| Literature DB >> 36033097 |
Na Li1, Yi-Meng Zhang1, Na-Na Xiong1, Qi-Qing Sun1, Ying Qian1, Hong-Qiang Sun1.
Abstract
This study investigated a conceptual model by testing how parental romantic relationships influenced the depressive symptoms of grown-up children and whether the constructive communication patterns of grown-up children and romantic relationships played mediation effects within it. A total of 421 Chinese participants were enrolled in the study. The level of depressive symptoms, romantic relationship satisfaction and closeness, couple communication patterns, and parental romantic relationships were measured via self-report questionnaires. According to the results, the structural equation modeling analysis verified that the severity of participants' depressive symptoms was negatively associated with the parental romantic relationship and that the association was mediated by participants' constructive communication patterns and their own romantic relationships. Furthermore, compared with nondepressed participants, depressed participants were less satisfied with their parental romantic relationships, exhibited fewer constructive communication patterns, and were more distant and unsatisfied with current romantic relationships.Entities:
Keywords: communication patterns; depressive symptoms; mediating role; parental relationship; romantic relationship
Year: 2022 PMID: 36033097 PMCID: PMC9407243 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.897380
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Definition of the six communication patterns.
| Communication pattern | Definition |
|---|---|
| Constructive communication | The sum of three items assessing constructive communication behaviors minus the sum of four items assessing destructive communication behaviors. |
| Mutual avoidance | The sum of three items that assess couples’ mutual avoidance, mutual withdrawal, and mutual withholding |
| Self-demand/partner-withdraw | Three items measure when an individual presses their partner to discuss a problem and then makes demands, criticizes, and nags them, while the partner tries to avoid discussion, withdraw, or is silent. |
| Partner-demand/self-withdraw | Three items measure when an individual’s partner presses them to discuss a problem and then makes demands, criticizes, and nags them, while the individual tries to avoid discussion, withdraw, or is silent. |
Sample characteristics of depressed and nondepressed participants.
| Variable | Participants with depressive symptoms ( | Participants without depressive symptoms ( | Z | Value of |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 34.00 | 40.00 | −3.918 | <0.001 |
| Sex | 12.278 | <0.001 | ||
| Male | 91(32.4) | 70(50.0) | ||
| Female | 190(67.6) | 70(50.0) | ||
| Education level | 3.597 | 0.731 | ||
| High school or below | 43(15.3) | 17(12.1) | ||
| Junior college and bachelor | 153(54.5) | 84(60.0) | ||
| Master or above | 85(30.2) | 39(27.8) | ||
| Family monthly income (RMB) | 11.637 | 0.040 | ||
| <3,000 | 12(4.3) | 3(2.1) | ||
| 3,000 ~ 5,000 | 19(6.8) | 11(7.9) | ||
| 5,000 ~ 10,000 | 64(22.8) | 36(25.7) | ||
| 10,000 ~ 20,000 | 84(29.9) | 25(17.9) | ||
| 20,000 ~ 30,000 | 40(14.2) | 33(23.6) | ||
| >30,000 | 62(22.1) | 32(22.9) | ||
| Parental romantic relationship | 8.00 | 7.00 | −4.685 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Constructive communication | 12.00 | 6.00 | −3.774 | <0.001 |
| Mutual avoidance | 9.00 | 10.00 | −1.403 | 0.161 |
| Self-demand/partner-withdraw | 13.00 | 13.00 | −0.010 | 0.992 |
| Partner-demand/self-withdraw | 11.00 | 12.00 | −0.033 | 0.974 |
|
| ||||
| Closeness | 6.00 | 5.00 | −4.805 | <0.001 |
| Satisfaction | 43.00 | 36.00 | −5.662 | <0.001 |
| Current depressive symptoms | 1.50 | 10.00 | −16.752 | <0.001 |
Correlations among variables.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Parental romantic relationship | 1.00 | ||||||
| 2. Offspring’s constructive communication | 0.16 | 1.00 | |||||
| 3. Offspring’s mutual avoidance | −0.03 | −0.50 | 1.00 | ||||
| 4. Offspring’s self-demand/partner-withdraw | 0.01 | −0.37 | 0.50 | 1.00 | |||
| 5. Offspring’s partner-demand/self-withdraw | −0.03 | −0.26 | 0.47 | 0.52 | 1.00 | ||
| 6. Offspring’s closeness of current romantic relationship | 0.21 | 0.63 | −0.21 | −0.10 | 0.06 | 1.00 | |
| 7. Offspring’s satisfaction in current romantic relationship | 0.21 | 0.61 | −0.21 | −0.10 | 0.04 | 0.83 | 1.00 |
| 8. Offspring’s depressive symptoms | −0.22 | −0.26 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.05 | −0.28 | −0.36 |
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).
Figure 1Conceptual model of the study.
The model indices.
| Index |
|
| CFI | TLI | RMSEA | Value of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Constructive communication | 12.69 | 2 | 0.987 | 0.935 | 0.113 | <0.01 |
| 2. Mutual avoidance | 4.93 | 2 | 0.995 | 0.976 | 0.059 | 0.085 |
| 3. Self-demand/partner-withdraw | 3.62 | 2 | 0.997 | 0.987 | 0.044 | 0.164 |
| 4. Partner-demand/self-withdraw | 3.42 | 2 | 0.998 | 0.988 | 0.041 | 0.181 |
CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation.
Results of the chain mediating effects.
| Model | Constructive communication | Mutual avoidance communication | Self-demand/partner-withdraw | Partner-demand/self-withdraw |
| 95% CI |
| 95% CI |
| 95% CI |
| 95% CI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct effect | −0.541 | −0.744, −0.300 | −0.543 | −0.751, −0.319 | −0.558 | −0.760, −0.330 | −0.558 | −0.760, −0.333 | ||||||||
| Parental romantic relationship → offspring’s depressive symptoms | ||||||||||||||||
| −0.757 | −0.980, −0.532 | −0.757 | −0.980, −0.532 | −0.757 | −0.980, −0.532 | −0.757 | −0.980, −0.532 | |||||||||
| Total indirect effect | −0.217 | −0.329, −0.120 | −0.215 | −0.328, −0.118 | −0.199 | −0.305, −0.104 | −0.200 | −0.306, −0.105 | ||||||||
| Parental romantic relationship → offspring’s communication pattern → offspring’s current romantic relationship → offspring’s depressive symptoms | ||||||||||||||||
| −0.068 | −0.148, −0.024 | 0.007 | −0.011, 0.007 | 0.002 | −0.003, 0.017 | −0.002 | −0.015, 0.001 | |||||||||
| Parental romantic relationship → offspring’s communication pattern → offspring’s depressive symptoms | ||||||||||||||||
| 0.004 | −0.031, 0.052 | −0.002 | −0.027, 0.006 | 0.002 | −0.003, 0.028 | 0.001 | −0.004, 0.024 | |||||||||
| Parental romantic relationship → offspring’s current romantic relationship → offspring’s depressive symptoms | ||||||||||||||||
| −0.152 | −0.254, −0.077 | −0.220 | −0.331, −0.130 | −0.203 | −0.318, −0.115 | −0.199 | −0.305, −0.107 | |||||||||
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
p < 0.001.
Figure 2The associations among the parental romantic relationship and the offspring’s constructive communication patterns, current romantic relationship, and depressive symptoms *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.