Journal of Family Psychology

© 2023 American Psychological Association 2023, Vol. 37, No. 5, 720–730

ISSN: 0893-3200 https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001100

Continuity in Hostile Family Relationships Mediated by Family

Psychopathology: An Application of Systems Perspective
Tae Kyoung Lee1, Kandauda A. S. Wickrama2, and Catherine Walker O’Neal2
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

1
Department of Child Psychology and Education/Social Innovation Convergence Program, Sungkyunkwan University
2
Department of Human Development and Family Science, University of Georgia

Grounded in the family systems theory within the life course systems perspective, this study sought to
investigate (a) long-term transmission processes of hostility from interparental relationships to parent–
young adult relationships and (b) the mediational roles of parents’ and adolescents’ psychopathology in
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

these long-term processes. Research has examined the long-term transmission of hostility from interparental
relationships to young adults’ relationships with their parents. However, less is known about how this
transmission process differs for father–young adult and mother–young adult relationships and if psycho-
pathology is a mechanism that contributes to the transmission of hostility. Utilizing a structural equation
model and prospective, longitudinal data from couples in enduring marriages and their offspring (n = 345
families), we examined long-term associations between interparental hostility when offspring were
adolescents and young adults (1990 and 2001), adolescents’ hostile relationships with their fathers and
mothers (1991), and young adults’ hostile relationships with their fathers and mothers (2003) as well as the
mediating roles of fathers’, mothers’, and adolescents’ psychopathology (1992 and 1994). Interparental
hostility was more strongly linked to hostility between mothers (rather than fathers) and their young adult
offspring. Fathers’, mothers’, and adolescents’ psychopathology uniquely mediated the transmission
processes. This study elucidated transmission processes of interparental hostility to young adults’
relationship hostility with their parents and offers insights into the unique mediational roles of each family
member’s psychopathology.

Keywords: hostile family relationships, transmission, psychopathology, adolescence, young adulthood

Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001100.supp

Interparental relationships are an important family context that
influence offspring’s subsequent relationships (e.g., Conger, et al.,
1994). In particular, previous studies suggest that hostility from
interparental relationships is transmitted to offspring’s relation-
ships with their parents (Bryant et al., 2017; Smith, et al., 2019).
However, studies have mainly focused on the associations between
interparental hostility and children’s or early adolescents’ hostile
relationships (Mark & Pike, 2017), which limits understanding of
more long-term transmissions of hostile relationships. Further,
given that multiple family dyads exist within a family (e.g., father–
mother, father–offspring, and mother–offspring), more research is
needed to examine dynamic transmission processes of interparental
hostility into later life stages, such as young adulthood, and for both
father–young adult and mother–young adult relationships.
Studies suggest that interparental hostility and parent–adolescent
hostility (hereafter referred to together as hostile family relation-
ships) increase both parents’ and adolescents’ psychological dis-
tress (e.g., Bryant, et al., 2017). Other studies suggest that family
members’ psychological distress reinforces family relational con-
flicts (e.g., Constantine & Flores, 2006). Thus, in the longitudinal
contexts of family relationships, there may be reciprocal associa-
tions between hostile family relationships and family members’
psychological distress, which warrant an examination of family
members’ psychopathology as a dynamic mediational process

This article was published Online First May 15, 2023.
Tae Kyoung Lee https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8712-3182
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. There are also no
financial disclosures to report. Data are proprietary but can be requested from
Tae Kyoung Lee.
This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental
Health (MH00567, MH19734, MH43270, MH59355, MH62989, MH48165,
MH051361); the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA05347); the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD027724, HD051746,
HD047573, HD064687); the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health (MCJ
−109572); and the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful
Adolescent Development Among Youth in High-Risk Settings. However, no
funding was received for the publication of this article.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in
the study.
This study was not preregistered. Data presented in the article have not
been disseminated previously (including conferences or shared online). Data,
study materials, and study analysis code are available from Tae Kyoung Lee
upon reasonable request.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tae
Kyoung Lee, Department of Child Psychology and Education/Social
Innovation Convergence Program, Sungkyunkwan University, 32415,
Dasan Hall of Economics, 25-2 Sungkyunkwan-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul
03063, Republic of Korea. Email: ltk501@skku.edu

720
 CONTINUITY IN HOSTILE FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS 721

responsible for the long-term transmission of hostile relationships
across multiple family dyads.
The present study was grounded in the family systems theory
within the life course perspective. Family systems theory (Cox &
Paley, 1997) conceptualizes the family as hierarchical (i.e., where
the broader family system is comprised of dyadic subsystems) and
dynamic (e.g., interdependence within and across dyadic subsys-
tems). Further, recent family research extends the family systems
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
prospective data from 345 families over 13 years. Figure 1 presents
the theoretical framework.
As shown in Figure 1, the long-term transmission (T) of hostile
family relationships to young adults’ hostile relationships with
parents may occur indirectly through three possible pathways: (a)
continuity in interparental hostility (C1) and transmission of inter-
parental hostility to parent–young adult hostility (T3), (b) transmis-
sion of interparental hostility to parent–adolescent hostility (T1) and

theory by locating it within the life course perspective, termed the
life course systems perspective (Wickrama et al., 2020). The
perspective emphasizes long-term, dynamic processes of family
relationships within the family system over time (Wickrama et al.,
2020). Further, the life course perspective emphasizes the impor-
tance of individuals’ social relationships in early life stages, which
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
continuity in parent–adolescent hostility from adolescence into
young adulthood (C2), and (c) sequential transmission of interpar-
ental hostility to parent–adolescent hostility (T1), transmission of
parent–adolescent hostility to interparental hostility (T2), and trans-
mission of interparental hostility to parent–young adult hostility
(T3). Further, these three transmission pathways may be mediated

can influence one’s roles and social relationships in subsequent
developmental stages ( Wickrama et al., 2020). However, previous
studies have typically focused on dynamics within the family
subsystems at a single life stage (e.g., when their offspring is in
adolescence; Jager, et al., 2014). Less is known about how in-
dividuals’ roles and relationships within the family context change
as offspring transition from adolescence to young adulthood. In
particular, more studies are needed to examine how hostile family
relationships unfold over time. In the present study, we examine (a)
the long-term transmission of hostility from interparental relation-
ships to young adults’ relationships with their fathers and mothers
over adolescence and young adulthood and (b) the roles of parents’
and adolescents’ psychopathology as mediators in the transmission
of hostility in family relationships over time. The present study uses
by parents’ and adolescents’ psychopathology (see grayed-colored
paths in Figure 1). We first describe previous research on the
transmission of hostile family relationships followed by research
supporting psychopathology as a linking mechanism in these trans-
mission processes.
Transmission Processes of Hostility From
Interparental Relationships to Young Adults’
Relationships With Parents
Past studies provide consistent evidence of the transmission of
hostility from interparental relationships to parent–offspring rela-
tionships (Amato & Booth, 2001; Smith, et al., 2019). For example,
one study suggests that hostile couple relationships are emotionally

