Parental Psychological Control and Self-Efficacy as Predictors of Romantic Relationship Power Dynamics

Abstract

In the current study, we utilized a person-centered approach to examine the relations of parental psychological control (PPC) and relationship self-efficacy (RSE) to power dynamics in emerging adults’ romantic relationships. College student emerging adults (N = 312) completed measures assessing retrospective PPC, RSE, and perceived self and partner power in current relationships. Latent profile analysis uncovered four relationship types based on reported self- and partner-power: balanced-unified, balanced-interchanging, unbalanced–high self, and unbalanced-high partner. Increases in PPC were related to increased odds of being in an unbalanced relationship. Higher levels of RSE were associated with decreased odds of being in an unbalanced relationship. Further, even individuals in the balanced profile who reported average levels of both self and partner power (balanced-interchanging) reported higher levels of PPC and lower levels of RSE compared to those in the balanced group where levels of both self and partner power were low (balanced-unified). These findings suggest using a person-centered approach to relationship power may advance our conceptualization of power distribution in romantic relationships. Further, experienced family dynamics and one’s sense of self may be especially important for young adults’ tendency to form healthy relationships. The current findings encourage future investigation into the mechanisms by which parental factors predict both dominance and submissiveness in romantic relationships. Understanding predictors of power dynamics may contribute to intimate partner violence prevention and intervention.

Keywords

power dynamics romantic relationships family issues

Power has long been recognized as a central concept in relationships (Farrell et al., 2015; Grauerholz, 1987). Power in romantic relationships involves persuasion, or attempts to influence or gain power from the partner, and conceding, which would be relinquishing power to the partner (e.g., Smith et al., 2010). However, power can simply be defined as the ability of one individual (the influence agent) to exert influence on another person (the target of influence) so that the influence agent obtains the specific outcomes wanted while being able to resist influence attempts by the target (Simpson et al., 2015).

To have less power than a partner means one’s outcomes are dependent on another person, while having more power than a partner means having control over your own and another’s outcomes (Overall, 2019), and power inequities are traditionally associated with negative outcomes. For example, Oka et al. (2016) found that individuals who perceive their partner to hold more power over relationship outcomes are more likely to be victimized by partners. Additionally, Cuccì et al. (2020) found that adolescents who perceived the power in their relationship to be balanced reported lower levels of psychological dating aggression, and girls who perceived their relationships to be balanced in power also reported lower levels of relational and physical aggression. Furthermore, dominance toward a romantic partner has been shown to be related to physical and psychological aggression in college students (Karakurt & Cumbie, 2012). Finally, egalitarian couples (couples who have a more balanced distribution of power within their relationship) report higher overall marital adjustment and marital satisfaction (e.g., Gray-Little et al., 1996; Handley et al., 2019). Given the important negative outcomes associated with power imbalances, research on the predictors of power is necessary and important in the prevention of these adverse outcomes.

In the current study, we focus on emerging adult romantic relationships. The building and maintenance of romantic relationships is a key developmental task for emerging adults (Arnett, 2000). Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that romantically involved emerging adults report a higher well-being, indicated by fewer depressive symptoms, life satisfaction, and less loneliness than emerging adults who are not romantically involved (Beckmeyer & Cromwell, 2019). As such, managing power dynamics in romantic relationships may be especially crucial for emerging adults, as they develop relationship patterns and beliefs that may be long lasting. Therefore, it is important to identify developmental correlates of power dynamics in emerging adults’ romantic relationships.

Parenting and Power Dynamics

The early family environment is one key factor to examine when considering correlates of emerging adults’ relationship power dynamics. A number of studies have demonstrated the relation of parenting variables to romantic relationship functioning. For example, Auslander et al. (2009) studied adolescent girls and found that positive parenting (acceptance, involvement, strictness, and supervision) was related to greater mutuality in their romantic relationships. Similarly, Kogan et al. (2013) found that protective parenting practices (support, sexual communication, and encouragement of future career goals) were related to shared decision-making practices and low levels of partner dominance in women. Finally, recent longitudinal evidence suggests that disruptive parenting is associated with higher levels of coercion in romantic relationships in adulthood (Ha et al., 2019). These findings suggest that parenting practices indeed have important implications for young adult children’s power equity in romantic relationships.

Additionally, previous literature has identified multiple theoretical underpinnings for how the family environment may contribute to power dynamics. For example, pulling from research on social learning theory and intergenerational transmission of violence, recent meta-analyses have provided strong evidence for the relation of interparental aggression to dating aggression perpetration in adolescence and young adulthood (Goncy, 2020). In addition, other research has also provided strong evidence for the relation of parent-to-child aggression with young adult dating aggression perpetration (Goncy et al., 2021). However, each meta-analysis found relations to both aggression perpetration and victimization, highlighting the potential impact parental factors may have on romantic relationship power dynamics.

One facet that positive parent-to-child variables likely have in common is the use of confrontive control (Baumrind, 2012), which involves reasoning and negotiation. On the other hand, negative parental tactics likely involve coercive control (domineering, arbitrary; Baumrind, 2012), which is heavily captured in a facet termed parental psychological control (PPC), which is the primary focus of the current study. PPC includes coercive tactics such as guilt induction, love withdrawal, and shaming in efforts to control the child’s emotional experience, which is thought to negatively affect children’s psychological development (Barber, 1996), which may have implications for relationship functioning.

Although there is no previous research (that we are aware of) examining the relation between PPC and power inequities in emerging adults’ romantic relationships, it is likely that this type of parental control may influence children’s ability to develop healthy power dynamics in their relationships. PPC is invalidating and undermines the child’s emotional experience. This may result in children being poorly prepared for a balanced reciprocal romantic relationship. Instead, these individuals may either exert power (as modeled by their parents) or concede power (as demanded by their parents) and therefore establish unbalanced power dynamics in their romantic relationships. In order to capture one’s preparedness for romantic relationships, it is important to examine their self-efficacy surrounding romantic relationships, which we discuss below.

Relationship Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s perceived capability to successfully carry out a particular behavior (Bandura, 1977). RSE is an important domain-specific type of self-efficacy that includes beliefs about perceived capabilities to carry out tasks and meet demands in a romantic relationship (Riggio et al., 2011). Previous research has shown that lower levels of RSE are associated with higher levels of psychological and sexual victimization (Sullivan et al., 2013), as well as physical intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization (Baker et al., 2016). This suggests lower levels of RSE may act as a risk factor for experiencing power imbalances in romantic relationships.

While certain researchers approach self-efficacy as being a form of individual power (e.g., Stokes et al., 2016), we conceptualize self-efficacy and power as being distinct constructs, with RSE representing a characteristic of the individual and relationship power representing a broader expression of control within a relationship. Research examining the relation of RSE to relationship power has largely been conducted in the context of sexual behaviors and condom use. For example, Leddy et al. (2015) found relations between sexual communication self-efficacy and relationship power, and Mpondo et al. (2015) found that condom use self-efficacy was positively related to power balance attitudes, providing support for the notion that self-efficacy will be related to relationship power patterns.

The Current Study

In the current investigation, we examined relationship power from a developmental perspective. Developmentally speaking, early experiences of power inequity in family relationships may be one pathway which may result in power inequity in romantic relationships. Furthermore, due to previous research suggesting the importance of self-efficacy in relationships on power imbalances in romantic relationships (Mpondo et al., 2015), we examined the relationship of self-efficacy to romantic relationship power, as well as to PPC.

Given the unique patterns of power, most notably that it may be troublesome for one individual to have more power than their partner, combining reports of self and partner power and identifying patterns of perceived power distribution is necessary. For example, it may be particularly useful to examine an individual’s likelihood of being in a relationship characterized by a power imbalance. As such, one of the primary goals of this investigation is to identify patterns of power distribution based on perceived self and partner power. The first goal of the current study is to examine the typologies of reported self and partner power using Latent Profile Analysis (LPA). One might expect this to uncover a variety of different relationships dynamics—including egalitarian couples and couples where one partner holds more power. However, using an exploratory clustering technique is important to fully capture the patterns that may exist in the sample and to address the question—“what are the types of romantic relationship power dynamics reported by an emerging adult sample?” LPA was used to uncover these typologies. Although there were no direct hypotheses about the profiles that would result from the LPA, it was expected that the groups uncovered by the LPA would differ at least in the degree to which power was balanced or unbalanced.

Based on prior research, we proposed the following hypotheses:

H1: Individuals reporting higher levels of PPC will be more likely to be in relationships where one partner holds more power (unbalanced).

H2: Individuals with higher levels of RSE will be less likely to be in relationships where one partner holds more power (unbalanced).

Methods

Participants and Procedures

Participants were 312 undergraduate students enrolled in psychology courses at a midsized southeastern university who participated as part of a larger study on family and romantic relationships. Participants were recruited using a subject pool (SONA) where participants could earn course credit for participating in research studies. All introductory psychology students who were in romantic relationships that had lasted at least 2 months were eligible to participate. The sample was restricted to emerging adults aged 18 to 25 (M = 18.9, SD = 1.2), who were in current romantic relationships that had lasted at least 2 months (Mean duration = 1.54 years, SD = 1.4, Median = 1). Eighty percent of the participants reported their gender as female (19% identified as male and 1% identified as genderqueer/nonconforming/nonbinary); 68% reported their race/ethnicity as White/Caucasian, 18% African American, 5% Asian, 4% Hispanic, and 5% who identified with other ethnic groups. Four percent of participants reported their relationship as being nonmonogamous (reported as involved with each other, but also seeing other people). Six percent of the sample reported currently living together. Ninety-two percent reported being in heterosexual relationships. Participation was anonymous and participants who indicated consent did so by reading an information form, and then selecting “Yes,” when asked if they wanted to participate. All procedures were approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board prior to beginning data collection.

Measures

Parental psychological control

Barber’s (1996) 8-item Psychological Control Scale was used to assess retrospective reports of parents’ use of psychological control. Participants were asked to focus on their high school years when they were younger and living with their parents. The scale includes items such as “My parents would bring up past mistakes when they criticized me,” and “If I hurt my parents’ feelings, they would stop talking to me until I pleased them again.” Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with each item using a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Internal consistency was excellent in the current sample (α = .93).

Relationship self-efficacy

The Self-Efficacy in Romantic Relationships (SERR) scale was used to measure participants’ RSE (Riggio et al., 2011). Participants were asked to respond with how they generally feel in romantic relationships. The measure includes 12 items on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Items include statements such as “Failure in my romantic relationships only makes me want to try harder,” and “I do not believe I am capable of improving my skills as a romantic relationship partner,” with negative items such as this one being reverse-scored such that higher scores on the SERR measure indicate higher levels of SERR. Internal consistency was good in the current sample (α = .88).

Relationship power

Perceptions of self and partner decision-making power were measured using the actor and partner outcome power subscales of the Overall Relationship Power Inventory (Farrell et al., 2015), which is a relatively recently developed self-report measure of perceived relationship power. The two subscales include six items each. The actor (self) scale includes items such as “I am more likely than my partner to get my way when we disagree about issues in our relationship,” and “When we make decisions in our relationship, I get the final say.” The partner scale includes the same items except participants are asked to report on their partner’s power (e.g., “When we make decisions in our relationship, my partner gets the final say”). Participants were asked to report on a scale from 1 (Never) to 7 (Always). Internal consistency was excellent for each subscale (α = .92 for actor/self, α = .94 for partner).

In prior research with this scale (Farrell et al., 2015; Vrabel et al., 2020), the ratings for partner power were reverse scored and then averaged with the ratings of self-power. In the current investigation, we did not combine self and partner power. Instead, we used each scale as an indicator in the LPA. This strategy has been useful in bullying research (e.g., Yoon et al., 2021) and intimate partner violence research (e.g., Grest et al., 2018; Spencer et al., 2016) where participants reported on both self and other behavior.

Data Analysis Plan

In the current study, descriptive statistics are first reported to provide the reader with an understanding of the variables and a foundation for the additional analyses. Next, we opted to take a person-centered approach to analyzing perceived relationship power using LPA, which classifies subgroups of individuals together into profiles where members within each profile are similar to each other on a set of characteristics (Weller et al., 2020). The expectation was that there would be typologies of relationships based on reported levels of self and partner power.

LPA was conducted in R using the tidyLPA package (Rosenberg et al., 2018). The analysis was conducted using the default for variances and covariances across profiles. To find the best solution, a range of six solutions were estimated to investigate the best-fitting number of profiles to retain. Model fit was assessed using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and sample-size adjusted Bayes’ information criterion (SABIC), the bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT) which compares fit between two competing models wherein one model has an additional profile, and entropy value, which is a value of classification accuracy. The preferred model was based on the model with the lowest AIC and SABIC values, a significant BLRT, and entropy values closer to 1 (Johnson, 2021; Tein et al., 2013; Weller et al., 2020).

After determining the number of profiles, profile classifications were exported to SPSS to be used in subsequent analyses. Multinomial logistic regression was then used to test the hypotheses regarding whether PPC and RSE predict power imbalances, with profile classifications serving as the outcome variable.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between the variables are listed in Table 1. In the simple correlations, PPC and RSE were correlated (r = −.19, p = .001). PPC was also related to perceived partner power (r = .23, p < .001). RSE was negatively related to partner (r = −.15, p = .009) and, interestingly, self-power (r = −.16, p = .005) as well. The correlation of PPC with self-power was positive but did not reach statistical significance (r = .11, p = .055).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations.

Measure	1	2	3	4
1. Parental psychological control	—	−.19*	.11	.23*
2. Relationship self-efficacy	—	—	−.16*	−.15*
3. Actor outcome power	—	—	—	.26*
4. Partner outcome power	—	—	—	—
M	2.54	5.08	3.60	3.20
SD	1.24	1.09	1.19	1.19

p < .01.

Latent Profile Analysis

The LPA was conducted using self and partner power. Fit indices can be seen in Table 2. Findings indicated that a four-profile solution was the best-fitting model. The BLRT indicated improvement in fit until a fifth profile was added. Additionally, although SABIC decreased with the sixth profile solution, entropy was low and the smallest profile was comprised of only 3% of the sample. Therefore, we opted to retain the four-profile solution. The smallest profile in the four-class solution was comprised of only 4% of cases, though this decision was theoretically justifiable, as discussed further below.

Table 2.

Fit Indices From Latent Profile Analysis.

Profiles	Smallest profile % of sample	AIC	SABIC	BLRT (p)	Entropy
1	100%	1,776.83	1,779.12	—	—
2	17%	1,655.22	1,659.22	p < .01	0.89
3	13%	1,643.85	1,649.57	p < .01	0.55
4	4%	1,473.60	1,481.03	p < .01	0.95
5	4%	1,479.59	1,488.73	p = .76	0.69
6	3%	1,452.99	1,463.84	p < .01	0.70

Note. Bolded information indicates the best-fitting solution. AIC = Akaike information criterion; SABIC = sample size-adjusted Bayes information criterion; BLRT = bootstrap likelihood ratio test.

The four-profile solution is shown in Figure 1. Profiles are described and classified based on 1 SD below the mean being below average/low and 1 SD above the mean being above average/high. Based on this method, the four relationship typologies that emerged were (a) balanced-unified (21%), (b) balanced-interchanging (68%), (c) unbalanced-high self (6%), and (d) unbalanced-high partner (4%). For the balanced profiles, individuals in the balanced-unified profile reported low levels of control for both partners (responding nearing the “never” or “rarely” mark for self- and partner-power), indicating that neither partner has more control over outcomes in the relationship and that control is balanced. Each partner having a “low” amount of power would indicate that they are not completely able to resist the influence of the partner, meaning that they do not have complete control over outcomes in the relationship.

Figure 1.

Means from latent profile analysis.

Individuals in the interchanging profile reported average levels of control for both partners (responding near the “sometimes” mark for self- and partner-power), but the amount of control was balanced (both partners were seen as having equal amounts of control).

The third profile was unbalanced-high self and the fourth was unbalanced-high partner. One might question why the third and fourth profiles are interpreted given the small number of participants in each profile. This decision was made because model fit indices suggested the four-profile model was the best-fitting, and based on the theoretical expectation that some relationships will involve one person maintaining most of the power. Grouping these individuals together into another profile would not accurately capture the qualitative differences one would expect between a relationship where the actor is dominant and one where the actor is submissive.

Predicting Group Membership

After finalizing results from the LPA, multinomial logistic regression was conducted to test the hypotheses that individuals reporting higher levels of PPC would be more likely to be in an unbalanced relationship and that individuals with higher levels of RSE would be less likely to be in a relationship where the power dynamic is unbalanced. Before testing the model, sex, relationship duration, age, and whether it a same-sex or different-sex relationship were assessed to see if any were related to profile membership. Findings did not indicate any significant covariates. The balanced-unified group was used as the reference group in the multinomial model, since levels of both actor and partner power were lowest for this group. Additionally, the distinction of two balanced groups was surprising and it seemed appropriate to make one of these two groups the referent group. Therefore, all findings are in comparison to this group.

The model with PPC and RSE predicting power profiles was significant, χ²(6) = 29.41, p < .001. The hypothesis that higher levels of PPC would be associated with increased likelihood of being in a relationship where there is a power imbalance was supported: increases in PPC were associated with increased odds of being in both the unbalanced-high self, b = 0.45, SE = 0.22, p = .04, OR = 1.57, and the unbalanced-high partner, b = 0.82, SE = 0.25, p < .001, OR = 2.28. Interestingly, increases in PPC were also associated with increased odds of being in the balanced-interchanging group, b = 0.44, SE = 0.14, p = .002, OR = 1.54. Furthermore, the hypothesis that higher levels of relationship self-efficacy would be associated with decreased odds of being in a relationship with a power imbalance was also supported: increases in relationship self-efficacy were interestingly associated with decreased odds of being in the balanced-interchanging group, b = −0.35, SE = 0.15, p = .02, OR = 0.70, as well as the unbalanced-high self, b = −0.59, SE = 0.24, p = .02, OR = 0.56, and unbalanced-high partner, b = −0.65, SE = 0.29, p = .03, OR = 0.52. Details for the full model can be found in Table 3. Because both higher PPC and lower relationship self-efficacy were associated with increased odds of being in both types of relationships with a power imbalance, we tested gender as a moderator of the relations. The interactions were not significant, and we found no evidence that these relations differed between males and females. However, it is worth noting that our sample was largely female and was therefore likely not sufficiently powered for detecting these gender differences.

Table 3.

Results for Logistic Regression Model With All Predictors.

Outcome group	Predictor	b (SE)	95% CI for odds ratio
Outcome group	Predictor	b (SE)	Lower	Odds ratio	Upper
Balanced-interchanging	PPC	0.44 (0.14)	1.17	1.54	2.04
Balanced-interchanging	RSE	−0.35 (0.15)	.53	.70	.94
Unbalanced-high self	PPC	0.45 (0.22)	1.01	1.57	2.44
Unbalanced-high self	RSE	−0.59 (0.24)	.35	.56	.90
Unbalanced-high partner	PPC	0.82 (0.25)	1.40	2.28	3.7
Unbalanced-high partner	RSE	−0.65 (0.29)	.30	.52	.92

Note. The reference group is balanced-unified for the model. R² = .09 (Cox and Snell), .11 (Nagelkerke). PPC = parental psychological control; RSE = relationship self-efficacy.

We also ran the multinomial logistic regression using the balanced-interchanging group as the reference group (instead of using the balanced-unified group as reported above). It is important to note that the balanced-unified group had the lowest power scores and the balanced-interchanging group had moderate power scores. Although the model was significant, many of the individual effects were not. Higher levels of PPC were associated with an increased odds of being in the unbalanced high-partner group, but the effect was not statistically significant (p = .07). The only statistically significant result in this model was that the lower levels of PPC were associated with an increased odds of being in the balanced unified group. Similarly, higher levels of RSE were associated with increased odds of being in the balanced-unified group. Given the small number of cases in some of the groups, we may not have the statistical power to detect differences between the groups when using a moderate group as the reference group. In the first reported analysis, when using the more extreme group (balanced-unified), we detected statistically significant effects.

Discussion

The purposes of the current study were to (a) describe perceived patterns of power in relationships, and (b) investigate the relations of PPC and relationship self-efficacy to romantic relationship power imbalances. Findings indicated four typologies of relationships: two relatively balanced profiles and two unbalanced profiles. Increases in perceived PPC were related to increased odds of being in relationships characterized by a power imbalance and increases in relationship self-efficacy were related to decreased odds of being in relationships characterized by power imbalances. However, interestingly, we also found support for differences between the two egalitarian types of relationships.

Typologies of Power

Findings from LPA revealed four distinct typologies of relationships. First, there were two relatively egalitarian profiles in which participants perceived themselves and their partners to have similar amounts of power (balanced-unified and balanced-interchanging), and two unbalanced profiles (unbalanced high-self and unbalanced high-partner) in which one was characterized by participants perceiving themselves to have more power than their partner, and one where participants perceived their partners to have more power. We coined the unified group as “balanced-unified” due to the relatively low scores for both members of the relationship, nearing the “never,” or “rarely” mark for each self and partner’s scores. It is likely that these participants typically make decisions with their partner, because they report that both partners have low power and they report a balance in the power dynamic. Furthermore, we defined the second balanced group as “balanced-interchanging” due to reported scores for both members of the relationship being near the “sometimes” mark, a potentially alternating power dynamic, depending on the circumstance and context of the decision. These couples may designate decision-making to one member of the relationship for different domains of decision-making.

The profiles regarding imbalanced typologies are similar to what one might expect (i.e., with one member of the relationship maintaining most of the power). However, the finding of two distinct balanced egalitarian profiles is more unique, yet partially consistent with previous notions of power distribution. For example, power may not be stable across decision domains within a relationship (Farrell et al., 2015). This may be reflective of the balanced-interchanging group in which participants perceived both themselves and their partners to carry some level of control at times, while remaining a relatively egalitarian relationship. This group may represent couples where the decision-making power may alternate, depending on the context of the decision. However, we also found a relatively egalitarian group (balanced-unified) who reported low levels of both actor and partner power, suggesting that these may be relationships where both partners equally share control at almost all times, indicating a tendency to typically work together to reach decisions. This distinction of two balanced profiles has not been previously reported. Given the uniqueness of this finding, it is important to recognize the limitations of the sample and the need for replication. These findings should be interpreted in the context of our emerging adult sample, who were primarily non-cohabiting couples who may not have numerous large-stake decisions to make (e.g., childcare, finances; Farrell et al., 2015) and as such, may have fewer needs to delegate decision making to one person or the other. It is important for these typologies to be explored in samples of older and primarily cohabiting/married couples as well. However, given our focus on emerging adults due to the importance of romantic relationships for this age group (Arnett, 2000), these findings may still provide a substantial contribution for conceptualizing power distribution in romantic relationships for individuals within this developmental period.

Parental Psychological Control

The findings from the current study indicated that increases in perceived PPC were consistently associated with increased odds of being in relationships characterized by a power imbalance compared to those in the balanced-unified group. Increased psychological control was also associated with increased odds of even being in the balanced-interchanging group where power was perceived to be relatively average and balanced among partners. This finding is particularly important, because this means that even individuals who engage in a power dynamic where one partner may have more control at different times (in which this dynamic is still expected to be relatively healthy) may have experienced higher levels of PPC in comparison to individuals who perceive their relationship to be one in which both partners consistently work together in making decisions.

The finding that increases in PPC were associated with the largest increased odds of being in the unbalanced-high partner group is notably important. Coercive control emphasizes a hierarchy of power and unhealthy forms of power assertion. Previous research with emerging adults has shown this type of parenting to be related to maladjustment (e.g., Faherty et al., 2020), and (as mentioned previously) increased emotional abuse victimization (Beyarslan & Uzer, 2020). Furthermore, this type of parenting is likely to inhibit the development of healthy self-esteem (Bean & Northrup, 2009; Bean et al., 2003; Gong & Wang, 2021) and authenticity (McCormick et al., 2015), which may each put children at risk of experiencing power inequities in future relationships. On the other hand, social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) may be one explanation for the increased odds of being in the unbalanced-highself group. Because parents who engage in psychological control exhibit coercive control, children may model these tactics in their own relationships. As such, children may learn unhealthy tactics for achieving outcomes in romantic relationships. Clinicians’ efforts to gain developmental histories from clients may show to be particularly helpful in understanding the roots of these types of behaviors in romantic relationships.

In addition to the relation to power, there was a small relation of PPC with relationship self-efficacy. Although our primary goal in the current investigation was to assess psychological control and self-efficacy as independent predictors of relationship power, PPC may also inhibit development of children’s confidence in their abilities to engage in tasks that support the development and maintenance of healthy relationships, and this may put them further at risk for entering into romantic relationships where the partner dominates in control. In sum, this facet of parenting may make children particularly vulnerable to experiencing negative views of the self and unbalanced relationship dynamics. Future researchers may benefit from examining self-efficacy as a potential mediator of the relation of psychological control to relationship power, to determine if self-efficacy may be one mechanism by which psychological control is related to relationship power dynamics in emerging adulthood.

Relationship Self-Efficacy

In the current study the hypothesis that relationship self-efficacy would predict power imbalances was supported. Findings suggest that lower levels of self-efficacy are related to both forms of imbalance (being in control of relationship outcomes, as well as being dominated by romantic partners). These two separate findings are important. Some individuals with low self-efficacy may be unable to resist unwarranted influence by partners, whereas others with low self-efficacy may make efforts to assert dominance as a way to protect the self. Future research is needed to identify why some individuals with low relationship self-efficacy are submissive and others are more dominant. Relationship self-efficacy is important for maintaining healthy relationships, as evidenced by previous research showing relations to relationship maintenance and satisfaction (Weiser & Weigel, 2015). Furthermore, individuals with lower relationship self-efficacy may also be more likely to avoid emotional intimacy (Weisskirch, 2017), as evidenced by the association of relationship self-efficacy with attachment avoidance. Therefore, relationship self-efficacy may be a potential target of intervention for clinicians in efforts to improve romantic relationship functioning, particularly for emerging adults.

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study provides important findings for understanding the potential roots of why some emerging adults may experience power inequities in romantic relationships. However, the current study has notable limitations. The findings from the current study are noteworthy and warrant much further research. First, future research should seek to replicate the findings from the current LPA. To address the primary limitations of the current study, including report by only one partner and reliance on self-report measures, future researchers should seek to combine reports from both members of relationships, and potentially gather behavioral observations of couples engaging in decision-making to further the interpretation of the current findings. Additionally, future researchers should seek to determine the predictive validity of the two balanced groups (unified and interchanging) to answer the question of whether important relationship outcomes (e.g., commitment, quality, satisfaction) differ between the two groups. It is our current stance that the difference between the two relationship typologies is meaningful, but the current data are not equipped to conclude if one typology produces better outcomes. Finally, future researchers might seek to conduct interviews to ensure that all participants interpret the items in the same manner when asked.

The use of a simple correlational design also limits our ability to infer causal relations between our predictors and the relationship groups. Further research might seek to utilize a more advanced design to determine if PPC in adolescence and relationship self-efficacy predict power imbalances in adulthood. It is also possible that experiencing powerlessness in romantic relationships may actually result in lower relationship self-efficacy (Leddy et al., 2015), and more advanced methodologies are better suited to test that notion. Our use of a college student sample limits the generalizability of our findings. In reference to emerging adults, future researchers should seek to examine our findings in samples of noncollege student emerging adults. It is possible that relationship typologies may vary by age range, depending on the extent to which partners share high-stake decisions and tasks such as childcare, household tasks, and finances. Additionally, our sample was largely comprised of female participants, which limits our ability to adequately test potential gender differences and potential gender moderation; and, although control variables were examined prior to the multinomial models, the small number of participants who were not in monogamous relationships may experience different power dynamics in their relationships. However, excluding these participants from the model did not change the results. One final potential limitation is our use of self-reports only by one partner. However, previous research suggests that it is the subjective experience of power which may predict relationship outcomes (Körner & Shütz, 2021), and therefore we still argue that the current findings provide important information on emerging adults’ power dynamics in relationships. Future research should pay close attention to potential moderators of the relations between PPC and relationship self-efficacy to relationship power. It will be important to investigate factors which explain why our variables seemed to be predictive of both dominance and submissiveness in the current study. In conclusion, we believe the current findings contribute valuable knowledge to our understanding of the potential roots of power imbalances in emerging adults’ romantic relationships.

Implications and Conclusions

The findings from the current study provide important insight into the potential impact manipulative and coercive parenting may have on emerging adults’ abilities to form and maintain reciprocal, healthy romantic relationships. These relationship patterns may form a cycle where coercion from the family of origin is continued into romantic relationships. Unbalanced power in romantic relationships may put individuals at risk for aggression victimization or perpetration (Bosson & Vandello, 2011; Cuccì et al., 2020; Karakurt & Cumbie, 2012; Overall et al., 2017). Notably, family educators and/or clinicians alike must be cognizant of the unique contribution that coercive parental control might make to adults’ views on romantic relationship power dynamics. Specifically, coercive parental control may contribute to both dominance and submission, and those working with families must work to reduce parental use of psychologically controlling tactics that undermine children’s emotional experience.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

D. Drew Whittington

Author Biographies

D. Drew Whittington, BA, is a graduate student in psychology at University of South Alabama.

Lisa A. Turner, PhD, is a full professor of psychology at University of South Alabama.

References

Auslander

B. A.

Short

M. B.

Succop

P. A.

Rosenthal

S. L.

(2009). Associations between parenting behaviors and adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(1), 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.12.014

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi-org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Baker

L. R.

Cobb

R. A.

McNulty

J. K.

Lambert

N. M.

Fincham

F. D.

(2016). Remaining in a situationally aggressive relationship: The role of self-efficacy. Personal Relationships, 23(3), 591–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12145

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Barber

B. K.

(1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67(6), 3296–3319. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131780

Baumrind

(2012). Differentiating between confrontive and coercive kinds of parental power-assertive disciplinary practices. Human Development, 55(2), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1159/000337962

Bean

R. A.

Bush

K. R.

McKenry

P. C.

Wilson

S. M.

(2003). The impact of parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control on the academic achievement and self-esteem of African American and European American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18(5), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558403255070

Bean

R. A.

Northrup

J. C.

(2009). Parental psychological control, psychological autonomy, and acceptance as predictors of self-esteem in Latino adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 30(11), 1486–1504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X09339149

Beckmeyer

J. J.

Cromwell

(2019). Romantic relationship status and emerging adult well- being: Accounting for romantic relationship interest. Emerging Adulthood, 7(4), 304–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818772653

10.

Beyarslan

S. D.

Uzer

(2020). Psychological control and indulgent parenting predict emotional-abuse victimization in romantic relationships. Current Psychology, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01072-w

11.

Bosson

J. K.

Vandello

J. A.

(2011). Precarious manhood and its link to action and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402669

12.

Cuccì

Confalonieri

Olivari

M. G.

Borroni

Davila

(2020). Adolescent romantic relationships as a tug of war: The interplay of power imbalance and relationship duration in adolescent dating aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 46(6), 498–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21919

13.

Faherty

A. N.

Lowe

Arnett

J. J.

(2020). Mind games: Parental psychological control and emerging adults’ adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(2), 695–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519877240

14.

Farrell

A. K.

Simpson

J. A.

Rothman

A.J.

(2015). The relationship power inventory: Development and validation. Personal Relationships, 22(3), 387–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12072

15.

Goncy

E. A.

(2020). A meta-analysis of interparental aggression with adolescent and young adult physical and psychological dating aggression. Psychology of Violence, 10(2), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000266

16.

Goncy

E. A.

Basting

E. J.

Dunn

C. B.

(2021). A meta-analysis linking parent-to-child aggression and dating abuse during adolescence and young adulthood. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(5), 1248–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020915602

17.

Gong

Wang

(2021). Interactive effects of parental psychological control and autonomy support on emerging adults’ emotion regulation and self-esteem. Current Psychology, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01483-3

18.

Grauerholz

(1987). Balancing the power in dating relationships. Sex Roles, 17(9–10), 563–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287736

19.

Gray-Little

Baucom

D.H.

Hamby

(1996). Marital power, marital adjustment, and therapy outcome. Journal of Family Psychology, 10(3), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.10.3.292

20.

Grest

C. V.

Lee

J. O.

Gilreath

Unger

J. B.

(2018). Latent class analysis of intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization among Latino emerging adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(3), 575–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0807-0

21.

Otten

McGill

Dishion

T.J.

(2019). The family and peer origins of coercion within adult romantic relationships: A longitudinal multimethod study across relationships context. Developmental Psychology, 55(1), 207–215. http://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000630

22.

Handley

V. A.

Soloski

K. L.

Sewell

Gowdy

Jordan

S. S.

Elshershaby

(2019). The interactions between power and couple satisfaction for women. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 31(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952833.2018.1526510

23.

Hatcher

A. M.

Tsai

A. C.

Kumbakumba

Dworkin

S. L.

Hunt

P. W.

Martin

J. N.

Clark

Bangsberg

D. R.

Weiser

(2012). Sexual relationship power and depression among HIV-infected women in rural Uganda. PLoS One, 7(12), e49821. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049821

24.

Johnson

S. K.

(2021). Latent profile transition analyses and growth mixture models: A very non-technical guide for researchers in child and adolescent development. New Directions for Child & Adolescent Development, 2021(175), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20398

25.

Karakurt

Cumbie

(2012). The relationship between egalitarianism, dominance, and violence in intimate relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 27(2), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-011-9408-y

26.

Kogan

S. M.

Simons

L. G.

Chen

Burwell

Brody

G. H.

(2013). Protective parenting, relationship power equity, and condom use among rural African American emerging adult women. Family Relations, 62(2), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12003

27.

Körner

Schütz

(2021). Power in romantic relationships: How positional and experienced power are associated with relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(9), 2653–2677, https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211017670

28.

Leddy

Chakravarty

Darbes

D. L.

(2015). Sexual communication self-efficacy (SCSE) mediates relationship power and consistent condom use among heterosexual couples in Soweto, South Africa. Annals of Global Health, 81(1), 114–115. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aogh.2015.02.764

29.

McCormick

W. H.

Turner

L. A.

Foster

J. D.

(2015). A model of perceived parenting, authenticity, contingent self-worth and internalized aggression among college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 504–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.050

30.

Mpondo

Ruiter

R. A.

van de Borne

Reddy

P. S.

(2015). Self-determination and gender-power relations as predictors of condom use self-efficacy among South African women. Health Psychology Open, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102915598676

31.

Oka

Brown

C. C.

Miller

(2016) Attachment and relational aggression: power as a mediating variable. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 44(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2015.1105716

32.

Overall

N. C.

(2019). Attachment insecurity and power regulation in intimate relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.03.004

33.

Overall

N. C.

Hammond

M. D.

McNulty

J. K.

Finkel

E. L.

(2017). When power shapes interpersonal behavior: Low relationship power predicts men’s aggressive responses to low situational power. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 111(2), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000059

34.

Riggio

Weiser

Valenzuela

Lui

P. P.

Montes

Heuer

(2011). Initial validation of a measure of self-efficacy in romantic relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 601–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.026

35.

Rosenberg

J. M.

Beymer

P. N.

Anderson

D. J.

Van Lissa

C. J.

Schmidt

J. A.

(2018). tidyLPA: An R package to easily carry out latent profile analysis (LPA) using open-source or commercial software. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(30), 978. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00978

36.

Simpson

J. A.

Farrell

A. K.

Oriña

M. M.

Rothman

A. J.

(2015). Power and social influence in relationships. In Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Simpson

J. A.

Dovidio

J. F.

(Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology^®. APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 3. Interpersonal relations (pp. 393–420). American Psychological Association.

37.

Smith

J. D.

Welsh

D. P.

Fite

P. J.

(2010). Adolescents relational schemas and their subjective understanding of romantic relationship interactions. Journal of Adolescence, 33(1), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.002

38.

Spencer

R. A.

Renner

L. M.

Clark

C. J.

(2016). Patterns of dating violence perpetration and victimization in U.S. young adult males and females. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(15), 2576–2597. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515579506

39.

Stokes

L. R.

Harvey

S. M.

Warren

J. T.

(2016). Individual, interpersonal, and structural power: Associations with condom use in a sample of young adult Latinos. Health Care for Women International, 37(2), 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2015.1038345

40.

Sullivan

T. P.

McPartland

Price

Cruza-Guet

M. C.

Swan

S. C.

(2013). Relationship self-efficacy protects against mental health problems among young women in bidirectionally aggressive intimate relationships with men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 641–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033406

41.

Tein

J-Y.

Coxe

Cham

(2013). Statistical power to determine the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(4), 640–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.824781

42.

Vrabel

J. K.

Zeigler-Hill

Lehtman

Hernandez

(2020). Narcissism and perceived power in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(1), 124–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519858685

43.

Weiser

D. A.

Weigel

D. J.

(2015). Self-efficacy in romantic relationships: Direct and indirect effects on relationship maintenance and satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 152–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.013

44.

Weisskirch

R. S.

(2017). Abilities in romantic relationships and well-being among emerging adults. Marriage & Family Review, 53(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2016.1195471

45.

Weller

B. E.

Bowen

N. K.

Faubert

S. J.

(2020) Latent class analysis: a guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 46(4), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798420930932

46.

Yoon

Shipe

S. L.

Park

Yoon

(2021). Bullying patterns and their associations with child maltreatment and adolescent psychosocial problems. Children and Youth Services Review, 129, 106178.