Examining Changes in Parenting Behaviors Among a Diverse Sample of  
Marriage Education Participants 
 
by 
 
Alexandra M. Calligas 
 
 
 
 
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the Degree of 
Master of Science 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
August 9th, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Key phrases: Change in parenting behaviors over time;  
spill-over effects; intervention research 
 
 
Copyright 2010 by Alexandra M. Calligas 
 
 
Approved by 
 
Francesca Adler-Baeder, Chair, Associate Professor of  
Human Development and Family Studies 
Thomas Smith, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies 
Margaret Keiley, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ii 
 
Abstract 
 
 
Research has shown that the quality of the couple relationship is a critical factor 
in the environment in which children develop, in that it affects parent involvement and 
parenting practices. This spillover process suggests that conflict in parent-child 
relationships is associated with conflict in the couple relationship. Therefore, it appears 
that educational efforts to strengthen the couple relationship may positively affect the co-
parenting relationship and dimensions of parenting.  
The current study utilizes a spillover framework and the linkages between couple 
functioning and parenting to determine the extent to which several parenting dimensions 
(co-parenting conflict, parental involvement, and positive parenting practices) change 
after participation in relationship/marriage education (MRE), whether these changes are 
related to changes in dimensions of couple functioning, and whether these changes differ 
by gender, race, and marital status.  
Based on a sample of 582 adult parents, diverse in gender, race, and marital 
status, positive changes were found in the parenting dimensions over time. However, the 
lack of a comparison or control group prevents the ability to assert that positive 
improvements in the parenting dimensions are due to program participation.   
Using structural equation modelling, changes in the couple domain were found to 
be associated with the amount of changes in the parenting domain over the same period 
of time. For the whole sample, a pattern of stronger links was found between 
iii 
 
conceptually similar dimensions of couple functioning and parenting.   The strongest 
predictor of positive parenting behaviors and parent involvement post-program, 
accounting for baseline levels, is positive couple behaviors.  The strongest predictor of 
co-parenting conflict is negative/conflictual couple behaviors.  
Lastly, examinations were conducted of whether changes in parenting, relative to changes 
in dimensions of couple functioning, differ by gender, race, and marital status. 
Differences were found based on gender for the link between change in negative couple 
interactions and change in co-parenting conflict: fathers had a negative relationship 
between the two; mothers indicated a strong positive relationship.  Differences were 
found based on race for the link between change in negative couple behavior and change 
in parent involvement: European Americans had a negative relationship between the two 
variables; African Americans did not have a significant path. Delta-chi square tests did 
not reveal significant differences between married and non-married adult parents. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iv 
 
Acknowledgments 
 
 
First and foremost, I want to thank my family and friends for supporting me 
throughout my graduate experience at Auburn University.  I never would have made it 
without their love and encouragement over the past several years.  I would also like to 
express thanks to my wonderful cohort who has been there for support and 
encouragement through the thick and thin.  
I?d like to thank Dr. Margaret Keiley and Dr. Thomas Smith for serving on my 
committee and providing me with their knowledge and guidance throughout this process 
and the graduate experience. Lastly, I would like to thank my most important and 
amazing mentor, Dr. Francesca Adler-Baeder, for believing in me and my abilities, 
encouraging my competence and confidence, and helping me to grow personally and 
professionally throughout my time as a graduate student and colleague in training. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii 
Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iv  
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi  
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii  
Introduction   ........................................................................................................................1 
Review of the Literature   ..................................................................................................10 
Methods  ............................................................................................................................37 
Plan of Analysis .................................................................................................................43 
Results   ..............................................................................................................................45 
Discussion   ........................................................................................................................75 
References   ........................................................................................................................85 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 vi 
List of Tables 
 
 
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the couple and parenting dimension indicators 
at time 1 and time 2. 
 
46 
Table 2 Descriptive statistics for composite couple scores at time 1 and    time 
2. 
 
49 
Table 3 Zero-order Pearson correlations for difference scores of the composite 
parenting and couple variables. 
 
50 
Table 4 Standardized  and unstandardized coefficients between the latent 
constructs for the full model. 
 
57 
Table 5 Standardized (unstandardized) coefficients between the latent 
constructs for mothers and fathers. 
 
62 
Table 6 Standardized (unstandardized) coefficients between the latent 
constructs for African Americans (AA) and European Americans (EA). 
 
67 
Table 7 Standardized (unstandardized) coefficients between the latent 
constructs for married and non-married adult parents. 
72 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 vii 
List of Figures 
 
 
Figure 1 Exogenous variable measurement model of couple domain at time 1. 
 
52 
Figure 2 Exogenous variable measurement model of couple domain at time 2. 
 
53 
Figure 3 Endogenous variable measurement model of parenting domain at 
time 1. 
 
54 
Figure 4 Endogenous variable measurement model of parenting domain at 
time 2. 
 
55 
Figure 5  Standardized path coefficients of the structural equation model for 
the full sample. Fit indices: ?2=965.875 (df = 423, p < .000), CFI = 
.92, RMSEA = .047. Squared Multiple Correlations (SMC) indicate 
the percent of variance in the latent constructs accounted for by the 
model. 
 
58 
Figure 6 Standardized path coefficients of the structural equation model for 
fathers. Fit Indices: ?2 = 1579.1 (df = 846, p < .000), CFI = .89, 
RMSEA = .04. Squared Multiple Correlations (SMC) indicate the 
percent of variance in the latent constructs accounted for by the 
model. 
 
63 
Figure 7 Standardized path coefficients of the structural equation model for 
mothers. Fit Indices: ?2 = 1579.1 (df = 846, p < .000), CFI = .89, 
RMSEA = .04. Squared Multiple Correlations (SMC) indicate the 
percent of variance in the latent constructs accounted for by the 
model. 
 
64 
Figure 8 Standardized path coefficients of the structural equation model for 
African American adult parents. Fit Indices: ?2 = 1536.95 (df = 846, 
p < .000), CFI = .90, RMSEA = .04. Squared Multiple Correlations 
(SMC) indicate the percent of variance in the latent constructs 
accounted for by the model. 
68 
   
viii 
 
Figure 9 Standardized path coefficients of the structural equation model for 
European American adult parents. Fit Indices: ?2 = 1536.95 (df = 
846, p < .000), CFI = .90, RMSEA = .04. Squared Multiple 
Correlations (SMC) indicate the percent of variance in the latent 
constructs accounted for by the model. 
 
69 
Figure 10 Standardized path coefficients of the structural equation model for 
married adult parents. Fit Indices: ?2 = 1496.24 (df=846, p  < .000), 
CFI = .90, RMSEA = .04. Squared Multiple Correlations (SMC) 
indicate the percent of variance in the latent constructs accounted for 
by the model. 
 
73 
Figure 11 Standardized path coefficients of the structural equation model for 
non-married adult parents. Fit Indices: ?2 = 1496.24 (df=846, p < 
.000), CFI = .90, RMSEA = .04. Squared Multiple Correlations 
(SMC) indicate the percent of variance in the latent constructs 
accounted for by the model. 
 
74 
1 
 
 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
 Educational efforts to build healthy relationships and marriages are receiving 
support through the federal Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI) coordinated by the 
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services (ACF/DHHS).  The HMI is described as a child-centered initiative and includes 
the assumption, based on empirical research, that efforts to strengthen relationships and 
marriages, enhance partner stability, and reduce divorce will directly and indirectly 
benefit child well-being (www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/pdf/accomplishments.pdf).  
The quality of the couple relationship is a critical factor in the environment in 
which children develop (e.g., Cowan & Cowan, 2002). Research has shown that the 
marital relationship serves as the foundation for family cohesion and contributes to the 
overall quality of family life (Erel & Burman, 1995). Marital relationship processes, 
particularly marital conflict, have been shown to affect children?s and adolescent?s well-
being and adjustment (Cummings and Davies, 1994). The relationship between marital 
conflict and child and adolescent maladjustment has been examined utilizing both direct 
and indirect pathways (Cummings & Davies, 2002).  
Some research using a direct effects model suggests that child maladjustment 
(e.g., effects on cognitive, social, and academic functioning) results from a child?s direct 
exposure to and emotional reaction and cognitive appraisal concerning overt marital 
conflict (Cummings and Davies, 2002). Social learning theory guides the assumption that 
children develop cognitive models of social relationships and learn dysfunctional 
2 
 
behavioral patterns as a result of observing and imitating negative behaviors of their 
parents (Bandura, 1973; 1977). In 1990, Reid and Crisafulli found a small mean effect 
size (.16) for the direct relationship between marital discord (conflict, disharmony, and 
lack of agreement between currently married parents) and child behavioral problems 
(conduct problems). In Fincham?s (1994) overview of the literature, correlations for the 
relationship between marital conflict and child adjustment were found to be modest for 
most studies (rs = .25-.40).  Recently, more attention has been given to the pathway from 
marital conflict to child outcomes through mediating variables.  
In addition to examinations of parental conflict and children?s social and 
emotional outcomes, there is growing literature looking at the exposure to parental 
conflict and effects on children?s health with the quality of sleep as a possible mediator. 
El-Sheikh and colleagues (2007) found that increased levels of marital conflict are 
associated with greater emotional insecurity in children which is then related to decreased 
sleep quality and duration. Poor levels of sleep quality and duration are linked with 
increased levels of children?s behavioral and emotional problems. Follow-up to the 
finding that emotional insecurity relates to child adjustment through the mediator of 
sleep, El-Sheikh et al. (2007) utilize this indirect relationship to assess the outcome of 
child academic achievement. Results show that children?s sense of insecurity about the 
marital relationship is related to greater child-reported sleep problems, which then is 
associated with lower academic achievement scores (i.e., Language, Math, Verbal, and 
Nonverbal scores). In addition, a pathway was found for the relationship between mother-
child attachment security and child achievement; higher perceived attachment was 
associated with better achievement scores.  
3 
 
The meditational or indirect relationship given the most research attention, 
however, has been examinations of the link between couple conflict and parent 
involvement and parenting practices (Grych & Fincham, 2001). Results indicate that 
negative changes in parent-child relationships occur as a result of a ?spillover? 
phenomenon from interparental conflict (Zimet & Jacob, 2001). Thus indirect or 
?spillover? models propose that conflict, problem behaviors, and affective nature of the 
parenting relationship help explain the link between marital conflict and child adjustment 
(Fincham, Grych, & Osborne, 1994).  
Using a systems perspective, scholars assert that ?the marital relationship impacts 
parental sensitivity, investment in the child, and overall quality of parenting? (Glade et 
al., 2005). Based on a review of the literature, Hawkins, Gilliland, Christiaens, and 
Carroll (2002) describe parenting quality as an important mediator of the relationship 
between marital conflict and children?s well-being. Negativity from the marital 
relationship (e.g., distress and hostility) transfers into the parenting relationships and 
interactions and subsequently compromises children?s adjustment and development 
(Gerard et al., 2006; Kaczynski, Lindahl, & Malik, 2006). Specifically, marital conflict 
can negatively affect child development through such negative behaviors as, harsh 
discipline, lack of parental involvement, and parent-child conflict (Gerard et al., 2006). 
On the other hand, positive marital/parental relationships can spillover and positively 
affect the quality, behaviors, and interactions within the parent-child relationship (Erel & 
Burman, 1995).  
Overall, evidence of the link between couple relationship quality and parenting is 
overwhelming, and the findings are quite robust. In their meta-analyses of sixty-eight 
4 
 
studies, Erel and Burman (1995) found a composite weighted mean effect size equal to 
0.46 for the spillover relationship. This finding reflects the consistent evidence that more 
negative parent-child relationships are found among families where there are more 
negative marital relationships, and vice versa; more positive parent-child relationships are 
found in families where there are more positive marital relationships. In a more recent 
meta-analysis of thirty-nine studies, Krishnakumar and Buehler (2000) find a moderate 
effect size of d = -0.62 for the spillover from interparental conflict to parenting behaviors, 
such that, high levels of marital/couple conflict were associated with poor parenting 
behaviors.  
The influences of interparental conflict have been shown to be a critical family 
process variable regardless of family structure. The family conflict perspective states that 
children in families of high interparental conflict will have the same low levels of well-
being despite the family structure. ?According to this perspective, children living in 
single-parent families due to divorce with low conflict between parents may, in fact, be 
better adjusted than children in high conflict families who have never been divorced? 
(Amato & Keith, 1991; Vandewater & Lansford, 1998). The link between couple 
relationship quality and parenting has been found not only among studies of married 
couples (Kitzman, 2000), but among non-married couples and post-divorce couples (e.g., 
Carlson & McLanahan, 2006; Fauber et al., 1990).   
Consideration of parent demographics also exists in the extant literature.  Studies 
of low-income couples and ethnic minority couples find evidence of these links as well 
(Gonzales et al., 2000). In addition, couple functioning is found to affect both mothers? 
parenting and fathers? parenting (Belsky & Kelly 1994; Brody, Neubaum, & Forehand 
5 
 
1988). There is some indication that these links may be stronger for fathers than mothers 
(e.g., Coiro & Emery, 1998). Evidence also shows the connection from this spillover to a 
variety of outcomes for young children, for school-age children, and for adolescents 
(Buehler & Gerard 2002).  
Suggestions are that as parents learn ways to communicate, use empathy, show 
appreciation for their partner, and utilize effective conflict management skills, they will 
employ more favorable childrearing attitudes and utilize more nurturing parenting 
techniques with their children (Cowan & Cowan, 2005).  Cummings, Goeke-Morey, and 
Graham (2002) assert that marital functioning should be included as a parenting 
dimension.  
In examinations of the spillover process, ?co-parenting? is viewed as a distinct 
dimension of the couple relationship and has recently received the attention of 
researchers. Co-parenting refers to the level of support and cooperation between parents 
in regard to their parenting. Co-parenting is the relationship between parents in 
negotiating their respective roles, responsibilities, and contributions to their children and 
is characterized by the degree to which parents support or work against each other?s 
parenting abilities and efforts (Gable, Crnic, & Belsky, 1994; Margolin, Gordis, & John, 
2001; McHale & Rasmussen, 1998).  
Feelings toward one?s spouse or partner are likely to affect the co-parenting 
relationship, in that, higher quality marital relationships reflect positive co-parenting and 
vice versa. In turn, the co-parenting relationship has been shown to impact parenting 
behaviors and the parent-child relationship. Co-parenting has been discussed in research 
6 
 
on post-divorce and non-married families, but more emphasis is now being given to this 
dynamic in married families as well (Doherty & Beaton, 2004). 
Considering this spillover evidence, it appears that educational efforts to 
strengthen the couple relationship may positively affect the co-parenting relationship and 
dimensions of parenting and in turn, can promote child well-being. Krishnakumar and 
Buehler (2000) note that since there are findings suggesting a spillover effect, it may 
prove beneficial to parenting practices to have interventions that teach parents how to 
effectively problem solve and address couple differences. As an applied research 
question; however, this has been given minimal attention.  In studies of couple 
relationship and marriage education, co-parenting and parenting practices have not been 
assessed as outcomes (e.g., Carroll & Doherty, 2003).   
In studies of parenting programs, only a handful exist that have examined the 
value of addressing the couple relationships in programs targeting parenting practices.  
Two early published studies showed that addressing marital and co-parenting issues 
along with parenting issues resulted in greater reduction of children?s problem behaviors 
than parenting skills training alone (Brody and Forehand 1985; Dadds 1987). Similarly, 
Webster-Stratton (1994) conducted an intervention study which showed that offering a 
parenting intervention alone had positive effects on child aggression. But parents who 
also received marital therapy showed improvements in parental communication, problem-
solving skills, parenting satisfaction, and children?s knowledge about pro-social solutions 
to social problems that were significantly greater than the improvements of those who 
received the parenting intervention alone.  
7 
 
More recently, Cowan and Cowan (2000) demonstrated that first-time expecting 
couples who received couples and parenting education (n = 24) had a reduced decline in 
marital satisfaction for both partners in comparison to the steady normative decline in 
marital satisfaction for the control group (n = 24) and a comparable childless group (n = 
16). Follow-ups found that the couple?s education participants had comparatively higher 
marital satisfaction and family adjustment, higher parent well-being, and their children 
had higher levels of adjustment to kindergarten compared to other groups. 
In a separate study, Cowan et al. (2005) compared a marriage-focused program 
and a parenting-focused program offered to married parents (N = 100) at the transition of 
their child from pre-school to kindergarten. Parents of the parenting-focused intervention 
showed parenting improvements across time, but no improvements in marital satisfaction. 
Participation in the marriage-focused program resulted in more positive parenting 
practices and parent-child relationships, as well as increases in their marital satisfaction. 
Follow-up studies showed greater academic competence and fewer behavior problems in 
4th grade for the children whose parents were in the marriage-focused program. 
Regarding evidence of the effects on parenting following interventions that 
address couple relationship skills, much has yet to be learned.  No published studies of 
marriage and relationship education (MRE) programs have included assessments of 
parenting dimensions or co-parenting relationships. Measures are limited to assessments 
of couple functioning and quality (Hawkins et al., 2009).  While there is some 
information on the potential value of MRE for promoting positive parenting relationships 
and practices from evaluations of parenting programs, the few studies that have examined 
this spillover link have utilized small samples and have not explored how change in 
8 
 
parenting relationships and practices following MRE may differ based on parent 
characteristics (e.g., gender, race, marital status, etc.).  In addition, these previous studies 
have focused on white, married couples. 
The current study utilizes a spillover framework and the empirically established 
linkages between couple functioning and parenting and extends the intervention research 
that has demonstrated evidence of positive child outcomes when parents are exposed to 
couple-focused programs. Examinations were conducted on the extent to which several 
dimensions of parenting (co-parenting conflict, parental involvement, and positive 
parenting practices) change after participation in relationship/marriage education, 
whether these changes are related to changes in dimensions of couple functioning, and 
whether these changes differ by gender, race, and marital status. The MRE programs 
provide no lessons specifically on parenting; the spillover effect of enhanced couple 
relationship skills and quality on parenting can be explored.  
(H1) It is hypothesized that parents in a MRE program will show positive changes 
in co-parenting conflict, positive parenting, and parental involvement. 
(RQ1) Because no information on which to base hypotheses regarding the impact 
of gender, race and marital status, the following research question will be 
explored: How does change over time in the different parenting dimensions differ 
by gender, race, and marital status?  
(H2) It is hypothesized that parents in a MRE program will show positive changes 
in co-parenting conflict, positive parenting, and parental involvement in relation 
to the amount of change demonstrated in couple behavioral dimensions and 
couple quality assessments. 
9 
 
 (RQ2) Because this is a new area of study and research, the following research 
question will be explored:  Which dimensions of couple functioning changes 
account for more of the variance in co-parenting conflict, parental involvement, 
and positive parenting practices changes? 
(H3) Further, because some evidence exists that indicates that fathers? parenting is 
more likely to be prone to spillover effects, while mothers  may be able to 
compartmentalize comparatively better, it is hypothesized that parent gender will 
serve as a moderator of the links between change in couple functioning and 
change in  parenting dimensions. 
(RQ3) Because no information exists on which to base hypotheses regarding the 
impact of race and marital status, the following research question will be 
explored:  How do participant characteristics, specifically, race and marital 
status, affect the links between changes in couple functioning and changes in 
parenting? 
 
  
10 
 
 
 
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 
 Educational efforts to build healthy relationships and marriages are receiving 
support through the federal Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI) coordinated by the 
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services (ACF/DHHS). The health of the couple relationship has been shown to affect 
adult well-being, family functioning, family stability, and thus the well-being of children. 
The HMI is described as a child-centered initiative and includes the assumption that 
efforts to strengthen relationships and marriages, enhance couple stability, and reduce 
divorce will directly and indirectly, through various mediators, benefit child well-being 
(www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/pdf/accomplishments.pdf).  
 The following review of the literature will provide information on (1) studies of 
couple relationships and child outcomes, (2) information on the links between couple 
functioning and parenting, (3) information on studies of the ?co-parenting? relationship, 
and (4) evidence of the ?spillover? relationship between couple functioning and parenting 
found in intervention studies. 
Couple Relationships and Child Outcomes 
While much has been written concerning the negative effects of divorce and the 
assertion that two parent families establish a healthier environment than single-parent 
families (e.g., Amato & Keith, 1991), others refute this perspective because of the lack of 
emphasis on family processes that influence children?s well-being in two-parent, as well 
as single parent families (e.g., Demo & Acock, 1988; Emery, 1982; Scanzoni, Polonko, 
11 
 
Teachman, & Thompson, 1989). Interparental conflict has been shown to be a critical 
family process variable related to child well-being. Rather than the divorce event itself, 
the adverse effects can in fact be attributed to the inter-parental conflict that precedes and 
follows marital dissolution (Emery, 1999; Hetherington, Bridges, & Insabella, 1998). The 
family conflict perspective states that children in families of high interparental conflict 
will have similar lower levels of well-being and adjustment regardless of the family 
structure. Scholars argue that intact families in which interparental conflict is high puts 
children at higher risk for maladjustment than a single parent family in which conflict 
between adults is low or non-existent (Amato & Keith, 1991; Vandewater & Lansford, 
1998, p. 323).  
Vandewater and Lunsford (1998) examine the influence of family structure and 
interparental conflict on three behavioral qualities in adolescents between the ages of ten 
and seventeen (internalizing behavior, externalizing behavior, and trouble with peers) by 
including children from married-never divorced families and divorced-not remarried 
families. Utilizing a randomly selected nationally representative sample of 618 parent-
child dyads, the researchers found that children of high interparental conflict families 
showed higher levels of internalizing and externalizing behaviors and had more 
difficulties with peers than children in low conflict families. Also the lack of a significant 
interaction effect between family structure and interparental conflict (high vs. low) on 
children?s well-being indicates that family structure groups were not significantly 
different from one another in relation to the child well-being measures. Therefore, the 
researchers state that it is not so much the case that parents should stay together for the 
sake of the children?s well-being but rather it is more important that parents lower 
12 
 
conflict and hostility between each other. Thus, if separation is the only way that parents 
can reduce the conflict between them, then it may prove beneficial to the child?s well-
being. The researchers suggest that it may be more important to discover ways for parents 
(regardless of family structure) to refrain from conflicting interactions. 
Amato and Booth (1996) examined the relationship between pre-divorce marital 
quality, pre-divorce parent-child relationship problems, parental divorce, and post-
divorce parental affection toward children. The researchers used a longitudinal design 
with a large sample of married parents (some later divorced between 1980 and 1992) 
initially interviewed in 1980 and re-interviewed in 1983, 1988, and 1992. First, the 
results showed that couples who eventually divorced had elevated parent-child problems 
and poor marital quality before the divorce occurred. In further analyses using path 
models, it was found that pre-divorce marital happiness in 1980 predicted parent-child 
problems in 1980, divorce between 1980 and 1988, and parent affection toward their 
child in 1988. It was found that both mothers? and fathers? relationships with their 
children are influenced by the quality of the parents? marriage before divorce. Although 
the study found that divorce affects fathers? affection but not mothers? affection toward 
their children, the researchers state that divorce reduces the relationship between children 
and non-custodial parents (typically fathers) more than custodial parents (typically 
mothers). The researchers propose that some of the negative effects of divorce reported in 
previous research may actually be present before divorce. 
Therefore, regardless of family structure, couple relationship quality, satisfaction, 
and processes, particularly couple conflict, affect children?s and adolescents? 
development and well-being (Cowan & Cowan, 2002; Cummings & Davies, 1994; Erel 
13 
 
& Burman, 1995; Lindahl, Clements, & Markman, 1997). High levels of marital conflict, 
particularly conflict containing physical aggression, predict children?s emotional 
problems (Davies & Cummings, 1994), social skill impaiMREnt (Wolfe, Jaffe, Wilson, 
& Zac, 1985), and behavioral problems (Cummings, Vogel, Cummings, & El-Sheikh, 
1989; Johnston, Gonzalex, & Campbell, 1987). In a meta-analysis of thirty-three studies 
exploring the direct relationship between marital functioning and child adjustment, Reid 
and Crisafulli (1990) found a mean effect size of d = .16 (considered small). In another 
review, Jouriles, Farris, and McDonald (1991) found that of 481 correlations between 
marital conflict and child adjustment in twenty-six studies, the majority (77%) had 
correlations less than .30. Also, in Zimet and Jacob?s (2001) more recent review of the 
literature, the direct relationship between marital conflict and child maladjustment 
appears to be quite modest.  
Direct effects models (direct pathway from marital conflict to child responses and 
maladjustment) tend to rely on social learning theory and carry the assumption that 
children develop cognitive models of social relationships and learn dysfunctional 
behavioral patterns as a result of observing and imitating the behaviors of their parents 
(Bandura, 1973; 1977). Krishnakumar and Buehler (2000) indicate that the social 
learning perspective proposes that because of parents? lack of interpersonal skills, 
negative outcomes in marital and parent-child relationships will result.  Children who 
witness interparental conflict and hostility may utilize these same negative behaviors with 
the understanding that they are appropriate for social interaction (Grych & Fincham, 
1990; Stocker & Youngblade, 1999).  
14 
 
Given the modest strength of the direct relationship between marital conflict and 
child outcomes, others who study couple conflict and child outcomes invoke a cognitive-
contextual framework (Grych & Fincham, 1990) and emotional security hypothesis 
(Davies & Cummings, 1994; 2002), focusing on children?s subjective appraisals and 
responses to direct exposure of marital conflict. ?The cognitive-contextual framework 
proposed by Grych and Fincham (1990) places special emphasis on the effects of marital 
conflict on children?s cognitive processes and the role of cognitive processes in affecting 
children?s emotions and behaviors? (p. 40, Cummings & Davies, 2002). Children who 
witness well managed interparental conflict are more likely to learn constructive problem 
solving and coping strategies for other relationship interactions (Cummings, 1994; Grych 
& Fincham, 1990).  
?According to the emotional security hypothesis, the meaning of marital conflict 
is assessed by children based on their appraisals of the emotional security implications of 
the conflicts? (p. 36, Cummings & Davies, 2002). Researchers have established various 
dimensions within interparental conflict that affect children?s perceptions of the situation 
and thus influence their emotional reactions and behavioral responses and overall 
development: frequency, resolution, verbal intensity, content, and explanation. 
Experiencing continuous, destructive marital conflict is expected to enhance children?s 
negative emotional arousal and insecure feelings concerning family stability and 
attachments (Zimet & Jacob, 2002). When parental conflict revolves around child-related 
topics, children tend to have feelings of helplessness, fear, and negative self-evaluation 
(Gable, Belsky, & Crnic, 1992), elevated levels of shame, self-blame, belief in their 
ability to resolve their parent?s conflict, and actual fear of being brought into the conflict 
15 
 
(Buchanan, Maccoby, & Downbusch, 1991). When conflict remains unresolved, children 
show signs of distress and anger and consider the situation as more negative than when 
the situation has resolution (Cummings, Pellegrini, Notarious, & Cummings, 1989).  
In addition to studies of children?s emotional responses to parental conflict, there 
is a growing literature examining the effects of parental conflict on child sleep patterns 
and child health. El-Sheikh et al. (2007) studied sleep disruptions and emotional 
insecurity as risk factors for children?s adjustment and academic achievement, utilizing a 
sample of 166 children (n = 74 boys; n = 92 girls) of predominantly married, biological 
parents (77%). The researchers found no significant direct relation between marital 
conflict and child adjustment and academic functioning, suggesting that the relation 
between marital conflict and child functioning is indirect through emotional insecurity 
and sleep disruptions. ?Greater marital conflict was related to greater emotional 
insecurity, and greater emotional insecurity was related to decreased sleep quality and 
duration. Lower sleep quality and duration were associated with greater parent-report of 
children?s behavior problems and emotional problems? (p. 93; El-Sheikh et al., 2007). In 
addition, emotional insecurity was directly related to children?s emotional and behavioral 
problems; therefore, it appears that sleep and emotional insecurity operate as mediators of 
the relationship between marital conflict and child adjustment.  
As a follow-up to the findings that emotional insecurity relates to child behaviors 
and emotional problems through the mediator of sleep, El-Sheikh et al. (2007) assessed 
the link to child academic achievement as the outcome of focus. The researchers used the 
same sample as the previous study and found that, ?children?s insecurity about the marital 
relationship was linked to greater child-reported sleep problems, which in turn were 
16 
 
related to lower academic achievement scores (i.e., Language, Math, Verbal, and 
Nonverbal scores)? (p. 32; El-Sheikh et al., 2007). Also, mother-child attachment security 
was directly related to child achievement; higher perceived attachment was associated 
with better achievement scores.  
It is clear that other factors are involved in the link between conflict and child 
outcomes. Thus, Fincham and Osborne (1993) suggested that further research should 
address the construct of marital conflict more specifically and also look at various 
pathways linking marital conflict and child adjustment. 
Linking Couple Functioning and Parenting 
Based on a review of the literature, Hawkins, Gilliland, Christiaens, and Carroll 
(2002) describe parenting quality as an important mediator of the relationship between 
marital conflict and children?s well-being. Indications are that, interparental conflict 
influences child adjustment and well-being indirectly by affecting the parent-child 
relationship (i.e., affect, parenting behaviors, and the overall quality of parenting) (Cox et 
al., 2001; Davies & Cummings, 1994; Erel and Burman, 1995; Fauber, Forehand, 
Thomas, & Wierson, 1990; Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). The ?spillover? hypothesis 
is derived from the family systems theory, which suggests that individual family 
members are involved in an interdependent, hierarchically organized social system 
defined by rules of interaction and boundaries (Kacsynski, Lindahl, & Malik, 2006). 
Based upon this systems perspective, scholars assert that ?the marital relationship impacts 
parental sensitivity, investment in the child, and overall quality of parenting? (Cummings 
& O?Reilly, 1997; Glade et al., 2005, p. 322; Lewis, Owen, & Cox; 1988). Researchers 
explain this ?spillover? effect as affect and behavioral disturbances established in one 
17 
 
relational setting, the marital relationship, reflected and expressed in another relational 
setting, the parent-child relationship, which then ultimately affects child adjustment and 
development (Coiro & Emery, 1998; Gerard et al., 2006; Kaczynski, Lindahl, & Malik, 
2006). 
Marital/couple relationship quality (health and satisfaction) influences various 
parenting and practices behaviors, styles, and interactions, such as parental involvement 
(Biller & Solomon, 1986; Burman, John, & Margolin, 1987; Fauber et al. 1990), parent 
disciplinary practices (Holden & Ritchie, 1998; Jouriles & LeCompte, 1991) and 
consistent parenting behaviors (Block, Block, & Morrison, 1981; Stoneman, Brody, & 
Burke, 1989); and thus is indirectly predictive of child adjustment problems (Grych, Seid, 
& Fincham, 1992; Jouriles, Murphy, & O?Leary, 1989). Specifically, tension, distress, 
hostility, negativity, and coercive behavior patterns from the partner relationship spill 
over into the parent-child dyad through lowered parental warmth (Vandewater & 
Lansford, 1998), increased rejection and hostility (Harold & Conger, 1997; Harold, 
Fincham, Osborne, & Conger, 1997; Mann & MacKenzie, 1996), less sensitive and 
engaged parenting (Owen & Cox, 1997), ineffective discipline (Jouriles & Farris, 1992; 
Jouriles, Pfiffner, & O?Leary, 1988; Stoneman, Brody, & Burke, 1989), more control 
(Belsky, Youngblade, Rovine, & Volling, 1991; O?Brien & Bahadur, 1998), and lack of 
effective problem solving (Capaldi, Forgatch, & Crosby, 1994).  
Researchers have discovered that healthy, stable marriages and high marital 
quality and satisfaction levels are more likely to result in more sensitive, responsive, and 
supportive parenting, which then leads to more favorable child outcomes (attachment and 
interpersonal competence) (Belsky et al., 1991; Howes & Markman, 1989, 1991). On the 
18 
 
other hand, conflicted marriages and low marital quality levels tend to be associated with 
less effective, less sensitive, inconsistent, less supportive parenting and thus contribute to 
maladjusted child behavior (Fauber et al., 1990; Kerig, Cowan, & Cowan, 1993). Thus, 
evidence indicates that the spillover potentially puts young children and adolescents at 
risk for negative outcomes (Buehler & Gerard, 2002).  
Examinations of these couple conflict/parenting/child outcomes linkages are quite 
extensive, and inclusive of diverse samples (i.e., married/nonmarried, mothers/fathers, 
high income/low income, and White/Hispanic/African American).. In addition, couple 
functioning is found to affect both mothers? parenting and fathers? parenting (Belsky & 
Kelly, 1994; Brody, Neubaum, & Forehand, 1988). Mothers? and fathers? parenting have 
been shown to mediate the relationship between marital conflict and increased levels of 
both internalizing and externalizing behaviors in children (Kaczynski, Lindahl, & Malik, 
2006).  
For example, Kitzmann?s (2000) study on marital conflict?s effects on triadic 
family interaction and mothers? and fathers? parenting, utilizing an observational, cross-
sectional experimental design of forty, married, European American, middle-class 
families, found that negativity within the marital relationship during a lab-induced 
conflictual discussion was followed by less family cohesion, decreased support and 
engagement by mothers and fathers towards their sons, an increase in family negativity, a 
decrease in family warmth, and more disrupted parenting in the triadic relationship. 
Findings support a spillover effect of interactions within one subsystem of the family 
being reflected within other subsystems. Also, the study found that negative marital 
interactions were not related to more parental rejection and coercion in triadic (parent-
19 
 
parent-child) relationships but rather influenced less support and engagement by the 
parent during interactions with the child.  
Frosch and Mangelsdorf (2001) studied the mediation of parenting behavior in the 
relationship between marital behavior and preschooler?s behavior problems, using an 
observational and quantitative cross-sectional study of 78 predominantly white married, 
mothers, fathers, and their children (38 girls, 40 boys). The results found that increased 
levels of marital conflict and less positive marital engagement/involvement were 
associated with lower levels of parental warmth and support and higher levels of hostility 
and intrusiveness for both mothers and fathers. While the researchers did find support for 
the spillover framework, they failed to find mediating effects from the spillover to child 
adjustment problems. Despite this, the researchers suggest that over time and with more 
exposure to conflict, parenting behaviors may have a stronger mediating influence on the 
relationship between marital quality and child adjustment problems (see Cummings & 
Davies, 1994; Frosch & Mangelsdorf, 2001).  
Buehler and Gerard (2002), in their cross-sectional study of young children 
(unweighted n = 586; weighted n = 623), preadolescent children (unweighted n = 815; 
weighted n = 974), and adolescent children (unweighted n = 684; weighted n = 944) of 
mostly above poverty European American married parents, hypothesize a hybrid of the 
spillover model and direct effects model in order to explain the manner in which 
ineffective parenting partially mediates the link between marital conflict and child 
maladjustment. They found that marital conflict was positively related to parent?s 
utilization of harsh discipline, positively related to levels of parent-adolescent conflict, 
and negatively related to parental involvement; and in turn, these negative parenting 
20 
 
behaviors were associated with higher levels of child and adolescent maladjustment. The 
use of harsh behaviors and lower levels of parental involvement covary with children?s 
and adolescents maladjustment. Additionally, the study indicated that in families with the 
target child between the age of 2 and 11, parenting was found to only partially explain the 
link between marital conflict and child maladjustment. Based upon these results, 
researchers conclude that the spillover model adequately explains the interrelationship 
between marital conflict, ineffective parenting, and child maladjustment. It appears that 
the majority of the time the explanation of the link between marital conflict and child 
adjustment is through ineffective parenting behaviors and these spillover links may be 
stronger the older the child.  
Utilizing a longitudinal investigation of spillover effects, Gerard et al. (2006) 
similarly examined the pathway from marital conflict to harsh discipline, lack of parental 
involvement, and conflict between parent and child and from the parenting dimensions to 
child adjustment. Based on a sample of 551 married participants (267 fathers, 284 
mothers), the researchers found child maladjustment levels are influenced by marital 
conflict through both direct and indirect pathways. They demonstrate the impact of 
spillover from marital conflict to harsh disciplinary parenting techniques to child 
externalizing problems, such as bullying, negativity to others, and disobedience. 
Additionally, they document a direct effect of marital conflict on internalizing problems. 
Children withdraw from parental conflict or experience emotional distress if they lack 
ability to remove themselves from the conflicting situation. In addition to these findings, 
their study shows that when family patterns are developed, they tend to become stable; 
21 
 
marital conflict, parent-child dyadic relationship quality, and child maladjustment remain 
fairly stable from middle childhood to adolescence.   
Fauber et al. (1990) compared levels of marital conflict and parental rejection and 
withdrawal in both intact and divorced samples. The researchers hypothesized that 
marital conflict is related to parenting behaviors through lower consistent and effective 
discipline strategies, higher parental withdrawal and rejection of the child, and higher 
psychological and emotional control. Utilizing a cross-sectional design and a sample of 
ninety-seven adolescents (51 from divorced families, 46 from intact families) and their 
mothers, and assessing measures of conflict, parenting, and child adjustment, results 
show parenting behavior mediated the relationship between marital conflict and 
adolescent adjustment (rated by both mothers and teachers) in both intact and divorced 
families, but showed greater significance for parental rejection and withdrawal. Findings 
indicate that the relationship between marital conflict and parental rejection and 
withdrawal was relatively stronger within the divorced sample. The researchers propose 
that this relation means that high levels of couple/marital conflict between divorced 
parents is associated with a higher likelihood of maternal rejection or withdrawal from 
children. They explain that those experiencing increased conflict with their ex-partner are 
already significantly distressed and thus the conflict contributes to comparatively more 
distress than mothers in intact relationship, which then affects parenting abilities to a 
greater extent.  
Utilizing a longitudinal design, Kline, Johnston, Tschann (1991) investigated 
marital conflict and children?s post-divorce adjustment with a sample of 178 divorcing 
families ? mostly European American, college-educated participants with an oldest child 
22 
 
between the ages of 2 and 19. The results found both direct and indirect pathways for 
marital conflict?s effect on child adjustment two years after divorce, yet the direct 
pathway was only marginally significant. Marital conflict was indirectly related to child 
adjustment through poor mother-child relationships and interparental conflict during the 
year after the divorce. Parents who engaged in intense conflict levels during marriage 
were more conflictual a year after divorce; therefore, marital conflict levels influence 
interparental relationships, parent-child relationships, and problematic behaviors post-
divorce.  
Focus on fathering. Father sensitivity, warmth, and involvement have been shown 
to affect children?s cognitive and social adjustment independent of the mothering 
relationship (Black, Dubowitz, & Starr, 1999; Tamis-LeMonda, Shannon, Cabrera, & 
Lamb, 2004). Yet in order to determine and understand father involvement, certain 
factors come into play, such as, relationship quality between parents and individual 
characteristics (financial means and race/ethnicity) (Gee, McNerney, Reiter, & Leaman, 
2006). Also, regardless of a father?s marital status, other risk factors (drug/alcohol abuse 
and incarceration) may directly or indirectly (through weakening the relationship with the 
mother) influence their involvement with their child (Waller & Swisher, 2006). 
Research has shown that fathering, especially the quality of their parenting and 
the level of involvement, is influenced by the status and quality of the marital relationship 
(Carlson & McLanahan, 2004; Johnson, 2001). Previous research has shown the 
importance of the mother-father relationship to father involvement in all relationship 
types, married, cohabiting, divorced, and never-married fathers (Marsiglio, Roy, & Fox, 
2005). A close partner relationship is associated with increased father involvement with 
23 
 
their children (Carlson & McLanahan, 2004; Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1999); whereas, 
declines in closeness levels or disruptions in marital quality between the mother and 
father relationship results in decreased father-child involvement (Cabrera et al., 2004; 
McLanahan & Carlson, 2004). Men typically have been found to respond to marital 
conflict by withdrawing from their wives (Gottman & Levenson, 1988; Christensen & 
Heavey, 1990), but conflicting marital situations are also more likely to result in fathers 
withdrawing from their children (Howes & Markman, 1989). Studies on divorced fathers 
suggest that fathers disengage from their children when dissolution of the partner 
relationship with the mother occurs (Fustenberg & Cherlin, 1991), mostly owing to 
physical separation from their children. These are consistent with studies of parental 
involvement of both mothers and fathers (e.g., Buehler & Gerard, 2002; Gerard et al., 
2006).  
In Fagan and Palkovitz?s (2007) study on unmarried, nonresident fathers? 
involvement with their infants, the quality of the mother-father relationship was expected 
to serve as a risk or resilience factor in determining father involvement. The study sample 
consisted of 652 predominantly African American unmarried, non-cohabiting fathers. 
They found that the closer the relationship quality between the mother and father of a 
child is, the higher the level of father involvement, especially those in romantic and 
friendship relationships as opposed to acquaintance relationships. Therefore, it is 
important that the relationship between the father and mother maintains so that there will 
be continuous father involvement in the child?s life. Also, the researchers found that the 
more risk variables a father has (such as, legal issues), the greater likelihood in decreased 
paternal involvement. In conclusion, it is suggested that interventions should emphasize 
24 
 
the importance of meaningful relationships among mother and father in order to promote 
father involvement.  
Utilizing data from 2850 young mothers and 2215 fathers of their children from 
the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (Reichman et al., 1998), Gee, McNerney, 
Reiter, and Leaman (2006) found that mother and father reported relationship quality 
initially and three-years after childbirth significantly relates to father involvement, such 
that higher reported levels of relationship quality are positively associated with father 
involvement. Also, father cohabitation with his child was found to be the strongest 
predictor in determining father involvement, in that greater accessibility to their child 
enables more involvement in parenting behaviors. When there was a positive relationship 
(i.e. lack of disagreements) between the partners around the time of the child?s birth, 
fathers showed a greater likelihood to be involved, yet postnatal involvement was not 
associated with later father involvement (Gee, McNerney, Retier, & Leaman, 2006).      
Coiro and Emery (1998) review empirical studies to address the issue of whether 
marital conflict affects fathering more than mothering in intact marriages. In their 
summary of eight studies concerning the links between marital conflict and mother-child 
and father-child relationship quality, they find that two (Amato, 1986; Stoneman et al., 
1989) reveal statistically significant results that marital conflict negatively influences 
parenting behaviors more so for fathers than mothers. Two additional studies (Brody et 
al., 1986; Jouriles & Farris, 1992) found that marital conflict has more of an influence on 
parenting behaviors and subsequently, on parent-child relationship quality more so for 
fathers than mothers.  
25 
 
In their longitudinal study on marital disruptions and parent-child relationships, 
Orbuch et al. (2000) examined mothers? marital quality in relation to parent-child quality 
as well as the relation between divorce and parent-child quality with a sample of 801 
mothers and children. The researchers interviewed the participants in 1962, 1963, 1966, 
1977 and followed-up three times between 1980 and 1993. Their results found that 
mothers? marital quality when the child was 18 was significantly and positively 
associated with mothers? perceptions of the parent-child relationship quality at that age, 
yet as children and mothers aged, marital quality was not significantly related to the 
mother-child relationship. Divorce and non-remarrying, from the mother?s perspective, 
decreased the quality of mother-child relationships for sons but increased the mother-
daughter relationship. When mothers divorced and remarried at the time when children 
are young adults, both mothers and children reported lower levels in mother-child 
relationship quality.  Adult children?s reports on their relationships with their fathers 
were significantly associated with mothers? reported marital quality. Marital quality had 
more of a significant spillover into the father-child relationship compared to the mother-
child relationship, even when the child was thirty-one years of age; therefore, when 
marital problems exist the likelihood of fathers maintaining close relationships and being 
involved with their children is reduced. Divorce was found to have an even greater 
negative effect on father-daughter relationships than father-son relationships. In addition, 
children with divorced mothers (non-remarried) were more likely to report lower quality 
relationships with their fathers compared to children in continuously intact families; this 
family structure difference was not found for children?s reports of relationship quality 
with their mothers. Other studies indicate that children from divorced families report 
26 
 
poorer relationships with their fathers rather than mothers (Zill, Morrison, & Coio, 1993; 
Aquilino, 1994) and also that there is a higher level of noninvolvement of fathers with 
their children after divorce than for mothers (Furstenberg, Peterson, Nord, & Zill, 1983; 
Seltzer & Bianchi, 1988).  
Focus on diverse samples. Studies of low-income couples and ethnic minority 
couples find evidence of the links among interparental conflict, parenting, and child 
outcomes as well (Gonzales et al., 2000). Gonzales, Pitts, Hill, & Roosa (2000) explored 
the indirect model of interparental conflict on child adjustment in a multiethnic (81% 
Mexican American; 8% African American), low-income sample of children (n = 97) 
living with two parents (whether biological and married, stepfamily, or cohabiting). 
Previous research indicates there are traditional values for many ethnic groups of strong 
emotional attachments in the parent-child relationship (Garcia-Coll et al., 1995) which 
may in turn prevent the child from facing the problems related to the spillover effect. 
Using a cross-sectional, meditational model, the researchers found that interparental 
conflict is indirectly related to child outcomes through negative associations with 
children?s perceptions of parental acceptance and positive relations to their perceptions of 
inconsistent discipline and control. These results indicate the spillover effect can occur in 
minority families, including Hispanics and African Americans, such that those children, 
who reported more frequent, intense, and unresolved conflict between their parents and 
who perceived the parent-child relationship less favorably, were more likely to report 
depression and conduct problems. The researchers did not find support for hostile control 
as a mediator of the relationship between marital conflict and children maladjustment. 
27 
 
Possible explanations, include, a greater acceptance and reduced negative outcomes of 
hostile control within their primarily Mexican American sample.  
In Kacsynski, Lindahl, and Malik?s (2006) cross-sectional study of 226 ethnically 
diverse children (61% having one Hispanic parent, 34% having one Black parent, and 
24% having two European American parents) and their married or cohabiting (for at least 
3 years) parents, results indicate that marital conflict was consistently associated with 
higher levels of ineffective parenting among mothers and fathers; parenting behavior was 
found to fully mediate the link from marital conflict to child maladjustment. As marital 
conflict heightened, parents tended to become less responsive, more rejecting of their 
children, and more likely to utilize coercive disciplinary parenting practices. Children 
tend to react to the coercive behavior through the use of ?oppositionality? and aggression 
(Kacsynski, Lindahl, & Malik, 2006). On the other hand, children tend to display 
internalizing behavior in response to parental rejection and lack of parental emotional 
accessibility that result from interparental conflict (Kacsynski, Lindahl, & Malik, 2006).  
Meta-analyses of interparental conflict and parenting linkages. Overall, research 
identifying the link between couple relationship quality and parenting is vast with 
findings that are quite consistent. In their meta-analysis of 68 studies, Erel and Burman 
(1995) find robust evidence that more negative parent-child relationships are found 
among families where there are more negative marital relationships, and vice versa; more 
positive parent-child relationships are found in families where there are more positive 
marital relationships. In this meta-analysis, the researchers conclude that highly 
conflictual marital relationships make it difficult for positive parent-child relationships to 
exist; therefore, there is a negative relationship between marital conflict and parent-child 
28 
 
relations (Lindahl, Clements, & Markman, 1997; Margolin, Burman, & John, 1989; 
Metzler, Biglan, Ary, & Li, 1998; Owen & Cox, 1997; Shuntich, Loh, & Katz, 1998). 
In a more recent meta-analytic review of 138 effect sizes from 39 studies, 
Krishnakumar and Buehler?s (2000) find a moderate effect size d = -.62 for the 
relationship between interparental conflict and parenting behaviors, such that, high levels 
of marital/couple conflict were associated with poor parenting. Again, the negative 
relationship between marital conflict and parenting behaviors supports the spillover 
hypothesis, but the effect size in the more recent study is stronger than that found by Erel 
and Burman (1995; -.44) 
Co-parenting  
?Co-parenting? is a distinct dimension of the couple relationship that also has 
received the attention of researchers. There is growing evidence that the quality of the 
couple relationship impacts the co-parenting relationship in married and non-married 
families alike. Co-parenting refers to the level of support and cooperation between 
parents in regard to their parenting abilities and efforts, including, negotiating their 
respective roles, responsibilities, and contributions to their children (Gable, Crnic, & 
Belsky, 1994; Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001; McHale & Rasmussen, 1998). The co-
parenting relationship has been shown to influence parenting behaviors and the quality of 
the parent-child relationship through the parent?s self-efficacy (Feinberg & Kan, 2008; 
Teti, O?Connell, & Reiner, 1996). Co-parenting has been discussed in research on post-
divorce and non-married families, but more emphasis is now being given to this dynamic 
in married families as well (Doherty & Beaton, 2004). Feelings toward one?s spouse are 
29 
 
likely to affect the co-parenting relationship, in that higher quality marital relationships 
reflect positive co-parenting and vice versa.  
Kitzmann (2000) found that higher levels of negativity within the couple 
relationship spill over into triadic processes, causing negative, less supportive co-
parenting. Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, Frosch, and McHale (2004) found evidence 
that co-parenting and marital quality may be independent processes in early family 
formation but become more closely related as children reach the preschool age. This 
supports previous findings (Belsky & Hsih, 1998; O?Brien & Peyton, 2002) that couples 
who experience declines in marital satisfaction over time also experience more 
disagreements in co-parenting. ?The coparenting relationship, therefore, can serve as an 
arena in which spouses act on their similar or dissimilar child-rearing beliefs and can also 
provide a context for distressed couples to divert their own problems onto child-related 
matters? (Gable, Crnic, & Belsky, 1994). 
In Margolin, Gordis, and John?s (2001) study, the researchers hypothesize that the 
co-parenting alliance serves as a mediator between marital conflict and parent-child 
relationships. It is believed that feelings towards one?s partner relates to the co-parenting 
relationship such that healthy marital relations are associated with positive co-parenting 
whereas unhealthy, unstable marital relations relate to negative co-parenting (Margolin, 
Gordis, & John, 2001). In their study of three community samples of two-parent families 
(pilot mothers sample n = 220, 146 girls, 74 boys; preadolescent parent sample n = 75 
families, 40 girls, 35 boys; preschool parent sample n = 172 families, 92 girls, 80 boys), 
the researchers find that coparenting serves to link the relationship between marital 
conflict and parenting. Having shown reductions in the magnitude for the relationship 
30 
 
between marital conflict and parenting when controlling for co-parenting, the researchers 
suggest that the co-parenting relationship may serve as a mechanism through which 
marital relations affect parenting relationships. In addition, the researchers emphasize 
three aspects of co-parenting ? the frequency and level of conflict between parents 
around parenting issues, cooperation, and triangulation.  
Intervention research invoking the couple functioning and parenting link 
Considering this empirical spillover evidence, it appears that education on 
strengthening the couple relationship quality and managing inter-parental conflict can be 
beneficial to co-parenting and dimensions of parenting and in turn, can promote child 
well-being (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000; Grych, 2005). Grych (2005) suggests that 
focusing on parenting alone without addressing couple conflict may not effectively target 
the family processes. Therefore, evaluations of programs can inform basic research 
concerning whether changes in parenting or changes in inter-parental conflict are 
predictive of enhanced child adjustment and well-being. Cowan and Cowan (2002) 
indicate that if the intervention reduces the negative interactions within family 
relationships (conflict) and if declines in the negativity of these relationship dynamics are 
associated with positive adaptation and development for children, the intervention will 
prove to be effective. This evidence will indicate that marital and parent-child 
relationships possibly play a causal role in influencing children?s adaptation and 
dysfunction.  
As an applied research question; however, this has been given minimal attention. 
A handful of early studies have shown that addressing marital and co-parenting issues 
with parenting issues results in greater reduction of children?s problem behaviors than 
31 
 
