We examine the relationships among the division of housework and childcare labor, perceptions of its fairness for two types of family labor (housework and childcare), and parents’ relationship conflict across the transition to parenthood. Perceived fairness is examined as a mediator of the relationships between change in the division of housework and childcare and relationship conflict. Working-class, dual-earner couples (n = 108) in the U.S Northeast were interviewed at five time points from the third trimester of pregnancy and across the first year of parenthood. Research questions addressed whether change in the division of housework and childcare across the transition to parenthood predicted mothers’ and fathers’ relationship conflict, with attention to the mediating role of perceived fairness of these chores. Findings for housework indicated that perceived fairness was related to relationship conflict for mothers and fathers, such that when spouses perceived the change in the division of household tasks to be unfair to either partner, they reported more conflict, However, fairness did not significantly mediate relations between changes in division of household tasks and later relationship conflict. For childcare, fairness mediated relations between mothers’ violated expectations concerning the division of childcare and later conflict such that mothers reported less conflict when they perceived the division of childcare as less unfair to themselves; there was no relationship for fathers. Findings highlight the importance of considering both childcare and household tasks independently in our models and suggest that the division of housework and childcare holds different implications for mothers’ and fathers’ assessments of relationship conflict.

The goal of the current article is to describe how an ecological perspective could further our understanding of the division of labor in families. We consider how social contexts, or ''space,'' in conjunction with individual, family, social, and historical ''time''

Results suggest that bidirectional relations between outcome expectation and alliance, with both directions influencing outcome. Clinical and empirical implications are discussed.

Research indicates that patient outcome expectation (OE) correlates with improvement, and that this association may be mediated by better patient-therapist alliances. However, despite OE and alliance being dyadic and dynamic constructs, most research on these direct and indirect associations has assessed these variables from only one dyad member’s perspective and at single time points. Addressing these gaps, we used a longitudinal actor-partner interdependence model to first examine OE-alliance associations. Namely, we assessed “actor” effects (relation between each member’s OE at 1 session and his or her own next session alliance) and “partner” effects (relation between each member’s partner’s OE at 1 session and his or her own next session alliance). Second, we tested whether significant actor or partner effects of OE on alliance translated into better patient outcomes (indirect effects). Analyses were conducted at within- and between-dyad levels. Data derived from a generalized anxiety disorder trial in which 85 patients received 15 sessions of either cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) or CBT integrated with motivational interviewing. After every session, patients and therapists rated OE and alliance, and patients rated their worry. At the within-dyad level, there were OE-alliance actor effects for both patients and therapists. There was also a within-dyad partner effect; when patients had greater OE at one session their therapists reported better next-session alliances. Finally, all within-dyad effects in turn related to lower subsequent worry. Results reveal ways in which session-by-session fluctuations in both patient and therapist OE translate into better outcomes through their influence on alliance quality.

The therapeutic alliance has historically emerged as a pantheoretical correlate of favorable psychotherapy outcomes. However, uncertainty remains about the direction of the alliance-outcome link, and whether it is affected by other contextual variables. The present study explored (a) if early alliance quality predicted subsequent symptom change while controlling for the effect of prior symptom change in interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for depression, and (b) whether baseline patient characteristics moderated the alliance-outcome relation (to help specify conditions under which alliance predicts change). Data derived from an open trial of 16 sessions of individual IPT delivered naturalistically to adult outpatients (N = 119) meeting criteria for major depression. Patients rated their sociodemographic, clinical, and interpersonal characteristics at baseline, their alliance with their therapist at Session 3, and their depressive symptoms at baseline, after every session, and at posttreatment. Data were analyzed using hierarchical linear modeling. Results indicated that alliance quality did not predict subsequent depression change, controlling for prior depression change. However, a significant education by alliance interaction emerged in predicting quadratic depression change (γ = .0007, p = .03); patients with higher levels of education who reported good early alliances with their therapists had the most positively accelerated change trajectory (i.e., faster depression reduction), whereas patients with higher levels of education who reported poorer early alliances had the most negatively accelerated change trajectory (i.e., slower depression reduction). The findings may help clarify a specific condition under which alliance quality influences subsequent improvement in an evidence-based treatment for depression. (PsycINFO Database Record