Os Custos e Benefícios Do Desenvolvimento Do Envolvimento Das Crianças No Conflito Interparental

HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.
Author Manuscript
Published in final edited form as:

Dev Psychol. 2015 August ; 51(8): 1026–1047. doi:10.1037/dev0000024.
The Developmental Costs and Benefits of Children’s

Involvement in Interparental Conflict
Patrick T. Davies,
Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester
Jesse L. Coe,
Author Manuscript
Meredith J. Martin,
Melissa L. Sturge-Apple, and

E. Mark Cummings
Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame
Abstract
Building on empirical documentation of children’s involvement in interparental conflicts as a
weak predictor of psychopathology, we tested the hypothesis that involvement in conflict more
Author Manuscript
consistently serves as a moderator of associations between children’s emotional reactivity to

interparental conflict and their psychological problems. In Study 1, 263 early adolescents (M age =
12.62 years), mothers, and fathers completed surveys of family and child functioning at two
measurement occasions spaced two years apart. In Study 2, 243 preschool children (M age = 4.60
years) participated in a multi-method (i.e., observations, structured interview, surveys)
measurement battery to assess family functioning, children’s reactivity to interparental conflict,
and their psychological adjustment. Across both studies, latent difference score (LDS) analyses
revealed that involvement moderated associations between emotional reactivity and children’s
increases in psychological (i.e., internalizing and externalizing) problems. Children’s emotional
reactivity to interparental conflict was a significantly stronger predictor of their psychological
maladjustment when they were highly involved in the conflicts. In addition, the developmental
benefits and costs of involvement varied as a function of emotional reactivity. Involvement in
interparental conflict predicted increases in psychological problems for children experiencing high
Author Manuscript
emotional reactivity and decreases in psychological problems when they exhibited low emotional
reactivity. We interpret the results in the context of the new formulation of emotional security
theory (e.g. Davies & Martin, 2013) and family systems models of children’s parentification (e.g.,
Byng-Hall, 2002).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patrick Davies, Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in
Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, 14627. patrick.davies@rochester.edu.
Davies et al. Page 2
Author Manuscript
Keywords
interparental conflict; child coping; child emotional reactivity; child psychopathology; emotional
security
Children’s involvement in conflicts between their parents has long been regarded as a risk
factor for psychological maladjustment (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Emery, 1989;
Johnston, Roseby, & Kuehnle, 2009). Consistent with this thesis, a meta-analysis of over a
dozen studies indicated that children’s involvement in interparental conflict was a significant
correlate of their internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Rhoades, 2008). By the same
token, the modest to moderate strength of these associations highlights the need to better
understand the role children’s involvement plays in their coping and adjustment. According
to family process models (e.g., Byng-Hall, 2002; Cummings & Davies, 1996), children’s
Author Manuscript
involvement is an inextricable part of understanding the nature and developmental sequelae

of their broader constellations of responding to parental difficulties. Therefore, our primary
objective in this paper is to examine whether involvement may function more consistently as
a moderator of associations between children’s distress responses to interparental conflict
and their psychological difficulties. More specifically, we test the hypothesis that the
multiplicative interaction between involvement and distress is a consistent predictor of
children’s internalizing and externalizing symptoms even after the inclusion of each of these
forms of responding to conflict as additive predictors.
Although several conceptualizations share the assumption that involvement in interparental

conflict is an important component in understanding how children cope in high conflict
homes (e.g., Crockenberg & Langrock, 2001; Davies & Cummings, 1994; Grych &
Fincham, 1990), involvement is most prominently featured in emotional security theory
Author Manuscript
(EST; Davies & Cummings, 1994). According to EST, children’s involvement in

interparental conflict is a central barometer for difficulties in preserving a sense of emotional
security in the interparental relationship. Interpreted within this model, children’s efforts to
become involved in parental conflicts reflect their attempts to exert control over parental
emotionality and behavior before disputes can escalate and result in more serious, negative
consequences. However, children’s efforts to serve as protectors, confidantes, or emotional
caretakers of parents in the midst or aftermath of conflict require considerable forethought,
emotional investment, and personal risk. Thus, EST proposes that protracted involvement in
parental disputes over time increases children’s risk for developing internalizing and
externalizing symptoms through several mechanisms. For example, high levels of
involvement are proposed to reflect the disproportionate allocation of psychobiological
resources toward personal safety at the expense of investing in other significant goals
Author Manuscript
necessary for successful adaptation (e.g., mastery of physical and social environment). The
progressive accumulation of difficulties in resolving multiple developmental challenges, in
turn, may broadly increase children’s risk for experiencing psychopathology. Likewise, high
levels of involvement are commonly accompanied by preoccupation, helplessness, distress,
and loyalty pulls with parents and, as a result, may set the stage for more pervasive
adjustment problems (Davies, 2002).

Family systems theory converges with EST in proposing that forms of involvement in the
Author Manuscript
interparental relationship that reflect emotional preservation or enmeshment incur significant

psychological costs (e.g., Byng-Hall, 2002; Jurkovic, Morrel, & Thirkfield, 1999; Minuchin,
1974). These models maintain that distinguishing between harmful and benign forms of
involvement in adverse family circumstances requires analysis of the substance and quality
of children’s involvement strategies. Benign forms of involvement are defined by mild
forms of child caretaking behavior that maintain the child’s distinct identity and autonomy.
Conversely, developmentally destructive types of “parentification” involve excessive
emotional and psychological entanglement. The resulting dependency and enmeshment in
interparental difficulties are further proposed to increase children’s vulnerability for
subsequent psychological problems.
Taken together, family systems theory and EST share the assumption that more precisely
understanding the developmental implications of children’s involvement in conflict requires
Author Manuscript
distinguishing between different forms of involvement based on whether or not they carry
significant personal risk and emotional investment. Guided by these models, research has
differentiated between two dimensions of involvement: mediation and coercion. Mediation,
which is also known in the literature as “involvement” (Buehler, Lange, & Franck, 2007),
agentic involvement (Schermerhorn, Chow, & Cummings, 2010; Schermerhorn, Cummings,
DeCarlo, & Davies, 2007), facilitative behavior (Davis, Hops, Alpert, & Sheeber, 1998), and
proactive mediation (Shelton & Harold, 2008), is characterized by relatively benign
involvement behaviors manifested in helping, intervening, refereeing, and comforting
parents. Conversely, coercive involvement, which is synonymously referred to as aggressive
involvement (Davis et al., 1998), dysregulated involvement (Schermerhorn et al., 2010), and
overinvolvement (Shelton & Harold, 2008) in the literature, is specifically comprised of
intervention behaviors carrying high psychological burden and risk in the form of protecting
Author Manuscript
a parent, siding with one parent against the other, and confronting or arguing with parents.
Although research identifying more precise forms of involvement is still in its early stages,
empirical evidence is mixed on whether the concept of coercive involvement yields
incremental leverage in identifying children most at risk for developing psychological
problems. For example, Shelton and Harold (2008) reported that coercive involvement (i.e.,
overinvolvement), but not mediation, was a predictor of increases in children’s internalizing
and externalizing problems. However, other studies have failed to document any relationship
between coercive forms of involvement and children’s psychological problems in cross-
sectional and prospective designs (e.g., Buehler et al., 2007; Davies & Cummings, 1998).
Still other research has shown that the role of coercive involvement as a predictor of changes
in children’s adjustment was modest in magnitude and limited to a specific informant (i.e.,
Author Manuscript
child) or outcome (i.e., externalizing problems) (Davis et al., 1998; Jouriles, Rosenfield,
McDonald, & Mueller, 2014). Thus, although disaggregating involvement into multiple
dimensions may provide some traction in better characterizing children’s risk for
psychological problems, the inconsistent findings from this research highlight the
importance of adopting complementary approaches.
Our primary thesis is that the discrepancies in findings across studies reflect that children’s
involvement in interparental difficulties is an inextricable part of a broader pattern of

responding to conflict. Previous approaches to documenting associations between children’s

Author Manuscript
emotional insecurity and psychological adjustment have largely examined involvement as an

additive predictor or as part of a linear composite with other forms of reactivity to conflict.
At a theoretical level, this approach is at odds with the organizational perspective of EST
and its assumption that the developmental meaning and implications of any single form of
reactivity varies as a function of children’s other dimensions of responding to interparental
conflict (Cummings & Davies, 1996). Thus, against the backdrop of linear, additive
approaches to assessing involvement, the present paper is designed to break new ground by
examining the synergistic interplay between the two prevailing forms of involvement (i.e.,
coercion, mediation) and emotional reactivity in predicting children’s psychological
problems.
EST provides firm bases for examining emotional reactivity to interparental conflict as a
critical context for understanding the multivariate role of involvement. As with involvement,
Author Manuscript
children’s concerns about emotional security are proposed to be expressed through high
levels of emotional reactivity that are comprised of intense, prolonged fearful and distressed
reactions to interparental conflict. With its strong conceptual emphasis on children’s
emotionality in the context of interparental conflict, EST frames children’s emotional
reactivity as the cornerstone of the goal-corrected system of emotional security (Davies,
Winter, & Cicchetti, 2006). In accord with this conceptualization, the EST component of
emotional reactivity is a consistent predictor of children’s psychological problems across a
wide array of methodological approaches (e.g., naturalistic, experimental), designs (e.g.,
cross-sectional, longitudinal), and analytic models (e.g., multivariate) (e.g., Buehler et al.,
2007; Davies, Cicchetti, & Martin, 2012; Davies & Cummings, 1998). Based on the central
role emotional reactivity plays in defining security, we specifically investigate whether
coercive involvement and mediation may function as vulnerability or susceptibility factors
Author Manuscript
that moderate or alter the well-established association between children’s emotional

reactivity and children’s internalizing and externalizing symptoms.
Although questions remain about precisely how children’s forms of involvement may
moderate the risk posed by emotional reactivity, the translation of developmental
psychopathology models to EST yields three prevailing classes of models: vulnerable-stable,
vulnerable-reactive, and vulnerable-adaptive. Each of these models is explicitly designed to
offer a comprehensive characterization of involvement as a moderator by examining both
dimensions of the interaction (see Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Roisman et al., 2012).
In fully delineating involvement as a moderator of emotional reactivity, the models vary
along the dimension of how involvement alters associations between emotional reactivity
and psychopathology. By the same token, guidelines for distinguishing between the three
Author Manuscript
models in the literature also call for the analysis of whether associations between children’s
involvement and their psychological problems vary at high and low levels of emotional
reactivity.
In drawing on the developmental psychopathology taxonomy of vulnerability effects (Luthar

et al., 2000), the vulnerable-stable model shown in Figure 1a proposes that responding to
conflict characterized by high involvement, emotional reactivity, or both are comparable in
the degree to which they increase children’s vulnerability to psychological problems. Thus,

the combination of emotional reactivity and involvement does not incrementally increase
Author Manuscript
children’s disadvantage above and beyond either form of reactivity considered singly. As
denoted by the solid line in the figure, high levels of involvement specifically take a
significant and stable psychological toll on children regardless of the level of emotional
reactivity they experience during interparental conflicts. Thus, children’s emotional
reactivity in this model only predicts increases in their internalizing and externalizing
symptoms when their involvement in conflict is low (see the dotted line in Figure 1a).
Likewise, due to the mutual potency of involvement and emotional reactivity risk factors,
involvement is proposed to predict higher levels of children’s psychological problems only
when emotional reactivity is low. Although no studies have examined the interplay between
emotional reactivity and forms of involvement, the moderating role of coercive involvement
may be more likely than mediation to assume a vulnerable-stable form. More specifically, if
coercive involvement is a more potent risk factor than mediation, as some empirical findings
Author Manuscript
indicate (e.g., Davis et al., 1998; Shelton & Harold, 2008), it is plausible that both emotional
reactivity and coercion would predict children’s problems when the other form of
responding to conflict is low.
In the second conceptualization of moderation shown in Figure 1b, the vulnerable-reactive

model proposes that high involvement amplifies predictive pathways between children’s
emotional reactivity and their psychological difficulties (Luthar et al., 2000). Whereas
emotional reactivity is a relatively weak predictor of changes in children’s psychological
problems at low levels of involvement (see dotted line in Figure 1b), it may take an
exponentially greater toll on children when they are heavily involved in interparental
problems (see solid line in Figure 1b). A primary premise is that the greater psychological
immersion underlying children’s involvement in interparental conflict magnifies the impact
of children’s emotional reactivity to parental disagreements on their psychological
Author Manuscript
adjustment problems. In a corresponding fashion, the vulnerable-reactive model also

hypothesizes that children’s extensive involvement in interparental conflict only carries
significant psychological costs when it is organized by high levels of emotional reactivity.
Without an existing empirical base to guide predictions, it is premature to formulate any
firm hypotheses on the viability of identifying the vulnerable-reactive form of moderation.
However, because mediation and coercion are each characterized by some level of
emotional entanglement in conflicts (Buehler et al., 2007; Davies & Cummings, 1998;
Harold & Shelton, 2008), it is possible that associations between children’s emotional
reactivity and their psychopathology could be magnified in a vulnerable-reactive way in the
presence of either form of involvement.
As the third conceptualization of involvement as a moderator, the vulnerable-adaptive model

Author Manuscript
proposes that the meaning of children’s involvement shifts drastically from carrying
psychological disadvantages at high levels of emotional reactivity to conferring significant
adaptive benefits at low levels of emotional reactivity. Thus, as shown by the steep slope of
the solid line in Figure 1c, the vulnerable-adaptive and vulnerable-reactive models share the
hypothesis that associations between emotional reactivity and psychopathology will be
particularly evident when children are highly involved in their parents’ conflicts. However,
as the central source of distinction between the two models, the vulnerable-adaptive model
proposes that children exhibiting higher levels of involvement in parental conflicts may

actually fare substantially better in their psychological functioning when they experience
Author Manuscript
low levels of emotional reactivity. Although the form of the moderation is comparable to the
interaction proposed by differential susceptibility theory (Belsky & Pleuss, 2009), the
mechanisms postulated to underlie the effect are different. Thus, when children experience
heightened emotional reactivity to interparental conflict, high levels of involvement reflect
their prolonged difficulties preserving emotional security and, as a consequence,
disproportionately increase their vulnerability to psychological problems (Davies, 2002).
Conversely, under conditions of low emotional reactivity (e.g., low fear, distress, and
vigilance), involvement is theorized to be motivated by well-regulated, empathetic concern
for the welfare of their parents. Accordingly, involvement coupled with low emotional
reactivity may have benign ramifications for children’s mental health (Davies & Martin,
2013). Vulnerable-adaptive models presuppose that there are null associations between the
proposed moderator (i.e., mediation, coercive involvement) and outcomes (Belsky,
Author Manuscript
Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007). Therefore, by virtue of its proposed

innocuous implications for children’s development, mediation may be particularly likely to
assume the moderating role proposed in the vulnerable-adaptive model. However, due to
inconsistencies in the identification of coercion and mediation as risk factors (Buehler et al.,
2007; Davies & Cummings, 1998), it is also plausible that the both forms of involvement
may evidence vulnerable-adaptive moderating effects.
In summary, the present article is the first, to our knowledge, to test the theoretically guided
hypothesis that the multiplicative interplay between children’s emotional reactivity and
involvement in the face of interparental conflict uniquely predicts their psychological
problems. Children’s internalizing and externalizing symptoms not only have substantial
societal implications but are the most commonly investigated correlates and sequelae of
their reactivity to interparental conflict (e.g., Rhoades, 2008). Therefore, to afford a base of
Author Manuscript
comparison with the existing knowledge, we examine these two forms of psychological
problems as outcomes of the interaction between emotional reactivity and involvement. To
provide an authoritative test of the replicability of our findings, we capitalize on data drawn
from two large studies (n > 240) of children and their families that vary in their
measurement techniques, methodological designs, and developmental characteristics of the
children.
Study 1
As a first step to addressing our aims, Study 1 examined the synergistic interplay between
children’s emotional reactivity and involvement as predictors of subsequent change in
psychological maladjustment for young adolescents. Early adolescence is a highly
Author Manuscript
significant developmental period for understanding children’s coping with interparental

conflict. Research supports the premise that adolescence is a period of heightened sensitivity
to interparental problems (e.g., Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1991; Cummings,
Schermerhorn, Davies, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2006). Although no studies, to our
knowledge, have examined age differences in children’s forms of behavioral involvement
over developmental periods that include adolescence, teens have been shown to experience
stronger impulses to mediate conflicts in comparison to younger children (Cummings,
Ballard, El-Sheikh, & Lake, 1991; Davies, Myers, & Cummings, 1996). Given that both

parents and children report that the effectiveness of interventions diminishes substantially
Author Manuscript
from childhood into adolescence (Covell & Miles, 1992), heightened involvement in
conflicts may do little more than embroil adolescents in protracted discord between parents
and, in the process, increase their risk for psychological problems.
Relative to earlier developmental periods, dimensions of sensitivity to conflict are also

theorized to increase in adolescence by virtue of teens’ greater awareness of subtle
interparental difficulties and longer histories of exposure to interparental conflict
(Cummings et al., 2006; Davies et al., 1999). Increases in the temporal stability in patterns
of reactivity to family adversity in conjunction with concomitant rises in developmental
(e.g., autonomy from parents, identity development) and contextual (e.g., peak occurrence of
stressful life events) challenges during adolescence may further amplify their vulnerability
to psychological problems (e.g., Davies & Cummings, 2006; Rhoades, 2008). Consistent
with this conceptualization, metaanalytic findings revealed that associations between
Author Manuscript
children’s involvement and emotional reactivity and their internalizing and externalizing
symptoms were significantly stronger during adolescence in comparison to childhood
(Rhoades, 2008).
To rigorously address our objective, we utilized a multi-informant (i.e., adolescents,

mothers, and fathers) measurement battery nested within a longitudinal design. We selected
a two-year time window between measurement occasions based on empirical and conceptual
considerations. At an empirical level, multiple laboratories examining the sequelae of
adolescent responses to interparental conflict have examined changes in psychological
problems over two year periods (e.g., Buehler et al., 2007; Cummings et al., 2006; Shelton
& Harold, 2008). At a conceptual level, EST proposes that children’s responses to
interparental conflict set in motion the emergence of risk mechanisms that, over months or
Author Manuscript
years, gradually intensify, broaden, and crystallize into the development of children’s
psychological problems (e.g., Davies et al., 2006). This unfolding sequence of processes is
theorized to take place over a longer period (i.e. years rather than months) during
adolescence than earlier periods by virtue of progressive constraints in the plasticity of
functioning during the teen years (Frankenhuis & Del Giudice, 2012).
Methods
Participants—Data for this study were drawn from a longitudinal project on family
relationship processes and adolescent development. Participants in the larger study consisted
of 280 families with adolescents who were recruited through local school districts and
community centers in a moderate-sized metropolitan area in the Northeast and a small city
in the Midwest. However, due to our aim of examining children’s responses to interparental
Author Manuscript
conflict, families were only included in this paper if the mothers, fathers, and adolescents
had regular contact with each other. Regular contact was specifically defined as maintaining
contact as a triad for an average of 2 to 3 days per week during the year. Instituting this
criterion resulted in the exclusion of 17 families from this paper, yielding a sample of 263
mothers, fathers, and adolescents. Participants returned two years later to participate in the
second wave of data collection. The retention rate across the two-year period was 85%. The
average age of adolescents at Wave 1 was 12.62 years (SD = .57), with 50% of the sample

consisting of girls. Median household income of the families was between $55,000 and
Author Manuscript
$74,999 per year. Median education level of mothers and fathers was between some college
education and an Associate’s degree. Most parents (i.e., 89%) were married at the outset of
the study. The majority of the adolescents were White (74%), followed by smaller
percentages of African American (17%), multi-racial (8%), and other races (1%).
Approximately 4% of the adolescents were Latino. Adolescents lived with their biological
mother in most cases (93%), with the remainder living with an adoptive or stepmother (4%)
or a female guardian (3%). In addition, children lived with their biological father in the
majority of cases (79%), with the remainder of the sample living with either an adoptive or
stepfather (16%) or a male guardian (5%).
Procedures and Measures—Families visited the laboratory at one of the two research
sites. During the first wave, adolescents completed survey measures to assess their responses
to interparental conflict, and their mothers filled out demographic and family background
Author Manuscript
information. At each wave, mothers, fathers, and children completed questionnaires to

assess children’s internalizing and externalizing symptoms. All research procedures were
approved by the Institutional Review Board at both research sites prior to conducting the
study. Families were compensated monetarily for their participation.
Adolescent responses to interparental conflict: Adolescents completed three scales

derived from the Security in the Interparental Subsystem (SIS) scales to assess their
emotional reactivity and involvement (Davies, Forman, Rasi, & Stevens, 2002). Children’s
emotional reactivity was specifically indexed by children’s reports on the Emotional
Reactivity scale. The scale consists of nine items designed to capture children’s multiple,
prolonged fear and distress in response to conflict (e.g., “When my parents argue, I feel
scared”). The newer, longer version of the SIS contains two involvement scales that
Author Manuscript
distinguish between mediation and coercion (see Shelton & Harold, 2008). The “Mediation”
scale consists of six items assessing children’s efforts to intervene in the conflict through
comforting (e.g., “I try to comfort one or both of them”), distracting (e.g., “I try to distract
them by bringing up other things”), solving the problem (e.g., “I try to solve the problem for
them”), or directly interceding (e.g., “I tell them to stop fighting”). In contrast, the SIS
Coerciveness scale, which is also referred to as the Overinvolvement scale (Shelton and
Harold, 2008), contains five items that capture bossy, aversive, and domineering approaches
to interrupting parental conflicts (e.g., “I argue with one or both of them,” “I end up taking
sides with one of them,” “I tell one of my parents that he or she is wrong”). Response
alternatives for the SIS items were as follows: 1 = Not at all true of me; 2 = A little true of
me; 3 = Somewhat true of me; and 4 = Very true of me. To confirm the factor structure of the
items in the two involvement scales, we conducted a principal components analysis with
Author Manuscript
varimax rotation. The results supported a two-factor solution (e.g., eigenvalues were greater
than 1.0 for the two factors) that discriminated between the items on the Coerciveness and
Mediation subscales. Alpha coefficients were .89, .75, and. 74 for the Emotional Reactivity,
Coerciveness, and Mediation scales, respectively. The validity of the scales is supported by
their concurrent and prospective associations with children’s exposure to family conflict and
their psychological adjustment (e.g., Davies, Sturge-Apple, Bascoe, & Cummings, 2014;
Shelton & Harold, 2008).

Adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms: To obtain multi-informant

Author Manuscript
assessments of internalizing and externalizing symptoms, mothers, fathers, and adolescents

completed child psychopathology questionnaires. Mother and father reports of adolescent
psychological problems were derived from the Internalizing (e.g., “Nervous, high-strung, or
tense,” “Unhappy, sad, or depressed”) and Externalizing (e.g., “Temper tantrums or hot
temper,” “Gets in many fights”) scales from the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL;
Achenbach, Dumenci, & Rescorla, 2003). Previous studies have provided consistent
evidence for the reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of the CBCL scales
(e.g., Achenbach et al., 2003). Consistent with recommendations, we used the sum of raw
scores on the CBCL scales in the analyses. Alpha coefficients indexing internal consistency
ranged from .82 to .91 for parents across the two waves. In addition, children completed the
Conduct Problems (5 items; e.g., “I fight a lot”) and Emotional Symptoms (5 items; e.g., “I
worry a lot”; “I am often unhappy, downhearted, and tearful”) scales from the Strengths and
Author Manuscript
Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1999) to obtain assessments of externalizing

and internalizing symptoms, respectively. The psychometric properties of the two SDQ
scales have been supported in previous studies (e.g., Goodman, 1999). Internal consistencies
for the two scales across the two waves ranged from .64 to .74. The three-informant
approach specifically permitted use of mother, father, and child reports as manifest
indicators of latent constructs of internalizing and externalizing symptoms at each wave.
Covariates: Two covariates were derived from parent reports of demographic background
characteristics: (1) children’s gender (1 = boys; 2 = girls) and (2) total annual family income
based on a 13-point ordinal scale ranging from 1 (less than $6,000) to 13 ($125,000 or
more). As the third and final covariate, we assessed destructive interparental conflict based
on mother and father reports on three scales. Mother and fathers completed the 10-item
O’Leary Porter Scale to assess children’s exposure to marital hostility (OPS; Porter, &
Author Manuscript
O’Leary, 1980; e.g., “How often do you and/or your partner display verbal hostility [raised
voices, etc.] in front of your child?”). The remaining scales, which were derived from the
Conflict and Problem-Solving Scales (CPS; Kerig, 1996), reflected the frequency with
which parents and their partners engaged in (a) physically violent acts (e.g., Physical
Aggression; e.g., “Push, pull, shove, grab partner”) and (b) impasses in conflict
characterized by unresolved hostility, distress, and disengagement (e.g., Stonewalling; e.g.,
“Storm out of the house”). Internal consistencies for the maternal and paternal reports on the
four scales ranged from .78 to .91. The six scales were standardized and aggregated to form
a single, parsimonious composite of interparental conflict (α = .81).
Results
Descriptive and Preliminary Analyses—For descriptive purposes, Table 1 provides
Author Manuscript
the means, standard deviations, and correlations for primary variables in the study.
Inspection of the means for individual scales of the interparental conflict composite revealed
means that were similar to community samples of families in previous studies. For example,
means on the CPS Physical Aggression (M = 2.11, SD = 3.60) and Verbal Aggression (M =
22.92, SD = 9.21) scales were comparable to levels identified in prior working and middle
class samples of families (CPS Physical Aggression Means ranging from 2.06 to 2.14; CPS
Verbal Aggression Means ranging from 22.15 to 23.87; Crockenberg, Leerkes, & Lekka,