parenting skills training alone (Dadds, 1987; Brody and Forehand, 1985). Webster-
Stratton (1994) conducted an intervention study which showed that offering a parenting 
intervention alone had a positive impact on child aggression. But parents who also 
received marital therapy showed improvements in parental communication, problem-
solving skills, parenting satisfaction, and children?s knowledge about pro-social solutions 
to social problems that were significantly greater than the improvements of those who 
received the parenting intervention alone.  
Cowan and Cowan (2000) also examined this ?added value? hypothesis and 
demonstrated that first-time expecting couples who received couples plus parenting 
education (n = 24) had a reduced decline in marital satisfaction for both partners in 
comparison to the steady normative decline in marital satisfaction for the control group (n 
= 24) and a comparable childless group (n = 16). At three years post-partum, no divorces 
had occurred in the couple intervention treatment group versus fifteen percent in the 
comparison group. At three and a half to four years post-partum, those who had 
participated in couple?s education had comparatively higher parent well-being and their 
children had higher levels of adjustment to kindergarten. At six years post-partum, higher 
marital satisfaction and family adjustment for the couple intervention group was 
documented. 
In a separate study, Cowan et al. (2005) compared the relative impact of a 
marriage focused program and a parenting-focused program offered to married parents at 
the transition to kindergarten. Parents who received a parenting focused intervention 
before the transition showed parenting improvements across time, but no improvements 
in marital satisfaction and interaction. Participation in the marriage-focused program 
32 
 
resulted in more positive parenting practices and parent-child relationships, as well as 
increases in their marital satisfaction. Follow-up studies show that children whose parents 
were in the marriage-focused groups had higher achievement scores in kindergarten as 
well as fewer behavioral problems in first grade. Later follow-up studies continue to 
show that children with parents in the marriage-focused groups have greater academic 
competence and fewer behavior problems in 4th grade when compared to children whose 
parents had participated in the parenting-focused program.  In order to enhance children?s 
emotional, social, and academic adaptation and development, the results of recent 
intervention research suggest that it may prove more beneficial to help parents with their 
couple relationship as opposed to education on parenting strategies alone (Cowan & 
Cowan, 2005). 
In a more recent study, Cummings et al. (2008) evaluated a brief 4-session 
psychoeducational program that included information on marital communication and the 
importance of constructive rather than destructive skills/behaviors for improving marital 
conflict in community families. Utilizing the link between marital conflict and other 
family domains (parent-child relationship and child adjustment), the researchers expected 
that through improving marital conflict, there would also be eventual positive 
improvements in the other family system processes. With a mostly married, 
predominantly white sample, comparing a parent-only group (treatment group) who 
participated in the 4-session psychoeducational program, a parent-child group (treatment 
group) who also participated in the 4-session psychoeducational program but their 
children too were taught ways to cope in response to interparental conflict, and a self-
study group (control), the changes in knowledge from the psychoeducational program 
33 
 
were associated with significant improvements in conflict behaviors, such as being more 
supportive of one another, more emotionally positive, more likely to resolve issues, and 
more constructive in discussions. These positive changes in marital conflict were 
associated with positive changes in marital satisfaction, parenting, and child adjustment. 
Overall, improvements were shown to be far more prevalent in treatment groups in 
comparison to the control group, suggesting the greater efficacy of research-based 
treatment education opposed to self-help knowledge.  
In addition, recent studies have found that couple interventions not only improve 
overall relationship quality and functioning in the couple but they can also modestly 
increase father involvement (Cowan & Cowan, 2000; Schulz, Cowan, & Cowan, 2006; 
Hawkins, Roberts, Chistiansen, & Marshall, 1994; Shapiro & Gottman, 2005).  For 
example, utilizing the Marriage Moments couples-focused intervention program, 
Hawkins et al. (2008) studied intervention effects using a sample of 115, mostly white 
couples (39 receiving couples-focused education, 37 in a Welcome Baby program for 
first time-parenting education, and 39 in a control group). From this sample, the 
researchers found that those in the Marriage Moments program strengthening couple 
relationships increased father involvement in child care to a greater extent than those in 
the Welcome Baby and control groups. Having a program effect size of d=.48, the 
researchers discovered that rather than engaging with children only a few times a month, 
fathers in the couples-focused group increased their involvement to a few times a week.  
Current Study 
Numerous studies indicate that marital and parental subsystems are intertwined 
and thus provide implications for practical application. In addition to enhanced couple 
34 
 
functioning, MRE programs may prove beneficial for a much broader range of positive 
outcomes. Interventions improving the couple relationship can influence parenting 
behaviors and parental involvement, and a handful of studies using married, ethnically 
homogenous small samples have demonstrated these links.  
While this research provides some evidence of the effects on parenting following 
interventions that address couple relationship skills, much has yet to be learned. There are 
no published studies of previous or currently federally-funded marriage and relationship 
education (MRE) programs that have included assessments of parenting dimensions or 
co-parenting relationships. Measures are instead focused on individual functioning and 
overall couple functioning and quality. While there is some information on the potential 
value of MRE for promoting positive parenting relationships and practices from 
evaluations of parenting programs that have addressed couple relationship skills, the few 
studies that have examined this spillover link have utilized small samples and have 
provided no information on how change in parenting relationships and practices 
following MRE may vary and differ based on parent characteristics (e.g., gender, race, 
marital status, etc.).  
The current study utilizes the empirically established spillover linkages between 
couple functioning and parenting and extends the intervention research that has 
demonstrated evidence of positive child outcomes when parents are exposed to couple 
focused programs. The current study uses a large, ethnically and economically diverse 
sample of married and unmarried parents who participated in MRE programs to examine 
the extent to which several dimensions of parenting change after participation in a MRE 
program and whether these changes differ by gender, race, or marital status. The 
35 
 
educational program includes lessons on improving couple relationship skills and 
provides no lessons specifically on parenting; therefore a test of the spillover effect can 
be examined among mothers and fathers participating in a relationship education 
program. It is hypothesized that parents in a MRE program will show improvements in in 
co-parenting quality and dimensions of parenting (positive parenting and parental 
involvement). In addition to examining changes in the parenting dimensions across time, 
the study examines whether and how the difference in reported scores in couple 
functioning from Time 1 to Time 2 is predictive of the changes in the parenting 
dimensions across time. The following hypotheses and research questions will be 
analyzed in the study: 
(H1) It is hypothesized that parents in a MRE program will show positive changes 
in co-parenting conflict, positive parenting, and parental involvement. 
(RQ1) Because no information on which to base hypotheses regarding the impact 
of gender, race, and marital status, the following research question will be 
explored: How does change over time in the different parenting dimensions differ 
by gender, race, and marital status?  
 (H2) It is hypothesized that parents in a MRE program will show positive 
changes in co-parenting conflict, positive parenting, and parental involvement in 
relation to the amount of change demonstrated in couple behavioral dimensions 
and couple quality assessments. 
(RQ2) Because this is a new area of study and research, the following research 
question will be explored:  Which dimensions of couple functioning change 
36 
 
account for more of the variance in co-parenting conflict, parental involvement, 
and positive parenting practices changes? 
(H3) Further, because some evidence exists that indicates that fathers? parenting is 
more likely to be prone to spillover effects, while mothers  may be able to 
compartmentalize comparatively better, it is hypothesized that parent gender will 
serve as a moderator of the links between change in couple functioning and 
change in  parenting dimensions. 
(RQ3) Because no information exists on which to base hypotheses regarding the 
impact of race and marital status, the following research question will be 
explored:  How do participant characteristics, specifically, race and marital 
status, affect the links between changes in couple functioning and changes in 
parenting? 
  
37 
 
 
 
III. METHODS 
Sample and Procedure 
  For the current study, secondary analyses were conducted using a dataset from the 
Alabama Community Healthy Marriage Initiative (ACHMI) evaluation study. The 
original data were collected from participants who were part of the project during the first 
(2006-2007) and second (2007-2008) years targeting a broad population of married and 
unmarried adults (N=1221).  The data used for the current study were collected both prior 
to and after implementation of the intervention and were matched by participant code. 
Family Resource Centers located in eight Alabama counties were chosen for the 
implementation of the program. Three of those counties are considered rural (Chambers, 
Escambia, and Talledega), while the others are considered urban (Etowah, Houston, 
Montgomery, Morgan, and Tuscaloosa). Each county was responsible for recruiting 
adults to participate in the relationship education classes. The classes and surveys were 
administered by a male/female team of relationship/marriage educators in the state of 
Alabama, all trained together in the curricula implementation and data collection 
methods. A site coordinator visits routinely to ensure implementation fidelity.  
Adults participated in a minimum of 6 group educational sessions focused on 
building knowledge and skills for healthy couple relationships and marriages. Adults 
were exposed to the relationship education curriculum that best fit their needs; however, 
the core content areas/skills were the same across curricula. Four curricula were used to 
target different characteristics; these were Mastering the Magic of Love, Together We 
38 
 
Can, Smart Steps for Stepfamilies, and Basic Training: Black Marriage Education.  Each 
curriculum contains research supported content and is highly interactive. Self-report 
questionnaires were completed before the first program class and after the last class. Prior 
to participation in the study, adult participants were infoMREd of the purposes of the 
questionnaires, and each signed infoMREd consent letters indicating their agreement to 
participate and releasing their information for research purposes. Participants were not 
compensated for providing data.  
 The initial inclusion criteria for the current study required that the adults attend 
the class singly, in order to overcome dependency of couple data, and were parents. Since 
no question indicated whether the participant was a parent, participants were coded as a 
parent if they had a pre-test response to, ?How often do you and your child(ren)?s other 
parent argue about child rearing?? Due to extremely small numbers, minorities other than 
African American were excluded from the analytic sample.   
The final sample used for this study consisted of 582 adults. The average age of 
participants was 35 (Median = 34; Range = 15-72, SD = 10.76). Gender composition is 
81.3% female (n = 491) and 15.5% male (n = 90). The sample consists of 53.1% African 
American adults (n = 309) and 46.9% European American adults (n = 273). Relationship 
status of the sample consists of 35.6% married adults and 60.6% non-married adults 
(15.5% adults in cohabitating relationships, 25.7% adults in dating/not living together 
relationships, and 19.4% single adults). Total household income reported ranges from 
below $7,000 to above $100,000; 52.3% report an income level less than $24,999 (n = 
304), 27% report an income between $25,000 and $74,999 (n = 157), and 6.2% report an 
income greater than $75,000 (n = 36). 
39 
 
Measures 
Demographic variables.  Race/ethnicity was coded as (European American = 1, 
African American = 2); age was reported in years; gender was coded as (male = 0, female 
= 1); marital status was coded as (married = 1, engaged and living together = 2, engaged 
and not living together = 3, dating someone and living together = 4, dating someone and 
not living together = 5, and single, no current relationship = 6) and was collapsed into 
married and non-married categories (1 and 0, respectively); income level was coded as 
(<$7,000 = 1, $7,000-$13,999 = 2, $14,000-$24,999 = 3, $25,000-$39,999 = 4, $40,000 - 
$74,999 = 5, $75,000-$100,000 = 6, and $100,00+ = 7).  
Dependent Variables: Parenting Measures. 
Co-parenting Conflict. The initial reliability of this scale as created was low 
(i.e.,?=.22 at T1 and ?=.39 at T2). PCA of the six-itemed Co-parenting scale (adapted 
from Ahrons & Wallisch, 1987) revealed the presence of two components with 
eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 43.6% and 21.6% of the variance respectively. To 
aid in the interpretation of these two components, rotation was perfoMREd. The 
interpretation of the two components was consistent with a Supportive Co-parenting 
Scale, containing co-parent support items (degree to which parents supportive to each 
other, agree on childrearing and agree on time spent with the child) and a distinct Co-
parent Conflict Scale with items indicating the degree to which parents argue about 
childrearing, argue about time spent with child, and the child hears negative/bad remarks. 
The support items were removed and the reliability for the resulting 3-item Co-parenting 
Conflict Scale was ? = 0.75 at pre-test and ? = 0.76 at post-test.  
40 
 
Positive Parenting. The original reliability of the scale as created was low (i.e., ? 
= 0.68 at T1 and ? = 0.65 at T2).  Initial PCA of the 7-item Positive Parenting Scale 
(developed and validated in pilot studies) revealed the presence of two components with 
eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 35.5% and 60.9% of the variance respectively. To 
aid in the interpretation of these two components, rotation was perfoMREd. The 
interpretation of the two components was consistent with a Punitive Parenting Scale 
(yell/shout at child, threats, spank child, and argue with child) and a Positive Parenting 
Scale (providing reasons for obeying rules, explaining consequences, and giving praise to 
children). The Punitive Parenting items were extracted and the reliability of the resulting 
3-item Positive Parenting Scale, reliability was ? = 0.71 at pre-test and ? = 0.72 at post-
test.   
Parent Involvement. Initial PCA of the 7-item Parental Involvement scale (ROFQ; 
Palkovitz, 1984) revealed the presence of one component with an eigenvalue exceeding 
1, explaining 57% variance. For purposes of this study and in order to reduce the 
complexity of the model, only the three items with the highest factor loadings were used 
as indicators of parental involvement (play with child, dress child, and take child to 
doctor?s appointments). Reliability for the 3-item Parent Involvement Scale was ? = 0.73 
at pre-test and ? = 0.72 at post.  
Independent variables: Couple Measures 
Several dimensions of couple quality and behavior were assessed using multi-item 
indicators.  Couple/Marital Adjustment was assessed using 6 items from the Dyadic 
Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976). Parents responded, on a scale of 1 (always disagree) to 
5 (always agree), on items concerning the extent of agreement or disagreement in several 
41 
 
areas. Items included handling finances, sex relations, dealing with family/relatives, 
parenting, how to behave and act in the relationship, and amount of time spent together. 
The alpha coefficient at pre-test was ? = 0.87 and at post-test was ? = 0.88.  
Couple/Marital Quality was assessed using 5 items from the Quality Marriage 
Index (QMI; Norton, 1983).  Parents responded on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (very 
strongly disagree) to 4 (mixed) to 7 (very strongly agree) concerning whether they have a 
good marriage/relationship, a stable relationship, a strong relationship, a relationship that 
their partner makes them happy, and a relationship in which they feel part of a team. The 
alpha coefficient at pre-test was ? = 0.97 and at post-test was ? = 0.98. 
Trust was assessed using 3 items from the Trust Scale (From Rempel, Holmes, & 
Zanna, 1985). Parents responded, on a 5 point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 
(strongly agree), to questions concerning counting on one?s partner to keep promises, 
being confident one?s partner is telling the truth, and believing that one?s partner will not 
cheat on him or her. The alpha coefficient at pre-test was ? = 0.88 and at post-test was ? 
= 0.87. 
The degree of Negative Interactions was assessed using 2 different scales. The 
first consisted of 5 items from the Negative Interaction Scale (Stanley, Markman, & 
Whitton, 2002). Parents respond, on a 5-point Likert scale from 1(never) to 5 (all the 
time), to items focused on the frequency of such behaviors as, being on opposite teams 
when solving problems, shout/yell at partner, being shouted/yelled at by partner, hit/strike 
partner, and being hit/struck by partner. The alpha coefficient at pre-test was ? = 0.81 and 
at post-test was ? = 0.84.  The second scale consisted of 7 items from the 
Positive/Negative Interaction Scale (Huston & Vangelisti, 1991). Parents respond, on a 4-
42 
 
point Likert scale from 1(never) to 4 (often throughout the day), to items focused on the 
frequency of such behaviors as, being bored/uninterested with partner, hogging the 
conversation with partner, showing anger/impatience towards partner, 
criticizing/complaining to partner, turning down/avoid sexual advances, failing to do 
something partner asked, and doing things that annoy their partner. The alpha coefficient 
at pre-test was ? = 0.84 and at post-test was ? = 0.82. 
The degree of Positive Interactions was assessed using eight items from the 
Positive/Negative Interaction Scale (Huston & Vangelisti, 1991). Parents respond, on a 4-
point Likert scale from 1(never) to 4 (often throughout the day), to items focused on the 
frequency of such behaviors as, complimenting one?s partner, making one?s partner 
laugh, saying ?I love you,? doing something nice for one?s partner, talking about the 
day?s events, initiated physical affection with partner, sharing emotions, feelings, or 
problems, and initiating sex. The alpha coefficient at pre-test was ? = 0.89 and at post-
test was ? = 0.90. 
Conflict Management was assessed using 6 items from the Interpersonal 
Competence Scale (BuhMREister et al., 1988). Parents respond, on a 5-point Likert scale 
from 1(not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me), to items concerning how one acts in 
relationships such as behaviors including, admitting being wrong, putting bitter feelings 
aside, listening to other?s complaints, seeing and accepting other person?s point of view, 
and not exploding at another person to avoid arguments. The alpha coefficient at pre-test 
was ? = 0.81 and at post-test was ? = 0.86. 
  
43 
 
 
 
IV. PLAN OF ANALYSIS 
Hypothesis 1 suggests there will be positive changes in co-parenting conflict, 
positive parenting, and parental involvement over time. These changes across time (pre-
to-post test) in each of the three parenting dimensions for the whole sample were 
examined and analyzed using paired sample t-tests. Research question 1 addresses the 
extent of change in each of the parenting measures across time by gender (male/female), 
race (African American/European American), and marital status (married/non-married). 
In order to address this question, repeated measures mixed between-within subjects 
analysis of variance (ANOVA) were utilized for each of the dependent variables.    
Hypotheses 2 expects there will be positive changes over time in co-parenting 
conflict, positive parenting, and parental involvement in relation to the amount of change 
in couple behavioral dimensions and couple quality assessments. This was examined 
through correlations of difference scores. In order to address research question 2 
concerning the dimensions of couple functioning that account for more of the variance in 
the parenting dimensions at time 2, structural equation modelling was used.  Couple 
functioning dimensions at time 2, controlling for time 1 scores, were used to predict time 
2 parenting scores, controlling for time 1 scores.  
It is also expected that parent gender may serve as a moderator in the links 
between couple functioning and parenting dimensions because of evidence indicating that 
fathers are more likely to experience spillover effects (hypothesis 3). In addition, research 
question 3 examined the moderating role of race and marital status on links between 
44 
 
couple functioning and parenting at time 2. Structural equation modelling was used. To 
examine differences based on gender, race, and marital status, parallel models were fit 
using structural equation modelling to compare the two groups of each demographic 
characteristic (mothers/fathers, African American/European American, and married/non-
married).  
  
45 
 
 
 
V. RESULTS 
First, results of examinations of change over time in the parenting dimensions 
(H1) will be presented. Second, results of change over time in the parenting dimensions 
based on demographic differences will be provided (RQ2). Third, a correlation table of 
differences scores is provided to examine change in the couple dimensions over time 
relative to change in the parenting dimensions over time (H2). Following, results of 
examinations of the effects of change in the couple domain on changes in the parenting 
domain (RQ2) will be presented.  Lastly, demographic characteristics (H3 and RQ3) are 
examined to determine differences in model fit for the full hypothesized model. 
Assessments of normal distribution 
 Because structural parameters and goodness-of-fit indices in structural equation 
modelling are influenced by skewness, kurtosis, and sample size, descriptive statistics, 
including the means, standard deviations, and measures of normality for each of the 
measures at each time-point were examined and are presented in Table 1. No serious 
violations were noted. 
 
 
 
            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
46 
 
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the couple and parenting dimension indicators at time 1 
and time 2. 
  Descriptive Statistics 
Time Scale N Min. Max. M SD Skewness Kurtosis 
Time 1 
(Pre-Test) 
CoupleQualityPre 522 1 7 4.616 1.693 -.479 -.520 
DASPre 523 1 5 3.297 .915 -.329 -.258 
TrustPre 522 1 5 3.269 1.264 -.319 -1.008 
PosInteractionHustonPre 529 1 4 2.759 .711 -.350 -.163 
ConflictManagementPre 574 1 5 3.408 .874 -.111 -.376 
NegInteractionStanleyPre 525 1 5 2.296 .831 .603 .205 
NegInteractionHustonPre 526 1 4 1.863 .566 1.094 1.922 
Co-parentConflictPre 582 1 5 2.330 .952 .461 -.469 
PositiveParentingPre 551 1 4 3.167 .716 -.868 .402 
ParentInvolvementPre 539 1 5 4.157 .996 -1.256 1.011 
Time 2 
(Post-Test) 
CoupleQualityPost 388 1 7 5.008 1.594 -.700 -.042 
DASPost 371 1 5 3.528 .854 -.473 -.056 
TrustPost 367 1 5 3.577 1.14 -.621 -.416 
PosInteractionHustonPost 394 1 4 2.888 .708 -.375 -.310 
ConflictManagementPost 425 1 5 3.551 .861 -.122 -.578 
NegInteractionStanleyPost 391 1 5 2.140 .831 .809 .455 
NegInteractionHustonPost 391 1 4 1.771 .501 .854 1.490 
Co-parentConflictPost 396 1 5 2.274 .939 .616 -.127 
PositiveParentingPost 389 1 4 3.246 .660 -.842 .431 
ParentInvolvementPost 389 1 5 4.173 .942 -1.225 1.143 
 
Hypothesis I: Changes over time in parenting 
 In order to examine whether positive changes occur from pre-program to post-
program (i.e., hypothesis 1) in co-parenting conflict, positive parenting, and parental 
involvement over time, paired sample t-tests were utilized. Changes across time in each 
of the three parenting dimensions were examined for the sample of adult parents who 
attended MRE singly. Participants showed statistically significant changes in ratings of 
co-parenting conflict (N = 396, M= 0.12, SD=0.91; t = 2.721, p = .007) and positive 
47 
 
parenting (N = 389, M= -0.09, SD=0.66; t = -2.67, p = .008) and marginally significant 
change in parent involvement (N = 389, M= -0.07, SD=0.86; t = -1.63, p = .10).   
Research Question 1: Demographic differences in change 
 Research question one expands the hypothesis of positive changes in the 
parenting dimensions (i.e., co-parenting conflict, positive parenting behaviors, and 
parental involvement) and explores the interaction of time and several demographic 
characteristics (i.e., gender, race, and marital status) using repeated measures mixed 
between-within subjects analysis of variance (RMANOVA).  
Co-parenting Conflict 
There were no significant interaction effects for Time X Gender, Time X Race, or 
Time X Marital Status on change over time in levels of reported co-parenting conflict. 
Univariate ANOVAs examined differences by group at each time point and found 
European Americans reported significantly higher levels of co-parenting conflict at time 
1 [F (1, 581) = 4.08, p = .04], but European Americans and African Americans? co-
parenting conflict scores did not differ at time 2. Mean level scores did not differ at time 
1 or time 2 based on gender or on marital status.    
Positive Parenting 
There were no significant interaction effects for Time X Gender, Time X Race, 
and Time X Marital Status on positive parenting. Based on univariate ANOVAs, there 
were significant differences at both time 1 [F (1, 549) = 6.41, p = .01] and time 2 [F (1, 
389) = 14.96, p = .000] for positive parenting based on gender; mothers reported 
significantly higher levels of positive parenting at both times.  Mean level scores on 
48 
 
positive parenting did not differ at time 1 or time 2 based on race or based on marital 
status.  
Parental Involvement 
A marginally significant Time X Race interaction effect was found [F (1, 374) = 
2.71, p = .10 partial eta squared = .007]. European Americans? level of parental 
involvement showed increases over time, while levels for African Americans did not. 
There were no significant Time X Gender or Time X Marital Status interaction effects for 
parental involvement. Based on univariate ANOVAs, there were significant differences at 
both time 1 [F (1, 537) = 48.13, p = .000] and time 2 [F (1, 389) = 22.94, p = .000] for 
parent involvement based on gender; mothers reported significantly higher levels of 
parental involvement at both times. Mean level scores did not differ at time 1 or time 2 
based on race; or based on marital status.    
Hypothesis II: Correlation of Difference Scores 
 In order to test hypothesis 2 ? There will be positive changes in co-parenting 
conflict, positive parenting, and parent involvement in relation to the amount of change 
in couple dimensions (couple quality, positive couple behaviors, and negative couple 
behaviors) ? a correlation table of the difference scores is provided (See Table 3).  
The three couple dimensions were created by composite scores of the respective 
indicator scales (confirmatory factor analyses explicated in the following section). The 
indicators of couple quality, dyadic adjustment, and trust were added together to create 
couple quality. The indicators of positive interactions and conflict management were 
added together to create positive couple behaviors. The two indicators of negative 
interaction were added together to create negative couple behaviors (See Table 2). 
49 
 
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for composite couple scores at time 1 and time 2. 
  Descriptive Statistics 
Time Composite N Min Max M SD Skewness Kurtosis 
Time1 
CoupleQualityPre 509 3.00 17.00 11.2005 3.41963 -.455 -.535 
PosCoupleBxPre 523 2.00 9.00 6.1350 1.25229 -.093 -.170 
NegCoupleBxPre 519 2.00 9.00 4.1552 1.22730 .683 .807 
Time2 
CoupleQualityPost 361 3.00 17.00 12.1127 3.27363 -.712 -.023 
PosCoupleBxPost 390 2.00 9.00 6.4246 1.27857 -.135 -.292 
NegCoupleBxPost 387 2.00 9.00 3.9058 1.17582 .773 .906 
 
 For the full sample across domains, the difference score (change over time from 
time 1 to time 2) of co-parent conflict was significantly and positively related to the 
difference score of negative couple behavior (r = .35, p < .01); this indicates that higher 
levels of change over time in negative couple behaviors are associated with higher levels 
of change over time in co-parent conflict, and vice versa. The difference score of positive 
parenting was significantly and positively related to difference scores for couple quality 
(r = .14, p < .05) and positive couple behavior (r = .25, p < .01) and negatively related to 
negative couple behavior (r = -.11, p < .05), indicating that higher levels of positive 
change over time in positive parenting are associated with higher levels of positive 
change over time in couple quality and positive couple behavior and higher levels of 
reduction over time in negative couple behaviour (i.e., the desirable difference), and vice 
versa. The difference score of parent involvement was not significantly correlated with 
any other change score. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
50 
 
Table 3. Zero-Order Pearson correlations for difference scores of the composite parenting 
and couple variables. 
 
Variables 
Coparent 
Conflict 
Diff 
Positive 
Parent 
Diff 
Parent 
Involvement
Diff 
Couple 
Quality 
Diff 
Positive 
Couple 
Diff 
Negative 
Couple 
Diff 
 
CoparentConflictDiff 1     
 
 
PositiveParentDiff .057 1     
 
ParentInvolvementDiff -.013 .097 1    
 
CoupleQualityDiff -.077 .136* .087 1   
 
PositiveCoupleBXDiff -.007 .245** .063 .335** 1  
 
NegativeCoupleBXDiff .347** -.113* -.077 -.290** -.116* 1 
**. Correlation is significant at the p < 0.01 level (2-tailed). 
*. Correlation is significant at the p < 0.05 level (2-tailed). 
 
The Model for the Current Study 
Overview 
The model tested to address research question 2, hypothesis 3, and research 
question 3 was constructed with multi-indicator latent constructs using the sample of 
adult parents who attended MRE singly (N = 582). Several steps in the analyses were 
undertaken. Measurement models for each latent variable in the structural model were 
created and tested using SPSS 17.0 and AMOS 17.0. The exogenous variables (couple 
quality, positive couple behavior, and negative couple behavior) were then tested and 
examined together using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The exogenous 
measurement models at pre-and-post time points are described using descriptive 
statistics, standardized regression weights, and goodness-of-fit indicators (see Figures 1 
and 2). Following this, the endogenous variables (co-parenting conflict, positive 
parenting, and parent involvement) were tested together. The measurement models at 
pre-and-post time points are described, including results from descriptive statistics, 
standardized regression weights, and goodness-of-fit indicators (see Figures 3 and 4). 
51 
 
Finally, the full hypothesized model was created and tested using the full sample of cases 
(see Figure 5). The model was then fit comparing mothers and fathers simultaneously 
(see Figures 6 and 7), African Americans and European Americans simultaneously (see 
Figures 8 and 9), and married and non-married participants simultaneously (see Figures 
10 and 11).  
Couple Dimension Measurement Model 
  The measurement model for the exogenous side of the model was examined for 
strength of regression weights and the correlation between the latent variables and for 
goodness of fit. This was done in two steps. First the measurement model for the time 1 
exogenous side was examined. Second the measurement model for the time 2 exogenous 
side was examined.  
Time 1. For the time 1 exogenous measurement model, all regression weights 
were significant at the .001 level. The correlations between latent variables were 
moderately low to moderately high (-.31 to -.69), indicating sufficient distinction between 
latent constructs. Regarding model fit, Chi-square (?2) = 89.625 (df = 11, p < .000) was 
significant, the CFI was .94, indicating a good fit of the data to the model; however, the 
RMSEA was .11 and considered out of the range of values that indicate good model fit 
(Brown & Cudeck, 1993). Given the strength and significance of the standardized 
regression weights specified for the multi-indicator latent variables and the healthy CFI, 
the measurement model for the exogenous factors used at time 1 appears in Figure 1.  
52 
 
Figure 1. Standardized fitting of the exogenous variable (couple domain) measurement 
model at time 1.
 
Time 2. For the time 2 exogenous measurement model, all regression weights 
were significant at the .001 level. The correlations between latent variables were 
moderate to moderately high (-.51 to .69), indicating acceptable distinction between 
latent constructs. Assessing the goodness-of-fit, ?2 = 57.999 (df= 11, p < .000) , the CFI 
was .96 and the RMSEA was .086, indicating an acceptable fit of the data to the model. 
Given the strength and significance of the standardized regression weights specified for 
the multi-indicator latent variables and the healthy goodness-of-fit indices, the 
measurement model for the exogenous factors used at time 2 appears in Figure 2.  
 
 
 
 
Cou p l e  Q u a l i ty
P o s i ti v e  Co u p l e
B e h a v i o r s
Neg a ti v e  Co u p l e
B e h a v i o r s
. 6 0
DA S P r ee3
. 7 8
. 6 5
T r u s tP r ee2
. 8 1
. 7 5
Cou p l e Q u a l i ty P r ee1
. 8 7
. 0 7
Con fl i c tM a n a g e m e n tP r ee5 . 2 7
. 7 1
P o s I n te r a c ti o n Hus to n P r ee4 . 8 4
. 2 9
Neg I n te r a c ti o n Hus to n P r ee7 . 5 4
. 9 4
Neg I n te r a c ti o n S ta n l e y P r ee6
. 9 7
- . 3 1
- . 6 9
. 6 2
53 
 
Figure 2. Standardized fitting of the exogenous variable (couple domain) measurement 
model at time 2. 
 
Parent Dimension Measurement Model 
  The measurement model for the endogenous side of the model was examined for 
strength of regression weights and the correlation between the latent variables and for 
goodness of fit indices. This was done in two steps. First, the measurement model for the 
time 1 endogenous side was examined. Second, the measurement model for the time 2 
endogenous side was examined.  
Time 1. For the time 1 endogenous measurement model, all regression weights 
were significant at the .001 level. The correlations between latent variables were low to 
moderate (-.06 to -.41), indicating sufficiently discrete latent constructs. Assessing the 
goodness-of-fit, ?2 = 78.602 (df = 24, p < .000), the CFI was .96 and the RMSEA was 
.06, indicating a good fit of the data to the model. Given the strength and significance of 
C o u p l e  Q u a l i t y
P o si t i ve  C o u p l e
B e h a vi o r s
N e g a t i ve  C o u p l e
B e h a vi o r s
. 6 1
DA S P o s te3
. 7 8
. 7 4
T r u s tP o s te2
. 8 6
. 8 3
Cou p l e Q u a l i ty P o s te1
. 9 1
. 2 0
Con fl i c tM a n a g e m e n tP o s te5
. 4 4
. 4 8
P o s I n te r a c ti o n Hus to n P o s te4 . 7 0
. 3 7
Neg I n te r a c ti o n Hus to n P o s te7 . 6 1
. 8 8
Neg I n te r a c ti o n S ta n l e y P o s te6
. 9 4
. 6 9
- . 5 1
- . 6 1
54 
 
the standardized regression weights specified for the multi-indicator latent variables and 
the healthy goodness-of-fit indices, the measurement model for the endogenous factors 
used at time 1 appears in Figure 3. 
Figure 3. Standardized fitting of the endogenous variable (parenting domain) 
measurement model at time 1. 
 
Time 2. For the post (time 2) endogenous measurement model, all regression 
weights were significant at the .001 level. The correlations between latent variables were 
low to moderate (-.04 to .43). Assessing the goodness-of-fit, ?2 = 83.259 (df = 24, p < 
.000), the CFI was .93 and the RMSEA was .065, indicating a good fit of the data to the 
model. Given the strength and significance of the standardized regression weights 
specified for the multi-indicator latent variables and the healthy goodness-of-fit indices, 
the measurement model for the endogenous factors used at time 2 appears in Figure 4. 
C o - p a r e n t i n g  C o n f l i ct
P o si t i ve  P a r e n t i n g
P a r e n t  I n vo l ve m e n t
. 4 2
p r e _ 1 9 ce4
. 6 5
. 4 6
p r e _ 1 9 be3
. 6 7
. 6 5
p r e _ 1 9 ae2
. 8 1
. 5 6
p r e _ 2 0 ge7
. 7 5
. 7 7
p r e _ 2 0 ee6
. 8 8
. 1 8
p r e _ 2 0 ae5
. 4 3
. 4 6
p r e _ 2 2 fe11
. 6 8
. 4 5
p r e _ 2 2 de10
. 6 7
. 6 1
p r e _ 2 2 be8
. 7 8
. 0 7
. 4 1
- . 0 6
55 
 
Figure 4. Standardized fitting of the endogenous variable (parenting domain) 
measurement model at time 2. 
 
The Full Hypothesized Model 
 The full hypothesized model was tested for the sample of adult parents who 
attended MRE classes singly and then three separate tests compared the fit of the model 
by gender, race, and marital status. Results are presented in Figures 5 to 11. The models 
were examined for significant standardized regression weights, correlations between the 
latent factors, and goodness-of-fit indices.   
Exploring the effects of change in the couple domain on changes in the parenting domain 
RQ2 focused on the examination of changes in couple functioning dimensions 
(couple quality, positive couple behaviors, and negative couple behaviors) and their 
comparative effects on changes in parenting dimensions (co-parenting conflict, positive 
parenting, and parental involvement). An initial fitting of the model without predictive 
C o -p a re n t i n g  C o n f l i c t
Po s i t i v e  Pa re n t i n g
Pa re n t  I n v o l v e m e n t
. 3 6
p o s t _ 1 9 ce4 . 6 0
. 6 4
p o s t _ 1 9 be3
. 8 0
. 5 6
p o s t _ 1 9 ae2
. 7 5
. 6 3
p o s t _ 2 0 ge7
. 7 9
. 6 7
p o s t _ 2 0 ee6
. 8 2
. 2 3
p o s t _ 2 0 ae5
. 4 8
. 3 6
p o s t _ 2 2 fe11
. 6 0
. 4 3
p o s t _ 2 2 de10
. 6 6
. 6 5
p o s t _ 2 2 be8
. 8 1
- . 0 6
. 4 3
- . 0 4
56 
 
paths from the couple domains to parenting domains at time 2 was analyzed to determine 
variance explained by time 1 alone. The model explained and accounted for 44% of the 
variance in co-parenting conflict, 45% of the variance in positive parenting, and 44% of 
the variance in parental involvement. 
The analytic model for the study tested paths from the couple dimensions at time 
2 to the parenting dimensions at time 2, controlling for the time 1 parenting and couple 
dimensions (Figure 5). In analyses, correlated error term paths between time 1 and time 2 
for each item indicator at a given time-point were included, however are not depicted in 
the figures presented. In addition, covariance paths among latents at time 1 were 
included; however are not shown in the presented figures.   
Goodness-of-fit indices revealed a strong fit of the data to the model. Chi-square 
was significant 965.875 (df = 423, p < .000), the CFI was .92 and the RMSEA was .047. 
For the full sample (N = 582), the model explained and accounted for 47.5% of the 
variance in co-parent conflict at time 2, 48.6% of the variance in positive parenting at 
time 2, and 54.9% of the variance in parent involvement at time 2.  
Figure 5 shows all possible path coefficients to the final outcome variables: co-
parent conflict time 2, positive parenting time 2, and parent involvement time 2. 
Controlling for everything else in the model, all direct paths from the time 1 variable to 
each one?s respective time 2 variable were significant (p <. 001), indicating that time 1 
variable scores influence time 2 variable scores. Examining the spillover from couple 
dimensions at time 2 to the parenting dimensions at time 2, controlling for everything 
else in the model, several significant paths were identified (see Table 4). Change in 
positive couple behaviors predict change in parent involvement (?=.41, p<.001) and 
57 
 
positive parenting behaviors (?=.19, p < .01) Change in negative couple behaviors 
predict change in co-parent conflict (?=.23, p<.001). Change in couple quality predicts 
parent involvement (-.19 p < .01).  
These results reveal that, controlling for all else in the model,  higher levels of 
change in positive couple behaviors are associated with higher levels of change in 
parental involvement and positive parenting behaviors; on the other hand, higher levels 
of change in negative couple behaviors are associated with higher levels of change in co-
parenting conflict. Interestingly, higher levels of change in couple quality were 
associated with lower levels of change in parental involvement.  
Comparisons of the path coefficients reveal the strongest predictor for each parent 
outcome dimension. The strongest predictor of change in co-parent conflict (i.e., time 2 
accounting for time 1) was change in negative couple behaviors. The strongest predictor 
of change in positive parenting behaviors and parent involvement was change in positive 
couple behaviors.  
Table 4. Unstandardized and standardized coefficients between the latent constructs for 
the full model. 
Paths Regression Weights 
 Unstandardized Standardized  
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Coparent Conflict T1 .54*** .55*** 
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Couple Quality T2 -.05 -.05 
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Positive Couple BX T2 -.06 -.04 
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Negative Couple BX T2 .22*** .23*** 
Positive Parenting T2 ? Positive Parenting T1 .66*** .64*** 
Positive Parenting T2 ? Couple Quality T2 -.02 -.03 
Positive Parenting T2 ? Positive Couple BX T2 .12 .19** 
Positive Parenting T2 ? Negative Couple BX T2 -.02 -.04 
Parent Involvement T2 ?Parent Involvement T1 .61*** .57*** 
Parent Involvement T2 ? Couple Quality T2 -.22** -.19** 
Parent Involvement T2 ? Positive Couple BX T2 .57*** .41*** 
Parent Involvement T2 ? Negative Couple BX T2 -.07 -.07 
Note. ~ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. 
 
 
58
 
 
59 
 
Hypothesis III and Research Question III: Differences in the full hypothesized model 
based on demographic characteristics 
 
 Next, differences in model fit based on gender, race, and marital status were 
examined for the model. The dichotomous groups for each demographic characteristic 
(fathers/mothers, African American/European American, and married/non-married) were 
fit to the data simultaneously (see Figures 6 to 11).   
Gender (Mothers and Fathers) 
Simultaneously fitting the data to the model based on gender, separate parameters 
were identified for both fathers and mothers. The data fit the model well. Fit statistics 
indicate a significant: ?2 = 1579.1 (df = 846, p < .000), CFI = .89, and RMSEA = .04. For 
fathers, the model accounted for 70% of the variance in co-parent conflict at time 2, 98% 
of the variance in positive parenting at time 2, and 57% of the variance in parent 
involvement at time 2. For mothers, the model explained 48% of the variance in co-parent 
conflict at time 2, 39% of the variance in positive parenting at time 2, and 53% of the 
variance in parent involvement at time 2. 
For both fathers and mothers, all direct paths from time 1 variables to respective 
time 2 variables were significant (p < .001) except for fathers? parent involvement time 1 
to parent involvement time 2 which was significant at p < .05. The standardized and 
unstandardized coefficients are presented in Table 5. Similarly, Figures 6 and 7 provide 
visual models for fathers and mothers with standardized regression weights and squared 
multiple correlations.  
Positive change in positive couple behaviors predict positive change in parent 
involvement for fathers (?=.62, p < .05) and for mothers (?=.42, p < .001). Reductions in 
60 
 
negative couple behaviors predict increases in co-parenting conflict for fathers (? =-.19, 
p<.10) and reductions in co-parenting conflict for mothers (? =.29, p < .001).  
Reductions in negative couple behaviors predict positive changes in parent 
involvement for mothers (? =-.12, p = .06) but not for fathers (? =-.02, p=ns). Positive 
changes in positive couple behaviors predict increases in positive parenting behaviors for 
mothers (? =.15, p = .06) but not for fathers (? =.23, p=ns). Increases in couple quality 
predict decreases in parent involvement for mothers (? =-.22, p<.01) but not for fathers (? 
= -.25, p=ns).  
Comparisons of the path coefficients also reveal the strongest predictor for each 
parent outcome dimension. For both mothers and fathers, the strongest predictor of 
change in co-parent conflict was change in negative couple behaviors; the strongest 
predictor of change in positive parenting behaviors was change in positive couple 
behaviors; and the strongest predictor of change in parent involvement was change in 
positive couple behaviors. 
Assessing comparative path strength between mothers and fathers, it appears that 
both have significant paths from negative couple behavior to co-parent conflict at time 2 
(?=.29, ?=-.19, respectively), yet there is discrepancy in path strength and the direction of 
the link is reversed for the two. In addition, it appears that fathers had a stronger path 
(?=.62) between positive couple behaviors and parent involvement than mothers (?=.42). 
Also, mothers had significant paths not found for fathers, negative significant path from 
couple quality to parent involvement at time 2 (?=-.22), positive marginally significant 
path from positive couple behaviors to positive parenting at time 2 (?=.15), and the 
61 
 
negative marginally significant path from negative couple behavior to parent involvement 
at time 2 (?=-.12).  
Tests of invariance for these paths were undertaken. First, all paths in the model 
were fully constrained to be equal, revealing a significant delta chi-square when 
compared to the unconstrained model (??2=371.33, ?df=105, p=.000). Based on these 
results, one or more of the path coefficiants is not operating equivalently across mothers 
and fathers, confirming differences noticed in the unconstrained model. Tests of 
invariance per individual path that appeared to look different were undertaken.  The only 
path strength with significant variance between mothers and fathers is the effect of 
negative couple behavior at time 2 on co-parenting conflict at time 2 (??2=4.1, ?df=1, 
p=.05). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
62 
 
Table 5. Standardized (unstandardized) coefficients between the latent constructs for 
mothers and fathers. 
Paths Standardized 
(Unstandardized)  
Regression Weights 
??2 ?df 
 Fathers Mothers   
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Coparent Conflict 
T1 
.74 (.87)*** .52 (.49)***   
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Couple Quality T2 -.17 (-.34) -.08 (-.09)   
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Positive Couple BX 
T2 
-.22 (-.39) .06 (.09)   
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Negative Couple 
BX T2 
-.19 (-.41)~ .29 (.26)*** 4.1* 1 
Positive Parenting T2 ? Positive Parenting 
T1 
.89 (.95) *** .57 (.54)***   
Positive Parenting T2 ? Couple Quality T2 .03 (.02) -.01(-.00)   
Positive Parenting T2 ? Positive Couple BX 
T2 
.23 (.17) .15 (.09)~ .1 1 
Positive Parenting T2 ? Negative Couple 
BX T2 
-.01 (-.01) -.07 (-.03)   
Parent Involvement T2 ?Parent Involvement 
T1 
.38 (.37)* .55 (63)***   
Parent Involvement T2 ? Couple Quality T2 -.25 (-.52) -.22 (-.21)** .1 1 
Parent Involvement T2 ? Positive Couple 
BX T2 
.62 (1.17)* .42 (.54)*** .3 1 
Parent Involvement T2 ? Negative Couple 
BX T2 
-.02 (-.05) -.12 (-.09)~ 0 1 
Note. ~ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. 
  
 
63
 
 
 
64
 
 
65 
 
Race (African American and European American)  
Simultaneously fitting the data to the model based on race, separate parameters 
were identified for both African Americans and European Americans. The data fit the 
model well. Fit statistics indicate a significant ?2 = 1536.95 (df = 846, p < .000), CFI = 
.90 and RMSEA = .04. For African Americans, the model explained 39% of the variance 
in co-parent conflict at time 2, 60% of the variance in positive parenting at time 2, and 
70% of the variance in parent involvement at time 2. For European Americans, the model 
explained 56% of the variance in co-parent conflict at time 2, 38% of the variance in 
positive parenting at time 2, and 36% of the variance in parent involvement at time 2.  
For both African Americans and European Americans, all direct paths from time 
1 variables to respective time 2 variables were significant (p < .001). The unstandardized 
and standardized coefficients are presented in Table 6. Similarly, Figures 8 and 9 provide 
visual models for African American and European American adult parents with 
standardized regression weights and squared multiple correlations.  
For both African Americans and European Americans (see Figure 8 and 9), 
reductions in negative couple behaviors predict reductions in co-parent conflict (?=.21, p 
<.01; ?=.24, p <.01, respectively). Increases in positive couple behaviors predict 
increases in parent involvement (?=.35, p < .01; ?=.27, p < .05, respectively). Positive 
changes in couple quality marginally predicts reductions in parent involvement at time 2 
(?=-.13, p < .10; ?=-.19, p =.06).  
In addition, reductions in negative couple behaviors predict increases in parent 
involvement for European Americans (?=-.21, p < .05) but not for African Americans. 
66 
 
And increases in positive couple behaviors predict increases in positive parenting 
behaviors for European Americans (?=.23, p < .05) but not for African Americans.  
Comparisons of the path coefficients reveal the strongest predictor for each parent 
outcome dimension. For African Americans and European Americans, the strongest 
predictor of changes in co-parent conflict was changes in negative couple behaviors; the 
strongest predictor of changes in positive parenting behaviors was changes in positive 
couple behaviors; the strongest predictor of changes in parent involvement was changes 
in positive couple behaviors. 
 Comparing the path strengths between African Americans and European 
Americans, it appears that both races have similar positive significant paths from 
negative couple behavior to co-parent conflict at time 2 (?=.21, ?=.24, respectively) and 
similar negative, marginally significant paths from couple quality to parent involvement 
at time 2 (?=-.13, and ?=-.19, respectively). African Americans (?=.35) had a higher path 
coefficient for the relationship between positive couple behaviors and parent involvement 
than European Americans (?=.27). European Americans had significant paths not found 
for those who were African American: positive significant path from positive couple 
behaviors to positive parenting at time 2 (?=.23), and the negative significant path from 
negative couple behavior to parent involvement at time 2 (?=-.21).  
Tests of invariance for these paths were undertaken. First, all paths in the model 
were fully constrained to be equal and compared to the unconstrained model chi-square 
(??2=195.51, ?df=105, p=.000). Based on these results, one or more of the path 
coefficients is not operating equivalently across European Americans and African 
Americans, confirming differences noticed in the unconstrained model. Tests of 
67 
 
invariance per individual path that appeared to look different were undertaken, 
constraining each selected path to be equal.  The only path with significant variance 
between European Americans and African Americans is the effect of negative couple 
behavior at time 2 on parent involvement at time 2 (??2=3.65, ?df=1, p < .10). This path 
was significantly stronger for European Americans. 
Table 6. Standardized (unstandardized) coefficients between the latent constructs for 
African Americans (AA) and European Americans (EA). 
Paths Standardized 
(Undstandardized) 
Regression Weights 
??2 ?
df 
 AA EA   
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Coparent Conflict 
T1 
.50 (.48)*** .60 (.59)***   
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Couple Quality T2 -.07 (-.08) -.03 (-.04)   
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Positive Couple 
BX T2 
-.03 (-.04) -.04 (-.07)   
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Negative Couple 
BX T2 
.21 (.20)** .24 (.23)** .5 1 
Positive Parenting T2 ? Positive Parenting 
T1 
.75 (.92)*** .52 (.45)***   
Positive Parenting T2 ? Couple Quality 
T2 
.02 (.00) -.05 (-.03)   
Positive Parenting T2 ? Positive Couple 
BX T2 
.09 (.05) .23 (.16)* .75 1 
Positive Parenting T2 ? Negative Couple 
BX T2 
-.01 (-.00) -.08 (-.03)   
Parent Involvement T2 ?Parent 
Involvement T1 
.69 (.80)*** .49 (.46)***   
Parent Involvement T2 ? Couple Quality 
T2 
-.13 (-.17)~ -.19 (-.17)~   
Parent Involvement T2 ? Positive Couple 
BX T2 
.35 (.47)** .27 (.35)* .15 1 
Parent Involvement T2 ? Negative Couple 
BX T2 
-.02 (-.04) -.21 (-.15)* 3.65~ 1 
Note. ~ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. 
 
  
 
 
68
 
 
 
69
 
 
70 
 
Marital Status (Married and Non-Married) 
Simultaneously fitting the data to the model based on marital status, separate 
parameters were identified for both married and non-married participants. The data fit the 
model well. Fit statistics indicate a significant ?2 = 1496.24 (df=846, p  < .000), CFI = 
.90 and RMSEA = .04. For married parents, the model explained 63% of the variance in 
co-parent conflict at time 2, 65% of the variance in positive parenting at time 2, and 54% 
of the variance in parent involvement at time 2. For non-married parents, the model 
explained 41% of the variance in co-parent conflict at time 2, 37% of the variance in 
positive parenting at time 2, and 47% of the variance in parent involvement at time 2. 
For both married and non-married, all direct paths from time 1 variables to 
respective time 2 variables were significant (p < .001). The unstandardized and 
standardized coefficients are presented in Table 7. Similarly, Figures 10 and 11 provide 
visual models for both married and non-married adult parents with standardized 
regression weights and squared multiple correlations. 
For both married and non-married parents (see Figure 10 and 11), reductions in 
negative couple behaviors predict reductions in co-parent conflict (?=.39, p < .001; 
?=.15, p < .05, respectively). Increases in positive couple behaviors predict increases in 
parent involvement (?=.28, p < .05, ?=.24, p < .05, respectively).  
For married parents but not for non-married parents, increases in positive couple 
behaviors predict increases in positive parenting (?=.27, p < .05). For married parents but 
not for non-married parents, increases in couple quality predict reductions in parent 
involvement (?=-.34, p < .01) and co-parent conflict (?=-.17, p < .10).  
71 
 
For non-married parents but not for married parents, increases in positive couple 
behaviors at time 2 predict reductions in co-parent conflict (?= -.13, p < .10). And for 
non-married parents, but not for married parents, positive changes in couple quality 
predicts increases in positive parenting at time 2 (?=.15, p < .10). 
Comparisons of the path coefficients reveal the strongest predictor for each parent 
outcome dimension. For both married and non-married parents, accounting for all else in 
the model, the strongest predictor of changes in co-parent conflict was changes in 
negative couple behaviors. The strongest predictor of changes in positive parenting 
behaviors was changes in positive couple behaviors for married parents and changes in 
couple quality for non-married parents. The strongest predictor of changes in parent 
involvement was changes in couple quality for married parents (i.e., a negative linkage) 
and changes in positive couple behaviors for non-married parents. 
Comparing the significant paths for married and non-married, it appears that the 
positive link between negative couple behavior and co-parent conflict path is stronger for 
those who are married (?=.39) than those who are not (?=.15). Both married (?=.28) and 
non-married (?=.24) had similar positive significant paths from positive couple behaviors 
at time 2 to parent involvement at time 2. In addition non-married had negative 
marginally significant paths from positive couple behavior to co-parent conflict (?=-.13) 
and positive marginally significant path from couple quality to positive parenting 
behaviors (?=.15). 
Tests of invariance for these paths were undertaken. First, all paths in the model 
were fully constrained to be equal and the chi-square statistic was compared to that of the 
unconstrained model (??2=220.52, ?df=105, p=.000). Based on these results, one or 
72 
 
more of the path coefficients is not operating equivalently across married and non-
married participants, confirming differences noticed in the unconstrained model. Tests of 
invariance per individual path that appeared to look different were undertaken.  Tests of 
invariance did not reveal paths with significant variance between married and non-
married participants. 
Table 7. Standardized (unstandardized) coefficients between the latent constructs for 
married and non-married adult parents. 
Paths Standardized 
(Unstandardized) 
Regression Weights 
??2 ? 
df 
 Married Non-
married 
  
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Coparent Conflict 
T1 
.49 (.50)*** .57 (.55)***   
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Couple Quality T2 -.19 (-.17)~ .04 (.06) 1.76 1 
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Positive Couple 
BX T2 
.13 (.20) -.13 (-.14)~ 2.16 1 
Coparent Conflict T2 ? Negative Couple 
BX T2 
.39 (.31)** .15 (.17)* 1.36 1 
Positive Parenting T2 ? Positive Parenting 
T1 
.76 (.99)*** .59 (.50)***   
Positive Parenting T2 ? Couple QualityT2 -.15 (-.07) .15 (.17)~ -.74 1 
Positive Parenting T2 ? Positive Couple 
BX T2 
.27 (.20)* -.04 (-.02) .36 1 
Positive Parenting T2 ? Negative Couple 
BX T2 
-.05 (-.02) -.06 (-.02)   
Parent Involvement T2 ?Parent 
Involvement T1 
.62 (.58)*** .61 (.65)***   
Parent Involvement T2 ? Couple Quality 
T2 
-.34 (-.27)** .01 (.01) -1.94 1 
Parent Involvement T2 ? Positive Couple 
BX T2 
.28 (.35)* .24 (.25)* .16 1 
Parent Involvement T2 ? Negative Couple 
BX T2 
-.10 (-.07) -.07 (-.08)   
Note. ~ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. 
 
73
 
 
 
74
 
 
75 
 
 
 
VI. DISCUSSION 
There is an accumulation of evidence from basic research that couple 
relationships affect parenting practices, which in turn, affect outcomes for children (e.g., 
Cummings and Davies, 1994; Erel & Burman, 1995; Zimet & Jacob, 2001). Some 
previous applied research evaluating parenting programs has examined the inclusion of 
couple relationship skills training, along with parenting skills training and indicated that 
there may be added benefit for promoting positive parenting (e.g., Webster-Stratton, 
1994; Cowan & Cowan, 2002). No published applied research evaluating 
relationship/marriage education programs, however, has included assessments of change 
in parenting due to program participation (Hawkins et. al, 2008). 
The current study utilized a spillover theoretical framework and the empirically 
established linkages between couple functioning and parenting and informs both research 
and practice focused on couple relationships. Initially, we examined the extent to which 
several dimensions of parenting (co-parenting conflict, parental involvement, and 
positive parenting practices) change after participation in a relationship/marriage 
education program that focuses on the couple dynamics rather than parenting-child 
interaction and parenting practices. We then assessed whether these changes are related 
to changes in specific dimensions of couple functioning and whether these linkages differ 
by gender, race, and marital status. 
Change over time in parenting behaviors 
Overall, parents in a MRE program, diverse in gender, race, socioeconomic status 
and relationship status, demonstrate positive change in several parenting dimensions over 
76 
 
the course of program participation. However, since the current study sample is from the 
initial implementation of a community-based demonstration program, the lack of a 
comparison or control group does not allow for a definitive assertion that positive 
improvements in the parenting dimensions are due to program participation.  We do note, 
however, that the magnitude of change based on a comparison of the mean level 
differences and standard deviations (mean = 12% of SD), as well as calculated effect 
sizes (mean = .093) provide some indication that levels of changes in parenting appear to 
exceed that which might be reasonably expected over a two month period.  A recent 
meta-analysis of MRE programs found that effect sizes for changes in relational 
outcomes were similar for quasi-experimental and one-sample study designs (Hawkins, et 
al., 2008).   
Assessing parenting outcomes is novel for studies of MRE programs and the 
indications of positive spillover from a practical focus on the adult relationship to the 
parenting-child relationship invites replication and further assessment of these outcomes 
in other current MRE programs and studies.  Scholars note the curious, limited focus of 
outcomes assessed in MRE studies and call for expansion of outcome investigation 
(Hawkins, et al, 2008).  Our initial finding of changes of parenting dimensions among 
MRE participations highlights the value of implementing a family systems approach in 
both program design and evaluation study. 
Demographic differences in change over time in parenting behaviors 
The heterogeneity of the study sample allows for the examination of the influence 
of demographic factors on changes over time. Typically evaluation studies focus on 
generalizability of change patterns and often control for demographic differences.  From 
77 
 
both a research and evaluation standpoint, there is value in exploring how subsamples 
within the study sample may differ in their program experience. This type of 
investigation can reveal ?masked? effects for subgroups that may experience change 
when the larger sample does not, or who may not demonstrate change over time, while 
the sample as a whole does. In the current study, we examined the possible interaction 
effects of change over time in the parenting dimensions based on gender, race, and 
marital status. 
We find that, although African American parents are more confident in their 
parenting than European Americans at both time points, they report lower involvement 
with their children than European Americans at both time points. This may be interpreted 
as overall less involved engagement with children, on average, between African 
American and European American families.  However, this finding may reflect cultural 
norms of multi-parental models among African American families (Berger, 1993). That 
is, there may be more adults involved in taking care of a child, and therefore any one 
parent may report lower individual involvement compared to parents who have a smaller 
co-parenting system (Votruba-Drzal, E., Coley, R. L., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L., 2004). Further 
exploration involving clearer assessments of co-parenting systems and dynamics will 
further our understanding and interpretation of this comparative difference found.  
Relations between change over time in couple dimensions and parenting dimensions 
Since the MRE curricula in the current study do not include lessons on parenting 
skills or ways to improve parenting behaviors, we can argue that the research questions 
examined apply and test assumptions of dyadic spillover from the adult relationship to 
the parent-child relationship.  Because current community-based MRE programs, 
78 
 
particularly federally-funded programs, report a ?child-centered? focus as rationale for 
MRE implementation (www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/pdf/accomplishments.pdf), 
these questions are critical and provide internal consistency between theoretical and 
evaluation design.  Surprisingly, to our knowledge, this is the first study to inquire 
specifically about the process of changes in family domains and the spillover between 
domains in the context of MRE program participation. 
Initially, we document that the amount of changes (i.e., difference scores) in the 
couple domain are associated with the amount of changes in the parenting domain over 
the same period of time. We acknowledge that much of the variance is accounted for by 
time 1 levels of the outcome variables, however, the couple factors significantly account 
for variance in the parenting variables above and beyond that. Although we did not 
hypothesize specific links? comparative potencies, we note for both men and women a 
pattern of stronger links between conceptually similar dimensions of couple functioning 
and parenting.   The strongest predictor for men and women of positive parenting 
behaviors post-program, accounting for baseline levels, is positive couple behaviors.  It 
appears that the more partners behave more positively toward one another, the more 
likely the partners will engage in more positive behaviors with their child(ren). The 
strongest predictor for men and women of co-parenting conflict is negative/conflictual 
couple behaviors. This seems to indicate that the more partners engage in negative 
behaviors in couple dynamics, the more likely the partners are to argue about the 
parenting of their child(ren).  We note that many of the families in our study were living 
in complex family systems.  The co-parenting measure does not specify the referent co-
parent, but allows the respondent to report on the relationship with their child?s other 
79 
 
parent.  For some, the referent adult is the romantic partner; for others, the referent adult 
is the foMREr partner. Therefore, our finding of the link between couple conflict and co-
parenting conflict is inclusive of both within dyad spillover and between dyads spillover 
and should be interpreted with caution.  Adjustments in this type of measure are 
warranted and will allow for more specific and clear assessments of linkages within and 
between microsystems in the family.  
It was unexpected and rather interesting that parent involvement was not linked 
with any of the couple domains. Perhaps other characteristics of the family may be 
influencing the amount of time each parent is involved with his or her child(ren), such as 
the role of extended family?s involvement in the care-taking of children, the extent and 
demands of job(s), or separation/divorce or the time that couples are spending together. 
Further examination of this linkage is suggested.    
Results indicated that the most potent predictor for co-parenting conflict was 
negative couple behaviors for the full sample. The most potent predictor of positive 
parenting behaviors was positive couple behaviors. In contrast to the correlational results, 
the use of latent constructs reveals connections between change in the couple domain and 
change in parent involvement; the most potent predictor of parent involvement is couple 
quality. Interestingly, the relation is negative, indicating that positive changes in couple 
quality are related to reductions in parent involvement.  It is possible, given limited 
family time for the majority of families that the enhancements in the couple relationship, 
particularly engagement as a couple, could result in comparatively less time spent and 
engagement with children. Change in positive couple behaviors also uniquely accounts 
for a significant portion of the variance in residual change in parent involvement.   
80 
 
Although a significant portion of the variance in Time 2 outcome variables are 
accounted for by Time 1 levels, residual change in the couple dimension predictors 
uniquely account for variance in the outcomes that are not explained by pre-program 
scores of the outcome measure. This supports the assumption that enhancing the couple 
relationship and dyadic behaviors positively influences the parent-child relationship and 
behaviors. 
Moderators of couple quality and behavior change predicting parenting behaviors 
Gender. Because there is some evidence that suggests that fathers? parenting is 
more likely to be prone to spillover effects, while mothers may be able to 
compartmentalize comparatively better, it was hypothesized that parent gender would 
serve as a moderator of the links between change in couple functioning and change in 
parenting dimensions.   
In comparing the strengths of paths for certain links between the couple 
dimensions and parenting dimensions, we found interesting differences. For fathers, we 
found that a marginally significant link between negative couple interactions and co-
parenting conflict, such that decreases in negative couple interactions are related to 
increases in co-parenting conflict.  Mothers indicated a strong positive relationship 
between these two variables, as expected.  We can only speculate as to the reasons for the 
negative relationship for fathers.  It could be that a larger portion of participating fathers 
are in a couple relationship with a different mother than the one with whom they are co-
parenting their children (i.e., the possibility of divorce, separation, and stepfamilies)? As 
the couple relationship improves, conflict in the co-parenting relationship may increase.  
Clarity in referent relationship would allow for a more infoMREd interpretation.   
81 
 
Race.  We compared the strengths of paths for certain links between the couple 
dimensions and parenting dimensions, based on race. There was a difference for the link 
between change in negative couple behavior and change in parent involvement between 
European Americans and African Americans. For European Americans, there was a 
significant negative relationship between the two variables that suggests that decreases in 
conflict in the couple relationship is associated with increases in parental involvement, as 
expected. This path was not significant for African Americans. This compartmentalizing 
evidence among African Americans warrants further investigation.   
Marital Status. Lastly, comparing the strengths of paths for certain links between 
the couple dimensions and parenting dimensions, delta-chi square tests did not reveal 
significant differences between married and non-married adult parents.  This suggests 
that marital status does not affect the links between changes in the couple and the 
parenting domains.  
Limitations 
We acknowledge several limitations in our current study.  Ours is a convenience 
sample of interested adults and cannot be considered representative of the target 
population. In addition, participants completed self-report surveys.  Observational and 
multi-informant methods would enhance the validity of the measurement of the target 
outcomes. Also, information on changes is from only two time points. While indications 
are that decline in target outcomes is minimal for MRE programs (Hawkins, et al., 2008), 
continued efforts to collect comparison and follow-up data are essential for identifying 
growth models of change and maintenance for specific subgroups of participants and 
nonparticipants.  This approach may also capture delayed effects. 
82 
 
Because this sample is from the initial implementation years of a demonstration 
project that did not yet include a control sample, we cannot ascertain with certainty that 
these changes over time are attributable to program participation and we do not 
emphasize these results as program effects evidence. When these quantitative results are 
combined with information from qualitative responses from participants and facilitators 
that program participation benefitted the family as a whole, we can cautiously consider 
that participation in a MRE program may result in initial positive changes in the co-
parenting relationship and in several areas of parenting among an economically and 
ethnically diverse sample. 
Future Directions 
Future research is needed to replicate and extend the current findings focused on 
the links between the couple dyad and the parent-child relationship. Assessing other 
demographic and contextual variables? influence on the linkages would serve to inform 
both research and practice.  Assessments of the process of change across and following 
MRE participation move us beyond simplistic ?does it work?? program evaluation 
designs.  Adopting a broader family systems design in evaluation is consistent with 
program design assumptions, yet is not currently employed by MRE program evaluators.  
Future research that utilizes multiple informants and extends the current study?s model to 
include assessments of children?s functioning and well-being could serve to further 
inform practice and policy regarding the usefulness of MRE programs for child 
development and well-being.   
Previous work has demonstrated the comparative value of MRE vs. Parenting 
programs for married couples? quality, stability, and parenting practices, and their 
83 
 
children?s performance in the classroom over time (Cowan & Cowan, 2002).  Current 
demonstration programs offer the opportunity to replicate these previous efforts with 
nonmarried individuals and couples, more ethnically diverse populations, and with larger 
samples. 
Practical Implications 
This study offers some initial practical implications. MRE may be a useful 
prevention tool that can enhance not only the adult couple relationship, but also, the co-
parenting and the parent-child relationship, and subsequently, child well-being.  In MRE, 
adults learn the skills to improve their relationships with significant others and this 
current study shows how this positively spills over into the parent-child relationship. 
MRE programs can suggest enhancement of parenting due to participation in both 
marketing and requests for funding for programs.  Parent educators may want to consider 
the inclusion of couple relationship skill training.  This ?hybrid? approach to parent 
education seems justifiable, given previous, and the current study?s findings.   
Conclusion 
The primary contribution of this study is the extension of the current MRE 
program research and the documentation of a spillover link between change over time in 
couple dimensions and change over time in parenting dimensions. While previous basic 
research has identified this link, this is the first applied study of MRE programs using a 
large, diverse sample to apply these theoretical assumptions to study design.  
In addition, this study expands existing further by examining how sex, race, and 
marital status, influence spillover relationships. These types of explorations of differential 
change patterns based on participant characteristics are warranted, and there is much to 
84 
 
be done.  We are just beginning to explore the experiences of diverse populations in MRE 
programs. The development of ?best practices? for program design and implementation is 
achieved when differences among participants, as well as contextual factors are 
considered and studied, rather than controlled in analyses.  ?Action research? (Small & 
Uttal, 2005) calls for these types of investigations and an iterative approach to applied 
research, such that findings are fed back into program design.  Moving past ?cookie 
cutter? program templates will give way to more complex MRE program designs more 
finely tuned to areas of emphasis that are warranted based on anticipated start-points and 
distinct interests and needs among a diverse population of program participants. 
  
85 
 
 
 
REFERENCES 
Administration for Children and Families Healthy Marriage Initiative. Healthy Marriage 
Initiative activities and accomplishments 2002-2005. Retrieved February 13, 
2008, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/pdf/accomplishments.pdf.  
Ahrons, C. R. & Wallisch, L. S. (1987). The relationship between former spouses. In: 
Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration. Perlman, 
Daniel (Ed.); Duck, Steve (Ed.); Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. 
Amato, P.R. (1986). Marital conflict, the parent-child relationship and child self-esteem. 
Family Relations, 35, 403-410. 
Amato, P. R. & Booth, A. (1996). A prospective study of divorce and parent-child 
relationships. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 58, 356-365. 
Amato, P. R. & Keith, B. (1991).  Separation from a parent during childhood and adult 
socioeconomic attainment. Social Forces, 70, 187-206. 
Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Later life parental divorce and widowhood: Impact on young 
adults' assessment of parent?child relations. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 
56, 908-922. 
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning theory analysis. Englewood Cliffs, 
NJ: Prentice Hall. 
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 
Belsky, J. & Hsieh, K. (1998). Patterns of marital change during the early childhood 
years: Parent personality, coparenting and division of labor correlates. Journal of 
Family Psychology, 2, 511-528. 
86 
 
Belsky, J. & Kelly, J. (1994). Transition to parenthood: How a first child changes a 
marriage: Why some couples grow closer and others apart. New York: Delacorte 
Press. 
Belsky, J., Youngblade, L., Rovine, M., & Volling, B. (1991) Patterns of marital change 
and parent-child interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 487-498. 
Black, M. M., Dubowitz, H., & Starr, R. H. (1999) African American fathers in low 
income, urban families: Development, behavior, and home environment of their 
three-year-old children. Child Development, 70, 967-978. 
Block, J. H., Block, J., & Morrison, A. (1981). Parental agreement?disagreement on 
child-rearing orientations and gender-related personality correlates in children. 
Child Development, 52, 965-974. 
Brody, G. H. and Forehand, R. (1985). The association between parental personal/marital 
adjustment and parent-child interactions in a clinic sample. Behaviour Research 
and Therapy, 23, 211-212. 
Brody, G. H., Neubaum, E., &  , R. (1988). Serial marriage: A heuristic analysis of an 
emerging family form. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 211-222.  
Buchanan, C., Maccoby, E., & Dornbusch, S. (1991). Caught between parents: 
Adolescents experience in divorced homes. Child Development, 62, 1008-1029. 
Buehler, C., & Gerard, J. M. (2002). Marital conflict, ineffective parenting, and children's 
and adolescents' maladjustment. Journal of Marriage & Family 64, 78-92. 
Burman, B., John, R. S., & Margolin, G. (1987). Effects of marital and parent-child 
relations on children?s adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 1, 91-108. 
87 
 
Cabrera, N. J., Ryan, R. M., Shannon, J. D., Brooks-Gunn, J, Vogel, C., Raikes, H, et al. 
(2004). Low income fathers? involvement in their toddlers? lives: Biological 
fathers from the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Study. Fathering: A 
Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 2, 5-30. 
Capaldi, D. M., Forgatch, M. S., & Crosby, J. (1994). Affective expression in family 
problem-solving discussions with adolescent boys. Journal of Adolescent 
Research, 9, 28-49. 
Carlson, M. J. & McLanahan, S. S. (2004). ?Early Father Involvement in Fragile 
Families.? Pp. 241-271 in Conceptualizing and Measuring Father Involvement, 
edited by R. Day and M. Lamb. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
Carlson, M. J. & McLanahan, S. S. (2006). Strengthening unmarried families: Could 
enhancing couple relationships also improve parenting? Social Science Review, 
80, 297-321. 
Carroll, J. S. & Doherty, W. J. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of premarital 
prevention programs: A meta-analytic review of outcome research. Family 
Relations, 52, 105-118.  
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the 
demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology, 59, 73-81. 
Coiro, M. J. & Emery, R. E. (1998). Do marriage problems affect fathering more than 
mothering? A quantitative and qualitative review. Clinical Child and Family 
Psychology Review, 1, 23-40. 
88 
 
Coley, R. L. & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (1998). Adolescent pregnancy and parenthood: 
Recent evidence and future directions. American Psychology, 53, 964-975. 
Cowan, C. P. & Cowan, P. A. (2000). When partners become parents: The big life change 
for couples. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
Cowan, C. P. & Cowan, P. A. (1987). Men?s involvement in parenthood: Identifying the 
antecedents and understanding the barriers. In P. W. Berman & F. A. Pedersen 
(Eds.) Men?s transition to parenthood: Longitudinal studies of early family 
experience (pp.145-174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., Pruett, M. K., & Pruett, K. (2006). An approach to 
preventing coparenting conflict and divorce in low-income families: 
Strengthening couple relationships and fostering fathers? involvement. Family 
Process, 46, 109-121. 
Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., Heming, G., & Miller, N. B. (1991). Becoming a family: 
Marriage, parenting, and child development. In P. A. Cowan & M. Hetherington 
(Eds.) Family Transitions (pp. 79-109). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 
Cowan, P. A. & Cowan, C. P. (2005). Two central roles for couple relationships: 
Breaking negative intergenerational patterns and enhancing children?s adaptation. 
Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 275-288. 
Cowan, P. A. & Cowan, C. P. (2002). Interventions as tests of family systems theories: 
Marital and family relationships in children?s development and psychopathology. 
Development and Psychopathology, 14, 731-759. 
Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Schulz, M. S., & Heming, G. (1994). Prebirth to preschool 
family factors in children?s adaptation to kindergarten. In R. D. Parke and S. G. 
89 
 
Kellam (Eds.), Exploring family relationships with other social contexts. Family 
research consortium: advances in family research, Vol. 4 (pp. 75-114). Hillsdale, 
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
Cox, M. J., Paley, B., & Harter, H. (2001) Interparental conflict and parent-child 
relationships. In J.H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.) Interparental conflict and 
child development: Theory, research, and application (pp.249-272) Cambridge, 
UK: Cambridge University Press. 
Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and children?s functioning. Social 
Development, 3, 16-36. 
Cummings, E. M. & Davies, P. T. (1994) Children and marital conflict: The impact of 
family dispute and resolution. New York: Guilford Press. 
Cummings, E. M. & Davies, P. T. (2002) Effects of marital conflict on children: Recent 
advances and emerging themes in process-oriented research. Journal of Child 
Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 31-63. 
Cummings, E. M., Faircloth, W. B., Mitchell, P. M., Cummings, J. S. & ScheMRErhorn, 
A. C. (2008). Evaluating a brief prevention program for improving marital 
conflict in community families. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 193-202. 
Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Graham, M. A. (2002). Interparental relations 
as a dimension of parenting. Monographs in parenting. In J. G. Borkowski & S. L. 
Ramey (Eds.), Parenting and the child's world: Influences on academic, 
intellectual, and social-emotional development (pp. 251-263). Mahwah, NJ: 
Erlbaum. 
90 
 
Cummings, E. M. & O?Reilly, A. (1997). Fathers in family context: Effects of marital 
quality on child adjustment. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child 
development (3rd ed.) (pp.49-65). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 
Cummings, E. M., Vogel, D., Cummings, J. S., & El-Sheikh, M (1989). Children?s 
responses to different forms of expression of anger between adults. Child 
Development, 60, 1392-1404. 
Cummings, J. S., Pellegrini, D., Notarious, C., & Cummings, E. M. (1989). Children?s 
responses to angry adult behavior as a function of marital distress and history of 
interparental hostility, Child Development, 60, 1035-1043. 
Dadds, M. R. (1987). Families and the origins of child behavior problems. Family 
Process, 26, 341-357. 
Demo, D. H. & Acock, A. C. (1988). The impact of divorce on children. Journal of 
Marriage & the Family, 50, 619-648. 
Doherty, W. J. & Beaton, J. M. (2004). Mothers and fathers parenting together. In A. L 
Vangelisti  (Ed), Handbook of family communication (pp. 269-286). Mahwah, NJ, 
US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 
El-Sheikh, M & Elmore-Staton, L. (2004). The link between marital conflict and child 
adjustment: Parent-child conflict and perceived attachments as mediators, 
potentiators, and mitigators of risk. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 631-
648. 
Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conflict and children of discord and divorce. 
Psychological Bulletin, 92, 310-330. 
91 
 
Emery, R. E. (1999).  Marriage, divorce, and children's adjustment (2nd ed.).  Thousand 
Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. 
Erel, O. & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child 
relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108-132. 
Fagan, J. & Palkovitz, R. (2007). Unmarried, nonresident fathers? involvement with their 
infants: A risk and resilience perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 479-
489. 
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 parenting. Child Development, 61, 1112-1123. 
Feinberg, M. E., & Kan, M. L. (2007). Establishing family foundations at the transition 
to parenthood: Effects of a universal preventive interventions on co-parenting, 
parent mental health, parent-child stress, and infant regulatory capacity. 
Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University. 
Fincham, F. D. (1994). Understanding the association between marital conflict and child 
adjustment: Overview. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 123-127.  
Fincham, F. D., Grych, J. H., & Osborne, L. N. (1994). Does marital conflict cause child 
maladjustment? Directions and challenges for longitudinal research. Journal of 
Family Psychology, 8, 128-140. 
Fincham, F. D. & Osborne, L. N. (1993). Marital conflict and children: Retrospect and 
prospect. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 75-88. 
92 
 
Frosch, C. A. & Mangelsdorf, S. C. (2001). Marital behavior, parenting behavior, and 
multiple reports of preschooler?s behavior problems: Mediation or moderation? 
Developmental Psychology, 37, 502-519. 
Furstenberg, F. F. & Cherlin, A. (1991). Divided Families: What Happens to Children 
When Parents Part. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
Furstenberg, F. F., Nord, C. W., Peterson, J. L., & Zill, N. (1983). The life course of 
children of divorce: Marital disruption and parental contact. American 
Sociological Review, 48, 656-668. 
Gable, S., Belsky, J., & Crnic, K. (1992). Marriage, parenting, and child development: 
Progress and prospects. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 276-294. 
Gable, S. Crnic, K., & Belsky, J. (1994). Coparenting within the family system: 
Influences on children?s development. Family Relations, 43, 380-386. 
Garcia-Coll, C., Meyer, E. C., & Brillon, L. (1995). Ethnic and minority parenting. In M. 
H. Bornstein (Ed.) Handbook of parenting: Vol 2. Biology and ecology of 
parenting (pp.189-209). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
Gee, C. B., McNerney, C. M., Reiter, M. J., & Leaman, S. C. (2007). Adolescent and 
young adult mothers? relationship quality during the transition to parenthood: 
Associations with father involvement in fragile families. Journal of Youth 
Adolescence, 36, 213-224. 
Gerard, J. M., Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2006). Marital conflict, parent-child 
relations, and youth maladjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 951-975. 
93 
 
Glade, A. C., Bean, R. A., & Vira, R. (2005). A prime time for marital/relational 
intervention: A review of the transition to parenthood literature with treatment 
recommendations. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33, 319-336. 
Gonzales, N. A., Pitts, S. C., Hill, N. E., & Roosa, M. W. (2000). A mediational model of 
the impact of interparental conflict on child adjustment in a multiethnic, low-
income sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 365-379.  
Gottman, J. M. & Levenson, R. W. (1988). The social psychophysiology of marriage. In 
P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 
182-200). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. 
Grych, J. H (2005). Interparental Conflict as a Risk Factor for Child Maladjustment: 
Implications for the Development of Prevention Programs. Family Court Review, 
43, 97-108. 
Grych, J. H. & Fincham, F. D. (2001). Interparental conflict and child development: 
Theory, research, and applications. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University 
Press. 
Grych, J. H. & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children?s adjustment: A 
cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290. 
Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the 
child?s perspective: The Children?s Perception of Interparental Conflict scale. 
Child Development, 63, 558-572. 
Harold, G. T. & Conger, R. (1997). Marital conflict and adolescent distress: The role of 
adolescent awareness. Child Development, 68, 333-350. 
94 
 
Harold, G. T., Fincham, F. D., Osborne, L. N., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Mom and dad are 
at it again: Adolescent perceptions of marital conflict and adolescent 
psychological distress. Developmental Psychology, 33, 333-350. 
Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., Fawcett, E. B. (2008) Does marriage 
and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study.  Journal of Consulting 
and Clinical Psychology, 76, 723-734. 
Hawkins, A. J., Gilliland, T., Christiaens, G., & Carroll, J. S. (2002). Integrating marriage 
education into perinatal education. The Journal of Perinatal Education, 11, 1-10. 
Hawkins, A. J., Lovejoy, K. R., Holmes, E. K., Blanchard, V. L. & Fawcett, E. (2008). 
Increasing fathers? involvement in child care with a couple-focused intervention 
during the transition to parenthood. Family Relations, 57, 49-59. 
Hawkins, A. J., Roberts, T., Christiansen, S. L., & Marshall, C. M. (1994). An evaluation 
of a program to help dual-earner couples share the second shift. Family Relations, 
43, 213-220. 
Hetherington, E. M., Bridges, M., & Insabella, G. M. (1998). What matters? What does 
not? Five perspectives on the association between marital transitions and 
children's adjustment. American Psychologist, 53, 167-184. 
Holden, G. W. & Ritchie, K. L. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing 
and behavior problems: Evidence from battered women. Child Development, 62, 
311-327. 
Howes, P. & Markman, H. (1989). Marital quality and child functioning: A longitudinal 
investigation. Child Development, 60, 1044-1051. 
95 
 
Huston, T. L & Vangelisti, A. L. (1991). Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in 
marital relationships: A longitudinal study.  Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology, 61, 721-733. 
Johnson, W. E. (2001). Paternal involvement among unwed fathers. Children and Youth 
Services Review, 23, 513-536. 
Johnston, J. R., Gonzalez, R. & Campbell, L. (1987). Ongoing postdivorce conflict and 
child disturbance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 497-509. 
Jouriles, E. & Farris, A. (1992).  Effects of marital conflict on subsequent parent-son 
interactions. Behavior Therapist, 23, 355-374. 
Jouriles, E. & LeCompte, S. H. (1991). Husbands? aggression toward wives and mothers? 
and fathers? aggression toward children. Moderating effects of child gender. 
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 190-192. 
Jouriles, E., Murphy, C. M., & O?Leary, K. D. (1989). Interspousal aggression, marital 
discord, and child problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 
435-455. 
Jouriles, E., Pfiffner, L., & O?Leary, S. (1988). Marital conflict, parenting, and toddler 
conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 197-206. 
Kaczynski, K. J., Lindahl, K. M., Malik, N. M., & Laurenceau, J. (2006) Marital conflict, 
maternal and paternal parenting, and child adjustment: A test of mediation and 
moderation. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 199-208. 
Kerig, P. K., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P. (1993). Marital quality and gender differences 
in parent-child interaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 931-939. 
96 
 
Kitzmann, K. M. (2000). Effects of marital conflict on subsequent triadic family 
interactions and parenting. Developmental Psychology, 36, 3-13.  
Kline, M., Johnston, J. R., & Tschann, J. M. (1991). The long shadow of marital conflict: 
A model of children's postdivorce adjustment. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 
53, 297-309. 
Krishnakumar, A. & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A 
meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49, 25-44. 
Lewis, J. M., Owen, M. T., & Cox, M. J. (1988). The transition to parenthood: III. 
Incorporation of the child into the family. Family Process, 27, 411-421. 
Lindahl, K. M., Clements, M., & Markman, H. (1997). Predicting marital and parent 
functioning in dyads and triads: A longitudinal investigation of marital processes. 
Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 139-151. 
Mann, B. & MacKenzie, E. (1996). Pathways among marital functioning, parental 
behaviors, and child behavior problems in school-age boys. Journal of Clinical 
Child Psychology, 25, 183-191. 
Margolin, G., Burman, B., & John, R. S. (1989). Home observations of married couples 
reenacting naturalistic conflict. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 101-118. 
Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: A link between marital 
conflict and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 
3-21.  
Marsiglio, W., Roy, K., & Fox, G. L. (Eds). (2005). Situated fathering: A focus on 
physical and social spaces. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 
97 
 
McHale, J. P. & Rasmussen, J. L. (1998). Coparental and family group-level dynamics 
during infancy: Early family precursors of child and family functioning during 
preschool. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 39-59. 
Metzler, C. W., Biglan, A., Ary, D. V., & Li, F. (1998). The stability and validity of early 
adolescents? reports of parenting constructs. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 
600-619. 
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. 
Journal of Marriage & the Family, 45, 141-151. 
O?Brien, M. & Bahadur, M. A. (1998). Marital aggression, mother?s problem-solving 
behavior with children, and children?s emotional and behavioral problems. 
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 249-272. 
O?Brien, M. & Peyton,  V. (2002). Parenting attitudes and marital intimacy: A 
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 118-127. 
Orbuch, T. L., Thornton, A. & Cancio, J. (2000). The impact of marital quality, divorce, 
and remarriage on the relationships between parents and their children. In R.H. 
Peters and Day R. D. (Eds.), FATHERHOOD: Research, Interventions, and 
Policies (pp. 221-246), Hawthorn Press. 
Owen, M. T. & Cox, M. J. (1997). Marital conflict and the development of infant-parent 
attachment relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 152-164. 
Palkovitz, R. (1984). Parental attitudes and fathers' interactions with their 5-month-old 
infants. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1054-1060. 
Palkovitz, R. (2002). Involved fathering and men?s adult development: Provisional 
balances. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
98 
 
Reid, W. J. & Crisafulli, A. (1990). Marital discord and child behavior problems: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology: An official publication of the 
International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 18, 
105-117. 
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal 
of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112. 
Scanzoni, J., Polonko, K., Teachman, J., & Thompson, L. (1989). The sexual bond: 
Rethinking families and close relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage 
Publications, Inc. 
Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Frosch, C. A., & McHale, J. L. (2004). 
Associations between coparenting and marital behavior from infancy to the 
preschool years. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 194-207. 
Schulz, M. S., Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (2006). Promoting healthy beginnings: A 
randomized controlled trial of a preventive intervention to preserve marital quality 
during the transition to parenthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 
Psychology, 74, 20-31. 
Seltzer, J. A. & Bianchi, S. M. (1988). Children?s contact with absent parents. Journal of 
Marriage and the Family, 50, 663-677. 
Shapiro, A. F. & Gottman, J. M. (2005). Effects on marriage of a psychocommunicative-
educational intervention with couples undergoing the transition to parenthood, 
evaluation at 1-year post intervention. Journal of Family Communication, 5, 1-24. 
99 
 
Shuntich, R. J., Loh, D., & Katz, D. (1998). Some relationships among affection, 
aggression and alcohol abuse in the family setting. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 
86, 1051-1060. 
Small, S. A. & Uttal, L. (2005) Action-oriented research: Strategies for engaged 
scholarship. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 936-948. 
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality 
of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 38, 15-28. 
Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002). Communication, conflict and 
commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national 
survey. Family Process, 41, 659-675. 
Stocker, C. M. & Youngblade, L. (1999). Marital conflict and parental hostility: Links 
with children?s sibling and peer relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 
598-609. 
Stoneman, Z., Brody, G., & Burke, M. (1989). Marital quality, depression and 
inconsistent parenting: Relationship with observed mother-child conflict. 
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 105-117. 
Tamis-LeMonda, C., Shannon, J. D>, Cabrera, N., & Lamb, M. (2004). Fathers and 
mothers at play with their 2 year olds: contributions to language and cognitive 
development. Child Development, 75, 1806-1820. 
Teti, D. M., O'Connell, M. A., & Reiner, C. D. (1996). Parenting sensitivity, parental 
depression and child health: The mediational role of parental self-efficacy. Early 
Development & Parenting, 5, 237-250. 
100 
 
Vandewater, E. A. & Lansford, J. E. (1998). Influences of family structure and parental 
conflict on children?s well-being. Family Relations, 47, 323-376. 
Votruba-Drzal, E., Coley, R. L., and Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2004). Child Care and Low-Income 
Children?s Development: Direct and Moderated Effects. Child Development, 75, 296 ? 
312. 
Waller, M. R. & Swisher, R. (2006). Fathers? risk factors in fragile families: Implications 
for ?healthy? relationships and father involvement. Social Problems, 53, 392-420. 
Webster-Stratton, C. (1994). Advancing videotape parent training: A comparison study. 
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 583-593. 
Wolfe, D., Jaffe, P., Wilson, S. & Zac, L. (1985). Children of battered women: The 
relation of child behavior to family violence and maternal stress. Journal of 
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 657-665. 
Zill, N., Morrison, D. R., & Coiro, Mary J. (1993). Long-term effects of parental divorce 
on parent-child relationships, adjustment, and achievement in young adulthood.   
Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 91-103. 
Zimet, D. M. & Jacob, T. (2001) Influences of marital conflict on child adjustment: 
Review of theory and research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4, 
319-335.