Stepparent-Stepchild Relationships in Stepmother and Stepfather Families: A

Multimethod Study
Author(s): W. Glenn Clingempeel, Eulalee Brand and Richard Ievoli
Source: Family Relations , Jul., 1984, Vol. 33, No. 3, Remarriage and Stepparenting (Jul.,
1984), pp. 465-473
Published by: National Council on Family Relations

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/584718

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/584718?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

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 Family Relations

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.141 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 13:08:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Stepparent-Stepchild Relationships in
Stepmother and Stepfather Families:
A Multimethod Study*

W. GLENN CLINGEMPEEL, EULALEE BRAND, AND RICHARD IEVOLI**

The present study employed a multimethod-multimeasure-multisource assess-

ment of the quality of the stepparent-stepchild relationship in 16 stepmother and 16
stepfather families (with half of each type (n = 8) having a male and half having a
female, 9-12 year old target child). Data were collected in 31/2 hour home visits. Self-
reports from stepchildren and stepparents and ratings by biological parents all
revealed lower scores on Love and higher scores on Detachment dimensions for
stepparent-stepdaughter relationships. Behavioral measures revealed that girls
emitted less positive verbal and more negative problem-solving behavior toward their
stepparents than did boys. Stepparents did not differ in their responses to boys and
girls on the behavioral measures.

It is becoming increasingly common for Despite increasing numbers of stepfamilies,

American children to experience the divorce
and remarriage of their biological parents. The
divorce rate has undergone an unprecedented
surge in the United States with 50% of first
marriages now ending in divorce (Weed, 1980)
and approximately 60% of these divorces in-
volving minor children (Glick, 1980). The rate of
remarriage has almost matched the divorce
rate with 83% of divorced men and 80% of
divorced women remarrying (Glick, 1980).
Moreover, divorces and remarriages are occur-
ring earlier in the life cycle and with a decreas-
ing intermarriage interval (Furstenberg, 1979).
One consequence of these trends is that more
children are now living in stepfamilies. By 1990,
it is estimated that the number of children liv-
ing in a stepfamily may exceed 7 million or ap-
proximately 11% of all minor children (Glick,
1980).
'This research was supported by Temple University Fac-
ulty Senate and Research Incentive Fund Grants.
**W. Gl'enn Clingempeel is an Assistant Professor of Psy-
chology and Eulalee Brand is a fourth year doctoral student at
Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122. Richard levoli is a
clinical psychologist in private practice in Philadelphia, PA.
Key Concepts: multi-method study, stepmother families,
stepfather families, stepparent-stepchid relationships.
(Family Relations, 1984, 33, 465-473.)
empirical research which focuses on step-
parent-stepchild relationships and child devel-
opment in this emerging family form is surpris-
ingly rare. While research on family responses
to divorce has proliferated in recent years,
divorce has been treated as a terminal rather
than a transitional event (Furstenberg, 1979).
Furthermore, the extant research on stepfam-
ilies is fraught with methodological problems
(e.g., focusing on one member of the remar-
riage family; relying primarily on retrospective
recall; collapsing across rather than differen-
tiating structural types of stepfamilies; and
failing to employ multiple-measures of family
relationships).
Several studies have focused on the cogni-
tive and social development of children in step-
father families, where the child lives with a bio-
logical mother and stepfather (e.g., Chapman,
1977; Oshman & Manosevitz, 1976; Santrock,
1972). Overall, these studies have found that
stepfathers attenuate, at least for boys, the
adverse effects of divorce and single-parent
custody. Chapman (1977) found that male col-
lege students from stepfather families and
nuclear families scored higher on a Scholastic
Aptitude Test and were more field independent
on the Embedded Figures Test than their
counterparts in divorced, mother-custody
families. Santrock (1972) compared 3rd and 6th
grade children and found that the entrance of a
stepfather had a positive effect on the

