University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Prior exposure to aggression and young adults' negative expectancies about romantic partner discussions

(USC Thesis Other)

Prior exposure to aggression and young adults' negative expectancies about romantic partner discussions

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND NEGATIVE EXPECTANCIES
Copyright 2022 Alexis Beale

PRIOR EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND YOUNG ADULTS’ NEGATIVE
EXPECTANCIES ABOUT ROMANTIC PARTNER DISCUSSIONS

By

Alexis Beale, B.S.

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC DORSLIFE COLLEGE OF LETTERS, ARTS, AND SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)

August 2022

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Expectancies within Romantic Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Exposure to Aggression and Negative Expectancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Rejection Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .6
Gender as a Moderator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
The Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Chapter 2: Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Chapter 3: Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Negative Expectancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Parent Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Dating Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Peer Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Negative Expectancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 4: Analytic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Chapter 5: Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Descriptive Analyses and Bivariate Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Chapter 6: Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Strengths and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Sociodemographic Characteristics ……………………………………………….……..30
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Main Variables ……………………………...……...31
Table 3. Bivariate Correlations of Main Study Variables for Full Sample ………….….….…......32
Table 4. Bivariate Correlations of Study Variables for Men and Women …………...…………...33
Table 5. Multi-level model Analyses Examining the Association Between Exposure to
Aggression and Negative Expectancies during the Change Discussions…………………34
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Multi-level Mediation Analyses Examining Rejection Sensitivity as a Mediator for the
Association Between Aggression and Negative Expectancies ………………………………….35

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

v

Abstract
Romantic relationships are a core feature of healthy young adult development (Feldman et al.,
1998). Prior work shows that adverse experiences with relationships during key developmental
periods are linked to relationship problems in adulthood. With cognitions shown to impact
behaviors and emotions, greater understanding of negative relationship expectancies and its
precipitants may yield new insight on romantic relationship difficulties. The present study
investigates sources of negative expectancies prior to a relationship discussion in a sample of 116
young adult romantic couples. We test whether prior experiences with parent, peer, and dating
aggression are associated with negative expectancies prior to a discussion with an adult romantic
partner discussions about desired changes in the relationship. We also test rejection sensitivity as
a mechanism linking anticipated associations between aggression exposure and
expectancies. Multilevel analyses showed that parent and dating aggression, but not peer
aggression were associated with negative expectancies prior to an emotionally evoking
discussion task about desired relationship change. Additionally, rejection sensitivity mediated
associations between both parent and dating partner aggression and negative expectancies.
Findings suggest that individuals who have early adverse experiences within interpersonal
relationships are more likely to anticipate negative interactions with their romantic partner in
dating relationships during young adulthood. Results also highlight rejection sensitivity as a key
mechanism of this process. Taken together, these findings help to explain why some individuals
have difficulty in approaching emotionally evoking conversations with their romantic partner.

Keywords: Aggression, dating couples, negative expectancies, cognitions
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Romantic relationships are a core feature of healthy young adult development (Feldman
et al., 1998; Shulman & Connolly, 2013). The success of developing and maintaining romantic
relationships is associated with improved well-being, life satisfaction, and social adjustment (Cui
et al., 2008; Davila et al., 2016; Xia et al., 2018), whereas a failure to sustain such relationships
are linked to physical and emotional distress (Conger et al., 2000; House et al., 1988). Evidence
suggests, however, that earlier relationship experiences impact the quality of romantic
relationships (Connolly & Josephson, 2007; Crockett & Randall, 2006). Specifically, through
prior relationships, individuals acquire expectations, skills, and behaviors that they bring into
future romantic relationships (Crockett & Randall, 2006). It is therefore crucial to understand the
consequences of experiencing negative interactions (e.g., maltreatment, aggression,
victimization) in early relationships.
To date, there is a large and rich literature indicating that adverse experiences in early
relationships are associated with romantic relationship problems in adulthood (Poole et al.,
2017), with modeling being the predominant explanation (Bandura et al., 1961). Recent and
more nuanced theories have introduced biological (Hertzman, 2006; Moffitt, 2013), emotion
regulation (Caldeira & Woodin, 2012), and cognitive theories (Downey & Feldman, 1996). This
study introduces negative expectancies as one such cognitive construct to explain how early
negative relationship experiences might promote later relationship problems. Partners who hold
negative expectancies in their relationships are more likely to exhibit maladaptive
communicative patterns, experience poorer partner exchanges, and have decreased relationship
satisfaction (Schoebi et al., 2012).
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

2
The present study is designed to expand existing literature by investigating the
association between prior exposure to aggression and young adult’s later negative expectancies
as they approach discussions with their romantic partner. With prior work primarily focusing on
negative expectancies in married couples, this study investigates how negative expectancies
impact young adult dating relationships as they approach emotional-evoking discussions.
Additionally, this study examines the mediating role of rejection sensitivity on the association
between prior exposure to aggression and young adult negative expectancies. Finally, we will
investigate whether gender moderates the relationship between prior exposure to aggression,
rejection sensitivity, and negative expectancies. These findings will extend our understanding
how relationships when growing up help shape romantic relationships in young adults.
Expectancies within Romantic Relationships
Cognitions have been shown to play an important role in the development and
maintenance of interpersonal relationships. Relevant cognitions include thoughts, expectations,
and perceptions of a relationship and its members (Schwebel & Fine, 1994). Specifically, in the
context of marital relationships, cognitions impact an individual’s ability to resolve conflict,
adjust, and experience relationship satisfaction. According to Bradbury & Fincham’s (1991)
model of marital interaction, spousal expectations prior to discussions with their spouse are of
particular importance, as they influence the behaviors and emotional affect spouses exhibit
during these interactions. Relatedly, interpersonal expectancies may foster self-fulfilling
prophecies (Jones, 1986). That is, assumptions and expectations may influence what partners
attend to and the behaviors they display during the interaction itself (Schoebi et al., 2012).
Prior research shows associations between expectancies, appraisals, and interpersonal
communication behaviors such as anger, hostility, contempt, withdrawing, and aggression.
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

3
(Bradbury & Fincham, 1991; Downey, et al., 1998; McNulty & Karney, 2002; 2004; Schoebi et
al., 2012). In particular, Bradbury (1991) found that expressing negative expectations about
spousal behaviors prior to a marital-solving discussion task predicted higher levels of anger and
contempt during the discussion and a decline in relationship satisfaction after 12 months. Here,
negative expectations were assessed by asking partners to indicate prior to a discussion how
frequently they thought their spouse would exhibit 10 positive behaviors that would aid in
solving a marital problem and 10 negative behaviors that would hinder resolution. Additionally,
a study by Schoebi et al., (2012) found associations between marital expectancies regarding their
partner’s mood and couple interactions later in the evening. Researchers asked respondents to
rate how they expect the intensity of their spouse’s mood (i.e., cheerful, irritable, and
affectionate) to be later in the evening. Prior work has also shown that individuals tend to
reciprocate the behaviors they anticipate from their partner (Burgoon et al., 1995). For instance,
partners who report apprehension, discomfort, and dread over upcoming partner interactions are
more likely to exhibit aggression, criticism, withdrawing behaviors, irritability, and other
maladaptive communication patterns during the interaction itself (Daspe et al, 2021). Therefore,
it is useful to understand romantic couple interactions in the framework of the expectancies each
partner holds prior to their interactions (Fincham et al, 1995).
In further support of connections between appraisals and behavior, Daspe, et al., (2021)
tested negative appraisals as a moderator for partner aggression perpetration and negative
behaviors during a conversation about planning a date. A prior history of relationship aggression
was associated with negative conversational behaviors only for those partners who reported high
negative anticipation prior to the discussion. This indicates that negative expectancies may serve
as a key mechanism that increases partners’ likelihood to engage in harmful exchanges.
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

4
Therefore, the understanding of negative expectancies and what contributes to such expectancies
may yield new insights on romantic relationship difficulties.
Exposure to Aggression and Negative Expectancies
With prior research documenting the association between expectancies and relationship
behaviors, how do these expectancies evolve? This study investigates the possibility that
negative expectancies about communications in adulthood may relate to prior adverse and
painful interpersonal experiences—specifically psychological, electronic, sexual, and physical
aggression in family, dating, and peer relationships. The present study will examine exposure to
aggression in the family-of-origin, dating, and peer interactions as a possible predictor of
negative expectancies in young adulthood.
Exposure to aggression in the family-of-origin takes a number of forms, but most
generally relates to aggression that the parent directs to their child and aggression between the
parents (Vissing et al., 1991). Exposure to parent aggression occurs at alarmingly high rates.
Approximately 20-40% of adults retrospectively report exposure to parent aggression during
their childhood (for review, see Evans et al., 2008). Specifically, parent-to-child aggression is
associated with a myriad of long-term negative relationship and individual outcomes, including
poor relationship functioning, perpetration of aggression to future romantic partners, decreased
feelings of self-worth, internalizing difficulties, maladaptive adjustment through adulthood, and
increased risk of victimization of further aggression and/or abuse (Bandura, 1973; Caldeira &
Woodin, 2012; Evans et al., 2008; MacEwen, 1994; McDougall & Vaillancourt, 2015; Stith et
al., 2000). Additionally, witnessing aggression among parents has been shown to be associated
with later victimization from future dating partners, perpetuation of aggression, depressive
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

5
symptoms, substance use, and psychological distress in adulthood (Arriage & Foshee, 2004;
Evans et al., 2008; Margolin & Gordis, 2000; Straus, 1992).
Aggression within dating relationships has also been shown to have major long-term
implications. Although much work has examined dating aggression primarily in adulthood,
recent literature has also documented dating aggression during early life periods (i.e.,
adolescence) as a serious concern (Collibee & Furman, 2016; Connolly & Josephson, 2007).
Estimates indicate that approximately 35-50% of adolescents have experienced aggression in a
romantic relationship (O’Leary & Slep, 2003). Prior work has found that dating aggression has
been linked to substance use, suicidal thoughts, risky sexual behavior, posttraumatic stress, and
future destructive interpersonal patterns (Chen, et al., 2018; McNaughton, et al., 2018; O’Leary
& Slep, 2003; Silverman et al., 2001). Of note, dating aggression is typically not limited to one
single relationship or occurrence, in particular for those that remain in aggressive relationships
(Connolly & Josephson, 2007).
Exposure to peer aggression is likewise known to be a risk factor for future emotional
and relationship difficulties (McDougall & Vaillancourt, 2015). During adolescence, peers begin
to play a strong role in an individual’s life. Due to the great importance of peer relationships, it is
critical to consider the individuals that have poor exchanges (e.g., aggression, victimization,
rejection, unpopularity). Prior research has indicated that as many as 30% of school aged
children experience physical aggression from peers on a regular basis (Storch & Ledley, 2005),
with likely higher estimates for relational psychological and/or electronic aggression. Of note,
peer aggression is posited to be relatively stable and sustained throughout a child’s upbringing
(Hodges et al, 1999). Peer aggression has been linked to overall psychological distress (Storch &
Ledley, 2005) and later social withdrawal, low self-esteem, and loneliness as well as future
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

6
intimate relationship dysfunction, including aggression (Buhs & Ladd, 2001; Dodge et al, 2003;
McDougall & Vaillancourt, 2015).
The present study postulates that prior exposure to parent, dating, and peer aggression
may serve as one possible explanation as to why some young adults hold negative expectations
within their romantic relationships. Seeing and directly experiencing hostile interpersonal
relationships during key developmental periods may foster expectancies that close relationships,
in general, are fraught with negativity. Yet, despite the well documented negative long-term
outcomes associated with exposure to aggression previously noted, the process of how these
negative experiences shape expectancies of future interactions has not been well studied. Thus, it
is important to investigate the underlying mechanisms of how experiences with aggression may
lead to maladaptive cognitions (i.e., negative expectancies).
Rejection Sensitivity
This study investigates rejection sensitivity (RS) —that is, the disposition to defensively
expect, readily perceive, and intensely react to rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996)—as one
putative mediating construct between prior aggression experiences and negative expectancies.
According to Maslow’s theory of motivation (1981), it is human nature to avoid rejection, which
is associated with diminished well-being and social maladjustment (Romero-Canyas et al.,
2010). Moreover, vigilance for cues of social rejection may be adaptive in certain cases (Bowlby,
1973), for example, when openness to interaction has led to hurt, embarrassment or shame.
However, this cognitive process can become maladaptive when an individual develops a
hypervigilance for rejection cues, overreactions to perceived rejection, and incorrectly perceives
rejection when there is none.
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

7
Childhood rejection experiences from family and peers is said to be a precipitant to RS
(Downey & Feldman, 1996; London et al., 2007). Experiences such as family violence,
emotional neglect, harsh discipline, and conditional parental love have been associated with
anxious cognitions of future rejection (Downey et al., 1997). Moreover, Feldman and Downey
(1994) found RS to be a potential mediator between childhood exposure to family violence and
adult attachment style and concluded that RS serves as an underlying mechanism of adult
insecure attachment (both avoidant and ambivalent) styles. Peer rejection also has been linked to
rejection sensitivity (McLachlan, et al. 2012). In particular, adolescents who experienced peer
rejection and low parental acceptance were found to have increased rates of rejection sensitivity
(McLachlan, et al. 2012). Additionally, in a study with middle-school children (London et al.
(2007), peer rejection was found to be associated with rejection sensitivity 9 months later for
boys but not girls. Although dating aggression has not yet been examined as a predictor of RS,
prior work indicates that prior relationship experiences broadly are associated with the
development of RS.
RS, in turn, is associated with relationship avoidance, slower entry into romantic
relationships, and shorter-lived relationships in adult romantic relationships (Downey et al.,
1998; Downey et al. 2000; Hafen et al., 2014; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010). For individuals
entering new relationships, those with high, compared with low, RS were more likely to interpret
their partner’s negative behavior as motivated by hurtful intent, even after controlling for social
anxiety (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Meehan et al., (2018) found that those high in RS also
tended to react coldly and behave in a less communal manner upon perceiving negative or low
affect. Additionally, they are less likely to exhibit warm or positive behaviors during this
perceived rejection. This in turn may actually elicit rejection response from their partner and thus
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

8
create a self-fulfilling prophecy (Meehan et al., 2018). In sum, past findings demonstrate poor
behavioral outcomes for RS individuals in the context of romantic relationships. Expanding our
understanding of other outcomes (i.e., cognitive outcomes, such as negative expectancies) will
provide important insight into the relationship difficulties faces within young adult dating
couples.
Gender as a Moderator
By and large, little information is available on gender differences in the context of
negative expectancies. In a study by McNulty and Karney (2004) that assessed both positive and
negative expectations in the early years of marriage, spouses were asked to rate how satisfied
they expected their marriage to be at various time points (in the next six months and in the next
four years). Additionally, spouses were given positive and negative scenarios and reported their
expectancies regarding how their partners would behave within those scenarios in the marriage.
In this study wives and husbands did not significantly differ in their levels of expectancies.
However, no known prior work has assessed whether there may be gender differences for
negative expectancies prior to engaging in an emotional-evoking discussion task. Research on
base rates yields mixed findings regarding differences in the rate that males and females
experience aggression while growing up. Some studies have found higher rates among girls,
while others report higher rates among boys (for review, see Archer, 2004). However, little is
known about how cognitions may differ between men and women that experienced aggression
during their upbringing. Prior work has been mixed regarding whether men or women experience
higher rates of rejection sensitivity. Marston et al., (2010) found that adolescent boys reported
higher levels of rejection sensitivity than girls. Whereas Erozkan (2009) found, among college
students, that women reported greater rejection sensitivity compared to men. Given that past
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

9
findings on gender differences in our examined variables are mixed and limited, this study will
explore whether gender moderates the relation between exposure to aggression (parent, dating,
and peer) and rejection sensitivity and negative expectancies, although we have no a priori
hypotheses regarding these associations.
The Present Study
The present study aims to expand the literature on adult negative expectancies regarding
interactions in romantic relationships. Specifically, the present study will add to the scant
literature by investigating whether previous experiences with interpersonal aggression (i.e.,
parent, dating, and peer) are related to negative expectancies in young adult dating couples as
they anticipate a series of emotionally evocative in-lab discussions. Although many studies
conceptualize aggression as physical aggression, we expand this definition to also include
psychological, electronic, and sexual forms of aggression. In this investigation, we first
hypothesize that exposure to family, dating, or peer aggression would be associated with one’s
own negative expectancies (HO1). Second, toward the goal of identifying underlying
mechanisms between exposure to aggressive experiences and negative expectancies is unclear,
we test the hypothesis that rejection sensitivity (HO2) is a mediator of this association. Finally,
we explored the moderating role of gender on all paths in models testing RS as a mediator of the
association between exposure to aggression (parent, dating, and peer) and negative expectancies.
Chapter 2: Methods
Participants
Participants for the present study included 116 opposite-sex couples (232 individual
participants), who participated as part of a more extensive study on young adult dating
relationships (Margolin et al., in press). To be eligible for the larger study: (a) couples had to be
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

10
in a dating relationship for at least two months; (b) both partners needed to be age 18 or older
and one needed to be age 25 or younger; (c) at least one partner needed to reside in a two-parent
family through age 10; and (d) both partners needed to be able to complete all study procedures
in English. Most of the participants were recruited through online platforms and flyers in the Los
Angeles community. A subset of 29 individuals had previously participated in a longitudinal
study assessing family aggression and adolescent development. These 29 individuals were
recruited along with their romantic partners to participate in the present study. Participants from
the longitudinal sample did not differ from newly recruited participants on age or length of the
relationship. Couples were together, on average, for 29.96 months (SD = 23.43) and 43.1% of
participants were cohabitating. Male and female partners were, on average, 22.67 (SD = 2.03)
and 21.97 (SD = 1.89) years old. The sample was ethnically/racially diverse (28.4% non-
Hispanic White, 25% Hispanic/Latinx, 15.9% Multiracial, 15.1% African American/Black,
11.6% Asian, and 3.9% Other).
Procedure
All study procedures were approved by the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board. Data procedures here came from a larger longitudinal study that
included a pre-lab study and in-lab visit. Prior to the in-lab visit, participants completed an online
Qualtrics survey that included questionnaires assessing: (a) background information; (b)
exposure to aggression separately by parents, dating partners, and peers; and (b) rejection
sensitivity. The 4–5-hour lab visit included procedures outside the scope of the research
questions here (for example, see Corner et al., 2019; Kazmierski et al., 2021; Daspe et al., 2021).
The research procedure of interest here is the 10-minute couple discussion about desired
relationship change. To identify important topics for the change discussion, each partner
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

11
completed a questionnaire assessing common areas of desired relationship change (e.g., time
spent together, spending money). Partners then met individually with separate experimenters for
a brief 5-minute priming interview to identify the most emotionally salient topics to discuss with
the partner. When the couple reunited, they were presented with the top 2-3 changes from each
partner’s list and were instructed to talk about any combination of the pre-selected topics in any
order they saw fit. Immediately prior the discussion, partners reported on their expectancies
regarding the upcoming interaction through a brief questionnaire.
Chapter 3: Measures
Negative Expectancies
In order to assess negative expectancies regarding the upcoming change discussion,
participants completed an adapted version of the cognitive appraisal measure (Mendes et al.,
2007). This measure, previously used by Daspe et al., (2021), includes 6 items where
respondents rate how strongly they agreed (on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = “strongly
disagree” to 6 = “strongly agree”) to the following statements: “I’m looking forward to this
discussion”, “I’m dreading this discussion”, “I think I’ll do a good job of getting my points
across in this discussion”, “I may have a hard time saying what I want to say in this discussion”,
“Something good is likely to come out of this discussion”, and “I doubt this discussion will be
useful.” To create a score of negative expectancies, we reverse coded the three positive items and
averaged across all six items.
Parent Aggression
As part of the online survey prior to the in-person lab visit, participants responded to 28
items of parent and/or stepparent aggression. These items assessed both parent-to-child
aggression and witnessed parent-to-parent physical and emotional aggression. The 14 parent-to-
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

12
child aggression items asked whether “at any time in your life, did a parent or stepparent do the
following out of anger to you” (e.g., insulted or shamed you in front of others; hit you with a
hand or object). An additional 14 parent-to-parent aggression items asked whether “at any time
in your life, did one of your parents and/or stepparents do the following to another
parent/stepparent or romantic partner out of anger” (e.g., destroyed possessions or property of
parent or parent-like figure; left bruise or visible injury). We created a parent aggression score
based on the count of how many of the 28 items were endorsed as having occurred (0 = “no”, 1 =
“yes”). In the present sample, 86.2% of men and 90.5% of women endorsed at least one parent
aggression item or 88.4% of all participants.
Dating Aggression
The online survey also included 16 items assessing dating aggression from the How
Friends Treat Each Other (HFTEO) scale (Bennett et al., 2011). Participants responded to each
item twice, once to assess more distal dating aggression (i.e., “prior to the past year has any
dating partner done this to you?” and a second time to assess more recent dating aggression (i.e.,
“has any dating partner done this to you in the past year?”). The dating aggression items included
four electronic aggressive behaviors (e.g., “sent a mean, hurtful, or threatening email or text
message”), three sexual aggressive behaviors (e.g., “touched me sexually or kissed me when I
didn’t want it”), three psychological behaviors (e.g., “ridiculed or made fun of me in front of
others”). and six physically aggressive acts (e.g., “pushed, grabbed, shoved, or shook me”).
Exposure to dating aggression was measured by counting the endorsement (0 = “no”, 1 = “yes”)
across all 32 items. Of the full sample, 63.8% endorsed at least one dating aggression item.
60.3% of men and 67.2% of women endorsed at least one dating aggression item.

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

13
Peer Aggression
We assessed peer aggression through an identical set of 16 items as used to assess dating
partner aggression. Again, participants responded two times to each item to assess both distal
past peer aggression, that is, “prior to the past year has any friend or someone other than a dating
partner done this to you?” as well as more recent peer aggression, that is, “has any friend or
someone other than a dating partner done this to you in the past year?” Exposure to dating
aggression was measured by counting the endorsement (0 = “no”, 1 = “yes”) across all 32 items.
In this sample, 55.2% of men and 61.2% of women endorsed at least one peer aggression item,
or 58.2% of all participants.
Rejection Sensitivity
We used the 7-item short version of the Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (A-
RSQ), a measure of personal rejection sensitivity, with adequate reliability and validity
(Berenson et al., 2009; Berenson et al., 2016). Items assess the disposition to anxiously expect a
possible rejection in a hypothetical situation (e.g., “After a bitter argument, you call or approach
your significant other because you want to make up”). For each item, the respondent provides
two responses: (a) whether they are “anxious about making the request” (1 = “very
unconcerned”, 6 = “very concerned”) to another individual (e.g., parent, friend, partner, stranger,
and supervisor); and (b) whether they “expect the other person to comply with their request” (1 =
“very unlikely”, 6 = “very likely”). Each item was calculated by multiplying the first response by
the reverse of the second item. The resulting 7 scores were averaged to obtain an overall
rejection sensitivity score.

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

14
Chapter 4: Analytic Plan
Statistical tests were run using R studio (version 1.4). We tested our hypotheses using
multilevel models. Participants (Level 1) were nested within couples (Level 2). To test our
hypotheses, we conducted six multilevel models. Covariates for each model included age,
gender, race/ethnicity, couple cohabitation status, and relationship length. First, we used a
multilevel model with aggression as a predictor of negative expectancies, and we ran this model
separately for each type of aggression. For HO2, we tested rejection sensitivity as a mediator on
the association between aggression and negative expectancies for each of the three types of
aggression exposures. For HO2, we tested mediation separately for each aggression type
following the steps suggested by Baron & Kenney (1986), using the mediation package in R.
First, three separate regression models were run for each model pathway (pathway c or the total
effect: regression analysis with X predicting Y; pathway a: regression analysis with X predicting
M; pathway b: regression analysis with M predicting Y). Then, we used the bias-corrected
bootstrap method with 95% confidence intervals and heteroscedasticity-consistent standard
errors, using 1000 repetitions to estimate the direct effect (pathway c’ or the direct effect:
regression analysis of X predicting Y when controlling for M) and indirect effect (pathway a*b)
for significance (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). We calculated the mediation effect size as the
magnitude of the indirect to the total effect.
We further investigated the moderating effect of gender on each of the paths in each of
the mediation models. We included gender as a covariate for HO1. For HO2, we tested gender as
a moderator along each pathway.

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

15
Chapter 5: Results
Descriptive Analyses and Bivariate Correlations
Descriptive statistics for the full sample are presented in Table 1. Means and standard
deviations of main study variables are presented in Table 2 for the full sample and split by
gender. Paired samples t-tests matched by partner show that women (M = 9.07, SD = 7.38)
endorsed significantly higher rates of parent aggression than men (M = 6.21, SD = 5.90), t(115)
= 3.56, p = .001. Additionally, women (M = 3.18, SD = 1.11) endorsed significantly higher rates
of negative expectancies than men (M = 2.84, SD = 1.16), t(115) = 2.54, p = .012.
Bivariate correlations for the full sample are presented in Table 3 and split by gender in
Table 4. In the full sample, parent aggression and dating aggression showed positive associations
with rejection sensitivity and negative expectancies whereas peer aggression was found to be
unrelated to rejection sensitivity and negative expectancies. Rejection sensitivity showed a
positive association with negative expectancies. Significant associations were found among all
three types of aggression. Bivariate correlations split by gender found women’s parent
aggression and women’s rejection sensitivity were unrelated to all men’s study variables.
Women’s dating aggression was positively associated with men’s dating aggression and men’s
rejection sensitivity. Women’s peer rejection was positively related to men’s rejection
sensitivity. Women’s negative expectancies were positively associated to men’s negative
expectancies.
Hypothesis 1: Association between Aggression Exposure and Negative Expectancies
Table 5 presents results of parallel models testing each type of aggression exposure and
negative expectancies. In partial support of HO1, multi-level regression analyses showed that
parent aggression ( 𝛽 = 0.03, SE = 0.01, p = 0.03, CI [0.01, 0.05]). and dating aggression ( 𝛽 =
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

16
0.03, SE = 0.015, p = 0.03, CI [0.00, 0.06]). but not peer aggression ( 𝛽 = 0.03, SE = 0.015, p =
0.058, CI [0.00, 0.06]). were associated with negative expectancies prior regarding the upcoming
discussions about desired relationship change.
Hypothesis 2: Mediating Effect of Rejection Sensitivity
Figure 1 presents the models testing rejection sensitivity as a mediator in the association
between parent aggression and negative expectancies (HO2). For parent aggression (shown in
Figure 1a) had a positive total effect on negative expectancies (path c, 𝛽 = 0.03, SE = 0.01, p =
0.03, CI [0.01, 0.05]). Parent aggression was associated with higher rejection sensitivity (path a,
𝛽 = 0.17, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, CI [0.09, 0.25]), and higher rejection sensitivity was associated
with higher negative expectancies (path b, 𝛽 = 0.07, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001, CI [0.05, 0.09]).
Parent aggression had a significant indirect effect on negative expectancies through rejection
sensitivity (path a*b, 𝛽 = 0.012, SE = 0.004, p < 0.001, CI [0.004, 0.02]). After adjusting for
rejection sensitivity, the direct effect of parent aggression on negative expectancies was no
longer was significant (path c’, 𝛽 = 0.016, SE = 0.012, p = 0.16, CI [-0.006, 0.04]). This indirect
effect accounted for 42% of the total effect of parent aggression on negative expectancies (PM =
.415, CI [0.14, 1.48]).
For dating aggression (shown in Figure 1b), rejection sensitivity mediated the association
between dating aggression and negative expectancies (HO2). Dating aggression had a positive
total effect on negative expectancies (path c, 𝛽 = 0.03, SE = 0.015, p = 0.03, CI [0.00, 0.06]).
Dating aggression predicted increased rejection sensitivity (path a, 𝛽 = 0.16, SE = 0.05, p <
0.001, CI [0.06, 0.26]), and increased rejection sensitivity predicted higher negative expectancies
(path b, 𝛽 = 0.07, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001, CI [0.05, 0.09]). Dating aggression had a significant
indirect effect on negative expectancies through rejection sensitivity (path a*b, 𝛽 = 0.012, SE =
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

17
0.006, p < 0.001, CI [0.00, 0.02]). After adjusting for rejection sensitivity, the direct effect of
dating aggression on negative expectancies missed significance (path c’, 𝛽 = 0.015, SE = 0.0125,
p = 0.32, CI [-0.01, 0.04]). This indirect effect accounted for 42% of the total effect of dating
aggression on negative expectancies (PM = .419, CI [-1.56, 3.07]).
The mediating model for peer aggression, shown in Figure 1c, did not show a significant
rejection sensitivity did not mediate the association between peer aggression and negative
expectancies (HO2). Peer aggression had a positive and nonsignificant total effect on negative
expectancies (HO1, path c, 𝛽 = 0.03, SE = 0.015, p = 0.058, CI [0.00, 0.06]). Peer aggression
showed a trending but nonsignificant increase in rejection sensitivity (path a, 𝛽 = 0.01, SE =
0.01, p = 0.19, CI [0.00, 0.02]), and increased rejection sensitivity predicted higher negative
expectancies (path b, 𝛽 = 0.08, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001, CI [0.06, 0.10]). The mediating model with
rejection sensitivity was nonsignificant for peer aggression (HO2, path a*b, 𝛽 = 0.005, SE =
0.006, p = 0.176, CI [-0.002, 0.01]).
The effect of exposure to aggression on negative expectancies did not differ by gender
(parent aggression x gender: 𝛽 = 0.00, SE = 0.002, p = 0.97, CI [-0.002, 0.002]; dating
aggression x gender: 𝛽 = 0.05, SE = 0.03, p = 0.08, CI [0.02, 0.08]; and peer aggression x
gender: 𝛽 = 0.04, SE = 0.03, p = 0.20, CI [0.01, 0.07]). Additionally, the effect of exposure to
aggression on rejection sensitivity did not differ by gender (parent aggression x gender: 𝛽 = -
0.06, SE = 0.08, p = 0.42, CI [-0.14, 0.02]; dating aggression x gender: 𝛽 = -0.16, SE = 0.10, p =
0.11, CI [-0.26, -0.06]; and peer aggression x gender: 𝛽 = -0.10, SE = 0.10, p = 0.34, CI [-0.20,
0.00]). Finally, the effect of rejection sensitivity on negative expectancies did not differ by
gender (rejection sensitivity x gender: 𝛽 = 0.03, SE = 0.04, p = 0.35, CI [-0.01, 0.07]).

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

18
Chapter 6: Discussion
In this sample of young adult dating couples, we found that, as expected, prior exposure
to aggressive experiences within relationships was associated with future negative expectancies.
Specifically, we found that exposure to parent aggression and dating aggression was related to
higher negative expectancies prior to engaging in an emotionally evocative discussion with their
romantic partner. However, contrary to our expectations, peer aggression was not predictive of
negative expectancies. As anticipated, we found rejection sensitivity to be an underlying
mechanism that explained the association between parent aggression and negative expectancies.
Additionally, rejection sensitivity accounted for the association between dating aggression and
negative expectancies. Taken together, these findings highlight that individuals who have early
adverse experiences within various forms of relationships (parent and dating), they are more
likely to expect negative interactions with their romantic partner in dating relationships during
young adulthood.
In line with previous research, we found that prior experiences with aggression are
related to later relationship difficulties (Caldeira & Woodin, 2012). In particular, this study
extends the existing literature by showing how these early adverse experiences negatively impact
cognitions for young adult dating relationships. Given that young adulthood is a prominent time
for developing and maintaining relationships, these results fill an important gap in the literature
that primarily focuses on links between negative expectancies and communication behaviors
within married couples (Bradbury, 1991; Schoiebi et al., 2012). Our study extends the literature
by focusing on dating couples and examining precursors to these negative expectancies.
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

19
Lichter et al., (2004) note that dating relationships serve as training period for marriage. Thus,
although follow up data on this sample are unavailable, expectancies regarding dating
relationships in young adults may also play a role in later adult romantic relationships.
Our findings suggest that couples go into discussions with preconceived ideas regarding
how well they expect the conversation will go. Prior work has documented that negative
expectancies are associated with withdrawing behaviors during a discussion and later
relationship satisfaction (Bradbury, 1991; Schoiebi et al., 2012). Thus, negative expectancies
may be key in determining whether an individual is willing to engage in an emotionally-evoking
discussion with their romantic dating partner. Although in some cases it may be typical to dread
a difficult conversation with a partner, holding negative expectancies can become maladaptive if
it prevents an individual from engaging in having important discussions or if an individual is
willing to go to great lengths to avoid such discussions. Our study highlights factors that
contribute to negative expectancies as young adults approach an emotional-evoking discussion
with their partner. A future step is to assess whether, indeed, negative expectancies relate to
difficulty navigating emotional-evoking or difficult discussions with a partner or avoiding such
discussions altogether. Negative expectancies also might play a role in whether couples stay
together or break up. In the context of therapy, working on altering these negative cognitions
may facilitate healthier relationship expectations and experiences.
Our results further our understanding of the implications of specific experiences with
aggression by examining aggression exposure in three relationships. In extension of prior work
documenting poor long-term outcomes for parent and dating aggression (Chen, et al., 2018;
McDougall & Vaillancourt, 2015; Stith et al., 2000), we found experiences within these
interpersonal relationships to be related to negative cognitions (negative expectancies) later in
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

20
life. This finding is striking considering prior parent aggression and current negative
expectancies putatively involves generalization from relationships with parents to ongoing dating
relationships. Our data highlight rejection sensitivity as the underlying mechanism in this cross-
generational link. Other variables such as attachment also might be relevant factors. Although we
did not find significant links for peer aggression, that may be due to the relative salience of
aggression in parent relationships as contrasted with aggression in perhaps one (of many) peer
relationships. The lack of significance for peer relationships also may be an issue of power in
that the rates of peer aggression were lower overall and it marginally missed significance.
Overall, these results may indicate that regardless of the type of interpersonal relationship,
experiencing an aggressive relationship in general during an early developmental period has an
impact on how we think about future interpersonal interactions, specifically with romantic
partners.
Similar to past findings that demonstrate rejection sensitivity to mediate the relationship
between early adverse experiences and poor outcomes such as relationship avoidance (Feldman
& Downey, 2008), we found that rejection sensitivity to be an underlying mechanism in the
relationship between prior exposure to aggression and negative expectancies. Prior work in this
area has primarily examined rejection sensitivity as it relates to behavioral outcomes such as
withdrawing, reacting coldly, and behaving in a less communal manner (Downey et al., 1998;
Downey et al. 2000; Hafen et al., 2014; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010. Our study extends the
current work by examining negative expectancies as one cognitive outcome. Given that
cognitions have been shown to influence behaviors, these results provide an important
framework for better understanding how young adults anticipate and may navigate future couple
interactions.
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

21
Our study found that women endorsed higher rates of parent aggression and negative
expectancies compared to men, which is different from the McNulty and Karney (2004) finding
of no significant differences in women’s and men’s endorsement of negative expectancies among
married couples. Future explorations should investigate whether differences in rates of
expectancies very by gender and whether this varies by length of relationship. We also found that
women report more parental aggression. As found in Archer (2004), there are mixed findings
regarding the rates women and men report experiencing aggression while growing up. Gender
did not moderate any of our mediation models suggesting that rejection sensitivity does not
function differently for men and women in the association between aggression exposure and
expectancies. Though this study did not find gender to significantly moderate any of our
associations, our exploratory results expand our understanding of how common negative
expectancies are in young adult dating couples. Future investigations may benefit from testing
these moderations with a larger sample.
Limitations
This study does contain several limitations. First, the self-reports of exposure to
aggression are retrospective, which may be distorted by memory recall. Second, our aggression
measurements, although based on a number of items, does not differentiate by the type of
aggression experiences (i.e., physical vs psychological) or the frequency in which these
aggressive experiences occurred. Relatedly, we did not assess the age as when the aggression
experiences occurred (i.e., early childhood vs recent). Future research would benefit from
investigating whether the type of aggression, recency, and frequency of these experiences impact
young adult romantic relationships. Third, our measure of negative expectancy has been used in
only one prior study (Daspe et al., 2021), which involves the same participants. More
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

22
information about this measure for different samples would be useful. Fourth, rejection
sensitivity is a global measure that assesses rejection sensitivity in the context of various
interpersonal relationships. It is not specific to romantic couple interactions. As a future
direction, it would be useful to develop a measure that can capture rejection sensitivity that is
specific to romantic relationships, in particular with an individual’s current partner. Fifth,
although addressing our research questions with young adults offers insights into dating
relationships, these results cannot be generalized to other developmental periods, to more long
term or continued relationships, or to certain diverse groups (i.e., same-sex couples, non-
cisgender individuals).
Strengths and Implications
This study is the first to investigate the associations between exposure to aggression and
later negative expectancies in young adult dating couples. Prior research assessing negative
expectancies have exclusively studied married couples. Thus, our study augments the current
literature by providing unique insight into the romantic lives of young adult dating couples.
Further, this work may have key clinical implications for couple’s therapy. For example, if one
partner or both partners are struggling with holding negative expectancies prior to engaging in
conversations with their partner, this may lead to poorer partner exchanges and decreased
relationship satisfaction upon repetition of this pattern. Working on deconstructing these
maladaptive cognitions may serve as a target goal for couple’s therapy. Likewise, therapy can
also address rejection sensitivity, the mechanism identified here as linking aggression exposure
to negative expectancies. Overall, these findings have implications for couples therapy work with
young adult dating couples, specifically as it relates to negative cognitions each partner is
holding as they approach conversations with their partner. Understanding these negative
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

23
cognitions and how they develop may help inform clinicians as they support young adults to
develop and maintain healthy romantic relationships.

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

24

References
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world Settings: A meta-analytic
review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-
2680.8.4.291
Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent dating violence: Do adolescents follow in
their friends’, or their parents’, footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(2),
162–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260503260247
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis (1
st
ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of
aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575–582.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045925
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.51.6.1173
Bennett, D., Guran, E., Ramos, M., & Margolin, G. (2011). College students’ electronic
victimization in friendships and dating relationships: Anticipated distress and
associations with risky behaviors. Violence and Victims, 26(4), 410–429.
https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.26.4.410
Berenson, K.R., Gregory, W.E., Glaser, E., Romirowsky, A., Rafaeli, E. Yang, X., Downey, G.,
(2016). Impulsivity, rejection sensitivity, and reactions to stressors in borderline
personality disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 40, 510-521.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-015-9752-y
Berenson, K. R., Gyurak, A., Downey, G., Ayduk, O., Mogg, K., Bradley, B., & Pine, D. (2009).
Rejection sensitivity and disruption of attention by social threat cues. Journal of
Research in Personality, 43, 1064–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.07.007
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1991). A contextual model for advancing the study of
marital interaction. In Fletcher G.J.O., & F.D., Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close
relationships (p. 127–147). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Volume II: Separation, anxiety and anger. In
Attachment and Loss: Volume II: Separation, Anxiety and Anger (pp. 1-429). London:
The Hogarth press and the institute of psychoanalysis.
Buhs, E. S., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer rejection as antecedent of young children's school
adjustment: An examination of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology, 37(4),
550–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.550
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

25
Burgoon, J. K., Le Poire, B. A., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). Effects of pre-interaction expectancies
and target communication on perceiver reciprocity and compensation in dyadic
interaction. Journal of experimental social psychology, 31(4), 287-321.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1014
Caldeira, V., & Woodin, E. (2012). Childhood exposure to aggression and adult relationship
functioning: Depression and antisocial behavior as mediators. Journal of Family
Violence, 27(7), 687–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9453-1
Chen, M.S., Foshee, V. A., & Reyes, H. H. L. M. (2018). Dating Abuse: Prevalence,
Consequences, and Predictors. In Encyclopedia of Adolescence (pp. 856–876). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33228-4_51
Collibee, C., & Furman, W. (2016). Chronic and acute relational risk factors for dating
aggression in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
45(4), 763–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0427-0
Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2000). Competence in early adult
romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.79.2.224
Connolly, J., & Josephson, W. (2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: predictors
and prevention. The Prevention Researcher, 14(5), 3–6.
Corner, G. W., Saxbe, D. E., Chaspari, T., Rasmussen, H. F., Perrone, L., Pettit, C., Friendly, M.,
Timmons, A. C., & Margolin, G. (2019). Compassion in a heartbeat: Physiology during
couples’ loss discussions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(6),
1671–1694. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518770267
Crockett, L. J., & Randall, B. A. (2006). Linking adolescent family and peer relationships to the
quality of young adult romantic relationships: The mediating role of conflict tactics.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(5), 761–780.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506068262
Cui, M., Fincham, F., & Pasley, B. (2008). Young adult romantic relationships: The role of
parents’ marital problems and relationship efficacy. Personality & Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34(9), 1226–1235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208319693
Daspe, M.-È., Arbel, R., Rasmussen, H. F., & Margolin, G. (2021). Dating aggression and
observed behaviors in a nonconflictual situation: The role of negative anticipation.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211035877
Davila, J., Capaldi, D. M., & La Greca, A. M. (2016). Adolescent/ young adult romantic
relationships and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental
psychopathology (pp. 631–664). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

26
Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R., & Price, J. M.
(2003). Peer rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of
aggressive behavior problems in children. Child development, 74(2), 374–393.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.7402004
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327–1343.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327
Downey, G., Feldman, S., & Ayduk, O. (2000). Rejection sensitivity and male violence in
romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 7(1), 45–61.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00003.x
Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in
close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.75.2.545
Downey, G., Khouri, H., & Feldman, S. (1997). Early interpersonal trauma and later adjustment:
The mediational role of rejection sensitivity. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.),
Developmental perspectives on trauma: Theory, research, and intervention. Rochester
symposium on developmental psychology, Vol. 8 (pp. 85– 114). Rochester, NY:
Rochester University Press.
Erozkan, A. (2009). Rejection sensitivity levels with respect to attachment styles, gender, and
parenting styles: A study with Turkish students. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 37(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.1.1
Evans, S. E., Davies, C., & DiLillo, D. (2008). Exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis
of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression and violent behavior, 13(2), 131-
140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.02.005
Feldman, S., & Downey, G. (1994). Rejection sensitivity as a mediator of the impact of
childhood exposure to family violence on adult attachment behavior. Development and
Psychopathology, 6(1), 231-247. doi:10.1017/S0954579400005976
Feldman, S., Gowen, L., & Fisher, L. (1998). Family relationships and gender as predictors of
romantic intimacy in young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 8(2), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0802_5
Fincham, F. D., Garnier, P. C., Gano-Phillips, S., & Osborne, L. N. (1995). Pre-interaction
expectations, marital satisfaction, and accessibility: A new look at sentiment override.
Journal of Family Psychology, 9(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.9.1.3
Hafen, C. A., Spilker, A., Chango, J., Marston, E. S., & Allen, J. P. (2014). To accept or reject?
The impact of adolescent rejection sensitivity on early adult romantic relationships.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12081
EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

27
Hertzman, C. (1999). The biological embedding of early experience and its effects on health
in adulthood. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896(1), 85–95.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08107.x
Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship:
Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology,
35(1), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.94
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science
(New York, N.Y.), 241(4865), 540–545. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3399889
Jones, E. E. (1986). Interpreting interpersonal behavior: The effects of expectancies. Science,
234(4772), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.234.4772.41
Kazmierski, K. F. M., Beam, C. R., & Margolin, G. (2021). Family aggression and attachment
avoidance influence neuroendocrine reactivity in young adult couples. Journal of Family
Psychology, 34(6), 664–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000633
Lichter, E. L., & McCloskey, L. A. (2004). The effects of childhood exposure to marital violence
on adolescent gender-role beliefs and dating violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
28(4), 344-357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00151.x
London, B., Downey, G., Bonica, C., & Paltin, I. (2007). Social causes and consequences of
rejection sensitivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(3), 481–506.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00531.x
MacEwen, K. E. (1994). Refining the intergenerational transmission hypothesis. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 9(3), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626094009003005
Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. (2000). The effects of family and community violence on children.
Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 445–479.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.445
Marston, E. G., Hare, A., & Allen, J. P. (2010). Rejection sensitivity in late adolescence: Social
and emotional sequelae. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(4), 959-982.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00675.x
Maslow, A. H. (1981). Motivation and personality. Prabhat Prakashan.
McDougall, P., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Long-term adult outcomes of peer victimization in
childhood and adolescence: Pathways to adjustment and maladjustment. American
Psychologist, 70(4), 300–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039174
McLachlan, J., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & McGregor, L. (2010). Rejection sensitivity in
childhood and early adolescence: Peer rejection and protective effects of parents and
friends. Journal of Relationships Research, 1(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1375/jrr.1.1.31

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

28
McNaughton Reyes, H. L., Foshee, V. A., Chen, M. S., Gottfredson, N. C., & Ennett, S. T.
(2018). Consequences of Involvement in Distinct Patterns of Adolescent Peer and Dating
Violence. Journal of youth and adolescence, 47(11), 2371–2383.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0902-x
McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Expectancy confirmation in appraisals of marital
interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 764–775.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289006
McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Positive expectations in the early years of marriage:
Should couples expect the best or brace for the worst? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 86(5), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.729
Meehan, K. B., Cain, N. M., Roche, M. J., Clarkin, J. F., & De Panfilis, C. (2018). Rejection
sensitivity and interpersonal behavior in daily life. Personality and Individual
Differences, 126, 109-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.029
Mendes, W. B., Gray, H. M., Mendoza-Denton, R., Major, B., & Epel, E. S. (2007). Why
egalitarianism might be good for your health: physiological thriving during stressful
intergroup encounters. Psychological science, 18(11), 991–998.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02014.x
Moffitt, T. (2013). Childhood exposure to violence and lifelong health: clinical intervention
science and stress-biology research join forces. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4
Pt 2), 1619–1634. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000801
O'Leary, K. D., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2003). A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating
aggression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32(3), 314–327.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3203_01
Poole, J. C., Dobson, K. S., & Pusch, D. (2017). Childhood adversity and adult depression: The
protective role of psychological resilience. Child Abuse & Neglect, 64, 89–100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.12.012
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects
in simple mediation models. Behavior research methods, instruments, &
computers, 36(4), 717-731.
Purdie, V., & Downey, G. (2000). Rejection sensitivity and adolescent girls’ vulnerability to
relationship-centered difficulties. Child Maltreatment, 5(4), 338–349.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559500005004005
Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Berenson, K., Ayduk, O., & Kang, N. J. (2010). Rejection
sensitivity and the rejection-hostility link in romantic relationships. Journal of
personality, 78(1), 119–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00611.x

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

29
Schoebi, D., Perrez, M., & Bradbury, T. N. (2012). Expectancy effects on marital interaction:
Rejection sensitivity as a critical moderator. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(5), 709–
718. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029444
Schwebel, A. I., & Fine, M. A., (2014). Understanding and helping families: A
cognitive-behavioral approach. Routledge.
Shulman, S., & Connolly, J. (2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging
adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 27–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812467330
Silverman, Raj, A., Mucci, L. A., & Hathaway, J. E. (2001). Dating violence against
adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk
behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical
Association, 286(5), 572–579. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.5.572
Straus, M. (2017). Physical violence in American families. Routledge.
Stith, S., Rosen, K., Middleton, K., Busch, A., Lundeberg, K., & Carlton, R. (2000). The
intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 62(3), 640-654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00640.x
Storch, E. A., & Ledley, D. R. (2005). Peer victimization and psychosocial adjustment in
children: Current knowledge and future directions. Clinical Pediatrics, 44(1), 29–38.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000992280504400103
Vissing, Y. M., Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1991). Verbal aggression by
parents and psychosocial problems of children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15(3), 223–
238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(91)90067-N
Xia, M., Fosco, G. M., Lippold, M. A., & Feinberg, M. E. (2018). A developmental perspective
on young adult romantic relationships: Examining family and individual factors in
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(7), 1499–1516.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0815-8

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

30
Table 1
Sociodemographic characteristics.

Variables

Mean (SD) or %
Age in years

23.31 (1.99)
Ethnicity in %

Asian

11.6
Black/African American

15.1
Caucasian

28.4
Multi-racial

15.9
Hispanic/Latino

25.0
Other

3.9
Relationship Duration in months

29.96 (23.55)
Couple Cohabitation (% yes)

43.1

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

31
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of main variables

Full Sample (n=232)

Women (n=116)

Men (n=116)

Variable M (SD)

Min

Max

M (SD)

M (SD)

Parent Aggression 7.64 (6.81)

0.00

27.00

9.07 (7.38)
a

6.22 (5.90)
a

Dating Aggression 4.24 (5.14)

0.00

27.00

4.61 (5.10)

3.90 (5.20)

Peer Aggression 3.52 (5.00)

0.00

22.00

3.70 (5.14)

3.34 (4.80)

Rejection Sensitivity 5.90 (3.90)

1.00

23.57

6.00 (4.02)

5.73 (3.73)

Negative Expectancies 3.01 (1.20)

1.00

7.00

3.20 (1.12)
b

2.84 (1.20)
b

Note. Matching superscripts indicate significant gender differences.

a
p = .001.
b
p = .012.

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

32
Table 3
Bivariate Correlations of main study variables for full sample

1

2

3

4
1. Parent Aggression --

2. Dating Aggression .24
**
--

3. Peer Aggression .23
**
.54
**
--

4. Rejection Sensitivity .26
**
.20
**
.08 --
5. Negative Expectancies .13
*
.13
*
.08 .28
**

Note. Dashed lines indicate a correlation of 1.0.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

33

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

34
Table 5
Multi-level model analyses examining the association between exposure to aggression and
negative expectancies during the change discussion (N = 232).
Parent
Aggression
Dating
Aggression
Peer
Aggression

b SE b SE b SE
Intercept 2.50*** 0.38 2.66*** 0.37 2.62*** 0.37
Age 0.13** 0.04 0.12** 0.04 0.13** 0.04
Gender -0.30* 0.13 -0.35** 0.13 -0.36** 0.13
Race/Ethnicity -0.01 0.04 -0.02 0.04 -0.01 0.04
Couple Cohabitation -0.17 0.17 -0.20 0.17 -0.16 0.17
Relationship Length 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
Parent Aggression 0.03* 0.01 -- -- -- --
Dating Aggression -- -- 0.03* 0.05 -- --
Peer Aggression -- -- -- -- 0.03 0.02

Note. Dashed lines indicate this variable was not included in the model.
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

35
Figure 1
Multi-level mediation analyses examining rejection sensitivity as a mediator for the association
between aggression and negative expectancies.

a) Parent Aggression Model

b) Dating Aggression Model

EXPOSURE TO AGGRESSION AND EXPECTANCIES

36
c). Peer Aggression Model

Note. Model a for parent aggression; Model b for dating aggression; Model c for peer aggression).
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Romantic relationships are a core feature of healthy young adult development (Feldman et al., 1998). Prior work shows that adverse experiences with relationships during key developmental periods are linked to relationship problems in adulthood. With cognitions shown to impact behaviors and emotions, greater understanding of negative relationship expectancies and its precipitants may yield new insight on romantic relationship difficulties. The present study investigates sources of negative expectancies prior to a relationship discussion in a sample of 116 young adult romantic couples. We test whether prior experiences with parent, peer, and dating aggression are associated with negative expectancies prior to a discussion with an adult romantic partner discussions about desired changes in the relationship. We also test rejection sensitivity as a mechanism linking anticipated associations between aggression exposure and expectancies. Multilevel analyses showed that parent and dating aggression, but not peer aggression were associated with negative expectancies prior to an emotionally evoking discussion task about desired relationship change. Additionally, rejection sensitivity mediated associations between both parent and dating partner aggression and negative expectancies. Findings suggest that individuals who have early adverse experiences within interpersonal relationships are more likely to anticipate negative interactions with their romantic partner in dating relationships during young adulthood. Results also highlight rejection sensitivity as a key mechanism of this process. Taken together, these findings help to explain why some individuals have difficulty in approaching emotionally evoking conversations with their romantic partner

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

You always say that: physical aggression perpetration, linguistic behavior, and conflict intensity in young adult dating couples

PDF

Family aggression, prosocial friends, and the risk of dating and friend victimization in late adolescence

PDF

Pregnancy in the time of COVID-19: effects on perinatal mental health, birth, and infant development

PDF

Couples’ neuroendocrine activity in response to family conflict discussions: the role of self-reported anger and previous marital aggression

PDF

Prenatal predictors of parental sensitivity in first-time mothers and fathers

PDF

Young adult dating couple interactions in daily life: links to family aggression and physiological processes

PDF

Investigating discrimination and depression within a couple context

PDF

The physiology of compassion in couples’ discussions about loss

PDF

Links between discrimination and sleep difficulties: romantic relationships as risk and resilience factors

PDF

Family aggression exposure and community violence exposure associated with brain volume in late adolescence: a comparison of automated versus manual segmentation

PDF

Spouse aggression, depression, and physical health: a multivariate longitudinal study of midlife couples

PDF

The relationship between dating status and academic and social functioning among Latinx and Asian-American middle adolescents

PDF

An investigation of the factors associated with electronic aggression among college students

PDF

How parental psychological control is related to adolescent anger and aggression

PDF

Examining the longitudinal relationships between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior among a sample of maltreated and non-maltreated adolescents

PDF

Measuring narcissistic cognitions in response to relationship threat using articulated thoughts in simulated situations

PDF

Couple conflict during pregnancy: Do early family adversity and oxytocin play a role?

PDF

Exploring exposures: provider perspectives of CBT with underserved, diverse youth in-person and via telehealth

PDF

Family conflict, negative mood, and adolescents' daily problems in school

PDF

Projection on outgroups: complementary projection in aversive intergroup contexts

Asset Metadata

Creator Beale, Alexis Marie (author)

Core Title Prior exposure to aggression and young adults' negative expectancies about romantic partner discussions

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 07/23/2022

Defense Date 04/27/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag aggression,cognitions,dating couples,negative expectancies,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Margolin, Gayla (committee chair), Beam, Christopher (committee member), West, Amy (committee member)

Creator Email abeale@terpmail.umd.edu,abeale@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111374349

Unique identifier UC111374349

Legacy Identifier etd-BealeAlexi-10939

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Beale, Alexis Marie

Type texts

Source 20220728-usctheses-batch-962 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu