Triangulation, the process of involving a child in parental conflict, has been consistently linked to psychological maladjustment in adolescents. While detrimental, families may resort to triangulation as it fosters “diverging realities.” In this dynamic, children become acutely aware of interparental conflict, yet parents remain detached from the tensions within their relationship. Despite its central role in theoretical understandings of triangulation and significant implications for family science and prevention, the phenomenon of diverging realities in triangulating families has not been adequately studied empirically. This research utilized data from 150 families, each with a parent and an adolescent who completed baseline surveys and 21 daily diary questionnaires. These questionnaires assessed triangulation, interparental conflict (IPC), and family cohesion. Employing multi-level models, nesting days within families, we examined within-family associations between triangulation and differing perspectives on family functioning. The results indicated that on days when adolescents experienced heightened triangulation, discrepancies between adolescent and parent reports of IPC and family cohesion widened. Adolescents reported considerably higher levels of interparental conflict and lower family cohesion compared to their parents. Further analysis revealed distinct patterns for IPC and family cohesion discrepancies. Adolescent involvement in IPC is associated with more negative perceptions of family functioning relative to parents. These findings suggest a mechanism through which triangulation poses risks to adolescents, highlighting that the divergence in parent and adolescent perspectives of family functioning fluctuates with daily family processes.
Keywords: Interparental Conflict, Triangulation, Family Cohesion, Adolescence, Reporter Discrepancies
Within the family system, triangulation is defined as drawing a child into parental disputes to alleviate tension within the parental dyad (Bowen, 1978; Buchanan & Waizenhofer, 2001; Minuchin, 1974; Nichols & Everett, 1986). This often includes both parental pressure on children to become involved and children’s own initiatives to intervene (Bell, Bell, & Nakata, 2001; Buchanan & Waizenhofer, 2001; Kerig, 1995). Extensive research has identified triangulation as a significant risk factor for development. Children embroiled in parental conflicts are more prone to internalizing and externalizing problems (Gerard, Buehler, Franck, & Anderson, 2005; Grych, Raynor, & Fosco, 2004), and exhibit heightened emotional reactivity to interparental conflict (Buehler & Welsh, 2009). Triangulation also serves as a mediator in the relationship between interparental conflict (IPC) and negative child outcomes (Buchanan & Waizenhofer, 2001; Fosco & Grych, 2008; Grych et al., 2004). This indicates that children’s involvement in parental conflict is a key pathway through which the detrimental effects of IPC are transmitted. Beyond individual well-being, triangulation erodes family relationships, evidenced by increased hostility and diminished closeness between parents and adolescents (Fosco & Grych, 2010; Fosco, Lippold, & Feinberg, 2014).
Triangulation Dynamics: Divergent Realities and the Illusion of Family Harmony
Given the well-documented negative impacts of involving children in IPC, the prevalence of triangulation in approximately one-third of adolescent families (Fosco & Bray, 2016) may seem paradoxical. Efforts to understand the persistence of triangulation have led family theorists to consider its potential function within the family system. Triangulation is often viewed as a family’s attempt to manage IPC and maintain a semblance of family equilibrium (Minuchin, 1974; Minuchin, 1985). By drawing children into their conflicts, parents struggling to resolve disputes independently may temporarily diffuse tension (Bowen, 1978; Buchanan & Waizenhofer, 2001; Minuchin, 1974; Nichols & Everett, 1986). This triadic process can offer a temporary sense of stability (Bowen, 1978; Kerig, 1995), creating what Minuchin (1974) termed “an illusory harmony” (p. 102) within the couple subsystem. In this scenario, parents may perceive stability in their relationship, while the underlying sources of conflict remain unresolved. However, children in these triangulating families are often acutely aware of the underlying tensions (Bell, Bell, & Nakata, 2001; Minuchin, 1974). Indeed, triangulated children tend to become more sensitive to subsequent parental conflicts (Buehler & Welsh, 2009) and may develop a belief that they are responsible for both causing and resolving disagreements (Fosco & Grych, 2010). Consequently, youth in triangulating families may become hyper-attuned to early warning signs of parental conflict and attempt to defuse disagreements even before parents consciously recognize them (Grych, 1998; Davies, Myers, Cummings, & Heindl, 1999; Schermerhorn et al., 2007). These dynamics can solidify into recurring family patterns as parents come to rely on child involvement to regulate couple conflict (Minuchin, 1974). In families where triangulation is an established mechanism for managing interparental conflict, systematically differing perceptions of family reality may emerge. This divergent realities hypothesis proposes that two distinct lived experiences can coexist within the same household: parents who experience an “illusory harmony” and perceive family stability, and adolescents who feel entangled in their parents’ ongoing conflicts.
Divergent perceptions of family functioning have significant consequences for both family and adolescent well-being. Previous research indicates that discrepancies between parent and adolescent perceptions often signal issues in social support, communication, and parental awareness of adolescent experiences (Carlson, Cooper, & Spradling, 1991; De Los Reyes, Ohannessian, & Racz, 2019; Ferdinand, van der Ende, & Verhulst, 2004; Padilla, McHale, Rovine, Updegraff, & Umaña-Taylor, 2016). Longitudinal studies have shown that increased parent-adolescent discrepancies in perceptions of family functioning predict poorer adolescent psychological adjustment, reduced self-competence, and increased delinquent behavior (Carlson et al., 1991; De Los Reyes, 2011; Gaylord, Kitzmann, & Coleman, 2003; Human, Dirks, DeLongis, & Chen, 2016; Ohannessian & De Los Reyes, 2014; Ohannessian, Lerner, Lerner, & Von Eye, 1995; Ohannessian, Lerner, Lerner, & Von Eye, 2000). In families exhibiting divergent perspectives, adolescents’ negative perceptions, relative to their parents, are stronger predictors of future adjustment difficulties (Human et al., 2016). Given the potential of discrepancy measures to offer unique insights into critical aspects of family functioning and subsequent developmental outcomes, their application to the study of triangulation is ideally suited to capture the divergent perceptions of IPC proposed in theoretical literature (e.g., Minuchin, 1974).
Exploring the Empirical Evidence for Triangulation and Divergent Realities
Despite the widespread acceptance of triangulation’s role in fostering illusory harmony and the developmental and familial implications of divergent realities, empirical research directly examining the connection between triangulation and parent-adolescent discrepancies in perceptions of family relationships, such as IPC or family cohesion, remains scarce. Bell, Bell, & Nakata (2001) investigated patterns of convergence and divergence in family functioning measures among mothers, fathers, and adolescents. Their findings suggested that parental tendencies to avoid marital conflict were associated with imbalanced family structures, including parent-adolescent coalitions, scapegoating, and children mediating interparental relationships. These results offer promising initial empirical support for the link between parental approaches to interparental conflict management and discrepant views of family functioning. However, beyond this study, the potential for triangulation to create divergent parent and adolescent perceptions of IPC remains largely unexamined. Investigating such discrepancies in IPC perceptions could provide empirical validation for the theoretically proposed function of triangulation, while also shedding light on a crucial link between adolescents’ direct involvement in IPC and negative developmental outcomes.
Triangulation may also drive divergent perceptions in family functioning domains beyond interparental conflict. We aimed to explore whether triangulation maintains illusory harmony not just in the couple relationship, but also within the family unit as a whole. Therefore, we applied a divergent realities lens to family-level cohesion, defined as the degree of connectedness, support, and emotional bonding within a family (Moos, 1974; Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979). Perceptions of these broader family dynamics can be influenced by one’s role in triangulation. Parents who utilize triangulation to diffuse interparental conflict may maintain a view of the family as connected and supportive. When conflict arises, involving a child may serve to restore a sense of balance within the family system (Minuchin, 1974; Nichols & Everett, 1986). Conversely, a child routinely involved in parental disputes may perceive the associated strain and discord as defining characteristics of the family, diminishing their perception of overall cohesion. Based on this divergent realities perspective, parents are likely to perceive their families as more cohesive than their triangulated adolescents.
The under-explored possibility that triangulation fosters divergent realities across key dimensions of family functioning has significant implications for family research. Studies often rely on data from a single family member or average parent and youth reports to represent a unified family “reality” regarding family functioning (Gaylord et al., 2003). Such approaches may be problematic in families characterized by high levels of perceptual divergence. Understanding whether discrepancies arise in triangulating families emphasizes the need to incorporate triangulation measures into family risk assessments, consider multiple perspectives within the family, and potentially develop interventions that address these perceptual discrepancies. These efforts are crucial for improving our understanding of developmental risk and supporting youth in triangulating families.
Family science has long grappled with capturing the dynamic, cyclical family patterns described by theorists (Cox & Paley, 1997; Minuchin, 1985). Triangulation, in particular, is seen as a recurring dysfunctional pattern that emerges to regulate interparental discord (Minuchin, 1974; Nichols & Everett, 1986). Daily diary methods offer a valuable tool to capture within-family change processes, overcoming limitations inherent in between-family comparisons based on average levels. These methods allow for the examination of daily fluctuations in triangulation and corresponding variations in the degree to which family members’ perceptions of family relationships diverge (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). Frequent assessments over short periods (e.g., daily) minimize retrospective bias and capture subtle shifts in family functioning as they are experienced by family members (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013; Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2013; Schwarz, 2007). Furthermore, contemporary analytical techniques enable the separation of within-person and between-person processes (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). This allows us to consider how within-family dynamics (i.e., comparing parent and adolescent perspectives on high and low triangulation days) may differ across families based on their general tendencies towards triangulation. Therefore, daily diary methods represent an ideal approach for evaluating potential divergence in parent and adolescent perceptions of family functioning on days with heightened triangulation, while also accounting for the influence of a family’s overall triangulation patterns.
Current Study: Daily Triangulation and Divergent Perceptions
This study utilizes daily diary methods to investigate whether within-family effects exist where triangulation is associated with changes in parent-adolescent discrepancies in daily reports of interparental conflict and family cohesion. Consistent with the divergent realities hypothesis, we predicted that on days when adolescents are triangulated into parental conflicts, parent-adolescent discrepancies in IPC perceptions would increase, with adolescents reporting higher IPC levels than parents (H1a). Extending this, we expected that a more established pattern of triangulation would moderate the effect of daily triangulation on divergent family perspectives. Specifically, we hypothesized that higher global family ratings of triangulation (indicating greater baseline triangulation frequency) would amplify the within-family association between triangulation instances and parent-adolescent discrepancies (H1b).
In a second set of analyses, we examined whether a divergent realities process would be evident in family cohesion experiences. We hypothesized that daily triangulation instances would correspond to increased parent-adolescent discrepancies in perceived family cohesion, with parents reporting higher cohesion than adolescents (H2a). Additionally, we tested whether this daily effect would be moderated by global triangulation, predicting a stronger within-family association in families with more established triangulation patterns (H2b).
Across both sets of hypotheses, we aimed to explore the nature of divergent realities (H1c, H2c). If triangulation is linked to changes in parent-adolescent divergence, we investigated whether the findings aligned with an “illusory harmony” or “differential disruption” perspective. We defined illusory harmony as a pattern where triangulation-related changes in parent-adolescent discrepancies are driven by shifts in adolescents’ perceptions of family relationship quality (IPC and cohesion, H1c and H2c, respectively), without corresponding changes in parents’ perceptions. Differential disruption would be indicated if both parent and adolescent perceptions of family relationships change with triangulation, but adolescents’ perceptions change more significantly.
Methodology
Data were drawn from the Penn State Family Life Optimizing Well-being (FLOW) study. Parents and adolescents completed baseline surveys followed by 21 consecutive days of brief daily reports on family functioning.
Participants
The sample comprised 150 families with an adolescent in 9th or 10th grade, recruited through Pennsylvania high schools and referrals.
Eligibility criteria included: 1) two-caregiver household, 2) adolescent residing continuously within a single household, 3) internet access and ability to complete online surveys at home, 4) English fluency, 5) adolescent in 9th or 10th grade at study onset, and 6) parent and adolescent agreement to participate.
Participating caregivers were predominantly female (95%) and self-identified primarily as mothers (92.7%). Their ages ranged from 30 to 61 years (Mage = 43.4, SDage = 6.9). The majority were White/Caucasian (90%). Most parents were married (89%) and cohabiting with a second caregiver. Average cohabitation duration was 18 years (SD = 7.2). Annual family income varied, with a median range of $70,000-$79,999.
Participating adolescents were 59% female and 41% male, aged 13 to 16 years (Mage = 14.63, SDage = 0.82). They were primarily identified as White (83.3%).
Procedure
Families were recruited via school emails inviting parents to participate. Interested parents accessed a study website for detailed information. Eligible families proceeded with adolescent assent and baseline questionnaire completion by both adolescent and parent. Upon completion, daily diary questionnaire links were sent nightly at 7 pm for 21 consecutive days. Daily questionnaires were brief (≤ 5 minutes) and identical each day. Parent daily survey compliance was 96.52%, and adolescent compliance was 90.42%, totaling 2,848 observations. Participants received compensation in gift cards for completing baseline and daily surveys. All study procedures were approved by The Pennsylvania State University Institutional Review Board (STUDY00000472).
Measures
Analyses utilized adolescent baseline reports of global triangulation and daily reports of triangulation, IPC, and family cohesion from both adolescents and parents. Within-person (Rc) and between-person (R1F) reliability scores were calculated for multi-item scales.
Daily Triangulation
Adolescents rated their daily triangulation level compared to their usual experience using a slider scale from -5 (“Less than Usual”) to 5 (“More Than Usual”). Three items were averaged to create a daily triangulation score: “How much did you feel CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF [parent 1] and [parent 2]’s disagreements today?”, “How much did you feel INVOLVED in your [parent 1] and [parent 2]’s disagreements today?”, and “How much did your [parent 1] or [parent 2] want you to BE ON THEIR SIDE today?”. Daily scores ranged from -5 to 5 (M = -2.11, SD = 2.39) and demonstrated meaningful within-person (Rc = 0.85) and between-person (R1F = 0.96) variation.
Daily IPC Discrepancies
Adolescents and parents rated daily IPC using a single item slider scale from 0 (“Not At All”) to 10 (“A Lot”). Adolescent item: “My [parent 1] and [parent 2] were angry or mad at each other today.” Parent item: “My partner and I were angry or mad at each other today.” Adolescent IPC scores ranged from 0 to 10 (M = 0.92, SD = 2.04), and parent scores ranged from 0 to 10 (M = 0.87, SD = 1.95). Daily discrepancy scores were calculated by subtracting parent IPC reports from adolescent reports, ranging from -10 to 10 (M = .06, SD = 2.26). Positive values indicate higher adolescent IPC reports.
Daily Family Cohesion Discrepancies
Adolescents and parents rated daily family cohesion using a 5-item scale (e.g., “Family members really helped and supported one another.”) with a slider scale from 0 (“Not At All”) to 10 (“A Lot”). Daily scores for adolescent family cohesion ranged from 0 to 10 (M = 7.87, SD = 2.41), and parent scores ranged from 0 to 10 (M = 7.83, SD = 2.18). Daily discrepancy scores were calculated by subtracting adolescent cohesion reports from parent reports, ranging from -10 to 9.6 (M = -.03, SD = 2.54). Positive values indicate higher parent cohesion reports.
Global Triangulation
Adolescents’ general triangulation patterns were measured at baseline using a 5-item scale from the Children’s Perceptions of Interparental Conflict Scale (e.g., “I feel caught in the middle when my parents argue.”) on a 5-point scale (1= Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). Scores ranged from 1 to 5 (M = 1.79, SD = 0.79). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.84.
Data Analysis
Multi-level models, nesting days within families, were used to analyze within-family variance in daily triangulation. Between-family variables (global triangulation, adolescent age, gender) were grand mean centered. Within-family variables included daily triangulation, IPC, and family cohesion reports and discrepancies. Separate models were constructed for IPC and family cohesion discrepancies, adolescent and parent reports, controlling for adolescent gender, age, and study day.
Interparental Conflict Models
Four models were constructed to test H1a-H1c. The first model assessed the main effects of daily and global triangulation on IPC discrepancies. The second model included a cross-level interaction between global and daily triangulation. The third and fourth models examined adolescent and parent IPC reports separately to evaluate illusory harmony and differential disruption perspectives.
Family Cohesion Models
Four parallel models were constructed for family cohesion outcomes, mirroring the IPC model structure.
Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations
| Correlations | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ad Gender | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2 | Ad Age | .05 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 3 | Global Tri | −.01 | .02 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 4 | Daily Tri | .09 | .08 | .04 | — | .17 | .05 | −.09 | −.04 | .05 |
| 5 | Ad IPC | .00 | .01 | .40 | .04 | — | .32 | −.24 | −.17 | .48 |
| 6 | P IPC | .06 | .20 | .24 | .02 | .47 | — | −.12 | −.25 | −.66 |
| 7 | Ad FCoh | .02 | −.09 | −.36 | −.14 | −.34 | −.29 | — | .23 | −.04 |
| 8 | P FCoh | −.04 | −.13 | −.20 | −.07 | −.24 | −.23 | .47 | — | .13 |
| 9 | IPC Disc | −.06 | −.18 | .17 | .02 | .54 | −.49 | −.06 | −.02 | — |
| 10 | FCoh Disc | −.06 | −.02 | .19 | .08 | .13 | .09 | −.61 | .42 | .05 |
| M | — | 14.63 | 1.79 | −2.11 | 0.92 | 0.87 | 7.87 | 7.83 | 0.06 | |
| SD | — | 0.82 | 0.79 | 2.39 | 2.04 | 1.95 | 2.41 | 2.18 | 2.26 |
Note. N = 150; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Ad = adolescent; P = parent; Tri = triangulation; IPC = interparental conflict; FCoh = family cohesion; Disc = discrepancy. Between-person correlations (below diagonal) are calculated using individual mean scores across 21 days, except for global triangulation, adolescent gender, and adolescent age which used the baseline assessments. Between-person correlations .17 or greater were statistically significant (p < .05).
Interparental Conflict Discrepancies
Results for parent-adolescent IPC discrepancies are shown in Table 2. Families with higher global triangulation showed greater IPC perception discrepancies (γ01 = .15, p < .01). Daily triangulation was also associated with increased IPC discrepancies (γ10 = .16, p < .01), supporting H1a.
Table 2. Interparental Conflict and Family Cohesion Models
| Interparental Conflict Models | Family Cohesion Models |
|---|---|
| Discrepancy main effect (H1a) | Discrepancy interaction effect (H1b) |
| β (SE) | β(SE) |
| Intercept (γ00) | .00 (.04) |
| Gender(γ02) | −.05 (.04) |
| Age(γ03) | −.05 (.04) |
| Day (γ20) | .00 (.02) |
| Global_Tri (γ01) | .15 (.04) ** |
| Day’s_Tri (γ10) | .16 (.04)** |
| Day’sTri*Global_Tri(γ11) | — |
Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. Tri = triangulation; Ad. = adolescent.
The interaction model testing H1b showed a significant cross-level interaction (γ11 = .10, p < .01). As illustrated in Figure 1a, in families with higher global triangulation (+1 SD), daily triangulation had a stronger association with increased IPC discrepancies (β = .25, p < .01) compared to families with lower global triangulation (-1 SD) (β = .05, ns). Regions of significance analysis indicated that daily triangulation significantly predicted IPC discrepancies when standardized baseline triangulation levels exceeded -0.60 (n = 97; 65% of sample; Figure 1b).
Figure 1.
N = 150. Global triangulation moderates the association between daily triangulation and IPC discrepancies. 1a presents simple slopes for day’s triangulation and day’s IPC Discrepancy at high (+1 SD) and low (−1 SD) levels of global triangulation. 1b presents the region of significance for the simple slope. Daily triangulation is associated with increases in IPC discrepancies at values of global triangulation above −0.60 SD (n = 97; 65% of sample).
To further understand these results, models predicting adolescent and parent IPC reports separately were examined. Between-family effects were consistent: higher global triangulation families reported higher average IPC (adolescent: γ01 = .20, p < .01; parent: γ01 = .10, p < .05). Within-family effects revealed that daily triangulation significantly predicted adolescent IPC reports (γ10 = .25, p < .01) but not parent reports (γ10 = .06, ns), supporting the illusory harmony perspective (H1c).
Family Cohesion Discrepancies
Families with higher global triangulation also showed greater discrepancies in family cohesion perceptions (γ01 = .15, p < .05). Daily triangulation was significantly associated with increased family cohesion discrepancies (γ10 = .08, p < .05), supporting H2a.
The interaction model for H2b showed a non-significant cross-level interaction, indicating that global triangulation did not moderate the daily association between triangulation and family cohesion discrepancies. Thus, H2b was not supported.
Models predicting adolescent and parent family cohesion reports separately revealed similar between-family effects: higher triangulation families reported lower average family cohesion (adolescent: γ01 = -.30, p < .01; parent: γ01 = -.21, p < .01). Within-family effects showed that daily triangulation significantly predicted both adolescent (γ10 = -.16, p < .01) and parent (γ10 = -.09, p < .01) reports of family cohesion, with a stronger effect for adolescents, supporting the differential disruption perspective (H2c).
Discussion
This study provides empirical support for the clinical observation that Triangulation In Families functions to restore balance in distressed interparental relationships (Bowen, 1978; Minuchin, 1974; Nichols & Everett, 1986). It investigates the theoretically proposed link between triangulation and divergent perceptions of family functioning between parents and children. Utilizing daily diary methods, this research captured within-family dynamics associated with triangulation to assess its role in creating an “illusory harmony” for parents experiencing conflict (Minuchin, 1974, p. 102).
This study tested hypotheses regarding triangulation’s influence on divergent perceptions of IPC and family cohesion. The findings consistently demonstrate that daily triangulation experiences are linked to increasingly divergent family views between parents and adolescents. While this overarching theme emerged for both IPC and family cohesion, unique nuances were also observed, supporting the illusory harmony concept in IPC discrepancies and differential disruption in family cohesion.
Same Family, Divergent Realities
The core finding across both IPC and family cohesion analyses is that daily triangulation experiences correspond to greater divergence in parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of family dynamics. Despite this commonality, distinct patterns emerged for IPC and family cohesion, suggesting illusory harmony in IPC discrepancies and differential disruption in family cohesion.
Interparental Conflict
Regarding interparental conflict, the study revealed that on days with heightened triangulation, adolescents reported significantly higher IPC levels than their parents. Furthermore, this daily link between triangulation and divergent IPC perceptions was more pronounced in families with higher baseline triangulation levels. This aligns with prior research suggesting that triangulation exposure may sensitize adolescents to parental conflict (Buehler & Welsh, 2009; Fosco & Grych, 2010), potentially leading to heightened conflict perception as IPC and triangulation patterns recur. Examining the main effects of daily triangulation on adolescent and parent IPC reports indicated that the observed discrepancies more closely resemble the illusory harmony perspective. Elevated triangulation was associated with significant increases in adolescent IPC reports, but not in parent reports. This suggests that parents in triangulating families may experience a detachment from their conflict due to their adolescent child’s involvement.
These collective findings suggest that adolescent involvement in IPC may indeed serve to de-escalate distress within the interparental relationship. This de-escalation may inadvertently reinforce triangulation, as it provides temporary relief from tension, increasing the likelihood of similar patterns in future disputes. Adolescents in such patterns may become highly attuned to conflict cues and engage in behaviors that sustain “illusory harmony” between parents, perpetuating dysfunctional triadic patterns within the family system.
Family Cohesion
Triangulation was also associated with discrepancies in family cohesion. As hypothesized, triangulation instances correlated with increased divergence in parent and adolescent perceptions of family cohesion. However, unlike the illusory harmony pattern observed with IPC, both parent and adolescent cohesion perceptions changed with triangulation, although adolescents showed a more significant decrease in perceived cohesion. Furthermore, the extent to which cohesion discrepancies changed with daily triangulation was not moderated by global triangulation patterns. This implies that divergent perceptions of family cohesion are equally likely in families with infrequent and established triangulation patterns. In summary, IPC and cohesion discrepancies appear to fluctuate differently in families. For family cohesion, the findings primarily support a differential disruption perspective.
Understanding the distinct mechanisms underlying IPC and cohesion discrepancies requires further theoretical exploration. One potential explanation lies in how parents perceive triangulation events. Triangulation may involve adolescent behaviors (e.g., hostility, disruption) that distract parents from conflict (Davis et al., 1998) or cross-generational coalitions that create distance and tension in parent-adolescent relationships (Christensen & Margolin, 1988; Haley, 1967). While these actions might divert attention from IPC, they can generate tension in other family domains (Fosco & Grych, 2010; Fosco, Lippold, & Feinberg, 2014). Consequently, triangulation may foster illusory harmony in the couple relationship while leading parents to misattribute problems to their child or other family relationships (Minuchin, 1974). Overall, these findings support the idea that triangulation may preserve parents’ sense of marital harmony, but at the expense of broader family relationships.
Implications for Family Science
Beyond providing empirical validation for family systems concepts, this study has broader implications for assessment practices in family science. Prior research acknowledges that parent-adolescent discrepancies in family functioning perceptions indicate dysfunction and have developmental consequences (De Los Reyes, 2019; Human et al., 2016). This study highlights that families experience daily fluctuations in the level of agreement among members regarding key family functioning domains. Crucially, these daily variations in agreement appear to be influenced by common family processes like triangulation (Fosco & Bray, 2016). Notably, triangulation was linked to family cohesion discrepancies across various family types, even those not habitually involving children in IPC. These trends suggest that family researchers should prioritize collecting data from multiple reporters when assessing family functioning to capture diverse perspectives. Furthermore, member agreement should not be assumed to be a stable, time-invariant family characteristic, and factors that promote fluctuations in agreement, such as triangulation, warrant careful examination.
Implications for Family Prevention
Triangulation is consistently linked to adolescent maladjustment (e.g., Buchanan & Waizenhofer, 2001; Grych, Raynor, & Fosco, 2004; Fosco, Lippold, & Feinberg, 2014). This study’s findings indicate that triangulating parents may be less attuned to family distress compared to their adolescent children who are regularly involved in interparental disputes. This lack of parental awareness may perpetuate dysfunctional conflict resolution patterns, further endangering adolescent development. Family-based prevention programs have demonstrated effectiveness in promoting constructive parental IPC behaviors and improving adolescent well-being (e.g., Miller-Graff, Cummings, & Bergman, 2016). Programs targeting IPC could benefit from assessing triangulation alongside dyadic conflict and incorporating content that helps families recognize and reduce maladaptive conflict patterns involving adolescents. Moreover, program efficacy evaluations often rely on parent reports of adolescent adjustment (Miller-Graff, et al., 2016). Given that triangulation shapes discordant family perspectives, including adolescent adjustment reports could strengthen evidence for program impact on developmental outcomes.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study has limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, the sample was primarily White with average incomes, limiting generalizability to more diverse families across race, family structure, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and geography. Replicating these findings in more diverse samples is crucial to determine if IPC and triangulation experiences are similar across cultural and demographic groups. Additionally, ongoing debate exists regarding the optimal use of discrepancy scores in regression models for statistically reliable information (Laird & De Los Reyes, 2013). This area requires further exploration within a within-person framework to clarify the applicability of solutions proposed by Laird and De Los Reyes (2013) to multi-level models.
Furthermore, triangulation is a broad concept encompassing various forms of child involvement in parental conflict (e.g., scapegoating, coalitions, pressure to side, child mediation; Buchanan & Waizenhofer, 2001; Kerig, 1995). The brief daily triangulation measure used in this study lacked the specificity of theoretical work in this area. Future studies could investigate whether different triangulation patterns (e.g., scapegoating, pressure to side) produce similar family discrepancies.
Finally, triangulation and family member perceptions of IPC were measured concurrently, preventing conclusions about the direction of effects. While theory posits that triangulation functions by creating discrepant IPC views (Minuchin, 1974), the reverse possibility remains. Collecting more granular data (e.g., multiple daily measurements) could help assess the theoretically proposed direction of effects.
Conclusions
Triangulation is a common family dynamic associated with negative adolescent outcomes. This study offers novel insights into the within-family processes of triangulation, demonstrating daily links between triangulation and divergent parent-adolescent perceptions of family functioning. The findings suggest that triangulation may indeed serve to foster an illusory harmony for parents in distressed relationships. Moreover, triangulation days are associated with decreased family cohesion perceptions for both parents and adolescents, with more pronounced changes in adolescent perceptions. These findings provide empirical support for previously untested theoretical principles of triangulation and have significant implications for measurement in family science.
Acknowledgments
Author Note
Data collection was supported by the Karl R. and Diane Wendle Fink Early Career Professorship for the Study of Families and the Penn State Social Sciences Research Institute (Fosco). Work on this project was supported by the Hillman Family Foundations (Fosco) and the Prevention and Methodology Training Program (McCauley; T32 DA017629; PIs: S. Lanza; J. Maggs) with funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse*. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Emily LoBraico, Hio Wa Mak, Keiana Mayfield, Amanda Ramos, and Mengya Xia and for their assistance in collecting and preparing the data, and to the participating schools and families that made this project possible. This study was presented at the National Council on Family Relations November 2019 Conference.
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.
References
[R1] Bell, D. C., Bell, L. G., & Nakata, Y. Y. (2001). Family systems and interparental conflict: Convergence and divergence among mother, father, and adolescent reports of family functioning. Family Process, 40(2), 135-152.
[R2] Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson.
[R3] Buchanan, C. M., & Waizenhofer, R. N. (2001). Family conflict and triangulation: Relations with adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(4), 743–762.
[R4] Buehler, C., & Welsh, W. M. (2009). A daily diary study of children’s emotional reactivity to interparental conflict: The role of emotional security and triangulation. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(6), 846–855.
[R5] Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford Press.
[R6] Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616.
[R7] Carlson, C. I., Cooper, C. R., & Spradling, V. Y. (1991). Developmental issues in the assessment of family relationships: Parent-adolescent discrepancies in perceptions of family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 4(4), 395–408.
[R8] Christensen, A., & Margolin, G. (1988). Marital distress. Guilford Press.
[R9] Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Understanding families as systems. Journal of Family Psychology, 11(3), 275–279.
[R10] Cranford, J. A., Shrout, P. E., Iida, M., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., & Bolger, N. (2006). A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-person change: Application to self-esteem and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 942–956.
[R11] Davies, P. T., Myers, M. Z., Cummings, E. M., & Heindl, C. (1999). Representational and emotional security in the interparental subsystem: Associations with child emotional security and adjustment. Child Development, 70(5), 1138–1155.
[R12] Davis, J. H., McKelvain, R. R., & Roopnarine, J. L. (1998). Coping with marital conflict: Children’s emotional and behavioral responses to parental arguments. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6(3), 129–139.
[R13] De Los Reyes, A. (2011). Invited essay: Discrepancies between informants’ reports: A source of information for clinical child and adolescent psychology. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(5), 772–782.
[R14] De Los Reyes, A., Ohannessian, C. M., & Racz, S. J. (2019). Advances in understanding informant discrepancies in child and adolescent psychopathology: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 48(sup1), S1–S14.
[R15] Ferdinand, R. F., van der Ende, J., & Verhulst, F. C. (2004). Parent–child discrepancies in reports of psychopathology in community and clinical samples of children and adolescents. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 13(3), 149–157.
[R16] Fosco, G. A., & Bray, B. C. (2016). Family systems processes and adolescent problem behavior. In D. A. Santisteban, J. G. Szapocznik, & J. Muir (Eds.), Ecosystemic structural family therapy (pp. 141–163). American Psychological Association.
[R17] Fosco, G. A., & Grych, J. H. (2008). Interparental conflict and adolescent adjustment: Latent profiles of emotional reactivity and security as mediators. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(4), 544–554.
[R18] Fosco, G. A., & Grych, J. H. (2010). Marital conflict and adolescent-parent relations: A longitudinal analysis of spillover via emotional reactivity and adolescent triangulation. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 539–549.
[R19] Fosco, G. A., Lippold, M. A., & Feinberg, M. E. (2014). Adolescent triangulation into interparental conflict and young adult relationship adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), 565–575.
[R20] Gaylord, N. K., Kitzmann, K. M., & Coleman, D. (2003). Parent-adolescent agreement on reports of family functioning: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 74(5), 1511–1528.
[R21] Gerard, J. M., Buehler, C., Franck, K. L., & Anderson, S. A. (2005). Marital conflict, family processes, and adolescent adjustment: A longitudinal analysis of the mediating role of emotional security and triangulation. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(4), 531–541.
[R22] Grych, J. H. (1998). Adolescent adjustment following divorce: The role of parental conflict schemas. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(3), 603–615.
[R23] Grych, J. H., Raynor, L. A., & Fosco, G. A. (2004). Patterns of interparental conflict and adolescent development: A prospective investigation. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 80–92.
[R24] Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: The Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. Child Development, 63(3), 558–572.
[R25] Haley, J. (1967). Toward a theory of pathological systems. In G. H. Zuk & I. Boszormenyi-Nagy (Eds.), Family therapy and disturbed families (pp. 11–32). Science and Behavior Books.
[R26] Human, L. J., Dirks, M. A., DeLongis, A., & Chen, E. (2016). Parent–adolescent discrepancies in reports of the family environment and adolescent psychological and physical health. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(4), 490–500.
[R27] Kerig, P. K. (1995). Triangles in the family system: A review of conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Family Psychology, 9(3), 31–331.
[R28] Laird, R. D., & De Los Reyes, A. (2013). Regression models for discrepancy scores: An empirical illustration of common analytic mistakes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(2), 229–241.
[R29] Miller-Graff, L. E., Cummings, E. M., & Bergman, J. S. (2016). Parent-focused interventions for children exposed to interparental violence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(4), 415–426.
[R30] Minuchin, S. (1974). Families & family therapy. Harvard University Press.
[R31] Minuchin, S. (1985). Family kaleidoscope. Harvard University Press.
[R32] Moos, R. H. (1974). Family environment scale. Consulting Psychologists Press.
[R33] Nichols, M. P., & Everett, C. A. (1986). The family life cycle: Theory and treatment. Allyn and Bacon.
[R34] Ohannessian, C. M., & De Los Reyes, A. (2014). Longitudinal associations between informant discrepancies and adolescent adjustment: A test of the competencies versus vulnerabilities hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(8), 1325–1335.
[R35] Ohannessian, C. M., Lerner, J. V., Lerner, R. M., & Von Eye, A. (1995). Person-context relations as determinants of adolescent academic self-confidence, substance use, and delinquency: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10(4), 453–478.
[R36] Ohannessian, C. M., Lerner, J. V., Lerner, R. M., & Von Eye, A. (2000). Informant discrepancies in behavioral and emotional functioning in adolescence: Person-context relations and developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 509–518.
[R37] Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18(1), 3–28.
[R38] Padilla, B., McHale, J. P., Rovine, M., Updegraff, K. A., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2016). Longitudinal associations between mothers’ and adolescents’ marital attitudes and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(3), 334–344.
[R39] Schermerhorn, A. C., Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2007). Children’s appraisals of interparental conflict and emotional security as moderators of relations between constructive interparental conflict and child adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 205–215.
[R40] Schwarz, N. (2007). Retrospective and concurrent self-reports: The rationale for real-time data capture. In A. A. Stone, S. Shiffman, A. Atienza, & L. Nebeling (Eds.), The science of real-time data capture: Self-report methods in health research (pp. 11–26). Oxford University Press.