July1984 FAMILY RELATIONS 465

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.141 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 13:08:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
cognitive development of boys, but not girls.
Oshman and Manosevitz (1976) obtained higher
psychosocial adjustment scores on the Ego
Identity Scale for male college students from
stepfather families and nuclear families than
from single-parent families.
While empirical studies have examined child
outcomes in stepfather families, methodologi-
cally adequate studies of stepparent-stepchild
relationships are virtually nonexistent. One ex-
ception, Santrock, Warshak, Lindbergh &
Meadows (1982) compared parent-child and
stepparent-stepchild interactions (using
trained observer evaluations of videotaped in-
teraction tasks) in stepfather, nuclear, and di-
vorced mother-custody families. They found
that boys displayed more warmth than girls
toward their stepfathers. Furthermore, girls,
but not boys, were rated as more anxious in
stepfather families than in nuclear families.
No methodologically adequate studies have
examined stepparent-stepchild relationships
and child development in stepmother families,
where the child lives with a biological father
and stepmother. Since custody dispositions
are awarded solely to the mother in 90% of
divorce cases (Sanders & Spanier, 1979), step-
mother families are relatively rare. However,
there is evidence that more men are now seek-
ing custody of children (Bodenheimer, 1977),
and consequently, the percentage of step-
mother families may be increasing. While there
is some evidence that stepfathers establish
closer relationships with their stepchildren
than stepmothers (Benson, 1968; Bowerman &
Irish, 1962; Duberman, 1973, 1975), these
studies are replete with methodological prob-
lems (e.g., reliance on single-method ap-
proaches and retrospective recall).
An extrapolation from Cherlin's (1978) "in-
complete institution" hypothesis would sug-
gest that stepmothers may have more difficulty
relating to stepchildren than stepfathers. Ac-
cording to Cherlin, stepfamilies are more un-
stable (with a higher rate of divorce) than nu-
clear families because they are confronted
with ambiguous social roles for which society
offers no institutional guidelines (e.g., there
are no clear role prescriptions to delineate
childrearing obligations of stepparent). In com-
parison with the role of stepfather, cultural and
social biases probably have inculcated the
stepmother role with fewer institutional guide-
lines and greater difficulties (Visher & Visher,
1978, 1979). Since stepmother families are
relatively rare, stepmothers have fewer of their
own kind to use as social support and as a
basis for comparison in creating their role. In
addition, the stepmother role may have less so-
cietal acceptance since potential mother sub-
stitutes are more alien than father substitutes
to cultural norms which have established the
mother as "superior" parent (Weiss, 1979). Fur-
thermore, these same social biases may result
466 FAMILY RELATIONS
This content downloaded from
157.193.240.141 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 13:08:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
in stepmothers trying harder than stepfathers
to establish close relationships with step-
children and make the stepfamily resemble a
nuclear family-a strategy which may disturb
stepchildren who fear replacement of their
biological mother.
Although Cherlin's Incomplete Institution
hypothesis underscores the greater difficulty
of the stepmother role, the Santrock et al.
(1982), finding that boys displayed more
warmth toward their stepfathers than girls sug-
gests the quality of the stepparent-stepchild
relationship may depend upon the sex of step-
child. Moreover, studies of divorced and
nuclear families have generally found that op-
posite sex, biological parent-child relation-
ships are more problematic (Margolin & Patter-
son, 1975; Santrock & Warshak, 1979). How-
ever, no multimethod studies have examined
stepparent-stepchild relationships in step-
mother and stepfather families. Nor have any
methodologically adequate studies focused on
whether stepmothers have more difficult rela-
tionships with children of both sexes or
whether relationship quality varies with the sex
of stepchild or the sex of stepparent-sex of
stepchild interaction. The current research at-
tempts to fill this gap in the literature.
The present study employs a multimethod-
multimeasure-multisource assessment of the
stepparent-stepchild relationship in step-
mother and stepfather families. The "target"
children in this research are between 9 and 12
years of age. This age range was chosen for
two reasons. First, there is some evidence that
preadolescent, school age children are espe-
cially vulnerable to the stresses associated
with remarriage of the residential parent
(Wallerstein & Kelley, 1980). Nine- to 12-year-
olds may be more likely than younger children
to have established a close relationship with
the nonresidential parent, but are less likely
than adolescents to have established an ex-
trafamilial support system. Second, this age
group, in comparison with infants and pre-
schoolers, has been understudied in the devel-
opmental literature.
Stepfather families rather than nuclear fami-
lies were selected as the comparison group for
three reasons. First, the research question ad-
dressed is not whether stepfamilies differ from
nuclear families. Instead, the focus is on
whether stepmother families with putatively
fewer societal role prescriptions and support
systems will have lower quality stepparent-
stepchild relationships. Second, the
prevalence and heterogeneity of stepfamilies
justify more fine-grained studies which com-
pare structural types and examine the
"effects" of structural variations. Stepfamilies
have become the most common "alternative
lifestyle" in the United States (Spanier &
Furstenberg, in press). Furthermore, stepfam-
ilies are heterogeneous family forms and vary
July1984
on a number of structural dimensions (e.g., sex
of residential stepparent, presence or absence
of biological children of residential stepparent)
which may differentially impact upon in-
trafamilial relationships (cf. Clingempeel,
1981). Third, the use of a nuclear family com-
parison group would result in mismatches on
structural variables naturally associated with
family type. For example, matching step-
families and nuclear families on age of target
child necessarily unmatches these groups on
length of time target child has lived in the cur-
rent family situation and the total time in a two
parent family (target children in stepfamilies
have experienced a period of single parent-
hood).
The primary goal of this study is to describe
the characteristics of stepparent-stepchild re-
lationships in stepmother and stepfather fam-
ilies. Independent perceptions of positive and
negative dimensions of the stepparent-step-
child relationship were obtained from parents,
stepparents, and stepchildren. In addition, pro-
portions of stepparent and stepchild positive
and negative communication behaviors were
derived from home-based videotapes of discus-
sion tasks.
Method
Subject Recruitment
Sixteen stepmother and 16 stepfather
families were recruited from the Marriage
License Records of Philadelphia and Norris-
town, Pennsylvania, and from newspaper ad-
vertisements. Half of each structural type
(n = 8) had a 9 to 12 year old boy as target child
and half had a 9 to 12 year old girl. Prospective
subjects were sent an introductory letter
describing the project, and a Remarriage Infor-
mation Form (RIF) inquiring about the pres-
ence or absence of children, their age and sex,
and present custody arrangements. Couples
were requested to mail back the RIF irrespec-
tive of their decision to participate.
Stepparent couples who met the following
criteria were contacted by telephone and asked
to participate: (a) one or both spouses were
currently in a second marriage and the pre-
vious marriage was dissolved by divorce; (b)
both spouses were under 45 years of age, had a
minimum of a high school education, and a
total annual income of at least $15,000; (c) the
present marriage was 6-24 months old; (d) only
one spouse had custody of children from the
prior marriage, of which one child was 9 to 12
years old; and (e) there were no children from
the current marriage. All families were paid $15
for their participation and were promised a
summary of the major findings of this re-
search.
Summing across two Marriage License
Bureaus, 1700 couples met the demographic
July 1984 FAMILY
This content downloaded from
157.193.240.141 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 13:08:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
and marital status criteria. However, only 900
couples (53%) had addresses listed in current
telephone books and thus received letters of
inquiry. Thirty-one percent (275 couples) re-
turned RIFs and 29% of this group (81 couples)
also met the children and custody arrangement
criteria. Of the 81 couples who met both sets of
criteria, 69 were stepfather families and 12
were stepmother families.
In an attempt to recruit additional step-
mother families, advertisements were placed in
local newspapers. Ten stepmother families
who met all criteria responded to these ads.
Thus, 22 stepmother families (12 from Marriage
License Records and 10 from newspaper ads)
were recruited. However, 6 families refused to
participate, and thus the final sample con-
sisted of 16 stepmother families.
From the pool of 69 stepfather families,
those that best matched the 16 stepmother
families (half with boys and half with girls as
target children) on age and sex of target child,
number of custodial children, and length of
custodial parent's remarriage were asked to
participate. The final sample of 16 stepfather
families were obtained after 22 stepfather fam-
ilies were contacted and 6 had refused to par-
ticipate.
Thus, the present study includes two struc-
tural types of stepfamilies:
(1) Stepfather families, where a woman is a
custodial parent of at least one child (age
9-12) and is in a second marriage with a
man who was either never married, or is
also in a second marriage, but does not
have children from the prior marriage.
(2) Stepmother families, in which a man is a
custodial parent of at least one child
(ages 9-12) and is in a second marriage
with a woman who was either never mar-
ried, or is also in a second marriage, but
does not have children from the previous
marriage.
Description of Subjects
Means and standard deviations for step-
father and stepmother families with boy and
girl target children were obtained on the follow-
ing characteristics: (a) stepparent age (step-
father-boy, M = 34.4 years, SD = 5.1 years;
stepfather-girl, M = 30.1 years, SD = 4.5
years; stepmother-boy, M = 30.9 years,
SD = 6.1 years; stepmother-girl, M = 29.4
years, SD = 5.9 years); (b) stepparent formal
education (stepfather-boy M = 14.6 years,
SD = 3.5 years; stepfather-girl, M = 14.9
years, SD = 3.6 years; stepmother-boy,
M = 15.9 years, SD = 2.9 years; stepmother-
girl, M = 14.8 years, SD = 2.8 years); (c) length
of parents' previous marriage (stepfather-boy,
M = 92 months, SD = 42.5 months; step-
father-girl, M = 97.6 months, SD = 49.4
months; stepmother-boy, M = 112.3 months,
RELATIONS 467
SD = 52.9 months; stepmother-girl, M = 95
months, SD = 33.3 months); (d) length of time
between parents' final physical separation and
remarriage (stepfather-boy, M = 56.8 months,
SD = 18.4 months; stepfather-girl, M = 58.6
months, SD = 30.5 months; stepmother-boy,
M = 44 months, SD = 26.1 months; step-
mother-girl, M = 40.1 months, SD = 24.4
months); and (e) length of current marriage
(stepfather-boy, M = 8.5 months, SD = 1.7
months; stepfather-girl, M = 9.5 months,
SD = 2.5 months; stepmother-boy, M = 14.2
months, SD = 2.6 months; stepmother-girl,
M = 14.6 months, SD = 8.9 months). A series
of 2 x 2 ANOVAS (with an .05 alpha level ad-
justed for experimentwise error rates) revealed
that the four groups did not differ significantly
on any of these social-demographic or marital
status variables.
The total annual income of stepparent
couples (including gains or losses from child
support payments) ranged from $20,000 to
$29,999 for 12 families (stepfather = 8; step-
mother = 4), $30,000 to $39,999 for 8 families
(stepfather = 5; stepmother = 3) and over
$40,000 for 12 families (stepfather = 3; step-
mother = 9). A 2 x 3 cross-tabulation with type ries with him/her), whether each item is "like,"
of stepfamily by income group yielded a non-
significant chi-square revealing similar
distributions of stepmother and stepfather
families across the three income groups.
Seven stepmothers and seven stepfathers
were previously divorced, and nine step-
mothers and nine stepfathers were previously
single. A series of t-tests performed separately 1982) and because they were considered most
for each family type on the dependent
measures revealed no differences as a function
of prior marital status. The subgroups were
thus combined for the major analyses.
In stepmother families, six couples had
custody of one child, eight couples had
custody of two children, and two couples had
custody of three children. In stepfather
families, six couples had one, seven couples
had two, and three couples had custody of
three children. A 2 x 2 ANOVA revealed a signi- Detachment, which included the 16 item Rejec-
ficant difference on one potentially important
variable. Children in stepmother families saw
their nonresidential biological parents signifi-
cantly more than children in stepfather
families, F (1, 28) = 4.52, p < .05. Moreover,
boys in both stepmother and stepfather
families saw their nonresidential parents more
than girls, although this difference only ap-
proached significance, F (1, 28) = 3.22,
p = .08.
Measurement of Social Demographic.
Characteristics and Visitation Patterns
Social Demographic and Marital History
Questionnaire. This questionnaire, con-
structed specifically for this research, included
containing a visit were recorded for each of the 6 months, par-
40 questions with fixed alternative response
categories and focused on demographic (e.g.,
age and educational level of parents/step-
parents, annual income), marital history (e.g.,
length of previous marriage, intermarriage in-
terval, time spent dating current spouse, and
current marriage), and family size/structure
characteristics (e.g., number, age, and sex of
custodial children). In addition, the parent and
stepparent collaborated in recording the total
number of days containing a visit from the
nonresidential parent for each of the last six
months.' Test-retest reliabilities on the total
frequency of visits in 6 months were obtained
between 1 and 2 months after the home visit on
15 randomly selected families. The Pearson
correlation of time 1 and time 2 frequencies
was .71.
Dependent Measures
Child Report of Stepparent Behavior Inven-
tory. A modified version of Schaefer's (1965)
original 192 item, 18 scale inventory was
reworded to focus on the child's relationship
with the stepparent rather than the parent. This
measure requested that the child indicate for
64 specific stepparent behaviors (e.g., s/he
makes me feel better after talking over my wor-
"somewhat like," or "not like" his/her step-
parent. Four scales from the Love-Hostility di-
mension including Acceptance, Positive In-
volvement, Rejection, and Hostile Detachment
were used because these scales have yielded
high internal consistency reliabilities
(Schaefer, 1965 and personal communication,
relevant to qualitative aspects of the
stepparent-stepchild relationship. In addition,
a Principal Component Analysis with a varimax
rotation revealed high loadings on Factor 1 for
these scales (Acceptance = .88, Positive In-
volvement = .95, Rejection = -.57, Hostile
Detachment = -.60). Two scores were derived
from the four scales: (1) Child Love, which in-
cluded the 16 item Acceptance and 16 item
Positive Involvement scales; and (2) Child
tion and 16 item Hostile Detachment scales.
Parent and Stepparent Report of Child
Behavior toward the Stepparent Inventory. The
40 item, short version of the Parent Report of
Child Behavior Inventory (Schaefer, Edgarton &
Finkelstein, 1979) was reworded to focus on
the stepparent's (rather than the biological
parent's) relationship with the target child. Two
'The parent and stepparent recorded on a chart the number
of days containing a visit for each of the last 6 months. In
recording monthly frequencies, subjects started with the most
recent month and moved backward to the most distant month.
Subjects were asked to consider both the regular visitation
schedule and any special events (e.g., birthdays, holidays,
sickness of nonresidential parent). After the number of days
ticipants were asked to sum the monthly frequencies and
record a grand total.

