Mother-Adolescent and Father-Adolescent

Relationship Quality After Divorce:

Relations with Young Adult Romantic Attachment

by

Colleen Carr

A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts

Approved January 2013 by the

Graduate Supervisory Committee:

Sharlene Wolchik, Chair

Leah Doane
Jenn-Yun Tein

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

May 2013
 ABSTRACT

Although social learning and attachment theories suggest that parent-adolescent

relationships influence adult romantic relationships, research on this topic is limited.

Most research examining relations between mother-adolescent and father-adolescent

relationship quality and young adult romantic relationship quality has found significant

effects of mother-adolescent relationship quality. Findings on fathers have been less

consistent. These relations have not been examined among youth who experienced

parental divorce, which often negatively impacts parent-child relationships and romantic

outcomes. Further, no prior studies examined interactive effects of mother-adolescent

and father-adolescent relationship quality on romantic attachment. The current study

used longitudinal data from the control group of a randomized controlled trial of a

preventative intervention for divorced families to examine unique and interactive effects

of mother-adolescent and father-adolescent relationship quality on young adult romantic

attachment. The 72 participants completed measures of mother-adolescent relationship

quality and father-adolescent relationship quality during adolescence (ages 15-19), and

completed a measure of romantic attachment (anxiety and avoidance) during young

adulthood (ages 24-28). Findings revealed significant interactive effects of mother-

adolescent and father-adolescent relationship quality on young adult romantic anxiety.

The pattern of results suggests that having a high quality relationship with one’s father

can protect children from negative effects of having a low quality relationship with one’s

mother on romantic anxiety. These results suggest the importance of examining effects of

one parent-adolescent relationship on YA romantic attachment in the context of the other

parent-adolescent relationship. Exploratory analyses of gender revealed that father-

i
adolescent relationship quality significantly interacted with gender to predict romantic

avoidance; this relation was stronger for males. These results suggest that nonresidential

fathers play an important role in adolescents’ working models of relationships and their

subsequent romantic attachment.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Sharlene Wolchik, for always being willing

and eager to discuss my thesis with me and for helping me grow as a well-rounded

researcher. I would also like to extend my deep appreciation to Dr. Jenn-Yun Tein for

her invaluable support and guidance in statistical analyses. Further, I would like to thank

Dr. Leah Doane-Sampsey for her enthusiasm for this research project and insightful

questions that challenged me to think on a deeper level. It has been an honor to have

these three stellar researchers on my committee.

I am forever thankful for my parents, Larry and Kris Carr, and my sisters,

Maureen Carr and Meghan Horrigan, for being my support system throughout the thesis

process and always. I would also like to thank my dear friends Rika Tanaka, Caitlin

Scott, Laurie Dempsey, and Frances Wang for cheering me on, for believing in me, and

for helping me maintain a good balance in my life.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………...vi

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………….………...viii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………...1

Effects of Parental Divorce on Youth……………………………….1

Parent-Adolescent Relationship Quality and Romantic Outcomes…2

Current Study………………………………………………………..8

Parent Compensation Effects………………………………………..9

2 METHODS……………………………………………………………12

Participants…………………………………………………………12

Procedures………………………………………………………….13

Measures...………………………………………………………….14

3 RESULTS…………………………………………………………… 20

Preliminary Analysis……………………………………………….20

Primary Analysis…………………………………………………...21

4 DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………25

Compensation Effects on Romantic Anxiety………………………25

Adolescent Gender and Romantic Avoidance……………………..30

Summary and Conclusions…………………………………………32

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………36

iv
APPENDIX Page

A Children’s Report of Parenting Behavior Inventory………………....55

B Father Support……………………………………………………….58

C Adolescent/Non-Residential Parent Contact………………………...60

D Experiences in Close Relationships Scale………………….………..62

E IRB Approval Letter.........................................................................65

v
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Descriptive Information on Study Variables ........................................ 44

2. Descriptive Information on Study Variables by Gender .....................45

3. Bivariate Correlations Among Study Variables and With Potential

Covariates...............................................................................................46

4. Stepwise Regressions of Romantic Anxiety on Covariates, Mother-

Adolescent Relationship Quality, Father-Adolescent Relationship

Quality, and the Mother-Adolescent Relationship Quality x

Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality Interaction Term…………..47

5. Stepwise Regressions of Romantic Anxiety on Covariates, Father-

Adolescent Relationship Quality, Mother-Adolescent Relationship

Quality, and the Mother-Adolescent Relationship Quality x

Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality Interaction Term ………….48

6. Stepwise Regressions of Romantic Avoidance on Covariates,

Mother-Adolescent Relationship Quality, Father-Adolescent

Relationship Quality, and the Mother-Adolescent Relationship

Quality x Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality Interaction

Term………………………………………………………………...49

vi
Table Page

7. Stepwise Regressions of Romantic Avoidance on Covariates,

Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality, Mother-Adolescent

Relationship Quality, and the Mother-Adolescent Relationship

Quality x Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality Interaction

Term…………………………………………………………………50

8. Stepwise Regressions of Romantic Avoidance on Covariates,

Gender, Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality, Mother-

Adolescent Relationship Quality, and the Mother-Adolescent

Relationship Quality x Gender Interaction Term…………………….51

9. Stepwise Regressions of Romantic Avoidance on Covariates,

Gender, Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality, Mother-

Adolescent Relationship Quality, and the Father-Adolescent

RelationshipQuality x Gender Interaction Term…………………….52

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Interaction Between Mother-Adolescent Relationship Quality

and Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality on Romantic

Anxiety ..................................................................................................53

2. Interaction Between Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality

and Gender on Romantic Avoidance ................................ .…………54

viii
 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

From early childhood, youth develop working models, based largely on

relationships with parents, which inform their expectations of others and attitudes about

relationships with others, including romantic partners (Bowlby, 1982; Hazan & Shaver,

1987; Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 2000). These working models are altered or

cemented during adolescence as youth use their foundation for navigating relationships,

which is highly impacted by early parent-child relationships, to interact with peers and

adults (Scott Brown & Wright, 2001).

Although social learning and attachment theories suggest that parent-adolescent

relationships are important influences on adult romantic relationships (Amato & DeBoer,

2001; Bandura, 1977; Bowlby, 1969; Hazan & Shaver, 1987), research on this topic is

limited. Further, researchers have not addressed this research question with youth who

have experienced parental divorce. This research gap is notable because 30-50% of

Americans undergo parental divorce during childhood or adolescence (National Center

for Health Statistics, 2008), and parental divorce has implications for parent-child

relationships (Amato & Sobolewski, 2001; Billingham, Sauer, & Pillion, 1989; Emery,

1999). Specifically, post-divorce, ties between parents and children are often weakened

(Amato & Sobolewski, 2001) as parents display less affection toward children, and

engage in harsher, more inconsistent discipline (Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1979;

Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 1999; Sigal, Sandler, Wolchik, & Braver, 2011).

Divorce is associated not only with poorer quality parent-child relationships, but

also with the nature and quality of youths’ later romantic relationships. Specifically,

1
young adults who experienced parental divorce in childhood endorse less secure romantic

patterns than young adults from two-parent families (Summers, Armistead, Forehand, &

Tannenbaum, 1998), and have a significantly higher average number of sex partners than

do young adults whose parents remained married (Billingham et al., 1989). They are also

more likely than adults from two- parent families to cohabit before marriage, and these

cohabitating relationships are likely to dissolve prior to marriage (Bumpass & Lu, 2000;

Cherlin, Kiernan, & Chase-Lansdale, 1995; Furstenberg & Teitler, 1994; Le Bourdais &

Gratton, 1998). Additionally, adults who experienced parental divorce in childhood are

themselves more likely to divorce (Amato, 1996; Glenn & Shelton, 1983), a phenomenon

referred to as the “intergenerational transmission of divorce.” Although research shows a

link between parental divorce and difficulties in adult romantic relationships, and theory

and research findings suggest that quality of parent-child relationships in childhood and

adolescence might relate to quality of romantic relationships, researchers have not yet

examined relations between parent-adolescent relationships following divorce and young

adult romantic outcomes.

The current longitudinal study addresses this gap in the literature. Below, the

limited research that has been conducted with youth from non-divorce-specific samples

on the relations between parent-child relationship quality in childhood and adolescence

and romantic outcomes in young adulthood will be reviewed. First, research examining

the relation between parent-child relationship quality, as assessed for mothers and fathers

together, and romantic outcomes will be addressed. Next, research addressing youths’

relationships with mothers will be discussed. Then, findings relevant to the relation

2
between adolescents’ relationship with fathers and young adult romantic relationship

quality will be reviewed. Finally, the current study will be presented.

A few studies have examined quality of parent-adolescent relationships as

predictors of young adult romantic relationships without considering influences of

mother-adolescent and father-adolescent relationships separately. These studies have

found that overall parenting quality in adolescence was significantly related to young

adult romantic outcomes. Conger, Cui, Bryant, and Elder (2000) conducted an eight year

longitudinal study in which they examined behavioral interactions between parents and

adolescents over a three year period (7th-10th grade) and then, five years after the 10th

grade assessments, examined young adults’ interactions with romantic partners. They

grouped mother and father data together to assess parenting quality and found that

nurturant-involved parenting, defined by high parental warmth, low parental hostility,

high monitoring, and consistent parenting, significantly predicted young adults’

interpersonal competence in romantic relationships, defined by behaviors indicating high

warmth and supportiveness and low hostility and coercion. Interpersonal competence

mediated the relation between parent-child relationship quality and young adults’ self-

report of romantic relationship quality, defined by happiness, satisfaction, and

commitment.

Further, Scharf and Mayseless (2001)’s four year longitudinal study examining

17-year-old boys’ relationships with parents as predictors of romantic outcomes at age 21

found that positive parent-adolescent relationships, defined by high acceptance and

encouragement of independence, related significantly to higher capacity for intimacy in

young adult romantic relationships, as defined by emotional closeness, conflict resolution

3
skills, involvement and autonomy, sexuality, and satisfaction and commitment in

relationships with past and/or current partners. This relation was mediated by increased

social competence. Although the results of these two studies show that parent-adolescent

relationship quality is related to romantic outcomes, these studies did not consider the

unique contributions of father-adolescent and mother-adolescent relationship quality.

Most studies that have examined the relations between quality of both mother-

adolescent and father-adolescent relationships and young adult romantic relationships

have found significant relations between the mother-adolescent relationship and romantic

relationship outcomes. Pflieger (2009) analyzed data from 2,530 participants in the

National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health that were collected during adolescence

(mean age 15.72 years) and young adulthood (mean age 21.79 years). Pflieger (2009)

assessed the unique effects of mother-adolescent and father-adolescent relationship

quality on later romantic outcomes, and found a significant association between

adolescents’ ratings of the quality of their relationships with mothers (i.e., closeness,

warmth, communication, and relationship satisfaction) and romantic relationship quality

in young adulthood. Further, in an 8-year longitudinal study of 103 youth, Seiffge-

Krenke (2003) assessed the relation between support adolescents received from their

mothers and fathers and bonded love in young adulthood, characterized by happiness,

attraction, friendship, and trust. Findings revealed that support from mothers at age 13,

15, and 17 significantly predicted bonded love. However, Dalton, Frick-Horbury, and

Kitzmann’s (2006) study of young adults’ retrospective reports of mothers’ and fathers’

parenting quality during childhood in terms of warmth, acceptance, and consistency in a

sample of young adults who grew up in two-parent families did not find a significant

4
unique effect of maternal parenting quality on young adults’ relationships with romantic

partners. The discrepancy between this study’s findings and the two previously described

findings might be due to the retrospective design of Dalton et al.’s (2006) study and the

researchers’ lack of attention to children’s developmental level. Young adult participants

in this study reported generally on their relationships with parents throughout childhood.

If age moderates the relation between mother-child relationship quality and romantic

outcomes, failing to consider age in this study could have masked true relations between

mother-adolescent relationship quality and young adult romantic attachment.

There is some research evidence to suggest that age moderates the relation

between mother-child relationship quality and romantic outcomes. For instance,

longitudinal data from the National Survey of Families and Households showed that

maternal warmth and closeness with early adolescents (ages 10-13), but not late

adolescents (ages 14-17), were positively related to young adults’ (ages 20-27) reports of

their relationships with romantic partners (Pflieger, Gager, & Goldstein, 2008). This age

moderation is not surprising given that positive parent-child relationships during early

adolescence involve strong attachments, whereas parent-child separation and adolescent

individuation are crucial during later adolescence as children become less dependent on

parents for social and emotional support and turn more often to peers and romantic

partners (Fraley & Davis, 1997; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994; Scharf & Mayseless, 2007;

Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997). In fact, it is common for closeness between parents and

children to decrease during adolescence and for conflict to increase (Collins, Laursen,

Mortensen, Luebker, & Ferreira, 1997; Seiffge-Krenke, 1999).

5
 Although less consistent than the findings for mothers, some research shows a link

between high quality father-adolescent relationships and young adult romantic

relationship quality. Dalton et al.’s (2006) study of young adults’ retrospective reports of

parenting, described previously, found that fathers’ parenting significantly and uniquely

predicted quality of young adults’ romantic relationships. Specifically, young adults who

identified positive parenting by fathers, defined by warmth, acceptance, and consistency,

viewed their romantic partners as more accessible and responsive.

Other studies have found nonsignificant relations between father-adolescent

relationship quality and young adult romantic attachment. For instance, Seiffge-Krenke’s

(2003) longitudinal study found that at no age (i.e., 13, 15, or 17) did the father-

adolescent relationship significantly predict bonded love in young adulthood.

Additionally, analysis of longitudinal data from the National Survey of Families and

Households, which examined unique effects of mother and father parenting variables on

romantic outcomes, revealed no significant links between father or child reports of

warmth and closeness in the father-child relationship and romantic outcomes (Pflieger et

al., 2008).

Similar to the findings for mothers, some research suggests that age might moderate

the relation between father-adolescent relationship quality and young adult romantic

attachment. For instance, moderation analysis of data from the National Longitudinal

Study of Adolescent Health showed that relationships with fathers in early, but not late,

adolescence were positively predictive of romantic relationship quality in young

adulthood (Pflieger, 2009). However, analysis of data from the National Survey of

Families and Household failed to find evidence of age moderation for father-adolescent

6
relationship quality and romantic outcomes. As noted above, at no age was the father-

adolescent relationship predictive of young adult romantic outcomes (Seiffge-Krenke,

2003).

Although some studies examined age as a potential moderator, only two studies

(Dalton et al., 2006; Pflieger, 2009) considered adolescent gender as a moderator of the

relation between mother-adolescent and father-adolescent relationship quality and

romantic outcomes. Dalton et al. (2006) found that mother and father parenting scores

(considered together) accounted for significant amounts of variance when predicting

closeness of females’, but not males’, romantic relationships in young adulthood.

Pflieger (2009) found that for males, only mother-adolescent relationship quality

significantly predicted young adult romantic relationship quality, and for females, only

father-adolescent relationship quality significantly predicted young adult romantic

relationship quality. Of note, these studies did not focus on youth who had experienced

parental divorce. It is important to assess how gender might moderate relations between

mother-adolescent and father-adolescent relationship quality and young adult romantic

outcomes among a divorce-specific sample, because adolescents who have experienced

parental divorce typically reside primarily with their mothers and have less contact with

their fathers than adolescents from two-parent homes (Kelly, 2007).

In summary, research has provided support for the relation between parent-child

relationships generally and young adult romantic attachment. However, studies that

examined mother-child and father-child relationship quality separately have shown more

consistent support for the relation between mother-child relationship quality and young

adult romantic outcomes than for the link between father-child relationship quality and

7
romantic outcomes. Some research suggests that the association between mother-child

relationship quality and later romantic outcomes differs across adolescent age. Although

a few studies have examined the unique relations between mother-adolescent and father-

adolescent relationship quality and young adult romantic outcomes, no known study has

used longitudinal data to examine how the effect of one parent-adolescent relationship

might have a different effect on young adult romantic outcomes at different levels of

quality of the other parent-adolescent relationship. Further, no known study has

examined these relations in a sample who experienced parental divorce. Finally, few

studies have considered the potential role of gender moderation, and none have done so

with a sample that experienced parental divorce.

The current study addressed these gaps in the literature by examining both unique

effects of mother-adolescent relationship quality and father-adolescent relationship

quality and interactive effects on young adult romantic relationship outcomes in a sample

of youth who experienced parental divorce in childhood. Data on quality of adolescents’

relationships with mothers and fathers were collected in mid-to-late adolescence (age

range from 15-19) and data on romantic attachment were collected in young adulthood

(age range from 24-28).

It is important to examine parent-child relationship quality in adolescence because

this is the time when adolescents begin to transfer attachment functions from parents to

peers and initiate romantic relationships (Fraley & Davis, 1997; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994;

Scharf & Mayseless, 2007; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997). Examining the role of

mother-adolescent relationships is essential because, despite the broadening of

attachment functions, research indicates that adolescents and young adults are most likely

8
to use their mothers (compared to fathers and peers) as a secure base for exploration

(Markiewicz, Lawford, Doyle, & Haggart, 2006). Examining father-adolescent

relationship quality is also important because research has shown that relationships with

fathers account for unique variance in child outcomes (Lamb, 2000). Examining research

on father-child relationships in divorced families, Amato and Gilbreth’s (1999) meta-

analysis of 63 studies found that father-child closeness and authoritative parenting by

fathers were significantly related to children’s academic success, internalizing problems,

and externalizing problems.

Support for the importance of examining whether the relation between the quality

of one parent-adolescent relationship and romantic outcomes depends on the quality of

the other parent-adolescent relationship is provided by research that has examined the

links between parent-child relationship quality and children’s post-divorce mental health

outcomes. For instance, using a nationwide sample of families with residential mothers

and nonresidential fathers, King and Sobolewski (2006) found unique and interactive

effects of high-quality parenting on children’s mental health problems. High-quality

parenting by either fathers or mothers was independently related to reduced child mental

health problems, after accounting for quality of the relationship with the other parent.

Further, analyses revealed that adolescents were worst off in terms of various outcomes

(e.g., self-efficacy, externalizing, internalizing) when they had poor relationships with

both mothers and fathers. Children who had close ties with just mothers showed no

significant differences in positive outcomes from children with close ties to both parents,

and children with close relationships to fathers only had significantly fewer internalizing

problems and less acting out in school than children who had poor relationships with both

9
parents. However, children with close relationships to father alone had lower grades and

more externalizing problems than children with close relationships with both parents or

with just mothers. These results suggest that having at least one strong parent relationship

is better than having two poor parent relationships, particularly if that strong relationship

is with a mother.

In their study on the relations between parental warmth, interparental conflict, and

children’s mental health problems, Sandler, Miles, Cookston, and Braver (2008) found

that under conditions of high interparental conflict, having a positive relationship,

characterized by high warmth, with one parent protected children from internalizing

problems when warmth of the other parent was low. In line with prior research, results

indicated that internalizing problems were highest when indicators of both mother-

adolescent and father-adolescent relationship quality were low. These findings provide

further support for the idea that one high-quality parent relationship in adolescence might

compensate for the effect of a negative relationship with the other parent on quality of

romantic relationships in young adulthood.

It was hypothesized that both mother-adolescent relationship quality and father-

adolescent relationship would significantly predict young adult romantic attachment. It

was also hypothesized that there would be a significant interactive effect of mother-

adolescent and father-adolescent relationship quality on romantic attachment. Based on

more consistent research evidence supporting the relevance of mother-adolescent

relationship quality and because all children in this sample lived primarily with their

mothers, it was hypothesized that at high levels of mother-adolescent relationship quality,

young adults would experience positive romantic relationship outcomes (i.e., low

10
romantic anxiety and avoidance), regardless of the quality of the father-adolescent

relationship. Father-adolescent relationship quality was predicted to be relevant when

mother-adolescent relationship quality was low; high quality relationships with fathers

were predicted to compensate for the negative effects of low quality mother-adolescent

relationships. Young adults were expected to be worst off in terms of romantic outcomes

when they had poor quality relationships with both parents. Analyses of gender

moderation were exploratory. Gender moderation analyses were conducted when the

mother-relationship quality x father-relationship quality interaction effect on attachment

outcomes was not significant.

11
 Chapter 2

METHODS

Participants

The current study used data from the control group of the New Beginnings Project

(NBP), a randomized trial examining the efficacy of a parenting intervention for divorced

mothers. NBP participants were recruited using court records of randomly selected

divorce cases in the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area and through media

advertisements. Eighty percent of the sample was recruited through court records.

