Distinguishing relational turbulence,marital satisfaction,and parenting stress as predictors of ineffective Arguing among parents of children with autism

Abstract

Relational turbulence theory suggests that relational turbulence causes pervasive patterns of dysfunctional communication in romantic relationships, such as an inability to resolve conflicts. Other research traditions link marital conflict to marital satisfaction and also exposure to stress. This study assesses the discriminant validity of relational turbulence by examining its association with reports of ineffective arguing, above and beyond the associations with marital satisfaction and parenting stress. The study tests the theoretical claims within the high stress context of parents raising children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Married, parents of children with ASD (N = 298) completed measures of parenting stress specific to raising a child with ASD, marital satisfaction, relational turbulence, and ineffective arguing. Results provide evidence that relational turbulence is associated with perceptions of less effective arguing among these parents above and beyond the influence of parenting stress and marital satisfaction. Finally, implications for marriages, for parents of children with ASD, and for relational turbulence theory are discussed.

Keywords

Autism conflict ineffective arguing marital satisfaction relational turbulence stress

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is “a lifelong developmental disability defined by diagnostic criteria that include deficits in social communication and social interaction and restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities” (Baio, 2014, p. 2). Although parents often report raising a child with ASD as ultimately rewarding (King et al., 2006, Mailick Seltzer et al., 2001), these parents also report higher levels of stress and increased parental burden than parents of neurotypical children and children with other disabilities (Brobst et al., 2009; Griffith et al., 2010). As with many stress-inducing experiences, parenting a child with ASD is also associated with increased conflict between married partners (Hartley et al., 2017; Knapp, 2004; Weber, 2012); however, little research has focused on the specific relational qualities that may be contributing to ineffective conflict management. Relational turbulence theory may explain why some parents experience more marital conflict than others when faced with stress-inducing circumstances.

Relational turbulence theory (Solomon et al., 2016) is a framework for understanding both the experience of intense interaction episodes involving a romantic partner and the development of pervasive patterns of dysfunctional communication within ongoing relationships. According to the theory, repeated and frequent exposure to intense interactions between partners leads to relational turbulence—a global evaluation of the relationship as fragile, tumultuous, and chaotic. In the most recent conceptualization of relational turbulence theory, the authors argue that relational turbulence constitutes a distinct dimension indexing global qualities of romantic relationships, akin to relationship satisfaction, commitment, and intimacy (Solomon et al., 2016). Consistent with this assumption, prior research indicates that relational turbulence is both correlated with measures of other global relationship qualities and empirically distinct from them (Solomon & Brisini, 2017). For example, studies have shown that, despite medium to large correlations between relational turbulence and marital satisfaction, relational turbulence is significantly associated with a number of specific outcomes (e.g., jealousy, negative affect, topic avoidance) above and beyond the variance explained by marital satisfaction (e.g., Solomon & Brisini, 2017). This study builds on these efforts to evaluate relational turbulence as a construct that provides insight into romantic relationships.

One claim of the theory that invites scrutiny is the assumption that relational turbulence, as a relationship quality, is the link between exposure to polarized interaction episodes and pervasive relationship outcomes. One alternative explanation is that recurrent exposure to polarized interaction episodes is stressful, and stress—rather than relational turbulence—undermines communication. A robust body of work indicates that marital conflict is exacerbated by the partners’ exposure to stress (for review see Randall & Bodenmann, 2009). In particular, stress is associated with increased conflict (Story & Repetti, 2006) and more negative evaluations of the relationship (Harper et al., 2000; Tesser & Beach, 1998). Another alternative is that relational turbulence undermines relationship satisfaction, and dissatisfaction corresponds with less functional conflict management. Indeed, previous research has linked marital dissatisfaction to more negative conflict communication and outcomes (for review, see Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). Thus, evaluating the discriminant validity of relational turbulence with regard to stress and marital satisfaction addresses a central assumption within relational turbulence theory.

Solomon and colleagues (2016) proposed that relational turbulence “exerts a pervasive impact on individual, relational, and social functioning” (p. 20) because relational turbulence undermines communication between partners with regard to a host of routine functions. The aim for this paper is to examine ineffective arguing as a pervasive communication pattern that arises from experiences of relational turbulence and may contribute to the prevalence of conflict between parents of children with ASD and to do so while providing insight into the marital experiences of parents raising children with ASD. Thus, our goals are three-fold. First, we evaluate the discriminant validity of relational turbulence in relation to experiences of stress and marital satisfaction as a predictor of dysfunctional conflict communication. Second, we seek to examine the association between relational turbulence and reports of ineffective arguing among parents of children with ASD. Finally, we assess the strength of associations between relational turbulence and conflict experience above and beyond the influence of marital satisfaction and parenting stress. In service of these goals, we begin by explaining the associations between raising a child with ASD, relational turbulence, and marital conflict. We also discuss previous research on associations between marital satisfaction, stress, and marital conflict. Next, we describe a cross-sectional study in which 297 parents of children with ASD described characteristics of their marriage, as well as communicative behaviors during conflict. Finally, we discuss the results and implications of this research for parents of children with ASD, communication research, and marriage.

Stress and conflict among parents of children with ASD

A large body of research indicates that raising a child with ASD is a stressful experience for parents (Brobst et al., 2009; Griffith et al., 2010). ASD is characterized by impaired self-regulatory functions, which can lead to emotional outbursts, tantrums, and physical violence (Davis & Carter, 2008; Hastings, 2003). Heightened experiences of stress for parents stem from the persistent nature of these intense behavior issues, social isolation, worry about future independence, and increased constraints on time and resources (Hock et al., 2012). Indeed, these parents report higher levels of stress than children with other disabilities and children without disabilities (Brobst et al., 2009; Dabrowska & Pisula 2010; Rao & Beidel, 2009) across a range of ages and ethnic groups (Blacher & McIntyre, 2006; Eisenhower et al., 2005). Increases in parenting stress related to raising a child with ASD have been negatively associated with the parents’ marital quality in previous research (Hartley et al., 2016).

Parents of children with ASD report higher levels of child behavior problems and family disharmony, and decreased reports of family cohesion and marital quality (Brobst et al., 2009; Dabrowska & Pisula 2010; Hartley et al., 2011; Rao & Beidel, 2009). In addition, raising a child with ASD is associated with decreased family and community involvement, which leaves parents more dependent on each other to create and maintain schedules that serve the child, while also working toward parents’ individual goals (Lee et al., 2008). As a result, raising a child with ASD can require higher levels of involvement and greater resources than raising a neurotypical child. In turn, parents have less time for relational maintenance and more opportunities to interfere with each other’s goals and engage in conflict (Brobst et al., 2009; Dabrowska & Pisula 2010; Rao & Beidel, 2009; Weber, 2012).

For all of the aforementioned reasons, raising a child with ASD has been associated with negative outcomes for marriages in previous research, including decreased relational satisfaction (Hartley et al., 2011), increased conflict (Knapp, 2004; Weber, 2012), and higher rates of divorce (Hartley et al., 2010). Numerous quantitative studies have indicated that parents of children with ASD reported higher levels of conflict over childrearing than other parents (Knapp, 2004; Weber, 2012) and that child behavior problems are directly related to marital satisfaction (Hartley et al., 2011). Similarly, qualitative studies indicated that parents of children with ASD faced increased tension in their relationship due to conflict over how to deal with the child’s behavior (Aylaz et al., 2012; Phelps et al., 2009). To gain insight into associations between relationship qualities and conflict experiences reported by parents of children with ASD, we turn to relational turbulence theory.

Relational turbulence theory and ineffective arguing

Relational turbulence theory was developed to explain individual responses to subjective experiences within romantic relationships. The theory proposes that events within and around partnerships have the potential to spark relational uncertainty and disruptions to goal attainment when previously establish roles, routines, scripts, and schema are upended due to subtle or major changes in relational context. For parents of children with ASD, the context for the parents’ relationship may feel like it is constantly in flux as their child develops. Individuals with ASD face particular difficulty with change, often making seemingly ordinary transitions, such as starting school, puberty, switching classrooms, or changing healthcare providers, stressful for the parents and, in turn, their relationship (Baxter et al., 1995; Neely et al., 2012). Indeed, previous research examining relational turbulence among parents of children with ASD suggests that relationship quality among parents may worsen as a function of transitions in the child’s life and the communication that occurs between parents during those transitions (Brisini & Solomon, 2018, 2020).

Relational turbulence theory suggests that experiences of relational uncertainty and goal interference bias cognitions and intensify emotions, which cause communication episodes to become more extreme with regard to both positive or negative valence and direct or indirect engagement. Although the experience of intense interaction episodes can be discrete events, the theory suggests that couples that repeatedly experience polarized interactions eventually develop a global evaluation of the relationship as turbulent. Because the conception of the relationship as turbulent becomes a lens through which partners perceive and engage each other, relational turbulence exerts a pervasive effect on communication with or about the partner. The various consequences of relational turbulence discussed by Solomon et al. (2016) include the association between relational turbulence and dysfunctional marital conflict patterns.

To explain the influence of relational turbulence on relationship communication, including conflict interactions, relational turbulence theory identified two possible theoretical mechanisms: construal level and dyadic synchrony (Solomon et al., 2016). Existing operationalizations of these constructs are not well-suited to testing the claims in relational turbulence theory; however, the logic of the theory can inform specific hypotheses.¹ First, based in construal level theory (Trope et al., 2007), Solomon et al. (2016) reasoned that, due to the chaotic state of their relationship, individuals experiencing relational turbulence lack the psychological distance necessary to consider their relationship in abstract, creative, and coherent ways. When partners experience relational turbulence, the variability of their present state makes it hard for them to generalize about their relationship in broader terms. In turn, low levels of construal are associated with more constraint-focused and pessimistic thinking (e.g., Liberman & Trope, 1998). Second, couples experiencing relational turbulence may struggle to achieve dyadic synchrony, which refers to the individual’s ability to coordinate speaking turns, adjust topics to maintain coherence, and engage in fluid turn-taking (Bernieri & Rosenthal, 1991; Solomon et al., 2016). Previous research demonstrates that synchrony promotes in-group identification and trust, which suggests that a lack of synchrony may inhibit these outcomes (for review, see Mogan et al., 2017). To the extent that relational turbulence challenges partners’ ability to think positively and holistically about their relationship and negatively influences dyadic synchrony, it may also promote dysfunctional communication across conflict experiences, including perceptions of ineffective arguing.

Previous research on marital conflict indicates that communication behaviors and cognitions (e.g., conflict goals and frames, conflict strategies and tactics, and biased attributions and appraisals) shape whether conflicts unfold constructively or destructively and, in turn, demonstrate positive or negative consequences for romantic relationships (for review, see Roloff & Soule, 2003). Ineffective arguing (Kurdek, 1994) is a construct that assesses global perceptions of destructive communication patterns by focusing on the tendency for conflict between partners to be repetitive in nature, end without resolution, and leave partners feeling as if their arguments were not heard. In previous research, ineffective arguing has been associated with decreased relational satisfaction among gay, lesbian, and heterosexual partners with and without children (Kurdek, 2004). A study by Hoyt and colleagues (2005) also found a negative association between ineffective arguing and willingness to forgive across a number of family contexts (e.g., parent-child relationships, parent-parent relationships). Although generally measured using self-report scales, ineffective arguing is valuable as a general indicator of conflict communication, because it encompasses both the content of conflict interactions and the unfulfilling outcomes that can follow from problematic exchanges. Thus, this study uses self-reported ineffective arguing as a general indicator of conflict patterns within marriage.

Stress, marital satisfaction, and conflict

Thus far, the rationale has focused on the ways in which raising a child with ASD influences the parents’ marriage and the relationship between relational turbulence and ineffective arguing; however, previous research also demonstrates associations between experiences of stress, marital satisfaction, and conflict outcomes. Thus, an important test of relational turbulence theory is distinguishing the role of relational turbulence in conflict experiences above and beyond marital satisfaction and stress (see also Solomon & Brisini, 2017).

A robust body of research has identified associations between internal and external stressors and conflict among married partners as a result of stress spillover (for review, see Randall & Bodenmann, 2009; Story & Bradbury, 2004). Several longitudinal studies have demonstrated associations between experiences of stress at work and increased anger and withdrawal during spousal interactions at home (e.g., Schulz et al., 2004; Story & Repetti, 2006). Similarly, people are more likely to have arguments at home after having negative interactions with individuals at work (Bolger et al., 1989; Repetti & Wood, 1997). Moreover, increases in wives’ stress are associated with more negativity with regard to relationship problems and an increased tendency to blame the husband for his negative behavior (Neff & Karney, 2004).

A number of studies have also found associations between marital satisfaction and marital conflict (for review, see Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). For example, marital satisfaction is negatively correlated with aspects of conflict, such as dominance, interactional reactivity, and submission, and positively correlated with partners’ willingness to compromise (Zacchilli et al., 2009). Marital dissatisfaction is also associated with more negative conflict styles among married partners over the course of a three-year period (Du Rocher Schudlich et al., 2011). Similarly, reported marital satisfaction has been negatively associated with wives’ negative affective displays during conflict discussion related to sexual problems (Rehman et al., 2011). Research on dating relationships also shows that relationship quality is positively associated with the perceived resolvability of relationship conflicts (Johnson & Roloff, 1998).

Purpose of the current study

As described in the previous section, marital satisfaction and stress both have the potential to influence conflict among married partners. With this in mind, the goal of this paper is to clarify the role of relational turbulence in conflict interactions and to do so while examining the romantic relationships of parents of children with ASD. This study tests two relatively new propositions put forth by relational turbulence theory. First, relational turbulence is related to, but empirically distinct from other relationship qualities and experiences. In particular, the theory suggests that relational turbulence has a unique effect on marital communication. Thus, the first hypothesis proposes that relational turbulence is empirically distinct from marital satisfaction and experiences of parenting stress among parents of children with ASD as demonstrated by confirmatory factor analysis. Second, the theory suggests relational turbulence undermines communication among romantic partners, including patterns of conflict. The second hypothesis tests the associations between the variables of interest and ineffective arguing. Finally, hypothesis three examines the associations between relational turbulence and conflict patterns among parents of children with ASD after controlling for shared variance with marital satisfaction and parenting stress. More formally:

H1: Reports of relational turbulence are empirically distinct from measures of parenting stress and marital satisfaction among parents of children with ASD.

H2: Parenting stress and relational turbulence are positively correlated with ineffective arguing, and marital satisfaction is negatively correlated with ineffective arguing among parents of children with ASD.

H3: Relational turbulence is significantly and positively associated with ineffective arguing after covarying parenting stress and marital satisfaction.

Method

Participants

Participants for the study were 298 (Male = 150, Female = 148) married, parents of children with ASD whose child had been diagnosed by a medical professional. All participants were recruited using a Qualtrics nation-wide medical panel.² The majority of participants reported being European American (79%; 7% Latina/o, 6% African American, 8% other ethnicities) and participant age ranged from 19 to 72 (M = 38.29, SD = 8.49). Individuals were married between 1 and 40 years (M = 12.06, SD = 7.52) and 46 (15%) had been previously divorced. Participants from this sample were also used in Brisini & Solomon (2018).³

Procedures

After providing informed consent, participants completed an online questionnaire administered via Qualtrics survey software. First, individuals evaluated their experiences of parenting stress related to raising their child with ASD using closed-ended measures. Then, they completed scales assessing qualities of their relationship, including relationship satisfaction and relational turbulence. Finally, participants evaluated the degree to which they and their spouse engaged in ineffective arguing strategies.⁴

Measures

Measures for this study were evaluated using 6-point Likert items (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree), unless otherwise stated. Scales were taken from prior research on parenting children with ASD, relational turbulence, and marital conflict.