468 FAMILY RELATIONS July 1984

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.141 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 13:08:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
forms were developed with one form obtaining
parent ratings and the other stepparent self-
reports. Except for the minor rewordings, the
items and response format were identical to
the original inventory. Parents and stepparents
were asked to indicate on a 5 point Likert Scale
whether specific child behaviors (e.g., s/he
tells his/her stepparent about things that
bother him/her) were "not at all like" to "very
much like" the target child's interactions with
his/her stepparent.
The 40 item form has 17 scales which cluster
into six factors. The 11 item Love factor (which
includes the confiding, demonstrates com-
petence, initiates shared activities, and active
concern scales) and the 5 item Detachment
factor (which includes the lack of involvement
and resistance to involvement scales) were
employed as dependent measures. Schaefer
(Personal communication, 1982) indicated that
internal consistency reliabilities for these two
factors are: Love = .88; and Detach-
ment = .77. Thus, the parent and stepparent
forms yielded four measures of the quality of
the stepparent-stepchild relationship: Step-
parent self-reports of Love and Detachment;
parent ratings of Love and Detachment.
Behavioral Observations: Family Problem
Solving System (FPSS). A Modified FPSS
(Forgatch & Wieder, 1981) consisting of 30 ver-
bal and 13 nonverbal codes was used in the
behavioral coding of videotaped stepparent-
stepchild interactions obtained during a single
visit to the homes of stepfamilies. The 43
codes are subsumed under the following sum-
mary categories:
(A) Verbal Behavior Categories
(1) Positive Problem Solving: accept
responsibility, contingent, closure,
countersolution, hypothetical, promise,
and positive solution.
(2) Negative Problem Solving:, deny, de-
mand, don't, morality lesson, and non-
cooperate.
(3) Positive Verbal: agree, approve, comply,
defend other, empathize, humor, and
restate.
(4) Negative Verbal: blame, command,
complain, criticize, disagree, disqualify,
guilt trip, leading question, mind read,
threat, and why.
(B) Nonverbal Behavior Categories
(1) Positive Nonverbal: laugh, lean forward,
positive gesture, and touch positive.
(2) Mildly Aversive Nonverbal: distract,
head hang, not track, slouch, and voice
bad.
(3) Negative Nonverbal: destructive,
hostile gesture, touch negative, and
wander.
Procedure
The data were collected in a single 31/2-hour
home visit by two interviewers (one male, one
July 1984 FAMILY
This content downloaded from
157.193.240.141 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 13:08:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
female). Interviewers ranged in age from 24 to
35 years and were Caucasian, doctoral
students in clinical psychology.
Upon arriving at the homes of stepfamilies,
the interviewers spent about 30 minutes
establishing rapport, answering questions
about the study, setting up video equipment,
and obtaining signatures on a consent form.
Then the parent and stepparent met with one
interviewer and the target child met with a sec-
ond interviewer (who was always the same sex
as the target child) in a separate room of the
house. The spouses collaborated on the Social
Demographic and Marital History Question-
naire and then independently completed the
stepparent and parent forms of the Parent
Report of Child Behavior Inventory. The inter-
viewer of the child administered the Child
Report of Stepparent Behavior Inventory. For
this measure, the interviewer read aloud each
item and recorded the child's verbal responses
directly on the questionnaire.
The stepparent and stepchild were also
asked to engage in two discussion tasks that
were videotaped. The order of administering
the questionnaire measures and the video-
taped interaction tasks was counterbalanced
across the four groups to control for sequence
effects. The first discussion task served as a
"warm-up" (and was designed to facilitate
habituation to the video equipment), had a 5
minute time limit, and required the stepparent
and stepchild to plan an activity together. The
second task had a 10 minute time limit and re-
quired the participants to discuss changes
they would like to see in their family. The
"discuss changes" task generated the discus-
sion that was coded using the Family Problem
Solving System. The "plan activity" task was
chosen as a warm-up and was always present-
ed first because it has previously been found to
elicit less anxiety (Lewis, Beavers, Gossett &
Phillips, 1976). The interviewer gave instruc-
tions for one task at a time and always left the
room during the discussions and did not return
until the time limit had expired (or until par-
ticipants signaled completion). Discussions
always took place in an isolated room of the
house in an effort to minimize reactivity and to
control for differences due to the presence of
other family members.
Coding, Reliability, and Scoring of FPSS
The 32 videotapes of stepparent-stepchild
interactions were sent to the Oregon Social
Learning Center in Eugene, Oregon (where the
FPSS was developed and much of the reliabili-
ty and validity research conducted). At Oregon,
highly trained coders blind to the hypotheses
under investigation independently coded the
videotapes using the 30 verbal and 13 non-
verbal codes. Verbal codes were recorded con-
tinuously in 15 second intervals and sequen-
tially from left to right. Nonverbal codes were
RELATIONS 469
coded for occurrence every 15 seconds with-
out regard for duration or frequency.
Nine videotapes were coded by two coders
as reliability checks. Intercoder reliabilities
(agreements/agreements + disagreements) x
100 ranged from 71% to 97% for nonverbal
codes (M = 83%) and 69% to 85% for verbal
codes (M = 75%).
Frequencies of stepparent and stepchild
behaviors in the four verbal summary
categories (positive verbal, positive problem
solving, negative verbal, negative problem solv-
ing) and the three nonverbal categories
(positive nonverbal, mildly aversive nonverbal,
negative nonverbal) were first adjusted for
between-dyad variations in total discussion
time by calculating rates of behaviors per
minute for each category. Second, rates of the
four verbal categories were expressed as pro-
portions of total verbal behaviors per minute,
and the rate of positive nonverbal behaviors
was expressed as a proportion of total nonver-
bal behaviors per minute. The conversion of
rates to proportions was designed to control
for potential differences in basal activity level
of stepchildren (which could result in higher
rates of both positive and negative behavior
but not reflect differences in the quality of
communications).
Results
Intercorrelation of Dependent Measures
Six dependent measures were derived from
the Schaefer inventories including parent,
stepparent, and target child perceptions of the
Love and Detachment dimensions of the step-
parent-stepchild relationship. A correlation
matrix of these measures revealed that all 15
correlations were significant and in expected
directions. Positive correlations ranged from
.35 to .58, and negative correlations ranged
from -.37 to -.81. All correlations were signifi-
cant at p < .01 except for child detachment-
parent detachment (r = .35, p < .05) and
parent love-child detachment (r = -.37, p <
.05). Positive correlations were obtained be-
tween child, parent and stepparent reports of
the Love dimension. Reports of the Detach-
ment dimension from all three sources were
also significantly correlated. Significant
negative correlations were obtained in all three
cases of within-person Love-Detachment cor-
relations (e.g., child love with child detach-
ment) and all six cases of between-person
Love-Detachment correlations (e.g., child love
with stepparent detachment).
A correlation matrix of the parent, step-
parent and stepchild questionnaire measures
and stepchild behavioral measures revealed
only 5 significant correlations. Significant
positive correlations were obtained between the questionnaire dependent measures for
stepchild self-reports and parent ratings of boys
the and girls in stepmother and stepfather
Love dimension and the proportion of step-
470 FAMILY RELATIONS
This content downloaded from
157.193.240.141 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 13:08:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
child positive verbal behaviors (stepchild self-
report, r = .30, p < .05; parent rating, r = .41, p
< .01). Significant negative correlations were
obtained between stepparent reports of Love
and the proportion of stepchild negative pro-
blem solving (r = -.30, p < .05), and between
parent ratings of Love and the proportion of
stepchild negative verbal behaviors, r = -.32, p
< .05. The parent rating of Detachment cor-
related positively with the proportion of step-
child negative verbal behaviors, r = .30, p <
.05. Stepchild positive problem solving and
positive nonverbal behaviors did not correlate
significantly with any of the questionnaire
measures.
A correlation matrix of the questionnaire
measures and the stepparent behavioral
measures also revealed only five significant
correlations. The parent perceptions of Love in
the stepparent-stepchild relationship cor-
related positively with the proportion of step-
parent positive verbal (r = .43, p < .01) and
positive nonverbal behaviors (r = .36, p < .05)
and negatively with the proportion of step-
parent negative problem solving behaviors,
r = -.46, p < .01. The parent rating of Detach-
ment correlated negatively with the proportion
of stepparent positive verbal behavior
(r = -.35, p < .05) and positively with step-
parent negative problem solving, r = .35, p <
.05. No other correlations were significant.
Multivariate Analyses:
Questionnaire Measures
Two 2 x 2 MANOVAS were performed on
questionnaire measures. One MANOVA was
performed on the three positive measures of
the stepparent-stepchild relationship (Step-
parent Love, Parent Love, Child Love) and a
separate MANOVA was performed on the three
negative measures (Stepparent Detachment,
Parent Detachment, Child Detachment). On
both positive and negative dimensions the
multivariate F's for the type of stepfamily main
effect and the sex of target child-type of step-
family interaction were not significant.
However, significant multivariate F's for the
sex of target child were obtained on the three
positive measures (F (3, 26) = 3.46, p = .03)
and on the three negative measures, F (3,
26) = 4.50, p = .01. Boys were reported to
have significantly higher quality relationships
with both stepmothers and stepfathers.
Moreover, univariate F's revealed significant
differences in favor of boys on all six depen-
dent measures. When the target child was a
boy, parents, stepparents, and stepchildren
reported significantly higher scores on Love
and lower scores on Detachment. Table 1
presents means and standard deviations on
families.
July 1984
Table 1.
Means and Standard Deviations of Stepfather and Stepmother Families on Questionnaire Depen-
dent Measures
Stepmother Stepfather
Boys
M SD
Love Dimension
Child 87.63 7.00 70.88 22.93 83.13 8.20 72.00 11.86
Stepparent 42.63 5.73 34.50 12.68 42.13 7.70 33.75 5.57
Parent 41.75 6.25 34.63 9.27 43.00 6.30 37.00 7.84
Detachment Dimension
Child 38.88 4.16 51.50 16.89 44.13 7.30 53.13 15.80
Stepparent 7.00 2.98 11.88 4.91 8.00 3.12 11.50 3.51
Parent 6.38 1.69 10.63 3.54 7.38 3.33 9.25 3.11
Multivariate and Univariate Analyses:
Behavioral Measures
Prior to the major analyses, arc sine trans-
formations were performed on all proportional
data; 2 x 2 (type of stepfamily by sex of target
child) MANOVAs were performed separately
for stepparents and stepchildren on the two
positive summary categories of verbal behavior
(positive verbal, positive problem solving) and
the two negative summary categories of verbal
behavior (negative verbal, negative problem
solving). In addition, 2 x 2 ANOVAs were per-
formed on the proportion of positive nonverbal
behaviors emitted by stepparents and stepchil-
dren.
For stepparents, multivariate F's for the type
of stepfamily-sex of target child interaction
and the type of stepfamily and sex of target
child main effects revealed no significant dif-
ferences on the positive and negative verbal
behavior categories. Moreover, the univariate F
revealed no differences on the proportion of
positive nonverbal behaviors emitted by step-
parents.
For stepchildren, no multivariate F's were
significant for the type of stepfamily-sex of
target child interaction or the type of stepfam-
ily main effect. However, significant multi-
variate F's for the sex of target child were ob-
tained on both the positive summary category
of verbal behavior, F (2, 27) = 3.44, p < .05, and
the negative summary category of verbal be-
havior, F (2, 27) = 3.59, p < .05. The univariate
F's revealed that girls engaged in a significant-
ly lower proportion of positive verbal behaviors
(girls, M = .23, SD = .13; boys, M = .34, SD =
.13), F (1, 28) = 5.25, p < .05, and a significantly
higher proportion of negative problem solving
behaviors (girls, M = .22, SD = .11; boys, M =
.15, SD = .08), F (1,28) = 4.07, p < .05. Girls
and boys did not differ on the proportion of
positive problem solving and negative verbal
behaviors. The univariate F for proportion of
positive nonverbal behaviors revealed no sig-
nificant differences for the two-way interaction
or the two main effects.
July 1984 FAMILY
This content downloaded from
157.193.240.141 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 13:08:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Girls Boys Girls
M SD M SD M SD
Discussion
The major finding of this research is that
stepparent-stepdaughter relationships in both
stepmother and stepfather families were more
problematic than stepparent-stepson relation-
ships. Self-reports from stepchildren and step-
parents and ratings by biological parents all re-
vealed lower scores on Love and higher scores
on Detachment dimensions for stepparent-
stepdaughter relationships. Behavioral mea-
sures derived from the structured interaction
tasks revealed that girls emitted a lower pro-
portion of positive verbal and a higher propor-
tion of negative problem solving behavior
toward their stepparents than did boys. Step-
parents, however, did not differ in their re-
sponses to boys and girls on any of the be-
havioral measures.
It is possible that this "sex of the child" ef-
fect is not unique to stepfamilies and would
have been obtained with a sample of biological
parents and children. However, the extant
research on divorced and nuclear families has
yielded no evidence that girls have more diffi-
cult or lower quality relationships with both
mothers and fathers. Instead, studies have
generally found that opposite sex parent-child
relationships are more difficult (Hetherington,
Cox, & Cox, 1978; Margolin & Patterson, 1975;
Santrock & Warshak, 1979).
The finding that girls had more difficulty re-
lating to stepfathers than boys is consistent
with the results of Santrock et al. (1982). Since
the mother-son relationship after divorce is
often more problematic than the mother-
daughter (Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1978),
boys may welcome the same sex parent figure
while girls may fear a stepfather will disrupt
the mother-daughter bond. Remarriage may
also constitute a greater threat to a girl's rela-
tionship with her nonresidential father. In this
study, nonresidential fathers visited boys more
than twice as often as girls, and this finding is
consistent with other research (e.g., Hess &
Camara, 1979).
RELATIONS 471
 The finding that the stepmother-stepdaugh-
ter relationship was more problematic was not
expected. Since previous research had found
that boys exhibit more competent social be-
havior than girls in father custody, single
parent arrangements (Santrock & Warshak,
1979), it was assumed that boys would have
greater resentment for the potentially intruding
stepmother.
One explanation for this finding stems from
prevailing biases in child custody decision-
making which seldom result in fathers obtain-
ing custody of children, and especially girls
(Sanders & Spanier, 1979). Fathers may be
more likely to obtain custody of girls in situa-
tions where the father-daughter relationship is
unusually close and the mother-daughter rela-
tionship is unusually distant. Consequently,
the remarriage of the father and the entry of a
stepmother into the household may be per-
ceived by girls as a major threat to the father-
daughter relationship. Furthermore, the fre-
quency of visits from nonresidential mothers
revealed the same sex of child difference ob-
served in stepfather families. Girls were visited
less by their nonresidential mothers than boys.
Boys may feel more secure that the step-
mother will augment, rather than supplant, the
biological mother.
The expectation that both boys and girls
would have greater difficulty relating to step-