2006 ; El-Sheikh, Harger, & Whitson, 2001; Fosco & Grych, 2007; McConnell & Kerig,
Author Manuscript
2002).
To index change in adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems, we used latent

difference score (LDS) modeling across the two measurement occasions. LDS offers a
powerful way of testing whether the interaction predicts interindividual differences in
intraindividual changes in adjustment over time through the specification of latent change
scores (McArdle, 2009). Because our goal of identifying predictors of adolescent
psychological problems first requires demonstrating that there are significant individual
differences in intraindividual change in their symptoms, we tested this assumption by
specifying successive unconditional LDS models for internalizing and externalizing
symptoms following procedures for testing strong factorial variance (Widaman, Ferrer, &
Conger, 2010). Thus, as Figure 2 depicts, measurement equivalence across time was
maximized by placing the following constraints in the analyses: (1) fixed and free factor
Author Manuscript
loadings are identical over time; (2) factor loadings of each of the indicators of internalizing
and externalizing symptoms were constrained to be equal across time; and (3) intercepts of
the same indicators were fixed to be invariant across time. Both models fit the data well: χ2
(9, N = 263) = 15.72, p = .07, RMSEA = .05, CFI = 0.98, and χ2/df ratio = 1.75, for
internalizing symptoms; and χ2 (9, N = 263) = 14.59, p = .10, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .99, and
χ2/df ratio = 1.62, for externalizing symptoms. Moreover, statistically significant variances
of 7.31 (z = 5.07) for externalizing symptoms and 5.99 (z = 3.18) for internalizing symptoms
indicated that there were significant individual differences in mean changes in adolescent
problems from Time 1 to Time 2. Therefore, given our aim of examining why teens differ in
their psychological problems over time, we proceeded to our primary analytic goal of
examining the interplay between adolescent emotional reactivity and involvement as
predictors of changes in their internalizing and externalizing symptoms.
Author Manuscript
Primary Analyses—To test coerciveness and mediation as moderators of associations

between adolescents’ emotional reactivity and change in internalizing and externalizing
symptoms, four analytic models were conducted based on consecutively pairing emotional
reactivity with the two forms of involvement in predicting LDS change for internalizing and
externalizing symptoms separately (i.e., 1 emotional reactivity predictor × 2 forms of
involvement × 2 outcomes). For each model, we examined emotional reactivity, the specific
form of involvement, and their multiplicative product as predictors of LDS change in
adolescent psychopathology over the two-year lag in measurement occasions using
structural equation modeling (SEM). Emotional reactivity, mediation, and coercion were
centered to reduce multicollinearity in the moderator analyses. In addition, we included
exposure to interparental conflict, child gender, and family income as covariates in the
Author Manuscript
prediction of change in adolescent psychological symptoms. The same strong factorial

invariance constraints in the unconditional LDS were specified in the primary analyses
(Widaman et al., 2010). In addition, correlations were also specified between: (a) the
primary predictors (i.e., emotional reactivity and involvement), (b) the covariates, (c) the
covariates and primary predictors, (d) the Wave 1 latent construct of adolescent
psychological functioning and each of the covariates and predictors, and (e) the same
informant’s measure of psychological difficulties across the two time points. Finally,

consistent with analytic recommendations in LDS approaches, an autoregressive path was

Author Manuscript
specified between the Wave 1 latent construct of adolescent psychological functioning in

each model and the latent change in functioning from Wave 1 to Wave 2 (McArdle, 2009).
SEM analyses were conducted using full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) in Amos
22.0 to estimate missing data (i.e., data were missing for 10.0% of the values) and retain the
full sample for primary analyses (Enders, 2001).
Internalizing symptoms: The two models examining the moderating roles of adolescents’
forms of involvement in analyses of change in their internalizing symptoms provided
satisfactory to marginal representations of the data: χ2 (31, N = 263) = 79.85, p < .01,
RMSEA = .08, χ2/df ratio = 2.58, and CFI = .90 for the mediating type of involvement; and
χ2 (31, N = 263) = 108.86, p < .01, RMSEA = .10,χ2/df ratio = 3.48, and CFI = .87 for the
coercive form of involvement. In support of the measurement models, the loadings of the
manifest indicators onto the Wave 1 and 2 latent constructs of internalizing symptoms were
Author Manuscript
all significant (p < .001) and moderate to strong in magnitude (ranging from .47 to .65).
Further analysis of the structural model revealed that none of the structural paths running
from the primary predictors to latent change in internalizing symptoms were significant.
Therefore, for succinctness, the findings from the model are not presented.
Externalizing symptoms: SEM analyses testing adolescent mediation in parental conflicts

as a moderator of the association between their emotional reactivity and change in their
externalizing problems provided a good fit with the data: χ2 (33, N = 263) = 53.20, p < .05,
RMSEA = .048, χ2/df ratio = 1.61, and CFI = .97. As shown in Figure 3, the model for
adolescent externalizing symptoms yielded significant findings for the predictor and
interaction. Consistent with prior research, adolescent emotional reactivity predicted
increases in externalizing symptoms over time, β= .19, p < .05. Pertinent to the study
Author Manuscript
hypotheses, the interaction between adolescent emotional reactivity and mediation was also
significantly associated with LDS increases in externalizing symptoms over the two-year
period, β = .22, p < .01.
The moderating effect was first clarified by graphically plotting and calculating simple
slopes of emotional reactivity at high (+1 SD) and low (−1 SD) levels of adolescents’
mediation in parental conflicts. To portray the interaction across a relatively comprehensive
range of the proposed predictor (i.e., 95%), we conducted simple slope plots and
calculations at −2 SD and + 2 SD from the centered mean of emotional reactivity (see
Roisman et al., 2012). Findings from the simple slope analyses revealed that emotional
reactivity predicted increases in adolescent externalizing symptoms at high, b = 0.21, p < .
001, but not low levels, b = −0.01, p = .85, of mediation. As depicted in Figure 5a, the
Author Manuscript
graphical plot of the moderating effects revealed a disordinal (i.e., cross-over) interaction.
Although the simple slope analyses and visual inspection of the graphical plot correspond
most closely with the vulnerable-adaptive model (see Figure 1c), they do not provide a
definitive analysis of its explanatory power relative to the vulnerable-reactive model. Both
of these models posit that emotional reactivity is a stronger predictor of psychopathology
when mediation is high. Moreover, in spite of the visual similarities between the graphical
plot and the interaction proposed in the vulnerable-adaptive model, Roisman and colleagues

(2012) have cautioned against using graphical plots to examine whether moderator results
Author Manuscript
are more consistent with models proposing an ordinal interaction (i.e., vulnerable-reactive)
or a disordinal interaction (i.e., vulnerable-adaptive).
To more authoritatively test which of the moderating patterns proposed in the vulnerable-
adaptive and vulnerable-reactive models more closely corresponds with the data, statistical
guidelines call for calculating regions of significance on X (RoS on X) tests (Dearing &
Hamilton, 2006; Kochanska, Sanghag, Barry, & Philibert, 2011; Roisman et al., 2012). RoS
on X tests specifically invert the predictor and moderator to yield analyses of the
significance of the association between the moderator and outcome within the bounded
regions of the proposed predictor (i.e., + or − 2 SDs). Accordingly, the RoS on X test was
used to test whether mediation significantly predicted adolescent externalizing symptoms at
high and low levels of their emotional reactivity (Roisman et al., 2012). Support for the
vulnerable-reactive model would be evidenced by findings indicating that mediation was
Author Manuscript
significantly associated with increases in adolescent psychopathology only at high levels of

emotional reactivity. In contrast, the vulnerable-adaptive model would be supported if the
results revealed that mediation was a predictor of significant increases in externalizing
problems at high levels of emotional reactivity and significant decreases in externalizing
problems at low levels of emotional reactivity. Consistent with the vulnerable-adaptive form
of moderation, the results indicated that adolescent mediation in interparental conflict
predicted increases in externalizing symptoms at high levels (+2 SD) of emotional reactivity,
b = 0.30, p < .05, and reductions in externalizing symptoms at low (− 2 SD) levels of
emotional reactivity, b = −0.33, p = .01.
By relying on null hypothesis testing, the results of the RoS on X test vary as a function of
the sample size. Small sample sizes may specifically produce low power to detect
Author Manuscript
moderating effects proposed in the vulnerable-adaptive mode. Conversely, large samples run
the risk of producing findings in favor of the vulnerable-adaptive pattern that have little
substantive significance. Thus, as a sample-independent index for testing the relative fit of
the interaction with the vulnerable-adaptive and vulnerable-reactive models, we followed
statistical recommendations and calculated the proportion of interaction (PoI) index (e.g.,
Davies et al., 2014; Roisman et al., 2012). The PoI index consists of the ratio of improved
functioning (i.e., decreases in externalizing symptoms) for adolescents with high levels of
mediation relative to the overall aggregate of improved and impaired outcomes. If mediation
confers no significant advantages for adolescents, as the vulnerable-reactive model
proposes, then the PoI index should approach .00 (i.e., between .00 and .16). Conversely, the
ratio (i.e., PoI index) should be higher than .16 if the findings support the vulnerable-
adaptive proposal that beneficial outcomes are common for adolescents exhibiting high
Author Manuscript
levels of mediation. Strong support for the vulnerable-adaptive model would be evidenced
by PoI values between .40 and .60. In support of the vulnerable-adaptive hypothesis, the PoI
index for mediation was .54.
Figure 4 depicts the results of the SEM tests of adolescent coerciveness as a moderator of
associations between their emotional reactivity and their changes in externalizing symptoms.
The model provided a good fit with the data: χ2 (33, N = 263) = 66.66, p < .01, RMSEA = .
062, χ2/df ratio = 2.01, and CFI = .96. In accord with the hypotheses, the interaction

between adolescent emotional reactivity and coerciveness significantly predicted LDS

Author Manuscript
increases in their externalizing symptoms over the two-year period, β = .32, p < .001. The
graphical plot of the moderating effect in Figure 5b revealed a disordinal interaction similar
in shape to the moderating effect of adolescent mediation. Simple slope analyses further
indicated that adolescents’ emotional reactivity predicted increases in their externalizing
symptoms at high, b = 0.20, p < .001, but not low levels, b = −0.04, p = .50, of
coerciveness. To quantitatively compare the utility of the moderating effects proposed in the
vulnerable-adaptive and vulnerable-reactive models, we also conducted the RoS on X and
PoI tests. Consistent with the vulnerable-adaptive model, adolescent coercive involvement
predicted increases in their externalizing symptoms at high levels of emotional reactivity, b
= 0.67, p < .001, and decreases in their externalizing symptoms at low levels of emotional
reactivity, b = −0.57, p = .05. In addition, the PoI coefficient of .42 revealed strong support
for the vulnerable-adaptive model and its hypothesis that there is a relatively equal balance
Author Manuscript
of healthy and unhealthy outcomes for teens exhibiting high coerciveness across the range of
the emotional reactivity variable.
Study 2
Although the Study 1 findings showed that teen involvement served as a moderator of
prospective associations between their emotional reactivity and externalizing symptoms,
testing the bounds of generalizability and specificity of the results is advanced through
replication in a study that differs systematically in its approach. Accordingly, Study 2 was
designed to provide a complementary test of the multiplicative interplay between emotional
reactivity and involvement by varying methodological and conceptual characteristics. More
specifically, we rigorously tested the generalizability of the findings from the predominantly
White adolescents in Study 1 by examining reactivity to conflict in a racially and ethnically
Author Manuscript
diverse sample of preschool children.
According to developmental models of interparental conflict (Davies et al., 2006; Kitzmann,

Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003), preschool children adapt to interparental conflict in
developmentally distinct ways based on a unique confluence of intraorganismic and family
processes. Meta-analytic results have indicated that associations between children’s
exposure to destructive interparental conflict and their psychological problems are
particularly pronounced during the preschool period (Kitzmann et al., 2003). Moreover,
children’s patterns of responding to interparental conflict are theorized to underpin their
heightened sensitivity to interparental conflict during the preschool period. As children
traverse through the preschool years, advances in social perspective taking and information
processing abilities are posited to increase children’s concerns about the welfare of their
Author Manuscript
parents during conflicts (Davies et al., 2006). Consistent with this finding, the limited
research findings on involvement during early childhood indicate that intervention in
parental and adult disputes increases significantly from toddlerhood to the late preschool
years (Cummings, 1994; Cummings, Zahn-Waxler, & Radke-Yarrow, 1984). The limited
sophistication and effectiveness of preschooler intervention efforts may also increase their
vulnerability to subsequent psychological problems relative to school-aged children
(Cummings et al., 1984). Moreover, in comparison to older children, heightened
involvement is also commonly accompanied by preschooler experiences of greater fear,

threat, and perceived coping inefficacy in response to interparental conflict (Cummings,

Author Manuscript
Vogel, Cummings, & El-Sheikh, 1989; Grych, 1998; Jouriles, Spiller, Stephens, McDonald,
& Swank, 2000).
At a conceptual level, our objective was to examine the replicability of the Study 1 findings.
Consistent with Study 1, we examined whether children’s internalizing and externalizing
symptoms were predicted in similar or distinct ways from the synergistic interaction
between emotional reactivity and the two prevailing types of involvement in the literature:
(a) mediation, consisting of comforting, distracting, solving the problem, or directly
interceding in the conflict; and (b) coercive control, characterized by bossy, angry, and
aggressive strategies for altering the course of the conflict. However, as a further test of the
specificity and generalizability, we also expanded our multi-dimensional assessment of
involvement to examine appeasing forms of intervening in the conflict. Appeasing
involvement is specifically characterized by efforts to placate parents through inauthentic,
Author Manuscript
demonstrative displays of charm, positivity, and over-bright behavior (e.g., Emery, 1982;
Garcia O’Hearn, Margolin, & John, 1997; Johnston, et al., 2009). Although research has yet
to systematically examine the developmental implications of appeasement, different sources
of evidence highlight its prevalence in the face of interparental conflict. Practitioners have
repeatedly emphasized that responding to interparental conflict with facades of charm and
positivity is relatively common in childhood (Emery, 1982; Johnston et al., 2009).
Moreover, as an indicator of appeasement, maternal diary reports indicated 15% of children
exhibited “unusually well-behaved” responses to interparental conflict during a 5-week
period, a percentage that was relatively similar to indicators of coercive (e.g., 14%
“misbehaved”; 19% “took sides”) involvement (Garcia O’Hearn et al., 1997). Thus, as a first
foray into examining appeasement in models of children’s psychological problems, we
tested its role as a predictor and moderator in pathways between children’s emotional
Author Manuscript
reactivity and their psychological difficulties.
Finally, although parental reports of children’s overall levels of involvement in interparental

conflict have been shown to be psychometrically sound, parents’ tendencies to direct
attention towards their partners during conflicts likely undermines their ability to detect
specific displays of emotional reactivity (e.g., veiled expressions of fearful distress) and
subtle forms of involvement (e.g., appeasing behaviors). Study 2 was designed to address
this barrier through the implementation of an observational coding system that was designed
to sensitively identify children’s emotional reactivity and forms of involvement in the
context of an actual interparental disagreement. Moreover, we strengthened the multi-
informant measurement approach in Study 1 by incorporating multiple informants and
methods into the assessment battery of Study 2. In comparison to the prospective design of
Author Manuscript
Study 1, our analysis of the interactions between emotional reactivity and the forms of
involvement as predictors of subsequent change in children’s psychological adjustment also
took place over a shorter, one-year span. Our selection of narrower developmental interval
in Study 2 was guided by conceptualizations of early childhood as a period of considerable
malleability in functioning and our goal of minimizing the possibility of missing significant
change in children’s adjustment (e.g., Frankenhuis & Del Giuidice, 2012; Shaw, Bell, &
Gilliom, 2000).

Methods
Author Manuscript
Participants—Participants included 243 families (i.e., mother, intimate partner, and

preschool child) recruited through multiple agencies in a moderate-sized metropolitan area
in the Northeast. To obtain a sample from diverse demographic backgrounds, our specific
recruitment streams included, but were not limited to: local preschools, Head Start agencies,
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) programs, public and private daycare providers, and
internet sites serving children and families from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds.
The average age of children at Wave 1 was 4.60 years (SD = .44), with 56% of the sample
consisting of girls. The longitudinal design consisted of two annual measurement occasions
beginning when children were in their last year of preschool. The retention rate across the
waves was 97%.
Median household income of the families was $36,000 per year (range = $2,000 –
Author Manuscript
$121,000), with most families (69%) receiving public assistance. Approximately 19% of the
parents did not earn a high school diploma or GED, with the median education for the
sample consisting of a GED or high school diploma. Almost half of the families were Black
or African American (48%), followed by smaller percentages of families who identified as
White (43%), multi-racial (6%), or another race (3%). Approximately 16% of the family
members were Latino. At Wave 1, 99% of the mothers and 74% of their partners were
biological parents. Parents lived together an average of 3.36 years and had, on average, daily
contact with each other and the child (range = daily to two or three days a week).
Approximately half of the adults (47%) were married. Prevalence rates of interparental
conflict and aggression in the sample were comparable to other estimates in community and
national surveys. For example, mothers and fathers reports of annual rates of interparental
violence on the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2; Straus et al., 1996) were between 13% and
17%; a level similar to estimates (i.e., 16%) in national and community samples (El-Sheikh
Author Manuscript
et al., 2001; Straus et al., 1996).
Procedures and Measures—Parents and children visited our research center laboratory
at each of two annual waves of data collection. All research procedures were approved by
the Institutional Review Board prior to conducting the study. Families were compensated
monetarily for their participation.
Children’s responses to interparental conflict: To obtain observational assessments of

children’s reactivity to interparental conflict at Wave 1, mothers and their partners
participated in an interparental interaction task in which they discussed common,
problematic disagreements. Following other interparental interaction tasks (Grych, 2002;
Gordis, Margolin, & John, 2001), parents were informed during consent and prior to the
Author Manuscript
interaction that their children would join them in the room as they discuss the issues. While
the child was in a separate room, parents first selected problematic issues to discuss during
the ten-minute task. After parents selected disagreement issues that they were comfortable
discussing, an experimenter escorted the child into the room and introduced them to a set of
toys. The parents then engaged in the interaction after the experimenter left the room. The
task was video-recorded for subsequent coding.

Trained raters coded the video records of children’s reactivity to interparental conflict along
Author Manuscript
molar scales of fearful distress and the three forms of involvement, including mediation,
appeasement, and coerciveness. Each molar scale ranged from 1 (Not at all characteristic)
to 9 (Mainly characteristic). As the measure of emotional reactivity, fearful distress was
defined as children’s displays of anxiety, tension, fear, worry, vigilance, or emotional upset
through facial (e.g., open mouth staring wide-eyed), postural (e.g., freezing), or gestural
(e.g., wringing hands) expressions. Coerciveness was characterized by aversive, bossy, and
controlling behaviors that functioned to regulate family activities in a way that undermined
parental authority. Whereas mild forms of coercive control may have involved whining and
complaining, more significant levels consisted of bossy, angry, and domineering approaches
to interrupting parental activities (e.g., yelling “stop”; name-calling; triangulation by directly
siding with one parent and challenging or arguing with the other parent). Mediation, by
contrast, was reflected in forms of intervention that functioned to regulate interparental
Author Manuscript
interactions without usurping the authority of the parents. In milder forms, mediation
commonly involved some repeated, but wellregulated, and assertive efforts to interrupt the
parents without displays of irritation or protesting (e.g., asking for help with toys). At more
extreme levels requiring considerable forethought and risk, mediation was characterized by
concerted efforts to comfort or help the parents, serve as a mediator (e.g., requests or
pleading for the parents to stop bickering or get along), or very subtle forms of triangulation
that were unlikely to be identified by the alienated parent as an alliance against him or her
(e.g., subtly but selectively providing comfort to one parent). As the final form of
involvement, appeasement consisted of children’s attempts to placate the parents through
coy, ingratiating, and inauthentic, overenthusiastic behaviors that masked underlying
anxiety, apprehension, and awkwardness (e.g., sudden, unexplainable intense smiling;
reverting to “baby talk”). Two trained coders independently rated 21% of the videos to
assess interrater reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from .91 to .95.
Author Manuscript
Children’s internalizing symptoms: Mothers participated in a clinical diagnostic

interview, the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Young Children, Version IV (DISC-IV-
YC; Luby et al., 2002; Luby, Mrakotsky, Heffelfinger, Brown, & Spitnagel, 2004). The
DISC-IV-YC is a structured psychiatric interview designed for administration by lay
interviewers with minimal training. The DISC-IV-YC yields psychometrically sound,
dimensional ratings of psychopathology symptoms. Accordingly, to obtain latent constructs
of children’s internalizing symptoms at each wave, we used three dimensional assessments
based on symptom tallies (1 = present; 0 = absent) from DISC-IV-YC modules. As the first
assessment, the Major Depressive Disorder module consisted of symptom counts from 22
items (e.g., “Nothing fun / disinterested in anything/sad”; α = .74 at Wave 1 and α = .75. at
Wave 2). For the second measure, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder module was comprised
Author Manuscript
of 12 symptoms (e.g., “Worried a lot about small mistakes made on tasks or activities”; α = .
67 at Wave 1 and α = .69 at Wave 2). As the final assessment, we utilized the Separation
Anxiety Disorder module (13 symptoms; e.g., “Afraid being left without family”; α = .65 at
each Wave).
Children’s externalizing problems: Three measures were used as indicators of a latent

construct of children’s externalizing symptoms at each time point. The first two indicators

were derived from symptom tallies (1 = present; 0 = absent) from the Oppositional Defiant
Author Manuscript
Disorder (ODD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) modules of the
DISC-IV-YC psychiatric interview with the mother. The ODD scale contained 12 items
(e.g., “Done things just to annoy people/make them mad”), and the ADHD scale consisted
of 23 items (e.g., “Often had trouble waiting for turns [as in standing in line]”). Alpha
coefficients were .87 and .83 for the ODD scale at Waves 1 and 2, respectively, and .87 at
Wave 1 and .90 at Wave 2 for the ADHD scale. As the final indicator, mothers completed
the externalizing scale from the MacArthur Health and Behavior Questionnaire (HBQ;
Ablow et al., 1999). The externalizing scale is comprised of the sum of the 31 items from
Oppositional Defiant (e.g., “Has temper tantrums or hot temper”), Conduct Problems (“Lies
or cheats”), Overt Hostility (“Kicks, bites, or hits other children”), and Relational
Aggression (“Tries to get others to dislike a peer”) subscales. Responses alternatives for
each scale were: 0 (Never or not true), 1 (Sometimes or somewhat true), and 2 (Often or very
Author Manuscript
true). Internal consistencies for the scale were .90 at Wave 1 and .92 at Wave 2.
Covariates: Consistent with Study 1, two demographic covariates derived from an

interview with the mother at Wave 1 included (a) child gender and (b) total annual
household income. To control for the potential confounding effects of children’s exposure to
destructive interparental conflict, two trained raters coded the video records for maternal and
partner hostility in the interparental interaction task to generate an interparental conflict
variable. The interparental conflict variable specifically consisted of coder ratings of
maternal and partner Anger and Aggression on molar scales. Whereas the Anger scale was
designed to assess facial expressions, verbalizations, and postural and gestural displays of
irascibility, frustration, and irritation, the Aggression scale indexed verbalizations and
behaviors that were intended to harm the partner either physically or psychologically (e.g.,
demeaning, insulting, name-calling, threatening, cruel remarks). Each molar scale ranged
Author Manuscript
from 1 (Not at all characteristic) to 9 (Mainly characteristic). Interrater reliability

