The Journal of Early Adolescence

http://jea.sagepub.com Interparental Hostility and Early Adolescent Problem Behavior: Spillover via Maternal Acceptance, Harshness, Inconsistency, and Intrusiveness
Mark J. Benson, Cheryl Buehler and Jean M. Gerard The Journal of Early Adolescence 2008; 28; 428 originally published online Apr 8, 2008; DOI: 10.1177/0272431608316602 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/3/428

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for The Journal of Early Adolescence can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jea.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 62 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/3/428

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

Interparental Hostility and Early Adolescent Problem Behavior

Journal of Early Adolescence Volume 28 Number 3 August 2008 428-454 2008 Sage Publications 10.1177/0272431608316602 http://jea.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Spillover via Maternal Acceptance, Harshness, Inconsistency, and Intrusiveness

Mark J. Benson
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg

Cheryl Buehler
University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Jean M. Gerard
Bowling Green State University, Ohio

To explore the link between interparental hostility and adolescent problem behaviors, the current study examines four important maternal parenting dimensions as potential mediators: acceptance, harshness, inconsistency, and psychological intrusiveness. With a primary sample of 1,893 sixth-grade students, the measures included adolescent and teacher reports. Structural equation modeling revealed that each parenting construct partially mediated both internalizing and externalizing adolescent problems. Harshness was the strongest mediator for adolescent externalizing. Psychological intrusiveness and low maternal acceptance were the strongest mediators for adolescent internalizing. Inconsistency linked similarly to both internalizing and externalizing. Stronger linkages were found in families with married parents compared to those with divorced parents, but overall the patterns were similar. Youth gender and ethnic differences in the spillover processes were minimal. The findings provide a process model for understanding interparental conflict and adolescent problems. Keywords: adolescence; adolescent development; interparental conflict; interparental hostility; marital conflict; parent-adolescent; parenting; problem behavior

Authors Note: This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, R01-MH59248. The authors thank the staff of the Family Life Project for their unending contributions to this work and the youth, parents, teachers, and school administrators who made this research possible. Address correspondence to Mark J. Benson, PhD, Department of Human Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0416; e-mail: mbenson@vt.edu. 428
Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility

429

lthough conflict is inevitable in marriage and partnering, the amount and intensity of conflict vary across couples. Marked conflict can have important implications not only for couples themselves, but also for their children. Prior research with adolescents consistently documents a link between marital strife and problem behavior (Buehler & Gerard, 2002; Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990; Harold, Shelton, GoekeMorey, & Cummings, 2004). The consistency of the link has inspired the pursuit of theory to explain the mechanisms tying marital conflict to child problems. Mechanisms have been advanced implicating spouse and parent attributions (Fincham & Grych, 1991), child self-blame (Grych, Harold, & Miles, 2003), heightened sensitivity in the child (Grych & Fincham, 1990), and the childs emotional security (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Davies, Harold, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2002). Another important mechanism, however, reflects the ways that marital conflict links to parenting behaviors (Erel & Burman, 1995). The study tests four maternal parent dimensions as possible mediators in the process. The relatively large sample of 1,893 youth provides sufficient power to examine the moderating roles of adolescent gender, ethnicity, and parents marital status.

Interparental Hostility and Adolescent Problems: Spillover Through Mothers Parenting

The focus on parenting as an explanation for the association between interparental hostility and adolescent problems derives from a systems conceptualization of spillover. Spillover is conceptualized as the transfer of mood, affect, or behavior across family subsystems (Cox, Paley, & Harter, 2001; Engfer, 1988; Erel & Burman, 1995; Margolin, Oliver, & Medina, 2001). Spillover processes contrast with notions of the relative independence of relationships or boundaries between subsystems (Dunn, OConnor, & Cheng, 2005). In conditions of spillover, the discord in one relationship spills into other family relationships and affects the emotional climate (Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1988). Thus, conflict in a marriage can disrupt interactions between a parent and child. Specific spillover mechanisms include concepts such as stress transfer (Conger et al., 1993), modeling (Patterson, 1982), depleted energy (Margolin et al., 2001), and reduced emotional availability (Katz & Gottman, 1996). Though spillover can have positive or negative valence, prior research documents the negative impact of frequent or intense hostility on the family system and its members (Buehler et al., 1997). The parenting process is an important mechanism for explaining spillover effects from interparental hostility to adolescent problems. Within

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

430

Journal of Early Adolescence

a spillover framework, discord in the parents relationship limits effective parenting behaviors, which results in greater adolescent problem behavior. The types of parenting most susceptible to interparental hostility and adolescent problems, however, have received inadequate attention. Instead, studies often rely on assessing only one or two dimensions of parenting (e.g., Lindsey & Mize, 2001; Stocker & Youngblade, 1999; Stone, Buehler, & Barber, 2002). Such narrow assessment of parenting dimensions has hampered theory development regarding parenting as a mediator between interparental hostility and youth problem behaviors (Bradford et al., 2004).

Spillover Mechanisms: Four Dimensions of Mothers Parenting

Whether or not parenting dimensions mediate the link between interparental hostility and adolescent problems rests upon the careful selection of relevant aspects of parenting. Based on prior research and foundational theory (Patterson, 1982), the current study examines four potentially important dimensions of mothers parenting: acceptance, harsh discipline, inconsistency, and psychological intrusiveness. Disaggregating these salient aspects of parenting represents an important need in research on interparental conflict. Two prior studies disaggregated parenting and showed mediational effects for three types of parenting: acceptance/rejection, inconsistency/ laxness, and psychological control/intrusiveness (Fauber et al., 1990; Gonzales, Pitts, Hill, & Roosa, 2000). Their small sample sizes of under 100, however, limit confidence in the precision of the estimates and prohibit detailed moderating analyses. Also, the reliance on advertisements for recruitment limits the inference to generalizability that a large community sample would afford. Although prior research implies the potential for parenting mediation effects, the current study also tests the alternative hypothesis that parenting fails to explain the link between interparental hostility and adolescent problems. If only the direct association is significant, alternative explanations to compromised parenting, such as witnessing conflict, would be favored (Mazefsky & Farrell, 2005). Parental acceptance involves the care, approval, involvement, and support by parents and holds a central role in theories of individual and family processes (Olson & Gorall, 2003; Rohner, 2004). In a meta-analysis of interparental hostility, parental acceptance is one of the most important parenting dimensions affected by interparental hostility (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000; Sirvanli-Ozen, 2004). Besides the link to interparental

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility

431

hostility, lower levels of maternal acceptance are associated with concurrent and future externalizing problem behaviors (Bosco, Renk, & Dinger, 2003; Doyle & Markiewicz, 2005). For internalizing problems, parental support with older or young siblings relates to lower anxiety and less withdrawal for early adolescents (Brody, Kim, & Murry, 2005). These findings suggest the potential role of parental acceptance in mediating the link between interparental hostility and problem behavior. Theoretically, interparental hostility is expected to reduce the parents capacity to be accepting and warm due to relationally based stress and irritability (Vandewater & Lansford, 1998). Harsh parenting represents a second important potential mediator from the theoretical perspectives of social learning (Patterson, 1982), systems (Cox et al., 2001), and family stress (Harold & Conger, 1997). A metaanalysis of prior research findings indicates that interparental hostility has a strong influence on harsh discipline (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). Besides the influence of hostility on harshness, harsh parenting is a consistent correlate of adolescent problems (Voydanoff, 2004). Theoretically, harsh parenting functions as a system transfer, where parents using verbal and physical aggression with one another are more likely to use verbal and physical aggression with their children (Almeida, Wethington, & Chandler, 1999). Harshness also may relate to internalizing problems, as suggested by the finding that harsh maternal discipline linked to depression and anxiety in adolescents (Bender et al., 2007). These patterns suggest that harshness might explain the association of interparental hostility with both internalizing and externalizing problems. Theoretical accounts of the third dimension, intraparental inconsistency, draw from behavioral principles (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canada, 1997; Skinner, 1974) and expectation outcome principles (Bandura, 1986). Such principles highlight the importance of contingent reinforcement and consistent parental expectations for effective child socialization. In prior research, interparental hostility has been associated with child reports of inconsistent discipline (Gonzales et al., 2000). Similarly, marital hostility has been linked to inconsistent parenting (Lindahl & Malik, 1999). Inconsistent parenting also has been related to externalizing (Berg-Nielsen, Vikan, & Dahl, 2002; Brody et al., 2001; Stanger, Dumenci, & Kamon, 2004) and internalizing problems (Lengua & Kovacs, 2005). Taken together, these findings suggest that inconsistency functions as a mediator between interparental hostility and both internalizing and externalizing problems. Finally, psychological control or intrusiveness has been conceptualized as a central parenting feature, as it reflects the failure to recognize the

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

432

Journal of Early Adolescence

psychological distinctiveness of individuals (Barber, 1997, 2002; Minuchin, 1974). Theoretically, intrusive or controlling behaviors such as manipulation, guilt induction, or love withdrawal undermine adolescent differentiation and autonomy. Prior research has found that interparental hostility is related positively to psychological control (Crater, 2004; Doyle & Markiewicz, 2005; Stone et al., 2002). Marital hostility also is linked positively to parents psychological control over time (Cummings, Keller, & Davies, 2005). In terms of adolescent problems, the association between intrusiveness and adolescent internalizing problems is particularly robust (Doyle & Markiewicz, 2005; Krishnakumar, Buehler, & Barber, 2003). In the current study, the four parenting constructs elaborated above are examined conjointly as potential mediators between interparental hostility and the adolescent internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors. Prior studies that have examined mediating effects of parenting have provided mixed results. Studies have found support for no mediation (Forehand, Wierson, McCombs, Brody, & Fauber, 1989; Miller, Cowan, Cowan, Hetherington, & Clingempeel, 1993; Stone et al., 2002), partial mediation (Crockenberg & Langrock, 2001; Krishnakumar et al., 2003; Webster-Stratton & Hammond, 1999), and complete mediation (Black & Pedro-Carroll, 1993; Gonzales et al., 2000; Mann & MacKenzie, 1996; Stocker & Youngblade, 1999). These mixed results stem from a combination of dependence on small samples, sampling of younger children, absence of problem measures, or reliance on single reporters for problem assessment. In the current study, a large sample of similarly aged adolescents with multiple reports of adolescent internalizing and externalizing provides a robust basis for systematically evaluating the relative contributions of mediation through multiple parenting behaviors.

Gender, Ethnicity, and Marital Status

Within the literature on interparental hostility and childrens maladjustment, there is increasing interest in the role of childrens gender (Davies & Lindsay, 2001). Some support for testing gender moderation derives from work showing that the mediating path through parental harshness is stronger for sons than daughters (Buehler & Gerard, 2002). Other research has shown, however, that the effect of mothers harshness is similar for both sons and daughters (Osborne & Fincham, 1996). These conflicting findings and the limited theoretical basis for differences reflect further need for studies that examine youth gender as a potential moderator. In addition to gender, ethnicity has been conceptualized as a potential moderator in understanding family processes in the context of interparental

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility

433

hostility. A recent conceptualization advances the attenuation hypothesis, suggesting weaker associations between marital hostility and child maladjustment in ethnic minority families than in European American families (McLoyd, Harper, & Copeland, 2001). One rationale for the attenuation hypothesis is that ethnic minority children are less vulnerable to interparental hostility due to influences from a broad social network of extended family members. A second rationale is that ethnic minority children comparatively are less stressed by interparental hostility due to coping with other sources of hostility and oppression within the broader culture. At present, prior meta-analytic research has failed to show significant ethnicity differences in the link between interparental hostility and youth problem behaviors (Buehler et al., 1997). Parenting processes, however, have shown both differences across ethnic groups with maternal acceptance (Krishnakumar et al., 2003) and similarities across ethnic groups with harsh discipline (Buehler & Gerard, 2002). Limited research on African American youth and the potential for testing the attenuation hypothesis via parenting processes supports the need for ethnicity moderation tests. Much of the research on interparental hostility has focused on married couples. From a conceptual perspective, arguments have been advanced for stronger and weaker associations between interparental hostility and youth problems in comparing families with married and divorce parents (Buchanan & Heiges, 2001). Compared to married parents, the association might be stronger in families experiencing divorce because of the potential for sustained and ongoing strife. Conversely, the association might be stronger in families with married parents due to the potentially corrosive and exhausting consequences of chronic hostility. With respect to internalizing problems, prior research evidences stronger effects through parental acceptance in families where the parents are divorced (Fauber et al., 1990) and stronger effects for psychological intrusiveness in families with married parents (Krishnakumar et al., 2003). These differential patterns across parenting dimensions support the need for moderation tests for marital status using a comprehensive, multi-dimensional assessment of parenting processes. In summary, the current study examines specific aspects of parenting as potential mediators between interparental hostility and adolescent externalizing and internalizing problems. Four important parenting dimensions are examined including acceptance, harshness, inconsistency, and psychological control. Using a large, diverse, community sample of over 1,880 youth, the study affords greater potential for generalizability than was possible in prior studies. Finally, we use structural equation modeling (SEM), which allows for model fitting and significance testing between groups compared by youth gender, ethnicity, and parents marital status.
Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

434

Journal of Early Adolescence

Method
Sampling Procedures
All of the sixth-grade youth in 13 middle schools in a large county in the Southeastern United States were invited to participate. This county includes rural, suburban, and urban regions. Ninety-six percent of the teachers with a sixth-grade homeroom class participated. Youth received their invitation letter during homeroom and were asked to return the signed parental consent form after talking with their parents about participation. Two follow-up direct mailings to parents were done that included a self-addressed stamped envelope. About 71% of the youth/parent(s) returned the consent form and 80% of these received permission to participate. Because data were collected from a diverse group of youth, we asked them whom they were thinking of when responding to mothers parenting questions. Only youth who were thinking of their birth or adoptive mother were included in the sample for this study. This ensured consistency and accuracy when youth were completing relational measures. Also, only youth who lived with at least one birth/adoptive parent and whose parents were living were included.

Sample Characteristics
This sample consisted of 1,893 youth, aged 10 to 14 ( X = 11.90, SD = .72). There were 980 daughters (51.8%) and 913 sons (48.2). In terms of race/ ethnicity, 1,603 (84.7%) were European American (non-Hispanic), 152 (8%) were African American (non-Hispanic), 28 (1.5%) were Hispanic, 25 (1.3%) were Asian American, 8 (< .4%) were Indian, and 22 (1.2%) were in the Other category. Some of the youth marked more than one category (3%). This sample of youth is representative of the county residents in terms of race/ethnicity (e.g., 8.8% African American and 1.2% Asian American in the county; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a). About 65% of youth reported that their biological parents were married to each other. About 13% reported that their parents were divorced and not remarried. Four percent reported that their biological parents were separated. Eighteen percent reported that at least one of their parents had remarried. This sample is fairly representative in terms of the proportion of households that include married/remarried parents (83% in this sample, 79% in this county, and 77% in the 2000 U.S. population), with a slightly higher representation of married families (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b).

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility

435

Youth reports of perceived economic well-being indicated that 1% believed they were a lot poorer than most families they knew, 8% believed they were a little poorer, 63% believed they were about the same as other families economically, 23% believed they were a little richer, and 5% believed they were a lot richer (8.4% of families in this county were in poverty during 1999, and 9.2% in the country; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000c). Besides information provided by youth, an inspection of the free school lunch rosters from about half of the participating schools suggested that this sample is representative of county economic status.

Data Collection Procedures

Youth completed a questionnaire during school in small groups. They had as much time as needed to finish (most completed within 50 minutes), and several project staff were available to answer questions. After completion, students were treated to a pizza party. The youths homeroom teacher completed an assessment of the youths problem behaviors during April of the school year. This teacher also had the youth in one content course (e.g., science, language arts). Data were collected from a teacher for 98% of the youth. Teachers received $5 for each completed questionnaire.

Measurement
Youth problem behavior. Youth and teachers assessed early adolescent problem behavior. Youth reports were measured using the Child Behavior ChecklistYouth Self-Report (CBCL-YSR; Achenbach, 1991b; Achenbach, Dumenci, & Rescorla, 2002). This measure consisted of a series of statements that might describe the youth during the previous 6 months. The response format was not true (0), somewhat or sometimes true (1), and very true or often true (2). Of the 112 items, 30 were used to measure externalizing problems ( = .85), and 31 were used to measure internalizing problems ( = .88). Examples of externalizing items are, I lie or cheat, and I disobey at school. Examples of internalizing items are, I am unhappy, sad, or depressed, and I worry a lot. Raw scores were used as recommended by Achenbach (1991b). One teacher also completed a Teacher Report Form for each participating youth (Achenbach, 1991a). Items were summed and Cronbachs alpha was .95 for externalizing problems and .87 for internalizing problems. Youth also completed the Childrens Depression InventoryShort Version (CDI; Kovacs, 1992) because internalizing problems are difficult to assess and measurement bias might result from a sole reliance on Achenbach

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

436

Journal of Early Adolescence

instruments. The CDI consists of 10 items. Each question has three response choices and youth select the item that best fits feelings during the past 2 weeks. A sample item is, I am sad once in a while, I am sad many times, and I am sad all the time. Items were averaged and Cronbachs alpha was .84. As an additional assessment of externalizing problems (to counter some of the possible shared measurement bias), youth completed a 17-item measure of the frequency of delinquent behaviors ever committed (Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985). Examples of items are, purposely damaged or destroyed property, and cheated on a test. The response format ranged from never (1) to three or more times (3). Items were averaged and Cronbachs alpha was .73. Youth perceptions of interparental hostility. The latent construct for interparental hostility was based on youth report of two subscales: overt and intensity. The overt subscale assessed the frequency of hostile behaviors that the youth could see or hear. Examples of the 11 items on this subscale are, call each other names, yell at each other, and threaten each other. The response format ranged from never (1) to very often (4) ( = .81). There is evidence of construct validity for this measure in U.S. samples of youth (Buehler et al., 1998) and in samples of youth living in eight countries (Bradford et al., 2004). Youth also completed an intensity subscale concerning parents hostile interactions. A sample item is, When my parents disagree, one of them (or both) gets madder and madder. The response format ranged from never (1) to always (5). The fourth item was a global item that asked, When your parents disagree, how intense does it get? (Gerard, Buehler, Franck, & Anderson, 2005). This item ranged from not very intense (1) to very intense (3). This latter item was rescaled to a 5-point scale and items were averaged. A high score indicated greater intensity. Cronbachs alpha was .82. Youth perceptions of mothers parenting. Four aspects of mothers parenting were assessed: acceptance, harshness, inconsistency, and psychological intrusiveness. To assess maternal acceptance, youth completed the 10-item acceptance subscale of the Childrens Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; Schaefer, 1965; Schludermann & Schludermann, 1970). Sample items are, My mother is a person who enjoys doing things with me, and My mother is a person who gives me a lot of care and attention. The response format ranged from not like her (1) to a lot like her (4), and items were averaged. Cronbachs alpha was .87.

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility

437

For maternal harshness, youth completed seven items from the Iowa Youth and Families assessment protocol (Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994). Sample items that asked about the frequency of mothers behavior during the past year are, shouted, yelled, or screamed at me, and called me dumb or lazy or some other name like that. The response format ranged from this has never happened (0) to more than 20 times in the past year (6). Items were averaged and a higher score indicated greater harshness. Cronbachs alpha was .87. To assess maternal inconsistency, youth completed eight items from two parenting inventories that assessed inconsistency (CRPBI; Weinberger, Feldman, & Ford, 1989). A sample item is, Lets me do something one day and the next day I get into trouble for doing the same thing. The response format ranged from not like her (1) to a lot like her (4) and items were averaged. A higher score indicated greater inconsistency and Cronbachs alpha was .74. For maternal psychological intrusiveness, youth completed 11 items that addressed psychological intrusiveness (8 from Barber, 1996, and 3 from Bogenschneider, Small, & Tsay, 1997). A sample item is, My mom is always trying to change how I think or feel about things. The response format ranged from not like her (1) to a lot like her (4). A higher score reflected greater intrusiveness. Cronbachs alpha was .75. Background variables. Racial analyses were conducted using a subsample consisting only of the European American and African American youth. The sample sizes of youth with other racial/ethnic backgrounds were too small to be considered separately. Family structure analyses were conducted using a subsample consisting only of the youth who lived with always married parents or a divorced/separated mother. The sample sizes of youth living in other family structures such as single-parent father families were too small to include in the multiple-group analyses for family structure.

Analytic Procedures
Mediation. To test for mediating effects (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Holmbeck, 1997), the first step was to document a statistically significant association between interparental hostility and adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems (i.e., the direct effects model). Second, a model was estimated that included the parenting measures. For mediating effects to be present, the association between interparental hostility and problem behavior must be reduced in strength (partial mediation) or become statistically

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

438

Journal of Early Adolescence

nonsignificant (complete mediation). Third, the indirect pathway must be significant. The significance of the intervening pathway can be tested using any one of three general estimation methods: (a) causal step, (b) difference in coefficients, and (c) product of coefficients (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). We used the significance test based on the product of coefficients method as it has adequate power and reasonable levels of Type I error rates (MacKinnon et al., 2002). The test statistic for this method is z, and a value of .97 is significant at the p < .05 level (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Hoffman, 1998). Hypotheses were tested using SEM (AMOS 5; Arbuckle, 2003) with the significance threshold set at .05. An a priori decision was made to estimate error covariances for the Achenbach assessment of internalizing and externalizing when they were assessed by the same respondent. This was done because we expected shared method variance when using the Achenbach assessment (Bollen, 1989; Kenny & Kashy, 1992). Model fit was evaluated using the chi-square statistic and several fit indices. A nonsignificant chisquare indicated a good model fit. Because of the large sample size, however, a significant chi-square was expected for most models and three additional fit indices were examined (Byrne, 2001). The comparative fit index (CFI; Bollen & Long, 1993) is based on a comparison of the hypothesized model and the independence model (e.g., there are no relationships between the variables in the model; Byrne, 2001). The CFI ranges from 0 to 1.00 with a cutoff of .95 or higher indicating a well-fitting model and .90 indicating an adequate fit (Byrne, 2001; Hu & Bentler, 1995). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) compares the model to the projected population covariance matrix (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). RMSEA values below .05 indicate good model fit and values between .06 and .08 indicate an adequate fit (Byrne, 2001). The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) is the standardized difference between the observed covariance and predicted covariance, and a value less than .08 is considered a good fit (Bollen & Long, 1993). Moderation. In a second set of analyses, the applicability of the mediating model was examined for sons and daughters, European American and African American youth, and youth living with married parents or a divorced, residential mother. Using a step-down, sequential approach to multiple-group analyses, each examination began with a null hypothesis of no measurement or structural differences between groups. In this invariant model, all measurement (e.g., factor loadings, error variances) and the 14 structural parameters (e.g., regression coefficients) were constrained to

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility

439

equality across the groups. Next, a model was estimated that allowed only the structural parameters to vary across the two groups. In cases where the chi-square changed significantly, critical ratios were examined to locate the source of group differences.

Results
Direct Effects
Descriptive statistics and correlations appear in Table 1. Interparental hostility and youth problem behaviors were associated positively, as hypothesized, at both the indicator level (Table 1) and latent level (Figure 1). The direct effects model fit well [2(15) = 114.71; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .06 (CI .049.070); SRMR = .033]. As described in the analytic plan, two error covariances were estimated a priori: (a) youth reports of externalizing and internalizing problems, and (b) teacher reports of externalizing and internalizing problems. Both were statistically significant. Thus, using latent measures, the association between interparental hostility and adolescent problems evidenced the first condition for testing mediation, a significant direct effect. Standardized SEM regression estimates indicated that interparental hostility was related to both externalizing (.47) and internalizing (.51). Follow-up tests that constrained these paths to equality showed that the fit significantly deteriorated [2(1) = 24.03, p < .01]. Given that chi-square is sensitive to large sample sizes, we also compared the parameters using a critical ratio (C.R.) difference test. This also was significant (C.R. difference = 4.98, p < .01). These comparisons indicated that the association between interparental hostility and problem behavior was stronger for internalizing problems than for externalizing problems.

Parenting Mediating Effects

In testing the spillover hypothesis, all four parenting behaviors were included in the model. Though omitted from Figure 1 for enhanced clarity, the covariances among parenting variables were estimated in the model. These associations were small to moderate in strength, ranging from .18 (p < .01; acceptance and inconsistency) to .33 (p < .01; harshness and psychological intrusiveness). Although inconsistency and psychological intrusiveness (.66, p < .01) were related, their conceptual distinctiveness in prior research, content independence of the items, and estimation of covariances in this study justified testing for their separate effects.

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

440 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .38** .29** .25** .26** .16** .22 .27** .10** .36** .45** .35** .42** .14** .29** .38** .02 .36** .69** .37** .22** .23** .41** .08** .30** .35** .19** .22** .36** .04 .25** .26** .54** .57** .03 .43** .29** .11** .24** .13** 4.65 8.16 059 .95 110.14 6.59 052 .85 1.43 .37 13 .74 1.41 .35 13 .78 .29** .04 .29** 1.11 .15 12.1 .73 1.76 .86 17 .87 2.67 .40 13 .87 .17** .66** 11.86 8.14 056 .88 .16** 3.69 5.00 043 .87 1.17 .27 13 .84

Table 1 Interparental Hostility, Mothers Parenting, and Adolescent Problem Behavior: Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

Variable

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

Overt hostilitya Conflict intensitya Maternal acceptance Maternal hostility Maternal psychological control Maternal inconsistency Externalizingyouth reportb Externalizingteacher reportb Externalizingdevianceb Internalizingyouth reportc Internalizingteacher reportc Internalizingdepressionc

.67** .28** .45** .30** .26** .32** .15** .25** .34** .06* .30**

.21** .47** .29** .23** .35** .11** .24** .40** .01 .30**

Mean Standard deviation Range Internal consistency coefficient

1.52 .64 15 .81

1.81 .76 145 .82

Note: N = 1,893. Indicators for latent variables: a = interparental hostility; b = externalizing; c = internalizing. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility

441

Figure 1 Interparental Hostility and Early Adolescent Problem Behavior: Mediation by Four Parenting Dimensions
Acceptance .86 Harshness .12(1.75) .21 (1.40) .36 Youth Externalizing R2 = .35 TRF TR .64 Delinq YR .37 .32 (3.45) .30 (.18) Inconsistency .08 (1.51) Youth Internalizing R2 = .38 .14 (2.05) .10 (2.05) .17 (2.95) .77 .21 .85 Dep YR YSR YR

.30 (19) .56 (.76) Overt .83 .80 Intensity Interparental Hostility

.09 (.72) .24 (2.12)

.36 (.20)

TRF TR

.19 (1.51) Psychological Intrusiveness YSR YR

Note: Unstandardized estimates are in parentheses. YSR = youth self-report; YR = youth report; TRF = teachers report form; TR = teacher report.

Parenting partially mediated the association between interparental hostility and problem behavior for early adolescents (Figure 1). The direct effect of interparental hostility dropped from .47 to .24 for youth externalizing problems and from .51 to .32 for youth internalizing problems. The model fit was adequate [2(35) = 285.75; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .06 (CI .055.068); SRMR = .032]. Modification indices indicated that four additional error covariances could be estimated to improve the model fit but were not estimated for conceptual reasons (they were across parenting and outcome variables) and because the current fit was adequate (contact corresponding author for statistical details). As with the simple direct effect noted above, the remaining direct effect was stronger for internalizing problems than for externalizing problems [2(1) = 13.95, p < .01; C.R. difference = 3.78]. The unique intervening contribution of each parenting variable was evaluated using two procedures. First, the statistical significance of each pathway was estimated using the z statistic described earlier (MacKinnon et al., 2002). Second, the strength of the individual associations within a given pathway was compared across paths using the critical ratio difference test and the change in chi-square test.

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

442

Journal of Early Adolescence

Table 2 Statistical Estimate (z) of Intervening Pathways

Parenting Variable Acceptance Harshness Inconsistency Psychological intrusiveness *p < .05. Externalizing Problems 4.59* 6.69* 4.10* 3.13* Internalizing Problems 6.07* 3.02* 2.66* 5.57*

Adolescent externalizing problems. For externalizing problems, each of the four indirect paths via parenting variables was statistically significant as shown in Table 2. Because harshness showed relatively higher z values in comparison to other parenting variables, we statistically compared pathway via harshness with each of the other three pathways in three separate analyses. For example, in the first analysis, the estimates through harshness were constrained to equality with the estimates through acceptance. The estimates through the other two parenting variables (i.e., inconsistency and intrusiveness) were freely estimated. The chi-square from this model was compared to the chi-square from a model that allowed all of the structural paths to be freely estimated. In each case, the unconstrained model (freely estimated) had fit better than the constrained model, indicating that the pathway through harshness was stronger than the pathways through the other three parenting variables. Specifically, the pathway through harshness was stronger than the pathways through acceptance [2(2) = 340.63, p < .01], inconsistency [2(2) = 346.45, p < .01], and psychological intrusiveness [2(2) = 357.75, p < .01]. Follow-up analyses were conducted to determine whether the paths on the front end (interparental hostility to parenting) and the back end (parenting to externalizing) differed between harshness and the other parenting variables. For all three cases, the path from interparental hostility to harshness was stronger than each of the other three corresponding parenting variables: acceptance (C.R. difference = 17.89, p < .001), inconsistency (C.R. difference = 17.29, p < .01), and psychological intrusiveness (C.R. difference = 18.19, p < .01). No differences were observed among these other three paths or among any of the back-end comparisons. Thus, the relatively stronger path via harshness was primarily due to the significantly stronger differences on the front-end link between interparental hostility and harshness. Adolescent internalizing problems. As shown in Table 2, for internalizing problem behavior, acceptance showed the highest z values, followed by

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility

443

psychological intrusiveness. Follow-up tests were conducted between acceptance and intrusiveness for the front-end paths (interparental hostility to parenting) and the back-end paths (parenting to internalizing). The associations via acceptance were found to be similar to the associations for intrusiveness both on the front end (C.R. difference = .74, p > .05) and the back end (C.R. difference = .74, p > .05). The pairs of paths through acceptance also were compared with the pairs through harshness and inconsistency using a chi-square change statistic. The unconstrained model fit better than the model assuming similarity (invariance). Thus, the pathway through acceptance was stronger than the pathways through harshness [2(2) = 350.05, p < .01] or inconsistency [2(2) = 351.55, p < .01]. As noted above, the front end again showed significant differences between harshness and each of the other dimensions. For the back end, acceptance showed a significantly stronger path to internalizing than either harshness (C.R. difference = 4.35, p < .001) or inconsistency (C.R. difference = .2.03, p < .05). Intrusiveness also showed a significantly stronger path to internalizing than either harshness (C.R. difference = 4.34, p < .001) or inconsistency (C.R. difference = 2.15, p < .05). No differences were found between acceptance and intrusiveness or between harshness and inconsistency in these back-end paths. Thus, the relatively stronger indirect effects (z) for acceptance and psychological intrusiveness noted in Table 2 are primarily due to differences in the back-end paths. Interparental hostility linked to mothers lower acceptance and greater psychological control/intrusiveness, which in turn were linked to higher youth internalizing.

Moderating Analyses for Youth Gender, Race, and Parents Marital Status
To further examine the patterns identified above, moderation tests were conducted with youth gender, race, and parents marital status. The statistical estimates reported below refer to the unstandardized SEM regression coefficients for each group. Youth gender. The model displayed in Figure 1 was compared across daughters and sons. All of the measurement and structural parameters were constrained to equality to estimate a baseline model [2(113) = 793.69; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .056 (CI .053.060); SRMR = .047]. Using a baseline model in which parameters are fully constrained across groups is a more rigorous starting point than using an unconstrained baseline model, but it

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

444

Journal of Early Adolescence

usually results in a poorer model fit (Byrne, 2001) because all of the parameters (including the error variances) are constrained to equality. In the second model, the 14 parameters that estimated the paths from interparental hostility to adolescent problems were allowed to vary [2(99) = 755.8; CFI = .92; RMSEA = .059 (CI .055.063); SRMR = .043]. This included (a) four associations from interparental hostility to each parenting variable, (b) eight associations from the four parenting variables to the two problem behavior variables, and (c) two direct associations from interparental hostility to the two problem behavior variables. Model fit was compared using a chi-square difference test. The second model in which the structural paths were allowed to vary across daughters and sons had a better fit [2(14) = 37.89, p < .01]. The unstandardized regression coefficients were compared across sons and daughters using the critical ratio test. There were three differences: (a) the association between interparental hostility and mothers harshness was stronger for daughters (.85, p < .01) than for sons (.65, p < .01); (b) the association between mothers harshness and adolescent internalizing problems was significant for sons (1.26, p < .01) but not for daughters; and (c) the direct association between interparental hostility and adolescent internalizing problems was stronger for daughters (4.33, p < .01) than for sons (2.78, p < .01). A follow-up model was tested in which only the path from interparental hostility to adolescent internalizing problems through mothers harshness was allowed to vary across daughters and sons. The model fit improved compared to the fully constrained model but the gender pattern reversed for the association between mothers harshness and adolescent internalizing when the other structural paths were constrained to equality [2(2) = 12.14, p < .01]. The association was stronger for daughters (.85, p < .01) than for sons (.64, p < .01). Thus, the pathway from interparental hostility to adolescent internalizing problems through mothers harshness was significant for daughters and sons but was stronger for daughters. Youth race. The model displayed in Figure 1 was compared across the subsample of European American (n = 1,603) and African American (n = 152) youth. All of the measurement and structural parameters were constrained to equality to estimate a baseline model [2(113) = 691.22; CFI = .92; RMSEA = .054 (CI .050.058); SRMR = .031]. The second model in which the 14 structural parameters were allowed to vary across groups fit better than the fully constrained model [2(14) = 44.70, p < .01]. Two associations differed across European American and African American youth: (a) the association between interparental hostility and