Relationship qualities

Four 6-point semantic differential scales measured relational turbulence (M = 2.54, SD = 1.23, α = .90). Items ranged from calm to turbulent, chaotic to stable (reverse coded), tumultuous to running smoothly (reverse coded), and peaceful to stressful (McLaren et al., 2012). Marital satisfaction was assessed using 5 items from the Quality Marriage Index (Norton, 1983) that captured the individual’s perception of the overall goodness of their relationship (M = 4.85, SD = 1.23, α = .96; e.g. “Our marriage is strong”).⁵

Parenting stress

Stress related to raising a child with ASD was measured using the Autism Parenting Stress Index (Silva & Schalock, 2012). Participants indicated the extent to which child behaviors specific to ASD caused them stress on a scale ranging from 1 (not stressful) to 6 (so stressful, sometimes I feel I can’t cope). Sample items include “concern for the future of your child living independently” and “self-injurious behavior” (M = 3.60, SD = 1.03, α = .96).

Ineffective arguing

To assess perceptions of on-going conflict communication between parents, the survey employed items developed by Kurdek (1994). Ineffective arguing reflects the extent to which partners engage in patterns of disagreement that do not ultimately move toward the achievement of a goal (M = 3.03, SD = 1.24, α = .90). Participants indicated their agreement with 8 items that described ways in which partners handle arguing (e.g., “Overall, our arguments are brief and quickly forgotten” [reverse coded]).

Results

Preliminary results

To identify potential covariates, the authors examined the associations between the demographic characteristics of the sample and variables of interest. An independent samples t-test indicated no significant differences among any of the variables of interest based on participant sex. One-way analyses of variances also identified no significant differences in reports of the independent and dependent variables based on participant ethnicity, with the exception of ineffective arguing, F(3, 294) = 2.72, p < .05, η² = .03 . Tukey’s posthoc analysis indicated that African American (M = 3.78, SD = 1.09) participants reported significantly higher levels of ineffective arguing when compared to European Americans (M = 3.01, SD = 1.28). Bivariate correlations showed that years married and number of children were not significantly related to any of the variables of interest. The age of the participant was significantly and negatively associated with autism parenting stress, r = −.20, p < .001. Thus, age and ethnicity were each considered covariates in substantive analyses.

To gain preliminary insight into the relationship between the variables of interest, bivariate correlations tested the associations between parenting stress, marital satisfaction, and relational turbulence (see Table 1). Relational turbulence was significantly and positively associated with parenting stress and negatively associated with marital satisfaction. Marital satisfaction was not significantly related to autism parenting stress.

Table 1.

Bivariate correlations among the variables of interest.

	Relational turbulence	Parenting stress	Marital satisfaction
Relational turbulence	--
Parenting stress	.22**	--
Marital satisfaction	−.65***	−.06	--
Ineffective arguing	.54***	.21**	−.60***

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

As a final step, the univariate and multivariate normality of the variables of interest were assessed. All variables demonstrated univariate normality with values below |3| in skewness and |7| in kurtosis (Kline, 2011); however, multivariate kurtosis was greater than |5| suggesting a significant departure from normality (Byrne, 2010). Thus, we used maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors, which accounts for missing and non-normal data, to examine our first hypothesis.

Test of hypotheses

The first hypothesis predicted that relational turbulence, marital satisfaction, and parenting stress were empirically distinct constructs. To test H1, we assessed the measurement properties of the scales using confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimation (Mplus). We constructed a measurement model that included autism parenting stress, relational turbulence, ineffective arguing, and marital satisfaction and used the following criteria to assess adequate model fit: RMSEA < .08, CFI > .90, SRMR < .08 (Browne & Cudek, 1993; Kline, 1998). Items were assigned to their respective latent constructs and latent constructs were allowed to covary. Per Solomon and Brisini (2017), error-terms of the reverse-coded items in the relational turbulence scale were covaried. The initial model did not fit the data: RMSEA = .07 (90% CI: .07 to .08), CFI = .88, SRMR = .08. Examination of the path coefficients, the modification indices, and the residual variances, suggested that the three reverse-coded items within the ineffective arguing scale were creating misfit within the model. Allowing the 3 items to co-vary improved model fit, but did not account for the large residual variances (range: 0.7 to 0.9). Thus, the 3 items were removed from the model.⁶ The resulting model met the fit criteria: RMSEA = .06 (90% CI: .05 to .07), CFI = .93, SRMR = .06. Latent variables representing marital satisfaction and relational turbulence were significantly and negatively correlated, r = −.73, p < .001. Parenting stress was positively correlated with relational turbulence, r = .24, p < .001, but was not significantly related to marital satisfaction, r = −.07, p = .30. Ineffective arguing was positively correlated with relational turbulence, r = .51, p < .001, and parenting stress, r = .28, p < .001, and negatively correlated with marital satisfaction, r = −.48, p < .001. All factor loadings for items within each of the scales were above .6 (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Factor loadings for confirmatory factor analysis.

Relational Turbulence			Parenting Stress			Marital Satisfaction			Ineffective Arguing
Item	Factor Loading	S.E.	Item	Factor Loading	S.E.	Item	Factor Loading	S.E.	Item	Factor Loading	S.E.
RT01(R)	.78	.04	AS01	.67	.04	MS01	.94	.01	IA02	.82	.03
RT02	.73	.05	AS02	.72	.03	MS02	.89	.03	IA04	.87	.02
RT03(R)	.84	.03	AS03	.77	.03	MS03	.90	.02	IA05	.85	.03
RT04	.79	.04	AS04	.71	.03	MS04	.88	.02	IA06	.89	.02
			AS05	.71	.03	MS05	.91	.01	IA07	.72	.04
			AS06	.73	.03
			AS07	.67	.03
			AS08	.66	.04
			AS09	.58	.04
			AS10	.63	.04
			AS11	.60	.04
			AS12	.68	.04
			AS13	.62	.05

To further demonstrate the distinctiveness of relational turbulence from other global relationship qualities, we examined several alternative models. First, we tested a 2-factor model in which relational turbulence was covaried with parenting stress alone, as well as a separate model in which relational turbulence was covaried with marital satisfaction. The measurement model consisting of relational turbulence and parenting stress met the fit criteria: RMSEA = .07 (90% CI: .06 to .08), CFI = .91, SRMR = .06. Relational turbulence and parenting stress were positively correlated, r = .25, p = .03, and all factor loadings were above .5. The measurement model consisting of relational turbulence and marital satisfaction also fit the data: RMSEA = .01 (90% CI: .01 to .05), CFI = 1.00, SRMR = .02. The latent constructs were negatively correlated, r = −.73, p < .001, and factor loadings for items were above .7. In keeping with H1, relational turbulence was correlated with, but distinct from parenting stress and marital satisfaction in these two models. As a final test, we examined a unidimensional model of items measuring relational turbulence and parenting stress, as well as a unidimensional model of items measuring relational turbulence and marital satisfaction. These models provided poorer fit to the data than the full model and the 2-factor models. The model consisting of items measuring relational turbulence and parenting stress did not fit the data: RMSEA = .10 (90% CI: .10 to .11), CFI = .84, SRMR = .10, nor did the model consisting of items measuring relational turbulence and marital satisfaction: RMSEA = .10 (90% CI: .08 to .12), CFI = .95, SRMR = .08. These results provide further support for H1.

After removing the three reverse coded items from our analyses, tests for multivariate kurtosis no longer exceeded the threshold of |5| (Byrne, 2010). Therefore, variables were considered normal for tests of hypotheses 2 and 3. The second hypothesis predicted that parenting stress, marital satisfaction, and relational turbulence were each significantly associated with ineffective arguing, such that parenting stress and relational turbulence were negatively correlated with ineffective arguing and marital satisfaction was positively correlated with ineffective arguing. Bivariate correlations tested the associations between the variables of interest (see Table 1). In keeping with H2, relational turbulence was significantly and positively associated with ineffective arguing, as was parenting stress. Marital satisfaction was significantly and negatively associated with ineffective arguing.

H3 predicted that relational turbulence would be significantly associated with ineffective arguing after covarying marital satisfaction and parenting stress. Hierarchical regression tested this hypothesis. Participant age and three dummy coded variables representing ethnicity were included in the first step, marital satisfaction and parenting stress were added in the second step, and relational turbulence was added in the third step. In the first step, neither age nor the three dummy-coded variables were significantly related to ineffective arguing. Therefore, the model was re-run without the covariates. In the first step of this model, marital satisfaction and autism parenting stress significantly predicted ineffective arguing, F(2,295) = 53.57, p < .001, R² = .27. Results indicated that marital satisfaction was negatively associated with ineffective arguing, β = −.45, t = −9.02, p < .001, and parenting stress was positively associated with ineffective arguing, β = .23, t = 4.57, p < .01. On the second step, relational turbulence increased the amount of variance accounted for by the model, F (3, 294) = 40.42, p < .001, ΔR² = .02. Results indicate that relational turbulence positively and significantly correlated with ineffective arguing, β = .22, t = 3.26, p < .001. The significant association between relational turbulence and ineffective arguing, after controlling for marital satisfaction and autism parenting stress provides support for H3.

Discussion

Perhaps one of the most ambitious claims of relational turbulence theory is the suggestion that relational turbulence is a substantive quality of romantic relationships, distinct from relationship satisfaction, intimacy, and commitment. As a subjective evaluation of the relationship, relational turbulence also shares conceptual territory with constructs capturing the overall level of stress in a relationship environment. Thus, a critical test of relational turbulence theory is establishing that the construct at the heart of the theory is not simply a proxy for relationship dissatisfaction or exposure to stress. To investigate this central theoretical question, we focused on the relatively high-stress context of parents raising children with ASD. Given ample evidence that these parents experience more marital stress and conflict, this population allowed us to examine the distinctiveness of relational turbulence in predicting global conflict evaluations. While doing so, we also gained insight into the relational lives of these parents. In total, the results of this study (a) supported the empirical distinctiveness of parenting stress, marital satisfaction, and relational turbulence and (b) provided evidence that relational turbulence is associated with perceptions of less effective arguing among parents of children with ASD, above and beyond the influence of parenting stress and marital satisfaction.

Implications

The results of this study support two important claims put forth by relational turbulence theory. First, results associated with H1 indicated that relational turbulence was correlated with, but empirically distinct from scales measuring marital satisfaction and parenting stress. Per relational turbulence theory, these associations point to relational turbulence as a unique relationship quality that is related to, but distinct from qualities such as marital satisfaction. Relational turbulence theory suggests that, although relational turbulence is a global relationship quality “on par with other global relationship qualities such as intimacy, satisfaction, and commitment,” the concept “uniquely indexes the overall sense of chaos in the relationship” (Solomon et al., 2016, p. 19). We provided further evidence to support this proposition by considering the relationship between parenting stress specific to raising a child with ASD and reports of marital satisfaction and relational turbulence. Preliminary analyses indicate that parenting stress and relational turbulence are positively and significantly related, but parenting stress was not significantly associated with marital satisfaction. Thus, stress related to raising a child with ASD seems more closely tied to experiences of chaos and turmoil in the relationship, as represented by relational turbulence, than to evaluations of the goodness of the relationship as a whole, as indicated by marital satisfaction.

Tests of H2 and H3 offer support for claims from relational turbulence theory that evaluations of a relationship as turbulent influence global communication patterns. The theory proposes that dyadic asynchrony and concrete relationship construals undermine individuals’ ability to articulate their relationship distress and to make adequate inferences about their partners’ relationship experiences (Solomon et al., 2016), which has the potential to compromise spouses’ ability to engage in effective conflict communication. Although dyadic synchrony and cognitive construal level were not measured in this study, the positive association between relational turbulence and ineffective arguing provide initial evidence of the link between experiences of turmoil within the relationship and the disruption to “the performance of pragmatic relationship functions” (Solomon et al., 2016, p. 22) described by the theory.

In addition, the results of H3 provide evidence that relational turbulence plays a unique role in shaping the conflict experiences of parents of children with ASD above and beyond the increased stress associated with autism. Previous research points to increased frequency of conflict for parents of children with ASD due to increased parenting stress (Aylaz et al., 2012; Phelps et al., 2009; Weber, 2012); however, those studies largely ignore relationship qualities as a factor in conflict experiences. Results of this study suggest that stress alone may not explain the heightened conflict experiences of parents of children with ASD, but rather the increased relationship turmoil associated with the increased parenting stress.

Results of this study also have practical implications for parents of children with ASD and for married partners, generally. First, the study demonstrates that experiences of relational turbulence have the potential to influence patterns of conflict among parents of children with ASD. Second, results of the study suggest that increased parenting stress is associated with more negative communication patterns during conflict. Notably, the negative conflict communication associated with relational turbulence was reported across conflict communication generally, not just disagreements related to the relationship. Thus, marital counselors and parents of children with ASD should consider the ways in which turmoil within marriages may influence other aspects of family communication.

Previous research examining the relationship experiences among parents of children with ASD points to relationship-focused communication as a means of alleviating some of the negative consequences of relational turbulence during difficult events throughout the life of the child (Brisini & Solomon, 2018, 2020). In longitudinal and cross-sectional studies, Brisini and Solomon (2018, 2020) identified four types of transition processing communication that were associated with relationship improvements among this population. Attempts to (1) increase interaction with a spouse, (2) engage in relationship talk and self-disclosure, (3) co-construct narratives that positively frame changes in the relationship, and (4) increase a spouse’s confidence in the relationship through verbal and non-verbal indicators were associated with more positive transition experiences, increases in perceptions of facilitation from a partner, and decreases in relational uncertainty and relational turbulence. Although speculative, we wonder if engagement in these four forms of relationship-focused communication might also reduce negative conflict patterns in married partners through their association with improved relational turbulence.

Because the study used a cross-sectional design, we are unable to draw conclusions about the direction of effects or the longer-term implications of the patterns we observed. A wealth of research suggests that how romantic partners experience and communicate about conflicts influences the short- and long-term health of the relationship (Bradbury et al., 2000; Roloff & Soule, 2003). In longitudinal studies, scholars have demonstrated that rates of divorce and marital dissatisfaction are higher when romantic partners engage in destructive conflict communication (Birditt et al., 2010) or report elevated stress during conflict episodes (Kiecolt-Glazer et al., 2003). These studies suggest to us that there is value in investigating how relational turbulence may contribute to dysfunctional conflict management in ways that have over-time consequences for relational well-being.

Limitations and directions for future research

The conclusions of this study are qualified by the limitations of the methods. First, participants for this study were recruited using a national Qualtrics panel of married partners with a child who had been diagnosed with ASD by a medical professional. Qualtrics recruits from a variety of sources across the country and granted us access to a relatively difficult population; however, the sample of participants is not random. Second and as noted previously, the study used a cross-sectional research design. Thus, causal claims cannot be made from this study. In addition, we used self-report measures to assess ineffective arguing, as well as other variables in the study. As a result, the findings may be affected by shared method variance. Also, self-report measures of communication behavior can effectively index people’s subjective perceptions of their interactions, but they do not directly assess behavior.

Despite these limitations, we are encouraged that this study lays a foundation for future research on relational turbulence theory, marital communication, and parents of children with ASD. This study adds to the body of work indicating the substance of relational turbulence as a distinct quality of romantic relationships (Brisini & Solomon, 2018, 2020). Although further examination of this issue is warranted, the foundation is laid for testing other theoretical claims, as well. In particular, we see value in the development of methods to operationalize construal level and dyadic synchrony, so that the theoretical claims offered by Solomon et al. (2016) can be more fully scrutinized. In addition, the research design employed in this study might be fruitfully employed to study other consequences of relational turbulence suggested by Solomon et al. To the extent that relational turbulence exerts a pervasive effect on communication, it should be distinctly associated with a range of relationship functions, such as the communication of support or collaborative planning. Thus, we are hopeful that this research can serve as a model for studies that broaden the array of phenomena against which the theory is tested. We also see potential for future research to illuminate the emergence of relational turbulence (or lack thereof) in the marriage of parents of children with ASD. Previous qualitative research by Hock and colleagues (2012) indicates that raising a child with ASD can be “make or break” for married partners. Indeed, some parents reported greater commitment and intimacy with their partner as a result of the increased stress associated with raising a child with ASD, while others suggested that the stress was too much to handle and ultimately caused their marriage to fracture. Evidence that relational turbulence is associated with ineffective arguing for these parents suggests that efforts to understand what attenuates relational turbulence, even within high stress family situations, can eventually identify strategies for helping couples foster resilience in the face of such challenges.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

Pennsylvania State University as part of Kellie Brisini’s dissertation under the advisement of Denise Solomon. For correspondence, please contact Kellie at kbrisini1@lsu.edu.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Kellie St.Cyr Brisini

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are not available. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: kmb597@psu.edu.

Notes

References

Aylaz

Yılmaz

Polat

(2012). Effect of difficulties experienced by parents of autistic children on their sexual life: A qualitative study. Sexuality and Disability, 30, 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11195-011-9251-3

Baio

(2014). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years—Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2010. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 63, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6503a1

Baxter

Cummins

R. A.

Polak

(1995). A longitudinal study of parental stress and support: From diagnosis of disability to leaving school. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 42, 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/0156655950420204

Bernieri

F. J.

Rosenthal

(1991). Interpersonal coordination: Behavior matching and interactional synchrony. In Feldman

R. S.

Rimé

(Eds.), Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior (pp. 401–432). Cambridge University Press.

Birditt

K. S.

Brown

Orbuch

T. L.

McIlvane

J. M.

(2010). Marital conflict behaviours and implications for divorce over 16 years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1188–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00758.x

Blacher

McIntyre

L. L.

(2006). Syndrome specificity and behavioural disorders in young adults with intellectual disability: Cultural differences in family impact. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00768.x

Bolger

DeLongis

Kessler

R. C.

Wethington

(1989). The contagion of stress across multiple roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 175. https://doi.org/10.2307/352378

Bradbury

T. N.

Fincham

F. D.

(1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.3

Bradbury

T. N.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 964–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x

10.

Brisini

K. S.

Solomon

D. H.

(2018). Relationship transitions for parents of children with autism spectrum disorder: types, turbulence, and transition processing communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46, 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1498980

11.

Brisini

K. S.

Solomon

D. H.

(2020). Relational turbulence and marital communication when children with autism start school: A longitudinal dyadic diary study. Health Communication, 35, 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1567445

12.

Brobst

J. B.

Clopton

J. R.

Hendrick

S. S.

(2009). Parenting children with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357608323699

13.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005

14.

Byrne

B. M.

(2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Multivariate Applications Series. Routledge.

15.

Dąbrowska

Pisula

(2010). Parenting stress and coping styles in mothers and fathers of pre-school children with autism and Down syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54, 266–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01258.x

16.

Davis

N. O.

Carter

A. S.

(2008). Parenting stress in mothers and fathers of toddlers with autism spectrum disorders: Associations with child characteristics. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 1278–1291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0512-z

17.

Rocher Schudlich

Tina

Papp

L. M.

Cummings

E. M.

(2011). Relations between spouses’ depressive symptoms and marital conflict: A longitudinal investigation of the role of conflict resolution styles. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024216

18.

Eisenhower

A. S.

Baker

B. L.

Blacher

(2005). Preschool children with intellectual disability: Syndrome specificity, behaviour problems, and maternal well-being. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 657–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00699.x

19.

Griffith

G. M.

Hastings

R. P.

Nash

Hill

(2010). Using matched groups to explore child behavior problems and maternal well-being in children with Down syndrome and autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 40, 610–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0906-1

20.

Harper

J. M.

Schaalje

B. G.

Sandberg

J. G.

(2000). Daily hassles, intimacy, and marital quality in later life marriages. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/019261800261770

21.

Hartley

S. L.

Barker

E. T.

Seltzer

M. M.

Floyd

Greenberg

Orsmond

Bolt

(2010). The relative risk and timing of divorce in families of children with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019847

22.

Hartley

S. L.

Barker

E. T.

Seltzer

M. M.

Greenberg

J. S.

Floyd

F. J.

(2011). Marital satisfaction and parenting experiences of mothers and fathers of adolescents and adults with Autism. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 116, 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-116.1.81

23.

Hartley

S. L.

Papp

L. M.

Bolt

(2016). Spillover of marital interactions and parenting stress in families of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47, S88–S99. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1152552

24.

Hartley

S. L.

Papp

L. M.

Mihaila

Bussanich

P. M.

Goetz

Hickey

E. J.

(2017). Couple conflict in parents of children with versus without autism: Self-reported and observed findings. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 2152–2165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0737-1

25.

Hastings

R. P.

(2003). Child behaviour problems and partner mental health as correlates of stress in mothers and fathers of children with autism. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47, 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2788.2003.00485.x

26.

Hock

R. M.

Timm

T. M.

Ramisch

J. L.

(2012). Parenting children with autism spectrum disorders: A crucible for couple relationships. Child & Family Social Work, 17, 406–415.

27.

Hoyt

W. T.

Fincham

F. D.

McCullough

M. E.

Maio

Davila

(2005). Responses to interpersonal transgressions in families: Forgivingness, forgivability, and relationship-specific effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.375

28.

Johnson

K. L.

Roloff

M. E.

(1998). Serial arguing and relational quality: Determinants and consequences of perceived resolvability. Communication Research, 25, 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365098025003004

29.

Kiecolt-Glaser

J. K.

Bane

Glaser

Malarkey

W. B.

(2003). Love, marriage, and divorce: Newlyweds’ stress hormones foreshadow relationship changes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.1.176

30.

King

G. A.

Zwaigenbaum

King

Baxter

Rosenbaum

Bates

(2006). A qualitative investigation of changes in the belief systems of families of children with autism or down syndrome. Child: Care, Health & Development, 32, 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00571.x

31.

Kline

R. B.

(1998). Software review: Software programs for structural equation modeling: AMOS, EQS, and LISREL. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 16, 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299801600407

32.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

33.

Knapp

J. A.

(2004 ). Raising a child with autism: The impact on the quality of marital relationships. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Walden University.

34.

Kurdek

(1994). Conflict resolution styles in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent, and heterosexual parent couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 705–722. https://doi.org/10.2307/352880

35.

Kurdek

L. A.

(2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00060.x

36.

Lee

Harrington

R. A.

Louie

B. B.

Newschaffer

C. J.

(2008). Children with autism: Quality of life and parental concerns. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 38, 1147–1160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0491-0

37.

Liberman

Trope

(1998). The Role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75, 5. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5

38.

Mailick Seltzer

Greenberg

J. S.

Floyd

F. J.

Pettee

Hong

(2001). Life course impacts of parenting a child with a disability. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 106, 265–286. doi:10.1352/0895-8017(2001)106<0265: LCIOPA>2.0.CO;2

39.

McLaren

R. M.

Solomon

D. H.

Priem

J. S.

(2012). The effect of relationship characteristics and relational communication on experiences of hurt from romantic partners. Journal of Communication, 62, 950–971. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01678.x

40.

Mogan

Fischer

Bulbulia

J. A.

(2017). To be in synchrony or not? A meta-analysis of synchrony’s effects on behavior, perception, cognition and affect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.03.009

41.

Neely

Amatea

E. S.

Echevarria-Doan

Tannen

(2012). Working with families living with Autism: Potential contributions of marriage and family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00265.x

42.

Neff

L. A.

Karney

B. R.

(2004). How does context affect intimate relationships? Linking external stress and cognitive processes within marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203255984

43.

Norton

(1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/351302

44.

Phelps

K. W.

Hodgson

J. L.

McCammon

S. L.

Lamson

A. L.

(2009). Caring for an individual with autism disorder: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 34, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250802690930

45.

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

(2009). The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.004

46.

Rao

P. A.

Beidel

D. C.

(2009). The impact of children with high-functioning Autism on parental stress, sibling adjustment, and family functioning. Behavior Modification, 33, 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445509336427

47.

Rehman

U. S.

Janssen

Newhouse

Heiman

Holtzworth-Munroe

Fallis

Rafaeli

(2011). Marital satisfaction and communication behaviors during sexual and nonsexual conflict discussions in newlywed couples: A pilot study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 37, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623x.2011.547352

48.

Repetti

R. L.

Wood

(1997). Effects of daily stress at work on mothers’ interactions with preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 90–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.11.1.90

49.

Roloff

M. E.

Soule

K. P.

(2003). Interpersonal conflict: A review. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (3rd ed., pp. 615–642). Sage.

50.

Schulz

M. S.

Cowan

P. A.

Pape Cowan

Brennan

R. T.

(2004). Coming home upset: Gender, marital satisfaction, and the daily spillover of workday experience into couple interactions. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.250

51.

Silva

Schalock

(2012). Autism parenting stress index: Initial psychometric evidence. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 42, 566–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1274-1

52.

Solomon

D. H.

Brisini

K. S.

(2017). Operationalizing relational turbulence: Measurement and construct validity. Personal Relationships, 24, 768–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12212

53.

Solomon

D. H.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

McLaren

R. M.

(2016). Relational turbulence theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 42, 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12091

54.

Stephan

Liberman

Trope

(2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016960

55.

Story

L. B.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2004). Understanding marriage and stress: Essential questions and challenges. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1139–1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2003.10.002

56.

Story

L. B.

Repetti

(2006). Daily occupational stressors and marital behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 690–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.690

57.

Tesser

Beach

S. R. H.

(1998). Life events, relationship quality, and depression: An investigation of judgment discontinuity in vivo. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.36

58.

Trope

Liberman

Wakslak

(2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X

59.

Weber

P. H.

(2012). A comparison of parental stress and marital/couple satisfaction as reported by parents raising children diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder: An online mixed methods study. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Texas Women’s University.

60.

Zacchilli

T. L.

Hendrick

S. S.

(2009). The romantic partner conflict scale: A new scale to measure relationship conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 1073–1096. https://doi.org/:10.1177/0265407509347936