Eligible mothers had at least one child between the ages of 9 and 12 and had experienced

divorce within the previous two years. Other inclusion criteria were: a) the mother was

the primary residential parent; b) the mother and children living in the home were not

receiving mental health treatment; c) the mother had not remarried and did not have a

live-in significant other or plans to re-marry during the course of program participation;

d) custody was expected to remain unchanged during the trial; e) the family lived within

one hour of the intervention delivery site; f) the mother and target child could complete

the assessment battery in English; g) the child was not receiving special education

services; h) if the child was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, he/she was taking

medication. Further, mothers were excluded from the study if their child had suicidal

ideation, scored above 17 on the Children’s Depression Inventory, or scored above the

97th percentile on the Externalizing subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist (Wolchik et

al., 2000).

Seventy-six families were randomly assigned to the control group, a self-study

literature control condition in which mothers and children each received three books on

12
children’s adjustment to divorce along with reading guidelines. At 6-year follow-up, of

the 76 target children whose mothers participated in the control group, one had a

deceased mother and one had a deceased father. Two additional children had parents who

had rejoined by the 6-year follow-up. These four individuals were not included in

analyses, leaving a total sample of 72.

At baseline, the mean age of the youths who are part of the current study was

10.26 (SD= 1.07) years, the mean age of mothers was 36.5 (SD= 4.6) years, and the mean

age of fathers was 38.9 (SD= 5.2) years. Of the youths, 51.4% (n = 37) were female. Of

the mothers in the current study, 86.1% were non-Hispanic white; 11.1% were Hispanic;

1.4% were black, and 1.4% were other. In terms of highest level of mothers’ education,

17% completed high school, 8% technical school, 51% some college, 17% college, and

7% graduate school. At baseline, gross family annual income was as follows: 1.4%

under $5,000, 9.7% between $5,001 and $10,000, 5.6% between $10,001 and $15,000,

13.9% between $15,001 and $20,000, 23.6% between $20,001 and $25,000, 13.9%

between $25,001 and $30,000, 16.7% between $30,001 and $35,000, 5.6% between

$35,001 and $40,000, 6.9% between $40,001 and $45,000, 1.4% between $45,001 and

$50,000, and 1.4% between $70,001 and $75,000.

Procedures

Participants were assessed at six time points: baseline (Wave 1), post-test (Wave

2), 3-month follow-up (Wave 3), 6-month follow-up (Wave 4), 6-year follow-up (Wave

5), and 15-year follow-up (Wave 6). At each time point, the vast majority of participants

completed assessments at home; a minority completed them at the university research

center. Trained staff separately interviewed mothers and children/young adults (YAs).

13
After the staff explained confidentiality, the parents and children/YAs signed

consent/assent forms. Assessments were administered by interviewers using a structured

computer program. The current study used data from Wave 5, when the youth were

between ages 15 and 19, and Wave 6, when participants were between ages 24 and 28.

At Wave 5, mothers and children each received $100 compensation, and at Wave 6,

mothers received $50 and YAs received $100 compensation. The Institutional Review

Board at Arizona State University reviewed and approved all procedures.

Measures (See Appendices A-D for measures)

Demographics.

At Wave 5, mothers reported on various demographics including their own

education level, employment, financial status, and treatment and therapy history. At

Wave 6, YAs reported on demographics such as their age, occupation, relationship status,

race, and education level. The following demographic variables were examined as

potential covariates: mothers’ financial status and education level during youths’

adolescence and YAs’ education level, gender, age, race, and relationship status.

Mothers’ financial status was assessed by Wave 5 reports of gross family income.

Mothers reported their education level using the following scale: 1= 8th grade or less, 2=

9th-11th grade, 3= 12th grade, high school diploma, GED, 4= 1 year college,

vocational/technical training, 5= 2 years college or technical, AA degree, 6= 3 years, but

no college degree, 7= BS or BA degree, 8= MS, MA, MFA, etc., 9= PhD, JD, MD, etc.

YAs reported education level using the following scale: 1= 8th grade or less, 2= 9th-11th

grade, 3= 12th grade, high school graduate; 4= GED, 5= 1 year college,

vocational/technical training, 6= 2 years college or technical, AA degree, 7= 3 years of

14
college but no college degree, 8= BS or BA degree, 9= MS, MA, MFA, etc., 10= PhD,

JD, MD. YA gender was assessed by maternal report at Wave 1, and YA age was

assessed by YA report at Wave 6. YAs reported on their race at Wave 6 by identifying

themselves as one or more of the following races: American Indian or Alaskan Native,

Asian, Black or African-American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or White. YAs

also reported whether or not they were Hispanic or Latino. For this study, race was

recoded as non-Hispanic white vs. nonwhite. YA relationship status was defined by YA

reports at Wave 6 of having or not having a romantic partner.

Independent Variables

Mother-Adolescent Relationship Quality. Relationship quality was assessed

using the 16-item Acceptance subscale and 16-item Rejection subscale of the Child

Report of Parenting Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; Schaefer, 1965; Teleki, Powell &

Doddler, 1982). Example items for acceptance and rejection are “Your mother always

spoke to you in a warm and friendly voice” and “Your mother made you feel you are not

loved,” respectively. Participants responded to items on a 3-point Likert scale, indicating

whether each item is “like,” “somewhat like,” or “not like” their mothers. After the

rejection items were reverse coded, the Acceptance and Rejection items were summed.

Higher scores reflect more perceived acceptance and less perceived rejection. Wolchik,

West, et al. (2000) reported acceptable levels of internal consistency reliability for the

acceptance/rejection score as assessed at Wave 1 in the full New Beginnings sample (α =

.86). Internal consistency reliability for acceptance/rejection score in the current sample

was .94. Further, the Acceptance/Rejection measure had test-retest reliability of .81 when

used with a sample of children who experienced parental divorce (Fogas et al., 1987).

15
Research has also provided support for the validity of the CRPBI, finding strong

associations between scores on the CRBPI and child/adolescent mental health problems

and psychosocial development (Fogas et al., 1987; Imbimbo, 1995; Lutzke, Wolchik, &

Braver, 1996; Musser & Fleck, 1983; Neilson & Metha, 1994; Oliver & Paull, 1995;

Schaefer, 1965; Wolchik, Wilcox, Tein, & Sandler, 2000).

Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality. A composite of the six-item Father

Support scale, which assessed the degree of social support children received from their

fathers, and two contact items from the Adolescent/Non-Residential Parent Contact scale

that assessed frequency of visits and of phone or mail contact with fathers in the prior

year served as a proxy of relationship quality. The Father Support measure was based on

the Children’s Inventory of Social Support (Wolchik, Ruehlman, Braver, & Sandler,

1989; Wolchik, Sandler, & Braver, 1987), which assesses support in terms of play,

advice, goods and services, emotional support, and positive feedback. A sample item is:

“Sometimes dads give kids advice or help kids figure out things that are important to

them. They might help solve a problem or even help kids figure out what to do. For

example, you might have been mad at your teacher, and dad might have helped you

understand what to do about it. How often has he given you advice or information in the

past month?” Five items assess these five types of support, and the sixth item assesses

whether the father serves as a source of negative emotions (i.e., “Instead of telling us

good things, some dads make young people feel very bad, unhappy, upset or angry. How

often has your dad made you feel bad during past month?”). Participants rated each item

on a five-point response scale (1= Almost never, 2= Sometimes, 3= Often, 4= A lot of

times, 5= Don’t know). Although the reliability of this measure has not been reported in

16
other studies, the internal consistency reliability of these items in this sample, with the

item assessing negative emotions reverse coded, was adequate (r = .86). Wolchik et al.

(1987) found significant associations in a sample of children who experienced parental

divorce between the support they received from their fathers as assessed by the

Children’s Inventory of Social Support and children’s adjustment. Specifically, the

number of support functions provided by fathers was significantly negatively related to

adjustment problems, and provision of goods and services and positive feedback were

most strongly negatively related to adjustment problems. Items answered “Don’t Know”

were coded as missing. After reverse coding the item assessing whether the father is a

source of negative emotions, the items were summed and the mean of the six items was

computed. Higher scores reflect higher levels of father support.

Two items from the eight-item Adolescent-Non-Residential Parent Contact scale

were used to assess contact within the last year: “How often has your dad visited with

you during the past year?” and “How often has your dad had phone or mail contact with

you in the past year?” Participants rated each item on a six-point response scale (1= Not

at all, 2= Once a year, 3= Several times a year, 4= One to three times a month, 5= Once a

week, 6= Several times a week). The two contact items were highly correlated in this

sample (r = .81). Items answered “Don’t Know” were coded as missing. The mean of

the two contact items was computed, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of father

contact.

Based on the correlation between the mean contact score and mean score on the

Father Support measure (r = .6), a composite father-adolescent relationship quality

17
variable was created. This score was computed by averaging the z-scores of the means of

the support measure and contact measure.

Dependent Variables

Young Adult Romantic Attachment. The Experiences in Close Relationships scale

(ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) was administered at Wave 6. This 36-item scale

measures two dimensions of adult attachment: anxiety, which involves fear of rejection

and abandonment, and avoidance, which involves discomfort with closeness and

dependency. Eighteen items assess romantic anxiety and 18 items assess romantic

avoidance. An example of an anxiety item is: “I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved

by my partner.” An example of an avoidance item is: “I prefer not to show a partner how

I feel deep down.” Respondents rated how much each item accurately described their

feelings in close relationships generally, without focusing on one specific partner. Each

item was rated on a seven-point response scale (1= Disagree Strongly, 2= Disagree, 3=

Somewhat Disagree, 4= Neither Agree nor Disagree, 5= Somewhat Agree, 6= Agree, 7=

Strongly Agree).

Many studies have found this measure to have high validity and reliability. Both

the Anxiety and Avoidance subscales have shown high internal consistency, with

Chronbach’s alphas ranging from .89-.92 for the Anxiety subscale and .91-.95 for the

Avoidance subscale (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998, Lopez & Gormley, 2002; Lopez,

Mauricio, Gormley, Simko, & Berger, 2001; Lopez, Mitchell, & Gormley, 2002; Vogel

& Wei, 2005; Wei, Mallinckrodt, Russell, & Abraham, 2004). In this sample, internal

consistency reliability was high: .95 for the Avoidance subscale and .93 for the Anxiety

subscale. Studies have also indicated acceptable test-retest reliability. Lopez and

18
Gormley (2002) found the measure had .68 and .71 reliabilities for the Anxiety and

Avoidance subscales, respectively, over a six-month period. In terms of validity, studies

have found that ECR subscales were positively correlated with touch aversion (Brennan

et al., 2000), ineffective coping (Wei, Heppner, & Mallinckrodt, 2003; Wei, Heppner,

Russell, & Young, 2006), self-concealment and personal problems (Lopez et al., 2002),

and depression (Zakalik & Wei, 2006) and negatively correlated with social self-efficacy

and emotional self-awareness (Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005).

Two scores were computed to assess YA romantic attachment: mean scores on

avoidance items and mean scores on anxiety items. Higher scores indicate higher levels

of romantic avoidance and anxiety.

19
 Chapter 3

RESULTS

Descriptive statistic summary: Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the

study variables. The skewness and kurtosis of all study variables fell within the

acceptable range (skewness cut-off -2 and kurtosis cut-off -7; West, Finch & Curren,

1995). Descriptive information on the study variables by gender is provided in Table 2.

Correlations among study variables are presented in Table 3. Father-adolescent

relationship quality is significantly correlated with mother-adolescent relationship quality

(r = .26) and with romantic avoidance (r = -.26), and mother-adolescent relationship

quality is significantly correlated with mother’s education level (r = .23). Romantic

anxiety is significantly correlated with romantic avoidance (r = .36), YA gender (r =-.23),

and YA education level (r =-.32), and romantic avoidance is significantly correlated with

YA relationship status (r = -.48) and YA race (r = -.35).

Identification of covariates: The following variables were examined as potential

covariates: YA gender, YA age, YA relationship status, YA race, mother’s education

level, YA education level, and mother’s financial status during the youth’s adolescence.

Prior research suggested that these demographic variables are significantly related to

romantic attachment (Mickelson, Kessler, & Shaver 1997). Bivariate correlations

between these variables and father- and mother-child relationship quality and adult

romantic attachment (i.e., avoidance and anxiety) are provided in Table 3. YA

relationship status (defined by whether or not YA had a romantic partner) and race

(defined as non-Hispanic white vs. nonwhite) were significantly correlated with romantic

avoidance (r= .48 and r= -.35). Nonwhites and YAs who did not have romantic partners

20
reported higher romantic avoidance. YA education level was significantly correlated

with romantic anxiety (r= -.32), such that YAs with higher education levels reported

lower levels of romantic anxiety. Therefore, YA relationship status and race were

entered as covariates in models in which romantic avoidance was the outcome, and YA

education level was entered as a covariate in models in which romantic anxiety was the

outcome.

Attrition analysis: Attrition analysis was conducted to examine whether attrition

was significantly related to demographic variables or any of the study variables. T-tests

were used to compare participants who attritted prior to the assessment in young

adulthood (n = 15) to participants who completed the assessment in young adulthood (n =

57). Attrition was not significantly related to gender, Wave 1 child age, maternal race,

mother’s education level, or financial status, or Wave 5 father-adolescent relationship

quality or mother-adolescent relationship quality.

Outlier analysis: Outlier analyses were conducted to identify participants with

extreme scores on study variables. DFFITS, a measure of the influence of individual

cases on the regression equation, and DFBETAS, a measure of the change in regression

coefficients, were examined to identify potential outliers (Cohen, Cohen, West & Aiken,

2003). Cases were considered influential if the absolute value of DFFITS exceeded 1 or

DFBETAS was greater than 1 (Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1989). No cases met these

criteria, indicating that no cases were highly influencing the regression of the predictors

on either romantic anxiety or avoidance.

Primary Analyses: Multiple Regression analyses were run using MPlus software

(Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2011) to examine the unique and interactive effects of quality

21
of mother-adolescent relationship and father-adolescent relationship quality on anxiety

and avoidance in romantic relationships. Missing data was handled using FIML. The

following auxiliary variables (as assessed at Wave 1) that were identified as potentially

relevant to the study variables were added to enhance FIML: child age, family income,

maternal depression, interparental conflict, and maternal report of child internalizing

problems and externalizing problems.

Separate regressions were run for romantic anxiety and romantic avoidance.

Predictors were entered in 4 steps for each model: 1) covariates; 2) main effect of

mother-adolescent relationship quality; 3) main effect of father-adolescent relationship

quality; 4) interaction term (mother-adolescent relationship quality x father-adolescent

relationship quality). These analyses were re-run reversing steps 2 and 3. Stepwise

regression was done because step 2 allowed for examination of how one parent-

adolescent relationship alone contributed to explaining romantic anxiety or avoidance

above and beyond covariates. This step allows for comparison of results with those of

studies that examined mother or father relationship quality without accounting for the

other parent-child relationship.

For romantic anxiety, there were no significant main effects of mother-adolescent

relationship quality or father-adolescent relationship quality. There was, however, a

significant mother-adolescent relationship quality x father-adolescent relationship quality

interaction effect (p= .004; see Tables 4 and 5). This interaction was plotted for

additional interpretation (see Figure 1) using Aiken and West’s (1991) method of

regressing simple slopes of anxiety on father-adolescent relationship quality at the mean,

1 SD above the mean (“high”), and 1 SD below the mean (“low”) of mother-adolescent

22
relationship quality. The simple slope of low mother-adolescent relationship quality was

significant (b= -.47, p= .01), but the slopes of high (b= .24, p= .2) and mean (b= -.11, p=

.41) mother-adolescent relationship quality were not significant. The pattern of results

suggests that the relation between father-adolescent relationship quality and young adult

romantic anxiety was strongest when the mother-adolescent relationship quality was low.

For romantic avoidance, the effect of father-adolescent relationship quality was

marginally significant (p = .06) when father-adolescent relationship quality was entered

prior to entry of mother-adolescent relationship quality (see Table 7). When father-

adolescent relationship quality was entered after the covariates and mother-adolescent

relationship quality, however, this effect was nonsignificant (p = .11; see Table 6). The

main effect of mother-adolescent relationship quality on avoidance was not significant,

regardless of order of entry. Further, the father-adolescent relationship quality by

mother-adolescent relationship quality interactive effect was not significant.

Exploratory analyses were conducted to examine whether young adult gender

significantly interacted with either father-adolescent relationship quality or mother-

adolescent relationship quality to predict romantic avoidance. Stepwise regression

analysis revealed a marginal main effect of gender on romantic avoidance when gender

was entered after the covariates (p= .08). The gender by mother-adolescent relationship

quality interactive effect was not significant (see Table 8). Stepwise regression analysis

revealed a significant interactive effect of gender and father-adolescent relationship

quality (p= .03) (see Table 9). This interaction was plotted for additional interpretation

(See Figure 2). The simple slope for females was significant (b= -.38, p= .01), as was the

simple slope for males (b= -.92, p= .01). The pattern of the interaction suggests that the

23
relation between father-adolescent relationship quality and romantic avoidance was

stronger for males.

24
 Chapter 4

DISCUSSION

The current study is the first to examine the relations between mother-adolescent

relationship quality and father-adolescent relationship quality and YA romantic

attachment in a sample that experienced parental divorce in childhood. This study is also

the first to consider whether a high quality relationship with one’s father compensates for

negative effects of a low quality relationship with one’s mother on romantic attachment.

Further, this study is one of few investigations to consider the role of adolescent gender

in explaining relations between relationship quality with mothers and fathers and YA

romantic attachment. Results indicated that mother-adolescent relationship quality and

father-adolescent relationship quality interacted to predict romantic anxiety. Specifically,

the relation between father-adolescent relationship quality and young adult romantic

anxiety was strongest when the mother-adolescent relationship quality was low.

Additionally, results indicated that gender moderated the relation between father-

adolescent relationship quality and YA romantic avoidance, such that the relation was

stronger for males. Neither mother-adolescent relationship quality nor father-adolescent

relationship quality independently predicted YA romantic anxiety or avoidance.

The results of this study extend the limited prior research on predictors of

romantic attachment in a number of ways. Specifically, the hypothesized compensation

effect emerged; having a high quality relationship with one’s father in adolescence

compensated for having a low quality relationship with one’s mother. This finding is

consistent with prior research with samples of youths who experienced parental divorce,

which has shown a compensatory effect of parental relationships on mental health

25
outcomes (King & Sobolewski, 2006; Sandler et al., 2008; Sobolewski & Amato, 2007).

For example, King and Sobolewski (2006) found that having a warm, supportive

relationship with one parent compensated for a low quality relationship with the other

parent by reducing internalizing problems and acting out. Similarly, Sandler et al.’s

(2008) results indicated that under conditions of high interparental conflict, one positive

parental relationship, characterized by high warmth, protected children from internalizing

problems when the warmth of the other parental relationship was low.

Why might having high quality relationships with fathers be protective for

adolescents who have low quality relationships with mothers? Research has shown that

increased physical availability of fathers benefits adolescents as fathers’ presence creates

opportunities for parental guidance and increased structure (Bulanda & Majumdar, 2008).

Adolescents in the current sample who had low quality relationships with their mothers

might have turned to their nonresidential fathers to talk about important aspects of their

lives, including their experiences with romantic partners, and to receive guidance and

support. Paternal availability and involvement conveys to adolescents information about

their self-worth (Gecas & Schwalbe, 1986), and adolescents who have fathers who are

involved and available have been shown to have higher self-esteem and more positive

social expectations (Bulanda & Majumdar, 2008; Elicker, Englund, & Sroufe, 1992;

Parker & Benson, 2004). Research also has shown that positive parental relationships

contribute to increased social competence in adolescence, in part by increasing

adolescents’ self-esteem (Elicker, Englund, & Sroufe, 1992). The relation between father

involvement and adolescent self-esteem and social competence might be particularly

strong for adolescents with high quality relationships with non-residential fathers because

26
these adolescents experience a strong paternal relationship after a significant change in

the family system and despite no longer living with their fathers. Increased self-esteem

and social competence in adolescence could reduce youths’ anxiety toward romantic

relationships in young adulthood. This theory is consistent with prior research suggesting

that social competence mediates the relation between parent-adolescent relationship

quality and YA romantic outcomes in young adulthood (Conger et al., 2000; Scarf &

Mayseless, 2001).

Not only do YAs who reported low quality maternal relationships in adolescence

benefit from having high quality relationships with fathers in adolescence, but, as Figure

1 shows, these YAs experience even less romantic anxiety than YAs who reported high

quality adolescent relationships with both parents. This finding is interesting in light of

the common assumption that access to parental social capital and resources is inherently

beneficial and that two close parent-child relationships are preferable to one (Coleman,

1988, 1990; Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000). Sobolewski and Amato (2007)

speculated that balancing two emotionally close parental relationships after divorce is

difficult and may lead youth to question why the family cannot remain together and to

incorporate into their working models a belief that relationship systems that seem like

they should or could work might end. This belief might contribute to later anxiety about

romantic relationships. It is also possible that when adolescents have high quality

relationships with both parents and high levels of contact with nonresidential fathers, they

are also exposed to increased contact between their parents and, possibly, to interparental

conflict, which has been shown to relate to YA fear of abandonment by romantic

partners, a component of romantic anxiety (Hayashi & Strickland, 1998).

27
 Although significant interactive effects of mother-adolescent and father-

adolescent relationship quality on anxiety occurred, the main effects of mother-

adolescent relationship quality and father-adolescent relationship quality on YA romantic

anxiety were not significant. These findings suggest that among YAs who experienced

parental divorce, the effect of one parent-adolescent relationship on romantic anxiety is

best understood in the context of the other parent-adolescent relationship. Similar to the

findings for anxiety, the main effects of mother-adolescent and father-adolescent

relationship quality on romantic avoidance were nonsignificant. These findings differ

from past studies that found significant main effects of mother-adolescent relationship

quality (Pflieger, 2009; Seiffge-Krenke, 2003) and, less consistently, of father-adolescent

relationship quality (Dalton et al., 2006) on YA romantic relationship outcomes.

There are several measurement differences that might explain this discrepancy.

For instance, this study used acceptance and rejection subscales of the Child Report of

Behavior Inventory to assess mother-adolescent relationship quality and measures of

support and contact to assess father-adolescent relationship quality. Although Scharf and

Mayseless (2001) also focused on acceptance and rejection as indicators of relationship

quality, using the Mother-Father-Peer Scale (Epstein, 1983), other researchers focused on

different constructs, such as conflict, affection, and admiration (Seiffge-Krenke, 2003;

Seiffge-Krenke, Vermulst, Overbeek, 2010). Also, this study assessed different romantic

outcomes from previous studies. In the current study, anxiety and avoidance served as

outcomes, and participants provided general responses that were not specific to current

romantic partners. Studies that found significant main effects of mother-adolescent and

28
father-adolescent relationship quality examined indicators of quality of current romantic

relationships as outcomes (Dalton et al., 2006; Pflieger, 2009; Seiffge-Krenke, 2003).

Discrepant findings also might be due to the fact that the current study’s sample is

different from samples used in prior studies. This study includes both YAs who had and

did not have romantic relationships, which distinguishes this study from those that have

considered romantic outcomes only among YAs in romantic relationships (Dalton et al.,

2006; Pflieger, 2009). The current sample also differs from samples in previous studies

in that it is composed of young adults who experienced parental divorce in childhood,

and research shows that parental divorce affects both parent-child relationships and

children’s later romantic outcomes (Amato, 1996; Amato & Sobolewski, 2001; Bumpass

& Lu, 2000; Emery, 1999). It is possible that significant main effects on YA romantic

attachment were not found in this study because the relation between mother-adolescent

and father-adolescent relationship quality and YA romantic attachment differs among

YAs who experienced parental divorce in childhood. Perhaps interactive parenting

effects are particularly relevant to this sample.

Unlike in the analyses of romantic anxiety, the interactive effect of mother-

adolescent and father-adolescent relationship quality on YA romantic avoidance was not

significant. Of note, the covariates entered into models with avoidance, YA race and YA

romantic relationship status, accounted for 31.9% of the variance in avoidance.

Specifically, non-Hispanic white YAs were significantly less likely to report romantic

avoidance, conceptualized as discomfort with closeness and dependency, and YAs who

reported having romantic partners were significantly less likely to report avoidance.

Although YAs were asked to report on their experiences in romantic relationships

29
overall, and not in reference to a specific partner, it is likely that the responses of YAs

who had romantic partners were biased towards their current relationships. Research

shows that YA romantic attachment can become more secure, less secure, or remain

consistent depending on their romantic experiences (Furman & Wehner, 1994, 1997).

Preliminary data analyses for this study revealed that YAs relationship status was highly

correlated with romantic avoidance, but not with romantic anxiety. It is possible that this

study did not reveal significant effects of mother-adolescent or father-adolescent

relationship quality on avoidance because YAs’ experiences of avoidance, conceptualized

as discomfort with closeness and dependency, were closely linked to their experiences

with current romantic partners. Perhaps mother-adolescent and father-adolescent

relationship quality following divorce are simply more relevant to romantic anxiety than

to avoidance.

This study extends prior research by considering the role of adolescent gender in

explaining the relation between mother-adolescent and father-adolescent relationship

quality and YA romantic attachment. Because the mother-adolescent by father-

adolescent relationship quality interaction on avoidance was nonsignificant, exploratory

analyses examined whether gender moderated the relation between mother-adolescent

relationship quality and avoidance or the relation between father-adolescent relationship

quality and avoidance. The mother-adolescent relationship quality by gender interaction

was not significant. However, the father-adolescent relationship quality by gender

interaction was significant. Although the relation between father-adolescent relationship

quality and avoidance was significant for both males and females, the relation was

stronger for males. These findings align with results of a longitudinal study that found

30
that father-adolescent relationship quality was a stronger predictor of later satisfaction in

romantic relationships for males than females (Möller & Staten, 2001). Also,

longitudinal research has shown that YA males who reported being close to their fathers

in adolescence believed they were less likely to ever divorce compared to young adults

who reported low relationship quality with fathers in adolescence (Risch et al., 2004).

This relation was significant for males with residential and nonresidential fathers, but was

not significant for females.

It is not surprising that this study found that the father-adolescent relationship was

particularly meaningful in predicting romantic avoidance among males given that

research suggests that fathers might play a particularly strong role in their sons’

development (Richardson, Galambos, Shulenberg, & Peterson, 1984; Lamb, 1987).

Adolescent males who experience close paternal relationships have a model of what a

good relationship looks like, which might manifest in positive expectations in young

adulthood of future romantic relationship (Risch et al., 2004). These males might

embrace opportunities to communicate with their fathers and seek guidance about

romantic relationships and might learn through these conversations and same-sex

modeling about how to navigate romantic relationships (Crouter, Manke, McHale, 1995).

Parents, media, and society regularly socialize females to embrace intimacy and to be

nurturing in relationships, while males might require more positive messages and cues

from their fathers to seek out close, dependent romantic relationships (Risch, Jodl, &

Eccles, 2004).

The current study’s finding that father-adolescent relationship quality also

significantly predicted romantic avoidance for females is consistent with prior research

31
that has suggested that opposite sex parents serve as important models for heterosexual

relationships and that the father-daughter relationships in adolescence significantly

predict females’ romantic relationship quality (Pflieger, 2009). Female adolescents in the

current sample who had high quality relationships with their fathers might have learned

that, despite a rupture in the family system, their fathers remained involved in their lives,

maintaining closeness, and these females might have incorporated this experience into

their working models of relationships, resulting in less romantic avoidance.

The current study extends the existing literature by demonstrating that mother-

adolescent relationship quality and father-adolescent relationship quality interacted to

predict YA romantic anxiety in a sample of YAs who experienced parental divorce in

childhood. This finding highlights the importance of examining one parent-adolescent

relationship in the context of the other parent-adolescent relationship. The study further

contributes by showing that adolescent gender moderated the relation between father-

adolescent relationship quality and YA romantic avoidance, with the relation being

stronger for males. This finding suggests that nonresidential fathers have important

influences on adolescents’ socialization and conceptualization of relationships following

divorce. It is common for children’s bonds with fathers to weaken following divorce

(Bulduc, 2005; Riggio, 2004), which is not surprising given that children are much more

likely to reside primarily with their mothers (Kelly, 2007). It might be particularly

powerful for adolescents, especially males, to experience high-quality relationships with

fathers after such a significant change in the family system. The current results suggest

that maintaining or even newly building strong relationships with fathers after divorce

could contribute to adolescents’ working models of how relationships work; these

32
adolescents might develop a belief that loved, significant others are consistent and

permanent, which is likely to contribute to interpersonal trust and positive expectations of

romantic partners.

There are a few limitations to the current study. First, the sample size is small. It

is possible that with a larger sample, the main effects of mother-adolescent and father-

adolescent relationship quality in predicting romantic avoidance and anxiety and the

interactive effects of mother-adolescent and father-adolescent relationship quality on

romantic avoidance would have been significant. Further investigations should use larger

sample sizes to increase power to detect these effects. Second, the current sample is not

highly representative of youth who have experienced parental divorce. For instance, the

sample was largely non-Hispanic white and YAs’ mothers were, on average, highly

educated. Additionally, inclusion criteria were stringent, and many interested

participants were screened out of the study for reasons such as participation in treatment

for psychological problems (Wolchik et al., 2000). Future studies should include more

diverse samples in terms of ethnic background and education level and should include

fewer inclusion criteria to allow for greater generalizability of findings. Third, this study

employed different types of measures to assess mother-adolescent and father-adolescent

relationship quality. Two subscales from a widely used measure that has shown high

strong validity across many studies (e.g., Fogas et al., 1987; Lutzke, Wolchik, & Braver,

1996; Wolchik, Wilcox, Tein, & Sandler, 2000) were used to assess mother-adolescent

relationship quality, while shorter, less well-validated scales measuring support and

contact were used to assess father-adolescent relationship quality. Thus, it is possible

that the effects of father-adolescent relationship quality on YA romantic attachment were

33
underestimated. Fourth, both because of the restricted age range and because adolescents

were only assessed once during adolescence, this study was unable to examine adolescent

age as a potential moderator of relations between mother-adolescent and father-

adolescent quality and YA romantic attachment. Age moderation is important to

consider given that some research has shown that parent-adolescent relationship qualities

during early, but not late, adolescence predict YA romantic outcomes (Pflieger, 2009).

Future research with adolescents who experienced parental divorce should examine

whether age moderates the relation between mother-adolescent and father-adolescent

relationship quality and YA romantic attachment.

There are several other directions for future research. One of these involves

examining how youths’ relationships with both of their parents affect romantic

attachment. Future studies should consider, for example, whether high quality paternal

relationships compensate for low quality maternal relationships in terms of romantic

anxiety by increasing adolescents’ self-esteem or self-efficacy to navigate relationships.

Research should also attempt to replicate the current study’s finding that YAs with high

quality father relationships and low quality mother relationships in adolescence

experience lower romantic anxiety than YAs with high quality relationships with both

parents in adolescence. If this finding is replicated, studies should consider mechanisms

explaining this effect. It also will be important for future research to consider why the

father-adolescent relationship is more predictive of YA romantic avoidance for males

than for females. Research should consider if males rely more than females on their

fathers for guidance or support specific to their romantic relationships in adolescence.

Future research also should examine whether father involvement and relationship quality

34
following divorce are more relevant to males’ self-esteem than females’, and should

consider if self-esteem mediates the relation between father-adolescent relationship

quality and YA romantic avoidance. Additional studies should include sufficient

numbers of both YAs who experienced parental divorce and YAs with continuously

married parents to enable comparison between the relation of mother-adolescent and

father-adolescent relationship quality and romantic attachment in these groups.

The current study has implications not only for future research, but also for

preventive interventions with families experiencing divorce. The compensation effect

that emerged in this study suggests that contact with and support from nonresidential

fathers can serve as a protective factor for adolescents, supporting the importance of

intervention efforts promoting fathers’ active involvement with their children following

divorce.

35
 REFERENCES

Amato, P. R. (1996). Explaining the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 58, 628-641.

Amato, P. R., & DeBoer, D. D. (2001). The transmission of marital instability across
generations: Relationship skills or commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriage
and Family, 63, 1038-1051.

Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. (1999). Nonresidential fathers and children’s well-being: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 557-573.

Amato, P. R., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2001). The effect of divorce and marital discord on
adult children’s psychological well-being. American Sociological Review, 66,
900-921.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Billingham R. E., Sauer, A. K. & Pillion, L. A. (1989, November), Family structure in

childhood and sexual attitudes and behaviors during late adolescence. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Family Relations,
New Orleans, LA.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford
Press.

Bulanda, R. E., & Majumdar, D. (2009). Perceived parent-child relations and adolescent
self-esteem. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 203-212.

Bulduc, J. (2005). Effects of divorce on college students. Journal of Divorce and

Remarriage, 38, 83-104.

Bumpass, L., & Lu, H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s
family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29–41.

Cherlin, A. J., Kiernan, K. E., Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (1995). Parental divorce in

childhood and demographic outcomes in young adulthood. Intergenerational
Relations, 32(3), 299-318.

36
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, Suppl. 95, S4-S120.

Collins, W., Laursen, A., Mortensen, N., Luebker, C., & Ferreira, M. (1997). Conflict
processes and transitions in parent and peer relationships: Implications
for autonomy and regulation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(2), 178-198.

Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2000). Competence in early
adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 224-237.

Crouter, A. C., Manke, B. A., & McHale, S. M. (1995). The family context of gender
intensification in early adolescence. Child Development, 66, 317-329.

Dalton, W. T., Frick-Horbury, D., Kitzmann, K. M. (2006). Young adults' retrospective

reports of parenting by mothers and fathers: Associations with current
relationship quality. The Journal of General Psychology, 133(1), 5-18.

Elicker, J., Englund, M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1992). Predicting peer competence and peer
relations in childhood from early parent-child relationships. In R. D. Parke and G.
W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 77-106).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Emery, R. E. (1999). Marriage, divorce, and children's adjustment (2nd Ed.) Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Epstein, S. (1983). The Mother-Father-Peer scale. Unpublished manuscript, University

of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Feldman, S. S., Gowen, L. K., Fisher, L. (1998). Family relationships and gender as
predictors of romantic intimacy in young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 8(2), 263-286.

Fogas, B. S., Wolchik, S. A., & Braver, S. L. (1987, August). Parenting behavior and
psychopathology in children of divorce: Buffering effects. Paper presented at
the American Psychological Association Convention, New York, NY.

Fraley, R. C., and Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young
adults’ close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4,
131-144.

Furman, W., & Burhmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal

relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016-1022.

37
Furman, W., & Wehner, E. A. (1994). Romantic views: Toward a theory of adolescent
romantic relationships. In R. Monemayor, G. R. Adams, & G. P. Gullota (Eds.),
Advances in adolescent development: Vol 6. Relationships during adolescence
(pp. 168-195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Furman, W., & Wehner, E. A. (1997). Adolescent romantic relationships: a

developmental perspective. In S. Shulman & W. A. Collins (Eds.), New directions
in child development: Vol 78. Romantic relationships in adolescence:
Developmental perspectives (pp. 21-36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Furstenberg, F. F., & Teitler, J. O. (1994). Reconsidering the effects of marital

disruption: What happens to children of divorce in early adulthood. Journal of
Family Issues, 15(2), 173-190.

Gecas, V., & Schwalbe, M. (1986). Parental behavior and adolescent self-esteem. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 48, 37-46.

Glenn, N. D., & Shelton, B. A. (1983). Pre-adult background variables and divorce: A
note of caution about overreliance on explained variance. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 45(2), 405-410.

Hayashi, G. M., & Strickland, B. R. (1998). Long-term effects of parental divorce on love
relationships: Divorce as attachment disruption. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 15, 23-38.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment

process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511- 524.

Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bartholomew
& D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 5, pp. 151-178).
London: Jessica Kingsley.

Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1979). Stress and coping in divorce: A focus
On women. In J.E. Gullahorn (Ed.), Psychology and women: In transition (pp. 95
–128). Washington, DC: V. H. Winston & Sons.

Hetherington, E. M., & Stanley-Hagan, M. (1999). The adjustment of children with

divorced parents: A risk and resiliency perspective. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 40, 129–140.

Imbimbo, P. V. (1995). Sex differences in the identity formation of college students

from divorced families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(6), 745-761.

Kelly, J. (2007). Children’s living arrangements following divorce. Family Process, 46,
35-52.

38
King, V., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2006). Nonresident fathers’ contributions to adolescent
well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 537–557.

Lamb, M. E. (1987). The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Lamb, M. E. (2000). The history of research on father involvement. Marriage and Family
Review, 29 (2-3), 23-42.

Lopez, F. G., & Gormley, B. (2002). Stability and change in adult attachment style over
the first-year college transition: Relations to self-confidence, coping, and distress
patterns. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 366–364.

Lopez, F. G., Mauricio, A. M., Gormley, B., Simko, T., & Berger, E. (2001). Adult
attachment orientations and college student distress: The mediating role of problem
coping styles. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 459–464.

Lopez, F. G., Mitchell, P., & Gormley, B. (2002). Adult attachment and college student
distress: Test of a mediational model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49,
460-467.

Lutzke, J., Wolchik, S. A., & Braver, S. L. (1996). Does the quality of mother-child
relationships moderate the effect of postdivorce interparental conflict on
children’s adjustment problems? Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 25,
15-37.

Mallinckrodt, B., & Wei, M. (2005). Attachment, social competencies, social support,
and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 358–367.

Markiewicz, D., Lawford, H., Doyle, A. B., Haggart, N. (2006). Developmental

differences in adolescents’ and young adults’ use of mothers, fathers, best friends,
and romantic partners to fulfill attachment needs. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 35(1), 127-140.

Marsiglio, W., Amato, P. R., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on
fatherhood in the 1990’s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62,
1173-1191.

Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult Attachment in a

Nationally Representative Sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73(5), 1092-1106.

39
Möeller, K., & Stattin, H. (2001). Are close relationships in adolescence linked with
partner relationships in midlife? A longitudinal, prospective study. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 69-77.

Musser, J. M. & Fleck, R. J. (1983). The relationship of parental acceptance and

control to college females’ personality adjustment. Adolescence, 18, 907-916.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2011). Mplus User’s Guide. Sixth Edition. Los
Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

National Center for Health Statistics (2008). Marriage and divorce. Retrieved April 11,
2012 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm.

Neilson, D. M., & Metha, A. (1994). Parental behavior and adolescent self-esteem in
clinical and non-clinical samples. Adolescence, 29, 525-542.

Oliver, J. M. & Paull, J. C. (1995). Self-esteem and self-efficacy, perceived parenting

and family climate and depression in university students. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 51(4), 467-481.

Parker, J., & Benson, M. (2004). Parent-adolescent relations and adolescent functioning:
Self-esteem, substance abuse, and delinquency. Adolescence, 39, 519-530.

Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2000). The internal working models
Concept: What do we really know about the self in relation to others. Review of
General Psychology, 4(2), 155-175.

Pflieger, J. C. (2009). Adolescents' parent and peer relations and romantic outcomes in
young adulthood. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ.

Pflieger, J. C., Gager, C. T., & Goldstein, S. (2008). The moderating role of early versus
late adolescence: Exploring the differential effects of mothers and fathers on
young adults’ romantic relationships. Unpublished manuscript, Arizona State
University.

Richardson, R. A., Galambos, N. L., Schulenberg, J. E., & Petersen, A. C. (1984). Young
adolescents’ perceptions of the family environment. Journal of Early Adolescents,
4, 131-153.

Riggio, H. R. (2004). Parental marital conflict and divorce, parent-child relationships,

social support, and relationship anxiety in young adulthood. Personal
Relationships, 11, 99-114.

40
Risch, S. C., Jodl, K. M., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Role of the father-adolescent
relationship in shaping adolescents’ attitudes toward divorce. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 66(1), 46-58.

Sandler, I., Miles, J., Cookston, J., & Braver, S. (2008). Effects of father and mother
parenting on children’s mental health in high- and low-conflict divorces. Family
Court Review, 46(2), 282-296.

Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children's report of parental behavior: An inventory. Child

Development, 36, 413-424.

Scharf, M., & Mayseless, O. (2001). The capacity for romantic intimacy: Exploring the
Contribution of best friend and marital and parental relationships. Journal of
Adolescence, 24, 379-399.

Scharf, M., & Mayseless, O. (2007). Putting eggs in more than one basket: A new look
at developmental processes of attachment in adolescence. New Directions for
Child and Adolescent Development, 117, 1-22.

Scott Brown, L. S., Wright, J. (2001). Attachment theory in adolescence and its relevance
to developmental psychopathology. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 8(1),
15-32.

Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1999). Families with daughters, families with sons: Different

challenges for family relationships and marital satisfaction? Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 3, 325–342.

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.

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.

Sigal, A., Sandler, I., Wolchik, S., & Braver, S. (2011). Do parent education programs
promote healthy postdivorce parenting? Critical distinctions and a review of the
evidence. Family Court Review, 49(1), 120-139.

Sobolewski, J. M., & Amato, P. R. (2007). Parents’ discord and divorce, parent-child
relationships and subjective well-being in early adulthood: Is feeling close to two
parents always better than feeling close to one? Social Forces, 85, 1105-1124.

Stevens, J. P. (1984). Outliers and influential data points in regression analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 95, 334-344.

41
Summers, P., Forehand, R., Armistead, L., Tannenbaum, L. (1998). Parental divorce
during early adolescence in Caucasian families: The role of family process
variables in predicting the long-term consequences for early adult psychosocial
adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 327-336.

Teleki, J. K., Powell, J. A., & Dodder, R. A. (1982). Factor analysis of reports of parental
behavior by children living in divorced and married families. The Journal of
Psychology, 112, 295-302.

Trinke, S. J., and Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in

young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 603-625.

Vogel, D. L., & Wei, M. (2005). Adult attachment and help-seeking intent: The
mediating roles of psychological distress and perceived social support. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52, 347–357.

Wei, M., Heppner, P. P., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2003). Perceived coping as a mediator
between attachment and psychological distress: A structural equation modeling
approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 438–447.

Wei, M., Heppner, P. P., Russell, D. W., & Young, S. K. (2006). Maladaptive
perfectionism and ineffective coping as mediators between attachment and
subsequent depression: A prospective analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
53, 67–79.

Wei, M., Mallinckrodt, B., Russell, D. W., & Abraham, T. W. (2004). Maladaptive
perfectionism as a mediator and moderator between attachment and negative mood.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 201–212.

West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with
nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Wolchik, S. A., Ruehlman, L. S., Braver, S. L., & Sandler, I. N. (1989). Social support of
children of divorce: Direct and stress buffer effects. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 17, 485-501.

Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., & Braver, S. L. (1987). Social support: Its assessment and
relations to children's adjustment. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Contemporary
topics in developmental psychology (pp. 319-349). New York: Wiley.

42
Wolchik, S. A., West, S. G., Sandler, I. N., Tein, J., Coatsworth, D., Lengua, L… &
Griffin, W. A. (2000). An experimental evaluation of theory-based mother and
mother-child programs for children of divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 68(5), 843-856.

Wolchik, S. A., Wilcox, K. L., Tein, J-Y & Sandler, I. N. (2000). Maternal acceptance
and consistency of discipline as buffers of divorce stressors on children’s
psychological adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
28(1), 87-102.

Zakalik, R. A., & Wei, M. (2006). Adult attachment, perceived discrimination based on
sexual orientation, and depression in gay males. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
53, 302–313.

43
Table 1

Descriptive Information on Study Variables

Variable M (SD) Possible Actual Skewness Kurtosis

Range Range

Father-Adolescent -.1 (1) -2.1-1.7 -.3 -.7

Relationship

Qualitya

Mother-Adolescent 84.9 (10.7) 32-96 45-96 -1.3 2.1

Relationship

Quality

Romantic 2.5 (1.1) 1-7 1.0-6.2 .9 1.1

Avoidance

Romantic Anxiety 3.1 (1.1) 1-7 1.2-5.7 .1 -.5

Note. N= 57 except for Mother-Adolescent Relationship Quality (N= 61) and Father-
Adolescent Relationship Quality (N= 60).
a
Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality was created by standardizing and averaging
scores on Father Support and two items from the Adolescent/Non-Residential Parent
Contact scale.

44
Table 2

Descriptive Information on Study Variables by Gender

Variable Females Males

M (SD) Range M (SD) Range

Father-Adolescent -.2 (1.1) -2.1-1.7 -.1 (.9) -1.6-1.4

Relationship
Qualitya
Mother-Adolescent 85.4 (9.8) 59-96 84.3 (11.8) 45-96
Relationship
Quality
Romantic Avoidance 2.4 (1.1) 1.0-4.8 2.7 (1.1) 1.1-6.2

Romantic Anxiety 2.9 (1) 1.3-4.7 3.4 (1.1) 1.2-5.7

Note. For females, N= 32 for mother-adolescent relationship quality and father-

adolescent relationship quality and N= 31 for Romantic Avoidance and Romantic
Anxiety. For males, N= 28 for father-adolescent relationship quality, N= 29 for mother-
adolescent relationship quality, and N= 35 for Romantic Avoidance and Romantic
Anxiety.
a
Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality was created by standardizing and averaging
scores on Father Support and two items from the Adolescent/Non-Residential Parent
Contact scale.

45
Table 3

Bivariate Correlations Among Study Variables and With Potential Covariates.

Father- Mother- Romantic Romantic

Adolescent Adolescent Anxiety Avoidance
Relationship Relationship
Quality Quality
Father-Adolescent 1
Relationship
Qualitya
Mother-Adolescent .26* 1
Relationship
Quality
Romantic Anxiety -.14 -.12 1
Romantic Avoidance -.26† -.14 .36** 1
T1 Gender -.03 .05 -.23† -.17
T5 Mother’s Financial .12 -.08 .08 .08
Status
T5 Mother’s .03 .23† -.04 .19
Education
Level
YA Age -.03 .05 .09 -.02
YA Relationship .12 -.01 -.17 -.48**
Status
YA Race -.00 .03 -.03 -.35**
YA Education Level -.01 .05 -.32* -.11
**p < .01; *p < .05; †p < .10
Note. Gender is coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. Relationship status is coded 0= YA does
not have a romantic partner, 1= YA has a romantic partner. Race is coded as Non-
Hispanic White = 1, other = 0. Mother’s education level is coded as 1= 8th grade or less,
2= 9th-11th grade, 3=12th grade, high school diploma, GED, 4= 1 year college,
vocational/technical training, 5= 2 years college or technical, AA degree, 6= 3 years, but
no college degree, 7= BS or BA degree, 8=MS, MA, MFA, etc., 9= Ph.D., JD, MD, etc.
YA education level is coded as 1= 8th grade or less, 2= 9th-11th grade, 3= 12th grade, high
school graduate; 4= GED, 5= 1 year college, vocational/technical training, 6= 2 years
college or technical, AA degree, 7= 3 years of college but no college degree, 8= BS or
BA degree, 9= MS, MA, MFA, etc., 10= PhD, JD, MD.
a
Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality was created by standardizing and averaging
scores on Father Support and two items from the Adolescent/Non-Residential Parent
Contact scale.

46
Table 4

Stepwise Regressions of Romantic Anxiety on Covariates, Mother-Adolescent

Relationship Quality, Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality, and Mother-Adolescent

Relationship Quality x Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality Interaction Term.

Measure Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

B(SE B) B(SE B) B(SE B) B(SE B)
YA Education Level -.18* (.07) -.17* (.07) -.18* (.07) -.17* (.07)
Mother-Adolescent -.11 (.14) -.07 (.14) .05 (.14)
Relationship Quality
Father-Adolescent -.13 (.15) -.11 (.14)
a
Relationship Quality
Mother-Adolescent .35** (.12)
Relationship Quality
x Father-Adolescent
Relationship Quality
R2= .1 R2= .11 R2=.12 R2= .23*
∆ R2=.01 ∆ R2=.01 ∆ R2=.11
**p < .01; *p < .05
Note. ∆ R2 = R2 change. YA education level is coded as 1= 8th grade or less, 2= 9th-11th
grade, 3= 12th grade, high school graduate; 4= GED, 5= 1 year college,
vocational/technical training, 6= 2 years college or technical, AA degree, 7= 3 years of
college but no college degree, 8= BS or BA degree, 9= MS, MA, MFA, etc., 10= PhD,
JD, MD.
a
Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality was created by standardizing and averaging
scores on Father Support and two items from the Adolescent/Non-Residential Parent
Contact scale.

47
Table 5

Stepwise Regressions of Romantic Anxiety on Covariates, Father-Adolescent

Relationship Quality, Mother-Adolescent Relationship Quality, and the Mother-

Adolescent Relationship Quality x Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality Interaction

Term.

Measure Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

B(SE B) B(SE B) B(SE B) B(SE B)
YA Education Level -.18* (.07) -.18* (.07) -.17* (.08) -.16* (.07)
Father-Adolescent -.15 (.14) -.14 (.16) -.12 (.15)
Relationship Qualitya
Mother-Adolescent -.07 (.15) .05 (.15)
Relationship Quality
Mother-Adolescent .35** (.12)
Relationship Quality
x Father-Adolescent
Relationship Quality
R2= .10 R2= .12 R2=.11 R2= .23*
∆ R2=.02 ∆ R2=-.01 ∆ R2=.13
**p < .01; *p < .05
Note. ∆ R2 = R2 change. YA education level is coded as 1= 8th grade or less, 2= 9th-11th
grade, 3= 12th grade, high school graduate; 4= GED, 5= 1 year college,
vocational/technical training, 6= 2 years college or technical, AA degree, 7= 3 years of
college but no college degree, 8= BS or BA degree, 9= MS, MA, MFA, etc., 10= PhD,
JD, MD.
a
Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality was created by standardizing and averaging
scores on Father Support and two items from the Adolescent/Non-Residential Parent
Contact scale.

48
Table 6

Stepwise Regressions of Romantic Avoidance on Covariates, Mother-Adolescent

Relationship Quality, Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality, and the Mother-

Adolescent Relationship Quality x Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality Interaction

Term.

Measure Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

B(SE B) B(SE B) B(SE B) B(SE B)
YA Race -.96** (.35) -.95** (.34) -.96** (.34) -.97** (.33)
YA Romantic 1.11** (.27) 1.12** (.27) 1.06** (.27) 1.05** (.27)
Relationship Status
Mother-Adolescent -.14 (.12) -.07 (.13) -.03 (.13)
Relationship Quality
Father-Adolescent -.21 (.13) -.2 (.13)
Relationship Qualitya
Mother-Adolescent .13 (.12)
Relationship Quality
x Father-Adolescent
Relationship Quality
R2= .32** R2= .34** R2=.37** R2= .38**
∆ R2=.02 ∆ R2=.03 ∆ R2=.01
**p < .01; *p < .05
Note. ∆ R2 = R2 change. Race is coded as Non-Hispanic White = 1, other = 0.
Relationship status is coded 0= YA does not have a romantic partner and 1= YA has a
romantic partner.
a
Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality was created by standardizing and averaging
scores on Father Support and two items from the Adolescent/Non-Residential Parent
Contact scale.

49
Table 7

Stepwise Regressions of Romantic Avoidance on Covariates, Father-Adolescent

Relationship Quality, Mother-Adolescent Relationship Quality, and the Mother-

Adolescent Relationship Quality x Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality Interaction

Term.

Measure Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

B(SE B) B(SE B) B(SE B) B(SE B)
YA Race -.96** (.35) -.97** (.34) -.96** (.34) -.97** (.33)
YA Romantic 1.11** (.27) 1.05** (.27) 1.06** (.27) 1.05** (.27)
Relationship Status
Father-Adolescent -.23† (.12) -.21 (.13) -.2 (.13)
a
Relationship Quality
Mother-Adolescent -.07 (.13) -.03 (.13)
Relationship Quality
Mother-Adolescent .13 (.12)
Relationship Quality
x Father-Adolescent
Relationship Quality
R2= .32** R2= .37** R2=.37** R2= .38**
∆ R2=.05 ∆ R2=0 ∆ R2=.01
**p < .01; *p < .05; †p < .10
Note. ∆ R2 = R2 change. Race is coded as Non-Hispanic White = 1, other = 0. Relationship
status is coded 0= YA does not have a romantic partner and 1= YA has a romantic
partner.
a
Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality was created by standardizing and averaging
scores on Father Support and two items from the Adolescent/Non-Residential Parent
Contact scale.

50
Table 8

Stepwise Regressions of Romantic Avoidance on Covariates, Gender, Father-Adolescent

Relationship Quality, Mother-Adolescent Relationship Quality, and the Mother-

Adolescent Relationship Quality x Gender Interaction Term.

Measure Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

B(SE B) B(SE B) B(SE B) B(SE B) B (SE B)
YA Race -.96** (.35) -1** (.34) -1**(.33) -1** (.33) -1** (.33)
YA Romantic 1.11** (.27) 1.1** (.27) 1.04**(.26) 1.05**(.26) 1.05** (.26)
Relationship
Status
Gender -.41† (.24) -.42† (.23) -.41† (.23) -.41† (.23)
Father- -.24* (.12) -.22† (.13) -.22† (.13)
Adolescent
Relationship
Qualitya
Mother- -.05 (.12) -.03 (.16)
Adolescent
Relationship
Quality
Mother -.05 (.23)
-Adolescent
Relationship
Quality x
Gender
R2= .32** R2= .37** R2=.41** R2= .41** R2= .41**
∆ R2=.05 ∆ R2=.04 ∆ R2=0 ∆ R2=0
**p < .01; *p < .05; †p < .10
Note. ∆ R2 = R2 change. Race is coded as Non-Hispanic White = 1, other = 0.
Relationship status is coded 0= YA does not have a romantic partner and 1= YA has a
romantic partner. Gender is coded as 0 = male, 1 = female.
a
Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality was created by standardizing and averaging
scores on Father Support and two items from the Adolescent/Non-Residential Parent
Contact scale.
51
Table 9

Stepwise Regressions of Romantic Avoidance on Covariates, Gender, Father-Adolescent

Relationship Quality, Mother-Adolescent Relationship Quality, and the Father-

Adolescent Relationship Quality x Gender Interaction Term.

Measure Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

B(SE B) B(SE B) B(SE B) B(SE B) B (SE B)
YA Race -.96** (.35) -1** (.34) -1**(.33) -1** (.33) -.9** (.32)
YA Romantic 1.11** (.27) 1.1** (.27) 1.04**(.26) 1.05**(.26) .96** (.26)
Relationship
Status
Gender -.41† (.24) -.42† (.23) -.41† (.23) -.45* (.22)
Father- -.24* (.12) -.22† (.13) -.92** (.35)
Adolescent
Relationship
Qualitya
Mother- -.05 (.12) -.11 (.12)
Adolescent
Relationship
Quality
Father- .54* (.25)
Adolescent
Relationship
Quality x
Gender
R2= .32** R2= .37** R2=.41** R2= .41** R2= .45**
∆ R2=.05 ∆ R2=.04 ∆ R2=0 ∆ R2=.04
**p < .01; *p < .05; †p < .10
Note. ∆ R2 = R2 change. Race is coded as Non-Hispanic White = 1, other = 0.
Relationship status is coded 0= YA does not have a romantic partner and 1= YA has a
romantic partner. Gender is coded as 0 = male, 1 = female.
a
Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality was created by standardizing and averaging
scores on Father Support and two items from the Adolescent/Non-Residential Parent
Contact scale.
52
Figure 1. Interaction Between Mother-Adolescent Relationship Quality and Father-
Adolescent Relationship Quality on Romantic Anxiety

53
Figure 2. Interaction Between Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality and Gender on
Romantic Avoidance

54
 APPENDIX A

CHILDREN’S REPORT OF PARENTING BEHAVIOR INVENTORY

55
 Mother-Adolescent Relationship Quality
Adolescent Report

Subscale Item
1. Acceptance Your mother made you feel better after
talking over your worries with her.
2. Rejection Your mother wasn't very patient with you.
3. Acceptance Your mother seemed to see your good
points more than your faults.
4. Rejection Your mother thought your ideas were silly.
5. Acceptance Your mother almost always spoke to you in
a warm and friendly voice.
6. Rejection Your mother said you were a big problem.
7. Acceptance Your mother understood your problems and
your worries.
8. Rejection Your mother forgot to help you when you
needed help.
9. Acceptance Your mother enjoyed talking things over
with you.
10. Rejection Your mother sometimes wished she didn't
have any children.
11. Acceptance Your mother enjoyed going on drives, trips,
or visits with you.
12. Rejection Your mother made you feel you are not
loved.
13. Rejection Your mother forgot to get you things you
needed.
14. Acceptance Your mother smiled at you very often.
15. Rejection Your mother was always getting after you
(or nagging you) about something.
16. Acceptance Your mother was able to make you feel
better when you were upset.
17. Rejection Your mother always complained about what
you did.
18. Acceptance Your mother enjoyed doing things with
you.
19. Rejection Your mother got cross and angry about little
things you did.
20. Acceptance Your mother enjoyed working with you in
the house or yard.
21. Rejection Your mother often blew her top when you
bothered her.
22. Acceptance Your mother comforted you when you were
afraid.
23. Acceptance Your mother cheered you up when you
 were sad.
24. Rejection Your mother didn't get you things unless
you asked for them over and over again.
25. Acceptance Your mother often spoke to you of the good
things you did.
26. Rejection Your mother didn't seem to know what you
need or want.
27. Acceptance Your mother had a good time at home with
you.
28. Acceptance Your mother seemed proud of the things
you did.
29. Rejection Your mother told you to “quit hanging
around the house” and go somewhere.
30. Acceptance Your mother was not interested in changing
you, but liked you as you are.
31. Rejection Your mother didn’t work with you.
32. Rejection Your mother acted as though you were in
the way.

Response Options
(1) Like your mother
(2) Somewhat like your mother
(3) Not like your mother
(4) Don’t know/not applicable
 APPENDIX B

FATHER SUPPORT
 Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality
Adolescent Report

1. First, think about doing fun things like playing games or going to the
movies. How often has your (dad/mom's ex-husband) done fun things with
you in the past month?
Sometimes dads give kids advice or help kids figure out things that are
2. important to them. They might help solve a problem or even help kids figure
out what do to. For example, you might have been mad at your teacher, and
(dad/mom’s ex-husband) might have helped you understand what to do
about it. How often has he given you advise or information in the past
month?
Let's think about another kind of help dad's can give young people.
3. Sometimes they give us things that we need or do things for us that we have
trouble doing ourselves. They might help with homework, fix things that are
broken, loan you something you need, take you someplace, or buy you
clothes. How often has your (Dad/mom’s ex-husband) given you this kind of
help in the past month?
Another thing Dad’s can help us with are our feelings. Kids might tell Dad’s
4. when they are feeling sad, unhappy or afraid. You might tell your
(Father’s/Mom’s ex-husband) about being worried about grades, that you are
afraid to be alone, or just that you feel sad. How often have you told him
about your feelings in the past month?
Another things dads can do for us is to tell us good things about ourselves.
5. They may tell us that they like what we've done, the way we act, or that they
just like being with us. How often has your (dad/mom's ex-husband) told you
good things about youself during the past month?
Instead of telling us good things, some dads make young people feel very
6. bad, unhappy, upset or angry. How often has your (dad/mom's ex-husband)
made you feel bad during the past month?

Response options:
(1) Almost never
(2) Sometimes
(3) Often
(4) A lot of times
(5) Don’t know/not reported
 APPENDIX C

ADOLESCENT/NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT CONTACT

 Father-Adolescent Relationship Quality
Adolescent Report

1. How often has your (dad/mom's ex-husband) visited with you during the
past year? Would you say...
2. How often has your (dad/mom's ex-husband) had phone or mail contact
with you in the past year? Would you say....

Response options:
(1) Not at all
(2) Once a year
(3) Several times a year
(4) 1-3 times a month
(5) Once a week
(6) Several times a week
(7) Don’t know/not reported
 APPENDIX D

EXPERIENCES IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS SCALE

 Young Adult Romantic Attachment
Young Adult Report

Subscale Item

1 Avoidance I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down.

2 Anxiety I worry about being abandoned.
3 Avoidance I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners.
4 Anxiety I worry a lot about my relationships.
Avoidance Just when my partner starts to get close to me I find
5 myself pulling away.
Anxiety I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as
6 much as I care about them.
Avoidance I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to
7 be very close.
8 Anxiety I worry a fair amount about losing my partner.
Avoidance I don’t feel comfortable opening up to romantic
9 partners.
Anxiety I often wish that my partner's feelings for me were as
10 strong as my feelings for him/her
Avoidance I want to get close to my partner, but I keep pulling
11 back.
Anxiety I often want to merge completely with romantic
12 partners, and this sometimes scares them away.
13 Avoidance I am nervous when partners get too close to me.
14 Anxiety I worry about being alone.
Avoidance I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and
15 feelings with my partner.
Anxiety My desire to be very close sometimes scares people
16 away.
17 Avoidance I try to avoid getting too close to my partner.
Anxiety I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my
18 partner.
19 Avoidance I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner.
Anxiety Sometimes I feel that I force my partners to show more
20 feeling, more commitment.
Avoidance I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic
21 partners.
22 Anxiety I do not often worry about being abandoned.
23 Avoidance I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners.
Anxiety If I can't get my partner to show interest in me, I get
24 upset or angry.
25 Avoidance I tell my partner just about everything.
 Anxiety I find that my partner(s) don’t want to get as close as I
26 would like.
Avoidance I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my
27 partner.
Anxiety When I'm not involved in a relationship, I feel
28 somewhat anxious and insecure.
29 Avoidance I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners.
Anxiety I get frustrated when my partner is not around as much
30 as I would like
Avoidance I don’t mind asking romantic partners for comfort,
31 advice, or help.
Anxiety I get frustrated if romantic partners are not available
32 when I need them.
33 Avoidance It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need.
Anxiety When romantic partners disapprove of me, I feel really
34 bad about myself.
Avoidance I turn to my partner for many things, including comfort
35 and reassurance.
36 Anxiety I resent it when my partner spends time away from me.

Response options:
(1) Disagree strongly
(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat disagree
(4) Neither agree nor disagree
(5) Somewhat agree
(6) Agree
(7) Strongly agree
 APPENDIX E

IRB APPROVAL LETTER