The Relation Between Parentification and Dating Communication

Abstract

The present study examined the relationship between reports of childhood parentification, current romantic relationship constructive communication, and adult attachment-related cognitions in 57 college participants. Results from analyses indicated that childhood emotional parentification was negatively associated with constructive communication and positively correlated with young adult avoidant and anxious attachment-related cognitions. Multiple mediation analyses revealed that anxious attachment-related beliefs were shown to have a significant indirect effect on the relationship between emotional parentification and romantic dyadic constructive communication. Clinical implications of the current findings are discussed.

Keywords

parentification romantic relationships communication attachment-related cognitions

Parenting practices have been linked to impactful and lasting outcomes throughout childhood and into adulthood (Jacobvitz, Hazen, Curran, & Hitchens, 2004; Raudino, Fergusson, & Horwood, 2013; Taylor, Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Widaman, 2013; Williams, Ciarrochi, & Heaven, 2012). Additionally, features of the parent–child relationship have a long, documented history of relating to later romantic relationship quality and communication (Donnellan, Larsen-Rife, & Conger, 2005; Seiffge-Krenke, Overbeek, & Vermulst, 2010). However, parentification, a feature in some parent–child dyads, remains understudied. Parentification describes parent–child relationships in which children engage in behaviors more typical of parents (Kerig, 2005). These behaviors can be instrumental in nature, such as daily living tasks (e.g., cooking and shopping), or emotional, in which the child is a source of emotional support for the parent.

Parentification falls within the broader classification of boundary dissolution, a type of parent–child relationship that is characterized by the blurring or reversal of developmentally typical and appropriate parent and child roles (Shaffer & Sroufe, 2005). Boundary dissolution typically impedes child development by placing undue weight on a child to meet the needs of their primary caregiver (Kerig, 2005). Research on parentification has been linked to a number of outcomes in young adulthood, including perceptions of fairness, personality characteristics, and psychological adjustment (Jones & Wells, 1996; Jurkovic, Thirkield, & Morrell, 2001; Stein, Riedel, & Rotheram-Borus, 1999). Further, research on parentification has demonstrated differential outcomes for emotional and instrumental parentification, such that instrumental parentification has been associated with more positive indicators of adjustment, including feelings of accomplishment (Hooper, 2007). In contrast, emotional parentification has been associated with more deleterious outcomes, including later psychopathology (Hooper, DeCoster, White, & Voltz, 2011). Although emotional parentification has been associated with distress in young adulthood, there is also evidence that emotional parentification is associated with posttraumatic growth (Hooper, Marotta, & Lanthier, 2008), which suggests that not all individuals with a history of emotional parentification will go on to experience later negative outcomes.

An area that has been understudied in the extant literature is how boundary dissolution, and more specifically emotional parentification, relates to later communication patterns in romantic relationships. There has been some research to support that emotional parentification is associated with romantic relationship outcomes, including interpersonal dating violence (Linder & Collins, 2005). However, there has been relatively little research on identifying and understanding how emotional parentification may result in later romantic dyadic processes, such as communication. Given that most of the current literature has focused on psychosocial outcomes, including romantic relationship outcomes, a particularly important area of exploration is how childhood experiences of parentification may influence later romantic processes and, specifically, dyadic communication.

The ability to constructively communicate in a romantic relationship is an important and salient skill in emerging adulthood that might be undermined by a history of emotional parentification. Specifically, it is possible that experiences of parentification affect relationship schema by subverting typical parent–child roles, and disturbances to views about relationship security could subsequently affect abilities to engage in positive, constructive communication with romantic partners. It may be likely that adult attachment-related cognitions operate as an underlying mechanism through which emotional parentification influences later romantic relationship communication.

Research on dyadic communication has suggested that there are different communication patterns within romantic relationship dyads. Specifically, dyadic constructive communication tends to be seen in nondistressed couples (Christensen & Shenk, 1991). Constructive communication is characterized by partners who engage in a discussion of problems, their feelings, and the ability to negotiate with one another during a conflict (Christensen & Shenk, 1991). Prior research has suggested that married dyads who engage in constructive communication tend to have more marital satisfaction (Litzinger & Gordon, 2005). Specific to college-aged individuals, the transition into young adulthood is a developmental period in which emerging adults explore romantic relationships as well as emotional and physical intimacy (Arnett, 1998, 2000). Given this research, it may be particularly important to examine the relation between emotional parentification and romantic constructive communication within this salient period.

Adult romantic attachment-related cognitions may be a potential mechanism through which emotional parentification influences later constructive communication in romantic relationships. Hazan and Shaver (1987) used attachment theory to expand attachment processes to later adult romantic relationships. Specifically, these authors posit that adults form attachments in romantic relationships that are similar to, and an extension of, attachment styles seen in parent–infant dyads. Adult attachment-related cognitions are then conceptualized as the degree in which romantic partners are securely attached to one another. Within the construct of adult romantic attachment-related beliefs, there has been research to suggest that variation within adult attachment-related cognitions can be modeled within a dimensional framework rather than categorically (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Therefore, the current study followed Fraley, Waller, and Brennan (2000) two-dimensional view of romantic attachment beliefs that encompasses anxious and avoidant attachment-related cognitions. Adult anxious attachment-related cognitions are then conceptualized as the individual’s beliefs regarding their romantic partner’s availability and responsiveness. In contrast, adult avoidant attachment-related cognitions are described as the individual’s comfort in closeness and depending on their romantic partner. Following this model, the prototypical individual who has secure attachment-related beliefs has low attachment-related anxiety and avoidance, suggesting that these individuals typically do not have worries concerning abandonment and feel comfortable in romantic relationships.

Given that parentification occurs in childhood, the establishment of young adult attachment-related constructs could be influenced by parenting practices. While the constructs of adult attachment-related cognitions and parentification are typically disparate in the literature, it has been suggested that adult attachment may be determined in part by parent–child relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Further, recent literature on paternal parentification suggests that attachment-related cognitions may be an avenue through which emotional parentification influences later romantic relationship outcomes (Baggett, Shaffer, & Muetzelfeld, 2015). The relationship between adult attachment-related cognitions and romantic dyadic communication has been strongly supported in the literature. Research has demonstrated and described how adult attachment-related cognitions provide different characterizations within romantic relationships, including longevity, quality, satisfaction, trust, support seeking, and self-disclosure (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Collins & Read, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991; Simpson, 1990; Simpson, Rholes & Nelligan, 1992). Following this line of research, individuals who have secure attachment-related cognitions in romantic relationships are characterized by high trust, high acceptance of their partner, high levels of support, high sense of self-worth, engage in more reciprocity, and generally have longer relationship durations. In regard to young adults, Brennan and Shaver (1995) examined a college-based sample and found that these characterizations are generally the same.

The current study investigated the influence of childhood parentification on later dyadic communication in romantic relationships. Based on previous research, we hypothesized that these relations would be specific to emotional forms of parentification and not to instrumental parentification. Further, we hypothesized that emotional parentification would predict lower ratings of constructive communication that young adults engage in with their romantic partner. In line with previous findings, we expected that emotional parentification would be related to increased reports of insecure attachment-related cognitions (i.e., anxiety and avoidance). Finally, we explored the role of young adult attachment-related cognitions as potential mediators in the relation between emotional parentification and constructive communication in romantic relationships.

Method

Participants

Participants in the current study included 46 female and 11 male (M age = 19.49, SD = 1.39) undergraduate students who were recruited from a large U.S. southern university through 2009 and 2010. The study was conducted to assess developmental predictors in later relationship outcomes. With respect to ethnicity, 39 participants were Caucasian (68.4%), 8 were Asian (14%), 4 were Hispanic (7%), 5 were mixed-race or other (8.8%), and 1 was African American (1.8%). All participants were currently in heterosexual romantic relationships and between the ages of 18 and 25. Due to the aforementioned restrictions, three participants in romantic relationships were excluded from the current analyses due to age (two participants were older than 25) and sexual orientation. Additionally, two participants were excluded from analyses due to missing data on the outcome measure of interest.

Measures

Filial Responsibilities Scale—Adult (FRS-A)

The FRS is a retrospective self-report measure given to assess participants’ histories of parentification with their primary caregiver (Jurkovic & Thirkield, 1999). Three subscales of childhood experiences of parentification are measured through 30 items (i.e., Instrumental Parentification, Emotional Parentification, and Perceptions of Unfairness). The FRS uses a 7-point format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), allowing participants to rate any childhood experiences of parentification. In the current study, the Emotional Parentification and Instrumental Parentification subscales were used. Sample items for the Emotional Parentification subscale included “At times I felt I was the only one my mother/father could turn to” and “I often felt caught in the middle of my parents’ conflicts.” Sample items for the instrumental subscale included “I did a lot of the shopping for my family” and “In my house I rarely did the cooking.” Cronbach’s α was computed in this sample to evaluate the internal consistency of the Emotional Parentification scale (α = .82) as well as the Instrumental Parentification subscale (α = .80).

Communication patterns questionnaire (CPQ)

The CPQ was used to assess communication patterns on topics of conflict in romantic relationships (Christensen & Sullaway, 1984). The CPQ is a 35-item self-report measure that uses a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 9 (very likely) for participant responses. For the basis of this article, the mutual constructive communication was used in all analyses. Sample items for the mutual Constructive Communication subscale include “Both of us try to discuss the problem” and “Both of us suggest possible solutions and compromises.” Internal reliability for the Constructive Communication subscale was assessed for the present study (α = .45).

Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised (ECR-R)

The ECR-R is a 36-item self-report measure used to assess romantic attachment-related cognitions (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000). Participants are instructed to use the 7-point scale that ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The ECR-R includes two subscales used to assess romantic attachment avoidance (i.e., “I don’t feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners”) and romantic attachment anxiety (i.e., “I often worry that my partner doesn’t really love me”). The internal consistency of the two subscales was measured using Cronbach’s α (avoidance α = .89; anxiety α = .92).

Procedure

Recruitment of participants was completed through introductory psychology courses and flyers posted on campus. Respondents who were recruited through psychology courses received course credit for their participation. Entry into a raffle for a US$50 gift card was used as an incentive to participants who were recruited through flyers. The survey was completed online using Survey Monkey, a website that meets the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Safe Harbor Privacy Standards. After obtaining the survey URL, participants were given a personal identification number to make all data collected confidential. Informed consent was obtained at the beginning of the online survey. Participants were required to answer all items to deter random answer selection and prevent random responses; however, all items on the survey had a “prefer not to answer” selection.

Following the online survey, participants who endorsed being in a current romantic relationship were asked to complete an additional study phase in a research lab setting with their romantic partner. During this phase, participants and their romantic partners completed observational tasks as well as additional questionnaires that were not included in the online survey. Participants were reimbursed by additional course credit or the option of US$20 and partners of the participants were given US$20. All procedures were approved by the sponsoring university’s institutional review board.

Results

As preliminary analyses, independent samples t-tests were conducted to assess if there were gender differences in the present study. Results revealed that there were no differences in regards to emotional parentification, instrumental parentification, as well as constructive communication. Further, no gender differences were found in the two domains of romantic attachment-related cognitions (i.e., anxiety and avoidance). One-way analyses of variance were conducted to examine racial differences in all of the variables of interest. Results indicated that there was a significant difference in regard to race on attachment avoidance. Due to this, race was a covariate in the mediation model.

Zero-order bivariate correlations were examined among childhood experiences of emotional parentification, instrumental parentification, constructive communication in romantic relationships as well as all subcategories of adult attachment-related cognitions (see Table 1). As expected, instrument parentification was not significantly related to constructive communication but was significantly associated with romantic avoidance attachment (r = .32, p = .025). Consistent with the hypotheses, emotional parentification was negatively related to constructive communication in romantic relationships (r = −.28, p = .045) and positively associated with anxious (r = .35, p = .010) and avoidant romantic attachment-related cognitions (r = .28, p = .047).

Table 1.

Zero-Order Correlations.

Variables of interest	1	2	3	4
Emotional parentification
Instrumental parentification	.59**
Constructive communication	−.28*	−.22
Anxiety attachment	.35*	.23	−.57**
Avoidant attachment	.28*	.32*	−.43**	.4**

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.

To explore the potential mediating effects of adult attachment-related cognitions in the relationship between emotional parentification and constructive communication, further analyses utilized the PROCESS macro in SPSS Version 22 (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). These analyses use bootstrapping methods to determine direct and indirect effects of multiple mediators. Significant effects are indicated if the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) do not include zero. By simultaneously entering each mediator into the model, each indirect effect can be assessed while controlling for the other mediator(s).

The final mediation model is shown in Figure 1. The total effect of emotional parentification on romantic dyadic constructive communication was not significant (B = −0.25, SE = .14, 95% CI [−.54, .03]). After accounting for all of the indirect effects in the model, the direct effect of emotional parentification on constructive communication was not significant (B = −0.07, SE = .14, 95% CI [−.35, .20]); however, it was in the expected direction. Given that it is unnecessary to have a direct effect to test indirect effects in mediation analyses (Hayes, 2009), an examination of the indirect effects within the model was conducted. Results indicated that romantic anxiety-related attachment had a significant indirect effect in the relationship between emotional parentification and constructive communication (B = −0.13, SE = .07, 95% CI [−.31, −.02]). These findings indicate that emotional parentification was associated with increased reports of anxiety-related romantic attachment cognitions, which were in turn related to less constructive communication. Avoidance-related attachment was found to not have a significant indirect effect in the relation of emotional parentification and dyadic constructive communication (B = −0.04, SE = .04, 95% CI [−.18, .00]).

Figure 1.

Multiple mediation model. *p < .05.

Discussion

The present study examined the relationship between childhood experiences of parentification, subsequent romantic relationship communication in young adults, and current attachment-related beliefs. The hypotheses in the present study were partially supported. Consistent with the hypotheses, higher reports of emotional parentification were associated with lower levels of constructive communication, indicating that more experiences of emotional parentification in childhood were related to poorer constructive communication in young adult romantic relationships. As expected, emotional parentification was associated with higher levels of anxious and avoidant attachment-related cognitions, suggesting that increased reports of emotional parentification were related to higher endorsements of insecure romantic attachment-related beliefs. Instrumental parentification was not related to constructive communication in romantic relationships but was related to avoidant attachment-related cognitions. Future research will be needed to investigate these relations. It may be that the potentially burdensome responsibility placed on those who have histories of instrumental parentification serves to lower their desire to be dependent upon someone else in a relationship to meet their needs.

Adult attachment-related cognitions were examined as potential pathways that may influence the association of parentification and later romantic relationship processes. Specifically, anxious attachment-related beliefs were shown to mediate the relationship between emotional parentification and romantic dyadic constructive communication. Higher levels of anxious attachment-related cognitions are typically associated with jealousy, clinginess, and low trust (Brennan & Shaver, 1995). Additionally, anxious attachment-related cognitions have been correlated with the self-perception of lower physical attractiveness, early sexual intercourse, and higher rates of infidelity (Bogaert & Sadava, 2002). Associated worries about their partner’s responsiveness in conjunction with these relationships models may serve to undermine communication conflict with a significant other.

While prior research has shown that adult avoidant attachment-related cognitions are pathways in which childhood experiences of abuse are related to adult romantic relationship difficulties (McCarthy & Taylor, 1999), avoidant attachment-related cognitions did not emerge as a significant mediator. Previous research has demonstrated that avoidant attachment-related cognitions are associated with higher reports of self-reliance and ambivalence and associated with lower reports of proximity seeking in romantic relationships (Brennan & Shaver, 1995). It may be that those with higher levels of avoidant attachment-related beliefs distance themselves in a relationship and therefore do not become as emotionally aroused in conflict with their partner. This may then allow the individual to have a more detached perspective when conflict arises. It may be adverse parent–child relationships impact adult attachment-related beliefs differently and, in turn, influence later romantic relationship difficulties. In sum, the present study demonstrated that anxious attachment-related cognitions might serve as a potential pathway between childhood experiences of emotional parentification and later young adult romantic relationship communication difficulties.

The contributions of this study must be considered in the context of some methodological limitations. First, the study variables were assessed via the administration of questionnaires that are based on retrospective self-reports of the parent–child relationship, young adult romantic attachment-related cognitions, and romantic dyadic communication. It will be beneficial for future studies to utilize a multiinformant and multimethod approach to replicate and extend the current findings. There has been research on relationship outcomes following histories of parentification, however, little has been done in the extant literature regarding relationship processes, such as dyadic communication. Future research involving informant data from romantic partners is warranted to better understand the lasting impact of emotional parentification on current relationship communication. Second, given that cross-sectional data were utilized, we cannot infer causation in the present study, although there is theoretical basis for assuming that the study variables would influence each other in the hypothesized directions. Nevertheless, a further suggestion for future studies is to assess the current findings using a longitudinal framework. Finally, the sample was limited in size and diversity. Given that the current sample composition was primarily Caucasian, the generalization of the present results is cautioned. Future studies may seek to extend the current findings in a more diverse sample. It may also be advantageous to replicate the current findings with a larger sample that includes more males.

The current findings also point toward clinical implications. It may be efficacious for parenting interventions to target emotional parentification to aid in the prevention of later negative outcomes, such as romantic relationship difficulties. A brief battery of questions during therapeutic services rendered to families may give clinicians added information to family dynamics as well as serve to maximize the benefits for all individuals within the family system. Additionally, it may be advantageous for romantic relationship interventions to address romantic attachment-related schemas to better understand potential underpinnings of the couple’s communication and to use this information to increase constructive communication between partners. While research has long documented the role of early familial experiences in shaping romantic relationship processes, the current study suggests that particular attention to histories of parentification are warranted both in clinical work and in guiding future research.

Footnotes

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.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(1998). Learning to stand alone: The contemporary American transition to adulthood in cultural and historical context. Human Development, 41, 295–315.

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.

Baggett

Shaffer

Muetzelfeld

(2015). Father–daughter parentification and young adult romantic relationships among college women. Journal of Family Issues, 36, 760–783. doi:10.1177/0192513X13499759

Bogaert

A. F.

Sadava

(2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Personal Relationships, 9, 191–204.

Brennan

K. A.

Shaver

P. R.

(1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267–283.

Christensen

Shenk

J. L.

(1991). Communication, conflict, and psychological distance in nondistressed, clinic, and divorcing couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 458–463.

Christensen

Sullaway

(1984). Communication patterns questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.

Collins

N. L.

Read

S. J.

(1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644–663.

Donnellan

M. B.

Larsen-Rife

Conger

R. D.

(2005). Personality, family history, and competence in early adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 562–576.

10.

Fraley

R. C.

Shaver

P. R.

(2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132–154.

11.

Fraley

R. C.

Waller

N. G.

Brennan

K. A.

(2000). An item-response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365.

12.

Hayes

A. F.

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

13.

Hazan

Shaver

P. R.

(1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.

14.

Hooper

L. M.

(2007). The application of attachment theory and family systems theory to the phenomena of parentification. The Family Journal, 15, 217–223.

15.

Hooper

L. M.

Marotta

S. A.

Lanthier

R. P.

(2008). Predictors of growth and distress following childhood parentification: A retrospective exploratory study. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17, 693–705.

16.

Hooper

L. M.

DeCoster

White

Voltz

M. L.

(2011). Characterizing the magnitude of the relation between self-reported childhood parentification and adult psychopathology: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 1028–1043.

17.

Jacobvitz

Hazen

Curran

Hitchens

(2004). Observations of early triadic family interactions: Boundary disturbances in the family predict symptoms of depression, anxiety, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in middle childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 577–592.

18.

Jones

R. A.

Wells

(1996). An empirical study of parentification and personality. American Journal of Family Therapy, 24, 145–152.

19.

Jurkovic

G. J.

Thirkield

(1999). Filial Responsibility Scale-Adult (FRS-A). Available from Jurkovic

Gregory J.

, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, University Plaza, Atlanta, GA, 30303.

20.

Jurkovic

G. J.

Thirkield

Morrell

(2001). Parentification of adult children of divorce: A multidimensional analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 245–257.

21.

Kerig

P. K.

(2005). Introduction: Contributions of the investigation of boundary dissolution to the understanding of developmental psychopathology and family process. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5, 1–4.

22.

Linder

J. R.

Collins

W. A.

(2005). Parent and peer predictors of physical aggression and conflict management in romantic relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 252–262.

23.

Litzinger

Gordon

K. C.

(2005). Exploring relationships among communication, sexual satisfaction, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 31, 409–424.

24.

McCarthy

Taylor

(1999). Avoidant/ambivalent attachment style as a mediator between abusive childhood experiences and adult relationship difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 465–477.

25.

Mikulincer

Nachshon

(1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 321–331.

26.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

27.

Raudino

Fergusson

D. M.

Horwood

L. J.

(2013). The quality of parent/child relationships in adolescence is associated with poor adult psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 331–340.

28.

Seiffge-Krenke

Overbeek

Vermulst

(2010). Parent–child relationship trajectories during adolescence: Longitudinal associations with romantic outcomes in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 159–171.

29.

Shaffer

Sroufe

L. A.

(2005). The developmental and adaptational implications of generational boundary dissolution: Findings from a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5, 67–84.

30.

Simpson

J. A.

(1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971–980.

31.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Nelligan

J. S.

(1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434–446.

32.

Stein

J. A.

Riedel

Rotheram-Borus

M. J.

(1999). Parentification and its impact on adolescent children of parents with AIDS. Family Process, 38, 193–208.

33.

Taylor

Z. E.

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T. L.

Widaman

K. F.

(2013). Longitudinal relations of intrusive parenting and effortful control to ego-resiliency during early childhood. Child Development, 84, 1145–1151.

34.

Williams

K. E.

Ciarrochi

Heaven

P. C.

(2012). Inflexible parents, inflexible kids: A 6-year longitudinal study of parenting style and the development of psychological flexibility in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1053–1066.