PONE-D-19-17219

WHY ARE EMERGING ADULTS ANXIOUS AND AVOIDANT IN THEIR ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS? THE ROLE OF FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

PLOS ONE

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 08/23/19. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luca Cerniglia, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please update the ethics statement in the Methods section (and Procedure section) of your manuscript file to remove the word "Blinded" and replace with the named IRB that approved your study.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “Why are emerging adults anxious and avoidant in their romantic relationships? The role of family relationships”.

This study aimed to explore the relationships which exist between family functioning and the anxiety and avoidance dimensions of attachment during emerging adulthood

The results are interesting but I think that, in order to be able to publish them, several revisions are necessary. Furthermore, I strongly recommend a proofreading from a native speaker and an academic service for the global structure of the manuscript. Please find below some comments.

Major revisions

In different parts of the text, confusion is made between several terms: “attachment models” “attachment styles” and “behaviors in relationships” or “romantic attachment”. These terms refer to very different constructs and it is important to clarify what is referred to in this study. What has been evaluated? The questionnaire Experience of close relationships does not assess individual attachment models attachment and it is important to clarify it in the text.

Moreover, authors stated that the study “aim to explore the relationships which exist between family functioning…”. However, family functioning has not been evaluated. What has been evaluated is the subjective perception of some parental behaviors.

Procedure

As regard to the sample of the study, it is composed of university students who have attended the second semester of lessons. Although their age coincides with that of "emerging adults", it should be specified (also in the title) that the sample is composed of university students and therefore is not so generalizable to all emerging adults.

Has written informed consent been obtained?

Results

Does Table 2 contain the Pearson coefficients?

If so, the values are extremely low. It is possible that the correlation is significant (given the sample size), but it must be considered that these coefficients have extremely low values.

In the Table 3 it would be important to enter the values of Adjusted R. Again, it should be noted that the R values are very low.

With respect to moderation analyses, it would be necessary to insert the values of the analyses, first of all the value of R change. Furthermore it would be necessary to insert the values of Δ.

Limitations

it is important to underline the low values of these analyses in the limitations. As highlighted by the authors, they may depend on the fact that they are retrospective data, but also that there are variables that have not been considered. Moreover, it is important to underline that these results are not to be generalized to all emerging adults, but concern a sample of university students.

Reviewer #2: Dear Editor, thank you for the opportunity of revising this manuscript titled “Why are emerging adults anxious and avoidant in their romantic relationships? The role of family relationships”. The study took in consideration, in a large sample of university students, the possible relationships between perceived family functioning and the anxiety and avoidance dimensions of romantic attachment during emerging adulthood. I read the article with interest and I believe that this is an interesting manuscript, adding scientific knowledge to previous literature and potentially impacting research in the field. The study is clear and well written. Introduction and Discussion section are comprehensive and effectively guide the reader through the topic.

I suggest the authors to address some minor points:

Abstract;

I suggest to insert a brief conclusion section in the abstract.

Introduction:

The study is specifically focused on the emerging adulthood, considering the role played by family functioning in the anxiety and avoidance dimensions of young adults’ romantic attachment.

The authors have well explained that emerging adulthood is a developmental stage with evolutionary tasks and phase-specific characteristics different from both adolescence and adulthood.

Moreover, the authors have reviewed very clearly the results of previous literature which have pointed out that the family dimensions being studied (i.e., parental warmth, support and family control family control) have a different effect on the individual in adolescence compared to young adults. So, given that the study took in consideration a sample of youths between 18 and 29 years old, I think it would be helpful to clarify the theoretical model on which the authors are based the definition of “emerging adulthood” respect to late adolescence stage.

This is not a longitudinal study, so authors should clarify already in the introduction because, and on the basis of which literature, it is possible to draw cause-effect conclusions in retrospective or cross-sectional studies.

Methods

What were the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of subjects?

The psychometric properties of the original version of the instruments and of the Spanish version have been reported for all instruments.

I suggest to better described the instrument Experience of close relationships. On the base of what criterion subjects obtain high or low scores of anxiety/avoidance? Is there a Likert scale? There is a cut-off?

In the subsection “Data analyses” it’s important to specify more precisely the type of analysis carried out. For example, the results show that an analysis of the difference between the averages of males and females was carried out. Was an ANOVA conducted? This should be specified (also in the result section). Similarly, are the correlation analyses conducted Pearson correlational analyses?

The age of the sample varies from 18 to 29 years of age. As the age range is very wide, has the possible effect of age been considered?

Results and discussion

At line 215 authors said that “romantic partner attachment was studied in terms of its association with

the variables under study”. I suggest that you refer to “family variable” under study

In the regression model, have you considered the possible role played by gender? I think this aspect is important, given that men were found to be more avoidant than women

One of the main interesting results was that parental behavioral control moderates the relationship between parental warmth and anxiety. The authors should enrich the discussion of this aspect, providing a theoretical hypothesis underlying this interesting finding. It would also be useful to broaden the conclusions, with the implications for further research.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Why are undergraduate emerging adults anxious and avoidant in their romantic relationships? The role of family relationships

PONE-D-19-17219R1

Dear Authors,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Luca Cerniglia, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: