Defense mechanisms and negotiation as predictors of co-parenting among divorcing couples

Abstract

This study examined the individual and joint relationships of mature and immature defense mechanisms and the use of negotiation as a conflict resolution strategy with the co-parenting of divorcing couples. The responses of 71 divorcing couples to the study questionnaires were analyzed using the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model. Findings showed that both conscious use of negotiation and unconscious use of mature defense mechanisms for the purpose of conflict resolution were associated with the co-parenting of those parents who possessed these qualities, and that where one parent used mature defense mechanisms, the other participated more in his or her children’s lives and showed more cooperation. Almost all actor effects were forms of increased participation in the children’s lives. The lack of partner effects in the case of immature defense mechanisms and positive use of negotiation was discussed, and clinical implications were presented.

Keywords

Co-parenting defense mechanism negotiation divorced couples

Co-parenting after separation and divorce refers to parents’ ongoing responsibility for parenting children and for coordinating among adults for the care and upbringing of children (Ahrons & Wallisch, 1987; McHale, Kuersten-Hogan, & Rao, 2004). It involves parents’ behavior towards their children as well as their conduct towards one another. Research on post-divorce co-parenting relationships shows variance in degrees of conflict and cooperation, with some relationships characterized by greater cooperation, others by more conflict (Ahrons & Rogers, 1987; Cohen, Luxenburg, Dattner, & Matz, 1999). Optimal co-parenting, regarded as the ideal of successful divorce, is based on and manifested by parents’ involvement in their children’s lives, their consideration for one another’s parenting needs, their ability to communicate constructively with one another in matters related to their children, and their ability to put aside their anger and hostility and cooperate for the sake of their children (Cohen, Dattner, & Luxenburg, 1996; Johnston & Roseby, 1997).

These tasks are not easy to accomplish in the face of the many stresses of separation and divorce, from the pain of loss (of partner, family, role, income, etc.) to the need to adapt to changes in one’s personal situation, such as the change from a spousal/parental system to a parental system only (Ahorns & Rogers, 1987).The emotions aroused by separation and divorce, which often include feelings of oss, rejection, humiliation, helplessness, anger, ambivalence, rage, and guilt (Johnston, Walters, & Friedlander, 2001), add to the difficulty of co-parenting.

The literature on divorce testifies to the great difficulty of co-parenting following divorce (Amato, 2000; Grych, Fincham, Jourlies, & McDonald, 2000), as well as to the detrimental consequences for children of their parents’ failure to do so (e.g., Amato, 2001; Grych et al., 2000). Post-divorce parental hostility has been linked to psychological, social and cognitive problems among children (e.g., Cummings & Davies, 1994; Ramsey, 2001; Schoppe-Sullivan, Schermerhorn, & Cummings, 2007; Wallerstein, Lewis, & Blakeslee, 2000), as well as to paternal distancing and reduced paternal involvement in the children’s lives (Stewart, 2010). Conversely, cooperative communication regarding parenting issues has been linked to greater paternal involvement after divorce (Ahrons & Tanner, 2003; Rettig & Leichtentritt, 2001) and to children’s emotional and economic stability (Amato, 2000; Amato & Keith, 1993).

Given the importance of positive post-divorce co-parenting for the wellbeing and psychological adjustment of children (Amato, 2000; Grych, 2005; Pollet & Lombreglia, 2008; Ramsey, 2001; Wallerstein et al., 2000), attempts have been made to determine its predictors. The many predictors that have been examined include parents’ socio-demographic features such as education (Amato, 2000) and economic status (Benjamin & Irving, 2001; Cohen & Levin, in press), as well as features related to the divorce and to parents’ post-divorce lives, such as the hostility of the divorce proceedings (Beck & Sales, 2001; Maccoby, Depner, & Mnookin, 1990), custody arrangements and satisfaction with the division of assets (Arditti & Kelly, 1994; Bonach, 2005), and post-divorce social and familial support (e.g., Arditti & Kelly, 1994).

By contrast, there has been little study of the predictors of co-parenting during the divorce period. This is a significant lacuna in the literature. The time between the couple’s initial decision to dissolve the marriage and the actual legal divorce may be long and particularly stressful for parents and children alike (Bodenmann et al., 2007; Emery, 1994). It is a time of great uncertainty, emotional turmoil, countless practical decisions, and the beginning of the difficult psychological task of separating one’s spousal role from one’s parental role so as to be able to parent jointly even as one ceases to be a husband or wife (Cohen et al., 1996; Madden-Derdich, Leonard, & Christopher, 1999). It cannot be assumed that the predictors of co-parenting after divorce are the same as those during the divorce process.

Moreover, all existing studies on predictors of co-parenting after divorce examine the co-parenting of each parent separately, without reference to the behavior of the other parent. Yet it has long been observed that in any relationship, individual behavior is shaped and modeled, neutralized or enhanced by the personalities of both partners, and that studies of couples must therefore examine both partners interactively (Barelds, 2005; Willi, 1984). As Madden-Derdich and Leonard (2002) have pointed out, group-level analyses provide only limited information about the dyadic relationship and may conceal important information about within-couple similarities and differences. More recently, Sbarra and Emery (2008) observed that few studies to date have examined how ex-partners’ emotional states influence each other.

The present study examines the contribution of two hitherto almost unexplored personal features – maturity of parents’ defense mechanisms and parents’ tendency to negotiate – to the co-parenting of divorcing couples, while attending both to the actor effects and to the partner effects of these features.

Theoretical bases

The present study is anchored in the theoretical perspective suggested by Cramer’s (1998) differentiation between two different types of adaptation processes: those involving coping mechanisms and those involving defense mechanisms. As Cramer (1998, 2000) defines them, coping mechanisms are purposeful efforts carried out with the intent of managing or solving a problem situation, whereas defense mechanisms arise without conscious effort, awareness, or intentionality, and function to change an internal psychological state. The two are similar, however, in that both are aroused by the presence of threat or adversity and both are aimed at protecting the individual from their emotional consequences. Put somewhat differently, coping strategies and defense mechanisms are both means of dealing with stressful situations (Bouchard & Thériault, 2003; Cramer, 1998, 2000; Erickson, Feldman, & Steiner, 1997).

This perspective was chosen because of the commonly accepted understanding that marital disruption is a stressful life transition to which parents and children must adapt (Amato, 2000). Many studies undertaken from the perspective of stress theory have examined variables that may foster or impede this adaptation. Among them are variables ranging from socio-economic status (e.g., Booth & Amato, 1992; Hill & King, 1995), through numerous divorce related-features (e.g., Sweeney & Horowitz, 2001), through coping strategies (e.g., Cohen, 1996), to a variety of personal coping resources such as sense of coherence (e.g., Stewart, 2005) and attachment (Mehta, Cowan, & Cowan, 2009). However, although the contribution of coping strategies and resources to divorce adjustment has been studied, the role of defense mechanisms in divorce has been discussed only theoretically (Westerman & Steen, 2009), especially with respect to high conflict couples (Levite & Cohen, 2012). To our knowledge it has not been examined empirically.

For the most part, too, the contributions of defense mechanisms and coping strategies to adjustment to other stressful situations have so far been studied separately. This is probably due to the concepts being anchored in different traditions: the concept of coping strategies in the social psychology tradition, and the concept of defense mechanisms in the psychoanalytic tradition (Bouchard & Thériault, 2003). Two papers, however, have examined both these factors together. Erickson et al. (1997) found that defense processes and coping strategies operated simultaneously and mostly independently, with little redundancy, in adolescents’ management of stressors, conflicts and affects. Bouchard and Thériault (2003) found that they made joint as well as and unique contributions to marital adjustment. While these findings are intriguing, neither paper, nor any other, examines the role of these two variables either in the divorce process in general or in the co-parenting of divorcing or divorced parents in particular.

