See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341922033

Detouring in the family system as an antecedent of children's adjustment

problems

Article in Journal of Family Psychology · June 2020

DOI: 10.1037/fam0000727

CITATIONS READS
3 465

4 authors:

Jesse L Coe Patrick T Davies

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention University of Rochester
31 PUBLICATIONS 422 CITATIONS 214 PUBLICATIONS 16,081 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rochelle F Hentges Melissa L. Sturge-Apple

National Institutes of Health University of Rochester
39 PUBLICATIONS 716 CITATIONS 131 PUBLICATIONS 4,329 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Patrick T Davies on 20 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Family Psychology
© 2020 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 34, No. 7, 814 – 824
ISSN: 0893-3200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000727

Detouring in the Family System as an Antecedent of Children’s

Adjustment Problems

Jesse L. Coe Patrick T. Davies

Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Bradley/Hasbro University of Rochester
Children’s Research Center, Providence, Rhode Island

Rochelle F. Hentges Melissa L. Sturge-Apple

University of Calgary University of Rochester
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Guided by conceptualizations of relational boundaries from family systems theory, this study examined
unique links between detouring (e.g., alliance between parents against child) and young children’s
psychological functioning after accounting for general family negativity and conflict. Participants in this
longitudinal (i.e., 2 annual waves of data collection), multimethod (i.e., observation, survey, semistruc-
tured interview), multiinformant (i.e., parent, teacher, observer) study included 218 young children (mean
[M] age ⫽ 5.76 years) and their families. The findings from cross-lagged panel analysis indicated that
detouring uniquely predicted increases in children’s externalizing problems, hostile attribution bias, and
peer rejection and victimization over a 1-year period (i.e., the transition from kindergarten to first grade).
Conversely, the findings failed to support a child effects model in that child adjustment problems did not
predict increases in detouring or family negativity and conflict over time.

Keywords: detouring, externalizing problems, hostile attribution bias, peer rejection and victimization

Young children who display heightened aggression in conjunc-
tion with rejection or victimization by their peers are at high risk
for persistent psychological, social, and emotional difficulties that
carry into adolescence and adulthood (e.g., Bierman, Kalvin, &
Heinrichs, 2015; Coie, Terry, Lenox, Lochman, & Hyman, 1995).
In recognizing the importance of understanding the determinants
of this high-risk pattern of behaviors in childhood, a growing body
of research has focused on elucidating family risk factors (e.g.,
Bolger & Patterson, 2001; Runions & Keating, 2007; Yaros,
Lochman, & Wells, 2016). However, in spite of researchers’
repeated calls for understanding how characteristics of the broader
family system (e.g., both caregivers and child) affect early child
development (e.g., Cox & Paley, 1997; Kerig, 2016), very few
studies have moved beyond examining the influence of dyadic
relationships (e.g., parent– child, interparental) on early aggression
and peer rejection and victimization. Further, studies that have
focused on examining triadic family interactions as a predictor of
child adjustment have primarily tested broader constructs of neg-
ativity or conflict and warmth or support (e.g., Cummings, Koss,
& Davies, 2015; Demby, Riggs, & Kaminski, 2017).
Family systems theory (FST; Cox & Paley, 1997; Minuchin,
1974) has been highly valuable in providing a more nuanced
approach to characterizing how different patterns of broader fam-
ily functioning may have unique developmental implications for
children. According to FST, the family can be broken down into
subsystems consisting of individual members (e.g., child, mother,
partner) or dyads (e.g., parent– child, interparental), but the family
as a whole is best understood by the functioning within and across
each subsystem. Metaphorical boundaries allow for differentiation
between these smaller subsystems within the larger family system

Editor’s Note. Barbara H. Fiese served as the action editor for this
article.—BHF
This article was published Online First June 4, 2020.
X Jesse L. Coe, Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Alpert
Medical School of Brown University, and Bradley/Hasbro Children’s
Research Center, Providence, Rhode Island; Patrick T. Davies, Department
of Psychology, University of Rochester; X Rochelle F. Hentges, Depart-
ment of Psychology, University of Calgary; Melissa L. Sturge-Apple,
Department of Psychology, University of Rochester.
This research was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD065425)
awarded to Patrick T. Davies and Melissa L. Sturge-Apple. Jesse L. Coe is
funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (T32 MH019927). Rochelle
F. Hentges is supported by a fellowship from the Talisman Energy Fund in
Support of Healthy Living and Injury Prevention and the Alberta Children’s
Hospital Research Institute through the Owerko Centre. The findings presented in
this article have not been previously presented or disseminated elsewhere. The
authors are grateful to the children, parents, teachers, and community agencies
that participated in this project. We would also like to thank Mike Ripple, the
Mt. Hope Family Center staff, and the graduate and undergraduate students at
the University of Rochester who assisted in this project.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jesse L.
Coe, Bradley/Hasbro Children’s Research Center, 1 Hoppin Street, Suite
204, Providence, RI 02903. E-mail: jesse_coe@brown.edu

814
 DETOURING AND ADJUSTMENT PROBLEMS
and serve as implicit rules for defining and understanding family
relationships according to both the amount and quality of contact
and the transmission of resources across family subsystems. From
this perspective, effective family functioning is defined by clear
and flexible boundaries that permit each family member to func-
tion within subsystems without the interference of other members
but access resources from the larger family unit when needed (Cox
& Paley, 1997; Minuchin, 1974). Theorists and prior empirical
studies have identified other patterns of functioning in which the
boundaries are not as clear or flexible. The two most commonly
studied boundary disturbances are disengagement (family is emo-
tionally distant) and enmeshment (family is emotionally entan-
gled), and both have been linked with children’s internalizing and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
externalizing symptomatology (e.g., Jacobvitz, Hazen, Curran, &
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Hitchens, 2004; Kerig, 1995; Sturge-Apple, Davies, & Cummings,
2010). However, much less is known about how other boundary
disturbances in the form of alliances among family members are
associated with children’s psychological functioning.
Alliance formations are characterized by coalitions among fam-
ily members where a third member is excluded or attacked in
attempts to either bring the allied members closer together or
deflect negativity onto the excluded member (Minuchin, 1974). As
a primary type of alliance, detouring patterns of family functioning
occur when parents form an alliance against the child (Kerig,
2016). Parents may “detour” around their own conflicts by deflect-
ing attention onto the child and his or her needs or difficulties as
a way of attempting to bring themselves closer together (Kerig,
1995). Although this behavioral pattern is thought to often be
outside of the parents’ awareness, detouring may become an es-
tablished pattern of family relatedness through unconscious con-
ditioning processes (e.g., parents are unconsciously reinforced by
experiencing marital unity that has been difficult to achieve oth-
erwise). This process may create an artificial sense of closeness
and reduce strain in the interparental relationship, but the result for
the child is often rejection and exclusion from the family system
(Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990). In turn, it is
theorized that the targeted rejection experienced by children in a
detouring family may serve as a robust predictor of adjustment
problems (e.g., Kerig, 1995, 2016; Minuchin, 1974). However,
very few studies have systematically explored these potential links
between detouring and child problems. Therefore, our primary aim
was to examine detouring, above and beyond a general construct of
family negativity and conflict, as a unique predictor of young
children’s psychological and social adjustment problems (i.e., ex-
ternalizing problems, hostile attribution bias, peer rejection and
victimization).
Detouring as a Predictor of Child
Adjustment Problems
The targeted rejection and exclusion experienced in a detouring
family, as opposed to negativity and conflict that are generalized
across the family, may be especially harmful to children. Detour-
ing may specifically give rise to a pattern of cognitions and
behaviors consistent with a high-risk profile of aggression, victim-
ization and rejection, and dysregulation. Social information pro-
cessing (SIP) theory asserts that when children frequently experi-
ence social interactions in which they are the targets of negativity,
they are more likely to overattribute malevolent intent to others,
815
which contributes to the development of a hostile attribution bias
that stabilizes over time (Choe, Lane, Grabell, & Olson, 2013;
Dodge, 2006). In a detouring family, the child is frequently the
target of parental rejection or scapegoating. These experiences of
exclusion or derision may in turn serve as blueprints for how the
child interprets future social situations. For example, he or she may
be more likely to perceive a peer as being aggressive (e.g., did it
on purpose to harm or exclude the child) even when the situation
involves an ambiguous intent (e.g., child not being asked to join in
playing a game). Although some studies have shown links between
disruptions in the parent– child relationship (e.g., physical abuse,
authoritative parenting, parental aggression) and children’s height-
ened hostile attribution bias (Dodge, Pettit, Bates, & Valente,
1995; Nelson & Coyne, 2009; Runions & Keating, 2007; Yaros et
al., 2016), no studies have expanded the focus to triadic family
functioning to test whether detouring serves as a unique predictor.
Additionally, the child’s anger and frustration resulting from
experiencing ostracism and rejection by his or her parents may
engender increases in externalizing problems characterized by
relational aggression, overt hostility, and conduct problems (Kerig,
1995; Vuchinich, Emery, & Cassidy, 1988). Although very few
studies have tested the links between detouring and externalizing
problems, some preliminary support for this assertion exists. In
one of the only published studies to empirically examine these
associations, Kerig (1995) found concurrent links between family
members’ ratings of detouring (assessed via the Family Cohesion
Index) and parents’ reports of child externalizing problems in a
sample of 6- to 10-year-old children. Similarly, Yahav and Sharlin
(2002) found that in a sample of 10- to 17-year-old children, those
with elevated levels of externalizing symptoms reported greater
perceptions of being blamed by family members for various family
conflicts. However, to our knowledge, no studies have tested these
links longitudinally or in early childhood.
In addition to its implications for how children process social
information and regulate their behavior, detouring may also have
important implications for how children fare socially with peers.
Script theory asserts that within the context of early family rela-
tionships, children develop internal schemas and expectations re-
garding themselves and others, which are then applied to subse-
quent social interactions (Johnston, Roseby, & Kuehnle, 2009;
Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). When these early relationships are
neglectful, volatile, or insensitive, children may develop negative
expectations regarding future relationships with others as well as
views of themselves as incompetent or worthy of blame (Cicchetti,
Lynch, Shonk, & Manly, 1992; Cicchetti & Toth, 1998). These
internalizations may lead them to select and structure later inter-
actions in such a way that familiar relationship patterns reoccur
and are validated (Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). For example, several
studies have shown that experiences of maltreatment, parental
criticism, and parent– child conflict are associated with children
being the victims of bullying in middle childhood and adolescence
(e.g., Bolger & Patterson, 2001; Georgiou & Stavrinides, 2013;
Shields & Cicchetti, 2001). Because children in detouring families
are often rejected, excluded, or ganged up on by their parents, this
may translate into them also being bullied or rejected by other
children when they transition into school settings. However, no
prior studies have explicitly tested whether detouring predicts peer
rejection and victimization.
 816 COE, DAVIES, HENTGES, AND STURGE-APPLE
Early Childhood as a Sensitive Period
We specifically examined detouring as a predictor of child
problems during the transition into the early school years based on
a number of important developmental considerations. First, early
childhood is regarded as a period of heightened risk for children
experiencing adversity in their rearing environments (Shonkoff &
Phillips, 2000). During this time, children are forming expectan-
cies about the availability and consistency of their care and the
salient figures in their lives, as well as broader concerns about the
stability and health of relationships in the family (Cicchetti, Cum-
mings, Greenberg, & Marvin, 1990). Therefore, disruptions in
family relationships (e.g., detouring, negativity and conflict) dur-
ing this time are thought to be particularly harmful in relation to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
children’s psychological and social adjustment. Second, family
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
systems theorists emphasize that examining family processes
within the context of major transitions provides unique opportu-
nities for understanding how family functioning affects child de-
velopment (e.g., Cowan, 1991; Sturge-Apple et al., 2010). Chil-
dren’s transition into the early school years represents a key
stage-salient task that carries with it many novel challenges (e.g.,
peer interactions, structured routines, greater time apart from fam-
ily; Ladd & Burgess, 2001). Children may therefore be more likely
during this period to draw on prior experiences with family rela-
tionships in guiding their behavior and how they process social
information (McHale, Kuersten, & Lauretti, 1996). Third, early
childhood is a critical period for the development of stable patterns
of social information processing (Dodge, 2006). Although attribu-
tions and social processing become more complex and differenti-
ated by situation as children get older, theorists posit that the
development of a hostile attribution bias in early childhood pro-
vides the foundation for lifelong social information processing
(Dodge, 2006). It is therefore critical to examine these processes
and their precursors during this important developmental period.
Finally, research has consistently shown that externalizing behav-
iors (e.g., Loeber, Green, Lahey, Christ, & Frick, 1992) and peer
rejection and victimization (e.g., Buhs & Ladd, 2001) in early
childhood are robust predictors of adjustment problems across the
life span.
Present Study
To our knowledge, the present study represents the first longi-
tudinal test of detouring as a predictor of early childhood adjust-
ment problems. As a more rigorous test of this novel aim, we
specifically examined the unique predictive value of detouring
above and beyond a general construct of family negativity and
conflict. Innovation in this study is rooted in its goal of testing
novel theoretically guided hypotheses regarding links between
detouring and behaviors characteristic of a high-risk pattern of
aggression, victimization and rejection, and dysregulation. Consis-
tent with FST, we specifically hypothesized that detouring would
predict increases in child externalizing problems, hostile attribu-
tion bias, and peer rejection and victimization over a 1-year period.
The few previous examinations of detouring as a predictor of child
behavior problems have been somewhat limited in that they pre-
dominantly use cross-sectional data and self-report survey mea-
sures of detouring (e.g., Family Cohesion Index; Kerig, 1995). The
use of cross-sectional designs does not meet quantitative criteria
for testing directionality (e.g., Cole & Maxwell, 2003), and such
designs cannot rule out potential child-driven effects on family
functioning. For example, consistent with FST’s proposition of
reciprocity between children and the larger family system (Cox &
Paley, 1997; Minuchin, 1974), it is possible that child misbehavior
may increase parental blame and hostility toward the child. There-
fore, concurrent links between detouring and child externalizing
problems (e.g., Kerig, 1995; Yahav & Sharlin, 2002) could reflect
multiple directions of effect. In the current study, we specified a
cross-lagged, autoregressive model to achieve a more definitive
understanding of the nature of associations between detouring and
child adjustment outcomes (i.e., also explicitly accounting for
child-driven effects on detouring and family negativity and con-
flict).
Furthermore, a heavy reliance on self-report measures contra-
dicts the theoretical premise that boundary patterns are implicit
and, as a result, commonly outside the awareness of family mem-
bers (Minuchin, 1974). This lack of awareness causes family
members to be inaccurate sources, as evidenced by low correla-
tions in reports across family informants (e.g., Kerig, 1995). Ex-
isting observational assessments of detouring also have weak-
nesses in that they often conflate detouring with other forms of
family alliance (e.g., parent– child coalition; Lindahl & Malik,
2000). Therefore, our study is particularly innovative in that it
represents the first rigorous, longitudinal test of detouring as a
predictor of child behavior problems and adopts a novel observa-
tional assessment of detouring. To reduce the operation of
common-method and informant variance in the analyses, we uti-
lized a multimethod (i.e., observation, survey, semistructured in-
terview), multiinformant (i.e., observer, parent, teacher) approach
to assessing key constructs. We also included child sex and total
household income per capita as covariates.
Method
Participants
Participants were drawn from a larger longitudinal project de-
signed to examine the impact of interparental conflict and family
relationships on young children. Participants in the larger project
included 243 families (mother, partner, and preschool child) re-
siding in a moderate-sized metropolitan area in the northeastern
United States. To obtain a demographically diverse sample, par-
ticipants were recruited through preschools, Head Start agencies,
Internet advertisements, family-friendly locations (e.g., farmers’
markets, libraries), and public and private daycares. Given the
timing of the family interaction task used to assess detouring
(described later in the article), the current study only included data
from families at Waves 2 and 3 of the larger project (i.e., when the
child was in kindergarten and first grade). Of the 243 families that
participated at Wave 1 of the study, 235 returned for Wave 2, but
17 of the 235 mothers no longer had a partner who served as
another caregiver for the child. Because the primary predictor (i.e.,
detouring) in the current study was conceptualized as the interac-
tional pattern between two caregivers and the child, we only
included data from the 218 families that had two caregivers. For
clarity, throughout the rest of the article, we refer to the kinder-
garten assessment as Wave 1 and the first-grade assessment as
Wave 2. Retention across the two waves of data collection was
93%. The average age of child participants was 5.76 years (stan-
 DETOURING AND ADJUSTMENT PROBLEMS
dard deviation [SD] ⫽ .47) at Wave 1 and 6.77 years (SD ⫽ .48)
at Wave 2, and 57% were girls. The sample was racially diverse,
with 45% of family members identifying as Black or African
American, 46% as White, 7% as multiracial, and 3% as another
race. Approximately 15% of family members identified as Latinx.
The median household income of families was $36,100 per year
(range ⫽ $0 –$162,000), with most families (65%) receiving some
form of public assistance. The median education for parents con-
sisted of a General Education Development (GED) or high school
diploma (range ⫽ no high school diploma to master’s or PhD
degree). Of adult participants, 99% of mothers and 70% of their
partners were the biological parents of the child, 26% of partners
were mothers’ romantic partners but not the biological parent, 1%
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
were the child’s grandparent, and 3% were another family mem-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ber; 90% lived together (mean [M] years lived together ⫽ 7.03,
SD ⫽ 4.64), and 49% were married.
Procedures and Measures
Parents and children visited our research center laboratory for
two annual waves of data collection. Children’s classroom teachers
also completed and mailed questionnaires about children’s behav-
ior in kindergarten and first grade. The Research Subjects Review
Board at the University of Rochester approved all scientific pro-
cedures prior to conducting the study, and parents gave written
consent for both themselves and their child to participate. Parents
and teachers were compensated monetarily for participation, and
children received small toys at each visit.
Detouring. At Waves 1 and 2, families (mother, partner, and
child) participated in a family interaction task (FIT) that was
adapted from previous studies (e.g., McHale, Kuersten-Hogan, &
Lauretti, 2001). Families were instructed that they had 6 min to
work together to build a tower out of blocks. Experimenters told
families that a vertical marker affixed to the table represented the
height of the “highest tower a family has ever built” and shared
that they would beat the “record” if they built their tower higher
than the marker. If the tower fell before time was up, they were
instructed to rebuild it. To maximize the ability to capture families’
natural boundary patterns, additional instructions were limited to
the request that the family work together to build the tower. Once
an experimenter gave the instructions, the family was left alone to
complete the activity. The task was video-recorded for subsequent
coding.
Because very few studies have assessed detouring using obser-
vational methods, we used prior family interaction coding systems
(Jacobvitz et al., 2004; Lindahl & Malik, 2000) as a guide in
developing a novel observational assessment of detouring during
the FIT. Specifically, the Detouring scale assesses the degree to
which the parents form an alliance against the child in a way that
functions to create distance between themselves and the child and
increase closeness in their own relationship. Using a 9-point scale
ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic) to 9 (highly character-
istic), a family rated highly on detouring is characterized by
parents who engage in active and purposeful behaviors to exclude
the child. Examples include purposefully ignoring the child and his
or her appropriate bids for attention (e.g., not responding to child’s
constructive requests for help with the blocks or appeals to con-
tribute), belittling the child or the child’s contributions to the task
(e.g., “Why would you put that there? You’re messing it up!”),
817
making explicit comments to create distance from and exclude the
child (e.g., “Just let Daddy and I do it; we don’t think you know
how”), or using the child as a persistent distraction to focus on
(e.g., ganging up on the child when he or she makes a mistake;
discussing concerns about the child’s performance or behavior as
if the child is not present). More mildly, this is reflected in
situations where closeness between the parents occurs at the ex-
pense of closeness with the child (e.g., the child withdraws from
the task or is not engaged with by the parents). A key consideration
when coding detouring is that the parents must be actively sup-
porting each other in an alliance against the child. Therefore,
detouring was not coded when parents were rejecting the child in
independent ways or if one parent was rejecting the child while the
other was simply passive (e.g., mother but not partner engaged in
harsh or rejecting parenting behavior in the task). Two trained
coders independently rated more than 20% of the videos at each
wave to assess interrater reliability. Intraclass correlation coeffi-
cients (ICCs) were .83 at Wave 1 and .75 at Wave 2.
Although this coding system was used for the first time in the
present study, findings from supplementary analyses support its
validity as an assessment of detouring. Specifically, we examined
associations between our detouring measure and coparenting rela-
tionship dimensions in the tower-building task that were coded by
a different team of independent raters. First, supporting convergent
validity and consistent with theoretical conceptualizations of de-
touring (e.g., Kerig, 2016), higher ratings of detouring were sig-
nificantly correlated with observational ratings of coparental col-
lusion (i.e., the degree to which the coparenting relationship is
characterized by prioritizing the importance of the partner rela-
tionship at the expense of the parents’ relationship with the child;
Parry & Davies, 2017; r ⫽ .58, p ⬍ .001). Second, supporting the
discriminant validity of our detouring code, detouring was unre-
lated to what should be distinct coparenting relationship con-
structs, including coparental warmth, competition, conflict, and
balanced participation in caregiving roles (all ps ⱖ .25).
Family negativity and conflict. At Waves 1 and 2, the video-
recorded FITs were also coded using the Negativity and Conflict
scale of the System for Coding Interactions and Family Function-
ing (SCIFF; Lindahl & Malik, 2000). The Negativity and Conflict
scale assesses the overall negative tone or level of tension in the
family and was coded on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very low)
to 5 (high). To be rated highly on the Negativity and Conflict scale,
displays of negative affect (e.g., tension, anger, irritation) must be
present throughout most (e.g., more than half) of the interaction
and fairly intense in nature (e.g., raised voices; comments and
behaviors that convey annoyance, frustration, or hostility). More
mildly, this code involves moments of tension, frustration, or anger
that are partially resolved, even if some lingering tension may
occur. The same two trained coders independently rated over 20%
of the videos at each wave to assess interrater reliability. ICCs
were .88 at Waves 1 and 2.
Child hostile attribution bias. To assess children’s hostile
attribution bias at Waves 1 and 2, a trained experimenter admin-
istered a structured interview with each child after the presentation
of each of six peer-problem stories adapted from the Social Prob-
lem Solving (SPS) vignettes (Dodge et al., 1995). Experimenters
encouraged the child participants to pretend that they were the
protagonist in the stories (e.g., “Pretend that you are playing
outside at recess and some other kids are playing a game. You
 818 COE, DAVIES, HENTGES, AND STURGE-APPLE
would really like to play the game with them, but they haven’t
asked you.”). Of the six vignettes, two depicted challenges enter-
ing a group of peers with ambiguous intent (e.g., the child wants
to play a game with other kids, but they have not invited him or her
to play), two depicted provocation with an indication of negative
peer intent (e.g., another child takes the child’s place in line), and
two depicted transgressions with ambiguous peer intent (e.g., the
child lets peers play with his or her favorite toy while he or she
leaves the room for a few minutes, and the toy is broken when he
or she returns).
Children’s responses to three questions from the structured
interview were used to assess their hostile attribution bias in each
story. Specifically, children were first asked, “How come the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
boy/girl [description of the specific peer event in the story]?”
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Children’s open-ended responses for each of the six stories were
recorded verbatim for subsequent coding. Children also responded
with “yes” or “no” to the following two questions for each story:
(a) “Are the kids being mean to you?” and (b) “Did the other kids
do it on purpose?” Children’s transcribed responses were coded by
two trained raters for hostile attributions using a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (very benign) to 5 (very hostile) that incorporated
the responses to all three questions. Ratings of 1 were reserved for
responses that uniformly and definitively conveyed that peer mo-
tives in the story were completely benign (e.g., [Why did they do
it?] “It was an accident”; [Are they being mean to you?] “No”;
[Was it on purpose?] “No”). Conversely, ratings of 5 reflected
responses that consistently conveyed hostile or malevolent intent
on behalf of the peers (e.g., [Why did they do it?] “They hate me”;
[Are they being mean to you?] “Yes”; [Was it on purpose?]
“Yes”). The two trained coders overlapped on 100% of the chil-
dren’s responses to assess interrater reliability. ICCs for each story
were acceptable: mean ICC ⫽ .92 (range .90 –.95) at Wave 1;
mean ICC ⫽ .90 (range ⫽ .82–.94) at Wave 2. The ratings for the
six stories were averaged into a single composite of hostile attri-
bution bias at each wave (␣s ⫽ .73 at Wave 1 and .69 at Wave 2).
Child externalizing problems. Maternal report on the Ex-
ternalizing scale of the MacArthur Health and Behavior Ques-
tionnaire (HBQ; Ablow et al., 1999) was used to assess child
externalizing problems at Waves 1 and 2. The Externalizing
scale consisted of the average of three subscales on the HBQ:
(a) Relational Aggression (mean of 6 items; e.g., “tells others
not to play with or be a peer’s friend”), (b) Overt Hostility
(mean of 4 items; e.g., “kicks, bites, or hits other children”), and
(c) Conduct Problems (mean of 12 items; e.g., “destroys things
belonging to his/her family or other children”). Response alter-
natives for each item were as follows: 0 (Never or not true), 1
(Sometimes or somewhat true), and 2 (Often or very true). The
internal consistencies of the resulting scale were acceptable at
both time points (internal consistency of three subscales within
scale: ␣s ⫽ .80 at Wave 1 and .89 at Wave 2).
Child peer rejection and victimization. Assessments of
peer rejection and victimization at Waves 1 and 2 were derived
from teacher reports on the Peer Relations scale of the HBQ.
The scale consisted of the average of two subscales: Bullied by
Peers (mean of 3 items; e.g., “is picked on by other children”)
and Peer Acceptance/Rejection (mean of 8 items; e.g., “actively
disliked by other children who reject him/her from their play”).
Each item was rated along a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (Not
at all like child) to 4 (Very much like child). The internal
consistencies of the resulting scale were acceptable at both
waves (internal consistency of two subscales within scale: ␣s ⫽
.70 at Wave 1 and .65 at Wave 2).
Covariates. Two demographic covariates, derived from a ma-
ternal interview at Wave 1, were children’s sex (0 ⫽ females, 1 ⫽
males) and total household income per capita, calculated by divid-
ing the total annual household income by the number of individ-
uals living in the home.
Results
Descriptive Analyses
Table 1 provides the means, standard deviations, and intercor-
relations for the variables used in the primary analyses.
Analytic Strategy for Primary Analyses
Prior to conducting our analyses, we examined whether rates of
missingness in the data set were associated with any of the 12
study variables and covariates. Only three analyses were signifi-
cant: Higher rates of missingness were associated with peer rejec-
tion and victimization at Wave 2 (r ⫽ .28, p ⬍ .001) and family
negativity and conflict at Waves 1 (r ⫽ .17, p ⫽ .02) and 2 (r ⫽
.17, p ⫽ .04). Hypotheses were tested using autoregressive path
analysis within a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework,
specified with Mplus Version 7.4 statistical software (Muthén &
Muthén, 1998 –2012). To maximize the size of the sample, full-
information maximum-likelihood estimation (FIML; Enders,
2001) was used to accommodate missing data (12.39% of values).
The FIML method is regarded as the method of choice for esti-
mating missing data because it minimizes bias in regression and
standard error estimates for all types of missing data (i.e., missing
completely at random [MCAR], missing at random [MAR], not
missing at random [NMAR]) when the amount of missing data
does not exceed 20% (Schlomer, Bauman, & Card, 2010).
To address our primary analytic aim of examining the nature
and directionality of associations between family (i.e., detouring,
negativity and conflict) and child (i.e., externalizing problems,
hostile attribution bias, peer rejection and victimization) variables
over time, we specified an autoregressive path model using re-
peated measures of all primary constructs across the two time
points. All autoregressive paths between contiguous measurement
occasions were freely estimated, and structural paths were esti-
mated between (a) both family-level variables at Wave 1 and the
three child variables at Wave 2 and (b) the three child variables at
Wave 1 and the two family-level variables at Wave 2. Correlations
were estimated among all exogenous (Wave 1) predictors and
between residual error terms on all endogenous (Wave 2) out-
comes. Given their potential roles as covariates, total household
income per capita and child sex were included as covariates in the
primary analyses. However, the results indicated that child sex was
unrelated to any of the other variables in the model and did not
alter the pattern of significant results. Therefore, to maximize
parsimony, child sex was dropped from the model, and only
income was included as a covariate in the primary analyses. The
resulting model had 8 degrees of freedom (i.e., 2 degrees of
freedom from a priori exclusion of cross-lagged paths between
detouring and family conflict and 6 degrees of freedom from a
 DETOURING AND ADJUSTMENT PROBLEMS 819

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of the Main Variables

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Covariates
1. Child sex .43 .50 —
2. Household income per capita 9.97 6.81 .09 —
Wave 1 (kindergarten)
3. Detouring 2.77 2.02 ⫺.02 ⫺.21ⴱ —
4. Negativity and conflict 2.71 1.36 .03 ⫺.26ⴱ .31ⴱ —
5. Hostile attribution bias 3.82 .86 .03 ⫺.02 ⫺.04 ⫺.06 —
6. Externalizing problems .22 .23 ⫺.00 ⫺.18ⴱ .11 .12 .02 —
7. Peer rejection and victimization 1.40 .48 ⫺.03 ⫺.23ⴱ .10 .13 ⫺.01 .30ⴱ —
Wave 2 (first grade)
8. Detouring 1.99 1.39 ⫺.06 ⫺.11 .32ⴱ .15 ⫺.05 .16ⴱ .17 —
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

9. Negativity and conflict 2.69 1.07 .09 ⫺.22ⴱ .24ⴱ .45ⴱ ⫺.12 .11 .11 .09 —
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

10. Hostile attribution bias 3.64 .76 ⫺.02 ⫺.05 .18ⴱ .11 .17ⴱ .05 .01 .02 .11 —
11. Externalizing problems .22 .27 ⫺.01 ⫺.14ⴱ .20ⴱ .17ⴱ ⫺.02 .77ⴱ .29ⴱ .29ⴱ .09 ⫺.04 —
12. Peer rejection and victimization 1.42 .47 ⫺.09 ⫺.17ⴱ .20ⴱ .02 ⫺.04 .26ⴱ .47ⴱ .28ⴱ .04 .03 .26ⴱ
Note. Child sex: 0 ⫽ females, 1 ⫽ males. Income in thousands.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.

priori exclusion of cross-lagged paths among the three child out-
comes). Model fit was assessed using standard criteria, including
chi-square (␹2) tests, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the standardized
root-mean-squared residual (SRMR). Acceptable fit values include
a nonsignificant ␹2, RMSEA and SRMR of .05 or lower, and CFI
of .90 or higher, with .95 and higher preferred (Hu & Bentler,
1999).
Results of Primary Analyses
The path model shown in Figure 1 provided an excellent fit with
the data, ␹2 (8, N ⫽ 218) ⫽ 4.15, p ⫽ .84; RMSEA ⫽ .00; CFI ⫽
1.00; SRMR ⫽ .02. For clarity, only significant correlations are
depicted in Figure 1. Autoregressive paths from Wave 1 to Wave
2 were significant for detouring (␤ ⫽ .27, p ⫽ .001), negativity
and conflict (␤ ⫽ .43, p ⬍ .001), hostile attribution bias (␤ ⫽ .18,
p ⫽ .01), externalizing problems (␤ ⫽ .75, p ⬍ .001), and peer
rejection and victimization (␤ ⫽ .45, p ⬍ .001). Total household
income per capita did not predict changes in any of the child or
family variables over time (all ps ⱖ .47).
The findings for the structural paths supported our hypotheses
that detouring would predict increases in adjustment problems
over time for children, over and above family negativity and
conflict. Specifically, higher ratings of detouring predicted chil-

W1 Detouring .27** W2 Detouring

.31***

.16*
W1 Family Negativity & Conflict .43*** W2 Family Negativity & Conflict .26**

W1 Child Hostile Attribution Bias .18* W2 Child Hostile Attribution Bias

-.15*

.11*

.75***
-.26***

W1 Child Externalizing Problems W2 Child Externalizing Problems

.19*

W1 Child Peer Rejection & .45*** W2 Child Peer Rejection &

Victimization Victimization

Total Household Income Per Capita

Figure 1. Autoregressive path model examining associations among detouring, family negativity and conflict,
child hostile attribution bias, externalizing problems, and peer rejection and victimization. Parameter estimates
for the structural paths are standardized path coefficients. Dashed lines indicate nonsignificant pathways. For
clarity, only significant correlations are shown. W1 ⫽ Wave 1 (kindergarten); W2 ⫽ Wave 2 (first grade).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
 820 COE, DAVIES, HENTGES, AND STURGE-APPLE
dren’s greater hostile attribution bias (␤ ⫽ .16, p ⫽ .04), exter-
nalizing problems (␤ ⫽ .11, p ⫽ .03), and peer rejection and
victimization (␤ ⫽ .19, p ⫽ .03) at Wave 2 after controlling for
Wave 1 autoregressive paths. Conversely, negativity and conflict
did not predict increases in any of the child variables over time (all
ps ⱖ .34), and none of the child variables predicted increases in
detouring (all ps ⱖ .29) or family negativity and conflict over time
(all ps ⱖ .17).
Discussion
Detouring in the family system has been theorized to predict a
wide variety of negative adjustment outcomes for children (e.g.,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Kerig, 1995, 2016; Minuchin, 1974), but very few studies have
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
empirically examined these expected associations. To address this
significant gap in knowledge, our longitudinal, multimethod, mul-
tiinformant study tested whether detouring uniquely predicted in-
creases in children’s hostile attribution bias, externalizing prob-
lems, and peer rejection and victimization during the transition
from kindergarten to first grade. The findings indicated that de-
touring predicted increases in all three adjustment outcomes above
and beyond a general construct of family negativity and conflict.
Furthermore, in contrast to hypotheses proposed by child effects
models, none of the child variables predicted increases in either
detouring or negativity and conflict over time.
Building on the few prior cross-sectional examinations of asso-
ciations between detouring and child adjustment problems (e.g.,
Kerig, 1995; Yahav & Sharlin, 2002), our findings break new
ground in establishing detouring as a unique predictor of prospec-
tive changes in children’s hostile attribution bias, externalizing
problems, and peer rejection and victimization in early childhood.
Speaking to its salience as a risk factor, detouring predicted all
three adjustment outcomes, whereas the general construct of fam-
ily negativity and conflict did not. These findings support FST’s
assertion that there is inherent value in identifying the relational
function (i.e., purpose or motive based on the context of the
interaction) underlying the organization and pattern of behaviors
within the family system (Combrinck-Graham, 1985, 1989;
Minuchin, 1974). Whereas assessments of negativity and conflict
capture physical forms of family behaviors (e.g., yelling, frustra-
tion, anger), there could be multiple explanations or functions of
these behavioral displays, and they may not necessarily be directed
at the child. However, detouring within the family specifically
functions to increase closeness in the interparental subsystem at
the expense of closeness with the child (Minuchin, 1974). There-
fore, the child is actively excluded from a key part of the family
system and denied resources provided by the family (Fauber et al.,
1990). This differs from parents’ engagement in coordinated co-
parenting, wherein parents display mutual support for one another
as parents; respect one another’s authority; and create a structured,
safe climate for the child (Feinberg, 2003). Whereas these behav-
iors signify a supportive parental relationship and are generally
linked with positive developmental outcomes for children (Fein-
berg, 2003), the targeted rejection and exclusion experienced by
the child in a detouring family may predict his or her adjustment
problems (Kerig, 1995, 2016; Minuchin, 1974).
Our findings that detouring predicted increases in all three of the
outcomes (i.e., hostile attributions, externalizing, and peer victim-
ization and rejection) examined in this study are particularly con-
sequential because research has shown that these behaviors cohere
to a high-risk pattern of reactive aggression (Card & Little, 2006;
Dodge, 2006; Hubbard, McAuliffe, Morrow, & Romano, 2010).
Aggression that is reactive (e.g., defensive or “hot-blooded”; in-
volves angry, emotionally dysregulated responses to perceived
offenses or frustrations) serves as a potent predictor of psychoso-
cial adjustment problems across the life span (e.g., delinquency,
peer victimization, emotion dysregulation, attention-deficit/hyper-
activity disorder [ADHD] symptoms, internalizing problems, poor
social skills; Card & Little, 2006). In young children at high risk
for reactive aggression, a strong hostile attribution bias often goes
hand in hand with difficulties regulating behaviors and emotions
(e.g., externalizing problems; Choe et al., 2013; Shields & Cic-
chetti, 1998; Teisl & Cicchetti, 2008). Because these children are
highly dysregulated, reactive, and aggressive, several studies have
shown that they also tend to be bullied or rejected by their peers
(e.g., Card & Little, 2006; Schwartz et al., 1998). Over time, this
pattern of behaviors crystallizes into a stable profile of reactive
aggression, and links between reactive aggression and adjustment
problems become stronger as children get older (Card & Little,
2006; Dodge, 2006; Hubbard et al., 2010). Therefore, because
detouring was linked with all three risk factors for reactive aggres-
sion, these children may be at especially high risk for a wide array
of difficulties across the life span.
However, it is also important to note that not all three child
outcomes in our study were related to one another. Although
externalizing problems and peer rejection and victimization were
associated with each other at both time points (rs ⫽ .30 at Wave
1 and .26 at Wave 2), hostile attribution bias was not related to
either outcome at either time point. Consistent with the concept of
multifinality in developmental psychopathology (Cicchetti & Ro-
gosch, 1996), it is possible that detouring may lead to different
outcomes for different children based on the context in which it
occurs and the variability in child, parent, and family characteris-
tics. As one example, although detouring families all share the
function of increasing closeness in the interparental relationship at
the expense of the relationship with the child, it may be expressed
in somewhat different ways. In some cases, parents may actively
exclude the child or be openly negative, hostile, and rejecting
toward the child (e.g., scapegoating; Buchanan & Waizenhofer,
2001). However, detouring also occurs when parents achieve some
degree of intimacy or closeness, albeit in a tenuous and, in many
cases, artificial way, through excessive shared concerns about the
child’s well-being (e.g., fragilizing the child; Minuchin, 1974).
Therefore, in other cases, it may be expressed as a shared concern
for the child and his or her distress (Kerig, 1995). Ultimately, this
still creates closeness in the interparental relationship, and the
parents tend to interact more with each other about the child’s
behavior to the relative exclusion of the child in the interaction
sequence. It could be that children’s increased hostile attribution
bias emerges only in cases when detouring is expressed in the
former, rather than latter, behavioral pattern. Moreover, individual
differences in child temperament (e.g., negative emotionality, in-
hibitory control) and emotion regulation may also alter the ways in
which children are affected by detouring and how this influences
their adjustment outcomes. Alternatively, it is also possible that (a)
differences in the methods used to assess hostile attribution bias
(i.e., coded responses to vignettes) versus the other two outcomes
(i.e., questionnaire) could explain the lack of a correlation, or (b)
 DETOURING AND ADJUSTMENT PROBLEMS
at this relatively early developmental stage, the forms of adjust-
ment are still in the process of consolidating together and may
emerge as a correlated suite of behaviors as children progress
through the elementary school years. Further research is needed to
identify potential mechanisms and moderating factors that explain
the variability in outcomes for children who develop in families
characterized by detouring.
In addressing why detouring may have predicted child adjust-
ment problems in our study, it is possible that children’s appraisals
of themselves and their families may be key underlying mecha-
nisms. Script theory asserts that children’s early experiences with
family relationships are reflected in their internal working models
of themselves and their families (Johnston et al., 2009). Therefore,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
when these early relationships are disrupted or unsupportive, there
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
may be negative repercussions for the ways children view them-
selves (e.g., incompetent, worthy of blame, victim) and their
families (e.g., uncaring, unsupportive, volatile, threatening). Be-
cause children tend to rely more heavily on prior representations as
a way to simplify and comprehend challenging and novel inter-
personal contexts (Johnston et al., 2009), children from detouring
families who are repeated targets of parental rejection or exclusion
may in turn draw on these internal representations in interpreting
others’ actions as being aggressive and purposeful (i.e., hostile
attribution bias); struggle with regulating their anger and aggres-
sive behavior (i.e., externalizing problems); and seek out or struc-
ture interactions in other settings where they are also excluded,
rejected, or targeted (e.g., peer victimization and rejection). This
interpretation is consistent with findings from other studies that
children’s internal representations of themselves or their families
mediate associations between other indices of relationship discord
(e.g., family instability, interparental conflict) and adjustment
problems (e.g., Coe, Davies, & Sturge-Apple, 2017, 2018).
Research guided by the cognitive-contextual framework and
emotional security theory may also point to other potential under-
lying processes. For example, although not directly examined in
relation to detouring, findings from studies examining adolescent
triangulation into interparental conflict (e.g., cross-generational
alliances) identify children’s appraisals of self-blame for interpa-
rental conflict and emotional reactivity in the face of conflict as
mediators of associations between triangulation and psychological
adjustment problems (e.g., Buehler & Welsh, 2009; Fosco &
Grych, 2010). Extrapolated to our findings, it is possible that when
children repeatedly experience detouring in family interactions,
they may begin to blame themselves for family conflict and be
much more reactive to conflict when it occurs. In turn, these
cognitions and emotions may manifest in subsequent adjustment
problems. Additionally, as a complementary interpretation of our
results, coercive family process models posit that if aggressive
behavior is effective in defusing interparental conflict by deflect-
ing attention onto the child, parents may inadvertently reinforce
this behavior by engaging in detouring rather than arguing with
one another (Davis, Hops, Alpert, & Sheeber, 1998). In turn, child
behavior problems continue and proliferate into other contexts
(e.g., at school, with peers). Because our study did not explicitly
test intermediary processes in the predictive pathways, it will be
important for future research to further explore what underlying
mechanisms account for associations between detouring and child
adjustment problems.
821
In contrast to our primary hypothesis that detouring would
predict increases in child adjustment problems over time, we did
not find any empirical support for propositions of child-driven
effects models that child behavior problems would serve as pre-
cursors of detouring. Our use of a multimethod, multiinformant
measurement battery may partially explain the null results. Spe-
cifically, researchers have posited that parents’ perceptions of their
children’s behavior, rather than the behavior itself, predict how
they interact with their children (Webster-Stratton, 1990). There-
fore, we may not have identified any child-driven effects on
detouring or negativity and conflict because two of the child
outcomes (hostile attribution bias, peer rejection and victimization)
were assessed using teacher reports and coder ratings of child
responses to vignettes. Furthermore, it could be that bidirectional
relations between children’s behavior and detouring happen on a
moment-to-moment basis. Therefore, global assessments of adjust-
ment problems may not fully capture how parents and children
respond to one another in the moment to perpetuate a coercive
transactional process between child misbehavior and detouring in
the family. Microlevel coding systems designed to capture child
behavior and reciprocal relations between parent and child behav-
ior in the context of the task may reveal transactions not evident in
the data used in the current study (e.g., Elam & DiLalla, 2018).
Alternatively, it is possible that bidirectional relations become
more pronounced when children get older. For example, many
studies demonstrating support for child-driven effects on family
functioning have been with samples of children in middle child-
hood and adolescence (e.g., Cui, Donnellan, & Conger, 2007; Fite,
Colder, Lochman, & Wells, 2006; Jenkins, Simpson, Dunn, Ras-
bash, & O’Connor, 2005; Kerr & Stattin, 2003). However, studies
that test these types of models with younger children have not
consistently found such associations (e.g., Coe, Davies, Hentges,
& Sturge-Apple, 2020; Eisenberg et al., 2005). Further research
with more waves of data and alternative methods is needed to more
thoroughly examine potential bidirectional associations between
detouring and child functioning.
The findings must also be interpreted in the context of our
study’s limitations. First, although families in our study were from
a variety of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, cau-
tion should be exercised in generalizing our results to families
experiencing higher risk, families of high affluence, or families
with children in different developmental periods (e.g., middle
childhood, adolescence). Second, the effect sizes of predictive
pathways were relatively modest in magnitude, which points to
high variability in the experiences of families and children who
experience detouring. It will be critical for future research to
examine whether other parent (e.g., psychopathology), child (e.g.,
temperament), and family (e.g., conflict) factors moderate these
associations. Third, the novel observational assessment of detour-
ing utilized in our study may be regarded as a strength, but it will
be important for future work to replicate and further expand on our
findings. Fourth, exploring characteristics of the child (e.g., self-
blame, cognitive appraisals, internal representations, emotional
reactivity) and parent (e.g., parenting difficulties, child-related
cognitions) as explanatory mechanisms for the effects of detouring
on child outcomes is an important future direction for research.
Fifth, because our study was limited to only two waves, future
research should more fully address how detouring in the family
system may affect the potentially dynamic and reciprocal relation-
 822 COE, DAVIES, HENTGES, AND STURGE-APPLE
ship between hostile attribution bias, externalizing problems, and
peer rejection and victimization over time.
In addition to potential limitations of generalizability and con-
ceptual considerations, it is also important to acknowledge the
potential limitations of our measures and analytic approach. First,
in the full analytic model, there was a negative correlation between
the residual error variance of Wave 2 hostile attribution bias and
externalizing problems (r ⫽ ⫺.15). This could be the result of a
method effect or another variable outside of the model having a
negative effect on one outcome and a positive effect on the other.
However, because (a) the variables are not related at a bivariate
level, (b) there is not a theoretically or empirically guided expla-
nation, and (c) the correlation is modest in magnitude, it is likely
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
this inverse correlation is spurious. Second, although our study
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
utilized measures that have been demonstrated to have strong
psychometric properties in prior research, the internal consistency
of our measures of hostile attribution bias and peer rejection and
victimization in our sample was on the lower end of acceptable. It
will therefore be critical for future research to replicate our find-
ings in other samples of families and children. Similarly, because
all variables included in analytic models were manifest (i.e., we
did not use any latent variables), our constructs still contain mea-
surement error and can result in biased estimates. Future work with
larger samples and more expansive measurement batteries for each
construct will be important to afford analyses using latent variables
with multiple indicators. Finally, although our use of autoregres-
sive cross-lagged modeling with repeated measures of all family
and child constructs allowed for the examination of possible child-
driven effects on family functioning, it will be critical for future
research to more definitively test whether bidirectional relations
exist using multiple waves of data (i.e., three or more time points)
and other analytic approaches (e.g., Berry & Willoughby, 2017;
Hamaker, Kuiper, & Grasman, 2015).
In summary, the findings from our multimethod, multiinformant
longitudinal study indicated that detouring in the family system
uniquely predicted increases in young children’s hostile attribution
bias, externalizing problems, and peer rejection and victimization,
over and above a general construct of family negativity and con-
flict. The results support the developmental utility of FST bound-
ary conceptualizations in understanding how characteristics of the
broader family system affect child development. Applying FST
boundary constructs from family therapy to developmental re-
search designs has the potential to better inform interventions (e.g.,
Cowan & Cowan, 2006) and lead to a more in-depth understanding
of the developmental implications of different family dynamics.
References
Ablow, J. C., Measelle, J. R., Kraemer, H. C., Harrington, R., Luby, J.,
Smider, N., . . . Kupfer, J. D. (1999). The MacArthur Three-City
Outcomes Study: Evaluating multi-informant measures of young chil-
dren’s symptomatology. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1580 –1590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/
00004583-199912000-00020
Berry, D., & Willoughby, M. T. (2017). On the practical interpretability of
cross-lagged panel models: Rethinking a developmental workhorse.
Child Development, 88, 1186 –1206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev
.12660
Bierman, K. L., Kalvin, C. B., & Heinrichs, B. S. (2015). Early childhood
precursors and adolescent sequelae of grade school peer rejection and
victimization. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44,
367–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.873983
Bolger, K. E., & Patterson, C. J. (2001). Developmental pathways from
child maltreatment to peer rejection. Child Development, 72, 549 –568.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00296
Buchanan, C. M., & Waizenhofer, R. (2001). The impact of interparental
conflict on adolescent children: Considerations of family systems and
family structure. In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, & M. Clements (Eds.),
Couples in conflict (pp. 149 –160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Buehler, C., & Welsh, D. P. (2009). A process model of adolescents’
triangulation into parents’ marital conflict: The role of emotional reac-
tivity. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 167–180. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0014976
Buhs, E. S., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer rejection as an antecedent of
young children’s school adjustment: An examination of mediating pro-
cesses. Developmental Psychology, 37, 550 –560. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0012-1649.37.4.550
Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2006). Proactive and reactive aggression in
childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis of differential relations
with psychosocial adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral De-
velopment, 30, 466 – 480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025406071904
Choe, D. E., Lane, J. D., Grabell, A. S., & Olson, S. L. (2013). Develop-
mental precursors of young school-age children’s hostile attribution bias.
Developmental Psychology, 49, 2245–2256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0032293
Cicchetti, D., Cummings, E. M., Greenberg, M. T., & Marvin, R. S. (1990).
An organizational perspective on attachment beyond infancy: Implica-
tions for theory, measurement, and research. In M. T. Greenberg, D.
Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years:
Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 3– 49). Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Cicchetti, D., Lynch, M., Shonk, S., & Manly, J. T. (1992). An organiza-
tional perspective on peer relations in maltreated children. In R. D. Parke
& G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp.
345–383). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in
developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8,
597– 600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400007318
Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (1998). The development of depression in
children and adolescents. American Psychologist, 53, 221–241. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.221
Coe, J. L., Davies, P. T., Hentges, R. F., & Sturge-Apple, M. L. (2020).
Understanding the nature of associations between family instability,
unsupportive parenting, and children’s externalizing symptoms. Devel-
opment and Psychopathology, 32, 257–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0954579418001736
Coe, J. L., Davies, P. T., & Sturge-Apple, M. L. (2017). The multivariate
roles of family instability and interparental conflict in predicting chil-
dren’s representations of insecurity in the family system and early school
adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45, 211–
224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0164-6
Coe, J. L., Davies, P. T., & Sturge-Apple, M. L. (2018). Family instability
and young children’s school adjustment: Callousness and negative in-
ternal representations as mediators. Child Development, 89, 1193–1208.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12793
Coie, J., Terry, R., Lenox, K., Lochman, J., & Hyman, C. (1995). Child-
hood peer rejection and aggression as predictors of stable patterns of
adolescent disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 697–713.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006799
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with
longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation
modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558 –577. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558
 DETOURING AND ADJUSTMENT PROBLEMS
Combrinck-Graham, L. (1985). A developmental model for family sys-
tems. Family Process, 24, 139 –150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-
5300.1985.00139.x
Combrinck-Graham, L. (1989). Family models of childhood psychopathol-
ogy. In L. Combrinck-Graham (Ed.), Children in family contexts: Per-
spectives on treatment (pp. 67– 89). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Cowan, P. A. (1991). Individual and family life transitions: A proposal for
a new definition. In P. A. Cowan & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family
transitions (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2006). Developmental psychopathology
from family systems and family risk factors perspectives: Implications
for family research, practice, and policy. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen
(Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 530 –587).
New York, NY: Wiley.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Psychology, 48, 243–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1
.243
Cui, M., Donnellan, M. B., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Reciprocal influences
between parents’ marital problems and adolescent internalizing and
externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1544 –1552.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1544
Cummings, E. M., Koss, K. J., & Davies, P. T. (2015). Prospective
relations between family conflict and adolescent maladjustment: Secu-
rity in the family system as a mediating process. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 43, 503–515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-
9926-1
Davis, B. T., Hops, H., Alpert, A., & Sheeber, L. (1998). Child responses
to parental conflict and their effect on adjustment: A study of triadic
relations. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 163–177. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0893-3200.12.2.163
Demby, K. P., Riggs, S. A., & Kaminski, P. L. (2017). Attachment and
family processes in children’s psychological adjustment in middle child-
hood. Family Process, 56, 234 –249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/famp
.12145
Dodge, K. A. (2006). Translational science in action: Hostile attributional
style and the development of aggressive behavior problems. Develop-
ment and Psychopathology, 18, 791– 814. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0954579406060391
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Valente, E. (1995). Social
information-processing patterns partially mediate the effect of early
physical abuse on later conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 104, 632– 643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.104.4.632
Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., Spinrad, T. L., Valiente, C., Fabes, R. A., & Liew,
J. (2005). Relations among positive parenting, children’s effortful con-
trol, and externalizing problems: A three-wave longitudinal study. Child
Development, 76, 1055–1071. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624
.2005.00897.x
Elam, K. K., & DiLalla, L. F. (2018). Minute-to-minute trajectories of
child unresponsiveness and parent sensitivity in parent– child interac-
tions: The role of DRD4. Social Development, 27, 952–966. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12308
Enders, C. K. (2001). A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms avail-
able for use with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 128 –
141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0801_7
Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M., & Wierson, M. (1990). A
mediational model of the impact of marital conflict on adolescent
adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of disrupted par-
enting. Child Development, 61, 1112–1123. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
1130879
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
S15327922PAR0302_01
823
Fite, P. J., Colder, C. R., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2006). The
mutual influence of parenting and boys’ externalizing behavior prob-
lems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 151–164.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2005.12.011
Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2010). Adolescent triangulation into parental
conflicts: Longitudinal implications for appraisals and adolescent-parent
relations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 254 –266. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00697.x
Georgiou, S. N., & Stavrinides, P. (2013). Parenting at home and bullying
at school. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 16,
165–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9209-z
Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2015). A critique
of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20, 102–116.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038889
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118
Hubbard, J. A., McAuliffe, M. D., Morrow, M. T., & Romano, L. J. (2010).
Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: Pre-
cursors, outcomes, processes, experiences, and measurement. Journal of
Personality, 78, 95–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009
.00610.x
Jacobvitz, D., Hazen, N., Curran, M., & Hitchens, K. (2004). Observations
of early triadic family interactions: Boundary disturbances in the family
predict symptoms of depression, anxiety, and attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder in middle childhood. Development and Psycho-
pathology, 16, 577–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404004675
Jenkins, J., Simpson, A., Dunn, J., Rasbash, J., & O’Connor, T. G. (2005).
Mutual influence of marital conflict and children’s behavior problems:
Shared and nonshared family risks. Child Development, 76, 24 –39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00827.x
Johnston, J., Roseby, V., & Kuehnle, K. (2009). In the name of the child:
A developmental approach to understanding and helping children of
conflict and violent divorce. New York, NY: Springer.
Kerig, P. K. (1995). Triangles in the family circle: Effects of family
structure on marriage, parenting, and child adjustment. Journal of Fam-
ily Psychology, 9, 28 – 43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.9.1.28
Kerig, P. K. (2016). Family systems from a developmental psychopathol-
ogy perspective. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology:
Vol. 1. Theory and method (3rd ed., pp. 580 – 630). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2003). Parenting of adolescents: Action or reac-
tion? In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on family
dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 121–151).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (2001). Do relational risks and protective
factors moderate the linkages between childhood aggression and early
psychological and school adjustment? Child Development, 72, 1579 –
1601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00366
Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (2000). The system for coding interactions
and family functioning. In P. Kerig & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Family
observational coding systems: Resources for systemic research (pp.
77–91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Loeber, R., Green, S. M., Lahey, B. B., Christ, M. A. G., & Frick, P. J.
(1992). Developmental sequences in the age of onset of disruptive child
behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1, 21– 41. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/BF01321340
McHale, J., Kuersten-Hogan, R., & Lauretti, A. (2001). Evaluating copa-
renting and family-level dynamics during infancy and early childhood:
The coparenting and family rating system. In P. K. Keurig & K. M.
Lindahl (Eds.), Family observational coding systems: Resources for
systemic research (pp. 147–166). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McHale, J. P., Kuersten, R., & Lauretti, A. (1996). New directions in the
study of family-level dynamics during infancy and early childhood. New
 824 COE, DAVIES, HENTGES, AND STURGE-APPLE
Directions for Child Development, 1996, 5–26. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/cd.23219967403
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Nelson, D. A., & Coyne, S. M. (2009). Children’s intent attributions and
feelings of distress: Associations with maternal and paternal parenting
practices. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 223–237. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-008-9271-3
Parry, L. Q., & Davies, P. T. (2017). Coding scheme for coparenting in the
family interaction task. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
Runions, K. C., & Keating, D. P. (2007). Young children’s social infor-
mation processing: Family antecedents and behavioral correlates. De-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
velopmental Psychology, 43, 838 – 849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.43.4.838
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for
missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 57, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018082
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., Hubbard, J. A., Cillessen, A. H.,
Lemerise, E. A., & Bateman, H. (1998). Social-cognitive and behavioral
correlates of aggression and victimization in boys’ play groups. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 431– 440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
A:1022695601088
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). Reactive aggression among maltreated
children: The contributions of attention and emotion dysregulation.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 381–395. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1207/s15374424jccp2704_2
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion
dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle
childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 349 –363. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3003_7
View publication stats
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neigh-
borhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of
relationships. In W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and de-
velopment (pp. 51–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sturge-Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (2010). Typolo-
gies of family functioning and children’s adjustment during the early
school years. Child Development, 81, 1320 –1335. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01471.x
Teisl, M., & Cicchetti, D. (2008). Physical abuse, cognitive and emotional
processes, and aggressive/disruptive behavior problems. Social Devel-
opment, 17, 1–23.
Vuchinich, S., Emery, R. E., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Family members as
third parties in dyadic family conflict: Strategies, alliances, and out-
comes. Child Development, 59, 1293–1302. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
1130492
Webster-Stratton, C. (1990). Stress: A potential disruptor of parent per-
ceptions and family interactions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
19, 302–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp1904_2
Yahav, R., & Sharlin, S. A. (2002). Blame and family conflict: Symptom-
atic children as scapegoats. Child & Family Social Work, 7, 91–98.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2206.2002.00231.x
Yaros, A., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2016). Parental aggression as
a predictor of boys’ hostile attribution across the transition to middle
school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40, 452– 458.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025415607085
Received July 8, 2019
Revision received April 29, 2020
Accepted May 7, 2020 䡲