Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Panel
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Topic Area
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Personal Schedule
Sign In
X (Twitter)
Conflict sensitization may occur when individuals who are exposed to chronic conflict develop an increased emotional arousal, or emotional dysregulation, during conflict events (Cummings & Davies, 1994). In families with especially destructive conflict, parents and children may be constantly alert and ‘on edge,’ which contributes to an increasing likelihood for the occurrence of conflict, a cycle of sensitization, and increased stress for children in the home (Gottman & Krockoff, 1989). However, when couples attend positively to the conflict topic, emotional dysregulation may be reduced in children. The present study investigates the impact of a conflict intervention program on children’s sensitization to conflict within the family unit, with special attention to children with the greatest baseline emotional dysregulation. It was hypothesized that receiving conflict intervention treatment would decrease conflict sensitization and increase constructive representations of conflict, particularly for children with higher levels of reported emotional dysregulation at pretest and for conditions designed to improve constructive conflict for both children and parents. That is, children who reported highest levels of emotional dysregulation at pretest and who were in treatment groups would see the greatest decrease in destructive representation, the greatest increase of constructive representation, and the greatest decrease in emotional dysregulation.
Participants in a 4-week conflict intervention program (N=225) were randomly sorted into 4 conditions. Families received either: Parent-Only intervention (n=75), Parent-Adolescent intervention (n=75), or Control conditions (self-study or no treatment (n=75)). Data on children’s emotional dysregulation, constructive family representations, and destructive family representations were assessed and analyzed at pretest and a 1-year follow up visit. In the present study, effects were separated by level of reported emotional dysregulation at pretest. Children were split into three analysis groups, the highest (20%), middle (60%) and lowest (20%) reported levels of emotional dysregulation at pretest.
At a 1 year follow up visit, effects were compared across the emotional dysregulation levels assigned at pretest and across treatment groups to determine treatment effects for different dysregulation levels. Destructive family representations for adolescents who began with higher levels of dysregulation differed significantly between control (M=1.7, SD=0.82), Parent-Only (M=1.54, SD=.79), and Parent-Adolescent groups (M=2.87, SD=1.23) at the 1-year follow-up (F=2.73, p<.05). Emotional dysregulation for those who reported higher baseline levels of dysregulation differed significantly for control (M=8.7, SD=3.33), Parent-Only (M=9.00, SD=2.7), and Parent-Adolescent groups (M=7.5, SD=2.12 at the 1-year follow-up (F=2.071, p<.05). Constructive family representations for those who began with lower reported levels of dysregulation differed significantly between control, Parent-Only and Parent-Adolescent groups, respectively (M=1.47, SD=0.8; M=1.5, SD=0.43; M=2.33, SD=1.24) (F=375.85, p<.001). Results indicate that treatment was most successful in reducing the impact of conflict sensitization when the adolescents were involved in the intervention. In support of the hypotheses, destructive representations and emotional dysregulation improved the most for children who had higher baseline emotional dysregulation. However, children who were involved in the intervention and who began with low emotional dysregulation levels improved greatest in constructive representation. Future analyses will use change-to-change analyses to look closer at the mechanisms that underlie these findings.