http://jea.sagepub.com

Adolescence The Journal of Early

DOI: 10.1177/0272431608316602 Apr 8, 2008;

2008; 28; 428 originally published onlineThe Journal of Early AdolescenceMark J. Benson, Cheryl Buehler and Jean M. Gerard

IntrusivenessandSpillover via Maternal Acceptance, Harshness, Inconsistency,

Interparental Hostility and Early Adolescent Problem Behavior:

http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/3/428 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:The Journal of Early Adolescence Additional services and information for

http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jea.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/3/428SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 62 articles hosted on the Citations

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Interparental Hostility and Early Adolescent Problem Behavior

Spillover via Maternal Acceptance, Harshness,Inconsistency, and Intrusiveness

Mark J. BensonVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg

Cheryl BuehlerUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro

Jean M. GerardBowling Green State University, Ohio

To explore the link between interparental hostility and adolescent problembehaviors, the current study examines four important maternal parenting dimen-sions as potential mediators: acceptance, harshness, inconsistency, and psycho-logical intrusiveness. With a primary sample of 1,893 sixth-grade students, themeasures included adolescent and teacher reports. Structural equation modelingrevealed that each parenting construct partially mediated both internalizing andexternalizing adolescent problems. Harshness was the strongest mediator foradolescent externalizing. Psychological intrusiveness and low maternal accep-tance were the strongest mediators for adolescent internalizing. Inconsistencylinked similarly to both internalizing and externalizing. Stronger linkages werefound in families with married parents compared to those with divorced parents,but overall the patterns were similar. Youth gender and ethnic differences in thespillover processes were minimal. The findings provide a process model forunderstanding interparental conflict and adolescent problems.

Keywords: adolescence; adolescent development; interparental conflict;interparental hostility; marital conflict; parent-adolescent;parenting; problem behavior

Journal of Early AdolescenceVolume 28 Number 3

August 2008 428-454© 2008 Sage Publications

10.1177/0272431608316602http://jea.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

428

Authors’ Note: This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of MentalHealth, R01-MH59248. The authors thank the staff of the Family Life Project for their unend-ing contributions to this work and the youth, parents, teachers, and school administrators whomade this research possible. Address correspondence to Mark J. Benson, PhD, Department ofHuman Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA24061-0416; e-mail: mbenson@vt.edu.

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Although conflict is inevitable in marriage and partnering, the amountand intensity of conflict vary across couples. Marked conflict can have

important implications not only for couples themselves, but also for theirchildren. Prior research with adolescents consistently documents a linkbetween marital strife and problem behavior (Buehler & Gerard, 2002;Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990; Harold, Shelton, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2004). The consistency of the link has inspired thepursuit of theory to explain the mechanisms tying marital conflict to childproblems. Mechanisms have been advanced implicating spouse and parentattributions (Fincham & Grych, 1991), child self-blame (Grych, Harold, &Miles, 2003), heightened sensitivity in the child (Grych & Fincham, 1990),and the child’s emotional security (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Davies,Harold, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2002). Another important mechanism,however, reflects the ways that marital conflict links to parenting behaviors(Erel & Burman, 1995). The study tests four maternal parent dimensions aspossible mediators in the process. The relatively large sample of 1,893youth provides sufficient power to examine the moderating roles of adoles-cent gender, ethnicity, and parents’ marital status.

Interparental Hostility and Adolescent Problems:Spillover Through Mothers’ Parenting

The focus on parenting as an explanation for the association betweeninterparental hostility and adolescent problems derives from a systems con-ceptualization of spillover. Spillover is conceptualized as the transfer ofmood, affect, or behavior across family subsystems (Cox, Paley, & Harter,2001; Engfer, 1988; Erel & Burman, 1995; Margolin, Oliver, & Medina,2001). Spillover processes contrast with notions of the relative independenceof relationships or boundaries between subsystems (Dunn, O’Connor, &Cheng, 2005). In conditions of spillover, the discord in one relationship spillsinto other family relationships and affects the emotional climate (Hinde &Stevenson-Hinde, 1988). Thus, conflict in a marriage can disrupt interactionsbetween a parent and child. Specific spillover mechanisms include conceptssuch as stress transfer (Conger et al., 1993), modeling (Patterson, 1982),depleted energy (Margolin et al., 2001), and reduced emotional availability(Katz & Gottman, 1996). Though spillover can have positive or negativevalence, prior research documents the negative impact of frequent or intensehostility on the family system and its members (Buehler et al., 1997).

The parenting process is an important mechanism for explainingspillover effects from interparental hostility to adolescent problems. Within

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility 429

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

a spillover framework, discord in the parents’ relationship limits effectiveparenting behaviors, which results in greater adolescent problem behavior.The types of parenting most susceptible to interparental hostility and ado-lescent problems, however, have received inadequate attention. Instead,studies often rely on assessing only one or two dimensions of parenting(e.g., Lindsey & Mize, 2001; Stocker & Youngblade, 1999; Stone, Buehler, &Barber, 2002). Such narrow assessment of parenting dimensions has ham-pered theory development regarding parenting as a mediator between inter-parental hostility and youth problem behaviors (Bradford et al., 2004).

Spillover Mechanisms: Four Dimensions of Mothers’ Parenting

Whether or not parenting dimensions mediate the link between inter-parental hostility and adolescent problems rests upon the careful selectionof relevant aspects of parenting. Based on prior research and foundationaltheory (Patterson, 1982), the current study examines four potentially impor-tant dimensions of mothers’ parenting: acceptance, harsh discipline, incon-sistency, and psychological intrusiveness. Disaggregating these salient aspectsof parenting represents an important need in research on interparental con-flict. Two prior studies disaggregated parenting and showed mediationaleffects for three types of parenting: acceptance/rejection, inconsistency/laxness, and psychological control/intrusiveness (Fauber et al., 1990;Gonzales, Pitts, Hill, & Roosa, 2000). Their small sample sizes of under100, however, limit confidence in the precision of the estimates and prohibitdetailed moderating analyses. Also, the reliance on advertisements forrecruitment limits the inference to generalizability that a large communitysample would afford.

Although prior research implies the potential for parenting mediationeffects, the current study also tests the alternative hypothesis that parentingfails to explain the link between interparental hostility and adolescent prob-lems. If only the direct association is significant, alternative explanations tocompromised parenting, such as witnessing conflict, would be favored(Mazefsky & Farrell, 2005).

Parental acceptance involves the care, approval, involvement, and supportby parents and holds a central role in theories of individual and familyprocesses (Olson & Gorall, 2003; Rohner, 2004). In a meta-analysis ofinterparental hostility, parental acceptance is one of the most importantparenting dimensions affected by interparental hostility (Krishnakumar &Buehler, 2000; Sirvanli-Ozen, 2004). Besides the link to interparental

430 Journal of Early Adolescence

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

hostility, lower levels of maternal acceptance are associated with concur-rent and future externalizing problem behaviors (Bosco, Renk, & Dinger,2003; Doyle & Markiewicz, 2005). For internalizing problems, parentalsupport with older or young siblings relates to lower anxiety and less with-drawal for early adolescents (Brody, Kim, & Murry, 2005). These findingssuggest the potential role of parental acceptance in mediating the linkbetween interparental hostility and problem behavior. Theoretically, inter-parental hostility is expected to reduce the parents’ capacity to be acceptingand warm due to relationally based stress and irritability (Vandewater &Lansford, 1998).

