Mother-Son Rejection and Triangulation in Polygamous Families: Probing the Spillover Effect and the Compensatory Hypothesis

Abstract

The current study examined the applicability of the spillover effect and the compensatory hypothesis in a sample of 80 Israeli Arab mothers living in polygamous families. It was posited that the marital dissatisfaction reflected in mothers’ romantic jealousy and their desire for revenge against their husbands would be transformed into feelings of rejection toward their own eldest sons and would involve the parental practice of triangulation. The results indicated that mothers’ desire for revenge mediated the association between romantic jealousy and mother–child rejection. Furthermore, mothers’ desire for revenge also mediated the association between romantic jealousy and mother-child triangulation. These findings point to the complexity of mother-child relationships in polygamous families.

Keywords

triangulation mother-child rejection polygamous families romantic jealousy desire for revenge

Polygamy is defined as the practice where a person is married to more than one spouse simultaneously (Al-Krenawi, 2012; Zeitzen, 2020). There are three forms of polygamy, namely, polyandry, where one woman is married to numerous men; polygyny, in which a man is married to several women; and group marriage, in which several husbands are married to several wives (Zeitzen, 2020). The most common form of polygamy is polygyny (Al-Krenawi, 2012).

Polygamy was practiced in many cultures in the past; it is now mainly confined to the Middle East, North Africa, East Asia, and certain European and North American communities (Al-Krenawi et al., 2006). There is no official data on the current extent of polygamy in Israel, but it is well known that it exists and that most polygamous families in Israel are Bedouin. Polygamy is prevalent mainly in the Negev, although it also exists in several villages in the northern part of Israel (Layish, 2017). Under Israeli law, polygamy is a criminal offense punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment (section 176 of the Penal Code, 1977). However, Sharia (Islamic religious law) allows a man to have up to four wives, as long as the husband provides for all his wives and the children’s economic and emotional needs equally.

Most polygamous marriages in Israel involve one man married to two women, although there are some marriages with men married to three or four women (Layish, 2017). Polygamy is practiced by both young and old men and even among men with higher education (Al-Krenawi, 2012). In many cases, it is accompanied by lower marital satisfaction. It often involves sexual, physical, and emotional abuse by the husband (Elbedour et al., 2006), which has severe psychological and physiological consequences for the wives, including low self-esteem, low life satisfaction, loneliness, depression, somatization, phobia, anxiety, and paranoia (Al-Krenawi, 2011, 2012, 2013; Al-Krenawi & Slonim-Nevo, 2008a; Daoud et al., 2014). Recent meta-analyses indicate that women in polygamous marriages experience more declines in mental health, including depression, anxiety, hostility, psychotic and other psychiatric disorders, and more family dysfunction than women in monogamous marriages (Rahmanian et al., 2020; Shepard, 2013). In addition, children and adolescents from polygynous families are known to have more mental health problems, social problems, and lower academic achievement than offspring of monogamous families (Al-Krenawi & Lightman, 2000; Al-Sharfi et al., 2016; Elbedour et al., 2002). These findings are attributed to co-wife jealousy, rivalry, and the unequal distribution of household and emotional resources, which can increase hostility among the co-wives and between the children of the different wives (Slonim-Nevo et al., 2008). Several studies have indicated that polygynous families’ ability to function well depends on an equal distribution of resources, family connectedness, open and respectful communication, and avoiding minor conflicts (Al-Krenawi, 1998; Slonim-Nevo et al., 2008).

Only a handful of studies have examined mother-child relationships in polygamous families. Studies of Bedouin polygamous families have documented a series of impairments in the mother-child relationship, such as low maternal involvement and monitoring, emotional detachment, and high levels of hostility toward their children (Al-Krenawi & Slonim-Nevo, 2008b; Elbedour et al., 2002). Cross-sectional data from Tanzania showed that children of first and second wives in polygynous marriages were malnourished, which was correlated with maternal physical status (Sellen, 1999). However, little is known about the factors that contribute to these impairments. To better understand the quality of mother-child relationships in polygamous families and the processes that account for these relationships, the current study examined the potential associations between mothers’ romantic jealousy, desire for revenge, rejection of their children, and triangulation, using two mediation models.

Romantic Jealousy

Life in a state of constant marital conflict, violence, isolation, and feelings of injustice in polygamous families may spark romantic jealousy between the women involved and the husband (Al-Krenawi, 2012). Romantic jealousy is a complex affective emotion defined as a multifaceted set of thoughts and actions following a real or perceived relationship threat to self-esteem and/or the fear of losing a romantic partner to someone else (Mogilski et al., 2017; Papp et al., 2017; Redlick, 2016). It has cognitive, affective, and behavioral sub-dimensions (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989).

Cognitive jealousy is the rational appraisal of whether the rival relationship exists and involves assessing the severity of the threat that the rival presents to the existing relationship (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Emotional jealousy covers a range of emotions, including anxiety, sadness, lack of trust and insecurity, envy, anger, and retaliation (DiBello et al., 2015; Guerrero, 1998), whereas the behavioral dimension consists of actions aimed at monitoring and controlling the partner’s activities to protect the current relationship from the rival, restore equity in the relationship, and preserve self-esteem (Darvell et al., 2011). It is often accompanied by a desire for revenge (Feischmann et al., 2005; Leisring, 2013), which leads to the use of various controlling techniques such as partner/dating aggression (Collibee & Furman, 2016; Kar & O’Leary, 2013; Lei et al., 2019; Senior et al., 2017) and intimate partner violence (Papp et al., 2017; Shackelford et al., 2005).

The Desire for Revenge

The desire for revenge is defined as the wish to retaliate for being unjustly treated by another and is considered to be a universal human response (Aquino et al., 2001; Vidmar, 2001). The greater the harm, humiliation, and transgression caused to the victim, and the greater the victim perceives the aggressor’s responsibility for the injury, and the greater the desire for revenge (van Denderen et al., 2014). Characterized by resentment, anger, and at times hatred toward the offender, the desire for revenge stems from the need to regain self-worth, reinstate justice, and restore emotional equanimity, which ultimately preserves the person’s belief in a just and ordered society (McClelland, 2010; Orth, 2004). In a sense, it constitutes a form of narcissistic restoration enabling a redefinition of the self and encouraging progression and ego stability (McClelland, 2010; van Denderen et al., 2014).

Whereas most people do not engage in retaliation (Schumann & Ross, 2010), many people tend to fantasize after being treated unjustly (Crombag et al., 2003). They develop actual vivid scripts on how to take revenge on the perpetrator (Haen & Weber, 2009; Horowitz, 2007). These scripts serve to ease feelings of powerlessness, humiliation, and offense by virtually disciplining the perpetrator and restoring a balance between the victim’s misery and the aggressor’s actions (Bone & Raihani, 2015; Lillie & Strelan, 2016; Seebauer et al., 2014). Thus, these revenge fantasies serve as a means of self-soothing by reducing anger, humiliation, and vulnerability (Berger, 2014; Morrissette, 2012; Tripp et al., 2002). From a psychoanalytical perspective, the therapeutic value of revenge fantasies lies in allowing the victims to direct their destructive anger outwardly toward the attacker, instead of directing it inwardly (Goldberg, 2004). In their imagination, the victims become active rather than passive, which helps them regain self-worth, power, and control (Thomas, 2004).

Several factors have been identified as contributing to the desire for revenge, including the feeling of injustice (Goldner et al., 2019), duration of exposure to humiliation (Ardila-Rey et al., 2009; Field & Chhim, 2008), and access to social support during the trauma (Davis et al., 2012; Stillwell et al., 2008). Hence, women in polygamous families who routinely undergo distressful situations (Al-Sherbiny, 2005) and experience romantic jealousy may want to seek revenge.

Parental Rejection and Triangulation

Family systems theorists see the family as an organized aggregation of relationships and behaviors (White & Klein, 2002). Boundaries with diverging degrees of penetrability divide members into various units, such as the marital or the parent-child dyad. Each individual or unit in the family is conditioned by the others (Erel & Burman, 1995; Steinglass, 1987). One potential process that may explain how family members influence one another is the spillover effect, in which an individual’s affect or behavior transfers and projects directly from one setting to another within a family system (Engfer, 1988; Erel & Burman, 1995; Minuchin, 1988). Hence, marital hostility and conflict can prime subsequent parent-child interactions through the transfer of anger and tension to the parent–child dyad (Gerard et al., 2006). An alternative process is known as the compensatory hypothesis, in which family members seek satisfaction in one relationship to compensate for deficiencies in another (Engfer, 1988; Rinaldi & Howe, 2003).

Several studies have documented the spillover effect of marital satisfaction on the parent-child relationship and on parental practices. For instance, marital conflict was linked with harsh discipline, lack of acceptance (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000), and parent-child conflict (Gerard et al., 2006). The husband’s withdrawal from the marriage was found to be associated with maternal rejection of the child (Katz & Gottman, 1996). Marital dissatisfaction was shown to be associated with lower supportive responses to the child, in terms of the parents’ own responses and those of their partners (Nelson et al., 2009).

Rejection

Rohner’s (1986, 2004) parental acceptance-rejection theory (PART) aims to account for the major causes, consequences, and other correlates of parental acceptance and rejection. According to PART, one end of the parent-child relationship is parental acceptance, which refers to the warmth, affection, care, comfort, concern, nurturance, support, or simply love that children experience from their parents. The other end of the continuum is manifested by parental rejection, which can be experienced as an amalgamation of coldness, hostility and aggressiveness, indifference and neglect, and differentiated rejecting. It is expressed in children’s belief that their parents do not really care about them, even though this might not be transparent behaviorally.

Researchers have suggested that parents’ rejection can lead to an aggregate of psychosocial impairments for the child, including emotional instability, behavioral problems including delinquency (Jokhio et al., 2017), aggressive behaviors, depression, low educational attainment, and poor social behavior (Khaleque & Rohner, 2012).

Triangulation

Triangulation represents a defilement of the boundaries between parent and child in which the child serves as a negotiator and a mediator between his or her parents. Triangulation usually occurs in marital crises. When the child takes on the role of the intermediary, each parent becomes attached to the other parent via the child, who becomes a vehicle through which parents maintain their marital relationship. That is, through the child, there is some relief from the existing anxiety and stress that exists in the parental relationship (Bowen, 1978; Haefner, 2014). Although it helps parents, triangulation violates parent-child boundaries by impairing parental functioning and the child’s relationship with his or her parents, especially in situations where the child is required to choose between parents and feels torn and trapped between the two (Amato & Afifi, 2006; Haefner, 2014; Kerig, 2005, 2019).

Another triangular relationship occurs when parents divert their attention from the problems of their marriage to their child’s special needs, thereby making them the “identified patient,” while avoiding the conflicts related to their relationship. Outwardly, parents can seem temporarily cohesive, but this family structure prevents parents from resolving their disagreements, thus endangering their child’s psychological adjustment (Haefner, 2014; Kerig, 2019). Sometimes, as compensation for alienation and loneliness within the marriage, the child becomes engaged in a seductive-romantic relationship with one of the parents (Kerig, 2019).

The Current Study

The literature suggests that the mother-child relationship in polygamous families is impaired. Nevertheless, there are scant findings as to which processes contribute to these impairments. The current study concentrated on examining the contribution of romantic jealousy and desire for revenge to mother-child rejection of the eldest son and mother-child triangulation. The rationale for the focus on the relationship with the mothers’ own eldest male child stems from the supposition that he may serve as an extension of his father. Based on the spillover hypothesis, we posited that mothers’ romantic jealousy toward their husbands would be correlated with these mothers’ sense of rejection of their own sons. By drawing on the compensatory model, we posited that mothers’ romantic jealousy would be related to a higher degree of mother-child triangulation, since it may facilitate their communication with their husbands and act as a source for comfort. Two mediation models thus tested the possibility that the association between mothers’ romantic jealousy and sense of rejection toward their own eldest sons and/or mother-child triangulation would be mediated by the mothers’ desire for revenge.

Methods

Participants and Procedure

The sample comprised 80 Israeli Arab women from both the southern and northern parts of Israel, all of whom were in polygamous marriages. Participants were recruited through posted flyers and information from social service staffs in various community sites (e.g., domestic violence outreach, and health centers). The inclusion criterion was to have at least one biological son under the age of 18. Due to the sensitive nature of the study, recruitment lasted 1 year and was a relatively complex process. The sample size was determined based on the lower bound of the sample size for structural equation modeling (SEM) models as a function of the ratio r between the number of indicator variables and the number of observed variables presented in Westland (2010). This study adhered to the APA’s ethical standards for the treatment of human subjects.

The mean age of the participants was 40.89 (standard deviation [SD] = 9.87). On average they had been married for 19.88 years (SD = 10.37). All the women were Muslim. The average number of children in each marriage was 5.75 (SD = 2.89). Almost half of the participants were the second wives in the marriage order (n = 39, 48.7%), slightly fewer were the first wives (n = 35, 43.8%), and only 7.5% were the third or fourth wives (n = 4). The women had 8.89 years of education on average (SD = 4.25), and three-quarters of the participants were unemployed (n = 60, 75%). Approximately 61.3% (n = 49) of the participants reported that their socioeconomic status was either low or medium.

Ethical approval from the University of Haifa Ethics Committee (approval # 1809/19) was obtained. There were no personal, professional, commercial, or financial conflicts of interest. In compliance with ethical standards for this community, women were not asked to sign informed consent forms, since polygamy is prohibited by law in Israel and signing the form would be an acknowledgment of violating the law. Instead, the first researcher signed an affidavit stating that the purpose of the study was made clear to the women and that they had agreed to participate in the study.

Upon agreement, a booklet of questionnaires was handed to the participants by the first author, who met the participants in their homes, introduced the project, read a few sample items out loud, and demonstrated how to fill in the questionnaires. If the women did not understand certain items, the first author helped them write their responses, so that the surveys would be complete and accurate. The questionnaires were independently translated into Arabic from the English originals by three translators who are experts in the field of developmental psychology and native Arabic speakers. Participants were assured of the confidentiality of their responses. Participants were not compensated for their participation.

Measures

The desire for revenge

The desire for revenge toward the husband was measured using the 5-item subscale of the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM) (McCullough et al., 1998, 2006) that measures motivation to seek revenge. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). This subscale has demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties, including high internal reliability (α = .85) and moderate test–retest stability, and evidence of construct validity, such as positive associations with negative affectivity, rumination, and self-deception and a negative association with empathy and apology (McCullough et al., 1998, 2001). The Cronbach’s alpha in the current study was .93.

Romantic jealousy

Romantic jealousy within the marriage was assessed on Melamed’s (1991) 8-item Jealousy in Romantic Relationships self-report measure, which is rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = never, 7 = always). The original study reported correlations between romantic jealousy, neuroticism, and low self-esteem in dating couples with less-established relationships. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale ranged from .87 to .89 (Melamed, 1991; Wright, 2017). In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .90.

