Arizona State University San Diego State University ... · Importantly, we gauge the robustness of...

1

Maternal partnership instability and coparenting

Maternal Partnership Instability and Coparenting among Fragile Families*

Carey E. Cooper

Arizona State University

Audrey N. Beck

San Diego State University

Robin S. Högnäs

University of Wisconsin at Madison

Fragile Families Working Paper:WP11-06-FF

This research was supported by an NICHD postdoctoral fellowship (#R24HD047873) and an

ARRA supplement to the NICHD grant (#R01HD57894) for the third author and by the

Challenged Child Project at Arizona State University (ASU). The authors thank the Structural

Dynamics Writing Group and the ‗Lives‘ team at ASU for valuable feedback on an earlier draft

and Cynthia Osborne and Sara McLanahan for advice on the measurement of partnership

instability. A version of this paper was presented at the Center for Population Dynamics at ASU

and the 2011 meeting of the Population Association of America. Please address all

correspondence to the first author at School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State

University, P.O. BOX 873701, Tempe, AZ 85287-3701, [email protected].

2


Maternal Partnership Instability and Coparenting among Fragile Families

Abstract

Data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (N = 2,725) are used to examine

associations between mothers‘ partnership instability and coparenting over the first five years

after a nonmarital birth, differences between coresidential and nonresident, dating transitions and

variation by maternal race and child gender. Both coresidential and dating transitions are

significantly associated with lower quality coparenting at child age 5, but the association is

stronger for coresidential transitions than dating transitions. The negative association between

coresidential transitions and coparenting quality is stronger for White parents than for Black

parents and for mothers of sons than for mothers of daughters. Robustness checks suggest that at

least part of these associations is causal. Implications for parenting and child well-being in the

context of Fragile Families are discussed.

3


Maternal Partnership Instability and Coparenting among Fragile Families

The United States has witnessed dramatic increases in nonmarital childbearing over the past 50

years. Six percent of all births were to unmarried couples in 1960 compared to 41% in 2008

(Hamilton, Martin, & Ventura, 2010). ‗Fragile families,‘ defined as couples who were unmarried

at the birth of a common child, are often young, economically disadvantaged, and highly

unstable (McLanahan & Beck, 2010). Indeed, approximately 60% of unmarried couples will split

by their child‘s third birthday, with more than half of these mothers subsequently beginning a

romantic relationship with a new partner during the same time period (Osborne & McLanahan,

2007). The instability and lack of resources within this family context has raised concerns about

parenting and child well-being and spurred initiatives to promote marriage among unmarried

parents.

Despite substantial research on divorce and remarriage, little is known about the

consequences of entrances and exits from other types of unions (i.e., cohabiting and dating

relationships) for parenting, especially among couples who have children outside of marriage.

The present study extends prior research by examining associations between maternal

partnership transitions and coparenting among fragile families. Specifically, we ask: (1) Are

maternal partnership transitions over the first five years of a child‘s life associated with

coparenting at child age 5? (2) Are associations similar for coresidential and dating transitions?

And (3) are associations moderated by maternal race or child gender? Importantly, we gauge the

robustness of hypothesized patterns in relation to selection processes.

We pursue these three questions using a valuable data set for research on partnership

instability. The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is a national, longitudinal survey

4


that follows approximately 5,000 parents and their children from birth to age 5. These data

include a large oversample of fragile families who are at increased risk for experiencing multiple

partnership transitions. Information is provided on mothers‘ marital, cohabiting, and dating

relationships which allows for a more comprehensive look at mothers‘ relationship trajectories

than is possible with most data.

Theoretical Background and Prior Research

Theories of family behavior are largely born out of general systems theory—an

interdisciplinary framework positing that an organized system of behavior (e.g., families) cannot

be understood independent of the system as a whole (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). Family

systems theory is an extension of general systems theory that addresses the dynamic role of

dyadic (e.g., mother-father) and triadic (mother-father-child) relationships within family systems

in influencing individual- and family-level outcomes (Minuchin, 1974). Coparenting can be

thought of as a triadic relationship within a family system and refers to how effective couples are

at working together to rear their children (Minuchin, 1974). Although a part of the family system

more generally, coparenting is conceptually distinct from parent-child relationships (Furstenberg

& Cherlin, 1991; Furstenberg, 1988) and parents‘ romantic relationships (Feinberg, 2002, 2003).

A high quality coparenting relationship is characterized by cooperation in carrying out

agreed upon household rules and schedules and mutual support and trust in the rearing of

children (Carlson, McLanahan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2008; author in-press citation). Not

surprisingly, cooperative parenting is a strong predictor of positive parent and child outcomes

among resident parents, regardless of their marital status (Caldera & Lindsay, 2006; Hohmann-

Marriott, 2011; Karreman, van Tuijl, van Aken, Marcel, & Deković, 2008). Alternatively,

5


coparenting conflict has been linked to parental negativity and poor parenting practices

(Feinberg, Kan, & Hetherington, 2007; Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001) which, in turn, have

negative consequences for children and adolescents. For example, low quality coparenting

relationships have been linked to externalizing problems (Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf,

Frosch, & McHale, 2004) and problematic peer relationships during early childhood (McHale,

Johnson, & Sinclair, 1999) and antisocial behavior during adolescence (Feinberg et al., 2007).

Coparenting among nonresident parents is less understood, but coordinating parenting

efforts appears to be challenging for parents who live apart (Maccoby, Depner, & Mnookin,

1990), especially when nonresident parents are no longer romantically involved (Bronte-Tinkew,

Carrano, Horowitz, & Kinukawa, 2008; Margolin et al., 2001). Yet, research suggests that a high

quality coparenting relationship may be especially important to the involvement of nonresident

fathers. Cooperative parenting among nonresident fathers is positively associated with father-

child contact, responsive fathering, and the quality and closeness of the father-child relationship

(Carlson et al., 2008; Sobolewski & King, 2005). Thus, gaining a better understanding of the

predictors of coparenting among fragile families can inform efforts to promote positive parenting

and child development within this family context. In this study, we focus on partnership

instability, a key characteristic of fragile families.

Partnership Instability and Coparenting

Family systems theory implies that changes in how families are arranged (i.e., their

composition) impact the whole of the family system. That is, when a parent divorces or an

unmarried parent moves out, the triadic relationship underlying coparenting is disturbed.

Unfortunately, these types of transitions are common among unmarried parents. Although 80%

of unmarried couples are romantically involved when their child is born, the majority will break

6


up within three years (Osborne & McLanahan, 2007). Moreover, about half of unmarried

mothers experience three or more partnership changes before their child‘s fifth birthday (author

in-press citation) with implications for family processes, including parent-child and couple

relationships. In particular, higher levels of partnership instability are associated with higher

levels of punitive punishment and lower levels of emotional and verbal responsiveness among

mothers of young children (author in-press citation; Osborne & McLanahan, 2007). Partnership

changes also reduce the overall quality of a mother‘s relationship with the biological father

(Cooper, McLanahan, Meadows, & Brooks-Gunn, 2009).

This research gives rise to questions regarding how well parents can effectively coparent

their children amidst instability in their romantic relationships. Indeed, when the ―packaged deal‖

(i.e., fathers living with and having relationships with mothers and their children; Furstenberg &

Cherlin, 1991) breaks, fathers become less engaged in cooperative parenting (Bronte-Tinkew et

al., 2008). Biological fathers also appear to find cooperative parenting difficult when mothers

move in with a new partner (Kamp Dush, Kotila, & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2011). ―Role ambiguity‖

may play a role in reduced coparenting following a coresidential change (Guzzo, 2009). If

expectations for fathers‘ parenting role are unclear following a break up, fathers may disengage

from their former partner and child. This may be especially true if the mother enters a cohabiting

or marital relationship with a new partner who assumes a fathering role, or if the biological

father re-partners and has ties to a new child. Mothers‘ ―gatekeeping‖ (Allen and Hawkins, 1999)

may also explain reduced coparenting efforts if relationship changes, especially multiple

changes, create conflict between ex-partners, and mothers subsequently limit father involvement.

In addition to coresidential transitions, unmarried parents experience high levels of

instability with nonresident, dating partners (Beck et al., 2010). Little research has focused on the

7


effects of mothers‘ dating relationships, but two recent studies suggest that mothers who undergo

multiple dating transitions use harsher disciplinary practices and their young children exhibit

more behavioral problems compared to mothers in stable relationships (Beck et al., 2010; author

in-press citation). Instability in mothers‘ dating relationships may also affect coparenting if

mothers‘ dating relationships lead to distrust in biological fathers (Hill, 2007) or if mothers

struggle to balance the time demands of ending and beginning dating relationships with the

coordination of parenting responsibilities.

Potential Moderating Factors

Nonmarital childbearing is common across all races, but it is most prevalent among Black

families (75% of Black births vs. 53% of Mexican American births and 27% of White births;

Hummer & Hamilton, 2010). Given that fragile families are more common among this racial

group and that Black nonresident fathers are more involved with their children than other fathers

(King, 1994), instability may have a smaller effect on the coparenting of Black parents.

Additionally, because extended families play a more prominent role in child rearing in minority

communities than in White communities (McLoyd, Cauce, Takeuchi, & Wilson, 2000), the

negative effects of instability on coparenting may be weaker if grandparents serve a protective

function among racial/ethnic minority parents (but see Black & Nitz, 1996). Yet, racial/ethnic

minority families are more likely than White families to live in isolated neighborhoods of

concentrated poverty than their White counterparts (McLoyd, 1998). The lack of parenting

resources in these communities may strain coparenting efforts.

