ArticlePDF Available

Intergenerational Ambivalence from Adolescence to Young Adulthood: Implications for Well-being

Running head: AMBIVALENCE 1
Intergenerational Ambivalence in Adolescence and Early Adulthood:
Implications for Depressive Symptoms Over Time
Submitted on December 8, 2015
The parent-child relationship is often characterized by ambivalence, defined as the simultaneous
experience of positive and negative relationship quality. This study examines reports of
intergenerational ambivalence in three developmental periods: adolescence, emerging adulthood,
and young adulthood, as well as its implications for depressive symptoms over a 12-year period.
Participants aged 13 to 29 (n = 255) were interviewed in 1992 and again in 2005 at ages 25 to
41(n = 186). Results indicate that offspring’s reports of intergenerational ambivalence decreased
over time. Greater ambivalence towards mothers predicted increased depressive symptoms over
time while greater ambivalence towards fathers predicted decreased depressive symptoms over
time. These results suggest that depressive symptoms in adulthood are vulnerable to the quality
of the parent-child relationship earlier in the life course.
Keywords: parent-child relationship, ambivalence, adolescence, young adulthood, depressive
Word count: 6,846
Intergenerational Ambivalence in Adolescence and Young Adulthood:
Implications for Depressive Symptoms Over Time
The parent-child tie is one of the longest lasting and most emotionally intense ties across
the lifespan (Fingerman, Sechrist, & Birditt, 2013). Parents and their children often report feeling
simultaneously positive and negative towards one another, i.e., ambivalent (Birditt, Miller,
Fingerman, & Lefkowitz, 2009). Theorists suggest that parent-child ties tend to be more
ambivalent than other close ties due to conflicting societal norms of both closeness and
independence (Merton & Barber, 1963; Pillemer & Suitor, 2005). In addition, ambivalent ties are
thought to be more harmful than solely negative ties because these relationships tend to be
unpredictable (Uchino, Holt-Lunstad, Uno, Campo, & Reblin, 2007). Intergenerational
ambivalence among adults predicts greater depressive symptoms, poorer health, and lower
quality of life (Fingerman, Chen, Hay, Cichy, & Lefkowitz, 2006; Fingerman, Pitzer, Lefkowitz,
Birditt, & Mroczek, 2008; Silverstein & Bengston, 1991; Willson, Shuey, Elder, & Wickrama,
2006). The majority of research, however, focuses on intergenerational ambivalence in middle
and older adulthood rather than ambivalence among adolescents or young adults (Fingerman et
al., 2008; Kiecolt, Blieszner, & Savla, 2011; Lendon, Silverstein, & Giarrusso, 2014;
Lowenstein, 2007; Ward, 2008), a period in which the issues of independence and closeness may
be particularly salient developmentally.
Researchers have yet to examine whether feelings of ambivalence exist at younger ages,
such as adolescence, and whether these feelings change over time among younger age groups.
The present study examines reports of ambivalence towards mothers and fathers among offspring
in three early developmental periods: adolescence, emerging adulthood, and young adulthood
and then again after a 12-year period, in later developmental periods. This study is one of the few
to examine parent-child ties over the transition from these younger ages to adulthood and
midlife. The purpose of the present study is threefold: (a) examine whether reports of
intergenerational ambivalence vary by age and developmental period, (b) investigate whether
intergenerational ambivalence increases or decreases over time, and (c) examine whether
intergenerational ambivalence is associated with offspring’s depressive symptomatology.
Theoretical Framework
Ambivalence theory and individuation theory provide useful frameworks for
understanding the complexity of the parent-child relationship and the development of the
relationship over time. This study assesses psychological ambivalence, which is defined as the
simultaneous experience of positive and negative emotions towards the same person (Luescher &
Pillemer, 1998). Psychological ambivalence originates from contradictions in motivations,
emotions, and cognition (Luescher & Pillemer, 1998; Weigert, 1991). Here, ambivalence, or
ambivalent relationship quality, is conceptualized as a combination of both positive and negative
components of the parent-child tie (Connidis, 2015).
The parent-child tie is particularly ambivalent because parents and their children
experience competing desires and social norms that encourage independence as well as
closeness. Thus, ambivalence tends to be higher when parents and children are not able to
maintain an appropriate balance of independence and closeness. For example, adult children and
parents tend to report greater ambivalence when either parents or children have health problems
(Birditt, Fingerman, & Zarit, 2010; Fingerman et al., 2006; Willson, Shuey, & Elder, 2003).
Parents also tend to experience less ambivalence toward their adult children when their children
have attained social roles associated with independence from the parent-child tie including
marriage and employment (Fingerman et al., 2006; Pillemer, Suitor, Mock, Sabir, Pardo, &
Sechrist, 2007). Intergenerational ambivalence research is often focused on the ties between
parents and their adult children (i.e., children older than 18 years old). However, ambivalence
may be even higher among adolescents and emerging and young adults who are in the
developmental periods when they are just beginning to seek independence from parents.
Ambivalence is distinct from conflict which has commonly been studied in adolescence
and young adulthood. In contrast to conflict, which is a solely negative dimension, ambivalence
implies the presence of both positive and negative relationship characteristics. It is well known
that parent-child ties are complex. Studying ambivalence, rather than solely positive or negative
attributes, allows researchers to more critically and accurately describe familial relationships
(Birditt et al., 2010; Connidis, 2015; Pillemer, Munsch, Fuller-Rowell, Riffin, & Suitor, 2012).
Ambivalence studies have typically not considered a developmental perspective, i.e., how
ambivalent feelings may change as people grow and develop over time.
Individuation theory provides a framework to understand possible developmental
changes in ambivalence. As adolescents’ age, experience puberty, and expand cognitively and
socially, they develop a separate sense of individual identity, become autonomous, and take
increasing responsibility for their actions (Aquilino & Supple, 2001; Blos, 1967; Holmbeck,
Paikoff, & Brooks-Gunn, 1995; Smetana, 1988; Steinberg, 1999). Rather than relying on parents,
individuation involves letting go of childhood dependencies and seeking more mature, less
dependent relationships (Steinberg, 1999). Successful individuation leads to positive outcomes
such as ego development, decision-making responsibility, higher self-esteem, and lower
depressive symptoms (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986; Peterson, Bush, & Supple, 1999). Thus,
ambivalence may be highest in adolescence when parents and children are navigating
relationship changes and may possibly decrease over time when these changes are realized.
Ambivalence in Adolescence, Emerging Adulthood, and Young Adulthood
Ambivalence may originate early in the parent-child relationship and change over time as
offspring age and achieve additional developmental milestones. This study focuses on three
developmental phases: adolescence (ages 13 to 17), emerging adulthood (ages 18 to 25), and
young adulthood (ages 26 to 29) and follows the offspring as they transition into emerging
adulthood, young adulthood, and midlife, respectively. Few studies have examined offspring’s
perceptions of parents and well-being in these particular groups (Aquilino, 1997, 2006b). Due to
different levels of independence, we anticipate that each age group will experience varying levels
of ambivalent relationship quality with their parents.
Ambivalence may be particularly high in adolescence compared to emerging and young
adulthood. Adolescence is a particularly eventful developmental period. During adolescence,
individuals experience important biological and cognitive maturation processes coupled with
increased interaction with peers (Bucx & van Wei, 2008; Eccles, Templeton, Barber, & Stone,
2003; Steinberg, 1999). Adolescents also gain a more important role in the family, are expected
to take more responsibility for themselves and their actions, and strive for autonomy (Blos, 1967;
Bucx & van Wei, 2008; Grotevant & Cooper, 1986; Steinberg, 1999). These developmental
changes often affect the parent-child relationship and create an imbalance in the family as it
adjusts to the changes (Steinberg, 1999). Often adolescents' perceptions of the quality of the
parent-child tie declines while conflict increases (McGue, Elkins, Walden, & Iacono, 2005). The
experience of continued dependence on parents, coupled with new needs for independence may
conflict with adolescents’ developmental needs, thus engendering high levels of ambivalence
regarding parents during this stage.
Emerging adults may experience less ambivalence than adolescents but more
ambivalence than young adults. Individuals in late adolescence and early adulthood do not
usually have the tumultuous feelings of adolescents, but still do not have the freedom and
independence of young adults. Many young people do not regard themselves as fully adult until
they reach their later twenties, which suggests that there is a developmental life stage between
adolescence and young adulthood sometimes referred to as “emerging adulthood” (Arnett,
2001b). During this period, at least among more affluent families, emerging adults are less
constrained by role requirements and responsibilities and are in a stage of exploration (Aquilino,
2006a; Arnett, 2000, 2001a; Eccles et al., 2003; Rindfuss, 1991). While emerging adults are
increasingly independent, they may remain somewhat dependent on parents, which may be a
cause of ambivalence as they navigate this developmental stage (Arnett, 2000).
Young adults may experience less ambivalence than adolescents and emerging adults due
to increased independence from parents. During the shift into young adulthood, offspring learn to
take on adult responsibilities such as leaving the parental home, beginning employment and
financial independence, entering marriage, or becoming a parent (Noack & Buhl, 2004). By the
end of their twenties, most young people have already made significant decisions about their
future including choosing career paths and entering into adult relationships (Arnett, 2000). With
these life transitions, young adults become increasingly less dependent on parents and the parent-
child tie may become less focal (Bucx & van Wei, 2008). Fingerman and colleagues (2006)
found that adult children who invested in several roles (i.e., parent, spouse, worker) experienced
less parent-child ambivalence if they were highly invested in those roles. Other research
indicates that autonomy in the parent-offspring relationship may deter ambivalence as both
parents and offspring have roles and outlets independent of the tie (Fingerman, 2001; Pillemer &
Suitor, 2005). This developmental stage may be less conflictual as parental behavior and
acquisition of adult, independent roles by offspring leading to less ambivalent feelings than
previous phases.
The present study is unique because we not only examine age differences in ambivalence,
but also assess whether individual reports of ambivalence change over 12 years. This
longitudinal design allowed us to examine within person changes as individuals transition to
older stages of life such as middle adulthood. We predicted adolescents would report the highest
levels of ambivalence and that the greatest declines in ambivalence would occur among
adolescents (during the transition from adolescence to young adulthood) compared to changes
among the emerging adults and young adults.
Implications of Ambivalence for Later Well-being
Decreases in ambivalence over time may be linked to offspring’s well-being as they
develop over time. Fingerman et al. (2008) found that young adult and middle-aged offspring,
aged 22 to 49 years, who reported greater intergenerational ambivalence, also reported lower life
satisfaction and higher depressive symptoms. Although there are no studies examining
ambivalence and well-being among younger age groups, studies of younger people have shown
links between positive and negative aspects of the parent-child tie and offspring’s well-being.
Parental support in early life is linked to better psychological well-being during late adolescence
and early adulthood (Aquilino & Supple, 2001; Meadows, Brown, & Elder, 2006; Richman &
Flaherty, 1986). Longitudinal studies have shown individuals who reported poor parent-child
relations during childhood were at an increased risk for having depressive symptoms in
adolescence (Aseltine, Gore, & Colten, 1998; Sheeber, Hops, Alpert, Davis, & Andrews, 1997)
and in adulthood (Luecken & Roubinov, 2013; Richman & Flaherty, 1986). Further, longitudinal
research has shown that more positive parent-child ties in adolescence and young adulthood are
associated with better psychological well-being in middle age (Roberts & Bengston, 1993).
This study goes beyond existing research by examining the implications of ambivalence
on depressive symptoms among adolescents, emerging adults, and young adults over a 12-year
time period. We predict adolescents will experience greater declines in ambivalence and the
association between ambivalence and depressive symptoms will be greater among adolescents
compared to emerging or young adults. Adolescents are more dependent on their parents and do
not yet possess many roles independent of the parent-child relationship. Thus, adolescents may
experience greater ambivalent parent-child relationship quality and the effects of ambivalence
more severely than emerging or young adults.
The Influence of Mothers and Fathers on Children’s Well-being
Research indicates that there are differences in maternal and paternal parenting
characteristics and that mothers and fathers may have distinct effects on well-being. Overall,
mothers tend to be more involved, provide more warmth and responsiveness, interact more
frequently, and have closer relationships with their offspring than fathers (Collins & Russell,
1991; Forehand & Nousiainen, 1993; Holmbeck et al., 1995; Phares, 1999; Tsai, Telzer, &
Fuligni, 2013). But there is also more mother-child conflict compared to fathers (Collins &
Russell, 1991; Montemayor, Eberly, & Flannery, 1993; Steinberg & Silk, 2002), perhaps because
mothers are more involved in the daily tasks of parenting and have more frequent interactions
with children.
In general, fathers are less involved and less nurturing than mothers. Children feel less
close to and spend less time with fathers (Hosley & Montemayer, 1997; Larson & Richards,
1994; Lewis & Lamb, 2003; Phares, 1999). Nevertheless, early research shows that closeness
and warmth in the father-offspring relationship are correlated with children’s achievement and
psychosocial adjustment (Biller, 1971; Radin, 1981). Children lacking a positive paternal
relationship may have an increased risk of depression (Phares, 1999). With this evidence in
mind, ambivalence towards mothers and ambivalence towards fathers are examined in separate
models. We hypothesize that participants would report greater ambivalence toward mothers than
fathers but regardless of parent gender, greater ambivalence would be associated with greater
depressive symptoms.
Other Factors Influencing the Parent-Child Tie
Several other factors have been shown to influence the parent-child tie and well-being
include the offspring’s gender, race, working status, marital status, and contact frequency with
parents and we controlled for these factors. We controlled for offspring gender as there are
contrasting studies regarding the role of offspring gender on ambivalent feelings. For instance,
Willson, Shuey, and Elder (2003) found daughters reported greater ambivalence while other
studies found no difference in ambivalence reports between sons and daughters (Fingerman et
al., 2006; Pillemer & Suitor, 2002). Other research shows that adolescent girls experience higher
levels of depressive symptoms than boys (Bracken & Reintjes, 2010; Cyranowski, Frank, Young,
& Shear, 2000).
African American families may experience greater ambivalence than European American
families due to increased stress including discrimination and lower socioeconomic status
(Pillemer & Suitor, 2002). Depressive symptoms may also vary by race, however, the findings
are inconsistent (Bracken & Reintjes, 2010; Twenge & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2002; Williams et al.,
2007). Young people who have taken on more adult roles and responsibilities such as
employment and marriage may report less conflict, ambivalence, and depressive symptoms than
those who have not taken on those roles (Aquilino, 1997; Fingerman et al., 2006; House, Landis,
& Umberson, 1998; Pillemer & Suitor, 2002; Willson et al., 2006). Furthermore, past research
shows that greater contact frequency is associated with greater feelings of ambivalence, greater
negative relationship quality, and less depression (Birditt, et al., 2009; Fingerman, Hay, &
Birditt, 2004; Lendon et al., 2014).
Present Study
The present study examines ambivalence regarding mothers and fathers among
adolescents, emerging adults, and young adults over 12 years. This study addressed the following
three questions:
a) Do ambivalent feelings towards parents vary by age and gender of the parent? Based on
the previous literature and ambivalence and individuation theories, we hypothesized that
feelings of ambivalence will be greatest among adolescents compared to emerging and
young adults. We predicted that regardless of age, children would feel more ambivalent
towards mothers compared to fathers.
b) Do ambivalent feelings towards parents change over time? We predicted that
ambivalence regarding mothers and fathers would decrease over 12 years with greater
declines over time among adolescents (as they transitioned to young adulthood)
compared to emerging and young adults (as they transitioned to young adulthood and
middle age, respectively.
c) Finally, are ambivalent feelings regarding mothers and fathers associated with higher
depressive symptoms over time and are they greater among adolescents than among
emerging and young adults? Consistent with previous literature, we hypothesized that
ambivalent feelings regarding mothers and fathers would be associated with higher
depressive symptoms over time and that the association between ambivalence and
increased depressive symptoms would be greater among adolescents than among
emerging or young adults.
Participants were from the Social Relations and Health across the Lifespan study which
included a regionally representative random sample of 1,703 people, ages 8 to 93 years at Wave
1 in (1992) from the greater Detroit area, and a total of 1,074 at Wave 2 (2005) (Antonucci,
Birditt, & Webster, 2010; Birditt, Jackey, & Antonucci, 2009). The selected sample used in this
study included participants who were adolescents (ages 13-17, n = 51), emerging adults (ages 18-
25, n = 116), and young adults (ages 26-29, n = 88) at Wave 1. Of the selected sample, 76.4% (n
= 188) participated in Wave 2. See Table 1 for description of the sample.
An attrition analysis used logistic regression to examine interview completion at Wave 2
(0 = drop out or deceased; 1 = completed) as a function of ambivalence scores, depressive
symptoms, and all covariates at Wave 1. The analysis revealed that none of the variables
significantly predicted interview completion at Wave 2.
Participants completed face-to-face interviews in their homes at Wave 1 and phone
interviews in Wave 2. The interviews were approximately an hour in length and included
questions regarding relationships with mother and father as well as depressive symptomology.
Researchers have found that responses do not tend to vary between in-person and telephone
survey methods (Herzog & Rodgers, 1988; Herzog, Rodgers, & Kulka, 1983).
Age and time. The age variable included three categories: 0 (adolescents aged 13-17), 1
(emerging adults aged 18-25), 2 (young adults aged 26-29). Young adults serve as our
comparison group in all analyses. Time was coded as 0 (Wave 1) or 1 (Wave 2).
Ambivalence. Participants rated the positive and negative aspects of their relationship
with their mother and father which were combined to form an ambivalence score. This is a
common way to assess ambivalence in the literature (referred to as indirect measure of
ambivalence) and it is associated with other direct measures of ambivalence. Positive qualities of
the relationship included 5 items: “When my (mother/father) is having a hard time, I want to help
(her/him),” “I feel my (mother/father) supports me, that (she/he) is there when I need (her/him),”
“I enjoy being with my (mother/father),” “I feel my (mother/father) encourages me in whatever I
do,” and “I feel my (mother/father) believes in me.” Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = somewhat agree,
or 5 = strongly agree). The items were averaged to create a positive mother and a positive father
relationship quality score (Wave 1: = .83, .92; Wave 2: = .86, .93, respectively). Negative
quality of the relationship included two items: “My (mother/father) gets on my nerves” and “My
(mother/father) makes too many demands on me.” These items were also rated on a 5-point scale
(1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The items were averaged to create a negative
mother and a negative father relationship quality score (Wave 1: rs = .54, .54; Wave 2: rs = .62,
.62, respectively). The small number of relationship items may underestimate the reliability of
the negative quality scale (Carmines & Zeller, 1979), although similar reliability estimates are
found in other research using the same or similar relationship items (Birditt et al., 2010; Birditt,
Tighe, Fingerman, & Zarit, 2012; Fingerman et al., 2008; Umberson, 1992).
Ambivalent relationship quality scores were created for mothers and fathers (Fingerman
et al., 2006, 2008; Willson et al., 2003, 2006) using the Griffin’s Similarity and Intensity of
Components formula to calculate ambivalence using positive and negative quality scales:
[(positive + negative) / 2 - |positive negative|] + 1.5 (Thompson, Zanna, & Griffin, 1995),
which is similar to other ambivalence research (Fingerman et al., 2006, 2008; Willson et al.,
2006). Higher scores indicate greater ambivalence. In a review of ambivalence measures,
Thompson et al. (1995) showed that Griffin’s measure is superior conceptually and in predictive
power compared to other statistical methods for creating an indirect measure of ambivalence.
Depressive symptoms. The respondents completed the 20-item Center for Epidemiologic
Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) about their feelings during the past week which included
items such as: “I was bothered by things that usually don’t bother me,” “I felt depressed,” and “I
felt that everything I did was an effort” (Radloff, 1977). Participants rated items from 0 (rarely
or none of the time), 1 (some or a little of the time), 2 (occasionally or a moderate amount of
time), to 3 (most or all of the time). The items were summed to create an index and higher scores
indicate more depressive symptoms (Wave 1: = .88; Wave 2: = .89).
Covariates. We included offspring’s gender, race, working status, marital status, and
contact frequency as covariates. Gender was coded as 0 (men) or 1 (women). We coded race as 0
(non White) or 1 (White). Working status was coded as 0 (not working) or 1 (working full or
part-time). Marital status was coded dichotomously (0 = not married, 1 = married). Participants
rated their contact frequency based on the following question: “In the past 12 months how often
have you seen (father/mother) in person?”: 1 (everyday), 2 (once a week), 3 (once a month), 4
(once a year), or 5 (irregularly).We reverse coded the item so that higher scores represented
more contact.
A series of post hoc analyses also considered several additional time-varying covariates
associated with parent-child ties and depressive symptoms including cohabitation with mother or
father, education, or life problems in both Waves 1 and 2. Cohabitation was coded as 0 = not
cohabitating or 1 = cohabitating separately for mother and father. Participants reported the
number of years of education achieved ranging from 0 (no years of completed schooling) to 17
(completion of undergraduate degree or higher). The respondents completed an assessment of
life problems. They were asked how many occurred in the past year. Examples of items include:
“Has there been any change in your health, such as an illness or injury?,” “Has there been any
trouble between you and your relatives?,” “Have you lost your job?,” and “Have you been
involved in a crime?” Participants rated items as 0 (no) or 1 (yes). The items were summed with
higher scores indicating more life problems.
Analysis Strategy
To examine the research questions, multilevel models using SAS PROC MIXED were
estimated. To assess whether ambivalence varied by age and over time, models included age,
time, and the interaction between age and time as predictors with participant gender, race,
working status, marital status, and contact frequency as covariates. Models were estimated
separately for mother and father ambivalence. These models included two levels: upper level
variables, i.e., participant characteristics (e.g., race, gender, Wave 1 age) and lower level
variables, i.e., characteristics that varied within participant by wave (e.g., ambivalence scores,
marital status, working status, contact frequency).
The models examining links between ambivalence and depressive symptoms included
ambivalence in Wave 1, age, and time as well as all possible 2-way interactions as predictors to
test whether depressive symptoms vary over time as a function of ambivalence in Wave 1 and
whether the associations varied by age group. We also tested the 3-way age X time X
ambivalence interaction to examine whether links between ambivalence in Wave 1 and
depressive symptoms varied by both time and age but these interactions were removed in the
final analyses due to non significance. These models had two levels: upper level variables
included ambivalence at Wave 1, race, gender, and Wave 1 age and lower level variables
included depressive symptoms, marital status, working status, and contact frequency. Interaction
terms significant at the p < .10 level were interpreted due to well-documented difficulties in
detecting significant interactions in non-experimental studies and survey research (McClelland &
Judd, 1993).
There were less than 9% missing data for the selected sample with regard to ambivalence
scores, depressive symptoms, and covariates. Multilevel models are ideal because participants
with missing data are not removed from the analyses, and the models are not affected by an
unbalanced design (i.e., in which some participants provided more waves of data than others).
We present the results in three sections. First, we describe the data. Next, we assess
whether ambivalent feelings varied by age group and varied over time. Lastly, we examine
associations between ambivalence and depressive symptoms over time.
To understand ambivalence scores in terms of the composition of positive and negative
relationship quality, we examined means and standard deviations of positive and negative quality
by the quartiles of ambivalence. Individuals in the lowest quartile of ambivalence scores
(mother: n = 115, father: n = 90) had high positive scores (mother: M = 4.72, SD = .81; father: M
= 4.74, SD = .73) and low negative scores (mother: M = 1.42, SD = .83; father: M = 1.13, SD =
.72). Participants in the highest quartile of ambivalence scores (mother: n = 103; father: n = 88)
had high positive scores (mother: M = 4.69, SD = .33; father: M = 4.31, SD = .61) and high
negative scores (mother: M = 4.38, SD = .38; father: M = 4.02, SD = .64). Thus, low ambivalence
was associated with high positive and low negative feelings. High ambivalence was associated
with high positivity and high negativity.
Across age groups, participants reported greater ambivalence regarding mothers than
fathers in Wave 1 (Mother: M = 3.60, SD = 1.71; Father: M = 3.09, SD = 1.76; t(207) = 3.45, p <
.01) and Wave 2 (Mother: M = 2.87 , SD = 1.73 ; Father: M = 2.14, SD = 1.56; t(122) = , p <
.01). See Table 1 for descriptives.
Does Intergenerational Ambivalence in Wave 1 vary by Age?
Analyses examining ambivalence regarding mothers and fathers in Wave 1 revealed
significant main effects of age predicting father but not mother ambivalence (see Table 2).
Adolescents reported greater ambivalence towards fathers than emerging adults (B = 1.04, SE =
.53, t = 1.94, p < .10) and young adults (B = 1.14, SE = .55, t = 2.05, p < .05; see Table 1 for
means). This is partially consistent with our hypothesis that adolescents would report greater
ambivalence than emerging or young adults.
Does Intergenerational Ambivalence change over Time?
Analyses investigating whether mother ambivalence changed over time revealed a
significant main effect of time (see Table 2). Ambivalence towards mothers decreased over time
(B = -.64, SE = .30, t = -2.21, p < .05). These findings are consistent with our hypothesis that
ambivalence would decline over time. However, there was no age effect as previously predicted.
Analyses assessing ambivalent feelings regarding fathers revealed no main effect of time
but a significant age X time interaction (see Table 2). In order to investigate the interaction, we
examined the effects of time for each age group with separate multilevel models. Similar to the
models examining ambivalence toward mothers, father ambivalence decreased over time among
adolescents (transitioning to young adulthood) (B = -3.81, SE = 1.09, t = -3.49, p < .01) and
young adults (transitioning to middle age) (B = -.45, SE = .14, t = -3.21, p < .01) but not among
emerging adults (transitioning to young adulthood) (B = -.26, SE = .34, t = -.76, p = .45).
Examination of the covariates indicates that non-married offspring reported more ambivalence
towards their fathers. These findings are partially consistent with our hypothesis that
ambivalence would show declines among adolescents but also show that ambivalence declines
among young adults.
What are the Implications of Ambivalence for Offspring’s Depressive Symptoms?
Models examined the effects of Wave 1 mother and father ambivalence separately on
depressive symptoms over time (see Table 3). The model predicting ambivalence regarding
mothers revealed no main effect of mother ambivalence on depressive symptoms but there was a
significant interaction between Wave 1 mother ambivalence X age. To investigate the
interactions with age, we estimated separate models examining the effects of mother
ambivalence by age group. Models revealed that adolescents and emerging adults who reported
greater ambivalence towards mothers in Wave 1 reported greater depressive symptoms (B =
1.69, SE = .71, t = 2.38, p < .05; B = 1.76, SE = .44, t = 4.01, p < .01, respectively). These
findings are partially consistent with our hypothesis that ambivalence in Wave 1 predicts higher
depressive symptoms among adolescents but it also demonstrates that ambivalence predicts
depressive symptoms in emerging adults.
Next, models assessed whether ambivalence towards fathers in Wave 1 predicted
depressive symptoms over time. There was no main effect of father ambivalence but there was a
significant Wave 1 father ambivalence X time interaction (see Table 3). The interaction showed
that greater ambivalence towards fathers in Wave 1 is associated with a significant decline in
depressive symptoms over time (b = -4.19, p < .05; see Figure 1). These findings are not
consistent with our hypothesis that ambivalence would predict higher depressive symptoms over
time. Furthermore, this association existed across all age groups rather than only among
adolescents as we had predicted.
Post Hoc Analyses
We conducted a series of post hoc analyses to examine whether the findings varied by the
gender of the offspring. There was no evidence that ambivalence or the ambivalence-depressive
symptoms link varied by gender of offspring.
Additionally, we conducted post hoc analyses to rule out concurrent associations between
ambivalence and well-being. We estimated models with Wave 1 and Wave 2 ambivalence
predicting depressive symptoms in Wave 2 controlling for Wave 1 depressive symptoms. Models
including both Wave 1 and Wave 2 mother ambivalence as predictors showed that Wave 1
mother ambivalence predicted greater depressive symptoms in Wave 2 among emerging adults
compared to young adults (B = 2.26, SE = 1.02, t = 2.21, p < .05). There was no effect of Wave 2
ambivalence for Wave 2 depressive symptoms. Thus, it appears that previous feelings of
ambivalence in the mother tie have a greater impact on depressive symptoms than current
Models with both Wave 1 and Wave 2 father ambivalence revealed no significant effects
of ambivalence on depressive symptoms. However, models with only current levels of
ambivalence (omitting the lagged effect) showed that greater ambivalence predicted greater
depressive symptoms (B = .82, SE = .30, t = 2.77, p < .01). Thus, contrary to the findings with
mothers, it appears that present feelings regarding fathers have a greater impact on depressive
symptoms than feelings experienced 12 years previously.
Furthermore, a series of post hoc analyses were conducted to assess the stability of the
findings after controlling for additional factors that may influence ambivalence and depressive
symptoms. These included cohabitation with mother or father, education level, and number of
life problems. Each covariate was entered into the models separately. Findings remained the
same for both mother and father ambivalence models except when the covariate number of life
problems was entered. In the mother model, time was no longer significant. In the father model,
the age X time interaction was no longer significant.