Harsh parenting represents a second important potential mediator fromthe theoretical perspectives of social learning (Patterson, 1982), systems(Cox et al., 2001), and family stress (Harold & Conger, 1997). A meta-analysis of prior research findings indicates that interparental hostility hasa strong influence on harsh discipline (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000).Besides the influence of hostility on harshness, harsh parenting is a consis-tent correlate of adolescent problems (Voydanoff, 2004). Theoretically,harsh parenting functions as a system transfer, where parents using verbaland physical aggression with one another are more likely to use verbal andphysical aggression with their children (Almeida, Wethington, & Chandler,1999). Harshness also may relate to internalizing problems, as suggested bythe finding that harsh maternal discipline linked to depression and anxietyin adolescents (Bender et al., 2007). These patterns suggest that harshnessmight explain the association of interparental hostility with both internaliz-ing and externalizing problems.

Theoretical accounts of the third dimension, intraparental inconsistency,draw from behavioral principles (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canada, 1997;Skinner, 1974) and expectation outcome principles (Bandura, 1986). Suchprinciples highlight the importance of contingent reinforcement and consis-tent parental expectations for effective child socialization. In prior research,interparental hostility has been associated with child reports of inconsistentdiscipline (Gonzales et al., 2000). Similarly, marital hostility has been linkedto inconsistent parenting (Lindahl & Malik, 1999). Inconsistent parentingalso has been related to externalizing (Berg-Nielsen, Vikan, & Dahl, 2002;Brody et al., 2001; Stanger, Dumenci, & Kamon, 2004) and internalizingproblems (Lengua & Kovacs, 2005). Taken together, these findings suggestthat inconsistency functions as a mediator between interparental hostilityand both internalizing and externalizing problems.

Finally, psychological control or intrusiveness has been conceptualizedas a central parenting feature, as it reflects the failure to recognize the

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility 431

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

psychological distinctiveness of individuals (Barber, 1997, 2002; Minuchin,1974). Theoretically, intrusive or controlling behaviors such as manipula-tion, guilt induction, or love withdrawal undermine adolescent differentia-tion and autonomy. Prior research has found that interparental hostility isrelated positively to psychological control (Crater, 2004; Doyle & Markiewicz,2005; Stone et al., 2002). Marital hostility also is linked positively toparents’ psychological control over time (Cummings, Keller, & Davies,2005). In terms of adolescent problems, the association between intrusive-ness and adolescent internalizing problems is particularly robust (Doyle &Markiewicz, 2005; Krishnakumar, Buehler, & Barber, 2003).

In the current study, the four parenting constructs elaborated above areexamined conjointly as potential mediators between interparental hostility andthe adolescent internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors. Prior stud-ies that have examined mediating effects of parenting have provided mixedresults. Studies have found support for no mediation (Forehand, Wierson,McCombs, Brody, & Fauber, 1989; Miller, Cowan, Cowan, Hetherington, &Clingempeel, 1993; Stone et al., 2002), partial mediation (Crockenberg &Langrock, 2001; Krishnakumar et al., 2003; Webster-Stratton & Hammond,1999), and complete mediation (Black & Pedro-Carroll, 1993; Gonzales et al.,2000; Mann & MacKenzie, 1996; Stocker & Youngblade, 1999). These mixedresults stem from a combination of dependence on small samples, samplingof younger children, absence of problem measures, or reliance on singlereporters for problem assessment. In the current study, a large sample of sim-ilarly aged adolescents with multiple reports of adolescent internalizing andexternalizing provides a robust basis for systematically evaluating the relativecontributions of mediation through multiple parenting behaviors.

Gender, Ethnicity, and Marital Status

Within the literature on interparental hostility and children’s maladjust-ment, there is increasing interest in the role of children’s gender (Davies &Lindsay, 2001). Some support for testing gender moderation derives fromwork showing that the mediating path through parental harshness isstronger for sons than daughters (Buehler & Gerard, 2002). Other researchhas shown, however, that the effect of mothers’ harshness is similar for bothsons and daughters (Osborne & Fincham, 1996). These conflicting findingsand the limited theoretical basis for differences reflect further need for studiesthat examine youth gender as a potential moderator.

In addition to gender, ethnicity has been conceptualized as a potentialmoderator in understanding family processes in the context of interparental

432 Journal of Early Adolescence

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility 433

hostility. A recent conceptualization advances the attenuation hypothesis,suggesting weaker associations between marital hostility and child malad-justment in ethnic minority families than in European American families(McLoyd, Harper, & Copeland, 2001). One rationale for the attenuationhypothesis is that ethnic minority children are less vulnerable to interparentalhostility due to influences from a broad social network of extended familymembers. A second rationale is that ethnic minority children comparativelyare less stressed by interparental hostility due to coping with other sourcesof hostility and oppression within the broader culture. At present, priormeta-analytic research has failed to show significant ethnicity differencesin the link between interparental hostility and youth problem behaviors(Buehler et al., 1997). Parenting processes, however, have shown both differ-ences across ethnic groups with maternal acceptance (Krishnakumar et al.,2003) and similarities across ethnic groups with harsh discipline (Buehler& Gerard, 2002). Limited research on African American youth and thepotential for testing the attenuation hypothesis via parenting processessupports the need for ethnicity moderation tests.

Much of the research on interparental hostility has focused on marriedcouples. From a conceptual perspective, arguments have been advanced forstronger and weaker associations between interparental hostility and youthproblems in comparing families with married and divorce parents (Buchanan& Heiges, 2001). Compared to married parents, the association might bestronger in families experiencing divorce because of the potential for sus-tained and ongoing strife. Conversely, the association might be stronger infamilies with married parents due to the potentially corrosive and exhaust-ing consequences of chronic hostility. With respect to internalizing prob-lems, prior research evidences stronger effects through parental acceptancein families where the parents are divorced (Fauber et al., 1990) and strongereffects for psychological intrusiveness in families with married parents(Krishnakumar et al., 2003). These differential patterns across parentingdimensions support the need for moderation tests for marital status using acomprehensive, multi-dimensional assessment of parenting processes.

In summary, the current study examines specific aspects of parenting aspotential mediators between interparental hostility and adolescent external-izing and internalizing problems. Four important parenting dimensions areexamined including acceptance, harshness, inconsistency, and psychologicalcontrol. Using a large, diverse, community sample of over 1,880 youth, thestudy affords greater potential for generalizability than was possible inprior studies. Finally, we use structural equation modeling (SEM), whichallows for model fitting and significance testing between groups comparedby youth gender, ethnicity, and parents’ marital status.

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Method

Sampling Procedures

All of the sixth-grade youth in 13 middle schools in a large county in theSoutheastern United States were invited to participate. This county includesrural, suburban, and urban regions. Ninety-six percent of the teachers witha sixth-grade homeroom class participated. Youth received their invitationletter during homeroom and were asked to return the signed parental con-sent form after talking with their parents about participation. Two follow-updirect mailings to parents were done that included a self-addressed stampedenvelope. About 71% of the youth/parent(s) returned the consent form and80% of these received permission to participate.

Because data were collected from a diverse group of youth, we askedthem whom they were thinking of when responding to mothers’ parentingquestions. Only youth who were thinking of their birth or adoptive motherwere included in the sample for this study. This ensured consistency andaccuracy when youth were completing relational measures. Also, onlyyouth who lived with at least one birth/adoptive parent and whose parentswere living were included.

Sample Characteristics

This sample consisted of 1,893 youth, aged 10 to 14 (X– = 11.90, SD = .72).

There were 980 daughters (51.8%) and 913 sons (48.2). In terms of race/ethnicity, 1,603 (84.7%) were European American (non-Hispanic), 152 (8%)were African American (non-Hispanic), 28 (1.5%) were Hispanic, 25 (1.3%)were Asian American, 8 (< .4%) were Indian, and 22 (1.2%) were in theOther category. Some of the youth marked more than one category (3%).This sample of youth is representative of the county residents in terms ofrace/ethnicity (e.g., 8.8% African American and 1.2% Asian American inthe county; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a).

About 65% of youth reported that their biological parents were marriedto each other. About 13% reported that their parents were divorced and notremarried. Four percent reported that their biological parents were separated.Eighteen percent reported that at least one of their parents had remarried.This sample is fairly representative in terms of the proportion of householdsthat include married/remarried parents (83% in this sample, 79% in thiscounty, and 77% in the 2000 U.S. population), with a slightly higher repre-sentation of married families (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b).

434 Journal of Early Adolescence

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility 435

Youth reports of perceived economic well-being indicated that 1%believed they were a lot poorer than most families they knew, 8% believedthey were a little poorer, 63% believed they were about the same as otherfamilies economically, 23% believed they were a little richer, and 5% believedthey were a lot richer (8.4% of families in this county were in povertyduring 1999, and 9.2% in the country; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000c). Besidesinformation provided by youth, an inspection of the free school lunchrosters from about half of the participating schools suggested that thissample is representative of county economic status.

Data Collection Procedures

Youth completed a questionnaire during school in small groups. Theyhad as much time as needed to finish (most completed within 50 minutes),and several project staff were available to answer questions. After comple-tion, students were treated to a pizza party. The youth’s homeroom teachercompleted an assessment of the youth’s problem behaviors during Aprilof the school year. This teacher also had the youth in one content course(e.g., science, language arts). Data were collected from a teacher for 98%of the youth. Teachers received $5 for each completed questionnaire.

Measurement

Youth problem behavior. Youth and teachers assessed early adolescentproblem behavior. Youth reports were measured using the Child BehaviorChecklist–Youth Self-Report (CBCL-YSR; Achenbach, 1991b; Achenbach,Dumenci, & Rescorla, 2002). This measure consisted of a series of state-ments that might describe the youth during the previous 6 months. Theresponse format was not true (0), somewhat or sometimes true (1), and verytrue or often true (2). Of the 112 items, 30 were used to measure external-izing problems (α = .85), and 31 were used to measure internalizing prob-lems (α = .88). Examples of externalizing items are, “I lie or cheat,” and “Idisobey at school.” Examples of internalizing items are, “I am unhappy,sad, or depressed,” and “I worry a lot.” Raw scores were used as recom-mended by Achenbach (1991b). One teacher also completed a TeacherReport Form for each participating youth (Achenbach, 1991a). Items weresummed and Cronbach’s alpha was .95 for externalizing problems and .87for internalizing problems.

Youth also completed the Children’s Depression Inventory–Short Version(CDI; Kovacs, 1992) because internalizing problems are difficult to assessand measurement bias might result from a sole reliance on Achenbach

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

436 Journal of Early Adolescence

instruments. The CDI consists of 10 items. Each question has three responsechoices and youth select the item that best fits feelings during the past 2 weeks.A sample item is, “I am sad once in a while,” “I am sad many times,” and“I am sad all the time.” Items were averaged and Cronbach’s alpha was .84.

As an additional assessment of externalizing problems (to counter someof the possible shared measurement bias), youth completed a 17-item mea-sure of the frequency of delinquent behaviors ever committed (Elliott,Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985). Examples of items are, “purposely damaged ordestroyed property,” and “cheated on a test.” The response format rangedfrom never (1) to three or more times (3). Items were averaged and Cronbach’salpha was .73.

Youth perceptions of interparental hostility. The latent construct forinterparental hostility was based on youth report of two subscales: overt andintensity. The overt subscale assessed the frequency of hostile behaviorsthat the youth could see or hear. Examples of the 11 items on this subscaleare, “call each other names,” “yell at each other,” and “threaten each other.”The response format ranged from never (1) to very often (4) (α = .81).There is evidence of construct validity for this measure in U.S. samples ofyouth (Buehler et al., 1998) and in samples of youth living in eight countries(Bradford et al., 2004).

Youth also completed an intensity subscale concerning parents’ hostileinteractions. A sample item is, “When my parents disagree, one of them (orboth) gets madder and madder.” The response format ranged from never (1)to always (5). The fourth item was a global item that asked, “When yourparents disagree, how intense does it get?” (Gerard, Buehler, Franck, &Anderson, 2005). This item ranged from not very intense (1) to very intense(3). This latter item was rescaled to a 5-point scale and items were averaged.A high score indicated greater intensity. Cronbach’s alpha was .82.

Youth perceptions of mothers’ parenting. Four aspects of mothers’ parent-ing were assessed: acceptance, harshness, inconsistency, and psychologicalintrusiveness.

To assess maternal acceptance, youth completed the 10-item acceptancesubscale of the Children’s Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI;Schaefer, 1965; Schludermann & Schludermann, 1970). Sample items are,“My mother is a person who enjoys doing things with me,” and “My motheris a person who gives me a lot of care and attention.” The response formatranged from not like her (1) to a lot like her (4), and items were averaged.Cronbach’s alpha was .87.

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

For maternal harshness, youth completed seven items from the Iowa Youthand Families assessment protocol (Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons,1994). Sample items that asked about the frequency of mothers’ behaviorduring the past year are, “shouted, yelled, or screamed at me,” and “calledme dumb or lazy or some other name like that.” The response format rangedfrom this has never happened (0) to more than 20 times in the past year(6). Items were averaged and a higher score indicated greater harshness.Cronbach’s alpha was .87.

To assess maternal inconsistency, youth completed eight items from twoparenting inventories that assessed inconsistency (CRPBI; Weinberger,Feldman, & Ford, 1989). A sample item is, “Lets me do something one dayand the next day I get into trouble for doing the same thing.” The responseformat ranged from not like her (1) to a lot like her (4) and items wereaveraged. A higher score indicated greater inconsistency and Cronbach’salpha was .74.

For maternal psychological intrusiveness, youth completed 11 items thataddressed psychological intrusiveness (8 from Barber, 1996, and 3 fromBogenschneider, Small, & Tsay, 1997). A sample item is, “My mom isalways trying to change how I think or feel about things.” The responseformat ranged from not like her (1) to a lot like her (4). A higher scorereflected greater intrusiveness. Cronbach’s alpha was .75.

Background variables. Racial analyses were conducted using a subsam-ple consisting only of the European American and African American youth.The sample sizes of youth with other racial/ethnic backgrounds were toosmall to be considered separately. Family structure analyses were conductedusing a subsample consisting only of the youth who lived with alwaysmarried parents or a divorced/separated mother. The sample sizes of youthliving in other family structures such as single-parent father families weretoo small to include in the multiple-group analyses for family structure.

Analytic Procedures

Mediation. To test for mediating effects (Baron & Kenny, 1986;Holmbeck, 1997), the first step was to document a statistically significantassociation between interparental hostility and adolescent internalizing andexternalizing problems (i.e., the direct effects model). Second, a model wasestimated that included the parenting measures. For mediating effects to bepresent, the association between interparental hostility and problem behav-ior must be reduced in strength (partial mediation) or become statistically

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility 437

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

nonsignificant (complete mediation). Third, the indirect pathway must besignificant. The significance of the intervening pathway can be tested usingany one of three general estimation methods: (a) causal step, (b) differencein coefficients, and (c) product of coefficients (MacKinnon, Lockwood,Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). We used the significance test based on theproduct of coefficients method as it has adequate power and reasonable lev-els of Type I error rates (MacKinnon et al., 2002). The test statistic for thismethod is z′, and a value of .97 is significant at the p < .05 level (MacKinnon,Lockwood, & Hoffman, 1998).

Hypotheses were tested using SEM (AMOS 5; Arbuckle, 2003) with thesignificance threshold set at .05. An a priori decision was made to estimateerror covariances for the Achenbach assessment of internalizing and exter-nalizing when they were assessed by the same respondent. This was donebecause we expected shared method variance when using the Achenbachassessment (Bollen, 1989; Kenny & Kashy, 1992). Model fit was evaluatedusing the chi-square statistic and several fit indices. A nonsignificant chi-square indicated a good model fit. Because of the large sample size, how-ever, a significant chi-square was expected for most models and threeadditional fit indices were examined (Byrne, 2001). The comparative fitindex (CFI; Bollen & Long, 1993) is based on a comparison of the hypoth-esized model and the independence model (e.g., there are no relationshipsbetween the variables in the model; Byrne, 2001). The CFI ranges from 0to 1.00 with a cutoff of .95 or higher indicating a well-fitting model and .90indicating an adequate fit (Byrne, 2001; Hu & Bentler, 1995). The rootmean square error of approximation (RMSEA) compares the model to theprojected population covariance matrix (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).RMSEA values below .05 indicate good model fit and values between .06and .08 indicate an adequate fit (Byrne, 2001). The standardized root meansquare residual (SRMR) is the standardized difference between the observedcovariance and predicted covariance, and a value less than .08 is considereda good fit (Bollen & Long, 1993).

Moderation. In a second set of analyses, the applicability of the mediat-ing model was examined for sons and daughters, European American andAfrican American youth, and youth living with married parents or adivorced, residential mother. Using a step-down, sequential approach tomultiple-group analyses, each examination began with a null hypothesis ofno measurement or structural differences between groups. In this invariantmodel, all measurement (e.g., factor loadings, error variances) and the 14structural parameters (e.g., regression coefficients) were constrained to

438 Journal of Early Adolescence

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

equality across the groups. Next, a model was estimated that allowed onlythe structural parameters to vary across the two groups. In cases where thechi-square changed significantly, critical ratios were examined to locate thesource of group differences.

Results

Direct Effects

Descriptive statistics and correlations appear in Table 1. Interparentalhostility and youth problem behaviors were associated positively, ashypothesized, at both the indicator level (Table 1) and latent level (Figure 1).The direct effects model fit well [χ2(15) = 114.71; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .06(CI .049–.070); SRMR = .033]. As described in the analytic plan, two errorcovariances were estimated a priori: (a) youth reports of externalizing andinternalizing problems, and (b) teacher reports of externalizing and inter-nalizing problems. Both were statistically significant. Thus, using latentmeasures, the association between interparental hostility and adolescentproblems evidenced the first condition for testing mediation, a significantdirect effect. Standardized SEM regression estimates indicated that inter-parental hostility was related to both externalizing (.47) and internalizing(.51). Follow-up tests that constrained these paths to equality showed thatthe fit significantly deteriorated [Δχ2(1) = 24.03, p < .01]. Given thatchi-square is sensitive to large sample sizes, we also compared the para-meters using a critical ratio (C.R.) difference test. This also was significant(C.R. difference = –4.98, p < .01). These comparisons indicated that theassociation between interparental hostility and problem behavior was strongerfor internalizing problems than for externalizing problems.

Parenting Mediating Effects

In testing the spillover hypothesis, all four parenting behaviors wereincluded in the model. Though omitted from Figure 1 for enhanced clarity,the covariances among parenting variables were estimated in the model.These associations were small to moderate in strength, ranging from –.18(p < .01; acceptance and inconsistency) to .33 (p < .01; harshness and psy-chological intrusiveness). Although inconsistency and psychological intru-siveness (.66, p < .01) were related, their conceptual distinctiveness in priorresearch, content independence of the items, and estimation of covariancesin this study justified testing for their separate effects.

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility 439

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

440

Tabl

e 1

Inte

rpar

enta

l Hos

tilit

y,M

othe

rs’P

aren

ting

,and

Ado

lesc

ent

Pro

blem

Beh

avio

r:C

orre

lati

ons

and

Des

crip

tive

Sta

tist

ics

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Ove

rt h

ostil

itya

—C

onfl

ict i

nten

sity

a.6

7**

—M

ater

nal a

ccep

tanc

e–.

28**

–.21

**—

Mat

erna

l hos

tility

.45*

*.4

7**

–.38

**—

Mat

erna

l psy

chol

ogic

al c

ontr

ol.3

0**

.29*

*–.

29**

.45*

*—

Mat

erna

l inc

onsi

sten

cy.2

6**

.23*

*–.

25**

.35*

*.6

9**

—E

xter

naliz

ing—

yout

h re

port

b.3

2**

.35*

*–.

26**

.42*

*.3

7**

.35*

*—

Ext

erna

lizin

g—te

ache

r re

port

b.1

5**

.11*

*–.

16**

.14*

*.2

2**

.19*

*.2

6**

—E

xter

naliz

ing—

devi

ance

b.2

5**

.24*

*–.

22.2

9**

.23*

*.2

2**

.54*

*.2

9**

—In

tern

aliz

ing—

yout

h re

port

c.3

4**

.40*

*–.

27**

.38*

*.4

1**

.36*

*.5

7**

.11*

*.2

9**

—In

tern

aliz

ing—

teac

her

repo

rtc

.06*

–.01

–.10

**.0

2.0

8**

.04

.03

.24*

*.0

4.1

7**

—In

tern

aliz

ing—

depr

essi

onc

.30*

*.3

0**

–.36

**.3

6**

.30*

*.2

5**

.43*

*.1

3**

.29*

*.6

6**

.16*

*—

Mea

n1.

521.

812.

671.

761.

411.

4311

0.14

4.65

1.11

11.8

63.

691.

17St

anda

rd d

evia

tion

.64

.76

.40

.86

.35

.37

6.59

8.16

.15

8.14

5.00

.27

Ran

ge1–

51–

451–

31–

71–

31–

30–

520–

591–

2.1

0–56

0–43

1–3

Inte

rnal

con

sist

ency

—α

.81

.82

.87

.87

.78

.74

.85

.95

.73

.88

.87

.84

coef

fici

ent

Not

e:N

=1,

893.

Ind

icat

ors

for

late

nt v

aria

bles

:a =

inte

rpar

enta

l hos

tility

; b =

exte

rnal

izin

g; c

=in

tern

aliz

ing.

*p<

.05.

**p

<.0

1.

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility 441

Parenting partially mediated the association between interparental hostil-ity and problem behavior for early adolescents (Figure 1). The direct effectof interparental hostility dropped from .47 to .24 for youth externalizingproblems and from .51 to .32 for youth internalizing problems. The modelfit was adequate [χ2(35) = 285.75; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .06 (CI .055–.068);SRMR = .032]. Modification indices indicated that four additional errorcovariances could be estimated to improve the model fit but were not esti-mated for conceptual reasons (they were across parenting and outcome vari-ables) and because the current fit was adequate (contact corresponding authorfor statistical details). As with the simple direct effect noted above, theremaining direct effect was stronger for internalizing problems than forexternalizing problems [Δχ2(1) = 13.95, p < .01; C.R. difference = –3.78].

The unique intervening contribution of each parenting variable was eval-uated using two procedures. First, the statistical significance of each path-way was estimated using the z′ statistic described earlier (MacKinnon et al.,2002). Second, the strength of the individual associations within a givenpathway was compared across paths using the critical ratio difference testand the change in chi-square test.

Note: Unstandardized estimates are in parentheses. YSR = youth self-report; YR = youth report;TRF = teacher’s report form; TR = teacher report.

YouthExternalizing

R2 = .35 Overt

YouthInternalizing

R2 = .38

.32 (3.45)

.30 (.18)

.14 (2.05)

.09 (.72)

.36 (.20)

.10 (2.05)

.08 (1.51)

.56 (.76)

.21 (1.40)

InterparentalHostility

Intensity

.24 (2.12)

.80

.83

.86YSRYR

DepYR

TRFTR

YSRYR

.85

.64

.21

.77

.36TRFTR

DelinqYR

–.17 (–2.95)

–.12(–1.75)

.37

Inconsistency

.19 (1.51)

Psychological Intrusiveness

Acceptance

Harshness–.30 (–19)

Figure 1Interparental Hostility and Early Adolescent Problem Behavior:

Mediation by Four Parenting Dimensions

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

442 Journal of Early Adolescence

Adolescent externalizing problems. For externalizing problems, each ofthe four indirect paths via parenting variables was statistically significant asshown in Table 2. Because harshness showed relatively higher z′ values incomparison to other parenting variables, we statistically compared pathwayvia harshness with each of the other three pathways in three separate analy-ses. For example, in the first analysis, the estimates through harshness wereconstrained to equality with the estimates through acceptance. The estimatesthrough the other two parenting variables (i.e., inconsistency and intrusive-ness) were freely estimated. The chi-square from this model was comparedto the chi-square from a model that allowed all of the structural paths to befreely estimated. In each case, the unconstrained model (freely estimated)had fit better than the constrained model, indicating that the pathway throughharshness was stronger than the pathways through the other three parentingvariables. Specifically, the pathway through harshness was stronger than thepathways through acceptance [Δχ2(2) = 340.63, p < .01], inconsistency[Δχ2(2) = 346.45, p < .01], and psychological intrusiveness [Δχ2(2) = 357.75,p < .01]. Follow-up analyses were conducted to determine whether the pathson the front end (interparental hostility to parenting) and the back end (par-enting to externalizing) differed between harshness and the other parentingvariables. For all three cases, the path from interparental hostility to harshnesswas stronger than each of the other three corresponding parenting variables:acceptance (C.R. difference = 17.89, p < .001), inconsistency (C.R. difference =17.29, p < .01), and psychological intrusiveness (C.R. difference = 18.19,p < .01). No differences were observed among these other three paths oramong any of the back-end comparisons. Thus, the relatively stronger pathvia harshness was primarily due to the significantly stronger differences onthe front-end link between interparental hostility and harshness.

Adolescent internalizing problems. As shown in Table 2, for internalizingproblem behavior, acceptance showed the highest z′ values, followed by

Table 2Statistical Estimate (z′′) of Intervening Pathways

Parenting Variable Externalizing Problems Internalizing Problems

Acceptance 4.59* 6.07*Harshness 6.69* 3.02*Inconsistency 4.10* 2.66*Psychological intrusiveness 3.13* 5.57*

*p < .05.

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

psychological intrusiveness. Follow-up tests were conducted betweenacceptance and intrusiveness for the front-end paths (interparental hostilityto parenting) and the back-end paths (parenting to internalizing). The asso-ciations via acceptance were found to be similar to the associations forintrusiveness both on the front end (C.R. difference = .74, p > .05) and theback end (C.R. difference = .74, p > .05).

The pairs of paths through acceptance also were compared with the pairsthrough harshness and inconsistency using a chi-square change statistic.The unconstrained model fit better than the model assuming similarity(invariance). Thus, the pathway through acceptance was stronger than thepathways through harshness [Δχ2(2) = 350.05, p < .01] or inconsistency[Δχ2(2) = 351.55, p < .01]. As noted above, the front end again showedsignificant differences between harshness and each of the other dimensions.For the back end, acceptance showed a significantly stronger path to inter-nalizing than either harshness (C.R. difference = –4.35, p < .001) or incon-sistency (C.R. difference = –.2.03, p < .05). Intrusiveness also showed asignificantly stronger path to internalizing than either harshness (C.R. dif-ference = 4.34, p < .001) or inconsistency (C.R. difference = 2.15, p < .05).No differences were found between acceptance and intrusiveness or betweenharshness and inconsistency in these back-end paths. Thus, the relativelystronger indirect effects (z′) for acceptance and psychological intrusivenessnoted in Table 2 are primarily due to differences in the back-end paths.Interparental hostility linked to mothers’ lower acceptance and greaterpsychological control/intrusiveness, which in turn were linked to higheryouth internalizing.

Moderating Analyses for Youth Gender,Race, and Parents’ Marital Status

To further examine the patterns identified above, moderation tests wereconducted with youth gender, race, and parents’ marital status. The statisti-cal estimates reported below refer to the unstandardized SEM regressioncoefficients for each group.

Youth gender. The model displayed in Figure 1 was compared acrossdaughters and sons. All of the measurement and structural parameters wereconstrained to equality to estimate a baseline model [χ2(113) = 793.69;CFI = .91; RMSEA = .056 (CI .053–.060); SRMR = .047]. Using a baselinemodel in which parameters are fully constrained across groups is a morerigorous starting point than using an unconstrained baseline model, but it

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility 443

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

usually results in a poorer model fit (Byrne, 2001) because all of the para-meters (including the error variances) are constrained to equality. In thesecond model, the 14 parameters that estimated the paths from interparentalhostility to adolescent problems were allowed to vary [χ2(99) = 755.8;CFI = .92; RMSEA = .059 (CI .055–.063); SRMR = .043]. This included(a) four associations from interparental hostility to each parenting variable,(b) eight associations from the four parenting variables to the two problembehavior variables, and (c) two direct associations from interparental hos-tility to the two problem behavior variables. Model fit was compared usinga chi-square difference test. The second model in which the structuralpaths were allowed to vary across daughters and sons had a better fit[Δχ2(14) = 37.89, p < .01].

The unstandardized regression coefficients were compared across sonsand daughters using the critical ratio test. There were three differences:(a) the association between interparental hostility and mothers’ harshnesswas stronger for daughters (.85, p < .01) than for sons (.65, p < .01); (b) theassociation between mothers’ harshness and adolescent internalizing prob-lems was significant for sons (1.26, p < .01) but not for daughters; and(c) the direct association between interparental hostility and adolescentinternalizing problems was stronger for daughters (4.33, p < .01) than for sons(2.78, p < .01). A follow-up model was tested in which only the path frominterparental hostility to adolescent internalizing problems through moth-ers’ harshness was allowed to vary across daughters and sons. The model fitimproved compared to the fully constrained model but the gender patternreversed for the association between mothers’ harshness and adolescentinternalizing when the other structural paths were constrained to equality[Δχ2(2) = 12.14, p < .01]. The association was stronger for daughters (.85,p < .01) than for sons (.64, p < .01). Thus, the pathway from interparentalhostility to adolescent internalizing problems through mothers’ harshnesswas significant for daughters and sons but was stronger for daughters.

Youth race. The model displayed in Figure 1 was compared across thesubsample of European American (n = 1,603) and African American (n = 152)youth. All of the measurement and structural parameters were constrainedto equality to estimate a baseline model [χ2(113) = 691.22; CFI = .92;RMSEA = .054 (CI .050–.058); SRMR = .031]. The second model in whichthe 14 structural parameters were allowed to vary across groups fit betterthan the fully constrained model [Δχ2(14) = 44.70, p < .01].

Two associations differed across European American and AfricanAmerican youth: (a) the association between interparental hostility and

444 Journal of Early Adolescence

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

mothers’ harshness was stronger for African American youth (1.12, p < .01)than for European American youth (.71, p < .01). The association betweenmothers’ inconsistency and adolescent internalizing problems also wasinverse for African American youth (–3.71, p < .05, marginally signifi-cant, C.R. difference = –1.96) and positive for European American youth(1.69, p < .01).

Parents’ marital status. The model displayed in Figure 1 was comparedacross the subsample of youth living with married parents (n = 1,343) andyouth living with a divorced mother (n = 219). All of the measurement andstructural parameters were constrained to equality to estimate a baselinemodel [χ2(113) = 777.68; CFI = .89; RMSEA = .061 (CI .057–.066);SRMR = .033]. The second model in which the 14 structural parameterswere allowed to vary across the two groups fit better than the fully con-strained model [Δχ2(14) = 47.11, p < .01].

Four of the associations differed across groups. The association betweeninterparental hostility and mothers’ harshness was stronger for youth indivorced, mother-custody families (1.00, p < .01) than for youth in marriedfamilies (.71, p < .01). The associations of mothers’ harshness with bothexternalizing and internalizing problems were significant for youth in mar-ried families (1.82, 1.13, ps < .01, respectively) but not for youth in divorced,mother-custody families (–.03, 0.72, ps > .05, respectively). Finally, theassociation between mothers’ psychological intrusiveness and adolescentinternalizing problems was stronger for youth in divorced, mother-custodyfamilies (6.54, p < .01) than for youth in married families (2.61, p < .01).

Discussion

In the current study, each of the four parenting dimensions partiallyexplains the association between interparental hostility and adolescentproblems. Acceptance, harshness, inconsistency, and intrusiveness each playa mediational role between parents’ hostility and the internalizing or exter-nalizing problems of adolescents. These specific mediation effects holdeven when the covariance between these adolescent internalizing and exter-nalizing problems is modeled.

For externalizing behaviors, maternal harshness is a robust mediatorbetween interparental hostility and adolescent problems. In fact, parents’hostility more strongly relates to harshness than any other parenting construct.One explanation is that anger and frustration engendered by interparental

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility 445

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

hostility take a toll on maternal patience. Frustration in the marital relation-ship then is released into aggression or harshness in the mother-adolescentrelationship. A second potential explanation is that behaviors in the maritalrelationship extend into agonistic and harsh interactions in the parent-adolescent relationship through coercive cycles maintained through nega-tive reinforcement (Patterson, 1982). A third possible explanation is thatpersistent interparental conflict creates a chronically stressful condition(Harold & Conger, 1997), which weakens the capacity to respond withoutharshness to adolescent misbehavior.

The other three maternal dimensions also partially mediate the linkbetween parental hostility and adolescent externalizing. Greater maternalinconsistency, intrusiveness, and less acceptance each contribute to under-standing the parenting mediation effect observed in this study. For incon-sistency, periods of calm and tumult that characterize conflictual maritalrelations (Walker, 1999) undermine a sense of predictability and consis-tency. Instead of contingent consequences (Robbins et al., 1997), adolescentsin families with parent hostility are likely to test the limits of acceptablebehavior through externalizing behaviors. Similarly, maternal psychologicalcontrol and lack of acceptance mediate between interparental conflict andexternalizing behaviors as shown in this study. Psychological control andrejection in conditions of marital strife constrict adolescents in ways thatconcur with externalizing and acting out behaviors.

In comparison to these externalizing findings, the patterns for internaliz-ing problems show similar directions of effect but differences in magnitude.For internalizing problems, mothers’ lack of acceptance and intrusivenessplay the most prominent mediation roles. To the extent that discord betweenparents inures the couple to antagonism and blunts relational bonds, mater-nal capacity for warmth and acceptance is reduced (Vandewater & Lansford,1998). Acrimony between parents entails rejection, which, as shown here,transfers into the parent-adolescent relationship. Besides acceptance, moth-ers’ intrusiveness, too, mediates between interparental hostility and internal-izing. Theoretically, hostile marital or couple relations generate a sense ofpowerlessness and reactive efforts to control (Walker, 1999). Blocks tohealthy communication in the conflictual relationship can foster attempts tocontrol other aspects of life, such as the parent-adolescent relationship.Manipulation, intrusiveness, and psychological control, however, disrupthealthy individuation processes (Grotevant & Cooper, 1985), resulting in aninterior life that includes feelings of anxiety, loss, and depression.

Though smaller in magnitude, maternal harshness and inconsistencyalso occupy a mediational role in the link between interparental conflict and

446 Journal of Early Adolescence

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

internalizing. The findings provide evidence that the interparental conflictspills over into the discordant conditions of maternal harshness or incon-sistency. In turn, these conditions show links to adolescent internalizing.

For each of the foregoing associations, it is important to note that par-enting remained only a partial mediator. Interparental hostility and adoles-cent problems remained somewhat related even after adding parentingconstructs. Such partial mediation suggests that other factors contribute tomediation. Other candidates for mediation center on the adolescent’s pro-cessing of interparental hostility via a mechanism such as the adolescent’sfelt emotional security (Davies & Cummings, 1994) or cognitive-perceptualprocesses (Grych & Fincham, 1990).

Another possible explanation for these findings is that both parentingand marital relations are influenced by the personality of the parent. Acrossthe Big Five personality dimensions (Costa & McCrae, 2005), for example,the personality trait of agreeableness could be hypothesized to have partic-ular bearing in family relations. Parents with high agreeableness might beexpected to be cheerful, sympathetic, and forgiving in both marital and par-enting relationships. Future longitudinal research that examines both per-sonality and parenting would bridge these two disparate lines of research.

A primary objective of this study was to determine whether interparentalhostility processes differ by youth gender, ethnicity, and parents’ maritalstatus. In contrast to prior conjecture regarding the importance of youthgender in explaining conditions of interparental hostility (Cox et al., 2001),the only differences involved the direct and indirect paths through maternalharshness to internalizing. Specifically, the mediation path from interparentalconflict to adolescent internalizing through maternal harshness was strongerfor daughters than for sons. Possible mechanisms for future investigation aremothers’ projection of hostility onto their daughters or mother protection ofsons from their marital tensions.

Similar to gender, the overall patterns were similar in comparingCaucasian and African American families with two important differences.These differences both confirm and counter the attenuation hypothesis(McLoyd et al., 2001), which proposes that African American families areless affected by parents’ hostility. Toward disconfirmation, the connectionbetween interparental hostility and harshness was stronger in AfricanAmerican families than in Caucasian families. In support of the attenuationhypothesis, however, the association between mothers’ inconsistency andyouth internalizing problems was significant in European American familiesbut not in African American families. The limited differences and mixedfindings for ethnicity fail to support the attenuation hypothesis.

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility 447

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

In comparing families with divorced couples and married couples, dif-ferent spillover patterns emerge. As shown in this research, maternal harsh-ness has less connection to adolescent internalizing or externalizing inconditions of divorce than in continuing marriages. One explanation is thatdivorce widens the sources of exposure, broadening the attributional process.Because families experiencing divorce tend to use more other-orientedattributions (Riessman, 1990), such external attributions may insulate theadolescent and defend against internalizing or externalizing behaviorproblems in the presence of maternal harshness. In conditions of frequentor intense divorce hostility, the findings further suggest that mothers tend torely on intrusive or manipulative techniques to control the adolescent. Thereliance on indirect control techniques follows from reduced authority thataccompanies divorce as other sources exert control including adolescents’fathers, the courts, and adolescents themselves. Thus, intrusive psycholog-ical control may serve short-term goals but undermine healthy adolescentindividuation.

One limitation of the current study is the focus on mothers. Whether thefindings extend to fathers is an empirical question based on expectations forsimilarity or difference (Hare-Mustin, 1987). In support of similar expecta-tions, a theoretical model suggests a basis for a collective sense of bothparents (Furman & Simon, 2004), empirical evidence documents similar rat-ings (Gonzales et al., 2000), and prior findings show similarities acrossmaternal and paternal parenting in relation to youth outcomes (Cabrera,Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000; Gottman, Katz, &Hooven, 1997). A second hypothesis of stronger effects for mothers drawsfrom the significantly greater amount of time and closeness that mothersshare with their children (Collins & Russell, 1991; Hosley & Montemayor,1997). A third hypothesis, suggesting weaker effects for mothers than fathers,derives from the conceptualization that fathers are more susceptible thanmothers are to context influences (Doherty, Kouneski, & Erickson, 1998).

The reliance on a single timeframe for assessment and the adolescentreport for parenting and conflict measures are additional limitations of thisstudy. Reverse causal directions and bi-directionality are plausible alterna-tive hypotheses (Bell, 1968). Externalizing or internalizing adolescentbehavior, for example, could elicit harsh, rejecting, intrusive, or inconsis-tent maternal parenting or couple arguments over the problem behavior ofthe adolescent. Future longitudinal research can address such alternativehypotheses. Future research with multiple observers of parenting also canaddress whether associations between interparental conflict and maternalparenting are inflated by reliance on a single reporter.

448 Journal of Early Adolescence

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

In summary, the findings show that parenting mediates the associationbetween interparental hostility and adolescent internalizing and externaliz-ing problems. The findings imply a potential process account of the rela-tionship between interparental hostility and adolescent problems in earlyadolescence. Greater interparental hostility is associated with compromisedparenting, particularly harsh parenting, which in turn is related to greaterexternalizing. Parents’ hostility also links to psychological intrusivenessand rejection, which in turn relates to adolescent internalizing problems.Interventions that reduce interparental discord or interrupt parenting conse-quences hold potential for reducing adolescent problems and promotinghealthy adolescent development.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and 1991 Profile.Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual for the Youth Self-Report Form and 1991 Profile.Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M., Dumenci, L., & Rescorla, L. A. (2002). Ten-year comparisons of problemsand competencies for national samples of youth: Self, parent, and teacher reports. Journalof Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 194-203.

Almeida, D. M., Wethington, E., & Chandler, A. L. (1999). Daily transmission of tensionsbetween marital dyads and parent-child dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 49-61.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). Amos 5.0 update to the Amos user’s guide. Chicago: SmallWatersCorporation.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. ChildDevelopment, 67, 3296-3319.

Barber, B. K. (1997). Introduction: Adolescent socialization in context—The role of connec-tion, regulation, and autonomy in the family. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 5-11.

Barber, B. K. (Ed.). (2002). Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects childrenand adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization.Psychological Review, 75, 81-95.

Bender, H. L., Allen, J. P., McElhaney, K. B., Antonishak, J., Moore, C. M., Kelly, H. O., &Davis, S. M. (2007). Use of harsh physical discipline and developmental outcomes in ado-lescence. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 227-242.

Berg-Nielsen, T. S., Vikan, A., & Dahl, A. A. (2002). Parenting related to child and parentalpsychopathology: A descriptive review of the literature. Clinical Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 7, 529-552.

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility 449

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

450 Journal of Early Adolescence

Black, A. E., & Pedro-Carroll, J. (1993). Role of parent-child relationships in mediating theeffects of marital disruption. Journal of the American Academy of Child & AdolescentPsychiatry, 32, 1019-1027.

Bogenschneider, K., Small, S. A., & Tsay, J. C. (1997). Child, parent, and contextual influenceson perceived parenting competence among parents of adolescents. Journal of Marriageand Family, 59, 345-362.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (Eds.). (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.Bosco, G. L., Renk, K., & Dinger, T. M. (2003). The connections between adolescents’ percep-

tions of parents, parental psychological symptoms, and adolescent functioning. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 24, 179-200.

Bradford, K., Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A., Maughan, S. L., Erickson, L. D., Ward, D., & Stolz,H. E. (2004). A multi-national study of interparental conflict, parenting, and adolescentfunctioning: South Africa, Bangladesh, China, India, Bosnia, Germany, Palestine, Colombia,and the United States. Marriage and Family Review, 35, 107-136.

Brody, G. H., Ge, X., Conger, R., Gibbons, F. X., McBride-Murry, V., Gerrard, M., & Simons, R.(2001). The influence of neighborhood disadvantage, collective socialization, and parentingon African American children’s affiliation with deviant peers. Child Development, 72,1231-1246.

Brody, G. H., Kim, S., & Murry, V. M. (2005). Longitudinal links among parenting, self-presentations to peers, and the development of externalizing and internalizing symptomsin African American siblings. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 185-205.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen &J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Buchanan, C. M., & Heiges, K. L. (2001). When conflict continues after the marriage ends:Effects of postdivorce conflict on children. In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.),Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and application (pp. 337-362).New York: Cambridge University Press.

Buehler, C., Anthony, C., Krishnakumar, A., Stone, G., Gerard, J., & Pemberton, S. (1997).Interparental conflict and youth problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child andFamily Studies, 6, 233-247.

Buehler, C., & Gerard, J. M. (2002). Marital conflict, ineffective parenting, and children’s andadolescents’ maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 78-92.

Buehler, C., Krishnakumar, A., Stone, G., Anthony, C., Pemberton, S., Gerard, J., & Barber,B. K. (1998). Interparental conflict styles and youth problem behaviors: A two-samplereplication study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 119-132.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cabrera, N. J., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M. E. (2000).Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71, 127-136.

Collins, W. A., & Russell, G. (1991). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middlechildhood and adolescence: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 11, 99-136.

Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L. B.(1993). Family economic stress and adjustment of early adolescent daughters. DevelopmentalPsychology, 29(2), 206-219.

Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress,coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development,65, 541-561.

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility 451

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2005). A five-factor model perspective on personality disorders.In S. Strack (Ed.), Handbook of personology and psychopathology (pp. 257-270).Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Cox, M., Paley, B., & Harter, K. (2001). Interparental conflict and parent-child relationships. InJ. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development: Theory,research, and application (pp. 249-272). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Crater, E. B. (2004). Relationships between parental psychological control, parental factors, andadolescent behaviors as reported by mothers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 2090.

Crockenberg, S., & Langrock, A. (2001). The role of emotion and emotional regulation inchildren’s responses to interparental conflict. In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.),Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and application (pp. 129-156). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cummings, E. M., Keller, P. S., & Davies, P. T. (2005). Towards a family process model ofmaternal and paternal depressive symptoms: Exploring multiple relations with child andfamily functioning. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 479-489.

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

Davies, P. T., Harold, G. T., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Cummings, E. M. (2002). Child emo-tional security and interparental conflict. Monographs of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, 67(3), vii-viii.

Davies, P. T., & Lindsay, L. L. (2001). Does gender moderate the effects of marital conflict onchildren? In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child develop-ment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 64-97). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Doherty, W. J., Kouneski, E. F., & Erickson, M. F. (1998). Responsible fathering: An overviewand conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 277-292.

Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2005). Parenting, marital conflict and adjustment from early-to mid-adolescence: Mediated by adolescent attachment style? Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 34, 97-110.

Dunn, J., O’Connor, T. G., & Cheng, H. (2005). Children’s responses to conflict between theirdifferent parents: Mothers, stepfathers, nonresident fathers, and nonresident stepmothers.Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 223-234.

Elliott, D. E., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Engfer, A. (1988). The interrelatedness of marriage and the mother-child relationship. InR. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences(pp. 104-118). Oxford: Clarendon.

Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations:A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108-132.

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

Fincham, F. D., & Grych, J. H. (1991). Explanations for family events in distressed andnondistressed couples: Is one type of explanation used consistently? Journal of FamilyPsychology, 4, 341-353.

Forehand, R., Wierson, M., McCombs, A., Brody, G., & Fauber, R. (1989). Interparental con-flict and adolescent problem behavior: An examination of mechanisms. Behavior ResearchTherapy, 27, 365-371.

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

452 Journal of Early Adolescence

Furman, W., & Simon, V. A. (2004). Concordance in attachment styles of mind and styles withrespect to fathers and mothers. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1239-1247.

Gerard, J. M., Buehler, C., Franck, K. L., & Anderson, O. (2005). In the eyes of the beholder:Cognitive appraisals as mediators of the association between interparental conflict andyouth maladjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 376-384.

Gonzales, N. A., Pitts, S. C., Hill, N. E., & Roosa, M. W. (2000). A mediational model of theimpact of interparental conflict on child adjustment in a multiethnic, low-income sample.Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 365-379.

Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicateemotionally. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1985). Patterns of interaction in family relationships andthe development of identity exploration in adolescence. Child Development, 56, 415-428.

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., Harold, G. T., & Miles, C. J. (2003). A prospective investigation of appraisals asmediators of the link between interparental conflict and child adjustment. ChildDevelopment, 74, 1176-1193.

Hare-Mustin, R. (1987). The problem of gender in family therapy. Family Process, 26, 15-27.Harold, G. T., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Marital conflict and adolescent distress: The role of

adolescent awareness. Child Development, 68, 333-350.Harold, G. T., Shelton, K. H., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Cummings, E. M. (2004). Marital con-

flict, child emotional security about family relationships and child adjustment. SocialDevelopment, 13, 350-376.

Hinde, R. A., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (Eds.). (1988). Relationships within families: Mutualinfluences. Oxford: Clarendon.

Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the studyof mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychologyliteratures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599-610.

Hosley, C. A., & Montemayor, R. (1997). Fathers and adolescents. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Therole of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 162-178). New York: John Wiley.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equa-tion modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1996). Spillover effects of marital conflict: In search of par-enting and coparenting mechanisms. In J. P. McHale & P. A. Cowan (Eds.), Understandinghow family-level dynamics affect children’s development: Studies of two-parent families(pp. 57-76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kenny, D. A., & Kashy, D. A. (1992). Analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix by con-firmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 165-172.

Kovacs, M. (1992). Children’s Depression Inventory CDI manual. Toronto: Multi-HealthSystems.

Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: Ameta-analytic review. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied FamilyStudies, 49, 25-44.

Krishnakumar, A., Buehler, C., & Barber, B. K. (2003). Youth perceptions of interpersonalconflict, ineffective parenting, and youth problem behaviors in European-Americanand African-American families. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20,239-260.

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Benson et al. / Interparental Hostility 453

Lengua, L. J., & Kovacs, E. A. (2005). Bidirectional associations between temperament andparenting and the prediction of adjustment problems in middle childhood. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 26, 21-38.

Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (1999). Marital conflict, family processes, and boys’ exter-nalizing behavior in Hispanic American and European American families. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 28, 12-24.

Lindsey, E. W., & Mize, J. (2001). Interparental agreement, parent-child responsiveness, andchildren’s peer competence. Family Relations, 50, 348-354.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Hoffman, J. M. (1998, June). A new method to testfor mediation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for PreventionResearch, Park City, Utah.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). Acomparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.

Mann, B. J., & MacKenzie, E. P. (1996). Pathways among marital functioning, parental behav-iors, and child behavior problems in school-age boys. Journal of Clinical ChildPsychology, 25, 183-191.

Margolin, G., Oliver, P. H., & Medina, A. M. (2001). Conceptual issues in understanding therelation between interparental conflict and child adjustment: Integrating developmentalpsychopathology and risk/resilience perspectives. In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.),Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and application (pp. 9-38).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mazefsky, C. A., & Farrell, A. D. (2005). The role of witnessing violence, peer provocation,family support, and parenting practices in the aggressive behavior of rural adolescents.Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14, 71-85.

McLoyd, V. C., Harper, C. I., & Copeland, N. L. (2001). Ethnic minority status, interparentalconflict, and child adjustment. In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental con-flict and child development: Theory, research, and application (pp. 98-125). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Miller, N. B., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1993).Externalizing in preschoolers and early adolescents: A cross-study replication of a familymodel. Developmental Psychology, 29, 3-18.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Olson, D. H., & Gorall, D. M. (2003). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. In

F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (3rd ed., pp. 514-548). New York: Guilford.

Osborne, L. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1996). Marital conflict, parent-child relationships, andchild adjustment: Does gender matter? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 48-75.

Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia.Riessman, C. K. (1990). Divorce talk: Women and men make sense of personal relationships.

New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Robbins, S. P., Chatterjee, P., & Canada, E. R. (1997). Contemporary human behavior theory:

A critical perspective for social work. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Rohner, R. P. (2004). The parental “acceptance-rejection syndrome”: Universal correlates of

perceived rejection. American Psychologist, 59, 830-840.Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development,

36, 413-426.

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Schludermann, E., & Schludermann, S. (1970). Replicability of factors in the Children’sReport of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI). Journal of Psychology, 96, 15-23.

Sirvanli-Ozen, D. (2004). Effects of marital conflict on adolescent children: A study in Turkey.Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 41, 137-157.

Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Vintage.Stanger, C., Dumenci, L., & Kamon, J. (2004). Parenting and children’s externalizing prob-

lems in substance-abusing families. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,33, 590-600.

Stocker, C. M., & Youngblade, L. (1999). Marital conflict and parental hostility: Links withchildren’s sibling and peer relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 598-609.

Stone, G., Buehler, C., & Barber, B. K. (2002). Interparental conflict, parental psychologicalcontrol, and youth problem behavior. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: Howpsychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 53-95). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000a). Summary file 3: P6. Race, total population. AvailableSeptember 19, 2004, from http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000b). Summary file 3: P15. Family type by presence of own childrenunder 18 years by age of own children, families. Available September 19, 2004, fromhttp://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000c). Summary file 3: P90. Poverty status in 1999 of families by familytype by presence of related children under 18 years by age of related children, families.Available September 19, 2004, from http://factfinder.census.gov

Vandewater, E. A., & Lansford, J. E. (1998). Influences of family structure and parental conflicton children’s well-being. Family Relations, 47, 323-330.

Voydanoff, P. (2004). Work, community, and parenting resources and demands as predictorsof adolescent problems and grades. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 155-173.

Walker, L. (1999). The battered woman syndrome (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (1999). Marital conflict management skills, parenting

style, and early-onset conduct problems: Processes and pathways. Journal of Child Psychologyand Psychiatry, 40, 917-927.

Weinberger, D. A., Feldman, S. S., & Ford, M. E. (1989). Validation of the WeinbergerParenting Inventory for preadolescents and their parents. Unpublished manuscript.

Mark J. Benson, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Human Development atVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. His research program examines parent-adolescent relationships, intergenerational transmission, and adolescent developmentalprocesses.

Cheryl Buehler, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Human Development and FamilyStudies at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Her research focuses on familyprocesses, particularly marital relations, parenting, and youth development.

Jean M. Gerard is an associate professor in the Department of Human Development andFamily Studies at Bowling Green State University. Her research examines risk and resiliencein adolescence, marital conflict, and family policy.

454 Journal of Early Adolescence

by Marta Pedro on September 30, 2008 http://jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from