1.  Past research examining the relationship between interparental conflict (IPC) and children’s adjustment has emphasized the importance of emotional, cognitive, and family systems processes as mediators (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Grych et al., 2003, 2004).  These processes are studied in relative isolation; integration is necessary for a more complete understanding of mediating processes involved in children’s adjustment to parental conflict.  Considered together, what role do each of these processes play?  The present study examines the role of triangulation, cognitive appraisals, and emotion regulation as processes that link parental conflict.  Triangulation  The inclusion of children into parental conflicts places them at greater risk for adjustment problems (Grych et al., 2004; Kerig, 1995; Lindahl et al., 2004)  Children’s involvement in parental disputes may make them more likely to experience negative appraisals and greater dysregulation of emotions.  Alternatively, triangulation may serve as a unique process linking conflict and adjustment.  Cognitive Appraisals: Threat & Blame ♦Threat. Children who perceive conflicts as threatening to themselves or their family well-being are at greater risk for internalizing problems (Grych et al., 2003). ♦Blame. Children who believe that they responsible for causing or resolving parental conflicts are at greater risk for internalizing and externalizing problems (Fosco & Grych, in press). ♦Children who are triangulated into parental conflicts may find it more threatening and be more likely to blame themselves (Gerard et al., 2005; Kerig, 1995). ♦Appraisals may function as independent processes linked with adjustment problems. ♦Appraisals may be linked with children’s emotion regulation (Gross & Thompson, 2007).  Emotion Regulation (ER)  Defined as children’s adaptive patterns of controlling excessive affect coupled with ability to appropriately express emotions (Cassidy, 1994).  There is a well established link with children’s adjustment problems (Eisenberg et al., 2001; 2003; 2005).  ER is thought to be informed by appraisal processes (Gross & Thompson, 2007).  Regulation is relatively unstudied in the context of parental conflict. 1.To form a more complete model including emotional, cognitive, and family systems processes linking parental conflict and children’s adjustment. 2.To compare alternative models and determine the nature of the relationships between triangulation, appraisals and regulation as mediators of this association Take Home Message  This study underscores the value of integrating across cognitive, emotional, and family systems influences in the association between interparental conflict and children’s adjustment. Finding A Best Fitting Model  Three models were tested to determine the nature of relationships between mediators of parental conflict and children’s adjustment problems.  This study supports the role of children’s emotion regulation as a mediator of triangulation and appraisals on children’s internalizing and externalizing problems.  This also supports the hypothesis that children’s triangulation, threat and self blame account for the association between exposure to interparental conflict and children’s adjustment.  However, these analyses do not support the role of triangulation as a mediator of conflict and appraisals; rather they suggest that it may serve as a parallel process informing children’s emotion regulation processes Examining the Best Fitting Model  While the general findings for the models using child and parent indicators of adjustment converge, there were some differences that emerged between them.  Linking interparental conflict and emotion regulation  Children’s exposure to parental conflict was associated with greater levels of triangulation, threat, and self blame appraisals.  Children who were triangulated into parental conflicts and formed more self-blaming attributions had less adaptive emotion regulation.  In turn, deficits in emotion regulation was associated with greater internalizing and externalizing problems Limitations and Future Directions  Cross sectional data is limited in testing mediational models  Further research is needed to determine temporal associations between conflict, triangulation and appraisals, emotion regulation, and adjustment. Strengths of this Study  This study integrates across emotional, cognitive, and family systems perspectives to form a more complete model of interparental conflict and children’s adjustment  Assessment of mothers’, fathers’, and children’s perspectives on each construct.  Included internalizing and externalizing problems in the same model. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the families who gave of their time to participate in this study. We also would like to thank the graduate and undergraduate student colleagues for their help in implementing this project and providing feedback on the study. Finally, we would like to thank M. Brent Donnellan for his consultation on this study. Processes that Link Parental Conflict and Children’s Adjustment: Testing an Integrated Model of Appraisals and Emotion Regulation Gregory M. Fosco & John H. Grych Measures Method Proposed ModelsIntroductionDiscussion Interparental Conflict: (C): CPIC (Grych et al., 1992) Triangulation (P): CQ (Margolin et al., 2001) CPS (Kerig, 1996) Threat (C): CPIC (Grych et al., 1992) Blame (C): CPIC (Grych et al., 1992) Emotion Regulation (C):TAS-Child (Spielberger, 1981) (P): ERC (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997) Internalizing Problems (C): YSR (Achenbach, 1991) (P): CBCL (Achenbach, 1991) Externalizing Problems (C): YSR (Achenbach, 1991) (P): CBCL (Achenbach, 1991) Purpose Comparisons of Fit Statistics for the Three Models Grant Funding Provided By NIMH# MH60294-01 IPC ER ADJ Threat Blame TRI a. Parallel Mediators Model IPC ER ADJ Threat Blame TRI b. Triangulation Driven Model IPC TRI ADJ Threat Blame ER c. Confluence at Emotion Regulation Model Results Participants were recruited from several local elementary schools Parents were living together for a minimum of 2 years Mothers, fathers, and children completed questionnaire packets individually Procedure Modeldf χ2χ2 AGFICFIRMSEAAIC Parallel Mediators3551.36.88.98.056137.316 Triangulation Driven3455.23.86.97.065143.226 Confluence at ER3956.45.89.98.055134.083 Triang. IPC Frq EXT ER INT Threat Blame Int Res CP C P C P 1234567891011 1. IPC Frq.---- 2. IPC Int..60 ** ---- 3. IPC Res..50 **.57**---- 4. Triang..41 **.48**.45**---- 5. Threat.43 **.54**.36**.22*---- 6. Blame.32**.25*.37**.36**.25**---- 7. P ER-.16-.18*-.19*-.18*-.15-.23*---- 8. C ER-.26**-.17*-.21*-.06-.18*-.30**.38**---- 9. P INT.15.20*.17.35**.16.29**-.61**-.32**---- 10. C INT.33**.20*.32*.03.34**.41**-.27**-.43**.34**---- 11. P EXT.22**.23**.16.43**.11.32**-.62**-.43**.69**.17---- 12. C Ext.26**.22*.34**.10.09.38**-.34**-.51**.25**.62**.31** Correlations between Indicator Variables.49.59 -.32 -.04 -.24 -.94.92 -.81.77.36.34 1.00.85.69.46.65 χ 2 (39) = 56.083, p=.44, χ2 /df = 1.44; AGFI =.89; CFI =.98; RMSEA =.055 The Final Model: