National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Marriage and Family.
http://www.jstor.org
Pemberton, Jean Gerard and Brian K. Barber
Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Feb., 1998), pp. 119-132 Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/353446 Accessed: 24-05-2015 22:24 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
University of Tennessee
BRIAN K. BARBER Brigham Young University*
Interparental Conflict Styles and Youth Problem Behaviors: A Two-Sample Replication Study
We examine the association between inter- parental conflict and youth internalizing and ex- ternalizing problem behaviors. Youth perceptions of three interparental conflict variables are stud- ied: frequency of disagreement, parents' use of an overt conflict style, and parents' use of a covert conflict style. Data are from two samples of youth from Tennessee and Utah. Interparental conflict variables account for over 20% of the variance in youth problem behaviors, and hostile conflict styles are more strongly associated with problem behavior than is the frequency of disagreement.
The results are fairly consistent for sons and daughters, preadolescent and early adolescent youth, youth in nondivorced and divorced (mother-custody) families, poor and less-poor youth, and Mormon and non-Mormon youth.
This study examines the proposition that hostile ways of expressing interparental disagreement are associated with youth internalizing and external- izing problem behaviors. We examine two hy- potheses. First, we test the hypothesis that hostile
College of Human Ecology, Department of Child and Family Stud- ies, University of Tennessee, 1215 West Cumberland Avenue, Room 115, Knoxville, TN 37996 ([email protected]).
*Department of Sociaology and the Center for Studies of the Fami- ly, Brigham Young University, 930 SWKT, Provo, UT 84602.
Key Words: divorce, marital conflict, problem behaviors, youth adjustment.
conflict styles are more strongly related to youth problem behavior than is the frequency of inter- parental disagreement. Second, we examine the idea that the effects of hostile interparental con- flict styles on youth problem behavior may be specialized. Specifically, we test the hypothesis that parents' use of an overt conflict style places youth at risk for greater externalizing problems, whereas the use of a covert conflict style places youth at risk for greater internalizing problems. In an attempt to test these hypotheses adequately, we examine youth who took part in studies in two different sections of the country, and we deter- mine whether the findings fit equally well for sons and daughters, pre- and early adolescent youth, youth in nondivorced and divorced (mother-custody) families, and poor and less-poor youth.
Historically, most researchers have adopted a fairly global approach to examining the connec- tions between marital functioning and child out- comes. This global perspective is best illustrated by conceptualizing marital functioning as includ- ing both satisfaction and frequency of conflict. As the literature developed, this global approach was criticized because several researchers began find- ing that interparental conflict (often referred to as marital conflict) had a stronger effect on youth outcomes than did global marital satisfaction (Cummings, Davies, & Simpson, 1994; Jouriles, Barling, & O'Leary, 1987; Jouriles, Murphy, et al., 1991; Katz & Gottman, 1993). Based on this
Journal of Marriage and the Family 60 (February 1998): 119-132 119
finding, we focus on interparental conflict, rather than marital satisfaction, in this study.
Recently, researchers have suggested that the concept of interparental conflict is multidimen- sional (Cummings & Davies, 1994; Davies &
Cummings, 1994; Grych & Fincham, 1990). Two important dimensions are the frequency of dis- agreement and the mode of expression used to ad- dress the conflict (Buehler et al., 1997; Crohan, 1996). Frequency of disagreement is important to examine because it often is studied in relation to youth adjustment, and, therefore, we have an ac- cumulated body of evidence into which we can integrate our findings. More importantly, dis- agreement or oppositional interests form the con- textual basis for other conflict-related variables (i.e., mode of expression, degree of resolution).
In a recent meta-analytic review of the litera- ture on interparental conflict and youth problem behavior, Buehler et al. (1997) found that the av- erage effect size between frequency of disagree- ment between parents and youth total problem be- haviors was .19 (SD = .32; p < .01; number of ef- fects = 32).
Mode of expression or conflict style is impor- tant to study because there is increasing specula- tion that hostile ways of expressing interparental conflict place youth at greater risk than the mere experience of disagreements between parents (Camara & Resnick, 1988; Jenkins & Smith, 1991). We define conflict style as behaviors, af- fect, or strategies used to express disagreements or oppositional interests between parents.
Of the studies examined in the Buehler et al.
(1997) meta-analysis, only two included assess- ments of both frequency of disagreement and at least one hostile conflict style. The results from both of these studies suggest that frequency of disagreement is unrelated to youth problem be- havior when hostile modes of expressions are controlled (Buehler & Trotter, 1990; Jenkins &
Smith, 1991). This provides empirical support for the first hypothesis examined in the study pre- sented here.
The literature points to at least two hostile conflict styles: overt (physical or verbal or both) and covert (Buehler et al., 1997; Camara &
Resnick, 1988; Jenkins & Smith, 1991). An overt style is hostile behaviors and affect that indicate direct manifestations of negative connections be- tween parents. Identifying characteristics include belligerence, contempt, derision, screaming, in- sulting, slapping, threatening, and hitting.
Buehler, Anthony, and colleagues reported that
the average effect size for the association between parents' use of an overt conflict style and youth problem behavior was .35 (SD = .36; p < .01;
number of effects = 126). This average effect was greater statistically than the one for frequency of disagreement and youth problem behavior (.19).
A covert conflict style is hostile behaviors and affect that reflect passive-aggressive ways of managing conflict between parents (Buehler &
Trotter, 1990). Conceptually, we suggest two components: triangling children and global covert behaviors. Triangling includes trying to get the child to side with one parent, scapegoating the child, using the child to get information about the other parent when one does not want to ask the other parent directly, having the child carry mes- sages to the other parent because one does not want to relay the information, denigrating the other parent in the presence of the child when the other parent is not present, and denigrating the other parent to the child in the presence of the other parent but acting as though the other parent is not present. Global covert indicators include re- sentment, being upset, or unspoken tensions man- ifested between parents by subtle, indirect behav- iors and affect that do not involve the children.
Buehler et al. (1997) reported that the average effect size for the association between parents' use of a covert conflict style and youth problem behavior was .28 (SD = .38; p < .01; number of effects = 24). This was not statistically different from the average effect size for overt conflict style and youth problem behavior (.19). Covert conflict style has been studied less frequently than overt conflict style. Additional research on parents' use of a covert conflict style is needed so that its effects on child adjustment can be better understood (Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1991; Emery, 1982; Forehand & McCombs, 1989).
The results from the meta-analysis by Buehler and colleagues provide empirical support for the idea that hostile interparental conflict styles are associated with youth problem behavior. Howev- er, there is little research that concurrently exam- ines the influences of the frequency of disagree- ment, overt conflict style, and covert conflict style. We found only one study that has included measures of each. This study, conducted in Britain, examined covert processes in the form of general tension, rather than triangling children (Jenkins & Smith, 1991). In addition, a careful testing of this hypothesis has been limited in past studies by the use of measures of interparental
conflict that aggregated aspects of each construct (e.g., the O'Leary Porter scale). This aggregation barred the testing of differential effects of the conflict variables. Without careful and systematic examination of possible differential effects, our understanding of the association between inter- parental conflict and youth problem behavior is limited.
In addition to distinguishing between inter- parental disagreement and hostile conflict styles, we extend this literature by examining the idea that the effects of interparental conflict styles on youth problem behaviors may be specialized (Hy- pothesis 2). We were unable to find any study that could justify this idea empirically because so few studies include measures of both overt and covert conflict strategies. Also, to test this idea, the pre- vious analyses would need to have included a mechanism to control for comorbidity between internalizing and externalizing problems because of the moderate to strong correlations often found between the two sets of problem behaviors.
However, theoretically two explanations may be operative: modeling and emotional arousal (Jouriles, Farris, & McDonald, 1991). Modeling may explain specialized effects because the be- haviors associated with overt and covert inter- parental conflict styles share defining characteris- tics with externalizing and internalizing problems, respectively. Both an overt conflict style and youth externalizing behavior are connected to acts of physical aggression or verbal acts of aggres- sion. Children who are regularly exposed to an overt conflict style between parents may view ag- gression, either verbal or physical, as a viable, le- gitimate, and appropriate coping mechanism for managing the conflict (Amato, 1993; Emery, 1982; Grych & Fincham, 1990; Jouriles et al., 1991).
Both a covert conflict style and youth internal- izing problems are connected to feelings of anxi- ety, are fairly passive techniques, have an indirect or suppressed quality, and may reflect the absence of a strong core sense of self. A child who is em- bedded in a family system where the primary con- flict style is covert may learn that triangling, re- sentment, and unspoken tension are viable and appropriate ways of coping with stressful situa- tions. However, when these children are exposed to covert interparental conflict, they may feel anx- ious, confused, and helpless and may internalize these feelings, possibly leading to withdrawal, de- pression, or somatic problems over time.
A second explanation for these specialized ef- fects centers around children's responses to emo- tional arousal. Children who witness hostile inter- parental conflict are vulnerable to negative emo- tional arousal (Cummings, Ballard, & El-Sheikh,
1991; Grych & Fincham, 1993).
Exposure to overt interparental conflict may create anger and fear in children, which can exac- erbate aggression toward siblings and peers.
Youth also may act out in an attempt to create more certainty or continuity in an unpredictable, frightening environment (Wahler, 1994).
Exposure to covert conflict may create feel- ings of confusion and anxiety for youth who find themselves inducted into conflict they do not wish to be part of and from which it is difficult to free themselves. These youth may try to create a safe environment for themselves by turning their feelings inward (Cummings & Davies, 1994).
Over time, this pattern of coping with emotional arousal may place youth at risk for internalizing problems by depressing mood, intruding on the development of personal boundaries, or encourag- ing the development of debilitating parent-child alliances.
Although most reviewers note that past empir- ical findings are inconsistent, many still believe that the association between interparental conflict and youth problem behaviors may be influenced by the youth's sex and age, the parent's marital status, or the broad economic conditions of the family (Amato, 1993; Cummings & Davies,
1994; Emery, 1982). Accordingly, we examine the hypotheses tested in this study for possible differences across youth with varying characteris- tics. It is our belief that examining the moderating effects of youth sex, youth age, parent's marital status, and family economic hardship provides a more valid test of the hypotheses than if we were to treat the findings as applicable to all youth. In addition, it is important to examine the data for possible interactions among the three conflict variables. Although this issue has not been ad- dressed in the literature, it seems plausible that, for example, the frequency of interparental con- flict may be associated with youth problem be- havior only when overt hostility is high.
These hypotheses are examined in two sam- ples of youth. The first sample was recruited from youth attending school in Knox County, Ten- nessee. The second sample was recruited from youth attending school in Ogden, Utah. These sites were selected because research on socializa-
tion processes and youth adjustment is being con- ducted at universities within 60 miles.
THE KNOX COUNTY SITE Sampling
Criteria and procedures. Youth in grades 6-8
were recruited in Knox County because we were interested in how interparental conflict is associ- ated with youth problem behavior during the tran- sition to adolescence. We also included youth with married parents (and the youth was the bio- logical or adopted child) and divorced parents (mother in residence), so that the moderating ef- fects of the parent's marital status could be exam- ined.
The research design was cross-sectional; the youth were the primary reporters of conflict vari- ables and youth problem behavior. Specific schools were selected to ensure diversity of so- cioeconomic background. A little over half of the homeroom teachers were willing to participate.
Students in each school were randomly assigned to homerooms, reducing many sources of possible teacher selection bias. Permission forms were sent home with each youth, and they received a small toy (e.g., a finger puppet) for returning the form, regardless of a parent's decision about par- ticipation. Permission forms were mailed to par- ents of youth who did not return the form (signed or unsigned). Parental consent was received for 75% of the invited youth.
Sample characteristics. The sample consisted of 337 youth, aged 10-15 (M = 12.40, SD = .99).
There were 190 females (56%) and 147 males (44%). Based on reports from 255 (76%) of the youth, the average level of formal education at- tained by mothers and fathers was between high school and some college. Youth who did not an- swer this question told us they did not know the level of their parent's education. Eighty-seven percent reported married parents. Eighty-five per- cent reported having their own bedroom. Eighty- seven percent of the youth paid the full price for their school lunch, 3% received a partial subsidy, and 10% received free lunch.
We examined the representativeness of this sample by comparing these average characteris- tics with data provided from the 1989 and 1990 census on families and individuals living in Knox County (Slater & Hall, 1996; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996). In 1990, 75% of individuals aged
25 and older had graduated from high school.
About 24% had a bachelor's degree. In 1990, 13% of the families were headed by a female. The county records did not break this down by marital status, but, of course, the percentage of divorced or separated female heads would be smaller than 13%. Accordingly, the sample for this part of the study slightly overrepresents divorced families in which the mother has custody. In 1989, 10% of all families had incomes below the poverty line.
This percentage is close to the percentage of fam- ilies in this sample whose children received free school lunch.
Data Collection Procedures
The youth completed a questionnaire in the morn- ing during school. They were given as much time as they needed to complete the survey, and sever- al trained assistants were available to answer questions. After completion, students were treated to a pizza party as a reward for participation.
Measurement
Externalizing and internalizing problem behav-
iors. Youth reports of problem behaviors were measured using the Child Behavior Checklist- Youth Self-Report (CBC-YSR, Achenbach, 1991). This measure consists of 112 statements that may describe the youth within the past 6 months. The response format is not true (0),
somewhat or sometimes true (1), and very true oroften true (2). Of these 112 items, 30 were used to measure externalizing problems (Cronbach's alpha = .90), and 31 were used to measure inter- nalizing problems (alpha = .92). Examples of ex- ternalizing items are: "I lie or cheat," "I run away from home," "I disobey at school," and "I tease others a lot." Examples of internalizing items are:
"I have aches or pains (other than headaches)," "I feel worthless or inferior," "I am unhappy, sad, or depressed," and "I worry a lot." There is exten- sive evidence of both the reliability and the valid- ity of this measure, and it is the most commonly used assessment of children's behavior problems (Achenbach, 1991). However, the externalizing and internalizing scores often are highly correlat- ed (and are in this sample). Thus, precautions must be taken if specialized predictors of broad- band problems are examined.
Frequency of interparental disagreement. Youth
reported the frequency of interparental disagree-
ment in 12 areas (Ahrons, 1983). The stem for the 12 items stated that "moms and dads often dis- agree about many things in family life. How often do your parents disagree about each of these things?" Youth with divorced parents were asked to think about their divorced parents during the recent past. Sample items of interparental dis- agreement are: "your (or one of your sibling's) behavior at home," "your (or one of your sib- ling's) dress or grooming," "your dad's duties at home." The response format ranged from never (1) to very often (4).
Frequency of use of an overt conflict style. Youth reported the frequency of use of an overt inter- parental conflict style using six items written for this study. The survey asked the youth to report how often their parents did any of these things in front of them (so they could see or hear). Exam- ples of items are: "call each other names," "tell each other to shut up," and "threaten each other."
The response format ranged from never (1) to very often (4).
Frequency of use of a covert conflict style. Youth reported the frequency of use of a covert inter- parental conflict using eight items, some written for this study and some adapted from Grych, Seid, and Fincham (1992). Examples of items are:
"How often does one of your parents try to get you to side with one of them?" "How often do you feel torn between your parents?" "How often does one of your parents send a message to the other one through you because they don't want to talk to the other parent?" The response format ranged from never (1) to very often (4).
Factor analysis. We factor-analyzed the 26 items using maximum likelihood extraction with an oblique rotation. Most of the items loaded on three factors that clearly represent overt conflict style, frequency of interparental disagreement, and covert conflict style. (Statistical data can be obtained from the first author.) One overt and two covert items did not fit well and were excluded.
All of the other items had primary loadings of at least .45, and the difference between the primary and secondary factor loadings was at least .20.
These three factors accounted for 46% of the vari- ance in the correlation matrix. Cronbach alphas for these scales were .89 for disagreement, .87 for overt conflict style, and .82 for covert conflict style. The zero-order correlation between inter- parental disagreement and overt conflict style was .35 (p < .01); between disagreement and covert
conflict style, .43 (p < .01); and between overt conflict style and covert conflict style, .45 (p <
.01). This means that the amount of shared vari- ance between the conflict-oriented constructs ranged from 12% to 20% and provided evidence of adequate discriminant validity. (Descriptive statistics, correlations, and factor loadings are available from first author.)
THE OGDEN SITE Sampling
Criteria and procedures. Youth in grades 5 and 8 were recruited at the Ogden site to participate in a study that focused on family interaction; person- ality; youth behavior; and peer, school, and neighborhood experiences. A stratified random sampling procedure was used to select class- rooms. Hispanic American youth were oversam- pled. All of the youth in the selected classrooms took home permission forms. The parental per- mission rate was 90%, providing evidence of minimal bias due to subject selectivity.
There were 935 youth in the Ogden sample.
For the study presented here, this sample was re- duced to 563 by restricting the sample to youth who lived either with both biological or adoptive parents or with their divorced or separated moth- ers. We restricted the sample to provide data on youth who lived in family structures similar to those in the Knox County study. This reduced the chance of finding differences between the two groups that could be attributed to living in a step- family.
Sample characteristics. The 563 youth were aged 9-15 (M = 12.24, SD = 1.58). There were 283 fe- males (50%) and 280 males. In terms of ethnic origin, 424 youth (75%) were European Ameri- can, 67 (12%) were Hispanic American, and the remaining 13% represented a mix of other ethnic groups. Based on reports from 60% of the youth, the average level of formal education attained by mothers and fathers was between some college, trade, or vocational school and a bachelor's de- gree. Eighty percent reported married parents. In terms of religious preference, 54% of the youth were Mormon, 15% were Catholic, 4% were Protestant, .4% were Jewish, 10% were "other,"
and 18% reported "no preference." Youth reports of perceived economic well-being indicated that 1% believed they were a lot poorer than most families they knew, 12% believed they were a lit-
tie poorer, 67% believed they were about the same as other families, 17% believed they were a little richer, and 2% believed they were a lot rich- er.
We examined the representativeness of this saneple by comparing these average characteris- tics with data provided from the 1989 and 1990 census on families and individuals living in Ogden, Utah (Slater & Hall, 1996; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996). In 1990, 12% of the residents of Ogden were Hispanic American. About 75% of the individuals who were 25 years old and older were high school graduates, and 16% had bache- lor's degrees. About 17% of the families were headed by a female, with no spouse present. In 1989, 13% of the families had incomes below the poverty line. Economic hardship in this sample was measured using youth subjective reports of economic well-being, and the fact that 14% of the youth are labeled "poor" (categories 1 and 2 of the five-category measure) shows a high degree of convergence between the two different mea- sures of economic hardship.
Data Collection Procedures
Youth completed a questionnaire during school.
They were given as much time as they needed to complete the survey and were treated to a pizza party when finished.
Measurement
The stem and response format for each of the fol- lowing measures was similar to that used in the Knox County study.
Externalizing and internalizing problem behav- iors. Youth report of problem behavior was mea- sured using a condensed version of the CBC-YSR (Achenbach, 1991). For the Ogden sample, the externalizing scale consisted of 29 items (Cronbach's alpha = .93), and the internal- izing scale consisted of 22 items (alpha = .93).
Frequency of interparental disagreement. Al- though included in the survey instrument, inter- parental conflict was not a central construct in the Ogden project. Consequently, the three conflict- related measures were shorter in the Ogden study than in the Knox County study. Youth reported the frequency of interparental disagreement in five areas, rather than 12 (Ahrons, 1983). The correlation between the scale used in the Ogden
study (five items) and that used in the Knox County study (12 items) was .92 (p < .01), indi- cating that the measurement quality of the scale used in the Ogden study was not compromised by its brevity.
Frequency of use of an overt conflict style. Youth reported the frequency of use of an overt inter- parental conflict style using five of the six items written for the Knox County study. The correla- tion between the items used in the Ogden study (five items) and those used in the Knox County study (six items) was .99 (p < .01).
Frequency of use of a covert conflict style. Youth reported the frequency of use of a covert inter- parental conflict style using three of the eight items from the Knox County study. The correla- tion between the items used in the Ogden study (three items) and those used in the Knox County study (eight items) was .91 (p < .01).
Factor analysis. The 13 items used to measure different aspects of interparental conflict were factor-analyzed using maximum likelihood ex- traction with an oblique rotation. All of the items loaded on the expected factors, with primary fac- tor loadings above .40. However, two items, one overt and one covert, had primary and secondary factor loadings that only differed by .15. These two items were dropped to ensure greater distinc- tion between the measures. These three factors accounted for 63% of the variance in the correla- tion matrix. Cronbach's alphas for these scales were .79 for disagreement, .87 for overt conflict style, and .78 for covert conflict style. The zero- order correlation between interparental disagree- ment and overt conflict style was .30 (p < .001);
between disagreement and covert conflict style, .33 (p < .001); and between overt conflict style and covert conflict style, .59 (p < .001). This means that the amount of shared variance be- tween the conflict-related constructs ranged from 9% to 35%, providing adequate evidence of dis- criminant validity. (Descriptive statistics, correla- tions, and factor loadings are available from the first author.)
RESULTS
Before testing the specific hypotheses of this study, we conducted regression analyses to esti- mate the amount of variance in total youth prob- lem behavior that could be explained by all three of the interparental conflict variables. This was
done to provide a general context for subsequent analyses by providing evidence of the magnitude of the association between interparental conflict and youth problem behavior, in general. Total youth problem behavior was assessed using a sum of the internalizing and externalizing items on the CBC-YSR.
For Knox County youth, youth's sex, youth's age, parent's marital status, and family economic hardship (measured by use of the school lunch subsidy) were entered first as control variables (accounting for 6% of the variance). Frequency of interparental conflict, overt conflict style, and covert conflict style explained an additional 21%
of the variance and were associated positively with youth problem behavior, F = 30.60, p <
.001.
For Ogden youth, youth's sex, age, ethnicity, and religious affiliation; parent's marital status;
and family economic hardship were entered first as control variables (accounting for 3% of the variance). The three interparental conflict vari- ables explained an additional 24% of the variance and were associated positively with youth prob- lem behavior, F = 49.70, p < .001.
Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis that we tested is that conflict styles that parents use are more strongly associat- ed with youth problem behavior than the mere frequency of interparental disagreements. We tested this hypothesis in a separate regression analysis for each broad-band behavior problem.
Each analysis was conducted in the following way: Block 1 contained the alternate problem be- havior (to control for comorbidity and to focus on relatively purified internalizing and externalizing problems); Block 2 contained the background control variables (youth's sex, youth age, parent's marital status, family economic hardship for both samples, and, in addition, youth's ethnicity and religious affiliation for the Ogden sample); Block 3 contained overt conflict style and covert con- flict style; and Block 4 contained the frequency of disagreement. The conflict variables were entered in this order because we believe that the hypothe- sis is best tested by determining whether the fre- quency of conflict explains unique additional variance above that explained by methods of han- dling the disagreement.
Knox County youth. Hypothesis 1 is supported for both youth internalizing and externalizing prob-
lems. (See Table 1.) Interparental styles of con- flict are associated with youth problem behavior, and the frequency of conflict does not uniquely explain any additional variance. Because frequen- cy of disagreement and conflict styles are concep- tually and empirically connected, we reversed the order of the disagreement and conflict style vari- ables in a second set of regression analyses to ex- amine the influence of conflict styles above that of frequency of disagreement. In this analysis, conflict styles still are more strongly associated with youth internalizing than is the frequency of conflict (Block 3: disagreement F = 9.82, p < .01, R2 = .015; Block 4: conflict styles F = 12.03, p <
.01, R2 = .034). However, for youth externalizing problems, the conflict styles variables do not ex- plain any unique variance above frequency of dis- agreement (Block 3: disagreement F = 4.25, p <
.05, R2 = .006; Block 4: conflict styles F = 2.48, p
= .085, R2 = .007).
Supplementary regression analyses were con- ducted to test for interactions among conflict vari- ables and interactions between the conflict vari- ables and the background control variables. Inter- action terms were created by multiplying together the two centered independent variables (e.g., sex of youth and overt conflict style). The interaction terms were entered in a final block of variables in each regression analysis. A significant change in F was interpreted as significant slope differences between two groups of respondents in the sample (Aiken & West, 1991). For example, a significant interaction between youth's sex and overt conflict style indicates that the association between inter- parental overt conflict style and youth problem behavior differs for sons and daughters. Three in- teraction terms were analyzed in each regression analysis (e.g., youth sex by overt conflict style, youth sex by covert conflict style, and youth sex by frequency of disagreement).
There are no significant interactions among the three conflict variables. (Changes in the F and R2 statistics are available from the first author.) This means, for example, that the effects of par- ents' use of hostile conflict styles are not stronger when interparental disagreement is more frequent than when it is less frequent.
In addition, the associations among the inter- parental conflict variables and youth problem be- havior are similar for sons and daughters, preado- lescent and early adolescent youth, poor youth and those who are better off economically, and for youth in families that are not divorced and those who live with divorced or separated moth-
*
* * *
* * *
* * * T- m
crN 0 m o N q N n
IC 0 0 00- 0 0 On 0
I I
WX -X - 3
* *X
* * *
in o o0 ro- o'
*- ' -X - *
0 0 00-
* *
*
* .31
*
*- * * 00 0 In o
*- *
* *-
* * 00 00 In 0
* N o o It It
* * -*-
C,4 c CX - . CX cnX
*
*- *x
*
0-mCo icici m o o
00o 0oooci N o
* * * * *
* * * **
*
* * * *
* * * *
* *
* *
* * *
*x. oN
O N O (c~- ("- er ~
\D O OiC-O ^t
.o .=
.0 c/i g
01g
0 g
0 0 (- 1 0
00 X ? X E 8 1 0 ,
2
<>i>(iS u?h<
ers. We interpreted these findings to mean that parents' hostile ways of managing conflict placed youth at risk for greater internalizing and exter- nalizing behavior problems and that these patterns were consistent across the youth in this sample who had different background characteristics.
Ogden youth. The analysis used to examine Hy- pothesis 1 in the Ogden sample was the same as that used in the Knox County sample except that three additional control variables were included: a dummy variable that compared European Ameri- can youth with others, another dummy that com- pared Mexican American youth with others, and a third that compared Mormon youth with non- Mormon youth.
As in the Knox County sample, Hypothesis 1 is supported in the Ogden sample for both inter- nalizing and externalizing problems. (See Table 2.) Interparental conflict styles are associated with youth problem behavior, and the frequency of disagreement does not uniquely explain addi- tional variance. When the order of the conflict variables is reversed, the conflict styles still are more strongly associated with youth internalizing (Block 3: disagreement F = 4.54, p < .05, R2 = .004; Block 4: conflict styles F = 5.64, p < .01, R2
= .011) and externalizing (Block 3: disagreement F = 5.50, p < .05, R2 = .005; Block 4: conflict styles F = 9.55, p < .001, R2 = .018).
Again, supplementary regression analyses were conducted to test for interactions among the conflict-related variables and between the conflict and control variables. Before considering associa- tional variation using the control variables, there is one significant interaction term among the conflict-related variables. Although the om- nibus F change is not significant, there is an in- teraction between the frequency of disagreement and the parents' use of an overt conflict style.
Overt conflict style and youth externalizing are not related when the frequency of disagreement was below average, but they are moderately asso- ciated (r = .34) when the frequency of disagree- ment is greater than average. (A table containing the F and R2 statistics is available from the first author.)
In terms of youth background variables, the associations between the conflict-related variables and youth problem behavior are similar for: (a) sons and daughters, (b) youth living with married parents and those living with a divorced mother, and (c) Mormon and non-Mormon youth. There are only a few significant interaction terms, most
o v Z.
s;
*
*
v
m * m *
11 I
I v
By
0 a) { o
0) 4
w t.
0 CO 0)
S
0)
z
.0 00CO 0 0) N x w
0 c 0 - 4 ) m Zcoo
E -o
0 = 0 0. m 0)
LI) 0)
Zi z,
I~
0)
0) CO
CO H 0 0l
z
0) 0)
CO z
0)
0.
0) H CC z4
0
H
CO H, 0 CC.
.1:
I..
3(
2
&?
N fi
E~-4 0) . -)4 Zc o 0 .0 0
*
* * *
* * * *x- * m**
m o Coo o mn n c oo o
*X
*X- * *3f*
*- * * cC CM * *
? oocs or On CD \ mN N
*X * = C * * fr
. . .
* .
0 I.
CT -oo^ N Ocm mnV)l
t-~ O- O O Oo O O m O
*
*
* .
* *
* *
tr tmn
*X
* *
** *
* * * * C -nC
...ooo.ooo.. ..
.~ . -1
~~
--- O* *
* *
* * * *
ON 00n 0 - 0000 'n 00 ON
* *
* I
*
*
* %' N
0 O
C's
C.? .0
C O -C C 5
. 0 C - C ' 0 )
.0 0. c
2 &
? C* V 0
f3 =^ ( 3 ,aE g
0 ) 0 0 0 g a 0 ^ v
? 0 0 Oa S C 9 S 0 -* * * *~
-
* *)(=
' n Ot
* *-.
**)
**N
mm
** W
04 0)
V~
0.
\C*
V00 *
It *
occurring in fairly isolated examinations of con- trol variables. (By isolated, we mean only one of six comparisons.) The association between overt conflict style and youth externalizing problems is significant (and positive) for both fifth and eighth graders, but is stronger for fifth graders. There are no other significant grade interactions. The asso- ciation between overt conflict style and youth in- ternalizing problems is stronger for poor youth than for less-poor youth. However, the magnitude of each slope is fairly small, and the difference between slopes is modest. The association be- tween covert conflict style and youth externaliz- ing problems is stronger for "other" youth than for Mexican American youth. This difference be- tween slopes is fairly large-the slope for the
"other" group is twice that of the slope for Mexi- can American youth.
Hypothesis 2
Our second hypothesis is that the associations be- tween conflict styles and youth problem behav- iors are specialized. Parents' use of an overt con- flict style is uniquely associated with youth exter- nalizing problems, and their use of a covert conflict style is uniquely associated with youth internalizing problems. This hypothesis also was tested using hierarchical regression analyses.
Blocks 1 and 2 were the same as those used in the previous analyses. We examined the separate ef- fects of overt and covert conflict styles by placing one variable in Block 3 and the other in Block 4.
Knox County youth. Analysis 1 for internalizing problem behavior includes covert conflict style in Block 3 and overt conflict style in Block 4. (See Table 3.) Covert conflict style is associated with internalizing problems, but overt conflict style is not (columns 1 and 2). In Analysis 2 of internaliz- ing problems, we put overt conflict style in first, and it is associated with internalizing problems (column 3). However, this association disappears when covert conflict style is entered into the model (column 4). Regardless of the order of entry, the hypothesis of specialized effects for both internalizing and externalizing problems is supported in this sample of youth. Parents' use of a covert conflict style is uniquely associated with youth internalizing problems, whereas parents' use of an overt conflict style is uniquely associat- ed with youth externalizing problems.
Ogden youth. This hypothesis of specialized so- cialization effects is supported for the association between covert conflict style and youth intemaliz-
0.
sDit C)'-
e
.C
0C)
lo
.
C
0) N
.0 C) C) 0 01) 0 90
a) 0-
0
$.13
0
S '-
.2~ 0 0
H
C) 0 0
C
I
01 0 11)
0) -C) 0) 0 0. 01 0 H 0 0 0 0
C') -C) 0) 01 H 0
z 0 -C H z
C) 01 1). 01 C) H
z
0 H 01 0 C) 0) H 0 0
C'.
0 C) -C 0
z
C) 01 0 C) -C C-) 0 01 -CO 01 C)
(-Ci
C) -C 0) H
* -*- * oo o\
t o
ONn C
* 00 C C'A
* 00 ON cn cn
C) cq kn C)
-0- 01-
ON O
O n
*- 00 o
~o >
n O I*-
d- ri
00 0
?n o
*X
*X- en CM
0 CQ 0
= vo gov
< < E0 <
3 5 ~O~
0 0*f~
ing problems, but not for the association between overt conflict style and youth externalizing prob- lems. (See Table 4.) For youth living in Ogden, parents' use of overt and use of covert conflict styles were each independently associated with more youth externalizing problems.
One concern about the veracity of the findings reported in this study is the sole reliance on youth reports. We agree with Emery and O'Leary (1982) that youth perceptions of marital hostility are better indicators than parent reports because they represent a better estimate of what the child actually observes (i.e., is aware of). We also be- lieve that youth are the best reporters of their own behavior problems. They have access to the whole array of their own behaviors and feelings (both internalizing and externalizing) in multiple settings, and they are more aware of their internal feelings than are other informants.
Although youth may be the best informants for both interparental conflict styles and their own problem behaviors, the use of the same informant to assess the independent and dependent variables increases the chance that the associational esti- mates may be inflated due to shared method vari- ance (Bank, Dishion, Skinner, & Patterson, 1989). The fact that interparental disagreement and youth problem behavior are unrelated after controlling for key variables provides some evi- dence that systematic error variance in the assess- ment of one specific conflict-related variable is not correlated with systematic error variance in the assessment of problem behaviors. We come to this conclusion because we cannot identify some probable source of systematic error variance that is measured in one of the conflict styles that is not also present in the measure of the frequency of disagreement. In addition, some of the interaction terms are significant in the Ogden sample, and the slope between conflict styles and youth problems is significantly reduced in parts of the sample.
This provides tangential evidence that the system- atic error in the assessment of the independent and dependent variables can be, at most, only par- tially responsible for the attained associations (at least in the Ogden sample).
Finally, using structural equation modeling (LISREL 7), we tried to roughly estimate the amount of shared error variance and its actual ef- fect on the associational data presented in the findings section. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted, placing all of the manifest and la- tent variables on the exogenous side of the model.
This was done so that some of the elements in the
V
V
C)*
J * 0 -
cn * cn *
t ,Q u m o z= d> o
U U
o |S. 4 -
o- a
v| ZP
U t3 a
CO
ct >-
<
0 O
., 0
PQ 0.0
-a
.0
0)
0
F0 0 C
'F^ E 0
z
~z
0~
H
z
0
2~o
HU
Oc/
C/C0
zHl
t^ u ( It a) C Q U.
0U 0
oC, v>
c) 'l
*X- . .
*
* * -O
*
* * C lO r- o ir) o)
* *
* - *
* * *
**
* ** * *
*X- 0i l~ \ O 0a i O -- O m O
* -X- *
* * m
* *0
X- '(NO
*
* *
* *m
- Otnc O
0 m.
*Xg
0\ ' 0o00 0 g 0
< 0
C 4 < $
ct^ o> > 'n O
ca u?o gou
theta-delta matrix (off the diagonal) could be freed up to estimate the presence of correlated error. By placing all of the manifest variables on the exogenous side, it is possible to estimate some of the correlations among the conflict-style mani- fest variables and the youth problem behavior manifest variables. We could free up only some of the elements in the theta-delta matrix and still keep the model identified, so this analysis should be interpreted cautiously.
In the Knox County data, only 2 of 20 error terms between interparental conflict items and youth problem behavior items are significantly different from zero (p < .05). Estimating these 20 error terms did not significantly improve the fit of the model. Most importantly, the estimate of the association (using phi coefficients) between covert conflict style and youth internalizing prob- lems is stable (.49 before and after the error terms were estimated), as is the estimate of the associa- tion between overt conflict style and youth exter- nalizing problems (.35 before and .33 after).
In the Ogden data, 6 of 18 error terms are sig- nificantly different from zero (p < .05). Estimat- ing these 18 error terms did not significantly im- prove the fit of the model. The association be- tween overt conflict style and youth externalizing problems is .440 (phi estimate) before estimating the off-diagonal error terms and .403 after their estimation. The association between covert con- flict style and youth internalizing problems is .435 before and .504 after estimation.
Because of this pattern of findings in both the regression analyses and the confirmatory factor analyses, we conclude that some of the covari- ance between interparental conflict styles and youth problem behavior might be due to shared method variance, but this bias is relatively small and does not compromise the results presented in this study.
DISCUSSION
0
V
V
X0 *
Z0
The findings support the proposition that conflict between parents places youth at risk for experi- encing externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors. After controlling for several back- ground factors, the three interparental conflict variables account for 21% and 24% of the vari- ance in problem behaviors for youth living in Knox County, Tennessee, and Ogden, Utah, re- spectively. Accordingly, our first conclusion is that there is a fairly strong association between conflict-related aspects of marital functioning and
(=1 Ct ._
0
ca
? Ct O
S
0
a I3
0
CQ
0 (D
0 o
03 r.
U o
u
O m ^ O
U >
uu
. U C'nP
0 ;z
0- Al
;z
iz;
az z
~
0b 00 P
(00p
HO1
oOn
n0 00d Z(N OH (00
z:
0
2
0
03 0 Ar U?
