Parents’ self-concept clarity,marital satisfaction and parent-child relationship quality: Actor-partner interdependence analyses

Abstract

The family can be viewed as an integrated system consisting of interdependent subsystems, among which marital and parent–child subsystems are critical for family functioning. Given the dominance of parents in the family, it is important to investigate the associations between parents’ characteristics and these two subsystems. In addition, researchers have found a unidirectional effect of parents’ self-concept clarity on their children’s self-concept clarity. Exploring whether and how parents’ self-concept clarity is related to family relationships may provide insight into this intergenerational transmission since the family plays an important role in the development of children’s self-concept. Taken together, the main aim of this study was to examine the links across parents’ self-concept clarity and marital and parent–child relationships. A total of 363 Chinese parental dyads of primary and secondary students completed the self-concept clarity, relationship assessment, and child–parent relationship scales, and the data were analyzed by adopting the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) and the actor–partner interdependence mediation model (APIMeM). The APIM results indicated significant positive associations between parents’ self-concept clarity and parent–child relationship quality perceived by the parents (actor effects) and their partners (partner effects). The APIMeM results showed that fathers’ marital satisfaction partially mediated the actor effects from parents’ self-concept clarity to parent–child relationship quality. Moreover, after controlling for covariates (e.g., family income), parents’ self-concept clarity had significant indirect partner effects on parent–child relationship quality mediated completely via fathers’ marital satisfaction. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of family system processes and the intergenerational transmission of self-concept clarity and have implications for family interventions.

Keywords

Self-concept clarity family system marital relationship parent–child relationship actor–partner interdependence model

Family systems theorists have viewed the family as an organized and integrated system comprised of interdependent subsystems (Cox & Paley, 1997; Minuchin, 1985). Among them, the marital and parent–child subsystems have important impacts on family functioning and the psychological well-being of family members (Bonds & Gondoli, 2007; Li et al., 2020; Umberson, 1989). As parents are usually in a leading position compared with other family members, it is important to explore the associations between parents’ individual factors, such as self-concept, and the functioning of marital and parent–child subsystems.

Self-concept can be divided into content and structural aspects (Altrocchi, 1999). The contents of the self-concept, such as personality traits and self-esteem, refer to an individual’s beliefs and evaluations about who she or he is (McConnell & Strain, 2007). On the other hand, the self-concept structure reflects how various self-beliefs and self-evaluations are organized together (Campbell et al., 2003). For example, self-concept clarity (SCC), a structural construct of self-concept, reflects the degree of internal consistency and temporal stability of the self-concept (Campbell et al., 1996). Beyond content aspects of the self-concept, SCC has unique correlations with many relationship-relevant variables, such as self-expansion (Emery et al., 2014). However, previous studies have mainly examined the links between the contents rather than the structure of the parents’ self-concept and family relationships (e.g., DeHart et al., 2003; Browne et al., 2012). We may therefore gain a deeper understanding of the role that parents’ self-concept plays in the family system by focusing on SCC.

Examining the associations between parents’ SCC and family relationships may also provide some insights into SCC per se. Longitudinal evidence has suggested that SCC changes with age and that the development patterns of SCC differ across individuals (Lodi-Smith & Crocetti, 2017). The literature on the mechanism of this individual variability has found that parents’ SCC can positively and unidirectionally affect their children’s SCC (Crocetti et al., 2016). Given the important role played by the family in children’s self-development (Grotevant & Cooper, 1985), the intergenerational transmission of SCC may be better understood by exploring whether and how parents’ SCC is related to family subsystems.

Evidence demonstrates that individuals with high SCC behave more consistently and predictably when interacting with others (Lewandowski & Nardone, 2012). Given that the predictability of people’s behaviors is essential to relationship well-being (Rempel et al., 1985), those who have clear and consistent self-beliefs are more likely to develop high-quality relationships. Although several studies have found positive links between people’s SCC and the quality of their romantic and marital relationships (e.g., Lewandowski et al., 2010; Parise et al., 2019), the association between parents’ SCC and the parent–child relationship remains to be explored. In addition, while the significance of SCC and the structure of the family system may vary across cultures (Campbell et al., 1996; Suh, 2002; Rothbaum et al., 2002), prior research on relational features of SCC and linkages across family subsystems has mainly been conducted in Western cultures. Overall, our purpose was to determine the links across parents’ SCC and the marital and parent–child relationships within Chinese families.

A framework of dyadic relationships

Given the interdependent nature of the family system (Cox & Paley, 1997), it is important to treat the parental dyad rather than the individual parent as the unit of analysis. Therefore, the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) proposed by Kenny (1996) was adopted in our research. This statistical framework is able to address interdependency in dyadic data and to examine the effects of individuals’ independent variables on both their own and their partners’ dependent variables (Cook & Kenny, 2005). For example, we can investigate the associations between maternal SCC and mother–child (actor effects) as well as father–child (partner effects) relationships by using the APIM. Researchers have gained many interesting findings by adopting the APIM in the study of families (e.g., Liu & Wu, 2018; Ponnet et al., 2012).

Parents’ self-concept clarity and parent–child relationship

Parents’ SCC may have positive actor effects on parent–child relationship quality. Parents with higher levels of self-esteem are more satisfied with their parent–child relationship (DeHart et al., 2003) and have fewer conflicts with their children (Steiger et al., 2015). Given that self-esteem and SCC are different aspects of the same construct (i.e., self-concept) and are positively related to each other (Campbell et al., 1996), a positive association may also emerge between parents’ SCC and parent–child relationship quality. In addition, Becht et al. (2017) found that parents reported a better parent–child relationship as their children’s self-concepts became increasingly clear. Because both parents and children contribute to the quality of their relationships and parents usually play the main driving role (Lollis & Kuczynski, 1997; Paschall & Mastergeorge, 2016), parents' SCC may have a positive association with their relationship with their children as well. Although no empirical evidence has suggested a correlation between parents’ SCC and parent–child relationship quality thus far, based on related studies, we assumed that a parent with a clear and well-defined self-concept would have a warm and close relationship with the children.

According to family systems theory, family subsystems and individual family members are interdependent within the family (Cox & Paley, 1997). Therefore, the characteristics or problems of one parent may be associated with not only their own but also their partners’ parent–child relationship. Prior research has provided evidence for such partner effects. For example, Ponnet et al. (2013) found that paternal and maternal depression symptoms hindered open communication between the individual’s partner and children. With regard to SCC, low SCC for either a mother or a father may impair the functioning of the subsystems where she or he is embedded and, given the interrelations of family subsystems, further damage the partner’s parent–child relationship. We thus expected links between maternal and paternal SCC and the parent–child relationship of the partners.

The mediating role of marital relationship

The marital subsystem, the first subsystem to form during the establishment of a family in most cases, is often considered the core of the family system in family research (Bonds & Gondoli, 2007; Erel & Burman, 1995). That is, the marital subsystem can be viewed as the main determinant of the functioning of other subsystems (e.g., the parent–child subsystem). Moreover, the dispositions and characteristics of parents and marital functioning are closely interrelated. Therefore, the marital subsystem may serve as a mediator of the actor and partner effects from parents’ SCC to the parent–child relationship.

Parents’ self-concept clarity and marital relationship

Parents’ SCC may be positively related to their own and their spouses’ marital experiences. In contemporary Chinese societies, most marriages are developed from romantic relationships (Pimentel, 2000). According to the self-expansion model, there are intricate associations between individual self-concepts and the establishment, development, maintenance and breakdown of romantic relationships (Aron et al., 2013). The structure of the self-concept, especially SCC, may thus have an association with outcomes of romantic and marital relationships (for a review, see McIntyre et al., 2017). For example, previous studies conducted in Western countries have found that individuals’ SCC is positively associated not only with their own romantic relationship satisfaction and commitment (Lewandowski et al., 2010) but also with their romantic and marital partners’ satisfaction with the relationship (Parise et al., 2019).

It is noteworthy that the significance of individual SCC may differ across cultures. Markus and Kitayama (1991) proposed that the self was viewed as an interdependent and flexible entity in Eastern (e.g., Chinese) cultures and was viewed as an independent and stable entity in Western cultures. Therefore, compared with Western cultures, the clarity and consistency of self-concept (i.e., SCC) may be less emphasized in Eastern cultures. For example, the positive link between SCC and subjective well-being is weaker among East Asian people than among their Western counterparts (Suh, 2002). However, the SCC of Chinese people still plays a critical role in their subjective well-being (Xiang et al., 2022). Therefore, while the associations between Chinese people’s SCC and their own and spouses’ marital satisfaction might be different from those observed in Western countries, we still expected positive actor and partner effects from parents’ SCC to marital satisfaction in Chinese families.

Marital and parent–child relationships

Regarding the linkage between marital and parent–child subsystems, there are two competing theoretical hypotheses: spillover and compensatory hypotheses (Easterbrooks & Emde, 1988). The former implies that the experiences, emotions and behaviors, whether positive or negative, of parents in their marital relationship may be directly transferred to the parent–child relationship, leading to a positive association between marital and parent–child relationships. In contrast, the compensatory hypothesis suggests a negative link between marital and parent–child relationships. That is, parents in an unhappy marriage may build warm and supportive relationships with their children to compensate for the adverse impact of marital problems on children.

The spillover pattern may emerge in the actor effects from marital to parent–child relationships. Both a meta-analysis with samples of Western families (Erel & Burman, 1995) and studies conducted in China (Li et al., 2020; Shek, 1998) have found that marital quality reported by one parent is positively related to her or his own relationship with children. In addition, parents’ gender may moderate the actor effects of marital satisfaction on parent–child relationship quality. According to the fathering vulnerability hypothesis, the negative impacts of marital discord on father–child relationships are stronger than those on mother–child relationships (Cummings et al., 2010). For example, Nelson and colleagues (2009) found that the negative relationship between marital dissatisfaction and positive parenting (i.e., supportive responses to children’s emotions) was only significant for fathers but not for mothers. Fathers also experience more spillover of positive affect than mothers from the marital subsystem to their relationships with children (Peltz et al., 2018; Stroud et al., 2011). The father–child relationship may thus be more affected by one’s own marital satisfaction than the mother–child relationship.

Several studies have also examined the partner effects of parents’ relationships with their spouses on parent–child interactions and relationships. However, these studies were exclusively conducted in Western countries and reported inconsistent findings. Some researchers have found that partners of parents with satisfying marital relationships have a higher quality of parent–child interactions or relationships, supporting the spillover hypothesis (Ponnet et al., 2012; Skinner et al., 2021). Others have found gender differences in these partner effects. For example, the marital satisfaction reported by fathers is negatively associated with mother–child relationship quality (a compensatory pattern), whereas the mothers’ marital satisfaction and the father–child relationship show a spillover (Peltz et al., 2018) or nonsignificant (Gao & Cummings, 2019) association. In contrast, a study focusing on African American families found that fathers’ marital interactions were unrelated to mother–child interactions, but maternal couple interactions had a positive relationship with fathers’ interaction patterns with children (Sutton et al., 2017).

The roles of the mother and father have unique characteristics in Chinese families. Specifically, fathers, who are viewed as the master of the family in traditional Chinese culture, occupy a more powerful and influential position in families than mothers (Hsu, 1985). Therefore, the marital satisfaction of the father may have a greater effect on the spouse’s relationship with the child than that of the mother. Additionally, in Chinese culture, parenting and child-raising tasks are mainly undertaken by mothers (Shek, 2000), who give priority to their children’s success (Chao, 1996). Given that fathers’ role in children’s academic performance is emphasized in Chinese families (Li, 2013), Chinese mothers may be more likely to block the effect of their perceptions of marital quality on the father–child relationship than those in Western countries. Overall, the links between parents’ marital satisfaction and their spouses’ parent–child relationship within Chinese families may show different patterns from those observed in Western countries.

Current study

Given the importance of marital and parent–child relationships on family functioning and the development of children’s self-concept, exploring the links across parents’ SCC and these family relationships can improve our understandings of the family system and the intergenerational transmission of SCC. From a cross-cultural perspective, there is also a need for studies on the relational features of Chinese people’s SCC and the linkage between marital and parent–child subsystems within Chinese families. By adopting the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) and the actor–partner interdependence mediation model (APIMeM), we aimed to examine whether parents’ SCC was linked to their own and their partners’ parent–child relationship quality and the potential mediating role of parents’ marital satisfaction in these associations. Given that individual self-concept experiences pronounced changes during middle childhood and early adolescence (Cole et al., 2001), parents’ SCC and the functioning of the family system may be especially salient for the self-development of children at these developmental stages. We therefore chose a sample of Chinese families with children in primary or middle school from Guangdong Province.

Based on previous theories and evidence, we hypothesized that Chinese parents’ SCC would be positively related to their own parent–child relationship quality. Due to the limited amount of literature, however, while we expected an association between spouses’ SCC and the quality of the parents’ relationship with their children, the direction of this relationship was considered exploratory. Additionally, we hypothesized that the marital satisfaction of Chinese parents would mediate the links between their SCC and the parent–child relationship. Specifically, we predicted that a high parental SCC would promote parents’ and spouses’ marital satisfaction, and the degree to which mothers and fathers are satisfied with the marital relationship would have spillover associations with their own parent–child relationship quality (actor effects). We did not form hypotheses regarding the partner effects of marital satisfaction on parent–child relationships, given the mixed findings of prior studies. In addition, we expected to observe gender differences in both the actor and partner effects of marital satisfaction on parent–child relationship quality.

Method

Participants

For the current study, 420 pairs of heterosexual parents were recruited from families with children studying at primary or middle schools in China’s Guangdong Province. Among these families, 57 families had at least one parent who did not complete all items of the questionnaires. Given that comparisons of these families and those where both parents completed all items along demographic variables and marital satisfaction did not yield any significant differences (all ps > .20), we excluded cases with missing values. Therefore, the final sample in this study consisted of 363 parental dyads (i.e., 736 participants). Ages ranged from 26 to 60 years for the mothers (N = 363; M = 38.83; SD = 5.34) and 28–63 years for the fathers (N = 363; M = 41.46; SD = 5.58). The mean marriage length was 14.72 years (SD = 4.91). A total of 31.7% of the mothers and 28.7% of the fathers held an associate’s degree or higher. Parents reporting annual family incomes greater than 200,000 yuan ($31,256) accounted for 29.5% of the sample. All participating parents were Han Chinese. Of the families, 16.3% had only one child. The mean age was 11.35 (SD = 2.14; min 7, max 16) for the focal children, of whom 51.5% were girls and 48.5% were boys.

Procedure

The research team first obtained support from leaders of two primary and two middle schools in Guangdong, China. In each school, we randomly selected several classes in which teachers distributed an envelope containing two sets of questionnaires (one for each parent) to each student. Then, the students took the envelopes home and invited their parents to complete all the questionnaires independently. In the written instruction, we asked parents to fill out the questionnaires in reference to the child who brought the envelope home. Two weeks later, the teachers collected the questionnaires and mailed them back to the research team. In total, we sent out 598 and received 420 envelopes, for a response rate of 70.2%. The students’ parents did not receive any reward for their participation.

Measurements

Demographic information—including the participants’ age, marriage length and educational attainment as well as the family income, age and gender of the focal child and number of children—was collected by adopting a demographic questionnaire created by the research team. Several variables (e.g., self-expansion motivation, differentiation of self) that were not relevant to the current analysis were also measured, and the data were used in other unpublished studies.

Self-concept clarity

The Chinese version of the Self-Concept Clarity Scale (SCCS; Campbell et al., 1996) translated and used by Niu and his colleagues (2016) was adopted to measure the clarity of the parents’ self-concept. The SCCS consists of 12 items scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Most items (10 items; e.g., “Even if I wanted to, I don’t think I would tell someone what I’m really like.”) were scored in reverse, and the remaining two forward-scored items were “I seldom experience conflict between the different aspects of my personality” and “In general, I have a clear sense of who I am and what I am”. An average score of all items was calculated. Higher scores indicated higher levels of SCC. The SCCS has been extensively used by both Western and Chinese researchers (e.g., Emery et al., 2014; Xiang et al., 2022). The Cronbach’s alphas for the current sample were .76 (fathers) and .78 (mothers).

Marital relationship

Parents’ marital satisfaction was measured with the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988), which includes seven items. Feng et al. (2017) translated the RAS into Simplified Chinese, and this Chinese version was adopted in the current study. Participants responded to each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale. A sample item is “How often do you wish you had not gotten into this relationship” (reverse coded). Higher mean scores reflected higher levels of marital satisfaction. The RAS is an appropriate tool to assess people’s subjective feelings about their marital relationships, as it is brief and easy to administer with strong validity and reliability (Hendrick et al., 1998). In the present study, the Cronbach’s alphas were .83 (father) and .85 (mother).

Parent–child relationship

Parent–child relationship quality was measured using the Chinese version of the Child–Parent Relationship Scale (CPRS; Pianta, 1992), which has been used in Chinese parent samples (Xu et al., 2018; Zhang & Chen, 2010). The CPRS consists of closeness (10 items; e.g., “It is easy to be in tune with what my child is feeling”), conflict (12 items scored in reverse; e.g., “My child sees me as a source of punishment and criticism”) and dependence (4 items; e.g., “My child reacts strongly to separation from me”) subscales. The participants provided their responses to each item using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = definitely does not apply; 5 = definitely applies). Ratings for items belonging to the same subscale were averaged to create subscale scores. In the current study, the Cronbach’s alphas were .79 (father) and .77 (mother) for the closeness subscale, .86 (father) and .85 (mother) for the conflict subscale, and .54 (father) and .38 (mother) for the dependence subscale. Due to the low alpha value for the dependence subscale, similar to previous studies (e.g., Driscoll & Pianta, 2011; Dyer et al., 2017), the final score of the CPRS was created by computing the average score of the other two (i.e., closeness and conflict) subscales. Higher scores indicated higher qualities of parent–child relationships.

Data analyses

We used SPSS Version 24 and Mplus Version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998/2017) to conduct the analyses. First, descriptive statistics and a Pearson correlation analysis were conducted to summarize the present sample and to explore correlations among different variables, respectively. We also investigated whether gender differences existed in parents’ SCC, marital satisfaction and parent–child relationship quality by conducting paired sample t-tests. Next, estimated by using maximum likelihood in structural equation modeling, the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM; Kenny & Ledermann, 2010) was employed to examine whether parents’ SCC was associated with parent–child relationship quality as perceived by themselves (actor effect) and by their spouses (partner effect). Finally, we used the actor–partner interdependence mediation model (APIMeM; Ledermann et al., 2011), an extended version of the APIM, to test whether parents’ marital satisfaction mediated the relationship between their SCC and parent–child relationship quality.

To estimate our APIM and APIMeM, we first ran the saturated model in which all the paths were freely estimated. Constraints were then stepwise imposed on the model following strategies suggested by Kenny and Ledermann (2010) and Ledermann et al. (2011). After each constraint step, we used chi-square difference tests with a liberal significance level (0.2 for the present study) to examine whether the fit of the model with the new constraints significantly degraded; if not, the subsequent analysis would use this simpler model. By undertaking the procedure above, in addition to obtaining model estimation results, we were also able to test whether the mothers and fathers differed in patterns of the effects and to estimate k values, which were defined as the ratios of the partner to the actor effects. Furthermore, bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence intervals based on 5000 bootstrap samples were used to test the significance of the indirect effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

Results

Preliminary analyses

As the questionnaires measuring different variables were completed by the same participants, the results might be impacted by common method biases (Podsakoff et al., 2003). While these biases were minimized by using some procedural remedies, including protecting participants’ anonymity and incorporating reverse-coded items, they still had a potential influence on our findings, and further statistical control was needed. We conducted Harman’s single-factor test and found that the factors with the highest eigenvalue explained 21.40% (fathers) and 20.01% (mothers) of the total variance, both of which were less than the threshold of 50%. Therefore, the current study had no significant common method biases.

Table 1 illustrates the means and standard deviations of the study variables and the correlations among them. For both the mothers and the fathers, SCC was positively correlated with marital satisfaction and with parent–child relationship quality. A significant positive correlation also emerged between marital satisfaction and parent–child relationship quality. Moreover, significantly positive correlations were found between parallel variables of parents, indicating the presence of nonindependence in the present data; thus, the APIM and its extended model (i.e., APIMeM) were appropriate for the subsequent analyses (Cook & Kenny, 2005).

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations and correlations for the study variables.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Self-concept clarity (father)	—
2. Self-concept clarity (mother)	.48***	—
3. Marital satisfaction (father)	.34***	.26***	—
4. Marital satisfaction (mother)	.22***	.29***	.60***	—
5. Father–child relationship quality	.51***	.31***	.47***	.34***	—
6. Mother–child relationship quality	.36***	.46***	.31***	.27***	.56***	—
M	3.58	3.56	3.96	3.80	3.64	3.74
SD	0.59	0.62	0.58	0.65	0.53	0.52

Note. N = 363 dyads. ***p < .001.

In terms of gender differences, the fathers were significantly more satisfied with the marital relationship than were their spouses (t = 5.64, df = 362, p < .001, d = 0.30). The quality of the parent–child relationship perceived by the mothers was significantly higher than that perceived by the fathers (t = −3.92, df = 362, p < .001, d = −0.21). The mothers and the fathers did not differ significantly in their SCC (t = 0.54, df = 362, p = .59).

Associations between parents’ SCC and parent–child relationship (APIM)

After adding several constraints to the model, we obtained the final APIM estimating the actor and partner effects of parents’ SCC on parent–child relationship quality, which showed a good fit to the current data (χ²(3) = 3.00, p = .39; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00, 90% CI [.00, .09]; SRMR = .03; see Figure 1). Both maternal and paternal SCC had a significant positive actor effect on parent–child relationship quality. In terms of partner effects, parents’ SCC was positively associated with the quality of their partners’ parent–child relationship. No significant gender differences were found in the two actor and two partner effects (Δχ²(2) = 1.95, p = .38). In addition, fixing k to 0.4 did not degrade the model fit (Δχ²(1) = 1.05, p = .31), which indicated that the actor effect was 2.5 times as large as the partner effect. We also controlled for the effects of the number of children and family income, since all correlations between these two variables and study variables (i.e., SCC, marital satisfaction and parent–child relationship quality of both parents) were significant (ps < .05), except for the correlation between the number of children and the mother’s marital satisfaction (r = −.07, p = .21). The significance of any effect did not change after the covariates were entered into the model.

Figure 1.

The actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) depicting the associations between parents’ self-concept clarity and the parent–child relationship. Note. The model above illustrates the results of the analysis without covariates. Standardized coefficients are given for significant paths. The correlations between parents’ self-concept clarity and the residual covariance between mother– and father–child relationship quality are not shown. ***p < .001.

Mediating effect of parents’ marital satisfaction (APIMeM)

Next, we employed the APIMeM to examine whether parents’ marital satisfaction mediated the associations between their SCC and the parent–child relationships. Again, we constrained several paths of the model to simplify it, and the final APIMeM fit the data well (χ²(7) = 3.83, p = .80; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.01; RMSEA = .00, 90% CI [.00, .04]; SRMR = .02; see Figure 2). Consistent with the findings from the APIM, parents’ SCC had positive direct effects on parent–child relationship quality reported by both the parents and their spouses. Additionally, the results indicated that both the actor and partner effects of parental SCC on marital satisfaction were significant and positive. No gender differences were found in any of the effects above (Δχ²(4) = 2.09, p = .72). However, significant gender differences emerged in both the actor and partner effects from marital satisfaction to parent–child relationship quality (Δχ²(2) = 12.98, p = .002). Specifically, while the degree to which the fathers were satisfied with the marital relationship had positive associations with both the father–child and mother–child relationships, the relationship between mothers’ marital satisfaction and parent–child relationship quality as perceived by both parents was nonsignificant. The model fit did not degrade after imposing constraints on ks for the effects from parents’ SCC to marital satisfaction and from marital satisfaction to parent–child relationship quality (Δχ²(3) = 1.74, p = .63). The k values indicated that the actor effects from parents’ SCC to marital satisfaction were twice as large as the corresponding partner effects, and marital satisfaction had an actor-only effect and a partner-only effect on the parent–child relationship quality reported by the fathers and mothers, respectively.

Figure 2.

The actor–partner interdependence mediation model (APIMeM) depicting the marital satisfaction of parents mediating the associations between parents’ self-concept clarity and the parent–child relationship. Note. Standardized coefficients are given for significant paths. The coefficients for nonsignificant paths, correlations between parents’ self-concept clarity, and residual covariances between marital satisfaction perceived by the mothers and fathers and between their relationships with their children are not shown in the figure above. Solid lines represent significant paths. Dashed lines represent nonsignificant paths. *p < .05. ***p < .001.

In terms of the indirect effects, the results of the bootstrap estimations indicated that paternal SCC was indirectly and positively related to father–child relationship quality (β = .09, 95% CI [.06, .12], p < .001) and mother–child relationship quality (β = .05, 95% CI [.02, .08], p = .001), partially via marital satisfaction as perceived by the fathers. A higher level of fathers’ SCC was associated with a higher level of their own marital satisfaction, which was associated with a higher level of parent–child relationship quality reported by both parents. Fathers’ marital satisfaction also partially mediated both the actor (β = .03, 95% CI [.02, .08], p = .001) and the partner effects (β = .05, 95% CI [.03, .06], p < .001) from maternal SCC to parent–child relationship quality. That is, mothers’ SCC was positively related to fathers’ marital satisfaction, which was positively related to mother–child and father–child relationships.

After controlling for the effects of the covariates as in the APIM model, the direct partner effects from parents’ SCC to parent–child relationship quality became nonsignificant (for both the fathers and the mothers, β = .07, p = .08), which suggested parents’ SCC was related to parent–child relationship quality as reported by their partners fully through fathers’ marital satisfaction. The significance of all other direct and indirect effects remained unchanged when including the covariates in the model.

Discussion

By adopting statistical techniques that could test dyadic patterns considering interdependence in relationships (i.e., APIM and APIMeM), the present study examined whether Chinese parents’ SCC was related to their own and their spouses’ parent–child relationship quality and whether marital satisfaction was a mediator in these associations. In general, the results showed that the SCC of either parent was associated with both mother–child and father–child relationship qualities, and these links were mediated by the marital satisfaction of the fathers. These findings contribute to the understanding of the roles that parents’ dispositions play in family functioning and the interrelatedness of the marital and parent–child subsystems in Chinese families.

In line with our first hypothesis, parents' SCC had a significant actor effect on parent–child relationship quality. That is, the clear and stable self-concept of parents promoted parent–child relationship quality as perceived by themselves. This finding can contribute to the understanding of the intergenerational transmission of SCC, which indicates that parents’ SCC positively and unidirectionally affects their children’s SCC (Crocetti et al., 2016). Specifically, parents with high SCC can develop high-quality relationships with their children, which has been found to promote the development of children’s SCC (Becht et al., 2017; Van Dijk et al., 2014). Moreover, the finding highlights the importance of parents’ well-organized self-concepts for high parent–child relationship quality, thus complementing research about associations between parental self-concept content (e.g., self-esteem) and parent–child relationships (DeHart et al., 2003; Steiger et al., 2015).

Based on family systems theory (Cox & Paley, 1997; Minuchin, 1985), we predicted significant partner effects from parents’ SCC to the parent–child relationship. In line with our prediction, beyond the parents’ own SCC, a higher level of their spouses’ SCC was related to a better parent–child relationship, as reported by themselves. Previous studies have found associations between parents’ relationships and interactions with their children and their spouses’ job satisfaction (Nelson et al., 2009) and depressive symptoms (Ponnet et al., 2013). Taken together, these findings indicate that the characteristics or problems of any individual family member may influence processes among other family members, highlighting the interdependent nature of the integrated family system.

Consistent with previous research on European couples (Parise et al., 2019), the actor and partner effects from SCC to marital satisfaction were also significantly positive for Chinese parents in the present study. These findings suggest that individuals’ high levels of SCC benefit their own and their partners’ relational well-being in both Chinese and Western cultures. However, given that the current study did not compare different cultures directly, it is unclear whether the cross-cultural differences that have been observed in the links between SCC and subjective well-being (Suh, 2002) also exist in the associations between SCC and marital satisfaction. Future cross-cultural studies should investigate the differences in actor and partner effects from SCC to marital satisfaction across Eastern and Western countries.

Two significant indirect actor effects emerged from parents’ SCC to the parent–child relationship through the marital satisfaction perceived by the fathers. In particular, while both maternal and paternal SCC were positively related to the marital satisfaction perceived by themselves, the actor effect from martial satisfaction to parent–child relationship quality was significant only for the fathers but not for the mothers. This result, based on Chinese families, provides further support for the fathering vulnerability hypothesis (Cummings et al., 2010), according to which fathers’ relationships with their children are more likely to be impacted by their marital experience than are mother–child relationships. The gatekeeping role that mothers play in the family may account for this gender difference (Allen & Hawkins, 1999; De Luccie, 1995). Specifically, since mothers value their influences within families and are responsible for family work (e.g., child-rearing) in most cultures, they are more likely to control and organize caregiving practices than fathers. Mothers may thus tend to intentionally resist the impacts of their feelings about marital relationships on their parenting and relationships with their children.

Regarding the partner-partner effects, although the SCC of both parents significantly affected their spouses’ marital satisfaction, only the association between fathers’ marital satisfaction and mother–child relationship quality was significant. This finding contrasts with some previous studies that found significant partner effects from satisfied marital relationships to positive parent–child relationships for both parents (Ponnet et al., 2012; Skinner et al., 2021). One possible explanation for the inconsistent findings is that in Chinese culture, the child-rearing task is mainly undertaken by mothers (Shek, 2000), and they are willing to do their best to ensure the success of their children (Chao, 1996). While fathers’ marital satisfaction may affect their support for mothers’ parenting, which may influence mother–child relationships (Holland & McElwain, 2013), mothers, for the sake of their children’s well-being, tend to promote father–child relationships and interactions regardless of their marital satisfaction. This possibility can be supported by the evidence that the associations between marital satisfaction and coparenting practices are stronger for Chinese fathers than they are for their spouses (Liu & Wu, 2018).

With regard to the indirect partner effects, fathers’ marital satisfaction completely mediated the links between parents’ SCC and their partners’ parent–child relationship quality after controlling for the number of children and family income. This finding extends our understanding of interactions among family subsystems and suggests that the marital subsystem may serve as a bridge for the effects of the attributes of one parent on the other parent’s parent–child relationship.

Additionally, consistent with previous studies conducted in China (Shek, 2000; Xu et al., 2018), while fathers were significantly more satisfied with marital relationships than were their partners, mothers had better parent–child relationships than fathers. These gender differences may be due to the different responsibilities men and women adopt in the family (Thompson & Walker, 1989). Although an increasing number of married women have full-time jobs in modern society, household chores are still viewed as an obligation of wives, which causes marriage to have less benefit for females than for males (Rostami et al., 2014; Taniguchi & Kaufman, 2014). Moreover, as the Chinese saying goes, “the father is stern and the mother is kind”; fathers are usually seen as the creators and enforcers of family rules, whereas mothers usually play caregiving roles for their children (Shek, 2000; Shwalb et al., 2004). This phenomenon may explain why the mother–child relationship was closer and warmer than the father–child relationship. The gender difference in parents’ SCC did not emerge in the current study, which was inconsistent with the finding from a previous study of Western couples (Parise et al., 2019). Given that individuals’ SCC is influenced by culture (Campbell et al., 1996), cross-cultural studies are necessary to further examine the differences between spouses’ SCC.

Implications

To our knowledge, the current study is the first to examine the associations between parental SCC and parent–child relationship quality by using the actor–partner interdependence model. By analyzing data about the characteristics of both parents and two main family subsystems (i.e., marital and parent–child subsystems), this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the family as an integrated system. Furthermore, together with findings from previous studies (Becht et al., 2017; Van Dijk et al., 2014), our findings highlight the role of the marital and parent–child subsystems in the intergenerational transmission of self-concept clarity (Crocetti et al., 2016). Moreover, given the Chinese sample of this study, the gender differences we found in the actor and partner effects from marital satisfaction to parent–child relationship quality extend previous research conducted in Western cultures. Our findings also indicate that interventions including both parents and targeting the improvement of their SCC may promote marital and parent–child relationships, which play important roles in the mental health of family members (Li et al., 2020; Umberson, 1989).

Limitations

Despite the strengths of the study, several limitations should be mentioned. First, the cross-sectional design makes causal conclusions impossible to draw. Based on the previous finding that SCC demonstrated stability in adulthood (Lodi-Smith et al., 2017), we chose it as the independent variable for the current model. However, the degree of adults’ SCC may still change over time (Crocetti et al., 2016). Future research adopting a longitudinal design is required to determine the directionality of relationships among parents’ SCC and family subsystems. Second, parent–child relationship quality was reported only by the parents. Although Harman’s single-factor test did not show significant common method bias, given the interactive nature of the parent–child relationship and the potential influence of social desirability, future studies should assess parent–child relationship quality by incorporating parent reports, child reports and observational measurements simultaneously. Third, while the sibling subsystem is a key component of the family system (Cox & Paley, 1997), we did not measure variables reflecting the functioning of this subsystem. Therefore, the relationship between parents’ SCC and the sibling relationship remains to be further explored in future studies. Finally, despite challenges faced by families with members with disabilities (Powers, 1993), we did not collect disability information from the participants. The effects of parents’ SCC on family relationships should be examined in more diverse samples, including families in which individuals have disabilities.

Conclusions

In summary, the present study adds to our understanding of the associations between parents’ characteristics and family functioning by illustrating that the organized and stable self-concept of parents is beneficial to their own and their spouses’ relationship with their children. In addition, the fathers’ but not the mothers’ marital experience accounts for the links between parents’ SCC and the parent–child relationship quality as perceived by themselves and their partners. Taken together, these findings underscore the role of parents’ self-concept structure in family interactions and the mediating role of the marital relationship between spouses’ attributes and parents’ relationships with their children.

Footnotes

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Xuelan Liu

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: liuxuelan@m.scne.edu.cn. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: liuxuelan@m.scne.edu.cn

References

Allen

S. M.

Hawkins

A. J.

(1999). Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers' beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(1), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/353894

Altrocchi

(1999). Individual differences in pluralism in self-structure. In Rowan

Cooper

(Eds.), The plural self: Multiplicity in everyday life (pp. 168–182). Sage Publications.

Aron

Lewandowski

G. W.

Jr Mashek

Aron

E. N.

(2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In Simpson

J. A.

Campbell

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–115). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398694.013.0005

Becht

A. I.

Nelemans

S. A.

Van Dijk

M. P. A.

Branje

S. J. T.

Van Lier

P. A. C.

Denissen

J. J. A.

Meeus

W. H. J.

(2017). Clear self, better relationships: Adolescents' self-concept clarity and relationship quality with parents and peers across 5 years. Child Development, 88(6), 1823–1833. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12921

Bonds

D. D.

Gondoli

D. M.

(2007). Examining the process by which marital adjustment affects maternal warmth: The role of coparenting support as a mediator. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 288–296. http://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.288

Browne

D. T.

Meunier

J. C.

O'Connor

T. G.

Jenkins

J. M.

(2012). The role of parental personality traits in differential parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(4), 542–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028515

Campbell

J. D.

Assanand

Di Paula

(2003). The structure of the self-concept and its relation to psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71(1), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.t01-1-00002

Campbell

J. D.

Trapnell

P. D.

Heine

S. J.

Katz

I. M.

Lavallee

L. F.

Lehman

D. R.

(1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141

Chao

R. K.

(1996). Chinese and European American mothers' beliefs about the role of parenting in children’s school success. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(4), 403–423. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022022196274002

10.

Cole

D. A.

Maxwell

S. E.

Martin

J. M.

Peeke

L. G.

Seroczynski

A. D.

Tram

J. M.

Hoffman

K. B.

Ruiz

M. D.

Jacquez

Maschman

(2001). The development of multiple domains of child and adolescent self-concept: A cohort sequential longitudinal design. Child Development, 72(6), 1723–1746. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00375

11.

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(2), 101–109. http://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405

12.

Cox

M. J.

Paley

(1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243

13.

Crocetti

Rubini

Branje

Koot

H. M.

Meeus

(2016). Self-concept clarity in adolescents and parents: A six-wave longitudinal and multi-informant study on development and intergenerational transmission. Journal of Personality, 84(5), 580–593. http://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12181

14.

Cummings

E. M.

Merrilees

C. E.

George

M. W.

(2010). Fathers, marriages, and families: Revisiting and updating the framework for fathering in family context. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 154–176). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

15.

De Luccie

M. F.

(1995). Mothers as gatekeepers: A model of maternal mediators of father involvement. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 156(1), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1995.9914811

16.

DeHart

Murray

S. L.

Pelham

B. W.

Rose

(2003). The regulation of dependency in parent–child relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(1), 59–67. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00511-5

17.

Driscoll

Pianta

R. C.

(2011). Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of conflict and closeness in parent–child relationships during early childhood. Journal of Early Childhood and Infant Psychology, 7, 1–24.

18.

Dyer

W. J.

Kaufman

Fagan

(2017). Father–child closeness and conflict: Validating measures for nonresident fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(8), 1074–1080. http://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000384

19.

Easterbrooks

M. A.

Emde

R. N.

(1988). Marital and parent–child relationships: The role of affect in the family system. In Hinde

R. A.

Hinde

J. S.

(Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 83–103). Oxford University Press.

20.

Emery

L. F.

Walsh

Slotter

E. B.

(2014). Knowing who you are and adding to it. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(3), 259–266. http://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614555029

21.

Erel

Burman

(1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent–child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 108–132. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.108

22.

Feng

Zhou

Liang

Pan

(2017). An application of the actor–partner interdependence model: How do sacrifice motivations influence romantic relationship satisfaction? Journal of Psychological Science, 40(4), 975–982. http://www.psysci.org/CN/Y2017/V40/I4/975

23.

Gao

Cummings

E. M.

(2019). Understanding parent–child relationship as a developmental process: Fluctuations across days and changes over years. Developmental Psychology, 55(5), 1046–1058. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000680

24.

Grotevant

H. D.

Cooper

C. R.

(1985). Patterns of interaction in family relationships and the development of identity exploration in adolescence. Child Development, 56(2), 415–428. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129730

25.

Hendrick

S. S.

(1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/352430

26.

Hendrick

S. S.

Dicke

Hendrick

(1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(1), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598151009

27.

Holland

A. S.

McElwain

N. L.

(2013). Maternal and paternal perceptions of coparenting as a link between marital quality and the parent–toddler relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(1), 117–126. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0031427

28.

Hsu

(1985). The Chinese family: Relations, problems, and therapy. In Tseng

W.-S.

D. Y. H.

(Eds.), Chinese culture and mental health (pp. 95–112). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-701630-6.50015-0

29.

Kenny

D. A.

(1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(2), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407596132007

30.

Kenny

D. A.

Ledermann

(2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 359–366. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019651

31.

Ledermann

Macho

Kenny

D. A.

(2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor–partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(4), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.607099

32.

Lewandowski

G. W.

Jr. Nardone

(2012). Self-concept clarity’s role in self-other agreement and the accuracy of behavioral prediction. Self and Identity, 11(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2010.512133

33.

Lewandowski

G. W.

Nardone

Raines

A. J.

(2010). The role of self-concept clarity in relationship quality. Self and Identity, 9(4), 416–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860903332191

34.

(2013). Fathers in Chinese culture: From stern disciplinarians to involved parents. In Shwalb

D. W.

Shwalb

B. J.

Lamb

M. E.

(Eds.), Fathers in cultural context (pp. 15–41). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

35.

Jiang

Fan

Zhang

(2020). Exploring the impact of marital relationship on the mental health of children: Does parent–child relationship matter? Journal of Health Psychology, 25(10–11), 1669–1680. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105318769348

36.

Liu

X. -C.

(2018). Dyadic effects of marital satisfaction on coparenting in Chinese families: Based on the actor–partner interdependence model. International Journal of Psychology, 53(3), 210–217. http://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12274

37.

Lodi-Smith

Crocetti

(2017). Self-concept clarity development across the lifespan. In Lodi-Smith

DeMarree

K. G.

(Eds.), Self-concept clarity: Perspectives on assessment, research, and applications (pp. 67–84). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71547-6_4

38.

Lodi-Smith

Spain

S. M.

Cologgi

Roberts

B. W.

(2017). Development of identity clarity and content in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(5), 755–768. http://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000091

39.

Lollis

Kuczynski

(1997). Beyond one hand clapping: Seeing bidirectionality in parent–child relations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(4), 441–461. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407597144002

40.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

41.

McConnell

A. R.

Strain

L. M.

(2007). Content and structure of the self-concept. In Sedikides

Spencer

S. J.

(Eds.), The self (pp. 51–73). Psychology Press.

42.

McIntyre

K. P.

Mattingly

B. A.

Lewandowski

G. W.

(2017). Self-concept clarity and romantic relationships. In Lodi-Smith

DeMarree

K. G.

(Eds.), Self-concept clarity: Perspectives on assessment, research, and applications (pp. 107–124). Springer International Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71547-6_6

43.

Minuchin

(1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56(2), 289–302. http://doi.org/10.2307/1129720

44.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998/2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Author.

45.

Nelson

J. A.

O'Brien

Blankson

A. N.

Calkins

S. D.

Keane

S. P.

(2009). Family stress and parental responses to children’s negative emotions: Tests of the spillover, crossover, and compensatory hypotheses. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(5), 671–679. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015977

46.

Niu

Sun

Zhou

Tian

Liu

Lian

(2016). The effect of adolescents’ social networking site use on self-concept clarity: The mediating role of social comparison. Journal of Psychological Science, 39(1), 97–102. http://www.psysci.org/CN/Y2016/V39/I1/97

47.

Parise

Pagani

A. F.

Donato

Sedikides

(2019). Self-concept clarity and relationship satisfaction at the dyadic level. Personal Relationships, 26(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12265

48.

Paschall

K. W.

Mastergeorge

A. M.

(2016). A review of 25 years of research in bidirectionality in parent–child relationships: An examination of methodological approaches. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(5), 442–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415607379

49.

Peltz

J. S.

Rogge

R. D.

Sturge-Apple

M. L.

(2018). Transactions within the family: Coparenting mediates associations between parents’ relationship satisfaction and the parent–child relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(5), 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000413

50.

Pianta

(1992). Child–parent relationship scale. University of Virginia. Unpublished measure.

51.

Pimentel

E. E.

(2000). Just how do I love thee? Marital relations in urban China. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00032.x

52.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

53.

Ponnet

Mortelmans

Wouters

Van Leeuwen

Bastaits

Pasteels

(2012). Parenting stress and marital relationship as determinants of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting. Personal Relationships, 20(2), 259–276. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01404.x

54.

Ponnet

Wouters

Mortelmans

Pasteels

De Backer

Van Leeuwen

Van Hiel

(2013). The influence of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting stress and depressive symptoms on own and partner’s parent–child communication. Family Process, 52(2), 312–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12001

55.

Powers

L. E.

(1993). Disability and grief: From tragedy to challenge. In Singer

G. H. S.

Powers

L. E.

(Eds.), Families, disability, and empowerment: Active coping skills and strategies for family interventions (pp. 119–149). Paul H Brookes Publishing.

56.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. http://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

57.

Rempel

J. K.

Holmes

J. G.

Zanna

M. P.

(1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95

58.

Rostami

Ghazinour

Nygren

Richter

(2014). Marital satisfaction with a special focus on gender differences in medical staff in Tehran, Iran. Journal of Family Issues, 35(14), 1940–1958. http://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13483292

59.

Rothbaum

Rosen

Ujiie

Uchida

(2002). Family systems theory, attachment theory, and culture. Family Process, 41(3), 328–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41305.x

60.

Shek

D. T.

(1998). Linkage between marital quality and parent–child relationship: A longitudinal study in the Chinese culture. Journal of Family Issues, 19(6), 687–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251398019006002

61.

Shek

D. T. L.

(2000). Differences between fathers and mothers in the treatment of, and relationship with, their teenage children: Perceptions of Chinese adolescents. Adolescence, 35(137), 135–146.

62.

Shwalb

D. W.

Nakazawa

Yamamoto

Hyun

J.-H.

(2004). Fathering in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean cultures: A review of the research literature. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 146–181). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

63.

Skinner

O. D.

Sun

McHale

S. M.

(2021). Links between marital and parent–child relationship in African American families: A dyadic approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(8), 1086–1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000844

64.

Steiger

A. E.

Fend

H. A.

Allemand

(2015). Testing the vulnerability and scar models of self-esteem and depressive symptoms from adolescence to middle adulthood and across generations. Developmental Psychology, 51(2), 236–247. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0038478

65.

Stroud

C. B.

Durbin

C. E.

Wilson

Mendelsohn

K. A.

(2011). Spillover to triadic and dyadic systems in families with young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(6), 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025443

66.

Suh

E. M.

(2002). Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1378–1391. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1378

67.

Sutton

T. E.

Simons

L. G.

Simons

R. L.

Cutrona

(2017). Psychological distress, couple interactions, and parenting: A dyadic analysis of African American couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(3), 850–864. http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12352

68.

Taniguchi

Kaufman

(2014). Gender role attitudes, troubles talk, and marital satisfaction in Japan. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(7), 975–994. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513516559

69.

Thompson

Walker

A. J.

(1989). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51(4), 845–871. http://doi.org/10.2307/353201

70.

Umberson

(1989). Relationships with children: Explaining parents' psychological well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51(4), 999–1012. http://doi.org/10.2307/353212

71.

Van Dijk

M. P. A.

Branje

Keijsers

Hawk

S. T.

Hale

W. W.

III Meeus

(2014). Self-concept clarity across adolescence: Longitudinal associations with open communication with parents and internalizing symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(11), 1861–1876. http://doi.org//10.1007/s10964-013-0055-x

72.

Xiang

Liu

Xiao

Chen

(2022). Links between family cohesion and subjective well-being in adolescents and early adults: The mediating role of self-concept clarity and hope. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 41(1), 76–85. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00795-0

73.

L. Y.

Liu

L. S.

Y. F.

Liu

L. J.

Huntsinger

C. S.

(2018). Parent–child relationships and Chinese children's social adaptations: Gender difference in parent–child dyads. Personal Relationships, 25(4), 462–479. http://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12254

74.

Zhang

Chen

(2010). Reciprocal influences between parents’ perceptions of mother–child and father–child relationships: A short-term longitudinal study in Chinese preschoolers. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 171(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221320903300387