Models predicting depressive symptoms were re-estimated controlling for cohabitation
with mother or father, education level, and number of life problems in separate models and the
pattern of findings remained the same. In the mother models, the covariates cohabiting with
mother and the life problems covariates were significant (B = 4.31, SE = 1.87, t = 2.31, p < .05; B
= 1.72, SE = .29, t = 6.01, p < .01, respectively). In the father models, the covariate cohabitating
with father was significant (B = 5.67, SE = 1.95, t = 2.91, p < .01).
Unlike previous research, the present study examined intergenerational ambivalence and
its associations with depressive symptoms among young age groups: adolescents, emerging
adults, and young adults. This study showed that ambivalence towards fathers is particularly high
among adolescents, ambivalence decreases over time, and ambivalence has important
implications for depressive symptoms as adolescents, emerging adults, and young adults grow
older. These findings move the field forward by showing that ambivalent feelings exist during
adolescence. Further, ambivalent feelings towards mothers predict increased depressive
symptoms over time.
Reports of Ambivalence by Age
This study was the first, to our knowledge, to examine intergenerational ambivalence
among younger offspring. Adolescents reported greater ambivalence than emerging adults and
young adults towards fathers, but not mothers. This finding is consistent with previous research
indicating increased positive parent-child relationship quality over time from adolescence to
young adulthood (Aquilino, 1997) and decreased intergenerational ambivalence and negative
relationship quality with age among middle-age and older adults (Birditt et al., 2010; Rossi &
Rossi, 1990; Willson et al., 2006). Thus, the trajectory of decreasing ambivalence toward parents
may begin in adolescence. As adolescents attempt to reconcile their need for independence with
their continued parental dependence, they will likely experience high levels of ambivalence.
However, as this group ages and experiences new life transitions, they will be less dependent on
their parents and forge a less ambivalent parent-child relationship.
As predicted, offspring experienced more ambivalence toward mothers than fathers,
regardless of age group. Offspring typically report being closer to mothers than fathers and the
mother-child relationship is frequently characterized as a close, but often conflictual, tie
(Fingerman, 2001; Pillemer et al., 2007; Umberson, 1992; Ward, 2008). Mothers and offspring
have more contact compared to the father-child relationship (Buist, Deković, Meeus, & van
Aken, 2002). Greater contact frequency in the mother tie may lead to increased ambivalence
(Lendon et al., 2014) and fewer age differences in ambivalence regarding mothers.
Reports of Ambivalence over Time
This study is unique in that it examines whether there are increases or decreases in
ambivalence during the transition to adulthood. The majority of the research regarding
ambivalence has been cross- sectional. By examining individuals aged 13 to 29 over 12 years we
were able to examine changes over time in intergenerational ambivalence across three young age
groups. Indeed, ambivalence may be a normal developmental phenomenon as the young person
reaches towards adulthood compared to an indication of maladaptation, as previously assessed
among middle-aged and older adults.
This study showed that ambivalence regarding mothers decreased over time among all
age groups. Mothers are more involved with offspring over the life course, and typically stay in
more frequent contact and have closer relationships with offspring compared to fathers. This
could explain the continuing higher rates of ambivalence towards mothers (Lye, 1996;
Umberson, 1992).
Ambivalence towards fathers decreased over time among adolescents and young adults,
but not among emerging adults. As individuation theory suggests, adolescence is often a
tumultuous period for the parent-child relationship and is characterized by simultaneously higher
levels of conflict, contact, and closeness than other developmental stages (Arnett, 2001a; Noack
& Buhl, 2004; Steinberg, 1999). Decreases in ambivalence may be due to decreases in conflicts
between independence and closeness experienced as adolescents shift into young adulthood
(Blos, 1967; Bucx & van Wei, 2008). In this transition to young adulthood, offspring often fulfill
normative expectations held by their parents, gain increased independence, and decrease contact
(Aquilino, 1997).
In contrast to our prediction, ambivalence also declined over time among young adults.
Previous research indicates that young adult and midlife adult children experience ambivalence
towards their parents (Fingerman et al., 2008). However, young adults may become more similar
to their parents as they transition to middle adulthood and acquire new adult roles and
responsibilities (Nydegger, 1991). Additionally, there is less contact between parents and young
or middle-aged adult children, which may relieve tensions that previously characterized the
parent-offspring tie (Akiyama, Antonucci, Takahashi, & Langfahl, 2003).
Interestingly, there was no change in ambivalence towards fathers among emerging
adults over time. Emerging adulthood is a period when individuals seek independence, either by
moving out of the parental home or entering school, but they simultaneously rely on their parents
for emotional, instrumental, or financial support (Aquilino, 2006a; Arnett 2000, 2001a). Aquilino
(1997) suggests that parents must re-evaluate their expectations for their offspring and their own
role as a parent during this time of transition. As offspring are adjusting to this experimental
period, they may be more accepting and open to change. Because emerging adults have often not
fully transitioned to complete independence or interdependence with their parents, the parent-
emerging adult relationship may show little significant change in ambivalence.
Implications of Ambivalence for Depressive Symptoms
This study revealed the significance of intergenerational ambivalence for depressive
symptoms of offspring. Adolescents and emerging adults who reported greater ambivalence
regarding their mothers reported greater depressive symptoms over 12 years. Adolescents are in
more frequent contact with their mothers compared to older age groups (Holmbeck et al., 1995;
Phares, 1999). And while mothers and their children often have a close relationship, this
relationship can be fraught with conflicts over offspring independence and responsibilities
(Pillemer et al., 2007). Greater contact and conflict between mother and child may have
important implications for depressive symptoms. Similarly, emerging adults may still maintain
closeness to mothers that resembles adolescence since they rely on their parents for support
(Arnett 2000, 2001a). In these formative developmental stages, offspring who have conflicting
feelings and feel unsupported by their mothers may be particularly negatively affected, thus
significantly influencing their psychological health in later life (Hankin, Abramson, Moffitt,
McGee, Silva, & Angell, 1998; Richman & Flaherty, 1986). Young adults may not be as
negatively affected by these conflicted feelings as they may often have more adult-like and
interdependent relationships with their mothers.
Research suggests adolescents are cognitively and developmentally vulnerable to
depression (Jacobs, Reinecke, Gollan, & Kane, 2008). In fact, 75% of adults with major
depressive disorder report experiencing their first depressive episode during childhood or
adolescence (Kim-Cohen, Caspi, Moffitt, Harrington, Milne, & Poulton, 2003). Kessler and
colleagues (2005) report the lifetime prevalence rate for depressive disorders in adolescents as
7%. Feelings of ambivalence may exacerbate negative well-being, such as depressive symptoms,
in offspring. During this time of significant developmental change, children who possess
ambivalent ties towards their parents may become more vulnerable to increased depressive
Surprisingly, greater ambivalence towards fathers significantly predicted decreased
depressive symptoms, regardless of age. Offspring who report high ambivalence towards their
fathers in Wave 1 may reduce contact with their father over time in order to avoid the potentially
conflictual or harmful relationships thus leading to decreased depressive symptoms. Father
ambivalence may affect offspring of all ages because offspring are typically not as close to their
fathers compared to their mothers (McKinney, Donnelly, & Renk, 2008; Steinberg & Silk,
2002). This lack of closeness may be perceived as lack of support from fathers, which in turn
may negatively affect offspring as they age and lead to lower well-being. Compared to mothers,
father acceptance is less available and occurs less often. Thus, offspring, regardless of age, may
be more eager to seek the approval of their father (Forehand & Nousiainen, 1993). Offspring
may feel distressed when their expectations concerning their relationship with or approval from
their fathers are not met.
Influence of Additional Covariates
Post hoc analyses were conducted in order to understand the influence of additional
covariates on offspring’s reports of ambivalence towards parents and the implications of
ambivalence on depressive symptoms. It appears the number of life problems and cohabitation
with fathers has a significant impact on offspring’s ambivalent feelings towards mothers and
fathers and depressive symptoms in later life. These life problems, such as decreases in health,
divorce, or money troubles, are most likely a source of tension in the parent-child relationship.
Additionally, research indicates that failure of adult children to achieve expected milestones
results in intergenerational ambivalence (Fingerman et al., 2006; Pillemer & Suitor, 2002).
Indeed, Descartes (2006) found that both parents and adult children experience ambivalence
when the adult child’s dependence on the parent is prolonged past the normative developmental
Limitations and Future Directions
There are limitations to this study that should be addressed in future research. The
negative relationship quality score had relatively low internal consistency reliability, most likely
due to the small number of negative items. Thus, future studies should consider a scale with a
greater number of negative items, which would likely improve internal consistency reliability. In
addition, much of the literature suggests that negative feelings overwhelm ‘ambivalence’ and
variability in negative feelings may actually account for much of the variability in ambivalence
(Connidis, 2015; Fingerman et al., 2013; Gilligan, Suitor, Feld, & Pillemer, 2015).
Further, the concept of emerging adulthood is not a universal developmental period and is
unique to certain cultures, especially industrialized countries that postpone the adoption of adult
roles and responsibilities until past the late teenage years (Arnett, 2001a). Emerging adulthood
may not be distinct from young adulthood for many individuals, especially among lower or
working class individuals.
This study did not investigate parents’ perceptions of their relationship with their
offspring or parents’ well-being. Similar to Lendon et al. (2014) and Fingerman et al. (2008),
future studies should consider parents’ and offspring’s reports of relationship quality over time to
determine the possible bidirectional effects of ambivalence. Indeed, ambivalence in the parent-
child tie may also have significant effects on parents’ well-being (Fingerman et al., 2008;
Lowenstein, 2007). Furthermore, coping strategies may moderate the association between
ambivalence and well-being. Birditt, Rott, and Fingerman (2009) found that addressing parent-
child conflicts using constructive strategies, such as trying to understand each other, is associated
with greater affective solidarity and less ambivalence in the relationship. The lack of constructive
strategies may account for the links between ambivalence and depressive symptoms. Lastly,
these results are limited by the availability of only two waves of data. The 12-year gap between
the waves may not gather information on developmental changes occurring within that time
The present study expands the ambivalence and parent-child literature by examining
intergenerational ambivalence among adolescents, emerging adults, and young adults over time.
Our findings reveal that age of offspring is important when experiencing parental ambivalence.
Furthermore, offspring’s ambivalence and the effect of ambivalence on depressive symptoms
differed by parent gender. Ambivalence clearly has important implications for well-being. We
believe that the current study emphasizes the significance of intergenerational ambivalence and
indicates that ambivalence is important to examine among younger as well as older age groups.
Akiyama, H., Antonucci, T., Takahashi, K., & Langfahl, E. S. (2003). Negative interactions in
close relationships across the life span. The Journals of Gerontology Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(2), P70-P79.
Antonucci, T., Birditt, K. S., & Webster, N. J. (2010). Social relations and mortality: A more
nuanced approach. Journal of Health Psychology, 15(5), 649-659.
Aquilino, W. (2006a). Family relationships and support systems in emerging adulthood. In J. J.
Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st
century (pp. 193-217). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Aquilino, W. S. (1997). From adolescent to young adult: A prospective study of parent-child
relations during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 670-
Aquilino, W. S. (2006b). The noncustodial father-child relationship from adolescence into young
adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 929-946.
Aquilino, W. S., & Supple, A. J. (2001). Long-term effects of parenting practices during
adolescence on well-being: Outcomes in young adulthood. Journal Of Family Issues,
22(3), 289-308.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through
the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
Arnett, J. J. (2001a). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Arnett, J. J. (2001b). Conceptions of the transition to adulthood: Perspectives from adolescence
through midlife. Journal of Adult Development, 8, 133-143.
Aseltine, R., Gore, S., & Colten, M. (1998). The co-occurrence of depression and substance
abuse in late adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 10(3), 549-570.
Biller, H. B (1971). Father, child, and sex role. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Birditt, K. S., Fingerman, K. L., & Zarit, S. H. (2010). Adult children's problems and successes:
Implications for intergenerational ambivalence. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological
Sciences, 65B, 145-153.
Birditt, K. S., Jackey, L. M. H., & Antonucci, T. C. (2009). Longitudinal patterns of negative
relationship quality across adulthood. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences,
64B, 55-64.
Birditt, K. S., Miller, L. M., Fingerman, K. L., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2009). Tensions in the parent
and adult child relationship: Links to solidarity and ambivalence. Psychology and
aging, 24(2), 287.
Birditt, K. S., Rott, L. M., & Fingerman, K. L. (2009). “If you can’t say something nice, don’t
say anything at all”: Coping with interpersonal tensions in the parent–child relationship
during adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 769-778.
Birditt, K. S., Tighe, L. A., Fingerman, K. L., & Zarit, S. H. (2012). Intergenerational
relationship quality across three generations. The Journals Of Gerontology: Series B:
Psychological Sciences And Social Sciences, 67B(5), 627-638.
Blos, P. (1967). The second individuation process of adolescence. Psychoanalytic Study of the
Child, 22, 162-186.
Bracken, B. A., & Reintjes, C. (2010). Age, race, and gender differences in depressive
symptoms: A lifespan developmental investigation. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 28(1), 40-53.
Bucx, F., & van Wei, F. (2008). Parental bond and life course transitions from adolescence to
young adulthood. Family Therapy, 35, 109-126.
Buist, K. L., Deković, M., Meeus, W., & van Aken, M. A. (2002). Developmental patterns in
adolescent attachment to mother, father and sibling. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
31(3), 167-176.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills:
Collins, W. A., & Russell, G. (1991). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle
childhood and adolescence: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 11, 99-
Connidis, I. A. (2015). Exploring Ambivalence in Family Ties: Progress and Prospects. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 77(1), 77-95.
Cyranowski, J. M., Frank, E., Young E., & Shear, K. (2000). Adolescent onset of the gender
difference in life-time rates of major depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 21-
Descartes, L. (2006). “Put Your Money Where Your Love Is”: Parental Aid to Adult Children.
Journal of Adult Development, 13(3-4), 137-147.
Eccles, J., Templeton, J., Barber, B., & Stone, M. (2003). Adolescence and emerging adulthood:
The critical passage ways to adulthood. In M. H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes,
K. A. Moore (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course (pp. 383-
406). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fingerman, K. L. (2001). Aging mothers and their adult daughters: A study in mixed emotions.
Springer Publishing Company.
Fingerman, K. L., Chen, P. C., Hay, E. L., Cichy, K. E., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2006). Ambivalent
reactions in the parent and offspring relationship. Journals of Gerontology:
Psychological Sciences, 61B, 152-160.
Fingerman, K. L., Hay, E. L., & Birditt, K. S. (2004). The best of ties, the worst of ties: Close,
problematic, and ambivalent social relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
66, 792-808.
Fingerman, K. L., Sechrist, J., & Birditt, K. (2013). Changing views on intergenerational ties.
Gerontology, 59(1), 64-70.
Fingerman, K., Pitzer, L., Lefkowitz, E., Birditt, K., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Ambivalent
relationship qualities between adults and their parents: Implications for the well-being of
both parties. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 63, P362-PP371.
Forehand, R., & Nousiainen, S. (1993). Maternal and paternal parenting: Critical dimensions in
adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(2), 213-221.
Gilligan, M., Suitor, J. J., Feld, S., & Pillemer, K. (2015). Do positive feelings hurt?
Disaggregating positive and negative components of intergenerational ambivalence.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 261-276.
Grotevant, H., & Cooper, C. (1986). Individuation in family relationships: A perspective on
individual differences in the development of identity and role-taking skill in adolescence.
Human Development, 29, 82-100.
Hankin, B. L., Abramson, L. Y., Moffitt, T. E., McGee, R., Silva, P., A., & Angell, K. E. (1998).
Development of depression from preadolescence to young adulthood: Emerging gender
differences in a 10-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 128-
Herzog, A. R., & Rodgers, W. L. (1988). Interviewing older adults: Mode comparison using
data from a face-to-face survey and a telephone resurvey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52,
Herzog, A. R., Rodgers, W. L., & Kulka, R. A. (1983). Interviewing older adults: A comparison
of telephone and face-to-face modalities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 405-418.
Holmbeck, G. N., Paikoff, R. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). Parenting adolescents. In M. H.
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 1, pp. 91-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Hosley, C. A., & Montemayor, R. (1997). Fathers and adolescents. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The
role of the father in child development (pp. 162-178). New York: John Wiley.
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science,
241, S40S45.
Jacobs, R. H., Reinecke, M. A., Gollan, J. K., & Kane, P. (2008). Empirical evidence of
cognitive vulnerability for depression among children and adolescents: A cognitive
science and developmental perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(5), 759-782.
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005).
Lifetime Prevalence and Age-of-Onset Distributions of DSM-IV Disorders in the
National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives Of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 593-
Kiecolt, K., Blieszner, R., & Savla, J. (2011). Long-term influences of intergenerational
ambivalence on midlife parents' psychological well-being. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 73(2), 369-382.
Kim-Cohen, J., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Harrington, H., Milne, B. J., & Poulton, R. (2003). Prior
juvenile diagnoses in adults with mental disorder: Developmental follow-back of a
prospective-longitudinal cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(7), 709-717.
Larson, R. W., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Family emotions: Do young adolescents and their
parents experience the same states? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4(4), 567-583.
Lendon, J. P., Silverstein, M., & Giarrusso, R. (2014). Ambivalence in older parentadult child
relationships: Mixed feelings, mixed measures. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2),
Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. E. (2003). Fathers’ influences on children’s development: The evidence
from two-parent families. European Journal of Psychology on Education, 18, 211-227.
Lowenstein, A. (2007). Solidarity-conflict and ambivalence: Testing two conceptual frameworks
and their impact on quality of life for older family members. Journals of Gerontology:
Social Sciences, 62, S100-SS107.
Luecken, L. J., Roubinov, D. S., & Tanaka, R. (2013). Childhood family environment, social
competence, and health across the lifespan. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
30(2), 171-178.
Luescher, K., & Pillemer, K. (1998). Intergenerational ambivalence: A new approach to the
study of parent-child relations in later life. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 413-425.
Lye, D. N. (1996). Adult childparent relationships. Annual review of sociology, 79-102.
McClelland G. H. & Judd C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties in detecting interactions and
moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376390.
McGue, M., Elkins, I., Walden, B., & Iacono, W. G. (2005). Perceptions of the Parent-
Adolescent Relationship: A Longitudinal Investigation. Developmental Psychology,
41(6), 971-984.
McKinney, C., Donnelly, R., & Renk, K. (2008). Perceived parenting, positive and negative
perceptions of parents, and late adolescent emotional adjustment. Child and Adolescent
Mental Health, 13(2), 66-73.
Meadows, S. O., Brown, J. S., & Elder, G. H. (2006). Depressive symptoms, stress, and support:
Gendered trajectories from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 35, 93-103.
Merton, R. K., & Barber, E. (1963). Sociological ambivalence. In E. Tiryakian (Ed.),
Sociological theory: Values and sociocultural change (pp. 91-120). New York, NY: Free
Montemayor, R., Eberly, M., & Flannery, D. J. (1993). Effects of pubertal status and
conversation topic on parent and adolescent affective expression. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 13(4), 431-447.
Noack, P., & Buhl, H. M. (2004). Child-parent relationships. In F. R. Lang & K. L. Fingerman
(Eds.), Growing together: Personal relationships across the lifespan (pp. 45-75). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nydegger, C. (1991). The development of paternal and filial maturity. In K. A. Pillemer & K.
McCartney (Eds.), Parent-child relations throughout life (pp. 93-112). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Peterson, G. W., Bush, K. R., & Supple, A. (1999). Predicting adolescent autonomy from
parents: Relationship connectedness and restrictiveness. Sociological Inquiry, 69, 431-
Phares, V. (1999). 'Poppa' psychology: The role of fathers in children's mental well-being.
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Pillemer, K., & Suitor, J. (2002). Explaining mothers' ambivalence toward their adult children.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 602-613.
Pillemer, K., & Suitor, J. J. (2005). Ambivalence in intergenerational relationship over the life-
course. In M. Silverstien, R. Giarruso, & V. L. Bengtson (Eds.), Intergenerational
relations across time and place (pp. 1-28). New York, NY: Springer
Pillemer, K., Munsch, C. L., FullerRowell, T., Riffin, C., & Suitor, J. J. (2012). Ambivalence
toward adult children: Differences between mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 74(5), 1101-1113.
Pillemer, K., Suitor, J., Mock, S., Sabir, M., Pardo, T., & Sechrist, J. (2007). Capturing the
complexity of intergenerational relations: Exploring ambivalence within later-life
families. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 775-791.
Radin, N. (1981). The role of the father in cognitive, academic, and intellectual development. In
M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (2nd ed., pp. 379-428).
New York: Wiley.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the
general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Richman, R., & Flaherty, J. (1986). Childhood relationships, adult coping resources, and
depression. Social Science and Medicine, 23, 709-716.
Rindfuss, R. R. (1991). The young adult years: Diversity, structural change, and fertility.
Demography, 28, 493 512.
Roberts, R. E. L., & Bengston, V. L. (1993). Relationships with parents, self-esteem, and
psychological well-being in young adulthood. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56, 263-277.
Rossi, A. S., & Rossi, P. H. (1990). Of human-bonding: Parent-child relations across the life
course. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Sheeber, L., Hops, H., Alpert, A., Davis, B., & Andrews, J. (1997). Family support and conflict:
Prospective relations to adolescent depression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology:
An official publication of the International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent
Psychopathology, 25, 333-344.
Silverstein, M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1991). Do close parent-child relations reduce the mortality
risk of older parents? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 32, 382-395.
Smetana, J. (1988). Concepts of self and social convention: Adolescents’ and parents’ reasoning
about hypothetical and actual family conflicts. In M. Gunnar & W. Collins (Eds.),
Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology: Development during the transition to
adolescence (Vol. 21, pp. 79-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Steinberg, L. (1999). Adolescence (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of
parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 103-133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about
(attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength:
Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-385). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tsai, K. M., Telzer, E. H., & Fuligni, A. J. (2013). Continuity and discontinuity in perceptions of
family relationships from adolescence to young adulthood. Child Development, 84(2),
Twenge, J. M., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2002). Age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, and
birth cohort difference on the children's depression inventory: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 111(4), 578.
Uchino, B.N., Holt-Lunstad, J., Uno, D., Campo, R., and Reblin, M. (2007) The social
neuroscience of relationships: An examination of health relevant pathways. In E.
Harmon-Jones & P. Winkielman (Eds.), Social neuroscience: Integrating Biological and
Psychological Explanations of Social Behavior, pp. 474-492. New York: Guilford.
Umberson, D. (1992). Relationships between adult children and their parents: Psychological
consequences for both generations. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 54, 664-674.
Ward, R. (2008). Multiple parent-adult child relations and well-being in middle and later life.
Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 63, S239-SS247.
Weigert, A. J. (1991). Mixed emotions: Certain steps toward understanding ambivalence.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Williams, D. R., Gonzalez, H. M., Neighbors, H., Neese, R., Abelson, J., Sweetman, J., Jackson,
J. S. (2007). Prevalence and distribution of Major Depressive Disorder in African
Americans, Caribbean Blacks, and non-Hispanic Whites. Archives of General Psychiatry,
64(3), 305-315.
Willson, A. E., Shuey, K. M., & Elder, G. H. (2003). Ambivalence in the relationship of adult
children to aging parents and in-laws. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65, 1055-
Willson, A. E., Shuey, K. M., Elder, G. H., & Wickrama, K. (2006). Ambivalence in mother
adult child relations: A dyadic analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 235-252.
Table 1
Descriptives of the Selected Sample
Wave 1 (1992)
(n = 225)
Wave 2 (2005)
(n = 186)
Age group at Wave 1
Emerging adult
Young adults
Time varying variables
Cohabiting with mother
Cohabiting with father
Means and Standard Deviations
Contact frequency w/mother
4.50 (.70)
4.32 (.81)
Contact frequency w/father
4.15 (.88)
3.75 (1.02)
11.98 (2.32)
13.45 (2.32)
Number of life problems
2.66 (2.04)
2.53 (2.16)
Mother intergenerational ambivalence
4.38 (1.51)
3.03 (1.87)
Emerging adults
3.47 (1.77)
2.79 (1.73)
Young adults
3.19 (1.65)
2.80 (1.72)
Father intergenerational ambivalence
3.70 (1.72)
1.93 (1.61)
Emerging adults
2.93 (1.71)
2.21 (1.54)
Young adults
2.81 (1.76)
2.36 (1.69)
Note. Female coded: 0 (men), 1 (women); White coded: 0 (non White), 1 (White);
Working coded: 0 (not working), 1 (working full or part-time);
Married coded: 0 (not married), 1 (married);
Cohabitation with parent coded: 0 (not cohabiting), 1 (cohabiting);
Contact frequency scale: 1 (irregularly), 2 (once a year), 3 (once a month),
4 (once a week), or 5 (every day), range: 1-5;
Education scale: 0 (no years of completed schooling) to 17 (completion of undergraduate
degree or higher);
Number of life problems: Wave 1 range: 0-8, Wave 2 range: 0-11;
Mother/father ambivalence range: 0.5-6.5
Table 2
Multilevel Models Examining Ambivalence in Wave 1 as a Function of Age and Time
Age groups
Emerging adults
Young adults
Emerging adults*time
Young adults*time
Contact frequency
Notes. Contact frequency scale: 1 (irregularly), 2 (once a year), 3 (once a month),
4 (once a week), or 5 (everyday). ** p < .01, * p < .05, p < .10
Young adults were the comparison group.
Table 3
Multilevel Models Examining Depressive Symptoms as a Function of Intergenerational
Ambivalence in Wave 1
Ambivalence Wave 1
Age groups
Emerging adults
Young adults
AmbivalenceW1*Emerging adults
AmbivalenceW1*Young adults
Emerging adults*Time
Young adults*Time
Contact frequency
Notes. Contact frequency scale: 1 (irregularly), 2 (once a year), 3 (once a month),
4 (once a week), or 5 (everyday). ** p < .01. * p < .05. p < .10.
Young adults served as the comparison group.
Figure 1
Depressive Symptoms Over Time as a Function of Father Ambivalence in Wave 1
time 1 time 2
depressive symptoms
low father
Wave 1
high father
Wave 1
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
215 midlife parents (mean age 53.7 yrs) were interviewed about how their adult children (mean age 27.6 yrs) had "turned out." These assessments were then related to parents' views of themselves. Perceived accomplishments and adjustment of children were expected to be positively linked with parents' well-being (e.g., self-acceptance, environmental mastery, purpose in life), and social comparisons were hypothesized to contribute to the link between parents' assessments of children and their own well-being. Multiple regression analyses revealed that children's perceived adjustment significantly predicted 6 of 7 well-being outcomes for mothers and fathers. Children's attainment was less strongly linked with parental outcomes. Personal comparisons were significant negative predictors: Parents who saw their children as better adjusted than themselves had lower well-being. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The chapter gives an overview on the development of the relationships of parents and their offspring. While the selection of issues addressed is not meant to be comprehensive, the chapter focuses on conceptualizations and findings of particular relevance: Individuality and relatedness, the active role that parents and their offspring play in shaping their relationship, the importance of a biographical perspective on relationship development, and contextual influences on child-parent relationships. The chapter concludes with consideration of directions for future research. Child-parent relationships are special. This is obviously true on an individual level. For example, children see their parents as outstanding people - at least up until the transition to adolescence. Likewise, some parents are infatuated with their children and expect much of their sons and daughters, sometimes to the point of overtaxing their abilities and patience. At the same time, child-parent relationships, in general, have features that give them a particular significance. As compared to other types of relationships, bonds between parents and their offspring are of an extremely long-standing nature. Moreover, when parents and children interact, aspects of socialization and education tend to play a more important role than is the case among siblings, friends, or romantic partners. Finally, it has to be recognized that child-parent relationships represent an intergenerational constellation. Relationships between children and parents surpass most other relationships in duration. We take Germany as a case in point.
Ties to parents or grown children may be the most important social relationships in an adult's life. Research examining intergenerational relationships has focused on three broader topics: (a) the strength of emotional bonds, (b) exchanges of social support, and (c) the effects of the relationship on individual well-being. This review considers some of the major theoretical developments in the field including solidarity and intergenerational ambivalence theory as well as the newly developed multidimensional model of support. We also consider weaknesses in the research and theories to date and provide suggestions for future research. Copyright (c) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
A theoretical framework is developed to explain how parent/adult child relationships affect adult children's and parents' psychological distress levels. Data from a 1986 national survey (n = 3,618) are analyzed to test hypotheses derived from this framework. Results show that (a) the quality of intergenerational relationships appears to be influenced by the structural circumstances of parents and adult children—especially as defined by divorced status, gender, and age; (b) the negative aspects of intergenerational relationships are more strongly associated with psychological distress of parents and adult children than are the positive aspects; and (c) the estimated effects of intergenerational relationships on distress levels sometimes depend on the structural circumstances of parents and children.