Harsh, Inconsistent Parental Discipline and Romantic Relationships:

Mediating Processes of Behavioral Problems and Ambivalence

Florensia F. Surjadi
Northern Illinois University
Frederick O. Lorenz
Iowa State University
Rand D. Conger
University of California, Davis
K. A. S. Wickrama
The University of Georgia
According to the Development of Early Adult Romantic Relationships (DEARR) model (Bryant, C. M.,
& Conger, R. D. [2002]. Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H., Jr. [2000] interactional
characteristics in the family of origin influence early adult romantic relationships by promoting or
inhibiting the development of interpersonal competencies that contribute to relationship success in young
adulthood. The present study uses the DEARR model as a general framework to help examine the
long-term link between parental discipline practices in adolescence and young adults interactions in the
early years of marriage or cohabitation. Using prospective data from 288 target participants, their
families, and their romantic partner, beginning when the targets were adolescents and continuing up to
the fifth year of their marital or cohabiting relationships, we found empirical support for the DEARR
model. Parental discipline practices in adolescence were associated with romantic relationship quality
during the early years of marriage or cohabitation through processes in late adolescence and young
adulthood. Specifically, harsh and inconsistent discipline practices were associated with greater attitu-
dinal ambivalence toward parents in adolescence. Inconsistent discipline was also associated with higher
risks of externalizing problems during late adolescence years. Externalizing problems and ambivalence
toward parents predicted poorer relationship quality through aggressive behaviors and ambivalence
toward a romantic partner during the early years of marriage or cohabitation. Implications for practitio-
ners working with couples and families are discussed.
Keywords: parental discipline, young adults romantic relationships, behavioral problems, attitudinal
ambivalence, relationship quality
Motivations for studying marital relationships stemmed from
evidence that marriage influences individual and family well-being
(e.g., Amato, 2010; Lorenz, Wickrama, Conger, & Elder, 2006)
and from the benefits that society enjoys when strong marriages
are formed and maintained (Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000).
Identifying factors that contribute to relationship difficulty during
the early years of marriage can have important implications for
practice and intervention. For example, couples that are deter-
mined to be at risk for marital dysfunction can be targeted for early
intervention (Rogge & Bradbury, 1999). Accordingly, improved
understanding of the proximal and distal factors that predict rela-
tionship problems during the early years of marriage offer hope for
the development of more precise and effective interventions. One
distal context that has been consistently linked to romantic rela-
tionship outcomes is the family of origin. A growing body of
research has indicated certain characteristics in the family of origin
as important antecedents of interactions in romantic relationships;
however, existing research tends to consider either current context
or the family of origin, thus integrative models of the processes
that might influence relationship quality during the early years of
This article was published Online First September 9, 2013.
Florensia F. Surjadi, School of Family, Consumer, and Nutrition Sci-
ences, Northern Illinois University; Frederick O. Lorenz, Departments of
Psychology and Statistics, Iowa State University; Rand D. Conger, Human
Development and Family Studies, University of California, Davis; K. A. S.
Wickrama, Department of Human Development and Family Science, The
University of Georgia.
This research is currently supported by grants from the Eunice
Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Devel-
opment, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (HD064687, HD051746, MH051361,
and HD047573). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors
and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding
agencies. Support for earlier years of the study also came from multiple
sources, including the National Institute of Mental Health (MH00567,
MH19734, MH43270, MH59355, MH62989, and MH48165), the Na-
tional Institute on Drug Abuse (DA05347), the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development (HD027724), the Bureau of
Maternal and Child Health (MCJ-109572), and the MacArthur Foun-
dation Research Network on Successful Adolescent Development
Among Youth in High-Risk Settings.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Florensia
F. Surjadi, 118 Wirtz Hall, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115.
E-mail: fsurjadi@niu.edu
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
Journal of Family Psychology 2013 American Psychological Association
2013, Vol. 27, No. 5, 762772 0893-3200/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0034114
762
marriage can provide multidimensional views about family that
may potentially have implications for practice and intervention
(Fincham & Beach, 1999).
To address this gap in previous research, we draw upon the De-
velopment of Early Adult Romantic Relationships (DEARR) model
(Bryant & Conger, 2002; Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000) as an
overarching framework to help us understand how parental discipline
practices in the family of origin might be related to future relationship
difficulties in the early years of a committed romantic relationship.
We begin by providing a general overview of the DEARR model.
Then, with a focus on two aspects of parental behavioral management
practices during adolescence, we discuss the theoretical links between
harsh and inconsistent parental discipline and subsequent romantic
relationship quality in early adulthood.
According to the DEARR model, relationship-promoting or
-inhibiting experiences in the family of origin influence early adult
romantic relationships through their influence on childrens behav-
ioral and interpersonal competencies (Bryant & Conger, 2002).
The DEARR model proposes that interactional characteristics in
the family of origin prime young adults to behave in certain ways
toward their romantic partner. Ineffective child rearing strategies,
particularly harsh and inconsistent parental discipline, are expected
to jeopardize the development of interpersonal competencies that
contribute to relationship success in young adulthood (Bryant &
Conger, 2002; Conger et al., 2000).
The DEARR model also proposes that adolescents learn
relationship-related cognition through experiences in the family of
origin. Early positive and negative sentiments in the family tend to
predict similar attributional styles in later romantic relationships
(Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On, & Ein-Dor, 2010), and relationship
difficulties with primary caregivers or parents are often associated
with persistent difficulties in intimate relationships (Seiffge-
Krenke, Overbeek, & Vermulst, 2010). Finally, the DEARR model
proposes that both behavioral interactions among the couples and
personal attributions about romantic partner influence the course
of romantic relationships (Bryant & Conger, 2002).
Based on the DEARR model and previous work, the present
study examines the link between harsh and inconsistent parental
discipline practices during adolescence and subsequent relation-
ship quality in the early years of marriage. Most studies examining
the link between parental discipline practices and other social
relationships have emphasized the behavioral processes by which
harsh or inconsistent discipline may lead to subsequent difficulty
in social interactions through increased risk for externalizing prob-
lems (e.g., Ge, Brody, Conger, Simons, & Murry, 2002; Patterson,
DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989). Other studies have focused on the
psychological processes through which ineffective parental disci-
pline creates problematic social ties by invoking ambivalent feel-
ings both toward parents and others (Dwairy, 2010; Maio, Fin-
cham, & Lycett, 2000; Mikulincer et al., 2010). Missing from
current literature is an integration of the behavioral and psycho-
logical processes that may link parental discipline practice to
future relationship quality. In the present study, as presented in
Figure 1, we propose both behavioral and psychological pathways,
including potential cross-domain influences, linking harsh and
inconsistent discipline to later young adult relationship quality.
The target in Figure 1 represents an adolescent transitioning to
adulthood. The rapid biological (e.g., hormonal, puberty) and
social (e.g., increased competence, independence, and greater par-
ticipation in a wider range of social contexts) changes that occur
during adolescence correspond to transitional times during which
effective parenting practice might be especially important. Previ-
ous research suggests that warm, consistent parental expectations
and discipline during this period provide a form of behavioral
regulation and control that extends to other contexts (Elliott et al.,
2006) and often have long-term effects on subsequent develop-
mental outcomes (Buhi & Goodson, 2007).
Parental
Discipline Practices:
Harsh and
Inconsistent
(Parents to target)
Couples
Relationship
Quality
Behavioral Processes
Externalizing
problems
(Target)
Aggression
(Target to
partner)
Psychological Processes
Ambivalence
(Target to
parents)
Ambivalence
(Target to
partner)
Covariates:
Gender
Partner type (married vs. cohabiting)
Age at marriage or cohabitation
Note: Broken lines indicate cross-domain hypotheses
Figure 1. The theoretical model.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
763
HARSH DISCIPLINE AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
From Parental Discipline to Romantic Relationships:
The Mediating Role of Behavioral Processes
The first pathway in Figure 1 examines whether harsh and
inconsistent parental discipline during adolescence will indirectly
influence romantic relationship in early adulthood by increasing
the likelihood of externalizing behaviors in adolescence and ag-
gressive behaviors toward a partner in the early years of marriage.
Decades of research on parenting behaviors have demonstrated
a robust link between harsh and inconsistent parental discipline
and youths externalizing problems (Lindahl & Malik, 1999;
Stanger, Dumenci, Kamon, & Burstein, 2004). For example, the
social-interactional perspective (Patterson et al., 1989) suggests
that parents noncontingent use of both positive reinforcement for
prosocial behaviors and ineffective punishment for deviant behav-
iors may increase the likelihood of behavioral problems. External-
izing problems also tend to emerge when adolescents negative
behaviors escalate through increasingly negative parentchild in-
teractions, followed by withdrawal of parental requests or de-
mands. The use of harsh discipline, along with the erratic and
inconsistent application of rules, encourages youth to use aggres-
sion and violence as an acceptable means to achieve desired goals
(Brendgen, Vitaro, Tremblay, & Lavoie, 2001); it also reinforces
inappropriate behaviors and strengthens the likelihood that misbe-
haviors will be repeated (Melby, Conger, Conger, & Lorenz,
1993). Thus, as shown in Figure 1, we expect harsh and inconsis-
tent discipline to increase the risk for externalizing problems in
adolescence.
Studies have shown that greater externalizing problems tend to
eventually lead to a pattern of aggressive behavior that extends to
other social settings, including romantic relationships. These stud-
ies have documented a significant link between adolescents anti-
social behavior and young adults aggressive behaviors toward a
romantic partner (Brendgen et al., 2001; White & Widom, 2003).
A history of aggression, in turn, has been linked to greater rela-
tionship difficulties in other social contexts, including romantic
unions (Bradbury et al., 2000). Accordingly, we propose that
externalizing problems in adolescence will influence romantic
relationship quality indirectly through aggressive behaviors toward
partners during the early years of marriage or cohabitation.
From Parental Discipline to Romantic Relationships:
The Mediating Role of Attitudinal Ambivalence
The second pathway in Figure 1 posits that harsh and inconsis-
tent parental discipline practices in adolescence generate feelings
of ambivalence toward parents. Attitudinal ambivalence, or the
holding of both positive and negative evaluations toward others,
implies inconsistent cognitions and/or affects relating to the same
object (Jonas, Broemer, & Diehl, 2000). Attitudinal ambivalence
influences information processing and, subsequently, an individu-
als behavior (Jonas et al., 2000). However, different from positive
or negative feelings that are often regarded as relatively stable,
ambivalence tends to be unstable; ambivalent feelings tend to be
expressed in different, and sometimes contradictory, behaviors as
individuals attempt to cope with the conflicting attitudes (Smelser,
1998). In terms of romantic relationships, attitudinal ambivalence
can function as a catalyst that moves the relationship in one
direction or another (Kachadourian, Fincham, & Davila, 2005;
Thompson & Holmes, 1996). Attitudinal ambivalence can serve as
a motivation for the individual to resolve the conflicting feelings
and emotions, either by leaving the relationship or by coming to
terms with the ambivalence through cognitive and affective
changes.
Adolescence is particularly a time when feelings of ambivalence
toward family members are acted out (Smelser, 1998). Attitudi-
nal ambivalence is believed to arise when social structures do not
provide direction for family relationships (Fingerman, Chen, Hay,
Cichy, & Lefkowitz, 2006). Harsh parenting and the unpredict-
ability of parental reactions in inconsistent discipline have been
shown to generate ambivalent feelings and cognitions toward
parents (Dwairy, 2010). Accordingly, we propose that both harsh
and inconsistent parental discipline will give rise to attitudinal
ambivalence toward parents.
Attitudinal ambivalence may also be related to insecure attach-
ment styles. For example, Maio et al. (2000) reported significant
correlations between attitudinal ambivalence and insecure styles of
attachment to both mother and father. As relationships with parents
provide the basis or template for subsequent relationships (Fra-
ley, 2002), we hypothesize that individuals who, in adolescence,
experience higher ambivalence toward their parents will also re-
port greater ambivalence toward their romantic partner as young
adults.
Previous research suggests that ambivalent sentiments toward a
partner tend to influence both communication and reactions to the
partners behaviors (Fincham & Beach, 1999). Individuals with
high levels of ambivalence tend to report greater negativity (i.e.,
angry, out-of-control arguments) in interactions with friends and
romantic partners (Creasey, Kershaw, & Boston, 1999). Therefore,
we anticipate that greater attitudinal ambivalence toward a partner
will influence relationship quality in the early years of marriage or
cohabitation. Finally, previous research has also indicated that
feelings of insecurity and vulnerability may eventually result in
aggression in social relationships (Brendgen et al., 2001). This
suggests that ambivalence toward parents might have cross-
domain influence on aggression toward partner; similarly, exter-
nalizing problems might have cross-domain influence on ambiv-
alence toward a partner.
Control Variables
To account for the potential influences of gender, relationship
status, and age at the time of marriage or cohabitation, we included
these variables in our analyses. Males were found to be especially
vulnerable to developing externalizing problems (Scaramella,
Conger, & Simons, 1999), whereas females tend to display more
aggressive behaviors in romantic relationships (e.g., Feiring, De-
blinger, Hoch-Espada, & Haworth, 2002). Relationship status
(married vs. cohabiting) may also influence relationship quality
(Brown & Booth, 1996) and stability (Bouchard, 2006), although
a recent study suggests that, overall, differences between marriage
and cohabitation tend to be small and appear to dissipate over time
(Music & Bumpass, 2012). Finally, early age at marriage has been
linked to more marital problems and greater instability (Amato &
Hohmann-Marriott, 2007).
To summarize our arguments in Figure 1, we hypothesize that
harsh and inconsistent parental discipline during a childs adoles-
cent years increases the risk for externalizing problems and feel-
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
764
SURJADI, LORENZ, CONGER, AND WICKRAMA
ings of ambivalence toward parents. Subsequently, we predict that
externalizing problems and attitudinal ambivalence toward parents
will influence romantic relationship quality indirectly through ag-
gressive behaviors and ambivalence toward romantic partners dur-
ing the early years of marriage or cohabitation. In this study, we
also explore the possibility that ambivalence toward parents has a
cross-domain influence on aggression toward partner and that
externalizing problems has a cross-domain influence on ambiva-
lence toward partners.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Data for this study are from the Iowa Family Transitions Project
(FTP), an ongoing longitudinal study of more than 550 young
adults. The FTP combines participants from two earlier research
projectsthe Iowa Youth and Families Project (IYFP) and the
Iowa Single Parent Project (ISPP). The IYFP began in 1989 and
included families from rural counties in Iowa with a seventh-grade
target participant who lived with his or her two biological parents
and a sibling within four years of the targets age. The ISPP began
two years later when most target adolescents were in ninth-grade
and enrolled families of the adolescent, his or her sibling, and
mother who had experienced divorce between 1989 and 1991. The
IYFP and the ISPP participants constitute a single cohort of
adolescents matched in terms of age, gender, and grade level from
the same rural areas in Iowa and they completed all of the same
measures and study procedures. When the target child reached the
age of 18, the IYFP and ISPP samples were combined to form the
FTP. Because of the homogenous ethnic composition in the area at
that time, all families were European Americans. Additional de-
tails regarding the study designs and procedures are available in
Conger and Elder (1994).
Beginning in 1995, the study focus shifted from the family in
which the targets were raised to the emerging families and rela-
tionships they were creating. Participants were contacted yearly.
Almost 90% of the FTP participants continue to participate
through 2007. Complete assessments of the targets, their new
families and romantic partners, were collected in alternating years.
The current study uses data from a total of 10 waves of measure-
ments: three waves of the targets adolescence years (1991, 1992,
and 1994, which correspond to the ages of 15, 16, and 18) and
seven waves of their young adulthood years (1995 through 2007,
which correspond to the ages of 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, and 31). To
study interactions during the early years of committed romantic
relationships, our analyses included heterosexual young adult cou-
ples who were either married or cohabiting in a marriage-like
relationship with the same partner for at least 5 years by 2007
(n 288; 43.8% male; 52% were married). We use data from
these 288 targets, their parents, and their parents spouse or co-
habiting partner. Eighty-five percent of the targets were from
two-parent families (i.e., the former IYFP families; preliminary
analysis suggests that there is no significant difference in any of
the variables of interest in this study between the former IYFP and
ISPP participants). The average years of formal education for
mothers and fathers in 1991 were 13.5 and 13.6, respectively. The
average age of first marriage or cohabitation for target participants
was 22.8 years for females and 23.3 years for males.
Measures
Harsh parental discipline. To reduce the effects of method
variance (Campbell & Russo, 2001; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, &
Wu, 1991), a latent construct of harsh parental discipline was
created using four indicators: mother report, father report, target
report of mothers harsh discipline, and target report of fathers
harsh discipline. Each reporter of behavior completed a four-item
Harsh Discipline Scale related to mother and father parenting
behaviors. These scales were adapted from Straus, Gelles, and
Steinmetz (1980) and contain a range of harsh parenting practices
from verbal (e.g., lose temper and yell) to physical assault (e.g.,
spank or slap, hit with a belt or paddle). The items begin with
similar statement When (the target child) does something wrong,
how often does (mom or dad) . . . . Response categories ranged
from 1 (never) to 5 (always) and responses from each reporter (s
ranged from .55 to .65) are averaged so that higher scores indicated
higher mother or father harsh parenting toward the adolescent.
Inconsistent discipline. One latent construct of inconsistent
parental discipline at age 15 was created using four indicators:
mother report, father report, target report of mothers inconsistent
parenting, and target report of fathers inconsistent parenting. On
a scale of 1 (always) to 5 (never), mothers and fathers were
separately asked to rate five items regarding their parenting be-
haviors toward target such as How often do you give up when you
ask (target) to do something and he or she doesnt do it?, How
often do you punish (target) for something at one time, and then at
other times not punish (target) for the same thing? and How
often do you and your (current/former) spouse disagree about
punishing (target)? Targets were also asked to rate five similar
items regarding their mothers and fathers parenting behaviors
such as When your (mom or dad) asks you to do something and
you dont do it right away, how often does (she/he) give up?
Responses from each reporter (s ranged from .46 to .69) are
averaged and coded so that higher scores indicated higher mother
or father inconsistent parenting. Detailed reviews of the procedure
and psychometric properties of the parenting constructs used in the
Family Transitions Project are also available from Conger and
Elder (1994) and Magruder, Lorenz, and Simons (1992).
Attitudinal ambivalence toward parents. A common way to
measure attitudinal ambivalence is by using formula-based mea-
sures that integrate the positive and negative evaluations (Jonas et
al., 2000; Thompson & Holmes, 1996). This method is directly
related to the definition of ambivalence as the coexistence of
positive and negative evaluations of the same objects, historically
suggested and tested by Kaplan (1972) and later refined by
Thompson, Zanna, and Griffin (1995). Attitudinal ambivalence
toward parents was measured using target reports of positive and
negative feelings toward mother and father at age 16 and 18. At
each wave, the positive and negative feelings toward mother and
father were assessed using four items similar to previous studies
(Fingerman et al., 2006; Fingerman, Pitzer, Lefkowitz, Birditt, &
Mroczek, 2008). On a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always) the targets
were asked to rate 2 items that reflected positive feelings, How
often does your (mom or dad) make you feel (she or he) really
cares about you? and How often does your (mom or dad)
understand the way you feel about things as well as 2 items that
reflected negative feelings, How often does your (mom or dad)
make too many demands on you? and How often does your
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
765
HARSH DISCIPLINE AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
(mom or dad) criticize you or your ideas? Items for each dimen-
sion were averaged. Ambivalence scores for mother and father
were calculated using Griffins Similarity and Intensity of Com-
ponents formula (Fingerman et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 1995):
Ambivalence [(Positive Negative) 2 | Positive
Negative |] 1.5
In addition to having been confirmed by other scholars as
sufficiently valid and reliable, the Griffins Similarity and Intensity
of Components formula (Thompson et al., 1995) is also one of the
few proposed formula for measuring attitudinal ambivalence that
meets all of Brecklers (1994) criteria for measuring ambivalence.
Possible scores for the ambivalence measures ranged from 0.5
(when either positive or negative feeling at its maximum and
another feeling at its minimum, indicating low level of ambiva-
lence) to 6.5 (when both positive and negative feelings toward
parents are at their maximum, indicating high degree of ambiva-
lence). The scores for ambivalence toward mother and father at
each wave were averaged (s for the measure at age 16 and 18
were .68 and .79).
Externalizing problems. Externalizing problems were mea-
sured using an adapted instrument from the National Youth Survey
(Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985) that had been validated in past
studies (Huizinga & Elliott, 1986; Piquero, Macintosh, & Hick-
man, 2002). At age 16 and 18, adolescents reported 26 items
regarding their behaviors related to laws and rules such as Taken
a car or other vehicle without the owners permission, just to drive
around and Taken something worth $25 or more that didnt
belong to you. Possible responses ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (6
or more times). To construct a scale, responses at each wave were
averaged (s for the measure at age 16 and 18 were .84 and .90).
Attitudinal ambivalence toward romantic partner. Target
participants reported attitudinal ambivalence toward romantic part-
ner during the first five years of marriage or cohabiting relation-
ships using four similar positive and negative items: On a scale of
1 (never) to 5 (always) how often did partner Make you feel
she/he really cares about you? and Understand the way you feel
about things, for the positive dimension and Make too many
demands on you and Criticize you or your ideas, for the
negative dimension. Positive and negative items were averaged
separately and the ambivalence score at each wave was calculated
using the formula as described above (coefficient s for the scale
in 1995 to 2007 ranged from .62 to .81).
Aggressive behaviors toward romantic partner. Aggressive
behaviors toward romantic partner were measured using partner
report across three waves of data during the first five years of
marriage. On a scale of 1 (never) to 7 (always), partners were
asked to rate five items regarding how often the target participant
shout or yell because she/he was mad at you, insult or swear at
you, and hit, push, grab or shove you. Responses at each wave
were averaged to represent greater targets aggressive behaviors
toward partner (s across 1995 to 2007 ranged from .86 to .89).
Romantic relationship quality. The couples relationship
quality was measured using two indicators: happiness and satis-
faction. During the fifth year of marriage or cohabitation, target
and romantic partner were asked independently to rate on a scale
of 1 to 5 How happy are you, all things considered, with your
relationship? and All in all, how satisfied are you with your
relationship? Responses from target and partner were averaged
and higher scores for each indicator reflected higher couples
happiness or satisfaction. We choose these two global measures
following Fincham and Bradburys (1987) finding that longer
inventories often confound qualitative judgments about the mar-
riage.
Control variables. Gender, relationship status (married vs.
cohabiting), and age at marriage or cohabitation are included as
covariates.
Analysis Strategies
To study interactions in the early years of marriage, data from
the seven waves of young adulthood were rearranged to capture
targets first marital or steady marriage-like cohabiting relation-
ship. At each wave of data collection, targets were asked to
indicate their relationship status and, if applicable, the month
and year of their marital or beginning cohabitation date. We
identify the closest measurement wave following targets first
marital or cohabitation date as Year 1. By 2007, 460 of the
young adults had been married or cohabited with an opposite
sex partner. Two hundred eighty-eight of them had been mar-
ried or cohabited with the same partner for at least five years,
and their interactions had been consistently measured for at
least three waves of assessments. For the purpose of this study,
we focus on these couples. Missing data on specific items
(10.8% of the data) were largely attributable to cases unavail-
able for a certain wave of data collection rather than from
families dropping out of the study. To effectively use all avail-
able data, we estimated model parameters using the full infor-
mation maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation procedures
contained within the Mplus 6 software. The estimated models
were evaluated using a range of fit indices, including the
chi-square test statistic, the comparative fit index (CFI), and the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A value of
.08 or less for RMSEA represents acceptable model fit, whereas
a CFI value of roughly .90 indicates reasonable good fit (Byrne,
2010).
Results
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among the
Latent Variable Indicators
Means, standard deviations and correlations among the main
study variables are presented in Table 1. The correlations among
indicators of each latent variable are all significant (p .01) and
in the expected directions. For example, the correlations among
different reporters of inconsistent parenting at age 15 were positive
and statistically significant, ranging from .24 (p .01) to .65 (p
.01). The correlations across waves between the same measured
variables were also positive and statistically significant, ranging
from .36 (for the aggression toward partner at year 1 and aggres-
sion toward partner at year 5) to .62 (for ambivalence toward
partner at year 1 and ambivalence toward partner at year 3, as well
as for ambivalence toward partner at year 1 and ambivalence
toward partner at year 5).
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
766
SURJADI, LORENZ, CONGER, AND WICKRAMA
T
a
b
l
e
1
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
m
o
n
g
t
h
e
M
a
i
n
S
t
u
d
y
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
I
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
d
i
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e
1
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
o
f
m
o
t
h
e
r

2
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
o
f
f
a
t
h
e
r
.
6
5

3
.
M
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
3
1

.
2
4

4
.
F
a
t
h
e
r
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
2
9

.
3
2

.
3
5

H
a
r
s
h
d
i
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e
5
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
o
f
m
o
t
h
e
r
.
4
1

.
2
7

.
1
1

.
0
8

6
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
o
f
f
a
t
h
e
r
.
3
1

.
3
8

.
1
8

.
1
3

.
5
1

7
.
M
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
2
2

.
1
7

.
3
6

.
2
2

.
4
2

.
2
8

8
.
F
a
t
h
e
r
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
1
0
.
1
4

.
2
5

.
3
2

.
2
1

.
4
3

.
4
9

E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
9
.
A
g
e
1
6
.
2
5

.
1
3

.
1
6

.
0
1
.
1
6

.
0
7
.
1
0

.
1
2

1
0
.
A
g
e
1
8
.
1
5

.
1
7

.
0
8

.
0
2
.
1
6

.
1
4

.
1
1

.
0
3
.
6
1

A
m
b
i
v
a
l
e
n
c
e
t
o
w
a
r
d
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
1
1
.
A
g
e
1
6
.
4
1

.
3
8

.
1
8

.
1
1

.
3
8

.
3
3

.
2
1

.
1
4

.
1
8

.
1
1

1
2
.
A
g
e
1
8
.
2
9

.
2
8

.
1
1

.
1
3

.
4
5

.
3
7

.
2
4

.
1
6

.
1
1

.
1
8

.
5
3

A
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
1
3
.
Y
e
a
r
1
.
1
8

.
0
6
.
2
2

.
1
7

.
0
5

.
0
2
.
1
5

.
1
1
.
3
4

.
2
9

.
1
0
.
1
3

1
4
.
Y
e
a
r
3
.
2
2

.
0
5
.
2
5

.
1
9

.
1
4

.
1
4

.
2
7

.
1
5

.
2
2

.
1
4

.
1
8

.
1
1

.
5
5

1
5
.
Y
e
a
r
5
.
2
2

.
0
8
.
1
8

.
1
9

.
2
2

.
2
1

.
2
6

.
2
5

.
2
9

.
1
4

.
2
2

.
1
5

.
3
6

.
5
8

A
m
b
i
v
a
l
e
n
c
e
t
o
w
a
r
d
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
1
6
.
Y
e
a
r
1
.
2
7

.
2
1

.
1
8

.
2
0

.
1
8

.
1
9

.
1
9

.
0
7
.
2
2

.
2
0

.
3
3

.
4
1

.
1
7

.
1
7

.
2
3

1
7
.
Y
e
a
r
3
.
2
2

.
1
6

.
1
6

.
1
7

.
2
9

.
2
2

.
2
6

.
2
1

.
2
2

.
1
4

.
2
9

.
3
5

.
0
7
.
2
1

.
2
0

.
6
2

1
8
.
Y
e
a
r
5
.
2
6

.
2
0

.
1
4

.
1
8

.
3
0

.
3
1

.
2
3

.
2
1

.
1
8

.
1
7

.
3
3

.
3
8

.
0
9
.
2
3

.
3
6

.
6
2

.
6
1

R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
1
9
.
H
a
p
p
i
n
e
s
s

.
2
0

.
1
0

.
1
5

.
0
8

.
2
8

.
2
7

.
2
1

.
1
7

.
1
9

.
1
4

.
2
3

.
2
6

.
1
9

.
2
5

.
4
4

.
2
2

.
2
1

.
4
0

2
0
.
S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

.
2
3

.
1
3

.
2
2

.
1
5

.
2
8

.
2
3

.
2
7

.
1
7

.
2
7

.
2
1

.
2
9

.
2
5

.
2
1

.
3
5

.
5
2

.
2
9

.
3
3

.
4
8

.
6
6

M
2
.
4
2
2
.
2
8
2
.
3
2
2
.
1
9
1
.
5
6
1
.
4
8
1
.
6
1
1
.
5
5
1
.
1
5
1
.
2
8
2
.
5
3
2
.
6
5
1
.
5
4
1
.
5
8
1
.
5
4
1
.
9
4
2
.
1
2
2
.
2
5
3
.
8
4
4
.
0
9
S
D
.
5
5
.
5
8
.
5
1
.
4
6
.
4
3
.
4
3
.
3
4
.
3
6
.
2
3
.
3
4
.
9
1
.
9
5
.
7
3
.
6
7
.
6
9
.
9
7
.
9
8
1
.
0
0
.
8
4
.
6
8

.
1
0
.

.
0
5
.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
767
HARSH DISCIPLINE AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
Structural Equation Model of the Hypothesized
Pathways
The model in Figure 2 estimates the long-term influence of
harsh and inconsistent parental discipline practices on couples
relationship quality in the fifth year of marriage or cohabitation.
Consistent with our theoretical expectation, harsh and inconsistent
parental discipline, as experienced by the adolescents at age 15,
were associated with greater ambivalence toward parents. How-
ever, inconsistent discipline, but not harsh discipline, was associ-
ated with greater externalizing problems in adolescence. Greater
externalizing problems and ambivalence toward parents in adoles-
cence, in turn, significantly predicted more aggressive behaviors
toward romantic partner and greater ambivalence toward partner
during the early years of marriage or cohabitation. Finally, more
aggressive behaviors and greater ambivalence toward partner dur-
ing the early years of committed romantic relationships predicted
lower relationship quality at year five of marriage/cohabitation.
The direct path from harsh discipline to couples relationship
quality (previously .55, t 8.42, p .01, without all the
indirect paths) and from inconsistent parental discipline to cou-
ples relationship quality (previously .35, t 4.90, p
.01) became nonsignificant when the indirect paths were added
( .14, t 1.19, p .05 and .07, t .82, p .05 for
the paths from harsh discipline and inconsistent discipline, respec-
tively). More notably, formal test for significance of the media-
tional effects were tested using Mplus software according to the
methods as described in Muthn (2011). The standardized indirect
effects from inconsistent discipline to relationship quality (1) through
ambivalence toward parents and partner ( .045, SE .020, p
.05), (2) through externalizing problems and aggressive behaviors
toward partner ( .036, SE .016, p .05), and (3) through
ambivalence toward parents and aggressive behaviors toward part-
ner ( .042, SE .017, p .05) were all statistically
significant. Similarly, the standardized indirect effects from harsh
discipline to relationship quality through ambivalence toward par-
ents and partner ( .095, SE .034, p .05) and through
ambivalence toward parents and aggressive behaviors toward part-
ner ( .087, SE .029, p .01) were statistically significant.
The standardized specific indirect effect from inconsistent disci-
pline to relationship quality through externalizing problems and
ambivalence toward partner, ( .011, SE .007, p .05),
from harsh discipline to relationship quality through externalizing
problems and aggressive behaviors toward partner ( .002,
SE .013, p .05), and from harsh discipline to relationship
quality through externalizing problems and ambivalence toward
partner ( .001, SE .004, p .05) were not significant.
Results for the covariates associated with Figure 2 (see Table 2)
indicated that males tend to report greater externalizing problems
and greater ambivalence toward partner, whereas females were
more likely to be rated as more aggressive toward their partners.
Earlier age of marriage or cohabitation was associated with greater
externalizing problems in adolescence and lower relationship qual-
ity at year 5 suggesting that behavioral problems in adolescence
may be related to early entry and potential relationship difficulties
in committed romantic relationship during the early adulthood.
Additionally, the nonsignificant relationship between externalizing
problems and ambivalence toward parents in adolescence, but a
marginally significant association between aggressive behaviors
toward partner and ambivalence toward partner indicate that feel-
ings of ambivalence toward partner may be expressed in the form
Family of Origin (Late adolescence) Young adulthood
.17
+

(1.85)
-.06
(-.47)
Harsh Discipline
(Age 15)
Inconsistent Discipline
(Age 15)
Externalizing
Problems
(Ages 16-18)
Ambivalence
toward Parents
(Ages 16-18)
Aggression toward
Romantic Partner
(Year 1-5)
Ambivalence toward
Romantic Partner
(Year 1-5)
Relationship
Quality
(Year 5)
.17*
(2.32)
.24**
(3.07)
.59**
(7.58)
.32**
(4.50)
.48**
(7.48)
-.46**
(-5.37)
-.29**
(-3.20)
-.08 (-1.02)
-.02 (-.15)
.32** (4.49) .02 (.17)
.56** (9.68) .28** (3.48)


2
(190 df) = 355.18
CFI = .91
RMSEA = .05
.07 (.82)
-.14 (-1.19)
Figure 2. Structural equation modeling results for the hypothesized paths (values are standardized coefficients
with associated t ratios).
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
768
SURJADI, LORENZ, CONGER, AND WICKRAMA
of behavioral aggression toward the romantic partner whereas in
adolescence externalizing behaviors may not be a direct expression
of ambivalence feelings toward parents.
Although the ratio of sample size to the number of free param-
eters in this study is slightly lower than the recommended ratio of
5:1 (Bentler & Chou, 1987), the inclusion of both measurement
model and structural model in this study allowed us to separate
measurement error from the strength of the relationships among
variables and thus, lead to better, if not more accurate, estimates
(Mueller & Hancock, 2010). To alleviate concern about over
parameterizations, we conducted subsequent analyses by (a) test-
ing the model in Figure 2 without covariates (and hence, improv-
ing the ratio of sample size to the number of free parameters closer
to 5:1) and (b) using the estimated covariance matrix obtained
from the measurement model to estimate the relationship among
variables. In both cases, we found essentially the same conclusion
as the proposed model. For example, the path from externalizing
problems to targets aggression toward romantic partner originally
from .32 (t 4.49, p .01 in Figure 2) became .31, t 5.92,
p .01 when covariance matrix from the measurement model was
utilized and .31, t 4.36, p .01 when model with fewer number
of parameters was estimated. The similarity of the results across
different models and varying number of parameters increases our
confidence in the presented results.
To determine whether the ambivalence measures assessed dif-
ferent construct than positive or negative feelings alone, we con-
ducted additional analyses. The correlations between ambivalence
(both toward parents and toward partners) and positive feelings in
the present data ranged from .45 to .58. The correlations
between ambivalence (both toward parents and toward partners)
and negative feelings ranged from .49 to .67. The regression path
from ambivalence toward parents to relationship quality, without
controlling for positive and negative feelings was .36, t
6.16, p .01. This path was reduced but nevertheless remained
significant ( .16, t 2.19, p .05), after controlling for
positive and negative feelings. Taken together, these results point
to two important conclusions: First, a portion of the results which
are currently being attributed to ambivalence can be explained by
a measure of positive/negative feelings, but more importantly,
second, the ambivalence variable is still measuring something
distinct; our results suggest that the ambivalence measures helped
explain certain variance in relationship quality that cannot be
accounted for by a measure of positive or negative feelings.
Although ambivalence measure is related to its constituent parts
(which reflect its theoretical definition of the coexistence of pos-
itive and negative evaluations of the same attitude object), sub-
stantively, we believe it provides additional insights than by using
positive and negative feelings alone.
Discussion
Drawing from the DEARR model and previous literature, our
study tested a series of behavioral and psychological pathways (see
Figure 1) in which harsh and inconsistent parental discipline
practices in adolescence might indirectly influence romantic rela-
tionship quality in young adulthood. Consistent with our theoret-
ical expectations, the results suggest that inconsistent discipline
was associated with increased risk for externalizing problems in
adolescence. Externalizing problems, in turn, influence the cou-
ples relationship quality through greater aggression toward a
romantic partner during the early years of marriage or cohabita-
tion. This study also found that harsh and inconsistent discipline
practices in adolescence are associated with greater feelings of
ambivalence toward parents. Over time, greater attitudinal ambiv-
alence toward parents predicted poorer relationship quality in
young adulthood through greater ambivalence toward partners
during the early years of marriage or cohabitation. Smelser (1998)
suggests that adolescence is a time in which ambivalence toward
ones parents is acted out toward others in close relationships.
Our results also provide support for this cross-domain influence:
ambivalence toward parents was associated with greater aggres-
sion in the early years of marriage or cohabitation, suggesting that
dissatisfaction and insecurity toward parents is acted out toward
a romantic partner in the form of aggression.
Overall, the present study underscores the importance of con-
sidering both current contexts and earlier experience in the family
of origin to understand marital interactions. Although extensive
research has investigated the link between parenting practices and
future romantic relationships, past research examining the influ-
ence of parental discipline practices has focused primarily on
behavioral pathways (see Locke & Prinz, 2002 for reviews). Par-
ticularly, the link between parental discipline practices and the
development of ambivalent feelings has not received much atten-
tion beyond parentchild contexts. Our findings suggest that atti-
tudinal ambivalence toward parents may set the stage for potential
difficulties in interactions during the early years of marriage or
cohabitation. It appears that unresolved mixed emotions and feel-
ings toward parents can have lingering negative influences on later
romantic relationships. Although research concerning attitudinal
ambivalence and insecure attachment traditionally comes from a
different theoretical emphasis (Jonas et al., 2000), the transmis-
sions of ambivalence toward ones parents to increased aggression
and to increased ambivalence toward a romantic partner found in
this study are parallel to those predicted by existing research of
insecure styles of attachment (e.g., Maio et al., 2000; Mikulincer et
al., 20 10). Future research containing measures of attitudinal
Table 2
Structural Equation Modeling Results for Covariates Associated
With Figure 2
t-ratio
Gender
a
to externalizing problems .20

(3.29)
Gender
a
to ambivalence parents .08 (1.35)
Gender
a
to aggression partner .31

(5.00)
Gender
a
to ambivalence partner .15

(2.49)
Gender
a
to relationship quality .01 (.14)
Relationship status
b
to externalizing problems .14

(2.39)
Relationship status
b
to ambivalence parents .02 (.36)
Relationship status
b
to aggression partner .07 (1.07)
Relationship status
b
to ambivalence partner .01 (.04)
Relationship status
b
to relationship quality .05 (.87)
Age at marriage/coh to externalizing problems .24

(4.08)
Age at marriage/coh to ambivalence parents .12

(1.92)
Age at marriage/coh to aggression partner .09 (1.35)
Age at marriage/coh to ambivalence partner .02 (.32)
Age at marriage/coh to relationship quality .13

(2.10)
a
1 Male, 0 Female.
b
1 Married, 0 Cohabiting.

p .05.

p .05.

p .01.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
769
HARSH DISCIPLINE AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
ambivalence and attachment styles may be able to integrate these
two perspectives in a meaningful way.
Two strengths of this study are its methodological advantage
and its focus on sensitive aspects of parenting during adolescence.
Previous research investigating the influence of family of origin on
the development of the interpersonal skills that predict romantic
relationship success tend to be based on retrospective (e.g., Dalton,
Frick-Horbury, & Kitzmann, 2006) or cross-sectional (e.g.,
Stanger et al., 2004) reports of parenting behaviors that cluster
together different aspects of parenting such as warm, rejecting,
harsh, and inconsistent. Although informative, this approach has
important methodological limitations; clustering different parent-
ing behaviors together may make it hard to target specific parental
behaviors that might be useful for intervention. In this study we
focus on two related, but substantively separate, parenting prac-
tices: harsh and inconsistent discipline. By using prospective,
longitudinal data that spans over a 16-year period, the current
study was able to trace processes that shaped couples relationship
quality in the early years of marriage. Rather than focusing on
aspects of parenting that can be influenced by more stable parents
characteristics and personalities, our theoretical focus on harsh and
inconsistent discipline practices also targeted specific behaviors
that can be modified through behavioral interventions.
Despite these strengths, this studys results need to be inter-
preted with care for several reasons. First, it is important to note
that although the data largely support our proposed model, there
might be other alternative theoretical explanations that fit the
model equally well. More specifically, given the complexity of our
theoretical model, we have not included potential reciprocal influ-
ences between parental discipline practices and adolescents be-
havior (Loulis & Kuczynski, 1997). Future research can extend
this study by investigating the reciprocity in parents and adoles-
cents behaviors, including personality characteristics and poten-
tial genetic factors that might influence parentchild relationships.
Second, the current study focuses on relationship quality among
couples who stayed together during the first five years of marriage
or cohabitation. Because relationship dissolution is most common
during the early years of marriage (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011), our
results might represent processes in couples that have better mar-
ital quality to begin with. Third, this study focused on heterosexual
romantic couples. Several studies have suggested that gay and
lesbian couples might have different interactional styles than mar-
ried, heterosexual couples (Kurdek, 1998; Kurdek, 2005). Future
research can extend this study by taking into account the unique
challenges and issues in same sex couples union. Fourth, all
participants in this study were white; hence, the generalizability of
this studys findings might be limited to this group. As parental
discipline strategies have been shown to differ among different
cultural and ethnic groups (Deater-Deckard, Dodge, & Sorbring,
2005)and because, depending on the cultural context, children
tend to attach different interpretations to their parents discipline
strategies (Lansford et al., 2010)future research that replicates
this study with a more diverse sample might also need to consider
these additional factors. Finally, consistent with the social model-
ing perspective, future research could enhance this study by ex-
amining whether adolescents who received inconsistent discipline
might model the parents inconsistent behavior toward their ro-
mantic partner.
Conclusions and Implication for Practice and
Intervention
The findings of this study have important practical implications.
Our results highlighted harsh and inconsistent parenting as inad-
equate parental management strategies that have long-term impli-
cations for young adults romantic relationships through a series of
behavioral and psychological processes in adolescence and early
adulthood. One practical implication of this studys findings is that
practitioners working with couples and families should focus on
breaking the dysfunctional cycle between externalizing problems,
aggression, and ambivalence. In adolescence, intervention pro-
grams that focus on teaching effective parenting behaviors, such as
setting consistent rules and guidance as well as creating clear
boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors may
reduce adolescents behavioral problems and ambivalence. For this
reason, prevention and rehabilitation efforts aimed at reducing
adolescents emotional and behavioral problems may need to
include the development of support programs for parents.
Among young adults, the present study suggested that both
diminishing externalizing problems in adolescence and resolving
feelings of ambivalence toward parents may improve romantic
relationship quality, both through reduced aggression and through
reduced ambivalence toward a partner. Thus, in working with
individuals and couples, it seems particularly important for prac-
titioners not to only focus on current relationship difficulties but
also to consider prior behavioral and relationship history in the
family of origin.
References
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new
developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650666. doi:
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x
Amato, P. R., & Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2007). A comparison of high- and
low-distress marriages that end in divorce. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 69, 621638. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00396.x
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical issues in structural mod-
eling. Sociological Methods Research, 16, 78117. doi:10.1177/
0049124187016001004
Bouchard, G. (2006). Cohabitation versus marriage: The role of dyadic
adjustment in relationship dissolution. Journal of Divorce & Remar-
riage, 46, 107117. doi:10.1300/J087v46n01_06
Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on
the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 964980. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2000.00964.x
Breckler, S. J. (1994). A comparison of numerical indexes for measuring
attitude ambivalence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54,
350365. doi:10.1177/0013164494054002009
Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R. E., & Lavoie, F. (2001). Reactive
and proactive aggression: Predictions to physical violence in different
contexts and moderating effects of parental monitoring and caregiving
behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 293304. doi:
10.1023/A:1010305828208
Brown, S. L., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A
comparison of relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
58, 668678.
Bryant, C. M., & Conger, R. D. (2002). An intergenerational model of
romantic relationship development. In A. L. Vangelisti, H. T. Reis &
M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Stability and change in relationships (pp.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
770
SURJADI, LORENZ, CONGER, AND WICKRAMA
5782). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511499876.005
Buhi, E. R., & Goodson, P. (2007). Predictors of adolescent sexual behav-
ior and intention: A theory-guided systematic review. Journal of Ado-
lescent Health, 40, 421. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.09.027
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Campbell, D. T., & Russo, M. J. (2001). Social measurement. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2000).
Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmental
perspective on family influences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79, 224237. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.224
Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Families in troubled times: The
Iowa Youth and Families Project. In R. D. Conger & G. H. Elder, Jr
(Eds.), Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America
(pp. 320). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Creasey, G., Kershaw, K., & Boston, A. (1999). Conflict management with
friends and romantic partners: The role of attachment and negative mood
regulation expectancies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 523
543. doi:10.1023/A:1021650525419
Dalton, W. T., III., Frick-Horbury, D., & Kitzmann, K. M. (2006). Young
adults retrospective reports of parenting by mothers and fathers: Asso-
ciations with current relationship quality. Journal of General Psychol-
ogy, 133, 518. doi:10.3200/GENP.133.1.5-18
Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., & Sorbring, E. (2005). Cultural differ-
ences in the effects of physical punishment. In M. Rutter & M. Tienda
(Eds.), Ethnicity and causal mechanisms (pp. 204226). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Dwairy, M. (2010). Parental inconsistency: A third cross-cultural research
on parenting and psychological adjustment of children. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 19, 2329. doi:10.1007/s10826-009-9339-x
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delin-
quency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Elliott, D. S., Menard, S., Rankin, B., Elliott, A., Wilson, W. J., &
Huizinga, D. (2006). Good kids from bad neighborhoods: Successful
development in social context. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499746
Feiring, C., Deblinger, E., Hoch-Espada, A., & Haworth, T. (2002). Ro-
mantic relationship aggression and attitudes in high school students: The
role of gender, grade, and attachment and emotional styles. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 31, 373385. doi:10.1023/A:1015680625391
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (1999). Conflict in marriage: Implica-
tions for working with couples. Annual Review of Psychology, 50,
4777. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.47
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The assessment of marital
quality: A reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 797
809. doi:10.2307/351973
Fingerman, K. L., Chen, P. C., Hay, E., Cichy, K. E., & Lefkowitz, E.
(2006). Ambivalent reactions in the parent and offspring relationship.
Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 61B, P152P160. doi:
10.1093/geronb/61.3.P152
Fingerman, K. L., Pitzer, L., Lefkowitz, E. S., Birditt, K. S., & Mroczek,
D. (2008). Ambivalent relationship qualities between adults and their
parents: Implications for the well-being of both parties. The Journals of
Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences,
63B, P362P371. doi:10.1093/geronb/63.6.P362
Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood:
Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 123151. doi:10.1207/
S15327957PSPR0602_03
Ge, X., Brody, G. H., Conger, R. D., Simons, R. L., & Murry, V. M.
(2002). Contextual amplification of pubertal transition effects on deviant
peer affiliation and externalizing behavior among African American
children. Developmental Psychology, 38, 4254. doi:10.1037/0012-1649
.38.1.42
Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1986). Reassessing the reliability and
validity of self-report delinquency measures. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 2, 293327. doi:10.1007/BF01064258
Jonas, K., Broemer, P., & Diehl, M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence.
European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 3574. doi:10.1080/
14792779943000125
Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F., & Davila, J. (2005). Attitudinal ambiv-
alence, rumination, and forgiveness of partner transgressions in mar-
riage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 334342. doi:
10.1177/0146167204271595
Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude
theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic
differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 361372. doi:
10.1037/h0032590
Kurdek, L. A. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longi-
tudinal evidence from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian
cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 553568.
doi:10.2307/353528
Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples?
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 251254. doi:10.1111/
j.0963-7214.2005.00375.x
Lansford, J. E., Malone, P. S., Dodge, K. A., Chang, L., Chaudhary, N.,
Tapanya, S., Oburu, P., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2010). Childrens per-
ceptions of maternal hostility as a mediator of the link between disci-
pline and childrens adjustment in four countries. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 34, 452 461. doi:10.1177/
0165025409354933
Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (1999). Marital conflict, family processes,
and boys externalizing behavior in Hispanic American and European
American Families. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 1224.
doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp2801_2
Locke, L. M., & Prinz, R. J. (2002). Measurement of parental discipline
and nurturance. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 895930. doi:10.1016/
S0272-7358(02)00133-2
Lorenz, F. O., Wickrama, K. A. S., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H., Jr.
(2006). The short-term and decade-long effects of divorce on womens
midlife health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 47, 111125.
doi:10.1177/002214650604700202
Loulis, S., & Kuczynski, L. (1997). Beyond one hand clapping: Seeing
bidirectionality in parent-child relations. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 14, 441461. doi:10.1177/0265407597144002
Magruder, B., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1992). Parenting constructs
in the Iowa Youth and Families Project (unpublished technical paper
No. 1021). Ames, IA: Center for Family Research in Rural Mental
Health, Iowa State University.
Maio, G. R., Fincham, F. D., & Lycett, E. J. (2000). Attitudinal ambiva-
lence toward parents and attachment style. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 26, 14511464. doi:10.1177/01461672002612001
Melby, J. N., Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Lorenz, F. O. (1993). Effects
of parental behavior on tobacco use by young male adolescents. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 55, 439454. doi:10.2307/352814
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Bar-On, N., & Ein-Dor, T. (2010). The
pushes and pulls of close relationships: Attachment insecurities and
relational ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98, 450468. doi:10.1037/a0017366
Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. (2010). Structural equation modeling. In
G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewers guide to quan-
titative methods in the social sciences (pp. 371383). New York, NY:
Routledge.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
771
HARSH DISCIPLINE AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
Musick, K., & Bumpass, L. (2012). Reexamining the case for marriage:
Union formation and changes in well-being. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 74, 118. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00873.x
Muthn, B. (2011). Applications of causally defined direct and indirect
effects in mediation analysis using SEM in Mplus. Retrieved from
http://www.statmodel.com/download/causalmediation.pdf
Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental
perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329
335. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.329
Piquero, A. R., Macintosh, R., & Hickman, M. (2002). The validity of a
self-reported delinquency scale: Comparisons across gender, age, race,
and place of residence. Sociological Methods & Research, 30, 492529.
doi:10.1177/0049124102030004002
Rogge, R. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Till violence does us part: The
differing roles of communication and aggression in predicting adverse
marital outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67,
340351. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.3.340
Scaramella, L. V., Conger, R. D., & Simons, R. L. (1999). Parental
protective influences and gender-specific increases in adolescent inter-
nalizing and externalizing problems. Journal of Research on Adoles-
cence, 9, 111141. doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0902_1
Seiffge-Krenke, I., Overbeek, G., & Vermulst, A. (2010). Parent-child
relationship trajectories during adolescence: Longitudinal associations
with romantic outcomes in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence,
33, 159171. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.001
Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Wu, C. (1991). Inter-
generational transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 27, 159171. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.27.1.159
Smelser, N. J. (1998). The rational and the ambivalent in the social
sciences: 1997 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 63,
115. doi:10.2307/2657473
Stanger, C., Dumenci, L., Kamon, J., & Burstein, M. (2004). Parenting and
childrens externalizing problems in substance-abusing families. Journal
of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 590600. doi:
10.1207/s15374424jccp3303_16
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed
doors: Violence in the American family. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Thompson, M. M., & Holmes, J. G. (1996). Ambivalence in close rela-
tionships: Conflicted cognitions as a catalyst for change. In R. M.
Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cogni-
tion (Vol. 3, pp. 497530). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Lets not be
indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & K. A.
Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp.
361386). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011, May). Number, timing, and duration of mar-
riages and divorces: 2009. Current Population Reports, Series P70-125.
White, H. R., & Widom, C. S. (2003). Intimate partner violence among
abused and neglected children in young adulthood: The mediating ef-
fects of early aggression, antisocial personality, hostility, and alcohol
problems. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 332345. doi:10.1002/ab.10074
Received October 9, 2011
Revision received May 16, 2013
Accepted July 2, 2013
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
772
SURJADI, LORENZ, CONGER, AND WICKRAMA