Parent Aggression Exposure and Negative Expectancies in Couple Conversation: Rejection Sensitivity as a Mediator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Exposure to aggression during childhood or adolescence has been linked to negative outcomes, including poor future romantic relationship functioning. As a step toward understanding such intergenerational influences, the present study investigates whether aggression exposure in the family-of-origin is associated with negative expectancies of romantic partner interactions when facing a challenging couple discussion. Rejection sensitivity is tested as a mediator of this association, and gender was explored as a potential moderator. Method Negative expectancies were assessed before a 10-minute discussion about desired changes in the relationship in a sample of young adult dating couples. To test the theorized relationship between variables, the study employed self-report measures of parent aggression, rejection sensitivity, and negative expectancies. Results Multilevel analyses showed that exposure to family-of-origin aggression was positively associated with negative expectancies about the upcoming change discussion task, even after controlling for dating aggression within the current relationship. Additionally, rejection sensitivity mediated the association between parent aggression and negative expectancies. Gender did not moderate these associations. Conclusions Findings suggest that individuals who experience aggression in their family-of-origin are more likely to anticipate negative interactions with their dating partner 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 negative expectancies as they approach difficult discussions with a romantic partner, which may be a putative link in the intergenerational continuity of aggression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".