487680

research-article2014
JFI36310.1177/0192513X13487680Journal of Family IssuesGallagher et al.

Article
Journal of Family Issues
2015, Vol. 36(3) 421­–442
The Impact of Mothers’ © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Relationship Quality and sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X13487680
Parenting on Children’s jfi.sagepub.com

Peer Relationships

Erin Gallagher1, Alissa Huth-Bocks1, and

Tom Schmitt1

Abstract
This study examined the longitudinal effects of mothers’ partner relationship
quality on parenting behaviors and school-age children’s peer relationships.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development archival data
were used to examine parenting behaviors as a mediator between partner
relationship quality and child peer outcomes using structural equation
modeling. Maternal report was used to assess partner quality; a parent–child
interaction task was used to measure parenting behaviors; teacher and child
report were used to assess children’s peer relationships. Maternal parenting
behaviors partially mediated the association between partner quality and
children’s teacher-reported social–emotional outcomes with peers. Results
are discussed in terms of the spillover hypothesis and implications for clinical
interventions are discussed.

Keywords
family and romantic relationships, marital quality, parent–child relationships,
parenting, peer relations

1Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI, USA

Corresponding Author:
Erin Gallagher, Psychology Department, Eastern Michigan University, 341 Science Complex,
Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA.
Email: egallag1@emich.edu

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
422 Journal of Family Issues 36(3)

Introduction
Because children are dependent on their caregivers, they are consistently
exposed to the quality of the partner relationship in their homes. Research
shows that couples tend to experience a decline in partner quality from the
transition to parenthood throughout early childhood (Belsky & Rovine, 1990).
Thus, it is necessary to examine the effects of the quality of the partner relation-
ship on young children’s development. The type of adjustment problems a
child experiences may depend on specific developmental tasks, and few studies
have examined social outcomes in children, such as the quality of peer relation-
ships, in the context of partner quality (Grych & Fincham, 1990). More longi-
tudinal research is needed to understand potential causal pathways between the
quality of the partner relationship and child social adjustment specifically
because much of the current research is limited by cross-sectional designs.
The current study examined whether maternal parenting behaviors mediated
the association between the quality of the partner relationship and school-age
children’s peer relationships over a 10-year period using structural equation
modeling (SEM). Children’s ability to form positive social relationships is an
important indicator of their psychosocial adjustment and is often targeted in
clinical interventions. Thus, examining the factors that contribute to social
adjustment is important for researchers and clinicians alike; without positive
peer relationships, children are likely to feel lonely, perform poorly in school,
and experience more psychological distress (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003).

Associations Between the Quality of the Marital (Partner)

Relationship, Parenting, and School-Age Children’s Peer
Relationships
An abundance of research has shown that different aspects of the marital or
partner relationship are associated with the quality of children’s peer rela-
tions. For example, Kitzmann and Cohen (2003) found that mother and child
ratings of the resolution quality of marital conflict were associated with chil-
dren’s self-reported friendship quality and peer conflict resolution. Other
studies have found both observed (Katz & Woodin, 2002) and parent-reported
(Buehler & Gerard, 2002) marital conflict and negativity to be associated
with children’s expression of negative affect and noncompliance with peers.
Cookston, Harrist, and Ainslie (2003) found that observed maternal negative
affect during play sessions in the presence of the child moderated the rela-
tionship between marital quality and children’s interactions with unfamiliar
peers; a significant relationship was only found for children whose mothers
displayed negative affect.

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
Gallagher et al. 423

Others have found maternal-reported partner violence to be associated

with problematic peer relationships (McCloskey & Stuewig, 2001) and
reduced social competence (Jaffe, Wolfe, Wilson, & Zak, 1986) in children.
Partner violence may be particularly distressing to children, as it also poses a
direct threat to children’s physical safety. However, studies have been limited
because of the exclusive use of cross-sectional designs. Furthermore, most
research has examined the impact of negative marital or partner interactions
on child peer outcomes; significantly less research has examined the impact
of positive or neutral marital or partner relations on children’s social–emo-
tional adjustment. Thus, further research is needed examining the association
between these constructs, including broadening the definition of partner rela-
tionships and children’s social–emotional adjustment.
The marital (partner) relationship may also affect children’s social func-
tioning through the quality of the parent–child relationship. An important and
relevant theory used to explain this association is the “spillover hypothesis,”
which suggests that aspects (e.g., affect or behavior) of one relationship can
transfer to another within families (Emery, Hetherington, & Dilalla, 1984).
Based partly on the socialization hypothesis (Easterbrooks & Emde, 1988)
and family systems theory, the spillover hypothesis posits that parents expe-
riencing marital conflict may show more problematic parenting due to a spill-
over of their overall distress from the marriage. Problems with children may
also be an attempt at deflecting stress away from the marriage or may be
because of modeling the parent–child relationship after the marital relation-
ship. Thus, the spillover hypothesis suggests that problems in the marriage
may render parents less emotionally available to their children, as the stress
from the discordant marriage takes precedence over child rearing, and/or may
cause more problematic parenting behaviors.
Consistent with this theory, one existing longitudinal study (Sturge-Apple,
Davies, & Cummings, 2006) showed that initial parental ratings of marital
withdrawal were associated with decreases in observed maternal emotional
availability to children over a 1-year period. A few cross-sectional studies
have also found that parent-reported marital conflict and negativity is associ-
ated with parent-reported inconsistent discipline and poor parenting practices
(Keller, Cummings, & Davies, 2005), as well as observer and children’s
reports of harsh parenting practices and ineffective parent–child communica-
tion (Brody, Arias, & Fincham, 1996).
Other studies have also documented an association between parent-
reported marital violence, aggression, or hostility, and parent report of child-
directed aggression (Jouriles, Barling, & O’Leary, 1987), as well as reduced
empathy, and increased child-directed negative affect during an observation
task of parent–child interactions (Margolin, Gordis, & Oliver, 2004).

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
424 Journal of Family Issues 36(3)

Levendosky and Graham-Bermann (1998, 2001) conducted a few studies

with families experiencing domestic violence, and found that maternal-
reported domestic violence was related to maternal report of parenting stress
and various other parenting problems.
Research has further demonstrated an association between the quality of
the parent–child relationship and qualities of children’s peer relationships.
For example, both parent- and child-reported sensitive parenting behaviors
(e.g., positive affect) have been associated with increased social skills in chil-
dren, whereas negative parental affect has been associated with peer prob-
lems (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early
Child Care Research Network, 2004). A few longitudinal studies have exam-
ined parent-to-child aggression in relation to children’s peer outcomes.
Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, and Bates (1997) found that observed maternal hos-
tility or aggression with 5-year-old boys was associated with boys’ peer nom-
inations as aggressors and victims of bullying 5 years later. MacKinnon-Lewis
and Lofquist (1996) showed that observed maternal aggression in mother–
son interactions was associated with maternal report of child aggression
toward peers. A limitation of these studies, however, is that peer outcomes
were examined only in male children.
Although the studies reviewed above found expected associations between
marital (partner) quality, parenting, and children’s peer outcomes, almost no
studies have examined whether the quality of the parent–child relationship
might mediate the association between the marital relationship and child peer
relationships. One exception was a study conducted by Stocker and
Youngblade (1999) who found a direct relationship between parents’ reports
of children’s exposure to marital conflict and problematic peer relationships;
they also found that father–child hostility mediated this relationship. Lucas-
Thompson and Clarke-Stewart (2007) found that the child’s attachment secu-
rity to the mother (another indicator of the mother–child relationship)
partially mediated the association between marital quality and children’s
observed friendship quality in fourth grade.
In another study, Lindsey, Campbell, MacKinnon-Lewis, and Frabutt
(2002) found no direct relationship between partner aggression and boys’ (7-9
years old) social competence, thus, mediation was not possible. However,
mothers who displayed positive emotions during a mother–son interaction had
sons who were less aggressive with peers. In one large, longitudinal study,
Vandewater and Lansford (1998) found that marital conflict and parental
warmth had a direct effect on boys’ peer outcomes, but only parental warmth
had a significant effect on the same peer outcomes for girls. Because marital
conflict was unrelated to parental warmth, mediation was not possible. Finally,
Du Rocher Schudlich, Shamir, and Cummings (2004) found parents’ reports

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
Gallagher et al. 425

of conflict were related to their 5- to 8-year-old children’s aggression toward

peers, and children’s perceptions of the parent–child relationship mediated the
relationship between exposure to marital conflict and peer problems. In sum,
marital conflict may result in negative social behaviors with peers by way of
impaired parenting. However, because of the inconsistency in prior results,
further research is needed to solidify these associations.

Summary and Conclusions

Although both theory and research suggest that marital (partner) problems
are associated with more negative parent–child relationships, and these are,
in turn, associated with child social difficulties, few studies have examined
the parent–child relationship as a mediator between marital quality and child
peer outcomes. However, limited evidence supports the mediation model
(e.g., Du Rocher Schudlich et al., 2004). Further research is needed because
of previous mixed results and several limitations in the literature. One poten-
tial problem in the literature is the inconsistency in the way the variables of
interest are operationalized. Marital conflict has been operationalized in
terms of conflict resolution quality, positive and negative behaviors, vio-
lence, and emotional withdrawal, with an emphasis on negative characteris-
tics. The parent–child relationship has been operationalized as parent-to-child
aggression, discipline, positive or negative affect, attachment, and emotional
unavailability. Finally, the child–peer relationship has been defined as social
competence, friendship quality, aggression with peers, and bullying and vic-
timization. Thus, results have very different meanings for our understanding
of families and have different implications for interventions. Another incon-
sistency is that researchers have used different methodologies to examine the
variables of interest, including parent report, child report, both parent and
child report, and teacher report, while other studies have used observations;
the different reporters used across studies likely affected prior results. A third
inconsistency is the widely differing age ranges in children used across stud-
ies. Because children vary considerably as a result of developmental tasks
and abilities, it is difficult to compare the findings across different age-
groups. Finally, a major limitation of most prior studies is the use of cross-
sectional designs, making it difficult to understand how the quality of the
marital relationship affects children over time.

The Present Study

The current study improved on many of these limitations. First, this study
used longitudinal archive data to examine whether maternal parenting

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
426 Journal of Family Issues 36(3)

behaviors mediated the relationship between partner quality and school-age

children’s peer relationship quality at a specific age. Partner quality was
assessed at 1 month after birth, in part, because it has been documented that
the transition to parenthood is a particularly stressful time for couples (Belsky
& Rovine, 1990). Children’s relationships with peers were assessed during
school-age because an important task for children of this age is the ability to
form friendships (Grych & Fincham, 1990). Multiple informants and meth-
odologies (e.g., questionnaires and observation tasks) were also chosen to
reduce the likelihood of confounded or biased results based on a single
reporter, and variables were operationalized in a broad manner.
In the present study, it was hypothesized that (a) mothers with a better
quality partner relationship will exhibit a more positive parent–child relation-
ship quality, as defined by more positive and less negative parenting behav-
iors, (b) mothers with a better quality partner relationship will have children
who exhibit more prosocial and less negative behaviors with peers, (c) a more
positive parent–child relationship will be related to better child–peer relation-
ship quality (i.e., more prosocial and less negative behaviors with peers), and
(d) parent–child relationship quality will mediate the relationship between
partner quality and children’s peer relationship quality.

Method
Participants
Participants included 1,364 families who took part in a longitudinal study,
the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of
Early Child Care (NICHD SECC), which examined the relationship between
child care experiences, the family environment, and children’s developmen-
tal outcomes. During Phase I, children in the study were birth to 36 months
of age. In Phase II, children were between 36 months old and first grade
(approximately 6 years old). In Phase III, children were between second and
sixth grade (approximately between the ages of 6 and 12 years). Fifty-two
percent of the children in the sample were boys, 80% of the children were
Caucasian, 13% were African American, and the rest were from other racial
backgrounds. Seventy-seven percent of mothers were married, while 9% of
mothers were cohabitating, 6% were never married, but reported a continu-
ing romantic relationship and were not living together, 6% were never mar-
ried and not romantically involved, and 2% were separated, divorced, or
widowed. Sixty-nine percent of mothers had at least some college education,
and the annual average total family income was $37,948 (SD = $34,102) at
study entry in 1991.

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
Gallagher et al. 427

Procedure
Participants were recruited using random sampling from designated hospitals
at 10 data collection sites around the United States between January and
November of 1991 following the birth of the target child. Only families with
full-term healthy newborns were included in the study, resulting in 1,364
recruited families (58% of contacted families). By the end of Phase III, 1,077
of the original families remained (a retention rate of 79%). In the present
study, analyses were based on 1,261 of the original 1,364 families; excluded
families had missing data on all variables included in analyses. Complete
details about study procedures can be found in NICHD Early Child Care
Research Network (1994).

Measures
Maternal Age.  Maternal age was calculated based on the mother’s age at the
time of her child’s birth during Phase I of data collection and was tested as a
covariate in the present study.

Socioeconomic Status.  The NICHD SECC investigators computed an estimate

of socioeconomic status (SES) by dividing the total family pretax income by
the poverty threshold (income-to-needs ratio). The household poverty thresh-
old was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, and it was based on the total
number of persons residing in the household at that time. Income-to-needs
ratios of 1 reflect the poverty line, with values less than 1 indicating severe
poverty (24% of this sample). Families with ratios of 2 or higher are consid-
ered to be at or above the middle class (54% of this sample). SES was exam-
ined as a covariate in the present study.

Quality of the Partner Relationship.  The Love and Relationships Scale (Braiker &
Kelley, 1979) is a 25-item questionnaire composed of four subscales that assess
the quality of the partner relationship; items are rated on a 9-point scale ranging
from not at all to very much/extremely. These subscales include Conflict,
Maintenance, Love, and Ambivalence. Examples include “How often do you
and your partner argue?” (Conflict), “How much do you tell your partner what
you need from the relationship?” (Maintenance), “To what extent do you have
a sense of belonging with your partner?” (Love), and “How confused are you
about your feelings toward your partner?” (Ambivalence). The Maintenance
subscale was excluded from the NICHD SECC, resulting in a modified 20-item
questionnaire. Subscale and total scores can range from 1 to 9. This measure
was administered to mothers when the target child was 1 month old during

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
428 Journal of Family Issues 36(3)

Phase I of data collection. Because in many circumstances coefficient alpha (α)

is known to be an inappropriate and inaccurate estimate of reliability, coeffi-
cient omega (ω) estimated in the latent variable modeling framework with
Mplus (Version 6.11; Muthén & Muthén, 2010) using maximum likelihood
estimation was reported along with alpha (see Yang & Green, 2011). Reliability
for this modified Love and Relationships Scale factor was α = .87 and ω = .87.
Higher factor scores indicate poorer partner relationship quality.

Maternal Parenting Behaviors.  The Parent–Child Interaction Task (Egeland &

Hiester, 1993) was conducted in the lab when the child was 54 months old
during Phase II of data collection. The task included videotaped, 15-minute
observations of mother–child interactions. Maternal behavior was coded
across all activities according to the following scales: Supportive Presence,
Respect for Autonomy, Stimulation of Cognitive Development, Quality of
Assistance, Hostility, and Confidence. Each score was coded along a 7-point
Likert-type scale ranging from very low to very high. A Positive Caregiving
total was formed using the subscales, with higher scores reflecting more posi-
tive caregiving. Reliability of the Positive Caregiving factor in this sample
was α = .78 and ω = .89.

Quality of Child–Peer Relationships. The Friendship Quality Questionnaire

(Parker & Asher, 1993) is a 21-item questionnaire that assesses six friendship
characteristics of a best friend including Validation and Caring, Conflict Res-
olution, Conflict and Betrayal, Help and Guidance, Companionship and Rec-
reation, and Intimate Exchange. Examples include “. . . and I get mad at each
other a lot” (Conflict and Betrayal), “. . . and I make each other feel special”
(Validation and Caring), “. . . and I tell each other about our problems” (Inti-
mate Exchange), “when I’m having trouble figuring something out, I usually
ask . . . for advice” (Help and Guidance), “. . . and I pick each other as part-
ners” (Companionship and Recreation), and “. . . and I always make up when
we have a fight” (Conflict Resolution). Items are rated on a 5-point response
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (really true). The total
score was used in this study and ranged from 1 to 5, with higher values indi-
cating more positive friendship quality. This measure was administered to
children in the lab when the child was in fifth grade during Phase III. Reli-
ability for the composite factor in this sample was α = .84 and ω = .84.
Children’s peer relationship quality was also assessed by the Child
Behavior with Peers Questionnaire (Ladd & Profilet, 1996), a 43-item ques-
tionnaire filled out by the child’s teacher when children were in the fifth
grade during Phase III. The questionnaire yields six subscale scores: Physical
Aggression, Prosocial Behavior with Peers, Asocial Behavior with Peers,

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
Gallagher et al. 429

Exclusion by Peers, Bullying and Victimization, and Relational Aggression.

