Adult children’s goals as predictors of communication satisfaction with their parent: The moderating roles of inferences of the parent’s goals and future time perspective of the parent

Abstract

Adult children (N = 245, M_Age = 50.55 years, 62.0% women, 80.0% European American) reported on their own prosocial goals during typical interactions with their parent, inferences of their parent’s prosocial goals, assessment of their parent’s future, and general communication satisfaction in their relationship with their parent. Prosocial goals were considered as social support goals and relationship protection goals. The study examined how children’s own prosocial goals predicted children’s general communication satisfaction, as well as how children’s inferences of their parent’s goals and future time perspective of their parent moderated these associations. The associations between children’s own goals and children’s communication satisfaction were positive (1) when children inferred that their parent held the same goals and perceived their parent’s future as restricted, or (2) when children inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of the goals and perceived their parent’s future as expansive. The study illuminates the contingencies under which children’s goals predict children’s general communication satisfaction.

Keywords

multiple goals perspective socioemotional selectivity theory social support goals relationship protection goals later-life parent–child relationships

The support and relational investments that parents and children provide for one another are consequential throughout life. For example, research on junior high-aged children indicates that receiving support from parents positively predicts children’s interpersonal skills and self-esteem (Demaray et al., 2005). As children age into adults, they frequently provide support for their older parents (Pew Research Center, 2013). The support older parents receive from their adult children has been linked to fewer depressive symptoms in parents (Reczek & Zhang, 2016). Even at the very end of the life span, parents in their 90s still provide substantial emotional support to their adult children, and their adult children provide substantial instrumental and emotional support to their parents (Boerner et al., 2021). Alongside support exchanges, older parents and adult children are often concerned about protecting their relationship. When older parents and adult children communicate with the goal of protecting their relationship, they report higher satisfaction with their conversations (Scott & Caughlin, 2014). Given that social support and relationship protection are relevant for aging parents and adult children, this study investigates the associations between adult children’s social support and relationship protection goals and children’s communication satisfaction.

Communication satisfaction refers to feelings of fulfillment and contentment when engaging in interactions (Hecht, 1978). It was chosen as the main outcome for several reasons. Theoretically, subjective evaluations of interactions (including communication satisfaction) are thought to result from people’s own goals and inferences of their relational partner’s goals (see Caughlin, 2010, pp. 832-833). Practically, communication satisfaction is important for adult children and their parents. Children’s communication satisfaction has been positively associated with both their own and their parent’s relational satisfaction (McManus & Nussbaum, 2011). When parents and children are satisfied with their communication, they maintain their relationships in prosocial ways (e.g., provide assurances to one another, manage conflict constructively; Punyanunt-Carter, 2008). Satisfying conversations between older parents and adult children are associated with more hope and less perceived distance between the two parties (Scott & Caughlin, 2014). For these reasons, examining the conditions under which communication satisfaction might be optimized is a worthwhile endeavor.

The purpose of this study was to probe the conditions under which adult children derive communication satisfaction in their overall relationship with a parent when children hold prosocial goals. Prosocial goals involve “a concern for one’s interaction partner or relationship,” whereas non-prosocial goals involve “concerns such as one’s self-interest or completing a task” (Worley & Samp, 2018, p. 251). Prosocial goals can be divided into goals of supporting the partner and goals of protecting the relationship (Worley & Samp, 2018). Children tend to be more satisfied with their relationships when they hold these two prosocial goals (Guntzviller, 2017; Mikucki-Enyart & Caughlin, 2018).

Using the multiple goals perspective (e.g., Caughlin, 2010; Wilson & Caughlin, 2018), this study’s objective was to investigate whether or not certain characteristics of the parent moderate the extent to which adult children experience general communication satisfaction from holding social support and relationship protection goals. This objective involves two questions. First, the question arises of whether or not children still derive benefits of holding these prosocial goals even if they infer that their parent does not share the same goals. Put differently, what happens to children when they are trying to support their parent or protect their relationship, but infer that their parent is not trying to do the same? Second, the question arises of how adult children’s impression of their parent’s remaining time left to live may be a characteristic of the parent that children use to help make sense of their own prosocial goals and inferences of their parent’s prosocial goals. This is especially the case given recent social issues that make older parents’ remaining time left to live especially salient (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic). The answers to these questions may provide a more nuanced understanding of the contingencies under which holding prosocial goals may be beneficial, inconsequential, or harmful to children’s communication satisfaction.

In the following sections, the multiple goals perspective is reviewed to explain how children’s own social support and relationship protection goals, as well as children’s inferences of their parent’s social support and relationship protection goals, might be associated with children’s general communication satisfaction in their relationship with their parent. Socioemotional selectivity theory is then used to explain how children’s assessment of their parent’s future might moderate how children’s goals and inferences of their parent’s goals are associated with children’s general communication satisfaction.

The multiple goals perspective and family relationships

Overview of the multiple goals perspective

The multiple goals perspective (e.g., Caughlin, 2010; Wilson & Caughlin, 2018) refers to a collection of theories that treat communication as a purposeful endeavor to accomplish goals. Goals are “cognitive representations of desired end states for which people strive” (Berger & Palomares, 2011, p. 170). Goal inferences “occur when a person considers or understands someone’s objective” (Palomares, 2014, p. 91). Answers to the often-asked question “What is he/she trying to do?” count as goal inferences (Palomares, 2014, p. 91). The multiple goals perspective posits that goals play various roles in relational life (for a review, see Wilson, 2007). Goals shape the messages that senders produce, as well as receivers’ interpretations and evaluations of those messages. This study focuses on children’s goals, inferences of their parent’s goals, and communication satisfaction.

Most previous studies on multiple goals are either trying to predict behaviors or trying to explain how people interpret or are affected by behaviors. However, there is also a strong warrant for complementing these foci with a consideration of how adult children’s own goals and inferences of their parent’s goals are associated with children’s communication satisfaction. The warrant comes from Caughlin’s (2010) theorizing. According to this theorizing, Person A’s own goals and inferences of their partner’s goals bear direct implications for Person A’s subjective evaluation of communication. Similarly, Person B’s own goals and inferences of their partner’s goals bear direct implications for Person B’s subjective evaluation of communication (see Figure 1, p. 833). Caughlin argued that “beliefs about conversational goals probably have a direct influence on people’s evaluations of conversations . . . for instance, a husband would probably be dissatisfied with an encounter if he believes his wife is very concerned about getting him to comply but is unconcerned about his identity” (p. 834). He also highlighted that the bulk of previous multiple goals research has focused on issues such as why people produce certain kinds of messages or why certain kinds of messages (e.g., topic avoidance) are (in)effective. In addition to continuing these lines of research, he called on researchers to more systematically examine “questions about how conversational goals may be linked to broad relational outcomes . . . For instance, one can examine questions about whether one’s beliefs about others’ goals influence interpretation at varying levels” (pp. 835-836). The current study built on Caughlin’s theorizing, and, in doing so, provided an additional vein of inquiry worthy of attention.

Figure 1.

Visual decomposition of the three-way interaction among (a) children’s social support goal, (b) children’s inference of their parent’s social support goal, and (c) children’s perception of their parent’s future in predicting children’s communication satisfaction. “Low child social support goal” refers to children’s social support goal at −1 SD. “High child social support goal” refers to children’s social support goal at the scale maximum (which is just 0.17 points less than a full +1 SD). “Low parent social support goal” refers to children’s inference of their parent’s social support goal at −1 SD. “High parent social support goal” refers to children’s inference of their parent’s social support goal at the scale maximum (which is just 0.02 points less than a full +1 SD). “Parent restricted future” refers to children’s assessment of their parent’s future at −1 SD of the future time perspective variable. “Parent expansive future” refers to children’s assessment of their parent’s future at +1 SD of the future time perspective variable. Slope 1 did not differ from zero: slope = 0.31, t = 1.12, p = .27. Slopes 2 (slope = 0.96, t = 3.50, p = .001) and 3 (slope = 0.73, t = 4.13, p < .001) both differed from zero. Slope 4 did not differ from zero: slope = −0.11, t = −0.61, p = .55. Pairwise slope difference tests revealed two pairs of significantly different slopes: (1) Slope 2 differed from Slope 4, slope difference = 1.07, t = 3.45, p = .001, 95% CI = 0.46 to 1.67. (2) Slope 3 differed from Slope 4, slope difference = 0.84, t = 3.29, p = .001, 95% CI = 0.34 to 1.33. The other pairwise comparisons were nonsignificant. Of note, Slope 1 did not differ from zero, and Slope 1 also did not differ from Slopes 2 and 3 (which were both different from zero).

Goals, goal inferences, and communication satisfaction

In the following sections, children’s prosocial goals and inferences of their parent’s prosocial goals are hypothesized to be positively associated with children’s communication satisfaction. Next, children’s prosocial goals are hypothesized to interact with children’s inferences of their parent’s prosocial goals to predict children’s communication satisfaction.

Social support goals

Social support is important in later-life parent–child relationships. Seventy-three percent of adults in their 40s and 50s with a living parent have reported supporting their parent emotionally, financially, or with other forms of instrumental help (Pew Research Center, 2013). Thus, adults supporting their older parents is a relevant context for many people.

In research on parent–child relationships, social support goals and inferences about social support goals have been associated with relational outcomes. Guntzviller (2017) applied the multiple goals perspective to Latina/o American mother-child dyads in the context of children serving as language brokers for their mothers. Mothers were between 26 and 56 years old (M_Age = 39.38 years), and children were between 12 and 18 years old (M_Age = 14.20 years). Children’s inference of their mother’s social support goal was positively associated with children’s relational satisfaction. This inference was measured as children’s perception that their mother was trying to provide emotional support, such as trying to help them feel good about themselves when translating. Likewise, mothers’ goal of supporting their child during language brokering positively predicted mothers’ relational satisfaction. Mothers’ social support goal was measured as whether mothers thought they were trying to uplift their children during language brokering by making their children feel good about themselves. This research suggests the following:

H1: Adult children’s (a) own social support goal during typical interactions and (b) inference of their parent’s social support goal during typical interactions will be positively associated with adult children’s communication satisfaction.

Relationship protection goals

Alongside social support, it is important that middle-aged children and older parents avoid damaging their relationship. As people age, they increasingly forgo relationships with casual friends and acquaintances in favor of increased contact with a smaller circle of core relational partners (most notably, their spouse and adult children; Carstensen, 1995). Given these changes to social network compositions, some older adults might not have as many readily available alternative relationships as some younger adults have if their core relationships are harmed or damaged. When people have a relationship protection goal, their objective is to maintain the relationship’s current status and prevent the relationship from deteriorating (Caughlin & Afifi, 2004). Mikucki-Enyart and Caughlin (2018) found that children-in-law experienced greater relational satisfaction when they communicated with a goal of protecting their relationship with their parent-in-law. They argued that having a goal of protecting a relationship may lead people to communicate in pleasant ways, and this warm communication (as well as the reactions this warm communication is likely to engender in the other family member) may then lead people to experience greater satisfaction. It, thus, seemed plausible that children are more likely to be satisfied with their interactions when they have a relationship protection goal and infer that their parent has a relationship protection goal:

H2: Adult children’s (a) own relationship protection goal during typical interactions and (b) inference of their parent’s relationship protection goal during typical interactions will be positively associated with adult children’s communication satisfaction.

Combinations of goals and goal inferences

Children’s own goals and inferences of their parent’s goals might interact to predict children’s communication satisfaction. Guntzviller (2017) examined the goals that Latina/o American children hold when engaging in language brokering for their mothers, as well as their mothers’ inferences of the goals the children hold. Both parties’ reports of children’s goals interacted with one another to predict relational satisfaction: Both children’s and mothers’ relational satisfaction was highest when children had a goal of altering messages (e.g., trying to avoid translating statements from English into Spanish that might embarrass their mothers), but when mothers did not infer that their children had this goal. Thus, there is some support for the notion that goals and goal inferences might interactively predict relational solidarity. The current study retained Guntzviller’s focus on how multiple iterations of the same type of substantive goal might carry implications for family members as justification for also studying combinations of the same type of substantive goal. From this point forward, references to the same goal mean (a) children’s own social support goal interacting with children’s inference of their parent’s social support goal, or (b) children’s own relationship protection goal interacting with children’s inference of their parent’s relationship protection goal.

Children may need the buy-in of their parent in order to experience communication satisfaction from holding a prosocial goal themselves. If children infer that their parent holds the same social support or relationship protection goal that children hold, children may be better positioned to experience high communication satisfaction. Conversely, if children infer that their parent does not hold the same goal that children hold (and, by implication, that they do not have the buy-in and commitment of their parent to the relationship), children may not experience high communication satisfaction when they hold their own prosocial goal. This is because children may think that they are doing their own part to nurture the parent–child relationship, while also thinking that their parent is not doing the parent’s part. This inequitable situation may breed feelings of dissatisfaction and discontent among children with the state of their parent–child communication (see equity theory; Stafford, 2015). Put differently, children’s own social support or relationship protection goal may more strongly and positively predict children’s communication satisfaction when children infer that their parent also holds the same goal, compared to when children do not infer that their parent holds the same goal. This reasoning suggests the following:

H3: Adult children’s (a) own goal and (b) inference of their parent’s goal will interact in their impact on children’s communication satisfaction. In particular, the positive association between children’s own social support or relationship protection goal and communication satisfaction will be stronger in magnitude when children infer that their parent also holds the same goal, compared to when children do not infer that their parent holds the same goal.

The moderating role of future time perspective

Socioemotional selectivity theory (e.g., Carstensen, 1992) addresses how people’s perceptions and behaviors are shaped by future time perspectives. Future time perspectives refer to assessments of how expansive or restricted people’s futures are. Expansive time perspectives involve assessments that much of people’s lives lie ahead of them. In contrast, limited or restricted time perspectives involve assessments that people’s lives are coming to an end (Carstensen, 1995). In addition to holding perspectives of their own futures, people develop perspectives of their relational partners’ futures (Fingerman & Charles, 2010). The main argument of this section is as follows: When adult children perceive that their own prosocial goals match their parent’s prosocial goals, the associations between children’s goals and communication satisfaction will not be affected by their future time perspective of the parent. On the other hand, when adult children perceive that their own prosocial goals do not match their parent’s prosocial goals, the associations between children’s goals and communication satisfaction will be influenced by their future time perspective of the parent. However, the specific way in which future time perspective will function as a moderator is unclear. The following paragraphs explain this logic in more detail.

It is anticipated that, when children infer their parent as holding the same prosocial goals that children hold, the associations between children’s prosocial goals and children’s communication satisfaction will not be affected by children’s future time perspective of their parent. This is because in these situations, children may think that they are in an equitable relationship wherein each party contributes their fair share, and that their parent can contribute the parent’s fair share regardless of how much time the parent has left to live. On the other hand, children’s assessment of their parent’s future may moderate the associations between children’s prosocial goals and communication satisfaction when children do not infer that their parent holds the same goals that children hold. It is possible that the positive associations between children’s prosocial goals and children’s communication satisfaction will be stronger when children do not infer that their parent holds the same goals and perceive their parent’s future as restricted, compared to when children do not infer that their parent holds the same goals and perceive their parent’s future as expansive. In this respect, the social input model (Fingerman & Charles, 2010) holds that people are more likely to minimize tense experiences when they interact with older adults, moreso than when they interact with younger adults. This is proposed to be because people view older adults’ futures as more restricted than younger adults’ futures, and, as such, strive to maximize positive emotional experiences. Thus, people may be more forgiving and generous toward partners who they perceive as not having much time left to live. If children are, indeed, more warmly inclined toward their parents who they view as not having much time left to live, one might expect the positive associations between children’s own prosocial goals and children’s communication satisfaction (when children infer that their parent does not hold the same goals) to be stronger when children perceive their parent’s future as restricted, compared to when children perceive their parent’s future as expansive.

However, it is also conceivable to envision the opposite scenario, in which the positive associations between children’s own prosocial goals and children’s communication satisfaction are stronger when children do not infer that their parent holds the same goals and perceive their parent’s future as expansive, compared to when children do not infer that their parent holds the same goals and perceive their parent’s future as restricted. This is because perceiving an older family member’s future as expansive may confer a sense that one’s time with the family member is not going to come to an immediate end (Bernhold, 2020). This underlying stability may be conducive to experiencing satisfaction with one’s typical communication with the family member. Adult children may still be able to derive some communication satisfaction from holding prosocial goals when they infer that their parent does not hold prosocial goals, if they at least believe that the parent still has a long life to live. They could think that there is still time for the parent to change the parent’s ways by holding the prosocial goals more often in the future, if the parent is at least seen as having an expansive future with plenty of time left to change their ways. In contrast, if adult children believe that the parent’s life will soon come to an end and simultaneously infer that the parent does not try to support them or protect the relationship, there may be little cause for satisfaction when adult children hold prosocial goals themselves. Given these competing possibilities, the following nondirectional hypothesis was advanced:

H4: Adult children’s (a) own goal, (b) inference of their parent’s goal, and (c) perception of their parent’s future will interact in their impact on children’s communication satisfaction.

Method

Participants and procedures

Two-hundred and forty-five adults (Mean_Age = 50.55 years, SD_Age = 2.70 years, Median_Age = 50.5 years, Range_Age = 45–55 years) participated in a survey about their relationship with one of their parents. Participants were recruited through MTurk, and a premium qualification fee was paid during data collection. This fee resulted in the study being visible and available to MTurk workers who were between 45 and 55 years old. Participants read a description noting that the study involved questions about their relationship with one of their currently living parents. If participants had more than one living parent, they were asked to think about their relationship with the specific parent whom they most often helped with chores. This was one way of capturing participants’ most interdependent parent–child relationship. Two participants failed a screening question designed to ensure that they were paying attention and were removed from the data set before analysis. Each participant affirmed at the end of the survey that they had a currently living parent, and each participant was paid $3.00. The survey was designed to be completed within 25 or 30 minutes. This is the second study from the data set.¹

Participants were male (32.2%) and female (62.0%), with the remaining 5.7% of participants not providing their sex.² Their ethnicities included African American (6.5%), Asian American (3.3%), European American (80.0%), Latina/o American (1.6%), Multi-Ethnic (1.2%), Native American (0.4%), Other (1.6%), and unreported (5.3%). Participants reported their annual household income on an 11-point scale (1 = less than $9999, 11 = $100,000 or more). On average, household incomes were approximately $60,000 (M = 6.80, SD = 2.96; 6 = between $50,000 and $59,999, 7 = between $60,000 and $69,999). Participants also described their socioeconomic status as lower class (21.2%), middle class (70.6%), upper class (2.9%), and unreported (5.3%). The marital statuses of participants were currently married (53.1%), widowed and not remarried (2.9%), divorced and not remarried (20.0%), single and never married (16.3%), other (2.0%), and unreported (5.7%). Participants came from all over the United States. Participants answered the survey questions thinking about their relationship with their mother (66.1%) or father (28.6%), with 5.3% of participants not reporting their chosen parent’s sex. On average, parents were in their mid- to late-70s (Mean_Age = 77.73 years, SD_Age = 6.58 years).

Measures

Table S1 in the online materials provides descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations.

Social support goal and social support goal inference³

Participants completed four items from Mikucki-Enyart (personal communication, June 7, 2019) measuring their own social support goal (e.g., “I try to let my parent know that I am willing to provide assistance if they need it”). The items were answered on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree, M = 6.48, SD = 0.69, α = .95). Participants completed the same items when reporting on their inference of their parent’s social support goal, with the subject and pronouns being changed accordingly (e.g., “My parent tries to let me know that they are willing to provide assistance if I need it”). The items were answered on a 7-point Likert scale (M = 5.44, SD = 1.58, α = .98).

Relationship protection goal and relationship protection goal inference

Three items from Mikucki-Enyart and Caughlin (2018) operationalized participants’ own relationship protection goal (e.g., “I try to avoid damaging my relationship with my parent”). The items were completed on a 7-point Likert format (M = 6.24, SD = 0.93, α = .95). The same items measured participants’ inference of their parent’s relationship protection goal, with the subject and pronouns being changed accordingly (e.g., “My parent tries to avoid damaging their relationship with me”). The items were completed on a 7-point Likert format (M = 5.55, SD = 1.45, α = .96).

Future time perspective

Five items from Carstensen and Lang (1996) measured children’s assessment of their parent’s future (e.g., “There is plenty of time left in my parent’s life for them to make new plans,” “As my parent gets older, I begin to see time as limited for them” [reverse-coded]). The items were answered on a 7-point Likert format (M = 3.08, SD = 1.26, α = .87). Higher scores indicate stronger perceptions that the parent’s future is expansive; lower scores indicate stronger perceptions that the parent’s future is restricted.

Communication satisfaction

Three items from Hecht (1978) gauged participants’ satisfaction with their parent–child communication (e.g., “I am generally satisfied with our conversations,” “I would like to have other conversations like the ones I generally have with my parent”). The word “generally” in these items was designed to help participants think about their communication across the relationship as a whole. The items were answered on a 7-point Likert format (M = 5.46, SD = 1.36, α = .86).

Covariates

During data analysis, participants’ sex (0 = male, 1 = female), age, ethnicity (0 = ethnic minority, 1 = European American), annual household income, and marital status (0 = all marital statuses other than currently married, 1 = currently married) were controlled. Their parent’s sex (0 = male, 1 = female) and age were also controlled. Additionally, participants completed a 7-point Likert item asking about their parent’s physical health (i.e., “Overall, my parent is in good physical health,” M = 3.67, SD = 1.80) and a 7-point Likert item asking about their parent’s mental health (i.e., “Overall, my parent is in good mental health,” M = 4.56, SD = 1.83). Perceptions of the parent’s physical and mental health were also controlled.

Results

All continuous variables were mean-centered before data analysis, and the mean-centered variables were used to create the two-way and three-way interaction product terms. The mean-centered variables were also used during data analysis. To test the hypotheses, two hierarchical regression models were run. Each model tested children’s social support or relationship protection goal, children’s inference of their parent’s social support or relationship protection goal, and children’s future time perspective of their parent as predictors of children’s communication satisfaction. Step one of each regression included the nine covariates. Step two included the three substantive variables at the main-effects level (e.g., in the first regression, children’s own social support goal, children’s inference of their parent’s social support goal, and children’s perception of their parent’s future served as the substantive variables in step two). Step three included the two-way interaction product terms created from the variables in step two. Step four included the three-way interaction product term created from the variables in step two. Table 1 displays F statistics for both models. The model involving the child’s social support goal is first reported, followed by the model involving the child’s relationship protection goal. Given that the survey was cross-sectional, the results are associational rather than causal in nature.

Table 1.

F statistics for both hierarchical regression models.

Substantive variables	Step one	Step two	Step three	Step four
(a) Child’s social support goal, (b) child’s inference of the parent’s social support goal, and (c) child’s future time perspective of the parent	F_Change (9, 218) = 9.04, p < .001, $R_{C h a n g e}^{2} = .27$	F_Change (3, 215) = 22.80, p < .001, $R_{C h a n g e}^{2} = .18$	F_Change (3, 212) = 2.93, p = .04, $R_{C h a n g e}^{2} = .02$	F_Change (1, 211) = 12.05, p = .001, $R_{C h a n g e}^{2} = .03$
(a) Child’s relationship protection goal, (b) child’s inference of the parent’s relationship protection goal, and (c) child’s future time perspective of the parent	F_Change (9, 214) = 8.91, p < .001, $R_{C h a n g e}^{2} = .27$	F_Change (3, 211) = 16.63, p < .001, $R_{C h a n g e}^{2} = .14$	F_Change (3, 208) = 4.66, p = .004, $R_{C h a n g e}^{2} = .04$	F_Change (1, 207) = 8.30, p = .004, $R_{C h a n g e}^{2} = .02$

Note. Step one of each regression included the covariates. Step two included the main effects for the three substantive variables. Step three included the two-way interactions between the substantive variables. Step four included the three-way interaction between the substantive variables. The outcome in each model was children’s communication satisfaction.

Model involving the child’s social support goal

As Table 1 shows, steps two, three, and four of the social support goal model explained a significant amount of unique variance in children’s communication satisfaction. Table 2 provides regression coefficients for step four of this model. H1a was supported, because children’s own social support goal positively predicted children’s communication satisfaction. H1b was also supported, because children’s inference of their parent’s social support goal was positively associated with children’s communication satisfaction. Additionally, children’s future time perspective of their parent was positively associated with communication satisfaction, such that children reported higher communication satisfaction when they perceived their parent’s future as expansive. In terms of H3, there was not a two-way interaction between children’s own social support goal and children’s inference of their parent’s social support goal in predicting children’s communication satisfaction.

Table 2.

Final regression coefficients for step four of the model with the child’s social support goal as a predictor of communication satisfaction.

	b	SE b	ß	p
Parent’s sex	−0.15	0.15	−.05	.32
Child’s sex	0.09	0.15	.03	.55
Parent’s age	0.00	0.01	.01	.83
Child’s age	0.02	0.03	.03	.57
Child’s ethnicity	−0.21	0.20	−.06	.28
Child’s annual household income	0.02	0.02	.03	.52
Child’s marital status	0.28	0.15	.10	.054
Child’s perception of the parent’s physical health	−0.09	0.05	−.12	.045
Child’s perception of the parent’s mental health	0.23	0.05	.31	< .001
Child’s social support goal	0.47	0.12	.24	< .001
Child’s inference of the parent’s social support goal	0.22	0.06	.26	< .001
Child’s future time perspective of the parent	0.20	0.07	.19	.005
Child’s social support goal x Child’s inference of the parent’s social support goal	0.10	0.07	.08	.15
Child’s social support goal x Child’s future time perspective of the parent	0.04	0.09	.02	.71
Child’s inference of the parent’s social support goal x Child’s future time perspective of the parent	−0.02	0.04	−.03	.61
Child’s social support goal x Child’s inference of the parent’s social support goal x Child’s future time perspective of the parent	−0.19	0.05	−.21	.001

Note. Sex was coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. Ethnicity was coded as 0 = ethnic minority, 1 = European American. Marital status was coded as 0 = all marital statuses other than currently married, 1 = currently married. Bold values are significant at p < .05.

With respect to H4, a significant three-way interaction was observed. This interaction was decomposed using procedures from Dawson (2014) and Dawson and Richter (2006; see Figure 1). According to Figure 1, the slope for the association between children’s own social support goal and children’s communication satisfaction did not differ from zero when children inferred that their parent held the social support goal and viewed their parent’s future as relatively expansive (see Line 1). Rather, this subset of children reported consistently high communication satisfaction. In contrast, the slopes for the positive associations between children’s own social support goal and communication satisfaction were significantly different from zero under two conditions: (1) when children inferred that their parent held the social support goal and viewed their parent’s future as relatively restricted (see Line 2), or (2) when children inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of the social support goal and viewed their parent’s future as relatively expansive (see Line 3). The slopes of Lines 2 and 3 both differed significantly from the slope of Line 4. Line 4 corresponded to the subset of children who inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of the social support goal and who viewed their parent’s future as restricted. For this subset of children, the association between children’s own social support goal and communication satisfaction was negative in direction but did not differ from zero. This subset of children reported consistently low communication satisfaction.

Children’s communication satisfaction was high when children held the social support goal and simultaneously inferred that their parent held the social support goal, regardless of whether children saw their parent’s future as restricted or expansive (see the top right corner of Figure 1). Thus, future time perspective may be less influential when children have a social support goal and also infer that their parent has a social support goal during typical interactions. Future time perspective seemed more influential in widening the gaps in communication satisfaction when children held relatively low levels of the social support goal themselves (see the difference between Line 1 and Line 2 on the left side of Figure 1), or inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of the social support goal (see the difference between Line 3 and Line 4 on the right side of Figure 1).

Model involving the child’s relationship protection goal

For the relationship protection goal model, steps two, three, and four explained a significant amount of unique variance in children’s communication satisfaction. Regression coefficients for step four appear in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, H2a was supported, because children’s own relationship protection goal positively predicted children’s communication satisfaction. H2b was also supported, because children’s inference of their parent’s relationship protection goal was positively associated with children’s communication satisfaction. Additionally, children’s future time perspective of their parent was positively associated with communication satisfaction, such that children reported higher communication satisfaction when they perceived their parent’s future as expansive. With respect to H3, a significant two-way interaction between children’s own relationship protection goal and children’s inference of their parent’s relationship protection goal was observed. However, this two-way interaction was overridden by a significant three-way interaction (see Figure 2).

Table 3.

Final regression coefficients for step four of the model with the child’s relationship protection goal as a predictor of communication satisfaction.

	b	SE b	ß	p
Parent’s sex	−0.17	0.16	−.06	.28
Child’s sex	0.14	0.15	.05	.37
Parent’s age	−0.00	0.01	−.02	.79
Child’s age	0.02	0.03	.04	.44
Child’s ethnicity	−0.13	0.21	−.03	.53
Child’s annual household income	0.02	0.03	.04	.47
Child’s marital status	0.31	0.15	.11	.046
Child’s perception of the parent’s physical health	−0.12	0.05	−.16	.01
Child’s perception of the parent’s mental health	0.31	0.05	.41	< .001
Child’s relationship protection goal	0.33	0.11	.23	.003
Child’s inference of the parent’s relationship protection goal	0.25	0.07	.26	.001
Child’s future time perspective of the parent	0.16	0.08	.15	.03
Child’s relationship protection goal x Child’s inference of the parent’s relationship protection goal	0.12	0.04	.20	.004
Child’s relationship protection goal x Child’s future time perspective of the parent	0.10	0.09	.09	.26
Child’s inference of the parent’s relationship protection goal x Child’s future time perspective of the parent	−0.07	0.05	−.10	.18
Child’s relationship protection goal x Child’s inference of the parent’s relationship protection goal x Child’s future time perspective of the parent	−0.09	0.03	−.22	.004

Note. Nominal covariates were coded in the same way described under Table 2. Bold values are significant at p < .05.

Figure 2.

Visual decomposition of the three-way interaction among (a) children’s relationship protection goal, (b) children’s inference of their parent’s relationship protection goal, and (c) children’s perception of their parent’s future in predicting children’s communication satisfaction. “Low child relationship protection goal” refers to children’s relationship protection goal at -1 SD. “High child relationship protection goal” refers to children’s relationship protection goal at the scale maximum (which is just 0.17 points less than a full +1 SD). “Low parent relationship protection goal” refers to children’s inference of their parent’s relationship protection goal at -1 SD. “High parent relationship protection goal” refers to children’s inference of their parent’s relationship protection goal at +1 SD. “Parent restricted future” refers to children’s assessment of their parent’s future at −1 SD of the future time perspective variable. “Parent expansive future” refers to children’s assessment of their parent’s future at +1 SD of the future time perspective variable. Slopes 1 (slope = 0.48, t = 2.17, p = .03), 2 (slope = 0.53, t = 2.77, p = .006), and 3 (slope = 0.45, t = 2.72, p = .007) all differed from zero. Slope 4 did not differ from zero: slope = −0.14, t = −1.08, p = .28. Pairwise slope difference tests revealed three pairs of significantly different slopes: (1) Slope 1 differed from Slope 4, slope difference = 0.62, t = 2.36, p = .02, 95% CI = 0.10 to 1.13. (2) Slope 2 differed from Slope 4, slope difference = 0.67, t = 3.89, p < .001, 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.01. (3) Slope 3 differed from Slope 4, slope difference = 0.59, t = 2.74, p = .007, 95% CI = 0.17 to 1.01. The other pairwise comparisons were nonsignificant.

According to Figure 2, the slopes for the positive associations between children’s own relationship protection goal and children’s communication satisfaction were different from zero under three conditions: (1) when children inferred that their parent held the relationship protection goal and viewed their parent’s future as relatively expansive (see Line 1), (2) when children inferred that their parent held the relationship protection goal and viewed their parent’s future as relatively restricted (see Line 2), or (3) when children inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of the relationship protection goal and viewed their parent’s future as relatively expansive (see Line 3). The slopes of Lines 1, 2, and 3 all differed significantly from the slope of Line 4. Line 4 corresponded to the subset of children who inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of the relationship protection goal and who viewed their parent’s future as relatively restricted. For this subset of children, the association between their own relationship protection goal and communication satisfaction was negative in direction but did not differ from zero. This subset of children reported consistently low communication satisfaction.

Communication satisfaction was high when children held the relationship protection goal and simultaneously inferred that their parent held the relationship protection goal, regardless of whether children saw their parent’s future as restricted or expansive (see the top right corner of Figure 2). Thus, future time perspective may be less influential when children have a relationship protection goal and also infer that their parent has a relationship protection goal. Future time perspective seemed more influential in widening the gap in communication satisfaction when children inferred their parent as holding relatively low levels of the relationship protection goal (see the difference between Line 3 and Line 4 on the right side of Figure 2).

Post-hoc analyses

It is conceivable that children’s communication satisfaction predicts children’s goals and children’s inferences of their parent’s goals, and that children’s assessment of their parent’s future moderates these associations. The online-only materials provide these alternative tests.

Additionally, post-hoc power analyses showed that observed power for the three-way interaction involving the social support goal was .93. Observed power for the three-way interaction involving the relationship protection goal was .82. During these computations of power, the models were rerun with robust standard errors. Both three-way interactions approached significance in the models with robust standard errors. The online-only materials provide the coefficients for these models and an explanation of why it was justified to proceed with the OLS regressions for the main analyses.

Discussion

In this study, adult children’s prosocial goals were examined as predictors of children’s communication satisfaction. Children’s inferences of their parent’s prosocial goals, as well as children’s future time perspective of their parent, were also considered as moderators of these associations. Main effects indicated that children’s social support and relationship protection goals positively predicted children’s communication satisfaction. These results are similar to results uncovered in other domains, such as dyadic research on Latina American mothers and their teenage children (Guntzviller, 2017) and research on children-in-law (Mikucki-Enyart & Caughlin, 2018). The holding of these prosocial goals may encourage both verbal (e.g., offering instrumental help) and nonverbal (e.g., smiling, leaning forward) conversational moves that facilitate satisfaction. Additionally, children reported higher communication satisfaction when they inferred that their parent held the prosocial goals and when they perceived their parent’s future as expansive. There were also three-way interactions between children’s prosocial goals, inferences of their parent’s prosocial goals, and future time perspective of their parent in predicting children’s communication satisfaction. Decomposition of these interactions revealed that children’s prosocial goals positively predicted communication satisfaction when (a) children inferred that their parent held the same goals and perceived their parent’s future as restricted or (b) children inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of the goals and perceived their parent’s future as expansive. In contrast, children’s prosocial goals were not associated with communication satisfaction when children inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of the goals and perceived their parent’s future as restricted. These results are discussed below.

First, the subset of children who inferred that their parent typically held the social support or relationship protection goal and who simultaneously viewed their parent’s future as restricted demonstrated positive associations between their own social support and relationship protection goal and communication satisfaction. The associations for these children were significantly different than the associations for children who inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of the goals and perceived their parent’s future as restricted. By virtue of inferring that their parent holds the social support or relationship protection goal during typical interactions, these children may have accumulated a solid relational foundation over many decades, in which their parent was there for them when they needed the parent to be. These children may be especially concerned with ensuring that the short time they have left with their parent is as meaningful as possible. When children in this situation hold prosocial goals, they may be trying to do all they can to make sure that their parent is not alone during the last stage of life, which may bring them a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction with their communication patterns.

Second, the subset of children who inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of the social support or relationship protection goal but perceived their parent’s future as relatively expansive also demonstrated positive associations between their own goals and communication satisfaction. These associations were significantly different than the associations for children who inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of the social support or relationship protection goal and perceived their parent’s future as restricted. Viewing an older family member’s future as consisting of plenty of time may confer a sense of stability that one’s time with the family member is not going to end soon (Bernhold, 2020). This stability may facilitate satisfaction with interactions, because children may think that there is still adequate time for their parent to eventually reciprocate the children’s holding of the prosocial goals. Children could think that by holding the prosocial goals themselves, they are laying a foundation for their parent to become more invested in them and their relationship sometime in their long future together. Put differently, children may think that their holding of the prosocial goals could eventually pay dividends in prompting their parent to also hold the prosocial goals. Anticipating a long future with the parent provides more opportunity for the parent to decide to hold the prosocial goals compared to anticipating a short future with the parent.

In addition to uncovering pairs of significantly different slopes depending on inferences of the parent’s goal and future time perspective of the parent, the study shows how future time perspectives may be most influential when people are not fully upholding their own end of the relational contract, or perceive that the relational partner is not fully upholding the relational partner’s end of the relational contract. Adult children reported high communication satisfaction when they held one of the two prosocial goals and simultaneously inferred that their parent held the same goal, regardless of whether they viewed their parent’s future as expansive or restricted. However, when children held relatively low levels of the social support goal themselves and inferred that their parent held the social support goal, future time perspective was a noteworthy qualifier to children’s communication satisfaction: Children’s communication satisfaction was low when children held relatively low levels of the social support goal themselves, but inferred that their parent held a social support goal and perceived that their parent’s future was restricted. These children may think that their parent has done much to support them over the course of their life, and that they should be doing more to support their parent during the parent’s last phase of life. Conversely, children’s communication satisfaction was high when children held relatively low levels of the social support goal themselves, but inferred that their parent held a social support goal and perceived that their parent’s future was expansive. These children may think that there will be plenty of time in the future for them to support their parent, which may help them feel more at ease with the uneven distribution of social support goals.

Relatedly, future time perspectives may be relevant when people infer their older family member as holding relatively low levels of the prosocial goals. When children inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of a social support or relationship protection goal, children’s communication satisfaction was, nevertheless, high when children held the goal themselves and viewed their parent’s future as relatively expansive. Conversely, when children inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of a social support or relationship protection goal, children’s communication satisfaction was low when children held the goal themselves and viewed their parent’s future as restricted. This may be because these children think that their parent will not change the parent’s ways in the parent’s short time left on earth. Taken together, these discussions suggest that people might be especially likely to use future time perspectives when interpreting disappointing goals or goal inferences (whether their own goals or their inferences of the relational partner’s goals).

Limitations and future research

This study contains limitations that should be noted. First, the data were collected from a cross-sectional survey, and causality cannot be established. It is also likely that having satisfying communication with a parent might prompt adult children to hold prosocial goals. In this respect, post-hoc analyses showed that children’s communication satisfaction interacted with children’s future time perspective of the parent to predict children’s prosocial goals. Given these interactions, the study shows the merit of future longitudinal research.

Second, the data set was mostly comprised of European Americans, and the results may differ if people of other ethnic backgrounds were more widely represented. For example, many people belonging to Eastern Asian cultural backgrounds value filial piety (Lai, 2010), and many people belonging to Latina/o cultural backgrounds value familism (Campos et al., 2014). Adult children of Asian and Latina/o American backgrounds might expect that they would provide support to their parent by virtue of holding these values, and might become distressed if they think that they are not providing adequate support. Children in this study reported high communication satisfaction when they inferred that their parent held the social support goal and that their parent’s future was relatively expansive, regardless of the extent to which children held the social support goal. It is possible that the communication satisfaction of adult children of Asian American and Latina/o American cultural backgrounds would be noticeably lower than the communication satisfaction observed in this study if the Asian American and Latina/o American children (a) held relatively low levels of a social support goal themselves, (b) inferred that their parent held a social support goal, and (c) perceived their parent’s future as expansive. In this situation, these children might think that they are not upholding their end of the relational contract, which might be a disconcerting experience. Thus, Line 1 in Figure 1 might have had a steeper slope if the sample contained participants of more diverse cultural backgrounds. Third, the survey did not ask about certain characteristics of participants (e.g., gender identity, sexual orientation, disability status, highest level of educational attainment, employment status). Future researchers might consider inquiring about and controlling for these factors.

Conclusion

Social support and relationship protection are important in parent–child relationships throughout the life span (e.g., Boerner et al., 2021; Demaray et al., 2005). Previous research has shown that holding social support and relationship protection goals positively predicts satisfaction (e.g., Guntzviller, 2017). The big-picture question that this study sought to address is whether or not certain aspects of the aging parent (namely, the extent to which children infer that their parent holds a social support or relationship protection goal, and children’s assessment of their parent’s future) impede the communication satisfaction that children might derive from holding prosocial goals. Interestingly, children still seemed to derive satisfaction when they held prosocial goals under some less-than-ideal circumstances (i.e., when children inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of the prosocial goals but perceived their parent’s future as relatively expansive, or when children inferred that their parent held the prosocial goals but perceived their parent’s future as restricted). However, when these suboptimal circumstances “piled up” on top of one another (i.e., when children inferred that their parent held relatively low levels of the prosocial goals and perceived their parent’s future as restricted), children were no longer able to derive satisfaction when they held prosocial goals. Thus, the main takeaway of this study is that there seems to be a “breaking point” when holding prosocial goals is no longer conducive to children’s satisfaction. Scholars and practioners should keep this insight in mind. They might consider alternative strategies (e.g., encouraging adult children to seek social support from their spouse and siblings) for bolstering children’s well-being in these circumstances.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-spr-10.1177_02654075211056892 – Supplemental Material for Adult children’s goals as predictors of communication satisfaction with their parent: The moderating roles of inferences of the parent’s goals and future time perspective of the parent

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-spr-10.1177_02654075211056892 for Adult children’s goals as predictors of communication satisfaction with their parent: The moderating roles of inferences of the parent’s goals and future time perspective of the parent by Quinten S. Bernhold in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Dr. Lin, three anonymous reviewers, Dr. Andy Merolla, and Christina Peterson for their insightful feedback on an earlier version of this paper.

Funding

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

Author’s Note

This paper was presented in the Interpersonal Communication Division of the annual conference of the Southern States Communication Association in April 2021. The author can be contacted at 266 Communications Building; University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Knoxville, TN 37996-0324; (865) 974-5109; qbernhol@utk.edu.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered.

The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing: qbernhol@utk.edu. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: qbernhol@utk.edu.

Notes

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Berger

C. R.

Palomares

N. A.

(2011). Knowledge structures and social interaction. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 169–200). Sage.

Bernhold

Q. S.

(2020). Grandparents’ affectionate communication toward grandchildren and grandchildren’s mental health difficulties: The moderating role of future time perspective. Health Communication, 35(7), 822–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1593080

Boerner

Kim

Y. K.

Jopp

D. S.

(2021). Support exchanges among very old parents and their children: Findings from the Boston Aging Together Study. The Gerontologist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab043

Campos

Ullman

J. B.

Aguilera

Schetter

(2014). Familism and psychological health: The intervening role of closeness and social support. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034094

Carstensen

L. L.

(1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7(3), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.331

Carstensen

L. L.

(1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(5), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep11512261

Carstensen

L. L.

Lang

F. R.

(1996). Future time perspective scale (unpublished manuscript). Stanford, MA, USA: Stanford University.

Caughlin

J. P.

(2010). A multiple goals theory of personal relationships: Conceptual integration and program overview. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(6), 824–848. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510373262

Caughlin

J. P.

Afifi

T. D.

(2004). When is topic avoidance unsatisfying? Examining moderators of the association between avoidance and dissatisfaction. Human Communication Research, 30(4), 479–513. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/30.4.479

10.

Dawson

J. F.

(2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7

11.

Dawson

J. F.

Richter

A. W.

(2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917–926. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.917

12.

Demaray

M. K.

Malecki

C. K.

Davidson

L. M.

Hodgson

K. K.

Rebus

P. J.

(2005). The relationship between social support and student adjustment: A longitudinal analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 42(7), 691–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20120

13.

Fingerman

K. L.

Charles

S. T.

(2010). It takes two to tango: Why older people have the best relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 172–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410370297

14.

Guntzviller

L. M.

(2017). Testing multiple goals theory with low-income mother-child Spanish-speakers: Language brokering interaction goals and relational satisfaction. Communication Research, 44(5), 717–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215608238

15.

Hecht

M. L.

(1978). Measures of communication satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4(4), 350–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00721.x

16.

Lai

D. W. L.

(2010). Filial piety, caregiving appraisal, and caregiving burden. Research on Aging, 32(2), 200–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027509351475

17.

McManus

T. G.

Nussbaum

(2011). Ambiguous divorce-related communication, relational closeness, relational satisfaction, and communication satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication, 75(5), 500–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2011.608407

18.

Mikucki-Enyart

S. L.

Caughlin

J. P.

(2018). Integrating the relational turbulence model and a multiple goals approach to understand topic avoidance during the transition to extended family. Communication Research, 45(3), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215595075

19.

Palomares

N. A.

(2014). The goal construct in interpersonal communication. In Berger

C. R.

(Ed.), Handbooks of communication science: Interpersonal communication (pp. 77–99). De Gruyter Mouton.

20.

Pew Research Center . (2013, January 30). Emotional ties. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/01/30/emotional-ties/

21.

Punyanunt-Carter

N. M.

(2008). Using equity theory to examine relationship maintenance and satisfaction in father-daughter relationships. Human Communication, 11(1), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368105000317573

22.

Reczek

Zhang

(2016). Parent-child relationships and parent psychological distress: How do social support, strain, dissatisfaction, and equity matter? Research on Aging, 38(7), 742–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027515602315

23.

Scott

A. M.

Caughlin

J. P.

(2014). Enacted goal attention in family conversations about end-of-life health decisions. Communication Monographs, 81(3), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2014.925568

24.

Stafford

(2015). Social exchange theories: Calculating the rewards and costs of personal relationships. In Braithwaite

D. O.

Schrodt

(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 403–416). Sage.

25.

Wilson

S. R.

(2007). Communication theory and the concept of “goal.”. In Whaley

B. B.

Samter

(Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 73–104). Erlbaum.

26.

Wilson

S. R.

Caughlin

J. P.

(2018). Multiple goals theories: Motivations for family interactions and relationships. In Braithwaite

D. O.

Suter

E. A.

Floyd

(Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 199-209). Routledge.

27.

Worley

Samp

(2018). Initial goals, goal trajectories, and serial argument resolvability: A growth curve analysis. Personal Relationships, 25(2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12239

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.39 MB

Adult children’s goals as predictors of communication satisfaction with their parent: The moderating roles of inferences of the parent’s goals and future time perspective of the parent

Abstract

Keywords

The multiple goals perspective and family relationships

Overview of the multiple goals perspective

Goals, goal inferences, and communication satisfaction

Social support goals

Relationship protection goals

Combinations of goals and goal inferences

The moderating role of future time perspective

Method

Participants and procedures

Measures

Social support goal and social support goal inference 3

Relationship protection goal and relationship protection goal inference

Future time perspective

Communication satisfaction

Covariates

Results

Model involving the child’s social support goal

Model involving the child’s relationship protection goal

Post-hoc analyses

Discussion

Limitations and future research

Conclusion

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-spr-10.1177_02654075211056892 – Supplemental Material for Adult children’s goals as predictors of communication satisfaction with their parent: The moderating roles of inferences of the parent’s goals and future time perspective of the parent

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Funding

Author’s Note

Open research statement

Notes

Supplemental Material

References

Supplementary Material

Social support goal and social support goal inference³