Predicting relational security among early adolescent girls

Abstract

The current study used multiple informants to examine the impact of relationship experiences with parents and romantic partners on relational security among early adolescent girls, over a 1-year period. Seventy-one early adolescent girls and their primary caregivers participated at Time 1 and 1 year later (Time 2). Findings suggest that both parental and romantic relationship experiences impact relational security during early adolescence. The most consistent findings from the current study were the ability of romantic rejection to alter the relational security of early adolescent girls as well as the importance of parent–adolescent attachment security in predicting comfort with intimacy.

Keywords

Adolescence attachment early experience parent–adolescent relationships romantic relationships

The ability to develop and maintain close relationships is central to happiness and physical health (Ho et al., 2012), and the failure to do so is associated with emotional and physical distress (Simpson & Rholes, 2010). Research has well established that interpersonal experiences during childhood and later adolescence contribute to adult relationship security (Anderson et al., 2013; W. A. Collins, 2003; Gaertner, Fite, & Colder, 2010; Johnson, Nguyen, Anderson, Liu, & Vennum, 2015; Scharf & Mayseless, 2001); however, the importance of experiences during early adolescence has been less thoroughly examined. Further, exactly which types of experiences during early adolescence, and with whom, are most important for determining later relationship security is not as well understood.

Understanding how healthy relationship behavior develops for early adolescent girls is particularly important, as adolescent girls, as compared to younger girls and adolescent boys, are at increased risk for depression and anxiety, two mental health outcomes associated with dysfunctional relationships (Kessler, Avenevoli, & Merikangas, 2001; La Greca, Davila, & Siegel, 2008; La Greca & Moore-Harrison, 2005; Roberts, Gotlib, & Kassel, 1996; Twenge & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2002). Further, a robust body of literature suggests that interpersonal relationships are particularly salient in the lives of adolescent girls. Adolescent girls report being both more focused on, and affected by, interpersonal relationships (Compton, Nelson, & March, 2000; Rose & Rudolph, 2006) than do adolescent boys. Still, we know relatively little about how interpersonal relationships affect the well-being of girls during early adolescence and how experiences in interpersonal relationships during this period may impact relational security in later adolescence and beyond.

Mental representations of relationships

One mechanism by which early experiences contribute to adult relationship security is through the development and transfer of mental representations (Waters, Hamilton, & Weinfield, 2000) from one relationship to another. It is generally accepted that the infant attachment relationship (Bowlby, 1969) sets the stage for future relationship security and gives rise to mental representations about relationships that are eventually transferred to romantic relationships in later years. Although the groundwork for relationship security is laid during infancy, Bowlby (1988) posited that rather than being indelible, significant interactions with key others throughout life can affect one’s level of security, either negatively or positively. Indeed, these interactions, and our internalized reactions to them, give rise to what are termed mental representations (Waters et al., 2000). Mental representations develop as a result of interpersonal experiences and can be conceptualized as expectations for the self and others in relationships (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). These expectations include knowledge that is organized around a “relational prototype” or schema (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005).

Children whose caregivers are sufficiently available and nurturing come to expect that close others can be trusted, that they are worthy of love, and that capable of having their physical and emotional needs met. Children who develop such expectations are likely to carry these mental representations forward to their adolescent and adult relationships, thus believing their relationship partners can be relied upon to provide emotional and physical support and intimacy, much as their caregivers had been. Secure relationship expectations such as these are highly related to healthy romantic relationship functioning in adulthood (Feeney, 2008; Shaver, Schachner, & Mikulincer, 2005).

The construct of relational security

The focus of the present study is predictors of relational security, a construct related to mental representations and one’s expectations for relationships. Researchers typically conceptualize relational security as a construct with two underlying domains: comfort with intimacy and anxiety about abandonment (N. L. Collins & Read, 1990). Childhood mental representations characterized by security often precede adult relational security (Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000); that is, secure attachment fosters conditions under which individuals exhibit a willingness to trust and maintain emotional closeness to partners, while exhibiting healthy expectations that partners will be available and present in times of need. Although mental representations are fairly stable, attachment researchers acknowledge their plastic nature (Baldwin & Fehr, 1995; Bowlby, 1969, 1988; Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011; Pierce & Lydon, 2001; Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000). For instance, negative shifts in relationships with parents, or difficult experiences with romantic partners during adolescence, may lead to alterations in mental representations, leading to more negative expectations for relationships. Accordingly, the types of experiences that contribute to, and have the capacity to alter, relational security over time were the focus of the current investigation.

Parent–adolescent relationship experiences

Two sets of adolescent experiences in particular have been linked to relational security in adulthood: experiences with parents and with romantic partners (Furman & Simon, 1999; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). We will first discuss relevant literature regarding relationship experiences with parents. For instance, in a sample of older adolescent girls, Scharf and Mayseless (2008) highlighted the ways in which relationships with parents can impact adolescents’ romantic relationships concurrently and later in life. Specifically, they found that more positive maternal relationships were associated with delays in adolescent girls’ sexual debut and with better quality of romantic relationship concurrently. Further, these researchers found that more positive paternal relationships were associated with better quality of romantic relationship once they are formed, concurrently and longitudinally. These findings highlight the key role that parents play in shaping the quality of the romantic relationships that late adolescent girls form. Nonetheless, the impact of the girls’ romantic experiences on general relational security were not examined. The current study will examine the effects of both parental and romantic relationship variables on general relational security over time.

First, we will consider the role that parental relationship experiences play in determining later general relational security. Parent–child relationships in early childhood have long been thought to set the stage for later security (W. A. Collins & Sroufe, 1999; Simpson, Collins, Tran, & Haydon, 2007), and parent–adolescent relationships have similarly been linked to adult romantic relationship outcomes (W. A. Collins & Van Dulman, 2006; Seiffge-Krenke, Overbeek, & Vermust, 2010). In support of this link, Holman, Gailbraith, Timmens, Steed, and Tobler (2009) showed that participants who remembered threats to parental availability during childhood evidenced more attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety in adolescence. Similarly, Toomey and Nelson (2001) demonstrated that adolescents who experienced high levels of family conflict were more relationally dependent later in life. Further, Mahl (2001) reported that several types of experiences, including parental divorce, family conflict, and parental monitoring, all play an important role in adolescents’ capacity for relationship development. In a meta-analysis of 53 studies examining the effects of parental attachment on peer relationships in adolescence, a stable, predictive relationship was detected between parental attachment and subsequent relationships with peers. This moderate effect size (d = .54), however, alerts us to the fact that factors other than attachment to parents must play a key role in the development of relational security among adolescents (Benson, McWey, & Ross, 2006). We will return to this question of additional contributing factors in our subsequent discussion of early adolescent romantic relationships. Although many parent–adolescent relationship factors could be examined, in the current study, we investigated the roles of parent–adolescent attachment, parent-reported stress, and parent-reported satisfaction with the relationship.

These variables were selected for several reasons. The importance of the attachment relationship on later relational security has been well demonstrated in the literature and discussed previously in the current manuscript, thus we will outline our reasons for examining parent-reported stress and satisfaction with the adolescent relationship. Satisfaction between parents and children, as well as parental-felt stress, have both been identified as predictors of overall relational security. For instance, in an investigation of the implications of maternal stress for the parent–child attachment relationship, Hadadian and Merbler (1996) found that lower maternal-reported stress was associated with more positive mother–child attachment relationships. La Valley and Guerrero (2012) explored dyadic interactions between parents and their adult children and found a direct association between relational satisfaction and overall attachment security. Similarly, positive relationship experiences between parents and children (including relationship satisfaction) were associated with increases in attachment security in a longitudinal study of 223 adolescents and their parents (Ruhl, Dolan, & Burmeister, 2015). Negative experiences, such as pressure or criticism, predicted decreases in attachment security in this same sample.

In the current study, we have elected to collect data regarding stress and satisfaction in the parent–adolescent relationship from the parent’s point of view in order to maximize methodological variance. In doing so, we included parental perceptions of relationship quality, avoided focusing exclusively on adolescent self-report variables. This effort was made in an attempt to capture the “felt climate” of the adolescent. We hypothesized that the perceived level of stress and satisfaction of the parent is indicative of what may be conveyed to the adolescent and thus may strongly drive the interaction between the parent and adolescent, ultimately impacting relational security.

Adolescent romantic experiences

In addition to relationship experiences with parents, early adolescent romantic activity is another potentially important contributor in the development of general relational security. Although the precise developmental time line is debatable, some findings have supported the notion (La Greca & Moore-Harrison, 2005) that by late adolescence, adolescents rate closeness with romantic partners as more important than closeness with family members or friends. A large body of research has demonstrated that relationships with parents continue to exert an important influence during early adolescence; however, individuals during this developmental period also begin to modify and deepen their interactions with peers such that these bonds strengthen. These relationship modifications ultimately facilitate the transfer of attachment bonds and secure base behavior, intermittently at first, from parents to peers (Rosenthal & Kobak, 2010; Siebert & Kerns, 2009). The transition from a familial to a peer orientation, and eventually a romantic attachment, likely begins in early adolescence, a time when individuals spend an increasing amount of time thinking and talking about potential romantic partners. During late childhood and early adolescence it remains normative and potentially adaptive to socialize primarily within same-gendered relationships; however, this developmental period is characterized by a marked increase in romantic interest (Sroufe, Bennett, Englund, Urban, & Schulman, 1993). As such, it is important to understand how early adolescents begin to move from peer socialization to romantic relationships. Adolescent romantic relationships are known to play an important role in identity development and in the development of adult relationship behavior, with higher quality adolescent relationship experiences predicting more adaptive adult relationship behavior (Madsen & Collins, 2011; Meier & Allen, 2009) and identity achievement later in life (McNamara-Barry, Madsen, Nelson, Carroll, & Badger, 2009).

Bowlby most frequently cited experiences in close, intimate relationships as having the ability to shift mental representations (Bowlby, 1988) and thus general relational security. Although early adolescent romantic relationships may not be characterized by the same level of intimacy as adult romantic relationships, previously cited accumulating evidence points to the importance of early adolescent romantic relationships in setting the stage for adult romantic functioning as well (W. A. Collins, 2003; Conger et al., 2000). Again, the specific mechanism by which early adolescent romantic experiences impact adult romantic functioning is less well understood, however we offer the development and modification of one’s mental representations of close relationships as one possible explanation. We would hypothesize that a similar transfer takes place as during infancy through adolescence, in which individuals, following continued positive parental and romantic experiences during early adolescence, expect their close relationships in adulthood to be secure as well. Still, it remains unclear what types of romantic experiences during early adolescence play the largest role in the development of general relational security.

To begin to answer this question, we examined the role of both typical romantic experiences (such as flirting with someone or having been asked out on a date) and atypical romantic experiences (such as engaging in risky sexual relations) in determining the overall level of relational security across time. We will also consider the role of another normative, but nonetheless unpleasant event—romantic rejection. In addition to eliciting distress, real or imagined romantic rejection may initiate an expectation for further romantic rejection, which is associated with increased rejection sensitivity, relationship dysfunction, and poor mental health outcomes (Chango, McElhaney, Allen, Schad, & Marston, 2012; Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998; Harper, Dickson, & Welsh, 2006). This broad range of romantic events was explored in order to explore the impact that a variety of romantic experiences may have on the overall relational security of adolescents.

Indeed, it is likely that both romantic experiences and parent–adolescent relationships are important (Simpson, Collins, & Salvatore, 2011), acting in concert with one another and with other interpersonal experiences to produce general relational security later in life. Surprisingly, to our knowledge, previous research has failed to consider the unique contributions of both types of variables simultaneously within the same sample. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the differential impact of two types of interpersonal experiences—parent–adolescent relationships and romantic experiences—on the development of early adolescent girls’ general relational security over time. Our motivation was to gain a more fine-grained picture of how specific experiences during early adolescence uniquely predict general relational security later in adolescence, setting the stage for adult relationship behavior.

We hypothesized that both romantic experiences and the quality of the parental relationship would significantly predict changes over time in both underlying domains of general relational security: comfort with intimacy and anxiety about abandonment. Specifically, we predicted that engaging in more typical romantic experiences would be associated with an increase in general relational security from Time 1 (T1) to Time 2 (T2) and rejecting and risky romantic experiences would predict decreases in general relational security from T1 to T2. With respect to parental relationship variables, we hypothesized that higher levels of parent-reported chronic stress within the parent–adolescent relationship and lower levels of parent-reported satisfaction in the parent–adolescent relationship would be associated with a decrease in early adolescents’ relational security from T1 to T2. Further, we hypothesized that higher overall parent–adolescent attachment would predict increased relational security from T1 to T2. The relative importance of romantic and parent–adolescent relationship variables in predicting general relational security was investigated in an exploratory manner, with no predictions made about which set of variables would play a larger role in predicting changes in general relational security over a 1-year period.

The ability to develop rewarding and stable interpersonal relationships is key for healthy functioning throughout the life span. The current investigation is among the first to directly compare the ability of specific romantic and parent-relationship experiences, during early adolescence, to alter the course of relational security over time. The findings of this investigation have the ability to inform both research and clinical intervention and can provide a more nuanced understanding of adolescent girls’ relationship development.

Method

Participants

The final T2 sample consisted of 71 early adolescent girls and their primary caregivers (mothers = 69, fathers = 2) who participated in the first two waves of a larger project on relationships and psychological functioning among adolescent girls. At T1, our sample contained 83 girls and 83 caregivers (mothers = 80, fathers = 3). Families were contacted 1 year after their T1 participation to participate in the second wave of data collection. Eighty-eight percent (n = 71) of the sample participated again 1 year later. The data from girls participating in both waves were included in the present analyses.

The XX University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects approved the research. To recruit our T1 sample of 83 adolescent girls and caregivers, families were recruited from participants in a larger questionnaire study. Questionnaire study participants were from three school districts in XX, XX, representing a range of demographics. Parents of all students in the seventh and eighth grades in these school districts were sent letters describing the study, along with consent and assent forms and questionnaires. Approximately 7% of families provided consent/assent and usable questionnaire data. Parents of all female questionnaire study participants (n = 173) were then contacted about the current study, and 64 of those families elected to participate. To recruit additional participants, an informational flyer was included with a monthly newsletter in one school district, resulting in 19 additional families, resulting in our T1 sample of 83 adolescent girls and their caregivers. Girls’ average age was 13.45 (SD = .68; range = 12–15) and caregivers’ average age was 42.72 (SD = .86; range = 33–55). Of them, 45% were in eighth grade. Of those reporting ethnicity, 89% reported Caucasian, but this varied by school district (100% in one, 95% in another, and 61% in the third) in a manner that matched district ethnicity data (2006 reports indicated 96, 91, and 64%, respectively). Parent-reported median family income ranged from US$53,000 to US$127,000, consistent with median household incomes in the districts (Public School Review, n.d.). Thus, our sample is representative of ethnicity and income for the three school districts. Although the income data may suggest moderate to high socioeconomic status, this should be taken in the context of a wide range of parental education, with many parents (42.2%) reporting only a high school education. Having graduated from college was reported by 34.9% of parents, followed by10.8% of parents reporting to have a master’s degree and 12.0% of parents endorsed having an “other” level of education.

Procedure

Each girl and her parent participated in a lab session (T1) at the Stony Brook University, during which girls and parents provided consent, assent, and demographics and completed questionnaires. At T1, girls completed measures of relational security and parent–adolescent attachment. Parents completed measures assessing satisfaction with their relationship with their daughter. Additionally, parents were interviewed privately about stress in the parent–adolescent relationship. Girls and parents each received US$35 for their participation in the lab session. One year later (T2), girls provided questionnaire data on relational security and romantic activities engaged in over the past year, via mail and/or through a secure website. Girls and parents were each paid US$40 for T2. Girls who did not participate at T2 did not differ from girls who did on any T1 study variables.

Measures

Adolescent general relational security

General relational security was assessed at T1 and T2 with the 18-item Revised Adult Attachment Scale (AAS-G; N. L. Collins & Read, 1990). Adolescents were asked to respond based on their experiences in relationships in general. Items were scored from 1 = not at all characteristic of me to 5 = very characteristic of me. The AAS derives three subscales: close (the extent to which people feel comfortable being close to others), depend (the extent to which people are comfortable relying on others and believe others are dependable), and anxiety (fears about abandonment and of being unloved). Each subscale is calculated as the sum of six, nonredundant items and has a possible range from 5 to 30. As is commonly done, we computed the mean of the two subscales close and depend to obtain an overall measure of “comfort with intimacy.” Thus, the AAS yields measures of the two dimensions considered to underlie general relational security, avoidance of intimacy, and anxiety about abandonment (see Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Crowell, Fraley, & Shaver, 1999). The AAS-G is commonly used and has adequate psychometric properties (N. L. Collins & Read, 1990; see Crowell et al., 1999). Although the majority of research support for the AAS is derived from studies with adults, researchers have successfully used similar measures with adolescents. (e.g., N. L. Collins, Cooper, Albino, & Allard, 2002; Davila, Steinberg, Kachadourian, Cobb, & Fincham, 2004; Steinberg, Davila, & Fincham, 2006). The coefficient α for comfort with intimacy and anxiety about abandonment were .82 and .80, respectively, indicating good internal consistency within both domains of general relational security.

Adolescent romantic experiences

At T2, girls reported romantic experiences engaged in over the past year. A self-report measure designed for a previous study was used to assess adolescent romantic activities (Steinberg et al., 2006). Adolescents rated the frequency (0 = never, 1 = once or twice, 2 = a few times, or 3 = many times) with which they engaged in particular activities. The number of girls endorsing each item at a frequency greater than “never” is included below. Three subscales were created from sums of the items contained within the overall scale for the purpose of this study. The subscales below are counts of behaviors and thus not expected to be internally consistent. In order to bolster confidence in our categorization of romantic events, five independent raters classified each of the 18 events as “typical,” “rejecting,” or “risky.” A very high degree of reliability was found between the five raters. The average measure intraclass correlation (ICC) for all items was .854 with a 95% confidence interval from .757 to .939, F(17, 69) = 32.81, p < .001. Of the 18 items, 11 were classified correctly (e.g., as we had classified them) by 100% of the raters. Six items were classified correctly by 80% of the raters, and 1 item was classified correctly by 60% of the raters.

Typical romantic events

This included the following 6 items: “Been asked out on a date” (n = 53), “Asked someone out one a date” (n = 21), “Gone on a good date” (n = 40), “Flirted with someone” (n = 69), “Been romantically attracted to someone” (n = 66), and “Kissed a date or romantic partner” (n = 45). The possible range of scores for this subscale ranged from 0 to 18. For the ease of discussion, we will refer to these types of events as typical romantic events.

Actual or feared romantic rejection

This included the following 3 items: “Gone on a bad date” (n = 27), “Had someone turn you down for a date” (n = 8), and “Wanted to ask someone on a date, but was afraid to” (n = 42). The possible range of scores for this subscale ranged from 0 to 9. For the ease of communication, such events will be referred to as rejecting events from this point forward.

Potentially risky romantic events

This subscale included a sum of the following 9 items: “Dated a married person or someone who was in another romantic relationship” (n = 4), “A romantic partner or a date became aggressive or violent toward me” (n = 3), “A romantic partner or a date tried to coerce me or force me to have sexual intercourse or other sexual relations” (n = 4), “A romantic partner or a date succeeded in coercing or forcing me to have sexual intercourse or other sexual relations” (n = 2), “I had sexual intercourse or other sexual relations with a married person or with a person who was in a romantic relationship with someone else” (n = 0), “I had sexual intercourse or other sexual relations while using alcohol or drugs” (n = 4), “I had sexual intercourse or other sexual relations when I didn’t really want to” (n = 3), “I had sexual intercourse or other sexual relations with someone I didn’t know well” (n = 1), and “I had a one night stand” (n = 1). The possible range of scores for this subscale ranged from 0 to 27. For reasons of clarity, events in this category will be referred to simply as “potentially risky events.”

Parent–adolescent attachment security

At T1, attachment security was assessed with the Family Attachment Interview (FAI; Bartholomew, 1998; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). The FAI is a semi-structured interview designed to assess adolescent attachment security based on information about the parent–adolescent relationship. The procedures and scoring of the FAI are similar to that of the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; George, Kaplan, & Main, 1985), in that they are based on content of reports as well as reporting style (e.g., coherence of the report), but the FAI scores interviewees on four attachment patterns (secure, fearful, preoccupied, and dismissing), rather than the three categories used in the AAI (secure, preoccupied, and dismissing). Audiotaped interviews were coded for each attachment pattern on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 = no evidence of characteristics of the prototype to 9 = near perfect fit with the prototype. Twenty-three (28% of the full sample of 83) of the interviews were coded by a second coder. The ICC between the two coders’ ratings and Cronbach’s α for each for the four attachment patterns were as follows: secure (ICC = .60, α = .75), fearful (ICC = .33, α = .49), preoccupied (ICC = .78, α = .87), and dismissing (ICC = .69, α = .81). Due to the low reliability for fearful, this code was dropped, and an overall security score was computed by subtracting ratings of the two insecure patterns from the rating of the secure pattern (see Cobb, Davila, & Bradbury, 2001). This score was highly correlated with a score using all four ratings (r = .94) and with ratings on the secure pattern alone (r = .91), suggesting that the score we used was a reasonable indicator of overall security.

Parental satisfaction with the parent–adolescent relationship

Satisfaction was assessed at T1 using The Satisfaction With the Parent–Child Relationship factor of the Parenting Satisfaction Scale (Guidubaldi & Cleminshaw, 1985). The scale contains 15 items (e.g., “I am delighted with the relationship I have with my child.”), which are rated from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree, wherein higher numbers reflect higher parental satisfaction. Each parents’ satisfaction score is derived by computing the mean of the 15 items and has a possible range from 1 to 4. The sample mean of 3.47 indicates that on average, parents endorsed high levels of satisfaction with the parent–adolescent relationship. The coefficient α for this subscale was .88, indicating strong internal consistency.

Parental perceived stress within the parent–adolescent relationship

Perceived stress was measured at T1 and was assessed with an interview administered to the parent based on Hammen and colleagues’ (Hammen et al., 1987; Rudolph et al., 2000) chronic stress interview. Focusing on the past 6 months, interviewers probed and discussed with the parent the level of trust, communication, closeness, and conflict (amount and resolution) within the parent–adolescent relationship. Participants were then asked to rate, based on the discussion, the level of stressfulness or difficulty of their relationship with their adolescent on a 9-point scale (1 = not at all stressful, 5 = moderately stressful, and 9 = extremely stressful).

Results

Correlations between major study variables, means, and standard deviations are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.
Correlations between the continuous variables, means, and standard deviations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. T1 abandonment anxiety .64 −.64 −.54 .24 −.07 .38 −.14 .12 −.31

2. T2 abandonment anxiety −.45 −.65 −.05 .31 .28* −.17 .11 −.20

3. T1 comfort with intimacy .67 .32 .04 −.18 .02 −.01 .17

4. T2 comfort with intimacy 24* −.23 −.05 .15 −.14 .35

5. T2 typical experiences .39 .31 .04 −.11 −.14

6. T2 rejecting experiences .34 .13 −.01 −.25*

7. T2 risky experiences −.06 .20 −.21

8. T1 parental relationship satisfaction −.56** .02

9. T1 parental chronic stress −.25*

10. T1 attachment

Mean 15.06 14.99 21.15 21.14 8.93 1.52 0.38 3.47 3.66 0.76

SD 5.38 5.91 3.34 3.09 4.69 1.54 1.25 .41 2.16 3.00

Note. T1 = Time 1 (initial data collection); T2 = Time 2 (1 year follow up). N ranges from 71 to 83. Possible ranges for the romantic experience scales are as follows: 0–18 = typical; 0–9 = rejecting; and 0–27 = risky.

*p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01.

Predicting general relational security

We began by first examining whether each type of romantic (typical, rejecting, or risky) and parental relationship (satisfaction, stress, and overall attachment) experience was associated with changes in comfort with intimacy or anxiety about abandonment from T1 to T2. Thus, we conducted 12 separate regression analyses in which T1 comfort with intimacy or T1 anxiety about abandonment was entered in Step 1, with only one variable entered in Step 2, predicting changes in comfort with intimacy or anxiety about abandonment at T2.

In examining each romantic experience variable separately, results indicated that romantic events characterized by rejection significantly predicted reductions in comfort with intimacy (β = −.26; p = .004). None of the romantic variables examined significantly predicted changes in anxiety about abandonment. With regard to the influence of parental variables, parent-reported stress within the parent–adolescent relationship significantly predicted changes in adolescents’ comfort with intimacy (β = −.20; p = .027). Overall parental–adolescent attachment also significantly predicted changes in comfort with intimacy (β = .29; p =.001). No parent–adolescent relationship variables significantly predicted changes in adolescents’ anxiety about abandonment. In order to bolster confidence in our results, we applied a Bonferroni correction (in which p < .05 divided by the 12 regression analyses, resulted in a required significance level of p < .004). Using this more stringent significance test, only rejecting romantic events and parental attachment security emerged as significant predictors of changes in comfort with intimacy.

Next, in order to explore the relative role of all study variables simultaneously predicting changes in both domains of relational security from T1 to T2, we conducted two simultaneous regression analyses, which included all romantic experience and parent–adolescent variables. This was done with consideration for the presence of shared variance among predictors. Thus, placing all predictors in the model simultaneously allowed us to examine the relative importance of each predictor, while controlling for the effects of all other predictors.¹ The results of these simultaneous regressions are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.
Simultaneous regression predicting both domains of T2 general relational security from T2 adolescent romantic variables and T1 parent–adolescent relationship variables.

Abandonment anxiety Intimacy comfort

b β t Part2 b β t Part2

1. T1 abandonment anxiety or comfort with intimacy 0.65 .55 4.94* .22 0.65 .67 8.15* .36

2. T1 attachment security 0.02 .01 0.08 .00 0.28 .24 3.03** .05

3. T2 rejecting experiences 0.95 .25 2.19* .04 −0.69 −.34 −3.99* .17

4. T2 typical experiences −0.18 −.14 −1.24 .01 0.08 .12 1.36 .01

5. T2 risky experiences 0.11 .02 0.20 .00 0.58 .24 2.76 .04

6. T1 parental satisfaction −1.92 −.13 −1.12 .01 1.07 .14 1.57 .01

7. T1 parental stress 0.04 .01 0.12 .01 −0.23 −.15 −1.74 .02

Note. T1 = Time 1 (initial data collection); T2 = Time 2 (1 year follow up; measure of events over occurring during past year). N ranges from 67 to 71.

p ≤ .05; p ≤ .01; p ≤ 0.0.

The first of these analyses predicted changes in adolescent girls’ comfort with intimacy from the T2 (past year) romantic and T1 parent–adolescent variables, controlling for T1 comfort with intimacy. Thus, in Step 1, we entered T1 comfort with intimacy, and in Step 2, we entered all remaining predictor variables (typical romantic events, rejecting romantic events, risky romantic events, parent-reported stress, parent-reported satisfaction, and overall attachment security).

In this analysis, and consistent with predictions and the individual regression analyses reported earlier, experiencing romantic rejection emerged as a significant predictor of changes in adolescent girls’ comfort with intimacy, such that experiencing real or imagined romantic rejection during the past year predicted less comfort with intimacy at T2 (β = −.34; p < .001). Again as predicted and observed in the individual regression analyses, overall parental attachment emerged as a significant predictor of T2 comfort with intimacy, such that higher levels of attachment at T1 predicted increases in comfort with intimacy at T2 (β = .24; p = .004). Contrary to predictions and individual regression analyses, experiencing potentially risky romantic events within the past year predicted increased comfort with intimacy at T2. Given its lack of predictive power when examined separately, and considering this relationship emerged only when controlling for the shared variance between this and all other variables, we are hesitant to fully interpret this finding but will devote a limited discussion to it.

The second simultaneous regression predicted changes in anxiety about abandonment from T1 to T2. We predicted changes in adolescent girls’ anxiety about abandonment from the T2 romantic (past year) and T1 parent–adolescent variables, controlling for T1 anxiety about abandonment. Thus, in Step 1, we entered T1 anxiety about abandonment, and in Step 2, we entered all remaining predictor variables (typical romantic events, rejecting romantic events, risky romantic events, parent-reported stress, parent-reported satisfaction, and overall attachment security). In this analysis, only experiencing romantic rejection emerged as a significant predictor of changes in adolescent girls’ anxiety about abandonment from T1 to T2 (β = .25; p = .03,). Although this finding did not fully emerge in the individual regression analyses reported earlier, romantic rejection did approach significance as a predictor of changes in anxiety about abandonment from T1 to T2 when examined separately (β = .17; p = .08).

Discussion

This study measured changes in two domains of general relational security among adolescent girls over a 1-year period. Specifically, the influence of relationship experiences with parents and romantic partners were investigated. General relational security was defined as an individual’s comfort with intimacy and anxiety about abandonment (N. L. Collins & Read, 1990). Both parent–adolescent relationship variables and adolescent romantic experiences were examined as they related to these two domains of relational security over the course of 1 year.

There were two consistent findings from the current study: First, in line with our predictions, was the negative impact that real or imagined romantic rejection can have on the development of both domains of relational security among early adolescent girls. The second consistent finding, again in line with our predictions, is that parent–adolescent attachment is a strong predictor of later comfort with intimacy among early adolescent girls in our sample. Of all variables considered, only romantic rejection emerged as a significant predictor of T2 anxiety about abandonment. These findings will be discussed in greater detail below.

We will first discuss the impact of the three types of romantic relationship experiences (rejecting, typical, and risky) on T2 relational security. Consistent with our predictions, romantic rejection played an important role in predicting both domains of relational security among early adolescent girls in our sample. Given the importance placed on interpersonal relationships by adolescent girls, it is perhaps unsurprising that the experience of being romantically rebuffed (whether real or imagined), or fearing that one does not “have what it takes” to attract or keep a romantic partner, could decrease girls’ comfort in making themselves vulnerable to others and may increase anxiety about being abandoned if they were to eventually enter a relationship. Indeed, early adolescence is a time when evaluation by others takes on greater importance (Somerville, 2013). Thus, experiencing romantic rejection during this critical period may, even if only temporarily, shake the confidence of early adolescent girls. In fact, research has consistently shown that interpersonal rejection is associated with numerous negative mental health outcomes and is considered a triggering event for depression (Chango et al., 2012; Harper et al., 2006). Thus, this fear of rejection, while commonly reported during adolescent development, appears to be associated with adolescent girls’ comfort with intimacy and concern about abandonment over time. Although a causal link cannot be supported, the effect of rejection was consistently observed in the present study. Future research should attempt to replicate this important finding.

If true, it would be important to intervene with early adolescent girls at the level of their expectations for, and reaction to, romantic rejection—considering that romantic rejection is experienced by most of us at least once in our lives. Fostering healthy assessment of the likelihood of romantic rejection among early adolescent girls would therefore be a primary aim. Another would be to build protective capacities, such as self-esteem, and feelings of competence in other domains, which may buffer against the potentially negative effects of romantic rejection on general relational security as well as on mental health more generally. If not attended to, the repeated experience of romantic rejection may have the power to alter positive expectations, or compound already negative expectations, for, close relationships and thus adversely impact adult relationship functioning.

Contrary to our predictions, normative romantic events that were either positive or neutral in valence exhibited no significant effect on either domain of general relational security in the current sample. From our data, it appeared that romantic experiences only influenced general relational security when they were negatively valenced. Experiences such as having a crush, flirting, or even engaging in romantic acts such as kissing may be common enough among girls in this age-group that their power to affect trajectories of relational security is limited. This finding should be replicated in future studies as well.

Finally, and also contrary to our predictions, having engaged in more potentially risky romantic behavior over the past year was associated with increased comfort with intimacy (but not anxiety about abandonment) from T1 to T2, when considered with all predictor variables simultaneously. Given that risky romantic behavior did not significantly predict either domain of relational security when considered alone, it is entirely possible that this finding is not reflective of a true relationship. That said, it is possible that simply having engaged in such behaviors at all (which included sexual, rather than just romantic behavior) may have contributed to adolescents’ feeling more comfortable with intimacy, simply as a function of having actual experience in a more “adult” domain. Additionally, such a pattern of romantic interactions in early adolescence may serve an indicator of a developing preoccupied attachment style, which is characterized by both high comfort with intimacy and elevated anxiety about abandonment. Nonetheless, the aforementioned finding should be interpreted with caution until replicated in future studies. The proposed potential explanations and associated clinical issues have theoretical merit and are worth consideration, however they are unavoidably speculative in nature at this time.

With regard to parent–adolescent relationship experiences, and in line with our predictions and individual regression analyses, parent–adolescent attachment significantly predicted T2 comfort with intimacy. Contrary to our predictions, attachment did not predict T2 anxiety about abandonment, and parent-perceived level of stress and relationship satisfaction were not significant predictors of change in either domain of general relational security from T1 to T2.

The importance of the parent–child attachment relationship has been well documented in the literature as a future predictor of security among older children, adolescents, and adults (Pascuzzo, Cyr, & Moss, 2013; Roisman, Collins, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2005; Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005). The present study adds to this body of research by demonstrating that despite the increased focus on peer and romantic relationships in early adolescence, the importance of the parent–adolescent relationship remains high. This finding is in line with developmental theory, which posits that this period, directly following changes in pubertal status, is when individuals become increasingly interested in romance, begin to transfer mental representations of relationships from parents to other key relationships, and to reorder their attachment hierarchies to eventually focus more on romantic relationships (Connolly & McIsaac, 2011; Kobak, Rosenthal, Zajac, & Madsen, 2007). While older individuals may indicate that their romantic partner is their most significant current attachment relationship, this transition has likely not yet taken place during the early adolescent period. According to the present study, both parents and romantic partners play a key role in the overall relational security of early adolescent girls.

Despite the lack of predictive power of parental stress and satisfaction in the present study, we do not intend to minimize the important role that other experiences with parents can continue to play throughout development, as demonstrated in multiple investigations (W. A. Collins & Sroufe, 1999; Haydon, Collins, Salvatore, Simpson, & Roisman, 2012; Sroufe, 2005), as well as with regard to attachment in the current investigation. It should also be noted that adolescent-reported variables in these domains (stress and satisfaction) may have emerged as significant predictors had they been measured, however the present study was limited to parent report. This possibility could not be ruled out in the current investigation, as we did not test congruence of parent and adolescent reports of relationship experiences.

Overall, the results of the present study provide further evidence that levels of general relational security can change over time, even among early adolescents who are engaged in relationships that may be considered less intimate than those of adults or older adolescents (Bowlby, 1988; Davila, Burge, & Hammen, 1997). Researchers have pointed to potential explanations for this change, including the role of personally significant and emotional life events, as well as the meaning given to events (Davila & Sargent, 2003), which have the power to change attachment representations. In line with that, it is plausible to consider romantic rejection to be a particularly salient and emotional life event for an early adolescent girl, thereby affecting both domains of general relational security over time.

Several methodological strengths reinforce our confidence in the present findings. In particular, the partially longitudinal design allowed us to examine the development of adolescents’ general relational security over time, rather than relying on a cross section of behavior. Additionally, the use of multiple informants provides a unique design that takes into account the reports of both parents and adolescents.

Despite these strengths, there are, of course, limitations that must be acknowledged. First, replication will be important as the sample size, the self-selected nature of the sample, the low rates of sexual activity, and the inclusion of only girls restricts generalizability. Also, due to the young age of the sample, many adolescents had yet to experience long-term romantic relationships. The relatively short duration of their romantic histories may have affected the overall relations between the predictor and outcome variables. For example, particular experiences may have happened too infrequently or too recently before the time of data collection to have become a stable pattern of behavior and affect outcomes in a meaningful way. Thus, different associations may have been detected in a sample with a more extensive dating history. Further, T2 romantic experiences were measured in the present study by asking the early adolescent to report on the past year, rather than a true longitudinal examination of behavior. Effects of memory and retrospective bias may have impacted the validity of these retrospective reports. Finally, the relationship between attachment security and romantic experiences may be transactional, whereby attachment security predicts engagement in particular romantic or sexual activities and those experience in turn influence attachment security. More work is needed to test this alternative explanation.

With regard to parental contributions to changes in general relationship security over time, the present study examined only three types of parent–adolescent relationship variables (parent–adolescent attachment, relationship satisfaction, and stress) of what may be a complex relationship. Future research should investigate additional aspects of the parent–adolescent relationship, such as caregiver warmth, sensitivity, and conflict–resolution style as well as other factors related to homelife, as they may contribute to general relational security. Further, although we considered it a methodological strength to elicit reports from both adolescents and caregivers, had we queried adolescents, rather than parents, to report on the level of stress within their relationship, we may have received different information. Additionally, previous research (Lieberman, Doyle, & Markiewicz, 1999) has demonstrated that non-romantic peer relationships are another important aspect of adolescent social functioning that were unable to be examined in the current study. Future investigations would be well served to include this important domain of interpersonal functioning in order to gain an even more nuanced understanding of the social world of early adolescents. Finally, the lasting impact of the experiences discussed within the current study are unknown and should be followed up longitudinally in future research.

In sum, the current investigation provides a more nuanced understanding of adolescent girls’ relationship experiences with parents and romantic partners and illustrates how these experiences may predict changes in relational security over time. Specifically, our findings suggest that real or imagined romantic rejection can have a negative impact on the development of relational security among early adolescent girls, and thus parents and mental health professionals would be well served to attend to these issues. Finally, our investigation supports the notion that the parent–adolescent attachment relationship remains a strong predictor of comfort with intimacy for early adolescent girls and may lay the groundwork for relational security in later adolescence and adulthood.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. T1 abandonment anxiety		.64**	−.64**	−.54**	.24	−.07	.38**	−.14	.12	−.31**
2. T2 abandonment anxiety			−.45**	−.65**	−.05	.31**	.28*	−.17	.11	−.20
3. T1 comfort with intimacy				.67**	.32**	.04	−.18	.02	−.01	.17
4. T2 comfort with intimacy					24*	−.23	−.05	.15	−.14	.35**
5. T2 typical experiences						.39**	.31**	.04	−.11	−.14
6. T2 rejecting experiences							.34**	.13	−.01	−.25*
7. T2 risky experiences								−.06	.20	−.21
8. T1 parental relationship satisfaction									−.56**	.02
9. T1 parental chronic stress										−.25*
10. T1 attachment
Mean	15.06	14.99	21.15	21.14	8.93	1.52	0.38	3.47	3.66	0.76
SD	5.38	5.91	3.34	3.09	4.69	1.54	1.25	.41	2.16	3.00

	Abandonment anxiety	Intimacy comfort
1. T1 abandonment anxiety or comfort with intimacy	0.65	.55	4.94***	.22	0.65	.67	8.15***	.36
2. T1 attachment security	0.02	.01	0.08	.00	0.28	.24	3.03**	.05
3. T2 rejecting experiences	0.95	.25	2.19*	.04	−0.69	−.34	−3.99***	.17
4. T2 typical experiences	−0.18	−.14	−1.24	.01	0.08	.12	1.36	.01
5. T2 risky experiences	0.11	.02	0.20	.00	0.58	.24	2.76**	.04
6. T1 parental satisfaction	−1.92	−.13	−1.12	.01	1.07	.14	1.57	.01
7. T1 parental stress	0.04	.01	0.12	.01	−0.23	−.15	−1.74	.02

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Anderson

J. R.

Johnson

M. D.

Liu

Zheng

Hardy

N. R.

Lindstrom

R. A.

(2013). Young adult romantic relationships in Mainland China Perceptions of family of origin functioning are directly and indirectly associated with relationship success. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 871–887. doi:10.1177/0265407513508727

Baldwin

M. W.

Fehr

(1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2, 247–261. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00090.x

Bartholomew

(1998). The family and peer attachment interview. Unpublished manuscript, Simon Fraser University, Canada.

Bartholomew

Horowitz

L. M.

(1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.332.3652&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Benson

M. J.

McWey

L. M.

Ross

J. J.

(2006). Parental attachment and peer relationships in adolescence: A meta-analysis. Research in Human Development, 3, 33–43. Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1207/s15427617rhd0301_4

Bowlby

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

Bowlby

(1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London, England: Tavistock Press.

Brennan

K. A.

Clark

C. L.

Shaver

P. R.

(1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford.

Chango

J. M.

McElhaney

K. B.

Allen

J. P.

Schad

M. M.

Marston

(2012). Relational stressors and depressive symptoms in late adolescence: Rejection sensitivity as a vulnerability. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 40, 369–379. doi:10.1007/s10802-011-9570-y

10.

Cobb

Davila

Bradbury

(2001). Attachment security and marital satisfaction: The role of positive perceptions and social support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1131–1144. doi:10.1177/0146167201279006

11.

Collins

N. L.

Cooper

M. L.

Albino

Allard

(2002). Psychosocial vulnerability from adolescence to adulthood: A prospective study of attachment style differences in relationship functioning and partner choice. Journal of Personality, 70, 965–1008. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-6494

12.

Collins

N. L.

Read

S. J.

(1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644–663. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/

13.

Collins

W. A.

(2003). More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 1–24. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1532-7795

14.

Collins

W. A.

Sroufe

(1999). The capacity for intimate relationships: A developmental construction. In Furman

Brown

B. B.

Feiring

(Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 125–147). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Collins

W. A.

Van Dulmen

(2006). “The course of true love(s) …”: Origins and pathways in the development of romantic relationships. In Crouter

A. C.

Booth

(Eds.), Romance and sex in adolescence and emerging adulthood: Risks and opportunities (pp. 63–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Compton

S. N.

Nelson

A. H.

March

J. S.

(2000). Social phobia and separation anxiety symptoms in community and clinical samples of children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 1040–1046. doi:10.1097/00004583-200008000-00020

17.

Connolly

McIsaac

(2011). Romantic relationships in adolescence. In Underwood

M. K.

Rosen

L. H.

(Eds.), Social development: Relationships in infancy, childhood, and adolescence (pp. 180–203). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

18.

Conger

R. D.

Cui

Bryant

C. M.

Elder

G. H.

(2000). Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 224–237. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/

19.

Crowell

J. A.

Fraley

R. C.

Shaver

P. R.

(1999). Measurement of individual differences in adolescent and adult attachment. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 434–468). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

20.

Davila

Burge

Hammen

(1997). Why does attachment style change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 826–838. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/

21.

Davila

Sargent

(2003). The meaning of life (events) predicts changes in attachment security. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1383–1395. doi:10.1177/0146167203256374

22.

Davila

Steinberg

Kachadourian

Cobb

Fincham

(2004). Romantic involvement and depressive symptoms in early and late adolescence: The role of a preoccupied relational style. Personal Relationships, 11, 161–178. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00076.x

23.

Downey

Freitas

A. L.

Michaelis

Khouri

(1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545.

24.

Feeney

J. A.

(2008). Adult romantic attachments: Developments in the study of couple relationships. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 456–481). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

25.

Fraley

C. R.

Heffernan

M. E.

Vicary

A. M.

Brumbaugh

C. C.

(2011). The experiences in close relationships—Relationship Structures Questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23, 615–625. doi:10.1037/a0022898

26.

Furman

Simon

V. A.

(1999). Cognitive representations of adolescent romantic relationships. In Furman

Brown

B. B.

Feiring

(Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 75–98). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Gaertner

A. E.

Fite

P. J.

Colder

C. R.

(2010). Parenting and friendship quality as predictors of externalizing symptoms in early adolescence. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 101–108. doi:10.1007/s10826-009-9289-3

28.

George

Kaplan

Main

(1985). The adult attachment interview. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.

29.

Guidubaldi

Cleminshaw

H. K.

(1985). The development of Cleminshaw-Guidubaldi Parent Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 14, 293–298. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp1404_4

30.

Hadadian

Merbler

(1996). Mother’s stress: Implications for attachment relationships. Early Child Development and Care, 125, 59–66. doi:10.1080/0300443961250105

31.

Hammen

Gordon

Burge

Adrian

Jaenicke

Hiroto

(1987). Maternal affective disorders, illness, and stress: Risk for children’s psychopathology. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 736–741. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1176/ajp.144.6.736

32.

Harper

M. S.

Dickson

J. W.

Welsh

D. P.

(2006). Self-silencing and rejection sensitivity in adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 435–443. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9048-3

33.

Haydon

K. C.

Collins

W. A.

Salvatore

J. E.

Simpson

J. A.

Roisman

G. I.

(2012). Shared and distinctive origins and correlates of adult attachment representations: The developmental organization of romantic functioning. Child Development, 83, 1689–1702. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01801.x

34.

Hazan

Shaver

(1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

35.

M. Y.

Chen

S. X.

Bond

M. H.

Hui

C. M.

Chan

Friedman

(2012). Linking adult attachment styles to relationship satisfaction in Hong Kong and the United States: The mediating role of personal and structural commitment. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 565–578. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9279-1

36.

Holman

T. B.

Gailbraith

R. C.

Timmons

N. M.

Steed

Tobler

S. B.

(2009). Threats to parental and romantic attachment figures’ availability and adult attachment insecurity. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 413–429. doi:10.1177/0192513X08325013

37.

Johnson

M. D.

Nguyen

Anderson

J. R.

Liu

Vennum

(2015). Pathways to romantic relationship success among Chinese young adult couples: Contributions of family dysfunction, mental health problems, and negative couple interaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 5–23. doi:10.1177/0265407514522899

38.

Kessler

R. C.

Avenevoli

Merikangas

K. R.

(2001). Mood disorders in children and adolescents: An epidemiologic perspective. Biological Psychiatry, 49, 1002–1014. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01129-5

39.

Kobak

Rosenthal

N. L.

Zajac

Madsen

S. D.

(2007). Adolescent attachment hierarchies and the search for an adult pair-bond. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 117, 57–72. doi:10.1002/cd.194

40.

La Greca

A. M.

Davila

Siegel

(2008). Peer relations, friendships, and romantic relationships: Implications for the development and maintenance of depression in adolescents. In Allen

N. B.

Sheeber

L. B.

(Eds.), Adolescent emotional development and the emergence of depressive disorders (pp. 318–336). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

41.

La Greca

A. M.

Moore-Harrison

(2005). Adolescent peer relations, friendships, and romantic relationships: Do they predict social anxiety and depression? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 49–61. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_5

42.

La Valley

A. G.

Guerrero

L. K.

(2012). Perceptions of conflict behavior and relational satisfaction in adult parent–child relationships: A dyadic analysis from an attachment perspective. Communication Research, 39, 48–78. doi:10.1177/0093650210391655

43.

Lieberman

Doyle

Markiewicz

(1999). Developmental patterns in security of attachment to mother and father in late childhood and early adolescence: Associations with peer relations. Child Development, 70, 202–213. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00015

44.

Madsen

S. D.

Collins

W. A.

(2011). The salience of adolescent romantic experiences for romantic relationship qualities in young adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 789–801. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00737.x

45.

Mahl

(2001). The influence of parental divorce on the romantic relationship beliefs of young adults. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 34, 89–118. doi:10.1300/J087v34n03_06

46.

McNamara-Barry

C. M.

Madsen

S. D.

Nelson

L. J.

Carroll

J. S.

Badger

(2009). Friendship and romantic relationship qualities in emerging adulthood: Differential associations with identity development and achieved adulthood criteria. Journal of Adult Development, 16, 209–222. doi:10.1007/s10804-009-9067-x

47.

Meier

Allen

(2009). Romantic relationships from adolescence to young adulthood: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The Sociological Quarterly, 50, 308–335. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2009.01142.x

48.

Mikulincer

Shaver

(2005). Mental representations and attachment security. In Baldwin

M. W.

(Ed.) Interpersonal cognition (pp. 233–266). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

49.

Pascuzzo

Cyr

Moss

(2013). Longitudinal association between adolescent attachment, adult romantic attachment, and emotion regulation strategies. Attachment & Human Development, 15, 83–103. doi:10.1080/14616734.2013.745713

50.

Pierce

Lydon

(2001). Global and specific relational models in the experience of social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 613–631. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.613

51.

Public School Review. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2012, from http://www.publicschoolreview.com

52.

Roberts

J. E.

Gotlib

I. H.

Kassel

J. D.

(1996). Adult attachment security and symptoms of depression: The mediating roles of dysfunctional attitudes and low self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 310–320. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.310

53.

Roisman

G. I.

Collins

W. A.

Sroufe

L. A.

Egeland

(2005). Predictors of young adults’ representations of and behavior in their current romantic relationship: Prospective tests of the prototype hypothesis. Attachment & Human Development, 7, 105–121. doi:10.1080/14616730500134928

54.

Rose

A. J.

Rudolph

K. D.

(2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98

55.

Rosenthal

N. L.

Kobak

(2010). Assessing adolescents’ attachment hierarchies: Differences across developmental periods and associations with individual adaptation. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 678–706. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00655.x

56.

Rudolph

K. D.

Hammen

Burge

Lindberg

Herzberg

Daley

S. E.

(2000). Toward an interpersonal life-stress model of depression: The developmental context of stress generation. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 215–234. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=43415&fileId=S0954579400002066

57.

Ruhl

Dolan

E. A.

Buhrmester

(2015). Adolescent attachment trajectories with mothers and fathers: The importance of parent–child relationship experiences and gender. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 25, 427–442. doi:10.1111/jora.12144

58.

Scharf

Mayseless

(2001). The capacity for romantic intimacy: Exploring the contribution of best friend and marital and parental relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 379–399. Retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0140197101904051

59.

Scharf

Mayseless

(2008). Late adolescent girls’ relationships with parents and romantic partner: The distinct role of mothers and fathers. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 837–855. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.012

60.

Seiffge-Krenke

Overbeek

Vermulst

(2010). Parent–child relationship trajectories during adolescence: Longitudinal associations with romantic outcomes in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 159–171. Retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0140197109000499

61.

Shaver

P. R.

Schachner

D. A.

Mikulincer

(2005). Attachment style, excessive reassurance seeking, relationship processes, and depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 343–359. doi:10.1177/0146167204271709

62.

Seibert

A. C.

Kerns

K. A.

(2009). Attachment figures in middle childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33, 347–355. doi:10.1177/0165025409103872

63.

Simpson

J. A.

Collins

W. A.

Salvatore

J. E.

(2011). The impact of early interpersonal experience on adult romantic relationship functioning. Recent findings from the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 355–359. doi:10.1177/0963721411418468

64.

Simpson

J. A.

Collins

W. A.

Tran

Haydon

K. C.

(2007). Attachment and the experience and expression of emotions in romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 355–367. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.355

65.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

S. W.

(2010). Attachment and relationships: Milestones and future directions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 173–180. doi:10.1177/0265407509360909

66.

Somerville

L. H.

(2013). The teenage brain sensitivity to social evaluation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 121–127. doi:10.1177/0963721413476512

67.

Sroufe

L. A.

(2005). Attachment and development: A prospective, longitudinal study from birth to adulthood. Attachment & human development, 7, 349–367. doi:10.1080/14616730500365928

68.

Sroufe

L. A.

Bennett

Englund

Urban

Shulman

(1993). The significance of gender boundaries in preadolescence: Contemporary correlates and antecedents of boundary violation and maintenance. Child Development, 64, 455–466. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02921.x

69.

Sroufe

L. A.

Egeland

Carlson

E. A.

Collins

W. A.

(2005). The development of the person: The Minnesota Study of Risk and Adaptation from Birth to Adulthood. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

70.

Steinberg

S. J.

Davila

Fincham

(2006). Adolescent marital expectations and romantic experiences: Associations with perceptions about parental conflict and adolescent attachment security. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 333–348. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9042-9

71.

Toomey

E. T.

Nelson

E. S.

(2001). Family conflict and young adults’ attitudes toward intimacy. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 34, 49–69. doi:10.1300/J087v34n03_04

72.

Twenge

J. M.

Nolen-Hoeksema

(2002). Age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, and birth cohort difference on the children’s depression inventory: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 578. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0021-843X.111.4.578

73.

Waters

Hamilton

C. E.

Weinfield

N. S.

(2000). The stability of attachment security from infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: General introductions. Child Development, 71, 678–683. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00175

74.

Waters

Merrick

Treboux

Crowell

Albersheim

(2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71, 684–689. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1132386

	Abandonment anxiety				Intimacy comfort
	b	β	t	Part2	b	β	t	Part2
1. T1 abandonment anxiety or comfort with intimacy	0.65	.55	4.94***	.22	0.65	.67	8.15***	.36
2. T1 attachment security	0.02	.01	0.08	.00	0.28	.24	3.03**	.05
3. T2 rejecting experiences	0.95	.25	2.19*	.04	−0.69	−.34	−3.99***	.17
4. T2 typical experiences	−0.18	−.14	−1.24	.01	0.08	.12	1.36	.01
5. T2 risky experiences	0.11	.02	0.20	.00	0.58	.24	2.76**	.04
6. T1 parental satisfaction	−1.92	−.13	−1.12	.01	1.07	.14	1.57	.01
7. T1 parental stress	0.04	.01	0.12	.01	−0.23	−.15	−1.74	.02