This study is another effort to examine the two types of adaptation processes together. More specifically, it seeks to determine the relative contribution of each mechanism to the co-parenting of divorcing couples. Ultimately, we seek to understand the complex inter-relationships of different coping strategies and defense mechanisms in the co-parenting process. Since this is the first study examining the relative contribution of divorcing couples’ defense mechanisms and coping strategies to co-parenting, we decided to begin with one variable in each category: the maturity of the parents’ defense mechanisms, and their use of negotiation as a conflict-resolution strategy. As explained in greater detail below, these variables were chosen because each in its own way is relevant to the manner in which individuals deal with stress and conflict, which are so prevalent in divorce (Sweeper & Halford, 2006).

Mature and immature defense mechanisms and negotiation as a conflict-resolution strategy

Defense mechanisms. Following Anna Freud (1937), defense mechanisms are defined by psychoanalytic theory as part of the ego’s repertoire of mechanisms for protecting individuals from the anxiety arising from conflict between their instincts or impulses and their internalized values. They function intra-psychically, by preventing unacceptable thoughts and impulses from reaching conscious awareness, where they would create painful anxiety (Goldstein, 1995). Although they cannot be consciously mobilized, they are important in helping individuals adapt and cope (Vaillant, 1992). As such, we can assume that they may be adaptive in dealing with the inner conflicts and tumultuous feelings that usually arise during the divorce process. Yet all defense mechanisms falsify and distort reality to some extent. To the degree that they enable a person to function optimally without undue anxiety, they may be considered effective. In many instances, however, depending on a variety of factors, they may prove ineffective or maladaptive.

According to Anna Freud, who identified most of the defense mechanisms that are spoken of today, the various defense mechanisms are discrete. Although their number is in dispute and their definition still a source of considerable confusion for researchers and clinicians alike, it is commonly accepted that all people use defense mechanism, though the type of mechanism and the extent of its use vary from one individual to another (e.g., Vaillant, 1977). Generally, a given person favors some defenses over others. Defense mechanisms are widely classified as mature (e.g., humor, altruism, anticipation, sublimation) or immature (e.g., projection, devaluation, denial, splitting) (DSM–IV; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Mature defense mechanisms are usually viewed as adaptive, protecting individuals from anxiety while simultaneously fostering optimal functioning. Immature defense mechanisms are viewed as maladaptive, in that the protection they provide comes at the expense of the individual’s functioning (e.g., Vaillant, 1977).

The maturity of people’s defense mechanisms can be expected to play a role in their co-parenting for a number of reasons. In general, the level of defense mechanism people employ (mature vs. immature) affects the way they regulate negative affects (e.g., hostility) and cope with stressful and threatening situations (e.g., Paris, Zweig-Frank, Bond, & Guzder, 1996). More specifically, widely used immature defense mechanisms such as splitting (sharply dividing feelings and experiences between positive and negative), projection (the attribution of unacceptable feelings, thoughts, and impulses to someone else), devaluation (attributing negative traits to others so as to demean them), and denial (ignoring or denying unpleasant facts or events), serve to free people from taking responsibility for their actions and to channel their negative feelings towards the other. According to the literature on divorce, people with immature defense mechanisms are likely to diminish their spouse, project their own failings onto him/her, and blame him/her for their frustrations. The splitting and projection that these people use to protect themselves tend to foster hostility, mistrust, anxiety and aggression, to reduce empathy and support, and to impede spousal communication and cooperative parenting (Baum, 2004; Bollas, 1987; Gardner, 1987, 1994; Johnston et al., 2001).

The role of mature defense mechanisms in separation and divorce has not been the focus of much literature. However, it has been suggested that they facilitate the regulation of affective experiences, the containing of negative affect and the preservation of self-esteem (Cooper, 1998). According to Smith (1995), they may help to subdue clashes and mitigate conflicts. We thus hypothesize that during the divorce period, people with mature defense mechanisms would co-parent more cooperatively and with greater consideration and less hostility towards the other parent, and be more involved in their children’s lives, than those with less mature defense mechanisms.

Negotiation as a conflict-resolution strategy

The ability to negotiate conflicts is one of the various resources at a person’s disposal when dealing with spousal conflict (Cummings & Davies, 1994; Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000; Logan & Walker, 2004). According to Straus (1995), negotiation may be defined as actions taken to settle disagreement and conflict through discussion, and it contains both cognitive and emotional elements. The cognitive elements include the ability to explain one’s position to the other party, and to suggest and accept compromise. The emotional elements include showing care and respect for the other party. A similar conceptualization is offered by Carroll, Badger, and Yang (2006), who state that competence in negotiation consists of the ability to communicate one’s intentions clearly to the other party, along with the ability to listen in a way that makes the other party feels understood.

Research among married, divorcing, and divorced couples points to the benefits of negotiation over other ways of handling conflict. Findings show that negotiation and compromise characterize couples in functional, high-quality, stable marriages, while couples in dysfunctional, unstable marriages are more likely to resort to criticism, contempt, defensiveness and withdrawal (Carroll et al., 2006; Gottman, 1993). A cooperative negotiating climate during the divorce process has been found to be associated with more favorable settlements. Specifically, mediated divorces based on negotiation have generally been shown to lead to greater compliance with the settlement, greater paternal involvement with the children, and less hostility between the ex-spouses than adversarial court divorces (Beck & Sales, 2001; Sbarra & Emery, 2008). Studies of divorced parents consistently show that aggressive, hostile, or controlling means of dealing with conflict are associated with reduced paternal involvement and other manifestations of poor co-parenting (Baum & Shnit, 2003; Douglas, 2005; Mandel & Sharlin, 2006). We thus hypothesize that parents who are more prone to use negotiation as a conflict resolution strategy will show better co-parenting than parents who are less so inclined.

Actor effects and partner effects

Although defense mechanisms and negotiation alike are behaviors emanating from the individual, it is likely that they may also affect and interact with the feelings and behaviors of the persons towards whom they are directed. Indeed, partner effects, whereby the emotions and behaviors of one person affect and are felt by another (Schul & Vinokur, 2000), have been observed in a large number of studies on the defense mechanism called projective identification. These show how the projective identification of one spouse can induce similar thoughts and feelings in the other, who in turn may respond either by containing them or by using defenses of his or her own (e.g., Barbera, 2001; Chatham, 2009). Thus we hypothesize that each parents’ maturity of defense mechanisms and tendency to negotiate will contribute not only to his or her own co-parenting, but also to the other parent’s.

Divorce in Israel

The present study was carried out in Israel among divorcing parents who were referred by a court judge to the Family Court Service for assistance in reaching a divorce settlement. Israel is a family-oriented society characterized by relatively high marriage and childbearing rates and low divorce rates compared with other post-industrial countries. Nonetheless, about a third of all marriages in Israel end in divorce. Israeli law forbids unilateral, non-judicial divorce, stipulates that custody be awarded on the basis of the best interests of the child, and requires that non-custodial parents receive visiting rights and pay child support. Custody is almost always awarded to the mother, with maternal custody standing at 92% and joint custody very rare.

The country has a ramified system of family courts, which place a great deal of emphasis on reducing spousal conflict during the divorce process and on preserving the relationship between the non-custodial parent and the children after the divorce (Kulik & Heine-Cohen, 2011). The aims of referral to the Family Court Service are to prevent the escalation of tension between divorcing spouses, to formulate solutions that will help maintain familial ties, especially those between parents and children, and to accelerate legal proceedings. The Family Court Service is staffed by multidisciplinary teams consisting of senior social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists and lawyers. Referrals are made on the basis of the judge’s professional considerations.

The present study

By examining the contribution of defense mechanisms and negotiation to the co-parenting of divorcing couples, the present study attempts to shed light on the role of these two variables, which may affect co-parenting during divorce but have been the subject of little, if any, scholarly attention to date. This study differs from previous studies on predictors of co-parenting in several ways. First, it focuses on personal variables whose contribution to co-parenting has rarely been studied. Second, while virtually all co-parenting studies to date have been conducted on post-divorce parents, the present study examines predictors of co-parenting during the divorce process. Given the difficulty of co-parenting under the stresses of this period (Cohen et al., 1996), identifying the elements involved is certainly as important as identifying the predictors of post-divorce co-parenting. Third, whereas most studies examine mothers and some examine fathers, this study examined both members of the couple in order to better understand the dynamics of their co-parenting. More specifically, our aim was to determine whether each parent’s defense mechanisms and tendency to negotiate were associated with their own co-parenting only, or with the co-parenting of the other parent as well. Finally, although previous studies examined socio-demographic features such as education and economic status, the differential contribution of these variables to paternal and maternal parenting has not been studied, nor has the effect of education and economic status of one partner on the other. Research indicates that the higher a parent’s level of education and economic status, the higher his or her parental functioning in general (Leyendecker, Harwood, Comparini, & Yalcinkaya, 2005), and post-divorce in particular (Amato, 2000; Buunk & Mutsaers, 1999). The present study goes beyond the individual and examines whether these variables in one parent affect the parenting of the other parent.

Method

Participants

Seventy-one divorcing couples who had been referred by a Family Court Judge to the court’s Family Mediation Unit participated in the study. Couples are referred to this unit when they are unable to reach a divorce agreement on their own or with the help of their lawyers or the Family Court Judge. The main issues dealt with by the Unit are the spouses’ disagreement on whether to divorce (Israeli law requires agreement by both spouses), custody and visitation, and child support (Cohen, 2011). The couples in this study were chosen on the basis of two assumptions. One was that their need for court assistance to reach a divorce agreement suggests that they were under more intense stress than usual during the divorce period. The other is that their intensified stress could make co-parenting during this period particularly difficult for them. We assumed that the intensified stresses and strains they were coping with would make them a population from which we could learn about the contribution of coping resources to co-parenting.

It must be pointed out that couples referred to the Family Mediation Unit are not necessarily high-conflict or high-risk couples; yet in the absence of systematically collected follow-up data, it cannot be ruled out that some of them, especially those who fail to reach a court-mediated agreement, will become high conflict couples. However, mediation is not mandatory in Israel (Zaidel, 1991). Couples referred to the Counseling and Mediation Unit by the court are not required to avail themselves of its services. Those couples who do, do so voluntarily. Thus they may be considered eager to reach an agreement and make use of the services available to help them. Approximately half of them reach a court-mediated agreement (Cohen, in press).

The participants’ mean age was 41.51 (SD = 7.32) for men, and 37.53 (SD = 7.31) for women. Eighty three percent of the men and 84% of the women were born in Israel. The men’s mean age at marriage was 27.74 (SD = 5.49), the women’s 24.82 (SD = 4.81). The couples had been married on average for 11.22 (SD = 8.43) years and had a mean of 2.35 (SD = 1.55) children. Thirty-eight percent of both men and women had a college or university degree; 17.19% of the men and 27.39% of the women had 13 years of schooling; 37.16% of the men and 30.37% of the women had only graduated high school; and 7.65% of the men and 4.24% of the women only attended elementary school. Of the men, 84.5% (60) and 71.83% (51) of the women reported being employed. As for their economic situation, 27.81% (19) of the men and 24.77% (17) of the women reported being “poor”; 46.45% of the men (33) and women (33) reported being “average”; 25.74% (18) of the men and 28.30% (19) of the women reported that their economic situation was “good” or “very good”. Since few of the participants reported very good economic status, the “good” and “very good” categories were combined. All participants were Jewish; 67.23% of the men and 63.27% of the women reported being non-religious, 26.14% of both men and women reported that they were traditional in their observance, and 6.63% of the men and 10.59% of the women were Orthodox.

Measures

A demographic questionnaire relating to age, gender, degree of religiosity, education, and economic status was distributed. Subjectively perceived economic status was measured using a 4-point scale, with 1 = poor, 2 = average, 3 = good, and 4 = very good. Since very few respondents reported that they enjoyed very good economic status, choices 3 and 4 were combined for analysis. Subjectively perceived economic status was queried rather than income level because experience has taught the authors that many Israelis view questions about their income as invasive. Moreover, during the divorce period, when the division of assets and the determination of child support levels are salient issues, it was feared that respondents would not answer a question about income candidly or even at all.

Negotiation

Negotiation was assessed using Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, and Sugarman’s (1996) Conflict Tactics Scale. This is a 39-item scale assessing four types of conflict-resolution strategy: negotiation, emotional/psychological aggression, physical aggression, and controlling behavior. For the purpose of the present study only the negotiation subscale was employed. It was assessed by five items: (1, 2, 6, 15, and 20): “Showed my partner I cared even though we disagreed”; “Showed respect for my partner’s feelings about an issue”; “Explained my side of a disagreement to my partner”; “Offered to compromise when in disagreement”; “Agreed to try a solution to a disagreement my partner had suggested.” Based on the fact that the couples in the study had failed to reach agreements on their own, requiring the court to refer them to the Family Court Service, we assumed that they experienced high levels of conflict, so that this scale would reflect the actual use of negotiation in a conflict-ridden situation. Respondents were asked to rate the frequency with which they engaged in each behavior on a six-point scale (1 = never, 6 = every day). The scale’s internal consistency in previous studies was very good, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .82 to .97 (Straus, 2004). The reliability of the negotiation subscale in the present study was α = .78.

Defense mechanisms

Defense styles and mechanisms were assessed using the Defense Style Questionnaire-40 (DSQ-40) (Andrews, Singh, & Bond, 1993). DSQ-40 is a self-report measure of characteristic defense styles (i.e., clusters of developmentally similar defense mechanisms). This measure consists of 40 items to which participants provide ratings of agreement on scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). The instrument measures the conscious behavioral derivatives of 20 defense mechanisms, with two items for each mechanism. The mechanisms are organized into three broad defense styles: mature, neurotic, and immature.

The internal consistency coefficient as reported by Zeigler-Hill and Pratt (2007) was adequate for the immature defense style (α = .80), whereas, the coefficients for the mature and neurotic defense styles were less robust (.59 and .54, respectively). In our study, factor analysis was conducted and yielded two factors: mature defenses, consisting of 15 items (e.g., “I’m able to laugh at myself pretty easily”; α = .72) and immature, consisting of 25 items (e.g., “People tend to mistreat me”; α = .86). Thus, two indices were constructed, with scores represented by the mean results of items in each factor.

Co-parenting

Co-parenting was examined using Goldsmith’s (1980) scale. This was chosen because it is a comprehensive scale that takes into consideration the relationship between the former spouses as well as each parent’s separate responsibility in raising the children. The fact that the scale has been translated into Hebrew (Cohen, 1996) and was shown to have good psychometric qualities in other studies (Cohen & Finzi-Dottan, submitted) was also a consideration. The scale consists of 25 statements on parenting practices, formulated as questions in the Hebrew version. Participants are asked to indicate how often they engage in each practice on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation yielded the following four subscales:

Participation in the children’s activities consists of eight items (e.g., “To what extent do you participate in your children’s school activities?”; “To what extent do you convey moral values to your children?”); α = .92; M = 4.43; SD = .08.

Co-parent communication about the children consists of nine items inquiring to what extent the spouses communicate about such things as the children’s personal problems, health problems, financial needs, etc. α = .94; M = 3.12; SD = 1.31.

Co-parent cooperation and mutual support consists of five items (e.g., “Do you ask your ex-spouse for help when taking care of the children?”; “Do you take your spouse’s personal needs into consideration when caring for the children?”). This subscale’s reliability is α = .75; M = 3.00; SD =. 09.

Tension/hostility following conversations between spouses consists of three items (“Do you and your spouse argue about the children?”; “How upset do you feel after talking with your spouse?”; “Is there hostility between you and your spouse?”). Here reliability was fair: α = .74; M = 3.41; SD = .10.

Scores were calculated for each subscale as the relevant mean. For the first three subscales, the higher the mean, the better the co-parenting. For the final subscale, the higher the mean, the greater the tension/hostility.

Procedure

The study was designed upon consultation with the Central Branch of the Family Court Service. Permission to carry out the study was obtained from the Ministry of Welfare, under whose auspices the Family Court Services were established and are run.

The questionnaires were in Hebrew and were administered by a trained research assistant who was an MA student in educational counseling between June 2006 and June 2007. During this period, the assistant was present at the Unit, where she was provided with a desk in the waiting room four days a week. While people were waiting their turn for consultation, she asked them to participate in the study. Having explained the purpose of the study, she assured potential participants that the questionnaires were answered anonymously and results kept confidential, and that neither the judges nor the court social workers would know whether or not they had participated. The questionnaires were completed in about 25 minutes.

Of the 307 persons asked to participate, 142 (46.25%), forming 71 couples, agreed to participate in the study without any monetary reward. Most of those who refused claimed they had no time and needed to hurry back to their children, work, etc.; however, under the circumstances, the participation rate should not be regarded as low. Those who agreed to participate in the study signed an Informed Consent Form. The questionnaires were completed privately, either in an anteroom or in a secluded corner.

Data analysis

In order to determine the separate and interactive impact of each parent’s defense mechanisms and tendency to negotiate on each other’s co-parenting, we employed the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) (Kenny & Cook, 1999; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006), in which dyads are the unit of analysis. In the analyses, actor effects refer to the effects of the individual’s defense mechanisms and use of negotiation on his or her own self-reported co-parenting. Partner effects refer to the effects of the individual’s defense mechanisms and use of negotiation on his or her spouse’s self-reported co-parenting. The dyad is treated as the unit of analysis, and actor and partner effects are tested with the proper degrees of freedom (see Campbell & Kashy, 2002; Kashy & Kenny, 2000; Kenny, 1996, for further details).

In the APIM, effects are aggregated across both members of the couple. However, when members of couples are distinguished by particular variables, such as gender, it is possible to ask whether these variables qualify the actor and partner effects. Therefore, the extent to which the actor and partner effects of the independent variables studied were qualified by gender was also examined.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Means, SDs, and correlations between the research variables are presented in Table 1. Positive correlations were found between men’s and women’s immature defense mechanisms. Men’s mature defense mechanisms correlated positively both with their own and with women’s participation in their children’s activities. Men’s reports of inter-spousal hostility correlated positively with their own immature defense mechanisms and negatively with women’s co-parent cooperation and support. Both men’s and women’s subjective perceptions of their economic situation correlated negatively with women’s reports of inter-spousal hostility.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations between main study measures.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1. Men’s mature defense mechanisms	–
2. Women’s mature defense mechanisms	0.18	–
3. Men’s immature defense mechanisms	−.18	-0.09	–
4. Women’s immature defense mechanisms	−.01	−.27*	.35**	–
5. Men’s participation in child activities	.39**	0.12	−.22	0.06	–
6. Men’s parental communication	.24∼	0.2	−.19	−.15	0.14	–
7. Men’s co-parent cooperation and mutual support	0.1	0.19	−.02	−.01	.36**	.42***	–
8. Men’s hostility towards spouse	−.07	.27*	.25*	−.03	−.03	−.22	0	–
9. Men’s negotiation	0.05	−.18	−.01	.26*	0.19	−.13	0.09	−.02	–
10. Women’s participation in child activities	.49***	.32**	−.06	0.07	0.02	0.19	0.21	0.02	0.07	–
11. Women’s parental communication	0.16	0.18	0.05	−.01	0.2	.25*	0.22	−.02	−.10	0.2	–
12. Women’s co-parent cooperation and mutual support	.23∼	0.12	0.02	−.04	0.1	.23∼	0.2	−.25*	0.07	.23∼	.73***	–
13. Women’s hostility towards spouse	0.1	−.02	0.01	0.17	.24*	0.02	0.04	.26*	0.05	0.1	−.11	−.26*	–
14. Men’s level of education	0.17	0.11	−.13	−.42**	0.21	0.08	0.14	−.06	−.02	0.14	.27*	.24∼	−.19	–
15. Women’s negotiation	0.14	0.13	−.25*	0.12	0.06	0.17	0.09	−.16	0.07	.28*	0.06	0.05	0	−.04	–
16. Women’s level of education	0.03	0.1	−.32**	−.37**	0.05	0.13	−.08	−.04	0.03	−.06	0.18	0.2	−.13	0.08	.55**	–
17. Men’s perceived economic status	0.12	0.14	−.20	−.03	.29*	0.21	.26*	−.22	0.04	0.1	0.19	.28*	−.33*	.24*	.28*	0.14	–
18. Women’s perceived economic status	−.08	0.1	−.03	−.35**	0.08	0.25	0.07	0.11	−.14	−.11	0.12	0.08	−.34*	−.06	.32**	.32**	.26∼	–
Mean	5.85	5.56	3.41	3.66	4.06	3.65	3.51	3.29	4.47	4.56	3.13	3.03	3.52	4.24	4.22	4.43	2.06	2.06
Standard deviation	1.39	1.45	1.35	1.33	0.73	0.99	0.95	0.97	1.61	0.74	1.25	1.02	1.07	1.66	1.64	1.54	0.87	0.78

Notes. ∼ p<.06, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p<.001.

Economic status and education in relation to co-parenting

Two series of APIMs were conducted to examine the hypothesis that co-parenting is associated with economic status and with education. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analyses were carried out to evaluate the APIMs. At the lower (within-couple) level, the main effects of gender (0 = women; 1 = men), the main actor and partner effects of subjectively perceived economic status and of education, and the interactive actor and partner effects of subjectively perceived economic status and gender on the co-parenting variables were examined. No scores were included in the upper (between-couple) level of the analyses because the couples did not differ on any relevant measure. To facilitate interpretation all variables, with the exception of gender, were standardized around the grand mean. The HLM coefficients are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2.

Hierarchical linear modeling unstandardized coefficients for actor and partner effects of subjectively perceived economic status and gender.

	Participation	Communication	Cooperation	Hostility
Gender	−.96*	0.61	0.63	−1.34**
Actor effects
Perceived economic status	−.10	0.19	0.08	−.36*
Perceived economic status × gender	.34*	−.08	0.21	−.00
Partner effects
Perceived economic status	0.11	0.22	.27∼	−.29∼
Perceived economic status × gender	−.11	0.03	−.28	0.53

Notes.∼ p<.1, *p< .05, ** p< .01.

Table 3.

Hierarchical linear modeling unstandardized coefficients for actor and partner effects of level of education and gender.

	Participation	Communication	Cooperation	Hostility
Gender	−.71	1.02	1.3	−.81*
Actor effects
Level of education	−.10	0.06	0.07	−.04
Level of education × gender	.19∼	−.01	0.04	0.02
Partner effects
Level of education	0.11	0.17	0.11	−.10
Level of education × gender	−.14	−.11	−.22	0.1

Notes.∼ p<.1, * p< .05.

Tables 2 and 3 show the gender, actor, and partner effects of economic status and of education on the co-parenting variables. The analyses revealed gender, actor, and partner effects, and showed that mothers participated more in their children’s activities than fathers, but also reported more inter-spousal tension and hostility. With respect to economic status, the analyses revealed a significant actor effect of subjectively perceived economic status on tension/hostility: the better the parent’s self-reported economic status, the less inter-spousal tension/hostility he or she reported.

The analyses showed that the association between the parent’s subjectively perceived economic status and his or her own degree of participation in the children’s activities was qualified by gender. Preacher, Curran, and Bauer’s (2006) interaction-probing test for HLM revealed a significant relationship for fathers (γ = .23, p < .05), but not for mothers (γ = −.07, p = .61). The better the father’s subjectively perceived economic status, the more he participated in his children’s activities.

The analyses also revealed significant partner effects of subjectively perceived economic status on cooperation and tension/hostility: the better the partner’s subjectively perceived economic status, the greater the cooperation and the less inter-spousal tension/hostility reported by his/her spouse. All other effects were not significant.

Overall, the HLM analyses (see Kreft & de Leeuw, 1998, for the calculation procedure) of the contribution of subjectively perceived economic status explained 15.99% of the variance in participation in the children’s activities, 14.38% of the variance in parental communication, 14.06% of the variance in cooperation and 17.92% of the variance in inter-spousal tension/hostility.

