The COVID-19 pandemic is placing demands on parents that may amplify the risk of parents' distress and poor parenting. Leveraging a prepandemic study in New Zealand, the current research tested whether parents' psychological distress during a mandated lockdown predicts relative residual changes in poorer parenting and whether partner support and cooperative coparenting buffer this potentially detrimental effect. Participants included 362 parents; 310 were from the same family (155 dyads). Parents had completed assessments of psychological distress and parenting prior to the pandemic and then reported on their distress, parenting, partner support, and cooperative coparenting during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. Parents' distress during the lockdown predicted relative residual increases in harsh parenting, but this effect was buffered by partner support. Parents' distress also predicted residual decreases in warm/responsive parenting and parent-child relationship quality, but these effects were buffered by cooperative coparenting. Partner support and cooperative coparenting are important targets for future research and interventions to help parents navigate challenging family contexts, including COVID-19 lockdowns.

Have the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic risked declines in parents’ health and family functioning, or have most parents been resilient and shown no changes in health and family functioning? Assessing average risk versus resilience requires examining how families have fared across the pandemic, beyond the initial months examined in prior investigations. The current research examines changes in parents’ health and functioning over the first 1.5 years of the pandemic. Parents ( N = 272) who had completed general pre-pandemic assessments completed reassessments of psychological/physical health, couple/family functioning, and parenting within two mandatory lockdowns in New Zealand: at the beginning of the pandemic (26 March–28 April 2020) and 17 months later (18 August–21 September 2021). Parents exhibited average declines in psychological/physical health (greater depressive symptoms; reduced well-being, energy and physical health) and in couple/family functioning (reduced commitment and family cohesion; greater problem severity and family chaos). By contrast, there were no average differences in parent-child relationship quality and parenting practices across lockdowns. Declines in health and couple/family functioning occurred irrespective of pre-pandemic health and functioning, but partner support buffered declines in couple/family functioning. The results emphasize that attending to the challenges parents and couples face in the home will be important to mitigate and recover from the impact of the pandemic on parents’ and children’s well-being.

The COVID-19 pandemic is placing considerable demands on parents that amplify the risk of poor parenting. Leveraging an ongoing longitudinal study, the current study tests whether parents’ distress during a mandated lockdown predicts residual changes in poorer parenting and identifies within-family support processes that buffer these harmful effects. Parents (N = 362) who had completed assessments of parenting prior to the pandemic reported on their distress, parenting, partner support and cooperative coparenting during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. Parents’ distress predicted residual increases in harsh parenting, but this detrimental effect was buffered by high levels of partner support. Parents’ distress also predicted residual decreases in warm/responsive parenting and parent-child relationship quality, but these detrimental effects were buffered by cooperative coparenting. Partner support and cooperative coparenting are thus important family-based targets to help protect child well-being and development during the COVID-19 pandemic.

No abstract

The current research applied a dyadic perspective to examine conflict-coparenting spillover by examining (a) whether actors' or partners' hostility during couples' conflict discussions predicted greater hostility in a subsequent play activity with their child and (b) whether these actor and partner effects were moderated by two factors that prior theory and research suggest may shape conflict-coparenting spillover: attachment insecurity and parent gender. Cohabiting or married couples were video recorded discussing their most serious conflict while their 4-5-year-old child was in a separate room (N = 94 families). Immediately following their conflict discussions, couples were reunited with their child to participate in a semistructured family activity. Independent teams of observational coders rated how much each partner displayed (a) hostility during the conflict discussion (conflict hostility) and (b) hostility during the family activity (coparenting hostility). The results provide novel evidence that conflict-coparenting spillover is a dyadic process shaped by actors' and partners' attachment insecurity and gender. Men exhibited greater conflictcoparenting spillover even if they were low in attachment anxiety, but men's conflict-coparenting spillover was lower when their partners were lower in attachment anxiety and avoidance. Women's lower attachment anxiety also was associated with women's own lower conflict-coparenting spillover. This pattern suggests that men are more vulnerable to conflict-coparenting spillover, whereas women lower in attachment anxiety and avoidance appear able to contain both their own and their partners' conflict hostility from spilling over to family interactions.

Are parents and families struggling with the ongoing demands of the pandemic, or are parents resilient and adjusted to the ‘new normal’? Assessing average risk versus resilience requires examining how parents and families have fared across the pandemic, beyond the initial months examined in prior investigations. The current research examines average levels of risk versus resilience in parents’ health and functioning over the first 1.5 years of the pandemic. Parents (N = 272) who had completed general assessments prior to the pandemic completed reassessments of psychological and physical health, couple and family functioning, and parenting within two lockdowns involving mandatory home confinement: at the beginning of the pandemic (26 March–28 April 2020) and 17 months later (18 August–21 September 2021). On average, parents exhibited declines in psychological and physical health (greater depressive symptoms; reduced well-being, energy and physical health) and in couple and family functioning (reduced commitment and family cohesion; greater problem severity and family chaos). By contrast, parent-child relationship quality and parenting practices were resilient with no average differences across the lockdowns. Declines in health and couple/family functioning generally occurred irrespective of pre-existing vulnerabilities (poor health and functioning prior to the pandemic) and external stress (reported impact of the pandemic). Partner support, however, tended to buffer declines in couple/family functioning. The results emphasize that attending to the challenges parents and couples face in the home will be important targets to mitigate the ongoing risks of the pandemic to parents’ and children’s well-being.

Feeling loved (loved, cared for, accepted, valued, understood) is inherently dyadic, yet most prior theoretical perspectives and investigations have focused on how actors feeling (un)loved shapes actors’ outcomes. Adopting a dyadic perspective, the present research tested whether the established links between actors feeling unloved and destructive (critical, hostile) behavior depended on partners’ feelings of being loved. Does feeling loved need to be mutual to reduce destructive behavior, or can partners feeling loved compensate for actors feeling unloved? In five dyadic observational studies, couples were recorded discussing conflicts, diverging preferences or relationship strengths, or interacting with their child (total N = 842 couples; 1,965 interactions). Participants reported how much they felt loved during each interaction and independent coders rated how much each person exhibited destructive behavior. Significant Actors’ × Partners’ Felt-Loved interactions revealed a strong-link/mutual felt-unloved pattern: partners’ high felt-loved buffered the damaging effect of actors’ low felt-loved on destructive behavior, resulting in actors’ destructive behavior mostly occurring when both actors’ and partners’ felt-loved was low. This dyadic pattern also emerged in three supplemental daily sampling studies. Providing directional support for the strong-link/mutual felt-unloved pattern, in Studies 4 and 5 involving two or more sequential interactions, Actors’ × Partners’ Felt-Loved in one interaction predicted actors’ destructive behavior within couples’ subsequent conflict interactions. The results illustrate the dyadic nature of feeling loved: Partners feeling loved can protect against actors feeling unloved in challenging interactions. Assessing Actor × Partner effects should be equally valuable for advancing understanding of other fundamentally dyadic relationship processes.