mothers was not supported by this research.
Extrapolating from Cherlin's incomplete insti-
tutional hypothesis, we had expected that
stepmothers might confront greater ambigui-
ties regarding their stepparent role than step-
fathers and, as a result, stepmother-stepchild
relationships might be plagued with greater
difficulties. There are at least three explana-
tions for the lack of support for this hypothe-
sis: (1) this sample of stepmothers did not
experience greater role ambiguity; (2) step-
mothers experienced greater ambiguities but
coped with them in relatively effective ways;
and (3) role ambiguity does not significantly in-
fluence stepparent-stepchild relationships.
However, these are all speculations. This re-
search did not include a direct measure of role
ambiguity, and thus no conclusions can be of-
fered regarding the impact of this factor on
stepparent-stepchild relationships.
The finding that stepparent-stepdaughter
relationships were more problematic may be
unique to children in the 9-12 year age range.
Children of different ages vary in terms of the
settings in which they are regularly immersed,
the nature of developmental tasks they en-
counter, and their social and cognitive compe-
tencies. While age differences in response to
divorce have been documented (Wallerstein &
Kelly, 1980), empirical studies which examine
how children of different ages cope with remar-
riage of the residential parent are virtually non-
existent.
472 FAMILY RELATIONS
This content downloaded from
157.193.240.141 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 13:08:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Explanations for the findings of this study
are necessarily speculative. This research was
cross-sectional and correlational and has the
concomitant limitations (e.g., third variable and
directionality problems in interpreting results,
nonequivalence of groups due to unknown co-
variates, ignoring time-related changes in intra-
familial relationships). In addition, small sam-
ple sizes limit the generalizability of findings,
different methods of recruiting stepmother and
stepfather families may have engendered
selection biases, and the absence of a single
parent comparison group precluded an assess-
ment of the "effects" of remarriage. Future
studies of stepmother and stepfather families
should use longitudinal designs, mother
custody and father custody comparison
groups, and multiple methods and measures of
the target child's relationships with both
biological parents and stepparent.
REFERENCES
Benson, L. (1968). Fatherhood. New York: Random House.
Bodenheimer, B. M. (1977). Progress under the Uniform Child
Custody Jurisdiction Act and remaining problems: Punitive
decrees, joint custody, and excessive modifications. Cali-
fornia Law Review, 65, 978-1014.
Bowerman, C. D., & Irish, D. P. (1962). Some relationships of
stepchildren to their parents. Marriage and Family Living,
24, 113-131.
Chapman, M. (1977). Father absence, stepfathers, and the cog-
nitive performance of college students. Child Development,
48, 1155-1158.
Cherlin, A. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete institution.
American Journal of Sociology, 84, 634-650.
Clingempeel, W. G. (1981). Quasi-kin relationships and marital
quality in stepfather families. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 41, 890-901.
Duberman, L. (1973). Step-kin relationships. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 35, 283-292.
Duberman, L. (1975). The reconstituted family: A study of re-
married couples and their children. Chicago: Nelson-Hall
Publishers.
Forgatch, M. S., & Wieder, G. (1981). Family problem solving
system. Unpublished Manuscript.
Furstenberg, F. F. (1979). Recycling the family: Perspectives
for researching a neglected family form. Marriage and Fam-
ily Review, 2, 1-22.
Glick, P. C. (1980). Remarriage: Some recent changes and vari-
ations. Journal of Family Issues, 1, 455-478.
Hess, R. D., & Camara, K. A. (1979). Post-divorce relationships
as mediating factors in the consequences of divorce for
children. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 79-96.
Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1978). The aftermath
of divorce. In J. H. Stevens, Jr., & M. Matthews (Eds.),
Mother-child, father-child relations (pp. 149-176).
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of
Young Children.
Lewis, J., Beavers, W., Gossett, J., & Phillips, V. (1976). No
single thread: Psychological health in family systems. New
York: Brunner/Mazel.
Margolin, G., & Patterson, G. R. (1975). Differential conse-
quences provided by mothers and fathers for their sons and
daughters. Developmental Psychology, 11 (4) 537-538.
Oshman, H. P., & Manosevitz, M. (1976). Father absence: Ef-
fects of stepfathers upon psychosocial development in
males. Developmental Psychology, 12, 479-480.
Sanders, R., & Spanier, G. B. (1979). Divorce, child custody and
child support. Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of
the Census, Series P-23, No. 84.
July 1984
Santrock, J. W. (1972). Relation of type and onset of father
absence to cognitive development. Child Development, 43,
455-469.
Santrock, J. W., & Warshak, R. A. (1979). Father custody and
social development in boys and girls. The Journal of Social
Issues, 35, 112-125.
Santrock, J. W., Warshak, R., Linbergh, C., & Meadows, L.
(1982). Children's and parents' observed social behavior in
stepfather families. Child Development, 53, 472-480.
Schaefer, E. (1965). Parent Behavior Inventory. Bethesda, MD:
National Institutes of Health.
Schaefer, E., Edgarton, M., & Finkelstein, N. (1979). Relation-
ship Inventory for Families: Parent-child form. Chapel Hill,

You Child
NC: Carolina Institute for Research on Early Education of
the Handicapped, University of North Carolina.
Spanier, G. B., & Furstenberg, F. F. (in press). Remarriage and
reconstituted families. In M. B. Sussman and S. K. Stein-
metz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family. New
York: Plenum.
Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. S. (1978). Major areas of difficulty for Practical Suggestionsfor
stepparent couples. International Journal of Family Coun-
seling, 6 (2), 70-80. Parents
Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. B. (1979). Stepfamilies: A guide to
working with stepparents and stepchildren. New York: Brun-
ner/Mazel.
Sonja Goldstein, LL.B.,
Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the breakup: and Albert J. Solnit, M.D.
How children actually cope with divorce. New York: Basic
Books. Expert, practical advice from two renowned
Weed, J. A. National estimates of marriage, dissolution, and
survivorship. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 3. Washing-
authorities - a lawyer and a child psychiatrist
ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, DHHS Publica- on how parents can help their children deal
tions.
with the difficulties caused by family
Weiss, R. (1979). The adjudication of custody when parents
separate. In G. Levinger and 0. Moles (Eds.), Divorce.and dissolution. In their discussion of custodial
separation: Context, causes, and consequences (pp. arrangements, visitation, remarriage, and
324-336). New York: Basic Books.
stepparenting, Goldstein and Solnit
emphasize not only the options open to
parents but also the possible psychological
and emotional repercussions on the children
of decisions made by parents and other adults.
An invaluable resource for parents and
professionals alike.

"A very helpful and valuable book."

-Dr. Lee Salk

"Every caring, responsible, divorced parent

should become well-acquainted with the
fund of invaluable information and practical
suggestions to be found in this lucid,
compassionate book."
-Maggie Scarf

"An excellent book!" -Anna Freud

Please send me copies of

Divorce and Your Child at $12.9
My check for is enclosed. Add $1.50
for postage/handling (plus7.S% tax in CT).
Or charge MasterCard VISA
Account #

Expiration date

Signature
Name
Street Cit%_

State Zip

Yale University Press

Dept. 616J, 92A Yale Station, New Haven, Connecticut 06520

July 1984 FAMILY RELATIONS 473

This content downloaded from

157.193.240.141 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 13:08:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms