Personality, Attachment, and Relationship Conflict Across the Transition to Parenthood

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Daniel J. Bower, M.S.

Graduate Program in Human Development and Family Science

The Ohio State University

2012

Dissertation Committee: Dr. Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan, Advisor

Dr. Claire Kamp Dush Dr. Natasha Slesnick

Dr. Xin Feng

!

! "!

Copyrighted by

Daniel J. Bower

2012

!

!

! ""!

Abstract

Compared to non-parents, parents experience a more sudden change in

relationship functioning over time. One such time that this change has been documented

is across the transition to parenthood. While relationship functioning has been studied

during this period, little work has examined relationship conflict, an aspect of relationship

functioning, as an outcome variable longitudinally. While overall relationship functioning

declines in new parents, there are some characteristics that may predict the way in which

couples experience this change. The personality traits and attachment styles of

individuals (actor effects) and their partners (partner effects) have been documented as

some of these predictors of functioning. Additionally, there are mixed findings on how

similarity between partner personality traits and partner attachment styles may influence

relationships. This study was among the first to examine conflict as a longitudinal

outcome for couples experiencing the transition to parenthood, and was the first study to

assess the influence of partner effects, actor effects, and similarity effects (using two

different models of similarity) of both personality and attachment during this transition.

182 dual-earner couples completed a four Phase study, in which self-reported

psychological characteristics (personality traits and attachment style) were used to predict

self-reported frequency of destructive conflict and observational conflict behaviors

(problem-solving and negative escalation). Hierarchical Linear Modeling analyses

indicated that the Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Attachment Anxiety of each partner is

associated with conflict before the birth of the child. Additionally, both mothers’ and

!

! """!

fathers’ levels of Attachment Avoidance and Conscientiousness were also associated with

conflict before the birth of the child. Finally, similarity effects in Attachment, but not

personality, were associated with both types of observable conflict behaviors. These

findings indicate that both personality and attachment characteristics are important

predictors of relationship conflict during this transition.

!

! "#!

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend special thanks and acknowledgments to the following people:

Dr. Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan for her excellent advising in creating this document.

Dr. Claire Kamp Dush, Dr. Slesnick, Dr. Feng, and Dr. Christian for their feedback and support in creating this document.

!

! #!

Vita

August 2009………...…..B.S., Human Development & Family Science, The Ohio State University August 2009……….…....M.S., Human Development & Family Science, The Ohio State University August 2012…………….Ph.D., Human Development & Family Science, The Ohio State University September 2009- June 2010…...Graduate Teaching Assistant, Department of Human Development

& Family Science, The Ohio State University September 2008- August 2012…Graduate Research Associate, Department of Human Development

& Family Science, The Ohio State University

Publications

Bower, D., Jia, R., Schoppe-Sullivan, S., Mangelsdorf, S., & Brown, G. (In Press). Parent

psychological characteristics and change in couple relationship satisfaction in

families with infants. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

Schoppe-Sullivan, S., Kotila, L., Jia, R., Bower, D., & Lang, S. (2012). Predictors of

mothers’ and fathers’ engagement with preschool-age children. Early Childhood

Development and Care.

Field of Study

Major Field: Human Development & Family Science

!

! #"!

Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………...ii

Acknowledgements……………………….................................iv

Vita……………………………………………………………..v

Table of Contents……………………………………………...vi

List of Tables…………………………………………………..vii

Introduction…………………………………………………....1

Review of the Literature…………………………………….…4

Methods……………………………………………………….32

Results…………………………………………………………39

Discussion……………………………………………………..49

References…………………………………………………..….61

Appendix A: Tables……………………………………………72

Appendix B: Demographic Questionnaire……………………..93

Appendix C: NEO-FFI……………………………………...….97

Appendix D: Communication Danger Signs Scale……………99

Appendix E: Marital Agendas Protocol………………………..100

Appendix F: Marital Agendas Protocol Coding Manual………103

!

!#""!

List of Tables

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Study Variables……………………72

Table 2. Correlation between predictor variables………………………………..73

Table 3. Correlations of conflict variables……………………………………….76

Table 4. Significant Predictors of the Intercept for Question 1: Self-Reported

Conflict…………………………………………………………………………..77

Table 5. Significant Predictors of the Slope for Questions 1: Self-Reported

Conflict…………………………………………………………………………..78

Table 6. Personality Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Question 1……….79

Table 7. Attachment Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Question 1………..81

Table 8. Significant Predictors of the Intercept for Question 2: Problem-solving

behaviors….……………………………………………………………………...83

Table 9. Significant Predictors of the Slope for Question 2: Problem-solving

behaviors………………………………………………………………………....84

Table 10. Personality Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Question 2……….85

Table 11 Attachment Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Question 2………..87

Table 12. Significant predictors of the Intercept for Question 3: Negative escalation

behaviors.. ………………………………………………………………………..89

Table 13. Significant Predictors of the Slope for Question 3: Negative escalation

behaviors………………………………………………………………………….90

!

!#"""!

Table 14. Personality Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Question 2………..91

Table 15 Attachment Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Question 2………..92

!

!$!

Personality, attachment, and relationship conflict across the transition to parenthood

Chapter 1: Introduction

Over the course of the lifespan, individuals experience a number of important

transitions and relationships. Most notable among these are long-term romantic

partnerships, as well as parenthood. Research has demonstrated that a number of different

characteristics may influence aspects of these relationships and transitions. In particular,

it has been documented that each partner’s different personality traits and adult

attachment styles may have an impact on how each of them experiences their relationship

(Gattis, Simpson, Christensen, & Berns, 2004; Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996). In

particular, there has been an interest in how each partner’s different traits and styles may

influence the relationship functioning of their partner. Relationship functioning has been

understood as consisting of multiple constructs, including relationship satisfaction and

relationship conflict; however, most prior longitudinal work has not focused on conflict.

It is well documented that child rearing is associated with lower relationship

satisfaction; compared to non-parents, first-time parents experience a more sudden and

steep decline in relationship satisfaction (Lawrence, Rothman, Cobb, Rothman, &

Bradbury, 2008). While this is true, individual differences in this change do exist across

the transition to parenthood; the personality traits of each partner (Levy-Shiff, 1994), as

well as attachment security (Rholes, Simpson, Campbell, & Grich, 2001) may further

explain how new parents experience changes in relationship adjustment. While some

work has examined how these traits may influence relationships during the early stages of

!

!%!

parenthood, no previous work has yet examined how similarity in personality traits or

attachment styles may influence relationships during this transition. By furthering this

understanding of the interplay between each partner’s characteristics, researchers will be

able to better predict and identify those couples at higher risk of experiencing negative

changes in their relationships during times of stress. This may be particularly important,

as it may help lead to stronger, more stable partnerships.

Personality and attachment have been linked to a number of different indicators of

relationship functioning, including relationship satisfaction (Gattis, Simpson,

Christensen, & Berns, 2004; Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996). Another important

aspect of relationship functioning is relationship conflict. While many aspects of

relationship functioning are related and may even overlap, relationship conflict may be

more clearly and precisely measured through both self-report and observational

assessments. But, as Kamp Dush and Taylor (2011) noted, there has been little

longitudinal work done to understand relationship conflict as an outcome. Their work

was among the first to examine the frequency of relationship conflict over time. This

demonstrated a need for further work in explaining relationship conflict over time; this

may be considered especially true during times of transition, such as the transition to

parenthood, when couples are likely to be experiencing more stress (Karney & Bradbury,

1995). Understanding conflict during this period is important not only for the mental

health of each partner, but for children as well. Choi and Marks (2008) found that

increased frequency of conflict led to increases in depression at the individual level over

time. In addition, children exposed to destructive conflict are also at risk of developing

emotional problems later in life (Cummings & Davies, 2008). However, positively

!

!&!

structured conflict behaviors may be beneficial for the development of children. For this

reason, it is important to understand the predictors of conflict frequency, as well as

positive (i.e., problem solving behaviors) and negative (i.e., negative escalation) conflict

behaviors, in intimate relationships.

This study examined associations between personality and relationship conflict, as

well as adult attachment style and relationship conflict, by using dyadic data from 182-

dual earner couples experiencing the transition to parenthood. Self-report data on

personality and attachment were collected during the third trimester of pregnancy, while

observational and self-report data on conflict were collected at the third trimester, as well

as three, six, and nine months post-partum to fully assess changes during the transition to

parenthood. This dyadic approach allowed for a more complete analysis of the data, as

individuals within couple relationships exhibit a “mutual influence” on each other; they

do not act completely independently of one another (Campbell & Kashy, 2002).

!

!'!

Chapter 2: Review of the literature

Personality and intimate relationships

According to the essential-trait approach to personality, there are a limited

number of traits individuals have that can fully capture their personality (Funder, 2007).

Psychologists have proposed different ideas as to exactly how many traits are necessary

to sufficiently understand the association between personality and behavior. In the

literature today, many psychologists have agreed on a set of traits known as the “Big

Five” (Costa & McCrae, 1985). While not all researchers have used these traits to

understand personality, most other personality measures assess related traits. The NEO-

PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a self-report measure that assesses the Big Five

characteristics: Neuroticism (anxiety, depression, anger, emotional insecurity),

Agreeableness (friendliness, social conformity), Extraversion (assertiveness, sociability),

Openness (curious, imaginative, cultured), and Conscientiousness (reliable, organized;

Barrick & Mount, 1991). While differences do exist in the measurement of personality,

the Big Five have been found to be a reliable and valid way to capture personality.

Indeed, personality has been shown to be relevant for intimate relationships.

Caughlin et al. (2000) examined negative affectivity and Neuroticism over the course of a

thirteen-year longitudinal study of newlyweds. Although the researchers were unable to

determine which couples would divorce and which would not, the results indicated that

higher scores on these Neurotic traits were positively associated with marital negativity

(i.e., conflict), which in turn was negatively associated with marital satisfaction.

!

!(!

Interestingly, Neuroticism is not the only aspect of personality that may be related to

marital conflict. When examining the Big Five factors of Agreeableness and

Extraversion, Wood and Bell (2008) found that these traits are also important in intimate

relationships. These scholars examined the associations between personality traits and

interpersonal conflict management by collecting data from individuals about their

experiences in intimate relationships. Conflict management style was scored on two

dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness. These two dimensions created four

quadrants of conflict management style: collaborative (high assertiveness, high

cooperativeness), accommodating (low assertiveness, high competitiveness), avoidant

(low assertiveness, low cooperativeness), and competitive (high assertiveness, low

cooperativeness). Regression analyses indicated that both Agreeableness and

Extraversion were significantly associated with the various quadrants. A higher score on

the trait of Extraversion was negatively related to accommodating and avoidant styles of

conflict resolution, as well as positively related to a competitive style of conflict

resolution. Conversely, a higher score on Agreeableness was positively related to

collaborative and accommodating styles of conflict management, as well as negatively

related to a competitive style of conflict resolution. These findings hint at the idea that

positive and negative problem solving communication behaviors may be associated with

personality.

Attachment and intimate relationships

Attachment style is a psychological construct that is believed to be relatively

stable across the lifespan (Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000). The

development of attachment styles begins early in infancy as children begin to form close

!

!)!

relationships and explore the world around them. As children begin to make sense of the

social world, they develop internal models of human relationships based off their

relationship with their caregivers (Bowlby, 1956). If children develop a secure

attachment with their caregiver (i.e., their caregiver consistently responds to their needs

in a sensitive and appropriate manner) they are likely to perceive others as responsive to

their needs and themselves as worthy of love and affection. On the other hand, children

with insecure attachment styles (i.e., their caregivers did not consistently or appropriately

respond to their needs) are likely to relate to others in the way that they have learned

from their parents, either by remaining avoidant, resisting, or a mix of behaviors. These

individuals may believe that they are unworthy of love, that other people cannot be

trusted, or that they do not need others for emotional support or security. This attachment

bond carries over into intimate relationships during adulthood, when individuals begin to

use romantic partners as their “secure base”, and have expectations about how their

partner should behave in relation to them (Fraley & Davis, 1997).

Bartholomew (1990) proposed the idea that the two dimensions of Attachment

Anxiety and Attachment Avoidance may be sufficient to determine how adults experience

romantic attachments in adult relationships. Individuals who score high on dimensions of

Attachment Anxiety are more hyperactive in terms of attachment. These individuals are

constantly worrying about the state of their relationship, and often fear that their partner

may leave them. Conversely, individuals with high scores on the dimension of

Attachment Avoidance are experiencing a sort of attachment deactivation. These

individuals are more likely to avoid emotions and issues within their relationship. Since

the development of these attachment dimensions, the Experiences in Close Relationships

!

!*!

Questionnaire (ECR) has been created to more accurately pinpoint where an adult falls on

each dimension (Brennen, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). The Experiences in Close

Relationships Questionnaire is currently considered to be one of the best self-report

measurements of adult romantic attachment that has been developed, as it allows

researchers to pinpoint which one of four quadrants (high or low on each of the two

dimensions) an individual will fall into.

Romantic attachment is now commonly regarded as one important predictor of

relationship functioning. This includes relationship satisfaction (Yee Ho, Chen, Bond,

Hui, Chan, & Friedman, 2012), relationship quality (Saavedra, Chapman, Karina, &

Rogge, 2010), and relationship conflict (Cann, Norman, Welbourne, & Calhoun, 2007).

Partner Effects and Partner Similarity

Clearly, it seems that personality and attachment play a role within intimate

relationships. However, it is important to keep in mind that it is not only one’s own traits

that may affect their intimate relationships; their partner’s traits may also be influential.

This effect may be observed between both partners, and must be understood when

studying dyadic units, such as individuals within intimate relationships. In other words,

individuals within couple relationships exhibit a “mutual influence” on each other; they

do not act completely independently of one another. In conceptualizing the process of

dyadic research and dyadic data analysis, researchers have advocated for the use of the

Actor Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Campbell & Kashy, 2002). The effects of

an individual and their own traits are typically referred to as “actor effects”, whereas the

effects of this individual’s partner and that partner’s traits are referred to as “partner

effects”.

!

!+!

This model has been empirically tested with a variety of dyadic data, and findings

have continued to indicate the importance of both partners. Robins and colleagues (2000)

used this model to assess the associations between relationship quality and the personality

of both partners. Dyadic analyses supported the idea that both actor and partner effects

are important in understanding relationship quality. In this case, when men scored higher

on negative emotionality, lower on positive emotionality, and lower on constraint,

women were more likely to have lower relationship quality. On the other hand, only

women’s negative emotionality was associated with men’s relationship quality; as

women scored higher on this trait, men scored lower on relationship satisfaction (Robins,

Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000).

More recent findings have reinforced this idea, even after controlling for actor

effects. When considering the traits of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and emotional

stability (Neuroticism), partner effects tended to matter beyond these initial actor effects.

When partners reported lower levels of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and emotional

stability, their spouses were more likely to experience lower relationship satisfaction

(Dyrenforth, Kashy, Donnellan, & Lucas, 2010). It has been shown that the personality of

an individual, as well as their partner, does impact intimate relationships. However, there

is still some unexplored territory regarding the interaction of these personality traits

within these relationships.

Similarly, the actor and partner effects of Attachment have been shown to be

important to relationship processes. According to Butzer and Campbell (2008), when an

individual reported higher levels of Anxiety, they also reported lower levels of sexual and

relationship satisfaction. Additionally, this effect was found to be even greater when an

!

!,!

individual’s partner reported higher levels of Anxiety. Similarly, Feeney (1994) found

that women’s Attachment Anxiety was negatively associated with not only their own

relationship satisfaction, but also that of their partner. Banse (2004) reiterated this idea, as

his study confirmed that Partner effects contributed to relationship satisfaction

independent of Actor effects; secure attachment was positively associated with

relationship satisfaction for both partners, while insecure attachment was negatively

associated with relationship satisfaction for both partners.

Once the importance of both actor and partner effects are fully understood, the

next logical question that must be addressed is: does similarity between partners boost or

hinder relationship functioning? Similarity has been understood as how closely partners

resemble one another on a specific characteristic or set of characteristics. However, there

has been some variation on how personality similarity is measured and analyzed.

Specifically, this has typically been done in two ways: profile correlations and

discrepancy scores. The first of these methods involves computing intraclass correlations

on specific traits across dyads to assess how “matched” members of a dyad are on these

traits. The second of these, the discrepancy scores method, involves taking the absolute

value of the differences in trait scores between partners; this method is different from the

ICC method, as it is calculating dissimilarity, rather than similarity.

An examination of intimate relationships by Shiota and colleagues is among the

studies that have analyzed the similarity between partner personality traits. By collecting

data over 12 years from couples in their 40’s and 60’s, these researchers reached some

interesting conclusions. Through the use of the discrepancy scores method, the authors

found that higher personality similarity was associated with more negative trajectories in

!

!$-!

relationship satisfaction over the twelve-year study. Specifically, when spouses were

more similar in Conscientiousness or Extraversion, they were more likely to experience

changes in negative relationship satisfaction; however, these effects were only observed

for the younger subset of this sample (Shiota & Levenson, 2007). These results hint that

relationship duration, the age of spouses, or both factors, may be important to

understanding the associations between personality similarity and relationship

functioning.

However, not all scholars are in agreement about the role of personality similarity

in aspects of relationship functioning. Using the profile correlations method, Russell and

Wells (1991) showed that personality similarity may be associated with positive

relationship quality, as couples less similar in Extraversion scored lower in terms of

marital quality. Interestingly, levels of similarity in Neuroticism did not seem to matter

in this study. These scholars are not alone in making this claim. In an examination of

dating and newlywed couples, Gonzaga et al. found an association between personality

similarity, emotional similarity, and relationship satisfaction (Gonzaga, Campos, &

Bradbury, 2007). By using the same correlation method of similarity, these authors

argued that when partners were similar in personality, they were able to engage in more

shared emotional experiences, which was related to their satisfaction with their

relationship; as similarity scores for personality traits and emotional experiences

increased, so did relationship satisfaction.

Yet still there is more debate about how personality similarity is associated with

aspects of relationship functioning. According to Gattis and colleagues, partners in their

study were not very similar on any personality traits, and their similarity scores,

!

!$$!

calculated through the discrepancy method, were not able to independently contribute to

an understanding of relationship satisfaction. Instead, actor and partner effects were

more important (Gattis, Berns, Simpson, & Christensen, 2004). While some scholars

argue that partner similarity in personality may contribute independently to an

understanding of relationship satisfaction, it has also been acknowledged that this effect

is very small (Dyrenforth et al., 2010).

Additional evidence has also indicated that similarity in Extraversion and

Conscientiousness may be related to interpersonal conflict, as assessed through conflict

narratives and self-reports of conflict behavior. In a dyadic study of roommates, Bono

and colleagues found that when both partners were high on Extraversion or

Conscientiousness, more relational conflict was reported. In addition to this, differences

in Extraversion were also found to be positively associated with relational conflict (Bono,

Boles, Judge, & Lauver, 2002). These dyadic level findings suggest the importance of

the joint contributions each partner’s characteristics may make towards relational

conflict.

It is clear that the results regarding personality similarity and relationship

functioning are quite mixed. Some research has indicated that personality similarity is

associated with positive aspects of relationship functioning, whereas some has indicated

its association with negative aspects of relationship functioning. Yet still other research

has indicated that similarity between partners may make little to no difference in

understanding relationship functioning.

There does not appear to be any assessment of the association between

attachment similarity and relationship conflict in the existing literature. The most closely

!

!$%!

related work done on this topic assesses pairings of attachment styles within couples

(e.g., a secure partner and an insecure partner, two secure partners, etc.). Secure

individuals are more likely to partner with other securely attached individuals (Senchak

& Leonard, 1992); overall, it seems that two securely attached partners fare best in terms

of relationship functioning (Lussler, Sabourin, & Turgeon, 1997; Kobak & Hazan, 1991).

However, when both partners were insecurely attached, these pairs tended not to be

similar. Kirkpatrick and Davis (1994) found no dyads in their sample of 354 couples that

both reported anxious-anxious or avoidant-avoidant pairings. They assessed these

pairings of attachment styles between romantic partners and found that the match

between partners was important for relationship stability, an aspect of relationship

functioning. Couples in which men reported higher Attachment Avoidance and women

reported higher Attachment Anxiety actually reported more relationship stability over

time than couples who did not fit this pattern. Thus, it seems that similarity or

dissimilarity in Attachment styles may influence relationship functioning independent of

individual partners’ attachment security, but no studies have examined this using the

continuous dimensions of anxiety and avoidance.

Intimate relationships: Theoretical orientation

As social scientists began to examine marital relationships, the early work yielded

inconsistent results. It wasn’t until the 1990’s that two marital researchers accurately and

succinctly organized the state of the literature. Karney and Bradbury (1995) called into

question the previous theories and methodological designs that had given the field much

of its understanding of marriage. These authors examined the contributions of four main

theories that had been used to examine marital relationships: attachment theory,

!

!$&!

behavioral theory, social exchange theory, and crisis theory. Each of these theories was

able to contribute important ideas that could help explain marital relationships more fully.

However, none of these theories was sufficient enough to stand alone in explaining

marital development and change over time. For this reason, these scholars combined key

elements from each theory to create the Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation (VSA)

theoretical model (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). By integrating useful components of

different theories, these scholars were able to create one theory that could predict how

and why couples change in relationship functioning over time. Within the VSA model of

relationships, a number of factors are involved in the production of relationship conflict.

It is important to note that it is not simply stressful events, adaptation, and vulnerability

that are being considered. Instead, it is the reciprocal interaction of all of these constructs;

none of these factors are operating independently of one another.

Every individual and couple has a number of enduring characteristics that exist

before a major life change. For example, these may be extreme high or low levels of

income, presence or lack of mental health issues, or specific personality traits or

attachment styles. Positive factors may help to buffer and protect couples, allowing them

to naturally adapt such that they do not even notice the change. In contrast, negative

factors may produce enough disturbance for an individual or couple that they are unable

to adapt during a stressful change. The way these adaptations occur, as well as these

vulnerabilities (or lack thereof), impact the way stressful events are experienced.

A major life transition is likely a stressful event for a couple or an individual.

Even when events are perceived as positive changes, such as marriage, buying a new

house, or having a baby, these common life events result in stress for individuals and

!

!$'!

couples. Having a child comes with changes and stressors, such as doctor’s

appointments, childcare arrangements, and a decrease in leisure time; these are known as

“parenting hassles” (Crnic & Booth, 1991). For many couples, these stressors may pile-

up during this transition, and depending on certain vulnerabilities, may influence how

couples adapt to their roles.

Over time, if couples do not begin to positively adapt, the situation may be

perceived as more stressful, which may decrease the likelihood that the couple can

positively adapt; this is a circular process that may be harmful for many couples.

Personality and attachment (as well as similarity between these traits and styles) have

clearly been identified as potential vulnerabilities within this model, and thus a further

examination of how couples with these potential vulnerabilities and strengths

experiencing the transition to parenthood adapt is in order to better explain relationship

change during this period of stress.

The influence of personality and attachment on relationship conflict during the transition

to parenthood

One way that that relationships may change across the transition to parenthood is

that couples may experience differences in conflict. This may be seen through changes in

the intensity or frequency of conflict. However, as noted by Kamp Dush and Taylor

(2011), relationship conflict has typically been considered an independent variable. Until

recently experiences of conflict have not been used as an outcome variable. As a result,

little work is currently available to understand how personality traits or attachment styles

impact relationship conflict through major life events, such as across the transition to

parenthood.

!

!$(!

Some initial work done by Crohan (1996) found that parents experienced a

change in conflict after having children. Overall, the parents in her sample experienced

an increase in reported conflict frequency as they transitioned into parenthood. More

recent work by Doss et al. (2009) also suggests that conflict may change across the

transition to parenthood. Specifically, parents tended to report more frequent conflict, and

new mothers in their study reported poorer conflict management. Lindahl and colleagues

(1997) suggested that when couples engaged in higher rates of observed negative

escalation during interactions before the birth of their child, fathers were more likely to

exhibit more frequent observed negative conflict behaviors after the birth of the child. It

has also been shown that after the birth of a first child, spouses reported engaging in more

frequent negative interactions nine months post-partum than they did before their child

was born (Belsky, Lang, & Rovine, 1985). Moreover, Kluwer and Johnson (2007) found

that frequency of relationship conflict and relationship satisfaction are highly associated

across the transition to parenthood.

However, much more research has been dedicated to understanding change in

relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood. First-time parents experience

a steeper and more sudden decline in relationship satisfaction than their non-parent

counterparts (Lawrence et al., 2008). Most scholars seem to be in agreement on the

association between child rearing and changes in aspects of relationship functioning.

While some couples do experience declines in relationship satisfaction, or an increase in

relationship conflict, during the transition to parenthood, not all couples do. In fact, some

couples may even improve in functioning, while some may not experience any change at

all (Lawrence et al., 2008). Some recent interest has been shown in gaining an

!

!$)!

understanding of which specific characteristics may influence this variability in

relationship conflict across the transition to parenthood.

Of these various predictors, in accordance with the VSA model, personality traits

have been regarded as an area of high interest by many scholars. Belsky and Hsieh (1998)

reported Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness as predictors of relationship

conflict in a modest sample of 104 married couples experiencing the transition to

parenthood. Their results indicated that lower Neuroticism, higher Agreeableness, and

higher Extraversion were related to lower levels of conflict.

Belsky and Hsieh’s findings indicated that personality is important in

understanding conflict and conflict management within intimate relationships. Donnellan

et al. (2004) worked to extend this understanding of the association between conflict and

personality; they were particularly interested in observed positive escalation behaviors (a

pattern of circular positive behaviors between partners) and observed negative escalation

conflict behaviors (a pattern of circular negative behaviors between partners). They

reported that participants who scored higher on Agreeableness and Openness engaged in

less negative conflict management; conversely, those who scored higher on Neuroticism

engaged in more negative conflict management behaviors (i.e., negative escalation).

Individuals who rate highly on Agreeableness experience more ease with

interpersonal interactions (Tobin et al., 2000); as a result, it has been suggested that these

individuals may experience more positive and less negative escalation in conflict

situations. Similarly, other personality traits have been linked to conflict interaction.

Robins et al. (2000) suggested that increased constraint (a trait often compared to

!

!$*!

Conscientiousness) may be related to less observable negative escalation in conflict, as

these individuals may be better able to regulate their behaviors.

Despite the numerous investigations on the influence of personality on

relationship conflict, there are gaps in the existing literature. While Doss et al. (2009)

examined predictors of relationship conflict, there appears to be little prior work on the

influence of personality on conflict during the transition to parenthood. Further, there

appears to be limited work linking personality traits to observed couple interactions

during the transition to parenthood (for an exception, see Lindhal et al., 1997).

There has also been an interest in how attachment influences conflict within

intimate relationships. One of the most noteworthy of these studies examined associations

between Attachment Anxiety and conflict (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005).

In this study, partners were asked to complete conflict diaries and an observational

conflict task. Individuals in this study that reported higher levels of Anxiety also reported

a higher frequency of conflict. Additional Actor effects were observed; when individuals

reported higher levels of Anxiety, they were observed engaging in more negative

escalation behaviors with their partners (Campbell et al., 2005).

The association between attachment and relationship functioning (specifically, in

this case, relationship quality) has also been examined during the transition to

parenthood. However, these past examinations have tended not to use the Experiences in

Close Relationships Questionnaire, which produces the dimensions of Anxiety and

Avoidance; instead, Attachment was assessed in other ways. An examination of the

association between the Adult Attachment Questionnaire and relationship satisfaction

indicated that while Avoidance was not significant, women’s Ambivalence predicted

!

!$+!

their own, as well as their partner’s, lower relationship satisfaction across the transition

(Rholes, Simpson, Campbell, & Grich, 2001).

There has also been an initial exploration of how attachment security in couples is

associated with observed positive and negative escalation conflict behaviors across the

transition to parenthood (Paley, Cox, Kanoy, Harter, Burchinal, & Margand, 2005).

When fathers reported higher Attachment Anxiety, they were observed engaging in less

positive, and more negative, escalation after the birth of their child.

While scholars have begun to consider partner effects in addition to actor effects,

work still needs to be done to better understand partner similarity in personality and

attachment, especially the influence of this similarity on relationship functioning across

the transition to parenthood. Initial work has suggested that similarity in personality did

not influence relationship satisfaction among new parents (Bower, Schoppe-Sullivan, Jia,

Mangelsdorf, & Brown, 2012); however, further work must be done to examine other

constructs of relationship functioning, such as conflict, with a larger sample size. Along

the same lines, attachment similarity has not been studied for its potential role in

relationship functioning, especially during times of transition.

Can the influence of personality and attachment be disentangled?

Sroufe (1985) pointed out that child temperament, which is considered to be a

precursor to adult personality (Capsi et al., 2003), is a construct that is associated with

attachment. However, despite this slight overlap, these two constructs assess different

characteristics. Both attachment and temperament can be assessed in the first year of an

infant’s life. However, attachment reflects an individual’s close relationships; attachment

develops early in infancy, when children are beginning to internally process and

!

!$,!

understand the world around them. Included in this processing of information is the

development of internal working models of relationships.

In comparison, temperament (and personality) is an assessment of how an

individual deals with their overall environment. As children begin to make sense of the

external world around them, personality develops. These children already have set

internal working models that help them understand their relationships with others.

Personality may be thought of as a more external, individual representation of our

understanding of the world than attachment is. Certainly, however, there is some overlap

between personality and attachment. Both are psychological constructs, and both

influence the way that we act as individuals. Previous literature can help make sense of

this association.

An early study by Shaver and Brennan (1992) looked at the connection between

the Big Five personality traits and attachment styles in adults. This study examined 242

college students at an East Coast University. In this sample, approximately half of the

students were female, and half of the students were male; their ages ranged greatly, from

15 years of age to 47 years of age. The design of this study split participants up so that

half of them were currently involved in a romantic relationship, and the other half of

participants considered themselves single. Furthermore, the participants were split into

three groups based on their attachment classification: secure, avoidant, and anxious

ambivalent; this was measured using a categorical assessment of attachment. Personality

traits were measured using the NEO-PI; this is a 180-item personality questionnaire

measuring the Big Five, as well as a number of personality facets.

!

!%-!

Results of this study indicated that there were some significant associations

between adult attachment style and personality traits. Analyses showed that secure

participants were less Neurotic and more Extraverted than insecure participants;

additionally, they were more Agreeable than Avoidant subjects. Anxious participants

were also more Neurotic, Extraverted, and Agreeable than were Avoidant subjects.

However, no significant differences existed between the other two insecure groups that

were used in this study; there were also no significant differences based on age or gender.

Interestingly, based on the Big Five traits of personality, results were not significant

enough to discriminate between attachment types. When using the facets (subscales), it

was possible to discriminate between the two insecure groups, though this effect was

rather small.

Other work has looked at the associations between adult attachment and

personality. Carver (1997) wanted to build upon the work of the previous study by

Shaver and Brennan (1992). In this study, the author used the NEO-FFI; this is the short

form of the NEO-PI, which was used by Shaver and Brennan (1992). Attachment was

measured through the Measure of Attachment Qualities Questionnaire (MAQ; Carver,

1997). The sample consisted of 169 students (81 men; 88 women) who completed their

surveys in group sessions.

Results indicated that the Avoidance scale of the MAQ was inversely related to

Extraversion and Agreeableness. The security scale displayed a positive association with

Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness. Finally, the Ambivalence scale was

positively related only to Neuroticism. Regression analyses yielded further significant

findings. Both the security and Avoidance scales made independent contributions to the

!

!%$!

prediction of Extraversion. The Avoidance scale made a significant unique contribution

only to the prediction of Agreeableness. Finally, the Ambivalence scale made a

significant unique contribution only to the prediction of Neuroticism (Carver, 1997).

These results strengthened the findings of Shaver and Brennan (1992); it seems that yet

again Openness and Conscientiousness are not related to attachment style.

Rather than use categorical measures of attachment, later studies began to use

dimensional measures of attachment. One early study that used dimensional measures of

attachment explored the association of these dimensions to other variables of interest;

included in these variables were the Big Five (Gallo, Smith, & Ruiz, 2003). In this study,

the sample was composed of 294 undergraduate psychology students from a Western

University. This study was composed of two samples, and the samples contained more

females (187 females; 107 males). Participants completed measures of attachment, which

the researchers scored to resemble the dimensional measures of attachment (Anxiety and

Avoidance). Personality characteristics were measured through the Five Factor Model

Measure, which measures some of the Big Five (Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and

Openness) and facets of the other measures of the Big Five (affiliation for Agreeableness,

and dominance from Extraversion).

When examining these links, significant results were found; analyses were

conducted separately for men and women. For men, affiliation (i.e., Agreeableness) and

Conscientiousness were negatively associated with Attachment Avoidance. Also,

dominance (i.e., Extraversion) was negatively associated with both Attachment Anxiety

and Attachment Avoidance. Openness was not associated with either dimension of

attachment. Not surprisingly, Neuroticism was positively associated with both Anxiety

!

!%%!

and Avoidance for men. Similarly, it is not surprising that Neuroticism was positively

associated with both Anxiety and Avoidance for women as well. Similar to their male

counterparts, women’s Openness was also not associated with either attachment

dimension. Conscientiousness, dominance (i.e., Extraversion), and affiliation (i.e.,

Agreeableness) were all negatively associated with both Attachment Anxiety and

Attachment Avoidance for women (Gallo et al., 2003).

Another study used dimensional measures of attachment and focused in on the

relationship between these dimensions and personality characteristics. Backstrom and

Holmes (2001) gathered a sample of 515 undergraduate students (214 male; 301 female).

These participants completed the NEO-PI and the Relationship Scales Questionnaire

(RSQ); the RSQ measures model of self (Attachment Anxiety) and model of others

(Attachment Avoidance). Results indicated that both Agreeableness and Extraversion

were significantly and positively associated with both model of self and model of others.

Conversely, Neuroticism was significantly negatively associated with both model of self

and model of others. Interestingly, this study found some results that seem to deviate

from previous research. Specifically, Conscientiousness had no significant associations

with either attachment dimension. Also, this study found a significant positive association

between model of others and Openness; few other studies have found significant

associations between attachment style and this trait.

Another study assessing the association between attachment dimensions and the

Big Five personality traits used both correlations and regression analyses (Noftle &

Shaver, 2006). These authors conducted two studies; the strength of this is found in the

fact that they used two different measures of the Big Five. In the first study, the authors

!

!%&!

wanted to know how the attachment dimensions and the Big Five were associated. They

collected a data set of 8,318 participants (5,417 women; 2,901 men) who were students at

a West Coast University in an introductory psychology class. Attachment was measured

through the 36-item Experiences in Close Relationships scale (ECR); this determined a

participant’s level of Attachment Anxiety and Attachment Avoidance. The Big Five were

measured with the Big Five Inventory (BFI), which is a 44-item questionnaire measure of

the Big Five (without their facets). The correlation results indicated that Neuroticism was

significantly and positively associated with Avoidance and Anxiety. On the other hand,

Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness were all significantly

negatively associated with Avoidance and Anxiety (Noftle & Shaver, 2006). Regression

analyses for this study indicated that Neuroticism was a significant negative predictor of

Attachment Anxiety. On the other hand, Extraversion was a significant negative predictor

of Attachment Avoidance. Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were both significantly

negative predictors of both Attachment Anxiety and Attachment Avoidance.

In the second study, the authors had the same analysis plan and procedure.

However, instead of using the BFI they used the NEO-PI-R. In this study, the 285

participants (277 women; 58 men) completed the ECR and the NEO-PI-RI. The authors

still wanted to know how these two questionnaires were associated with one another, so

they again computed correlation and regression analyses. Correlation results indicated

that Neuroticism was significantly and positively correlated with both Anxiety and

Avoidance. Conversely, Extraversion and Conscientiousness were significantly

negatively associated with Anxiety and Avoidance. In this study, Openness was also

significantly negatively associated with Avoidance. Regression analyses showed that

!

!%'!

Anxiety was significantly positively predicted by Neuroticism, and negatively predicted

by Conscientiousness. On the other hand, Avoidance was significantly negatively

predicted by Extraversion and Conscientiousness.

It is clear that some overlap exists between personality and attachment. Some of

these associations, such as the link between Neuroticism and Attachment, are better

understood than others, such as the link between Attachment and the remaining Big Five.

Future research needs to work towards better clarifying the relationship between these

two sets of variables, so that their effects may be better disentangled. The present study is

crucial in furthering the understanding between these constructs, as it is the first to assess

both personality and attachment as predictors of relationship conflict across the transition

to parenthood.

Measurement of relationship functioning

Despite the importance of understanding relationship conflict, few studies have

examined relationship conflict as an outcome variable. Instead, past work has typically

examined relationship quality, relationship satisfaction, and other aspects of the broader

construct of relationship functioning. Some measures, such as relationship adjustment,

measure multiple aspects of relationship functioning. As a result, there has been a call to

clarify which specific aspects of relationship functioning are being assessed. Funk and

Rogge (2007) are among those who have worked to clarify these measurement issues in

understanding relationship functioning. While some aspects of functioning, such as

relationship conflict, may be clearly distinguished, there is a need for this aspect of

relationships to be considered as an outcome variable rather than an independent variable.

!

!%(!

Conflict has most typically been examined through two methods. Self-report

measures have tended to assess conflict frequency (Stanley & Markman, 1997).

Conversely, observational methods have focused on assessing conflict behaviors in

couples (Notarius & Vanzetti, 1983). As much as there is a need for the study of

relationship conflict as an outcome variable, there is also a need to further incorporate the

use of both types of data. The use of self-reported conflict frequency, as well as observed

conflict behavior, can help further the understanding of this specific aspect of relationship

functioning. The present study will work to bring these two kinds of data together to

create a more complete understanding of conflict for new parents, and will use

personality and attachment as predictors of individual differences in conflict across the

transition to parenthood.

The present study

Research questions and Hypotheses

The present study addressed three questions to help bridge these gaps within the

literature in the service of better understanding the associations of personality traits and

attachment style with relationship conflict across the transition to parenthood, and also

made progress towards settling measurement issues in the study of personality similarity

and attachment similarity. First, do actor effects, partner effects, or similarity effects for

personality and attachment predict self-reported frequency of destructive conflict pre-

birth or across the transition to parenthood? Next, do actor effects, partner effects, or

similarity effects for personality and attachment predict observed problem-solving

behaviors pre-birth or across the transition to parenthood? Finally, do the personality or

attachment characteristics of each partner, or the similarity between partners on these

!

!%)!

traits, predict observed negative escalation behaviors pre-birth or across the transition to

parenthood?

Question 1. Do actor effects or partner effects for personality and attachment

predict self-reported frequency of destructive conflict pre-birth or across the

transition to parenthood?

The personality traits and attachment style of each parent (actor effects) and their

partner (partner effects), as well as the similarity between these characteristics, were used

to understand initial levels of destructive relationship conflict frequency as well as

change in destructive conflict frequency across the transition to parenthood. This was

done using self-report questionnaire data from all four phases of the study: the third

trimester of pregnancy, and three, six, and nine months post-partum.

Hypothesis 1: I expected that couples would experience a significant increase in the

frequency of self-reported frequency of destructive conflict across the transition to

parenthood before including personality and attachment predictors, as it has been widely

documented that other aspects of relationship functioning (e.g., satisfaction, quality)

decline during this period (Belsky & Pensky, 1988; Doss et al., 2009).

In terms of the first question, I expected that when an individual or their partner

reported higher Neuroticism, both partners would report more frequent destructive

conflict in their relationship, as Neuroticism has been consistently associated with poorer

relationship functioning (Belsky & Hsieh, 1998). With the remaining personality traits

(Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness), I expected that when

an individual or their partner reported a higher score, either partner would report less

frequent destructive conflict scores over time, as this is consistent with past findings

!

!%*!

(Donnellan et al, 2004; Robins et al., 2000). When an individual or their partner reported

more Attachment Anxiety, I expected that partners would report increased frequency of

destructive conflict initially, as well as over time, as these individuals would be more

sensitive to issues of potential conflict (Paley et al., 2005). Conversely, I expected that

when either partner scored higher on Attachment Avoidance, partners would report less

frequent destructive conflict initially, as well as over time, as they would want to avoid

emotional issues with their partner (Bartholomew, 1990).

Question 2: Do actor effects or partner effects for personality and attachment

predict observed problem-solving behaviors pre-birth or across the transition to

parenthood?

Next, actor effects, partner effects, and similarity between partner personality

traits and attachment styles were used to understand initial levels of observed problem

solving behaviors during conflict, as well as change in these behaviors across the

transition to parenthood. This was done using individual-level observational data from

Phases 1, 2, and 4 of the study.

Hypothesis 2: For the second research question, I expected that higher scores in

Neuroticism, as well as lower scores in Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and

Agreeableness for either actors or partners would be associated with less problem solving

behavior initially and over time, as similar results have been found in prior research

(Donnellan et al, 2004). I expected that when parents reported higher levels of

Attachment Anxiety they would demonstrate higher levels of problem solving behavior,

and those who reported higher levels of Attachment Avoidance would engage in less

!

!%+!

observable problem solving behavior, as this is consistent with previous findings (Paley

et al., 2005).

Question 3: Do the personality traits or attachment styles of each partner predict

observed negative escalation behaviors pre-birth or across the transition to

parenthood?

Finally, the effects of each partner’s personality traits and attachment styles and

similarity therein were used to understand initial levels of observed negative escalation

behaviors during conflict, as well as change in negative escalation behaviors across the

transition to parenthood. This was done using couple-level observational data from

Phases 1, 2, and 4 of the study.

Hypothesis 3: For the final research question, I expected that higher scores in

Neuroticism, as well as lower scores in Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and

Agreeableness for either parent would be associated with more negative escalation over

time (as seen in Donnellan et al., 2004). When an individual reported more Attachment

Anxiety, I expected that couples would engage in more negative escalation initially, as

well as over time. Conversely, I expected that when an individual scored higher on

Attachment Avoidance, couples would engage in less negative escalation initially, as well

as over time (as seen in Paley et al., 2005).

Does similarity between partners on personality traits or attachment styles predict

self-reported destructive conflict frequency, observed problem solving behavior, or

negative escalation behavior?

In all three research questions, similarity was calculated through both the

discrepancy scores method and the profile correlation method. This allowed for a more

!

!%,!

sensitive test of how similarity between partners’ personality traits and attachment styles

may influence conflict during this transition.

I expected that similarity in personality traits or attachment styles would be

associated with less frequent destructive conflict, more problem-solving behaviors, and

less negative escalation behaviors initially and over the transition. As some scholars have

argued, increased similarity may lead to increased similarity in emotional experiences,

which may better facilitate an understanding between partners (Gonzaga et al., 2007).

This may help reduce the frequency of destructive conflict, as well as the intensity of

observed conflict behaviors, that partners experience over time. The current literature on

this topic has produced very mixed findings, and no one has yet examined this topic

across the transition to parenthood. As a result, this study is meant to help solidify the

current state of the similarity literature, as well as provide an exploration of this topic

across the transition to parenthood.

Control variables

I controlled for a number of variables: education, income, relationship duration,

and relationship status. Belsky and Rovine (1990) found that couples with higher levels

of education experienced less of a decline in satisfaction over the transition to

parenthood. Perhaps the reason for this is because these couples are less likely to adopt

traditional gender roles, and are more likely to adopt egalitarian roles in which the

workload is shared; in turn, this may reduce the frequency or intensity of conflict during

the transition to parenthood. I expected that more highly educated parents would report

less conflict frequency, and engage in more observable problem solving behaviors, as

well as less observable negative escalation behaviors initially and over time.

!

!&-!

In contrast, in a meta-analysis, Twenge et al. (2003) found that couples with

higher socioeconomic status were more likely to experience a greater decline in marital

satisfaction across the transition to parenthood. One possible explanation for this is that

these couples may have to give up more freedom and leisure activities than couples of

lower socioeconomic status, which may increase stress and conflict. I expected that

parents who reported lower levels of income would report less conflict frequency, and

engage in more observable problem solving behaviors, as well as less observable

negative escalation behaviors initially and over time.

I expected that relationship duration would be related to conflict, as marital

duration is linked to other aspects of relationship functioning. Specifically, some findings

have indicated that length of marriage and relationship satisfaction have a negative

association; that is, the longer couples are married, the lower their levels of relationship

satisfaction tend to be (Van Laningham, Johnson, & Amato, 2001). If relationship

duration is related to this aspect of relationship functioning, an investigation of this

construct in relation to conflict is also warranted.

Finally, evidence exists substantiating a link between relationship status (whether

or not a couple is married or cohabiting) and relationship functioning during the

transition to parenthood. Results indicated that non-marital births were associated with

lower relationship functioning than marital births. However, these results also indicated

that all participants experienced a similar rate of decline in relationship functioning

regardless of relationship status (Tach & Halpern-Meekin, 2009). I expected that parents

who reported that they were married would report less conflict frequency, and engage in

more observable problem solving behaviors, as well as less observable negative

!

!&$!

escalation behaviors initially, but not over time, in comparison to their cohabiting

counterparts.

!

!&%!

Chapter 3: Methods Participants One hundred and eighty-two couples were recruited from a large Midwestern city

during their third trimester of pregnancy. Participants were screened for eligibility to be

sure that they were over the age of 18, fluent in English, were living together, were

employed and planning to return to work after the infant was born, and were both

expecting their first biological child. Data were collected from these families

longitudinally across four time points: Phase 1 (third trimester of pregnancy), Phase 2 (3

months postpartum), Phase 3 (6 months postpartum), and Phase 4 (9 months postpartum).

Of these participants, 9 couples were dropped from this particular study due to

missing data; no significant differences existed between these participants in terms of

personality traits, attachment styles, or relationship conflict and those who were included

in the study. Within this sample, 87% of couples were married at Phase 1, while the

remaining couples were cohabiting. At Phase 1, relationship length ranged from 2.55

years to 22.88 years, with an average relationship length of 7.07 years (SD = 2.66). The

average age of mothers was 28.33 years (SD = 3.84), while the average age of fathers was

30.25 years (SD = 4.61). The majority of the participants in this study were White (87.4%

of mothers; 87.6% of fathers). The remainder of this sample consisted of African

Americans and Asian Americans; the rest of the participants were of mixed racial and

ethnic backgrounds. Levels of education ranged from “less than high school” to

“Doctorate or Professional Degree”; 75.9% of mothers and 64.5% of fathers had at least a

!

!&&!

Bachelor’s degree. Family income at Phase 1 ranged from $5,100 to $238,000 per year,

with a median income of $80,500.00 per year.

Procedure

Participants were recruited during the third trimester of pregnancy. Recruitment

was accomplished through announcements at local childbirth education classes, as well as

advertisements placed in various newspapers and community locations (movie theaters,

maternity stores, bulletin boards, etc.). In addition to this, potential participants were

recruited through participant referrals. Interested participants were contacted to learn

more about the study requirements and incentives, and to be screened for eligibility.

At each phase of the study, participants were mailed a packet of questionnaires; at

Phase 1 only, participants had the option of completing online surveys instead.

Participants were instructed to complete these surveys independently of one another.

Each parent was given a unique password to complete online surveys, or separate

envelopes to seal their completed paper surveys in. Paper surveys were collected by

research assistants at Phases 1, 2, and 4, and were mailed back by the participants at

Phase 3.

Phases 1 and 2 included home visits, and Phase 4 included a laboratory visit. At

each of these visits, research assistants collected completed questionnaires. In addition to

this, participants completed a time diary interview, as well as a number of different

videotaped couple and family interaction tasks. At Phase 3, participants were mailed

surveys and paper time diaries. Participants were provided a pre-paid envelope to return

their completed surveys and time diaries. A follow up phone interview was then

scheduled to review the completed time diaries.

!

!&'!

In accordance with approved procedures by the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Institutional Review Board at the Ohio State University, informed consent was obtained

from each partner at each phase of the study. Incentives were provided at each phase.

Participants received over $200 in cash and gifts, including a membership to COSI, the

local science museum, for participating in each aspect of all four Phases of the study.

Incentives were prorated, so that partial completion of each Phase was possible. Contact

information was kept on file so that interested participants could be contacted for future

phases of the study.

The current study used self-report questionnaire data from all Phases of the study,

as well as couple observational data at Phases 1, 2, and 4.

Measures

Demographics

A demographic questionnaire was administered at Phase 1 to collect data on race,

income, age, level of education, relationship duration, and relationship status (married

versus cohabiting). This demographic questionnaire can be found attached as Appendix

A.

Personality

A self-report questionnaire was administered to both partners at Phase 1 to assess

the Big Five factors of personality. This measure was only given at Phase 1, as most

personality research has indicated that individual differences in personality are stable

over time (Costa & McCrae, 1997). The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a short

form 60-item survey that can measure these Five Factors. Included among these Five

Factors are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.

!

!&(!

Openness is typically considered the extent to which an individual is curious, intrigued,

and open-minded about the world around them (e.g., “I am intrigued by the patterns I find

in art and nature”). Conscientiousness is an assessment of how often an individual shows

self-discipline, or how hard they work to meet the expectations of them (e.g., “I keep my

belongings neat and clean”). Extraversion assesses an individual’s predisposition to

positive emotions, and the extent to which an individual seeks stimuli (e.g., “I like to

have a lot of people around me”). Agreeableness is typically considered the extent to

which an individual is compassionate and cooperative with others (e.g., “I try to be

courteous to everyone I meet”). The Neuroticism subscale assesses how prone an

individual is to experience negativity, such as anxiety and depression ( e.g., “When I’m

under a great deal of stress, sometimes I feel like I’m going to pieces”; McCrae & Costa,

1987). Each of these five subscales contains 12 items total.

Since its development, this short form of the survey has been verified as a reliable

and valid measure (McCrae & Costa, 2004). This was chosen over the longer, 240-item

version to reduce the burden placed on participants, as they were already completing a

number of other surveys and observational tasks. Alphas ranged from .74 to .85 for the

five traits for fathers, and .74 to .87 for mothers. This survey can be found attached as

Appendix B.

Attachment

Attachment was measured through the use of the 36-item Experiences in Close

Relationships Questionnaire (ECR; Brennen et al., 1998). This measure is the most

commonly used self-report measure of adult attachment, and provides a score on two

dimensions of Adult Attachment: Anxiety and Avoidance. Each of these two subscales

!

!&)!

contained 18 items. Individuals who report high levels of Anxiety are constantly

worrying about the state of their relationship, and often fear that their partner may

leave them (e.g., “I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner”).

Individuals who report high levels of Avoidance are more likely to sidestep or

minimize emotions and issues within their relationship (e.g., “I prefer not to be too

close to romantic partners“). This questionnaire was only administered at Phase 1, as

research has shown that attachment is a relatively stable characteristic across the adult

lifespan. Alphas for this questionnaire ranged from .88-92 for these dimensions.

Reported frequency of destructive conflict

The Communication Danger Signs Scale is a self-report questionnaire that

measures the frequency of destructive relationship conflict that each parent is

experiencing in the relationship (e.g., “My spouse/partner criticizes or belittles my

opinions, feelings, or desires”). This is a 4-item version that has been shown to reliably

measure conflict (Stanley & Markman, 1997). It was administered at each Phase of the

study so that change in conflict may be measured for each parent across the transition to

parenthood. Alphas for this scale ranged from .70 to .76 for fathers, and .61 to .75 for

mothers. This survey can be found in Appendix C.

Observed conflict interaction

The Marital Agendas Protocol (Notarius & Vanzetti, 1983) is a relationship-

oriented observational task in which couples were asked to use their problem solving

skills. Each individual completed a short preliminary survey where they were asked to

rate different common problem areas in relationships by assigning scores ranging from 0-

100. Upon completion of these surveys, couples were asked to agree upon one common

!

!&*!

problem area and discuss the topic for ten minutes or until they reached an agreeable

solution. Exact task instructions, as well as the short survey, can be found attached as

Appendix D. Couples spent ten minutes discussing a solution towards a mutually agreed

upon problem area within their relationship. This observational task was conducted at

Phases 1, 2, and 4, when participants completed the home visit or laboratory visit portion

of this study.

These dyadic interactions were then coded using the System for Coding

Interactions Among New Parents (SCINP; Hunt, Kamp Dush, & Schoppe-Sullivan,

2010). This is a modified version of the System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID;

Malik & Lindahl, 2004). Multiple teams of coders rated these interactions on a number of

different scales. These coders coded independently from one another, and settled

disputes through reliability conferences. Among the scales of interest for this study is the

problem solving scale. This scale is an individual-level scale that allows each member of

a couple to be scored between 1 (no positive communication) to 5 (all positive

communication). Alphas (a measure of interrater reliability) for this scale ranged from

.61-.83 for fathers, and .53-82 for mothers. This scale assesses problem solving

communication behaviors, such as how often an individual’s affect is positive, or how

often an individual acknowledges their partner’s point of view. For example, one

individual scored a five on this scale by consistently stating his willingness to

compromise on the issue being discussed and expressing his own feelings in a positive,

non-judgmental manner.

The second scale of interest to this study is negative escalation. This is a couple-

level scale that ranges from scores of 1 (very low demonstration of behavior) to 5 (high

!

!&+!

demonstration of behavior). Alphas for this scale ranged from .70-.85 across phases.

Negative escalation refers to the reciprocal cycle of negative behaviors that couples

exhibit during their discussion. For example, one couple received a 5 on this scale

because each individual in the couple consistently responded to their partner’s negativity

with a negative response; this cycle of conflict was observed multiple times, with

aggressive tones and body language. The coding scales for these dimensions may be

found in the coding manual attached as Appendix E, and descriptive statistics for these

scales may be found in Table 1.

!

!&,!

Chapter 4: Preliminary results

Overall, couples reported relatively low levels of destructive conflict frequency at

all phases of the study. Negative escalation was also relatively low at all phases of the

study. On the other hand, problem-solving behaviors were relatively high in this sample

at all time points. In terms of predictor variables, this sample reported relatively high

levels of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Openness; in addition to

this, participants reported moderate levels of Neuroticism. Participants also reported

higher levels of Attachment Anxiety than Attachment Avoidance.

Correlation results indicated that self-reported conflict was consistently,

positively associated over the transition to parenthood. This association existed between

each parent’s own reports of conflict over time, as well as their partner’s reports of

conflict over time. Self-reported conflict was also positively associated with observed

negative escalation behavior for both mothers and fathers at multiple phases. Both

parents’ problem solving behaviors were negatively associated with observed negative

escalation, but this was only observed at Phase 1. Correlations between these study

variables can be found in Tables 2 and 3.

Results

Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) was used to

determine statistically significant predictors of relationship conflict parents experienced

across the transition to parenthood. HLM allows for an examination of variability in

!

!'-!

intercepts and slopes, which means it can be used to identify factors that account for the

variation in initial levels of conflict and changes in conflict over time.

This analysis was conducted using the program HLM to fully explore the

longitudinal, dyadic nature of these data. Individuals within couple relationships exhibit a

“mutual influence” on each other; they do not act completely independently of one

another. As a result, Kashy and Kenny (1999) have called for the use of this program and

technique in examining dyadic data. This method may be used to create a model that

incorporates actor effects (the effects of an individual’s characteristics), partner effects

(the effects of characteristics from an individual’s partner), and similarity effects, and

may be used to understand conflict scores and predictors thereof for parents across the

transition to parenthood.

Hierarchical Linear Modeling can appropriately handle some missing or irregular

data (Helson, Jones, & Kwan, 2002) across these time points. This technique can handle

missing data at Level-1 (within-subject estimation), but not at Level-2 (between-subject

estimation; Raudenbush & Byrk, 2002). For this reason, instances where individuals did

not report personality or attachment scores were dropped (9 couples).

Measurement of similarity

There has been debate in the field as to how similarity in characteristics may be

appropriately calculated; as suggested by Kenny, Kashy, and Cook (2006), intra-class

correlations and discrepancy scores may both be considered appropriate tools. The main

difference between these methods is that discrepancy scores are considered measures of

dissimilarity, whereas intra-class profile correlation scores are considered to be measures

of similarity. Measures of dissimilarity (e.g., discrepancy scores) assume perfect

!

!'$!

similarity, and then proceed to measure how dissimilar the traits in question are; in this

case, smaller values imply greater similarity. Conversely, measures of similarity (e.g.,

intra-class correlations) assume zero similarity, and then measure how similar the items

in question are; in this situation, higher values imply greater similarity (Kenny et al.,

2006). Discrepancy scores are calculated by taking the absolute value of the difference

between each partner’s scores on a trait, and can provide an overall index of the

difference between partners (Dyrenforth et al, 2010). In these analyses, the following

models were computed for each Big Five personality trait twice, and run for each set of

the two Attachment dimensions twice: once for the ICC model, and once for the

discrepancy model. As a result, 42 explanatory models were conducted in total.

Question 1: Self-reported frequency of destructive conflict

Baseline Model

Before incorporating predictors into this model, a baseline model was established

to determine if the incorporation of additional variables was justified. For research

question 1, the baseline model can be seen below:

Level-1 Model:

TOTALCONFLICTti = !1i*(FSLOPEti) + !2i*(FINTERCEPTti) + !3i*(MSLOPEti) +

!4i*(MINTERCEPTti) + eti

Level-2 Model:

!1i = "10 + r1i

!2i = "20 + r2i

!3i = "30 + r3i

!4i = "40 + r4i

The outcome variable of interest in this question was self-reported conflict. Initial

levels (intercepts) and change over time (slopes) in conflict were assessed separately for

!

!'%!

mothers and for fathers. This outcome was the score for each individual partner of couple

t at time i.

This baseline model indicated that both father and mother intercepts were

significantly different from zero (p < .001), but the slopes (the average level of change)

were not significant. However, the slope for mothers (!2 (169) = 246.37, p < .001) and

the intercept for both parents (F: !2 (169) = 406.33, p < .001; M: !2 (169) = 362.36, p <

.001) indicated significant variability, which allowed for the inclusion of additional

explanatory variables as predictors.

Explanatory Models

Using the baseline model as a guide, actor, partner, and similarity effects were

incorporated into the model as Level-2 predictors for both intercepts and the mothers’

slope:

Level-1 Model TOTALCONFLICTti = !1i*(FSLOPEti) + !2i*(FINTERCEPTti) + !3i*(MSLOPEti) +

!4i*(MINTERCEPTti) + eti

Level-2 Model !1i = "10

!2i = "20 + "21*(actori) + "22*(partneri) + "23*(similarityi) + r2i

!3i = "30 + "31*(actori) + "32*(partneri) + "33*(similarityi) + r3i

!4i = "40 + "41*(actori) + "42*(partneri) + "43*(similarityi) + r4i

The explanatory model yielded significant results for both the intercepts and the slope.

Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Conscientiousness were found to be significant

predictors of reported conflict within this model.

Specifically, Agreeableness was significant in both models of similarity. In the

ICC model, when mothers or fathers scored higher on Agreeableness, fathers reported

!

!'&!

less initial (intercept) conflict (M: " = -0.13, p < .05; F: " = -0.18, p < .01). When either

parent scored higher on Agreeableness, mothers experienced less conflict initially (an

intercept effect; M: " = -.015, p < .01; F: " = -0.11, p < .05).

Similarly, the discrepancy model also indicated that when either partner scored

higher on Agreeableness, fathers reported less initial conflict (M: " = -0.12, p < .05; F: "

= -0.19, p <. 01). However, the discrepancy model indicated that only mothers’

Agreeableness predicted less conflict initially for mothers (" = -0.18, p < .01).

Neuroticism also yielded significant results for both models. When mothers or

fathers scored higher on Neuroticism, fathers reported more initial conflict (ICC: M: " =

0.12, p < .01; F: " = 0.14, p < .01; Discrepancy: M: " = 0.11, p < .05; F: " = 0.14, p <

.01). Similarly, when either partner reported higher levels of Neuroticism, mothers

reported more initial conflict (ICC: M: " = 0.14, p <.01; F: " = 0.09, p < .05;

Discrepancy: M: " = 0.14, p < .01; F: " = 0.09, p < .05). Interestingly, marital status was

significant in both models with initial conflict. When couples were married, rather than

cohabiting, this provided a buffer against the negative effects of higher Neuroticism

(ICC: " = -0.21, p < .05; Discrepancy: " = -0.29, p < .01).

Conscientiousness was also associated with self-reported conflict; however, this

was only observed in the ICC model. When fathers reported higher levels of

Conscientiousness, they reported less conflict initially (F: " = -0.15, p < .05). Marital

status also seemed to matter in this model, as it provided an additional protective buffer,

as married couples reported less conflict (ICC: " = -0.24, p < .05).

In terms of Attachment Avoidance, both the ICC and Discrepancy models

produced similar results. When fathers reported more Avoidance, both mothers and

!

!''!

fathers reported more conflict before their child was born (ICC: M: " = 0.10, p < .05; F: "

= 0.19, p < .01; Discrepancy: M: " = 0.11, p < .05; F: " = 0.18, p < .01)

The biggest difference between the two models of similarity was observed with

respect to Attachment Anxiety. These models had some results that were the same, some

that were similar, and some that were unique to one model. Both the ICC and the

discrepancy models found that when fathers or mothers reported higher Anxiety, mothers

reported more conflict before the infant was born (ICC: M: " = 0.11, p < .01; F: " = 0.11,

p < .01; Discrepancy: M: " = 0.14, p < .01; F: " = 0.09, p < .05). Additionally, in both

models, when fathers reported higher Anxiety, they reported more initial conflict before

their child was born (Both models: " = 0.14, p < .01). However, only the ICC model

indicated that when mothers also reported higher Anxiety, fathers reported more initial

conflict before their child was born (" = 0.06, p < .05); both of these models indicated

that married fathers (Both: " = -0.22, p < .05), and fathers with white partners (Both: " =

-0.24, p < .05), reported less conflict. Finally, the Discrepancy model yielded a slope

effect, while the ICC model did not: when mothers reported more Anxiety, they reported

less conflict over time (" = -.03 p < .05). There was even less decrease for white mothers

(" = -.08 p < .05)

Neither Openness nor Extraversion produced any significant results for either the

ICC or discrepancy models. The variables that yielded significant findings for this

question are highlighted in Tables 4-7.

Question 2: Problem solving behaviors

For research question 2, the baseline model can be seen below:

Baseline Model

!

!'(!

Level-1 Model PROBLEMSOLVINGti = !1i*(FSLOPEti) + !2i*(FINTERCEPTti) +

!3i*(MOTHERSLOPEti) + !4i*(MOTHERINTERCEPTti) + eti

Level-2 Model

!1i = "10 + r1i

!2i = "20 + r2i

!3i = "30 + r3i

!4i = "40 + r4i

The outcome variable of interest in this question was problem-solving behavior. Similar

to question 1, this was an individual-level variable. For this variable, a higher score

indicated positive behaviors. Initial levels (intercepts) and change over time (slopes) in

problem solving were assessed separately for mothers and for fathers. While the slopes

were not significant in this model, both of the intercepts were (p < .001). However, the

slopes (F: !2 (129) = 224.11, p < .001; M: !2 (129) = 214.38, p < .001) and intercepts (F:

!2(129) = 314.09, p < .001; M: !2 (129) = 262.69, p < .001) for both fathers and mothers

did have significant variability, which allowed for the incorporation of Level-2

personality and attachment predictors.

Explanatory Models

Using the baseline model as a guide, actor, partner, and similarity effects were

incorporated into the model as Level-2 predictors for both intercepts and slopes:

Level-1 Model

PROBLEMSOLVINGti = !1i*(FATHERSLOPEti) + !2i*(FATHERINCEPTti) +

!3i*(MOTHERSLOPEti) + !4i*(MOTHERINTERCEPTti) + eti

Level-2 Model

!1i = "10 + "11*(actori) + "12*(partneri) + "13*(similarityi) + r1i

!2i = "20 + "21*(actori) + "22*(partneri) + "23*(similarityi) + r2i

!

!')!

!3i = "30 + "31*(actori) + "32*(partneri) + "33*(similarityi) + r3i

!4i = "40 + "41*(actori) + "42*(partneri) + "43*(similarityi) + r4i

This model yielded significant findings for this research question; interestingly, these

significant results were only observed in the ICC model. When fathers scored higher on

Agreeableness, they demonstrated more problem solving behaviors during the prenatal

period (F: " = 0.44, p < .001). Also, when fathers scored higher on Attachment

Avoidance, fathers engaged in less observable problem solving behavior before their

child was born (F: " = -0.35, p < .05); again, this finding was only observed in the ICC

model. In this model, older fathers exhibited more problem solving behaviors initially ("

= .11, p < .01).

When partners scored more similarly on Avoidance, fathers demonstrated fewer

problem-solving behaviors over time (" = -0.35, p < .05); in this case, older fathers also

demonstrated less problem solving behaviors than their younger counterparts (" = -0.04,

p < .01).

No significant results were found for Agreeableness in the discrepancy model.

Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Attachment Anxiety also

did not produce any significant findings for either model. The results that were significant

for this research question can be found in Tables 8-11.

Question 3: Negative escalation behaviors

Baseline Model

Before incorporating predictors into this model, a baseline model must be

established to determine if the incorporation of additional variables is justified. For

research question 3, the baseline model can be seen below:

!

!'*!

Level-1 Model

NEGATIVEti = !0i + !1i*(LINEARti) + eti

Level-2 Model

!0i = "00 + r0i

!1i = "10 + r1i

In this question, the outcome variable of interest was negative escalation. Unlike

questions 1 and 2, this variable is a couple-level variable. As a result, there was no need

for separate intercepts and slopes for men and women.

The baseline model demonstrated that while the intercept was significant (p

<.001), the slope was not significant. However, both the intercept (!2 (128) = 273.53, p

<.001) and slope (!2 (!2 (128) = 223.38, p < .001) showed significant variability, which

allowed for the inclusion of personality and attachment predictors at Level-2.

Explanatory Models

Using the baseline model as a guide, individual characteristics for each parent,

along with similarity effects, were incorporated into the model as Level-2 predictors for

both intercepts and slopes:

Level-1 Model

NEGATIVEti = !0i + !1i*(LINEARti) + eti

Level-2 Model

!0i = "00 + "01*(malei) + "02*(femalei) + "03*(similarityi) + r0i

!1i = "10 + "11*(malei) + "12*(femalei) + "13*(similarityi) + r1i

This model yielded significant findings for Agreeableness, Neuroticism,

Attachment Anxiety, and Attachment Avoidance. When mothers reported higher levels of

Agreeableness, couples engaged in less observable negative escalation behaviors before

their child was born (ICC: " = -0.39, p < .01; Discrepancy: " = -0.46, p <.01). This was

!

!'+!

true for both the ICC model as well as the discrepancy model. However, the discrepancy

model yielded an additional finding: when couples scored more similarly in

Agreeableness, they engaged in more negative escalation behavior before the birth of

their child (" = 0.31, p = .05). In both models, the age of fathers was significant (Both

models: " = -0.04, p <.05 ); couples with older fathers exhibited less observable negative

escalation behaviors initially. In both models, when fathers reported higher levels of

Neuroticism, couples engaged in more negative escalation over time (Both models: " =

0.14, p < .05).

In terms of Attachment Avoidance, both models yielded results. When fathers or

mothers were more Avoidant, couples engaged in more negative escalation before their

child was born ICC: M: " = 0.17, p < .05; F: " = 0.29, p < .01; Discrepancy: M: " = 0.18,

p < .01; F: " = 0.33, p < .01); couples with older fathers engaged in less negative

escalation (Both models: " = -.04, p < .05). Interestingly, when parents scored similarly

in Attachment Anxiety (in the ICC model), they engaged in less negative escalation

behavior before the birth of their child (ICC: " = -0.45, p < .05).

Neither model of similarity produced significant results for Extraversion,

Openness, or Conscientiousness for this research question. The variables that did produce

significant results are summarized in Tables 12-15.

!

!',!

Chapter 5: Discussion

This study has a number of strengths that make it a unique contribution to the

field. Specifically, it is one of few longitudinal studies of relationships that has examined

conflict as an outcome variable. This study was also unique in its use of attachment and

personality and similarity in these psychological constructs to predict conflict across the

transition to parenthood. In addition to this advantageous use of longitudinal data, this

study was also able to use dyadic data to begin to hint at larger family processes, rather

than individual-level processes. Further, this study was able to not only examine conflict

using self-report data, but also incorporated observational data on conflict across multiple

time points. The findings of this study indicate that both personality and attachment are

important to understanding relationship conflict across the transition to parenthood.

For each of the three research questions, the baseline models indicated that the

intercepts were significantly different from zero. These intercepts also varied

significantly, which allowed for the inclusion of personality and attachment predictors at

Level-2 in an attempt to understand individual differences in conflict behaviors for

couples before the birth of their child.

Interestingly, none of the slopes were significant; this means that on average,

there is no change in conflict behaviors over the transition to parenthood for both the self-

report data and the observational data. This is consistent with previous findings that

conflict is a stable characteristic of couple relationships over time (Kamp Dush, 2011),

and extends these findings to suggest that conflict is also stable across an important and

!

!(-!

stressful relationship transition. Most of the slopes varied significantly, which indicated

individual differences in patterns of change in conflict behaviors. For this reason,

personality traits and attachment styles were used as predictors to try to understand

individual initial differences and change over time for couples.

Both attachment and personality variables, particularly for fathers, were

significantly related to initial levels of destructive conflict frequency, problem-solving

behaviors, and negative escalation behaviors. These findings suggest that attachment and

personality really are enduring vulnerabilities, as suggested by the VSA model (Karney

& Bradbury, 1995). In other words, couples adapt in different ways during this time of

stress based on the vulnerabilities they exhibit before their child is even born. These

results indicated that both dimensions of Attachment, as well as some measures of

personality (Neuroticism and Agreeableness) predict interpersonal conflict in intimate

relationships.

While some similarity results were documented, similarity did not seem to matter

as much as Actor and Partner effects. While differences were found between the two

models of similarity, one does not seem to produce a greater advantage over the other.

More often than not, the results were the same (or very similar). Most typically, the actor

or partner effects that lost significance between models only dropped to trends, indicating

that the similarity effects were not as important as the main effects of the characteristics

of individuals.

It is noteworthy that overall, the characteristics of fathers seemed to be very

important; this was true for both personality and attachment. This importance reiterates

the need to study both individuals within the couple context, as both Actor and Partner

!

!($!

effects were important. While the importance of maternal characteristics has been

established during this time of transition (Bower et al., 2012), the role of paternal

characteristics on conflict in the family context has been studied less frequently

(Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Raymond, 2004). Father psychological characteristics are

associated not only with marital functioning, but have also been linked to child outcomes

(Du Rocher Schuldich & Cummings, 2003).

Question 1: Self-reported frequency of destructive conflict

The results for the ICC and Discrepancy models produced the same findings for

Neuroticism: when either parent scored higher on Neuroticism, they and their partner

both reported more frequent destructive conflict before the birth of their child; actor and

partner effects were both very important in this model. The harmful effect of

Neuroticism on relationships is well documented, and Neuroticism has been consistently

shown to be highly associated with conflict (and other relational constructs) within

intimate relationships (Caughlin et al., 2000; Belsky & Hsieh, 1998). These findings are

consistent with the findings of the current study.

The effect of fathers’ Conscientiousness was also important; when fathers

reported higher levels of Conscientiousness, they reported less frequent destructive

conflict before their child was born; this was only observed in the ICC model of

similarity There have been mixed findings on the role that Conscientiousness (also

commonly referred to as Constraint) plays in relationships. In the current study, this is a

beneficial trait to have in relationships, and helped reduce the frequency of destructive

conflict. It has previously been suggested that Conscientiousness may play this role in

relationships (Robins et al., 2000), as one of the main components of this trait is impulse

!

!(%!

control and self-regulation. It would make sense those individuals who score highly on

this trait would be more self-aware regarding their conflict behaviors, and may

consciously work to avoid frequent destructive arguments.

In addition to this, Agreeableness was also significant. In both models, when

either mothers or fathers reported higher levels of Agreeableness, fathers reported less

frequent destructive conflict before the birth of their child. Similarly, in both models,

when mothers reported higher levels of Agreeableness, they reported less frequent

destructive conflict initially. In addition to this, the ICC model also found that when

fathers reported more Agreeableness, mothers reported less frequent destructive conflict

across this transition. These findings confirm previous research that Agreeableness is a

beneficial trait for relationships (Wood & Bell, 2008; Belsky & Hseih, 1998).

Both dimensions of Attachment were significantly associated with self-reported

frequency of destructive conflict. In both the ICC and Discrepancy models, when fathers

scored higher on Avoidance, both mothers and fathers reported more conflict before their

child was born. The reason for this increased frequency of destructive conflict makes

sense. A tendency of Avoidantly Attached individuals is to withdraw; when this happens,

partners become more likely to pursue (Eldrige & Christensen, 2002) and this may lead

to a conflict. This frustrating (for both parties) cycle may lead to the more frequent

destructive conflict that both of them reported.

There were also a number of findings regarding Attachment Anxiety. In both

models, when fathers or mothers reported higher Anxiety, mothers reported more

frequent destructive conflict initially. Additionally, both models indicated that when

fathers reported higher Anxiety, fathers reported more frequent initial destructive

!

!(&!

conflict; on top of this, the ICC model also found this effect when mothers reported

higher Anxiety. Campbell et al. (2005) also found this same association between Anxiety

and conflict; individuals with higher Anxiety reported more destructive conflict

frequency and negative escalation. Additionally, these couples were observed engaging in

more negative escalation behaviors.

The discrepancy model also had a unique finding: when mothers reported higher

Anxiety, they reported less frequent destructive conflict over time. This finding is

inconsistent with much of the past work in this area. For example, Rholes et al. (2001)

found that higher mothers’ Anxiety was associated with lower relationship satisfaction, as

well as a measure of relationship functioning that included conflict. It is possible these

parents may be scoring higher on Anxiety during the pre-natal period, while they are

reforming their family system to prepare for their child’s arrival. This experience comes

with role shifts, and this may be a difficult experience for highly Anxious individuals,

which in turn may lead to conflict. The slope effect may be explained by the possibility

that these highly Anxious individuals are settling into their new roles with their child and

their partner, and with a reduction in this Anxiety, are engaging in less frequent

destructive conflict.

Question 2: Problem solving behaviors

When assessing problem-solving behaviors in terms of partner or actor effects of

personality and attachment, it seems that only father (actor) effects were important. It is

also important to note that only the ICC model of similarity yielded significant results.

When fathers reported higher Agreeableness, they reported more problem-solving

behaviors before their child was born. This is backed by other findings that suggest

!

!('!

higher levels of Agreeableness are associated with more positive, and less negative,

relational interactions (Donnellan et al, 2004). In practice, this makes sense, as the facets

of Agreeableness include cooperation and compliance, and problem solving would

naturally be a part of these tendencies.

Fathers’ Attachment Avoidance was also important. When fathers reported higher

levels of Avoidance, fathers were observed engaging in less frequent problem solving

behaviors before their child was born. This finding seems to be one of the first of its

kind, as no other studies have used Attachment (as measured by the ECR) to predict

longitudinal, observational problem-solving behaviors. While these findings should be

confirmed, the direction of effects makes sense. Fathers who are more emotionally

avoidant in times of stress are not likely to easily demonstrate cooperative efforts in

emotional discussion of conflict.

Question 3: Negative escalation behaviors

Both the ICC and the Discrepancy models of similarity indicated that Attachment

Avoidance was significantly associated with negative escalation. When either parent was

more Avoidant, couples engaged in more observable negative escalation before their

child was born. This is consistent with previous research, which has suggested that

insecure attachment, particularly for fathers, is associated with more negative escalation

(Paley et al., 2005).

The two models of similarity also had the same findings for Agreeableness. When

mothers were more Agreeable, couples engaged in less negative escalation before their

child was born; of these couples. According to Donnellan et al. (2004), Agreeableness is

negatively associated with observable negative interactions in intimate relationships. This

!

!((!

makes sense; couples with individuals who are more Agreeable will be less likely to

engage in fighting, and less likely to engage in destructive conflict behaviors when they

do fight. Even if one partner says something negative, the other partner is more likely to

diffuse the situation, rather than escalate it.

The findings for Neuroticism were also consistent with past research. Both the

ICC and Discrepancy models indicated that when fathers scored higher on Neuroticism,

couples engaged in more negative escalation across the transition to parenthood.

Caughlin et al. (2000) found that individuals who scored higher on Neuroticism engaged

in more observable conflict behaviors (marital negativity) over time. Overall,

Neuroticism is consistently predictive of the negative aspects of relationship functioning

(decreased satisfaction, increased conflict, etc).

Similarity Effects

While the associations between attachment and observed conflict over the

transition to parenthood have been examined in the past (Paley et al., 2005), no studies

have examined the role of attachment similarity between partners during this period. This

study was the first to examine similarity during the transition to parenthood, and found

that in couples who were more similarly Avoidant (in the ICC model), fathers

demonstrated fewer problem-solving behaviors over time. If couples are similarly, highly

Avoidant, it makes sense that fathers will not be engaging in problem solving, as highly

Avoidant individuals would not be comfortable engaging in an emotional discussion of

conflict. If partners are similarly low on Avoidance, it is possible that they are simply

more secure and confident in their relationship, and feel less of a need to engage in active

problem solving during this task. This effect may be observed more easily from fathers,

!

!()!

as question 2 indicated that fathers Attachment Avoidance (actor effects) were important

for their problem solving behaviors, but mothers’ Avoidance (partner effect) by itself was

not.

Further, when couples were more similar on Attachment Anxiety (in the ICC

model of similarity), they engaged in less negative escalation behavior before their child

was born. While higher Attachment Anxiety may be associated with increased conflict

(as results for question 1 indicated), similarity may not necessarily be harmful. Similarity

may mean that both partners have low Anxiety scores; however, even if both parents

score highly, this may be beneficial to them. As Gonzaga et al. (2007) indicated, when

dyads are more similar, they may be more likely to engage in more shared emotional

experiences. This shared understanding may help to be a buffer against potential negative

conflict.

However, the Discrepancy model an additional finding; when couples were more

similarly Agreeable, they engaged in more negative escalation behaviors. This does not

indicate whether or not couples are similarly low or high on this trait. If both parents are

similarly low on Agreeableness, then increased observations of negative escalation would

be consistent with previous findings (Donnellan et al, 2004). However, if couples are

similarly high in Agreeableness, this finding appears to be counterintuitive. One

possibility is that couples may be engaging in “social mirroring”. This is when

individuals unconsciously engage in behaviors that imitate others; this trait has been

linked with increased levels of empathy (Iacoboni, 2009). Empathy and Agreeableness

are highly related, as both deal with the quality of interpersonal behaviors (Costa,

McCrae, & Dye, 1991), and are associated with pro-social behaviors (Graziano &

!

!(*!

Eisenberg, 1997). It is possible that couples who are similarly high in Agreeableness are

unknowingly engaging in mirroring behaviors, and may be feeding into a negative cycle

of escalation by reinforcing one another’s behaviors.

Demographic Effects

A number of demographic effects were significant throughout these models. The

most consistent finding among these was that married couples reported less conflict than

cohabiting couples did. Earlier work has indicated that differences do exist between

couples that decide to cohabit and those that do not. Specifically, it has been shown that

couples who cohabited engaged in conflict in different ways (less positive, and more

negative) than their counterparts (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002).

Couples with white mothers also seemed to fair better than those with non-White

mothers, as they reported less frequent destructive conflict. Race has been shown to be

slightly associated with relationship change during the transition to parenthood; white

couples reported higher levels of marital adjustment than black couples (Tucker, James,

& Turner, 1985). It is possible that these differences exist due to other variables that are

associated with race, such as socio-economic status (Costello, Keeler, & Angold, 2001).

Finally, the age of fathers appeared to have mixed results. Couples with older

fathers engaged in more problem solving behaviors before the birth of their child, but

couples with older fathers engaged in less problem solving behaviors over time. While

the effects of father age may seem contradictory or counterintuitive at first glance, the

explanation may be simpler. It is possible that older fathers are more set in their roles,

and thus have more experience negotiating conflict in a positive problem-solving manner.

However, as these fathers demonstrate higher problem solving skills, they also have the

!

!(+!

“furthest to fall” so to speak. Interestingly, couples with older fathers did not exhibit as

much negative escalation. For a number of these models, couples with older fathers

tended to engage in less observable negative escalation. It is possible that older fathers

have had more time to plan to parenthood, and thus the family has greater resources

during this time of transition; this may be especially important, as finances are one of the

most commonly argued topics among couples; in this sample, almost 18% of couples

chose to discuss this topic (this was tied with household tasks as the most common issue

couples discussed).

Strengths, limitations, and directions for future research

Despite its strengths, this study was not conducted without limitations.

Specifically, this study has four main drawbacks. The first of these issues is the

homogeneity of this sample; for the most part, this is a very highly educated sample, with

a majority of White parents, who have a relatively high level of income. As a result, the

findings of this study may not be generalizable to all couples experiencing the transition

to parenthood. As similar projects move forward with their own data collection,

researchers should take careful note of their sampling procedures to help counteract this

limitation.

Secondly, the reliability of some of the observational data is a bit low at some

phases. Coding is not yet complete on these observational variables; this low reliability

may account for the fact that research questions two and three had fewer significant

findings than the self-report data used in research question one. Once coding is complete,

and reliability has been fully achieved, these variables may yield further significant

findings.

!

!(,!

In addition to this, there is a possibility of shared method variance. Research

question 1 yielded more significant results than the other two questions. Due to the fact

that the outcome, a self-report measure, was predicted by another self-report measure, it

is possible that shared method variance bias inflated these associations. Structural

equation modeling techniques, such as latent growth curve modeling, could be used in

future research to control that type of bias. Finally, the analyses for this study used linear

modeling because there were only four time points in this study, and in that case linear

modeling is most appropriate. Future studies should work to include more time points so

that non-linear models may be used (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

As the field moves forward, and the issue of similarity measurement is settled,

there are additional measurement issues that should be considered. While the short-form

version of the NEO can provide researchers with an accurate snapshot of personality,

there is a need to delve deeper into these traits. Specifically, how are the facets of each

trait related to relationship conflict or relationship satisfaction? Similarity on all facets

may not necessarily be beneficial, even if similarity on an overall trait demonstrates this.

This study did not work to address all of these issues, but was instead meant as an

exploratory study that may help guide future work, particularly regarding similarity.

These results may also help to guide future intervention work with couples and

families. Some couples may be targeted for intervention and future study, such as

younger, cohabiting couples, as they appear to be more at risk. These findings suggest the

importance of working with these couples as early as possible. If couples adapt to the

stress of having a child by establishing negative patterns of conflict based on their

enduring vulnerabilities, they may become too set in these patterns to change their

!

!)-!

behavior. Attachment may be more malleable than personality, and it is possible for these

findings to be used in the therapeutic process. Susan Johnson and her colleagues

(Johnson, Makinen, & Millikin, 2001) work with couples to understand how attachment

processes influence their relationship. The current findings may be used in programs such

as this to help couples change these processes to engage in less conflict, and more

constructive conflict, especially during times of stress, such as the transition to

parenthood.

!

!)$!

References

Backstrom, M., & Holmes, B. (2001). Measuring adult attachment: A construct

validation of two self-report instruments. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,

42, 79-86.

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 7 (2), 147-178.

Banse, R. (2004). Adult attachment and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic

configuration effects. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 273-282.

Barrick, M.,& Mount, M. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Belsky, J., & Hsieh, K. (1998). Patterns of marital change during the early childhood

years: Parent personality, coparenting, and division-of-labor correlates. Journal of

Family Psychology, 12, 511-528.

Belsky, J., Lang, M., & Rovine, M. (1985). Stability and change in marriage across the

transition to parenthood: A second study. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

47, 855-865.

Belsky, J., & Pensky, E. (1988). Marital change across the transition to parenthood.

Marriage and Family Review, 12, 133-156.

Bono, J., Boles, T., Judge, T., Lauver, K. (2002). The role of personality in task and

relationship conflict. Journal of Personality, 70, 311-344.

!

!)%!

Bower, D., Jia, R., Schoppe-Sullivan, S., Mangelsdorf, S., & Brown, H. (2012). Parent

psychological characteristics and change in couple relationship satisfaction in

families with infants. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

Bowlby, J. (1956). The growth of independence in the young child. Royal Society of

Health Journal, 76, 587-591.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult

attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.),

Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.

Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship

satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15, 141-154.

Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for

dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal

Relationships, 9, 327-342.

Campbell, L., Simpson, J., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and

support in romantic relationships: The role of Attachment Anxiety. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510-531.

Cann, A., Norman, M., Welbourne, J., & Calhoun, L. (2008). Attachment styles, conflict

styles and humour styles: interrelationships and associations with relationship

satisfaction. European Journal of Personality, 22, 131-146.

Carver, C. (1997). Adult attachment and personality: Converging evidence and a new

measure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 865-883.

!

!)&!

Capsi, A., Harrington, H., Milne, B., Amell, J., Theodore, R., & Moffitt, T. (2003).

Children’s behavioral styles at age 3 are linked to their adult personality traits at

age 26. Journal of Personality, 71, 495-514.

Choi, H., & Marks, N. (2008). Marital conflict, depressive symptoms, and functional

impairment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 377-390.

Caughlin, J., Huston, T., & Houts, R. (2000). How does personality matter in marriage?

An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital satisfaction.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 326-336.

Cohan, C., & Kleinbaum, S. (2002). Toward a greater understanding of the cohabitation

effect: Premarital cohabitation and marital communication. Journal of Marriage

and Family, 64, 180-192.

Costa, P, & McCrae, R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1997). Longitudinal stability of adult personality. Handbook of

personality psychology. 269-290.

Costa, P., McCrae, R., & Dye, D. (1991). Facet scales for Agreeableness and

Conscientiousness: A revision of the Neo Personality Inventory. Personality and

Individual Differences, 12, 887-898.

Costello, J., Nichols-Casebolt, A. (2007). Racial/ethnic disparities in the use of ecological

framework for assessment and goal formulation. Child and Adolescent Social

Work Journal, 21, 211-235.

!

!)'!

Crnic, K., & Booth, C. (1991). Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of daily hassles of

parenting across early childhood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 1042-

1050.

Crohan, S. (1996). Marital quality and conflict across the transition to parenthood in

African American and white couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 933-

944.

Cummings, E.M., & Davies, P. (2008). Marital conflict and children: An emotional

security perspective. New York, NY: The Guilford Press

Cummings, E.M., Goeke-Morey, M., & Raymond, J. (2004). Fathers in family context:

Effects of marital quality and marital conflict. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the

father in child development (4th ed., pp. 196-221). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Donnellan, M., Conger, R., & Bryant, C. (2004). The big five and enduring marriages.

Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 481-504.

Doss, B., Rhoades, G., Stanley, S., & Markman, H. (2009). The effect of the transition to

parenthood on relationship quality: An eight-year prospective study. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 601-619.

Du Rocher Schuldich, T., & Cummings, E.M. (2003). Parental dysphoria and children’s

internalizing symptoms: Marital conflict styles as mediators of risk. Child

Development, 74, 1663-1681.

Dyrenforth, P., Kashy, D., Donnellan, M., & Lucas, R. (2010). Predicting relationship

and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from

three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and similarity effects.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 690-702.

!

!)(!

Eldridge, K., & Christensen, A. (2002). Demand-withdraw communication during couple

conflict: A review and analysis. Understanding marriage: Developments in the

study of couple interaction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Feeney, J. (1994). Attachment style, communication patterns, and satisfaction across the

life cycle of marriage. Personal Relationships, 4, 333-348.

Fraley, R., & Davis, K. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults’ close

friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131-144.

Funder, D (2007). The Personality Puzzle. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company,

Inc.

Funk, J., & Rogge, R. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing

precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the couples

satisfaction index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572-583.

Gallo, L., Smith, T., & Ruiz, J. (2003). An interpersonal analysis of adult attachment

style: circumplex descriptions, recalled developmental experiences, self-

representations, and interpersonal functioning in adulthood. Journal of

Personality, 71, 141-181.

Gattis, K., Simpson, L., Christensen, A., & Berns, S. (2004). Birds of a feather or strange

birds? Ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital quality.

Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 564-574.

Gonzaga, G., Campos, B, & Bradbury, T. (2007). Similarity, convergence, and

relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 93, 34-48.

Graziano, W., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R.

!

!))!

Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds), Handbook of personality psychology. San

Diego: Academic Press. Pp 795-824.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

Helson, R., Jones, C., & Kwan, V. (2002). Personality change over 40 years of

adulthood: Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of two longitudinal samples.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 752-766.

Hunt, J., Kamp Dush, C., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. (2010). System for coding interactions

among new parents. New Parents Project Marital Agendas Protocol Coding

Manual.

Iacoboni, M. (2009). Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annual Review of

Psychology, 60, 653-670.

Johnson, S., Makinen, J., & Millikin, J. (2001). Attachment injuries in couple

relationships: A new perspective on impasses in couples therapy. Journal of

Marriage and Family Therapy, 27, 145-155.

Kamp Dush, C., & Taylor, M. (2011). Trajectories of marital conflict across the life

course: Predictors and interactions with marital happiness trajectories. Journal of

Family Issues, 39, 1-28.

Karney, B., & Bradbury, T. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and

stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin,

118(1), 3-34.

Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H.

T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology.

!

!)*!

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kenny, D., Kashy, D., & Cook, W. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship

stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality, and Social Psychology,

66, 502-512.

Kluwer, E., & Johnson, M. (2007). Conflict frequency and relationship quality across the

transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1089-1106.

Kobak, R. R., & Hazan, C. (1991). Attachment in marriage: Effects of security and

accuracy of working models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,

861-869.

Lawrence, E., Cobb, R., Rothman, A., Rothman, M., & Bradbury, T. (2008). Marital

satisfaction across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 22,

41-50.

Levy-Shiff, R. (1994). Individual and contextual correlates of marital change across the

transition to parenthood. Developmental Psychology, 30, 591-601.

Lindhal, K., 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, 139-151.

Lussler, Y., Sabourin, S., & Turgeon, C. (1997). Coping strategies as moderators of the

relationship between attachment and marital adjustment. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 14, 777-791.

!

!)+!

Malik, N., & Lindahl, K. (2004). System for coding interactions in dyads. In P. Kerig &

D. Baucom (Eds.), Couple observational coding systems (pp. 173-188). Mahway,

NJ: LEA

McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor

Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 587-296.

McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across

instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-

90.

Noftle, E., & Shaver, P. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the big five personality

traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. Journal

of Research in Personality, 40, 179-208.

Notarius, C. & Vanzetti, N. (1983). Marital agendas protocol. In E. Filsinger (Ed.), A

sourcebook of marriage and family assessment (pp 209-227). Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage.

Paley, B., Cox, M. J., & Kanoy, K. (2001). The Young Family Interaction Coding

System. In P. Kerig & K. Lindahl (Eds.), Family observational coding systems:

Resources for systemic research (pp. 273–288). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and

data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Grich, J. (2001). Adult attachment and

the transition to parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,

421–435.

!

!),!

Robins, R., Capsi, A., & Moffitt, T. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship: Both

partners’ personality traits shape the quality of their relationship. Personality

processes and individual differences, 79, 251-259.

Russell, R., & Wells, P. (1991). Personality similarity and quality of marriage.

Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 407-412.

Saavedra, M., Chapman, K., & Rogge, R. (2010). Clarifying links between attachment

and relationship quality: Hostile conflict and mindfulness as moderators. Journal

of Family Psychology, 24, 380-390.

Senchak, M., & Leonard, K. E. (1992). Attachment styles and marital adjustment among

newlywed couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 51-64.

Shaver, P., & Brennan, K. (1992). Attachment styles and the “Big Five” personality

traits: Their connections with each other and with romantic relationship outcomes.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 536-545.

Shiota, M., & Levenson, R. (2007). Birds of a feather don’t always fly farthest: Similarity

in big five personality predicts more negative marital satisfaction trajectories in

long-term marriages. Psychology and Aging, 22, 666-675.

Simpson, J., Rholes, S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An

attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 899-

914.

Sroufe, L. (1985). Attachment classification from the perspective of infant-caregiver

relationships and infant temperament. Child Development, 56, 1-14.

Stanley, S., & Markman, H. (1997). Marriage in the 90s: A nationwide random phone

survey. Denver, CO: PREP Inc. Wood, V., & Bell, P. (2008). Predicting

!

!*-!

interpersonal conflict resolution styles from personality characteristics.

Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 126-131.

Tach, L., & Halpern-Meekin, S. (2009). How does premarital cohabitation affect

trajectories of marital quality? Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 298-317.

Tobin, R., Graziano, W., Vanman, E., & Tassinary, L. (2000). Personality, emotional

experience, and efforts to control emotions. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 79, 656-669.

Tucker, C., James, L., & Turner, S. (1985). Sex roles, parenthood, and marital

adjustment: A comparison of blacks and whites. Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology, 3, 51-61.

Twenge, J., Campbell, W., & Foster, C. (2003). Parenthood and marital satisfaction: A

meta-analytic review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 574-583.

Van Langingham, J., Johnson, D., & Amato, P. (2001). Marital happiness, marital

duration, and the U-Shaped curve: Evidence from a five-wave panel study. Social

Forces, 79, 1313-1341.

Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment

security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child

Development, 71, 684-689.

Wood, V., & Bell, P. (2008). Predicting interpersonal conflict resolution styles from

personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 126-131.

Yee Ho, M., Chen, S., Bond, M., Hui, C., Chan, C., & Friedman, M. (2012). Linking

adult attachment styles to relationship satisfaction in Hong Kong and the United

!

!*$!

States: The mediating role of personal and structural commitment. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 13, 565-578.

!

!*%!

Appendices

Appendix A: Tables

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of Study Variables

!"#$%&'(&%)*+",-.+$'!",/%+0*!

! ./012324! &!561378! )!561378! ,!561378!

! 9!:;<=!9!:;<=>!?!5"88"1@!

9!:;<=>!?!5"88"1@!

9!:;<=>!?!5"88"1@!

A<;!:9=! $B()!:-B&,=!$B(*!:-B'*=>!

'?!$B'+!:-B'$=>!

%)?!$B(*!:-B''=>!

$)?!

A<;!:C=! $B)-!:-B'(=!$B((!:-B'&=>!

(?!$B(%!:-B''=>!

