The American Journal of Family Therapy

ISSN: 0192-6187 (Print) 1521-0383 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaft20

Codependency, Perceived Interparental Conflict,

and Substance Abuse in the Family of Origin

Theresa M. Knudson & Heather K. Terrell

To cite this article: Theresa M. Knudson & Heather K. Terrell (2012) Codependency, Perceived
Interparental Conflict, and Substance Abuse in the Family of Origin, The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 40:3, 245-257, DOI: 10.1080/01926187.2011.610725

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2011.610725

Published online: 04 May 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4399

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uaft20
The American Journal of Family Therapy, 40:245–257, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0192-6187 print / 1521-0383 online
DOI: 10.1080/01926187.2011.610725

Codependency, Perceived Interparental

Conflict, and Substance Abuse in the Family
of Origin

THERESA M. KNUDSON and HEATHER K. TERRELL

Department of Psychology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota, USA

Codependency has been found to originate in many different en-

vironments, namely the family of origin. The most popularly re-
searched environment is the family of origin that exhibits substance
abuse. However, little research has clearly demonstrated that code-
pendency is most prevalent in children of substance abusers. Pre-
vious research has not examined how codependency is correlated
with perceived interparental conflict. This study examined the re-
lationships among codependency, interparental conflict, and sub-
stance abuse in the family of origin. Results of this study found that
codependency in adulthood was related to perceived interparental
conflict in the family of origin, but was not related to the family of
origin that exhibited substance abuse.

Codependency is a term used by many clinicians in an attempt to identify

certain unhealthy behaviors. Codependents “play God” by controlling those
around them for the sake of “saving” them from destructive behaviors such as
substance abuse (Beattie, 2009). Most researchers agree that codependency
is a “dysfunctional pattern of relating to others with an extreme focus outside
of oneself, lack of expression of feelings, and a personal meaning derived
from relationships with others” (Fischer, Spann, & Crawford, 1991, p. 87).
Codependents, busy taking care of others, forget to take care of themselves,
resulting in a disturbance of identity development. In order to save these
“savers,” codependency must be better understood by studying its origins so
appropriate recovery therapy can be developed.
Many researchers have studied levels of codependency in relation to the
family of origin in an attempt to understand recovery from codependency.

Address correspondence to Heather K. Terrell, Department of Psychology, University

of North Dakota, 319 Harvard Street, Grand Forks, ND 58202-8380. E-mail: heather.terrell@
und.edu

245
246 T. M. Knudson and H. K. Terrell

Dysfunction in the family of origin has been found to be related to develop-

ing codependency in adulthood, but which specific and consistent type of
familial dysfunction is not agreed upon by researchers. Researchers disagree
on whether or not codependency in adulthood is a result of having a sub-
stance abusing parent or parental unit in the family of origin. For example,
Beattie (2009) claims that a popular misconception among codependents is
that “codependency doesn’t have anything to do with them because nobody
in their family drinks . . .” (p. 8). It is important for researchers to agree
on what kind of familial dysfunction influences the development of code-
pendent traits. Because various studies have found correlations between the
parental unit’s behaviors and codependency in adulthood, it is important to
assess more deeply the parental unit’s functioning in the family of origin.
Studies have not been conducted that assess whether or not the level
of perceived marital conflict within a parental unit may affect codependency
in adulthood. Codependents feel a responsibility toward others’ feelings and
happiness (Beattie, 1992) as do many children feel toward their parents
who engage in frequent conflict. Perceived interparental conflict has been
associated with child maladjustment (Nigg et al., 2009). A child’s perception
of interparental conflict includes the specific conflict, how it is resolved, and
the child’s role in that conflict. Studies have also found that children exposed
to frequent interparental conflict may often feel a responsibility to end the
conflict and resolve it (Fosco & Grych, 2008).

DEFINING CODEPENDENCY

The definition of codependency is widespread (O’Gorman, 1993). The term

codependency has been defined differently by many authors and researchers.
Without a substantial amount of systematic research on codependency as
a disease, the lack of agreement on a clear definition for codependency
is problematic (Fuller & Warner, 2000). Codependent literature suggests
that codependency expresses the pain and helplessness associated with an
overwhelming feeling of responsibility for others that dominates one’s life
(Haaken, 1993), and describes codependency as “a dysfunctional pattern of
relating to others with subsequent difficulty and painful interactions” (Parker,
Faulk, & LoBello, 2003, p. 86). Defining codependency as a psychological
disorder has proved to be a daunting task for researchers.
Only one researcher, thus far, has fought for the inclusion of code-
pendency in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM). Cermak (1986) chal-
lenged the construct of codependency arguing for its diagnostic validity; that
is the ability of professionals to diagnose patients as codependent through
the DSM’s criteria for codependency. He argues that codependency can be
defined within the DSM for the diagnostic category of Mixed Personality
 Codependency and Perceived Interparental Conflict 247

Disorder. Cermak relates his criteria to Alcohol Dependence Personality

Disorder, Dependent Personality Disorder, and Borderline Personality Dis-
order. Although Cermak makes a strong argument, his claims are not widely
accepted, nor were they accepted in the DSM-III due to a lack of empirical
evidence.
Codependency was originally used as a term to define a relationship in-
volving substance abuse. According to this perspective, although it was the
codependent’s partner who struggled with substance abuse, the codepen-
dent was believed to develop an addiction to his or her partner’s substance
abuse and the attempts to control it (Peled & Sacks, 2008). Later, with more
attention given to codependency and its origins, Codependents Anonymous
(CODA) was formed in the 1980s for those with codependent traits, but
who had no relationship to a substance abuser (Crester & Lombardo, 1999).
Since CODA’s development, the concept of codependency has been used to
describe individuals not only in relationships where substance abuse is in-
volved, but also for those who have developed unhealthy relational patterns
in response to a dysfunctional family of origin.
The most current agreed upon definition lies in the area of relationship
dysfunction and identity disturbance. The most widely used definition of
codependency comes from Fischer and Spann (1991), the authors of the
Spann–Fischer Codependency Scale (SF CDS). In this study we have adopted
this definition which claims codependency is the “dysfunctional pattern of
relating to others with an extreme focus outside of oneself, lack of expression
of feelings, and a personal meaning derived from relationships with others”
(p. 87). The Spann–Fischer Codependency Scale measures codependency
on three characteristics: 1) the maintenance of an external locus of control,
2) the lack of an open expression of feelings, and 3) the use of control,
denial, and rigidity in order to create a sense of purpose in relationships.
Notably, Spann and Fischer’s definition of codependency does not in-
clude a description of a relationship to a substance abuser. With the or-
ganization of self-help groups many professionals began to see patterns in
codependent behavior from people who were not in a committed relation-
ship to a substance abuser. With this discovery came the research on family
dysfunction and how the family of origin contributes to codependency in
adulthood.

THE ORIGINS OF CODEPENDENCY

The definition of codependency has evolved past the necessary association

with substance abuse. Crothers and Warren (1996) found that although it
has been assumed that codependency is linked to substance abuse, there
is no strong research to support the claim. In fact, researchers suggest that
codependency exists independently from substance abuse.
248 T. M. Knudson and H. K. Terrell

Through a number of empirical studies researchers have found a cor-

relation between codependency and various family stressors, separate from
substance abuse (O’Brien & Gabroit, 1992). Cullen and Carr suggest that
codependency may be “one aspect of wider multigenerational family sys-
tems” not including substance abuse (1999, p. 505). They found that contrary
to popular belief, students who fell into the high codependent category did
not show higher levels of substance abuse in their parental unit. Other stud-
ies have found various styles of parenting, such as parental coercion, control,
a lack of communication, and non-nurturance to affect the development of
codependency in adulthood (Crothers & Warren, 1996; Fischer, Spann, &
Crawford, 1991).
Some researchers still argue that these experiences (lack of role clarity,
coercive parenting styles, lack of affective expression, and low degrees of
communication) are common to families of origin with substance abuse, as
well. Wampler, Downs, and Fischer (2009) and Fuller and Warner (2000)
found that higher levels of codependency showed a significant relationship
to having an alcoholic parent, mentally ill parent, and physically ill parent in
the family of origin. Additionally, Parker et al. (2003) found that high levels
of family pathology, specifically exposure to a family member with substance
abuse, were correlated with higher levels of codependency among college
students.
Beattie (1992) claims that common patterns in a codependent’s past
are the unwritten rules that generate in the immediate family. For example,
learned helplessness, according to O’Gorman (1993), originates in a child’s
feeling of powerlessness over disturbing stimuli in the family of origin. She
concludes that a child’s energy is depleted as the child feels powerless over
controlling the problem. She believes that this feeling of powerlessness in
childhood leads to an excessive preoccupation in the life of a codependent
adult with the life of his or her partner. In agreement with O’Gorman, is
Webb’s (2009) statement that codependency stems from an intergenerational
pattern of problem solving formed within a family system where there have
been various types of dysfunction. Understanding codependency’s origins
could potentially assist researchers in developing a clearer understanding of
codependent criteria.
Because researchers believe that codependency stems from a pattern
or family system that supports dependence in interpersonal relationships
characterized by a loss of individual autonomy and a distortion of reality
(Webb, 2009), and because children learn to relate to others by watching
their parental unit’s interactions (Cui & Fincham, 2010), codependency, then,
may point to a dysfunctional learned behavioral pattern in relationships that
reflect the parental unit’s relationship. A closer look at perceived interparental
conflict and how it affects a child may give researchers the information
needed to assess codependency’s relation to the parental unit’s interactions
in the family of origin.
 Codependency and Perceived Interparental Conflict 249

PERCEIVED INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT

A child’s perception of his or her parental unit’s conflict, how it is resolved,

and the child’s role in the conflict is included in defining (children’s) per-
ceived interparental conflict. This parental conflict ranges from minor dis-
agreements to hostile and disturbing aggression.
Perceived interparental conflict has been associated with child malad-
justment, specifically internalizing (e.g., depression and anxiety) and exter-
nalizing (e.g., violence) behaviors (Nigg et al., 2009). Liu (2004) describes
internalizing behaviors as inclusive of problems such as withdrawal, anxiety,
and depression. In contrast, externalizing behavior, Liu claims, is when a
child negatively acts on his or her external environment. Externalizing and
internalizing behaviors frequently occur together. Interparental conflict’s role
in these behaviors is important to measure.
In the past, interparental conflict was assessed by parental reports, but
parental reports likely underestimate children’s awareness of the conflict
(Nigg et al., 2009). To better understand how child maladjustment is affected
by perceived interparental conflict, Grych, Seid, and Finchman (1992) de-
veloped the Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict scale (CPIC). The
CPIC assesses a child’s view of several aspects of interparental conflict, such
as conflict properties, self-blame, and perceived threat. The CPIC has proven
to be “more predictive of child adjustment than scores on three other com-
monly used measures of marital conflict and satisfaction” (Bickham & Fiese,
1997). The CPIC has found children’s perceptions of their parent’s conflict to
be associated with many maladjusted behaviors including internal and ex-
ternalizing behavior (Grych et al., 1992). The framework of the CPIC model
emphasizes the importance of a child’s perception and interpretation of the
parental conflict.
Grych et al. (1992) studied a group of 9–12 year old children and
found significant associations between children’s perceptions of the proper-
ties of interparental conflict and their internalizing and externalizing behav-
ior. Specifically, they found the children’s appraisals of threat and self-blame
were most highly associated with internalizing behavior. According to Fosco
and Grych (2008) a child’s appraisal of his or her parental unit’s conflicts
proves vital to that child’s adjustment later in life. For example, self-blame
may transpire if the child feels that the conflict was caused by him or her,
or if the child feels a responsibility to end and resolve the conflict. Bickham
and Fiese (1997) also found significant correlations between perceived inter-
parental conflict (as measured by the CPIC) and adolescent self-esteem and
identity issues. Further, researchers have found that family systems, includ-
ing a parental unit’s relationship, may influence their offspring and the ways
grown children revisit these influences as they select partners and engage in
adult intimacy (Siegel, 2010). Siegel found that experiences in the family of
250 T. M. Knudson and H. K. Terrell

origin have the ability to influence many aspects of identity, including the
capacity to trust and develop a healthy dependency.

THE PRESENT STUDY

It has been proposed that codependency is a disturbance in identity de-

velopment, specifically in relationship dysfunction, arising out of various
family stressors. Codependents feel a responsibility toward others’ feelings
and happiness (Beattie, 1992), as do many children whose parents engage
in frequent interparental conflict. Because studies have found that children
exposed to frequent interparental conflict may often feel a responsibility to
end the conflict and resolve it (Fosco & Grych, 2008), and that memories
of perceived interparental conflict are significantly and positively correlated
with developing insecure adult attachment styles (Zinbag, 2001), we pre-
dicted that codependency may develop as a result of this feeling of learned
responsibility from the family of origin that does not exhibit substance abuse.
Fischer, Spann, and Crawford (1991) expressed a need for “additional
examination of interpersonal dynamics of codependency and family” (97).
There is a dearth of research dedicated to codependency and its origins in
dysfunctional families that do not exhibit substance abuse. The current study
helps to fill this void by investigating the familial origins of codependency,
specifically in the case of interparental conflict, and to support previous re-
search that has found that codependency originates more in dysfunctional
families without substance abuse than dysfunctional families with substance
abuse. Based on these and previously stated findings, we posited that per-
ceived interparental conflict, separate from substance abuse in the family of
origin, will be positively and significantly correlated with codependency in
adulthood.

METHOD
Participants
During the fall semester of 2009, 223 undergraduate students at the Univer-
sity of North Dakota agreed to participate in a multi-questionnaire study to
research the relationships among codependency, interparental conflict, and
substance abuse in the family of origin. The sample included 139 (62.3%)
female respondents, and 84 (37.6%) male respondents. The majority of stu-
dents, 202 respondents (90.6%), identified themselves as “Caucasian” while
other respondents identified as “Asian/Pacific Islander” 5 (2.2%), “Native
American/Alaska Native” 3 (1.3%), “Black/African American” 2 (.90%), and
“Other/Multi-Racial” 5 (2.2%). Six (2.7%) participants declined to respond.
The ages of participants were as follows: 62 (27.8%) of participants were
between the ages of 18 and 20 years old, 90 (40.4%) were 20 to 22 years
 Codependency and Perceived Interparental Conflict 251

old, 47 (21.1%) participants were between the ages of 22 and 24 years old,
10 (4.5%) were 24 to 26 years old, 2 (.90%) participants were between 26
and 28 years old, and 12 (5.4%) participants were over 28 years old.
Participants reported who they had lived with from 9 to 12 years of age,
and the majority of participants (89.2%) reported living with both biological
parents, while 1.8% reported living with only one biological parent, 7.2% re-
ported living with one biological parent and a step-parent, and 1.8% selected
“other.”

Measures
All Cronbach’s alpha levels for the following measures are based on the
current data set. A Cronbach’s Alpha of .70 was used, by suggestion from
previous research, as an indicator of high reliability (Santos, 1999).

CODEPENDENCY
Codependency was assessed with the Spann-Fischer Codependency Scale
(SF CDS; Spann, Fischer, & Crawford, 1991; α = .80). The SF CDS assesses
codependency via 16 Likert-type items with response options that range from
1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Higher scores indicate higher
levels of codependency. The SF CDS focuses on three characteristics of
codependency: 1) the maintenance of an external locus of control, 2) the
lack of an open expression of feelings, 3) and the use of control, denial,
and rigidity in order to create a sense of purpose in relationships. The SF
CDS also discriminates between self-identified codependents and recovered
codependents.

PARENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Parent substance abuse was assessed with the Michigan Alcoholism Screen-
ing Test: Brief MAST (MAST; Pokorny, Miller, & Kaplan, 1972; α = .81). The
Brief MAST consists of 10 items that were used to assess the participants’
perception of parent substance abuse. The Brief MAST is a condensed ver-
sion of the original 25-item MAST. Because the Brief MAST identifies the
respondent’s level of substance abuse, the survey was adjusted to refer to
substance abuse by the respondent’s parents. The Brief MAST’s questions
were adjusted to refer to each parent as has been done in previous studies
(Crothers & Warren, 1996). For example, the question, “Do you feel that you
are a normal drinker” was adapted to “Do you feel that your mother/father
was a normal drinker?” We also added the words “or drug use” to six of the
Brief MAST’s questions to include all other drugs of abuse.
252 T. M. Knudson and H. K. Terrell

Interparental Conflict
Interparental conflict was assessed using the Children’s Perception of Inter-
parental Conflict Scale (CPIC; Grych, Seid, & Finchman, 1992). The CPIC is a
48-item questionnaire that assesses the participants’ perceived interparental
conflict. The CPIC includes 3 scales: Conflict Properties, Self-Blame, and
Threat. These scales are indicators of different types of parental conflict and
can be further divided into 8 subscales: Intensity (α = .86), Frequency (α =
.89), and Resolution (α = .93) subscales (which are subscales of the Conflict
Properties scale), the Blame (α = .64) and Content (α = .80)subscales (which
compose the Self-Blame scale), and the Perceived Threat (α = .81) and Cop-
ing (α = .76) subscales (which create the Threat scale). Following previous
research (Bickham & Fiese, 1997) we asked participants to respond to the
survey based on memories of their perception of their parents’ interactions
during childhood (9 to 12 years of age).
All subscales of the CPIC in this present study demonstrated strong
reliability, with the exception of the Blame subscale. Students were asked
to assess their memories of various dimensions of perceived interparental
conflict and remembering thoughts of self-blame, according to Bickham and
Fiese (1997), is more difficult to do than remembering overt signs of conflict
(e.g., intensity scale). More specifically, research has found that younger
children blame themselves more heavily for parental conflict matters than
do adolescents or college students (Grych & Finchman, 1990). Thus, this
result may point to a “floor effect” for the reliability of the Blame subscale,
as well as the Self-Blame scale of the CPIC on a college aged population.
Blame properties have not been as powerful in demonstration among older
populations in previous research (Bickham & Fiese, 1997).

DEMOGRAPHICS
A demographic questionnaire, created by the researchers, included questions
about gender, ethnic/racial identity, living environment during 9 to 12 years
of age, and student status.

Procedures
Participants were able to complete the survey in the privacy of their homes
or in any location with Internet availability. Participants were required to sign
an electronic consent form required by the Institutional Review Board before
completion of the survey. Each participant’s responses were anonymous.

RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Approximately 17.5% of respondents demonstrated high levels of codepen-
dency as assessed by the SF CDA. Furthermore, 23.8% of the respondents
 Codependency and Perceived Interparental Conflict 253

demonstrated low levels of codependency, and a majority of respondents

(58.7%) reported moderate or average levels of codependency (M = 47.61,
SD = 11.84).
Analyses of the Brief MAST indicated that a majority of respondents
did not perceive their parent(s) as substance abuser(s) (57.4%), compared
to 25.6% who perceived their parent(s) as having “suggested” levels of sub-
stance abuse, and 17% of the respondents who perceived that their parent(s)
were substance abusers (M = 3.69, SD = 5.84).

Correlations
Tests for normality indicated that the data from each of the measures were
not normally distributed; thus, Spearman’s Rho Correlation Coefficient was
used to test correlations (Kowalski, 1975). Correlations among the CPIC
scales and subscales indicated large correlations among these scales, which
are presented in Table 1, along with the correlations between each subscale
with the Brief MAST and SF CDS.
A positive, significant correlation between the Brief MAST and the Con-
flict Properties scale, rs = .27, (p < .01) was detected. Each subscale of the
Conflict Properties scale (frequency, intensity, and resolution) was signifi-
cantly and positively correlated to the Brief MAST with rs = .27, rs = .26,
and rs = .30, (p < .01), respectively. None of the other CPIC scales or sub-
scales were significantly correlated with the Brief MAST.Correlations between
each of the CPIC scales and the Brief MAST are presented in Table 2.
The correlation between the Brief MAST and the SF CDS was not sta-
tistically significant, rs = .16, (p > .05), indicating no relationship between
substance abuse in the parental unit and codependent behavior as an adult.
To evaluate the relationship between codependency and perceived in-
terparental conflict a Spearman’s Rho correlations were calculated between

TABLE 1 Correlations Among CPIC Subscales, SF CDS, and Brief MAST

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
1. Frequency (c) — .81 .80 .60 .56 .26 .28 .27 .27∗
2. Intensity (c) — .78∗ .64∗ .60∗ .27∗ .31∗ .26∗ .26∗
3. Resolution (c) — .60∗ .60∗ .22∗ .26∗ .23∗ .30∗
4. Perceived Threat (t) — .69∗ .31∗ .36∗ .30∗ .20
5. Coping (t) — .25∗ .26∗ .36∗ .16
6. Blame (s) — .59∗ .33∗ .07
7. Content (s) — .28∗ .15
8. SF CDS — .16
9. MAST —
Note. SF CDS refers to the Spann-Fischer Codependency Scale and MAST refers to the Brief Alcoholism
Screen Test scale. The Conflict Properties scale of the CPIC is denoted by (c), the Threat scale of the
CPIC is denoted by (t), and the Self-Blame scale of the CPIC is denoted by (s).
∗ p < .01.
254 T. M. Knudson and H. K. Terrell

TABLE 2 Correlations Among CPIC Scales, SF CDS, and Brief MAST

Conflict Properties Threat Self-Blame SF CDS MAST

Conflict Properties — .69∗ .33∗ .26∗ .27∗

Threat . — .33∗ .36∗ .19
Self-Blame — .33∗ .10
SF CDS — .16
Note. SF CDS refers to the Spann-Fischer Codependency Scale and the MAST refers to the Brief Alcoholism
Screen Test scale.
∗ p < .01.

the SF CDS and the CPIC scales (and subscales). All of the CPIC scales (Con-
flict Properties, Threat, and Self-Blame) were significantly correlated with
the SF CDS. The Threat scale showed the highest correlation (rs = .36, p <
.01), followed by the Self-Blame scale (rs = .33, p < .01) and the Conflict
Properties scale (rs = .26, p < .01). Further analyses of the relationship be-
tween the SF CDS and each of the CPIC subscales also indicated that all of
the subscales (Intensity, Frequency, Resolution, Perceived Threat, Coping,
Blame, and Content) were significantly correlated with the SF CDS.

DISCUSSION

The goal of the present study was to examine the relationship between
codependency in adulthood and perceived interparental conflict in the fam-
ily of origin, and the relationship between codependency in adulthood and
substance abuse in the family of origin’s parental unit. Significant and pos-
itive correlations were detected between codependency (as measured by
the SF CDS) and all scales (and subscales) of the CPIC, but codependency
was not significantly correlated with perceived parental substance abuse (as
measured by the Brief MAST). This finding is consistent with the hypothesis
that codependency in adulthood is associated with perceived interparental
conflict in childhood, independent of parental substance abuse in the family
of origin. Specifically, codependency was associated with higher levels of
feelings of threat and self-blame from memories of perceived interparental
conflict. These findings are unique in that this specific type of familial dys-
function (perceived interparental conflict) has not been researched in relation
to codependency.
The present study found that substance abuse in the family of origin was
not significantly correlated with codependency in adulthood. These findings
are consistent with research by others (Cullen & Carr, 1999; Crothers &
Warren, 1996; O’Brien &Gabroit, 1992). This finding is valuable because a
strong societal belief exists that codependency stems solely from relation-
ships with substance abusers in the family of origin (Beattie, 2009).
 Codependency and Perceived Interparental Conflict 255

Correlations between the Brief MAST and the CPIC demonstrated that
respondents who reported substance abuse in the parental unit reported
higher levels of memories of perceived Conflict Properties between parents.
Therefore, the relationship between having (a) substance abusing parent(s)
and witnessing Conflict Properties (according to the CPIC) between that
parental unit was significant, but the relationship between having (a) sub-
stance abusing parent(s) and demonstrating feelings of Threat or Self-Blame
was not significant. Children of substance abuser(s) may experience higher
levels of conflict intensity and frequency, and lower levels of resolution
in the parental unit’s conflict. Further, this study found that children who
have (a) parent(s) with substance abuse are more likely to perceive con-
flict properties of interparental conflict, than feelings of self-blame and/or
threat.
Perhaps most important is this study’s findings that perceived inter-
parental conflict is significantly and positively correlated with codependency
in adulthood. All scales and subscales of the CPIC demonstrated signifi-
cant, positive correlations with codependency in adulthood. This implies
that codependency may have its roots in early childhood experiences, specif-
ically a child’s perception interparental conflict. Codependency, as defined
by Fischer and Spann (1991), is a “dysfunctional pattern of relating to oth-
ers” (88). A child’s future relationships are affected by his or her parents’
relationship(s) (Cui & Fincham, 2010).
The Threat scale of the CPIC demonstrated the highest positive cor-
relation to codependency in adulthood in comparison to all scales. The
Threat scale includes both the Coping subscale and the Perceived Threat
subscale of the CPIC. The Coping subscale yielded the highest correlations
with codependency of all CPIC subscales. This indicates that codependency
may be most greatly affected by a child’s ability or inability to internally
cope with conflict that occurs in the parental unit. This finding also suggests
that the relationship between codependency in adulthood and perceived
interparental conflict in childhood may depend on the degree to which the
child feels threatened or unable to cope with the conflict, rather than mere
exposure to conflict. This present study’s finding is consistent with research
that claims children who feel threatened by a parental unit’s conflict may
develop internalizing behaviors that they carry into adulthood (Grych et al.,
1992).
One possible critique of the current findings are that the scores on
the CPIC and the Brief MAST may be questionable because they are based
on retrospective data. A child’s perception or interpretation of conflict is
likely to change with age, which may affect the reliability and validity of
these findings. Memory recollection has been criticized as a poor practice
of collecting data due to memory distortion or suggestion (Grych et al.,
1992).
256 T. M. Knudson and H. K. Terrell

CONCLUSION

This study highlighted the relationship between perceived interparental con-

flict and substance abuse in the family of origin, and codependency in
adulthood. This study’s findings support previous research that state that
codependency’s origins are rooted in a dysfunctional family outside of a
substance abusing family of origin (Cullen & Carr, 1999; Crothers & Warren,
1996; O’Brien &Gabroit, 1992).
Codependency will continue to be a controversial diagnosis among
mental health professionals. Research efforts to determine if codependency
demonstrates diagnostic validity would be beneficial. Codependency is not
only a controversial topic among its diagnostic validity, but also shows con-
troversy in its origins of development. Because this study found a correla-
tion between codependency and perceived interparental conflict that had
not been studied previously, a statistical analysis on a larger and more di-
verse population of participants should be conducted in the future. Also,
future studies should assess codependent behaviors exclusively in a sam-
ple of participants that demonstrate substance abuse in the family of origin
to add to the research that demonstrates a correlation or lack thereof be-
tween codependency and substance abuse in the family of origin. Efforts to
study codependency specifically in relation to interparental conflict would
prove beneficial in adding to this study’s findings. Addressing perceptions
of interparental conflict may be beneficial for recovery techniques for those
struggling with codependency.

REFERENCES

Beattie, M. (1992). Codependent no more. Center City, MN: Hazelden Book.

Beattie, M. (2009). The new codependency. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Bickham, N. L., & Fiese, B. H. (1997). Extension of the children’s perceptions of
interparental conflict scale for use with late adolescents. Journal of Family
Psychology, 11(2), 246–250.
Cermak, T. (1986). Diagnostic criteria for codependency. Journal of Psychoactive
Drugs, 18(1), 15–20.
Crester, G., & Lombardo, W. (1999). Examining codependency in a college popula-
tion. College Student Journal, 33(4), 629–637.
Crothers, M., & Warren, L. (1996). Parental antecedents of adult codependency.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52(2), 231–239.
Cui, M., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). The differential effects of parental divorce and
marital conflict on young adult romantic relationships. Personal Relationships,
17(3), 331–343.
Cullen, J., & Carr, A. (1999). Codependency: An empirical study from a systemic
perspective. Contemporary Family Therapy, 21, 505–525.
Fischer, J. L., Spann, L., & Crawford, D. (1991). Measuring codependency. Alcoholism
Treatment Quarterly, 8(1), 86–100.
 Codependency and Perceived Interparental Conflict 257

Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2008). Emotional, cognitive, and family systems me-
diators of children’s adjustment to interparental conflict. Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 22(6), 843–854.
Fuller, J. A., & Warner, R. M. (2000). Family stressors as predictors of codependency.
Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(1), 5–22.
Grych, J. H., & Finchman, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A
cognitive contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267–290.
Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Finchman, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from
the child’s perspective: The Children’s Perception of Perceived Interparental
Conflict Scale. Child Development, 63, 558–572.
Haaken, J. (1993). From Al-Anon to ACOA: Codependence and the reconstruction
of caregiving. SIGNS, 18, 321–345.
Liu, J. (2004). Childhood externalizing behavior: Theory and implications. Journal
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 17, 93–103.
Nigg, J. T., Nikolas, M., Miller, T. S., Alexander, B., Klump, K., & von Eye, A.
(2009). Factor structure of children’s perception of interparental conflict scale for
studies of youths with externalizing behavior problems. American Psychological
Association, 21(3), 450–456.
O’Brien, P., & Gabroit, M. (1992). Codependency: A disorder separate from chemical
dependency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 129–136.
O’Gorman, P. (1993). Codependency explored: A social movement in search of
definition and treatment. Psychiatric Quarterly, 64(2), 199–212.
Parker, F. M., Faulk, D., & LoBello, S. G. (2003). Assessing codependency and family
pathology in nursing students. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 14, 85–90.
Peled, E., & Sacks, I. (2008). The self perception of women who live with an alcoholic
partner: Dialoging with deviance, strength, and self-fulfillment. Family Relations,
57, 390–403.
Santos, J. (1999). Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales.
Journal of Extension, 37(2). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999april/
tt3.php
Siegel, J. P. (2010). A good-enough therapy: An object relations approach. In A. S.
Gurman (Ed.), Clinical casebook of couple therapy (pp. 134–152). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Wampler, R. S., Downs, A. B., & Fischer, J. L. (2009). Development of a brief version
of the Children’s Roles Inventory (CRI-20). The American Journal of Family
Therapy, 37(4), 287–298.
Webb, T. (2009). Codependence from a family systems perspective. The Prager
International Collection on Addictions, 3(8), 141–160.
Zinbarg, J. R. (2001). The relationship between parental marital instability and con-
flict, adult attachment styles, and college students’ intimate relationships. Disser-
tation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 62(12-
B), 5985.