See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257549317

The Social Construction of Love Through Intergenerational Processes

Article  in  Contemporary Family Therapy · December 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s10591-013-9247-5

CITATIONS READS

6 3,010

4 authors, including:

Kristy L. Soloski Thomas W. Pavkov

Texas Tech University Northern Illinois University
27 PUBLICATIONS   220 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   459 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Latent Growth Curve Mediation Model of Adolescent Attachment and Clinical Depression in Young Adulthood View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kristy L. Soloski on 20 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Social Construction of Love Through
Intergenerational Processes

Kristy L. Soloski, Thomas W. Pavkov,

Kathryn A. Sweeney & Joseph
L. Wetchler

Contemporary Family Therapy

An International Journal

ISSN 0892-2764

Contemp Fam Ther

DOI 10.1007/s10591-013-9247-5

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you
wish to self-archive your work, please use the
accepted author’s version for posting to your
own website or your institution’s repository.
You may further deposit the accepted author’s
version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s
request, provided it is not made publicly
available until 12 months after publication.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther
DOI 10.1007/s10591-013-9247-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

The Social Construction of Love Through

Intergenerational Processes

Kristy L. Soloski • Thomas W. Pavkov • Kathryn A. Sweeney •

Joseph L. Wetchler

Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Love became an integral part of marriage in Western culture in the mid-1900s.
Marriage began to change along with the inclusion of love, which is evidenced by changes
in divorce rates. While marriages themselves change, love too may be influenced in a
reciprocal process. This study was interested in identifying the association between
parental relationship factors, including marital status and interparental conflict, and both
the experience of and expectations for love. The sample was collected using online con-
venience sampling, and included (N = 207) heterosexually married participants. Hierar-
chical multiple regressions were conducted to determine the unique contribution of the
parent marital factors on love. Higher levels of interparental conflict were associated with
lower levels of love and expectations for love, while having parents who were separated
was associated with higher relationship expectations. These findings can support case
conceptualizations for clinical work with couples and the use of Narrative and Trans-
generational therapies.

Keywords Couple’s therapy
Expectations
Love
Marriage
Relationship satisfaction

Social construction

K. L. Soloski (&)
Kansas State University, 139 Campus Creek Complex, Campus Creek Road,
Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
e-mail: Ksolosk1@ksu.edu

T. W. Pavkov
School of Family, Consumer, and Family Sciences, Northern Illinois University,
Wirtz Hall 121, Dekalb, IL 60115, USA
e-mail: tpavkov@niu.edu

K. A. Sweeney
Behavioral Sciences, Porter Hall 216E, Hammond, IN 46324, USA
e-mail: Kathryn.Sweeney@purduecal.edu

J. L. Wetchler
Couple and Family Therapy Center, 1247 E. 169th St., Hammond, IN 46324, USA
e-mail: wetchler@purduecal.edu

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

Introduction

Love is a socially constructed entity that has changed and developed its role in society over
time (Coontz 2005; Beall and Sternberg 1995). Love has not always been a staple in the
institution of marriage, but has widely become a driving motivation and requirement
within Western culture (Coontz 2005). Marrying for love became prominent in society in
the early to mid-1900s whilst women entered the work force (Coontz 2005) and no fault
divorces emerged (Baker et al. 2009); thereafter, the rates of divorces began to increase. As
an emotion became a common reason to marry, the loss of that feeling also became a
reason to leave that marriage (Coontz 2005). Obtaining a divorce on the grounds of decline
in the experience of love is not the only reason many divorce, but is becoming a more
common factor (Levine et al. 1995). As love influenced marriage, changes and factors
surrounding marriage may also influence love itself.

Love

As love became more important to society, it became a point of interest in research, and
many tried to operationalize and measure love (Lasswell and Lobsenz 1980; Levinger et al.
1977; Lee 1977; Rubin 1970; Sternberg 1986; Sternberg and Grajek 1984). Identifying the
unique qualities and attempting to quantify the construct proved difficult. Sternberg and
Grajek (1984) tested three different theories of love through factor analysis, but Sternberg
(1986) later hypothesized that more than just intimacy is involved in the construct of love.
Instead, Sternberg suggested that three aspects of love make the whole: intimacy, passion,
and commitment. These characteristics vary in regards to their properties; this includes
how controllable, salient, and important they are, and also how common, psychophysio-
logically involved, and available to conscious awareness each component is (Sternberg
1986). Although it is suggested that there are expected levels of importance assigned to
each of these components, it seems that each person’s subscription would vary based on the
independent experiences they had throughout their life. Witnessing one’s parents rela-
tionship, may be a prime way to learn about love, and to develop expectations surround its
role in marriage.

Ideal Love

Prior to entering a relationship, each person inherently constructs an ideal of what they
would like the relationship to encompass, indicating their importance of each of the three
constructs: intimacy, passion and commitment (Sternberg 1986). The overlap between what
a person experiences and their ideal thoughts surrounding love is correlated with relationship
satisfaction; however, incongruencies are related with dissatisfaction (Sternberg and Barnes
1985; Sternberg 1986).
Beall and Sternberg (1995) identify love as a socially constructed entity that is influ-
enced by a person’s environment and personal experience. Social role modeling is a prime
way to observe and learn about love as a construct (Sternberg 1986). Family and parents
are primary role models for relationships, and therefore those relationships and their
features are likely to influence the different components of love. At the most primary level
parents influence their children and affect the definitions they have about various con-
structs, including love. In this sense, social construction can begin within the family unit.
This study is interested in determining how parental relationship factors are related to an

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

offspring’s love and expectations for love. This study will also consider how the differ-
ences between love and expectations for love affect relationship satisfaction.

Changing Marital Patterns

Over the course of 40 years, the amount of divorces in the United States increased rapidly.
In 1950, the number of divorces in this country was estimated at around 400,000, by 1970
around 700,000, and by 1990 around 1,200,000 (Clarke 1995). As this number escalated,
however, so did the population within the United States. When accounting for population
changes, the divorce rates per 1,000 people in the population also rose; there were 2.6
divorces in 1950, 3.5 in 1970, and 4.7 in 1990 (U.S. National Center for Health Statistics
2003). Divorce rates were at their highest in 1981, with 5.3 per 1,000 people in the
population. A slight decline in the number of divorces has been emerging, and by 2008 the
number of divorces per 1,000 people was 3.5 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
2008). In a sample of individuals married between 1965 and 1975, Forste and Heaton
(2004) found that approximately 48 percent reported being divorced or separated. As the
requirement for love in marriage coincided with rises in divorce, the fluctuation in marital
status could also influence the understanding and experience of love in later generations.

Intergenerational Transmission of Divorce and Conflict

Observing one’s parents’ divorce has been suggested to prompt a ‘‘social inheritance of marital
instability’’ (Bumpass and Sweet 1970, p. 758). Women from families where one, or both
parents, were deceased did not vary from women with intact families; however, those women
whose parents separated or were divorced had marital disruption rates that were 10 points higher
than women from intact families. Subsequent studies have confirmed this association
(Teachman 2002), minimizing the likelihood that it is spurious (Glenn and Kramer 1987).
Other marital factors, including interparental conflict, have also been associated with
changing patterns in the later generation’s relationships. In a young adult’s romantic
relationship, the parents’ marital conflict is predictive of the level of conflict in their own
relationships (Cui et al. 2008). In adult marriages, general marital conflict is predicted by
the parent’s marital discord (Amato and Booth 2001).The level of conflict, problems, and
instability of a parents’ marriage, as assessed in childhood, is significantly related to the
same types of relationship discord in the child’s later marriage. Not only does interparental
conflict when a child is young predict the level of conflict within the offspring’s later
marriage, but it also related to a lower level of relationship harmony, including less
positive interactions and lower levels of happiness. Even the level of perceived hostile
conflict within a relationship can be predicted by both the husband and wife’s mother–child
relationships, and also by the quality of the wife’s family-of-origin environment (Topham
et al. 2005). Early family interactions model how children will later conduct their own
relationship. Thus, it follows that the definitions of and prescriptions to love might also
change as a result of observing changes in marital patterns by their parents and experi-
encing levels of interparental conflict.
There has been a debate as to which parental relationship factor is principal to child
relationship outcomes (Burns and Dunlop 2002), and much research has sought to clarify
the relative influence of divorce and interparental conflict (e.g., Amato and Booth 2001;
Cui et al. 2008). In young adult romantic relationships, it seems that interparental conflict,
rather than divorce, is a stronger predictor of relationship outcomes (Cui et al. 2008).
Further, when examining the longitudinal effects of interparental discord on child

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

relationship outcomes, the conflict levels in the parents’ relationship predict child rela-
tionship outcomes, and parental divorce does not mediate this relationship (Amato and
Booth 2001). This study is interested in determining how these parental relationship factors
(i.e., parental relationship status and interparental conflict) are associated with an off-
spring’s definition and experience of love. Additionally, this study is interested in the
relationship between the parental relationship factors, and whether one proved to be a
stronger predictor of love outcomes than the other.

Influences on Love

The relationship between love and various demographic factors has not been extensively
examined. However, love and relationship satisfaction have been identified as closely related
(Barnes and Sternberg 1997), and so to allow for the greatest generalizability to the popu-
lation, major demographics related to both love and relationship satisfaction will be con-
trolled for. Sex differences in marital and relationship satisfaction exist. Specifically, women
generally have lower satisfaction levels than their male counterparts (Corra et al. 2009;
Schumm et al. 1997; Fowers 1991; Jose and Alfons 2007). In terms of race, the literature
often focuses on the difference between Whites and Blacks on relationship satisfaction
(Corra et al. 2009; Sanderson and Kurdek 1993). Whites generally have a higher level of
relationship satisfaction than their Black counterparts (Corra et al. 2009), and Hispanics have
been found to be similar to Whites (Bulanda and Brown 2007). Financial security has been
found to be related to relationship satisfaction (Dakin and Wampler 2008; Kerkmann et al.
2000). Low-income couples have been found to be related to a lower level of relationship
satisfaction than their middle-income counterparts. These couples generally face a greater
number of challenges than their counterparts, including lesser work opportunities and
financial hardship, which may affect the satisfaction within their relationship. Religiosity has
been positively related to marital satisfaction (Orathinkal and Vansteenwegen 2006). Spe-
cific values and expectations (e.g., relationship commitment and sexual intimacy) that
coincide with religious ascription resemble the components of love in this study (i.e.,
commitment and passion). These religious values have also been related with relationship
success (Sullivan 2001) or sexual efficacy (Uecker 2008). Previous research finds that age
has a curvilinear relationship with relationship satisfaction; middle-aged individuals have
lower relationship satisfaction than the young or elderly (Gilford and Bengtson 1979;
Hudson and Murphy 1980; Jose and Alfons 2007). Continuing with that trend, one’s age
increases as their marriage continues, and so the same curvilinear relationship is found where
the early and later years of marriage have greater levels of satisfaction than those in their
middle years of marriage (Jose and Alfons 2007; White and Edwards 1990).
In addition to demographics, relationship factors are also related to different experi-
ences within a relationship. Glenn et al. (2010) found that contrary to previous literature,
marrying in your late 20s is does not prove to be more successful for a relationship.
Therefore, age at the time of marriage may have either a positive or negative relationship
with later satisfaction. The length of courtship also can impact relationship satisfaction; the
length of courtship has been positively related to marital satisfaction and negatively related
to divorce rates (Hansen 2006).
As love is socially constructed, and has been associated with changes in divorce levels
(Coontz 2005), the question becomes how do these changes also influence love? A socially
constructed entity does not simply develop as the result of cause and effect, but instead is
reciprocally influenced over time (Hoffman 1990). As each individual defines love based
on their experiences, then love within society also changes. It is plausible that the process

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

of social construction of the concept of love begins within one’s family unit and as they are
exposed to the parents’ relationships. This study will determine whether parent relationship
factors, marital status and interparental conflict, are significant predictors of love within a
relationship and marital expectations for love. This study will also determine the rela-
tionship between the current love in a relationship as compared to the expectations for
love, and how that difference is related to relationship satisfaction. It is expected that love
within a relationship and expectations for love are reduced in those individuals who
witnessed greater levels of interparental conflict, or those who witnessed their parents
separate or divorce. The previously discussed demographic and relationship factors will be
controlled for in the analyses of this study.
The main interest of the present study is to determine how parental relationship factors
are related to a child’s later experience of love and expectations for love in a relationship.
It is expected that a the experience of interparental conflict, or parental separation or
divorce, will be related to varying levels of love in an offspring’s present relationship and
varying levels of expectations for love. Through the observation of the parent’s relation-
ship, love and the ascription to love may be altered, thus indicating the social construction
of this entity through intergenerational processes.
As stated earlier, the loss in the experience of love has become one motivation and
rationale for obtaining a divorce (Coontz 2005; Levine et al. 1995). Love has become a
focus of therapy in some approaches (i.e., Johnson 2008). Johnson (2008) identifies love as
a primary human need, and as related to the attachment between partners. She suggests that
core relationship difficulties are related to a feeling of a loss of attachment and a loss of
love, and that therapy should address this experience. The research questions of the present
study hope to speak to intergenerational processes as socially constructing love. In this
way, both transgenerational and narrative therapies can be informed by these findings, and
can incorporate love as a focus. Clinical implications will be discussed.

Method

This study examines how one’s parental relationship affects their experience and expec-
tations of love, and how that difference interacts with marital satisfaction. Research
questions focused on examining the relationship between parental marital status, interpa-
rental conflict, one’s love, marital expectations, and marital satisfaction. All procedures
were submitted and approved by the Institutional Review Board at a Midwestern
University.

Participants

Participants were N = 207 members from the community. Whites made up 89.4 % and
Females made up 72.9 % of the sample. The age of participants ranged from 21 to 70
(M = 43.63, SD = 12.67). Annual income was ranged from $0 to $250,000
(M = $93,554.20, SD = $46,647.57). See Table 1 for complete demographic information.

Measures

The overall survey contained 170 questions distributed between five scales and included
demographic inquiry. A total of five scales within the survey assessed constructs including
the participant’s love, love expectations, martial satisfaction, and interparental conflict.

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

Table 1 Demographic frequency table

Demographic n %

Race
White/Caucasian 185 89.4
Black/African-American 11 5.3
Other 11 5.3
Biological sex
Female 151 72.9
Male 56 27.1
Age
20–29 34 16.4
30–39 46 22.2
40–49 36 17.4
50–59 47 22.7
60–69 23 11.1
70–79 1 0.5
Missing 20 9.7
Religion
Christian 67 32.4
Catholic 53 25.6
Baptist 8 3.9
Orthodox 1 0.5
Atheist 10 4.8
Evangelical 1 0.5
Judaism 7 3.4
Protestant 22 10.6
Other 21 10.1
Missing 17 8.2
Income
0–24,999 3 1.4
25,000–49,999 17 8.2
50,000–74,999 38 18.4
75,000–99,999 39 18.8
100,000–124,999 29 14.0
125,000–149,999 19 9.2
150,000–174,999 12 5.8
175,000–199,999 5 2.4
200,000–224,999 3 1.4
225,000–249,999 0 0.0
250,000–274,999 3 1.4
Missing 39 18.8

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

Procedure

Data Collection

Participants were obtained through online convenience sampling and through a snowball,
or word of mouth, sample. Emails served as the main form of participant recruitment and
initiated word of mouth sampling. Information regarding the study was also delivered
through a campus email distribution list and on Facebook postings. Participants were
informed that their responses to the survey could aid in the understanding of factors that
influence relationship satisfaction, as well as how parental relationships influence a child.
No formal remuneration was offered for participation. Data was collected using a web-
based survey tool at the Institute for Social and Policy Research at a Midwestern
University.

Sternberg’s Triangular Love Scale

Sternberg’s Triangular Love Scale (STLS; Sternberg 1997) assessed both the love reported
within the participant’s relationship and also the participant’s reported expectations around
love in a marriage. The STLS is a 36-item self-report scale with three 12-item subscales
measuring the dimensions of love: intimacy, passion, and commitment. The items on the
STLS are measured on a 9-point Likert-type scale from 1 meaning ‘‘not at all’’ to 9
meaning ‘‘extremely’’. An example item is, ‘‘I cannot imagine being without my partner’’.
The measure has been construct validated and shown to have strong internal consistency
(a = 0.97; Sternberg 1997), which remained consistent within this study (Cronbach’s
a = .98). The scale has been externally validated through comparisons with the Rubin
Liking and Loving Scales and was correlated with satisfaction measures (Sternberg 1997).
Test–retest reliability has shown correlations of 0.70 for intimacy, 0.65 for passion, and
0.78 for commitment (Whitley 1993).
Within this study, the STLS was utilized in standard form and in a modified form. The
modified form allowed the participants to consider their general and realistic expectations
regarding love in a marriage. Items were modified to allow for general assessment of
expectations. For example the item ‘‘I view my relationship with my partner as permanent’’
(Sternberg 1997, p. 329) was changed to ‘‘I would expect that a person would view their
relationship with their partner as permanent’’. The modified version maintained good
internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = .97).

Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale

The level of interparental conflict was assessed using the Children’s Perception of Inter-
parental Conflict Scale (CPICS; Grych et al. 1992). The CPICS is a 49-item self-report
scale designed to determine the level of conflict within a parent’s relationship. Responses
ranged from ‘‘False,’’ ‘‘Sort of True,’’ and ‘‘True’’. Several dimensions of conflict are
assessed through various subscales including frequency, intensity, resolution, and content,
and several dimensions of child reactions or interpretations of conflict are assessed,
including self-blame, threat, coping efficacy, stability, and triangulation. Internal consis-
tency estimates for the subscales have ranged from a = .78 to .90 and test–retest reliability
estimates on the subscales ranged from .68 to .76 (Grych et al. 1992). The CPICS has also
been shown to have validity with comparisons of the O’Leary Porter Scale, the Conflict
Tactics Scale, responses to taped vignettes, and with self-report measures as well as outside

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

ratings of the child’s adjustment have indicated that the measure is valid and measuring the
appropriate constructs (Grych et al. 1992).
Traditionally, the CPICS is used to measure a child’s perception of their parents’ conflict;
however, within this study the CPICS was utilized to assess an adult’s recollection of their
parent’s relationship. The items within this measure were altered to allow for the retrospective
use of this measure. For example, the item ‘‘I never see my parents arguing or disagreeing’’
(Grych et al. 1992, p. 570) was changed to ‘‘I never saw my parents arguing or disagreeing’’.
In the introductory statement for this scale, the participants were instructed to think back to
when they lived with their parent(s), or the times they saw their parents with one another, and
to answer the questions in regards to those times. The internal validity for this revised scale
was similar to the work by Grych et al. (1992), with good internal consistency for the whole
scale (Cronbach’s a = .96), and estimates for the subscales ranging from a = .58 to .93.

Couple’s Satisfaction Index

Marital satisfaction was assessed with the Couple’s Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk and
Rogge 2007). The CSI is a precise 16-item scale that determines relationship satisfaction.
The items in the measure are formatted in a Likert-type format ranging from either 0–5 or
0–6. For example, ‘‘Please indicate the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your
relationship’’ was measured from 0, ‘‘Extremely Unhappy’’, to 6, ‘‘Perfect’’. Six of the
questions utilized antonyms to consider dichotomous feelings about one’s relationship on a
scale ranging from 0 to 5. For example, the respondent was to select the answer that best
described how they feel about their relationship from 5, ‘‘Interesting’’, to 0, ‘‘Boring’’.
Convergent and construct validity have been established with the CSI (Funk and Rogge
2007). The CSI shows strong correlations with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the
Marital Adjustment Test indicating good convergent validity. A Cronbach’s alpha of
a = 0.98 for the 16-item version has also been established, and was consistent with the
Cronbach’s alpha for the scale within this study (Cronbach’s a = .98).

Variable Calculation

To provide the overall constructs of interest in this survey, the items to the respective
surveys were summed to create one variable representing the overall construct. The 51
items of the CPICS were summed to create an overall variable labeled interparental
conflict. The 36 items of the STLS were summed to create an overall variable that will be
referred to as total love. Total love represents the amount of love a person judges their
relationship as having, in terms of intimacy, passion and commitment. The 36 items of the
STLS-modified were summed to create an overall variable labeled as marital expectations.
The difference in love and marital expectations was calculated by subtracting the marital
expectations variable from the total love variable and is called love surplus. A positive
number on love surplus would indicate that the total love an individual experienced was
greater than what they would have expected. The 16 items of the CSI were summed to
create an overall variable labeled marital satisfaction.

Demographics

A series of demographic questions were included to determine the background of partic-

ipants. Questions assessed demographics including sex (1 = female, 2 = male), race

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

(0 = Other, 1 = White), age, race, and income. Race was dichotomized to compare
0 = Whites to 1 = all others. Level of religiosity was assessed asking the participants,
‘‘how religious would you describe yourself’’, and was scaled from 1 = not at all to
9 = extremely. Relationship variables were also assessed including length of courtship and
age at marriage. Finally, the participants’ parental relationship status was assessed through
multiple questions and assigned as married/never separated, was or is separated/still
married, or divorced. Two dummy coded parental marital status variables were created,
and the married group was used as the reference group in both variables (0 = married,
1 = separated/divorced).

Data Analysis

Missing Data

After elimination of incomplete surveys, there was a remainder of N = 207 participants.

Missing data remained among the final participants. For all the scale items, the greatest
number of missing cases was eight (\4 % of overall data). Series means were calculated
and imputed for the missing data of each item for the scales. Analyses were conducted
using SPSS 19 (IBM Corporation 2010). For the hierarchical regressions, missing data
among the demographic variables was eliminated using listwise deletion during analyses to
avoid biasing any findings related to demographics. The majority of missing items were
from the income variable, with 23 % missing. After listwise deletion of the participants
with missing data on the demographic variables, the final participants were N = 152, or
73 % of the sample of participants.

Testing for Normality and Transforming Data

Analyses of normality were conducted on the composite items for each of the scales.
Although the Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests of normality revealed that the distributions of the
variables were significantly different from normal, and the histograms seemed to depict
skewed or highly kurtotic distributions, according to Kline (2005) the skewness (i.e., less
than the absolute value of 3) and kurtosis (i.e., less than 10) of all scales was within the
normal range. The assumptions of normality, linearity of the distributions, multivariate
normality, and homoskedasticity, were examined and all assumptions were met. The data
was also analyzed for outliers using z-scores. Although z-scores that were C|2| were
present, the string of scores were continuous and there were no individual outliers in the
distributions. The assumption of independence is also assumed in this data.

Analyses

An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was first conducted to determine the interrelationship

between parental marital status and interparental conflict. Bivariate analyses were then
conducted to determine the linear relationship between the parent relationship factors (i.e.,
interparental conflict and parental marital status) and the love factors (i.e., total love,
marital expectations, and love surplus). Hierarchical multiple regression analyses with
forced entry were conducted to determine the relationship between parent relationship
factors and love, while accounting for demographic and relationship variables. The parent
relationship factors (i.e., interparental conflict and parental marital status) served as the

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

independent variables, while total love and marital expectations functioned as the
dependent variables. Demographic variables including age, sex, race, religiosity, and
income were introduced as control variables for in the first step of the hierarchical
regression. Relationship factors including age at marriage and length of courtship served as
the relationship control factors in the second step of the analyses. The main independent
variables (i.e., interparental conflict and parental marital status) were entered into the third
step of the analyses to determine the unique contribution of these variables to the pre-
diction of total love and marital expectations.

Results

Before conducting the hypothesis testing for this study, complete descriptive statistics were
conducted for demographics and the main variables of interest in this study (see Table 2).

Parent Relationship Factors

The parental marital status groups met the assumption of homogeneity of variance for in-
terparental conflict. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test was then conducted to compare
the three groups in terms of interparental conflict. The ANOVA comparing parental marital
status on the level interparental conflict revealed significant differences (F(2) = 31.10,
p \ .001). The Fisher Least Significant Difference test was conducted for the post hoc
analyses. The results revealed significant differences between the married and separated
groups (t = - 22.52, p \ .001) and the married and divorced groups (t = - 22.15,
p \ .001), but no differences between the separated and divorced groups (see Table 3).

Bivariate Analyses

Individual correlation analyses between the level of interparental conflict and the different
love factors (i.e., total love, marital expectations, and love surplus). None of these bivariate
relationships were significant.
Bivariate analyses were then conducted between parental marital status and the love
factors. ANOVAs were conducted for the amount of total love, marital expectations, and

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for demographics and variables of interest

Variables N M SD Range

Age 187 43.64 12.67 21–70

Religiosity 207 4.88 2.35 1–9
Income 168 93,554.20 46,647.57 0–250,000
Age at marriage 184 28.89 8.57 17–64
Length of courtship 197 3.49 3.56 -1 to 31
Interparental conflict 207 27.54 19.54 1–82
Total love 207 262.47 58.25 36–324
Marital expectations 207 277.80 38.47 51.58–324
Love surplus 207 -15.33 57.55 -228 to 129
Marital satisfaction 207 61.03 16.57 0–81

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

love surplus reported by the participants across their parent’s marital status. The
assumption of homogeneity of variance was met for all of the analyses, but there were no
significant differences between groups on any of the love factors. Therefore, there were no
significant bivariate relationships between parent relationship factors (i.e., interparental
conflict and parental marital status) and the love factors (i.e., total love, marital expecta-
tions, and love surplus).
Bivariate analyses were then conducted to determine the predictive relationship of love
(i.e., total love, marital expectations, and love surplus) on marital satisfaction (see
Table 4). A correlation revealed a significant positive relationship between the total love
and marital satisfaction a participant reported (r = .92, p \ .001). The correlational level
of these two variables indicates multicolinearity between total love and martial satisfac-
tion. A correlation revealed a significant positive relationship between the levels of marital
expectations and marital satisfaction reported by participants (r = .19, p \ .01). Finally, a
correlation revealed a significant positive correlation between the amount of love surplus
and marital satisfaction reported by participants (r = .81, p \ .001).

Predicting Total Love

A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to determine the relationship between

the level of interparental conflict, the parent relationship statuses and the amount of total
love reported when controlling for demographic variables and relationship factors (see
Table 5). The demographic control variables were entered in step 1, while the rela-
tionship control variables were entered in step 2. Finally, the parent relationship pre-
dictors were entered into step 3 of the hierarchical multiple regression. The first step of
the model accounted for R2 = .071 of the variance of the total love dependent variable,
but did not prove to be a significant model in the prediction of total love. Step two
proved to increase the variance accounted for, DR2 = .025, but not significantly, and was
a significant overall model (F(6, 147) = 2.60, p \ .05). The addition of the participant’s
parental relationship status and the amount of interparental conflict did not significantly
increase the amount of variance accounted for (DR2 = .033), but the model remained
significant at step 3 of the analysis (F(9, 144) = 2.37, p \ .05). Higher levels of reli-
giosity were significant predictors of higher levels of total love at step 1 (b = .18,
p \ .05), step 2 (b = .16, p \ .05), and step 3 (b = .16, p \ .05) of the model. The
lower the age at the time of a participant’s marriage was significantly related to higher
levels of total love at step 2 of the model (b = - .18, p \ .05), but not after the level of
interparental and the participant’s parental marital status were added to the model in step
3. The level of interparental conflict proved to be the only significant parental rela-
tionship predictor of the levels of total love reported in step 3 of the model, where lower

Table 3 Mean scores on interparental conflict as a function of parental marital status (N = 207)
Interparental conflict

Marital status N M SD

Married 158 22.28a,b 16.51

Separated 9 44.80a 19.41
Divorced 40 44.43b 19.45
Means in a column sharing subscripts are significantly different from each other

123
123
Table 4 Correlation matrix for demographics and variables of interest
N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Age 187 –
Biological sex 207 .22** –
White versus other 207 .10 -.11 –
Religiosity 207 -.10 .01 -.13 –
Income 168 .43*** .13 -.05 -.11 –
Age at marriage 184 .41*** .15* -.05 -.13 .15 –
Length of courtship 197 -.05 -.05 -.03 -.08 -.10 .29*** –
Interparental conflict 207 -.17* -.16* -.07 -.01 -.09 .00 .07 –
Married versus separated dummy 207 .03 -.02 -.08 -.13 -.10 .00 -.02 .19** –
Author's personal copy

Married versus divorced dummy 207 -.20** -.02 -.07 -.12 -.05 .01 .14 .43*** -.10 –
Total love 207 .05 .10 .08 .18** -.06 -.18* -.12 -.10 -.03 -.13 –
Marital expectations 207 -.11 -.05 .10 .18** -.14 -.12 .00 -.11 .08 -.13 .35*** –
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001
Contemp Fam Ther
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

Table 5 Hierarchical multiple regression analysis summary for parent variables predicting total love
(N = 152)
Step and predictor variable B SE B b R2 DR2

Step 1 .071
Age .35 .42 .08
Biological sex 14.82 10.90 .11
White versus other 29.84 15.32 .16
Religiosity 4.38 2.01 .18*
Income -5.41E-5 .00 -.04
Step 2 .097 .026
Age .75 .461 .16
Biological sex 15.42 10.84 .12
White versus other 26.12 15.32 .14
Religiosity 4.04 2.01 .16*
Income -6.75E-5 .00 -.05
Age at marriage -1.24 .67 -.19*
Length of courtship .42 1.35 .03
Step 3 .130 .034
Age .57 .48 .12
Biological sex 13.00 10.85 .10
White versus other 20.94 15.53 .11
Religiosity 4.10 2.06 .16*
Income -6.03E-5 .00 -.05
Age at marriage -1.20 .67 -.17
Length of courtship .68 1.35 .04
Interparental conflict -.61 .31 -.18*
Married versus separated 21.03 28.54 .06
Married versus divorced -3.01 13.69 -.02

* p \ .05

levels of interparental conflict were predictive of higher levels of total love (b = -.18,
p = .05).

Predicting Marital Expectations

A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to determine the relationship between the
level of interparental conflict, the parents’ marital status and the level of marital expec-
tations indicated by participants when controlling for demographic and relationship vari-
ables (see Table 6). Demographic variables were entered as control variables in step 1, and
relationship variables were entered as control variables in step 2. The predictor variables,
level of interparental conflict and parental marital status reported were entered into step 3.
The demographic variables proved to account for R2 = .07 of the variance in marital
expectations in step 1, but the model did not significantly predict the level of marital
expectations. Step 2 in the model, the addition of age at marriage and length of courtship of
participants, did not add any measurable amount of change to the variance accounted for

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

(DR2 = .00), and did not prove to create a significant model predicting the level of marital
expectations. The level of interparental conflict and the participant’s parental marital status
proved to contribute a significant change in the variance accounted for by the model
(DR2 = .08, p \ .01). Step 3 in the model accounted for 15 percent of the variance, and
was a significant model for predicting level of marital expectations (F(9, 144) = 2.81,
p \ .01). Race was a significant predictor of marital expectations at step 1 (b = .21,
p \ .05), step 2 (b = .20, p \ .05), and step 3 (b = .19, p \ .05) of the model. The
‘‘White’’ group was associated with higher levels of marital expectations as compared to
the ‘‘Other’’ group. The interparental conflict variable (b = - .21, p \ .05) and the
Married vs. Separated parent relationship status groups (b = .22, p = .01), were signifi-
cant predictors of level of marital expectations in the model. Those participants who
witnessed lower levels of interparental conflict were associated with higher marital
expectations, and those participants whose parents were separated had higher marital
expectations than their counterparts whose parents remained married.

Table 6 Hierarchical multiple regression analysis summary for parent variables predicting marital
expectations (N = 152)
Step and predictor variable B SE B b R2 DR2

Step 1 .070
Age -.23 .28 -.07
Biological sex 4.02 7.24 .05
White versus other 26.04 10.18 .21*
Religiosity 1.86 1.34 .11
Income -6.52E-5 .00 -.08
Step 2 .073 .003
Age -.16 .31 -.05
Biological sex 4.33 7.29 .05
White versus other 25.80 10.31 .21*
Religiosity 1.86 1.35 .11
Income -6.27E-5 .00 -.08
Age at marriage -.21 .44 -.04
Length of courtship .60 .91 .06
Step 3 .154 .081**
Age -.43 .31 -.14
Biological sex 3.05 7.11 .04
White versus other 23.42 10.17 .19*
Religiosity 2.17 1.35 .13
Income -3.43E-5 .00 -.04
Age at marriage .05 .44 .01
Length of courtship .81 .88 .08
Interparental conflict -.47 .20 -.21*
Married versus separated 48.71 18.69 .22**
Married versus divorced -5.36 8.97 -.06
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

Discussion

This study sought to examine how parent relationship factors, including marital status and
interparental conflict, influence current relationships and the expectations regarding love
within a marriage. Love has become an important part of Western culture and a driving
force for marriage (Coontz 2005). Changes to marital commitment (i.e., increases in
divorce rates) coincided with the increase in the importance of love to a marriage (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention 2008; Coontz 2005). The socially constructed entity
(Beall and Sternberg 1995), love, is expected be influenced by the relationship a person
observes between their parents.
The findings from the present study support a relationship between parent relationship
factors and differences in love and love expectations. Specifically, this study found that
lower levels of interparental conflict are significantly related to higher levels of love a
person reports within their relationship and higher levels of marital expectations for love.
Being exposed to marital conflict has been shown to influence a person’s own experience
of love within their relationship. Conflict within one’s parents’ relationship has been
associated with an intergenerational transmission of conflict (Kinsfogel and Grych 2004).
The levels of conflict the participants of this study experience in their own relationships
was not measured; however, the observation of conflict also has been found to influence a
person’s attitudes toward relationships and marriage in general (Yu and Adler-Baeder
2007). Interparental conflict also influences a person’s conflict resolution skills with their
partner (Herzog and Cooney 2002). Regardless of how the relationship interactions change
because of the observation of conflict, the experience of love is different. Additionally, the
amount of love that a person expects to experience in their own relationship decreases
along with the amount of interparental conflict they observe as a child. Observing conflict
in the primary relationship a person is exposed to is associated with a different concep-
tualization of the role of love within one’s own intimate relationship. Both the experience
within a person’s relationship and expectations for love within a relationship differ for
those who view higher levels of conflict as compared to those who view lower levels of
interparental conflict.
Parental marital status alone was not a predictor of the love within a participant’s
relationship, but was a significant predictor of their martial expectations. Participants with
separated parents had significantly higher love expectations than those whose parents were
married. It could be that expectations surrounding intimacy or commitment levels were
affected by the parent separation and possibly the ambiguity of the relationship status.
Parents may begin relationships with other partners before their marriage is officially
dissolved. This can confuse the role of love, or specifically commitment, in a relationship.
A child experiencing their parents’ separation may react by creating higher expectations
for their own relationship.

Interparental Conflict and Parent Relationship Status

A debate has existed in the scientific community on whether the influences of parental
marital status or interparental conflict are greater (Burns and Dunlop 2002). However,
considering these factors alone may not be meaningful without considering the influence of
the other. In this study, there were significant group differences between the parental
marital status groups in terms of interparental conflict. These two variables were not
independent from one another. Married groups had significantly less interparental conflict
than the separated and divorced groups. Separated and divorced groups were very similar

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

to one another on this factor, both having a higher level of interparental conflict. Con-
sistently throughout this study, parental marital status did not offer any significant amount
of variance above and beyond the predictive value of interparental conflict. In terms of the
transmission of love and of marital expectations, interparental conflict seems to be more
influential on a person than is parental marital status.
Neither parental marital status nor interparental conflict was found to be a significant
predictor of marital expectations without accounting for the influence of demographic and
relationship variables. Only when holding demographic factors, including age, sex, race,
religiosity, and income, as well as relationship factors constant, can the effects of inter-
generational processes on love be detected. The demographic factors seem to function as
suppressor variables (Kline 2005) that collude the ability to see the patterns. Meaning there
are many differences in these outcome variables from one demographic variable to
another, and patterns are difficult to detect without also considering these factors and
accounting for the variance they contribute. Again, this indicates that the construction of
love within a family context is influenced by a multitude of factors, and the influence is
subtle without accounting for these other complex social factors.
In terms of the demographic variables, only a few patterns of significance emerged.
Higher levels of religiosity were associated with higher levels of love within a relationship,
consistent with the literature that religiosity is related with relationship satisfaction and
relationship commitment, a factor of love (Orathinkal and Vansteenwegen 2006; Uecker
2008). Additionally, a lower age at the time of marriage was associated with higher levels
of love, previous literature has mixed results regarding one’s age at the time that they
marry and relationship success (Glenn et al. 2010). Race specifically contributed signifi-
cantly to the prediction of the expectations of love a participant had for their relationship.
The White participants reported higher levels of expectations for love within their rela-
tionships than the other ethnicities. The divorce levels for minority couples are higher than
for Whites (Bramlett and Mosher 2002), perhaps indicating a lower expectation for
commitment in a relationship, one of the three components of love. Although other
demographic factors did not serve to be significant predictors, they added significantly to
the predictability of the love factors.
The love in a relationship and marital expectations are highly related. Generally, marital
expectations regarding love were much higher than the experience that the participants
were experiencing. The difference between one’s experience of love and their expectations
for love was generally a negative value for the participants; meaning that they had greater
expectations for love than their current relationship was providing them. In this way, most
participants had a deficit of love in comparison to their expectations for it. The relationship
between love and ideals has been found to be similar as in this study (Sternberg and Barnes
1985). Further, those who had much higher expectations for love had significantly less
ratings of satisfaction in their own relationship, also coinciding with previous research
(Sternberg and Barnes 1985).
There was a substantial degree of association between the factors surrounding love in
this study. As the love a person experienced increased, so did their corresponding
expectations. Higher expectations were positively related to love and marital satisfaction.
Total love and relationship satisfaction were multicolinear in this study, consistent with
previous studies (Barnes and Sternberg 1997). The difference between real and ideals of
love have found similar results of lowered satisfaction (Sternberg and Barnes 1985). In this
study, love includes intimacy, passion and commitment themes. Higher expectations could
mean higher belief in commitment or intimacy and may therefore impact the later success
of a relationship. Together the factors of love in this study, intimacy, passion, and

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

commitment, were influenced by parent relationship factors, and were related to changes in
relationship satisfaction, indicating a continuation in the social construction of love.

Clinical Implications

Therapy is a complex process that should consider and account for many possible influ-
ences on an individual, couple, and/or family. Therapies that account for the social con-
struction of problems, Narrative therapies (White and Epston 1990), and the
intergenerational transmission of values or patterns, Transgenerational therapy (Kerr and
Bowen 1988), would benefit from the knowledge of factors influencing love and marital
expectations.
Parent relationship factors, especially interparental conflict, influence love and expec-
tations, and indirectly are associated with marital satisfaction. A therapist utilizing trans-
generational therapy would consider family patterns, and this research can inform a
therapist’s conceptualization of important family influences. These findings suggest a need
to focus on patterns of interparental conflict and divorce within one’s family history, and to
consider the expectations that have been conveyed from these patterns. To incorporate
these themes, a therapist can conduct a love genogram. This genogram can focus on
identifying themes related to conflict, marital status, and expressions of love within family
relationships. Within this genogram, the therapist can discuss how conflict, divorce, or
sustaining marriages affect patterns within the present relationship and the understanding
of the role love plays. As a whole, through intergenerational approaches, a discussion of
relationship patterns and how they affect thinking surrounding love and its role in a
relationship can be facilitated.
Narrative therapies can consider the ever-evolving influence of love on the relationship,
and how society’s story of love could influence one’s ideals and expectations. This process
can begin by focusing on how the parents’ story influenced the child’s experience and
expectations for love. Therapy could eventually focus on re-authoring a person’s own
story, involving aspects of love that have proved to be important to the relationship, but
may not have been recognized as such. Discrepancies between the experience of love and
expectations for love can prove to be problematic in a relationship (Sternberg and Barnes
1985), and so focusing on exceptions can buffer against this negative effect through the
accentuation of times when the experience of love is prevalent. As a whole, the narrative
approach can allow the client(s) to consider how love has been influenced by early
childhood experiences and parent relationships, and can consider the role love currently
plays in the relationship. By focusing on exceptions to when love is present and helpful
within the relationship, the narrative approach can deplete any discrepancies between the
experience and expectation for love, thus possibly strengthening satisfaction.
The more expectations a person has, and the farther their reality is from those ideals, the
more severe consequences on a relationship (Sternberg and Barnes 1985). The greater the
deficit of love a person evaluates their relationship as having, the more likely they are to be
unsatisfied in their relationship. With the substantiation of family patterns and the trans-
mission processes of love, therapy can be conducted with these findings informing clinical
practices. This information can be used to create more effective treatment plans and
relevant therapeutic interventions. Ultimately, the goal of using these findings is to inform
therapeutic practice with couples’ and therefore reduce unnecessary relationship dissolu-
tion as a result.

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

Limitations

Several limitations within the study existed. The lack of variability of participants limits
the generalizability of the results. A majority of participants were White (89.4 %) and
more within the study were female (72.9 %) than male (27.1 %). Participants within the
study, as a trend, had higher levels of love and satisfaction. It is likely that those people
who felt comfortable with the state of their marriage were more likely to volunteer par-
ticipation in the study. Future studies could substantiate the present findings by providing
larger sample sizes to increase the validity of results.
The analyses within this study were conducted according to specific hypotheses about
relationships. Results showed significance in each of the multivariate models proposed;
however, the specific significance of each variable was not substantiated. In this study, although
predictors within the model were not individually significant, they did add to the overall
significance of the model and allowed for significance of target predictors, specifically inter-
parental conflict, to be detected. Further exploratory studies should focus on increasing not only
the amount of variance the model could account for, but also in eliminating non-significant
predictors which do not add to the model. Additionally, incorporating previous relationship
history as a predictive variable may add to the model and allow for an understanding of whether
healthy relationships can moderate or mediate the effects of witnessing parental conflict.
Future research should focus on validating the present findings, and expanding the target
population to increase generalizability of findings. Specifically, research should focus on
couples or individuals who are not married, people whose parents have not been married,
or those of gay, lesbian or bisexual sexual orientation. To expand the literature on how
intergenerational factors influence marital expectations or how marital expectations
influence satisfaction, future research should expand the factors of focus. Other analyses
could include evaluation of marital expectations in terms of sexual expectations, gender
role expectations, parenting style expectations, or other factors including media or peers.
The current definition was narrow and limited to love expectations, which likely limited
the variance accounted for in the study and the amount of significant relationships that
could be found.

Conclusion

The definition of love is different to every person, and becomes different as it is socially
constructed (Beall and Sternberg 1995). Love has become important in society and a
requirement of marriage for many (Coontz 2005). Divorce rates have changed (Coontz 2005)
and are being transmitted intergenerationally (Amato 1996). This study was interested in
determining how the social construction of love functions through intergenerational pro-
cesses. Interparental conflict is a significant influence on love, marital expectations, and
satisfaction. This study provides support that parental factors are related to differences in
love and expectations surrounding love. As love began an important change in society, the
social construction of love continued through the family unit, and will continue over time as
many societal and familial factors change.

References

Amato, P. R. (1996). Explaining the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 58, 628–640.

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (2001). The legacy of parents’ marital discord: Consequences for children’s
marital quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 627–638.
Baker, E. H., Sanchez, L. A., Nock, S. L., & Wright, J. D. (2009). Covenant marriage and the sanctification
of gendered marital roles. Journal of Family Issues, 30(2), 147–178.
Barnes, M. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Hierarchical model of love and its prediction of satisfaction in
close relationships. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 79–101). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Beall, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). The social construction of love. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 12(3), 417–438.
Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United
States. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Vital and Health Statistics Reports, 23.
Bulanda, J. R., & Brown, S. L. (2007). Race-ethnic differences in marital quality and divorce. Social Science
Research, 36, 945–967.
Bumpass, L. L., & Sweet, J. A. (1970). Differentials in marital instability. American Sociological Review,
37(6), 754–766.
Burns, A., & Dunlop, R. (2002). Parental marital quality and family conflict: Longitudinal effects on
adolescents from divorcing and non-divorcing families. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 37(1/2),
57–74.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. (2008). FastStats:
Marriage and divorce. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm.
Clarke, S. C. (1995). Advance report of final divorce statistics, 1989 and 1990. Monthly Vital Statistics
Report, 43(9). Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr/supp/mv43_09s.pdf.
Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a history: From obedience to intimacy or how love conquered marriage.
London: Viking Penguin.
Corporation, I. B. M. (2010). IBM SPSS statistics 19. Somers: IBM Corporation.
Corra, M., Carter, S. K., Carter, J. S., & Knox, D. (2009). Trends in marital happiness by gender and race,
1973–2006. Journal of Family Issues, 30(10), 1379–1404.
Cui, M., Fincham, F. D., & Pasley, B. K. (2008). Young adult romantic relationships: The role of parents’ marital
problems and relationship efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(9), 1226–1235.
Dakin, J., & Wampler, R. (2008). Money doesn’t buy happiness, but it helps: Marital satisfaction, psy-
chological distress, and demographic differences between low- and middle-income clinic couples. The
American Journal of Family Therapy, 36, 300–311.
Forste, R., & Heaton, T. B. (2004). The divorce generation: Well-being, family attitudes, and socioeconomic
consequences of marital disruption. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 41(1/2), 95–114.
Fowers, B. J. (1991). His and her marriage: A multivariate study of gender and marital satisfaction. Sex
Roles, 24(3–4), 209–221.
Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision
measurement for relationship satisfaction with the couples satisfaction index. Journal of Family
Psychology, 21(4), 572–583.
Gilford, R., & Bengtson, V. (1979). Measuring marital satisfaction in three generations: Positive and
negative dimensions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41(2), 387–398.
Glenn, N. D., & Kramer, K. B. (1987). The marriages and divorces of the children of divorce. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 49, 811–825.
Glenn, N. D., Uecker, J. E., & Love, R. W. B. (2010). Later first marriage and marital success. Social
Science Research, 39, 787–800.
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.
Hansen, S. R. (2006). Courtship duration as a correlate of marital satisfaction and stability. Dissertation
Abstracts International Section B The Sciences and Engineering, 67(4-B), 2279.
Herzog, M. J., & Cooney, T. M. (2002). Parental divorce and perceptions of past interparental conflict:
Influences on the communication of young adults. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 36(3/4),
89–109.
Hoffman, L. (1990). Constructing realities: An art of lenses. Family Process, 29(1), 1–12.
Hudson, W. W., & Murphy, G. J. (1980). The non-linear relationship between marital satisfaction and stages
of the family life cycle: An artifact of Type I errors? Journal of Marriage and Family, 42, 263–267.
Johnson, S. (2008). Hold me tight: Seven conversations for a lifetime of love. New York: Little, Brown and
Company.
Jose, O., & Alfons, V. (2007). Do demographics affect marital satisfaction? Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy, 33, 73–85.

123
 Author's personal copy
Contemp Fam Ther

Kerkmann, B. C., Lee, T. R., Lown, J. M., & Allgood, S. M. (2000). Financial management, financial
problems and marital satisfaction among recently married University students. Financial Counseling
and Planning, 11(2), 55–65.
Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation: An approach based on Bowen theory. New York: W.
W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Kinsfogel, K. M., & Grych, J. H. (2004). Interparental conflict and adolescent dating relationships: Inte-
grating cognitive, emotional, and peer influence. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(3), 505–515.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford
Press.
Lasswell, M., & Lobsenz, N. M. (1980). Styles of loving. New York: Ballaantine.
Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 173–182.
Levine, R., Sato, S., Hashimoto, T., & Verma, J. (1995). Love and marriage in eleven cultures. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(5), 554–571.
Levinger, G., Rands, M., & Talaber, R. (1977). The assessment of involvement and rewardingness in close
and casual pair relationships (National Science Foundation Technical Report). Amherst: University of
Massachusetts.
Orathinkal, J., & Vansteenwegen, A. (2006). Religiosity and marital satisfaction. Contemporary Family
Therapy, 28, 497–504.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2),
265–273.
Sanderson, B., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Race and gender as moderator variables in predicting relationship
satisfaction and relationship commitment in a sample of dating heterosexual couples. Family Relations,
42(3), 263–267.
Schumm, W. R., Bollman, S. R., & Jurich, A. P. (1997). Gender and marital satisfaction: A replication using
a seven-point item response version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Psychological Reports,
81(3, Pt 1), 1004–1006.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychology Review, 93(2), 119–135.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 27, 313–335.
Sternberg, R. J., & Barnes, M. (1985). Real and ideal others in romantic relationships: Is four a crowd?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1586–1608.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
47(2), 312–329.
Sullivan, K. T. (2001). Understanding the relationship between religiosity and marriage: An investigation of
the immediate and longitudinal effects of religiosity on newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 15(4), 610–626.
Teachman, J. D. (2002). Childhood living arrangements and the intergenerational transmission of divorce.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 717–729.
Topham, G. L., Larson, J. H., & Holman, T. B. (2005). Family-of-origin predictors of hostile conflict in
early marriage. Contemporary Family Therapy, 27(1), 101–121.
Uecker, J. E. (2008). Religion, pledging, and the premarital sexual behavior of married young adults.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 728–744.
U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). Statistical abstracts of the United
States. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/vitstat.pdf.
White, L., & Edwards, J. N. (1990). Emptying the nest and parental well-being: An analysis of national
panel data. American Sociological Review, 55(2), 235–242.
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: Norton.
Whitley, B. E. (1993). Reliability and aspects of the construct validity of Sternberg’s Triangular Love Scale.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 475–480.
Yu, T., & Adler-Baeder, F. (2007). The intergenerational transmission of relationship quality: The effects of
parental remarriage quality on young adults’ relationships. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 47(3/
4), 87–102.

123
View publication stats