3. Relationship functioning
- 3.1 Introduction
- 3.2 Section summary
- 3.3 Overview of analytical approach
- 3.4 Measures
- 3.5 Descriptive statistics
- 3.6 Results
- 3.7 Discsussion
3.1 Introduction
This section is about couple families and the nature of their relationship functioning with respect to three characteristics: arguments, reciprocal support for parenting, and the level of overall relationship satisfaction that each partner reports. Important questions are addressed, including questions for which information is rarely gathered:
- What is the general level of relationship satisfaction that couples report?
- How does this differ for families of infants and for families with young children?
- What level of support is there within the partnership for reciprocal support in raising children?
- What are the associations between parental levels of disagreements about basic child-rearing issues, arguments generally, and factors such as the age of the parent, family income, work arrangements, and levels of coping, external support from family and friends, life difficulties and psychological wellbeing?
3.2 Section summary
Parental reports of their relationship functioning revealed several broad findings. These include patterns of association of relationship functioning with work arrangements, socioeconomic and family characteristics, and levels of coping, wellbeing and life difficulties.
The association of work arrangements and relationship functioning varies according to the age of the child, work arrangement within the family, and who is asked (that is, mother or father) about the nature of the relationship. There are clear trade-offs between parental abilities to provide levels of reciprocal support for each other in parenting children and to achieve a good level of relationship satisfaction. These are juggled differently for primary carers (that is, mostly mothers) and secondary carers (mostly fathers) of infants and children:
- Primary carers (mostly mothers) of infants reported higher levels of reciprocal support for parenting in the relationship when their partner worked part time. However, mothers in families with infants also reported higher relationship satisfaction where both partners were working.
- For secondary carers (mostly fathers) of infants, part-time work of both parents was associated with their reports of significantly lower relationship satisfaction.
- For primary carers (mostly mothers) of children 4 to 5 years of age, employment of both partners (either part-time or full-time) was associated with higher levels of reciprocal support for parenting; however, this was at the expense of their relationship satisfaction.
- For secondary carers (mostly fathers) of children 4 to 5 years of age, joint part-time work of each partner was associated with their reports of a higher likelihood of arguments in the relationship.
In terms of socioeconomic and family characteristics:
- Across both infant and child cohorts, de facto family status was independently associated with larger
proportions of both carers reporting lower relationship satisfaction, lower levels of reciprocal support for parenting, and higher levels of arguments.
- In the infant sample, lower parental educational level was associated with higher proportions of both carers reporting low reciprocal support for parenting.
- Older parental age at the time of the birth of the study infant was associated with a larger proportion of primary and secondary carers reporting higher levels of arguments in their relationship. Larger proportions of older parents of children aged 4 to 5 reported having lower relationship satisfaction than younger parents with 4 to 5 year-old children.
With respect to parental wellbeing:
- Across both infant and child cohorts, higher levels of psychological distress, lower levels of coping, and life difficulties were consistently associated with reports from both carers of lower relationship satisfaction, lower reciprocal support for parenting, lower levels of coping and higher levels of arguments.
The measure of relationship satisfaction was strongly associated with measures of reciprocal support for parenting and levels of arguments within the relationship.
3.3 Overview of analytical approach
The samples for these analyses were the infants and children who at the time of interview were living in couple families. Analyses were conducted on the couple samples for which the relevant primary carer or secondary carer self-complete data were available.
The extent to which factors including child gender, individual parent characteristics (parent age, country of birth), socioeconomic status (parent education, employment status, family weekly income), family characteristics (family structure, number of children), and parent wellbeing (psychological distress, life difficulties, coping and external supports) were independently related to levels of arguments, reciprocal support for parenting and relationship satisfaction, was examined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. The same procedure was carried out with relationship satisfaction. However, in addition to the variables mentioned above, argumentative relationship and partner support were included as predictors into the analysis. (Refer to Appendix A for more information on the analytical approach used in this section.)
In the first instance, the relationship of each of these groups of factors to the three relationship measures was assessed in individual bivariate tables prior to their entry into multivariate models. The major focus here is on the multivariable findings.
Because both primary and secondary carers were asked the same sets of questions, results for each cohort are presented separately and, within each cohort, findings for primary carers and secondary carers are presented.
3.4 Measures
The self-completion questionnaires left for both the primary carer (P1) and secondary carer (P2) in each of the infant and child cohort samples contained identical items assessing three aspects of relationship functioning:
- argumentative relationship, that is, the frequency of arguments in the relationship
- reciprocal support for parenting, that is, the perception of each parent of the degree of shared support
between parents in caring for their infant or child - relationship satisfaction, that is, how satisfied each parent is in their current relationship.
Argumentative relationship
The primary carer and secondary carer were each asked:
- How often do you and your partner disagree about basic child-rearing issues?
- How often is your conversation awkward or stressful?
- How often do you argue?
- How often is there anger or hostility between you?
Responses were on a 5-point Likert scale, and ranged from 1=‘never’ to 5=‘always’. Items were summed to form a total argumentative relationship score ranging from 4 (low) to 20 (high). If one item was missing it was given the mean of the other responses. If two or more items were missing, respondents were coded as missing for the argumentative relationship variable (‹0.2 per cent in both cohorts for both primary and secondary carers).
Reciprocal support for parenting
The primary carer and secondary carer were each asked:
- How often is your partner a resource or support to you in raising your child(ren)?
- How often are you a resource or support to your partner in raising your child(ren)?
- How often do you feel your partner understands and is supportive of your needs as a parent?
Responses were on a 5-point Likert scale, and ranged from 1=‘never’ to 5=‘always’. Items were summed to form a total ‘reciprocal support’ score ranging from 3 (lower reciprocal support) to 15 (higher reciprocal support). If any items were missing, respondents were coded as missing for this variable (‹1 per cent in both cohorts for both primary and secondary carers).
Relationship satisfaction
The primary and secondary carers were each asked:
- How well does your partner meet your needs?
- How good is your relationship compared to most?
- How often do you wish you hadn’t married or lived together?
- To what extent has your marriage or relationship met your original expectations?
- How much do you love your partner?
- How many problems are there in your relationship?
Responses were on a 5-point Likert scale, with slightly different response categories depending on the wording of the item. Following reverse coding where required, items were summed to form a total relationship satisfaction score ranging from 6 (lower relationship satisfaction) to 30 (higher relationship satisfaction). If one or two items were missing they were given the mean of the other responses. If three or more items were missing, respondents were coded as missing for the relationship satisfaction variable (‹0.1 per cent in both cohorts for both primary and secondary carers).
3.5 Descriptive statistics
Argumentative relationship
The distribution of scores for primary and secondary parental argumentative relationship for both infant and child cohorts was positively skewed indicating that parents on average reported that they ‘rarely’ had arguments. Primary and secondary carers reported similar mean levels of argumentative relationship within cohort; however, both parents reported higher mean levels of argumentative relationship in the cohort (meanp1=8.97, SEp1=0.044; meanp2=8.89, SEp2=0.044) when compared with the infant cohort (meanp1=8.65, SEp1=0.034; meanp2=8.52, SEp2=0.043).
Reciprocal support for parenting
The scores for primary and secondary carer reports of partner support for both infant and child cohorts all had a strong negative skew indicating that parents on average reported that they ‘often’ or ‘always’ felt reciprocal support from their partner.
Primary carers in the infant sample had a higher mean score (mean=13.26, SE=0.031) than secondary carers (mean=13.14, SE=0.027), a pattern that was also seen in the child cohort (meanP1=13.28, SEP1=0.034; meanP2=13.10, SEP2=0.033). There was no difference in the mean level of this measure across cohorts.
Relationship satisfaction
The relationship satisfaction scores all had a strong negative skew indicating that parents on average reported they were in a satisfying relationship. Primary carers in the infant sample had a slightly higher mean score (meanP1=26.17, SEP1=0.071) than secondary carers (meanP2=26.64, SEP2=0.057). The same pattern was also seen in the child cohort (meanP1=25.72, SEP1=0.081; meanP2=26.27, SEP2=0.067). Primary carer reports differed slightly across cohorts, indicating slightly lower levels of relationship satisfaction for the child cohort. This difference was not found for secondary carers.
3.6 Results
The results section reports results separately for primary carer and secondary carer for both the infant and child cohorts for each of the three relationship functioning measures:
- argumentative relationship
- support from partner in parenting
- relationship satisfaction.
Argumentative relationship
Primary carer reports of argumentative relationship
Refer to Table 13 for information in relation to the following section.
Infant
After all variables were entered into the multivariable model, primary carer age at the birth of the infant, marital status and family size were significantly associated with the likelihood of an argumentative relationship. Relative to primary carers aged 25 to 34, primary carers aged 35 and above were more likely to report being in a relationship characterised by high levels of arguments (20.0 per cent compared to 27.2 per cent, ORadj=1.34). reporting high argumentative relationships was significantly greater (20.1 per cent compared to 27.4 per cent; ORadj=1.59). Relative to families with one child, primary carers in families with two, three or four or more children were significantly more likely to report high argumentative relationship status with odds ratios in the range 1.7 to 1.9.
The presence of life difficulties and clinical levels of psychological distress were significantly associated with the likelihood of reporting argumentative relationships. Relative to primary carers with fewer life difficulties, those reporting many life difficulties were more than four times more likely to report argumentative relationships (20.0 per cent compared to 58.2 per cent, ORadj=4.15). Similarly, relative to primary carers with lower levels of psychological distress, those reporting clinical levels of psychological distress were more than three times more likely to report argumentative relationships (21.2 per cent compared to 59.8 per cent, ORadj=3.05).
In families with infants, factors that were not associated with the likelihood of the primary carer reporting high argumentative relationship status included primary carer country of birth, primary carer level of education, employment arrangements, household income and levels of coping.
Child
The age of the primary carer at birth of child, marital status and income were significantly related to the likelihood of a relationship with high levels of arguments. Primary carers who were younger, that is, under the age of 25 years at the time of the birth of the child, were less likely to report high argumentative relationship status relative to primary carers who were aged 25 to 34 years (10.9 per cent compared to 16.2 per cent; ORadj=0.46). Significantly higher levels of argumentative relationships were reported by primary carers in intact de facto families relative to married intact families (23.9 per cent compared to 15.0 per cent; ORadj=1.83).
There was a clear linear relationship between income and the likelihood of the primary carer reporting high argumentative relationship status. As income declined the likelihood of primary carer reported high levels of arguments increased. Those families where the primary carer reported income less than $600 per week were almost twice as likely to report high argumentative relationships as those families earning $2,000 per week (19.0 per cent compared to 11.7 per cent; ORadj=0.52).
Life difficulties, clinical levels of psychological distress, and poorer coping were all independently associated with a greater likelihood of the primary carer reporting a high level of argumentative relationship. The variable most strongly related to argumentative relationship status was the report of many life difficulties. Primary carers experiencing many life difficulties were more than three times more likely to report high argumentative relationship status relative to those reporting fewer life difficulties (41.1 per cent compared to 13.7 per cent; ORadj=3.32). Those reporting psychological distress in the clinical range were more than twice as likely to report high argumentative relationship status relative to those not in the clinical range (46.0 per cent compared to 15.0 per cent; ORadj=2.35). As well, those reporting poor coping were almost twice as likely to report high argumentative relationship status as those reporting that they coped well or extremely well (37.9 per cent compared to 14.9 per cent; ORadj=1.70).
Primary carer country of birth and education were not related to the likelihood of high argumentative relationship status; nor were combined employment status or number of children in the family.
| Infant cohort n=3,437 | Child cohort n=3,144 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds of argumentative relationship | 95% confidence interval | Odds of argumentative relationship | 95% confidence interval | |
| ORadj | (low–high) | ORadj | (low–high) | |
| P1 Age at child’s birth (years) | ||||
| Under 25 | 1.216 | (0.913–1.621) | 0.457 | (0.309–0.674) |
| 25–34 | Ref | Ref | ||
| 35 and above | 1.349 | (1.079–1.686) | 1.175 | (0.926–1.491) |
| P1 Country of birth | ||||
| Australia | Ref | Ref | ||
| Outside Australia | 0.916 | (0.729–1.150) | 1.271 | (0.975–1.656) |
| P1 Education | ||||
| Year 9 or less | 1.043 | (0.590–1.843) | 0.753 | (0.379–1.497) |
| Year 10 | 1.102 | (0.784–1.549) | 0.903 | (0.589–1.383) |
| Year 11 or 12 | 0.924 | (0.714–1.195) | 0.954 | (0.683–1.332) |
| Trade certificate or diploma | 0.934 | (0.742–1.176) | 0.986 | (0.755–1.289) |
| University | Ref | Ref | ||
| Family structure | ||||
| Married, intact | Ref | Ref | ||
| De facto, intact | 1.590 | (1.243–2.034) | 1.831 | (1.293–2.593) |
| Married, step | 1.177 | (0.810–1.711) | 1.008 | (0.632–1.605) |
| De facto, step | 1.473 | (0.827–2.623) | 1.367 | (0.704–2.653) |
| Combined employment status | ||||
| 2 full time | 1.130 | (0.823–1.552) | 1.158 | (0.794–1.690) |
| 1 full time, 1 part time | 1.053 | (0.843–1.315) | 1.139 | (0.889–1.458) |
| 2 part time | 0.835 | (0.440–1.582) | 0.821 | (0.409–1.648) |
| 1 full time, 1 not working | Ref | Ref | ||
| 1 part time, 1 not working | 0.940 | (0.605–1.459) | 0.911 | (0.486–1.705) |
| 2 not working | 1.149 | (0.699–1.887) | 0.819 | (0.455–1.474) |
| Number of children in household | ||||
| 1 | Ref | Ref | ||
| 2 | 1.734 | (1.405–2.141) | 0.872 | (0.587–1.297) |
| 3 | 1.753 | (1.329–2.312) | 0.814 | (0.525–1.261) |
| 4 or more | 1.999 | (1.392–2.871) | 0.960 | (0.588–1.569) |
| Income categories | ||||
| Less than $600 | Ref | Ref | ||
| $600–$999 | 0.993 | (0.711–1.387) | 0.868 | (0.578–1.304) |
| $1,000–$1,499 | 0.922 | (0.653–1.303) | 0.752 | (0.503–1.125) |
| $1,500–$1,999 | 1.138 | (0.775–1.671) | 0.719 | (0.462–1.117) |
| More than $2,000 | 0.791 | (0.526–1.188) | 0.516 | (0.328–0.813) |
| P1 Life difficulties | ||||
| Fewer | Ref | Ref | ||
| Many | 4.154 | (3.003–5.748) | 3.318 | (2.360–4.664) |
| P1 Coping | ||||
| Well to extremely well | Ref | Ref | ||
| Poor | 1.485 | (0.913–2.417) | 1.702 | (1.018–2.845) |
| P1 Psychological distress | ||||
| Non-clinical range | Ref | Ref | ||
| Clinical range | 3.054 | (1.819–5.126) | 2.347 | |
Secondary carer reports of argumentative relationship
Refer to Table 14 for information in relation to the following section.
Infant
The variables assessed for the primary carer were also assessed for the secondary carer.
Findings on secondary carer reports of high argumentative relationships mostly paralleled those of the primary carer.
High argumentative relationships were reported by secondary carers where they were older at the birth of the child, in de facto intact relationships, had lower incomes, had more than one child, and reported many life difficulties, poorer coping and clinical levels of psychological distress.
Secondary carer country of birth, level of education and employment arrangements were not associated with secondary carer reports of argumentative relationships.
Child
The same variables were also assessed as reported by the secondary carer.
Relative to secondary carers with university education, those secondary carers who studied to Year 11 or 12 were more likely to report higher levels of arguments (21.0 per cent compared to 27.6 per cent; ORadj=1.77). Joint part-time employment status of primary carer and secondary carer was associated with a two-fold increase in the likelihood of the secondary carer reporting high argumentative relationship status (36.8 per cent compared to 23.3 per cent; ORadj=2.01).
Similar to the primary carer, the likelihood of secondary carer-reported argumentative relationship status increased two-fold when the secondary carer reported many life difficulties, poorer perceived coping or clinical levels of psychological distress.
Secondary carer age at the birth of the child, income, country of birth, and number of children in the household were not related to the likelihood of secondary carer reporting high argumentative relationship status.
| Infant cohort n=3,011 | Child cohort n=2,811 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds of argumentative relationship | 95% confidence interval | Odds of argumentative relationship | 95% confidence interval | |
| ORadj | (low–high) | ORadj | (low–high) | |
| P1 Age at child’s birth (years) | ||||
| Under 25 | 1.154 | (0.760–1.753) | 0.828 | (0.532–1.289) |
| 25–34 | Ref | Ref | ||
| 35 and above | 1.387 | (1.102–1.747) | 1.121 | (0.915–1.374) |
| P2 Country of birth | ||||
| Australia | Ref | Ref | ||
| Outside Australia | 1.271 | (0.988–1.634) | 1.090 | (0.884–1.344) |
| P2 Education | ||||
| Year 9 or less | 0.935 | (0.421–2.077) | 1.145 | (0.568–2.307) |
| Year 10 | 0.830 | (0.501–1.373) | 1.403 | (0.952–2.067) |
| Year 11 or 12 | 1.124 | (0.814–1.551) | 1.582 | (1.179–2.123) |
| Trade certificate or diploma | 1.200 | (0.911–1.581) | 1.217 | (0.971–1.524) |
| University | Ref | Ref | ||
| Family structure | ||||
| Married, intact | Ref | Ref | ||
| De facto, intact | 1.904 | (1.452–2.497) | 1.772 | (1.247–2.520) |
| Married, step | 0.969 | (0.580–1.620) | 1.072 | (0.720–1.597) |
| De facto, step | 1.408 | (0.752–2.636) | 1.451 | (0.799–2.634) |
Combined employment status |
||||
| 2 full time | 0.957 | (0.685–1.337) | 1.095 | (0.776–1.544) |
| 1 full time, 1 part time | 1.080 | (0.868–1.343) | 1.003 | (0.803–3.408) |
| 2 part time | 0.910 | (0.457–1.811) | 2.014 | (1.190–3.408) |
| 1 full time, 1 not working | Ref | Ref | ||
| 1 part time, 1 not working | 1.301 | (0.825–2.051) | 1.137 | (0.662–1.952) |
| 2 not working | 1.254 | (0.702–2.238) | 0.600 | (0.277–1.299) |
Number of children in household |
||||
| 1 | Ref | Ref | ||
| 2 | 1.601 | (1.249–2.052) | 0.746 | (0.532–1.048) |
| 3 | 1.722 | (1.252–2.368) | 0.717 | (0.492–1.044) |
| 4 or more | 1.790 | (1.170–2.740) | 0.818 | (0.548–1.220) |
| Income categories | ||||
| Less than $600 | Ref | Ref | ||
| $600–$999 | 1.546 | (1.046–2.285) | 0.902 | (0.595–1.368) |
| $1,000–$1,499 | 1.596 | (1.050–2.427) | 1.148 | (0.772–1.707) |
| $1,500–$1,999 | 2.030 | (1.297–3.178) | 1.093 | (0.717–1.669) |
| More than $2,000 | 1.528 | (0.957–2.441) | 1.161 | (0.763–1.767) |
| P2 Life difficulties | ||||
| Fewer | Ref | Ref | ||
| Many | 2.815 | (2.102–3.768) | 2.216 | (1.667–2.944) |
| P2 Coping | ||||
| Well to extremely well | Ref | Ref | ||
| Poor | 2.464 | (1.599–3.797) | 2.280 | (1.465–3.550) |
| P2 Psychological distress | ||||
| Non-clinical range | Ref | Ref | ||
| Clinical range | 2.173 | (1.115–4.236) | 1.931 | (1.046–3.566) |
Reciprocal support for parenting
Primary carer reports of reciprocal support for parenting
Refer to Table 15 for information in relation to the following section.
Infant
In the multivariable model, primary carers’ level of education, marital status, combined employment arrangements, family size and income were significantly associated with reported reciprocal support for parenting.
Relative to those primary carers who had achieved a university qualification, a higher proportion of primary carers with a Year 10 certificate reported lower levels of partner support (13.0 per cent compared to 21.9 per cent; ORadj=1.68). Primary carers in de facto intact families were more likely than primary carers in married intact families to report being in a relationship characterised by lower levels of support (19.9 per cent compared to 14.2 per cent; ORadj=1.51). Where the primary carer’s partner worked part time, this was associated with a significant reduction in the likelihood of the primary carer reporting low levels of partner support relative to households where one partner worked full time and the other did not work (10.7 per cent compared to 16.7 per cent; ORadj=0.395).
Relative to having just one child, having another child in addition to the study infant was associated with a greater likelihood of the primary carer reporting low support from a partner (ORadj=1.42). Finally, the primary carer was more likely to report lower support from a partner if weekly income was low (less than $600) relative to weekly incomes of $1,000 to $1,499 and of more than $2,000 (21.0 per cent compared to 13.2 and 13.3 per cent; ORadj=0.68 and 0.62).
As with previous findings, higher levels of life difficulties and poorer coping were significantly associated with the likelihood of the primary carer reporting lower support from a partner (ORadj=2.98 and 2.05 respectively).
Lower perceived reciprocal support was not significantly associated with primary carer age at the birth of the study infant, country of birth, or their level of psychological distress.
Child
Primary carers’ marital status and combined employment arrangements were significantly associated with reported reciprocal support for parenting. Relative to married intact families, low partner support was significantly more likely to be reported by primary carers in both de facto intact (14.8 per cent compared to 21.9 per cent; ORadj=1.47) and de facto step-families (14.8 per cent compared to 24.6 per cent; ORadj=1.84).
Where both primary carers and secondary carers were working, primary carers were more likely to report higher perceived support from their partner relative to working arrangements where one partner worked full time and one stayed at home. Generally speaking, when both primary carers and secondary carers were working part time, primary carers were significantly less likely to report low levels of perceived support from their partner relative to work arrangements where one partner worked full time and the other did not work at all (7.2 per cent compared to 18.4 per cent; ORadj=0.355). A similar pattern was observed where both primary carers and secondary carers were employed full time. This reduced the proportion of primary carers reporting low relationship support by 41 per cent (11.6 per cent compared to 18.4 per cent; ORadj=0.588).
Primary carers experiencing many life difficulties were more than twice as likely to report low support from their partner relative to those reporting fewer life difficulties (33.2 per cent compared to 14.3 per cent; ORadj=2.43). Those reporting psychological distress in the clinical range were almost twice as likely to report low support from their partner relative to those not in the clinical range (37.4 per cent compared to 15.2 per cent; ORadj=1.94).
Factors not related to primary carer-perceived support from partner included primary carer age at birth of study child, country of birth of primary carer, education, number of children in the family, income and level of coping.
| Infant cohort n=3,434 | Child cohort n=3,146 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds of low partner support | 95% confidence interval | Odds of low partner support | 95% confidence interval | |
| ORadj | (low–high) | ORadj | (low–high) | |
| P1 Age at child’s birth (years) | ||||
| Under 25 | 0.905 | (0.633–1.295) | 0.936 | (0.673–1.301) |
| 25–34 | Ref | Ref | ||
| 35 and above | 1.078 | (0.839–1.385) | 1.059 | (0.815–1.375) |
| P1 Country of birth | ||||
| Australia | Ref | Ref | ||
| Outside Australia | 0.861 | (0.649–1.143) | 1.034 | (0.798–1.340) |
| P1 Education | ||||
| Year 9 or less | 1.042 | (0.495–2.190) | 1.168 | (0.627–2.175) |
| Year 10 | 1.686 | (1.129–2.518) | 1.015 | (0.657–1.569) |
| Year 11 or 12 | 1.205 | (0.906–1.602) | 1.238 | (0.915–1.674) |
| Trade certificate or diploma | 1.167 | (0.912–1.491) | 1.134 | (0.856–1.502) |
| University | Ref | Ref | ||
| Family structure | ||||
| Married, intact | Ref | Ref | ||
| De facto, intact | 1.506 | (1.136–1.997) | 1.474 | (1.012–2.146) |
| Married, step | 0.868 | (0.549–1.374) | 1.191 | (0.780–1.818) |
| De facto, step | 1.567 | (0.876–2.805) | 1.836 | (1.033–3.260) |
| Combined employment status | ||||
| 2 full time | 0.857 | (0.616–1.193) | 0.588 | (0.387–0.893) |
| 1 full time, 1 part time | 0.921 | (0.717–1.183) | 0.890 | (0.696–1.137) |
| 2 part time | 1.686 | (0.951–2.988) | 0.355 | (0.149–0.846) |
| 1 full time, 1 not working | Ref | Ref | ||
| 1 part time, 1 not working | 0.395 | (0.213–0.736) | 0.812 | (0.435–1.517) |
| Number of children in household | ||||
| 1 | Ref | Ref | ||
| 2 | 1.422 | (1.129–1.790) | 0.799 | (0.548–1.166) |
| 3 | 1.230 | (0.897–1.688) | 0.808 | (0.539–1.212) |
| 4 or more | 1.452 | (0.950–2.218) | 0.627 | (0.383–1.028) |
| Income categories | ||||
| Less than $600 | Ref | Ref | ||
| $600–$999 | 0.697 | (0.467–1.040) | 1.118 | (0.674–1.857) |
| $1,000–$1,499 | 0.547 | (0.361–0.828) | 1.048 | (0.639–1.718) |
| $1,500–$1,999 | 0.751 | (0.487–1.158) | 1.149 | (0.669–1.974) |
| More than $2,000 | 0.618 | (0.397–0.963) | 0.849 | (0.486–1.485) |
| P1 Life difficulties | ||||
| Fewer | Ref | Ref | ||
| Many | 2.980 | (2.115–4.199) | 2.427 | (1.720–3.425) |
| P1 Coping | ||||
| Well to extremely well | Ref | Ref | ||
| Poor | 2.058 | (1.272–3.331) | 1.105 | (0.654–1.869) |
| P1 Psychological distress | ||||
| Non-clinical range | Ref | Ref | ||
| Clinical range | 1.569 | (0.938–2.626) | 1.943 | (1.151–3.278) |
Secondary carer reports for reciprocal support for parenting
Refer to Table 16 for information in relation to the following section.
Infant
The variables assessed for the primary carer-perceived support from partner were also assessed for secondary carer support.
Secondary carer reports of low support from a partner showed mostly non‑significant associations with predictor variables. There were no significant associations of secondary carer-perceived low support from a partner and secondary carer age at the birth of the study infant, their country of birth, family structure, combined employment status, number of children, income and coping.
Secondary carers with nine years or less of education were more likely to report low support from a partner than secondary carers with university education (21.6 per cent compared to 11.1 per cent; ORadj=2.20). Secondary carers were also more likely to report low support from a partner if they had many rather than fewer life difficulties (28.9 per cent compared to 11.8 per cent; ORadj=2.51) and clinical levels of psychological distress rather than lower levels of distress (36.1 per cent compared to 12.9 per cent; ORadj=2.32).
Child
The variables assessed for the primary carer-perceived support from partner were also assessed for the secondary carer.
Education, family structure, life difficulties and poor coping were significantly associated with the increased likelihood of the secondary carer reporting low support from their partner.
Broadly speaking, an inverse linear trend was observed, with lower levels of secondary carer education being associated with higher levels of secondary carer-reported low support from their partner. However, this reached significance for only one group: relative to secondary carers with university education, secondary carers with a trade certificate or diploma level education were more likely to report low support from their partner (11.9 per cent compared to 15.2 per cent; ORadj=1.344).
Secondary carers in de facto families were between two and three times more likely to report low support from their partner relative to married intact families—this was true for de facto intact families (12.6 per cent compared to 26.6 per cent; ORadj=2.34) and de facto step-families (12.6 per cent compared to 34.5 per cent; ORadj=3.21).
Secondary carer age at the birth of the study child, country of birth, their education, combined employment status, income, number of children in the household and secondary carers’ psychological distress were not significantly related to the secondary carers’ perceptions of low support from their partner.
| Infant cohort n=3,011 | Child cohort n=2,807 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds of low partner support | 95% confidence interval | Odds of low partner support | 95% confidence interval | |
| ORadj | (low–high) | ORadj | (low–high) | |
| P1 Age at child’s birth (years) | ||||
| Under 25 | 1.301 | (0.768–2.205) | 1.138 | (0.714–1.815) |
| 25–34 | Ref | Ref | ||
| 35 and above | 1.142 | (0.883–1.477) | 0.905 | (0.711–1.153) |
| P2 Country of birth | ||||
| Australia | Ref | Ref | ||
| Outside Australia | 0.893 | (0.674–1.184) | 1.109 | (0.851–1.446) |
| P2 Education | ||||
| Year 9 or less | 2.206 | (1.141–4.266) | 1.647 | (0.773–3.511) |
| Year 10 | 1.466 | (0.871–2.469) | 1.405 | (0.898–2.201) |
| Year 11 or 12 | 1.208 | (0.828–1.763) | 1.269 | (0.885–1.821) |
| Trade certificate or diploma | 1.337 | (0.983–1.817) | 1.399 | (1.064–1.841) |
| University | Ref | Ref | ||
| Family structure | ||||
| Married, intact | Ref | Ref | ||
| De facto, intact | 1.282 | (0.932–1.763) | 2.340 | (1.560–3.510) |
| Married, step | 0.789 | (0.424–1.466) | 1.279 | (0.760–2.153) |
| De facto, step | 1.176 | (0.583–2.371) | 3.211 | (1.860–5.541) |
| Combined employment status | ||||
| 2 full time | 0.886 | (0.600–1.310) | 0.969 | (0.681–1.378) |
| 1 full time, 1 part time | 1.025 | (0.799–1.314) | 1.034 | (0.789–1.355) |
| 2 part time | 1.091 | (0.515–2.310) | 0.754 | (0.337–1.689) |
| 1 full time, 1 not working | Ref | Ref | ||
| 1 part time, 1 not working | 0.624 | (0.344–1.133) | 0.811 | (0.425–1.546) |
| 2 not working | 0.655 | (0.293–1.465) | 0.795 | (0.376–1.683) |
| Number of children in household | ||||
| 1 | Ref | Ref | ||
| 2 | 1.272 | (0.985–1.643) | 0.929 | (0.602–1.434) |
| 3 | 1.369 | (0.982–1.909) | 0.789 | (0.509–1.222) |
| 4 or more | 0.935 | (0.543–1.612) | 0.822 | (0.493–1.372) |
| Income categories | ||||
| Less than $600 | Ref | Ref | ||
| $600–$999 | 0.928 | (0.597–1.445) | 0.775 | (0.474–1.267) |
| $1,000–$1,499 | 1.052 | (0.655–1.691) | 0.862 | (0.513–1.449) |
| $1,500–$1,999 | 1.064 | (0.655–1.729) | 0.773 | (0.466–1.282) |
| More than $2,000 | 1.038 | (0.595–1.811) | 1.171 | (0.699–1.960) |
| P2 Life difficulties | ||||
| Fewer | Ref | Ref | ||
| Many | 2.510 | (1.769–3.559) | 2.202 | (1.542–3.143) |
| P2 Coping | ||||
| Well to extremely well | Ref | Ref | ||
| Poor | 1.517 | (0.930–2.475) | 2.976 | (1.863–4.754) |
| P2 Psychological distress | ||||
| Non-clinical range | Ref | Ref | ||
| Clinical range | 2.327 | (1.160–4.672) | 1.627 | (0.880–3.009) |
Relationship satisfaction
Primary carer reports of relationship satisfaction
Refer to Table 17 for information in relation to the following section.
Infant
Significant associations with primary carer reports of relationship satisfaction were observed with family structure, combined employment status, argumentative relationship status, low support from partner, life difficulties and primary carer coping.
Relative to married intact families, primary carers in de facto intact and de facto step-families were more than two and three times more likely to report low relationship satisfaction (ORadj=2.25 and 3.60 respectively).
Where both primary carer and secondary carer were employed full time, there was a significant reduction in the likelihood of primary carer reporting low relationship satisfaction. In other words, full-time employment of both partners was associated with improved relationship satisfaction relative to work arrangements where one partner was working full time and the other was not working (15.7 per cent compared to 20.3 per cent; ORadj=0.69).
Those primary carers in high argumentative relationships compared to low argumentative relationships were 10 times more likely to have low relationship satisfaction (ORadj=10.1). Further, those primary carers with low levels of partner support were more than five times as likely to report low relationship satisfaction compared to those with higher levels of partner support (ORadj=5.7).
Relative to those primary carers who reported they were coping well or extremely well, those who were coping poorly were more than twice as likely to report low relationship satisfaction (19.2 per cent compared to 51.3 per cent).
Finally, primary carer relationship satisfaction was not related to their age at birth of infant, country of birth, their level of education, number of children, income, and their levels of psychological distress.
Child
Relative to those aged 25 to 34 years at the time of the study child’s birth, primary carers who were 35 years or older were more likely to report lower relationship satisfaction (18.0 per cent compared to 22.6 per cent; ORadj=1.44). Relative to intact married families, those intact families where parents were not married were more than twice as likely to report low relationship satisfaction (17.2 per cent compared to 34.0 per cent). Compared to arrangements where one partner worked full time and the other was not working, joint full-time or joint part-time work of the primary and secondary carers was associated with increased odds of low relationship satisfaction (ORadj=1.71 and 2.78 respectively).
There was a trend for relationship satisfaction to improve where families had more children, this reaching significance in families that had four or more children relative to only one child (16.2 per cent compared to 26.0 per cent; ORadj=0.54).
There was a 10-fold increase in the risk of low relationship quality if the primary carer had high levels of arguments relative to those with low levels of arguments (62.4 per cent compared to 10.5 per cent; ORadj=10.3). In addition, those primary carers who reported low levels of support from their partner were more than six times more likely to have low relationship satisfaction compared to those with higher levels of support (53.9 per cent compared to 12.2 per cent; ORadj=6.34). Further, those primary carers who reported many life difficulties compared to those with fewer were almost four times more likely to report low relationship satisfaction (53.0 per cent compared to 15.7 per cent; ORadj=3.60). Those primary carers with clinical levels of psychological distress relative to those with lower levels (54.6 per cent compared to 17.7 per cent; ORadj=1.87) were also more likely to report low relationship satisfaction. Readers should keep in mind that the measure of high argumentative relationship status and the measure of low relationship quality were highly collinear.
Three factors were not significantly related to the increased likelihood of a primary carer reporting low relationship satisfaction: their level of education, income, and perceived coping.
| Infant cohort n=3,491 | Child cohort n=3,158 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds of low satisfaction | 95% confidence interval | Odds of low satisfaction | 95% confidence interval | |
| ORadj | (low–high) | ORadj | (low–high) | |
| P1 Age at child’s birth (years) | ||||
| Under 25 | 1.028 | (0.698–1.514) | 0.769 | (0.518–1.142) |
| 25–34 | Ref | Ref | ||
| 35 and above | 1.183 | (0.910–1.538) | 1.439 | (1.064–1.945) |
| P1 Country of birth | ||||
| Australia | Ref | Ref | ||
| Outside Australia | 1.146 | (0.873–1.504) | 1.048 | (0.777–1.415) |
| P1 Education | ||||
| Year 9 or less | 1.213 | (0.598–2.458) | 1.467 | (0.708–3.043) |
| Year 10 | 0.926 | (0.564–1.521) | 1.360 | (0.884–2.094) |
| Year 11 or 12 | 0.967 | (0.698–1.338) | 1.207 | (0.857–1.700) |
| Trade certificate or diploma | 1.028 | (0.771–1.370) | 1.183 | (0.885–1.583) |
| University | Ref | Ref | ||
| Family structure | ||||
| Married, intact | Ref | Ref | ||
| De facto, intact | 2.253 | (1.611–3.151) | 2.145 | (1.397–3.293) |
| Married, step | 1.529 | (0.919–2.545) | 0.951 | (0.557–1.624) |
| De facto, step | 3.600 | (1.997–6.488) | 0.995 | (0.572–1.734) |
| Combined employment status | ||||
| 2 full time | 0.690 | (0.479–0.995) | 1.709 | (1.180–2.476) |
| 1 full time, 1 part time | 1.229 | (0.941–1.605) | 0.979 | (0.751–1.277) |
| 2 part time | 0.977 | (0.434–2.198) | 2.781 | (1.393–5.550) |
| 1 full time, 1 not working | Ref | Ref | ||
| 1 part time, 1 not working | 0.996 | (0.576–1.720) | 1.795 | (0.950–3.390) |
| 2 not working | 0.668 | (0.349–1.276) | 0.928 | (0.391–2.202) |
| Number of children in household | ||||
| 1 | Ref | Ref | ||
| 2 | 1.273 | (0.991–1.636) | 0.912 | (0.608–1.369) |
| 3 | 1.305 | (0.913–1.865) | 0.771 | (0.501–1.185) |
| 4 or more | 0.756 | (0.441–1.295) | 0.543 | (0.305–0.967) |
| Income categories | ||||
| Less than $600 | Ref | Ref | ||
| $600–$999 | 0.854 | (0.601–1.213) | 1.171 | (0.777–1.763) |
| $1,000–$1,499 | 0.755 | (0.526–1.085) | 0.970 | (0.625–1.504) |
| $1,500–$1,999 | 0.898 | (0.594–1.359) | 1.092 | (0.708–1.686) |
| More than $2,000 | 0.800 | (0.521–1.229) | 0.931 | (0.575–1.506) |
| P1 Argumentative relationship | ||||
| Lower | Ref | |||
| Higher | 10.161 | (8.261–12.499) | 10.297 | (7.904–13.414) |
| Partner support | ||||
| Higher | Ref | |||
| Lower | 5.740 | (4.398–7.493) | 6.339 | (4.817–8.342) |
| P1 Life difficulties | ||||
| Fewer | Ref | Ref | ||
| Many | 2.360 | (1.501–3.710) | 3.603 | (2.463–5.271) |
| P1 Coping | ||||
| Well to extremely well | Ref | Ref | ||
| Poor | 2.177 | (1.239–3.823) | 1.153 | (0.704–1.886) |
| P1 Psychological distress | ||||
| Non-clinical range | Ref | Ref | ||
| Clinical range | 1.567 | (0.724–3.393) | 1.875 | (1.085–3.240) |
Secondary carer reports of relationship satisfaction
Refer to Table 18 for information in relation to the following section.
Infant
Relationship satisfaction as reported by secondary carers was assessed using the same variables as for primary carers.
Many of the same variables that predicted relationship status for the primary carers also predicted relationship status for secondary carers.
Relative to secondary carers with university education, those secondary carers with Year 10 certificates were more likely to report low relationship satisfaction (18.6 per cent compared to 28.7 per cent; ORadj=1.81). As with the primary carer reports, relative to secondary carers in married intact families, secondary carers in de facto intact and de facto step-families were more likely to report low relationship satisfaction (ORadj=1.38 and 2.60 respectively).
The proportion of secondary carers with low relationship satisfaction increased where both partners worked part time (note that primary carer‑reported low relationship status decreased where both partners worked full time). Thus, where secondary carers reported that they and their partner were working part time, they were more than twice as likely to report low relationship satisfaction relative to secondary carers where one partner was working full time and the other was staying at home.
In families with infants, secondary carers reported lower relationship satisfaction where there were two children (including the study infant) relative to secondary carers in families with one child. This effect was small (ORadj=1.26).
Finally, secondary carers’ low relationship satisfaction was significantly associated with secondary carers’ argumentative relationship status (ORadj=7.28), low support from a partner (ORadj=3.52) and many—rather than fewer—life difficulties (ORadj=2.46).
Several variables were not related to secondary carer reports of relationship satisfaction. These included secondary carer age at the birth of the study infant, their country of birth, income, coping and psychological distress.
Child
Relationship satisfaction as reported by secondary carers was assessed using the same variables as for primary carers.
Broadly, relationship satisfaction for secondary carers in the child cohort showed fewer significant associations than were found for secondary carers in the infant cohort.
There was no relationship between secondary carers’ reported low relationship satisfaction and their educational level, family structure, employment of either secondary carer or primary carer, secondary carer coping, and levels of secondary carer psychological distress.
A significantly higher proportion of secondary carers were likely to report low relationship satisfaction if they were 35 years or older at the birth of the study child relative to secondary carers aged 25 to 34 (22.4 per cent compared to 17.7 per cent; ORadj=1.44), or earned less than $600 per week relative to those earning $600 to $999 (25 per cent compared to 19 per cent; ORadj=0.640). Secondary carers were also much more likely to report low relationship satisfaction if they were in a relationship where they reported higher levels of arguments relative to those who reported lower levels (51.8 per cent compared to 9.6 per cent; ORadj=7.97), or lower support from their partner relative to those reporting higher partner support (53.9 per cent compared to 13.5 per cent; ORadj=5.14). They were also twice as likely to report low relationship satisfaction if they reported many life difficulties rather than fewer (43.0 per cent compared to 17.1 per cent; ORadj=1.99).
| Infant cohort n=3,028 | Child cohort n=2,823 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds of low satisfaction | 95% confidence interval | Odds of low satisfaction | 95% confidence interval | |
| ORadj | (low–high) | ORadj | (low–high) | |
| P2 Age at child’s birth (years) | ||||
| Under 25 | 1.593 | (0.924–2.745) | 0.779 | (0.488–1.244) |
| 25–34 | Ref | Ref | ||
| 35 and above | 1.217 | (0.961–1.540) | 1.438 | (1.113–1.858) |
| P2 Country of birth | ||||
| Australia | Ref | Ref | ||
| Outside Australia | 1.179 | (0.893–1.555) | 0.950 | (0.720–1.255) |
| P2 Education | ||||
| Year 9 or less | 1.458 | (0.745–2.852) | 0.761 | (0.315–1.840) |
| Year 10 | 1.819 | (1.073–3.085) | 0.957 | (0.556–1.648) |
| Year 11 or 12 | 1.003 | (0.698–1.443) | 1.163 | (0.784–1.727) |
| Trade certificate or diploma | 1.108 | (0.845–1.453) | 1.196 | (0.873–1.638) |
| University | Ref | Ref | ||
| Family structure | ||||
| Married, intact | Ref | Ref | ||
| De facto, intact | 1.388 | (1.015–1.899) | 1.393 | (0.919–2.114) |
| Married, step | 1.358 | (0.823–2.239) | 1.297 | (0.779–2.159) |
| De facto, step | 2.607 | (1.377–4.935) | 1.778 | (0.853–3.704) |
| Combined employment status | ||||
| 2 full time | 1.036 | (0.744–1.440) | 0.786 | (0.519–1.191) |
| 1 full time, 1 part time | 1.021 | (0.780–1.336 | 0.769 | (0.585–1.011) |
| 2 part time | 2.391 | (1.327–4.307) | 0.595 | (0.287–1.233) |
| 1 full time, 1 not working | Ref | Ref | ||
| 1 part time, 1 not working | 1.246 | (0.739–2.101) | 1.149 | (0.578–2.287) |
| 2 not working | 1.131 | (0.543–2.357) | 0.639 | (0.290–1.407) |
| Number of children in household | ||||
| 1 | Ref | Ref | ||
| 2 | 1.266 | (1.002–1.599) | 0.744 | (0.484–1.143) |
| 3 | 1.165 | (0.855–1.588) | 0.631 | (0.398–0.999) |
| 4 or more | 0.994 | (0.613–1.613) | 0.313 | (0.173–0.567) |
| Income categories | ||||
| Less than $600 | Ref | Ref | ||
| $600–$999 | 1.215 | (0.813–1.815) | 0.640 | (0.423–0.967) |
| $1,000–$1,499 | 1.400 | (0.951–2.060) | 0.727 | (0.472–1.118) |
| $1,500–$1,999 | 1.386 | (0.892–2.154) | 0.768 | (0.498–1.187) |
| More than $2,000 | 1.472 | (0.898–2.414) | 0.783 | (0.494–1.240) |
| P1 Argumentative relationship | ||||
| Lower | Ref | |||
| Higher | 7.287 | (5.700–9.315) | 7.973 | (6.231–10.200) |
| Partner support | ||||
| Higher | Ref | |||
| Lower | 3.528 | (2.642–4.712) | 5.140 | (3.852–6.858) |
| P2 Life difficulties | ||||
| Fewer | Ref | |||
| Many | 2.466 | (1.718–3.540) | 1.996 | (1.390–2.868) |
| P2 Coping | ||||
| Well to extremely well | Ref | Ref | ||
| Poor | 1.627 | (0.912–2.901) | 1.416 | (0.852–2.353) |
| P2 Psychological distress | ||||
| Non-clinical range | Ref | Ref | ||
| Clinical range | 1.230 | (0.511–2.959) | 1.336 | (0.602–2.964) |
3.7 Discussion
It is important to acknowledge that this section is largely descriptive. Australian population data on parental relationship functioning is scarce, and many of the associations reported here are first attempts at such descriptions. While many of the effects are in expected directions, all of the effects are measures of associations rather than causes. Indeed, some of the findings here invite formal causal tests of hypotheses when later waves of longitudinal data become available.
In reviewing the extensive findings on the associations between, on the one hand, measures of relationship functioning and, on the other, individual parent characteristics, socioeconomic status, family characteristics, and parent wellbeing, a few things are particularly evident.
First, all reported relationship variables showed moderate levels of skew in their distributions. This means that most parents reported good levels of relationship satisfaction, relatively low levels of arguments, and good levels of reciprocal support for parenting. The effects under observation are relative effects—not absolute. There are no normative data for what constitutes an ‘average’ level on these measures.
Second, the reported measures of relationship functioning used here are self-reports from the parents themselves and are not corroborated by i