_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fam Proc 36:183-201, 1997

Overt and Covert Coparenting Processes in the Family

JAMES P. McHALE, Ph.D.a
aAddress correspondence to James P. McHale, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Clark University, 950 Main Street,

Worcester MA 01610; e-mail: jmchale@vax.clarku.edu.

This article introduces a new self-report instrument designed to measure the frequency of parental behaviors thought
to promote or undermine children's sense of family. Members of 103 married couples rated their behavior in both public
(all family members present) and private (alone with child) contexts. Factor analyses of these data revealed four distinct
factors indexing: behaviors in the service of promoting a sense of Family Integrity; largely covert parent-to-child
communications undermining, or conveying Disparagement of, the coparental partner; overt interparental Conflict in the
presence of the child; and coparental disciplinary activities (Reprimand). Significant husband-wife correlations were
found on each of the four individual subscales. Construct-specific intercorrelations also obtained between like scales on
the new measure and on the Family Environment Scale and Quality of Coparenting Scale. Cluster analyses of husbands'
and wives' scores on the four Coparenting Scale factors suggested five "types" of coparenting families: Disconnected,
Supportive, Average, Distressed-Conflicted, and Passionate. These clusters, along with the value of self-report
instruments in assessing coparenting behaviors that may be largely clandestine in nature, are discussed.
Traditionally, studies of early family socialization processes have focused primarily on the relational dynamics of marital
and parent-child subsystems. However, recent evidence has suggested the value in conceptualizing coparenting dynamics
as forces within families that may be at least partially distinct from marital and parent-child relationships (Belsky, Crnic,
& Gable, 1995; McHale, 1995). In this and other recent work examining family process in nonclinical samples, there has
been a trend away from self-report and toward observational measures of family dynamics. Yet, despite the myriad
difficulties that subjective measures pose (Olson, McCubbin, Barnes, et al., 1983), subjective data continue to provide
important "insiders' views" of significant family dynamics (Weiss & Margolin, 1977), and may hold particular value in
cases where certain family processes are not accessible from observational data. This may be especially so in the case of
certain coparenting processes that occur at low base-rates when families are under scrutiny by researchers.
Coparenting is an intuitively understood, but not always well-defined, construct in family research. The term itself
generally refers to the supportive alliance between adults raising children. Though many family theorists (for example,
Haley, 1976; Lidz, 1963; Minuchin, 1974; Satir, 1972) underscore the significance of the coparental unit in organizing
family members' orientation toward life and relationship, until recently most empirical investigation of coparental
relationships has centered on coparenting in divorced families (Ahrons, 1981; Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1991;
Maccoby, Depner, & Mnookin, 1990). When studied in samples involving intact families, it has usually been measured
either via self-report assessments of parenting similarities, differences, or disagreements (Block, Block, & Morrison, 1981;
Floyd & Zmich, 1991; Jouriles, Murphy, Farris, et al., 1991), or through observational assessments of similarities in
parenting style (Russell & Russell, 1994), or of support, undermining, competitiveness, or mutual involvement during
family-child interaction (Belsky et al., 1995; McHale, 1995).
Although many of these new approaches to assessing coparental dynamics have succeeded in measuring conflict or
support between co-caregivers, they have also been limited in at least two important respects. First, researchers who use
self-report measures to index differences in child-rearing ideology or parenting disagreements do not always specify how
such differences come to affect children's sense of family. It is often implied that the channel of influence is through
child-entangling disputes about parenting, or through markedly different parenting stances signalling the lack of a unified
parental view, but this is seldom made explicit. And, while it is certainly quite plausible that self-report measures of
parenting differences serve as a proxy for child-related disputes and disparate parenting stances, there are other more direct
means through which parenting conflict may be channeled in families. If parents are viewed as transformers of family
process, then direct parent-to-child communications about the integrity of the family or the coparental unit may be the most
important influences of all, mitigating or amplifying the differences in parenting ideology that are captured by
paper-and-pencil measures.
A second limitation in previous work has been the overemphasis on conflict in the husband-wife dyad, and neglect of
more positive, affirming interspousal processes (Emery, 1992). Although optimal family functioning is difficult to define,
such functioning might reasonably be expected to involve not only the absence of disagreement, but also the presence of
activities that strengthen parental and family bonds. Along these lines, findings from one recent study, which
factor-analyzed interparental behavior during family interaction, support the notion that hostile and competitive coparenting
behaviors may constitute a separate factor from family warmth and interparental cooperation (McHale, 1995). Yet, despite
the potential, theoretical significance of interparental warmth, positivity, and affirmation, many studies target the "work" of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