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility

445

mothers harshness was stronger for African American youth (1.12, p < .01) than for European American youth (.71, p < .01). The association between mothers inconsistency and adolescent internalizing problems also was inverse for African American youth (3.71, p < .05, marginally significant, C.R. difference = 1.96) and positive for European American youth (1.69, p < .01). Parents marital status. The model displayed in Figure 1 was compared across the subsample of youth living with married parents (n = 1,343) and youth living with a divorced mother (n = 219). All of the measurement and structural parameters were constrained to equality to estimate a baseline model [2(113) = 777.68; CFI = .89; RMSEA = .061 (CI .057.066); SRMR = .033]. The second model in which the 14 structural parameters were allowed to vary across the two groups fit better than the fully constrained model [2(14) = 47.11, p < .01]. Four of the associations differed across groups. The association between interparental hostility and mothers harshness was stronger for youth in divorced, mother-custody families (1.00, p < .01) than for youth in married families (.71, p < .01). The associations of mothers harshness with both externalizing and internalizing problems were significant for youth in married families (1.82, 1.13, ps < .01, respectively) but not for youth in divorced, mother-custody families (.03, 0.72, ps > .05, respectively). Finally, the association between mothers psychological intrusiveness and adolescent internalizing problems was stronger for youth in divorced, mother-custody families (6.54, p < .01) than for youth in married families (2.61, p < .01).

Discussion
In the current study, each of the four parenting dimensions partially explains the association between interparental hostility and adolescent problems. Acceptance, harshness, inconsistency, and intrusiveness each play a mediational role between parents hostility and the internalizing or externalizing problems of adolescents. These specific mediation effects hold even when the covariance between these adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems is modeled. For externalizing behaviors, maternal harshness is a robust mediator between interparental hostility and adolescent problems. In fact, parents hostility more strongly relates to harshness than any other parenting construct. One explanation is that anger and frustration engendered by interparental

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

446

Journal of Early Adolescence

hostility take a toll on maternal patience. Frustration in the marital relationship then is released into aggression or harshness in the mother-adolescent relationship. A second potential explanation is that behaviors in the marital relationship extend into agonistic and harsh interactions in the parentadolescent relationship through coercive cycles maintained through negative reinforcement (Patterson, 1982). A third possible explanation is that persistent interparental conflict creates a chronically stressful condition (Harold & Conger, 1997), which weakens the capacity to respond without harshness to adolescent misbehavior. The other three maternal dimensions also partially mediate the link between parental hostility and adolescent externalizing. Greater maternal inconsistency, intrusiveness, and less acceptance each contribute to understanding the parenting mediation effect observed in this study. For inconsistency, periods of calm and tumult that characterize conflictual marital relations (Walker, 1999) undermine a sense of predictability and consistency. Instead of contingent consequences (Robbins et al., 1997), adolescents in families with parent hostility are likely to test the limits of acceptable behavior through externalizing behaviors. Similarly, maternal psychological control and lack of acceptance mediate between interparental conflict and externalizing behaviors as shown in this study. Psychological control and rejection in conditions of marital strife constrict adolescents in ways that concur with externalizing and acting out behaviors. In comparison to these externalizing findings, the patterns for internalizing problems show similar directions of effect but differences in magnitude. For internalizing problems, mothers lack of acceptance and intrusiveness play the most prominent mediation roles. To the extent that discord between parents inures the couple to antagonism and blunts relational bonds, maternal capacity for warmth and acceptance is reduced (Vandewater & Lansford, 1998). Acrimony between parents entails rejection, which, as shown here, transfers into the parent-adolescent relationship. Besides acceptance, mothers intrusiveness, too, mediates between interparental hostility and internalizing. Theoretically, hostile marital or couple relations generate a sense of powerlessness and reactive efforts to control (Walker, 1999). Blocks to healthy communication in the conflictual relationship can foster attempts to control other aspects of life, such as the parent-adolescent relationship. Manipulation, intrusiveness, and psychological control, however, disrupt healthy individuation processes (Grotevant & Cooper, 1985), resulting in an interior life that includes feelings of anxiety, loss, and depression. Though smaller in magnitude, maternal harshness and inconsistency also occupy a mediational role in the link between interparental conflict and

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility

447

internalizing. The findings provide evidence that the interparental conflict spills over into the discordant conditions of maternal harshness or inconsistency. In turn, these conditions show links to adolescent internalizing. For each of the foregoing associations, it is important to note that parenting remained only a partial mediator. Interparental hostility and adolescent problems remained somewhat related even after adding parenting constructs. Such partial mediation suggests that other factors contribute to mediation. Other candidates for mediation center on the adolescents processing of interparental hostility via a mechanism such as the adolescents felt emotional security (Davies & Cummings, 1994) or cognitive-perceptual processes (Grych & Fincham, 1990). Another possible explanation for these findings is that both parenting and marital relations are influenced by the personality of the parent. Across the Big Five personality dimensions (Costa & McCrae, 2005), for example, the personality trait of agreeableness could be hypothesized to have particular bearing in family relations. Parents with high agreeableness might be expected to be cheerful, sympathetic, and forgiving in both marital and parenting relationships. Future longitudinal research that examines both personality and parenting would bridge these two disparate lines of research. A primary objective of this study was to determine whether interparental hostility processes differ by youth gender, ethnicity, and parents marital status. In contrast to prior conjecture regarding the importance of youth gender in explaining conditions of interparental hostility (Cox et al., 2001), the only differences involved the direct and indirect paths through maternal harshness to internalizing. Specifically, the mediation path from interparental conflict to adolescent internalizing through maternal harshness was stronger for daughters than for sons. Possible mechanisms for future investigation are mothers projection of hostility onto their daughters or mother protection of sons from their marital tensions. Similar to gender, the overall patterns were similar in comparing Caucasian and African American families with two important differences. These differences both confirm and counter the attenuation hypothesis (McLoyd et al., 2001), which proposes that African American families are less affected by parents hostility. Toward disconfirmation, the connection between interparental hostility and harshness was stronger in African American families than in Caucasian families. In support of the attenuation hypothesis, however, the association between mothers inconsistency and youth internalizing problems was significant in European American families but not in African American families. The limited differences and mixed findings for ethnicity fail to support the attenuation hypothesis.

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

448

Journal of Early Adolescence

In comparing families with divorced couples and married couples, different spillover patterns emerge. As shown in this research, maternal harshness has less connection to adolescent internalizing or externalizing in conditions of divorce than in continuing marriages. One explanation is that divorce widens the sources of exposure, broadening the attributional process. Because families experiencing divorce tend to use more other-oriented attributions (Riessman, 1990), such external attributions may insulate the adolescent and defend against internalizing or externalizing behavior problems in the presence of maternal harshness. In conditions of frequent or intense divorce hostility, the findings further suggest that mothers tend to rely on intrusive or manipulative techniques to control the adolescent. The reliance on indirect control techniques follows from reduced authority that accompanies divorce as other sources exert control including adolescents fathers, the courts, and adolescents themselves. Thus, intrusive psychological control may serve short-term goals but undermine healthy adolescent individuation. One limitation of the current study is the focus on mothers. Whether the findings extend to fathers is an empirical question based on expectations for similarity or difference (Hare-Mustin, 1987). In support of similar expectations, a theoretical model suggests a basis for a collective sense of both parents (Furman & Simon, 2004), empirical evidence documents similar ratings (Gonzales et al., 2000), and prior findings show similarities across maternal and paternal parenting in relation to youth outcomes (Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000; Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1997). A second hypothesis of stronger effects for mothers draws from the significantly greater amount of time and closeness that mothers share with their children (Collins & Russell, 1991; Hosley & Montemayor, 1997). A third hypothesis, suggesting weaker effects for mothers than fathers, derives from the conceptualization that fathers are more susceptible than mothers are to context influences (Doherty, Kouneski, & Erickson, 1998). The reliance on a single timeframe for assessment and the adolescent report for parenting and conflict measures are additional limitations of this study. Reverse causal directions and bi-directionality are plausible alternative hypotheses (Bell, 1968). Externalizing or internalizing adolescent behavior, for example, could elicit harsh, rejecting, intrusive, or inconsistent maternal parenting or couple arguments over the problem behavior of the adolescent. Future longitudinal research can address such alternative hypotheses. Future research with multiple observers of parenting also can address whether associations between interparental conflict and maternal parenting are inflated by reliance on a single reporter.

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility

449

In summary, the findings show that parenting mediates the association between interparental hostility and adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems. The findings imply a potential process account of the relationship between interparental hostility and adolescent problems in early adolescence. Greater interparental hostility is associated with compromised parenting, particularly harsh parenting, which in turn is related to greater externalizing. Parents hostility also links to psychological intrusiveness and rejection, which in turn relates to adolescent internalizing problems. Interventions that reduce interparental discord or interrupt parenting consequences hold potential for reducing adolescent problems and promoting healthy adolescent development.

References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the Teachers Report Form and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual for the Youth Self-Report Form and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M., Dumenci, L., & Rescorla, L. A. (2002). Ten-year comparisons of problems and competencies for national samples of youth: Self, parent, and teacher reports. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 194-203. Almeida, D. M., Wethington, E., & Chandler, A. L. (1999). Daily transmission of tensions between marital dyads and parent-child dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 49-61. Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). Amos 5.0 update to the Amos users guide. Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319. Barber, B. K. (1997). Introduction: Adolescent socialization in contextThe role of connection, regulation, and autonomy in the family. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 5-11. Barber, B. K. (Ed.). (2002). Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 81-95. Bender, H. L., Allen, J. P., McElhaney, K. B., Antonishak, J., Moore, C. M., Kelly, H. O., & Davis, S. M. (2007). Use of harsh physical discipline and developmental outcomes in adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 227-242. Berg-Nielsen, T. S., Vikan, A., & Dahl, A. A. (2002). Parenting related to child and parental psychopathology: A descriptive review of the literature. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 529-552.

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

450

Journal of Early Adolescence

Black, A. E., & Pedro-Carroll, J. (1993). Role of parent-child relationships in mediating the effects of marital disruption. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 1019-1027. Bogenschneider, K., Small, S. A., & Tsay, J. C. (1997). Child, parent, and contextual influences on perceived parenting competence among parents of adolescents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 345-362. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley. Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (Eds.). (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bosco, G. L., Renk, K., & Dinger, T. M. (2003). The connections between adolescents perceptions of parents, parental psychological symptoms, and adolescent functioning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 179-200. Bradford, K., Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A., Maughan, S. L., Erickson, L. D., Ward, D., & Stolz, H. E. (2004). A multi-national study of interparental conflict, parenting, and adolescent functioning: South Africa, Bangladesh, China, India, Bosnia, Germany, Palestine, Colombia, and the United States. Marriage and Family Review, 35, 107-136. Brody, G. H., Ge, X., Conger, R., Gibbons, F. X., McBride-Murry, V., Gerrard, M., & Simons, R. (2001). The influence of neighborhood disadvantage, collective socialization, and parenting on African American childrens affiliation with deviant peers. Child Development, 72, 1231-1246. Brody, G. H., Kim, S., & Murry, V. M. (2005). Longitudinal links among parenting, selfpresentations to peers, and the development of externalizing and internalizing symptoms in African American siblings. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 185-205. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Buchanan, C. M., & Heiges, K. L. (2001). When conflict continues after the marriage ends: Effects of postdivorce conflict on children. In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and application (pp. 337-362). New York: Cambridge University Press. Buehler, C., Anthony, C., Krishnakumar, A., Stone, G., Gerard, J., & Pemberton, S. (1997). Interparental conflict and youth problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 6, 233-247. Buehler, C., & Gerard, J. M. (2002). Marital conflict, ineffective parenting, and childrens and adolescents maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 78-92. Buehler, C., Krishnakumar, A., Stone, G., Anthony, C., Pemberton, S., Gerard, J., & Barber, B. K. (1998). Interparental conflict styles and youth problem behaviors: A two-sample replication study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 119-132. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cabrera, N. J., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71, 127-136. Collins, W. A., & Russell, G. (1991). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle childhood and adolescence: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 11, 99-136. Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1993). Family economic stress and adjustment of early adolescent daughters. Developmental Psychology, 29(2), 206-219. Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541-561.

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility

451

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2005). A five-factor model perspective on personality disorders. In S. Strack (Ed.), Handbook of personology and psychopathology (pp. 257-270). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Cox, M., Paley, B., & Harter, K. (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. Crater, E. B. (2004). Relationships between parental psychological control, parental factors, and adolescent behaviors as reported by mothers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 2090. Crockenberg, S., & Langrock, A. (2001). The role of emotion and emotional regulation in childrens responses to interparental conflict. In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and application (pp. 129156). New York: Cambridge University Press. Cummings, E. M., Keller, P. S., & Davies, P. T. (2005). Towards a family process model of maternal and paternal depressive symptoms: Exploring multiple relations with child and family functioning. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 479-489. Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387-411. Davies, P. T., Harold, G. T., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Cummings, E. M. (2002). Child emotional security and interparental conflict. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(3), vii-viii. Davies, P. T., & Lindsay, L. L. (2001). Does gender moderate the effects of marital conflict on children? In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and application (pp. 64-97). New York: Cambridge University Press. Doherty, W. J., Kouneski, E. F., & Erickson, M. F. (1998). Responsible fathering: An overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 277-292. Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2005). Parenting, marital conflict and adjustment from earlyto mid-adolescence: Mediated by adolescent attachment style? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 97-110. Dunn, J., OConnor, T. G., & Cheng, H. (2005). Childrens responses to conflict between their different parents: Mothers, stepfathers, nonresident fathers, and nonresident stepmothers. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 223-234. Elliott, D. E., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Engfer, A. (1988). The interrelatedness of marriage and the mother-child relationship. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 104-118). Oxford: Clarendon. Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108-132. Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A., & Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model of the impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of disrupted parenting. Child Development, 61, 1112-1123. Fincham, F. D., & Grych, J. H. (1991). Explanations for family events in distressed and nondistressed couples: Is one type of explanation used consistently? Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 341-353. Forehand, R., Wierson, M., McCombs, A., Brody, G., & Fauber, R. (1989). Interparental conflict and adolescent problem behavior: An examination of mechanisms. Behavior Research Therapy, 27, 365-371.

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

452

Journal of Early Adolescence

Furman, W., & Simon, V. A. (2004). Concordance in attachment styles of mind and styles with respect to fathers and mothers. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1239-1247. Gerard, J. M., Buehler, C., Franck, K. L., & Anderson, O. (2005). In the eyes of the beholder: Cognitive appraisals as mediators of the association between interparental conflict and youth maladjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 376-384. 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., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1985). Patterns of interaction in family relationships and the development of identity exploration in adolescence. Child Development, 56, 415-428. Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and childrens adjustment: A cognitivecontextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290. Grych, J. H., Harold, G. T., & Miles, C. J. (2003). A prospective investigation of appraisals as mediators of the link between interparental conflict and child adjustment. Child Development, 74, 1176-1193. Hare-Mustin, R. (1987). The problem of gender in family therapy. Family Process, 26, 15-27. Harold, G. T., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Marital conflict and adolescent distress: The role of adolescent awareness. Child Development, 68, 333-350. Harold, G. T., Shelton, K. H., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Cummings, E. M. (2004). Marital conflict, child emotional security about family relationships and child adjustment. Social Development, 13, 350-376. Hinde, R. A., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (Eds.). (1988). Relationships within families: Mutual influences. Oxford: Clarendon. Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599-610. Hosley, C. A., & Montemayor, R. (1997). Fathers and adolescents. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 162-178). New York: John Wiley. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1996). Spillover effects of marital conflict: In search of parenting and coparenting mechanisms. In J. P. McHale & P. A. Cowan (Eds.), Understanding how family-level dynamics affect childrens development: Studies of two-parent families (pp. 57-76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kenny, D. A., & Kashy, D. A. (1992). Analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 165-172. Kovacs, M. (1992). Childrens Depression Inventory CDI manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 49, 25-44. Krishnakumar, A., Buehler, C., & Barber, B. K. (2003). Youth perceptions of interpersonal conflict, ineffective parenting, and youth problem behaviors in European-American and African-American families. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 239-260.

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility

453

Lengua, L. J., & Kovacs, E. A. (2005). Bidirectional associations between temperament and parenting and the prediction of adjustment problems in middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 21-38. Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (1999). Marital conflict, family processes, and boys externalizing behavior in Hispanic American and European American families. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 12-24. Lindsey, E. W., & Mize, J. (2001). Interparental agreement, parent-child responsiveness, and childrens peer competence. Family Relations, 50, 348-354. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Hoffman, J. M. (1998, June). A new method to test for mediation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Park City, Utah. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104. Mann, B. J., & MacKenzie, E. P. (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., Oliver, P. H., & Medina, A. M. (2001). Conceptual issues in understanding the relation between interparental conflict and child adjustment: Integrating developmental psychopathology and risk/resilience perspectives. In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and application (pp. 9-38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mazefsky, C. A., & Farrell, A. D. (2005). The role of witnessing violence, peer provocation, family support, and parenting practices in the aggressive behavior of rural adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14, 71-85. McLoyd, V. C., Harper, C. I., & Copeland, N. L. (2001). Ethnic minority status, interparental conflict, and child adjustment. In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and application (pp. 98-125). New York: Cambridge University Press. Miller, N. B., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1993). Externalizing in preschoolers and early adolescents: A cross-study replication of a family model. Developmental Psychology, 29, 3-18. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Olson, D. H., & Gorall, D. M. (2003). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (3rd ed., pp. 514548). New York: Guilford. Osborne, L. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1996). Marital conflict, parent-child relationships, and child adjustment: Does gender matter? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 48-75. Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Riessman, C. K. (1990). Divorce talk: Women and men make sense of personal relationships. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Robbins, S. P., Chatterjee, P., & Canada, E. R. (1997). Contemporary human behavior theory: A critical perspective for social work. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Rohner, R. P. (2004). The parental acceptance-rejection syndrome: Universal correlates of perceived rejection. American Psychologist, 59, 830-840. Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Childrens reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 36, 413-426.

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008

454

Journal of Early Adolescence

Schludermann, E., & Schludermann, S. (1970). Replicability of factors in the Childrens Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI). Journal of Psychology, 96, 15-23. Sirvanli-Ozen, D. (2004). Effects of marital conflict on adolescent children: A study in Turkey. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 41, 137-157. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Vintage. Stanger, C., Dumenci, L., & Kamon, J. (2004). Parenting and childrens externalizing problems in substance-abusing families. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 590-600. Stocker, C. M., & Youngblade, L. (1999). Marital conflict and parental hostility: Links with childrens sibling and peer relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 598-609. Stone, G., Buehler, C., & Barber, B. K. (2002). Interparental conflict, parental psychological control, and youth problem behavior. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 53-95). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000a). Summary file 3: P6. Race, total population. Available September 19, 2004, from http://factfinder.census.gov U.S. Census Bureau. (2000b). Summary file 3: P15. Family type by presence of own children under 18 years by age of own children, families. Available September 19, 2004, from http://factfinder.census.gov U.S. Census Bureau. (2000c). Summary file 3: P90. Poverty status in 1999 of families by family type by presence of related children under 18 years by age of related children, families. Available September 19, 2004, from http://factfinder.census.gov Vandewater, E. A., & Lansford, J. E. (1998). Influences of family structure and parental conflict on childrens well-being. Family Relations, 47, 323-330. Voydanoff, P. (2004). Work, community, and parenting resources and demands as predictors of adolescent problems and grades. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 155-173. Walker, L. (1999). The battered woman syndrome (2nd ed.). New York: Springer. Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (1999). Marital conflict management skills, parenting style, and early-onset conduct problems: Processes and pathways. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 917-927. Weinberger, D. A., Feldman, S. S., & Ford, M. E. (1989). Validation of the Weinberger Parenting Inventory for preadolescents and their parents. Unpublished manuscript.

Mark J. Benson, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Human Development at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. His research program examines parentadolescent relationships, intergenerational transmission, and adolescent developmental processes. Cheryl Buehler, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Her research focuses on family processes, particularly marital relations, parenting, and youth development. Jean M. Gerard is an associate professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University. Her research examines risk and resilience in adolescence, marital conflict, and family policy.

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008