APPROVED: Shelley A. Riggs, Major Professor Patricia Kaminski, Committee Member Lawrence Schneider, Committee Member Vicki Campbell, Committee Member and Chair

of the Department of Psychology Arthur Goven, Dean of College of Arts and

Sciences Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate

School

ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS AND INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT: THE

MODERATNG ROLE OF PARENT-CHILD ATTACHMENT

Carlyn Daubs, B.S., M.S.

Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

December 2013

Daubs, Carlyn. Adolescent Behavior Problems and Interparental Conflict: The

Moderating Role of Parent-Child Attachment. Doctor of Philosophy (Counseling Psychology),

December 2013, 101 pp., 3 tables, 3 figures, references, 175 titles.

The current study examined the role that parent-child attachment plays in the relationship

between marital conflict and the development of behavior problems in adolescents. To evaluate

the hypothesis that attachment moderates this relationship, 57 families were recruited via e-mail

invitation sent to families that participated in local church youth groups, school organizations,

and a treatment program designed for adolescents with behavior problems. One custodial parent

and his/her adolescent child completed an online or paper version of a survey consisting of the

Achenbach’s Behavior Checklists, the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment, and the

Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. Hypotheses were evaluated using Baron

and Kenny’s (1986) procedures to test moderating effects with multiple regression analyses.

Mother attachment demonstrated a significant moderation effect between the intensity of

interparental conflict and the parent’s report of externalizing behavior problems. Specifically, at

low conflict intensity levels, relative to low attachment security, high attachment security was

associated with fewer externalizing behavior problems, whereas at high intensities of

interparental conflict high attachment security was associated with more externalizing behavior

problems.

Copyright 2013

by

Carlyn Daubs

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank all of the people that have been instrumental in supporting me

through this journey. First, thank you to JD, my wonderful husband who has been so incredibly

supportive, patient and kind. I really appreciate all of the sacrifices you have made to help me

pursue my dream. You have been amazing and I am so grateful to you. Thank you to my parents

who have never stopped believing in me and have given me so much encouragement and support

throughout the years – I truly could not have done this without you! To my sister, Kendall, thank

you for all of the pep-talks and inspiration when I’ve needed it the most. You are wonderful.

Thank you, Michael Jenkins-Guarnieri for your help and guidance with all things

statistics. You are wonderful! To Frank and Sandy Bernier who were so kind and instrumental

in recruitment, thank you so much!

Last but not least, thank you Shelley Riggs for your years of guidance and mentorship in

my professional development as a scientist and practitioner. I am very grateful to you and for all

of the things I have learned through my work with you.

Thank you!

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS AND INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT: THE MOERATING ROLE OF PARENT-CHILD ATTACHMENT .................................................... 1

Introduction and Literature Review .................................................................................... 1

Attachment Theory ................................................................................................. 1

Attachment and Behavior Problems ....................................................................... 3

Marital Conflict and Behavior Problems ................................................................ 4

The Current Study: Attachment, Marital Conflict and Behavior Problems ............ 5

Method ................................................................................................................................ 6

Sample..................................................................................................................... 6

Instruments .............................................................................................................. 7

Procedures ............................................................................................................... 9

Results ............................................................................................................................... 10

Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 16

Clinical Implications ............................................................................................. 19

Limitations and Directions for Future Research ................................................... 21

References ......................................................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX A. EXTENDED LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................. 27 APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL RESULTS ................................................................................. 52 APPENDIX C. RESEARCH CONSENT FORM ....................................................................... 63 APPENDIX D. RESEARCH CONSENT FORM (PAPER VERSION) ...................................... 66 APPENDIX E. RESEARCH CONSENT FORM – ADOLESCENT ......................................... 69 APPENDIX F. ADULT DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................... 71 APPENDIX G. ADULT DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE (BLENDED) ........................ 78

iv

APPENDIX H. CHILD DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................ 79 APPENDIX I. CHILD DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE (BLENDED) ........................... 81 APPENDIX J. IRB APPROVAL LETTER ................................................................................ 87 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 89

v

LIST OF TABLES

Page

1. Bivariate Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for all Continuous Variables ....11

2. Multiple Linear Regression for Internalizing Behavior Problems .....................................12

3. Multiple Linear Regression for Externalizing Behavior Problems ....................................14

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1. Moderation by father attachment on YSR externalizing behavior problems and CPIC frequency............................................................................................................................14

2. Moderation by mother attachment on CBCL externalizing behavior problems and CPIC frequency............................................................................................................................15

3. Moderation by mother attachment on CBCL externalizing behavior problems and CPIC intensity. .............................................................................................................................16

vii

ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS AND INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT: THE

MOERATING ROLE OF PARENT-CHILD ATTACHMENT

Introduction and Literature Review

Children’s attachment organization influences how they interpret and respond to their

environment throughout early and later development (Bowlby, 1973). Researchers have clearly

demonstrated links between children’s attachment organization and the development of behavior

problems (DeKlyen, Speltz, & Greenberg, 1998; Kidwell et al., 2010; Speltz, DeKlyen, &

Greenberg, 1999; Yang, Cai, He, 2010), as well as children’s responses to interparental conflict

(Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Papp, 2004; Jenkins & Smith, 1991). Research has also

demonstrated that when interparental conflict is present in the home, children will develop more

behavior problems than if there was little or appropriately handled marital conflict (Davies &

Cummings, 1994; Deklyen & Speltz, 2001; Emery, 1999; Fauber Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson,

1990). Despite evidence of the links between attachment, interparental conflict and behavior

problems, little research has examined whether a secure attachment to parents can buffer the

effects of interparental conflict on the development of behavior problems in adolescence. This

study tests the hypothesis that attachment orientation moderates the association between

interparental conflict and behavior problems among adolescents.

Attachment Theory

According to Bowlby (1951), an early environment in which the primary caregiver is

warm, intimate and consistent contributes to better mental health. Bowlby (1982) posited that

internal working models (IWM) of the self and others develop in the context of early child-

parent interactions and are the mechanism by which continuity in attachment is achieved.

1

Children learn to manage distress through experiences with the primary caregiver, which then

influence emotional regulation later in life (Schore, 2000). These early experiences influence the

development of expectations of others and are incorporated into the IWMs, which then guide

responses to other distressing events later in life.

Behaviorally, attachment bonds are related to the way individuals seek and maintain a

certain degree of physical or emotional closeness to the object of attachment (Ainsworth & Bell,

1969). Attachment behaviors function to promote proximity to the attachment figure and are

most easily observed in infancy in acts of clinging, following, smiling, crying and calling

(Ainsworth & Bell, 1969). Essentially these behaviors are children’s attempts to signal the

caregiver that they need comfort or protection. How caregivers respond to these behaviors will

determine the strategies infants develop to maintain the attachment relationship. Over the course

of the first year of life, infants’ patterns of proximity seeking behaviors become more ingrained

and relatively stable attachment strategies are formed (Ainsworth, 1989).

Bowlby (1982) suggested that infants form IWMs that establish patterns of relating

throughout the lifespan. IWMs are thought to be relatively stable and tend to persist in the years

following their stabilization in childhood, although they may undergo changes or transitions as

children age. Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) identified three patterns of infant

attachment: secure, avoidant and anxious/ambivalent. A fourth attachment pattern, disorganized,

was later recognized by Main and her colleagues (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). Ainsworth

(1989) asserted that as children move from childhood through adolescence to adulthood, the

original attachment pattern to parents continues even though parents become less involved in

their children’s lives.

2

Attachment and Behavior Problems

“Behavior problem” can be loosely defined as any behavior that causes disruption in the

lives of children, their families, teachers and friends (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

Children’s behavior problems can take the form of externalizing or internalizing behaviors.

externalizing behaviors include aggressiveness, direct disobedience, behavioral disruptions, poor

impulse control, and attention-seeking behaviors; whereas internalizing behaviors include

withdrawal, depression, anxiety, avoidance and low self-esteem (Neighbors, Forehand, & Bau,

1997).

Research has demonstrated that insecure parent-child attachment relationships are linked

to behavior problems, though it is still somewhat unclear what specific role parent-child

attachment plays in behavior problems (Rossman & Rosenberg, 1992). DeKlyen and Speltz

(2001) asserted that many behaviors later deemed behavior problems are simply attachment

strategies of seeking comfort and proximity from caregivers. Cognitive-affective IWMs of

parents and the self set the stage for a reciprocal relationship of respect, warmth and growth, or

conversely hostility, distance and rigidity. When developing IWMs, children test out acceptable

and unacceptable behaviors. If parents treat children with responsiveness, warmth and trust, they

model how to establish the foundation for meaningful social relationships and behave

appropriately to get needs met. If the parents respond to children in ways that foster the

development of insecure attachment, however, children learn to behave in ways that set the

foundation for mistrusting and/or ambivalent relationships with others. Despite being

conflictual, the relational pattern that develops becomes predictable and somewhat comforting

for the children, and subsequently poorly regulated emotions reinforced by the parent are then

acted out with others.

3

It is widely accepted that parent-child interactions are strongly correlated with behavior

problems in children. However, the specific aspects of the relationship that contribute directly to

behavior problems are less understood. Most of the research regarding attachment focuses on

mother-child attachment patterns and less research has concentrated on father-child attachment

relationships. However, there is some evidence that school-aged males with both internalizing

and externalizing behavior problems may experience low parental involvement, a lack of fatherly

warmth and generally unaffectionate father-son relationships (Day & Padilla-Walker, 2009;

Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2006; Loukas, Zucker, Fitzgerald, & Krull, 2003). In a national sample

that over represented minorities, Mosley and Thompson (1995) found that fathers’ positive

engagement, even after controlling for maternal aspects, was associated with fewer internalizing

and externalizing behaviors among their children. Although there is limited research on father-

child attachment, many researchers have linked other aspects of early father-child relationships

with later functioning, such as peer relationships (Verschueren & Marcoen, 2005; Youngblade &

Belsky, 1992). The current study examines the moderating role of both mother-child and father-

child attachment in the relationship between marital conflict and behavior problems.

Marital Conflict and Behavior Problems

Many researchers have demonstrated a link between marital conflict and child behavior

problems (e.g., Jenkins & Smith, 1991; Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Paap, 2004). The literature

identifies six critical factors in predicting how children will react to marital conflict: frequency,

intensity, duration, resolution, focus, and physical aggression (Davies & Cummings, 1994;

Goodman, Barfoot, Frye, & Belli, 1999; Grych, & Fincham, 1990). When interparental conflict

occurs regularly, with a high intensity and is long-lasting, children will likely have a stronger

4

reaction than if the arguments are short, infrequent and mild. Through trial and error, some

children may learn that the most effective way of breaking up the argument is to become

aggressive and act out in various destructive ways (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Grych &

Fincham, 1990; Marcus, 2004). Reinforcement for externalizing behaviors occurs if the behavior

is successful in stopping the marital argument.

Research also indicates that marital conflict is related to children’s cognitive and

affective functioning. According to Grych and Fincham (1990), children’s internal processing of

marital conflict involves two steps: (a) children recognize that there is some sort of disruption

and respond emotionally to it, and (b) children attribute meaning, understanding, causality and

responsibility for the conflict. Children then develop responses to the conflict and learn by trial

and error the most effective means of coping. Grych and Fincham argued that there are distal

and proximal factors that influence the cognitive and affective processing of the conflict. Distal

factors are relatively stable qualities such as gender, temperament and previous experience with

marital conflict. Proximal factors include expectations of the conflict and parent mood.

The Current Study: Attachment, Marital Conflict and Behavior Problems

Secure attachment organization may contribute to positive behavioral adaptations,

particularly in terms of its influence on social interaction. It has been well documented that

strong social support and secure attachment relationships can be protective factors against the

development of behavior disorders (Pierrehumbert, Miljkovitch, Plancherel, Halfron & Ansermet

2000). In families with high levels of marital conflict, secure parent-child attachment may

decrease the child’s risk for developing behavior disorders, whereas insecure parent-child

attachment may exacerbate the risk (El Sheikh & Elmore-Staton, 2004). Secure attachment

5

relationships may serve as protection against the development of behavior disorders in the face

of interparental conflict because they provide the children with positive IWMs of self and others.

These IWMs make it less likely that the children will engage in self-blame or lose faith in their

parents’ ability to provide a safe environment.

The current study examined how parent-child attachment, perceived interparental

conflict, and their interaction contributes to behavior problems among adolescents. It was

hypothesized that more severe interparental conflict is associated with more internalizing and

externalizing behaviors. In addition, it was expected that greater security of attachment to one or

both parents will predict fewer behavior problems. Third, based on earlier research

demonstrating that supportive parent-child relationships can buffer the effects of marital conflict

(Stocker et al., 2003), it was predicted that parent-child attachment moderates the relationship

between interparental conflict and adolescent’s internalizing and externalizing behaviors.

Method

Sample

The sample consisted of 57 parent-child dyads that had a child between the ages of 12

and 17. The custodial parent’s mean age was 45.77 (SD = 5.60) and the target child’s mean age

was 14.54 (SD = 1.92). Mothers constituted the majority of parent respondents totaling 38

(66.7%), and there was a fairly even split in gender among the adolescents with 28 male and 29

female respondents. The self-identified ethnicities of the custodial parents consisted of 93%

White/European American, 3.5% African American, 1.8 % Asian American, and 1.8% Native

American. The self-identified ethnicities of the adolescents consisted of 91% White/European

American, 5.3% African American, 1.8 % Asian American, and 1.8% Native American.

6

Regarding the educational status of the responding parent, 8.8% held a doctoral degree, 28.1% a

master’s degree, 57.9% a bachelor’s degree, and 5.3% a high school degree. The levels of

combined family income varied, with 63.2% reporting income above $100,000, 12.3% between

$75,001 - $100,000, 14% between $50,001 - $75,000, 8.8 between $35,001 - $50,000, and 1.8

between $20,001 - $35,000. With respect to current marital status, 77.2% of participants

reported intact marriages, 15.8% were blended/cohabitating, and 7% were one-parent headed

households.

Instruments

Participating parents completed a demographic questionnaire and responded to questions

about the adolescent participant and their family composition. Adolescents provided background

information about their perception of their relationship with their current parents, and

adolescents from blended/cohabitating families were instructed to fill out additional questions

that assessed their relationships with their parents’ current partners.

Marital conflict was assessed using the Child Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale

(CPIC; Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992), which asks children to answer questions regarding their

feelings and thoughts when they hear their parents argue. The three subscales used to evaluate

the current hypotheses are frequency, Intensity, and perceived threat. Six items make up the

frequency scale, which includes statements like, “I never see my parents arguing or disagreeing.”

The Intensity scale includes seven items that are similar to statements like, “When my parents

have an argument they yell at each other.” Six items make up the perceived threat scale,

including statements like “I get scared when my parents argue.” Each item is rated on a 3-point

likert scale, ranging from 0 = not true to 2 = true In addition, adolescents in

7

divorced/blended/cohabitating families were instructed to complete the CPIC twice: once with

regards to the conflict between his or her biological parents and a second time with regard to the

custodial parent and his or her current spouse or cohabitating partner. The CPIC has been

mainly used for children between the ages of 9 and 12, but can be used with older and younger

children (Bickham & Fiese, 1997). The current study found Cronbach alphas of .88 for the

frequency scale, .80 for the Intensity scale, and .70 for the perceived threat scale.

Parent-child attachment was measured using the Mother and Father scales of 75-item

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987), which was

developed based on Bowlby’s attachment theory to assess how well parents and friends serve as

sources of security for adolescents. Although, the IPPA is made up of Mother, Father and Peer

Scales, each comprised of 25 items, only the Mother and Father Total Attachment scales were

used in this study. Respondents indicated how often each statement is true for them on a Likert-

type scale, ranging from 1 = almost never to 5 = almost always. Higher scores indicate more

secure attachment. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients from the present study for the Mother and

Father Total Attachment Scales were .96 and .97, respectively.

To determine the current level of child behavior problems, the Child Behavior Checklist

(CBCL; Achenbach, 1991) was administered to the participating parent and its counterpart for

children, the Youth Self Report (YSR), was used to assess these same characteristics from the

viewpoint of the adolescent. The CBCL and YSR each consist of 112 questions that require

respondents to indicate how true a statement with respect to the child’s interests, hobbies, chores,

friends and academic performance as compared to others of similar ages. The composite

internalizing and externalizing Scales were used in the present study. Cronbach’s alpha

coefficients for these scales are .94 and .93 for the CBCL internalizing and externalizing Scales,

8

respectively, and are .91 and .90 for the YSR internalizing and externalizing Scales. Despite the

well-accepted standard of using T-scores for ease of interpreting the YSR and CBCL, the current

study used raw scores based on Achenbach and Rescorla’s (2001) recommendation, as well as a

recent finding suggesting that T-scores truncated data and reduced variability among low-scoring

individuals (Thurber & Sheehan, 2012).

Procedures

After obtaining approval from the university’s Internal Review Board (Appendix O), the

current sample was recruited via an e-mail invitation that was distributed to current graduate

students, local church youth groups, school organizations, and individuals whose child

participated in a treatment program designed for adolescents with behavior disorders. Interested

parents with a child between the ages of twelve and seventeen contacted the principal

investigator (PI) and indicated whether they would like to complete the survey through ZOPE, a

secure online server, or via a paper version sent to them through the mail. The PI created a

secure username and password and e-mailed instructions to 12 participants (21%) and mailed an

exact printout of the online survey to 45 participants (79%). For their participation, each

adolescent received a $10 money order and each parent was entered into a raffle to win one of

four $100 money orders. Data were entered into SPSS and examined for missing values and data

entry errors. No data was missing from the three instruments used in this study.

The assumption of normality was assessed by analyzing residual plots and histograms of

residuals and by examining skew and kurtosis. Assumptions of linearity, independence of errors

and homoscedasticity were found to be within normal limits. All instruments were found to be

reliable and no significant outliers were identified when standardized residual plots and values

9

greater than 3.3 were considered. In addition, VIF and Condition Indices indicated no concerns

regarding multicollinearity and predictor variables were centered prior to analyses.

Results

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for variables used in

the study. YSR internalizing scores were significantly related to the ages of the adolescent (r =

.311, p < .05) and responding parent (r = .448, p < .05). No other demographic variable, (e.g.,

sex, ethnicity, income, current marital status) was related to the dependent variables. Based on

these findings, the age of the teen and age of the responding parent were controlled for in

analyses for YSR internalizing outcomes. Intercorrelations among study variables were in the

expected direction. While a highly significant correlation between CPIC frequency and Mother

Attachment (r = -.740) suggested multicollinearity, the VIF statistic and Condition Index

indicated these variables are within the normal range. In addition, the predictor variables were

centered and entered into the models in a hierarchical manner to minimize variance

overshadowing.

Hierarchical multiple linear regression models were run using IBM SPSS (Version 20) to

test the hypothesis that parent-child attachment moderates the relationship between interparental

conflict and behavior problems. To control for family-wise error, a Bonferroni correction was

used to adjust the overall alpha level. A “family” is defined by the smallest unit of selective

inference in the analysis. For the purposes of this study, the four outcome variables, YSR and

CBCL internalizing and externalizing Behavior Problems each comprised a family, so the

adjusted alpha level of .05/4 = .0125 was used for all multiple regression models.

10

Table 1 Bivariate Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for all Continuous Variables YSRI YSRE CBCLI CBCLE IPPAF IPPAM CPICI CPICF CPICT

YSRI -

YSRE .532** -

CBCLI .626** .206 -

CBCLE .432** .530** .592** -

IPPAF -.382** -.239 -.389* -.406** -

IPPAM -.614** -.491** -.280* -.320* .624** -

CPICI .231 .430** -.092 .111 -.297* -.486** -

CPICF .439** .317* .185 .148 -.512** -.740** .723** -

CPICT .301* .308* .126 .064 -.145 -.339** .394** .366** -

M 12.11 12.09 8.74 8.58 95.05 93.60 4.37 3.79 2.11

SD 9.36 8.64 10.36 9.83 21.12 21.57 3.17 3.50 2.42

Note. N = 57. YSRI = YSR internalizing Scale; YSRE = YSR externalizing Scale; CBCLI = CBCL internalizing Scale; CBCLE = CBCL externalizing Scale; IPPAF = IPPA Father; IPPAM = IPPA Mother Scale; CPIC I = CPIC Intensity Scale; CPIC F = CPIC frequency Scale; CPIC T = CPIC threat Scale. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Table 2 presents results for YSR and CBCL internalizing problems. In all YSR

internalizing models, parent age was a significant positive predictor. This result indicates that as

the age of the parent increases, there is an increase in the adolescents’ rating of internalizing

behavior problems. In the YSR internalizing models with IPPA attachment to father as the

moderator, IPPA attachment to father, CPIC threat, frequency, Intensity, and the interactions

were not significant. In the YSR internalizing models with IPPA attachment to mother as the

moderator, IPPA attachment to mother was a negative predictor, but CPIC threat, frequency and

Intensity were not significant, nor were any of the interactions. This finding indicates that

11

adolescents’ perception of greater attachment security to mother was associated with their self-

report of decreased internalizing behavior problems after controlling for age and threatening

aspects of interparental conflict.

Table 2 Multiple Linear Regression for Internalizing Behavior Problems YSR CBCL Explanatory Variable BETA R Square t BETA R Square t Model 1a: threat and IPPA Father Adolescent Age .309 .096 2.388 Parent Age .391 .210 2.776* threat .301 .296 2.519 .126 .016 .941 IPPA Father -.188 .325 -1.487 -.379 .156 -2.996* threat X IPPA Father -.118 .337 -.951 -.198 .192 -1.534 Model 1b: frequency and IPPA Father Adolescent Age .309 .096 2.388 Parent Age .391 .210 2.776* frequency .308 .294 2.480 .185 .034 1.394 IPPA Father -.118 .303 -.836 -.399 .151 -2.733* frequency X IPPA Father .081 .309 .619 -.198 .186 -1.501 Model 1c: Intensity and IPPA Father Adolescent Age .309 .096 2.388 Parent Age .391 .210 2.776* Intensity .221 .259 1.844 -.092 .008 -.683 IPPA Father -.175 .282 -1.289 -.456 .198 -3.576* Intensity X IPPA Father .261 .340 2.086 .099 .207 .782 Model 1d: threat and IPPA Mother Adolescent Age .309 .096 2.388 Parent Age .391 .210 2.776* threat .301 .296 2.519 .126 .016 .941 IPPA Mother -.452 .438 -3.581* -.268 .079 -1.929 threat X IPPA Mother -.023 .438 -.181 .001 .079 .008 Model 1e: frequency and IPPA Mother Adolescent Age .309 .096 2.388 Parent Age .391 .210 2.776* frequency .308 .294 -2.480 .185 .034 1.394 IPPA Mother -.553 .419 -3.309* -.316 .079 -1.627

frequency X IPPA Mother -.156 .435 -1.219 -.068 .082 -.429 Model 1f: Intensity and IPPA Mother Adolescent Age .309 .096 2.388 Parent Age .391 .210 2.776* Intensity .221 .259 1.844 -.092 .008 -.683 IPPA Mother -.529 .418 -3.733* -.424 .146 -2.950* Intensity X IPPA Mother .144 .435 1.228 .263 .203 1.955

Note. N = 57. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

12

In the CBCL internalizing models with IPPA attachment to father as the moderator, IPPA

attachment to father was a negative predictor; however, CPIC threat, frequency and Intensity

were not significant, nor were any of the interactions. This finding indicates that adolescent’s

perception of greater attachment security to father was associated with parent’s report of

decreased internalizing behavior problems after controlling for all aspects of interparental

conflict. For the CBCL internalizing model with attachment to mother as the moderator,

attachment to mother was a significant negative predictor only after controlling for the effect of

CPIC Intensity, indicating that adolescents’ perception of greater attachment security to mother

was associated with parent-reported decreased internalizing behavior problems after controlling

for intensity of interparental conflict.

Table 3 presents the results for YSC and CBCL externalizing behavior problems. In the

YSR externalizing models, CPIC threat and frequency were not significant predictors, but CPIC

Intensity was a significant positive predictor. This result indicates that as the intensity of conflict

increases, there is an increase in the rating of externalizing behavior problems from the

adolescents’ perspective. Although IPPA attachment to father was nonsignficant, IPPA

attachment to mother was a significant negative predictor. In addition, a marginally significant

interaction effect for CPIC frequency and IPPA Father emerged. Figure 1 shows Modgraph

results indicating (Jose, 2004) show that father attachment demonstrated a marginally significant

moderation effect between the frequency of interparental conflict and the adolescent’s self-report

of externalizing behavior problems. However, contrary to predictions, when there was

infrequent interparental conflict, an adolescent’s attachment to his or her father had negligible

influence on his or her externalizing behavior, but at higher frequencies of conflict, greater

attachment security to father was associated with an increase in externalizing behavior.

13

Table 3 Multiple Linear Regression for Externalizing Behavior Problems YSR CBCL Explanatory Variable BETA R Square t BETA R Square t Model 1a: threat and IPPA Father threat -.308 .095 2.403* .064 .004 .472 IPPA Father -.081 .134 -1.550 -.406 .165 -3.229* threat X IPPA Father .035 .157 1.209 .023 .166 .178 Model 1b: frequency and IPPA Father frequency .317 .101 .2482 .148 .022 1.110 IPPA Father -.104 .109 -.693 -.448 .170 -3.105* frequency X IPPA Father .319 .199 2.439 .112 .181 .845 Model 1c: Intensity and IPPA Father Intensity .430 .185 3.536* .111 .012 .830 IPPA Father -.122 .199 -.957 -.409 .165 -3.145* Intensity X IPPA Father .113 .211 .895 .138 .183 1.072 Model 1d: threat and IPPA Mother threat .308 .095 2.403 .064 .004 .472 IPPA Mother -.437 .264 -3.523* -.337 .105 -2.462* threat X IPPA Mother .125 .276 .915 .289 .165 1.964 Model 1e: frequency and IPPA Mother frequency .317 .101 2.482 .148 .022 1.110 IPPA Mother -.567 .246 -3.229* -.465 .120 -2.450 frequency X IPPA Mother .071 .250 .501 .371 .216 2.548 Model 1f: Intensity and IPPA Mother Intensity .430 .185 3.536* .111 .012 .830 IPPA Mother -.369 .290 -2.815* -.348 .105 -2.362 Intensity X IPPA Mother .008 .290 .066 .390 .231 2.948* Note. N = 57. *p<.0125

Figure 1. Moderation by father attachment on YSR externalizing behavior problems and CPIC frequency.

low med high

YSR

Ext

erna

lizin

g Be

havi

or

Prob

lem

s

CPIC Frequency

FatherAttachment

high

14

In the CBCL externalizing models, IPPA attachment to father was a negative predictor, but

attachment to mother, and CPIC threat, frequency, and Intensity were not significant predictors.

In addition, marginally significant interaction effects were found for CPIC frequency and IPPA

Mother, as well as CPIC Intensity and IPPA Mother. As demonstrated in Figure 2, Modgraph

results (Jose, 2004) show that mother attachment demonstrated a marginally significant

moderation effect between the frequency of interparental conflict and the parent’s report of

externalizing behavior problems. Specifically, when there was infrequent interparental conflict,

greater attachment security to mother was associated with lower levels of externalizing behavior,

but at higher frequencies, the effect of attachment was negligible. As demonstrated in Figure 3,

Modgraph results (Jose, 2004) show that mother attachment demonstrated a significant

moderation effect between the intensity of interparental conflict and the parent’s report of

externalizing behavior problems. Specifically, at low conflict intensity levels, relative to low

attachment security, high attachment security was associated with fewer externalizing behavior

problems, whereas at high intensities of interparental conflict high attachment security was

associated with more externalizing behavior problems.

Figure 2. Moderation by mother attachment on CBCL externalizing behavior problems and CPIC frequency.

low med high

CBC

L Ex

tern

aliz

ing

Beha

vior

Pr

oble

ms

CPIC Frequency

MotherAttachmenthigh

med

15

Figure 3. Moderation by mother attachment on CBCL externalizing behavior problems and CPIC intensity.

Discussion

The present study sought to examine the roles of parent-child attachment and

interparental conflict in the exhibition of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems

reported by adolescents and parents. Results did not support the theoretical prediction that a

secure attachment to either parent mitigates the negative effect of interparental conflict on

behavior. The following discussion will first address findings demonstrating moderating

relationships among interparental conflict, attachment relationships and behavior problems.

Subsequently, significant findings among demographic variables will be addressed. Finally,

clinical and theoretical implications, limitations of the current study, and implications for future

researchers will be addressed.

Results did not support the hypothesis that a secure parent-child attachment to either

parent can serve as a protector factor in the development of behavior problems in the context of

interparental conflict. In fact, models with significant interaction terms yielded results that

directly contradicted the hypothesis and existing theoretical frameworks. Results indicated that

low med high

CBC

L Ex

tern

aliz

ing

Beha

vior

Pr

oble

ms

CPIC Intensity

MotherAttachmenthigh

med

16

father attachment moderated the relationship between frequency of interparental conflict and

adolescent’s perception of externalizing behavior problems. However, contrary to predictions,

when there was infrequent interparental conflict, an adolescent’s attachment to his or her father

had negligible influence on his or her externalizing behavior, but at higher frequencies of

conflict, greater attachment security to father was associated with an increase in externalizing

behavior. Also, when interparental conflict was characterized by low intensity, an adolescent’s

attachment to mother was associated with lower levels of externalizing behavior, but when the

conflict was more intense, greater security of attachment to mother was associated with an

increase in the risk of externalizing behavior.

Many factors could influence this surprising finding. Results suggest that while a secure

parent-child attachment can provide some protection against the development of behavior

problems, its impact is limited to environments with low interparental conflict. In support of this

conclusion, when Dekovic (1999) examined multiple risk and protective factors and the impact

they had on the development of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems during

adolescence, she found that parent-child attachment was not as important as peer attachment, and

neither moderated the relationship between the risk factors and behavior problems. Dekovic

concluded that the additive effect of all risk factors significantly contributed to the development

of behavior problems and there was no main or moderating effect from any of the protective

factors either individually or cumulatively (Dekovic, 1999).

These findings could also be understood if one considers the possibility that instead of

using the secure attachment as a source of comfort, the adolescent begins to question the

authenticity of that attachment based on a fear that parental fighting could lead to divorce. In

particular, if teenagers see increasing conflict and decreasing love between their parents, they

17

may wonder if their parents might also stop loving them. Davies and Cummings’ (1994)

Emotional Security Hypothesis, highlights the roles of both the parent-child attachment

relationship and the interparental bond and the effect both have on the children’s reaction to

marital conflict. According to this hypothesis, marital conflict threatens the children’s emotional

security by disrupting discipline, inducing stress, lessening parental availability, impairing

parental sensitivity and endangering children’s emotional and/or physical well-being.

Consequently, marital discord may have a negative impact on children’s emotional security,

regulation of emotions, and ability to cope with future disruptions. Along with negatively

affecting children’s emotional regulation, low emotional security causes children to seek

alternative means to reduce their anxiety. To end the stress, children might attempt to intervene,

ask parents to stop, or use distraction strategies, such as getting hurt or exhibiting externalizing

behaviors to draw the parents’ attention away from the marital conflict. It is possible that at

higher levels of attachment security, the adolescent feels more threatened by the interparental

conflict and thus intensifies the acting out behavior in an attempt to detour the attention onto

him/herself in order to detour attention away from conflict. Alternatively, it is also possible that

these results reflect low variability in a small sample, so that a larger sample with a larger range

of scores would produce different results.

Preliminary analyses indicated that in the current sample, older adolescents and older

parents tend to report higher levels of internalizing behavior problems. The increased pressure to

behave according to social norms in adolescence, as well as the increased cognitive functioning

and ability to process events as opposed to acting out externally may have contributed to this

finding. Developmentally, adolescents begin to rely more on their peers for approval and may

internalize feelings in order to fit in with others. Also, due to their increased cognitive capacity,

18

teenagers have the ability to contain their experiences as opposed to reacting to them in the form

of externalizing behavior. A possible explanation for the finding that adolescents of older

parents exhibit more internalizing behavior problems could be the transmission of values and

customs passed down from their parents. Older parents may have been raised in families where

emotional expression was not valued nor encouraged, promoting an environment more

conducive to withdrawal, shame, confusion and other internalizing problems. Older parents may

also be more disengaged in general and less involved in the emotional lives of their adolescents,

which could contribute to internalizing behavior problems.