&-?!$B)-!:-B'%=B!

$*?!

./6D405!;64#"1@!:9=! &B%%!:-B,$=!

%B+*!:-B)(=>!$+?! EE!

&B-*!:-B+*=>!&%?!

./6D405!;64#"1@!:C=!&B-%!:$B-$=!

%B*+!:-B)*=>!$+?! EE!

%B,&!:-B+,=>!&%?!

F0@23"#0!G8H2423"61! $B'+!:-B+*=!$B&$!:-B*%=>!

$+?! EE!$B'$!:-B+,=>!

&%?!

!"#$%&-1'$&2-",)%+*3'0.)2)0*&2+-*+0-'),4')**)0.5&,*'-*3%&!

!96370/! C2370/! IAA! <"8H/0J21HK!

L@/002D401088!&B,)!:-B(-=! &B)$!:-B($=! -B$*!:-B&%=! -B)$!:-B'+=!

F0M/63"H"85!%B(&!:-B))=! %B'$!:-B)&=! -B-$!:-B&(=! -B),!:-B()=!

A618H"013"6M81088!&B,)!:-B('=! &B+$!:-B(-=! -B'-!:-B&(=! -B()!:-B'*=!

GN3/2#0/8"61!&B(*!:-B(-=! &B'*!:-B(-=! -B$)!:-B&'=! -B(&!:-B')=!

OJ011088!&B%)!:-B(-=! &B&$!:-B((=! -B&&!:-B%*=! -B(%!:-B&+=!

L332H75013!L1N"03K!&B-+!:$B-*=! %B)%!:-B,,=! B-&!:-B&'=! $B%-!:-B++=!

L332H75013!L#6"P21H0!$B++!:-B*+=! %B$%!:-B*$=! E-B-+!:-B&-=! -B+-!:-B)'=!

M = Mother; F = Father

!

!"#!

Table 2

Correlations between predictor variables

!!

$%! &%! #%! '%! (%! )%! "%! *%! +%! $,%! $$%! $&%! $#%! $'%!

$%!-!./011! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

&%!-!21304! 5%&)66! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

#%!-!7489:! %$(6! 5%#"66! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

'%!-!;<=0>! %$+6! 5%&'66! %$(6! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

(%!-!?@18! 5%,,! %,#! 5%&)66! %,$! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

)%!A!./011! %,'! %,,! 5%,"! %,*! 5%,*! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

"%!A!21304! %,$! %,*! %,)! %,+! %,)! 5%&(66! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

*%!A!7489:! 5%,#! 5%,+! %,*! 5%,,! 5%,*! %$,! 5%&(66! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! !

+%!A!;<=0>! 5%,)! 5%,*! %$'! %,'! 5%,*! %&"66! 5%&(66! %$$! $%,,! ! ! ! ! !

$,%!A!?@18! 5%,#! %,*! 5%$&! 5%,+! %&)66! 5%,)! 5%,'! 5%$+6! 5%,$! $%,,! ! ! ! !

$$%!./011!B77! 5%,)! %,+! 5%,)! 5%,(! %,$! %,+! 5%,#! 5%,'! %,+! %$)6! $%,,! ! ! !

$&%!21304!B77! 5%$$! 5%,'! %$&! 5%$(6! 5%,'! 5%,$! %,'! %,)! %,"! 5%,*! 5%,+! $%,,! ! !

$#%!7489:!B77! 5%,*! %,&! %,&! 5%,+! 5%&&66! %,"! 5%,&! %$,! %,#! 5%&(66! %,#! %&"66! $%,,! !

$'%!;<=0>!B77! %,(! %,)! 5%,'! 5%,$! %,$! %,#! %,)! %,$! %,)! 5%$#! %,+! 5%,*! %,#! $%,,!

*p < .05 ** p < .01; Notes: ICC = intraclass correlation; Disc = discrepancy; M = mother; F = father; Neuro = Neuroticism; Consc = Consciousness; Extra =

Extraversion; Open = Openness; Anx = Anxiety; Av = Avoidance

!

!

!

!

"#!

!

!"'!

Table 2 (Continued)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15. Open ICC .03 -.01 .02 -.11 -.01 .10 -.05 -.08 .05 .07 .11 .21** .11 .02

16. Agree Disc .24** -.04 .11 .05 .15 -.53** .15 .00 -.18* -.02 -.07 .02 -.07 .13

17. Neuro Disc -.20** .35** -.11 -.08 .08 .01 .04 -.09 -.03 .05 .02 -.01 .09 .11

18. Consc Disc .05 -.01 .02 .01 .16* -.08 .17* -.30** -.05 .02 .07 .01 -.15 .18*

19.Extra Disc .04 .04 -.01 .06 -.02 -.01 .08 -.12 -.27** .04 -.01 -.11 -.10 -.11

20. Open Disc .09 -.15 .09 .07 -.12 -.01 .06 -.03 -.05 -.07 .12 .01 .03 -.00

21. M Att Anx -.25** .48** -.25** -.05 .20** -.09 -.03 -.10 -.08 .17* .01 -.11 -.07 -.00

22. M Att Av -.23** .23** -.20* -.34** .17* -.06 -.12 .02 .10 .13 -.02 -.05 -.07 .03

23. F Att Anx -.01 .12 -.06 -.02 .14 -.23** .50** -.12 -.11 .07 .09 -.03 -.03 .15

24. F Att Av -.08 .08 .01 -.07 .02 -.37** .31** -.22** -.25** .02 .03 -.01 .03 .03

25. Anx ICC .15 -.05 .07 .13 -.08 .06 .12 -.07 .06 .01 .03 .05 .08 .03

26. Av ICC -.16* .14 -.15 -.20** .14 -.02 -.05 .13 .08 .09 -.04 -.02 -.08 -.01

27. Anx Disc -.20** .13 -.10 -.04 .21** .03 -.13 .11 -.08 .10 .06 -.06 .03 -.03

28. Av Disc .03 -.07 .07 .07 .07 -.09 .15* -.19* -.09 .09 -.03 .11 .04 -.01

!

"'!

!

!"(!

Table 2 (Continued)

! $(%! $)%! $"%! $*%! $+%! &,%! &$%! &&%! &#%! &'%! &(%! &)%! &"%! &*%!

$(%!?@18!B77! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

$)%!./011!CD9:! 5%,(! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

$"%!21304!CD9:! %,$! %,"! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

$*%!7489:!CD9:! %,*! %&'66! %&&66! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

$+%;<=0>!CD9:! 5%$(6! %,*! %$,! %$*6! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

&,%!?@18!CD9:! %,*! %,(! 5%,#! %,"! %,$! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

&$%!-!.==!.8<! 5%,*! %,+! %&&66! %$"6! %$,! 5%$,! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

&&%!-!.==!.E! 5%,"! 5%$#! %,*! 5%,)! 5%,&! 5%$'! %#'66! $%,,! ! ! ! ! ! !

&#%!A!.==!.8<! %,&! %$(! %$$! %,)! %,$! 5%$$! %,(! %,)! $%,,! ! ! ! ! !

&'%!A!.==!.E! 5%,(! %$*6! %$(! %,*! %$$! %,'! %,"! %$$! %#*66! $%,,! ! ! ! !

&(%!.8<!B77! %$"6! 5%,+! 5%$+6! 5%,+! 5%$$! %,#! 5%&'66! 5%&&66! %&#66! 5%,+! $%,,! ! ! !

&)%!.E!B77! 5%,&! 5%$(! 5%,(! 5%,'! 5%,#! 5%$$! %$#! %$#! 5%$$! 5%&$66! %,)! $%,,! ! !

&"%!.8<!CD9:! %$,! %,)! %&(66! %$$! %,(! 5%$'! %'"66! %$'! 5%$&! 5%,(! 5%)#66! %,#! $%,,! !

&*%!.E!CD9:! %,(! %$#! %$)6! %$#! %$&! %,"! %,,! %$(6! %$"6! %''66! 5%$(6! 5%)(66! 5%,$! $%,,!

!

"(!

!

!")!

Table 3

Correlations of conflict variables

24=19F!6!!G!%,(!!66"!"G!%,$H!-!I!-4=J10H!A!I!A>=J10H!K04LM1N!I!K04LM1N!O4MED8/H!21/!;9:!I!21/>=DE1!;9:>M>=D48

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

1. M1 Frequency 1.00

2. M2 Frequency .59** 1.00

3. M3 Frequency .65** .63** 1.00

4. M4 Frequency .57** .62** .79** 1.00

5. F1 Frequency .50** .42** .32** .34** 1.00

6. F2 Frequency .37** .49** .27** .33** 368** 1.00

7. F3 Frequency .42** .39** .44** .39** .67** .63** 1.00

8. F4 Frequency .50** .40** .39** .43** .71** .60** .77** 1.00

9.M1 Problem -.00 .06 -.14 -.13 -.06 .01 -.17 -.05 1.00

10. M2 Problem .08 .05 -.06 -.12 -.03 -.06 -.09 .00 .34** 1.00

11. M4 Problem -.17 -.11 -.28** -.274** -.00 .00 -.14 .00 .35** .35** 1.00

12. F1 Problem -.08 -.05 -.25** -.25** -.13 -.15 -.23* -.05 .62** .29** .34** 1.00

13. F2 Problem .10 .06 .00 -.16 -.00 -.04 -.02 .02 .35** .61** .37** .49** 1.00

14. F4 Problem -.16 -.15 -.25* -.35** -.10 -.03 -.07 -.08 .29** 330** .75** .44** .39** 1.00

15. Neg Esc 1 .24** -.01 .22* .11 .14 .11 .17 .15 -.36** -.03 -.17 -.37** -.18 -.15 1.00

16.Neg Esc 2 .10 .17 .18 .11 .17 .14 .18 .13 -.22* -.12 -.06 -.13 -.15 -.02 .45** 1.00

17. Neg Esc 4 .14 .38** .15 .16 .19* .22* .20 .16 .06 -.08 -.20* -.10 -.03 -.14 .17 .41** 1.00

!

"&!

")!

!

!""!

Table 4

Significant Predictors of the Intercept for Question 1: Self-Reported Conflict

!""#$%&'(#!

!Mother Father #$%$&'($)*!

+,(--'.&-/-00! 1! 1! !2-3(4)$5$0%! 6! 6! !

74/05$-/)$430/-00! ! 1! !

89)(':-(0$4/! ! ! !

;<-//-00! ! ! !

+))'5=%-/)!+/9$-)*! 6! 6! !

+))'5=%-/)!+:4$>'/5-! ! 6! !

Discrepancy Model

! Mother Father #$%$&'($)*!

+,(--'.&-/-00! !" !" !

2-3(4)$5$0%!#" #"

!

74/05$-/)$430/-00! " " !

89)(':-(0$4/! " " !

;<-//-00! " " !

+))'5=%-/)!+/9$-)*! #" #" !

+))'5=%-/)!+:4$>'/5-! " #" !

Note: + = beneficial to relationship; - = harmful to relationship

!

!"?!

Table 5

Significant Predictors of the Slope for Question 1: Self-Reported Conflict

!""#$%&'(#!

! @4)=-(!! A')=-(! #$%$&'($)*!

+,(--'.&-/-00! !2-3(4)$5$0%! " " !

74/05$-/)$430/-00! ! " !89)(':-(0$4/!

!! !

;<-//-00! ! ! !

+))'5=%-/)!+/9$-)*!!" " !

+))'5=%-/)!+:4$>'/5-!" " !

)*+,-'./0,1#$%&'(!

! @4)=-(! A')=-(! #$%$&'($)*!

+,(--'.&-/-00! " !

2-3(4)$5$0%! " " !

74/05$-/)$430/-00! ! ! !

89)(':-(0$4/! ! ! !

;<-//-00! ! ! !

+))'5=%-/)!+/9$-)*! " " !

+))'5=%-/)!+:4$>'/5-! " " !

!

!"B!

Table 6

Personality Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Question 1

Parameter Neuroticism Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness

ICC Disc ICC Disc ICC Disc ICC Disc ICC Disc

F slope,

Intercept, .00 .00 -.01 -.01 .00 .00 .00 -.01 .00 .00

Mother’s personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Father’s personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Similarity personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mother Age -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Father Age -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mother Education -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Father Education -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Marital Status -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Relationship Duration -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Income -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

M Race -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

F Race -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

F intercept,

Intercept, 1.92** 1.92**

1.59**

1.59**

1.89** 1.91** 1.58** 1.59** 1.77** 1.77**

Mother’s personality 0.12** 0.11*

-- -- -.03 -.03 -- -- -.13* -.13*

Father’s personality 0.14** .14**

-- -- -.15* -.012 -- -- -.18** -.19**

Similarity personality -.03 .04 -- -- -.10 .08 -- -- .05 -.02

Mother Age .01 .01 -- -- .01 .01 -- -- .01 -.01

Father Age .00 .00 -- -- .00 .00 -- -- .00 .00

Mother Education .01 .02 -- -- -.03 -.04 -- -- -.01 -.02 Father Education -.07 -.07 -- -- -.00 -.01 -- -- -.00 -.01

Marital Status -.29** -.29**

-- -- -.24* -.27* -- -- -.18 -.18

Relationship Duration -.00 -.00 -- -- .00 -.00 -- -- -.01 -.01

Income .00 .00 -- -- .00 .00 -- -- .00 .00

M Race -.16 -.16 -- -- -.21* -.22* -- -- -.15 -.16

F Race .09 .09 -- -- .13 .14 -- -- .12 .13

M slope,

Intercept, .00 .00 .00 .00 0.13** .13** .00 .00 .00 .00

Mother’s personality -- -- -- -- -.03 -.03 -- -- -- --

Father’s personality -- -- -- -- -.02 .03 -- -- -- --

Similarity personality -- -- -- -- -.02 .03 -- -- -- --

!

!?C!

Mother Age -- -- -- -- -.00 -.00 -- -- -- --

Father Age -- -- -- -- .00 .00 -- -- -- --

Mother Education -- -- -- -- .00 -.00 -- -- -- --

Father Education -- -- -- -- -.01 -.01 -- -- -- --

Marital Status -- -- -- -- -.07 -.07 -- -- -- --

Relationship Duration -- -- -- -- .00 .00 -- -- -- --

Income -- -- -- -- .00 -.00 -- -- -- --

M Race -- -- -- -- -.02 -.02 -- -- -- --

F Race -- -- -- -- -.05 -.04 -- -- -- --

M intercept,

Intercept, 1.84** 1.84**

1.82**

1.83**

1.56** 1.56** 1.56** 1.82** 1.72** 1.73**

Mother’s personality .14** .14**

.08 .07 -- -- -- .07 -.15** .18**

Father’s personality .09 .09* -.03 -.03 -- -- -- -.03 -.11* -.06

Similarity personality -.07 -.02 -.03 -.12 -- -- -- -.11 -.05 .10

Mother Age -.00 -.00 -.00 -.00 -- -- -- .00 -.00 .00

Father Age .00 .00 .01 .01 -- -- -- .00 .01 .01

Mother Education .00 .01 -.01 -.00 -- -- -- -.00 -.02 -.00

Father Education -.03 -.03 -.01 -.02 -- -- -- -.02 .02 .02

Marital Status -.21* -.21*

-.17 -.17 -- -- -- -.15 -.12 -.12

Relationship Duration .00 .00 -.00 .00 -- -- -- .00 -.00 -.01

Income .00 .00 -.00 -.00 -- -- -- -.00 -.00 -.00

M Race .01 .01 -.02 -.04 -- -- -- -.03 -.00 .01

F Race -.10 -.10 -.10 -.08 -- -- -- -.10 -.07 -.09

!

!?D!

Table 7

Attachment Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Question 1

Parameter Attachment Avoidance

Attachment Anxiety

ICC Disc ICC Disc

F slope,

Intercept, -.00 -.00 -.00 -.00

Mother’s Attachment - -- - -- -- --

Father’s Attachment -- -- -- --

Similarity Attachment -- -- -- --

Mother Age -- -- -- --

Father Age -- -- -- --

Mother Education -- -- -- --

Father Education -- -- -- --

Marital Status -- -- -- --

Relationship Duration -- -- -- --

Income -- -- -- --

M Race -- -- -- --

F Race -- -- -- --

F intercept,

Intercept, 1.79** 1.81** 1.92** 1.92**

Mother’s Attachment .04 .04 .06* .06

Father’s Attachment .19** .18** .14** .14**

Similarity Attachment .15 -.02 .02 -.01

Mother Age .01 .01 .01 .01

Father Age -.00 -.00 -.00 -.00

Mother Education -.02 -.02 -.01 .01

Father Education -.06 -.06 .07 .07

Marital Status -.17 -.18 -.22* -.22*

Relationship Duration .00 .00 .01 .01

Income .00 .00 .00 .00

M Race -.16 -.18 -.24* -.24*

F Race .14 .15 .12 .12

M slope,

Intercept, .01 .01 .01 .11*

Mother’s Attachment -- -- -- -.03*

Father’s Attachment -- -- -- .01

Similarity Attachment -- -- -- .02

Mother Age -- -- -- -.01

!

!?E!

Father Age -- -- -- .00

Mother Education -- -- -- -.02

Father Education -- -- -- -.00

Marital Status -- -- -- .02

Relationship Duration -- -- -- .01

Income -- -- -- .00

M Race -- -- -- -.08*

F Race -- -- -- -.03

M intercept,

Intercept, 1.74** 1.74** 1.80** 1.58**

Mother’s Attachment .07 .07 .10** .14**

Father’s Attachment .10* .11* .11** .09*

Similarity Attachment .03 -.04 -.09 .01

Mother Age .00 -.00 -.00 .01

Father Age .00 .00 .00 -.00

Mother Education .02 .01 .01 .06

Father Education -.06 -.06 -.05 -.05

Marital Status -.11 -.11 -.11 -.16

Relationship Duration .01 .01 .01 -.00

Income -.00 -.00 .00 -.00

M Race -.02 -.01 -.06 .12

F Race -.06 -.06 -.08 -.01

!

!?F!

Table 8

Significant Predictors of the Intercept for Question 2: problem-solving behaviors

!""#$%&'(#!

!@4)=-(!! A')=-(! #$%$&'($)*!

+,(--'.&-/-00!" !" !

2-3(4)$5$0%!" " !

74/05$-/)$430/-00!! " !

89)(':-(0$4/! !! !

;<-//-00!! ! !

+))'5=%-/)!+/9$-)*!" " !

+))'5=%-/)!+:4$>'/5-! " #" !

)*+,-'./0,1#$%&'(!

! @4)=-(! A')=-(! #$%$&'($)*!

+,(--'.&-/-00! " " !2-3(4)$5$0%!

" " !74/05$-/)$430/-00!

! ! !89)(':-(0$4/! ! ! !;<-//-00!

! ! !+))'5=%-/)!+/9$-)*!

" " !+))'5=%-/)!+:4$>'/5-!

" " !

!

!?G!

Table 9

Significant Predictors of the Slope for Question 2: Problem-solving behaviors

!""#$%&'(#!

! @4)=-(!! A')=-(! #$%$&'($)*!

+,(--'.&-/-00! " " !2-3(4)$5$0%! " " !

74/05$-/)$430/-00! ! " !

89)(':-(0$4/! !! !

;<-//-00! ! ! !

+))'5=%-/)!+/9$-)*! " " !

+))'5=%-/)!+:4$>'/5-! " " #"

)*+,-'./0,1#$%&'(!

! @4)=-(! A')=-(! #$%$&'($)*!

+,(--'.&-/-00! " " !

2-3(4)$5$0%! " " !

74/05$-/)$430/-00! ! ! !

89)(':-(0$4/! ! ! !

;<-//-00! ! ! !

+))'5=%-/)!+/9$-)*! " " !

+))'5=%-/)!+:4$>'/5-! " " !

!

!?H!

Table 10

Personality Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Question 2

Parameter Neuroticism Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness

ICC Disc ICC Disc ICC Disc ICC Disc ICC Disc

F slope,

Intercept, -.05 -.06 -.06 -.06 -.06 -.06 -.06 -.06 -.06 -.06

Mother’s personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Father’s personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Similarity personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mother Age -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Father Age -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mother Education -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Father Education -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Marital Status -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Relationship Duration -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Income -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

M Race -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

F Race -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

F intercept,

Intercept, 3.02** 3.02** 3.02** 3.02** 3.03** 3.03** 3.03** 3.03** 2.81** 3.03

**

Mother’s personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .10 --

Father’s personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .44** --

Similarity personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.01 --

Mother Age -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.00 --

Father Age -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.02** --

Mother Education -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .31 --

Father Education -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .19 --

Marital Status -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.33 --

Relationship Duration -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .01 --

Income -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.00 --

M Race -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .01 --

F Race -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .16

M slope,

Intercept, -.08 -.08 -.08 -.08 -.08 -.08 -.08 -.08 -.08 -.08

Mother’s personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Father’s personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Similarity personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mother Age -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Father Age -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mother Education -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

!

!?I!

Father Education -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Marital Status -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Relationship Duration -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Income -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

M Race -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

F Race -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

M intercept,

Intercept, 3.22** 3.22** 3.22** 3.22** 3.22** 3.22** 3.22** 3.22** 3.22** 3.22

** Mother’s personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Father’s personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Similarity personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mother Age -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Father Age -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mother Education -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Father Education -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Marital Status -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Relationship Duration -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Income -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

M Race -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

F Race -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

!

!?"!

Table 11

Attachment Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Question 2

Parameter Attachment Avoidance

Attachment Anxiety

ICC Disc ICC Disc

F slope,

Intercept, .09 -.07 -.06 -.07

Mother’s Attachment . .11 - -- -- --

Father’s Attachment .06 -- -- --

Similarity Attachment -.35* -- -- --

Mother Age .01 -- -- --

Father Age -.04** -- -- --

Mother Education .04 -- -- --

Father Education -.14 -- -- --

Marital Status .10 -- -- --

Relationship Duration .01 -- -- --

Income .00 -- -- --

M Race .13 -- -- --

F Race -.32 -- -- --

F intercept,

Intercept, 2.51** 3.10** 3.05** 3.05**

Mother’s Attachment -.25 -- -- --

Father’s Attachment -.35* -- -- --

Similarity Attachment .54 -- -- --

Mother Age -.02 -- -- --

Father Age .11** -- -- --

Mother Education .26 -- -- --

Father Education .48 -- -- --

Marital Status -.51 -- -- --

Relationship Duration -.01 -- -- --

Income -.00 -- -- --

M Race -.17 -- -- --

F Race .70 -- -- --

M slope,

Intercept, -.08* -.08 -.09 -.09

Mother’s Attachment -- -- -- --

Father’s Attachment -- -- -- --

Similarity Attachment -- -- -- --

Mother Age -- -- -- --

Father Age -- -- -- --

Mother Education -- -- -- --

!

!??!

Father Education -- -- -- --

Marital Status -- -- -- --

Relationship Duration -- -- -- --

Income -- -- -- --

M Race -- -- -- --

F Race -- -- -- --

M intercept,

Intercept, 2.96** 2.98** 3.26** 3.26**

Mother’s Attachment -.10 -.08 -- --

Father’s Attachment -.15 -.15 -- --

Similarity Attachment -.17 -.14 -- --

Mother Age .01 .01 -- --

Father Age .02 .02 -- --

Mother Education .28 .26 -- --

Father Education .08 .09 -- --

Marital Status -.26 -.27 -- --

Relationship Duration -.01 -.01 -- --

Income -.00 -.00 -- --

M Race .33 .26 -- --

F Race -.04 .01 -- --

!

!?B!

Table 12

Significant Predictors of the Intercept for Question 3: Negative escalation behaviors

!""#$%&'(#!

! @4)=-(!! A')=-(! #$%$&'($)*!

+,(--'.&-/-00! !"" !

2-3(4)$5$0%! " " !

74/05$-/)$430/-00! ! " !

89)(':-(0$4/! !! !

;<-//-00! ! ! !

+))'5=%-/)!+/9$-)*! " " !"

+))'5=%-/)!+:4$>'/5-! #" #" !

)*+,-'./0,1#$%&'(!

! @4)=-(! A')=-(! #$%$&'($)*!

+,(--'.&-/-00! !" " #"

2-3(4)$5$0%! " " !

74/05$-/)$430/-00! ! ! !

89)(':-(0$4/! ! ! !

;<-//-00! ! ! !

+))'5=%-/)!+/9$-)*! " " !

+))'5=%-/)!+:4$>'/5-! #" #" !

!

!BC!

Table 13

Significant Predictors of the Slope for Question 3: Negative escalation behaviors

!""#$%&'(#!

! @4)=-(!! A')=-(! #$%$&'($)*!

+,(--'.&-/-00! " " !2-3(4)$5$0%! " #" !

74/05$-/)$430/-00! ! " !

89)(':-(0$4/! !! !

;<-//-00! ! ! !

+))'5=%-/)!+/9$-)*! " " !

+))'5=%-/)!+:4$>'/5-! " " !

)*+,-'./0,1#$%&'(!

! @4)=-(! A')=-(! #$%$&'($)*!

+,(--'.&-/-00! " " !

2-3(4)$5$0%! " #" !

74/05$-/)$430/-00! ! ! !

89)(':-(0$4/! ! ! !

;<-//-00! ! ! !

+))'5=%-/)!+/9$-)*! " " !

+))'5=%-/)!+:4$>'/5-! " " !

!

!BD!

Table 14

Personality Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Question 3

Parameter Neuroticism Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness

ICC Disc ICC Disc ICC Disc ICC Disc ICC Disc

Intercept,

Intercept, 1.41** 1.41** 1.41** 1.41** 1.41** 1.40** 1.40** 1.41** 1.41** 1.68**

Mother Personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.39** -.46**

Father Personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.23 -.06

Similarity personality -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .08 .29*

Mother Age -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .00 .00

Father Age -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.04* -.02*

Mother Education -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .24 -.13

Father Education -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .20 .16

Marital Status -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.13 -.18

Relationship Duration -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .04 .06

Income -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.00 -.00

M Race -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.10 -.14

F Race -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.30 -.22

Slope,

Intercept, -.29 -.29 -.01 -.01 -.01 -.01 -.01 -.00 -.01 -.01

Mother Personality .04 .03 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Father personality .14* .14* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Similarity personality .01 .04 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mother Age -.00 -.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Father Age -.01 -.01 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mother Education .04 .04 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Father Education -.01 -.01 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Marital Status .20 .20 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Relationship Duration -.00 -.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Income .00 .00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

M Race .13 .13 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

F Race -.03 -.03 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

!

!BE!

Table 15

Attachment Hierarchical Linear Model Results for Question 3

Parameter Attachment Avoidance

Attachment Anxiety

ICC Disc ICC Disc

Intercept,

Intercept, 1.41** 1.14** 1.38** 1.77**

Mother Attachment .17* .18** -- --

Father Attachment 29** .33** -- --

Similarity Attachment .16 -.14 -.36** -.22**

Mother Age -.00 -.01 -.00 .00

Father Age -.04* -.04* -.03 -.04**

Mother Education .07 .06 .10 .20

Father Education .08 .09 .04 .15

Marital Status .11 .10 .06 -.22

Relationship Duration .03 .03 .01 .04

Income -.00 -.00 .00 -.00

M Race -.07 -.07 .02 -.12

F Race -.05 -.08 -.16 -.35

Slope,

Intercept, .03 .03 -.03 .03

Mother Attachment -- -- -- --

Father Attachment -- -- -- --

Similarity Attachment -- -- -- --

Mother Age -- -- -- --

Father Age -- -- -- --

Mother Education -- -- -- --

Father Education -- -- -- --

Marital Status -- -- -- --

Relationship Duration -- -- -- --

Income -- -- -- --

M Race -- -- -- --

F Race -- -- -- --

!

!BF!

Appendix B. Demographic Questionnaire

1. Participant #: ______________ Zip Code: ____________________ 2. Today’s Date (Month/Day/Year): ______________________________________ 3. Your birth date (Month/Day/Year): ___________________________________ 4. Baby’s Due Date (Month/Day/Year): ___________________________________ 5. Your gender: _____________________ 6. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? a. No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin b. Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano c. Yes, Puerto Rican d. Yes, Cuban e. Yes, other Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin—Print origin (e.g., Argentinean, Columbian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, etc.) 7. Which of these categories best describes your race? Mark one or more White Black, African- American American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Japanese Korean Vietnamese Native Hawaiian Guamanian or Chamorro Samoan Other Asian—Print race (e.g., Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, etc.) ____ Other Pacific Islander—Print race (e.g., Fijian, Tongan, etc.) ________________ Some other race—Print Race ______________ 8. Are you and your partner currently living together? All or most of the time Some of the time Rarely Never 9. When was the (approximate) date you and your partner moved in together?___ 10. Are you and your partner married?________________________ Yes No 11. Marriage date if married (Month/Day/Year): __________________ 12. If you are not married, do you and your partner have plans to marry in the future? No Yes, when do you expect to marry? __________________

!

!BG!

13. How many marriages have you had that ended in separation or divorce? ________________ 14. For how many of these dissolved marriages did you live together with your partner prior to the date of your marriage? _________________ 15. Did any of your previous spouses have a child(ren) that lived with you? Yes No 16. Apart from your current partner, have you ever lived as a couple with anyone for a month or more when you were not married to him or her? _____________________ 17. If yes, NOT including your current partner, how many partners have you lived with as a couple for a month or more when you were not married to him or her? ________________ 18. Did any of your previous partners that you lived with while unmarried have a child(ren) that lived with you? Yes No 19. Would you say that your biological or adoptive father was very involved, somewhat involved, not very involved, or not at all involved in raising you? Very involved Somewhat involved Not very involved Not at all involved 20. To what extent will you use the way your father or father figure raised you as a model for raising your own children? Very involved Somewhat involved Not very involved Not at all involved 21. Besides you and your partner, who lives in your household? No others living in our household Mother Father Mother-in-law Father-in-law Your brother Your sister Brother-in-law Sister-in-law Other(s 22. The home or apartment where you currently reside is: a. owned by you and/or your partner. b. owned by someone in your household besides you and your partner. c. rented. 23. Circle the degree to which this baby was planned or unplanned: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all planned Neither Definitely planned 24. Circle the number that best indicates how you felt when you found out you were pregnant. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very unhappy to be pregnant Very happy to be pregnant 25. Do you intend to or are you currently going to a childbirth preparation or parenting class (circle one)? Yes No Undecided If yes, please describe:____________________

!

!BH!

26. Do you intend to or are you currently seeing a doctor or other health care professional to check on the pregnancy? Regularly seeing doctor Have seen doctor, but not currently Have not seen doctor, but previously, but not intend to Have not seen doctor and do not intend to 27. What is the sex of your baby? Girl Boy Don’t know 28. What is your religion? Adventist AME, AME Zion, CME Assemblies of God Baptist Buddhist Catholic Christian Church/Disciples of Christ Christian Science Congregational Eastern Orthodox Episcopal Friends/Quaker Hindu Holiness Islam, Moslem, Muslim Jehovah’s Witness Jewish (Conservative, Reformed, Orthodox, or Reconstructionist) Latter Day Saints (Mormon) Lutheran Methodist other Protestant other religion Pentecostal Presbyterian Unitarian None

29. How important is religion to you? Very important Fairly important Fairly unimportant Not important at all

30. Which best describes your current level of education (circle one)? Less than high school High school degree or GED Vocational or tech program Associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree Doctorate degree (e.g., Ph.D., M.D., J.D., etc) 31. Is your education complete? Yes No

32. If education is not yet completed, which best describes your desired level of education (circle one)? Less than high school High school degree or GED Vocational or tech program Associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree Doctorate degree (e.g., Ph.D., M.D., J.D., etc)

33. Are you currently enrolled in school? Yes No

34. If yes, where are you enrolled in school? Vocational or Tech Online ONLY Degree Community College Four

!

!BI!

Year University Graduate School Medical School Law School Other: 35. Since the age of 18, how many years in total have you held a full-time job? [DO NOT count years in which you were a full-time student.] ____________ 36. Are you currently employed? a. Yes, I am currently employed and working b. Yes, I am currently employed but not working c. I am in between jobs but seeking employment d. No, I am not employed and do not plan to return to work 37. How many hours per week do you work (circle one)? 0-10 hrs. 11-20 hrs. 21-30 hrs. 31-40 hrs. 41-50 hrs. Over 50 hrs.

38. Please indicate your job title and give a short description of your responsibilities Title: ____________________________________ Responsibilities: ______________________ 39. Which of the following best describes the hours you usually work your main job? a. A regular daytime shift (between 6 A.M. and 6 P.M) b. A regular evening shift (any time between 2 P.M. and Midnight) c. A regular night shift (any time between 9 P.M. and 8 A.M) d. A rotating shift (changes periodically from days to evenings or nights) e. A split shift (consisting of two distinct periods each day) f. Some other schedule (describe) _____________________ 40. Do you plan to return to work after your baby is born (circle one)? Yes No Don’t know a. If yes, when do you plan on return to work (Month/Day/Year)? _____________ b. Will this be a paid or an unpaid leave of absence or both? Please explain: _____________ c. If yes, upon returning how many hours per week do you plan to work? 0-10 hrs. 11-20 hrs. 21-30 hrs. 31-40 hrs. 41-50 hrs. Over 50 hrs.

!

!B"!

Appendix C. NEO-FFI Copyright Notice: Reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., 16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida 33549, from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory by Paul Costa and Robert McCrae, Copyright 1978, 1985, 1989, 1991, 2003 by PAR, Inc. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission of PAR, Inc. Please read each statement below and select the answer that best describes you. Each item is scored 1-5: 1 2 3 4 5 strongly disagree disagree neutral agree strongly agree 1. I am not a worrier. 2. I like to have a lot of people around me. 3. I don’t like to waste my time daydreaming. 4. I try to be courteous to everyone I meet. 5. I keep my belongings neat and clean. 6. I often feel inferior to others. 7. I laugh easily. 8. Once I find the right way to do something, I stick to it. 9. I often get into arguments with my family and co-workers. 10. I’m pretty good about pacing myself so as to get things done on time. 11. When I’m under a great deal of stress, sometimes I feel like I’m going to pieces. 12. I don’t consider myself “light-hearted.” 13. I am intrigued by the patterns I find in art and nature. 14. Some people think I’m selfish and egotistical 15. I am not a very methodical person. 16. I rarely feel lonely or blue. 17. I really enjoy talking to people. 18. I believe letting students hear controversial speakers can only confuse and mislead them. 19. I would rather cooperate with others than compete with them. 20. I try to perform all the tasks assigned to me conscientiously. 21. I often feel tense and jittery. 22. I like to be where the action is. 23. Poetry has little or no effect on me. 24. I tend to be cynical and skeptical of others’ intentions. 25. I have a clear set of goals and work toward them in an orderly fashion. 26. Sometimes I feel completely worthless. 27. I usually prefer to do things alone. 28. I often try new and foreign foods.

!

!B?!

29. I believe that most people will take advantage of you if you let them. 30. I waste a lot of time before settling down to work. 31. I rarely feel fearful or anxious. 32. I often feel as if I’m bursting with energy. 33. I seldom notice the moods of feelings that different environments produce. 34. Most people I know like me. 35. I work hard to accomplish my goals. 36. I often get angry at the way people treat me. 37. I am a cheerful, high-spirited person. 38. I believe we should look to our religious authorities for decisions on moral issues. 39. Some people think of me as cold and calculating. 40. When I make a commitment, I can always be counted on to follow through. 41. Too often, when things go wrong, I get discouraged and feel like giving up. 42. I am not a cheerful optimist. 43. Sometimes when I am reading poetry or looking at a work of art, I feel a chill or wave of excitement. 44. I’m hard-hearted and tough-minded in my attitudes. 45. Sometimes I’m not as dependable or reliable as I should be. 46. I am seldom sad or depressed. 47. My life is fast-paced. 48. I have little interest in speculating on the nature of the universe or the human condition. 49. I generally try to be thoughtful and considerate. 50. I am a productive person who always gets the job done. 51. I often feel helpless and want someone else to solve my problems. 52. I am a very active person. 53. I have a lot of intellectual curiosity. 54. If I don’t like people, I let them know it. 55. I never seem to be able to get organized. 56. At times I have been so ashamed I just want to hide. 57. I would rather go my own way than be a leader of others. 58. I often enjoy playing with theories or abstract ideas. 59. If necessary, I am willing to manipulate people to get what I want. 60. I strive for excellence in everything I do.

!

!BB!

Appendix D. Communication Danger Signs Scale

Now I’d like you to tell me how often you and your spouse/partner experience each of the

following situations.

1. Little arguments escalate into ugly fights with accusations, criticisms, name calling, or bringing up past hurts. Never or almost never Once in a while Frequently 2. My spouse/partner criticizes or belittles my opinions, feelings, or desires. Never or almost never Once in a while Frequently 3. My spouse/partner seems to view my words or actions more negatively than I mean them to be. Never or almost never Once in a while Frequently 4. When we argue, one of us withdraws...that is, does not talk about it anymore, or leaves the scene. Never or almost never Once in a while Frequently

!

!DCC!

Appendix E. Marital Agendas Protocol Task Procedures:

1) Once everything is set up, hand each member of the couple a clipboard, pencil, and marital agendas protocol form.

! “Now each of you needs to fill out one of these forms. They list different issues that commonly cause problems in relationships and ask you to rate how big of a problem each issue is at this moment in your relationship. Please fill out your forms independently and signal us when you are finished.”

2) Leave the room and return when signaled.

! “Alright, thank you! For the second part of this task, we are going to need you both to decide on one area to discuss for ten minutes. Please choose a problem that you both agree is one of your more significant. Once you have chosen a topic, we would like you to try to work towards an agreeable solution to the chosen problem. I am going to leave the room. I will return after you have discussed your topic for ten minutes, or you indicate that you have reached an agreeable solution.”

!

!DCD!

Marital Agendas Protocol (MAP)

In your view, how much of a problem are the following issues in your relationship?

Consider the list of issues below that many relationships must face. Please rate how much of a problem each area currently is in your relationship by writing a number from 0 (not at all a problem) to 100 (a severe problem). For example, if communication is somewhat a problem, you might enter ‘25’ next to ‘communication’. If communication is no problem in your relationship, then you might enter a ‘0’. If issues related to communication is a severe problem, you might enter ‘100’.

If you wish to add other areas not included in our list, please do so in the blank spaces provided.

Please be sure to rate all areas by entering a number between 0 and 100 next to each marital issue.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

NOT AT ALL A

PROBLEM

A SLIGHT PROBLEM

MODERATE PROBLEM

MODERATE TO SEVERE PROBLEM

SEVERE PROBLEM

SEVERITY OF SEVERITY OF

ISSUE PROBLEM ISSUE PROBLEM

MONEY __________ PREGNANCY __________

IN-LAWS __________ WORK OR CAREERS __________

SEX __________ HOUSEHOLD TASKS __________

RELIGION __________ RECREATION/FREE TIME __________

ALCOHOL & DRUGS __________ FRIENDS __________

COMMITMENT TO

!

!DCE!

THE RELATIONSHIP __________ JEALOUSY/TRUST __________

COMMUNICATION __________ TIME SPENT TOGETHER __________

If not listed above, please indicate the overall subject of your last two conflicts, and rate the severity:

ISSUE MY VIEW ISSUE MY VIEW

!

!DCF!

Appendix F. Marital Agenda Protocol Coding Manual

System for Coding Interactions among New Parents (SCINP)

[New Parents Project Marital Agendas Protocol (MAP) Coding Manual]

Modified by Jennifer M. Hunt, Claire M. Kamp Dush, and Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan

from Malik and Lindahl’s SCID (System for Coding Interactions in Dyads)

Malik, N. M., & Lindahl, K. M. (2004). System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID). In P. Kerig & D. Baucom (Eds.), Couple observational coding systems (pp. 173-188). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Last Revised: April 2010

Please do not use the SCINP without the authors’ permission and the permission of the authors of the original SCID.

Comments or questions about the SCINP should be directed to Claire Kamp Dush, Ph.D., or Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan, Ph.D., Department of Human Development and Family Science, The Ohio State University, 135 Campbell Hall, 1787 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210; kamp-dush.1@osu.edu; schoppe-sullivan.1@osu.edu.

Comments or questions about the original SCID or training in its use should be directed to Neena M. Malik, Ph.D., or Kristin M. Lindahl, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Psychology Annex, P.O. Box 249229, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33124; nmalik@miami.edu; klindahl@miami.edu.

$%&$'$&()*"+,&-."/012345"613789:"+155;98<=>819"6<=34"

?8@A."

• +5J/4K&->,$/,!'/>!',(--$/,!4/!<(4.&-%"• +5)$:-&*!<'()$5$<')$/,"• L-/-(')$/,!04&3)$4/"• +>%$))$/,!M'3&)0!'/>!K-'J/-00-0!)4!M3()=-(!>$05300$4/!N0-&M6>$05&403(-O"• P(4.$/,!)=-!4)=-(!<'()/-(!)4!>$05300"• 8*-!54/)'5)!'/>!.4>*!4($-/)')$4/"• 74%<(4%$0$/,!"• 7&-'(&*!0)')$/,!)=-!<(4.&-%!'/>!04&3)$4/"• ;MM-($/,!04&3)$4/0!)=')!'(-!>--<!'/>!%-'/$/,M3&"

!

!DCG!

• #)'*$/,!4/!)4<$5""

Q=$0!54>-!'00-00-0!)=-!>-,(--!)4!K=$5=!<'()/-(0!'(-!'.&-!)4!>$05300!)=-$(!4K/!M--&$/,0!'/>!4<$/$4/0!N-R,RS!0-&M6>$05&40-O!$/!'!54/0)(35)$:-!%'//-(S!'/>!)=-!-9)-/)!)4!K=$5=!<'()/-(!.-=':$4(0!M'5$&$)')-!4(!<(4%4)-!)=-!<(4.&-%!04&:$/,!>$05300$4/R!T$,=-(!054(-0!K$&&!.-!4.)'$/->!.*!<'()/-(0!K=4!'(-!/4)!U30)!'5)$:-&*!'/>!54/0)(35)$:-&*!-/,',->!$/!)=-!<(4.&-%!04&:$/,!>$05300$4/S!.3)!'&04!K=40-!54%%3/$5')$4/!-/='/5-0!>-<)=!4(!$/)$%'5*!$/!)=-!54/:-(0')$4/R!V/!(')$/,!)=$0!54>-S!*2#*+#0','++/-1#2%#3%,4+#%0#25'#./-20'-6+#7'5/8*%-#%0(1#95'0#5':+5'#*+!+.'/;*0<=!!

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`4(!>$MM-(-/)!<'()0!4M!)=-!<(4.&-%!)4!M4530!)=-!>$05300$4/S!,-/-(')$/,!04&3)$4/0!)4!(-04&:-!)=-!<(4.&-%!$/!'!/4/U3>,%-/)'&!K'*S!'/>!>$05300$/,!'/>!',(--$/,!)4!54%<(4%$0-0R!a3-0)$4/0!)=')!'(-!4M!'!<(4.&-%604&:$/,!/')3(-!K43&>!'&04!.-!(-&-:'/)!N-R,RS!b=')!5'/!V!>4cOR!

#4%-!-&-%-/)0!4M!<44(!<(4.&-%!04&:$/,!54%%3/$5')$4/!$/5&3>-!>-/$'&!4M!)=-!<(4.&-%!4(!<-(04/'&!(-0<4/0$.$&$)*!M4(!)=-!<(4.&-%S!.&45J$/,!<(4,(-00!$/!)=-!>$05300$4/!.*!(-<-')->&*!%'J$/,!'!<4$/)S!5='/,$/,!)=-!03.U-5)S!(-M30$/,!)4!-/)-()'$/!<'()/-(Y0!03,,-0)$4/0!M4(!04&3)$4/0S!'/>!':4$>$/,!0)')$/,!<(-M-(-/5-0S!$>-'0S!4(!<-(04/'&!M--&$/,0!'.43)!)=-!%'))-(R!!

d-=':$4('&!-9'%<&-0!4M!54%%3/$5')$4/!$/5&3>-!,44>!-*-!54/)'5)S!.4>*!<40)3(-!4($-/)->!)4K'(>!)=-!4)=-(!<'()/-(!N-R,RS!)=-!<'()/-(X0!=-'>S!0=43&>-(0S!'/>!=$<0!'(-!M'5$/,!)=-!4)=-(!<'()/-(OS!'/>!-9<(-00$:-!)4/-!4M!:4$5-!N-R,RS!:'($-0!(=*)=%!'/>!$/)4/')$4/!4M!:4$5-S!$0!/4)!%4/4)4/-OR!

!

!DCH!

!B"#"'40C"*1DR!Q=-!<'()/-(!54%%3/$5')-0!&$))&-S!>-/$-0!)=-!<(4.&-%!4(!.&45J0!<(4,(-00!$/!)=-!>$05300$4/S!4(!4)=-(K$0-!='0!<44(!54%%3/$5')$4/!0J$&&0R!e'(-&*!>4-0!)=-!<'()/-(!=':-!=$0`=-(!.4>*!4($-/)->!)4K'(>!)=-!4)=-(!<'()/-(S!=':-!'!(-&'9->!.4>*S!4(!-9<(-00$:-!:4$5-R!!!Q=-(-!$0!&$))&-!-*-!54/)'5)!4(!/4!$/$)$')$:-!)4!>$05300!4(!04&:-!)=-!<(4.&-%R!!Q=-!<'()/-(!/-:-(!:-(.'&&*!-9<(-00-0!=$0`=-(!)=43,=)0S!M--&$/,0S!4<$/$4/0S!'/>`4(!$>-'0R!Q=-!<'()/-(!543&>!.-!0--/!K'/>-($/,!M(4%!)4<$5!)4!)4<$5!4(!%'*!>-('$&!54%%3/$5')$4/!'.43)!)=-!)4<$5!')!='/>R!?E4"@=0>940"4FE828>A"91"24E=7810A"89G8<=>874"1H"<15@0158A89:",I":874A"91"A;::4A>819A"1H"=9"

=@@01@08=>4"A13;>819R!!!V)!543&>!'&04!.-!-:$>-/)!)=')!)=-!<'()/-(!>4-0!/4)!K'/)!)4!.-!)=-(-!4(!)(-')0!)=-!>$05300$4/!'0!'!U4J-R!!+!054(-!4M!'!D!0=43&>!.-!,$:-/!$/!$/0)'/5-0!K=-(-!)=-!)'(,-)!<'()/-(!>4-0!/4)!>4!'/*)=$/,!$/>$5')$:-!4M!=-&<$/,!)4!'$>!$/!)=-!>$05300$4/!4(!04&3)$4/!4M!)=-!<(4.&-%R!!J"#"*1DR!Q=-!<'()/-(!-9=$.$)0!M-K!$/0)'/5-0!4M!<(4.&-%!04&:$/,!54%%3/$5')$4/!0J$&&0R!Q=-!<'()/-(!('(-&*!-9<(-00-0!=$0`=-(!)=43,=)0S!M--&$/,0S!4<$/$4/0S!'/>`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`=-(!.4>*!4($-/)->!)4K'(>!)=-!4)=-(!<'()/-(!4(!='0!'/!-9<(-00$:-!:4$5-!.3)!)=-0-!'(-!$/M(-f3-/)!'/>!>4!/4)!5='('5)-($W-!)=-!>$05300$4/R!?E4"@=0>940"5=C":874"="A13;>819K"=3>E1;:E"8>"A445A">1"24"="D=C">1"49G">E4"<19740A=>819"10"L:874"89M">1">E4"1>E40"@=0>940NA"

A;::4A>819AO!!Q=-!<(4<40->!04&3)$4/N0O!$0!5&-'(&*!/4)!'!:'&$>!04&3)$4/!4(!'/!'<<(4<($')-!54%<(4%$0-R!+!054(-!4M!'!E!0=43&>!.-!,$:-/!$/!$/0)'/5-0!K=-(-!)=-!)'(,-)!<'()/-(!%'*!'))-%<)!'!Z03(M'5-!&-:-&\!04&3)$4/S!.3)!/-:-(!4MM-(0!'/*)=$/,!>--<!4(!%-'/$/,M3&R!!!!P"#"Q1G40=>4R!Q=-!<'()/-(!-9=$.$)0!04%-!54/0)(35)$:-!54%%3/$5')$4/!0J$&&0!'/>!'))-%<)0!04%-!0-&M6>$05&403(-R!?E8A"A<104"AE1;3G"24":8749"8H">E4"@=0>940"8A"49:=:4G"89">E4"@012345"A13789:"@01<4AAK"A1">E=>"19"=>"34=A>"194"1<<=A819K">E4"

@=0>940NA"A43H"G8A<31A;04"=@@4=0A">1"A8:98H8<=9>3C"H;0>E40">E4"@012345"A13789:"

G8A<;AA819O"Q=-!<'()/-(!'.43)!='&M!)=-!)$%-!='0!=$0`=-(!.4>*!4($-/)->!)4K'(>!)=-!4)=-(!<'()/-(!4(!='0!'/!-9<(-00$:-!:4$5-R!!24!%4(-!)='/!)K$5-!$0!'!<'()/-(!4.0-(:->!)4!%$/$%'&&*!>-/*!<-(04/'&!(-0<4/0$.$&$)*!4(!.&45J!<(4,(-00!$/!)=-!>$05300$4/R!Q=43,=!)=-!<'()/-(!0)'*0!4/!)4<$5S!=-!4(!0=-!'<<-'(0!)4!=':-!>$MM$53&)*!,-/-(')$/,!'<<(4<($')-!04&3)$4/0!.3)!%'*!4/!455'0$4/!0--%!K$&&$/,!)4!54%<(4%$0-R!+!054(-!4M!'!F!0=43&>!.-!,$:-/!$/!$/0)'/5-0!K=-(-!)=-!)'(,-)!<'()/-(!0--%0!-/,',->!$/!)=-!

!

!DCI!

<(4.&-%S!.3)!%'*!0<-/>!%4(-!)$%-!',(--$/,!K$)=!)=-!4)=-(!<'()/-(!)='/!54%$/,!3<!K$)=!=$0`=-(!4K/!04&3)$4/0R!!R"#"Q1G40=>43C"S8:ER!Q=-!<'()/-(!,-/-('&&*!-9=$.$)0!54/0)(35)$:-!<(4.&-%!04&:$/,!54%%3/$5')$4/!0J$&&0R!T10"51A>"1H">E4"G8A<;AA819K">E4"@=0>940"7402=33C"4F@04AA4A"E8AUE40">E1;:E>AK"H44389:AK"1@89819AK"=9GU10"8G4=A"89"="<19A>0;<>874"=9G"919#

V;G:549>=3"5=9940"=9G"G8A<31A4A"H44389:A"=9G"1@89819A"043=>8743C"E194A>3C"

=9G"1@493CO"A4(!%40)!4M!)=-!)$%-S!)=-!<'()/-(!='0!=$0`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`=-(!)=43,=)0S!M--&$/,0S!4<$/$4/0S!'/>`4(!$>-'0!$/!'!54/0)(35)$:-!4(!<40$)$:-!%'//-(!'/>!$0!4M)-/!0-&M6>$05&40$:-R!?E4"@=0>940"=@@4=0A">1"24"<11@40=>874K"=234">1"<15@0158A4K"=9G":4940=33C"H=<838>=>874"1H">E4"

@012345"A13789:"G8A<;AA819O!A4(!'&&!4M!)=-!>$05300$4/S!)=-!<'()/-(!='0!=$0`=-(!.4>*!4($-/)->!)4K'(>!)=-!4)=-(!<'()/-(!'/>!30-0!'/!-9<(-00$:-!:4$5-R!Q=-!<'()/-(!>4-0!/4)!>-/*!<-(04/'&!(-0<4/0$.$&$)*!4(!.&45J!<(4,(-00!$/!)=-!>$05300$4/R!Q=-!<'()/-(!-9=$.$)0!.-=':$4(0!$/>$5')$:-!4M!54%<(4%$0$/,!N)=$0!%'*!/4)!'&K'*0!.-!(-&-:'/)!)4!)=-!>$05300$4/OS!'/>!K-&54%-0!)=-!$>-'0!'/>!)=43,=)0!4M!=$0`=-(!<'()/-(R!+!054(-!4M!'!H!0=43&>!.-!,$:-/!$/!$/0)'/5-0!K=-(-!)=-!)'(,-)!<'()/-(!$0!-/,',->S!0-&M6>$05&40$:-S!'/>!4MM-(0!%-'/$/,M3&!04&3)$4/0!M4(!:$()3'&&*!)=-!-/)$(-!>$05300$4/R!!Q=-!)'(,-)!<'()/-(!0=43&>!0--%!-0<-5$'&&*!-',-(!)4!04&:-!)=-!<(4.&-%!'/>!-',-(!)4!M$/>!'!04&3)$4/!)=')!$0!%3)3'&&*!.-/-M$5$'&!M4(!.4)=!<'()/-(0R!

COUPLE CODE: Negative Escalation

This code assesses how often negative behaviors of one partner are responded to with negative behaviors from the other partner, and so on, such that negative behaviors constitute an escalating cycle. Couples that have escalation of negative behavior tend to reciprocate each other's negative statements, rising tone of voice, tension, and distress. In a negative escalating cycle, partners match each other's complains, put-downs, and insults. In other words, for negative escalation to take place, as soon as one partner (Partner A) acts in a negative manner, the very next behavior or reaction on the part of the other partner (Partner B) should also be negative. In order for negative escalation to be rated, the very next response on the part of Partner A must also be negative. In other words, a complete negative escalation cycle is the following: A-B-A. This means that if

!

!DC"!

Partner A is negative with Partner B, but Partner B's immediate response is not negative (e.g., the other may be passive, withdrawn, neutral, calming, or positive), then a high rating should not be given on this code. Similarly, if Partner A is negative, and Partner B is negative, but Partner A's very next response is either passive, withdrawn, neutral, calming, or positive, there is no negative escalation cycle. To be rated high on negative escalation, the couple needs to give the impression of triggering each other's negative behaviors, in other words "pushing each other's buttons."

Note: It is important for this code to write down every time you see a full escalation cycle, and note the intensity of the negativity, in order to make the most accurate rating. Without careful attention, this code will not be rated effectively.

Tips:

• Count the number of times an A-B-A cycle is present. • Document the time of each instance so it is easier to go back and check

individually or during a group conference • Keep in mind this scale is based mainly on quantity, for example:

" Code of 1 = NO A-B-A whatsoever and no escalation of conflict " Code of 2 = One observable A-B-A cycle (mild in intensity) " Code of 3 = 2 observable A-B-A cycles (still of mild intensity) " Code of 4 = 3+ observable A-B-A cycles and the intensity is

moderate " Code of 5 = The negativity is almost always reciprocated. A-B-A

cycles are observed clearly 4 times and the level of intensity is high.

1 - Very Low. There is no escalation of conflict. When one partner exhibits negativity or conflictual behavior, the other partner's immediate response is not negative (or if it is negative, the third behavior is not negative). Instead, the other partner's immediate response (or the third response) is a neutral or positive behavior (which can be a neutral or positive statement, made with a neutral or positive tone of voice).

2 - Low. There is little reciprocity in the negativity that is expressed. Once, the partners may be observed to immediately respond to negative statements, rising tones of voice, or increases in tension or distress, with similarly negative statements, rises in tone of voice, or increases in tension or distress, in an A-B-A fashion (see above). However, the reciprocity of negativity is subtle or of mild intensity and does not appear to be related to significant conflict in the couple.

3 - Moderate. There is some reciprocity in the negativity expressed between the members of the couple, but this occurs clearly less than half the time. That is, a few times the partners may be observed to immediately respond to a negative statement, rising tone of voice, or increase in tension or distress, with a similarly negative statement, rise in tone of voice, or increase in tension or distress, in an A-B-A fashion (see above). The reciprocity of negativity may be subtle or obvious and is of mild intensity. The escalation of negativity appears to be related to some conflict in the couple.

!

!DC?!

4 - Moderately High. There is clear reciprocity in the negativity expressed by the couple in an A-B-A fashion (see above); it is noticeable, obvious, and of moderate intensity. Several times the partners are observed to immediately respond to a negative statement, rising tone of voice, or increase in tension or distress, with a similarly negative statement, rise in tone of voice, or increase in tension or distress. The escalation of negativity appears to be related to a fair amount of conflict in the couple.

5 - High. There is significant reciprocity in the negativity during the discussion, in an A-B-A fashion (see above); it is noticeable, obvious, and of moderate to high intensity. Frequently, the partners are observed to immediately respond to a negative statement, rising tone of voice, or increase in tension or distress, with a similarly negative statement, rise in tone of voice, or increase in tension or distress. The escalation of negativity is related to significant conflict in the couple.