))'+,'/00#+'2#./'04))'+,'/00#+'2#./'04
##/#.!&+"#0##/#.!&+"#0
&#/#/+"'//#.00',+/
&##)0',+/&'- #03##++0#.-.#+0),+6'!0*')4&##)0',+/&'- #03##++0#.-.#+0),+6'!0*')4
00!&*#+004)#+",1+%"1)0*,0',+#%1)0',+00!&*#+004)#+",1+%"1)0*,0',+#%1)0',+
4)##+#2,)"
))'+,'/00#+'2#./'04
(4)###+#2,)"%*')!,*
,)),30&'/+"""'0',+)3,.(/0&00-/'.)' ..4'))'+,'//00##"1#0"
#!,**#+"#"'00',+#!,**#+"#"'00',+
+#2,)"4)##&##)0',+/&'- #03##++0#.-.#+0),+6'!0*')400!&*#+004)#+",1+%
"1)0*,0',+#%1)0',+
&#/#/+"'//#.00',+/
&00-/'.)' ..4'))'+,'//00##"1#0"
&'/&#/'/'/ .,1%&00,4,1$,.$.##+",-#+!!#// 4##/#.!&+"#00&/ ##+!!#-0#"$,.
'+!)1/',+'+&#/#/+"'//#.00',+/ 4+10&,.'5#""*'+'/0.0,.,$##/#.!&+"#0,.*,.#
'+$,.*0',+-)#/#!,+0!0#')/01#"1
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT, FAMILY
ATTACHMENT STYLE, AND YOUNG ADULT EMOTION
REGULATION
KAYLEE C. ENEVOLD
75 Pages
The purpose of the current study was to explore the relationship between interparental
conflict, family attachment style, and young adult emotion regulation. Family attachment anxiety
and avoidance (i.e., mother, father, and sibling) were expected to moderate the relationship
between interparental conflict and young adult emotion regulation, such that better quality of
mother, father, and sibling attachment anxiety and avoidance would indicate a weaker
association between interparental conflict and difficulties in emotion regulation. There were 397
individuals from Illinois State University aged 18 to 22 who participated in the online survey.
Three hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to determine if the six family
attachment variables were moderators for interparental conflict and young adult emotion
regulation. Only sibling attachment avoidance was found to be a moderator since it was the only
construct to have a significant interaction with interparental conflict. Looking at the simple
slopes, a higher level of sibling attachment avoidance was found to have a weaker association
between interparental conflict and difficulties in emotion regulation. The results of the current
study were unexpected and should be replicated before being considered valid. Limitations and
future direction were also discussed.
KEYWORDS: Interparental conflict, Attachment, Emotion Regulation, Sibling
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT, FAMILY
ATTACHMENT STYLE, AND YOUNG ADULT EMOTION
REGULATION
KAYLEE C. ENEVOLD
A Thesis Submitted in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Psychology
ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY
2022
© 2022 Kaylee C. Enevold
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT, FAMILY
ATTACHMENT STYLE, AND YOUNG ADULT EMOTION
REGULATION
KAYLEE C. ENEVOLD
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Marla Reese-Weber, Chair
Jeffrey Kahn
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to my committee chair, Dr. Marla Reese-Weber, for her instruction, support,
and knowledge throughout the entire process of this study. The current project would truly not
have been possible without her guidance and expertise. Dr. Jeffrey Kahn was also an invaluable
asset to this project. I want to thank him specifically for his assistance with the results section but
also for his general assistance whenever needed. Finally, I would also like to thank my friends
and colleagues, Emma Harris and Fabio Setti for their constant support and encouragement
throughout the entire project.
K. C. E.
ii
CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i
TABLES iv
FIGURES v
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 2
Interparental Conflict 2
Interparental Conflict Dimensions 2
Perceptions of Interparental Conflict 6
Attachment 8
Infant and Adult Attachment 8
Attachment Relationship with Siblings 15
Attachment Relationship and Interparental Conflict 18
Emotion Regulation 21
Current Study 22
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 28
Participants 28
Measures 32
Demographics 32
Interparental Conflict 32
Attachment Style across Relationships 33
Emotion Regulation 34
iii
Procedure 35
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS 37
Preliminary Analysis 37
Main Analyses 42
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION 51
Limitations and Future Directions 57
Strengths and Conclusions 61
REFERENCES 62
APPENDIX A: CHILDREN’S PERCEPTION OF INTERPARENTAL
CONFLICT SCALE (CPIC) 70
APPENDIX B: EXPERIENCES IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS –
RELATIONSHIP STRUCTURES (ECR-RS) 72
APPENDIX C: DIFFICULTIES IN EMOTION REGUALTION SCALE (DERS) 74
iv
TABLES
Table Page
1. van Eldik et al.'s Effect Sizes for Child outcomes Across Interparental
Conflict Dimensions 6
2. Participant Demographic Frequencies 30
3. Frequencies for Participants Living Without Either Parent 31
4. Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations Among Constructs (N = 397) 38
5. ANOVA Descriptives With Sibling Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance as
Dependent Variables 39
6. Variance-Covariance Matrix of Indicator and Measured Variables 44
7. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Difficulties in Emotion
Regulation from Interparental Conflict and Mother Attachment 46
8. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Difficulties in Emotion
Regulation from Interparental Conflict and Father Attachment 47
9. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Difficulties in Emotion
Regulation from Interparental Conflict and Sibling Attachment 48
v
FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Bartholomew’s Four Adult Attachment Style Categories 14
2. Kriss et al.’s Four Categories of Sibling Relationships 17
3. A Model of Mother Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance Moderating
Interparental Conflict and Young Adult Difficulties in Emotion Regulation 25
4. A Model of Father Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance Moderating
Interparental Conflict and Young Adult Difficulties in Emotion Regulation 26
5. A Model of Sibling Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance Moderating
Interparental Conflict and Young Adult Difficulties in Emotion Regulation 27
6. Mean Scores of Sibling Attachment Anxiety Using Participant Gender
and Sibling Gender 40
7. Mean Scores of Sibling Attachment Avoidance Using Participant Gender
and Sibling Gender 41
8. Factor Loadings and Random Error of Latent Variables 45
9. Simple Slopes for the Moderation Effects of Sibling Attachment Avoidance
between Interparental Conflict and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation 50
1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Child adjustment has been recognized to be impacted by parental interactions. Research
indicates that destructive interparental conflict can negatively impact a child’s adjustment
emotionally, behaviorally, and physiologically (Zemp et al., 2016). Interparental conflict is
inevitable in any relationship but is a problem for children when it becomes destructive.
Interparental conflict is considered destructive when it is frequent, verbally or nonverbally
hostile, unresolved, and when the offspring’s perceptions of the interparental conflict is negative
(Zemp et al., 2016). Adults have also been found to have adjustment problems from the exposure
of interparental conflict. Individuals have reported having high levels of distress and
internalizing problems, less satisfaction in life, and higher levels of anxiety and depression
(Kumar & Mattanah, 2018).
Attachment style has also been linked to interparental conflict because interparental
conflict can impact the relationship between a child and parent. If a child perceives a change in
caregiving, the attachment to that caregiver can be altered (Faber & Wittenborn, 2010).
However, attachment can also play a role in how a child perceives the interparental conflict and
in turn moderates the effects of destructive interparental conflict on adjustment (Camisasca et al.,
2017; El-Sheikh & Elmore-Staton, 2004). Therefore, the current study examined whether family
attachment moderates the relationship between interparental conflict and a type of young adult
emotional adjustment called emotion regulation.
2
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
Interparental Conflict
Children from divorced families are more likely to exhibit behavioral and emotional
problems, lower social competence and self-esteem, less socially responsible behavior, and
poorer academic achievement (Faber & Wittenborn, 2010). Divorce has been found to have a
plethora of adverse effects on a child’s adjustment, but interparental conflict may be the specific
process that explains this connection (Faber & Wittenborn, 2010). Ross and Fuertes (2010) state
that there is empirical evidence supporting the notion that late adolescent’s perceptions of
interparental conflict during childhood is linked to their emotional adjustment. Therefore,
interparental conflict should be investigated further to determine its relationship with young adult
adjustment.
Interparental conflict is defined by Ross and Fuertes (2010) as “oppositional behavior
between parental figures that acts as a stressor leading to an attempt by the child or adolescent
within the family system to understand and cope with the conflict” (p. 1052). There are two
common features of interparental conflict including (1) dimensions of interparental conflict and
(2) an individual’s perception of the interparental conflict. Research has indicated four prominent
dimensions of interparental conflict: conflict frequency, hostile interparental conflict,
constructive interparental conflict, and child-related conflict (van Eldik et al., 2020). Research
has also indicated two perceptions of interparental conflict include the appraisals of threat and
self-blame (Grych et al., 2000).
Interparental Conflict Dimensions
There are four prominent interparental conflict dimensions that have been found to play
an important role in child and adult outcomes, which are conflict frequency, hostile interparental
3
conflict, constructive interparental conflict, and child-related conflict. Evidence consistently
indicates a relationship between the four interparental conflict dimensions and the child
outcomes of externalizing behavior, internalizing behavior, emotional response, and cognitive
appraisals. Externalizing problems consist of an individual acting negatively on the external
world, which is shown through behaviors such as aggression and delinquency (van Eldik et al.,
2020). Internalizing problems affect an individual’s internal psychological environment, which is
captured through constructs such as anxiety and depression (van Eldik et al., 2020). The
emotional response of an individual is thought to be negatively impacted following interparental
conflict. More specifically, interparental conflict is thought to elevate levels of distress and
emotional dysregulation (van Eldik et al., 2020). Finally, cognitive appraisals consist of the
interpretation of the interparental conflict and family functioning due to interparental conflict.
Cognitive appraisals can be thought of as internal representations of interparental relations (van
Eldik et al., 2020).
van Eldik et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis to examine the connection between
interparental conflict and child adjustment problems by utilizing the four interparental conflict
dimensions (i.e., conflict frequency, hostile interparental conflict, constructive interparental
conflict, and child-related conflict) as predictors of various child outcomes. The authors found
that all four interparental conflict dimensions had average effect sizes that were significantly
different from zero within externalizing behavior and internalizing behavior. The emotional
response and cognitive appraisals categories only had studies that included conflict frequency,
hostile interparental conflict, and constructive interparental conflict dimensions. All three of
these dimensions were found to have average effect sizes significantly different than zero for
both emotional response and cognitive appraisals. The combination of these results and the
4
results of numerous other studies provide evidence for various relationships between the four
interparental conflict dimensions and the four individual outcome types.
Conflict frequency refers to how often parents have conflicts or disagreements (van Eldik
et al., 2020). van Eldik et al. (2020) found that conflict frequency had small, but significant
effect sizes for all four child outcomes: externalizing behavior, internalizing behavior, emotional
response, and cognitive appraisals. The effect sizes ranged from .17 to .25. In another study, El-
Sheikh (2005) suggested that children express higher emotional reactions when they witness
frequent interparental conflict. Additionally, Harold and Sellers (2018) described frequent
interparental conflict as destructive continua for cognitive and emotional processing. Cusimano
and Riggs (2013) conducted a study with undergraduate students to analyze the relationship
between perceived interparental conflict in childhood and adult psychological distress. The
findings indicated that frequent interparental conflict was significantly related to phobic anxiety.
Hostile interparental conflict refers to the amount of intense forms of nonverbal and
verbal expressions of anger during interparental conflict (van Eldik et al., 2020). In van Eldik et
al.’s study, hostile interparental conflict had small significant effect sizes for all four child
outcomes ranging from .14 to .20. Other research indicated that children who witness intense
interparental conflict obtain damage to their cognitive and emotional processing (Harold &
Sellers, 2018) and express higher emotional reactions (El-Sheikh, 2005). Using an adult sample,
intense interparental conflict was found to be significantly related to phobic anxiety (Cusimano
& Riggs, 2013). Richardson and McCabe (2001) analyzed the relationship between perceived
verbal interparental conflict during adolescence and current adult adjustment. Verbal
interparental conflict was found to be significantly negatively correlated with life satisfaction and
global self-concept, while being significantly positively associated with anxiety (Richardson &
5
McCabe, 2001). The authors also found that higher levels of verbal interparental conflict
predicted lower levels of life satisfaction and global self-concept, and higher levels of anxiety.
Constructive interparental conflict refers to the amount of positive tactics used when
handling disagreements, which usually results in a resolution (van Eldik et al., 2020). In van
Eldik et al.’s study, all four child functioning outcomes had small, significant effect sizes that
ranged from .12 to .20. In another study, resolved interparental conflict was found to be
significantly related to phobic anxiety with an adult sample (Cusimano & Riggs, 2013). In a
review of the literature, Harold and Sellers (2018) also indicated that cognitive and emotional
processing is harmed by poorly resolved interparental conflict. Another study conducted by Silva
et al. (2016) used a sample of Portuguese adolescents ranging from 10 to 16 years-old to
examine emotional insecurity in the context of dimensions of interparental conflict (i.e.,
frequency, intensity, and resolution). The study found that the combination of these dimensions
of interparental conflict significantly predicted emotional reactivity and emotional withdrawal
(Silva et al., 2016).
Child-related conflict refers to the extent to which parents have disagreements concerning
their children (van Eldik et al., 2020). In van Eldik et al.’s study, child-related conflict was only
analyzed for externalizing and internalizing behavior, and both were found to have significant
effect sizes of .27 and .19, respectively. Additionally, Harold and Sellers (2018) suggested child-
related interparental conflict is destructive to both cognitive and emotional processing.
The literature indicates that conflict frequency, hostile interparental conflict, constructive
interparental conflict, and child-related conflict are all associated with the four child outcomes:
externalizing behavior, internalizing behavior, emotional response, and cognitive appraisals.
Table 1 provides an overview of van Eldik et al.’s meta-analysis findings. Across all evidence
6
provided, conflict frequency compared to the other dimensions had the most consistent
association with all four child outcomes, but the other three dimensions still contributed to the
other dimensions in a valuable way.
Table 1
van Eldik et al.'s Effect Sizes for Child outcomes Across Interparental Conflict Dimensions
Interparental Conflict Dimension
Child Outcome Type
Conflict
Frequency
Hostile
Interparental
Conflict
Constructive
Interparental
Conflict
Child-
Related
Conflict
Externalizing
behavior
*
*
*
**
Internalizing behavior
*
*
*
*
Emotional response
**
*
*
Cognitive appraisals
**
**
**
Note. * = lower effect size (0.12 - 0.19) and ** = stronger effect size (0.20 - 0.27).
Perceptions of Interparental Conflict
There have also been studies which focus solely on the relationship between an
individual’s perceptions or appraisals of interparental conflict and adjustment. The cognitive-
contextual framework suggests a child’s perception of threat and self-blame within the conflict
are particularly important for future adjustment (Grych et al., 2000) because an individual’s
appraisals of interparental conflict provide the evaluation and meaning towards their own well-
being with respect to the interparental conflict (Kim et al., 2008). Therefore, appraisals of
interparental conflict can offer an explanation of why or how interparental conflict dimensions
and child adjustment are linked (Kim et al., 2008). Perceived threat is thought of as the personal
7
relevance of the conflict and categorizes the emotional intensity (Grych et al., 2000). Therefore,
a child who perceives interparental conflict as harmful to themselves or any family member is
expected to be more distressed than a child who does not view interparental conflict as
threatening (Grych et al., 2000). Perceived self-blame is described as viewing the cause of the
interparental conflict to be the child themselves (Grych et al., 2000). Children who blame the
interparental conflict on themselves are more likely to feel shame and guilt, which can ultimately
lead to adverse effects for the child (Grych et al., 2000).
In a study done by Grych et al. (2000), the researchers used a sample of 10- to 14-year-
olds to examine whether perceived threat and self-blame mediated the relationship between
dimensions of interparental conflict (i.e., frequency, intensity, and resolution) and child
outcomes. The findings suggested that perceived threat was a mediator for internalizing
problems, but not for externalizing problems (Grych et al., 2000). Self-blame was found to be a
mediator for internalizing problems with boys but not girls and was not a significant mediator for
externalizing behaviors for boys or girls (Grych et al., 2000). DeBoard-Lucas et al. (2010) also
investigated how appraisals of threat and self-blame might be mediators of dimensions of
interparental conflict (i.e., frequency, intensity, and resolution) and child adjustment. The
findings revealed that these dimensions of interparental conflict strongly, positively predicted
perceived threat, and threat predicted internalizing problems (DeBoard-Lucas et al., 2010).
Additionally, these dimensions of interparental conflict moderately, positively predicted self-
blame, and self-blame predicted both externalizing problems and internalizing problems.
Another study conducted by Beuhler et al. (2007) utilized a sample of adolescents with a
longitudinal design. The authors analyzed the relationships between marital hostility, emotional
responses, appraisals of threat and self-blame, externalizing behavior, and internalizing behavior.
8
Results suggested that adolescent appraisals of threat and self-blame mediated the relationship
between marital hostility and externalizing behavior, and the appraisal of self-blame mediated
the relationship between marital hostility and internalizing behavior. The results also indicated
that the appraisals of threat and self-blame were significantly positively correlated to emotional
dysregulation.
The effects of perceived threat and self-blame were not only prevalent in childhood but
also in adulthood. Keeports and Pittman (2017) explored the relationship between appraisals of
threat and self-blame, dimensions of interparental conflict (i.e., frequency, intensity, and
resolution), and internalizing problems for young adults. The researchers found that threat and
self-blame were significantly correlated to both the dimensions of interparental conflict and
anxiety (Keeports & Pittman, 2017). Cusimano and Riggs (2013) found in their study that
perceived threat of interparental conflict was related to anxiety, hostility, and somatization in
adulthood.
Evidence across multiple studies supported the notion that many aspects of interparental
conflict were related to externalizing behavior, internalizing behavior, emotional response, and
cognitive appraisals for children, adolescents, and adults. However, the relationship between
interparental conflict and individual outcomes could possibly be modified by family relations,
more specifically, attachment.
Attachment
Infant and Adult Attachment
Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982) describes how the relationship between a caregiver
and infant can shape the infant’s future personality and relationships with others. More
specifically, the concept of attachment was proposed to explain the bond between an infant and a
9
caregiver. An infant remains physically close to an individual who can provide protection, and
this person is often referred to as an attachment figure (Bowlby, 1982). Initially, Bowlby
suggested that individuals usually have an attachment bond with one person (i.e., mother) but
can still show attachment behavior to others (Bowlby, 1982). Later, research indicated that
infants and children form multiple attachment bonds with multiple people (Doherty & Feeney,
2004).
The main feature of attachment theory can be explained by the attachment behavioral
system, which is organized by an individual’s internal working model of the self and the world
around them (Cassidy et al., 2013). Repeated interactions between a caregiver and an infant
within the first year of the infant’s life are the building blocks to develop an individual’s internal
working model (Faber & Wittenborn, 2010). An internal working model allows an individual to
generalize their experiences in infancy to how others will behave and perceive the individual
later in life. Therefore, the experiences an infant has with their caregiver have a lasting effect on
an individual’s perceptions of the self and others.
The generalizations an infant holds by means of the internal working model are
representations of secure base support in the attachment system (Waters et al., 2015). A
caregiver can provide a secure base for an infant by providing protection and a sense of comfort
when an infant perceives a threat. However, infants do not always have the same experience with
a secure base, and this can ultimately shape an individual’s attachment type (i.e., secure and
insecure) (Collins & Feeney, 2000). For example, a child with a secure attachment can use a
caregiver (i.e., mother) to feel secure throughout their environment (Cassidy et al., 2013). If a
child is exploring and feels threatened by another person or object, he or she will seek out an
adult to gain a sense of comfort and will reach a sense of security after being comforted. Then,
10
the child is free to explore their environment once again knowing the caregiver is available when
needed (Waters & Waters, 2006). A caregiver who has close proximity to the child is most
beneficial because he or she is more accessible to the child. This sense of security creates an
internal working model that represents a secure attachment and allows a person to have a
positive perception of the self and others (Zeanah & Anders, 1987). An individual with an
insecure attachment will experience inconsistencies or an absence in the experience of a secure
base or being comforted during a threat (Cassidy et al., 2013; Waters & Waters, 2006). When the
child perceives a threat, their caregiver would not be accessible to the child or would not comfort
the child when accessible. This experience shapes an individual’s internal working model that
represents an insecure attachment, which means that individual will have a negative perception
of the self and/or others (Zeanah & Anders, 1987). Secure and insecure attachment describe the
overarching difference in security felt by children with beneficial and unbeneficial experiences
of a secure base, but insecure attachment can take several forms.
Ainsworth and colleagues (1978) define three attachment styles during infancy including
secure, anxious-resistant, and anxious-avoidant. Ainsworth utilized the Strange Situations to
analyze the behavior of infants during the separation of a caregiver and being reunited with that
same caregiver. The majority of infants were found to display similar behaviors, which
Ainsworth categorized as secure attachment. Secure attachment involves an infant wanting close
proximity to a caregiver. When separated from a caregiver, the infants showed distress and
sought out the caregiver. During the reunion, the infants actively sought contact and were easily
comforted by the caregiver (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Later studies indicated a secure attachment
style is associated with a caregiver who is sensitive and responsive to their child (Faber &
Wittenborn, 2010). Another set of less commonly observed behaviors using the Strange Situation
11
was categorized as anxious-resistant attachment, which is one type of insecure attachment.
During the separation of a caregiver, the infants displayed extreme distress and seemed angry at
the caregiver when reunited. The infants often showed a mixture of resisting contact and wanting
proximity to the caregiver, and when contact was made, it was difficult to comfort the infant
(Ainsworth et al., 1978). Infants who displayed anxious-resistant attachment tended to have
parents who were inconsistent in their response to the infant’s needs (Faber & Wittenborn,
2010). Finally, Ainsworth categorized the smallest grouping of infants as anxious-avoidant
attachment, which is another type of insecure attachment. An anxious-avoidant infant showed
little distress when separated from a caregiver. When reunited with the caregiver, the infants
avoided interaction and showed no sign of resistance or wanting to be comforted when contact
was made with the caregiver (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Infants who displayed anxious-avoidant
attachment tended to have parents who neglected their child’s needs (Faber & Wittenborn,
2010).
There is another subgroup of insecure attachment which was later established by Main
and Solomon (1986) called disorganized attachment (Duschinsky, 2015). The disorganized
attachment style included a few infants who could not be classified using Ainsworth’s three
categories. The infants in this grouping briefly displayed strange behaviors including fear of the
caregiver, contradictory behaviors, jerky movements, freezing, and apparent dissociation
(Duschinsky, 2015). Disorganized attachment is related to abusive or neglectful parenting which
are frightening to the child (Duschinsky, 2015).
Contrary to the established categorical measurements of attachment style, recent research
has indicated that attachment should not be measured categorically, but dimensionally.
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation set the standard for attachment to be measured categorically (i.e.,
12
secure, anxious-resistant, anxious-avoidant), but these categories were created using
continuously scaled behavioral ratings (Fraley & Spieker, 2003). Fraley and Spieker (2003)
sought to answer the question of whether infant attachment is better represented continuously or
categorically. Utilizing the Strange Situation procedure, Fraley and Spieker (2003) found that
data were most consistent with a dimensional framework rather than a categorial one. Fraley and
Spieker (2003) then suggested a two-dimensional framework to represent the continuum of
security where the dimensions include (1) Proximity-Seeking Versus Avoidant Strategies and (2)
Angry and Resistant Strategies. The Proximity-Seeking Versus Avoidant Strategies refer to the
degree of an infant’s goal to seek proximity to a caregiver (Fraley & Spieker, 2003), which is
referred to as attachment avoidance. Individuals who score high in the attachment avoidance
dimension after infancy typically feel uncomfortable with emotional closeness and are more self-
reliant. Through early interactions with caregivers, these individuals have learned to deactivate
the attachment system to avoid distress because a caregiver is unavailable (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2016). The Angry and Resistant Strategies refer to the amount of anger displayed toward the
caregiver (Fraley & Spieker, 2003), which is referred to as attachment anxiety. Individuals who
score high in the attachment anxiety dimension after infancy typically want a strong emotional
closeness and worry about their own value in the eyes of the attachment figure. These individuals
have learned to hyperactivate the attachment system to increase proximity seeking attempts
because an attachment figure is unreliably responsive (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). The
dimensions have similar qualities to Ainsworth’s categories, but individuals can fall anywhere on
a continuum within the two dimensions rather than placed in a restrictive category to define their
unique attachment style.
13
Infants and children are not the only ones who experience attachment. Research has
indicated that adults show attachment related behavior and desires as well (i.e., proximity
seeking, safe haven, and secure base) (Doherty & Feeney, 2004). An adult attachment figure is
most often thought of as a romantic partner but can also be a parent or a sibling. Attachment to a
parent in adulthood, however, is different than in infancy. During adulthood, attachment to a
parent evolves from an adult-child relationship to an adult-adult relationship with mutual support
provided by both parties. An individual, especially a young adult, still relies on a parent in
certain situations, but not in every situation. In some cases, parents can be replaced as a
prominent attachment figure by another important relationship such as a sibling who can provide
closeness, security, and comfort (Doherty & Freeney, 2004). Adults, just like infants, commonly
have multiple attachment bonds. On average, adults can have 5.38 attachment bonds (Trinke &
Bartholomew, 1997). Therefore, an adult could potentially have an attachment bond with each
parent and multiple siblings. However, the strength of each bond is not equal, and one bond is
usually relied on the most (Doherty & Freeney, 2004).
Not only do adults show similar attachment behaviors as infants and children, but they
also have similar attachment styles. Attachment styles tend to carry over into adulthood (due to
the internal working model) and affect later interpersonal relationships. Bartholomew and
Horowitz (1991) described adult attachment based on four categories including secure,
preoccupied, dismissing, and fearful. These categories are based on the perception of the self and
others in the internal working model. Thus, there can be a positive or negative perspective for
both the self and others, which is developed from an individual’s internal working model. For
example, an individual who has a positive perspective of both the self and others would be
considered secure. Figure 1 displays the stipulations for each category based on the internal
14
working model. However, adult attachment is now most often measured dimensionally rather
than categorically for the same reasons as infant attachment. The present research made use of
the two dimensional measurement to capture attachment style of individuals because differences
need to be distinguished across relationships with the individual.
Figure 1
Bartholomew’s Four Adult Attachment Style Categories
Note. Bartholomew’s adult attachment categories are based on the positive and negative
perception of the self and others (internal working model).
Adult attachment style can then influence the relationships of those around them (i.e.,
family members). More specifically, an individual’s communication and emotional expression
can be influenced by attachment style (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012). A person with a secure
attachment style is more likely to have open communication, whereas a person with an insecure
attachment struggles to maintain open conversation (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012). Individuals
15
with insecure attachment are also more likely to foster poor emotional expression. Those with a
negative sense of others (i.e., dismissing and fearful) do not seek out emotional closeness with
others; rather, these individuals are more prone to emotionally distancing themselves from
others. Therefore, these individuals do not encourage affection in relationships and are less likely
to disclose personal information. Those with a negative sense of the self (i.e., preoccupied and
fearful) tend to focus on their own emotional state compared to another person’s emotional state
because of their insecurities and anxiety towards themselves. Thus, these individuals have no
issue disclosing information to a person, but they have difficulty accepting the information
disclosed from others; making satisfaction in a relationship difficult (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2012). Securely attached individuals tend to have better emotional expression and more open
communication because their beliefs about conflict and conflict resolution have been shaped in a
positive way (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012). Overall, adults with a secure attachment tend to have
greater satisfaction in their relationships whereas people with an insecure attachment tend to feel
undervalued by significant people in their lives (Safyer et al., 2019).
Attachment Relationship with Siblings
Most studies concerning siblings and attachment consider the individual attachment
styles of each sibling toward their mother. There is little research about how a sibling can be an
attachment figure for another sibling during emerging adulthood. Kriss et al. (2014) suggest that
the relationship between siblings is fostered by how a sibling fits into the other sibling’s internal
working model of self, and how the internal working model of others is created by individual
parent-child interactions for each sibling. Furthermore, Kriss et al. (2014) suggested four
categories of sibling relationships based on this theory, which include bonded, competitive,
distant, and hostile. Bonded siblings have the same conceptualizations of the self and others
16
within their internal working model. In other words, the siblings can see themselves in the other
sibling, and their parents have similar interactions with both siblings. Siblings who share a
similar environment and parent interactions throughout their childhood can foster a sense of
relatability between each other, which ultimately can lead to a unique bond between the siblings
that can be warm and supportive (Kriss et al., 2014). However, there are siblings that do not form
this bond because their sense of self and others are not aligned. For example, a sibling who feels
they were treated differently by a parent compared to another sibling may not have a similar
conceptualization of others as their sibling. This difference in perception of others may foster
competition with that sibling (Kriss et al., 2014). Another suggested category of sibling
relationship style is distant. Siblings who cannot recognize themselves in another sibling may not
have a similar conceptualization of the self as their sibling. Thus, a sibling may feel distant from
the other sibling (Kriss et al., 2014). Finally, siblings who do not conceptualize both the self and
others similarly are suggested to have a hostile relationship where a sibling harbors feelings of
hostility towards the other sibling (Kriss et al., 2014). Figure 2 provides the categorization of
sibling relationships based on the internal working model. The relationship styles suggested by
Kriss et al. (2014) seem to reflect the four adult attachment styles. For example, a sibling who
feels bonded to another sibling may reflect a secure attachment style, and a sibling who feels
hostile toward another sibling may reflect a fearful attachment style.
17
Figure 2
Kriss et al.’s Four Categories of Sibling Relationships
Note. The sibling categories are defined by similar or dissimilar perceptions of the self and others
between two siblings.
There are also some sibling characteristics that can increase or decrease the likelihood of
a sibling serving as an attachment figure. For example, older aged adult siblings tend to feel less
attached to a sibling compared to younger-aged siblings (Fraley & Tancredy, 2012). Thus, an
individual who is 65 might feel less attached to a sibling compared to an individual who is 20. A
possible explanation is that older adults may rely on others as a secure base (i.e., spouse) as
compared to younger less established adults. Another study found that the quality of attachment
is higher for same-sex relationships (Buist et al., 2002). For example, a female sibling is more
18
likely to have a secure attachment to another female sibling compared to a female sibling and her
male sibling.
Attachment Relationship and Interparental Conflict
Bowlby describes attachment as a relatively stable force in an individual’s life. However,
attachment style can be modified when large changes in an individual’s environment occur.
Divorce can be a huge lifestyle change for a child, and therefore, can affect attachment. For
example, a parent experiencing the dissolution of their marriage may be unable to provide
emotional support or be as responsive to their child’s needs prior to the divorce. Persistence in
this changed parenting style could cause a child to modify their internal working model to reflect
a negative perspective of the self and others. The changes in parenting style can take many forms
such as investing less time, showing less affection, implementing fewer rules, dispensing harsher
discipline, providing less supervision, and engaging in more conflict (Faber & Wittenborn,
2010). Any of these changes in parenting style can have a negative effect on children’s
attachment.
Research has indicated that children from divorced families are more likely to have an
insecure attachment compared to children from nondivorced families (Faber & Wittenborn,
2010). Child attachment has also been linked to interparental conflict before, during, and
following a divorce. One study found that greater levels of interparental conflict predicted an
insecure attachment for a child during infancy (Laurent et al., 2008). The authors explain the
finding by suggesting that interparental conflict could possibly impact a child’s view of a parent
as a secure base. If a child is not receiving sensitive and responsive parenting due to high levels
of interparental conflict (Laurent et al., 2008), the perspective of their parent and ultimately of
others in their internal working model could change. Additionally, Davies and Cummings (1994)
19
indicated that interparental conflict predicts an insecure attachment between a child and parent.
Thus, interparental conflict seems to be a possible factor underlying divorce that could increase
the likelihood of children developing an insecure attachment.
There is also evidence that suggests attachment can influence an individual’s perspective
on destructive interparental conflict. Camisasca et al. (2017) conducted a study to analyze how
interparental conflict, attachment style, and coping skills interact. Children between the ages of 8
and 11 and their parents completed a series of questionnaires and interviews for this study. The
children provided self-reports regarding interparental conflict, distress, coping strategies, coping
efficacy, and internal working models of attachment, and the parents provided self-reports of
interparental conflict. Securely attached children were found to utilize more effective coping
strategies compared to insecurely attached children (Camisasca et al., 2017). The authors
suggested that securely attached children were more likely to believe their caregivers were
willing to listen to and protect them, which made the children better equipped at using effective
coping strategies such as support seeking (Camisasca et al., 2017). The researchers also found
that children with anxious-avoidant attachment utilized distraction and avoidance coping
strategies when distressed by interparental conflict. The authors suggested this finding was due
to children with this attachment style being more likely to assume that their parents were
unavailable to listen and protect them. A study conducted by Gloger-Tippelt and Konig (2007)
found anxious-avoidant attachment to be more common for children from divorced families
compared to anxious-resistance attachment. Later, Faber and Wittenborn (2010) suggested that
the reason anxious-avoidant attachment is more common may be because it can be used as a
protective factor for the child and can even relieve some caregiving responsibilities for the
parents. However, Camisasca et al. suggested that the coping strategies seen in anxious-avoidant
20
children can be beneficial in the short-term, but not long-term. Camisasca et al. also found that
children with an anxious-resistant attachment used a variety of coping strategies, but seeking
support for their feelings was not one of those strategies. The authors assumed this finding
occurred because anxious-resistant attached children tend to have experience with a caregiver
providing little sensitivity and inconsistent reactions to distress, which could be a reason why
these children do not find it useful to seek out support from their caregiver (Camisasca et al.,
2017). This study has implications that interparental conflict not only impacts attachment style,
but attachment style could be a moderator between interparental conflict and negative outcomes
There is very limited research including the moderating effects of family attachment on
the relationship between interparental conflict and both emotional response and cognitive
appraisals, but there is one study that found evidence of attachment moderating the effects of
interparental conflict on externalizing and internalizing problems. El-Sheikh and Elmore-Staton
(2004) found results suggesting mother and father attachment are moderators for perceived
interparental conflict and child adjustment including internalizing and externalizing problems. A
more secure child-father attachment suggested a weaker relationship between interparental
conflict and externalizing problems compared to a less secure child-father attachment (El-Sheikh
& Elmore-Staton, 2004). Only mother attachment had significant moderation effects between
interparental conflict and child reported internalizing problems (El-Sheikh & Elmore-Staton,
2004). Results showed that a more secure child-mother attachment suggested an extremely weak
relationship between interparental conflict and internalizing problems, and a less secure child-
mother attachment indicated a much stronger relationship between interparental conflict and
internalizing problems (El-Sheikh & Elmore-Staton, 2004). Therefore, secure father attachment
may decrease the effect of interparental conflict on externalizing problems, and secure mother
21
attachment may decrease the effect of interparental conflict on internalizing problems for
children.
Externalizing and internalizing behaviors have been researched quite extensively, but
these are not the only contributing factors to an individual’s adjustment. Emotional response is
another important facet in adjustment and seems to be consistently affected by interparental
conflict since interparental conflict is thought to initiate emotional distress and dysregulation of a
child.
Emotion Regulation
van Eldik et al. (2020) described emotional responses to interparental conflict as an
individual’s emotional reactivity by ways of anger, sadness, fear, or intense, prolonged, and
dysregulated distress. Since the definition of emotional response is so broad and complex, this
study sought to analyze one component of it, that being emotion regulation (Thompson, 1994).
According to Gratz and Roemer (2004), emotion regulation should be conceptualized by the
awareness, understanding, and acceptance of emotions; when negative emotions arise,
controlling impulsive behaviors and behaving in conjunction with specified goals; and using
appropriate emotion regulation strategies to meet desired goals. With this framework in mind,
Thompson (1994) defines emotion regulation as “extrinsic and intrinsic processes responsible for
monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions, especially their intensive and
temporal features, to accomplish one’s goals” (pp. 27-28).
Emotion regulation contributes to an individual’s overall adjustment and functioning.
Healthy emotion regulation can aid an individual in utilizing emotion for adaptive, organized
behavioral strategies (Thompson, 1994). These behavioral strategies can take the form of
effective social strategies, successful cognitive performance in tasks involving delay, inhibition,
22
or long-term goals, and management of stressful experiences at home (Thompson, 1994).
However, dysregulation of emotions has been suggested to be linked to poor individual
functioning such as emotional and behavioral problems (Morris et al., 2007) and
psychopathological problems including anxiety, aggressive behavior, and eating pathology
(McLaughlin et al., 2011). Therefore, emotion regulation and what contributes to the
dysregulation of emotions are important constructs to study.
Interparental conflict could be a contributing factor to the difficulties in an individual’s
emotion regulation. Research has indicated that children who experience destructive
interparental conflict demonstrated more difficulty controlling negative affect, and interparental
conflict predicted emotion regulation a year later (Gong & Paulson, 2017). Another contributing
factor to the difficulties in emotion regulation pertain to family interactions. Morris et al. (2007)
suggested that emotion regulation is affected by the emotional climate of the family, which is
defined as the quality of attachment relationships, styles of parenting, family expressiveness, and
the emotional quality of the marital relationship. Past research also indicated that a more secure
attachment to a parent was related to better emotion regulation, and a more insecure attachment
to a parent was related to emotional expressive suppression and dysregulation (Gong & Paulson,
2017).
Current Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the relationship between interparental conflict,
family attachment, and young adult emotional adjustment. The examination of this relationship
could be beneficial in providing an understanding of protective factors against destructive
interparental conflict.
23
Research has indicated that secure father and mother attachment could be potential
protective factors for destructive interparental conflict (El-Sheikh & Elmore-Staton, 2004). A
secure attachment style could protect against interparental conflict since securely attached
children are less distressed by interparental conflict (Camisasca et al., 2017). Additionally, Grych
et al. (2004) found that adolescents more securely attached to their mothers perceived
interparental conflict as less threatening, and adolescents more securely attached to their fathers
predicted lower levels of self-blame. DeBoard-Lucas et al. (2010) also suggested that securely
attached individuals are more likely to develop better self-esteem and in turn reduce self-blame
within interparental conflict. Most research pertains to internalizing and externalizing problems,
which indicates a gap in the literature regarding attachment moderating the effects of
interparental conflict on emotional adjustment. The emotional security hypothesis is a well-
developed theory that suggests a child’s psychological state can be threatened by interparental
conflict (Davies & Cummings, 1994). The emotional security hypothesis also posits that the
emotional security of an individual can be enhanced or undermined by the relationship between a
child and parent (Davies et al., 2002), which provides implications that a secure attachment to a
parent could protect against the negative effects of interparental conflict on the emotional
adjustment of children, adolescents, and young adults. As mentioned before, there is very little
research regarding sibling attachment during emerging adulthood, but there has been research
that indicates adults can use siblings as another attachment figure (Doherty & Freeney, 2004).
Taken together, this research suggests that sibling attachment could also serve as a protective
factor for interparental conflict and emotional adjustment. Therefore, the current study assessed
whether mother, father, and sibling attachment can be protective factors against the relationship
between destructive interparental conflict and young adult emotional adjustment. Family
24
attachment consisted of attachment anxiety and avoidance levels for an individual’s mother,
father, and a sibling. Interparental conflict consisted of three categories: conflict properties
(frequency, intensity, resolution), threat, and self-blame (including the content of the conflict).
Difficulties in emotion regulation was used in the current study to examine the emotional
adjustment of young adults, which consisted of five categories: nonacceptance, strategies, goals,
clarity, and impulse. I proposed three moderation models, one analyzing mother attachment
anxiety and avoidance levels (Figure 3), the second analyzing father attachment anxiety and
avoidance levels (Figure 4), and the third analyzing sibling attachment anxiety and avoidance
levels (Figure 5).
Hypothesis 1: Mother attachment anxiety and avoidance will separately moderate the positively
correlated relationship between perceived interparental conflict and young adult difficulties in
emotion regulation. Therefore, individuals with low levels of mother attachment anxiety and
avoidance will have a weaker relationship between perceived interparental conflict and
difficulties in emotion regulation.
Hypothesis 2: Father attachment anxiety and avoidance will separately moderate the positively
correlated relationship between perceived interparental conflict and young adult difficulties in
emotion regulation. Therefore, individuals with low levels of father attachment anxiety and
avoidance will have a weaker relationship between perceived interparental conflict difficulties in
emotion regulation.
Hypothesis 3: Sibling attachment anxiety and avoidance will separately moderate the positively
correlated relationship between perceived interparental conflict and young adult difficulties in
emotion regulation. Therefore, individuals with low levels of sibling attachment anxiety and
25
avoidance will have a weaker relationship between perceived interparental conflict and
difficulties in emotion regulation.
Figure 3
A Model of Mother Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance Moderating Interparental Conflict and
Young Adult Difficulties in Emotion Regulation
26
Figure 4
A Model of Father Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance Moderating Interparental Conflict and
Young Adult Difficulties in Emotion Regulation
27
Figure 5
A Model of Sibling Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance Moderating Interparental Conflict and
Young Adult Difficulties in Emotion Regulation
28
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Participants
Individuals who were between 18 and 22 years of age were sampled from Illinois State
University. This age group represents a group of young adults who have recently left home,
which means these individuals had more recent direct contact with interparental conflict.
Recruitment efforts involved sending a mass email through Illinois State University inviting
them to participate. Participants were given the opportunity to enter a drawing for two $20
Amazon gift cards as compensation for participation. IRB approval and participant consent were
received prior to the start of the study. All participation in this study was voluntary.
There were 618 responses to the survey, but several responses were eliminated. There
were two people who did not give consent in the survey by responding “I am under 18 years of
age.” Individuals who gave this response were immediately taken to the end of the survey, so no
data were collected for these individuals. There were 19 individuals who were over the age of 22
and were eliminated. There were 161 individuals who did not answer at least one entire
questionnaire and were eliminated. There were only 30 individuals who had no biological, step,
or half sibling, but did have a sibling-like figure. There were also 9 individuals who did not have
either a sibling or sibling-like figure. Due to these small sample sizes, responses from these 39
individuals were removed. Overall, there were 221 individuals excluded from the dataset leaving
a sample size of 397 for data analyses.
The 397 participants reported a mean age of 19.50 (SD = 1.33). There were four
individuals who did not report their age. There were 74 (18.6%) participants who identified as a
man; there were 302 (76.1%) participants who identified as a woman; there were 19 (4.8%)
participants who identified as “other;” and there were 2 (4.8%) participants who preferred not to
29
answer. Of the 19 individuals who identified as “other,” written in responses included non-
binary, female, gender nonconforming, agender, genderfluid, trans, and questioning. A majority
of participants identified as White/Caucasian (80.9%), followed by Hispanic/Latino (6.3%),
Black/African American (3.8%), Asian American (3.5%), mixed ethnicity (3.5%), Middle
Eastern (0.5%), and other (1.0%). There were 2 (0.5%) participants who preferred not to disclose
their ethnic background.
Table 2 shows the frequencies for parent relationship, participant’s current living
arrangement, and participant birth order. Table 3 shows frequencies for the participants who do
not live with either parent. On average, participants had 2.23 siblings (SD = 1.57). The age,
gender and birth order for the participants’ target sibling was also analyzed. Target sibling age
ranged from 4 years to 36 years with a mean of 20.04 years (SD = 4.79). The difference in age of
the participant from the age of the target sibling ranged from 0 years to 17 years with a mean of
3.55 years (SD = 2.98). The gender of the target siblings consisted of 55.9% men, 42.3% women,
and 1.5% other. The majority of target siblings were born second in their family (50.1%),
followed by first born (28.2%), third born (11.3%), fourth born (4.3%), and beyond fourth born
(6.0%).
30
Table 2
Participant Demographic Frequencies
n
%
Parent
Relationship
Married
258
65.0%
Divorced
89
22.4%
Separated
14
3.5%
Never married
22
5.5%
Living
Arrangement
Lives with both parents
123
31.0%
Lives without either parent
124
31.2%
Lives with mother
54
13.6%
Lives with father
9
2.3%
Lives with parents at separate times
43
10.8%
Birth Order
First born
147
37.0%
Second born
132
33.2%
Third born
63
15.9%
Fourth born
27
7.1%
Higher than fourth born
28
6.8%
31
Table 3
Frequencies for Participants Living Without Either Parent
n
%
When did participant
move out?
Less than 3 months ago
70
56.5%
Three to 6 months ago
9
7.3%
Six to 9 months ago
1
0.8%
Nine to 12 months ago
5
4.0%
Over a year ago
39
31.5%
How often do you visit?
Almost every day
1
0.8%
3-4 times per week
2
1.6%
1-2 times per week
6
4.9%
3-4 times per month
17
13.8%
1-2 times per month
55
44.7%
Several times a year
27
22.0%
Only major holidays
9
7.3%
32
Measures
Demographics
The demographics questionnaire included the participant’s gender, age, ethnicity, birth
order, both parents’ education levels, parental relationship status, who the participant currently
lives with or lived with before the participant turned 18, and how many siblings the participant
has. Additionally, participants were asked if the participant had at least one sibling (biological,
step, or half). If the participant did have a sibling, participants answered specific questions about
one particular sibling who lived with them and is the closest in age to them (target sibling)
including age, gender, and birth order. If participants did not have a sibling, the participant was
asked if there was a sibling-like figure in their life (such as a cousin or neighbor who spent
substantial time in the participant’s home). If the participant did have a sibling-like figure,
participants answered specific questions about one particular sibling-like figure who is the
closest in age to them (target sibling-like figure) including age and gender.
Interparental Conflict
Interparental conflict was measured using 40 items of the Children’s Perception of
Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC; Grych et al., 1992). Due to a clerical error, one of the items
within the frequency subscale was missing on the survey. The CPIC has a three-factor scale with
seven subscales: Conflict Properties (frequency, intensity, and resolution), Threat (threat and
coping efficacy), and Self-Blame (content and self-blame). There were a total of 39 items with
18 items for Conflict Properties, 12 items for Threat to Self, and 9 items for Self-Blame. Items
were evaluated with a 3-point Likert-scale with responses of true, sort of true, and false
(Bickham & Fiese, 1997). Higher scores on the CPIC indicate higher levels of interparental
conflict. The CPIC was originally designed for children but has been assessed using a sample of
33
late adolescents ranging from 17 to 21 years old. The reliability of the CPIC with a late
adolescent sample was measured by analyzing internal consistency and test-retest methods. The
Cronbach’s alphas were found to be .95 for the Conflict Properties scale, .88 for the Perceived
Threat scale, and .85 for the Self-Blame scale. The Pearson correlation coefficients between a 2-
week period were found to be .95 for the Conflict Properties scale, .86 for the Perceived Threat
scale, and .81 for the Self-Blame scale (Bickham & Fiese, 1997). Additionally, Ross and Fuertes
(2010) found Cronbach’s alphas for a sample of adults whose ages ranged from 18 to 22 years-
old to be .94 (conflict properties), .83 (threat to self), and .79 (self-blame). The original CPIC
validity was supported by correlating it with parent reports of marital conflict (Ross & Fuertes,
2010). For this study, the total reliability for interparental conflict is .95. The Cronbach’s alpha
for the subscales were .94 (conflict properties), .87 (threat), and .85 (self-blame).
Attachment Style across Relationships
Attachment style for each family relationship type (i.e., mother, father, sibling) was
measured with a modified version of the Experiences in Close Relationships – Relationship
Structures questionnaire (ECR-RS; Fraley et al., 2011). The original ECR-RS measures
attachment style across four different relationships including mother, father, romantic partner,
and a best friend by utilizing the same 9 items for all relationships. The items are measured with
a 7-point Likert-scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree (Fraley et al., 2011).
For the current study, the ECR-RS was modified such that the best friend section was changed to
assess a sibling relationship, and the romantic partner section was eliminated. All three
relationship types (i.e., mother, father, sibling) were assessed at the same time across the 9 items,
rather than assessed separately in the original ECR–RS. Therefore, the 9 items were presented
only once with a mother, father, and sibling category within each item to be assessed. The ECR-
34
RS has consistently shown a two-factor structure with anxiety and avoidance as the factors,
which results in two separate scores of attachment anxiety and avoidance. The first 6 items in the
questionnaire measure an individual’s attachment avoidance, and the last 3 items measure
attachment anxiety. Higher scores on both factors of the ECR-RS indicate a higher levels of
bother attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. The ECR-RS was found to be reliable with
Cronbach’s alphas scores of .88 and .92 for mother, .90 and .90 for father, and .90 and .88 for a
close friend for the anxiety and avoidance factors respectively. Construct validity was measured
by comparing the ECR-RS to a depression scale and a measure of relationship quality and
functioning. Results were as expected, as measures of anxiety and avoidance positively
correlated with depressive symptoms and negatively correlated with commitment, satisfaction
alternatives, and investment pertaining to all four relationship types (Fraley et al., 2011). For this
study, the reliability of mother attachment avoidance was .90 and .87 for mother attachment
anxiety. The reliability of father attachment avoidance was .91 and .89 for father attachment
anxiety. The reliability of sibling attachment avoidance was .91 and .82 for sibling attachment
anxiety.
Emotion Regulation
Emotion regulation was measured using five of the subscales (i.e., non-acceptance, goals,
impulse, strategies, clarity) in the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz &
Roemer, 2004). All 36 items in the scale were included in the survey to maintain the scale’s
reliability, but since only five subscales were included in the data analysis, only 30 items were
used in the analysis. The DERS is a self-report questionnaire designed to measure emotional
dysregulation in adults. The five scales being utilized in this study measured an individual’s goal
directed behavior, understanding, acceptance, strategy use, and impulse control toward their
35
emotions. The items were measured on a 5-point Likert-scale where 1 = almost never and 5 =
almost always. Higher scores on the DERS indicate higher levels of dysfunctional emotion
regulation. One of the subscales (awareness) did not have high intercorrelations with the other
five subscales to create a latent variable. The awareness subscale in the DERS has significant and
nonsignificant intercorrelations ranging from .08 to .46, while the other five subscales had
significant intercorrelations ranging from .32 to .63 (Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Overall, the DERS
was found to have high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .93 (including the
awareness scale). The subscales of the DERS had Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .80 to .89,
where the lowest value represents the awareness factor, which is not included in this study.
Construct validity was examined by finding the correlations between the DERS and the Negative
Mood Regulation Scale (NMR), measures of experiential avoidance, and measures of emotional
expressivity. All correlations across the three comparison measurements and both the overall
DERS score and subscale scores resulted in the expected correlations. The DERS and both the
NMR and measures of emotional expressivity ranged from low to moderately strong negative
correlations, whereas the correlations between the DERS and measures of experiential avoidance
ranged from low to moderately strong positive correlations (Gratz & Roemer, 2004). For this
study, the total (five subscales) reliability for emotion regulation was .94. The Cronbach’s alpha
for the subscales were .90 (non-acceptance), .88 (goals), .86 (impulse), .90 (strategies), and .84
(clarity).
Procedure
Participants were recruited through Illinois State University’s email system. The email
asked for students between the ages of 18 and 22 to voluntarily participate in this study by
completing a 20-min survey pertaining to interparental conflict and their difficulties with
36
emotion regulation. All participants completed the online survey through Qualtrics after being
recruited. Before participants started the survey, the individuals were informed about the details
of the study, that participation in the survey was voluntary, and participation could be halted at
any point during the survey. All participants were asked to read an informed consent document
and agree to participation of the study. The participants then completed the survey, which
included the demographics questionnaire, the entire Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, the
Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale, and the modified version of the
Experiences in Close Relationships – Relationship Structures, in this order. A debriefing
statement was provided at the end of the survey with my contact information for any questions
pertaining to the study. Then, a link was displayed for the individuals who wanted to enter into
the gift card raffle. The link redirected participants to a separate survey where they were only
asked to report their email address. The data from the main survey, and the data from the gift
card raffle were kept separate. Data collection started on September 1
st
and ended on October 1
st
.
After data collection had been stopped, two individuals were randomly selected by means of a
random number generator, and each were emailed a $20 Amazon gift card.
37
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS
Preliminary Analysis
All preliminary analyses were conducted using SPSS. Correlations were computed to
analyze the relationships between interparental conflict, attachment avoidance, attachment
anxiety, and difficulties in emotion regulation. The results of the correlational analysis are shown
in Table 4. All the correlations across the eight constructs were significant and positive. Since
the emotion regulation measurement used in this study measured the difficulty in emotion
regulation, this means that as interparental conflict and any of the attachment constructs increase,
difficulties in emotion regulation increases as well. The strongest correlation found was between
father attachment anxiety and father attachment avoidance, followed by the association between
mother attachment anxiety and mother attachment avoidance. Interestingly, the relationship
between sibling attachment anxiety and mother attachment anxiety was slightly stronger than the
relationship between sibling attachment anxiety and sibling attachment avoidance.
38
Table 4
Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations Among Constructs (N = 397)
Construct
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. Interparental Conflict
--
2. Emotion Regulation
.36*
--
3. Mother Attach Anxiety
.43*
.30*
--
4. Father Attach Anxiety
.53*
.28*
.54*
--
5. Sibling Attach Anxiety
.32*
.23*
.55*
.47*
--
6. Mother Attach Avoidance
.39*
.24*
.66*
.28*
.33*
--
7. Father Attach Avoidance
.53*
.33*
.32*
.71*
.35*
.40*
--
8. Sibling Attach Avoidance
.24*
.20*
.24*
.20*
.54*
.35*
.39*
--
M
1.74
2.63
1.97
2.30
2.01
2.88
3.70
3.21
SD
0.42
0.71
1.50
1.77
1.34
1.56
1.69
1.62
Note. * p < .001
The effects of the participant’s gender and the gender of the participant’s target sibling on
sibling attachment anxiety and sibling attachment avoidance were compared using two separate
analyses of variance (ANOVA). Table 5 provides the cell sizes, means, and standard deviations
for both 2 x 2 between-subjects designs. An examination of the means for sibling attachment
anxiety showed a non-significant main effect of participant gender, F(1, 366) = 2.16, p = .143, a
non-significant main effect of target sibling gender, F(1, 366) = 0.03, p = .873, and a significant
interaction effect of participant gender and target sibling gender, F(1, 366) = 5.64, p = .018.
Based on the mean scores of sibling attachment anxiety, same-gendered sibling pairs have lower
39
levels of sibling attachment anxiety compared to opposite-gendered sibling pairs, which can be
seen in Figure 6.
Table 5
ANOVA Descriptives With Sibling Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance as Dependent Variables
Sibling Attachment
Anxiety
Sibling Attachment
Avoidance
Participant
Gender
Sibling
Gender
N
M
SD
M
SD
Male
Male
40
1.56
1.04
3.19
1.57
Female
34
1.94
1.3
3.36
1.32
Total
74
1.73
1.17
3.27
1.46
Female
Male
169
2.22
1.51
3.61
1.68
Female
129
1.82
1.15
2.65
1.44
Total
298
2.05
1.38
3.19
1.65
Total
Male
209
2.1
1.45
3.53
1.67
Female
163
1.84
1.18
2.79
1.44
Total
372
1.99
1.35
3.21
1.61
40
Figure 6
Mean Scores of Sibling Attachment Anxiety Using Participant Gender and Sibling Gender
Note. Male participant N = 74 and female participant N = 296.
An examination of the means for sibling attachment avoidance showed a non-significant
main effect of participant gender, F(1, 366) = 0.57, p = .452, a significant main effect of target
sibling gender, F(1, 366) = 3.94, p = .048, and a significant interaction effect of participant
gender and target sibling gender, F(1, 366) = 8.01, p = .005. The significant main effect of target
sibling gender indicates that the average sibling attachment avoidance towards brothers is higher
than sibling attachment avoidance towards sisters. Additionally, the significant interaction term
is also a crossover interaction which indicates that sibling attachment avoidance does not only
depend on target sibling gender, but also depends on the gender of the participant. Based on the
41
mean scores of sibling attachment avoidance, same-gendered sibling pairs have lower sibling
attachment avoidance compared to opposite-gendered sibling pairs, which can be seen in Figure
7.
Figure 7
Mean Scores of Sibling Attachment Avoidance Using Participant Gender and Sibling Gender
Note. Male participant N = 74 and female participant N = 296.
The means of interparental conflict scores across various living arrangements were also
compared with an independent samples t-test. First, interparental conflict scores between
participants who live with at least one parent were compared to participants who do not live with
any parent (N = 396). The 229 participants who did live with at least one parent had an average
42
interparental conflict score of 1.72 (SD = 0.42). The 167 participants who did not live with any
parent had an average interparental conflict score of 1.76 (SD = 0.42). These interparental
conflict scores were not significantly different, t(394) = -1.09, p = .274. This indicates that living
arrangement had no effect on the participant’s perceived interparental conflict. Then,
interparental conflict scores of participants who do not currently live with a parent were analyzed
with an independent samples t-test (N = 123). Interparental conflict scores between participants
who moved away from their parents’ home less than 1 year ago and participants who moved
away from their parents’ home more than 1 year ago were compared. The 84 participants who
moved away less than 1 year ago had an average interparental conflict score of 1.77 (SD = 0.42),
and the 39 participants who moved away more than 1 year ago had an average interparental
conflict score of 1.80 (SD = 0.46). These interparental conflict scores were not significantly
different, t(121) = -3.34, p = .732. This suggests that the passage of time after a participant
moves away from their parents’ home had no effect on the participant’s perceived interparental
conflict.
Main Analyses
The lavaan package in R with the maximum likelihood method was used to conduct a
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and the lm function in R was used to conduct three
hierarchical regression analyses for the three main hypotheses. Missing data were handled by
substituting an average score of the other items within that particular questionnaire. The CFA
was conducted to see if the indicator variables fit their corresponding latent variable. In the
analysis, conflict properties, threat, and self-blame were entered as the indicators for
interparental conflict, and non-acceptance, goals, impulse, strategies, and clarity were entered as
the indicators for difficulties in emotion regulation. Table 6 displays the eight-indicator-variable
43
variance-covariance matrix. The fit of the model was tested using the
test, comparative fit
index (CFI), root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean
squared residual (SRMR). A non-significant result of the
test would indicate good fit. The
other tests should have a score falling in the range of 0 to 1. Hu and Bentler (1999) suggest
cutoff criteria for these other tests when using the maximum likelihood method, which is ≥ .95
for the CFI, ≤ .06 for the RMSEA, and ≤ .08 for the SRMR. Since only the CFI and SRMR fell
into the acceptable cutoff criteria given by Hu and Bentler (1999), the fit of the model was
adequate,
(19, N = 397) = 70.05, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .06. All factor
loadings were found to be significant and are displayed in Figure 8. These results indicate that
the three indicator variables (i.e., conflict frequency, threat, and self-blame) and the five indictor
variables (i.e., non-acceptance, goals, impulse, strategies, and clarity) were a relatively good fit
for the latent variables of interparental conflict and difficulties in emotion regulation,
respectively. The correlation between interparental conflict and difficulties in emotion regulation
was also found to be positively moderately strong.
44
Table 6
Variance-Covariance Matrix of Indicator and Measured Variables
Indicator
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. CPIC Conflict Properties
109.42
2. CPIC Threat
44.50
33.89
3. CPIC Self-blame
9.98
7.57
10.19
4. DERS Goals
7.59
7.40
2.68
22.56
5. DERS Impulse
9.15
7.73
4.46
10.97
24.62
6. DERS Clarity
12.10
6.88
2.71
4.88
9.14
16.28
7. DERS Nonacceptance
13.19
11.36
5.10
10.05
14.18
12.06
37.48
8. DERS Strategies
15.64
14.33
5.86
20.51
24.34
15.28
27.30
53.48
M
35.44
21.23
11.21
16.33
13.10
13.03
15.81
20.74
SD
10.46
5.82
3.19
4.75
4.96
4.04
6.12
7.31
Note. N = 397. CPIC = Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. DERS =
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale.
45
Figure 8
Factor Loadings and Random Error of Latent Variables
Note. All factor loadings, random errors, and correlations are significant at the p < .001 level,
except for the random error of threat, which was not significant. All values are standardized.
46
After the confirmatory factor analysis had been completed, unstandardized regression
coefficients, standard errors, standardized regression coefficients, and
were found using
hierarchical multiple regression in R. Interparental conflict was computed by summing all items
on the conflict properties, threat, and self-blame scales. Difficulties in emotion regulation was
computed by summing the items in the non-acceptance, goals, impulse, strategies, and clarity
subscales. Interaction terms were created by taking the product of interparental conflict scores
and the appropriate attachment scores, and a significant interaction term indicates moderation.
Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9 provide the results of the hierarchical analyses for mother
attachment, father attachment, and sibling attachment respectively.
Table 7
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Difficulties in Emotion Regulation from
Interparental Conflict and Mother Attachment
Model
Predictor
B
SE B
β
1
IPC
0.18
0.02
0.36***
.20***
Attachment Anxiety
0.42
0.16
0.16**
Attachment Avoidance
-0.00
0.15
-0.00
2
IPC
0.13
0.05
0.26**
.21***
Attachment Anxiety
0.45
0.17
0.17*
Attachment Avoidance
-0.05
0.15
-0.02
IPC * Attachment Anxiety
-0.02
0.02
-0.03
IPC * Attachment Avoidance
0.03
0.02
0.01
Note. IPC = Interparental Conflict, * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
47
In the first hierarchical analysis displayed in Table 7, interparental conflict, mother
attachment anxiety, and mother attachment avoidance were entered in Step 1, and they explained
a significant proportion of variance in difficulties in emotion regulation, R
2
= .20, F(3, 393) =
32.76, p < .001. The interaction between interparental conflict and mother attachment anxiety
and the interaction between interparental conflict and mother attachment avoidance were entered
in Step 2, and they did not explain a significant increase in variance in difficulties in emotion
regulation above and beyond interparental conflict, mother attachment anxiety, and mother
attachment avoidance as individual factors, ∆R
2
= .006, F(2, 391) = 1.46, p = .234. Interparental
conflict and mother attachment anxiety were found to significantly predict difficulties in emotion
regulation in both Model 1 and Model 2.
Table 8
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Difficulties in Emotion Regulation from
Interparental Conflict and Father Attachment
Model
Predictor
B
SE B
β
1
IPC
0.17
0.03
0.33***
.20***
Attachment Anxiety
0.05
0.14
0.02
Attachment Avoidance
0.36
0.15
0.16*
2
IPC
0.24
0.06
0.48***
.21***
Attachment Anxiety
0.05
0.16
0.02
Attachment Avoidance
0.35
0.15
0.15*
IPC * Attachment Anxiety
0.01
0.02
0.03
IPC * Attachment Avoidance
-0.02
0.02
-0.01
Note. IPC = Interparental Conflict, * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
48
In the second hierarchical analysis displayed in Table 8, interparental conflict, father
attachment anxiety, and father attachment avoidance were entered in Step 1, and they explained a
significant proportion of variance in difficulties in emotion regulation, R
2
= .20, F(3, 393) =
32.88, p < .001. The interaction between interparental conflict and father attachment anxiety and
the interaction between interparental conflict and father attachment avoidance were entered in
Step 2, and they did not explain a significant increase in variance in difficulties in emotion
regulation above and beyond interparental conflict, father attachment anxiety, and father
attachment avoidance as individual factors, ∆R
2
= .004, F(2, 391) = 1.07, p = .345. Interparental
conflict and father attachment avoidance were found to significantly predict difficulties in
emotion regulation in bother Model 1 and Model 2.
Table 9
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Difficulties in Emotion Regulation from
Interparental Conflict and Sibling Attachment
Model
Predictor
B
SE B
β
1
IPC
0.19
0.02
0.38***
.20***
Attachment Anxiety
0.23
0.15
0.08
Attachment Avoidance
0.20
0.13
0.08
2
IPC
0.31
0.05
0.61***
.21***
Attachment Anxiety
0.19
0.16
0.07
Attachment Avoidance
0.24
0.13
0.10
IPC * Attachment Anxiety
0.01
0.02
0.03
IPC * Attachment Avoidance
-0.05
0.02
-0.02**
Note. IPC = Interparental Conflict, * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
49
In the third hierarchical analysis displayed in Table 9, interparental conflict, sibling
attachment anxiety, and sibling attachment avoidance were entered in Step 1, and they explained
a significant proportion of variance in difficulties in emotion regulation, R
2
= .20, F(3, 393) =
31.96, p < .001. The interaction between interparental conflict and sibling attachment anxiety
and the interaction between interparental conflict and sibling attachment avoidance were entered
in Step 2, and they explained a significant increase in variance in difficulties in emotion
regulation above and beyond interparental conflict, sibling attachment anxiety, and sibling
attachment avoidance as individual factors, ∆R
2
= .019, F(2, 391) = 4.61, p = .010. Interparental
conflict was found to significantly predict emotion regulation in model. The interaction between
interparental conflict and sibling attachment avoidance significantly predicted difficulties in
emotion regulation in Model 2, b = -.05, β = -.02, t(393) = -2.87, p = .004.
The interaction between interparental conflict and sibling attachment avoidance was the
only significant interaction found from the analyses. The interaction slope of -0.05 represents the
change in slope for interparental conflict per 1-unit increase in sibling attachment avoidance.
Therefore, as sibling attachment avoidance increases, the strength of association between
interparental conflict and difficulties in emotion regulation decreases. This is not what was
expected since lower attachment avoidance was hypothesized to be a protective factor against
interparental conflict. Figure 9 displays the simple slopes found for the significant interaction. At
1 SD below the mean, sibling attachment avoidance = 1.59; the conditional effect of interparental
conflict = 0.26, 95% C. I. [0.20, 0.33], p < .01. At the mean, sibling attachment avoidance =
3.21; the conditional effect of interparental conflict = 0.19, 95% C. I. [0.14, 0.24], p < .01. At 1
SD above the mean, sibling attachment avoidance = 4.83; the conditional effect of interparental
conflict = 0.12, 95% C. I. [0.04, 0.19], p < .01.
50
Figure 9
Simple Slopes for the Moderation Effects of Sibling Attachment Avoidance between Interparental
Conflict and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation
0
1
2
3
4
Low Medium High
Emotion Regulation
Interparental Conflict
Low attach avoidance (-1 SD)
Medium attach avoidance (M)
High attach avoidance (+1 SD)
51
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to determine if mother, father, and sibling attachment
anxiety and avoidance moderate the relationship between interparental conflict and young adult
difficulties in emotion regulation. Previous research indicates that mother and father attachment
moderate the relationship between interparental conflict and internalizing behaviors, while father
attachment moderates the relationship between interparental conflict and externalizing behaviors
(El-Sheikh & Elmore-Staton, 2004). In the present study, mother and father attachment were
expected to be moderators of interparental conflict and young adult difficulties in emotion
regulation. The presented expectation was based on the emotional security hypothesis, which
states that an individual’s emotional security can either be enhanced or undermined by a child-
parent relationship (Davies et al., 2002). Because a sibling can also act as an attachment figure
(Doherty & Freeney, 2004), sibling attachment was expected to moderate the relationship
between interparental conflict and young adult emotion regulation. The current study found that
mother and father attachment did not moderate the relationship between interparental conflict
and young adult difficulties in emotion regulation, but sibling attachment avoidance did
moderate the relationship. The interaction found between sibling attachment avoidance and
interparental conflict did not have the expected direction of relationship.
Before the main analyses were completed, preliminary analyses were conducted to
examine whether sibling attachment varied by gender and whether perceived interparental
conflict varied by living arrangements. Results indicated that same-gender paired siblings had
lower levels of sibling attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance compared to opposite-
gender paired siblings. Additionally, there were no significant findings regarding differences in
living arrangements across the participants. However, caution should be taken when interpreting
52
these results. Participant rationale behind reports of living accommodations was not taken into
account. There could be some students who thought living on campus for part of the year
qualifies as moving away from their parents, while others could believe that this would not
qualify as moving out of their parents’ home.
The preliminary analyses also included correlations between interparental conflict, family
attachment, and difficulties in emotion regulation. All correlations across the various constructs
were expected. Emotion regulation was chosen as the dependent variable in the current study
because it is essential to an individual’s overall adjustment. Without healthy emotion regulation,
an individual can have difficulty developing beneficial behavioral strategies (Thompson, 1994),
struggle with emotional and behavioral problems (Morris et al., 2007), and have complications
with their psychopathology (McLaughlin et al., 2011). The emotional security hypothesis
proposes that parent-child relations can positively or negatively impact the emotional security of
an individual depending on the relationship between the parent and child (Davies et al., 2002).
Family attachment provides a specific type of measurement for the quality of relationship
between an individual and family member, which theoretically should predict an individual’s
emotion regulation. Emotion regulation should also not only be impacted by family attachment,
but research also indicates other family factors such as interparental conflict can play a role in an
individual’s emotion regulation (Gong & Paulson, 2017). The current study did find evidence
that interparental conflict and difficulties in emotion regulation are related, which supports other
research (Gong & Paulson, 2017; Morris et al., 2007).
Additionally, correlations between family attachment and both interparental conflict and
difficulties in emotion regulation in the current study were consistent with past research. There
were positive, moderate correlations between interparental conflict and all types of family
53
attachment anxiety and avoidance, which supports past research that found similar results
(Davies & Cummings, 1994; El-Sheikh & Elmore-Staton, 2004; Gong & Paulson, 2017; Laurent
et al., 2008). All types of family attachment anxiety and avoidance were also positively,
moderately correlated to difficulties in emotion regulation, which also supports past research
(Gong & Paulson, 2017, Morris et al., 2007). Not all results of the current study were expected,
such as the moderation analyses.
After the preliminary analyses, the main analyses were conducted to examine whether
mother, father, and sibling attachment were moderators between perceived interparental conflict
and young adult difficulties in emotion regulation. Attachment anxiety and avoidance with a
mother, father, and sibling were hypothesized to moderate the relationship between interparental
conflict and difficulties in emotion regulation. More specifically, lower levels of attachment
anxiety and avoidance should result in a weaker relationship between interparental conflict and
difficulties in emotion regulation difficulties. The weaker relationship between interparental
conflict and difficulties in emotion regulation was expected to occur because an individual could
use a more secure attachment style as a protective factor against the negative effects interparental
conflict potentially have on young adult emotion regulation.
The data did not fully support any of the three hypotheses. Mother attachment anxiety
and avoidance along with father anxiety and avoidance were not moderators of the relationship
between interparental conflict and difficulties in emotion regulation. Sibling attachment
avoidance was found to be a moderator for the relationship between interparental conflict and
difficulties in emotion regulation, but sibling attachment anxiety was not found to be a
moderator. Looking further into the interaction between interparental conflict and sibling
attachment avoidance, the results of the study indicated that higher sibling attachment avoidance
54
resulted in a weaker relationship between interparental conflict and difficulties in emotion
regulation. The moderation results regarding family attachment in the current study are not
consistent with previous findings.
Previously, El-Sheikh and Elmore (2004) found that both mother and father attachment
were moderators of marital conflict and externalizing behaviors, but only father attachment had
the expected direction of relationship. Mother attachment was also found to moderate the
relationship between marital conflict and internalizing behaviors in the expected direction. Even
though only mother attachment was found to be a protective factor between marital conflict and
internalizing behaviors, and only father attachment was found to be protective factor between
marital conflict and externalizing behaviors in the El-Sheikh and Elmore study, in the current
study, both mother and father attachment were expected to have similar moderation effects
between interparental conflict and emotion regulation. Morris et al. (2007) suggested that
emotion regulation is affected by the emotional climate of the family, which includes parenting
style and attachment security. Nowhere in the literature was it suggested that one parent has
more connection to an individual’s emotion regulation over the other.
One possible explanation for these unexpected findings could stem from how attachment
was measured in the current study. In the current study, attachment was measured by using two
factors, namely attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. Research has indicated these
constructs measure two separate aspects of attachment and therefore should have separate
scoring (De Meulenaere et al., 2021). However, mother and father attachment were not measured
this way in the previously mentioned El-Sheikh and Elmore (2004) study. Instead, they measured
mother and father attachment using the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment, which gives a
single score of attachment for both a mother and father. The difference between how attachment
55
was measured in the current study and El-Sheikh and Elmore’s study could be one reason for the
differences seen in significant interactions for mother and father attachment. Another reason for
these findings could stem from attachment theory rather than methodological reasons. If the
interparental conflict within a family was extreme, maybe an individual would remove
themselves from their family system and as a consequence no longer use their parents as the
most prominent attachment figures. Past research has also indicated a natural shift of attachment
figures during adolescence. According to Markiewicz et al. (2006), peers can take the place of
parents functioning as a safe haven usually at the time of an individual’s adolescence, and
Doherty and Freeney (2004) suggest that siblings can replace a parent as a prominent attachment
figure during adulthood. The literature reenforces the notion that parents can become less
prominent attachment figures for an adult.
Not only was it surprising that no interaction between interparental conflict and either
form of mother or father attachment was found to be significant in the current study, but not all
variables were significant as individual factors either. In the mother attachment hierarchical
multiple regression analysis, only interparental conflict and mother attachment anxiety
significantly predicted difficulties in emotion regulation in both step 1 and step 2. On the other
hand, only interparental conflict and father attachment avoidance significantly predicted
difficulties in emotion regulation in both step 1 and step 2 of the father attachment hierarchical
regression analysis. Interestingly, attachment anxiety was a significant predictor of difficulties in
emotion regulation for mothers, and attachment avoidance was a significant predictor of
difficulties in emotion regulation for fathers.
A study done by Ross and Fuertes (2010) could offer an explanation to these findings.
These researchers concluded that mother and father attachment should be assessed separately
56
since they predicted different constructs. Specifically, the study found that mother attachment
predicted conflict resolution, while father attachment predicted social skills. The authors suggest
this finding is consistent with previous research which has shown mothers function more as a
secure base during a threat and fathers play a role in a child’s exploration of new environments.
Mothers who do not offer a secure base may lead a child to feel abandoned or rejected in times
of need, which in turn could lead to a more anxious attachment. Fathers who offer no support
while exploring a new environment could lead a child to become self-reliant and shut down the
feeling of wanting closeness, which in turn could lead to a more avoidant attachment (Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2016). Mothers and fathers do not exclusively play these roles for their children, but
the research above points out a mother is more likely to be a secure base, while fathers are more
likely to aid a child in exploration of an environment.
Only sibling attachment avoidance was found to be a moderator of interparental conflict
and young adult difficulties in emotion regulation. A possible explanation for these results could
be linked to family relations being interdependent rather than independent. Research indicates
that families are systems within which the elements are connected. For example, the interparental
relationship can shape other relationships such as sibling relationships, which have also been
found to be positively associated (Zemp et al., 2021). Social learning theory suggests that by
witnessing dysfunctional interparental conflict, children may assume this is the way to deal with
conflict (Zemp et al., 2021). Thus, through modeling, mothers and fathers may unintentionally
teach their children to interact with their sibling in a dysfunctional way.
When looking further into the interaction between interparental conflict and sibling
attachment avoidance, higher levels of sibling attachment avoidance indicated a weaker
relationship between interparental conflict and difficulties in emotion regulation, which was
57
unexpected. One would expect poorer quality attachment, such as high levels of attachment
avoidance, between siblings to amplify the positive connection between interparental conflict
and difficulties in emotion regulation rather than decrease the connection. These particular
results are inconsistent with theory and research, which makes this finding very unusual. An
explanation for these unusual results could stem from an individual’s disengagement from their
family. If the issues in a family system are extreme, it is possible that an individual could remove
or distance themselves from the entire family. The individual would then display an avoidant
attachment to a sibling because the individual is avoiding that particular sibling. The individual
would also not surround themselves with the occurring interparental conflict, so the effect of the
conflict could be null. The results for sibling attachment in the current study should be replicated
prior to being considered valid.
Limitations and Future Directions
There are a few limitations to the current study that should be mentioned. The study
included students at Illinois State University, which makes it difficult to claim the results are
generalizable to the general population. This study may only be generalizable to other
undergraduate students across the midwestern region of the United States. Additionally, the
study was designed to collect data from self-reported online questionnaires. This is not an
experimentally designed study, so causation should not be assumed here. Self-reported data can
also be biased to only show how an individual thinks of themselves or of other people rather than
how an individual actually acts. The self-report bias indicates that individuals tend to report in a
socially desirable way rather than how they actually act in reality (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone,
2002). In the current study, because we were interested in how interparental conflict and
attachment was perceived by a young adult, the disconnect between perceived and actual action
58
in self-report data would be potentially problematic for the emotion regulation variable only.
Emotion regulation could have been measured by additional questionnaires completed by a
parent or sibling to distinguish if there were differences in how a participant perceived their
emotion regulation versus how others see them handle their emotion regulation. Using self-
reported questionnaires always runs the risk of intentionally dishonest information as well. There
is another layer of limitation added when the questionnaires are taken online. People could have
taken the survey multiple times, lied about their age to qualify for the survey, or not even read
the questions while answering. Unfortunately, there were no attention checks added to the survey
to combat the last concern mentioned. These are broad limitations that could interfere with how
the data should be interpreted, but there were also specific limitations related to the questions
asked in the survey.
First, there was one item from the CPIC which was not included in the Qualtrics survey
due to a clerical error. This item was part of the Conflict Properties scale and states “My parents
hardly ever argue.” There are 18 other items in this scale, so it is unlikely this clerical error made
a large difference in the reliability of the scale. Second, the definition of a mother, a father, and a
sibling was not provided clearly. Family dynamics are complex and look different to different
people. A participant could view a stepfather as more of a father figure than their biological
father. The current study has no way of knowing whether the participant chose the person in their
life who felt most like a mother, a father, or a sibling. The study should have specified to choose
the person in their life who felt most like a mother, a father, or a sibling-like figure even if it was
not a biological family member.
The current study paves the way for future research including sibling attachment,
moderating effects of different family constructs, and other aspects of adult adjustment. Research
59
could delve into sibling attachment since there are very few studies centered around this
construct during emerging adulthood. Sibling attachment could play a vital role in the adjustment
of a young adult enduring interparental conflict. Family relations are interdependent, so parents
are not the only family members who have lasting effects on an individual. There are other
people in an individual’s life (i.e., teachers, extended family, friends) who can also have an
impact on that individual’s adjustment. Research should expand past mother and father
attachment to explore how sibling relationships are related to young adult adjustment outcomes,
especially since the current study showed that sibling attachment plays a role in young adult
adjustment. Since there is so little research on the topic of sibling attachment, there are numerous
areas yet to be explored. One particularly interesting area of sibling attachment would be the
effects of birth order and gender. Based on the literature, same-gender paired siblings would
most likely have a more secure attachment than opposite-gender sibling pairings (Buist et al.,
2002). In terms of birth order, a younger sibling with an older sibling attachment figure would be
more plausible than an older sibling with a younger sibling attachment figure. Future research
could analyze whether these hypothesized effects stay consistent from childhood to adulthood, or
if there are differences across development.
There may not have been strong evidence of family attachment moderating the
relationship interparental conflict and young adult emotion regulation in the current study, but
past research indicates a tie between family relations and emotion regulation (Morris et al.,
2007). Other constructs involving family could instead show strong evidence for moderation
with interparental conflict and emotion regulation such as parenting styles, family
expressiveness, and the emotional quality of the marital relationship, which have all been shown
to be related to emotion regulation (Morris et al., 2007).
60
Emotion regulation is also not the only way to measure an individual’s emotional
functioning. Emotional insecurity may have been a better choice for an outcome variable since it
is a broader construct of emotion. Emotion regulation is only a component of emotion security
(Morris et al., 2007), so analyzing emotional insecurity could provide a fuller view of emotion.
Davies et al. (2002) described individuals with emotional insecurity from experiencing
interparental conflict as having high levels of emotional reactivity, regulating exposure to parent
affect, and perceiving negative internal representations of interparental relations. The construct
of emotional insecurity has also been found to be associated with both interparental conflict and
child maladjustment (Davies et al., 2002). In the van Eldik et al. (2020) meta-analysis, a large
portion of the emotional response outcome that was analyzed included emotional reactivity while
another outcome called cognitive appraisals focused on internal representations of interparental
relations, and both outcomes were found to be related to the interparental conflict dimensions
used in the current study. Future research could focus on emotional insecurity as an outcome, or
even other emotional functioning constructs to detect whether family attachment does moderate
the relationship between interparental conflict and other forms of emotional functioning.
There are also other areas of young adult adjustment to study as well. Research has been
conducted with mostly externalizing and internalizing behaviors, but other areas of adjustment
such as cognition, social development, and physiological responses are important contributing
factors to an individual’s adjustment. Even the research conducted on externalizing and
internalizing behaviors could be done again with attachment measures utilizing the two-
dimensional framework of anxiety and avoidance. The two largest studies contributing to the
research of the current study utilized a single score of attachment rather than two separate scores
of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance (Camisasca et al., 2017; El-Sheikh & Elmore-
61
Staton, 2004). A comparison of these studies with studies utilizing the two-dimensional
framework of measurement for attachment would be useful to distinguish any differences in
results.
Strengths and Conclusions
The current study sought to explore the effects that not only parental attachment has, but
whether sibling attachment could also be important to the relationship between interparental
conflict and young adult emotion regulation. Emotion regulation and sibling relationships
typically take a backseat to other forms of individual adjustment (i.e., externalizing and
internalizing behaviors) and other relationships (i.e., mother, father, romantic partner).
Surprisingly, sibling attachment avoidance was the only construct to be a significant moderator
in the current study, which indicates parental relations are not the only attachment relationship
that should be explored within a family (Kriss et al., 2014; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997).
Researchers in the area of interparental conflict and family attachment may want to continue
including sibling attachment in studies since family relations are so connected. Attachment was
also measured using two dimensions rather than as a single facet in the current study, which
gives a more complete look into family attachment. Research indicates that a two-dimensional
framework is the best way to accurately measure attachment (Fraley & Spieker, 2003), while
also measuring each relationship separately. The current study helped to advance research within
the realm of interparental conflict, family attachment, and emotion regulation.
62
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, R., & Walls, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a
four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.
Bickham, N. L., & Fiese, B. H. (1997). Extension of the children’s perception of interparental
conflict scale for use with late adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 11(2), 246-
250.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatric, 52(4), 664-678. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x.
Buehler, C., Lange, G., & Franck, K. L. (2007). Adolescents’ cognitive and emotional responses
to marital hostility. Child Development, 78(3), 775-789.
Buist, K. L., Dekovie, M., Meeus, W., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2002). Developmental patterns in
adolescent attachment to mother, father and sibling. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
31(3), 167-176.
Camisasca, E., Miragoli, S., Blasio, P. D., & Grych, J. (2017). Children’s coping strategies to
inter-parental conflict: The moderating role of attachment. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 26(4), 1099-1111.1099-1111. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0645-9.
Cassidy, J., Jones, J. D., & Shaver, P. H. (2013). Contributions of attachment theory and
research: A framework for future research, translation, and policy. Development and
Psychopathology, 25, 1415-1434. doi:10.1017/S0954579413000692.
63
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on
support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78(6), 1053-1073. doi:10.1O37//OO22-3514.78.6.1053.
Cusimano, A. M., & Riggs, S. A. (2013). Perceptions of interparental conflict, romantic
attachment, and psychological distress in college students. Couple and Family
Psychology: Research and Practice, 2(1), 45-59. doi:10.1037/a0031657.
Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional
security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 387-411.
Davies, P. T., Harold, G. T., Goeke-Morey, M. C., Cummings, E. M., Shelton, K., Rasi, J. A., &
Jenkins, J. M. (2002). Child emotional security and interparental conflict. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(3), 1-127.
De Meulenaere, J., Stas, L., Antrop, I., Buysse, A., & Lemmens, G. M. D. (2021). Adolescent
attachment: A social relations perspective on family relations. Family Process, 36(1), 1-
15.
DeBoard-Lucas, R. L., Fosco, G. M., Raynor, S. R., & Grych, J. H. (2010). Interparental conflict
in context: Exploring relations between parenting processes and children’s conflict
appraisals. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39(2), 163-175.
doi:10.1080/15374410903532593.
Doherty, N. A., & Feeney, J. A. (2004). The composition of attachment networks throughout the
adult years. Personal Relationships, 11, 469-488.
Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational
behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245-260.
64
Duschinsky, R. (2015). The emergence of the disorganized/disoriented (D) attachment
classification, 1979-1982. History of Psychology, 18(1), 32-46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038524.
El-Sheikh, M. (2005). The role of emotional responses and physiological reactivity in the marital
conflict-child functioning link. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(11),
1191-1199. doi:10.10170S0954579404004705.
El-Sheikh, M., & Elmore-Staton, L. (2004). The link between marital conflict and child
adjustment: Parent-child conflict and perceived attachments as mediators, potentiators,
and mitigators of risk. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 631-648.
doi:10.10170S0954579404004705.
Faber, A. J., & Wittenborn, A. K. (2010). The role of attachment in children’s adjustment to
divorce and remarriage. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 21, 89-104.
doi:10.1080/08975353.2010.483625.
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The Experiences in
Close Relationships-Relationship Structure questionnaire: A method for assessing
attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23, 615-625.
doi:10.1037/a0022898.
Fraley, R. C., & Spieker, S. J. (2003). Are infant attachment patterns continuously or
categorically distributed? A taxometric analysis of strange situation behavior.
Development Psychology, 39(3), 387-404. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.387.
Fraley, R. C., & Tancredy, C. M. (2012). Twin and sibling attachment in a nationally
representative sample. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(3), 308-316.
Doi:10.1177/0146167211432936.
65
Gloger-Tippelt, G., & Konig, L. (2007). Attachment representations in 6-year-old children from
one and two parent families in Germany. School Psychology International, 28, 313-330.
doi:10.1177/2F0143034307078540.
Gong, X., & Paulson, S. E. (2017). Effect of family affective environment on individual’s
emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, (144-149).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.047.
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and
dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the Difficulties in
Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26
(1), 41-54. doi:10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94.
Grych, J. H., Fincham, F. D., Jouriles, E. N., & McDonald, R. (2000). Interparental conflict and
child adjustment: Testing the mediational role of appraisals in the cognitive-contextual
framework. Child Development, 71(6), 1648-1661. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00255.
Grych, J. H., Raynor, S. R., & Fosco, G. M. (2004). Family processes that shape the impact of
interparental conflict on adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 649-665.
doi:10.10170S0954579404004717.
Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s
perspective: The Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. Child
Development, 63, 558-572. doi:10.2307/1131346.
Harold, G. T., & Sellers, R. (2018). Annual research review: Interparental conflict and youth
psychopathology: an evidence review and practice focused update. The Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(4), 374-402. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12893.
66
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
Keeports, C. R., & Pittman, L. D. (2017). I wish my parents would stop arguing! The impact of
interparental conflict on young adults. Journal of Family Issues, 38(6), 839-857.
doi:10.1177/0192513X15613821.
Kim, K. L., Jackson, Y., & Conrad, S. M. (2008). Adolescent report of interparental conflict: The
role of threat and self-blame appraisal on adaptive outcome. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 17, 735-751. doi 10.1007/s10826-007-9187-5.
Kriss, A., Steele, M., & Steele, H. (2014). Sibling relationships: An attachment perspective.
Hindle, D. & Sherwin-White, S. (Eds.), Sibling matters: A psychoanalytic,
developmental, and systematic approach (pp. 82-95). Routledge.
Kumar, S. A., & Mattanah, J. F. (2018). Interparental conflict, parental intrusiveness, and
interpersonal functioning in emerging adulthood. Personal Relationships, 25(1), 120-133.
doi:10.1111/pere.12231.
Laurent, H. K., Kim, H. K., & Capaldi, D. M. (2008). Prospective effects of interparental conflict
on child attachment security and the moderating role of parents’ romantic attachment.
Journal of Family Psychology, 22(3), 377-388.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of a new, insecure-disorganized/disoriented
attachment pattern. In M. Yogman & T. B. Braelton (Eds.), Affective development in
infancy (pp. 95–124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
67
Markiewicz, Lawford, H., Doyle, A. B., & Haggart, N. (2006). Developmental differences in
adolescents’ and young adults’ use of mothers, fathers, best friends, and romantic
partners to fulfill attachment needs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(1), 121–134.
McLaughlin, K. A., Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Mennin, D. S., and Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2011).
Emotion dysregulation and adolescent psychopathology: A prospective study. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 49, 544-554.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). Adult attachment orientations and relationship
processes. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4(4), 259-274. doi:
10.1111/j.17562589.2012.00142.x.
Mikulincer, & Shaver, P. R. (2016). The attachment behavioral system: Basic concepts and
principles. Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change (2 edition) (pp. 3-
26). Guilford Publications.
Morris, A. S, Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the
family context in the development of emotional regulation. Social Development, 16(2),
361-388. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x.
Richardson, S., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Parental divorce during adolescences and adjustment
in early adulthood. Adolescence, 36(143), 467-489.
Ross, J., & Fuertes, J. (2010). Parental attachment, interparental conflict, and young adults’
emotional adjustment. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(8), 1050, 1077.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0011000010376094.
Safyer, P., Volling, B. L., Schultheiss, O. C., & Tolman, R. M. (2019). Adult attachment,
implicit motives, and mothers’ and fathers’ parenting behaviors. Motivation Science,
5(3), 220-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000112.
68
Silva, C. S., Calheiros, M. M., & Carvalho, H. (2016). Interparental conflict and adolescents’
self-representations: The role of emotional insecurity. Journal of Adolescence, 52, 76-88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.07.007.
Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of a definition. In N. A. Fox
(Ed.), Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (Serial No. 240 ed.,
Vol. 59, pp. 25–52). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Trinke, S. J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in young
adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(5), 603-625.
doi:10.1177/0265407597145002.
van Eldik, W. M., de Haan, A. D., Parry, L. Q., Davies, P. T., Luijk, M. P. C. M., Arends, L. R.,
Prinzie, P. (2020). The interparental relationship: Meta-analytic associations with
children’s maladjustment and responses to interparental conflict. Psychological Bulletin,
146(7), 553-594.
Waters, H. S., & Waters, E. (2006). The attachment working models concept: Among other
things, we build script-like representations of secure base experiences. Attachment &
Human Development, 8(3), 185-197. doi:10.1080/14616730600856016.
Waters, T. E., Fraley, R. C., Groh, A. M., Steele, R. D., Vaughn, R. E., Bost, K. K., Verissimo,
M., Coppola, G., & Roisman, G. I. (2015). Brief report: The latent structure of secure
base script knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 51(6), 823-830.
Zeanah, C. H., & Anders, T. F. (1987). Subjectivity in parent-infant relationships: A discussion
of internal working models. Infant Mental Health Journal, 8(3), 237-250.
doi:10.1002/1097-0355(198723)8:3<237::AID-IMHJ2280080307>3.0.CO;2-H.
69
Zemp, M., Bodenmann, G., & Cummings, E. M. (2016). The significance of interparental
conflict for children. European Psychologist, 21(2), 99-108.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000245.
Zemp, M., Friedrich, A. S., Schirl, J., Dantchev, S., Voracek, M., & Tran, U. S. (2021). A
systematic review and meta-analysis of the associations between interparental and sibling
relationships: Positive or negative? PloS one, 16(9), 1-23.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0257874.
70
APPENDIX A: CHILDREN’S PERCEPTION OF INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT SCALE
(CPIC)
Scores are summed, so higher scores indicate an increasingly negative form of conflict.
Reverse score *
1 = False
2 = Sort of True
3 = True
1) ____ I never see my parents arguing or disagreeing. *
2) ____ When my parents have an argument, they usually work it out. *
3) ____ My parents often get into arguments about things I do at school.
4) ____ My parents get really mad when they argue.
5) ____ When my parents argue, I can do something to make myself feel better. *
6) ____ I get scared when my parents argue.
7) ____ I'm not to blame when my parents have arguments. *
8) ____ They may not think I know it, but my parents argue or disagree a lot.
9) ____ Even after my parents stop arguing they stay mad at each other.
10) ____ When my parents have a disagreement, they discuss it quietly. *
11) ____ I don't know what to do when my parents have arguments.
12) ____ My parents are often mean to each other even when I'm around.
13) ____ When my parents argue, I worry about what will happen to me.
14) ____ It's usually my fault when my parents argue.
15) ____ I often see my parents arguing.
16)____ When my parents disagree about something, they usually come up with a solution. *
17) ____ My parents' arguments are usually about something I did.
18) ____ When my parents have an argument, they say mean things to each other.
19) ____ When my parents argue or disagree, I can usually help make things better. *
20) ____ When my parents argue, I'm afraid that something bad will happen.
21) ____ Even if they don't say it, I know I'm to blame when my parents argue.
22) ____ My parents hardly ever argue. *
23) ____ When my parents argue they usually make up right away. *
24) ____ My parents usually argue or disagree because of things that I do.
25) ____ When my parents have an argument, they yell a lot.
26) ____ When my parents argue, there's nothing I can do to stop them.
27) ____ When my parents argue, I worry that one of them will get hurt.
28) ____ My parents often nag and complain about each other around the house.
29) ____ My parents hardly ever yell when they have a disagreement. *
30) ____ My parents often get into arguments when I do something wrong.
31) ____ My parents have broken or thrown things during an argument.
32) ____ After my parents stop arguing, they are friendly toward each other. *
33) ____ When my parents argue, I'm afraid that they will yell at me too.
71
34) ____ My parents blame me when they have arguments.
35) ____ My parents have pushed or shoved each other during an argument.
36) ____ When my parents argue or disagree, there's nothing I can do to make myself feel better.
37) ____ When my parents argue, I worry that they might get divorced.
38) ____ My parents still act mean after they have had an argument.
39) ____ Usually it's not my fault when my parents have arguments. *
40) ____ When my parents argue, they don't listen to anything I say.
72
APPENDIX B: EXPERIENCES IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS – RELATIONSHIP
STRUCTURES (ECR-RS)
Two scores, one for attachment-related avoidance and the other for attachment-related anxiety,
should be computed for each interpersonal target (i.e., mother, father, sibling). The avoidance
score can be computed by averaging items 1 - 6, while reverse keying items 1, 2, 3, and 4. The
anxiety score can be computed by averaging items 7 - 9. These two scores should be computed
separately for each relationship target.
1. It helps to turn to this person in times of need.
Mother: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Father: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Sibling: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
2. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with this person.
Mother: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Father: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Sibling: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
3. I talk things over with this person.
Mother: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Father: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Sibling: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
4. I find it easy to depend on this person.
Mother: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Father: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Sibling: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
5. I don't feel comfortable opening up to this person.
Mother: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Father: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Sibling: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
6. I prefer not to show this person how I feel deep down.
Mother: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Father: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Sibling: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
7. I often worry that this person doesn't really care for me.
Mother: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Father: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Sibling: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
8. I'm afraid that this person may abandon me.
Mother: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
73
Father: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Sibling: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
9. I worry that this person won't care about me as much as I care about him or her.
Mother: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Father: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
Sibling: strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree
74
APPENDIX C: DIFFICULTIES IN EMOTION REGUALTION SCALE (DERS)
Total score for emotion regulation was found by summing all the scores, excluding items 2, 6, 8,
10, 17, and 34. Higher scores indicate greater difficulties with emotion regulation.
Reverse code *
1 = almost never
2 = sometimes
3 = about half the time
4 = most of the time
5 = almost always
_____ 1) I am clear about my feelings. *
_____ 2) I pay attention to how I feel. *
_____ 3) I experience my emotions as overwhelming and out of control.
_____ 4) I have no idea how I am feeling.
_____ 5) I have difficulty making sense out of my feelings.
_____ 6) I am attentive to my feelings. *
_____ 7) I know exactly how I am feeling. *
_____ 8) I care about what I am feeling. *
_____ 9) I am confused about how I feel.
_____ 10) When I’m upset, I acknowledge my emotions. *
_____ 11) When I’m upset, I become angry with myself for feeling that way.
_____ 12) When I’m upset, I become embarrassed for feeling that way.
_____ 13) When I’m upset, I have difficulty getting work done.
_____ 14) When I’m upset, I become out of control.
_____ 15) When I’m upset, I believe that I will remain that way for a long time.
_____ 16) When I’m upset, I believe that I will end up feeling very depressed.
_____ 17) When I’m upset, I believe that my feelings are valid and important. *
_____ 18) When I’m upset, I have difficulty focusing on other things.
_____ 19) When I’m upset, I feel out of control.
_____ 20) When I’m upset, I can still get things done. *
_____ 21) When I’m upset, I feel ashamed at myself for feeling that way.
_____ 22) When I’m upset, I know that I can find a way to eventually feel better. *
_____ 23) When I’m upset, I feel like I am weak.
_____ 24) When I’m upset, I feel like I can remain in control of my behaviors. *
_____ 25) When I’m upset, I feel guilty for feeling that way.
_____ 26) When I’m upset, I have difficulty concentrating.
_____ 27) When I’m upset, I have difficulty controlling my behaviors.
_____ 28) When I’m upset, I believe there is nothing I can do to make myself feel better.
75
_____ 29) When I’m upset, I become irritated at myself for feeling that way.
_____ 30) When I’m upset, I start to feel very bad about myself.
_____ 31) When I’m upset, I believe that wallowing in it is all I can do.
_____ 32) When I’m upset, I lose control over my behavior.
_____ 33) When I’m upset, I have difficulty thinking about anything else.
_____ 34) When I’m upset, I take time to figure out what I’m really feeling. *
_____ 35) When I’m upset, it takes me a long time to feel better.
_____ 36) When I’m upset, my emotions feel overwhelming.