Figure 1
Hypothesized Transmission Processes of Hostility From Interparental Relationships to Young Adults’ Relationships With
Their Parents
Adolescence Young adulthood

Marital Interparental Interparental

Continuity in interparental hostility (C1)
subsystem Hostility Hostility

Long-term
Transmission (T)
Family members’
psychopathology

Transmission of interparental hostility to Psy Psy Transmission of interparental hostility to

parent-adolescent hostility (T1) (F) (M)
parent-young adult hostility (T3)

Psy
(A)

Transmission of parent-
adolescent hostility to
interparental hostility (T2)

Parent- Adolescents’ Hostile Young Adults’ Hostile

adolescent Relationships With Parents Relationships With Parents
Continuity in parent-adolescent hostility (C2)
subsystem (Fathers & Mothers) (Fathers & Mothers)

Note. Psy = Psychopathology. The subscripts (F), (M), and (A) represent father, mother, and adolescent, respectively. Gray paths reflect
mediation processes of psychopathology on the transmission processes of hostile family relationships.
 722 LEE, WICKRAMA, AND O’NEAL
draining for parents and erode their sensitivity and attentiveness
toward adolescents, which increases conflict with their adolescents
(e.g., Bryant, et al., 2017). According to family systems theory, this
transmission reflects how the couple subsystems affect the parent–
adolescent subsystems. Further, research suggests that interparental
relationships continue to play a significant role in the development
of the parent–offspring relationship into the child’s early adult years
(e.g., Amato & Booth, 2001; Johnson & Galambos, 2014). This is
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
consistent with the life course systems perspective in recognizing
how dyadic subsystems may affect each other and how these effects
may unfold over time. Thus, the transmission of interparental
hostility to parent–offspring hostile relationships is not expected
to be age-dependent and may persist past adolescence and into
young adulthood, particularly if couples consistently experience
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
interparental conflict during these years.
These ideas align with the enduring dynamics model (Caughlin &
Huston, 2006), which emphasizes relationship continuity of the
couple subsystem over time. The enduring dynamics model posits
that a spouse who brings negative behaviors and beliefs into the
marriage is unlikely to change their behaviors and beliefs over time,
resulting in relatively stable (negative) levels of marital attributes
over time. These findings suggest continuity in interparental hostil-
ity over time. Further, past research suggests that interparental
problems in young adulthood influence young adults’ relationship
problems (e.g., M. Cui, et al., 2008). Therefore, the transmission
process of hostile family relationships may occur through C1 and T3
pathways in Figure 1.
Another possible explanation for the transmission of hostile family
relationships may be that interparental hostility in adolescence can
have a proximal influence on adolescents’ hostile relationships with
their parents (e.g., Smith, et al., 2019). Similar to the couple dyadic
subsystem, poor-quality parent–adolescent relationships tend to expe-
rience similar relational difficulties over time (Branje, 2018). There-
fore, when interparental hostility results in a hostile parent–adolescent
relationship, hostility in the parent–offspring relationship may con-
tinue into young adulthood (see corresponding pathway T1 and C2 in
Figure 1). Last, sequential processes of hostile family relationships
are also possible. Research suggests that negativity in the parent–
offspring relationship can shape parents’ hostility (Newland et al.,
2015). Following this research, parent–adolescent hostile relation-
ships may reinforce interparental hostility in young adulthood, which,
in turn, may predict hostile parent–young adult relationships (see
corresponding pathway T1, T2, and T3 in Figure 1).
Dynamic Transmission Processes Linking
Interparental Hostility to Young Adults’ Hostile
Relationships With Their Fathers and Mothers
Given that multiple dyadic subsystems exist within the family: (a)
couple dyad, (b) father–offspring dyad, and (c) mother–offspring
dyad, long-term transmission of hostile family relationships may
occur through unique dyadic processes (e.g., Jager, et al., 2014). For
example, recent studies emphasized the unique transmission pro-
cesses of interparental hostility to both mothers’ and fathers’ relation-
ships with their offspring (e.g., Smith, et al., 2019). Relatedly, some
research has noted gender differences in the degree and manner to
which interparental conflict spills over to the parent-offspring rela-
tionship. In one study, compared to fathers, mothers were generally
more responsive and provided more emotional reassurance to their
children even during periods of heightened interparental conflict
(Cox et al., 2001). In contrast, other research demonstrated that, in
stressful marital situations, fathers were more likely to withdraw
emotionally from their children (e.g., Smith, et al., 2019). Adoles-
cents may interpret this withdrawal as dismissal or abandonment,
resulting in strained relationships between fathers and adolescents
(Lewis & Lamb, 2003). Given that adolescence is a sensitive period
for building individual relationships with each parent (Branje, 2018),
the transmission processes linking interparental hostility to adoles-
cents’ hostile relationships may be distinct for relationships with
fathers and mothers. Furthermore, these distinctions in adolescence
may contribute to differential consequences for hostility in the
parent–young adult relationships with fathers and mothers (see
corresponding pathway T1 and C2 in Figure 1). Given that enduring
couples represent a stable dyadic system (Wickrama et al., 2020), it is
also possible that interparental hostility occurring when their off-
spring is an adolescent may be stable until the offspring transitions to
young adulthood, which, in turn, may create changes in the hostility
present in young adults’ relationships with their parents (see corre-
sponding pathway C1 and T3 in Figure 1). It is also possible that
these types of sequential processes may vary across adolescents’
relationships with fathers and mothers (see corresponding pathway
T1, T2, and T3 in Figure 1). We aim to examine whether and to what
extent three possible transmission pathways occur within- and across
three dyadic subsystems (couple, father–offspring, and mother–
offspring dyads).
The Mediating Roles of Psychopathology: Linking
Transmission Processes Underlying Interparental
Hostility to Young Adults’ Hostile Relationships
With Parents
In addition to recognizing how dyadic subsystems can influence
one another, family systems theory (Cox & Paley, 1997) also
emphasizes how individual family members’ functioning can be
affected by, and affect, dyadic subsystems. In the present context,
hostile family relationships (dyadic subsystem) may reciprocally
influence a family member’s, affective symptoms ( functioning).
The focus of the present study is on the role of family members’
general psychopathology in the context of hostile family relation-
ships. According to the common mental disorder perspective (South
et al., 2011), comorbidity among various psychological symptoms
reflects underlying general psychopathology (hereafter referred as to
psychopathology). Consistent with this perspective, studies have
reported strong associations among multiple specific affective symp-
toms, such as depressive symptoms and anxiety in both adolescence
(Lee et al., 2017) and middle adulthood (South et al., 2011).
Further, studies reported the positive associations between hostile
family relationships and family members’ psychopathology. For
example, interparental hostility has been shown to influence the
psychopathology of both fathers and mothers (South et al., 2011)
and their adolescents (Smith et al., 2019). In turn, when one, or both,
parents have high levels of psychopathology, interparental hostility
is also often high (Woods et al., 2019). Similarly, hostility in the
parent–adolescent relationship can result in increases in both the
parent’s and adolescent’s psychopathology (Lee et al., 2017). In
turn, parents who have high levels of psychological distress may not
 CONTINUITY IN HOSTILE FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
provide sufficient emotional support, which is critical for the
formation, and continuity, of positive parent–adolescent relation-
ships (Kamis, 2021). Adolescents with high levels of psychological
distress are at risk for interpersonal stressors (X. J. Cui & Vaillant,
1997), which can contribute to hostile relationships with parents
(e.g., Pineda, et al., 2007).
As shown in Figure 1, these mediation processes between hostile
family relationships and psychopathology may involve three possi-
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
ble transmission pathways depicted by (a) C1 and T3 pathways, (b)
T1 and C2 pathways, and (c) T1, T2, and T3 pathways. For example,
interparental hostility may negatively impact both fathers’ and
mothers’ psychopathology. In turn, their psychopathology may result
in more interparental hostility, which may in turn cause more hostility
in parent–young adult relationships. As another example, adoles-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
cents’ hostile relationships with fathers and/or mothers (transmitted
from interparental hostility) may influence fathers’, mothers’, and/or
adolescents’ psychopathology, which, in turn, may result in more
hostility in young adults’ relationships with their parents. Further,
these mediation processes may be occurred in the context of the
dynamics (interdependencies) of three dyadic subsystems (i.e., cou-
ple dyad, father–offspring dyad, and mother–offspring dyad) (e.g.,
interparental hostility → father-adolescent hostility → adolescent’s
psychopathology → mother–young adult hostility). In this manner,
the present investigation illustrates the dynamic web of associations
that can exist between family dyadic subsystems and members
comprising various subsystems.
The Present Study
Figure 1 depicts the specific hypotheses of the present study.
Based on the family systems theory (Cox & Paley, 1997) within
the life course systems perspective (Wickrama et al., 2020), the
present study was directed at understanding (a) long-term trans-
mission processes hostility from interparental relationships to
young adults’ relationships with fathers and mothers and (b)
the mediational roles of parents’ and adolescents’ psychopathol-
ogy in these long-term processes. Given that adolescents’ hostile
relationships with parents have been shown to vary depending on
parents’ socioeconomic characteristics and adolescents’ gender
(e.g., Lee, et al., 2017), family income, parents’ education levels,
and adolescents’ gender were included as covariates in the analy-
ses. We hypothesized:
Hypothesis 1: Long-term transmission processes will link
interparental hostility when their offspring is an adolescent
to hostility in young adults’ relationships with their fathers and
mothers (path T).
Hypothesis 2: Dynamic pathways will emerge in the long-term
transmission processes of interparental hostility in adolescence
on hostility in young adults’ relationships with their fathers and
mothers. Including transmission through:
• Interparental hostility in young adulthood (paths C1 and T3).
• Adolescents’ hostile relationships with their fathers and
mothers (paths T1 and C2).
723
• Sequential processes involving adolescents’ hostile rela-
tionships with their fathers and mothers and interparental
hostility (paths T1, T2, and T3).
Hypothesis 3: Fathers’, mothers’, and adolescents’ psychopa-
thology will mediate the long-term transmission processes of
interparental hostility in adolescence on hostility in young
adults’ relationships with their fathers and mothers. Including
transmission through:
• Interparental hostility in young adulthood (paths C1 and T3).
• Adolescents’ hostile relationships with their fathers and
mothers (paths T1 and C2).
• Sequential processes involving adolescents’ hostile rela-
tionships with their fathers and mothers and interparental
hostility (paths T1, T2, and T3).
Method
The data used to evaluate the hypotheses are from the Family
Transitions Project (FTP). The FTP originated from the Iowa Youth
and Families Project (IYFP), which studied target adolescents and
their families in north-central Iowa in 1989 (Wave 1), 1990 (Wave 2),
1991 (Wave 3), 1992 (Wave 4), and 1994 (Wave 6) and then
continued in 2001 (Wave 13) and 2003 (Wave 15). Both parent
and adolescent data were collected in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994,
and 2001. However, only adolescent data were collected in 2003.
Families selected to participate in the study included a target seventh-
grade child who lived with his or her two biological parents and had a
sibling within 4 years of the target child’s age (target adolescents’
mean age = 12.7 years in 1989 (Wave 1), 53% female). For both
projects, trained field interviewers visited the families in their homes.
During the visit, a trained interviewer asked each family member to
complete a detailed questionnaire about family life, work, finances,
friends, and mental and physical health status. Family members
completed the questionnaires independently so that they could not
see each other’s answers. Additional information on the study
procedures is available from Conger and Conger (2004). The project
was approved by the university ethics committee. We report how we
determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations,
and all measures in the study.
Participants
This study is a prospective, longitudinal study of 451 White
European American families from eight counties in rural Iowa. At
the first wave of data collection, the median ages were 39 and 34 for
fathers and mothers, respectively. The median number of years of
education for fathers and mothers was 13 years, and couples had
been married for at least 17 years in 1989 (Wave 1). The median
yearly income in 1989 was $22,000 and $10,000 for fathers and
mothers, respectively. Almost all of the fathers were employed
(99.6%), and 66% of the mothers were employed. The attrition rate
was 11% across the 14-year period. The final sample for this study
came from 345 families with parents who were consistently married
(since 1989) and continued to participate through 2001 (Wave 13)
where the average ages of fathers and mothers, 52 and 50, respec-
tively. In 2003 (Wave 15), the average age of adolescents was 27.
 724 LEE, WICKRAMA, AND O’NEAL
Participants were excluded if they had relocated outside the study
area, if the parents divorced, or the family indicated that they were
no longer able to participate in the study.
Measures
Interparental Hostility
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Interparental hostility was assessed separately for husbands and
wives based on each partner’s reports of their spouse’s hostile
interactions in 1990 (Wave 2 when the target offspring was an
adolescent) and 2001 (Wave 13 when the target offspring was a
young adult). The five-item assessment was developed for the IYFP
(Conger, 1989a). Sample items include how often in the past year
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
did your spouse get angry at you, call you bad names, and criticize
you or your ideas. The items were rated using a 7-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). The internal consistencies for
interparental hostility were .91 and .90 for 1990 (Wave 2) and .89
and .90 for 2001 (Wave 13), for husbands and wives, respectively.
Correlations between fathers’ and mothers’ reports of interparental
hostility were .69 and .63 in 1990 and 2001, respectively. For each
time point, the father’s and mother’s reports of interparental hostility
were averaged to create a single indicator of interparental hostility.
This single construct (or variable) approach to capturing the couple
subsystem (i.e., interparental hostility) has been commonly used in
previous family studies (e.g., Bryant, et al., 2017). Higher scores
reflect more hostility in the context of their marital relationship.
Adolescents’/Young Adults’ Hostile Relationships With
Their Fathers and Mothers
Hostile relationships with parents (separately for fathers and
mothers) were assessed using offspring’s reports in 1991 (Wave 3
for adolescence) and 2003 (Wave 15 for young adulthood) with five-
items developed for the IYFP (Conger, 1989b). To assess hostility
expressed by both the parent and offspring (Bartle-Haring &
Gavazzi, 1996), offspring were asked to report their hostile beha-
viors toward each parent in the past year (e.g., got angry at your
parent, called him or her bad names, and criticized his or her ideas;
offspring-to-parent report) as well as the hostile actions of parents
toward themselves in the past year (e.g., got angry at you, called you
bad names, and criticized your ideas; parent-to-offspring report).
The items were rated using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(never) to 7 (always). The internal consistencies for reports of father-
to-offspring hostility and offspring-to-father hostility in 1991
(Wave 3) and 2003 (Wave 15) ranged from .84 to .87. Reports
of father-to-offspring and offspring-to-father hostility were highly
correlated (r = .83 and .84 in 1991 and 2003, respectively). Given
the strong correlations, these scores were averaged to create an
overall measure of hostility in the father–offspring relationship in
adolescence (Wave 3) and young adulthood (Wave 15).
Similarly, the internal consistencies for reports of both mother-to-
offspring hostility and offspring-to-mother hostility in 1991 (Wave 3)
and 2003 (Wave 15) were acceptable (ranging from .87 to .92).
Correlations for reported mother-to-offspring hostility and offspring-
to-mother hostility were .83 and .84 in 1991 (Wave 3) and 2003
(Wave 15), respectively. These scores were averaged to create a
measure of overall hostility in the mother–offspring relationship
during adolescence (Wave 3) and young adulthood (Wave 15).
Higher scores reflect more hostile relationships between parents
and offspring.
Psychopathology
Twenty-eight items from the Symptom Checklist-90-R (Derogatis
& Melisaratos, 1983) were used to assess self-reported ratings of
fathers’, mothers’, and adolescents’ psychopathology in 1992 (Wave
4) and 1994 (Wave 6) on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5
(extremely). Sample items include nervousness or shakiness inside,
feeling tense or keyed up, feeling fearful, and crying easily. The items
were validated in other studies assessing general psychopathology
(e.g., Lee, et al., 2017). For each timepoint and each family member,
a mean score was computed with higher values indicating more
psychopathology (Lee et al., 2021). The internal consistencies were
more than .90 for fathers, mothers, and adolescents across timepoints.
Covariates
Using data from 1990 (Wave 2), our analyses accounted adoles-
cent’s gender (0 = female, 1 = male) and parents’ socioeconomic
characteristics, including annual total household income (including
husband’s, wife’s and children’s wages, salaries, and other sources
of income such as supplemental security income) and parents’
college completion based on fathers’ and mothers’ reports of the
highest grade they completed (1 = 1+ parent completed college; 0 =
neither parent completed college).
Statistical Analyses
First, correlations were examined among study variables. Second,
in a structural equation modeling framework (Lee et al., 2021),
cross-lagged autoregressive models were used to examine the three
hypothesized transmission pathways linking interparental hostility
when offspring were adolescents to parent–offspring relationship
hostility when offspring were young adults. Cross-lagged autore-
gressive models allow for the examination of time-sequential pro-
cesses across variables capturing different domain (Lee et al., 2021).
Consequently, in this instance, this model allows us to examine
multiple transmission processes of interparental hostility. To exam-
ine dynamic transmission processes of interparental hostility to
young adult’s hostile relationships with father and mother, the
model included interparental hostility in 1990 and 2001 and off-
spring’s hostile relationships with their father and mother in ado-
lescence (1991) and young adulthood (2003).
Third, a latent variable capturing psychopathology was created to
estimate each respondent’s (i.e., father, mother, and adolescent)
psychopathology from two repeated measures (1992 and 1994) of
psychopathology. Factor loadings for both measurement occasions
were constrained to 1 (Wickrama et al., 2016). Correlations were
estimated between these latent constructs, enabling an assessment of
the co-occurrence of fathers’, mothers’, and adolescents’ psycho-
pathology. Invariance tests in estimated mean parameters of latent
factors across family members’ psychopathology were performed
using Wald tests ( Wickrama et al., 2016). A significant p value of a
Wald test indicates that the estimated mean parameters of latent
factors of psychopathology are statistically different across family
members.
 CONTINUITY IN HOSTILE FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
Fourth, latent factors of family members’ psychopathology were
included in the cross-lagged model (described in the second step) to
examine psychopathology as a mediator of the transmission of inter-
parental hostility to parent–young adult relationship hostility. All
possible mediation processes involving family members’ psychopa-
thology and hostile family relationships were estimated. All mediation
effects were tested using a percentile bootstrapping approach (with
1,000 iterations; MacKinnon, et al., 2007). Standardized coefficients
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
(β) are reported as effect sizes (Cohen, 1988). All analyses accounted
for the effects of adolescents’ gender and parents’ socioeconomic
characteristics (i.e., annual family income and parents’ education
level) (1990) on interparental hostility (2001) and offspring’s hostile
relationships with parents (1991 and 2003). The average rate of
missingness among study variables was 10.71% (ranged from
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
5.3% to 16.73%). R. J. A. Little (1988) missing at completely random
(MCAR) test resulted in a χ2/df ratio (Byrne, 1991) of 1.535, indicating
that the MCAR assumption can be retained (ratio values ≤ 2 are
considered nonsignificant, reflecting the absence of systematic miss-
ingness patterns). In light of the nonsignificant MCAR test, missing
data were accounted for using full information maximum likelihood
(FIML) procedures (Enders & Bandalos, 2001). For model evaluation,
the comparative fit index (CFI; acceptable fit > .90; T. D. Little, 2013),
Tucker–Lewis fit index (TLI; acceptable fit > .90; T. D. Little, 2013),
and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; acceptable fit
< .08; T. D. Little, 2013) were utilized. Analyses were conducted
using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (Version 26) and Mplus
(Version 8.00) (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2018). This study was not
preregistered. Data, study materials, and study analysis code are
available from the first author upon reasonable request.
Results
Preliminary Analysis
Supplemental Material Table S1 displays correlations among study
variables. Correlations among interparental hostility when offspring
were adolescents (1990) and offspring’s hostile relationships with
their father and mother as young adults (2003) were statistically
significant and positive, suggesting a long-term transmission of
interparental hostility to young adults’ hostile relationships with
both parents (corresponding path T in Figure 1). Further, fathers’,
mothers’, and adolescents’ psychopathology in 1992 and 1994 were
positively correlated. Also, interparental hostility in 1990 and 2001
were significantly and positively correlated with fathers’ and mothers’
psychopathology in 1992 and 1994. Offspring’s hostile relationships
with their mothers in 1991 and 2003 (adolescence and young
adulthood, respectively) were significantly and positively correlated
with both mothers’ and adolescents’ psychopathology in 1992 and
1994. Adolescents’ (but not young adults’) hostile relationship with
their father (1991) were significantly and positively associated with
adolescents’ psychopathology in 1992 and 1994, whereas fathers’
psychopathology in 1992 and 1994 were more likely to be signifi-
cantly and positively correlated with hostility in their relationship with
their offspring in young adulthood (2003) than adolescence (1991).
Transmission Processes of Hostile Family Relationships
Results pertaining to transmission processes of hostility from
interparental relationships when offspring were adolescents to
725
young adults’ hostile relationships with their fathers and mothers
are shown in Figure 2 (CFI/TLI = 1.00/1.00; RMSEA = .00;
because the model is fully saturated, these overall fit indices are
not interpretable). In the cross-lagged autoregressive models (Figure 2)
interparental hostility when the offspring were adolescents (1990)
was not directly associated with hostile relationships with their
father and mother as young adults (2003). However, results con-
firmed two transmission pathways of hostility. One pathway
involved interparental hostility (1990) → interparental hostility
(2001) → young adults’ hostile relationships with their fathers/
mothers (2003) (mediation β = .07, 95% CI [.01, .13], p < .05 for
father–young adult model; β = .14, 95% CI [.05, .23], p < .01 for
mother–young adult model). A second pathway involved interpar-
ental hostility (1990) → adolescents’ hostile relationships with their
fathers/mothers (1991) → young adults’ hostile relationships with
the fathers/mothers (2003) (mediation β = .05, 95% CI [.02, .09],
p < .01 for father–young adult model; β = .04, 95% CI [.01, .07], p <
.01 for mother–young adult model). However, sequential transmis-
sion pathways of interparental hostility to young adults’ hostile
relationships with both parents (through adolescents’ hostile rela-
tionships with their fathers/mothers (1991) → interparental hostility
(2001)) were not statistically significant (mediation β = .001, 95%
CI [−.001, .003], p = .49 for father–young adult model; β = .001,
95% CI [−.002, .003], p = .54 for mother–young adult model).
Further, all other possible dynamic transmission processes of inter-
parental hostility to young adult’s hostile relationships with parents
were not significant. The paths from the control variables were also
not statistically significant.
Parent’s and Adolescent’s Psychopathology
The fit indices for the model incorporating latent variables for
fathers’, mothers’, and adolescents’ psychopathology suggested an
acceptable fit (CFI/TLI = .93/.93; RMSEA=.07; see Figure 3). All
factor loadings were greater than .70, suggesting acceptable psy-
chometric properties for assessing psychopathology of each family
member in this manner (Kline, 2016). Results indicated positive
associations among family members’ psychopathology (r = .15,
95% CI [.05, .25], p < .01 between father’s and mother’s psycho-
pathology; r = .12, 95% CI [.04, .21], p < .01 between father’s and
adolescent’s psychopathology; r = .10, 95% CI [.03, .17], p < .01
between mother’s and adolescent’s psychopathology). Further,
adolescents averaged the highest estimated mean levels of psycho-
pathology (estimated mean = 1.50), followed by mothers (estimated
mean = 1.35), and then fathers (estimated mean = 1.24). Wald tests
for mean difference indicated statistically significant differences
between the mean scores of psychopathology for adolescents and
mothers (wald value = 32.30, p < .001), mothers and fathers (wald
value = 22.27, p < .001), and adolescents and fathers (wald value =
97.84, p < .001). Results indicated that male adolescents showed
lower psychopathology compared to female adolescents (β = −.21,
95% CI [−.32, −.10], p < .001). The effects of other control
variables were not significant.
Mediating Roles of Family Members’ Psychopathology
Figure 4 shows the cross-lagged autoregressive models after
incorporating family members’ psychopathology as a mediator of
the transmission processes of hostility from interparental relationships
 726 LEE, WICKRAMA, AND O’NEAL

Figure 2
Long-Term Transmission Processes of Interparental Hostility to Young Adults’ Hostile Relationships With Parents

Adolescents’ Hostile Young Adults’ Hostile

Relationships With .28*** Relationships With
Their Fathers (1991) Their Fathers (2003)
(R2=.07) (R2=.15)
.04
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

.12
.17***
.11*
.64*** .11 .52***
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Interparental Interparental
Hostility (1990) .60*** Hostility (2001)
(R2=.29)

.02
.14**
.01 .24***

.01
Adolescents’ Hostile Young Adults’ Hostile
Relationships With Relationships With
Their Mothers (1991) Their Mothers (2003)
(R2=.05) .31*** (R2=.18)

Note. Standardized coefficients are shown. χ2(0) = 0.00. CFI/TLI = 1.00/1.00. RMSEA = .00. RMSEA = root-mean-square error of
approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis fit index.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

to young adults’ hostile relationships with their parents (CFI/TLI =
.96/.93; RMSEA = .05). For the transmission pathways of interpar-
ental hostility (1990) to young adults’ hostile relationships with their
fathers (2003), after adjusting for the effects of family members’
psychopathology, results indicated that the path from interparental
hostility in 2001 to young adults’ hostile relationships with their fathers
(2003) was nonsignificant (β = .11, 95% CI [−.02, .23], p = .11; not
shown in Figure 4). However, the transmission process involving
interparental hostility (1990) → adolescents’ hostile relationships with
their fathers (1991) → young adults’ hostile relationships with their

Figure 3
Psychopathology (PSY) Among Father, Mother, and Adolescent

.01(.15**)

.01(.12**) .02(.10**)

M= 1.24*** M= 1.50*** M= 1.35***

Var.=.06*** Father Var.=.14*** Var.=.09***
Adolescent Mother
PSY PSY PSY

1(.79***) 1(.76***) 1(.71***) 1(.72***) 1(.81***) 1(.76***)

PSY PSY PSY PSY PSY PSY

(1992) (1994) (1992) (1994) (1992) (1994)

Note. PSY = Psychopathology. Standardized coefficients are shown in parentheses. M = Mean. Var. = Variance. χ2(24) =
44.38. CFI/TLI = .93/.93. RMSEA = .07. RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index;
TLI = Tucker–Lewis fit index.
** p < .01. *** p < .001.
 CONTINUITY IN HOSTILE FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS 727

Figure 4
Mediation Processes Between Hostile Family Relationships and Psychopathology

Adolescents’ Hostile Young Adults’ Hostile

Relationships with .27*** Relationships with
Their Fathers (1991) Their Fathers (2003)
(R2=.07) (R2=.21)
.11***
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Father PSY
.13*** .17** (1992 & 1994)

(R2=.10)
.64*** .43***

.10*
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

.29*** .10***
.10*
Interparental Interparental
Adolescent PSY
Hostility (1990) .54*** Hostility (2001)
(1992 & 1994)
(R2=.34)
(R2=.13)
.18*** .17***
.11*

Mother PSY
.14** .19**
.16*** (1992 & 1994)
2
(R =.10)
.10***
.21***

Adolescents’ Hostile .08*** Young Adults’ Hostile

Relationships with Relationships with
Their Mothers (1991) Their Mothers (2003)
(R2=.05) .21*** (R2=.27)

Note. PSY = Psychopathology. Standardized coefficients are shown. Nonsignificant coefficients are not shown. χ2(41) = 85.57. CFI/TLI =
.96/.93. RMSEA = .05. RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis fit index.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

fathers (2003) remained significant even after adjusting for signifi-
cant effect of family members’ psychopathology (mediation β = .03,
95% CI [.01, .07], p < .01). Related to the mediating roles of
psychopathology, results indicated one statistically significant medi-
ation effect involving fathers’ psychopathology (interparental hos-
tility (1990) → fathers’ psychopathology (1992 and 1994) → young
adults’ hostile relationships with their fathers (2003); mediation β =
.03, 95% CI [.01, .05], p < .01).
The mediation effects of psychopathology on the transmission
processes of interparental hostility (1990) to young adults’ hostile
relationships with their mothers (2003) are also shown in Figure 4.
The two transmission pathways of interparental hostility reported in
Figure 2 remained statistically significant: (a) interparental hostility
(1990) → interparental hostility (2001) → young adults’ hostile
relationships with their mothers (2003) (mediation β = .07, 95%
CI [.05, .10], p < .001) and (b) interparental hostility (1990) →
adolescents’ hostile relationships with their mothers (1991) → young
adults’ hostile relationships with their mothers (2003) (mediation β =
.02, 95% CI [.001, .04], p < .05). Further, results indicated three
additional mediation processes involving mothers’ and/or adoles-
cents’ psychopathology. The first mediation process linked inter-
parental hostility (1990) to young adults’ hostile relationships with
their mothers (2003) through mothers’ psychopathology (1992 and
1994) (mediation β = .02, 95% CI [.005, .04], p < .01), whereas the
second mediation process included mothers’ psychopathology (1992
and 1994) and interparental hostility (2001) (mediation β = .01, 95%
CI [.001, .01], p < .05). The third mediation process included
adolescents’ hostile relationships with their mothers (1991), mothers’
and adolescents’ psychopathology (1992 and 1994) (mediation β =
.01, 95% CI [.001, .006], p < .05 for mothers’ psychopathology;
mediation β = .01, 95% CI [.001, .007], p < .05 for adolescents’
psychopathology).
Further, Figure 4 displays two additional transmission processes of
interparental hostility to young adults’ hostile relationships with the
mothers emerged: (a) interparental hostility (1990) → fathers’ psy-
chopathology (1992 and 1994) → interparental hostility (2001) →
young adults’ hostile relationships with their mothers (2003) (medi-
ation β = .02, 95% CI [.001, .004], p < .05) and (b) interparental
hostility (1990) → adolescents’ hostile relationships with their fathers
(1991) → adolescents’ psychopathology (1992 and 1994) → young
adults’ hostile relationships with their mothers (2003) (mediation β =
.004, 95% CI [.001, .005], p < .01). All other possible mediation
processes were not significant. Results indicated that male adoles-
cents showed lower psychopathology compared to female adoles-
cents (β = −.24, 95% CI [−.34, −.12], p < .001). The effects of
control variables were not significant.
 728 LEE, WICKRAMA, AND O’NEAL
Discussion
To date, there has been a lack of research examining the dynamic
(interdependence) and long-term transmission of hostile family
relationships within a family system, particularly focused on inter-
parental relationships and how these relationships affect young
adults’ relationships with their parents (both father–young adult
and mother–young adult relationships). Moreover, less is known
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
about the mediating roles of family members’ psychopathology in
relation to the transmission of interparental hostility. Based on
family systems theory (Cox & Paley, 1997) within the life course
systems perspective (Wickrama et al., 2020), the present study
addressed these research gaps with longitudinal data from a sample
of White American families.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Consistent with family systems theory (Cox & Paley, 1997), results
confirm how dyadic subsystems influence each other longitudinally by
identifying long-term transmission processes of hostility from inter-
parental relationships (i.e., the couple subsystem) to young adults’
hostile relationships with their parents (i.e., the parent–offspring
subsystem). In general, consistent with previous findings (e.g.,
Johnson & Galambos, 2014), long-term associations were evident
between interparental hostility and parent–young adult hostility (see
corresponding correlations in Supplemental Material Table S1). How-
ever, the present study extends previous findings by examining three
transmission pathways connecting interparental hostility to young
adults’ hostile relationships with their parents. Further, the study
examined whether interparental hostility in adolescence uniquely
influenced young adults’ hostile relationships with fathers and mothers.
Results confirmed two transmission pathways: (a) one involving
interparental hostility in young adulthood (see paths C1 and T3 in
Figure 1) and (b) the other involving adolescents’ hostile relationships
with their father and mother (see paths T1 and C2 in Figure 1).
Importantly, those two transmission processes were found for both
father–young adult and mother–young adult relationships. Consistent
with previous findings (Branje, 2018; Caughlin & Huston, 2006), the
study found evidence of continuity in hostile relationships within a
family, particularly continuity in interparental hostility (C1 in Figure 1)
and (b) parent–offspring hostility (C2 in Figure 1). Whereas previous
studies mainly focused on the proximal transmission of interparental
hostility to adolescents’ hostile relationships with their parents (T1 in
Figure 1; e.g., Smith, et al., 2019), the present study findings confirm
that this proximal transmission pathway continues into the offspring’s
adulthood (T3 in Figure 1). Taken together, these results suggest two
types of longitudinal stabilities in dyadic subsystems within a family:
(a) stability within each dyadic subsystem (C1 and C2 in Figure 1) and
(b) stability across dyadic subsystems (T1 and T3 in Figure 1). Also,
these two longitudinal stabilities existed for the transmission process of
interparental hostility to young adult’s hostile relationship with both
parents. These results are consistent with the life course perspective,
which emphasizes that individuals’ roles and social relationships in
one life stage are, at least in part, a product of their experiences at
previous life stages (Wickrama et al., 2020). Furthermore, the results
contribute to the life course perspective by identifying long-term
transition processes of hostile relationships both within and across
two dyadic subsystems.
However, results did not support the hypothesized sequential
transmission pathways of interparental hostility to young adult’s
hostile relationships with parents were not found (T1, T2, and T3 in
Figure 1). These nonsignificant sequential pathways may suggest
directionality in transmissions of hostile family relationships. That
is, interparental relationships are more likely to influence parent–
offspring relationships rather than the reverse (parent–adolescent
hostility to interparent hostility). This directionality was confirmed
in previous research on the transmission of hostile family relation-
ships for adolescent relationships (Conger et al., 1994), and the
current findings suggest this directionality extends to when off-
spring are young adults.
Further, results indicated positive correlations between fathers’,
mothers’, and adolescents’ psychopathology, which is important for
identifying similarity and influences between members (see Figure 3).
Importantly, these correlations remained significant even after ad-
justing effects of hostile family relationships (see Figure 4). The mood
convergence hypothesis posits that one family member’s psycho-
logical distress is inextricably linked to the psychological distress
of other family members (Meyler et al., 2007). The findings of the
present study supported this hypothesis. In addition, these positive
associations in psychopathology among family members suggest that
functioning (psychopathology) of each family member are interde-
pendence within a family. Interestingly, adolescents averaged higher
levels of psychopathology than mothers and fathers, which may
suggest that adolescence is a sensitive developmental period with a
heightened risk of psychological distress (Lee et al., 2017).
Results also confirmed the mediating roles of family members’
psychopathology in relation to long-term transmission processes of
interparental hostility to parent–young adult relationships with par-
ents. According to the family systems theory, this mediation process
reflects dynamic associations (or interdependencies) between dyadic
subsystems and functioning of individual family members. Further,
consistent with the life course systems perspective, this mediation
process occurred over time. That is, hostile family relationships (either
in the couple subsystem or parent–offspring subsystem) were influ-
ential for family members’ subsequent psychopathology, yet indivi-
duals’ psychopathology was also consequential for subsequent family
relationships. Further, the present study was able to examine media-
tion processes for both father–young adult hostility and mother–
young adult hostility.
Regarding mediation processes involved in father–young adult
hostility (see Figure 4), results indicated that fathers’ psychopathol-
ogy (when their offspring were in adolescents) mediated the associa-
tions between interparental hostility in adolescence (1990) and
father–young adult hostility (2003). Importantly, interparental hos-
tility when offspring were young adults (2001) did not predict young
adults’ hostile relationships with their fathers (2003) after adjusting
for the effects of fathers’ psychopathology when the offspring was an
adolescent (1992 and 1994). These results suggested that fathers’
affective symptoms when their offspring was an adolescent were
highly salient in shaping fathers’ relationships with their offspring at
a later developmental stage (e.g., Low & Stocker, 2005).
Given the positive associations among fathers’, mothers’, and
adolescents’ psychopathology, adolescents’ and mothers’ psycho-
pathology may be indirectly associated with father–young adult
relational hostility through fathers’ psychopathology. Indeed, a
previous study found that parents who experienced higher levels
of depressive symptoms were more likely to have children with
elevated rates of anxiety and depressive symptoms from early
adolescence to young adulthood (Tyrell et al., 2019). More research
is needed to examine why, and how, family members’ symptoms
impact transmission processes of hostile family relationships.
 CONTINUITY IN HOSTILE FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
Regarding mediation processes for mother–young adult relational
hostility (see Figure 4), similar mediation processes were identified as
found for father–young adult hostility (i.e., interparental hostility →
mothers’ psychopathology → young adults’ hostile relationships with
their mothers). Two additional mediation processes involving both
mothers’ and adolescents’ psychopathology were also identified. One
mediation process included mothers’ psychopathology as a mediator of
the continuity in interparental hostility from 1990 to 2001, which, in
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
turn, influenced young adults’ hostile relationships with their mothers
(2003). The other mediation process indicated that interparental hos-
tility influenced adolescents’ hostile relationships with their mothers,
which, in turn, influenced both mothers’ and adolescents’ psychopa-
thology. Then, both mothers’ and adolescents’ psychopathology influ-
enced young adults’ hostile relationships with their mothers. These two
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
mediation processes suggest that young adults’ hostile relationships
with their mothers are shaped through dynamics (interdependencies)
between dyadic subsystems (i.e., interparental hostility and parent–
adolescent hostility) and functioning of individual family members
(i.e., mothers’ and adolescents’ psychopathology) across adolescence
and young adulthood. Also, these additional mediation processes for
mother–young adult hostile relationships, compared to hostile relation-
ships with fathers, suggest that mother–offspring relationships are more
sensitive (i.e., influenced by more contributing factors) compared to
father–offspring relationships (e.g., Bryant, et al., 2017). This may
relate to mothers generally being more involved with their offspring
(e.g., Pineda, et al., 2007), particularly for this sample of fairly
traditional families from a rural area in the Mid-west.
Last, results indicated that adolescents’ hostile relationships with
their fathers (1991) and fathers’ psychopathology (1992 and 1994)
were involved in the transmission processes of interparental hostility
to mother–young adult hostility (see detailed paths in Figure 4).
These findings suggest dynamic transmission processes of inter-
parental hostility to young adults’ hostile relationships with parents.
In other words, fathers–offspring relationships and fathers’ psycho-
pathology when their offspring were adolescents appear to have
long-term effects on young adults’ relationships with their mothers.
Consistent with the family systems theory within the life course
systems perspective, these mediation processes reflect the dynamic
interdependencies between dyadic subsystems and functioning of
individual family members over time and even across two unique
parent-offspring dyads (father–offspring to mother–offspring rela-
tionships). Previous studies reported similar dynamics (interdepen-
dencies) of father–adolescent conflicts and mother–adolescent
conflicts with cross-sectional data (Jager et al., 2014), and the
findings of the present study extend this research by identifying
that these family dynamics can occur over time. Interestingly, this
dynamic transmission was only present for young adults’ hostile
relationships with their mothers (not fathers). This may imply that
young adults’ hostile relationships with their mothers are more
likely to be shaped by longitudinal dynamics (interdependencies)
between multiple dyadic subsystems and individual family members
compared to young adults’ hostile relationships with fathers.
Limitations and Implications
Several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the sample was
comprised entirely of White couples living in rural Iowa. Studies
testing similar models with a more diverse population that include
multiple ethnicities, greater variation in the length of marriage,
729
number of children, and occupations are necessary. Second, self-
reported information regarding psychopathology may be a source of
bias. Future research should extend this research using clinical
measures of mental health outcomes. Third, the study only examined
offspring’s reports of a hostile relationship with parent due to the lack
of corresponding parent data. Thus, future studies should incorporate
both parents’ and offspring’s reports. Fourth, previous studies have
suggested that nonobserved personal-level factors (e.g., genetic
components) can play critical roles in influencing family interactions
(Horwitz et al., 2011). Future studies should explore these risk factors
in greater detail. Fourth, given the limits of the data, the present study
examined long-term transition processes of hostile family relations
with unequal time intervals (interparental hostility in 1990 and 2001;
parent–offspring hostility in 1991 and 2003). Therefore, it is unclear
if the identified transmission processes of hostile family relationships
are stable across longer time periods. Finally, the present study was
limited to couples in enduring marriages and their offspring. The
results may be different for divorced families as they have more
exposure to both hostile family relationships and psychopathology
(e.g., Wickrama, et al., 2013).
The present study contributes to knowledge about the longitudinal
mediation processes between hostile family relationships and family
members’ psychopathology over an extended period of time (1990–
2003) in a sample of rural families. Importantly, the findings indicate
that interparental hostility and parent–adolescent hostility are linked
to hostility in the parent–young adult relationship through several
transmission pathways, and these transmission pathways can be
mediated by family members’ psychopathology. Although many
of the identified processes were similar for mothers and fathers, some
distinct processes emerged. These findings emphasize the importance
of intervention efforts accounting for dynamic family relationships to
improve family health. Such efforts must address how dyadic
subsystems affect each other over time and how individual family
members affect and are affected by family subsystems.
References
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.627
Bartle-Haring, S., & Gavazzi, S. M. (1996). Multiple views on family data:
The sample case of adolescent, maternal and paternal perspectives on
family differentiation levels. Family Process, 35(4), 457–472. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1996.00457.x
Branje, S. (2018). Development of parent–adolescent relationship: Conflict
interactions as a mechanism of change. Child Development Perspectives,
12(3), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12278
Bryant, V., Wickrama, K. A. S., O’Neal, C. W., & Lorenz, F. O. (2017).
Family hostility and depressive symptoms in middle-aged couples: Mod-
erating effect of marital integration. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(6),
765–774. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000306
Byrne, B. M. (1991). The Maslach Burnout Inventory: Validating factorial
structure and invariance across intermediates, secondary, and university
educators. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(4), 583–605. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2604_2
Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2006). The affective structure of marriage.
In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships
(pp. 133–155). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511606632.009
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
 730 LEE, WICKRAMA, AND O’NEAL
Conger, R. D. (1989a). Behavioral Affect Rating Scale (BARS): Spousal
rating of hostility and warmth. Iowa Youth and Families Project, Iowa
State University.
Conger, R. D. (1989b). Behavioral Affect Rating Scale (BARS): Adolescent
perception of parents’ hostility and warmth. Iowa Youth and Families
Project, Iowa State University.
Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2004). Resilience in midwestern families:
Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1741-3737.2002.00361.x
Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L.
(1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental
problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65(2), 541–561. https://
doi.org/10.2307/1131401
Constantine, M. G., & Flores, L. Y. (2006). Psychological distress, perceived
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
family conflict, and career development issues in college students of color.
Journal of Career Assessment, 14(3), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1069072706286491
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of
Psychology, 48(1), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243
Cox, M. J., Paley, B., & Harter, K. (2001). Interparental conflict and parent–
child relationships. In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental
conflict and child development: Theory, research, and applications
(pp. 249–272). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO
9780511527838.011
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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208319693
Cui, X. J., & Vaillant, G. E. (1997). Does depression generate negative life
events? Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 185(3), 145–150. https://
doi.org/10.1097/00005053-199703000-00003
Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The brief symptom inventory: An
introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13(3), 595–605. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700048017
Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full
information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural
equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 430–457. https://
doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5
Horwitz, B. N., Ganiban, J. M., Spotts, E. L., Lichtenstein, P., Reiss, D., &
Neiderhiser, J. M. (2011). The role of aggressive personality and family
relationships in explaining family conflict. Journal of Family Psychology,
25(2), 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023049
Jager, J., Yuen, C. X., Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., & Hendricks, C.
(2014). The relations of family members’ unique and shared perspectives
of family dysfunction to dyad adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology,
28(3), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036809
Johnson, M. D., & Galambos, N. L. (2014). Paths to intimate relationship
quality from parent–adolescent relations and mental health. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 76(1), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12074
Kamis, C. (2021). The long-term impact of parental mental health on
children’s distress trajectories in adulthood. Society and Mental Health,
11(1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869320912520
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling
(4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Lee, T. K., Wickrama, K. A. S., & O’Neal, C. W. (2021). Modeling
longitudinal dyadic processes in family research. Journal of Family
Psychology, 35(7), 994–1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000862
Lee, T. K., Wickrama, K. A. S., O’Neal, C. W., & Lorenz, F. O. (2017).
Social stratification of general psychopathology trajectories and young
adult social outcomes: A second-order growth mixture analysis over the
early life course. Journal of Affective Disorders, 208, 375–383. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.08.037
Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. E. (2003). Fathers’ influences on children’s develop-
ment: The evidence from two-parent families. European Journal of Psy-
chology of Education, 18(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173485
Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate
data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association,
83(404), 1198–1202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
Low, S. M., & Stocker, C. (2005). Family functioning and children’s
adjustment: Associations among parents’ depressed mood, marital hostil-
ity, parent–child hostility, and children’s adjustment. Journal of Family
Psychology, 19(3), 394–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.3.394
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis.
Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 593–614. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.psych.58.110405.085542
Mark, K. M., & Pike, A. (2017). Links between marital quality, the mother–
child relationship and child behavior: A multi-level modeling approach.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41(2), 285–294. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0165025416635281
Meyler, D., Stimpson, J. P., & Peek, M. K. (2007). Health concordance
within couples: A systematic review. Social Science and Medicine, 64(11),
2297–2310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.007
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2018). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.).
Newland, R. P., Ciciolla, L., & Crnic, K. A. (2015). Crossover effects among
parental hostility and parent–child relationships during the preschool
period. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(7), 2107–2119. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0012-7
Pineda, A. Q., Cole, D. A., & Bruce, A. E. (2007). Mother-adolescent
interactions and adolescent depressive symptoms: A sequential analysis.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0265407507072564
Smith, O. A., Nelson, J. A., & Adelson, M. J. (2019). Interparental and
parent–child conflict predicting adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 28(7), 1965–1976. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10826-019-01424-6
South, S. C., Krueger, R. F., & Iacono, W. G. (2011). Understanding general
and specific connections between psychopathology and marital distress: A
model-based approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120(4), 935–
947. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025417
Tyrell, F. A., Yates, T. M., Reynolds, C. A., Fabricius, W. V., & Braver, S. L.
(2019). The unique effects of maternal and paternal depressive symptoms
on youth’s symptomatology: Moderation by family ethnicity, family
structure, and child gender. Development and Psychopathology, 31(4),
1213–1226. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579418000846
Wickrama, K. A. S., Lee, T. K., O’Neal, C. W., & Lorenz, F. O. (2016).
Higher-order growth curves and mixture modeling with Mplus: A practi-
cal guide. Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315642741
Wickrama, K. A. S., Lee, T. K., & O’Neal, C. W. (2013). Mothers’ marital
history and the physical and mental health of young adults: An investiga-
tion over the early life course. Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1039–1051.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.08.012
Wickrama, K. A. S., O’Neal, C. W., & Lee, T. K. (2020). Aging together in
enduring couple relationships: A life course systems perspective. Journal of
Family Theory and Review, 12(2), 238–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12369
Woods, S. B., Priest, J. B., Signs, T. L., & Maier, C. A. (2019). In sickness and
in health: The longitudinal associations between marital dissatisfaction,
depression and spousal health. Journal of Family Therapy, 41(1), 102–125.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12207
Received May 23, 2022
Revision received February 27, 2023
Accepted March 27, 2023 ▪