Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Adolesc. 2024 Feb 13;96(5):940–952. doi: 10.1002/jad.12306

Adolescents’ Relationships with Parents and Romantic Partners in Eight Countries

Laura Gorla 1, W Andrew Rothenberg 2, Jennifer E Lansford 3, Dario Bacchini 4, Marc H Bornstein 5, Lei Chang 6, Kirby Deater-Deckard 7, Laura Di Giunta 8, Kenneth A Dodge 9, Sevtap Gurdal 10, Daranee Junla 11, Qin Liu 12, Qian Long 13, Paul Oburu 14, Concetta Pastorelli 15, Ann T Skinner 16, Emma Sorbring 17, Laurence Steinberg 18, Liliana Maria Uribe Tirado 19, Saengduean Yotanyamaneewong 20, Liane P Alampay 21, Suha M Al-Hassan 22
PMCID: PMC11223981  NIHMSID: NIHMS1965309  PMID: 38351616

Abstract

Introduction:

Creating romantic relationships characterized by high-quality, satisfaction, few conflicts, and reasoning strategies to handle conflicts is an important developmental task for adolescents connected to the relational models they receive from their parents. This study examines how parent-adolescent conflicts, attachment, positive parenting, and communication are related to adolescents’ romantic relationship quality, satisfaction, conflicts, and management.

Method:

We interviewed 311 adolescents at two time points (females = 52%, ages 15 and 17) in eight countries (China, Colombia, Italy, Kenya, the Philippines, Sweden, Thailand, and the United States). Generalized and linear mixed models were run considering the participants’ nesting within countries.

Results:

Adolescents with negative conflicts with their parents reported low romantic relationship quality and satisfaction and high conflicts with their romantic partners. Adolescents experiencing an anxious attachment to their parents reported low romantic relationship quality, while adolescents with positive parenting showed high romantic relationship satisfaction. However, no association between parent-adolescent relationships and conflict management skills involving reasoning with the partner was found. No associations of parent-adolescent communication with romantic relationship dimensions emerged, nor was there any effect of the country on romantic relationship quality or satisfaction.

Conclusion:

These results stress the relevance of parent-adolescent conflicts and attachment as factors connected to how adolescents experience romantic relationships.

Keywords: romantic relationships, adolescence, parent-adolescent relationships, conflicts, attachment

Introduction

Romantic Relationships in Adolescence

Adolescence represents a transitional stage between childhood and adulthood (Dahl et al., 2018). Adolescents encounter specific developmental tasks on their path toward adulthood as they need to adapt to physical and sexual changes, create a new identity, establish emotional and psychological independence from their parents, and form more stable relationships with peers (Bernaras et al., 2019; Raemen et al., 2022; Santona et al., 2022; Schulz et al., 2023). One critical developmental task for adolescents is the creation of romantic relationships, which are voluntary and intense interactions with expressions of affection, warmth, and sexual connections (Chen et al., 2020; Collins, 2003; Collins et al., 2009; Gómez-López et al., 2019b; van de Bongardt et al., 2015; Xia et al., 2018).

Adolescents create committed relationships with partners by distancing themselves from their parents and adapting to new affective contexts (Collins et al., 2009; Schulz et al., 2023). Romantic relationships have been explored by focusing on quality and satisfaction. Quality refers to the presence of intimacy, affection, nurturance, and mutual respect within the couple, and satisfaction has been defined as measuring the individual’s subjective experience in the romantic relationship (Fortin et al., 2022; Mirsu-Paun & Oliver, 2017). Researchers have emphasized that romantic relationship quality and satisfaction are more important than merely the presence of a romantic relationship for the development of adolescents (Kansky & Allen, 2018).

Creating a significant and meaningful romantic relationship is essential to happiness, self-esteem, and well-being (Collins et al., 2009; Xia et al., 2018), and adolescents who successfully establish a satisfying romantic relationship are more likely to experience better psychological adjustment in later life. High-quality romantic relationships are linked to high satisfaction and less internalizing and externalizing behavior (Demir, 2010). Nevertheless, if adolescents are involved in romantic relationships characterized by conflict or violence, they can develop depressive symptoms and externalizing behaviors (Kansky & Allen, 2018; Price et al., 2016).

Romantic relationships are also influenced by cultural context, as every culture has its own traditional gender role ideologies, social norms, and values that regulate the timing and ways that adolescents bond with peers (Shen et al., 2020). Cultural groups differ in whether they promote or discourage adolescents’ romantic relationships. In countries such as China, romantic relationships are discouraged, whereas in the United States and many European countries, romantic relationships are more encouraged, sometimes even with adult-sponsored events such as school dances. Cultural groups also vary in gender role beliefs, with Western cultures encouraging boys to be focused on independence and girls on affiliative values, while other cultures pressure girls to be shyer and less engaged in romantic relationships (Li et al., 2010). The proportion of adolescents who report being involved in romantic relationships varies across countries (e.g., Li et al., 2010). Nevertheless, most research on adolescent romantic relationships has been conducted in North America and Europe, and more studies still need to be done in other geographical areas (Espinosa-Hernández et al., 2020; Furman & Rose, 2015). For example, a meta-analysis examining longitudinal associations between adolescent romantic relationships and parent-adolescent relationships highlighted that 63% of the 42 samples analyzed represented racial-ethnic majority families from Western countries, with racial-ethnic minorities representing between 0% and 36% in samples considered (Schulz et al., 2023). More studies exploring adolescents’ relationships in different cultures should be conducted to develop generalizable and inclusive psychological theories and practices, including the cultural environment as an essential element for adolescents’ development.

Parent-Adolescent and Romantic Relationship Conflict

An important task for romantic partners is to find a way to manage conflicts arising in their relationship (Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006). Several forms of conflict (e.g., disagreements, verbal aggression) and ways to solve them (e.g., avoiding arguments, seeking a compromise) could characterize romantic relationships. Still, it is not the absence of conflicts, but how they are handled that defines high-quality and satisfying romantic relationships (Heinze et al., 2020). If conflicts are not followed by functional problem-solving methods, the overall romantic relationship quality and satisfaction decrease (Mirsu-Paun & Oliver, 2017; Straus & Douglas, 2007). Destructive and dysfunctional conflict management abilities predict psychological problems in adolescence and adulthood, as adolescents experiencing problematic conflict behaviors are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, and tend to establish dysfunctional adult romantic relationships (Collins et al., 2009; Gómez-López et al., 2019b; Mirsu-Paun & Oliver, 2017).

Conflict can be transmitted intergenerationally (Rothenberg et al., 2018). Conflict management in the family is associated longitudinally with conflict management in romantic relationships experienced later in life (Hare et al., 2009; van Doorn et al., 2011). Indeed, the family is the primary context where children experience conflicts and learn how to negotiate them. Adolescents use their parents as models to develop conflict resolution skills that transfer to their relationships with friends and romantic partners (van Doorn et al., 2011). Adolescents exposed to harmful or violent parental models are likely to carry these dysfunctional strategies into their future romantic relationships (Heinze et al., 2020; Kan et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2009). In addition, adolescents who use avoidant or aggressive problem-solving to manage conflicts with their parents are more likely to report more problematic behaviors in conflicts with romantic partners than those who compromise with their parents (Dost-Gözkan, 2019). On the other hand, adolescents with functional parent-adolescent conflict resolution exhibited warmth and affection toward their partners and constructed high quality and satisfying romantic relationships (Walper & Wendt, 2015).

Parent-Adolescent Relationships and Adolescents’ Romantic Relationships

According to different developmental theories, a positive relationship with parents in childhood and throughout adolescence is critical for the future development of good romantic relationships (Collins et al., 2009; Walper & Wendt, 2015). The emotional and behavioral continuity between parent-adolescent and romantic relationships has been explained as stemming from parent-child relationships as the first contexts where individuals experience care and emotional intimacy (Jorgensen-Wells et al., 2021). If adolescents construct a secure attachment with their parents, they acquire internal working models of relationships as being safe and supportive, which generalize to expectations regarding other significant relationships. By contrast, the construction of an anxious attachment constitutes a risk factor for future romantic relationships (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Schulz et al., 2023) as it often leads to fear of abandonment and requesting exaggerated proximity and reassurance from partners (Dinero et al., 2008; Santona et al., 2022).

The quality of childhood attachment seems to affect the timing and the characteristics of romantic relationships. An insecure attachment to parents could push adolescents to rely on peers too early and too much, having dysfunctional romantic relationships (Flykt et al., 2021). Moreover, adolescents with poor levels of intimacy with their parents perceive lower romantic relationship quality than adolescents with supportive and authoritative parents (Hadiwijaya et al., 2020). Finally, adolescents with a history of emotional insecurity and affective instability with their parents are more likely to repeat these negative relational patterns with their partners (Walper & Wendt, 2015).

Positive Parenting and Parent-Adolescent Communication

Positive parenting and good communication experienced in the past with the parents are also critical for the development of romantic relationships in adolescence characterized by quality, satisfaction, and functional ways to handle conflicts (Auslander et al., 2009; Collins et al., 2009). Positive parenting is characterized by consistent caring actions, parental warmth, and support (Seay et al., 2014), while parent-adolescent communication patterns include dimensions related to monitoring, such as parental solicitations of information from their children, parental rule-setting, and adolescents’ spontaneous disclosure and secrecy (Dykstra et al., 2020; Kapetanovic et al., 2020; Smetana, 2008).

Although parenting adolescents can be challenging, as parents need to develop new communication strategies by adjusting them to adolescents’ rapidly changing requests for more autonomy (Dykstra et al., 2020), positive parenting and good parent-adolescent communication contribute to satisfying parent-child relationships (Khaleque & Ali, 2017; Lansford et al., 2018), adolescents’ development of social and emotional skills and romantic relationship satisfaction (Auslander et al., 2009; Schulz, 2023). Adolescents who previously did not experience positive parenting reported unsatisfactory romantic relationships.

The Present Study

The current study examines how parent-adolescent relationships are related to adolescents’ romantic relationship quality, satisfaction, negative conflict, and reasoning conflict management. We focused on four important parenting dimensions that allow us to explore relational dynamics within the family: attachment, conflicts, positive parenting, and communication.

The current study was guided by three hypotheses. First, we hypothesized a connection between conflicts with parents and romantic relationship characteristics, expecting lower levels of destructive conflicts with parents at age 17 to be linked to higher quality romantic relationships and more satisfaction and positive conflict resolution with parents to be related to lower negative conflicts and higher reasoning with the romantic partner. Second, we hypothesized that high levels of anxious parent-adolescent attachment at age 17 would be related to higher negative conflicts in the couple and lower adolescent romantic relationship quality, satisfaction, and reasoning with the partner. Third, we hypothesized that positive parenting and good parent-adolescent communication characteristics at age 15 would be related to higher quality and satisfaction in adolescents’ romantic relationships and reasoning in the couple while being related to lower negative conflicts within the couple.

In addressing these questions, we consider the role of culture, as adolescents were nested in countries. However, given the paucity of cross-cultural research on parenting in relation to adolescents’ romantic relationships, no specific hypotheses regarding moderation by culture were made. Similarly, no specific hypotheses about differences or similarities across countries regarding adolescents’ engagement in romantic relationships were made. Nevertheless, the sample division in eight countries should be noted as an attempt to explore adolescents’ relationships with a more culture-informed and globally applicable line of research (van de Vijver, 2013), considering countries historically under-represented in the developmental literature (Arnett, 2008; Henrich et al., 2010).

Method

Participants

The current study’s participants were part of a larger longitudinal study called Parenting Across Cultures (PAC). To increase socioeconomic diversity and the general representativeness of the sample, participants were recruited through public and private schools from nine countries (Chongqing, China; Medellín, Colombia; Rome and Naples, Italy; Zarqa, Jordan; Kisumu, Kenya; Manila, Philippines; Trollhättan/Vänersborg, Sweden; Chiang Mai, Thailand; and Durham, NC, United States). This sample of countries was diverse on several socio-demographic dimensions (e.g., predominant race/ethnicity and religion, economic indicators, indices of child well-being, individualism, and collectivism). The purpose of recruiting participants from these countries was to create an international sample that would be diverse concerning several socio-demographic and psychological characteristics. Sampling focused on including families from the majority ethnic group in each country; two exceptions were in Kenya where we sampled Luo (3rd largest ethnic group, 13% of the population), and in the United States where we sampled equal proportions of White, Black, and Latino families.

For the current study, we focused on two-time points spanning ages 15 to 17 years and included only participants who, at age 17, defined themselves as being in a committed romantic relationship (Table 1). This sample comprised 311 adolescents (females = 58%). Adolescents’ parents received an education of 12 years on average (mothers: M = 12.67, SD = 4.5; fathers: M = 12.63, SD = 4.8). When participants were age 15, of the adolescents who had two parents completing the measures, 85% were living with parents who were married, 4% with parents who were divorced, 4% with parents who were separated, 6% with parents who were cohabiting, and 2% whose parents were in another arrangement (such as in a relationship but not cohabiting). Twelve percent of the adolescents had just one parent complete the interview.

Table 1a.

Adolescents reporting being involved in a romantic relationship.

Country Involvement in a romantic relationship
PAC adolescents Yes No
China 96 12% (11) 88% (85)
Colombia 79 39% (31) 61% (48)
Italy 186 44% (81) 56% (105)
Kenya 51 41% (21) 59% (30)
Philippines 85 38% (32) 62% (53)
Sweden 62 47% (29) 53% (33)
Thailand 89 27% (24) 73% (65)
USA 208 40% (82) 60% (126)
Open in a new tab

The participants having a romantic relationship were from China (4%, N = 11), Colombia (10%, N = 31), Italy (26%, N = 81), Kenya (7%, N = 21), the Philippines (10%, N = 32), Sweden (9%, N = 29), Thailand (8%, N = 24), and the United States (26%, N = 82). Families in Jordan participated in the larger PAC project, but adolescents in Jordan did not report on romantic relationships, so we eliminated Jordan from analyses in the present paper.

Procedure and Measures

Measures were administered in the predominant language of each data collection site, following forward- and back-translation and meetings to resolve any item-by-item ambiguities in linguistic or semantic content (Erkut, 2010). The measures were used to assess every variable presented in the current study in all countries. Interviews lasted 2 h in participant-chosen locations and were conducted after parent consent and adolescent assent were given. Participants were given the choice of completing the measures in writing or orally. Families were given modest monetary compensation for participating or compensated in other ways deemed appropriate by local IRBs. Procedures were approved by IRBs in each participating country.

Adolescent romantic relationship quality and satisfaction.

Adolescent romantic relationships were assessed using a 14-item questionnaire based on the Index of Marital Satisfaction (Russell & Wells, 1993; Schumm et al., 1983), administered to adolescents at age 17, on average. The first two questions ask adolescents to indicate whether they are currently in an exclusive romantic relationship and how long they have been with their partner. The other parts of the questionnaire measure romantic relationship quality and satisfaction, which are two essential and connected aspects (as satisfaction is a measure of individual’s subjective experience in the romantic relationship). Quality was evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = no, 2 = somewhat no, 3 = neither yes nor no, 4 = somewhat yes, 5 = yes) with nine questions (e.g., “Do you enjoy your partner’s company?” “Do you respect your partner?”). Satisfaction was evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied to 7 = very satisfied) with three questions (e.g., “How satisfied are you with your romantic relationship?”).

We created two separate binary variables for romantic relationship quality and satisfaction by dividing participants’ scores into high/extremely high and low/medium categories. Participants with a mean of 5 for quality and 7 for satisfaction were categorized into the high/extremely high category; participants with a mean score below 5 for quality and below 7 for satisfaction were labeled as low/medium romantic relationship quality and satisfaction. The internal consistencies of the romantic quality and satisfaction scales were high (α =.87, α =.94, respectively). Of the sample, 48% (N = 150) reported high/extremely high quality, and 49% (N = 143) had high/extremely high satisfaction. There were no significant differences in romantic quality and satisfaction for males and females (males = .54, females = .49, t (309) = .850, p = .39; males = .52, females = .49, t (309) = .544, p = .58, respectively).

Adolescent romantic relationship conflict.

We investigated adolescent romantic relationship conflicts using an adaptation of the revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) Short Form (Straus, 1979; Straus & Douglas, 2007). The 18-item instrument was administered to adolescents at age 17 and examined the presence and management of conflicts within romantic relationships by asking adolescents to report on a 7-point Likert scale (0 = never to 6 = almost every day) how much they (9 items) or their partner (9 items) engage in specific actions during disagreements and conflicts. Items refer to reasoning (e.g., “How often have you tried to discuss an issue calmly”), verbal aggression (e.g., “How often has your partner yelled, insulted or swore at you”), indirect hostility (e.g., “How often have you sulked or refused to talk about it”), and violence (e.g., “How often has your partner hit you”). We created a composite scale that included the actions that both adolescents and their partners do to have a global measure of overall conflict in romantic relationships.

All the subscales showed good internal consistency (α = .92 for reasoning, α = .74 for verbal aggression, α = .73 for indirect hostility, α = .89 for violence). Still, verbal aggression, indirect hostility, and violence subscales presented high levels of correlations (r verbal aggression-hostility = .63, r verbal aggression-violence = .50, r hostility-violence = .54). So, we averaged them into a single variable reflecting negative couple conflict (α = .87) and used this new variable and the reasoning conflict management to evaluate conflict in adolescents’ romantic relationships. There were no significant differences in the means of negative couple conflict and reasoning conflict management for males and females (males = .92, females = .86, t (307) = .608, p = .54; males = 3.65, females = 3.39, t (308) = 1.33, p = .18, respectively).

Parent-adolescent conflicts.

We assessed parent-adolescent conflict using 49 items on an instrument developed by Honess et al. (1997) Click or tap here to enter text., administered to adolescents at age 17. Adolescents were asked to report if the statements describe their parents (e.g., “I try to avoid talking about it: this describes my interaction with my mother when we disagree/this describes my interaction with my father when we disagree”). Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1= not at all to 4 = very well).

We first standardized and averaged items and calculated the total destructive conflict score adolescents experienced from both parents. We found a high internal consistency (α = .95) and no significant difference in the means of total destructive conflict for males and females (males = −.22, females = .12, t (260) = −1.59, p = .11).

Parent-adolescent attachment.

We assessed parent-adolescent attachment using a 10-item adapted version of the Adult Attachment scale (Cook, 2000) administered to adolescents when they were aged 17, on average. Adolescents were asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with statements about their relationships with mothers and fathers (separately).

The instrument includes five items reflecting anxiety about the attachment relationship (e.g., “Often I worry that my mother does not really love me”), and each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Composite scales were created by averaging the five items (α = .87 for adolescents’ anxiety with mothers, α = .91 for adolescents’ anxiety with fathers). We created single parent-adolescent anxiety in attachment relationship scores by averaging adolescents’ ratings for mothers and fathers. The new composite obtained a high internal consistency (α = .90). There were no significant differences in the means of anxiety with parents for males and females (males = 1.57, females = 1.65, t (265) = −.910, p = .36).

Positive parenting.

Positive parenting was assessed when adolescents were age 15, on average, using a 4-item instrument from Capaldi and Patterson (2012). The measure evaluates the time parents spend with adolescents talking with them, doing something special the adolescents enjoy, communicating that they are doing a good job, and showing appreciation if adolescents help around the house. The first item is rated from 1 to 7, and the other three are on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = never to 4 = almost every day). The four items were standardized and averaged to create a total composite score of positive parenting experienced by adolescents from both parents (α = .79). There was no significant difference in the means of positive parenting for males and females (males = .00, females = −.02, t (265) = .28, p = .78).

Parent-adolescent communication.

We assessed parent-adolescent communication using the Youth Knowledge, Disclosure, Control, and Solicitation Scale (Stattin & Kerr, 2000) administered to adolescents when they were age 15, on average. The instrument measures parental behavioral control, solicitation, adolescent disclosure, and secrecy. The items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale (0 = never to 3 = always) and reflect adolescents’ perception of how much their parents know and try to know about important aspects of their lives (e.g., “Do your parents require that you tell them how you spend your money?”), and how much adolescents disclose to their parents (e.g., “Do you spontaneously tell your parents about your friends?”) or keep secrets from their parents (e.g., “Do you hide a lot from your parents about what you do during nights and weekends?”). By summing items, we created a composite score of parent-adolescent communication, with higher scores indicating greater communication (α = .85). There was a significant difference in the means of parent-adolescent communication for males and females (males = 24.38, females = 26.41, t (289) = −2.13, p = .034).

Covariates.

To adjust for characteristics that could affect adolescents’ reports of romantic relationship quality and satisfaction, we tested whether adolescents’ age and gender moderated associations between parent-adolescent relationships and adolescents’ romantic relationships. As we did not find any significant moderation effects, in all analyses we simply controlled for adolescents’ gender, age, and the number of years of education completed by mothers as an indicator of socioeconomic status.

Analytic Plan

We used R software (version 4.2.2., Core Team, 2020) to perform all statistical analyses. Before performing more complex models, we checked the normality for all variables. As the Shapiro-Wilk test (see Table 1) showed that the distribution of both predictors and outcomes departed significantly from normality, we performed non-parametric tests (Spearman’s rho for correlations, generalized and linear mixed models nesting our participants within countries; Royston, 1992). Before performing the analyses, most continuous variables were standardized to a grand mean of 0 and an SD of 1 to yield easily interpretable relations between predictors and outcomes. Moreover, as China had only 11 adolescent participants who reported having a romantic partner, we ran the analyses both including and excluding China. As the results did not differ, we included China in the analyses reported below. As a preliminary step, we also conducted a logistic regression with adolescents’ involvement in a romantic relationship as the outcome and parental dimensions as predictors, but we did not discover any significant relations between the four parenting constructs and adolescents’ reports of being in a committed romantic relationship (results available from 1st author upon request).

We used multiple imputation to handle missing data (Enders, 2010). Data were missing on 15% of the destructive conflict with parents, 14% of positive parenting and anxiety with parents, and 6% of parent-adolescent communication. No data were missing for couple conflict, reasoning conflict management, and romantic relationship quality and satisfaction. Participants with missing data on any variable did not differ from those with complete data on either dependent variable (results available from 1st author upon request). The missing completely at random (MCAR; Little, 1988) coefficient test indicated that data were missing at random (χ2 = 87.59, df = 85, p = .402). The imputation model included all study variables and covariates and created five analysis datasets. Incomplete variables were imputed under fully conditional specification, using the mice 3.0 R package (van Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011). The parameters of substantive interest were estimated in each imputed dataset separately and then were combined using Rubin’s rules (Rubin, 2004).

Results

Descriptive Analyses and Bivariate Correlations

Tables 1 and 2 report the means and standard deviations of the scale within each country and the Shapiro-Wilk tests. Table 3 reports the correlations among all the variables.

Table 2.

Shapiro Wilk normality test for all variables

W
Romantic Relationship Quality .78***
Romantic Relationship Satisfaction .72***
Negative Couple Conflict .84***
Reasoning in Conflict .95***
Destructive Conflict with Parents .97***
Attachment with Parents .81***
Positive Parenting .98*
Parent-Adolescent Communication .98**
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05.

**

p<.01.

***

p < .001.

Table 3:

Correlation Coefficients

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Romantic Relationship Quality 1.00
2. Romantic Relationship Satisfaction .516*** 1.00
3. Negative Conflict in the Couple −.203** −.254*** 1.00
4. Reasoning in Conflict .020 .099 .190*** 1.00
5. Destructive Conflict with Parents −.231*** −.238*** .345*** −.017 1.00
6. Attachment with Parents −.201*** −.198** .199** −.041 .352** 1.00
7. Positive Parenting .130* .246*** −.239*** .013 −.342** −.262*** 1.00
8. Parent-Adolescent Communication .096 .169** −.106 .083 −.076 −.137* .497** 1.00
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Generalized and Linear Mixed Models

Two regressions were computed to test whether adolescents’ conflict management with parents at age 17 (research question 1), parent-adolescent attachment at age 17 (research question 2), and parent-adolescent communication and positive parenting at age 15 (research question 3) are related to adolescents’ romantic relationship quality and satisfaction, conflicts, and reasoning with the romantic partner at age 17. Table 4 shows that experiencing negative conflict with the parents decreased the odds of having a higher romantic relationship quality (OR = .916, β = −.203, p = .039). Moreover, a significant association between anxious attachment and romantic relationship quality emerged: Adolescents who report higher levels of anxious attachment towards parents were less likely to have a romantic relationship of high quality (OR = .546, β = −.605, p = .003). No significant relation emerged between parent-adolescent communication or positive parenting at age 15 and adolescents’ later romantic relationship quality.

Table 4:

Generalized Mixed Models and Linear Mixed Models

Romantic Relationship Quality Romantic Relationship Satisfaction Negative Conflict in the Couple Reasoning in Conflict
Country Random Effect .728 .502 .115 .591
Log-likelihood −191.80 −194.99 −599.85 −385.27
Romantic Relationship Quality Romantic Relationship Satisfaction
β (SE) Wald OR (95% CI) p-value β (SE) Wald OR (95% CI) p-value
Adolescent Age −.239(.191) −1.31 .787 (.550, 1.25) .189 .100 (.163) .612 1.10 (.809, 1.52) .540
Adolescent Gender −.189 (.273) .692 1.20 (.709, 2.06) .488 212 (.264) .806 1.23(.737, 2.07) .419
Mother Education −.032 (.029) −1.10 .967 (.913, 1.02) .269 −.031 (.30) −1.03 .968 (.911, 1.03) .303
Destructive Conflict with Parents −.203 (.096) −2.10 .816 (.673, .989) .039 −.211 (.099) −2.11 .809 (.661, .990) .040
Attachment with Parents −.605 (.205) −2.94 .546 (.365, .816) .003 −242 (.224) −1.08 .784 (.498, 1.23) .285
Positive Parenting .175 (.279) .626 1.91 (.684, 2.07) .532 .525 (.261) 2.01 1.69 (1.01, 2.82) .044
Parent-Adolescent Communication .001 (.020) .088 1.00 (.963, 1.04) 929 .013 (.019) .657 1.01 (.974, 1.05) .510
Negative Conflict in the Couple Reasoning in Conflict
B (SE) t p-value B (SE) t p-value
Adolescent Age .004 (.052) .080 .936 .019 (.115) .171 .863
Adolescent Gender −.117 (.092) −1.26 .206 −.117 (.187) −.627 .530
Mother Education −.006 (.010) −.619 .536 .004 (.022) .192 .847
Destructive Conflict with Parents .153 (.031) 4.93 .001 −.011 (.070) −.167 .868
Attachment with Parents .058 (.068) .852 .394 −.085 (.131) −.650 .515
Positive Parenting −.144 (.088) −1.64 .101 −.087 (.228) −.380 .707
Parent-Adolescent Communication −.003 (.006) −.490 .623 .011 (.015) .772 .441
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

As for romantic relationship satisfaction, destructive conflicts with parents (OR = .809, β = −.211, p = .040) decreased adolescents’ odds of having a more satisfying romantic relationship. In contrast, adolescents who experienced positive parenting at age 15 were more likely to have a satisfying romantic relationship (OR = 1.69, β = .525, p = .044). There were no significant relations between parent-adolescent communication at age 15 and adolescents’ later romantic relationship satisfaction.

Destructive conflict with parents (β = .153, t = 4.93, p < .001) was significantly related to negative couple conflict: adolescents with destructive conflicts with parents were more likely to experience negative conflict with their partners. There were no significant relations between other parent-adolescent relationship aspects and adolescents’ conflict and reasoning in conflict management with the romantic partner.

Discussion

The psychological relevance of quality and satisfaction in romantic relationships has been studied widely. Recently, studies have directly connected adolescent romantic relationships to the affective and relational models adolescents receive from their parents (Walper & Wendt, 2015; Schulz et al., 2023). The current study aimed to understand whether quality, satisfaction, and couple conflicts and their management in adolescents’ romantic relationships are associated with dimensions of parent-adolescent relationships (positive parenting and parent-adolescent communication) measured when adolescents were 15 years old and other ones (conflicts with parents and attachment) when adolescents were 17 years old.

Concerning our first research question, our hypotheses were partially supported as lower levels of destructive conflicts with parents were linked to higher quality romantic relationships, more satisfaction, and lower conflicts within the couple, but not to higher reasoning management. Our results are consistent with previous studies showing that conflict management with parents is connected to how adolescents experience romantic relationships (Mirsu-Paun & Oliver, 2017; Straus & Douglas, 2007). Adolescents who effectively manage conflicts with their parents are more likely to have positive and healthy romantic relationships (Schulz et al., 2023). Indeed, the family is the first social environment where adolescents have conflicts and shape their conflict resolution skills. It is then essential to take into consideration this aspect while exploring one of the most challenging developmental tasks for adolescents, which is learning how to create a romantic relationship with high-quality, satisfaction, few conflicts, and good strategizes to handle conflicts that do arise (Hare et al., 2009; van Doorn et al., 2011).

Moreover, our results are consistent with the literature stating that conflict experienced in the family is associated with conflicts in romantic relationships (Hare et al., 2009; van Doorn et al., 2011). Adolescents use their parents as models to develop essential developmental skill, learning to manage conflicts (Heinze et al., 2020; Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006), so future studies should explore further the connection between parent-adolescent relationships and adolescents’ reasoning in conflicts with their romantic partners.

Concerning our second research question, our hypothesis that high levels of anxious parent-adolescent attachment would be related to adolescents’ higher conflicts, lower romantic relationship quality, satisfaction, and reasoning was partially supported, as we discovered a significant association between anxiety in attachment between parents and adolescents only for adolescents’ romantic relationship quality. Nevertheless, our results are consistent with previous studies highlighting that adolescents with difficulties in attachment with their parents perceive low romantic relationship quality (Hadiwijaya et al., 2020). Moreover, our results support the essential role attachment with parents has for adolescents in bonding with peers (Collins et al., 2009; Walper & Wendt, 2015) and the role of anxious attachment as a risk factor for future romantic relationships (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Schulz et al., 2023).

Finally, concerning our last research question, our hypotheses were partially confirmed as we discovered a significant association only between positive parenting at age 15 and later romantic satisfaction, with no connection between parent-adolescent communication and other romantic relationship dimensions. These conclusions are inconsistent with studies describing how positive parenting and parent-adolescent communication contribute to the well-being of adolescents (Khaleque & Ali, 2017). However, one possible explanation could be rooted in the nature of adolescence itself, as parenting adolescents is challenging and constantly changing. As their children move through adolescence, parents need to create new communication strategies and practices following adolescents’ requests for more autonomy (Dykstra et al., 2020). The rapidity and flexibility of parenting and communicative styles could have made the relations between the variables we were interested in difficult to comprehend, as only one longitudinal exploration could not be enough to capture these rapidly changing relations fully. Future studies should be conducted to understand the connections among positive parenting, parent-adolescent communication, and romantic relationships by exploring these connections more than two times (as we did with ages 15 and 17) and with a larger sample.

The current findings advance knowledge regarding adolescents’ romantic relationships. One of the novel aspects of the current study is that it is part of a larger research project that explores parenting dimensions and parent-child relationships across cultures (PAC) to generate a more universal and inclusive psychology. As romantic relationships are experienced differently in different cultural contexts (Shen et al., 2020) but have been studied mostly in North America and Europe (Espinosa-Hernández et al., 2020), the current study’s participants from eight different countries should be noted, even though we did not find significant country effects. Indeed, our purpose in recruiting participants from these different countries was to create an international and inclusive sample that would be diverse concerning both socio-demographic and psychological characteristics. This diversity allowed us to examine our research questions from a global perspective and in a sample more generalizable to a wider range of the world’s populations than is typical in most research to date (Ijzerman et al., 2021). Nevertheless, we note that the sample sizes of adolescents with romantic partners in some of the countries were small, so future research with larger international samples of adolescents with romantic partners is warranted.

In addition, our findings help researchers and clinicians studying or working with adolescents and have implications for intervention and prevention efforts, as they stress the relevance of parent-adolescent conflicts and attachment as connected to adolescents’ romantic relationships. These results may be used for psychoeducational and psychological interventions in different cultural contexts by focusing on the spillover effect of conflicts and conflict management skills from the family to the romantic couple or preventing difficulties in romantic relationships for adolescents not securely attached to their parents.

However, the study has some limitations. First, as our dependent variables (romantic relationship quality and satisfaction and negative conflict) were significantly correlated, this could influence our results. Second, we caution that the samples were not nationally representative, so findings may not generalize to entire populations from the countries included and should not be used to generalize beyond the specific groups included. Third, study samples within each culture were small, so we were not able to conduct multi-group analyses to test differences in associations among the variables across the different cultural groups. For these reasons, future works using nationally representative and larger samples would be beneficial for investigating whether parent-adolescent relationships are related to quality and satisfaction with romantic partners for adolescents in consistent ways across cultural contexts. Finally, we focused primarily on adolescents’ reports regarding the dimensions evaluated in the current study, although we also had mothers’ and fathers’ reports of anxious parent-adolescent attachment relationships. We focused primarily on how adolescents perceive their relationships with parents and romantic partners, but future studies should investigate adolescents’ romantic relationships by exploring different respondents’ points of view.

Finally, two aspects should be noted when interpreting the findings of the current study. Firstly, we observed significant intercorrelations among parenting variables (particularly between positive parenting and parent-adolescent communication). This might explain why some parent-adolescent variables did not demonstrate independent effects on the dimensions of romantic relationships. Secondly, the timing of the assessment of parenting dimensions could also influence the results. Parent-adolescent conflicts and attachment were measured closer to assessing adolescents’ romantic relationships’ satisfaction and quality, being more proximal to the experience of being in a romantic relationship and thus having a more substantial predictive power. By highlighting these aspects, we underscore that the observed effects could be net effects within the context of the other predictors.

Conclusion

Taken together, the results suggest several main conclusions. First, conflicts between adolescents and their parents are connected to the romantic relationships adolescents experience. Adolescents who encounter negative forms of conflicts with parents are more likely to be in romantic relationships with lower quality and satisfaction and higher conflict with their partner. Second, an anxious attachment to parents relates to lower romantic relationship quality during adolescence, confirming attachment’s important role in adolescent development. Third, although past positive parenting related to current higher romantic satisfaction, no significant relations were found between adolescent-parent communication and the dimensions of romantic relationships studied. These findings advance understanding of how parent-adolescent relationships are linked to adolescents’ romantic relationships in diverse cultural contexts.

Table 1b.

Descriptive statistics for romantic relationship quality, satisfaction, and couple conflict and reasoning: percentage of participants in the categories (sample size) and mean (SD)

Country Romantic Relationship Quality Romantic Relationship Satisfaction Negative Couple Conflict Reasoning in Conflict
Low/Medium High/Extremely high Low/Medium High/Extremely high Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
China N = 11 36% (4) 64% (7) 55% (6) 45% (5) .65 (.56) 2.95 (1.87)
Colombia N = 31 52% (16) 48% (15) 52% (16) 48% (15) .99 (1.13) 3.27 (1.37)
Italy N = 81 52% (42) 48% (39) 52% (53) 48% (28) 1.00 (.71) 3.34 (1.50)
Kenya N = 21 43% (9) 57% (12) 14% (3) 86% (18) .85 (1.40) 4.88 (1.69)
Philippines N = 32 84% (27) 16% (5) 50% (16) 50% (16) 1.16 (.81) 3.99 (1.56)
Sweden N = 29 38% (11) 62% (18) 55% (16) 45% (13) .55 (.66) 2.58 (1.44)
Thailand N = 24 83% (20) 17% (4) 63% (15) 37% (9) 1.06 (.79) 4.73 (1.55)
USA N = 82 39% (32) 61% (50) 39% (32) 61% (50) .74 (.77) 3.21 (1.59)
Open in a new tab

Table 1c.

Descriptive statistics for predictors: means (standard deviation)

Country Destructive Conflict with Parents Attachment with Parents Positive Parenting Parent – Adolescent Communication’
China N = 11 .30 (1.72) 1.71 (.71) −.63 (.49) 24.09 (5.02)
Colombia N = 31 −.01 (2.20) 2.15 (.95) .03 (.85) 26.63 (10.09)
Italy N = 81 .53 (1.70) 1.57 (.64) −.13 (.61) 24.77 (8.48)
Kenya N = 21 −.27 (2.11) 1.41 (.92) .36 (.70) 31.00 (7.71)
Philippines N = 32 .06 (1.37) 1.65 (.76) −.19 (.58) 36.31 (6.52)
Sweden N = 29 −.72 (1.35) 1.29 (.45) .20 (.44) 25.09 (5.92)
Thailand N = 24 .23 (1.41) 1.72 (.64) .06 (.62) 22.04 (7.89)
USA N = 82 −.42 (1.56) 1.56 (.71) .09 (.66) 25.98 (7.51)
Open in a new tab

Acknowledgments

Data are available from the first author upon request. This research has been funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant RO1-HD054805 and Fogarty International Center grant RO3-TW008141. This research also was supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Grant P30 DA023026. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Procedures were approved by IRBs in each participating country.

Contributor Information

Laura Gorla, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy.

W. Andrew Rothenberg, Duke University, USA.

Jennifer E. Lansford, Duke University, USA

Dario Bacchini, University of Naples “Federico II,” Italy.

Marc H. Bornstein, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, USA, Institute for Fiscal Studies, United Kingdom, & UNICEF, USA

Lei Chang, University of Macau, China.

Kirby Deater-Deckard, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Laura Di Giunta, Università di Roma “La Sapienza,” Italy.

Kenneth A. Dodge, Duke University, USA

Sevtap Gurdal, University West, Sweden.

Daranee Junla, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.

Qin Liu, Chongqing Medical University, China.

Qian Long, Duke Kunshan University, China.

Paul Oburu, Maseno University, Kenya.

Concetta Pastorelli, Università di Roma “La Sapienza,” Italy.

Ann T. Skinner, Duke University, USA

Emma Sorbring, University West, Sweden.

Laurence Steinberg, Temple University, USA & King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia.

Liliana Maria Uribe Tirado, Universidad de San Buenaventura, Colombia.

Saengduean Yotanyamaneewong, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.

Liane P. Alampay, Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines

Suha M. Al-Hassan, Abu Dhabi Early Childhood Authority, United Arab Emirates, & Hashemite, Hashemite University, Jordan

References

  1. Allen JP, Narr RK, Kansky J, & Szwedo DE (2020). Adolescent peer relationship qualities as predictors of long-term romantic life satisfaction. Child Development, 91(1), 327–340. 10.1111/cdev.13193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnett JJ (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Auslander BA, Short MB, Succop PA, & Rosenthal SL (2009). Associations between parenting behaviors and adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(1), 98–101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernaras E, Jaureguizar J, & Garaigordobil M (2019). Child and adolescent depression: A review of theories, evaluation instruments, prevention programs, and treatments. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 543. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00543 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brennan KA, & Shaver PR (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 267–283. Doi: 10.1177/0146167295213008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Capaldi YN, & Patterson GR (2012). Psychometric properties of fourteen latent constructs from the Oregon Youth Study. Springer Science & Business Media https://books.google.com/books?hl=it&lr=&id=k5HqBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Capaldi+D,+%26+Patterson+GR+ [Google Scholar]
  7. Cassidy J, & Shaver PR (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen WW, Yuan H, Yang X, & Lai SK (2020). Parenting, self-concept, and attitudes about romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 82, 41–49. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Collins WA (2003). More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(1), 1–24. 10.1111/1532-7795.1301001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Collins WA, Welsh DP, & Furman W (2009). Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 631–652. 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163459 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cook WL (2000). Understanding attachment security in family context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 285–294. 10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.285 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dahl RE, Allen NB, Wilbrecht L, & Suleiman AB (2018). Importance of investing in adolescence from a developmental science perspective. Nature, 554(7693), 441–450. 10.1038/nature25770 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Demir M (2010). Close relationships and happiness among emerging adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(3), 293–313. 10.1007/s10902-009-9141-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dinero RE, Conger RD, Shaver PR, Widaman KF, & Larsen-Rife D (2008). Influence of family of origin and adult romantic partners on romantic attachment security. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(4), 622–632. 10.1037/a0012506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dost-Gözkan A (2019). Adolescents’ conflict resolution with their parents and best friends: Links to life satisfaction. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(10), 2854–2866. 10.1007/s10826-019-01465-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dykstra VW, Willoughby T, & Evans AD (2020). A longitudinal examination of the relation between lie-telling, secrecy, parent–child relationship quality, and depressive symptoms in late-childhood and adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(2), 438–448. 10.1007/s10964-019-01183-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Enders CK (2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Erkut S (2010). Developing multiple language versions of instruments for intercultural research. Child Development Perspectives, 4(1), 19–24. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00111.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Espinosa-Hernández G, Choukas-Bradley S, van de Bongardt D, & van Dulmen M (2020). Romantic relationships and sexuality in diverse adolescent populations: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Adolescence, 83, 95–99. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Flykt M, Vänskä M, Punamäki RL, Heikkilä L, Tiitinen A, Poikkeus P, & Lindblom J (2021). Adolescent attachment profiles are associated with mental health and risk-taking behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 761864. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.761864 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fortin A, Fortin L, Paradis A, & Hébert M (2022). Relationship quality among dating adolescents: Development and validation of the Relationship Quality Inventory for Adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1026507. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1026507 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Furman W, & Rose AJ (2015). Friendships, romantic relationships, and peer relationships. In Lamb ME & Lerner RM (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Socioemotional processes (pp. 932–974). Wiley. 10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy322 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gómez-López M, Viejo C, & Ortega-Ruiz R (2019a). Psychological well-being during adolescence: Stability and association with romantic relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1772. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gómez-López M, Viejo C, & Ortega-Ruiz R (2019b). Well-being and romantic relationships: A systematic review in adolescence and emerging adulthood. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(13), 2415. 10.3390/ijerph16132415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hadiwijaya H, Klimstra TA, Darling N, Vermunt J, Branje S, & Meeus WHJ (2020). The family context as a foundation for romantic relationships: A person-centered multi-informant longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(1), 46–56. 10.1037/fam0000601.supp [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hare AL, Miga EM, & Allen JP (2009). Intergenerational transmission of aggression in romantic relationships: The moderating role of attachment security. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(6), 808–818. 10.1037/a0016740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Heinze JE, Hsieh HF, Aiyer SM, Buu A, & Zimmerman MA (2020). Adolescent family conflict as a predictor of relationship quality in emerging adulthood. Family Relations, 69(5), 996–1011. 10.1111/fare.12493 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Henrich J, Heine SJ, & Norenzayan A (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 1–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Honess TM, Charman EA, Zani B, Cicognani E, Xerri ML, Jackson AE, & Bosma HA (1997). Conflict between parents and adolescents: Variation by family constitution. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15(3), 367–385. 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1997.tb00527.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ijzerman H, Dutra N, Silan M, Adetula A, Brown DMB, & Forscher P (2021). Psychological science needs the entire globe, Part 1 (Vol. 34). APS Observer, 34. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jorgensen-Wells MA, James SL, & Holmes EK (2021). Attachment development in adolescent romantic relationships: A conceptual model. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(1), 128–142. 10.1111/jftr.12409 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kan ML, McHale SM, & Crouter AC (2008). Parental involvement in adolescent romantic relationships: Patterns and correlates. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(2), 168–179. 10.1007/s10964-007-9185-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kansky J, & Allen JP (2018). Long-term risks and possible benefits associated with late adolescent romantic relationship quality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(7), 1531–1544. 10.1007/s10964-018-0813-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kapetanovic S, Rothenberg WA, Lansford JE, Bornstein MH, Chang L, Deater-Deckard K, di Giunta L, Dodge KA, Gurdal S, Malone PS, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Steinberg L, Tapanya S, Uribe Tirado LM, Yotanyamaneewong S, Peña Alampay L, … Bacchini D (2020). Cross-cultural examination of links between parent–adolescent communication and adolescent psychological problems in 12 cultural groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(6), 1225–1244. 10.1007/s10964-020-01212-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Khaleque A, & Ali S (2017). A systematic review of meta-analyses of research on interpersonal acceptance–rejection theory: constructs and measures. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 9(4), 441–458. 10.1111/jftr.12228 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kim HK, Pears KC, Capaldi DM, & Owen LD (2009). Emotion dysregulation in the intergenerational transmission of romantic relationship conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(4), 585–595. 10.1037/a0015935 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lansford JE, Godwin J, Al-Hassan SM, Bacchini D, Bornstein MH, Chang L, Chen B. bin, Deater-Deckard K, di Giunta L, Dodge KA, Malone PS, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Steinberg L, Tapanya S, Alampay LP, Uribe Tirad LM, & Zelli A (2018). Longitudinal associations between parenting and youth adjustment in twelve cultural groups: Cultural normativeness of parenting as a moderator. Developmental Psychology, 54(2), 362–377. 10.1037/dev0000416 PAC VERSION [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lantagne A, & Furman W (2017). Romantic relationship development: The interplay between age and relationship length. Developmental Psychology, 53(9), 1738–1749. 10.1037/dev0000363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Li ZH, Connolly J, Jiang D, Pepler D, & Craig W (2010). Adolescent romantic relationships in China and Canada: A cross-national comparison. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34(2), 113–120. 10.1177/0165025409360292 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Little RJA (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mirsu-Paun A, & Oliver JA (2017). How much does love really hurt? A meta-analysis of the association between romantic relationship quality, breakups and mental health outcomes in adolescents and young adults. Journal of Relationships Research, 8, e5. 10.1017/jrr.2017.6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Price M, Hides L, Cockshaw W, Staneva AA, & Stoyanov SR (2016). Young love: Romantic concerns and associated mental health issues among adolescent help-seekers. Behavioral Sciences , 6(2), 9. 10.3390/bs6020009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Raemen L, Claes L, Palmeroni N, Buelens T, Vankerckhoven L, & Luyckx K (2022). Identity formation and psychopathological symptoms in adolescence: Examining developmental trajectories and co-development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 83, 101473. 10.1016/j.appdev.2022.101473 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Rothenberg WA, Hussong AM, & Chassin L (2018). Intergenerational continuity in high-conflict family environments: Investigating a mediating depressive pathway. Developmental Psychology, 54(2), 385–396. 10.1037/dev0000419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Royston P (1992). Approximating the Shapiro-Wilk W-test for non-normality. Statistics and Computing, 2, 117–119. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rubin DB (2004). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  47. Russell RJH, & Wells PA (1993). Marriage and relationship questionnaire: MARQ handbook. Hodder & Stoughton. [Google Scholar]
  48. Santona A, Milesi A, Tognasso G, Gorla L, & Parolin L (2022). Anxiety in attachment and sexual relationships in adolescence: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(7), 4181. 10.3390/ijerph19074181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Schulz S, Nelemans S, Hadiwijaya H, Klimstra T, Crocetti E, Branje S, & Meeus W (2023). The future is present in the past: A meta-analysis on the longitudinal associations of parent–adolescent relationships with peer and romantic relationships. Child Development, 94(1), 7–27. 10.1111/cdev.13849 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Seay A, Freysteinson WM, & McFarlane J (2014). Positive parenting. Nursing Forum, 49(3), 200–208. 10.1111/nuf.12093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Shen M, Purwono U, & French DC (2020). Romance, religion, and problem behavior in Indonesian Muslim adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 81, 87–95. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Smetana JG (2008). “It’s 10 o’clock: Do you know where your children are?” Recent advances in understanding parental monitoring and adolescents’ information management. Child Development Perspectives, 2(1), 19–25. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00036.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Stattin H, & Kerr M (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71(4), 1072–1085. 10.1111/1467-8624.00210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Straus MA (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41(1), 75–88. https://www.jstor.org/stable/351733 [Google Scholar]
  55. Straus MA, & Douglas EM (2007). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19(5), 507–520. 10.1891/088667004780927800 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. van Buuren S, & Groothuis-Oudshoorn K (2011). Mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. 10.18637/jss.v045.i03 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. van de Bongardt D, Yu R, Deković M, & Meeus WHJ (2015). Romantic relationships and sexuality in adolescence and young adulthood: The role of parents, peers, and partners. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12(5), 497–515. 10.1080/17405629.2015.1068689 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. van de Vijver FJR (2013). Contributions of internationalization to psychology: Toward a global and inclusive discipline. American Psychologist, 68(8), 761–770. 10.1037/a0033762 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. van Doorn MD, Branje SJT, VanderValk IE, de Goede IHA, & Meeus WHJ (2011). Longitudinal spillover effects of conflict resolution styles between adolescent-parent relationships and adolescent friendships. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(1), 157–161. 10.1037/a0022289 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Vangelisti AL, & Perlman D (Eds.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  61. Walper S, & Wendt EV (2015). Adolescents’ relationships with mother and father and their links to the quality of romantic relationships: A classification approach. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12(5), 516–532. 10.1080/17405629.2015.1065727 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Xia M, Fosco GM, Lippold MA, & Feinberg ME (2018). A developmental perspective on young adult romantic relationships: Examining family and individual factors in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(7), 1499–1516. 10.1007/s10964-018-0815-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES