interparental relationship sensitivity leads to adolescent...

Gabriel L. Schlomer The Pennsylvania State University

Gregory M. Fosco and H. H. Cleveland The Pennsylvania State University∗

David J. Vandenbergh The Pennsylvania State University∗∗

Mark E. Feinberg The Pennsylvania State University∗∗∗

Interparental Relationship Sensitivity Leads to

Adolescent Internalizing Problems: Different

Genotypes, Different Pathways

Several studies have established that childinterparental conflict evaluations link parentrelationship functioning and adolescent adjust-ment. Using differential susceptibility theoryand its vantage sensitivity complement as theirframework, the authors examined differencesbetween adolescents who vary in the DRD4 7repeat genotype (i.e., 7+ vs. 7−) in how bothinterparental conflict and positivity affect ado-lescents’ evaluations of interparental conflict

Department of Human Development and Family Studiesand Department of Biobehavioral Health, 308Biobehavioral Health, The Pennsylvania State University,University Park, PA 16802 ([email protected]).

∗Department of Human Development and Family Studies,The Pennsylvania State University, 310 Health and HumanDevelopment East, University Park, PA 16802.∗∗Department of Biobehavioral Health, NeuroscienceProgram, and Genetics Program, The Pennsylvania StateUniversity, 303 Chandlee Laboratory, University Park, PA,16802.∗∗∗Prevention Research Center, 316 Biobehavioral Health,The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA16802.

This article was edited by Robert Crosnoe.

Key Words: adolescent development/outcomes, interparentalconflict, mental health, path analysis, sociobiology, systemstheory.

(i.e., threat appraisals) and how these evalua-tions affect internalizing problems. Results fromlongitudinal multiple-group path models usingPROSPER data (N = 452) supported the hypoth-esis that threat appraisals for 7+ adolescentswould be more affected by perceptions of inter-parental positivity compared to 7− adolescents;however, threat appraisals for 7+ adolescentswere also less affected by interparental conflict.Among 7− adolescents, interparental conflictperceptions were associated with higher threatappraisals, and no association was found forperceptions of positivity. For adolescents of bothgenotypes, higher threat was associated withgreater internalizing problems.

An extensive record of research documentsthat interparental conflict markedly disruptschild and adolescent development (Buehleret al., 1997; Cummings & Davies, 1994; Emery,1982). Recent research on risk mechanismshas provided important insight and revealedmeaningful heterogeneity regarding child andadolescent adjustment problems associatedwith interparental conflict (e.g., Davies &Cummings, 1994; Davies & Sturge-Apple,2007; Fosco, DeBoard, & Grych, 2007; Grych& Fincham, 1990; Grych, Jouriles, Swank,

Journal of Marriage and Family 77 (April 2015): 329–343 329DOI:10.1111/jomf.12168

330 Journal of Marriage and Family

McDonald, & Norwood, 2000). Germane tothis work is an emergent developmental theorythat has shown much promise for explicatingfor whom parenting and parenting processesaffect children. In the general sense, differentialsusceptibility theory (DST; Belsky & Pluess,2009; Boyce & Ellis, 2005; Ellis, Boyce, Bel-sky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn,2011) posits heterogeneity in environmentalsensitivity based on intrapersonal characteris-tics. More specifically, the perspective contendsthat child characteristics related to increased riskfor maladjustment when children are exposed toharsh, unsupportive environments can also leadto exceptional positive adjustment when theyare exposed to more supportive circumstances.Developed to complement DST, the vantagesensitivity perspective (Pluess & Belsky, 2013)emphasizes that some intrapersonal characteris-tics dispose children to have greater sensitivityto specifically positive aspects of the environ-ment relative to negative. These perspectives, aswell as others (e.g., Davies, Martin, & Cicchetti,2012), emphasize the importance of consideringboth positive and negative aspects of inter-parental relationships to understand their uniqueimplications for adolescent maladjustment.

In the current study, we applied DST and itsvantage sensitivity complement to prevailingperspectives on interparental conflict that placeadolescent evaluations as the key link betweenparental acrimony and adolescent maladjust-ment (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Grych & Fin-cham, 1990). Specifically, we examined whethervariation in the dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4)gene is related to variation in sensitivity to bothnegative (conflict) as well as positive (positivity)dimensions of interparental relations. Below,we provide an overview of the research thatlinks interparental conflict, adolescent evalu-ations, and adjustment. We then describe theimplications of DST for this research.

Interparental Conflict, SubjectiveEvaluations, and Maladjustment

Children’s emotional security in the inter-parental relationship (Davies & Cummings,1994; Davies & Sturge-Apple, 2007) and cog-nitive appraisals of interparental conflict (Foscoet al., 2007; Grych & Fincham, 1990) haveconsistently been shown as a key link betweenexposure to interparental conflict and adolescentadjustment (Rhoades, 2008). Together, this

body of research has identified three importantfactors related to interparental relationships andchild adjustment: (a) adolescent perceptions,(b) adolescent evaluations, and (c) contextualfactors.

Perceptions of Interparental Conflict

Perceptions of interparental conflict encompassthe degree to which family members view con-flicts as frequently occurring, intense, and poorlyresolved. Adolescents’ perceptions provide agauge for actual exposure and awareness ofinterparental conflict that might not be capturedby parent reports of relationship functioning.Consistent with this view, adolescents’ percep-tion of conflicts as intense or hostile is moreclosely related to their internalizing problemsthan more objective assessments of actual con-flict within the household (Harold & Conger,1997; Harold, Fincham, Osborne, & Conger,1997). In addition, Fosco and Grych (2008)found only a moderate correlation betweenparent and child report of interparental con-flict. Children’s perceptions are thought to bethe driving force behind their adjustment, andthe degree to which adolescents perceive theirparents’ relationship as characterized by highlevels of conflict (e.g., frequency, intensity)shapes their evaluations of the conflict (Grych &Fincham, 1990).

Considerable research supports the notionthat destructive conflicts that are hostile, fre-quent, and poorly managed pose a greater riskfor disruptions to adolescent development (e.g.,Buehler et al., 1997; Cummings & Cummings,1988; Goeke-Morey, Cummings, Harold, &Shelton, 2003). Alternatively, perception ofinterparental warmth, support, cooperation,and problem solving may benefit adolescents(Cummings & Davies, 1994). Studies investi-gating the implications of both positivity andconflict in parental relationships for adolescentoutcomes are generally lacking, however. AsDavies and colleagues (2012) pointed out,including both dimensions of interparentalfunctioning can provide insight into the uniqueimplications of each dimension for adolescentparental conflict evaluations (McCoy, Cum-mings, & Davies, 2009). No research has beenpublished, however, that examines exposure tospecific aspects of interparental warmth and sup-port on children’s perceptions of interparentalconflict.

Sensitivity to Interparental Relationships 331

Evaluations of Interparental Conflict

Adolescents’ evaluation of interparental con-flict is an important factor that ties perceivedinterparental conflict to adolescent maladjust-ment (e.g., Davies, Harold, Goeke-Morey, &Cummings, 2002; Grych, Harold, & Miles,2003). These evaluations, referred to as threatappraisals (Atkinson, Dadds, Chipuer, & Dawe,2009; Grych & Fincham, 1990), reflect ado-lescents’ worries about the implications ofinterparental conflict, including general fearsthat the conflict will result in something bad ormore specific concerns that conflict may leadto divorce, escalate into violence, lead to theirinvolvement, or result in harm to the familyor a family member (Atkinson et al., 2009;Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992). From an emo-tional security perspective, threat evaluationsare thought to activate a social defense systemto mobilize adolescents’ strategies to preservetheir sense of security in the context of the inter-parental relationship (Davies & Sturge-Apple,2007). Within the cognitive-contextual frame-work, threat appraisals are conceptualized as aprimary process that initiates coping strategies(Fosco et al., 2007; Fosco & Grych, 2010; Grych& Fincham, 1990). Although both perspectivesconceptualize children’s subjective experiencesof parental conflict differently, they share theview that threat evaluations are central to theprocess of how interparental conflict affects cop-ing and adjustment. Empirical research reliablysupports threat appraisals as a key mechanism ofrisk for maladjustment (e.g. Cummings, George,McCoy, & Davies, 2012; Davies & Cummings,1998; Davies et al., 2002; Fosco & Grych, 2007;Grych & Fincham, 1993; see Rhoades, 2008),most consistently for internalizing problems(Fosco & Grych, 2008; Grych et al., 2003).Inquiries into child characteristics that moderatethese pathways may reveal different processesfor different children and provide insight intospecific points of intervention.

Contextual Factors of Interparental Conflictand Differential Susceptibility

Links among perception, threat appraisals, andadjustment all may be qualified by what Grychand Fincham (1990) termed contextual factors.Heavily studied are factors related to familyrelationships such as parental warmth and sup-port or family emotional climate (Davies et al.,

2002; DeBoard-Lucas, Fosco, Raynor, & Grych,2010; Fosco & Grych, 2007). Child character-istics, such as gender or temperament (Davies& Lindsay, 2004; Lengua & Long, 2002), havereceived relatively little attention, however. Thisomission is conspicuous when viewed from abehavioral genetic perspective. For example, it iswell established within behavioral genetic stud-ies that many child characteristics, ranging fromchildren’s temperament (Rowe & Plomin, 1977)to the perceptions of parenting they receive(Rowe, 1981, 1983), have significant geneticinfluence. Thus, a child’s genotype may play animportant role in modifying how individual chil-dren perceive exposure to interparental conflict(see also D’Onofrio & Lahey, 2010; Horwitz& Neiderhiser, 2011). Recent studies involvingcandidate genes, interpreted in the frameworkof the DST (Ellis et al., 2011), have led to newinsights regarding parental effects on child out-comes (see Simons et al., 2013, for a recent par-enting example).

At its core, DST proposes that individuals dif-fer in the degree to which they are affected byenvironmental experiences (Ellis et al., 2011).Contrary to earlier models of risk, DST arguesthat individuals who are more sensitive to theirenvironment are at greater risk for negative out-comes in adverse conditions but also gain dis-proportionally greater benefit in supportive con-texts. Conversely, those who are less sensitiveare less affected by exposure to adversity butalso benefit less from supportive environments.Embedded within DST is the concept of van-tage sensitivity, which focuses on individual fac-tors that make one more susceptible specificallyto positive aspects of the environment (Pluess& Belsky, 2013). Such positive aspects may berelated to affluence, positive peer affiliations,family environment, and positive interparentalrelationships. Although these perspectives over-lap conceptually, they are distinct in the sensethat differential susceptibility specifically pre-dicts sensitivity to both positivity and negativ-ity, whereas vantage sensitivity is more narrowlyfocused in that it predicts sensitivity only toenvironmental positivity. Relevant to the currentstudy is that both DST and vantage sensitivitysuggest that exposure to interparental relationsshould be conditioned by endogenous factorssuch as child genotype. Such factors can providea more complete picture of family influence onadolescent well-being.


DRD4 × Environment Research

Variation in the dopamine receptor D4 gene(DRD4) has generated considerable atten-tion in the Gene×Environment interaction (seeD’Onofrio & Lahey, 2010, for a review) researchliterature. Several studies have demonstratedthat variation in DRD4 moderates the impact ofenvironmental exposures on an array of develop-mental outcomes (Bakermans-Krannenburg &van IJzendoorn, 2011; Bakermans-Kranenburg,van IJzendoorn, Mesman, Alink, & Juffer, 2008;Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, Pijl-man, Mesman, & Juffer, 2008; Beach, Brody,Lei, & Philibert, 2010; Belsky & Pluess, 2013;Knafo, Israel, & Ebstein, 2011). Specifically,the DRD4 7 variable number of tandem repeats(VNTR) allele has been associated with vari-ation in sensitivity to the social environment(see Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzen-doorn, 2011, for a review). In brief, childrenwho possess at least one copy of the 7-repeatallele (7+) tend to be more sensitive to con-textual factors (e.g., parenting) compared tochildren who do not possess a 7-repeat copy(7−). Although much of this research hasbeen cast within DST, we should emphasizethat the results of these studies—that chil-dren who are 7+ show greater sensitivity topositive environments—are consistent withthe vantage sensitivity perspective (Belsky &Pluess, 2013; Bakermans-Kranenburg & vanIJzendoorn, 2011; Pluess, Stevens, & Belsky,2013). This research indicates that the DRD47+ allele preferentially disposes susceptibil-ity to positive aspects of the environment,including aspects of positive interparentalrelationships.

There are many DRD4 alleles and geno-types, and how to analyze them varies some-what. Most methods revolve around separatingthe two most common alleles (4- and 7-repeat)into separate groups based largely on the work ofAsghari et al. (1995), who showed the 7-repeatallele functions more poorly than the 4-repeatallele. One method is to collapse the allelesinto short (≤5 repeats) and long (6 or more),but it is not clear that the number of repeatsis directly related to function (Wong, Buckle,& Van Tol, 2000). With this issue in mind,and given that there is evidence that the thirdmost common allele (2-repeats) functions sim-ilarly to the 4-repeat allele (Schoots & Van Tol,2003), we chose to follow what is common in

the literature related to DST, in which varia-tion in the DRD4 variable is studied as the pres-ence or absence of 7 repeats of a 48 base pairsequence (i.e. 7− vs. 7+). The 7+ variant is asso-ciated with decreased neuronal dopamine signal-ing and thus provides a potential functional linkbetween genetics and behaviors related to threatassessment. In addition, DRD4 is expressed atrelatively high levels in the prefrontal cortex(Oak, Oldenhof, & Van Tol, 2000), a region ofthe brain related to cognitive control. Given theimplications for dopamine-related neurologicalprocesses, DRD4 has been the subject of study inmany areas, including a large literature on nov-elty seeking and attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder (e.g., Faraone, Doyle, Mick, Bieder-man, 2001; Kluger, Siegfried, & Ebstein, 2002).

The Current Study

We took advantage of longitudinal data fromfamilies who participated in intensive in-homeinterviews that afforded tests of the DST andvantage sensitivity hypotheses. We tested amodel that included both positive and negativeparental assessments of their own relationshipwith their partner to capture interparental con-flict and positivity. We hypothesized that thepresence of these factors would affect adoles-cents’ perception of their parents’ relationship(Harold et al., 1997; Harold & Conger, 1997).We expected conflict and positivity within theparent couple to be related to higher adoles-cent conflict perception and lower positivityperception. Similarly, we expected that couplepositivity would be related to lower adoles-cent conflict perception and higher positivityperceptions.

In turn, we hypothesized that adolescents’perceptions of interparental conflict and positiv-ity would better explain the degree to which theyappraise parental conflicts as threatening thantheir parents’ own assessment of their relation-ship. Indicators of couple relationship qualitymay reflect only a portion of adolescent expo-sure or awareness of their parents’ relationship.Because DST and vantage sensitivity posit vari-ation in sensitivity to environmental exposures,indicators of actual exposure captured by ado-lescent perception of interparental relationshipsis key for these hypotheses. As a result, weexpected that couple relationship quality wouldnot be directly related to appraisals of threat,after accounting for adolescents’ perceptions.


Adolescents’ perception of conflict and positiv-ity is expected to mediate the relation betweenparent relationship assessments and adolescentthreat appraisals. Higher perceived conflict willlead to higher threat appraisals; higher perceivedpositivity will lead to lower threat. Last, as foundin prior research, we expected that adolescentswho report higher levels of threat to be at higherrisk for internalizing problems.

We also tested the hypothesis that adoles-cents’ perceptions of interparental conflict andpositivity would be differentially associated withconflict appraisals as threatening as a functionof having a more sensitive (7+) or less sensi-tive (7−) DRD4 genotype. Drawing from bothDST and vantage sensitivity, we hypothesized anassociation between couple positivity and threatappraisals for 7+ adolescents and null asso-ciations for 7− adolescents. Specific to DST,we further hypothesized an association betweencouple conflict and threat appraisals for 7+ ado-lescents only.

Method

Participants

Data used in this study come from the PROSPER(PROmoting School–community–universityPartnerships to Enhance Resilience) project(Spoth, Greenberg, Bierman, & Redmond,2004). PROSPER is designed to study theimpact of a partnership mode of deliv-ering preventive interventions through auniversity–school–cooperative extension col-laboration. The PROSPER study includes28 school districts in Iowa and Pennsylvaniarandomized into control and intervention con-ditions. A random sample of 2,267 families ofadolescents from the first wave of in-schooldata collection was invited to participate inhome-based family data collection; 979 (43%)participated.

In-home-based visits were conducted twicein sixth grade (in the 2003 fall and spring, Waves1 and 2) and annually in the spring thereafter for3 years (Waves 3, 4, and 5). The in-home proce-dures included written questionnaires completedindependently by the adolescent, mother, and,if present, father. During Wave 5 of the in-homeassessment, in which 749 families took part, par-ents were asked to consent for adolescent DNAdata collection. In addition to the 537 DNAsamples collected at that point, a later data col-lection by mail in young adulthood provided an

additional 57 samples, for a total of 594 in-homeparticipants who provided saliva samples forDNA data. Of those who provided DNA, 98.5%were successfully genotyped for the DRD4 poly-morphism. For purposes of the current article,children were included in these analyses only ifthey lived in a household where the coresidentparents were married or in a marriage-like rela-tionship at the initial assessment (see also Fosco& Feinberg, 2014). The final analysis sampleconsisted of 452 families. Comparisons betweenour analytic sample and the larger populationof PROSPER two-parent families (N = 8,485)revealed few differences. There were slightlyfewer two-biological-parent families (76.9% vs.80.2%), fewer adolescents on free/reduced-pricelunches (20.9% vs. 28.1%), and more Caucasianparticipants (91.1% vs. 86.0%) in our analysissample. Effect sizes for these differences wereall small (r < .05). Parent warmth/support, hos-tility, involvement, and family cohesion did notdiffer between the samples.

Measures

Means, standard deviations, and correlations canbe seen in Table 1.

Couple conflict and positivity. Couple conflictand couple positivity were assessed as sepa-rate constructs during Wave 1 using seven- andfour-item scales for each construct, respectively.Example conflict items included: During the pastmonth when you and your partner have spenttime talking or doing things together, how oftendid your partner “Get angry at you,” “Arguewith you whenever you disagreed about some-thing,” and “Shout, yell, or scream at you.”The couple positivity measure shared the samestem and included items such as “Let you knowhe/she really cares about you” and “Act lovingand affectionate toward you.” All items werescored on a scale that ranged from 1 (never) to7 (always). For both couple conflict and cou-ple positivity, mothers and fathers completedthe scales twice: once with reference to theirpartner’s behavior toward them and a secondtime with reference to their own behavior towardtheir partner. Thus, each measure comprisedfour scales—both father and mother reporting onself and other behavior. Regarding couple con-flict, each seven-item scale showed good inter-nal consistency (𝛼 = .89–.84), and the four scaleshad a high mean inter-item correlation (r = .62).


Table 1. Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Measures Used in Path Models

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Couple conflict —2. Couple positivity −.52∗∗ —3. Adolescent’s perception of

interpersonal positivity.44∗∗ −.33∗∗ —

4. Adolescent’s perception ofinterparental positivity

−.37∗∗ .43∗∗ −.47∗∗ —

5. Threat appraisal .30∗∗ −.16∗∗ .31∗∗ −.19∗∗ —6. Internalizing problems .19∗∗ −.06 .19∗∗ −.17∗∗ .34∗∗ —7. DRD4 7-repeat −.01 .01 −.05 .05 .02 −.08 —M 2.04 5.36 2.44 4.39 2.15 0.20SD 0.70 1.02 0.85 0.68 1.10 0.20

∗∗p< .01.

These four scales were averaged to create a cou-ple conflict composite. Higher scores indicatedgreater couple conflict. Regarding couple posi-tivity, each four-item scale showed good internalconsistency (𝛼 = .90–.92), and the four scoreswere also highly intercorrelated (r = .57). Thesefour scales were averaged to create a couplepositivity composite. For both measures, onlymother report was included for cases missingfather report (N = 62).

Adolescent perception of interparental conflictand positivity. One item was available at Wave1 for adolescent perceived interparental con-flict: “Thinking about your parents or guardians,how often would you say they argue or disagreewith each other?” This item was scored on ascale that ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always).Higher values indicate greater child perceptionof interparental conflict. Adolescent perceivedinterparental positivity was assessed at Wave 1using two items: (a) “Thinking about your par-ents or guardians, in general, how happy doyou think they are with their relationship?” and(b) “How often do your parents or guardianshug, kiss, hold hands, or say nice things to eachother?” The former item was scored on a scalethat ranged from 1 (very unhappy) to 5 (veryhappy) and the latter on one that ranged from1 (never) to 5 (always) scale. These two items,with r = .46, were averaged to create a compositemeasure.

Threat appraisals. Adolescents’ threat apprais-als were assessed at Wave 2 with four itemsdrawn from the Threat subscale of the Chil-dren’s Perceptions of Interparental Conflict

Scale (Grych et al., 1992). The Children’s Per-ceptions of Interparental Conflict Scale hasdemonstrated consistent reliability with ado-lescents (Fosco & Grych, 2010; Grych et al.,1992). Items on the Threat subscale began“When my parents argue. . .” followed by “I’mafraid something bad will happen,” “I worry thatone of them will get hurt,” “I’m afraid that theywill yell at me too,” or “I worry that they mightget divorced” (𝛼 = .88). Items were scored 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) andwere averaged to create an overall scale thatreflects fears and potential stress that may resultfrom interparental conflict.

