Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2024 Jun 17;38(5):775–785. doi: 10.1037/fam0001245

Father and Mother Harsh Parenting and Adult Romantic Relationships over Time: Individual Behavior during Adolescence

Alison C White 1, Olivia N Diggs 2, Tricia K Neppl 3
PMCID: PMC11966737  NIHMSID: NIHMS2055746  PMID: 38884989

Abstract

The current study examined how father and mother harsh parenting as experienced in middle adolescence impacted individual behavior during late adolescence and subsequent harsh couple interaction with their romantic partner in adulthood using a prospective longitudinal design (n = 117 males, 239 females). Data were collected during home visits by a trained interviewer in which family members completed questionnaires and participated in videotaped structured interaction tasks that were coded by trained observers. We assessed the influence of harsh parenting in adolescence (ages 15 and 16, time 1) on individual processes (e.g., academic difficulty, substance use, and low self-esteem; age 18, time 2) and harsh couple interaction in adulthood (ages 29 and 31, time 3; age 34, time 4). Father harsh parenting was associated with low self-esteem for sons and daughters and substance use for sons. Mother harsh parenting was associated with academic difficulty for adolescents. Academic difficulty and low self-esteem for daughters were further associated with harsh couple interaction at time 3, while substance use for adolescents was associated with harsh couple interaction at time 3, which remained stable through established adulthood. We highlight the unique effects of father and mother harsh parenting on later romantic relationship quality through individual mechanisms in late adulthood, for daughters and sons, in the context of the family system. Understanding these nuances as adolescents approach adulthood have implications for programming and policy aimed at strengthening the parent-child relationship in adolescence to allow for the development of healthy romantic relationships later in life.

Keywords: fathering, harsh parenting, longitudinal, romantic relationships, harsh couple interaction

Erikson (1968) proposed the achievement of intimacy in relationships, particularly romantic relationships, is a pivotal developmental task during young adulthood. Specifically, experiences in the family of origin, along with individual behaviors and dispositional factors, have been shown to be important in forecasting later romantic relationship processes (Lohman et al., 2013; Seiffge-Krenke et al., 2010). Intergenerational continuity in negative behavior patterns that parents adopt with their children may be an important catalyst of negative interactions in children’s own romantic relationships (Amato & Booth, 2001; Capaldi & Gorman-Smith, 2003; Neppl et al., 2019). While studies on developmental antecedents of romantic relationships have examined longitudinal links between relationships in the family of origin and individual behavior, fewer have examined the influence of parenting on adult romantic relationships over time, extending to established adulthood (Choi et al., 2022; Seiffge-Krenke, 2003; Seiffge-Krenke et al., 2010). This is important as research suggests that interactions with a romantic partner may be stable over time (Roberson et al., 2018). Moreover, few studies examine various behavioral or psychological processes that may account for this association.

Attention to parenting behaviors is critical as negative interactions from parents are believed to produce patterns of hostile responses and other maladaptive behavior in their children (Neppl et al., 2019) including academic difficulties (Camacho-Thompson et al., 2019), substance use (Neppl et al., 2020), and low self-esteem (Johnson & Galambos, 2014). These patterns of maladaptive behavior may spill over to relationships, such as those with siblings, peers, and romantic partners (Neppl et al., 2016). That is, dysfunctional patterns of negative individual behavior and interpersonal skills acquired during negative family interactions may be repeated in later romantic unions during adulthood, compromising future relationship success (Bryant & Conger, 2002; Neppl et al., 2020). However, research has mainly focused on mothers (Candel, 2022) or merged parenting behaviors of mothers and fathers (Choi et al., 2022; Heinze et al., 2020), despite findings that father involvement is independently associated with socioemotional wellbeing (Choi et al., 2018), decreases in risky and delinquent behaviors (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2006; Daspe et al., 2018), and increases in academic achievement (Miller, 2020). For example, in a study that examined the mediating role of individual behavior on the link between parenting and children’s later romantic relationships, father participation was only included when the mother was unavailable (Candel, 2022). Other studies combine or average mother and father parenting (Choi et al., 2022), where the independent and unique contributions of fathers to development remain unclear.

Thus, the purpose of the present study is to prospectively evaluate how paternal and maternal behaviors experienced during adolescence independently influence one’s own intimate partner relationships over time, as well as examine possible mechanisms to help explain this association. The independent analysis of fathers will help clarify their unique contributions to and influence on adolescent behaviors and adult romantic relationships. Specifically, we examined father and mother harsh parenting during middle adolescence and their association with later harsh romantic interactions in young and established adulthood. Established adulthood is a conceptualization of the ages of 30 to 45 presented by Mehta et al. (2020). Finally, we examined academic difficulty, substance use, and low self-esteem in late adolescence to help explain the association between harsh parenting and later harsh romantic interactions over time. Based on conceptual work by Cummings and Davies (2010), we conceptualize these individual factors as “risk mechanisms” throughout. While these traits may not be inherently risky, they may serve as linkages to negative outcomes, hence there is “risk” through these mechanisms.

Theoretical Framework

The current study is guided by the Development of Early Adult Romantic Relationships (DEARR) model (Bryant & Conger, 2002; Conger et al., 2000), which proposes “that the competencies that promote an individual’s success in establishing a stable and satisfying adult romantic relationship can be traced to family experiences during childhood and adolescence” (Bryant & Conger, 2002, p.58). Bryant and Conger (2002) offer different mechanisms that suggest how these processes unfold. One mechanism is the observational learning hypothesis which suggests behavioral interactional styles that were frequently modeled and reinforced in the family of origin (i.e. marital relationships) will be imitated by adult children in their later close relationships (Amato & Booth, 2001; Bandura, 1977). A second mechanism is the parent socialization hypothesis which suggests children’s behaviors are socialized or trained by direct interactions with their parents (Capaldi & Clark, 1998).

To test these mechanisms, Conger, et al. (2000) examined whether nurturant-involved parenting behaviors (merged behaviors of mothers and fathers) and marital interactions during adolescence predicted affective behaviors in later adolescent dating relationships in young adulthood, approximately 5 years later. It was found that only nurturant-involved parenting was statistically associated with adolescent interactions with their romantic partner. Thus, results suggest that parent socialization practices, rather than marital interactions, are predictive of behavior in later romantic relationships. Moreover, other research shows that parent behavior toward their child is more influential on children’s developmental outcomes relative to the influence of interparental interactions (Capaldi & Clark, 1998; Lohman et al., 2013). Thus, to expand work of Conger et al. (2000), the current study examines the influence of adverse paternal and maternal parenting practices in the family of origin on later romantic relationships over time, which may inform social supports aimed at strengthening parent-child relationships. Moreover, we examine whether risk mechanisms or dispositional traits play a mediating role in these intergenerational continuities of negative interactions in close relationships.

