Infant Behavior & Development 36 (2013) 210– 222

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Infant Behavior and Development

Stability and antecedents of coparenting quality: The role of parentpersonality and child temperament

Daniel J. Laxmana,∗, Allison Jesseeb, Sarah C. Mangelsdorf c, Whitney Rossmiller-Giesingd,Geoffrey L. Browne, Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivanf

a University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United Statesb University of St. Thomas, United Statesc Northwestern University, United Statesd Fort Hays State University, United Statese Clark University, United Statesf The Ohio State University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 22 November 2011Received in revised form30 November 2012Accepted 11 January 2013Available online 28 February 2013

Keywords:CoparentingStabilityTemperamentNegative emotionalityCommunionFamily dynamics

a b s t r a c t

This investigation explored how parent personality and infant temperament were asso-ciated with the development and stability of coparenting over the first 3 years of life.We examined the stability of supportive and undermining coparenting from 13 monthsto 3 years and whether infant difficult temperament moderated the stability of copar-enting. We also examined how two dimensions of parent personality, communion andnegative emotionality, were directly associated with coparenting quality and how thesepersonality variables interacted with infant difficult temperament in predicting subsequentcoparenting quality. Both supportive and undermining coparenting demonstrated moder-ate stability; however, stability in undermining coparenting was present only for familieswith less difficult infants. Fathers’ communion and negative emotionality were associatedwith higher and lower coparenting quality, respectively, but only for families with an infantwith a more challenging temperament. Mothers’ negative emotionality was associated withhigher coparenting quality. The results of this study suggest that parents’ and children’scharacteristics are associated in direct and interactive ways with the development of thecoparenting relationship across the first few years of a child’s life.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

When welcoming a new child into the family, parents make numerous changes in all aspects of their life and learn newskills to manage these changes. Among the skills parents must learn is the ability to successfully work with their partner inraising their child. The addition of a child changes the nature of the parents’ relationship. No longer are parents only partnersin a marital relationship, but they are also partners in parenting their child, or coparents. Although their relationship ascoparents is related to their relationship as marital partners, empirical evidence suggests these two relationships are distinct(for a review, see Mangelsdorf, Laxman, & Jesse, 2011).

Coparenting has been defined multiple ways, but perhaps the most widely used definition is that of Talbot and McHale(2004) who defined coparenting as an “enterprise undertaken by two or more adults working together to raise a childfor whom they share responsibility” (p. 192). How well parents coparent has implications for their child’s development.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +217 300 9299.E-mail address: dlaxman2@gmail.com (D.J. Laxman).

0163-6383/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.01.001

SNMDractmroth

1

sdtpenepdeatTe

to2t(Mt

iiaeslG&h2fi(Atebrstua

D.J. Laxman et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 36 (2013) 210– 222 211

everal studies have found that coparenting quality predicts child outcomes (e.g., Brown, Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, &eff, 2010; Teubert & Pinquart, 2010) even after controlling for the influence of marital quality (e.g., Frosch, Mangelsdorf, &cHale, 2000; McHale & Rasmussen, 1998) or parenting (Belsky, Putnam, & Crnic, 1996; Karreman, van Tuijl, van Aken, &ekovic, 2008; McHale, Johnson, & Sinclair, 1999). Noting that coparenting has a unique influence on children’s development,

esearchers have sought to better understand how the coparenting relationship develops across the transition to parenthoodnd across early child development. This interest has resulted in two lines of research. The first has examined the stability ofoparenting, or how coparenting changes and remains the same across time. The second line of research has included effortso identity antecedents of coparenting quality. Within these two lines of research, two dimensions of coparenting are com-

only assessed: supportive and undermining coparenting (McHale, Kuersten-Hogan, & Rao, 2004). Supportive coparentingefers to parents’ efforts to facilitate, support, and cooperate with the parenting goals of their partner as well as expressionsf positive emotion between parents while engaging in joint interaction with their child. Undermining coparenting referso efforts by one parent to impede, oppose, or compete with the parenting goals of their partner as well as expressions ofostility and displeasure regarding their partner’s parenting. For the present study, we focused on these two dimensions.

.1. Stability of coparenting

Although coparenting research has grown in recent years, there are still relatively few studies that have examined thetability of coparenting across time. McHale and Fivaz-Depeursinge (1999) argued that there is a need to study family groupynamics across periods of child development. As noted by Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, Frosch, and McHale (2004),he coparenting challenges that parents of infants face are likely very different from those faced by parents of toddlers orreschoolers. As children develop and become able to do more on their own, there is an increasing need for parents toncourage and facilitate children’s nascent skills as well as prevent them from hurting themselves or others as they tryew things. Additionally, parents must try to come to agreement about what limits to set for their children and how tonforce those limits. As a result of these developmental changes, parents must coordinate different parenting behaviors,rogressing from a focus on working together to meet children’s basic needs when they are younger to helping childrenevelop and appropriately use new skills as they get older. On the one hand, parents who successfully coordinate theirfforts to provide for children’s basic needs when they are younger may carry forward skills that enable them to support onenother in meeting children’s needs in new periods of development. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that the skillshat enabled parents to successfully coparent younger children will apply when children reach a new developmental period.hus it is important to examine whether coparenting is stable across developmental periods like infancy, toddlerhood, andarly childhood as well as identify factors that might promote or reduce stability.

The few studies that have examined coparenting across time suggest that it exhibits moderate stability across the firsthree years after a child is born. Supportive and undermining coparenting appear to be stable whether operationalized asne dimension (McHale & Rotman, 2007; Van Egeren, 2004) or as two (Davis, Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, & Brown,009; Gable, Belsky, & Crnic, 1995; Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, et al., 2004). Across these studies, coparenting appearso show stability in terms of rank-order (correlational) stability, but researchers report mixed findings in terms of absolutemean level) stability, even across the same developmental period (Davis et al., 2009; Gable et al., 1995; Schoppe-Sullivan,

angelsdorf, et al., 2004; Van Egeren, 2004). One aim of the current investigation was to extend this research by examininghe rank-order and absolute stability of coparenting between 13 months and 3 years.

Although research suggests that coparenting is generally stable across the first 3 years after a child is born, coparentings not necessarily stable for all families. As previously noted, the skills that enable parents to successfully coparent annfant may not translate directly into the skills needed to coparent a toddler or preschooler. It is possible that the resourcesvailable to parents and the challenges they face may play a moderating role in determining whether their coparentingxperiences change or remain the same over time. One source of such challenges might include characteristics of the child,uch as the child’s temperament. Previous research has suggested that infant difficult temperament is associated withower marital quality and less mother and father involvement during the first year of life (Mehall, Spinrad, Eisenberg, &aertner, 2009). Furthermore, infant difficult temperament has been shown to negatively affect coparenting quality (Gordon

Feldman, 2008; Lindsey, Caldera, & Colwell, 2005; McHale & Rotman, 2007; Van Egeren, 2004). However, some studiesave reported few or no direct associations between infant difficult temperament and coparenting (e.g., McHale, Kazali, et al.,004; McHale, Kuersten-Hogan, et al., 2004; Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, Brown, & Sokolowski, 2007) or the conflictingnding that having an infant with a more challenging temperament was associated with better coparenting experiencesBerkman, Alberts, Carleton, & McHale, 2002; Schoppe-Sullivan, Szewczyk Sokolowski, Brown, Beggs, & Mangelsdorf, 2004).lthough the association between infant difficult temperament and coparenting may not be straightforward, infant difficult

emperament has been linked to coparenting quality and thus might also be associated with coparenting stability. Forxample, parents of infants with a difficult temperament may show varied patterns of responses. Some parents may graduallyecome more competent at handling a difficult infant, while others may not be able to maintain a positive coparentingelationship in the face of challenges associated with raising a difficult infant. Thus, infant temperament may affect the

tability of coparenting over time. Davis et al. (2009) tested this proposition and found that infant temperament moderatedhe stability of undermining, but not supportive, coparenting between 3.5 and 13 months. Specifically, they found thatndermining coparenting was stable only for parents of infants who were temperamentally less difficult. The current studyimed to extend their findings by examining whether infant difficult temperament moderated supportive and undermining

212 D.J. Laxman et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 36 (2013) 210– 222

coparenting across a later and longer time span between 13 months and 3 years. In addition to examining how infantdifficult temperament was associated with the stability of coparenting, the current study also examined whether infantdifficult temperament was directly related to later coparenting quality.

An issue related to the stability of supportive and undermining coparenting is how these two dimensions of coparentingare related over time. As the nature and targets of coparenting behavior change over time with the child’s development(e.g., from meeting basic needs to setting limits), the strength of the association between supportive and underminingcoparenting may also change. An open question in coparenting research is whether supportive and undermining coparentingare independent, but correlated constructs, or, instead, represent opposite poles of a single continuum (Feinberg, 2003).If supportive and undermining coparenting are distinct constructs, then parents who fail to support one another wouldnot necessarily undermine one another. In contrast, if supportive and undermining coparenting overlap and reflect onedimension, parents who are lower on supportive coparenting would be higher on undermining coparenting. Past researchhas reported correlations between supportive and undermining coparenting ranging from r = −.18 to r = −.66 across the firstfew years of life (Davis et al., 2009; McHale, 1995; Schoppe, Mangelsdorf, & Frosch, 2001; Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf,et al., 2004; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2007; Van Egeren, 2004). The wide range of these associations underscores the need forresearchers to carefully consider whether to operationalize supportive and undermining coparenting as one dimension ortwo during infancy and early childhood. We explored the association between supportive and undermining coparenting at13 months and 3 years and tested whether the association between the two dimensions differed at the two time points.

1.2. Parent personality

In addition to considering the contributions of the infant to the coparenting relationship, researchers have examined otherantecedents of coparenting quality (for a review, see Mangelsdorf et al., 2011). One potential antecedent is parent personality.Belsky’s (1984) process model of the determinants of parenting emphasized parents’ personality and psychological resourcesas important determinants of parenting. Kolak and Volling (2007) suggested that the process model might be applied toidentify the determinants of coparenting. Thus, parents’ characteristics might play an important role in the developmentof the coparenting relationship. Indeed, a small number of investigations have reported an association between parentpersonality and coparenting. For example, Stright and Bales (2003) reported that coparenting quality was lower for motherswho were less positively adjusted in their personality (had more negative scores on the Big Five factors). Cannon, Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, Brown, and Szewczyk Sokolowski (2008) found that fathers’ negative emotionality assessed pre-birth was negatively associated with mothers’ facilitative or supportive coparenting behaviors at 3.5 months. Furthermore,parental negative expressiveness has been linked to lower quality coparenting (Kolak & Volling, 2007). Thus, it appears thatparental negativity is associated with poorer coparenting quality.

One aim of the current investigation was to examine how parents’ negative emotionality was associated with coparenting.Individuals higher on negative emotionality have a lower threshold for experiencing negative emotions, such as fear, anger,or anxiety (Krueger, Caspi, Moffitt, Silva, & McGee, 1996), which may make it more difficult to have positive coparentinginteractions. Therefore, we hypothesized that parents who were higher on negative emotionality would have less optimalcoparenting experiences.

In addition to the negative effects of parent personality on coparenting, parents’ personality may also promote positivecoparenting experiences. For example, Talbot and McHale (2004) found that maternal self-control and paternal-flexibilitywere associated with better coparenting experiences, but only for those couples with greater overall marital quality. How-ever, for couples with poorer marital quality, maternal self-control and paternal flexibility were associated with lowercoparenting quality. Other research also reported puzzling findings. For example, researchers have recently examined howcommunion is associated with coparenting interactions. Communion reflects an individual’s level of interpersonal orien-tation and includes factors such as social closeness and well-being (Krueger et al., 1996). Cannon et al. (2008) examinedassociations between communion and coparenting behaviors and found that when mothers were higher on communion,fathers were less involved and competent in coparenting interactions. In contrast, when fathers were higher on communion,they were more involved and competent in these interactions. These authors concluded that when mothers were high oncommunion, they placed a great deal of importance on their mothering role and on their relationship with their infant.Accordingly, they may have excluded fathers from interacting with the infant. When fathers were high on communion, theyalso valued the importance of their relationship with their infant and were thus more involved with parenting. Given thesemixed findings, we did not have strong hypotheses about the effects of communion on coparenting. However, we specu-lated that parents who value interpersonal relationships would be more likely to be support one another and less likely toundermine in coparenting interactions.

As previously noted, prior research examining parent personality and infant difficult temperament as predictors of copar-enting quality has reported mixed results. One possible explanation for this is that parent personality and infant difficulttemperament interact in predicting later coparenting quality. Indeed, some research suggests that the association betweenpersonality and coparenting may not always be straightforward. For example, McHale, Kazali, et al. (2004) found that mater-

nal negativity in the form of pessimism was only associated with lower coparenting quality when infants were also rated ashighly negative. In this case, infant temperament nullified the effect of pessimism on coparenting in that having a tempera-mentally easier infant buffered against the negative impact of pessimism on coparenting quality. Furthermore, the poorestcoparenting quality was observed in families with both a difficult infant and a mother higher on pessimism. We expected

taqn

Ataimwoi

1

oSecaaroeFainabwi

2

2

srpT

awEr6cehm

2

2

TM

D.J. Laxman et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 36 (2013) 210– 222 213

o find a similar interaction in our study. Specifically, we hypothesized that the families with both a more difficult infantnd a more stress-reactive, worry-prone parent (i.e., higher on negative emotionality) would have the poorest coparentinguality. We also explored whether having a temperamentally easier infant would nullify the association between parentegative emotionality and coparenting quality.

Infant difficult temperament may also moderate the association between parents’ communion and coparenting quality.s noted previously, parents who are higher on communion may have better coparenting relationships. Infant difficult

emperament may moderate this association in one of two ways. In the first scenario, the association between communionnd better coparenting quality may not exist at all for families struggling to coparent a more difficult infant. In this scenario,nfant difficulty would nullify the benefits of communion on coparenting quality. In the second scenario, parents’ communion

ay be particularly important for families faced with a temperamentally difficult infant. In this scenario, parents’ communionill either be beneficial only for families with a more difficult infant or be more beneficial for these families than for families

f a less difficult infant. If this is the case, the challenges associated with raising a more difficult infant may amplify themportance of parents’ communion. Both possible interaction effects were explored in the present study.

.3. The current study

The present investigation had several aims. First, we examined the stability of coparenting from 13 months to 3 yearsf age. Given past research, we expected to find modest to moderate stability in supportive and undermining coparenting.econd, we explored whether infant difficult temperament affected coparenting quality and whether it moderated copar-nting stability. We hypothesized that infant difficult temperament would be associated with coparenting quality and thatoparenting would be more stable for families with a less difficult infant. Third, we examined whether the strength of thessociation between supportive and undermining coparenting differed at each time point. Fourth, we examined the associ-tion between parent personality (i.e., negative emotionality and communion) and coparenting. Given that there is limitedesearch on parent personality and coparenting and the existing literature has reported mixed findings, our investigationf the association between personality and coparenting was somewhat exploratory. However, we hypothesized that par-nts’ communion and negative emotionality would be associated with better and worse coparenting quality, respectively.urthermore, given that parent personality has been found to interact with children’s characteristics to predict parentingnd child outcomes (Mangelsdorf & Frosch, 1999; McHale, Kazali, et al., 2004), we explored how parent personality andnfant difficult temperament interacted in predicting subsequent supportive and undermining coparenting. For parents’egative emotionality, we examined whether coparenting quality was poorest for families with both a more difficult infantnd a parent high on negative emotionality. Furthermore, we examined whether having a temperamentally easier infantuffered against the negative association between negative emotionality and coparenting quality. For parents’ communion,e explored whether parents’ communion was associated with coparenting quality only for families with a more difficult

nfant or only for families with a less difficult infant.

. Methods

.1. Participants

Participants were 79 mothers, fathers, and their child (39 female) living in central Illinois. Participants were from a largertudy and were recruited through fliers posted in day cares, restaurants, stores, and other public locations. Forty families wereecruited to participate when mothers were in the third trimester of pregnancy. An additional 39 families were recruited toarticipate when their child was 13 months old. All 79 families participated again when their children were 3 years of age.his study focused only on the 79 who participated both when their child was 13 months old and 3 years old.

All children were born healthy and full-term. Ninety-nine percent of the couples were married. Couples had been togethern average of 5.2 years at the time of the birth of their child. At the time of the 13-month visit, the average age of mothersas 32.2 years (SD = 5.17) with a range of 21–43. The average age of fathers was 34.9 years (SD = 7.24) with a range of 23–65.

ighty-four percent of fathers were Caucasian, 7% were Latino, 3% were African-American, 3% were Asian-American, and 3%eported mixed race/ethnicity. Eighty-six percent of mothers were Caucasian, 5% were Latina, 0% were African-American,% were Asian-American, and 3% reported mixed race/ethnicity. Sixty-three percent of children were first-born. When thehildren were 1 year of age, 6% of mothers reported having attended some college, 49% had earned a college degree, 30% hadarned a master’s degree, and 14% held a PhD. One percent of fathers reported having a high school degree, 10% reportedaving attended some college, 39% had earned a college degree, 27% had earned a master’s degree, and 23% held a PhD. Theean annual income for families was between $51,000 and $60,000.

.2. Phase 1: Pre-birth questionnaire

.2.1. Parent personalityForty mothers and fathers were asked to independently complete the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ;

ellegen, 1982) during the third trimester of pregnancy. Parents from the 39 families who were recruited later completed thePQ when the child was 13 months old. This 300-item measure is designed for use with non-clinical samples and is composed

214 D.J. Laxman et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 36 (2013) 210– 222

Table 1Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Age 13 months supportive coparenting –2 Age 13 months undermining coparenting −.53*** –3 Age 3 supportive coparenting .25* −.01 –4 Age 3 undermining coparenting −.05 .37*** −.18 –5 Mothers’ communion .17 −.14 −.05 .02 –6 Fathers’ communion .13 .13 .22† .21† .04 –7 Mothers’ negative emotionality .03 −.06 .15 −.24* −.09 −.07 –8 Fathers’ negative emotionality .10 .08 .03 .20† −.01 −.04 .34** –9 Infant difficult temperament .05 −.04 −.22† .00 .05 .00 .03 .08 –

10 Recruitment phase .21† −.36** .09 −.23* −.01 −.03 .12 .09 .10

Mean 12.86 5.53 11.32 5.74 51.08 43.83 10.47 11.57 2.96SD 2.61 1.75 2.80 2.16 12.12 15.09 6.18 7.58 0.60

† p < .10.

* p < .05.

** p < .01.*** p < .001.

of eleven scales which can be combined into higher-order factors. For the purposes of this investigation we focused on thehigher-order factors of negative emotionality and communion following the procedures of Krueger et al. (1996). The alphasfor these two factors were .84 and .87 for mothers and .88 and .90 for fathers for negative emotionality and communion,respectively. We examined whether there were any differences in personality variables between the two recruitment groups.There were no mean differences in any personality variables by recruitment time. The absence of significant differences wasexpected since the MPQ has been shown to have considerable test-retest reliability over time (DiLalla, Gottesman, Carey,& Vogler, 1997) and research has shown that personality is generally stable in adulthood (McCrae & Costa, 1994). Means,standard deviations, and correlations for this and all study measures are presented in Table 1.

2.3. Phase 2: Questionnaires and observed coparenting at 13 months

2.3.1. Procedure and measuresFamilies were brought into the lab and observed during a structured triadic play session when their child was 13 months

old. Identical questionnaires about themselves, their families, and their relationships were mailed to the mothers and fathersto complete separately.

2.3.2. Demographic informationMothers and fathers completed a demographic questionnaire which included questions about child birth status, parents’

age, education, and race/ethnicity, and family income.

2.3.3. Infant temperamentMothers and fathers completed the Infant Characteristics Questionnaire (ICQ; Bates, Freeland, & Lounsbury, 1979). This

measure is a 28-item questionnaire measure assessing infant temperament. The questionnaire produces a measure of dif-ficulty which is comprised of the subscales of unadaptability, fussiness, and unpredictability. Cronbach’s alphas for thedifficulty construct were .78 for mothers and .79 for fathers.

Infant temperament ratings by mothers and fathers were positively correlated, r(71) = .64, p < .001. Accordingly, themothers’ and fathers’ difficulty ratings were averaged to create the composite 1-year infant difficult temperament, M = 2.96,SD = 0.60. For 5 cases for which fathers’ ratings were not available, only mothers’ ratings were used.

2.3.4. Coparenting qualityCoparenting quality was assessed during a triadic interaction task videotaped in the lab. In the first half of the interaction,

families were given three sets of toys—a shape sorter, stacking rings, and blocks—and were asked to play with them ina set order for 10 min. Then, in the second half of the interaction, families were given a box containing many more toysand were given 5 more minutes to play with those toys. Parents were then instructed to help their child clean up the toys.Coparenting quality was coded separately for the first and second halves of the observation, and scores were averaged acrossthe two halves. The interaction was coded on eight scales assessing coparenting quality: pleasure, warmth, cooperation,interactiveness, displeasure, anger, coldness, and competition using modified versions of the scales developed by Cowanand Cowan (1996). Coding was done by three trained coders. Coders overlapped on 38% of the videotapes. Gammas between

coders ranged from .70 to .98 (M = .84).

Four scales assessed supportive coparenting: pleasure, warmth, cooperation, and interactiveness. Pleasure reflects thedegree to which parents express pleasure about how their partner is interacting with their child as well as parents’ enjoymentin parenting their child together. Warmth assesses the amount of affection and positive regard parents express toward

ocuetddsSSSs

2

2

wgd

2

vwtwd

2

ppaododdt

3

3

aipi(tips

3

w

D.J. Laxman et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 36 (2013) 210– 222 215

ne another. Cooperation reflects the degree to which parents help and support one another in interacting with theirhild. Finally, interactiveness assesses the degree to which parents talk and engage with one another. Four scales assessedndermining coparenting: displeasure, coldness, anger, and competition. Displeasure reflects the degree to which parentsxpress dissatisfaction with the way their partner interacts with their child and/or the relationship their partner has withheir child. Coldness assesses the degree to which parents maintain distance between themselves and their partner or showisdain for their partner. Anger reflects the hostility parents express toward one another. Finally, competition reflects theegree to which parents compete to interact with and direct the child or have the child respond to them or take theiride. Supportive coparenting was computed by summing pleasure, warmth, cooperation, and interactiveness (M = 12.86,D = 2.61). Undermining coparenting was computed by summing displeasure, anger, coldness, and competition (M = 5.53,D = 1.75). Consistent with previous research using these scales (e.g., Davis et al., 2009; Schoppe et al., 2001; Schoppe-ullivan, Mangelsdorf, et al., 2004; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2007) internal reliability was adequate: = 0.89 and = 0.72 forupportive and undermining coparenting, respectively.

.4. Phase 3: 3 year postpartum home visit

.4.1. ProcedureFamilies were visited in their home when their child was approximately 3-years-old. Fathers, mothers, and their child

ere filmed as they participated in a structured play task. The experimenter directed parents to work on building a play-round out of Lincoln Logs together with their child for 15 min and provided them with instructions. This procedure wasesigned to elicit coparenting behaviors as both parents interacted simultaneously with the child.

.4.2. Coparenting qualitySupportive and undermining coparenting quality during the three-year structured play task were coded using modified

ersions of the scales developed by Cowan and Cowan (1996) that assess supportive and undermining coparenting. Codingas done by two trained coders who had not observed the families at the previous phase. Coders overlapped on 34% of

he videotapes. Gammas between coders ranged from .70 to .92 (M = .78). As with coparenting at 13 months, pleasure,armth, cooperation, and interactiveness were summed to form supportive coparenting ( = 0.87, M = 11.31, SD = 2.80) andispleasure, coldness, anger, and competition were summed to form undermining coparenting ( = 0.83, M = 5.74, SD = 2.16).

.5. Missing data

Missing data were limited in this study. Scores for children’s difficult temperament were not available for 3 children. Theersonality measure was not completed by 6 mothers and 9 fathers. Coparenting data was available for all 79 families whoarticipated both when their children were 1 and when their child was 3 years of age. Missing data were addressed in thenalyses using full information maximum-likelihood (FIML) using the Mplus 5.21 program. FIML is a preferred approach tother common methods (Acock, 2005) including listwise deletion, which is considered one of the least effective methods forealing with missing data (Wilkinson and the Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999). The missing at random assumptionf FIML is strengthened by the inclusion of what are called auxiliary variables (Acock, 2010). These variables help explainifferences in likelihood of missing data. For our study, we included 22 auxiliary variables in our analyses, including multipleemographic variables, the personality variables not examined (agency and constraint), and other measures available fromhe larger study.

. Results

.1. Preliminary analyses

In examining the stability and predictors of coparenting, we used multiple regression. Because participants were recruitedt different stages, we first conducted t-tests to check for differences between recruitment groups in age, education, andncome. Results indicated that those recruited earlier were less educated (t(77) = −2.20, p < .05 for mothers; t(77) = −3.32,

< .05 for fathers), younger (M = 30.5 vs. M = 34.3, t(75) = −3.64, p < .05 for mothers; non-significant for fathers), and had lessncome (t(77) = −1.85, p < .05). Furthermore, parents recruited earlier were lower on supportive coparenting at 13 monthsM = 12.33 vs. M = 13.40, t(77) = −1.86, p < .05) and higher on undermining coparenting at 13 months (M = 6.14 vs. M = 4.90,(77) = 3.37, p < .05) and age 3 (M = 6.23 vs. M = 5.24, t(75) = 2.09, p < .05). Consequently, we controlled for recruitment phasen all analyses. There were no differences by recruitment phase in measures of infants’ difficult temperament or parents’ersonality. We used the Mplus 5.21 program which uses a maximum likelihood estimator to fit all regression models forupportive and undermining coparenting.

.2. Stability of coparenting and infant temperament

For the models examining stability of coparenting, recruitment phase (0 = recruited prebirth, 1 = recruited when childas 13 months) was added on the first step in predicting age 3 coparenting. Coparenting at 13 months was then added to

216 D.J. Laxman et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 36 (2013) 210– 222

Table 2Regression models examining stability of coparenting.

Predictor Age 3 supportive coparenting Age 3 undermining coparenting

ˇ � R2 � �2 � R2 � �2

Step 1Recruitment phase .17 .01 0.58 −.23* .05* 4.30*

Step 2Age 13 months coparenting .24* .06* 4.53* .33** .10** 8.57**

Step 3Infant difficult temp. −.24* .06* 4.74* .03 .00 0.07

Step 4Coparenting × diff. temp. .12 .02 1.26 −.26* .06* 5.98*

Total R2 .13* .21**

* p < .05.** p < .01.

examine the stability of coparenting across time. We then explored the main effects of infant difficult temperament andexamined whether infant difficult temperament moderated the stability of coparenting.

Supportive coparenting was significantly correlated across time, even after controlling for recruitment time (partialr(79) = .24, p = .04). Undermining coparenting was likewise significantly related from 13 months to 3 years (partial r(79) = .32,p < .01). A comparison of the correlation coefficients using Fisher’s r-to-z transformation indicates that the correlationbetween supportive coparenting at 13 months and at 3 years was not significantly different from the correlation betweenundermining coparenting at 13 months and at 3 years (z = −.0.82, p = .41). Paired t-tests indicated that supportive coparent-ing significantly decreased from age one (M = 12.86) to age three (M = 11.32; t(78) = 4.14, p < 0.001). However, underminingcoparenting did not significantly change between age one (M = 5.53) and age three (M = 5.74; t(78) = −0.88, p = 0.38). Asshown in Table 2, regression analyses similarly indicated moderate stability in supportive and undermining coparenting.

We also examined the strength of the association between supportive and undermining coparenting at each time point.The correlation between supportive and undermining coparenting at 13 months (r = −.53, p < .001) was significantly stronger(z = −2.52, p = .01) than the correlation between supportive and undermining coparenting at 3 years (r = −.18, p = .11), indi-cating that the association between supportive and undermining coparenting was significantly weaker at age 3.

We next examined how infant difficult temperament predicted coparenting quality at age 3 controlling for coparentingquality at 13 months. We also examined whether infant difficult temperament moderated the stability of coparenting.As shown in Table 2, infant difficult temperament was associated with less supportive coparenting at age 3 ( = −0.24,p = .03), but was unrelated to undermining coparenting ( = 0.03, p = .80). Infant difficult temperament did not moderate theassociation between 13 month and age 3 supportive coparenting ( = 0.12, p = .26). However, infant difficult temperamentdid moderate the association between 13 month and age 3 undermining coparenting ( = −0.26, p = .01). The inclusion ofthis interaction in the model explained an additional 6.3% of the variance in age 3 undermining coparenting and significantly

2

improved model fit (�� = 5.98, p = .01). A graph of this interaction is presented in Fig. 1. Follow-up tests were conductedusing procedures outlined by Aiken and West (1991) for post hoc investigation of interactions. The slope of the regressionline representing more difficult infants was not significantly different from zero (b = −.07, p = .93). However, the slope of the

Fig. 1. Infant difficult temperament as a moderator of the stability of undermining coparenting.

D.J. Laxman et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 36 (2013) 210– 222 217

Table 3Regression models predicting age 3 coparenting from parents’ communion.

Predictor Age 3 supportive coparenting Age 3 undermining coparenting

ˇ �R2 ��2 �R2 ��2

Step 1Recruitment phase .17 .01 0.58 −.23* .05 4.30*

Step 2Age 13 months coparenting .24* .06 4.53* .33* .10 8.57**

Step 3Mothers’ communion −.08 .05Fathers’ communion .22* .13Infant difficult temp. −.23* .10 8.89* .03 .02 1.30

Step 4aM comm. × diff. temp. .05 .00 .16 −.09 .01 0.49

Total R2 .17* .18*

Step 4bF comm. × diff. temp. .22* .04 3.75† .09 .01 0.50

Total R2 .21** .18*

† p < .10.

rc

3

r3fi1acado

iItep

3

Hf

3

fn

* p < .05.** p < .01.

egression line representing less difficult infants was significantly different from zero (b = 2.29, p < .001). Thus, underminingoparenting was stable only for parents who reported that their infant had a less difficult temperament.

.3. Parents’ personality and coparenting

We next examined the associations between parents’ personality and coparenting quality at age 3 by fitting hierarchicalegression models. In these models, we examined the association between parent personality and coparenting quality at age

controlling for coparenting quality at 13 months. When examining the longitudinal association between two variables,ailure to control for prior levels of the dependent variable (i.e., coparenting quality) can lead to biased estimates for thendependent variables (i.e., parent personality) in the model (Cook, 2003). Furthermore, the inclusion of coparenting at age3 months in the regression models rules out the possibility that parent personality may be associated with coparentingt age 3 simply because parent personality may be associated with coparenting at 13 months (Selig & Little, 2012). Byontrolling for prior coparenting quality in our analyses, we improved the quality of our estimates and strengthened ourbility to detect the causal effect of parent personality on later coparenting quality. Although the limitations of our studyesign preclude an unbiased estimate of the causal effect of parent personality, taking these steps still improve the qualityf our estimates.

In conducting the hierarchical regressions, we entered recruitment phase in the first step and coparenting at 13 monthsn the second step. In the third step, the main effects of infant difficult temperament and parent personality were added.nteractions between parent personality and infant difficult temperament (reported in the next section) were added onhe final step. To preserve power to detect significant interactions, associations between parents’ communion and negativemotionality and later coparenting were examined in separate models. Similarly, to preserve power, interactions betweenarent personality and infant difficult temperament were examined separately for mothers and fathers.

.3.1. Parents’ communionAnalyses indicated that mothers’ communion was not significantly associated with supportive coparenting (see Table 3).

owever, fathers’ communion was associated with more supportive coparenting ( = .22, p < .05). Neither mothers’ nor

athers’ communion was associated with age 3 undermining coparenting.

.3.2. Parents’ negative emotionalityAs shown in Table 4, mothers’ and fathers’ negative emotionality was not related to supportive coparenting. However,

athers’ negative emotionality was related to higher levels of undermining coparenting at age 3 ( = .36, p < .01). Mothers’egative emotionality was associated with less age 3 undermining coparenting ( = - .23, p < .05).

218 D.J. Laxman et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 36 (2013) 210– 222

Table 4Regression models predicting age 3 coparenting from parents’ negative emotionality.

Predictor Age 3 supportive coparenting Age 3 undermining coparentingˇ �R2 ��2

�R2 ��2

Step 1Recruitment phase .17 .01 0.58 −.23* .05 4.30*

Step 2Age 13 months coparenting .24* .06 4.53* .33* .10 8.57**

Step 3Mothers’ negative emo. .13 −.23*

Fathers’ negative emo. −.08 .36**

Infant difficult temp. −.24* .07 6.18 .01 .11 8.47*

Step 4aM neg. emo. × diff. temp. .19† .03 2.92† −.12 .01 1.03

Total R2 .17* .28**

Step 4bF neg. emo. × diff. temp. .05 .00 0.17 .26* .06 4.84*

Total R2 .14† .33***

† p < .10.

* p < .05.

** p < .01.*** p < .001.

3.3.3. Interactions between parents’ communion and infant difficult temperament3.3.3.1. Supportive coparenting. Analyses examining the interaction between parents’ communion and infant difficult tem-perament indicated that fathers’, but not mothers’, communion interacted with infant difficult temperament in predictingage 3 supportive coparenting (see Table 3). The addition of the father communion × infant difficult temperament interaction( = 0.22, p < .05) explained an additional 4.1% of the variance in age 3 supportive coparenting and improved model fit nearlysignificantly (��2 = 3.75, p = .053). A graph of this interaction is presented in Fig. 2. Follow-up tests indicated that the slopeof the line representing less difficult infants was not significantly different from zero (b = −0.01, p = .99). However, the linerepresenting more difficult infants was significantly different from zero (b = 2.38, p = .01). Thus, fathers’ communion wasassociated with supportive coparenting only when the infant was reported as being more difficult.

3.3.3.2. Undermining coparenting. Analyses indicated that communion and infant difficult temperament did not interact inpredicting subsequent undermining coparenting for either mothers or fathers (see Table 3).

3.3.4. Interactions between parents’ negative emotionality and infant difficult temperament3.3.4.1. Supportive coparenting. Analyses indicated that the interaction term for the negative emotionality × infant difficulttemperament interaction was not significant for fathers (see Table 4). The interaction term for mothers was marginally

significant ( = .19, p = .08). The addition of the mothers’ negative emotionality × infant difficult temperament interactionexplained an additional 3.2% of the variance in age 3 supportive coparenting and improved model fit marginally significantly(��2 = 2.92, p = .09). Because the interaction term was not significant and did not significantly improve model fit, we did notexplore this interaction further.

Fig. 2. Infant difficult temperament as a moderator of the association between fathers’ communion and age 3 supportive coparenting.

D.J. Laxman et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 36 (2013) 210– 222 219

3ptfvbtp(rl

4

fp1sr

4

aR&scbmghe

ttEmo

sit

Fig. 3. Infant difficult temperament as a moderator of the association between fathers’ negative emotionality and age 3 undermining coparenting.

.3.4.2. Undermining coparenting. We next tested whether infant difficult temperament moderated the associations betweenarents’ negative emotionality and age 3 undermining coparenting. The term for the interaction between infant difficultemperament and negative emotionality was significant for fathers, but not mothers (see Table 4). The addition of theathers’ negative emotionality × infant difficult temperament interaction ( = .26, p = .02) explained an additional 6.2% of theariance in undermining coparenting and significantly improved model fit (��2 = 4.84, p = .03). The graph of the interactionetween infant difficult temperament and fathers’ negative emotionality is presented in Fig. 3. Follow-up tests indicatedhat the slope of the regression line representing less difficult infants was not significantly different from zero, (b = 0.40,

= .58). However, the slope of the regression line representing more difficult infants was significantly different from zero,b = 2.68, p < .001). Thus, fathers’ negative emotionality was related to greater undermining coparenting only for parents whoeported that their infant had a more difficult temperament but unrelated for parents who reported that their infant wasess difficult.

. Discussion

The present study contributes to our understanding of the development of the coparenting relationship across the firstew years of life by examining the stability of that relationship and the role of infant temperament and parent personality inredicting coparenting quality. Results suggest that parents establish patterns of coparenting interaction that continue from3 months to 3 years, though the presence of a more difficult infant may reduce the stability of these patterns. Results alsouggest that infant temperament and parent personality interact in important ways in predicting the developing coparentingelationship.

.1. Stability of coparenting and the role of infant difficult temperament

As expected, we found that both supportive and undermining coparenting were moderately stable between 13 monthsnd 3 years. Previous research has indicated that coparenting is stable across the first year of life (Davis et al., 2009; McHale &otman, 2007; Van Egeren, 2004). The findings of the present study, consistent with past research (Gable et al., 1995; McHale

Rotman, 2007; Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, et al., 2004), suggest that there is moderate rank-order or correlationaltability in coparenting through the third year of a child’s life. Thus, it appears that parents’ early interactions with theiroparent establish patterns of coparenting interaction that are carried forward even as children develop. Early coparentingehaviors may establish patterns that continue even though the task of coparenting changes from coordinating efforts toeet the basic needs of children to coordinating efforts to help children develop and appropriately use new skills as they

et older. The stability of coparenting interactions across time and developmental periods underscores the importance ofelping families successfully transition from marital partners to coparents and establish healthy coparenting interactionsarly in their child’s life.

In terms of absolute or mean level stability, we found that supportive coparenting quality decreased on average overime, but undermining coparenting did not. These findings are consistent with some, but not other studies, and underscorehe need for additional research (Davis et al., 2009; Gable et al., 1995; Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, et al., 2004; Vangeren, 2004). A decrease in supportive coparenting may be a consequence of the challenges associated with coordinatingore complex parenting goals as the child ages. It may be more difficult for parents to be supportive coparents in matters

f disciplining and teaching their child than in matters of meeting their child’s basic needs.

It should be noted that the decrease in mean levels of supportive coparenting over time does not contradict the moderate

tability reported above. Mean-level and rank-order stability are independent. Our findings related to rank-order stabilityndicate that parents who successfully coparent a 13-month-old are more likely to successfully coparent a 3-year-old relativeo other parents; however, such findings do not rule out the possibility that the mean-level of coparenting quality may

220 D.J. Laxman et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 36 (2013) 210– 222

decrease over time. Thus, it will be important for future researchers examining the stability of coparenting to distinguishmean-level and rank-order stability.

Our results suggest that the characteristics of the child may affect the stability of coparenting, at least underminingcoparenting. Specifically, we found that undermining coparenting was stable only for parents of less difficult infants. Wheninfants were more difficult, earlier levels of undermining coparenting did not predict later levels. These results are consistentwith a similar study that found that undermining coparenting was stable across the first year of life only for families withless difficult infants (Davis et al., 2009). Past research has reported mixed findings regarding the effect of infant difficulttemperament on coparenting quality with some studies reporting lower coparenting quality (e.g., McHale & Rotman, 2007)and others reporting higher coparenting quality (Berkman et al., 2002; Schoppe-Sullivan, Szewczyk Sokolowski, et al., 2004).It may be that the challenges associated with a more difficult infant differentially affect parents in their coparenting rela-tionship. As Davis et al. (2009) proposed, some parents may turn to one another for support in response to the challengesof raising a more difficult infant and gradually improve in their ability to coparent while others may demonstrate moreundermining behaviors as they react negatively to the stresses associated with raising a more difficult infant. If parents ofmore difficult infants are reacting differentially, then this group of parents would show less stability over time. In contrast,parents of more easy-going infants may react more uniformly. If so, this group of parents may show greater stability.

If infant difficult temperament does have a differential effect on coparenting quality, then it would be important tounderstand why coparenting quality improves for some parents but declines for others. This is an important area for futureresearch. In contrast to undermining coparenting, our results suggest that infant difficult temperament has a direct negativeassociation with supportive coparenting. This finding could indicate that parents have a difficult time maintaining a positivecoparenting relationship when raising a more difficult infant, which would support some research, but not other researchreporting a positive effect of infant difficult temperament. Additional research is needed to identify the different contextsin which infant difficult temperament is associated with improvement or decline in coparenting quality.