Internalizing problems. During the Wave 3in-home assessment adolescents completedthe Youth Self-Report 11–18 (Achenbach,1991). The Internalizing Problems subscaleconsisted of 14 items designed to measureproblems related to anxiety and depres-sion (𝛼 = .88). Example items include “I amtoo fearful or anxious” and “I feel lonely.”The response options for each item were0= “not true,” 1= “somewhat or sometimestrue,” and 2= “very true or often true.”Higher values indicate greater internalizingproblems.

DRD4 genotyping. DNA was collected bybuccal swabs and extracted using a modifiedphenol-chloroform technique (Freeman et al.,2003). A portion of the collected DNA wasgenotyped for the polymorphic VNTR site inthe DRD4 gene at the Penn State GenomicsCore (Anchordoquy, McGeary, Liu, Krauter, &


Smolen, 2003) using primer sequences devel-oped by Lichter et al. (1993) with the forwardprimer fluorescently labeled. Amplificationproducts were analyzed using a 3730XL DNAAnalyzer and Genotyper software, Version4.0 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA).Nine alleles were detected, ranging in sizefrom 2 repeats to 10 repeats. Frequencies ofthe most common alleles (>5%) were 2-repeat(9%), 4-repeat (64%), and 7-repeat (20%).The remaining alleles (3-, 5-, 6-, 8-, 9-, and10-repeats) summed to 3%. A total of 23 distinctgenotypes were detected, the five most commonbeing 7/7 at 3.9%, 3/4 at 4.1%, 2/4 at 12.8%, 4/7at 27.4%, and 4/4 at 39.3%. Regenotyping∼10%of the samples revealed an error rate of 7.5%(4/53). For the present study, DRD4 variabilitywas coded on the basis of the presence (7+)versus absence (7−) of at least one copy of theDRD4 7-repeat allele. For clarity, based on thiscoding scheme, adolescents without a 7-repeatbut with at least one longer allele (i.e. 8, 9, or10) were included in the 7− category. When thealleles are collapsed to 7+ and 7− the error ratefalls to 5.7% (3/53) due to one of the four errorsnot changing their status as being 7+. This rateis not surprising given the difficulty of ampli-fying the 7-copy allele in the presence of the4-copy allele. In addition, the genotypes werein Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, χ2(1)= 0.03,ns, increasing confidence that the number ofindividuals who were 7+ heterozygotes (thedifficult genotype to assess) was accuratelyreported. It is important to note that if error werenonrandom, bias might be introduced into ourresults. To explore this possibility, we examinedcorrelations between variables that are includedin the path model and DRD4 (see Table 1). Wealso considered child gender, child age, parentage, parent education, and household income.All correlations with DRD4 were |.08| or less,suggesting that the error rate did not introducebias. Participants with at least one copy of the7-repeat allele were coded 1 (7+; N = 158,35.0%); all other participants were coded 0 (7−;N = 294, 65.0%). Although there are alternativeDRD4 coding methods (e.g. 4/4 vs. 7+; shortvs. long), we adopt the 7+ versus 7− coding onthe basis of its function (Asghari et al., 1995;Schoots & Van Tol, 2003; Wong et al., 2000) andto maintain consistency with other DST studiesthat include DRD4 (Bakermans-Kranenberg &van IJzendoorn, 2011).

Plan of Analysis

Path analysis was implemented to examinepathways from couple relationships to adoles-cent internalizing problems. Although differentanalytic approaches could be used to evaluatecomponents of the proposed model, by simul-taneously estimating all possible associations,path modeling conservatively estimates modelparameters. Critical to our different pathwayshypotheses is that indirect effects can also beestimated. Models were estimated using MplusVersion 6.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012).Full-information maximum-likelihood esti-mation was used to reduce potential biasincurred due to missing data at later waves (seeSchlomer, Bauman, & Card, 2010). Analyseswere conducted by first examining overallmodel fit indices, chi-square, the comparative fitindex (CFI), the nonnormed or Tucker–Lewisindex (TLI), and the root-mean-square error ofapproximation (RMSEA) and its standardizedroot-mean-square residual (SRMR). Models metcriteria for adequate overall fit when CFI/TLIvalues were greater than .95, RMSEA valueswere less than .08, and SRMR values were lessthan .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

To evaluate differences in the model acrossgenotypes, three steps were undertaken. First, toobtain baseline information, a saturated modelwas conducted on the entire sample (i.e., col-lapsed across genotype). Second, because ourmoderator variable was dichotomous, a multi-ple group structural equation model was con-ducted using DRD4 genotype (7− vs. 7+) asthe grouping variable (see Cortina, Chen, &Dunlap, 2001). Paths that were nonsignificantin both groups were trimmed from the model.Because hypotheses stemming from DST intrin-sically involve moderation, paths that were sig-nificant in only one or both groups were retained.Thus, in the third step the final trimmed modelwas analyzed. Chi-square difference tests wereused to determine group differences. Moderatedpaths were further tested for reliability throughbootstrapping standard errors (n= 1,000 draws)and constructing 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Bootstrapped CIs estimate the population dis-tribution of possible unstandardized parameterestimates based on n random draws from theanalysis sample (see Mooney & Duval, 1993).Parameter reliability is evidenced when the boot-strapped 95% CI does not include zero. Last,bootstrapping was similarly implemented to test


Figure 1. Results of the Saturated Model Collapsed Across Genotypes.

6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade

Couple Conflict

Couple Positivity

Adol. PerceptionInterparental Conflict

Adol. PerceptionInterparental Positivity

Threat Appraisal Internalizing

.22*

-.02ns

.36*

.33*

-.20*

-.34*-.52*

.21*

.24*

.06ns

.06ns

.03ns

.00ns

.09ns

-.15*

Note: Adol. = Adolescent; ns= not significant. *p< .05.

indirect effects (see MacKinnon, Lockwood, &Williams, 2004).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

To test variance/covariance equivalence, we con-ducted a multivariate analysis of variance usingall model variables as dependent variables (par-ent and child interparental conflict and posi-tivity, threat appraisal, internalizing problems)and DRD4 status as the fixed effect. Box’s Mwas statistically significant (M = 36.10; F(21,270,897)= 1.69, p< .05) indicating overall (oromnibus) heterogeneity in variances/covariancebetween genotypes. As an additional check,we conducted a second multivariate analysisof variance similar to the first but substitutingPROSPER intervention condition (0= control,1= intervention) as the fixed effect. Box’s M wasnot statistically significant (M = 29.82), F(21,367,153)= 1.40, ns. This result suggests the cur-rent findings are not conditioned by interventionparticipation.

Primary Analyses

Step 1: Saturated model. The results of the base-line saturated model can be seen in Figure 1.Noteworthy were the null associations betweeninternalizing problems and all conflict andpositivity measures; these four effects rangedfrom 𝛽 = .00 to .09. Threat appraisals duringseventh grade prospectively affected internaliz-ing problems in eighth grade (𝛽 = .24), however.

In addition, both couple conflict (𝛽 = .22) andadolescent perceived interparental conflict(𝛽 = .21) at sixth grade significantly affectedthreat appraisals in the seventh grade, consistentwith previous research (Fosco & Grych, 2008;Grych et al., 2003). Neither couple positivitynor adolescent perceived interparental positivitywas associated with threat appraisals (𝛽s= .03and− .02, respectively).

