reducing interparental conflict among parents in contentious child custody disputes: an initial...

REDUCING INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AMONGPARENTS IN CONTENTIOUS CHILD CUSTODY

DISPUTES: AN INITIAL INVESTIGATION OF THEWORKING TOGETHER PROGRAM

Jesse OwenUniversity of Louisville

Galena K. RhoadesUniversity of Denver

Interparental conflict is one of the primary risk factors for negative outcomes for childrenwhose parents separate, and it is likely to be high while parents are separating. Resultsare mixed regarding the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing interparental con-flict. This study examined co-parents who were court-ordered to attend a 12-hr co-parent-ing intervention and completed pre–postassessments (n = 20) and 2-month follow-upassessments (n = 17). The results demonstrated increases in co-parents’ relationshipfunctioning and confidence in co-parenting. Both men and women reported decreasedamounts of conflict in the presence of their children; however, only women reporteddecreases in general negative communication with the co-parent. These changes were gen-erally maintained at a 2-month follow-up assessment. These findings suggest that interven-tions for high-conflict co-parents may increase their ability to work cooperatively.

In the United States, current estimates suggest that approximately 40–50% of couples willdivorce (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002) and that nearly 75% of children born into cohabitingunions will see their parents’ relationship end (Bumpass & Lu, 2000). This instability of parent-ing unions impacts the mental and physical well-being of adults and children. For instance,adults who go through relationship separation are at increased risk for depression and alcoholuse, and their children are at increased risk for emotional and behavioral problems (Amato,2000; Fincham & Beach, 1999; Grych & Fincham, 1999, 2001; Pruett & Hoganbruen, 1998;Waite et al., 2002).

For many dissolved unions, the heightened interparental conflict and lack of cooperation inparenting are primary sources of stress (Fincham, 2003; Grych, 2005; Lebow & Rekart, 2007;Pruett, Williams, Insabella, & Little, 2003). Increased parental conflict, especially in the presenceof the children, threatens children’s sense of emotional security and influences their views aboutfamily structure and relational commitment (Amato & Cheadle, 2005; Davies & Cummings,1994; Mazur, Wolchik, & Sandler, 1992; Roseby & Johnston, 1995). Indeed, numerous studieshave shown that good parental conflict resolution and clarity about parental roles and bound-aries are associated with better child adjustment (Cookston, Braver, Griffin, De Luse, & Miles,2007; Grych & Fincham, 1990; Sbarra & Emery, 2005; Shifflett-Simpson & Cummings, 1996).

Many parents are unable to agree about child custody and other co-parenting issues, andsubsequently they rely on the judicial system for assistance (Pruett et al., 2003). In turn, thejudicial system has frequently utilized mediators, parenting coordinators, and psychoeducationinterventions to help co-parents reach agreements and learn to cooperate in the parentingprocess (Goodman, Bonds, Sandler, & Braver, 2004; Kelly, 2004; Pruett & Johnston, 2004).

Jesse Owen, PhD, Licensed Psychologist, Assistant Professor, Department of Educational and Counseling

Psychology, College of Education and Human Development, University of Louisville; Galena K. Rhoades, PhD,

Licensed Psychologist, Senior Researcher, Psychology Department, Center for Marital and Family Studies,

University of Denver.

Address correspondence to Jesse Owen, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, College of

Education and Human Development, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292; E-mail: jesse.owen

@louisville.edu

Journal of Marital and Family Therapydoi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2010.00215.x

JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 1

The use of psychoeducational group programs has received increased attention over the pasttwo decades. Most of these programs have focused on two core elements in the co-parentingrelationship: (a) interparental conflict and (b) quality of parenting. While the effectiveness ofinterventions aimed at increasing the quality of parenting has been largely supported (e.g.,Devilin, Brown, Beebe, & Parulis, 1992; Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999; Pruett, Insabella, &Gustafson, 2005; Wolchik et al., 2002), there has been less empirical support for the effective-ness of interventions to reduce interparental conflict (see Goodman et al., 2004, for a review).

Interparental Conflict Definitions and Review of Intervention OutcomesMost studies in the co-parenting literature have separated co-parenting conflict into three

distinct, yet related categories: (a) interparental conflict, which typically includes disagreementsbetween co-parents and conflict in the presence of the children, (b) attitudinal conflict thatreflects negative attitudes toward the co-parent or generally low co-parent relationship adjust-ment, and (c) legal conflict (e.g., re-litigation; Goodman et al., 2004). Distinguishing betweenthese three types of parental conflict is useful when describing the impacts of interventions forco-parents.

Most research has focused on the first two types of co-parenting conflicts. Currently, thereis mixed support for interventions focused on interparental conflict. In a review of the co-par-enting intervention literature, Goodman et al. (2004) reported that quasi-experimental studies(comparison between experimental and control group, but no randomization) have demon-strated some reduction in interparental conflict, especially in the presence of the child (e.g.,Kramer, Arbuthnot, Gordon, Rousis, & Hoza, 1998). However, in many of the studies over50% of the outcome measures assessing interparental conflict revealed no change (e.g., Arbuth-not, Poole, & Gordon, 1996; Douglas, 2004; Kramer & Washo, 1993; McKenry, Clark, &Stone, 1999; Shifflett & Cummings, 1999). When positive effects were found for interparentalconflict, the magnitude of change was typically small to medium for both mothers and fathers(see Table 1). For attitudinal conflict between co-parents, studies have found similar effects.For instance, Douglas (2004) found no changes in fathers’ attitudinal conflict with their co-par-ent, whereas Arbuthnot et al. (1996) found small effects for relationship adjustment for mothersand fathers after a co-parenting intervention.

In randomized co-parenting studies, there is little support for interventions to producereductions in interparental conflict and attitudinal conflict (e.g., Wolchik et al., 1993, 2000).For instance, Wolchik et al. (2000) randomized mothers (and their children) to a mother-onlyintervention, a mother–child dual intervention, or a self-study control group. They found thatinterparental conflict was not significantly affected through their interventions (d = .13).However, Wolchik and colleagues’ interventions focused more on the quality of parenting ascompared with conflict management skills, which may be one reason for the low degree ofchange in interparental conflict. More recently, Cookston et al. (2007) tested an intervention,‘‘Dads for Life,’’ that was aimed at intervening with fathers after a divorce. They specificallyexamined changes in mothers’ (who were not directly involved in the interventions) and fathers’perception of interparental conflict and attitudinal conflict over 2 years. They found that theintervention significantly decreased mothers’ and fathers’ perception of interparental conflict ascompared with co-parents in the control group. Further, mothers reported significant improve-ments in the attitudinal conflict, but fathers did not report similar improvements.

A New Intervention: The Working Together Program (WTP)The current intervention, the WTP, was a group-based intervention designed to target spe-

cific aspects of conflictual co-parenting. Specifically, the intervention is a 12-hr psychoeduca-tion ⁄ interpersonal process group that focuses on four general themes: (a) children’s needs in co-parenting relationships (e.g., understanding triangulation, fostering healthy boundaries, andencouraging developmentally appropriate communication with children [based on Kelly &Emery, 2003; Minuchin & Fishman, 1981]), (b) understanding co-parenting relationship dynam-ics and interactions, such as developing insight into transgenerational patterns in parenting(based on Bowen, 1978) and understanding current and past co-parent interactions to highlightkey issues that are particular vulnerabilities for the co-parents (based on Markman, Stanley, &

2 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

Table 1Comparison of Independent Group Effect Sizes for Co-Parenting Outcomes in ThisStudy With Previous Studies

Negativecommunication Overt hostility

Relationshipadjustment Confidence

Pre–post

Pre–follow-up

Pre–post

Pre–follow-up

Pre–post

Pre–follow-up

Pre–post

Pre–follow-up

Current studya

Men (n = 8) ).36 .03 .19 .32 .66 .25 .98 .07Women (n = 12) .57 .81 .07 .37 .31 .46 .60 .59

Kramer et al. (1998)b,c

Treatment 1 ⁄ 2 ⁄ controlns = 115 ⁄ 95 ⁄61

.27 ⁄ .35

Kramer et al. (1998)b,c

Men: treatment1 ⁄ 2 ⁄ controlns = 51 ⁄ 29 ⁄ 20

.36 ⁄ .17

Women: treatment1 ⁄ 2 ⁄ controlns = 74 ⁄ 73 ⁄ 41

.28 ⁄ .24

Shifflett &Cummings (1999)d

Treatment ⁄control ns = 29 ⁄10

.16 .34

Arbuthnot et al. (1996)e

Men, n = 152 .28 .35Women, n = 206 .20 .30

Arbuthnot &Gordon (1996)b

Treatment ⁄control ns = 131 ⁄ 23

.18 .05

Wolchik et al. (2000)f

Women: treatment ⁄control ns = 81 ⁄76

.13 .09

Wolchik et al. (1993)f

Women: treatment ⁄control ns = 36 ⁄33

.42 .25

Notes. aWe converted our repeated measures effect sizes into independent group effect sizesbased on Morris and DeShon’s (2002) formula: dindependent groups = drepeated measures

SQRT(2*(1 ) q)). bKramer et al. study did not list the scores for men and women separatelyfor overt hostility. cComparisons are between treatment and control groups; however, therewas no randomization to the groups. dWe recalculated the effects in this study based onpostscores, given the large differences in pretherapy scores between experimental and controlon both measures (e.g., pretherapy differences were d > .80). eNo information was providedabout how many participants were in the control group. fParticipants were randomized toexperimental and control groups. These programs have similar treatment length (12 hr) tothis study; the rest of the studies are shorter-term programs.


Blumberg, 2001), (c) decreasing negative interparental communication, especially in front of thechildren, through learning structured communication skills (based on Markman et al., 2001),fostering personal awareness of physiological, emotional, and cognitive reactions during discus-sions with the co-parent, and increasing decision-making ability about when to discuss issueswith the co-parent (based on Grych, 1998, 2005), and (d) developing strategies for effectivecooperation in the co-parenting process. For instance, each co-parent learns strategic behavioralskills to interact in a positive way with the other co-parent and to accept responsibility for par-enting (based on Szapocnik, Hervis, & Schwartz, 2003; Szapocnik, Kurtines, Foote, Perez-Vi-dal, & Hervis, 1986).

The WTP was delivered over 3 days, and on each day of the program a different theme(i.e., a–d; see above) was covered. We divided each day into four 1-hr sections. To begin eachsection, the group leaders introduced the section’s topic by providing some psychoeducationalmaterial. Next, leaders initiated a discussion or conducted an activity, such as learning newcommunication skills. In general, the psychoeducational information was approximately 10–15 min and the rest of the time was spent in discussion or activity. Participation and feedbackbetween group members were strongly encouraged to promote common group therapeuticfactors (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005).

Given the conflictual nature of the co-parenting relationships involved in this study, cou-pled with logistical and legal constraints (e.g., restraining orders), the intervention was adminis-tered to paired co-parents separately. That is, no co-parents were in the same group together.The groups had 5–8 participants each and they were conducted at the same time; separaterooms in the building were used to ensure confidentiality and safety.

HypothesesWe hypothesized that after the intervention and at 2-month follow-up participants would

report (a) less attitudinal conflict with their co-parent (demonstrated through increases in co-parenting relationship adjustment and confidence in co-parenting) and (b) less interparentalconflict (as evidenced by lower levels of conflict with their co-parent in front of their child[ren][i.e., overt hostility]) and lower levels of negative communication with their co-parent). Sincewe did not have access to a control group, we compare the magnitude of the effects in ourstudy with previous studies.

METHOD

ParticipantsParticipants were court-ordered to attend a co-parenting program due to their difficulties

being cooperative during court appointments with the judges or child custody conciliators.Twenty-two participants participated in this study and 20 participants completed the programand postassessments. Two participants dropped out of the program due to scheduling conflicts.At the 2-month follow-up assessment, 17 participants completed the measures (77% responserate). Two participants were no longer at their prior place of residence (thus they could not becontacted), and one participant declined to complete the follow-up assessment. Only these 17participants are included in the main analyses, and the results from all 20 participants for thechange in pre–postassessment scores are listed in the footnotes.

Twelve participants were female and eight were male; over 97% were Caucasian and allwere heterosexual. Participants reported, on average, having ‘‘some college’’ (Range = highschool degree ⁄GED to bachelor degree) and a median household income of $30,000 (Range =under $10,000 to over $100,000). The co-parents reported that their child(ren)’s ages rangedfrom 1 to 9 years old. Seven participants were currently single (five were never married and twowere divorced from their co-parent); five reported being divorced from their co-parent and thatthey were currently in a new relationship (one was married, two were engaged, and two werecohabiting); four were currently separated from their co-parent and not in a new relationship;two were currently married to someone other than their co-parent (and never divorced); andtwo did not report their relationship status. None of the participants were currently dating or


in any type of romantic relationship with their co-parent. Of the 20 participants, 14 were co-parents to each other; 6 were not paired to other participants in the study.

For the three participants who did not complete the follow-up, two were male and one wasfemale, all identified as Caucasian, and one participant was currently single (never married),one participant was divorced and engaged to a new partner, and one participant was currentlyin a cohabiting union (and never married). Additionally, there were two other participants whostarted but did not complete the program (one male and one female; both Caucasian), and theywere excluded from all analyses. Common to this clinical population, there were more individu-als court-ordered to the program than attended. Based on the available court orders that weresent to our program, we estimated that approximately 60% of the court-ordered parentsreferred to this program attended.

MeasuresThere are few established measures on co-parenting dynamics. As such, we adapted rela-

tionship measures that were geared to tap essential co-parenting dynamics. Specifically, we uti-lized two measures to assess interparental conflict and two measures to assess attitudinalconflict.

Relationship adjustment. We adapted the relationship adjustment subscale from the Sys-temic Therapeutic Inventory of Change (Pinsof et al., 2009) to assess attitudinal conflictbetween the co-parents. We adjusted the language to reflect co-parenting relationships (e.g.,using ‘‘co-parent’’ vs. ‘‘partner’’). The four items for relationship adjustment were rated on a7-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all ⁄ never) to 6 (all of the time), with higher scores indicat-ing better relationship functioning. An example item is ‘‘I am filled with anger towards myco-parent’’ (reverse scored). This measure has been used to assess couple and family therapyoutcomes (Pinsof et al., 2009). Moreover, the items for the relationship adjustment reflect thecommon elements in prior studies on co-parenting (e.g., anger, ability to discuss important par-enting issues, and perceived support; Cookston et al., 2007; McKenry et al., 1999; Wolchiket al., 2000). In this study, the Cronbach’s alphas were .68 at preassessment, .80 at postassess-ment, and .77 at follow-up assessment.

Confidence in co-parenting. To assess individuals’ confidence in their co-parenting relation-ship, the Confidence Scale, a measure that has demonstrated high reliability and validity withmarried couples (Stanley et al., 2001), was adapted. Four items from this scale were rated on a7-point scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicat-ing more confidence in the co-parenting relationship. An example item is ‘‘We have the skills acouple needs to make a co-parenting relationship last.’’ Further, we added an additional item:‘‘Our risk for having to go back to court to settle problems in our co-parenting relationship isprobably greater than average’’ (reversed coded). Similar items have been used to detect if co-parents are confident that they will be able to use the material learned during a co-parentingprogram (e.g., Shifflett & Cummings, 1999). However, since we wanted to compare participants’scores at pre–post follow-up, we needed a broader measure to adequately assess confidenceabout co-parenting ability. Cronbach’s alphas were .84 at preassessment, .79 at postassessment,and .86 at follow-up assessment.

Overt hostility. The Overt Hostility Scale (Porter & O’Leary, 1980) is a 10-item measureof interparental conflict in the presence of children. As with other measures, the wording wasaltered slightly to reflect a co-parenting relationship. The items are rated on a 5-point scaleranging from 0 (never) to 4 (very often), with higher scores indicating more conflict in the pres-ence of the co-parents’ child(ren). An example item is ‘‘Co-parents often disagree on the subjectof discipline. How often do you and your co-parent argue over disciplinary problems in thischild’s presence?’’ This measure has been used in a number of studies that have established itsvalidity and reliability (e.g., Gomulak-Cavicchio, Davies, & Cummings, 2006; Kerig, Fedo-rowicz, Brown, Patenaude, & Warren, 1999), including studies examining co-parenting interven-tions (e.g., Shifflett & Cummings, 1999). In this study, the Cronbach’s alphas were .80 atpreassessment, .84 at postassessment, and .85 at follow-up assessment.

Negative communication. The six-item Communication Danger Signs Scale (Stanley &Markman, 1997) was used to assess dimensions of negative communication, including escalation,


invalidation, and withdrawal. The wording was altered slightly to be appropriate for theseparticipants. An example item is ‘‘My co-parent criticizes or belittles my opinions, feelings, ordesires.’’ Respondents rate each item on a 1 (almost never) to 3 (frequently) scale, with higherscores indicating more negative communication. In a variety of samples of married and ⁄orcohabiting couples or individuals, the measure has demonstrated adequate reliability and validity(e.g., Kline et al., 2004; Stanley et al., 2001). Moreover, co-parenting interventions have utilizedsimilar items (e.g., criticism, escalation, or intensity of conflict; Cookston et al., 2007; Shifflett &Cummings, 1999). Cronbach’s alphas were .67 at preassessment, .61 at postassessment, and .69 atfollow-up assessment.

ProcedureInitially, participants attended a preintervention meeting with a research assistant in

which they were informed about the purpose of the study and the intervention, signed aninformed consent form, and then completed preintervention assessment measures. They werereassured that they could decline from the research and still continue in the groups. Allparticipants agreed to participate in the research. Next, participants were assigned to one ofthree groups; no paired co-parents were assigned to the same group. As noted earlier, thegroups were conducted in three 4-hr sessions on different days. Each session occurred on theweekends over the span of 1 month (there was a 1-week break between the first and thesecond sessions). Thus, the time from pre- to postassessment ranged from 5 to 8 weeks andthe time from preassessment to follow-up assessment was 3–4 months. All three groups wereled by a licensed psychologist (i.e., primary author) and three doctoral students with master’sdegrees in psychology.

Participants were clearly instructed that their scores on the measures would not be releasedto the courts, their participation in the research would not impact their standing with thecourts, and the only information released to the courts was their attendance in the groups. Atthe end of the groups, participants completed the postmeasures, and they were asked to com-plete the follow-up measures 2 months later. Participants were compensated $10.00 at the pre-and postintervention assessments, and $30.00 at the follow-up assessment.

Working Together Program Protocol and Treatment AdherenceThe WTP is a 12-hr psychoeducation ⁄process-oriented intervention. The modules for the

WTP are listed in Table 2; a more detailed treatment protocol can be requested from the leadauthor. As seen in the table, we focused on common factors of therapeutic change for groups(Yalom & Leszcz, 2005) as well as a primary educational component. The primary author, whodeveloped the intervention, conducted a 6-hr training and provided supervision for the doctoralstudents who are coleaders of the groups. Because the program combined interpersonal processwith psychoeducational interventions, we utilized supervision as a way of maintaining fidelityto the treatment.

RESULTS

Relationship adjustment and confidence were operationalized as attitudinal conflict. Nega-tive communication and overt hostility were operationalized as interparental conflict. To testour hypotheses, we conducted four 3 · 2 repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs),with relationship adjustment, confidence, negative communication, and overt hostility as depen-dent variables, three levels of time (pre, post, and follow-up) as a within-subjects factor, andgender as a between-subjects factor.1 Three participants could not be reached for the follow-upassessment; therefore the main analyses only included 17 participants. (Results for pre–postANOVAs for all 20 participants are located in the notes.)2 Additionally, one participant hadmissing data for confidence at follow-up and was therefore excluded from the ANOVA examin-ing confidence. Table 3 includes means, standard deviations, and effect sizes relevant to thepre–post–follow-up analyses. The effect size was calculated by subtracting the preassessmentmean score from the postassessment mean score (or follow-up mean score) and then dividingby the standard deviation for the preassessment score (Becker, 1988).


The first hypothesis, that participants would report a decrease in their attitudinal conflict(e.g., relationship adjustment and confidence) from pre- to postassessment and maintain thesegains at follow-up assessment, was supported. The results demonstrated that participants rated

Table 2Overview of the Working Together Program

Module 1: Orientation Process: Development of group normsEducation: Key risk and protective factors

Module 2: Boundariesand triangulation

Process: Safety and universalityEducation: Developing new boundaries, child asmessenger, prevention of triangulation

Module 3: Expectationsfor co-parenting

Process: CohesionEducation: Being clear with your expectations(decisions, agreement, and parenting plan),understanding control, filters

Module 4: Communicationand problem solving

Process: Interpersonal learningEducation: Warning signs in communication,core issues, tolerance of negative affect, problem solving

Module 5: Co-parenting Process: Universality, working phaseEducation: Key issues in co-parenting (transitions,support, co-parenting agreements)

Module 6: Fatherhood ⁄motherhood

Process: Interpersonal feedbackEducation: Importance of motherhood and fatherhood,roles in parenting

Module 7: Relationshipdecision making

Process: Support and terminationEducation: Clear decision making about relationshipchoices, and stepparenting

Table 3Means and Standard Deviations for Attitudinal and Interparental Conflict for Partici-pants Who Completed Pre-, Post-, and Follow-Up Assessments

PreM (SD)

PostM (SD)

Follow-upM (SD)

Pre–postES,a d

Pre–follow-upES,a d

MenRel. adj. 1.29 (0.62) 1.76 (1.16) 1.63 (1.06) .76 .55Confidence 3.23 (1.04) 3.97 (1.38) 3.37 (1.29) .71 .13Overt hostility 1.32 (0.74) 0.98 (0.56) 0.87 (0.52) .46 .61Neg. comm. 2.20 (0.51) 2.40 (0.49) 2.17 (0.45) ).39 .06

WomenRel. adj. 1.48 (0.83) 1.83 (0.87) 2.08 (0.96) .42 .72Confidenceb 3.10 (1.36) 4.24 (1.33) 4.22 (1.41) .84 .82Overt hostility 1.13 (0.54) 1.06 (0.59) 0.91 (0.62) .13 .41Neg. comm. 2.47 (0.37) 2.18 (0.45) 2.13 (0.41) .78 .92

Notes. Rel. adj. = relationship adjustment; Confidence = confidence in the co-parentingrelationship; Neg. comm. = negative communication; ES = effect sizes.an = 10 for women. bES listed outside the parentheses were calculated by post–pre ⁄SDpre

and follow-up–pre ⁄SDpre. Cohen (1992) recommends interpreting .2 as a small effect, .5 as amedium effect, and .8 or larger as a large effect.


their relationship adjustment with their co-parent as significantly increasing over time, F(2,14) = 6.55, p = .01. The pair-wise comparison between mean levels from pre- to postassess-ment was significant (p = .03); however, the difference between the postintervention and thefollow-up assessment was not significant (p = .80); the pattern of means suggests that partici-pants reported a significant increase in their relationship functioning with their co-parent frompre- to postintervention, and this increase in functioning was maintained at follow-up. Therewere no significant main effects of gender, F(1, 15) = .31, p = .58, and the time by genderinteraction was not significant, F(2, 14) = .50, p = .62. The results for confidence were consis-tent to relationship adjustment, as there was a main effect for time, F(2, 13) = 5.87, p = .02.As seen in Table 3, a slight decline in scores can be noted from post- to follow-up assessment,but this difference was not significant (p = .42), and the post and follow-up scores remainedsignificantly higher than the scores at preassessment (ps < .02). There was neither a significantmain effect for gender, F(1, 14) = .33, p = .57, nor a significant time by gender interactioneffect, F(2, 13) = 2.14, p = .16.

The second hypothesis, that interparental conflict (e.g., overt hostility and negative commu-nication) would decrease from pre- to postintervention and that participants would maintainthese improvements at the follow-up assessment, was partially supported. For overt hostility,there was a significant main effect for time, F(2, 14) = 4.10, p = .04. There was neither asignificant time by gender interaction, F(2, 14) = 1.07, p = .37, nor a significant gender maineffect, F(1, 15) = .01, p = .93. These results and the pattern of means suggest a decrease inovert hostility from pre- to postassessment (p = .03) that was maintained at follow-up (i.e.,there was a significant difference between pre- and follow-up scores, p = .02; there was nosignificant difference between post and follow-up scores, p = .27). The results for negativecommunication revealed no significant main effect for time, F(2, 14) = 2.90, p = .09. That is,the change in negative communication for both men and women from pre- to postassessmentwas not significant (p = .63); however, the difference between pre- and follow-up assessmentwas significant (p = .04) and in the expected direction. Moreover, the time by gender inter-action neared significance, F(2, 14) = 3.37, p = .06. As seen in Figure 1, men’s scores revealed

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

Follow-upPostPre

MenWomen

Figure 1. Changes in negative communication from pre, post, and follow-up for men andwomen.


a slight increase at postassessment but subsequently decreased at the follow-up assessment,whereas women’s negative communication scores demonstrated a more linear decrease in theirnegative communication over time.

To compare our results with prior studies, we first recalculated our effect sizes to be com-parable with independent group effect sizes (see Morris & DeShon, 2002). Next, we examinedthe effect sizes in three prior nonrandomized (Arbuthnot et al., 1996; Arbuthnot & Gordon,1996; Kramer et al., 1998) and three randomized co-parenting studies (Shifflett & Cummings,1999; Wolchik et al., 1993, 2000). The comparisons are listed in Table 1. For negative commu-nication, our results for women were comparable with or better than prior studies, whereas theresults for men showed lower effectiveness in this study. The effects of reducing conflict in thepresence of children at follow-up in our study parallel prior studies; however, the immediateeffects were a bit lower. Lastly, this study demonstrated equivalent or better outcomes forrelationship adjustment at post and follow-up compared with the other studies. The reductionin men’s confidence and relationship adjustment at follow-up in our study is noteworthy as itappears they are experiencing a diminished ability to hold positive views of their ex-partnersover time.

DISCUSSION

This study tested the effectiveness of a new co-parenting intervention, the WTP, amongconflictual, separated co-parents. The specific aims of WTP are to increase the co-parentingrelationship functioning, to build confidence in co-parenting ability, and to reduce co-parentingconflict, especially in the presence of children. The results generally demonstrated decreases inattitudinal and interparental conflict from pre- to postintervention. Moreover, the majority ofthese reductions after the intervention were maintained at a 2-month follow-up assessment.Thus, this study adds to the limited empirical support for co-parenting interventions amonghigh-conflict parents (see Goodman et al., 2004, for a review) and suggests that even relativelyshort-term programs such as WTP can help to reduce interparental and attitudinal conflicts, atleast in the short run.

This study demonstrated notable positive changes in attitudinal conflict. Both men andwomen reported better relationship adjustment with their co-parent and increased confidenceafter the intervention. Interestingly, we also found that men’s relationship adjustment and con-fidence in their co-parenting ability decreased at follow-up, whereas women’s scores remainedstable. At this point, it is unclear why men’s confidence vacillated while women’s confidencestayed consistent; further research with larger samples may be able to detect the interactionswithin couples that may be more explanatory. Nonetheless, the reduction in anger toward aco-parent and the increases in confidence in co-parenting may be instrumental in instilling hopefor positive future interactions. During difficult child custody disputes, it is common for nega-tive feelings to spill over into interactions with children (Fincham & Beach, 1999), likelyimpacting children negatively. For instance, parents’ negative attitudes toward their co-parentmay provide a role model to their children for ways of interacting with others, including theirother parent. Alternatively, parents’ lack of confidence in their co-parenting arrangement couldresult in triangulation (e.g., having the child be the messenger about or the reporter of theco-parent’s actions) due to doubt about their co-parents’ parenting ability. Reducing thisconflict is therefore very important. Moreover, it is common for attitudinal conflict to lead tofurther legal disputes (Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992). Thus, co-parents’ decrease in negativeattitudes and increase in confidence about future co-parenting endeavors may assist co-parentsin navigating the complexities of raising their children together and ultimately protect their chil-dren from additional legal battles.

The results on reductions in interparental conflict increase our understanding of how inter-ventions may assist men and women who attend co-parenting interventions through a courtorder. First, it appears that both men and women reported a decline in conflict in the presenceof the children (e.g., overt hostility), but this effect was slightly stronger for men after the inter-vention than it was for women. Women’s initial report of conflict in the presence of childrenwas somewhat lower than men’s initial score, and the scores for men and women appear to be


more similar at the postintervention. At follow-up, both men and women demonstrated adecrease in interparental conflict in the presence of their children. Thus, the intervention mayhave helped co-parents make better decisions about when they argue with each other. This find-ing is crucial, as conflict in the presence of children is a key risk factor for emotional andbehavioral problems (Goodman et al., 2004; Grych & Fincham, 2001).

Second, the trajectories for men’s versus women’s negative communication seemed to varyin this study. Women reported a decline in negative communication with their co-parent frompre- to postassessment, and this general decline was maintained at follow-up. However, mendemonstrated a slight increase in negative communication and then a return to baseline (orpreintervention) functioning. Perhaps the communication skills training built into the WTP ismore effective for women than for men, especially in the short run. Men may need more timeto integrate the material to make changes in their communication styles or may need moretraining or practice than is provided in the WTP. Future studies should continue to explorewhether men and women react differently to co-parenting interventions like WTP; replicationof this finding is necessary before any steadfast conclusions can be drawn.

Limitations and Directions for Future ResearchThe merits of this study should be understood in the context of its limitations. First, this

study was not a randomized, controlled trial. It provides evidence of changes over time follow-ing an intervention, but without a control group, we cannot assume that these changes aresolely attributable to the intervention. Second, the small sample size, coupled with the fact that30% of the participants’ co-parents did not participate in the WTP, limited our ability to testhow having both co-parents attend the same program could improve the co-parenting relation-ship. In the future, randomized studies could test the ways that co-parents influence each otherdirectly. Similarly, the intervention was conducted in groups; however, consistent with previousresearch (e.g., Cookston et al., 2004; Kramer et al., 1998), we analyzed the data at the individ-ual level. The small number of groups in our study limited our ability to analyze the effects atthe group level in a meaningful way. Future research should explore the influence of groupprocess. Doing so would require an increase in the number of co-parents and the number ofgroups (see Baldwin, Stice, & Rohde, 2008). The small sample size also limited statistical powerfor detecting gender by time interactions. Yet, there was some evidence that gender may moder-ate effectiveness of the WTP, so future studies may wish to address this issue.

Third, our sample was primarily Caucasian, which makes inferences to other racial ⁄ ethnicgroups limited. Fourth, all of the measures were self-report. We are not aware of any studiesthat have employed a multimethod approach. Including observational coding and children’sown reports of conflict would greatly extend the existing findings. Fifth, while our follow-upresponse rate was larger than other studies (e.g., Kramer et al., 1998), a larger sample andlonger-term follow-up data would be useful in future research.

Implications for Clinical PracticeThis study provides preliminary support for co-parenting interventions targeting high-con-

flict co-parents. Below, we highlight several implications for clinical practice that are based onboth the current findings as well as on the personal experience in conducting the WTP withthese groups. First, given the high-conflict nature of the couples, it is vital to consider the logis-tical or structural components relevant to starting a co-parenting intervention. While it mayseem intuitive for separated co-parents to enter and be engaged in the treatment as a couple,we have found that the general level of conflict as well as the external and legal constraints(e.g., restraining orders) make combining co-parents in the same group infeasible, unproductive,and potentially unsafe. Further, co-parenting and family-based interventions focused on justone co-parent have been shown to be beneficial (e.g., Cookston et al., 2004; Szapocnik et al.,1986). Thus, we recommend that at least two groups are formed so that co-parents canattend separately. We utilized mixed-gender groups and, based on our experience and clientfeedback, this design allowed for different perspectives to be discussed. It also helped groups toavoid ‘‘bashing’’ the other gender. Another structural component to consider is how the inter-vention related to the legal proceedings. Group leaders should take steps to clarify with the


judicial system and with participants that the purpose of the intervention is to promote positiveco-parenting and that client disclosures will not be used in legal proceedings. The interventionshould be therapeutic and educational; it should not be used to determine suitability of parent-ing abilities.

Second, to maximize the benefits of the group format, leaders should make attempts tonormalize the experience and promote healthy group norms (see Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). Forinstance, we initiated the first session with a discussion about difficulties participants werehaving with their co-parenting arrangements to promote group cohesion and universality.However, the leaders balanced the discussion with pro-social co-parenting such that the groupdid not focus completely on venting about problems. Leaders can introduce psychoeducation-al material within such a discussion. In the WTP, we introduced the topic of triangulationearly in the sessions, as it was easy for co-parents to identify these relational dynamics intheir own situations. Further, the group members were encouraged to provide feedback toeach other about how they cope with similar situations. For example, group members wereable to generate new solutions to communicating with their co-parent (e.g., keeping a journalthat is passed back and forth between co-parents) that proved to be valuable for other groupmembers.

Third, we utilized a variety of methods to engage participants, including discussion, somevery brief lectures, videos, and several action-oriented activities (e.g., drawings, sculptures).From our clinical observations and client feedback, these strategies enabled some people tomore freely share their perspectives. For instance, to illustrate how their children perceiveloyalty conflicts between their co-parents, participants drew pictures of their own situations andgroup members and therapists provided ideas to promote new ways of dealing with the difficultinteractions. These interventions also enabled participants to reflect on their children’s perspec-tive, a focus that can be overlooked when parents are going through child custody disputes(Wolchik et al., 2002).

Lastly, it is important to recognize the personal and societal pressures that can influenceco-parents, ways of coping. Many of the co-parents reported that they feel ashamed to be goingthrough the court system, and others reflected that the separation has impacted their financialresources. For instance, some of our co-parents endorsed text messaging as a viable way tocommunicate with their co-parent; however, some participants were unable to afford cellphones. Nonetheless, leaders and other group members can help normalize these realities andseek alternative approaches to cope with problems.

Ultimately, high-conflict co-parents can benefit from group-based interventions aimed atimproving their relationship with their co-parent and at reducing their negative communication,especially in the presence of their children. Although some co-parents may need furtherassistance and potentially more intensive services (e.g., mediation, parent coordinators), thisstudy suggests that even highly contentious co-parents can learn new skills in a relatively briefprogram that promotes healthier interactions.

REFERENCES

Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62,

1269–1287.

Amato, P. R., & Cheadle, J. (2005). The long reach of divorce: Divorce and child well-being across three genera-

tions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 191–206.

Arbuthnot, J., & Gordon, D. A. (1996). Does mandatory divorce education for parents work? A six-month out-

come evaluation. Conciliation Courts Review, 34, 60–81.

Arbuthnot, J., Poole, C. J., & Gordon, D. A. (1996). Use of educational materials to modify stressful behaviors

in post-divorce parenting. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 25, 117–137.

Baldwin, S. A., Stice, E., & Rohde, P. (2008). Statistical analysis of group-administered intervention data:

Reanalysis of two randomized trials. Psychotherapy Research, 18, 365–376.

Becker, B. J. (1988). Synthesizing standardized mean-change measures. British Journal of Mathematical and Sta-

tistical Psychology, 41, 257–278.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.


Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States

(No. 23). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Bumpass, L. L., & Lu, H. H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the

United States. Population Studies, 54(1), 29–41.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

Cookston, J. T., Braver, S. L., Griffin, W. A., De Luse, S. R., & Miles, J. C. (2007). Effects of the Dads for Life

intervention on interparental conflict and coparenting in the years after divorce. Family Process, 46, 123–137.

Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothe-

sis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387–411.

Devilin, A. S., Brown, E. H., Beebe, J., & Parulis, E. (1992). Parent education for divorced fathers. Family Rela-

tions, 41, 290–296.

Douglas, E. M. (2004). The effectiveness of a divorce education program on father involvement. Journal of

Divorce and Remarriage, 40, 91–101.

Fincham, F. D. (2003). Marital conflict: Correlates, structure and context. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 12, 23–27.

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (1999). Marital conflict: Implications for working with couples. Annual Review of

Psychology, 50, 47–77.

Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (1999). Parenting through change: An effective prevention program for sin-

gle mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 711–724.

Gomulak-Cavicchio, B. M., Davies, P. T., & Cummings, M. E. (2006). The role of maternal communication pat-

terns about interparental disputes in association between interparental conflict and child psychological mal-

adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 757–771.

Goodman, M., Bonds, D., Sandler, I., & Braver, S. (2004). Parent psychoeducational programs and reducing the

negative effects of interparental conflict following divorce. Family Court Review, 42, 263–279.

Grych, J. H. (1998). Children’s appraisal of interparental conflict: Situational and contextual influences. Journal

of Family Psychology, 12, 437–453.

Grych, J. H. (2005). Interparental conflict as a risk factor for child maladjustment: Implications for the develop-

ment of prevention programs. Family Court Review, 43, 97–108.

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual frame-

work. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267–290.

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1999). The adjustment of children from divorced families: Implications of

empirical research for clinical intervention. In R. M. Galatzer-Levy & L. Kraus (Eds.), The scientific basis of

child custody decisions (pp. 96–119). New York: Wiley.

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2001). Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and applica-

tions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kelly, J. B. (2004). Family mediation research: Is there support for the field? Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22, 3–

35.

Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. (2003). Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives.

Family Relations, 52, 352–362.

Kerig, P. K., Fedorowicz, A. E., Brown, C. A., Patenaude, R. L., & Warren, M. (1999). When warriors are

worriers: Gender and children’s coping with interparental violence. Journal of Emotional Abuse: Interventions,

Research & Theories of Psychological Maltreatment, Trauma & Nonphysical Aggression, 1, 89–114.

Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Olmos-Gallo, P. A., St. Peters, M., Whitton, S. W., et al. (2004).

Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of

Family Psychology, 18, 311–318.

Kramer, K. M., Arbuthnot, J., Gordon, D. A., Rousis, N. J., & Hoza, J. (1998). Effects of skill-based versus

information-based divorce education programs on domestic violence and parental communication. Family &

Conciliation Courts Review, 36, 9–31.

Kramer, L., & Washo, C. A. (1993). Evaluation of a court-mandated prevention program for divorcing parents:

The Children First program. Family Relations, 42, 179–186.

Lebow, J., & Rekart, K. N. (2007). Integrative family therapy for high-conflict divorce with disputes over child

custody and visitation. Family Process, 46, 79–91.

Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Markman, H. J., Stanley, S. M., & Blumberg, S. (2001). Fighting for your marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mazur, E., Wolchik, S. A., & Sandler, I. N. (1992). Negative cognitive errors and positive illusions for negative

divorce events: Prediction of children’s psychological adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20,

523–542.

McKenry, P. C., Clark, K. A., & Stone, G. (1999). Evaluation of a parent education program for divorcing par-

ents. Family Relations, 48, 129–137.


Minuchin, S., & Fishman, H. C. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect sizes estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures

and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7, 105–125.

Pinsof, W. M., Zinbarg, R., Lebow, J., Knobloch-Fedders, L. M., Durbin, C. E., Chambers, A., et al. (2009).

Laying the foundation for progress research in family, couple, and individual therapy: The development and

psychometric features of the initial Systemic Therapy Inventory of Change. Psychotherapy Research, 19,

143–156.

Porter, B., & O’Leary, K. D. (1980). Marital discord and childhood behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal

Child Psychology, 8, 287–295.

Pruett, M. K., & Hoganbruen, K. (1998). Joint custody and shared parenting: Research and interventions. Child

and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 7, 273–294.

Pruett, M. K., Insabella, G. M., & Gustafson, K. (2005). The collaborative divorce project: A court-based inter-

vention for separating parents with young children. Family Court Review, 43, 38–51.

Pruett, M. K., & Johnston, J. R. (2004). Therapeutic mediation with high-conflict parents: Effective models and

strategies. In J. Folberg, A. Milne & P. Salem (Eds), Divorce and family mediation: Models, techniques, and

applications (pp. 92–111). New York: Guilford.

Pruett, M. K., Willimans, T. Y., Insabella, G., & Little, T. D. (2003). Family and legal indicators of child adjust-

ment to divorce among families with young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 169–180.

Roseby, V., & Johnston, J. R. (1995). Clinical interventions with latency-age children of high conflict and vio-

lence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 48–59.

Sbarra, D. A., & Emery, R. E. (2005). Coparenting conflict, nonacceptance, and depression among divorced

adults: Results from a 12-year follow-up study of child custody mediation using multiple imputation. Ameri-

can Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 63–75.

Shifflett, K., & Cummings, E. M. (1999). A program for educating parents about the effects of divorce and con-

flict on children: An initial evaluation. Family Relations, 48, 79–89.

Shifflett-Simpson, K., & Cummings, E. M. (1996). Mixed message resolution and children’s responses to inter-

adult conflict. Child Development, 67, 437–448.

Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1997). Marriage in the 90s: A nationwide random phone survey. Denver, CO:

PREP.

Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Prado, L. M., Olmos-Gallo, P. A., Tonelli, L., St. Peters, M., et al. (2001).

Community-based premarital prevention: Clergy and lay leaders on the front lines. Family Relations, 50(1),

67–76.

Szapocnik, J., Hervis, O., & Schwartz, S. (2003). Brief strategic family therapy for adolescent drug abuse: Therapy

manuals for drug addiction. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Health.

Szapocnik, J., Kurtines, W. M., Foote, F., Perez-Vidal, A., & Hervis, O. E. (1986). Conjoint versus one person

family therapy: Further evidence for the effectiveness of conducting family therapy through one person.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 395–397.

Waite, L. J., Browning, D., Doherty, W. J., Gallagher, M., Luo, Y., & Stanley, S. M. (2002). Does divorce make

people happy? Findings from a study of unhappy marriages. New York: Institute for American Values.

Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., Millsap, R. E., Plummer, B. A., Greene, S. M., Anderson, E. R., et al. (2002). Six-

year follow-up of preventive interventions for children of divorce: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of

the American Medical Association, 288, 1874–1881.

Wolchik, S. A., West, S. G., Sandler, I., Tein, J., Coatsworth, D., Lengua, L., et al. (2000). An experimental eval-

uation of theory-based mother and mother-child programs for children of divorce. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 68, 843–856.

Wolchik, S. A., West, S. G., Westover, S., Sandler, I. N., Martin, A., Lustig, J., et al. (1993). The children of

divorce parenting intervention: Outcome evaluation of an empirically based program. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 68, 293–331.

Yalom, I. D., & Leszcz, M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.). New York: Basic

Books.

NOTES

1The data structure for this study is quite complex, since some (but not all) co-parentsboth completed the intervention and measures. Thus, their scores could be influenced by theirco-parents, which is problematic as there were known dependencies in the data. Further, theindividuals were in groups, which also created potential dependencies in their scores. However,given the small sample, the limited number of groups, and the lack of consistency of pairs ofco-parents, we treated each score independently. We did not find any significant differences


between the three groups on any of the outcome measures or group · time interactions(ps > .05). For those co-parents whose partner was in the program (n = 7 dyads for pre–post-assessment and 4 dyads for follow-up assessment), the correlations for relationship adjustmentwere rs= .25, .23, .87; for confidence were rs = ).14, ).23, .04; for negative communicationwere rs = .72, .28, .92; and for overt hostility were rs = .62, .48, .92 for pre–post–follow-upassessments, respectively. All of the correlations were not statistically significant, but the smallsample size influenced the power of these analyses.

2The pre–post results for all 20 participants were similar to the results for pre–post–follow-up analyses. The pre–post results for relationship adjustment demonstrated a significant maineffect of time, F(1, 18) = 8.74, p = .008. There was no significant main effect of gender, F(1,18) = .12, p = .74, and no significant interaction between time and gender, F(1, 18) = .001,p = .97. For confidence, there was a significant main effect for time, F(1, 18) = 12.53,p = .002, but no significant main effect for gender, F(1, 18) = .21, p = .65, and no significantinteraction for time by gender, F(1, 18) = .26, p = .62. For overt hostility, there was a signifi-cant main effect of time, F(1, 18) = 9.49, p = .006. There was no significant interaction effectfor time by gender, F(1, 18) = 4.05, p = .06; however, it was nearing significance. There wasnot a significant main effect of gender, F(1, 18) = .60, p = .45. The results for negativecommunication showed no significant main effect for time, F(1, 18) = 1.79, p = .20; however,there was a significant interaction effect for time by gender, F(1, 18) = 4.84, p = .04.Women reported a significant decrease in their negative communication, whereas men’s negativecommunication increased slightly from pre to post. There was no significant main effect ofgender, F(1, 18) = .01, p = .93.


reducing interparental conflict among parents in contentious child custody disputes: an initial...

Documents