Implicit and Explicit Representations of Romantic Attachment as Mechanisms Linking Interparental Conflict and Parental Discipline

• In Event: Lost in conceptualization? Seeking new insights by examining the function and context of parenting practices

Abstract

Introduction. Family scholars have long advocated for the use of inductive discipline strategies in response to child noncompliance and the cessation of power-assertive discipline strategies, such as physical punishment (Gershoff, 2012). Extensive reviews have highlighted the consequences of each form of discipline for children’s adjustment (Baumrind, 2012), but we still know comparatively little as to the family-level factors that give rise to these forms of discipline. Conceptual frameworks derived from family systems theory pose that hostile interparental conflict may undermine sensitive discipline practices by transmitting distress from the interparental to the parent-child relationship (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). Although compelling, few studies have examined exactly what processes account for this “spill over” of affect. Some preliminary work suggests romantic attachment security may serve as a potent spillover mechanism (Davies et al., 2009). However, a reliance on self-report measures of romantic attachment only captures aspects of attachment accessible to conscious thought. Dual-process models of social cognition suggest that implicit representations of attachment relationships operating outside of conscious awareness also drive behavior. Thus, the present study examined how implicit and explicit representations of romantic attachment might differentially serve as spillover mechanisms linking hostile interparental conflict with both inductive and power-assertive discipline strategies.

Methods. Participants included 235 mothers (62% White), fathers (55% White), and a target child between the ages of 2 and 4 (Mage = 2.97). Families visited the laboratory at 3 separate occasions spaced approximately one year apart. At Wave 1, information on hostile interparental conflict was obtained from behavioral observations of negativity and conflict coded from a 10-minute interparental problem-solving task and from parent self-reports of verbal aggression. At Waves 1 and 2, explicit romantic attachment was assessed through parent self-report, and implicit romantic attachment was assessed through a computer-based Go/No-Go Association Task. At Waves 1 and 3, mothers and fathers reported on their own use of inductive and power-assertive discipline strategies.

Results. Separate multiple mediation path models were run in a structural equation modeling framework for each discipline outcome. Results revealed that interparental conflict was associated with changes in mothers’ implicit attachment security which, in turn, was associated with maternal power-assertive discipline (Figure 1). Furthermore, interparental conflict was also associated with mothers’ explicit romantic attachment which, in turn, was associated with maternal inductive discipline (Figure 2). Neither explicit nor implicit romantic attachment served as spillover mechanisms for fathers.

Discussion. Overall, the findings suggest that mothers’ romantic attachment provides an important context for the regulation of affect in accounting for the spillover of distress from the interparental to the mother-child relationship. Moreover, the results suggest that explicit attachment representations resulting from conscious reasoning and deliberation may be associated with more reflective forms of discipline. In contrast, implicit attachment representations reflecting relationship distress beyond the reach of conscious awareness may drive relatively spontaneous and emotionally charged discipline practices such as physical punishment. Lastly, a lack of findings for fathers contradicts previous research and calls into question the salience of attachment processes as spillover mechanisms for fathers.

Authors

• Cory Platts, University of Rochester
  Presenting Author

• Melissa L Sturge-Apple, University of Rochester

• Patrick Davies, University of Rochester