Step 2: Multiple group model. Multiple groupstructural equation modeling grouped by DRD4genotype (7− vs. 7+) was applied to the modeldepicted in Figure 1. The path from adoles-cent perceived interparental positivity to threatwas significant for 7+ adolescents (𝛽 =−.21,p< .05) but not for 7− adolescents (𝛽 = .06,ns). All other nonsignificant paths remainednonsignificant across genotypes and were set tozero (i.e., dropped). This trimmed model wasthen reestimated for the full sample (collapsedacross genotypes) and revealed good fit to thedata, χ2(5)= 5.54, ns; CFI= 1.00; TLI= 1.00;RMSEA= .02; SRMR= .02, suggesting thatdropping these paths from the saturated modeldid not worsen model fit. Last, we reanalyzedthe saturated multiple group model and con-strained the paths that were dropped in thetrimmed model to be equal across groups.The resulting model showed good fit to thedata, χ2(5)= 3.32, ns; CFI= 1.00; TLI= 1.00;SRMR= .02, indicating these paths were notgenetically moderated.

Step 3: Trimmed multiple group model. Theresults of the final trimmed model are depicted


Figure 2. Results of the Trimmed Multiple Group Structural Equation Modeling by DRD4 Genotype.

6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade

Couple Conflict

Couple Positivity

Adol. Perception Interparental Conflict



.20*

.46*

-.24*

-.43*

.05ns

.30*

CoupleConflict

Couple Positivity

Adol. Perception Interparental Conflict



.21*

.08ns

.32*

.37*

-.19*

-.31*-.51*

.27*

28*

DRD4 7+

DRD4 7-

-.19*

-.22*

.23*

-.53*

-.06ns

Note: χ2(10)= 9.87, ns; comparative fit index= 1.00; root-mean-square error of approximation= .00; 95% confidenceinterval [.00, .07]. Adol. = Adolescent; ns= not significant. *p< .05.

in Figure 2. Overall, the trimmed multiplegroup model showed a good fit to the data,χ2(10)= 9.87, ns; CFI= 1.00; TLI= 1.00;RMSEA= .00; SRMR= .03. Individual direc-tional paths were constrained to be equal acrossgroups and resulted in significant model misfit,Δχ2(8)= 15.56, p< .05, suggesting differencesacross groups (also evidenced by the Box’s Mabove). To describe results from the trimmedmodel, we will highlight first the direct effectsand group differences in direct effects, followedby indirect effects.

Direct effects. Adolescents with either theDRD4 7− or 7+ genotype showed similar directeffects of couple conflict on threat appraisals(𝛽 = .21 and 𝛽 = .20, respectively). Thus, irre-spective of genotype, couple conflict influencedadolescents’ appraisals of threat. In addition,couple conflict was positively associated withadolescent conflict perception for both geno-types (𝛽 = .32, 𝛽 = .46, 7− and 7+, respectively).Similarly, couple positivity was associated withadolescent perception of positivity for bothgenotypes (𝛽 = .37, 𝛽 = .23). Last, higher coupleconflict was associated with lower adolescentperceived interparental positivity for adoles-cents of either genotype (𝛽 =−19, −.24). Onlythe 7− adolescents showed a significant rela-tion between couple positivity and adolescentperceived interparental conflict (𝛽 =−.19); 7+adolescents showed no association (𝛽 =−.06).

The difference between these paths was notsignificant, however, Δχ2(1)= 1.37, ns.

Different pathways to threat emerged acrossgenotypes. DRD4 7− adolescents were moreaffected by interparental conflict, whereas 7+adolescents were affected by positivity. Thisdifference is evidenced by the associationbetween perceived interparental conflict andthreat appraisals among 7− adolescents (𝛽 = .27;bootstrapped parameters: b= .36, 95% CI [.16,.56]) that was absent among 7+ (𝛽 = .05; b= .06,95% CI [−.20, .32]). These paths differed signif-icantly across genotypes, Δχ2(1)= 3.69, p= .05.Furthermore, no association was found betweenperceptions of interparental positivity and threatfor 7− adolescents (𝛽 = .08; b= .13, 95% CI[−.09, .35]); this relation was present among 7+adolescents (𝛽 =−.22; b=−.41, 95% CI [−.76,−.07]). These paths also differed significantlybetween genotypes, Δχ2(1)= 6.78, p< .01.Last, children of either genotype demonstratedgreater internalizing problems in eighth gradewhen threat was higher in the seventh (𝛽 = .28and 𝛽 = .30, respectively).

Indirect effects. Tests of indirect effects anddifferences by genotype are provided in Table 2.We constrained pathway sets across groupsto assess genotype differences. Althoughpositivity was not directly associated withthreat appraisals among 7− adolescents, theindirect path (couple positivity→ adolescent


Table 2. Genetically Moderated Indirect Effects

DRD4 7− DRD4 7+

Indirect path Indirect effect Total effect Indirect effect Total effect χ2(df )

1. C-Conflict→APIC→TA .087∗ .297 .021 .221 5.74(2)2. C-Positivity→APIP→TA .031 .031 −.050† −.050 11.13(2)∗

3. C-Conflict→APIP→TA −.016 −.016 .053† .053 6.79(2)∗

4. C-Positivity→APIC→TA −.052∗ −.052 −.003 −.003 5.00(2)5. APIC→TA→ Internalizing .075∗ .075 .014 .014 3.70(2)6. APIP→TA→ Internalizing .023 .023 −.066∗ −.066 6.79(2)∗

7. C-Conflict→TA→ Internalizing .058∗ .058 .060∗ .060 .02(2)8. C-Conflict→APIC→TA→ Internalizing .024∗ .024 .006 .006 5.75(3)9. C-Positivity→APIP→TA→ Internalizing .009 .009 −.015 −.015 11.13(3)∗

10. C-Conflict→APIP→TA→ Internalizing −.004 −.004 .016 .016 6.80(3)11. C-Positivity→APIC→TA→ Internalizing −.014∗ −.014 −.001 −.001 5.00(3)

Note. Statistically significant values are in boldface type. C-Conflict/Positivity= couple conflict/positivity;APIC/P= adolescent perceived interparental conflict/positivity; TA= threat appraisals; Δχ2 = increase from between-groupconstraints. Critical χ2(2)= 5.99, χ2(3)= 7.82.

†p≤ .10. ∗p< .05.

perception of interparental conflict→ threatappraisal) was statistically significant (i.e.,indirect path 4 in Table 2). A similar indi-rect association from couple conflict to threatappraisal was also found (see indirect path 1).In addition, the four-step pathway—coupleconflict/positivity→ adolescent perceived inter-parental conflict→ threat appraisals→ inter-nalizing problems—was also significant for 7−adolescents (indirect paths 8 and 11). Theseresults suggest that, for 7− adolescents, bothcouple conflict and positivity prospectivelyaffect threat appraisals and internalizing prob-lems. Nonetheless, couple relationships affectthreat appraisals among 7− adolescents primar-ily through perceived conflict. Although not dif-ferent across genotypes, among 7− adolescents,the adolescent perceived interparental con-flict→ threat appraisals→ internalizing prob-lems path was significant (indirect path 5),as well was the couple conflict→ threatappraisals→ internalizing problems path (indi-rect path 7).

Among 7+ adolescents, interparental conflictand positivity affected threat appraisals andinternalizing problems primarily through childperceived interparental positivity. For example,the couple conflict/positivity→ adolescentperceived interparental positivity→ threatappraisals paths (indirect paths 2 and3 in Table 2), were marginally signif-icant. In addition, these pathways tothreat were significantly larger among 7+

adolescents compared to 7− adolescents(see Table 2). Furthermore, the adolescentperceptions of interparental positivity→ threatappraisals→ internalizing problems path alsowas significant (indirect path 6) and was sig-nificantly different from the path for the 7−group. These results suggest that the primarypathway by which interparental relationshipsaffect threat appraisals and internalizing prob-lems among 7+ adolescents appears to beperceptions of interparental positivity ratherthan conflict per se. The couple conflict→ threatappraisals→ internalizing problems path wassignificant for both groups of adolescents(indirect path 7) and did not significantly differ.Last, none of the four-step pathways from cou-ple conflict/positivity to internalizing problems(8, 9, 10, and 11) were significant among 7+adolescents. Nonetheless, pathway 9 did differacross genotypes. The meaning of this differ-ence is ambiguous given that neither indirecteffect was significantly different from zero.

Discussion

This is the first study to apply DST and vantagesensitivity to research on interparental conflictand positivity, adolescents’ appraisals of theseinterparental behaviors, and internalizing prob-lems. In this inquiry we first tested a model inwhich couple conflict and positivity were linkedto adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’relationship, that was then related to their threat


evaluations, and finally associated with riskfor internalizing problems (Grych & Fincham,1990). The second step was to test hypothesesregarding genetic moderation related to DST.

The preliminary model tested in the firstset of analyses advanced existing work oncognitive-contextual models by expand-ing interparental relationship assessment toinclude positive exchanges. Consistent with ourhypotheses, couple positivity and conflict wererelated to adolescents’ perceptions of conflictand positivity in their parents’ relationship. Inturn, adolescents who perceived more frequentparental conflict were more likely to perceiveconflicts as threatening. Finally, adolescentswho evaluated parental conflicts as threateningwere more likely to report higher levels ofinternalizing problems 1 year later. These find-ings are consistent with prior work examiningthreat appraisals of interparental conflict andinternalizing problems (e.g., Fosco & Feinberg,2014; Fosco & Grych, 2008; Grych et al., 2003)

Two findings in this model ran counter toour hypotheses. First, we expected that ado-lescents’ interparental relationship perceptionswould fully account for the association betweeninterparental conflict and positivity and threatappraisals. Instead, both interparental conflictand adolescent perceived conflict were eachuniquely associated with adolescent threat eval-uations. It is possible the unidimensional (i.e.,conflict frequency) measurement of adolescentperceptions of parental conflicts that omit inten-sity and resolution of parents’ arguments mayexplain this result. Further research is neededto better understand this finding. Second, weexpected that interparental positivity, inde-pendent of level of conflict, would be relatedto lower levels of perceived threat; however,no such association was found for the wholesample.

On the basis of DST and vantage sensi-tivity perspectives, we examined whether theDRD4 7-repeat genotype moderated associa-tion patterns linking interparental relationshipsto adolescent internalizing problems. Amongadolescents who were DRD4 7+, but not forthose who were 7−, perception of interparentalpositivity was linked to lower threat appraisals.Furthermore, 7+ adolescents were also rel-atively unaffected by interparental conflictcompared to 7− adolescents. This result iscontrary to DST, which posits sensitivity forboth positivity and negativity, but it is consistent

with vantage sensitivity (Pluess & Belsky,2013). It is currently unclear, however, whethersensitivity due to DRD4 is domain generalor domain specific, although accumulatingresearch points to domain specificity (e.g.,Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn,2011; Bakermans-Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn,Mesman, et al., 2008; Belsky & Pluess, 2013;Knafo et al., 2011). These studies and the find-ings reported herein support the possibility thatadolescents who are DRD4 7+ may be relativelymore sensitive to environmental positivity thannegativity, consistent with vantage sensitivity.

An opposite pattern emerged among7− adolescents: Perceived interparental conflictwas associated with higher levels of threat,but perceived positivity was not. These resultsclearly contradict hypotheses derived from boththe DST and vantage sensitivity perspectives. Itis important to note that DST and vantage sen-sitivity conceptualize environmental sensitivityas a matter of degree (plasticity) rather thanas falling into discrete categories (sensitive vs.fixed). Even individuals who would be catego-rized as “fixed” can be influenced by sufficientlystrong environmental exposures (e.g., intenseinterparental conflict; Ellis et al., 2011). Thesefindings suggest that exposure to interparentalconflict is sufficiently potent to affect 7− ado-lescents’ threat appraisals, which is consistentwith research highlighting interparental conflictas one of the most stressful social experienceschildren identify (Lewis, Siegel, & Lewis,1984). However, additional studies are neededto explore these findings for 7− adolescents.

Last, threat appraisals were associated withhigher risk for internalizing problems for both7+ and 7− adolescents. This finding reaffirmsthe integral role threat appraisals play in under-standing pathways of risk from interparentalrelationships to internalizing problems. Theshared risk from threat appraisals also supportsgenotypic sensitivity, consistent with DSThypotheses. Sensitivity was shown specificallyto environmental stimuli rather than alter-ing the progression from threat appraisals tointernalizing psychopathology.

Implications for Interparental Conflict, ThreatAppraisals, and Child Adjustment

Researchers interested in understandingmechanisms by which interparental conflictis related to child adjustment have focused


on child evaluations of conflict (Davies &Cummings, 1994; Davies & Sturge-Apple,2007; Fosco et al., 2007; Grych & Fincham,1990). The findings of this study advancethis area of research by further integrating abiological perspective into models of inter-parental conflict and adolescent adjustment(e.g., Sturge-Apple, Cicchetti, Davies, & Suor,2012). By incorporating variation in the DRD4allele we were able to ask questions about “forwhom” perceptions of interparental conflictand positivity are salient for threat evaluations.Our findings are consistent with an equifinalityconceptualization of risk, in which differentpathways may lead to a single outcome (vonBertalanffy, 1968). These findings highlight theneed to continue work delineating individualdifferences, both genotypic and phenotypic, thatwill illuminate unique pathways to key risk fac-tors for maladjustment. Such work may requirebroadening environmental assessments (e.g.,including positive interparental relations) andincluding other genetic factors (e.g., haplotypes,genetic risk scores, etc.).

Future work is needed to replicate our find-ings. In many domains of research, replicationcan be a problem, and concern has also beenraised with regard to Gene×Environmentresearch (e.g., Duncan & Keller, 2011). Withoutreplication, the critique remains that a particularstudy may be unduly influenced by factorsunrelated to what is being studied and therebyproduce artifactual results. To bolster confi-dence in our results, we created bootstrapped95% confidence intervals, which offer insightinto reliability of the moderated paths throughmultiple sample draws. Random sample splitsare considered a particularly strong replicationmethod because of homogeneity of samples,measurement, and methods (e.g. Johnston,Lahey, & Matthys, 2013). In addition, ourfindings add to a growing literature replicatingDRD4 7−/7+ environmental moderation (e.g.,Bakermans-Kranenberg & van IJzendoorn,2011), and most of these studies indicate 7+carriers are relatively more sensitive to environ-mental positivity, as we have shown in this study(see Pluess & Belsky, 2013). Finally, our find-ings also are largely consistent with the theoriesthey tested. Thus, although independent samplereplication is desirable, our analytic techniques,reliance on theory to guide our analysis, and the-oretically consistent findings provide confidencethat our results are not unique to these data.

Limitations and Conclusion

The primary limitation of this study is themeasurement of adolescents’ perceptions ofinterparental positivity and conflict. Althoughthey were predictive of threat, these measuresclearly did not capture the multifaceted aspectsof interparental relationships. Second, this studywas limited to a relatively homogeneous sampleand may not generalize to other populations.

Despite these limitations, this study illus-trates the value of studying unique pathwaysfrom interparental functioning to adolescentdevelopment. We have shown that interparentalpositivity may be one such pathway that hasbeen little considered in the existing literature.Furthermore, integrating DST has shed lighton questions that may not have otherwise beenasked. Additional research should focus on repli-cation of these findings, and additional factorsassociated with sensitivity should be considered.

Note

We would like to thank Dr. Deborah Grove and Ms. AshleyPrice of the Pennsylvania State University Genomics CoreFacility for DNA purification and genotyping. For partici-pant recruitment we recognize the efforts of Shirley Huck,Cathy Owen, Debra Bahr, and Anthony Connor of the IowaState University Survey and Behavioral Research Services;Rob Schofield and Dean Stankowski of the Penn State Uni-versity Survey Research Center; and Lee Carpenter, KerryHair, and Amanda Griffin of Penn State. Work on this arti-cle was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse(Grants DA030389 and DA013709).

ReferencesAchenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for

the 1991 CBCL/14-18, YSR and TRF Profiles.Burlington: University of Vermont, Department ofPsychiatry.

Anchordoquy, H. C., McGeary, C., Liu, L., Krauter,K. S., & Smolen, A. (2003). Genotyping of threecandidate genes after whole-genome preamplifica-tion of DNA collected from buccal cells. Behav-ioral Genetics, 33, 73–78.

Asghari, V., Sanyal, S., Buchwaldt, S., Paterson, A.,Jovanovic, V., & Van Tol, H. H. (1995). Modula-tion of intracellular cyclic AMP levels by differenthuman dopamine D4 receptor variants. Journal ofNeurochemistry, 65, 1157–1165.

Atkinson, E. R., Dadds, M. R., Chipuer, H., &Dawe, S. (2009). Threat is a multidimensionalconstruct: Exploring the role of children’s threatappraisals in the relationship between inter-parental conflict and child adjustment. Journalof Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 281–292.doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9275-z


Bakermans-Kranenberg, M. J, & van IJzendoorn,M. H. (2011). Differential susceptibility to rear-ing environment depending on dopamine relatedgenes: New evidence and meta-analysis. Develop-ment and Psychopathology, 23, 39–52.

Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Van IJzendoorn,M. H., Mesman, J., Alink, L. R. A., & Juffer, F.(2008). Effects of an attachment-based interven-tion on daily cortisol moderated by dopaminereceptor D4: A randomized control trial on 1- to3-year-olds screened for externalizing behavior.Development and Psychopathology, 20, 805–820.doi:10.1017/s0954579408000382

Bakermans-Kranenberg, M. J., van IJzendoorn,M. H., Pijlman, F. T. A., Mesman, J., & Juffer, F.(2008). Experimental evidence for differential sus-ceptibility: Dopamine D4 receptor polymorphism(DRD4 VNTR) moderates intervention effects ontoddlers’ externalizing behavior in a randomizedcontrolled trial. Developmental Psychology, 44,293–300.

Beach, S. R. H., Brody, G. H., Lei, M., & Philibert,R. A. (2010). Differential susceptibility to parent-ing among African American youths: Testing theDRD4 hypothesis. Journal of Family Psychology,24, 513–521. doi:10.1037/a0020835

Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesisstress: Differential susceptibility to environmentalinfluences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885–908.doi:10.1037/a0017376

Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2013). Genetic modera-tion of early childcare effects on social function-ing across childhood: A developmental analysis.Child Development, 84, 1209–1225. doi:10.1111/cdev.12058.

Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biologi-cal sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary–developmental theory of the origins and functionsof stress reactivity. Development and Psy-chopathology, 17, 271–301. doi:10.1017/s0954579405050145

Buehler, C., Anthony, C., Krishnakumar, A., Stone,G., Gerard, J., & Pemberton, S. (1997). Inter-parental conflict and youth problem behaviors: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Stud-ies, 6, 233–247.

Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. (2001).Testing interaction effects in LISREL: Exami-nation and illustration of available procedures.Organizational Research Methods, 4, 324–360.doi:10.1177/109442810144002

Cummings, E. M., & Cummings, J. L. (1988). Aprocess-oriented approach to children’s copingwith adults’ angry behavior. DevelopmentalReview, 8, 296–321.

Cummings, E. M. & Davies, P. (1994). Children andmarital conflict: The impact of family dispute andresolution. New York: Guilford Press.

Cummings, E. M., George, M. R. W., McCoy,K. P., & Davies, P. T. (2012). Interparentalconflict in kindergarten and adolescent adjust-ment: Prospective investigation of emotionalsecurity as an explanatory mechanism. ChildDevelopment, 83, 1703–1715. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01807.x

Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Mari-tal conflict and child adjustment: An emotionalsecurity perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 116,387–411.

Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1998). Explor-ing children’s emotional security as a mediator ofthe link between marital relations and child adjust-ment. Child Development, 69, 124–139.

Davies, P. T., Harold, G. T., Goeke-Morey, M., &Cummings, E. M. (2002). Child emotional secu-rity and interparental conflict. Monographs of theSociety for Research in Child Development, 67(3,Serial No. 270).

Davies, P. T., & Lindsay, L. L. (2004). Interparentalconflict and adolescent adjustment: Why doesgender moderate early adolescent vulnerability?Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 160–170.doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.160.

Davies, P. T., Martin, M. J., & Cicchetti, D. (2012).Delineating the sequelae of destructive andconstructive interparental conflict for childrenwithin an evolutionary framework. Develop-mental Psychology, 48, 939–955. doi:10.1037/a0025899

Davies, P. T., & Sturge-Apple, M. L. (2007).Advances in the formulation of emotional securitytheory: An ethologically-based perspective. InR. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child behavior anddevelopment (Vol. 35, pp. 87–137). New York:Elsevier.

DeBoard-Lucas, R. L., Fosco, G. M., Raynor, S. R.,& Grych, J. H. (2010). Interparental conflict incontext: Exploring relations between parentingprocesses and children’s conflict appraisals. Jour-nal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39,163–175. doi:10.1080/15374410903532593

D’Onofrio, B. M., & Lahey, B. B. (2010). Bioso-cial influences on the family: A decade in review.Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 762–782.doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010

Duncan, L. E. & Keller, M. C. (2011). A criti-cal review of the first 10 years of candidateGene-by-Environment interaction research inpsychiatry. The American Journal of Psychiatry,168, 1041–1049.

Ellis, B. J., Boyce, W. T., Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H.(2011). Differential susceptibility to the environ-ment: An evolutionary–neurodevelopmental the-ory. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 7–28.


Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conflict and thechildren of discord and divorce. Psychological Bul-letin, 92, 310–330.

Faraone, S. V., Doyle, A. E., Mick, E., & Bieder-man, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of the associationbetween the 7-repeat allele of the dopamine D4receptor gene and attention deficit hyperactivitydisorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158,1052–1057.

Fosco, G. M., DeBoard, R. L., & Grych, J. H. (2007).Making sense of family violence: Implications ofchildren’s appraisals of interparental aggressionfor their short-term and long-term functioning. TheEuropean Psychologist, 12, 6–16.

Fosco, G. M. & Feinberg, M. E. (2014). Cascadingeffects of interparental conflict in adoles-cence: Linking threat appraisals, self-efficacy,and adjustment. Development and Psy-chopathology. Advance online publication.doi:10.1017/S0954579414000704

Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2007). Emotionalexpression in the family as a context for chil-dren’s appraisals of interparental conflict. Journalof Family Psychology, 21, 248–258.

Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2008). Emotional,cognitive, and family systems mediators of chil-dren’s adjustment to interparental conflict. Journalof Family Psychology, 22, 843–854.

Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2010). Adolescenttriangulation into parental conflicts: Longitudinalimplications for appraisals and adolescent–parentrelations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72,254–266. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00697.x

Freeman, B., Smith, N., Curtis, C., Huckett, L., Mill,J., & Craig, I. W. (2003). DNA from buccal swabsrecruited by mail: Evaluation of storage effectson long-term stability and suitability for multiplexpolymerase chain reaction genotyping. BehavioralGenetics, 33, 67–72.

Goeke-Morey, M. C., Cummings, E. M., Harold,G. T., & Shelton, K. H. (2003). Categories andcontinua of destructive and constructive maritalconflict tactics from the perspective of U.S. andWelsh children. Journal of Family Psychology, 17,327–338.

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflictand children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextualframework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267–290.

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1993). Children’sappraisals of interparental conflict: Initial inves-tigations of the cognitive-contextual framework.Child Development, 64, 215–230.

Grych, J. H., Harold, G. T., & Miles, C. J. (2003). Aprospective investigation of appraisals as medi-ators of the link between interparental conflictand child adjustment. Child Development, 74,1176–1193.

Grych, J. H., Jouriles, E. N., Swank, P. R., McDonald,R., & Norwood, W. D. (2000). Patterns of adjust-ment among children of battered women. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 84–94.

Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992).Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspec-tive: The Children’s Perceptions of InterparentalConflict Scale. Child Development, 63, 558–572.

Harold, G. T., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Marital conflictand adolescent distress: The role of adolescentawareness. Child Development, 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 ado-lescent psychological distress. Developmental Psy-chology, 33, 333–350.

Horwitz, B. N., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2011).Gene–environment interplay, family relation-ships, and child adjustment. Journal of Marriageand Family, 73, 804–816.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria forfit indexes in covariance structure analysis:Conventional criteria versus new alterna-tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Johnston, C., Lahey, B. B., & Matthys, W. (2013).Editorial policy for candidate gene studies. Jour-nal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 511–514.doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9741-0

Kluger, A. N., Siegfried, Z., Ebstein, R. P.(2002). A meta-analysis of the associationbetween DRD4 polymorphism and noveltyseeking. Molecular Psychiatry, 7, 712–717.doi:10.1038/si.mp.4001082

Knafo, A., Israel, S., & Ebstein, R. P. (2011).Heritability of children’s prosocial behaviorand differential susceptibility to parenting byvariation in the dopamine receptor D4 gene.Development and Psychopathology, 23, 53–67.doi:10.1017/s0954579410000647

Lengua, L. J., & Long, A. C. (2002). The roleof emotionality and self-regulation in theappraisal–coping process: Tests of direct and mod-erating effects. Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 23, 471–493.

Lewis, C. E., Seigel, J. M., & Lewis, M. A. (1984).Feeling bad: Exploring sources of distress amongpre-adolescent children. American Journal of Pub-lic Health, 74, 117–122.

Lichter, J. B., Barr, C. L., Kennedy, J. L., Van Tol,H. H., Kidd, K. K., & Livak, K. J. (1993). Ahypervariable segment in the human dopaminereceptor D4 (DRD4) gene. Human MolecularGenetics, 2, 767–773.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams,J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirecteffect: Distribution of the product and resamplingmethods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39,99–128. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4


McCoy, K., Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2009).Constructive and destructive marital conflict, emo-tional security, and children’s prosocial behavior.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50,270–279. doi:101111/j.1469*-7610.2008.01945.x

Mooney, C. Z., & Duval, R. D. (1993). Bootstrapping:A nonparametric approach to statistical inference.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). MplusUser’s Guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Oak, J. N., Oldenhof, J., & Van Tol, H. H. M.(2000). The dopamine D4 receptor: One decade ofresearch. European Journal of Pharmacology, 405,303–327.

Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2013). Vantage sensitivity:Individual differences in response to positive expe-riences. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 901–916.doi:10.1037/a0030196

Pluess, M., Stevens, S. E., & Belsky, J. (2013).Differential susceptibility: Developmental andevolutionary mechanisms of gene–environmentinteractions. In M. Legerstee, D. W. Haley, & M.H. Bornstein (Eds.), The infant mind: Origins ofthe social brain. New York: Guilford Press.

Rhoades, K. A. (2008). Children’s responses to inter-parental conflict: A meta-analysis of their associ-ations with child adjustment. Child Development,79, 1942–1956.

Rowe, D. C. (1981). Environmental and geneticinfluences on dimensions of perceived parenting:A twin study. Developmental Psychology, 17,203–208.

Rowe, D. C. (1983). A biometrical analysis of percep-tions of family environment: A study of twin andsingleton sibling kinships. Child Development, 54,416–423.

Rowe, D. C., & Plomin, R. (1977). Temperamentin early childhood. Journal of Personality Assess-ment, 41, 150–156.

Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010).Best practices for missing data management incounseling psychology. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 57, 1–10. doi:10.1037/a0018082

Schoots, O., & Van Tol, H. H. (2003). The humandopamine D4 receptor repeat sequences modu-late expression. Pharmacogenomics Journal, 3,343–348.

Simons, R. L., Simons, L. G., Lei, M., Beach,S. R. H., Brody, G. H., Gibbons, F. X., & Philibert,R. A. (2013). Genetic moderation of the impact ofparenting on hostility toward romantic partners.Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 325–341.doi:10.1111/jomf.12010.

Spoth, R., Greenberg, M., Bierman, K., & Redmond,C. (2004). PROSPER community–universitypartnership model for public education sys-tems: Capacity-building for evidence-based,competence-building prevention. PreventionScience, 5, 31–39.

Sturge-Apple, M. L., Cicchetti, D., Davies, P. T., &Suor, J. H. (2012). Differential susceptibility inspillover between interparental conflict and mater-nal parenting practices: Evidence for OXTR and5-HTT genes. Journal of Family Psychology, 26,431–442. doi:10.1037/a0028302

von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). Organismic psychologyand systems theory. Barre, MA: Clark UniversityPress.

Wong, A. H., Buckle, C. E., & Van Tol, H. H. (2000).Polymorphisms in dopamine receptors: What dothey tell us? European Journal of Pharmacology,410, 183–203.

interparental relationship sensitivity leads to adolescent...

Documents