THE ROLE OF SANCTIFICATION OF PARENTING IN MARRIED COUPLES' PERCEPTIONS OF COPARENTING
Michelle A. LeRoy
A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
May 2009
Committee:
Annette Mahoney, Advisor
Kenneth I. Pargament
Alfred DeMaris
ii
ABSTRACT
Annette Mahoney, Ph.D., Advisor
Contributing to the theory of sanctification, the overarching goal of this thesis was to examine whether the sanctification of parenting directly relates to perceptions of the coparenting relationship and whether such links are moderated by marital quality. The first primary question concerned direct associations between sanctification of parenting, and self-reported coparenting dynamics between first-time parents with one-year-old infants. A second primary question was whether different dimensions of marital relationship quality moderate the associations between sanctification of parenting and perceptions of the coparenting. A third question was to examine the respective unique effects of sanctification of parenting and general marital quality in predicting various aspects of coparenting.
As hypothesized, sanctification was positively related to higher levels of solidarity for both mothers and fathers. Contrary to the hypothesis, there were no significant relationships between sanctification and perceived support from spouse for either mothers or for fathers. There were no significant differences between higher and lower sanctifying parents on reported levels of spousal criticism and disapproval with regard to parenting for mothers or for fathers. Higher sanctifying parents were more likely to report higher levels of solidarity in their coparenting relationships as compared to lower sanctifying parents, even when controlling for level of conflict in the marital relationship. Interestingly, for fathers (but not mothers), higher levels of sanctification were related to less undermining when marital conflict was controlled. Higher sanctifying mothers were more likely to report higher levels of solidarity in their coparenting relationships as compared to lower sanctifying mothers, even when controlling for level of love iii in the marital relationship. Analyses detected only one moderator effect, specifically, for mothers, love significantly moderated the relationship between sanctification of parenting and undermining. Additionally it appears that sanctification provides an additional benefit to happily married mothers with regard to decreased experiences of undermining in the context of high functioning marriages as measured by higher levels of love.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to acknowledge and extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to everyone who has contributed to the completion of this project. First, I want to thank my advisor, Dr. Annette
Mahoney, for her invaluable mentoring and guidance and my committee members, Drs. Kenneth
Pargament and Alfred DeMaris, for their assistance and support throughout this process. Second,
I wish acknowledge the dedication of all the graduate assistants, staff members and undergraduates who contributed their time and efforts to collect the data that made this project possible. Third, I want to extend my appreciation to my wonderful graduate school cohort and friends who have given me their much-needed support and encouragement throughout the entire process. Lastly, I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to my parents. I cannot thank them enough for their praise, guidance, encouragement and support. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION .....…………………………………………………………………….... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 3
Theoretical Model of Sanctification ...... 3
Relevance of Sanctification to Family Relationships ...... 5
Recent Findings on Sanctification………………………………………………….. 6
Definition of Coparenting………………………………………………………….. 11
Child Outcomes of Coparenting……………………………………………………. 12
Marital Dynamics and Parenting…………………………………………………. .. 15
Marital Dynamics and Coparenting………………………………………………… 20
Infancy………………………………………………………………………. 20
Early Childhood...... 24
Middle Childhood...... 25
Children with Mental Retardation ...... 27
Hypotheses……...... 30
METHOD……………...... 32
Sample………...... 32
Procedure…...... 34
Measures……………………………………………………………………….…... 34
RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………….. 38
Descriptive and Preliminary Analyses...... 38
Bivariate Links between Sanctification and Coparenting...... 40 vi
Unique Effects of Sanctification beyond Love or Conflict ...... 41
Moderating Effects of Conflict and Love ...... 42
DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………….... 44
Unique Contribution of Sanctification of Parenting beyond Marital Quality...... 46
Moderator Effects of Marital Quality on Links between Sanctification of Parenting
and Coparenting…………………………………………………………………….. 48
Contributions and Limitations of Study...... 51
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………….. 55
TABLES/FIGURES……………………………………………………………………...... 62
APPENDIX A. RECRUITMENT MATERIALS...... 69
APPENDIX B. CONSENT FORMS ...... 72
APPENDIX C. PENCIL AND PAPER INSTRUMENTS...... 74 vii
LIST OF TABLES/FIGURES
Table/Figure Page
1 Demographics ...... 62
2 Psychometric Properties of Measures...... 64
3 Bivariate Correlations...... 65
4 Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Sanctification and Conflict ...... 66
5 Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Sanctification and Love...... 67
6 Interaction of Sanctification and Conflict on Mothers’ Undermining...... 68
1
INTRODUCTION
Recently, the topic of family life has received an increasing amount of attention within
the domain of the psychology of religion. Although empirical findings suggest that religion
plays a significant role for families, remarkably little research has addressed specific
mechanisms by which religion may shape family life. Researchers have begun to examine the
implications of sanctification on various dimensions of family life and whether sanctified aspects
of family life are associated with higher functioning in that area.
Contributing to the theory of sanctification, the overarching goal of this thesis was to
examine whether the sanctification of parenting directly relates to perceptions of the coparenting
relationship and whether such links are moderated by marital quality. One primary question
concerned direct associations between sanctification of parenting, and self-reported coparenting
dynamics between first-time parents with one-year-old infants. Taking in to consideration the
significant role played by marital functioning in coparenting dynamics, a second primary
question was whether different dimensions of marital relationship quality moderate the
associations between sanctification of parenting and perceptions of the coparenting. A third
question added after the original proposal meeting was to examine the respective unique effects
of sanctification of parenting and general marital quality (marital love, marital conflict) in predicting various aspects of coparenting.
To set the stage for this study, I will outline the theoretical model for the construct of
sanctification. Then, I will discuss its relevance to family life as well as its proposed
implications for coparenting. Next follows a presentation and critique of the sanctification
literature. Then, I will describe the theoretical foundations of coparenting and discuss current
themes in the literature. After reviewing relevant findings on the role of marital functioning in 2 coparenting, I will articulate my hypotheses and describe how they were tested. Finally, the results and contributions of this project will be discussed.
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical Model of Sanctification
One way psychologists have attempted to understand the mechanisms by which religion could influence family life is through the construct of sanctification. Sanctification is defined as a psychological process through which seemingly secular aspects of life are perceived by people as having divine character and significance (Pargament and Mahoney, 2005). The construct of sanctification encompasses both psychological and spiritual dimensions. Sanctification is psychological in that it involves the scientific, rather than theological, study of perceptions of aspects of life as being sacred, and it is spiritual to the extent that it focuses on sacred matters
(Pargament & Mahoney). The process of sanctification can transpire in theistic and nontheistic ways. Theistic sanctification entails perceiving a specific aspect of life as a manifestation of images, beliefs, or experiences of God (e.g., I experience God through my relationship with my baby), whereas nontheistic sanctification involves ascribing sacred qualities to a particular life domain. Sacred qualities may include elements of transcendence (e.g., holy, heavenly,) ultimate value and purpose (e.g., blessed, inspiring), and boundlessness (e.g., everlasting, miraculous). In this regard it is plausible that individuals may attribute such sacred qualities to significant aspects of life regardless of personal beliefs in a God or higher power. Additionally, sanctification may occur both theistically and nontheistically such that individuals perceive particular life aspects as manifestations of God and at the same time ascribe sacred qualities to said life aspects. It is theorized that individuals may imbue qualities of divine character and significance to conceivably any life domain; however sacred aspects of life are carefully chosen as they represent a deeper sense of something beyond oneself (Pargament & Mahoney). 4
Sanctification may have both desirable and undesirable implications for human functioning. One set of positive implications of sanctification centers on the idea that people are
likely to invest a great deal of their time, energy and resources into the pursuit, preservation, and
protection of those things they hold sacred (Mahoney et al., 2003; Pargament & Mahoney, 2005).
For instance, individuals may be more motivated and willing to make personal investments and
sacrifices in the service of their sanctified areas of life. A second set of positive implications of
sanctification revolves around the multiple psychological and spiritual benefits individuals may
experience as a result of their sanctified life aspects. Psychologically, such perceptions may elicit
a heightened sense of personal meaning and enhanced satisfaction in the sanctified area of life as
compared to other areas. Spiritually, people may develop a deeper connection with God and
utilize positive religious coping strategies (e.g., use of prayer, obtaining spiritual support)
(Mahoney et al., 2003). As a result, sanctified aspects of life may serve as a powerful personal
and social resource that individuals can draw upon in times of difficulty throughout their lives.
Additionally, due to the high psychological and spiritual costs of losing sanctified aspects of life,
people may be more likely to identify and resolve problems that arise in these areas.
In order to present a balanced theoretical model of sanctification attention to the
potentially powerful negative effects of sanctification is warranted. Virtually everyone
experiences unavoidable stressful life events at one time or another. As these challenges may
extend to various life dimensions, individuals are vulnerable to experiencing feelings of spiritual
failure, pain or turmoil when sanctified aspects of life are irreparably lost (Mahoney et al., 2003).
Similarly, the violation or injury of sanctified life domains may have devastating effects
(Pargament & Mahoney, 2005). In the following section, the relevance and applicability of 5 sanctification to family relationships is argued and proposed implications for coparenting are discussed.
Relevance of Sanctification to Family Relationships
Many people regard relationships between family members as reaching beyond biological, psychological, and social processes, and it is often believed that family bonds extend into the spiritual realm (Mahoney et al., 2003). Although empirical findings suggest that religion plays a significant role for families, remarkably little research has addressed the mechanisms by which religion shapes family life. In a meta-analytic review of this literature, Mahoney et al.
(2001) reported that 80% of marital studies and 66% of parenting studies used single-item measures of religiousness (e.g., frequency of church attendance) to assess the role of religion.
Global measures such as these fail to capture a complete picture of religious life and neglect to assess aspects of spirituality that fall outside of formal religious participation (Murray-Swank,
Mahoney & Pargament, 2006). Of equal concern, theoretical pathways through which religion influences family life cannot be discerned through the exclusive use of single-item measures of behavior. The construct of sanctification represents a more conceptually sophisticated mechanism by which religion influences aspects of family life. Specifically, sanctification provides in-depth and theoretically meaningful insight into an individual’s psychological rather than behavioral experience of religion. The construct of sanctification offers one detailed lens through which to assess the degree to which religious and spiritual beliefs permeate family relationships. To reiterate, two pathways to sanctification are proposed as sanctification is applied to the domain of family life. First, in theistic sanctification of family relationships, individuals experience the presence or manifestation of God in their relationships with family 6
members. The nontheistic pathway to sanctification of family life involves one’s perception of
their family roles and relationships as having sacred qualities (e.g., heavenly, blessed, spiritual).
In line with the previous section outlining the theoretical model of sanctification and its implications for human functioning, the current study proposed that sanctification of parenting will be associated with adaptive coparenting dynamics between married partners. The idea is that the more spouses perceive parenting as being imbued with sacred qualities (e.g., heavenly, blessed, spiritual) and experience God in their roles, the more parents will be more motivated to invest time, energy and resources into their collaborative parenting efforts. Married couples who tend to perceive their relationships with their infant as a holy gift may be more willing to accept difficult aspects of their child’s personality and avoid the escalation of their negative affective reactions in response to the challenges associated with parenting an infant. Couples with higher
levels of sanctification of parenting may be more likely to engage in benign attributional
processes in response to their baby when parenting difficulties arise as well as with their spouse
regarding parenting conflicts. Furthermore, spouses who more often perceive God as playing a central role in their parenting relationship with their infant may feel more secure and confident in
their parenting role, and experience less risk of co-parenting struggles. Through these pathways, sanctification of parenting may be associated with couples’ increased ability to work together as
a team to coparent their baby, resulting in higher functioning family interactions. Next, major
research findings on sanctification are reviewed, and critical issues are addressed.
Recent Findings on Sanctification
Initial studies on sanctification provide some empirical support that individuals are more
likely to think and act in ways that preserve and protect aspects of their life that they perceive as
being connected to God and having sacred qualities (Mahoney et al., 1999; Mahoney, 7
Pargament, & Murray-Swank, 2003; Murray-Swank, Mahoney, & Pargament, 2005; Mahoney et al., 2005a; Mahoney et al., 2005b; Pargament & Mahoney, 2005; Dumas & Nissley-Tsiopinis,
2006; Murray-Swank, Mahoney, & Pargament, 2006). Current research has just begun to examine the sanctification of family relationships, including marital (Mahoney et al., 1999) and parent-child relationships (Murray-Swank et al., 2006; Dumas & Nissley-Tsiopinis, 2006).
Murray-Swank, Mahoney, and Pargament (2006) investigated the relationship between sanctification of the parenting role and specific parenting behaviors in mothers of 4- to 6-year- old children. The construct of sanctification was assessed using two scales. The Sacred
Qualities Scale was designed to measure the extent to which mothers ascribed sacred qualities
(e.g., heavenly, spiritual, blessed) to their parenting, and the Manifestation of God Scale was created to examine the degree to which mothers perceived manifestations of images, beliefs, or experiences of God in their parenting. Descriptive data analyses indicated that mothers in this sample generally reported that sacred qualities appropriately described their parenting role and endorsed having the perception that God was present and active in their parenting. Results showed that both higher scores on both sanctification scales were associated with lower levels of maternal verbal aggression (e.g., yelling, name-calling, threatening) toward children, suggesting that the sanctification of parenting may act as a protective factor against hostile parent-child interactions. Additionally, mothers who more often ascribed sacred qualities to their parenting role were more likely to engage in higher levels of consistency in response to child misbehavior.