We also examined the strength of the association between supportive and undermining coparenting at 13 months com-pared to 3 years. The strength of the correlation between supportive and undermining coparenting was significantly weakerat 3 years than at 13-months, suggesting that supportive and undermining coparenting may become more distinct over time.Thus it is less likely that supportive and undermining coparenting represent opposite ends of the same continuum at thelater time point. However, given the wide range in previously reported correlations between supportive and underminingcoparenting across the first few years of life (r = −.18 to r = −.66; Davis et al., 2009; McHale, 1995; Schoppe et al., 2001;Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, et al., 2004; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2007; Van Egeren, 2004), additional research is needed.Furthermore, because the nature and targets of coparenting behaviors change as children grow, longitudinal studies thatfollow the development of and change in coparenting across time will be critical for determining whether supportive andundermining coparenting represent one or two dimensions for different developmental periods.

Whether supportive and undermining coparenting represent one or two dimensions has important implications forresearchers. If they are separate dimensions, then researchers will want to consider predictors, correlates, and outcomesof each dimension separately. Furthermore, in examining the implications of supportive and undermining coparenting forchild well-being, researchers might consider how the two dimensions interact and explore the consequences of engagingin neither supportive nor undermining behaviors as well as engaging in high levels of both.

4.2. Parent personality

Previous research has reported mixed findings regarding the association between parent personality and coparentingquality. We hypothesized that the existence of mixed findings may be a result of interactions between parent personality andinfant difficult temperament, noting that some research has found that parent personality was associated with coparentingquality only for families with a more difficult infant (McHale, Kazali, et al., 2004). For negative emotionality, we hypothesizedthat coparenting quality would be the poorest for families with both a more temperamentally difficult infant and a parenthigher on negative emotionality. We also explored whether having a temperamentally easier infant buffered against anegative association between parent negative emotionality and coparenting quality. For fathers, our findings matched ourprediction. Fathers’ negative emotionality was associated with greater undermining coparenting, but the association wassignificant only for families raising an infant with a more difficult temperament. It appears that families with both a difficultinfant and a father who is high on negative emotionality may have the least optimal coparenting experiences. In contrast,the presence of a temperamentally easier infant may protect against the negative association between fathers’ negativeemotionality and coparenting quality

Infant difficult temperament may also moderate the association between fathers’ communion and supportive coparent-ing. Fathers’ communion was associated with greater supportive coparenting, but this association may only exist for familieswith more difficult infants. Although the interaction itself was significant (p < .05), the addition of the interaction term didnot improve model fit quite at traditional levels of significance (p = .053). Consequently, these results should be interpretedwith caution. We proposed two possible ways that infant difficult temperament may moderate the association between

parents’ communion and coparenting quality: the presence of an infant with a more difficult temperament may nullify theassociation or amplify it. For fathers, it appears that having a more difficult infant amplifies the importance of communion,making fathers’ communion important in predicting coparenting quality for families with a more difficult infant. Perhapsthe presence of a father who is more interpersonally oriented and derives greater satisfaction from close relationships is

pl

ilfCf2m1ifdTIaTnm

4

swsbp

tincac

A

i

R

AA

ABBBB

B

C

C

C

C

D

D.J. Laxman et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 36 (2013) 210– 222 221

articularly beneficial to the coparenting relationship for families raising a more difficult infant, whereas families raising aess difficult infant are already doing well and do not accrue additional benefit from a father with these characteristics.

Although some of our hypotheses were somewhat exploratory, the association between mothers’ negative emotional-ty and coparenting quality was surprising. In terms of main effects, mothers’ negative emotionality was associated withess undermining coparenting. One possible explanation for this finding borrows from research on partner withdrawalrom marital interaction, particularly research indicating that men have a tendency to withdraw from marital conflict (e.g.,hristensen & Heavey, 1993; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). Related research reported that men were more likely to withdrawollowing mothers’ demands when mothers were unhappy with the division of labor (Thorp, Krause, Cukrowicz, & Lynch,004). Other research also suggests men disengage from coparenting interactions in the presence of marital distress or ifen do not feel respected as a parent by their partner (Elliston, McHale, Talbot, Parmley, & Kuersten-Hogan, 2008; McHale,

995). These findings indicate a tendency for men to withdraw from negative family interaction. Thus, it is possible thatn families in which a mother is higher on negative emotionality (e.g., aggressive, prone to worry, and feels victimized),athers may withdraw during triadic interactions. If this is the case, the withdrawn father would not be actively engageduring a family play task, but would also not be competing with his partner in interacting with and guiding their child.hus, mothers’ negative emotionality would result in reduced undermining coparenting, though by less than ideal means.nterestingly, other studies have reported puzzling findings in which mothers’ and fathers’ positive personality traits weressociated with poorer coparenting quality, either directly or indirectly (e.g., Cannon et al., 2008; Kolak & Volling, 2007;albot & McHale, 2004). Thus, it would seem that the association between parent personality and coparenting quality isot straightforward. Future research will need to consider how parent personality may interact with child temperament,arital quality, partner’s personality, and/or other factors.

.3. Limitations and conclusion

A number of limitations regarding this study should be noted. First, the relatively small sample may be responsible forome of the null findings; we simply may have lacked adequate statistical power in some of our analyses. Hence, researchith larger samples will help further our understanding of the predictors of coparenting quality. Second, the community

ample used in this study was fairly highly educated and largely Caucasian and middle-class. Therefore, the results may note generalizable to other populations. Replication with more diverse samples may further expand our understanding of theredictors of undermining coparenting.

Despite its limitations, the results of this study provide important information about the stability of coparenting acrosshe first years of life and how infant temperament may moderate that stability. Furthermore, it explores the important rolenfant temperament plays in moderating associations between parent personality and coparenting. This study points to theeed for further research into the association between parents’ and children’s characteristics and the development of theoparenting relationship over the first few years of a child’s life. Parents, practitioners, and researchers will benefit fromn increased understanding of the important roles child temperament and parent personality play in the development ofoparenting over time.

cknowledgements

We thank Cindy Neff for her thoughtful feedback and suggestions. We are also grateful to the families who participatedn this research and the research assistants who assisted with data collection and coding.

eferences

cock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family: 67., 1012–1028.cock, A. C. (2010, November). Quantitative data analysis techniques—Working with missing data. Special Session of Theory Construction and Research-

