Emotional maltreatment in family of origin and young adult romantic relationship satisfaction

Abstract

The aims of the current study were to use dyadic data analysis to examine the associations of history of childhood emotional maltreatment to current relationship satisfaction among young adult romantic partners as moderated by the effects of hostile behavioral observations within these romantic couples. Our sample included 52 young adult romantic dyads recruited from a large southeastern university. Current relationship satisfaction and history of childhood emotional maltreatment were obtained via self-report; behavioral interactions were rated on a behavioral coding system to determine level of dyadic hostility. Results revealed a significant interaction effect: Females’ history of childhood emotional maltreatment significantly predicted relationship satisfaction for women at low or average (but not high) levels of dyadic hostility. Our findings suggest that for young women, romantic relationship satisfaction is compromised by their own history of emotional maltreatment, particularly when the couple’s conflict resolution style is characterized by low to average levels of hostility.

Keywords

Actor–partner interdependence model (APIM)childhood emotional maltreatment dyadic data analysis relationship satisfaction young adults

Childhood relationships with family members, both positive and negative, have the potential to shape the formation and quality of later relationships. One particular aspect of childhood familial experiences that is a well-understood risk factor for later relationship problems is maltreatment, with many studies demonstrating associations between childhood maltreatment and relationship difficulties such as interpersonal violence, relationship instability, and relationship dissatisfaction (Widom, Czaja, & Dutton, 2014). However, these past studies have primarily approached the developmental and relational significance of maltreatment history from an individual perspective, considering one person’s history in predicting that person’s view of relationship adjustment. While informative of both theory and clinical applications, this perspective obscures the role of the partner’s history, and how personal histories interact in a dyadic context to affect relationship outcomes.

Dyadic analyses provide opportunities to consider personal and partner variables as simultaneous and unique predictors of relationship functioning and as such have been increasingly utilized in research on close relationships (Driscoll, Schatschneider, McGinnity, & Modi, 2012; Granic & Hollenstein, 2003; Salvatore et al., 2011; Segrin, Hanzal, & Domschke, 2009; Theiss & Knobloch, 2009). The primary goal of this study is to investigate the associations of history of childhood emotional maltreatment to young adult romantic relationship satisfaction in the context of relationship dyads. We focus specifically on childhood emotional maltreatment, defined as “a repeated pattern of caregiver behavior or extreme incident(s) that convey to children that they are worthless, flawed, unloved, unwanted, endangered, or of value only in meeting another’s needs” (American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children [APSAC], 1995), due to a lack of previous research on this form of childhood adversity. By addressing these questions in the context of the dyad, we can account for the childhood maltreatment history of each partner and the unique effects of self and partner history of childhood maltreatment. Finally, we attempt to further contextualize these main effect analyses by examining the moderating role of observed hostility in dyadic interactions, as a relationship factor that may exacerbate these associations.

A substantial amount of the literature on outcomes of childhood maltreatment focuses on associations with relationship problems in later development. Theoretical perspectives on development support these findings, drawing specifically on attachment theory and social learning theory. For example, attachment theory would posit that intrafamilial maltreatment disrupts the formation of healthy models of relationship security, when the attachment figure serves as a source of fear or insensitivity, and that these internal working models are carried forward in development as a source of insecurity in other close relationships (Haydon, Collins, Salvatore, Simpson, & Roisman, 2012; Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). These internal working models can influence the relational cognitive schemas that organize beliefs about the self in relationships (Young, Klosko, & Weishaar, 2003), and these types of schemas have been shown to mediate relations between childhood maltreatment and adult interpersonal conflict (Messman-Moore & Coates, 2007) and psychological distress (Wright, Crawford, & Del Castillo, 2009). Following the APSAC definition of childhood emotional maltreatment outlined above, it is reasonable to hypothesize that messages about the self as flawed or unworthy could be internalized and affect one’s ability to form and maintain healthy romantic relationships. This posited association has been supported by research documenting links between emotional abuse and later difficulties with interpersonal conflict, mediated by beliefs about the self as defective or at risk for abandonment and of others as untrustworthy (Messman-Moore & Coates, 2007).

In addition, social learning theory has been utilized by developmentalists (Grusec, 1992) to emphasize the role of modeling in learning behaviors such as conflict tactics in parent–child relationships (e.g., aggression or hostility) that can later cause difficulties in other relationships, such as with peers or romantic partners (e.g., Bolger & Patterson, 2001; Shields & Cicchetti, 2001; Wolfe, Wekerle, Scott, Straatman, & Grasley, 2004). Consistent with this theoretical speculation, individuals who have experienced emotionally abusive interactions may be likely to adopt those conflict tactics via social learning and extend them to their later romantic relationships. Developmental research demonstrating associations between childhood emotional maltreatment and later aggression (e.g., Kaplan, Pelcovitz, & LaBruna, 1999; Milletich, Kelley, Doane, & Pearson, 2010; Riggs & Kaminski, 2010) support these assertions.

Specifically regarding romantic relationships, research has documented links between childhood maltreatment and romantic relationship functioning in adulthood. For example, Colman and Widom (2004) have shown that substantiated cases of childhood maltreatment (physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect) predicted greater rates of relationship dissolution than were found among men and women without substantiated histories of maltreatment. Childhood trauma and maltreatment have also been associated with increased marital divorce and separation as well as lower levels of satisfaction among married couples (DiLillo et al., 2009; Whisman, 2006). Links between childhood maltreatment and romantic relationship outcomes have also been documented in samples of adolescents and emerging adults, highlighting the importance of studying these relationships as they set the stage for adult relationships (Collins, 2003; Collins & van Dulmen, 2006; Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006). Empirical evidence from multiple studies suggests that retrospective reports of childhood maltreatment are associated with adolescent dating violence (Straus & Savage, 2005; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999; Wolfe et al., 2004). Another multinational study found that retrospective reports of childhood neglect were associated with more frequent endorsement of perpetrating violence against a romantic partner among undergraduates (Straus & Savage, 2005).

The foregoing review of relations between childhood maltreatment and relationship outcomes has focused primarily on physical abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect. Recent attention has turned to emotional maltreatment, which frequently co-occurs with other types of maltreatment and has been considered by some researchers to account for a relatively large degree of the relations that are detected between childhood maltreatment and later relationship outcomes (e.g., Hart, Brassard, Binggeli, & Davidson, 2002). Increasingly, research focuses on associations between childhood emotional maltreatment and later functioning in romantic relationships (Reyome, 2010). Of particular note are studies demonstrating the unique role of childhood emotional maltreatment as a predictor of negative relationship outcomes such as intimate partner violence in a college sample, after accounting for other forms of maltreatment (Berzenski & Yates, 2010). Taken together, these results provide a strong case for childhood emotional maltreatment as a risk factor for problems in later romantic relationships.

At present, research on the developmental consequences of childhood maltreatment has moved beyond “main effect” studies documenting the associations of maltreatment to negative intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes, to explore the roles of contextual variables that influence these relations. These analyses provide advantages in explaining the observed multifinality of outcomes observed following childhood maltreatment (Cicchetti & Valentino, 2006) and in specifying the intervening processes by which early risk factors such as childhood maltreatment can lead to certain outcomes. In terms of romantic relationships, it is plausible that features of the relationship would serve as important contextual variables in testing associations between childhood maltreatment history and current relationship satisfaction. Although interpersonal hostility may be influenced or exacerbated by a history of childhood emotional maltreatment, we cannot draw causal conclusions about the development of interpersonal hostility in our cross-sectional sample, in which we measure hostility and relationship outcomes simultaneously. Furthermore, we assessed hostility on a dyadic level, consistent with numerous theories of romantic relationships (Bryant & Conger, 2002; Karney & Bradbury, 1995) that emphasize the presence of interpersonal hostility as a marker of relationship health and stability; interpersonal hostility has been identified as a predictor of relationship problems among married couples (e.g., Roberts, 2000) and emerging adults in dating relationships (Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000). Thus, we conceptualized interpersonal hostility in the current study as a relationship-based contextual factor that may moderate the associations of childhood emotional maltreatment and later relationship satisfaction; specifically, the relational vulnerabilities that may be present among emotionally maltreated individuals are more likely to undermine relationship satisfaction in the context of interpersonal hostility. Previous research has identified hostility as a moderator of the association between attachment-related anxiety and relationship satisfaction among young adults in dating and marital relationships (Saavedra, Chapman, & Rogge, 2010), supporting further exploration of relational hostility as a potential moderator of the hypothesized relations between childhood emotional maltreatment history and romantic relationship satisfaction in the current sample.

Study aims and hypotheses

The goals of the current study were to examine the associations of history of childhood emotional maltreatment to current relationship satisfaction among young adult romantic partners. The use of dyadic data analysis allowed for examination of the unique effects of self and partner history of childhood emotional maltreatment. Within intimate relationships, members’ variable scores are often nonindependent—members of the same dyad are more similar than are members of different dyads. If this nonindependence is ignored, tests of statistical significance are likely biased (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Importantly, dyadic data analysis accounts for this nonindependence and also informs researchers as to how an individual’s independent variable affects both their own outcome (i.e., actor effect) and their partner’s outcome (i.e., partner effect). Previous studies have shown that within intimate relationships, partner attributes can dramatically impact an individual’s own reports of relationship satisfaction, irritation with their partner, and their own drinking behavior (Mushquash et al., 2011; Riggs, Cusimano, & Benson, 2011; Salvatore et al., 2011; Theiss & Knobloch, 2009). These same partner effects have yet to be studied among survivors of childhood emotional maltreatment.

We also aimed to investigate the potential moderating effects of hostile behavioral observations within these romantic dyads. H1: Based on previous research, we predicted that an individual’s history of childhood emotional maltreatment would negatively predict their current relationship satisfaction. H2: One’s partner’s history of childhood emotional maltreatment would be negatively correlated with one’s own relationship satisfaction. H3: Relations between history of childhood maltreatment and relationship satisfaction (e.g., both actor and partner histories of childhood maltreatment) would be significantly moderated by hostility such that higher levels of dyadic hostility would amplify relations of childhood emotional maltreatment and romantic relationship satisfaction.

Method

Participants

Participants were drawn from a sample of 62 young adult romantic dyads; all participants were undergraduate students attending a large university in the Southeastern United States. Of this sample, one same-sex couple was dropped because they are an indistinguishable dyad precluding them from distinguishable analyses, one dyad was dropped because his/her ages (46 and 43) excluded them from being considered young adults, six couples were dropped because the partners failed to complete the discussion task, thus there were no observational data regarding their level of hostility, and two couples were dropped because they were no longer in a relationship during phase two of the study. The final sample included 52 heterosexual romantic couples (N = 104). Couples’ relationship length ranged from 1 to 66 months, with most couples in relationships for over a year (M = 18.15, SD = 15.90). A majority (N = 48) of the couples described themselves as dating, and four were married. The average participant age was 20.08 years (SD = 1.99). The ethnic composition of the sample was 71.2% Caucasian, 13.5% Asian, 5.8% Hispanic, 3.8% mixed race, and 3.8% African American.

Procedure

The current study included data collected as part of a larger study evaluating developmental predictors of romantic relationship outcomes. Data collection was completed in two phases, as described below. All study procedures were approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board.

Phase I

Study participants were recruited from fliers posted throughout campus as well as through the University Psychology Research Pool. Participants had to be at least 18 years of age and be a current undergraduate student to participate. As an incentive for participating in Phase I, participants received research participation credits (as part of their course requirements), or entry into a raffle for a US$50 gift card (if they were recruited by the flyer). Participants e-mailed a research assistant to acquire the survey website, verify eligibility for participation, and obtain a personal identification number to ensure confidentiality. Participants completed informed consent prior to participating in the study. To control for random guessing and skipped items, participants were required to provide a response for each question, though each question contained a “prefer not to answer” option. After exiting the program, the data were encrypted and participants were not able to re-access their responses. All participants completed measures assessing family history and both individual and interpersonal functioning. All participants who endorsed being in a current romantic relationship completed additional measures specific to that romantic relationship and were invited to complete Phase II of the study with their partners.

Phase II

Study participants and their partners completed Phase II of the study in the research lab. All partners had to be at least 18 years of age in order to participate, and participants and their partners consented individually for the study. Index study participants and their partners were asked to engage in a discussion involving a topic of current debate or conflict in their romantic relationship (e.g., time spent together, jealousy, communication) with the goal to arrive at a compromise. Additionally, they were asked to engage in the cooperative task of planning a vacation together. These interactions took approximately 40 min and were video-recorded by research assistants. Following these interactions, participants and their partners went to separate rooms and completed all additional self-report questionnaires independently. Partners completed both Phase I and Phase II measures at this time. For time and participation, index participants selected either course credit for research participation or US$20; partners received US$20 for their time. Independent t-tests revealed no significant differences in terms of gender, age, romantic relationship duration, or retrospective reports of childhood emotional maltreatment between Phase I participants who chose to complete Phase II versus those who did not.

Measures

Observed hostility

The hostility rating scale from the Romantic Relationship Assessment Observational Rating Scales (Aguilar et al., 1997) was utilized to measure observed dyadic-level hostility during the conflict resolution interaction task, which was completed during Phase II of the study. Hostility was defined as either partner’s engagement in distancing behavior (e.g., cold, rejecting, mocking comments) without remorse, which reflected hopelessness in the relationship. Each dyad received a single global hostility score ranging from 1 to 7, with high scores reflecting maximum distancing, including a pattern of mocking, critical, hurtful behavior, without signs of remorse or hope for change; moderate hostility was characterized by the presence of distancing behavior, without a pervasive nature and some hope for change; and low hostility was characterized by the presence of some mild distancing behavior, with observed regret for making comments as well as a sense of hope for resolving conflict. One undergraduate and one graduate level research assistant coded each dyadic interaction, and final scores were reached by conferencing any discrepancies. Inter-rater reliability was computed between pairs for the first 20 dyads (30%) based on pre-conferenced scores, and reliability was acceptable (Intraclass correlation [ICC] = .81).

Childhood emotional maltreatment

Childhood emotional maltreatment was assessed by combining the emotional abuse and (emotional neglect subscales of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire–Short Form (CTQ-SF; Bernstein & Fink, 1998). The CTQ-SF is a 28-item retrospective self-report measure that assesses childhood traumatic experiences within the family of origin. Items are scored using a 5-point Likert-type scale indicating the frequency of childhood maltreatment, with values ranging from never true (1) to very often true (5). The emotional abuse subscale (e.g., “People in my family called me things like ‘stupid,’ ‘lazy,’ or ugly.’”) and the emotional neglect subscale (e.g., “I felt loved.”) each included five items, which were averaged to create a single emotional abuse score and single emotional neglect score. All emotional neglect items were reverse scored such that higher numbers reflected greater emotional neglect. The two emotional abuse and emotional neglect subscale scores were averaged to create a single emotional maltreatment score. The CTQ-SF measure was administered to participants during Phase I and their partners during Phase II. Internal consistency of the emotional maltreatment score for the current sample was α = .90 for men and α = .88 for women.

Romantic relationship satisfaction

Relationship satisfaction was assessed using the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988). The RAS assessed global relationship satisfaction with 7 items (e.g., “How well does your partner meet your needs?” “How good is your relationship compared to most?”) on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Items were averaged together to create a single score ranging from 1 to 7, with higher scores indicating greater relationship satisfaction. This scale is appropriate for individuals in an intimate relationship including married, dating, or cohabiting couples. The RAS has demonstrated good convergent validity with other assessment measures of relationship satisfaction including the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Vaughn & Matyastik Baier, 1999). Internal consistency for this scale in the current study was α = .82 for men and .81 for women.

Strategy for data analysis

The research question addressed in this study was as follows: Does childhood emotional maltreatment significantly impact relationship satisfaction differently for males and females and was that relationship significantly moderated by dyad-level hostility for males, females, or both? Dyads were treated as distinguishable in analyses because our research question (not a statistical test of distinguishability; see Peugh, DiLillo, & Panuzio, 2013, pp. 315–316) contains an implicit hypothesis of a differential moderated childhood maltreatment effect between males and females. Further, the continuous childhood emotional maltreatment scores were centered at the mean of each dyad (i.e., group mean centered; see Enders & Tofighi, 2007) not only because our research question addresses the possibility of moderation but because we suspect a relative gender effect (not absolute; cf. Firebaugh, 1980; see Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994; Peugh, DiLillo, & Panuzio, 2013) of childhood maltreatment on satisfaction for dyads treated as distinguishable in analyses. As such, an actor–partner interdependence model (APIM; Cook & Kenny, 2005; Kenny et al., 2006) was the analysis used to answer the research question (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Actor–partner interdependence model for maltreatment history, relationship satisfaction, and dyadic hostility. *p < .05; e: residual errors on relationship satisfaction for men and women.

The APIM shown in Figure 1 allows dyadic data to be treated as distinguishable by estimating separate and distinguishable “actor” effects (e.g., the “female childhood emotional maltreatment” → “female relationship satisfaction” and “male childhood emotional maltreatment” → “male relationship satisfaction” regression paths) and “partner” effects (e.g., the “female childhood emotional maltreatment” → “male relationship satisfaction” and “male childhood emotional maltreatment” → “female relationship satisfaction” regression paths) for each dyad member. Also, after the addition to the APIM of the main effect of dyad-level hostility on male and female relationship satisfaction (e.g., “dyadic hostility” → “male relationship satisfaction” and “dyadic hostility” → “female relationship satisfaction” regression paths), separate and distinguishable moderated “actor” effects (e.g., the “female childhood emotional maltreatment x dyadic hostility” → “female relationship satisfaction” and “male childhood emotional maltreatment x dyadic hostility” → “male relationship satisfaction” regression paths) and moderated “partner” effects (e.g., the “female childhood emotional maltreatment x dyadic hostility” → “male relationship satisfaction” and “male childhood emotional maltreatment x dyadic hostility” → “female relationship satisfaction” regression paths) were estimated to address the research question. As also shown in Figure 1, the nonindependence of relationship satisfaction scores collected from within dyads is reflected in allowing the female and male relationship satisfaction score to correlate in the analysis APIM.

Finally, two additional and related data analysis issues warrant clarification. Missing data were limited to the dyad-level hostility variable (10.3% missing) only, and both male and female childhood emotional maltreatment scores showed a non-normal distribution. To address both issues, a maximum likelihood parameter estimation algorithm robust to non-normally distributed data (MLR in Mplus) was used to both properly handle missing data and to guard against Type 1 inferential errors resulting from skewed data. Further, to make the implicit “missing at random” assumption associated with MLR missing data handling more plausible, six auxiliary correlate variables (male and female depression, demand-withdraw communication, and constructive criticism communication scores) were included consistent with currently accepted practice (Enders, 2010; Graham, 2012).

Results

Preliminary analyses

Preliminary analyses indicated that relationship satisfaction (RAS scores) for both men and women were not significantly associated with age, race, or socioeconomic status (SES). Bivariate correlations revealed that relationship length and marital status were not significantly associated with relationship satisfaction. The results of independent samples t-tests revealed no significant differences between women and men on childhood emotional maltreatment (women: $M = 1.61; S D = .62$ ; men: $M = 1.64; S D = .61$ ), hostility (women: $M = 1.56; S D = .98$ ; men: $M = 1.54; S D = .96$ ), or relationship satisfaction (women: $M = 6.15; S D = .72$ ; men: $M = 6.00; S D = .86$ ), as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Dyadic descriptive statistics.

	Female	Male	Difference (SE)
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Difference (SE)
Relationship satisfaction	6.15 (.72)	6.00 (.86)	0.15 (.15)
Dyadic hostility	1.56 (.98)	1.54 (.96)	0.02 (.19)
Self-reported childhood emotional maltreatment	1.61 (.62)	1.64 (.61)	0.03 (.11)

Dyadic analyses

The APIM model shown in Figure 1 was tested using Mplus Version 7.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012) to examine actor and partner childhood emotional maltreatment effects on current relationship satisfaction as potentially moderated by total hostility exhibited by the dyad and observed during the conflict resolution discussion in the overall model. Results showed three significant main effects that each negatively impacted female relationship satisfaction. First, a significant and negative actor effect was observed (female childhood emotional maltreatment → female relationship satisfaction path; b = −.17, β = −.44, p < .01); for women, higher levels of childhood emotional maltreatment were significantly predictive of lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Second, a significant and negative partner effect was also observed (male childhood emotional maltreatment → female relationship satisfaction path; b = −.14, β = −.43, p < .05); higher male childhood maltreatment was also significantly predictive of lower female relationship satisfaction. Third, a significant dyad-level main effect for hostility (dyadic hostility → female relationship satisfaction path; b = −.18, β = −.18, p < .01) was also observed; higher levels of dyadic and interpersonal relationship hostility were also significantly predictive of lower female relationship satisfaction. Further, a significant positive actor effect by dyadic hostility interaction (female childhood emotional maltreatment * dyadic hostility → female relationship satisfaction path; b = .08, β = .35, p < .05) was observed for women only (see Table 2). As shown in Figure 2, relationship satisfaction for females was significantly lower for those reporting average or below average levels of childhood emotional maltreatment as dyadic hostility levels increased. Follow-up simple slope tests for the interaction showed that dyadic hostility at average (simple slope = −.18; t = −2.77; p < .01) and below average (i.e., −1 SD; simple slope = −.39; t = −2.52; p < .05) levels showed attenuated relations to relationship satisfaction as levels of female emotional maltreatment increased. The dyadic hostility simple slope for female participants reporting above average levels of childhood emotional maltreatment (i.e., +1 SD; simple slope = .02; t = .34; p > .05) was not statistically significant.

Table 2.

Actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) results.

	Relationship satisfaction: female	Relationship satisfaction: male
Hostility
Childhood emotional maltreatment (actor effect)	−.14 (.07)*	.07 (.10)
Childhood emotional maltreatment (partner effect)	−.17 (.06)**	.01 (.06)
Dyad hostility	−.18 (.07)**	−.15 (.09)
Childhood Emotional Maltreatment (Actor) × Dyad Hostility	.03 (.04)	−.04 (.06)
Childhood Emotional Maltreatment (Partner) × Dyad Hostility	.08 (.04)*	.01 (.04)

**p < .01; *p< .05.

Figure 2.

Interaction between female self-reported childhood maltreatment and dyadic hostility as both predict relationship satisfaction for women. *p < .05 and **p < .01 for the significance tests of the simple slopes.

Discussion

This study examined the associations between history of childhood emotional maltreatment and current relationship satisfaction in romantic couples. While these associations between past childhood maltreatment and current relationship difficulties have been the subject of past research, they have primarily been at the individual level, without taking partners’ histories or perceptions into account. The current study addresses limitations in past research by examining these variables at the dyadic level. We were also interested in how observed hostility in dyadic interactions might moderate those relations, hypothesizing that higher levels of hostility would exacerbate links between retrospectively reported childhood emotional maltreatment and current relationship dissatisfaction.

APIM findings

In interpreting current findings, actor effects were arguably the most intuitive, based on previous research regarding associations between an individual’s history of childhood emotional maltreatment and their current relationship dissatisfaction and difficulties (e.g., Berzenski & Yates, 2010; DiLillo et al., 2009; Messman-Moore & Coates, 2007; Reyome, 2010; Riggs & Kaminski, 2010). Although our sample size did not permit exploration of mediating variables, developmental theory and past research support interpretations that a personal history of childhood maltreatment renders one vulnerable to relationship dissatisfaction due to maladaptive views of oneself as flawed or others as untrustworthy (Lumley & Harkness, 2007; Messman-Moore and Coates, 2007; Wright et al., 2009). Our results indicated that for young women, their satisfaction within the context of a romantic relationship is compromised by their own history of childhood emotional maltreatment. This is consistent with past research demonstrating the effects of childhood emotional maltreatment history on current relationship adjustment (e.g., Riggs et al., 2011). In contrast to previous studies, we did not find main effects of childhood emotional maltreatment on current relationship satisfaction for men. This lack of significant associations is surprising, as previous research (Berzenski & Yates, 2010; Reyome, 2010; Riggs & Kaminski, 2010) has demonstrated similar relations of childhood emotional maltreatment to relationship outcomes for both men and women. Following Karney and Bradbury (1995), we are cautious to interpret these gender differences further given their divergence from the previous literature and theory; however, it may be worth recalling the conclusions of Floyd and Markman (1983) in noting that women’s reports of relationship satisfaction were more predictive of marital distress.

The role of hostility

Although the current study did not address individual-level behaviors that may mediate the links between childhood emotional maltreatment history and relationship outcomes, we did consider the role of dyadic interaction patterns (specifically, dyadic hostility) as a factor that may exacerbate or attenuate these relations. We considered hostility as a potential moderator, following predictions based in social learning theory that children may develop hostile communication styles as a result of childhood emotional maltreatment in their early family environment, which later impacts their own communication/conflict resolution strategies in romantic relationships.

Notably, the results discussed above were only significant for women. This pattern of gender differences is difficult to explain, as it was not hypothesized a priori; however, there are several possible explanations for these findings. First, long-standing research among married couples has shown that women are more likely to be attuned to the dynamics of dyadic relationships (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997), and there are differential predictors of relationship satisfaction by gender (e.g., Acitelli, 1992; Acitelli & Antonucci, 1994). In marital relationships, wives’ characteristics disproportionately predict relationship outcomes and may serve as an indicator (as distinct from cause) of relationship distress (Barry, 1970; Floyd & Markman, 1983).

Further, women with childhood maltreatment histories are more likely to use avoidant or emotion-based coping strategies which could interfere with their ability to use problem-solving to manage interpersonal conflicts as adults (Leitenberg, Gibson, & Novy, 2004) Additionally, this may be a feature of the developmental stage represented in the current sample, as factors related to relationship satisfaction may differ for emerging adults/college students as compared to older adults and married couples, although we did not find any research to date that has pursued this question.

In our moderation analyses, we found that at lower levels of dyadic hostility, there was little variability in women’s relationship satisfaction, which was reported at generally high levels. At higher levels of dyadic hostility, there was more variation in self-reported relationship satisfaction, dependent on the degree of retrospectively reported childhood emotional maltreatment. Specifically, the lowest levels of relationship satisfaction were reported by women in relationships with higher levels of observed dyadic hostility, but who reported low levels of emotional maltreatment. It may be that women who experienced greater emotional maltreatment in childhood, which would be characterized by the presence of hostility directed at themselves, are less sensitive to the presence of hostility in their romantic relationships as it pertains to their subjective satisfaction. However, for nonmaltreated women, hostility is inconsistent with schemas and values about relationships and thus leads to dissatisfaction. It may also be that emotionally maltreated women are more likely to behave in hostile ways toward their partners and not experience this as detrimental to their own relationship satisfaction. It is difficult to tease these relations apart since we do not know whether the women were instigators or recipients of hostility in the dyadic interactions, which prevents us from speculating on whether emotional maltreatment predicts acting in more hostile ways or maintaining relationships with hostile partners (or both, reciprocally). However, in the broader literature, histories of child-directed parent psychological aggression predict psychological aggression in romantic relationships in young adulthood (Lohman, Neppl, Senia, & Schofield, 2013). Future research in this area would benefit from specifying the roles of romantic partners in hostile interactions to further inform directionality of these relations.

Limitations

This study was characterized by several methodological strengths which bolster its novel contributions to the literature, including a dyadic analysis approach that addressed interdependence of data collected from couples, and observational measures of hostile interactions to complement self-report measures of childhood emotional maltreatment history and relationship satisfaction. We had a small sample size (52 couples) to test an APIM model, particularly since we also tested for hostility as a moderator. Due to our limited small sample size, we did not control for age, race, or SES, and we were unable to test a wide range of variables that may have also contributed to relationship satisfaction in our study. With a relatively small sample of college students, the generalizability to adults of different ages and educational backgrounds may be limited. Racial and ethnic diversity should also be considered. In addition, as a community-based sample, the overall rates of relationship satisfaction were high, and the rates of childhood emotional maltreatment were relatively low, and the sample-based descriptions of “high” and “low” levels of these variables should be interpreted in this context and, ideally, replicated among samples of distressed couples or more severely maltreated individuals.

While this study only measured relationship satisfaction at a single point in time, future research should consider longitudinal measures of the relative stability of relationship satisfaction as more dynamic predictors of interpersonal adjustment (Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000). The results are pertinent to dating couples in relationships of relatively short duration, relative to married couples, and findings should be interpreted accordingly. It should be noted that the relationship between partner reported childhood emotional maltreatment history and actor relationship satisfaction may be additionally explained by other factors such as psychological comorbidities including symptoms of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that were beyond the scope of the current study.

Future directions

The current findings also point toward future directions for this area of research. As noted previously, it will be important to identify mediating processes and variables, such as early maladaptive schemas or other attachment-related factors that could further elucidate developmental pathways and also inform potential points of prevention and intervention. In terms of clinical implications, the current study’s findings bolster the extant evidence base on couples’ interventions in suggesting that hostility is an important feature in the prediction of relationship outcomes and is a necessary target for clinical intervention (Snyder & Kim, 2012). A recent randomized controlled trial found that that women, especially, benefited from a self-guided relationship intervention program both in terms of improved positive communication skills and relationship satisfaction (Bodenmann, Hilpert, Nussbeck, & Bradbury, 2014). Based on our findings, in couples where a female member has a history of childhood emotional maltreatment and the dyadic interactions are characterized by high levels of hostility, a similar relationship intervention may be warranted.

Our findings suggest that for young women, their satisfaction within the context of a romantic relationship is compromised by their own history of childhood emotional maltreatment, particularly when the couple’s conflict resolution style is characterized by hostility. Future studies should identify protective factors for individuals with a history of childhood emotional maltreatment who do not engage in hostile romantic relationship interactions; such research could also guide preventive work for romantic couples and for interpersonal relationships more broadly.

Footnotes

Funding

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

References

Acitelli

(1992). Gender differences in relationship awareness and marital satisfaction among young married couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 102–110.

Acitelli

L. K.

Antonucci

T. C.

(1994). Gender differences in the link between marital support and satisfaction in older couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 688–698.

Aguilar

Christian

S. D.

Collins

W. A.

Cook

Hennighausen

K. H.

Hyson

D. M.

… Sesma

A. G.

(1997). Romantic relationship assessment observational rating scales. Unpublished coding manual, Parent-Child Project, University of Minnesota.

APSAC. (1995). Psychosocial evaluation of suspected psychological maltreatment in children and adolescents. Practice guidelines. Columbus, OH: Author.

Barry

W. A.

(1970). Marriage research and conflict: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 41–54.

Baumeister

R. F.

Sommer

K. L.

(1997). What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness: Comment on Cross and Madson. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 38–44.

Bernstein

D. P.

Fink

(1998). Childhood trauma questionnaire: A retrospective self-report. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Berzenski

S. R.

Yates

T. M.

(2010). A developmental process analysis of the contribution of childhood emotional abuse to relationship violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 180–203.

Bodenmann

Hilpert

Nussbeck

F. W.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2014). Enhancement of couples’ communication and dyadic coping by a self-directed approach: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82, 580.

10.

Bolger

K. E.

Patterson

C. J.

(2001). Developmental pathways from child maltreatment to peer rejection. Child Development, 72, 549–568.

11.

Bradbury

T. N.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R.

(2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 964–980.

12.

Bryant

C. M.

Conger

R. D.

(2002). An intergenerational model of romantic relationship development. In Vangelisti

A. L.

Reis

H. T.

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

(Eds.), Stability and change in relationships (pp. 57–82). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Cicchetti

Valentino

(2006). An ecological-transactional perspective on child maltreatment: Failure of the average expectable environment and its influence upon child development. In Cicchetti

Cohen

D. J.

(Eds.), Developmental psychopathology. Risk, disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed., Vol. 3), pp. 129–201. New York, NY: Wiley.

14.

Collins

W. A.

(2003). More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 1–24.

15.

Collins

W. A.

van Dulmen

(2006). Friendships and romance in emerging adulthood: Assessing distinctiveness in close relationships. In Arnett

J. J.

Tanner

J. L.

(Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 219–234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

16.

Colman

R. A.

Widom

C. S.

(2004). Childhood abuse and neglect and adult intimate relationships: A prospective study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 1133–1151.

17.

Conger

R. D.

Cui

Bryant

Elder

G. H.

Jr . (2000). Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 224–237.

18.

Cook

W. L.

Kenny

D. A.

(2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109.

19.

DiLillo

Peugh

Walsh

Panuzio

Trask

Evans

(2009). Child maltreatment history among newlywed couples: A longitudinal study of marital outcomes and mediating pathways. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 680–692.

20.

Driscoll

K. A.

Schatschneider

McGinnity

Modi

A. C.

(2012). Application of dyadic data analysis in pediatric psychology: Cystic fibrosis health-related quality of life and anxiety in child–caregiver dyads. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 37, 605–611.

21.

Enders

C. K.

(2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

22.

Enders

C. K.

Tofighi

(2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138.

23.

Firebaugh

1980. Groups as contexts and frogponds. In Roberts

K. H.

Burstein

(Eds.), Issues in aggregation (pp. 43–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

24.

Floyd

F. J.

Markman

H. J.

(1983). Observational biases in spouse observation: Toward a cognitive/behavioral model of marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 450–457.

25.

Graham

J. W.

(2012). Missing data: Analysis and design. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

26.

Granic

Hollenstein

(2003). Dynamic systems methods for models of developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 641–669.

27.

Grusec

(1992). Social learning theory and developmental psychology: The legacies of Robert Sears and Albert Bandura. Developmental Psychology, 28, 776–786.

28.

Hart

S. N.

Brassard

M. R.

Binggeli

N. J.

Davidson

H. A.

(2002). Psychological maltreatment. In Myers

J. E. B.

Berliner

Briere

Hendrix

C. T.

Jenny

Reid

T. A.

(Eds.), The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment (pp. 79–103). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

29.

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.

30.

Hendrick

S. S.

(1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 93–98.

31.

Kaplan

S. J.

Pelcovitz

Labruna

(1999). Child and adolescent abuse and neglect research: A review of the past 10 years. Part I: Physical and emotional abuse and neglect. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1214–1222.

32.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.

33.

Klein

K. J.

Dansereau

Hall

R. J.

(1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–229.

34.

Kenny

Kashy

Cook

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

35.

Leitenberg

Gibson

L. E.

Novy

P. L.

(2004). Individual differences among undergraduate women in methods of coping with stressful events: The impact of cumulative childhood stressors and abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 181–192.

36.

Lohman

B. J.

Neppl

T. K.

Senia

J. M.

Schofield

T. J.

(2013). Understanding adolescent and family influences on intimate partner psychological violence during emerging adulthood and adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 500–517.

37.

Lumley

M. N.

Harkness

K. L.

(2007). Specificity in the relations among childhood adversity, early maladaptive schemas, and symptom profiles in adolescent depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 31, 639–657.

38.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

Coates

A. A.

(2007). The impact of childhood psychological abuse on adult interpersonal conflict: The role of early maladaptive schemas and patterns of interpersonal behavior. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 7, 75–92.

39.

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.

40.

Mushquash

A. R.

Stewart

S. H.

Sherry

S. B.

Mackinnon

S. P.

Antony

M. M.

Sherry

D. L.

(2011). Heavy episodic drinking among dating partners: A longitudinal actor-partner interdependence model. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27, 178–183.

41.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

42.

Peugh

J. L.

DiLillo

Panuzio

(2013). Analyzing mixed-dyadic data using structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(2), 314–337.

43.

Reyome

N. D.

(2010). Childhood emotional maltreatment and later intimate relationships: Themes from the empirical literature. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 224–242.

44.

Riggs

S. A.

Cusimano

A. M.

Benson

K. M.

(2011). Childhood emotional abuse and attachment processes in the dyadic adjustment of dating couples. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 126–138.

45.

Riggs

S. A.

Kaminski

(2010). Childhood emotional abuse, adult attachment, and depression as predictors of relational adjustment and psychological aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 75–104.

46.

Roberts

L. J.

(2000). Fire and ice in marital communication: Hostile and distancing behaviors as predictors of marital distress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 693–707.

47.

Saavedra

M. C.

Chapman

K. E.

Rogge

R. D.

(2010). Clarifying links between attachment and relationship quality: Hostile conflict and mindfulness as moderators. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 380–390.

48.

Salvatore

J. E.

Sally

Kuo

Steele

R. D.

Simpson

J. A.

Collins

W. A.

(2011). Recovering from conflict in romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. Psychological Science, 22, 376–383.

49.

Segrin

Hanzal

Domschke

T. J.

(2009). Accuracy and bias in newlywed couples’ perceptions of conflict styles and the association with marital satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 76, 207–233.

50.

Shields

Cicchetti

(2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 349–363.

51.

Smetana

J. G.

Campione-Barr

Metzger

(2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255–284.

52.

Snyder

D. K.

Kim

(2012). Evidence-based couple therapy: Current status and future directions. Journal of Family Therapy, 34, 229–249.

53.

Sroufe

L. A.

Fleeson

(1986). Attachment and the construction of relationships. In Hartup

Rubin

(Eds.) The nature and development of relationships. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.

54.

Straus

M. A.

Savage

S. A.

(2005). Neglectful behavior by parents in the life history of university students in 17 countries and its relation to violence against dating partners. Child Maltreatment, 10, 124–135.

55.

Theiss

J. A.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2009). An actor-partner interdependence model of irritations in romantic relationships. Communication Research, 36, 510–537.

56.

Vaughn

M. J.

Matyastik Baier

M. E.

(1999). Reliability and validity of the relationship assessment scale. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 137–147.

57.

Wekerle

Wolfe

D. A.

(1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 435–456.

58.

Whisman

M. A.

(2006). Childhood trauma and marital outcomes in adulthood. Personal Relationships, 13, 375–386.

59.

Widom

C. S.

Czaja

Dutton

M. A.

(2014). Child abuse and neglect and intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: A prospective investigation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 650–663.

60.

Wolfe

D. A.

Wekerle

Scott

Straatman

A.-L.

Grasley

(2004). Predicting abuse in adolescent dating relationships over 1 year: The role of child maltreatment and trauma. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 406–415.

61.

Wright

M. O.

Crawford

Del Castillo

(2009). Childhood emotional maltreatment and later psychological distress among college students: The mediating role of maladaptive schemas. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 59–68.

62.

Young

J. E.

Klosko

J. S.

Weishaar

M. E.

(2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner’s guide. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.