Another interesting finding is that there were no significant interaction effects for

internalizing behavior problems. While the current study’s finding of nonsignficance replicated

a previous study (Howes, Matheson, & Hamilton, 1994), a recent meta-analysis explored this

issue because there have been many contradictory findings about whether parent-child

attachment is associated with internalizing behavior problems (Madigan, Atkinson, Laurin,

Benoit, 2013). Madigan et al. concluded that overall insecure attachment is associated with

internalizing behavior problems, but the effect sizes are not strong. Alternatively, the current

study’s nonsignificant results may be due to the relatively high security of attachment in the

sample and a lack of significant variability in the scores.

Clinical Implications

Based on current findings demonstrating that adolescents report more externalizing

behavior problems when they perceive more interparental conflict, it is important that clinicians

who work with adolescents and families look at the family system as an interconnected

attachment network (Dallos & Vetere, 2011). In addition, clinicians should understand that an

19

adolescent’s attachment security can intensify the exhibition of behavior problems. In particular,

the results of the current study, suggest that adolescents may act out in order to detour the

interparental conflict towards themselves as a strategy to keep their parents together. Family

therapists would benefit from viewing the behavioral symptoms as the adolescents attempt to

maintain homeostasis within the family system. Therapy could also focus on helping adolescents

verbalize his or her underlying fears and discuss them openly with his or her parents.

Results of the current study also can assist clinicians in conceptualization and treatment

planning. Specifically, the role that age and attachment security plays in internalizing and

externalizing behavior problems suggests that clinicians should assess and promote secure

parent-child attachment bonds throughout childhood and adolescence. Clinicians can do this by

teaching parents in effective communication skills (La Valley, 2009), emphasizing stability in

caregiver behavior (Main, Hesse, & Kaplan, 2005), and emphasizing good parent mental health

(Weinfield et al., 2000). Couples counseling may reduce interparental conflict and potential of

parental divorce (Bretherton, Walsch, Lependorf, & Georgeson, 1997; Waters et al., 2000). In

couples counseling, Davila (2006) recommends that the clinician follow four suggestions for

enacting significant change in couples. These include: conducting an assessment of attachment

security, conceptualize the controlling problem as attachment based, emphasize and support

skills in addition to conflict resolution skills, and reduce abandonment fears and increase comfort

with intimacy. Based on current results that attachment security alone did not buffer the

development of behavior problems when there are various levels of marital conflict, it may also

be beneficial to build adaptive coping skills in addition to support and conflict resolution skills.

Emotion Focused Therapy has been found to be especially helpful in assisting couples in the de-

20

escalation of negative cycles, shaping new cycles of responsiveness and accessibility, and

consolidating and integrating new ways of relating to one another (Johnson, 1996).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

A strength of the current study was the inclusion of multiple informants on different

aspects of adolescent functioning. The sample was recruited from clinical and nonclinical

populations with the goal of generalizing to families with various levels of conflict who

experience varying types and amounts of adolescent problem behavior including, acting out,

impulsivity, social problems, withdrawal, and anxiety. However, adolescents with severe

behavior problems (e.g., Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity

Disorder, and Conduct Disorder) may have been unwilling or unable to complete the surveys. In

addition, there was a minimal level of collaboration required between the parent and child in

order to complete the survey. Specifically they both had to agree to participate and coordinate

computer time or mail-in packets. Future research may consider alternate ways of gathering data

to circumvent these limitations. Also, the fact that these parent-child dyads volunteered to

participate in the current study could indicate a selective sampling bias.

No cause-and-effect conclusions can be drawn due to the correlational nature of the data.

Future prospective and longitudinal studies may better address causal factors. In addition,

alternate measures may allow for future researchers to gain a more complete perspective. For

example, a higher N may be obtained if data is collected from only a parent or adolescent

perspective. Additionally, future researchers should consider using alternative measures that are

not susceptible to self-report biases. It is possible that participants in this study did not

accurately report the frequency in which they engaged in behaviors that they considered

21

unattractive. Also, it is possible that adolescents could have feared that their parents would have

seen their answers so they may have been hesitant to accurately report their true perceptions of

their relationships with their parents or their perceptions of interparental conflict.

The current study’s findings suggest that mother and father attachment and interparental

conflict influence adolescent behavior problems in distinct ways. Specifically, adolescents who

have a secure attachment to a parent tend to exhibit less internalizing and externalizing behavior

problems than adolescents with an insecure attachment. In addition, adolescents whose parents

engage in less intense and less frequent interparental conflict and who perceive this conflict as

less threatening tend to exhibit less internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, but

attachment orientation does not necessarily moderate this relationship in predictable ways.

While the results of this study contribute to the field’s current understanding of the relationship

between parent-child attachment and interparental conflict and the impact it has on internalizing

and externalizing behavior problems, it is clear that further exploration is needed to better

understand the complexity of how these two aspects of family functioning contribute to

adolescent development.

References

Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth and Families.

Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist 4-18 and the 1991profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, Silvia M. (1969) Attachment, exploration, and separation illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41 (1) 49-68.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Oxford, England: Lawrence Erlbaum, 391.

22

Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709-716.

Armsden, G.C & Greenberg, M.T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well- being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5) 427-433.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Bickham, N. L., & Fiese, B. H. (1997). Extension of the children's perceptions of interparental conflict scale for use with late adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 11 (2), 246-250.

Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 3, 355-533.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Separation. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol .2. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Bretherton, I., Walsh, R., Lependorf, M., & Georgeson, H. Attachment networks in postdivorce families: The maternal perspective. In L. Atkinson, & K. J. Zucker (Eds.), Attachment and psychopathology (pp. 97-134). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Cummings, E. M. (1987). Coping with background anger in early childhood. Child Development, 58, 976–984.

Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., Papp, L. M. (2004). Everyday marital conflict and child aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32 (2), 191-202.

Dallos, R., & Vetere, A., Systems theory, family attachments and processes of triangulation: Does the concept of triangulation offer a useful bridge? Journal of Family Therapy, 32(2), 117-137.

Davies, P.T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387-411.

Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1998). Exploring children’s emotional security as a mediator of the link between marital relations and child adjustment. Child Development, 69 (1), 124-139.

Day, R. D., & Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2009). Mother and father connectedness and involvement during early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(6), 900-904.

23

Deklyen, M., & Speltz, M. L. (2001). Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

DeKlyen, M., Speltz, M.L., & Greenberg, M.T. (1998). Fathering and early onset conduct problems: Positive and negative parenting, father-son attachment, and the marital context. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 1(1), 3-21.

Dekovic, M. (1999). Risk and Protective factors in the development of problem behavior during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolesence, 28 (6), 667-685.

Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial Behavior in youth. In Nancy Eisenberg, William Damon, and Richard M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

El-Sheikh, M., & Elmore-Staton, L. (2004). The link between marital conflict and child adjustment: Parent-child conflict and perceived attachments as mediators, potentiators, and mitigators of risk. Development and Psychopathology, 16 (3) 631-648.

Emery, R. (1999). Marriage, divorce and children’s adjustment. In H. W. Stevenson & A.E. Sigal (Eds.), Child development research and social policy (pp. 189-266) Chigacgo: University of Chicago Press.

Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M., & Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model of the impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of disrupted parenting. Child Development, 61, 1112-1123.

Goodman, S. H., Barfoot, B., Frye, A. A., & Belli, A. M. (1999). Dimensions of marital conflict and children’s social problem-solving skills. Journal of Family Psychology, 13 (1), 33-45.

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

Grych, J.H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F.D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: The children’s perception of interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63, 558-572.

Howes, C., Matheson, C. C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1994). Maternal, teacher, and child care history correlates of children’s relationships with peers. Child Development, 65, 264-273.

Jenkins, J.M., & Smith, M.A. (1991). Marital disharmony and children’s behaviour problems: Aspects of a poor marriage that affect children adversely. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 32(5), 793.

Kidwell, S. L., Young, M. E., Hinkle, L. D., Ratliff, A. D., Marcum M. E., & Martin, C. N. (2010). Emotional competence and behavior problems: Differences across preschool assessment of attachment classifications. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 15(3), 391-406.

24

La Valley A. G. (2009). The parent-child relationship in adulthood: Associations among attachment, relational maintenance, conflict management, and relationship satisfaction. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 70(5-A).

Loukas, A., Zucker, R. A., Fitzgerald, H. E., Krull, J. L. (2003). Developmental trajectories of disruptive behavior problems among sons of alcoholics: Effects of parent psychopathology, family conflict, and child under control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(1), 119-131.

Madigan, S., Atkinson, L., Laurin, K., Benoit, D. (2013). Attachment and internalizing behavior in early childhood: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 672-89.

Main, M., Hesse, E., & Kaplan, N. (2005). Predictability of attachment behavior and representational processes at 1, 6, and 19 years of age. In Klaus E.Grossmann, Karin Grossmann, and Everett Waters (Eds.), Attachment from infancy adulthood. The Guilford Press.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1) 66-105.

Mosley, J., & Thompson, E. (1995). Fathering behavior and child outcomes: The role of race and poverty. In W. Marsiglio (Ed.), Fatherhood: Contemporary theory, research, and social policy (148-165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marucs, N. E. (2004). Marital conflict and aggression, children’s aggressive schemas, and child maladjustment: An investigation with clinic-referred families. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 65 (1-B), 446.

Neighbors, B.D, Forehand, R., Bau, J.J. (1997). Interparental conflict and relations with parents as predictors of young adult functioning. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 169-187.

Pierrehumbert, B., Miljkovitch, R., Plancherel, B., Halfon, O. & Ansermet, F. (2000). Attachment and temperament in early childhood: implications for later behavior problems. Infant and Child Development, 9, 17-32.

Robertson, J., & Bowlby, J. (1952) Responses of young children to separation from their mothers. Courr. Cent. Int. Enf., 2, 131-142.

Rossman, B.B. & Rosenberg, M.S. (1992). Family stress and functioning in children: The moderating effects of children’s beliefs about their control over parental conflict. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 33 (4) 699-716.

Schore, A. (2000). Foreword to the reissue of Attachment and loss, Vol 1: Attachment by John Bowlby. New York: Basic Books.

Speltz, M. L., DeKlyen, M., & Greenberg, M. T. (1999). Attaachment in boys with early onset conduct problems. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 269-285.

25

Stocker, C. M., Richmond, M. K., Sow, S. M., Alexander, E. K., & Elias, N. M. (2003). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: Parental hostility and children’s interpretations as mediators. Social Development, 12 (2) 149-161.

Thurber, S., & Sheehan W. (2012). Note on truncated t scores in discrepancy studies with the Child Behavior Checklist and Youth Self Report. Archives of Assessment Psychology, 2 (1).

Verschueren, K., & Marcoen, A. (2005). perceived security of attachment to mother and father: Developmental differences and relations to self-worth and peer relationships at school. In Kathryn A. Kerns and Rhonda A. Richardson’s (Eds.), Attachment in middle childhood. New York: Guilford Press.

Vetere, A. and Cooper, J. (2005). Children who witness violence at home. In A. Vetere and E. Dowling (Eds), Narrative therapies with children and their families (pp. 75-89). London: Routledge.

Vetere, A. and Cooper, J. (2006) The effects of domestic violence on children: Trauma, resilience and breaking the cycle of violence. Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, 1, 26-38.

Waters, E., Merrick, S., & Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71 (3), 684-689.

Weinfield, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity and their correlates. Child Development, 71 (3), 695-702.

Yang, H., Cai, T., He, Y. (2010). Parent attachment, peers attachment and high school students’ behavior problems. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18 (1), 107-108.

Youngblade. L. M., & Belsky, J. (1992). Parent-child antecedents of 5-year-olds’ close friendships: A longitudinal analysis. Developmental Psychology, 28, 700-713.

26

APPENDIX A

EXTENDED LITERATURE REVIEW

27

Introduction and Literature Review

In formulating his theory, Bowlby (1982) was predominately influenced by the

psychodynamic principles governing behavior, but exploration led him to integrate aspects of

other theories, including ethological, evolutionary, and cognitive elements. Using ethological

principles, Bowlby (1982) proposed that infant attachment to caregivers is an instinctive

behavior that had evolved over generations. These instinctive patterns of behavior are similar for

all members of a species, usually run a set course and contribute to the survival of the species

(Bowlby, 1969). In accordance with the ethological perspective, Bowlby (1973) hypothesized

that infants are born with these instinctive behaviors, which then become organized into complex

behavior systems that guide the individual’s interactions.

Attachment behaviors are most easily observed when children perceive threat. When

children begin to sense danger, they become motivated to gain or maintain close contact with

their primary caregiver for protection. In early life, simple separation from the attachment figure

is the perceived danger, which affects attachment and exploratory behaviors (Sable, 2004).

When consistently separated from the primary caregiver, the child becomes anxious and engages

in behaviors to seek comfort through less adaptive means. The separations have a cumulative

effect and can make the child more sensitive to periods of later separation from the primary

caregiver or other attachment figures (Sable, 2004).

Infant Attachment Patterns

Securely attached infants use their caregiver as a secure base from which to explore their

environment and retreat to in times of distress when they need comfort or protection (Ainsworth

& Bell, 1969). Secure children tend to develop higher self-esteem and feel an inherent sense of

28

worthiness that comes from knowing that they are deserving of their caregiver’s attention and

care (Calkins & Leerkes, 2011; Easterbrooks & Abeles, 2000). Avoidant infants do not seek

comfort from their caregivers, but instead attempt to alleviate negative emotions through their

own means and generally minimize emotions and distrust others; conversely, anxious/ambivalent

infants are overly clingy and demanding, which reflects uncertainty regarding their caregivers’

availability and competency in providing security (Marchand, Schedler, &Wagstaff, 2004).

Main and her colleagues (1985) noticed some infants seemed insecure, but did not exhibit

any definitive characteristics that would identify them as either avoidant or ambivalent. Main et

al. categorized these infants as being disorganized/disoriented because they appeared dazed and

exhibited mannerisms suggesting confusion and apprehension, including contradictory behavior

upon reunions and separation from caregivers. Parents of disorganized children often reported

trauma in their own childhoods and appeared embarrassed or flustered upon reunion with their

children.

Ainsworth (1989) described how attachment organization is demonstrated throughout

development. As children grow in relation to the attachment figure, they begin to learn the

caregiver’s plans and motivations. Subsequently, children learn how to influence caregivers so

their plans and actions align with what the children want. This is a learning process that is

adaptive to all individuals and serves useful purposes throughout life (Gergely & Watson, 1996;

Sroufe, 1979; 1976). With the development of cognitive processes and language, children can

better understand the caregivers’ needs and plans, and thus tolerate separation better because the

separations are not permanent and do not necessarily reflect upon their relationship with the

caregiver. As children become more mobile and interested in exploring the environment, in the

context of a secure attachment relationship children feel free to venture outside of previously set

29

comfort zones while knowing that the attachment figure is still there in times of distress when

comfort and security is sought.

According to Ainsworth (1989), these patterns continue and will play out in important

adult relationships, either allowing for productive and adaptive relationships, or contributing to

unhealthy and disruptive relationships. Although individuals seek new objects of attachment

(e.g., romantic partners and peers), this does not imply that the original bond with the primary

caregiver no longer exists. For example, the response to the death of the primary caregiver

demonstrates how the attachment bond endures through the changing dynamics of the

relationship (Ainsworth, 1989).

Continuity of Attachment

According to Fraley (2002), there are two schools of thought regarding the stability of

attachment: revisionist and prototype. The revisionist perspective claims that the internal

working models that are established in infancy are relatively flexible and may be revised or

altered depending on one’s experiences through life. The prototype perspective claims that there

is a prototypical internal model of attachment, learned through interactions with the primary

caregiver, and it remains intact although ongoing experiences may later contribute to alterations

in attachment strategies. An extension of the prototype perspective is Fraley’s connectionist

model (Fraley, 2007). This model asserts that an individual can have a global template as well as

more specific representations. Specifically, if an individual interacts with multiple partners (i.e.

parents, peers, romantic partners, etc.), a representation of core features of these significant

relationships can be extracted and maintained into a more cohesive representation. All three

30

perspectives reflect the idea that while relatively stable, attachment patterns have the potential to

change.

However, there is ongoing debate over how stable attachment security is throughout

individual development. The majority of research has found that attachment security is stable

throughout the developmental transitions from infancy to early adulthood (Hamilton, 2000;

Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowel, & Albersheim, 2000; Waters, Weinfield, & Hamilton, 2000).

Waters et al. (2000) showed that classification using Adult Attachment Interview was generally

consistent with Strange Situation classification measured twenty years earlier. Hamilton (2000)

found that continuity of attachment is dependent on attachment orientations. Specifically

anxious/ambivalent individuals’ attachment style is more vulnerable to change, while secure and

disorganized individuals are the least likely to change (Vice, 2005). Discontinuity in attachment

patterns, on the other hand, appear to be related to significant negative life experiences, including

divorce, separation, poverty and parental substance abuse (Hamilton, 2000; Waters et al., 2000;

Weinfeld et al., 2000). For example, Weinfeld et al. found that when attachment classification

did change, the new behaviors could be predicted based on the types of negative life experiences

that the children encountered. Hamilton (2000) posited that insecurely attached individuals are

more likely to experience negative life events than securely attached individuals, so a definitive

statement cannot be made regarding whether secure attachment serves as a protective factor or

other internal and external forces contribute to the management of negative life experiences.

IWMs are not deterministic of later behavior, but rather guide ongoing development in

predictable ways. Although IWMs do not change drastically due to minor life events, they can

be modified in response to major relationship shifts that occur in response to normative and non-

normative transitions (Waters, Hamilton, Weinfield, 2000; Weinfield, Whaley, & Egeland,

31

2004). Research has suggested that changes in IWMS and discontinuity of attachment is

associated with the significant illness or loss of a parent, primary caregiver, or child (Waters,

Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000), instability in caregiver behavior (Main, Hesse,

& Kaplan, 2005), parental divorce (Bretherton, Walsch, Lependorf, & Georgeson, 1997; Waters

et al., 2000), early family experiences (Weinfield, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2000), trauma (Main,

Hesse, & Kaplan, 2005), child abuse (Egeland, Jacobvitz, & Sroufe, 1988; Waters et al., 2003;

Weinfield et al., 2000), parent mental health (Weinfield et al., 2000). Allen and Land (1999)

also proposed that the major interpersonal and cognitive transformations that occur in

adolescence have the potential to cause significant discontinuities of attachment organization

over the life span. However, due to increasing maturity in adolescence, it is likely that in the

absence of severe stressors, attachment orientation becomes more stable as an individual ages

(Allen, McElhaney, Kuperminc, & Jodl, 2004).

As individuals age, specific attachment behaviors change but demonstrate “coherence

across transformations” (Sroufe, 1983) in the meaning and significance of behavioral and

intrapsychic patterns. Individual proximity-seeking behaviors may change, but the underlying

meaning and intent do not. Specifcally, as children grow and develop, so do their manifestations

of their attachment strategies. For example, a secure child will learn to verbal his or her needs to

a caregiver or substitute caregiver like a teacher or babysitter. There is also evidence supporting

the notion that infants who demonstrated various types of insecure attachment grow up to

manifest attachment insecurity in theoretically consonant ways (Weinfield, Sroufe, Egeland, &

Carlson, 1999). For example, anxiously attached infants may often demonstrate anxiety and

depression in later life (Lee & Hankin, 2009). Children who demonstrate avoidant infant

attachment patterns, as adolescents tend to blame others more and are viewed as more hostile

32

than those considered securely attached (Suess, Grossmann, & Sroufe, 1992). Teyber (2006)

posited that when children continually receive messages that they are not worthy of getting these

needs met, evidenced by any of the insecure attachment orientations, they experience anxiety and

develop a core conflict. This conflict is a struggle between primary instincts to survive and

trying to understand what is wrong with them that is preventing their caregiver from meeting

their basic needs. Typically these individuals seek a compromise by developing inflexible

interpersonal coping styles resulting in various mental illnesses.

Assuming continuity of attachment across the lifespan, early researchers used the same

terminology to describe parent-child attachment to romantic attachment orientation. Based on

the Strange Situation paradigm, Ainsworth (1978) classified infants, as secure, avoidant, or

anxious, and later Main, Kaplan, and Cassidy (1985) introduced disorganized. As researchers

began to apply infant attachment patterns to romantic relationships, it became useful to designate

romantic attachment categories that correspond to infant categories but better explain the

manifestation of attachment strategies as they are exhibited by adults. Based on Ainsworth,

Blehar, Waters, and Wall’s (1978) early work on attachment style classification across two

dimensions, avoidance and anxiety, Bartholomew (1990) proposed that four romantic attachment

styles can be derived from a combination of these two dimensions, which reflect internal

working models of self and others. Bartholomew (1990) theorized that a negative view of self is

closely related to anxiety about abandonment and that a negative view of others is closely related

to avoidance. Individuals who demonstrate low avoidance and anxiety have a positive view of

self and others and are described as having a “secure” attachment orientation. Individuals who

demonstrate low avoidance and high anxiety have negative view of self and a positive view of

others are described as having a “preoccupied” attachment orientation. Individuals who

33

demonstrate high avoidance and high anxiety have a negative view of self and others and are

described as having a “fearful” attachment orientation. Individuals who demonstrate high

avoidance and low anxiety have a positive view of self and a negative view of others are

described as having a “dismissing” attachment orientation. As children develop and move from

infancy to adolescence, they maintain consistency in attachment orientation and develop new

attachment relationships.

Adolescent Attachment

In support of this theory, Freeman and Brown (2000) found that secure adolescents

sought comfort from their mothers more than friends, boy/girlfriends and fathers. However,

Ognibene and Collins (1998) found that college students with a secure attachment perceive and

seek more support from friends and family, thus suggesting that the shift of significance from

parent to peer attachment occurs in later adolescence or early adulthood. (Raja, McGee, &

Stanton, 1992; Dekovic & Meeus, 1997; Paterson, Prior, & Field, 1995). Secure attachment to a

parent promotes psychological health, well-being and the absence of psychological distress

among adolescents (Wilkinson & Walford, 2001), however researchers have not found the same

effects for quality of peer attachment (Greenberg, Siegel, & Leitch, 1983; Raja, McGee, &

Stanton, 1992; Dekovic & Meeus, 1997; Paterson, Prior, & Field, 1995). A study by Ducharme,

Doyle, and Markiewicz (2002) found that adolescents who were securely attached to their

mother described less negative interactions with their parents, thought of themselves as more

emotionally expressive, and reported less conflict in their peer relationships. Other studies have

confirmed the findings that secure attachment to at least one parent promotes better self-esteem,

sense of self, coping abilities and social competence (Patterson, Pryor & Field, 1994; Arbona,

34

2003). These studies suggest that adolescent attachment to a parent serves as a better protective

factor against maladjustment than attachment to peers when the attachment orientation is secure.

In contrast, adolescents with an insecure attachment were found to identify a boy/girlfriend or

best friend as the person with whom they had a primary attachment over mothers (Freeman &

Brown, 2000).

According to Mackey (2003), anxiously attached adolescents continue to behave in ways

consistent with descriptions of anxiously attached infants, often appearing needy, demanding,

immature, impulsive, and insecure. Focused primarily on their own needs and feelings, they

tend to become defensive or conversely overly self-critical and passive.

Avoidant adolescents tend to present themselves as self-reliant, unwilling to accept help,

and highly defensive (Mackey, 2003). These individuals minimize the expression of emotion or

feelings and also are more likely to exhibit externalizing behaviors. Avoidantly attached

individuals tend to keep others at a distance and do not let people become emotionally close to

them; they tend to be “the loner,” “the bully,” or possibly “codependent.” In a study of college

students, Dismissing (high avoidance, low anxiety) individuals were less likely to seek support

and more likely to avoid social situations (Ognibene & Collins, 1998). In another study, nearly

thirty percent of adolescents classified as dismissing actually identified themselves as their

primary attachment figure (Freeman & Brown, 2007).

As children move from childhood to adolescence, the value of peers as sources of

companionship and intimacy increases (Buhrmester, 1996; Fraley & Davis, 1997; Nickerson,

2002; Wintre and Crowley, 1993). Carbery and Buhrmester (1998) showed that as individuals

progress through the life stages, their attachment orientation remains relatively stable, but the

reliance on parents decreases as the importance of relationships with peers increases. Parents

35

serve as the original source for learning how to behave in ways to meet individual needs, but it is

during adolescence and young adulthood that individuals increasingly explore other

relationships.

There are two existing theories on the role of peer and family attachment (Cooper, &

Ayers-Lopex, 1985; Cooper, & Cooper, 1992). The Compensatory/Competition Model suggests

that adolescents seek peer support because they are attempting to meet needs not fulfilled by

their parents. This perspective posits that an adolescent’s relationships with parents and peers

are in conflict with each other and are a source of tension. From this view, adolescents transition

from a heavy dependence on parents to greater reliance on their friends and romantic partners

(Cooper et al., 1998; Furman, & Buhrmester, 1992; Hazan and Zeifman, 1994). In contrast, the

Continuity/Cognitive Model posits that the form and quality of relationships an adolescent forms

to peers is an extension of their relationship with their parents (Bowlby, 1969/1967; Offer et al.,

1981; Sullivan, 1953).

Child Behavior Problems

The origin of behavior problems can depend on many factors including socio-economic

strata (Dumka, Roosa, & Jackson, 1997; Dyer, Dodge, & Valente, 1995), ethnicity (Grunbaum,

et al., 2002; Kelder, et al. (2001), & Roberts, 2001; Ma, & Shive, 2000, MacKay, Fingerhut, &

Duran, 2000; Roberts, Chen, & Roberts, 1997), parental factors (Patterson & Bank, 1989;

Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank, 1991; Patterson, Chamberlain, & Reid, 1982; Patterson, DeBaryshe,

& Ramsey 1989) among many other biological and social factors. Research shows conflicting

evidence over whether behavior problems are primarily caused by biological or environmental

factors (Bullock, Deater-Deckard, & Leve, 2006; Van Goozen, Fairchild, Snoek, & Harold,

36

2007; Wichers, van Os, Danckaerts, Geswtel, Derom & Vlietink, 2001). Environmental factors

can be broken down further into different aspects of the environment that affect the development

of behavior problems. Schnoll, Burshteyn and Cea-Aravena (2003) even demonstrated that some

problem behaviors stem from food allergies. Sibling relationships (Barrera, Chas-sin, &

Rogosch, 1993; Fuhrman & Holmbeck, 1995), parent-child relationships (DeKlyen & Speltz,

2001; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989) and inter-parental relationships (El-Sheikh,

Hinnant, & Erath, 2011; El-Sheikh, Kouros, Erath, Cummings, Keller, Staton, Beauchaine, &

Moore, 2009; Jenkins & Smith, 1991; Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Paap, 2003; Zimet & Jacob,

2001) are also crucial contributors to patterns of children’s behaviors.

Biological Explanations

Some researchers postulate that problem behaviors are related to minor neurological

dysfunction (MND) because children with MND are at a higher risk for developing behavior

problems than children without this dysfunction (Batstra, Neeleman, & Hadders-Algra, 2003).

Batstra et al. found that if children had one or two clusters of neurological dysfunction there was

only a slight increase in problem behaviors. In contrast, if the children had three or more clusters

of dysfunction there would be a much higher risk of developing behavior problems. Moreover,

complications during a mother’s pregnancy created a higher risk for having more clusters of

neurological dysfunction. These findings indicate that if children experience troubled prenatal

development and birth, they are more likely to have more neurological dysfunction, which in

turn is associated with a higher risk of behavior problems. Furthermore, Batstra et al. reported

that internalizing behavior problems are more specifically related to fine manipulative

37

dysfunction and externalizing behavior problems are related to choreiform movements and

coordination problems.

The effect that diet and nutrition have on behavior problems, specifically ADHD

symptoms, has also been discussed in the literature. For example, it has long been believed that

refined sugars aggravate symptoms of hyperactivity (Langseth & Dowd, cited in Prinz & Riddle,

1986). One hypothesis for this link is that hyperactive children have abnormal glucose tolerance

curves (Langseth, & Dowd, cited in Prinz & Riddle, 1986). Feingold (1975) introduced the

notion that food additives, particularly synthetic coloring and flavoring and salicylates, can also

increase hyperactivity in children (Eigenmann & Haenggeli, 2004; Feingold, 1975). Another

interesting suggestion that food allergies are associated with hyperactivity (Rapp, 1978) has been

supported by evidence of improvement in children’s hyperactive symptoms when known allergic

foods are removed from their diet (Carter, Urbanowicz, Hemsley, Mantila, Strobel, Graham, &

Taylor 1993; Egger, Carter, Graham, Gumley, & Soothill, 1985; Breaky 1997; Boris & Mitchell

1994; Schnoll, Burshetyn, Cea-Aravana, 2003). Other research has indicated a link between

certain fatty acids and the development of behavior problems. For example, Stevens, Zentall,

Abate, Kuczek, and Burgess (1996) found that children with lower omega-3 fatty acid

concentrations exhibited more behavior problems than a control group. Similarly, Mitchell,

Aman, Turbott, and Manku (1987) found that DHA, DGLA, and AA omega-6 fatty acids were

significantly lower in individuals with behavior problems than in individuals without behavior

problems.

38

Socio-cultural Explanations

A popular theory that attempts to explain the etiology of behavior problems is the Social

Development Model (SDM) (Fleming, Catalano, Oxford, & Harachi, 2002). This model posits

that young children learn patterns of behavior from socializing with family and school-aged

peers. Children become socialized by moving through four ordered constructs: perceived

opportunities for involvement in activities and interactions with others; the degree of

involvement in activities and interactions; the skills to participate in the involvement and

interaction; and the reinforcement they perceive from this involvement and interaction. Through

consistent socialization experiences, an attachment forms between the individual and socializing

unit. Once this bond is formed, the individual acts according to the values and beliefs that were

learned in this early period of development. Essentially the behaviors exhibited by an individual,

whether pro-social or anti-social, reflect the values formed from the socialization process.

Coercive family interaction model, another popular theory that attempts to explain

aggressive behavior in children developed by Patterson, DeBaryshe, and Ramsey (1989), posits

that children learn to act aggressively by imitating their parents aggressive behaviors and for

being reinforced by their parents for behaving aggressively. Another theory of the etiology of

behavior problems proposes that the neighborhood in which children grow up influences the

development of behavior problems. This hypothesis is difficult to test due to confounding

variables such as family genetics, level of stress in the home due to poor finances and other life

strains, and the amount of support received from parents and for parents. However, Caspi,

Taylor, Moffitt, and Plomin (2000) reported that children living in deprived neighborhoods were

at a higher risk for developing behavior problems regardless of genetics. They found that

neighborhood deprivation only accounted for 5% of the population variance for the development

39

of behavior problems, whereas environmental factors shared by family members accounted for

20% of the variance. This finding suggests that the environmental effects of a deprived

neighborhood can lead to a higher occurrence of behavior problems, particularly when combined

with other family risk factors.

Attachment and Behavior Problems

In a discussion of ADHD, Erdman (1998) theorized that when children experience

parents becoming distant or unresponsive, they continue to explore their environment but may

use anger to alert their parent of situations that they perceive as dangerous. Parents typically

respond when their children’s behavior is aggressive, and thus the anger affords children a

feeling of power and control when they are otherwise powerless. This repetitive cycle reinforces

the children’s feelings of anxiety and vulnerability and their tendency to react to these feelings in

an aggressive manner. In turn, parents learn to only respond to the most extreme behaviors

exhibited by their children. Erdman posited that these behaviors are not the result of ADHD, but

simply of attempts to establish relational strategies necessary to survive in an insecure

environment. Thus, to discriminate between ADHD and insecure attachment behaviors, one

must look at the context in which they are present.

Many studies have found that mothers of children who exhibit behavior problems are less

warm, harsher in interactions with their children, more coercive (Hart, DeWolf, & Burts, 1993;

Pettit & Harrist, 1993; Snyder, Cramer, Afrank, & Patterson, 2005), less positively involved with

their children (Leckmen-Westin, Cohen, & Stueve, 2009; Russell & Russell, 1996) and more

often diagnosed as having a personality disorder than mothers of children without behavior

problems (Johnson, Cohen, Kasen, & Brook, 2006). A noteworthy study conducted by Speltz,

40

DeKlyen and Greenberg (1995) found that 54% of preschool-aged boys, who were later

diagnosed with early onset Conduct Disorder in adolescence, demonstrated insecure attachment

to both parents as preschoolers, as opposed to only 18% of boys with no diagnosed behavior

problems in adolescence. They found that all three insecure attachment categories were

overrepresented in their clinical sample. A similar study comparing preschool children who

were later diagnosed with ODD to a control group reported that only 16% of the children

diagnosed with ODD had a secure attachment in preschool compared to 72% of the control

group (Greenberg, Speltz, DeKlyen, & Endriga, 1991). Children with an ODD diagnosis also

showed more distress and protest at separation from parents compared to the control children.

Results demonstrated that attachment orientation discriminated between the clinical and control

groups better than other parent-child interaction variables, such as parent commands and

criticism, or child noncompliance (Speltz, DeKlyen, Greenberg, and Dryden, 1995).

Resolution of the conflict is important to signal the end of heightened stress. If the

argument is not resolved, children may perceive the tension as everlasting. In contrast, if the

argument is resolved, then the children’s estimate of parental efficacy increases and this in turn

allows the children to feel more secure about the ability of parents to work things out in future

disagreements. Grych et al. (2004) found that children can be affected by becoming the target of

parent’s anger or aggression, being drawn into the parental disagreements (triangulation) and

feeling pressure to side with a particular parent. For example, when children are the focus of the

argument, they may feel greater responsibility and react in a way to try to distract the parents

Many studies have found that after controlling for genetic similarities, siblings vary

drastically in their reactions to marital discord (Plomin & Daniels, 1987; Richmond & Stocker,

2003, 2008; Scoop, McDonald, Manke, Jouriles, 2005). Turkheimer and Waldron (2000)

41

differentiated between the observed environment and the effective environment. The observed

environment refers to the observable and measurable environment in which the children live, and

is separated into aspects that are unique to each child and aspects that are shared across siblings.

The effective environment is the differences between siblings that cannot be measured directly,

such as behavior and personality. Factors that might explain individual differences in the

development of behavior problems in the face of marital conflict are attachment orientation, birth

order, early childhood experiences, different environments (Plomin & Daniel, 1987), and

perceived parental threat (Richmond & Stocker, 2003, 2008; Scoop et al., 2005).

Diversity of Family Structure

In today’s world where almost half of marriages end in divorce (US Census Bureau,

2002), an examination of marital conflict and child behavior problems must necessarily consider

the impact of the divorce and subsequent reorganizations of family structure. Although some

studies indicate that the negative effects of divorce appear to be decreasing as divorce becomes

more common (Amato, 1994; 2001), there exists contrary evidence that children of divorce

continue to be at risk for problems such as disobedience, aggression, delinquency, depression,

anxiety and poor self-esteem (Amato & Cheadle, 2005; Emery, 1999; Hetherington, 1999;

McLanahan, 1999). Yet, the impact of divorce on the development of behavior problems has not

been shown to differ significantly from the impact of pre-divorce marital conflict (Kelly, 2000).

Researchers have concluded that events leading to divorce, such as marital conflict, are the

primary contributor to children’s behavior problems rather than the divorce per se. Over half of

behavior problems identified in children whose parents’ marriage failed, were present four to

twelve years before the parents divorced (Cherlin et al., 1991). Additionally, in cases where

42

marriages that were marked by low conflict ended in divorce, children experienced negative

consequences, but the dissolution of marriages marked by high conflict had beneficial effects on

the children (Booth and Amato 2001).

However, divorce also intensifies other factors that could negatively affect child behaviors,

such as economic, social, and physical or mental health problems, and ongoing interactions of

parents with the ex-spouse and children after divorce. In the three years following divorce,

although it is unlikely that a high intensity of conflict will continue, the negative effects will

remain (King & Heard, 1999; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992). When marital conflict is low after a

divorce, children’s adjustment tends to be more positive; conversely, when marital conflict is

high after a divorce, the children are more likely to exhibit poorer adjustment (Amato & Rezac,

1994). Interestingly, these effects appear to vary depending on custody arrangements. If

interparental conflict is high, there are typically more behavior problems in children if the

parents share custody as opposed to one parent having sole custody (Johnston, 1995).

Research suggests that children of divorce characterized by a high degree of marital

conflict tend to become more dependent, disobedient, aggressive and demanding, whereas

parents tend to become less consistent, less affectionate and less able to control their children’s

behavior (Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990; Harold & Conger, 1997; Harold,

Fincham, Osborne, & Conger, 1997; Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992; Hetherington, Cox, &

Cox, 1976; Krishnakurnar, & Buehler, 2000). These findings imply that when parents are

struggling with their own major life disruptions, they are less able to parent effectively,

especially at a time when children need the most attention.

The effect that divorce has on parent-child relationships is an area of interest that yields

many different findings and possibilities for further investigation. Many researchers have found

43

that it is not necessarily the divorce that has the most negative impact on the children, but rather

the quality of relationship between children and their parents before the divorce (Afifi, Huber, &

Ohs, 2006; Block, Block, Gjerde, 1986; Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale, & McRae, 1998; Doherty &

Needle, 1991; Lau, 2007). In addition, when parents divorce, the renegotiation of the parent-

child relationship is a key factor in determining the effect of the divorce on the child (Simons,

Whitbeck, Beaman, & Conger, 1994). A comprehensive study by Zill, Morrison, and Coiro

(1993) showed that after a divorce adolescents were more likely to have poor relationships with

their fathers. However, girls tended to exhibit more problems in their relationships with their

mothers after divorce, but not their fathers. Participants in early adolescence (12-16 years-old)

were more likely to have behavior problems and receive psychological help if their parents

divorced earlier in their life as opposed to later. Similarly, older adolescents (age 18-22 years-

old) were more likely to have a poor relationship with their father, have more behavior problems

and drop out of high school if their parents divorced earlier in their development (Zill et al.,

1993).

When divorce occurs in a family system, it is likely that eventually one or both of the

parents will remarry or re-partner. Koerner, Rankin, Kenyon and Korn (2004) found that

adolescent perceptions of their mothers did not differ in relation to remarriage or cohabitation,

suggesting that the effects are the same regardless of whether a parent re-marries or lives with a

partner. Because it can be difficult to tease apart the effects of divorce and remarriage on the

development of adolescent behavior problems, there is little research to date that examines the

role that remarriage plays in this process. However, it is clear that children in step-families often

experience more problems in school, higher rates of externalizing and internalizing behaviors,

less initiative, and a lower quality of life than children in intact families (Hanson, McLanahan, &

44

Thomson, 1996; Lansford, Malone, Castellino, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2006). Potential areas of

conflict in re-marriages that can affect children are adolescent stress, parental discipline, and

power (Chapman, 1991).

The effects that the adolescent’s attachment relationships have on adjusting to the new

marital dyad is also an issue that has not been received much attention. The general consensus of

the existing literature is that remarriage and divorce can leave the adolescent-parent relationships

in a vulnerable state. Weiss (1982) suggested that the threat, distress, possible sexual arousal

towards the cross-gender step-parent, or other emotional states may trigger the adolescent’s

proximity seeking behavior, intensifying old bonds or increasing the need to seek new

attachment figures among peers as a means to gain comfort. Love and Murdock (2004) found

that children from stepfamilies often had less secure attachment to their parents than children

from intact families. They also found that secure children from stepfamilies tended to be better

adjusted and have a better sense of well-being than insecure children from step-families,

indicating that attachment orientation had a moderating effect on overall adjustment and blended

families.

Aggression in Marital Conflict

Evidence indicates that different types of marital conflict are associated with increased

behavior problems in children, especially internalizing and externalizing behaviors (El Sheikh &

Elmore-Staton 2004; Marchand, Schedler, & Wagstaff, 2004; Neighbors, Forehand, & Bau,

1997; Richmond & Stocker, 2008). Negative conflict behaviors are maladaptive means of

solving marital disputes, such as yelling, name-calling, demeaning comments and physical

aggression. Many researchers have hypothesized that it is the aggressive nature of fighting that

45

affects children, whereas a calmer, more productive means of working out disagreements may

conversely have a positive effect on children. Martin and Clements (2002) found that children

who witness inter-parental aggression react more strongly and in more negative ways than

children who do not witness violent interactions between parents. Conversely, if parents engage

in positive conflict behaviors (e.g., compromising, calm debates, exhibiting love despite

differences in opinion), children are not as likely to exhibit externalizing behavior problems

(Marchland et al., 2004). Moreover, externalizing behaviors are more likely if a parent shows

overt hostility and anger; whereas, internalizing behaviors are more likely if the parent

demonstrates avoidance and withdrawal (Marchland et al., 2004).

Jenkins and Smith (1991) identified three different dimensions of disharmony that could

negatively affect children’s behaviors. First, overt parental conflict may be distressing and

encourage similar behavior in the children. Second, covert parental conflict (i.e., disharmony

that changes how family members interact with one another) could impair children’s adjustment.

Finally, marital discord could affect the way parents interact with their children, thus

encouraging each parent to behave in a different manner toward the children, which was termed

parental discrepancy in child-rearing. Webster-Stratton and Hammond (1999) found that critical

parenting and low emotional responsivity of parents were strongly predictive of child conduct

problems and thought to stem from the marital conflict. Cummings, Goeke-Morey, and Papp

(2004) also studied three aspects of marital conflict: conflict tactics (constructive versus

destructive); parental emotions (positive versus negative); and conflict topics (child, marital,

social, and work). Cummings et al. found that marital aggression increased aggression in

children, especially when parents’ tactics and emotions were negative and the children were the

object of the argument.

46

Bidirectional Nature of Marital Conflict and Behavior Problems

While the link between marital conflict and behavior problems in children has been well

established, less research has focused on the mutual influence between these two phenomena.

There is some evidence suggesting a bidirectional relationship between children’s behavior and

marital functioning. At the broadest level, couples without children have higher marital

satisfaction than couples with children (Ryder, 1973; Orathink & Van Steenwegen, 2007 White

& Edwards, 1990). Relatedly, Cowan and Cowan (2000) demonstrated that the birth of a baby

marks a decline in marital quality and an increase in marital distress. Other studies have reported

that the parents of challenging children, whether in temperament (Leve, Scaramella, & Fagot,

2001) or physical health (Gaither, Bingen, & Hopkins, 2000), also show less marital satisfaction.

In a longitudinal study over three years, O’Conner and Insabella (1999) found that marital

conflict predicted an increase in adolescent behavior problems, and that adolescent’s

externalizing behavior predicted a more negative rating of the marital relationship by fathers.

These findings do not indicate a clear causal relationship, but do lead one to believe that the

interaction between marital conflict and children’s behavior problems is significant.

The Current Study: Attachment, Marital Conflict and Behavior Problems

Conversely, insecurely attached children may feel that they are at fault for their parents’

arguments, and subsequently begin to internalize blame and or engage in externalizing behaviors

as a way to cope with this feeling of responsibility.

Research has demonstrated that marital conflict can potentially disrupt children’s

emotional security with parents (Corinne, Steele, Forehand & Armistead, 1996; Davies &

Cummings, 1994; 1998; Davies, Harold, Goeke-Morey & Cummings, 2002; Willhelm,

47

Brownhill & Boyce, 2000). Frosch, Mangelsdorf, and McHale (2000) explored how positive and

negative marital behaviors affect children’s attachment to parents. They proposed that marital

conflict inhibits children from seeking comfort from their parents in times of distress, which

affects the attachment system and usually leads to disruption in many areas of the children’s

lives. Frosch et al. reported that warm and interconnected marital interactions were associated

with the security of father-child attachment but not mother-child attachment. In turn, they also

found that more hostile marital behavior was linked with a less secure mother-child attachment,

but not father-child attachment. Consequently, it is important to look at attachment to both

mother and father independently, as proposed in the current study.

Davies and Cummings (1994) proposed the Emotional Security Hypothesis, which

suggests that both the parent-child attachment relationship and the interparental bond affect the

children’s reaction to marital conflict. According to this hypothesis, marital conflict threatens the

children’s emotional security by disrupting discipline, inducing stress, lessening parental

availability, impairing parental sensitivity and endangering children’s emotional and/or physical

well-being. Children can also over-interpret the conflict and fear that it will lead to divorce even

when that is not the intention of the parents. Consequently, marital discord may have a negative

impact on children’s emotional security and regulation of emotions. Repeated arousal of

negative emotion due to marital conflict depletes the resources available for children to cope

with later disruptions. Children may become hypervigilant to conflict and respond more

negatively in the face of any conflict regardless of its nature. Along with negatively impacting

the children’s emotional regulation, low emotional security causes children to seek alternative

means to reduce their anxiety. As mentioned previously, to end the stress, children might

attempt to intervene, ask parents to stop, or use distraction strategies, such as getting hurt or

48

exhibiting externalizing behaviors to draw the parents’ attention and themselves away from the

marital conflict.

Children’s insecure representations of parents’ marital relationships mediated the link

between marital conflict and children’s internalizing behaviors (Davies & Cummings, 1998).

This study emphasizes the role that a child’s perception of the marital relationship plays in child

reactions, and it helps explain how internalizing behavior problems develop. In a study taking

into account both of these findings, Stocker, Richmond, Low, Alexander, and Elias (2003) found

that children’s perceptions of mother’s and father’s child-directed negativity significantly

mediated the association between marital conflict and children’s internalizing and externalizing

problems. They also reported that supportive parent-child relationships buffer the stress

produced by marital conflict. On the other hand, marital conflict may spill over into the

parenting dyad and lead to more negative affect and hostility directed from parents to children.

Children in these environments report more depression Grych & Fincham, 1990; Jenkins &

Smith, 1991) and exhibit more hostility in everyday interactions (Cummings, 1987; Stocker et

al., 2003).

Hypotheses and Analysis

The current study examined the relationship of attachment orientation on the

development of behavior problems in adolescents when in the presence of marital conflict. The

hypothesis was primarily evaluated with data from the adolescent instruments and demographic

information provided by the parent. In order to accommodate a low response rate, extraneous

hypotheses were deleted from the original proposal to maintain adequate power (power = .80)

despite the obtained sample size of 57 dyads and using an estimated medium effect size of

49

R2=.15, based on Cohen’s (1988) guidelines for power and effect size. Using Green’s (1991)

two-step procedure for determining sample size, it was determined that with 4 explanatory

variables, or predictors, there should be an N of at least 70. A general rule of thumb for the

analyses required to evaluate the hypothesis in question is to have at least 10 participants for

every predictor. As stated previously, the hypotheses have been modified to reduce

redundancies and minimize the number of analyses required while still maintain being able to

examine the role that parent child attachment plays in the relationship between interparental

conflict and behavior problems. In addition, it was determined that the obtained sample size

was deemed adequate due to the exploratory nature of the study.

After running Pearson correlations and centering all predictor variables on their scale

mean, the above hypothesis was evaluated using multilevel modeling (MLM) following Baron

and Kenny’s (1986) procedures to test moderating effects. Two separate sets of moderation

analyses were planned to assess the moderation of mother and father attachment. With four

outcome variables (i.e., CBCL externalizing, CBCL internalizing, YSR externalizing, YSR

internalizing), there were a total of ten regression equations. perceived interparental conflict was

a predictor variable and it was represented in the first step by scores on the CPIC frequency,

intensity, and perceived threat subscales. Parent-child attachment was the moderating variable

in the second step and was measured by mother and father scores on the IPPA. Appropriate

interaction terms were entered in the third and final step, which were formed by using the

products of the predictors and the moderators (e.g. CPIC frequency X IPPA-mother/father; CPIC

Intensity X IPPA-mother/father; CPIC Intensity X IPPA-mother/father).

50

Figure A1

Many Secure = Dashed Moderately Secure = Dotted Insecure = Solid Behavior Problems

Few

Low Medium High

Marital Conflict

Figure A2

51

APPENDIX B

ADDITIONAL RESULTS

52

Preliminary Analyses: Demographics

Demographic statistics for all continuous variables are presented in Tables 3 and 4.

Before testing the hypothesis, preliminary analyses examined associations among demographic

variables (i.e. age, sex, ethnicity, educational achievement) and the continuous variables. Age

and grade of the adolescent were positively correlated with the child’s perception of his or her

level of internalizing behavior problems (r = .311, p < .05) and (r = .269, p < .05), respectively,

indicating that as age increased, so did the perception of internalizing behavior problems as

evidenced by the YSR internalizing Behavior Problem Scale. In addition, as the responding

parent’s age increased, so did the adolescent’s perception of internalizing behavior problems as

evidenced by the YSR internalizing Behavior Problem Scale (r = .448, p < .05). Father

attachment was negatively correlated with the age and grade of the adolescent (r = -.288; -.291, p

< .05), and the age of the responding parent (r = -.369, p < .05) and the child’s other parent (= -

.364, p < .01), indicating that as the age and grade increased for the adolescents, and as the age

increased for both parents, the security of attachment to the father decreased. The responding

parent’s age was negatively correlated with mother attachment (r = -.458, p < .05), and positively

correlated with the CPIC frequency (r = .344, p < .05) and coping efficacy (r = .327, p < .05).

This means that as the responding parent’s age increases, the child’s attachment to his or her

mother decreases, the perception of frequency and coping efficacy of interparental conflict

increases. Not surprisingly, changes in marital status is positively correlated with CPIC Intensity

(r = .355, p < .001), and CPIC frequency (r = .381, p < .001) indicating that the more changes in

marital status, the higher intensity and frequency of interparental conflict. Interestingly, changes

in marital status were also positively correlated with interparental conflict Resolution (r = .500, p

53

< .001), indicating that the more changes in marital status, the higher the perception of conflict

resolution.

To determine if there were significant differences between demographic groups for the

continuous variables, multiple univariate analysis of variances models were performed. There

were no significant differences found between groups for behavior problems, father attachment,

intensity of conflict, or perceived threat of conflict. When parent and child ethnicity was

collapsed into “white” and “non-white” given the small minority distribution, white children

were found to be more securely attached to their mothers (F = 5.320, p < .05) than non-white

children. In addition, non-white children perceived their parents as engaging in more frequent

conflict (F = 5.412, p < .05) than white children.

Preliminary Analyses: Correlations

A significant correlation that is noteworthy is the positive correlation between Mother

and Father Attachment (r = .623, p < .001) which indicates that the more securely attached an

adolescent is to his or her father, the more securely he or she is to be attached to his or her

mother. With regards to interparental conflict, Intensity was positively correlated with frequency

(r = .723, p < .001) and perceived threat (r = .394, p < .001). Mother Attachment was

negatively correlated with Intensity (r = .486, p < .001), frequency (r = -.740, p < .001), and

perceived threat (r = -.339, p < .001) indicating that the intensity, frequency and perceived threat

of interparental conflict increased, security of attachment to mothers decreased. Father

Attachment was also negatively correlated with Intensity and frequency of interparental conflict

(r = -.297/-.512, p < .005/.001) respectively.

54

Adolescents’ self-report of internalizing behavior problems were significantly and

positively correlated with YSR externalizing Behavior Problems (r = .532, p < .01), CBCL

internalizing Behavior Problems (r = .626, p < .01), and CBCL externalizing Behavior Problems

(r = .432, p < .001), indicating that from the adolescents perspective, higher frequencies of

internalizing behaviors were associated with higher frequencies of the adolescents perspective of

externalizing behavior problems and their parents perspective of both internalizing and

externalizing behavior problems. There also appeared to be some agreement between the

adolescents and parents report of externalizing behavior problems as evidenced by a significant

and positive correlation between YSR and CBCL externalizing Behavior Problems (r = .530, p <

.01). Parental responding also indicated a significant correlation between internalizing and

externalizing behavior problems (r = .592, p < .01).

Father attachment was significantly and negatively correlated with YSR internalizing

Behavior Problems (r = -.382, p<.01), CBCL internalizing (r = -.389, p<.05) and CBCL

externalizing Behavior Problems (r = -.406, p<.01). This indicates that as security to their father

decreased, the adolescents perspective of their internalizing behavior problems increased, and the

parent’s perspective of both the adolescents internalizing and externalizing behavior increased.

Mother attachment was significantly and negatively correlated with YSR internalizing Behavior

Problems (r = -.614, p<.01), YSR externalizing Behavior Problems (r = -.491, p<.01), CBCL

internalizing Behavior Problems (r = -.280, p<.05), and CBCL externalizing Behavior Problems

(r = -.320, p<.05). This indicates that as security to their mother decreased, the adolescents

perspective of their internalizing and externalizing behavior problems increased, and the parent’s

perspective of both the adolescents internalizing and externalizing behavior increased.

55

The adolescents report of their externalizing behavior problems was significantly and

positively correlated with CPIC threat (r = .308, p<.05), CPIC frequency (r = .317, p<.05), and

CPIC Intensity (r = .430, p<.01). This indicates that as an adolescents’ perception of

interparental threat, frequency, and intensity increased, so did their exhibition of externalizing

behavior problems. The YSR internalizing Behavior scale was also significantly and positively

correlated with CPIC Intensity (r = .301, p<.05) and CPIC frequency (r = .439, p<.01),

indicating that as an adolescents’ perception of interparental threat and frequency, increased, so

did their exhibition of internalizing behavior problems.

Discussion

Interestingly, as the age of the adolescent increased their attachment security to their

father decreased, but no such effect was found with attachment to mothers. The majority of

research has found that attachment security is stable throughout the developmental transitions

from infancy to early adulthood (Hamilton, 2000; Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowel, &

Albersheim, 2000; Waters, Weinfield, & Hamilton, 2000) and individuals identify their mothers

as their primary attachment figure (Bowlby, 1980; Ainsworth, 1979; Freeman & Brown, 2001).

Also, according to the existing literature, the major developmental tasks during adolescence are

to establish independence and autonomy from the family of origin and to form a stable self-

identity (Cretzmeyer, 2003; Makey, 2003). During this period, adolescents fully test the IWMs

that have been established in their early years, but still rely on parents to serve as a secure base

from which to explore and develop autonomy. Consequently, adolescence is characterized by

the persistence of strong and complex bonds to parents. Therefore, the current finding supports

existing literature that mothers remain the primary attachment figure and adolescents begin to

56

transfer those bonds to other relationships. Similarly, as the parent’s age increased, the security

of attachment to both mother and father decreased. This could be due to the lack of connection

felt by the adolescent to the parent due to the discrepancies in ages, or this could be more

reflective of the adolescents becoming more reliant on their peer relationships for attachment

security.

Parental age was also found to be associated with higher incidences of interparental

conflict. This is somewhat unexpected, as most of the current literature has found that length of

marriage and age is associated with a decline in frequency of interparental conflict (Condie,

1989; Gilford & Bengtson, 1979; Johnson, White, Edwards, & Booth, 1986; Keith & Schafer,

1986; Levenson, Cartensen, & Gottman, 1993). However, Hatch & Bulcroft (2004) challenged

this common finding and demonstrated that the frequency of marital conflict can increase

depending on many factors including spousal age, length of marriage, cohort effects, and the

presence of children in the home. Specifically they found that the highest marital conflict

frequency was found for couples aged 40-59 who had been married between 10-20 years which

corresponds to the demographic sample of the current study (Hatch & Bulcroft).

A seemingly surprising finding was that the more changes in marital status, the higher

adolescents rated their parents on interparental conflict resolution. There are two logical

explanations for this finding. First, the adolescents were instructed to fill out the CPIC according

to the relationship between the parents that they currently live with or spend the most time with

(i.e. mother and step-father, or father and step-mother, etc.). Therefore, if their biological

parent’s marriage was marked by significant conflict and ended in divorced, and thus indicated

by the responding parents number of changes in marital status, that would not necessary be the

case in their current marriage. Further, the parent could have learned from the mistakes made in

57

their previous relationship and may work harder to avoid repeating similar mistakes in their

current relationship. Second, items that make up the Resolution scale could also reflect partner’s

coping skills as they relate to marital conflict. For example, two of the six items ask about

parents’ ability to find solutions to problems.

Preliminary analyses suggesting ethnic differences in attachment security should be

interpreted with extreme caution due to the small number of non-White men in this study.

However, this discrepancy has been found between African American and white children

(Bakermans-Kranenburg, van Ijzendoorn, & Kroonenberg, 2004) which made up the majority of

the “non-white” minority subgroup. These researchers posit three possible explanations for cross

cultural differences among attachment styles: culturally biased attachment measures, attachment

quality and attachment behaviors may have different cultural significances, and a third variable

that is related to both attachment and culture could confounding the results (2004). These

explanations could apply to members of all minority groups and explain the current study’s

finding.

Analyses also demonstrated that non-white children perceived their parents as engaging

in more frequent conflict than white children’s parents. Again, this result should be interpreted

with extreme caution due to the small number of participants that make up this category. The

predominant ethnic group that comprises this subgroup was African American respondents and

there is ample research demonstrating that African Americans are more likely to get divorced

than their white counterparts (Sweeney and Phillips, 2004; South, 1993).

58

Table B1 Demographic Characteristics of Custodial Parents Custodial Parent Characteristic N %

Gender

Male 19 33.3

Female 38 66.7

Ethnicity

African American 2 3.5

Asian/Pacific Islander 1 1.8

White/European American 53 93

Native American 1 1.8

Other 0 0

Non-Responding Parent Ethnicity

African American 2 3.5 Hispanic 1 1.8 White/European American 53 93 Native American 1 1.8 Other 0 0

Highest Education High School Degree 3 5.3 College Degree 33 57.9 Masters Degree 16 28.1 Doctoral Degree 5 8.8

Non-Responding Parent Highest Education High School Degree

21.1

College Degree 56.1

Masters Degree 14

59

Doctoral Degree 8.8 Total Family Income 20,001 – 35,000 1.8 35,000 – 50,000 8.8 50,001 – 75,000 14 75,001 – 100,000 12.3

>100,000 63.2

Current Marital Status Single Never Married 5.3 Married

77.2

Single, cohabitating 1.8

Divorced 10.5 Divorced, cohabitating 1.8 Divorced, remarried 3.5

60

Table B2 Demographic Characteristics of Target Children Participants Characteristic n %

Gender

Male 28 49.1

Female 29 50.9

Ethnicity

African American 3 5.3

Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0

White/European American 52 91.2

Native American 1 1.8

Target Child’s Diagnosis

ADHD 2 3.5

ODD 1 1.8

Behavior Disorder, NOS 1 1.8

Major Depressive Disorder 2 3.5

Not Applicable 39 68.4

Other 12 21.1

Target Child’s Medication

None 44 77.2

Antidepressant 5 8.2

Attention regulator 1 1.8 Other 7 12.3

Target Child’s Primary Residence

Both Biological Parents 44 77.2 Biological Mother 5 8.8 Biological Father 2 3.5

61

Biological Mother and Step Father 1 1.8 Biological Father and Step Mother 2 3.5 Biological Mother and her Partner 1 1.8 Adoptive Parent 2 3.5

62

APPENDIX C

RESEARCH CONSENT FORM

63

Title of Project: Adolescent Behavior in the Context of Parent-Child and Marital Relationships Principal Investigators: Carlyn Aldrich, B.A., cma0066@unt.edu Shelley A. Riggs, Ph.D., riggs@unt.edu This research study has been reviewed and approved by the UNT Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (940) 565-3940 Before agreeing to participate in this research study, it is important that you read and understand the following explanation. It describes the procedures, benefits, risks and discomforts of the study. It is important for you to understand that no guarantees or assurances can be made as to the results of the study. Your participation is completely voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. Purpose of the study: The purpose of this study is to examine adolescent behavior in the context of parent-child and marital relationships. Specifically, the study is designed to determine whether adolescent attachment to parents and views of the interparental relationship interact in the prediction of behavior problems. Description of the study including procedures to be used: Individuals who have been living with their current spouse for at least a year and with a child between the ages of 12 and 18 are eligible for this study. You will be asked to read the online consent form, and click the “I accept” button if you are willing to participate in the study. Next you will be asked to fill out an online survey, which will take approximately 30 to 40 minutes to complete. A weblink, username and password has also been provided for your child, which will allow your child to log into the adolescent survey, which will take approximately one hour to complete. Each questionnaire must be completed in one sitting, although parents and adolescents may complete the surveys at different times (e.g. once parents have the child’s log-in code, the child may complete the instruments at any later time). Once the separate parent or child questionnaires are submitted, you will not be able to log in and access the responses again. Therefore, we encourage parents to examine the adolescent questionnaires BEFORE the child completes and submits the survey. Description of procedures/elements that may result in discomfort or inconvenience: Although not expected, it is possible that you or your child may experience some discomfort as a result of the questions asked in this survey. If excessive discomfort is experienced, you may choose to stop answering questions at any time without penalty. If you feel that you need to discuss your discomfort further, please contact the researcher, who will refer you to the appropriate services. Description of procedures that are associated with foreseeable risks: The researchers have tried to prevent any problem that could happen because of this research, but the study may involve risks to you or your child that are currently unforeseeable. You should

64

contact the researchers if there is a problem, and they will do their best to help you locate appropriate resources. However, the University of North Texas does not provide medical services or financial assistance for injuries that might happen because you are taking part in this research. Benefits to the participants: We believe that participation in this study could potentially be beneficial to you in that the questions may help you to think about your own experiences and how you wish to relate to others in the future. The indirect benefit of your participation will be your contribution to the knowledge base regarding child behavior problems and family relationships. Results of the study will have implications for individual, couple, and family therapy and inform intervention programs designed to prevent the development of behavior problems. In addition, once both the parent and the adolescent surveys are completed, each parent will be entered into a raffle to potentially win one of four $100 VISA gift cards, and each child will receive a $10 VISA gift card. Confidentiality of research records: All information gathered in this study will be kept confidential to the extent that is allowed by law. A number of steps will be taken to minimize the risk of loss of confidentiality. The survey will include no identifying information; codes, rather than your name or your child’s name, will be used by the researchers. Once you or your child clicks the “submit” button on the respective questionnaires, no one except the principal investigator and research supervisor will have access to the data. This means that your child will not have access to your responses, nor will you have access to your child’s responses after the “submit” button is pressed. Once again we encourage you to view the adolescent questionnaire prior to allowing your child to respond to the survey. The data collected will not be shared with any individual or agencies, and will only be used for research or educational purposes. It is anticipated that the research will be published in a psychological journal; however, no identifying information will be included in any publication of the data collected in the study. By clicking the “I Accept” button below, you are agreeing that you understand your rights as a research participant, and you voluntarily consent to participate in this study. You are also consenting to your child’s participation in the study. You understand also what the study is about and how and why it is being conducted. If you agree to participate in this study, please click the “I Accept” button below. If you choose not to participate, please click the “I Decline” button and close your browser.

65

APPENDIX D

RESEARCH CONSENT FORM (PAPER VERSION)

66

Title of Project: Adolescent Behavior in the Context of Parent-Child and Marital Relationships Principal Investigators: Carlyn Aldrich, B.A., cma0066@unt.edu Shelley A. Riggs, Ph.D., riggs@unt.edu This research study has been reviewed and approved by the UNT Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (940) 565-3940 Before agreeing to participate in this research study, it is important that you read and understand the following explanation. It describes the procedures, benefits, risks and discomforts of the study. It is important for you to understand that no guarantees or assurances can be made as to the results of the study. Your participation is completely voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. Purpose of the study: The purpose of this study is to examine adolescent behavior in the context of parent-child and marital relationships. Specifically, the study is designed to determine whether adolescent attachment to parents and views of the interparental relationship interact in the prediction of behavior problems. Description of the study including procedures to be used: Individuals who have been living with their current spouse for at least a year and with a child between the ages of 12 and 17 are eligible for this study. You will be asked to read this consent form, and mark the “I accept” box on the following page if you are willing to participate in the study. Next you will complete the included survey that is in the ‘parent’ envelope which will take approximately 30-40 minutes. After reviewing the survey included in the ‘adolescent’ envelope please give it to your adolescent to complete, which will take approximately one hour to complete. If he or she has any questions that you are not able to answer, please e-mail me or give them my e-mail address and I will be able to answer them directly. Each questionnaire can be completed in multiple sittings, and parents and adolescents may complete the surveys at different times. Once the separate survey’s are completed, please mail them back in the included SASE envelopes. Please make sure to return them separately and in the appropriately designated envelope (the parent survey should be returned in the envelope with ‘parent’ written on it). The return envelopes have already been coded to protect anonymity. Description of procedures/elements that may result in discomfort or inconvenience: Although not expected, it is possible that you or your child may experience some discomfort as a result of the questions asked in this survey. If excessive discomfort is experienced, you may choose to stop answering questions at any time without penalty. If you feel that you need to discuss your discomfort further, please contact the researcher, who will refer you to the appropriate services. Description of procedures that are associated with foreseeable risks:

67

The researchers have tried to prevent any problem that could happen because of this research, but the study may involve risks to you or your child that are currently unforeseeable. You should contact the researchers if there is a problem, and they will do their best to help you locate appropriate resources. However, the University of North Texas does not provide medical services or financial assistance for injuries that might happen because you are taking part in this research. Benefits to the participants: We believe that participation in this study could potentially be beneficial to you in that the questions may help you to think about your own experiences and how you wish to relate to others in the future. The indirect benefit of your participation will be your contribution to the knowledge base regarding child behavior problems and family relationships. Results of the study will have implications for individual, couple, and family therapy and inform intervention programs designed to prevent the development of behavior problems. In addition, once both the parent and the adolescent surveys are completed and returned, each parent will be entered into a raffle to potentially win one of four $100 VISA gift cards, and each child will receive a $10 VISA gift card. Confidentiality of research records: All information gathered in this study will be kept confidential to the extent that is allowed by law. A number of steps will be taken to minimize the risk of loss of confidentiality. The survey will include no identifying information; codes, rather than your name or your child’s name, will be used by the researchers. Once you or your child returns the completed surveys, no one except the principal investigator and research supervisor will have access to the data. This means that your child will not have access to your responses, nor will you have access to your child’s responses after the surveys are returned. Once again we encourage you to view the adolescent questionnaire prior to allowing your child to respond to the survey. The data collected will not be shared with any individual or agencies, and will only be used for research or educational purposes. It is anticipated that the research will be published in a psychological journal; however, no identifying information will be included in any publication of the data collected in the study. By marking the “I Accept” box on the next page, you are agreeing that you understand your rights as a research participant, and you voluntarily consent to participate in this study. You are also consenting to your child’s participation in the study. You understand also what the study is about and how and why it is being conducted. If you agree to participate in this study, please mark the “I Accept” button on the following page. If you choose not to participate, please mark the “I Decline” button and mail back the uncompleted survey in the included SASE envelope.

68

APPENDIX E

RESEARCH CONSENT FORM – ADOLESCENT

69

Welcome Thank you for volunteering to participate in this study. Your answers to the following questions are very valuable, and by participating you will help us to learn more about what it is like to be a teenager. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to examine how your relationship with your parents can help you cope when you are upset about things that are happening in the family. Description of the Study You will be asked some questions about many different things. To answer the questions you just click on the circle next to the answer you want and go on to the next question. At the end of each page there will be a button you can press to move to the next page. It should only take you about an hour to answer all the questions so please take your time and answer each question carefully. It is not likely that these questions will upset your or cause any discomfort, but if they do please let your parents know so they can help you feel better or find someone who can help you. Your participation is completely voluntary and you may stop at any time. If you have any problems when answering the questions, please ask your parents so they can help explain the directions. When you are done, press the “submit” button, after which no one but the research will have access to your answers. If you agree to participate in this study, please click the “Submit” button below. If you choose not to participate, please click the “I Decline” button and close your browser.

70

APPENDIX F

ADULT DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

71

Target child's age

Target child's gender

Male

Female

Target child's grade in school

Target child's GPA______________

Target child's ethnicity/racial background

African American

Native American

Caucasian

Asian

Hispanic

Other

Target child's diagnosis, if applicable:

ADHD

Conduct Disorder

Oppositional Defiant Disorder

72

Behavior Disorder Not Otherwise Specified

Major Depressive Disorder

Bipolar Disorder

Not Applicable

Other: (please specify)

Medications your child is currently taking:

Select all that apply

None

Antidepressant

Antipsychotic

Antianxiety

Mood Stabilizer

Attention Regulators

Other: (please specify)

Your relation to the target child

Biological Father

Biological Mother

Your Age ____________

73

Your Gender

Male

Female

Your ethnic/racial background

African American

Native American

Caucasian

Asian

Hispanic

Other

Your highest level of education

No educational degree

High school degree

College degree

Masters degree

Doctoral degree

Annual family income

<12,000

12,001 - 20,000

20,001 - 35,000

35,001 - 50,000

50,001 - 75,000

74

75,001 - 100,000

>100,000

Your child's other biological parent's age_______________

Your child's other biological parent's gender

Male

Female

Your child's other biological parent's ethnic/racial background

African American

Native American

Caucasian

Asian

Hispanic

Other

Your child's other biological parent's highest level of education

No educational degree

High school degree

College degree

Masters degree

Doctoral degree

Number of changes in your marital status since birth of target child_____________

75

Number of marital separations since birth of target child____________

Number of divorces since birth of target child________________

Number of remarriages since birth of target child__________________

Number of live-in partners since birth of target child (including child's other biological parent)___________________________

Number of your child's siblings currently living in your household__________________

Number of your child's siblings currently living elsewhere__________________

With whom does your child primarily reside?

Both biological parents

Biological mother

Biological father

Biological mother and step father

Biological father and step mother

Biological mother and her romantic partner

Biological father and his romantic partner

Other biological relative (grandparent, Aunt/Uncle, sibling)

Adoptive parent

other legal guardian

Your current marital status

76

Single, never married

Married

Single, cohabitating

Divorced

Divorced, cohabitating

Divorced, remarried

77

APPENDIX G

ADULT DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE (BLENDED)

78

Length of marriage to your child's biological parent in years

How old was your child when you separated/divorced his/her biological parent?

Were you in your first marriage when your child was born?

Yes

No

APPENDIX H

CHILD DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

79

How close is your relationship with your biological mother?

We are best friends

I can talk about my problems with her most of the time

I can talk about my problems with her some of the time

I am not very comfortable talking to her about my problems

I do not feel like I can trust her with my problems at all How close is your relationship with your biological father?

We are best friends

I can talk about my problems with him most of the time

I can talk about my problems with him some of the time

I am not very comfortable talking to him about my problems

I do not feel like I can trust him with my problems at all As compared to your relationship when you were really young, how would you describe your relationship with your biological mother now?

Much better

Slightly better

About the same

Slightly worse

Much worse As compared your relationship when you were really young, how would you describe your relationship with your biological father now?

Much better

Slightly better

About the same

Slightly worse

Much worse

Are your biological mother and father still married?

Yes

No

80

APPENDIX I

CHILD DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE (BLENDED)

81

Instructions: Please answer the following questions about your relationship with your step-parents. If you do not have step-parents OR your parents are still married, please skip these questions and click the “Continue to Next Page Button” below.

How close is your relationship with your biological mother?

We are best friends

I can talk about my problems with her most of the time

I can talk about my problems with her some of the time

I am not very comfortable talking to her about my problems

I do not feel like I can trust her with my problems at all

If applicable, how close is your relationship with your stepmother?

We are best friends

I can talk about my problems with her most of the time

I can talk about my problems with her some of the time

I am not very comfortable talking to her about my problems

I do not feel like I can trust her with my problems at all

How close is your relationship with your biological father?

We are best friends

I can talk about my problems with him most of the time

I can talk about my problems with him some of the time

I am not very comfortable talking to him about my problems

I do not feel like I can trust him with my problems at all

If applicable, how close is your relationship with your stepfather?

We are best friends

I can talk about my problems with him most of the time

I can talk about my problems with him some of the time

I am not very comfortable talking to him about my problems

I do not feel like I can trust him with my problems at all

82

As compared to your relationship when you were really young, how would you describe your relationship with your biological mother now?

Much better

Slightly better

About the same

Slightly worse

Much worse

As compared to your relationship when you were really young, how would you describe your relationship with your biological father now?

Much better

Slightly better

About the same

Slightly worse

Much worse

As compared to your relationship when you were really young, how would you describe your relationship with your stepmother right now?

Much better

Slightly better

About the same

Slightly worse

Much worse

As compared to your relationship when you were really young, how would you describe your relationship with your stepfather now?

Much better

Slightly better

About the same

Slightly worse

Much worse

83

If you do not live with your biological mother, how often do you see her?

Almost every day

At least once a week

At least once a month

About once every 6 months

About once a year

About once every few years

Never

If you do not live with your biological father, how often do you see him?

Almost every day

At least once a week

At least once a month

About once every 6 months

About once a year

About once every few years

Never

The amount of conflict between my biological mother and father in the last six months that we all lived together was

Multiple times a day

Once a day

Once every few days

Once a week

A couple times a month

Once a month

The amount of conflict between my biological mother and father since the divorce is

Multiple times a day

Once a day

Once every few days

84

Once a week

A couple times a month

Once a month

Since the divorce, I have seen my parents be mean to each other

Multiple times a day

Once a day

Once every few days

Once a week

A couple times a month

Once a month

Since the divorce, I hear my parents say bad things about each other

Multiple times a day

Once a day

Once every few days

Once a week

A couple times a month

Once a month

Since the divorce, when my parents argue I end up getting involved somehow

True

False

Since the divorce, if my parents argue I try to stop them or intervene

True

False

Since the divorce, my mom wants me to be on her side when she and my dad argue

True

False

85

Since the divorce, my dad wants me to be on his side when he and my mom argue

True

False

86

APPENDIX J

IRB APPROVAL LETTER

87

88

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist 4-18 and the 1991profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School Age Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth and Families.

Afifi, T. D., Huber, F. N., Ohs, J. (2006). Parent’s and adolescents’ communication with each other about divorce-related stressors and its impact on their ability to cope positively with the divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 45 (1), 1-30.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, Silvia M. (1969) Attachment, exploration, and separation: illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41 (1) 49-68.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Oxford, England: Lawrence Erlbaum, 391.

Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709-716.

Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 319-335). New York: Guilford.

Allen, J. P., McElhaney, K. B., Kuperminc, G. P., & Jodl, K. M. (2004) Stability and change in attachment security across adolescence. Child Development, 75(6), 1792-1805.

Amato, P.R. (1994). Life-span adjustment of children to their parents’ divorce. Future Child, 4, 143-164.

Amato, P. R. (2001), Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of thee Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(3), 355-370.

Amato, P.R., & Cheadle, J. (2005). The long reach of divorce: Divorce and child well-being across three generations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(1), 191-206.

Amato, P.R., & Rezac, S. J. (1994). Contact with non-residential parents, inter-parental conflict and children's behavior. Journal of Family Issues, 25(2), 191-207.

Arbona, C. (2003). Parental attachment, self-esteem, and antisocial behaviors among African American, European American and African American adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(1), 40-51.

Armsden, G.C & Greenberg, M.T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427-433.

89

Bakermans-Kranenburg, J. J., van Ijzendoorn M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M., (2005). Differences in attachment security between African-American and white children: ethnicity or socio-economic status? Infant Behavior and Development, 28(1), 96.

Barrera, M., Chassin, L., & Rogosch, F. (1993). Effects of social support and conflict on adolescent children of alcoholic and nonalcoholic fathers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,64, 602–612.

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147-178.

Batstra, L., Neeleman, J., and Hadders-Algra, M.A. (2003). The neurology of learning and behavioural problems in pre-adolescent children. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 108, 92-100.

Block, J.H., Block, J., & Gjerde, P.F. (1986). The personality of children prior to divorce: A prospective study. Child Development, 57(4).

Booth, A., & Amato, P. R. (2001). Parental predivorce relations and offspring postdivorce well-being. Journal of Marriage & Family, 63(1), 197-223.

Boris, M., & Mitchell, F. S. (1994). Foods and additives are common causes of the attention deficit hyperactive disorder in children. Annals of Allergy, 72, 462-468.

Bowlby, J. (1967). Maternal care and mental health. New York: Schocken Books.

Bowlby, J. (1969), Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Separation. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (I980). Attachment and loss, Vol. 3: Loss, sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol.2 . Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Breaky, J. (1997). The role of diet and behavior in childhood. Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health, 33, 190-194.

Bretherton, I., Walsh, R., Lependorf, M., & Georgeson, H. Attachment networks in postdivorce families: The maternal perspective. In L. Atkinson, & K. J. Zucker (Eds.) Attachment and psychopathology (pp. 97-134) New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Bullock, B. M., Deater-Deckard, K. & Leve, L. D. (2006). Deviant peer affiliation and problem behavior: A test of genetic and environmental influences. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(1), 29–41.

Buhrmester, D. (1996). Need fulfillment, interpersonal competence and the developmental contexts of early adolescent friendship. In W. Bukowski, A. Newcomb, and W. Hartup

90

(Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 158-185). Cambridge University Press, NewYork.

Calkins, S. D. Leerkes, E. M. (2011). Early attachment processes and the development of emotional self-regulation. In Kathleen D. Vohs and Roy F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 355-373). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Carbery, J. & Uhrmester, D. (1998). Friendship and need fulfillment during three phases of young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3), 393-409.

Carter, C. M., Urbanowicz, M., Hemsley, R., Mantila, L., Strobel, S., Graham, P. J., et al. (1993). Effects of food diet in attention deficit disorder. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 69, 564-568.

Caspi, A., Taylor, A., Moffitt, T. E., and Plomin, R. (2000). Neighborhood deprivation affects children’s mental health: Environmental risks identified in a genetic design. Psychological Science, 11(4), 338-342.

Chapman, S. F. (1991). Attachment and adolescent adjustment to Parental Remarriage. Family Relations, 40(2), 232-237.

Cherlin, A., Chase-Lansdale. P. L. & McRae. C. (1998). Effects of divorce on mental health through the life course. American Sociological Review, 63, 239-249.

Cherlin A., Furstenberg F., Chase-Iansdale, L. et al. (1991). Longitudinal studies of divorce on children in Great Britain and the United States. Science, 252, 1386-1389.

Cooper, C. R. & Ayers-Lopez, S. (1985). Family and peer systems in early adolescence: New models of the role of relationships in development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5, 9-21

Cooper, C. R. & Cooper, R. G. (1992). Links between adolescents relationships with their parents and peers: Models, evidence, and mechanisms. In R. Parke and G. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 135-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, M. L., Shaver, P. R., & Collins, N. L. (1998). Attachment styles, emotion regulation, and adjustment in adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1380-1397.

Condie, S. J. (1989). Older married couples. In S. J. Bahr & E. T. Peterson (Eds.), Aging and the family (pp. 143-158). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Corinne, D., Steele, R., Forehand, R. & Armistead, L. (1996). The role of family conflict and marital conflict in adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 81-91.

Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. (2000). When partners become parents: The big life change for couples. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

91

Cretzmeyer, S. (2003). Attachment theory applied to adolescents. In P. Erdman & T. Caffrey (Eds.), Attachment and family systems (pp. 65-77) New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Cummings, E. M. (1987). Coping with background anger in early childhood. Child Development, 58, 976–984.

Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., Papp, L. M. (2004). Everyday marital conflict and child aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(2), 191-202.

Davies, P.T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387-411.

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

Deklyen, M., & Speltz, M. L. (2001). Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dekovic, M. , & Meeus, W. (1997). Peer relations in adolescence: Effects of parenting and adolescent’s self-concept. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 163-176.

Doherty, W.J., & Needle, R.H. (1991). Psychological adjustment and substance use among adolescents before and after a parental divorce. Child Development, 62, 328-337.

Ducharme, J., Doyle, M. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2002). Attachment security with mother and father: Associations with adolescents’ reports of interpersonal behavior with parents and peers. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(2), 203-231.

Dumka, L. E., Roosa, M. W. & Jackson, K. M. (1997). Risk, conflict, mother’s parenting, and children’s adjustment in low-income, Mexican immigrant, and Mexican American families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 309–323.

Dyer Harnish, J., Dodge, K. A., & Valente, E. (1995). Mother–child interaction quality as a partial mediator of the roles of maternal depressive symptomatology and socioeconomic status in the development of child behavior problems. Child Development, 66, 739–753.

Easterbrooks, M.A., & Abeles, R. (2000). Windows to the self in 8-year-olds: Bridges to attachment representation and behavioral adjustment. Attachment and Human Development, 2(1), 85-106.

Egeland, B., Jacobvitz, D., & Sroufe, L. A. (1988) Breaking the cycle of abuse. Child Development, 59, 1080-1088.

Egger, J., Carter, C. M., Graham, P. J., Gumley, D., & Soothill, J. F. (1985). Controlled trial of oligoantigenic treatment in the hyperkinetic syndrome. Lancet, 8355, 865-869.

92

Eigenmann, P. A. & Haenggeli, C. A. (2004). Food coloring and preservatives – allergy and hyperactivity. Lancet, 364 (9437).

El-Sheikh, M., & Elmore-Staton, L. (2004). The link between marital conflict and child adjustment: Parent-child conflict and perceived attachments as mediators, potentiators, and mitigators of risk. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 631-648.

El-Sheikh, M., Kouros, C.D., Erath, S., Cummigs, E.M., Keller, P., Staton, (2009) Marital conflict and children’s externalizing behavior: Pathways involving interactions between parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous system activity. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 74(1).

El-Sheikh, M., Hinnant, J. B., & Erath, S. (2011). Developmental trajectories of delinquency symptoms in childhood: The role of marital conflict and autonomic nervous system activity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120(1), 16-32.

Emery, R. (1999). Marriage, divorce and children’s adjustment. In H. W. Stevenson & A.E. Sigal (Eds.), Child development research and social policy (pp. 189-266). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Erdman, P. (1998). Conceptualising ADHD as a contextual response to parental attachment. American Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 177-185.

Feingold, B. F. (1975). Why is your child hyperactive? New York: Random House.

Flemming, C. B., Catalano, R. F., Oxford, M. L., & Harachi, T. W., (2002). A test of generalizability of the social development model across gender and income groups with longitudinal data from the elementary school developmental period. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18(4), 423-439.

Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123-151.

Fraley, R. C. (2007). A connectionist approach to the organization and continuity of working models of attachment. Journal of Personality, 75, 1157-1180.

Fraley, R. C. & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults’ close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relations, 4(2), 131-144.

Freeman, H., & Brown, B. B. (2001). Primary attachment to parents and peers during adolescence: Differences by attachment style. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(6), 653-674.

Frosch, C. A., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & McHale, J. L. (2000). Marital behavior and the security of preschooler-parent attachment relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(1), 144-161.

93

Fuhrman, T., & Holmbeck, G.N. (1995). A contextual-moderator analysis of emotional autonomy and adjustment in adolescence. Child Development, 66, 793–811.

Furman, W., and Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21(6), 1016-1024.

Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 53, 103-115.

Gaither, R., Bingen, K., & Hopkins, J. (2000). When the bough breaks: The relationship between chronic illness in children and couple functioning. In K. B. Schmaling & T. G. Sher (Eds.), The psychology of couples and illness: Theory, research, & practice (pp. 337-365). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Gergely, G., & Watson, J. (1996). The social biofeedback model of parental affect-mirroring. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 77, 1181–1212.

Gilford, R., & Bengtson, V. (1979). Measuring marital satisfaction in three generations: Positive and negative dimensions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 4, 387-398

Green, S. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(3), 499-510.

Greenberg, M. T., Speltz, M.L., DeKlyen, M., & Endriga, M. C. (1991). Attachment security in preschoolers with and without externalizing behavior problems: A replication. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 413-430.

Grunbaum, J. A., Kann, L., Kinchen, S. A., Williams, B., Ross, J. G., Lowry, R., & Kolbe, L. (2002). Youth risk surveillance. MMWR, 51(SSO4), 1–64.

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., Raynor, S.R. & Fosco, G.M. (2004). Family processes that shape the impact of interparental conflict on adolescents. Development & Psychopathology, 16(3), 649-665.

Hamilton E. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy through adolescence. Child Development, 71, 690-694.

Hanson, T., McLanahan, S., & Thomson, E. (1996). Double jeopardy: Parental conflict and stepfamily outcomes for children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58,141-154.

Harold, G. T., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Marital conflict and adolescent distress: The role of adolescent awareness. ChildDevelopment, 68, 333–350.

Harold, G. T., Fincham, F. D., Osborne, L. N., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Mom and dad are at it again: Adolescent perceptions of marital conflict and adolescent psychological distress. Developmental Psychology, 33, 333–350.

94

Hart, C. H., DeWolf, D. M., & Burts, D. C. (1993) Parental disciplinary strategies and preschoolers’ play behavior in playground settings. In C. H. Hart (Ed.), Children on playgrounds: Research perspectives and applications. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hatch, L. R., Bulcroft, K., (2004). Does long-term marriage bring less frequent disagreements?: Five explanatory frameworks. Journal of Family Issues, 25(4).

Hazan, C. & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bartholomew and D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processors in adulthood: Advances in personal relationships (pp. 151-178). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Hetherington, E. M. (1999). Coping with divorce, single parenting and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1992). Coping with marital transitions: A family systems perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57, 1–242.

Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1976). Divorced fathers. Family Coordinator, 25(4), 417-429.

Jenkins, J.M., & Smith, M.A. (1991). Marital disharmony and children’s behaviour problems: Aspects of a poor marriage that affect children adversely. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 32(5), 793.

Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Kasen, S., & Brook, J. S. (2006). Maternal psychiatric disorders, parenting and maternal behavior in the home during the child rearing years. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15(1), 97-114.

Johnson, D. R., White, L. K., Edwards, J. N., & Booth, A. (1986). Dimensions of marital quality: Toward methodological and conceptual refinement. Journal of Family Issues, 7, 31-49.

Johnston, J. R. (1995). Research update: Children's adjustment in sole custody compared to joint custody families and principles for custody decision making. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 33, 415-425.

Keith, P. M., & Schafer, R. (1986). Housework, disagreement, and depression among younger and older couples. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 405-422.

Kelder, S. H., Murray, N. G., Orpinas, P., Prokhorov, A., McReynolds, L., Zhang, Q., & Roberts, R. (2001). Depression and substance use in minority middle-school students. American Journal Public Health, 91(5), 761–766.

Kelly, J.B. (2000). Children’s adjustment in conflicted marriage and divorce: A decade review of research. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(8), 963-981

95

King, V., & Heard, H.E. (1999). Nonresident father visitation, parental conflict and mother’s satisfaction: What’s best for the child well-being? Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 385-396.

Koerner, S. S., Rankin, L. A., Kenyon, D. B., & Korn, M. (2004). Mothers re-partnering after divorce: Diverging perceptions of mothers and adolescents. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 41(1/2).

Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49, 25–44.

Lansford, J. E., Malone, P. S., Castellino, D. R., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Trajectories of internalizing, externalizing, and grades for children who have and have not experienced their parent’s divorce or separation. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(2), 292-301.

Lau, Y. K. (2007). Parent-child relationships, parental relationships and children’s self-esteem in post-divorce families in Hong Kong. Marriage and Family Review, 42(4), 87-103.

Leckman-Westin, E., Cohen, P. R., & Stueve, A. (2009). Maternal depression and mother-child interaction patterns: Association with toddler problems and continuity of effects to late childhood. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 50(9), 1176-1184.

Lee, A., & Hankin, B. L. (2009). Insecure attachment, dysfunctional attitudes, and low self-esteem predicting prospective symptoms of depression and anxiety during adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38(2), 219-231.

Leve, L. D., Scarmella, L.V., & Fagot, B.I. (2001). Infant temperament, pleasure in parenting, and marital happiness in adoptive families. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22, 545-558.

Levenson, R. W., Cartensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Long-term marriage: Age, gender, and satisfaction. Psychology and Aging, 8, 301-313.

Love, K. M., & Murdock, T. B. (2004). Attachment to parents and psychological wellbeing: An examination of young adult college students in intact families and stepfamilies. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(4), 600-608.

Ma, G. X., & Shive, S. (2000). A comparative analysis of perceived risks and substance abuse among ethnic groups. Addict Behavior, 25(3), 361–371.

Maccoby, E., & Mnookin, R. (1992). Dividing the child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

MacKay, A. P., Fingerhut, L. A., & Duran, C. R. (2000). Adolescent health chartbook. Health, United States, 2000. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

96

Mackey, S. K. (2003). Adolescence and attachment from theory to treatment implications. In P. Erdman & T. Caffery (Eds.), Attachment and family systems (pp. 79-113). New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1), 66-105.

Marchland, J.F., Schedler, S., & Wagstaff, D.A. (2004). The role of parents’ attachment orientations, depressive symptoms, and conflict behaviors in children’s externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(3), 449-462.

Martin, S.E & Clements, M.L. (2002). Young children’s responding to interparental conflict: Associations with marital aggression and child adjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(2), 231-244.

McLanahan, S.S. (1999). Father absence and childrens welfare. In E. M. Hertherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting; and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mitchell, E. A., Aman, M. G., Turbott, S. H., & Manku, M. (1987). Clinical characteristics and serum essential fatty acid levels in hyperactive children. Clinical Pediatrics, 26, 406-411.

Nickerson, A. B. (2002). Parent and peer attachment in middle childhood and early adolescence: Implications for psychological wellbeing. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. The Sciences and Engineering, 63(5-B), 3632.

O’Connor, T.G., & Insabella, G. (1999). Marital satisfaction, relationships and roles. In E. M. Hetherington, S. Henderson, & D. Reiss (Eds.), Adolescent siblings in stepfamilies: Family functioning and adolescent adjustment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 64(4).

Offer, D., Ostrov, E., & Howard, K. I. (1981). The adolescent: A psychological portrait. New York: Basic Books.

Ognibene, T. C. & Collins, N. L. (1998). Adult attachment styles, perceived social support and coping strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3), 323-345.

Orathinkal, J & Van Steenwegen A. (2007). Do demographics affect marital satisfaction? Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 33, 73-85.

Patterson, G. R., & Bank, L. (1989). Some amplifying mechanisms for pathologic processes in families. In M. R. Gunnar & E. Thelan (Eds.), Systems and development: Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 167-210). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D. M., & Bank, L. (1991). An early starter model for predicting delinquency. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 139-168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

97

Patterson, G. R., Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. B. (1982). A comparative evaluation of a parent-training program. Behavior Therapy, 13, 638-650.

Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335.

Patterson, J., Pryor, J. & Field (1995). Adolescent attachment to parents and friends in relation to aspects of self-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(3), 365-376.

Pettit, G. S., & Harrist, A. W. (1993). Children’s aggressive and socially unskilled playground behavior with peers: Origins in family relations. In C. H. Hart (Ed.), Children on playgrounds: Research perspectives and applications. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 10, 1-16.

Prinz, R. J., & Riddle, D. B. (1986). Associations between nutrition and behavior in 5-year-old children. Nutrition Reviews, 44, 151-157.

Raja, S.N., McGee, R., & Stanton, W.R. (1992). Perceived attachments to parents and peers and psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 471-485.

Rapp, D. J. (1978). Does diet affect hyperactivity? Journal of learning Disabilities, 11, 56-62.

Richmond, M. K., & Stocker, C. M. (2003). Siblings’ differential experiences of marital conflict and differences in psychological adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(3), 339-350.

Richmond, M. K., & Stocker, C. M. (2008). Longitudinal associations between parents’ hostility and siblings’ externalizing behavior in the context of marital discord. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(2), 231-240.

Roberts, R. E., Chen, Y. R., & Roberts, C. R. (1997). Ethnocultural differences in prevalence of adolescent suicidal behaviors. Suicide Life threat Behavior, 27(2), 208–217.

Russell, A., & Russell, G. (1996). Positive parenting and boys’ and girls’ misbehavior during a home observation. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 291-307.

Ryder, R. G. (1973). Longitudinal data relating marriage satisfaction to having a child. Journal of Marriage and Family, 35, 604-606.

Sable, P. (2004). Attachment, ethology and adult psychotherapy. Attachment & Human Development, 6(1), 3-19.

Schnoll, R., Burshteyn, D., and Cea-Aravena, J. (2003). Nutrition in the treatment of attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder: A neglected but important aspect. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 28(1), 63-75

98

Simons, R., Whitbeck, L., Beaman, J., and Conger, R. (1994). The impact of mother’s parenting, involvement by noncustodial fathers, and parental conflict on the adjustment of adolescent children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 356- 374.

Skoop, N. A., McDonald, R., Manke, B., & Jouriles, E. N. (2005). Siblings in domestically violent families: Experiences of interparent conflict and adjustment problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 324-333.

Snyder, J., Cramer, A., Afrank, J., & Patterson, G. R. (2005). The contributions of ineffective discipline and parental attributions of child misbehavior to the development of conduct problems at home and school. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 30-41.

South, S.J. 1993. Racial and ethnic differences in the desire to marry. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 357-370.

Speltz, M. L., DeKlyen, M., & Greenberg, M. T. (1999). Attaachment in boys with early onset conduct problems. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 269-285.

Speltz, M. L., DeKlyen, M., Greenberg, M. T., & Dryden, M. (1995). Clinic referral for oppositional defiant disorder: Relative significance of attachment and behavioral variables. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23, 487-507.

Sroufe, L. A. (1976). Affective constructs and continuity in adaptation. Discussion on paper by Stella Chess at the Conference on Mood Disorders in Infancy, Center for Child and Family Health, NIMH, Washington, D.C.

Sroufe, L.A. (1979). Socioemotional development. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (pp. 462–516). New York: Wiley.

Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in preschool: The roots of maladaptation and competence. Minnesota Symposium in Child Psychology, 16, 41-91.

Stevens, L. J., Zentall, S. S., Abate, M. L. Kuczek, T., Burgess, J. R., (1996). Omega-3 fatty acids in boys with behavior, learning and health problems. Physiological Behavior, 59(4-5), 915-920.

Stevens, L. J., Zentall, S. S. Deck, J. L., Abate, M. L., Watkins, B. A., Lipp, S. R., et al. (1995). Essential fatty acid metabolism in boys with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 62, 761-768.

Stevenson, J. (2010). Recent research on food additives: Implications for CAMH. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 15(3), 130-133.

Stocker, C. M., Richmond, M. K., Sow, S. M., Alexander, E. K., & Elias, N. M. (2003). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: Parental hostility and children’s interpretations as mediators. Social Development, 12(2), 149-161.

99

Suess, G. J., Grossmann, K. E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1992). Effects of infant attachment to mother and father on quality of adaptation in preschool: From dyadic to individual organization of self. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 15(1), 43-66.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.

Sweeney, M.M., Phillips, J.A. 2004. Understanding racial differences in marital disruption: Recent trends and explanations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 239-250.

Teyber, E. (2006). Interpersonal process in therapy: An integrative model (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.

Turkeimer, E., & Waldron, M. (2000). Nonshared environment: A theoretical, methodological and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 78-108.

US Census Bureau http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html

Van Goozen, S. H. M., Snoek, H., Matthys, W., Van Ros-sum, I., & Van Engeland,H. (2004). Evidence of fearlessness in behaviourally disordered children: A study on startle reflex modulation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 884–892.

Vice, G. C. (2005). A meta-analysis of the stability of attachment styles from birth to adulthood. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. The Sciences and Engineering, 65(7-B), 3753.

Waters, E., Hamilton, C. E., Weinfield, N. S. (2000) The stability of attachment security from infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: General introduction. Child Development, 71(3), 678-683.

Waters, E., Merrick, S., & Treboux, D. (2000) Attachment security in infancy and adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development ,71(3), 684-689.

Waters, E., Weinfield, N. S. & Hamilton, C. E. (2000). The stability of attachment security from infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: general discussion. Child Development, 71(3), 703-706.

Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (1999).Marital conflict management skills, parenting style, and early-onset conduct problems: Processes andpathways. Journal of Child Psychology, 40(6), 917-927.

Weinfield, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. (1999). The nature of individual differences in infant-caregiver attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 73-95). New York: Guilford Press.

Weinfield, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity and their correlates. Child Development, 71(3), 695-702.

100

Weinfield, N.S., Whaley, G.J., Egeland, B. (2004). Continuity, discontinuity, and coherence in attachment from infancy to late adolescence: Sequlae of organization and disorganization. Attachment and Human Development, 6(1), 73-97.

Weiss, R.S. 1982). Attachment in adult life. In C.M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 171-184). New York: Basic Books.

White, L., & Edwards, J. N. (1990). Emptying the nest and parental well-being: An analysis of national panel data. American Sociological Review, 55, 235–242.

Wichers, M.C., van Os, J., Danckaerts, M., Van Gestel, S., Derom, C., & Vlietinck, R. (2001). Associations between nonshared environment and child problem behaviour. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 36, 319-323.

Wilhelm, K., Brownhill, S. & Boyce, P. (2000). Marital and family functioning: Different measures and viewpoints. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 35, 358–365.

Wilkinson, R. B. (2004) The role of parental and peer attachment in the psychological health and self-esteem of adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(6), 479-493.

Wilkinson, R. B. & Walford, W. A. (2000) Attachment and personality in the psychological health of adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(4), 473-484.

Wintre, M. G., and Crowley, J. (1993). The adolescent self concept: A functional determinant of consultant preference. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 1-15.

Zill, N., Morrison, D. R., Coiro, M. J., (1993). Long-term effects of parental divorce on parent-child relationships, adjustment, and achievement in young adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(1).

Zimet, D. M., & Jacob, T. (2001). Influences of marital conflict on child adjustment: Review of theory and research. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 4(4), 319-335.

101