No direct connections were found between either sanctification scale and maternal self-reports of nurturance, positive parent-child interaction behaviors, or use of corporal punishment. Further, biblical conservatism was found to have a moderating effect on the link between sanctification and positive parent-child interactions. Specifically, biblically conservative mothers were found to 8 have higher levels of positive parent-child interactions as sanctification of parenting increased whereas less conservative mothers displayed consistent levels of positive parent-child interactions regardless of level of sanctification. This interesting finding suggests that the relationship between sanctification of parenting and positive parent-child interactions may be more salient for religiously conservative parents and may have less of an impact on mothers on the liberal end of the spectrum. Overall, this study provides compelling support for the hypothesis that parents often perceive their role of parenting as having deep spiritual meaning and significance and that such beliefs are associated with higher functioning parent-child interactions. This study also sheds light on one potential moderator of sanctification, namely biblical conservatism.
In a study conducted by Dumas and Nissley-Tsiopinis (2006), the relationship between sanctification of parenting and reported levels of parental investment, satisfaction, and efficacy was examined using an economically and ethnically diverse sample of 149 parents of preschoolers. The construct of sanctification of parenting was assessed using two items. The first item involved the extent to which parents perceived God as playing a role in their parenting and the second pertained to the perception of parenting as sacred, holy, blessed, and spiritual. Results indicated that sanctification of parenting was associated with greater parental investment; however, this relationship was mediated by negative religious coping of parenting difficulties.
These findings suggest that for parents who perceive God as punishing or rejecting or are currently experiencing spiritual struggles, the relationship between sanctification of parenting and parental investment may fail to remain significant.
In a study of 97 married couples, Mahoney et al. (1999) examined the relationship between husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of the sanctification of their marriage and 9 nonreligious aspects of marital functioning. Two scales were constructed to assess the construct of sanctification of marriage. The Perceived Sacred Qualities of Marriage Scale was designed to measure the extent to which spouses ascribed sacred qualities (e.g., heavenly, spiritual, blessed) to their marriage, and the Manifestation of God Scale was created to examine the degree to which married partners perceived manifestations of images, beliefs, and experiences of God in their marriage. Descriptive analyses indicated that participants generally agreed with statements that their marriage was a manifestation of God and that sacred qualities characterized their marriage at least to some extent. Results of this study indicated that married partners’ sanctification of marriage was associated with self-reports of greater investment in the marriage, less frequent marital conflicts, and more collaborative resolutions to disagreements. The perception of sacred qualities in marriage strongly correlated with marital adjustment and was also related to lower reports of verbal aggression and stalemating between married partners.
This study offers support for the premise that married partners often view their marriage through a sacred lens and that such perceptions are associated with higher marital functioning.
Researchers have also examined sanctification of other aspects of life outside of family relationships. Two studies using samples of college students examined the relationships between sanctification and the body (Mahoney et al., 2005a) and sexuality (Murray-Swank, Mahoney, &
Pargament, 2005). Results from Mahoney and colleagues (2005a) on the sanctification of the body showed modest support for the idea that greater sanctification is associated with greater investment and benefits in chosen aspects of life. Findings indicate that in college students, sanctification of the body was associated with an orientation toward self-protective health behaviors and beliefs, including wearing a seat belt, eating sensibly, getting enough sleep, and so on. Greater levels of sanctification were also tied to more frequent exercise, lower levels of 10
unhealthy weight loss methods, and less consumption of alcohol and drugs. Murray-Swank,
Mahoney, and Pargament (2005) examined the relationship between sanctification of sex and premarital sex functioning in college students. Findings indicated that sanctification of sex in
current relationships was significantly correlated with greater frequency of sexual intercourse
and sexual satisfaction, above and beyond the influence of global religiousness and attitudes
toward premarital sex. In a study conducted by Mahoney and colleagues (2005b) a community
sample was used to examine the sanctification of personal strivings. Results showed that greater
sanctification of personal strivings was tied to greater investment of resources, greater
commitment to personal strivings, and greater subjective level of importance of strivings. Taken
together, these studies provide further support for the hypothesis that sanctification of a
particular aspect of life is associated with greater investment of time, energy, and resources, as
well as greater benefits into said life area.
The studies reviewed provide initial support for the idea that sanctification is connected
to greater motivation to preserve and protect aspects of life that are sanctified. However, one
significant limitation pertaining to the two sanctification of parenting studies requires attention.
Murray-Swank, Mahoney, and Pargament’s (2006) investigation focused solely on mothers, and
Dumas and Nissley-Tsiopinis (2006) had predominately female respondents (140 female vs. 9
male). Of further concern, only two items were used by Dumas and Nissley-Tsiopinis (2006) to
evaluate sanctification of parenting which raises questions as to whether the construct of
sanctification was adequately assessed. Since both investigations disproportionately assessed
mothers and not fathers, these studies do not provide a complete picture of sanctification of
parenting as their findings cannot be generalized to fathers. For this reason, the current study was
designed to include both husbands and wives who are married to each other and having their first 11
child in order to assess both mothers’ and fathers’ sanctification of parenting and associated
coparenting outcomes. In the following section, an operational definition of coparenting is
presented.
Definition of Coparenting
According to family systems theory, the family group is considered to be more than just
the sum of its parts. This idea suggests that the organization of family levels dynamics is related
to, yet distinct, from dyadic interaction patterns such as the parent-child and marital
relationships. Over the last decade, an increasing amount of research attention has been given to the coparenting relationship between two parents. Coparenting is of particular importance in family systems theory, with the coparenting relationship often referred to as the family’s executive subsystem (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2004). Within the realm of family research, the construct of coparenting is broadly conceptualized as the supportive alliance between adults who work together to raise a child for whom they share responsibility (McHale, 1997; Talbot &
McHale, 2004). The coparenting relationship is typically defined as the quality of coordination between adults in their parental roles. It is inclusive of verbal and nonverbal communication between parents in the presence of their child and discrepancies in parental involvement with the
child, as well as supportive and hostile-competitive coparenting patterns (Cowan & McHale,
1996; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2004).
For the purposes of the current study, each parent’s perceptions of their coparenting
relationship with their spouse was assessed using self-reports. Positive reports of coparenting
were characterized by perceived high levels of mutual respect and support between spouses
regarding parenting practices. In comparison, negative reports of coparenting were characterized
by high levels of perceived criticism and disapproval between spouses with regard to parenting 12 the child. In the following section, research examining coparenting and child outcomes is discussed in order to illustrate the importance of coparenting processes. It may be noted that to sustain a clear focus in this project child outcomes were not be included as criterion variables but it is useful to document prior research that substantiates the importance of coparenting processes.
Child Outcomes of Coparenting
The coparenting relationship between husbands and wives has been found to independently affect child outcomes beyond the effects of dyadic parent-child relationships and the marital relationship (Cowan & McHale, 1996). Relationships have been found between supportive coparenting behavior and children’s positive peer behavior, increased self-regulation, and more harmonious sibling relationships, as well as between unsupportive, undermining parenting behavior and child behavior problems and deficits in self-regulation (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2007). Several studies have shown that early coparenting behavior is associated with various child outcomes including externalizing behaviors (Schoppe, Mangeldsorf & Frosch,
2001), behavioral inhibition (Belsky, Putnam, & Crnic, 1996), child adjustment (McHale &
Rasmussen, 1998), and conduct problems, sadness, and anxiety (McHale, Rao, & Krasnow,
2000).
Schoppe, Mangelsdorf, and Frosch (2001) examined coparenting behaviors in 57 families with 3-year-old children. Parents were asked to complete a building task during a 10 minute triadic interaction with their child. Coparenting during the triadic interactions was coded based on “coparenting incidents” in which one parent either supported or undermined the other parent’s parenting intentions. Coparenting behavior at 3 years of age was linked to parents’ reports one year later of their child’s externalizing behaviors, including negative outbursts and hostile behaviors. Specifically, a positive correlation existed between undermining coparenting 13
behaviors at 3 years and child externalizing behaviors at 4 years. Thus, in families with more
undermining coparenting at 3 years, both parents and teachers rated the child higher
externalizing behaviors at 4 years as compared to children from families with supportive
coparenting behaviors at 3 years.
Belsky, Putnam, and Crnic (1996) observed coparenting behaviors in 92 families with
first-born 3-year-old sons in a naturalistic setting (e.g., in the participants’ homes). Similar to
Schoppe, Mangelsdorf, and Frosch (2001), coparenting was assessed in units of “coparenting events” in which one parent advanced a parenting goal and the event was triadic. Inhibited child
behavior was later measured in a laboratory setting and consisted of predominately social events
such as the child’s reactions to puppets and to being tested on intelligence test subscales. A
negative correlation existed between unsupportive coparenting in the home observations and
child inhibition in the laboratory setting. It was found that whole-family dynamics as observed in
participants’ homes influenced the development of behavior inhibition even when controlling for
the effects of child temperament and parenting experiences.
In a study conducted by McHale and Rasmussen (1998), 37 families were observed in 10
minute play sessions with their first-born sons and daughters at age 8 to 11 months. Three years
later when children were in preschool, parents were asked to report their own coparenting
behavior and teachers were asked to rate child adjustment. Results indicated that subtle levels of distress in coparenting at 8 to 11 months of age were linked to parents’ reports of coparenting behavior and teachers’ reports of child adjustment 3 years later. Specifically, a significant
positive correlation was found between hostile-competitive coparenting in infancy and
aggression as rated by teachers at age 4. Coparenting difficulties in infancy were also tied to
lower reports of investment in family promoting for men three years later and higher reports of 14 criticism of partners to children for women during the preschool years. Additionally, a higher level of hostile-competitive coparenting behavior at 8 to 11 months of age was predictive of increased disparagement of partners for women 3 years later.
McHale, Rao, and Krasnow (2000) surveyed 100 Chinese mothers with 4- to 5-year-old children about their coparenting behavior and various child outcomes. A positive correlation was found between coparenting behaviors promoting family integrity and child academic competencies. Results indicated that mothers who endorsed high levels of engagement in behaviors promoting family integrity also described their preschoolers as demonstrating stronger academic competencies. In comparison, a positive correlation was found between conflictual coparenting relationships and child conduct problems. Mothers who described the coparental relationship as conflictual also reported higher levels of conduct problems, sadness, and anxiety in their children.
Taken together, these studies highlight the importance of coparenting in a wide range of child outcomes. Clearly, parents’ ability to work together as coparents in the lives of their young children plays a salient role in future child adjustment and the development of child behavior problems. As demonstrated above, insight into the effects of the coparenting relationship has been gained through both self-report and observational data. It is important to note that a limited number of studies have relied on self-report measures to assess the coparenting relationship. The current study contributes to this literature in that it aimed to identify factors, namely sanctification of parenting, that may promote or enhance adaptive coparenting relationships as assessed by parental reports of coparenting. The current study is unique in that it utilized self- 15
report measures to capture parents’ perceptions of their coparenting relationship with their
spouse1. Findings on marital dynamics and parenting are presented next.
Marital Dynamics and Parenting
It is also important to consider the unique contributions of marital dynamics to family- level processes. Several studies have shown that marital variables, such as marital conflict, are
associated with problematic parenting behaviors (Coiro & Emery, 1998; Cox et al., 1989; Frosch
& Mangelsdorf, 2001; Kerig, Cowan, & Cowan, 1993; Lindahl, Clements, & Markman, 1997;
Mahoney, Boggio, & Jouriles, 1996; Sturge-Apple, Davies, & Cummings, 2006) and child behavior problems (Frosch & Mangelsdorf, 2001; Jouriles, Norwood, McDonald, Vincent, &
Mahoney, 1996). Below several specific studies are highlighted to illustrate both the kind of research conducted in this area and representative results. It is important to note that the conceptual and operational definitions for several commonly used constructs vary somewhat throughout the marital literature and can be confusing (Fincham, 1998). For the purposes of the current study, the specific constructs of interest included marital conflict, which encompasses the likelihood that conflict occurs and the strategies used to resolve conflict, and marital love, which refers to feelings of belonging, closeness and attachment between spouses. This section will end with a summary of findings drawn from systematic meta-analyses on links between marital functioning, parenting and child outcomes.
The relationship between marital variables and parenting behaviors was examined by
Sturge-Apple, Davies, and Cummings (2006) in their observation of 227 families during a 10 minute play and clean-up task with their 6-year-old children. A positive correlation was found between marital withdrawal during a marital discussion task and emotional unavailability in maternal and paternal parenting during family interactions. This relationship was particularly
1 For my dissertation I intend to follow up with observational data to asses the coparenting relationship. 16 strong for fathers. For mothers, marital withdrawal and hostility were both predictive of maternal emotional unavailability. The results of this investigation provide support for the idea that withdrawal in the marriage extends beyond the marital dyad as it is associated with decreased emotional availability in parent-child interactions, particularly for fathers.
Mahoney, Boggio, and Jouriles (1996) conducted an experiment with 26 families to assess the influence of verbal marital conflict interactions on subsequent dyadic interactions between mothers and their 4- to 10-year-old sons. Married parents of clinic-referred sons where randomly assigned to engage in a conflict or pleasant marital discussion while sons played in a separate room. The marital interaction was followed by a 10 minute mother-son clean-up task. A positive association was found between verbal marital conflict and maternal expression of empathic statements during the mother-son interaction. This study provides evidence that poor marital functioning may be associated with increased maternal sensitivity and attention. The results of this study suggest that the effects of negative marital interactions extend beyond the marital relationship and influence parenting behaviors.
Kerig, Cowan, and Cowan (1993) examined the effects of marital quality and parent- child interactional styles in 38 families during 10 minute dyadic interactions with their first-born children ages 3.5 to 4 years. Results indicated that marital quality influenced the interactional styles of both parents and children, and gender differences were found between mothers’ and fathers’ interactions with their sons and daughters. A negative correlation was found between fathers’ reports of marital satisfaction and paternal negativity toward daughters. Specifically, fathers who were less satisfied with their marriages displayed more negativity toward their first- born daughters than toward their first-born sons. A negative correlation existed between couples’ reports of level of marital adjustment and daughters’ assertiveness toward their fathers. For 17
families with lower levels of marital adjustment, daughters were found to be more assertive
toward their fathers than toward their mothers. Additionally, children whose parents reported
lower levels of marital satisfaction interacted more positively toward their mothers than toward
their fathers, and sons of martially dissatisfied parents were generally more negative toward their
parents than daughters. Although the very small sample used in this study precludes firm
conclusions, this study highlights the complex ways that marital distress may disrupt parent-child
dynamics and create unbalanced family systems where some parent-child dyads are relatively
more positive or negative depending on what is happening within the marital sub-system.
Lindahl, Clements, and Markman (1997) assessed marital quality and marital conflict in
25 couples prior to the birth of their first child and again five years later. At five years, couples
were observed during a 10 minute marital discussion in the presence of their child. A negative
correlation was found between levels of marital satisfaction (both pre-birth and five years later)
and parent-child alliances against the other parent. Specifically, higher pre-birth and current levels of satisfaction with the marriage were correlated with a lower likelihood of engaging in alliances with their child against their spouse. The results of this investigation suggest that pre- birth marital quality had a small, but significant, influence on subsequent marital interactions that occurred in front of the child.
In a study of marital conflict, parenting, and child behavior problems, Frosch and
Mangelsdorf (2001) observed 79 families with preschool children engage in a 10 minute puzzle task. Marital conflict was found to positively correlate with increased child behavior problems and higher levels of hostile and intrusive parenting. In comparison, positive correlations were found between positive marital engagement and warm and supportive parenting behaviors.
Results indicated that the relationships between marital factors (i.e., high marital conflict and low 18 positive marital engagement) and observed child behavior problems was moderated by parenting behavior such that warm and supportive parenting was a protective factor that served as a buffer against the effects of negative marital exchanges on child behavior problems.
Jouriles, Norwood, McDonald, Vincent, and Mahoney (1996) examined the effect of physical marital violence and other forms of marital aggression on child behavior problems in two samples. The first sample consisted of 55 families seeking marital therapy and the second sample included 199 families at battered women’s shelters. In both samples, a positive correlation was found between physical marital violence and child externalizing behaviors. Non- physical forms of marital aggression positively correlated with child externalizing problems in the marital therapy sample and with child internalizing problems in the women’s shelter sample, even when physical marital violence was controlled for. The results of this study suggest that other forms of marital aggression contribute unique variance to child behavior problems above and beyond the effects of physical marital violence.
Additionally, Krishnakumar & Buehler (2000) conducted a meta-analytic review of this literature in which 39 articles examining the association between marital conflict and parenting behaviors were reviewed. The analysis of 138 total significant and non-significant effects revealed an overall weighted effect size of -.62 which suggests that a moderately negative relationship exists between marital conflict and parenting. Higher levels of marital conflict were associated with poor parenting behaviors including harsh disciplinary practices. Buehler et al.
(1997) also performed a meta-analysis examining the relationship between interparental conflict in married and separated/divorced parents and problematic child outcomes in youth ages 5 to 18.
The 68 studies included in the analysis yielded a total of 348 effect sizes. When all significant and non-significant findings were included, an average effect size of .32 was found suggesting 19 that a weak to moderate positive relationship exists between interparental conflict and youth problem behaviors. This association was present for both internalizing and externalizing child behaviors.
In their conceptual review of marital conflict and child outcomes, Fincham and Osborne
(1993) indicate that the magnitude of the association of this relationship is low and varies across studies due to several moderating factors. This variation is also attributed to the lack of specification of the constructs of marital conflict and child outcomes present in many studies.
Fincham and Osborne advocate for examining multiple dimensions of marital conflict including frequency, intensity, mode of expression, and child involvement. In their overview of interparental conflict and child adjustment problems, Grych and Fincham (2001) describe the importance of examining specific dimensions of marital functioning in predicting child outcomes. Additionally, Fincham and Grych (2001) emphasize the need for future research to shift from broad to specific aspects of marital functioning in order to better understand what it is about marital functioning contributes to child problems.
These studies demonstrate how researchers have shown that marital dynamics, such as conflict and relationship quality, extend beyond the marital relationship to influence family-level processes. As described above, difficulties in the marital relationship make unique contributions to problematic parenting behaviors and child behavior problems. Findings from these selected studies are reinforced by two kinds of systematic reviews of the large body of research on this topic. First, the studies just reviewed illustrate why, in their quantitative and qualitative review of marital conflict and parenting in intact families, Coiro and Emery (1998) found support for the spillover hypothesis in which problems in the marital relationship spill over into the parenting domain. Positive correlations were found between marital conflict and parenting difficulties. In 20 intact marriages, marital conflict was related to less adequate parenting behaviors for both mothers and fathers, although this association was slightly stronger for fathers. Second, meta- analytic techniques provide further support for the marital spillover hypothesis by confirming that weak to moderate associations exist between marital conflict and parenting behaviors as well as between marital conflict and child behavior problems. Additional reviews address the importance of focusing on specific aspects of marital functions in order to better understand how the marital relationship contributes to problematic child outcomes.
In the section that follows, current research examining marital dynamics and coparenting is discussed.
Marital Dynamics and Coparenting
Several recent studies indicate that marital dynamics directly affect the coparenting relationship (McHale, 1995; Katz & Gottman, 1996; McHale, Kuersten-Hogan, Lauretti, &
Rasmussen, 2000; Talbot & McHale, 2004; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2005; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2007). In the current section, recent studies on marital variables and coparenting are presented beginning with studies of infants, continuing with investigations of coparenting in early and middle childhood, and concluding with studies of children with mental retardation.
Infancy
Two studies were found that assessed marital quality prior to the birth of the child (Perren et al., 2003; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2007). In a study of expectant couples, Perren and colleagues (2003) assessed the triadic capacity of 80 couples during pregnancy. The authors describe triadic capacity as the couples’ anticipation of their future triadic relationship with their infant and their intrapyschic and interpersonal readiness to incorporate the new baby as an important component of their mental and relationship lives. A positive correlation was found 21
between marital quality and triadic capacity such that couples reporting higher levels of marital
quality displayed higher triadic capacity as compared to couples who reported lower marital quality. Schoppe-Sullivan et al. (2007) examined pre-birth marital quality, infant temperament, and coparenting behaviors at 3.5 months in 97 families with infants. To assess coparenting behaviors, participants were observed during a 5 minute triadic free play session followed by an infant clothes changing task. A positive correlation was found between pre-birth ratings of marital quality and positive coparenting behaviors at 3.5 months post-partum. Pre-birth level of marital quality was found to be the most consistent predictor of observed coparenting behavior such that parents with higher marital quality prior to the birth of their baby demonstrated more supportive coparenting behavior at 3.5 months postpartum. Results indicated that for couples with lower pre-birth marital quality, infant temperament played a role in coparenting behaviors.
Specifically, martially dissatisfied parents who perceived their infants as being excessively fussy were found to engage in more undermining coparenting behaviors as compared to parents with higher marital satisfaction prior to the baby’s birth. For the purposes of this thesis, infant temperament was not examined. These studies suggest that pre-birth marital quality plays a significant role in both the couples’ potential for triadic capacity prior to the birth of their baby and their subsequent early coparenting behaviors. In other words, the influence of marital quality may begin to affect the coparenting relationship, not only during the infant’s first few months of life but before the infant is even born.
Four additional investigations examined the relationship between marital distress and specific types of coparenting behaviors during infancy (McHale, 1995; Frosch, Mangelsdorf, &
McHale, 1998; Talbot & McHale, 2004; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2005). McHale (1995) observed 47 married couples engage in 10 minute family play sessions with their 8.5- or 11- 22
month-old infants. Triadic interactions were coded for hostile-competitive coparenting behavior,
family harmony, and parental involvement discrepancies. A negative correlation was found
between marital distress and positive coparenting behaviors. Triadic family interactions in
martially distressed couples were characterized by lower levels of cooperation between parents
and warmth toward the baby and between parents. Results indicated that marital distress
correlated positively with levels of hostile-competitive coparenting and levels of involvement
discrepancy between parents depending on child gender. In families with boys, hostile- competitive coparenting behavior was more prevalent as the level of marital distress increased, whereas in families with girls, discrepant levels of parental involvement increased as the level of marital distress increased.
Talbot and McHale (2004) observed 10 minute triadic play interactions between 50 couples and their 12-month-old infants. Marital quality was found to correlate negatively with maladaptive coparenting behaviors, including verbal undermining and lack of mutual support between parents. A positive correlation was observed between marital quality and triadic interactions characterized by warmth, cooperation, and child-centered engagement. Individual parent factors, such as flexibility and self-control, were also linked to family-level dynamics; however, these factors differed as a function of parent gender. Specifically, highly flexible
fathers tended to engage in more cooperative, warm, child-centered coparenting interactions. For
mothers, self-control as measured by levels of conscientiousness, responsiveness to others, and
expression of feelings, was more likely to be associated with higher levels of collaborative
family interactions characterized by warmth and balance between parents.
In a longitudinal study, coparenting behavior was assessed in 57 families with infants at 6
months postpartum and again three years later (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2005). To assess 23
coparenting behavior when the infants were 6 months of age, families were observed during a 5
minute triadic free play session. A 10 minute family building task with Lincoln Logs was used to
assess coparenting three years later. At both 6 month and 3 year time points, positive marital
engagement was positively associated with more supportive coparenting behavior. Additionally,
at the 3 year assessment, families who exhibited more supportive coparenting behavior also displayed less marital conflict. Similarly, families with higher levels of marital conflict and lower levels of positive marital engagement also displayed high levels of undermining
coparenting behaviors. Results indicated that supportive coparenting behavior at 6 months was
linked to more positive marital engagement and less marital conflict at 3 years, whereas
undermining coparenting at 6 months was associated with higher levels of marital conflict and
lower levels of positive marital engagement at 3 years.
Frosch, Mangelsdorf, and McHale (1998) examined marital adjustment and coparenting
behaviors in 104 families with 6-month-old infants during 5 minute semi-structured family play
sessions. A positive correlation was found between marital adjustment and family harmony.
Results indicated that self-reported level of marital adjustment for both mothers and fathers was
associated with family harmony during play sessions. Marital adjustment was unrelated to
observed hostility between spouses during the triadic interactions, however.
The studies by McHale (1995) and Talbot and McHale (2004) illustrate the significant
influence of marital quality on observed coparenting behaviors during infancy. Both
examinations showed that low marital quality was associated with maladaptive coparenting
patterns. Findings by Schoppe-Sullivan et al. (2005) suggest that the relationship between
observed coparenting behaviors and marital behaviors is significant, although early coparenting
behavior may me more predictive of future marital behavior, rather than vice versa. Additionally, 24
the study by Frosh, Mangelsdorf, and McHale (1998) suggests that marital adjustment may be
more closely linked to marital-level, rather than family-level dynamics. Thus, more research is
needed to examine the influence of marital dynamics on early triadic family interactions and to
better understand how marital variables affect the relationship between individual parent factors
and coparenting behaviors.
Early Childhood
In a study of 52 married couples and their 30-month-old toddlers, self-reports, and dyadic
and triadic interactions were used to assess parenting style and coparenting behavior (McHale,
Kuersten-Hogan, Lauretti, & Rasmussen, 2000). During the triadic family play interaction,
families were asked to complete three structured tasks. Results showed that parents’ self-reports
of coparenting behavior were associated with some observed coparenting behaviors and not with
others. Fathers’ reports of higher engagement in family integrity-promoting efforts correlated
positively with child-centeredness during triadic interactions and reports of similar parenting
styles between husbands and wives. Mothers’ reports of marital conflict were negatively
associated with level of warmth and cooperation and positively associated with level of observed
antagonism during triadic interactions. For mothers, reported disparagement, or the extent to which one parent undermines the other parent’s authority, was associated with more frequent displays of antagonism between spouses during triadic family interactions; however, this relationship failed to remain significant when marital variables were controlled. Interestingly, neither husbands’ nor wives’ reports of family integrity-promoting activities were associated with levels of warmth and cooperation at the family level. Additionally, families displaying negative coparenting behaviors had significantly higher levels of reported marital conflict as
compared to families with more cohesive coparenting styles. 25
Katz & Gottman (1996) observed marital and family interactions of 56 non-clinic- referred families from the community and their 4- to 5-year-old children and then conducted follow-ups when the children were 8 years old. Several significant associations were found between dyadic marital and triadic family levels of interaction. Marital hostility in dyadic marital interactions was found to correlate positively maladaptive coparenting behaviors during triadic family interactions. Results showed that marital hostility between the couple alone was linked to higher levels of intrusiveness and lower levels of positive involvement for fathers during triadic interactions, and for mothers it was associated with higher levels of derisive or sarcastic humor exhibited during the triadic interaction. Husband marital withdrawal was also associated with negative coparenting outcomes including higher levels of mother intrusiveness and lower levels of positive father involvement in triadic interactions. Additionally, husband withdrawal during marital interactions was positively correlated with level of maternal rejection of children during triadic interactions, which was predictive of teacher ratings of child internalizing behavior at age
8.
Both of these studies provide support for the idea that the marital relationship continues to affect coparenting dynamics past infancy and into early childhood. These two investigations provide further evidence for the hypothesis that negative marital variables may contribute to dysfunctional coparenting behavior. Additionally, these studies begin to shed light on the gender differences between mothers and fathers as problematic marital variables were associated with different types of coparenting problems for wives than for husbands.
Middle Childhood
Kitzmann (2000) observed 40 families with 6- to 8-year old boys engage in four 5 minute interactions to examine the influence of marital discussions on family interactions. During the 26
first 5 minute episode, the parents engaged in either a pleasant or conflictual discussion alone
while the child played in another room. In the second episode, the parents and child were
reunited and asked to participate in a triadic painting activity. This episode was followed by a second parental discussion in which the child played in another room. The parents and child were once again reunited and asked to participate in the last triadic interaction which consisted of the painting activity as well as cleaning up the art supplies. Pleasant marital discussions were found to correlate positively with democratic parenting during the triadic interaction. Results indicated that the type of marital discussion (i.e., pleasant or conflictual) influenced the type of parenting observed during the triadic interaction that followed such that families were more likely to show democratic parenting following the pleasant discussion and nondemocratic parenting following the conflictual discussion. Regardless of the discussion topic, negativity during marital interactions was found to correlate negatively with family cohesion, parental support/engagement, family warmth, and democratic parenting during the triadic family interaction. Self-reported marital satisfaction also influenced the association between marital discussions and family interactions. Specifically, for couples where mothers reported high marital satisfaction, the level of family cohesion was significantly higher following the pleasant marital discussion topic as compared to couples where lower marital satisfaction was reported by mothers. Similarly, the level of family warmth during triadic interactions following the pleasant marital discussion topic was significantly higher for families where the mother reported higher marital satisfaction as compared to families where maternal marital satisfaction was low.
In a study of 16 non-clinic families with children ages 5-12 years, Westerman and
Massoff (2001) observed each family engage in a 15 minute Lego teaching task triadic interaction. Maladaptive coparenting behavior in mothers was found to positively correlate with 27
problems in family and child functioning. Results showed that maternal disagreement with or
opposition toward fathers was associated paternal reports of greater disharmony and disaffection,
paternal reports of child externalizing and internalizing problems, and teacher reports of child
externalizing problems. For fathers, however, disagreement with or opposition towards mothers
was associated with lower paternal and teacher reports of child externalizing problems.
Margolin, Gordis, and John (2001) examined marital and coparenting behavior in 3
samples consisting of a pilot sample of 220 mothers, a sample of 75 families with 9- to 13-year-
old children, and a sample of 172 families with 4- to 5-year old children. The results of this study
indicated that the association between husbands’ reports of wives’ marital conflict was no longer
a significant predictor of husbands’ parenting practices when coparenting was entered into the equation. Additionally, husbands’ reports of wives’ coparenting significantly predicted husbands’ parenting practices and parenting stress.
These studies of middle childhood continue to emphasize the role of marital quality on
coparenting by highlighting its effects on observed coparenting behaviors, child outcomes, and
parenting. Significant gender differences between mothers and fathers continue to occur at this
stage of family development as noted by Westerman and Massoff (2001) and Margolin, Grodis,
and John (2001). Additionally, the findings by Margolin, Gordis, and John (2001) suggest that
coparenting may be responsible for the relationship between marital conflict and parenting as
this relationship was substantially reduced when coparenting was controlled.
Children with Mental Retardation
Floyd and Zmich (1991) examined 53 families with 6- to 18-year-old children with mental retardation and 48 comparison families during 50 minute semi-structured family interactions. Couples were also observed engaging in marital problem-solving discussions. 28
Lower levels of positiveness and higher frequency of negative reciprocity between spouses
during the marital discussion were significantly predictive of negative parent-child exchanges for
both mothers and fathers. Additionally, self-reported spouse criticism was also significantly correlated with poor parent-child exchanges.
Floyd, Gilliom, and Costigan (1998) observed 79 married or cohabiting couples with their 6- to 18-year-old mentally retarded children during 50 minute semi-structured family interactions in the participants’ homes. Results from this study indicated that couples’ reports of
positive marital relationships were also associated with higher reports of parenting confidence
and competence as compared to couples with lower reported levels of marital functioning. For all
associations between marital quality and parenting experiences, the parenting alliance was found
to act as a mediating variable. Additionally, negative escalation by fathers during marital conflict
was related to negative interactions with their children, and child negative behaviors toward
fathers were more likely to occur when fathers’ reports of marital distress and poor parenting
alliance were high.
Both studies of coparenting by Floyd and colleagues (Floyd & Zmich, 1991; Floyd,
Gilliom, & Costigan, 1998) in families with children with mental retardation illustrate the
significant role that the marital relationship plays in family level dynamics. Results from the later
study suggest that parents’ ability to work together as an effective coparenting team may account
for the effects of the marital relationship on parenting confidence and parent-child interactions.
The previous section describing studies examining the relationship between marital
dynamics and coparenting outcomes highlights the salient role that marital variables play in
coparenting. In light of these findings on the significant role of the marital relationship in
coparenting, another goal of the current study was to determine whether sanctification of 29
parenting would uniquely be associated with coparenting variables after taking into account
either the role of self-reported level of conflict or love between the couple. Research clearly
demonstrates that marital variables are associated with family level processes such as
coparenting, so in order to highlight the independent effect of sanctification of parenting on coparenting, marital conflict and marital love were controlled for. It is likely that levels of marital love and marital conflict strongly influence how well parents work together as a couple to parent their child so it was important to control for these variables in order to better understand how sanctification of parenting uniquely contributes to perceptions of the coparenting relationship. Another aim of the current study is to examine self-reported dimensions of marital conflict and marital love as potential moderating variables between the association of sanctification of parenting and the coparenting relationship. It is possible that the link between sanctification of parenting and coparenting may be qualified or moderated by marital dynamics in the following way. In the context of marriages that are perceived as unrewarding or stressed or not being preserved and protected (i.e., high conflict, low love), it was expected that the
association between the sanctification of parenting would be more strongly tied to positive
coparenting relationships. The idea is that in the context of a marriage that may be suffering,
greater sanctification of parenting represents a motivational force that facilitates positive
coparenting. Here the couple strives to work together as a team for the sake of their relationships
with their baby, which is seen as having divine significance, and the couple is able to bracket or
put aside other problematic aspects of their marriage and do not allow those issues to
contaminate their functioning as a coparenting unit. In the context of marriages that are already
operating at a very high level in multiple dimensions (i.e., low conflict, high love), it was
expected that the sanctification of parenting would be relatively less necessary and would 30
therefore be a relatively less robust resource that facilitates coparenting. In this case, couples
draw upon their generally good bonding and low levels of conflicts across many domains to
bolster their ability to also operate as a strong coparenting unit. Specifically, for couples
experiencing lower levels of perceived marital love and higher levels of marital conflict, it was
anticipated that high sanctification of parenting would act as a buffer against the association
between marital distress (i.e., high conflict, low love) and coparenting. Therefore, it was
expected that perceived marital conflict and marital love would moderate or alter the association
between sanctification of parenting and the coparenting relationship.
Hypotheses
The purpose of this thesis was to examine whether the sanctification of parenting relates directly to perceptions of coparenting for first-time parents at 1 year post-partum, whether such
links would persist after controlling for indicators of marital quality (marital conflict and marital
love), and finally whether links between sanctification and coparenting are moderated by marital
variables. I presented evidence for the theoretical applicability of sanctification to the
coparenting relationship for married couples during the transition to parenthood. Evidence for the salient influence of marital conflict and marital quality on the coparenting relationship was also discussed. Finally, I suggested that marital dynamics, such as marital conflict and marital love may moderate the associations between sanctification of parenting and perceptions of the coparenting relationship. It was hypothesized that:
1. Higher sanctification of parenting will be associated with an increased likelihood of having a
positive coparenting relationship characterized by perceived mutual support and respect between
spouses regarding parenting practices. 31
2. Higher sanctification of parenting will be associated with a decreased likelihood of having a negative coparenting relationship characterized by perceived spousal criticism and disapproval with regard to parenting.
3. Sanctification of parenting will uniquely be associated with coparenting variables after taking into account either the role of self-reported love or level of conflict between the couple.
4. For couples with more distressed marriages (i.e., high conflict, low love), higher sanctification of parenting will be associated with an increased likelihood of a positive coparenting relationship as compared to lower sanctifying couples.
5. For couples with less distressed marriages (i.e., low conflict, high love), higher sanctification of parenting will not be associated with an increased likelihood of a positive coparenting relationship as compared to lower sanctifying couples.
32
METHOD
Sample
The participants for this thesis were drawn from a comprehensive longitudinal study
(New Arrivals Passage to Parenthood Study – NAPPS) directed by Drs. Annette Mahoney,
Kenneth Pargament and Al DeMaris examining married couples’ transition into parenthood. The
NAPPS study was funded by a $1.2 million grant from the Templeton Foundation. Participants
were recruited from a mid-sized metropolitan area of the Midwest and surrounding suburban and
rural areas through a variety of methods including child birth classes, mailers, flyers, and other
advertisements (See Appendix A for recruitment materials). Interested couples were told that they were invited to be in a study examining the transition into parenthood and how it affected them spiritually, physically, mentally, and emotionally. Staff members contacted interested couples by phone to ensure that they met the eligibility requirements stated below and to schedule appointments for home visits. Eligible couples were married, lived together, were both the biological parents of the baby, had no other children from previous relationships and spoke to each other using English. The sample consisted of 178 families at the first phase of data collection which occurred prior to the child’s birth.
For the purposes of this thesis, data was collected at the fourth phase of NAPPS data collection when the infant was approximately one year old. 164 families completed this phase of data collection. Infants’ ages ranged from 49 to 63 weeks (M = 52.64, SD = 2.59) at the time of the first home visit. The second home visit was conducted approximately 2 to 3 weeks after the first visit. Mothers’ and fathers’ ages ranged from 21 to 41 years (M = 28.18, SD = 3.97) and 21 to 43 years (M = 29.72, SD = 4.44), respectively. Couples had been married an average of 3.6 years. In 79.8% of the sample, both spouses were Caucasian and in 20.2% of the sample, one or 33
both spouses were from other ethnic backgrounds. Of the one-year- old infants, 48% (n = 79)
were male. For mothers, 6.2% had a high school education, 22.5% had partial college/post high
school training, 44.9% had standard college degrees, and 26.4% had graduate or professional
degrees. For fathers, 1.7% had completed some high school, 10.1% had a high school education,
28.1% had partial college/post high school training, 42.1% had standard college degrees, and
18% had graduate or professional degrees. The breakdown of family income was 3.1% less than
$25,000, 23.3% between $25,001 and $50,000, 31.9% between $50,001 and $75,000, 25.2%
between $75,001 and $100,000, 11.6% between $100,001 and $130,000, and 4.9% more than
$130,000. When the infant was approximately one year old 76.2% of mothers and 94.5% of
fathers worked outside the home. See Table 1 for means and frequencies of the demographic variables.
The breakdown of religious affiliations for mothers was 31.5% Christian/Protestant, 26%
Christian/Catholic, 34.5% Non-denominational Christian, 2.8% Other, 0% Muslim, 0.6% Jewish,
and 4.5% None. For fathers, the breakdown of religious affiliations was 31.5%
Christian/Protestant, 27% Christian/Catholic, 28.1% Non-denominational Christian, 5.6% Other,
0.6% Muslim, 0.6% Jewish, and 6.7% None. The breakdown of church attendance for mothers
was 15.2% attending several times a week, 11.6% attending every week, 29.9% attending 2-3
times per month, 11% attending about once per month, 6.1% attending several times a year, 14% attending once or twice a year, 3.7% attending less than once per year, and 8.5% attending never.
For fathers, 11.6% attended several times a week, 26.8% attended every week, 6.1% attended 2-3 times per month, 15.9% attended about once per month, 15.2% attended several times a year,
4.9% attended once or twice a year, 11% attended less than once per year, and 8.5% attended never. The breakdown of prayer frequency for mothers was 31.3% more than once per day, 34
20.7% once a day, 20.7% a few times a week, 3% once a week, 9.1% a few times a month, 3% once a month, 5.5% less than once a month, and 6.7% never. For fathers, 26.2% prayed more than once per day, 17.1% prayed once a day, 14% prayed a few times a week, 6.1% prayed once a week, 9.8% prayed a few times a month, 5.5% prayed once a month, 7.9% prayed less than once a month, and 13.4% prayed never.
Procedure
As stated above, data for the current study was drawn from the fourth phase of NAPPS data collection. The following procedure was used to collect data from participants. Before beginning the first of two home visits, each participant was asked to read and sign a consent form which provided them with detailed information about the study and their right to withdraw from the study at any time (See Appendix B for a copy of the consent form). During both home visits, both parents were asked to complete a battery of questionnaires and complete family interactions
(not used in the present study). Each parent completed paper and pencil surveys individually while in the presence of two research assistants who provided child care for the infant as needed.
For the purposes of this study, only the self-report items described below were used. At the conclusion of the second visit, families received a $125 gift card to a major retailer of their choice for their participation in this final phase of NAPPS data collection.
Measures
Sanctification of parenting. Sanctification of parenting was assessed using two modified sanctification subscales from Mahoney et al. (1999) designed to capture theistic and non-theistic sanctification (See Appendix C, Section I for a copy of this measure). Each item was rated on a
7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and items were summed to create the Sacred Qualities and Manifestation of God subscales. The Sacred Qualities 35
in parenting subscale was composed of 10 items that were summed to assess the extent to which
parents describe their baby and their experience of parenting as holy, sacred, religious, and/or
spiritual (e.g., “My baby seems like miracle to me”). The Manifestation of God in parenting subscale consisted of 10 parallel items that were summed to assess the degree to which mothers and fathers experience parenting as a manifestation of images, beliefs, or experiences of God
(e.g., “I experience God through being a mother/father”).
Coparenting. Three distinct dimensions of coparenting, specifically coparenting solidarity, coparenting support from partner, and undermining coparenting from partner were assessed using three coparenting subscales from the Family Experiences Questionnaire (FEQ –
21 items) (Van Egeren & Hawkins, 2004) (See Appendix C, Section II for a copy of this measure). In its entirety, the Family Experiences Questionnaire consists of 133 items composing
12 total subscales derived from factor analysis that measure parents’ perceptions of their coparenting relationship with their spouse and each parent’s own sense of parenting competence and gratification in parenting. For the purposes of the current study, only the coparenting solidarity, support, and undermining subscales were used. Each item was rated on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and items were summed to
create the three subscales. The coparenting solidarity scale, which consists of 10 items, assesses
the couples’ ability to work and grow together as parents (e.g., “My spouse and I talk about what
is best for our children,” “Parenting has brought my spouse and me closer together”) and the
extent to which couples share the same childrearing values (e.g., “My spouse and I agree on our
ideas, guidelines, and rules for raising children”). The coparenting support scale uses 5 items that
assess the degree of perceived support that each parent receives from their spouse in his/her
parenting goals (e.g., “My spouse backs me up as a parent”) and whether the parent feels the 36
spouse approves of his/her parenting (e.g,, “My spouse makes me feel that I am the best possible
parent for our child”) and provides emotional support (e.g., “When I make a mistake a mistake
with our child, I can talk it over with my spouse”). The undermining coparenting scale, which
consists of 6 items, assesses each parent’s perceived level of criticism (e.g., “As a parent, I
cannot seem to do anything right in my spouse’s eyes,” “My spouse thinks I am a bad influence
on our child”).), distrust (e.g., “My spouse does not trust my abilities as a parent) and lack of
support from his/her spouse in parenting efforts (e.g., “I am afraid of my spouse’s anger when I
do something wrong with the kids,” “I feel too ashamed about my mishaps with my children to
talk them over with my spouse”). In a prior study conducted by Van Egeren and Hawkins (2004), these three coparenting scales displayed levels of internal consistency ranging from .75 to .83 for both mothers and fathers and correlated as expected with perceived marital outcomes.
Marital conflict/love. Marital conflict was measured with two items from Kerig’s (1996)
Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales which assess the frequency that couples experience mild
and major arguments (See Appendix C, Section III for a copy of this measure). Each item was
rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (once a year of less) to 6 (just about every day).
Marital love, which referred to the extent to which spouses perceive a sense of belonging,
closeness and attachment to their partner, was assessed using the 10 item Love Subscale of
Braiker and Kelley’s (1979) Relationship Questionnaire (See Appendix C, Section IV for a copy of this measure). Each item was rated on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9
(very much) and items were summed to create the Love subscale.
Control variables. Each parent also completed a demographic questionnaire to obtain general information about the family (See Appendix C, Section V for a copy of this questionnaire). Preliminary analyses were conducted to determine the need to control for any of 37 the following demographic variables prior to conducting main analyses: each spouses’ gender, age and level of education, couples’ ethnicity (both Caucasian vs. not), couple income, and each spouses’ participation in employment or school over the past year.
38
RESULTS
Descriptive and Preliminary Analyses
Preliminary analyses revealed that the two self-report scales used to assess maternal and paternal perceptions of the sanctification of parenting (i.e., Sacred Qualities and Manifestation of
God in parenting scales) correlated at fairly high levels (r = .70, p < .0001 for mothers, r = .79, p
< .0001 for fathers). As a consequence, each parent’s scores from these two sub-scales were combined to yield a total sanctification of parenting score for each parent. Alpha coefficients were calculated on these total scales to assess the internal consistency of all sanctification items and revealed high reliability for mothers (α = .97) and fathers (α = .97). Ranges, means and standard deviations, and alpha coefficients of the sanctification variables are displayed in Table
2.
Descriptive and preliminary analyses were likewise conducted on the dependent variables to determine the need for data reduction. For a summary, correlations between parents’ reports on independent and dependent variables as well as correlations of the variables within each reporter are presented in Table 3. More specifically, the bivariate correlations between the three coparenting variables of solidarity, support, and undermining were examined for each reporter.
Correlations were sufficiently low to indicate that (r = .42 to .60, p < .0001 for mothers; r = .55 to .69, p < .0001 for fathers) each coparenting scale captures a distinct dimension of coparenting.
Thus, each coparenting variable was examined separately in subsequent analyses. Alpha coefficients were calculated in order to measure the internal consistency of items on each coparenting scale for each parent, and revealed good reliability for solidarity (α = .75 for mothers, α = .79 for fathers), support (α = .75 for mothers, α = .81 for fathers) and undermining
(α = .81 for mothers, α = .79 for fathers). Ranges, means, standard deviations and alpha 39 coefficients for the independent and dependent variables are displayed in Table 2. For all analyses, mother and father reports of sanctification were analyzed separately because there was only modest overlap between maternal and paternal perceptions of the sanctification of parenting
(r = .56, p < .0001). Likewise, mothers’ and fathers’ reports of coparenting were also analyzed separately due to fairly low reporter agreement (r = .42, p < .0001 for solidarity; r = .39, p <
.0001 for support; r = .32, p < .0001 for undermining).
Preliminary analyses were also conducted on the hypothesized moderating variables, conflict and love. Analysis revealed that the correlation between mothers’ and fathers’ reports of frequency of conflict was in low to moderate range low (r = .48, p < .0001), thus they were used separately in the analysis. Alpha coefficients were calculated in order to measure the internal consistency of items used to assess frequency of conflict and revealed good reliability (α = .78 for mothers, α = .74 for fathers). Analysis revealed that the correlation between mothers’ and fathers’ reports of love was also in low to moderate range (r = .42, p < .0001) and thus, each parent’s report of love was examined separately. Analysis of internal consistency of the love scale items revealed good reliability for both mothers (α = .90) and fathers (α = .86).
Prior to performing correlational analyses to determine the degree of association between sanctification of parenting and coparenting, preliminary analyses were conducted to detect possible demographic covariates that needed to be controlled for. Specifically, bivariate correlations were conducted between demographic variables and independent and dependent variables. There were no significant correlations between any of the demographic variables and the other variables with the exception of fathers’ age and sanctification of parenting (r = -0.22, p
<.005). Therefore, for all primary analyses including fathers’ sanctification, fathers’ age was controlled for. 40
It should be noted here that the frequencies of each parent’s church attendance and prayer
were anticipated to correlate modestly with each individuals’ perception of the sanctification of parenting. Such correlations verify the validity of the sanctification measure as it is possible that church attendance and prayer represent the behavioral expression of the deeper cognitions and perceptions that comprise the construct of sanctification. Church attendance and frequency of prayer were not controlled in the primary data analyses because sanctification was specifically chosen as the measure of interest in attempt to capture the richer cognitive dimension of religion beyond behavioral expressions of religiosity. For descriptive purposes, the correlations between these two behavioral religious variables and the primary variables of interest are reported on
Table 3.
Bivariate Links between Sanctification and Coparenting
The first hypothesis was that higher sanctification of parenting would be associated with an increased likelihood of reporting that the couple had a positive coparenting relationship characterized by mutual support and respect between spouses regarding parenting practices.
Bivariate correlations were conducted between sanctification and solidarity. As hypothesized, sanctification of parenting was positively related to higher levels of perceived solidarity between parents on the part of both mothers (r = 0.28, p <.001) and of fathers (r = 0.22, p <.01).
However, contrary to the hypothesis, no significant relationships emerged between sanctification and perceived support from one’s spouse for either mothers or fathers.
The second hypothesis was that higher sanctification would be associated with a decreased likelihood of having a negative coparenting relationship characterized by spousal criticism and disapproval with regard to parenting. However, significant correlations did not emerge for either parent. 41
Unique Effects of Sanctification beyond Love or Conflict
A hypothesis added after the original thesis proposal meeting was that sanctification of parenting would uniquely be associated with coparenting variables after taking into account either the role of self-reported love or level of conflict between the couple as well as any demographic variables that needed to be controlled. The beta weights of sanctification after entering self-reported level of conflict into a regression step in Step 1 of a hierarchical regression analysis (that was also used to test for interactions between sanctification and conflict in Step 2) are displayed in Table 4. In Table 5, the beta weights of sanctification after entering self-reported love into the first regression step in a hierarchical regression analysis (that again was also used to test for interactions between sanctification and love in Step 2) are displayed. Attention should specifically be paid to links between sanctification of parenting and solidarity as these bivariate
correlations were significant, but those for support and undermining were not significant. Results
revealed that sanctification made independent positive contributions to solidarity for both mothers (β = 0.32, p < .0001) and fathers (β = 0.23, p < .01) when controlling for love. When
conflict was controlled for, results showed that sanctification had a unique effect (β = 0.22, p <
.01) on solidarity for mothers, but not for fathers.
Unexpectedly, significant unique effects of sanctification of parenting also emerged for
fathers’ reports of undermining by partner after taking into account conflict. This suggests that
when the reciprocal influences between lower levels of conflict and lower undermining by
partner are removed, sanctification of parenting then plays a significant role in fathers’ reports of
their spouses undermining behaviors. Specifically, higher sanctification of parenting was
associated with lower reports of undermining by partner when controlling for perceived level of
conflict for fathers, although this association was not present for mothers. 42
Moderating Effects of Conflict and Love
The fourth hypothesis was that for couples with more distressed marriages (i.e., high
conflict, low love), higher sanctification of parenting would be associated with greater solidarity
and support and less undermining as compared to lower sanctifying couples. Similarly, the fifth
hypothesis was that for couples with less distressed marriages (i.e., low conflict, high love),
higher sanctification of parenting would not be associated with more solidarity and support and
less undermining as compared to lower sanctifying couples. As mentioned above, hierarchical
regression analyses were used to determine if significant interaction effects between
sanctification of parenting and conflict and between sanctification of parenting and love emerged
in predicting coparenting. In the conflict model, sanctification, conflict, and any demographics
covariates were entered in Step 1, and the sanctification-conflict interaction term was entered in
Step 2. Contrary to the hypotheses, analysis revealed that conflict did not moderate the
relationship between sanctification and any of the coparenting variables for mothers or fathers.
Standardized regression coefficients for the conflict model are presented in Table 4.
The same procedure as described above for the conflict model was used to analyze the
interaction effects of love and sanctification on each of the coparenting variables. In Step 1 of the
love model, sanctification, love, and any demographics covariates were entered, and the sanctification-love interaction term was entered in Step 2. Love was not found to significantly moderate the relationship between sanctification and solidarity or the relationship between sanctification and support for mothers or fathers. For mothers, love significantly moderated the relationship between sanctification and undermining (β = -2.29, p < .05); however, this effect
was contrary to the hypothesized direction. Specifically, high sanctifying mothers who reported
low levels of love experienced more undermining as compared to low sanctifying mothers who 43 also reported low levels of love. Similarly, high sanctifying mothers who reported high levels of love experienced less undermining as compared to low sanctifying mothers who also reported high levels of love. Figure 1 displays the nature of the interaction effect using mothers’ marital love and sanctification to predict undermining when both independent variables are one standard deviation above and below their means. Contrary to hypotheses, no moderating effects of love were found for fathers.
44
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the current study was to examine whether sanctification of parenting directly relates to perceptions of the coparenting relationship and whether such links interact
with marital quality in predicting coparenting. The first goal of the study concerned direct
associations between sanctification of parenting and self-reported coparenting dynamics between
first-time parents with one-year-old infants. Given the significant role played by marital
functioning in coparenting dynamics, the second goal of the study was to examine whether
sanctification would remain a significant contributor to coparenting when controlling for conflict
and love, and whether conflict or love dimensions of the marital relationship would interact with
the sanctification of parenting in predicting perceptions of the coparenting.
Direct linkages between sanctification of parenting and coparenting
The first hypothesis was that higher sanctification would be associated with an increased
likelihood of having a positive coparenting relationship characterized by mutual support and
respect between spouses regarding parenting practices. As hypothesized, sanctification was
positively related to higher levels of solidarity for both mothers and fathers. This indicates that
higher sanctifying parents perceived themselves as having a greater ability to work together as a
couple and grow together as parents and endorsed having similar parenting values to their
spouse. It is possible that the more parents experience God in their roles as parents and perceive
parenting as being imbued with sacred qualities, the more motivated they are to invest time,
energy and resources into their collaborative parenting efforts. This idea is consistent with
existing research suggesting that sanctification translates in to greater investment and therefore
greater success in sanctified areas of life (Mahoney et al., 1999; Mahoney, Pargament, &
Murray-Swank, 2003; Murray-Swank, Mahoney, & Pargament, 2005; Mahoney et al., 2005a; 45
Mahoney et al., 2005b; Pargament & Mahoney, 2005; Dumas & Nissley-Tsiopinis, 2006;
Murray-Swank, Mahoney, & Pargament, 2006). It is possible that parents who perceive God as
playing a central role in their experience as a parent may feel more secure and confident in their
parenting abilities and therefore may be better able to focus on working together with their
spouse and to avoid engaging in coparenting struggles. It is also possible that high-sanctifying parents may have similar views on how to raise a child based on their religious beliefs which may be adaptive for avoiding disagreements over parenting practices.
Contrary to the hypothesis, there were no significant relationships between sanctification and perceived support from spouse for either mothers or for fathers. Higher sanctifying parents did not differ significantly in the amount that each parent feels appreciated and trusted by their
spouse regarding parenting competencies and goals as compared to lower sanctifying parents.
This result suggests that sanctification of parenting does not directly promote parents to provide
support and encouragement to each other in their joint parenting efforts. This finding converges
with Murray-Swank, Mahoney, and Pargament’s (2006) study that resulted in no direct
connections between sanctification and their conceptually similar parent-child construct of
nurturance and positive interaction.
The second hypothesis was that higher sanctification would be associated with less
undermining in the coparenting relationship. This hypothesis was not supported as there were no
significant differences between higher and lower sanctifying parents on reported levels of
spousal criticism and disapproval with regard to parenting for mothers or for fathers. This
suggests that sanctification of parenting does not directly promote parents to engage in less
undermining with each other regarding their parenting practices. This finding is divergent from
the investigation by Murray-Swank, Mahoney, and Pargament (2006) where findings implied 46
that the sanctification of parenting may act as a protective factor against a conceptually similar
parent-child construct, namely maternal verbal aggression. However, in this study, sanctification
of parenting was not found to be a protective factor against spousal criticism and disapproval regarding parenting practices.
Unique Contribution of Sanctification of Parenting beyond Marital Quality
Due to the significant role that marital dynamics are suspected to play in the coparenting relationship, the unique effects of sanctification on coparenting variables for mothers and fathers when controlling for either conflict or love were assessed. When conflict was entered into the regression model, sanctification remained significantly correlated with solidarity for both mothers and fathers. Specifically, higher sanctifying parents were more likely to report higher levels of solidarity in their coparenting relationships as compared to lower sanctifying parents, even when controlling for level of conflict in the marital relationship. As mentioned above, this finding suggests that parents who sanctify parenting may be more willing to invest their time, energy, and time into their partnership with their spouse as parents as well as draw on common religiously-based principles to guide their childrearing resulting in increased solidarity.
Sanctification did not make an independent contribution to either parent’s perceptions of support
when conflict was taken into account.
Interestingly, for fathers (but not mothers), higher levels of sanctification were related to
less undermining when marital conflict was controlled. In other words, higher sanctifying fathers
were more likely to report lower levels of undermining in their coparenting relationships as
compared to lower sanctifying fathers after marital conflict was removed from the equation..
Although such suppressor effects were not originally hypothesized, it is worth noting that for
fathers, higher sanctification of parenting was tied to higher levels of marital conflict (r = .17). 47
Perhaps fathers who perceive parenting as having more spiritual importance are more likely to engage in debates and risk having more conflicts with mothers about home life rather than take a more passive role. For some couples, higher paternal sanctification may signal conflict between spouses about parenting itself, perhaps because of underlying disagreement about religious issues. In any case, once the linkages between sanctification of parenting and marital conflict are taken into account, the sanctification of parenting plays an significant role in fathers’ perceptions of their spouses undermining behaviors., These results suggest that higher beliefs about the spiritual significance of parenting to fathers are linked to their feeling less undermined by mothers in those families where fathers’ sanctification of parenting does not simultaneously contribute to tension between couples.
When love was entered into the model, sanctification remained significantly correlated with solidarity for mothers, but not fathers. Specifically, higher sanctifying mothers were more likely to report higher levels of solidarity in their coparenting relationships as compared to lower sanctifying mothers, even when controlling for level of love in the marital relationship. This finding indicates that sanctification makes independent contributions to solidarity for mothers regardless of the level of perceived marital love. Again it is suggested that sanctification may facilitate increased investment and effort into the coparenting relationship thus contributing to mothers’ perceptions of being able to work and grow together as a couple in parenting and draw upon shared parenting values. Consistent with results described above, sanctification did not make any independent contributions to support for mothers or fathers when controlling for love.
For fathers, love, but not sanctification, was a unique contributor to undermining suggesting that other marital or other variables may influence fathers’ perceptions of undermining in their coparenting relationships. Since love remained significant for both mothers and fathers on all 48
domains of coparenting assessed it appears that generally good marital functioning as measured
by levels of love may have a positive effect on the coparenting relationship such that high levels
of love is associated with increased solidarity and support and decreased undermining for both
mothers and fathers.
Moderator Effects of Marital Quality on Links between
Sanctification of Parenting and Coparenting
The fourth and fifth hypotheses had to do with articulating the nature of how marital quality may moderate links between the sanctification of parenting and coparenting. The former hypothesis delineated the expectation that for couples with more distressed marriages (i.e., high conflict, low love), higher sanctification of parenting would be associated with greater solidarity and support and less undermining as compared to lower sanctifying couples. The latter hypothesis was that for couples with less distressed marriages (i.e., low conflict, high love), higher sanctification of parenting would not be associated with more solidarity and support or less undermining as compared to lower sanctifying couples. In effect, this hypothesis was spelled out to highlight the expectation that any interactions between marital quality and sanctification in predicting coparenting would be driven by the pattern described in hypothesis four.
Analyses detected only one moderator effect. Specifically, for mothers, love significantly moderated the relationship between sanctification of parenting and undermining. However, the nature of this effect was contrary to the hypothesized direction. Specifically, higher sanctifying mothers who reported lower levels of love were found to experience more, rather than less, undermining as compared to lower sanctifying mothers who reported similar levels of love. This relationship was not present for fathers. This finding suggests that higher sanctifying mothers who report lower levels of love in their marriage may be at risk for experiencing higher levels of 49
spousal criticism and disapproval with regard to parenting efforts. It may be the case that when
mothers who place such a deeply sacred emphasis on their role as parents simultaneously
experience low levels of love in their relationship with their spouse, they become more anxious or defensive with regard to their parenting. When there is a perceived lack of love in their
marriage mothers may become more sensitive to their spouse’s undermining comments or
behaviors around the topic of parenting which is considered to be an area of utmost importance
spiritually.
Conversely, it appears that sanctification provides an additional benefit to happily
married mothers with regard to decreased experiences of undermining in the context of high
functioning marriages as measured by higher levels of love. One possible explanation for this
finding is that mothers who view parenting as a sacred aspect of life and who simultaneously
experience a loving and supportive relationship with their husbands are more likely to experience
a sense of confidence and efficacy in their own parenting ability and thus are less likely to be
defensive or anxious about their spouse’s opinion of their parenting efficacy. Perhaps
sanctification serves as a source of motivation for mothers to engage in benign attributional
processes in response to their spouse regarding parenting practices in order to preserve and
protect their sacred roles as parents such that husbands’ comments and suggestions about
parenting are interpreted by mothers as constructive and congruent with their sanctification of the parenting role rather than overly critical and disapproving comments. In short, the positive benefits of love and sanctification appear to amplify each other’s tendency to be related to less undermining.
It is unclear why null findings emerged for other expected moderator effects. That is, conflict did not moderate the relationship between sanctification and any of the three coparenting 50
dimensions for either parent. This finding suggests that higher sanctifying parents in marriages
characterized by higher levels of conflict experience similar levels of solidarity, support, and
undermining in their coparenting relationships as compared to parents who endorsed lower levels
of sanctification with similar levels of conflict. In this case, sanctification did not function as a
protective or buffering factor for parents who experience high levels of conflict in their marriage
with regard to coparenting. It appears that the negative effects of conflict permeate the coparenting relationship even for parents who endorse parenting as a highly sanctified aspect of
life. This finding is convergent with the spillover hypothesis which asserts that problems in the marital relationship spill over into family-level processes, such as coparenting (e.g., Coiro &
Emery, 1998). Similarly, no moderating effects were found for love on the association between sanctification and support or the association between sanctification and support for either parent.
Here, higher sanctifying parents in marriages characterized by lower levels of love reported experiencing similar levels of coparenting solidarity and support from their spouse regarding parenting as compared to their lower sanctifying counterparts. As with conflict, it appears sanctification does not function as a buffer for parents who experience lower levels of love in their marriage with regard to solidarity and support, again in support of the spillover hypothesis.
One possible explanation for why null findings emerged is that ceiling effects in the marital love measure may be at work. Since virtually all of the married couples in the sample reported very high levels of love, it is possible that the utility of the love subscale as a measurement tool was compromised by a lack of variability in the sample. In the case of
moderator effects for marital love, it would be implausible for sanctification to act as a “buffer”
against low levels of marital love as was hypothesized since essentially none of the couples
reported experiencing low levels of love. It may be the case that the transition to parenthood 51
signifies a remarkably happy time in married couples’ lives where they experience extremely
high levels of love, closeness, belonging and commitment to each other, which may account for
why limited moderator effects of sanctification on the association between love and coparenting
were found.
Contributions and Limitations of Study
The current study contributes to the sanctification literature by providing insight into how
sanctification influences family life. A better understanding of the role that sanctification of
parenting plays in the coparenting relationship has important implications in the development on
theories about sanctification in family life and family-level processes. This study offers insight
into how sanctification may relate to investment in some dimensions of coparenting and not
others. The role of sanctification in the coparenting relationship has important clinical
applications as well. Specifically, spiritually-based interventions could be designed for families
who are struggling with coparenting to strengthen and enhance the benefits of sanctification as a
protective factor in positive coparenting and to avoid potential risk factors that sanctification
may pose for maladaptive coparenting behavior.
Other unique aspects of this study are that it included both mothers’ and fathers’ reports
of sanctification and associated outcomes. Mothers and fathers appear to experience different
effects of sanctification. Thus, additional research is needed to tease apart the effects of parent
gender on sanctification and its associated outcomes. The current study is also unique in that it
utilized self-report measures to capture parents’ perceptions of their coparenting relationship with their spouse rather than direct observational measures; however, this is also a potential direction for future research as described below. 52
Several limitations of the current study require acknowledgement. The first of these
limitations is the cross-sectional nature of this investigation which prevents inferences of
causality to be made in any direction. It may be the case that the act of coparenting itself
facilitates the development of sanctification of parenting such that couples who are generally successful in working together as coparents (i.e., cooperate with each other, have similar
parenting values, engage in less undermining behaviors) may be more likely to attribute their
success in coparenting to the role that God plays in their parenting thus facilitating sanctification
of parenting. Conversely, spouses who are struggling in their coparenting relationship (i.e.,
difficulty working together, differing parenting values, engage in more undermining) may
psychologically distance or separate their spiritual life or their relationship with God from their
role as parents thus discouraging sanctification of parenting. It could also be the case that the
relationship between sanctification and coparenting is mediated by negative religious coping of
parenting difficulties (Dumas & Nissley-Tsiopinis, 2006). For parents who perceive God as
punishing or rejecting or are currently experiencing spiritual struggles, the relationship between
sanctification of parenting and investment in the coparenting relationship may fail to remain
significant. It is also possible that there is a reciprocal relationship between sanctification and
adaptive coparenting in which case the more parenting is sanctified the more successful the
spouses are in their coparenting relationship which facilitates higher sanctification of parenting
and so on.
The second set of limitations concerns the characteristics of the sample and the
implications for generalizability of findings. The participants for this study were not randomly
selected but rather demonstrated considerable perseverance and effort in including themselves in
the time-consuming research protocol during a very busy major life transition. It is possible that 53
volunteers for the study may be higher functioning than other couples making the transition to
parenthood. Off-setting this concern somewhat is that the sample was quite diverse in
socioeconomic background. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the inclusion criteria for the
current study targeted a very specific group, namely married couples where both parents were
first-time biological parents. Such demographics represent an increasingly smaller slice of
American families given the rapidly increasing number of children born to unmarried parents
and the high divorce/remarriage rates. Therefore, it is emphasized that findings should not be
generalized outside of married couples having their first biological child together. Additionally,
although the sample is economically and educationally diverse it is not very ethnically diverse
and thus results should not be generalized to non-white ethnic groups.
The third group of limitations relates to measurement issues. Since the current study
utilized self-report measures only it is difficult to determine the extent to which the measures
actually correspond with the participants’ behavior. Therefore, it is important to recognize that these findings are limited to perceptions of behavior rather than observable behavior. It should be noted that self-report measures were specifically chosen for the current study because of their ability to assess participants’ perceptions of their parenting role, marital love and conflict, and their coparenting relationship. This study is unique in it’s assessment of perceptions of coparenting, given that very few researchers have actually examined how parents experience their parenting alliance with their spouse. From a clinical standpoint, perceptions are important to assess because for many individuals they may represent a motivational force that drives help- seeking behavior in instances of dissatisfaction with coparenting and the marital relationship.
Another important point to consider is that due to the nature of the topics assessed the 54
participants’ may have responded to questions in a socially desirability manner in order to
present themselves in a more positive light.
An important direction for future research would be to examine data on the families in
the current sample across their transition into parenthood beginning with data collected during
the third trimester of pregnancy throughout the infant’s first year of life. It is important to
analyze longitudinal data to better understand the intricacies and complexities of the relationship
between sanctification and coparenting over time. It is possible that fluctuations in the
coparenting relationship may occur over time as couples’ transition into parenthood and adjust to
family life. The coparenting relationship could potentially be affect by the drop in marital
satisfaction and increase in marital conflict that is theorized to occur following the birth of a
child as a result of the spillover hypothesis. Another direction for future research would be to
utilize observational data to measure marital and coparenting constructs to better assess actual
behavior rather than perceptions of behavior. Observational data provides a much more detailed
level of insight into the subtleties of marital and family-level dynamics that may not be captured
using self-report measures alone. Another possible direction for future investigation would be to
examine the effects of other potentially confounding variables on the coparenting relationship
such as infant gender and temperament.
In closing, the current investigation demonstrates the relevance of studying sanctification
in the context of family relationships, particularly coparenting. This study provides modest support for the theory that sanctification of parenting is associated with greater investment in the
coparenting relationship. Additionally, this study supports the spillover effect of marital
dynamics into the coparenting domain.
55
REFERENCES
Belsky, J., Putnam, S., & Crnic, K. (1996). Coparenting, Parenting, and Early Emotional
Development. In J. P. McHale & P. A. Cowan (Eds.), Understanding how family-level
dynamics affect children’s development: Studies of two-parent families (pp. 45-55). San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Braungart-Rieker, J., Courtney, S., & Garwood, M. M. (1999). Mother- and Father-Infant
Attachment: Families in Context. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(4), 535-553.
Brody, G. H., & Flor, D. L. (1996). Coparenting, Family Interactions, and Competence Among
African American Youths. In J. P. McHale & P. A. Cowan (Eds.), Understanding how
family-level dynamics affect children’s development: Studies of two-parent families (pp.
77-91). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
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
and Family Studies, 6(2), 233-247.
Coiro, M. J. & Emery, R. E. (1998). Do Marriage Problems Affect Fathering More than
Mothering? A Quantitative and Qualitative Review. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology, 1(1), 23-40.
Cowan, P. A., & McHale, J. P. (1996). Coparenting in a Family Context: Emerging
Achievements, Current Dilemmas, and Future Directions. In J. P. McHale & P. A. Cowan
(Eds.), Understanding how family-level dynamics affect children’s development: Studies
of two- parent families (pp. 93-106). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Cox, M. J., Owen, M. T., Lewis, J. M. & Henderson, V. K. (1989). Marriage, Adult Adjustment,
and Early Parenting. Child Development, 60(5), 1015-1024. 56
Dumas, J. E. & Nissley-Tsiopinis, J. (2006). Parental global religiousness, sanctification of
parenting, and positive and negative religious coping as predictors of parental and child
functioning. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 16(4), 289-310.
Feinberg, M. E. (2002). Coparenting and the Transition to Parenthood: A Framework for
Prevention. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5(3), 173-195.
Fincham, F. D. (1998). Child Development and Marital Relations. Child Development, 69(2),
543-574.
Fincham, F.D., & Grych, J.H. (2001). Advancing understanding of the association between
interparental conflict and child development. In J.H. Grych & F.D. Fincham (Eds.),
Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and applications.(pp. 443-
452). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fincham, F.D., & Osborne, L.N. (1993). Marital Conflict and Children: Retrospect and Prospect.
Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 75-88.
Floyd, F. J. & Zmich, D. E. (1991). Marriage and the Parenting Partnership: Perceptions and
Interactions of Parents with Mentally Retarded and Typically Developing Children. Child
Development, 62(6) 1434-1448.
Frosch, C. A., & Mangelsdorf, S. C. (2001). Marital Behavior, Parenting Behavior, and Multiple
Reports of Preschoolers’ Behavior Problems: Mediation or Moderation? Developmental
Psychology, 37(4), 502-519.
Frosch, C. A., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & McHale, J. L. (1998). Correlates of Marital Behavior at 6
Months Postpartum. Developmental Psychology, 34(6), 1438-1449.
Gable, S., Belsky, J., & Crnic, K. (1992). Marriage, Parenting, and Child Development: Progress
and Prospects. Journal of Family Psychology, 5(3), 276-294. 57
Grych, J.H., & Fincham, F.D. (2001). Interparental conflict and child adjustment: An overview.
In J.H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development:
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 1-6). New York: Cambridge Universtiy Press.
Jouriles, E. N., Norwood, W. D., McDonald, R., Vincent, J. P., & Mahoney, A. (1996). Physical
Violence and Other Forms of Marital Aggression: Links with Children’s Behavior
Problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 10(2), 223-234.
Katz, L. F. & Gottman, J. M. (1996). Spillover Effects of Marital Conflict: In Search of
Parenting and Coparenting Mechanisms. In J. P. McHale & P. A. Cowan (Eds.),
Understanding how family-level dynamics affect children’s development: Studies of two-
parent families (pp. 57-76). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Kerig, Patricia K. (1996). Assessing the links between interparental conflict and child
adjustment: The conflicts and problem-solving scales. Journal of Family Psychology,
10(4), 454-473.
Kerig, P. K., Cowan, P.A., & Cowan, C.P. (1993). Marital Quality and Gender Differences I
Parent-Child Interaction. Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 931-939.
Kitzmann, K. M. (2000). Effects of Marital Conflict on Subsequent Triadic Family Interactions
and Parenting. Developmental Psychology, 36(1), 3-13.
Krishnakumar, A. & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental Conflict and Parenting Behaviors: A
Meta-Analytic Review. Family Relations, 49(1), 25-44.
Lindahl, K. M., Clements, M., & Markman, H. (1997). Predicting Marital and Parent
Functioning in Dyads and Triads: A Longitudinal Investigation of Marital Processes.
Journal of Family Psychology, 11(2), 139-151.
Mahoney, A., Boggio, R. M., & Jouriles, E. N. (1996). Effects of Verbal Marital Conflict on 58
Subsequent Mother-Son Interactions in a Child Clinical Sample. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 25(3), 262-271.
Mahoney, A. & Pargament, K. I. (2005). Sacred Matters: Sanctification as a Vital Topic for the
Psychology of Religion. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15(3),
179-198.
Mahoney, A., Carels, R. A., Pargament, K. I., Wachholtz, A., Leeper, L. E., Kaplar, M., &
Frutchey, R. (2005a). The sanctification of the body and behavioral health patterns of
college students. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15(3), 221-
238.
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Jewell, T., Magyar, G.M., Tarakeshwar, N., Murray-
Swank, N. A., & Phillips, R. (2005b). A Higher Purpose: The Sanctification of Strivings
in a Community Sample. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15(3),
239-262.
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Jewell, T., Swank, A. B., Scott, E., Emery, E. & Rye, M. (1999).
Marriage and the Spiritual Realm: The Role of Proximal and Distal Religious Constructs
in Marital Functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(3), 321-338.
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Murray-Swank, A. & Murray-Swank, N. (2003). Religion and
the Sanctification of Family Relationships. Review of Religious Research, 44(3), 220-
236.
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K.I., Tarakeshwar, N. & Swank, A. B. (2001). Religion in the Home
in the 1980s and 1990s: A Meta-Analytic Review and Conceptual Analysis of Links
Between Religion, Marriage, and Parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(4), 559-
596. 59
Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., and John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: A Link Between Marital
Conflict and Parenting in Two-Parent Families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 2-
31.
McHale, J. P. (1995). Coparenting and Triadic Interactions During Infancy: The Roles of Marital
Distress and Child Gender. Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 985-996.
McHale, J.P. (1997). Overt and Covert Coparenting Processes in the Family. Family Process 36,
183-201.
McHale, J. P., Kuersten, R., & Lauretti, A. (1996) New Directions in the Study of Family-Level
Dynamics During Infancy and Early Childhood. In J. P. McHale & P. A. Cowan (Eds.),
Understanding how family-level dynamics affect children’s development: Studies of two-
parent families (pp. 5-26). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
McHale, J. P., Kuersten, R., Lauretti, A., & Rasmussen, J. L. (2000). Parental Reports of
Coparenting and Observed Coparenting Behavior During the Toddler Period. Journal of
Family Psychology, 14(2), 220-236.
McHale, J. P., & Rasmussen, J. L. (1998). Coparental and Family Group-Level Dynamics
During Infancy: Early Family Precursors of Child and Family Functioning During
Preschool. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 39-59.
McHale, J. P., Rao, N., & Krasnow, A. D. (2000). Constructing Family Climates: Chinese
Mothers’ Reports of their Co-parenting Behaviour and Preschoolers’ Adaptation.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(1), 111-118.
Murray-Swank, A., Mahoney, A., & Pargament K. I. (2005). At the Crossroads of Sexuality and
Spirituality: The Sanctification of Sex by College Students. The International Journal of
the Psychology of Religion, 15(3), 199-219. 60
Murray-Swank, A., Mahoney, A., & Pargament K. I. (2006). Sanctification of parenting: Links
to corporal punishment and parental warmth among biblically conservative and liberal
mothers. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 16(4), 271-287.
Pargament, K. I. & Mahoney, A. (2005). Sacred Matters: Sanctification as a vital topic for the
psychology of religion. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 12(3),
179-198.
Perren, S., von Wyl, A., Simoni, H., Stadlmayr, W., Burgin, D., & von Klitzing, K. (2003).
Parental Psychopathology, Marital Quality, and the Transition to Parenthood. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 73(1), 55-64.
Schoppe, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Frosch, C. A. (2001). Coparenting, Family Process, and
Family Structure: Implications for Preschoolers’ Externalizing Behavior Problems.
Journal of Family Psychology, 15(3), 526-545.
Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Frosch, C. A., & McHale, J. L. (2004). Associations
Between Coparenting and Marital Behavior From Infancy to the Preschool Years.
Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 194-207.
Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Brown, G. L. & Sokolowski, M. S. (2007).
Goodness-of-fit in Family Context: Infant Temperament, Marital Quality, and Early
Coparenting Behavior. Infant Behavior and Development, 30, 82-96.
Sturge-Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (2006). Hostility and Withdrawal in
Marital Conflict: Effects on Parental Emotional Unavailability and Inconsistent
Discipline. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(2), 227-238. 61
Talbot, J. A., & McHale, J. P. (2004). Individual Parental Adjustment Moderates the
Relationship Between Marital and Coparenting Quality. Journal of Adult Development,
11(3), 191-205.
Van Egeren, L. A., & Hawkins, D. P. (2004). Coming to Terms With Coparenting: Implications
of Definition and Measurement. Journal of Adult Development, 11(3), 165-178.
Westerman, M. A., & Massoff, M. (2001). Triadic Coordination: An Observational Method for
Examining Whether Children Are “Caught in the Middle” of Interparental Discord.
Family Process, 40(4), 479-493.
f 62
Table 1. Demographics
Demographic Mothers Fathers Couple ______
Age 21-25 24% 18% - 26-30 53% 43% - 31-35 18% 29% - 36-40 4% 7% - 41-45 1% 2% -
Education Partial high school (10th-11th grade) 0.0% 1.7% - High school graduation 6.2% 10.1% - Partial college/post high school training 22.5% 28.1% - Standard college graduation 44.9% 42.1% - Graduate/professional degree 26.4% 18% -
Average income2 Less than $25,000 - - 3.1% $25,001-50,000 - - 23.3% $50,001-75,000 - - 31.9% $75,001-100,000 - - 25.2% $100,001-130,000 - - 11.6% More than $130,000 - - 4.9%
Couple ethnicity Both Caucasian - - 79.8% One or both parents minority - - 20.2%
Parent works outside home at Time 4 No 23.8% 5.5% - Yes 76.2% 94.5% -
Infant gender Male - - 48% Female - - 52%
2 Average income not reported for one family
63
Table 1. Demographics – continued
Demographic Mothers Fathers Couple ______
Religious affiliation3 Christian/Protestant 31.5% 31.5% - Christian/Catholic 26% 27% - Non-denominational Christian 34.5% 28.1% - Other 2.8% 5.6% - Muslim 0.0% 0.6% - Jewish 0.6% 0.6% - None 4.5% 6.7% -
Frequency of prayer More than once per day 31.3% 26.2% - Once a day 20.7% 17.1% - A few times a week 20.7% 14% - Once a week 3% 6.1% - A few times a month 9.1% 9.8% - Once a month 3% 5.5% - Less than once a month 5.5% 7.9% Never 6.7% 13.4%
Frequency of church attendance 15.2% 11.6% - Several times a week 11.6% 26.8% - Every week 29.9% 6.1% - 2-3 times per month About once per month 11% 15.9% - Several times a year 6.1% 15.2% - About once or twice a year 14% 4.9% - Less than once per year 3.7% 11% - Never 8.5% 8.5% -
3 Mother religious affiliation not reported for one subject Sanctification of Parenting 64
Table 2. Psychometric properties of measures
Mother’s Report Father’s Report
Measure Range M SD α Range M SD α
Sanctification of Parenting 25-140 113.13 24.25 0.97 20-140 108.32 25.77 0.97
Solidarity between Parents 28-50 41.18 4.00 0.75 21-49 40.16 4.14 0.79
Support from Spouse 10-25 21.46 2.42 0.75 9-25 20.46 2.75 0.81
Undermining by Spouse 6-17 7.21 2.13 0.81 6-21 8.90 3.03 0.79
Conflict 2-11 5.74 2.15 0.78 2-11 5.76 1.98 0.74
Love 37-90 80.26 8.77 0.90 47-90 77.64 8.97 0.86
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Sanctification of Parenting 65
Table 3. Bivariate correlations between sanctification of parenting, solidarity between parents, support from spouse, undermining by spouse, love, conflict, religious service attendance, and prayer for mothers and fathers
Solidarity Support Religious Sanctification between from Undermining Service of Parenting Parents Spouse by Spouse Love Conflict Attendance Prayer
1) Sanctification 0.56*** 0.22** 0.11 -0.15 0.20** 0.17* 0.44*** 0.67*** of Parenting
2) Solidarity 0.28*** 0.42*** 0.67*** -0.55*** 0.54*** -0.03 0.11 0.21** between Parents
3) Support 0.08 0.60*** 0.39*** -0.69*** 0.53*** -0.12 0.03 0.12 from Spouse
4) Undermining -0.01 -0.42*** -0.54*** 0.32*** -0.58*** 0.11 -0.06 -0.13 by Spouse
5) Love 0.14 0.46*** 0.43*** -0.35*** 0.42*** -0.13 0.00 0.20**
6) Conflict 0.20** -0.14 -0.28*** 0.33*** -0.24** 0.48*** 0.09 0.07
7) Religious Service 0.46*** 0.10 0.13 -0.06 0.03 0.06 0.91*** 0.53*** Attendance
8) Prayer 0.70*** 0.17* 0.15 -0.03 0.15 0.19* 0.63*** 0.56***
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Notes: Correlations for paternal reports on variables are located in upper right hand triangle and correlations for mother reports are located in lower left hand triangle. Correlations between spouses are in italics and located on the diagonal. Sanctification of Parenting 66
Table 4. Hierarchical regression analyses on unique effects of sanctification of parenting and the interaction of sanctification of parenting and conflict
Parent Self-Reports Coparenting Coparenting Coparenting Solidarity Support from Partner Undermining by Partner
Predictor Variables ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β MOTHERS
Step 1 0.120*** 0.101*** 0.115*** Sanctification of Parenting 0.32*** 0.14 -0.08 Conflict -0.21** -0.31*** 0.35***
Step 2 0.012 *** 0.005 0.011 Sanctification of Parenting 0.07 -0.02 0.16 Conflict -0.75* -0.67 0.85* Sanct X Conflict 0.65 0.43 -0.61
FATHERS
Step 1 0.052* 0.031 0.204 Dad age -0.01 -0.02 0.05 Sanctification of Parenting 0.23** 0.13 -0.16* Conflict -0.07 -0.14 0.15
Step 2 0.005 0.000 0.003 Dad age -0.00 -0.02 0.05 Sanctification of Parenting 0.04 0.07 -0.01 Conflict -0.38 -0.24 0.40 Sanct X Conflict 0.38 0.11 -0.32
p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Sanctification of Parenting 67
Table 5. Hierarchical regression analyses on unique effects of sanctification of parenting and the interaction of sanctification of parenting and love
Parent Self-Reports Coparenting Coparenting Coparenting Solidarity Support from Partner Undermining by Partner
Predictor Variables ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β
MOTHERS
Step 1 0.263*** 0.185*** 0.126*** Sanctification of Parenting 0.22** 0.02 0.04 Love 0.43*** 0.43*** -0.36***
Step 2 0.010 0.019 0.030 Sanctification -0.93 -1.53 2.01* Love -0.10 -0.30 0.56 Sanct X Love 1.33 1.80 -2.29*
FATHERS
Step 1 0.310*** 0.284*** 0.336*** Dad age 0.05 0.05 -0.03 Sanctification of Parenting 0.12 0.01 -0.04 Love 0.53*** 0.53*** -0.57***
Step 2 0.002 0.001 0.000 Dad age 0.05 0.05 -0.03 Sanctification of Parenting -0.26 -0.30 0.04 Love 0.36 0.39 -0.54* Sanct X Love 0.44 0.37 -0.09
p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Sanctification of Parenting 68
Figure 1. Interaction of Sanctification and Conflict on Mothers’ Undermining
9
8.5
8
7.5 High 7 Sanctification
Low 6.5 Sanctification 6
5.5
5
High Love Low Love
Sanctification of Parenting 69
Appendix A. Recruitment Materials
I. Child Birth Class Announcement Script
Hello, my name is ______. I am a member of BGSU research team who is looking for married couples who are having their first child and are willing to share with us their story of pregnancy, having a baby, and becoming parents. We’d like to learn about your thoughts and feelings about this major life transition. We will follow you for about 15 months to discover how you and your partner deal with this experience spirituality, physically, mentally and emotionally, and how your reactions impact your relationship, parenting and child. We’d come to your home once during your pregnancy, and three times during your child’s first year, around 3 months, around 6 months, and around 12 months. Each visit would last about 2.5-3 hours. You would fill out surveys and be videotaped talking to your partner and interacting with your baby. The information you share will help society better understand how parents experience pregnancy, the birth a child, and becoming a parent. We are especially excited because this is the first study of its kind that looks carefully if and how religion and/or spirituality may or may not be relevant to this major life transition. Your participation in this study will be keep strictly confidential and private. This means that only the research team conducting this study will know who you are. Your identity will be protected throughout the study and will not be revealed in any papers or publications from this project. The risks to you are no greater than those normally encountered in everyday life. As a token of appreciation for your time and effort for letting us come to your home and participating for 2-3 hours at each visit, you would receive a gift card worth between $75 to $125 at each visit. The gift card for the 1st visit would be $75, the 2nd visit would be $100, the 3rd visit would be $100, and the 4th visit would be $125. We would like you to plan to participate in all four visits. If you participated in all four visits you would earn a total of $400 in gift cards. You could select your gift cards from one of several major retailers, such as Babies R Us, Krogers, Meijers, and Walmart. Please note that the forth visit when your baby is a year old would actually involve two separate times that we come to your home. If you would like to learn more about the project, please fill out this 1 page form. It asks you for your name, address, phone & email address. It also asks information to make sure you are eligible to participate in the study. In particular, we are looking for married couples who are having their first child, who live together, who talk to each other using English, who are both the biological parents of the woman’s pregnancy, live within 45 miles of Bowling Green, and are not planning to move within the next two years. To show our appreciation of filling out this form, you will receive at $10 phone card today for providing this information. We will call you later to provide more details and answer questions. You will NOT be obliged to participate in this study when you are called.
Any questions?
Sanctification of Parenting 70
II. Flyer
Seeking Married Couples to Share their Story of Becoming First-Time Parents New Arrivals-Passage to Parenthood Study, BGSU
What A BGSU research team is looking for married couples who are willing to share their story of marriage, pregnancy, and becoming parents. We will follow you for about 15 months to discover how you and your spouse deal with the passage to parenthood spirituality, physically, mentally and emotionally, and how your reactions impact your relationship, parenting and child.
Where & When We’d come to your home once during your pregnancy, and three times during your child’s first year - around 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Each visit would last 2.5 to 3 hours. You would fill out surveys and be videotaped talking to your partner and interacting with your baby.
Why The information you share will help society better understand how parents experience pregnancy, the birth a child, and becoming a parent. The risks to you are no greater than those normally encountered in everyday life.
Gifts Certificates - total of $400 As a token of appreciation for your time and effort, each couple will select a gift certificate from one of several stores (e.g., Babies R Us, Krogers, Meijers) at each home visit. 1st visit = $75 2nd visit = $100 3rd visit = $100 4th visit = $125
Receive $10 Phone Card NOW if you are willing to find out more To learn more about this project, please fill out this 1 page form - asks for your name, address, phone & email address. You will receive a $10 phone card today for providing this information. We will call you later to provide more details and answer questions. You will NOT be obliged to participate in this study when you are called.
Our contact information: Phone: 419-372-BABY(2229) Toll Free: 1-877-702-BABY(2229) E-mail: [email protected]
Sanctification of Parenting 71
III. Screening Form
Screening Form - only one per couple needs to be completed (please print) 04.12.06 Are you & the other parent of this child married? Yes ___No ___ Do you & the other parent of this child live together? Yes ___No ___ If not married, how long have you been living together? ______Do you & the other parent of this child use English to talk to each other? Yes ___No ___ Do you currently live within 45 miles of Bowling Green? Yes ___ No ___ If yes, do you plan to continue living within 60 miles of BG for next 2 years? Yes ___ No ___ Are you & your current partner/spouse both the biological parents for this pregnancy? Yes ___ No ___ Is this child the mother’s first biological child? Yes ___ No ___ Is this child the father’s first child biological child? Yes ___ No ___ Name of Child’s Mother: ______Name of Child’s Father: ______Parents’ Address: ______Mother daytime phone: Mother evening phone: ______Mother cell phone: ______Mother email: ______Father daytime phone: Father evening phone: ______Father’s cell phone: ______Father email: ______What date is baby due? ______Is the mother pregnant with more than one baby? No Yes Don’t know Have there been any complications with the pregnancy? No Yes -please describe what these complications have been
MOM DAD Do you believe in God (or some Divine/Higher Power)? Yes No Yes No What level of education have you completed? ______What is your occupation? ______How would you describe you and your partner’s ethnicity? (Please mark M for mom, D for dad) ____Caucasian/Euro-American ____Asian American ____African American ____Hispanic or Latino ____Multi-racial/ethnic (specify) ______Other (specify) ______
To what extent does mother consider herself a religious person? Is she... (check one) Very Religious ___ Moderately Religious ___ Slightly Religious ____ Not Religious at All ____ To what extent does mother consider herself a spiritual person? Is she... (check one) Very Spiritual ____ Moderately Spiritual ___ Slightly Spiritual ___ Not Spiritual at All ____ To what extent does father consider himself a religious person? Is he... (check one) Very Religious ___ Moderately Religious ___ Slightly Religious ____ Not Religious at All ____ To what extent does father consider himself a spiritual person? Is he... (check one) Very Spiritual ____ Moderately Spiritual ___ Slightly Spiritual ___ Not Spiritual at All ____ Who completed this questionnaire: Mother & Father together ___ Mother ____ Father _____ Referred by:
4-12-06
Sanctification of Parenting 72
Appendix B. Consent Forms
Sanctification of Parenting 73
Sanctification of Parenting 74
Appendix C. Paper and Pencil Instruments
I. Sanctification Measures
YOUR RELIGIOUS / SPIRITUAL VIEWS AND BECOMING A PARENT
Some of the following questions use the word "God." Different people use different terms for God, such as "Higher Power," "Divine Spirit," "Spiritual Force," "Holy Spirit," "Yahweh," "Allah,", "Buddha”, or Goddess. Please feel free to substitute your own word for God when answering any of the questions that follow. Also, some people do not believe in God. If this is the case for you, please feel free to choose the "strongly disagree" response when needed. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the Strongly Strongly Neutral following statements. Disagree Agree
1. My baby seems like a miracle to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Being a mother feels like a deeply spiritual experience. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Being a mother is part of a larger spiritual plan for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. My relationship with my child is holy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Being the mother of my baby is sacred to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Being a mother puts me in touch with the deepest mysteries of life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. My relationship with my baby reveals the deepest truths of life to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In my relationship with my baby I experience a connection with something 8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 greater than myself.
When I am with my baby, there are moments when time stands still and I 9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 feel I am part of something eternal.
At moments, being a mother makes me very aware of a creative power 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 beyond us.
1. God played a role in my baby coming into my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I sense God's presence in my relationship with my baby. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I experience God through being a mother. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. God lives through my relationship with my baby. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Being a mother is a reflection of God's will for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. God has been a guiding force in my relationship with my baby. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. In mysterious ways, God touches my relationship with my baby. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. I feel God at work in my relationship with my baby. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
There are moments when I feel a strong connection with God by being a 9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 mother.
0. I see God’s handiwork in my baby. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sanctification of Parenting 75
II. Coparenting Measures
Please rate each question on a scale from Strongly Not Strongly “1- strongly disagree” to “5 –strongly agree”. Disagree Disagree Sure Agree Agree
(SOLIDARITY)
1. Parenting has brought my spouse and me closer together. 1 2 3 4 5
3. After my spouse and I have handled a difficult situation with our 1 2 3 4 5 child, we discuss it and try to figure out what we could have done better.
5. My spouse and I often talk together about what is best for our 1 2 3 4 5 child.
8. My spouse and I feel as though we are growing and maturing 1 2 3 4 5 together through our experiences as parents.
10. Having a child has helped me to see positive qualities in my 1 2 3 4 5 spouse that I never noticed before.
13. My spouse and I agree on how much time we should spend with 1 2 3 4 5 our child.
14. My spouse and I like to imagine together what our child will be 1 2 3 4 5 like when he/she grows up.
17. My spouse and I agree on our ideas, guidelines, and rules for 1 2 3 4 5 raising our child.
19. Parenting has given my spouse and me a focus for the future. 1 2 3 4 5
21. My spouse and I do not agree on when to punish and how to 1 2 3 4 5 punish.
(SUPPORT)
2. My spouse appreciates how hard I work at being a good parent. 1 2 3 4 5
4. My spouse thinks I am a bad influence on our child. 1 2 3 4 5
6. My spouse does not trust my abilities as a parent. 1 2 3 4 5
7. My spouse makes me feel that I am the best possible parent for 1 2 3 4 5 our child.
20. When I feel at my wits end as a parent, my spouse gives me the 1 2 3 4 5 extra support I need.
(UNDERMINING)
9. I feel too ashamed about my mistakes with my child to talk them 1 2 3 4 5 over with my spouse.
11. My spouse backs me up as a parent. 1 2 3 4 5
12. I am afraid of my spouse’s anger when I do something wrong 1 2 3 4 5 with our child.
15. As a parent, I cannot seem to do anything right in my spouse’s 1 2 3 4 5 eyes.
16. When I make a mistake with our child, I can talk it over with 1 2 3 4 5 my spouse.
18. My spouse makes me look like the “bad person” in the eyes of 1 2 3 4 5 our child.
Sanctification of Parenting 76
III. Frequency of Conflict Measures
Please place a check mark inside the box that corresponds to what is true for you. 1. How often do you and your spouse have minor disagreements (e.g., “spats,” getting on each other’s nerves)? ? Once a year or less ? Every 4-6 months ? Every 2-3 months ? Once or twice a month ? Once or twice a week ? Just about every day
2. How often do you and your spouse have major disagreements (e.g., big fights, “blow-ups”)? ? Once a year or less ? Every 4-6 months ? Every 2-3 months ? Once or twice a month ? Once or twice a week ? Just about every day
Sanctification of Parenting 77
IV. Love
Not Very
at all Much To what extent do you have a sense of “belonging” or 1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 “connectedness” to your spouse? 2. How much do you feel you give to this relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
How confused are you about your feelings toward your 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 spouse?
4. To what extent do you love your spouse at this stage? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
How much do you think or worry about losing some of your 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 independence by being involved with your spouse?
To what extent do you feel that the things that happen to 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 your spouse also affect or are important to you?
To what extent do you feel that your relationship is special 7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 compared with others you have been in?
How ambivalent or unsure are you about continuing in the 8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 relationship with your spouse?
9. How committed do you feel toward your spouse? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0. How close do you feel toward your spouse? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
To what extent do you feel that your spouse demands or . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 requires too much of your time and attention? . How much do you need your spouse at this stage? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
To what extent do you feel “trapped” or pressured to 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 continue in the relationship?
4. How sexually intimate are you with your spouse? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5. How attached do you feel to your spouse? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I feel as if I am getting more than I am giving in this 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 relationship.
7. When it comes to finding a spouse, I feel like I lucked out. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I think I am getting a better deal in this marriage than my 8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 spouse.
9. I am amazed by how fortunate I am to be with my spouse. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0. I am very grateful that my spouse chose to marry me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Sanctification of Parenting 78
V. Demographics
Your age: ____ years
What is your highest educational background? ___Less than 7 years ___Junior high school ___Partial high school (10th-11th grade) ___High school graduation ___Partial college/post high school training (1 year or more) ___Standard college graduation ___Graduate/professional degree
What is your approximate, combined annual, gross household income? ____less than $25,000 ____$50,001-75,000 ____$100,001-130,000 ____$25,001-50,000 ____$75,001-100,000 ____more than $130,000
How would you describe your ethnicity? ____Caucasian/Euro-American ____Asian American ____Multi-racial/ethnic ____African American ____Hispanic or Latino ____Other
Are you currently working outside the home for pay in any job? ____Yes ____No
What is your religious preference? _____ Christian/Protestant _____ Muslim _____ Christian/Catholic _____ Jewish _____ Non-denominational Christian _____ None _____ Other (specify): ______
How often do you attend religious services? _____ Several times a week _____ 2-3 times per month _____ About once or twice a year _____ Every week _____ About once per month _____ Less than once per year _____ Several times a year _____ Never
How often do you pray privately in places other than church or synagogue or temple? _____ More than once per day _____ Once a week _____ Less than once a month _____ Once a day _____ A few times a month _____ Never _____ A few times a week _____ Once a month