MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School

Certificate for Approving the Dissertation

We hereby approve the dissertation

of

Carolyn R. Shainheit

Candidate for the Degree:

Doctor of Philosophy

______Director Margaret Wright, Ph.D.

______Reader Elizabeth Kiel-Luebbe, Ph.D.

______Reader Aaron Luebbe, Ph.D.

______Graduate School Representative Robert Burke, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

EXPOSURE TO CONSTRUCTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO INTERPERSONAL FUNCTIONING

by Carolyn R. Shainheit

Conflict is an inevitable component of marital relationships. However, conflict can occur in constructive or destructive forms, each of which impacts children exposed to these conflicts in different ways. Previous research suggests that children’s exposure to interparental conflict is associated with later psychological adjustment, with exposure to constructive conflict being related to healthy (or positive) functioning and exposure to destructive conflict being linked to maladaptation. Importantly, much of the prior research has explored children’s adjustment in terms of externalizing and internalizing problems, neglecting other indicators of adjustment such as interpersonal/relational functioning. Grounded in interpersonal theory, the present study examines how exposure to parents’ constructive or destructive conflicts relates to individuals’ interpersonal/relational adjustment. Structural equation modeling was used to explore the relationships among exposure to constructive and destructive interparental conflict, emotional insecurity, and interpersonal functioning. It was found that exposure to constructive interparental conflict predicted reduced emotional insecurity, while exposure to destructive interparental conflict predicted greater emotional insecurity. Exposure to both constructive and destructive interparental conflict directly predicted fewer interpersonal problems related to hostile dominance, as well as greater capacities for empathic connection. Exposure to constructive and destructive interparental conflict did not directly predict interpersonal problems related to friendly submission, or the adaptive outcome of relationship security. Emotional insecurity fully mediated the relationships between constructive and destructive interparental conflict and relationship security. Also, emotional insecurity partially mediated the relationships among constructive and destructive interparental conflict and interpersonal problems due to hostile dominance, and fully mediated the relationships among constructive and destructive interparental conflict and friendly submission. Finally, it was found that gender moderated the two models. Men who were exposed to parents’ destructive conflicts and who also reported greater emotional insecurity were more likely to act out in aggressive, hostile, controlling and dominant ways. Suggestions for marital and family interventions designed to promote more constructive conflict management and to foster emotional security within the family are provided.

!

EXPOSURE TO CONSTRUCTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO INTERPERSONAL FUNCTIONING

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of

Miami University in partial

fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Psychology

by

Carolyn R. Shainheit

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio

2015

Dissertation Advisor: Margaret O’Dougherty Wright

! !

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 Hypotheses ……………………………………………………………………………………...... 14

Method ………………………………………………………………………………………...... 14 Participants ………………………………………………………………………………………. 14

Procedure …………………………………………………………………………………………. 15

Measures ………………………………………………………………...... ……………………... 15

Data Analyses ………………………………………………………………………………….. 19 Preliminary Analyses ………………………...…………………………………………………. 19

Confirmatory Factor Analyses ………………………………...... …………….……………… 20

Test of the Full Measurement Models …………………..……………………………………. 22 . Structural Equation Models – Total Sample …………...... ………………………………… 23

Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 28

Limitations and Future Directions …………………………………….……………………..….. 37

Implications ……………………………………………………………………………………... 38

References ………………………..……………………………………………………………… 41

Table 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………..……. 47

Hypothesized Models ……………………………………...... ………………………………… 48

Proposed Models ……………………………………….……………………………………….. 49

Appendix A ……………………………………………………………………………………… 58

Appendix B ……………………………………………………………………………………… 62

ii! !

LIST OF TABLES

1. Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among variables ……… 47

iii! !

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Proposed one-factor interparental conflict model ……………………………. 51

Figure 2. Proposed two-factor interparental conflict model …………………………….. 51

Figure 3. Alternative one-factor interparental conflict model ………………………….. 52

Figure 4. Alternative two-factor interparental conflict model …………………………... 52

Figure 5. Measurement model of the relationship between exposure ………………….. 53 to constructive and destructive interparental conflict and later adaptive interpersonal functioning.

Figure 6. Measurement model of the relationship between exposure to ……………….. 54 constructive and destructive interparental conflict and later maladaptive interpersonal functioning.

Figure 7. Structural model of the relationship between exposure to ……………………. 55 constructive and destructive interparental conflict and later adaptive interpersonal functioning.

Figure 8. Structural model of the relationship between exposure to ……………………. 56 constructive and destructive interparental conflict and later maladaptive interpersonal functioning.

Figure 9. Gender as a moderator of the model explaining the relationship ……………... 57 between exposure to constructive and destructive interparental conflict and adaptive interpersonal functioning.

Figure A1. Proposed emotional security latent construct ………………………………... 58

Figure A2. Proposed empathic connection latent construct ……………………………... 59

Figure A3. Proposed relationship security latent construct ……………………………... 60

Figure A4. Proposed hostile dominance latent construct ……………………………….. 61

Figure A5. Proposed friendly submissive latent construct ………………………………. 61

iv! !

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate my dissertation to my family and friends. Your love, support, and encouragement have always carried me through. I could not have accomplished this without you.

v! !

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to my advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. Margaret Wright. I am incredibly thankful to have you as my advisor. I have learned so much from you and know that your guidance, support, genuine care and belief in me have allowed me to grow professionally and personally. I see your influence in my clinical work, the way I think critically about research, and in the way that I believe in myself. If it is not already obvious, I regard you with great respect and fondness, and will carry with me all that I have learned from you.

I would also like to thank my amazing dissertation committee, whose support and encouragement enabled me to embark on this project. I would like to especially thank Dr. Aaron Luebbe for lending his statistical expertise, teaching complex statistics in a way that makes sense, and sharing in my excitement about models terminating normally. Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Elizabeth Kiel-Luebbe and Dr. Robert Burke for their thoughtful insights and suggestions, willingness to provide support, and ability to help me think about this project from new perspectives and angles. I could not have asked for a better committee – it was not only an honor to work with you, but it was also fun.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family for their unending support, love, and faith in me. Your words of encouragement provided me with that extra bit of motivation so that I could accomplish this and so many other things in my life. I am the person that I am today because of you. I would also like to thank my partner for his love, support, and reassurance, and for always providing me with fun and laughter in life. Last but not least, I need to thank my dog, whose unconditional excitement and love for me was always an effective remedy for a long day.

vi! !

Exposure to Constructive and Destructive Interparental Conflict and

Its Relationship to Interpersonal Functioning

Conflict commonly occurs and is a normal experience in marital relationships (Cummings and Davies, 2002). This is especially so if one conceptualizes conflict broadly to include all disputes, disagreements, or expressions of negative emotions (Cummings and Davies, 2002). While conflict is inevitable in marriage, the way in which it takes form differentiates between whether the conflict is constructive or destructive in nature. Constructive conflict may include behaviors such as calm discussion, problem solving, support, humor, affection, compromise, apology, agreement to disagree or discuss later, or changing the topic (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, Papp, & Dukewich, 2002; McCoy, Cummings, and Davies, 2009). In contrast, destructive conflict includes behaviors such as physical aggression toward one’s partner or objects, use of threat, verbal and nonverbal hostility, pursuit, withdrawal, and submission. Other dimensions of conflict meriting consideration include: frequency of conflict, duration, intensity, chronicity, and degree of resolution achieved (Grych & Fincham, 1990; Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). Children’s witnessing of marital conflict may comprise their earliest exposure to managing conflict—how to listen, argue one’s own point of view, take another person’s perspective, and resolve disputes and disagreements. Their experiences in this regard, for better or for worse, may strongly shape their own skill in managing conflicts in personal relationships both within and outside of the family. Witnessing conflict also often activates intense emotion, and the child’s ability to understand and regulate these emotions is a critical component affecting the development of interpersonal competence and skill in responding adaptively to conflict. This study examines how exposure to parents’ constructive or destructive conflicts relates to young adults’ later interpersonal/relational adjustment and explores emotional insecurity as a mediator and gender as a possible moderator of these relationships Evidence for the Contrasting Effects of Exposure to Destructive versus Constructive Interparental Conflict

1! !

The distinction between witnessing constructive and destructive conflict is important, as it is believed that children’s exposure to constructive interparental conflict renders little, if any, negative consequences (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, Papp, & Dukewich, 2002). Exposure to constructive conflict also provides children with opportunities to learn how to positively resolve conflict, and illustrates that conflict need not be an overwhelmingly distressing occurrence. For example, Cummings, Ballard, El-Sheikh, and Lake (1991) found that parents’ resolved anger elicited the least negative response in children compared to scenarios in which parents’ anger went partly resolved or completely unresolved. Further, children’s emotional responses to completely resolved conflicts were not significantly different from their responses to friendly interactions (Cummings et al., 1991). Therefore, it appears that exposure to constructive interparental conflict that ends in resolution is unrelated to negative outcomes and is similar to the child being exposed to completely benign interactions. These findings highlight the importance of resolution as a marker of constructive conflict, with the effects of conflict being mitigated if successful resolution is achieved. Other research lends further support that constructive conflict positively impacts children. Cummings, Goeke-Morey, Papp, and Dukewich (2002) found that mothers’ use of constructive behavior during marital conflict was related to children’s increased positive emotionality. This suggests parents’ ability to disagree in a constructive manner and express positive emotionality during conflicts, leads to an increased sense of emotional security among children. Notably, the reverse was true when children were exposed to parents’ destructive conflict tactics. Parents’ negative emotionality was related to children’s decreased positive emotionality as well as increased feelings of sadness, anger, fear, and regulatory behaviors (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, Papp, & Dukewich, 2002). Prior research focusing solely on exposure to destructive interparental conflict highlights its detrimental impact on children in a variety of domains. Findings suggest that exposure to destructive interparental conflict is related to poorer academic performance, lower grade point averages, deficits in cognitive and social competence, less ability in social problem-solving, greater internalizing and externalizing symptoms, greater depressive symptoms, more antisocial behavior, increased feelings of loneliness, and greater feelings of anger and hostility (Forehand, McCombs, Long, Brody, & Fauber, 1988; Hanson, Saunders, & Kistner, 1992, Lopez, Campbell, & Watkins, 1989b, Hanson et al., 1992; as cited in Neighbors, Forehand, & Bau, 1997; Jenkins,

2! !

Simpson, Dunn, Rasbash, & O’Connor, 2005; Johnson, Lavoie, & Mahoney, 2001; Kerig, 1998; Lindahl & Malik, 1999; Long, Forehand, Fauber, & Brody, 1987, Meyer et al., 1993, Loeber & Dishion, 1984, Peterson & Zill, 1986; as cited in Neighbors, Forehand, & Bau, 1997; Wierson, Forehand, & McCombs, 1988). Exposure to Interparental Conflict and its Influence on Interpersonal Functioning Children’s responses to interparental conflict may map on to later interpersonal interactions. Children exposed to constructive interparental conflict likely learn that conflicts are unremarkable and can be successfully resolved. They may develop a sense of competence in conflict situations and feel secure that their own relationships will withstand conflicts. These individuals may be set on a path that enables them to develop healthy relationships where they also engage in constructive conflict negotiation behaviors. On the other hand, children exposed to destructive interparental conflict observe and experience conflict as distressing, and may grow to be insecure in their future relationships. This may contribute to relational problems if children carry forward witnessed maladaptive behaviors, and have difficulty appropriately regulating their affective responses to interpersonal conflict. Evidence of this is found in Cummings, Goeke-Morey, and Papp (2004), which indicated that parents’ destructive conflict tactics and negative emotionality were related to increased likelihood of child aggression, while parents use of constructive conflict tactics and positive emotionality were linked with decreased likelihood of child aggression (Cummings, Goeke- Morey, & Papp, 2004). Additionally, children’s responses to analog presentations of marital conflict showed 96% of all aggressive responses occurred in response to parents’ destructive conflict tactics. Overall, the current literature suggests that exposure to parents’ constructive conflicts renders minimal negative effects on children, and may even contribute to healthy development. Beyond its impact on children’s behavior, exposure to interparental discord also likely influences children’s expectations about conflict. Exposure to parents’ destructive conflict tactics and behaviors may foster internalized scripts regarding how the child can treat others or be treated during interactions, especially in the context of disagreement. For instance, children consistently exposed to destructive conflicts might be more likely to express themselves in an aggressive, cold, withdrawn, or submissive manner, depending on their identification with a particular caregiver and the nature of the internalized interpersonal scripts they have developed.

3! !

Similarly, children who have witnessed constructive conflict are more likely to internalize interpersonal scripts involving compromise, calm discussion, and respectful collaboration. These children have more opportunities to learn healthy ways to approach conflict, and develop the relational skills needed to implement and carry forward these behaviors during interactions with others. The present study extends prior research by exploring if and how exposure to destructive interparental conflict contributes to individuals’ specific type of relational problems. Additionally, prior research has scarcely explored the influence of exposure to constructive interparental conflict on individuals’ functioning. This study addresses this gap by investigating interpersonal competencies related to exposure to constructive interparental conflict. An Interpersonal Framework for Understanding the Link between Exposure to Interparental Conflict and Interpersonal Functioning Although a substantial body of research has examined how exposure to interparental conflict impacts children’s adjustment, most studies have focused on the emergence of internalizing and externalizing problems. Research investigating interpersonal outcomes has largely focused on aggressive behaviors, neglecting exploration of how exposure to parents’ conflicts influences children’s broader relational functioning. Research has also failed to examine relational outcomes among older adolescents who were exposed to interparental conflict. Such research is greatly needed as the dyadic nature of marital conflict may lay the foundation for adolescents’ relationships with others. This is especially relevant during adolescence – a time during which friendships and romantic relationships are formed. As conflict behaviors are often influenced by one’s prioritization of the relationship vs. their own wants/needs/desires, an interpersonal framework was utilized to guide exploration of how exposure to parental conflict affects children’s interpersonal functioning. According to interpersonal theory, human interpersonal behavior represents a blend of two basic motivations: the need for agency (independent action, control, power, dominance) and the need for communion (affiliation, love, connection with others) (Horowitz, Wilson, Turan, Zolotsev, Constantino, & Henderson, 2006). When individuals interact with others, they continually negotiate these two relational issues – that is, how much they want to be in charge or in control in their interactions, and how hostile or friendly they will be (Kiesler, 1996). The interpersonal circumplex incorporates these two primary motives by placing control along the vertical axis and

4! ! communion along the horizontal axis (Kiesler, 1996). Motives that are communal in nature range from being disconnected, distant, indifferent, or hostile at one end of the continuum to being loving, connected, friendly or close at the other. Motives that reflect agency range from relinquishing control, submitting, or yielding to others at one end of the continuum to being dominating, influencing, and controlling over others at the other end (Horowitz et al., 2006). Interpersonal theory also posits that interactions are affected by each person’s expectations of others’ motives. These expectations are heavily shaped by prior interactions with one’s parents, leading to the formation of schemas and scripts about the self, others, and self-in-relation to others (Horowitz et al., 2006). Benjamin (2003) proposed that individuals’ maladaptive patterns of relating to others are linked to negative internalizations of early relationships, suggesting that interpersonal skills are partially dependent on one’s relational history with primary caregivers. Individuals who had responsive, loving, and appropriate relationships with their caregivers are more likely to develop schemas in which they view themselves in a positive light and are able to develop secure relationships in which they are respected, loved, cared for, and treated appropriately. These individuals bring positive relational expectations and patterns derived from their relationship with their parents into subsequent interpersonal relationships. Conversely, individuals who had dominant and controlling caregivers, or caregivers who were hostile, cold, distant, or failed to reciprocate affection are more likely to develop schemas in which they expect and accept similar treatment from others in their lives. These children may carry forward the type of relationship that they had with their caregiver in future relationships. Borrowing from the interpersonal framework, the parents’ marital relationship is likely one of the first examples of a relationship that children are exposed to, and influences children‘s expectations of what relationships should look like. Children internalize aspects of the interparental relationship, which contributes to the formation of relational schemas. Children may then go on to perpetuate behaviors similar to those enacted by either or both of their parents. Children exposed to destructive conflict are more likely to develop maladaptive ways of interacting with others and to have problematic relationships (Benjamin, 2003; Teyber & McClure, 2011). Witnessing parents’ hostile, aggressive, controlling, and dominant behaviors during conflict may model a self-centered and coercive approach to relationships where the needs of the self are strongly prioritized over the well-being of the relationship. Alternately,

5! ! children may be exposed to extreme submissiveness, self-sacrificing, overly-accommodating and non-assertive behaviors, receiving powerful messages that the needs of the self have to be ignored to meet the needs of others. Children who “copy” the more dominant behaviors may perpetuate similar hostile dominant tactics in their interpersonal worlds, while children who “copy” submissive behaviors may be more likely to exhibit friendly submissive tactics in their interpersonal relationships (Benjamin, 2003; Horowitz, et al., 2006). On the other hand, children who are exposed to constructive interparental conflict are more likely to internalize those behaviors and go on to develop positive relationships with others (Benjamin, 2003; Teyber & McClure, 2011). These children might gain skills in effective conflict management, conflict resolution, and be better able to understand others’ perspectives, and feelings. Children exposed to constructive interparental conflict may develop a sensitivity that allows them to more effectively interact with others in conflict situations. They may demonstrate and adaptively utilize abilities to empathically connect to others that facilitate effective negotiation and resolution in times of disagreement. Additionally, exposure to constructive interparental conflict models for children that relational conflict can be resolved. This informs relational schemas and sets the mold that relationships can withstand stressors and hardship. This relational template may enhance individuals’ relationship security, and they may be more likely to develop healthy attachments in their subsequent relationships. Evidence Supporting a Connection between Exposure to Interparental Conflict and Later Interpersonal Competence Previous research provides some support for a link between the observed behavior of parents and later interpersonal competence/incompetence. For example, McCloskey and Stuewig (2001) found that exposure to interparental violence predicted children’s increased loneliness at school, conflicts with a best friend, and was related to mothers’ reports of their child experiencing problems/conflicts with peers. Additionally, a 12-year longitudinal study conducted by Amato, Loomis, and Booth (1995) found that individuals from families characterized by high interparental conflict had the poorest quality of intimate relations and least support from friends and family. Amato and Booth (2001) found that married individuals whose parents’ own marriages were discordant were more likely to be in disharmonious marital relationships themselves, and tended to replicate their parents behaviors in their own marriages.

6! !

These findings suggest that children who are exposed to parents’ conflicts are at increased risk for perpetuating maladaptive behaviors and encountering relational difficulties. Exposure to destructive interparental conflict has also been tied to increased aggression in young children, young adults’ greater dissatisfaction in intimate relationships (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, &Papp, 2004; Booth, Brinkerhoff, & White, 1984, Lopez, Campbell, & Watkins, 1989a; as cited in Neighbors, Forehand, & Bau, 1997), and with individuals being more controlling, hostile, and abusive toward dating partners (Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004). Children (especially boys) who were exposed to aggressive interparental conflicts, were more likely to view aggression as acceptable in romantic relationships, and to be abusive and controlling toward their dating partners (Kingsfogel & Grych, 2004). These relationships were not found among girls who witnessed aggressive interparental conflict, perhaps because girls are often socialized to be communally oriented, with concern for preserving the relationship taking priority over motives to exert dominance over another (Kingsfogel & Grych, 2004). Interestingly, individuals who witness destructive interparental conflict are also at increased risk of being victimized. Witnessing interparental violence has been linked to perpetration of physical and sexual violence, as well as being a victim of physical violence in dating relationships (Black, Sussman, & Unger, 2010; Carr & VanDeusen, 2013; Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; Milletich, Kelley, Doane, & Pearson, 2010). Therefore, individuals who are exposed to destructive forms of interparental conflict appear to develop deficits in relating to others that leave them vulnerable to becoming excessively dominant and hostile towards others, as well as becoming excessively submissive. Such interpersonal problems are consistent with theory, as maladaptive interpersonal patterns develop in accordance with aforementioned “copy” processes. The current literature suggests that exposure to destructive interparental conflict increases risk for significant interpersonal difficulties, while exposure to constructive interparental conflict is minimally (if at all) harmful to children. However, exploration of interpersonal adjustment broadly has been limited, and usually studied only in the context of destructive interparental conflict. Further research is needed to better understand how witnessing constructive interparental conflict influences children’s abilities to interact with others. For instance, some research has shown that exposure to destructive interparental conflict in childhood does not negatively impact individuals’ abilities to communicate effectively in non-intimate relationships

7! !

(i.e., they are able to empathize, listen, and express themselves clearly) (Herzog & Cooney, 2002). However, it is also quite possible that exposure to constructive interparental conflict fosters these skills and that these children go on to have improved ability in those domains of communication. While interpersonal theory is helpful in understanding the connections between exposure to interparental conflict and interpersonal competencies/deficits, it is likely that other variables contribute to the types of preferred interpersonal responses eventually displayed. Witnessing interparental conflict not only shapes the development of relational scripts and expectations but also activates children’s emotions. Therefore, there is a need to include a conceptualization of interpersonal functioning that emphasizes the emotional component involved when children are exposed to interparental conflict. Children’s Exposure to Interparental Conflict and Felt Emotional Security Davies and Cummings (1994) developed the emotional security theory as a hypothesis to elucidate underlying mechanisms influencing children’s responses to destructive interparental conflict, and why it relates to a range of maladaptive outcomes (Davies, Winter, & Cicchetti, 2006). Emotional security theory is aligned with attachment theory, in that it recognizes the influence of the parent-child relationship; however, it extends upon this by placing importance on the role of the marital relationship and how it impacts the child’s sense of security in the family (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, Papp, & Dukewich, 2002; Cummings, Schermerhorn, Davies, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2006; Davies & Cummings, 1994; Davies, Winter, & Cicchetti, 2006). At the core of this theory is the belief that the child’s set goal is to achieve a feeling of security in the family, and that the child will work to restore that sense of security if it is threatened. Cummings and Davies (1996) view “felt security” from an organizational perspective, stating that it reflects the patterns of the child’s reactions to events in relation to emotional security as a goal. Felt security is described as much more than conscious reactions or feelings, and is best captured as a response that revolves around the child’s immediate judgment of security concerns, with a strong emotional quality at its core. Cummings and Davies (1996) more formally define emotional security as a: …latent construct that can be informed from the overall organization and meaning of children’s emotions, behaviors, thoughts, and physiological responses, and serves as a set goal by which children regulate their own functioning in social

8! !

contexts, thereby directing social, emotional, cognitive, and physiological reactions (p. 126).

In certain contexts, such as when destructive interparental conflict is present in the family, children’s negative emotional arousal increases, and they may then feel compelled to act in some way in an effort to decrease feelings of insecurity, and re-establish their felt security in the family (Cummings, Schermerhorn, Davies, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2006; Davies & Cummings, 1994; Davies & Forman, 2002). Emotional security is posited to influence emotion regulation, serve a motivational function (e.g., prompting children to act in specific ways in an attempt to cope with interparental conflict), and impact appraisals of family relationships (Davies and Cummings, 1994; Cummings & Davies, 1996). Emotional security can be measured through children’s thoughts and behaviors, with certain indices believed to reflect the child’s felt emotional security/insecurity. These domains include: emotion regulation, regulation of exposure to family conflict, and internal representations of family relationships. These markers of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors comprise the emotional security latent construct and are believed to be separate yet interrelated (Davies & Cummings, 1996; Davies & Forman, 2002). In greater depth, the emotion regulation component of this construct consists of emotional reactivity and arousal, and the child’s ability to manage (reduce, maintain, enhance) their emotionality (Davies & Cummings, 1996). Another way that children may regulate their emotional security is through their internal representations of family affect. Internal representations are shaped by past experiences, and influence children’s adjustment to stress. This impacts their perceptions of distressing events, determination of who is responsible, and whether they can cope with such events. These processes are largely driven by emotional security concerns, and affected by the child’s present state of emotional security. An emotionally insecure child who has been exposed to frequent destructive interparental conflict, is likely to perceive greater threat in comparison to an emotionally secure child who feels confident in their parents’ marital relationship (Davies & Cummings, 1996). These internal representations may then impact the ways in which children perceive conflicts, and how they respond to others (e.g., calmly and effectively vs. highly emotional, dysregulated, and/or avoidant). Distorted internal representations may influence

9! ! beliefs about conflict in later relationships, making it more difficult to adaptively manage conflicts. Finally, children may attempt to modulate their emotional security by controlling exposure to family conflict. Davies and Cummings (1996) identify both avoidance and involvement as ways that children may attempt to regulate their exposure to family conflict. For instance, the child may stay late after school, leave the house, isolate him/herself in his/her room, or not think about what is occurring. Alternately, the child may insert him/herself into the conflict as a strategy to have influence over what transpires and manage his/her emotions. While all children will experience some emotional insecurity, and may use avoidance or involvement, it is the continued feeling of emotional insecurity and over-reliance on these strategies to regulate exposure to family conflict that is believed to be detrimental. When relied on with regularity, the child may rigidly adopt these strategies, creating risk for over-generalization of these strategies to outside contexts (Davies & Cummings, 1996). Emotional Insecurity as a Mediator between Exposure to Interparental Conflict and Interpersonal Functioning. It is believed that emotional insecurity may be a mechanism influencing children’s outcomes following exposure to interparental conflict. Emotional insecurity has the potential to negatively impact children’s functioning over time through multiple pathways. First, children’s responses to their parents’ conflicts may develop into stable maladaptive patterns of managing emotional insecurity and distress (Davies & Cummings, 1994). Additionally, children become sensitized to interparental discord after repeated exposure, leading to heightened emotional insecurity. The goal of reducing emotional insecurity motivates children to develop ways of coping (i.e., regulation of affect, of exposure to conflict, or of cognitive representations) that may alleviate their immediate distress, but that can interfere with adaptive development (Cummings & Davies, 1996; Cummings & Davies, 2010). For example, research suggests that children exposed to destructive conflict developed dismissing and preoccupied ways of preserving emotional security and experienced greater levels of psychological distress (Davies & Forman, 2002). Children utilizing dismissing ways of preserving emotional security demonstrated high levels of emotional reactivity and use of avoidance intervention strategies, but also reported low levels of subjective hostility, of hostile representations of the parental relationship, and of impulses to intervene. Children using preoccupied strategies to preserve emotional security exhibited overt emotional reactivity and

10! ! insecure internal representations regarding the short-term and long-term aftermath of parental conflict as well as the impact of interparental conflict (Davies & Forman, 2002). Exposure to destructive interparental conflict also presents challenges to children by taxing their resources and interfering with their ability to successfully manage typical developmental tasks (Davies & Cummings, 2010). According to emotional security theory, as these children fail to successfully navigate developmental tasks, problematic behaviors and patterns are carried forward and become part of their repertoire of responding (Davies & Cummings, 2010). Unfortunately, these patterns of responding and managing distress have increased potential to become long-standing (Davies & Cummings, 2010). Davies, Sturge- Apple, Winter, Cummings, and Farrell (2006) found that children’s subjective emotional experiences, overt behavioral responses to conflict, and internal representations of themselves in the context of interparental conflict were moderately stable over a one-year period. Therefore, emotional insecurity is believed to mediate the relationship between interparental conflict and problematic relational functioning in the following ways: (1) rigid use of previously adaptive strategies to combat emotional insecurity create interpersonal problems when generalized to subsequent relationships in different contexts; (2) sensitization to conflict contributes to heightened emotional reactivity, difficulty regulating emotions, and increased likelihood for negative interpersonal reactions; (3) distorted internal representations acquired through exposure to destructive parental conflict color broader relational schemas, negatively impacting individuals’ relational functioning; and (4) limited resources to navigate developmental milestones creates deficits in other important skills, causing problems later in life. The present study examined whether exposure to destructive interparental conflict predicted interpersonal problems related to excessive dominance and hostility, as well as problems related to excessive accommodation and submission. It is believed that children’s increased reactivity and witnessing of destructive tactics may increase the likelihood that they mirror similar sorts of behaviors in their own relationships. Alternately, children could also try to restore emotional security by becoming involved in their parents’ conflicts, sacrificing their own needs, and ignoring their own well-being. Therefore, they may adopt a problematic interpersonal style characterized by such behaviors. The emotional security theory also provides an understanding of how children may develop healthy ways of relating to others. Exposure to constructive interparental conflict

11! ! models adaptive ways of relating to others, and promotes emotional security. Children develop an understanding of how to effectively manage conflicts and related distress, and grow to acquire a set of skills that allows them to develop healthy interpersonal relationships. Research indicates that children respond in positive, healthier, and more emotionally secure ways after exposure to constructive interparental conflict (Goeke-Morey, Cummings, Harold, & Shelton, 2003). These children are likely to continue these strategies in conflict situations across various relationships as they get older. Additionally, exposure to parents’ constructive conflicts has been associated with interpersonal competencies such as greater social-problem solving skills (Goodman, Barfoot, Frye, & Belli, 1999). While relatively little is known about the impact of constructive interparental conflict on children’s functioning, there is some evidence to suggest that these children are more emotionally secure, experience an increase in prosocial behavior, and develop healthy/secure ways of preserving emotional security (Davies, & Forman, 2002; McCoy, Cummings, & Davies, 2009). Therefore, as these children progress through life they may be better able to form healthy friendships and other types of relationships, and manage challenging interpersonal situations. This study examined exposure to constructive interparental conflict as a predictor of adaptive interpersonal functioning. It is believed that exposure to constructive interparental conflict has the potential to: (1) model positive behaviors and conflict tactics which children may carry forward into their own relationships; (2) lay the foundation for adaptive scripts around conflict, promoting collaborative interactions, and fostering individuals’ abilities in perspective taking and connecting with others; (3) foster emotional security even in the face of disagreement, leaving the child with knowledge that discord can be withstood and relationships can tolerate challenges; and (4) engender valuable skills that promote adaptive conflict resolution and interpersonal functioning. For the present study, the ability to empathize with others, and feelings of security in adult relationships are of particular interest and were explored as adaptive interpersonal outcomes. Gender as a Moderator of Interpersonal Adjustment following Exposure to Interparental Conflict The present study also investigated gender as a moderator since previous research has demonstrated gender differences in response to interparental conflict. Cummings, Ballard, El- Sheikh, and Lake (1991) found that boys responded with more fear than did girls in response to

12! ! the use of submission during interparental conflict, and that girls reported greater fear than boys in response to parents’ continued fighting. Boys were also more sensitive than girls to the type of emotionality displayed during interparental conflict, and more negatively affected when the topic of interparental conflict related to the child (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Papp, 2004). Further, boys tended to exhibit greater externalizing problems, while girls tended to experience greater internalizing problems in response to destructive interparental conflict (Kerig, 1998). Therefore, boys might be more likely to act out, express anger, or act aggressively, exhibiting their emotions in an action-oriented manner. In contrast, girls might be more likely to suppress their emotional experiences, and experience sadness or anxiety. These response tendencies suggest that males may be more likely to experience interpersonal problems that fall on the agency axis, perhaps being overly domineering or self-centered. Meanwhile, females might internalize their distress and become overly sensitive to the needs of others (e.g. communion axis), possibly developing excessive self-sacrificing behaviors and interpersonal sensitivity. Cognitive responses also differ across gender, as it has been found that boys perceived increased threat when exposed to destructive interparental conflict, while girls experienced greater self-blame when exposed to increased interparental conflict (Kerig, 1998). These expectations of conflict situations may lead males and females to experience interpersonal difficulties, though it seems these problems would be different in nature. Development of schemas in which conflict is associated with increased threat may lead males to become more aggressive and dominant in their interactions with others, as they are responding to a skewed perception that the other may be aggressive or hurtful towards them. On the other hand, the schema that they are to blame for conflict may lead females to be nonassertive or overly accommodating, yielding to the demands of others as they expect that they will be found to be at fault or wrong and should not stand their ground. Research exploring interpersonal adjustment in the context of exposure to severe forms of destructive interparental conflict has shown that both men and women raised in these environments are more likely to be aggressive towards friends and romantic partners (Morretti, Osbuth, Odgers, & Reebye, 2006). Research has not yet explored gender differences with regard to general interpersonal functioning and in response to both constructive and destructive forms of interparental conflict. It seems valuable to pursue this line of study as it has the potential to add depth to our current understanding of how individuals are affected by interparental discord.

13! !

Hypotheses The primary hypotheses of the present study are as follows: 1. Exposure to constructive and destructive forms of interparental conflict will differentially impact individuals’ felt emotional insecurity. Specifically, exposure to constructive interparental conflict will be negatively related to emotional insecurity, while exposure to destructive interparental conflict will be positively related to emotional insecurity. 2. Only exposure to constructive interparental conflict will be predictive of adaptive interpersonal functioning. This will be evidenced by positive relationships with the empathic connection and relationship security latent constructs. 3. Only exposure to destructive interparental conflict will be predictive of maladaptive interpersonal functioning. This will be evidenced by positive relationships with the hostile dominance and friendly submission latent constructs. 4. Emotional insecurity will mediate the relationships between exposure to constructive interparental conflict and adaptive interpersonal functioning, and between exposure to destructive interparental conflict and maladaptive interpersonal functioning. 5. Hypotheses are two-tailed with regard to gender differences; it is expected that fit of the models will differ across gender. Method Participants This study utilized a sample of undergraduate students taking Introductory Psychology courses at Miami University. The sample consisted of 823 college students, 61.7% (N = 507) were female and 37.1% (N = 305) were male. The majority of participants ranged in age from 18 years old to 22 years old (Mean = 19.01 years). Reflective of the larger college population, most participants were from middle to upper-middle class backgrounds, and were Caucasian (86.7%). Smaller percentages of participants identified as racially diverse – 3.2% African American, 2.7% Asian-American, 2.6% Biracial/Multiracial, 2.2% Hispanic, .2% Native American, and 2.3% identifying as “Other.” Students were eligible to participate in this study for research credit if they were raised in a household containing two parents, stepparents, and/or parent-like figures, at some time during their life. The majority of participants reported that they lived with both their mother and father (88.5%), 4.0% reported that they lived with one parent

14! ! and a step-parent, 5.6% reported that they lived with only their mother or their father, and .1% reported living with another relative (e.g., aunt, grandparent). Procedure Participants were recruited from their Psychology courses at Miami University. As part of these courses, students were required to participate in psychology research studies, and participation in this project earned them 2.0 hours of research credit. Students participated in this project through the regular Sona system for research participation. Once students signed up to participate in the study, they were instructed to come to the research lab to complete informed consent in-person. Participants completed informed consent on-site, but completed the study online via the Qualtrics survey system, at any location and at a time convenient for them. Consent procedures occurred at specified times in the lab office space in the Psychology Building. The informed consent form clearly stated that participation in this study was completely voluntary, that participants were permitted to omit items if they wished, and that they were free to exit the study at any time. Participants were also informed that they would not receive any penalties for omitting items or exiting the study, and that they would still receive credit for their participation. The Miami University institutional review board approved this study. Participants were presented with debriefing information online whenever they ceased participation in the study. Measures Perceived Interparental Conflict. This Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict (CPIC; Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992) scale and Conflict Communication Inventory (CCI; Sanford, 2010) were used to assess constructive and destructive interparental conflict. Both of these measures assess interparental conflict from the child’s perspective, which was believed to be the most suitable approach as previous research indicates that parents’ reports on conflicts do not accurately reflect children’s perceptions of conflicts (Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992). Children’s Perceptions of Interparental Conflict (CPIC). This 48-item self-report measure has been found to be valid and reliable, and assesses multiple aspects of interparental conflict and its relationship to child adjustment (Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992). Participants rated each item on whether it is True, Sort of True, or False. The Frequency, Intensity, and Resolution subscales were utilized for the present study. The Frequency subscale consists of 6 items (α = .845) and measures how often children witnessed their parents fighting. The Intensity subscale is comprised of 7 items (α = .854) and assesses the emotionality and presence of

15! ! dysregulated behaviors children were exposed to during parents’ fighting (i.e., my parents have broken or thrown things during an argument; when my parents have an argument they say mean things to each other). These two subscales were used as indicators of the destructive interparental conflict latent construct. The third subscale of interest – the Resolution subscale – is made up of 6 items (α = .885) and measures the amount of conflict resolution achieved. As resolution is believed to be characteristic of constructive interparental conflict, this subscale was used as an indicator of the constructive interparental conflict latent construct. The internal consistency of this measure was found to be .89. Conflict Communication Inventory. The Conflict Communication Inventory is a brief, context-specific 14-item measure assessing different aspects of conflict communication behavior (Sanford, 2010). For purposes of this study, questions were modified so that participants reported on their parents’ conflict communication behavior. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Disagree Strongly to 5 = Agree Strongly. The measure consists of two 7-item scales: one assessing “Adversarial Engagement” (e.g., expressions of criticism, defensiveness, and hostility), and one assessing “Collaborative Engagement” (e.g., showing understanding for one’s partner, constructive sharing of information about one’s emotions, opinions, and desires). The Adversarial Engagement subscale had an internal consistency of .85 and was used as an indicator of the destructive interparental conflict latent construct. The Collaborative Engagement subscale had an internal consistency of .91 and was used as an indicator of constructive interparental conflict. In order to attain the recommended 3 indicators per latent construct – the Collaborative Engagement subscale was parceled to create two indicators (one with 3 items and one with 4 items) for the constructive interparental conflict latent construct. The first indicator had an internal consistency of .826, and the second indicator had an internal consistency of .889. Emotional Insecurity. The Security in the Interparental Subsystem Scale (SIS; Davies, Forman, Rasi, & Stevens, 2002) was utilized to assess children’s emotional insecurity. Exploratory factor analysis has found this 43-item self-report measure to be comprised of 7 factors: Emotional Reactivity, Behavioral Dysregulation, Avoidance, Involvement, Constructive Family Representations, Destructive Family Representations, Conflict Spillover Representations (Davies et al., 2002). Participants rated each statement based on how true it was for them over the past year on a 4-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 =Not at all true of me to 4 = Very true of me. Higher subscale scores indicate greater emotional insecurity; therefore, the present study

16! ! refers to this construct as emotional insecurity. The overall internal consistency of this measure was found to be .72, and the Emotional Reactivity (α = .892), Involvement (α = .699), Avoidance (α = .834), and Destructive Family Representations (α = .852) were used as indicators of the emotional insecurity latent construct. Maladaptive Interpersonal Adjustment. The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems–64 (IIP–64; Horowitz & Wiggins, 2000), and the Unmitigated Communion Scale (Helgeson, 1993) were used to measure maladaptive interpersonal functioning. IIP-64. The IIP–64 is a self-report measure that assesses interpersonal problems across the interpersonal circumplex. The IIP-64 provides scores on 8 different subscales that are represented in the interpersonal circumplex – domineering/controlling, vindictive/self-centered, cold/distant, socially inhibited, nonassertive, overly accommodating, self-sacrificing, and intrusive/needy. Each subscale is comprised of eight items that are rated on a Likert Scale ranging from 0 = Not at all to 4 = Extremely. Previous research has found the internal consistencies of the 8 subscales to range from .69 to .89 (Leising, Rehbein, & Eckardt, 2009). The internal consistency of this measure in this sample was .91. The domineering/controlling (α = .833), vindictive/self-centered (α = .826), and cold/distant (α = .865) subscales were used as indicators for the Hostile Dominance latent construct. The self-sacrificing (α = .813), overly accommodating (α = .810), and nonassertive (α = .889) subscales were used as indicators of the Friendly Submission latent construct. The Unmitigated Communion Scale. This 8-item self-report measure was developed to assess the extent to which individuals are excessively oriented to the needs of others at the expense of the self. Each item is rated on a Likert Scale ranging from 1 =Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. This scale was found to have an internal consistency of .72 (Helgeson, 1993). For this sample, the internal consistency was found to be .76. Since this measure was originally developed using a sample of individuals who had just experienced their first cardiac event, items were adapted to be appropriate for this sample. This scale was as an indicator for the Friendly Submission latent construct. Adaptive Interpersonal Adjustment. It is expected that exposure to constructive interparental conflict will predict healthy and adaptive interpersonal functioning. Two latent construct outcomes – Empathic Connection and Adult Relationship Security – were investigated as outcomes capturing adaptive interpersonal skills and functioning. The Empathy Quotient and

17! !

Personal Attributes Questionnaire were used to measure the Empathic Connection latent construct, and the Experiences in Close Relationships and Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure were used to measure the Adult Relational Security latent construct. The Empathy Quotient. The Empathy Quotient (EQ; Lawrence, Shaw, Baker, Baron- Coehn, & David, 2004) is a 60-item self-report measure of empathy and social understanding. Participants rated each item on a 4-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Agree to 4 = Strongly Disagree. The measure is comprised of three factors – Cognitive Empathy, Emotional Reactivity, and Social Skills – and also yields a total score, which provides an index of Global Empathy. The measure has been found to be valid and reliable across multiple samples (Lawrence et al., 2004), and had an internal consistency of .90 in the present sample. The cognitive empathy (e.g., I can tell if someone is masking their true emotion) and emotional reactivity (e.g., Seeing people cry doesn’t really upset me) factors were used as indicators of the Empathic Connection latent construct. The cognitive empathy factor had an internal consistency of .895, and the emotional reactivity factor had an internal consistency of .804. Personal Attributes Questionnaire. The Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Helmreich, Spence, & Wilhelm, 1981) is a 24-item self-report measure that assesses aspects traditionally categorized as Masculine and Feminine. Each item consists of pairs of traits that are opposite in nature (e.g., very passive and very active), and participants rated which trait is more similar to themselves on a 5-point scale. This measure is comprised of three 8-item scales: Masculinity (M), Femininity (F), and Masculinity–Femininity (M–F). Sum scores can be computed for each subscale and range from 0 to 32. This study used the F subscale (α = .804), which reflects interpersonally oriented and expressive traits (Helmreich, Spence, & Wilhelm, 1981), as an indicator of the Empathic Connection latent construct. This measure had an internal consistency of .71. The Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure. The Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure (IPSM) is a 36-item self-report measure that assesses excessive awareness of, and sensitivity to, others’ feelings and behaviors (Boyce & Parker, 1989). Participants rated each item on a 4-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 = Very Unlike You to 4 = Very Like You. This measure contains the following five subscales: Interpersonal Awareness, Need for Approval, Separation Anxiety, Timidity, and Fragile Inner-Self. The internal consistency of this measure was .80. The interpersonal awareness subscale (α = .801) and the separation anxiety (α = .806) subscale were

18! ! used as indicators of Relationship Security. The interpersonal awareness subscale describes sensitivity to interpersonal interaction, including the perceived impact of the self on others and the consequence of a critical response (e.g, I care about what other people feel about me; If someone is critical of what I do, I feel bad). The separation anxiety subscale describes being overly sensitive to any type of threat to relationship bonds (e.g., I feel anxious when I say goodbye to people; I always expect criticism; I can never be really sure if someone is pleased with me). Scales were reversed scored such that scores measured less interpersonal awareness and separation anxiety, better representing relationship security. The Experiences in Close Relationships – Revised Questionnaire. The Experiences in Close Relationships – Revised (ECR-R) Questionnaire is a 36-item self-report measure assessing insecure relationship attachment (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000). The scale was modified to measure relational security in one’s romantic relationships. The ECR-R contains two 18-item subscales that measure anxious and avoidant attachment, and has been found to have good test- retest reliability. The anxious attachment subscale was found to have an internal consistency of .938, and the avoidant attachment subscale had an internal consistency of .606. The measure was found to have an overall internal consistency of .86. Each item is rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Scales were reverse scored such that scores measured less anxious and avoidant attachment, and better represented relationship security. Data Analyses Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive Statistics and Normality of Data. Descriptive statistics were obtained for all variables in order to assess for normality. Researchers (e.g., Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012) suggest that with samples larger than N = 300, visual inspection of normality is acceptable, as slight deviations may be inaccurately found to be statistically significant and incorrectly suggest significant non-normality. Other standards suggest that skewness less than an absolute value of 3 is not meaningful. Abiding by these standards, it was found that each of the variables in this data set approximated normal and did not require transformations. In order to assess for patterns of missing values Little’s Test was conducted for each variable. All variables were missing completely at random with the exception of the variables

19! ! measuring emotional security and adult attachment style within romantic relationships. As these analyses required structural equation modeling utilizing full inclusion maximum likelihood (FIML) method, missing data were not deemed problematic as FIML is designed to appropriately manage missing data. Cases in which there were no responses to any survey items (N = 7 with 0% response rate) were deleted prior to primary analyses. Finally, bivariate correlations were conducted in order to better ascertain the relationships among variables. Overall, variables related to each other as expected (see Table 1). Confirmatory Factor Analyses Measurement Model. Prior to examining primary hypotheses, a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted to ensure that the measurement model was in place. MPlus 5.1 was utilized to conduct CFAs and establish the measurement model. A primary aim of these analyses was to examine whether the proposed two-factor model hypothesizing distinct constructive and destructive forms of interparental conflict was a good fit for this sample. This was essential as little previous research has examined constructive and destructive interparental conflict in concert, and it was necessary to establish that these two dynamics are indeed discrete phenomena. Additionally, it was possible that within a relatively high functioning college sample, participants were exposed to more balanced levels of constructive and destructive interparental conflict, rendering a one-factor model (utilizing a general interparental conflict latent construct) a better fit to these data. It was decided a priori that if the one-factor model better fit the data, analyses would proceed with a one-factor model. Test of the One vs. Two Factor Models. The hypothesized one (see Figure 1) and two (see Figure 2) factor models were tested using two separate CFAs. The Frequency and Intensity subscales from the Children’s Perceptions of Interparental Conflict (CPIC) and the Adversarial Engagement subscale from the Conflict Communication Inventory (CCI) were proposed as indicators of Destructive Interparental Conflict. The Resolution subscale from the CPIC as well as the Collaborative Engagement subscale from the CCI were proposed as indicators of Constructive Interparental Conflict. As it is recommended that at least 3 indicators be used to measure a latent construct, the collaborative engagement subscale from the CCI was parceled to create two indicators. The collaborative engagement subscale contains 7 items in total; therefore, one parcel was comprised of 3 items (α = .826) and the second parcel consisted of 4 items (α = .889).

20! !

Evaluation of the Proposed One and Two-Factor Interparental Conflict Models. The following fit statistics and criteria were used: (1) the comparative fit, and Tucker Lewis indices – values of .95 and higher indicate good fit; (2) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), in which values of .06 or less indicate adequate fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999); and (3) Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), in which values of .08 or less indicate adequate fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Given the large sample size it was determined that the χ2 and χ2/df ratio statistics would not be utilized to assess model fit. A CFA revealed that the one-factor model was a poor fit to the data (χ2 = 1012.605, df = 9, CFI = .708, TLI = .513, RMSEA = .375, SRMR = .392). Similarly, it was found that the two-factor model did not adequately fit the data (χ2 = 408.221, df = 8, CFI = .883, TLI = .781, RMSEA = .251, SRMR = .081). Alternative One and Two-Factor Interparental Conflict Models. Since neither of the proposed models adequately fit the data, alternative one and two-factor models were tested in hopes of improving fit. Destructive interparental conflict was measured using only the adversarial engagement scale from the Conflict Communication Inventory, and the frequency and intensity scales from the Children’s Perceptions of Interparental Conflict were dropped. In order to achieve three indicators per latent construct, the 7-item adversarial engagement scale was parceled into three indicators to increase stability. Two parcels contained 2 items and one parcel contained three parcels. The reliability coefficients of these three parcels were .536, .817, and .656. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to reassess fit of these one and two- factor models (see Figures 3 and 4). Analyses suggested that these alternative one-factor (χ2 = 132.897, df = 9, CFI = .953, TLI = .922, RMSEA = .132, SRMR = .140) and two-factor (χ2 = 97.176, df = 8, CFI = .966, TLI = .937, RMSEA = .118, SRMR = .054) models adequately fit these data. A chi-square difference test indicated that the two-factor model fit the data significantly better than the one- 2 factor model (χ difference = 35.721, dfdifference = 1, p < .001). Evaluation of Mediating and Outcomes Constructs. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to evaluate the measurement models of each mediating and outcome latent construct to be used in the adaptive and maladaptive interpersonal functioning models. Analyses revealed that the measurement model for the emotional security latent construct fit the data well (see Figure A1; χ2 = 32.307, df = 2, CFI = .975, TLI = .924, RMSEA = .138, SRMR = .031). The empathic connection (see Figure A2) and hostile dominance (see Figure A4) latent constructs

21! ! were just-identified, and fit of the measurement model could not be determined. Examination of correlations among indicators loading on to the respective constructs suggested that the measurement models would be adequate (see Appendix A for further detail). For the relationship security latent construct (see Figure A3), model fit was poor (χ2 = 163.980, df = 2, CFI = .768, TLI = .304, RMSEA = .331, SRMR = .116). Examination of correlations among indicators showed that the avoidant attachment indicator did not correlate strongly with the interpersonal awareness (r = .049) or separation anxiety (r = .190) indicators, and had the lowest factor loading (λ = .227). Additionally, each of the other indicators appeared to be assessing anxiety in the context of relationships. Therefore, avoidant attachment was dropped as an indicator of the relationship security latent construct, which then represented measurement of a lack of anxious adult attachment. After dropping the avoidant attachment indicator, the model for relationship security was just-identified and the measurement model could not be determined; however, the range of correlations among indicators suggested the measurement model would likely be acceptable (see Appendix A). Finally, the friendly submission latent construct (see Figure A5) did not initially terminate normally (see Appendix A for further detail). However, after setting the overly- accommodating indicator to zero, the fit of the measurement model was acceptable (χ2 = 24.488, df = 3, CFI = .985, TLI = .970, RMSEA = .096, SRMR = .028) Test of the Full Measurement Models. Adaptive Interpersonal Functioning Model. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to establish the relationships among exposure to constructive and destructive interparental conflict and adaptive interpersonal functioning. Findings indicated that the proposed model was a poor fit (χ2 = 723.670, df = 94, CFI = .889, TLI = .858, RMSEA = .092, SRMR = .075). Theoretical rationale and modification indices were used to inform decisions to improve model fit. Modification indices suggested that the residual variances of the collaborative engagement indicators be correlated, and the next model was run with that pathway in place. Model fit improved but was still not acceptable (χ2 = 614.570, df = 93, CFI = .908, TLI = .881, RMSEA = .084, SRMR = .066). Through iterations of this process (examining modification indices and making changes only when theoretically justifiable), the residual variances between the resolution and destructive family representations; emotional reactivity and resolution; and involvement and avoidance indicators were added to the measurement model.

22! !

Findings revealed that this measurement model achieved acceptable fit (see Figure 5; χ2 = 429.543, df = 90, CFI = .940, TLI = .920, RMSEA = .069, SRMR = .062). Maladaptive Interpersonal Functioning Model. Findings from CFAs indicated that the measurement model was a poor fit (χ2 = 966.440, df = 110, CFI = .880, TLI = .851, RMSEA = .099, SRMR = .076). Theoretical rationale and modification indices guided decision-making to improve model fit. The model was re-run allowing the overly accommodating indicator to be free; however, model fit remained poor (χ2 = 955.799, df = 109, CFI = .881, TLI = .852, RMSEA = .099, SRMR = .073). Modification indices suggested that the collaborative engagement indicators be correlated. This was justified as these indicators are from the same measure and have a high degree of shared variance. The model improved, but remained unacceptable (χ2 = 849.079, df = 108, CFI = .896, TLI = .869, RMSEA = .093, SRMR = .064). The non-assertive indicator was correlated with the cold and dominant indicators, and the self-sacrificing indicator was correlated with the dominant and non-assertive indicators. Horowitz and Wiggins (2000) reported that the subscale intercorrelations for their overall sample and for men and women ranged from .33 to .80, with subscales adjacent to each other on the circumplex being more strongly correlated. The addition of these correlations to the measurement model is consistent with that pattern. Modification indices also suggested that the resolution and the destructive family representations indicators be correlated. This appeared theoretically justified, as it would be expected that conflict resolution would be negatively related destructive family representations. The measurement model was tested again with these modifications and model fit was acceptable (χ2 = 500.450, df = 103, CFI = .944, TLI = .926, RMSEA = .069, SRMR = .059). However, examination of the standardized factor loadings indicated that the unmitigated communion indicator, while significant, did not load onto the Friendly Submissive latent construct as strongly (λ = .325, p < .001) as did the other indicators on that construct. The unmitigated communion indicator was dropped from analyses. The resulting model fit the data well (see Figure 6; χ2 = 395.460, df = 88, CFI = .956, TLI = .940, RMSEA = .066, SRMR = .054). Structural Equation Models – Total Sample With the measurement models established, tests of the structural models were conducted via Mplus 5.1. Analyses revealed that the full structural model investigating the relationships

23! ! among exposure to interparental conflict and adaptive interpersonal functioning adequately fit the data (see Figure 7; χ2 = 429.543, df = 90, p < .001; CFI = .937; TLI = .916; RMSEA = .069 with 90% CI = .062 - .075; SRMR = .062). It was also found that exposure to constructive and destructive interparental conflict accounted for 29.8% of the variance in emotional insecurity. Additionally, both forms of interparental conflict and emotional insecurity accounted for 10.5% of the variance in empathic connection and 11.8% of the variance in relationship security. Structural equation modeling indicated that the full structural model examining exposure to interparental conflict and maladaptive interpersonal functioning fit the data well (see Figure 8; χ2 = 395.460, df = 88, p < .001; CFI = .953; TLI = .936; RMSEA = .066 with 90% CI = .060 - .073; SRMR = .054). Results indicated that exposure to constructive and destructive interparental conflict accounted for 37.4% of the variance in emotional insecurity. Both forms of interparental conflict and emotional insecurity accounted for 11.3% of the variance in interpersonal problems related to hostile/dominance and 15.0% of the variance in interpersonal difficulties related to being excessively friendly/submissive. Hypothesis #1 – Exposure to constructive vs. destructive interparental conflict will differentially impact individuals’ felt emotional insecurity. Consistent with expectations, it was found that exposure to destructive interparental conflict predicted greater emotional insecurity, while exposure to constructive interparental conflict predicted less emotional insecurity across both models explored in this study. This is consistent with previous research, which has found a positive relationship between exposure to destructive interparental conflict and emotional insecurity. The present findings add an important element to the extant literature by providing evidence suggesting that exposure to constructive interparental conflict may actually contribute to less emotional insecurity. This indicates that exposure to interparental conflict is not necessarily detrimental to children, and witnessing parents disagree in a constructive manner is not harmful to individuals’ well-being. Therefore, the nature of parents’ conflicts is essential in understanding how interparental discord impacts children. Hypothesis #2 – Only exposure to constructive interparental conflict will predict adaptive interpersonal outcomes. Results provided partial support for this hypothesis. Analysis revealed that exposure to constructive and destructive forms of interparental conflict positively predicted empathic connection. Therefore, exposure to both constructive and destructive interparental conflict predicted greater abilities to empathize with others, and understand other’s

24! ! emotional responses, perspectives, thoughts, and viewpoints. However, neither exposure to constructive or to destructive interparental conflict predicted relationship security. This suggests that witnessing constructive or destructive interparental conflict did not directly impact individuals’ adult attachment style in romantic relationships, or their functioning in other relationships. Hypothesis #3 – Only exposure to destructive interparental conflict will predict maladaptive interpersonal functioning. Findings partially supported this hypothesis. It was found that exposure to destructive and constructive forms of interparental conflict predicted less interpersonal difficulty due to a hostile dominant approach to relationships. However, neither exposure to constructive or to destructive interparental conflict was related to interpersonal difficulties related to being overly friendly submissive. These findings suggest that as individuals are exposed to either constructive or destructive interparental conflict they are less likely to have interpersonal problems related to being too self-centered, dominant, or controlling etc. Additionally, interparental conflict is not directly related to problems of being overly accommodating, non-assertive, or self-sacrificing. Hypothesis #4a – Emotional insecurity will mediate the relationship between exposure to constructive interparental conflict and adaptive interpersonal functioning. Findings suggested that emotional insecurity did not mediate the relationship between exposure to constructive interparental conflict and empathic connection, nor between exposure to destructive interparental conflict and empathic connection. Emotional insecurity fully mediated the relationship between exposure to constructive interparental conflict and relationship security, as well as the relationship between exposure to destructive interparental conflict and relationship security. Findings suggest that when individuals are exposed to constructive interparental conflict they experience less emotional insecurity, which contributes to greater felt security in relationships (ß = .081, p = .002, 95% CI = .007 to .033). In contrast, individuals who are exposed to destructive interparental conflict experience greater emotional insecurity, which contributes to less felt security in relationships (ß = -.098, p = .002, 95% CI = -.073 to -.019). Hypothesis #4b – Emotional insecurity will mediate the relationships between exposure to destructive interparental conflict and maladaptive outcomes. Results indicated that emotional insecurity partially mediated the relationship between exposure to destructive interparental conflict and problems related to hostile dominance (ß = .059, p = .024, 95% CI = .008

25! ! to .110), as well as between exposure to constructive interparental conflict and problems due to hostile dominance (ß = - .114, p < .001, 95% CI = -.176 to -.052). Findings also suggested that emotional insecurity fully mediated the relationships between exposure to destructive interparental conflict and interpersonal problems related to excessive friendly submission (ß = .096, p = .004, 95% CI = .030 to .161). Exposure to destructive interparental conflict predicted excessive self- sacrificing, non-assertive, overly accommodating behaviors via greater emotional insecurity. It was also found that emotional insecurity fully mediated the relationship between constructive interparental conflict and friendly submission (ß = -.184, p < .001, 95% CI = -.267 to -.101). Exposure to constructive interparental conflict predicted fewer problems due to excessive friendly submission via less emotional insecurity. Hypothesis #5 – The models will fit differently across gender. Multi-group analyses were conducted using Mplus 5.1 to explore whether the proposed models fit the data across male and female groups. Exposure to CIPC and DIPC as predictors of adaptive interpersonal functioning. In order to explore moderating effects of gender, measurement invariance was examined. One model was run in which all factor loadings were held to equality across men and women, and compared to a second model in which factor loadings were free to vary across groups. A chi-square difference 2 2 test indicated that the groups were not invariant (χ equal = 573.629, dfequal = 202; χ free = 555.173, 2 dffree = 191; χ difference = 18.456, dfdifference = 11, p < .001). However, it is believed that chi-square difference tests may be too stringent a marker in determining invariance. Therefore, the following indicators of invariance were also examined (1) similarity across the CFI fit index as marked by a change less than or equal to .01, and (2) RMSEA values that fall within each other’s confidence intervals. Using these markers, it was found that factor loadings were not significantly different across men and women, and measurement invariance was assumed (CFIequal = .933, CFIfree = .935;

RMSEAequal = .068, 90% CI = .062 – .075; RMSEAfree = .069, 90% CI = .063 – .076). Structural invariance was examined to explore whether gender moderated the model. The model was run once holding all structural paths equal and compared to a second model in which paths were free to vary across groups. A chi-square difference test indicated that the model in which all structural paths are held to equality fit the data significantly worse than the model that 2 2 allowed structural paths to vary across men and women (χ equal = 610.063, dfequal = 212; χ free = 2 573.629, dffree = 202; χ difference = 36.434, dfdifference = 10, p < .001). This suggests that the model

26! ! differs across men and women, and gender moderates the model as a whole (see Figure 9). The paths between constructive interparental conflict and emotional insecurity, as well as between emotional security and relationship security were individually tested for gender differences. Chi- square differences tests indicated that neither the pathway between constructive interparental 2 conflict and emotional security (χ difference = .318, dfdifference = 1, p = .573), nor the pathway between 2 emotional insecurity and relationship security (χ difference = 3.048, dfdifference = 1, p = .081) were moderated by gender. Exposure to CIPC and DIPC as predictors of maladaptive interpersonal functioning. In order to test for invariance, one model was run in which factor loadings were held to equality across men and women. The overly accommodating indicator was set to 0 in the female group only in order for the model to terminate normally. The model was run a second time allowing factor loadings to differ across the male and female groups. A chi-square difference test was 2 2 conducted and indicated that the models were not invariant (χ equal = 603.140, dfequal = 201; χ free = 2 579.216, dffree = 190; χ difference = 23.924, dfdifference = 11, p < .001). However, other rubrics used to assess measurement invariance suggested that factor loadings were not significantly different between the two groups (CFIequal = .942, CFIfree = .944; RMSEAequal = .071, 90% CI = .064 - .077;

RMSEAfree = .072, 90% CI = .065 - .079). Therefore, measurement invariance was assumed. Tests of structural invariance were then conducted to examine whether gender moderated the model. The structural model was run one time allowing all pathways to be free to vary across groups, and run a second time in which all pathways were held equal across groups. Results indicated that the model in which all structural paths were constrained to equality fit significantly 2 worse than the model in which structural paths were allowed to vary (χ equal = 651.048, dfequal = 2 2 211; χ free = 603.140, dffree = 201; χ difference = 47.908, dfdifference = 10, p < .001). This suggests that gender is a moderator of model fit as a whole (see Figure 10). Pathways from constructive 2 interparental conflict (χ difference = .636, dfdifference = 1, p = .425) and destructive interparental 2 conflict (χ difference = .031, dfdifference = 1, p = .860) to hostile dominance were individually examined for moderation effects and found to be non-significant. Only the path from emotional insecurity to 2 hostile dominance was significant (χ difference = 12.512, dfdifference = 1, p < .001). The paths from constructive and destructive interparental conflict to emotional insecurity were individually tested for moderation effects as well. Results indicated that gender did not moderate the relationship 2 between constructive interparental conflict and emotional insecurity (χ difference = .964, dfdifference =

27! !

2 1, p = .326), or between destructive interparental conflict and emotional insecurity (χ difference =

.552, dfdifference = 1, p = .458) Discussion The present study examined how exposure to parents’ constructive and destructive conflicts impacted individuals’ interpersonal functioning, while investigating emotional insecurity as a mediator and gender as a moderator. The first objective of this study was to determine whether or not constructive and destructive interparental conflict were distinct constructs. Prior research has attempted to identify and classify specific behaviors/conflict tactics that differentiate constructive from destructive interparental conflict (e.g., Goeke-Morey, Cummings, Harold, & Shelton, 2004; McCoy & Davies, 2009). These studies identified behaviors such as physical aggression towards a spouse or object, threat to intactness of the marriage, verbal and nonverbal hostility, pursuit, frequency/severity, stonewalling, and hostility as markers of destructive interparental conflict (Goeke-Morey, Cummings, Harold, & Shelton, 2004; McCoy, Cummings, & Davies, 2009). Problem-solving, support, affection, cooperation, and resolution were identified as characteristic of constructive interparental conflict (Goeke- Morey, Cummings, Harold, & Shelton, 2004; McCoy, Cummings & Davies, 2009). This study replicates these findings by demonstrating that constructive and destructive interparental conflict are distinguishable through certain characteristics. Constructive conflict was marked by collaborative engagement (e.g., My parents were considerate towards each other; My parents politely talked about their feelings; My parents discussed the issue calmly) and resolution (e.g., When my parents have an argument they usually work it out; After my parents stop arguing, they are friendly toward each other). In contrast, destructive interparental conflict was marked by adversarial engagement (e.g., My parents raised their voices; My parents argued; My parents criticized each other). This provides further support that constructive and destructive interparental conflict are distinct constructs, not simply variations in degree along a single continuum, and extends prior research by illustrating that older adolescents perceive constructive and destructive interparental conflict to be different styles of conflict negotiation. Past research (Goeke-Morey, Cummings, Harold, & Shelton, 2004; McCoy, Cummings & Davies, 2009) has worked to delineate differences between constructive and destructive interparental conflict primarily among younger children (between 5-12 years old), and this study indicates that older adolescents are also attuned to differences in the type of conflict that their parents engage in.

28! !

Interestingly, among this sample of older adolescents/young adults frequency and intensity were not strong indicators used to differentiate between constructive and destructive interparental conflict, as the original model proposing such did not fit the data well. This differs from theoretical expectations and previous findings (e.g., McCoy, Cummings, & Davies, 2009), and may be partly attributable to differences in measurement of interparental conflict. Importantly, the present study utilized the child’s self-report, which speaks more strongly to how children exposed to interparental conflict perceive differences in constructiveness and destructiveness. Previous research has not always utilized the child’s perceptions of conflict, limiting the ability to truly speak to children’s perceptions of conflict and how they are impacted by it (e.g., McCoy, Cummings, & Davies, 2009). Additionally, different methodologies have been utilized to assess conflict. Previous research used parent report and observation of participants (McCoy, Cummings, & Davies, 2009), or video analogs of interparental conflict and subsequent child interview (Goeke-Morey, Cummings, Harold, & Shelton, 2004). Finally, it is possible that for a sample of college students who are away from home and their parents for several months, frequency and intensity are less salient markers of conflict. Perhaps in that context, the nature of the conflict (collaborative vs. adversarial, whether it is resolved) is a more salient determinant of whether parents’ conflicts are constructive or destructive. The present study also added important insights regarding the different ways that exposure to constructive versus destructive interparental conflict impacts children. Previous research has consistently shown that exposure to constructive interparental conflict does not increase children’s emotional insecurity, and may even promote positive outcomes, while exposure to destructive interparental conflict heightens children’s emotional insecurity (Cummings & Davies, 2002; Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Papp, 2004; McCoy, Cummings, & Davies, 2009). In line with these findings, the present study found that exposure to constructive interparental conflict predicted less emotional insecurity, while exposure to destructive interparental conflict predicted greater emotional insecurity. These findings suggest that even children who are more individuated from their families remain impacted by the health of the marital subsystem. This information is important in showing that the parental relationship maintains influence over the child’s felt security even in older adolescence/young adulthood. The present study also explored whether exposure to constructive and destructive interparental conflict gave rise to adaptive and maladaptive interpersonal functioning. Historically,

29! ! research has tended to focus on destructive interparental conflict only, and neglected to examine how exposure to constructive interparental conflict might affect children’s outcomes (Cummings & Davies, 2002). Further, prior research has typically explored negative outcomes that might arise following exposure to parents’ destructive conflicts without investigation of whether children may benefit from exposure to parents’ constructive conflicts. The present study addresses both of these gaps by examining relationships among exposure to both forms of interparental conflict and adaptive and maladaptive interpersonal functioning. It was believed that exposure to constructive parental conflict would predict adaptive interpersonal functioning, and that emotional insecurity would mediate this relationship. Results provided partial support for this. It was found that both exposure to constructive and destructive interparental conflict directly predicted greater empathic connection; however, emotional insecurity did not mediate the relationship between exposure to either form of conflict and empathic connection. This suggests that exposure to interparental conflict in and of itself (regardless of kind) can be associated with greater capacities in perspective taking and understanding others’ thoughts and feelings. The direct and positive relationship between exposure to constructive interparental conflict and understanding others’ cognitive and affective states is consistent theory with previous research. Davies and Cummings (1994) postulated that children’s exposure to interparental conflict influences future responding. Therefore, exposure to constructive interparental conflict directly predicts greater empathic connection by modeling collaboration, listening, and reasoning. Other family processes have also been linked to promotion of children’s empathy and prosocial behavior. Past research suggests that positive family communication, maintenance of standards (parental expectations of children, establishment of boundaries, monitoring children’s activities), supportive family relationships, and family cohesion predict children’s empathy, prosocial behavior, and interpersonal competence (Henry, C.S., Sager, D.W., & Plunkett, S.W., 1996; Hillaker, Brophy-Herb, Villarruel, & Haas, 2008). It is possible that constructive interparental conflict indicates healthier family-wide communication processes that promote adaptive interpersonal functioning, such as empathy. Contrary to expectations, findings indicated that exposure to destructive interparental conflict also predicted greater empathic connection. It is possible that by virtue of witnessing parental conflict, children gain “practice” in hearing both sides of an argument, promoting their ability to see issues from different people’s perspectives. It is also possible that related processes contribute

30! ! to this finding. For instance, in the context of a stressful and conflictual marital relationship, one parent may turn to the child to meet their needs (e.g., triangulation, parentification) (Kerig, 2005). Though inappropriate, the lack of appropriate boundaries can also create the feeling of friendship, closeness, and warmth, and the emotional intimacy and role as confidante may spur the development of sensitivity and empathy for the parent within the child (Kerig, 2005). It would be interesting to further explore this relationship, and to assess whether these children are also more likely to be excessively other-focused, perhaps experiencing difficulties related to being overly friendly and submissive. Additionally, emotional insecurity did not act as a mechanism through which interparental conflict influenced empathic connection. Future research should investigate if other mediators help to explain how exposure to interparental conflict increases individuals’ skills in understanding and relating to others. It was also hypothesized that exposure to constructive interparental conflict would predict children’s greater security in their own close/intimate relationships (relationship security). Findings indicated that neither exposure to constructive or destructive interparental conflict directly predicted individuals’ relationship security. This suggests that interparental conflict alone does not significantly impact children’s relationship security. However, exposure to constructive interparental conflict predicted greater relationship security via less emotional insecurity. This is aligned with theory and prior research, which indicate that exposure to constructive interparental conflict enhances emotional security, provides children with healthy internalizations and scripts about themselves and relationships (e.g., able to withstand conflict, partners will not leave during challenges/difficulties, he/she is worthy of love and affection even during times of stress), and sets children on a course of more adaptive development (Benjamin, 2003; Cummings & Davies, 2002; Cummings & Davies, 2010; Davies & Martin, 2013; McCoy, Cummings, & Davies, 2009; Teyber & McClure, 2011). Emotional security about the interparental relationship may also contribute to development of a secure adult attachment style that translates to greater use of skills (e.g., mutual discussion and understanding, less withdrawal and verbal aggression) facilitating conflict resolution in romantic (Feeney, Noller & Callan, 1994; Senchak & Leonard, 1992; Creasey, Kershaw, & Boston, 1999; as cited in Shi, 2003) and other close relationships. The findings of full mediation support this possibility, as constructive interparental conflict reduced emotional insecurity and promoted more security in relationships.

31! !

Consistent with expectations, findings indicated that destructive interparental conflict predicted less relationship security via greater emotional insecurity. This suggests that the threat to children’s emotional security, as represented through destructive interparental conflict, underlies children’s lack of relationship security. Children become sensitized to parents’ conflicts over time, eventually becoming more emotionally reactive (Davies & Cummings, 1994). This may underlie the increased relational difficulty of interpersonal sensitivity these individuals reported following exposure to destructive interparental conflict. It is also possible that the instability of the marital relationship leaves children with the belief that their own relationships will be unstable and unpredictable, and that their partner’s love and affection may not consistently be available to them. As a result, children may develop an anxious adult attachment style and hold negative views of the self, have a tendency to concede to their partner to meet the concerns of others, and utilize strategies of pursuit in an effort to attain assurance of their partner’s availability (Shi, 2003). The present findings provide support for this as emotional insecurity explained the relationship between exposure to destructive interparental conflict and lack of relationship security. Therefore, it seems that greater emotional insecurity fosters development of negative schemas about the self, others, and relationships, gives rise to misguided strategies aimed to restore security in relationships (e.g. pursuit, intrusiveness), and increases over-sensitivity to others. Interestingly, this pattern of findings lends support to a recent theoretical advancement posited by Davies and Martin (2013). These researchers suggest that children might adopt four different strategies in the context of interparental conflict: (1) secure (characterized by confidence that interparental conflict will be resolved, belief that the family will remain intact, positive internal self-other representations, and minimal impulse to regulate exposure to conflict); (2) mobilizing (blatant vigilance, distress and vulnerability aimed to garner sympathy, attention, and worth; submissive, appeasing or dominant behaviors); (3) dominant (hostility, minimization of the emotional significance of the interparental and other family relationships); and (4) demobilizing (masking distress and anxiety, freezing, disengagement, appeasement, “downtrodden” behaviors) (Davies & Martin, 2013). Consistent with this, the present study found that exposure to constructive interparental conflict gave rise to a secure strategy, marked by greater abilities in empathic connection and more relationship security. In contrast, exposure to destructive interparental conflict predicted relationship insecurity characterized by anxious attachment. Anxious adult attachment may manifest as being highly vigilant to threat in a manner that attempts

32! ! to remain connected (analogous to the mobilizing strategy), or may be exhibited through dominance and hostility (analogous to the dominant strategy) (Shi, 2003). In the present study, the measurement model for the construct of relationship security indicated that the subscale assessing an avoidant attachment style did not load as strongly on the construct as the other three subscales which assessed anxious attachment patterns. Consequently, it was dropped as an indicator of the construct as assessed in this study. However, an avoidant attachment style might map on well to the demobilizing strategy described by Davies and Martin (2013), as it describes a tendency to withdraw and disengage and warrants separate attention. Future research should further explore both anxious and avoidant response patterns as such knowledge holds the potential to deepen understanding of the ways in which children’s emotional security is influenced by interparental conflict, and may be helpful for mental health professionals in conceptualization and treatment of individuals experiencing a variety of types of relational problems. The present study also explored the relationships between constructive and destructive interparental conflict and maladaptive interpersonal functioning. It was found that exposure to constructive interparental conflict directly predicted fewer interpersonal difficulties related to being overly dominant, self-centered, and cold (hostile dominance). This suggests that exposure to constructive interparental conflict likely provides a positive model of how to collaboratively work with a partner to manage conflict and achieve resolution. Further, exposure to constructive interparental conflict reduced emotional insecurity, which partly explained children having fewer interpersonal problems related to hostile/dominance. It is possible that less emotional insecurity promotes greater abilities in emotion regulation, healthier relational scripts, and allows children to devote more time to successfully resolving developmental tasks (e.g., problem-solving) (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Cummings & Davies, 2010; Davies, Manning, & Cicchetti, 2013). Importantly, these findings lend further support that constructive interparental conflict contributes to development of prosocial behavior and reduced likelihood of aggression among children (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Papp, 2004; McCoy, Cummings, & Davies, 2009). Additionally, a longitudinal study by Miga, Gdule, & Allen (2012) found that exposure to parents’ use of reasoning during conflicts predicted greater promotion of autonomy (i.e., reasoning abilities and confidence during an argument) and relatedness (i.e., collaboration, warmth/engagement) during conflict negotiations with a peer (measured at 13 years old), less autonomy-undermining (i.e., use of rudeness, over-personalizing, and pressure tactics) behavior with romantic partners (measured 5

33! ! years later), and more positive romantic relationship quality (measured at early adulthood). The present findings add to this budding literature by demonstrating that exposure to parents’ constructive approaches to conflict promotes children’s abilities to find a harmonious balance between their wants/needs (autonomy, agency) and those of the other (communion, relatedness), exhibiting an adeptness in working with others without becoming overly reliant on dominant, aggressive, or controlling tactics. Interestingly, it was found that exposure to parents’ destructive conflicts also directly predicted fewer interpersonal problems related to hostile dominance. This finding was counter to expectations and is inconsistent with previous research findings indicating that individuals tend to replicate the behaviors they were exposed to in their parents’ discordant marriages within their own marriages (Amato & Booth, 2001). Although unexpected, it is possible that children exposed to destructive interparental conflict also have a greater understanding of its negative consequences. These children may strive to behave and interact with others in a more cooperative manner, as they might be motivated to avoid similar relational difficulties. Findings from this study indicated that emotional security was a critical factor influencing whether children exposed to destructive interparental conflict experienced relational problems tied to hostility and dominance. Emotional insecurity partially mediated this relationship such that individuals who were exposed to destructive interparental conflict experienced more problems related to hostile dominance when they also experienced greater emotional insecurity. Interestingly, this suggests that individuals do not encounter heightened relational difficulties due to being excessively dominant, controlling, or self-serving unless they also feel a threat to their emotional security. Prior research also suggests that emotional insecurity mediates the relationship between exposure to destructive interparental conflict and problematic relationships. Du Rocher Schudlich, Shamir, and Cummings (2004) found that internal representations (a facet of emotional security) mediated the relationship between exposure to destructive interparental conflict and a greater disposition toward aggression in peer relationships. The present study adds support that emotional insecurity is an integral player influencing children’s relational skills, and extends upon previous findings by illustrating that the emotional and behavioral markers of emotional insecurity influence functioning as well, and with older adolescents/young adults. The role of emotional insecurity was also highlighted when looking at the relationships among exposure to interparental conflict and relational problems related to being overly

34! ! accommodating, non-assertive, and self-sacrificing (friendly submission). Neither exposure to constructive or destructive interparental conflict directly predicted friendly submissive interpersonal problems. However, exposure to constructive interparental conflict predicted fewer problems related to being overly friendly submissive through reduced emotional insecurity. It is likely that witnessing constructive conflict creates a sense of security in the family, allows the child to focus on their own developmental tasks, learn how to regulate emotion, and develop appropriate scripts for interpersonal interactions. This may allow individuals to better negotiate interpersonal relationships, maintain appropriate boundaries and assert themselves when appropriate, and experience more optimal interpersonal functioning in general. Again, this finding is consistent with the emotional security theory (Davies & Cummings, 1994), findings suggesting emotional security relates to adaptive functioning in general (e.g., McCoy, Cummings, & Davies, 2009), and with prior research indicating that exposure to parents’ constructive conflicts facilitates children’s abilities to find the optimal balance between agency and communion (Miga, Gdule, & Allen, 2012). In contrast, exposure to destructive interparental conflict predicted greater problems related to being overly friendly submissive through greater emotional insecurity. It is possible that witnessing parents’ destructive conflicts leads children to regain felt security through strategies that serve them well in the immediate, but create difficulties in the long-run. For instance, becoming involved in parental conflict through mediation may create a rigid interpersonal style in which the individual excessively sacrifices his/her own needs in order to attend to and meet the needs of others. Individuals exposed to destructive interparental conflict may also possess maladaptive scripts regarding conflict, have deficits in emotion regulation, and may have been too burdened by their parents’ conflicts to develop optimal interpersonal skills (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Davies & Cummings, 1996; Davies & Forman, 2002). Internalization of these scripts along with rigid use and overgeneralization of coping strategies may contribute to these children being victimized in relationships. Gover, Kaukinen, and Fox (2008) found that individuals who witnessed interparental violence were more likely to be victimized in dating relationships. It is possible that this vulnerability to victimization in relationships is partly tied to long-term ramifications of emotional insecurity. Future research should more explicitly investigate whether emotional insecurity mediates the relationship between exposure to destructive parental conflict and victimization in relationships.

35! !

Given the interpersonal/relational nature of outcomes and traditional societal norms around “appropriate” behavior for men and women, gender was explored as a moderator. It was found that gender moderated both models, suggesting that each model fit the data better when factor loadings were free to vary across men and women. To further understand moderation effects, select individual paths were tested for moderation. The only significant moderation effect revealed that emotional insecurity predicted greater problems related to hostile dominance for men only; the path was non-significant for women. These findings suggest that men who are exposed to parents’ destructive conflicts, who also feel emotionally insecure, are more likely to act out in aggressive, hostile, controlling and dominant ways. This is consistent with prior research indicating that boys exposed to parents’ aggressive conflicts are more likely to view aggression as acceptable in relationships, and are also more likely to be hostile, controlling, and abusive in dating relationship (Kingsfogel & Grych, 2004). These findings further suggest that this hostile dominant interpersonal style extends beyond dating relationships and causes difficulties in relationships broadly. The finding that men are more likely to have difficulties related to hostile dominance is also consistent with research linking agency with men, as they tend to be more focused on the self and separation (Helgeson & Fritz, 1999). Therefore, it makes sense that men who experience greater emotional insecurity are more likely to develop maladaptive interpersonal strategies characterized by excessive agency, hostility, self-protection, and self-centeredness. In all, the present study adds valuable contributions to the current literature. This research included constructive interparental conflict as a primary domain of investigation and provides evidence that exposure to constructive parental conflict contributes to healthy interpersonal functioning, in part because of its positive effects on emotional security. Therefore, parental conflict is not always detrimental to children’s well-being, as these findings suggest that witnessing constructive conflict can actually promote well-being. This study also begins to clarify the complicated relationships between exposure to interparental conflict and relational functioning. Specifically, the role of emotional insecurity was highlighted as a key factor influencing interpersonal functioning following exposure to interparental conflict. This informs conceptualization of how children are impacted by parents’ conflicts, and illustrates that conflict which increases emotional insecurity contributes to poorer relational functioning while conflict that reduces insecurity is promotive of positive relational functioning. Finally, this study addressed gender differences and found that men and women are impacted differently by

36! ! interparental conflict. Gender differences were most significantly evidenced by men’s greater tendency to have interpersonal problems due to being excessively hostile/dominant when they also experienced greater emotional insecurity. Limitations and Future Directions While the present study makes a significant contribution to the literature, it had a number of limitations. The most obvious limitation is that these data were collected from a primarily White middle to upper-middle class college sample from intact families. Therefore, these findings are limited in their generalizability to other populations. Future research should strive to further explore the impact of interparental conflict on interpersonal functioning across diverse populations and cultures. It would also be quite interesting to explore the measurement model that distinguishes between constructive and destructive interparental conflict across cultures, as the markers differentiating between the two might look very different when using different samples. Research suggests that there may be both cultural specificity and universality of emotional expression (e.g., Scherer, Clark-Polner, & Mortillaro, 2011). It is important to further explore diversity in expression of emotion and management of conflict, and it is necessary to explore what comprises constructive vs. destructive interparental conflict cross-culturally. Related to this, future research should investigate whether emotional insecurity is activated by parents’ conflict in similar ways across cultures. It would also be interesting if longitudinal research were conducted exploring this topic. The present study was cross-sectional, providing a “snapshot” into this dynamic. Longitudinal research would provide a more complete picture of these relationships, and allow for exploration of more complicated questions. For instance, it would be interesting to explore whether effects from exposure to parents’ destructive conflicts could later be mitigated by parents’ constructive conflicts (e.g., parents’ approaches to conflict begin as destructive, but later transitions to more positive conflict management). Additionally, it would be of value to investigate how children’s emotional insecurity shifts over time and how those changes map onto their relational functioning. It is possible that the consequences of heightened emotional insecurity, or the positive effects of reduced emotional insecurity do not manifest until a critical threshold is surpassed (e.g., “amount” of emotional insecurity; an added stressor/buffer). The present research highlighted the integral role of emotional insecurity as a mediator between exposure to interparental conflict and relational functioning. However, this study

37! ! explored the construct as a whole and did not pinpoint whether and which specific markers of emotional insecurity were more influential over outcomes. Future research should work to tease apart the individual effects of the various emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components of emotional insecurity. For instance, one could imagine that perpetual avoidance of difficult situations/distress could be more strongly predictive of cold/distant interpersonal problems than perpetual involvement. Finally, future research should incorporate investigation of individual difference factors. Inclusion of such variables would enhance understanding of how individuals exposed to interparental conflict come to experience healthier or more maladaptive outcomes. One such individual difference variable that would be interesting to investigate is child temperament. Inclusion of this, and other individual difference variables, would enhance understanding of the relationship between exposure to parents’ conflict, emotional security, and adjustment. It is possible that certain temperaments provide vulnerability or protection against emotional insecurity in the context of witnessing interparental conflict. It is of great importance to gain an understanding of these factors, as this would deepen understanding of the processes shaping individuals’ well-being and relational functioning and provide useful guidance in work with couples and families experiencing marital conflict. Implications The present study indicates that children are differentially impacted by constructive and destructive interparental conflict. This was most clearly demonstrated through emotional insecurity where exposure to constructive interparental conflict predicted reduced emotional insecurity, while exposure to destructive interparental conflict predicted greater emotional insecurity. Within this sample, collaborative engagement and resolution were markers of constructive conflict, and adversarial engagement marked destructive conflict. This suggests that among families characterized by destructive parental conflict, interventions that provide psychoeducation around more positive approaches to conflict, as well as skills training focused on developing more collaborative approaches to conflict would be of value. Such interventions hold the potential to improve not only the health of the marital relationship, but also of the children exposed to conflict since feelings of emotional insecurity would be less frequently activated. Interventions of this nature have proven to be effective. Brief intervention programs comprised of psychoeducation around marital conflict and communication training were found to foster greater

38! ! support and positive emotionality during interaction, more movement toward resolution of arguments, and more constructive conflict discussions (Cummings et al., 2008; as cited in Cummings & Schatz, 2012). It was also found that emotional insecurity is critical to individuals’ relational functioning and competence. It seems that clinical interventions should focus on development of adaptive skills designed to restore emotional security when exposed to interparental conflict. Preliminary evidence suggests that such interventions are effective and promote more constructive interactions and emotional security among the entire family and within the adolescent (Cummings & Schatz, 2012). Brief interventions that included parents and their adolescent children consisted of psychoeducation, role-playing, communication training, and skills practice with a trained coach (Cummings & Schatz, 2012). This resulted in greater knowledge of how to manage conflict constructively for parents and adolescents; adolescents’ emotional security about interparental and parent-adolescent relationship; parents’ greater use of constructive conflict tactics with each other and their children; and adolescents’ greater overall constructiveness in family discussion (Cummings & Schatz, 2012). It was also found that interventions that included parents and children facilitated greater resolution among all family members compared to parent-only interventions and the self-study and no treatment control groups (Cummings & Schatz, 2012). The present study’s findings provide support that interventions including work with both parents and adolescents are needed. Destructive interparental conflict predicted maladaptive interpersonal functioning both directly and through heightening adolescents’ emotional insecurity. This highlights the need for interventions/treatments designed to develop skills in constructive conflict management among parents and adolescents, which could serve to ameliorate the negative consequences of destructive family interactions. Interventions targeting these dynamics and working to improve adolescents’ emotional security seem to be promising avenues to pursue, as they may allow for a change of course and increase likelihood for adolescents to develop adaptive interpersonal skills and function more optimally across a range of relational contexts. Parent and child/adolescent interventions might also be a means to enhance the positive effects of exposure to constructive interparental conflict on interpersonal competencies. Overall, this suggests that use of psychoeducation, communication skills training, and role-playing are strategies that mental health professionals can effectively utilize in their efforts to work with couples, adolescents, and families

39! ! in an effort to reduce destructive conflict styles and increase constructive patterns of communication during conflict. The present study also suggests that men and women are impacted in different ways by exposure to parent’s conflicts. Further exploration of this highlighted that men are more likely than women to experience problems related to being overly hostile, controlling, and dominant when they also experience greater emotional insecurity. This interpersonal style is also aligned with traditional societal norms and expectations for men, and mental health professionals should be mindful of systemic factors influencing men’s approaches to interpersonal interactions. Interventions could address how normative socialization messages might have impacted a man’s perceived threat to security in the presence of marital conflict in his family of origin and influenced his pattern of coping with such threats. Therapeutic strategies that examine the needs met by, as well as the costs of employing, hostile dominant interpersonal strategies might be particularly useful and may facilitate the acquisition of other, more adaptive and flexible approaches to relating with others. In conclusion, this study provides valuable information informing the current conceptualization of how interparental conflict influences children’s development. This is the only study that has simultaneously examined exposure to constructive and destructive interparental conflict and its impact on older adolescents’ general relational functioning. The findings add to the current literature and provide valuable insights into the impact of exposure to interparental conflict on adult interpersonal outcomes. This research highlights mediating (i.e., emotional insecurity) and moderating (i.e., gender) factors that shape individuals’ relational development. Importantly, this study illustrates that not all conflict is detrimental, and indicates that exposure to constructive parental conflict can promote well-being and adult relational security. Finally, study findings have practical implications regarding how to intervene with individuals and families who experience frequent, destructive interparental conflict.

40! !

References Amato, P.R., Loomis, L.S., & Booth, A. (1995). Parental divorce, marital conflict, and offspring well-being during early adulthood. Social Forces, 73, 895-915. Amato, P.R., & Booth, A. (2001). The legacy of parents’ marital discord: Consequences for children’s marital quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 627-638. Benjamin, L.S. (2003). Interpersonal Reconstructive Therapy. New York: The Guilford Press. Black, D.S., Sussman, S., & Unger, J.B. (2010). A further look at the intergenerational transmission of violence: Witnessing interparental violence in emerging adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1022-1042. Boyce, P., & Parker, G. (1989). Development of a scale to measure interpersonal sensitivity. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 23, 341-351. Carr, J.L., & VanDeusen, K.M. (2013). The relationship between family of origin violence and dating violence in college men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 630-646. Cummings, E.M., Ballard, M., El-Sheikh, M., & Lake, M. (1991). Resolution and children’s responses to interadult anger. Developmental Psychopathology, 27, 462-470. Cummings, E.M., & Davies, P. (1996). Emotional security as a regulatory process in normal development and the development of psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 123-139. Cummings, E.M., & Davies, P.T. (2002). Effects of marital conflict on children: Recent advances and emerging themes in process-oriented research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 31-63. Cummings, E.M., & Davies, P.T. (2010). Marital Conflict and Children. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Cummings, E.M., Goeke-Morey, M.C., Papp, L.M., & Dukewich, T.L. (2002). Children’s responses to mothers’ and fathers’ emotionality and tactics in marital conflict in the home. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 478-492.

41! !

Cummings, E.M., Goeke-Morey, M.C., & Papp, L.M. (2004). Everyday marital conflict and child aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 191-202. Cummings, E.M., & Schatz, J.N. (2012). Family conflict, emotional security, and child development: Translating research findings into a prevention program for community families. Clinical Child Family Psychology Review, 15, 14-27. Cummings, E.M., Schermerhorn, A.C., Davies, P.T., Goeke-Morey, M.C., & Cummings, J.S. (2006). Interparental discord and child adjustment: Prospective investigations of emotional security as an explanatory mechanism. Child Development, 77, 132-152. Davies, P.T., & Cummings, E.M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387-411. Davies, P.T., & Cummings, E.M. (1996). Exploring children’s emotional security as a mediator of the links between marital relations and child adjustment. Child Development, 69, 124- 139. Davies, P.T., & Forman, E.M. (2002). Children’s patterns of preserving emotional security in the interparental subsystem. Child Development, 73, 1880-1903. Davies, P.T., Forman, E.M., Rasi, J.A., & Stevenes, K.I. (2002). Assessing children’s emotional security in the interparental relationship: The security in the interparental subsystem scales. Child Development, 73, 544-562. Davies, P.T., Manning, L.G., & Cicchetti, D. (2013). Tracing the cascade of children’s insecurity in the interparental relationship: The role of stage-salient tasks. Child Development, 84, 297-312. Davies, P.T., & Martin, M.J. (2013). The reformulation of emotional security theory: The role of children’s social defense in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 1435-1454. Davies, P.T., Sturge-Apple, M.L., Winter, M.A., Cummings, E.M., & Farrell, D. (2006). Child adaptational development in contexts of interparental conflict over time. Child Development, 77, 218-233. Davies, P.T., Winter, M.A., & Cicchetti, D. (2006). The implications of emotional security theory for understanding and treating childhood psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 707-735. Du Rocher Schudlich , T.D., Shamir, H., & Cummings, E.M. (2004). Marital conflict, children’s

42! !

representations of family relationships, and children’s dispositions toward peer conflict strategies. Social Development, 13, 171-192. Forehand, R., McCombs, A., Long, N., Brody, G., & Fauber, R. (1988). Early adolescent adjustment to recent parental divorce: The role of interparental conflict and adolescent sex as mediating variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 624-627. Fraley, R.C., Waller, N.G., & Brennan, K.A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self- report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350-365. Goeke-Morey, M.C., Cummings, E.M., Harold, G.T., & Shelton, K.H. (2004). Categories and continua of destructive and constructive marital conflict tactics from the perspective of U.S. and Welsh children. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 327-338. Goodman, S.H., Barfoot, B., Frye, A.A., & Belli, A.M (1999). Dimensions of marital conflict and children’s social problem-solving skills, Journal of Family Psychology, 1, 33-45. Gover, A.R., Kaukinen, C., & Fox, K.A. (2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1667-1693. Graham, J.W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 2009(60), 549-576. Grych, J.H., & Fincham, F.D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive- contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290. Grych, J.H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F.D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: The children’s perception of interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63, 558-572. Helgeson, V. (1993). Implications of agency and communion for patient and spouse adjustment to a first coronary event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 807-816. Helgeson, V. & Fritz, H.L. (1999). Unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion: Distinctions from agency and communion. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 131- 158. Helmreich, R.L., Spence, J.T., & Wilhelm, J.A. (1981). A psychometric analysis of the personal attributes questionnaire. Sex Roles, 7, 1097-1108.

43! !

Henry, C.S., Sager, D.W., & Plunkett, S.W. (1996). Adolescents’ perceptions of family system characteristics, parent-adolescent dyadic behaviors, adolescent qualities, and adolescent empathy. Family Relations, 45, 283-292. Helgeson, V.S. & Fritz, H.L. (2000). The implications of unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion for domains of problem behavior. Journal of Personality, 6, 1031-1057. Herzog, M., & Cooney, T.M. (2002). Parental divorce and perceptions of past interparental conflict. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 36, 89-109. Hillaker, B.D., Brophy-Herb, H.E., Villarruel, F.A., & Haas, B.E. (2008). The contributions of parenting to social competencies and positive values in middle school youth: Positive family communication, maintaining standards, and supportive family relationships. Family Relations, 57, 591-601. Horowitz, L.M., Wilson, K.R., Turan, B., Zolotsev, P., Constantino, M.J., & Henderson, L. (2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 67-86. Horowitz, A., & Wiggins, P. (2000). Inventory of interpersonal problems (IIP-64). The Psychological Corporation, a Harcourt Assessment Company. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Jenkins, J., Simpson, A., Dunn, J., Rasbash, J., & O’Connor, T.G. (2005). Mutual influence of marital conflict and children’s behavior problems: Shared and nonshared family risks. Child Development, 76, 24-39. Johnson, H.D., Lavoie, J.C., & Mahoney, M. (2001). Interparental conflict and family cohesion: Predictors of loneliness, social anxiety, and social avoidance in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 304-318. Kerig, P.K. (1998). Moderators and mediators of the effects of interparental conflict on children’s adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 199-212. Kerig, P.K. (2005). Revisiting the construct of boundary dissolution. Journal of Emotinal Abuse, 5, 5-42. Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. New York: John Wiley.

44! !

Kingsfogel, K.M., & Grych, J.H. (2004). Interparental conflict and adolescent dating relationships: Integrating, cognitive, emotional, and peer influences. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 505-515. Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49, 25-44. Lawrence, E.J., Shaw, P., Baker, D., Baron-Cohen, S., & David, A.S. (2004). Measuring empathy: Reliability and validity of the empathy quotient. Psychological Medicine, 34, 911-924. Leising, D., Rehbeing, D., & Eckardt, J. (2009). The Inventory of Interpersonal problems (IIP- 64) as a screening measure for avoidant personality disorder. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25, 16-22. Lindahl, K.M., & Malik, N.M. (1999). Marital conflict, family processes, and boys’ externalizing behavior in Hispanic American and European American families. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 12-24. Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, Vol. 4. New York: Wiley. Marcus, N.E., Lindahl, K.M., & Malik, N.M. (2001). Interparental conflict, children’s social cognitions, and and child aggression: A test of a mediational model. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 315-333. McCloskey, L.A., & Stuewig, J. (2001). The quality of peer relationships among children exposed to family violence. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 83-96. McCoy, K., Cummings, E.M., & Davies, P.T. (2009). Constructive and destructive marital conflict, emotional security, and children’s prosocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 270-279. Miga, E.M., Gdule, J.A., & Allen, J.P. (2012). Fighting fair: Adaptive marital conflict strategies as predictors of future adolescent peer and romantic relationship quality. Social Development, 21, 443-460. Milletich, R.J., Kelley, M.L., Doane, A.N., & Pearson, M.R. (2010). Exposure to interparental violence and childhood physical and emotional abuse as related to physical aggression in undergraduate dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 627-637.

45! !

Moretti, M.M., Obsuth, I., Odgers, C.L., & Reebye, P. (2006). Exposure to maternal vs. paternal partner violence, PTSD, and aggression in adolescent girls and boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 385-395. Neighbors, B.D., Forehand, R., & Bau, J.J. (1997). Interparental conflict and relations with parents as predictors of young adult functioning. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 169-187. Rhee, E., Uleman, J.S., & Lee, H.K. (1996). Variations in collectivism and individualism by ingroup and culture: Confirmatory and factor analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1037-1054. Sanford, K. (2010). Assessing conflict communication in couples: Comparing the validity of self-report, partner-report, and observer ratings. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 165- 174. Scherer, K.R., Clark-Polner, E., & Mortillaro, M. (2011). In the eye of the beholder? Universality and cultural specificity in the expression and perception of emotion. International Journal of Psychology, 46, 401-435. Shi, L. (2003). The association between adult attachment styles and conflict resolution in romantic relationships. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 143-157. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2012). Using Multivariate Statistics. New York: Pearson Teyber, E. & McClure, F.H. (2011). Interpersonal Process in Therapy. San Bernadino: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Wierson, M., Forehand, R., & McCombs, A. (1988). The relationship of early adolescent functioning to parent-reported and adolescent-perceived interparental conflict. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 707-718. Wong, Y.J., Kim, S-H., & Tran, K.K. (2010). Asian Americans’ adherence to Asian values, attributions about depression, and coping strategies. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 1-8.

46! Table 1 Means, standard! deviations, and intercorrelations among variables. M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1. Gender --- 2. Frequency 11.504 3.329 .039 ---

3. Intensity 12.229 3.535 .038 .781** --- 4. Resolution 9.876 3.339 .010 .787** .742** --- 5. Collaborative 11.736 3.948 -.054 -.610** -.625** -.614** --- Engagement (1)

6. Collaborative 9.049 2.889 -.590** -.591** -.592** .859** --- Engagement (2) -.039

7. Adversarial 21.766 5.752 .150** .645** .646** .532** -.511** -.483** --- Engagement 8. Emotional 15.789 5.760 .031 .476** .505** .467** -.325** -.303** .436** --- Reactivity 9. Avoidance 14.914 4.784 .078* .304** .326** .255** -.274** -.252** .436** .642** --- 10. Involvement 12.664 3.515 .033 .244** .218** .151** -.079* -.102** .269** .544** .506** --- 11. Destructive 6.422 2.972 -.041 .598** .576** .628** -.406** -.402** .467** .680** .456** .377** --- Family Reps. 12. Dominance 55.678 12.297 -.203** .113** .160** .202** -.028 -.024 .033 .174** .044 .087* .228** ---

13. Vindictive/ 51.047 18.202 -.183** .073 .086* .135** -.023 -.029 -.011 .108** -.022 .003 .121** .546** --- Self-Centered 14. Cold/Distant 55.007 11.129 -.148** .181** .194**. .228** -.140** -.124** .136** .263** .138** .092* .296** .638** .552** ---

15. Overly- 57.352 11.457 .043 .127** .141** .129** -.051 -.089* .148** .288** .249** .236** .241** .340** .248** .431** --- Accommodating

16. Self- 56.505 10.886 -.004 .114** .130** .123** -.008 -.039 .140** .290** .211** .259** .229** .473** .254** .412** .788** --- Sacrificing

17. Unmitigated 25.238 5.029 .076* .054 .045 .059 .003 .010 .109** .253** .108** .311** .143** .068 -.035 .021 .306** .327** --- Communion

18. Femininity 31.000 4.789 .253** -.038 -.078* -.118** .099** .107** .072 .023 .077* .150** -.060 -.371** -.318** .435** .045 .075 .245** --- 19. Cognitive 11.633 5.246 .206** .032 -.016 -.007 -.055 -.005 .170** -.014 -.071 .122** -.051 -.275** -.255** -.286** -.140** -.091* .086* .394** --- Empathy

20. Emotional 10.438 4.651 .333* -.009 -.049 -.098* .014 -.016 .131** .037 .150** .171** -.020 -.402** -.336** -.338** .021 .051 .211** .602** .543** --- Responsivity

21. Anxious 4.866 1.283 .030 -.191** -.185** -.187** .167** .178** -.156** -.280** -.222** -.139** -.260** -.294** -.181** -.353** -.317** -.337** -.153** .159** .113** .087* --- Attachment 22. Avoidant 5.476 1.143 .145** -.114** -.142** -.116** .110** .121** -.046 -.196** -.094* -.056 -.220** -.314** -.287** -.481** -.205** -.203** .019 .395** .224** .280** .526** --- Attachment 23. Interpersonal 16.105 4.031 -.168** -.127** -.060 -.076* .151** .117** -.206** -.220** -.254** -.189** -.094* -.044 .004 -.176** -.354** -.297** -.230** -.082* -.166** -.165** .301** .042 --- Awareness 24. Separation 20.474 4.561 -.048 -.139** -.125** -.148** .142** .116** -.148** -.276** -.203** -.182** -.187** -.206** -.164** -.288** -.353** .350** .226** .080* -.052 .075 .423** .192** .667** --- Anxiety

47 ! !

Hypothesized Models

Adaptive Interpersonal Outcomes Model.

Maladaptive Interpersonal Outcomes Model.

48 ! !

Proposed Models 1. Emotional security as a mediator of the relationships between exposure to constructive and destructive forms of interparental conflict and adaptive interpersonal functioning.

49 ! !

2. Emotional security as a mediator of the relationships between exposure to constructive and destructive forms of interparental conflict and maladaptive interpersonal functioning.

50 ! !

Figure 1. Proposed one-factor interparental conflict model.

Figure 2. Proposed two-factor interparental conflict model.

51 ! !

Figure 3. Alternative one-factor interparental conflict model.

Figure 4. Alternative two-factor interparental conflict model.

52 ! !

Figure 5. Measurement model of the relationship between exposure to constructive and destructive interparental conflict and later adaptive interpersonal functioning. Standardized regression weights are shown.

53 ! !

Figure 6. Measurement model of the relationship between exposure to constructive and destructive interparental conflict and later maladaptive interpersonal functioning. Standardized regression weights are shown.

54 ! !

Figure 7. Structural model of the relationship between exposure to constructive and destructive interparental conflict and later adaptive interpersonal functioning. Standardized factor loadings are shown. For direct pathways between latent constructs, standardized regression weights are to the left and unstandardized regression weights are in parentheses. Non-significant pathways are represented with dashed lines. ** denotes significance at the p < .001 level.

55 ! !

Figure 8. Structural model of the relationship between exposure to constructive and destructive interparental conflict and later maladaptive interpersonal functioning. Standardized factor loadings are shown. For direct pathways between latent constructs, standardized regression weights are to the left and unstandardized regression weights are in parentheses. Non-significant pathways are represented with dashed lines. ** denotes significance at the p < .001 level; * denotes significance at the p < .05 level.

56 ! !

Figure 9. Gender as a moderator of the model explaining the relationship between exposure to constructive and destructive interparental conflict and adaptive interpersonal functioning. Regression coefficients for men are shown to the left, and regression coefficients for women are shown to the right. * denotes significance at the p < .05 level; ** denotes significance at the p < .001 level.

57 ! !

Appendix A: Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Mediating and Outcome Variables Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to examine whether each latent construct was being adequately measured. Findings suggested that the emotional insecurity adequately fit the data (see Figure A1; X2 = 32.307, df = 2, CFI = .975, TLI = .924, RMSEA = .138, SRMR = .031). Figure A1. Proposed emotional security latent construct.

The empathic connection latent construct (see Figure A2) was just-identified (there were 6 free parameters to be estimated and 0 degrees of freedom) and fit statistics could not be determined. Correlations among indicators revealed they were moderately to strongly related (ranging from .389 to .601), and likely measuring the same construct.

58 ! !

Figure A2. Proposed empathic connection latent construct.

For the relationship security latent construct (see Figure A3), model fit was poor (X2 = 163.980, df = 2, CFI = .768, TLI = .304, RMSEA = .331, SRMR = .116). Examination of correlations among indicators showed that the avoidant attachment indicator did not correlate strongly with the interpersonal awareness (r = .049) or separation anxiety (r = .190) indicators, and had the lowest factor loading (λ = .227). Therefore, the avoidant attachment indicator was dropped as an indicator of the relationship security latent construct. After dropping the avoidance attachment indicator, the relationship security model was just-identified. Examination of the correlations among indicators (r = .296 - .665) suggested the measurement model would be acceptable.

59 ! !

Figure A3. Proposed relationship security latent construct.

For the hostile dominance construct (see Figure A4), the model was just-identified (there were 6 free parameters to be estimated and 0 degrees of freedom). As a result, fit statistics could not be determined. Correlations among indicators were examined, and suggested that they were strongly related (ranging from .545 to .636), likely measuring the same construct. When testing the friendly submissive latent construct (see Figure A5), it was discovered that the residual covariance matrix was not positive definite. Output revealed that the residual variances were negative for the overly accommodating indicator drawn from the IIP-64. Therefore, the overly accommodating indicator set to zero. Following this correction, model fit was adequate (X2 = 24.488, df = 3, CFI = .985, TLI = .970, RMSEA = .096, SRMR = .028).

60 ! !

Figure A4. Proposed hostile dominance latent construct.

Figure A5. Proposed friendly submissive latent construct.

61 ! !

Appendix B: Measures Used in the Present Study

Conflict Communication Inventory (CCI) Sanford, K. (2010). Assessing conflict communication in couples: Comparing the validity of self-report, partner-report, and observer ratings. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 165- 174.

Listed below are things that people often do when there is a conflict in a relationship. To what extent did your parents do these things during a conflict interaction?

1. My parents said something mean. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Strongly

2. My parents made each other feel that their viewpoints were valuable. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Strongly

3. My parents raised their voices. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Strongly

4. My parents were considerate towards each other. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Strongly

62 ! !

5. My parents told each other they were doing something to cause the problem. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Strongly

6. My parents said something kind. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Strongly

7. My parents argued. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Strongly

8. My parents agreed with each other. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Strongly

9. My parents defended their own positions. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Strongly

10. My parents politely talked about their feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Strongly

63 ! !

11. My parents corrected each other’s statements. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Strongly

12. My parents listened carefully so they could understand each other. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Strongly

13. My parents criticized each other. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Strongly

14. My parents discussed the issue calmly. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Strongly

64 ! !

Family Disagreements (CPIC) Grych, J.H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F.D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: The children’s perception of interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63, 558-572.

I live with ____ both my mom and my dad ____ one of my parents and a stepmom or stepdad ____ just my mom or my dad ____ another relative (e.g., grandmother, aunt)

In every family there are times when the parents don't get along. Below are some things that kids sometimes think or feel when their parents have arguments or disagreements. We would like you to write what you think or feel when your parents argue by answering each of the sentences below.

If your parents are not living together, answer these questions in regard to the parent and stepparent (or your parent’s boyfriend/girlfriend) that you spend the most time with. If your parents are not living together and neither one is living with a new partner, think about times when your parents are together and don’t get along when you answer the questions. T = TRUE ST = SORT OF OR SOMETIMES TRUE F = FALSE

1. T ST F I never see my parents arguing or disagreeing 2. T ST F When my parents have an argument they usually work it out 3. T ST F My parents often get into arguments about things I do at school 4. T ST F When my parents argue I end up getting involved somehow 5. T ST F My parents get really mad when they argue 6. T ST F When my parents argue I can do something to make myself feel better 7. T ST F I get scared when my parents argue 8. T ST F I feel caught in the middle when my parents argue 9. T ST F I’m not to blame when my parents have arguments 10. T ST F They may not think I know it, but my parents argue or disagree a lot 11. T ST F Even after my parents stop arguing they stay mad at each other

65 ! !

12. T ST F When my parents argue I try to do something to stop them 13. T ST F When my parents have a disagreement they discuss it quietly 14. T ST F I don’t know what to do when my parents have arguments 15. T ST F My parents are often mean to each other even when I’m around 16. T ST F When my parents argue I worry about what will happen to me 17. T ST F I don’t feel like I have to take sides when parents have a disagreement 18. T ST F It’s usually my fault when my parents argue 19. T ST F I often see or hear my parents arguing 20. T ST F When my parents disagree about something, they usually come up with a solution 21. T ST F My parents’ arguments are usually about me 22. T ST F When my parents have an argument they say mean things to each other 23. T ST F When my parents argue or disagree I can usually help make things better 24. T ST F When my parents argue I’m afraid that something bad will happen 25. T ST F My mom wants me to be on her side when she and my dad argue 26. T ST F Even if they don’t say it, I know I’m to blame when my parents argue 27. T ST F My parents hardly ever argue 28. T ST F When my parents argue they usually make up right away 29. T ST F My parents usually argue or disagree because of things that I do 30. T ST F I don’t get involved when my parents argue 31. T ST F When my parents have an argument they yell at each other 32. T ST F When my parents there’s nothing I can do to stop them 33. T ST F When my parents argue I worry that one of them will get hurt 34. T ST F I feel like I have to take sides when my parents have a disagreement 35. T ST F My parents often nag and complain about each other around the house 36. T ST F My parents hardly ever yell when they have a disagreement 37. T ST F My parents often get into arguments when I do something wrong 38. T ST F My parents have broken or thrown things during an argument 39. T ST F After my parents stop arguing, they are friendly towards each other 40. T ST F When my parents argue I’m afraid that they will yell at me too 41. T ST F My parents are to blame when they have arguments

66 ! !

42. T ST F My dad wants me to be on his side when he and my mom argue 43. T ST F My parents have pushed or shoved each other during an argument 44. T ST F When my parents argue or disagree there’s nothing I can do to make myself feel better 45. T ST F When my parents argue I worry that they might get divorced 46. T ST F My parents still act mean after they have had an argument 47. T ST F Usually it’s not my fault when my parents have arguments 48. T ST F When my parents argue they don’t listen to anything I say

67 ! !

SECURITY IN THE INTERPARENTAL SUBSYSTEM (SIS) SCALE Davies, P.T., Forman, E.M., Rasi, J.A., & Stevens, K.I. (2002). Assessing children’s emotional security in the interparental relationship: The security in the interparental subsystem scales. Child Development, 73, 544-562.

Instructions: Please answer the following questions, based on how true they are for you during the past year. Answer each question by circling one answer from the four answer choices below.

1= Not at all true of me 2 = A little true of me 3 = Somewhat true of me 4 = Very true of me

When my parents argue, I feel ... 1) Sad 1 2 3 4 2) Scared 1 2 3 4 3) Angry 1 2 3 4 4) Unsafe 1 2 3 4 5) Happy 1 2 3 4 6) Sorry for one or both of my parents 1 2 3 4

After my parents argue... 7) It ruins my whole day 1 2 3 4 8) I can't seem to calm myself down 1 2 3 4 9) I can't seem to shake off my bad feelings 1 2 3 4

When my parents have an argument... 10) I laugh or smile. 1 2 3 4 11) I keep really still, almost as if I were frozen. 1 2 3 4 12) I try to hide what I’m feeling. 1 2 3 4 13) I yell at or say unkind things to people in my family. 1 2 3 4 14) I hit, kick, slap, or throw things at people in my family. 1 2 3 4 15) I don’t know what to do. 1 2 3 4 16) I try to distract them by bringing up other things. 1 2 3 4

68 ! !

17) I watch them or listen very closely. 1 2 3 4 18) I try to be on my best behavior (like doing nice things for them). 1 2 3 4 19) I try to clown around or cause trouble. 1 2 3 4 20) I put it out of my mind. 1 2 3 4 21) 1 feel caught in the middle. 1 2 3 4 22) I try to be really quiet. 1 2 3 4 23) I end up doing nothing, even though I wish I could do something. 1 2 3 4 24) I can’t stop thinking about their problems. 1 2 3 4 25) I don’t worry about it, because it’s a waste of time. 1 2 3 4 26) I try to solve the problem for them. 1 2 3 4 27) I wait and hope things will get better. 1 2 3 4

When my parents have an argument… 28) I try to comfort one or both of them. 1 2 3 4 29) I feel like staying as far away from them as possible. 1 2 3 4 30) I try to pretend that things are better. 1 2 3 4 31) I try to get away from them (for example, by leaving the room). 1 2 3 4 32) I end up taking sides with one of them. 1 2 3 4

When my parents have an argument… 33) 1 feel like they are upset with me. 1 2 3 4 34) The family is still able to get along with each other. 1 2 3 4 35) 1 know they still love each other. 1 2 3 4 36) I know that everything will be okay. 1 2 3 4 37) I feel like it’s my fault. 1 2 3 4 38) I worry about my family’s future. 1 2 3 4 39) 1 worry about what they’re going to do next. 1 2 3 4 40) I know it’s because they don’t know how to get along. 1 2 3 4 41) I think they blame me. 1 2 3 4 42) I wonder if they will separate or divorce. 1 2 3 4 43) I believe that they can work out their differences. 1 2 3 4

69 ! 920 E. J. Lawrence et al.

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A. & Garbin, M. G. (1988b). Psychometric Johnson, J., Smither, R. & Cheek, J. (1983). The structure of properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: twenty-five years of empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45, evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review 8, 77–100. 1299–1312. Bernstein, E. M. & Putnam, F. W. (1986). Development, reliability, Kim, J. & Mueller, C. (1978). Introduction to Factor Analysis.Sage and validity of a dissociation scale. Journal of Nervous & Mental Publications: Beverley Hills. Disease 174, 727–735. Lambert, M. V., Senior, C., Fewtrell, W., Phillips, M. & David, A. S. Blair, J. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality; (2001). Primary and secondary depersonalisation disorder: a investigating the psychopath. Cognition 57, 1–29. psychometric study. Journal of Affective Disorders 63, 249–246. Carlson, E. B. & Putnam, F. W. (1993). An update on the Mehrabian, A. (2000). Manual for the balanced emotional empathy Dissociative Experiences Scale. Dissociation: Progress in the scale [unpublished]. Available from Albert Mehrabian, 1130 Alta Dissociative Disorders 6, 16–27. Mesa Road, Monterey, CA 93940, CA, USA. Carlson, E. B., Putnam, F. W., Anderson, G., Clark, P., Torem, M., Mehrabian, A. & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional Coons, P., Bowman, E., Chu, J., Dill, D., Loewenstein, R. J. empathy. Journal of Personality 40, 525–543. &Braun,B.G.(1991). Factor Analysis of the Dissociative Mehrabian, A., Young, A. L. & Sato, S. (1988). Emotional empathy Experiences Scale; A Multi-center Study. Rush Presbyterian: and associated individual differences. Current Psychology: Chicago, IL. Research & Reviews 7, 221–240. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Nelson, H. E. (1982). National Adult Reading Test (NART):Test Multivariate Behavioural Research 1, 140–161. Manual.NFER:Wilson,Windsor. Crowne, D. P. & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desir- Senior, C., Hunter, E., Lambert, M. V., Medford, N. C., Sierra, M., ability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Phillips, M. L. & David, A. S. (2001). Depersonalisation. Psychol- Psychology 24, 349–354. ogist 14, 128–132. Davis, M. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual Shaw, P., Lawrence, E., Baron-Cohen, S. & David, A. S. (2003). The differences in empathy. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psy- role of the amygdala in social sensitivity. Annals of New York chology 10, 85. Academy of Sciences 985, 508–510. Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. Simeon, D., Guralnik, O., Gross, S., Stein, D. J., Schmeidler, J. Brown & Benchmark: Dubuque, IA. & Hollander, E. (1998). The detection and measurement of de- Eisenberg, N. & Strayer, J. (eds) (1987). Empathy and its Develop- personalization disorder. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease ! ment. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 186, 536–542. Gorsuch, R. (1974). Factor Analysis. W. B. Saunders: Philadelphia. Stone, V. E., Baron-Cohen, S., Calder, A., Keane, J. & Young, A. Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of (2003). Acquired theory of mind impairments in individuals with Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33, 307–316. bilateral amygdala lesions. Neuropsychologia 41, 209–220. Hutcheson, G. & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The Multivariate Social Tabachnick, B. & Fiddell, L. (1989). Using Multivariate Statistics. TheScientist Empathy.SagePublicationsLtd:London. Quotient (EQ) Harper Collins: New York. Lawrence, E.J., Shaw, P., Baker, D. Baron-Cohen, S., & David, A.S. (2004). Measuring empathy: Reliability and validity of the empathy quotient. Psychological Medicine, 34, 911-924. Appendix 1 – The EQ – (Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright, 2003 in press) How to fill out the questionnaire Below are a list of statements. Please read each statement very carefully and rate how strongly you agree or disagree with it by circling your answer. There are no right or wrong answers, or trick questions.

IN ORDER FOR THE SCALE TO BE VALID, YOU MUST ANSWER EVERY QUESTION.

Examples E1. I would be very upset if I couldn’t listen to music strongly slightly slightly strongly every day. agree agree disagree disagree

E2. I prefer to speak to my friends on the phone rather strongly slightly slightly strongly than write letters to them. agree agree disagree disagree

E3. I have no desire to travel to different parts of the strongly slightly slightly strongly world. agree agree disagree disagree

E4. I prefer to read than to dance. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

1. I can easily tell if someone else wants to enter a strongly slightly slightly strongly conversation. agree agree disagree disagree

2. I prefer animals to humans.Measuring empathy strongly slightly slightly strongly921 agree agree disagree disagree

3. I try to keep up with the current trends and fash- strongly slightly slightly strongly ions. agree agree disagree disagree

4. I find it difficult to explain to others things that I strongly slightly slightly strongly understand easily, when they don’t understand it agree agree disagree disagree first time. 5. I dream most nights. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

6. I really enjoy caring for other people. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

7. I try to solve my own problems rather than dis- strongly slightly slightly strongly cussing them with others. agree agree disagree disagree

8. I find it hard to know what to do in a social situ- strongly slightly slightly strongly ation. agree agree disagree disagree

9. I am at my best first thing in the morning. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree 10. People often tell me that I went too far in driving strongly slightly slightly strongly my point home in a discussion. agree agree disagree disagree

11. It doesn’t bother me too much if I am late meeting strongly slightly slightly strongly a friend. 70 ! agree agree disagree disagree

12. Friendships and relationships are just too difficult, strongly slightly slightly strongly so I tend not to bother with them. agree agree disagree disagree

13. I would never break a law, no matter how minor. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

14. I often find it difficult to judge if something is rude strongly slightly slightly strongly or polite. agree agree disagree disagree

15. In a conversation, I tend to focus on my own strongly slightly slightly strongly thoughts rather than on what my listener might be agree agree disagree disagree thinking.

16. I prefer practical jokes to verbal humour. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

17. I live life for today rather than the future. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

18. When I was a child, I enjoyed cutting up worms to strongly slightly slightly strongly see what would happen. agree agree disagree disagree

19. I can pick up quickly if someone says one thing but strongly slightly slightly strongly means another. agree agree disagree disagree

20. I tend to have very strong opinions about mor- strongly slightly slightly strongly ality. agree agree disagree disagree

PLEASE TURN OVER Measuring empathy 921

3. I try to keep up with the current trends and fash- strongly slightly slightly strongly ions. agree agree disagree disagree

4. I find it difficult to explain to others things that I strongly slightly slightly strongly understand easily, when they don’t understand it agree agree disagree disagree first time. 5. I dream most nights. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

6. I really enjoy caring for other people. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

7. I try to solve my own problems rather than dis- strongly slightly slightly strongly cussing them with others. agree agree disagree disagree

8. I find it hard to know what to do in a social situ- strongly slightly slightly strongly ation. agree agree disagree disagree

! 9. I am at my best first thing in the morning. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

10. People often tell me that I went too far in driving strongly slightly slightly strongly my point home in a discussion. agree agree disagree disagree

11. It doesn’t bother me too much if I am late meeting strongly slightly slightly strongly a friend. agree agree disagree disagree

12. Friendships and relationships are just too difficult, strongly slightly slightly strongly so I tend not to bother with them. agree agree disagree disagree

13. I would never break a law, no matter how minor. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

14. I often find it difficult to judge if something is rude strongly slightly slightly strongly or polite. agree agree disagree disagree

15. In a conversation, I tend to focus on my own strongly slightly slightly strongly thoughts rather than on what my listener might be agree agree disagree disagree thinking.

16. I prefer practical jokes to verbal humour. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

17. I live life for today rather than the future. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

18. When I was a child, I enjoyed cutting up worms to strongly slightly slightly strongly see what would happen. agree agree disagree disagree

19. I can pick up quickly if someone says one thing but strongly slightly slightly strongly means another. agree agree disagree disagree

92220. I tend to have very strong opinions aboutE. J. Lawrencemor- strongly et al. slightly slightly strongly ality. agree agree disagree disagree

21. It is hard for me to see why some things upset strongly slightly slightly strongly people so much. agree agree PLEASEdisagree TURNdisagree OVER

22. I find it easy to put myself in somebody else’s strongly slightly slightly strongly shoes. agree agree disagree disagree 23. I think that good manners are the most important strongly slightly slightly strongly thing a parent can teach their child. agree agree disagree disagree

24. I like to do things on the spur of the moment. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

25. I am good at predicting how someone will feel. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

26. I am quick to spot when someone in a group is strongly slightly slightly strongly feeling awkward or uncomfortable. agree agree disagree disagree

27. If I say something that someone else is offended strongly slightly slightly strongly by, I think that that’s their problem, not mine. agree agree disagree disagree

28. If anyone asked me if I liked their haircut, I would strongly slightly slightly strongly reply truthfully, even if I didn’t like it. agree agree disagree disagree 29. I can’t always see why someone should have felt strongly slightly slightly strongly offended by a remark. agree agree disagree disagree 71 ! 30. People often tell me that I am very unpredictable. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

31. I enjoy being the centre of attention at any social strongly slightly slightly strongly gathering. agree agree disagree disagree

32. Seeing people cry doesn’t really upset me. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

33. I enjoy having discussions about politics. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

34. I am very blunt, which some people take to be strongly slightly slightly strongly rudeness, even though this is unintentional. agree agree disagree disagree

35. I don’t tend to find social situations confusing. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

36. Other people tell me I am good at understanding strongly slightly slightly strongly how they are feeling and what they are thinking. agree agree disagree disagree

37. When I talk to people, I tend to talk about their strongly slightly slightly strongly experiences rather than my own. agree agree disagree disagree

38. It upsets me to see an animal in pain. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

39. I am able to make decisions without being influ- strongly slightly slightly strongly enced by people’s feelings. agree agree disagree disagree 922 E. J. Lawrence et al.

21. It is hard for me to see why some things upset strongly slightly slightly strongly people so much. agree agree disagree disagree

22. I find it easy to put myself in somebody else’s strongly slightly slightly strongly shoes. agree agree disagree disagree 23. I think that good manners are the most important strongly slightly slightly strongly thing a parent can teach their child. agree agree disagree disagree

24. I like to do things on the spur of the moment. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

25. I am good at predicting how someone will feel. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

26. I am quick to spot when someone in a group is strongly slightly slightly strongly feeling awkward or uncomfortable. agree agree disagree disagree

27. If I say something that someone else is offended strongly slightly slightly strongly by, I think that that’s their problem, not mine. agree agree disagree disagree

!28. If anyone asked me if I liked their haircut, I would strongly slightly slightly strongly reply truthfully, even if I didn’t like it. agree agree disagree disagree

29. I can’t always see why someone should have felt strongly slightly slightly strongly offended by a remark. agree agree disagree disagree

30. People often tell me that I am very unpredictable. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

31. I enjoy being the centre of attention at any social strongly slightly slightly strongly gathering. agree agree disagree disagree

32. Seeing people cry doesn’t really upset me. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

33. I enjoy having discussions about politics. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

34. I am very blunt, which some people take to be strongly slightly slightly strongly rudeness, even though this is unintentional. agree agree disagree disagree

35. I don’t tend to find social situations confusing. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

36. Other people tell me I am good at understanding strongly slightly slightly strongly how they are feeling and what they are thinking. agree agree disagree disagree

37. When I talk to people, I tend to talk about their strongly slightly slightly strongly experiences rather than my own. agree agree disagree disagree

38. It upsets me to see an animal in pain. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

39. I am able to make decisions without being influ- strongly slightly slightly strongly Measuring empathy 923 enced by people’s feelings. agree agree disagree disagree 40. I can’t relax until I have done everything I had strongly slightly slightly strongly planned to do that day. agree agree disagree disagree

41. I can easily tell if someone else is interested or strongly slightly slightly strongly bored with what I am saying. agree agree disagree disagree

42. I get upset if I see people suffering on news pro- strongly slightly slightly strongly grammes. agree agree disagree disagree

43. Friends usually talk to me about their problems as strongly slightly slightly strongly they say that I am very understanding. agree agree disagree disagree

44. I can sense if I am intruding, even if the other strongly slightly slightly strongly person doesn’t tell me. agree agree disagree disagree

45. I often start new hobbies but quickly become strongly slightly slightly strongly bored with them and move on to something else. agree agree disagree disagree

46. People sometimes tell me that I have gone too far strongly slightly slightly strongly with teasing. agree agree disagree disagree

47. I would be too nervous to go on a big roll- strongly slightly slightly strongly ercoaster. agree agree disagree disagree

48. Other people often say that I am insensitive, strongly slightly slightly strongly though I don’t always see why. agree agree disagree disagree

49. If I see a stranger in a group, I think that it is up72 to ! strongly slightly slightly strongly them to make an effort to join in. agree agree disagree disagree

50. I usually stay emotionally detached when watch- strongly slightly slightly strongly ing a film. agree agree disagree disagree

51. I like to be very organised in day to day life and strongly slightly slightly strongly often make lists of the chores I have to do. agree agree disagree disagree

52. I can tune into how someone else feels rapidly and strongly slightly slightly strongly intuitively. agree agree disagree disagree

53. I don’t like to take risks. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

54. I can easily work out what another person might strongly slightly slightly strongly want to talk about. agree agree disagree disagree

55. I can tell if someone is masking their true emotion. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

56. Before making a decision I always weigh up the strongly slightly slightly strongly pros and cons. agree agree disagree disagree

57. I don’t consciously work out the rules of social strongly slightly slightly strongly situations. agree agree disagree disagree

PLEASE TURN OVER Measuring empathy 923

40. I can’t relax until I have done everything I had strongly slightly slightly strongly planned to do that day. agree agree disagree disagree

41. I can easily tell if someone else is interested or strongly slightly slightly strongly bored with what I am saying. agree agree disagree disagree

42. I get upset if I see people suffering on news pro- strongly slightly slightly strongly grammes. agree agree disagree disagree

43. Friends usually talk to me about their problems as strongly slightly slightly strongly they say that I am very understanding. agree agree disagree disagree

44. I can sense if I am intruding, even if the other strongly slightly slightly strongly person doesn’t tell me. agree agree disagree disagree

45. I often start new hobbies but quickly become strongly slightly slightly strongly bored with them and move on to something else. agree agree disagree disagree

46. People sometimes tell me that I have gone too far strongly slightly slightly strongly with teasing. agree agree disagree disagree

!47. I would be too nervous to go on a big roll- strongly slightly slightly strongly ercoaster. agree agree disagree disagree

48. Other people often say that I am insensitive, strongly slightly slightly strongly though I don’t always see why. agree agree disagree disagree

49. If I see a stranger in a group, I think that it is up to strongly slightly slightly strongly them to make an effort to join in. agree agree disagree disagree

50. I usually stay emotionally detached when watch- strongly slightly slightly strongly ing a film. agree agree disagree disagree

51. I like to be very organised in day to day life and strongly slightly slightly strongly often make lists of the chores I have to do. agree agree disagree disagree

52. I can tune into how someone else feels rapidly and strongly slightly slightly strongly intuitively. agree agree disagree disagree

53. I don’t like to take risks. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

54. I can easily work out what another person might strongly slightly slightly strongly want to talk about. agree agree disagree disagree

55. I can tell if someone is masking their true emotion. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

56. Before making a decision I always weigh up the strongly slightly slightly strongly pros and cons. agree agree disagree disagree

57. I don’t consciously work out the rules of social strongly slightly slightly strongly 924 E. J. Lawrence et al. situations. agree agree disagree disagree

58. I am good at predicting what someone will do. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree PLEASE TURN OVER 59. I tend to get emotionally involved with a friend’s strongly slightly slightly strongly problems. agree agree disagree disagree

60. I can usually appreciate the other person’s view- strongly slightly slightly strongly point, even if I don’t agree with it. agree agree disagree disagree

Thank you for filling this questionnaire in. f SBC/SJW Feb 1998

73 ! !

Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ)

Spence, J.T., & Helmreich, R.L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

The items below inquire about what kind of a person you think you are. Each item consists of a pair of characteristics with the letters A-E in between. For example:

Not at all Artistic A….B….C….D….E Very Artistic

Each pair describes contradictory characteristics – that is, you cannot be both at the same time, such as very artistic and not at all artistic.

The letters form a scale between the two extremes. You are to choose a letter which describes where you fall on the scale. For example, if you think you have no artistic ability, you would choose A. If you think you are pretty good, you might choose D. If you are only medium, you might choose C, and so forth.

1. Not at all aggressive A….B….C….D….E Very aggressive 2. Not at all independent A….B….C….D….E Very independent 3. Not at all emotional A….B….C….D….E Very emotional 4. Very submissive A….B….C….D….E Very dominant 5. Not at all excitable in A….B….C….D….E Very excitable in a major crisis a major crisis 6. Very passive A….B….C….D….E Very active 7. Not at all able to devote A….B….C….D….E Able to devote self self completely to others completely to others 8. Very rough A….B….C….D….E Very gentle 9. Not at all helpful to others A….B….C….D….E Very helpful to others

74 ! !

10. Not at all competitive A….B….C….D….E Very competitive 11. Very home oriented A….B….C….D….E Very worldly 12. Not at all kind A….B….C….D….E Very kind 13. Indifferent to others’ A….B….C….D….E Highly needful of approval others’ approval 14. Feelings not easily hurt A….B….C….D….E Feelings easily hurt 15. Not at all aware of A….B….C….D….E Very aware of feelings of others feelings of others 16. Can make decisions easily A….B….C….D….E Has difficulty making decisions 17. Gives up very easily A….B….C….D….E Never gives up easily 18. Never cries A….B….C….D….E Cries very easily 19. Not at all self-confident A….B….C….D….E Very self-confident 20. Feels very inferior A….B….C….D….E Feels very superior 21. Not at all understanding A….B….C….D….E Very understanding of others of others

22. Very cold in relations A….B….C….D….E Very warm in with others relations with others 23. Very little need for security A….B….C….D….E Very strong need for security 24. Goes to pieces under pressure A….B….C….D….E Stands up well under pressure

75 ! !

Revised Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR-R) questionnaire

Fraley, R.C., Waller, N.G., & Brennan, K.A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self- report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350-365.

The statements below concern how you feel in emotionally intimate relationships. We are interested in how you generally experience relationships, not just in what is happening in a current relationship. Respond to each statement by clicking a circle to indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement.

1. I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

2. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

3. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

76 ! !

4. I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

5. I don’t feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

6. I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

7. I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to get very close.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

8. I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

77 ! !

9. It’s not difficult for me to get close to my partner.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

10. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

11. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

12. I tell my partner just about everything.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

13. I talk things over with my partner.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

78 ! !

14. I am nervous when partners get too close to me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

15. I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

16. I find it easy to depend on romantic partners.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

17. It’s easy for me to be affectionate with my partner.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

18. My partner really understands me and my needs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

79 ! !

19. I’m afraid that I will lose my partner’s love.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

20. I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

21. I often worry that my partner doesn’t really love me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

22. I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care about them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

23. I often wish that my partner’s feelings for me were as strong as my feelings for him/her.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

80 ! !

24. I worry a lot about relationships.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

25. When my partner is out of sight, I worry that he or she might become interested in someone else.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

26. When I show my feelings for romantic partners I’m afraid they won’t feel the same way about me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

27. I rarely worry about my partner leaving me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

28. My romantic partner makes me doubt myself.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

81 ! !

29. I do not often worry about being abandoned.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

30. I find that my partner(s) don’t want to get as close as I would like.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

31. Sometimes romantic partners change their feelings about me for no apparent reason.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

32. My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

33. I’m afraid that once a romantic partner gets to know me, he or she won’t like who I really am.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

82 ! !

34. It makes me mad that I don’t get the affection and support I need from my partner.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

35. I worry that I won’t measure up to other people.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

36. My partner only seems to notice when I’m angry.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

83 ! !

Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure (IPSM) Boyce, P. & Parker, G. (1989). Development of a scale to measure interpersonal sensitivity. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 23, 341-351.

A number of statements are listed below which relate to how you might feel about yourself and other people in your life. Please indicate with a tick in the appropriate place how each one applies to you – i.e. whether it is “very like you,” “moderately like you,” moderately unlike you,” or “very unlike you.” Respond to each statement in terms of how you are GENERALLY and not necessarily just at present. There are no right or wrong answers.

Very Mod. Mod. Very Like Like Unlike Unlike

1. I feel insecure when I say goodbye to people. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

2. I worry about the effect I have on other people. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

3. I avoid saying what I think for fear of being rejected. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

4. I feel uneasy meeting new people. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

5. If others knew the real me, they would not like me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

6. I feel secure when I’m in a close relationship. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

7. I don’t get angry with people for fear that I may hurt them. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

8. After a fight with a friend, I feel uncomfortable until I have made peace. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

9. I am always aware of how other people feel. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

84 ! !

10. I worry about being criticized for things I have said or done. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

11. I always notice if someone doesn’t respond to me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

12. I worry about losing someone close to me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

13. I feel that people generally like me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

14. I will do something I don’t want to do rather than offend or upset someone. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

15. I can only believe that something I have done is good when someone tells me it is. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

16. I will go out of my way to please someone I am close to. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

17. I feel anxious when I say goodbye to people. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

18. I feel happy when someone compliments me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

19. I fear that my feelings will overwhelm people. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

20. I can make other people feel happy. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

21. I find it hard to get angry with people. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

22. I worry about criticizing people. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

23. If someone is critical of something I do, I feel bad. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

85 ! !

24. If other people knew what I am really like, they would think less of me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 25. I always expect criticism. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

26. I can never be really sure if someone is pleased with me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

27. I don’t like people to really know me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

28. If someone upsets me, I am not able to put it easily out of my mind. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

29. I feel others do not understand me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

30. I worry about what others think of me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

31. I don’t feel happy unless people I know admire me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

32. I am never rude to anyone. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

33. I worry about hurting the feelings of other people. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

34. I feel hurt when someone is angry with me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

35. My value as a person depends enormously on what others think of me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

36. I care about what people feel about me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

86 ! !

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems – 64 Horowitz, L.M., Alden, L.E., Wiggins, J.S., & Pincus, A.L. (2000). Inventory of interpersonal problems. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Available at: http://www.mindgarden.com/products/iip.htm

87 ! !

Unmitigated Communion Scale

Adapted from: Helgeson, V. S. (1993). Implications of agency and communion for patient and spouse adjustment to a first coronary event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 807-816.

Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:

1. I always place the needs of my family above my own.

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

2. I cannot be happy unless my family is happy.

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

3. I have been worried about how my family is getting along without me.

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

4. I often find myself getting overly involved in others’ problems.

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

88 ! !

5. I have great difficulty getting to sleep at night when one of my family members is upset.

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

6. I have difficulty satisfying my own needs when they interfere with the needs of my family.

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

7. I am unable to say no when someone asks me for help.

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

8. Even when exhausted I will help a friend.

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

89 !