1 23

Journal of Child and Family Studies ISSN 1062-1024 J Child Fam StudDOI 10.1007/s10826-012-9684-z

Predictors of Parental Communication andCooperation Among Divorcing Spouses

Ricky Finzi-Dottan & Orna Cohen

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is

for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you

wish to self-archive your work, please use the

accepted author’s version for posting to your

own website or your institution’s repository.

You may further deposit the accepted author’s

version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s

request, provided it is not made publicly

available until 12 months after publication.

ORIGINAL PAPER

Predictors of Parental Communication and Cooperation AmongDivorcing Spouses

Ricky Finzi-Dottan • Orna Cohen

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Abstract The present study seeks to identify parental

communication and cooperation as predictors of successful

co-parenting in Israel during the divorce process. Self-

report questionnaires assessing three types of predictors

(parent personality characteristics, social and contextual

factors and child characteristics) were completed by 123

divorcing mothers and 94 divorcing fathers. Two stepwise

hierarchical regressions, one for parental communication

and one for cooperation, showed that gender (female) and

use of negotiation to resolve conflicts were the major

predictors of both. These variables affected co-parenting

both independently and in interaction with the personality

characteristics of defense mechanism use and optimism.

The differential contributions support the hypothesis of

communication and cooperation as separate components of

successful co-parenting, and the value of studying both.

Clinically, these findings may be used to help improve co-

parenting during divorce.

Keywords Divorce �Co-parenting �Defense mechanisms �Optimism � Child’s temperament

Introduction

Co-parenting after divorce refers to parents’ ongoing

mutual involvement with issues related to their children

(Ahrons and Wallisch 1987). This includes cooperation as

well as support of each other’s parental endeavors and

relationships (McHale et al. 2004). Co-parental communi-

cation, which involves speaking about the children, facili-

tates cooperation. In this context, cooperation means

sharing responsibility for childrearing tasks and treating the

other parent with consideration and respect (Beck et al.

2008). Research on post-divorce co-parenting relationships

presents them on a continuum from cooperative to highly

conflictual (Ahrons and Rodgers 1987). Optimal co-par-

enting depends on the parents’ ability to communicate

constructively and to cooperate in matters related to their

children (e.g., McHale et al. 2004). Ideally, the divorced

parents put aside their anger and hostility and cooperate for

their children’s sake, but the literature on divorce attests to

the great difficulty in accomplishing this task (Amato

2000) and to the detrimental consequences for children of

parents who fail (Amato 2000). Post-divorce parental

hostility has been linked to adjustment, and to psycholog-

ical, social and cognitive problems in children (e.g.,

Cummings et al. 2004), as well as paternal distancing and

reduced father involvement in the children’s lives (e.g.,

Coley and Hernandez 2006). Conversely, cooperative

communication about parenting issues has been linked to

greater paternal post-divorce involvement (e.g., Rettig and

Leichtentritt 2001), and to children’s emotional and eco-

nomic stability (e.g., Bodenmann et al. 2007). Given the

importance of positive co-parenting after divorce, attempts

have been made to determine its predictors. Findings point

to roughly three types of predictors: pre-, peri-, and post-

divorce. Pre-divorce features include the parents’ personal

and relational features (e.g., socioeconomic status, educa-

tion, attachment style, and father’s closeness to his children

before the divorce; Baum and Shnit 2003). Peri-divorce

features include less hostile divorce proceedings (Emery

R. Finzi-Dottan (&)

School of Social Work, Bar Ilan University, 52900 Ramat Gan,

Israel

e-mail: rikifnz@biu.013.net.il

O. Cohen

School of Social Work, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel

123

J Child Fam Stud

DOI 10.1007/s10826-012-9684-z

Author's personal copy

et al. 2005) and greater satisfaction with the division of

assets (e.g., Bonach 2005). Post-divorce features include

support and custody arrangements (e.g., Madden-Derdich

and Leonard 2002). Virtually all studies, however, were

conducted after the divorce, and although considerable

attention has been paid to post-divorce parental relations

(e.g., Ganong et al. 2011), very little has been directed to

the co-parenting relationship and its predictors during the

divorce process itself.

Researchers studying the divorce process generally

point to the separation period before the legal divorce is

completed as the most stressful stage for parents and

children alike (e.g., Beck et al. 2004). This is a time of

great uncertainty and emotional turmoil, involving the need

to begin the difficult psychological task of separating one’s

spousal role from one’s parental role to be able to parent

jointly, even as one ceases to be a husband or wife (e.g.,

Madden-Derdich and Leonard 2002). As the relationship

between former spouses can be hostile, especially in the

initial post-separation period, they often blame each other

for their feelings of hurt, which may lead to fantasies of

revenge and retaliation, or even to physical violence (e.g.,

Jaffe et al. 2008; Levite and Cohen 2012). The changes,

emotional upheaval and difficult tasks that characterize this

often-protracted period can be emotionally draining and

energy consuming, impeding parents’ ability to attend to

their children’s needs at a time when the latter are under

intense stress. They can also place great strain on parents’

co-parenting ability, especially because of the tendency for

the spouse’s negative qualities to become more salient and

his or her positive qualities more difficult to acknowledge

(Sullivan 2008).

To investigate parental communication and cooperation,

we adopted Belsky’s model of parenting determinants

(Belsky 1984; Belsky and Barends 2002), which postulates

that parenting features are influenced by three sets of factors:

parent personality characteristics, such as psychological

functioning; child characteristics, represented in our study

by temperament; and social and contextual factors, such as

parental relationships, including family support.

Parents’ Characteristics

Traditionally, scholars have viewed men’s role as family

provider and women’s role as wife and mother as influ-

encing their marital relationship pattern. Whereas men are

concerned with the family’s economic needs, it is assumed

that women are more focused on and sensitive to the

emotional needs and well-being of both their children and

their husbands (e.g., Quirouette and Pushkar-Gold 1992).

In Israel, although 70 % of the women work, their work is

secondary to child rearing (Cohen 2003). The expressive

functions in the family are generally attributed to women,

and instrumental functions to men (Eliot 2009). In a similar

vein, both cognitive development theory and feminist

psychoanalytic theory claim that interpersonal relation-

ships and obligations are more important for women than

for men (Gilligan 1991). Given these differences, one

might expect divorcing women to be more considerate than

divorcing men regarding their spouses’ needs, and to be

more communicative about their children. Indeed, despite

changes in family gender roles in past decades, recent

studies show that wives are reported to be more coopera-

tive with their husbands than vice versa (e.g., Margolin

et al. 2001). However, differences in how men and women

experience the divorce process raise questions about this

pattern. Among other differences, women tend to be more

heavily invested in the family, and feel more aggrieved by

the termination of the relationship (e.g., Madden-Derdich

and Leonard 2002). Two differences might be especially

relevant. One is that divorced mothers still receive custody

much more often than divorced fathers (Hacker 2005). The

other is that most women continue to view themselves as

mothers after divorce (Riessman 1990), whereas approxi-

mately one third of divorced men cease to function as

fathers (e.g., Scott et al. 2007). Gaining custody of their

children and continuing to have motherhood central to their

identity might affect co-parenting among divorced women

in one of two ways: they might become more communi-

cative about their children than divorcing fathers, and more

considerate of their separating spouses’ needs vis-a-vis

their children; or alternatively, they might appropriate the

parental role to themselves and block the fathers’ access to

their children (e.g., Markham et al. 2007). In the latter,

divorcing mothers might cease to be communicative and

considerate. Hence, we could not hypothesize how indi-

viduals’ gender would impact their co-parenting.

Personality Characteristics

Clinicians (e.g., Counts and Sacks 1985) view personality as

the major factor affecting the individual’s ability to cope

with the psychological missions inherent in the divorce

process and, hence, as an important factor affecting parental

functioning and the post-divorce co-parental relationship.

Their claims are supported, to some extent, by considerable

empirical evidence that links personality to both marital

relations and parenting (e.g., Ganiban et al. 2009).

For the most part, however, research into the role of

personality in co-parenting has focused only on a small

number of personality features, namely, self-differentia-

tion, narcissism and attachment (Baum and Shnit 2003;

Donner 2006; Ehrenberg et al. 1996; Cohen & Finzi-Dottan

2005). Two other personality characteristics that might

play a role in co-parenting during the divorce period are

defense mechanisms and optimism. These variables have

J Child Fam Stud

123

Author's personal copy

not been systematically studied in relation to co-parenting,

but can be expected to influence the way in which people

deal with the stresses of divorce. Defense mechanisms are

intra-psychic variables, whereas optimism is cognitive, but

both are instrumental in coping. According to Cramer

(1998), coping mechanisms involve purposeful efforts

carried out with the intent of managing or resolving

problem situations. Defense mechanisms, in contrast, arise

without conscious effort, awareness or intentionality, and

function to change an internal psychological state.

Although not always clearly distinguishable, coping strat-

egies including optimism, and defense mechanisms, are

both ways of dealing with stressful situations (for a review,

see Cramer 1998).

The study of defense mechanisms is anchored in psy-

choanalytic theory (Bouchard and Theriault 2003), which,

according to Anna Freud (1946) and her many followers,

seeks to account for pathological behavior on the basis of

innate drives shared by all human beings and of early

childhood experiences (Cramer and Block 1998). Accord-

ing to psychoanalytic theory, these can be set in hierarchic

order in terms of their association with psychosocial

maturity and psychopathology (Vaillant 1992). Projection,

denial of external reality, splitting, and acting out represent

immature (or ‘‘primitive’’) defenses; displacement, reaction

formation, rationalization, undoing, isolation and repres-

sion are considered neurotic defenses; and sublimation,

humor, suppression and altruism are considered mature

defenses (Vaillant 1992). According to the clinical litera-

ture, persons with immature defense mechanisms may have

a particular difficulty separating from their spouses and are

more likely to diminish them by: protecting themselves;

projecting their own failings onto their spouses and blam-

ing them for their frustrations; fostering hostility, mistrust,

anxiety and aggression; reducing empathy and support, and

impeding spousal communication and cooperative parent-

ing (Levite and Cohen 2012). Mature defense mechanisms,

in contrast, involve less distortion of reality than immature

defenses (Vaillant 1992), and have been shown to subdue

clashes and mitigate conflicts (Bollas 1987). Thus, persons

with mature defense mechanisms should be able to with-

draw the hopes and expectations they had invested in their

spouses and come to terms with their loss and grief.

The study of optimism is anchored in positive psychol-

ogy, which focuses, among other things, on human behav-

iors and personality traits that are viewed as strengths and

virtues promoting happiness, gratifying and stable inter-

personal relationships, occupational success, and over-

coming hardships and obstacles (Christopher et al. 2008). In

psychological literature, optimism is most often character-

ized as generally positive expectations, whether about a

given situation or, more recently, the future in general

(Scheier and Carver 1992). The latter, conceptualized as

‘‘dispositional optimism,’’ has been found to be associated

with greater use of effective coping strategies and fewer

depressive and physical symptoms (for reviews see Scheier

and Carver 1992). A unique study of recently divorced

persons found that optimism was strongly related to psy-

chological adaptation (Thuen and Rise 2006). Findings of

other studies, whether conducted among students or the

general population, also suggest that optimism might help

in coping with stresses and trauma (e.g., Solberg and Se-

gerstrom 2008).

Social and Contextual Factors

Researchers name a wide variety of tactics that people use

when dealing with their spousal conflicts, including acqui-

escence; avoidance; negotiation and compromise; bullying

and control, and verbal or physical violence (Krishnakumar

and Buehler 2000; Logan and Walker 2004). Studies of

divorced parents consistently show that aggressive, hostile,

or controlling means of dealing with conflict are associated

with reduced father involvement and other manifestations of

poor co-parenting (Baum and Shnit 2003).

An abundance of evidence highlights the beneficial role

of social support in reducing stress and improving func-

tioning (e.g., McCurdy 2005). In keeping with this per-

spective, a fair amount of literature has emphasized the

positive contribution made by family support to the well-

being of divorced individuals. Findings show that families

of origin often provide childrearing assistance and emo-

tional support for divorced parents (Cohen and Savaya

2000; Hughes et al. 1993) and facilitate adjustment to

divorce (Kunz and Kunz 1995). In Israel, the grandmother

is an important family member and a major source of

support (Cohen 2003). Other studies, however, show that it

is difficult to define this impact clearly (e.g., Miller et al.

1998). According to Johnston and Campbell (1988), most

kin support their blood relatives against the ex-spouse,

thereby helping to solidify, maintain and stabilize the fight.

Moreover, sometimes, family support is accompanied by

interference, obligations and counter demands that might

set the stage for long-term disputes over children.

Child Characteristics

Children’s characteristics are also likely to predict par-

enting behaviors (e.g., Crockenberg and Leerkes 2003).

Most of the research on the effects of children’s tempera-

ment focuses on the strain on the parent–child relationship

that may be created by a temperamentally difficult child

(Belsky et al. 2007). Difficult temperament in children

refers to the tendency to hyperactivity or heightened

emotional reactivity (Vaughn and Bost 1999). Some stud-

ies have found that parents of more difficult children report

J Child Fam Stud

123

Author's personal copy

less supportive co-parenting (e.g., Van Egeren 2004), while

others report no significant associations between child tem-

perament and supportive co-parenting (Schoppe-Sullivan

et al. 2007a, b).

Hypotheses

We hypothesized that (1) parents’ mature defense mecha-

nisms, optimism and use of negotiation as a conflict tactic

would have a positive effect on the two co-parenting

behaviors (communication and cooperation), and (2) the

use of physical violence and a child’s difficult temperament

would have a negative effect. (3) We proposed no

hypotheses regarding the impact of family support, gender

and length of marriage, but asked whether their effect

would be positive or negative. Although women generally

tend toward better communication and cooperation than

men (Gilligan 1991), under these strained circumstances,

no hypothesis could be formed regarding the relation

between gender and the other variables. Finally, we

assumed that the personality variables would moderate the

contextual and child variables in predicting communication

and cooperation, as both mature defenses and optimism

have the power to mitigate the negative impact of spousal

conflicts and coping with a child’s ‘‘difficult’’ temperament

on co-parenting.

Method

Participants

The study participants were 207 adults—123 women and

94 men (Mage—39.8; ±8.1 SD, age range 21–68 years).

They were all in the process of divorce and had been

referred by a Family Court Judge to the Family Court

Service for assistance in reaching a settlement on matters

pertaining to their children. Eighty-four percent were born

in Israel. The mean length of marriage up to the divorce

process was 10.8 years (±8.4 SD), and the mean number of

children was 2.35 (±1.55 SD), ranging in age from 7 to 15

(Mage—11.05; ±3.22 SD). A third (33 %) of the partici-

pants had a college or university degree, 23 % had at least

13 years of schooling, 33 % had completed high school,

and 11 % had finished elementary or vocational school.

Twenty-eight percent reported their perceived economic

status to be poor, 49 % mid-range, 19 % good, and 4.5 %

very good. Seventy-six percent reported being employed,

and 24 % unemployed. For almost half (49.8 %) of the

participants, this was their first application to the Family

Court. The other half had been undergoing court

proceedings for an average of 2 years (M = 2.04;

SD = 1.03).

Measures

Co-parenting was examined using Goldsmith’s (1980)

Relationship between Former Spouses Scale. This is a self-

report scale consisting of 25 statements regarding parenting

practices, which were formulated as questions in the

Hebrew version (Cohen 1996). Participants were asked to

indicate how often they engage in each practice on a five-

point scale ranging from 1 (‘‘never’’) to 5 (‘‘always’’).

Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation

yielded four subscales, two of which were used in the

present study: Co-parental Communication about the

Children (9 items; a = .95), and Co-parental Cooperation

and Consideration (5 items; a = .77). Each scale yielded a

mean score; the higher the mean, the better the co-

parenting.

Conflict Tactics were assessed using the Hebrew version

of Straus et al. (1996) Conflict Tactics Scale. The original

scale consists of 39 items tapping behaviors in five sub-

scales: Negotiation; Emotional/Psychological Aggression;

Physical Violence; Sexual Coercion; and Controlling

Behavior. The scale’s internal consistency in previous

studies was very good, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from

0.87 to 0.92 (Straus 2004).

In the present study, the Sexual Coercion subscale was

omitted because previous studies in Israel showed poor

reliability (Goldblatt and Eisikovits 1994). On the

remaining four subscales, respondents were asked to rate

the frequency with which they engaged in each behavior on

a six-point scale (1 = never, 6 = every day). The sub-

scales showed good reliability (Negotiation a = .89;

Emotional/Psychological Aggression a = .78; Physical

Aggression a = .73; Controlling Behavior a = .85);

however, only Negotiation and Physical Violence were

significantly correlated with at least one of the co-parenting

variables; thus, only these two conflict-tactic variables

were included in the analyses.

Defense Mechanisms were assessed using the Hebrew

version of Andrews et al. (1993) Defense Style Question-

naire (DSQ-40). This is a 40-item scale examining three

types of defense mechanisms defined by the DSM III (APA

1987): Primitive/Immature, Neurotic and Mature

(a = .72–.84). For each item, respondents were asked to

indicate the degree to which the behavior described char-

acterized them on a nine-point scale ranging from

(1 = strongly disagree to 9 = strongly agree). Factor

analysis in the present study yielded two factors: Mature,

consisting of five items (a = .72) and Immature, consisting

of 35 items (a = .86). For the purpose of this study, and

based on Cramer’s (1998) view that the defenses a person

uses vary along a continuum of adaptation, and on Vail-

lant’s (1992) model, which posits that the defenses can be

arranged on a continuum of ego maturity from immature to

J Child Fam Stud

123

Author's personal copy

neurotic to mature, we derived a single score by reversing

the scores of the immature defenses. Thus, a single scale of

defense mechanisms was obtained with higher scores

reflecting greater use of mature defenses and lower scores

reflecting greater use of immature defenses. The scale has a

high internal consistency of a = .86.

Optimism was assessed using the Hebrew version of

Scheier et al. (1994) Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R).

This is a 12-item scale examining the tendency toward opti-

mism (9 items), or pessimism (3 items). Respondents were

asked to indicate the degree to which each statement applied

to them, on a five-point scale (1 = strongly agree to

5 = strongly disagree). To calculate the total score, the rat-

ings on the pessimistically-phrased questions were reversed,

so that the higher the score, the more optimistic was the

respondent’s outlook. Scheier et al. (1994) reported good

internal reliability (a = .78) and high stability (test–retest

r = .79). In the current study, factor analysis yielded the same

two factors: Optimism (a = .80) and Pessimism (a = .59).

The reliability of the total score was fair (a = .70).

Family Support was assessed using the Hebrew version

of Abbey et al. (1985) Perceived Social Support and Per-

ceived Social Undermining scale. This is a 12-item scale

tapping perceived family support (e.g., care, affection and

provides help; 9 items), and lack of support (e.g., rejection,

anger, and creation of difficulties; 3 items). Questions are

answered on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from

1 = not at all to 5 = very much. To calculate a total family

support score, the items tapping lack of support were

reversed, so that the higher the score, the greater the family

support. Reliability in previous studies was between

a = .89 and a = .93 for perceived social support, and

between a = .72 and a = .86 for perceived social under-

mining (Abbey et al. 1985). In the present study, reliability

was a = .93 for support, a = .82 for lack of support, and

a = .92 for the total score.

Child Temperament was examined using a Hebrew

version of Buss and Plomin’s Temperament Survey for

Children: Parental Ratings (EAS) (1984). This is a 20-item

instrument measuring four dimensions of temperament:

Emotionality, Activity, Sociability and Shyness. For each

dimension, five behaviors are listed, and parents are asked

to indicate how characteristic each behavior is of their

child, on a five-point scale (1 = uncharacteristic to

5 = very characteristic). The EAS is reported to differ-

entiate between the four temperament dimensions and to

have high stability and moderate internal reliability

(a = .60–.75; Mathiesen and Tambs 1999). In the present

study, internal reliabilities were as follows: Emotionality,

a = .84; Activity, a = .74; Sociability, a = .67 and Shy-

ness, a = .73.

Since the literature indicates that the younger the chil-

dren, the more care and attention they require, especially

during divorce (Finzi et al. 2000), participants in the

present study were asked to refer to their youngest child.

Procedure

The study was carried out in Israel among divorcing par-

ents who were referred, by a court judge, to the Family

Court Service, for assistance in reaching a divorce settle-

ment. Israeli law forbids unilateral, non-judicial divorce,

stipulates that custody be awarded on the basis of the

child’s best interests and requires that non-custodial par-

ents receive visiting rights and pay child support. Custody

is almost always awarded to the mother, with maternal

custody standing at 92 % and joint custody very rare

(Hacker 2005).

Each family court has a mediation unit, with great

emphasis on reducing spousal conflict during the divorce

process and on preserving the relationship between the

non-custodial parent and the children after the divorce

(Kulik and Heine-Cohen 2011). Referrals (on the basis of a

judge’s professional considerations) are aimed at prevent-

ing the escalation of tension between divorcing spouses; at

formulating solutions that will help maintain familial ties,

especially between parents and children, and at accelerat-

ing legal proceedings. The Family Court Service is staffed

by multidisciplinary teams consisting of senior social

workers, psychologists, psychiatrists and lawyers.

The study was designed in collaboration with the Family

Court Service and was authorized by the Chief Scientist’s

ethics committee in the Israeli Ministry of Welfare and

Social Services. Questionnaires were completed voluntarily

and informed consent was obtained from all participants. The

questionnaires were administered by a trained research

assistant at the Family Court Service Unit over the course of a

year (June 2005-June 2006). During this period, the assistant

was provided with a desk in the waiting room, where she

approached those waiting for consultation and asked them to

participate in the study. She explained its purpose and

emphasized its anonymity and confidentiality, and that

responses were not subject to subpoena. She also made it

clear that participation was entirely voluntary, that they

could withdraw from the study at any stage they wished, and

that neither their participation nor non-participation had any

bearing on or was in any way connected with their legal

status in the court procedure. Of the 358 persons approached,

207 (57.89 %) agreed to participate. In most cases, only one

of the partners agreed to participate, not both. The respon-

dents took 20–25 min to complete the questionnaires.

Data Analysis

Two stepwise hierarchical regressions were carried out to

predict parenting communication and cooperation. The

J Child Fam Stud

123

Author's personal copy

variables were entered in five stages: the demographic

variables (parent gender, age and length of marriage) were

entered in the first step to control their effect; the remaining

variables were entered in three steps according to Belsky’s

model: parent personality characteristics (defense mecha-

nisms, optimism), social and contextual factors (conflict

tactics [negotiation, physical violence] and family support),

and child characteristics (child temperament). The entry of

the variables in the first four steps was forced. In the fifth

step, all interactions with a p \ .05 significance were

entered. Interactions were examined to determine whether

personality variables moderated the contextual and child

variables, and whether gender impacted personality vari-

ables in predicting communication and cooperation.

Results

Prediction of Parenting Communication

and Cooperation

Two stepwise hierarchical regressions were carried out to

examine the unique contribution of each variable and

combinations between variables to parental communication

and parental cooperation (Table 1).

Parental Communication

As can be seen in Table 1, 28 % of the variance in parental

communication was explained. The demographic variables

explained 7 % of the variance, in which the only significant

contribution was made by gender, with women reporting

more parental communication than men. Defense mecha-

nisms and optimism added only 1 %, thus failing to reach

significance. The contextual variables in Step 3 explained

another 14 % of the variance. Negotiation played a sig-

nificant role in parental communication. The youngest

child’s personality in Step 4 added yet another 3 %, with

only shyness reaching significance. According to the bcoefficient, the higher the level of child shyness, the higher

was the prediction of parental communication. Finally, the

interaction of Optimism 9 Physical Violence added

another 3 %.

The pattern of this interaction was probed using the

simple slope test recommended by Aiken and West (1991).

As can be seen in Fig. 1, the test found that the slope

representing the association between physical violence and

parental communication was significant among individuals

with a high level of optimism (b = -.23, t = 3.67,

p \ .05), but not for those with a low level of optimism

(b = -.07, t = .66, NS). This indicates that less physical

Table 1 Multiple regression

analyses of the predictors of

parental communication and

cooperation

Gender: male = 0 = -

female = 1 = ?

* p \ .05, ** p \ .01,

*** p \ .001

Predictor Parental communication Cooperation

DR2 b DR2 b

Step 1: socio-demographic variables .07* .10***

Gender -.23** -.30***

Age -.02 -.15*

Length of marriage .09 .06

Step 2: personality characteristics .01 .01

Defense mechanisms .03 -.07

Optimism .16* .04

Step 3: social and contextual factors .14*** .11***

Negotiation .34*** .31***

Physical violence -.11 -.05

Family support -.03 .11

Step 4: child characteristics .03*** .05**

Shyness .17* .02

Activity -.04 -.05

Emotionality .02 .04

Sociability -.11 .06

Step 5: interaction .03*** .08***

Optimism 9 physical violence .17*

Defenses 9 negotiation -.16*

Defenses 9 family support .16*

Shyness 9 physical violence .22**

Gender 9 defenses -.20*

Gender 9 optimism .15*

J Child Fam Stud

123

Author's personal copy

violence was associated only with more parental commu-

nication among the more optimistic respondents, suggest-

ing that the level of optimism moderates the link between

parental communication and physical violence.

Parental Cooperation

As can be seen in Table 1, 35 % of the variance in parental

cooperation was explained. The demographic variables

explained 10 % of the variance in parental cooperation,

with the significant contribution once again made by

(a) gender, as women reported more parental cooperation

than men, and (b) age, as the younger the parents, the

greater their mutual cooperation. The parent personality

characteristics in Step 2 added another 1 % to the expla-

nation of the variance, but neither the contribution of

optimism nor of defense mechanisms reached significance.

The contextual variables in Step 3 added another 11 %,

with significantly better parental cooperation indicated by

those who reported more negotiation with their partner.

Step 4 added another 5 % to the explanation of the

variance.

Five significant interactions were entered in Step 5,

adding another 8 % to the explanation of the variance. The

pattern of these interactions was probed using the simple

slope test (Aiken and West 1991).

Defense Mechanisms 9 Negotiation

As can be seen in Fig. 2, the slope representing the asso-

ciation between negotiation and parental cooperation was a

significantly stronger predictor among those individuals

with high levels of defense mechanism use (namely,

mature defenses) (b = .49, t = 3.81, p [ .001) than among

those with low levels of defense mechanism use, i.e., those

who used immature defenses (b = .23, t = 3.24, p \ .05),

indicating that the tendency to negotiate contributed more

to parental cooperation among those with a high level of

defense use than among those with a lower level. This

result suggests that the level of defense moderates the link

between parental cooperation and negotiation.

Defense Mechanisms 9 Family Support

As can be seen in Fig. 3, the slope representing the asso-

ciation between family support and cooperative parenting

was significant for those individuals with a low level of

defense mechanisms (b = .19, t = 2.38, p \ .05) but not

for those with a high level of defense use (r = .09, t = .71,

NS), indicating that family support led to better parental

cooperation among those with a low level of defense use

than among those with a higher level. This result suggests

that the level of defense moderates the link between

parental cooperation and family support.

Child’s Temperament—Shyness 9 Physical Violence

As can be seen in Fig. 4, the slope representing the asso-

ciation between the child’s shyness and parental coopera-

tion was significant for respondents who did not report

physical violence (b = -.31, t = 3.56, p \ .01), but not

for those who did (b = .05, t = .52, NS), indicating that

when the youngest child was shy, parents who reported no

5.5

6

6.5

7

Low Parental Communication High Parental Communication

Phys

ical

Vio

lenc

e

Low Optimism

High Optimism

Fig. 1 Interaction of physical violence 9 optimism

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Low Parental Cooperation High Parental Cooperation

Neg

otia

tion

Low Level of Defense Mechanisms

High Level of Defense Mechanisms

Fig. 2 Interaction of negotiation 9 defense mechanisms

3

3.5

4

4.5

Low Parental Cooperation High Parental Cooperation

Fam

ily S

uppo

rt

High Level of Defense Mechanisms

Low level of Defense Mechanisms

Fig. 3 Interaction of family support 9 defense mechanisms

J Child Fam Stud

123

Author's personal copy

physical violence showed better parental cooperation than

those who reported physical violence. This result suggests

that physical violence moderates the link between parental

cooperation and child shyness.

Two interactions with gender were found: Gen-

der 9 Defense Mechanisms and Gender 9 Optimism. A

significant main effect was found for women (b = -.19,

t = -.2.27, p \ .05) but not for men (b = -.10, t = 1.36,

NS) regarding defense mechanisms, indicating that women

with a low level of defense mechanism use reported good

parental cooperation. Also, a significant main effect was

found for men (b = -.20, t = -3.04, p \ .05) but not for

women (b = .01, t = .47, NS) with reference to optimism,

indicating that men’s lack of optimism contributed to

poorer co-parental cooperation, whereas mothers’ opti-

mism level was not related to their co-parenting.

Gender Differences

In view of the strong, unique and interactive contributions

of gender to the outcome variables revealed by the

regressions, and to answer the question of whether gender

differences affect parenting communication and coopera-

tion in the midst of the divorce process, multivariate

analyses of variance (MANOVA) on parenting communi-

cation and cooperation were conducted. The findings are

presented in Table 2.

As can be seen in Table 2, women scored higher than

men on both communication (3.44 vs. 2.82) and

cooperation (3.32 vs. 2.76). In other words, women

reported more communication than men between them-

selves and their spouses on subjects related to their chil-

dren. Women’s self-reports of consideration for their

spouses on matters concerning the children were higher

than men’s self-reports on this issue.

Discussion

The major findings of this study concern the predictive

power of gender and of the use of negotiation as a conflict

tactic in successful co-parenting during the divorce pro-

cess. Both these variables contributed directly to commu-

nication and cooperation, and interactively (via

interactions) only to cooperation with the divorcing spouse.

These findings are inconsistent with Belsky’s (1984)

model regarding the strong effect of parents’ personality on

parenting. Nevertheless, in line with our hypothesis,

whereby personality variables may moderate contextual

and child variables, results indicate that optimism moder-

ates reported physical violence and that it predicts greater

parental communication. As to moderating parental coop-

eration, a high level of defense mechanism use increases

the use of negotiation tactics, whereas immature defenses

(little use of mature defenses) intensify family support and

lead to better parental cooperation.

The underlying assumption that the various variables

point to the impact on co-parenting of subconscious and

cognitive aspects of coping was partially proven. In fact, our

results highlighted the influence of the conscious, cognitive

coping in this specific stressful situation. These results are

congruent with Bouchard and Theriault (2003), who showed

the interplay between defenses and mode of coping, and

particularly, that the cognitive coping style made the greatest

contribution to resolving marital conflicts.

Gender contributed approximately 7 % to the explana-

tion of the variance in communication and approximately

10 % to the explanation of the variance in cooperation.

Gender also affected cooperation in interaction with

defense mechanisms and optimism. Women with a low

level of defense mechanism use reported good parental

cooperation, whereas men with a similar level did not.

Similarly, low level of optimism seems to have undermined

men’s cooperation, but not women’s. These findings show

not only that being a woman, or mother, contributes to a

higher level of cooperation in parenting during the divorce

process, but also that it appears to help overcome the

detrimental impact on coping with the divorce process,

which might be the outcome of immature defense mecha-

nisms and low level of optimism.

These findings are consistent with the stereotypic gender

roles presented in the introduction. They may reflect

2.5

3

3.5

4

Low Parental Cooperation High Parental Cooperation

High Physical Violence

Low Physical Violence

Chi

ld T

empe

ram

ent -

Shy

ness

Fig. 4 Interaction of physical violence and child shyness (tempera-

ment of child)

Table 2 Means, SDs, and F values of gender differences

Dimensions Mothers

N = 113

Fathers

N = 94

F(1,205) gp2

M SD M SD

Communication 3.44 1.17 2.82 1.29 11.97*** .06

Cooperation 3.32 1.03 2.76 .88 18.71*** .09

*** p \ .001

J Child Fam Stud

123

Author's personal copy

general gender differences, the different situations of

mothers and fathers in the divorce process in Israel, or

both. With respect to gender differences, our findings show

that women report more communication on subjects related

to their children between themselves and their spouse than

men, and that they perceive themselves as more consider-

ate of their spouses on matters concerning the children.

These findings are consistent with findings in the literature

indicating that women tend to: (a) attach more importance

to interpersonal communication than men (Gilligan 1991);

(b) attribute more importance to interpersonal relations

than men (Chodorow 1974); and (c) appear more empa-

thetic than men (e.g., Toussaint and Webb 2005).

With respect to the situations of the two parents, we

must recall that the participants in the study were dis-

cussing their divorce settlement at the Family Court Ser-

vice and were likely to have been highly concerned about

the outcome. In our view, the findings may reflect greater

anxiety experienced by women than men in this situation.

As noted in the introduction, custody in Israel is still almost

always awarded to the mother (Cohen 1996; Hacker 2005).

This means that even though most divorcing mothers can

expect to receive custody, they also have greater cause to

fear losing custody than their husbands. Therefore, it can-

not be ruled out that the women whose cases were being

settled at the Family Court Service made particular efforts

to present themselves as communicating and cooperating

with their spouses for the sake of the children.

Of the two conflict tactics examined, only negotiation was

significantly related to the participants’ co-parenting. The

use of negotiation as a conflict tactic made strong contribu-

tions to both parental communication and cooperation,

accounting for 14 and 11 % of the variance in each,

respectively. This strong contribution may derive from the

fact that negotiation entails the ability to convey one’s point

of view verbally and to consider the other person’s per-

spective. These capacities are much the same as those

required for communication and cooperation. Moreover, the

capacity of negotiation to improve cooperation was restric-

ted to parents with mature defense mechanisms, and did not

help those with immature defense mechanisms. This finding

may reflect the inability of the use of negotiation—a con-

scious means of resolving conflict—to ameliorate the

impediments to cooperation created by immature defense

mechanisms. As noted in the introduction, immature defense

mechanisms do not help the individual handle the mixed and

tumultuous emotions attendant on the divorce process. They

also impede the emotional separation required for the ability

to relate to the divorcing spouse as a separate person, without

blame or projection, and to consider his or her needs (Levite

and Cohen 2012).

Gender and negotiations were two of three variables that

contributed to both communication and cooperation. The

third was the shyness of the child in question. Divorcing

parents with a shy youngest child showed more mutual

communication than couples whose youngest child was not

shy. They also showed more mutual cooperation, except

in situations where physical violence was used as a conflict

tactic. The existing literature does not offer ready expla-

nations for the impact of a child’s shyness on co-parenting.

One possible explanation might be rooted in Israeli culture,

which tends to value outgoingness and to associate the

passivity and timidity inherent in shyness with weakness or

distress. Likewise, in intake families, parents’ negativity

declined at higher levels of child shyness, in comparison to

high negative emotionality or activity temperament (Gan-

iban et al. 2011). Parents of shy children might be more

prone to consider their personalities problematic than par-

ents of emotional and active children (Cohen 2003), who

demonstrated behavioral or verbal manifestations of their

distress. The parents’ desire to help the child might elicit

their mutual communication and cooperation for this pur-

pose. The finding that the child’s shyness did not improve

parental cooperation where physical violence was used as a

conflict tactic is consistent with observations that mothers

in abusive marital relationships are unlikely to receive

adequate cooperation in their childrearing from their part-

ners (Letourneau et al. 2007).

Contrary to expectations, shyness was the only child

temperament that affected the respondents’ co-parenting.

The fact that the child’s activity and sociability did not

affect co-parenting is understandable in that these are

normative behaviors that do not raise any questions in

parents or require any special attention; but the fact that a

child’s ‘‘emotionality’’ had no significant impact is some-

what surprising, in that it is a ‘‘difficult’’ quality, which the

literature suggests would put a strain on the co-parenting

relationship. A possible explanation for the lack of impact

might be that the parents are able to understand such

behavior as the child’s response to the turmoil and pain of

their break-up and consider it natural under the circum-

stances. Although professionals understand that shyness,

too, may be a response to stress (Aron et al. 2005), parents

may have been more frustrated and bewildered by a child’s

withdrawal and non-communication than by his or her

acting out.

The finding that physical violence as a conflict tactic did

not make a direct contribution to the co-parenting rela-

tionship is also surprising, especially because the study was

carried out in the heat of the divorce process among per-

sons who had to bring their dispute to the family court

because they could not reach a divorce settlement on their

own. Unfortunately, our measure of conflict tactics does

not enable us to know whether the violence was a contin-

uation of an abusive marital relationship or triggered by the

stress of the divorce and inability to separate and grieve the

J Child Fam Stud

123

Author's personal copy

loss of the relationship (Johnston and Campbell 1988).

Hence, different types of violence call for different types of

intervention. The lack of direct impact requires further

investigation. In our view, this may be due to the fact that,

even though the study participants were all involved in

divorce disputes, they were not all defined as high conflict

spouses. We believe that the violence reported was situa-

tional (Johnson 2008) and that these couples do not nec-

essarily fit the definition of high-conflict couples, who use

violence as a communication pattern prior to their divorce.

Our opinion is supported by research findings in Israel,

indicating that almost 60 % of couples who turn to court

reach an agreement within 1 year (Cohen 2011).

Optimism had a modest impact on the co-parenting

relationship. More optimistic parents of both genders

communicated better. The improved communication might

stem from optimistic people’s belief that their efforts will

bear fruit and/or from their faith in the good will of their

partners. The findings also showed, however, that the use

of physical violence as a conflict tactic undermined the

impact of optimism. The explanation may be that persons

who resorted to physical violence had difficulties com-

municating verbally (Gordis et al. 2005).

The finding that defense mechanisms did not make a

direct contribution to co-parenting is surprising. This may

stem from the difference between men and women.

Immature defense mechanisms impeded men’s coopera-

tion, but not women’s. The different impacts may have

neutralized each other when the two genders were grouped

together. Nonetheless, the findings indicate that the dele-

terious impact of immature defense mechanisms was

ameliorated both by gender, as noted above, and by family

support.

Family support improved the cooperation of both

mothers and fathers with immature defense mechanisms. A

possible explanation for the finding may be that the care

and concern of the immediate family, their affection,

counsel and encouragement, and their emotional and

instrumental support, reduces the stress attendant on the

divorce process and/or helps the divorcing person to cope

with the stress (Johnston and Campbell 1988). Such

assistance may be more important and have a more

meaningful impact on the functioning of persons with

immature than with mature defense mechanisms. For such

persons, family support may temper the destructive impact

of immature defense mechanisms by enabling them to cope

better with their anger and ambivalence and by reducing

their need to blame their spouse or to project their feelings

onto him/her.

The study has several limitations. One is that all the

variables were assessed via self-report. Nonetheless, self-

report was chosen over observational measures for two

reasons. One is that observations of co-parenting in specific

situations do not necessarily carry over to other situations.

The other is that it is highly unlikely that many divorcing

parents in the extremely stressful, high-stakes situation at

the Family Court Service would have agreed to undergo yet

further observation for the sake of research. A way of

overcoming some of the limitations of self-report might be

to compare the divorcing spouses’ self-reports with their

reports of one another’s behavior. Moreover, as it is very

difficult to obtain both spouses’ consent to participate in

the study, self-report relies on a one-sided perspective and

fails to capture the differences between divorced spouses’

perceptions. The attempt to study one partner’s perception

of the other’s parenting might be biased, due to the cou-

ple’s conflict, and the fact that they are in the family court

addressing the issue of child custody.

A second limitation is that we cannot rule out the pos-

sibility that the setting in which the study was carried out—

the waiting room of the Family Court Counseling and

Mediation Unit—may have been intimidating for some

respondents. Despite the assurances of anonymity, it is

possible that some participants may have answered some of

the questions while bearing in mind the impression they

believed their responses would make on the judge. Also,

women who fight for child custody may be tempted to

present themselves as more cooperative and communica-

tive for social desirability.

Another limitation refers to the way defense mecha-

nisms are measured, as these are unconscious constructs

examined using questionnaires, prompting cognitions

about feelings and inner worlds.

Finally, the study leaves open three questions of gen-

eralizability: How generalizable to other countries are the

findings obtained in Israel? How generalizable to other

divorcing persons are the findings regarding persons who

need special help to reach a divorce settlement? The third

question stems from the response rate of just under 58 %:

most of those who declined to participate gave lack of time

as their reason for refusal. We have no way of knowing

whether or not they differed from those who agreed to

participate in any of the tested features, and whether or

how this difference would have affected the findings. It

should be noted, however, that given the tremendous stress

that the prospective study participants were under, as well

as the natural, although misplaced, anxiety that their

response could affect the disposition of their cases, the

participation rate should not be considered all that low.

These limitations notwithstanding, the study sheds light

on an important subject—predictors of co-parenting during

the divorce process—which has undergone little or no

empirical study to date. This is also one of the only studies

of divorcing parents who turned to the family court to help

them reach a divorce settlement. Further study is suggested

in other countries and among divorcing couples who do not

J Child Fam Stud

123

Author's personal copy

require special assistance to reach a settlement. Compara-

tive studies of different types of divorcing couples are

recommended.

Clinical Implications

Clinicians are recommended to estimate and diagnose the

emotional state of divorcees. Some of the neurotic defen-

ses, such as isolation, may serve temporarily as functional

responses for adults and children in high conflict situations,

and may be appropriate to the early stages of coping with

separation and feelings of loss. With regard to spousal

violence during divorce, one must distinguish between

situational violence and violence as a communication

pattern, and thereupon consider the children’s best interest

in each case. Visitation rights should be examined, bearing

in mind the challenge of prediction in a conflictual par-

enting situation (Johnson 2008).

As for future research, we recommend the performance

of long-term studies evaluating parenting over time,

drawing attention to the contribution of other variables that

may be relevant in the long-term, such as establishing

contact with a new spouse, general and mental health, and

other personality variables known to contribute to parent-

ing, e.g., narcissism and differentiation (Baum and Shnit

2003).

References

Abbey, A., Abramis, D. J., & Caplan, R. D. (1985). Effects of

different sources of social support and social conflict on

emotional well-being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6,

111–129.

Ahrons, C. R., & Rodgers, R. H. (1987). Divorced families: Amultidisciplinary developmental view. New York, NY: Norton.

Ahrons, C. R., & Wallisch, L. S. (1987). The relationship between

former spouses. In D. Perlman & S. D. Steve (Eds.), Intimaterelationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp.

269–296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing andinterpreting interactions. London, England: Sage.

Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and

children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269–1287.

American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statisticalmanual of mental disorders (DSM-III). Washington, DC: Amer-

ican Psychiatric Association.

Andrews, G., Singh, M., & Bond, M. (1993). The defense style

questionnaire. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 181,

246–256.

Aron, E. N., Aron, A., & Davies, K. M. (2005). Adult shyness: The

interaction of temperamental sensitivity and an adverse child-

hood environment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,31, 181–197.

Baum, N., & Shnit, D. (2003). Divorced parents’ conflict management

styles: Self-differentiation and narcissism. Journal of Divorceand Remarriage, 39, 37–58.

Beck, C. J. A., Putterman, M. D., Sbarra, D. A., & Mehl, M. R.

(2008). Parenting coordinator roles, program goals and services

provided: Insights from the Pima County, Arizona program.

Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 5,

122–139.

Beck, C. J. A., Sales, B. D., & Emery, R. E. (2004). Research on the

impact of family mediation. In J. Folberg, A. L. Milne, & P.

Salem (Eds.), Divorce and family mediation: Models, tech-niques, and applications (pp. 447–482). New York, NY:

Guilford.

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model.

Child Development, 55, 83–96.

Belsky, J., & Barends, N. (2002). Personality and parenting. In M.

H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, 2nd ed., vol. 3.

Being and becoming a parent (pp. 415–438). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Belsky, J., Pasco, F. R. M., & Bell, B. (2007). Parenting, attention and

externalizing problems: Testing mediation longitudinally,

repeatedly and reciprocally. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 48, 1233–1242.

Bodenmann, G., Charvoz, L., Bradbury, T. N., Bertoni, A., Iafrate, R.,

Giuliani, C., et al. (2007). The role of stress in divorce: A three-

nation retrospective study. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships, 24, 707–728.

Bollas, C. (1987). The shadow of the object: Psychoanalysis of theunsought known. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Bonach, K. (2005). Factors contributing to quality co-parenting:

Implications for family policy. Journal of Divorce and Remar-riage, 43, 79–104.

Bouchard, G., & Theriault, V. J. (2003). Defense mechanisms and

coping strategies on conjugal relationships: An integration.

International Journal of Psychology, 38, 79–90.

Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developingpersonality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chodorow, N. (1974). Family structure and feminine personality. In

M. Z. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere (Eds.), Women, culture andsociety (pp. 43–66). Stanford, SF: Stanford University Press.

Christopher, J. C., Richardson, F. C., & Slife, B. D. (2008). Thinking

through positive psychology. Theory and Psychology, 18,

555–561.

Cohen, O. (1996). The personal well-being of single-parent family

heads rearing their children by themselves: A comparative study.

Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 18,

129–146.

Cohen, O. (2003). The Israeli family. In J. J. Ponzetti (Ed.),

International encyclopedia of marriage and family (vol. 2,

pp. 960–964). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Cohen, O. (2011). Impact of agreement reached through mediation on

parenting relationship. British Journal of Social Work, 43, 1–18.

Cohen, O., & Finzi-Dottan, R. (2005). Parent–child relationships

during the divorce process: From attachment theory and

intergenerational perspective. Contemporary Family Therapy:An International Journal, 27, 81–99.

Cohen, O., & Savaya, R. (2000). Help wanted and help received by

Israeli divorced custodial fathers. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 30, 1440–1456.

Coley, R. L., & Hernandez, D. C. (2006). Predictors of paternal

involvement for resident and nonresident low-income fathers.

Developmental Psychology, 42, 1041–1056.

Counts, R., & Sacks, A. (1985). The need for crisis intervention

during marital separation. Social Work, 30, 146–150.

Cramer, P. (1998). Defensiveness and defense mechanisms. Journalof Personality, 66, 879–894.

Cramer, P., & Block, J. (1998). Preschool antecedents of defenses

mechanism use in young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 74, 159–169.

J Child Fam Stud

123

Author's personal copy

Crockenberg, S. C., & Leerkes, E. M. (2003). Parental acceptance,

postpartum depression, and maternal sensitivity: Mediating and

moderating processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 80–93.

Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Raymond, J. (2004).

Fathers in family context: Effects of marital quality and marital

conflict. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in childdevelopment (4th ed., pp. 196–221). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Donner, M. B. (2006). Tearing the child apart: The contribution of

narcissism, envy, and perverse modes of thought to child custody

wars. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23, 542–553.

Ehrenberg, M. F., Hunter, M. A., & Elterman, M. F. (1996). Shared

parenting agreements after marital separation: The roles of

empathy and narcissism. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 64, 808–818.

Eliot, L. (2009). Pink brain, blue brain. New York, NY: Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt.

Emery, R. E., Sbarra, D., & Grover, T. (2005). Divorce mediation:

Research and reflections. Family Court Review, 43, 22–37.

Finzi, R., Cohen, O., & Ram, A. (2000). Attachment and divorce.

Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 11, 1–20.

Freud, A. (1946). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. Oxford,

England: International Universities Press.

Ganiban, J. M., Ulbricht, J., Saudino, K. J., Reiss, D., & Neiderhiser,

J. M. (2011). Understanding child-based effects on parenting:

Temperament as a moderator of genetic and environmental

contributions to parenting. Developmental Psychology, 47,

676–692.

Ganiban, J. M., Ulbricht, J. A., Spotts, E. L., Lichtenstein, P., Reiss,

D., Hanson, K., et al. (2009). Understanding role of personality

explaining associations between marital quality and parenting.

Journal of Psychology, 23, 646–660.

Ganong, L. H., Coleman, M., Markham, M., & Rothrauf, T. (2011).

Predicting post divorce co parental communication. Journal ofDivorce and Remarriage, 52, 1–18.

Gilligan, C. (1991). Women’s psychological development: Implica-

tions for psychotherapy. Women and Therapy, 11, 5–31.

Goldblatt, H., & Eisikovits, Z. (Eds.) (1994). Towards a multi-disciplinary intervention model in domestic violence. Haifa,

Israel: The Unit for Research, Intervention and Prevention of

Domestic Violence, Women’s League for Israel (W.L.I.) (in

Hebrew).

Goldsmith, J. (1980). Relationships between former spouses: Descrip-

tive findings. Journal of Divorce, 4, 1–20.

Gordis, E. B., Margolin, G., & Vickerman, K. (2005). Communica-

tion and frightening behavior among couples with past and

recent histories of physical marital aggression. American Journalof Community Psychology, 36, 177–191.

Hacker, D. (2005). Motherhood, fatherhood and law: Child custody

and visitation in Israel. Social and Legal Studies, 14, 409–431.

Hughes, R., Good, E. S., & Candell, K. (1993). A longitudinal study

of the effects of social support on the psychological adjustment

of divorced mothers. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 19,

37–56.

Jaffe, P. G., Johnston, J. R., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2008).

Custody disputes involving allegations of domestic violence:

Toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans. FamilyCourt Review, 46, 500–522.

Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimateterrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence.

Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.

Johnston, J. R., & Campbell, L. E. G. (1988). Impasses of divorce.The dynamics and resolution of family conflict. New York, NY:

Free Press.

Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and

parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations:

An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 49,

25–44.

Kulik, L., & Heine-Cohen, E. (2011). Coping resources, perceived

stress and adjustment to divorce among Israeli women: Assess-

ing effects. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 5–30.

Kunz, J., & Kunz, P. R. (1995). Social support during the process of

divorce: It does make a difference. Journal of Divorce andRemarriage, 24, 111–119.

Letourneau, N. L., Fredrick, C. B., & Williams, J. D. (2007).

Mothering and domestic violence: A longitudinal analysis.

Journal of Family Violence, 22, 649–659.

Levite, Z., & Cohen, O. (2012). The tango of loving hate: Couple

dynamics in high conflict divorce. Clinical Social Work Journal,40, 46–55.

Logan, T. K., & Walker, R. (2004). Separation as a risk factor for

victims of intimate partner violence: Beyond lethality and injury:

A response to Campbell. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19,

1478–1486.

Madden-Derdich, D. A., & Leonard, S. A. (2002). Shared experi-

ences, unique realities: Formerly married mothers’ and fathers’

perceptions of parenting and custody after divorce. FamilyRelations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied FamilyStudies, 51, 37–45.

Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: A link

between marital conflict and parenting in two-parent families.

Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 3–21.

Markham, M. S., Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (2007). Co parental

identity and mothers’ cooperation in co parental relationships.

Family Relations, 56, 369–377.

Mathiesen, K. S., & Tambs, K. (1999). The EAS Temperament

Questionnaire-factor structure, age trend, reliability and stability

in a Norwegian sample. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 40, 431–439.

McCurdy, K. (2005). The influence of support and stress on maternal

attitudes. Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 251–268.

McHale, J. P., Kuersten-Hogan, R., & Rao, N. (2004). Growing points

for coparenting theory and research. Journal of Adult Develop-ment, 11, 221–234.

Miller, N. B., Smerglia, V. L., Gaudet, D. S., & Kitson, G. C. (1998).

Stressful life events, social support, and the distress of widowed

and divorced women: A counteractive model. Journal of FamilyIssues, 9, 181–203.

Quirouette, C., & Pushkar-Gold, D. (1992). Spousal characteristic as

predictors of well-being in older couples. The InternationalJournal of Aging and Human Development, 34, 257–269.

Rettig, K. D., & Leichtentritt, R. D. (2001). Understanding non

custodial fathers’ relationships with children from resource

theory perspectives. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 35,

1–22.

Riessman, C. (1990). Divorce talk: Women and men make sense ofpersonal relationships. Piscataway, NJ, US: Rutgers University

Press.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on

psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical overview and

empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201–228.

Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguish-

ing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self mastery,

and self esteem): A reevaluation of life orientation test. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078.

Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Brown, G. L., &

Sokolowski, M. S. (2007a). Goodness-of-fit in family context:

Infant temperament, marital quality, and early coparenting

behavior. Infant Behavior and Development, 30, 82–96.

Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Schermerhorn, A. C., & Cummings, E. M.

(2007b). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: Evaluation

J Child Fam Stud

123

Author's personal copy

of the parenting process model. Journal of Marriage and Family,69, 1118–1134.

Scott, M. E., Booth, A., King, V., & Johnston, D. R. (2007). Post

divorce father–adolescent closeness. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 69, 1194–1209.

Solberg, N. L., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2008). Conceptualizing coping:

Optimism as a case study. Social and Personality PsychologyCompass, 2, 2125–2140.

Straus, M. A. (2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the

revised conflict tactics scales: A study of university student

dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research: TheJournal of Comparative Social Science, 38, 407–432.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Develop-

ment and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of FamilyIssues, 17, 283–316.

Sullivan, M. J. (2008). Co-parenting and the parenting coordination

process. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, andPractices, 5, 4–24.

Thuen, F., & Rise, J. (2006). Psychological adaptation after marital

disruption: The effects of optimism and perceived control.

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 121–128.

Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Gender differences between

empathy and forgiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology,145, 673–685.

Vaillant, G. E. (1992). Ego mechanisms of defense: A guide forclinicians and researchers. Washington, DC: American Psychi-

atric Association.

Van Egeren, L. A. (2004). The development of the coparenting

relationship over the transition to parenthood. Infant MentalHealth Journal, 25, 453–477.

Vaughn, B. E., & Bost, K. K. (1999). Attachment and temperament:

Redundant, independent, or interacting influences on interper-

sonal adaptation and personality development? In J. Cassidy &

P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research,and clinical applications (pp. 198–225). New York: Guilford

Press.

J Child Fam Stud

123

Author's personal copy