Being a Stepparent: Live-In and Visiting Stepchildren

Author(s): Anne-Marie Ambert

Source: Journal of Marriage and Family , Nov., 1986, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Nov., 1986), pp.
795-804
Published by: National Council on Family Relations

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/352572

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of Marriage and Family

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.250 on Tue, 17 May 2022 10:47:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Being a Stepparent: Live-in and
Visiting Stepchildren

ANNE-MARIE AMBERT
York University, Canada

Quantitative and qualitative data are presented to document certain aspects of

perience of stepparenting in a subsample of 109 stepparents. A focus is placed on
of residence of stepchildren as a variable affecting stepparents' marital life, attac
stepchildren, and stepchildren 's relationships with stepparents' own children. For
ple, the stepparenting experience, particularly for stepmothers, was a more po
with live-in stepchildren than with those who live elsewhere. Stepsiblings' rela
also more positive when they lived together rather than visited. The arrival of a c
to the remarried couple had a different impact on the stepparent-stepchild rel
depending on the gender of the stepparent and the stepchild's locale of residen

Studies of divorce and remarriage have minority of stepmothers live with their stepchil-
largely
neglected what it means to be a stepparent dren (Glick,
and1980, 1984).'
how it affects one's life, especially one's Themarital
focus of inquiry in the present study is on
life. It is only recently that researchers and the structural aspects of stepparenting. There are
research-oriented clinicians have focused on this three basic, although not exhaustive, structural
topic, generally as part of studies of the entire stepparenting situations in terms of where the
reconstituted family system and, occasionally, stepchildren
as are living: (a) stepchildren live with
"how-to" books (Brown, 1982; Burgoyne and stepparent; (b) stepchildren live with the other
Clark, 1984; Jacobson, 1979; Maddox, 1975; parent; (c) stepchildren live on their own. Each of
Messinger, 1976; Robinson, 1980; Visher and these living arrangements carries behavioral and
Visher, 1979). A majority of the published studies attitudinal possibilities (see also Clingempeel,
on stepkin relationships have placed a heavy em-Ievoli, and Brand, 1984).
phasis on the experience of stepchildren, especial- Under current custody arrangements, more
ly with their stepfathers (Bohannan, 1975; Ferri,male stepparents experience a live-in stepchild,
1984; Harper, 1984; McCormick, 1974; Perkins while more female stepparents experience a visit-
and Kahan, 1979; Railings, 1976; Stern, 1978). ing stepchild (Glick, 1980). In a majority of the
Fewer studies have focused on stepmothers existing studies referred to earlier, structural
(Bowerman and Irish, 1962; Duberman, 1973; situations are not adequately explored. For in-
Visher and Visher, 1979), perhaps because only astance, we do not know if stepfathers who have
visiting stepchildren are better accepted and ac-
The research for this study was supported by a leave cept their role better than stepfathers who have
fellowship from the Social Science and Humanities live-in stepchildren. On the female side, there are
Research Council of Canada (1984-85), by a SSHRCC many indications that the role of stepmothers may
Faculty of Arts research grant (1984-85), and by a be more difficult than that of stepfathers (Bower-
Faculty of Arts research grant, York University man and Irish, 1962; Burgoyne and Clark, 1982b;
(1985-86). The author gratefully acknowledges the feed-Fishman and Hamel, 1981; Visher and Visher,
back received during a colloquium at the Child Care and 1979), but we do not know how stepfathers and
Development Unit at the University of Cambridge, May
stepmothers compare under the two structural
1985, as well as the helpful comments of two anony-
mous reviewers. situations of visiting and live-in stepchildren (e.g.,
see Duberman, 1973). Unfortunately, obtaining a
Department of Sociology, York University, North sufficiently large and representative sample of
York, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3. live-in stepmothers to compare with live-in step-

Journal of Marriage and the Family 48 (November 1986): 795-804 795.

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.250 on Tue, 17 May 2022 10:47:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 796 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

fathers is very difficult because the former situa- METHODS

tion occurs only rarely.
Sample
Another structural variable is whether the new
marriage has produced a child or children.2 How
does this affect the stepparenting experience? 3 of a threC-wave longitudinal and cross-sectional
Again, this question can be answered fully only study of divorced and remarried persons. In
when considered in relation to the first set of
structural variables, that is, where the stepchil-
dren live. A third variable concerns whether the
stepparents also had children from a previous
marriage and where those children live. The most
frequent occurrence is for men to have live-in
stepchildren while their own children live with
their mothers. These men not only experience
disruption in the structure of their paternal role
but are suddenly vested with a new set of children
who "belong" to their new wives. They havebut
devote some time to their stepchildren (if only families
the reason of their being present), while they may
resent not being able to see their own children
more often (see Duberman, 1973; Messinger,their ex-spouses were also interviewed, thus bring-
1984). They may have to support both their live-in
stepchildren and their own children, and may suf-
fer from many conflicts of loyalty (Messinger,
1976).
We would expect, however, that live-in step-
mothers who do not have the custody of their own
children will suffer from even more conflicts,
because such women are often stigmatized in our
society (Duberman, 1973: 287; Spanier and
Thompson, 1984: 78). In addition, when women
opt to leave their children in the custody of their parents who form the basis of this report.
ex-husbands because they wish to be free from the
daily duties of their maternal role, they may not
be so likely to remarry custodial fathers.3 The
statistical chance that such a double anomaly will
occur in a remarriage (a noncustodial mother
married to a custodial father) is slim, which makes had been married or remarried for slightly over
it even more problematic to study.
The purpose of this report is to examine the
diversity and complexity of the structure of the
stepparenting experience by combining quantita-
tive and qualitative data. Two key areas in the ex-
perience of stepparenting are examined: step-
parents' reported marital life and their perceived
relationship with their stepchildren. These two
sets of dependent variables are studied in conjunc-
tion with stepchildren's locale of residence (live-in
stepchildren; stepchildren living with other
parent; and stepchildren living on their own), as
well as several other variables, namely, where
stepparents' children from a previous marriage
live and whether there are children born to the
remarriage. Also examined are stepsiblings' rela-
tionships as perceived by stepparents. Because
many of these issues concern potential gender dif-
ferences, the analysis of the data is carried out
along gender lines.
The data presented here were gathered at Time
1978--80 (Time 1), 49 separated or divorced per-
sons who were not remarried were interviewed in
depth within a semistructured format. The sample
was of the snowball type but excluded friends,
was not biased by self-selection, and was not
clinical. (Additional details on the sample may be
found in Ambert, 1982.) The 26 men and 23
women
a had then been separated an average of
over two years; only 12 were childless. Because of
the design requirements of the Time 1 phase, all
to one of the children in these single-parent
for had to be of school age and living at
home (age range: 3 to 19). In 1981, or at Time 2,
48 of the 49 respondents were reinterviewed and
ing the sample to 98 respondents.
In 1984, 96 of these persons were reinterviewed
while a questionnaire was given to their new
spouses when applicable. When the new spouse
had been divorced, his or her own ex-spouse was
sought and interviewed while, once again, a ques-
tionnaire was given this person's new spouse when
applicable, so as to study networks of divorced
and formerly divorced persons. Thus, at Time 3,
252 respondents were reached, including 109 step-
The average age of the 109 stepparents was 36-
40.5 for men and 36 for women who were remar-
ried, and 34 and 30, respectively for the men and
women who were in their first marriage (as
spouses of remarried persons). The stepparents
two years on average. In terms of social class,
there was an overrepresentation of interviewees at
the upper echelons because the Time 1 sample had
included more men and women in the higher-SES
brackets as a result of purposive oversampling of
career women and of custodial fathers, who
tended to be in a higher-SES category.4
Data Collection
The interviews addressed the following demo-
graphic questions: whether a married person was
a stepparent; where the stepchildren lived;
whether there were children born from the remar-
riage; whether the stepparent was also a parent
from a previous marriage, and where these chil-
dren lived.
Several questions measuring the perceived
quality of the stepparents' marital relationship
were included: marital happiness; satisfaction
with spouse; and perception of spouse's satisfac-

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.250 on Tue, 17 May 2022 10:47:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LIVE-IN AND VISITING STEPCHILDREN 797

tion with the respondent. Two other indicators measures forofthe marital relationship and the
the stepparenting experience consisted, first, feelings
stepparents' in for their stepchildren that
asking respondents if they would be "happier, less
were significantly affected by locale of residence
happy, or the same" if they did not have stepchil- but not for stepfathers.
for stepmothers
dren and, second, if they would get along Many of with
the stepfathers in this sample were
their spouse "better, less well, or not married differently"
to the stepmothers they are compared to
without stepchildren. In a section dealing because,with
as indicated earlier, both spouses of a
potential sources of conflict between the remarriage
spouses,were interviewed. Also, because both
one question dealt with conflicts engendered by a divorce were also interviewed,
ex-spouses from
one's stepchildren (spouses always agree manyabout
stepfathers had formerly been married to
stepchildren = 1; always disagree = 5). some of the stepmothers, and vice versa. Thus,
In addition, the interviews allowed us because stepmothers and stepfathers often
to explore
the stepparents' feeling for their stepchildren; belonged tothepairs, the data are dependent. The
stepparents' perception of how closetests their rela-
of significance have to be viewed with this
tionship with their stepchildren was, limitation and percep-in addition to the limitation imposed by
tions of their stepchildren's feelings toward the nature of the sample.
them.5 When the stepparents also were parents
from a previous marriage, four questions focused RESULTS
on the interrelations of these two sets of children:
how they get along, how often they quarrel, howMarital Relationship
they feel about each other, and whether the step- The results of the analysis for the marital rel
parents' own children would be happier without tionship are detailed in Table 1. Only the one-w
stepsiblings. Qualitative data were elicited ANOVAs and chi-squares that are statistically si
throughout the interviews by asking the respon- nificant are presented. (Two-way ANOVAs' m
dents, "Could you talk about this?" or "Now effect for residence were statistically significa
that you've answered all these questions about when one-way ANOVAs by residence were for
your stepchildren, I'd like to hear about this in women.) Stepchildren's locale of residence was
your own words" or "I see you're happy [un- significantly related to six of the eight indicators
happy] about this. Do you care to tell me more?"of marital relationship for stepmothers. The
results for stepfathers were nonsignificant and
Data Analysis
mixed, in that some followed the direction of the
Because of the small cell sizes resulting from theresults for stepmothers while others did not.
several concurrent structural variables, the data Thus, stepmothers who lived with their stepchil-
pertaining to the respondents' stepchildren dren reported a very high level of marital happi-
and/or own children from a previous marriageness and were totally satisfied with their spouses
and the remarriage are analyzed qualitatively after an average of two years of remarriage. These
only. The qualitative data serve to illustrate and stepmothers also believed that their husbands
complement the statistical data and bring addi- were satisfied with them. The stepmothers who
tional understanding of the processes involved in reported getting along best with their husbands
the experience of stepparenting. Indeed, such were these same stepmothers with live-in stepchil-
processes can best be understood and explained dren.
through qualitative material, which presents a In contrast, when stepchildren were relatively
more global perspective as opposed to the less young (from 2 to 12 years old) and lived with the
fluid results of statistical analyses. other parent, stepmothers were less happy
The quantitative analyses in this study include maritally and had more conflicts with their
two-way ANOVAs that were performed for each husbands. They did not feel appreciated by their
indicator of the two variables of marital relation- husbands, nor did they appreciate them as much.
ship and the stepparents' feelings for their step- While stepfathers were not as affected by stepchil-
children in order to test for interaction (gender bydren's locale of residence, for them the ideal situa-
locale of residence). Only one interaction proved tion was when the stepchildren were on their
to be significant. In addition, because of the smallown.6
cell sizes for certain categories of stepparents Nearly one-third of stepparents with live-in
(such as for stepfathers with live-out stepchil-stepchildren but over half of those with stepchil-
dren), we chose to rely on one-way ANOVAs by dren living with the other parent felt that they
residence for each gender separately. Because would get long better with their spouse without
there was no main effect for gender, one-waystepchildren and that their marriage would be
ANOVAs had the advantage of highlighting those happier. The qualitative material presented below

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.250 on Tue, 17 May 2022 10:47:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
798 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

TABLE 1. STEPPARENTS' MARITAL RELATIONSHIP BY STEPCHILDREN'S RESIDENCE AND GENDER OF STEPPARENT

Stepchildren Stepchildren Live Stepchildren Live

Live with Subject with Other Parent on Their Own
Men Women Men Women Men Women
Stepparents' Marital Relationship n = 37 n = 10 n -- 5 n = 42 n = 6 n = 9
1. Marital happiness:
1 = high, 5 = low 1.32 1.20 1.40 2.00 1.33 1.89
2. Satisfaction with spouse:
1 = high, 5 = low 1.32 1.00 1.20 2.26 1.17 2.00
3. Perception of spouse's satisfaction
with self: 1 = high, 5 = low 1.30 1.00 1.80 1.57 1.17 1.22
4. Getting along with spouse:
1 = poor, 4 = well 3.13 3.50 3.00 2.71 3.50 3.33
5. Frequency of arguments with spouse:
1 = many, 4 = none 2.92 3.30 2.80 2.60 3.67 3.11
6. Agreement on spouse's children:
1 = always agree, 5 = never agree 1.81 1.90 1.60 2.29 1.33 1.78
7. Marriage would be happier without
stepchildren: % happier 227o 30% 60% 54% 20% 22%
8. If no stepchildren, would get along
with spouse better: % better 30% 30% 40% 40% 20% 22%
Note: 1. One-way ANOVA for women: F = 2.485, p < .092
2. Two-way ANOVA, interaction: F= 3.07, p < .051
One-way ANOVA for women: F = 4.050, p < .023
3. One-way ANOVA for women: F = 3.453, p < .038
4. One-way ANOVA for women: F = 3.643, p < .032
5. One-way ANOVA for women: F = 3.153,p < .050
6. ns
7. Chi-square for women = 11.2075,
4 df, p < .024
8. ns

expresses the stepparenting dilemma quite well. anomaly also led wives to feel more "appreci-
When the stepchildren lived with the other parent, ated" because they contributed to raising "my
the stepparents tended to feel that their marriage husband's children." They knew that the situa-
would be happier without these stepchildren who tion was unusual in that few divorced men have
came in for disquieting visits and whose other custody of their children. These wives felt closer
parent often ruined the peace. However, men to their husbands and feared the ex-wives' in-
whose stepchildren lived with the other biological fluence and criticism much less than if their hus-
parent felt that they disagreed slightly less with bands' children were with the ex-wives. The new
their spouse about the stepchildren than when wives unavoidably compared themselves to the ex-
they lived with them. wives and felt superior. The husbands' negative
The following is a summary of the qualitative appraisal of the children's mothers reflected well
material that was gathered in interviews regarding on the live-in stepmothers. In spite of the above
these relationships. While it was not generally advantages, and in spite of their high scores in
easy for either a man or a woman to raise, sup- Table 1, stepmothers also reflected a great deal of
port, and care for live-in stepchildren, the live-in ambivalence about having live-in stepchildren.
situation was felt to be a less divisive one than
when the children lived with the other parent and
Relationship with Stepchildren
came for visits. In the former situation, the newAs shown in Table 2, both stepmothers and
couples mentioned that they had more control
stepfathers developed a closer and deeper rela-
tionship with their live-in stepchildren than with
and were less at the mercy of the ex-spouses, while
the stepchildren became part of the households stepchildren living elsewhere. Thus, while step-
rather than occasional and at times disruptive children's locale of residence was not related to
guests. Moreover, when fathers had custody and stepfathers' marital life, it was related to their
remarried, a great deal more planning was feelings toward their stepchildren. Despite the
reportedly done to ensure the stability of the unitshigher positive scores of live-in stepmothers
than if they did not have custody. This stems inshown in Table 2, these women were nonetheless
part from the anomaly of the situation. This ambivalent toward their live-in stepchildren, as

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.250 on Tue, 17 May 2022 10:47:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LIVE-IN AND VISITING STEPCHILDREN 799

TABLE 2. STEPPARENTS' RELATIONSHIP WITH STEPCHILDREN BY STEPCHILDREN'S RESIDENCE AND STEPPAREN 'S'
GENDER

Stepchildren Stepchildren Live Stepchildren Live

Live with Subject with Other Parent on Their Own
Stepparents' Relationship Men Women Men Women Men Women
with Stepchildren n = 37 n = 10 n = 5 n = 43 n = 6 n = 9
1. Closeness of relationship with step-
children: 0 = very close, 8 = no
contact 1.21 1.00 4.60 4.61 4.00 2.11

2. Feelings about stepchildren:

0 = love them, 8 = no contact 0.68 0.80 3.60 2.71 1.60 1.67
3. Perceived stepchildren's feelings
about self: 0 = love me, 8 = no
contact 1.08 0.90 3.80 3.13 2.60 2.67

Note: 1. One-way ANOVA for men: F = 9.327, p < .000

One-way ANOVA for women:
F= 11.212,p < .000
2. One-way ANOVA for men: F = 13.352, p < .000
One-way ANOVA for women: F= 4.173, p < .021
3. One-way ANOVA for men: F = 5.609, p < .007
One-way ANOVA for women: F = 4.868, p < .011

expressed in the following quotation from an It in-

was also noticeable in the interviews that
terview: stepfathers with live-in stepchildren talked about
[One stepmother reports liking her stepson:] them
I less than did similar stepmothers, probably a
would choose him if I were asked to choose a reflection of the fact that stepmothers spent more
time in close proximity to their live-in stepchildren
stepson. He's a nice boy, very nice, mannered,
not difficult. But I find it hard to take care of than did stepfathers with live-in stepchildren.
another woman's son and I have to keep tellingWhen stepfathers talked about their live-in step-
myself that he is my husband's son. I don't think children, it was generally in relation to the con-
it's fair because she never babysits for me and I
flicts of loyalty vis-a-vis their biological children
always do for her. She likes her freedom but it who did not live with them.
seems to me that she's having it at our expense.
After the birth of our first child my husband told
her that . . . her son's weekends would have to
So long as you have stepchildren you might as
be more regular because I needed the rest with well have them with you, otherwise it's too com-
the baby. I think they worked it out but you see it
plicated. It would be more simple if I had my
is a problem to care for a stepchild. There are in-
daughters here all the time. Visiting is a very
equities involved and I am not sure I like being at
complicated arrangement both for parents and
the receiving end.
children. However, I would have preferred not to
This theme of inequity recurred throughout the have acquired stepdaughters. They're cute little
interviews with live-in stepmothers. Two more ex- girls. The only problem is that my own daughters
amples follow. are jealous of them but I think that it is getting
better. I should adopt them but I feel I can't do it
Yes, I feel it's not fair to have to keep someone so long as my own daughters don't live with me.
else's children in general. They're not related to So that part is dicey.
me in any way by blood. If my husband was wid-
owed it would be different because I could
become their mother. However, men and women were equally verbose
I'd rather not have my stepsons. Mind you, I on the topic of stepchildren living with the other
care for them and I am attached to them but I parent. The volume of qualitative material
never set out to have children, and having some-
gathered on this topic in the interviews indicated
one else's children is a burden. I often resent it.
the complexity of the situation. The following is a
At the same time, I wish they didn't have their
quote from a woman reminiscing about the prob-
mother so that way I would benefit at least from
lems created by visiting stepchildren in her pre-
being a mother. But in my situation I have all the
problems a mother has since they live here and vious remarriage:
none of the advantages, maybe less so with the His kids kept coming here because he didn't want
younger one because he was so little when I to visit them at their place, of course, because he
moved in. hated his ex-wife. We had six kids here at times

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.250 on Tue, 17 May 2022 10:47:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
800 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

parent.the
and his are the rough type: after they'd gone, In this study, however, the men and
whole house was a mess for us to clean and the women with both children and stepchildren in
fridge was empty and I had to pay. They were
their household had unusually well-functioning
just low class persons in a bad sense. remarriages (and, prior to that, they had had
Thus, while live-in stepchildren were preferable
smoothly functioning divorces during which they
to stepchildren living with the other parent, had maintained an amicable coparental relation-
step-
children were nevertheless a mixed blessing for
ship with their ex-spouse). Any conclusions from
these data are therefore tentative. For a man, at
stepparents, especially stepmothers. Stepparent-
ing was a rewarding affective experience whenleast,
it having custody of his own children in-
worked. But it was often considered to be an ex- creased his chances of a close relationship with
live-in stepchildren. When a man's children lived
ploitative condition, at best a tolerated one. Step-
parenting was a more difficult role for womenwith in their mother, but his stepchildren lived with
this sample because most women had stepchildren him, he was drawn to his stepchildren when he
who lived with the "other woman," and we have had no access to his own children or when they
seen that, in this sample, this was the least had sorely disappointed him. But when he had ac-
favorable condition for stepmothers. cess to them, however limited the access was
(either by himself or by the other parent), he
Stepchildren and Own Children from
maintained a certain distance with his live-in step-
Previous Marriage
children as if fearing to be unfair to his own chil-
In this section and the next, relationships be- dren by giving affection to his wife's children.
tween stepchildren and other family members are
summarized on the basis of qualitative material Stepchildren and New Children
derived from the interviews in this study. These What happens to the stepparent's feelings
descriptions may serve as a source of hypotheses toward stepchildren with the arrival of a child or
for larger studies rather than as generalizable children in the remarriage? Although there were
data. 25 remarriages with at least one "new" child, the
Both men and women felt that their own chil- cell sizes for "new" children were limited for the
dren and their stepchildren were more attached purpose
to of this analysis, not only because most of
each other and were getting along better when the children had been born to persons previously
both sets of children were living together. How-
childless, but also because we were subdividing
ever, there were only three such occurrences for
them by the place of residence of stepchildren as
whom all relevant data were gathered, and these well as by the presence of own children from a
happened to be particularly successful marriages. previous marriage. Thus, there were few cases of
In these three cases, with both sets of stepchildren respondents with both live-in stepchildren and
living with the remarried couple, the strength of children from the new marriage, and only one
the spousal relationship may have integrated the man had live-out stepchildren and children from
entire family. his new marriage. (In other words, only one non-
In contrast, where women were custodial custodial mother had children in her remarriage.)
mothers and had stepchildren who lived with the Both the qualitative and quantitative data in-
other parent, the two sets of children were de-dicate that the five men who had live-in stepchil-
scribed as getting along less well and being less at-dren and a child from the new marriage were not
tached to each other than when living together.only the happiest maritally but were also those
"They [daughters] don't get along well with my stepfathers with the warmest feelings toward their
stepdaughters because there is too much jealousy,stepchildren:
and when these girls [visiting stepdaughters] get
The baby has provided me with a secure feeling;
here they want their father all to themselves and he is the symbol of family life. My wife's daugh-
my little girls have difficulty coping with this." ter [live-in] is a very pleasant child who needs a
However, there were no noncustodial women with father and she is a sharp contrast to my [older,
live-in stepchildren and, conversely, there were no visiting] daughter. These two children have
custodial fathers whose stepchildren lived with healed the wounds .... We have children of our
their own fathers. Thus, we were unable to test own, not a child here and a child there, and no
for possible gender differences of stepparents and custody problems.
parents in this area. In contrast, the three women who had live-in step-
Along the same lines of attachment, stepfatherschildren and a child from the new marriage, al-
and stepmothers were more attached to their live-though very happy maritally, were significantly
in stepchildren when their own children lived with more distant from their live-in stepchildren than
them than when their children lived with the other were all other categories of stepmothers with live-

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.250 on Tue, 17 May 2022 10:47:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LIVE-IN AND VISITING STEPCHILDREN 801

in stepchildren. These three women would have

not the stepfathers, who are primarily responsible
wanted to devote more of themselves to the child
for child care and the functioning of the house-
hold.7
born of this marriage and less to the children born
during the husband's previous marriage: We found that, when stepchildren visited, it
I think I am less patient with them [live-in step- was usually the stepmothers, and not the
children] since he's born. He is mine and they're children's fathers, who acquired extra work
not, but they're always here and I just don't seem (housecleaning, shopping for food, cooking, bed-
to be able to be alone with the baby, you know, making), and this work was perceived as a burden
to get to be a mother. I'd like that so much but because the stepmothers would benefit little emo-
these children are in the way. They have a mother tionally from the visits. However, with live-in
and they don't belong to this marriage. stepchildren, although additional work also befell
the women, they at least felt attached to their
stepchildren, and vice versa. The live-in stepchil-
DISCUSSION
dren were likely to do more household chores and
The results clearly indicate that the help their stepmothers more. Such stepmothers
stepparent-
ing experience is a more positive one tended withtolive-in
feel more secure than the ones whose
stepchildren. Both stepmothers and husband stepfathers
had to visit his children and cater to his
tend to be closer to their stepchildren when
ex-wife, the financially or in terms of house-
whether
stepchildren live with them, rather than hold
in help (Visher and Visher, 1979). When the
another
household. However, even with live-in stepchil-
stepchildren lived with them, stepmothers felt
dren, a great deal of ambivalence about they werestep- raising them and were part of a team
parenting was expressed by stepmothers in this
with their husband (Furstenberg and Spanier,
study. The results also indicate that, after
1984). an visiting situation, stepmothers felt
In the
average of two years of remarriage, the leftperceived
out because their husband's coparental role
quality of stepmothers' marital life was was signifi-
carried out more with the ex-wife than with
cantly affected by the place of residence them. ofThestep-
husband's coparental role was often
children: stepmothers with live-in stepchildren threatening to the new wife's sense of security, as
were most positive, while stepmothers whose
she feared a renewed emotional bond between her
young stepchildren lived with their own mothers
husband and his ex-wife. This insecurity stems in
were the least positive in terms of their part frommarital
the fact that our society lacks clear-cut
life. In contrast, stepfathers' perception norms ofseparating
their the ex-spouses' coparental role
marital life was not significantly affected by the bonding (see Ahrons, 1979, 1980;
from emotional
variable under consideration. Nevertheless, McGoldrick from and Carter, 1980).8
20% to 60% of both stepmothers and stepfathers In the routine of daily contacts, stepchildren
indicated that their marriage wouldand bestepparents
happier developed a closer relationship,
and more harmonious without stepchildren. quarrels were more easily overshadowed by other,
These data are consistent with White and Booth's pleasant daily occurrences. With visiting stepchil-
findings (1985) that the presence of stepchildren dren, a quarrel stood out as the event of the week;
negatively affects the stability of a remarriage. ill feelings simmered without opportunities for
The statistical data as well as the qualitativehealing during the hubbub of daily activities and
material presented in this report also lend support
were often exacerbated by the children's mothers'
to the findings of other researchers who have indi-
own comments. Moreover, fathers were more
cated that the role of stepmother is a more dif- likely to side with their own children when they
ficult one than that of stepfather (Burgoyne were and visiting, leaving the stepmothers feeling
Clark, 1982a; Duberman, 1973; Fishman and bruised, while fathers were more likely to form a
Hamel, 1981; Furstenberg and Nord, 1985). Oncoalition with their new wives in households with
the basis of our structural analysis, we can go one
live-in children (and stepchildren).
step further and hypothesize that the greater dif- Similarly, as in Duberman's study (1975), there
ficulty and complexity of the stepmother role may were indications that the parents' own children
stem from the fact that most stepmothers do not and stepchildren got along better when they lived
have live-in stepchildren-which was the most together most of the time than when one set mere-
favorable structural variable in this study from ly visited the house of the other. The rationale for
the stepmothers' perspective (but not from that of
this observation would follow the same line as
stepchildren in Furstenberg and Nord's study,that delineated above for the stepparents.
1985). In contrast, most stepfathers have live-in We have also seen that a combination of one's
stepchildren. A second explanation may well children and stepchildren living in the household
reside in that it is generally the stepmothers, and
was positive for both stepmothers and step-

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.250 on Tue, 17 May 2022 10:47:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
802 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

fathers, but that the combination of live-in step- FOOTNOTES

children and new children from the current mar-
1. Comparisons regarding relationships and attitu
riage was less favorable for the relationships be- have also been made between families with step-
tween stepmothers and live-in stepchildren. Al- fathers and with natural fathers (Perkins and Kahan,
though the frequencies are so limited that no con- 1979; Santrock, Warshak, Lindberg, and Meadows,
clusions are drawn, these latter data are neverthe-1982; Wilson, Zurcher, McAdams, and Curtis,
less interesting, because women who had children 1975).
from a previous marriage as well as live-in step-
children were the most attached stepmothers.2.The Duberman's work (1973, 1975) was especially
implication is that, since both sets of childrenhelpful for devising the structural orientation of the
present study.
were from a previous marriage, they had a similar
meaning to the women. These children repre- 3. There is no literature documenting this directly;
sented the past and were equal. In comparison,however, in the current study, not one noncustodial
the children or child born within the current mar- mother remarried a custodial father. Moreover, only
riage had a special meaning: they represented the one of these noncustodial mothers had children from
present. In addition, these women did not have a her remarriage and she clearly indicated that these
child from a previous marriage: the "new" chil- children were to compensate for the loss of her first
dren were their first and only children.9 It is also ones: she had not chosen noncustody and her ex-
possible that these women may have made a husband had manipulated the children away from
her psychologically. (This was corroborated during
clearer distinction between their stepparental and
three interviews with the ex-husband since 1980.)
parental roles (Visher and Visher, 1979).
Men may have an easier time accepting live-in4. The respondents were distributed as follows: 52.5%
stepchildren after their wives have given them a of the men belonged to the higher-SES group, while
child, while women who bear, nurse, and care for 41 % of the women did; 40% of the men were placed
their new child may feel that the live-in stepchil- in the middle-SES category versus 51% of the
dren intrude in their intimacy with their own bio- women, while only 8% of the men and 9% of the
logical child. But there were also indications that women fell in the lower-SES group. However,
the new child made stepmothers tolerate visiting remarried respondents tended to cluster in the
higher- and middle-SES categories, with only 8% in
stepchildren better. Here, it might be hypothe-
the lower SES; in contrast, 43% of the 49 unmarried
sized that, with the arrival of the new child, step- or long-term divorced respondents belonged to the
mothers feel that they finally are on a team with lower SES, indicating that, in this sample, higher-
their husband and may be less threatened by the SES divorced persons were more likely to remarry
visiting stepchildren and their mother. Duberman than those of lower SES. This was especially so
(1975) also found that a new child often con- among men. Among women, the middle- and lower-
tributed to the integration of the reconstituted middle-SES women were the most likely to have
remarried.
family. More recently, White, Brinkerhoff, and
Booth (1985) have found that a new child in- Socioeconomic status was determined by using the
1976 revision of the Blishen scale, which is adapted
creases a live-in stepchild's attachment to his or
to the Canadian classification of occupations,
her stepfather, even to the detriment of the non-
related income, education, and prestige (Blishen and
custodial father.
Roberts, 1976). Women's SES was determined strict-
Both the statistical analyses carried out for this ly on the basis of their own occupations when gain-
report and the qualitative material presented sug- fully employed or even doing full-time unpaid
gest the breadth of research on stepparenting that volunteer work.
has yet to be undertaken. Other variables that
should be considered are the time elapsed since 5. These questions were operationalized as follows:
remarriage, the age of the stepparents and step- "How do you feel about your stepchildren? (love
them, like them a lot, like them some, do not like
children at remarriage, the number and gender of
them, resent them)"; "How would you describe
stepchildren, stepparents' socioeconomic status, your relationship with your stepchildren? (very
and their previous marital status. Because of this close, fairly close, not too close, not close at all, no
multiplicity of relevant variables, large samples contact)"; and "Do you know how they feel about
Will be required for statistical analyses. However, you? (love us ... I don't know)." The coding took
qualitative and semiqualitative studies may prove into account those respondents who liked one step-
equally fruitful in studying the processes involved child but disliked the other, for instance. Thus, in
and in discovering those questions that would be Table 2, love them = 0; like them a lot = 1; like
them some = 3; love/like some but not others = 4
meaningful to explore further (LaRossa and .. to dislike them = 7, and no contact = 8.
Wolfe, 1980; Sprey, 1985).

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.250 on Tue, 17 May 2022 10:47:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LIVE-IN AND VISITING STEPCHILDREN 803

6. "On their own" included married stepchildren Clingempeel, or W. Glenn, R. Ievoli, and E. Brand. 1984.
others old enough to live independently,"Structural as well as complexity and the quality of stepfather-
three cases of adolescents residing in group stepchild
homes.relationship." Family Process 23: 547-560.
Duberman, Lucille. 1973. "Step-kin relationships."
7. Data on the division of labor are available from the Journal of Marriage and the Family 35: 283-292.
author in tabular form. These data show that step- Duberman, Lucille. 1975. The Reconstituted Family.
mothers are responsible for most of the householdChicago: Nelson-Hall.
duties, even though some are raising their husbands'Fast, Irene, and Albert C. Cain. 1966. "The stepparent
children, and most are employed. role: Potential for disturbances in family function-
ing." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 36:
8. On the lack of institutionalization of the stepparen- 485-491.
Ferri, Elsa. 1984. Stepchildren in the National Child
tal role in general, see Cherlin, 1978; Fast and Cain,
1966; Visher and Visher, 1982. Development Study. London: National Children's
Bureau.
Fishman, Barbara, and Bernice Hamel. 1981. "From
9. The sample did not have a case involving live-in own
children, live-in stepchildren, and "new" chil- nuclear to stepfamily ideology: A stressful change."
dren-the romanticized "yours, mine, and ours" Alternative Lifestyles 2: 181-204.
situation-under one roof. Furstenberg, Frank F., Jr., and Christine Winquist
Nord. 1985. "Parenting apart: Patterns of childrear-
ing after marital disruption." Journal of Marriage
and the Family 47: 893-904.
Furstenberg, Frank F., Jr., and Graham B. Spanier.
1984. Recycling the Family: Remarriage after
Divorce. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
REFERENCES Glick, Paul C. 1980. "Remarriage: Some recent changes
and variation." Journal of Family Issues 4: 455-478.
Ahrons, Constance R. 1979. "'The binuclear family: Glick, Paul C. 1984. "Marriage, divorce, and living ar-
Two households, one family." Alternative Lifestyles rangements: Prospective changes." Journal of Fami-
2: 499-515. ly Issues 5: 7-26.
Ahrons, Constance R. 1980. "Redefining the divorced Harper, Patricia. 1984. Children in Stepfamilies: Their
family: A conceptual framework." Social WorkLegal 6: and Family Status. Policy Background Paper
437-441. No. 4, Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne,
Ambert, Anne-Marie. 1982. "Differences in children's
Australia.
behavior toward custodial mothers and custodial Jacobsen, Doris S. 1979. "Stepfamilies: Myths and real-
fathers." Journal of Marriage and the Family 44: Social Work 24: 202-207.
ities."
73-86. LaRossa, Ralph, and Jane H. Wolf. 1985. "On qualita-
Bohannan, Paul. 1975. Stepfathers and the Mentaltive family research." Journal of Marriage and the
Health of Their Children. La Jolla, CA: La Jolla Family 47: 531-541.
Western Behavioral Service Institute. Maddox, Brenda. 1975. The Half Parent. London:
Blishen, Bernard B., and Hugh A. Roberts. 1976. "A Andre Deutsch.
revised socioeconomic index of occupations in McCormick, M. 1974. Stepfathers: What the Literature
Canada." Canadian Review of Sociology and An- Reveals. La Jolla, CA: Western Behavioral Sciences
thropology 13: 71-79. Institute.
Bowerman, Charles E., and Donald P. Irish. 1962. McGoldrick, Monica, and Elizabeth A. Carter. 1980.
"Some relationships of stepchildren to their "Forming a remarried family." In Elizabeth A.
parents." Marriage and Family Living 24: 113-121. Carter and Monica McGoldrick (eds.), The Family
Brown, D. 1982. The Stepfamily: A Growing Challenge Life Cycle: A Framework for Family Therapy. New
for Social Work. Social Work Monographs, Universi- York: Gardner Press.
ty of East Anglia. Messinger, Lilian. 1976. "Remarriage between di-
Burgoyne, Jacqueline, and David Clark. 1982a. "From vorced people with children from previous marriages:
father to stepfather." In L. McGee and M. O'Brien A proposal for preparation for marriage." Journal of
(eds.), The Father Figure. London: Tavistock. Marriage and Family Counseling 2: 193-200.
Burgoyne, Jacqueline, and David Clark. 1982b. "Re- Messinger, Lilian. 1984. Remarriage: A Family Affair.
constituted families." In R. N. Rapoport, M. F. New York: Plenum.
Fogarty, and R. Rapoport (eds.), Families in Britain.
Perkins, Terry F., and James P. Kahan. 1979. "An em-
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. pirical comparison of natural father and stepfather
Burgoyne, Jacqueline, and David Clark. 1984. Making- family systems." Family Process 18: 175-183.
A-Go-Of-It: A Study of Stepfamilies in Sheffield. Railings, E. M. 1976. "The special role of the step-
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. father." Family Coordinator 25: 445-449.
Cherlin, Andrew. 1978. "Remarriage as an incompleteRobinson, Margaret. 1980. "Step-families: A reconsti-
institution." American Journal of Sociology 84: tuted family system." Journal of Family Therapy 2:
634-649. 45-69.

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.250 on Tue, 17 May 2022 10:47:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
804 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

Santrock, John W., Richard Warshak, C. Lindbergh, Visher, Emily B., and John S. Visher. 1982. Stepfami-
and L. Meadows. 1982. "Children's and parents' ob- and Realities. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
lies: Myths
served social behavior in stepfather families." White, Child
Lynn K., and Alan Booth. 1985. "The quality
Development 53: 472-480. and stability of remarriages: The role of stepchil-
Spanier, Graham B., and Linda Thompson. 1984. dren."Part-
American Sociological Review 689-698.
ing: The Aftermath of Separation andWhite, Divorce.Lynn K., David B. Brinkerhoff, and Alan
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Booth. 1985. "The effect of marital disruption on
Sprey, Jetse. 1985. "Editorial comments." Journal child's attachment
of to parents." Journal of Family
Marriage and the Family 47: 523. Issues 6: 5-22.
Stern, P. N. 1978. "Stepfather families: Integration Wilson, Kenneth L., Louis A. Zurcher, Diana C. Mc-
around child discipline." Issues in Mental Health Adams, and Russell C. Curtis. 1975. "Stepfathers
Nursing 1: 50-56. and stepchildren: An exploratory analysis from two
Visher, Emily B., and John S. Visher. 1979. Stepfami- national surveys." Journal of Marriage and the Fami-
lies: A Guide to Working with Stepparents and Step- ly 37: 526-536.
children. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

I - C I _I

Widows in African Societies

Choices and Constraints

Edited by Betty Potash. Although widows constitute a quarter of the adult female
population in many African societies, they have not been the focus of detailed, cross-
cultural research. This is the first comparative anthropological study of widowhood in
Africa, comprising ten case studies that cover a broad spectrum of societies in different
parts of the continent. It shows clearly that widows are not passive objects of male
transactions; they have interests and options, and make choices affecting their own lives.
The book provides a needed corrective both to the male perspective on kinship and to
women's studies that deal almost exclusively with the adult married women. In contrast
to the traditional emphasis on widow remarriage and the functions such marriages have
for the maintenance of marriage alliances, these papers deal with the women themselves
and the quality of their lives. $35.00

Stanford University Press

STANFORD, CA 94305
a

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.250 on Tue, 17 May 2022 10:47:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms