Advertisement

Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 27, Issue 10, pp 3085–3095 | Cite as

Coparenting in the Context of Mother–Father–Infant versus Mother–Grandmother–Infant Triangular Interactions in Turkey

  • Selin Salman-EnginEmail author
  • Nebi Sümer
  • Ece Sağel
  • James McHale
Original Paper

Abstract

In this report, coparenting behaviors during triangular interactions among families raising a 3-month-old infant in Turkey are examined. Given the significant role played by extended family members in Turkish culture, coparenting dynamics were examined as mothers and babies played together with grandmothers, as well as together with fathers. Forty-five families took part, and 42 father–mother–baby and 33 grandmother–mother–baby triangular interactions of approximately 10 min in length were filmed during the Lausanne Trilogue Play. From videotapes of the interactions, individual and mutual coparenting behaviors were evaluated using the Coparenting and Family Rating System: 3 Month Adaptation (CFRS3M). Results indicated that while mothers’ own parenting behavior when in the LTP role of Active Parent (AP) was comparable whether with fathers or grandmothers, their behavior when in the LTP role of third party parent (TPP) was comparatively more engaged while with fathers than while with grandmothers. Fathers were comparatively less engaged when occupying the TPP role than were mothers in the TPP role, while grandmothers showed more flirting and distracting behavior in the TPP role than did either fathers or mothers. These findings are significant in documenting meaningful distinctions in Turkish grandmothers’ as well as in Turkish fathers’ and mothers’ coparenting propensities when engaging in triangular interactions with babies during the LTP.

Keywords

Triangular interactions Coparenting LTP Fathers Grandmothers Infants Turkey 

Notes

Author Contributions

S.S.E.: designed and executed the study, collected data, coded observations, ran the data analyses, and wrote the paper. N.S.: collaborated with writing of the study. E.S.: collaborated with data collection and coding observations. J.M.H.: collaborated with the design, writing of the study, and editing of the final manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This study represents work from a doctoral dissertation project completed by the first author and supported by the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The IRB approval for the study was provided by Middle East Technical University, Turkey.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Baydar, N., Küntay, A. C., Yağmurlu, B., Aydemir, N., Çankaya, D., Göksen, F., & Cemalcılar, Z. (2014). “It takes a village” to support the vocabulary development of children with multiple risk factors. Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1014–1025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baydar, N., Akçınar, B., & İmer, N. (2012). Çevre, sosyoekonomik bağlam ve ana babalık. In M. Sayıl & B. Yağmurlu (Eds.), Ana babalık: Kuram ve araştırma (pp. 81–127). İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
  3. Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., Flor, D., McCrary, C., Hastings, L., & Conyers, O. (1994). Financial resources, parent psychological functioning, parent co‐caregiving, and early adolescent competence in rural two‐parent African‐American families. Child Development, 65(2), 590–605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Gordon, R. A., Coley, R. L., Wakschlag, L. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1999). Young African-American multigenerational families in poverty: The contexts, exchanges and processes of their lives. In E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Coping with divorce, single parenting and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective (pp. 165–191). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Favez, N., & Frascarolo, F. (2013). Le coparentage: Composants, implications et thérapie. Devenir, 25(2), 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Favez, N., Frascarolo, F., Carneiro, C., Montfort, V., Corboz-Warnery, A., & Fivaz-Depeursinge, E. (2006). The development of the family alliance from pregnancy to toddlerhood and children outcomes at 18 months. Infant and Child Development, 15, 59–73.  https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feldman, R., Keren, M. (2004). Expanding the scope of infant mental health assessment: A community-based model. In R. DelCarmen-Wiggins & A.S. Carter (Eds.), Handbook of infant mental health assessment (pp. 443–465). Cambridge: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  8. Feldman, R., & Masalha, S. (2010). Parent–child and triadic antecedents of children’s social competence: Cultural specificity, shared process. Developmental Psychology, 46(2), 455–467.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., & Corboz-Warnery, A. (1999). The primary triangle: A developmental systems view of fathers, mothers, and infants. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  10. Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., & Favez, N. (2006). Exploring triangulation in infancy: Two contrasted cases. Family Process, 45(1), 3–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., Lavanchy-Scaiola, C., & Favez, N. (2010). The young infant’s triangular communication in the family: Access to threesome intersubjectivity? Conceptual considerations and case illustrations. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 20(2), 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedlmeier, M., Albert, I., & Trommsdorff, G. (2011). Grandmother-grandchild relationships and the role of the middle generation: A cross-cultural perspective. Paper presented at International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  13. Göregenli, M. (1997). Individualistic-collectivist tendencies in a Turkish sample. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 28, 787–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Güroğlu, İ. (2010). Can the support networks help mothers with high levels of depressive symptoms? İstanbul, Turkey: Koç University.Google Scholar
  15. Jones, D. J., & Lindahl, K. M. (2011). Coparenting in extended kinship systems: African American, Hispanic, Asian heritage, and Native American families. In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 15–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2007). Family, self and human development across cultures: Theory and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2010). Benlik, aile ve insane gelişimi: Kültürel psikoloji. İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
  18. Kurrien, R., & Vo, E. D. (2004). Who’s in charge?: Coparenting in South and Southeast Asian families. Journal of Adult Development, 11(3), 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lieberson, R., Rotman, T., Hartman, O., Giampa, S., Kuersten-Hogan, R., & McHale, J. P. (2004). An analysis of early coparenting dynamics at 3 months post-partum. Poster presented at the 9th World Congress of the World Association for Infant Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  20. McHale, J. P. (1997). Overt and covert coparenting processes in the family. Family Process, 36, 183–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. McHale, J. P. (2007). Charting the bumpy road of coparenthood: Understanding the challenges of family life.. Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.Google Scholar
  22. McHale, J., & Alberts, A. (2003). Thinking three: Coparenting and family-level considerations for infant mental health professionals. The Signal, 11, 1–11.Google Scholar
  23. McHale, J. P., Dinh, K. T., & Rao, N. (2014). Understanding coparenting and family systems among East and Southeast Asian-heritage families. In H. Selin (Ed.), Parenting across Cultures: Childrearing, motherhood and fatherhood in Non-Western cultures. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. McHale, J., Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., Dickstein, S., Robertson, J., & Daley, M. (2008). New evidence for the social embeddedness of infants’ early triangular capacities. Family Process, 47, 445–463.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. McHale, J. P., & Irace, K. (2011). Coparenting in diverse family systems. In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 15–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.Google Scholar
  26. McHale, J. P., Kuersten-Hogan, R., Lauretti, A., & Rasmussen, J. L. (2000). Parental reports of coparenting and observed coparenting behavior during the toddler period. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(2), 220.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. McHale, J., & Sullivan, M. (2008). Family systems. In M. Hersen & A. Gross (Eds.), Handbook of Clinical Psychology, Volume II: Children and Adolescents (pp. 192–226). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  28. McHale, J. P., Salman, S., Strozier, A., & Cecil, D. K. (2013). Triadic interactions in mother-grandmother coparenting systems following maternal release from jail. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78(3), 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nauck, B., & Suckow, J. (2006). Intergenerational relationships in cross-cultural comparison: How social networks frame intergenerational relations between mothers and grandmothers in Japan, Korea, China, Indonesia, Israel, Germany, and Turkey. Journal of Family Issues, 27(8), 1159–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pashos, A. (2000). Does paternal uncertainty explain discriminative grandparental solicitude?: A cross-cultural study in Greece and Germany. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21(2), 97–109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sever, L. (1989). Change in women’s perceptions of parental child rearing attitudes in Turkey: A three generation comparison. Early Child Development and Care, 50, 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seven, S., & Ogelman, H. (2012). Attachment stability in children aged 6 to 9 years in extended and nuclear families. Early Education & Development, 23(5), 766–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sunar, D., & Fişek, G. (2005). Contemporary Turkish families. In U. Gielen & J. Roopnarine (Eds.), Families in global perspective (pp. 169–183). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.Google Scholar
  34. Topses, M. D. (2008). The connection between modern family structure/functions and altruistic behavior of individuals. Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe University.Google Scholar
  35. Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK, 2016). Family structure survey. www.tuik.gov.tr.
  36. Weissman, S. H., & Cohen, R. S. (1985). The parenting alliance and adolescence. Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 24–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Yavuz, S. (2004). Changing household and family compositions in Turkey: A demographic evaluation for 1968–1998 period. Hacettepe University E-Journal of Sociological Research, 2, 1–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentBilkent UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Psychology DepartmentMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Psychology DepartmentAdnan Menderes UniversityAydınTurkey
  4. 4.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of South FloridaSt. PetersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations