the
relatively large sample size, and the great variability in conflict scores.
Even though the mediating hypothesis
could not be tested, the possibility that reactivity adds to or moderates the
relation between interparental conflict and behavior
problems was investigated. This
hypothesis was supported for analyses involving active concern. Active concern interacted with conflict
history to predict maternal ratings of externalizing and internalizing problems
at age 3-1/2. Additionally, interactions
with the active concern factor and interparental
conflict at age 3-1/2 predicted paternal ratings of internalizing and externalizing
problems at age 5. Patterns of
interactive effects generally demonstrated a cumulative risk pattern. Follow-up analyses suggested that greater
reactivity to conflict increased the risk for elevated behavior problems when
children experienced either high levels of interparental
conflict at age 2 or age 3-1/2. Verbal
and physical aggression appeared to have a more consistent effect on behavior
problems than child rearing disagreements, in that for those children
experiencing high levels of parental conflict at age 3-1/2, cross-sectional
maternal externalizing and internalizing scores were above normative averages
regardless of other factors (see Figure 2).
However, the pattern of higher scores on child rearing disagreements, in
the context of low interparental aggression and
greater active concern in response to conflict, also resulted in externalizing
problems that approached the clinical range.
The present results are consistent
with the idea that emotional and behavioral reactivity is a meaningful
contributor to risk for the development of behavior problems. In addition, this study extended the testing
of this model to a group of families at risk for child adjustment problems,
which has been highlighted as crucial to the establishment Cummings’ and
Davies’ emotional-security model (1998).
However, patterns among interparental
conflict, emotional and behavioral reactivity, and child adjustment were
different than found in other samples.
Emotional reactivity appeared to moderate, rather than mediate, the
relation between interparental discord and
externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. Given the strong theoretical and empirical
background of the emotional security model, why would reactivity demonstrate
different patterns for low-income families?
One possible explanation for the
pattern involves the measurement of emotional security. Cummings’ and Davies’ (1994) model posits
that there are three components involved: emotional and behavioral reactivity
to conflict, internal representations of parental relationships and conflict
management, and children’s regulation of exposure and involvement in stressful
parental interactions. In their recent
examination of this model in older children (Cummings & Davies, 1998),
internal representations of conflict, as measured in responses to videotaped
conflict vignettes, were positively related to interparental
discord and internalizing problems, while regulation of exposure (e.g.,
intervention or avoidance in reaction to anger paradigm) was not related to
either marital discord or child problems.
In the present study, internal
representations of family relations and children’s self-regulation of exposure
to conflict were not assessed. It may be
that for children in high-risk environments, different factors contribute to
the development of emotional security.
For example, children from low SES backgrounds who witness greater
frequency and higher intensity of family conflict, may
internally represent conflict in interparental
relations as more threatening than children from more advantaged backgrounds,
perhaps because they have learned to expect that such conflict may lead to
violence toward themselves or toward a parent.
In turn, this belief of threat may lead to more behavioral self-regulation
of reactivity in reaction to parental conflict for fear of retribution. Thus, while these children may not
demonstrate observable distress or reactive behaviors, psychological
functioning may still be impaired through increased sensitization and/or hostile
attributions, as well as maladaptive behavior in other contexts (Dodge,
1986). It is still possible that for
children from high-risk environments, internal representations and
self-regulation of exposure to parental affect may exist, while behavioral
reactivity may play a less salient or indirect role, as it did in this
investigation. To examine this
possibility, it would have been interesting to collect physiological data
(e.g., heart rate, vagal tone, cortisol
levels) on the children during the anger exposure paradigm in order to evaluate
internal distress. There is evidence
that a sub-sample of children are internally
emotionally aroused yet exhibit few external behaviors (Raine,
1993).
Cummings and Davies (1998) have also
posited that the strongest influence on children’s emotional security and
subsequent behavior problems is the behavioral and affective quality of the interparental relationship.
Interparental conflict may be the most
significant factor for middle-class families, but perhaps not for families
facing more adverse circumstances.
Parental conflict may have more of a direct influence on children’s
adjustment in more advantaged families because it stands out as a risk factor
in an environment that is otherwise relatively stable and predictable. The same could not be said for children who
live in poverty, for whom their family, their neighborhoods, and schools
present daily challenges to development (Brooks-Gunn & Furstenberg,
1987). For families from disadvantaged
backgrounds, perhaps the quality of interparental
relations may be relatively less salient to children’s emotional security or to
the development of behavior problems.
Cummings and Davies have hypothesized that emotional security can be
compromised by problems in attachment relations with caregivers or
perturbations in children’s relationships with parents or siblings. Insecure attachment status and poor maternal
responsiveness have been shown to predict later adjustment problems,
particularly for low-income families (Erikson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985; Shaw
& Vondra, 1993; Shaw et al., 1998). However, these variables have not been
examined together with interparental conflict in
order to determine individual and/or interactive effects on the development of
emotional security and behavior problems.
Relatedly, Fincham, Grych, and Osborne (1994) have sugggested
that there are multiple pathways by which conflict may affect later problem
behavior. Hypotheses other than the
emotional-security model have been investigated. Parental modeling (Belsky,
1984; Patterson et al., 1989), parenting practices (Fauber,
Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990), and
children’s cognitive appraisals of conflict (Grych
& Fincham, 1990, 1995; O’Brien, Margolin, John, & Krueger, 1991) are mechanisms that
have been proposed to mediate the relation between interparental
conflict and child adjustment. Although
these models have been examined in pre-adolescent and older children with some
positive results, they are generally not developmentally based, and so may have
limited utility with young children.
Efforts are currently underway to adapt and test these models in younger
children, which should greatly inform this area of research (Fincham, 1994).
The present study has some limitations. The specific high-risk and gender status of
the sample, while providing a robust test of emotional-security theory, limits generalizability to other samples. Different instruments were used to assess interparental conflict at each time point, and were
reported using a single informant.
Additional measurements and informants of marital conflict might provide
different and important information. The
reliance on questionnaire data for assessment of parental conflict and behavior
problems introduces the possibility of shared-method effects. These effects are tempered, however, by the
longitudinal design and multiple informants of child problem behavior. Furthermore, emotional and behavioral
reactivity was measured in one way at one assessment. Utilizing other complementary techniques of
assessing emotion regulation and reactivity in conjunction with the anger
exposure paradigm at different ages (e.g., internal representations,
self-regulation of exposure to conflict) could contribute to our understanding
of the relations among these three constructs, and improve the generalizability of the findings.
Finally, the results of this study
suggest that more research is needed in the measurement of emotional and
behavioral reactivity, and the relations reactivity may have with interparental conflict and the development of behavior
problems in preschoolers. The present
study improved upon previous research by utilizing longitudinal data and
multiple informants in a large sample of young children. Although much research with low-risk
populations suggest that emotional-security partially mediates the relation
between interparental discord and behavior problems,
the present data do not strongly support this model, at least for low-income
families. These results are consistent
with the hypothesis that emotional security is an important factor in the
development of behavior problems.
However, many questions remain about the validity of the
emotional-security mechanism, including: Is this model appropriate for
high-risk environments in which there is exposure to many different within- and
external family stressors, and are there other mechanisms which may provide a
better fit of the data? Further
investigations into children’s experience of, and
methods in dealing with conflict between caregivers in diverse situations may
address these issues.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by Grant
Number 50907 from the National Institute of Mental Health to the second
author. We would like to thank E. M.
Cummings for his consultation and helpful suggestions. We wish to extend our appreciation to study
participants for letting us watch and learn about family development.
References
Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Manual for the child
behavior checklist and 1991 profile.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T.M. (1992). Manual for the child
behavior checklist and revised child behavior profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont
Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T.M., McConaughy,
S.H., & Howell, C.T. (1987). Child/adolescent
behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations
for situational specificity. Psychological
Bulletin, 101, 213-232.
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Allison, P.D. & Furstenberg, F.F.
(1989). How
marital dissolution affects children: Variations by age and sex. Developmental Psychology, 25, 540-549.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman,
J. M. (1987). Applying observational methods: A systematic
view. In J.D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2d
ed., pp. 818-854). New York:
Wiley.
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A.
(1986). The
moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 6, 1173-1182.
Belsky, J.
(1984). The
determinants of parenting: A process model.
Child Development, 55, 83-96.
Brooks-Gunn, J. & Furstenberg,
F.F. (1987). Continuity and change in the context
of poverty: Adolescent mothers and their children. In J.J. Gallagher & C.T. Ramey (Eds.), The
Malleability of Children. Baltimore:
Brookes Publishers.
Chess, S., Thomas, A., Mittelman, M., Korn, S., &
Cohen, J. (1983). Early parental attitudes,
divorce and separation, and young adult
outcome: Findings of a longitudinal study.
Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 22, 47-51.
Crockenberg, S., & Forgays, D. K. (1996). The role of emotion
in children’s understanding and emotional reactions to marital conflict. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42,
22-47.
Cummings, E.M., Ballard, M., &
El-Sheikh, M. (1991). Responses of children and adolescents
to interadult anger as a function of gender, age, and
mode of expression. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 37, 543-560.
Cummings, E.M., & Davies,
P.T. (1998). Exploring children’s emotional
security as a mediator of the link between marital relations and child
adjustment. Child Development, 69,
124-139.
Cummings, E.M., Davies, P.T., &
Simpson, K.S. (1994a). Marital conflict, gender, and
children’s appraisals and coping efficacy as mediators of child adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 8,
141-149.
Cummings, E.M., Hennessy, K.D., Rabideau, G.J., & Cicchetti,
D. (1994b). Responses of physically abused boys to
interadult anger involving their mothers. Development and Psychopathology, 6,
31-41.
Cummings, E.M., Ianotti,
R.J., & Zahn-Waxler, C.
(1985).
Influence of conflict between adults on the emotions and
aggression of young children. Developmental
Psychology, 21, 495-507.
Cummings, E.M., Vogel, D., Cummings,
J.S., & El-Sheikh, M. (1989). Children’s
responses to
different forms of expression of anger between
adults. Child Development, 60,
1392-1404.
Cummings, E.M., Zahn-Waxler,
C., & Radke-Yarrow, M.
(1981). Young
children’s responses to expressions of anger and affection by others in the
family. Child Development, 52,
1274-1282.
Cummings, J.S., Pelligrini,
D.S., Notarius, C.I., & Cummings, E.M. (1989). Children’s responses to angry adult
behavior as a function of marital distress and history of interparent
hostility. Child Development, 60,
1035-1043.
Davies, P. T. & Cummings, E. M.
(1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An
emotional security hypothesis. Psychological
Bulletin, 116, 387-411.
Dodge, K.A. (1986). A social information processing model
of social competence in children. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Eighteenth
Annual Minnesota Symposium of Child Psychology (pp. 77-125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
El-Sheikh, M. & Cummings, E.M.
(1992).
Perceived control and preschoolers’ responses to interadult anger. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 15, 207-226.
El-Sheikh, M., Cummings, E.M., & Goetsch, V. (1989). Coping with adults’
angry behavior:
Behavioral, physiological, and
self-reported responding in preschoolers. Developmental
Psychology, 25, 490-498.
Emery, R.E.
(1988). Marriage,
divorce, and children’s adjustment.
Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Emery, R.E. & O’Leary, K.D.
(1984). Marital
discord and child behavior problems in a nonclinic
sample. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 10, 215-228.
Erickson, M. F., Sroufe,
L. A., & Egeland, B.
(1985). The
relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in a high-risk
sample. In I. Bretherington
& E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the
society for research in child development (Vol. 50, Nos. 1-2, pp. 147-167).
Fantuzzo, J.W., DePaola,
L.M., Lambert, L., Martino, T., Anderson, G., & Sutton, S. (1991). Effects of interparental violence on the psychological adjustment and
competencies of young children.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 258-265.
Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A., &
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.
Fincham, F.D. (1994). Understanding the association between
marital conflict and child
adjustment: Overview. Journal of Family Psychology, 8,
123-127.
Fincham, F.D., Grych,
J.H., and Osborne, L.N. (1994). Does marital
conflict cause child
maladjustment?
Directions and challenges for longitudinal research. Journal of Family Psychology, 8,
128-140.
Furstenberg, F.F. (1993). How families manage risk and opportunity in
dangerous neighborhoods. In W.J. Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the Public Agenda. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Grych, J.H. & Fincham, F.D. (1990). Marital conflict
and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-
contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290.
Grych, J.H. & Fincham, F.D. (1995). Children’s
appraisals of marital conflict: Initial investigations of the
cognitive-contextual framework. Child
Development, 64, 215-230.
Hennessy, K.D., Rabideau,
G.R., Cicchetti, D., & Cummings, E.M. (1994). Responses of
physically abused and nonabused
children to different forms of interadult anger. Child Development, 65, 815-828.
Hetherington, E.M., Cox, M., &
Cox, R. (1982). Effects of divorce on parents and
children. In
M.E. Lamb (Ed.) Non-traditional families:
Parenting and child development. (pp233-288).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Press.
Hollingshead, A.B. (1975). Four Factor Index of Social
Status. Unpublished
manuscript, Yale University, Department of Sociology, New Haven.
Jenkins, J.M. & Smith, M.A.
(1991). Marital
disharmony and children’s behaviour problems:
Aspects of a poor marriage that
affect children adversely. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, 793-810.
Jenkins, J.M., Smith, M.A., &
Graham, P.J. (1989). Coping with parental quarrels. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 182-189.
Johnston, J.R., Gonzalez, R., &
Campbell, L.E.G. (1987). Ongoing postdivorce conflict and child disturbance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15,
493-509.
Jouriles, E.N., Murphy,
C.M., Farris, A.N., Smith, D.A., Richters, J.E.,
& Waters, E. (1991). Marital adjustment, parental
disagreements about child rearing, and behavior problems in boys: Increasing
the specificity of the marital assessment.
Child Development, 62, 1424-1433.
Jouriles, E.N., Murphy, C.M., & O’Leary,
K.D. (1989). Interspousal
aggression, marital discord, and child problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 57, 433-455.
Jouriles, E.N., Pfiffner,
L.J., & O’Leary, S.J. (1988). Marital conflict,
parenting, and toddler conduct problems.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 197-206.
Katz, L.F. & Gottman,
J.M. (1995). Marital interaction and child
outcomes: A longitudinal study of mediating and moderating processes. In D. Cichetti
& S.L. Toth (Eds.) Rochester Symposium on
Developmental Psychopathology: Emotion, Cognition, and Representation. (pp. 301-342). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Long, N., Slater, E., Forehand, R.,
& Fauber, R. (1988). Continued high or
reduced interparental conflict following divorce:
Relation to young adolescent adjustment.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 467-469.
McLoyd, V.
(1990). The
impact of economic hardship on black families and children: Psychological
distress, parenting, and socioemotional
development. Child Development, 61,
311-346.
O’Brien, M., Margolin,
G., & John, R.S. (1995). Relation among marital conflict, child
coping, and child adjustment. Journal
of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 346-361.
O’Brien, M., Margolin,
G., John, R.S., & Krueger, L. (1991). Mothers’ and sons’
cognitive and emotional reactions to simulated marital and family
conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 59, 692-703.
Patterson, G.R., DeBaryshe,
B.D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). Developmental perspective on
antisocial behavior. American
Psychologist, 44, 329-335.
Porter, B. & O’Leary, K.D.
(1980). Marital
discord and childhood behavior problems.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 287-295.
Raine, A.
(1993). The
psychopathology of crime: Criminal behavior as a clinical disorder. San Diego: Academic Press.
Rossman, B.B. &
Rosenberg, M.S. (1992). Family stress and functioning in
children: The moderating effects of children’s beliefs about their control over
parental conflict. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 699-715.
Sameroff, A.
(1983).
Developmental systems: Context and evolution. In W. Kessen (Ed.),
P.H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of Child
Psychology: Vol 1.
History, Theory, and Methology (pp.
238-294). New York: Wiley.
Shaw, D.S., & Vondra,
J.I. (1993). Chronic family adversity and infant
attachment security. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 1205-1215.
Shaw, D.S., Winslow, E.B., Owens,
E.B., & Hood, N. (1998). Young children’s adjustment to chronic
family adversity: A longitudinal study of low-income families. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 545-553.
Shaw, D.S., Winslow, E.B., Owens,
E.B., Vondra, J.I., Cohn, J.F., & Bell, R.Q. (1998). The development of early externalizing
problems among children from low-income families: A transformational
perspective. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 26, 95-107.
Strassberg, Z., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., &
Pettit, G.S. (1992). The longitudinal relation between
parent conflict strategies and children’s sociometric
standing in kindergarten. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 38, 477-493.
Straus, M.A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily
conflict and violence: The conflict tactics scales. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 75-88.
Straus, M.A. (1991). Family violence in american
families: Incidence rates, causes, and trends.
In D.D. Knudsen & J.L. Miller (Eds). Abused and battered: Social and legal
responses of family violence (pp.17-34).
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
U. S. Bureau of the Census.
(1992). Current
population reports, Series P-60, No. 181.
Poverty in the United States: 1991. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Zillman, D.
(1983). Arousal
and aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. I. Donnerstein
(Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews: Vol. 1. Theoretical and methodological issues
(pp. 75-101). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Table 1
Frequency of Behavioral Responses During
the Three Emotion Simulation Periods
____________________________________________________
Factors: Friendly Angry Resolution
____________________________________________________
Preoccupation/Distress:
Observing the interaction 0 59 29
Decrease in play
0 18 13
Disruption in play 0 41 23
Freezing 0
1 0
Distress in face 0 6
9
Gestural distress
4 4 12
Shutting out 0 0
1
Crying 0 1
4
____________________________________________________
Subtotal
4 (1.6%) 130 (45.7%) 91
(27.9%)
____________________________________________________
Active Concern
Expressing concern about conflict 0 68 16
Expressing concern about leaving 0 10 4
Gets comfort from mother 5 17 22
____________________________________________________
Subtotal 5 (3.1%) 95 (35.6%) 42 (16.2%)
____________________________________________________
NOTE: -- Percentages of children showing responses are
given in parentheses.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables
____________________________________________________________________________________
Variable N Mean S.
D. Range
SES 128 3.7 .80 (2.00
- 5.00)
Interparental Conflict
Child Rearing
Disagreements
Freq. + Exp. Comp. - Age 2 129 43.78 31.47 (0.00
- 128.00)
Conflict
Tactics Scale
Verb. + Phys. Aggr. - Age 3-1/2 129 22.13 15.17 (0.00
- 88.00)
Freq. + Exp. Comp.
Emotional/Behavioral Reactivity - Age 3-1/2
Preoccupation
with Conflict Factor 129 1.00 1.55 (0.00
- 11.00)
Active
Concern Factor 129 .73 1.36 (0.00 - 6.00)
CBCL Behavior Problem T-Scores
Maternal
Ratings
Intern. - Age 3-1/2 128 51.68 8.17 (29 -
75)
Extern. - Age 3-1/2 128 51.34 9.08 (30 -
69)
Intern. - Age 5 123 52.89 9.04 (34 -
73)
Extern. - Age 5 132 54.33 10.91 (30 -
79)
Paternal
Ratings
Intern. - Age 5 97 55.02 10.10 (33 - 73)
Extern. - Age 5 97 56.12 10.90 (30 - 83)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Table 3
Relations Among Dependent and
Independent Variables
1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Interparental Conflict
1.
Age 2 CRDS Comp. -- .43** .01 -.11 .10 .22* .21* .27** .22* .29**
2.
Age 3.5 CTS Comp. -- -- .02 .05 .26** .21* .29** .30** .21* .20*
Reactivity
3.
Preoccupation/Distress -- -- -- .34** .11 .03 .07 .02 .02 -.09
4.
Active Concern -- -- -- -- .04 -.11 -.03 -.07 -.05 -.14
Behavior
Problems-CBCL
Maternal
Ratings
5. Age 3.5 Internalizing -- -- -- -- -- .56** .39** .30** .22* .18+
6. Age 3.5 Externalizing -- -- -- -- -- -- .35** .62** .18+ .39**
7. Age 5 Internalizing -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .72** .40** .37**
8. Age 5 Externalizing -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .31** .49**
Paternal
Ratings
9.
Age 5 Internalizing -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .71**
10. Age 5 Externalizing -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
+p
< .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001;
two-tailed significance
Table
4
Predicting
Mother-Rated Behavior Problems:
The
Interactive Effects of Conflict and Emotional and Behavioral Reactivity from
Ages 2 to 5
Externalizing Problems - 3-1/2 yrs
Externalizing Problems - 5 yrs
Predictor Variables Mult R
R2 R2Ch. F Ch. Mult.
R R2 R2Ch. F Ch.
Step
1: Parental Conflict .22 .04 .04 6.54*
.27 .07 .07
9.55**
CRD
- Age 2
Step
2: Parental Conflict .25
.06 .01 2.19 .33
.11 .04 5.49*
CTS
- Age 3-1/2
Step
3: Active Concern .27 .07 .01
1.59 .34 .11 .00
.70
Age
3-1/2
Step
4: CRD X CTS .35 .12 .05
7.00** .42 .18 .06
9.22**
Step
5: CRD X .35 .12 .00 .03
.42 .18 .00
.17
Active
Concern
Step
6: CTS X
.36 .13 .00
.36 .43 .19 .00
.91
Active
Concern
Step
7: CRD X CTS .40 .16
.03 4.33* .44 .19 .00
.93
X Active Concern
Overall
F = 3.27, p < .01 Overall
F = 4.03, p < .001
____________________________________________________________________________________
+p
< .10, *p < .05, **p < .01
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Interactive effects of interparental
conflict at age 2 and age 3-1/2 on maternal ratings of externalizing problems
at age 5.
Figure 2. Interactive
effects of interparental conflict at ages 2 and 3-1/2
and emotional reactivity at
age 3-1/2 on maternal ratings of externalizing problems
at age 3-1/2.