Examples include “Not chosen as playmate by peers” (Exclusion by Peers),
“Is an aggressive child” (Aggression), “Threatens other children” (Asocial
Behavior with Peers), and “Takes turns with play materials” (Prosocial
Behavior with Peers). Items are rated on a 3-point scale including 0 (not
true), 1 (“sometimes true”), and 2 (“often”).
The Prosocial Behavior with Peers subscale was used in the present study
to reflect a global teacher rating of positive behavior with peers. Items within
the subscale were averaged; thus, scores can range from 0 to 2, with higher
scores reflecting more positive behaviors with peers. To calculate a Negative
Behavior with Peers composite in the present study, the five other subscales
were first correlated with each other; subscales were moderately and signifi-
cantly correlated with the exception of the Asocial Behavior with Peers sub-
scale and the Aggression subscale (r = .12) and the Asocial Behavior with
Peers subscale and the Relational Aggression subscale (r = .06). To determine
the appropriate number of factors, parallel analysis (Dinno, 2009) was con-
ducted using the paran package in R (Version 2.14.1; R Development Core
Team, 2011; Version 1.4.3; Dinno, 2010). Next, an exploratory factor analy-
sis was conducted, excluding the Asocial Behavior with Peers subscale, with
Mplus (Version 6.11; Muthén & Muthén, 2010) using Geomin rotation (see
Schmitt, 2011; Schmitt & Sass, 2011, for a discussion of rotation criteria); all
latent variable modeling analyses were conducted with Mplus using maxi-
mum likelihood estimation methods. The parallel analysis and the explor-
atory factor analysis results indicated a one-factor solution with all factor
loadings statistically significant and greater than .50. This Negative Behavior
with Peers composite subscale was used to reflect a global teacher rating of
negative peer outcomes. Possible scores on this composite range from 0 to 2,
with higher scores reflecting more negative peer behaviors.
For the current study, the Prosocial Behavior with Peers subscale (10
items) and the Negative Behavior with Peers total (27 items) were used.
Reliability for a composite factor of these two subscales in this sample was
α = .79 and ω = .93. Higher scores for the composite factor indicate more
positive peer relationships.

Results
Missing Data
Because of attrition over time, several pieces of data were missing across
time periods. During Phase I, the Love and Relationships scale was missing
for 94 participants. During Phase II, the parent–child interaction task was

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
430 Journal of Family Issues 36(3)

missing for 324 participants. During Phase III, the child-reported Friendship
Quality Questionnaire was missing for 372 participants, and the Child
Behavior with Peers scale was missing for 440 participants. Because all latent
variable modeling analyses were conducted with a full information estima-
tion method (i.e., maximum likelihood estimation), the strict random miss-
ingness assumption is relaxed, which results in increased power and more
accurate parameter estimates. Therefore, model testing was based on 1,261
participants as noted earlier; only 103 families were excluded because of
missing data on all variables in this study.

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive data for study variables are provided in Table 1. Participants
reported experiencing moderate to high love in their partner relationships,
and relatively low conflict and low ambivalence. Mothers displayed moder-
ate to high levels of positive caregiving toward target children, including
supportive presence, respect for autonomy, stimulation of cognitive develop-
ment, quality of assistance, confidence, and low levels of hostility. Children
indicated generally high levels of friendship quality; teachers also reported
relatively high levels of prosocial behavior with peers and relatively low lev-
els of negative behavior with peers overall. Intercorrelations among study
variables are also provided in Table 1. Because child-reported friendship
quality was unrelated to partner quality and positive caregiving, this variable
was not included in model testing.

Structural Model Testing

Mediation Model. Based on specific a priori hypotheses and correlation
results, SEM within Mplus was used to fit the mediation model in Figure 1.
Mediation analysis was conducted following the recommendations in the lit-
erature for analyzing and reporting SEM mediation models using bias-cor-
rected bootstrap tests (e.g., Rucker, Preacher, Tormala, & Petty, 2011). The
initial mediation model included 3 latent variables, as well as 11 indicators.
Along with the chi-square (χ2), Bentler (2007) recommends limiting the
reporting of approximate fit indices (AFIs) to the standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR) or the average absolute standardized residual and at
most two additional fit indices. Because we are testing group differences with
invariance methods, the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) was also included as it is
commonly used to evaluate the fit of invariance models. Thus, the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA < .06), the comparative fit index
(CFI > .95), the SRMR < .08, and the TLI > .95 were used as the AFIs.

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
 Table 1.  Associations Among Study Variables in Model Testing and Descriptive Statistics.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
 1. Maternal age 1.00 .42** −.02 −.01 −.15** .27** .21** .30** .20** .21** −.16** .15** −.15** .01
 2. Income: Needs 1.00 .07* −.05 .19** .24** .23** .28** .22** .24** −.14** .17** −.15** .02
 3. Love 1.00 −.43** −.55** .12** .07* .10** .08* .10** −.08* .07* −.07* .08*
 4. Conflict 1.00 .53** −.06 −.07* −.05 −.05 −.07* .07* −.04 .07 −.02
 5. Ambivalence 1.00 −.23** −.27** −.23** −.18** −.21** .23** −.11** .15** −.03
 6. Supportive 1.00 .72** .70** .78** .78** −.61** .15** −.17** .00
Presence
 7. Respect for 1.00 .52** .64** .55** −.64** .14** −.16** .03
Autonomy
 8. Stimulation 1.00 .67** .73** −.37** .16** −.16** .02
 9. Confidence 1.00 .79** −.48** .13** −.12** .02
10. Quality of 1.00 −.39** .14** −.14** .03
Assistance
11. Hostility 1.00 −.13** .17** −.02
12. Teacher-Report 1.00 −.60** .13**
Prosocial Behavior
13. Teacher-Report 1.00 −.13**
Negative Behavior

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
14. Child-Report 1.00
Friendship Quality
M 28.26 2.82 6.26 3.14 1.85 5.16 5.22 4.36 4.81 4.66 1.43 1.45 0.31 4.14
SD 5.57 2.66 0.68 1.01 1.00 1.30 1.11 1.29 1.25 1.40 0.89 0.46 0.31 0.59
Range 18-46 0-25 1-9 1-9 1-9 1-7 1-7 1-7 1-7 1-7 1-7 0-2 0-2 1-5

431
*p < .05. **p < .01.
432 Journal of Family Issues 36(3)

Respect
Supportive Autonomy Stimulation
Presence Confidence
.76
Love -.63 .75 Prosocial
.93 .85 .76
Behavior with
.62 Partner Peers
Maternal Positive Child Social-
Relationship
Conflict Caregiving Emotional Outcome
Quality
-.28 (Preschool) .19 (5th grade)
(Phase I)
Negative
.87 -.80 Behavior
Ambiv-
with Peers
alence

-.15
(-.05)

Figure 1.  Full model results depicting associations between partner relationship
quality, maternal caregiving, and child social–emotional outcomes.
Note. All factor loadings and path coefficients are completely standardized; all are significant at
p < .01. Value in parentheses indicates the indirect effect.

Table 2.  Model Fit Statistics.

Model X2 df ΔX2 Δdf p RMSEA CFI SRMR TLI

SEMinitial 464.92 41 .091 .925 .047 .899
SEMfinal 102.26 24 .051 .979 .033 .969
No change 56.39 24 .046 .984 .030 .976
Change 59.39 24 .068 .968 .051 .952
CI 115.77 48 .055 .979 .038 .968
MIfull 162.29 60 46.52 12 <.004 .060 .968 .056 .961
MIpartial 135.21 58 19.44 10 .035 .053 .976 .045 .970
SI 136.07 61 1.83 3 .608 .046 .976 .046 .972
MeanInv 218.97 61 83.76 3 <.016 .074 .950 .084 .941

Note. RMSEA = Root mean square of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR =
standardized root mean square residual; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index. In this simple mediation
model, covariance invariance is equivalent to structural invariance in terms of model fit. To
keep Type I error at the nominal alpha (α = .05), alpha was adjusted based on the number of
parameters. Group invariance was tested by estimating the models in the following order: CI
(configural invariance), MI (measurement invariance), SI (structural invariance), and MeanInv
(mean invariance).

Overall, the global fit statistics indicated marginal fit for the initial medi-
ation SEM model (Table 2). Although the χ2—χ2(41) = 464.92, p < .01—was
statistically significant, modification indices indicated that there might be

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
Gallagher et al. 433

some sources of model misfit. Examination of the modification indices

revealed that two indicators (maternal Hostility and Quality of Assistance,
both indicators of the larger caregiving composite) may be the source of
model misfit, thus, these indicators were removed and a modified SEM
model was fit to the data (with three latent variables and nine indicators).
Based on the AFIs and the χ2 the modified SEM model indicated good fit to
the data, χ2(24) = 102.26, p < .01, and any indication of global misfit (e.g.,
χ2) was simply caused by multiple sources of small model misfit (see Table
2). Looking more closely at the standardized parameter effect size estimates
(see Figure 1), all indicators had significant loadings in the expected direc-
tion on their respective latent constructs, and all hypothesized paths between
latent constructs were significant in the expected direction. Thus, results
showed that a poorer quality partner relationship was related to less positive
mother–child relationship quality (−.28), as defined by more positive and
less negative parenting behaviors. Next, a more positive parent–child rela-
tionship was related to better child–peer relationship quality (.19). Poorer
quality partner relationship was also directly related to less positive social–
emotional adjustment with peers (−.15). Finally, there was a small signifi-
cant indirect effect between partner quality and child behavior with peers
(−.05), indicating partial mediation. That is, partner quality had a reduced
effect on children’s peer outcomes when the parent–child relationship was
accounted for.
Next, because maternal age and SES (income: needs ratio) were signifi-
cantly correlated with the variables of interest and are commonly used covari-
ates in the NICHD SECC data set, the same model shown in Figure 1 was
tested with the addition of maternal age and SES as covariates. With the addi-
tion of the covariates the results indicated that the overall fit of the model was
slightly poorer as the χ2(40) =  241.93, p < .01 was larger. Additionally,
RMSEA was .063, CFI was .949, TLI was .930, and SRMR was .062, indicat-
ing that the AFIs values were slightly worse. Factor loadings and associations
between latent constructs were virtually identical to the original model with-
out covariates, thus, the effects of age and SES did not alter other associations
between variables. Therefore, in an effort to have a better fitting more parsi-
monious model, we decided to keep the fitted model illustrated in Figure 1.

Invariance Model.  Finally, given the 10-year time difference between Phase I
and Phase III, it seemed likely that many participants had some change in
partner status, which may affect the association between variables. On further
examination, the partner change patterns were quite complex (for those with
complete data on partner changes through Phase III), and ranged from 1 to 7
changes within 10 years. However, it was difficult to determine a positive or

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
434 Journal of Family Issues 36(3)

negative partner change (i.e., a divorce may be perceived as either positive or

negative). Thus, a grouping variable was created to indicate whether partner
status change occurred (n = 352) or did not occur (n = 653) for the child’s
mother across all phases. Subsequently, the final mediation model was tested
for the group moderation effect using standard SEM invariance testing meth-
ods for continuous scaled data (see, Sass, 2011).
Initial group invariance testing of the confirmatory factor analysis model
was fit to the data for each group (partner change and no partner change)
separately, and the results in Table 2 indicated good fit for each group. Next,
in an effort to investigate measurement invariance (MI) for the confirmatory
factor analysis model, a configural invariance (CI) was fit to the data to estab-
lish a baseline model. The CI model had relatively good fit, χ2(48) = 115.77,
p < .01, thus establishing a reasonable baseline model that could be used to
investigate MI. Structural invariance (SI) of the full SEM mediation model
was tested by comparing it with the MI model. Results indicated that the
structural parameters of the SI model were invariant across the two groups,
Δχ2(10) = 19.44, p > .016 (see Table 2). That is, the associations between
constructs were not meaningfully different for those families with and with-
out a partner change.
Last, a model was tested for mean invariance and the omnibus results
indicated that there were mean differences between the two groups across
the marital, parental, and child latent constructs, Δχ2(3) = 83.76, p < .016.
With the no partner change group serving as a baseline with factor means
set to 0, all factor means across the groups were statistically significantly
different. The Partner Relationship Quality had a mean difference of .51 (p
< .01, d = .42), the Positive Caregiving mean difference was −.63 (p < .01,
d = −.44), and the Child Social–Emotional outcome mean difference was
−.29 (p < .01, d = −.29). These results indicate that the group with no part-
ner change had better partner quality, more positive caregiving, and greater
child social–emotional health as compared with the partner change group.

Discussion
The present study examined the impact of the quality of the partner relation-
ship and maternal parenting on school-age children’s social outcomes. The
spillover hypothesis, which theoretically guided this study, argues that par-
ents experiencing marital conflict may show more problematic parenting due
to a spillover of their overall distress from the marriage (Emery et al., 1984).
Thus, the spillover hypothesis suggests that problems in the marriage may
render parents less emotionally available to their children, as the stress from

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
Gallagher et al. 435

the discordant marriage takes precedence over child rearing, and/or may
cause more problematic parenting behaviors.
The results from this study provide support for the spillover hypothesis.
First, results indicated that there was a significant association between better
partner relationship quality and maternal positive caregiving, and indeed, a
large amount of prior literature (Brody et al., 1996; Keller et al., 2005;
Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 1998, 2001; Margolin et al., 2004; Sturge-
Apple et al., 2006) has shown that characteristics of the partner relationship
affect other family subsystems as well, such as the parent–child relationship.
Thus, our results add to a growing body of literature to support the association
between the quality of the partner relationship and parenting outcomes.
Additionally, there was a significant association between partner relation-
ship quality and children’s social–emotional outcomes with peers during fifth
grade. Thus, these findings not only support the spillover hypothesis in the
manner in which it is theoretically described (Emery et al., 1984) but also
demonstrates that family processes may “spill over” into nonfamilial rela-
tionships as well. These findings have important implications for children’s
social–emotional well-being; not only does the partner relationship affect the
parenting behaviors at home but may also be significantly associated with
quality of peer relationships.
For example, Stocker and Youngblade (1999) found not only a direct rela-
tionship between parents’ reports of exposure to marital conflict and problem-
atic peer relationships reported by the child’s mother but also that father–child
hostility mediated the relationship between marital conflict and children’s
problematic peer outcomes. The authors speculated that children tend to play
more with fathers, and thus, may be more affected by negative interactions
with their fathers as a result of marital discord. In turn, this may lead to chil-
dren’s difficulty with negative affect and interpreting others’ affective mes-
sages. Also, Buehler and Gerard (2002) found that parents’ reports of marital
conflict were directly associated with greater maladjustment in children’s peer
relationships, such as the child’s tendency to be mean to others.
This is important for researchers and clinicians working with children
experiencing psychosocial difficulties, particularly during middle childhood
when forming peer relationships are an important aspect of development.
Clinicians providing interventions to address social–emotional problems in
children, including internalizing and externalizing behaviors, should con-
sider the marital relationship as a potential stressor to address within the
home environment, as well as a potential stressor for relationships outside the
home. Prior research has documented that children unable to form positive
peer relationships are more likely to exhibit psychopathology (Sandstrom,
Cillessen, & Eisenhower, 2003).

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
436 Journal of Family Issues 36(3)

Results from the present study also documented an association between

maternal parenting behaviors and children’s social–emotional behavior with
peers. These results suggest that there may also be “spillover” from various
relationships within the home to relationships outside the home. These find-
ings are also supported by prior empirical literature. Dunn, Davies, O’Connor,
and Sturgess (2001) found that children’s reports of friendship quality were
significantly related to children’s reports of the positivity of the mother–child
relationship. In addition, children’s reports of friendship quality were also
positively related to children’s perceptions of their ability to confide in their
parent. Also, Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, and Van Oost (2002) found that
children who bullied peers reported less involvement and discipline in their
families than other children.
Finally, maternal positive caregiving partially mediated the relationship
between mothers’ partner quality and children’s social–emotional behavior
with peers. Although few studies have examined parenting behaviors as a
mediator of this association, this finding provides further evidence for the
tendency for affect and behaviors from one relationship to transfer to another
relationship, either within or outside the home. Parenting appears to be a
particularly important factor in children’s social–emotional well-being, and
continues to gain further empirical evidence as such.
Surprisingly, child report of friendship quality was not significantly cor-
related with either the quality of the partner relationship or maternal parent-
ing behaviors. However, child report of friendship quality was modestly
associated with teacher report of children’s behavior with peers. It is likely
that the relatively small association between child and teacher report was
due to differing perceptions and the assessment of slightly different con-
structs. Coie and Dodge (1988) have noted that children’s perceptions of
their social relationships may be biased because they may have difficulty
recognizing certain social behaviors and reflecting on their own social
behaviors.
It is also important to note that the present study examined the hypothe-
sized model in both the group that had experienced some partner status
change between Phase I and Phase III of data collection, and in the group
that experienced no partner status change in this time period. Model fit was
essentially the same for both groups. It is possible that associations between
partner quality during early infancy, parenting during preschool, and chil-
dren’s social–emotional outcomes are not influenced by partner status
changes throughout the first 10 years of childhood. It is also possible that,
because partner status change was dichotomized into “change” versus “no
change” in the present study, it may have been difficult to capture the influ-
ence of particular partner changes on the various associations between

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
Gallagher et al. 437

constructs. Thus, future research should examine the role of different types
of partner status changes on various aspects of the family system and chil-
dren’s social–emotional outcomes.
Overall, the results from this study highlight the importance of the longi-
tudinal examination of family processes, beginning in infancy, which may
affect children’s social–emotional relationships in middle childhood. Because
there were significant associations between partner relationship quality dur-
ing infancy and maternal caregiving behaviors during preschool, as well as
children’s peer relationships in middle childhood, these findings suggest that
examining the trajectory of family processes overtime is helpful in under-
standing an important environmental influence that affects children through-
out their development.

Strengths
A notable strength of this study was that it allowed for a longitudinal exami-
nation of various family processes. This study permitted the authors to draw
conclusions about the impact of partner quality and maternal parenting
behaviors on children’s social functioning over time, allowing more infer-
ences about the direction of effects. Second, the sample in the current study
was very large and fairly representative of the population in this country,
which was the intended goal of the original NICHD SECC sample. The sam-
ple size is especially remarkable for the study’s prospective design, and attri-
tion was more than acceptable (79%) over a 10-year period. Another strength
of this study was the multi-informant, multimethod design. According to
Coie and Dodge (1988), multiple methods of assessment are preferable
because each type of measure has both strengths and limitations. In this study,
informants included the mother, the target child, and the child’s teacher dur-
ing fifth grade, and the design included both questionnaire and observational
data. This study design reduced the likelihood that the results would be con-
founded by one person’s biases, and the design allowed for perspectives from
several individuals in the child’s life across social contexts.
Furthermore, the measures chosen improved on limitations in prior stud-
ies. The quality of the partner relationship was examined using a scale that
captures conflict, as well as affective characteristics such as love and ambiva-
lence. Maternal parenting behaviors were examined using a parent–child
interaction task that included a pleasurable and a challenging task. Finally,
children’s relationships with peers were measured using teacher report and
child report examining positive and negative behaviors. Thus, the variables
were operationalized in a broader manner by capturing both positive and
negative aspects of relationships.

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
438 Journal of Family Issues 36(3)

Limitations
Despite these strengths, one limitation of the current study is that the authors
did not examine the role of paternal caregiving in this model. This would have
been meaningful, particularly given the examination of partner relationship
quality in this study, which presumably includes father figures or male care-
givers. For example, one recent meta-analysis (Kawabata, Alink, Tseng,
Ijzendoorn, & Crick, 2011) examined the role of both maternal and paternal
parenting styles in association with children’s relational aggression with peers,
and found that both maternal and paternal positive parenting were associated
with lower levels of relational aggression in children, but only paternal psy-
chologically controlling parenting was associated with an increase in rela-
tional aggression. The results from this meta-analysis demonstrate the
importance of examining the differential impact of maternal versus paternal
parenting on children’s social–emotional outcomes. Finally, there are likely
many other influences affecting school-age children’s behavior with peers that
went unexamined in this study, such as cultural differences, exposure to social
competence, and child social cognitions or behavior disorders, to name a few.
Future studies should examine different factors that likely affect a complex
phenomenon such as children’s social behavior with peers.

Conclusions
In conclusion, the findings of the present study showed that over a 10-year
period, maternal parenting behaviors observed when the target child was in
preschool partially mediated the association between mothers’ ratings of
partner quality when the child was 1 month old and teacher-reported behavior
with peers when the child was in fifth grade. That is, analyses demonstrated
a significant direct effect and indirect (albeit small) effect of partner quality
on peer outcomes through maternal parenting. These findings are consistent
with the spillover hypothesis and with prior empirical research (Brody et al.,
1996; Buehler & Gerard, 2002; Dunn et al., 2001; Keller et al., 2005;
Margolin et al., 2004; Stevens et al., 2002; Sturge-Apple et al., 2006),
although the present study is one of the only longitudinal studies of this kind.
Future research should continue to examine the importance of the family
relationships, as well as other contextual variables that may affect children’s
psychosocial development and relationships with peers, as it is a critically
important developmental outcome for children.
These findings may be especially relevant in guiding clinical practice and
intervention with families and young children, especially those who may be
struggling socially. These results underscore the importance of the functioning

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
Gallagher et al. 439

of the broader family system when examining children’s social competence or

peer outcomes, particularly early familial risks for outcomes in the school-age
years. Thus, addressing parenting difficulties and improving the parent–child
relationship may be helpful in promoting positive social outcomes in children.
Furthermore, the quality of the marital or partner relationship is also important
to examine and address clinically, although the findings from the current study
suggest that early partner relationship quality may have a more indirect effect
on school-age children’s social outcomes. Clinicians should be aware of the
possibility that the presence of familial interactions may have an important
impact on children’s later social relationships, and it may be important to
examine and intervene in various familial systems when addressing children’s
social competence.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development for use of the data.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was conducted by the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child
Care Research Network supported by the NICHD through a cooperative agreement
that calls for scientific collaboration between the grantees and the NICHD staff.

References
Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1990). Patterns of marital change across the tran-
sition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 5-19.
doi:10.2307/352833
Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality
and Individual Differences, 42, 825-829. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.024
Braiker, H., & Kelley, H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships.
In R. Burgess & T. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange and developing relationships
(pp. 135-168). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Brody, G. H., Arias, I., & Fincham, F. D. (1996). Linking marital and child attri-
butions to family processes and parent-child relationships. Journal of Family
Psychology, 10, 408-421. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.10.4.408

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
440 Journal of Family Issues 36(3)

Buehler, C., & Gerard, J. M. (2002). Marital conflict, ineffective parenting, and chil-
dren’s and adolescents’ maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 78-92.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00078.x
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1988). Multiple sources of data on social behav-
ior in the school: A cross-age comparison. Child Development, 59, 815-829.
doi:10.2307/1130578
Cookston, J. T., Harrist, A. W., & Ainslie, R. C. (2003). Maternal negative affect as a
mediator between marital conflict and children’s negativity with unfamiliar peers.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 185-200. doi:10.1023/A:1022810832436
Dinno, A. (2009). Exploring the sensitivity of Horn’s parallel analysis to the distri-
butional form of simulated data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 362-388.
doi:10.1080/00273170902938969
Dinno, A. (2010). Package “paran” package: Horn’s test of principal components/
factors. Version 1.4.3 [Computer software].
Du Rocher Schudlich, T. D., Shamir, H., & Cummings, E. M. (2004). Marital conflict,
children’s representations of family relationships, and children’s dispositions
towards peer conflict strategies. Social Development, 13, 171-192. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9507.2004.000262.x
Dunn, J., Davies, L. C., O’Connor, T. G., & Sturgess, W. (2001). Family lives and
friendships: The perspectives of children in step-, single-parent, and nonstep fami-
lies. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 272-287. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.2.272
Easterbrooks, M. A., & Emde, R. N. (1988). Marital and parent-child relationships:
The role of affect in the family system. In R. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.),
Relationships within families (pp.83-103). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Egeland, B., & Hiester, M. (1993). Teaching task rating scales. Unpublished scale,
Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Emery, R. E., Hetherington, E. M., & Dilalla, L. F. (1984). Divorce, children, and social
policy. In H. W. Stevenson & A. E. Seigel (Eds.), Child development research and
social policy (pp. 189-266). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment:
A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.267
Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. (1986). Family violence and child
adjustment: A comparative analysis of girls’ and boys’ behavioral symptoms.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 74-77.
Jouriles, E. N., Barling, J., & O’Leary, K. D. (1987). Predicting child behavior prob-
lems in martially violent families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15,
165-173. doi:10.1007/BF00916346
Katz, L. F., & Woodin, E. M. (2002). Hostility, hostile detachment, and con-
flict engagement in marriages: Effects in child and family functioning. Child
Development, 73, 636-652. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00428
Kawabata, Y., Alink, L. R. A., Tseng, W., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Crick, N. R.
(2011). Maternal and paternal parenting styles associated with relational aggres-
sion in children and adolescents: A conceptual analysis and meta-analytic review.
Developmental Review, 31, 240-278. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2011.08.001

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
Gallagher et al. 441

Keller, P. S., Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2005). The role of marital discord
and parenting in relations between parental problem drinking and child adjust-
ment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 943-951. doi:10.1111/
j.1469-7610.2004.00399.x
Kitzmann, K. M., & Cohen, R. (2003). Parents’ versus children’s perceptions of inter-
parental conflict as predictors of children’s friendship quality. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 20, 689-700. doi:10.1177/02654075030205007
Ladd, G. W., & Profilet, S. M. (1996). The Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report
measure of young children’s aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors.
Developmental Psychology, 32, 1008-1024. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.1008
Ladd, G. W., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2003). The role of chronic peer difficulties
in the development of children’s psychological adjustment problems. Child
Development, 74, 1344-1367. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00611
Levendosky, A., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (1998). The moderating effects of par-
enting stress on children’s adjustment in woman-abusing families. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 13, 383-397. doi:10.1177/088626098013003005
Levendosky, A., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (2001). Parenting in battered women:
The effects of domestic violence on women and their children. Journal of Family
Violence, 16, 171-192. doi:10.1023/A:1011111003373
Lindsey, E. W., Campbell, J., MacKinnon-Lewis, C., & Frabutt, J. M. (2002). Marital
conflict and boy’s peer relationships: The mediating role of mother-son emo-
tional reciprocity. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 466-477. doi:10.1037/0893-
3200.16.4.466
Lucas-Thompson, R., & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2007). Forecasting friendship: How
marital quality, maternal mood, and attachment security are linked to children’s
peer relationships. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 499-514.
MacKinnon-Lewis, C., & Lofquist, A. (1996). Antecedents and consequences of
boys’ depression and aggression: Family and school linkages. Journal of Family
Psychology, 10, 490-500. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.10.4.490
Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & Oliver, P. H. (2004). Links between marital and parent-
child interactions: Moderating role of husband-to-wife aggression. Development
and Psychopathology, 16, 753-771. doi:10.1017/S0954579404004766
McCloskey, L. A., & Stuewig, J. (2001). The quality of peer relationships among chil-
dren exposed to family violence. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 83-96.
doi:10.1017/S0954579401001067
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research
Network. (1994). Child care and child development: The NICHD Study of Early
Child Care. In S. L. Friedman & H. C. Haywood (Eds.), Developmental follow-up:
Concepts, domains, and methods (pp. 377-396). New York, NY: Academic Press.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care
Research Network. (2004). Fathers’ and mothers’ parenting behavior and beliefs
as predictors of children’s social adjustment in the transition to school. Journal of
Family Psychology, 18, 628-638. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.628

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
442 Journal of Family Issues 36(3)

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle
childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social
dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611-621. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.29.4.611
R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation
analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations.
Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 5/6, 359-371. doi:10.1111/j.1751-
9004.2011.00355.x
Sandstrom, M. J., Cillessen, A. H. N, & Eisenhower, A. (2003). Children’s appraisal
of peer rejection experiences: Impact on social and emotional adjustment. Social
Development, 12, 530-550. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00247
Sass, D. A. (2011). Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means
within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 29, 347-363. doi:10.1177/0734282911406661
Schmitt, T. A. (2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and con-
firmatory factor analysis: A review and illustration. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 29, 304-321. doi:10.1177/0734282911406653
Schmitt, T. A., & Sass, D. A. (2011). Rotation criteria for exploratory factor analy-
sis: Implications for cross-loadings and interfactor correlations. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 71, 95-113. doi:10.1177/0013164410387348
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1997). The early socialization
of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68, 665-675.
Stevens, V., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Van Oost, P. (2002). Relationship of the fam-
ily environment to children’s involvement in bully/victim problems at school.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 419-428. doi:10.1023/A:1020207003027
Stocker, C. M., & Youngblade, L. (1999). Marital conflict and parental hostility: Links
with children’s sibling and peer relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 13,
598-609. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.13.4.598
Sturge-Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (2006). Hostility and
withdrawal in marital conflict: Effects on parental emotional unavailabil-
ity and inconsistent discipline. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 227-238.
doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.2.227
Vandewater, E. A., & Lansford, J. E. (1998). Influences of family structure and
parental conflict on children’s well-being. Family Relations, 47, 323-330.
doi:10.2307/585263
Yang, Y., & Green, S. B. (2011). Coefficient alpha: A reliability coefficient for
the 21st century? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 377-392.
doi:10.1177/0734282911406668

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015