Changes in Stepparents’ Coparenting and Parenting Following Participation in a Community-Based Relationship Education Program CHELSEA L. GARNEAU* FRANCESCA ADLER-BAEDER†
Studies of coparents typically center on the relationship between parents who share a biological child; limited attention in research on community-based programs is given to the coparenting relationship within a stepfamily, even though clinicians note the challenges inherent in this relationship. We examined changes in coparenting agreement, parenting efficacy, and parental involvement for 96 stepparents following participation in a coparenting-focused community education program. A significant main effect of time was found for improvement in coparenting agreement, yet a significant time 9 gender interaction effect suggests that this is driven by improvements for stepmothers only. Parenting efficacy improved, regardless of gender, race, residence, or curriculum. A significant time 9 race interaction effect on change in parental involvement indicates increases in parental involvement for European American participants only. Finally, increases in coparenting agreement were associated with increases in parenting efficacy, and increases in parenting efficacy were associated with increases in parental involvement. Keywords: Coparenting; Parenting; Stepparents Fam Proc 54:590–599, 2015
C
oparenting refers to the relational interactions among two or more adults which are focused on their shared childrearing (Baker, McHale, Strozier, & Cecil, 2010; Burton & Hardaway, 2012; McHale, 1997; McHale & Lindahl, 2011; Waller, 2012). Research on coparenting has increased in recent decades as fathers’ roles in childrearing have become more active (e.g., Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000), divorce and remarriage have become more prevalent (e.g., Cherlin, 2010), and findings have linked cooperative coparenting to positive outcomes for children, often via various aspects of parenting (e.g., Feinberg, Kan, & Hetherington, 2007; Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001). Roughly one million children experience parental divorce each year (Elliott & Simmons, 2011), leading to a significant proportion of coparenting relationships which exist across multiple households. The quality of postdivorce coparenting has been found to be particularly important for children’s outcomes and has been a central focus of research on coparenting (e.g., Gasper, Stolberg, Macie, & Williams, 2008). To date, the majority of coparenting research involving stepfamilies, a common postdivorce family structure, examines the coparenting relationship between former partners across households (Pruett & Donsky, 2011), and interventions have been developed and implemented in community *Department of Human Development & Family Studies, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. † Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chelsea Garneau, Department of Human Development & Family Studies, University of Missouri, 312 Gentry Hall, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail: [email protected]. 590
Family Process, Vol. 54, No. 4, 2015 © 2015 Family Process Institute doi: 10.1111/famp.12133
GARNEAU & ADLER-BAEDER
/ 591
settings which aim to improve these coparenting relationships (e.g., Adler-Baeder & Shirer, 2011; Feinberg & Kan, 2008). Although researchers have called for the examination of coparenting across more diverse family contexts (McHale & Irace, 2011), coparenting within stepfamily households (i.e., between biological and stepparents) and the effectiveness of interventions at improving stepcouples’ coparenting have received little attention (Lucier-Greer & Adler-Baeder, 2012). No studies have examined changes in both coparenting and stepparents’ parenting following a community-based intervention. In the current study, we examine: (1) improvement in stepparents’ coparenting and parenting following participation in a coparenting-focused community relationship and marriage education (RME) program; (2) whether the effects of participation vary by gender, race, and resident status; and (3) associations among improvement in stepparents’ coparenting and parenting.
Background Coparenting agreement is a dimension of coparenting related to level of agreement and support between coparents regarding roles and rules for childrearing, and clinicians highlight the point that this dyadic agreement is particularly difficult in stepfamilies compared to nuclear (i.e., first) families in which couples develop their parental identities concurrently (e.g., Browning & Artelt, 2011). In stepfamilies, one or both parents enter the new family with a parenting style and philosophy already developed. Surprisingly, in empirical studies of stepfamily dynamics and of family life education for stepfamilies, assessing the level of coparenting agreement between stepparent and biological parent and its effects is routinely overlooked. We know that living in a stepfamily is associated with increased risk for a variety of poor outcomes for children, adolescents, and young adults (see Sweeney, 2010, for a review). In studies of family processes that help explain these differential outcomes, lower quality coparenting and conflict between ex-partners and their link with ineffective parenting are highlighted (see Sweeney, 2010). Scholars also note that parenting in stepfamilies is more strongly tied to the quality of the couple relationship compared to nonstepfamilies (Ganong & Coleman, 2004), and recent empirical research findings validate this (Adamsons, O’Brien, & Pasley, 2007). Although little research has examined the coparenting dimension of stepfamily couple (i.e., “stepcouple”) relationships directly, findings highlight childrearing as the most common topic of conflict for stepcouples (compared to finances for nonstepcouples) (Stanley, Markman, & Whitton, 2002). The evidence linking coparenting relationships with parenting is based primarily on studies of couples in nuclear two-parent families, divorced parents, or single-parent families (e.g., Doherty & Beaton, 2004; Jones, Shaffer, Forehand, Brody, & Armistead, 2003), yet these findings, as well as family systems theory assumptions (Minuchin, 1974), suggest that stepcouples’ coparenting relationships are also associated with the quality of parenting and stepparenting within the family. To date, only one study has examined the relationship between stepcouple coparenting and parenting in stepfamilies, where greater coparenting conflict was associated with increased parenting negativity for stepfathers (Margolin et al., 2001). The association between coparenting and stepparents’ parenting efficacy and involvement has yet to be examined. Approaches to stepparenting vary regarding the level of involvement with stepchildren (e.g., Svare, Jay, & Mason, 2004). Although overall stepparents tend to be less involved with stepchildren compared to biological parents and children (e.g., Hofferth & Anderson, 2003), findings show that stepchildren benefit when their stepfathers are more involved (Schrodt, Soliz, & Braithwaite, 2008; Yuan & Hamilton, 2006). Studies of biological parents support the notion that greater feelings of parenting efficacy are associated with more positive parenting behaviors, which in turn are associated with more positive child Fam. Proc., Vol. 54, December, 2015
592 /
FAMILY PROCESS
adjustment (e.g., Ardelt & Eccles, 2001). We expect that the same concept holds true for stepparents, who are likely more involved with their stepchildren when they feel more effective in their stepparenting roles. Although coparenting and parenting are important aspects of stepfamily functioning that are associated with stepchildren’s well-being, little is known about effective programs to improve these aspects of stepfamily functioning, and no studies have examined the effects of interventions on both coparenting and parenting for stepparents. In a recent meta-analysis, Lucier-Greer and Adler-Baeder (2012) examined findings from 28 quantitative studies evaluating stepfamily-focused RME interventions from 1982 to 2011. Three studies used stepcouples’ coparenting as an outcome measure (one was an unpublished dissertation). Of the two published studies one, using a global item assessing stepcouples’ parenting agreement, found significant increases in reported agreement following the intervention (Higginbotham & Skogrand, 2010). The other study found significant decreases in reported parenting conflict between biological and stepparents (Nicholson & Sanders, 1999). Neither of these studies measured changes in parenting. Studies of programs that primarily target parenting in stepfamilies, several included in the meta-analysis, also provide evidence of effectiveness. Forgatch, DeGarmo, and Beldavs (2005) found that the overall parenting quality improved for stepcouples following participation. In this study, the stepcouples’ coparenting relationship was not a primary target of the intervention, and improvements in coparenting were not examined. Nicholson, Phillips, Whitton, Halford, and Sanders (2007) found a decrease in the percentage of parents and stepparents reporting coparenting as a primary stepfamily concern, yet again the couples’ actual coparenting relationship was not assessed. Finally, results from an evaluation of a self-administered web-based curriculum for stepfamilies found improvements in parenting efficacy for participants, yet results for biological and stepparents were not examined separately (Gelatt, Adler-Baeder, & Seeley, 2010). The current study is the first to directly examine both changes in stepcouples’ coparenting relationship and dimensions of stepparents’ parenting following participation in a coparenting-focused intervention. On the basis of the association between coparenting and stepparents’ negativity in previous research (Margolin et al., 2001) and assumptions in family systems theory of interconnectedness, we also examine the associations among changes in each outcome. Because there is some evidence that coparenting and stepparenting practices differ by race, gender, and resident status (Jones & Lindahl, 2011; Margolin et al., 2001; Marsiglio, 1992; McHale & Irace, 2011), we further explore variations in change patterns based on participant demographics.
METHOD Procedure Data came from a larger sample of adults who completed RME classes in a southern state. The current study examines experiences of a subset of 96 stepparents of stepchildren under age 18 who completed pre- and postprogram surveys and who completed an RME curriculum with core content focused on developing cooperative coparenting among multiple parents. Sixty-seven stepparents completed Together We Can (TWC; Shirer, Adler-Baeder, & Contreras, 2007) and 29 completed Smart Steps: Embrace the Journey (SS; Adler-Baeder, 2007). Both are community education programs that address needs of complex families with coparenting relationships. The author of Smart Steps was involved in development of TWC, and content on coparenting and stepparenting skills was taken explicitly from SS, so there is literal overlap of information delivered in TWC and SS. Delivery of content in TWC and SS differs some, as TWC incorporates lower literacy www.FamilyProcess.org
/ 593
GARNEAU & ADLER-BAEDER
hand-outs and more hands-on activities while SS provides more research background on skills and information presented. As we expected similar outcomes in coparenting and parenting for both TWC and SS, we deemed it theoretically appropriate to assess outcomes of the two curricula together. However, as a check on the appropriateness of this decision we include time 9 curriculum interaction terms in our analyses. Using a communitybased implementation model, staff at partner agencies recruited participants across 14 rural and urban counties and were trained by the program developers to implement programs. Regardless of curriculum, all participants completed 8–12 hours of RME.
Participants Stepparents who reported on nonresident coparenting relationships were excluded. The sample consisted equally of stepfathers and stepmothers. The sample was diverse; however, the majority of participants were European American (EA; 67%), followed by African American (29%), and other (i.e., 2% Latino, 1% Native American, and 1% bi-racial). Sixty-five percent were married, 17% were engaged, and 19% were dating. Over half of participants were resident stepparents (62%). Roughly a fifth had less than a high school education, 32% completed high school/GED, and 50% of the sample completed at least some education beyond high school. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 60 years old (M = 32, SD = 8.2 years). The sample was fairly low-income, with roughly a third (35%) reporting an annual household income of less than $14,000. Forty-two percent of participants attended the RME program with their current partner.
Measures Coparenting agreement Stepparents reported on their current coparenting relationship using a six-item scale (adapted from Ahrons & Wallisch, 1987) with items such as, “How often do you and your coparent agree on childrearing?” Answers ranged from 1 (never/not supportive) to 5 (always/very supportive), and negative items were reverse coded. Mean scores were calculated with higher scores indicating greater coparenting agreement (a = .80). Parenting efficacy A 3-item scale was used to measure stepparents’ feelings of parenting efficacy (Dumka, Stoerzinger, Jackson, & Roosa, 1996). On a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), participants answered questions such as, “I feel sure of myself as a parent.” Negative items were reverse coded, and mean scores were computed with higher scores indicating greater parenting efficacy (a = .70). Parental involvement Parental involvement was measured using a 7-item scale (adapted from the Role of the Father Questionnaire; Palkovitz, 1984). Stepparents reported how often they engaged in various parenting behaviors with children (e.g., play with the child, read/sing/talk to the child) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never to 5 = very often). The mean score was calculated with higher scores indicating greater parental involvement (a = .79).
RESULTS Repeated measures analyses of covariance (RMANCOVAs) were used to examine main effects for changes from pre- to postprogram in stepparents’ reports of coparenting agreement, parenting efficacy, and parental involvement. Time 9 gender, time 9 race Fam. Proc., Vol. 54, December, 2015
/ 597
GARNEAU & ADLER-BAEDER
First, the sample is small. The study is part of an initial demonstration project that focused on the feasibility of implementing large-scale, multi-site community-based programs for diverse populations of couples and coparents and lacks a comparison group to allow for an examination of program efficacy. Thus, although stepparents showed improvement in the targeted outcomes following the intervention, we cannot determine with certainty whether these improvements were the result of the program or if they would have occurred regardless of program completion. Notably, effect sizes for significant findings were all above .25, which, according to Wolf (1986), can be considered practical change for evaluations of educational programs with nonclinical samples. Future studies are needed that utilize quasi-experimental or experimental research designs to further establish the effectiveness of coparenting-focused RME programs for stepparents. Further, although coparenting-focused content was consistent across interventions, we included participants who had completed two distinct coparenting-focused RME programs. Stepparents in this study were prompted to report on their overall parenting efficacy and parental involvement. Because roughly half of the stepparents in this study reported also having resident biological children and 24% had nonresidential biological children, we cannot determine their specific feeling of efficacy regarding solely their stepparenting. However, because the focus in the interventions had been on stepfamily relationships in the family (i.e., coparenting team; stepparent-stepchild), we do know at least that respondents had been directed to focus differentially on their efficacy and involvement in relationships with step-children.
CONCLUSIONS Our study highlights the gap in research on coparenting interventions and the potential value of continued focus on community-based efforts to strengthen the stepparent–parent coparenting relationship in complex families. Our findings provide some evidence that, particularly for European American stepparents and stepmothers, coparenting-focused interventions may be beneficial in the short-term for several dimensions of family functioning. We encourage the continued exploration rather than the control of diverse characteristics of stepparents in order to better inform models of best practice, as well as the examination of the processes of changes in different domains (coparenting, couple, stepparenting, child outcomes) over time. Because of the broader established linkages among the couple relationship, coparenting, and parenting (e.g., Doherty & Beaton, 2004), and their influence on children outcomes (e.g., Feinberg et al., 2007; Margolin et al., 2001), we can assume that a focus in an intervention on one aspect of the family system may have an influence on other dimensions. Evidence is provided here on the links between coparenting and parenting efficacy and between parenting efficacy and parental involvement after exposure to coparenting/stepparenting skills content. However, we join others in recommending further exploration of the effects of hybrid interventions that combine emphases on cooperative coparenting strategies, effective parenting practices, and skills for healthy couple functioning (e.g., Cowan et al., 2010). In more complex families, it is possible that even greater gains will be realized. REFERENCES Adamsons, K., O’Brien, M., & Pasley, K. (2007). An ecological approach to father involvement in biological and stepfather families. Fathering, 5, 129–147. Adler-Baeder, F. (2007). Smart Steps: Embrace the journey. Auburn, AL: National Stepfamily Resource Center.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 54, December, 2015
GARNEAU & ADLER-BAEDER
/ 599
Marsiglio, W. (1992). Stepfathers with minor children living at home parenting perceptions and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 195–214. McHale, J. (1997). Overt and covert coparenting processes in the family. Family Process, 36, 183–201. McHale, J., & Coates, E. (2014). Observed coparenting and triadic dynamics in African American fragile families at 3 months post-partum. Infant Mental Health Journal, 35, 435–451. McHale, J. P., & Irace, K. (2011). Coparenting in diverse family systems. In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 15–38). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McHale, J. P., & Lindahl, K. M. (2011). Introduction: What is coparenting? In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 3–12). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nicholson, J. M., Phillips, M., Whitton, S. W., Halford, W., & Sanders, M. R. (2007). Promoting healthy stepfamilies: Couples’ reasons for seeking help and perceived benefits from intervention. Family Matters, 77, 48–56. Nicholson, J. M., & Sanders, M. R. (1999). Randomized controlled trial of behavioral family intervention for the treatment of child behavior problems in stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 30(3/4), 1–23. Palkovitz, R. (1984). Parental attitudes and father’s interactions with their 5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1054–1060. Pruett, M. K., & Donsky, T. (2011). Coparenting after divorce: Paving pathways for parental cooperation, conflict resolution, and redefined family roles. In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 231–250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Schrodt, P., Soliz, J., & Braithwaite, D. (2008). A social relations model of everyday talk and relational satisfaction in stepfamilies. Communication Monographs, 75, 190–217. Shirer, K. A., Adler-Baeder, F., & Contreras, D. (2007). Together we can: Creating a healthy future for family. A 24-lesson for unmarried parents on co-parenting, marriage, father involvement and child support issues. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Skogrand, L., Reck, K. H., Higginbotham, B., Adler-Baeder, F., & Dansie, L. (2010). Recruitment and retention for stepfamily education. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 9, 48–65. Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41, 659–675. Svare, G. M., Jay, S., & Mason, M. A. (2004). Stepparents on stepparenting: An exploratory study of stepparenting approaches. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 41(3/4), 81–97. Sweeney, M. M. (2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 667–684. Waller, M. (2012). Cooperation, conflict, or disengagement? Coparenting styles and father involvement in fragile families. Family Process, 51, 325–342. Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yuan, A. S. V., & Hamilton, H. A. (2006). Stepfather involvement and adolescent well-being: Do mothers and nonresidential fathers matter? Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1191–1213.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 54, December, 2015
596 /
FAMILY PROCESS
stepfathers (Coleman, Troilo, & Jamison, 2008). Although not measured in this study, stepmothers in our sample may have experienced greater improvement in coparenting due to a greater importance of their parenting roles. Because stepmothers tend to engage in more parenting behaviors, they may believe they have more to gain by increasing their coparenting agreement with their partner and put greater effort into doing so. Evidence suggests that stepfathers may also be less intrinsically motivated to participate in RME to begin with. In a recent qualitative study of stepfathers attending a Smart Steps program, the majority of participants reported being strongly encouraged to participate by their wives despite their own reluctance (Higginbotham et al., 2012). Intrinsic motivation increases the number of sessions RME participants attend (Skogrand, Reck, Higginbotham, Adler-Baeder, & Dansie, 2010), and it may also be associated with gains in target outcomes. Thus, stepmothers in our sample may have been more intrinsically motivated to participate in the intervention and be more likely to report gains in coparenting agreement relative to stepfathers. As expected, in addition to improvements in coparenting for certain participants, we found concurrent improvements in parenting efficacy. Self-reported parenting efficacy increased following program participation regardless of race, gender, residence, or curriculum. For parental involvement, we find indications of differences in change based on race, with a significant and large effect size for increases in EA stepparents’ involvement with no significant change for ethnic minority stepparents. The majority of research on parental involvement has focused on fathers (e.g., first-time fathers, nonresident, stepfathers), and interventions to improve parental involvement have primarily targeted nonresident fathers (e.g., Cowan, Cowan, & Knox, 2010). Previous research on stepfather relationship quality and involvement with stepchildren is mixed. Some studies suggest more “fatherlike” socialization and higher levels of involvement and relationship quality among African American stepfathers compared to EA stepfathers (e.g., Hurd & Rogers, 1998; Marsiglio, 1992), while a recent study suggests that African American stepfathers tend to be less involved with stepchildren (Hofferth & Anderson, 2003). No studies have examined differences in stepmothers by race. We note no race differences at baseline in the level of reported involvement by stepparents and it is unclear why only EA stepparents reported significant increases. This is the first study to examine variation in change in stepparents’ involvement following a coparenting-focused intervention by race, and the findings suggest continued use of an ecocultural lens in future research to better understand the current finding. The interventions included a strong emphasis on couple and coparenting relationships with little direct emphasis on parenting strategies. Yet we found improvements in parenting efficacy and parental involvement following program completion. Margolin et al. (2001) provided initial evidence of the association between coparenting and stepfathers’ parenting, yet previous evaluation studies have established associations among postprogram coparenting and parenting changes only in biological families (e.g., Cowan et al., 2010; Feinberg & Kan, 2008). Although our index of coparenting was limited to agreement between the parents assessed at the individual level, linkages among improvement in coparenting, parenting efficacy, and involvement hint at improvement in the triangular parent-stepparent-child relationship. Our findings, therefore, provide the first initial evidence for links among improvements in stepcouples’ coparenting relationships and stepparenting following coparenting-focused RME participation. A triadic assessment (see McHale & Coates, 2014) and assessment from multiple informants will be important next research steps. Despite novel contributions of the study on the positive changes in stepparent coparenting and parenting which may vary by race and gender, this study has several limitations. www.FamilyProcess.org
/ 597
GARNEAU & ADLER-BAEDER
First, the sample is small. The study is part of an initial demonstration project that focused on the feasibility of implementing large-scale, multi-site community-based programs for diverse populations of couples and coparents and lacks a comparison group to allow for an examination of program efficacy. Thus, although stepparents showed improvement in the targeted outcomes following the intervention, we cannot determine with certainty whether these improvements were the result of the program or if they would have occurred regardless of program completion. Notably, effect sizes for significant findings were all above .25, which, according to Wolf (1986), can be considered practical change for evaluations of educational programs with nonclinical samples. Future studies are needed that utilize quasi-experimental or experimental research designs to further establish the effectiveness of coparenting-focused RME programs for stepparents. Further, although coparenting-focused content was consistent across interventions, we included participants who had completed two distinct coparenting-focused RME programs. Stepparents in this study were prompted to report on their overall parenting efficacy and parental involvement. Because roughly half of the stepparents in this study reported also having resident biological children and 24% had nonresidential biological children, we cannot determine their specific feeling of efficacy regarding solely their stepparenting. However, because the focus in the interventions had been on stepfamily relationships in the family (i.e., coparenting team; stepparent-stepchild), we do know at least that respondents had been directed to focus differentially on their efficacy and involvement in relationships with step-children.
CONCLUSIONS Our study highlights the gap in research on coparenting interventions and the potential value of continued focus on community-based efforts to strengthen the stepparent–parent coparenting relationship in complex families. Our findings provide some evidence that, particularly for European American stepparents and stepmothers, coparenting-focused interventions may be beneficial in the short-term for several dimensions of family functioning. We encourage the continued exploration rather than the control of diverse characteristics of stepparents in order to better inform models of best practice, as well as the examination of the processes of changes in different domains (coparenting, couple, stepparenting, child outcomes) over time. Because of the broader established linkages among the couple relationship, coparenting, and parenting (e.g., Doherty & Beaton, 2004), and their influence on children outcomes (e.g., Feinberg et al., 2007; Margolin et al., 2001), we can assume that a focus in an intervention on one aspect of the family system may have an influence on other dimensions. Evidence is provided here on the links between coparenting and parenting efficacy and between parenting efficacy and parental involvement after exposure to coparenting/stepparenting skills content. However, we join others in recommending further exploration of the effects of hybrid interventions that combine emphases on cooperative coparenting strategies, effective parenting practices, and skills for healthy couple functioning (e.g., Cowan et al., 2010). In more complex families, it is possible that even greater gains will be realized. REFERENCES Adamsons, K., O’Brien, M., & Pasley, K. (2007). An ecological approach to father involvement in biological and stepfather families. Fathering, 5, 129–147. Adler-Baeder, F. (2007). Smart Steps: Embrace the journey. Auburn, AL: National Stepfamily Resource Center.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 54, December, 2015
598 /
FAMILY PROCESS
Adler-Baeder, F., & Shirer, K. A. (2011). Coparenting interventions for unmarried parents. In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 191–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ahrons, C. R., & Wallisch, L. (1987). Parenting in the binuclear family: Relationships between biological and stepparents. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Remarriage and stepparenting: Current research and theory (pp. 225–256). New York: Guilford. Ardelt, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2001). Effects of mothers’ parental efficacy beliefs and promotive parenting strategies on inner-city youth. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 944–972. Baker, J., McHale, J., Strozier, A., & Cecil, D. (2010). Mother–grandmother coparenting relationships in families with incarcerated mothers: A pilot investigation. Family Process, 49(2), 165–184. Browning, S., & Artelt, E. (2011). Stepfamily therapy: A 10-step clinical approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Burton, L., & Hardaway, C. (2012). Low-income “othermothers” to their romantic partners’ children: Women’s coparenting in multiple partner fertility relationships. Family Process, 51, 343–359. Cabrera, N., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71, 127–136. Cherlin, A. J. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 403–419. Coleman, M., Troilo, J., & Jamison, T. (2008). The diversity of stepmothers: The influences of stigma, gender, and context on stepmother identities. In J. Pryor (Ed.), The international handbook of stepfamilies: Policies and practices in legal, research and clinical environments (pp. 369–393). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Knox, V. (2010). Marriage and fatherhood programs. The Future of Children, 20, 205–230. Doherty, W. J., & Beaton, J. M. (2004). Mothers and fathers parenting together. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 269–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dumka, L. E., Stoerzinger, H. D., Jackson, K. M., & Roosa, M. W. (1996). Examination of the cross-cultural and cross-language equivalence of the parenting self-agency measure. Family Relations, 45, 216–222. Elliott, D. B., & Simmons, T. (2011). Marital events of Americans: 2009. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau. Feinberg, M. E., & Kan, M. L. (2008). Establishing family foundations: Intervention effects on coparenting, parent/infant well-being, and parent-child relations. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 253–263. Feinberg, M. E., Kan, M. L., & Hetherington, E. M. (2007). The longitudinal influence of coparenting conflict on parental negativity and adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 687–702. Forgatch, M. S., DeGarmo, D. S., & Beldavs, Z. G. (2005). An efficacious theory-based intervention for stepfamilies. Behavior Therapy, 36, 357–365. Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (2004). Stepfamily relationships: Development, dynamics, and interventions. New York: Kluwer. Gasper, J. A., Stolberg, A. L., Macie, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2008). Coparenting in intact and divorced families: Its impact on young adult adjustment. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 49, 272–290. Gelatt, V. A., Adler-Baeder, F., & Seeley, J. R. (2010). An interactive web-based program for stepfamilies: Development and evaluation of efficacy. Family Relations, 59, 572–586. Higginbotham, B., Davis, P., Smith, L., Dansie, L., Skogrand, L., & Rfeck, K. (2012). Stepfathers and stepfamily education. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53(1), 76–90. Higginbotham, B. J., & Skogrand, L. (2010). Relationship education with both married and unmarried stepcouples: An exploratory study. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy: Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions, 9, 133–148. Hofferth, S. L., & Anderson, K. G. (2003). Are all dads equal? Biology versus marriage as a basis for paternal investment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 213–232. Hurd, E. P., & Rogers, R. (1998). A friend and a brother: Understanding the role of African American men in child-rearing. Journal of Family Social Work, 3(1), 5–23. Jones, D. J., Shaffer, A., Forehand, R., Brody, G., & Armistead, L. P. (2003). Coparent conflict in single motherheaded African American families: Do parenting skills serve as a mediator or moderator of child psychosocial adjustment? Behavior Therapy, 34, 259–272. Jones, J. D., & Lindahl, K. (2011). Coparenting in extended kinship systems: African American, Hispanic, Asian Heritage, and Native American families. In J. McHale & K. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 61–79). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lucier-Greer, M., & Adler-Baeder, F. (2012). Does couple and relationship education work for individuals in stepfamilies? A meta-analytic study. Family Relations, 61, 756–769. Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: A link between marital conflict and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 3–21.
www.FamilyProcess.org
GARNEAU & ADLER-BAEDER
/ 599
Marsiglio, W. (1992). Stepfathers with minor children living at home parenting perceptions and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 195–214. McHale, J. (1997). Overt and covert coparenting processes in the family. Family Process, 36, 183–201. McHale, J., & Coates, E. (2014). Observed coparenting and triadic dynamics in African American fragile families at 3 months post-partum. Infant Mental Health Journal, 35, 435–451. McHale, J. P., & Irace, K. (2011). Coparenting in diverse family systems. In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 15–38). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McHale, J. P., & Lindahl, K. M. (2011). Introduction: What is coparenting? In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 3–12). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nicholson, J. M., Phillips, M., Whitton, S. W., Halford, W., & Sanders, M. R. (2007). Promoting healthy stepfamilies: Couples’ reasons for seeking help and perceived benefits from intervention. Family Matters, 77, 48–56. Nicholson, J. M., & Sanders, M. R. (1999). Randomized controlled trial of behavioral family intervention for the treatment of child behavior problems in stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 30(3/4), 1–23. Palkovitz, R. (1984). Parental attitudes and father’s interactions with their 5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1054–1060. Pruett, M. K., & Donsky, T. (2011). Coparenting after divorce: Paving pathways for parental cooperation, conflict resolution, and redefined family roles. In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 231–250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Schrodt, P., Soliz, J., & Braithwaite, D. (2008). A social relations model of everyday talk and relational satisfaction in stepfamilies. Communication Monographs, 75, 190–217. Shirer, K. A., Adler-Baeder, F., & Contreras, D. (2007). Together we can: Creating a healthy future for family. A 24-lesson for unmarried parents on co-parenting, marriage, father involvement and child support issues. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Skogrand, L., Reck, K. H., Higginbotham, B., Adler-Baeder, F., & Dansie, L. (2010). Recruitment and retention for stepfamily education. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 9, 48–65. Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41, 659–675. Svare, G. M., Jay, S., & Mason, M. A. (2004). Stepparents on stepparenting: An exploratory study of stepparenting approaches. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 41(3/4), 81–97. Sweeney, M. M. (2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 667–684. Waller, M. (2012). Cooperation, conflict, or disengagement? Coparenting styles and father involvement in fragile families. Family Process, 51, 325–342. Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yuan, A. S. V., & Hamilton, H. A. (2006). Stepfather involvement and adolescent well-being: Do mothers and nonresidential fathers matter? Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1191–1213.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 54, December, 2015
