Family Processes in Child Anxiety the Long-Term Impactof Fa.docx

Family Processes in Child Anxiety: the Long-Term Impact
of Fathers and Mothers
Kaela L. Stuart Parrigon1 & Kathryn A. Kerns1
Published online: 23 December 2015
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract The current study investigated links between parent
and child anxiety, and family process factors, over a 9 year
period. Specifically, we examined the role of partner conflict,
attachment security and parental autonomy granting in
explaining changes in child, father, and mother anxiety symp-
toms. We utilized data from the NICHD Study of Early Child
Care and Youth Development (N=661), from when target
children were in first grade (6 years), fifth grade (10 years),
and 15 years of age. We tested a longitudinal path model
including both fathers and mothers, and found that the model
was a good fit for the data. We also found that lower attach-
ment security to fathers and a restriction ofmaternal autonomy
granting predicted which children maintained anxiety into ad-
olescence. Partner conflict explained the association between
earlier and later parental anxiety, which is a novel finding in
the literature. Together, these findings suggest that fathers play
an important long-term role in child anxiety, alongside the role
of mothers.
Keywords Anxiety . Fathers . Mothers . Partner conflict .
Attachment security . Autonomy granting
One of the most problematic and prevalent psychological dis-

orders for children and adolescents is anxiety (Albano et al.
2003 For example, research has found that children with anx-
iety disorders have difficulty with school and peers (Albano
et al. 2003) and with parent relationships (McLeod et al.
2007). Experiences in families have been found to predict
child anxiety (e.g., Bögels and Brechman-Toussaint 2006;
Kerns et al. 2011), and thus it is important to study child
anxiety within the context of the family. The extant research
has largely focused on the role of mothers in child anxiety to
the relative exclusion of fathers, despite accumulating evi-
dence and theory that fathers are likely to have a significant
impact on children’s development of internalizing symptoms
(Bögels and Phares 2008). Especially absent from the litera-
ture is knowledge about the long term role that fathers may
play in child anxiety. Although family process models are a
relatively common paradigm in the child anxiety literature,
and several models of child anxiety incorporating family pro-
cess factors have been proposed (e.g., Bögels and Perotti
2011; Bögels and Phares 2008; DeKlyen and Greenberg
2008), many studies have looked at one or two risk factors
in isolation (Vasey and Dadds 2001).More recently, multi-risk
factors models have been tested, although studies looking at
the development and maintenance of child anxiety over time
are still few in number.
Given that research combining and testing multiple risk
factors is relatively new, in addition to a lack of understanding
of the long term role of fathers, our study sought to contribute
to these gaps. We examined the roles of both mothers and
fathers by proposing and testing a path analysis model of child
anxiety (see Fig. 1). The model specifies that parent and child
anxiety affect family processes, which in turn can influence
subsequent child anxiety. Thus, family processes are concep-
tualized as mediating mechanisms that can account for chang-
es in child anxiety across childhood and adolescence. The

model focused on family processes which have been identi-
fied as key factors in models of child psychopathology or
anxiety (DeKlyen and Greenberg 2008; Bögels and
Brechman-Toussaint 2006): partner conflict, insecure par-
ent–child attachment, and parental restriction of autonomy
granting. These factors are common in the literature but, to
* Kaela L. Stuart Parrigon
[email protected]
1 Department of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University,
600
Hilltop Dr, Kent, OH 44240, USA
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2016) 44:1253–1266
DOI 10.1007/s10802-015-0118-4
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8202-1654
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10802-015-
0118-4&domain=pdf
our knowledge, have not been combined previously with
fathers. In addition, research has begun to explore changes
in anxiety over longer time periods, although largely with
younger children. For example, Feng et al. (2008) examined
anxiety trajectories over an 8 year period, when children were
ages 2–10 years. Our study is one of the few to examine how
family factors predict changes in anxiety from childhood to
adolescence (ages 6 to 15 years). We also include multiple
methods of data, which is rare in the current literature.
Parental Anxiety
Evidence has accumulated to suggest that maternal anxiety is a
risk factor for child anxiety (Costa and Weems 2005; Kerns
et al. 2011). Phares and Compas (1992) reviewed the effects

of paternal psychopathology on children, and determined that,
in general, paternal psychopathology was Bsufficient, but not
necessary^ (p. 407) to influence children’s psychopathology;
however, only one study in their review looked at paternal
anxiety.More recent evidence demonstrates that anxiety of both
parents is a risk factor for child anxiety. For example, a meta-
analysis looking anxiety and depression rates in offspring of
anxious parents indicated that offspring were nearly four times
as likely to meet criteria for an anxiety disorder as compared to
offspring of non-anxious parents (Micco et al. 2009).
Subsequent research has made an effort to propose process-
es that may account for associations between parental anxiety
and child anxiety. For example, Bögels and Phares (2008)
suggested that attachment and parenting may account for
why children of anxious parents are themselves prone to
experiencing anxiety. One hypothesis in particular is that fa-
thers may influence their children’s anxiety more thanmothers
as they are often involved in play with children and support
children’s exploration away from home, whereas mothers may
be more nurturing (fostering comfort). Evidence from a meta-
analysis, which included several studies with fathers, demon-
strated that parental anxiety was significantly related to ob-
served parenting, and in particular autonomy granting, such
that anxious parents granted less autonomy to their children
(van Der Bruggen et al. 2008). Therefore, we wanted to look
not just at paternal anxiety as a predictor of child anxiety, but
also at three mechanisms by which fathers and mothers might
contribute to child anxiety.
Partner Conflict
It has long been recognized that conflict in the marital or
partner relationship affect children’s adjustment (Cummings
1998). For example, Grych et al. (1992) found that when

children perceived their parents’ conflicts as stable, intense
and poorly resolved, they were more likely to experience in-
ternalizing problems such as anxiety. In addition, destructive
forms of marital conflict such as aggression withdrawal from
the relationship, threats, and child-related conflicts have been
found to be particularly harmful for children (Cummings
1998). In this study, we hypothesized that parental anxiety
might lead to greater partner conflict, in line with prior re-
search suggesting that couples with anxiety are more likely
to report lower marital quality (McLeod 1994).
Hypothesized Model of Family Processes and Anxiety
Time 1: 1
st
grade Time 2: 5
th
grade Time 3: Age 15 years
Fig. 1 Hypothesized model of family processes and anxiety
1254 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2016) 44:1253–1266
A number of mechanisms might account for why marital
conflict is associated with child anxiety. The Emotional Secu-
rity Hypothesis (Davies and Cummings 1994; Davies and
Martin 2014) suggests that destructive forms of marital con-
flict may undermine a child’s feelings of emotional security
regarding the marital relationship, leaving children vulnerable
to difficulties such as anxiety as a product of arousal and
hyper-vigilance resulting from observing conflict. Alterna-
tively, marital conflict might influence child anxiety by affect-
ing the child’s sense of attachment security within parent–

child relationships. For example, parents who are burdened
by conflict may bemore likely to withdraw from their children
(i.e., children may experience lower attachment security). Al-
though emotional security about the marital relationship has
been studied extensively, few studies have considered how
attachment security within parent–child relationships may ex-
plain effects associated with exposure to marital conflict
(Harold et al. 2004). In addition, parents experiencing partner
conflict might be over-controlling and/or absent in providing
appropriate boundaries (i.e., autonomy) necessary for optimal
development (Cummings and Davies 2002). We therefore hy-
pothesized that partner conflict would lead to poorer parent–
child attachment perhaps through withdrawal by the parent,
and would affect parental autonomy granting as a result of
potentially increased stress from the conflict. Specifically,
we included attachment and autonomy granting as mediators
between partner conflict and later child anxiety in our model
(see Fig. 1 for proposed model).
Parent–child Attachment
According to attachment theory (Bowlby 1969, 1973), care-
givers can act as both a safe haven to afford their child comfort
in times of distress, and a secure base from which to explore
the world. Children are hypothesized to be less prone to
experiencing anxiety if they form secure attachments, that is,
are readily able to use a parent figure as a secure base or safe
haven (Bowlby 1973). Although Bowlby’s initial proposal
emphasized the role of primary caregivers, who were typically
mothers, fathers have been identified as important attachment
figures as well, although their role in comparison to mothers is
not as well understood (Bretherton 2010).
A connection between mother-child attachment and child
anxiety has been established in childhood and adolescence
(Brumariu and Kerns 2010; Colonessi et al. 2011; Madigan

et al. 2013; Groh et al. 2012). In a narrative review by
Brumariu and Kerns (2010), which examined both mother
and father attachment, attachment insecurity was related to
child anxiety, particularly in adolescence. This effect was
clearer for mothers, as few studies examined father-child at-
tachment. In contrast, Groh et al. (2012) reported on three
studies looking at father-child attachment, concluding that
father-child attachment was not associated with internalizing
disorders. However, these reviews differed in the studies in-
cluded and the type of attachment measures included (Kerns
and Brumariu 2014), thus the importance of father-child at-
tachment requires greater exploration. Studies that looked spe-
cifically at anxiety rather than internalizing symptoms, and at
both mother-child and father-child attachment, provide some
support for an association between anxiety and father-child
(Verschueren andMarcoen 1999; van Eijck et al. 2012). Thus,
father-child attachment relationship may be one of the factors
influential in the development and maintenance of child anx-
iety as proposed by B gels and colleagues (e.g., Bögels and
Brechman-Toussaint 2006; Bögels and Phares 2008), al-
though further evidence is needed to bolster this hypothesis.
Parental Control and Autonomy Granting
Parental control is another factor related to child anxiety
which has often been studied in isolation. Although moderate
levels of control (i.e., discipline) may be positive for children’s
development, over-controlling parental behaviors, or a restric-
tion of autonomy granting, may result in anxiety (Wood et al.
2003). In a meta-analysis, McLeod et al. (2007) found that
parental over-control was related to child anxiety, and in par-
ticular found that autonomy granting was the aspect of parent-
ing most strongly related to child anxiety, accounting for 18%
of the variance in child anxiety. Of note, the majority of stud-
ies in the meta-analysis focused on mothers’ parenting. In

addition, effects sizes were larger for studies that use observa-
tional methods instead of questionnaire measures of parenting.
Several recent studies found that paternal controlling be-
havior is an important factor in the development of child anx-
iety (Greco and Morris 2002; Bögels and van Melick 2004).
Edwards et al. (2010) looked at changes in child anxiety over
1 year in children ages 3–5 years, and found that perceived
over-controlling behaviors by both mothers and fathers led to
an increase in child anxiety. Verhoeven et al. (2012) studied
child and parent reported parental over-control, rejection and
autonomy granting in two samples of children, 8-12-year-olds
and 13-18-year-olds, and found that child reported paternal
over-control predicted adolescent anxiety. Higher levels of
autonomy granting by both parents in younger children was
related to greater anxiety, suggesting that excessive autonomy
may be anxiety provoking for younger children, who require
support and guidance. Conversely, restriction of autonomy for
adolescents may hinder the growth of independence and con-
fidence necessary for adolescents to explore their expanding
worlds. In studies utilizing observational data, both paternal
and maternal autonomy granting were important factors relat-
ed to child anxiety (van Der Bruggen et al. 2008). Bögels et al.
(2008) found that observed parental rearing by both parents
was related to child anxiety. In particular when families had
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2016) 44:1253–1266 1255
anxious fathers, children had parents who granted less auton-
omy, were more controlling, and had fathers who were less
supportive of their own partners, and dominated conversations
regarding their child’s anxiety. In another observational study,
anxious fathers were more involved and controlling than anx-
ious mothers (Teetsel et al. 2014), and anxious mothers and

fathers also reported engaging in parenting behavior likely to
influence their child’s anxiety (e.g., punishment of anxious
behavior, modeling coping or fear).
We hypothesize that restriction of autonomy may be im-
portant for anxiety during the preadolescent period, as chil-
dren are becoming more independent (Kerns 2008). Although
Bögels and Phares (2008) suggested parental autonomy
granting from fathers may be especially important as they
support children’s exploration outside the family, extant liter-
ature is still quite mixed as to whether maternal and paternal
autonomy granting have different influences, and thus we hy-
pothesize that autonomy granting by both parents will be re-
lated to child anxiety. Overall, based on prior evidence and
proposed models of child anxiety (e.g., Bögels and Perotti
2011), parental autonomy granting is a factor which is likely
influenced by parental anxiety, particularly when observation-
al data is utilized, and is important to include in a family
process model.
Study Goals
The goal of this study was to examine the role of fathers and
mothers in the development of child anxiety by testing a lon-
gitudinal, multi-risk factor model, incorporating multiple
methods of data, with a focus on family processes. This study
utilized the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care Database.
Parent and child anxiety were measured when the child was in
first grade (time 1; 6 years), partner conflict, parent–child
attachment and parental autonomy were measured when the
child was in fifth grade (time 2; 10 years), and parent and child
anxiety were assessed again when the child was 15 years of
age (time 3). We chose these ages to examine our questions
because middle childhood (around fifth grade) brings impor-
tant change to the emerging adolescent’s life (e.g., growing

independence, expanding world; Kerns 2008), which may in-
fluence attachment and autonomy, and thereby later anxiety.
Additionally, research suggests that anxiety in early and mid-
dle childhood predicts later anxiety and/or other psychiatric
disorders such as depression (Bittner et al. 2007) so it is im-
portant to ascertain factors that may be promoting the mainte-
nance of anxiety during this time.
Previous studies utilizing the NICHD database have ex-
plored several factors related to anxiety. For example,
Brumariu and Kerns (2013) found that temperament, peer
competence and the ability to manage intense emotions, in
conjunction with attachment history, predicted child anxiety
at ages 11–12 years. Other studies looked at the relationship
between infant security, aggression, and anxiety in first grade
(Dallaire and Weinraub 2007), or predicted toddler’s anxious
and depressive symptoms from maternal separation anxiety
and depressive symptoms, infant temperament, and maternal
sensitivity (Warren and Simmens 2005). Kerns et al. (2011)
examined several factors (mother-child relationships, child
characteristics, family context) that might account for changes
in child anxiety across middle childhood (ages 6 to 12 years),
and found that attachment, maternal anxiety, behavioral inhi-
bition, and negative life events predicted changes in anxiety.
To our knowledge, research using the NICHD database has
not examined processes related to adolescent anxiety or in-
cluded fathers; thus, our study extends prior findings with
the NICHD sample, and, more importantly, the literature as
a whole, by exploring how both mothers and fathers may
influence anxiety in adolescence after controlling for early
anxiety.
Given our goal of understanding the long-term impact of
mothers and fathers in the development and maintenance of
child anxiety through the testing of a longitudinal multi-factor

risk model, we put forth the following hypotheses. We expect-
ed that our model (Fig. 1), specifying family process variables,
would be a good fit for the data, and that parent and child
anxiety at time 1 (when children were 6 years old) would be
negatively associated with family processes, which would, in
turn, predict higher levels of anxiety at age 15 years. In
addition to testing mediational pathways, we conducted a
multi-group analysis to see if gender would moderate our
outcomes. The literature on gender differences is mixed; some
studies show gender moderates associations between parent-
ing and child anxiety (e.g., Edwards et al. 2010; van Eijck
et al. 2012), but others do not (e.g., Verhoeven et al. 2012;
McLeod et al. 2007), and thus we did not have a clear hypoth-
esis about gender differences.
Method
Participants
Participants were from the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child
Care. Families with infants were recruited from ten different
locations in the United States. Data were collected from fam-
ilies in multiple waves of data collection from birth to age
15 years. In the present study, we utilized data from first grade
(6 years), fifth grade (10 years), and age 15 years, which we
refer to as time 1 (first grade), time 2 (fifth grade), and time 3
(age 15). The study began with 1364 families, when the sam-
ple was 48 % female, 80.4 % Caucasian, 12.9 % African
American, and 6.7 % other ethnicity.
Due to our interest in the role of partner conflict and fathers,

we selected families comprised of a mother and father figure
(biological father, adopted father, or step-father) at times 1 and
2. We coded families into two groups, intact mother-father
families (families with biological fathers or adoptive fathers)
and stepfather families.1 In this selected subsample (N=661,
325 girls and 336 boys; 90.8% of children were Caucasian), at
time 1, 91.6 % of families were intact mother-father families
and 8.4 % were stepfather families. At time 2, 89.3 % of
families were intact mother-father families and 10.7 % were
stepfather families. At time 3, 74.6 % of families were intact
mother-father families, and 25.5 % were stepfather or single
parent families. Thus, at time 3, 18% of families in our sample
had become single parent households. We chose to retain fam-
ilies that later divorced so as not to exclude the most partner
distressed families, although we controlled for household type
at time 3 in the analyses (single parent families were grouped
with stepfather families). See Table 1 for sample N’s, follow-
ing the specific selection criteria described above.
The present sample was not representative of the
NICHD dataset as a whole, as we selected only families
with two parent households. We also assessed whether
participants who were lost to attrition (i.e., missing data
at time 3 when outcome variables were measured) were
missing data completely at random (MCAR) at time 1 and
2 to determine whether there was bias in the data. While
some of the variables met the MCAR assumption (mater-
nal anxiety t1, child anxiety reported by both mother and
father t1, mother-reported partner conflict t2, autonomy
granting by both parents t2, paternal anxiety t3, sex, race,
income), others did not (paternal anxiety t1, father-
reported partner conflict t2, attachment security with
mothers and fathers t2, maternal anxiety t3, child anxiety
t3, and household type). For those that did not meet the
MCAR assumption, we ran correlations to see if there was
practical significance to the estimation bias. As all of the

associations between the missing data and the outcome
variables were less than r=0.10, per Collins et al. (2001)
and described by Graham (2009), we concluded that the
variables that did not meet the MCAR assumption did not
have a practically significant bias on the results.
Procedure
The NICHD study collected many more measures than were
utilized for this study; thus, only the specific procedures used
in this study are described here. Fathers completed question-
naires about their own anxiety as well as a measure of their
children’s anxiety in their home when children were in 1st
grade. Mothers completed the same questionnaires in regard
to themselves and the target child in the laboratory. At fifth
grade, children completed a questionnaire about their security
to their fathers and mothers in the laboratory. At home, the
children and fathers engaged in a discussion task and planning
activity designed to assess autonomy granting. This activity
was also done with mothers and children in the laboratory.
Additionally during the fifth grade period, information about
partner conflict was collected from fathers in the home and
mothers in the laboratory. When the children were 15 years of
age, fathers andmothers completed a questionnaire about their
own anxiety (fathers in their homes, mothers in the laborato-
ry), and children completed a self-report questionnaire about
their own anxiety (in the laboratory). See Table 1 for informa-
tion regarding the following variables.
Measures
Parental Anxiety Symptoms Anxiety was assessed for both
fathers and mothers at time 1 and time 3 with the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al. 1983; example items
include: I was tense, I was worried). Fathers and mother rated
how they felt during the past week on a four-point scale, from

1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). A mean score was calculated by
summing the items, after reverse scoring was completed, with
higher scores reflecting greater anxiety (fathers α= 0.85;
mothers α=0.86).
Child Anxiety Symptoms-Parent report Fathers and
mothers separately completed the Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL; Achenbach 1991a) in the home about their children
at time 1. A twelve item anxiety scale was created from the
CBCL, based on previous literature (Bosquet and Egeland
2006; Kerns et al. 2011): 8 items from the Depression/
Anxiety scale (31, 32, 34, 45, 50, 71, 89 and 112) and 4
additional anxiety related items (9, 29, 30 and 66). (Example
items include: Worries, Can’t get his/her mind off certain
thoughts/obsessions). Ameanwas calculated from these items
after fathers andmothers rated items on a scale of 0 (not true of
the child) to 2 (very true of the child; father rated child anxiety,
α=0.71, mother rated child anxiety, α=0.70).
Child Anxiety Symptoms-Self-reportAt age 15, self-reports
of anxiety were utilized, as research has demonstrated that
self-reports of internalizing symptoms are more accurate than
parents’ reports in adolescence (Achenbach 1991b). Anxiety
1 Household type classifications included traditional nuclear
families,
step-father families, two-parent extended or extended and
augmented
families, two-parent augmented families, nontraditional nuclear
families,
nontraditional step-father families, nontraditional extended or
extended
and augmented families, and nontraditional augmented families.
All fam-
ily types that were not step-father families included a father
figure who

was classified as the child’s biological or adoptive father. We
combined
these latter families into an Bintact mother-father^ group for the
purposes
of this study, which contrasts with the Bstep-father^ group. All
data in-
cluded in the step-father group was reported by or collected
about step-
fathers.
was measured using the Youth Self-Report (Achenbach
2001), which included the same 12 items described above
(α=0.80).
Partner Conflict Partner conflict was assessed at time 2. The
questionnaire, as adapted for the NICHD study, included five
items for the parental/partner conflict subscale (Braiker and
Kelley 1979), and 13 items from the resolution scale (Kerig
1996). Only the five conflict items were used for this study.
(Examples of these items include: How often do you feel
angry or resentful to your partner; what is the extent to which
you communicate negative feelings to your partner). Items
from the parental/partner conflict subscale were rated on a 1
(not at all) to 9 (very much) scale, with higher scores reflecting
greater amounts of conflict. The alpha level for the conflict
scale for fathers was (α=0.81) and for mothers was (α=0.83)
for this sample.
Parent–child Attachment To assess children’s perceptions of
father-child and mother-child attachment, the Relatedness and
Security Questionnaire was completed by the target child.
These questions included aspects of the parent–child relation-

ship including proximity seeking, security in relationship and
the emotional quality of the relationship. It has 18 items, 11 of
which come from the fifteen item Security Scale (Kerns et al.
1996), and 7 items from the Relatedness Questionnaire (Toth
and Cicchetti 1996). The measure used in the present study
included 16 items total; 11 items from the original Security
Scale and 5 items which were similar to the original Security
Scale from the Relatedness Questionnaire. (Example items
include: It’s easy to count on my dad for help, I think my
mom does not listen to me). This combination of items has
been used to measure attachment security in a previous study
(Kerns et al. 2011). Items were rated by the child on a 4-point
scale from 1 (not true at all) to 4 (very true), with higher scores
indicating higher levels of security (i.e., attachment). The re-
liability for this aggregated measure was (α = 0.83) for
mothers and (α=0.87) for fathers.
Parental Autonomy Granting A discussion task and
problem-solving task at time 2 were used to code parent–child
interactions for parental autonomy granting. Parents and chil-
dren were asked to discuss three topics they disagree on for the
discussion task, and to create a bungee device together so a
raw egg would bounce but not crack when dropped for the
problem-solving task. The activities were videotaped and then
coded by two trained observers, and an additional coder coded
28 % of the tapes for reliability. Several qualitative rating
scales were utilized, but for this study, respect for autonomy
was used as the target variable. When respect for child auton-
omy was high, parents engaged in behaviors such as acknowl-
edging the child’s perspective, asking their opinion, and ne-
gotiating with the child. Respect for Child Autonomy codes
were given for the two tasks, as well as an overall rating; we
analyzed the latter. Coding was based on a 1 (very low) to 7
(very high) scale, where higher scores indicated greater auton-
omy granting (see Egeland and Hiester 1993 and Pianta 1994

for further information). The intra-class correlation coefficient
for observer ratings was 0.68 for fathers and 0.65 for mothers.
Results
Analysis Plan
We first examined relations between the demographic vari-
ables and our variables of interest to determine whether there
was a need to control for any demographic variables within
the primary analyses. Then, to test our hypotheses, we ran
zero-order correlations and employed path analysis. We tested
Table 1 Means, standard
deviations, minimum and
maximum values of the main
study variables
Variable N M SD Minimum Maximum
Mother anxiety at time 1 661 1.72 0.51 1.00 3.80
Father anxiety at time 1 661 1.68 0.49 1.00 3.60
Child anxiety at time 1, mother report 661 0.19 0.19 0.00 1.25
Child anxiety at time 1, father report 661 0.21 0.21 0.00 1.50
Partner conflict at time 2, mother report 603 3.61 1.48 1.00 8.20
Partner conflict at time 2, father report 559 3.37 1.37 1.00 9.00
Security with mother at time 2, child report 598 3.44 0.42 1.81
4.00
Security with father at time 2, child report 559 3.37 0.48 1.63

4.00
Autonomy granted by mother at time 2 558 5.15 0.85 3.00 7.00
Autonomy granted by father at time 2 538 5.21 0.93 2.00 7.00
Mother anxiety at time 3 584 1.78 0.57 1.00 4.00
Father anxiety at time 3 520 1.67 0.37 1.00 3.70
Child self-reported anxiety at time 3 576 0.42 0.31 0.00 1.67
Higher values reflect higher levels of the given construct
a single model that included both mothers and fathers, con-
trolling for demographic variables, to determine whether our
proposed model fit the data well, and to test the proposed
direct and mediational pathways. We also tested several alter-
native models, including testing mothers and fathers separate-
ly, and testing the combined model without the family process
links, to determine whether the family process factors contrib-
uted significantly to explaining changes in child anxiety. Fi-
nally, we conducted multi-group analyses for boys and girls to
determine if child gender moderated any of the model
pathways.
Preliminary Analyses
Associations among the demographic variables2 (gender, race,
household type, income): No significant correlations were
found between gender and any other demographic variables.
Race was significantly related, at each time point, to house-

hold type (time 1 r=0.10, p<0.01, time 2 r=0.18, p<0.01,
time 3 r=0.14, p<0.01) and family income (time 1 r=0.13,
p<0.01, time 2 r=0.12, p<0.01, time 3 r=0.10, p<0.05),
with Caucasian families more likely to be intact families with
higher income. Household type and income at time 1 (r=0.16,
p<0.01) and 2 (r=0.15, p<0.01) were also significantly re-
lated to one another, with intact households reporting higher
income. Household type at times 1 and 2 were strongly related
to household type at time 3 (r=0.77, p<0.01 and r=0.81,
p<0.01 respectively). Similarly, income at times 1 and 2 was
strongly related to income at time 3 (r=0.81, p<0.01 and
r=0.72, p<0.01 respectively). At time 3, household type
and income were not related to one another. Because house-
hold type had a high, significant correlation across all 3 time
points, as did family income, we only included household type
and income at time 3 in the model. Correlations were then
calculated to examine how the main study variables were re-
lated to the following demographic variables: gender, race,
household type (time 3) and income (time 3). Regarding
household type and substantive variables, the following dif-
ferences were noted between step-father and intact families:
mothers in intact families reported lower maternal anxiety at
t1, fathers in intact families reported lower child anxiety at
time 1, children in intact families reported higher attachment
security to both parents, and observers rated mothers and fa-
thers in intact families higher on respect for autonomy. All of
the substantive variables were correlated with at least one
demographic variable, and we therefore controlled for demo-
graphic variables in the model tests.
Correlations between the Main Study Variables
Table 2 presents the zero-order correlations among the main
study variables, with father and child reported variables below
the diagonal, mother and child reported variables above the
diagonal, and mother-father correlations on the diagonal. For

the father and child reported variables, correlations were gen-
erally modest in magnitude, with significant correlations rang-
ing from −0.08 to 0.35. Father and child anxiety were corre-
lated at time 1 and time 3. Both child and father anxiety were
significantly correlated over time, although father anxiety was
more stable than was child anxiety. Child anxiety at time 1
was associated with higher partner conflict and less secure
father-child attachment at time 2, although neither father nor
child anxiety at time 1 were associated with autonomy
granting at time 2. Partner conflict at time 2 was related to
father anxiety but not to child anxiety at time 3. Partner con-
flict was also associated concurrently with lower father-child
attachment security. Lower father-child attachment security
was associated with greater child anxiety at time 3. Autonomy
granting was not related to father or child anxiety at time 3.
Zero-order correlations for the mother and child reported
variables were again modest in magnitude, ranging from
−0.08 to 0.45. Mother and child anxiety were concurrently
correlated at time 1 and time 3. Both child and mother anxiety
were significantly correlated over time, although mother anx-
iety was more stable than was child anxiety Mother and child
anxiety at time 1 both predicted greater partner conflict at time
2. Mother, but not child, anxiety at time 1 predicted lower
mother-child attachment security, and lower autonomy
granting at time 2. Partner conflict predicted lower mother-
child attachment security concurrently, and lower mother anx-
iety at time 3, but was not related to child anxiety at time 3.
Lower mother-child attachment security predicted more child
anxiety at time 3. Greater autonomy granting by mothers also
predicted less anxiety for both mother and child at time 3.
Regarding correlations between mother-father variables, as
shown on the diagonal in Table 2, all associations were sig-
nificant, and relationships were modest in size with the excep-
tion of attachment security.

Tests of Model and Direct Paths
To test the proposed model, that family processes account
for associations between earlier and later anxiety, we ran a
path analysis that included both father and mother vari-
ables (see Fig. 2) using Mplus (Muthén and Muthén
1998–2011). Full maximum likelihood estimation was
used to handle missing data. The initial model results
indicated that it would be beneficial to add a path to our
original model, specifically a link between partner conflict
at time 2 and parental anxiety at time 3, for both fathers
and mothers. Because this link seemed highly plausible, it
2 Note: Race was categorized as Caucasian and Other;
Household type
was categorized as intact mother-father families and mother-
stepfather
families.
was added to our model. Demographic variables were
controlled for in all analyses, by regressing them onto
the substantive predictor variables at times 2 and 3.
The model was a good fit for the data (see Fig. 2 for path
coefficients). Although the Chi-square test of model fit for the
model was significant, χ2 (56)=117.88, p<0.001, significant
Table 2 Zero-order correlations
among father and mother reported
variables
Final model controlling for demographic variables: Significant

standardized (unstandardized) paths are shown (p<.05)
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
Parent
anxiety
T1
Child
anxiety
T1
Partner
conflict
Attachment
security
Autonomy
granting
Parent
anxiety
T3
Child
anxiety
T3
Time 1
Parent
anxiety
0.18** 0.24** 0.21** −0.12** −0.13** 0.45** 0.12**

Child
anxiety
0.24** 0.29** 0.12** −0.07 −0.06 0.12** 0.19**
Time 2
Partner
conflict
0.23** 0.10* 0.39** −0.08* 0.003 0.20** 0.06
Attachment
security
−0.08* −0.12** −0.09* 0.73** 0.12** −0.05 −0.18**
Autonomy
granting
0.03 −0.03 −0.04 0.09* 0.11* −0.10* −0.10*
Time 3
Parent
anxiety
0.35** 0.16** 0.25** −0.07 −0.07 0.23** 0.16**
Child
anxiety
0.18** 0.13** 0.07 −0.23** 0.02 0.16** –
Mother correlations are reported on the top half of the table.

Father correlations are reported on the bottom half of
the table, mother correlations in the top half, and mother-father
correlations on the diagonal which are italicized.
*p< 0.05; **p < 0.01
Fig. 2 Final model controlling for demographic variables:
Significant standardized (unstandardized) paths are shown (p <
0.05)
Chi square values are not uncommon with large samples. The
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) for our data was 0.94, and the
RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) value
was 0.04 (with a 90 % confidence interval from 0.03 to 0.05).
Thus, we cannot reject the close fit hypothesis, which indi-
cates our model likely closely fits our data. The SRMR (Stan-
dardized Root Mean Square Residual) estimate was 0.04, in-
dicating that there was not a large overall difference between
the observed and predicted correlations for our data. Overall,
these fit indices suggest that our proposed model fits the data
well. A baseline model, where family process factors (partner
conflict, attachment, and autonomy granting) were modeled in
the analysis but were not used to predict any of the outcomes,
provided a worse fit, based on a Chi-square difference test, χ2
(94) =306.98, p< 0.00, with model values of CFI = 0.80,
RMSEA=0.06, SRMR=0.08, suggesting that inclusion of
the family process factors significantly improved the model.
We also ran our conceptual model separately for mothers and
fathers, and results were similar to the combined model re-
sults. We chose to present the combined model for parsimony
and to allow for examining unique prediction of mother and
father variables.
Several direct paths were of note, including the following

significant paths: Father and (father rated) child anxiety, and
mother and (mother rated) child anxiety were related to one
another at time 1. Father and mother anxiety at time 3 were
also related to child reported anxiety at time 3. Paternal anx-
iety at time 1 was related to greater partner conflict at time 2,
and partner conflict at time 2 predicted greater paternal anxiety
at time 3. Similarly, maternal anxiety at time 1 was related to
greater partner conflict at time 2, which predicted greater ma-
ternal anxiety at time 3. Lower attachment security with fa-
thers at time 2 was related to greater child anxiety at time 3,
and less autonomy granting by mothers at time 2 was also
related to greater child anxiety at time 3. Mother rated child
anxiety at time 1 predicted child anxiety at time 3, and mother
and father self-rated anxiety at time 1 predicted mother and
father anxiety at time 3, respectively.3
To determine whether the parent pathways in our model
demonstrated unique effects (i.e., is there a stronger relation-
ship for one parent over the other), we conducted a series of
analyses where we constrained each pair of mother and father
pathways to be equal, and compared the model with
constrained pathways to the model without constraints using
Chi-square difference tests. There was only one path that dem-
onstrated a significant unique effect, which was the link from
maternal autonomy granting to child anxiety at time 3,
suggesting that a restriction of autonomy granting by mothers
might play a unique role in increasing child anxiety over time.
Mediated Pathways
To test for mediation effects, we estimated multiple mediation
pathways within our model separately using Mplus. There
were a total of 16 mediational pathways within the model, 8
of which we tested for father variables and 8 of which we
tested for mother variables. We found one significant media-

tion pathway for the fathers, between paternal anxiety at time
1 and paternal anxiety at time 3 via partner conflict (β=0.04,
p<0.001). The same mediational path was also significant for
mothers (β=0.16, p<0.05). Thus, partner conflict at time 2
accounted for the association between earlier and later paren-
tal anxiety for both mothers and fathers.
Gender Differences
We also tested whether the model pathways were different for
boys and girls, using multi-group analysis. We ran a series of
tests to determine potential differences in path coefficients
between boys and girls, and then evaluated each path using
the Chi-square difference test. Results indicated there were no
significant path coefficient differences between boys and girls
(all Chi-square tests were non-significant), suggesting our
findings do not differ for boys and girls.
Discussion
The present longitudinal study sought to understand the rela-
tions between parent and child anxiety via family processes.
We included multiple family process risk factors—partner
conflict, attachment security, and parental autonomy
granting—and examined these risk factors over a 9 year peri-
od. This study extended earlier work by including fathers,
who have often been overlooked in research, especially with
regards to their long-term impact on child anxiety. Although
child anxiety was moderately stable over a 9 year period, from
middle childhood into adolescence, we did identify family
process variables that accounted for later anxiety, with the
proposed family process model showing a good fit for the
data. Further, we identified specific family processes—lower
father-child attachment security, and restricted maternal au-
tonomy granting—that predicted higher child anxiety in ado-
lescence after controlling for early anxiety, and one process

(partner conflict) that predicted parent anxiety over 9 years
after controlling for initial anxiety. Our results point to the
importance of family process variables and to an important
long-term impact of fathers in child anxiety, although we did
not find evidence that fathers play a unique role in child anx-
iety, as proposed by Bögels and Phares (2008).
3 Although we did not include a direct link in the model from
partner
conflict to child anxiety at time 3 as we were examining
mediated path-
ways from partner conflict to child anxiety, upon the suggestion
of a
reviewer we tested this direct link given its significance in prior
research,
and found that it was not a significant direct path, nor did
adding it
improve model fit.
One important finding was the role that partner conflict
played in parents’ anxiety. For both fathers and mothers,
higher parental anxiety, predicted greater partner conflict
4 years later, which in turn predicted higher anxiety 5 years
later, with partner conflict mediating the link between earlier
and later anxiety. Thus, it is likely that partner conflict is a
factor that both maintains and strengthens anxiety for both
mothers and fathers over time. Previous literature has noted
concurrent links between parental anxiety, marital quality
(McLeod 1994), and marital adjustment (Dehle and Weiss
2002). Other research has looked at anxiety and partner con-
flict over time. For example, El-Sheikh et al. (2013b) studied
the relationship between inter-partner psychological conflict

(IPC), anxiety, and sleep over a week’s time. Anxiety symp-
toms mediated the relationship between IPC and poor sleep
quality for women, while depressive symptoms mediated this
relationship for men. Another study looked at marital discord,
neuroticism and stress as potential factors related to internal-
izing problems for couples over 6 years (Brock and Lawrence
2014). Although Brock and Lawrence (2014) focused mostly
on depression, anxiety symptomswere also included, and they
found, for women only, that poor conflict management was
related to internalizing symptoms. Dehle and Weiss (2002)
examined marital adjustment and state anxiety between
married couples over a 3 month period, and found that
greater anxiety symptoms reported by husbands, but not
wives, was related to poorer marital quality for both wives
and husbands. Dehle and Weiss (2002) also explored bidirec-
tional links between anxiety and marital quality, but did not
find that anxiety predicted marital quality. While these studies
establish important connections between anxiety in couples
and marital difficulties, our results add to this literature
through the inclusion of a 9 year longitudinal design, the dem-
onstration of a mediational link between parental anxiety and
partner conflict, and the finding that this relationship operates
similarly for both mothers and fathers.
Although partner conflict was related to later parental anx-
iety, it did not predict later child anxiety via our proposed
mediational pathways of parent–child attachment security or
autonomy granting, nor was a direct path from partner conflict
to child anxiety at time 3 significant. This was surprising,
given that research in this area has previously found evidence
that exposure to inter-parental conflict puts children at risk for
psychopathology, including anxiety (Davies et al. 2002), es-
pecially for girls (El-Sheikh et al. 2013a). In a similar vein,
Katz and Gottman (1996) suggested that there may be a
Bspillover^ effect (i.e., the transfer of mood, emotions, or
behaviors from one setting to another) for partner conflict,

where specific types of conflict experienced by both fathers
and mothers influences their children’s well-being. The cur-
rent study is not consistent with prior findings, although our
study does differ in an important way from previous work,
specifically, our consideration of conflict globally as opposed
to its more specific forms, and the use of parent report (rather
than child report) of partner conflict. In addition, it is possible
that in selecting families still intact when children were in fifth
grade may have resulted in testing these questions in a sample
with relatively low levels of marital distress. By contrast, our
findings did suggest that the relationships in which the child
directly participates (e.g., the parent–child relationship) have a
more direct effect on children’s well-being.
We tested two ideas regarding how attachment security
might play a role in the development of anxiety. One hypoth-
esis was that insecure parent–child attachment might mediate
the link between partner conflict and child anxiety. This was
based on an extension of the Emotional Security Hypothesis
(Davies and Cummings 1994), which proposes that destruc-
tive forms of partner conflict lead to children feeling insecure
about the marital relationship, which in turn contributes to the
development of internalizing and externalizing problems.
Substantial research has found that emotional security related
to parental conflict uniquely predicts children’s adjustment
problems (e.g., Sturge-Apple et al. 2008; Davies et al.
2002). As noted by Davies and Martin (2014) however, emo-
tional security and attachment security are distinct constructs;
emotional security refers to security in relation to the parents’
relationship, whereas attachment security refers to security
within the parent–child relationship. We did not find that low-
er attachment security in parent–child relationships explained
the link between partner conflict and child anxiety. Our find-
ings underscore the importance of Davies and Martin’s (2014)
distinction between attachment security and emotional securi-

ty based on the parental or marital relationship, as it may be
that the latter is more influenced by conflict in the marital
relationship. Studies assessing both parent–child attachment
security and emotional security in relation to the marital rela-
tionship are needed to test this proposal.
A second idea that our study tested regarding attachment
security was empirically supported. We found that both
mother-child and father-child attachment were correlated with
later child anxiety, a finding that is consistent with previous
research showing that insecure attachment is related to child
anxiety both concurrently and as a predictor of later anxiety
(e.g., Brumariu and Kerns 2010; Colonessi et al. 2011). When
studied jointly however, only lower attachment security to
fathers at time 2, controlling for child anxiety at time 1, pre-
dicted child anxiety at time 3. With the addition of fathers, we
incorporated a family influence that has previously been little
accounted for, and it is possible that fathers’ relationships may
account for some of the variance often attributed to mothers.
However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as
results did not indicate that this link was unique to fathers, and
our findings might be influenced by the high correlations be-
tween mother-child and father-child attachment. Our study is
one of the first to test whether attachment security in child-
hood can explain anxiety across childhood and into
adolescence; thus, our findings contribute to an understanding
of the lasting impact of childhood attachment relationships
into adolescence. Finally, our results lend support to the idea
that fathers as well as mothers do matter for children’s
internalizing symptoms.

Autonomy granting was another potential risk factor for
child anxiety that differed for mothers and fathers in this study.
Low autonomy granting and high parental control are
established correlates of child anxiety based both on observa-
tional and questionnaire data (McLeod et al. 2007; van Der
Bruggen et al. 2008), although the majority of studies have
only included mothers, and the directionality of findings (i.e.,
are low autonomy granting and high parental control a re-
sponse to or the cause of child anxiety) are currently unclear.
Studies that have attempted to parse out directionality have
provided mixed evidence regarding how child anxiety and
parenting are related over time. In a longitudinal study of child
anxiety and parental over-involvement (Hale et al. 2013),
child anxiety predicted increases in perceived parental over-
involvement rather than parenting predicting changes in anx-
iety. Similarly to Edwards et al. (2010) however, we found
that a restriction of maternal autonomy granting was related
to increases in child anxiety, but was not related to prior child
anxiety. Additionally, we found a significant unique effect for
observed maternal restriction of autonomy granting on child
anxiety, suggesting that the control mothers exert over their
children is likely to be more influential than that of fathers for
child anxiety. Although a restriction of autonomy granting by
both parents has been found to contribute to later child anxiety
based on both self-report and observational measures (e.g.,
Verhoeven et al. 2012), and some evidence and theory have
suggested that fathers may be more important in this domain
(e.g., Teetsel et al. 2014; Bögels and Perotti 2011), we did not
find an association between paternal autonomy granting and
child anxiety in this study. As with the attachment findings,
however, it is important to interpret these results with caution,
as we did not assess autonomy granting at younger ages. More
research is needed to further establish both the directionality
of effects, as well as gaining a better understanding of the
potential differences between fathers and mothers, and to eval-
uate how fathers’ changing involvement in their children’s

lives may influence the role of autonomy granting in child
anxiety.
This study possesses several strengths, including the large
sample size, multi-method approach, and longitudinal design.
Although the magnitude of the effects were small, we were
able to detect important relationships between our variables
over a 9 year period. We also examined both mother-child and
father-child relationships, which is a strength as father data are
not as commonly utilized in the literature. Despite these
strengths, the use of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care
data did introduce limitations. As the data were already col-
lected, the authors had no control over the measures used, and
a few of the measures were not optimal to the study’s ques-
tions (e.g., State-Trait Anxiety assessed over the past week
instead of an explicit trait measure of anxiety; attachment se-
curity was only measured via questionnaire, and did not in-
clude assessments of insecure attachment patterns). Another
limitation was that parental conflict, attachment security, and
autonomy granting were assessed at the same time point.
Additionally, most participants reported subclinical levels of
anxiety, and thus, our results may not generalize to a popula-
tion of clinically anxious individuals. It is also important to
note that path models do not indicate causality, and can only
inform whether the model is a good fit for the data. It is
possible that alternative models may better account for the role
of parents in child anxiety. For example, factors such as
behavioral inhibition, environmental risk factors such as peer
relationships and school experiences (e.g., Degnan et al.
2010), or child characteristics such as emotion regulation
(e.g., Brumariu and Kerns 2013) could enhance the model
tested here. Finally, the results were based on a primarily
Caucasian, upper-to-middle class, two parent household sample;
thus, they may not be generalizable to other populations.

The present findings indicate a few potential clinical con-
siderations. Current literature questions the efficacy of includ-
ing parents in their children’s treatment, as results of a meta-
analysis suggest that the harm or benefit in including parents
are inconclusive (Barmish and Kendall 2005). Further, efforts
to date suggest that treating the parent–child relationship may
have only limited effects on child anxiety (Silverman et al.
2009). The results of our study do suggest that attachment
security and autonomy granting are related to child anxiety,
and therefore it would be important for a clinician to assess
these areas to more comprehensively understand children’s
clinical presentations. Our study also suggests implications
for couples counseling. For example, it may be helpful for
couples attending therapy who have high levels of conflict
to be screened for anxiety, and either or both partners in the
dyad may benefit from individual treatment for anxiety disor-
ders if needed.
Overall, the present study adds to the field in several critical
ways. First, it provides data on fathers, in addition to combin-
ing the influences of mothers and fathers in onemodel, both of
which are rare in the extant literature. This allows insights into
potential unique influences of mothers and fathers on chil-
dren’s anxiety, and the findings suggest that etiological
models of child anxiety will benefit from considering the po-
tential unique roles mothers and fathers may play. . Further,
the present study involves several design strengths which are
much needed in the extant research, including longitudinal
design, multi-method approach, and large sample size. With
this large sample, we showed that maternal autonomy granting
and paternal attachment each uniquely predict later child anx-
iety, even after controlling for several other risk factors for
anxiety. By contrast, despite the large sample and ample

power, we did not replicate prior findings that parent conflict
predicts later anxiety through its effects on parent–child rela-
tionships, although we did find that parent conflict predicted
later parent anxiety. Although negative findings can be diffi-
cult to interpret, the present results add to the literature given
recent calls for the need to replicate prior findings (Open
Source Collaboration 2012). Collectively, the results support
the interpretation that the relationships children have with
their parents likely contributes to child anxiety more so than
factors outside of direct parent–child relationships (e.g., part-
ner conflict).
In conclusion, the present study provides evidence that
family processes contribute to the maintenance of both parent
and child anxiety over time. Our results indicate that fathers
andmothers may both have long-term influences on children’s
anxiety, although this occurs via different mechanisms (fa-
thers, parent–child attachment; mothers, autonomy granting).
In addition to findings regarding child anxiety, the mediated
relationship between parental anxiety, partner conflict, and
later parental anxiety is a novel finding that provides new
knowledge regarding the effects of partner conflict for parents.
While this study made progress towards the identification of
the long-term impact of fathers in child anxiety, important next
steps include examining the current study’s risk factors utiliz-
ing different measures, including additional risk factors that
may further explain child anxiety, and examining interaction
effects between mothers and fathers that may contribute to
child anxiety.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no
conflict of

interest.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the child behavior
checklist/4-18
and profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of
Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual for the youth self-report and
1991
profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of
Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M. (2001). Child behavior checklist for ages 6 to
18.
Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for
Children,
Youth, and Families.
Albano, A. M., Chorpita, B. F., & Barlow, D. H. (2003).
Childhood
anxiety disorders. Child Psychopathology, 2, 279–329.
Barmish, A. J., & Kendall, P. C. (2005). Should parents be co-
clients in
cognitive-behavioral therapy for anxious youth? Journal of
Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 569–581.
Bittner, A., Egger, E., Erkanli, A., Costello, E. J., Foley, D., &
Angold, A.
(2007). What do childhood anxiety disorders predict? Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 1174–1183.
Bögels, S. M., & Brechman-Toussaint, M. L. (2006). Family

issues in
child anxiety: attachment, family functioning, parental rearing
and
beliefs. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 834–856.
Bögels, S. M., & Perotti, E. C. (2011). Does father know best?
A formal
model of the paternal influence on childhood social anxiety.
Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 20, 171–181.
Bögels, S., & Phares, V. (2008). Fathers’ role in the etiology,
prevention
and treatment of child anxiety: a review and new model.
Clinical
Psychology Review, 28, 539–558.
Bögels, S. M., & van Melick, M. (2004). The relationship
between child-
report, parent self-report, and partner report of perceived
parental
rearing behaviors and anxiety in children and parents.
Personality
and Individual Differences, 37, 1583–1596.
Bögels, S. M., Bamelis, L., & van der Bruggen, C. (2008).
Parental
rearing as a function of parent’s own, partner’s, and child’s
anxiety
status: fathers make the difference. Cognition & Emotion, 22,
522–
538.
Bosquet, M., & Egeland, B. (2006). The development and
maintenance
of anxiety symptoms from infancy through adolescence in a

longi-
tudinal sample. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 517–
550.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment.
NY: Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation
anxiety and
danger. New York: Basic Books.
Braiker, H., & Kelley, H. (1979). Conflict in the development
of close
relationships. In R. Burgess & T. Huston (Eds.), Social
exchange
and developing relationships. NY: Academic.
Bretherton, I. (2010). Fathers in attachment theory and research:
a review.
Early Child Development and Care, 180, 9–23.
Brock, R. L., & Lawrence, E. (2014). Martial Processes,
neuroticism, and
stress as risk factors for internalizing symptoms. Couple and
Family
Psychology: Research and Practice, 3, 30–47.
Brumariu, L. E., & Kerns, K. A. (2010). Parent–child
attachment and
internalizing symptoms in childhood and adolescence: a review
of
empirical findings and future directions. Development and
Psychopathology, 22, 177–203.
Brumariu, L. E., & Kerns, K. A. (2013). Pathways to anxiety:

contribu-
tions of attachment history, temperament, peer competence, and
ability to manage intense emotions. Child Psychiatry and
Human
Development, 44, 504–515.
Collins, L., Schafer, J., & Kam, C.-M. (2001). A comparison of
inclusive
and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures.
Psychological Methods, 6, 330–351.
Colonessi, C., Draijer, E. M., Stams, G. J. J., Van der Bruggen,
C. O.,
Bögels, S.M., & Noom,M. J. (2011). The relation between
insecure
attachment and child anxiety: a meta-analytic review. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 630–645.
Costa, N. M., & Weems, C. F. (2005). Maternal and child
anxiety: do
attachment beliefs or children's perceptions of maternal control
me-
diate their association? Social Development, 14, 574–590.
Cummings, E. M. (1998). Children exposed to marital conflict
and vio-
lence: Conceptual and theoretical directions. In G. Holden, B.
Geffner, & E. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital
violence:
Theory, research and applied issues (pp. 55–94).Washington, D.
C.:
American Psychological Association.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2002). Effects of marital
conflict on
children: recent advances and emerging themes in process-

oriented
research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 31–
63.
Dallaire, D. H., & Weinraub, M. (2007). Infant–mother
attachment secu-
rity and children's anxiety and aggression at first grade. Journal
of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 477–492.
Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and
child
adjustment: an emotional security hypothesis. Psychological
Bulletin, 116, 387–411.
Davies, P. T., & Martin, M. (2014). Children’s coping and
adjustment in
high-conflict homes: the reformulation of emotional security
theory.
Child Development Perspectives, 8, 242–249.
Davies, P. T., Harold, G. T., Goeke-Morey, M. C., Cummings,
E. M.,
Shelton, K., Rasi, J. A., & Jenkins, J. M. (2002). Child
emotional
security and interparental conflict. Monographs of the Society
for
Research in Child Development, 51, i-127.
Degnan, K. A., Almas, A. N., & Fox, N. A. (2010).
Temperament and the
environment in the etiology of childhood anxiety. Journal of

Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 497–517.
Dehle, C., & Weiss, R. L. (2002). Associations between anxiety
and
marital adjustment. The Journal of Psychology, 136, 328–338.
DeKlyen,M., & Greenberg, M. (2008). Attachment and
psychopathology
in childhood. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and
clin-
ical applications (pp. 637–665). New York: Guilford Press.
Edwards, S. L., Rapee, R. M., & Kennedy, S. (2010). Prediction
of anx-
iety symptoms in preschool‐aged children: examination of
maternal
and paternal perspectives. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 51, 313–321.
Egeland, B. & Hiester, M. (1993). Teaching task rating scales.
Institute of
Child Development, University of Minnesota.
El-Sheikh, M., Keiley, M., Erath, S., & Dyer, W. J. (2013a).
Marital
conflict and growth in children's internalizing symptoms: the
role
of autonomic nervous system activity. Developmental
Psychology,
49, 92–108.
El-Sheikh, M., Kelly, R., & Rauer, A. (2013b). Quick to berate,
slow to
sleep: interpartner psychological conflict, mental health, and
sleep.

Health Psychology, 32, 1057–1066.
Feng, X., Shaw, D. S., & Silk, J. S. (2008). Developmental
trajectories of
anxiety symptoms among boys across early and middle
childhood.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 32–47.
Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: making it work in
the real
world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576.
Greco, L. A., & Morris, T. L. (2002). Paternal child-rearing
style and
child social anxiety: investigation of child perceptions and
actual
father behavior. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 24, 259–267.
Groh, A. M., Roisman, G. I., van IJzendoorn, M. H.,
Bakermans‐
Kranenburg, M. J., & Fearon, R. (2012). The significance of
inse-
cure and disorganized attachment for children’s internalizing
symp-
toms: a meta‐analytic study. Child Development, 83, 591–610.
Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing
marital con-
flict from the child's perspective: the children's perception of
interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63, 558–572.
Hale III, W. W., Klimstra, T., Branje, S., Wijsbroek, S., &
Meeus, W.
(2013). Is Adolescent Generalized Anxiety Disorder a Magnet
for

Negative Parental Interpersonal Behaviors?Depression and
Anxiety,
0, 1–8.
Harold, G. T., Shelton, K. H., Goeke‐Morey, M. C., &
Cummings, E. M.
(2004). Marital conflict, child emotional security about family
rela-
tionships and child adjustment. Social Development, 13, 350–
376.
Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1996). Spillover effects of
marital conflict:
in search of parenting and coparenting mechanisms. New
Directions
for Child and Adolescent Development, 1996, 57–76.
Kerig, P. K. (1996). Assessing the links between interparental
conflict and
child adjustment: the conflicts and problem-solving scales.
Journal
of Family Psychology, 10, 454–473.
Kerns, K. A. (2008). Attachment in middle childhood. In J.
Cassidy & P.
Shaver (Eds.),Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and
clin-
ical applications (2nd ed., pp. 366–382). New York, NY:
Guilford
Press.
Kerns, K. A., & Brumariu, L. E. (2014). Is insecure parent–
child attach-
ment a risk factor for the development of anxiety in childhood
or
adolescence? Child Development Perspectives, 8, 12–17.

Kerns, K. A., Klepac, L., & Cole, A. (1996). Peer relationships
and
preadolescents’ perceptions of security in the child-mother
relation-
ship. Developmental Psychology, 32, 457–466.
Kerns, K. A., Siener, S., & Brumariu, L. E. (2011). Mother-
child rela-
tionships, family context, and child characteristics as predictors
of
anxiety symptoms in middle childhood. Development and
Psychopathology, 23, 593–604.
Madigan, S., Atkinson, L., Laurin, K., & Benoit, D. (2013).
Attachment
and internalizing behavior in early childhood: a meta-analysis.
Developmental Psychology, 49, 672–689.
McLeod, J. D. (1994). Anxiety disorders and marital quality.
Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 103, 767–776.
McLeod, B. D., Wood, J. J., & Weisz, J. R. (2007). Examining
the asso-
ciation between parenting and childhood anxiety: a meta-
analysis.
Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 155–172.
Micco, J., Henin, A., Mick, E., Kim, S., Hopkins, C.,
Biederman, J., &
Hirshfeld-Becker, D. (2009). Anxiety and depressive disorders
in
offspring at high risk for anxiety: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Anxiety Disorders, 23, 1158–1164.

Muthén, L. K., &Muthén, B. O. (1998–2011). Mplus. Statistical
analyses
with latent variables. User’s guide, 3.
Open Science Collaboration. (2012). An open, large-scale,
collaborative
effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 657–660.
Phares, V., & Compas, B. E. (1992). The role of fathers in child
and
adolescent psychopathology: make room for daddy.
Psychological
Bulletin, 111, 387–412.
Pianta, R. C. (1994). Rating scales for parent–child interaction
in pre-
schoolers. University of Virginia.
Silverman, W. K., Kurtines, W. M., Jaccard, J., & Pina, A. A.
(2009).
Directionality of change in youth anxiety treatment involving
par-
ents: an initial examination. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 77, 474–485.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., &
Jacobs, G.
A. (1983). Manual for The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form
Y).
Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Sturge-Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., Winter, M. A., Cummings,
E. M., &
Schermerhorn, A. (2008). Interparental conflict and children's
school adjustment: the explanatory role of children's internal

repre-
sentations of interparental and parent–child relationships.
Developmental Psychology, 44, 1678–11690.
Teetsel, R., Ginsburg, G., & Drake, K. (2014). Anxiety
promoting par-
enting behaviors: a comparison of anxious mothers and fathers.
Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 45, 133–142.
Toth, S. L., & Cicchetti, D. (1996). The impact of relatedness
with mother
on school functioning in maltreated children. Journal of School
Psychology, 34, 247–266.
vanDer Bruggen, C. O., Stams, G. J. J., & Bögels, S.M. (2008).
Research
review: the relation between child and parent anxiety and
parental
control: a meta‐analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology
and
Psychiatry, 49, 1257–1269.
van Eijck, F. E., Branje, S. J., Hale, W. W., III, & Meeus, W. H.
(2012).
Longitudinal associations between perceived parent-adolescent
at-
tachment relationship quality and generalized anxiety disorder
symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology,
40, 871–883.
Vasey, M. W., & Dadds, M. R. (2001). The developmental
psychopathol-
ogy of anxiety. New York: Oxford University Press.
Verhoeven, M., Bögels, S. M., & van der Bruggen, C. C. (2012).

Unique
roles of mothering and fathering in child anxiety; moderation by
child’s age and gender. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21,
331–343.
Verschueren, K., & Marcoen, A. (1999). Representation of self
and
socioemotional competence in kindergartners: Differential and
com-
bined effects of attachment to mother and to father. Child
Development, 70, 183–201.
Warren, S. L., & Simmens, S. J. (2005). Predicting toddler
anxiety/
depressive symptoms: effects of caregiver sensitivity on
tempera-
mentally vulnerable children. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26,
40–55.
Wood, J. J., McLeod, B. D., Sigman, M., Hwang, W. C., & Chu,
B. C.
(2003). Parenting and childhood anxiety: theory, empirical
findings,
and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry,
44, 134–151.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further

reproduction prohibited without
permission.
c.10802_2015_Article_118.pdfFamily Processes in Child
Anxiety: the Long-Term Impact of Fathers and
MothersAbstractParental AnxietyPartner ConflictParent–child
AttachmentParental Control and Autonomy GrantingStudy
GoalsMethodParticipantsProcedureMeasuresResultsAnalysis
PlanPreliminary AnalysesCorrelations between the Main Study
VariablesTests of Model and Direct PathsMediated
PathwaysGender DifferencesDiscussionReferences
Research Evaluation Form
CCMH/525 Version 3
5
University of Phoenix Material
Research Evaluation Form
Use this form for both your individual and Learning Team
article reviews.
Name(s):
______________________________________________
Quantitative study: __________
Qualitative study: _____________
Location of Researcher’s Observation or Experiment
None _________ Home ________ Clinic _________ Lab
__________

Residential facility _________ School _________ Hospital
_________ Other __________
Were children involved? Yes _____ No ______ If your answer
is yes, how many? _________
Introduction
Research hypothesis or research questions/problem behaviors:
________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Operational definitions:
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________________________________
Consider the following questions:
Is the need for the study clearly stated in the introduction?
_____________________________________________________
________________________
Were the research questions and hypothesis clearly stated? Note
that research questions are often presented implicitly within a
description of the purpose of the study section.

Review of literature as relevant to the study:
_________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________
Method
Sample size (total): ________________
Size per group or cell: _______________
Consider the following questions:
_______ Were the methods described so that the study could be
replicated without further information?
Subjects
_______ Were subject recruitments and selection methods
described?
_______ Were subjects randomly selected? Were there any
biases in sampling?
_______ Were the samples appropriate for the population to
which the researcher wished to generalize?

_______ Were characteristics of the sample adequately
described?
_______ Are two or more groups being compared? Are they
shown to be comparable on potentially confounding variables?
If they are not comparable, is this incomparability handled
properly?
_______ Was informed consent obtained?
_______ Was the size of the sample large enough for the
number of measures and for the effect being sought?
Research Design
_______ Single group, time series study
_______ Multiple baseline (sequential) design:
______________
_______ Single group, no measurement
_______ Single group with measurement: Pre ______ During
_____ Post _____
_______ Two groups classic experimental versus control group,
randomly assigned
_______ (Quasi-experimental) two groups experimental versus
control group,
not randomly assigned
_______ Correlation research, not manipulated, degree of
relationship

_______ Descriptive research (qualitative study)
_______ Natural observation
_______ Analytical research
_______ Interview research
_______ Historical study
_______ Survey research
_______ Legal study
_______ Ethnography research
_______ Policy analysis
_______ Fieldwork research
_______ Evaluation study
_______ Phenomenology

_______ Grounded theory
_______ Protocol analysis (collection and analysis of verbatim
reports)
_______ Case study, no measurement
_______ Case study, with measurement: Pre _________ During
_______ Post _________
_______ Developmental research
_______ Longitudinal (same group of subjects over a period of
time)
_______ Cross-sectional (subjects from different age groups
compared)
_______ Cross-sequential (subjects from different age groups,
shorter period of time)
_______ Correlation, more than two groups: control, treatment,
and other treatment comparisons
_______ Factorial design, two or more groups: other treatment
differences, no untreated controls
_______ Two or more dependent variables (MANOVA)
_______ Other design:
_____________________________________________________
_____
Consider the following Yes/No questions:
_______ If appropriate, was a control group used?
_______ Was the control method for the study appropriate?

_______ For what variable was being controlled?
_______ In the case of an experimental study, were subjects
randomly assigned to groups?
Measures
Type of dependent measures or instruments used:
____________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________________________________
Measurement or instrument validity information:
_______________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Measurement or instrument reliability information:
_____________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
________________________________________________
_______ For all measures—measures to classify subjects,
dependent variables, and so forth—was evidence of reliability
and validity provided, either through summarizing the data or
by referring the reader to an available source for that
information?
_______ Do the reliability and validity data justify the use of
the measure? Specific evidence is particularly important if a

measure is created just for this particular study.
_______ Do the measures match the researchers questions and
hypothesis being addressed?
_______ In the case that different tasks or measures are used,
was their order counterbalanced? Do the researchers analyze for
potential order effects?
_______ Are multiple measures used, particularly those that
sample the same domains or constructs but with different
methods, such as self-report, rating scales, self-monitoring, or
direct observation?
_______ If human observers, judges, or raters were involved,
was inter-observer or inter-rater agreement (reliability)
assessed? Was it obtained for a representative sample of the
data? Did the two raters do their ratings independently? Was
their reliability satisfactory?
Independent and Dependent Variables
Independent variables:
_____________________________________________________
___
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________
Dependent variables:
_____________________________________________________
_____
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________
Data Analysis
Scales of Measurement:
Nominal _______ Ordinal _______ Interval _______ Ratio
_______
What type of statistical techniques are used?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________________________________
What type of tables and graphs are used?
_____________________________________________________
________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________________________________
_______ Do the data fulfill the assumptions and requirements of
the statistics?
_______ Were tests of significance used and reported
appropriately, such as with sufficient detail to understand what
analysis was being conducted?

_______ In correlation studies, did the researchers interpret low
but significant correlations as though they indicated a great deal
of shared variance between the measures? Are the correlations
limited by restricted ranges on one or more measures? Are
means and standard deviations provided so that you may
determine this?
_______ Do the researchers report means and standard
deviations, if relevant, so that the reader can examine whether
statistically significant differences are large enough to be
meaningful?
Limitations of the study:
_____________________________________________________
___
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________________________________
Discussion
Summary and conclusions (usefulness):
____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________________________________
_______
Do the researchers discuss marginally or insignificant results as

though they were significant?
_______Do the researchers over-interpret the data? For
example, do they use casual language to integrate correlation
findings or consider self-report of behavior to be equivalent to
direct observation?
_______Do the researchers consider alternative explanations for
the findings?
_______Do the researchers have a humility section that
describes the limitations of the research?
_______Do the researchers point out aspects of subject
selection, procedures, and dependent variables that limit
generalizability of the findings?
Rate the writing style on a scale of 1 to 10:
Overall clarity?
1-------------5-------------10
Easy to read?
1-------------5-------------10
Organized?
1-------------5-------------10
Describe what you learned from the study:
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________________________________
__________________________________
________________________________

Group member
Group member
___________________________________
________________________________
Group member
Group member
___________________________________
________________________________
Group member
Group member
*Adapted from form created by Dr. Randy Buckner, University
of Phoenix instructor
Copyright © 2017, 2015 by University of Phoenix. All rights
reserved.
Assignment Content

Select an article of interest to you.
Use the Research Evaluation Form to analyze the article. Type
your responses into the attached form.
Answer the following questions in 25 to 50 words each, using
your texts as references:
1. A researcher is interested in studying the effects of different
levels of distraction—none, low, and high—on scores on a test
of visual memory. Participants are randomly assigned to one of
three conditions: no distraction, low distraction, or high
distraction. All participants engage in a test of visual memory.
What is the independent variable? What is the dependent
variable?
2. Define hypothesis, and provide an example.
3. What is an operational definition of a variable? How might
the variable sense of humor be defined operationally?
4. What is the difference between correlational research and
experimental research? Why does correlational research not
imply causality between the variables?
5. What is validity in counseling research? What is reliability in
counseling research? Why are these concepts important?
6. What are the different scales of measurement? What is the
optimal use for each scale?
Answer the following questions in 175 words
7. What are the different relationships between variables—
positive, negative, curvilinear, and no relationship?

Family Processes in Child Anxiety the Long-Term Impactof Fa.docx

Family Processes in Child Anxiety the Long-Term Impactof Fa.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Family Processes in Child Anxiety the Long-Term Impactof Fa.docx

Similar to Family Processes in Child Anxiety the Long-Term Impactof Fa.docx (20)

More from lmelaine

More from lmelaine (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Family Processes in Child Anxiety the Long-Term Impactof Fa.docx