The effect of childhood unpredictability on co-parenting relationships during the transition to parenthood: A life history approach

Abstract

Recent extensions to life history theory posit that exposure to environmental unpredictability during childhood should forecast negative parental behaviors in adulthood. In the current research, this logic was extended to co-parental behaviors, which refer to how parents coordinate, share responsibility, and support each other’s parental efforts. The effects of early-life unpredictability on individual and dyadic co-parental functioning were examined in a sample of 109 families (two parents and their firstborn child) who were followed longitudinally from before the child’s birth until the age of two. Greater early-life unpredictability (family changes, residential changes, and parents’ occupational changes by age 8) experienced by mothers, but not fathers, predicted more negative co-parental behaviors in triadic observations 6 months post birth, and lower couple-reported co-parenting quality assessed 3, 9, 18, and 24 months post birth. These effects were not explained by parents’ childhood socioeconomic status or current relationship quality. These findings highlight the role of mothers in shaping co-parenting relationships and how these relationships might be influenced by mothers’ early-life experiences.

Keywords

Co-parenting evolutionary psychology gender differences life history theory transition to parenthood unpredictability

High parental investment is an important feature of human reproductive behavior, as it is in other mammalian species (Clutton-Brock, 1991). Human parenting stands out, however, in that it often involves the collaborative efforts of several individuals, in particular mothers and fathers (Lovejoy, 1981). Such biparental investment greatly increases the survival rates of children, as well as beneficially impacting their physical and psychological well-being (Geary, 2016). It requires parents to establish and maintain a co-parenting relationship, wherein parents share responsibility for the rearing of their children, coordinate their parental behaviors, and support each other’s parental efforts (Feinberg, 2003; McHale & Fivaz-Depeursinge, 1999). The quality of this relationship varies between parenting dyads, in a way that reflects both their individual parenting inclinations and the quality of their interpersonal relationship (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2004).

The prevalence of biparental investment in human societies suggests that any examination of the role of parenting in human reproduction would not be complete without a consideration of the co-parenting relationship between mothers and fathers. Effective cooperation between caregivers should have been important to children’s survival in ancestral times, and there is ample evidence for its importance to children’s adjustment in modern times (for a meta-analysis, see Teubert & Pinquart, 2010). While some suggestions have been made regarding sources of variation in co-parenting behaviors (Belsky, 1984; Feinberg, 2003; McHale, 1995), it is still not well understood why some parents coordinate and support each other’s parenting effectively, while others do not. In particular, it is yet unclear whether exposure to certain rearing environments shapes parents’ ability to co-parent effectively as adults.

In the current research, I employ a life history approach to examine early-life antecedents of variation in co-parenting relationships between mothers and fathers during the transition to parenthood. In line with recent findings and theoretical developments (Cabeza de Baca & Ellis, 2017; Szepsenwol et al., 2015), I propose that exposure to early-life unpredictability by one or both parents should forecast lower co-parenting relationship quality. I provide support for this hypothesis using triadic behavioral observations of parents with their firstborn children and repeated self-report assessments from both parents collected across the first 2 years of their child’s life. Prior research has focused on the effects of early-life unpredictability on individual parenting behaviors and attitudes (Szepsenwol et al., 2015). The current research is the first to examine the association between early-life unpredictability and co-parental functioning. As such, it provides a significant contribution to the life-history and co-parenting literatures.

Determinants of co-parenting

Accumulating evidence regarding the importance of co-parenting relationships to children’s development has spurred research on the antecedents and correlates of positive co-parental behaviors (Mangelsdorf et al., 2011). Much of this research has focused on contextual factors in the parents’ current environment, including factors related to the dyadic relationship between parents. Indeed, the co-parenting relationship seems to suffer when parents are under stress, whether this stress is generated by causes outside or inside the family (Belsky et al., 1995; Cook et al., 2009). There are also clear bidirectional links between the quality of the dyadic relationship between parents and the quality of their co-parenting relationship (e.g., Le et al., 2016; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2004).

Beyond the apparent role of situational and interpersonal factors, the personal psychological characteristics of parents also seem to influence their co-parenting relationship. According to Feinberg’s (2003) ecological model of co-parenting, parents’ individual characteristics, such as their attitudes and emotional functioning, should impact both the quality of their interpersonal relationship and the quality of their co-parenting, which in turn should influence their parental behaviors. Consistent with this model, several studies have found links between parents’ psychological characteristics and their co-parenting relationships (e.g., Kolak & Volling, 2007; Talbot & McHale, 2004). For example, more negative co-parental behaviors were found to be associated with mothers’ insecure attachment (Talbot et al., 2009) and fathers’ negative emotionality (Schoppe-Sullivan & Mangelsdorf, 2013; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2004).

An extensive literature points to the role of early rearing environments in shaping psychological characteristics such as attachment orientations and emotionality, and subsequent parental behaviors (Sroufe et al., 2010). Yet, few studies have looked directly at the relation between parents’ developmental history and their co-parenting relationships, and those studies focused primarily on the positive role of good co-parenting in the family of origin (Stright & Bales, 2003; Van Egeren, 2003). It is unclear how the broader characteristics of parents’ rearing environments (e.g., levels of risk and unpredictability) impact the development of co-parental inclinations in adulthood. These early environments may have informational properties that are relevant for evolutionary fitness, in that they cue individuals on the future challenges they might face as adults (Boyce & Ellis, 2005). As such, they could profoundly impact individuals’ willingness and ability to co-parent effectively. To examine this possibility, I now present a life history perspective on parenting and discuss how it could be expanded to the study of co-parenting.

Life history theory and reproductive strategies

Life history theory is an evolutionary theory that highlights the trade-offs individuals make when investing their limited time, energy, and resources in various life tasks and the ecological conditions that influence these tradeoffs (Del Giudice et al., 2016). A major life task is transferring one’s genes to the next generation through reproduction. But human reproductive effort does not end with finding a partner and copulating with him/her (i.e., mating effort). Because human babies require high parental investment to survive and thrive, human reproductive effort also involves the expenditure of parenting effort (investing time, energy, and resources in existing children). Investing in existing children, however, comes at the expense of creating additional children through mating effort. This means that the benefits of parental behaviors must be weighed against the decreased opportunities to engage in mating behaviors. This mating–parenting trade-off is a prominent feature of human reproductive strategies (Kaplan & Lancaster, 2003).

The costs and benefits of parenting effort and mating effort, and therefore the optimal balance between them, depend on local conditions (Kaplan & Lancaster, 2003). In particular, the mating–parenting trade-off should be influenced by how harsh and unpredictable the local environment is (Ellis et al., 2009). Environmental harshness refers to the prevalence of sources of morbidity and mortality in the local environment, especially ones that cannot be offset by adaptive behavioral modifications (i.e., extrinsic morbidity and mortality) (Chisholm, 1993). In industrialized human societies, harshness is often indexed by socioeconomic status (SES), which is associated with most sources of morbidity and mortality (e.g., Adler et al., 1993). Environmental unpredictability refers to the frequency and severity of changes in the local environment. It is often indexed by changes in the close family environment (e.g., socioeconomics, structure, locality), which signal how stable and predictable the local environment is (e.g., Simpson et al., 2012). Harshness and unpredictability are conceptually distinct environmental stressors (Ellis et al., 2009). Local environments can be harsh but predictable (e.g., sustained lack of resources) or relatively mild on average but highly unpredictable (e.g., fluctuations in the availability of resources). Thus, harshness and unpredictability should have unique additive effects on the mating–parenting trade-off.

Harsh and/or unpredictable environments promote greater mating effort at the expense of parenting effort (for a review, see Ellis et al., 2009). Higher rates of morbidity and mortality and an inability to predict what future conditions are going to be like make it beneficial to reproduce early and often to increase the odds that at least some of the offspring will survive into adulthood. At the same time, investing heavily in existing children in harsh and/or unpredictable environments is inherently risky, because these children may not survive into adulthood. Parenting is a long-term investment, the benefits of which are far in the future. When the future is uncertain, this investment could have disastrous results. Moreover, when considering the effects of harshness and unpredictability on mating and parenting, one must consider the trade-off between the two efforts. Greater investment in parenting in an environment unfavorable to parenting effort often means lower investment in mating in an environment favorable to mating effort, compounding the fitness costs of parenting effort is such an environment.

Exposure to harsh and/or unpredictable environments should, therefore, lead individuals to reduce their parental investment. Indeed, studies show that parents struggle to provide quality parenting in such environments (e.g., Conger et al., 2002; Quinlan, 2007). This, however, may not be true for all types of harsh environments. If parents can buffer some of the adverse effects of harsh environments on their offspring by greater parental investment, then harshness may even lead to greater parenting effort (Ellis et al., 2009). For example, mothers raising children in dangerous neighborhoods engage in increased parental monitoring when given sufficient co-parental support (Jones et al., 2005). Hence, environmental harshness should negatively impact parenting effort only when sources of risk are insensitive to parents’ buffering attempts. In contrast, the effects of unpredictable environments on parenting should be more straightforward. When the environment is unpredictable, parents cannot reliably predict the types and severity of threats they or their children will encounter in the future, and whether these threats could be buffered. They should, therefore, benefit from creating more children through mating even if it means investing less in each one.

The influence of rearing environments on reproductive strategies

The effects of harshness and unpredictability on reproductive strategies are not realized solely in immediate adaptive adjustments (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), but also over time through developmental reorganization of important physiological and psychological traits in response to important early-life environmental cues (Belsky et al., 1991). This type of developmental plasticity allows humans, as well as other organisms, to match their physiological and psychological makeup to the anticipated demands of future environments (Boyce & Ellis, 2005). Such developmental effects may be especially evident in reproductive behaviors, which are grounded in and constrained by a complex array of early-developing psychological and physiological traits such as emotional functioning, attachment orientations, sociosexuality, timing of sexual maturation, and stress reactivity (Belsky et al., 1991; Ellis & Del Giudice, 2014; Simpson & Belsky, 2016; Szepsenwol & Simpson, 2019).

Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence from prospective longitudinal studies linking childhood exposure to harshness and unpredictability to increased mating effort in adolescence and adulthood. Childhood exposure to harshness or unpredictability has been shown to predict earlier menarche (Sung et al., 2016), greater sexual risk-taking and earlier sexual debut (James et al., 2012), more sexual partners by age 15 (Belsky et al., 2012), an earlier age of first pregnancy (Nettle et al., 2011), and greater engagement in short-term romantic relationships (Szepsenwol et al., 2017). Importantly, early childhood environments appear to be more influential than middle childhood environments. In a study that assessed the unique effects of harshness and unpredictability during early childhood (ages 0–5) and middle childhood (ages 6–16), only unpredictability during early childhood predicted more sexual partners by age 23 (Simpson et al., 2012).

Recent evidence also points to the role of childhood unpredictability in calibrating parental behaviors and attitudes in men. In a prospective longitudinal study, fathers who were exposed to unpredictability early in life (ages 0–4) demonstrated less sensitive parental behaviors in videotaped interactions with their infant children that took place when the fathers were 21 to 37 years old. The fathers also reported more negative attitudes toward parenting in interviews conducted when they were 32 years old. This longitudinal effect was not found for early-life harshness (low SES) and was completely absent in mothers (Szepsenwol et al., 2015).

These results have two main implications. First, exposure to early-life unpredictability may be particularly detrimental to parenting effort. Perhaps, this is because the risks to children posed by unpredictable environments typically cannot be buffered by greater investment from parents. Second, the effects of early rearing environments on parenting may differ according to sex. These differences could stem from the lower obligatory initial parental investment of men, who unlike women do not incur the significant energetic costs of internal fertilization, gestation, and lactation (Trivers, 1972). Men, therefore, can more readily shift their efforts from parenting to mating when conditions favor it (Del Giudice, 2009). Men are also better able to benefit reproductively from such a shift because of their ability to reproduce with multiple women at the same time. Thus, men’s parenting should be more responsive to environmental cues pertaining to the optimal degree of paternal investment, including early signs of environmental unpredictability. This does not mean that women are immune to the effects of early-life unpredictability on reproductive behaviors, but that these effects may not necessarily manifest in lower maternal investment.

Life history and co-parenting

In considering co-parenting from a life history perspective, I assume that co-parental alliances are an important feature of human parenting effort that supports the effective expenditure of parental investment (Feinberg, 2003; Sear & Coall, 2011). Human parenting effort encompasses both direct parental investment, which entails the investment of time, energy and resources in the firsthand care of children (e.g., feeding, playing, providing comfort), and indirect parental investment, which entails the investment of time, energy, and resources in creating and maintaining conditions that increase offspring fitness (e.g., attaining wealth and status, investing in education) (Quinlan, 2003). Maintaining a good co-parenting relationship can be thought of as a special form of indirect parental investment, one that supports the provision of direct parental care, whether by the parent himself or herself or by a co-parenting partner. As such, the capacity to maintain an effective co-parenting relationship is tied to the capacity to effectively expend parental effort.

Maintaining a good co-parenting relationship has clear fitness benefits, as it improves the chances that both parents will contribute to the well-being of the child. Indeed, when co-parenting relationships are conflicted or absent, children tend to receive worse direct parental care (e.g., Feinberg et al., 2007). The benefits of maintaining good co-parenting relationships, therefore, should be greater in environments that put a premium on parenting effort. Like parenting, however, co-parenting has its costs. It involves investing time, resources, and energy in coordinating with and supporting the other parent (Feinberg, 2003). Moreover, it requires maintaining a long-term relationship with him or her, even in the absence of romantic ties (Adamsons & Pasley, 2006). This long-term attachment to another person may come into conflict with the pursuit of new romantic partners (Ganong & Coleman, 2012). For this reason, the costs of maintaining good co-parenting relationships should be greater in environments that favor mating effort over parenting effort.

Maintaining a good co-parenting relationship, therefore, should be more beneficial in environments that favor parenting effort and less beneficial in environments that favor mating effort. As such, co-parenting relationships should be responsive to the same environmental cues as direct parental care. Previous research points to the importance of early-life unpredictability, but not early life harshness, in predicting male parental care (Szepsenwol et al., 2015). This finding seems to suggest that early-life unpredictability should predict lower co-parenting quality in men only, given that in response to such exposure men should become less interested in expending any kind of parenting effort. Women, however, might also have a lower interest in maintaining co-parenting relationships in unpredictable environments. In such environments, women might not be able to rely on the direct paternal investment of their mates and might choose instead to rely on other sources of help (Kramer, 2010). Moreover, women might choose to form relationships with mates that provide them with other benefits (e.g., status, protection), rather than mates that directly benefit their children (Quinlan, 2008). In these circumstances, co-parenting relationships become less important. Exposure to early-life unpredictability, therefore, might undermine co-parenting relationships for both sexes.

The current research

The aim of the current research was to examine the role of unpredictability and harshness experienced early in life in predicting co-parenting relationships when individuals become parents. For this purpose, I used data from a longitudinal study that followed new parents across six measurement waves from before their children were born until they were 2 years old. The transition to parenthood is a critical period for the development of co-parenting relationships (Feinberg, 2002). In this period, the family system is reshaped and co-parenting patterns begin to emerge (Cowan & Cowan, 2000). This process begins during pregnancy when parents start to develop expectations and negotiate their future roles as parents (Feinberg, 2002). These early processes forecast the quality of the co-parenting relationship during the postpartum period and later in life (Altenburger et al., 2014; Schoppe-Sullivan & Mangelsdorf, 2013).

Life histories from the first 8 years of life were obtained from both parents. This time frame was chosen because of prior studies indicating that early childhood is a critical period for the development of reproductive strategies (e.g., Simpson et al., 2012) while taking into account possible gaps in recollection and knowledge if a narrower timeframe were chosen (see also Szepsenwol et al., 2015). The study includes both observational measures of co-parenting alliance obtained during a behavioral triadic interaction and repeated self-report measures of co-parenting quality from both parents. In addition, the study includes repeated self-report measures of romantic relationship quality from both parents. Thus, it is well suited to test life history effects on co-parenting relationships and differentiate them from effects on romantic relationships. I hypothesized that early-life unpredictability experienced by either parent would predict more negative co-parenting relationships, above and beyond early life harshness and romantic relationship quality.

Method

Participants

The study’s sample included 109 families (two parents and their firstborn child) participating in a longitudinal study of new parents. They were recruited from the general community in central Israel when mothers were in their third trimester and followed for the first 2 years of their child’s life. All couples were heterosexual and cohabitating. Mothers’ age ranged from 23 to 42 (M = 30.82, SD = 3.63). Fathers’ age also ranged from 23 to 42 (M = 32.41, SD = 4.01). Couples were middle to upper class and fairly educated on average (years of education: M = 16.3 years, SD = 2.10 for mothers; M = 15.36, SD = 2.41 for fathers). Their children were 52.5% male. None of the parents reported an at-risk pregnancy or developmental disorders (for more information on the sample, see Online Supplementary Material). They were compensated for participating in each phase of the study. The study received IRB approval. Power analysis conducted with GPower version 3.1.9.2 (Faul et al., 2009) indicated that the sample size provides 80% power to detect a small to moderate correlation (r = .26).

Measures and procedure

Families were assessed six times until the child was 2 years old: before the child was born and when the child was 3, 6, 9, 18, and 24 months old. Mothers and fathers completed separately retrospective reports of life events that occurred before they were 8 years old. They also completed self-report measures of co-parenting and relationship quality at several time points. When children were 6 months old, the entire family was videotaped in the lab while engaging in a triadic play situation.

Some of the parents did not complete all of the assessments. Specifically, 20 families did not participate in the final assessment at 24 months but were still included in the analysis with data from prior assessments. Other families participated in the final assessment but did not participate in some of the earlier assessments. Overall, 109 families completed at least some of the self-report relationship quality measures, 103 completed at least some of the self-report co-parenting measures, and 88 participated in the triadic play situation. There were no differences in terms of demographics (age, education, salary) and study variables between families who completed all assessments and families who did not complete all assessments (p values ranging from .39 to .91). All study measures (including other measures that were not used in the current investigation) were computed and coded at the time they were collected.

Early-life unpredictability

Consistent with prior research (e.g., Belsky et al., 2012; Simpson et al., 2012; Szepsenwol et al., 2015), early-life unpredictability was indexed by exposure to three types of events during childhood: (a) changes in parents’ employment status (e.g., periods of unemployment), (b) changes in residence, and (c) changes in the structure of the family (e.g., parental separation). Parents indicated for each event whether they experienced it in the first 8 years of their lives and how distressing it was on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). As in previous research (e.g., Belsky et al., 2012; Simpson et al., 2012; Szepsenwol et al., 2015), these ratings were summed to create an accumulated early-life unpredictability score for each parent.

Early-life harshness

Consistent with prior research (e.g., Belsky et al., 2012; Simpson et al., 2012; Szepsenwol et al., 2015), early-life harshness was indexed by childhood SES. Parents indicated their agreement with 4 items that inquired about their family’s SES during their early childhood (up to age 8), using a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. These items were (a) “My family usually had enough money for things when I was growing up;” (b) I grew up in a relatively wealthy neighborhood;” (c) “I felt relatively wealthy compared with the other kids in my school;” and (d) “My family struggled financially when I was growing up” (reverse-keyed). The same items were used in prior research to assess childhood SES (e.g., Griskevicius et al., 2011; Szepsenwol et al., 2015). Responses to the 4 items were averaged to create an early-life SES score for each parent (Cronbach’s α = .81 and .76 for women and men, respectively), with higher values representing lower harshness.

Observations of co-parental alliance

When children were 6 months old, the family (mother, father, child) participated in the Lausanne Trilogue Play (LTP) situation (Fivaz-Depeursinge & Corboz-Warnery, 1999), a triadic behavioral observation of family dynamics. During the LTP, families played together in four configurations (mother–child, father–child, mother–father–child, and mother–father) for approximately 10 min. These interactions were rated by two coders using the Family Alliance Assessment Scale (Lavanchy et al., 2008), which includes 15 items assessing the family on seven interactive functions: (a) participation: whether all family members are interacting with each other; (b) organization: how parents organize the play interaction; (c) focalization: whether parents share a common focus; (d) affect sharing: the global affective climate and the circulation of affect between family members; (e) synchronization: whether parents communicate effectively during activities and transitions; (f) co-parenting: whether parents cooperate and support each other; and (g) infant: whether the infant is involved and self-regulated during play. Each item was given a rating of 0 (inappropriate), 1 (moderate), or 2 (appropriate). The ratings were then summed to create a global score that could range between 0 and 30 (Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = .92). Higher scores reflect a more positive family alliance and greater coordination between parents during the interaction.

Self-reported co-parenting quality

Parental perceptions of their co-parenting relationship were assessed via the Co-parenting Relationship Scale (CRS) (Feinberg et al., 2012), a 35-item measure assessing seven co-parenting dimensions (co-parenting agreement, co-parenting closeness, exposing the child to relationship conflict, co-parenting support, co-parenting undermining, endorsement of the partner’s parenting, and division of labor). Parents responded to each item using a scale of 0 (not true of us) to 6 (very true of us). Each parent completed the CRS four times during the study when the child was 3, 9, 18, and 24 months old. An overall score of co-parenting quality was computed by averaging the 35 items for each parent at each assessment, after reversing negatively valenced items (all Cronbach’s α values above .90). Co-parenting quality scores were highly correlated across assessments (Cronbach’s α = .89 and .90 for mothers and fathers, respectively), suggesting stable perceptions of co-parenting during the child’s first 2 years of life. Therefore, the scores were averaged for each parent across assessments to create a 3- to-24-month individual co-parenting quality score, with higher scores representing better perceptions of the co-parenting relationship. There was also a significant agreement between parents regarding the quality of the co-parenting relationship (r = .68, p < .001). Hence, a 3- to-24-month dyadic (couple-reported) co-parenting quality score was also created by averaging the individual scores from both parents (Cronbach’s α = .92).

Relationship quality

Perceptions of relationship quality were assessed via the 16-item version of the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) (Funk & Rogge, 2007), which assesses global evaluations of satisfaction in romantic relationships. Parents responded to each item using changing 6-point and 7-point scales. Each parent completed the CSI three times during the study, once before the child was born, and when the child was 3 and 24 months old. An overall score of relationship quality was computed by summing the 16 items for each parent at each assessment (all Cronbach’s α values above .90), with higher scores representing better perceptions of relationship quality. As with co-parenting quality scores, relationship quality scores were highly correlated across assessments (Cronbach’s α = .79 and .83 for mothers and fathers, respectively), suggesting stable perceptions of relationship quality during the child’s first 2 years of life. Therefore, the scores were averaged for each parent across assessments to create an individual perceived relationship quality score. There was also a significant agreement between parents in their perceptions of the relationship (r = .74, p < .001). Hence, a dyadic (couple-reported) relationship quality score was computed by averaging the individual scores from both parents (Cronbach’s α = .90).

Results

Analytic strategy

The effects of fathers’ and mothers’ early-life unpredictability, early-life SES, and current relationship quality on observed family alliance and self-reported co-parenting quality were examined simultaneously through path analyses conducted within an SEM framework. An initial path analysis examined the effects of fathers’ and mothers’ early-life variables alone (Model 1), whereas a second path analysis examined whether these effects exist above and beyond the effect of relationship quality (Model 2) (see Figure 1). Because the data set included some missing values, full information maximum likelihood estimation was used (Enders, 2010). To account for a possible lack of distributional normality for some of the variables, Bayesian 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated through Monte Carlo simulation (Gamerman & Lopes, 2006).

Figure 1.
Analysis models. Bolded paths are statistically significant (see Tables 2 and 3). Relationship quality was added in Model 2. M = mother; F = father.

Owing to the dyadic nature of the co-parenting and relationship quality constructs, as well as the strong inter-dyad correlations between the reports of fathers and mothers about their co-parenting and relationship quality, the dyadic composites of these variables were used in all primary analysis. However, a post hoc analysis was also conducted using individual assessments of co-parenting quality. All analyses were conducted with IBM AMOS version 25.

Preliminary analysis

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between study variables are given in Table 1. The couple-reported and observational measures of co-parenting were moderately positively correlated, suggesting that they capture somewhat different aspects of co-parenting. Both co-parenting measures were also correlated with relationship quality. For both fathers and mothers, early-life unpredictability was negatively correlated with early-life SES. From all early-life variables, only mothers’ early-life unpredictability was negatively correlated with co-parenting measures.

Table 1.
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations between study variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. UP (M)

2. UP (F) .05

3. SES (M) −.36 .17

4. SES (F) −.03 −.33 .17

5. LTP −.28* −.11 −.01 −.00

6. CRS −.28** -.08 .05 .09 .24*

7. CSI −.14 .00 −.01 .12 .28 .71*

Mean 2.61 2.29 4.72 4.64 19.52 4.92 67.15

SD 2.86 2.57 1.39 1.32 6.09 0.57 8.98

Note. M = mother; F = father; UP = early-life unpredictability; SES = early-life socioeconomic status; LTP = Lausanne Trilogue Play situation—positive family alliance score; CRS = Co-parenting Relationship Scale—dyadic co-parenting quality score, 3 to 24 months; CSI = Couples Satisfaction Index—dyadic relationship quality score, 0 to 24 months. Descriptive statistics for the CRS and CSI for each separate assessment are provided in the supplemental materials.

p < .05; p < .01; p < .001

The effects of early-life history on co-parenting

An initial path analysis was conducted to examine the unique effects of fathers’ and mothers’ early-life unpredictability and SES on their observed family alliance (Table 2, Model 1) and couple-reported co-parenting quality (Table 3, Model 1). As expected, early-life unpredictability experienced by mothers predicted a more negative observed family alliance and lower couple-reported co-parenting quality. Contrary to expectations, early-life unpredictability experienced by fathers was not associated with observed family alliance or couple-reported co-parenting quality. Mothers’ and fathers’ early-life SES was not associated with observed family alliance or couple-reported co-parenting quality.

Table 2.
Standardized maximum likelihood estimates for path analyses predicting observed family alliance at 6 months from mothers’ and fathers’ early-life unpredictability, early-life SES, and dyadic relationship quality.

Model 1 Model 2

β p CI_LO CI_HI β p CI_LO CI_HI

UP (M) −.30 .012 −.53 −.05 −.26 .026 −.48 −.02

UP (F) −.08 .516 −.34 .19 −.10 .437 −.36 .17

SES (M) −.11 .370 −.36 .14 −.09 .481 −.33 .17

SES (F) .01 .964 −.26 .27 −.03 .790 −.30 .24

CSI .25 .014 .03 .46

Note. M = mother; F = father; UP = early-life unpredictability; SES = early-life socioeconomic status; CSI = Couples Satisfaction Index—dyadic relationship quality score, 0 to 24 months.

Table 3.
Standardized maximum likelihood estimates for path analyses predicting dyadic co-parenting quality at 3 to 24 months from mothers’ and fathers’ early-life unpredictability, early-life SES, and dyadic relationship quality.

Model 1 Model 2

β p CI_LO CI_HI β p CI_LO CI_HI

UP (M) −.28 .011 −.50 −.06 −.19 .017 −.35 −.01

UP (F) −.02 .857 −.27 .23 −.09 .275 −.26 .10

SES (M) −.06 .602 −.30 .18 .02 .806 −.16 .19

SES (F) .09 .471 −.16 .33 −.04 .656 −.21 .15

CSI .69 < .001 .55 .83

Note. M = mother; F = father; UP = early-life unpredictability; SES = early-life socioeconomic status; CSI = Couples Satisfaction Index—dyadic relationship quality score, 0 to 24 months.

A second path analysis was conducted to examine whether the effects of mothers’ early-life unpredictability on observed family alliance (Table 2, Model 2) and couple-reported co-parenting quality (Table 3, Model 2) are explained by their current relationship quality (see Figure 1). As predicted, although couple-reported relationship quality was moderately associated with observed family alliance and strongly associated with couple-reported co-parenting quality, the negative effects of mothers’ early-life unpredictability on co-parenting existed above and beyond these effects, albeit in a somewhat diminished form. The possibility that relationship quality partially mediates the effects of mothers’ early-life unpredictability on co-parenting was also examined. This possibility, however, was ruled out because couple-reported relationship quality was not significantly predicted by mothers’ early-life unpredictability (β = −.15, p = .18, 95% CI [−.38, .07]) or any other early-life variable.

Finally, to examine whether the effects of mothers’ early-life unpredictability on couple-reported co-parenting quality are driven by their own or by their partners’ reports, a third path analysis was conducted with individual scores of co-parenting quality, reported separately by mothers and fathers, replacing the composite couple-reported co-parenting quality score. Results indicated that the effects of mothers’ early-life unpredictability on self-reported co-parenting quality are not dependent on the identity of the reporter. Mothers’ early-life unpredictability predicted both their own reports on the quality of their co-parenting relationship (β = −.23, p = .038, 95% CI [−.46, −.00]) and their partners’ reports (β = −.28, p = .012, 95% CI [−.51, −.05]).

Discussion

Co-parenting relationships are often the context in which parental investment occurs and have important implications for the well-being of children (Teubert & Pinquart, 2010). They begin to take shape during the transition to parenthood (Cowan & Cowan, 2000; Feinberg, 2002). According to Feinberg’s (2003) ecological model of co-parenting, the quality of the co-parenting relationship between parents should partly relate to their individual characteristics. These, in turn, should partly be rooted in their developmental histories (Simpson & Belsky, 2016). Yet, research examining the link between parents’ developmental histories and their co-parenting relationships is scarce.

In the current research, I utilized a sample of new parents who were followed longitudinally during the first 2 years of their child’s life to examine a hypothesis derived from life history theory, positing a negative association between early-life unpredictability and co-parenting relationships in adulthood. This hypothesis was supported only for mothers. Unpredictability experienced by mothers during their first 8 years of life forecasted a more negative observed family alliance when the child was 6 months old and lower self- and partner-reported co-parenting quality assessed four times during the child’s first 2 years of life. These effects were found controlling for early-life SES (harshness) and were not explained by variability in relationship quality. In the following paragraphs, I consider two possible explanations for these findings.

Maternal gatekeeping, co-parenting relationships, and paternal involvement

At first glance, the results of the current research seem at odds with previous research that found an association between early-life unpredictability and negative parental attitudes and behaviors only in men (Szepsenwol et al., 2015). Maintaining a co-parenting relationship, however, is not the same as investing in one’s children directly, even if both ultimately serve the same reproductive function. By maintaining a good co-parenting relationship, each parent fosters direct parental investment by the other parent, and there is reason to believe that this is especially relevant for male parental investment. Fathers tend to be less involved in the absence of a good co-parenting relationship (McBride & Rane, 1998), especially in separated and non-cohabitating couples (Sobolewski & King, 2005; Waller, 2012). At the same time, mothers sometimes discourage fathers’ direct involvement in childrearing and restrict their parent–child interactions. The behaviors of mothers that either inhibit or encourage paternal involvement are often referred to as maternal gatekeeping (Allen & Hawkins, 1999).

When the quality of paternal behaviors is in question, mothers have an interest in regulating paternal access to their children, namely, engaging in more inhibitory gatekeeping behaviors. Maternal gatekeeping behaviors are an important aspect of the co-parenting relationship, with better co-parenting positively associated with maternal encouragement of paternal behaviors and negatively associated with maternal discouragement of paternal behaviors (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008). If the quality of male parenting is indeed lower in unpredictable environments (Szepsenwol et al., 2015), women might have developed negative expectations regarding the quality of fathering their male co-parents could provide in such environments. A reasonable counter adaptation would be to engage in more inhibitory gatekeeping, which would result in a more negative co-parenting relationship, as was found in the current research. Men, on the other hand, have fewer reasons to expect lower parenting quality from women in unpredictable environments and, in any case, are less able to shape the co-parenting relationship through gatekeeping behaviors than women are. Consistent with this idea, mothers who have negative views of their partners’ paternal competence engage in more inhibitory gatekeeping behaviors. These behaviors, in turn, are associated with lower paternal involvement (Fagan & Barnett, 2003). Thus, while men might adapt to unpredictable environments by reducing their parental effort, women might adapt to such environments by distrusting men’s parental effort and avoiding meaningful collaboration with them on childrearing. Future studies should investigate maternal gatekeeping behaviors in the context of co-parenting relationships and women’s reproductive adaptations to unpredictable environments.

Female choice, paternal involvement, and co-parenting relationships

A different explanation for the sex-differentiated association between early-life unpredictability and co-parenting could be that women who grow up in unpredictable environments discount the importance of parental traits in potential mates and hence opt for mates who are unlikely to take an active part in parenting (Quinlan, 2008). This, in turn, results in poor co-parenting relationships (Jia et al., 2011). According to sexual strategies theory (Buss & Schmitt, 1993), women should prioritize parental traits in long-term mates. Such traits, however, could be less important in unpredictable environments (Cabeza de Baca & Ellis, 2017; Szepsenwol et al., 2015). In such environments, traits that confer genetic benefits to offspring (e.g., symmetry, dominance), which are often traded-off against parental traits, could be more favorable, and hence more attractive (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). According to this account, the poor co-parenting relationships of mothers who experienced early-life unpredictability were a consequence of low paternal effort by their chosen mates, rather than their own attempts to discourage paternal effort as proposed in the previous section.

It is impossible to tease apart these two competing explanations with the current data. Moreover, they are not mutually exclusive. However, if women exposed to early-life unpredictability were choosing mates who are less equipped to be involved fathers, we might expect it to be reflected in the early-life histories of these mates. Namely, we would expect these less-involved fathers to have experienced comparatively more early-life unpredictability. The nonsignificant correlation between mothers’ and fathers’ early-life unpredictability suggests that this was not the case. In addition, if women exposed to early-unpredictability were giving less importance to the parenting qualities of their chosen mates, we might expect it to also be reflected in their romantic relationship quality, considering that there is a significant overlap between the traits that make one a good parent and the traits that make one a good long-term romantic partner (Belsky & Jaffee, 2006). But there was no significant correlation between mothers’, or fathers’, early-life unpredictability and their dyadic relationship quality. Still, future studies should investigate the effects of early-life unpredictability and harshness on male and female mating preferences and their implications for reproductive strategies.

Limitations and future directions

The current research is the first to demonstrate an association between women’s exposure to early-life unpredictability and their co-parenting relationship once they become mothers. This finding should be considered, however, in the light of several limitations. First, the mechanisms underlying the association between early-life unpredictability and co-parenting were not examined. In addition to proximate mechanisms such as maternal gatekeeping and female mate-choice, there are other ways unpredictable childhood environments could have detrimental effects on the ability of parents to maintain a fruitful co-parenting relationship. For example, exposure to early-life unpredictability forecasts the development of insecure attachment representations (Szepsenwol et al., 2015) and negative emotionality (Doom et al., 2016), personality characteristics that are associated with poor co-parenting relationships (Schoppe-Sullivan & Mangelsdorf, 2013; Talbot et al., 2009). Future studies should examine whether such early-developing psychological characteristics mediate the effect of early-life unpredictability on co-parenting dynamics (Simpson et al., 2017).

Second, the sample has some distinct characteristics that could have influenced the results. Co-parenting was assessed in the child’s first 2 years of life. In this period, mothers often take charge of parental responsibilities and may have a greater impact on the shaping of the co-parenting relationship (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008). Their life histories, therefore, might be more relevant in this period. In addition, the sample included heterosexual two-parent families living in a western industrialized culture. Human parenting comes in various forms, and co-parenting relationships could differ between different family or cultural contexts (McHale et al., 2004). Additional empirical work is needed to establish the generalizability of the findings to other cultures and family configurations.

Implications for family practice

The results of the current research implicate mothers’ exposure to early-life unpredictability as a possible risk factor for low-quality co-parenting relationships. Family practitioners should consider the individual vulnerabilities both parents bring to the co-parenting relationship in the transition to parenthood. Research on the processes underlying the link between early-unpredictability and co-parenting relationships could aid in the development of targeted family interventions.

Conclusion

Life history theory provides a powerful framework for the study of human parenting. But despite extensive theorizing (Belsky et al., 1991; Ellis et al., 2009), empirical investigations of life history models of parenting are still in their infancy. Specifically, there is a shortage of evidence regarding how the environmental conditions experienced during childhood influence later parental behaviors. The current research takes an additional step in this direction, by demonstrating a negative association between early-life unpredictability experienced by mothers and co-parenting relationship quality. This finding highlights the collaborative nature of human parenting and the importance of investigating it within the relational and familial context in which it occurs.

Supplemental material

supplamental_materials - The effect of childhood unpredictability on co-parenting relationships during the transition to parenthood: A life history approach

supplamental_materials for The effect of childhood unpredictability on co-parenting relationships during the transition to parenthood: A life history approach by Ohad Szepsenwol in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. UP (M)
2. UP (F)	.05
3. SES (M)	−.36***	.17
4. SES (F)	−.03	−.33**	.17
5. LTP	−.28*	−.11	−.01	−.00
6. CRS	−.28**	-.08	.05	.09	.24*
7. CSI	−.14	.00	−.01	.12	.28**	.71***
Mean	2.61	2.29	4.72	4.64	19.52	4.92	67.15
SD	2.86	2.57	1.39	1.32	6.09	0.57	8.98

	Model 1	Model 2
UP (M)	−.30	.012	−.53	−.05	−.26	.026	−.48	−.02
UP (F)	−.08	.516	−.34	.19	−.10	.437	−.36	.17
SES (M)	−.11	.370	−.36	.14	−.09	.481	−.33	.17
SES (F)	.01	.964	−.26	.27	−.03	.790	−.30	.24
CSI					.25	.014	.03	.46

	Model 1	Model 2
UP (M)	−.28	.011	−.50	−.06	−.19	.017	−.35	−.01
UP (F)	−.02	.857	−.27	.23	−.09	.275	−.26	.10
SES (M)	−.06	.602	−.30	.18	.02	.806	−.16	.19
SES (F)	.09	.471	−.16	.33	−.04	.656	−.21	.15
CSI					.69	< .001	.55	.83

Footnotes

Author’s note

The data used in this research were collected by Dr. Dana Shai.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ohad Szepsenwol

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author has provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered.

The data and materials used in the research are available upon request by emailing ohads@yvc.ac.il

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adamsons

Pasley

(2006). Coparenting following divorce and relationship dissolution. In Fine

M. A.

Harvey

J. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 241–261). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Adler

N. E.

Boyce

W. T.

Chesney

M. A.

Folkman

Syme

S. L.

(1993). Socioeconomic inequalities in health: No easy solution. Journal of the American Medical Association, 269, 3140–3145. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.269.24.3140

Allen

S. M.

Hawkins

A. J.

(1999). Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers’ beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 199–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/353894

Altenburger

L. E.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Lang

S. N.

Bower

D. J.

Kamp Dush

C. M.

(2014). Associations between prenatal coparenting behavior and observed coparenting behavior at 9-months postpartum. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000012

Belsky

(1984). The Determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129836

Belsky

Crnic

Gable

(1995). The Determinants of coparenting in families with toddler boys: Spousal differences and daily hassles. Child Development, 66, 629–642. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131939

Belsky

Jaffee

(2006). The multiple determinants of parenting. In Cicchetti

Cohen

(Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (2nd ed., Vol. 3: Risk, disorder and adaptation, pp. 38–85). Wiley.

Belsky

Schlomer

G. L.

Ellis

B. J.

(2012). Beyond cumulative risk: Distinguishing harshness and unpredictability as determinants of parenting and early life history strategy. Developmental Psychology, 48, 662–673. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024454

Belsky

Steinberg

Draper

(1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62, 647–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01558.x

10.

Boyce

W. T.

Ellis

B. J.

(2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary-developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 271–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050145

11.

Buss

D. M.

Schmitt

D. P.

(1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204

12.

Cabeza de Baca

Ellis

B. J.

(2017). Early stress, parental motivation, and reproductive decision-making: Applications of life history theory to parental behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.005

13.

Chisholm

J. S.

(1993). Death, hope and sex: Life history theory and the development of reproductive strategies. Current Anthropology, 34, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1086/204131

14.

Clutton-Brock

T. H.

(1991). The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press.

15.

Conger

R. D.

Wallace

L. E.

Sun

Simons

R. L.

McLoyd

V. C.

Brody

G. H.

(2002). Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.179

16.

Cook

J. C.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Buckley

C. K.

Davis

E. F.

(2009). Are some children harder to coparent than others? Children’s negative emotionality and coparenting relationship quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 606–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015992

17.

Cowan

C. P.

Cowan

P. A.

(2000). When partners become parents: The big life change for couples. Erlbaum.

18.

Del Giudice

(2009). Sex, attachment, and the development of reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 1–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09000016

19.

Del Giudice

Gangestad

S. W.

Kaplan

H. S.

(2016). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In Buss

D. M.

(Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 88–114). John Wiley & Sons.

20.

Doom

J. R.

Vanzomeren-Dohm

A. A.

Simpson

J. A.

(2016). Early unpredictability predicts increased adolescent externalizing behaviors and substance use: A life history perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 28, 1505–1516. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579415001169

21.

Ellis

B. J.

Del Giudice

(2014). Beyond allostatic load: Rethinking the role of stress in regulating human development. Development and Psychopathology, 26, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000849

22.

Ellis

B. J.

Figueredo

A. J.

Brumbach

Schlomer

(2009). Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk: The impact of harsh versus unpredictable environments on the evolution and development of life history strategies. Human Nature, 20, 204–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-009-9063-7

23.

Enders

C. K.

(2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.

24.

Fagan

Barnett

(2003). The relationship between maternal gatekeeping, paternal competence, mothers’ attitudes about the father role, and father involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 1020–1043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X03256397

25.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

26.

Feinberg

M. E.

(2002). Coparenting and the transition to parenthood: A Framework for prevention. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019695015110

27.

Feinberg

M. E.

(2003). The Internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting, 3, 95–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327922PAR0302_01

28.

Feinberg

M. E.

Brown

L. D.

Kan

M. L.

(2012). A multi-domain self-report measure of coparenting. Parenting, 12, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.638870

29.

Feinberg

M. E.

Marni

L. K.

Hetherington

E. M.

(2007). The longitudinal influence of coparenting conflict on parental negativity and adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 687–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00400.x

30.

Fivaz-Depeursinge

Corboz-Warnery

(1999). The primary triangle. A developmental systems view of fathers, mothers and infants. Basic Books.

31.

Funk

J. L.

Rogge

R. D.

(2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the couples satisfaction index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572

32.

Gamerman

Lopes

H. F.

(2006). Markov chain Monte Carlo: Stochastic simulation for Bayesian inference (2nd ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC.

33.

Gangestad

S. W.

Simpson

J. A.

(2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X

34.

Ganong

L. H.

Coleman

(2012). Stepfamily relationships (2nd ed.). Springer.

35.

Geary

D. C.

(2016). Evolution of paternal investment. In Buss

D. M.

(Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 524–541). John Wiley & Sons.

36.

Griskevicius

Delton

A. W.

Robertson

T. E.

Tybur

J. M.

(2011). Environmental contingency in life history strategies: The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on reproductive timing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021082

37.

James

Ellis

B. J.

Schlomer

G. L.

Garber

(2012). Sex-specific pathways to early puberty, sexual debut, and sexual risk taking: Tests of an integrated evolutionary-developmental model. Developmental Psychology, 48, 687–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026427

38.

Jia

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

(2011). Relations between coparenting and father involvement in families with preschool-age children. Developmental Psychology, 47, 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020802

39.

Jones

D. J.

Forehand

O’Connell

Armistead

Brody

(2005). Mothers’ perceptions of neighborhood violence and mother-reported monitoring of African American children: An examination of the moderating role of perceived support. Behavior Therapy, 36, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80051-6

40.

Kaplan

Lancaster

J. B.

(2003). An Evolutionary and ecological analysis of human fertility, mating patterns and parental investment. In Wachter

K. W.

Bulatao

R. A.

(Eds.), Offspring: Fertility behavior in biodemographic perspective (pp. 170–223). National Academies Press.

41.

Kolak

A. M.

Volling

B. L.

(2007). Parental expressiveness as a moderator of coparenting and marital relationship quality. Family Relations, 56, 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00474.x

42.

Kramer

K. L.

(2010). Cooperative breeding and its significance to the demographic success of humans. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105054

43.

Lavanchy

S. C.

Favez

Tissot

Frascarolo

(2008). The family alliance assessment scales. Unpublished coding manual. Center for Family Studies, University of Lausanne.

44.

McDaniel

B. T.

Leavitt

C. E.

Feinberg

M. E.

(2016). Longitudinal associations between relationship quality and coparenting across the transition to parenthood: A dyadic perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 918–926. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000217

45.

Lovejoy

C. O.

(1981). The origin of man. Science, 211, 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.211.4480.341

46.

Mangelsdorf

S. C.

Laxman

D. J.

Jessee

(2011). Coparenting in two-parent nuclear families. In McHale

J. P.

Lindahl

K. M.

(Eds.), Coparenting: A Conceptual and clinical examination of family systems. (pp. 39–59). American Psychological Association.

47.

McBride

B. A.

Rane

T. R.

(1998). Parenting alliance as a predictor of father involvement: An Exploratory study. Family Relations, 47, 229–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/584971

48.

McHale

J. P.

(1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital distress and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 31, 985–996. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.6.985

49.

McHale

J. P.

Fivaz-Depeursinge

(1999). Understanding triadic and family group interactions during infancy and toddlerhood. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021847714749

50.

McHale

J. P.

Kuersten-Hogan

Rao

(2004). Growing points for coparenting theory and research. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADE.0000035629.29960.ed

51.

Nettle

Coall

D. A.

Dickins

T. E.

(2011). Early-life conditions and age at first pregnancy in British women. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 278, 1721–1727. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1726

52.

Quinlan

R. J.

(2003). Father absence, parental care, and female reproductive development. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 376–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00039-4

53.

Quinlan

R. J.

(2007). Human parental effort and environmental risk. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 274, 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3690

54.

Quinlan

R. J.

(2008). Human pair-bonds: Evolutionary functions, ecological variation, and adaptive development. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 17, 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.20191

55.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Brown

G. L.

Cannon

E. A.

Mangelsdorf

S. C.

Sokolowski

M. S.

(2008). Maternal gatekeeping, coparenting quality, and fathering behavior in families with infants. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.389

56.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Mangelsdorf

S. C.

(2013). Parent characteristics and early coparenting behavior at the transition to parenthood. Social Development, 22, 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12014

57.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Mangelsdorf

S. C.

Frosch

C. A.

McHale

J. L.

(2004). Associations between coparenting and marital behavior from infancy to the preschool years. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.194

58.

Sear

Coall

(2011). How much does family matter? Cooperative breeding and the demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 37, 81–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00379.x

59.

Simpson

J. A.

Belsky

(2016). Attachment theory within a modern evolutionary framework. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 91–116). Guilford Press.

60.

Simpson

J. A.

Griskevicius

Kuo

S. I. C.

Sung

Collins

W. A.

(2012). Evolution, stress, and sensitive periods: The influence of unpredictability in early versus late childhood on sex and risky behavior. Developmental Psychology, 48, 674–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027293

61.

Simpson

J. A.

Griskevicius

Szepsenwol

Young

E. S.

(2017). An evolutionary life history perspective on personality and mating strategies. In Church

A. T.

(Ed.), The Praeger handbook of personality across cultures. Volume 3: Evolutionary, ecological, and cultural contexts of personality (pp. 1–29). Praeger.

62.

Sobolewski

J. M.

King

(2005). The importance of the coparental relationship for nonresident fathers’ ties to children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1196–1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00210.x

63.

Sroufe

L. A.

Coffino

Carlson

E. A.

(2010). Conceptualizing the role of early experience: Lessons from the Minnesota longitudinal study. Developmental Review, 30, 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.12.002

64.

Stright

A. D.

Bales

S. S.

(2003). Coparenting quality: Contributions of child and parent characteristics. Family Relations, 52, 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00232.x

65.

Sung

Simpson

J. A.

Griskevicius

Kuo

S. I. C.

Schlomer

G. L.

Belsky

(2016). Secure infant-mother attachment buffers the effect of early-life stress on age of menarche. Psychological Science, 27, 667–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616631958

66.

Szepsenwol

Griskevicius

Simpson

J. A.

Young

E. S.

Fleck

Jones

R. E.

(2017). The effect of predictable early childhood environments on sociosexuality in early adulthood. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11, 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000082

67.

Szepsenwol

Simpson

J. A.

(2019). Attachment within life history theory: an evolutionary perspective on individual differences in attachment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.03.005

68.

Szepsenwol

Simpson

J. A.

Griskevicius

Raby

K. L.

(2015). The effect of unpredictable early childhood environments on parenting in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1045–1067. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000032

69.

Talbot

J. A.

Baker

J. K.

McHale

J. P.

(2009). Sharing the love: Prebirth adult attachment status and coparenting adjustment during early infancy. Parenting, 9, 56–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295190802656760

70.

Talbot

J. A.

McHale

J. P.

(2004). Individual parental adjustment moderates the relationship between marital and coparenting quality. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADE.0000035627.26870.f8

71.

Teubert

Pinquart

(2010). The association between coparenting and child adjustment: A meta-analysis. Parenting, 10, 286–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2010.492040

72.

Trivers

R. L.

(1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell

(Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of men: 1871-1971 (pp. 136–179). Aldine.

73.

Van Egeren

L. A.

(2003). Prebirth predictors of coparenting experiences in early infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24, 278–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.10056

74.

Waller

M. R.

(2012). Cooperation, conflict, or disengagement? Coparenting styles and father involvement in fragile families. Family Process, 51, 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01403.x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB

	Model 1				Model 2
	β	p	CI_LO	CI_HI	β	p	CI_LO	CI_HI
UP (M)	−.30	.012	−.53	−.05	−.26	.026	−.48	−.02
UP (F)	−.08	.516	−.34	.19	−.10	.437	−.36	.17
SES (M)	−.11	.370	−.36	.14	−.09	.481	−.33	.17
SES (F)	.01	.964	−.26	.27	−.03	.790	−.30	.24
CSI					.25	.014	.03	.46