Studies of coparents typically center on the relationship between parents who share a biological child; limited attention in research on community-based programs is given to the coparenting relationship within a stepfamily, even though clinicians note the challenges inherent in this relationship. We examined changes in coparenting agreement, parenting efficacy, and parental involvement for 96 stepparents following participation in a coparenting-focused community education program. A significant main effect of time was found for improvement in coparenting agreement, yet a significant time 9 gender interaction effect suggests that this is driven by improvements for stepmothers only. Parenting efficacy improved, regardless of gender, race, residence, or curriculum. A significant time 9 race interaction effect on change in parental involvement indicates increases in parental involvement for European American participants only. Finally, increases in coparenting agreement were associated with increases in parenting efficacy, and increases in parenting efficacy were associated with increases in parental involvement. Keywords: Coparenting; Parenting; Stepparents Fam Proc 54:590–599, 2015
C
oparenting refers to the relational interactions among two or more adults which are focused on their shared childrearing (Baker, McHale, Strozier, & Cecil, 2010; Burton & Hardaway, 2012; McHale, 1997; McHale & Lindahl, 2011; Waller, 2012). Research on coparenting has increased in recent decades as fathers’ roles in childrearing have become more active (e.g., Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000), divorce and remarriage have become more prevalent (e.g., Cherlin, 2010), and findings have linked cooperative coparenting to positive outcomes for children, often via various aspects of parenting (e.g., Feinberg, Kan, & Hetherington, 2007; Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001). Roughly one million children experience parental divorce each year (Elliott & Simmons, 2011), leading to a significant proportion of coparenting relationships which exist across multiple households. The quality of postdivorce coparenting has been found to be particularly important for children’s outcomes and has been a central focus of research on coparenting (e.g., Gasper, Stolberg, Macie, & Williams, 2008). To date, the majority of coparenting research involving stepfamilies, a common postdivorce family structure, examines the coparenting relationship between former partners across households (Pruett & Donsky, 2011), and interventions have been developed and implemented in community *Department of Human Development & Family Studies, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. † Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chelsea Garneau, Department of Human Development & Family Studies, University of Missouri, 312 Gentry Hall, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail: [email protected]. 590
Family Process, Vol. 54, No. 4, 2015 © 2015 Family Process Institute doi: 10.1111/famp.12133
GARNEAU & ADLER-BAEDER
/ 591
settings which aim to improve these coparenting relationships (e.g., Adler-Baeder & Shirer, 2011; Feinberg & Kan, 2008). Although researchers have called for the examination of coparenting across more diverse family contexts (McHale & Irace, 2011), coparenting within stepfamily households (i.e., between biological and stepparents) and the effectiveness of interventions at improving stepcouples’ coparenting have received little attention (Lucier-Greer & Adler-Baeder, 2012). No studies have examined changes in both coparenting and stepparents’ parenting following a community-based intervention. In the current study, we examine: (1) improvement in stepparents’ coparenting and parenting following participation in a coparenting-focused community relationship and marriage education (RME) program; (2) whether the effects of participation vary by gender, race, and resident status; and (3) associations among improvement in stepparents’ coparenting and parenting.
Background Coparenting agreement is a dimension of coparenting related to level of agreement and support between coparents regarding roles and rules for childrearing, and clinicians highlight the point that this dyadic agreement is particularly difficult in stepfamilies compared to nuclear (i.e., first) families in which couples develop their parental identities concurrently (e.g., Browning & Artelt, 2011). In stepfamilies, one or both parents enter the new family with a parenting style and philosophy already developed. Surprisingly, in empirical studies of stepfamily dynamics and of family life education for stepfamilies, assessing the level of coparenting agreement between stepparent and biological parent and its effects is routinely overlooked. We know that living in a stepfamily is associated with increased risk for a variety of poor outcomes for children, adolescents, and young adults (see Sweeney, 2010, for a review). In studies of family processes that help explain these differential outcomes, lower quality coparenting and conflict between ex-partners and their link with ineffective parenting are highlighted (see Sweeney, 2010). Scholars also note that parenting in stepfamilies is more strongly tied to the quality of the couple relationship compared to nonstepfamilies (Ganong & Coleman, 2004), and recent empirical research findings validate this (Adamsons, O’Brien, & Pasley, 2007). Although little research has examined the coparenting dimension of stepfamily couple (i.e., “stepcouple”) relationships directly, findings highlight childrearing as the most common topic of conflict for stepcouples (compared to finances for nonstepcouples) (Stanley, Markman, & Whitton, 2002). The evidence linking coparenting relationships with parenting is based primarily on studies of couples in nuclear two-parent families, divorced parents, or single-parent families (e.g., Doherty & Beaton, 2004; Jones, Shaffer, Forehand, Brody, & Armistead, 2003), yet these findings, as well as family systems theory assumptions (Minuchin, 1974), suggest that stepcouples’ coparenting relationships are also associated with the quality of parenting and stepparenting within the family. To date, only one study has examined the relationship between stepcouple coparenting and parenting in stepfamilies, where greater coparenting conflict was associated with increased parenting negativity for stepfathers (Margolin et al., 2001). The association between coparenting and stepparents’ parenting efficacy and involvement has yet to be examined. Approaches to stepparenting vary regarding the level of involvement with stepchildren (e.g., Svare, Jay, & Mason, 2004). Although overall stepparents tend to be less involved with stepchildren compared to biological parents and children (e.g., Hofferth & Anderson, 2003), findings show that stepchildren benefit when their stepfathers are more involved (Schrodt, Soliz, & Braithwaite, 2008; Yuan & Hamilton, 2006). Studies of biological parents support the notion that greater feelings of parenting efficacy are associated with more positive parenting behaviors, which in turn are associated with more positive child Fam. Proc., Vol. 54, December, 2015
592 /
FAMILY PROCESS
adjustment (e.g., Ardelt & Eccles, 2001). We expect that the same concept holds true for stepparents, who are likely more involved with their stepchildren when they feel more effective in their stepparenting roles. Although coparenting and parenting are important aspects of stepfamily functioning that are associated with stepchildren’s well-being, little is known about effective programs to improve these aspects of stepfamily functioning, and no studies have examined the effects of interventions on both coparenting and parenting for stepparents. In a recent meta-analysis, Lucier-Greer and Adler-Baeder (2012) examined findings from 28 quantitative studies evaluating stepfamily-focused RME interventions from 1982 to 2011. Three studies used stepcouples’ coparenting as an outcome measure (one was an unpublished dissertation). Of the two published studies one, using a global item assessing stepcouples’ parenting agreement, found significant increases in reported agreement following the intervention (Higginbotham & Skogrand, 2010). The other study found significant decreases in reported parenting conflict between biological and stepparents (Nicholson & Sanders, 1999). Neither of these studies measured changes in parenting. Studies of programs that primarily target parenting in stepfamilies, several included in the meta-analysis, also provide evidence of effectiveness. Forgatch, DeGarmo, and Beldavs (2005) found that the overall parenting quality improved for stepcouples following participation. In this study, the stepcouples’ coparenting relationship was not a primary target of the intervention, and improvements in coparenting were not examined. Nicholson, Phillips, Whitton, Halford, and Sanders (2007) found a decrease in the percentage of parents and stepparents reporting coparenting as a primary stepfamily concern, yet again the couples’ actual coparenting relationship was not assessed. Finally, results from an evaluation of a self-administered web-based curriculum for stepfamilies found improvements in parenting efficacy for participants, yet results for biological and stepparents were not examined separately (Gelatt, Adler-Baeder, & Seeley, 2010). The current study is the first to directly examine both changes in stepcouples’ coparenting relationship and dimensions of stepparents’ parenting following participation in a coparenting-focused intervention. On the basis of the association between coparenting and stepparents’ negativity in previous research (Margolin et al., 2001) and assumptions in family systems theory of interconnectedness, we also examine the associations among changes in each outcome. Because there is some evidence that coparenting and stepparenting practices differ by race, gender, and resident status (Jones & Lindahl, 2011; Margolin et al., 2001; Marsiglio, 1992; McHale & Irace, 2011), we further explore variations in change patterns based on participant demographics.
METHOD Procedure Data came from a larger sample of adults who completed RME classes in a southern state. The current study examines experiences of a subset of 96 stepparents of stepchildren under age 18 who completed pre- and postprogram surveys and who completed an RME curriculum with core content focused on developing cooperative coparenting among multiple parents. Sixty-seven stepparents completed Together We Can (TWC; Shirer, Adler-Baeder, & Contreras, 2007) and 29 completed Smart Steps: Embrace the Journey (SS; Adler-Baeder, 2007). Both are community education programs that address needs of complex families with coparenting relationships. The author of Smart Steps was involved in development of TWC, and content on coparenting and stepparenting skills was taken explicitly from SS, so there is literal overlap of information delivered in TWC and SS. Delivery of content in TWC and SS differs some, as TWC incorporates lower literacy www.FamilyProcess.org
/ 593
GARNEAU & ADLER-BAEDER
hand-outs and more hands-on activities while SS provides more research background on skills and information presented. As we expected similar outcomes in coparenting and parenting for both TWC and SS, we deemed it theoretically appropriate to assess outcomes of the two curricula together. However, as a check on the appropriateness of this decision we include time 9 curriculum interaction terms in our analyses. Using a communitybased implementation model, staff at partner agencies recruited participants across 14 rural and urban counties and were trained by the program developers to implement programs. Regardless of curriculum, all participants completed 8–12 hours of RME.
Participants Stepparents who reported on nonresident coparenting relationships were excluded. The sample consisted equally of stepfathers and stepmothers. The sample was diverse; however, the majority of participants were European American (EA; 67%), followed by African American (29%), and other (i.e., 2% Latino, 1% Native American, and 1% bi-racial). Sixty-five percent were married, 17% were engaged, and 19% were dating. Over half of participants were resident stepparents (62%). Roughly a fifth had less than a high school education, 32% completed high school/GED, and 50% of the sample completed at least some education beyond high school. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 60 years old (M = 32, SD = 8.2 years). The sample was fairly low-income, with roughly a third (35%) reporting an annual household income of less than $14,000. Forty-two percent of participants attended the RME program with their current partner.
Measures Coparenting agreement Stepparents reported on their current coparenting relationship using a six-item scale (adapted from Ahrons & Wallisch, 1987) with items such as, “How often do you and your coparent agree on childrearing?” Answers ranged from 1 (never/not supportive) to 5 (always/very supportive), and negative items were reverse coded. Mean scores were calculated with higher scores indicating greater coparenting agreement (a = .80). Parenting efficacy A 3-item scale was used to measure stepparents’ feelings of parenting efficacy (Dumka, Stoerzinger, Jackson, & Roosa, 1996). On a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), participants answered questions such as, “I feel sure of myself as a parent.” Negative items were reverse coded, and mean scores were computed with higher scores indicating greater parenting efficacy (a = .70). Parental involvement Parental involvement was measured using a 7-item scale (adapted from the Role of the Father Questionnaire; Palkovitz, 1984). Stepparents reported how often they engaged in various parenting behaviors with children (e.g., play with the child, read/sing/talk to the child) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never to 5 = very often). The mean score was calculated with higher scores indicating greater parental involvement (a = .79).
RESULTS Repeated measures analyses of covariance (RMANCOVAs) were used to examine main effects for changes from pre- to postprogram in stepparents’ reports of coparenting agreement, parenting efficacy, and parental involvement. Time 9 gender, time 9 race Fam. Proc., Vol. 54, December, 2015
/ 597
GARNEAU & ADLER-BAEDER
First, the sample is small. The study is part of an initial demonstration project that focused on the feasibility of implementing large-scale, multi-site community-based programs for diverse populations of couples and coparents and lacks a comparison group to allow for an examination of program efficacy. Thus, although stepparents showed improvement in the targeted outcomes following the intervention, we cannot determine with certainty whether these improvements were the result of the program or if they would have occurred regardless of program completion. Notably, effect sizes for significant findings were all above .25, which, according to Wolf (1986), can be considered practical change for evaluations of educational programs with nonclinical samples. Future studies are needed that utilize quasi-experimental or experimental research designs to further establish the effectiveness of coparenting-focused RME programs for stepparents. Further, although coparenting-focused content was consistent across interventions, we included participants who had completed two distinct coparenting-focused RME programs. Stepparents in this study were prompted to report on their overall parenting efficacy and parental involvement. Because roughly half of the stepparents in this study reported also having resident biological children and 24% had nonresidential biological children, we cannot determine their specific feeling of efficacy regarding solely their stepparenting. However, because the focus in the interventions had been on stepfamily relationships in the family (i.e., coparenting team; stepparent-stepchild), we do know at least that respondents had been directed to focus differentially on their efficacy and involvement in relationships with step-children.
CONCLUSIONS Our study highlights the gap in research on coparenting interventions and the potential value of continued focus on community-based efforts to strengthen the stepparent–parent coparenting relationship in complex families. Our findings provide some evidence that, particularly for European American stepparents and stepmothers, coparenting-focused interventions may be beneficial in the short-term for several dimensions of family functioning. We encourage the continued exploration rather than the control of diverse characteristics of stepparents in order to better inform models of best practice, as well as the examination of the processes of changes in different domains (coparenting, couple, stepparenting, child outcomes) over time. Because of the broader established linkages among the couple relationship, coparenting, and parenting (e.g., Doherty & Beaton, 2004), and their influence on children outcomes (e.g., Feinberg et al., 2007; Margolin et al., 2001), we can assume that a focus in an intervention on one aspect of the family system may have an influence on other dimensions. Evidence is provided here on the links between coparenting and parenting efficacy and between parenting efficacy and parental involvement after exposure to coparenting/stepparenting skills content. However, we join others in recommending further exploration of the effects of hybrid interventions that combine emphases on cooperative coparenting strategies, effective parenting practices, and skills for healthy couple functioning (e.g., Cowan et al., 2010). In more complex families, it is possible that even greater gains will be realized. REFERENCES Adamsons, K., O’Brien, M., & Pasley, K. (2007). An ecological approach to father involvement in biological and stepfather families. Fathering, 5, 129–147. Adler-Baeder, F. (2007). Smart Steps: Embrace the journey. Auburn, AL: National Stepfamily Resource Center.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 54, December, 2015
GARNEAU & ADLER-BAEDER
/ 599
Marsiglio, W. (1992). Stepfathers with minor children living at home parenting perceptions and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 195–214. McHale, J. (1997). Overt and covert coparenting processes in the family. Family Process, 36, 183–201. McHale, J., & Coates, E. (2014). Observed coparenting and triadic dynamics in African American fragile families at 3 months post-partum. Infant Mental Health Journal, 35, 435–451. McHale, J. P., & Irace, K. (2011). Coparenting in diverse family systems. In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 15–38). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McHale, J. P., & Lindahl, K. M. (2011). Introduction: What is coparenting? In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 3–12). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nicholson, J. M., Phillips, M., Whitton, S. W., Halford, W., & Sanders, M. R. (2007). Promoting healthy stepfamilies: Couples’ reasons for seeking help and perceived benefits from intervention. Family Matters, 77, 48–56. Nicholson, J. M., & Sanders, M. R. (1999). Randomized controlled trial of behavioral family intervention for the treatment of child behavior problems in stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 30(3/4), 1–23. Palkovitz, R. (1984). Parental attitudes and father’s interactions with their 5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1054–1060. Pruett, M. K., & Donsky, T. (2011). Coparenting after divorce: Paving pathways for parental cooperation, conflict resolution, and redefined family roles. In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 231–250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Schrodt, P., Soliz, J., & Braithwaite, D. (2008). A social relations model of everyday talk and relational satisfaction in stepfamilies. Communication Monographs, 75, 190–217. Shirer, K. A., Adler-Baeder, F., & Contreras, D. (2007). Together we can: Creating a healthy future for family. A 24-lesson for unmarried parents on co-parenting, marriage, father involvement and child support issues. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Skogrand, L., Reck, K. H., Higginbotham, B., Adler-Baeder, F., & Dansie, L. (2010). Recruitment and retention for stepfamily education. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 9, 48–65. Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41, 659–675. Svare, G. M., Jay, S., & Mason, M. A. (2004). Stepparents on stepparenting: An exploratory study of stepparenting approaches. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 41(3/4), 81–97. Sweeney, M. M. (2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 667–684. Waller, M. (2012). Cooperation, conflict, or disengagement? Coparenting styles and father involvement in fragile families. Family Process, 51, 325–342. Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yuan, A. S. V., & Hamilton, H. A. (2006). Stepfather involvement and adolescent well-being: Do mothers and nonresidential fathers matter? Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1191–1213.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 54, December, 2015
596 /
FAMILY PROCESS
stepfathers (Coleman, Troilo, & Jamison, 2008). Although not measured in this study, stepmothers in our sample may have experienced greater improvement in coparenting due to a greater importance of their parenting roles. Because stepmothers tend to engage in more parenting behaviors, they may believe they have more to gain by increasing their coparenting agreement with their partner and put greater effort into doing so. Evidence suggests that stepfathers may also be less intrinsically motivated to participate in RME to begin with. In a recent qualitative study of stepfathers attending a Smart Steps program, the majority of participants reported being strongly encouraged to participate by their wives despite their own reluctance (Higginbotham et al., 2012). Intrinsic motivation increases the number of sessions RME participants attend (Skogrand, Reck, Higginbotham, Adler-Baeder, & Dansie, 2010), and it may also be associated with gains in target outcomes. Thus, stepmothers in our sample may have been more intrinsically motivated to participate in the intervention and be more likely to report gains in coparenting agreement relative to stepfathers. As expected, in addition to improvements in coparenting for certain participants, we found concurrent improvements in parenting efficacy. Self-reported parenting efficacy increased following program participation regardless of race, gender, residence, or curriculum. For parental involvement, we find indications of differences in change based on race, with a significant and large effect size for increases in EA stepparents’ involvement with no significant change for ethnic minority stepparents. The majority of research on parental involvement has focused on fathers (e.g., first-time fathers, nonresident, stepfathers), and interventions to improve parental involvement have primarily targeted nonresident fathers (e.g., Cowan, Cowan, & Knox, 2010). Previous research on stepfather relationship quality and involvement with stepchildren is mixed. Some studies suggest more “fatherlike” socialization and higher levels of involvement and relationship quality among African American stepfathers compared to EA stepfathers (e.g., Hurd & Rogers, 1998; Marsiglio, 1992), while a recent study suggests that African American stepfathers tend to be less involved with stepchildren (Hofferth & Anderson, 2003). No studies have examined differences in stepmothers by race. We note no race differences at baseline in the level of reported involvement by stepparents and it is unclear why only EA stepparents reported significant increases. This is the first study to examine variation in change in stepparents’ involvement following a coparenting-focused intervention by race, and the findings suggest continued use of an ecocultural lens in future research to better understand the current finding. The interventions included a strong emphasis on couple and coparenting relationships with little direct emphasis on parenting strategies. Yet we found improvements in parenting efficacy and parental involvement following program completion. Margolin et al. (2001) provided initial evidence of the association between coparenting and stepfathers’ parenting, yet previous evaluation studies have established associations among postprogram coparenting and parenting changes only in biological families (e.g., Cowan et al., 2010; Feinberg & Kan, 2008). Although our index of coparenting was limited to agreement between the parents assessed at the individual level, linkages among improvement in coparenting, parenting efficacy, and involvement hint at improvement in the triangular parent-stepparent-child relationship. Our findings, therefore, provide the first initial evidence for links among improvements in stepcouples’ coparenting relationships and stepparenting following coparenting-focused RME participation. A triadic assessment (see McHale & Coates, 2014) and assessment from multiple informants will be important next research steps. Despite novel contributions of the study on the positive changes in stepparent coparenting and parenting which may vary by race and gender, this study has several limitations. www.FamilyProcess.org
/ 597
GARNEAU & ADLER-BAEDER
First, the sample is small. The study is part of an initial demonstration project that focused on the feasibility of implementing large-scale, multi-site community-based programs for diverse populations of couples and coparents and lacks a comparison group to allow for an examination of program efficacy. Thus, although stepparents showed improvement in the targeted outcomes following the intervention, we cannot determine with certainty whether these improvements were the result of the program or if they would have occurred regardless of program completion. Notably, effect sizes for significant findings were all above .25, which, according to Wolf (1986), can be considered practical change for evaluations of educational programs with nonclinical samples. Future studies are needed that utilize quasi-experimental or experimental research designs to further establish the effectiveness of coparenting-focused RME programs for stepparents. Further, although coparenting-focused content was consistent across interventions, we included participants who had completed two distinct coparenting-focused RME programs. Stepparents in this study were prompted to report on their overall parenting efficacy and parental involvement. Because roughly half of the stepparents in this study reported also having resident biological children and 24% had nonresidential biological children, we cannot determine their specific feeling of efficacy regarding solely their stepparenting. However, because the focus in the interventions had been on stepfamily relationships in the family (i.e., coparenting team; stepparent-stepchild), we do know at least that respondents had been directed to focus differentially on their efficacy and involvement in relationships with step-children.
CONCLUSIONS Our study highlights the gap in research on coparenting interventions and the potential value of continued focus on community-based efforts to strengthen the stepparent–parent coparenting relationship in complex families. Our findings provide some evidence that, particularly for European American stepparents and stepmothers, coparenting-focused interventions may be beneficial in the short-term for several dimensions of family functioning. We encourage the continued exploration rather than the control of diverse characteristics of stepparents in order to better inform models of best practice, as well as the examination of the processes of changes in different domains (coparenting, couple, stepparenting, child outcomes) over time. Because of the broader established linkages among the couple relationship, coparenting, and parenting (e.g., Doherty & Beaton, 2004), and their influence on children outcomes (e.g., Feinberg et al., 2007; Margolin et al., 2001), we can assume that a focus in an intervention on one aspect of the family system may have an influence on other dimensions. Evidence is provided here on the links between coparenting and parenting efficacy and between parenting efficacy and parental involvement after exposure to coparenting/stepparenting skills content. However, we join others in recommending further exploration of the effects of hybrid interventions that combine emphases on cooperative coparenting strategies, effective parenting practices, and skills for healthy couple functioning (e.g., Cowan et al., 2010). In more complex families, it is possible that even greater gains will be realized. REFERENCES Adamsons, K., O’Brien, M., & Pasley, K. (2007). An ecological approach to father involvement in biological and stepfather families. Fathering, 5, 129–147. Adler-Baeder, F. (2007). Smart Steps: Embrace the journey. Auburn, AL: National Stepfamily Resource Center.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 54, December, 2015
598 /
FAMILY PROCESS
Adler-Baeder, F., & Shirer, K. A. (2011). Coparenting interventions for unmarried parents. In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 191–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ahrons, C. R., & Wallisch, L. (1987). Parenting in the binuclear family: Relationships between biological and stepparents. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Remarriage and stepparenting: Current research and theory (pp. 225–256). New York: Guilford. Ardelt, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2001). Effects of mothers’ parental efficacy beliefs and promotive parenting strategies on inner-city youth. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 944–972. Baker, J., McHale, J., Strozier, A., & Cecil, D. (2010). Mother–grandmother coparenting relationships in families with incarcerated mothers: A pilot investigation. Family Process, 49(2), 165–184. Browning, S., & Artelt, E. (2011). Stepfamily therapy: A 10-step clinical approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Burton, L., & Hardaway, C. (2012). Low-income “othermothers” to their romantic partners’ children: Women’s coparenting in multiple partner fertility relationships. Family Process, 51, 343–359. Cabrera, N., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71, 127–136. Cherlin, A. J. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 403–419. Coleman, M., Troilo, J., & Jamison, T. (2008). The diversity of stepmothers: The influences of stigma, gender, and context on stepmother identities. In J. Pryor (Ed.), The international handbook of stepfamilies: Policies and practices in legal, research and clinical environments (pp. 369–393). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Knox, V. (2010). Marriage and fatherhood programs. The Future of Children, 20, 205–230. Doherty, W. J., & Beaton, J. M. (2004). Mothers and fathers parenting together. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 269–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dumka, L. E., Stoerzinger, H. D., Jackson, K. M., & Roosa, M. W. (1996). Examination of the cross-cultural and cross-language equivalence of the parenting self-agency measure. Family Relations, 45, 216–222. Elliott, D. B., & Simmons, T. (2011). Marital events of Americans: 2009. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau. Feinberg, M. E., & Kan, M. L. (2008). Establishing family foundations: Intervention effects on coparenting, parent/infant well-being, and parent-child relations. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 253–263. Feinberg, M. E., Kan, M. L., & Hetherington, E. M. (2007). The longitudinal influence of coparenting conflict on parental negativity and adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 687–702. Forgatch, M. S., DeGarmo, D. S., & Beldavs, Z. G. (2005). An efficacious theory-based intervention for stepfamilies. Behavior Therapy, 36, 357–365. Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (2004). Stepfamily relationships: Development, dynamics, and interventions. New York: Kluwer. Gasper, J. A., Stolberg, A. L., Macie, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2008). Coparenting in intact and divorced families: Its impact on young adult adjustment. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 49, 272–290. Gelatt, V. A., Adler-Baeder, F., & Seeley, J. R. (2010). An interactive web-based program for stepfamilies: Development and evaluation of efficacy. Family Relations, 59, 572–586. Higginbotham, B., Davis, P., Smith, L., Dansie, L., Skogrand, L., & Rfeck, K. (2012). Stepfathers and stepfamily education. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53(1), 76–90. Higginbotham, B. J., & Skogrand, L. (2010). Relationship education with both married and unmarried stepcouples: An exploratory study. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy: Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions, 9, 133–148. Hofferth, S. L., & Anderson, K. G. (2003). Are all dads equal? Biology versus marriage as a basis for paternal investment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 213–232. Hurd, E. P., & Rogers, R. (1998). A friend and a brother: Understanding the role of African American men in child-rearing. Journal of Family Social Work, 3(1), 5–23. Jones, D. J., Shaffer, A., Forehand, R., Brody, G., & Armistead, L. P. (2003). Coparent conflict in single motherheaded African American families: Do parenting skills serve as a mediator or moderator of child psychosocial adjustment? Behavior Therapy, 34, 259–272. Jones, J. D., & Lindahl, K. (2011). Coparenting in extended kinship systems: African American, Hispanic, Asian Heritage, and Native American families. In J. McHale & K. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 61–79). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lucier-Greer, M., & Adler-Baeder, F. (2012). Does couple and relationship education work for individuals in stepfamilies? A meta-analytic study. Family Relations, 61, 756–769. Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: A link between marital conflict and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 3–21.
www.FamilyProcess.org
GARNEAU & ADLER-BAEDER
/ 599
Marsiglio, W. (1992). Stepfathers with minor children living at home parenting perceptions and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 195–214. McHale, J. (1997). Overt and covert coparenting processes in the family. Family Process, 36, 183–201. McHale, J., & Coates, E. (2014). Observed coparenting and triadic dynamics in African American fragile families at 3 months post-partum. Infant Mental Health Journal, 35, 435–451. McHale, J. P., & Irace, K. (2011). Coparenting in diverse family systems. In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 15–38). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McHale, J. P., & Lindahl, K. M. (2011). Introduction: What is coparenting? In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 3–12). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nicholson, J. M., Phillips, M., Whitton, S. W., Halford, W., & Sanders, M. R. (2007). Promoting healthy stepfamilies: Couples’ reasons for seeking help and perceived benefits from intervention. Family Matters, 77, 48–56. Nicholson, J. M., & Sanders, M. R. (1999). Randomized controlled trial of behavioral family intervention for the treatment of child behavior problems in stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 30(3/4), 1–23. Palkovitz, R. (1984). Parental attitudes and father’s interactions with their 5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1054–1060. Pruett, M. K., & Donsky, T. (2011). Coparenting after divorce: Paving pathways for parental cooperation, conflict resolution, and redefined family roles. In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 231–250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Schrodt, P., Soliz, J., & Braithwaite, D. (2008). A social relations model of everyday talk and relational satisfaction in stepfamilies. Communication Monographs, 75, 190–217. Shirer, K. A., Adler-Baeder, F., & Contreras, D. (2007). Together we can: Creating a healthy future for family. A 24-lesson for unmarried parents on co-parenting, marriage, father involvement and child support issues. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Skogrand, L., Reck, K. H., Higginbotham, B., Adler-Baeder, F., & Dansie, L. (2010). Recruitment and retention for stepfamily education. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 9, 48–65. Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41, 659–675. Svare, G. M., Jay, S., & Mason, M. A. (2004). Stepparents on stepparenting: An exploratory study of stepparenting approaches. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 41(3/4), 81–97. Sweeney, M. M. (2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 667–684. Waller, M. (2012). Cooperation, conflict, or disengagement? Coparenting styles and father involvement in fragile families. Family Process, 51, 325–342. Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yuan, A. S. V., & Hamilton, H. A. (2006). Stepfather involvement and adolescent well-being: Do mothers and nonresidential fathers matter? Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1191–1213.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 54, December, 2015