Triangulation

Triangulation between mothers and their own eldest sons was assessed using the Nuclear Family Triangulation scale (NFTRI) (Bray et al., 1984), which is comprised of 10 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = never, 5 = always). Studies have indicated good internal and test–retest reliabilities and good construct, discriminant, and concurrent validity (Brossart et al., 2006; Wang & Crane, 2001). The Cronbach’s alpha in the current study was .70.

Rejection

Mothers’ rejection of their own eldest sons was assessed using the Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire/Short Form (PARQ/Short Form) (Rohner & Khaleque, 2005). The parent version of the questionnaire assesses the way parents reflect on their current behavior toward their children. The scale consists of 24 items and four subscales: coldness/lack of affection, hostility/aggression, indifference/neglect, and undifferentiated rejection of affection. Respondents rate each item on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = never true, 4 = almost always true). The PARQ serves as a robust measure worldwide (e.g., Artemis & Touloumakos, 2016; Gomez & Suhaimi, 2014). The Cronbach’s alpha in the current study was .90. There were no missing data.

Background characteristics

In addition, the women were asked to fill out a short background information questionnaire indicating mother’s age, mother’s number of years of education, number of years of marriage, her relative position in the wife order in the marriage, the number of wives, the number of children in the family, and the family’s socioeconomic status.

Results

No correlations were found between the women’s background variables and the study variables (i.e., romantic jealousy within the marriage, mothers’ desire for revenge against their husbands, mothers’ rejection of their sons, and mother-child triangulation). The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all the variables are presented in Table 1. As hypothesized, Pearson correlation analyses indicated positive correlations between mothers’ romantic jealousy and mothers’ feelings of rejection of their oldest sons and mother-child triangulation.

Table 1.

Correlation Between the Study Variables.

	Romantic jealousy	Triangulation	Desire for revenge	Rejection
1. Romantic jealousy	1.00	.31**	.37**	.45***
2. Triangulation		1.00	.42***	.56***
3. Desire for revenge			1.00	.48***
4. Rejection				1.00
M	3.75	2.44	1.41	2.28
SD	1.80	0.68	2.64	0.74

Note. N = 80.

p < .01. ***p < .001.

To test the mediation models for mothers’ romantic jealousy within the marriage and mother-child rejection or triangulation via the mothers’ desire for revenge against their husbands, the two mediation models were examined using a bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 post-bootstrap samples, using the bootstrapped product coefficient method and employing the SPSS (version 25) macro for multiple regressions following Preacher et al.’s (2007) mediation model (Model 4). The bootstrap procedure is considered superior to other methods such as the Sobel test. The model assumes that the relationship between the independent variable is contingent on the level of the mediator with no need for preconditioned direct links between the dependent and the independent variables or between the independent variable and the mediator or the moderator (Hayes, 2009).

The results of the model on mothers’ rejection toward their sons indicated a significant direct effect between mothers’ romantic jealousy within their marriages and mothers’ feelings of rejection toward their sons (estimate = .131, p = .002, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [.048, .214]). In addition, the results from 5,000 bootstrap sample computations (which were all unstandardized) indicated a significant indirect effect of mothers’ romantic jealousy within their marriages and mothers’ rejection of their sons through the desire for revenge against their husbands (estimate = .056, 95% CI = [.020, .203]), implying a partial mediation. Specifically, higher levels of mothers’ romantic jealousy positively predicted mothers’ revenge-seeking against their husbands (estimate =.290, p =.000), which, in turn, positively predicted mothers’ rejection of their eldest sons (estimate = .192, p =.000) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Predicting mother-child rejection.

The results of the model predicting triangulation indicated a significant indirect effect of mothers’ jealousy and mother-child triangulation through the desire for revenge (estimate = .050, 95% CI = [.011, .107]). Specifically, higher levels of mothers’ romantic jealousy positively predicted mothers’ seeking of revenge against their husbands (estimate =.290, p =.000), which in turn, positively predicted mother-child triangulation (estimate = .173, p =.002) (see Figure 2). In addition, the direct link between mothers’ romantic jealousy and mother-child triangulation was not significant, implying full mediation. Note, however, that the estimate of the indirect effect was rather small.

Figure 2.

Predicting mother-child triangulation.

Discussion

Most theories, as well as clinical and empirical research, on family therapy are based on the structure of the monogamous family. However, much can be gained from considering polygamous and other types of family lifestyles. In attempt to fill this gap, the current study shed light on the processes leading to mother-son rejection and triangulation in a group of Arab Israeli mothers living in polygamous families. Overall, the findings from the two mediation models indicated a transfer of these mothers’ intense negative feelings toward their husbands into inadequate poor parenting behaviors conveying rejection and triangulation. These results underscore the importance of marital relationship quality when predicting the quality of other family relationships and the need to understand the influence of the marital relationship in a multi-generational perspective.

Specifically, the mediation model results for mother-child rejection showed that mothers’ desire to get revenge against their husbands mediated the association between mothers’ romantic jealousy and their feelings of rejection of their eldest sons. It suggests the transmission of the mothers’ harsh and hostile feelings toward their husbands to their sons. This suggestion is consistent with the spillover interpretation, which describes how the affect experienced in one subsystem can be transferred to other subsystems (Engfer, 1988; Erel & Burman, 1995). It is also aligned with the notion of “projection,” which refers to parents’ transmission of primary unconscious elements to their child based on their vulnerabilities, with the child then acting out behavioral or emotional symptoms corresponding to these elements (Berlin, 2002; Lieberman, 1999).

Spillover between the parenting and marital domains is apparent in families in the general population. Cross-sectional (Nelson et al., 2009; Ponnet et al., 2013) and longitudinal studies (e.g., Davies et al., 2009; Gerard et al., 2006) have reported a positive association between higher levels of marital quality and adequate parenting behaviors (e.g., warm and responsive parenting). Nevertheless, less is known regarding this effect in populations at risk (Hartley et al., 2018). Here, it was posited that these mothers’ feelings of injustice, hurt, and anger elicited an urge to retaliate against their husbands. Powerful cultural practices which instill fear, shame, blame, community ostracism and status loss compel these mothers to remain within the marital relationship and prevent them from actualizing their desire for revenge. Thus, the mothers were forced to deny the hurt they felt toward their husbands. Instead, their negative feelings were channeled, spilled out, and manifested in feelings of rejection toward their eldest sons, who served as their fathers’ extensions.

Pathologically, mothers in this situation may feel that justice has been done to a certain extent. This supposition is further supported by the societal tendency in traditional Muslim societies to favor boys over girls (Haj-Yahia, 2003) and to consider the eldest son as the most dominant and significant member of the family, second only to the father, and deserving of special privileges and roles that are not ascribed to the other children. In addition, boys bear the family’s last name, ensure its continuity, and take responsibility for the family’s property and their parents as they age (Haj-Yahia, 2000).

The findings on mother-child triangulation revealed an association between mothers’ romantic jealousy and mother-child triangulation via the desire for revenge, thus supporting the compensatory hypothesis. As indicated by family systems theory (Minuchin, 1988) and psychodynamic (Cohen et al., 1984) perspectives, women’s feelings of rejection by their spouses may dictate their behavior with their sons, and correspond to an attempt to gain an affectionate and supportive ally who fulfills their denied needs for intimacy in their marital relationships (Kerig, 2005). Thus, the mothers impair their interpersonal boundaries while projecting their own unmet needs upon their sons. The degree of triangulation in the parent-child relationship is presumably associated with the degree of the mothers’ distress and alienation (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). It is important to note that although the compensatory hypothesis posits that the transfer between subsystems in a family occurs in the opposite direction where one relationship compensates for shortcomings in other, triangulation is considered poor parental practice. Ostensibly, it reflects a closeness between the mothers and the child; however, the consequences of this parenting form of are known to be adverse.

Limitations

Several limitations in this study should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design of the study did not allow for the examination of cause-effect relationships. Second, this study was based on a small and unrepresentative sample of polygamous families in Israel. Because the sample was small and was not randomly selected, the findings are not representative of Arab polygamous families or other polygamous families elsewhere in the world. Future studies should concentrate on the course of mother-child relationships within polygamous families using large and representative samples from different cultures. This is important because polygamy exists in many societies, and very little is known about the mother-child relationship. Third, the study relied on self-report questionnaires, which may have been biased toward a positive presentation. Fourth, the effects of our models were somewhat small. These limitations indicate the likelihood that other variables, such as intimate partner violence or women’s distress, might account for the findings. Future research might examine additional characteristics of these mothers in predicting the mother-child relationship. Finally, the current study focused on mothers and their sons. Father-child relationships are also important topic for investigation as are mother-daughter relationships.

Implications for Practice

Despite these limitations, the current study has a number of practical implications for social workers and family therapists. By highlighting the difficult reality these women experience and how it might hamper the mother-child relationship, the findings point to the need to develop interventions for mothers and children in polygamous families, which should be undertaken within a multi-generational context. Specifically, it is important for social workers and therapist to help women become aware of intergenerational suffering and its detrimental effects on their children if they are not able to overcome their anger, jealousy, and pain. It is essential for clinicians to help women cope with their feelings by differentiating their relationships with their eldest sons from their relationships with their husbands. This will help prevent jealousy toward the husband and the desire for revenge to be projected and spill over onto the child, which can exacerbate the child’s resentment of the father. It is also important to emphasize the strengths of these mothers, when reinforcing their emotional bonds with their children. Finally, mothers should be informed of the adverse outcomes for a child who is caught up in triangulation and is used as a form of compensation.

Footnotes

Disposition Editor: David C. Kondrat

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Dr. Limor Goldner

References

Al-Krenawi

(1998). Family therapy with a multiparental/multispousal family. Family Process, 37(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1998.00065.x

Al-Krenawi

(2012). A study of psychological symptoms, family function, marital and life satisfactions of polygamous and monogamous women: The Palestinian case. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 58(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764010387063

Al-Krenawi

Lightman

E. S.

(2000). Learning achievement, social adjustment, and family conflict among Bedouin-Arab children from polygamous and monogamous families. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(3), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540009600475

Al-Krenawi

Slonim-Nevo

(2008a). The psychosocial profile of Bedouin Arab women living in polygamous and monogamous marriages. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 89(1), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3718

Al-Krenawi

Slonim-Nevo

(2008b). Psychosocial and familial functioning of children from polygynous and monogamous families. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(6), 745–764. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.148.6.745-764

Al-Krenawi

Slonim-Nevo

Graham

J. R.

(2006). Polygamy and its impact on the psychosocial well-being of husbands. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 37(2), 173–189.

Al-Sharfi

Pfeffer

Miller

K. A.

(2016). The effects of polygamy on children and adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Family Studies, 22(3), 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2015.1086405

Al-Sherbiny

L. A. M.

(2005). The case of first wife in polygamy: Description of an Arab culture-specific tradition. Arabpsynet, 8, 9–26.

Amato

P. R.

Afifi

T. D.

(2006). Feeling caught between parents: Adult children’s relations with parents and subjective well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1), 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00243

10.

Aquino

Tripp

T. M.

Bies

R. J.

(2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.52

11.

Ardila-Rey

Killen

Brenick

(2009). Moral reasoning in violent contexts: Displaced and non-displaced Colombian children’s evaluations of moral transgressions, retaliation, and reconciliation. Social Development, 18(1), 181–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00483.x

12.

Artemis

Touloumakos

A. K.

(2016). “They accept me, they accept me not” psychometric properties of the Greek version of the Child Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire–Short Form. Journal of Family Issues, 37(9), 1226–1243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14543851

13.

Berger

(2014). The vocabulary of vengefulness: Its function in the analytic group and beyond. Group Analysis, 47(3), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0533316414545721

14.

Berlin

N. G.

(2002). Parent-child therapy and maternal projections: Tripartite psychotherapy-A new look. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72(2), 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.72.2.204

15.

Bone

J. E.

Raihani

N. J.

(2015). Human punishment is motivated by both a desire for revenge and a desire for equality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(4), 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.02.002

16.

Bowen

(1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson.

17.

Bray

J. H.

Williamson

D. S.

Malone

P. E.

(1984b). Personal authority in the family system: Development of a questionnaire to measure personal authority in intergenerational processes. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 10, 167–178.

18.

Brossart

D. F.

Lawson

D. M.

Kieffer

K. M.

(2006). Factor analysis of the personal authority in the family system questionnaire. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32(4), 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2006.tb01619.x

19.

Cohen

R. S.

Cohler

B. J.

Weissman

S. H.

(Eds.). (1984). Parenthood: A psychodynamic perspective. Guilford Press.

20.

Collibee

Furman

(2016). Chronic and acute relational risk factors for dating aggression in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 763–776.

21.

Crombag

Rassin

Horselenberg

(2003). On vengeance. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 9, 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316031000068647

22.

Daoud

Shoham-Vardi

Urquia

M. L.

O’Campo

(2014). Polygamy and poor mental health among Arab Bedouin women: Do socioeconomic position and social support matter? Ethnicity & Health, 19(4), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2013.801403

23.

Darvell

M. J.

Walsh

S. P.

White

K. M.

(2011). Facebook tells me so: Applying the theory of planned behavior to understand partnermonitoring behavior on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(12), 717–722.

24.

Davies

P. T.

Sturge-Apple

M. L.

Woitach

M. J.

Cummings

E. M.

(2009). A process analysis of the transmission of distress from interparental conflict to parenting: Adult relationship security as an explanatory mechanism. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1761–1773. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016426.

25.

Davis

K. C.

Schraufnagel

T. J.

Jacques-Tiura

A. J.

Norris

George

W. H.

Kiekel

P. A.

(2012). Childhood sexual abuse and acute alcohol effects on men’s sexual aggression intentions. Psychology of Violence, 2(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027185

26.

DiBello

A. M.

Rodriguez

L. M.

Hadden

B. W.

Neighbors

(2015). The green-eyed monster in the bottle: Relationship contingent selfesteem, romantic jealousy, and alcohol-related problems. Addictive Behaviors, 49, 52–58.

27.

Elbedour

Abu-Bader

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Abu-Rabia

El-Aassam

(2006). The scope of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse in a Bedouin-Arab community of female adolescents: The interplay of racism, urbanization, polygamy, family honor, and the social marginalization of women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.10.010

28.

Elbedour

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Caridine

Abu-Saad

(2002). The effect of polygamous marital structure on behavioral, emotional, and academic adjustment in children: A comprehensive review of the literature. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5(4), 255–271.

29.

Engfer

(1988). The interrelatedness of marriage and the mother-child relationship. In Hinde

R. A.

Stevenson-Hinde

(Eds.), Relationships within families. Mutual influences (pp. 104–118). Clarendon Press.

30.

Erel

Burman

(1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 108–132.

31.

Field

N. P.

Chhim

(2008). Desire for revenge and attitudes toward the Khmer Rouge tribunal among Cambodians. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 13(4), 352–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325020701742086

32.

Fleischmann

A. A.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Andersen

P. A.

Roesch

S. C.

(2005). Tickling the monster: Jealousy induction in relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(1), 49–73.

33.

Gerard

J. M.

Krishnakumar

Buehler

(2006). Marital conflict, parent-child relations, and youth maladjustment: A longitudinal investigation of spillover effects. Journal of Family Issues, 27(7), 951–975. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X05286020

34.

Goldberg

J. G.

(2004). Fantasies of revenge and the stabilization of the ego: Acts of revenge and the ascension of thanatos. Modern Psychoanalysis, 29(1), 3–21.

35.

Goldner

Lev-Wiesel

Simon

(2019). Revenge fantasies after experiencing traumatic events: Sex differences. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 886.

36.

Gomez

Suhaimi

A. F.

(2014). Malaysian parent ratings of the parental acceptance-rejection questionnaire-short form: Factor structure and invariance across girls and boys and mothers and fathers. Parenting, 14(3–4), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2014.945585

37.

Guerrero

L. K.

(1998). Attachment-style differences in the experience and expression of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00172.x

38.

Haefner

(2014). An application of Bowen family systems theory. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 35(11), 835–841. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2014.921257

39.

Haen

Weber

A. M.

(2009). Beyond retribution: Working through revenge fantasies with traumatized young people. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 36(2), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2009.01.005

40.

Haj-Yahia

M. M.

(2000). Wife abuse and battering in the sociocultural context of Arab society. Family Process, 39(2), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2000.39207

41.

Haj-Yahia

M. M.

(2003). Beliefs about wife beating among Arab men from Israel: The influence of their patriarchal ideology. Journal of Family Violence, 18(4), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00119-4

42.

Hartley

S. L.

Papp

L. M.

Bolt

(2018). Spillover of marital interactions and parenting stress in families of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47(Suppl. 1), S88–S99. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1152552

43.

Hayes

A. F.

(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.

44.

Horowitz

M. J.

(2007). Understanding and ameliorating revenge fantasies in psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164(1), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.1.24

45.

Jokhio

Soomro

N. P.

Shoukat

(2017). Parental acceptance-rejection, parental control and juvenile delinquency in youth: An analytic study of Hyderabad and Karachi. Grassroots, 51(1), 178–190.

46.

Kar

H. L.

O’Leary

K. D.

(2013). Patterns of psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy within marriage. Journal of Family Violence, 28(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9492-7

47.

Katz

L. F.

Gottman

J. M.

(1996). Spillover effects of marital conflict: In search of parenting and coparenting mechanisms. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 74, 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219967406

48.

Kerig

P. K.

(2005). Revisiting the construct of boundary dissolution: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5(2–3), 5–42. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v05n02_02

49.

Kerig

P. K.

(2019). Parenting and family systems. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Volume 3: Being and becoming a parent (pp. 3–35). Routledge.

50.

Khaleque

Rohner

R. P.

(2012). Pancultural associations between perceived parental acceptance and psychological adjustment of children and adults: A meta-analytic review of worldwide research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(5), 784–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111406120

51.

Krishnakumar

Buehler

(2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00025.x

52.

Layish

(2017). Polygamy. In Layish

(Ed.), Women and Islamic law in a non-Muslim state: A study based on decisions of the Shari’a courts in Israel. Routledge.

53.

Lei

Wang

Han

DeBruine

L. M.

Jones

B. C.

(2019). The influence of facial femininity on Chinese and White UK women’s jealousy. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5(1), 109–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0171-7

54.

Leisring

P. A.

(2013). Physical and emotional abuse in romantic relationships: Motivation for perpetration among college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(7), 1437–1454.

55.

Lieberman

A. F.

(1999). Negative maternal attributions: Effects on toddlers’ sense of self. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 19(5), 737–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351699909534274

56.

Lillie

Strelan

(2016). Careful what you wish for: Fantasizing about revenge increases justice dissatisfaction in the chronically powerless. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 290–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.048

57.

McClelland

R. T.

(2010). The pleasures of revenge. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 31(3), 195–235. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001513

58.

McCullough

M. E.

Bellah

C. G.

Kilpatrick

S. D.

Johnson

J. L.

(2001). Vengefulness: Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, wellbeing, and the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 601–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201275008

59.

McCullough

M. E.

Rachal

K. C.

Sandage

S. J.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr Brown

S. W.

Hight

T. L.

(1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1586–1603.

60.

McCullough

M. E.

Root

L. M.

Cohen

A. D.

(2006). Writing about the benefits of an interpersonal transgression facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(5), 887–897. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.5.887.

61.

Melamed

(1991). Individual differences in romantic jealousy: The moderating effect of relationship characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420210508

62.

Minuchin

(1988). Relationships within the family: A systems perspective on development. In Hinde

R. A.

Stevenson-Hinde

(Eds.), Relationships within families. Mutual influences (pp. 7–26). Clarendon Press.

63.

Mogilski

J. K.

Memering

S. L.

Welling

L. L.

Shackelford

T. K.

(2017). Monogamy versus consensual non-monogamy: Alternative approaches to pursuing a strategically pluralistic mating strategy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 407–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2

64.

Morrissette

P. J.

(2012). Infidelity and revenge fantasies: An integrative couple therapy approach. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 11(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2012.666500

65.

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015977

66.

Orth

(2004). Does perpetrator punishment satisfy victims’ feelings of revenge? Aggressive Behavior, 30(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20003

67.

Papp

L. J.

Liss

Erchull

M. J.

Godfrey

Waaland-Kreutzer

(2017). The dark side of heterosexual romance: Endorsement of romantic beliefs relates to intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 76(1–2), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0668-0

68.

Pfeiffer

S. M.

Wong

P. T.

(1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6(2), 181–196.

69.

Ponnet

Mortelmans

Wouters

Van Leeuwen

Bastaits

Pasteels

(2013). Parenting stress and marital relationship as determinants of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting. Personal Relationships, 20(2), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01404.x

70.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.

71.

Rahmanian

Munawar

Mukhtar

Choudhry

F. R.

(2020). Prevalence of mental health problems in women in polygamous versus monogamous marriages: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Women’s Mental Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-020-01070-8

72.

Redlick

(2016). The green-eyed monster: Mate value, relational uncertainty, and jealousy in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 23(3), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12140

73.

Rinaldi

C. M.

Howe

(2003). Perceptions of constructive and destructive conflict within and across family subsystems. Infant and Child Development: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 12(5), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.324

74.

Rohner

R. P.

(1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-rejection theory. SAGE.

75.

Rohner

R. P.

(2004). The parental “acceptance-rejection syndrome”: Universal correlates of perceived rejection. American Psychologist, 59(8), 830–840. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.830

76.

Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

(2005). Personality Assessment Questionnaire: Test manual. In Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

(Eds.), Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection (4th ed., pp. 187–226). Rohner Research.

77.

Schumann

Ross

(2010). The benefits, costs, and paradox of revenge. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(12), 1193–1205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00322.x

78.

Seebauer

Froß

Dubaschny

Schönberger

Jacob

G. A.

(2014). Is it dangerous to fantasize revenge in imagery exercises? An experimental study. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 45(1), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2013.07.003

79.

Sellen

D. W.

(1999). Polygyny and child growth in a traditional pastoral society. Human Nature, 10(4), 329–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-999-1007-8

80.

Senior

Helmer

Chenhall

(2017). “As long as he’s coming home to me”: Vulnerability, jealousy and violence in young people’s relationships in remote, rural and regional Australia. Health Sociology Review, 26(2), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2016.1157697

81.

Shackelford

T. K.

Goetz

A. T.

Buss

D. M.

Euler

H. A.

Hoier

(2005). When we hurt the ones we love: Predicting violence against women from men’s mate retention. Personal Relationships, 12, 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00125.x

82.

Shepard

L. D.

(2013). The impact of polygamy on women’s mental health: A systematic review. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 22(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796012000121

83.

Slonim-Nevo

Al-Krenawi

Yuval-Shani

(2008). Polygynous marriage in the Middle East: Stories of success and failures. Ethnology, 195-208. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/41604069

84.

Steinglass

(1987). A systems view of family interaction and psychopathology. In Jacob

(Ed.), Family interaction and psychopathology: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 25–65). Plenum.

85.

Stillwell

A. M.

Baumeister

R. F.

Del Priore

R. E.

(2008). We’re all victims here: Toward a psychology of revenge. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530802375094

86.

Thomas

N. K.

(2004). An eye for an eye: Fantasies of revenge in the aftermath of trauma. In Knafo

(Ed.), Living with terror, working with trauma: A clinician’s handbook (pp. 297–311). Jason Aronson.

87.

Tripp

T. M.

Bies

R. J.

Aquino

(2002). Poetic justice or petty jealousy? The aesthetics of revenge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 966–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00038-9

88.

van Denderen

de Keijser

Gerlsma

Huisman

Boelen

P. A

. (2014). Revenge and psychological adjustment after homicidal loss. Aggressive Behavior, 40(6), 504–511. http://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21543

89.

Vidmar

(2001). Retribution and revenge. In Sanders

Hamilton

V. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 31–63). Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

90.

Wang

Crane

D. R.

(2001). The relationship between marital satisfaction, marital stability, nuclear family triangulation, and childhood depression. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29(4), 337–347.

91.

Westland

J. C.

(2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476–487.

92.

White

J. M.

Klein

D. M.

(2002). Family theories: An introduction (2nd ed.). SAGE.

93.

Wright

M. F.

(2017). Intimate partner aggression and adult attachment insecurity: The mediation of jealousy and anger. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11(2), 187–198.

94.

Zeitzen

M. K.

(2020). Polygamy: A cross-cultural analysis. Routledge.