ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Spousal Rejection as a Risk Factor for Parental Rejectionof Children

Farah Malik & Ronald P. Rohner

Published online: 12 April 2012# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract Limited information is available about the interna-tional generalizability of the common conclusion that maritaldiscord tends to be associated with problematic parenting.Pakistan is a sociocultural context known for a high frequencyof marital distress. Accordingly, this study draws from asample of 270 Pakistani families with children between theages of 9 to 13 years (M011.21 years). In this study weexplore the question: Are Pakistani children’s perceptions ofmaternal and/or paternal rejection related to their parents’perceptions of spousal rejection? Results of a hierarchicalmultiple regression analyses showed that wives’ perceptionsof husbands’ rejection predicted children’s perceptions ofmaternal rejection, as well as—but to a significantly lesserextent—children’s perceptions of paternal rejection. Similarly,husbands’ perceptions of wives’ rejection predicted children’sperceptions of paternal rejection, as well as—but to a signif-icantly lesser extent—children’s perceptions of maternal re-jection. Results of this research, along with the slim body ofprior international research, suggests that the concept of “spill-over effect” used to explain the association between spousal

rejection and parental rejection may have widespread interna-tional applicability.

Keywords Interparental conflict . Marital discord . Husband/wife rejection .Maternal/paternal rejection . Spillover effect

It is well established that marital discord tends to be associ-ated with problematic parenting, at least in North America.In their meta-analytic review of marital quality and parent–child relations, for example, Erel and Burman (1995) founda significant relation between overt interparental conflictand negative parenting. More recently, Krishnakumar andBuehler (2000) reported in their meta-analytic review aneven stronger association between interparental conflictand parenting. In addition, recent studies continue to con-firm conclusions such as these (Sturge-Apple et al. 2010;Tatsuo et al. 2010; Whiteside-Mansell et al. 2009).

Beyond this, Krishnakumar and Buehler (2000) reportedin their meta-analysis that the average effect size for theassociation between interparental conflict and negative par-enting in longitudinal data was almost as high as the averageeffect size based on the cross-sectional data. Later, researchby Gerard et al. (2006) showed that marital conflict whenchildren were 5 through 11 years of age was longitudinallyassociated with parent–child conflict 5 years later. In asimilar vein, Acock and Demo (1999) found that earlymarital conflict 5 years later indirectly influenced adolescentmaladjustment through the longitudinal association betweenmarital conflict and parent-adolescent conflict. Thus itseems clear that distressed marital relations are both concur-rently and longitudinally predictive of problematic parent-ing. Support for conclusions such as this has also come fromDavis et al. (2009), Rhoades et al. (2011), Schofield et al.(2009), and Shelton and Harold (2008).

Farah Malik thanks the Fulbright International Educational ExchangeProgram for the opportunity to complete this research while she was aPostdoctoral Research Fellow at the Ronald and Nancy Rohner Centerfor the Study of Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection at theUniversity of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

F. MalikDepartment of Psychology, GC University,Lahore, Pakistane-mail: drfarahmalik@gmail.com

R. P. Rohner (*)Human Development and Family Studies,University of Connecticut,Unit 2058,Storrs, CT 06269-2058, USAe-mail: r.rohner@uconn.edu

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:295–301DOI 10.1007/s10896-012-9425-5

From these studies it appears that maritally distressedparents often have a reduced capacity to deal effectivelywith the day-to-day challenges of raising children. Morespecifically, marital conflict, hostility, disharmony, and oth-er negative marital interactions tend to leave spouses feelingangry and frustrated. In turn this frustration and anger tendsto get displaced onto children. This process has come to beknown as the “spillover effect” (Engfer 1988; Erel andBurman 1995; Gerard et al. 2006; Repetti 1987). That is,tensions, anger, irritability, and other negative emotions andbehaviors in the marital relationship tend to spill over intothe parent–child relationship.

All these negative emotions and behaviors are consistentwith the definition of perceived rejection as construed inparental acceptance-rejection theory (PARTheory). That is,according to PARTheory, perceived rejection constitutes oneend of the warmth dimension of interpersonal relationships(Rohner 1986, 2004; Rohner et al. 2012). The other end ofthe dimension is perceived acceptance. Nearly 500 studiesworldwide show that children and adults everywhere tend toorganize their perceptions of interpersonal (e.g., parentaland marital) acceptance-rejection around the same four clas-ses of behavior (Rohner 2012). These include warmth andaffection (or their opposite, coldness and lack of affection),hostility and aggression, indifference and neglect, and un-differentiated rejection. Undifferentiated rejection refers toindividuals’ belief that their parent or partner does not reallylike, approve of, care about, or love them without necessar-ily having clear behavioral indicators that the parent orpartner is neglecting, unaffectionate, or aggressive.

PARTheory also postulates that individuals tend to respondin the same way when they perceive themselves to be rejectedby their attachment figures (e.g., by parents in childhood andby intimate partners in adulthood). Specifically, PARTheoryspecifies that individuals who perceive themselves to berejected by attachment figures are likely to develop problemswith: (a) anger, hostility, aggression, passive aggression, or themanagement of hostility and aggression; (b) negative self-esteem; (c) negative self-adequacy; (d) emotional instability;(e) emotional unresponsiveness; (f) negative worldview; and(g) dependence or defensive independence depending on theform, frequency, intensity, timing, and duration of rejection.Extensive pancultural evidence summarized in five meta-analytic reviews supports this expectation (Khaleque andRohner 2002a, b, 2011a, b; Rohner and Khaleque 2010). Inall likelihood parental preoccupation with marital distress inconjunction with these personality dispositions make it diffi-cult for parents to interact with their children in warm, loving,and accepting ways. Insofar as this is true, then the context isset for children to experience problematic parenting in theform of rejection.

To our knowledge very few studies have examined theassociation between perceived spousal rejection and

offspring’s perception of parental rejection. Burman et al.(1987), however, found that parental support and acceptanceof the child diminished when hostile interparental relationsexisted. In a similar vein, Krishnakumar and Buehler (2000)found that the strongest effects in their meta-analytic reviewexisted for the association between marital hostility andhigher levels of harsh discipline along with lower levels ofparental acceptance. Both of these studies—along with thevast portion of all other studies dealing with the associationbetween marital distress and malparenting—were based pri-marily on European American families (Doohan et al.2009). We are unaware of any study assessing the general-izability of these major conclusions in international settings.Moreover, we are also unaware of any study that exploreswhether children’s (boys’ versus girls’) perceptions of ma-ternal and/or paternal rejection are associated with theirparents’ (mothers’ versus fathers’) perceptions of spousalrejection. The research reported here helps correct theselimitations. In particular we ask the question: Are Pakistanichildren’s (boys’ versus girls’) perceptions of maternal and/or paternal rejection related to their parents’ (mothers’ ver-sus fathers’) perceptions of spousal rejection?

Pakistan is an excellent international location for study-ing this issue because the incidence of family conflict andviolence tends to be high. A recent study by Ali et al.(2011), for example, reported lifetime prevalence of psycho-logical maltreatment (83.6 %) and physical violence(57.6 %) between spouses. These statistics occur in a socio-cultural context where wives and children are considered tobe property of the male family members, and where the useof force and violence are viewed as appropriate in childrearing and marital relations (Malik 2001, 2003, 2010;Malik and Rizvi 2009).

Method

Sample Characteristics

The sample consisted of 270 children (135 boys and 135girls) and their parents (both fathers and mothers) drawnfrom three cities in Pakistan (Lahore, Faisalabad, and Sial-kot). Children ranged in age from 9 to 13 years (M011.21,SD01.52). Wives ranged in age from 28 to 55 years (M0

37.62, SD05.48), and husbands ranged in age from 30 to77 years (M043.40, SD06.75). Seventy-one percent of thehusbands were employed in low status clerical, schoolteaching, or business occupations; 26 % were employed inhigh status professional or business occupations; and 3 %were chronically unemployed. Eight percent of the hus-bands and 20 % of the wives were functionally illiterateeven though they may have had as much as a fifth gradeeducation.

296 J Fam Viol (2012) 27:295–301

Procedure

With the help of three trained research assistants, data werecollected over the course of approximately 6 months in atwo stage process. First, the researchers sought the cooper-ation of married couples known to the researchers to beexperiencing significant marital distress or conflict. Then,using a snowball procedure, each of these couples wasasked to suggest the names of other couples who might beexperiencing the same difficulties. This process yielded 110consenting families. Next, the researchers sought the coop-eration of married couples from the general population,again using a snowball procedure. This process netted anadditional 160 families. After receiving informed consentfrom parents and verbal assent from children, data werecollected in each family from a target child in the age rangefrom 9 to 13 years, and from both parents. The measureswere read aloud to illiterate respondents, mostly adults,because by 9 years of age most school-going children wereliterate enough to respond to the measures by themselves.

Measures

Four self-report measures were translated into Urdu for thisstudy. The self-report measures included: Child Form of theParental Acceptance-Rejection/Control Questionnaire:Mother Version (Child PARQ/Control: Mother; Rohner2005b); Child Form of the Parental Acceptance-Rejection/Control Questionnaire: Father Version (Child PARQ/Con-trol: Father; Rohner 2005b); and Intimate PartnerAcceptance-Rejection/Control Questionnaire (IPAR/CQ;Rohner 2005a). Husbands and wives responded separatelyto the IPAR/CQ. Furthermore, a form for collecting demo-graphic data about the participants was utilized.

Child Form of the Parental Acceptance-Rejection/ControlQuestionnaire: Father and Mother Versions The motherand father versions of PARQ/Control are almost identical73-item questionnaires designed to assess children’s percep-tions of maternal and paternal acceptance-rejection and be-havioral control, respectively. Both versions consist of fivescales. The first four scales (60 items) measure children’sperceptions of parental warmth/affection, hostility/aggres-sion, indifference/neglect, and undifferentiated rejection.Undifferentiated rejection refers to children’s feelings thattheir mothers or fathers do not really love them, want them,or care about them without necessarily experiencing clearbehavioral indicators of aggression, neglect, or coldness.The fifth scale (13 items) measures children’s perceptionsof parents’ behavioral control.

Sample items on the acceptance-rejection portion of themeasures include: “My mother makes me feel wanted andneeded” (perceived warmth/affection), “My mother goes out

of her way to hurt my feelings” (perceived hostility/aggres-sion), “My mother ignores me as long as I do nothing tobother her” (perceived indifference/neglect), and “My moth-er does not really love me” (perceived undifferentiatedrejection). Children respond to items such as these on afour-point Likert scale from 1 (Almost Never True) to 4(Almost Always True). Scores on the four acceptance-rejection scales are summed (after reverse scoring thewarmth/affection scale to create a measure of perceivedparental coldness/lack of affection), producing an overallmeasure of perceived maternal and paternal acceptance-rejection that ranged from a possible low score of 60 (max-imum perceived acceptance) to a possible high score of 240(maximum perceived rejection). Scores that are at or above150 reveal the perception of significantly more rejectionthan acceptance.

Analyses of the reliability of the acceptance-rejectionportion of the measure showed it to be robust for use ininternational research. For example, a meta-analysis of7,152 respondents in the U.S. and cross-culturally revealeda mean weighted effect size of coefficient alpha aggregatedacross the acceptance-rejection portion of all versions of thePARQ/Control to be 0.89 (Khaleque and Rohner 2002b).Coefficient alpha of the acceptance-rejection portion of theUrdu measure used in this research was 0.94 for both themother and father versions.

Possible scores on the behavioral control scale spreadfrom a low of 13 (minimum behavioral control, or extremepermissiveness) to a high of 52 (maximum behavioral con-trol, or restrictive control). A sample item on this scale is“My mother wants to control whatever I do.”

A meta-analysis of the behavioral control scale in 11studies internationally (Rohner and Khaleque 2003) showedthat the mean weighted effect size of the scale aggregatedacross all versions of the scale across all samples was 0.73.Alpha coefficients in this study, however, were unaccept-ably low, at 0.56 for fathers and 0.58 for mothers. Becauseof the questionable reliability of the scale in this study it wasdropped from further consideration.

Intimate Partner Acceptance-Rejection/Control Question-naire (IPAR/CQ) The acceptance-rejection and behavioralcontrol portions of the IPAR/CQ used in this research areidentical to the acceptance-rejection and behavioral controlportions of the PARQ/Control—except all items in thismeasure are phrased “My husband [or wife]. . .” versus“My father [or mother]. . .” For this measure, wivesreflected on the acceptance-rejection and behavioral controlof their husbands, and husbands did the same for theirwives. Sample items include: My husband [or my wife]“says nice things about me” (warmth/affection), “yells atme when (s)he is angry” (hostility/aggression), “pays noattention to me” (indifference/neglect), “does not really love

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:295–301 297

me” (undifferentiated rejection), and “tries to control what-ever I do” (behavioral control).

Analyses of the psychometric properties of the IPAR/CQ have shown the measure to be reliable and valid ininternational research (Rohner 2005a; Rohner and Melendez2008). Coefficient alpha for the acceptance-rejection por-tion of the measure in 11 studies internationally spreadfrom 0.73 to 0.97 (M00.82). Alpha for the behavioralcontrol portion of the measure in these studies spreadfrom 0.67 to 0.93 (M00.85). Alpha for the acceptance-rejection portion of the Urdu measure used in this studyfor husbands’ perceptions of wives’ behavior was 0.94;alpha for the acceptance-rejection portion for wives’ per-ceptions of husbands’ behavior was 0.96. Alpha coeffi-cient for wives’ perceptions of husbands’ behavioralcontrol in this study was 0.68; husbands’ perceptions ofwives’ behavioral control was 0.71. Because the reliabilityof the alphas for wives was only marginally acceptable—in conjunction with the fact that neither alpha for child-ren’s perceptions of parental control was acceptable—thebehavioral control variable was excluded from furtherconsideration in this study.

Results

As shown in Table 1, children on the average tended toperceive their parents to be only moderately accepting.However, 22 % of them perceived their mothers to bequalitatively more rejecting than accepting, and 26 % ofthem perceived their fathers to be qualitatively more reject-ing than accepting. Additionally, husbands and wivestended to perceive their spouses to be more-or-less accept-ing. But 20 % of the wives perceived their husbands to bequalitatively more rejecting than accepting, and 19 % of thehusbands perceived their wives to be the same. These data

reveal a high incidence of marital and family distress in theform of perceived rejection.

Beyond this, intercorrelations displayed in Table 2 showthat insofar as children tended to perceive their mothers asbeing rejecting they also tended to perceive their fathers to berejecting (r00.80, p<0.001). And insofar as wives tended tosee their husbands as being rejecting, husbands tended toperceive the same from their wives (r00.75, p<0.001). Final-ly, Table 2 also shows that children’s perceptions of bothmaternal and paternal rejection were significantly correlatedwith their parents’ rejection of each other. More specifically,children’s perceptions of maternal rejection were significantlycorrelated with wives’ perception of their husbands’ rejection(r00.62, p<0.001) as well as with husbands’ perceptions ofwives’ rejection (r00.60, p<0.001). Similarly, children’s per-ceptions of paternal rejection were significantly correlatedwith husbands’ perceptions of wives’ rejection (r00.62,p<0.001) as well as with wives’ perception of husbands’rejection (r00.57, p<0.001).

Because all these substantive variables (i.e., perceivedmaternal and paternal rejection, and perceived husbandand wife rejection) were significantly intercorrelated weconducted a hierarchical multiple regression analysis(shown in Table 3) in order to estimate the extent to whichwives’ perceptions of husbands’ rejection and husbands’perceptions of wives’ rejection were each uniquely associ-ated with children’s perceptions of maternal and paternalrejection. The first step in the analysis was to enter into theequation the control variables shown in Table 2, most ofwhich—except Child Gender, which was unrelated to any ofthe other major variables—tended to be significantly corre-lated with the four substantive variables. Collectively thesefive covariates accounted for 28 % of the variance in child-ren’s perceptions of maternal rejection, and 26 % of thevariance in children’s perceptions of paternal rejection. InStep 2, we entered wives’ perceptions of husbands’ rejectionand husbands’ perceptions of wives’ rejection into the equa-tion. These two variables explained an additional 26 % ofthe variance in children’s perceptions of maternal rejectionand 25 % of the variance in children’s perceptions of pater-nal rejection.

Very importantly, with the influence of the covariatesremoved, wives’ perceptions of husbands’ rejectionemerged as a significant positive predictor of children’sperceptions of maternal rejection (β00.32, p<0.001), aswell as—but to a lesser extent—children’s perceptions ofpaternal rejection (β00.17, p<0.001). Likewise, with theinfluence of the covariates removed, husbands’ perceptionsof wives’ rejection emerged as a significant positive predic-tor of children’s perceptions of paternal rejection (β00.40,p<0.001) as well as—but to a lesser extent—children’sperceptions of maternal rejection. Collectively, all thesevariables accounted for 53 % of the variance in children’s

Table 1 Descriptivestatistics among studyvariables (N0270)

aMaternal 0 Child’sperception of mother’srejection; Paternal 0Child’s perception offather’s rejectionbWife 0 Wife’s percep-tion of husband’srejection; Husband 0Husband’s perceptionof wife’s rejection

Variables M (SD)

Parental Rejectiona

Maternal 122.90 (34.00)

Paternal 120.71 (33.19)

Spousal Rejectionb

Wife 113.34 (37.37)

Husband 117.57 (36.58)

Control Variables

Child Gender 1.50 (0.50)

Child Age 11.21 (1.33)

Father Occupation 2.72 (0.95)

Father Education 2.49 (0.74)

Mother Education 2.25 (0.82)

298 J Fam Viol (2012) 27:295–301

perceptions of maternal rejection, and 52 % of the variancein children’s perceptions of paternal rejection.

Finally, statistical comparisons of related unstandardizedregression coefficients (Bs) (Cohen and Cohen 1983) dis-played in Table 4 show that wives’ perceptions of husbands’rejection was a significantly (p<0.01) stronger predictor ofchildren’s perceptions of maternal rejection than of paternalrejection. Similarly, husbands’ perceptions of wives’ rejec-tion was a significantly (p<0.05) stronger predictor of child-ren’s perceptions of paternal rejection than of maternalrejection.

Discussion

Distressed marital relations tend to be both concurrently andlongitudinally predictive of problematic parenting through amechanism commonly called the spillover effect. Perceivedspousal rejection is one potent though understudied sourceof marital distress. Perceived rejection in this context—as inall other attachment relationships—is thought in PARTheory(Khaleque and Rohner 2011a) to lead to a specific set ofpersonality dispositions. These include anxiety; insecurity;anger; hostility, aggression, passive aggression, or problemswith the management of hostility and aggression; negativeself-esteem; negative self-adequacy; emotional instability;emotional unresponsiveness; negative worldview; and, de-pendence or defensive independence depending on the form,frequency, intensity, timing, and duration of rejection. Nodoubt parents’ preoccupation with marital distress in conjunc-tion with these personality dispositions make it difficult forthem to interact in the same warm, loving way they might ifthey were in a less stress-producing marital relationship.

Table 2 Intercorrelations among study variables (N0270)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Parental Rejectiona

1. Maternal –

2. Paternal 0.80***

Spousal Rejectionb

3. Wife 0.62*** 0.57***4. Husband 0.60*** 0.62*** 0.75***

Control Variables

5. Child Gender 0.08 0.07 0.03 −0.026. Child Age −0.24*** −0.25*** −0.17** −0.17** −0.10

7. Father Occupation −0.41*** −0.36*** −0.34*** −0.29*** −0.09 −0.16**

8. Father Education −0.30*** −0.24*** −0.15** −0.14* −0.02 0.05 0.18**

9. Mother Education −0.29*** −0.33*** −0.10 −0.12† −0.05 −0.07 0.15* 0.38***

aMaternal 0 Child’s perception of mother’s rejection; Paternal 0 Child’s perception of father’s rejectionbWife 0 Wife’s perception of husband’s rejection; Husband 0 Husband’s perception of wife’s rejection† p<0.10. *p<0.05. *p<0.01. **p<0.01.*** p<0.001

Table 3 Hierarchical multiple regression analysis predicting children’sperception of maternal and paternal rejection from spousal rejection(N0270)

Predictors Perceived Parental Rejection

Maternal Paternal

ΔR2 β ΔR2 β

Step1a 0.28*** 0.26***

Control Variables

Step 2b 0.26*** 0.25***

Wife 0.32*** 0.17**

Husband 0.26*** 0.40***

Total R2 0.53*** 0.52***

a Control variables 0 Child’s age, husband’s occupational status, hus-band’s education, and wife’s educationbWife 0Wife’s perception of husband rejection; Husband 0 Husband’sperception of wife rejection

**p<0.01. ***p<0.001

Table 4 Significance of difference between the unstandardized regres-sion coefficients (Bs)

Predictors Perceived Parental Rejection Differencea

Maternal Paternal

Wife’s Perceptionof Husband’s Rejection

0.295 0.148 0.147**

Husband’s Perceptionof Wife’s Rejection

0.239 0.365 0.126*

a Difference 0 Significance of difference between Bs

*p<0.05. ** p<0.01

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:295–301 299

In addition to these psychological factors—or perhapsbecause of them—evidence provided by Sturge-Apple etal. (2009) suggests that the relation between interparentalconflict and parent–child relationships may be mediated tosome degree by parental physiological reactivity to conflict.Insofar as biochemical and possibly genetic factors (Gani-ban et al. 2007) may be implicated in the spillover fromspousal discord to malparenting, it is perhaps unremarkablethat results of this research found that Pakistani wives’perceptions of husbands’ rejection predicted children’s per-ceptions of maternal rejection, as well as—but to a signifi-cantly lesser extent—children’s perception of paternalrejection. Similarly, Pakistani husbands’ perceptions ofwives rejection emerged in this research as a significantpositive predictor of children’s perceptions of paternal re-jection, as well as—but to a significantly lesser extent—children’s perceptions of maternal rejection. These resultsare broadly parallel with Malik and Rizvi’s (2009) conclu-sion that family violence in low socioeconomic Pakistanifamilies is a significant risk factor for child abuse.

Given the cross-sectional nature of this research we can-not draw conclusions about the direction of causation. Thatis, it is possible that the psychological maladjustment ofchildren that commonly results from parental rejection couldproduce distress in the marital relationship which in turncould become associated with parents’ perception of spousalrejection. Or perhaps a bi-directional path might link per-ceived spousal rejection with perceived parental rejection.Our inability to explore questions such as these is one of thelimitations of this study.

Results of this research in conjunction with most priorresearch, however, suggest the possibility that the spillovereffect may have widespread international if not panculturalapplicability. Results of this research do not, however, sup-port some conclusions reached in prior studies. For exam-ple, Cummings and O’Reilly (1997) concluded that maritalconflict may negatively affect opposite-gender parent–childrelationships more than same-gender relationships. Our dataprovide no support for this conclusion. Similarly, Krishna-kumar and Buehler (2000) suggested that the associationbetween interparental conflict and quality of parenting isstronger for girls than for boys. Again, results of this studyfail to support this conclusion. Finally, Katz and Gottman(1996) suggested that fathers’ parenting is more sensitive tothe effects of a bad marriage than is mothers’ parenting.Again, results of this study do not affirm this conclusion.

The fact that most prior studies of the relation betweenmarital discord and malparenting were conducted in theU.S.—whereas this study was conducted in Pakistan—could contribute to some of these differences in outcome.That is, cultural differences in norms and values pertinent tofamily life in the two nations could be salient but essentiallyunexplored factors accounting, at least in part, for such

differences. Future research with Pakistani American fami-lies could be useful in helping to address this question.

References

Acock, A. C., & Demo, D. H. (1999). Dimensions of family conflictand their influence on child and adolescent maladjustment. So-ciological Inquiry, 69, 641–658.

Ali, T. S., Asad, N., Mogren, I., & Krantz, G. (2011). Intimate partnerviolence in urban Pakistan: prevalence, frequency, and risk fac-tors. International Journal of Women’s Health, 3, 105–115.

Burman, B., John, R. S., & Margolin, G. (1987). Effects of marital andparent–child relations on children’s adjustment. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 1(1), 91–108.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlationanalysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Cummings, E. M., & O’Reilly, A. W. (1997). Fathers in family context:Effects of marital quality on child adjustment. In M. E. Lamb(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 49–65). New York: Wiley.

Davis, P. T., Sturge-Apple, M. L., Cummings, E. M., & Woitach, M. J.(2009). A process analysis of the transmission of distress frominterparental conflict to parenting: adult relationship security as anexplanatory mechanism. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1761–1773.

Doohan, E. M., Carrére, S., Siler, C., & Beardslee, C. (2009). The linkbetween the marital bond and future triadic family interactions.Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 892–904.

Engfer, A. (1988). The interrelatedness of marriage and the mother-child relationship. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.),Relationships within families: mutual influences (pp. 104–118).Oxford: Clarendon.

Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations andparent–child relations: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bul-letin, 118(1), 108–132.

Ganiban, J. M., Spotts, E. L., Lichtenstein, P., Khera, G. S., Reiss, D.,& Neiderhiser, J. M. (2007). Can genetic factors explain thespillover of warmth and negativity across family relationships?Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10, 229–313.

Gerard, J. M., Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2006). Marital con-flict, parent–child relations, and youth maladjustment. Journal ofFamily Issues, 27, 951–975.

Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1996). Spillover effects of maritalconflict: In search of parenting and coparenting mechanisms. InJ. P. McHale & P. A. Cowan (Eds.), Understanding how family-level dynamics affect children’s development: new directions forchild and adolescent development (pp. 57–76). New York:Jossey-Bass.

Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2002a). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and psychological adjustment: a meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural studies. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 64(1), 54–64.

Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2002b). Reliability of measures assess-ing the relation between perceived parental acceptance-rejectionand psychological adjustment: meta-analysis of cross-cultural andintracultural studies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(1), 87–99.

Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R.P. (2011a). Pancultural associations be-tween perceived parental acceptance and psychological adjust-ment of children and adults: a meta-analytic review ofworldwide research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Re-trieved from http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/04/26/0022022111406120.abstract.

300 J Fam Viol (2012) 27:295–301

Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2011b). Transnational relations be-tween perceived parental acceptance and personality dispositionsof children and adults: a meta-analytic review. Personality andSocial Psychology Review, 15(4), 1–13.

Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict andparenting behaviors: a meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49(1), 25–44.

Malik, F. D. (2001). Home environment, parental acceptance-rejection, and paternal authoritarianism in child abuse (Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation). Islamabad: National Institute ofPsychology, Quaid-i-Azam University.

Malik, F. D. (2003). A study of relationship of home environment andparental acceptance-rejection with child abuse. Pakistan Journalof Social and Clinical Psychology, 1, 35–46.

Malik, F. (2010). Determinants of child abuse in Pakistani families:parental acceptance-rejection and demographic variables. Interna-tional Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(1), 67–80.

Malik, F., & Rizvi, F. (2009). Family violence as an antecedent factorto child abuse in Pakistani low socio-economic families. PakistanJournal of Psychological Research, 23(1–2), 1–25.

Repetti, R. L. (1987). Links between work and family role. In S.Oskamp (Ed.), Family processes and problems: social psycholog-ical aspects (pp. 98–127). Newbury Park: Sage.

Rhoades, K. A., Leve, L. D., Harold, G. T., Neiderhiser, J., Shaw, D.S., & Reiss, D. (2011). Longitudinal pathways from maritalhostility to child anger during toddlerhood: genetic susceptibilityand indirect effects via harsh parenting. Journal of Family Psy-chology, 25, 282–291.

Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: foundations of parentalacceptance-rejection theory. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Rohner, R. P. (2004). The parental “acceptance-rejection syndrome”:universal correlates of perceived rejection. American Psycholo-gist, 59, 827–840.

Rohner, R. P. (2005a). Intimate Partner Acceptance-Rejection/Con-trol Questionnaire (IPAR/CQ) test manual. In R. P. Rohner &A. Khaleque (Eds.), Handbook for the study of parental ac-ceptance and rejection (4th ed., pp. 227–242). Storrs: RohnerResearch.

Rohner, R. P. (2005b). Parental Acceptance-Rejection/ControlQuestionnaire (PARQ/Control) test manual. In R. P. Rohner & A.

Khaleque (Eds.), Handbook for the study of parental acceptanceand rejection (4th ed., pp. 137–186). Storrs: Rohner Research.

Rohner, R. P. (2012). Bibliography of writings on interpersonalacceptance-rejection. Retrieved from http://www.csiar.uconn.edu/Merged_Bibliography_12052011.pdf.

Rohner, R. P., & Khaleque, A. (2003). Reliability and validity of theparental control scale: a meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracul-tural studies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 643–649.

Rohner, R. P., & Khaleque, A. (2010). Testing central postulates ofparental acceptance-rejection theory (PARTheory): a meta-analysis of cross-cultural studies. Journal of Family Theory andReview, 3(1), 73–87.

Rohner, R. P., Khaleque, A., & Cournoyer, D. E. (2012). Introductionto parental acceptance-rejection theory. Retrieved from www.csiar.uconn.edu.

Rohner, R.P., & Melendez, T. (Eds.). (2008). Parental acceptance-rejection theory studies of intimate adult relationships [Specialissue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 42(1).

Schofield, T. J., Conger, R. D., Martin, M. J., Stockdale, K. J., &Widaman, K. F. (2009). Reciprocity in parenting of adolescentswithin the context of marital negativity. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 45, 1708–1722.

Shelton, K. H., & Harold, G. T. (2008). Interparental conflict, negativeparenting, and children’s adjustment: bridging links betweenparent’s’ depression and children’s psychological distress. Jour-nal of Family Psychology, 22, 712–724.

Sturge-Apple, M. L., Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2010).Typologies of family functioning and children’s adjustment dur-ing early school years. Child Development, 81, 1320–1335.

Sturge-Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., Cicchetti, D., & Cummings, E. M.(2009). The role of mothers’ and fathers’ adrenocortical reactivityin spillover between interparental conflict and parenting practices.Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 215–225.

Tatsuo, U., Katsumi, N., Hiromitsu, I., Chika, Y., & Yoshihiro, S.(2010). Parental behavior and children’s perceptions as mediatorsof effects of marital conflict on children’s depressive symptoms.Japanese Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 58–70.

Whiteside-Mansell, L., Bradley, R. H., McKelvey, L., & Fussell, J. J.(2009). Parenting: linking impacts of preschool children’s socialbehavior. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 24, 389–400.

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:295–301 301