The second series of APIMs was performed to examine the hypothesis that parent’s level of education would predict his or her co-parenting. The HLM analyses revealed that the association between the actor’s level of education and his or her own participation in the children’s activities was qualified by gender. Preacher, Curran, and Bauer’s (2006) interaction-probing test for HLM was significant for fathers (γ = .12, p < .05), but not for mothers (γ = −.10, p = .23). The higher the father’s level of education, the more he participated in his children’s activities. No other significant effects were found.

Overall, the HLM analyses of education explained 14.36% of the variance in participation in the children’s activities, 14.75% of the variance in parental communication, 18.31% of the variance in cooperation and 7.16% of the variance in inter-spousal tension/hostility.

The following paragraphs report the analyses and findings regarding the actor and partner effects of the three study variables – mature defense mechanisms, immature defense mechanisms, and negotiation – above and beyond the effects of economic status and education on the co-parenting variables. Given that the HLM environment does not permit inclusion of measures in separate steps, two models (or steps) were calculated for each study variable. In the first, the lower (within-couple) level included the main effects of gender (0 = women; 1 = men) and the main actor and partner effects of subjectively perceived economic status and of education on the co-parenting variable. In the second, the lower (within-couple) level included the main effects of gender (0 = women; 1 = men) and the main actor and partner effects of the predictor variable on the co-parenting variables, and the interactive actor and partner effects of the predictor variable and gender. A deviance test was carried out to determine whether the second step contributed to the explained variance above and beyond the first. A significant deviance indicates a significant difference in the explained variance.

Mature defense mechanisms

Table 4 presents the HLM coefficients of mature defense mechanisms, subjectively perceived economic status, education, and gender. The analyses revealed that parents’ mature defense mechanisms added significantly to their participation in their children’s activities above and beyond economic status and education. Parents’ mature defense mechanisms did not, however, add significantly to the prediction of the other co-parenting behaviors.

Table 4.

Hierarchical linear modeling unstandardized coefficients for actor and partner effects of mature defense mechanisms, perceived economic status, level of education, and gender.

		Participation	Communication	Cooperation	Hostility
Step 1	Gender	−.50***	.49**	.56***	−.25
	Actor effects
	Perceived economic status	0.1	0.1	.22*	−.38**
	Level of education	−.01	0.01	0.03	0.03
	Partner effects
	Perceived economic status	0.02	0.2	0.1	−.05
	Level of education	0.02	0.1	−.01	−.02
Step 2	Gender	0.31	0.23	0.83	−.50
	Actor effects
	Mature defense mechanisms	.12*	0.09	0.05	−.02
	Mature defense mechanisms × gender	0.07	0.1	−.01	0.02
	Partner effects
	Mature defense mechanisms	.23*	0.13	.16∼	0.13
	Mature defense mechanisms × gender	−.21*	−.06	−.03	0.04
		Δχ²(4) = 34.75, p < .001	Δχ²(4) = 8.30, p = .08	Δχ²(4) = 7.32, p = .12	Δχ²(4) = 7.6, p = .12

Notes. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .5, ∼ p < .06. Deviance tests are presented in the bottom line.

The analyses showed significant actor and partner effects of mature defense mechanisms on participation in children’s activities: the higher the parent’s (father’s or mother’s) score on mature defense mechanisms, the greater his/her participation in the children’s activities. Also, the higher the partner’s score on mature defense mechanisms, the more the actor participated in the children’s activities. The partner effect, however, was qualified by gender. Preacher, Curran, and Bauer’s (2006) interaction-probing test for HLM revealed that for women (γ = .23, p < .05), but not men (γ = .02, p = .63), the higher the husband’s score on mature defense mechanisms, the more the wife participated in the children’s activities.

Immature defense mechanisms

The analyses revealed no significant effect of immature defense mechanisms on any of the co-parenting variables beyond the effects of economic status and education.

Negotiation as a conflict resolution strategy

Table 5 presents the HLM coefficients of negotiation, subjectively perceived economic status, education, and gender. The analyses revealed that parents’ use of negotiation added significantly to their participation in their children’s activities, above and beyond economic status and education. Use of negotiation did not, however, add significantly to the other co-parenting variables. The findings showed a significant actor effect for negotiation on participation in children’s activities: the greater the use of negotiation, whether by father or mother, the more he or she participated in his or her children’s activities.

Table 5.

Hierarchical linear modeling unstandardized coefficients for actor and partner effects of frequency of negotiation, perceived economic status, level of education, and gender.

		Participation	Communication	Cooperation	Hostility
Step 1	Gender	−.50***	.49**	.56***	−.25
	Actor effects
	Perceived economic status	0.1	0.1	.22*	−.38**
	Level of education	−.01	0.01	0.03	0.03
	Partner effects
	Perceived economic status	0.02	0.2	0.1	−.05
	Level of education	0.02	0.1	−.01	−.02

Step 2	Gender	−.14	0.3	0.16	0.36
	Actor effects
	Frequency of negotiation	.13∼	0.02	0.01	−.00
	Frequency of negotiation × gender	−.04	−.11	0.05	−.04
	Partner effects
	Frequency of negotiation	0.03	−.10	0.01	0.04
	Frequency of negotiation × gender	−.04	0.16	0.05	−.10
		Δχ²(4) = 9.64, p < .05	Δχ²(4) = 3.03, p = .55	Δχ²(4) = 1.49, p = .83	Δχ²(4) = 1.7, p = .79

Notes. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .5, ∼ p < .06. Deviance tests are presented in the bottom line.

Finally, a series of APIMs was carried out to examine the joint contributions of the three personal variables – mature defense mechanisms, immature defense mechanisms, and use of negotiation – to each of the co-parenting variables. At the lower (within-couple) level, the analyses examined the main effects of gender (0 = women; 1 = men); the main actor and partner effects of mature defense mechanisms, immature defense mechanisms, and use of negotiation; and the interactive effects of gender on the co-parenting variables. To facilitate interpretation, all variables, with the exception of gender, were standardized around the grand mean. Table 6 presents the HLM coefficients. The analyses revealed significant actor and partner effects of mature defense mechanisms and use of negotiation on participation in children’s activities: the higher the actor’s (husband’s or wife’s) score on mature defense mechanisms and the greater his/her tendency to use negotiation, the more he/she participated in the children’s activities. Also, the higher the partner’s score on mature defense mechanisms, the more the actor (husband or wife) participated in the children’s activities. However, the association between the partner’s mature defense mechanisms and the actor’s participation in children’s activities was qualified by gender. Preacher et al.’s (2006) interaction-probing test for HLM revealed that for women (γ = .23, p < .05), but not men (γ = .07, p = .51), the higher the husband’s score on mature defense mechanisms, the more the wife participated in her children’s activities.

Table 6.

Hierarchical linear modeling unstandardized coefficients for actor and partner effects of mature defense mechanisms, immature defense mechanisms, frequency of negotiation, and gender.

	Participation	Communication	Cooperation	Hostility
Gender	0.76	1.65	0.54	−.08
Actor effects
Mature defense mechanisms	.14**	0.12	0.06	0.01
Immature defense mechanisms	0.06	0.03	−.05	0.17
Frequency of negotiation	.09*	0.02	0.01	−.04
Mature defense mechanisms × gender	0.03	0.04	−.03	−.02
Immature defense mechanisms × gender	−.14	−.07	0.08	−.01
Frequency of negotiation × gender	0	−.09	0.06	0.05
Partner effects
Mature defense mechanisms	.23**	0.15	.17∼	0.1
Immature defense mechanisms	0.03	0.08	0.06	−.05
Frequency of negotiation	0.03	−.08	0.03	−.01
Mature defense mechanisms × gender	−.16∼	−.12	−.05	0.05
Immature defense mechanisms × gender	0.04	−.16	−.04	−.02
Frequency of negotiation × gender	−.05	0.13	0	−.08

Notes. ** p<.01, * p<.5, ∼ p<.1.

In addition, the HLM analyses revealed a significant partner effect of mature defense mechanisms on cooperation: the higher the partner’s score on mature defense mechanisms, the more cooperative the actor, whether husband or wife. No other effects were significant.

Overall, the HLM analyses explained 36.03% of the variance in participation in children’s activities, 16.47% of the variance in degree of parental communication, 16.93% of the variance in cooperation, and 20.27% of the variance in tension/hostility.

Discussion

The findings showed that both conscious use of negotiation in handling conflicts and unconscious use of mature defense mechanisms were associated with better co-parenting for parents who possessed these qualities. Mothers and fathers who used negotiation to resolve their conflicts, and who employed mature defense mechanisms, also reported participating in their children’s lives more than did parents who were less inclined to use negotiation and who did not employ mature defense mechanisms. Moreover, where one parent used mature defense mechanisms, the other parent was found to participate more in his or her children’s lives and to show slightly more cooperation. This is consistent with extensive findings in the literature on parenting, which indicate that parenting is affected by such factors as the “Big Five Personality Features” (Prinzie, Stams, Deković, Reijntjes, & Belsky, 2009). The present findings add to our knowledge in that they provide quantitative evidence for both actor and partner effects of mature defense mechanisms on the co-parenting of couples in the divorce process. It is one of the first studies to examine the contribution of one parent’s defense mechanism characteristics to those of the other parent, in particular during the divorce crisis, which constitutes a stress situation that activates the individual’s coping skills.

At the same time, both the actor and partner effects were less extensive than expected. The actor effects were restricted entirely to participation, and the partner effects almost entirely. The partner effects were obtained only by mature defense mechanisms, but not by use of negotiation, and were fairly weak. Although the mother’s use of mature defense mechanisms was strongly associated with the father’s participation, it was only weakly associated with his cooperation, while the father’s use of mature defense mechanisms was weakly associated with the mother’s participation and not at all with her cooperation. Furthermore, use of immature defense mechanisms was not associated with any of the co-parenting behaviors, one’s own or one’s partner’s. Use of negotiation was not associated with the partner’s behavior; and neither communication nor tension/hostility, whether one’s own or one’s spouse’s, were associated with any of the predictor variables.

From the perspective of co-parenting behaviors, the most noteworthy conclusion of the actor effects was that both of the very different coping mechanisms examined in this study were associated with increased parent participation in the children’s lives, but had hardly any relationship to the parents’ behavior towards one another. The findings seemed to show that parents who possessed the resources of negotiation and mature defense mechanisms also channeled their energies towards taking care of their children, though they themselves were in the midst of a divorce conflict. They also showed, however, that these resources had no correlation with improvement in the parents’ interaction with one another.

From the perspective of the predictor variables, of greatest note is the relationship between each parent’s mature defense mechanisms and the involvement of the other parent in the children’s lives. In way of explanation of this relationship, we may suggest that mature defense mechanisms in the individual are associated with the individual’s capacity for objectivity, tolerance of ambiguity, empathic skills, ability to concentrate on the task at hand, and expression of feelings in an appropriate and flexible way (Haan, 1977). We assume that these may increase participation and cooperation in the partner because they do not place extraneous burdens on him or her, thus leaving more of his/her energy free to be invested in the children.

The findings according to which parents’ immature defense mechanisms bore no relationship either to their own or to their spouse’s co-parenting behaviors are striking, in view of the deleterious consequences widely attributed to immature defense mechanisms in the literature. However, one should take into account that psychoanalytic studies on defense mechanisms tend to focus on the detrimental impact of immature defense mechanisms and to pay less attention to their positive effects (Bond, Paris, & Zweig-Frank, 1994; Hauser & Safyer, 1995; Kernberg, 1996; Vaillant, 1992).

That the use of negotiation was associated with the parent’s own co-parenting makes sense, in view of the fact that both negotiation and co-parenting are behaviors that entail consideration of other persons in the situation, whether children or spouse. It is reasonable to assume that persons inclined to one would be inclined to the other.

That one parent’s use of negotiation was not associated with the co-parenting of the other seems at first rather anomalous in view of the fact that negotiation is a two-sided process in which both partners adjust their behavior to the preferences of the other. Several explanations may be offered for the lack of such a relationship. First, there is nothing to say that a husband or wife who inclines to negotiation as a means of resolving conflicts will have a spouse who is open to accepting his or her efforts or to making the compromises required in the process. Two narrower explanations are situational. One is that the tension and strong emotions characteristic of the divorce process may have led each parent to be inordinately self-absorbed and closed to the other’s negotiation efforts. The other is that the study sample consists of couples who had not been able to reach a divorce settlement on their own and had to be referred to the Family Court’s Counseling and Mediation Unit. This means that, whatever the propensity of one or both spouses to negotiate, their past bargaining experience with one another would have been unsuccessful, thus further closing them off (Scanzoni & Polonko, 1980).

The theoretical question queried in this study was which of the two types of adaptation processes identified by Cramer (1998) – conscious coping mechanisms or unconscious defense mechanisms – was more strongly associated with the co-parenting of divorcing couples. Our findings, indicating that while mature defense mechanisms and negotiation showed actor effects, only mature defense mechanisms showed partner effects, suggest that the answer may be the unconscious mechanisms. During the divorce process, which is considered a stormy period (Hertz & Brown, 1988), both partners experience distress and strain and display their conflicts in the parenting arena (Cohen, Finzi, & Avi-Yonah, 1999). Since the use of negotiation for solving parenting conflicts was not associated with partner effects in our study, our results seem to indicate the particular strength of the unconscious inner world in shaping the co-parenting of the divorcing parents. These results correspond to Cramer’s (2000) view that adaptation is a factor of the level of defense mechanism, which is a dispositional trait. Our results, according to which mature defense mechanisms are associated with actor and with partner effects, broaden the application of Cramer’s view of mature defenses as ameliorating incapacitating anxiety and promoting adaptation, by indicating that they may positively affect divorcing parents’ co-parenting. Moreover, our results support Cooper’s (1998) view of the defenses, from a relational perspective, as protecting self-esteem against interpersonal failure and affecting both persons involved in the stressful situation. Similarly, Bouchard and Thériault (2003) suggested the existence of interplay between mature defenses and coping with marital conflicts, since mature defenses enable one to respond to and cope appropriately with stressful marital events. However, because we studied only one variable in each category, this conclusion is most preliminary and tentative.

The socio-demographic variables examined in this study showed both actor and partner effects. The higher the father’s level of education and the better his subjectively perceived economic status, the more he was found to participate in his children’s lives. These findings are consistent with evidence in the literature linking the participation of both married and divorced fathers in their children’s lives to their economic status and education (e.g., Buunk & Mutsaers, 1999). Research has shown that fathers with more education spend more time and are more positively engaged with their children (e.g., Blair, Wenk, & Hardesty, 1994), while this link is weaker among mothers (Yeung, Sandberg, Davis-Kean, & Hofferth, 2001). Since the mothers in the present study had full custody of the children, their involvement in their children’s lives was therefore unrelated to their level of education, whereas among fathers education was found to be associated with their level of involvement with the children, as described in the literature. In addition, the sturdier either of the parents’ subjectively perceived economic status, the greater the cooperation and the less inter-spousal tension/hostility reported by the other parent. These findings are consistent with previous findings on the beneficial effects of a positive economic situation on the interaction of divorcing couples, and with extensive findings showing that economic hardship increases spousal conflict and impairs parenting (Ge, Conger, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994; McLoyd, Jayaratne, Ceballo, & Borquez, 1994).

Limitations

This study has several limitations. One is its reliance on self-report, with possible inaccuracies arising from the participants’ incomplete awareness of their feelings and behaviors, as well as from social desirability considerations. The latter might be particularly acute in a sample of divorcing couples at a family court, where the stakes are very high. Despite assurances of anonymity, it cannot be ruled out that parents were anxious to represent themselves in a positive way. Yet, while outside observation would be highly desirable in principle, it is doubtful whether divorcing couples at a family court would agree to such a procedure and, if they did, that their behavior would not be strongly affected by such observation.

A second limitation is the sample size. Seventy-one divorcing couples do not constitute a sufficiently large sample to include both the socio-economic and personal variables in a single HLM. One must bear in mind, however, that it is very difficult to obtain the agreement of both parents in an ongoing divorce to participate in a research study. Despite assurances of anonymity and confidentiality, they are understandably fearful that their answers might reach the judge in their case. Moreover, being in a difficult and distressing situation, they simply may not have been inclined to participate in a study and to answer researchers’ questions. Efforts were made to compensate for this limitation by testing the role of personal variables above and beyond socio-demographic ones.

A third limitation results from the fact that a measure of negotiation as a conflict resolution strategy can reflect either an individual’s tendency to use this strategy, or the amount of conflict occurring in a couple’s everyday life. For example, a low level of negotiation use might be obtained either because negotiation is seldom used as a strategy, or simply because conflict does not often occur which would require its use. However, we assumed that this measure reflected the level of use of this strategy among the study’s participants. Finally, the fact that the study was carried out in Israel means that its findings must be further tested in other countries.

Despite its limitations, the study is among the first to examine couples, and not individuals, in the course of the divorce process itself, and among the few to examine associations between two different coping methods: a conscious coping strategy alongside unconscious defense mechanisms. Moreover, the study findings show that, despite the limited impact of the separate variables, the model explained high proportions of the variance in the participants’ co-parenting. This means that the model can be used to examine the co-parenting of other groups of parents, in different situations, both in Israel and elsewhere. However, to answer the theoretical question of the relative contributions of conscious and unconscious coping processes to co-parenting, we recommend further study using multiple variables in each category.

Clinical implications

Findings regarding personal resources have practical implications for clinicians and for parenting educators and coordinators. The benefits of negotiation, as indicated in our study, imply that it may be useful to encourage divorcing parents to use it, even if it has not necessarily been found to be associated with the partner’s co-parenting. The practical applications of the actor and partner effects of mature defense mechanisms are less obvious. Changes in defense mechanisms generally require an extended period of long-term psychotherapy, which few people in the process of divorce are likely to embark on and which, in any case, will not be completed in time to improve their co-parenting during the divorce period, or soon thereafter. It is therefore recommended that other coping features which may improve co-parenting during the divorce process be explored, and, where found helpful, encouraged. One possibility is to try to encourage the types of behaviors to which these alternative coping features give rise, including tolerance of ambiguity, empathy, focus on the task at hand, and expression of feelings in an appropriate and flexible manner (Haan, 1977).

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Ahrons

C. R.

Rogers

R. H.

(1987). Divorced families: A multidisciplinary developmental view. New York: Norton.

Ahrons

C. R.

Tanner

J. L.

(2003). Adult children and their fathers: Relationships changes 20 years after parental divorce. Family Relations, 52, 340–351.

Ahrons

C. R.

Wallish

L. S.

(1987). The relationships between former spouses. In Perlman

Duck

(Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 269–296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Amato

P. R.

(2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355–370.

Amato

P. R.

(2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269–1287.

Amato

P. R.

Keith

(1991). Separation from a parent during childhood and adult socioeconomic attainment. Social Forces, 70, 187–206.

Amato

P. R.

Keith

(1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46.

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR). Washington, DC: APA.

Andrews

Singh

Bond

(1993). The defense style questionnaire. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 181, 246–256.

10.

Arditti

J. A.

Kelly

(1994). Fathers’ perspectives of their co-parental relationships postdivorce: Implications for family practice and legal reform. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 43, 61–67.

11.

Barbera

M. R.

(2001). Projective redemption in couples therapy: Interrupting projective identification cycles. Psychoanalysis & Psychotherapy, 18, 171–192.

12.

Barelds

D. P. H.

(2005). Self and partner personality in intimate relationships. European Journal of Personality, 19, 501–518.

13.

Baum

(2004). Typology of post-divorce parental relationships and behaviors. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 41, 53–79.

14.

Baum

Shnit

(2003). Divorced parents’ conflict management styles: Self-differentiation and narcissism. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 39, 37–58.

15.

Beck

C. J. A.

Sales

B. D.

(2001). Family mediation: Facts, myths, and future prospects. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

16.

Benjamin

Irving

(2001). Money and mediation: Patterns of conflict in family mediation of financial matters. Mediation Quarterly, 18, 349–361.

17.

Blair

S. L.

Wenk

Hardesty

(1994). Marital quality and paternal involvement: Interconnections of men’s spousal and parental roles. Journal of Men’s Studies, 2, 221–237.

18.

Bodenmann

Charvoz

Bradbury

T. N.

Bertoni

Iafrate

Giuliani

Behling

(2007). The role of stress in divorce: A three-nation retrospective study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 707–728.

19.

Bollas

(1987). The shadow of the object: Psychoanalysis of the unthought known. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

20.

Bonach

(2005). Factors contributing to quality coparenting: Implications for family policy. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 43, 79–104.

21.

Bond

Paris

Zweig-Frank

(1994). Defense styles and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 8, 28–31.

22.

Booth

Amato

P. R.

(1992). Divorce, residential change and stress. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 18, 205–213.

23.

Booth

Amato

P. R.

(1994). Parental marital quality, parental divorce, and relations with parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 21–34.

24.

Bouchard

Thériault

V. J.

(2003). Defense mechanisms and coping strategies in conjugal relationships: an integration. International Journal of Psychology, 38, 79–90.

25.

Buunk

B. P.

Mutsaers

(1999). The nature of the relationship between remarried individuals and former spouses and its impact on marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 165–174.

26.

Campbell

Kashy

D. A.

(2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327–342.

27.

Carroll

J. S.

Badger

Yang

(2006). The ability to negotiate or the ability to love?: Evaluating the developmental domains of marital competence. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1001–1032.

28.

Chatham

P. M.

(2009). Projective identification. In O’Donohue

Graybar

S. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of contemporary psychotherapy: Toward an improved understanding of effective psychotherapy (pp. 227–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

29.

Cohen

(1996). The personal well-being of single-parent family heads rearing their children by themselves: A comparative study. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 18, 129–146.

30.

Cohen

(2011). Agreement reached through court mediation conducted by social workers: Impact on the co-parenting relationship. British Journal of Social Work, 43, 1–18.

31.

Cohen

Dattner

Luxenburg

(1996). Planning parenthood in the divorce transition— through mediation. American Journal of Family Therapy, 24, 181–188.

32.

Cohen

Finzi

Avi-Yonah

(1999). An attachment based typology of divorcing couples. Family Therapy, 26, 167–190.

33.

Cohen

Finzi-Dottan

(2011). Predictors of parental communication and cooperation between divorcing spouses. Manuscript submitted for publication.

34.

Cohen

(2012). Impact of agreement reached through mediation on parenting relationship. British Journal of Social Work, 42, 227–244.

35.

Cohen

Levine

(2012). Impact of financial and employment status on the co-parenting of Divorcing couples in Israel. Journal of Family Studies, 18, 53–68.

36.

Cohen

Luxenburg

Dattner

Matz

D. R.

(1999). Suitability of divorcing couples to mediation: A suggested typology. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 329–344.

37.

Cooper

S. H.

(1998). Changing notions of defense within psychoanalytic theory. Journal of Personality, 66, 947–964.

38.

Cramer

(1998). Coping and defense mechanisms: What’s the difference? Journal of Personality, 66, 919–946.

39.

Cramer

(2000). Defense mechanisms in psychology today: Further processes for adaptation. American Psychologist, 55, 637–646.

40.

Cummings

E. M.

Davies

(1994). Children and marital conflict: The impact of family dispute and resolution. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

41.

Douglas

E. M.

(2005). Fathering in Northern New England: Levels of father involvement in Maine and New Hampshire. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 43, 29–45.

42.

Emery

R. E.

(1994). Renegotiating family relationships: divorce, child custody, and mediation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

43.

Erickson

Feldman

S. S.

Steiner

(1997). Defense reactions and coping strategies in normal adolescents. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 28, 45–56.

44.

Freud

(1937). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. New York, NY: International Universities Press.

45.

Gardner

R. A.

(1987). The parental alienation syndrome and the differentiation between fabricated and genuine child sex abuse. Creskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

46.

Gardner

R. A.

(1994). Differentiating between true and false sex-abuse accusations in child-custody disputes. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 21, 1–20.

47.

Conger

R. D.

Lorenz

F. O.

Simons

R. L.

(1994). Parents’ stressful life events and adolescent depressed mood. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 28–44.

48.

Goldsmith

(1980). Relationships between former spouses: Descriptive findings. Journal of Divorce, 4, 1–20.

49.

Goldstein

E. G.

(1995). Ego psychology and social work practice. New York, NY: The Free Press.

50.

Gottman

J. M.

(1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 6–15.

51.

Grych

J. H.

(2005). Interparental conflict as a risk factor for child maladjustment: implications for the development of prevention programs. Family Court Review, 43, 97–108.

52.

Grych

J. H.

Fincham

F. D.

Jouriles

E. N.

McDonald

(2000). Interparental conflict and child adjustment: Testing the mediational role of appraisals in the cognitive-contextual framework. Child Development, 71, 1648–1661.

53.

Haan

(1977). Coping and defending. New York, NY: Academic Press.

54.

Hauser

S. T.

Safyer

A. W.

(1995). The contributions of ego psychology to developmental psychopathology. In Cicchetti Donate & Cohen Donald (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology, Vol. 1: Theory and methods (pp. 555–580). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

55.

Hertz

Brown

(1988). The post divorce family. In Carter

McGoldrick

(Eds.), The changing family life cycle: A framework for family therapy (pp. 371–398). New York, NY: Gardner Press.

56.

Hill

M. A.

King

E, M.

(1995). Women’s education and economic well being. Feminist Economics, 1, 21–46.

57.

Johnston

Roseby

(1997). In the name of the child: A developmental approach to understanding and helping children of high-conflict and violent families. New York, NY: Free Press.

58.

Johnston

J. R.

Walters

M. G.

Friedlander

(2001). Therapeutic work with alienated children and their families. Family Court Review, 39, 316–333.

59.

Kashy

D. A.

Kenny

D. A.

(2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In Moskowitz, D.S. & Hershberger, S.L. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 451–477). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

60.

Kenny

D. A.

(1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279–294.

61.

Kenny

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433–448.

62.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York NY: Guilford.

63.

Kernberg

O. F.

(1996). A psychoanalytic theory of personality disorders. In Clarkin

J. F.

Lenzenweger

M. F.

(Eds.), Major theories of personality disorder (pp. 106–140). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

64.

Kreft

de Leeuw

(1998). Introducing multivlevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

65.

Krishnakumar

Buehler

(2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: a meta-analytic review. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 49, 25–44.

66.

Kulik

Heine-Cohen

(2011). Coping resources, perceived stress and adjustment to divorce among Israeli women: Assessing effects. The Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 5–30.

67.

Levite

Cohen

(2012). The tango of loving hate: Couple dynamics in high conflict divorce. Clinical Social Work Journal, 40, 46–55.

68.

Leyendecker

Harwood

R. L.

Comparini

Yalcinkaya

(2005). Socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and parenting. In Luster

Okagaki

(Eds.), Parenting: An ecological perspective (pp. 319–341). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

69.

Logan

T. K.

Walker

(2004). Separation as a risk factor for victims of intimate partner violence: beyond lethality and injury: A response to Campbell. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1478–1486.

70.

Maccoby

E. E.

Depner

C. E.

Mnookin

R. H.

(1990). Coparenting in the second year after divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 141–155.

71.

Madden-Derdich

D. A.

Leonard

S. A.

(2002). Shared experiences, unique realities: Formerly married mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of parenting and custody after divorce. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 51, 37–45.

72.

Madden-Derdich

D. A.

Leonard

S. A.

Christopher

F. S.

(1999). Boundary ambiguity and coparental conflict after divorce: An empirical test of a family systems model of the divorce process. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 588–598.

73.

Mandel

Sharlin

S. A.

(2006). The non-custodial father: His involvement in his children’s lives and the connection between his role and the ex-wife’s, child’s and father’s perception of that role. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 45, 79–95.

74.

McHale

J. P.

Kuersten-Hogan

Rao

(2004). Growing points for coparenting theory and research. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 221–234.

75.

McLoyd

V. C.

Jayaratne

T. E.

Ceballo

Borquez

(1994). Unemployment and work interruption among African American single mothers: Effects on parenting and adolescent socioemotional functioning. Child Development, 65, 562–589.

76.

Mehta

Cowan

P. A.

Cowan

C. P.

(2009). Working models of attachment to parents and partners: Implications for emotional behavior between partners. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 895–899.

77.

Paris

Zweig-Frank

Bond

Guzder

(1996). Defense styles, hostility, and psychological risk factors in male patients with personality disorders. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 184, 153–158.

78.

Pollet

S. L.

Lombreglia

(2008). A nationwide survey of mandatory parent education. Family Court Review, 46, 375–394.

79.

Preacher

K. J.

Curran

P. J.

Bauer

D. J.

(2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.

80.

Prinzie

Stams

G. J. J. M.

Deković

Reijntjes

A. H. A.

Belsky

(2009). The relations between parents’ Big Five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 351–362.

81.

Ramsey

S. H.

(2001). High-conflict custody cases: Reforming the system for children – Conference report and action plan. Family Law Quarterly, 34, 589–606.

82.

Rettig

K. D.

Leichtentritt

R. D.

(2001). Understanding non custodial fathers’ relationships with children from resource theory perspectives. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 35, 1–22.

83.

Sbarra

D. A.

Emery

R. E.

(2008). Deeper into divorce: Using actor-partner analyses to explore systemic differences in coparenting conflict following custody dispute resolution. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 144–152.

84.

Scanzoni

Polonko

(1980). A conceptual approach to explicit marital negotiation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 31–44.

85.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Schermerhorn

A. C.

Cummings

E. M.

(2007). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: Evaluation of the parenting process model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1118–1134.

86.

Schul

Vinokur

A. D.

(2000). Projection in person perception among spouses as a function of the similarity in their shared experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 987–1001.

87.

Segal-Kiner

(2009). The link between attachment, alexithymia, level of defence mechanisms and illness perceptions to the ways of coping and mental health of psoriasis patients in Israel. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University.

88.

Smith

B. L.

(1995). Good defences make good neighbors. In Conte

H. R.

Plutchik

(Eds.), Ego defences: Theory and measurement (pp. 53–61). New York, NY: Wiley.

89.

Stewart

J. A.

(2005). Women’s satisfaction with life following marital seperation: Coping resources and adjustment of lone-parent women. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 43, 89–107.

90.

Stewart

S. D.

(2010). Children with nonresident parents: Living arrangements, visitation, and child support. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1078–1091.

91.

Straus

M. A.

(1995). Manual for the conflict tactics scales. Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.

92.

Straus

M. A.

(2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: A study of university student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 407–432.

93.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.

94.

Sweeney

M. M.

Horwitz

A.V.

(2001). Infidelity, initiation, and the emotional climate of divorce: Are there implications for mental health? Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 42, 295–309.

95.

Sweeper

Halford

(2006). Assessing adult adjustment to relationship seperation: The psychological adjustment to seperation test. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 632–640.

96.

Vaillant

G. E.

(1977). Adaptation to life. Boston: Little, Brown.

97.

Vaillant

G. E.

(1992). Ego mechanisms of defense: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

98.

Wallerstein

Lewis

Blakeslee

(2000). The unexpected legacy of divorce: A 25 year landmark study. New York, NY: Hyperion.

99.

Westerman

M. A.

Steen

E. M.

(2009). Revisiting conflict and defense from an interpersonal perspective: Using structured role plays to investigate the effects of conflict on defensive interpersonal behavior. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 26, 379–401.

100.

Willi

(1984). The concept of collusion: A combined systemic-psychodynamic approach to marital therapy. Family Process, 23, 177–185.

101.

Yeung

J. W.

Sandberg

J. F.

Davis-Kean

P. E.

Hofferth

S. L.

(2001). Children’s time with fathers in intact families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 136–154.

102.

Zaidel

(1991). Changes facing the development of family mediation in Israel. Mediation Quarterly, 8, 281–291.

103.

Zeigler-Hill

Pratt

D.W.

(2007). Defense styles and the interpersonal circumplex: The interpersonal nature of psychological defense. Journal of Psychiatry, Psychology and Mental Health, 1, 1–15.