coefficients, which were calculated based on two coders’ independent ratings of 20% of the
interactions, ranged from .91 to .95 across maternal and partner anger and aggression codes.
In accord with Study 1, the four observational ratings of destructive conflict were
standardized and aggregated to form a single composite of interparental conflict (α = .73).
Results
Descriptive and Preliminary Analyses—For descriptive purposes, Table 2 provides
the means, standard deviations, and correlations for primary variables in the study.
Consistent with Study 1, we assessed change in internalizing and externalizing symptoms
through the use of LDS modeling across the two waves using strong factorial variance
procedures to maximize measurement equivalence across time (Widaman et al., 2010).
Author Manuscript
Following the Study 1 procedures (see Figure 2 for a conceptual illustration), we first tested
separate unconditional LDS models for internalizing and externalizing symptoms to
determine whether there was sufficient variability in intraindividual changes in children’s
psychological problems to proceed to our primary analyses (McArdle, 2009). Both models
fit the data well: χ2 (9, N = 243) = 25.72, p = .23, RMSEA = .088, CFI = 0.97, and χ2/df ratio
= 2.86 for internalizing symptoms; and χ2 (9, N = 243) = 11.35, p = .25, RMSEA = .033, CFI
= 1.00, and χ2/df ratio = 1.26, for externalizing symptoms. Statistically significant variances

of 9.19 (z = 4.72) for externalizing symptoms and 3.74 (z = 5.52) for internalizing symptoms
Author Manuscript
indicated that there were significant individual differences in mean changes in children’s
problems from Time 1 to Time 2. Therefore, we proceeded to our primary goal of examining
children’s forms of involvement as a moderator of associations between their emotional
reactivity and internalizing and externalizing symptoms.
Analytic Plan—To test the moderator hypotheses, six analytic models were estimated
based on successively coupling children’s emotional reactivity with each of the three forms
of involvement in predicting LDS change for internalizing and externalizing symptoms
separately (i.e., 1 predictor × 3 forms of involvement × 2 outcomes). Consistent with the
unconditional LDS analyses, strong factorial invariance procedures were implemented in
modeling change in child adjustment (i.e., the loadings and intercepts of the same indicators
across time were constrained to be equal). As depicted in the conceptual illustration in
Figure 6, emotional reactivity, involvement in the conflict (i.e., mediation, appeasement, or
Author Manuscript
coerciveness), and their multiplicative product were examined as predictors of LDS change
in children’s internalizing or externalizing symptoms while also specifying the Wave 1 form
of child adjustment (i.e., autoregressive path), child gender, family income, and interparental
conflict as covariates. As continuous predictors, the child reactivity variables (i.e., emotional
reactivity, mediation, appeasement, and coerciveness) were centered to reduce
multicollinearity in the moderator analyses. In accord with the analytic approach in Study 1,
correlations were also specified between: (a) the primary predictors (i.e., emotional
reactivity and the form of involvement), (b) the covariates, (c) the covariates and primary
predictors, (d) the Wave 1 latent construct of children’s psychological functioning and each
of the covariates and predictors, (e) the same measure of psychological difficulties across
the two time points (see Figure 6). Structural equation models were estimated using full-
information maximum likelihood (FIML) in Amos 22.0 to estimate missing data (i.e., data
Author Manuscript
were missing for 2.1% of the values) and retain the full sample for primary analyses
(Enders, 2001).
Primary Analyses—Table 3 shows the standardized loadings of the manifest indicators

onto their latent constructs for each of the six analytic models. In support of the
measurement model, all loadings were significant (all ps < .001) and strong in magnitude,
ranging from .67 to .78. Fit indices for the models were all satisfactory. For succinctness, we
report the mean and range of key fit indices across the six analytic models: (a) mean χ2/df
ratio = 2.24 (range = 2.02 to 2.43); (b) mean RMSEA = .072 (range .065 to .076); and (c)
mean CFI = .94 (range = .92 to .96).
Externalizing symptoms: Results of the structural models depicting the interplay between
Author Manuscript
children’s emotional reactivity and each of the forms of involvement are shown in the left
panel of Table 4 under columns designated as Models 1a (mediation), 1b (appeasement), and
1c (coerciveness). None of the main effects involving emotional reactivity, forms of
involvement, or covariates as predictors of LDS change in externalizing symptoms were
significant. As hypothesized, the interaction between children’s emotional reactivity and
mediation was significantly associated with increases in externalizing symptoms over the
one-year period, β = .22, p < .01. The moderating effect was first clarified by graphically

plotting and calculating simple slopes of emotional reactivity at high (+1 SD) and low (−1
Author Manuscript
SD) levels of children’s mediation in the parental conflict. Consistent with recommendations
followed in Study 1 (Roisman et al., 2012), we conducted simple slope plots and
calculations at −2 SD and + 2 SD from the centered mean of emotional reactivity. Findings
from the simple slope analyses revealed that emotional reactivity predicted increases in
children’s externalizing symptoms at high, b = 0.46, p < .05, but not low levels, b = −0.19, p
= .22, of mediation. Likewise, the graphical plot depicted in Figure 7a revealed a disordinal
interaction that is similar to the form of the Study 1 plot and the vulnerable-adaptive model.
To more definitely characterize the nature of the interaction and its similarity to the
vulnerable-adaptive model, we calculated the same quantitative indices used in Study 1.
First, the RoS on X test was conducted to examine whether mediation was significantly
associated with externalizing symptoms at high (+ 2 SD) and low (− 2 SD) levels of
emotional reactivity. The results indicated that children’s mediation in interparental conflict
Author Manuscript
predicted higher externalizing symptoms at high levels (+2 SD) of emotional reactivity, b =
0.53, p < .05. Conversely, higher mediation was associated with decreases in externalizing
symptoms when children exhibited low levels (−2 SD) of emotional reactivity, b = −0.51, p
< .05. As a further index of the relative viability of each of the three moderator models in
Figure 1, we calculated the PoI interaction index, or ratio of the improved outcomes of
children evidencing high involvement relative to the aggregate of both improved and
impaired outcomes. In accord with the findings from Study 1, the resulting PoI value of .49
fell within the range of strong support (i.e., .40 to .60) for the vulnerable-adaptive model.
Internalizing symptoms: The right panel of Table 4 under the Models 2a (mediation), 2b
(appeasement), and 2c (coerciveness) displays the moderator results of emotional reactivity
and each form of involvement in predicting children’s internalizing symptoms. Consistent
Author Manuscript
with prior associations between initial level and change in psychological functioning (King,
King, McArdle, Shalev, & Doron-LaMarca, 2009), the specification of the autoregressive
path revealed that Wave 1 levels of internalizing symptoms were negatively correlated with
its subsequent change over time in each of the models, with βs ranging from −.40 to −.42, all
ps < .001. For the appeasement and coerciveness analyses, significant paths between child
gender and change in internalizing symptoms (βs = .15 and .16, ps < .05) revealed that girls
evidenced greater increases in internalizing symptoms than did boys. Finally, inspection of
children’s responses to interparental conflict as predictors (i.e., the Predictors section of
Table 4) showed that emotional reactivity predicted greater internalizing symptoms over
time for the mediation, β = .16, p < .05, and coerciveness, β = .18, p < .05, models. Of
greater relevance to the aims of the study, the interaction between emotional reactivity and
involvement significantly predicted latent changes in children’s internalizing symptoms for
Author Manuscript
appeasement (Model 2b), β = .16, p < .05, and coerciveness (Model 2c), β = .21, p < .01
models, but not the mediation (Model 2a) analysis. The graphical plot for the moderating
role of appeasement is shown in Figure 7b. Simple slope analyses revealed that children’s
emotional reactivity predicted increases in their internalizing symptoms at high, b = 0.35, p
< .01, but not low levels, b = −0.04, p = .73, of appeasement. Results of the RoS on X and
PoI tests for appeasement revealed a similar pattern to the moderating findings for mediation
in predicting children’s externalizing symptoms. Appeasing behavior was associated with

increases in children’s internalizing symptoms at high levels (+2 SD) of emotional

Author Manuscript
reactivity, b = 0.33, p < .05. In contrast, appeasing behavior predicted significant decreases
in internalizing symptoms over time when children exhibited low levels (−2 SD) of
emotional reactivity, b = −0.33, p < .05. Likewise, the PoI coefficient of .50 revealed strong
support for the vulnerable-adaptive model and its hypothesis that there is a comparable
balance of improved and impaired outcomes for high involvement across the range of the
emotional reactivity variable.
Figure 7c shows the graphical plot for the moderating effects of coerciveness. In the simple
slope analyses, emotional reactivity predicted increases in children’s internalizing symptoms
over the one-year period only at high levels of coerciveness, b = 0.49, p < .001. Emotional
reactivity failed to predict children’s internalizing symptoms at low levels of coerciveness, b
= −0.07, p = .60. In accord with the other moderator results, the RoS on X test further
revealed that coercive control predicted increases in internalizing symptoms when children
Author Manuscript
experienced heightened (+ 2 SD) emotional reactivity, b = 0.51, p < .01. Conversely, at low
levels of emotional reactivity, children’s coercive control was associated with lower levels
of internalizing symptoms over time, b = −0.30, p < .05. Finally, although the PoI index of .
26 was lower than the other interactions, it still fell well above the cutoff (.16) for providing
support for the vulnerable-adaptive over vulnerable-reactive model.
General Discussion
Children’s involvement has been conceptualized as a pathogenic process in several theories
of interparental conflict (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Emery, 1989; Grych & Fincham,
1990). However, research on involvement as a predictor of child psychopathology has
yielded inconsistent findings even when it is operationalized in EST as a sign of insecurity
Author Manuscript
(e.g., Buehler et al., 2007). Increasing emphasis on identifying higher-order patterns of

children’s reactivity in EST raises the possibility that involvement primarily serves as a
moderator of other signs of emotional security (Davies & Martin, 2013). Thus, as the central
mechanism underlying the organization of the emotional security system, we examined
whether the role of children’s emotional reactivity to interparental conflict as a predictor of
their internalizing and externalizing symptoms varied as a function of their involvement in
the conflicts. Against a research landscape that has yet to test the developmental
implications of the synergistic interplay between signs of children’s insecurity in the
interparental relationship, the findings of this study were novel in demonstrating that the
interaction between children’s emotional reactivity and involvement predicted subsequent
increases in children’s psychological symptoms. Across the two studies, vulnerability to
adjustment problems was disproportionately greater for children who exhibited high levels
Author Manuscript
of emotional reactivity in conjunction with heightened involvement in interparental

conflicts. Less consistency, however, was evident if the moderating effects of the forms of
involvement are interpreted in relation to children’s specific forms of maladjustment. Thus,
although prospective associations between children’s emotional reactivity and their
externalizing symptoms varied significantly as a function of their mediation in conflicts
across both studies, children’s coercive involvement varied across the two studies in whether
its role as a moderator of emotional reactivity was applicable in predicting their
externalizing symptoms (Study 1) and internalizing symptoms (Study 2).

Consistent with previous research (e.g., Buehler et al., 2007; Davies & Cummings, 1998),
Author Manuscript
findings from both studies indicated that emotional reactivity to conflict predicted increases
in child psychopathology (i.e., externalizing problems for adolescents in Study 1;
internalizing symptoms for children in Study 2). However, the main effects in the analyses
were regularly qualified by interactions between children’s emotional reactivity and
involvement. In dissecting the interactions, findings across the two studies consistently
revealed that children’s emotional reactivity predicted subsequent psychological problems
only when they exhibited heightened involvement in parental conflicts. More specifically,
the selectivity of emotional reactivity as a risk was evidenced at high levels of multiple
forms of involvement, including mediation, appeasement, and coercive control.
The findings beg the question of why different forms of involvement magnified the negative
sequelae of children’s emotional reactivity to interparental conflict. On the one hand, it is
possible that common processes underlie the moderating role of each type of involvement.
Author Manuscript
For example, regardless of whether involvement is expressed specifically through directly

managing (i.e., mediation), dominating (i.e., coercive), or indirectly placating (i.e.,
appeasing behavior) upset parents, the different types of intervention may signify common
underlying enmeshment in adverse family events (Davies & Forman, 2002). If the
dimensions of involvement each reflect high investment in parental quarrels, then it follows
that fear, worries, and distress in high conflict homes may only become psychologically
burdensome for children when they are also regularly entangled in adult problems. On the
other hand, different forms of involvement may also give rise to similar moderating effects
through the operation of different mechanisms. For example, by virtue of its more potent
aversive qualities relative to mediating and appeasing behaviors, coercive methods of
managing interparental conflicts may evoke more negativity from parents, place strain on
their relationship with the children, and ultimately undermine the quality of their own
Author Manuscript
romantic relationship (e.g., Schermerhorn et al., 2007). Resulting increases in children’s

exposure to family discord, in turn, may catalyze the risk posed by children’s emotional
reactivity over time. In accord with this possibility, research has shown that children’s
emotional insecurity in the interparental relationship is a stronger predictor of their
psychological problems when they experience more parenting difficulties, parent-child
relationship difficulties, and family disengagement (Davies, Harold, Goeke-Morey, &
Cummings, 2002).
However, exclusively interpreting the effects of involvement in altering associations

between emotional reactivity and children’s psychopathology does not permit a
comprehensive characterization of its moderating role. More specifically, it does not afford
an authoritative analysis of whether the potentiating role of involvement is vulnerable-
Author Manuscript
reactive or vulnerable-adaptive in form. Although both models propose that emotional

reactivity is a stronger predictor of children’s psychological problems when involvement is
high, they differ in their conceptualization of whether involvement confers any conditional
advantages for children. The vulnerable-reactive model proposes that involvement is
generally maladaptive regardless of the degree of emotional reactivity experienced by
children (see Figure 1b). Although the vulnerable-adaptive model shares the hypothesis that
involvement may be a risk factor when emotional reactivity is high, it is distinctive in
theorizing that high levels of involvement may decrease children’s vulnerability for

psychopathology when emotional reactivity is low (see Figure 1c). Follow-up analyses
Author Manuscript
designed to directly test the comparative fit of the two complementary predictions
consistently supported the vulnerable-adaptive model over the vulnerable-reactive model.
Across all five significant interactions, high involvement was a significant predictor of
increases in psychological problems when children experienced high levels of emotional
reactivity, but also of decreases in psychological problems when they exhibited low levels of
emotional reactivity. Moreover, the PoI index indicated that the proportion of the interaction
that reflected advantageous psychological outcomes fell between .24 and .54 (M = .44),
values that were well within the range for supporting the hypothesis that involvement has
adaptive and maladaptive implications depending on the level of emotional reactivity.
Our findings are consistent with the new pattern-based formulation of EST (Davies &
Martin, 2013). According to this framework, involvement in the context of high levels of
emotional reactivity may be characteristic of a “mobilizing” profile of vigorously defending
Author Manuscript
against threat posed by interparental conflict while also proactively maintaining ties with the
parents. A primary prediction is that this mobilizing profile may increase both internalizing
and externalizing symptoms over time by engendering hypervigilance to social stimuli, self-
consciousness, proclivity to experience shame, and impulsive and attention-seeking forms of
risk-taking. Supporting this hypothesis, the results collectively indicated that heightened
emotional reactivity and involvement predicted subsequent increases in internalizing
symptoms in some analyses and greater externalizing symptoms in other analyses. In
contrast, the pattern-based version of EST also proposes that involvement coupled with low
levels of emotional reactivity may represent a broader “secure” pattern of responding
indicative of well-regulated empathetic concern for the parents. Thus, when involvement is
part of a broader pattern of security (i.e., low emotional reactivity), it may reduce children’s
psychological problems by facilitating the enactment of: (a) affiliative goals and the
Author Manuscript
accompanying acquisition of social skills and (b) caregiving goals and their cultivation of
empathy, sympathy, and helping behavior.
The vulnerable-adaptive moderating results for involvement may also inform distinctions
drawn between adaptive and destructive parentification in family systems conceptualizations
(e.g., Byng-Hall, 2002; Jurkovic et al., 1999). In these frameworks, adaptive parentification
is differentiated from destructive parentification based on an analysis of whether the quality
(e.g., brief, developmentally appropriate) of children’s involvement in family affairs
preserves or promotes children’s autonomy. Our findings indicate that emotional reactivity
may be a key source for discriminating between these two forms of parentification.
Consistent with this interpretation, Byng-Hall (2002) proposed that destructive
parentification results from children who organize their distress and fear of their caregivers
Author Manuscript
into strategies designed to control parental behavior. In contrast, involvement under

conditions of low fearful distress (i.e., emotional reactivity) may signify self-confidence and
self-efficacy that ultimately promotes the development of competence and identity.
Discussion of the limitations of the study is also necessary in fully interpreting the findings.
Although confidence in our conclusions are bolstered by the replication of findings across
studies and different forms of involvement, the moderating findings for involvement do not
distinguish between internalizing and externalizing symptoms in readily interpretable ways.

For example, based on empirically documented links between aggressive forms of

Author Manuscript
involvement in family conflict and children’s externalizing symptoms (e.g., Davis et al.,
1998), it might be expected that coercive ways of intervening in interparental conflicts
would have increased children’s externalizing symptoms when emotional reactivity was
high. However, our results from Study 2 revealed that the interplay between coerciveness
and emotional reactivity specifically predicted increases in children’s internalizing
symptoms. Likewise, appeasing behaviors in interpersonal contexts that are likely to evoke
high levels of emotional reactivity (i.e., threatening, unsupportive) have been hypothesized
to specifically increase internalizing symptoms (e.g., Gilbert, 2001). In contrast, our findings
indicated that children who exhibited high levels of emotional reactivity and appeasing
forms of involvement were at disproportionately higher risk for developing externalizing
symptoms over time. Our analyses did not permit direct tests of whether the moderating
effects of the various forms of involvement differed significantly from each other in the
Author Manuscript
prediction of children’s internalizing and externalizing problems. Thus, without further

research, it would be premature to draw any conclusions about the existence of differential
pathways between emotional reactivity and the different forms of involvement and specific
types of psychological problems.
Moreover, although our null findings on associations between forms of involvement and
psychological problems correspond with empirical inconsistencies in the broader literature,
it is important to note that other conceptual and methodological approaches to capturing
involvement may increase its power as a predictor of children’s adjustment. First, different
ways of operationalizing involvement might produce different patterns of results. For
example, individual differences in the level of planfulness and sophistication in involvement
strategies may be meaningfully associated with different child adjustment outcomes
(Cummings et al., 1991). Second, it is possible that different design and analytic approaches
Author Manuscript
to assessing prospective associations between forms of reactivity to interparental conflict

and children’s adjustment might yield stronger effects for involvement. For example,
multilevel modeling analyses revealed that intraindividual increases in involvement over
time were associated with corresponding rises in children’s externalizing problems (Jouriles
et al., 2014). Third, although our findings are bolstered by replication across our samples of
families who varied widely in demographic backgrounds, caution should be exercised in
translating these findings to high-risk or clinical samples of children. Fourth, our approach
does not rule out the possibility that the interplay between emotional reactivity and forms of
involvement in interparental conflict contexts is a proxy for children’s temperament or their
broader styles of coping with a wide array of stressful situations. By the same token, prior
research has shown that emotional reactivity and involvement in contexts of interparental
conflict are distinct from broader patterns of psychological functioning in their composition
Author Manuscript
and power to predict children’s mental health outcomes (e.g., Cummings, George, McCoy,
& Davies, 2012; Davies, Manning, & Cicchetti, 2013; Davies, Martin, & Cicchetti, 2012). In
addition, analyses between these forms of reactivity to interparental conflict and broader
indices of emotional and behavioral reactivity to stimuli from the two datasets in this paper
generally yielded weak to modest correlations, thereby providing further support for the
unique nature of emotional reactivity and involvement as constructs. (Results of
correlational analyses from the two studies are available from the authors upon request).

Finally, our goal of exploring children’s involvement in conflict as a moderator of pathways

Author Manuscript
between their emotional reactivity and adjustment problems within two age periods does not
definitively address some important developmental questions. At this early stage of research,
little is known about whether the synergistic interaction between emotional reactivity and
involvement is associated with outcomes in childhood and adolescence through different or
similar mechanisms. On the one hand, coercive forms of involvement in conjunction with
emotional reactivity may increase vulnerabilities through common pathways in childhood
and adolescence. For example, as part of a coercive transactional process, negative reactivity
to interparental conflict by children and adolescents is proposed to ultimately increase their
psychological problems by evoking difficulties between parents over time (e.g.,
Schermerhorn et al., 2010). On the other hand, adolescents may share similar outcomes with
children through different configurations of protective and risk mechanisms. For example,
the likelihood of experiencing psychological problems in the wake of high emotional
Author Manuscript
reactivity and involvement (e.g., mediation) may increase in adolescence by virtue of their
greater sensitivity to detect and comprehend the negative repercussions of interparental
difficulties for the family (Davies, Myers, Cummings, & Heindel, 1999). By the same token,
these heightened developmental vulnerabilities may be counteracted by the greater abilities
of teens to actively regulate distress through cognitively structuring and distancing
themselves from interparental difficulties (Sandler, Tein, & West, 1994). Therefore, more
research is needed to systematically explore the differences and commonalities in the
mechanisms and sequelae of involvement across developmental periods.
In conclusion, our findings incrementally advance the knowledge on children’s coping with
interparental conflict by offering the first test of the multiplicative interplay between
emotional reactivity and forms of involvement as predictors of their psychological
maladjustment. Building on previous empirical documentation of involvement as a weak to
Author Manuscript
modest predictor of children’s psychopathology, our findings indicated that involvement

functioned more consistently as a moderator of children’s emotional reactions to
interparental conflict. Across both studies, prospective associations between emotional
reactivity to interparental conflict and psychological symptoms were more pronounced for
children who exhibited high levels of involvement in their parents’ disagreements. In
addition, the developmental benefits and costs of involvement varied as a function of
emotional reactivity. Consistent with the pattern-based formulation of EST and family
systems models (e.g., Byng-Hall, 2002; Davies & Martin, 2013), involvement in
interparental conflict predicted increases in psychological problems for children who
exhibited high emotional reactivity and decreases in psychological problems when children
experienced low levels of emotional reactivity.
Author Manuscript
Acknowledgments
Study 1 was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH57318) awarded to Patrick T. Davies
and E. Mark Cummings. Study 2 was supported by the Eunice Shriver Kennedy National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development (R01 HD065425) awarded to Patrick T. Davies and Melissa L. Sturge-Apple. Study 2
was conducted at Mt. Hope Family Center, University of Rochester. The authors are grateful to the children,
parents, and community agencies who participated in these projects. We would also like to thank Mike Ripple, the
Mt. Hope Family Center Staff, and the personnel at the Universities of Rochester and Notre Dame who assisted on
these projects.

References
Author Manuscript
Ablow J, Measelle JR, Kraemer HC, Harrington R, Luby J, Smider N, et al. The MacArthur Three-
City Outcome Study: Evaluating multi-informant measures of young children’s symptomatology.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 1999; 38:1580–
1590.10.1097/00004583-199912000-00020 [PubMed: 10596259]
Achenbach TM, Dumenci L, Rescorla LA. DSM-oriented and empirically based approaches to
constructive scales from the same item pools. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology.
2003; 32:328–340.10.1023/A:1021700430364 [PubMed: 12881022]
Belsky J, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH. For better and for worse: Differential
susceptibility to environmental influences. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2007;
16:300–304.10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00525.x
Belsky J, Pluess M. Beyond diathesis–stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences.
Psychological Bulletin. 2009; 135:885–908.10.1037/a0017376 [PubMed: 19883141]
Buchanan CM, Maccoby EE, Dornbusch SM. Caught between parents: Adolescents’ experience in
divorced homes. Child Development. 1991; 62:1008–1029.10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01586.x
Author Manuscript
[PubMed: 1756653]
Buehler C, Lange G, Franck KL. Adolescents’ cognitive and emotional responses to marital hostility.
Child Development. 2007; 78:775–789.10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01032.x [PubMed: 17517004]
Byng-Hall J. Relieving parentified children’s burdens in families with insecure attachment patterns.
Family Process. 2002; 41:375–388.10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41307 [PubMed: 12395565]
Covell K, Miles B. Children’s beliefs about strategies to reduce parental anger. Child Development.
1992; 63:381–390.10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01634.x [PubMed: 1611941]
Crockenberg S, Langrock A. The role of specific emotions in children’s responses to interparental
conflict: A test of the model. Journal of Family Psychology. 2001; 15:163–
182.10.1037/0893-3200.15.2.163 [PubMed: 11458627]
Crockenberg SC, Leerkes EM, Lekka SK. Pathways from marital aggression to infant emotion
regulation: The development of withdrawal in infancy. Infant Behavior and Development. 2007;
30:97–113.10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.11.009 [PubMed: 17292783]
Cummings EM. Marital conflict and children’s functioning. Social Development. 1994; 3:16–
Author Manuscript
36.10.1111/j.1467-9507.1994.tb00021.x
Cummings EM, Ballard M, El-Sheikh M, Lake M. Resolution and children’s responses to interadult
anger. Developmental Psychology. 1991; 27:462–470.10.1037//0012-1649.27.3.462
Cummings EM, Davies PT. Emotional security as a regulatory process in normal development and the
development of psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology. 1996; 8:123–139.10.1017/
S0954579400007008
Cummings EM, George MRW, McCoy KP, Davies PT. Interparental conflict in kindergarten and
adolescent adjustment: Prospective investigation of emotional security as an explanatory
mechanism. Child Development. 2012; 83:1703–1715.10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01807.x
[PubMed: 22694264]
Cummings EM, Schermerhorn AC, Davies PT, Goekey-Morey MC, Cummings JS. Interparental
discord and child adjustment: Prospective investigations of emotional security as an explanatory
mechanism. Child Development. 2006; 77:132–152.10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00861.x [PubMed:
16460530]
Cummings EM, Vogel D, Cummings JS, El-Sheikh M. Children’s responses to different forms of
Author Manuscript
expression of anger between adults. Child Development. 1989; 60:1392–1404.10.2307/1130929

[PubMed: 2612248]
Cummings EM, Zahn-Waxler C, Radke-Yarrow M. Developmental changes in children’s reactions to
anger in the home. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1984; 25:63–74.10.1111/j.
1469-7610.1984.tb01719.x [PubMed: 6693527]
Davies PT. Conceptual links between Byng-Hall’s Theory of Parentification and the Emotional
Security Hypothesis. Family Process. 2002; 41:551–555.10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41317.x
[PubMed: 12395575]

Davies PT, Cicchetti D, Martin MJ. Towards greater specificity in identifying associations among
interparental aggression, child emotional reactivity to conflict, and child problems. Child
Author Manuscript
Development. 2012; 83:1789–1804.10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01804.x [PubMed: 22716918]

Davies PT, Cummings EM. Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin. 1994; 116:387–411.10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.387 [PubMed: 7809306]
Davies PT, Cummings EM. Exploring children’s emotional security as a mediator of the link between
marital relations and child adjustment. Child Development. 1998; 69:124–139.10.1111/j.
1467-8624.1998.tb06138.x [PubMed: 9499562]
Davies, PT.; Cummings, EM. Interparental discord, family process, and developmental
psychopathology. In: Cicchetti, D.; Cohen, DJ., editors. Developmental Psychopathology, Vol3:
Risk, disorder, and adaptation. 2. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2006. p. 86-128.
Davies PT, Forman EM. Children’s patterns of preserving emotional security in the interparental
subsystem. Child Development. 2002; 73:1880–1903.10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00512 [PubMed:
12487500]
Davies PT, Forman EM, Rasi JA, Stevens KI. Assessing children’s emotional security in the
interparental subsystem: The Security in the Interparental Subsystem (SIS) scales. Child
Author Manuscript
Development. 2002; 73:544–562.10.1111/1467-8624.00423 [PubMed: 11949908]

Davies PT, Harold GT, Goeke-Morey M, Cummings EM. Children’s emotional security and
interparental conflict. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 2002; 67:1–
129.10.1111/1540-5834.00205
Davies PT, Manning LG, Cicchetti DD. Tracing the developmental cascade of children’s insecurity in
the interparental relationship: The role of stage-salient tasks. Child Development. 2013; 84:297–
312.10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01844.x [PubMed: 22925122]
Davies PT, Martin MJ, Cicchetti DD. Delineating the sequelae of destructive and constructive
interparental conflict for children within an evolutionary framework. Developmental Psychology.
2012; 48:939–955.10.1037/a0025899 [PubMed: 22004336]
Davies PT, Martin MJ. The reformulation of emotional security theory: The role of children’s social
defense in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology. 2013; 25:1435–
1454.10.1017/S09545794130000709 [PubMed: 24342849]
Davies PT, Myers RL, Cummings EM. Responses of children and adolescents to marital conflict
scenarios as a function of the emotionality of conflict endings. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1996;
Author Manuscript
42:1–21.
Davies PT, Myers RL, Cummings EM, Heindel S. Adult conflict history and children’s responses to
conflict: An experimental test. Journal of Family Psychology. 1999; 13:610–628.
Davies PT, Sturge-Apple ML, Bascoe SM, Cummings EM. The legacy of early insecurity histories in
shaping adolescent adaptation to interparental conflict. Child Development. 2014; 85:338–
354.10.1111/cdev.12119 [PubMed: 23647368]
Davies PT, Winter MA, Cicchetti D. The implications of emotional security theory for understanding
and treating childhood psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology. 2006; 18:707–
735.10.1017/S0954579406060354 [PubMed: 17152397]
Davis BT, Hops H, Alpert A, Sheeber L. Child responses to parental conflict and their effect on
adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology. 1998; 12:163–177.10.1037/0893-3200.12.2.163
Dearing E, Hamilton LC. Contemporary advances and classic advice for analyzing mediating and
moderating variables. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 2006;
71:88–104.10.1111/j.1540-5834.2006.00406.x
Author Manuscript
El-Sheikh M, Harger J, Whitson SM. Exposure to interparental conflict and children’s adjustment and
physical health: The moderating role of vagal tone. Child Development. 2001; 72:1617–
1636.10.1111/1467-8624.00369 [PubMed: 11768136]
Emery RE. Family Violence. American Psychologist. 1989; 44:321–328.10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.321
[PubMed: 2653142]
Enders CK. A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data.
Structural Equation Modeling. 2001; 8:128–141.10.1207/S15328007SEM0801_7

Fosco GM, Grych JH. Emotional expression in the family as a context for children’s appraisals of
interparental conflict. Journal of Family Psychology. 2007; 21:248–
Author Manuscript
258.10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.248 [PubMed: 17605547]

Frankenhuis WE, Del Giudice M. When do adaptive developmental mechanisms yield maladaptive
outcomes? Developmental Psychology. 2012; 48:628–642.10.1037/a0025629 [PubMed:
21967567]
Garcia O’Hearn H, Margolin G, John RS. Mothers’ and fathers’ reports of children’s reactions to
naturalistic marital conflict. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.
1997; 36:1366–1373.10.1097/00004583-199710000-00018 [PubMed: 9334549]
Gilbert P. Evolutionary approaches to psychopathology: the role of natural defences. Australian &
New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2001; 35:17–27.10.1046/j.1440-1614.2001.00856.x [PubMed:
11270452]
Goodman R. The extended version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a guide to child
psychiatric caseness and consequent burden. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1999;
40:791–799.10.1111/1469-7610.00494 [PubMed: 10433412]
Gordis EB, Margolin G, John RS. Parents’ hostility in dyadic marital and triadic family settings and
Author Manuscript
children’s behavior problems. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. 2001; 69:727–
734.10.1037/0022006X.69.4.727 [PubMed: 11550741]
Grych JH. Children’s appraisals of interparental conflict: Situational and contextual influences. Journal
of Family Psychology. 1998; 12:437–453.10.1037/0893-3200.12.3.437
Grych, JH. Marital relationships and parenting. In: Bornstein, MH., editor. Handbook of parenting:
Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers; 2002. p. 203-225.
Grych JH, Fincham FD. Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework.
Psychological Bulletin. 1990; 111:434–454.10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.267 [PubMed: 1594720]
Johnston, J.; Roseby, V.; Kuehnle, K. In the name of the child: A developmental approach to
understanding and helping children of conflict and violent divorce. New York, NY: Springer
Publishing; 2009.
Jouriles EN, Spiller L, Stephens N, McDonald R, Swank P. Variability in adjustment of children of
battered women: The role of child appraisals of interparent conflict. Cognitive Therapy and
Research. 2000; 24:233–249.10.1023/A:1005402310180
Author Manuscript
Jouriles EN, Rosenfield D, McDonald R, Mueller V. Child involvement in interparental conflict and
child adjustment problems: A longitudinal study of violent families. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology. 2014; 42:693–704.10.1007/s1082-013-9821-1 [PubMed: 24249486]
Jurkovic, GJ.; Morrell, R.; Thirkield, A. Assessment of childhood parentification: Guidelines for
researchers and clinicians. In: Chase, N., editor. Burdened children: Theory, research, and
treatment of parentification. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999. p. 92-113.
Kerig PK. Assessing the links between interparental conflict and child adjustment: The conflicts and
problem-solving scales. Journal of Family Psychology. 1996; 10:454–
473.10.1037/0893-3200.10.4.454
King DW, King LA, McArdle JJ, Shalev AY, Doron-LaMarca S. Sequential temporal dependencies in
associations between symptoms of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder: An application of
bivariate latent difference score structural equation modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research.
2009; 44:437–464.10.1080/00273170903103308
Kitzmann KM, Gaylord NK, Holt AR, Kenny ED. Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-
Author Manuscript
analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2003; 71:339–

352.10.1037/0022-006X.71.2.339 [PubMed: 12699028]
Kochanska G, Sanghag K, Barry RA, Philibert RA. Children’s genotypes interact with maternal
responsive care in predicting competence: Diathesis-stress or differential susceptibility?
Development and Psychopathology. 2011; 23:605–616.10.1017/S0954579411000071 [PubMed:
23786699]
Luby JL, Heffelfinger AK, Mrakotsky C, Hessler MJ, Brown K, Hildebrand T. Preschool major
depressive disorder (MDD): preliminary validation for developmentally modified DSM-IV

criteria. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2002; 41:928–937.
[PubMed: 12162628]
Author Manuscript
Luby JL, Mrakotsky C, Heffelfinger A, Brown K, Spitznagel E. Characteristics of depressed

preschoolers with and without anhedonia: Evidence for a melancholic depressive subtype in young
children. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 2004; 161:1998–2004.10.1176/appi.ajp.
161.11.1998 [PubMed: 15514399]
Luthar SS, Cicchetti D, Becker B. The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for
future work. Child Development. 2000; 71:543–562.10.1111/1467-8624.00164 [PubMed:
10953923]
McArdle JJ. Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual
Review of Psychology. 2009; 60:577–605.10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163612
McConnell MC, Kerig PK. Assessing coparenting in families of school-agee children: Validation of
the coparenting and family rating system. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 2002; 34:44–
58.
Minuchin, S. Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1974.
Porter B, O’Leary K. Marital discord and childhood behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child
Author Manuscript
Psychology. 1980; 8:287–295.10.1007/BF00916376 [PubMed: 7410730]

Rhoades KA. Children’s responses to interparental conflict: A meta-analysis of their associations with
child adjustment. Child Development. 2008; 79:1942–1956.10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01235.x
[PubMed: 19037959]
Roisman GI, Newman DA, Fraley R, Haltigan JD, Groh AM, Haydon KC. Distinguishing differential
susceptibility from diathesis-stress: Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects.
Development and Psychopathology. 2012; 24:389–409.10.1017/S0954579412000065 [PubMed:
22559121]
Sandler IN, Tein JY, West SG. Coping, stress, and psychological symptoms of children of divorce: A
cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Child Development. 1994; 65:1744–1763.10.2307/1131291
[PubMed: 7859552]
Schermerhorn AC, Chow SM, Cummings EM. Developmental family processes and interparental
conflict: Patterns of micro-level influences. Developmental Psychology. 2010; 46:869–
885.10.1037/a0019662 [PubMed: 20604608]
Author Manuscript
Schermerhorn AC, Cummings AC, DeCarlo CA, Davies PT. Children’s influence in the marital
relationship. Journal of Family Psychology. 2007; 21:259–269.10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.259
[PubMed: 17605548]
Shaw DS, Bell RQ, Gilliom M. A truly early starter model of antisocial behavior revisited. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review. 2000; 3:155–172.10.1023/A:1009599208790 [PubMed:
11225751]
Shelton KH, Harold GT. Interparental conflict, negative parenting, and children’s adjustment:
Bridging links between parents’ depression and children’s psychological distress. Journal of
Family Psychology. 2008; 22:712–724.10.1037/a0013515 [PubMed: 18855507]
Widaman KF, Ferrer E, Conger RD. Factorial invariance within longitudinal structural equation
models: Measuring the same construct across time. Child Development Perspectives. 2010; 4:10–
18. [PubMed: 20369028]
Author Manuscript

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 1.
a. Conceptual illustration of the vulnerable-stable form of moderation.
b. Conceptual illustration of the vulnerable-reactive form of moderation.
c. Conceptual illustration of a vulnerable-adaptive form of moderation.

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 2.
Author Manuscript
A conceptual illustration of the specification of unconditional latent difference score models.

τ and λ denote factor loadings and intercepts, respectively. λ11 and λ21 are fixed to 1.
Loading constraints include λ21 = λ22 and λ31 = λ32. Intercept invariance is as follows: τ11 =
τ12; τ21 = τ22; and τ31 = τ32.
Author Manuscript

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 3.
Author Manuscript
The Study 1 LDS model of adolescents’ mediation and emotional reactivity to interparental
conflict as predictors of change in their externalizing symptoms over a two-year period.
Significant structural paths are bolded. For clarity, only significant correlations among
predictors and covariates are included in the figure. * p < .05.

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 4.
Author Manuscript
The Study 1 LDS model of adolescents’ coercive involvement and emotional reactivity to
interparental conflict as predictors of change in their externalizing symptoms over a two-
year period. Significant structural paths are bolded. For clarity, only significant correlations
among predictors and covariates are included in the figure. * p < .05.

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 5.
a. A graphical plot of the interaction between adolescent emotional reactivity and mediation
in predicting LDS change in their externalizing symptoms over a two-year period.
b. A graphical plot of the interaction between adolescent emotional reactivity and
coerciveness in predicting LDS change in their externalizing symptoms over a two-year
period.

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 6.
A conceptual illustration of Study 2 LDS analyses of the interaction between children’s
emotional reactivity and involvement in predicting children’s psychological symptoms.
Author Manuscript

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 7.
a. A graphical plot of the interaction between children’s emotional reactivity and their
mediation in predicting changes in their externalizing symptoms over a one-year period.
b. A graphical plot of the interaction between children’s emotional reactivity and their
appeasement in predicting changes in their internalizing symptoms over a one-year period.
c. A graphical plot of the interaction between children’s emotional reactivity and their
Author Manuscript
coerciveness in predicting changes in their internalizing symptoms over a one-year period.

Author Manuscript

Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Table 1
Means, Standard deviations, and Correlations for the Primary Variables in the Study 1 Analyses.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Davies et al.
Wave 1 Covariates
1. Child Gender 0.50 0.50 –
2. Household Income 8.47 3.14 −.06 –
3. Interparental Conflict 0.00 0.71 .03 −.22* –
Wave 1 Child Reactivity to Conflict
4. Emotional Reactivity 14.63 5.61 .09 −.15* .20* –
5. Mediation 12.48 3.97 .06 −.10 .14* .34* –
6. Coerciveness 6.36 2.23 −.04 −.17* .17* .35* .30* –
Wave 1 Internalizing Symptoms
7. Paternal CBCL 5.58 5.10 .05 −.13* .22* .15* .02 .12 –
8. Maternal CBCL 5.87 5.43 .11 −.10 .24* .02 −.05 −.01 .42* –
9. Child SDQ 2.12 2.23 .24* −.19* .13* .41* .05 .26* .26* .25* –
Wave 1 Externalizing Symptoms
10. Paternal CBCL 5.65 6.53 −.08 −.26* .13* .07 .02 .30* .52* .26* .22* –
11. Maternal CBCL 5.62 6.14 −.13* −.16* .19* .03 −.11 .23* .31* .48* .23* .66* –
12. Child SDQ 1.79 1.82 −.10 −.22* .08 .22* .00 .35* .17* .09 .46* .53* .45* –
13. Paternal CBCL 4.51 5.38 .09 −.22* .21* .09 −.07 .11 .63* .25* .26* .42* .32* .17* –
14. Maternal CBCL 4.78 4.82 .16* −.18* .18* .04 −.04 .12 .37* .61* .19* .29* .44* .09 .42* –

15. Child SDQ 2.33 2.32 .34* −.16* .11 .15* .06 .00 .24* .25* .46* .11 .04 .11 .26* .29* –
16. Paternal CBCL 4.93 6.28 −.07 −.23* .15* .17* −.01 .39* .51* .13 .22* .74* .60* .39* .62* .30* .07 –
17. Maternal CBCL 4.76 5.55 −.08 −.25* .12 .14* −.04 .39* .31* .27* .26* .59* .76* .45* .32* .47* .08 .70* –
18. Child SDQ 1.84 1.80 −.12 −.32* .13 .21* −.01 .26* .14* .07 .18* .35* .34* .35* .20* .17* .20* .37* .48*
Note. Child gender: 1= boys; 2 = girls. p ≤ .05.

Page 37
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for the Primary Variables in the Study 2 Analyses
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Davies et al.
Wave 1 Covariates
1. Child Gender 1.44 0.50 –
2. Household Income 41.18 23.20 .05 –
3. Interparental Conflict 0.00 0.74 −.02 −.14* –
Wave 1 Child Reactivity to Conflict
4. Emotional Reactivity 2.89 1.62 −.06 −.08 .22* –
5. Mediation 3.56 2.02 .06 .14* −.11 −.17* –
6. Appeasing 3.11 1.94 −.13* . 13* .03 .02 .39* –
7. Coerciveness 2.48 2.27 −.06 −.08 −.11 −.10 .31* . 00 –
8. DISC Depression 3.71 3.05 .02 −.02 .05 .10 .00 . 07 .18* –
9. DISC Generalized Anxiety 1.76 1.92 −.08 −.10 .12 .19* −.10 . 10 −.01 .59* –
10. DISC Separation Anxiety 2.78 2.18 −.15* −.22* .16* .07 −.02 . 04 .11 .54* 46* –
11. DISC ODD 5.28 3.04 .13* .19* .03 −.04 .20* .07 .15* .48* .26* .30* –
12. DISC ADHD 8.71 5.40 .09 −.14* .08 −.02 .02 −.02 .18* .51* .32* .40* .49* –
13. HBQ Externalizing 8.25 7.07 .08 −.03 .19* .07 −.06 −.05 .06 .31* .20* .24* .52* 49* –
14. DISC Depression 3.18 2.93 .10 −.09 .10 .15* .10 −.01 .11 .50* .31* .37* .39* .48* .33* –

15 DISC Generalized Anxiety 1.89 2.04 .04 .02 .04 .19* −.01 .13 .10 .40* .49* .32* .25* .31* .15* .57* –
16. DISC Separation Anxiety 2.32 2.17 .01 −.19* .17* .11 .01 .03 .14* .34* .34* .51* .30* .39* .17* .53* .54* –
17. DISC ODD 4.76 3.34 .07 .14* .08 .02 .14* .03 .12 .39* .13 .30* .63* .32* .43* .55* .35* .36* –
18. DISC ADHD 8.44 5.99 .18* −.19* .15* .05 −.03 −.06 .12 .48* .35* .40* .44* .74* .46* .62* .34* .42* .47* –
19. HBQ Externalizing 7.95 7.62 .08 −.11 .15* .05 −.05 .00 .09 .36* .18* .31* .47* .43* .76* .42* .20* .25* .54* .56*
Note. Child gender: 1 = female; 2 = male. p ≤ .05.

Page 38
Table 3
Standardized Loadings of the Indicators of the Latent Psychological Problems Variables in the Study 2 LDS
Author Manuscript
Analyses
Loadings of the Indicators for Each Model
Dependent Measures Child Mediation Child Appeasing Child Coerciveness

Internalizing Symptoms Model
W1 DISC Depression .77 .77 .78
W1 DISC Generalized Anxiety .73 .73 .72
W1 DISC Separation Anxiety .69 .69 .69
W2 DISC Depression Symptoms .78 .78 .79
W2 DISC Generalized Anxiety .71 .72 .71
W2 DISC Separation Anxiety .71 .71 .70
Externalizing Symptoms Model
Author Manuscript
W1 DISC ODD Symptoms .72 .71 .72

W1 DISC ADHD .67 .68 .68
W1 HBQ Externalizing Behavior .72 .73 .71
W2 DISC ODD Symptoms .72 .70 .71
W2 DISC ADHD .70 .72 .72
W2 HBQ Externalizing Behavior .76 .77 .76
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Table 4
Results of Standardized Structural Paths in the Study 2 LDS Analyses Examining the Interplay Between Emotional Reactivity and the Three Forms of
Involvement
Davies et al.
Δ Externalizing Symptoms Δ Internalizing Symptoms
Model 1a Model 1b Model 1c Model 2a Model 2b Model 2c

Covariates:
Child Gender .08 .12 .11 .14 .15* .16*
Interparental Conflict .05 .06 .06 .07 .08 .07
Family Income −.16 −.16 −.15 −.03 .01 .01
Autoregressive Path −.08 −.07 −.06 −.42* −.40* −.42*
Predictors:
Emotional Reactivity .10 .04 .06 .16* .13 .18*
Mediation .00 – – .11 – –
Emot. Reactivity × Mediation .22* – – .11 – –
Appeasing – .04 – – .00 –

Emot. Reactivity × Appeasing – .00 – – .16* –
Coercive – – −.01 – – .12

Emot. Reactivity × Coercive – – .06 – – .21*
Note. Columns with the “a”, “b”, and “c” suffixes depict the results of analytic models examining children’s mediation, appeasing behavior, and coercive control, respectively.
*
p < .05.

Page 40

Os Custos e Benefícios Do Desenvolvimento Do Envolvimento Das Crianças No Conflito Interparental

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Os Custos e Benefícios Do Desenvolvimento Do Envolvimento Das Crianças No Conflito Interparental

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HHS Public Access

Published in final edited form as:

The Developmental Costs and Benefits of Children’s

Melissa L. Sturge-Apple, and

consistently serves as a moderator of associations between children’s emotional reactivity to

involvement is an inextricable part of understanding the nature and developmental sequelae

Although several conceptualizations share the assumption that involvement in interparental

(EST; Davies & Cummings, 1994). According to EST, children’s involvement in

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

interparental relationship that reflect emotional preservation or enmeshment incur significant

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

responding to conflict. Previous approaches to documenting associations between children’s

emotional insecurity and psychological adjustment have largely examined involvement as an

that moderate or alter the well-established association between children’s emotional

In drawing on the developmental psychopathology taxonomy of vulnerability effects (Luthar

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

In the second conceptualization of moderation shown in Figure 1b, the vulnerable-reactive

adjustment problems. In a corresponding fashion, the vulnerable-reactive model also

As the third conceptualization of involvement as a moderator, the vulnerable-adaptive model

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007). Therefore, by virtue of its proposed

significant developmental period for understanding children’s coping with interparental

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

Relative to earlier developmental periods, dimensions of sensitivity to conflict are also

To rigorously address our objective, we utilized a multi-informant (i.e., adolescents,

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

information. At each wave, mothers, fathers, and children completed questionnaires to

Adolescent responses to interparental conflict: Adolescents completed three scales

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

Adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms: To obtain multi-informant

assessments of internalizing and externalizing symptoms, mothers, fathers, and adolescents

Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1999) to obtain assessments of externalizing

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

To index change in adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems, we used latent

Primary Analyses—To test coerciveness and mediation as moderators of associations

prediction of change in adolescent psychological symptoms. The same strong factorial

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

consistent with analytic recommendations in LDS approaches, an autoregressive path was

specified between the Wave 1 latent construct of adolescent psychological functioning in

Externalizing symptoms: SEM analyses testing adolescent mediation in parental conflicts

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

significantly associated with increases in adolescent psychopathology only at high levels of

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

between adolescent emotional reactivity and coerciveness significantly predicted LDS

diverse sample of preschool children.

According to developmental models of interparental conflict (Davies et al., 2006; Kitzmann,

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

threat, and perceived coping inefficacy in response to interparental conflict (Cummings,

reactivity and their psychological difficulties.

Finally, although parental reports of children’s overall levels of involvement in interparental

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

Participants—Participants included 243 families (i.e., mother, intimate partner, and

et al., 2001; Straus et al., 1996).

Children’s responses to interparental conflict: To obtain observational assessments of

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

Children’s internalizing symptoms: Mothers participated in a clinical diagnostic

Children’s externalizing problems: Three measures were used as indicators of a latent

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

Covariates: Consistent with Study 1, two demographic covariates derived from an

from 1 (Not at all characteristic) to 9 (Mainly characteristic). Interrater reliability

Dev Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 August 01.

Primary Analyses—Table 3 shows the standardized loadings of the manifest indicators