coparenting, such as backing up the parental partner's directives to the child, as their primary index of positive coparenting.
While such activities certainly reflect a commitment to sharing the concrete tasks of parenting, they do not in and of
themselves signify a proactive commitment to promoting, affirming, or celebrating a positive sense of family. Families
regularly engaging in such proactive activities would provide a markedly different social context for their members than
families in which conflict was low and support for parenting tasks adequate, but affirming activities absent. In the family
literature, Olson's family construct of cohesion (Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985; Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979), which
specifies respondents' perceptions of family closeness and togetherness, comes closest to sampling this facet of family life.
However, as measured in FACES-III (Olson et al., 1985), the cohesion construct reflects family members' perceptions of
familial unity but not the specific communicative messages within families that may be partially responsible for creating
this subjective sense of unity.
If direct parent-to-child communications are important in shaping individual family members' perceptions of coparenting
or family, what types of communications might hold the most salient meaning? Based on the above considerations, direct
talk between each parent and child about the family unit or about the child's other parent may hold special and unique
significance, crystallizing or, in some cases, contradicting that which the child learns from actual family commerce. In
families where parents demonstrate affirmation both toward their children and toward one another when the family is
together, and talk positively about the family unit and the child's other parent when that parent is absent, children have an
opportunity to develop a consistent and positive view of the coparental unit and of the family that transcends situations and
time (see also Hess & Handel, 1967; Sabatelli & Bartle, 1995). Conversely, when parents dedicate the time they spend
with the child to focusing exclusively on their own relationship with the child, make no mention of the child's other parent
in that parent's absence, or speak disparagingly of their marital partner or co-caregiver to the child, the child's sense of
family and confidence in the "executive subsystem" may be placed on much shakier ground.
These parent-to-child communications about the family and about the child's other parent have largely been ignored in
empirical study. Although several recent observational studies have examined nattering and verbal sparring between
parents in front of children (for example, Belsky et al., 1995; Boyum & Parke, 1995; Cummings & Davies, 1994; Davis,
Alpert, Hops, & Andrews, 1995; Katz & Gottman, 1993; McHale, 1993; McHale & Johnson, 1995), few studies have
attempted to assess parents' spontaneously occurring conversations with their children about the family or the absent
coparental partner during times when the parent is alone with the child. The one study that has taken this issue as its
principle focus (McHale & King, 1996a) found that remarks about the absent partnerwhether positive or
negativeoccur at a very low base-rate during direct observations of parent-child interaction.
Whether this low base-rate signifies that parents rarely speak negatively about their partners to their children, or simply
that parents are unlikely to do so in the presence of others, remains unclear. Quite possibly, the relative infrequency of such
communications in observational studies of parenting may be due to the fact that such behaviorparticularly when it
involves negative or disparaging content about the coparentis clandestine by nature. Parents who berate their partners in
front of children, such as embittered parents involved in a custody dispute, may use opportunities when they are alone with
children to deliver negative messages, while remaining neutral when family members are physically together. Maccoby has
discussed the negative effects of such disparagement of the coparent on children of divorce (see Buchanan et al., 1991;
Maccoby et al., 1990). If the delivery of negative messages about the child's other parent takes place largely in private, it
should not be surprising that few instances of such behavior are recorded when parents are interacting together with their
children in front of researchers' cameras. Whether parents would acknowledge engaging in such behavior on a more
"private" self-report instrument is not yet known.
Based on previous work with divorced families, it might be anticipated that the quality of parents' direct communications
with their children about the coparental or family unit would vary as a function of marital satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
However, to date, there are no empirical data that address this issue. There are also no empirical data that can speak to the
question of whether such parent-to-child communications about coparenting should be viewed as conceptually distinct, or
at least partially independent from more traditional measures of intrafamilial distress, which tend to involve overt conflict
rather than covert behavior.
To address these issues, a new measure assessing parents' views of their own coparental activities within the family was
developed. This instrument differs from many of the major self-report measures of family functioning used in research with
families (see Bloom, 1985; Bloom & Naar, 1994), in that parents are not asked to characterize the family as a unit, but
rather to rate their own behaviors. The behaviors sampled are seen as communications, either direct or indirect, concerning
the coparental subsystem or the family unit. Categories of behavior included in the questionnaire (see Appendix) concern
the respondent's interactions with partner and child when all family members are physically present (public, or "overt"
coparenting behavior), and communications with the child about family and coparenting when no other family members are
present (private, or "covert" coparenting behavior). It was hypothesized that reported activities carried out in these two
distinctly different contexts would be at least partially independent from one another and, hence, would cluster separately
following factor analysis. It was also hypothesized that covert, disparaging communications to the child about the absent

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

coparent would constitute a distinct factor, separate not only from parental activities (be they overt or covert) directed
toward strengthening the child's sense of family, but also from activities involving overt parental conflict.
This hypothesisthat negative, covert parent-to-child communications should constitute a factor separate from
intraparental conflictrests on the assumption that this facet of family process reflects a distinct family domain that can
exist just as easily in families low in overt conflict as in families where overt conflict is high. To determine whether covert
"disparagement" is a free-standing construct or whether it is tied to more general family or coparental conflict, as indexed
by other existing instruments, study participants also completed both the Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos, 1974)
and the Quality of Coparenting Scale (Ahrons, 1981). Both of these measures include subscales assessing overt
conflict"family" conflict in the case of the FES; "coparental" conflict on Ahrons' subscale. It was hypothesized that while
the "overt" conflict items on the newly developed Coparenting Scale (see Appendix) would show significant associations
with the FES and Ahrons' Conflict subscales, the items reflecting covert disparagement of the absent partner would not.
Finally, to determine whether the various aspects of coparental and family process represented in the Coparenting Scale
varied as a function of perceived marital quality, participants reported on their marital satisfaction. Previous research has
revealed clear links between marital dissatisfaction and adults' perceptions of greater family conflict, though little is known
about whether maritally dissatisfied adults also perceive that they engage in fewer positive, affirmative communications
about coparenting and family than do adults content in their marriages. It is also unclear whether adults who acknowledge
making more frequent disparaging comments to children about the child's other parent feel more dissatisfied in their
marriages than do parents who engage in this behavior less frequently. To address these questions, links between the
reported marital satisfaction of study participants and their perceptions of intrafamily communications concerning the
coparental and family units were examined.
These analyses were planned to provide preliminary data concerning the concurrent and construct validity of the various
scales. However, because the theory of coparenting outlined in this article conceptualizes coparenting activity within
families as a multidimensional phenomenon, additional classification procedures were needed to identify and describe
distinct patterns of coparenting. Hence, cluster analytic procedures were used to derive family types based on partners'
perceptions of their behavior along the various dimensions of coparenting process captured by the new scale. Previous
empirical typologies have attempted to classify marriages by a variety of relationship variables. The major objective of the
cluster analyses in the current study was to describe profiles of coparenting behavior within families along multiple
dimensions of overt and covert coparenting activity. While the family "types" suggested by these analyses can be considered
only a descriptive heuristic, given the limited sample size of this study, the availability of the independently measured
marital satisfaction scores as validating items permit an initial, clinically relevant check on the utility of the profiles.

METHOD
Participants
One-hundred three families with a preschool child between the ages of 3 and 5 were recruited through contacts with
preschool and daycare center directors in a large metropolitan city. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 49. The mean age
for fathers (N = 96) was 35, and the mean age for mothers (N = 102) was 31. Ninety-two percent of participants were
Anglo-American, and 8% were African American, Asian American, or Hispanic. Respondents were largely from middle- to
upper-middle-class households, with mean family income falling in the $40-60,000 range in 1994 U.S. dollars.

Procedure
All preschool and daycare center directors within a 30-mile radius were notified about the study by letter and a followup
phone call. Directors who indicated an interest in serving as liaisons to families distributed a packet of two questionnaire
booklets to qualifying (two-parent) families at their centers. Families who decided to contribute to the study completed
booklets at home and returned them to drop-boxes placed in the various preschool centers. Fifty-five percent of the eligible
families given booklets by teachers or daycaregivers completed and returned them.

Measures
The Coparenting Scale: This 16-item scale was designed to assess parents' perceptions of the frequency with which they
engage in several activities related to coparenting and to promoting a sense of family. Respondents complete the scale with
reference to an identified "target" child in the family; in this study, the 3 to 5-year-old. Items for the scale were developed
based on several considerations. First, the activities chosen each involved the child and had reference to either the parental
or family unit. For example, complimenting or praising one's coparenting partner in the presence of the child, or one's child
in the presence of the coparent, were each items included in the scale; praising one's partner in private (thought to be more
a function of the marital subsystem) or one's child in private (the parent-child subsystem) were not. Second, behaviors of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

both positive valence (interparental affection in the company of the child; inviting the coparental partner to join in a family
activity with the child) and negative valence (interparental conflict) were included. Finally, both public or "overt"
coparental behaviors (activities occurring when all family members are actively together (at home, in the car, on a trip), and
private or "covert" behaviors (communications about the family that occur between parent and child when the two are alone
together) were included in the scale.
The scale is presented as two distinct sets of questions (11 items involving overt, family-level behavior, followed by 5
items depicting covert, one-to-one activities). Following a rationale outlined by Strauss (1979) in his discussion of
self-report scales measuring sensitive content, items within each of these two sections (overt and covert) move from
descriptions of more positive and affirming behaviors, through somewhat negatively tinged activities, and finally to actions
that clearly have a negative feel. Respondents are asked to endorse, on a scale of 1 to 7 (where 1 is "absolutely never" and 7
is "almost constantlyat least once an hour"), how frequently they engage in each of the activities described. To help
respondents envision the behavior being described, stick figure drawings of adult(s) and child are located next to each item
to reinforce that the question is asking about activity that takes place when both parents are together with the child, or about
communications that occur when the respondent is alone with the child. A complete listing of the 16 items included in the
Coparenting Scale, along with the means and standard deviations for each item in the current sample, can be found in Table
1.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Coparenting Scale Items
Men
Scale Items

Women

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Physical affection to child

6.2

.62

6.4

.59

Physical affection to partner

5.6

.90

5.5

.89

Verbal affirmation of child

5.9

.74

5.8

.65

Verbal affirmation of partner

4.8

1.00

4.8

.88

Inviting partner to join in

5.5

.87

5.7

.72

Disciplining the child

5.4

.82

5.7

.76

Asking partner to discipline

3.8

1.22

4.1

1.28

Taking back seat in discipline

4.4

1.10

4.3

1.12

Undoing partner's discipline

2.4

.90

2.5

.96

Tense interchange with partner

3.9

1.09

3.5

1.12

Arguing with partner

3.2

1.14

3.1

1.10

Behavior in the family triad or group

Behavior when alone with the child

Invoking the absent parent

5.1

1.06

5.5

1.00

Affirming the absent parent

4.7

1.07

5.1

.86

Invoking the family unit

5.2

.91

5.7

.67

Creating negative feeling about absent parent

2.9

1.08

3.1

1.16

Criticizing absent parent

1.7

.86

1.8

.85

Marital Adjustment Test (MAT; Locke & Wallace, 1959): The 15-item MAT provides an index of the couple's overall
level of satisfaction with the marriage. It is one of the most widely used measures of marital functioning and has
well-documented reliability and validity (see Gottman, Markman, & Notarius, 1977).
Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos, 1974): The FES is a 90-item, true-false questionnaire with 10 subscales
designed to measure the social and environmental characteristics of families. For the purposes of this study, the Conflict
subscale, which includes items gauging openly expressed anger, aggression, and conflict; and the Cohesion scale, which
includes items measuring the commitment, help, and support family members provide one another, were used. Internal
consistency reliability estimates for the Conflict and Cohesion scales are .71 and .78, respectively; test-retest reliabilities for
8 weeks are .85 and .86 (Moos, 1974).
Quality of Coparenting Scale (Ahrons, 1981): Originally developed to assess the continuing coparental relationship
among divorced spouses, this scale has recently been adapted for use with intact families. A 5-point Likert-type format is
used to indicate frequency of agreement (ranging from never to always) on parenting issues. Two subscalesCoparenting
4

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Support and Coparenting Conflictwere used in this study. Coparenting Support includes items such as, "When you need
help with this child, how often do you go to your partner for help?" The Coparenting Conflict scale includes items such as,
"Do you and your spouse have big differences of opinion as to how to raise your child?" Estimates of internal consistency
have been reported as ranging from .55 to .68 (Brody, Stoneman, Flor, & McCrary, 1994).

RESULTS
Analyses
Factor Analysis of the Coparenting Scale: Given the relatively limited number of families in the normative sample,
factor analyses were conducted in two stages. In stage one, a principal components factor analysis with orthogonal rotation
(varimax method) was conducted, using the data from all 198 respondents in the study. This analysis yielded four
interpretable factors with eigenvalues greater than one; the four-factor solution is described below. However, due to the
non-independence of husband and wife data, and in order to establish whether the results of the analyses could be
replicated, a followup set of factor analyses was conducted in stage two. This second set of analyses treated wives' and
husbands' data separately, again using the 16 Coparenting Scale items in factor analyses with principal components
extraction and varimax rotation.
In the analyses in which all 198 participants' data were used, the four-factor solution accounted for 61% of the variance
in scores. Factor 1, which included items reflecting active parental attempts at promoting a sense of togetherness among
family members, was labeled Family Integrity. Although this factor was constituted primarily of items reflecting overt,
public behavior, it also included two related covert items. The items with high factor loadings on this scale were "affection
to child in the triad" (.63); "affection to partner in the triad" (.61); "affirmation of child in the triad" (.78); "affirmation of
partner in the triad" (.72); "inclusion of parent in family activity" (.66); and two covert items"invoking absent parent
when alone with child" (.66) and "affirming the absent parent" (.68).
Factor 2, which included the two covert items dealing with disparagement of the absent partner: "invoking mildly
negative image of parent" (.79), and "derogating absent parent" (.82); and a third, overt activity: "undoing the partner's
discipline" (.69), was named Disparagement because the items with high factor loadings appeared to reflect active
disparagement of the coparent and undermining of his or her authority or credibility. Factor 3, which included the two items
reflecting overt interparental disagreement or conflict in the child's presence: "engaging in disagreement or sarcastic
exchange in front of child" (.84), and "arguing in front of child" (.81), was named Conflict.
A final factor contained three items relating to discipline, and one item that referred to making comments in support of
the family when alone with the child. Items loading high on this scale were "reprimanding child" (.75), "asking partner to
reprimand" (.76), and "invoking the family unit" (.58). The item "taking a back seat while partner reprimands" also loaded
highest on this scale (.43). Because Factor 4 primarily contained items indicating parental limit-setting, it was named
Reprimand.
When the analyses were conducted separately for men and women, there was substantial replication of the primary
factors for both groups of respondents (see Table 2). For women, the rotated solution replicated exactly, yielding the same
four factors. Very similar results obtained for men, though this set of analyses suggested a five- rather than four-factor
solution. The difference between the men's and women's analyses was that three "covert" items, which had high loadings on
either Factor 1 ("invoking absent parent when alone with child" and "affirming the absent parent") or Factor 4 ("invoking
the family unit") in the analyses of women's data, loaded highest on an independent Factor 5 in the analyses of men's data
(though these same three items also had secondary loadings on Factors 1 and 4 among the men; see Table 2). These results
suggest that while there was substantial replication of the primary factors across both male and female respondents, men
tended to make a greater distinction between overt and covert support than did women.

Item

Table 2
Factor Loadings of Coparenting Scale Items for Men and Women
Fac 1
Fac 2
Fac 3

Verbal affirmation of child

.81 (.75)

Verbal affirmation of partner

.57 (.73)

Inviting partner to join in

.64 (.71)

Affirming the absent parent

.33 (.76)

Invoking the absent parent

.31 (.77)

Physical affection to child

.79 (.50)

Physical affection to partner

.69 (.52)

Fac 4

Fac 5
.40

-.31
(.33)
.69
(.35)

.76
(.30)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cause neg. feeling-absent parent

.70 (.85)

Criticizing absent parent

.83 (.85)

Undoing partner's discipline

.77 (.57)

(.33)

.46

.81 (.84)

Tense interchange with partner

Arguing with partner

.82 (.80)

Disciplining the child

(.30)

-.43

.62 (.76)

Asking partner to discipline

.78 (.76)

Taking back seat in discipline

Invoking the family unit

.43 (.38)

.64 (.74)

(.46)

.31 (.45)

.72

Note: Women's data are in parentheses. Boldface numbers signify item makeup of factors in whole sample analyses. Fac 1 = Family
Integrity; Fac 2 = Disparagement; Fac 3 = Conflict; Fac 4 = Reprimand.

For ease of interpretation, the four-factor solution that obtained for the full sample is used for both men and women in the
analyses reported below.1 Scale scores for each of the four factors were formed by summing raw scores for the variables
loading high on each. Internal consistency estimates for the four derived scales (alpha reliabilities) were .82 (Family
Integrity), .74 (Disparagement), .79 (Conflict), and .59 (Reprimand).
Correspondence between Partner Reports of Coparental Behavior: To ascertain whether partners entertained similar
views of their coparental behavior in the family, intercorrelations between partner scale scores on each of the four derived
scales were examined. Because three of the four scales were principally concerned with the respondent's view of his or her
own activities, whether in the family group (Family Integrity, Reprimand), or when alone with the child (Disparagement),
and not with mutual interparental behavior per se, only modest correlations were expected to exist between partner scores
on these three scales. Conversely, partner scores on the Conflict scale, which reflected behavior necessarily involving both
respondents, were expected to show a higher intercorrelation. This correlation, between two respondents reporting on the
same family phenomenon, would constitute partial support for the validity of the Conflict scale.
Intercorrelations among men's and women's scores on the four derived subscales are presented in Table 3. As can be
seen from Table 3, husband's perceptions of their coparental behavior as reflected in each of the four scales correlated
significantly with wives' perceptions of their own coparental behavior on like scales. While there were also a few cases
where significant between-construct correlations obtained across respondents, these were the exception rather than the rule.
Also of significance, and in line with expectations, husband and wife reports of interparental Conflict showed the highest
intercorrelation among the four scales, suggesting that partners in the same family were perceiving the frequency of their
coparental conflicts similarly.
Table 3
Intercorrelations among Partner Scores on Coparenting Scale-derived Scales
Mothers
Fathers
Integrity

Integrity

Disparagement

Conflict

Reprimand

.55**

-.09

-.12

.28**

-.11

.21*

.25*

.10

Conflict

.01

.03

.56**

.15

Reprimand

.25*

.14

.05

.31**

Disparagement

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

Relationships with Family Environment Scale Subscales: The analyses reported in this section examine
interrelationships between the four derived subscales of the Coparenting Scale, and two related subscales of the
FESConflict and Cohesion. To the extent that the constructs assessed by the Coparenting Scale reflect dimensions of
family life similar to those captured by the FES, there should be significant relationships between like scales (Family
Integrity and Cohesion; Conflict and Conflict) across the two instruments. Further, to the extent that the Disparagement
construct reflects a separate family process, distinct from overt conflict, this subscale should show little association with the
FES subscales.
Correlations between the Coparenting Scale and FES subscales are reported in Table 4. As can be seen from Table 4,
significant correlations were obtained between like scales of the Coparenting Scale and FES for both men and women.
High Conflict scores on the Coparenting Scale correlated .49 with FES Conflict for both men and women, while also
showing a modest negative correlation with high FES Cohesion. Further, high Family Integrity scores on the Coparenting

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Scale were positively correlated with high FES Cohesion for both men and women.
Table 4
Correlations between Subscales of the Coparenting Scale and Related FES and Ahrons' Measures
Subscales
FES Cohesion
FES Conflict
Ahrons Conflict
Ahrons Support
Integrity
Mothers

.41**

-.15

-.22*

.31**

Fathers

.26**

-.15

-.28**

.29**

Disparagement
Mothers

-.18

.20*

.25*

-.29**

Fathers

-.00

.24*

.37**

-.08

Mothers

-.22*

.49**

.56**

-.25*

Fathers

-.29**

.49**

.63**

-.28**

Mothers

.05

.10

.06

.05

Fathers

.08

.03

.15

.15

Conflict

Reprimand

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

Although it was anticipated that the Disparagement subscale would not correlate significantly with the FES Conflict
subscale, there was a modest relationship between the two scales among both male and female respondents. This subscale
was unrelated to FES Cohesion for both men and women. The Reprimand subscale, not surprisingly, showed no
relationship with either FES Conflict or FES Cohesion.
Relationships with Quality of Coparenting Subscales: Interrelationships between the four Coparenting Scale subscales
and two related subscales of the Ahrons' Quality of Coparenting ScaleCoparental Conflict and Coparental
Supportwere also examined, with modest but significant relationships expected between similar scales of the two
instruments (Family Integrity and Coparental Support; Conflict and Coparental Conflict). The pertinent correlations can be
found in Table 4. As can be seen from Table 4, high Family Integrity scores on the Coparenting Scale correlated positively
with Ahrons' Coparental Support and negatively with Ahrons' Coparental Conflict for both men and women. Likewise, high
Conflict scores on the Coparenting Scale were strongly associated with high Ahrons' Conflict scores, while showing a
modest negative association with Ahrons' Support scores.
Again, Disparagement was significantly associated with the Conflict scale on the Ahrons' instrument. High
Disparagement scores were also associated with low Ahrons' Support among women. The Reprimand subscale was
unrelated to either of Ahrons' subscales.
Relationships with Reported Marital Satisfaction: To determine whether maritally satisfied parents were more likely
than dissatisfied parents to report more behavior-promoting Family Integrity, and fewer activities involving interparental
Conflict or Disparagement, relationships between the MAT and the four Coparenting Scale subscales were examined. The
results of these analyses are summarized in Table 5. As can be seen from Table 5, high marital satisfaction scores were
positively correlated with high scores on the Family Integrity subscale and negatively correlated with high scores on the
Conflict and Disparagement subscales for both men and women. Marital satisfaction was unrelated to Reprimand scores in
both groups of respondents.

Marital Satisfaction

Table 5
Correlations between Marital Satisfaction and Subscales of the Coparenting Scale
Integrity
Disparagement
Conflict

Reprimand

Men

.45**

-.24*

-.37**

.08

Women

.38**

-.24*

-.40**

.06

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

Types of Coparenting Couples: Results of Cluster Analyses: Subscale score data for the couples in the study were
subjected to a cluster analysis using Wards method, an agglomerative hierarchical cluster technique. Squared Euclidian
distance between cases was used to form clusters. Fals-Stewart, Schafer, and Birchler (1993) summarize research

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

indicating the superiority of this method among clustering techniques, given the high interpretability of its results and the
frequency of its use in the psychological literature. This method combines cases sequentially based on similarities across
variables, minimizing the average distance between cases in each derived cluster. The Euclidian distance is sensitive to
units of measurement, and so each variable was standardized to minimize bias resulting from variables with larger variance.
This strategy has been used in other studies employing similar clustering techniques (see Fowers & Olson, 1992; Lavee
& Olson, 1993). Following a procedure outlined by Bayer and Day (1995), each of the four derived scale scores was
entered for both husband and wife. Inspection of the cluster analyses revealed that a five-cluster solution provided a feasible
outcome. Clusters 1 through 5 contained 19, 31, 21, 9 and 20% of the cases, respectively.
Table 6 summarizes the average husband and wife subscale scores for members of each cluster, along with relevant
marital satisfaction data. As can be seen from Table 6, Cluster 1 families were distinguished by two indicators of relatively
low father involvement in coparentingFamily Integrity and Reprimand scores that placed a full standard deviation below
the fathers' meansand by parallel scores for mothers that were nearly as low. Indeed, the scores on these two sets of
variables for both parents were the lowest among any of the five clusters of families. The mean marital satisfaction scores
for partners in these families, labeled "Disconnected Coparenting Families," were also among the lowest in the sample, ten
scale points below the sample mean and just slightly above the threshold for clinical distress.
Table 6
Mean Scale Scores for Husbands and Wives on Each of 5 Derived Clusters
Husbands' Coparenting Scores
Wives' Coparenting Scores
His
Cluster

Integ

Dispg

Cnflct

Her

Rprmd

Integ

Dispg

Cnflct

Rprmd

Satisf

Satisf

33.44

6.94

7.72

15.72

36.00

6.00

6.28

17.27

105.27

109.50

18

39.34

5.27

5.93

17.48

40.45

6.76

5.86

19.31

124.96

121.89

29

39.65

6.95

6.30

21.35

38.90

7.15

5.60

19.00

118.25

116.55

20

33.77

8.88

7.88

18.11

36.00

9.88

9.00

18.77

99.44

98.77

39.57

8.42

8.78

20.57

42.11

7.68

8.00

23.32

116.89

122.10

19
95

Sample

37.75

6.91

7.11

18.61

39.12

7.30

6.65

19.58

115.86

115.98

(4.21)

(2.17)

(2.07)

(2.73)

(3.63)

(2.25)

(2.08)

(2.79)

(22.25)

(23.12)

Note: Labels assigned to Cluster groups: 1 (Disconnected); 2 (Supportive); 3 (Average); 4 (Distressed-Conflicted); 5 (Passionate).
Integ = Family Integrity; Dispg = Disparagement; Cnflct = Conflict; Rprmd = Reprimand; His Satisf = Husbands' Locke Wallace; Her
Satisf = Wives' Locke Wallace. Items in parentheses are the standard deviations for the full sample.

Cluster 2, labeled "Supportive Coparenting Families," was distinguished by above average Family Integrity scores, and
the sample's lowest Conflict and Disparagement scores for fathers, in combination with equally high Integrity scores and
low Conflict and Disparagement scores for mothers. Not surprisingly, this group of families also scored highest of all
families in the sample on the dimension of marital satisfaction.
Families in Cluster 3 were relatively unremarkable: for both men and women, scores along each of the Coparenting
Scale subscales fell within one standard deviation of their respective group means, with the exception of paternal
Reprimand scores, which were one standard deviation higher than the group means for fathers. Given the moderate pattern
of scores, relative to other families in the sample, the families in this cluster were called simply "Average Coparenting
Families." Not surprisingly, the average marital satisfaction score for both partners in this group was virtually identical to
the sample mean.
Cluster 4, labeled "Distressed-Conflicted Coparenting Families," was noteworthy in that both partners scored low on the
Family Integrity variable and high on the Disparagement variable (the highest of all groups). In addition, mothers in this
sample scored highest of women in all five clusters on the Conflict variable. Fathers also fell above the group mean on
Conflict. As might be expected, couples in this cluster scored lowest in the sample on marital satisfaction, with the average
marital satisfaction score placing in the clinical range of marital distress.
The final cluster of families, labeled "Passionate Coparenting Families," were a bit unique in that both mothers and
fathers in these families placed above the group mean on both positive (Family Integrity) and negative (Disparagement,
Conflict) subscales. While none of the scores by either parent averaged a full standard deviation above the group means, the
families in this cluster appeared to differ from their compatriots in Cluster 2 by virtue of their willingness to discuss with
their children both positive and negative features of their coparenting partner. These families brought to mind parents who
struck a realistic, even-handed portrayal of family life. Interestingly, both fathers and mothers in this group placed almost
squarely at the sample mean for marital satisfaction.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to extend the focus of coparenting research beyond direct interparental processes within
families to events that occur outside the sphere of whole family interaction, in the private discourse of parents and their
young children. To accomplish this aim, a self-report instrument was designed to assess some of the private, as well as
public, activities of parents toward promoting a sense of the coparental and family unit. In order to test the convergent and
divergent validity of constructs measured by the new scale, associations between the derived subscales from this new
instrument and like and unlike subscales from other instruments that measure related domains of family life were examined.
In addition, cluster analyses were conducted to provide a preliminary, descriptive heuristic characterizing "types" of
coparenting families.
Item selection for the scale used in this inquiry reflected a concern for the diverse, real-life activities involved in
"constructing" the familial coparenting unit. The scale itself included several items dedicated to activities not traditionally
associated with "coparenting" per se (for example, displays of affection toward the child's other parent with the child
present, speaking affirmatively about the partner in private with the child), while excluding other, more traditional
coparenting concepts (that is, sharing child-care, mealtime or bedtime responsibilities). Hence, beyond the usual coparental
"alliance" or "unified front" metaphors of tactical planning, strategy, power, and control underscored by Minuchin, Haley
and others, and measured by scales such as Ahrons', the scale devised for this study also addressed an equally important
function of the coparental unitenhancing children's security in the family by assuring them, through word and deed, that
there are two committed, loving adults heading up the family. Most previous studies that use self-reports of interparental
behavior have neglected affection between parentsthe O'Leary-Porter Scale (Porter & O'Leary, 1980) being a notable
exception. The Coparenting Scale also departed from previous instruments in its attempt to assess the frequency and
content of private parent-to-child communications about the child's absent parent.
Items on the Coparenting Scale formed a group of theoretically meaningful factors that coincided with hypothesized
dimensions measuring (a) behavior in the service of actively promoting a sense of the coparental and family unit (Family
Integrity); (b) overt, conflictful behavior between parents (Conflict); and (c) largely covert, disparaging behavior that
undermines the credibility of the coparental partner (Disparagement). A fourth factor, capturing interparental involvement
in limit-setting and discipline (Reprimand) also emerged. For each factor, husbands' and wives' reports of their coparenting
behavior were significantly and positively correlated, hinting that there may be a fair degree of co-construction (or
deconstruction) of the coparental and family unit by coparenting partners. Evidence for the construct validity of these scales
was obtained through intercorrelations between the Conflict and Family Integrity subscales and parallel subscales of the
FES and Ahrons' measures.
Mixed evidence was found concerning the standing of "Disparagement" as a unique family construct. Recall that covert
disparagement of the coparenting partner, a collection of activities that has not received much empirical study outside the
divorce literature, was hypothesized as a domain of family functioning distinct from the more ubiquitous domain of
interparental conflict. In the current sample, Coparenting Scale items capturing overt interparental conflict did indeed load
on a separate factor from items reflecting covert disparagement of the coparenting partner, although there were significant
and positive correlations between Coparenting Scale Disparagement scores and high FES and Ahrons' Conflict scores.
While these correlations tended to be quite modest in magnitude, there appears to be at least some interdependence
between the Disparagement scale and overt conflict measures.
Of note, maternal and paternal reports of disparagement within the same family were significantly correlated, introducing
the unfortunate possibility that even in intact families, when one parent's disparagement of the absent parent occurs more
frequently, so do disparaging remarks by the other coparent. The cluster analyses provided some intriguing hints, however,
that there may be at least two types of families where disparagement runs high: one set of families where disparagement
accompanies high interparental conflict and low support of family integrity, and a second group of families where
occasional negative remarks about the coparenting partner occur side by side with positive, affirming commentaryin
other words, families where parents may be quite candid in their evaluations of family strengths and limitations.
Perhaps most surprising of all in this study was the relative candor of respondents in replying to questions asking about
activities that were clearly both negative and personal. Only 41% of men and 38% of women claimed never to have made a
clearly critical remark about their coparenting partner to the child; 94% of men and 93% of women acknowledged saying
things to the child about the other parent in that parent's absence that might be expected to invoke a negative feeling state
(for example, "mommy/daddy gets mad when you do that")some acknowledging doing so on a daily basis. Hence, while
self-report measures of covert disparagement certainly run the risk of dramatically under-representing the actual frequency
of such behaviors in family life, given the negative social desirability of such behavior, it is promising that the majority of
respondents are willing to be at least somewhat candid in responding to such items at all. Whether such parental reports of
Disparagement ultimately hold utility in helping to understand child adaptation and problem behavior remains to be seen;
McHale and Rasmussen (in press) provide evidence that, at least among mothers, reports of Disparagement may help
explain unique variance in teacher reports of preschooler aggression toward peers.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Not much has been said about the fourth derived subscale, Reprimand. In part, this is because this subscale was not
hypothesized a priori. While the items on this subscale reflect the concrete and tangible support involved in the work of
parenting (disciplining, asking the partner to discipline), the theoretical significance of this scale is less well-established
than that of the other three. Moreover, in that the internal consistency estimate for this scale was rather low, the item
composition of this scale may not be as robust as that of the other three factors. At this time, it is probably safest to
conclude that the Reprimand factor will require additional study and validation before its utility as a separate construct can
be argued.
The cluster analyses conducted using both husband and wife scores from the same family provide some preliminary
information regarding "types" of coparenting families. Not surprisingly, we found evidence for a very positive and
supportive group of families in which both partners reported working actively to promote Family Integrity and to limit
Disparagement of the coparenting partner and interadult Conflict in front of the child; a group of midrange families scoring
in the moderate range along each of these dimensions and reporting adequate levels of marital satisfaction; and a group of
unhappily married partners who devote little effort to promote Family Integrity and who engage in relatively high levels of
Disparagement and interadult Conflict. However, we also found evidence for two other types of coparenting families,
reflecting 19% and 20% of the sample, respectively. The first type of family, labeled "Disconnected Coparenting Families,"
represented cases in which both parents acknowledged "talking up" the family and the coparenting partner relatively
infrequently. Interestingly, such parents also reported disciplining their child, and asking their partner to discipline, less
often than the remaining families in the study. In such families, marital satisfaction was relatively low for both partners;
indeed, these families resemble Minuchin's "disengaged" families, with little sense of family solidarity or cohesion.
The second group of families, already mentioned, was labeled "Passionate Coparenting Families" because it appeared
that both parents were relatively candid with their children about some of the shortcomings of the coparenting partner, but
also about the importance and centrality of this parent to the child and to the family unit. Partners in such families placed at
the very center of the sample along the dimension of marital satisfaction, indicating that such candor about family process is
associated with neither extraordinary satisfaction nor dissatisfaction in the marital partnership. Whether the term
"Passionate" is an appropriate label or a misnomer for these families remains to be examined in subsequent research.
The results from this study suggest the potential of the new Coparenting instrument for assessing certain aspects of
family process that occur at very low base-rates in observational studies. However, several cautions in interpreting these
data are in order. First, the findings reported above should be viewed solely as a very preliminary, beginning step in
establishing the utility of this instrument. Replication of the construct-specific associations uncovered in this study,
validation against interview and (where possible) observational data, andmost importantlyfurther tests of the
Coparenting Scale's factor structure with larger, more diverse samples will be needed before the validity of the constructs
introduced in this article can truly be established. Given the slightly different factor structures that emerged for men and
women and the relatively small sample involved, it is not yet possible to determine whether separate factor structures best
fit the data for men and women, or whether the four-factor structure employed for the bulk of the analyses in this article is
the most parsimonious means of describing the data.
Second, despite the willingness of parents to acknowledge that they sometimes make disparaging remarks about their
partner to their child, it is likely that the reported frequency of such remarks is still significantly under-reported. While 121
of the 198 respondents in this study reported having spoken disparagingly about the partner to the child, the majority of
these individuals claimed to have done so only once or twice that they could rememberor, at the upper extreme, perhaps
once a month. Yet recent data collected from college freshmen indicate that between a quarter and a third of these
teen-aged students recalled hearing disparaging remarks by one or both coparents on at least a weekly basis prior to their
teen-age years (Eslinger, Magovcevic, & McHale, 1977; McHale, Loding, Blaisdell, & Lovell, 1996b). Along the same
lines, the frequency with which parents claim to engage in positive, affirming activities may be somewhat inflated. Still,
given that there is variability and a relatively wide spread of responses along most scale items, it may be this variability,
rather than the absolute value of the scale points, which will prove to be of significance in subsequent research with this
instrument.
Third, it should be noted that, contrary to expectations, there were no clear delineations between covert and overt
behavior in that only one of the four derived factors (Conflict) was comprised exclusively of items from a single context
(public or private). Even the Disparagement factor contained one item (undoing the partner's discipline) involving behavior
occurring in a public contextthough it might also be argued that much "undoing" occurs behind closed doors, some time
after the disciplinary act has been carried out. One possible explanation for this pattern is that parents see their behavior as
somewhat coherent across contexts, be it behavior that strengthens the child's sense of the coparental and family unit, or
behavior that chips away at this sense of coparenting and family. This being said, it should be noted that, in this sample,
men made a somewhat greater distinction between overt and covert supportive items than did women.
Fourth, it must be reiterated that the Coparenting Scale was normed on a community sample comprised largely of
upper-middle-class and Caucasian families. Hence, the factor structure described in this report may be relevant only for

10

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

families of similar background. Further research is needed to establish whether the factors that obtained in this study
replicate among clinical populations, as well as among families of diverse socioeconomic, ethnic, and cultural background.
Additional research should also examine the extent to which the scale holds utility for families with children younger or
older than the preschoolers targeted for this study. It may well be that the motivation to cultivate a strong sense of family is
particularly strong when children are young, and/or that discussions with the child about the coparent's flaws may increase
as children get older. Certainly, the data from the McHale et al. (1996b) and Eslinger et al. (1997) studies suggest that this
may be the case. Such questions are certainly worthy of further study.
Finally, it should be emphasized that the constructs examined in this study do not encompass the full range of activities
central to coparenting. Notably absent from the Coparenting Scale are the more traditional measures of backing up one's
partner when he or she gives the child a directive, sharing responsibility for child-care tasks, and the like. Such activities
constitute a central core of coparental responsibility and mutuality, and it was not the intent of this inquiry to overlook or in
any way minimize their importance. Rather, the goal of this report was to extend the previously narrow focus on these
support activities and on interparental conflict to include at least two additional family processesactively promoting and
enhancing a sense of family, and covert disparagement of the coparental partnerthat also contribute to the familial
coparenting unit. Undoubtedly, subsequent research can be expected to uncover the existence and operation of many
additional coparenting processes besides these four. Such work will help to shed further light on the influence of
coparenting processes in shaping children's sense of self, support, and relationship in the family.

REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

9.
10.
11.

12.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

11

Ahrons, C. A., (1981) The continuing coparental relationship between divorced spouses. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 51, 415-428.
Bayer, J. P. and Day, H. D., (1995) An empirical couple typology based on differentiation, Contemporary Family
Therapy, 17, 265-271.
Belsky, J., Crnic, K. and Gable, S., (1995) The determinants of coparenting in families with toddler boys: Spousal
differences and daily hassles, Child Development, 66, 629-642.
Bloom, B. L., (1985) A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning. Family Process, 24,
225-239.
Bloom, B. L. and Naar, S., (1994) Self-report measures of family functioning: Extensions of a factorial analysis,
Family Process, 33, 203-216.
Boyum, L. A. and Parke, R. O., (1995) The role of family emotional expressiveness in the development of
children's social competence, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 593-608.
Block, J. H., Block, J. and Morrison, A., (1981) Parental agreement-disagreement on child-rearing orientations
and gender-related personality correlates in children, Child Development, 52, 965-974.
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., Flor, D. and McCrary, C., (1994) Religion's role in organizing family relationships:
Family process in rural, two-parent African American families, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56,
878-888.
Buchanan, C., Maccoby, E. and Dornbusch, S., (1991) Caught between parents: Adolescents experience in
divorced homes, Child Development, 62, 1008-1029.
Cummings, E. M. and Davies, P., (1994) Children and marital conflict: The impact of family dispute and
resolution. New York: Guilford Press.
Davis, B., Alpert, A., Hops, H. and Andrews, J., (1995, April) Triadic family relationships: An investigation of
conflict through the use of direct behavioral observation. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child
Development, Indianapolis IN.
Emery, R., (1992) Family conflicts and their developmental implications: A conceptual analysis of meanings for
the structure of relationships (pp. 270-298). In C.U. Shantz & W.W. Hartup (eds.), Conflict in child and
adolescent development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eslinger, O., Magovcevic, M. and McHale, J., (1997, April) Coparenting conflict and sense of self during late
adolescence. Paper presented at the meetings of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Fals-Stewart, W., Schafer, J. and Birchler, G. R., (1993) An empirical typology of distressed couples that is based
on the Areas of Change questionnaire, Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 307-321.
Floyd, F. and Zmich, D., (1991) Marriage and the parenting partnership: Perceptions and interactions of parents
with mentally retarded and typically developing children. Child Development, 62, 1434-1448.
Fowers, B. and Olson, D. H., (1992) Four types of premarital couples: An empirical typology based on
PREPARE. Journal of Family Psychology, 6: 10-21.
Gottman, J. M., Markman, H. and Notarius, C., (1977) The topography of marital conflict: A sequential analysis

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

18.
19.

20.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.
28.

29.

30.

31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.

of verbal and nonverbal behavior, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 9, 461-477.
Haley, J., (1976) Problem-solving therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hess, R. D. and Handel, G., (1967) The family as a psychosocial organization (pp. 10-24). In G. Handel (ed.), The
psychosocial interior of the family: A sourcebook for the study of whole families. New York: Aldine Publishing
Co.
Jouriles, E., Murphy, C., Farris, A., Smith, D., Richters, J. and Waters, E., (1991) Marital adjustment, parental
disagreements about child-rearing, and behavior problems in boys: Increasing the specificity of the marital
assessment, Child Development, 62, 1424-1433.
Katz, L. F. and Gottman, J. M., (1993) Patterns of marital conflict predict children's internalizing and externalizing
behaviors, Developmental Psychology, 29, 940-950.
Lavee, Y. and Olson, D. H., (1993) Seven types of marriage: Empirical typology based on ENRICH. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 19, 325-340.
Lidz, T., (1963) The family and human adaptation: Three lectures. New York: International Universities Press.
Locke, H. J. and Wallace, K. M., (1959) Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and
validity, Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251-255.
Maccoby, E., Depner, C. and Mnookin, R., (1990) Coparenting in the second year after divorce, Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 52, 141-155.
McHale, J., (1993, April) Contributions of parental well-being, marital quality, and coparenting process to
preschool behavior problems. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans
LA.
McHale, J., (1995) Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital distress and child
gender. Developmental Psychology, 31, 985-996.
McHale, J. and Johnson, D., (1995, April) The parenting dyad vs the family triad: Do coparenting and whole
family dynamics represent a unique family domain? Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child
Development, Indianapolis IN.
McHale, J. and King, A., (1996a, August) Supportive and critical remarks about coparental partners during
parent-child play. Paper presented at the 104th meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto,
Canada.
McHale, J., Loding, B., Blaisdell, B. and Lovell, S., (1996b, August) Conceptions of parenting and coparenting
among college-aged students. Paper presented at the 104th meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Toronto, Canada.
McHale, J. and Rasmussen, J., (in press) Coparental and family group-level dynamics during infancy: Early family
predictors of child and family functioning during preschool. Development and Psychopathology.
Minuchin, S., (1974) Families & family therapy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Moos, R., (1974) Combined preliminary manual for the family, work, and group environment scales. Palo Alto
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M. and Wilson, M. (Eds.), (1983) Families: What
makes them work. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.
Olson, D. H., Portner, J. and Lavee, Y., (1985) Family Adaptability and Cohesion ScalesFACES III. St. Paul:
University of Minnesota, Family Social Science.
Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H. and Russell, C. S., (1979) Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems: I.
Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications, Family Process, 18, 3-28.
Porter, B. and O'Leary, K., (1980) Marital discord and childhood behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 8, 287-295.
Russell, A. and Russell, G., (1994) Co-parenting early school age children: An examination of mother-father
interdependence within families. Developmental Psychology, 30, 757-770.
Sabatelli, R. M. and Bartle, S. E., (1995) Survey approaches to the assessment of family functioning: Conceptual,
operational, and analytical issues, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 1025-1039.
Satir, V., (1972) Peoplemaking. Palo Alto CA: Science and Behavior Books.
Strauss, M. A., (1979) Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-85.
Weiss, R. and Margolin, G., (1977) Assessment of marital conflict and accord (pp. 555-602). In A. Ciminero, K.
Calhoun, & H. Adams (eds.), Handbook of behavioral assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Manuscript received February 2, 1996; Revisions submitted February 2, 1996; Accepted April 2, 1997.

APPENDIX
12

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Coparenting Scale Items

Note: The questionnaire is completed with reference to a particular child. Instructions provided to parents underscore the
distinction between times when both partners are physically present together with their child, and times when the
respondent is alone with the child, without the partner present or in physical proximity. Stick figure drawings are also
placed next to each item to emphasize the context and set of behaviors to be described.
How often in a typical week (when all 3 of you are together) do you:
1. Show physical affection (a hug, touch, or kiss) to your child?
2. Show physical affection (a hug, touch, or kiss) to your partner?
3. Make an affirming or complimentary remark about your child to your partner?
4. Make an affirming or complimentary remark about your partner to this child?
5. Say or do something to invite, facilitate, or promote an affectionate or pleasant interchange between your partner and
this child (e.g., "Show mom" or "Let dad play")?
6. Take the lead in setting a limit or disciplining your child?
7. Request that your partner set a limit or discipline your child?
8. Take a "back seat" while your partner deals with your child's negative behavior?
9. "Undo" or oppose a punishment or limit your partner has set with this child?
10. Find yourself in a mildly tense or sarcastic interchange with your partner?
11. Argue with your partner?
How often in a typical week (when you are alone with your child) do you:
12. Say something to your child about the parenting dyad ("mommy and daddy . . .") or family triad or group ("we all
. . .")?
13. Make a comment to enhance this child's mental image of your absent partner ("e.g., "Daddy loves you"; "Mommy is
proud of you")?
14. Make a remark to invoke or include the absent parent ("Dad will be home soon"; "You should show that to mom")?
15. Make a comment about your partner that might create a somewhat negative feeling state in your child (e.g., "Dad gets
mad when you do that"; "I don't think mom would like that")?
16. Find yourself saying something clearly negative or disparaging about your partner to your child?
1Conceptual issues are also involved: even if husband and wife have the same population factor structure, the stage-2 analyses,
in which men's and women's data were treated separately, may not reflect this because of the necessarily smaller sample sizes.

13