Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2022 Feb 10;36(6):885–895. doi: 10.1037/fam0000964

Interpersonal Complementarity as a Predictor of Parent-Child Relationship Quality

Elizabeth A Shewark 1, Miranda Matern 1, Kelly L Klump 1, Alytia A Levendosky 1, S Alexandra Burt 1
PMCID: PMC9806862  NIHMSID: NIHMS1845661  PMID: 35143226

Abstract

The parent-child relationship is critically important for children’s functioning and long-term outcomes. Although typically measured by self-report or global codes in observed interactions, parent-child interactions actually occur on a moment-to-moment basis, with frequent shifts in behavior and affect happening in each member of the dyad. Even so, moment-to-moment interactions in these dyads are rarely studied. We sought to illuminate how complementarity, or the extent to which behavior in one member of the dyad shapes that of the other, impacts the quality of the parent-child relationship. Parent-child dyads in 1,030 families completed a cooperative video recorded task, after which each member of the dyad was rated on warmth and control twice a second. Results illustrated high levels of warmth and control complementarity in parent-child relationships, with mothers showing more complementarity than fathers and greater control complementarity relative to warmth complementarity. Results showed mother-child and father-child warmth complementarity was associated with increased parent-child reciprocity, whereas mother-child and father-child control complementarity was associated with increased parent-child cooperation. In addition, father-child warmth complementarity was associated with a decrease in observed father-child conflict and an increase in father-child cooperation. Last father-child control complementarity was associated with a decrease in observed father-child reciprocity. However, no significant associations were found between complementarity and family reports of parental involvement or conflict with child. Results highlight complementarity as an important part of parent-child interactions, but also indicate it is relationship- and domain-specific.

Keywords: Parent-child Relationships, Interpersonal Theory, Complementarity, Middle childhood

The quality of the parent-child relationship has far reaching impacts across numerous domains of child development, including problem behaviors (e.g., Klahr et al., 2011), academic achievement (Pianta et al., 1997; Masud et al., 2015), and overall well-being (e.g., Stafford, et al., 2016). Given this, it would be important to uncover the origins of parenting behavior. Extant research has indicated that parenting behaviors with their children are a function of the broader family context (e.g., parental marital quality, neighborhood characteristics), the parent’s own rearing environment, as well as broader societal and cultural factors (Belsky & Jaffee, 2006; Maestripieri, 1999). Characteristics of the parent, including biological factors (e.g., neuroendocrine and genetic influences; Maestripieri, 1999), parent personality (Prinzie et al., 2009), and psychopathology (Dix & Meunier, 2009), are also important. Notably, children are known to influence the parenting they receive (Klahr & Burt, 2014). Seminal work by Anderson et al., (1986), in which boys with and without conduct disorder and their mothers interacted in unrelated pairs, nicely illustrates this process. When interacting with boys without conduct disorder, the mothers of boys with conduct disorder did not differ from mothers of typically developing boys in commands, positive behaviors, or negative behaviors. However, all mothers gave more commands to boys with conduct disorder than to typically developing boys, suggesting that the maladaptive parent-child interactions seen for boys with conduct disorder were driven at least partially by the child. Put another way, children’s behavior serves to shape the behaviors of their caregivers in a fluid and bidirectional exchange.

The bidirectional nature of the parent-child relationship has been known for several decades. Many studies have found that children both shape and are shaped by relationships with their parents (e.g., Shewark et al., 2021; Russell, 2014). As with all relationships, parent-child interactions unfold on a moment-to-moment basis, and are guided by the behavior and responses of both members of the dyad. Despite this, studies examining parent-child interactions on this kind of micro-scale are almost never conducted, and thus we know very little regarding the temporal dynamics of the parent-child relationship. Interpersonal Theory (Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1996) provides a solid theoretical framework for such work, for several reasons. First, interpersonal theory classifies interpersonal behavior along orthogonal dimensions of control (dominance to submission) through agency (i.e., hierarchical power) and affiliation (coldness to warmth) through communion (i.e., attachments), using the interpersonal circumplex (IPC, see Figure 1), which has been found to reliably and validly measure interpersonal behavior across dyads, such as adult peers (Sadler et al., 2009) and romantic partners (Markey et al., 2005). These IPC dimensions of control and affiliation can be viewed as straightforward variations of control (or directiveness) and warmth as typically examined in the parenting literature (e.g., Klahr & Burt, 2014; Rothenberg et al., 2020), suggesting an underlying conceptual similarity in assessing parent-child dyads and adult-adult dyads.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The interpersonal circumplex (Klahr et al., 2013).

Note. Agency refers to hierarchical power and communion refers to attachments as well as coalitions.

Second, interpersonal theory characterizes all dyadic interactions as transactional, such that, within each dyad, the interpersonal behavior of one person shapes the interpersonal behavior of the other. These patterns have been coined interpersonal complementarity (Sadler et al., 2011; Markey et al., 2010). Control complementarity occurs occur when dyad members behave inversely to one another, such as when dominance evokes submissive behavior and vice versa. By contrast, warmth complementarity occurs when dyad members behave similarly to one another (i.e., warmth evokes warmth and coldness evokes coldness) (Carson, 1969; Kiesler, 1983; Markey et al., 2010; Tracey, 1994). Despite these differences in directionality (warmth complementarity reflects a ‘positively-signed’ correlation in the behavior of each dyad member whereas control complementarity reflects a ‘negatively-signed’ correlation), both types of complementarity appear to have key consequences for relationship quality. Researchers have found that high levels of warmth and control complementarity promote interactions that exemplify experiences of self-validation and satisfying interactions (Markey et al., 2010; Carson,1969; Kiesler, 1983, 1996). For example, Tiedens and Fragale (2003) exposed adult men and women (N=98) to either a dominant or a submissive confederate and found that, in addition to demonstrating general complementary behavior, participants with control complementary responses showed greater liking and comfort towards their interaction partner. This pattern stood in contrast with participants exposed to confederates practicing postural mimicry (i.e., copying body language), distinguishing interpersonal complementarity as a uniquely effective form of interpersonal communication. Control complementarity has also been linked to increases in both relationship cohesiveness among roommates (Ansell et al., 2008) and general satisfaction in interpersonal interactions (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997). That said, it seems the type of relationship matters because control complementarity has also been linked to less relationship quality in romantic relationships. This stands in contrast to warmth complementary, for which couples similar in warmth complementarity had higher quality relationships (Markey & Markey, 2007).

As a final point, it is worth noting that complementarity is thought to be time-varying, with the length of interactions playing an important role in the impact of complementarity on the dyad (Dermody et al., 2017; Markey & Kurtz, 2006). For instance, in a study with married couples, complementarity for warmth increased throughout the 5-minute interaction, whereas complementarity for control changed in a cyclical pattern (i.e., where the couple evidence high control complementarity in the beginning of the task, and then decreased as the task went on, before increasing again in a cyclical pattern) (Dermody et al., 2017). That said, overall findings regarding the effects of control complementarity have been more mixed and less consistent than those for warmth, a pattern of results that has been primarily attributed to methodological disparities (Orford, 1986; Tracey, 1994) including variations in coding schemes, lack of coder reliability, and the type of relationship being examined.

Complementarity in the parent-child relationship

The above literature review provides reasonably strong support for the presence and importance of complementarity in adult-to-adult dyads. Given the importance of complementarity in interactions in the formation and satisfaction of relationships, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that complementarity may be important for parent-child relationship quality as well. Indeed, prior research has suggested using an IPC framework to advance our understanding of parenting style (Estlein, 2021). Empirically, however, we know of no study confirming the presence of complementarity in parent-child interactions, nor of any study evaluating the influence of complementarity in parent-child interactions on the overall quality of the parent-child relationship.

There is related work, however, examining synchrony in parent-infant bond formation. Synchrony refers to temporal relations of events or behaviors in a parent-infant dyad (i.e., mirroring of behaviors or physiological events between caregiver and infant), and has been linked to positive developmental outcomes in children, such as higher levels of self-regulation and empathy (Feldman, 2007; Reyna & Pickler, 2009). Thus, although focused only on parent-infant bonds, the synchrony literature does imply that complementarity (as conceptualized via the IPC) could be an important predictor of parent-child relationship quality. In the latter case, however, research regarding temporal dynamics also needs to accommodate the huge developmental gains in cognitive and emotional abilities that occur throughout middle childhood (Collins et al., 2002; Collins et al., 2991), which surely affect interactions with their parents as well (Collins et al., 2002). Indeed, children’s abilities to reason, self-regulate, appropriately express negative emotions, and understand behavioral expectations exponentially advance from infancy to middle childhood. Parents’ expectations of their children in regards to their child’s self-regulation and independence similarly increase by middle childhood (Collins et al., 2002). Studies of parent-child interactions during middle childhood may thus be of particular importance.

In addition to focusing primarily on infancy, another key limiting feature of the synchrony literature is its all but exclusive focus on mothers. This approach makes conceptual sense when studying infants (i.e., the explicit focus in synchrony is on the bond with primary caregiver, and the primary caregiver is usually the mother). It is nevertheless problematic in other ways, however, as fathers and the father-child relationship are also critical relationships in a child’s life (e.g., Cabrera et al., 2018; Cabrera et al., 2011). Indeed, the few studies examining father-child relationship quality in the existing literature suggest that warm and supportive father-child relationships are related to fewer problem behaviors, more positive peer relationships (Cabrera et al., 2011), and academic success (Chung et al., 2020). The father-child relationship thus serves as another crucial relational context that shapes children’s overall well-being. Despite this, it is not clear whether mothers and fathers might show key differences in their moment-to-moment complementarity with their children. There is some research to suggest that there may be differences, as mothers have been shown to evidence more warmth in their interactions with their children where fathers evidence more control (e.g., Wilson & Durbin, 2013; Estlein & Theiss, 2014; Simons & Conger, 2007). However, this has not been examined in regards to temporal dynamics on a microscale.

Current Study

The current study rated the interpersonal complementarity of children with both their mothers and fathers on a moment-to-moment basis, via the well-known joystick method (Sadler et al., 2009; Markey et al., 2010), to both confirm the presence of warmth and control complementarity in parent-child dyads and to illuminate their associations with parent-child relationships quality. The joystick method captures coder ratings of interpersonal behavior two times each second, providing us with a continuous measure of affiliation and control across an interaction that can be correlated over time within dyadic interactions to directly index complementarity. We used these joystick data to evaluate 1) whether complementarity exists in the parent-child relationship, 2) whether patterns of complementarity vary across mothers and fathers, and 3) whether complementarity in the parent-child relationship predicts relationship quality, as indexed via measures of parent-child conflict, dyadic cooperation, dyadic reciprocity, and parental involvement with their child. In light of the aforementioned association between complementarity and relational cohesion (e.g., Carson,1969; Kiesler, 1983, 1996; Dryer & Horowitz, 1997; Markey & Markey, 2007), we expected that low levels of complementarity for control and warmth would be associated with high levels of parent-child conflict and low levels of parent-child reciprocity and cooperation. Finally, because prior work has indicated that time spent together increases complementarity (Dermody et al., 2017; Markey & Kurtz, 2006), we hypothesized that high levels of complementarity for warmth and control would be associated with high levels of parental involvement with the child.

Method

Participants

We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study. The 1,030 twin families included in this study (N = 2,060 twins and their parent/s) were assessed as part of the ongoing Twin Study of Behavioral and Emotional Development in Children (TBED-C) within the large-scale Michigan State University Twin Registry (MSUTR). Recruitment packets were sent to twin pairs meeting age criteria as identified by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS). Interested twin families were then contacted to determine eligibility. To be eligible for participation, neither twin could have a cognitive or physical condition (e.g., significant developmental delay) that would prevent completion of the roughly 4-hr assessment. This recruitment strategy yielded an overall response rate of 62%, which is similar to or better than those of other twin registries that use anonymous recruitment mailings (Baker et al., 2002; Hay et al., 2002). Six of the families did not have second-by-second data and were removed from analyses. The twins ranged in age from 6 to 11 years (mean = 7.99, SD = 1.49) and were 48.8% female. Twins were majority White (81.5%) with 9.8% identifying as Black, 5.9% identifying as other, 1.1% identifying as Native American, .8 % identifying as Asian American, .8% identifying as Latino, and .3% identifying as Pacific Islander. Parents were typically in their late 30s and early 40s (Mothers = 38.33 (SD = 5.46; range = 24 – 59 years); Fathers = 40.26 (SD = 6.00; range = 22 – 70 years) with the majority completing at least one year of college (Mothers: 86.3%; Fathers: 70.3%). This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined by the American Psychological Association, the National Institutes of Health, and approved by the University Review Board. Written informed consent was obtained from parents for themselves and their children. Informed assent was obtained from the twins.

The TBED-C includes a population-based sample, recruited via birth records (N=528 families), and an independent sample of twin families recruited via birth records but who were additionally required to live in neighborhoods with higher than average levels of poverty (N=502 ‘at-risk’ families). Detailed information regarding the design, recruitment procedures, and participation rates of the TBED-C is available elsewhere (Burt & Klump, 2019).

Procedures

Observer ratings of complementarity and the parent-child relationship were obtained using videotaped eight-minute interactions of parent-child dyads completing a mildly to moderately frustrating task. Participants were asked to use an Etch-a-Sketch to draw specific pictures, but the parent and child may only use one dial each, thereby requiring cooperation (Deater-Deckard et al. , 1997). The task was originally designed for use in child twin families and has been found to be a reliable and valid tool for assessing the parent–child relationship with school-age children. The on-campus interactions took place in laboratory offices that were set up to resemble living rooms, with cameras inconspicuously installed in the ceiling. For dyads’ assessments occurring in participants’ homes (12%), interactions took place in a family living space with a video camera placed on a tripod in the room. There were no sex differences (χ2(1) = .00, p = .976) for dyads who completed at home versus in the lab. However, there were differences for age (t(4140) = 3.99, p = .000), with dyads with younger children more likely to complete the visit in their home on average (M = 7.78 years, SD = 1.56 years) compared to dyads who completed in lab (M = 8.06 years, SD = 1.48 years). In addition, there were differences for ethnicity (χ2(1) = 18.89, p = .000), with children in dyads who identified as a marginalized identity more likely to complete the assessments in lab compared to in home.

Joystick Coding Method

Trained observers viewed the eight-minute interactions and coded interpersonal behavior using the joystick method of video coding (Sadler et al., 2009). For this method, a computer joystick apparatus (the Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2) was utilized to provide momentary ratings of an individual’s interpersonal behavior throughout the course of an interaction. The joystick-monitoring software program displays a Cartesian plane on the computer screen depicting the axes of interpersonal theory (similar to Figure 1). The x axis represented warmth, and the y axis represented control. The scale on both axes ranged from – 1000 to 1000, with 1000 on the x axis indicating extreme warmth and 1000 on the y axis indicating extreme control. Horizontal and vertical movements may occur simultaneously and to varying degrees. The software program was set to record the joystick position twice per second.

Each observer underwent training with the joystick apparatus, following the procedures outlined in Sadler et al. (2009). Training included familiarization with the computer joystick apparatus and software, practice using the joystick to rate interpersonal behaviors, and the viewing and coding of interactions with live observation and feedback from the directors of the project. Trainees were instructed to pay close attention to both verbal and nonverbal interpersonal behaviors and to code moment-to-moment changes in interpersonal behavior rather than any general sense of the interaction overall. Warm behaviors included social smiling or leaning towards the other person, verbal praise, eye contact, and warm physical contact, whereas behaviors such as looking away, unresponsiveness, and rude comments were indicative of coldness. Control behaviors included giving instructions and grabbing the Etch-a-Sketch, whereas submissive behaviors included following the other person’s lead and asking for permission. During a lull in behavior, the joystick remained stationary (unless the lull became interpersonally meaningful; e.g., if a child ignored a question asked by the mother). Because of the time-dependent nature of the data, the critical importance of starting the joystick software at the correct time was emphasized. Coders were instructed to begin coding exactly 5 seconds into the beginning of a video clip.

In order to minimize idiosyncratic interpretations and random error by individual coders, coders were divided into teams of 3 to 4. Their individual ratings were then averaged across coders to obtain a composite rating for each moment of the interaction, as suggested by Sadler et al. (2009). Raters on a given team coded the interpersonal behaviors of one person in the interaction at a time. The same teams of coders coded both the parent and child within each dyad, although the two were never coded sequentially. Different teams coded the various parent-twin dyads within each family. We calculated moment-to-moment reliability by examining correlations between raters over a time series. Moment-to-moment reliability from the training sessions was calculated by comparing the trainee’s ratings to the ratings of our lead coders (r = .68 for warmth, r = .86 for control). Interrater reliability of coding teams was also calculated for minute average levels of warmth and control across the sample using the Cronbach alpha. Average reliability across the minutes was 0.89 for parental control, 0.70 for parental warmth, 0.90 for child control, and 0.64 for child warmth.

Informant-reports of the parent-child relationship

The Parental Environment Questionnaire (PEQ; Elkins et al., 1997) was administered to measure various informant perspectives on the quality of the parent-child relationship using parallel parent and child forms. The PEQ parent and child forms asks the informant to generally report on their relationship and what ‘often’ happens. Each family member was placed in different rooms to complete the questionnaires. The child forms were read to the child with a research assistant explaining the Likert scale prior to reading them the questionnaire. The current study focused on the ‘parent-child conflict’ and ‘parental involvement with child’ scales (each 12-items with an internal consistency reliability >.70). Parent-child conflict items included “I often criticize my child” and “I often lose my temper with my child”, while parental involvement with child items include “I talk about my child’s concerns and experiences with him/her” and “I try to keep up with how well my child does in school and/or his/her job”, with alternations in wording appropriate for the equivalent child forms (e.g., “My parent often criticizes me”). Each informant rated items on a 4-point scale (1=definitely true; 2 = somewhat true, 3 = somewhat false; 4 = definitely false). Mothers and fathers individually rated their relationship with each of their twin children. Children individually reported on their relationships with their mother and father, respectively. To be consistent with prior publications (Burt et al., 2005 & 2007; Klahr et al., 2013) and recommendations (Achenbach et al., 1987), as well as to capture the inherantly dyadic nature of the parent-child relationship, mother and child informant-reports of their relationship with each other were averaged together (conflict r =.17, p=.000; involement r =.14, p=.000;), as were father and child informant-reports of their relationship (conflict r =.13, p=.000; involement r =.18, p=.000). This approach was taken for parent-child conflict and involvment.

Global observer-ratings of the parent-child relationship

In addition to the joystick (or moment-to-moment) coding protocol described above, a different set of highly trained research assistants individually coded the parent-child interaction videos using the global Parent-Child Interaction System (PARCHISY; Deater-Deckard et al., 1997). Research assistants watched the video three times, coding the behaviors of the parent on the first pass, the child on the second pass, and dyadic behaviors between the parent and child on the third pass. Research assistants then counted the number of times they observed each of the coded behaviors in the dyad and then used an ordinal scale based on how frequently the behaviors were observed (1= no evidence of behavior to 7 = high evidence of behaviors (highly cooperative/conflictive/ reciprocal). To control for the possibility of shared method variance, a different coder rated each of the four parent-child dyads within a family. For more information regarding the use of PARCHISY in these data, see Burt and Klump (2014). For the current study, we focused on three parent-child dyad codes to capture the quality of parent-child relationship: Cooperation, which was defined as “explicit agreement and discussion of the task”, Reciprocity, which was defined as “shared positive affect, eye contact, a ‘turn taking’ style of interaction”, and Conflict, which was defined as “mutual or shared negative affect”. To assess observer reliability, we randomly assigned 10% of all videos to be rated by a second rater. We then compared coders ratings using intraclass correlations for Reciprocity (r = .61), Conflict (r = .57), and Cooperation (r = .66). Maternal ratings were available for 93.4% of twins and paternal ratings were available for 74.9% of twins.

Computing Complementarity

To quantify the degree of complementarity between dyad members through moment-to-moment variation, we computed cross correlations (i.e., correlations across members of the dyad separately for each dyad) across the interaction for the dimensions of affiliation and control, respectively. The linear trend was first removed from each time series to reduce confounds as advised by Sadler et al. (2009), after which we computed dyad-specific correlations between the residuals from each respective linear regression. These correlations serve as our measure of dyadic complementarity.

Analytic Plan

We used clustering with robust standard errors to adjust for the non-independence of twins in the same family when conducting simple linear regressions. Although there was only minimal missingness for the informant-report data on conflict and involvement (Mother: 4.8%; Father: 7.8%), there was a larger range of missingness for the observational data (10.9% to 29.6%). Therefore, we used MLR to estimate missing data as is recommended with cluster-robust standard errors (McNeish et al., 2017). Observed parent-child conflict and cooperation had considerable skew and were log transformed prior to analysis.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics were computed on the raw (not transformed) data. As seen in Table 1, both mothers and fathers exhibited moderate levels of warmth complementarity with their children on average (mean levels of complementarity were .43 and .40, respectively), whereby warmth in one member of the dyad was associated with a similar degree of warmth in the other member of the dyad. We also observed high mean levels of control complementarity across both fathers (M = .60) and mothers (M = .64), whereby dominance in one member of the dyad was associated with submissive behaviors in the other member of the dyad. Group comparisons using a Wald’s test showed that levels of control and warmth complementarity were slightly, but significantly (Control: z(1) = 14.98, p =.000; Warmth: z (1) = 9.94, p = .002), higher for mothers and their children (Control: M = .48, SE =.01; Warmth: M=.43, SE = .01) relative to fathers and their children (Control: M = .45, SE = .01; Warmth: M = .40, SE = .01). Both mothers and fathers evidenced more Control complementarity with their children than they did warmth complementarity (both p<.01).

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Warmth complementarity Control complementarity Informant-reported parent-child conflict Informant-reported parental involvement with child Observed Parent-child Conflict Observed Parent-child Cooperation Observed Parent-child Reciprocity
Warmth complementarity M: .43(.30)
F: .40(.31)		 .04 −.04 −.00 −.07 * .06 * .21 **
Control complementarity .02 M: .64(.25)
F: .60(.29)		 .03 −.03 .06 * .08 ** −.06 *
Informant-reported parent-child conflict .01 −.03 M: 20.68(4.62)
F: 20.61(5.17)		 −.43 ** .05 * −.06 ** −.08 **
Informant-reported parental involvement with child .04 .01 −.37 ** M: 41.44(3.54)
F: 39.07(5.15)		 .04 .02 .09 **
Observed Parent-child Conflict −.01 −.03 .04 −.00 M: 1.13 (.42)
F: 1.09 (.34)		 −.33 ** .01
Observed Parent-child Cooperation .03 .11 ** −.05 * −.00 −.36 ** M: 6.58 (.69)
F: 6.65 (.64)		 −.01
Observed Parent-child Reciprocity .22 ** −.00 −.10 ** .10 ** −.04 .03 M: 2.89 (.59)
F: 2.69 (.68)
Open in a new tab

Note. Correlations for mothers are presented below the diagonal, and correlations for fathers are presented above the diagonal. Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) are presented along the diagonal, separately for mothers (M) and fathers (F). Because control complementarity is typically negatively-signed whereas warmth complementarity is typically positively-signed, the interpretation of the directionality of their fixed effect estimates is also reversed. For example, a positively-signed control estimate would be interpreted as a negatively-signed estimate. To avoid this problem and facilitate reader interpretation, we switched the directionality of the control fixed effect estimates to correspond with typical interpretation.

p < .05.

**

p < .01

Another way to understand mean levels of complementarity is via exemplar behavioral profiles. By tracking units of control and warmth for both dyad members across a given interaction, behavioral profiles can be created to visualize the aforementioned mean levels of complementarity (Markey et al., 2010). Figure 2 displays the behavioral profiles of a single mother-child dyad in our sample exhibiting the mean amount of warmth and control complementarity (M = .43 for warmth and .64 for control). As can be seen in Figure 2a, both dyad members altered their warmth in accordance with each other, thus illustrating the principle that warmth typically begets warmth. Inversely, high control in one partner strongly evoked submissive behaviors in the other (see Figure 2b).

Figure 2a.

Figure 2a.

Open in a new tab

Warmth behavioral profile of a specific mother-child pair in our sample.

Figure 2b.

Figure 2b.

Open in a new tab

Control behavioral profile a specific mother-child pair in our sample.

Correlations among variables are also presented in Table 1. As seen there, there was no significant correlation between the two dimensions of complementarity. Control complementarity in parent-child interactions also was not associated with mother-child observed conflict or mother-child reciprocity, but was positively correlated with observed father-child conflict and negatively correlated with observed father-child reciprocity. In addition, control complementarity was positively associated with observed parent-child cooperation, although the association was modest in magnitude for both mothers and fathers (rs were .08 and .11 respectively). Warmth complementarity, by contrast, evidence a small, positive association with observed reciprocity in both mother-child and father-child interactions (rs were .21-.22). Furthermore, warmth complementarity was minimally associated with observed cooperation and conflict in father-child relationships but not in mother-child relationships. Neither warmth nor control complementarity were significantly correlated with informant-reports of the parent-child relationship for either parent. To explore this lack of association, we conducted bivariate correlations for the individual informant’s report on the parent-child relationship and complementarity. Mother-child control and warmth complementarity evidenced low correlations with mothers’ and twins’ respective informant-reports on the conflict and involvement in the mother-child relationship (rs = −.05 to .04). In addition, father-child control and warmth complementary evidenced low correlations with fathers’ and twins’ respective reports on conflict and involvement in the father-child relationship (rs = −.05 to .01). Thus, it seems that across informant reports on the PEQ, there is a lack of association with complementarity that is consistent with the average dyad score.

Warmth and control complementarity also evidenced different patterns of association with child/family demographic characteristics. For example, warmth complementarity between parents and their children did not differ with child race (z (1) = .00, p = .955) but did appear to increase slightly with age (b = .01, SE = .00, p = .001). Control complementarity (z (1) = 11.53, p = .001), by contrast, was higher in minoritized children (M = .49, SE = .01) relative to White children (M = .46, SE = .01) and showed no significant relation to age (b = .−00, SE = .00, p = .204) or sex (z (1) = 3.37, p = .066). Warmth (z (1) = 5.56, p = .018) complementarity was higher with daughters (M = .43, SE = .01) than with sons (Warmth: M = .40 , SE = .01). We therefore controlled for the effects of these possible covariates in all subsequent analyses conducted in Mplus 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017).

Associations between Complementarity and Parent-Child Outcomes

We compared the fit indices of the constrained mother-father paths and unconstrained mother-father paths. To evaluate model fit, we examined the following fit indices and their recommended cutoffs (West et al., 2012): χ2 (p>.05), RMSEA (<.07), CFI (>.90), and SRMR (<.08). The unconstrained model evidenced the better fit across three of the four indices, indicting the model fit the data best (χ2 (12) = 38.13 , CFI =.98, RMSEA = .03, SRMR =.02). Using this model, we evaluated associations between warmth and control complementarity and the various aspects of parent-child relationship quality. As seen in Tables 2 and 3, neither warmth nor control complementarity predicted informant-reported conflict, whereas father warmth and control complementarity was negatively associated with observed father-child conflict but not observed mother-child conflict. Similarly, neither warmth nor control complementarity predicted informant-report of parental involvement with child. By contrast, warmth complementarity was associated with increased observer-ratings of both mother-child and father-child reciprocity as well as higher levels of observed father-child cooperation. For its part, control complementarity was associated with higher levels of observed mother-child and father-child cooperation as well as a decrease in father-child reciprocity (see Table 3).

Table 2.

Informant-reported parent-child conflict and involvement

Mother-child Conflict
β (SE)		 Father-child Conflict
β (SE)		 Mother-child Involvement
β (SE)		 Father-child Involvement
β (SE)
Ethnicity −.02(.03) −.02(.03) −.07 ** (.03) −.12 ** (.03)
Sex .09 ** (.03) .05(.03) −.12 ** (.02) .03(.03)
Age −.03(.03) −.07 * (.03) .24 ** (.02) .15 ** (.03)
Warmth complementarity .02(.03) −.04(.03) .01(.02) −.01 (.03)
Control complementarity −.03(.02) .04(.03) .01(.02) −.02 (.03)
SonxXWarmth complementarity .05(.05) .04(.07) −.02(.04) −.07(.11)
SonXControl complementarity −.01(.06) .04(.12) .02(.06) −.02(.22)
DaughterxXWarmth complementarity −.06(.05) −.03(.07) .02(.05) .04(.11)
DaughterXControl complementarity .02(.06) −.03(.12) −.02(.06) −.03(.23)
Open in a new tab

Note. These results reflect informant-reports of the parent-child relationship as measured by the PEQ. Because control complementarity is negatively-signed whereas warmth complementarity is positively-signed, the interpretation of their fixed effect estimates is also reversed. To facilitate reader interpretation of these estimates, we altered the directionality of the control fixed effect estimate accordingly. Each column represents a separate regression analysis. Sex was coded as 1 for males and −1 for females.

Ethnicity was coded as −1 for white and 1 for all other races. The models including the exploratory and post-hoc interactions between sex (coded as 0 and 1 for interpretation purposes) and complementarity are reported at the bottom of the table and were run separately from the final fitted models.

*

p ≤ .05.

**

p ≤ .01

Table 3.

Observer-rated parent-child relationship constructs

Mother-child Conflict
β (SE)		 Father-child Conflict
β (SE)		 Mother-child Cooperation
β (SE)		 Father-child Cooperation
β (SE)		 Mother-child Reciprocity
β (SE)		 Father-child Reciprocity
β (SE)
Ethnicity −.01(.02) .02(.04) .00(.03) −.02(.04) −.05 * (.02) −.11 ** (.04)
Sex −.03(.02) −.01(.03) .02(.02) .01(.03) −.06 ** (.02) −.09 ** (.03)
Age .03(.03) .05(.03) .03(.02) −.01(.03) .08 ** (.03) .16 ** (.03)
Warmth complementarity −.01(.02) −.07 ** (.03) .03(.03) .05 * (.03) .21 ** (.03) .21 ** (.03)
Control complementarity −.02(.02) −.06(.03) .11 ** (.03) .07 * (.30) −.01(.02) −.06 * (.03)
SonXWarmth complementarity .02(.05) −.09 * (.05) −.04(.05) .02(.05) .05(.05) .01(.05)
SonXControl complementarity −.01(.05) .04(.06) .08(.07) .06(.06) .07(.06) .14 * (.06)
DaughterxXWarmth complementarity −.03(.05) .09(.05) .04(.05) −.02(.05) −.05(.05) −.02(.05)
DaughterXControl complementarity .01(.05) −.04(.06) −.08(.07) −.06(.06) −.07(.06) −.14 * (.06)
Open in a new tab

Note. These results reflect the parent-child relationship as measured by the global coding PARCHISY protocol. Because control complementarity is negatively-signed whereas warmth complementarity is positively-signed, the interpretation of their fixed effect estimates is also reversed. To facilitate reader interpretation of these estimates, we altered the directionality of the control fixed effect estimate accordingly. Each column represents a separate regression analysis. Sex was coded as 1 for males and −1 for females.

Ethnicity was coded as −1 for white and 1 for all other races. The models including the exploratory and post-hoc interactions between sex (coded as 0 and 1 for interpretation purposes) and complementarity are reported at the bottom of the table and were run separately from the final fitted models.

*

p ≤ .05.

**

p ≤ .01

Given these results, we then conducted a series of post-hoc analyses evaluating the presence of interactions between parent sex and child sex. When interactions were added into the model, the fit was poor (Son model: χ2 (20) = 4655.03, CFI =.00, RMSEA = .34, SRMR =.14; Daughter model: χ2 (22) = 4709.93, CFI =.00, RMSEA = .32, SRMR =.13). Higher father-son control complementarity was associated with an increase in reciprocity, whereas higher father-daughter control complementarity was associated with a decrease reciprocity. In addition, higher father-son warmth complementarity was associated with a decrease in observed conflict (see Table 3).

Discussion

The primary goal of the current study was to evaluate whether key principles of interpersonal theory, in particular dyadic complementarity, was observed in parent-child interactions, and whether complementarity was associated with parent-child relationship quality. We thus evaluated moment-to-moment joystick tracking of parent-child interactions, allowing us to assess interpersonal behavior in real time. Consistent with findings in adult-to-adult relationships, our results highlighted high levels of warmth and control complementarity during parent-child interactions. Put another way, the interpersonal behavior of mothers and fathers was shown to alter, and be altered by, the behavior of their children, further reinforcing the central principle of IPC theory. To our knowledge, this is the first study to empirically confirm the presence of complementarity in both the mother-child and the father-child relationship. Unlike most studies in adult dyads, however, mothers and fathers both evidenced more control complementarity with their children than they did warmth complementarity (both p<.01). This finding is not consistent with past literature examining adults suggesting that control complementarity is less prevalent than warmth complementarity (Orford, 1986; Bluhm et al., 1990; Dermody, et al., 2017), nor with other research observing similar levels of complementarity across both dimensions (Markey et al., 2010; Sadler, et al., 2009) but is consistent with prior work in the family context (Estlein & Theiss, 2020). Although future research should seek to confirm this interpretation, it could be attributable to familial role dynamics in parenting (i.e., parents acting as teachers and disciplinarians).

Furthermore, mothers evidenced higher control and warmth complementarity with their children than did those same children’s fathers. That said, mean differences in complementarity between mothers and fathers were quite small, pointing to key similarities in mother-child and father-child interactional processes. Prior research comparing the mother-child and father-child relationship is mixed across several domains of parent-child interactions, with some studies showing fathers using more control statements and others showing mothers using more control statements whereas similarities in warmth between parents has been more consistent (Wilson & Durbin, 2013; Estlein & Theiss, 2014). We also found preliminary evidence of a parent sex by child sex interaction, such that control complementarity was positively related to father-son reciprocity and negatively related to father-daughter reciprocity, but not mother-child complementarity. In addition, warmth complementarity was negatively related to father-son observed conflict, but not to father-daughter or to mother-son complementarity. However, these result should be interpreted with caution given the poor model fit when the interaction terms were included. The current findings help us better understand the historically understudied father-child relationship by providing an examination on a moment-to-moment level of father-child interactions and the impact those dynamic interactions have on the relationship as a whole.

The current study also adds to the literature identifying the role of complementarity in moment-to-moment interactions in relationship quality (Markey et al., 2010; Carson,1969; Kiesler, 1983, 1996). Consistent with prior research pointing to the predictive utility of complementarity for relationship cohesion, we found that higher levels of warmth complementarity were associated with less frequently observed father-child conflict. However, there were no significant associations between reported parent-child conflict for either form of complementarity or between observed mother-child indices. These mixed findings may be due to methodologic differences across studies. Namely, we assessed complementarity using a moment-to-moment technique and overall relationship conflict via self-report questionnaires and global observations, whereas most other studies have utilized real-time, moment-to-moment observations for both complementarity and relationship quality. It could be that videotaped interactions are just slices in time of the day-to-day lives of parents and their children and are not capturing the entirety of their lived experience. The contribution of methodologic factors to extant results should be explored in future research.

Additionally, no significant associations between informant-reports of parental involvement and either form of complementarity were found. Such findings are seemingly inconsistent with prior research indicating that increased complementarity predicts increased time together (Dermody, et al., 2017; Markey & Kurtz, 2006). That said, parental involvement with their children differs in key ways from other types of relationships, in that it is predicated somewhat more on child needs and less on shared preferences, at least early in life. It could also be that parent involvement has different connotations in the parent-child dyad (e.g., doing homework together, going to parent-teacher conferences) and that a measure that specifically quantifies time spent together could evidence a different pattern of results. Future research should explore whether expected associations with involvement emerge as children age.

Interestingly, however, we did find significant associations between complementarity and observer-ratings of parent-child reciprocity and cooperation. Specifically, warmth complementarity was positively associated with observer-ratings of reciprocity in mother-child and father-child relationships. This was expected as reciprocity indexes shared affect and turn taking in a dyad. In addition, warmth complementarity was positively related to father-child cooperation, but not to mother-child cooperation. Prior research has shown that warmth in the mother-child dyad starts to decrease in late middle childhood into adolescence and, depending on dyad gender composition, it can experience steep declines during adolescence (Shanahan et al., 2007). In comparison, although fathers experience similar declines in warmth with their children starting in adolescence, they do not generally experience as steep of a decline, though this difference has not been empirically tested (Shanahan et al., 2007). It could be that as general warmth in the mother-child dyad decreases so too does warmth complementarity during this developmental period. Future research should consider the possibility of changes in complementarity over developmental milestones.

In addition, control complementarity was positively associated with observer-ratings of both mother-child and father-child cooperation. This is consistent with past research showing that, when completing goals or objectives, parents tend to employ more command- or directive-based statements to influence children’s behavior (Owen et al., 2012). Our findings suggest that complementarity does not predict all indices of relationship quality to the same degree or in the same ways. Instead, complementarity appears to be domain specific, serving multiple functions in the parent-child dyad. Last, the results suggest it does not predict any one feature universally, as associations differed to some extent across the mother-child and father-child relationship.

The current study has many strengths, most notably the large sample size of families with twins in middle childhood and the examination of both mother-child and father-child dyads. The sample size gives us reasonable confidence in our null effects and the ability to detect small associations. In addition, we included observed and self-report relationship quality assessments allowing us to compare both in the moment quality and the parent and child perceptions of their relationship overall. In this way, we were attempting to tap into multiple assessments of the parent-child dyad. That said, there are some limitations to the current study. First, most of our participants identified as White. As such, the ability of our study to generalize to other demographic groups is limited. Second, because these data were collected cross-sectionally, it thus remains unknown whether and how complementarity during parent-child interactions in middle childhood might influence the parent-child relationship over the course of adolescence, nor is it clear whether and how parent-child complementarity develops and changes over time. Third, reliability was higher for control complementarity. It could be that warmth is more subjective. For instance, control behaviors are easily observable (e.g., giving direct commands), whereas warmth is more subtle (e.g., warm voice). Fourth, the observation task was specific to interactions during a playtime activity. It could be that there are a different pattern of results for interactions with established routines (e.g., bedtime). Lastly, it could be that our measure of involvement did not adequately capture parent-child shared time together and thus contributed to the lack of significant findings. Future research should evaluate these issues.

Conclusions

In hopes of addressing a critical gap in the literature, the current investigation expanded the study of complementarity to include a crucial relationship—parents and their children. Prior behavioral studies of complementarity have established clear patterns of interpersonal transactions, and the current findings confirm the existence of such responses among both mother-child and father-child dyads as well. Such findings collectively imply that parents and children generally have a strong understanding of each other’s verbal and non-verbal cues and alter their own behavior in the moment accordingly. Indeed, the presence of such strong correlations between them suggest that parent-child pairings are typically in sync with one another’s behaviors and responses, an unsurprising finding given that these are long-standing and intense relationships. That said, we also found that parents displayed higher mean levels of control complementarity than warmth complementarity, suggesting that there may be important but under-explored differences in complementarity in the context of parent-child communication relative to that in other relationships. Our results also highlight nuances in the impact of complementarity, such that warmth and control differentially impacted specific domains of the parent-child relationship and did so differentially across mothers and fathers. Such findings are important, both because they extend evidence of the relational phenomenon of complementarity to another core set of human relationships, but also because the discrepancies between this and past research highlight concepts of interpersonal theory in need of further exploration. Indeed, these differential associations suggest an exciting avenue for investigating the mechanisms by which complementarity impacts the quality of the parent-child relationship. Put another way, complementarity may be a useful tool in understanding the influence and expression of the parent-child relationship over time, which could be informative for prevention and intervention programs in promoting quality parent-child relationships.

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by R01-MH081813 from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and by R01-HD066040 as well as F32HD098780 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIMH, the NICHD, or the National Institutes of Health. The data that supports the findings of this study are available from the senior author, S.A.B, upon request.

References

  1. Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, & Howell CT (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 213–232. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson KE, Lytton H, & Romney DM (1986). Mothers’ interactions with normal and conduct-disordered boys: Who affects whom? Developmental Psychology, 22(5), 604–609. 10.1037/0012-1649.22.5.604 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ansell EB, Kurtz JE, & Markey PM (2008). Gender differences in interpersonal complementarity within roommate dyads. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 502–512. 10.1177/0146167207312312 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker LA, Barton M, & Raine A (2002). The Southern California Twin Register at the University of Southern California. Twin Research, 5, 456–459. 10.1375/twin.5.5.456 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Belsky J, & Jaffee SR (2006). The multiple determinants of parenting. In Cicchetti D and Cohen DJ (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation, Vol. 3, 2nd ed (pp. 38–85). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bluhm C, Widiger TA, & Miele GM (1990). Inter-personal complementarity and individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 464 – 471. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.3.464 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Burt SA, & Klump KL (2019). The Michigan State University Twin Registry (MSUTR): 15 years of twin and family research. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 22(6), 741–745. 10.1017/thg.2019.57 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Burt SA, & Klump KL (2014). Parent–child conflict as an etiological moderator of childhood conduct problems: An example of a ‘bioecological’ gene–environment interaction. Psychological Medicine, 44(5), 1065–1076. 10.1017/S0033291713001190 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Burt SA, McGue M, Krueger RF, & Iacono WG (2005). How are parent–child conflict and childhood externalizing symptoms related over time? Results from a genetically informative cross-lagged study. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 145–165. 10.1017/S095457940505008X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carson R (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Aldine
  11. Cabrera NJ, Cook GA, McFadden KE, & Bradley RH (2011). Father residence and father-child relationship quality: Peer relationships and externalizing behavioral problems. Family Science, 2(2), 109–119. 10.1080/19424620.2011.639143 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cabrera NJ, Volling BL, & Barr R (2018). Fathers are parents, too! Widening the lens on parenting for children’s development. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 152–157. 10.1111/cdep.12275 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chung G, Phillips J, Jensen TM, & Lanier P (2020). Parental involvement and adolescents’ academic achievement: Latent profiles of mother and father warmth as a moderating influence. Family Process, 59(2), 772–788. 10.1111/famp.12450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins WA, Madsen SD, & Susman-Stillman A (2002). Parenting during middle childhood. In Handbook of parenting: Children and parenting, Vol. 1, 2nd ed (pp. 73–101). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  15. Collins WA, & Russell G (1991). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle childhood and adolescence: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 11(2), 99–136. 10.1016/0273-2297(91)90004-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Deater-Deckard K, Pylas M, & Petrill SA (1997). The parent–child interaction system (PARCHISY). Institute of Psychiatry
  17. Dermody SS, Thomas KM, Hopwood CJ, Durbin CE, & Wright A (2017). Modeling the complexity of dynamic, momentary interpersonal behavior: Applying the time-varying effect model to test predictions from interpersonal theory. Journal of research in personality, 68, 54–62. 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.03.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dix T, & Meunier LN (2009). Depressive symptoms and parenting competence: An analysis of 13 regulatory processes. Developmental Review, 29(1), 45–68. 10.1016/j.dr.2008.11.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Dryer DC, & Horowitz LM (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 592–603. 10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.592 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Elkins IJ, McGue M, & Iacono WG (1997). Genetic and environmental influences on parent–son relationships: Evidence for increasing genetic influence during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 33, 351–363 10.1037//0012-1649.33.2.351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Estlein R, & Theiss JA (2014). Inter-parental similarity in responsiveness and control and its association with perceptions of the marital relationship. Journal of Family Studies, 20, 239–257. 10.1080/13229400.2014.11082009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Estlein R, & Theiss JA (2020). Responsiveness and control in marital and parental communication: Exploring interdependent relationships across family subsystems. Journal of Family Studies 10.1080/13229400.2020.1773294 [DOI]
  23. Estlein R (2021). Parenting as a communication process: Integrating interpersonal communication theory and parenting styles conceptualization. Journal of Family Theory & Review, online first 10.1111/jftr.12407 [DOI]
  24. Feldman R (2007). Parent–infant synchrony: Biological foundations and developmental outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 340–345. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00532.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hay D & McStephen M, Levy F, & Pearsall-Jones J (2002). Recruitment and attrition in twin register studies of childhood behavior: The example of the Australian twin ADHD project. Twin Studies, 5, 324–8. 10.1375/136905202320906039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Prinzie P, Stams GJJM, Deković M, Reijntjes AHA, & Belsky J (2009). The relations between parents’ big five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 351–362. 10.1037/a0015823 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Klahr AM, Thomas KM, Hopwood CJ, Klump KL, & Burt SA (2013). Evocative gene-environment correlation in the mother-child relationship: A twin study of interpersonal processes. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 105–118. 10.1017/S0954579412000934 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Klahr AM, McGue M, Iacono WG, & Burt SA (2011). The association between parent-child conflict and adolescent conduct problems over time: Results from a longitudinal adoption study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120(1), 46–56. 10.1037/a0021350 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Klahr AM, & Burt SA (2014). Elucidating the etiology of individual differences in parenting: A meta-analysis of behavioral genetic research. Psychological Bulletin, 140(2), 544–586. 10.1037/a0034205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kiesler DJ (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. Wiley
  31. Kiesler DJ (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185–214. 10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.185 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Leary T (1957). The interpersonal diagnosis of personality. Roland
  33. Maestripieri D (1999). The biology of human parenting: Insights from nonhuman primates. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 23(3), 411–422. 10.1016/S0149-7634(98)00042-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Masud H, Thurasamy R, & Ahmad MS (2015). Parenting styles and academic achievement of young adolescents: A systematic literature review. Quality & Quantity, 49(6), 2411–2433. 10.1007/s11135-014-0120-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Markey PM, & Kurtz JE (2006). Increasing acquaintanceship and complementarity of behavioral styles and personality traits among college roommates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 907 – 916. 10.1177/0146167206287129 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Markey P, Lowmaster S, & Eichler W (2010). A real-time assessment of interpersonal complementarity. Personal Relationships, 17, 13–25. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01249.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Markey PM, & Markey CN (2007). Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment and relationship experiences: The complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 517–533. 10.1177/0265407507079241 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Markey PM, Markey CN, & Tinsley B (2005). Applying the interpersonal circumplex to children’s behavior: Parent-child interactions and risk behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 549–559. 10.1177/0146167204271587 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. McNeish D, Stapleton LM, & Silverman RD (2017). On the unnecessary ubiquity of hierarchical linear modeling. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 114–140. 10.1037/met0000078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (2017). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s Guide (Version 8). Authors
  41. Orford J (1986). The rules of interpersonal complementarity: Does hostility beget hostility and dominance, submission? Psychological Review, 93, 365–377. 10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.365 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Owen DJ, Slep AMS, & Heyman RE (2012). The effect of praise, positive nonverbal response, reprimand, and negative nonverbal response on child compliance: A systematic review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15(4), 364–385. 10.1007/s10567-012-0120-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pianta RC, Nimetz SL, & Bennett E (1997). Mother-child relationships, teacher-child relationships, and school outcomes in preschool and kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(3), 263–280. 10.1016/S0885-2006(97)90003-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Reyna RA, & Pickler RH, (2009). Mother-infant synchrony. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecological & Neonatal Nursing, 38, 470–477. 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2009.01044.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Russell A (2014). Parent-child relationships and influences. In Smith PK & Hart CH (Eds.), Wiley Blackwell handbooks of developmental psychology Wiley Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rothenberg WA, Lansford JE, Alampay LP, Al-Hassan SM, Bacchini D, Bornstein MH, Chang L, Deater-Deckard K, Giunta LD, Dodge KA, Malone PS, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Steinberg L, Tapanya S, Tirado LMU, & Yotanyamaneewong S (2020). Examining effects of mother and father warmth and control on child externalizing and internalizing problems from age 8 to 13 in nine countries. Development and Psychopathology, 32(3), 1113–1137. 10.1017/S0954579419001214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sadler P, Ethier N, Gunn GR, Duong D, & Woody E (2009). Are we on the same wavelength? Interpersonal complementarity as shared cyclical patterns during interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1005–1020. 10.1037/a0016232 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Sadler P, Ethier N, & Woody E (2011). Tracing the interpersonal web of psychopathology: Dyadic data analysis methods for clinical researchers. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 95–138. 10.5127/jep.010310 [DOI]
  49. Shanahan L, McHale SM, Crouter AC, & Osgood DW (2007). Warmth with mothers and fathers from middle childhood to late adolescence: Within- and between-families comparisons. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 551–563. 10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.551 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Simons LG, & Conger RD (2007). Linking mother-father differences in parenting to a typology of family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 212–241. [Google Scholar]
  51. Stafford M, Kuh DL, Gale CR, Mishra G, & Richards M (2016). Parent–child relationships and offspring’s positive mental wellbeing from adolescence to early older age. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(3), 326–337. 10.1080/17439760.2015.1081971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Tiedens LZ, & Fragale AR (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558–568. 10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Tracey TJ (1994). An examination of complementarity of interpersonal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 864–878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. West SG, Taylor AB, & Wu W (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  55. Wiggins JS (1996). An informal history of the interpersonal circumplex tradition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 217–233. 10.1207/s15327752jpa6602_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Wilson S, & Durbin CE (2013). Mother-child and Father-child dyadic interaction: Parental and child bids and responsiveness to each other during early childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 59(3), 249–279. 10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.59.3.0249 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES