Good Partner, Good Parent Responsiveness Mediates the Link Between Romantic Attachment and Parenting Style

7/28/2019 Good Partner, Good Parent Responsiveness Mediates the Link Between Romantic Attachment and Parenting Style

1/12

http://psp.sagepub.com/ Bulletin

Personality and Social Psychology

/content/39/2/170The online vers ion of this article c an be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/01461672124683332013 39: 170 originally published online 6 December 2012Pers Soc Psychol Bull

Abigail Millings, Judi Walsh, Erica Hepper and Margaret O'BrienParenting Style

Good Partner, Good Parent : Responsiveness Mediates the Link Between Romantic Attachment and

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Personality and Social Psychology

can be found at:Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Additional services and information for

/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Dec 6, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Feb 5, 2013Version of Record>>

by guest on May 10, 2013pdf.highwire.orgDownloaded from
http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://-/?-http://-/?-http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.spsp.org/http://www.spsp.org/http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://pdf.highwire.org/http://pdf.highwire.org/http://pdf.highwire.org/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://-/?-http://-/?-http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://-/?-http://-/?-http://www.spsp.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://-/?-http://psp.sagepub.com/


2/12

Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin39(2) 170 180 2012 by the Society for Personalityand Social Psychology, IncReprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0146167212468333http://pspb.sagepub.com

Families, best viewed as dynamic systems (Cox & Paley,1997), are collections of multiple overlapping interpersonalrelationships, involving individual- and relationship-levelmutual influence. Parentchild relationships are most com-

prehensively considered in the context of the parentparentrelationship, where there is one. Individuals with high levelsof attachment security make the most responsive and coop-erative romantic partners (Feeney & Collins, 2001; Kunce &Shaver, 1994; Millings & Walsh, 2009) and the most sensi-tive and attuned parents (George & Solomon, 1999; Selcuk,Zayas, & Hazan, 2010). But by what mechanisms do attach-ment representations manifest in these interpersonal capa-

bilities? In this article, we examine the relationship between

romantic attachment and parenting directed toward the mid-childhood age group, considering the mediating role of responsiveness in caregiving.

Attachment theory offers the most appropriate framework in which to consider both parentchild and parentparentrelationships. With regard to parentchild relationships, thedevelopmental attachment research tradition has establisheda link between maternal discourse surrounding own earlyattachment experiences, measured with methods such as theAdult Attachment Interview, and responsive caregivingtoward children (e.g., Crowell & Feldman, 1989; George &

Solomon, 1999). Considering parentparent relationships,links have been identified between couple romantic attach-ment and partner caregiving, with attachment security beingassociated with the ability to provide sensitive and responsiveemotional care (e.g., Feeney & Collins, 2001; Kunce &Shaver, 1994; Millings & Walsh, 2009). Finally, with regardto parentparent and parentchild relationships, researchershave established links between romantic attachment and

parental responsiveness toward infants and young children(e.g., Cowan, Cowan, & Mehta, 2009; Halford & Petch,2010) and toward adolescents (Bifulco, Moran, Jacobs, &Bunn, 2009). However, little is known about how this pro-

posed link manifests in parenting in mid-childhood, which is

a notable period because the increasing autonomy of the child(e.g., developing an individual social life and individual

PSPXXX10.1177/0146167212468333Person

1University of Bristol, UK2University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK3University of Southampton, UK

Corresponding Author:Abigail Millings, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol,12a Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TU, UKEmail: [email protected]

Good Partner, Good Parent: ResponsivenessMediates the Link Between RomanticAttachment and Parenting Style

Abigail Millings 1, Judi Walsh 2, Erica Hepper 3, and Margaret OBrien 2

AbstractThis cross-sectional, dyadic questionnaire study examined the contribution of romantic attachment and responsive caregivingto parenting style, investigating both gender and partner effects. One hundred and twenty-five couples with children aged7 to 8 years completed measures of attachment styles, responsive caregiving toward partner, and parenting styles. StructuralEquation Modeling was used to examine the intra- and interpersonal associations between romantic attachment, caregivingresponsiveness, and parenting styles. Attachment avoidance and anxiety were both negatively associated with responsivecaregiving to partner, which in turn was positively associated with authoritative (optimal) parenting styles and negatively

associated with authoritarian and permissive (nonoptimal) parenting styles. Responsive caregiving mediated all links betweenattachment and parenting, with an additional direct association between attachment anxiety and nonoptimal parenting stylesthat was not explained by caregiving responsiveness. Findings are discussed with reference to attachment theory.

Keywordsattachment, responsiveness, caregiving, parenting, couples

Received March 21, 2012; revision accepted August 19, 2012

http://pdf.highwire.org/http://pdf.highwire.org/http://pdf.highwire.org/http://pdf.highwire.org/


3/12

Millings et al. 171

interests) is coupled with a requirement for relatively highlevels of parental supervision and discipline.

An unexplored link, then, in the family network is that between caregiving responsiveness and the manifestation of this responsiveness in relation to parenting behaviorsthatis, parenting style. This link is particularly important because

it may shed light on the mechanism by which attachment pro-cesses in one relationship (e.g., a romantic relationship) affectattachment processes in another (e.g., a parentchild relation-ship; Howard, 2010; Rholes, Simpson, & Blakely, 1995;Rholes, Simpson, & Friedman, 2006; Selcuk et al., 2010). Wemake a distinction between parenting capacities (e.g., sensitiv-ity) and parenting practices (what parents actually do for andwith their children, rules that they set). We therefore examinecaregiving responsiveness in the romantic relationship as a

possible mode of transmission between romantic attachmentand caregiving behaviors in another relationshipthe parent-ing style toward the child. Furthermore, we examine thesevariables in the context of parenting in mid-childhood, an

age group so far relatively neglected in the aforementionedliterature.

Attachment and CaregivingWhere researchers in the developmental attachment traditioncategorize adult state of mind with regard to their own child-hood attachment experiences based on the coherence of their discourse, adult attachment researchers in the social, person-ality, and cognitive traditions commonly conceptualize thequality of the emotional bonds people have with their roman-tic partners along two dimensions of attachment avoidance andattachment anxiety (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998).Attachment avoidance refers to the suppression of attachment-related affect, denial of attachment needs, and deactivation of the attachment system in times of need. Attachment anxietyrefers to hyperactivation of the attachment system andattachment-related affect. Those high in attachment anxietyexperience fears of abandonment and preoccupation withrelationships, especially when faced with threat (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Low scores on both avoidance and anxietyare commonly taken to denote attachment security (Brennanet al., 1998; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

The caregiving behavioral system exists in parallel with,and as a partner to, the attachment behavioral system. While

the attachment system promotes care-seeking in times of need, the caregiving system exists to motivate the caregiver to reduce suffering, keep a significant other safe from harm,and promote growth and development (Collins, Ford,Guichard, & Allard, 2006; George & Solomon, 1999). Twomanifestations of the caregiving system have typically beenexamined in attachment literature: first, in relation to paren-tal attitudes, expectations, and behaviors toward offspring(e.g., Bowlby, 1969; George & Solomon, 1999), and second,in relation to romantic pair bonds (e.g., Collins & Feeney,2000; Kunce & Shaver, 1994).

Studies show that adult romantic attachment insecurity islinked with parental caregiving and parenting expectations,experiences, interaction, and behaviors. In their studies of young adults without children and couples undergoing thetransition to parenthood, Rholes, Simpson, and colleaguesfound attachment avoidance and ambivalence (akin to attach-

ment anxiety) to be associated with more negative expecta-tions about parenting, including uncertainty about parentingability, expectations of being easily aggravated by and relat-ing poorly to children, and having a less warm, more strict

parenting style. In addition, high avoidance was associatedwith less desire to have children and an expectation of lessoverall satisfaction in parenting (Rholes et al., 1995; Rholes,Simpson, Blakely, Lanigan, & Allen, 1997). Attachmentstyles are also linked in theoretically predictable ways to par-enting behaviors with infants and young children. Attachmentanxiety has been linked with missing child signals and diffi-culty in supporting exploratory behaviors, whereas attach-ment avoidance has been reported to be positively associated

with distance in caregiving interactions and negatively asso-ciated with maternal sensitivity with children aged below4 years (Selcuk et al., 2010). Furthermore, avoidant attach-ment has also been linked with low maternal sensitivitytoward infants, but only in conditions of psychological dis-tress (Mills-Koonce et al., 2011). Although these studies

broadly show that adult romantic attachment orientations and parenting behaviors are linked, avoidance and anxiety appear to be differentially associated with specific aspects of paren-tal caregiving and parenting behaviors (Selcuk et al., 2010)and, importantly, the precise mechanisms remain unclear. We

propose caregiving responsiveness as a mechanism.Researchers have also explored the links between attach-

ment orientation and responsive caregiving toward partner (e.g., Feeney & Collins, 2004; Kane et al., 2007; Kunce &Shaver, 1994; Millings & Walsh, 2009), and find that attach-ment security is linked with optimal partner caregiving.Attachment avoidance is associated with lower levels of caregiving generally (Carnelley, Pietromonaco, & Jaffe,1996), and less responsive and more controlling caregivingspecifically (Feeney & Collins, 2001), whereas attachmentanxiety is also associated with less responsive caregiving, aswell as less provision of instrumental support (Collins &Ford, 2010; Millings & Walsh, 2009).

The two manifestations of the caregiving behavioral sys-

tem discussed here have different targets (child versus part-ner) and necessitate different behavioral repertoires driven by the nature of the relationship (parental versus romantic).However, if governed by the same set of attachment-relatedschema that underpin the system, caregiving toward partner and child ought to share some fundamental commonalities.Thus, we expect partner caregiving responsiveness to be sig-nificantly associated with parenting styles and proposeresponsiveness in partner caregiving to be a key mediatingmechanism, which may partially or fully account for theeffects of romantic attachment on parenting styles.



4/12

172 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 39(2)

Attachment, Caregiving, andParenting in Family Systems

Individual family relationships (parentparent, parentchild)are known to influence each other as dynamic systems (Cox& Paley, 1997). Because the goal of the caregiving behav-

ioral system is to promote the recipients ability to cope withchallenges, it is possible that not only does an individualsown caregiving style influence his or her own parentingstyle but also the parenting style of his or her partner.Although attachment researchers have not examined partner caregiving as a facilitator to effective parenting directly,studies investigating couple interaction and satisfaction sug-gest this link warrants investigation. Indeed, one of the keyfunctions of romantic attachments, according to Del Giudiceand Belsky (2010), is to promote long-term bonding, coop-erative parenting and (ultimately) parental investment(Del Giudice & Belsky, 2010, p. 112).

Cohn, Silver, Cowan, Cowan, and Pearson (1992) found

attachment security to be associated with positive maritalinteraction and positive parentchild relationships, with thereverse true for insecurity. Cowan et al. (2009) reported that

parents attachment to their own parents and their coupleattachment, as measured by interview, were significant pre-dictors of couple interaction quality, which, in turn, was a

predictor of parenting. These studies suggest the relationshipbetween parents impacts upon the parenting style of eachindividual. Indeed, the capacity for caregiving responsive-ness within the couple may be important here. Cowan,Bradburn, and Cowan (2005) reported an intervention studywhereby a marital relationship-focused interventionimproved parenting as well as the couple relationship,whereas the parenting-focused intervention only improved

parenting. Improvements in own responsiveness in the couplerelationship could provide an explanation. It may be easier toimprove responsiveness reciprocally, which would accountfor the transfer gains in one direction (from couple relation-ship to parenting) but not the other (from parenting to couplerelationship). Alternatively, it might be that one partnersresponsiveness facilitates the other partners parenting.

Given the potential for influence at the level of the indi-vidual and the couple, we must therefore model for bothintra- and inter-individual level effects of responsiveness inthe prediction of parenting styles. We propose that an indi-

viduals own caregiving responsiveness toward their partner may partially or fully mediate the link between their attach-ment style and their parenting style. This might occur for tworeasons. First, it might be that when an individual is capableand practiced at being responsive in one relationship, thiscapacity also transfers to other relationships (in intra-individual effect). Second, it might be that individuals withsecure attachment to their partner benefits from having their own attachment needs met, and so they are more able to beresponsive toward that partner. Furthermore, they can beresponsive to their child because their own attachment needs

(whether elicited by the external world or by the child them-selves) are taken care of. That is, attachment security with aromantic partner enables greater responsiveness in caregiv-ing for others generally, which subsequently increases thelikelihood of endorsing an optimal parenting style (an inter-individual effect).

Despite both the developmental and adult pair bond care-giving literatures asserting that caregiving is driven by anunderlying behavioral system, as far as we are aware therehas not yet been any attempt at examining this system frommultiple perspectives integrating examination of caregivingtoward partner and parenting toward child in a single study.In the current study, our aim was to consider how both theattachment and caregiving styles of a couple predict their

parenting styles toward their child, postulating that respon-siveness reported toward partner might act as a mediator

between romantic attachment and parenting style, and allow-ing for both intra- and inter-individual effects.

The Current StudyWe seek to extend the literature by examining attachment,caregiving responsiveness toward partner, and parenting inmid-childhood in a dyadic structural equation model. Weadopt the most commonly used conceptualization of parent-ing style (both parenting practices and the emotional tonewith which they are employed), that of Baumrind (1967,1991), which provides a succinct and useful description of optimal and nonoptimal parenting styles toward the mid-childhood age range. Baumrinds model of parentingdescribes three stylesauthoritative, authoritarian, and per-missive parenting. Authoritative parenting is considered theoptimal parenting style, and refers to parenting conveyingclear boundaries and expectations to the child but within awarm and involved context. By contrast, authoritarian par-enting is harsh and punitive and lacks warmth and dialogue,and permissive parenting is unstructured, unconfident, andlacks boundaries. Authoritative parenting is associated withthe most positive child outcomes, including friendlinesswith peers, achievement orientation, cooperation with par-ents, and healthy independence (Baumrind, 1967, 1973,1989). Furthermore, Querido, Warner, and Eyberg (2002)found that authoritative parenting was associated with fewer

behavioral problems and the lowest intensity problem

behaviors, compared with authoritarian and permissive par-enting styles which were both positively associated with theintensity of problem behaviors. Despite Baumrinds typol-ogy of parenting style being commonly used within the

parenting literature, to our knowledge, this is the first studyto examine how dimensions of romantic attachment andcaregiving relate to an individuals authoritative, authoritar-ian, and permissive parenting scores.

With the exception of Rholes et al. (2006), who usedActor Partner Interdependence Model analyses, much of theextant literature on parenting neglects to model for mutual

http://pdf.highwire.org/http://pdf.highwire.org/http://pdf.highwire.org/


5/12

Millings et al. 173

influence within dyads. We seek to correct this by presentingdata from both parents in a family, reporting on their ownrelationship with their partner, as well as their own parentingstyle toward their child. Extant evidence regarding partner effects is mixed: some research emphasizes the importanceof partner supportiveness in caregiving for infants and young

children (Halford & Petch, 2010), but other research doesnot find an effect of marital satisfaction on parenting (Rholeset al., 2006). We tested a comprehensive model that exam-ined the paths between romantic attachment orientation and

parenting style, postulating responsive caregiving as amediator, and accounting for both gender differences and

partner effects throughout the model. We hypothesized thatcouple romantic attachments would predict parenting stylesvia differences in responsive caregiving and that one part-ners responsive caregiving might affect the other partners

parenting.

MethodData were collected via questionnaires distributed via staterun, mixed sex schools in England, as part of the ParentingProject. Other findings pertaining to couple attachment andcaregiving dynamics in this sample are reported elsewhere(Millings & Walsh, 2009). One hundred and twenty-twocouples responded to questionnaire packs that were senthome with children in their second and third years of school-ing (7-8 year olds). Cover letters invited parents to partici-

pate in the study, described as a research project on parentingand families, and asked them to complete the questionnairesseparately and seal them in separate envelopes. No incen-tives were offered but a gift of stickers for the child wasincluded in each pack. Envelopes were returned to theschool, where they were collected by the researcher. A fur-ther three couples were recruited by a similar method inwhich parents were invited to participate by letters senthome from school, but participation was via logging on to anonline version of the questionnaire.

ParticipantsOne hundred and twenty-five couples participated. The meanage for men was 39.3 years ( SD = 5.73) and for women it was36.2 years ( SD = 5.06), with a range 24 to 55 years overall.

Eighty-nine percent of men and 99% of women were bio-logical parents; biological and nonbiological (e.g., step or adoptive) parents did not differ significantly on any variable.Participants did not differ according to their method of recruitment on any variable.

MeasuresQuestionnaires included measures of romantic attachment to

partner, caregiving toward partner, and parenting style, inthat order. Questionnaires took around 20 min to complete.

Attachment . Attachment was measured using the Experi-ences in Close RelationshipsRevised (ECR-R; Fraley,Waller, & Brennan, 2000). This 36-item measure assessesattachment avoidance and attachment anxiety. Each scalecontains 18 items scored on a Likert-type scale from1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). Mean scores are

taken for each dimension. The ECR-R has been shown to be both reliable and valid (Sibley, Fischer, & Liu, 2005). Cron- bachs alphas in the current study were .92 for anxiety and.92 for avoidance.

Caregiving . Caregiving towards partner was measured usingthe Caregiving Questionnaire (CQ; Kunce & Shaver, 1994).The CQ has 32 items, which are scored on a Likert-type scalefrom 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 6 ( strongly agree ). The CQ has4 dimensions, each containing 8 items: proximity , willingnessto provide a partner with physical closeness as a form of sup-

port; sensitivity , ability to pick up on a partners nonverbalcues; cooperation , capacity to assist without becoming control-ling and domineering; and compulsion , tendency to become

overinvolved with a partners difficulties. Due to our interest inthe particular aspect of the caregiving behavioral system likelyto be common across caregiving to partner and to child, wefocused our investigation on responsive caregiving ( = .92), acomposite mean of proximity ( = .86), sensitivity ( = .90),and cooperation ( = .85; for example, Feeney, 1996). 1

Parenting . Parenting styles were measured using the Par-enting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ; Robin-son, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 1995). This measure assessesauthoritative (27 items), authoritarian (20 items), and per-missive parenting (15 items). Items ask the respondent torate the frequency with which they use particular parenting

behaviors (e.g., I explain the consequences of my childs behavior) from 1 ( never ) to 5 ( always ). Cronbachs alphaswere .93 for authoritative, .85 for authoritarian, and .75 for

permissive parenting, which is comparable with those found by Robinson et al. (1995). The PSDQ is widely used in par-enting research and has been linked with child outcomes(Aunola, Stattin, & Nurmi, 2000; Querido et al., 2002).

Results Analytic Strategy

Table 1 shows the means and SDs for all variables separated

by gender, along with zero-order correlations between allstudy variables for male and female participants. Most cor-relations within gender (i.e., actor effects) were moderateand significant. The correlation between avoidance andanxiety was high for both men and women, although thisis common in long-term, committed couples (Cameron,Finnegan, & Morry, 2012). There were also significant asso-ciations between genders indicating that within a couple, thetwo partners attachment styles, caregiving responsiveness,and parenting tended to correspond to some extent (i.e., werenot independent).



6/12

174

T a

b l e 1

. D e s c r

i p t i v e s a n

d R a w

C o r r e

l a t i o n s

B e t w e e n

S t u d y

V a r i a

b l e s

b y C o u p l e

M e n

W o m e n

A n x i e t y

A v o i

d a n c e

R e s p o n s i v e

c a r e g i v

i n g

A u t h o r

i t a t i v e

A u t

h o r i t a r

i a n P e r m

i s s i v e A n x i e t y

A v o i

d a n c e

R e s p o n s i v e

c a r e g i v

i n g

A u t h o r

i t a t i v e

A u t

h o r i t a r

i a n P e r m

i s s i v e

M e n

A v o i

d a n c e

0 . 6 2 * * *

R e s p o n s i v e c a r e g i v

i n g

0 . 5 7 * * *

0 . 6 3 * * *

A u t h o r

i t a t i v e

0 . 3 8 * * *

0 . 3 7 * * *

0 . 4 8 * * *

A u t h o r

i t a r i a n

0 . 3 7 * * *

0 . 2 4 * *

0 . 3 8 * * *

0 . 5 7 * * *

P e r m

i s s i v e

0 . 4 2 * * *

0 . 2 6 * *

0 . 2 7 * *

0 . 5 1 * * *

0 . 3 8 * * *

W o m e n

A n x i e t y

0 . 3 5 * * *

0 . 4 0 * * *

0 . 3 8 * * *

0 . 3 0 * * *

0 . 2 3 *

0 . 1 6

A v o i

d a n c e

0 . 3 9 * * *

0 . 4 2 * * *

0 . 3 2 * * *

0 . 3 3 * * *

0 . 1 9 *

0 . 1 7

0 . 7 4 * * *

R e s p o n s i v e c a r e g i v

i n g

0 . 3 0 * * *

0 . 3 2 * * *

0 . 2 3 * *

0 . 2 1 *

0 . 1 1

0 . 1 0

0 . 5 4 * * *

0 . 6 9 * * *

A u t h o r

i t a t i v e

0 . 2 7 * * *

0 . 2 6 * *

0 . 1 7

0 . 2 1 *

0 . 0 6

0 . 1 0

0 . 3 5 * * *

0 . 4 3 * * *

0 . 5 0 * * *

A u t h o r

i t a r i a n

0 . 1 1

0 . 1 4

0 . 1 3

0 . 1 9 *

0 . 3 0 * * *

0 . 1 3

0 . 4 0 * * *

0 . 4 1 * * *

0 . 4 7 * * *

0 . 6 3 * * *

P e r m

i s s i v e

0 . 1 8 *

0 . 0 9

0 . 0 7

0 . 1 4

0 . 1 8 *

0 . 2 8 * *

0 . 3 7 * * *

0 . 3 5 * * *

0 . 4 0 * * *

0 . 4 2 * * *

0 . 4 0 * * *

M

2 . 3 8

2 . 2 8

4 . 5 0

3 . 8 7

2 . 0 3

2 . 0 9

2 . 3 0

2 . 2 7

4 . 7 1

4 . 1 7

1 . 9 1

2 . 0 4

S D

1 . 1 2

0 . 9 9

0 . 8 0

0 . 5 8

0 . 4 3

0 . 4 3

1 . 2 2

1 . 1 9

0 . 8 5

0 . 3 9

0 . 4 0

0 . 4 3

N o t e :

C o r r e

l a t i o n s w e r e c o m p u t e

d a t t h e

d y a d

l e v e

l . C o r r e

l a t i o n s w

i t h i n t h e s a m e g e n d e r r e

f l e c t a c t o r e f

f e c t s ( e . g . , a n

i n d i v i d u a

l s o w n a n x i e t y c o r r e l a t e d w

i t h t h e i r o w n r e s p o n s

i v e c a r e g i v

i n g ) .

C o r r e

l a t i o n s

b e t w e e n m a l e a n

d f e m a l e v a r i a

b l e s o n t h e

d i a g o n a l

i n d i c a t e

d e g r e e o

f n o n

i n d e p e n d e n c e

( e . g . , t

h e a s s o c i a t i o n

b e t w e e n m o t

h e r s a n

d f a t h e r

s a t t a c h m e n t a n x

i e t y

) , a n d t h o s e o f

f t h e d i a g o n a l

r e f l e c t p a r t n e r e

f f e c t s ( e . g . , w

i t h i n a c o u p

l e , t

h e a s s o c i a t i o n

b e t w e e n m o t

h e r s a t t a c h m e n t s t y

l e a n

d f a t h e r

s p a r e n t

i n g s t y l e

) .

* p

Documents

Good Partner, Good Parent Responsiveness Mediates the Link Between Romantic Attachment and Parenting Style