See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263295975

Perceptions About Parents' Relationship and Parenting

Quality, Attachment Styles, and Young Adults’ Intimate
Expectations: A Cluster Anal....

Article  in  The Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied · July 2014

DOI: 10.1080/00223980.2013.805116 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

14 2,745

1 author:

Michal Einav
Peres Academic Center
12 PUBLICATIONS   158 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Does Family Cohesion Predict Children's Effort? The Mediating Roles of Sense of Coherence, Hope, and Loneliness View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michal Einav on 05 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Journal of Psychology, 2014, 00(0), 1–22
Copyright C 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
doi: 10.1080/00223980.2013.805116

Perceptions About Parents’ Relationship

and Parenting Quality, Attachment
Styles, and Young Adults’ Intimate
Expectations: A Cluster Analytic
Approach

MICHAL EINAV
Peres Academic Center

ABSTRACT. This study examines the associations between young adults’ perceptions of
their parents’ intimate relationship and the quality of their parenting as predictors of their
children’s expectations about intimacy in their own future relationships. A sample of 111
young adults completed questionnaires assessing their perceptions regarding their parents’
intimate relationship and parenting quality, their own attachment styles, and their own
expectations regarding intimate relationships. A correlational analysis revealed a positive
link between the parents’ relationship and parenting quality, and between parenting quality
and expectations about intimacy, which supports the attachment theory. A cluster analysis
identified three distinct groups of parental profiles interrelated with attachment styles
that had varying effects on their children’s expectations about intimacy. These findings
emphasize the unique characteristics of parental relations in the family of origin relations,
which have an enduring effect on the interpersonal styles of adult children, providing
additional support to an integrated, intergenerational approach to family dynamics.
Keywords: attachment patterns, close relationships, family and romantic relationships,
intergenerational relations, parent child relationships

KEY THEORIES IN FAMILY AND PERSONALITY PSYCHOLOGY have iden-

tified the importance of relationships in the family of origin such as children’s
perceptions about parenting quality or their parents’ relationship with each other
on the motivation and ability of children at all ages to engage in social interac-
tions. The importance of generating and maintaining satisfying, fulfilling intimate
relationships has prompted many researchers to identify the unique contribution

Address correspondence to Michal Einav, 34th Einstein St., Tel-Aviv, 69101, Israel;
einav.michal@gmail.com (e-mail).

1
2 The Journal of Psychology

that specific factors in the family of origin make to varying aspects of intimate re-
lationships. The extant literature has paid a great deal of attention to the impact of
parental divorce on the actual social behaviors of the child. In contrast, this study’s
goal is to explore the effect of the perceptions of young adults in intact families
of origin about their parents’ relationship and the quality of their parenting on the
expectations that these young adults have about intimate relationships. This focus
allows the examination of the long-term consequences of key familial factors on
the individual’s relational expectations, even before he or she faces the inherent
complexities of intimate relationships.

Expectations About Romantic Relationships

Couples enter romantic relationships with a wide array of expectations. Some
of them become part of the explicit, verbal repertoire that spouses share with
one another. These expectations represent the opinions and assumptions that each
spouse communicates in the hopes that their partner will agree to them and honor
them. Other expectations, equally influential, are more implicit and may reflect the
individual’s unconscious attempt to fulfill personal, sometimes childhood needs
through the relationship. Often, people expect their spouse to compensate for
qualities and characteristics they lack or to provide specific experiences such as
nurturing or security that they have received in insufficient quantity or quality
(Knee & Canevello, 2006). When expectations are extreme or demanding, they
may lead to conflict and disappointment, because they are less likely to be fulfilled.
One type of extreme expectation is when individuals rely on their partners to meet
all of their emotional needs. In such cases, the relationship becomes the sole
source of the person’s self-worth and meaning, causing even slight frustrations
to be regarded as threatening and resulting in high levels of anxiety and conflict.
Another type of extreme expectation arises when one spouse believes space and
distance to be the norm in the relationship, with little expectation for intimacy or
closeness. In such cases, demands for greater intimacy on the part of the partner
may lead to resentment and unavoidable conflict. In either case, when the spouse
cannot perform or rejects the role expected by his or her partner, either due to
a sense of suffocation or impingement, the individual is likely to feel anxious,
deceived, and unfulfilled (Dixson, Gordon, Frousakis, & Schumm, 2012).
Implicit and explicit expectations about romantic relationships reflect, in part,
cultural norms of prototypes of presumably ideal relationships. However, the pri-
mary source of expectations comes from our experiences in our family of origin
(Hall, 2006; Larson, Benson, Wilson, & Medora, 1998). Two main processes
within the family may impact one’s expectations about romantic relationships:
observing the interactions between one’s parents and experiencing a dyadic rela-
tionship with each one of the parents.
 Einav 3

The Role of Observing Parental Relationships

The relationship between the parents is the first romantic connection the child
observes. Through parents’ interactions, the child understands how people relate
to each other and learns the rules, norms, values, and behaviors associated with
interpersonal relationships (Whitton, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2008). Thus,
within the two-parent family framework, the child learns the necessary social skills
for developing typical relationships within the extra-familial social environment.
Social learning theory (Bandura, 1989) suggests that children observe and then
imitate their parents’ interactions. However, cumulative evidence indicates that
children do not simply imitate their parents’ behavior, but instead interpret the
beliefs, desires and meanings attributed to the overt behaviors. Children construct
a scheme for intimate relationships based on their parents’ relationship, as they ex-
perienced and understood it (Davies, Harold, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2002;
Grych & Fincham, 2001; Reese-Weber & Hesson-McInnis, 2008). Presumably,
the quality and characteristics of the perceived relationship between the parents
would then serve as the basis for their future relationship expectations. For this rea-
son, children whose parents experienced marital discord have fewer opportunities
to learn positive social skills such as providing support, making compromises or
engaging in amicable conflict resolution that facilitate mutually satisfying, long-
term ties with others. Instead, dysfunctional marital relationships make it likely
that children learn interpersonal behaviors that undermine intimate relationships
and increase the risk of marital instability in adulthood (Amato & DeBoer, 2001).
Several strands of evidence support this explanation, underscoring the association
between the characteristics of the parents’ relationship and the child’s expectations
about future intimate relationships (Horn, 2003; Sergin & Taylor, 2007; Simons,
Simons, Lei, & Landor, 2012; Whitton et al., 2008). Surprisingly, the major-
ity of these studies have focused on divorced families rather than dysfunctional
marriages (Cui, Fincham & Durtschi, 2011; Miles & Servaty-Seib, 2010). For in-
stance, Amato and DeBoer’s longitudinal study reported that a divorced family of
origin increases the risk of seeing one’s own marriage end in divorce, a prophecy
associated with the undermined faith in marital commitment and stability, and the
perception of relationships as fragile and short-lived.

The Role of Parental Experiences

Children’s’ intimate relationships are also related to parent–child interactions
(Parade, Supple, & Helms, 2012; Steinberg & Davila, 2008). Bowlby (1982) sug-
gested that individuals internalize and apply the interactional models of self and
other (internal working models), generated in the context of their own relationship
with their parents, to their adult relationships. According to this view, individu-
als’ expectations about interpersonal relationships develop at an early age, mostly
as a function of early interpersonal experiences with one’s primary care givers.
Variations in these experiences (also termed attachment history) lead to different
4 The Journal of Psychology

attachment styles (Roisman, Collins, Sroufe & Egeland, 2005; Shaver & Mikulin-
cer, 2012). When parenting is attuned to the child’s needs, leading to a secure
attachment style, the adult child expects trust, consistency and comfort in future
relationships, while recognizing and coping with the inevitable disappointments
associated with any relationship. Therefore, securely attached people tend to have
high, yet balanced and realistic expectations of future relationships.
In contrast, when parents are inaccessible, punitive or inconsistently avail-
able, the child develops an insecure attachment style. One form of such an insecure
attachment style is avoidance, resulting from detached, distant parenting meth-
ods. Avoidant children find it difficult to trust other people and prefer to maintain
emotional distance from them. As adults, they are mistrustful and fearful of inti-
macy, experiencing relationships as emotionally demanding. Avoidant adults are
therefore likely to have minimal expectations of their future relationships. People
with anxious-ambivalent attachment schema, resulting from arbitrary and capri-
cious parenting methods, are insecure about the emotional availability of their
partner, even though they themselves have an intense but unfulfilled desire for
emotional closeness. Often their relationships become the most important and
even the single cause of satisfaction or disappointment in their lives. Therefore,
this group of individuals is likely to develop an unrealistically high set of expec-
tations about relationships. These three discrete schemas suggest that perceptions
about the quality of the parent–child relationship may predict one’s expectations
about intimate relationships (Bowlby, 1982).

The Interactive Role of Perceptions About the Parental Relationship

and Parenting
The role of perceptions about the parental relationship and the quality of
parenting in determining the child’s expectations about future relationships be-
come even more central in light of the strong association between the quality
of the parents’ relationship and the quality of their parenting practices (Azam
& Hanif, 2011; Laurent, Kim, & Capaldi, 2008; Richardson & McCabe, 2001;
Riggio & Valenzuela, 2011; Yu, Pettit, Lansford, Dodge & Bates, 2010). For ex-
ample, parentification, a parent–child dynamic wherein children come to provide
ongoing emotional support for their distressed parents, has been associated with
chronic marital conflict (Peris, Goeke-Morey, Cummings, & Emery, 2008). An-
other study reported that supportive parent–child relationships reduce adolescents’
appraisals of threats and self-blame for interparental conflicts (Grych, Raynor, &
Fosco, 2004). However, once again, most of the evidence comes from the study
of divorces in which there are high levels of conflict in the parents’ relationship.
Research has indicated that supportive parent–child relationships can moderate the
negative effects of divorce on both children’s attitudes toward relationships as well
as the skills needed to handle these relationships (McDole & Limke, 2008; Ross
& Fuertes, 2010; Shulman, Zlotnik, Shachar-Shapira, Connolly, &Bohr, 2012).
 Einav 5

Erel and Burman’s (1995) comprehensive literature review proposed a

spillover hypothesis to explain the association between marital distress and im-
paired parenting. The hypothesis refers to the direct transference of emotions,
physical state or behaviors from one relationship to the other via three main mech-
anisms. The first mechanism, based on the identified patient phenomenon from
family systems theories, states that focusing on the child’s problems distracts the
attention of the family away from the parents’ relationship. The conflicts between
the parents are expressed by blaming the child, who might even cooperate in order
to maintain the alleged family unity. This process reduces the tensions in the par-
ents’ relationship, but leads to parental rejection of the child (Fauber, Froehand,
Thomas & Weirson, 1990; Fosco & Grych, 2008; Yahav & Sharlin, 2000). The
second mechanism, drawn from socialization mechanisms, claims that parents
who experience marital conflicts tend to use inconsistent disciplinary strategies
and ineffective parenting techniques. This tendency may result from both frequent
disagreements between the parents regarding the child’s upbringing, as well as
rapid shifts between different parenting techniques by the same parent, according
to the current status of the parental relationship. The child, therefore, faces unclear
and even contradictory boundaries, leading to increased tension in the parent–child
relationship (Afifi, McManus, Hutchinson, & Baker, 2007; Fosco & Grych, 2010;
Lazar, Guttmann, & Abas, 2009). The third mechanism, based on the emotional
availability factor from the ego-depletion literature, claims that parental distress
due to marital problems makes the parents emotionally unavailable to address
their children’s needs and desires (Lum & Phares, 2005; McIntosh, Wells, Smyth,
& Long, 2008).
Research documenting concurrent and longitudinal associations between
marital difficulties and problems in the parent–child relationship support the
spillover hypothesis (e.g., Gerard, Krishnakumar, & Buehler, 2006; Krishnakumar
& Buehler, 2000; Lindsey, MacKinnon-Lewis, Campbell, Frabutt, & Lamb, 2002;
Shelton & Harold, 2008; Sturge-Apple, Davies, & Cummings, 2006), suggesting
that discrete profiles of parenting quality and intimate parental relationships may
differentially contribute to the development of children’s expectations about their
own future intimate relationships.
This study is designed to examine the contribution of two aspects of parental
profiles to the expectations that young adults have about the character and nature
of their future romantic relationships. First, the study examines the contribution
of perceptions that children have about the quality of their relationship with each
parent. Second, the study investigates the effect that the children’s perceptions
about the character and nature of their parents’ intimate relationship have on the
development of the former’s expectations about their future romantic relation-
ships. Drawing from the spillover hypothesis, this study hypothesizes a positive
correlation between perceptions about the quality of the parent–child relationship
and perceptions about the parents’ intimate relationship. Therefore, it is posited
that positive perceptions among children about their parents’ parenting quality
6 The Journal of Psychology

will be associated with a more positive view of the parents’ intimate relationship,
and vice versa.
Second, it is argued that there is a positive correlation between perceptions
about parenting quality and the parents’ intimate relationship, and children’s ex-
pectations about the character and nature of their future intimate relationships.
Specifically, it was hypothesized that positive perceptions about the parents’ par-
enting quality will be associated with higher expectations among their children
about the latter’s future intimate relationships and positive perceptions about the
parents’ intimate relationship will be associated with higher expectations among
their children about the latter’s future intimate relationships.
As there are no previous studies suggesting conclusively that age or gender
has an effect on these variables, it was also posited that these variables will have
the same lack of meaningful effect. Thus, it was hypothesized that age or gender
will have no effect on the influence that children’s perceptions about their parents’
parenting quality or their intimate relationship have on the children’s expectations
about their future intimate relationships.
In order to further examine the relationship between these two aspects of
parental relations in the family of origin and the child’s expectations about inti-
mate relationships, it adopted a person-centered approach known as cluster anal-
ysis. Unlike the more commonly used variable-oriented approach, the person-
centered approach is used to identify categories of individuals who share specific
characteristics or relationships among characteristics (Laursen & Hoff, 2006).
Then, in accordance with earlier studies documenting the role of parental profiles
in predicting interpersonal variables, the exploration of the relationship between
these suggested clusters of parental relations in the family of origin and children’s
expectations. Such an analysis creates a more finely grained understanding of
naturally occurring patterns in families. Last, the connection between parental
relations in the family of origin and children’s’ expectations as young adults with
respect to the commonly used attachment style classification system as a mean
of validating the data further was examined. This portion of the study reflects a
more exploratory analysis, a relatively innovative attempt to delineate the intricate
associations within the family dynamics.

Method

Participants
The sample consisted of 111 students (67 females) from Ben-Gurion Univer-
sity in Israel who volunteered for the study in exchange for academic credit. The
students ranged in age from 18 to 34 (M = 22.12, SD = 2.27). Participation crite-
ria stated that participants should be single (self-identified as such), childless and
whose parents are married to one another. This selection criterion was designed to
 Einav 7

eliminate possible artifacts such as participants’ current relationships, parent–child

relationship with a child of their own, and parental divorce, respectively.

Instruments and Procedure

A research assistant presented a series of questionnaires to the participants
individually in the following order.

Intimate Relationship Expectations Questionnaire (IRE)

This questionnaire evaluates the expectations participants have about the
character and nature of their own future intimate (couple) relationships. Originally
written by Charuvi-Virtzberger (1997), the 41-item version used in this study was
created by Katz-Schuster (1999). The participants were asked to indicate the degree
to which each statement expressed their vision of future intimate relationship on
a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“not at all”) to 6 (“very much”). The
questionnaire refers to major themes in the relationship between couples such as
autonomy, emotional intensity, effort and nurturing. Sample statements include:
“A relationship in which I feel good with him, and he feels good with me” and “A
relationship that enables me to develop.” Higher scores reflected more positive,
optimistic expectations, while lower scores reflected a more doubtful view of
future relationships. Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency in this study was
.90.

Attachment History Questionnaire (AH)

Developed by Hazan and Shaver (1987), this questionnaire examines the par-
ticipants’ perceptions of the quality of their relationship with each parent and
the parents’ relationship with each other, during their childhood years (Feeney &
Noller, 1990; Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Levy, Blatt, & Shaver, 1998). The question-
naire includes 18 statements that refer to the way the participants perceive their
mother’s attitude towards them (e.g., “My mother’s attitude towards me was char-
acterized by acceptance”), their father’s attitude toward them (e.g., “My father’s
attitude towards me was one of love”), and the relationship between the parents. In
this study, the three statements about the relationship between the parents in order
to avoid duplication with the Parents’ Relationship Evaluation Questionnaire were
omitted. For each of the 15 remaining statements, the participants were asked to
state the extent to which the statement reflected their parent–child relationship.
Responses were made on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“not at all”)
to 6 (“very much”). Higher scores reflected a higher quality of parent–child rela-
tionship. Preliminary analysis indicated a strong accord between the scores about
the mother and those about the father. Therefore, these measures were collapsed
into a single variable of perceptions about parenting quality. Cronbach’s alpha for
internal consistency in this study was .75.
8 The Journal of Psychology

Attachment Style Questionnaire (AS)

Perceptions about parenting quality are strongly related to adult attachment
styles (Simpson & Rholes, 2012); therefore, participants also completed the At-
tachment Style Questionnaire. There are various ways of measuring self-reported
attachment styles including Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) four-category
grouping or the two-dimensional approach used by Fraley and colleagues (Fraley
and Waller, 1998; Fraley & Spieker, 2003). In accordance with the latest research
(Nosko, Tieu, Lawford & Pratt, 2011; Reynaud et al., 2012) and in recognition of
its documented brevity, face validity, and ease of administration (Fraley & Phillips,
2009) a three-category grouping (i.e., secure, insecure avoidant, and insecure anx-
ious) to assess attachment style was used. Developed by Hazan and Shaver (1987),
and translated by Mikulincer, Florian, and Tolmacz (1990), the questionnaire in-
cludes three short self-descriptions, one for each attachment style, out of which
the participants choose the one that describes them best. The distribution of the
participants among attachment styles using this questionnaire was similar to that
reported in Ainsworth’s studies (Ainsworth, 1985) and in many others regarding
attachment styles in childhood: 60% secure attachment, 26% avoidant, and 13%
anxious-ambivalent.

The Parents’ Relationship Evaluation Questionnaire (PRE)

This 34-item questionnaire evaluates the participants’ perceptions of their
parents’ intimate relationship (Katz-Schuster, 1999). The participants were asked
to indicate the degree to which each statement described the relationship between
their parents on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“not at all”) to 6 (“very
much”). Higher scores reflected a more positive, ideal perception of the parents’
relationship with items such as “My parents’ relationship was characterized by
honesty” and “My parents expressed interest in one another.” The PRE was created
as a parallel questionnaire to the IRE, with the goal of creating a common termi-
nology and preserving the same fields of content used to describe the relationships
either between the parents (PRE) or when describing future expectations (IRE).
Given the difficulty expected that the participants would have in evaluating the
sexual aspect of their parents’ relationships, it was decided to remove the seven
sex-related items. Katz-Schuster’s (1999) 319 subject pilot study found a Cron-
bach’s alpha of 0.92 and a 0.97 correlation in the Guttman Split-Half method. The
Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency in this study was .93.

Data Analysis
We used SPSS 19.01 to compute the descriptive statistics, reliability coeffi-
cients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the research instruments and bivariate correlations
for examining the relationships between the variables. A software package to per-
form a K-means cluster analysis in order to identify unique groups of parental
profiles was utilized.
 Einav 9

TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics of Participants’ Age by Gender Distribution

Age Range (Years:Months) Males Females Total

18:01–20:12 9 12 21
21:01–21:12 6 15 21
22:01–22:12 10 16 26
23:01–23:12 11 15 26
24:01–34:12 8 9 17
Total 44 67 111

Note. N = 111.

Results

To reduce the chance of Type 1 errors, a multivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA) on gender differences with the three dependent variables, the At-
tachment History questionnaire (AH), Parents’ Relationship Evaluation question-
naire (PRE), and Intimate Relationship Expectations questionnaire (IRE) was
conducted. No significant main effect for gender was found, providing support for
our third hypothesis. For the same purpose, the participants’ ages were divided into
five relatively equal-sized groups. Preliminary analysis indicated that the groups
had a similar number of males and females. Table 1 presents the participants’ age
groups by gender distribution.
Next, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) on age differences with
the three dependent variables, Attachment History questionnaire (AH), Parents’
Relationship Evaluation questionnaire (PRE), and Intimate Relationship Expec-
tations questionnaire (IRE) was conducted. No significant main effect for age
was found, supporting the third hypothesis. In order to identify the relationship
between the measures, a Pearson correlation was performed. Table 2 presents the
correlation matrix of the three scores. The results support our first hypothesis,
demonstrating a moderate positive correlation between participants’ assessment
of the quality of their parents’ relationship (PRE) and parenting quality (AH). In
addition, as expected, parenting quality (AH) was correlated with participants’
expectations about intimate relationships as adults (IRE), supporting our second
hypothesis. However, contrary to our hypothesis, participants’ assessment of the
quality of their parents’ relationship (PRE) was not correlated with their expecta-
tions regarding intimate relationships as adults (IRE).

Cluster Analysis
In order to identify groups of individuals who differ in their combined re-
ported levels of parental profiles, a person-centered approach (e.g., Laursen &
10 The Journal of Psychology

TABLE 2. Pearson Correlations Among the Study Variables

Intimate Parenting Parents’

Expectations Quality Relationship
(IRE) (AH) (PRE)

Intimate Expectations (IRE) — .22∗ .04

Parental Quality (AH) — — .55∗∗
Parents’ Relationship (PRE) — — —

Note. N = 111.
∗∗ p < .01. ∗ p < .05.

Hoff, 2006) was utilized. Based on the parenting quality and parents’ relation-
ship scores, a hierarchical cluster analysis was initially conducted. The analysis
explored different cluster solutions, but the inspection of a hierarchical tree di-
agram strongly supported a three-cluster solution. Therefore, a K-means cluster
analysis with the two parental measures was conducted. The cluster analysis
was used to illustrate the structure of the data (Hair & Black, 2000). The ra-
tionale for this selection was based on the hypothesized relationship between
the two parental measures that was validated by the correlation. The K-means
iterative method makes multiple passes through the data, assigning units to the
cluster with the nearest vector or set of means for the two measures, which is
called the cluster center or centroid (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). The final
cluster solution identified three distinct parental profiles. Table 3 and Figure 1

TABLE 3. Descriptive Statistics of the Clusters’ Variables

Distanced Supportive Typical

Cluster Cluster Cluster
(n = 26) (n = 40) (n = 45)

M SD M SD M SD

Parents’ Relationship 3.54 0.42 5.41 0.27 4.64 0.36

(PRE)
Parenting Quality 4.21 0.56 5.18 0.37 4.67 0.38
(AH)
Intimate Expectations 5.22 0.37 5.35 0.39 5.15 0.38
(IRE)

Note. N = 111.
 Einav 11

6
5.5
Value of Relations

5 Distanced
4.5 Cluster
4
Supporve
3.5
Cluster
3
2.5 Typical
2 Cluster
1.5
1
Parents’ Parenng
Relaonship Quality

FIGURE 1. Level of parents’ relationship and parenting quality for the three
clusters.

present the means and standard deviations of the scores for each cluster. The
three-cluster solution highlighted distinct differences among the three groups
and provided profiles that separated the groups of participants in a meaningful
manner.
The three clusters were conceptualized and labeled as in the following para-
graphs.

Distanced Parenting in a Disengaged Parental Relationship (Distanced Cluster)

The first cluster consisted of 26 participants who scored the lowest on the two
parental measures. These participants tended to perceive their parents’ relationship
as lacking in intimacy and closeness, and their parenting quality as deficient in
care and nurturing. Hence, both parental relations in the family or origin were
poor and insufficient.

Close, Supportive Parenting With High Quality Parental Relationship

(Supportive Cluster)
The second cluster consisted of 40 participants who scored high on the two
parental measures. These participants considered their parents as close and sup-
portive in their parenting behavior, providing more than adequate care to their
children. At the same time, these parents were perceived as having a high quality
intimate relationship, enjoying satisfying fulfilling relations.
12 The Journal of Psychology

TABLE 4. Descriptive Statistics of Clusters by Attachment Styles

Distanced Cluster Supportive Cluster Typical Cluster

(n = 26) (n = 40) (n = 45)
Percentage of the Percentage of the Percentage of
cluster cluster the cluster

Insecure 46.2 (n = 12) 12.5 (n = 5) 26.7 (n = 12)

Avoidant
Secure 38.5 (n = 10) 75.0 (n = 30) 60.0 (n = 27)
Insecure 15.4 (n = 4) 12.5 (n = 5) 13.3 (n = 6)
Anxious

Note. N = 111.

Moderate Levels of Parenting and Couples’ Relationship (Typical Cluster)

This third cluster consisted of 45 participants whose perceptions of their
parents’ relationship and parenting quality were moderate. This cluster, containing
the largest number of participants, may portray a more typical, moderate kind of
relationship in the family of origin in which nurturing, intimacy and support are
usually evident, but not at all times. These participants, perhaps representing the
majority of the population, considered their parents’ relationship to be generally
satisfying to the two of them, and their parenting quality to be generally adequate.

Internal Validation
To examine the internal validity of the cluster identification, a MANOVA with
the clustering of the participants, gender and age groups as independent variables,
and the PRE and AH scores as the dependent variables was conducted. The
MANOVA (using Wilks’ lambda) yielded a significant main effect for the clusters’
identification, F (4, 208) = 64.78, p < .001, η2 = .56, but not for gender, age or
the interactions. As Table 3 shows, significant intergroup differences emerged for
the three clusters on both the parental scores, indicating that the cluster analysis
identified three different clusters according to their defining variables.

External Validation
To examine whether these three different profiles would be differentially
linked to intimate expectations, an ANOVA with the clusters, participants’ gender,
and age groups as the independent variables and the intimate expectations ratings
as the dependent variable was conducted. The ANOVA yielded a significant main
effect for the clusters’ identification, F (2,111) =3.64, p < .05, η2 = .065, but not
for the gender or age differences or the interactions. As Table 3 shows, significant
intergroup differences (using post-hoc Scheffe) emerged between the supportive
and typical clusters, indicating that the cluster analysis also differed according
 Einav 13

to the external variables. Participants who perceived their parents as having a

satisfying relationship and a high quality of parenting were more likely than those
with more moderate scores to have optimistic expectations about future intimate
relationships.
In order to further validate the cluster solution, a χ 2 analysis of the three clus-
ters and the three categories of current attachment identification was conducted.
The results yielded significant differences, χ 2 (4, N = 111) = 10.43, p < .05,
η2 = .14. Table 4 presents the divisions of attachment styles in the clusters. The
distanced cluster clearly had fewer individuals who identified themselves as se-
curely attached as participants in the supportive and typical clusters. In addition,
there were higher proportions of anxiously attached participants in the typical
cluster than in the supportive cluster.
Pearson correlations between the three measures were performed separately
for each one of the clusters. The results revealed different sets of relationships, fur-
ther validating the cluster approach. In the distanced cluster, all of the correlations
were non-significant. Due to the smaller number of participants in the cluster, a
nonparametric analysis (Kendall’s tau (T) coefficient) in order to determine the
relationship between the parental measures and expectations about intimacy was
conducted. The results indicated a moderate positive correlation between the par-
ticipants’ assessment of their parents’ parenting quality and expectations about
intimacy [r (n = 26) =.23, p < .05]. The remaining correlations were not signifi-
cant. In the supportive cluster, parenting quality was associated with the parents’
relationship [r (n = 40) = .29, p < .05, one-tail]. The remaining correlations were
not significant. In the typical cluster, parenting quality was negatively related to
the parents’ relationship [r (n = 45) = –.48, p < .01] and expectations about inti-
macy also had a negative association with the parents’ relationship [r (n = 45) =
–.25, p < .05].

Discussion

This study had two goals. The first was to identify the factors that predict
one’s expectations about intimate relationships. The second goal, of a more ex-
ploratory nature, was to identify distinct groups of individuals who differ in their
perceptions of both their parents’ relationship with one another and the quality of
their parenting. An attempt was made to determine whether these factors would
lead to different expectations about intimacy in the respondents’ future relation-
ships. It was posited that the family of origin relationships would have significant
connections with expectations about intimate relationships.
Our results indicated, as expected, a moderate positive correlation between
the individuals’ assessment of the quality of their parents’ relationship and their
perception of their parenting quality. This finding supports Erel and Burman’s
(1995) spillover hypothesis and related research suggesting that aside from the
direct behavioral and emotional effects that the parents’ intimate relationship has
14 The Journal of Psychology

on their parenting behaviors, the basic rules and norms that govern one relationship
tend to impact other relationships. However, given that the connection in the study
is a correlational one, the possibility of a reverse pattern of effects in which the
parent–child relationship spills over into the parents’ intimate relationship cannot
be overlooked.
A correlational analysis also indicated that individuals’ perceptions of the
quality of their parents’ parenting were connected with their expectations about
intimate relationships as adults. It appears that children internalize and later
apply the interactional models of self and other exemplified in their relation-
ship with their parents to their own expectations about intimate relationships.
Consistent with the attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982), the relationship be-
tween children and their parents provides the former with a direct, first-hand
opportunity to appreciate patterns of communications, norms and rules be-
tween two people, which they later apply to their own relationships with their
environment.
This cross-domain transference, together with the nonsignificant correlation
between the parents’ intimate relationship and the children’s expectations about
intimacy that were found in this study, calls for an in-depth examination. Ac-
cording to previous studies, intergenerational effects are restricted to the same
type of relationship. Thus, parents’ intimate relationships influence their chil-
dren’s intimate relationships (Amato & DeBoer, 2001; Cui, Fincham, & Pasley,
2008; Gardner, Busby, Burr, & Lyon, 2011), and parenting quality influences the
children’s parenting skills (Conger, Belsky, & Capaldi, 2009; Kitamura et al.,
2009; Neppl, Conger, Scaramella, & Ontai, 2009). However, this study examined
expected behaviors rather than actual behaviors. Such a focus may emphasize
multiple factors in family dynamics in which expectations and perceptions, not
yet put to the test, are generated by various sources. Another novelty this study
suggests, which may also account for this cross-domain transference, is its focus
on intact rather than divorced families of origin. In intact families, perhaps sub-
tler patterns of intra-familial relationships have different effects on the children
compared to the more emotionally intense relationships usually found in divorced
families.
To further enhance our understanding of these familial relationships a cluster
analysis to identify potential groups of individuals, based on their parental profiles
was conducted. The groups who exhibited different patterns of parental behavior
might have different expectations about intimate relationships were expected.
Three distinct groups that varied with regard to the relationship between the
parents and the quality of their parenting were identified.
The cluster comprised of those with distanced parenting in a disengaged
parental relationship consisted of participants whose scores were the lowest on
the two measures of perceptions about their parents. As expected, only a few par-
ticipants in this cluster identified themselves as being securely attached. However,
surprisingly, their expectations for intimacy were not the lowest. Although the
 Einav 15

correlation between their combined parental measures was positive and signifi-
cant, the correlations with intimate expectations were not. It seems that in these
families, the sources of intimacy cannot be linearly attributed to the different as-
pects of parents’ behavior and relationships. Perhaps these participants, forced to
observe and experience less than ideal family relations, were able to disconnect
from their family of origin experiences and disregard them as a model for their
future. Hence, these detached expectations may be viewed as an active defense
mechanism, protecting them from the potentially detrimental ramifications of the
dyadic models they were forced to encounter. This hypothesis is widely supported
by the positive psychology literature suggesting that hopeful expectations act
as a meaningful moderator between stress and both physical and psychological
well-being (Folkman, 2010).
The cluster consisting of close and supportive parents with high quality
parental relationships had participants who scored high on the two parental mea-
sures. As expected, fewer participants in this cluster identified themselves as
persons with anxious attachment compared to the typical cluster. They considered
their parents as close and supportive in their parenting, and as having a high qual-
ity, intimate relationship. Their parental measures were positively inter-correlated
and, as expected, they felt safe enough to have high levels of expectations about
intimacy. It is posited that these participants who enjoyed positive, satisfying mod-
els of relationships in their family of origin can rely on them in structuring their
own future intimate relationships.
The cluster that included typical levels of parenting quality and inter-parental
relationships consisted of participants whose scores on the two parental measures
were moderate. As expected, this cluster contained more participants with anxious
attachment than the supportive cluster. As adults, they expressed lower levels of
intimate expectations than participants in the supportive cluster. However, this
cluster, reflecting the medium point on the parental profile continuum, presented
a unique profile of relationships between the measures. Contrary to the spillover
hypothesis, parenting quality was negatively associated with the parental relation-
ship, and parental relationship was negatively associated with children’s expecta-
tions about intimacy as adults. These results indicate that those participants who
reported better intimate relationships between their parents also perceived them
as less invested in their parental role. At the same time, however, those who en-
countered lower levels of parental relationship had higher expectations about their
levels of intimacy in their own future relationships. Combining these correlations,
it suggests an either/or relationship between parental relations in the family of
origin and the expectations about future intimate relationships of their children.
On one hand, there were children who felt that their parents’ relationship reflected
intimacy and closeness, but also considered their parents as less invested in their
parenting role. These children may tend to reject their parents’ model of intimacy,
perhaps in an attempt to avoid their less than satisfactory model as parents. On
the other hand, children who consider their parents’ relationship more negatively
16 The Journal of Psychology

may perceive their parental behavior as either compensating for or even promot-
ing the poor quality of their parents’ intimate relationship. Therefore, they too
may reject the compromised model of intimacy they encountered and have higher
expectations of intimacy for themselves. The larger number of participants in this
cluster with anxious attachment strengthens this supposition. Thus, in this cluster
the relationship between the parents and the quality of their parenting may negate
one another. Alternately, one relationship may exist at the expense of the other.
The parents either allocate their personal resources to their intimate relationship,
thereby undermining their role as parents, or invest their resources in parenting,
thereby impairing their ability to nurture a satisfying, intimate relationship with
one another. Either way, the expectations about intimacy in the adult children
reflect their need to somehow compensate for the perceived imbalance.

Study’s Limitations
Although this study has clinical implications for understanding the sources
of expectations about intimate relationships, it suffers from several limitations.
First, when examining patterns of intergenerational transference in the family, the
most valid data gathering will be achieved by conducting longitudinal studies.
Such an approach provides unbiased estimations of effects over time, allowing the
deduction of causal relationships. However, this study’s correlative nature limits
our ability to ascertain the direction of the effects studied. A second limitation
of this study lies in its use of self-report measures, which are more susceptible
to participant bias. Future studies should validate our findings using converging
data sources such as parents’ reports or mixed-methods studies such as observa-
tions about parental relationships. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge
that although the data collected reflect the perceptions of the individual, it is these
perceptions that account for the formation of expectations, which is the focus of
this study. Last, related to the exploratory effort of identifying parental profiles is
the significant, yet relatively small effect that the clusters had in explaining the
variance in the young adults’ expectations about their future intimate relationships.
Although the three different parental profiles were significantly and differentially
linked to the young adults’ expectations about future intimacy, the latter accounted
for only 6.5% of the variance between the clusters. This effect size raises inter-
esting questions as to other potential variables that may contribute to the variance
such as personality characteristics (e.g., self-esteem, sensitivity, or openness to ex-
periences) or familial characteristics (e.g., family climate, adaptability to changes,
or family cohesiveness). Future studies may examine these factors and include
larger samples in order to deepen our understanding of intricate family processes
and dynamics.

Implications and Directions for Future Study

In sum, this study examined one of the key aspects in a person’s well-being
- intimate relationships. One of the novelties of this study is its focus on intact
 Einav 17

families rather than families of divorce, which have received the majority of schol-
arly attention to date. By examining intact families, the nature and value of each
relationship can be explored, allowing a wider variety of family processes to enter
our examination. A second novelty this study proposes is its focus on expectations
about relationships rather than actual relationships. Testing expectations allows
the construction of meaningful therapeutic interventions before the person enters
a relationship with its inherent complexities. Given the significant value that ex-
pectations have in predicting actual behavior, focusing on the sources of these
expectations increases the individuals’ chances of making future relationships
work. By adopting a holistic approach to family dynamics, the study proposed
two possible sources of influence within the family of origin, representing some
of the most primal and consistent relationships children encounter. With regard
to the first factor, the nature of the intimate relationship between the parents, the
child plays the role of observer. With regard to the second factor, however, the
relationship between the parents and the child, the latter is an active participant
in the dyad. Although, as expected, preliminary results indicated that these two
sources are related to each other, only one of them, parenting quality, was related
to the adult child’s expectations about intimacy. This finding emphasizes that it
is the child’s involvement, rather than the characteristics of the relationship, that
is the significant influence. These findings support the contention of attachment
theory (Bowlby, 1982) that by experiencing these relationships with the parents,
the child constructs a template or a schema of relationships that may be adjusted
or modified later on to fit different types of relationships.
By identifying distinct groups of parental behavior, each one with its own
discrete level of relationships and varying pathways of influence, the results of
the current study offer a unique perspective and a more definite and detailed
examination of the association between the joint impact of perceptions about two
aspects of parenting and the child’s characteristics.
Future research seeking to identify additional mediating factors may be in-
strumental in constructing promising venues of interventions for clinicians. This
effort may try to identify alternative factors influencing expectations about inti-
macy such as relationships with siblings or with the extended family, or the specific
relationship with one parent versus the other. Last, another important venue of fu-
ture research may be the subsequent connections between expectations and actual
behaviors. Identifying the elements of the connection between the two will not
only help understand the role of expectations in one’s functioning, but will also
help identify various focal points of intervention when shifting from expectations
to behaviors.
AUTHOR NOTES

Michal Einav is an assistant professor at the Peres Academic Center. Her

current research interests are attachment theory, intergenrational patterns, family
dynamics, and intimate expectations.
18 The Journal of Psychology

REFRENCES
Afifi, T. D., McManus, T., Hutchinson, S., & Baker, B. (2007). Inappropriate
parental divorce disclosures, the factors that prompt them, and their impact on par-
ents’ and adolescents’ well-being. Communication Monographs, 74, 78–102. doi:
10.1080/03637750701196870
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1985). Attachments across the life span. Bulletin of the New York
Academy of Medicine, 61, 792–812.
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Amato, P. R., & DeBoer, D. D. (2001). The transmission of marital stability across genera-
tions: Relationship skills or commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family,
63, 1038–1051. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01038
Azam, A., & Hanif, R. (2011). Impact of parents’ marital conflicts on parental attachment
and social competence of adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,
8, 157–170. doi: 10.1080/17405620903332039
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44,
1175–1184. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A
test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–
244. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 52, 664–678. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x
Charuvi-Virtzberger, T. (1997). Research into the experience and meaning of the love con-
cept in an intimate relationship. (Doctoral dissertation). Bar-Ilan University, Psychology
Department.
Conger, R. D., Belsky, J., & Capaldi, D. M. (2009). The intergenerational transmission
of parenting: Closing comments for the special section. Developmental Psychology, 45,
1276–1283. doi: 10.1037/a0016911
Cui, M., Fincham, F. D., & Durtschi, J. A. (2011). The effect of parental divorce on
young adults’ romantic relationship dissolution: What makes a difference? Personal
Relationships, 18, 410–426. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01306.x
Cui, M., Fincham, F. D., & Pasley, B. K. (2008). Young adult romantic relationships:
The role of parents’ marital problems and relationship efficacy. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1226–1235. doi: 10.1177/0146167208319693
Davies, P. T., Harold, G. T., Goeke-Morey, M., & Cummings, E. M. (2002). Children’s
emotional security and interparental conflict. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 67, 1–115. doi: 10.1111/1540-5834.00205
Dixson, L. J., Gordon, K. C., Frousakis, N. N., & Schumm, J. A. (2012). A study of
expectations and the marital quality of participants of a marital enrichment seminar.
Family Relations, 61, 75–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00681.x
Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent–child rela-
tions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108–132. doi: 10.1037/0033-
2909.118.1.108
Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M., & Weirson, M. (1990). A mediation model of the
impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The
role of disrupted parenting, Child Development, 61, 1112–1123. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8624.1990.tb02845.x
Feeney, J., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281–291. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.58.2.281
Folkman, S. (2010). Stress, coping, and hope. Psycho-Oncology, 19, 901–908. doi:
10.1002/pon.1836
 Einav 19

Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2008). Integrating emotional, cognitive, and family systems
mediators of children’s adjustment to interparental conflict. Journal of Family Psychol-
ogy, 22, 843–854. doi: 10.1037/a0013809
Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2010). Adolescent triangulation into parental conflicts: Longi-
tudinal implications for appraisals and adolescent-parent relations. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 72, 254–266. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00697.x
Fraley, R. C., & Phillips, R. L. (2009). Self report measures of adult attachment
in clinical practice. In J.H. Obegi & E. Berant (Eds.), Attachment theory and re-
search in clinical work with adults (pp. 153–181). New York, London: The Guilford
Press.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments,
emerging controversies and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4,
132–154. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.132
Fraley, R. C., & Spieker, S. J. (2003). Are infant attachment patterns continuously or cate-
gorically distributed? A taxometric analysis of strange situation behavior. Developmental
Psychology, 39, 387–404. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.387
Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological
model. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships
(pp. 77–114). New York: The Guilford Press.
Gardner, B. C., Busby, D. M., Burr, B. K., & Lyon, S. E. (2011). Getting to the root of
relationship attributions: Family-of-origin perspectives on self and partner views. Con-
temporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 33, 253–272. doi: 10.1007/s10591-
011-9163-5
Gerard, J. M., Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2006). Marital conflict, parent–child
relations, and youth maladjustment: A longitudinal investigation of spillover effects.
Journal of Family Issues, 27, 951–975. doi: 10.1177/0192513X05286020
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2001). Interparental conflict and child adjustment: An
overview. In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child
development: Theory, research and application (pp. 1–6). New York: Cambridge.
Grych, J. H., Raynor, S. H., & Fosco, G. H. (2004). Family processes that shape the
impact of interparental conflict on adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 16,
649–665. doi: 10.1017/S0954579404004717
Hair, J. F., & Black, W. C. (2000). Cluster analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.),
Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 147–206). Washington, DC:
APA.
Hall, S. S. (2006). Marital meaning: Exploring young adults’ belief systems about marriage.
Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1437–1458. doi: 10.1177/0192513X06290036
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment pro-
cess. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.52.3.511
Horn, L. L (2003). Parents’ marital discord: Consequences for offspring’s interpersonal
competencies in romantic relationships. Undergraduate Journal of Psychology, 16, 2–9.
Katz-Schuster, D. (1999). The sources of the meaning of intimate relationships – The
parent–child relations and the relationship between the parents. (Doctoral dissertation),
Bar-Ilan University, Psychology Department.
Knee, C. R., & Canevello, A. (2006). Implicit theories of relationships and coping in
romantic relationships. In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and Relationships:
Connecting Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Processes (pp. 160–176). New York, NY:
Guilford Publications. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00089.x
Kitamura, T., Shikai, N., Uji, M., Hiramura, H., Tanaka, N., & Shono, M. (2009). Intergen-
erational transmission of parenting style and personality: Direct influence or mediation?
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 541–556. doi: 10.1007/s10826-009-9256-z
20 The Journal of Psychology

Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). Implicit theories of relationships and
coping in romantic relationships. In E. J. Finkel (Ed.), Self and relationships: Con-
necting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 160–176). doi: 10.1111/j.1751-
9004.2008.00089.x
Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behav-
iors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49, 25–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-
3729.2000.00025.x
Larson, J. H., Benson, M. J., Wilson, S. M., & Medora, N. (1998). Family of origin
influences on marital attitudes and readiness for marriage in late adolescents. Journal of
Family Issues, 19, 750–768. doi: 10.1177/019251398019006005
Laurent, H. K., Kim, H. K., & Capaldi, D. M. (2008). Prospective effects of interparental
conflict on child attachment security and the moderating role of parent romantic attach-
ment. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 377–388. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.377
Laursen, B., & Hoff, E. (2006). Person-centered and variable-centered approaches to lon-
gitudinal data. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 377–389. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2006.0029
Lazar, A., Guttmann, J., & Abas, L. (2009). Parental authority in divorced families. Journal
of Divorce & Remarriage, 50, 356–368. doi: 10.1080/10502550902766514
Levy, K. N., Blatt, S. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Attachment styles and parental represen-
tations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 407–419. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.74.2.407
Lindsey, E. W., MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Campbell, J. J., Frabutt, J. M., & Lamb, M. E. (2002).
Marital conflict and boys’ peer relationships: The mediating role of mother-son emotional
reciprocity. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 466–477. doi: 10.1037/a0014972
Lum, J. J., & Phares, V. (2005). Assessing the emotional availability of parents. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27, 211–226. doi: 10.1007/s10862-005-
0637-3
McDole, M., & Limke, A. (2008). Extended family social support: Making a difference in
the attachment styles of adult children of divorce. Journal of Scientific Psychology, 1,
17–24.
McIntosh, J. E., Wells, Y. D., Smyth, B. M., & Long, C. M. (2008), Child focused and
child-inclusive divorce mediation: Comparative outcomes from a prospective study of
post separation adjustment. Family Court Review, 46, 105–124. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
1617.2007.00186.x
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Tolmacz, R. (1990). Attachment styles and fear of personal
death: A case study of affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
58, 273–280. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.273
Miles, N. J., & Servaty-Seib, H. L. (2010). Parental marital status and young adult off-
spring’s attitudes about marriage and divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 51,
209–220. doi: 10.1080/10502551003597865
Neppl, T. K., Conger, R. D., Scaramella, L. V., & Ontai, L. L. (2009). Intergenerational
continuity in parenting behavior: Mediating pathways and child effects. Developmental
Psychology, 45, 1241–1256. doi: 10.1037/a0014850
Nosko, A., Tieu, T. T., Lawford, H., & Pratt, M. W. (2011). How do I love thee? Let me count
the ways: parenting during adolescence, attachment styles, and romantic narratives in
emerging adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 47, 645–657. doi: 10.1037/a0021814
Parade, S. H., Supple, A. J., & Helms, H. M. (2012). Parenting during childhood predicts
relationship satisfaction in young adulthood: A prospective longitudinal perspective.
Marriage & Family Review, 48, 150–169. doi: 10.1080/01494929.2011.629078
Peris, T. S., Goeke-Morey, M. C., Cummings, E. M., & Emery, R. E. (2008). Marital conflict
and support seeking by parents in adolescence: Empirical support for the parentification
construct. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 633–642. doi: 10.1037/a0012792
 Einav 21

Reese-Weber, M., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (2008). The children’s perception of interparental

conflict scale: Comparing factor structures between developmental periods. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 68, 1008–1023. doi: 10.1177/0013164408318765
Reynaud, M., Chahraoui, K., Vinay, A., Jebrane, A., Bonin, B., Gisselmann, A., &
Larume, A. (2012). Evolution in styles of romantic and interpersonal attachment in de-
pressed adult women during hospitalization. L’Encephale, 38, 381–389. doi: 10.1016/en-
cep.2011.03.03
Richardson, S., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Parental divorce during adolescence and adjust-
ment in early adulthood. Adolescence, 36, 467–489.
Riggio, H. R., & Valenzuela, A. M. (2011). Parental marital conflict and divorce,
parent–child relationships, and social support among Latino-American young adults.
Personal Relationships, 18, 392–409. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01305.x
Roisman, G. I., Collins, W. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2005). Predictors of young
adults’ representations of and behavior in their current romantic relationship: Prospective
tests of the prototype hypothesis. Attachment & Human Development, 7, 105–121. doi:
10.1080/14616730500134928
Ross, J., & Fuertes, J. (2010). Parental attachment, interparental conflict, and
young adults’ emotional adjustment. Counseling Psychologist, 38, 1050–1077. doi:
10.1177/0011000010376094
Sergin, C., & Taylor, P. (2007). Positive interpersonal relationships mediate the association
between social skills and psychological well-being, Journal of Personality and Individual
Differences, 43, 637–646.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2012) Adult attachment and sexuality. In P. Noller & G. C.
Karantzas (Eds.), Handbook of couples and family relationships (pp. 161–175). Oxford,
England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Shelton, K. H., & Harold, G. T. (2008). Interparental conflict, negative parenting and
children’s adjustment: Bridging links between parents’ psychological symptoms and
children’s psychological symptoms. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 712–724. doi:
10.1037/a0013515
Shulman, S., Zlotnik, A., Shachar-Shapira, L., Connolly, J., & Bohr, Y. (2012). Adolescent
daughters’ romantic competence: The role of divorce, quality of parenting and maternal
romantic history. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 593–606. doi: 10.1007/s10964-
012-9748-9s
Simons, R. L., Simons, L. G., Lei, M. K., & Landor, A. M. (2012). Relational schemas,
hostile romantic relationships, and beliefs about marriage among young African
American adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 77–101. doi:
10.1177/0265407511406897
Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2012). Adult attachment orientations, stress, and romantic
relationships. In A. Plant & P. Devine (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(pp. 280–328). San-Diego: Elsevier Inc.
Steinberg, S. J., & Davila, J. (2008). Romantic functioning and depressive symp-
toms among early adolescent girls: The moderating role of parental emotional
availability. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 37, 350–362. doi:
10.1080/15374410801955847
Sturge-Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E.M. (2006). Hostility and withdrawal in
marital conflict: Effects on parental emotional unavailability and inconsistent discipline.
Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 227–238.
Whitton, S. W., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H.J. (2008). Effects of
parental divorce on marital commitment and confidence. Journal of Family Psychology,
22, 789–793. doi: 10.1037/a0012800
 22 The Journal of Psychology

Yahav, R., & Sharlin, S. A. (2000). The symptom-carrying child as a preserver of the family
unit. Child & Family Social Work, 5, 353–364. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2206.2000.00175.x
Yu, T., Pettit, G. S., Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (2010). The interactive
effects of marital conflict and divorce on parent – adult children’s relationships. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 72, 282–292. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00699.x

Original manuscript received February 6, 2013

Final version accepted May 9, 2013

View publication stats