THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

Children’s Emotional Security and Adjustment:

The Role of Emotionality in Marital Conflict

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of the

Department of Psychology

School of Arts and Sciences

Of The Catholic University of America

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

©
All Rights Reserved

By

Laura Kurzius

Washington, D.C.

2018


Children’s Emotional Security and Adjustment:

The Role of Emotionality in Marital Conflict

Laura Kurzius, Ph.D.

Director: Marcie Goeke-Morey, Ph.D.

The broad scope of research examining the link between marital conflict and child

maladjustment has provided robust evidence establishing emotional security as an explanatory

mechanism accounting for how and why, and for whom and when marital conflict is associated

with poorer child outcomes. While previous studies have specified selected characteristics of

parental emotion that are most likely to affect children, to our knowledge, no study has explored

the role that mothers’ and fathers’ capacity to identify, manage, and comfortably express

emotions during conflict plays in the development of children’s emotional security.

The present study addressed this gap in the literature by longitudinally examining the

moderating role of observational data of parental emotion skills during conflict—utilizing the

conceptual framework of emotional security theory—in order to predict children’s internalizing

and externalizing symptoms. Data were drawn from a study of 296 families across a two-year

time period. Structural equation modeling was used in order to examine the links between

children’s exposure to marital conflict, parental emotion skill, children’s emotional security, and

children’s adjustment.

Both maternal and paternal emotion skills significantly moderated the relationship

between marital conflict and children’s emotional security, such that marital conflict was found to

be a weaker predictor of emotional insecurity in the context of a more emotionally skillful parent.

Supplementary analyses, examining parental emotion skillfulness with positive and negative


emotions during marital conflict, point to gender differences and possibly highlight the role of

fathers. The current study provides evidence to target interventions toward emotional

communication in the marriage in order to optimize children’s development.



This dissertation by Laura Kurzius fulfills the dissertation requirement for the doctoral degree in
Clinical Psychology approved by Marcie Goeke-Morey, Ph.D., as Director, and by Barry Wagner,
Ph.D. and Kathryn A. Degnan, Ph.D. as Readers.

____________________________________
Marcie Goeke-Morey, Ph.D., Director

____________________________________
Barry Wagner, Ph.D., Reader

____________________________________
Kathryn A. Degnan, Ph.D., Reader

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES iv

LIST OF TABLES v

CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND LITERATURE 1

The Pathways Between Marital Relationships and Child Outcomes 3

Direct Effects of Marital Relationship on Child Adjustment 5
Advanced Theoretical Approaches Explaining Link between Marital Conflict
and Children 8
Indirect Effects of Marital Relationship on Child Adjustment 12
Establishing Evidence for Interventions Focused on the Marriage 23

CHAPTER II: EMPIRICAL INTRODUCTION 27

Children’s Emotional Security in the Context of Interparental Relationships 28

Emotionality in the Family 30

CHAPTER II: THE PRESENT STUDY 34

CHAPTER II: METHOD 35

Participants 35
Procedures 36
Measures 36

CHAPTER II: RESULTS 40

CHAPTER II: DISCUSSION 47

APPENDIX A: EMOTIONAL SKILLFULNESS CODING SYSTEM 55

APPENDIX B: FIGURES 67

APPENDIX C: TABLES 71

REFERENCES 79

iii


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Results of Mother Emotion Skills as the Moderator of the Indirect Effect of Marital

Conflict on Children’s Externalizing Problems through Emotional Security……….........67

Figure 2. Results of Father Emotion Skills as the Moderator of the Indirect Effect of Marital

Conflict on Children’s Externalizing Problems through Emotional Security………….…68

Figure 3. Results of Mother Emotion Skills as the Moderator of the Indirect Effect of Marital

Conflict on Children’s Internalizing Problems through Emotional Security…………......69

Figure 4. Results of Father Emotion Skills as the Moderator of the Indirect Effect of Marital

Conflict on Children’s Internalizing Problems through Emotional Security………..……70

iv


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ALL MAIN STUDY VARIABLES……….…….71

Table 2. FIT INDICES FOR MODERATED MEDIATION MODELS……..……..….………..73

Table 3. RESULTS OF MODERATED MEDIATION ANALYSES………………….…….….74

Table 4. SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSES: RESULTS OF FATHER EMOTION

MODERATED MEDIATION MODELS…………………………………………………….….75

Table 5. SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSES: RESULTS OF MOTHER EMOTION

MODERATED MEDIATION MODELS…………………………………………………….….77

Table 6. FIT INDICES FOR SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSES………………………………..78

Chapter I: Background Literature

With the emergence of family systems theory, research on children and families over the

course of the last three decades has broadened and deepened in scope to consider individuals

within the context of a larger family unit (Cox & Paley, 2003). Along with this paradigm shift,

researchers have adopted more advanced methodology that has allowed for the consideration of

interplay across multiple levels of influence, including the parent-child relationship and the

marital relationship (Cox & Paley, 2003; Davies & Cummings, 1994). As a result, family

influences—including marital conflict—and parental emotional expression and psychological

symptoms, have been shown to have a negative impact on parent-child relationships, and in turn

on the development and overall adjustment of children (Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, &

Robinson, 2007; Papp, Cummings & Schermerhorn, 2004). Mounting research evidence has

pointed to the interparental relationship as the foundational component of the family, with the

quality of the marital relationship predicting the quality of other family relationships (Goodman,

Lusby, Thompson, K., & Stowe, 2014; Kouros, Papp, Goeke-Morey & Cummings, 2014). While

a remarkable amount of work has been done—gaps in the literature remain.

Decades of work have emphasized how marital satisfaction and marital quality are

associated with the parent-child relationship. (Cowan & Cowan, 2000; Shek,1998). Several

theoretical mechanisms have been proposed, including the spillover and compensatory

hypotheses, in order to explain the considerable variability in the relation between marital quality

and parenting (Cox, Paley, & Harter, 2001; Repetti, 1987; Kouros, Papp, Goeke-Morey,

Cummings, 2014). While the majority of research has focused on the negative emotional

spillover, recent work has increasingly examined how marriages can facilitate the emotional

1
 2

needs of parents, and how positive interactions can promote positive parent-child relationships

and children’s prosocial behaviors (Masten & Cicchetti, 2010; Goldberg & Easterbrooks, 1984;

McCoy, Cummings, & Davies, 2009). Emotional expressiveness within the marriage has been

explored to better understand individual differences across children; specifically, research

suggests that certain parental characteristics—including parental psychopathology, parental

negative emotional expressiveness, and parents’ beliefs about emotion—influence children’s

regulatory processes and overall adjustment (Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007;

Cummings, Cheung & Davies, 2013; Gottman, Katz & Hooven, 1997; Carrère & Bowie, 2012).

This work has provided empirical support for the influence of emotional qualities of the marital

relationship on children’s emotional reactivity, as well as their security within the parent-child

relationship (Koss et al., 2011; Cummings, Braungart-Reiker & Du Rocher-Schudlich, 2003;

Morris et al., 2007). Alongside this work, a considerable body of literature has explored the

dyadic and triangular nature of children and the marital relationship by looking at the coparenting

alliances (Margolin, Gordis & John, 2001; McHale, Kuersten-Hogan, Lauretti & Rasmussen,

2000; Feinberg & Kan, 2008). Coparenting—the extent to which parents support or undercut each

other in the context of parenting responsibilities—has been shown to explicate the interwoven

nature of marriage, parenting, and child adjustment (Margolin et al., 2001).

Taken together, it is evident from the overwhelming empirical support that marital

relationships are important, and that there is a need for continued research and evidence-based

interventions targeted to promote marital health first—and thus in turn—promote the well-being

of children and families. Therefore, it is the objective of this paper to link the impressive

advances in research and theory in the disparate but related fields of couples research and
 3

intervention, developmental psychopathology, and family research. Providing these links will

provide evidence for future researchers to better design and target interventions aimed towards the

interparental relationship, given its outsized influence on the greater family environment.

The Pathways Between Marital Relationships and Child Outcomes

For decades now, family researchers have adopted paradigms to help them consider the

influence the interparental relationship has directly and indirectly—usually by way of parenting

practices—on the development and overall adjustment of children (Cox & Paley, 2003;

Cummings, Cheung & Davies, 2013; Carrère & Bowie, 2012). However, the symbiotic

relationship between the fields of family theory and child development was not always the case.

Prior to the early 1980s much of the work exploring the individual components of family

processes was conducted in isolation by independent intellectual disciplines (Munuchin, 1985;

McHale, Kuersten & Lauretti, 1996; Parke, Schulz, Pruett, & Kerig, 2010). Developmental

psychologists focused much of their nascent work on the processes of parenting—more

specifically on the mother-child dyad—and rarely acknowledged the influence of fathers, siblings

and marriage on child well-being (Parke et al., 2010). Likewise, family sociologists devoted their

scholarly attention to partner’s satisfaction and dissatisfaction within the marital relationship,

overlooking not only the influence this relationship has on child psychological growth, but also

the broader family context (Locke & Wallace, 1959; Parke et al., 2010).

A seismic shift occurred, however, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, with the

emergence of more integrative models of family functioning (Belsky, 1979). Bronfenbrenner’s

(1979) ecological model underscored not only the influence of the marital relationship on child

well-being, but also the second order effects the marital relationship has on parenting and the
 4

parent-child relationship (Fitcham & Hall, 2005). This foundational advancement spurred shifts in

the literature to include the systematic study of fathers, a focus on triads and family as a whole,

and seminal work examining the impact of the transition to parenthood on couple’s relationships

and children’s development (Cowan, Cowan, Coie, & Coie, 1978; McHale et al., 1996). Work

exploring the interwoven nature of the marital relationship and the parent-child relationship

emerged with a primary area of interest being the deleterious effects of interparental conflict on

the socio-emotional and cognitive functioning of children (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Cox &

Paley, 2003; McHale et al., 1996). Finally, the current form and shape of the literature has been

greatly influenced by work exploring the integral role of the coparenting relationship (Margolin,

Gordis, & John, 2001). While the first generation of this work initially drew from the divorce

literature—a unique scenario in which couples continue to coordinate parenting in the absence of

marriage—scholars have since documented the distinct role of coparenting within the family

system (Ahrons, 1981; Morrill, Hines, Mahmood, & Cordova, 2010; McHale, Kuersten-Hogan,

Rao, 2004). Recent studies have demonstrated the reciprocal bidirectional relationship between

the marital relationship and coparenting relationship, underscoring the importance of considering

this construct when examining the link between the interparental relationship and child well-being

(Morrill et al., 2010; Feinberg, 2002).

Family systems theory and the extant literature up until present day has proven the clinical

significance of the interparental relationship in understanding the well-being of children (Cox &

Paley, 2003). Ultimately, this breadth of work laid the theoretical ground for advanced

methodologies and the development of conceptual models that consider the transactional

pathways across the marital relationship (Fincham & Hall, 2005; Cummings & Davies, 2010).
 5

This section will examine the literature on the interparental relationship and child functioning,

identifying gaps in the literature. It will begin with the direct influence of the marital relationship

on children—paying particular attention to the role of marital conflict—before moving to the

indirect effects, underscoring the influence of marital quality on parenting. It will end by

evaluating the pathway between marriage and parenting—the coparental alliance.

Direct Effects of Marital Relationship on Child Adjustment

A diverse set of findings has shown that the overall well-being and health of children,

parents, and families is corroded by high levels of marital conflict (Katz & Gottman, 1993). As

such, the literature exploring the direct effects of marriage on children has been dominated by a

focus on interparental conflict. An initial meta-analysis conducted by Reid and Crisafulli (1990),

pointed to the constructs of marital dissatisfaction and interparental conflict as emerging

predictors of children’s adjustment. Since then, a vast body of literature has demonstrated that

beyond a global measure of marital satisfaction, interparental conflict is indeed the single most

significant risk factor for the psychological maladjustment of children (Suh et al., 2016). In

particular, studies have shown that it is not simply a distressed marriage, characterized by covert

tension or marital apathy, that results in child behavioral problems, but rather overt marital

hostility that is the best predictor of poor child outcomes (Jenkins & Smith 1991; Cummings &

Davies, 2010).

The distressing nature of marital discord has been shown to have negative effects on

children that can last well into adulthood (Glenn & Kramer, 1986; Kaczynski, Lindahl, Malik, &

Laurenceau, 2006), with children exposed to conflict at increased risk for internalizing (i.e.,

anxiety and depression) and externalizing (i.e., conduct and behavioral) disorders (Emery 1982;
 6

Katz & Gottman, 1993; Davies & Cummings, 1998; Grych & Fincham, 1990). Moreover, marital

conflict has been shown to account for 9% to 25% of differences among children with

externalizing disorders (Cummings & Davies, 2010; Grych & Fincham, 1990). Above and beyond

risk for psychopathology, marital conflict negatively impacts children across several other

domains of children’s functioning, including the attachment relationship (Owen & Cox, 1997),

emotional regulatory processes and behavioral strategies (Koss et al, 2010), academic

performance (Forehand & Wierson, 1993), and sibling and peer relationships (Emery 1982;

Grych & Fincham, 1990; Katz & Gottman, 1993; Dunn & Davies, 2001).

Conceptualizing interparental conflict as a stressor on children and adolescents is the best

way to consider the direct influence of the marital relationship on children’s adjustment (Wilson

& Gottman, 1995; Fincham, Grych, & Osborne, 1994; Fincham & Hall, 2005). Goodman et al.

(1999) found the way in which conflict was handled within the marriage to be a better predictor of

negative outcomes as compared to the frequency and intensity of these conflicts (McCoy et al.,

2008). In order to better understand the ways in which conflict impacts children, researchers have

investigated specific conflict tactics. This has been complicated by the construct of marital

conflict itself, which is complex and varied across both couples and contexts (Koss et al., 2011).

Goeke-Morey and colleagues (2003) classified conflict behaviors as either destructive (i.e.,

physical aggression, submission, verbal hostility, non-verbal anger) or constructive (i.e., affection,

problem-solving, support, humor, calm discussion, compromise), and found that conflict affected

children differently depending on the nature of the tactics used. This classification of interparental

tactics has been further supported by multiple subsequent studies linking parental hostility to child
 7

aggression, negative emotional responding, and externalizing problems (Cummings, Goeke‐

Morey, & Papp, 2003, 2004; Cummings, Goeke-Morey, Papp & Dukewich, 2002).

In a recent review, Zemp, Bodenmann, & Cummings (2016) categorized the impact of

interparental conflict on children, as reflected by findings in the family literature over the course

of the last several decades. These researchers found that decades of support have demonstrated

that interparental conflict is the single most predictive family risk factor for maladjustment,

surpassing past assumptions and common wisdom that inflated the influence of divorce (Zemp et

al., 2016). In fact, children experience twice the magnitude of risk related to interparental conflict

compared to that of divorce (Grych & Fincham, 2001; Zemp et al., 2016). These findings are

significant given that during the transition to parenthood, marital conflict increases by a factor of

9, and 40-70% of couples experience a dip in marital satisfaction upon becoming parents

(Gottman & Notarius, 2002). This is even more concerning considering that research has also

shown that discussions regarding children—including differences in parenting styles, discipline,

care, and behavior of children—are one of the most contentious and conflict-inducing discussions

between parents (Papp, Cummings, & Goeke-Morey, 2009). Children are particularly distressed

and threatened by the nature of marital conflict when arguments are centered around children and

child rearing (O’Leary & Vidair, 2002; Koss et al., 2011) The empirical evidence has also shown

that despite parental attempts to shield children from marital conflict, children are nevertheless

highly sensitive to interparental arguments (Goeke-Morey, Cummings, Harold & Shelton, 2003;

Goeke-Morey, Papp, & Cummings, 2013; Zemp et al., 2016). Papp and colleagues found that

efforts to hide the interparental conflict from children resulted in not only twice the amount of

conflict in the absence of children, but increasingly destructive, emotionally negative, and
 8

dysfunctional arguments when in the presence of children (Papp, Cummings & Goeke-Morey,

2002). Moreover, children are also vulnerable to more subtle tactics during conflict, such as

withdrawal and non-verbal signs of anger (Goeke-Morey et al., 2003). Interestingly, interparental

withdrawal has been found to serve as a more powerful predictor of poor child outcomes than

overt hostility (Sturge-Apple, Davies & Cummings, 2006; Zemp et al., 2016). Empirical support

has also demonstrated that when children become involved in conflict between their parents and

experience increased emotional reactivity, this puts them at risk for maladjustment (Davies, Coe,

Martin, & Sturge-Apple, 2015). Most importantly, children across gender and age do not become

inured to conflict over time (Goeke-Morey et al., 2013). This is best explained by evidence across

both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies providing support for the sensitization hypothesis,

indicating that children’s negative responses and reactivity to hostile conflict in fact intensifies

with recurrent exposure to conflict (Goeke-Morey et al., 2013; Davies, Myers, Cummings, &

Heindel, 1999; Cummings, Zahn-Waxler, & Radke-Yarrow, 1981; Zemp et al., 2013).

Advanced Theoretical Approaches Explaining Link between Marital Conflict and Children

Established conceptual frameworks, such as family system theory (Cox & Paley 1997,

2003; Minuchin, 1974) and social learning theory (Bandura, 1973), provide explanations for the

ways that dysfunctional behaviors are passed from the marital relationship to children. According

to social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), children learn specific maladaptive behaviors through

the process of observation and modeling of their parents. Family system theory has long

suggested the influence of marriage on children as it considers individual family members as part

of a series of interdependent and hierarchically structured subsystems (Cox & Paley, 1997).

However, the fact that a majority of children who are exposed to marital conflict do not go on to
 9

develop emotional or behavioral difficulties reveals the remarkable individual differences among

children and interparental relationships (Cummings & Davies, 2010). This also illustrates that is

not the conflict in and of itself that harms children, but how couples argue that is the key to

understanding differences in children’s maladjustment (Davies & Cummings, 1994, 1998).

Consequently, researchers have been driven to address this gap by proposing sophisticated

empirical theories underscoring the mechanisms to better explain individual differences across

multiple levels within the family system (Grych & Fincham, 1990; Davies & Cummings, 1994).

The most influential of these conceptual models to better explain children’s responses to conflict

are the cognitive-contextual framework and emotional security theory.

Cognitive-Contextual Framework. The cognitive-contextual framework underscores the

role children’s cognitive appraisals have on their behavioral and emotional responses to

interparental conflict (Grych & Fincham, 1990). This framework, which is rooted in social

information processes, purports that children attempt to understand interparental conflict by

utilizing their cognitive and affective subjective interpretations or appraisals of the conflict.

According to Grych and colleagues, this is a two-stage cognitive process consisting of primary

and secondary processes, which are both ultimately used to inform children’s coping behaviors

(Grych & Fincham, 1990; Gerard, Buehler, Franck & Anderson, 2005). Children initially engage

in primary processing—the initial affective reaction and awareness that interparental conflict has

occurred (Grych & Fincham, 1990). This initial stage of appraisal is influenced by contextual

clues regarding the degree of threat the conflict causes for the children’s own and familial well-

being, thus provoking the secondary processes (Gerard et al., 2005). This more involved stage of

appraisal is characterized by the child’s efforts to understand the conflict by extrapolating and
 10

making attributions. Frequently, these attributions are focused on imputing responsibility and

blame for the conflict, and are influenced by the child’s initial levels of affective arousal (Grych

& Fincham, 1990). Research has shown that children frequently blame themselves for the conflict

(Grych & Fincham, 1990). This triggers a cascade of difficulties modulating their affective

activation, as well as negative thought processes leading to poor self-efficacy and increased

distress over time as children learn to doubt their abilities to cope with the conflict (Grych &

Fincham, 1990; Gerard et al., 2005).

Emotional Security Theory. Rooted in developmental psychopathology, the emotional

security theory was developed to account for the how and why, and for whom and when marital

conflict is associated with poorer child outcomes (Davies & Cummings, 1994). According to the

emotional security theory, children’s sense of security within the family is undermined by

repeated exposure to destructive interparental conflict characterized by hostility, violence, and

escalating anger (Davies & Cummings 1994; Cummings & Davies, 1996). Specifically, emotional

security theory purports that the experience of felt security is a goal of children, and that this is

threatened by destructive marital conflict (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Cummings, Schermerhorn,

Davies, Goeke-Morey & Cummings, 2006). Pivotal to this theory is the interplay between the

observable classes or component processes that help regulate, organize, and motivate children’s

responses to marital conflict: (a) affective reactions (e.g., negative emotional reactivity, such as

fear and vigilance), (b) internal cognitive representations (e.g., children evaluations of parental

conflict on his or her well-being) and (c) behavioral responses (i.e., regulation of attempts to

become either avoid conflict or to become involved) (Davies, Harold, Goeke-Morey &

Cummings, 2002; Goeke-Morey et al., 2013). During and following conflict, children regulate
 11

their emotional and behavioral responses, as well as their cognitive representations of their family

and marital relationship, in order to either preserve or recover their sense of emotional security

(Davies et al., 2002; Davies & Cummings, 1994). The broad scope of research on emotional

security theory has provided robust evidence demonstrating emotional security as the explanatory

mechanism in the link between interparental conflict and child maladjustment (Davies & Martin,

2014; Cummings et al. 2006; Davies et al., 2002). Specifically, longitudinal studies have shown

that above and beyond other mechanisms, children’s emotional insecurity mediates the pathway

between conflict and child maladjustment (Cummings et al. 2006; Davies et al., 2002; Davies &

Martin, 2014) with emotional reactivity serving as the primary mechanism (Davies et al., 2002).

In sum, over the course of the last several decades, there has been a substantial increase in

research efforts focused on exploring the influential role of the marital relationship, primarily by

way of marital conflict, and the impact this dynamic has on the development and well-being of

children. While considerable empirical evidence has supported several theoretical advancements,

the emotional security theory has emerged as the most significant contribution to the literature,

providing a process-orientated framework to explain the link between marital conflict and child

maladjustment. The next generation of this research should continue to explore transactional

effects of children’s maladjustment and insecurity on marital conflict and the marital relationship

(Davies, Martin, Coe & Cummings, 2016). The reciprocal nature and interdependence of these

relationships within family systems theory may inform future treatment. Moreover, continued

studies should address sample limitations evident in past work, expanding to more diverse

cultural and socioeconomic populations.

 12

Indirect Effects of Marital Relationship on Child Adjustment

Marital Quality. A generation of work has shown a consistent and robust relationship

between marital quality and parent-child relationships (Cowan & Cowan, 2000; Shek,

1998;Cummings & Davies, 2010). Research focused on the complicated and entwined nature of

marital quality and parent-child relationships arose primarily from studies exploring the impact

that the transition to parenthood has on the marital relationship (Cowan & Cowan, 2000). This

was particularly relevant at the time, given studies showing the first five years following the birth

of a couple’s first child to be a particularly vulnerable window, with increased risk for divorce

(Bramlett & Mosher, 2001; Doss, Rhoades, Stanley & Markman, 2010). Next came work

exploring the dimensions of child development that were directly linked to the quality of a young

parent’s marital relationship, including parent-child attachment (DeWolf & Van Ijzdendoorn,

1997), language development (Horwitz et al. 2003), and children’s regulatory processes and

behavioral responding (Davies & Cummings, 1994). In the decades since, robust research has

established that parenting processes mediate the association between marital quality and child

outcomes (Fincham & Hall, 2005). Likewise, improved marital quality has been strongly linked

with sensitive and positive parenting and improved toddler functioning (Goldberg &

Easterbrooks, 1984; Fincham & Hall, 2005). This work has underlined the substantial influence of

the marital relationship on parenting processes and children’s development.

In order to better explain the considerable variability in the link between the marital

relationships and parenting, research has highlighted various explanatory mechanisms (Cox,

Paley, & Harter, 2001; Repetti, 1987; Kouros et al., 2014; Sherrill, Lochman, DeCoster &

Stromeyer, 2017). The first of these mechanisms is the “spillover hypothesis,” conceptualized by
 13

Repetii (1987) as the transmission of behaviors, emotions, and mood across multiple settings.

This hypothesis purports that negative emotionality, tension, or conflict within the marital

relationship will transfer over into other familial subsystems, including the parent-child

relationship (Erel & Burman, 1995; Cox et al., 2001; Engfer, 1998; Kouros et al., 2014). The

transfer occurs across the same valence of emotion—in other words, negativity within the marital

relationship would contaminate the parent-child relationship—spreading negativity across the

familial subsystems. Considerable cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence for the spillover

hypothesis has been established in the literature (Erel & Burman, 1995; Nelson, O’Brien,

Blankson, Calkins, & Keane, 2009; Sherrill et al., 2017). Within longitudinal designs, the quality

of the parent-child relationship, as well as certain parenting behavior, was positively predicted

two years following the measurement of marital quality (Shek, 1998; Sturge-Apple et al., 2006;

Kouros et al., 2014). Moreover, within a cross-sectional design, higher parental marital

dissatisfaction was associated with less supportive responses to children’s negative emotions

(Nelson et al., 2009).

Gender differences have been found with regard to the spillover between marital quality

and parent-child relationships. Cummings, Goeke-Morey and Raymond (2004) found that fathers

were more susceptible to spillover than mothers, and they posit that the reason for father’s

vulnerability is that mothers actually adopt a more compartmentalized sense of the parental role,

and in turn possess a greater capacity to separate the roles of mother and of spouse. A second

wave of studies exploring the spillover hypothesis have primarily utilized daily diaries, which is a

more ecologically valid methodology, allowing for the examination of spillover relations that

occur either daily or within a short window of time (Sherrill et al., 2017; Kouros et al., 2014).
 14

Interestingly, Sherrill et al. (2017) found a bidirectional spillover, such that the instance of parent-

child conflict significantly predicted marital conflict one day later. Moreover, these researchers

found that constructive patterns of marital conflict, characterized by calm reasoning (e.g.,

discussing, problem-solving) and warmth (e.g., humor, physical or verbal aggression), predicted

similar patterns of constructive behaviors within the parent-child relationship (Sherrill et al.,

2017). Kouros et al. (2014) found not only a positive link between marital quality and same day

parent-child relationship quality, but revealed that parental depressive symptoms moderated the

link between marital quality and the other parent’s relationship with the child. While the majority

of research has focused on negative emotional spillover, this recent work has also focused on how

positive interactions within the marriage can spillover and serve to promote positive parent-child

relationships and children’s pro-social behaviors (Masten & Cicchetti, 2010; Goldberg &

Easterbrooks, 1984; McCoy, Cummings, & Davies, 2009). Likewise, Cowan and Cowan (2004)

found that following a constructive marital interaction, parents were more likely to use warm and

positive parenting methods, including consistent discipline and the display of positive emotions,

and this was associated with children’s development. These valuable findings have clinical

implications and ultimately suggest that parents who use cooperation as well as verbal and

physical affection during marital conflict are more likely to display parental warmth and engage

in positive parenting practices (McCoy et al., 2009).

An opposing theoretical hypothesis suggests that rather than a positive correlation, there

is in fact a negative correlational relationship between marital quality and parenting (Goldberg &

Easterbrooks, 1984; Erel & Burman, 1995). The compensatory hypothesis purports that parents in

unhappy marriages overcompensate for this lack of affection by seeking relationship satisfaction
 15

within the parent-child relationship (Belsky, Youngblade, Rovine & Volling, 1991). Goldberg et

al., (1984) suggest that parents devote increased resources into the parent-child relationship as a

way to fulfill their need for support and love within the family unit. These researchers ultimately

purport that even in the face of marital conflict or discord, the parent-child relationship remains

positive and conflict may even buffer or increase this positive parent-child alliance (Erel &

Burman, 1995). Kouros et al. (2014) established evidence for this pattern when finding that

mothers’ low levels of marital quality were related to increases in mother-child relationship

quality. Notably, this negative correlational relationship also implies that when marital

satisfaction is high, parent-child relations will be poor—with the guiding explanation being that

children may be viewed as a burden on the marital relationship, thus creating strain within the

parent-child relationship (Erel & Burman, 1995). Overall, the compensatory hypothesis has

received less attention in the literature, although some evidence has pointed to its credibility.

In summary, there are several explanatory processes connecting marital quality and

parent-child relationships (Erel & Burman, 1995). Evidence ultimately demonstrates that the

compensatory and spillover hypotheses are not related to one another in a way that precludes the

other, but instead work to explain the relationship between marital quality and parent-child

relationship across different times, developmental stages, and contexts (Kouros et al., 2014). It is

notable that this work has been complicated by the construct of marital quality itself, which is

often operationalized as marital satisfaction and/or marital conflict. Researchers have purported

that marital satisfaction and marital dissatisfaction do not necessarily lie on the same continuum,

and it is probable that spouses feel both to varying degrees at once (Bradbury et al., 2000).

Therefore, it is proposed that a balance of both positive and negative dimensions of marital
 16

quality be measured as separate but equal features of overall marital quality (Fincham, Beach, &

Kemp-Fincham, 1997). Moving forward, future studies should conceptualize marital quality as a

bi-dimensional construct given that marital satisfaction and marital dissatisfaction are not

inversely related (Bradbury et al., 2000). Finally, Belsky’s (1984) process model of parenting

purports that parental stress negatively affects parenting behaviors, and a recent study provided

evidence that the ways in which parents cope as part of a dyad is related to child maladjustment as

well as prosocial behaviors (Zemp, Bodenmann, Backes, Sutter-Stickel, & Revenson, 2016).

Therefore, continued investigation into parental dyad coping may serve as a fruitful avenue for

future work, especially given that dyadic coping has recently emerged as a predictor of marital

quality (Bodenmann, Phihet, & Kayser, 2006; Herzberg, 2012; Papp & Witt, 2010).

Emotional Expression in Marriage. Emotional expressiveness within the marriage has

been explored in order to better understand individual differences in the association between

marital quality or conflict and parent-child relationships. Specifically, research suggests that

certain characteristics—parental negative emotional expressiveness in marital conflict, and

parents’ beliefs about emotion—influence parenting behaviors as well as children’s regulatory

processes and overall adjustment (Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007; Cummings,

Cheung & Davies, 2013; Gottman, Katz & Hooven, 1997; Carrère & Bowie, 2012). Results from

such studies are valuable as children have been found to be especially attuned to the “emotional

tone” of the marital relationship and particularly sensitive to parental negative emotionality in

marital conflict (Cummings et al., 2002). The majority of work exploring the influence of

emotionality in marriage on parenting grew from the conflict literature, given that emotional

communication within the family unit has been shown to account for individual differences in
 17

child adjustment and parenting methods (Katz & Gottman, 1993; Davies & Cummings, 1994).

One of the more dominant theories within the parenting literature is Gottman, Katz, and Hooven’s

(1997) meta-emotion philosophy. This theory purports that parents refer to an organized set of

emotional and cognitive repertories regarding their own emotions and the emotions of their

children, and this undoubtedly influences how individuals parent and respond to their children

(Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1997). Additional studies found that parents’ meta-emotions are

related to the emotional climate of the marriage, and parents who are more aware of their own

emotions have improved emotional expression during marital conflict discussions (Katz, Wilson,

& Gottman, 1998).

Particular attention has been paid to the valance of emotional expression within marital

relationships, especially during conflict, as it has been associated with children’s well-being

(Cummings et al., 2002; Cummings et al., 2010; Zemp, Merrilees & Bodenmann, 2014). Zemp

and colleagues found that parental positivity buffered the impact of parental negativity with

regard to child outcomes, and based on these findings suggest that parental positivity should be

communicated at least twice as much as negative emotionality (Zemp et al., 2014). Providing

evidence for a family wide model of emotion, Cummings et al. (2010), found parental expressed

negative and positive emotionality during marital conflict to be linked not only to their partners’

emotion, but also to be predictive of children’s emotional security, such that increased parental

negative emotionality was related to increased emotional insecurity. This work has provided

empirical support for the influence of emotional qualities of the marital relationship on children’s

emotional reactivity, as well as their security within the parent-child relationship (Koss et al.,

2011; Cummings, Braungart-Reiker & Du Rocher-Schudlich, 2003; Morris et al., 2007).

 18

Additionally, as detailed previously in the review, Goeke-Morey and colleagues (2003)

captured differences in communication during conflict, classifying behaviors as either destructive

or constructive. Hosokawa and Katsura (2017) found that in a sample of Japanese children,

affective and behavioral expression during destructive conflict indirectly led to lower cooperation,

self-control, and assertiveness in children by way of increasing negative parenting practices. This

not only provides support for the spillover hypothesis, but also underscores the implications of

specific types of emotional and behavioral communication during conflict on parenting practices

and ultimately on child adjustment.

In sum, the surge of affective research has pointed to the predictive role of emotionality in

marriage and the role this plays on the parent-child relationship, and in turn on child outcomes. A

large portion of this work has examined either individual differences in parental emotional

expression (e.g., meta-emotion), or explored the valence of emotional expression during marital

conflict (Morris et al., 2007; Cummings et al., 2013; Gottman et al., 1997; Carrère & Bowie,

2012). For example, Davies and Cummings’ (1994) seminal work found that the expression of

both positive and negative emotions within the home had an impact on children. Additional work

is needed to explore parental emotion expression in marriage in order to use this evidence as a

vehicle to promote and optimize child outcomes through intervention. Future studies should

continue to focus on gaining a better understanding of the influence of the affective quality within

marital relationships on parent-child relationships and children directly. The marital literature has

focused much attention on the predictive power of affective variables on marital quality (Schulz

& Waldinger, 2010; Gottman, Coan, Carrere, Swanson, 1998; Rogge, Bradbury, Halweg, Engl,

Thurmaier, 2006). Given that we know about the influence of marital quality on parenting
 19

behaviors, future studies should borrow the advanced methodological techniques used in the

marital research world (e.g., ????) to capture the elusive nature of emotion and apply these

protocols to studies examining marital quality, parenting behaviors, and child outcomes.

Coparenting. Researchers across the family and child development literatures have

worked to explore and identify the specific mechanisms within the marital relationship that

predict parenting practices and influence the parent-child relationships (Fincham & Hall, 2005).

As a result, a select number of researchers exploring family dynamics have focused their efforts

on the integral role of the coparenting relationship (McHale, Kuersten-Hogan & Rao, 2004;

Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001). Coparenting, as a construct, was initially used to better

understand and inform children’s responses following divorce, yet it eventually became an

apparatus to further disentangle marital quality, parenting, and child well-being (Aydingtug,

1995; Margolin et al., 2001). Recent studies have demonstrated the reciprocal bidirectional

relationship between the marital and coparenting relationships, underscoring the importance of

considering this construct when examining the link between the marital relationship and child

well-being (Morrill et al., 2010; Feinberg, 2002).

Within the literature, coparenting, as a noun, is conceptualized as the extent to which

mothers and fathers work together within their functional role as parents (Gable, Crnic, & Belsky,

1994; Margolin et al., 2001). Specifically, this relationship is characterized as the alliance formed

between parents with the objective of either bolstering or undermining one another’s parenting

practices (Margolin et al., 2001). Gable and colleagues (1994) purport that coparenting is a unique

and distinct facet of the family system separate from the marital relationship. In particular, these

researchers posit that the primary distinction between the marital and coparenting relationships
 20

are the factors that motivate parent’s behavior (Gable et al., 1994). As such, the welfare of the

child serves as the catalyst within the coparenting relationship; the well-being of the relationship,

one’s partner, or one’s self motivated behaviors within the marital relationship (Gable et al., 1994;

Margolin et al., 2001). Other researchers have purported that the coparenting relationship is part

of the overall interparental relationship and leans closer to the parenting subsystem rather than the

marital relationship (Abiden & Brunner, 1995; Bonds & Gonoli, 2007). Cowan and McHale

(1996) purport that coparenting is distinct from the marital relationship as two parents can remain

steadfast in their coparenting alliance in the face of a failed marriage.

A fundamental facet of successful coparenting, a dyadic construct, is the notion that

parents revere each other and trust in one another’s ability to make the right decisions with regard

to the care for the child (Belsky, Woodworth, & Crnic, 1996; Feinberg, 2003; McHale, 1995;

Margolin et al., 2001; Bonds & Gonoli, 2007). McHale (1997) contributed to the literature by

identifying four specific dimensions of parental behaviors that can either contribute to or weaken

the coparenting alliance: family integrity (e.g. behaviors that attend to increasing the overall sense

of family), conflict (e.g. overt conflict between parents), disparagement (e.g., subversive

behaviors that undercut the other parent) and reprimand (e.g., over involvement in discipline).

McHale then uses these four dimensions to catalogue five different sets of coparenting families:

disconnected, supportive, average, distressed-conflicted, and passionate (e.g., high in positivity

and negativity). In a similar vein, Margolin and colleagues conceptualized the coparenting

alliance as being comprised of three distinct dimensions: a) conflict between parents focused on

parenting (e.g., child-related); b) cooperation and support; and c) triangulation between parents

including the child (Margolin et al., 2001). Given the conceptual overlap between child-related
 21

coparenting conflict and marital conflict centered around child-rearing, Margolin, Gordis, and

Johns (2001) clarified the construct to suggest that coparenting conflict is different from marital

conflict, in that it incorporates a spouse’s specific desire to weaken or undercut the other partner’s

parenting efforts. Recent work has expanded beyond these dimensions to also include parental-

based closeness, which is distinct in that it is conceptualized as the bond that forms when parents

work together as a team being able to share and celebrate in the development of their child

together (Feinberg, 2002).

Considerable cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence has been established in the

literature evidencing the role of coparenting on parenting, parent-child relationships, and the

socio-emotional outcomes of children (Feinberg & Kan, 2008; Bonds & Gonoli, 2007; Deal,

Halverson & Wampler, 1989). Specifically, studies have demonstrated a positive correlational

relationship between marital and coparenting relationships, and have identified coparenting as a

mediating mechanism in the association between marital relationships and parenting (McHale,

2007; Gonzales, Pitts, Hill, & Roosa, 2000) parent-child relationships (Belsky, Putnam & Crnic,

1996; Bonds & Gonoli, 2007; Margolin et al., 2001), as well as children’s outcomes (Baril,

Crouter, & McHale, 2007; Teubert & Pinquart, 2010). Specifically, poor coparenting has been

linked to children’s externalizing symptoms (Belsky et al., 1996; Schoppe, Mangelsdorf &

Frosch, 2001; Fincham & Hall, 2005), increased child anxiety, hostile and competitive

coparenting (McHale & Rasmussen, 1998), and negative peer behaviors (McHale, Johnson, &

Sinclair, 1999). Moreover, specific characteristics of the coparenting relationships have been

examined, elucidating gender differences across both children and parents (McHale, 1995; Morrill

et al., 2010). Interestingly, coparenting has been shown to bring about power imbalances and
 22

differences in egalitarian ideals between parents that may not have arisen within the context of a

marital relationship (Knudson-Martin & Mahoney, 2009; Morrill et al., 2010). Katz and

colleagues (1996) found evidence for gendered coparenting in the context of marital hostility.

Fathers’ coparenting processes, which included withdrawal from the child, were predicted

following marital hostility, and this in turn, was associated with decreased positivity within the

mother-child relationship (Katz & Gottman, 1996). With regard to children, McHale (1995) found

a link between marital conflict and increased hostility in coparenting, which influenced the

children differentially—depending on gender—demonstrating increased risk for spillover into

negative parent-son relationships.

Significantly, a growing body of research has further elucidated the interwoven nature of

the marital relationship, coparenting, parenting, and child adjustment (Margolin et al., 2001).

McHale and colleagues (2004) examined the transition to coparenthood, finding that dimensions

of the marital relationship—including collaboration, teamwork, and family warmth—were factors

that significantly influenced the coparenting relationship (McHale et al., 2004). Extending beyond

studies examining the positive link from marital quality to coparenting, researchers have revealed

a bidirectional influence with dimensions of coparenting (e.g., spousal social support) strongly

associated with marital health (Feinberg, 2002, 2003; Morrill et al., 2010). Several recent studies

have further revealed the mediating effect of coparenting evidenced by the weaker association

between marital quality to parenting with coparenting in the model (Bonds & Gonoli, 2007;

Morrill et al., 2010; McHale, 2007; Gonzales, Pitts, Hill, & Roosa, 2000; Margolin et al, 2001).

Most recently, Feinberg and colleagues purport that coparenting is in fact the central predictor
 23

within the family unit forecasting not only marital quality, but parenting practices and child

outcomes, even after controlling for marital quality (Feinberg, Kan, & Hetherington, 2007).

In sum, as family systems research has expanded, established research has underlined the

influential processes of coparenting. Over the last decade, a debate regarding the temporal

precedence of the marital relationship and the coparenting relationship has ensued. This has

resulted in a shift within the field, moving toward models that conceptualize coparenting as a

central predictor of family outcomes, rather than part of the indirect system between marital

health, parenting, and child’s outcomes (Feinberg et al., 2007). Morrill et al., (2010) posit that the

reason for these findings may be that throughout different time periods, contexts and development

stages couples are more focused either on the marriage or on their children. Ultimately, this work

alluded to the dynamic and influential role of coparenting within the family unit, and to the

importance of considering the coparenting alliance as part of interventions focused on couples.

This is especially relevant for family clinicians working with parents as part of a non-traditional

family unit.

Establishing Evidence for Interventions Focused on the Marriage

Decades of research has been conducted in order to examine the factors that shape the

quality of familial relationships—marital, parenting, and coparenting—ultimately demonstrating

that the interparental relationship deeply shapes the lives of the child and family. While

longitudinal studies are imperative in establishing empirical and theoretical foundations, they do

not allow researchers to evaluate the direct, causal impact these relationships have on each other

or on the outcomes of children. Therefore, it is imperative that intervention studies are conducted

in order to tease out these causal relationships within the family. Moreover, current interventions
 24

should be broadened in their design and scope by targeting the marital or couple relationship first,

with the goal of preventing and remediating poor family functioning and ultimately, optimizing

child well-being (Heinrichs & Prinz, 2012; Zemp et al., 2016; Cowan & Cowan, 2014).

Couple-based interventions have primarily focused on either enhancing the parent-child

relationship by way of parenting practices (e.g., Positive Parenting Program) (Sanders, Kirby,

Tellegen, & Day, 2014) or on skill building and the improvement of communication patterns

between partners in order to improve overall marital quality (Halford, Markman & Stanley, 2008;

Cowan & Cowan, 2014; Halford, Markman, Kline, & Stanley, 2003). Beginning in the late

1980’s, a handful of early studies investigated the differential influence of targeting the

interparental relationship within the context of established parenting training, with mixed results

(Griest et al, 1982; Dadds, Schwartz, Sanders, 1987; Zemp et al., 2016). In the time since, there

has been a relative dearth of intervention or prevention programs aimed specifically at improving

child well-being by enhancing the marital relationship and communication, above and beyond the

parenting; however a tide has turned and several promising programs have been developed.

One of the most promising interventions was a randomized clinical trial completed in

which 100 couples were assigned to either a marriage-focused intervention, a parenting-focused

intervention, or a control group (e.g., two brief consultations) in the year before their first child

entered kindergarten (Cowan, Cowan, Ablow & Measelle, 2005). The prevention study took place

over the course of 16 weeks, and the majority of the intervention was the same, barring either the

couple-focused or parent-focused material. After two years, Cowan and colleagues found that the

couple-focused group demonstrated a significant increase in parenting strategies as well as

decreased amounts of conflict in front of the child compared to the control group (Cowan et al.,
 25

2005). Moreover, the researchers found increased positive child outcomes for the marriage-

focused intervention group, as children were less aggressive, less depressed, and had higher

academic achievement overall. Finally, a follow up study indicated a 10-year positive effect on

marital satisfaction and child outcomes (hyperactivity and aggression)(Cowan, Cowan & Barry,

2011).

In order to address a gap in the literature targeting the interparental relationship within

community samples, Cummings, Faircloth, Mitchell, Cummings and Schermerhorn (2008)

developed a brief prevention program made up of four consecutive two-hour group meetings. The

Happy Couples and Happy Kids program provided psychoeducation regarding the effects of

marital conflict, including the differences between constructive and destructive conflict, and the

role of avoiding child-related discussions in the presence of the child; it also included in-vivo

training sessions (Cummings et al., 2008; Faircloth, Schermerhorn, Mitchell, Cummings, &

Cummings, 2011). In order to determine the efficacy of this intervention, 90 couples with a child

between the ages of 4 and 9 were randomly assigned to one of three groups (e.g., parent-only

group, parent-child group, and a self-directed parent group). Outcomes reveal that treatment

groups demonstrated improved understanding of the deleterious effects of certain types of

conflict, and the importance of constructive conflict; in addition, mothers enhanced knowledge

was linked to positive parenting and improved child adjustment (Cummings et al., 2008). In a

two-year follow up, Faircloth et al. (2011) found a similar pattern of results for mothers, and

noted fathers improved knowledge was associated with positive parenting, although not with child

outcomes.
 26

Finally, Morrill et al. (2010) proposed an innovative approach of increasing positive

parenting practices (e.g., warmth, acceptance, support, positive reinforcement, involvement) by

implementing an intervention aimed at enhancing the positive emotional processes within the

marital relationship. As part of the Marriage Check-up—a randomized control intervention study

focused on improving relational acceptance—Morrill and colleagues found that both 2 weeks and

6 months following the intervention, mothers and fathers experienced significantly greater felt-

acceptance and positive parenting (Morrill et al., 2010). These results support the idea that

positivity within the marital relationship can cascade through the rest of the family system.

In conclusion, there has been significant progress within the fields of developmental and

family research when considering the influence that the marital relationship has—either directly,

or by way of parenting or coparenting practices—on the overall adjustment and well-being of

children (Cox & Paley, 2003; Cummings, Cheung & Davies, 2013; Carrère & Bowie, 2012).

Most notably in the last decade, there has been a burgeoning emphasis on the development of

intervention programs that allow researchers to draw causal inferences about the relationships

between the marriage, parenting, coparenting, and utilize these findings to improve and optimize

child well-being. Additional work in this area should examine multiple levels of influence and

continue to untangle the direct and indirect effects (by way of parenting) of interventions on child

outcomes (Zemp et al., 2016). Looking to the future, it is vital that integration across the variety

of experts working with family systems adopt a reciprocal relationship between family

researchers and clinical intervention work, given that outcomes can ultimately inform policy.


Chapter II: Introduction

Decades of developmental and family research have considered the influence the marital

relationship has—either directly or by way of parenting practices—on the overall adjustment and

well-being of children (Cox & Paley, 2003; Cummings, Cheung & Davies, 2013; Carrère &

Bowie, 2012). Specifically, a breadth of work has evidenced the strong link between marital

conflict and various elements of children’s maladjustment, including increased risk for

internalizing and externalizing disorders (Emery 1982; Grych & Fincham, 1990; Davies &

Cummings, 1998), poor academic outcomes (Forehand & Wierson, 1993), as well as difficulties

with social competence (Gottman & Katz, 1989; Paley, Conger & Harold, 2000), sibling, and peer

relationships (Emery 1982; Grych & Fincham, 1990; Katz & Gottman, 1993; Dunn & Davies,

2001). The emotional security theory, a process oriented approach, has demonstrated robust

support accounting for the how and why, and for whom and when marital conflict is associated

with poorer child outcomes (Davies & Cummings, 1994). Moreover, an ongoing body of

literature has placed an emphasis on the complexity of affective processes and emotional

expressiveness within the family in order to better understand individual differences across

children. Specifically, research suggests that certain parental characteristics—including parental

psychopathology, parental negative emotional expressiveness, and parents’ beliefs about

emotion—influence children’s regulatory processes and overall adjustment (Morris, Silk,

Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007; Cummings, Cheung & Davies, 2013; Gottman, Katz &

Hooven, 1997; Carrère & Bowie, 2012). Concurrently, experts in the marital research sphere have

focused studies on the predictive role of emotion on the determinants of marital success (Schulz

& Waldinger, 2010). Despite these parallel advancements in understanding, less is known

27
 28

however about specific dimensions of emotionality within the marital relationship, and its

pathway to children’s emotional security. In order to advance and develop effective interventions

aimed at strengthening the well-being of couples and families—continued research is needed to

further illuminate the different contexts that place children at greater risk for emotional insecurity.

The current study explores the impact a parents’ ability to empathize, identify, manage, and

comfortably express his or her own emotion during marital conflict on a child’s emotional

security, with the goal of further advancing our understanding of the pathways to children’s

emotional security and child psychological adjustment.

Children’s Emotional Security in the Context of Interparental Relationships

Underscoring the parent-child relationship, Bowlby’s (1973) attachment theory has long

suggested that a sense of safety and security within a child is met by both the physical availability

and emotional responsiveness of his or her attachment figure. Children’s appraisals of their sense

of emotional well-being—or felt security—provide both structure to and motivation for a child’s

reactions to marital conflict (Sroufe & Waters, 1977). However, over and above the parental

relationship, emotional security theory suggests that children also experience a set-goal of felt

security with regard to the family functioning as a whole and across other familial subsystems—

most notably the marital relationship (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Cummings & Davies, 1996).

Destructive types of marital conflict, characterized by hostility, violence, and escalating anger,

undermine this essential sense of felt security in children (Goeke-Morey, Cummings, Harold &

Shelton, 2003) and this in turn puts children at increased risk for psychopathology (Davies &

Cummings, 1994; Cummings & Davies, 1996; Cummings, Schermerhorn, Davies, Goeke-Morey

& Cummings, 2006; Harold, Shelton, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2004).

 29

Essential to this theory is the interplay of three related yet conceptually discrete processes

that help to regulate, organize, and motivate a child’s response to marital conflict: (a) emotional

reactivity (e.g., the child’s ability to regulate activation of negative emotions, such as fear and

vigilance, as well as feelings of sadness and happiness), (b) internal cognitive representations

(e.g., child’s evaluations of marital conflict on his or her well-being) and (c) behavioral responses

(i.e., regulation of attempts to either avoid conflict or to become involved in it) (Davies, Harold,

Goeke-Morey & Cummings, 2002; Goeke-Morey et al., 2013). Children learn to regulate their

emotional and behavioral responses, as well as their cognitive representations of their family and

parent’s marital relationships, during and following exposure to marital conflict. This occurs with

the goal of either preserving or recapturing their sense of emotional security, and eventually this

mediates the pathway between marital conflict and children’s adjustment (Davies et al., 2002;

Davies & Cummings, 1994; Kouros, Merrilees, & Cummings, 2008). For example, in the face of

marital conflict, a child may attempt to behaviorally regulate her affective arousal by withdrawing

or avoiding the conflict; alternatively, she may become overly entangled and attempt to mediate

the conflict between her parents. Initially, these responses are successful in mitigating a child’s

exposure to conflict, while regulating her sense of emotional security. However, in the long term,

these patterns of heightened vigilance develop into maladaptive patterns of response, which

decrease psychological and physical resources, ultimately resulting in persistent emotional and

behavioral dysregulation and increased risk for psychopathology (Cummings et al., 2006; Davies

et al., 2002). At its heart, emotional security can be conceptualized as an understanding and

expectation that relationships within a family are strong and, despite a range of stressors—

including marital conflict—these connections will endure and family members will remain

emotionally available to the child (Cummings et al., 2006).

 30

The broad scope of research on emotional security theory has provided robust evidence

demonstrating emotional security as the explanatory mechanism in the link between interparental

conflict and child maladjustment (Davies & Martin, 2014; Cummings et al. 2006; Davies et al.,

2002). Cross-sectional studies have shown that above and beyond other hypothesized mediators

(e.g., social learning, spill-over hypothesis) children’s emotional insecurity mediates the pathway

between marital conflict and child maladjustment (Cummings et al. 2006; Davies et al., 2002;

Davies & Martin, 2014) with emotional reactivity serving as the primary mechanism (Davies et

al., 2002). A second generation of research examining this theoretical model longitudinally

provided evidence that destructive marital conflict and negative perception of the quality of the

marital relationship was associated with increased emotional insecurity one year later across two

separate child and adolescent samples (Cummings et al., 2006). While contextual variables (e.g.,

moderators) have been explored within this process-orientated framework in order to identify

additional factors that may serve as risk mechanisms to emotional insecurity, gaps in the literature

remain.

Emotionality in the Family

Over the course of the last several decades, human emotionality, and expression, and

communication of emotions have dominated psychological research and popular psychology

(Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004; Morris et al., 2007; Schulz & Waldinger, 2010). Within

developmental research, theorists suggest that children’s emotion regulation—a context

dependent dynamic process that develops over time and across developmental stages—is a critical

feature in nurturing healthy and successful adjustment (Halberstadt, Denham & Dunsmore, 2001,

Kopp, 1992; Saarni, 1990; Denham, 1998; Morris et al., 2007; Thompson, 1994; Masten &

Cicchetii, 2010; Aldao, 2013; Cole et al., 2004; Beauchaine et al., 2016; Gross, 2015; Eisenberg
 31

& Fables, 1992). Developmental psychopathology has since expanded upon the role of emotion

regulation in development by conceptualizing children’s difficulty managing negative emotions—

such as sadness and anger—as a transdiagnostic factor linked to children’s internalizing and

externalizing problem behaviors (Beauchaine et al., 2016; Cicchetti, Ackerman & Izard, 1995;

Eisenberg, Guthrie, et al, 1997; Frick & Morris, 2004; Silk & Steinerg & Morris, 2003, Morris et

al., 2007). This research overlaps nicely with emotional security theory, which underscores

emotion regulation as the leading dynamic in the pathway between marital conflict and child

adjustment (Davies & Sturge-Apple, 2007; Davies, Sturge-Apple, Cicchetti, Manning, & Zale,

2009).

Furthermore, emotional expressiveness and the mutual influence of emotions within the

family has been highlighted as a way of better understanding individual differences across

children’s adjustment (Cummings, Goeke-Morey & Papp, 2010; Eisenburg et al., 2003) with a

particular focus on the role of parental psychopathology (Morris et al., 2007). Parental depressive

symptoms have been strongly associated with negative marital conflict expression, and are

directly related to children’s regulatory processes and emotional security (Kouros et al., 2008;

Cummings & Davies, 1992; Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001).

Additional evidence suggests that certain parental characteristics extending beyond parental

depression, including parental negative emotional expressiveness, and parents’ beliefs about

emotion, also affect a child’s regulatory processes and overall adjustment (Morris, et al., 2007;

Cummings, Cheung & Davies, 2013; Gottman, Katz & Hooven, 1997; Carrère & Bowie, 2012).

Specifically, a parent’s ability to manage and control his or her own emotional expression as well

as the parent’s own philosophies on emotion have been shown to directly influence the emotional

climate of the family, and in turn, impact the emotional regulation of children (Thompson, 1991;
 32

Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1997; Morris et al., 2007; Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Providing

evidence for a family wide model of emotion, Cummings et al. (2010), found parental expressed

negative and positive emotionality to be linked not only to their partners’ emotion, but also to be

predictive of children’s emotional insecurity, such that increased parental negative emotionality

was related to increased emotional insecurity. While studies such as these have established

evidence of the influence of parental emotion on children’s emotional security—further research

is needed to examine the role a parent’s skillfulness in the expression of these emotional processes

plays in the development of a child’s emotional security.

Likewise, interest in emotionality has dominated the marital literature over the last several

decades, given that marriage is one of the primary contexts in which we enact our emotional

experiences as adults (Schulz & Waldinger, 2010; Mirgain & Cordova, 2007). Research on the

emotional processes within couple relationships has provided evidence demonstrating the link

between affective variables and the quality and stability of marital relationships (Gottman, Coan,

Carrere, Swanson, 1998; Rogge, Bradbury, Halweg, Engl, Thurmaier, 2006). Specifically,

relationship distress has been largely conceptualized within the extant literature as a set of

emotional repertoires expressed during vulnerable emotions that has become dysfunctional over

time (Gottman, 1994; Wachs & Cordova, 2007). Cordova et al. (2005) suggest that it is not

merely the experience of an emotion that matters, but indeed how one has learned to behave and

communicate while experiencing that emotion. A partners’ skillfulness in emotional expression,

or emotion skills (essentially, how one “does” emotion), has been found to be an essential

component to the successful management and navigation of the heightened emotional nature of

intimacy (Gottman et al., 1997; Gottman & Levenson, 2002; Cordova, Warren & Gee, 2005).

Emotion skills are defined as one's capacity to identify and communicate emotional stimuli; to
 33

empathize, effectively manage, control, and comfortably express emotions. These skills, which

are a learned set of behavioral skills that develop over time in relational contexts, are critical to

the development and maintenance of healthy marital relationships (Cordova et al., 2005).

Previous studies have shown couples with higher levels of marital distress are in fact less skillful

in emotional expression (Cordova et al., 2005; Mirgain & Cordova, 2007). Other emotion-focused

marital work has demonstrated that partners’ positivity, sadness, anger and fear emotions

uniquely contribute to marital communication, highlighting the value of exploring the distinctive

impact of specific emotions experienced during marital conflict (Gottman & Notarius, 2000;

Greenberg & Goldman, 2008; Papp, Kouros & Cummings, 2010). Despite these advancements,

less is known about the influence on children’s emotional security of parents’ capacity to identify,

manage, and comfortably express their own emotions during marital conflict.
 Chapter II: Present Study

In sum, there is empirical support for emotional security as an explanatory mechanism in

the relationship between marital conflict and child adjustment. While previous studies have

identified some of the characteristics of parental emotion that are most likely to impact children,

to our knowledge, no study has explored the longitudinal role of mothers’ and fathers’ acuity in

navigating the heightened emotional nature of marital conflict on children’s emotional security. In

order to address this gap in the literature, the current study will examine parental skillfulness in

emotional expression during marital conflict as a moderator of the relationship between children’s

exposure to marital conflict and children’s emotional security two years later. A moderated

mediation model will be tested in which the mediation relationship between marital conflict,

emotional security, and children’s adjustment will be examined in the context of parental emotion

skills. We will test whether mothers’ and fathers’ global emotion skills moderate the relationship

between children’s exposure to marital conflict and children’s emotional security. We

hypothesize that marital conflict will be a stronger predictor of children’s emotional insecurity

when parents’ are less skilled at emotional expression overall. Additionally, given the unique

contributions of positive and negative emotions in marital conflict, supplementary analyses of

parental emotion skill during specific types of emotional experiences (e.g., positivity, anger, fear,

sadness) during conflict will be examined as a moderator within this model as an exploratory

probe. The present study will serve to integrate previous work on moderators and mediators in the

link between marital conflict and child adjustment, and will continue to bridge the gap between

child development and marriage literatures.

34
 Chapter II: Method

Participants

The data for these analyses were drawn from a three-year longitudinal study examining

child development and family relationships. The first (Time 1) and third (Time 3) visits are used

in the current study. The sample includes 296 heterosexual couples that had been cohabiting for a

minimum of two years with a child (155 boys, 141 girls) between 8-16 years of age (M = 11.12

SD = 2.31) at Time 1. In the case where families had more than one child within the age range,

one child was selected to contribute to the study. Families were told the study was exploring

family relationships, children, and everyday marital differences. Families from this community-

based sample were originally recruited through newspaper, television, and radio advertisements,

flyers at community events, and through postcards sent to homes with children at local schools..

The majority of parents were married (95.3% n = 282) with an average marriage length of 12.7

years (SD = 8.27 years). On average, husbands ranged in age from 25 to 70 years, with a mean

age of 40.22 years (SD = 6.69 years) and wives ranged in age from 25 to 46 years, with a mean

age of 37.84 years (SD = 5.96 years). The sample was 87.8% Caucasian, 8.8% African-American,

and 2.4% Hispanic. Parents reported a median family income in the $40,001-$65,000 range with

5 families (1.7 %) reporting a yearly combined income of less than $10,000, 20 families (6.8 %)

reporting a yearly combined income between $10,001 and $25,000, 63 families (21.3 %)

reporting a yearly combined income of $25,001 and $40,000, 130 families (43.9%) reporting a

yearly combined income of $40,001-$65,000, 41 families (13.9 %) reporting a yearly combined

income of $65,001 and $80,000, and 37 families (12.5%) reporting a yearly combined income

above $80,000.

35
 36

Procedures

Families attended annual laboratory visits for three years and were compensated for

participation. The procedures in this study were approved by institutional review board and prior

to participation, parental consent and assent was obtained. Methodology described relates only to

the current study. Mothers and fathers completed several questionnaires about themselves, their

marriage, and their child. Mothers and fathers then engaged in several videotaped dyadic conflict

resolution tasks, including one constructive conflict task, in which a problem that was typically

handled comparatively well was discussed. A range of topics were discussed across the couples,

the most common of which were: Money, childrearing, and the struggle to find balance between

work and home life. Immediately following the task, mothers’ and fathers’ were asked to rate

their emotional experience during and at the end of the conflict task.

Measures

Marital Conflict. Marital conflict was assessed at Time 1 using the O’Leary-Porter Scale (OPS;

Porter & O’Leary, 1980), which is a 10-item single measure that captures the parent’s impression

of the amount of overt, hostile marital conflict that occurs in front of the child. On a scale of 0

(never) to 4 (very often) parents rated the frequency of verbal and physical conflict (e.g., how

often do you and/or your spouse display verbal hostility in front of your child?”), conflict

centered around discipline (e.g., how often do you and your spouse argue over discipline

problems in your child’s presence?”), and spouses’ personal habits (e.g., “how often do you

complain to your spouse about his/her personal habits in front of you child?”). Additionally, there

is one item that is reverse scored, that accounts for the frequency in which parents exhibit

affection toward each other (“How often do you and your spouse display affection for each other

in front of your child?). Items on the scale are summed to create a total conflict score with greater

 37

scores signifying more severe overt hostility and marital conflict. This item has demonstrated

sound internal consistency (alpha = .86) and test-retest reliability over a two-week period (r = .96;

Porter & O’Leary, 1980). Cronbach’s alphas for mothers’ and fathers’ report on the OPS within

this sample were .77 and .75. Paired sample t-tests revealed no significant difference in mothers’

(M = 18.73; SD = 5.27), and fathers’ (M = 18.82; SD = 4.76) ratings of marital conflict, therefore,

mothers’ and fathers’ reports were averaged to create a parent composite.

Parental Emotional Skillfulness. The Emotion Skills Coding System (ESCS; Cordova &

Mirgain, 2007) was used to code the videotaped dyadic conflict resolution task conducted at Time

1. The ESCS is composed of 12 codes that reflect skills in emotional control, empathy, comfort

with expressiveness, and identification and communication of emotions. The 12 codes include the

1) expression of criticism, 2) response to criticism, 3) ability to control verbal aggression during

conflict, 4) positive affect elicited and 5) displayed during conflict, 6) expression of non-hostile

negative affect (e.g., sadness) during conflict, 7) emotional awareness, 8) perspective taking, 9)

empathy, 10) emotional inhibition, 11) defensiveness, and 12) vulnerable self-disclosure. Ratings

for each emotion code were recorded on a scale of 1 to 5. Three undergraduate and one graduate

rater, all blind to the study hypothesis, were trained under the supervision of the first author until

intra-class correlation (ICC) reliability scores of .70 or above were achieved for each individual

emotion skills code. Inter-rater reliability (ICC) for the global emotion skills composite was .83

and .82 for husbands and wives, respectively. Coders independently rated each conflict resolution

task, watching the tape twice and rating each partner separately. Once coding began, raters were

subject to weekly reliability checks. A global emotion skills composite score was then calculated

for mother and father separately by summing all of the individual codes. Defensiveness and

emotional inhibition were reverse coded, resulting in a high composite score that reflects high

 38

emotional skillfulness. The mean global emotion skill rating for wives was 40.30 (SD = 8.86). For

husbands, the mean global emotion skills rating was 38.36 (SD = 9.01).

Ratings of Parental Emotional Experience During Marital Conflict. At the completion of the

conflict task, mothers and fathers rated their own emotions of positivity, anger, sadness, and fear

experienced both during the task and following the task. Ratings were on a scale of 0 (not at all)

to 9 (a whole lot). The ratings of emotions experienced during the task were highly correlated

with the ratings for post-task for each emotion (within each parent): mothers’ positivity (.88),

anger (.73), sadness (.73) and fear (.70) and fathers’ positivity (.78), anger (.71), sadness (.74),

and fear (.65). Thus they were summed to create a total score for mothers’ and a total score for

father’s across each of the four emotions experienced overall throughout the marital interaction.

Parental Depression. Mothers and fathers completed the Center for Epidemiological Studies

Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1997) at each time period. This rating is comprised of 20

questions targeting depressive symptoms, and parents rated how frequently they experience these

symptoms in the past week on a scale of 0-3. Cronbach’s alpha for mothers (.91) and fathers (.87)

were within the acceptable range.

Emotional Security. The 37-item Security in the Interparental Subsystems Scale (SIMS-PR;

Davies, Forman, Rasi & Stevens, 2002) was completed by both parents as a measure of children’s

emotional security in the context of everyday marital conflict in the home. Two out of five

subscales were used in the current study: The Emotional Reactivity and Behavioral Dysregulation

subscales. Emotional Reactivity is a 10-item subscale comprised of emotional arousal (e.g.,

“appears frightened”) and emotional dysregulation (e.g., “still seems upset after we argue”).

Cronbach’s alpha for mothers’ report of Emotional Reactivity on the SIMS at Time 3 was .84 and

father’s was .83. Behavioral Dysregulation is a 5-item subscale that reflects loss of behavioral

 39

control (e.g., “starts hitting, kicking, slapping, or throwing things at family members”).

Cronbach’s alphas for mothers’ and fathers’ reports on the Behavioral Dysregulation scale on the

SIMS at Time 3 ranged from .75 to .77, respectively. Utilizing a 3-point scale (yes, sometimes,

no), children rated their own Emotional Reactivity and Behavioral Dysregulation on the SIS-CR

detailing their possible responses to marital conflict. Cronbach’s alpha for child report of

Emotional Reactivity was .85 and Behavioral Dysregulation was .71.

Child’s Adjustment. In order to assess children’s externalizing problems, mother’s completed

The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991) for ages 4-18 at Time 1 and Time 3.

Mother’s rated how often their child displayed externalizing problems (e.g., delinquent and

aggressive behaviors) on a 3-point likert scale ranging from 0 (not true) to 2 (very true). This

variable was created using the 13 items assessing delinquent behaviors, and the 20 items assessing

aggressive behaviors. In order to assess internalizing symptoms, a variable comprised of mother

and father report of internalizing symptoms was made by summing scores on the

anxious/depressed (14 items), withdrawn (9 items), and somatic complaint (9 items) scales. Raw

scores of this measure were used for analyses. While standardized scores are often used in order

to compare children of the same age and gender, the use of raw scores in research settings has

been encouraged due to the truncation of standardized scores (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1991).

 Chapter II: Results

Preliminary Analyses

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and ranges

across the primary study variables tested in the model. There was a two-year period between Time

1 and Time 3. Supporting the structural equation models, marital conflict variables were

significantly correlated with reports of emotional insecurity and indicators of parent and child

emotional insecurity was correlated with child internalizing and externalizing symptoms. In order

to prepare the data for analyses, the present study utilized Little’s MCAR Chi-Square in order to

identify any patterns in the missing data; this non-significant result χ2 (680) = 699.132, p= .297

confirmed there was no pattern to the missing data. In order to capture dynamic and complex

relationships, structural equation modeling analyses were conducted utilizing Analysis of Moment

Structure (AMOS 22.0; Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). This modeling program allows models to

include latent constructs of interest, reduces violations of normality, and accounts for missing data

by employing full information maximum likelihood estimation (Bryne, 2001; Bollen, 1989;

Barron & Kenny, 1986). Several indices were used in order to assess evaluations of how well the

models fit the sample data. Given the sample size, the traditional χ2 discrepancy test statistic was

artificially inflated and found to be significant (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Therefore, additional fit indices were reported. We used the relative χ2 index (χ2 /df) where values

below 3 are considered indicative of an acceptable fit (Bollen, 1989). The root mean square error

of approximation was used in which values less than, or equal to, .08 indicate a reasonable fit

(RMSEA; Brown & Cudeck, 1993). Lastly, the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), in

which values of at least .90 are consider an acceptable fit, was used. In order to reduce the

40
 41
artificial inflation of scores reported by the same observer, error terms for these measures were

allowed to correlate (e.g., error terms of child report of maladjustment at Time 1 correlated with

child report of maladjustment at Time 3).

Parent Emotion Skills as the Moderator of the Indirect Effect of Marital Conflict on

Children’s Externalizing through Emotional Security

In accordance with Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidelines, the first step in testing for

mediation is to establish a direct relationship between child’s exposure to marital conflict at Time

1 and children’s externalizing problems at Time 3. Separate direct effects models were run

controlling first for maternal depression at Time 1, then for paternal depression at Time 1. The

maternal direct effects model was a good fit to the sample data, χ2 (9) = 24.82, p <.05; χ2/df= 2.76;

CFI = .98; RMSEA = .08. After controlling for Time 1 adjustment, maternal depressive

symptoms, and child’s gender, we found that children’s exposure to marital conflict at Time 1

was a significant predictor of children’s externalizing problems at Time 3, t (9) = 2.43, β = .11, p<

.01. Over this two year period, externalizing problems were found to be highly stable, β = .79, p<

.001. The paternal model was also found to be a good fit to the sample data, χ2 (9) = 27.33, p

<.05; χ2/df = 2.75; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .08. Furthermore, when controlling for paternal

depressive symptoms, child’s gender, and Time 1 externalizing symptoms, children’s exposure to

marital conflict at Time 1 was related to higher levels of externalizing symptoms, t (9) = 2.53, β =

.07, p< .05. These results were in accordance with numerous previous studies demonstrating the

link between marital conflict and children’s maladjustment (Davies & Cummings, 1998; Grych &

Fincham, 1990).
 42
The first model explored emotional insecurity as the intervening variable between

children’s exposure to marital conflict at Time 1 and children’s externalizing problems at Time 3

after controlling for children’s externalizing problems at Time 1, mother’s depressive symptoms,

and child’s gender. Results of this test indicated that the model was a good fit to the sample data,

χ2 (52) = 101.459, p <.001; χ2/df = 1.95; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .06. Children’s exposure to marital

conflict predicted greater emotional insecurity two years later, β = .33, p< .001, which was related

to increased levels of externalizing problems, β = .28, p< .01. The same model was run

controlling for paternal depressive symptoms, as well as children’s externalizing problems at

Time 1 and children’s gender. This model was found to be a good fit χ2 (52) = 105.251, p <.001;

χ2/df = 2.02; CFI = .94; RMSEA = .06. Marital conflict was related to greater emotional insecurity

two years later β = .37, p< .001, which was related to increased levels of externalizing problems,

β = .25, p< .01. Importantly, the direct effect from marital conflict to children’s externalizing

problems was no longer significant when children’s emotional security was included in both

maternal (β = .37, p = .774) and paternal (β = .37, p = .686).models.

Next, parental emotion skillfulness was examined as a moderator of the mediation models.

Moderated mediation, also known as conditional indirect effects, explores whether the magnitude

or the direction of the mediation relationship changes depending on the value of the moderator

(e.g., parental emotion skills; Hayes, 2017; Preacher, Rucker & Hayes, 2007; James & Brett,

1984). In other words, this model examines if the association between marital conflict and

emotional insecurity in children differs depending on parental emotion skill level. Mother and

father emotion skills were first mean-centered and an interaction term between emotion skills and

marital conflict was created (Aiken & West, 1991).

 43
Figure 1 reveals the results of the model examining maternal emotion skills as the

moderator of the mediation relationship of emotional security on children’s externalizing

problems. Results of this test indicated that the model was a good fit to the sample data (Model 1

in Table 2). The moderator, a centered interaction term between maternal emotion skills and

marital conflict, was found to have a significant effect on the relationship between children’s

exposure to marital conflict and emotional insecurity within the mediation model (Model 1 in

Table 3). While a significant interaction indicates that maternal emotion skills moderates the

relationship between marital conflict and emotional insecurity, additional post-hoc probing of

moderation effects were conducted in order to detail the specific conditions in which maternal

emotion skillfulness is significantly related to emotional insecurity during children’s exposure to

marital conflict (Aiken & West, 1991). Since both variables in the interaction term are

continuous—new interaction terms were created to represent maternal emotion skill levels one

standard deviation below (Model 1a: low levels of skillfulness) and one standard deviation above

(Model 1b: high levels of skillfulness) the mean. Fit indices for additional models are reported in

Table 2. Results indicate that marital conflict is a weaker predictor of emotional insecurity in the

context of a more emotionally skillful mother and marital conflict is a stronger predictor of

emotional insecurity in the context of a less emotionally skilled mother.

Figure 2 illustrates the significant moderated effect of father’s emotion skills on the

mediation model (Model 2 in Table 3). Results of this test indicated that the model was a good fit

to the sample data (Model 2 in Table 2). The same pattern of results emerged with paternal

emotion skills as did with maternal skills—marital conflict was found to be a weaker predictor of

emotional insecurity in the context of a more emotionally skillful father and a stronger predictor
 44
of emotional insecurity in the context of a less emotionally skilled father (Model 2, 2a, 2b in

Table 3). Neither paternal or maternal emotion skills moderated the mediating effect of emotional

insecurity with regard to children’s externalizing problems.

Parent Emotion Skills as the Moderator of the Indirect Effect of Marital Conflict on

Children’s Internalizing problems through Emotional Security

Separate direct effects models were run controlling first for maternal depression, then for

paternal depression. When controlling for mothers’ depressive symptoms, child’s gender, and

Time 1 internalizing symptoms, children’s exposure to marital conflict at Time 1 was related to

higher levels of internalizing symptoms, β = .18, p< .005. This model was found to be a good fit

to the sample data, χ2 (9) = 16.54, p <.06; χ2/df = 1.84; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .06. Next, after

controlling for Time 1 internalizing, fathers’ depressive symptoms, and child’s gender, we found

that children’s exposure to marital conflict at Time 1 was a significant predictor of children’s

internalizing problems at Time 3, β = .15, p< .05. Over this two year period, internalizing

problems were found to be highly stable, β = .73, p< .001. The paternal direct effects model was a

good fit to the sample data, χ2 (9) = 17.99, p <.05; χ2/df= 1.99; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .06.

The first set of models examined emotional insecurity as the mediating variable between

children’s exposure to marital conflict at Time 1 and children’s internalizing problems at Time 3,

after controlling for children’s internalizing problems at Time 1, mother’s depressive symptoms,

and child’s gender. Results of this test indicated that the model was a good fit to the sample data,

χ2 (52) = 137.569, p <.001; χ2/df = 2.65; CFI = .89; RMSEA = .07. Children’s exposure to marital

conflict predicted greater emotional insecurity two years later, β = .33, p< .001, which was related

to increased levels of internalizing problems, β = .28, p< .05. An additional model was run, this
 45
time controlling for fathers’ depressive symptoms, as well as children’s internalizing problems at

Time 1, and children’s gender. This model was found to be a good fit χ2 (52) = 154.281, p <.001;

χ2/df = 2.96; CFI = .86; RMSEA = .08. Marital conflict was related to greater levels of emotional

insecurity two years later β = .22, p< .001, which in turn was related to increased levels of

children’s internalizing problems β = .65, p< .05. Across both maternal (β = .16, p = .844) and

paternal (β = .16, p = .633) models, the direct effect from marital conflict to children’s

internalizing problems was no longer significant.

Mothers’ emotion skills moderated the mediation model (Figure 3). Fit indices are detailed

in Table 2 (Model 3). Marital conflict was found to be a weaker predictor of emotional insecurity

in the context of a more emotionally skillful mother, and marital conflict was a stronger predictor

of emotional security in the context of a less emotionally skilled mother (Model 3, 3a, 3b in Table

3).

Fathers’ emotion skills moderated the mediation model (Figure 4). Fit indices are detailed

in Table 2 (Model 4). Paternal emotion skills moderated the relation with the same pattern as the

internalizing model. Marital conflict was found to be a weaker predictor of emotional insecurity

in the context of a more emotionally skillful father (Model 4, 4a, 4b in Table 3). Neither paternal

or maternal emotion skills moderated the mediating effect of emotional insecurity with regard to

children’s internalizing problems.

Supplementary Analyses

Additional supplementary analyses were run in order to explore parental skillfulness

during positive and negative emotionality. These rudimentary analyses are conceptualized as

exploratory in nature and should be interpreted with caution. Several additional moderation tests
 46
of parental emotionality in marriage and children’s adjustment were examined. Specifically, four

separate interaction terms were created between mothers’ and fathers’ global emotion skill levels

and his or her perceived emotional experience (e.g., angry, fear, sadness, positivity) throughout

the marital conflict task; high and low probes of significant moderation effects were then

conducted. All models were found to be an acceptable fit (Table 6). Consistent with above

analyses, all models controlled for parental depression and child gender.

Fathers’ emotion skills during paternal-experienced anger, fear, and positivity

significantly moderated the mediation models. Results are detailed in Table 4. Despite a

significant moderation finding, the relationship between marital conflict and emotional insecurity

did not change in magnitude within the context of a more emotionally skilled father versus a less-

skilled father across all three emotions. Notably, the direction of father’s emotional skills during

positivity was positively associated with the relation between marital conflict and insecurity. The

association between emotional insecurity and children’s externalizing symptoms was no longer

significant when father’s emotion skills during anger, fear, and positivity were included in the

models.

Mothers’ emotion skills during maternal-experienced anger significantly moderated the

internalizing mediation model (Table 5). However, a similar pattern emerged, as with father’s

results—there was no change in magnitude in the association between marital conflict and

emotional security depending on the context of a more or less emotionally skilled mother during

anger.
 Chapter II: Discussion

In the present study, the relationship between marital conflict, emotional security, and

children’s adjustment was examined in the context of parental emotion skills. In particular, the

goal of this paper was to examine parental skillfulness with emotion expression during marital

conflict as a moderator of the relationship between children’s exposure to marital conflict and

children’s emotional security two years later. Important findings emerged. Consistent with past

studies, we found that child emotional security mediated the relationship between children’s

exposure to marital conflict and children’s internalizing and externalizing symptoms. This

provided the foundational structure for our models and continuing evidence for the emotional

security hypothesis (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Cummings & Davies, 1996).

In support of the hypothesis, we discovered that after controlling for parental depression

and gender, mothers’ and fathers’ emotional skillfulness significantly moderated the relation

between marital conflict and children’s emotional security two years later. Specifically, results

indicated that marital conflict is a weaker predictor of emotional insecurity in the context of an

emotionally skillful parent and is a stronger predictor of emotional insecurity in the context of a

less-skilled parent. For the first time in the context of longitudinal model testing, our data

demonstrates that parents’ capacity to identify and communicate emotional stimuli, to empathize,

and to effectively manage, control, and comfortably express emotions during marital conflict,

reduces the risk of this conflict having an adverse impact on children’s later emotional insecurity.

Our findings complement theories from previous studies that have indicated marital conflict is a

weaker predictor of emotional security when parents communicate in a constructive way (Davies

et al., 2002; Zemp, Bodenmann, Backes, Stutter-Stickel, Revenson, 2016). Given the results of

47
 48
the current study, we contend that it may be parents’ interpersonal skillfulness with emotion that

is the underlying mechanism responsible for their constructive communication in the face of

marital conflict. In other words, it is not simply the amount of constructive behaviors or positive

displays of emotion that are important in the development of a child’s emotion security, but each

parent’s ability to successfully communicate the feelings that underlie their actions, especially in

the midst of conflict.

Additionally, our findings contribute to the scope of marital literature by underscoring the

role of emotion skills in facilitating the intimacy process (Cordova et al., 2005), as well as by

extending the influence of parental emotion skills to children’s emotion security and wellbeing.

Cordova and Scott (2001) suggest that intimacy is a process in which the expression of the

interpersonally vulnerable behavior of one partner increases over time if the other partner receives

it in a positive and supportive manner. When vulnerability in a relationship is met with empathy,

support, and understanding, it creates a virtuous cycle—partners more freely express their

vulnerability, are met with further understanding, and intimacy deepens. However, Cordova et al.

(2005) posit that this process requires partners to possess a certain degree of emotional

skillfulness in order to succeed—as partners experience deeper levels of intimacy, their risk of

hurting each other increases, and must be met with greater emotion skill. Perhaps this intimacy,

however, is not solely an aspect of the partner relationship—it may indeed serve to enhance the

intimacy and trust of the entire family. Witnessing a parent embody the emotion skills to express

vulnerability—especially during conflict—and seeing this vulnerability met with acceptance and

understanding, may indeed communicate to the child that the marital relationship is steadfast, and

ultimately strengthen the child’s sense of security.

 49
As such, our findings contribute to the literature by identifying a specific mechanism

within the interparental relationship that can be targeted in intervention—how parents “do”

emotion, including vulnerability, during conflict. This is valuable given that our findings

demonstrate that emotion skills reduce the effect of children’s exposure to marital conflict on

children’s emotional security. This finding dovetails nicely with work suggesting that conflict is a

naturally occurring part of a marriage, and that therefore, it is not the conflict per se that matters

to children’s emotional security, but rather how parents argue, that is important (Goodman,

Barfoot, Frye, & Belli, 1999; Cummings & Davies, 2002). Moreover, our findings can also be

interpreted in the context of past work demonstrating the link between constructive marital

conflict tactics and children’s neutral or positive emotionality (Cummings et al., 2003).

Supplementary analyses highlight gender differences and serve as avenues for potential

exploration. These were rough analyses; therefore future investigation is warranted with more

methodologically sophisticated approaches. When examining parental emotion skillfulness during

positive and negative emotions (e.g., anger, fear, sadness), we found that mothers’ emotion skills

significantly moderated the relationship between children’s exposure to conflict and emotional

insecurity, however presumably due to a lack of power, this relationship did not change in

magnitude within the context of a more or less emotionally skilled mother. The pattern was

consistent with father’s skillfulness during anger and fear, which also inversely moderated this

pathway within both internalizing and externalizing models. These findings can be conceptualized

in the context of past work exploring the function of specific parental emotions on children’s

emotional security (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, Papp, & Dukewich, 2002). Previous research has

shown that expressions of fear by either parent during conflict were related to greater emotion
 50
insecurity, and that children are particularly sensitive to father’s expression of anger in terms of

insecure responding (Cummings et al., 2002; Crockenberg & Langrock, 2001). Our simple

analyses shows that the ways fathers express fear and anger may matter more than other emotions

in terms of children’s sense of felt security. A possible reason for this finding is that fathers may

communicate anger in a more threatening manner; therefore, when they display increased acuity

in navigating that anger—in other words, communicating vulnerability—this would weaken the

effect of marital conflict on children’s emotion security.

Interestingly, our findings revealed that fathers’ skillfulness with positive emotions was

positively associated with the relation between marital conflict and insecurity. As with the

findings above, the lack of power did not allow for a deeper understanding of the directionality of

this relationship in the context of more or less paternal skillfulness. Despite the initial

confounding nature of this result, it is in fact consistent with the literature. Recent studies have

found fathers’ feelings of positivity during conflict to be related to children’s increased feelings of

their own fear (Cummings et al., 2002), and interparental feelings of positivity were shown to not

moderate the link between conflict and feelings of insecurity and threat (Davies, Martin &

Cicchetti, 2012).

These supplementary findings ultimately suggest that exploring parental emotion skills

during specific emotions may be a fruitful avenue for future work. This is important given that

past work has revealed inconsistencies in the influence of parent’s negative emotional expression

on children’s emotional development, and this could be perhaps due to the lack of clarification

and distinction across different types of negative emotions (Halberstadt, Crisp, & Eaton, 1999) or

perhaps due to individual differences related to underlying personality traits (Cumberland-Li,

 51
Eisenberg, Champion, Gershoff & Fabes, 2003). Moreover, our exploratory results may

complement a trend in the literature exploring the differential pathways between fathers’

emotionality within the marital relationship and child outcomes. This work has long-term

implications, particularly given studies demonstrating that how fathers parent their children—and

the quality of the father-child relationship—is strongly influenced by the emotional quality of the

marital relationship (Cummings, Goeke-Morey & Raymond, 2004; Kouros, Papp, Goeke-Morey

& Cummings, 2014).

Our findings have significant clinical implications for intervention and prevention work.

Minuchin (1985) conceptualized the marital relationship as the “executive subsystem” within the

family. Given the temporal precedence of the marital relationship, our findings point to marriage

as having a foundational effect—even before parenting or coparenting subsystems—on children’s

emotional security. Many interventions address children’s emotional and behavioral problems by

directing parenting behaviors (Kazdin, 2008; Hood & Eyberg, 2003; Shepard & Dickstein, 2009).

However, the present study reveals the importance of addressing the emotional quality within the

parent’s marriage itself, and identifies a compelling point of entry for treatment in how parents

communicate emotion with one another during marital conflict. This is valuable, as established

research has shown that children learn how to communicate emotion by the direct observation of

parents, and in turn, by the emotional quality of the marital relationship (Morris et al., 2007;

Cummings et al., 2013; Gottman et al.,1997; Carrère & Bowie, 2012). Our exploratory findings

also suggest possible differential significance of fathers’ emotional skillfulness. This is relevant as

few parenting interventions single out fathers for treatment; indeed, our findings may point to the

importance of developing interventions focused specifically on father’s emotional expression.

 52
Limitations of this study merit consideration and ultimately serve to provide direction for

future research. First, our sample was relatively homogenous, racially and socioeconomically. It

will be important to investigate samples that are more diverse, both ethnically and

socioeconomically, and varied in family structure. Our sample was comprised of intact,

heterosexual, two-parent family systems. Therefore, future projects should explore same-sex

couples and non-traditional family arrangements, including other types of primary caregivers,

such as grandparents and stepparents. In addition, a larger sample size would address issues of

power especially with regard to supplementary analyses. Further, the inclusion of internalizing

and externalizing symptoms, as well as both mother and father data within the same model, would

allow the model to consider the dyadic influence of both parents together. Moreover, internalizing

and externalizing symptom variables were derived from broadband parent report measures, which

have been shown to be susceptible to source bias (Grych & Fincham, 1990). Future studies should

incorporate multi-report measures, including child self-report—especially for internalizing

symptoms—in order to obtain greater precision in symptomology. It is possible that the range of

emotion experienced during the constructive marital conflict task was restricted due to the

laboratory setting, and may not have allowed for certain types of emotion, such as sadness. While

dyadic interaction tasks are the gold standard in marital research, studies have shown that these

tasks can offer only snapshot of an individual’s range of emotion (Roberts, Tsai & Coan, 2007).

Moreover, participants in marital interaction tasks may have a tendency to sidestep more difficult

topics due to personal discomfort (Roberts et al., 2007). Additionally, we did not include parent-

child interactions or coparenting measures in this study, so we cannot rule out the influence of

parenting on our variables. This is important given that recent studies have demonstrated the
 53
reciprocal bidirectional relationship between the marital and coparenting relationships,

underscoring the importance of considering this construct when examining the link between the

marital relationship and child well-being (Morrill et al., 2010; Feinberg, 2002). Emotional

skillfulness has been conceptualized in the literature as a global composite score; however, it may

be useful to explore the different composites of this variable in order to gain specific insight

regarding the primary mechanisms of influence, especially vulnerability. Moreover, in the current

study, parental emotion skills were derived from observation of a marital conflict task that was

self-reported as constructive. This may have complicated our findings for a couple of reasons.

First, the conflict interaction may have resulted in a less negative interaction overall due to the

nature of the conflict task completed in the lab. Future studies should explore the role of parental

emotion skills during more destructive conflict tasks, as these interactions may incite more

negative emotionality. Secondly, there is some conceptual overlap between the construct of

emotional skillfulness and the construct of constructive marital conflict—both include problem

solving, humor, affection, and apology behaviors. Future studies should tease apart these

conceptual overlaps.

In sum, the results of the current study were consistent with our contention that parents’

skillfulness in identifying, communicating, and managing emotional stimuli during marital

conflict weakened the effect of marital conflict on children’s risk of emotional insecurity two

years later. Our study extends beyond work focusing on aspects of parental emotionality during

conflict that threaten children’s security by revealing that the more skillful parents are in their

emotional expression with one another during conflict reduces the risk of this conflict having an

adverse impact on children’s later emotional insecurity. Ultimately, the current study provides
 54
evidence to target interventions aimed at the emotional communication in the marriage in order to

optimize children’s development.

 APPENDIX A: Emotional Skillfulness Coding System

1. Benign Control in Delivery or “Spoon Full of Sugar”:

Using a soft approach when outlining conflict issue or when communicating frustration to
one’s partner. How careful is this person being with his/her partner’s feelings? Is the
person trying to soften the impact of what he/she is saying? To what degree is the person
taking into account the partner’s feelings as they deliver the message? Soft behaviors may
involve expressing support and validation, sharing humor, showing caring and understanding,
showing trust and acceptance of the partner and offering reassurance. May also offer positive
feedback to partner before outlining conflict / frustration.

1= no soft approach at all; Shows no sign that s/he is being careful with partner’s feelings. issue is
described in total anger; uses only hard emotions. Strongly criticizes partner, high
frustration level.

2 = minimal soft approach; Mostly being careless with partner’s feeling, but may make one or
two vague attempts to soften the message..

3 = Moderate use of soft approach comments. A somewhat equal mix of carelessness and
carefulness.

4 = Considerable amount of soft approach. More careful than not, with some moments of
carelessness.

5 = Extensive soft approach. The conflict issue or frustration is expressed softly and in a non-
threatening manner. Expresses needs, desires and/or genuine hurt. Tries his/her best to be
understood without threatening partner.

55



2. Benign Control in Receipt or “Sentiment Override”:

To what degree does the person stay engaged, open, and receptive to his/her partner’s
message? How open is this person to hearing his/her partner’s complaint? At its best, this
has a quality of leaning in rather than away (or attacking) and being open to being
influenced by the partner’s complaint/hurt feeling. Responding positively or neutrally to
expressions of frustration or criticism by your partner. Positive or neutral behaviors include
validation, apology, sympathy, support, and empathy, offers of reassurance, active/attentive
listening, showing caring and understanding, humor, showing trust and acceptance and clarifying
the situation. Note that almost all partners, even the best of them, start out being defensive. The
real distinction here appears to be between those that get stuck rejecting their partner’s message
and those that eventually open up and validate their partner’s point of view. The emotion skill
involved here is managing your negative reaction to being complained about in the service of
attending to your partner’s well-being.

1= Not willing to “hear out” partner, not accepting partner’s view / criticism, rejecting,
brushing off. Completely defensive or counter-complaining.

2 = Mostly unreceptive with maybe one or two vague attempts to stay receptive.

3 = Shows a mix of openness to hearing what the partner is saying and defensiveness/counter-
complaining.

4 = The bulk of the response is characterized by staying open and engaged with only a moderate
amount of defensiveness or counter-criticism. Sees other partner’s point of view; accepts
speaker’s right to have a criticism or be frustrated.

5 = Although maybe initially defensive and/or counter-criticizing, the overall arch of the
conversation is toward hearing the partner, taking his/her issue seriously and remaining
productively engaged.

56


3. Aggression Control / Clean Anger:

Clean anger = mad, but not attacking, degrading, or swearing. In general, the anger is
directed at the partner’s behavior or events, and is not directed at who the partner is as a
person (i.e., I’m mad that you forgot our anniversary; versus you are an inconsiderate
selfish idiot). The emotion skill involved here is being able to express anger in a way that in
conducive to the long term health of the relationship. Aggression includes statements that put
down the partner, or that place blame on the partner. The comments may involve attributes or
character traits in general or may include negative judgments about the partner in the form of
global accusations, insults, charges as well as nasty personal remarks.

1 = speaker has no mercy for the partner; all hell breaks loose; maybe screaming, personal or
character attacks, extensive statements conveying that the partner is obviously wrong and
deserving of his/her punishment and criticism. Very poor or no aggression control. Dirty
anger.

2 = Mostly mean, personal, or hurtful expressions of anger, maybe one or two vague attempts to
express clean anger.

3 = an equal mix of attempts to express clean anger and more destructive expressions of anger.

4 = More often than not expresses his/her anger in constructive ways, with some slips into more
problematic anger displays.

5 = The bulk of the anger is displayed as clean anger. This still allows for some imperfection, but
the for the most part someone getting this code is very skillful with their expression of anger.

57



4. Fostering We-ness or “Eliciting Positive Emotions”:

Both verbal and nonverbal efforts to maintain and sustain a sense of positive connection
with the partner. This can be summarized as ways of communicating that “even though
we’re talking about something difficult, we are still okay. Mostly this in done by smiling at
the partner a various points during the interaction or interspersing the conversation with
positive comments or comments intended to lighten the mood. Complimenting or showing
appreciation of the partner, being attentive, reinforcing a connection in the context of a negative
situation, complimenting the strengths of the relationship, making optimistic statements about the
stability of the relationship or using humor or other behaviors to elicit positive affect from the
other partner. Subtle checking-in; non-verbal gestures, such as eye contact, physical contact,
smiling, etc. *Function of this behavior is to foster and maintain positive connection
between the two partners and reestablish a sense of we-ness between them.* It is important
to separate fostering “true” we-ness from the overall interaction style. Do not give high
scores if the partners are just going through the motions and using we/us in statements.
You want to get the sense that they care about their partner.

1 = There is virtually no evidence that the partner is actively attending to the quality of the
emotional connection between them.

2 = One or two vague attempts to foster connection or may respond in vaguely positive way to the
other partner’s attempts to foster connection.

3 = A moderate amount of fostering we-ness.

4 = The partner makes several attempts to foster we-ness and actively tend to the quality of the
emotional connection between them. Not as good as the best we’ve seen but close.

5 = People scored as a 5 should be examples of the best that we are likely to see in terms of
consistently and attentively tending to the quality of the emotional connection between partners.
This should be a realistically achievable standard, not an ideal.

58


5. Displaying Positive Emotions:

Reflects the extent to which partners are speaking in a warm tone of voice, smiling; laughing with
each other; praising each other; showing affection and are having enthusiasm about what the other
partner is saying and general enjoyment of each other. Quality of the capacity to do positive
emotions; how comfortable is the partner in expressing positive emotions such as happiness,
love, affection, joy, contentment, etc?

1 = Not at all characteristic. The person shows virtually no positive emotions either because he or
she is only showing negative emotions or because he or she just generally seems uncomfortable
with positive emotional expression.

2 = Minimally characteristic. This rating should be given to partners who show infrequent or
weak signs of positive affect. The intensity and frequency of behavioral indicators of positive
affect are both low.

3 = Moderately characteristic. This rating should be given to partners who show moderate signs
of positive affect.

4 = Moderately high characteristic. This rating should be given to partners who show a good deal
of positive affect. Displays of positive affect are genuine and the partners clearly seem to
enjoy one another. However, there is less of a relaxed quality than for the couples who score
as a 5.

5 = Very characteristic. This rating should be given to partners who are easily and naturally
positive, in terms of facial and vocal expressiveness and behavior. Affect is positive and
spontaneous. The partners are clearly enjoying being together and discussing the area of
disagreement. The partners are relaxed and comfortable with each other.

59


6. Displaying Soft Negative Emotions:

Reflects the extent to which partners are clear in communicating soft negative emotions,
vulnerable-making emotions. The negative affect displayed includes sadness, anxiety, despair
and fear. Not anger, but hurt. This is a measure of how comfortable the person is being with
and communicating soft emotions.

1 = Not at all characteristic. This rating should be given if the partner displays only hostile or
angry affect or virtually no affect at all. Virtually no expressions of affect that call for a caring
and compassionate response.

2 = Minimally characteristic. This rating should be given if the partners display minimal
amounts of soft negative emotions (e.g. sadness, anxiety, fear). Partners are either
disengaged or uninvolved, or the interaction is characterized by overt hostility/anger.

3 = Moderately characteristic. This rating should be given to partners who moderately display
clear communication of soft negative affect (e.g., sadness, anxiety, fear). Partners may express
some overtly hostile negative affect. Negative, angry facial expressions or a harsh tone of voice
may be present but not more so than expressions of soft emotions.

4 = Moderately high characteristic. This rating should be given if the partners appears fairly
comfortable with soft emotional expression. There may be one or two slips harder emotional
expressions, but they are clearly in the minority.

5 = Highly characteristic. This rating should be given to partners who are clearly quite
comfortable expressing SOFT negative emotions (e.g., sadness, fear) and do not mask those
emotions with hard emotions or emotional disengagement.

60


7. Awareness of Feeling States:

Look for all speech contributions, emotion language, which mention a positive or negative
feeling, and directly reveals the past, present or future affective experience of the speaker. (do
not include manners of speech, such as “I feel like….”). This code is mostly focused on the
use of emotion words. This rating is conceptualized as the partner’s skillfulness at
identifying and communicating their emotions. Feeling statements are coded when the speaker
describes the feeling being communicated, the situation in which the feeling occurs, or the
problem to which the feeling refers. The feeling may be expressed by using a feeling word or by
describing the feeling. This category also includes conditional feelings and negation of feelings.
Purely physical sensations and stable affective personality traits (e.g. a jovial person) are not
included, nor, in general, are preferences, wants or needs. To what extent can the partner use
emotion words? If the person can only talk about his/her partners emotions and not his/her own
emotions, then the score should be lower.

1 = None. Never acknowledges own or partner’s affective experience.

2 = Partner will occasionally make reference to his/her own emotions in response to an event or
issue. Generally presents as having poor emotion awareness, and as being unskilled at
communicating feelings to partner.

3 = Moderate emotion awareness.

4 = Considerable emotion awareness. Skilled at identifying and communicating his/her emotions,

presents as being “in touch with own emotions.”

5 = Extensive emotion awareness. The person consistently mentions/acknowledges their feelings,

and how their emotions are affected by events/issues, etc. More advanced than 4s in that they
focus more on their “emotional world.” Again, this should be a realistic score. In other
words, it should exemplify the best that we actually see, not an unseen ideal.

61


8. Perspective Taking:

The code is more cognitive (thinking) than emotional and measures the degree to which the
partner can place him or herself in the partner’s shoes. The cognitive ability to see things from the
other partner’s point of view, or “putting oneself in the other partner’s shoes;” not mind reading.
This includes a statement which validates and demonstrates understanding of past, present or
future feelings, attitudes, beliefs, sensations, and/or motives of the partner. It may also include a
summary statement of the other partner’s perspective, either past or present. Understands
partner’s perspective, and expresses interest in clarifying the situations by listening to
where partner is “coming from.” It is NOT a matter of simply agreeing (‘yes-ing’) with
partner, need to see ability to adopt partner’s view (or at least try it on for size).

1 = no perspective taking behaviors, partner never indicates that he / she acknowledges the other
partner’s view during the interaction.

2 = 1 or 2 perspective taking behaviors, partner only indicates that he / she is able to see the other
partner’s point of view once or twice during the interaction.

3 = partner demonstrates moderate understanding and appreciation of the other partner’s

perspective. At least 3-4 comments indicating understanding and / or validation of partner’s
view.

4 = considerable perspective-taking behavior, partner sees the other partner’s point of view
more often than not.

5 = partner consistently sees the other partner’s point of view throughout the interaction. Give a 5
to those partners that realistically represent the best that we are likely to see.

62


9. Empathic Concern:

This is a more emotional code than perspective taking and characterized by indicators that the
person is resonating emotionally with the partner’s emotional experience. The tendency to
experience feelings of sympathy and compassion for one’s partner. This code measures partners’
ability to listen to their partner and communicate that they are listening in an empathic, non-
judgmental way.

1 = Absence of empathic concern.

2 = Occasionally has a compassionate or affectionate tone of voice while responding to partner;

minimal active listening behavior (e.g., eye contact, head nodding) while partner is speaking.

3 = Moderate number of statements of understanding or sympathy concerning partner’s feelings;

moderate active listening behavior (person actively listens about ½ of the time) while other
partner is speaking.

4 = speaking in a compassionate or affectionate tone of voice with statements of understanding;

more often than not; exhibiting active listening behavior more often than not.

5 = making compassionate or affectionate statements that validates partner’s feelings frequently

during the interaction and consistently exhibiting active listening behavior while partner is
speaking.

63
10. Emotional Inhibition:

This rating reflects the extent to which partners appear emotionally uninvolved or disengaged and
unaware of their emotional experiences and each other’s needs; a conscious effort to suppress
emotional feelings. Partners may exhibit behaviors of emotional avoidance, withdrawal,
stuffing of their emotional experience or emotional constipation. Emotionally flat or over-
controlled. Consistently displaying flat affect or blocking emotional expression while discussing
a distressing topic. Partners who interact with their spouse consistently but in a perfunctory or
indifferent manner; with little or no emotional involvement, or with flat affect would be rated as
high on emotional inhibition.

1 = Absence of emotional inhibition. This rating should be given to partners who display clear
expression of their emotional experience and indicate no signs of detachment or indifference.
Their interactions show clear involvement with each other and lack behaviors of emotional
avoidance, withdrawal, stuffing or constipation.

2 = Minimal emotional inhibition. This rating should be given to partners who display for the
majority of their problem-solving interaction clear expression of their emotions with almost no
signs of detachment or under-involvement. The majority of their conversation consists of clear
interactions with their partner, and they only rarely exhibit behaviors of emotional avoidance,
withdrawal, stuffing or constipation. This rating should be given to partners who display minimal
detachment from their emotional experience.

3. = Moderate emotional inhibition. This rating should be given to partners who display moderate
detachment from their emotional experience. These partners are sometimes emotionally
uninvolved or occasionally display over regulation of their affect and are also sometime
emotionally involved and display clear expressions of their emotional experience.

4. = Considerable emotional inhibition. This rating should be given to partners who are
predominately detached from or overly regulating their emotional experience. The partners are
predominately avoiding their affective experience, but there may be some few displays of genuine
emotion.

5. = Extensive emotional inhibition. This rating should be given to partners who are so detached
from their affect or overly regulating their emotional experience that it is worrisome. When the
partner does interact during the conversation, the behavior appears mechanical and perfunctory.
The partners are clearly not emotionally involved with each other and appear to be “just going
through the motions” (or extremely withdrawn). Partners are consistently exhibiting behaviors
of emotional avoidance, withdrawal, stuffing of their emotional experience or emotional
constipation.




64
11. Defensiveness in Response to Partner’s Issue:

A defensive response to partner’s criticism consists of one in which the speaker avoids
acknowledging and accepting responsibility for causing a past or present problem, accepting
criticism of behavior or making an apologetic statement. Defensive behavior may consist of
justification of one’s own actions with regard to certain incidents to show that s/he has behaved
properly. In other words, the partner thinks his/her behavior is all right and then attempts to
justify it. Defensiveness may also involve denying personal responsibility for the entire problem
or for specific parts, placing it on the other person, or explicitly using society as an excuse for not
being responsible. Defensiveness may consist of an intellectual response to partner’s criticism
that involves deviating from the topic at hand, changing the subject, or going off on a tangent.
Intellectualization may also consist of offering a statement of qualified agreement or apology that
provides a rationale or explanation without any expression of affect. Lastly, partners may offer a
brief verbal response to criticism that consists of the partner withdrawing emotionally or
disengaging emotionally, such as offering a statement expressing the desire not to talk about a
specific issue at that time. Rate “sneaky defensiveness” = seemingly tolerant, but sneaks out
“I’m sorry BUT I don’t agree” higher on the scale when it characterizes most of response.

1 = Virtually no defensiveness. Partner responds openly to partner’s criticism either accepting

responsibility or offering support for spouse’s accusations and is present emotionally during
his/her response to criticism.

2 = Minimal defensiveness. Some mildly defensive comments or intellectualization in his/her

response to the criticism, however, speaker sees their partner’s reason for criticizing them.
Partner is emotionally present throughout the majority of his/her response to criticism.

3 = Moderate defensiveness. There is a balance between equally tolerant and defensive

comments through partner’s response to criticism. There are several incidents of defensive
behavior throughout the response that may involve justification of one’s own behavior with
regard to certain incidents, accepting responsibility for his/her behavior but then proceeding to
explain it without any emotional expression (intellectualization of problem) or moderate denial of
the responsibility of the problem.

4 = Considerable defensiveness. During a substantial portion of the response to criticism partner

argues that s/he is right, gives reasons for why s/he is right about what s/he said or did; partner
may acknowledge the other partner’s perspective but then justifies his/her point of view, may
intellectualize his/her response or may withdraw emotionally and disengage at various points
during the conversation.

5 = There is extensive defensiveness. Partner is consistently not putting up with the criticism;
may refuse to make an apology or repair the interaction after the spouse’s criticism. Partner
continually insists that s/he is right, gives reasons for why s/he is right about what s/he said or did;
partner insists on his/her point of view or may counter criticize his/her spouse.

65
12. Vulnerable Self-Disclosure:

Vulnerable self-disclosure is defined as verbal behavior that risks punishment by the other
partner. A partner can be vulnerable through self-disclosure of feelings or information that his
partner may punish him/her for revealing. Behaviors identified as vulnerable include self-
disclosure, confiding, nervous humor, putting one’s self down, expressing hurt, sadness, love,
pain disappointment, grief, loneliness, insecurity, shame or fear. These behaviors are soft
expressions that reveal the partner’s vulnerability in the relationship and run the risk of being
suppressed or punished. When one partner expresses his/her hurt in an angry, hostile, or
accusatory way, then s/he is much less vulnerable than a partner who expresses his/her hurt in a
soft and genuinely vulnerable way. The reason that angry expressions of hurt are less vulnerable
than soft emotions is because the angry speaker hides his vulnerability and is already putting up
defenses.

1 = no vulnerable comments at all; not fitting definition of vulnerability; partner is consistently

self-protective and shielded. Does not reveal anything that may place person in vulnerable
position.

2 = some vulnerability. May be expressing area of disagreement in angry way, but is talking
about the disagreement; opening up somewhat to partner, but not much; nervous humor; may
be expressing disagreement in a neutral way (or choose a trivial non-threatening issue), just
doing the exercise without much effort or use of soft emotions, not much risk of punishment.

3 = Starting to use soft emotions, moderate risk of punishment. Showing hurt, disappointment;
feels sad about being disagreement; showing insight into what bothered him/her. Several
comments that indicate speaker’s vulnerability.

4 = Considerable and significant amount of vulnerability. Introspective, talking about underlying

hopes/dreams, genuine hurt. For example, indicating that the issue is extremely important to the
speaker; s/he shows some grief over the incident, loneliness, seeking reconciliation.

5 = Extensive vulnerability. Very emotionally open, open to being vulnerable, may involve
crying or close to it. Introspective, talking about underlying hopes/dreams, genuine hurt. Greater
intimacy. “I love you” is a vulnerable comment.

66
 APPENDIX B: Figures

FIGURE 1. RESULTS OF MOTHER EMOTION SKILLS AS THE MODERATOR OF THE

INDIRECT EFFECT OF MARITAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN’S EXTERNALIZING
PROBLEMS THROUGH EMOTIONAL SECURITY

Note: Standardized path coefficients reported. Non-significant paths indicated by dotted line. *p < .05, ** p <.01
Fit Indices: χ2 (77) = 131.140 p <.001; χ2 = 1.70; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .05

67
FIGURE 2. RESULTS OF FATHERS EMOTION SKILLS AS THE MODERATOR OF THE
INDIRECT EFFECT OF MARITAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN’S EXTERNALIZING
PROBLEMS THROUGH EMOTIONAL SECURITY

Note: Standardized path coefficients reported. Non-significant paths indicated by dotted line. *p < .05, ** p <.01
Fit Indices: χ2 (77) = 150.074 p <.001; χ2 = 1.95; CFI = .92; RMSEA = .06

68
FIGURE 3. RESULTS OF MOTHER EMOTION SKILLS AS THE MODERATOR OF THE
INDIRECT EFFECT OF MARITAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN’S INTERNALIZING
PROBLEMS THROUGH EMOTIONAL SECURITY

Note: Standardized path coefficients reported. Non-significant paths indicated by dotted line. *p < .05, ** p <.01
Fit Indices: χ2 (77) = 173.600 p <.001; χ2 = 2.26; CFI = .88; RMSEA = .07

69
FIGURE 4. RESULTS OF FATHER EMOTION SKILLS AS THE MODERATOR OF THE
INDIRECT EFFECT OF MARITAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN’S INTERNALIZING
PROBLEMS THROUGH EMOTIONAL SECURITY

Note: Standardized path coefficients reported. Non-significant paths indicated by dotted line. *p < .05, ** p <.01
Fit Indices: χ2 (77) = 196.908 p <.001; χ2 = 2.56; CFI = .84; RMSEA = .07

70
 APPENDIX C: Tables

Table 1: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ALL MAIN STUDY VARIABLES

Measure M SD Range

Time 1

Overt Marital Conflict (OPS; M) 18.72 5.27 9-35

Overt Marital Conflict (OPS; F) 18.81 4.76 9-40

Mother Global Emotion Skills (ESCS) 40.30 8.85 21-60

Father Global Emotion Skills (ESCS) 38.36 9.09 20-60

Mother Positivity Emotion Rating 14.68 3.89 0-18

Father Positivity Emotion Rating 14.54 3.62 0-18

Mother Anger Emotion Rating .776 1.89 0-10

Father Anger Emotion Rating 1.20 2.50 0-18

Mother Sadness Emotion Rating 1.55 3.22 0-18

Father Sadness Emotion Rating 1.40 2.88 0-14

Mother Fear Emotion Rating .565 1.57 0-9

Father Fear Emotion Rating .819 1.96 0-11

Maternal Depression (CES-D; M) 10.22 9.37 0-53

Paternal Depression (CES-D; F) 8.85 8.85 0-44

Child Internalizing (CBCL; M) 6.48 5.93 0-46

Child Internalizing (CBCL; F) 5.65 5.23 0-26

Child Aggression (CBCL; M) 6.98 6.02 0-35

Child Delinquency (CBCL; M) 1.54 2.21 0-19

71
Time 3

Emotional Reactivity (SIS; C) 9.71 2.22 5-14

Behavioral Dysregulation (SIS; C) 2.14 6-10

8.15

Emotional Reactivity (SIMS; M) 16.6 5.97 10-37

2
Behavioral Dysregulation (SIMS; M) 3.09 5-20
7.70

Emotional Reactivity (SIMS; F) 16.9 5.76 10-42

6
Behavioral Dysregulation (SIMS; F) 3.25 5-20
7.95
Child Internalizing (CBCL; F) 5.52 0-34
4.94
Child Internalizing (CBCL; M) 5.83 0-32
5.62
Child Aggression (CBCL; M) 5.54 0-31
6.06
Child Delinquency (CBCL; M) 2.03 0-13
1.31

Note: M=Mother-report; F=Father report; C= Child report. OPS= O’Leary Porter Scale; CES-D = Center for
Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; SIMS/SIS = Security in the Interparental Subsystems Scale; CBCL= Child
Behavior Checklist.

72
 TABLE 2: FIT INDICES FOR MODERATED MEDIATION MODELS

Model χ2 df χ2(df) p CFI RMSEA

Model 1: Moderated Mediation Mother Emotion

1.70 77 131.140 .001 .95 .05
Skills in Child Externalizing Model
Model 1a: Low Moderated Mediation 2.98 77 229.958 .001 .86 .08
Model 1b: High Moderated Mediation 3.77 77 290.588 .001 .81 .10
Model 2: Moderated Mediation Father Emotion
1.95 77 150.074 .001 .92 .06
Skills in Child Externalizing Model
Model 2a: Low Moderated Mediation 3.64 77 280.449 .001 .81 .09
Model 2b: High Moderated Mediation 3.69 77 284.408 .001 .81 .09
Model 3: Moderated Mediation Mother Emotion
2.26 77 173.600 .001 .88 .07
Skills in Child Internalizing Model
Model 3a: Low Moderated Mediation 4.25 77 328.348 .001 .72 .10
Model 3b: High Moderated Mediation 4.29 77 330.281 .001 .71 .10
Model 4: Moderated Mediation Father Emotion
2.56 77 196.908 .001 .84 .07
Skills in Child Internalizing Model
Model 4a: Low Moderated Mediation 4.25 77 328.348 .001 .72 .10
Model 4b: High Moderated Mediation 4.29 77 330.281 .001 .71 .10
Note: RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index

73
 TABLE 3: RESULTS OF MODERATED MEDIATION MODELS
Emotional
Marital Conflict
Moderation Insecurity à
Model à Emotional
Effect Child
Insecurity
Adjustment
β β β
Model 1: Moderated Mediation Mother
-.18* .32** .24**
Emotion Skills on Child Externalizing
Model 1a: Low Moderated Mediation -.22** .44** .28**
Model 1b: High Moderated Mediation -.18* .25* .24*

Model 2: Moderated Mediation Father -.23* .38** .23*

Emotion Skills on Child Externalizing
Model 2a: Low Moderated Mediation -26* .48** .28*
Model 2b: High Moderated Mediation -.23* .27** .21*

Model 3: Moderated Mediation Mother -20* .35** .23

Emotion Skills on Child Internalizing
Model 3a: Low Moderated Mediation -.19* .43** .32
Model 3b: High Moderated Mediation -.18* .28* .33*

Model 4: Moderated Mediation Father -19* .40** .45**

Emotion Skills on Child Internalizing
Model 4a: Low Moderated Mediation -.20* .48** .53*

Model 4b: High Moderated Mediation -20* .32** .46*

NOTE: * p<.05, ** p< .01

74
 TABLE 4: SUPPLEMENTARY ANAYLSES: RESULTS OF FATHER EMOTION
MODERATED MEDIATION MODELS

Emotional
Marital Conflict
Moderation Insecurity à
Model à Emotional
Effect Child
Insecurity
Adjustment
β β β
Model 6: Moderated Mediation Father
Emotion Skills during Anger on Child -.44* .32** .14
Externalizing
Model 6a: Low Moderated Mediation -.29** .32** .17*
Model 6b: High Moderated Mediation -.18* .32* .15

Model 7: Moderated Mediation Father

-.36** .32** .14
Emotion Skills during Fear in Child
Externalizing
Model 7a: Low Moderated Mediation -38** .33** .15*
Model 7b: High Moderated Mediation -.26* .33** .16*

Model 8: Moderated Mediation Father

.46** .31** .15
Emotion Skills during Positivity in
Child Externalizing
Model 8a: Low Moderated Mediation .13 .35** .22*

Model 8b: High Moderated Mediation .47* .33** .15*

Model 9: Moderated Mediation Father
Emotion Skills during Anger on Child -.44* .34** .36**
Internalizing
Model 9a: Low Moderated Mediation -.45** .35** .37**
Model 9b: High Moderated Mediation -.29* .34** .35**

Model 10: Moderated Mediation Father

-.27** .34** .34*
Emotion Skills during Fear in Child
Internalizing
Model 10a: Low Moderated Mediation -32** .35** .36*
75
 Model 10b: High Moderated
-.19 .35** .36*
Mediation

Model 11: Moderated Mediation Father

.36** .35** .36*
Emotion Skills during Positivity in
Child Internalizing
Model 11a: Low Moderated Mediation 13 .37** .43*
Model 11b: High Moderated Mediation .43** .36* .40**

76
 TABLE 5: SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSES: RESULTS OF MOTHER EMOTION
MODERATED MEDIATION MODELS

Emotional
Marital Conflict
Moderation Insecurity à
Model à Emotional
Effect Child
Insecurity
Adjustment
β β β
Model 12: Moderated Mediation Mother
Emotion Skills during Anger in Child -.28* .32** .41**
Internalizing Model
Model 12a: Low Moderated Mediation -.41** .32** .40**
Model 12b: High Moderated Mediation -.02 .38* .55*
NOTE: * p<.05, ** p< .01

77
 TABLE 6: FIT INDICES FOR SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSES

Model χ2 df χ2(df) p CFI RMSEA

Model 6: Moderated Mediation Father Emotion

2.68 77 206.808 .001 .87 .07
Skills during Anger on Child Externalizing
Model 6a: Low Moderated Mediation 2.38 77 183.270 .001 .89 .07
Model 6b: High Moderated Mediation 2.26 77 173.777 .001 .90 .06
Model 7: Moderated Mediation Father Emotion
2.44 77 187.668 .001 .89 .07
Skills during Fear in Child Externalizing
Model 7a: Low Moderated Mediation 2.29 77 176.252 .001 .90 .06
Model 7b: High Moderated Mediation 2.12 77 163.005 .001 .91 .06
Model 8: Moderated Mediation Father Emotion
2.44 77 188.199 .001 .89 .07
Skills during Positivity in Child Externalizing
Model 8a: Low Moderated Mediation 1.98 77 152.107 .001 .92 .06
Model 8b: High Moderated Mediation 2.32 77 178.268 .001 .90 .06
Model 9: Moderated Mediation Father Emotion
3.37 77 259.436 .001 .78 .09
Skills during Anger on Child Internalizing
Model 9a: Low Moderated Mediation 3.21 77 247.423 .001 .79 .08
Model 9b: High Moderated Mediation 3.37 77 259.436 .001 .78 .09
Model 10: Moderated Mediation Father Emotion
3.14 77 241.896 .001 .79 .08
Skills during Fear in Child Internalizing
Model 10a: Low Moderated Mediation 3.08 77 237.287 .001 .80 .08
Model 10b: High Moderated Mediation 2.68 77 206.401 .001 .83 .07
Model 11: Moderated Mediation Father Emotion
3.15 77 242.208 .001 .79 .08
Skills during Positivity in Child Internalizing
Model 11a: Low Moderated Mediation 2.62 77 202.322 .001 .83 .07
Model 11b: High Moderated Mediation 3.17 77 244.113 .001 .79 .08
Model 12: Moderated Mediation Mother
Emotion Skills during Anger in Child 3.04 77 234.010 .001 .82 .08
Internalizing Model
Model 12a: Low Moderated Mediation 2.82 77 216.776 .001 .84 .08
Model 12b: High Moderated Mediation 2.29 77 175.929 .001 .88 .07
Note: RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index

78
 References

Abidin, R. R., & Brunner, J. F. (1995). Development of a parenting alliance inventory. Journal

of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 31– 40.

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist: 4-18 and 1991 profile.

Burlington: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1983). Manual for the child behavior checklist and

revised behavior profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Ahrons, C. R. (1981). The continuing coparental relationship between divorced

spouses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51(3), 415

Aldao, A. (2013). The Future of Emotion Regulation Research: Capturing Context. Perspectives

On Psychological Science: A Journal Of The Association For Psychological

Science, 8(2), 155-172. doi:10.1177/1745691612459518

Arbuckle, J. L. (2013). Amos (Version 22.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: IBM SPSS.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological

review, 84(2), 191.

Baril, M. E., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2007). Processes linking adolescent well-being,

marital love, and coparenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 645–654.

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, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Beauchaine, T. P., Cicchetti, D., Aldao, A., Gee, D. G., De Los Reyes, A., & Seager, I. (2016).

79
 Emotion regulation as a transdiagnostic factor in the development of internalizing and

externalizing psychopathology: Current and future directions. Development &

Psychopathology, 28(4pt1), 927-946. doi:10.1017/S0954579416000638

Belsky, J. (1979). The interrelation of parental and spousal behavior during infancy in traditional

nuclear families: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 749-755.

Belsky, J., Putnam, S., & Crnic, K. (1996). Coparenting, parenting, and early emotional

development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1996(74), 45-55.

Belsky, J., Woodworth, S., & Crnic, K. (1996). Trouble in the second year: Three questions

about family interaction. Child Development, 67, 556 –578.

Belsky, J., Youngblade, L., Rovine, M., & Volling, B. (1991). Patterns of marital change and

parent-child interaction.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 487-498.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological

bulletin, 107(2), 238.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of

covariance structures. Psychological bulletin, 88(3), 588.

Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between dyadic coping and

marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 485–493.

doi:10.1037/ 0893-3200.20.3.485

Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation

models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17(3), 303-316.

Bonds, D. D., & Gondoli, D. M. (2007). Examining the process by which marital adjustment

affects maternal warmth: The role of coparenting support as a mediator. Journal of

80
 Family Psychology, 21(2), 288

Boyum, L. A., & Parke, R. D. (1995). The role of family emotional expressiveness in the

development of children's social competence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 593-

608.

Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2001). First marriage dissolution, divorce, and remarriage:

United States (Advance data from Vital and Health Statistics, No. 323). Hyattsville, MD:

National Center for Health Statistics.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American

psychologist, 34(10), 844.

Browne, M.W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K.A. &

Long, J.S. [Eds.] Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 136–162.

Buehler, C., Anthony, C., Krishnakumar, A., Stone, G., Gerard, J., & Pemberton, S. (1997).

Interparental conflict and youth problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child

and family studies, 6(2), 233-247.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,

and programming. Routledge.

Carrère, S., & Bowie, B. H. (2012). Like parent, like child: parent and child emotion

dysregulation. Archives Of Psychiatric Nursing, 26(3), e23-e30.

doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2011.12.008

Cicchetti, D., Ackerman, B. P., & Izard, C. E. (1995). Emotions and emotion regulation in

developmental psychopathology. Development and psychopathology, 7(1), 1-10. doi:

10.1017/S0954579400006301

81
Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct:

Methodological challenges and directions for child development research. Child

development, 75(2), 317-333. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00673.x

Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E.

(2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: problems, progress, and

potential in theory and research. Psychological bulletin, 127(1), 87. doi: 10.1037/0033-

2909.127.1.87

Cordova, J. V., Gee, C. G., & Warren, L. Z. (2005). Emotional Skillfulness in Marriage:

Intimacy as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Emotional Skillfulness and Marital

Satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 218-235. doi:

10.1521/jscp.24.2.218.62270

Cordova, J. V., & Scott, R. L. (2001). Intimacy: A behavioral interpretation. The Behavior

Analyst, 24(1), 75-86.

Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., & Barry, J. (2011). Couples groups for parents of preschoolers: ten-

year outcomes of a randomized trial. Journal of Family Psychology : JFP : Journal of the

Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division

43), 25(2), 240–250. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0023003

Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (2000a). When partners become parents: The big life change for

couples. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., Coie, L., & Coie, J. D. (1978). Becoming a family: The impact of a

first child's birth on the couple's relationship. The first child and family formation, 296-

324.

82
Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2002b). Interventions as tests of family systems theories: Marital

and family relationships in children's development and psychopathology. Development

and psychopathology, 14(4), 731-759.

Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2014). Controversies in couple relationship education (CRE):

Overlooked evidence and implications for research and policy. Psychology, Public Policy,

and Law, 20(4), 361.

Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Ablow, J. C., Johnson, V. K., & Measelle, J. R. (Eds.). (2005). The

family context of parenting in children's adaptation to elementary school. Routledge.

Cowan, P. A., & McHale, J. P. (1996). Coparenting in a family context: Emerging achievements,

current dilemmas, and future directions. New Directions for Child and Adolescent

Development, 1996(74), 93-106.

Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual review of psychology, 48(1), 243-

267.

Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 12(5), 193-196. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.01259

Cumberland-Li, A., Eisenberg, N., Champion, C., Gershoff, E., & Fabes, R. A. (2003). The

relation of parental emotionality and related dispositional traits to parental expression of

emotion and children's social functioning. Motivation and emotion, 27(1), 27-56.

Cummings, E. M., Braungart-Reiker, J. M., & Du Rocher-Schudlich, T. (2003). Emotion and

personality development in childhood. In R. Lerner, M. Easterbrooks, J. Mistry, & I.

Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Developmental psychology (pp. 211–240).

Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

83
Cummings, E. M., Cheung, R. Y., & Davies, P. T. (2013). Prospective relations between parental

depression, negative expressiveness, emotional insecurity, and children’s internalizing

symptoms. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 44(6), 698-708. doi:

10.1007/s10578-013-0362-1

Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. (1996). Emotional security as a regulatory process in normal

development and the development of psychopathology.Development and

Psychopathology, 8(01), 123-139.

Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2010). Marital conflict and children: An emotional security

perspective. New York: Guilford.

Cummings E.M., Davies .P.T. (1992) Parental depression, family functioning and child

adjustment: Risk factors, processes, and pathways. In: Cicchetti, D., Toth, S.L,

editors. Rochester symposium on developmental psychopathology: Vol 4. Developmental

perspectives on depression. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Cummings, E. M., Faircloth, W. B., Mitchell, P. M., Cummings, J. S. & Schermerhorn, A.

C. (2008). Evaluating a brief prevention program for improving marital conflict in

community families. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 193–202. doi: 10.1037/0893-

3200.22.2.193

Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Papp, L. M. (2002). A family-wide model for the

role of emotion in family functioning. Marriage & Family Review, 34(1-2), 13-34. doi:

10.1300/J002v34n01_02

Cummings, E. M., Goeke‐Morey, M. C., & Papp, L. M. (2003). Children's responses to

everyday marital conflict tactics in the home. Child development, 74(6), 1918-1929.

84
Cummings, E. M., Goeke‐Morey, M. C., & Papp, L. M. (2004). Everyday marital conflict and

child aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 191-202

Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Raymond, J. (2004). Fathers in Family Context:

Effects of Marital Quality and Marital Conflict. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the

father in child development (pp. 196-221). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., Papp, L. M., & Dukewich, T. L. (2002). Children's

responses to mothers' and fathers' emotionality and tactics in marital conflict in the

home. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(4), 478.

Cummings, E. M., Iannotti, R. J., & Zahn-Walker, C. (1985). The influence of conflict between

adults on the emotions and aggression of young children. Developmental Psychology, 21,

495–507.

Cummings, E.M., Schermerhorn, A. C., Davies, P.T., Goeke-Morey, M.C., & Cummings, J.S.

(2006). Interparental discord and child adjustment: Prospective investigations of

emotional security as an explanatory mechanism. Child development, 77(1), 132-152. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00861.x

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.

Dadds, M. R., Schwartz, S. & Sanders, M. R. (1987). Marital discord and treatment outcome in

behavioral treatment of child conduct disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 55, 396–403. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.55.3.396

85
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative

model. Psychological bulletin, 113(3), 487. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487

Davies, P. T., Coe, J. L., Martin, M. J., Sturge-Apple, M. L., & Cummings, E. M. (2015). The

developmental costs and benefits of children’s involvement in interparental

conflict. Developmental psychology, 51(8), 1026.

Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: an emotional

security hypothesis. Psychological bulletin, 116(3), 387.

Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1998). Exploring children's emotional security as a mediator

of the link between marital relations and child adjustment. Child development, 69(1),

124-139. doi: 10.2307/1132075

Davies, P. T., Forman, E. M., Rasi, J. A., & Stevens, K. I. (2002). Assessing children’s

emotional security in the interparental relationship: The Security in the Interparental

Subsystem Scales. Child development, 73(2), 544-562.

Davies, P. T., Harold, G. T., Goeke-Morey, M. C., Cummings, E. M., Shelton, K., Rasi, J. A., &

Jenkins, J. M. (2002). Child emotional security and interparental conflict. Monographs of

the society for research in child development, i-127.

Davies, P. T., Martin, M. J., Coe, J. L., & Cummings, E. M. (2016). Transactional cascades of

destructive interparental conflict, children's emotional insecurity, and psychological

problems across childhood and adolescence. Development and psychopathology, 28(3),

653-671.

Davies, P. T., Myers, R. L., Cummings, E. M., & Heindel, S. (1999). Adult conflict history and

86
 children's subsequent responses to conflict: An experimental test. Journal of Family

Psychology, 13(4), 610.

Davies, P. T., & Sturge-Apple, M. L. (2007). Advances in the formulation of emotional security

theory: an ethologically based perspective. Advances In Child Development And

Behavior, 35, 87-137. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-009735-7.50008-6 ·

Davies, P. T., Sturge-Apple, M. L., Cicchetti, D., Manning, L. G., & Zale, E. (2009). Children’s

Patterns of Emotional Reactivity to Conflict as Explanatory Mechanisms in Links

Between Interpartner Aggression and Child Physiological Functioning. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 50(11), 1384–1391. doi:

10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02154.x

Deal, J. E., Halverson Jr, C. F., & Wampler, K. S. (1989). Parental agreement on child-rearing

orientations: Relations to parental, marital, family, and child characteristics. Child

Development, 1025-1034.

Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York: Guilford Press.

De Wolff, M. S., & Van Ijzdendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis

on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571–591

Doss, B. D., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009). The Effect of the

Transition to Parenthood on Relationship Quality: An Eight-Year Prospective

Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 601–619.

http://doi.org/10.1037/a0013969

Dunn, J., & Davies, L. (2001). Sibling relationships and Interparental conflict. In J. Grych & F.

87
 Fincham (Eds.), Child development and interparental conflict (pp. 273- 290). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Reiser, M., Murphy,

B. C., Losoya, S. H. and Guthrie, I. K. (2001), The Relations of Regulation and

Emotionality to Children's Externalizing and Internalizing Problem Behavior. Child

Development, 72: 1112–1134. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00337

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1992). Emotion, regulation, and the development of social

competence. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 14.

Emotion and social behavior (pp. 119–150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Eiesnberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Murphy, B., Holgren, R., Maszk, P. and

Losoya, S. (1997), The Relations of Regulation and Emotionality to Resiliency and

Competent Social Functioning in Elementary School Children. Child Development, 68:

295–311. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01941.x

Eisenberg, N., & Morris, A. S. (2002). Children's emotion-related regulation. Advances in child

development and behavior, 30, 190-230.

Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Morris, A. S., Fabes, R. A., Cumberland, A., Reiser, M., Gershoff,

E.T., Shepard, S.A., & Losoya, S. (2003). Longitudinal relations among parental

emotional expressivity, children's regulation, and quality of socioemotional

functioning. Developmental psychology, 39(1), 3.

Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and

divorce. Psychological bulletin, 92(2), 310. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.310

Engfer, A. (1988). The interrelatedness of marriage and the mother– child relationship. In R. A.

88
 Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp.

104 –118). Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon. Erath, S. A., Bierman

Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A

meta-analytic review.Psychological bulletin, 118(1), 108.

Faircloth, W. B., Schermerhorn, A. C., Mitchell, P. M., Cummings, J. S. & Cummings, E.

M. (2011). Testing the long-term efficacy of a prevention program for improving marital

conflict in community families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 189–

197. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2011.05.004

Feinberg, M. E. (2002). Coparenting and the transition to parenthood: A framework for

prevention. Clinical child and family psychology review, 5(3), 173-195.

Feinberg, M. E. (2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A

framework for research and intervention. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3, 95–131.

Feinberg, M. E., & Kan, M. L. (2008). Establishing Family Foundations: Intervention Effects on

Coparenting, Parent/Infant Well-Being, and Parent–Child Relations. Journal of Family

Psychology : JFP : Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American

Psychological Association (Division 43),22(2), 253–263. http://doi.org/10.1037/0893-

3200.22.2.253

Fincham, F. D. (1998). Child development and marital relations. Child development, 543-574.

Fincham, F.D., Beach, S.R., & Kemp-Fincham, S.I. (1997). Marital quality: A new theoretical

perspective. In R.J. Sternberg & M. Hojjat (Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp.

275-304). New York: Guilford Press.

Fincham, F. D., Grych, J. H., & Osborne, L. N. (1994). Does marital conflict cause child

89
 maladjustment? Directions and challenges for longitudinal research. Journal of Family

Psychology, 8, 128–140.

Fincham, F. D., & Hall, J. H. (2005). Parenting and the marital relationship. In Emery, R. E., &

Tuer, M. (1993). Parenting: An ecological perspective, 2, 205-234.

Forehand, R., & Wierson, M. (1993). The role of developmental factors in planning behavioral

interventions for children: Disruptive behavior as an example. Behavior Therapy, 24(1),

117-141. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80259-X

Frick, P. J., & Morris, A. S. (2004). Temperament and developmental pathways to conduct

problems. Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology, 33(1), 54-68. doi:

10.1207/S15374424JCCP3301_6

Gable, S., Crnic, K., & Belsky, J. (1994). Coparenting within the family system: Influences on

children's development.Family relations, 380-386.

Gerard, J. M., Buehler, C., Franck, K., & Anderson, O. (2005). In the eyes of the beholder:

cognitive appraisals as mediators of the association between interparental conflict and

youth maladjustment. Journal of Family Psychology,19(3), 376.

Glenn, N. D., & Kramer, K. B. (1987). The marriages and divorces of the children of

divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 811-825.

Goeke-Morey, M. C., Cummings, E. M., Harold, G. T., & Shelton, K. H. (2003). Categories and

continua of destructive and constructive marital conflict tactics from the perspective of US

and Welsh children. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(3), 327.

Goeke-Morey, M. C., Papp, L. M., & Cummings, E. M. (2013). Changes in marital conflict and

youths' responses across childhood and adolescence: A test of sensitization. Development

90
 and psychopathology, 25(1), 241-251.

Gonzales, N. A., Pitts, S. C., Hill, N. E., & Roosa, M. W. (2000). A mediational model of the

impact of interparental conflict on child adjustment in a multiethnic, low-income

sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(3), 365.

Goodman, S. H., Barfoot, B., Frye, A. A., & Belli, A. M. (1999). Dimensions of marital conflict

and children's social problem-solving skills. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(1), 33. doi:

10.1037/0893-3200.13.1.33

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce?: The relationship between marital processes and

marital outcomes. Psychology Press.

Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and

stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 5-22. doi:

10.2307/353438

Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1989). Effects of marital discord on young children's peer

interaction and health. Developmental psychology, 25(3), 373.

Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate

emotionally. Psychology Press.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson (2002). A two-factor model for predicting when a couple will

divorce: Exploratory analyses using 14-year longitudinal data. Family Process, 41 (1), 83-

96. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.40102000083.x

Gottman, J., & Notarius, C. (2000). Decade Review: Observing Marital Interaction. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 62(4), 927-947.

Goodman, S. H., Lusby, C. M., Thompson, K., Newport, D. J., & Stowe, Z. N. (2014). Maternal

91
 depression in association with fathers’ involvement with their infants: spillover or

compensation/buffering? Infant mental health journal, 35(5), 495-508.

Greenberg, L. S., & Goldman, R. N. (2008). Emotion-focused couples therapy: The dynamics of

emotion, love, and power. American Psychological Association.

Griest, D. L., Forehand, R., Rogers, T., Breiner, J., Furey, W. & Williams, C. A. (1982). Effects

of parent enhancement therapy on the treatment outcome and generalization of a parent

training program. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 20, 429–436. doi: 10.1016/0005-

7967(82)90064-X

Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological

Inquiry, 26(1), 1-26. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children's adjustment: A cognitive-

contextual framework. Psychological bulletin, 108(2), 267. doi: 10.1037/0033-

2909.108.2.267

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2001). Interparental conflict and child adjustment: An overview.

In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development:

Theory, research, and application (pp. 1–6).

Halberstadt, A. G., Denham, S. A., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2001). Affective social

competence. Social development, 10(1), 79-119. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00150

Halford, W. K., Markman, H. J., Kling, G. H., & Stanley, S. M. (2003). Best practice in couple

relationship education. Journal of marital and family therapy, 29(3), 385-406.

Halford, W. K., Markman, H. J., & Stanley, S. (2008). Strengthening couples' relationships with

92
 education: Social policy and public health perspectives. Journal of Family

Psychology, 22(4), 497.

Harold, G. T., Shelton, K. H., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Cummings, E. M. (2004). Marital

conflict, child emotional security about family relationships and child adjustment. Social

Development, 13(3), 350-376. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2004.00272.x

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

Heinrichs, N., & Prinz, R. J. (2012). Families in trouble: Bridging the gaps among child, adult,

and couple functioning.Clinical child and family psychology review, 15(1), 1-3

Herzberg, P. Y. (2012). Coping in relationships: The interplay between individual and dyadic

coping and their effects on relationship satisfaction. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 26, 136–

153. doi:10.1080/10615806.2012.655726

Hood, K. K., & Eyberg, S. M. (2003). Outcomes of parent-child interaction therapy: Mothers'

reports of maintenance three to six years after treatment. Journal of Clinical Child and

Adolescent Psychology, 32(3), 419-429.

Horwitz, S. M., Irwin, J. R., Briggs-Gowan, M. J., Heenan, J. M. B., Mendoza, J., & Carter, A.

S. (2003). Language delay in a community cohort of young children. Journal of the

American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 932–940.

Hosokawa, R., & Katsura, T. (2017). Marital relationship, parenting practices, and social skills

development in preschool children. Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental

health,11(1), 2.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

93
 Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a

multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

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(5), 793-810

Kaczynski, K. J., Lindahl, K. M., Malik, N. M., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2006). Marital conflict,

maternal and paternal parenting, and child adjustment: A test of mediation and

moderation. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(2), 199.

Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Patterns of marital conflict predict children's internalizing

and externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 940.

Katz, L. F., Wilson, B., & Gottman, J. M. (1999). Meta-emotion philosophy and family

adjustment: Making an emotional connection. Conflict and cohesion in families: Causes

and consequences, 131-165.

Kazdin, A. E. (2008). Parent management training: Treatment for oppositional, aggressive, and

antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. Oxford University Press. New York.

Knudson-Martin, C. E., & Mahoney, A. R. E. (2009). Couples, gender, and power: Creating

change in intimate relationships. Springer Publishing Co.

Kopp, C. B. (1992). Emotional distress and control in young children. New Directions for Child

and Adolescent Development, 1992(55), 41-56. doi: 10.1002/cd.23219925505

Koss, K. J., George, M. R., Bergman, K. N., Cummings, E. M., Davies, P. T., & Cicchetti, D.

(2011). Understanding children’s emotional processes and behavioral strategies in the

context of marital conflict. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(3), 336-352.

94
Kouros, C. D., Merrilees, C. E., & Cummings, E. M. (2008). Marital conflict and children’s

emotional security in the context of parental depression. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 70(3), 684-697. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00514.x

Kouros, C. D., Papp, L. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Cummings, E. M. (2014). Spillover

between marital quality and parent–child relationship quality: Parental depressive

symptoms as moderators. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(3), 315. doi:

10.1037/a0036804

Lansford, J. E. (2009). Parental divorce and children's adjustment. Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 4(2), 140-152.

Locke, H. J. & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their

reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251-255.

Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: a link between marital conflict

and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 3.

Masten, A. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2010). Developmental cascades. Development and

psychopathology, 22(3), 491-495. doi:10.1017/S0954579410000222

McCoy, K., Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2009). Constructive and destructive marital

conflict, emotional security and children’s prosocial behavior. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(3), 270-279.

McHale, J. P. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital

distress and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 31, 985–996.

McHale, J. P. (1997). Overt and covert coparenting processes in the family. Family Process, 36,

183–201

95
McHale, J. P., Johnson, D., & Sinclair, R. (1999). Family dynamics, preschoolers' family

representations, and preschool peer relationships. Early Education and

Development, 10(3), 373-401.

McHale, J. P., Kazali, C., Rotman, T., Talbot, J., Carleton, M., & Lieberson, R. (2004). The t

transition to coparenthood: Parents' prebirth expectations and early coparental adjustment

at 3 months postpartum. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 711-733.

McHale, J. P., Kuersten, R., & Lauretti, A. (1996). New directions in the study of

family level dynamics during infancy and early childhood. New Directions for Child and

Adolescent Development, 1996(74), 5-26.

McHale, J. P., Kuersten-Hogan, R., & Rao, N. (2004). Growing points for coparenting theory a

and research. Journal of adult development, 11(3), 221-234.

McHale, J. P., & Rasmussen, J. L. (1998). Coparental and family group-level dynamics during

infancy: Early family precursors of child and family functioning during

preschool.Development and psychopathology, 10(1), 39-59.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Harvard University Press.

Minuchin, P. Families and Individual Development: Provocations from the Field of Family

Therapy. Child Development, 1985(56) 289-302.

Mirgain, S. A., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Emotion skills and marital health: The association

between observed and self-reported emotion skills, intimacy, and marital

satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(9), 983-1009. doi:

10.1521/jscp.2007.26.9.983

Morrill, MI., Hines, D. A., Mahmood, S., & Cordova, J. V. (2010). Pathways between marriage

96
 and parenting for wives and husbands: The role of coparenting. Family process, 49(1), 59-

73

Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the

family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social development, 16(2), 361-

388. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x

Nelson, J. A., O’Brien, M., Blankson, A. N., Calkins, S. D., & Keane, S. P. (2009). Family Stress

and Parental Responses to Children’s Negative Emotions: Tests of the Spillover,

Crossover, and Compensatory Hypotheses. Journal of Family Psychology : JFP : Journal

of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division

43), 23(5), 671–679. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015977

O'Leary, S. G., & Vidair, H. B. (2005). Marital adjustment, child-rearing disagreements, and

overreactive parenting: predicting child behavior problems. Journal of Family

Psychology, 19(2), 208.

Paley, B., Conger, R. D., & Harold, G. T. (2000). Parents' affect, adolescent cognitive

representations, and adolescent social development. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 62(3), 761-776. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00761.x

Papp, L. M., Cummings, E. M., & Goeke‐Morey, M. C. (2009). For richer, for poorer: Money as

a topic of marital conflict in the home. Family relations, 58(1), 91-103.

Papp, L. M., Kouros, C. D., & Cummings, E. M. (2010). Emotions in marital conflict

interactions: Empathic accuracy, assumed similarity, and the moderating context of

depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(3), 367-387. doi:

10.1177/0265407509348810

97
Papp, L. M., & Witt, N. L. (2010). Romantic partners’ individual coping strategies and dyadic

coping: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 551–

559. doi:10.1037/a0020836

Parke, R. D., Schulz, M. S., Pruett, M. K., & Kerig, P. K. (2010). Tracing the development of the

couples and family research tradition: The enduring contributions of Philip and Carolyn

Pape Cowan. Strengthening Couple Relationships for Optimal Child Development:

Lessons from Research and Intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Porter, B., & O'Leary, K. D. (1980). Marital discord and childhood behavior problems. Journal

of abnormal child psychology, 8(3), 287-295. doi: 10.1007/BF00916376

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation

hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate behavioral research, 42(1),

185-227.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale a self-report depression scale for research in the general

population. Applied psychological measurement, 1(3), 385-401.

Reid, W. J., & Crisafulli, A. (1990). Marital discord and child behavior problems: A meta-

analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18(1), 105-117.

Roberts, N. A., Tsai, J. L., & Coan, J. A. (2007). Emotion elicitation using dyadic interaction

tasks. Handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment. In Coan, J.A. & Allen, J. J. B.

editors. Handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment (pp. 106-123). New York:

Oxford University Press

Rogge, R. D., Bradbury, T. N., Hahlweg, K., Engl, J., & Thurmaier, F. (2006). Predicting marital

98
 distress and dissolution: Refining the two-factor hypothesis. Journal of Family

Psychology, 20(1), 156.

Saarni, C. (1990). Emotional competence: How emotions and relationships become integrated.

In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 36, p.

115).

Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. Guilford Press.

Saenz, D. S. (2016). Effects of the interparental relationship on adolescents' emotional security

and adjustment: the important role of fathers. Developmental psychology, 52(10), 1666-

1678.

Sanders, M. R., Kirby, J. N., Tellegen, C. L., & Day, J. J. (2014). The Triple P-Positive

Parenting Program: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a multi-level system of

parenting support. Clinical psychology review, 34(4), 337-357.

Schoppe, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Frosch, C. A. (2001). Coparenting, family process, and

family structure: Implications for preschoolers' externalizing behavior problems. Journal

of Family Psychology, 15(3), 526.

Schulz, M. S., Kerig, P. K. Pruett, M. K., & Parke, R. D., (2010). Introduction: Feathering the

Nest. Strengthening Couple Relationships for Optimal Child Development: Lessons from

Research and Intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Schulz, M.S. & Waldinger, R.J. (2010). Capturing the Elusive: Studying Emotion Processes in

Couple Relationships. In M.S. Schulz, M.S., M.K. Pruett, P.K. Kerig, & R.D. Parke

(eds.). Strengthening Couple Relationships for Optimal Child Development: Lessons from

Research and Intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

99
Shek, D. T. (1998). Linkage between marital quality and parent-child relationship: A

longitudinal study in the Chinese culture. Journal of Family Issues, 19(6), 687-704.

Shepard, S. A., & Dickstein, S. (2009). Preventive Intervention for Early Childhood Behavioral

Problems: An Ecological Perspective. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North

America, 18(3), 687–706. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2009.03.002

Sherrill, R. B., Lochman, J. E., DeCoster, J., & Stromeyer, S. L. (2017). Spillover between

interparental conflict and parent–child conflict within and across days. Journal of Family

Psychology, 31(7), 900.

Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2003). Adolescents’ emotion regulation in daily life:

Links to depressive symptoms and problem behavior. Child Development, 74, 1869–1880.

Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child

development, 1184-1199.

Sturge‐Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (2006). Impact of hostility and

withdrawal in interparental conflict on parental emotional unavailability and children's

adjustment difficulties. Child Development, 77(6), 1623-1641.

Suh, G. W., Fabricius, W. V., Stevenson, M. M., Parke, R. D., Cookston, J. T., Braver, S. L., &

Teubert, D., & Pinquart, M. (2010). The association between coparenting and child

adjustment: A meta-analysis. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10(4), 286-307.

Thompson, R. A. (1991). Emotional regulation and emotional development. Educational

Psychology Review, 3(4), 269-307.

Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of

the society for research in child development, 59(2‐3), 25-52.

100
Wachs, K., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Mindful relating: Exploring mindfulness and emotion

repertoires in intimate relationships. Journal of Marital and Family therapy, 33(4), 464-

481. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00032.x

Wilson, B. J., & Gottman, J. M. (1995). Marital interaction and parenting. In M. Bornstein

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 4. Applied and practical parenting (pp. 33–55).

Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zemp, M., Bodenmann, G., Backes, S., Sutter-Stickel, D., & Revenson, T. A. (2016). The

importance of parents' dyadic coping for children. Family Relations, 65(2), 275-286.

Zemp, M., Bodenmann, G., & Cummings, E. M. (2016). The Significance of Interparental

Conflict for Children. European Psychologist, 12(2) 99-108.

Zemp, M., Merrilees, C. E., & Bodenmann, G. (2014). How much positivity between parents is

needed to buffer the impact of parental negativity on child adjustment? Family Relations,

63, 602–615. doi:10.1111/fare.12091

101