The association between mothers‘ partnership instability and coparenting may also

operate differently for parents of sons versus daughters. Child gender has been posited to

influence father involvement and to some extent cooperative parenting, although empirical

8


evidence is largely mixed. On one hand, if fathers are more involved with male children

(Marsiglio, 1991; Harris & Morgan, 1991; but see Carlson et al., 2008), then instability may have

a weaker effect on the coparenting of a son. On the other hand, if coparenting is more conflictual

among parents of sons (McHale, 1995), then instability may have a weaker effect on the

coparenting of a daughter.

The present study extends prior research in several ways. First, in addition to

coresidential transitions, we include dating transitions as part of a mother‘s experience of

instability and, importantly, compare the strength of the associations between types of transitions

and coparenting. Understanding the role of mothers‘ dating relationships is important because

unmarried mothers, especially Black mothers, are more likely to undergo nonresidential dating

transitions than transitions that involve coresidence (Osborne and McLanahan, 2007). Second,

we examine whether maternal race and child gender moderate the link between maternal

partnership transitions and parents‘ ability to effectively coparent their common child.

Understanding differences in the effects of family instability among various groups can improve

our ability to inform policies aimed at helping fragile families. Finally, researchers argue that

unobserved variables/processes may account for partnership instability effects (Sigle-Rushton &

McLanahan, 2002), but few studies attempt to assess the role of selection (see Beck et al. 2010,

and Fomby & Cherlin, 2007, as notable exceptions). In this study, mothers who undergo multiple

partnership transitions likely differ from those in stable relationships in ways that are

unobserved, and these differences may be the source of coparenting conflict. To address this

issue, we assess the robustness of our findings to key selection processes.

9


Method

Data and Sample

The Fragile Families Study is a longitudinal, birth cohort survey that follows 4,898

children, including 3,711 born to unmarried parents and 1,187 born to married parents. Baseline

interviews were conducted between 1998 and 2000 in 20 American cities with populations of

200,000 or more. Mothers and fathers were interviewed shortly after the birth of their child in the

hospital (Wave 1) and in follow-up phone interviews when the child was one (Wave 2), three

(Wave 3), and five years old (Wave 4). Response rates were 88% for unmarried mothers and

75% for unmarried fathers at Wave 1. Eighty-five percent of mothers were retained in the study

by Wave 4, and 88% of fathers were interviewed at least once.

Our analysis used data from all four waves of the Fragile Families Study. To maximize

the use of available information and minimize bias, we used the Multiple Imputation procedure

in SAS to impute missing data for the original Fragile Families sample. Because imputing data

that are not missing at random can produce biased estimates of coefficients and standard errors

(Allison 2001), we took a conservative approach by imputing the dependent variable when

coparenting information was missing at one follow-up wave only. After excluding mothers who

were married at the birth of the focal child (1,187 mothers), we excluded mothers missing

coparenting data at two or three of the follow-up waves (an additional 898 mothers). Finally,

following prior Fragile Families research, we excluded mothers who did not live with their child

at least half time at each wave (an additional 88 mothers), resulting in a final, imputed, analytic

sample of 2,725 mothers. Our final sample had observed characteristics that were very similar to

the baseline Fragile Families sample (see Table 1 for detailed information on sample

characteristics).

10


[Table 1 about here]

Measures

Coparenting. Mothers reported coparenting behavior at Waves 2, 3, and 4 if the

biological father currently had contact with the child. Mothers indicated how true (0 = never or

rarely true, 1 = sometimes true, 2 = always true) they found the following six statements about

the focal child‘s biological father: (1) When father is with child, he acts like the father you want

for your child, (2) You can trust father to take good care of child, (3) He respects the schedules

and rules you make for child, (4) He supports you in the way you want to raise child, (5) You

and father talk about problems that come up with raising child, and (6) You can count on father

for help when you need someone to look after child for a few hours. Note that ‗rarely true‘ and

‗never true‘ response options were combined to maintain consistency with response options in

earlier waves which allowed for robustness checks using coparenting data from Waves 2 and 3.

Note also that two additional coparenting questions were asked at Wave 4 but were excluded to

maintain consistency with prior Fragile Families research (Carlson et al., 2008) and to allow for

robustness checks. Responses were summed to create the final measures (Wave 2, α = .84; Wave

3, α = .88; Wave 4, α = .88). Descriptive statistics for all study variables are presented in Table 2.


Partnership transitions. To examine coresidential transitions during the first five years

following the focal child‘s birth, we summed the number of times mothers transitioned in and out

of coresidential relationships with cohabiting or marital partners between Waves 1 and 4. At

each wave, mothers reported whether they were involved in a romantic relationship, whether

they were living with a partner, and whether, if applicable, the current partner was the same

partner identified in the previous wave. Based on this information, a coresidential exit or

11


entrance between two waves was coded as one coresidential transition, while experiencing both

(in either order) was coded as two transitions. (Because all mothers were unmarried at Wave 1,

transitions out of marriage between Waves 1 and 2 could not occur.) At Wave 4, mothers were

also asked how many romantic relationships lasting at least one month they had experienced

since the last interview and whether they lived with any of these partners. Responses to these

questions allowed us to determine whether mothers were involved in relationships between

Waves 3 and 4 that could not be identified based on reports of current status. Because mothers

were not asked about their between-wave romantic relationships in earlier years, we likely

undercounted coresidential transitions between Waves 1 and 3. Note also that our measure of

coresidential transitions did not examine whether mothers changed residences.

Dating transitions between Waves 1 and 4 were counted similarly but were limited to

transitions that did not involve a coresidential partner. Although few transitions were added as a

result, we followed the measurement strategy in prior Fragile Families research (Beck et al.,

2010; Osborne & McLanahan, 2007) by coding mothers who reported a pregnancy between two

interviews as having entered and exited a dating relationship if they reported not having a partner

at either time points. Also in line with prior research, we did not count changes from cohabitation

to marriage with the same partner as a partnership transition.

Controls. All models controlled for the following demographic characteristics: residential

status at Wave 1 (0 = biological parents live together; 1 = biological parents live separately),

maternal age in years at Wave 1, race (dummy variables for Black, Hispanic, White, and Other),

immigrant status (1 = not born in United States), maternal and paternal education (dummy

variables for less than high school degree, high school degree only, and some college or more),

maternal poverty (dummy variables for poor or below 100 percent of the federal poverty line,

12


almost poor or between 100 and 200 percent of the federal poverty line, and nonpoor or above

200 percent of the federal poverty line), parity (1 = first born), child gender (1= male), child low

birth weight (1 = below 2,500 grams), and mental health of the focal child‘s maternal

grandmother (whether the grandmother suffered from depression or anxiety). Note that a

measure of mothers‘ mental health is not available until Wave 2. Because mothers‘ mental health

may be endogenous to instability (Meadows, McLanahan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2008), we controlled

for the mental health of the grandmother to help account for mothers‘ predisposition to mental

health problems.

We also controlled for an additional set of characteristics that are typically not available

in other data sets, including maternal and paternal nonjoint births (whether individual has

children by another partner prior to the focal child‘s birth), mothers‘ prior partnership instability

(number of relationships lasting at least one month prior to her relationship with the focal child‘s

biological father), fathers‘ incarceration history (1 = father served time in jail or prison), and

fathers‘ subsequent coresidential relationships (1 = father moved in with a new partner).

Analytic Techniques

The data analysis proceeded in four general steps. First, using ordinary least squares

regression, we regressed coparenting at child age 5 on coresidential and dating transitions and

the full set of controls. This provided a baseline estimate of the association between partnership

instability and coparenting and allowed us to test for differences by transition type. Second, we

added interactions between each type of transition and each race category (excluding White) and

between each type of transition and child gender (excluding female). These models allowed us to

examine whether maternal race or child gender moderated associations between partnership

transitions and coparenting. Third, we estimated a series of fixed effects and multilevel models to

13


assess the robustness of our OLS estimates to omitted variable bias. The fixed effects models

examined the association between changes in partnership instability and changes in coparenting.

These models were based on within-couple changes in instability and coparenting, and they

controlled for unmeasured characteristics of the parents that do not change over time. The

multilevel models (HLM, version 6; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) used measures of coparenting at

Waves 2, 3, and 4 to estimate the impact of the covariates on the intercept (level of coparenting

at Wave 2) as well as the slope (change in coparenting between Waves 2 and 4). These models

had the benefit of accounting for the nonindependence of repeated measures by examining how

changes in instability were associated with changes in coparenting. Additionally, unlike fixed

effects models which focus on within-individual change, HLM allowed for interactions with

time-invariant individual characteristics (in this case, child gender and maternal race).

Results

We begin by presenting the number of transitions mothers experienced between birth and

child age 5 by transition type (see Table 3). Whereas 36% of mothers reported no coresidential

transitions, and 44% reported no dating transitions, only 21% reported neither type.

Approximately 54% of the sample experienced one or two coresidential transitions, and 32%

experienced one or two dating transitions. Almost 10% of the sample experienced three or more

coresidential transitions and 24% experienced three or more dating transitions. Excluding

married couples yielded a sample that was at much higher risk for partnership instability; thus,

the prevalence of instability in our sample was higher than that reported in prior Fragile Families

research that included married couples (e.g. Beck et al., 2010).


14


Despite substantial instability, average levels of coparenting (M = 8.1) suggested that

cooperative parenting was occurring some if not much of the time. In terms of our moderators,

mothers of boys and girls reported similar levels of instability, but mothers of boys reported

lower average coparenting than mothers of girls (not shown but available upon request).

Hispanic mothers reported the highest levels of coparenting and the lowest levels of instability.

Although both White and Black mothers reported similar levels of coparenting, Black mothers

had the highest levels of instability.

Our first goal was to examine the extent to which maternal partnership instability over the

first five years following a nonmarital birth was associated with coparenting at child age 5. The

results from our regression models are presented in Table 4. In Model 1, each coresidential

transition reduced coparenting by 0.97 whereas each dating transition reduced coparenting by

0.78. These estimates were robust to the inclusion of relationship status at birth (Model 2),

maternal and child controls (Model 3) and paternal controls (Model 4). In the final model, each

coresidential transition was associated with a .91 decrease in coparenting, which represents 22%

of a standard deviation in coparenting. An increase of one dating transition was associated with

about 17% of a standard deviation decrease in coparenting.


Coparenting quality at child age five was significantly lower when the mother was not

coresiding with the biological father at the child‘s birth (b = -0.40) and when the child was low

birth weight (b = -0.46). Black, Hispanic, and Other race mothers reported significantly higher

levels of coparenting than White mothers (b = 0.93, b = 0.84, b = 1.49 respectively). Having

children with another father had no impact on mothers‘ report of coparenting. In Model 4,

however, fathers‘ multipartnered fertility significantly reduced coparenting (b = -0.56). If the

15


father had ever had a new coresidential partner, mothers reported significantly lower coparenting

quality (b = -1.42). Mothers reported higher quality coparenting when fathers had a high school

degree or college experience although the latter did not attain statistical significance.

The second goal of the study was to examine whether maternal coresidential and dating

transitions had similar associations with coparenting. Although both coresidential and dating

transitions were significant predictors of coparenting, Wald tests indicated that coresidential

transitions had a more pronounced impact on later coparenting than did dating transitions.

Our third goal was to examine whether maternal race and child gender moderated the

association between partnership instability and coparenting (see Table 5). In Model 2,

coresidential transitions had a smaller negative impact -0.58 (-1.07 + 0.49) on the coparenting of

Black mothers, relative to that of White mothers (b = -1.07). We also found a significant

interaction between coresidential transitions and child gender. Each coresidential transition

decreased coparenting by 1.39 (-1.07 + -.32) for boys relative to a decrease of 1.07 for girls. The

association between dating transitions and coparenting, however, did not vary by mothers‘ race

or child gender.


We tested the robustness of our models to selection by estimating a series of fixed effects

and multilevel models. The fixed effects models accounted for all observed and unobserved

static characteristics and such models are often considered one of the more stringent tests for

selection bias. Results indicated that changes in both coresidential transitions (b = -.43, p < .001)

and dating transitions (b = -.30, p < .001) were significantly associated with decreases in

coparenting. Results from the multilevel models were also consistent with results from the OLS

models. We found that increases in partnership transitions were significantly associated with

16


decreases in coparenting over time (slope) for both coresidential (b = -.32, p < .001) and dating

transitions (b = -.17, p < .001). Taken together, these more conservative tests of how partnership

changes affected coparenting changes suggested that our OLS results were robust to concerns of

selection bias.

Discussion

The increasingly fluid nature of American families has raised concerns about parenting

and child well-being in the context of instability. In response, a growing number of researchers

have examined the ways in which partnership instability influences the lives of parents and

children. Although fragile families are at increased risk for relationship instability, little is known

about the extent to which instability impacts family systems in this population. The present study

contributes to existing research by examining the effects of mothers‘ coresidential and dating

transitions following a nonmarital birth on coparenting, a strong predictor of early child

development (Karreman et al., 2008).

We addressed three primary research goals. First, we examined whether maternal

partnership transitions over the first five years following a nonmarital birth were associated with

coparenting quality. Consistent with prior instability research (Beck et al., 2010), we found that

both coresidential and dating transitions were important for coparenting and, importantly, that

the observed associations were robust to unobservable confounds. These findings suggest that

when a mother experiences multiple partnership changes, regardless of whether they involve

cohabitation or not, the coparenting relationship with her former partner suffers. Moreover, they

suggest that failure to account for mothers‘ dating transitions may result in the underestimation

of instability and its effects on parents and children, especially for fragile families.

17


Second, we assessed potential differences by transition type and found that transitions

involving coresidential partners may have a stronger, negative impact on coparenting than those

involving nonresident partners. Fathers may have greater awareness of or concerns about

mothers‘ changes in coresidential partners (e.g., their children‘s exposure to men living in the

same household) which may strain couples‘ ability to effectively coparent. Additionally, mothers

may experience more stress in response to coresidential transitions, which could bias their

perceptions of fathers‘ coparenting efforts.

Third, we examined whether associations between partnership transitions and coparenting

varied by maternal race or child gender. Our results suggested that coresidential transitions have

a stronger negative effect on the coparenting of White mothers than Black mothers. These

findings are consistent with prior research suggesting that Black families are less vulnerable to

the effects of relationship instability than White families (Fomby & Cherlin, 2007; Wu &

Thompson, 2001), perhaps because partnership changes are more common among Black parents

(Osborne & McLanahan, 2007) or because extended families play a greater role in the rearing of

Black children. More research is needed to understand whether and how relationship instability

differentially affects families from various racial backgrounds. We also found evidence for

variation in the effects of parental instability on coparenting by the gender of the focal child.

Although coresidential transitions significantly reduced coparenting quality for couples with both

sons and daughters, the effect was stronger when the focal child was male. This finding is

consistent with recent research suggesting that family instability may place boys at greater risk

than their female peers (Cavanagh, Crissey, & Raley, 2008; author in-press citation).

Although this study contributes to our understanding of coparenting in the context of

family instability, it is not without limitations. Because we are not able to account for all possible

18


pretransition characteristics of mothers and fathers that potentially affect transitions as well as

coparenting quality, we cannot rule out the possibility that unmeasured variables are responsible

for the observed association between instability and coparenting. Although our robustness checks

increase our confidence that we have controlled for fixed characteristics associated with

coparenting, our ability to assess causation is nonetheless limited.

Additionally, our measure of partnership instability is limited because it treats all

transitions equally when in fact some transitions may matter more than others. For example,

transitions into or out of a relationship with a biological father may have a different impact on

coparenting than do transitions with a non-biological, social father. Moreover, Fragile Families

data do not contain a direct measure of the number of coresidential and dating relationships that

occur before the child is age 3, and thus we likely underestimated these transitions, especially

dating transitions.

Our measure of coparenting is also limited because it does not capture mothers‘

coparenting efforts. To address this concern, we reanalyzed the data using father reports of

mothers‘ coparenting at Wave 4. Doing so revealed that maternal partnership instability had

similar effects on mothers‘ and fathers‘ coparenting efforts with one exception; the interaction

between maternal partnership instability and child gender was not statistically significant in

models with mothers‘ coparenting. This is not surprising, however, given that the effects of

instability on mothers‘ coparenting efforts would not be expected to differ between mothers of

sons versus daughters.

Finally, couples in which the father did not have contact with the child in two or three

follow-up waves were not included in the analytic sample. These couples differed in important

ways from those in our sample (e.g., maternal education and paternal incarceration). To test for

19


potential bias in our results, we retained these fathers and assigned them a coparenting score of

―0.‖ Doing so did not substantially alter our results.

The findings from this study contain a number of implications for future research. First,

our results add to growing evidence that instability in dating relationships matters for parents and

children, suggesting that future research should move beyond a focus on marital and cohabiting

unions. Second, given the negative consequences of instability reported here and elsewhere,

more research is needed to identify factors that reduce instability, especially among fragile

families. Third, more attention should be given to child gender differences in the effects of

instability. If boys are more vulnerable to partnership transitions than girls, then trends in family

formation (i.e., increasing instability among American families) may be contributing to the

growing gender gap in education in the United States (author in-press citation). Finally, our

findings have implications for policies aimed at strengthening families. Current initiatives aim to

promote marriage through training in relationship skills (Dion, 2005). The results of this study

suggest that a strong emphasis on relationship stability, regardless of the type of union, is

important for promoting high quality coparenting relationships. Moreover, finding ways to help

former couples effectively coparent as they establish new relationships may ultimately promote

child well-being among an at-risk population.

20


References

Allen, S. M. & Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers' beliefs and behaviors that

inhibit greater involvement in family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 199-212.

doi:10.2307/353894

Beck, A. N., Cooper, C. E., McLanahan, S. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Partnership transitions

and maternal parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 219-233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-

3737.2010.00695.x

Black, M., & Nitz, K. (1996). Grandmother coresidence, parenting, and child development

among low-income urban teen mothers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 18, 218-226.

Bronte-Tinkew, J., Carrano, J., Horowitz, A. & Kinukawa, A. (2008). Involvement among

resident fathers and links to infant cognitive outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1211.

doi:10.1177/0192513X08318145

Caldera, Y. M., & Lindsey, E. W. (2006). Coparenting, mother-infant interaction, and infant-

parent attachment relationships in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(2),

275-283. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.2.275

Carlson, M. J., McLanahan, S. S. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Coparenting and nonresident

fathers' involvement with young children after a nonmarital birth. Demography, 45, 461-488.

Cavanagh, S. E., Crissey, S. R. & Raley, K. R. (2008). Family structure history and adolescent

romance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 698-714. doi:10.1111/j.1741-

3737.2008.00515.x

Cooper, C. E., McLanahan, S. S., Meadows, S. O. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009). Family structure

transitions and maternal parenting stress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 558-574.

doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00619.x

21


Dion, R. (2005). Health marriage programs: Learning what works. The Future of Children, 15,

139-156. doi:10.1353/foc.2005.0016

Feinberg, M. E. (2002). Coparenting and prevention at the transition to parenthood. Clinical

Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 173-195.

Feinberg, M. E. (2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A

framework for research and intervention. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3, 95-132.

doi:10.1207/S15327922PAR0302_01

Feinberg, M. E., Kan, M. L., & Hetherington, E. M. (2007). Longitudinal study of coparenting

conflict on adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 687-702.

Fomby, P., & Cherlin, A. (2007). Family instability and child well-being. American Sociological

Review, 72, 181 - 204. doi:10.1177/000312240707200203

Furstenberg, F. F. & Cherlin, A. (1991). Divided families: What happens to children when

parents part. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (1988). Good dads--bad dads: Two faces of fatherhood. In A. J. Cherlin

(Ed.), The Changing American Family and Public Policy. (pp. 193-209), Washington, D.C.:

The Urban Institute.

Guzzo, K. B. (2009). Maternal relationships and nonresidential father visitation of children born

outside of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 71, 632-49. doi:10.1111/j.1741-

3737.2009.00623.x

Hamilton, B. E., Martin, J. A. & Ventura, S. J. (2010) Births: Preliminary Data for 2008,

National Vital Statistics Reports. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

22


Harris, K. M. & Morgan, S. P. (1991). Fathers, sons and daughters: Differential paternal

involvement in parenting. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 531-544.

doi:10.2307/352730

Hill, H. D. (2007) Steppin' out: Infidelity and sexual jealousy among unmarried parents. In P.

England & K. Edin (Eds.), Unmarried Couples with Children. (pp. 104-132), New York:

Russell Sage Foundation.

Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2011). Coparenting and father involvement in married and unmarried

coresident couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 296-309. doi:10.1111/j.1741-

3737.2010.00805.x

Hummer, R. A., & Hamilton, E. R. (2010). Race and ethnicity in fragile families. The Future of

Children, 20, 113-131.

Kamp Dush, C. M., Kotila, L. E., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2011). Predictors of supportive

coparenting after relationship dissolution among at-risk parents. Fragile Families Working

Paper: WP10-17-FF.

Karreman, A., van Tuijl, C., van Aken, Marcel A. G., & Deković, M. (2008). Parenting,

coparenting, and effortful control in preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 30-

40. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.30

King, V. (1994). Variation in the consequences of non-resident father involvement for children's

well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 963-972.

Maccoby, E. E., Depner, C. E. & Mnookin, R. H. (1990). Coparenting in the second year after

divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 141-155. doi:10.2307/352846

23


Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B. & John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: A link between marital conflict

and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 3-21.

doi:10.1037//0893-3200.15.1.3

Marsiglio, W. (1991). Paternal engagement activities with minor children. Journal of Marriage

and Family, 53, 973-986. doi:10.2307/353001

McHale, J. P. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital

distress and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 31, 985-996. doi:10.1037/0012-

1649.31.6.985

McHale, J.P., D. Johnson, & R. Sinclair. 1999. Family dynamics, preschoolers‘ family

representations, and preschool peer relationships. Early Education and Development 10:373–

401. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1003_8

McLanahan, S., & Beck, A. N. (2010). Parental relationships in fragile families. Future of

Children, 20,17-37.

McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American

Psychologist, 53(2), 185-204. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.53.2.185

McLoyd, V. C., Cauce, A. M., Takeuchi, D., & Wilson, L. (2000). Marital processes and

parental socialization in families of color: A decade review of research. Journal of Marriage

and the Family, 62, 1070-1093. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01070.x

Meadows, S. O., McLanahan, S. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Stability and change in family

structure and maternal health trajectories. American Sociological Review, 73, 314-334.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Osborne, C., & McLanahan, S. S. (2007). Partnership instability and child wellbeing. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 69, 1065-1083. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00431.x

24


Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data

analysis methods (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Schoppe-Sullivan, S.J., S.C. Mangelsdorf, C.A. Frosch, and J.L. McHale. 2004. Associations

between coparenting and marital behavior from infancy to the preschool years. Journal of

Family Psychology 18:194–207. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.194

Sobolewski, J. M., & King, V. (2005). The importance of the coparental relationship for

nonresident fathers' ties to children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1196-1212.

doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00210.x

Sigle-Rushton, W., & McLanahan, S. S. (2002). The living arrangements of new unmarried

mothers. Demography, 39, 415-433. doi:10.1353/dem.2002.0032

Whitchurch, G. G. & Constantine, L. L. (1993). Systems theory. In P. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R.

LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of Family Theories and

Methods: A Conceptual Approach. (pp. 352), New York: Plenum Press.

Wu, L., & Thomson, E. (2001). Race differences in family experiences and early sexual

initiation: Dynamic models of family structure and family change. Journal of Marriage and

the Family, 63, 682-696. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00682.x

25


Table 1

Baseline Characteristics for Various Samples of Fragile Families

Sample 1a

(n = 3,711)

Sample 2b

(n = 142)

Sample 3c

(n = 399)

Sample 4d

(n = 383)

Sample 5e

(n = 2,725)

Living separately at baseline (%) 51.93 55.63 51.38 84.86 46.90

Maternal Age at baseline (M) 23.98 25.34 24.95 23.93 23.76

Mother Black (%) 54.84 59.86 46.62 53.40 55.89

Mother Hispanic (%) 27.93 22.54 34.84 28.01 27.23

Mother White (%) 14.40 14.79 13.28 15.71 14.42

Mother Less than high school (%) 40.53 59.86 47.12 46.72 38.02

Mother High school graduate (%) 56.37 38.03 47.87 50.13 59.12

Mother College experience (%) 3.10 2.11 5.01 3.15 2.86

Father Less than high school (%) 39.72 59.86 46.73 40.12 38.09

Father High school graduate (%) 56.96 38.03 48.13 55.56 58.61

Father College experience (%) 3.32 1.41 5.14 4.32 3.30

Father Ever been in jail (%) 39.52 55.51 35.58 54.61 34.71

Child gender (% male) 52.22 54.23 50.13 53.79 52.15

Child first born (%) 39.26 21.13 36.52 43.34 39.74

Child low birth weight (%) 12.07 25.35 14.79 11.75 11.05

Note: Unweighted estimates presented. All samples exclude couples who were married at Wave 1. a Original

Fragile Families sample. b

Families in which mothers lived with focal child half time or less during one or more

waves. c Families in which mothers did not participate in at least two of the follow-up waves.

d Families in which

fathers did not have contact with the focal child in at least two of the follow-up waves. e Analytic sample.

26


Table 2

Descriptive Statistics (N = 2,725)

M SD

Outcome

Coparenting at Wave 4 8.10 4.05

Partnership transitions

Coresidential transitions 1.07 1.06

Dating transitions 1.26 2.02

Maternal controls

Age at baseline 23.76 5.44

Black (%) 55.89

Hispanic (%) 27.23

Other (%) 2.46

White (%) 14.42

Immigration status (%) 12.40

Less than high school (%) 38.02

High school graduate (%) 59.12

College experience (%) 2.86

Poor at baseline (%) 42.06

Almost poor at baseline (%) 28.48

Nonpoor at baseline (%) 29.46

Family history of psychological problems (%) 38.02

Nonjoint birth (%) 41.10

Prior instability 1.89 2.11

Living alone at baseline (%) 46.90

Child controls

Gender (% male) 52.15

First born (%) 39.74

Low birth weight (%) 11.05

Paternal Controls

Nonjoint birth (%) 43.45

Ever had a social coresidential partner (%) 5.65

Less than high school (%) 38.09

Table 2 continued on next page.

27


Table 2

Continued

M SD

High school graduate (%) 58.61

College experience (%) 3.30

Ever been in jail (%) 34.71

Note: Unweighted estimates presented.

28


Table 3

Partnership Transitions between Birth and Child Age 5 by

Transition Type (N = 2,725)

Coresidential Dating

Count of transitions (%)

0 36.22 43.63

1 32.55 14.42

2 21.50 17.80

3 7.71 12.88

4 1.50 5.61

5+ .51 5.65

Note: Unweighted estimates presented.

29

Table 4

Results of OLS Models Predicting Coparenting at Wave 4 (N = 2,725)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Relationship transitions

Coresidential transitions -.97*** -.93*** -.93*** -.91***

Dating transitions -.78*** -.74*** -.74*** -.68***

Maternal controls

Age at baseline .01 .01

Black .86*** .93***

Hispanic .79*** .84***

Other 1.56** 1.49**

Immigration status -.01 -.08

High school graduate -.10 -.23

College experience .25 -.11

Poor at baseline .02 .15

Almost poor at baseline .05 .16

Family history of

psychological problems

-.20 -.14

Nonjoint birth .14 .21

Relationship history -.01 .002

Living alone at Wave 1 -.59*** -.65*** -.40*

Child controls

Male -.24† -.22

First born -.15 -.21

Low birth weight -.52* -.46*

Paternal Controls

Nonjoint birth -.56***

Social coresidential partner -1.42***

High school graduate .42**

College experience .69

Ever been in jail -.72***

Note: Unstandardized coefficients presented. Models include the full set of controls. † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

30

Table 5

Results of OLS Models Predicting Coparenting at Wave 4 by

Relationship Transitions and Interactions with Race and Child

Gender (N = 2,725)

Model 1 Model 2

Coresidential transitions -.91*** -1.07***

Dating transitions -.68*** -.82***

Black .24

Hispanic .54

Black x coresidential .49*

Hispanic x coresidential .21

Black x dating .15

Hispanic x dating .04

Male .18

Male x coresidential -.32*

Male x dating -.07

Note: Unstandardized coefficients presented. The reference group for

race is White. Models include Other race and the full set of controls.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Date post:	14-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Arizona State University San Diego State University ... · Importantly, we gauge the robustness of...

Documents