IntroductionFamily systems theory provides a theoretically rich foundation from which to investigate family processes; however, little empirical work exists (see Cox & Paley, 1997; Minuchin, 1985). Family systems theory conceptualizes the different family dynamics and subsystems as interdependent, making it impossible to understand disturbances in one dimension of the family without also considering others (Cox & Paley, 1997; Minuchin, 1974). Most research investigating interparental conflict focuses on the influence of individual subsystems (e.g., interparental, parent-child) on children’s adjustment. Systemic theory suggests that each factor influences and is influenced by other family dynamics, forming the broader family picture. Recent work underscores the importance of systemic concepts like triangulation (Grych et al., 2004), cohesion (Davies, et al., 2002), and coparenting (Katz & Woodlin, 2002), but much is left uninvestigated. This study examines triangulation, cohesion, and coparenting as family systems influences that shape the impact of interparental conflict on children’s adjustment.

Cohesion refers to families characterized by teamwork, unity, togetherness and closeness (Lindahl & Malik, 2001). Cohesive families have children who are better adjusted, while children from less cohesive homes are more maladjusted (Lindahl, 1998). Cohesion buffers children from maladjustment in relation to emotional insecurity (Davies et al., 2002). The cognitive-contextual framework proposes cohesion may shape children’s appraisals as a family contextual factor (Grych & Fincham, 1990).

Coparenting is described as couples functioning effectively and collaboratively as a unit when parenting their children (Margolin et al., 2001). Marital conflict disrupts coparenting practices (Katz & Gottman, 1996), and more negative coparenting is related to children’s externalizing problems (Katz & Woodin, 2002). However, indirect effects, such as moderating influences of collaborative coparenting have not been examined.

Triangulation is often identified when a third party is used in some way to diffuse tension created by conflict within a pair. However, it comes in different forms: scapegoating, when parents redirect their anger at the child, or pressures to ally, when parents use children against their partner (Buchanan & Waizenhofer, 1999). While triangulation as a broad construct mediates children’s maladjustment in relation to interparental conflict (Grych et al., 2004), the specific types have not been examined.

Study Goals

This study examined: 1) cohesion as a contextual factor shaping children’s appraisals; 2) the associations between conflict, coparenting and children’s adjustment; and 3) scapegoating and alliance pressures as intervening variables between conflict and adjustment.

MethodParticipants: N = 144 ethnically diverse two-parent families with children (median age = 10). Procedure: Families completed survey and participated in an unstructured family activity at our lab. Measures: CPIC: parental conflict, threat, and blame (Grych et al., 1992)CQ: Cooperation and Pressures to Ally (Margolin, 2001)CPS: Parent Scapegoating (Kerig, 1996)SCIFF: Observed family cohesion (Lindahl & Malik, 2001)YSR: Children’s maladjustment (Achenbach, 1991)

ResultsCorrelations between predictor and outcome variables:

Triangulation

Unlike broader definitions of triangulation, parent’s re-routing of conflict and alliance pressures did not mediate the relation between interparental conflict and children's adjustment. However, parent’s pressures to ally did exacerbate children’s externalizing symptoms (high: β = .61, p<.01; low: β =.05,ns).

In addition, parent’s scapegoating behaviors potentiated both internalizing (high: β = .68, p<.01; low: β = .26, p<.05) and externalizing problems (high: β = .71, p<.01; low: β = .07, ns).

pathway predicting internalizing problems. Thus, cohesive family environments helped to counteract the impact of conflict on children’s self-blaming attributions. These findings may reflect family environments in which children are more able to express their concerns or receive emotional support from their parents.

Coparenting Collaborative parenting behaviors shaped children’s adjustment to conflict in two ways. First, it buffered children against externalizing problems. This suggests that couples who are able to work well as a team may use more effective and consistent parenting strategies to manage their children’s aggression. Specifically, collaborative coparenting provides a positive conflict resolution model, teaching children adaptive emotion regulation skills (Katz & Gottman, 1996). Second, cooperative coparenting reduced children’s likelihood of assuming blame for parental conflict. When parents work as a team, they may provide their children with explanations of conflict that absolve them of blame. Triangulation This study provides a first look at different triangulation processes within the interparental conflict model. Both scapegoating and pressuring children to ally with parents played significant roles in children’s maladjustment. Specifically, when parents used children against each other, children’s externalizing reactions to conflict were much stronger. Also, scapegoating moderated children’s internalizing and externalizing problems. When conflict is re-routed to children, they experience greater levels of depressive symptoms and aggression associated with conflict. Children faced with the pressures of parental conflicts may feel inadequate to resolve them, or may act out to provide distraction from family problems (Minuchin, 1974).

Selected ReferencesCox, M.J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243-267.

Davies, P.T., Harold, G. T., Goeke-Morey, M. C., Cummings, E. Mark (2002). Child emotional security and interparental conflict. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67, 3.

Grych, J. H. & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290.

Grych, J.H., & Fincham, F.D. (1993). Children's appraisals of marital conflict: Initial investigations of the cognitive-contextual framework. Child Development, 64, 215-230.

Grych, J.H., Raynor, S.R., & Fosco, G.M. (2004) Family processes that shape the impact of interparental conflict on adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 649-665.

Katz, L.F., & Woodin, E.M. (2002). Hostility, hostile detachment, and conflict engagement in marriages: Effects on child and family functioning. Child Development, 73, 636-652.

Lindahl, K. M. (1998). Family process variables and children’s disruptive behaviors problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 420-436.

Lindahl, K. M. & Malik, N. M. (2001). The system for coding interactions and family functioning. In P.K. Kerig & K.M. Lindahl (Eds.) Family Observational Coding Systems: Resources for Systemic Research. New Jersey: LEA.

Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289-302.

Family Systems Influences on the Relationship Between Interparental Conflict and Children’s Adjustment

Gregory M. Fosco, Renee L. DeBoard, Ann M. Baskerville, John H. Grych

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. IP-Conflict ---- 2. Threat .54** ---- 3. Blame .35** .25** ---- 4. Cooperation -.31** -.19* -.30** ---- 5. Alliance Atmpt .44** .22** .31** -.55** ---- 6. Scapegoat .49** .17 .38** -.45** .58** ---- 7. Cohesion -.14 -.15 -.21* .17 -.15 -.16 ---- 8. YSR INT .31** .35** .40** -.15 .05 -.00 -.19* ---- 9. YSR EXT .31** .09 .37** -.17* .12 .13 -.13 .63** ----

M 12.77 10.33 3.33 .01 .01 -.01 3.67 5.79 7.54 SD 6.73 4.70 3.25 1.61 1.67 1.65 1.03 4.39 4.50

Cohesion

Cohesion functioned as a family contextual variable on children’s self-blaming attributions:

IP Conflict

Cohesion

Blame

Threat

Internalizing

-.17*

.28**

.50**

.31**

.20*

Note: Path analysis conducted using hierarchical regression analysesValues represent standardized betas

Cooperative CoparentingParenting collaboratively fully buffered the association between interparental conflict and children’s adjustment (high: β = -.10, ns; low: β =.68, p<.01). Additionally, cooperative parenting reduced children’s self-blame.

Blame

Externalizing

Coparenting

IP Conflict

.28**

-.23*

.22*

-.27**

-.22*.24*

Note: Path analysis conducted using hierarchical regression analysesValues represent standardized betas

3

3.54

4.5

5

5.56

6.5

7

7.58

8.5

99.5

10

10.5

1111.5

12

12.5

1313.5

14

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Interparental Conflict

Low Scapegoating

Hi Scapegoating

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Interparental Conflict

Ex

tern

ali

zin

g P

rob

lem

s

Low Pressure

Hi Pressure

Externalizing Problems

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Interparental Conflict

Low Scapegoating

Hi Scapegoating

Internalizing Problems

Discussion Family systems theory enhances our ability to understand the impact of interparental conflict on children’s adjustment. Interparental conflict is only one of many family processes working in concert to influence children’s well-being. This study examined the family context as shaping children’s appraisals, the interdependent nature of parental conflict and coparenting practices, and different patterns of triangulation as moderating the influences of conflict on children’s internalizing and externalizing problems. Cohesion Our findings confirm the role of cohesion as a family contextual factor (Grych & Fincham, 1990). Specifically, when children witnessed conflict within a cohesive family environment, they were less likely to feel responsible for arguments. Further, family cohesion diminished blame in the mediating

Grant Funding Provided By NIMH# MH60294-01