Content uploaded by Francesca Cuzzocrea
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Francesca Cuzzocrea on Apr 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Abstract
The aim of this research is to explore whether there are any differences in
couple satisfaction and couple attributions between families with disabled
and non-disabled children and to understand if a relationship exists among
the above-mentioned variables in parents of children with and without di-
sability. Parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (low functio-
ning n = 16; high functioning n = 20); with Down Syndrome (n = 24) and
parents of non-disabled children (n = 40) were selected. Couple relationship
was investigated using the Italian version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale
(DAS) and the Relationship Attribution Measure (RAM). Compared with
other groups, parents of children with ASD reported lower marital satisfaction
and a pattern of attribution that is negatively related to marital satisfaction.
Couple satisfaction and couple attribution are strongly related both in families
of children with ASD and in families of children with Down Syndrome. Results
showed differences between families of children with or without a disability,
and between parents of children with Autism and with Down syndrome. These
results can act as both a stimulus towards further research in families with
disabled children and as a starting point for clinical interventions.
Keywords: Family, Couple functioning, Dyadic Adjustment Scale, Di-
sability.
Received: September 08, 2011, Revised: December 07, 2011, Accepted: January 17, 2012.
© 2011 Associazione Oasi Maria SS. - IRCCS / Città Aperta Edizioni
1University of Messina, Via Concezione 6/8, 98100 Messina (Italy). E-mail: fsantamaria@unime.it
2University of Messina, e-mail: fcuzzocrea@unime.it
3University of Messina, e-mail: mgugliandolo@unime.it
4University of Messina, e-mail: larcan@unime.it
19
Life Span and Disability XV, 1 (2012), 19-37
Marital satisfaction and attribution style in parents
of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Down
Syndrome and non-disabled children
Federica Santamaria1, Francesca Cuzzocrea2, Maria Cristina
Gugliandolo3& Rosalba Larcan4
1. Introduction
Research on family and disability focuses on individual, familiar and social
aspects, such as the severity of disability, maternal well-being and family re-
sources (Weiss, 2002; Olsson & Hwang, 2008). These factors have been ge-
nerally analysed comparing families with a disabled child to families of
children with typical development.
Several studies have reported that parents of children with disabilities ex-
perience higher levels of stress than parents of typically developing children
(Boyd, 2002). When a child is born with a disability, the family must modify
previous routines to guarantee the child’s care. The difficulties encountered
from the reorganization of familiar relationships could be related to anxiety,
overprotection, rigidity (Lardieri, Blacher, & Swanson, 2000), and might ex-
plain lower levels of coherence, less emphasis on the personal growth of other
family members (Larcan, Cuzzocrea, & Oliva, 2008; Larcan & Cuzzocrea,
2011), and higher levels of parental depression compared with parents of non-
disabled children. The unexpected and permanent nature of the problem could
influence family functioning and future outcomes (Llewellyn, McConnell,
Thompson, & Whybrow, 2005). This is more evident in parents of children
with Autism Spectrum Disorder (Osborne, McHugh, Saunders, & Reed, 2008).
Belchic (1996) reported significantly lower parenting efficacy in parents of
a child with autism compared to parents of a child without disability. Mothers
of children with mental retardation reported a higher social burden than those
of children with a physical disability (Tangri & Verma, 1992), especially when
the children with disabilities grow up (Rimmerman & Duvdevani, 1996; Cuz-
zocrea & Larcan, 2005).
Children with autism can experience various problems, such as insomnia (Joh-
nson & Malow 2008), and sensory impairment like taste, smell, visual and au-
ditory processing problems (Rogers, Hepburn, Stackhouse, & Wehner, 2003;
Ghanizadeh, Alishahi, & Ashkani, 2009). These problems are likely to affect
the behaviour of their parents who are usually tired and depressed, showing ne-
gative reactions in both their professional and family life.
Mothers especially report lower parenting competence (Raj Kumari & Har-
preet, 2010), greater stress (Weiss, 2002) and a lower level of marital intimacy,
compared with mothers of children with normal development and with mothers
of children with Down Syndrome (Dabrowska & Pisula, 2010).
Family functioning and, moreover, how each part of the family perceives
the situation, is fundamental for the comprehension of interactions between
children with disability and their parents. The cognitive model of Lazarus and
Folkman (1984) regarding the relation between stress and coping has been consi-
20
Life Span and Disability Santamaria F. et al.
dered one of the theoretical foundations on the development of specific models
on family functioning (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983; Patterson, 1988). Paren-
tal cognitions have been analyzed from several studies that indicated that pa-
rents can develop characteristics of self-blame in response to their child’s
disability (Grant & Whittell, 2000). Garwick, Kohrman, Titus, Wolman and
Blum (1999) pointed out that parents with children with autism tend to blame
themselves for child’s disability. This dysfunctional pattern seems to be related
with parental resilience; in fact parents who tended to blame themselves for
the child’s disability were less resilient than those families who adopted other
causal explanations (Sanders, Mazzucchelli, & Studman, 2004).
On the other hand, Ireland, Sanders and Markie-Dadds (2003) have analysed
other variables that influence the family system: in particular, marital relation-
ship seems to be strongly related with children’s emotional and behavioural
problems. The poor dyadic adjustment in parents of children with disabilities
has been highlighted by many authors (Walker, Manion, Cloutier, & Johnson,
1992; Najman, Behrens, Andersen, Bor, O’Callaghan, & Williams, 1997). Pa-
rents are more likely to report difficult child behaviour when there are low le-
vels of partner support and high levels of disagreement between partners
(Cuzzocrea & Larcan, 2005). Parents of children with disruptive behaviour di-
sorders show low cohesion and expression of affection, less parental support
and poorer marital adjustment than parents of non-disabled children (Hibbs,
Hamburger, Kruesi, & Lenane, 1993).
Marital satisfaction is one of the protective factors for a positive adaptation
to stressful situations, such as the management of a disabled child. Higher le-
vels in marital satisfaction are related to lower levels of depression, lower pa-
renting stress, and improved efficiency in the parents' role (Kersh, Hedvat,
Hauser-Cram, & Warfield, 2006).
Much of the research demonstrates that parents of disabled children and, specifi-
cally, those with children with ASD, report lower levels of marital satisfaction
when compared with couples of non-disabled children and with those of children
with Down syndrome (Higgins, Bailey, & Pearce, 2005; Kersh et al., 2006).
Sanjuán and Magallares (2009) underlined how attribution styles could be
considered an important aspect for marital satisfaction in couples with children
with normal development; in fact the attribution style is a cognitive variable
which reflects how people typically explain the causes of negative events in
which they are involved (Sanjuán & Magallares, 2009), even more in stressful
situations (Fincham & Bradbury, 1992).
According to the Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale model (1978), there are
three dimensions from which attributions regarding the causes of situations
21
Marital satisfaction and attribution style in parents of disabled and non-disabled children
are made, locus (degree to which a situation is attributed to something about
oneself), stability (degree to which a situation is a result of long-lasting causes),
and globality (degree of pervasiveness of the cause of a situation).
Fincham and Bradbury (1992) identify three other responsibility attribution
styles: the intent of the act, the motivation, and blame. The sharing of meanings
attributed to an event plays a key role in the organization and maintenance of
family processes; it helps to reduce the ambiguities and misunderstandings re-
lating to a difficult situation and creates a coordinated response that is critical
to maintaining stability within the couple. Many researchers (Bradbury & Fin-
cham, 1990; Fincham & Bradbury, 1992; McNulty & Karney, 2001) highli-
ghted how couples in stressful situations showed a depressotypic attribution
style. These couples tend to consider negative events as being internally cau-
sed, stable and global (Horneffer & Fincham, 1995) and, in some cases, the
spouses blame each other for the situation (Fincham & Bradbury, 1993).
In dissatisfied couples, negative attributions are related to the depreciation of
the positive partner's behaviour and the accentuation of its negative expression,
while the opposite pattern is true for satisfied couples. The partner’s negative
behaviours are judged as intentional, part of the person’s character and unlikely
to change over time (Fincham & Bradbury, 1992). A similar pattern of attri-
bution can cause feelings of hostility and dysfunctional interactions with the
partner. Opposite attribution styles were found in satisfied couples (Jacobson,
McDonald, Follette, & Berley, 1985; Baucom, 1986). Even though there is
strong evidence (Kersh, et al., 2006; Sanjuán & Magallares, 2009) about the
role of couple attribution in marital satisfaction, in literature there is a lack of
analysis of these variables in families of children with disability (Boyd, 2002).
2. Aims and hypothesis
For these reasons, the main aim of this study was to investigate the rela-
tionship between attribution style and couple adjustment in families with di-
sabled children. In particular, it was analysed whether there were significant
differences in couple adjustment and in style of attribution among four familiar
contexts: (1) Parents of children with low functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder;
(2) Parents of children with high functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder; (3) Pa-
rents of children with Down Syndrome; (4) Parents of non-disabled children.
The second object was to investigate whether there were significant corre-
lations among the above-mentioned variables, in each of the four groups of
parents.
22
Life Span and Disability Santamaria F. et al.
Marital satisfaction and attribution style in parents of disabled and non-disabled children
3. Methods
3.1 Participants
Fifty married couples with two children agreed to take part in the study:
30 of them had a child with disability and 20 had both non-disabled children
(fathers’ average age = 43.8±5.5; mothers’ average age = 40.1±4.8). The par-
ticipants were selected from the same information obtained through a socio-
demographic questionnaire. All families belonged to a middle socio-cultural
level (20% of parents had a secondary school level, 45% of parents had a high
secondary school level and 35% had a university degree. Most of the mothers
were housewives (58%), while the 42% worked in public offices. Most of the fa-
thers worked in public administration (64%), while 36% had an independent job.
These families were divided into four groups in relation to the presence or
absence of a child with disability and in relation to the type of disability. 36
parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, of which 20 parents (ave-
rage age = 40.5±4.8) of high functioning children, and 16 parents of low fun-
ctioning children (average age = 41.13±5.1) were selected. 24 parents (age =
43.7±6.2) had a child with Down Syndrome and 40 parents (age = 41.9±5.4) had
non-disabled children.
3.2 Instruments and Procedure
Individual questionnaires were separately presented to each parent. The Latin
Square design was used to control the order in which the questionnaires were
presented.
In order to investigate the partners’ perceptions of couple adjustment, both
partners were asked to fill in separately the Italian format of Dyadic Adjustment
Scale (DAS) (Gentili, Contreras, Cassaniti, & D’Arista, 2002). The DAS (Spa-
nier, 1976) is a 32-item self-report measure of relationship adjustment by de-
termining the degree of satisfaction couples are experiencing. Respondents are
asked to rate each of the items on a Likert-type scale choosing the most suitable
response options.
The DAS reliability in this study was α = .93 (fathers: α = .95; mothers: α =
.89). DAS includes the following four sub-scales: (1) Dyadic Cohesion, 5
items, assess the common interests and activities shared by the couple (fathers:
α = .72; mothers: α = .67); (2) Dyadic Consensus, 13 items, focus on matters
important to the relationship: religion, recreation, friends, household tasks, and
time spent together (fathers: α = .94; mothers: α = .86); (3) Dyadic Satisfac-
tion, 10 items, measure commitment and satisfaction perceived by partners
with the present state of the relationship (fathers: α = .82; mothers: α = .70);
23
Life Span and Disability Santamaria F. et al.
(4) Affectional expression, 4 items, measure individual’s satisfaction in the ex-
pression of affection and sex in the relationship (fathers: α = .69; mothers: α =
.48). High scores in this questionnaire indicate a functional couple adjustment.
The attribution style was evaluated by the Relationship Attribution Measure
(RAM) (Fincham & Bradbury, 1992). Stimulus events on the Relationship At-
tribution Measure (RAM) consisted of 10 hypothetical negative partner’s be-
haviours (e.g. “your spouse criticizes something you say”). Specifically parents
are asked to rate on a 6-point scale the extent to which they agreed or disagreed
with attribution statements made about each of the negative partner’s beha-
viours. The statements were used to assess the different types of attributions.
The reliability of all RAM subscales is good with α = .98 (fathers: α = .98;
mothers: α = .97). For causal attributions, respondents were asked about the
extent to which the cause lies in the partner (locus - fathers: α = .87; mothers:
α = .80), was likely to change (stability - fathers: α = .92; mothers: α = .88)
and affected other areas of the marriage (globality - fathers: α = .93; mothers:
α = .91). For responsibility attribution, items assessed criteria believed to be
fundamental for the ascription of responsibility and intentionality of the act
(intent - fathers: α = .94; mothers: α = .94), its motivation (fathers: α =.95;
mothers: α =.95) and whether it was justified by mitigating circumstances
(blame - fathers: α = .96; mothers: α = .94). In this questionnaire high scores
underline a dysfunctional style of attributions for couple relationship.
3.3 Data analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) was used to verify the
hypothesis. Non-parametric statistics were used to analyse data. To analyse
possible differences among groups the Kruskal-Wallis (1952), based on χ2sta-
tistic, and the Jonckheere-Terpstra test (J-T) (1954) were calculated. In addi-
tion, to verify statistical differences between simple comparisons the
Mann-Whitney (U) test (1947) was applied. In order to verify statistical diffe-
rences within sub-scales, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Tests (1945) were calculated
separately on dependent variables (DAS and RAM scores).
To verify whether there were significant correlations between dyadic adju-
stment (DAS) and styles of attribution (RAM) in each of the four groups of pa-
rents, Spearman tests (1904) were calculated. To better compare the results, all
data were transformed into sin-1 (Freeman & Tukey, 1950).
4. Results
4.1 Differences between groups
Table 1 synthesizes the means and standard deviations of DAS scores ob-
24
Marital satisfaction and attribution style in parents of disabled and non-disabled children
tained from the four groups of parents. The statistical analysis showed signi-
ficant differences among groups for dyadic satisfaction [χ2(3) = 16.69; p <
.001] and in the total DAS scores [χ2(3) = 8.01; p < .05]. These differences
were confirmed by the Jonckheere-Terpstra test [DAStot:J-T = 2.36; p < .02;
Dyadic Satisfaction: J-T = 3.34; p < .001].
Table 1 - Means and Standard Deviations of Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)
scores by parents of disabled (low and high functioning Autism and
Down Syndrome) and nondisabled children
Parents of children with
Dyadic
cohesion
Dyadic
consensus
Dyadic
satisfaction
Affectional
expression DAS Total
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Autism Spectrum
Disorder – Low Funct. .93 .24 1.01 .29 .95 .17 1.03 .31 .98 .21
Autism Spectrum
Disorder – High Funct. .91 .23 1.08 .23 1.04 .17 1.13 .27 1.04 .19
Down Syndrome .99 .17 1.13 .13 1.08 .11 1.15 .21 1.09 .11
No disability .99 .17 1.15 .11 1.11 .08 1.14 .17 1.11 .09
Regarding the total DAS scores, parents of children with low functioning au-
tism reported poorer couple adjustment than parents of children with Down
Syndrome [U= 119.5; Z = -2.01; p < .04] and parents of non-disabled children
[U= 176; Z = -2.61; p < .009], but they didn’t differ with parents of children
with high functioning autism [U= 127; Z = -1.05; p = .3]. No statistical diffe-
rences were found when comparing parents of children with high functioning
autism with parents of children with Down Syndrome [U= 215; Z = -.57; p =
.56] and parents of non-disabled children [U= 305; Z = -1.49; p = .13].
All families with autistic children presented lower scores in all DAS subscales.
The statistical analysis confirmed that parents of children with high functioning
autism reported lower couple satisfaction then parents of non-disabled children
[U= 28; Z = -1.91; p < .05]. Instead these parents did not differ in affectional
expression [U= 378; Z = -.34; p = .173], consensus [U= 336; Z = -.99; p =
.31] and cohesion [U= 310; Z = -1.41; p = .15] in comparison with parents
with non-disabled children. No statistical differences between parents of chil-
dren with high functioning autism and of children with low functioning autism
were found [Dyadic Cohesion:U = 157; Z = -.08; p = .93; Dyadic Consensus:
25
U = 132; Z = -.89; p = .38; Dyadic Satisfaction:U = 110; Z = -1.58; p = .11;
Affectional expression:U = 135; Z = -.79; p = .44]. No statistical differences
between parents of children with high functioning autism and parents of chil-
dren with Down Syndrome were found [Dyadic Cohesion: U = 203; Z =-.87;
p =.38; Dyadic Consensus: U = 227; Z =-.30; p =.76; Dyadic Satisfaction:
U = 208; Z = -.74; p = .45; Affectional expression: U = 237; Z = -.07; p = .94].
Parents of children with low functioning autism had lower scores in the
dyadic consensus [U = 202; Z = -2.14; p < .03] and couple satisfaction [U =
102; Z = -3.97; p < .0001] when compared with families with a non-disabled
child. These groups were not differing in affectional expression [U = 283; Z =
-.66; p = .49] and cohesion [U = 266; Z = -.97; p = .33].
Parents of children with low functioning autism had lower scores in couple
satisfaction than parents of children with Down Syndrome [U = 97; Z = -2.63;
p < .008]. These groups did not differ in affectional expression [U = 165; Z =
-.74; p = .47], consensus [U = 136; Z = -1.53; p = .12] and cohesion [U = 165;
Z = -.75; p = .47].
There were no significant differences between parents of children with Down
Syndrome and non-disabled children in affectional expression [U = 1472; Z = -
.11; p = .90], consensus [U = 405; Z = -1.04; p = .29], couple satisfaction [U =
363; Z = -1.63; p = .11] and cohesion [U = 460; Z = -.27; p = .78].
The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test confirmed that parents of children with high
functioning autism have higher levels of affectional expression than of con-
sensus [Z = 1.91; p < .05], couple satisfaction [Z = 1.98; p < .05], and cohesion
[Z = 3.55; p < .0001]. In addition, they presented a lower evaluation in cohesion
than in consensus [Z = 3.66; p < .0001] and couple satisfaction [Z = 2.76; p <
.006]. These parents had the lowest scores in consensus and couple satisfaction
and no statistical differences were found between these aspects [Z = .78; p = .43].
Parents of children with low functioning autism showed low dyadic ad-
justment in all sub-scales analysed. No statistical differences were found com-
paring affectional expression scores with consensus [Z= -.465; p = .64], couple
satisfaction [Z= -1.345; p = .18] and cohesion [Z= -1.55; p = .12]. In the same
way, no statistical differences were found comparing cohesion with consensus [Z
= -1.34; p = .18] and with couple satisfaction [Z= -.31; p = .76], such as couple
satisfaction and consensus [Z= -1.810; p = .07]. Parents of children with Down
syndrome have higher levels of affectional expression than couple satisfaction
[Z= 2.1; p < .04], and cohesion [Z= 3.34; p < .001], but no statistical diffe-
rences were found comparing with consensus [Z= -.91; p = .36]. On the other
hand, levels of cohesion were lower if compared with consensus [Z= 3.14; p <
.002] and couple satisfaction [Z= 2.54; p < .01]. Also in this situation, differences
between couple satisfaction and consensus were not found [Z= 1.29; p = .2].
26
Life Span and Disability Santamaria F. et al.
Marital satisfaction and attribution style in parents of disabled and non-disabled children
Parents of non-disabled children evaluated the affectional expression better
than cohesion [Z= 3.69; p < .0001]. No statistical differences were found com-
paring affectional expression with couple satisfaction [Z= .51; p = .61] and
with consensus [Z= -.25; p = .79]. These parents gave a lower evaluation in
cohesion than in consensus [Z= 4.53; p < .0001] and in couple satisfaction [Z
= 3.6; p < .0001]. In addition, these parents presented a higher consensus than
couple satisfaction [Z= 1.99; p < .05].
Table 2 shows means and standard deviations of RAM sub-scales obtained
from parents of children with high and low functioning autism, with Down
Syndrome and from family of non-disabled children. The analysis highlighted
some significant differences among groups in
the globality sub-scale [χ2(3) = 8.71; p < .03], confirmed by the Jonckheere-
Terpstra test [J-T = -2.19; p < .03].
The groups differed in the motivation sub-scale [χ2(3) = 7.81; p < .05],
even though the tendency test did not confirm these results [J-T = -1-67; p <
.09]. On the other hand, even if no statistical differences comparing blame sco-
res between parents were found [χ2(3) = 6.9; p = .07], the Jonckheere-Terpstra
test underlined a significant tendency [J-T = -2.25; p < .02].
The analysis of scores of couple attributions expressed by parents and
the data analysis underlined how parents of children with high functioning au-
tism obtained the same statistical scores comparing with parents of children
with low functioning autism [Locus:U = 127; Z = -1.03; p = .3; Globality:U
= 128; Z = -1.01; p = .3; Stability:U = 127; Z = -1.05; p = .3; Motivation:U =
101; Z = -1.8; p =.06; Intent:U = 109; Z = -1.62; p = .1; Blame:U = 141; Z =
-.57; p = .58] and comparing with parents of children with Down Syndrome
Parents of children with Locus Stability Globality Intent Motivation Blame
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Autism Spectrum
Disorder – Low Funct. .80 .29 .64 .29 .70 .28 .69 .32 .71 .31 .66 .34
Autism Spectrum
Disorder – High Funct. .69 .23 .56 .27 .61 .27 .53 .30 .56 .37 .57 .31
Down Syndrome .66 .21 .56 .27 .64 .28 .54 .35 .55 .30 .52 .36
No disability .73 .17 .53 .18 .48 .21 .46 .24 .45 .22 .44 .23
Causal attribution Responsibility attributions
Table 2 - Means and Standard Deviations of Relationship Attribution Measure
(RAM) scores by parents of disabled (low and high functioning Autism
and Down Syndrome) and nondisabled children.
27
[Locus:U = 237; Z = -.07; p = .94; Globality:U = 223; Z = -.40; p = .9; Stability:
U = 234; Z = -.14; p = .88; Motivation:U = 238; Z = -.03; p = .97; Intent:U = 234;
Z = -.13; p = .9; Blame U = 209; Z = -.72; p = .47] and comparing with parents of
non-disabled children [Locus:U = 361; Z = -.61; p = .4; Globality:U = 317; Z = -
1.3; p = .2; Stability:U = 397; Z = -.04; p = .9; Motivation:U = 359; Z = -.64; p =
.51; Intent:U = 353; Z = -.73; p = .5; Blame:U = 288; Z = -1.7; p = .08].
Simple comparisons show, instead, that parents of children with low functio-
ning autism have higher scores in the globality [U= 170.5; Z = -2.71; p < .007],
intent [U= 162.5; Z = -2.86; p < .004], motivation [U= 154; Z = -3.02; p < .003]
and blame sub-scales [U= 172.5; Z = -2.68; p < .007] than parents of non-disa-
bled children; no statistical differences were found between these two groups in
locus [U= 286; Z = -.61; p = .4] and stability [U= 237; Z = -1.5; p = .13] scores.
Parents of children with Down Syndrome had a higher score in globality sub-
scale than parents of non-disabled children [U= 319.5; Z = -2.23; p < .03]. No
statistical differences were found in other sub-scales [Locus:U = 407; Z = -1.01;
p = .3; p = .3; Stability:U = 450; Z = -.41; p = .7; Motivation:U = 401; Z = -1.09;
p = .27; Intent:U = 435; Z = -.62; p = .5; Blame:U = 433; Z = -.65; p = .5].
The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test showed the same results in families with
children with high and low functioning autism. Parents of children with high fun-
ctioning autism tend to attribute negative events to the partner more than stability
[Z= 3.54; p < .0001], globality [Z= 1.89; p < .05], intent [Z= 3.22; p < .001],
motivation [Z= 2.45; p < .01] and blame [Z= 2.69; p < .007].
The same results were found in parents of children with low functioning
autism. They showed the same dysfunctional pattern of attributions in which
one partner’s behaviour is perceived as the cause of the problem more than
stability [Z= 2.58; p< .01], globality [Z= 2.27; p< .02], intent [Z= 1.96; p<
.05] or blame [Z= 2.86; p< .004]. No statistical differences between locus
and motivation were found [Z= 1.65; p< .09].
A different result was found in parents of children with Down Syndrome: in
this case there were higher scores in locus only in comparison with motivation
[Z= 2.16; p< .03] and globality [Z= 2.03; p< .04]. Unlike other groups, these
parents show higher scores in globality compared with motivation [Z= 2.55;
p< .01] and blame [Z= 2.11; p< .03] scales.
The style of attribution of parents with non-disabled children seems more si-
milar to that of parents of autistic children. In fact, even in this family context,
parents tend to attribute negative events more to the partner than to stability
[Z= 4.88; p< .0001], globality [Z= 4.87; p< .0001], intent [Z= 4.76; p<
.0001], motivation [Z= 5.08; p< .0001] or blame [Z= 5.13; p< .0001]. Ho-
wever, unlike others, in these groups parents had a significantly higher score
28
Life Span and Disability Santamaria F. et al.
Marital satisfaction and attribution style in parents of disabled and non-disabled children
in stability than intent [Z= 2.68; p< .007], motivation [Z= 2.17; p< .03] and
blame [Z= 2.34; p< .02] scales.
4.2 Correlations between DAS and RAM
The second object was to investigate whether there were statistical cor-
relations between couple adjustment and style of attribution in each of the four
groups of parents. As shown in table 3, higher scores in RAM sub-scales that
represent a dysfunctional style of attributions are negatively related with total
DAS, especially in the two groups of parents with autistic children. The relation
between attributions style and couple functioning are similar in parents of Down
Syndrome children and in parents with non-disabled children. In families with
high functioning children, all DAS sub-scales were negatively correlated with
the different aspects of couple attribution.
These results were also confirmed when analysing parents of low functioning
children, but, in this case, couple satisfaction seems not to be related with locus
[ρ= -.16; p= .55], stability [ρ= -.35; p= .18], globality [ρ= -.39; p= .14]
and blame [ρ= -.45; p= .08]. Parents of low functioning children show that a
high level of dyadic satisfaction was associated with a lower tendency to at-
tribute intentionality [ρ= -.53; p< .03] and to blame the partner [ρ= -.49; p
< .05] in negative situations. In parents of children with Down syndrome, only
the locus sub-scale was strongly related to all the DAS sub-scales [Locus vs. Con-
sensus: ρ= -.42; p< .037; Locus vs Satisfaction: ρ = -.53; p < .007; Locus vs. Co-
hesion: ρ = -.55; p < .005; Locus vs. Affectional Expression: ρ = -.48; p < .016].
Different correlations in parents with non-disabled children were found. In
this context, it was possible to observe a lower tendency to attribute responsi-
bility to the other partner together with high dyadic consensus [ρ= -.38; p<
.02]. Consequently, the lower tendency to attribute responsibility to the other
was associated with less difficulty in expressing affection [ρ= -.32; p< .04].
In families with non-disabled children, couple satisfaction seems to be a relevant
aspect in moderating the partners’ relationship. High scores in satisfaction were
significantly correlated with the tendency to attribute motivation [ρ = -.57; p<
.0001], blame [ρ= -.51; p< .001] and intent [ρ= -.43; p< .005]. In addition,
couple satisfaction in parents of non-disabled children significantly reduced the
generalization of negative partner behaviour [Globality: ρ= -.42; p< .006].
29
Life Span and Disability Santamaria F. et al.
Table 3 - Spearman's rho correlations between total DAS and Couple At-
tributions (RAM) scores expressed by parents of disabled (low
and high functioning Autism and Down Syndrome) and nondisa-
bled children.
Groups Locus Stability Globality Intention Motivation Blame
Autism Spectrum
Disorder - LF
(N=16)
p-.51 -.57 -.58 -.81 -.75 -.79
p.045 .02 .02 .001 .001 .001
Autism Spectrum
Disorder - HF
(N=20)
p-.71 -.83 -.79 -.82 -.75 -.71
p.001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001
Down Syndrome
(N=24)
p-.57 -.24 -.21 -.15 -.27 -.26
p.003 .26 .33 .49 .21 .22
No disability
(N=40)
p-.11 .02 -.28 -.29 -.44 -.37
p.53 .91 .08 .07 .004 .02
5. Discussion and Conclusion
The first object of this research project was to analyse the differences in
dyadic adjustment and couple attributions in parents of children with high
and low functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder and in parents of children with
Down Syndrome, compared to parents of non-disabled children.
This paper has brought to light some interesting results, underlining differences
between families of children with disability and families with non-disabled
children and between parents of children with different types of disabilities.
The presence of a disabled child is associated with a lower level of dyadic ad-
justment and, as expected, it seems that parents with autistic children expe-
rience more difficulties. In particular, it is clear that parents of children with
low functioning autism perceive lower levels of couple adjustment when com-
pared with parents of children with Down Syndrome and with parents of non-
disabled children. The presence of a child with high functioning autism seems
to be associated with less dyadic adjustment only if compared with parents of
non-disabled child.
30
Interesting results regard the style of attribution: parents of children with low
functioning autism use different parental styles of attribution comparing with
parents of non-disabled children. In particular, parents of children with low
functioning autism show a tendency to generalize partner’s negative behaviour
and to use internal locus of control for negative events. In this group, the couple
blames partner’s behaviour that are perceived as intentional and stable over
time. On the other hand, parents of children with Down Syndrome tend to gene-
ralize partner’s negative behaviour more than parents of non-disabled children.
The second object was to examine the correlations between partners’ percep-
tions of couple adjustment and style of attribution in each of the four groups
of parents. In accordance with literature (Fincham & Bradbury 1992), results
confirmed that couple attributions are strongly related with dyadic adjustment
in all families. However, a stronger relationship emerged in parents of children
with low functioning autism that reported a dysfunctional pattern of couple at-
tribution and an internal locus of control for negative events. In addition, the
results show that parents of children with Down Syndrome probably had an
internal locus of control for negative events which is extremely dysfunctional
for couple relationship. Overall, this paper underlines a strong negative relation
between a dysfunctional attributional style and dyadic adjustment, mostly in
families of children with low functioning autism. Even though it is not possible
to verify the direction of the relation between couple adjustment and couple at-
tributions, the strong relation between these variables has been demonstrated.
In conclusion, it is possible that the stressful situation experienced by parents
of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, mostly those of children with low
functioning autism, have contributed to maintaining a dysfunctional pattern
of attributions over time and, consequently, to decreasing couple satisfaction.
Unfortunately, the limited number of parents does not allow generalizations
regarding these results. The results obtained can act as both a stimulus towards
further research on families of children with autism and other disabilities, and
also as a starting point for further clinical interventions. In fact, these results
highlight a dysfunctional pattern of attribution in the two groups of parents
with autistic children and a strong relation between this pattern and dyadic ad-
justment. For this reason, it could be useful in the assessment of families of
children with disabilities to consider the importance of cognitive factors (Ven-
katesh, 2008), because dysfunctional beliefs can quickly become stable and
be the cause of dysfunctional behaviours against the partner (Fincham & Brad-
bury, 1992; Boyd, 2002; Sanjuán & Magallares, 2009). Partners, using dysfun-
ctional patterns of attribution, would be more prone to develop depression
when faced with stressful situations than those who habitually offer external,
unstable, and specific causes to explain these negative events: this pattern could
31
Marital satisfaction and attribution style in parents of disabled and non-disabled children
be extremely dysfunctional for family functioning and for parenting.
A specific training for parents of children with disabilities, focused on couple
relationship and, in particular, on dyadic attribution, could be important to pre-
vent any possible problem that could interfere on a healthy psychological de-
velopment of the child.
Furthermore, it could be interesting to study these variables, not only in
relation with couple satisfaction and couple adjustment, but also in relation
with other variables that can influence family functioning, such as the parents’
perception of stress or coping strategies used to deal with the child’s disability.
In fact, the differences among groups reported in this study showed that the
type of disability is a very important variable that can influence couple rela-
tionship in different ways. This study focused on families of children with au-
tism spectrum disorder and with Down Syndrome, but it could also be useful
to evaluate couple functioning and attribution styles in families of children
with other types of disability, such as learning disorders or ADHD.
References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, D. C. (1978). Learned hel-
plessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 87, 49-74.
Baucom, D. H. (1986). Attribution in distressed relations: How can we explain
them?. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development,
dynamics and deterioration. London: Sage.
Belchic, J. K. (1996). Stress, social support and sense of parenting competence: A
comparison of mothers and fathers of children with autism, Down syndrome, and
normal development across the family lifespan. Dissertation Abstracts International
Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 57 (2A), 574.
Boyd, B. A. (2002). Examining the relationship between stress and lack of so-
cial support in mothers of children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 17, 208-215.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review
and critique. Psychological Bullettin, 107, 3-33.
32
Life Span and Disability Santamaria F. et al.
Cuzzocrea, F., & Larcan, R. (2005). Parent training for families with mentally re-
tarded children, Journal of Applied Radical Behaviour Analysis (JARBA), 1, 21-31.
Cuzzocrea F., Larcan, R., & Oliva, P. (2008). Parent training for families with
mental retarded children. International Journal of Psychology, 43 (3/4), 309.
Dabrowska, A., & Pisula, E. (2010). Parenting stress and coping styles in mo-
thers and fathers of pre-school children with autism and Down syndrome.
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54 (3), 266-280.
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessing Attributions in Marriage:
The Relationship Attribution Measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 62 (3), 162-168.
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1993). Marital satisfaction, depression,
and attributions: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 442-452.
Freeman, M. F., & Tukey, J. W. (1950). Transformations Related to the Angular
and the Square Root. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 21 (4), 607-611.
Garwick, A. W., Kohrman, C. H., Titus, J. C., Wolman, C., & Blum, R.W.
(1999). Variations in families' explanations of childhood chronic conditions:
A cross-cultural perspective. In H. I. McCubbin, E. A. Thompson, A. I. Thom-
pson, J. A. Futrell (Eds.), The dynamics of resilient families (pp. 165-198).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gentili, P., Contreras, L., Cassaniti, M., & D’Arista, F. (2002). La Dyadic Ad-
justment Scale. Una misura dell’adattamento di coppia. Minerva Psichiatrica,
43, 107-116.
Ghanizadeh, A, Alishahi, M., & Ashkani, H. (2009). Helping Families for Ca-
ring Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders. Archives of Iranian Medicine,
12 (5), 478-482.
Grant, G., & Whittell, B. (2000). Differentiated coping strategies in families
with children or adults with intellectual disabilities: the relevance of gender,
family composition and the life span. Journal of Applied Research in Intellec-
tual Disabilities,13, 256-275.
33
Marital satisfaction and attribution style in parents of disabled and non-disabled children
Hibbs, E. D., Hamburger, S. D., Kruesi, M. J. P., & Leanne, M. (1993). Factors
affecting expressed emotion in parents of ill and normal children. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63 (1), 103-112.
Higgins, D., Bailey, S., & Pearce, J. (2005). Factors associated with functio-
ning style and coping strategies of families with a child with an autism spec-
trum disorder. Autism, 9 (2), 125-137.
Horneffer, K. J., & Fincham, F. D. (1995). Construct of attributional style in de-
pression and marital distress. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 186-195.
Ireland, J. L., Sanders, M. R., & Markie-Dadds, C. (2003). The impact of parent
training on marital functioning: a comparison of two group versions of the triple
p-positive parenting program for parents of children with early-onset conduct pro-
blems. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 31 (2), 127-142.
Jacobson, N. S., McDonald, D. W., Follette, W. C., & Berley, R. A. (1985).
Attribution process in distressed and non-distressed married couples. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 9, 35-50.
Johnson, K. P., & Malow, B. A. (2008). Sleep in children with autism spectrum
disorders. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 8, 155-161.
Jonckheere, A. R. (1954). A test of significance for the relation between m rankings
and k ranked categories. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 7, 93-100.
Kersh, J., Hedvat, T. T., Hauser-Cram, P., & Warfield, M. E. (2006). The con-
tribution of marital quality to the well-being of parents of children with deve-
lopmental disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 883-893.
Kruskal, W. W., & Wallis, W. A. (1952). Use of ranks in one-criterion variance
analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, 583-621.
Larcan, R., & Cuzzocrea, F. (2011). Funzionamento della famiglia e sviluppo
psico-sociale dei fratelli di individui con disabilità intellettive. Psicologia Cli-
nica dello Sviluppo, 15 (1),123-153.
Larcan, R., Cuzzocrea, F., & Oliva, P. (2008). Family stress, parenting skills
and socio-cognitive competences of retarded children siblings. International
Journal of Psychology, 43 (3/4), 462.
34
Life Span and Disability Santamaria F. et al.
Lardieri, L. A., Blacher, J., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). Sibling relationships and
parent stress in families of children with and without learning disabilities. Le-
arning Disability Quarterly, 23, 105-116.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. Springer:
New York.
Llewellyn, G., McConnell, D., Thompson, K., & Whybrow, S. (2005). Out-
of-home placement of school age children with disabilities. Journal of Applied
Research in Intellectual Disability, 18, 1-16.
Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random
variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annual of Mathematical Sta-
tistics, 18, 50-60.
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family stress process: The
double ABCX model of adjustment and adaptation. In H. I. McCubbin, M.
Sussman, & J. Patterson (Eds.), Social stress and family: advances and deve-
lopment in family stress theory and research. New York: Haworth Press.
McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (1998). Maintenance of marital satisfaction:
Distinguishing between global and specific evaluations. Paper presented at the
Society for Southeastern Social Psychologists, Athens, GA.
Najman, J. M., Behrens, B. C., Andersen, M., Bor, W., O’Callaghan, M., &
Williams, G. M. (1997). Impact of family type and family quality on child be-
haviour problems: a longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(10), 1357-1365.
Olsson, M. B., & Hwang, C. P. (2008). Socio-economic and psychological variables
as risk and protective factors for parental well-being in families of children with in-
tellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52, 1102-1113.
Osborne, L. A., McHugh, L., Saunders, J., & Reed, P. (2008). Parenting stress
reduces the effectiveness of early teaching interventions for autistic spectrum
disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 1092-1103.
Patterson, J. M. (1988). Families experiencing stress: I. The Family Adjustment
and Response Model, II. Applying the FAAR Model to health-related issues
for intervention and research. Family Systems Medicine, 6 (2), 202-237.
35
Marital satisfaction and attribution style in parents of disabled and non-disabled children
Raj Kumari, G., & Harpreet, K. (2010). Stress among parents of children with
intellectual disability. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, 21 (2),
118-126.
Rimmerman, I., & Duvdevani, A. (1996). Parents of children and adolescents
with severe mental retardation: Stress, family resources, normalization, and
their application for out of-home placement. Research in Developmental Di-
sability, 17, 486-494.
Rogers, S. J., Hepburn, S. L., Stackhouse, T., & Wehner, E. (2003). Imitation
performance in toddlers with autism and those with other developmental di-
sorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 763-781.
Sanders, M. R., Mazzucchelli, T. G., & Studman, L. J. (2004). Stepping Stones
Triple P: The theoretical basis and development of an evidence-based positive
parenting program for families with a child who has a disability. Journal of
Intellectual and developmental Disability, 29, 265-283.
Sanjuán, P., & Magallares, A. (2009). A longitudinal study of the negative ex-
planatory style and attributions of uncontrollability as predictors of depressive
symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 714-718.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing
the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
38, 15-38.
Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two
things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72-10.
Tangri, P., & Verma, P. (1992). A study of social burden felt by mothers of handi-
capped children. Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies, 8, 117-120.
Venkatesh, K. G. (2008). Psychological Stress and Coping Strategies of the
Parents of Mentally Challenged Children. Journal of the Indian Academy of
Applied Psychology, 34 (2), 227-231.
Walker, J. G., Manion, I. G., Cloutier, P. F., & Johnson, S. M. (1992). Measu-
ring marital distress in couples with chronically ill children: the dyadic adju-
stment scale. Journal of Paediatric Psychology, 17 (3), 345-357.
36
Life Span and Disability Santamaria F. et al.
Weiss, M. J. (2002). Hardiness and social support as predictors of stress in mo-
thers of typical children, children with autism, and children with mental retar-
dation. Autism, 6, 115-130.
Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics,
1, 80-83.
37
Marital satisfaction and attribution style in parents of disabled and non-disabled children