Methodology Workshop held November 2010 in conjunction with the National Council on Family Relations annual conference Minneapolis, MN.iken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.ates, J. E., Freeland, C. A. B., & Lounsbury, M. L. (1979). Measurement of infant difficultness. Child Development: 50., 794–803.elsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development: 55., 83–96.elsky, J., Putnam, S., & Crnic, K. (1996). Coparenting, parenting, and early emotional development. New Directions in Child Development: 74., 45–55.erkman, J. M., Alberts, A. E., Carleton, M. E., & McHale, J. P. (2002). Are there links between infant temperament and coparenting processes at 3 months

post-partum? Paper presented July 2002 at the World Association for Infant Mental Health World Congress, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.rown, G. L., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Neff, C. (2010). Observed and reported supportive coparenting as predictors of infant–mother and

infant–father attachment security. Early Child Development and Care: 180., 121–137.annon, E. A., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Brown, G. L., & Szewczyk Sokolowski, M. (2008). Parent characteristics as antecedents of maternal

gatekeeping and fathering behavior. Family Process: 47., 501–519.hristensen, A., & Heavey, C. (1993). Gender differences in marital conflict: The demand/withdraw interaction pattern. In S. Oskamp, & M. Costanzo (Eds.),

Gender issues in contemporary society (pp. 113–141). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.ook, W. L. (2003). Quantitative methods for deductive (theory-testing) research on parent-child dynamics. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in

parent–child relations (pp. 347–372).owan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1996). Schoolchildren and their families project: Description of co-parenting style ratings. Unpublished coding scales. Berkeley:

University of California.avis, E. F., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Brown, G. L. (2009). The role of infant temperament in stability and change in coparenting across

the first year of life. Parenting: 9., 143–159.

222 D.J. Laxman et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 36 (2013) 210– 222

DiLalla, D. L., Gottesman, I. I., Carey, G., & Vogler, G. P. (1997). Joint factor structure of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire and the MMPI in apsychiatric and high-risk sample. Psychological Assessment: 5., 207–215.

Elliston, D., McHale, J., Talbot, J., Parmley, M., & Kuersten-Hogan, R. (2008). Withdrawal from coparenting interactions during early infancy. Family Process:47., 481–499.

Feinberg, M. E. (2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention Parenting: 3., 95–131.Frosch, C. A., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & McHale, J. L. (2000). Marital behavior and the security of preschooler–parent attachment relationships. Journal of Family

Psychology: 14., 144–161.Gable, S., Belsky, J., & Crnic, K. (1995). Coparenting during the child’s 2nd year: A descriptive account. Journal of Marriage and Family: 57., 609–616.Gordon, I., & Feldman, R. (2008). Synchrony in the triad: A microlevel process model of coparenting and parent–child interactions. Family Process: 47.,

465–479.Gottman, J., & Krokoff, L. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology: 57., 47–52.Karreman, A., van Tuijl, C., van Aken, M. A., & Dekovic, M. (2008). Parenting, coparenting, and effortful control in preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology:

22., 30–40.Kolak, A. M., & Volling, B. L. (2007). Parental expressiveness as a moderator of coparenting and marital relationship quality. Family Relations: 56., 467–478.Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Silva, P. A., & McGee, R. (1996). Personality traits are differentially linked to mental disorders: A multitrait–multidiagnosis

study of an adolescent birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology: 105., (3), 299–312.Lindsey, E. W., Caldera, Y. M., & Colwell, M. (2005). Correlates of coparenting during infancy. Family Relations: 54., 346–359.Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Frosch, C. A. (1999). Temperament and attachment: One construct or two? In W. R. Hayne (Series Ed.) &, Advances in child development

and behavior : 27. (pp. 181–220). JAI.Mangelsdorf, S. C., Laxman, D. J., & Jesse, A. (2011). Coparenting in two-parent nuclear families. In J. P. McHale, & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A

conceptual and clinical examination of family systems. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1994). The stability of personality: Observation and evaluations. Current Directions in Psychological Science: 3., 173–175.McHale, J. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital distress and child gender. Developmental Psychology: 31., 985–996.McHale, J. P., & Fivaz-Depeursinge, E. (1999). Understanding triadic and family group interactions during infancy and toddlerhood. Clinical Child & Family

Psychology Review: 2., 107–127.McHale, J. P., Johnson, D., & Sinclair, R. (1999). Family dynamics, preschoolers’ family representations, and preschool peer relationships. Early Education &

Development: 10., 373–401.McHale, J. P., Kazali, C., Rotman, T., Talbot, J., Carleton, M., & Lieberson, R. (2004). The transition to coparenthood: Parents’ prebirth expectations and early

coparental adjustment at 3 months postpartum. Development and Psychopathology: 16., 711–733.McHale, J. P., Kuersten-Hogan, R., & Rao, N. (2004). Growing points for coparenting theory and research. Journal of Adult Development: 11., 221–234.McHale, J. P., & Rasmussen, J. L. (1998). Coparental and family group-level dynamics during infancy: Early family precursors of child and family functioning

during preschool. Developmental Psychopathology: 10., 39–59.McHale, J. P., & Rotman, T. (2007). Is seeing believing? Expectant parents’ outlooks on coparenting and later coparenting solidarity. Infant Behavior and

Development: 30., 63–81.Mehall, K. G., Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., & Gaertner, B. M. (2009). Examining the relations of infant temperament and couples’ marital satisfaction to

mother and father involvement: A longitudinal study. Fathering: 7., 23–48.Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Brown, G. L., & Sokolowski, M. S. (2007). Goodness-of-fit in family context: Infant temperament, marital quality,

and early coparenting behavior. Infant Behavior and Development: 30., 82–96.Schoppe, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Frosch, C. A. (2001). Coparenting, family process, and family structure: Implications for preschoolers’ externalizing

behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology: 15., 526–545.Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Frosch, C. A., & McHale, J. L. (2004). Associations between coparenting and marital behavior from infancy to the

preschool years. Journal of Family Psychology: 18., 194–207.Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Szewczyk Sokolowski, M., Brown, G. L., Beggs, K. D., Mangelsdorf, S. C. (2004, May). Associations between temperament and

coparenting quality in families with infants. Poster presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies.Selig, J. P., & Little, T. D. (2012). Autoregressive and cross-lagged panel analysis for longitudinal data. In B. Laursen, T. D. Little, & N. Card (Eds.), Handbook of

Developmental Research Methods (pp. 265–278). New York: The Guilford Press.Stright, A. D., & Bales, S. S. (2003). Coparenting quality: Contributions of child and parent characteristics. Family Relations: 52., 232–240.Talbot, J. A., & McHale, J. P. (2004). Individual parental adjustment moderates the relationship between marital and coparenting quality. Journal of Adult

Development: 11., 191–205.Thorp, S., Krause, E., Cukrowicz, K., & Lynch, T. (2004). Postpartum partner support, demand–withdraw communication, and maternal stress. Psychology of

Women Quarterly: 28., 362–369.

Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota Minneapolis.Teubert, D., & Pinquart, M. (2010). The association between coparenting and child adjustment: A meta-analysis. Parenting: 10., 286–307.Van Egeren, L. A. (2004). The development of the coparenting relationship over the transition to parenthood. Infant Mental Health Journal: 25., 453–477.Wilkinson L., and the Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American

Psychologist: 54., 594–604.