Harsh Parenting during Adolescence and Romantic Relationships in Adulthood

Harsh parenting practices may make it difficult for children to establish healthy romantic relationships as adults (Amato & Booth, 2001; Conger et al., 2000; Neppl et al., 2019) and are more likely to report unsatisfactory relationships (Seiffge-Krenke, 2003). For example, earlier findings from the longitudinal study used in the present analyses found that adolescents who experienced angry and criticizing parents (averaging mother and father) displayed similar behavior toward their own romantic partner throughout adulthood (Lohman et al., 2013; Neppl et al., 2019). Relatedly, work by Donnellan and colleagues (2005) demonstrated that observational measures of nurturant-involved combined parenting measured at age 18 were negatively associated with observed high hostility and low warmth behaviors in subsequent romantic relationships for individuals age 23. In addition, Seiffge-Krenke and colleagues (2010) used growth mixture modeling to examine parent-child relationships (analyzing mother and father separately) at ages 14 to 17 and subsequent romantic relationships at ages 21 and 23. They concluded that maternal support and closeness during adolescence influenced their children’s romantic relationships as young adults. However, distant father-child relationships during adolescence were linked with their child’s romantic relationship quality in young adulthood characterized by jealousy, emotional extremes, and intense preoccupation (Seiffge-Krenke et al 2010). Taken together, results emphasize low quality parent-child relationships are an important catalyst of low-warmth and high-conflict romantic relationships in young adulthood.

Stability of Romantic Interactions over Time

Romantic relationships typically form during emerging adulthood where individuals consider the behaviors displayed in their own relationships (Cui & Fincham, 2011). Moreover, there is evidence suggesting the stability of hostile behaviors in romantic relationships across time (Kamp et al., 2012). For example, Lavner et al. (2014) examined patterns of marital problem change over the first four years of marriage and found that marital problems remained stable over time, even when changes in relationship satisfaction were present. Similarly, while some marriages had high levels of conflict and others had low levels of conflict, Kamp et al. (2012) found that couples’ respective levels of conflict remained stable across twenty years. Roberson et al. (2018) examined patterns in relationship trajectories and found that relationship quality remained stable for most individuals across thirty years.

Overall, research has studied changes and stability in romantic relationship processes for a single romantic relationship, rather than evaluating patterns of behavior for different relationships as individuals change romantic partners. It could be that individuals choose partners who had similar experiences in their family-of-origin and thus exhibit similar behaviors to themselves via assortative mating (Kim & Capaldi, 2004). Indeed, Lohman et al. (2013) examined both individual and family risk factors for intimate partner psychological violence in emerging adulthood and adulthood. Despite over 80% of the sample changing romantic partners during the course of the study, intimate partner violence remained stable from emerging adulthood to adulthood. The current study expands this work by assessing harsh couple interaction across five years in established adulthood during which participants may have changed romantic partners (Timmons & Smith, 2009). Moreover, few studies have examined the link between parent-child relationships and romantic relationships from young to established adulthood (Neppl et al., 2019; Surjadi et al., 2013). We address this gap by prospectively assessing paternal and maternal harsh parenting separately in adolescence on the stability of harsh romantic interactions in established adulthood.

Mediating Pathways during Adolescence

An important next step in understanding the association between paternal and maternal harsh parenting and future romantic relationship functioning is to identify possible mechanisms that might account for these associations. Conceptual work by Cummings and Davies (2010) presents the theory that marital conflict influences child outcomes over time and across development. They emphasize a process-oriented approach that considers time and developmental contexts in the examination of outcomes associated with marital conflict. The present study utilizes a longitudinal design, capturing the passing of time and changing of developmental contexts in its examination of harsh parenting on future romantic relationships through adolescent risk mechanisms (Cummings & Davies, 2010). Risk mechanisms (e.g., academic difficulty, substance use, low self-esteem) experienced in adolescence may influence an individual’s life as they approach emerging adulthood (Min et al., 2022; Stone et al., 2012). Specifically, one area that may be influenced by risky behavior is the romantic relationship. For example, adolescent academic performance is linked to financial earnings in adulthood (Zax & Rees, 2002), and experiencing financial stress is associated with marital conflict (Lee et al., 2020). Thus, it is possible that adolescent academic difficulty may be related to conflict within the romantic relationship in adulthood. In addition, substance use initiated in adolescence is related to increased use in adulthood (Diggs & Neppl, 2018), which is related to marital conflict (Leonard & Eiden, 2007). Moreover, Surjadi and colleagues (2013) examined how behavioral processes during late adolescence might account for the association between parental harsh discipline and romantic relationship quality. Specifically, harsh parental discipline at age 15 was associated with increased risk of externalizing problems at ages 16 to 18. In turn, externalizing problems were associated with aggressive behavior during the first five years of cohabitation or marriage (Surjadi et al., 2013). Other research has shown that negative parenting is related to greater academic difficulties (Camacho-Thompson et al., 2019), increased substance use (Hawkins et al., 1992; Neppl et al., 2020), and other problem behaviors (Collins et al., 2000). during adolescence. Furthermore, using data from a nationally representative sample of adolescents, Bronte-Tinkew and colleagues (2006) found that adolescents whose fathers had an authoritarian parenting style were at increased risk of substance abuse, even after controlling for maternal parenting styles.

In addition, low self-esteem may relate to parenting and later romantic relationships. For example, Weisskirch (2018) found individuals who report low intimacy also report lower levels of self-esteem than those who reported high intimacy. Using data from a nationally representative sample of adolescents in the United States, Johnson and Galambos (2014) tested whether self-esteem measured during the transition to adulthood (i.e., ages 18–25) mediated the relation between parent-adolescent relationship quality at ages 12–19 and intimate relationship quality 15 years later during young adulthood (i.e., ages 25–32). They found parent-adolescent relationship quality was associated with increased self-esteem in the transition to adulthood. Self-esteem, in turn, predicted higher levels of intimate relationship quality during young adulthood (Johnson & Galambos, 2014). Taken together, it is plausible harsh parenting in adolescence may lead to harsh interactions with future romantic partners by way of risk mechanisms in adolescence. The present investigation expands this work by examining academic difficulty, substance use, and low self-esteem as potential linkages between harsh parenting and interactions with a romantic partner in both young and established adulthood.

Gender Differences

Empirical evidence is mixed on gender differences in the longitudinal association between parent-child interactions and later adolescent problem behaviors. Some studies have not found gender differences (Di Giunta et al., 2020), while others report gender differences in these associations (Kincaid et al., 2012). For example, family processes associated with problem behaviors may differ by gender, with boys at greater risk for externalizing behaviors (Loeber & Hay, 1997) and girls at greater risk for low self-esteem during adolescence (Quatman & Watson, 2010). This is reinforced by results of the 2019 Iowa Youth Behavior Risk Survey, which suggest that girls exhibit more internalizing risk mechanisms (i.e., poor mental health), while boys typically engage in more externalizing behavior such as physical fighting (Iowa Department of Health & Human Services, 2021). Furthermore, Risch, et al. (2004) found fathers may be more influential for boys than girls in shaping beliefs about romantic relationships during adolescence. Boys who reported more closeness with their fathers felt less likely to divorce in the future than boys who did not feel close to their fathers (Risch et al., 2004). For girls, feeling close to a father was not associated with attitudes toward divorce (Risch et al., 2004).

More recently, Orri et al. (2019) found that mother emotion profiles (e.g., greater frequency of positive or negative emotionality) had greater direct effects on internalizing behaviors for boys than father emotion profiles. Father increased negative emotionality indirectly affected externalizing behaviors for boys more than mothers. Mother emotional profiles significantly affected both internalizing and externalizing behaviors for girls while father emotional profiles did not. Thus, because parent-child relationships and family processes may vary by gender, we expect adolescent gender may interact with the father-child or mother-child relationship uniquely to influence risk mechanisms and hostile interactions with future romantic partners differentially for boys and girls. It could be harsh parenting towards daughters may be more strongly associated with later harsh couple interaction through low self-esteem than for sons, since research suggests girls typically have more internalizing risk factors (Iowa Department of Health & Human Services, 2021; Quatman & Watson, 2010). Harsh parenting toward sons may influence their later harsh romantic relationship interactions through substance use, as boys typically exhibit greater externalizing behavior (Iowa Department of Health & Human Services, 2021). Finally, since fewer studies examine fathers and mothers separately and results may be mixed, it could be that father parenting may have a differential association from mothers, or it could be there will be no differential effects between mothers and fathers.

The Present Investigation

The present study evaluated the association between observed father and mother harsh parenting in middle adolescence and hostile romantic interactions in both early and established adulthood, as mediated through academic difficulties, substance use, and low self-esteem in late adolescence. It was expected that harsh parenting during adolescence would be linked to harsh romantic interactions in young adulthood and that these effects would last into established adulthood. That is, adolescents who experience hostile parenting will have greater hostile romantic interactions in both young and established adulthood. It was also expected that harsh parenting during adolescence would be associated with academic difficulty, substance use, and low self-esteem during late adolescence. In turn, these behaviors would be linked to later harsh romantic interactions in adulthood.

The current study contributes to this body of literature by examining the influence of both father and mother harsh parenting on adult romantic harsh interactions over time, and specifically contributes to fatherhood literature, as fathers are not studied as frequently or independently as mothers. The direct effects of harsh parenting and individual behavior on future romantic relationships have each been recognized in previous research (Heinze et al., 2020; Lohman et al., 2013; Neppl et al., 2019). However, to our knowledge, fewer studies have examined father and mother harsh parenting in the family of origin, risk mechanisms in late adolescence, and romantic relationships over time within the same model. In addition, where there is a tendency for previous developmental studies to primarily focus on mothers, we intentionally focus the investigation on fathers’ independent contributions in the model. In order to examine whether any of the associations within the model were due to background characteristics, family of origin interparental marital hostility and family of origin per capita income were used as control variables in the analyses. It is important to examine these covariates as research has found that limited financial resources are associated with higher rates of aggression in parenting and romantic relationships (Conger et al., 2002; McLaughlin et al., 1992). Finally, we examined the hypothesized pathways separately by gender of the adolescent.

Method

Participants

We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study. Data are drawn from the Iowa Youth and Families Project (IYFP). In the IYFP, data from the family of origin (N = 451) were collected annually from 1989 through 1992. Participants included the adolescent age 13 (217 females, 234 males), their mother and father, and a sibling within 4 years of age of the adolescent. These two–parent families (451 mothers, 451 fathers) were originally recruited for a study of family economic stress in the rural U.S. Midwest. When interviewed in 1989, the adolescent was in seventh grade (M age = 12.7 years; 236 females, 215 males). Participants were recruited from both public and private schools in eight rural Iowa counties. Due to the rural nature of the sample and the fact that there were few racial/ethnic minority families in Iowa at the beginning of the study, all participants were white. Seventy–eight percent of the eligible families agreed to participate. The families were primarily economically lower-middle or middle–class. In 1989, parents averaged 13 years of schooling and had a median family income of $33,700. Families ranged in size from 4 to 13 members, with an average size of 4.94 members. Father average age was 40 years, while mother average age was 38. In 1994, the families from the IYFP continued in another project, the Family Transitions Project (FTP). The same adolescents participated in the FTP to follow their transition into adulthood. Beginning in 1995, the adolescent (1 year after completion of high school) participated in the study with a romantic partner. The FTP has followed these youth from as early as 1989 through 2010 (M age = 34 years), with a 90% retention rate.

The present investigation includes youth who participated from adolescence through adulthood. The data were analyzed at four developmental time points. The first was when the adolescent was both 15 and 16 years old (1991 and 1992). The second time point was during late adolescence when they were 18 years old (1994). The third time point occurred in young adulthood at age 29 and 31 years (2005 and 2007). The final time point was in established adulthood at 34 years (2010). Throughout adulthood, the adolescents who are now adults, participated with a romantic partner. At Time 3, the romantic partner included a married or cohabiting partner (82%) or a boyfriend or girlfriend (8%). At Time 4, romantic partners were a married spouse or cohabiting partner (85%) or a boyfriend or girlfriend (15%). Of the 451 original adolescents, the present analysis included those who participated with a romantic partner in 2010 (n = 256; 117 males, 139 females). Attrition analyses comparing the group that was retained in the final model compared to the group that had missing values at time 4 showed there were no differences between adolescents/adults in levels of family of origin father harsh parenting, mother harsh parenting, substance use at age 18, and family of origin interparental marital hostility. However, there were significant mean difference between these two groups on academic difficulty (no missing at time 4 m = 2.40 vs. missing at time 4 m = 3.68; t = 4.02, p < .001), low self-esteem (no missing at time 4 m = 2.01 vs. missing at time 4 m = 2.39; t = 3.37, p < .01), and family of origin per capita income (no missing at time 4 m = 0.99 vs. missing at time 4 m = 0.47; t = −3.89, p < .001).

Procedures

During adolescence, all families of origin were visited twice in their homes each year by a trained interviewer. Each visit lasted approximately two hours, with the second visit occurring within two weeks of the first visit. During the first visit, each family member completed questionnaires about subjects such as parenting, individual characteristics, and the quality of family interactions. During the second visit, family members participated in structured interaction tasks that were videotaped. The parent–child discussion task involved family members engaging in a 30-minute discussion of general questions about family, such as approaches to parenting, performance in school, household chores, and important family events. The marital interaction task involved parents of the adolescent engaging in a 25 minute conversation about their relationship and disagreements include topics such as childrearing, employment, and other life events. Trained observers coded the quality of these interactions using the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Melby et al., 1998). These scales have been shown to demonstrate adequate reliability and validity (Melby & Conger, 2001).

From 1995 through 2010 the adolescents, now adults, and their romantic partner participated in data collection. Each adult and his or her romantic partner were visited biennially in their home by trained interviewers. During that visit, these adults completed a series of questionnaires. In addition to questionnaires, the adult and his or her romantic partner participated in a videotaped 25–minute discussion task that was essentially the same as that used for their parents during adolescence. The FTP has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at Iowa State University (#06–086).

Measures

Father and Mother Harsh Parenting (ages 15 and 16).

Observer ratings were used to assess father and mother hostility, antisocial behavior, and angry coerciveness toward their adolescent during the parent-child discussion task, as described above. This task was designed to elicit both negative and positive interactions between family members. Each rating was scored on a 9-point scale, ranging from 1 (no evidence of the behavior) to 9 (behavior is highly characteristic of the parent) using the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Melby & Conger, 2001; Melby et al., 1998). Each scale was used as a separate indicator for the latent construct for mother and father harsh parenting. Hostility measures hostile, angry, critical, disapproving and/or rejecting behavior. Antisocial is demonstration of socially irresponsible behavior, including resistance, defiance, and insensitivity. Angry coercion is the attempt to control or change behavior of another in a hostile manner, including demands, hostile commands, refusals, and threats. Father and mother harsh parenting scores were averaged across 1991 and 1992, separately, with internally consistent ratings for both fathers α = .89 and mothers α = .92.

Academic Difficulty (age 18).

Adolescents reported their grade point average (GPA) which was measured as a manifest variable. The adolescents reported their GPA on a scale from 0 = F to 10 = A. Responses were reverse-coded so that higher scores indicate a lower GPA and greater academic difficulties.

Substance Use (age 18).

Adolescents reported their substance use behaviors during the last 30 days. Items were averaged together to create the manifest variable. Substance use behaviors included smoking or chewing tobacco, drinking beer, wine, or wine coolers, smoking marijuana, and using prescription drugs without a doctor’s permission. Responses ranged from 1 = never to 6 = every day, with higher scores indicating greater substance use (α =.84).

Low Self–Esteem (age 18).

Adolescents reported their self–esteem by completing 10 questions from the Rosenberg’s (1965) self–esteem scale. Items were averaged together to create the sole indicator for a manifest variable. Sample questions included, “All in all, I am inclined to feel that I’m a failure” and “At times I think I am not good at all.” Responses ranged from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree, with higher scores indicating lower self-esteem (α =.96).

Harsh Couple Interaction (ages 29 and 31; age 34).

Observer ratings were used to assess adult hostility, antisocial behavior, and angry coerciveness toward their romantic partner during the romantic partner discussion task, as described earlier. Each indicator was scored on a 9-point scale, ranging from 1 (no evidence of behavior) to 9 (behavior is highly characteristic of the individual) using the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Melby & Conger, 2001; Melby et al., 1998). Each indicator was used as a separate factor for the latent construct. Hostility measures hostile, angry, critical, disapproving behavior. Antisocial is demonstration of socially irresponsible behavior, including resistance, defiance, and insensitivity. Angry coercion is the attempt to control or change the behavior of another in a hostile manner, including demands, hostile commands, refusals, and threats. Adult to romantic partner interaction scores were averaged across 2005 and 2007 (α = .87), and measured again in 2010 (α = .88).

Covariates.

In 1991 and 1992 (age 15–16), parents reported their family income for the previous years from all sources. This was obtained from an extensive reporting of family finances and then divided by household size to obtain a measure of family per capita income at each assessment. Family of origin interparental marital hostility (ages 15–16) included observer ratings using the same partner interaction discussion measure as described above. Interparental marital hostility scores were averaged across 1991 and 1992, with internally consistent ratings (α = .92), and acceptable interrater reliability (α =.84). Higher scores are reflective of higher levels of marital hostility. Finally, adolescent gender (1 = male, 2 = female) was used as the grouping variable in the two-group model. Data and materials for this study may be made available upon reasonable request.

Analytic Plan

Data (n = 256) were analyzed in Mplus v8.7 with full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation procedures (Arbuckle, 1997). FIML was employed because it is one of the most widely recommended approaches for dealing with missing data (Arbuckle, 1997). Studies indicate that it provides better estimation of model parameters than procedures such as listwise or pairwise deletion. Basic correlational analyses were conducted and then structural equation models (SEMs) were used to test the study hypotheses. Overall model fit was examined with the standard chi–square index of statistical fit that is routinely provided under maximum likelihood estimation of parameters. Two additional indices of practical fit, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the comparative fit index (CFI) were used to evaluate the fit of the structural model to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999). RMSEA values under .05 indicate close fit to the data, and values between .05 and .08 represent reasonable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). For the CFI, fit index values should be greater than .90 and preferably greater than .95, to consider the fit of a model to the data to be acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The final results were estimated with the control variables included in the models.

For the SEM, a series of fixed and freed two-group models (by adolescent gender) were examined. First, a two-group model allowed all hypothesized pathways to vary for both males and females. Next, all hypothesized pathways were set to be equal for males and females. A chi-square difference test was performed between the two models. If the difference in chi-square values was large enough considering the difference in degrees of freedom in the two models, this indicated differences in beta coefficients between males and females on at least one pathway in the model. Thus, starting with the fixed two-group model, the approach of freeing hypothesized pathways one by one to assess differences by males/females was established. If the difference in chi-square values with one degree of freedom was statistically significant, that pathway was deemed statistically different for males and females and left “freed” in the final model.

Results

The means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum scores for the items used in the latent constructs, as well as for all other study variables were obtained from SPSS and are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean SD N
Father Harsh Parenting
Hostility 1.00 9.00 3.76 1.83 252
Angry Coercion 1.00 9.00 2.19 1.54 252
Antisocial Behavior 1.00 9.00 4.06 1.77 252
Mother Harsh Parenting
Hostility 1.00 9.00 4.03 1.77 258
Angry Coercion 1.00 9.00 3.88 1.44 258
Antisocial Behavior 1.00 9.00 2.51 1.61 258
Academic Difficulty 0.00 7.00 2.40 1.74 240
Substance Use 1.00 2.58 1.28 0.37 255
Low Self-Esteem 1.00 4.70 2.02 0.65 255
Harsh Couple Interaction Time 3
  Hostility 1.00 9.00 3.31 1.82 272
  Angry Coercion 1.00 9.00 4.47 1.65 272
  Antisocial Behavior 1.00 6.50 1.57 1.09 272
Harsh Couple Interaction Time 4
  Hostility 1.00 9.00 2.23 1.68 272
  Angry Coercion 1.00 8.00 1.53 1.25 272
  Antisocial Behavior 1.00 9.00 3.05 1.81 272
FOI Per Capita Income -1.23 4.85 0.99 0.74 256
FOI Interparental Marital Hostility 1.00 7.50 2.80 1.33 249
Adolescent Gender 1.00 2.00 1.54 0.50 272
Open in a new tab

Note. FOI = Family of Origin

Correlations Among Constructs

Table 2 shows the zero-order correlations among theoretical constructs. Results show a moderate correlation between father harsh parenting and harsh couple interaction at Time 3 (r =.28, p < .001) and Time 4 (r =.20, p < .01). Father harsh parenting was also related to academic difficulty (r =.20, p < .01), substance use (r =.20, p < .01), and low self-esteem (r =.21, p < .01). Mother harsh parenting was significantly related to harsh couple interaction at Time 3 (r =.30, p < .001) and Time 4 (r =.16, p < .05). Mother harsh parenting was also related to academic difficulty (r =.21, p < .01) and low self-esteem (r =.17, p < .05). Academic difficulty, substance use, and low self-esteem were all significantly correlated with harsh couple interaction at Time 3 (r =.22, p < .01; r =.16, p < .05; r =.28, p < .001). Finally, harsh couple interaction at Time 3 was significantly related to harsh couple interaction at Time 4 (r =.54, p < .001).

Table 2.

Correlations Among Study Constructs

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Father Harsh Parenting --
2. Mother Harsh Parenting .57** --
3. Academic Difficulty .20** .21** --
4. Substance Use .20** .12 .33*** --
5. Low Self-Esteem .21** .17* .18** .13* --
6. Harsh Couple Interaction Time 3 .28*** .30*** .22** .16* .28*** --
7. Harsh Couple Interaction Time 4 .20** .16* .13* .09 .16* .54*** --
8. FOI Per Capita Income -.10 -.09 -.17* -.10 .06 -.10 -.04 --
9. FOI Interparental Marital Hostility .49*** .38*** .10 .02 .09 .16* .16* -.10 --
10. Adolescent Gender .08 .10 -.19** -.20** .14* .28*** .20 -.04 .02
Open in a new tab

Two-Group Structural Equation Models

Given zero-order correlations were consistent with predictions, we first tested a direct SEM that only estimated pathways from harsh parenting in middle adolescence to times 3 and 4 harsh couple interaction (including controls). Results showed that mother harsh parenting was directly associated with time 3 harsh couple interaction for both sons and daughters (B = .19, SE B = .08, p < .05). After testing the direct model, we tested the theoretical model guiding the study, using a two-group model approach by males and females. The two-group SEM that freed all pathways by male and female (χ2 (202) = 293.89) was statistically different from the two-group SEM that fixed all pathways by male and female (χ2 (219) = 332.18), which indicated a statistical difference in at least one pathway between males and females (Δ χ2 (17) = 38.29, p < .05), which indicated a significant difference in at least one of the 17 specified pathways in the model. By individually freeing one pathway at a time from the fixed two-group SEM, it was found there were four pathways who had unstandardized beta coefficients (i.e. pathways) that were statistically different between males and females. Three out of the four pathways are depicted in Figure 1 (father harsh parenting to substance use; academic difficulty to harsh couple interaction at ages 29 and 31; and self-esteem to harsh couple interaction at ages 29 and 31). The final pathway that differed significantly between males and females was the association between mother harsh parenting and harsh couple interaction at time 4, however, this pathway (for both males and females) is not depicted in Figure 1, due to the association not reaching statistical significance. Thus, the final two-group model included 13 fixed pathways on all hypothesized associations, except for the four mentioned above, which was the model we interpreted. This final model showed a good fit to the data, χ2 (215) = 313.86, p < .001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .96. All factor loadings were statistically significant (p < .001). The standardized loadings for observed father harsh parenting ranged from .71 to .98 and for observed mother harsh parenting ranged from .82 to .98. The standardized loadings for observed harsh couple interaction ranged from .70 to 1.0. Standardized beta coefficients from the two-group SEM which reached statistical significance are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Statistical Model

Model fit: χ2 (215) = 313.86, p < .001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .96

Notes. Significant standardized beta coefficients for hypothesized pathways are shown. Non-bolded pathway estimates represent fixed standardized coefficients for males, due to no statistical differences between males and females. Bolded standardized coefficients represent statistical differences in pathway estimates by male/female. This model controls for family of origin per capita income and interparental harsh couple interaction.

Fathers.

Father harsh parenting was associated with substance use in late adolescence for sons only (B = .10, SE B = .03, β = .43 p < .05). For both sons and daughters, the use of substances in late adolescence was associated with harsh couple interaction in young adulthood (sons: B = .61, SE B = .28, β = .19 p < .05; daughters: B = .61, SE B = .10, β = .19 p < .05), which was stable through established adulthood for sons (B = .51, SE B = .06, β = .43 p < .001) and daughters (B = .51, SE B = .06, β = .56 p < .001). Father harsh parenting in middle adolescence was also associated with their adolescent’s (sons and daughters) low self-esteem in late adolescence (sons: B = .20, SE B = .03, β = .19 p < .05; daughters: B = .07, SE B = .03, β = .19 p < .05). For daughters only, low self-esteem was subsequently associated with harsh couple interaction at time 3 in young adulthood (B = .69, SE B = .23, β = .24 p < .01). Although the zero-order correlations obtained from the measurement model were significant between father harsh parenting and harsh couple interaction at times 3 and 4, after all model pathways were specified in the SEM, these associations were no longer significant.

Mothers.

Mother harsh parenting was associated with academic difficulty in late adolescence for sons (B = .17, SE B = .08, β = .14 p < .05) and daughters (B = .17, SE B = .08, β = .19 p < .05). For daughters, this academic difficulty was associated with harsh couple interaction in young adulthood (ages 29 & 31; B = .61, SE B = .28, β = .29 p < .01), which was stable through established adulthood (B = .51, SE B = .06, β = .56 p < .001). As with father harsh parenting, although the zero-order correlation was significant between mother harsh parenting and harsh couple interaction at times 3 and 4, after all model pathways were specified in the SEM, these associations were no longer significant.

Indirect Effects

We further tested the indirect effects of the association between time 1 father harsh parenting to time 4 harsh couple interaction, as well as the association between time 1 mother harsh parenting and time 4 harsh couple interaction. For sons, we observed a significant indirect effect in the association between father harsh parenting in mid-adolescence and harsh couple interaction at age 34 (time 4) by way of substance use at age 18 and harsh couple interaction in young adulthood (B = .03, 95% CI [.004, .088]). For daughters, there was a significant indirect effect in the association between father harsh parenting in mid-adolescence and harsh couple interaction at age 34 through low self-esteem at age 18 and harsh couple interaction at time 3 (B = .02, 95% CI [.001, .075]). In addition, there was a significant indirect for daughters in the association between mother harsh parenting in mid-adolescence and time 4 harsh couple interaction by way of academic difficulty at age 18 and harsh couple interaction at time 3 (B = .03, 95% CI [.004, .084]).

As described earlier, there was a significant direct effect from mother harsh parenting to time 3 harsh couple interaction for both daughters and sons when age 18 mediators were not in the model. Taking together results from the two-group SEM and the indirect analyses, it can be concluded that for daughters, a lower GPA at age 18 fully mediated the association between mother harsh parenting in middle adolescence and their own harsh interactions with their romantic partner at time 3.

Discussion

The current study evaluated a developmental model for understanding how interactions with fathers and mothers in the family of origin influence individual behaviors and dispositional factors in shaping later romantic relationships. Examining fathers independently from mothers in the model allowed for clarification of their independent and unique role in the lives of their adolescents, and how that relationship is crucial for later romantic relationship functioning. The fifteen years between experiencing harsh parenting to later harsh interactions with a romantic partner span across young adulthood, a unique period of development from the late teen years through the late-twenties, when individuals are typically exposed to more environmental influences and participate in risk mechanisms (Arnett, 2007). In the current study, harsh parenting and harsh couple interaction were both observed measures by independent coders. This is important as observations may offer a more objective measure of how parent-adolescent and couples interact with one another. This is supported by previous research that focuses on patterns of behavior in the family of origin (Capaldi & Gorman-Smith, 2003).

Importantly, there was a zero-order correlation between harsh parenting (mother and father) in mid-adolescence and harsh interactions with a romantic partner in young and established adulthood. Further, for sons and daughters, there was a significant direct association between mother harsh parenting and time 3 harsh couple interaction when the age 18 mediators were not taken into account. After accounting for individual risk factors and characteristics at age 18, full mediation was observed for daughters in the association between mother harsh parenting and time 4 harsh couple interaction through academic difficulty at age 18. Additionally, significant indirect effects were observed for females between father harsh parenting and time 4 harsh couple interaction through low self-esteem in late adolescence and harsh couple interaction at time 3. For males, the association between father harsh parenting and time 4 harsh couple interaction was significant by way of substance use in late adolescence and harsh couple interaction at time 3.

Thus, findings suggest that certain individual behaviors and dispositional factors may help explain the continuity of negative interactions across time differently for fathers and mothers. Specifically, father harsh parenting in middle adolescence and substance use and low self-esteem in late adolescence, and mother harsh parenting and academic difficulty in late adolescence. This is consistent with previous research suggesting negative parenting practices influence negative outcomes in adolescence (Camacho-Thompson et al., 2019; Neppl et al, 2020), which may operate differently for fathers and mothers (Orri et al., 2019). In turn, these risk mechanisms and dispositional factors experienced in late adolescence were associated with greater hostility with a romantic partner in young adulthood, which remained stable to established adulthood – for daughters, it was through academic difficulty, substance use, low self-esteem, and for sons was through substance use. The current findings expand the literature on the stability of marital patterns across time (Timmons & Smith, 2009; Lohman et al., 2013). Finally, findings were consistent with previous research suggesting an association between harsh parenting, individual factors, and negative romantic relationship functioning (Surjadi et al., 2013; Vergunst et al., 2020). This held true even after controlling for parent marital interactions in the family of origin. Indeed, empirical results suggest that it is the parent socialization practices, rather than their marital interactions that are predictive of behavior in later romantic relationships (Capaldi & Clark, 1998; Lohman et al., 2013).

Application of Results

The current results provide empirical support that fathers and mothers may uniquely influence their adolescent’s behavior, which have implications into adulthood. For example, specifically for fathers, harsh parenting in the family of origin was associated with hostile interactions with a romantic partner fifteen years later by way of substance use (for sons) as well as low self-esteem (for daughters), which continues into established adulthood. This held true and was independent of the influence that mother harsh parenting has on these risk mechanisms and dispositional traits in late adolescence. This highlights the importance of finding ways to increase the quality of father-adolescent relationships in adolescence as a critical source for long-term adaptive functioning and relationship quality in adulthood. Practitioners who work with fathers and adolescents might benefit from conceptualizing programs and interventions from a developmental perspective. If practitioners focus on the father-adolescent relationship, it may have a positive cascading effect. For example, improvements in father-adolescent relationships may precipitate the adolescent to engage in less risk-taking behavior in later adolescence and, in turn, influence them to form less hostile and more successful partnerships in adulthood. Generally, the role of fathers is less often viewed outside the scope of its association with the role of mothers, as demonstrated by studies examining mothers only or mothers and fathers together (Candel, 2022). For this reason, outreach including education about the independent influence fathers have on their adolescent’s experience and ultimately on the success of their children’s adult romantic relationships may have a positive impact on the father-child relationship and their children’s later romantic relationship functioning.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study includes specific limitations. The homogeneous ethnic and geographic characteristics of the sample limit the ability to generalize results to more diverse samples. However, the theoretical premise of this developmental model has been empirically tested in larger and more diverse samples (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2006; Johnson et al., 2014). In the current study, harsh parenting was measured at ages 15 and 16. Future work should expand this to include the effects of father and mother harsh parenting at earlier ages to capture influences across development and time. Moreover, the analyses were limited to individuals in the study who formed a romantic partnership in their middle 30s. Replication is needed to assess the developmental antecedents of romantic relationships established in middle to later adulthood. Finally, there could also be a possibility of attrition bias between the retained sample and those who did not participate at age 34. However, mean levels of harsh parenting at time 1 did not differ between the two groups. Despite these limitations, the present study offers insight into the developmental pathways linking parent-to-adolescent harsh parenting to hostile interactions within adult romantic relationships over time.

Conclusion

The current research highlights the role of the parent-child relationship during adolescence as a significant predictor of later romantic relationship quality. In two-parent (heterogeneous) families, by uniquely focusing on fathers while also considering the role of mothers, this study suggests distinctive contributions to their children’s developmental outcomes which influence adult romantic relationships. This emphasizes the importance of improving the quality of parent-adolescent relationships to enhance individual well-being and lead to lasting positive romantic relationship outcomes in adulthood. These results may be used to specifically inform interventions and social supports aimed at strengthening the father-child relationship. This study contributes significantly to the literature on the intergenerational continuity of negative interactions within close family relationships over time.

Funding

This research is currently supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging (R15AG059286) and Iowa Agriculture Home Economics Experiment Station. Support for earlier years of the study also came from multiple sources, including the College of Human Sciences, National Institute on Aging (AG043599), Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD064687), National Institute of Mental Health (MH00567, MH19734, MH43270, MH59355, MH62989, MH48165, MH051361), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA05347), the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD027724, HD051746, HD047573), the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health (MCJ-109572), and the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Adolescent Development Among Youth in High-Risk Settings. This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding sources.

Footnotes

Author Note Data and materials for this study may be made available upon reasonable request. The current study was not preregistered. An earlier version of this article was presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for the Study of Emerging Adulthood in San Diego in June 2023.

Contributor Information

Alison C. White, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Iowa State University, 2325 N Loop Drive, Ames, Iowa 50010, USA.

Olivia N. Diggs, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Iowa State University, 2325 N Loop Drive, Ames, Iowa 50010, USA.

Tricia K. Neppl, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Iowa State University, 2361C Palmer, Ames, IA 50011, USA.

References

  1. Amato PR, & Booth A (2001). The legacy of parents’ marital discord: Consequences for children’s marital quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 627–638. 10.1037//0022-3514.81.4.627 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arbuckle JL (1997). AMOS User’s guide Version 3.6. Chicago: Small Waters. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnett JJ (2007). Emerging Adulthood: What Is It, and What Is It Good For? Child Development Perspectives, 1(2), 68–73. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00016.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bandura A (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bronte-Tinkew J, Moore KA, and Carrano J (2006). The father-child relationship, parenting styles, and adolescent risk behaviors in intact families. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 850–881. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bryant CM, & Conger RD (2002). An intergenerational model of romantic relationship development. In Vangelisti AL, Reiss HT, & Fitzpatrick MA (Eds.), Stability and change in relationships (pp. 57–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Camacho-Thompson DE, Gonzales NA, & Tein J-Y (2019). Parental academic involvement across adolescence contextualized by gender and parenting practices. School Psychology, 34(4), 386–397. 10.1037/spq0000319 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Candel O-S (2022). The Link between Parenting Behaviors and Emerging Adults’ Relationship Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Relational Entitlement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(2), Article 2. 10.3390/ijerph19020828 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cano T, Perales F, & Baxter J (2019). A Matter of Time: Father Involvement and Child Cognitive Outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81(1), 164–184. 10.1111/jomf.12532 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Capaldi DM, & Clark S (1998). Prospective family predictors of aggression toward female partners for at–risk young men. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1175–1188. 10.1037/0012-1649.34.6.1175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Capaldi DM, & Gorman–Smith D (2003). The development of aggression in young male/female couples. In Florsheim P (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 243–278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  12. Choi HJ, Cooke JE, Madigan S, & Temple JR (2022). The Impact of Parent-Child Closeness and Romantic Attachment on Dating Violence Perpetration in Adolescence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(23–24), NP22300–NP22328. 10.1177/08862605211072160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Choi J-K, Kim M, & Kunz GM (2018). Longitudinal relationships between unmarried fathers’ involvement and their children’s behavior problems: Using latent growth modeling. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 424–430. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.035 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins WA, Maccoby EE, Steinberg L, Hetherington EM, & Bornstein MH (2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218–232. 10.1037//0003-066x.55.2.218 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Conger RD,Wallace LE, Sun Y, Simons RL, McLoyd VC, & Brody G (2002). Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 179–193. 10.1037//0012-1649.38.2.179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Conger RD, Conger KJ, & Martin MJ (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 685–704. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Conger RD, Cui M, Bryant CM, & Elder GH Jr. (2000). Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 224–237. 10.1037//0022-3514.79.2.224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Conger RD, Rueter MA, & Conger KJ (1994). The family context of adolescent vulnerability and resilience to alcohol use and abuse. Sociological Studies of Children, 6, 55–86. 10.2307/353697 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cui M, Fincham FD, & Durtschi JA (2011). The effect of parental divorce on young adults’ romantic relationship dissolution: What makes a difference? Personal Relationships, 18(3), 410–426. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01306.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cummings EM, & Davies P (2011). Marital conflict and children: An emotional security perspective. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Daspe M-È, Arbel R, Ramos MC, Shapiro LAS, & Margolin G (2019). Deviant Peers and Adolescent Risky Behaviors: The Protective Effect of Nonverbal Display of Parental Warmth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(4), 863–878. 10.1111/jora.12418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Diggs ON, & Neppl TK (2018). The influence of economic pressure on emerging adult binge drinking: Testing the family stress model over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(11), 2481–2495. 10.1007/s10964-018-0923-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Di Giunta L, Rothenberg WA, Lunetti C, Lansford JE, Pastorelli C, Eisenberg N, Thartori E, Basili E, Favini A, Yotanyamaneewong S, Peña Alampay L, Al-Hassan SM, Bacchini D, Bornstein MH, Chang L, Deater-Deckard K, Dodge KA, Oburu P, Skinner AT, … Uribe Tirado LM (2020). Longitudinal associations between mothers’ and fathers’ anger/irritability expressiveness, harsh parenting, and adolescents’ socioemotional functioning in nine countries. Developmental Psychology, 56(3), 458–474. 10.1037/dev0000849 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Donnellan MB, Larsen-Rife D, & Conger RD (2005). Personality, family history, and competence in early adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 562–576. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.562 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Erikson EH (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton. [Google Scholar]
  26. Harris KM & Morgan SP (1991). Fathers, sons, and daughters: Differential paternal involvement in parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 531–544. 10.2307/352730 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, & Miller JY (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 64–105. 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.64 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Heinze JE, Hsieh H, 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. doi: 10.1111/fare.12493 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hu L, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Iowa Department of Health & Human Services. (2021). 2021 Youth Risk Behavior Survey Results. Iowa Youth Health Assessment Program. https://hhs.iowa.gov/about/performance-and-reports/iowa-youth-health-assessment [Google Scholar]
  31. Johnson MD, & Galambos NL (2014). Paths to intimate relationship quality from parent-adolescent relations and mental health. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 145–160. 10.1111/jomf.12074 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kamp Dush CM, & Taylor MG (2012). Trajectories of Marital Conflict Across the Life Course: Predictors and Interactions With Marital Happiness Trajectories. Journal of Family Issues, 33(3), 341–368. 10.1177/0192513X11409684 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kim HK, & Capaldi DM (2004). The Association of Antisocial Behavior and Depressive Symptoms Between Partners and Risk for Aggression in Romantic Relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 82–96. 10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.82 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kincaid C, Jones DJ, Sterrett E, & McKee L (2012). A review of parenting and adolescent sexual behavior: The moderating role of gender. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(3), 177–188. 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.01.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lavner JA, Karney BR, & Bradbury TN (2014). Relationship problems over the early years of marriage: Stability or change? Journal of Family Psychology, 28(6), 979–985. 10.1037/a0037752 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee S, Wickrama KK, Lee TK, & O’Neal CW (2021). Long‐term physical health consequences of financial and marital stress in middle‐aged couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 83(4), 1212–1226. 10.1111/jomf.12736 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Leonard KE, & Eiden RD (2007). Marital and family processes in the context of alcohol use and alcohol disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 285–310. 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Loeber R, & Hay DF (1997).Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371–410. 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lohman BJ, Neppl TK, Senia JS, and Schofield TJ (2013). Understanding adolescent and family influences on intimate partner psychological violence during emerging adulthood and adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 500–517. 10.1007/s10964-013-9923-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. McLaughlin IG, Leonard KE, & Senchak M (1992). Prevalence and distribution of premarital aggression among couples applying for a marriage license. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 309–319. 10.1007/bf00994621 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Mehta C, Arnett JJ, Palmer CG, & Nelson LJ (2020). Established Adulthood: A New Conception of Ages 30 to 45. American Psychologist, 75, 431–444. 10.1037/amp0000600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Melby JN, & Conger RD (2001). The Iowa family interaction rating scales: Instrument summary. In Kerig P & Lindahl K (Eds.), Family observational coding systems: Resources for systematic research (pp. 33–58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410605610-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Melby J, Conger R, Book R, Rueter M, Lucy L, Repinski D, et al. (1998). The Iowa family interaction rating scales (5th ed.). Ames: Iowa State University, Institute for Social and Behavioral Research. [Google Scholar]
  44. Miller DP, Thomas MMC, Waller MR, Nepomnyaschy L, & Emory AD (2020). Father Involvement and Socioeconomic Disparities in Child Academic Outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(2), 515–533. 10.1111/jomf.12666 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Min MO, Kim J, Minnes S, Kim S, Musson Rose D, & Singer LT (2022). Substance use and individual assets in urban adolescents: Subgroups and correlates in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 94(4), 684–697. 10.1002/jad.12056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Neppl TK, Diggs ON, & Cleveland MJ (2020). The intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting, substance use, and emotional distress: Impact on the third-generation child. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 34(8), 852–863. 10.1037/adb0000551 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Neppl TK, Lohman BJ, Senia JM, Kavanaugh SA, & Cui M (2019). Intergenerational continuity of psychological violence: Intimate partner relationships and harsh parenting. Psychology of Violence, 9(3), 298–307. doi: 10.1037/vio0000129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Neppl TK, Senia JM, & Donnellan MB (2016). Effects of economic hardship: Testing the family stress model over time. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(1), 12–21. 10.1037/fam0000168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Orri M, Girard L-C, Pingault J-B, Rouquette A, Herba C, Falissard B, Côté SM, & Berthoz S (2019). Harsh parenting practices mediate the association between parent Affective Profiles and child adjustment outcomes: Differential Associations for mothers and fathers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(1), 53–60. 10.1177/0165025418769376 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Quatman T, & Watson CM (2001). Gender Differences in Adolescent Self-Esteem: An Exploration of Domains. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162(1), 93–117. 10.1080/00221320109597883 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Risch SC, Jodl KM, & Eccles JS (2004). Role of the father‐adolescent relationship in shaping adolescents’ attitudes toward divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(1), 46–58. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00004.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Roberson PNE, Norona JC, Lenger KA, & Olmstead SB (2018). How do Relationship Stability and Quality Affect Wellbeing?: Romantic Relationship Trajectories, Depressive Symptoms, and Life Satisfaction across 30 Years. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(7), 2171–2184. 10.1007/s10826-018-1052-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Rosenberg M (1965). Society and the adolescent self image. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  54. Seiffge-Krenke I (2003). Testing theories of romantic development from adolescence to young adulthood: Evidence of a developmental sequence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 519–531. 10.1080/01650250344000145 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Seiffge-Krenke I, Overbeek G, & Vermulst A (2010). Parent–child relationship trajectories during adolescence: Longitudinal associations with romantic outcomes in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 159–171. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Stone AL, Becker LG, Huber AM, & Catalano RF (2012). Review of risk and protective factors of substance use and problem use in emerging adulthood. Addictive Behaviors, 37(7), 747–775. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.02.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Surjadi FF, Lorenz FO, Conger RD, & Wickrama KA (2013). Harsh, inconsistent parental discipline and romantic relationships: Mediation processes of behavioral problems and ambivalence. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 762–772. 10.1037/a0034114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Timmons Fritz PA, & Smith Slep AM (2009). Stability of Physical and Psychological Adolescent Dating Aggression Across Time and Partners. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38. 10.1080/153744109028516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Vergunst F, Zheng Y, Domond P, Vitaro F, Tremblay RE, Nagin D, Park J, & Côté SM (2021). Behavior in childhood is associated with romantic partnering patterns in adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 62(7), 842–852. 10.1111/jcpp.13329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Weisskirch RS (2018). Psychosocial intimacy, relationships with parents, and well-being among emerging adults. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(11), 3497–3505. doi: 10.1007/s10826-018-1171-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Zax JS, & Rees DI (2002). IQ, academic performance, environment, and earnings. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4), 600–616 10.1162/003465302760556440 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES