The role of interparental relationship variability in parent–child interactions: Results from a sample of mothers of children with autism spectrum disorder and mothers with neurotypical children

Abstract

Objective The goal of this study was to examine how variability in interparental relationship functioning predicts the quality of parent–child interactions in daily life among families in which a child had autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and families of neurotypical children. Background Parent–child interactions predict a host of key outcomes for children, and one contributor to the health of parent–child interactions is the quality of the relationship between the parent couple. Yet, prior research has exclusively focused on how average levels of parental relationship functioning predicts parent–child interactions, which neglects the importance of variability in the interparental relationship. Method Drawing on a sample of 167 mothers, one group with a child with ASD (n = 85), and the other group with a neurotypical child (n = 82), we examined how weekly variability in mothers' relational experiences with their partner predicted their interactions with their children in daily life using multilevel modeling. Results The association between interparental relational variability and mother child‐interactions depended on mean levels of interparental relational functioning. Specifically, when mothers reported poor average relational functioning across a particular week, greater variability in their relationship across this same period was associated with benefits for mother–child interactions. This pattern was not seen in those with healthy interparental functioning. Moreover, moderation analyses suggested relational variability may be especially relevant for parent–child interactions of mothers of neurotypical children. Conclusion These results suggest that the association between variability in parents' relational experiences and parent–child interactions depends upon mean levels.

The Good, the Bad, and the Variable: Examining Stress and Blood Pressure Responses to Close Relationships

“…One of the primary novel contributions of this research is in extending the nascent research examining relational variability to the domains of stress, coping, and physiology. Critically, prior research examining relational variability was inconsistent, with some studies suggesting relational variability was associated with maladaptive outcomes (Arriaga et al, 2006; Campbell et al, 2010; Girme et al, 2018), while others studies suggesting it was associated with mixed or beneficial outcomes (Don et al, 2022; Overall, 2020). In this work, people who reported greater variability in their negative relational experiences reported lower stress, better coping, and lower SBP reactivity.…”

“…In addition to mean levels of relationship functioning, research in relationship science has demonstrated that when it comes to predicting key outcomes, it is important to consider variability in relationships (e.g., Arriaga et al, 2006; Campbell et al, 2010; Girme et al, 2018). For instance, researchers (e.g., Don et al, 2022; Girme et al, 2018) have drawn on the Relational Turbulence Model (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004) to suggest that greater relational variability, including variability in both positive and negative relational experiences (e.g., Don et al, 2022), may create uncertainty in the relationship, such as questions, doubts, or ambiguity about the state of the relationship. This uncertainty, in turn, theoretically contributes to greater irritations and negative emotions, thereby creating a turbulent experience for individuals in the relationship.…”

“…Indeed, numerous studies have demonstrated that within-person variability (which tends to be operationalized as within-person standard deviations) in constructs such as relationship quality or attachment security tends to predicts key outcomes, even while accounting for mean levels of those same variables (Campbell et al, 2010; Eller et al, 2022; Girme et al, 2018). Generally speaking, people who report greater relational variability tend to experience maladaptive outcomes (e.g., Girme et al, 2018), although there may be some relationship behaviors or specific relationship contexts where this is not the case, and where variability may be beneficial (especially in negative relational contexts; e.g., Don et al, 2022; Overall, 2020). Consistent with this literature, relational variability may have implications for the everyday psychological and physiological responses that contribute to health (e.g., stress or BP reactivity), although little existing research has examined this possibility.…”

Introduction to the special issue: Nonlinear effects and dynamics in close relationships

“…Yet, as the three examples above illustrate, many important relationship processes operate in non-linear ways, leading to calls for the application of nonlinear models within relationship science (e.g., Gable & Reis, 1999;Girme, 2020;Gottman, 2002). Though growing, there are relatively few empirical examinations of non-linear effects in the field of close relationships (for exceptions, see Arriaga, 2001;Don et al, 2022;Eller et al, in press;Girme et al, 2015Girme et al, , 2018Girme et al, , 2021aGunaydin et al, 2021;Muise et al, 2016;Overall, 2020), and even fewer theoretical models that explicitly incorporate nonlinear dynamics (for exceptions, see Eastwick et al, 2019;Solomon & Knobloch, 2004). The current special issue showcases new tools to assess and model different types of non-linear dynamics in close relationships.…”