Integrating the Relational Turbulence Model and a Multiple Goals Approach to Understand Topic Avoidance During the Transition to Extended Family

Abstract

This study focuses on the transition to extended family that occurs as marriage creates in-law relationships along with the spousal unit. Specifically, it utilizes both the relational turbulence model and the multiple goals perspective to examine variations in communication avoidance and satisfaction with one’s in-law relationship. Our model proposes that key mechanisms of relational turbulence (i.e., relational uncertainty and interference from partners) are associated with in-law’s communicative goals (such as managing uncertainty, fostering a positive in-law identity, and maintaining family relationships), which in turn are associated with topic avoidance. In addition, we hypothesized that relational uncertainty, interference from partners, and the use of topic avoidance would be associated with dissatisfaction in nascent in-law bonds. A cross-sectional analysis of data from 203 children-in-law revealed that in addition to direct associations among relational uncertainty, interference from partners, topic avoidance, and satisfaction, children-in-law’s uncertainty management goals mediated a portion of the association between the mechanisms of turbulence and topic avoidance. These findings are consistent with our proposed model, suggesting important implications for our understanding of the transition to extended family, as well as our understanding of relational turbulence and multiple goals in in-law relationships.

Keywords

in-law relationships multiple goals relational turbulence model relationship satisfaction topic avoidance

Research utilizing the relational turbulence model (RTM) has provided clear evidence that periods of relational change are often tumultuous (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004). According to the RTM, relational uncertainty and interference from partners are two mechanisms that result in heightened cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactivity to relationship events during periods of flux (i.e., relational turbulence; Solomon & Knobloch, 2004). Although a corpus of work demonstrates associations among relational uncertainty, partner interference, and intensified reactions (e.g., Knobloch & Carpenter-Theune, 2004; Knobloch & Theiss, 2010; Solomon & Knobloch, 2004), an important question remains: Why do the mechanisms of turbulence link to more extreme (and often negative) reactions? (Solomon, Weber, & Steuber, 2010). In other words, what processes undergird these associations? The current study proposes that part of the reason that relational turbulence may lead to certain behaviors, such as avoiding topics in relationships, is because it shapes the goals that individuals have for communication.

Our argument builds on recent scholarship suggesting that cognitions are critical in explaining how mechanisms of turbulence influence behavioral reactivity (Knobloch & Theiss, 2011; McLaren, Solomon, & Priem, 2012; Theiss & Estlein, 2014). Such studies establish the importance of cognitive mediators in explaining how the mechanisms of turbulence are associated with polarized behavioral reactions, and the current study builds on that idea by arguing that turbulence may also influence another type of cognition that is not usually conceptualized as being part of (or restricted to) periods of turbulence, communication goals. Communicative goals, which reflect desired outcomes of communication, are a key factor explaining communicative behaviors across many contexts, not only those involving turbulence or turmoil (e.g., Clark & Delia, 1979; Dillard, 2008). Yet it is plausible that when relational turbulence is present, it would influence communication goals, which may help account for the wide variety of communicative manifestations of turbulence. Thus, we argue that the mechanisms of turbulence likely influence the goals that individuals elect to pursue, which in turn contributes to how they communicate.

One context in which mechanisms of turbulence and goals may be particularly salient is the transition to extended family. Research suggests that children-in-law experience a multitude of questions and perceive parent-in-law interference while assimilating into their new family-in-law (Cotterill, 1994; Mikucki-Enyart, Caughlin, & Rittenour, 2015; Morr Serewicz, 2006). Such uncertainties and perceived interference are often linked to heightened reactions, such as engaging in avoidant communication (e.g., W. A. Afifi & Guerrero, 2000; Knobloch, Ebata, McGlaughlin, & Theiss, 2013). Topic avoidance, intentionally evading or purposefully not disclosing information to others (Guerrero & Afifi, 1995a), appears to be detrimental to nascent in-law bonds (Mikucki-Enyart, 2011; Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015). Unfortunately, dissatisfaction or other strains in the in-law relationship reverberate throughout the family system, affecting not only the quality of the in-law relationship itself but also the new marital dyad’s satisfaction (Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015). Thus, understanding what makes newly forming in-law relationships more successful is important.

In addition to helping explain why relational turbulence is related to communication, our model could broaden the theoretical scope of the RTM, suggesting that mechanisms of relational turbulence may influence not only reactivity in relationships but also individuals’ goal-oriented and strategic communication. Conceptually, this is important to the RTM because it would expand our understanding of how relational uncertainty and interference from partners influence relational communication. This model would be important for our understanding of communicative goals, providing some explanation for why people adopt different goals, which has been an understudied question in the literature. In the following sections, we outline the RTM and the multiple goals perspective as they apply to the in-law context, we detail our proposed theoretical model, and we discuss our findings in terms of their theoretical contributions.

The Relational Turbulence Model

The RTM (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004) examines the origins and outcomes of turbulence, defined as “heightened emotional, cognitive, and communicative reactivity to relationship circumstances” (Theiss, Knobloch, Checton, & Magsamen-Conrad, 2009, p. 589), that individuals experience during periods of flux. Turbulence, or heightened reactivity, manifests in multiple ways including an upswing in jealousy and negative affect (Knobloch, Miller, Bond, & Mannone, 2007), decreased relational satisfaction (Knobloch, 2008; Mikucki-Enyart, 2011), appraisals of partner irritations as more severe (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004), and an increase in avoidant communication (Knobloch & Carpenter-Theune, 2004; Mikucki-Enyart, 2011). Given the far-reaching consequences of in-law communication, we examine topic avoidance as a communicative marker of turbulence (Knobloch & Carpenter-Theune, 2004; Theiss & Nagy, 2012; Mikucki-Enyart, 2011). Within the in-law domain, early communication with in-laws may set the stage for children-in-law’s subsequent communication and relating within their in-law (Merrill, 2007) and marital relationship (Bryant, Conger, & Meehan, 2001; Veroff, Douvan, & Hatchett, 1995). Therefore, understanding how the mechanisms of turbulence affect children-in-law during the transition to extended family is critical to helping in-laws traverse this period of change. Two of the key mechanisms thought to contribute to the experience of relational turbulence are relational uncertainty and interference from partners.

Relational uncertainty is defined as “the degree of confidence people have in their perceptions of involvement within interpersonal relationships” (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999, p. 264), and encompasses questions and doubts that arise from three discrete, yet interrelated, sources: self, partner, and relationship. Self uncertainty refers to people’s doubts about their own participation within the relationship, whereas partner uncertainty refers to people’s questions or doubts about their partner’s involvement within the relationship (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). Relationship uncertainty focuses on the dyad as a unit and refers to doubts people have regarding the nature or future of the relationship (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). Relational uncertainty contributes to turbulence through its ability to prevent partners from obtaining information to adequately interpret relationship events (Theiss et al., 2009).

Interference from partners occurs when a “partner’s involvement makes an action more difficult to perform or prevents a desired outcome” (Solomon & Theiss, 2011, p. 205). Relational partners often experience interference as they establish interdependence and attempt to coordinate actions (Berscheid, 1983). Interdependence is a defining characteristic of interpersonal relationships, yet also provides an opportunity for partners to disrupt one another’s routines or ability to attain aims unencumbered (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004), resulting in amplified reactions to relational experiences.

Both relational uncertainty and partner interference are linked to intensified cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions. In general, relational uncertainty is damaging to relationships and is associated with increased negative emotions and topic avoidance (Knobloch & Carpenter-Theune, 2004; Knobloch, Miller, & Carpenter, 2007). Partner interference is associated with perceptions that (a) partner irritations are relationally threatening (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004), (b) hurtful messages are intentional and detrimental to the relationship (Theiss et al., 2009), and (c) social network members hinder relationship development (Knobloch & Donovan-Kicken, 2006). Collectively, these relational characteristics appear to make individuals susceptible to polarized cognitive, emotional, and communicative reactions.

The Relational Turbulence Model and In-Law Relationships

Recently, scholars have uncovered even more complexity to the uncertainties experienced within nonromantic relationships. Mikucki-Enyart et al. (2015) found that during the transition to extended family, children-in-law experience three context-specific sources of relational uncertainty—dyadic uncertainty, family system uncertainty, and individual uncertainty (see Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015)—that are conceptually and empirically distinct from the more generalizable sources of relational uncertainty articulated by Knobloch and Solomon (1999). Although all three sources of children-in-law relational uncertainty are discrete from the context-free trio of sources, both dyadic and individual uncertainty echo concerns seen in romantic unions, whereas family system uncertainty, which refers to questions children-in-law have about how the in-law relationship will affect and be affected by relationships embedded within the larger family system, reflects questions that are germane only to the in-law context. Thus, the present investigation examines how the three, context-free sources of relational uncertainty (Knobloch, Sharabi, Delaney, & Suranne, 2015)—self, partner, and relationship (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999)—and the context-specific family system uncertainty (Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015) work in tandem with in-laws’ goals to shape communication.

Interference from partners may also be uniquely experienced in the extended family context. Conceptualizations of interference within the RTM tend to focus on partners’ influence on day-to-day activities (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004). Although in-laws can exert influence on one another’s everyday lives (e.g., unannounced visits; Mikucki-Enyart, in press), parent-in-law interference often occurs on a broader level. For instance, in-laws may impede children-in-law’s family-level aims, such as the development of an independent nuclear family or the establishment of new family traditions (Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015). Thus, in-laws may experience both daily interference, which impedes lower order activities (e.g., time management or socializing), as well as family interference, which impedes higher order objectives (e.g., exerting autonomy, establishing a family identity).

In in-law relationships, relational uncertainty and interference are associated with adverse outcomes. Children-in-law’s relational uncertainty is linked to dissatisfaction within both the in-law and marital relationship (Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015). In addition, interference from in-laws is associated with marital instability within the newly formed marital dyad (Veroff et al., 1995), increased parent–adult child conflict (Fischer, 1983), and avoidant in-law communication (Merrill, 2007).

Despite overwhelming evidence documenting direct associations between mechanisms of turbulence and polarized communication, as with the larger RTM literature, little is known about why the mechanisms of turbulence are often linked to amplified responses. Recent research hints that cognition may play an important role; for example, Theiss and Estlein (2014) found that cognitions may be a more proximal predictor of behavioral reactivity than either relational uncertainty or partner interference. Assuming that the mechanisms of turbulence influence individuals’ cognitions, it makes sense that the mechanisms would serve as a backdrop for individuals’ decision making and strategizing about communication, implying that the mechanisms of turbulence would influence individuals’ communicative goals, which in turn contributes to their relational behaviors. Therefore, a multiple goals approach is a strong candidate for helping illuminate some of the processes through which relational uncertainty and interference link to relational behavior, such as topic avoidance.

Multiple Goals Approach

Caughlin (2010) employed the term multiple goals theories to refer to a constellation of interpersonal communication theories that examine the role that goals, which are broadly defined as “end states for which individuals strive” (Berger, 2007, p. 50), play in communication. Goals serve as an impetus for action, the behaviors that are employed to facilitate goal attainment (Dillard, 2008). In other words, goals activate communication strategies (Wilson, 2002). Communication goals fall into at least three distinct types: instrumental or task, identity, and relational (Clark & Delia, 1979). In any given interaction, individuals must manage multiple and often conflicting goals (Berger, 2005; Dillard, 2008; Dillard, Segrin, & Harden, 1989), forcing them to, at times, prioritize certain goals over others (Dillard et al., 1989; Wilson, 2002). When children-in-law, for instance, wish to maintain their privacy (instrumental goal), they may risk seeming aloof or cold (identity goal).

Much research employing a multiple goals perspective has focused on micro-level exchanges (e.g., Sabee & Wilson, 2005; Samp & Monahan, 2011); however, goals (and perceptions of goals) can be conceptualized across interactions to explain broader communication patterns or tendencies (Caughlin, 2010; Donovan-Kicken & Caughlin, 2010). Given that in-laws likely pursue goals over multiple interactions, the strategies they employ to achieve their aims may shape their global communication behaviors. Global assessments or attributions of communication behaviors are linked to relational outcomes and behavioral intentions within a variety of relational domains, including the in-law context (e.g., Rittenour & Soliz, 2009).

Although substantial evidence supports the link between goals and communication, what factors lead to the formation of certain goals remains underexplored. In the current study, we nominate the mechanisms of turbulence as factors that likely shape children-in-law’s interaction goals. An in-law relationship marked by partner interference, for instance, may elicit a goal of establishing boundaries, or a relationship riddled with uncertainty may call for uncertainty reduction. Given that communication patterns within the in-law dyad have implications not just for the in-law dyad but also for the marital dyad and parent-child pair (Mikucki-Enyart, 2011; Morr Serewicz, Hosmer, Ballard, & Griffin, 2008), it is important to understand how relational features contribute to children-in-law’s interaction goals, which in turn link to their communicative behaviors. Before understanding these associations, it is critical to delineate salient children-in-law goals during the transition to extended family.

Children-in-Law’s Communicative Goals

The potential goals children-in-law pursue within their in-law relationships are likely as varied as the climate of in-law relationships themselves. However, research on in-law ties points to several common goals that echo the tripartite schema advanced by Clark and Delia (1979). More precisely, children-in-law likely attempt to manage uncertainty (instrumental goal; Cotterill, 1994; Merrill, 2007), establish a positive in-law identity (identity goal; Merrill, 2007; Prentice, 2008), and help facilitate the maintenance of family relationships (relational goal; Merrill, 2007; Turner, Young, & Black, 2006).

Uncertainty management

Children-in-law grapple with relational uncertainty during the transition to extended family (Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015). In addition to encountering myriad questions, children-in-law must decide how to confront their uncertainty. The lack of scripts surrounding in-law interactions makes managing uncertainty a daunting task (Morr Serewicz, 2006). Should children-in-law tackle questions head on in an effort to structure their in-law relationship? Or, should they attempt to avoid potentially displeasing certainty?

There are different theoretical perspectives on the advisability of trying to eliminate such uncertainties. Uncertainty reduction theory (URT) asserts that uncertainty, on a whole, is negative and people feel compelled to reduce it (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Conversely, uncertainty management theory (UMT) suggests that, at times, uncertainty may be appraised positively as it protects people from potentially troubling news and allows them to remain hopeful about less than favorable circumstances (Brashers, 2001). The evidence to date in the in-law context suggests that uncertainty is usually deleterious and associated with not feeling like a family and relational dissatisfaction (Mikucki-Enyart, 2011; Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015). Although children-in-law may typically desire uncertainty reduction, this does not mean they do not sometimes try to maintain uncertainty. Despite differing in the specific predicted reaction to uncertainty, URT and UMT both imply that children-in-law are motivated, to some extent, to manage uncertainty in some way, either to reduce or maintain the uncertainty. Thus, uncertainty management goals are probably salient in in-law relationships. We argue that such uncertainty management goals are influenced by the mechanisms of turbulence. Self uncertainty or perceptions of partner inference, for instance, may ignite a goal of seeking information as children-in-law attempt to understand their own involvement within the in-law relationship or discern their in-law’s influence in their lives. Family system uncertainty or partner uncertainty may encourage the goal of maintaining uncertainty if children-in-law want to protect themselves from potentially damaging certainties (e.g., my parent-in-law does not approve of me).

Foster a positive in-law identity

Children-in-law, especially during the early years of marriage, want to establish a positive in-law identity (Morr Serewicz, 2014). Although not everyone agrees on what a “good” child-in-law is, most children-in-law strive to prove they are a “good match” for their spouse (Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015) and that they are a suitable extended family member (Merrill, 2007). Such identity goals are probably at least somewhat relevant to most children-in-law, and the mechanisms of turbulence during the formative years may contribute to the extent that they are. In-law ties plagued by relational uncertainty may make establishing a positive in-law identity a critical goal. If children-in-law experience partner or relationship uncertainty, for example, they may strive to communicate in ways that solidify a positive identity. Alternatively, if children-in-law have uncertainty about their own involvement within the in-law relationship, they may be less concerned with constructing a desirable image. Such goals likely mold, at least partially, children-in-law’s communicative behaviors.

The specific direction of this association, however, is less clear. It is likely that the desire to foster a positive in-law relationship can be linked to both decreased and increased reliance on topic avoidance. Children-in-law may engage in topic avoidance to prevent their parents-in-law from uncovering undesirable information that would tarnish the façade they are attempting to create (i.e., self-protection; Guerrero & Afifi, 1995b). Yet, they may also eschew avoidant communication in favor of transparency to adhere to standards, which suggest that “good” families engage in open communication (Caughlin, 2003).

Maintain family relationships

Although most children-in-law likely wish to establish and maintain, at least initially, a relationship with their parents-in-law, their relational goals do not always solely focus on the dyadic in-law relationship. The triadic nature of in-law ties results in children-in-law having relational goals that concern all members of the in-law triad (and larger family system). In fact, relationships embedded within the in-law triad are inextricably linked (Morr Serewicz, 2008), such that accomplishing the goal of maintaining one relationship can help facilitate the maintenance of other family relationships, both within and outside the in-law triangle. Failure to maintain the in-law relationship can be problematic for the entire family system; for instance, negative in-law relationships have been linked to an increased risk of divorce, reduced marital success, and decreased marital satisfaction (Bryant et al., 2001; Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015; Timmer & Veroff, 2000). In addition, strained in-law ties may impede contact between grandparents and grandchildren, especially paternal grandparents (Euler, Hoier, & Rohde, 2001; Fingerman, 2004), which can be deleterious given that grandparents play a vital role in transmitting family heritage and history, promoting skill development, and providing friendship and support to grandchildren (Tyszkowa, 1991). Thus, in-law relationships are not always the end, but often, a means to maintaining family ties. The extent to which maintaining in-law relationships is salient, however, probably varies, and as with other goals, we expect that the variations would be influenced by the mechanisms of turbulence.

The Hypothesized Model: Research Questions and Hypotheses

Our argument to this point has focused on why, at a broad level, it is reasonable to consider communication goals as mediators between the mechanisms of turbulence and topic avoidance, and we have discussed why it is important to consider these constructs in in-law relationships. Based on this broader discussion, it is possible to make more specific predictions, which are summarized in Figure 1. First, based on past work on the RTM, we predict that the mechanisms of turbulence will be directly linked to children-in-law’s use of topic avoidance (Figure 1, Path a). Specifically, relational uncertainty (Hypothesis 1a [H1a]) and interference from partners (Hypothesis 1b [H1b]) will be positively associated with topic avoidance. The notion that this association may be mediated by interaction goals is represented by paths b and c, and we hypothesize that the association between relational uncertainty and topic avoidance (Hypothesis 2a [H2a]) and between partner interference and topic avoidance (Hypothesis 2b [H2b]) will be mediated by children-in-law’s interaction goals. Although we predict mediation, as noted above, the direction of some of the associations is unclear; thus, we pose research questions about the nature of the association between relational uncertainty (Research Question 1a [RQ1a]) and interference from partners (Research Question 1b [RQ1b]) and children-in-law’s interaction goals, and we also ask how children-in-law’s goals of managing uncertainty (Research Question 2a [RQ2a]), fostering a positive in-law identity (Research Question 2b [RQ2b]), and maintaining family relationships (Research Question 2c [RQ2c]) are associated with topic avoidance. Moreover, past research (Knobloch, 2008; Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015) suggests that mechanisms of turbulence are associated with relational dissatisfaction (Hypothesis 3 [H3], Path d). Finally, although topic avoidance can be beneficial to relationships (T. D. Afifi, Caughlin, & Afifi, 2007), empirical evidence suggests that it is generally unsatisfying (Caughlin & Golish, 2002; Mikucki-Enyart, 2011). As such, we predict that topic avoidance will be negatively associated with relationship satisfaction (Hypothesis 4 [H4], Path e).

Figure 1.

The hypothesized model.

Method

Participants

As part of a larger investigation examining the transition to extended family,¹ newly married (n = 115) and engaged-to-be married (n = 88) individuals responded to an online, self-administered survey (N = 203; 171 women, 30 men, 2 unreported). Participants ranged in age from 19 to 53 years of age (M = 27.46, SD = 5.63). The sample was primarily White, Non-Hispanic (n = 173), followed by African American (n = 12), Asian (n = 10), Hispanic (n = 5), Other (n = 2), and one unreported. The majority of participants reported on their first marriage (n = 97) or first engagement (n = 83). The average length of marriage was 16.93 months (range = 1-50 months; SD = 12.56 months) and engaged participants were affianced on average 8.25 months (range = 1-46 months; SD = 8.25 months). Participants, for the most part, did not have children with their spouse/fiancé (no children, n = 158; children n = 44).

On average, participants’ spouses/fiancés were 29.07 years of age (range = 20-58 years, SD = 6.54) and were White, non-Hispanic (n = 162), African American (n = 17), Asian (n = 11), Hispanic (n = 8), and five unreported. Most participants reported on their relationship with their mother-in-law (n = 154) with a quarter reporting on their relationship with their father-in-law (n = 47). Participants had known their parent-in-law between 4 months and 24 years (M = 4.75 years, SD = 3.52 years). On average, parents-in-law were 57 years of age (range = 39-82, SD = 7.54) and were primarily White, non-Hispanic (n = 165), followed by African American (n = 14), Asian (n = 11), Hispanic (n = 8), Other (n = 3), and 2 unreported.

Procedures

Participants were recruited through snowball sampling, online solicitation in relationship forums, flyers throughout the local community, and advertisements in an email newsletter distributed to university faculty and staff. Participants completed an anonymous, secured, online questionnaire. Participants who entered the incentive raffle were directed to a separate survey with its own webpage and link. Thus, identifying information was not linked to the survey data.

Measures

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to assess the unidimensionality of all multi-item measures (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982). Three goodness-of-fit indices were used to assess the fit of each model: (a) the χ² statistic, (b) the comparative fit index (CFI), and (c) the root mean square of approximation (RMSEA). Based on a combination of recommendations outlined by Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010) and Kline (2011), a model was deemed an excellent fit if (a) the p value for the χ² statistic was not significant, and (b) RMSEA was < .08 with a CFI > .97. Yet given that the best cutoff values “is neither simple nor straightforward” (Hair et al., 2010, p. 651), models may be acceptable even if less than excellent fit, particularly as the complexity of the models increases. After confirming unidimensionality, the average of the responses was used to create composite scores for each measure.

Relational uncertainty

Twenty-seven items from Knobloch and Solomon’s (1999, 2002) relational uncertainty scale were selected to assess the context-free sources of relational uncertainty. Items that were romantic in nature (e.g., “How much are you romantically interested in your partner?”) and that implied a voluntary relationship² (e.g., “whether or not you want this relationship to last”) were eliminated from the scale. The remaining items were revised to reflect the in-law relationship. Respondents were asked, “How certain are you about . . .” and responses were measured on a 6-point scale, 1 = completely or absolutely uncertain, 6 = completely or absolutely certain. Responses were reverse scored to reflect participants’ degree of uncertainty.

Self uncertainty (e.g., “how much you like your parent-in-law”; M = 1.64, SD = .54, α = .93) and partner uncertainty (e.g. “how much your parent-in-law likes you”; M = 1.76, SD = .57, α = .93) were each measured with eight items. Ten items measured relationship uncertainty (e.g., “whether or not you and your parent-in-law feel the same way about each other”; M = 1.82, SD = .53, α = .93).

Based on previous research (Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015), 19 items measured family system uncertainty (M = 1.34, SD = .42, α = .93) and included uncertainties about extended family relationships, and triadic influence (e.g., “whether or not your parent-in-law supports your marital relationship” and “how your relationship with your parent-in-law will affect your marital relationship”). Consistent with previous research, the four sources of relational uncertainty formed unidimensional scales³ (Knobloch, 2008; Knobloch, Miller, & Carpenter, 2007; Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015): self uncertainty, χ²(11) = 14.72, p = .19, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .041 (90% confidence interval [CI] = [.000, .091]); partner uncertainty, χ²(14) = 18.67, p = .18, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .041 (90% CI = [.000, .085]); relationship uncertainty, χ²(25) = 28.74, p = .27, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .030 (90% CI = [.000, .066]); and family system uncertainty, χ²(65) = 78.84, p = .12, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .031 (90% CI = [.000, .056]).

Interference from partners

Eight items measured partner interference. Participants were presented with the stem, “My parent-in-law . . .” and responses were rated on a 6-point scale, 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree. Higher scores indicated greater partner interference. Solomon and colleagues’ (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004; Knobloch & Solomon, 2004) four-item scale measured daily interference (e.g., “disrupts my daily routine”). Based on a review of the in-law literature (see Cotterill, 1994; Merrill, 2007; Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015), four items were created to measure family interference (e.g., “interferes with my ability to maintain my relationship with other family members”). Given the conceptual distinction between daily and family interference, a CFA was conducted with a two-factor model, but the two-factor model was a poor fit to the data, χ²(19) = 66.21, p < .001, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .112 (90% CI = [.083, .142]), and the two factors were highly correlated (r = . 87). Thus, a CFA was conducted with a one-factor model of interference that included all eight items. The unidimensional factor proved to be a good fit with the data, χ²(10) = 11.55, p = .32, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .028 (90% CI = [.000, .085]). The eight items measuring both daily and family interference items were averaged to create a composite partner interference score (M = 1.98, SD = .97, α = .88).

Interaction goals

Seven items assessed children-in-law’s uncertainty management goal. Questions were preceded by the stem, “When talking to my parent-in-law I try to . . . .” Responses were measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale, 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree. Higher scores on each scale indicated higher goal importance. Based on reasoning from URT (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) and scale items employed by Mongeau, Morr Serewicz, and Ficara Therrien (2004), four items were created to assess children-in-law’s desire to reduce uncertainty (e.g., “get answers to questions I have about my parent-in-law”; M = 4.21, SD = 1.10, α = .76). Following the logic outlined by UMT (Brashers, 2001), three items were created to examine in-law’s desire to maintain uncertainty (e.g., “avoid discovering undesirable information about my parent-in-law”; M = 3.46, SD = 1.22, α = .64). Both scales were unidimensional: reduce uncertainty, χ²(2) = 1.96, p = .37, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .000 (90% CI = [.00, .141]), and maintain uncertainty, χ²(2) = 1.20 p = .55, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .000 (90% CI = [.000, .122]).

Four items derived from a review of the in-law literature (see Cotterill, 1994; Merrill, 2007; Turner et al., 2006) were created to assess in-laws’ desire to foster a positive in-law identity (M = 5.83, SD = 1.03, α = .86; for example, “have my parent-in-law view me as a ‘good’ child-in-law”). The scale was unidimensional, χ²(1) = 3.44, p = .56, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .000 (90% CI = [.000, .158]).

Nine items measured participants’ desire to maintain family relationships, with items modeled after questions used in previous measures of relationship maintenance goals (Dillard et al., 1989; Samp & Solomon, 1999). Three items measured in-laws desire to maintain the in-law relationship (e.g., “protect my relationship with my parent-in-law”), maintain the linchpin relationship (e.g., “preserve my relationship with my fiancé/spouse”), and maintain the intergenerational relationship (e.g., “avoid damaging my child’s [or future child’s] relationship with his or her grandparent”). The scale was unidimensional, χ²(18) = 28.91, p = .05, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .056 (90% CI = [.003, .092]), and reliable (M = 5.58, SD = 1.02, α = .91).

Topic avoidance

Twenty-eight items measured children-in-law’s use of topic avoidance with their in-law/future in-law. The scale was based on a modified version of Golish and Caughlin’s (2002) stepfamily topic avoidance scale, which was adapted from Guerrero and Afifi’s (1995b) original scale and was augmented with items that reflected situationally relevant topics of children-in-law avoidance (Mikucki-Enyart & Rittenour, 2012). Two items measured each of the following topics of avoidance germane to the in-law context: children (e.g., “talking about my having children with my parent-in-law”), child-in-law’s family (e.g., “discussing my family relationships with my parent-in-law”), couple’s decision making (e.g., “telling my parent-in-law about decisions my fiancé/spouse and I make”), everything (e.g., “discussing most topics with my parent-in-law”), living arrangements (e.g., “discussing where my fiancé/spouse and I see ourselves living in the future”), and work/school (e.g., “talking to my parent-in-law about career issues”). Scale items were prefaced by the stem “I avoid . . .” and responses were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Higher scores indicated greater avoidance. Given that topic avoidance is considered a causal indicators model (Bollen & Lennox, 1991), such that the indicators determine the latent variable not the other way around, a CFA was not conducted on this measure. All items were averaged to create a composite score (M = 3.50, SD = 1.15), which demonstrated strong reliability (α = .96).

Relationship satisfaction

Huston, McHale, and Crouter’s (1986) Marital Opinion Questionnaire (MOQ) was modified to assess participants’ relational satisfaction with their parent-in-law. The semantic differential format was revised for use in the online survey. Eight anchor terms (e.g., rewarding, empty) were selected, and participants were asked to report the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each item (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Negatively valenced (e.g., miserable) items were reverse scored. Procedures outlined by Huston et al. (1986) were employed to create a composite satisfaction score (M = 5.40, SD = 1.27). The scale was unidimensional, χ²(21) = 28.19, p = .14, CFI = 99, RMSEA = .042 (90% CI = [.000, .078]), and demonstrated strong reliability (α = .93, r = .95, p < .01).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Bivariate correlations between the independent and dependent variables are presented in Table 1. Two-tailed tests of significance were used for all analyses. Based on the previous literature, length of relationship (Merrill, 2007), whether the participant was already married to the linchpin or engaged, the presence of children/grandchildren (Fischer, 1983), and sex differences between participants (males vs. females) and the sex of the parent-in-law they were reporting on (i.e., mother-in-law vs. father-in-law) were examined as covariates in each model. Consistent with prior research, these covariates did not have significant associations with the independent or dependent variables (Mikucki-Enyart, 2011; Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015) and were excluded from the final analyses.

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlations Among Independent and Dependent Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Self uncertainty	—
2. Partner uncertainty	.59**	—
3. Relationship uncertainty	.68**	.74**	—
4. Family system uncertainty	.50**	.43**	.45**	—
5. Partner interference	.41**	.24**	.30**	.32**	—
6. Reduce uncertainty	−.17*	−.03	−.07	−.15*	−.14	—
7. Maintain uncertainty	.33**	.30**	.31**	.26**	.23**	.10	—
8. Foster positive in-law identity	−.24**	−.16*	−.14	−.24**	−.19**	.48**	.14*	—
9. Maintain family relationships	−.10	−.05	−.01	−.18*	−.14	.45**	.17*	.71**	—
10. Topic avoidance	.48**	.33**	.40**	.27**	.46**	−.24**	.30*	−.16*	−.05	—
11. Relational satisfaction	−.57**	−.40**	−.44**	−.43**	−.55**	.25**	−.29**	.35**	.15*	−.62**	—

p < .05. **p < .01.

Main Analyses

Structural equation modeling (SEM; AMOS 20) using maximum likelihood estimation was used to estimate all models and account for multivariate nonnormality (Fan & Wang, 1998). Composite variables were formed to assist in the construction of a latent-composite model, which recognizes both systematic and random error (see Stephenson & Holbert, 2003). Error variance for all latent variables was set to (1 − α)(σ²) the variance of the indicator (Stephenson & Holbert, 2003).

Given that the primary objective of the present study was to examine how each mechanism of turbulence (i.e., sources of relational uncertainty and interference from partners) associated with children-in-law’s interaction goals, topic avoidance, and satisfaction, a series of SEM models were run to examine associations between each individual mechanism of turbulence, interaction goal, and communicative and relational outcome. Table 2 provides a summary of these modification and goodness-of-fit statistics for the final models, with each line in the table representing one model.⁴ A single combined model for each goal was not tested because a large summary model was superfluous for the purposes of testing the questions of focus in the current investigation and because the larger models would require estimating more parameters for a sample this size than is recommended (Kline, 2011).⁵

Table 2.

Fit Statistics for Final Structural Equation Models.

Mechanisms of turbulence	Children-in-law’s goal
Mechanisms of turbulence	χ²	df	p	CFI	RMSEA	90% CI
	Reduce uncertainty
Self uncertainty	2.47	1	.12	.99	.086	[.000, .229]
Partner uncertainty^a	4.73	2	.09	.98	.083	[.000, .183]
Relationship uncertainty^a	5.16	2	.08	.98	.089	[.000, .188]
Family system uncertainty	2.20	1	.14	.99	.075	[.000, .220]
Partner interference	3.24	1	.07	.99	.106	[.000, .245]
	Maintain uncertainty
Self uncertainty	0.26	1	.61	1.00	.000	[.000, .151]
Partner uncertainty	0.88	1	.35	1.00	.000	[.000, .184]
Relationship uncertainty	0.96	1	.33	1.00	.000	[.000, .187]
Family system uncertainty	0.72	1	.40	1.00	.000	[.000, .177]
Partner interference	1.46	1	.23	1.00	.048	[.000, .203]
	Foster positive in-law identity
Self uncertainty^b	0.26	1	.61	1.00	.000	[.000, .150]
Partner uncertainty^b	2.32	1	.13	.99	.082	[.000, .225]
Relationship uncertainty^b	2.29	1	.13	.99	.081	[.000, .224]
Family system uncertainty^b	1.98	1	.16	.99	.070	[.000, .217]
Partner interference^b	0.76	1	.38	1.00	.000	[.000, .178]
	Maintain family relationships
Self uncertainty^c	1.83	2	.40	1.00	.000	[.000, .137]
Partner uncertainty^c	0.63	2	.73	1.00	.000	[.000, .100]
Relationship uncertainty^c	0.48	2	.79	1.00	.000	[.000, .091]
Family system uncertainty^d	2.15	2	.34	.99	.020	[.000, .144]
Partner interference^d	2.55	2	.28	1.00	.037	[.000, .151]

Note. N = 199. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error approximation; CI = confidence interval.

The path between the mechanism of turbulence and interaction goal was removed (Path b in Figure 2).

The path between the interaction goal and topic avoidance was removed (Path b in Figure 2), and a path between the interaction goal and satisfaction was added (Path f in Figure 2).

The paths between turbulence and the interaction goal (Path b in Figure 1) and the interaction goal and topic avoidance (Path c in Figure 2) were removed, and a path between the interaction goal and satisfaction was added (Path f in Figure 2).

The path between interaction goal and topic avoidance was removed (Path c in Figure 2).

Bootstrapping was employed to examine the proposed mediated relationships (Hayes, 2009). To determine whether an indirect effect was significant, the bias-corrected confidence interval (BC CI) was examined; if zero was not within the CI, then it was reasonable to claim that the variable was a statistically significant mediator (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

The majority of the predicted models were a good fit to the data. However, in cases when the original model fit poorly, modifications were made based on modification indices and theoretical plausibility. Table 3 provides standardized path coefficients for the final models. Each row summarizes one model, and the columns correspond to the paths depicted in Figure 2.

Table 3.

Standardized Path Coefficients for Final Structural Equation Model Paths Depicted in Figure 2.

Mechanisms of turbulence	Children-in-law’s goal
Mechanisms of turbulence	a	b	c	d	e	f
	Reduce uncertainty
Self uncertainty	.47***	−.22*	−.19*	−.38***	−.47***	n/a
Partner uncertainty	.34***	—	.29***	−.23***	−.58***	n/a
Relationship uncertainty	.41***	—	−.26***	−.23***	−.56***	n/a
Family system uncertainty	.24***	−.19*	−.25**	−.29***	−.58***	n/a
Partner interference	.47***	−.18*	−.21**	−.38***	−.47***	n/a
	Maintain uncertainty
Self uncertainty	.42***	.43***	.21*	−.38***	−.47***	n/a
Partner uncertainty	.23**	.39***	.30**	−.23***	−.58***	n/a
Relationship uncertainty	.32***	.41***	.26**	−.23***	−.56***	n/a
Family system uncertainty	.18*	.34***	.33***	−.29***	−.58***	n/a
Partner interference	.42***	.32***	.26**	−.38***	−.47***	n/a
	Foster positive in-law identity
Self uncertainty	.51***	−.28***	—	−.32***	−.46***	.23***
Partner uncertainty	.35***	−.18*	—	−.20**	−.56***	.27***
Relationship uncertainty	.42***	−.16*	—	−.21**	−.54***	.28***
Family system uncertainty	.29***	−.27***	—	−.24***	−.56***	.24***
Partner interference	.51***	−.23**	—	−.33***	−.46***	.24***
	Maintain family relationships
Self uncertainty	.51***	—	—	−.37***	−.47***	.11*
Partner uncertainty	.35***	—	—	−.23***	−.58***	.13*
Relationship uncertainty	.42***	—	—	−.24***	−.56***	.14*
Family system uncertainty	.29***	−.20**	—	−.29***	−.58***	n/a
Partner interference	.50***	−.16*	—	−.38***	−.47***	n/a

Note. N = 199. “—” denotes path removed in final model; n/a denotes path not added.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 2.

The final model.

As predicted, across models, the sources of relational uncertainty (H1a) and interference from partners (H1b) were positively associated with topic avoidance. The mediating role of interaction goals was partially supported (H2). The goal of reducing uncertainty mediated the association between family system uncertainty and topic avoidance but not the other sources of relational uncertainty (H2a) or partner interference (H2b). The goal of maintaining uncertainty mediated the link between partner uncertainty, relationship uncertainty, family system uncertainty (H2a), and interference from partners (H2b). The remaining two goals—fostering a positive in-law identity and maintaining family relationships—did not mediate the relationship between mechanisms of turbulence and topic avoidance. A summary of the tests of the indirect effects with significant mediation through interaction goals is presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Summary of the Significant Indirect Effects of Goals on the Relationship Between Mechanisms of Turbulence and Topic Avoidance.

	β	95% BC CI (lower-upper)
Goal: Reduce uncertainty
Family system uncertainty → Reduce uncertainty → Topic avoidance	.05	[.01, .12]
Goal: Maintain uncertainty
Partner uncertainty 4→ Maintain uncertainty → Topic avoidance	.12	[.04, .24]
Relationship uncertainty → Maintain uncertainty → Topic avoidance	.12	[.02, .23]
Family system uncertainty → Maintain uncertainty → Topic avoidance	.11	[.03, .23]
Partner interference → Maintain uncertainty → Topic avoidance	.08	[.01, .20]

Note. BC CI = bias-corrected confidence interval. All indirect effects are significant at p < .05; BC CI does not include zero.

As shown in column b of Table 3, in most models, the mechanisms of turbulence were significantly associated with children-in-law’s goals. In the few associations that were not significant, the trend was in the same direction as the significant findings (e.g., as shown in Table 1, the two correlations for the nonsignificant associations between the mechanisms of turbulence and the goal of reducing uncertainty was negative just like the significant associations). Thus, the pattern of results showed strong support (and no contrary evidence) for the overall conclusion that the mechanisms of turbulence were negatively associated with the goal of reducing uncertainty (with three of five being statistically significant), fostering a positive in-law identity (with all five significant), and maintaining family relationships (with two of five being significant). All five mechanisms of turbulence were significantly and positively associated with the goal of maintaining uncertainty (RQ1). Moreover, the goal of reducing uncertainty was negatively associated with topic avoidance, whereas the goal of maintaining uncertainty was positively associated with topic avoidance (RQ2a). Neither the goal of fostering a positive in-law identity (RQ2b) nor maintaining family relationships (RQ2c) was significantly associated with topic avoidance in their respective models (see Table 3), and these paths were removed from these models to enhance model fit (see Table 2). As hypothesized, across models the mechanisms of turbulence (H3) and topic avoidance (H4) were linked to dissatisfaction. Although not anticipated, in some models, communication goals were positively associated with relationship satisfaction (Figure 2, Path f).

Discussion

One objective of the present study was to integrate the RTM and a multiple goals approach to understand if, and how, communicative goals mediated the link between the mechanisms of turbulence and topic avoidance. In addition, we sought to understand how relational uncertainty and partner interference, along with topic avoidance, affect the relational quality of the in-law dyad. Our results imply that in addition to the direct associations among the mechanisms of turbulence, goals, topic avoidance, and relational satisfaction, children-in-law’s uncertainty management goals partially mediate the relationship between the mechanism of turbulence and topic avoidance. In addition, our findings suggest that goals share a direct association with relational satisfaction.

Direct Associations Among the Key Constructs

Our study extends the literature on the RTM by examining the links between the mechanisms of turbulence, communicative goals, and topic avoidance. We predicted that the mechanisms of turbulence would be linked to children-in-law’s communicative goals. This hypothesis was supported in 15 out of the 20 tests. Specifically, self uncertainty, family system uncertainty, and interference from partners, appear to make children-in-law less apt to reduce uncertainty, and all five mechanisms were positively associated with a preference to maintain uncertainty. The desire to maintain rather than reduce self uncertainty may serve a relationship protection function. Given the interdependence of in-law relationships and family ties, in general, questioning one’s own desire for involvement within the in-law relationship may reflect questions that children-in-law have about their marital relationship. In fact, relational uncertainty within the in-law relationship is positively associated with relational uncertainty within the marital relationship (Mikucki-Enyart, 2013). Therefore, maintaining uncertainty may help insulate both the in-law and spousal relationship from addressing issues they do not want to address. Moreover, uncovering answers to questions about family system uncertainty and interference might reveal a sobering (and perhaps unpleasant) reality; eschewing these discoveries may be preferred by children-in-law (at least in the short term). Taken together, these findings support UMT (Brashers, 2001) by revealing that despite the likelihood of future interaction with in-laws and the potential control parents-in-law have over children-in-law’s costs and rewards (Berger & Bradac, 1982; Berger & Calabrese, 1975), under certain conditions, children-in-law are not compelled to decrease their uncertainty but rather preserve it. Children-in-law may appreciate uncertainty over the certainty of potentially negative news, such as their parents-in-law’s unfiltered opinion of them or their relationship.

Predictably, the goal of reducing uncertainty was negatively associated with topic avoidance, whereas the goal to maintain uncertainty was positively related to children-in-law’s topic avoidance. In other words, when children-in-law wish to reduce ambiguity, they may rely on topic avoidance to a lesser extent than when they wish to maintain uncertainty. Although the current results imply that children-in-law sometimes avoid engaging with their in-laws when they wish to maintain uncertainty, this does not always mean they will avoid information successfully. Parents-in-law (and children-in-law) for example, sometimes use the linchpin (i.e., the child-in-law’s spouse) as a “go between” (Prentice, 2008). Thus, information may get back to children-in-law even when they avoid topics with their in-laws; for instance, the linchpin may reveal precisely the kind of information that the children-in-law may wish to avoid (e.g., “My mother thinks we are a bad match”). Whereas the current study demonstrates that children-in-law are sometimes motivated to avoid discussions with their in-laws, future research should expand this by examining the impact of being in a triadic system on efforts to manage uncertainties.

In all of the models, the mechanisms of turbulence were linked inversely to a desire to foster a positive in-law identity. However, only family system uncertainty and partner interference were significantly and negatively associated with children-in-law’s desire to maintain family relationships. The mechanisms of turbulence may be negatively associated with children-in-law’s desire to foster a positive in-law identity and maintain family relationships for two reasons: First, it is possible that relational uncertainty and partner interference prevent children-in-law from knowing how to enact these goals. Being unsure of relationship norms (i.e., relationship uncertainty), for example, likely makes it difficult to know what kind of child-in-law identity a parent-in-law deems as “positive” or how to go about maintaining family relationships. Second, under conditions of uncertainty and interference, children-in-law simply may not care about what their parents-in-law think of them or have a desire to help them maintain other family relationships. Indirect, qualitative evidence hints that highly uncertain children-in-law not only are less inclined to make a good impression (Cotterill, 1994) but also have a reduced desire to help parents-in-law stay in contact with their children or grandchildren (Cotterill, 1994; Merrill, 2007). Collectively, these findings demonstrate that relational turbulence is implicated in children-in-law’s interaction goals, implying that turbulence does not only create reactivity but also shapes individuals’ motivations for developing and maintaining in-law relationships.

Moreover, in all but two cases, fostering a positive in-law identity or maintaining family relationships was positively linked to relationship satisfaction. In other words, when these goals were salient for children-in-law, they tended to be more satisfied with their in-law relationship. It is possible that a bidirectional relationship between satisfaction and interaction goals exists, such that children-in-law in highly satisfied in-law relationships are more inclined to establish a positive-in-law identity and maintain family relationships than those in dissatisfied relationships. Future research should explore the possible bidirectional nature of this association and attempt to uncover how in-laws can forge satisfying bonds, which engender the pursuit of prosocial goals (e.g., maintaining family relationships), under conditions of relational uncertainty and partner interference.

Consistent with our predictions and previous research, the mechanisms of turbulence also were directly associated with topic avoidance and satisfaction. Specifically, relational uncertainty and interference were positively associated with topic avoidance (H1) and negatively associated with satisfaction (H3). Our results add to a growing body of literature (T. D. Afifi & Schrodt, 2003; Knobloch & Donovan-Kicken, 2006; Mikucki-Enyart, 2011) that demonstrates that topic avoidance is a common manifestation of turbulence. Children-in-law may employ topic avoidance as a way to protect themselves or their parent-in-law from vulnerability and embarrassment as well as prevent damaging the in-law relationship (Guerrero & Afifi, 1995a, 1995b; Knobloch, 2006; Knobloch & Solomon, 2002); thus, when experiencing relational uncertainty and partner interference, children-in-law may prefer to avoid potentially precarious discussions.

Despite theoretical arguments and qualitative evidence that topic avoidance may be beneficial at times to relationships (T. D. Afifi et al., 2007; Caughlin, Mikucki-Enyart, Middleton, Stone, & Brown, 2011), the present findings suggest that topic avoidance generally is dissatisfying in in-law relationships (H4). One possible explanation for this findings is that, in general, individuals subscribe to an “ideology of openness” (T. D. Afifi et al., 2007) and believe that “good” family relationships are marked by open, not avoidant, communication (Caughlin, 2003). This does leave open the possibility that there may be circumstances when topic avoidance is effective, but overall, it is associated with dissatisfaction.

Finally, all four aspects of relational uncertainty as well as partner interference were negatively associated with satisfaction in every model tested. Children-in-law often describe inclusive parent-in-law behaviors, such as explicitly communicating inclusion or approval, as characteristics of satisfying in-law relationships (Merrill, 2007; Prentice, 2008; Rittenour & Soliz, 2009). The experience of uncertainty and interference may color children-in-law’s perceptions of parent-in-law behaviors as exclusive rather than inclusive. Feeling excluded by in-laws tends to be linked to dissatisfaction within the in-law relationship (Mikucki-Enyart, 2011; Morr Serewicz & Canary, 2008).

Overall, our findings corroborate previous research regarding direct associations among the mechanisms of turbulence, topic avoidance, and satisfaction within a previously underexplored context. In addition, our results are innovative in that they reveal more complexity in the way that mechanisms of turbulence are related to relational behaviors and outcomes. Specifically, the findings suggest that goals partially mediate the connections between the mechanisms of turbulence and topic avoidance. These mediated relationships are discussed below.

Mediated Associations Among the Key Constructs

In addition to direct associations among the mechanisms of turbulence and topic avoidance, our results suggest that, in some instances, children-in-law’s communicative goal of uncertainty management mediated this relationship. The general trend revealed that in-law’s uncertainty management goals were a significant mediator between the mechanisms of turbulence and topic avoidance. Although only the desire to reduce uncertainty was a statistically significant mediator for the link between family system uncertainty and topic avoidance, the goal to maintain uncertainty was a significant mediator between all of the mechanisms of turbulence, except self uncertainty, and topic avoidance.

These distinct patterns of mediation are intriguing, suggesting that uncertainty management goals may play a pivotal role in children-in-law’s decision about engaging in avoidant communication. Specifically, the more relational uncertainty and partner interference children-in-law experienced, the more they wanted to maintain uncertainty, and the more they wanted to maintain uncertainty, the more they engaged in topic avoidance. Two possible explanations account for this trend. First, during the transition to extended family, some children-in-law may view relational uncertainty as an opportunity to protect them against potentially unpleasant news (e.g., a lack of approval or relationship support) or as a way to remain optimistic about the future in-law relationship (Brashers, 2001), including doubts and continued interference. Second, the goal to maintain uncertainty may also be salient due to a lack of uncertainty management options children-in-law have access to. Unlike other relational ties, the in-law relationship is scriptless (Morr Serewicz, 2006). That is, children-in-law do not have schema to draw from regarding how to communicate with their parents-in-law, especially about sensitive issues. As a result, they may wish to maintain uncertainty rather than engage in potentially uncomfortable or even destructive conversations with their in-laws.

Theoretical Implications

Our findings support several fundamental assumptions of both the RTM and a multiple goals approach, as well as augment them in important ways, which are outlined below.

The relational turbulence model

Findings from the current study extend the RTM in four new directions. First, RTM scholars have urged researchers to examine the processes linking the mechanisms of turbulence to more amplified reactions, such as topic avoidance (Solomon et al., 2010). Evidence from the current study builds on recent findings, suggesting that cognitions may play a prominent role in the RTM (Knobloch & Theiss, 2011; McLaren et al., 2012; Theiss & Estlein, 2014). Specifically, the present study suggests that turbulence fosters an orientation toward in-law relationships that shapes interaction goals. That is, relational turbulence may affect individuals’ strategic thinking about communication, partly explaining the connection between relational turbulence and behaviors like topic avoidance.

Second, positioning relationship satisfaction as an outcome in the RTM illuminates potential mechanisms that are linked to variations in in-law satisfaction. Given the far-reaching consequences of in-law strife (Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015; Morr Serewicz et al., 2008), understanding how relational uncertainty, partner interference, and topic avoidance shape the relational climate of in-law relationships has practical significance and can aid clinicians working with families in developing strategies for managing relational uncertainty and partner interference that enhance rather than harm the in-law relationship.

Third, although research employing the RTM has examined turmoil in various contexts, such as infertility, breast cancer, and depression, these studies have focused solely on the experience of turbulence within romantic dyads (Knobloch & Delaney, 2012; Steuber & Solomon, 2008). The present study extends the focus of the RTM by demonstrating that turbulence is salient during family transitions and is not just confined to romantic pairs.

Finally, following Knobloch et al. (2015), who distinguished between the context-free sources of uncertainty (self, partner, and relational) and a context-specific source of uncertainty (regarding depression), the current study highlights another context in which the experience of uncertainty is at least partly rooted in the context. The current study adds another context in which context-specific uncertainty is often salient to individuals. Following the research on depression-uncertainty (Knobloch et al., 2015), the context-specific source here was examined separately from the other sources of relational uncertainty; thus, the current findings do not focus on how the context-free and context-specific sources may be interrelated. Although this question was not a focus of the current investigation, it would be an important one for future studies.

The multiple goals approach

Our results also extend the multiple goals literature in three ways. First, no study to our knowledge has examined how mechanisms of turbulence are associated with communicative goals. This is an important addition to the literature because, although the role of goals in shaping communication behaviors is well established (e.g., Dillard, Anderson, & Knobloch, 2002; Wilson, 2002), much less is known about why people develop varying goals. The current study suggests that turbulence is an important factor in shaping the goals that individuals pursue. Whereas the present investigation only examined goals that were relevant to in-laws, the general pattern of findings suggests that turbulence is likely linked to goal salience across a variety of other relationships. For example, the experience of relational uncertainty and partner interference may color the extent to which romantic partners pursue relationship goals, or the extent to which individuals pursue instrumental goals within the workplace. Given that turbulence is a salient experience across a variety of relational domains (T. D. Afifi & Schrodt, 2003; Brashers, 2001; Knobloch & Solomon, 1999), understanding the links between turbulence and goals may be important in many contexts.

Second, results from the present study add to a burgeoning literature that explicitly links goals to topic avoidance (Donovan-Kicken & Caughlin, 2010). Topic avoidance is not merely the absence of disclosure or communication (Caughlin, 2010). Instead, topic avoidance is a purposeful decision to withhold information (T. D. Afifi et al., 2007). Evidence from the current study suggests that topic avoidance is not only a strategic behavior used to pursue goals but also that certain relational features, specifically mechanisms of turbulence, can shape the goals that people wish to pursue.

Third, present findings advance scholars’ understanding of the complex association between conversational goals and relational outcomes, such as satisfaction. The majority of multiple goals research has focused on goals during specific interactions, such as communicating about relationship problems while under the influence of alcohol (Samp & Monahan, 2011) or when making requests (Meyer, 2002). Such studies focus on particular encounters rather than broader relational outcomes. The current findings demonstrate that global assessments of goal tendencies in relationships further our understanding of how relationships are evaluated by individuals (Caughlin, 2010). The evidence in the current study suggests that goals are directly associated with relationship satisfaction. That is, communication goals may not only activate communication behaviors, but the goals themselves are also related to the relational climate.

Conclusion

Our investigation offers several compelling contributions to the literature on relational uncertainty, multiple goals, and relational transitions; however, it is not without limitations. First, as with other studies on in-law relationships, it is difficult to recruit sons-in-law. The results may be primarily applicable to daughters-in-law. Also, the average reports of uncertainty were fairly low, perhaps reflecting an unwillingness of children-in-law with high uncertainty to participate. With more variation in uncertainty, it is possible that the effect sizes would be larger. The number of tests conducted was also large, with five models for each goal. It is possible that some of the findings may be due to chance, although it should also be noted that even with a more conservative test of p = .01 (to correct for five separate models), most of the findings would still hold, and the general conclusions of the study would be unchanged. Third, due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, conclusions about causality cannot be made. Examining the processes and pathways through which in-law relationships become satisfying or dissatisfying over time would enhance scholars’ theoretical understanding of family transitions. Finally, most studies of RTM, including ours, have not assessed relational turbulence, per se, but instead equate turbulence with polarized reactions, such as topic avoidance (Knobloch & Theiss, 2012; Solomon & Knobloch, 2001, 2004; Theiss & Estlein, 2014). Directly assessing relational turbulence (e.g., Knobloch, 2007; McLaren et al., 2011, 2012) may illuminate how the mechanisms of turbulence contribute to a sense of relational chaos, instability, and turmoil, which likely shapes goals in distinct ways and has significant relational implications for members of the entire in-law triad.

Despite the limitations, our study advances theoretical understanding of relational uncertainty and communication goals during relational transitions. Our theoretical integration demonstrates that when experiencing the mechanisms of turbulence, children-in-law’s cognitions in the form of interaction goals account for, at least partially, their communicative reactions to said mechanisms. In addition, the mechanisms of turbulence, the goals individuals pursue, and their communicative path to goal attainment have important consequences for relational well-being. Collectively, these findings hint that communication goals may be one avenue that explains the link between the mechanisms of turbulence and communication behaviors, such as topic avoidance. Our results serve as a springboard for communication scholars to continue to uncover additional processes that help explain these associations as well as elucidate effective and relationally enhancing strategies individuals can utilize to attend to their interaction goals during periods of relational change.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Katerina Georgiafentis Sfikas and Kelly McAninch for their assistance with data collection, and Leanne Knobloch for her extremely generous and helpful feedback on this article.

Authors’ Note

This study is based on the first author’s dissertation, directed by the second author. A previous version of this study was presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, May 2014, Seattle, Washington.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Sylvia L. Mikucki-Enyart (PhD, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) is an assistant professor in the Division of Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Her research focuses on how families and relational partners communicate during times of transition. Specifically, she examines the interplay between relational characteristics, communicative goals, and relational outcomes.

John P. Caughlin (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is acting head and professor of communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research focuses on effective interpersonal communication in relationship, family, and health contexts. He is also interested in the interconnections between face-to-face interaction and technologically mediated interaction. His awards include the Brommel Award for contributions to family communication, the Miller Early Career Achievement Award, and the Arnold Beckman Research Award.

References

Afifi

T. D.

Caughlin

J. P.

Afifi

W. A.

(2007). The dark side (and light side) of avoidance and secrets. In Spitzberg

B. H.

Cupach

W. R.

(Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 61-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Afifi

T. D.

Schrodt

(2003). Uncertainty and the avoidance of the state of one’s family in stepfamilies, post-divorce single families, and first marriage families. Human Communication Research, 29, 516-532. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00854.x

Afifi

W. A.

Guerrero

L. K.

(2000). Motivations underlying topic avoidance in close relationships. In Petronio

(Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 165-180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berger

C. R.

(2005). Interpersonal communication: Theoretical perspectives, future prospects. Journal of Communication, 55, 415-447. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02680.x

Berger

C. R.

(2007). Communication: A goal-directed, plan-guided process. In Roskos-Ewoldsen

D. R.

Monahan

J. L.

(Eds.), Communication and social cognition: Theories and methods (pp. 47-70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berger

C. R.

Bradac

J. J.

(1982). Language and Social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relationships. London, England: Edward Arnold.

Berger

C. R.

Calabrese

R. J.

(1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x

Berscheid

(1983). Emotion. In Kelley

H. H.

et al . (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 110-168). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

Bollen

Lennox

(1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305-314. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305

10.

Brashers

D. E.

(2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of Communication, 51, 477-497. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02892.x

11.

Bryant

C. M.

Conger

R. D.

Meehan

J. M.

(2001). The influence of in-laws on change in marital success. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 614-626. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00614.x

12.

Caughlin

J. P.

(2003). Family communication standards: What counts as excellent family communication and how are such standards associated with family satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 29, 5-40. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00830.x

13.

Caughlin

J. P.

(2010). A multiple goals theory of personal relationships: Conceptual integration and program overview. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 824-848. doi:10.1177/0265407510373262

14.

Caughlin

J. P.

Golish

T. D.

(2002). An analysis of the association between topic avoidance and dissatisfaction: Comparing perceptual and interpersonal explanations. Communication Monographs, 69, 275-295. doi:10.1080/03637750216546

15.

Caughlin

J. P.

Mikucki-Enyart

S. L.

Middleton

A. V.

Stone

A. M.

Brown

L. B.

(2011). Being open without talking about it: A rhetorical/normative approach to understanding topic avoidance in families after a lung cancer diagnosis. Communication Monographs, 78, 409-436. doi:10.1080/03637751.2011.618141

16.

Clark

R. A.

Delia

J. G.

(1979). TOPOI and rhetorical competence. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65, 187-206. doi:10.1080/00335637909383470

17.

Cotterill

(1994). Friendly relations: Mothers and their daughters-in-law. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.

18.

Dillard

J. P.

(2008). Goals-plans-action theory of message production. In Baxter

Braithwaite

D. O.

(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 65-76). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

19.

Dillard

J. P.

Anderson

J. W.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2002). Interpersonal influence. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 425-474). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Dillard

J. P.

Segrin

Harden

J. M.

(1989). Primary and secondary goals in the production of interpersonal influence messages. Communication Monographs, 56, 19-38. doi:10.1080/03637758909390247

21.

Donovan-Kicken

Caughlin

J. P.

(2010). A multiple goals perspective on topic avoidance and relationship satisfaction in the context of breast cancer. Communication Monographs, 77, 231-256. doi:10.1080/03637751003758219

22.

Euler

H. A.

Hoier

Rohde

P. A.

(2001). Relationship-specific closeness of intergenerational family ties: Findings from evolutionary psychology and implications for models of cultural transmission. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 147-158. doi:10.1177/0022022101032002003

23.

Fan

Wang

(1998). Effects of potential confounding factors on the fit indices and parameter estimates for true and misspecified SEM models. Education and Psychological Measurement, 58, 701-735. doi:10.1177/0013164498058005001

24.

Fingerman

K. L.

(2004). The role of offspring and in-laws in grandparents’ tie to their grandchildren. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 1026-1049. doi:10.1177/0192513X04265941

25.

Fischer

L. R.

(1983). Mothers and mothers-in-law. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45, 187-192. doi:10.2307/351307

26.

Golish

T. D.

Caughlin

J. P.

(2002). “I’d rather not talk about it”: Adolescents’ and young adults’ use of topic avoidance in stepfamilies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 78-106. doi:10.1080/00909880216574

27.

Guerrero

L. K.

Afifi

W. A.

(1995a). What parents don’t know: Taboo topics and topic avoidance in parent-child relationships. In Socha

T. J.

Stamp

(Eds.), Parents, children, and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 219-245). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

28.

Guerrero

L. K.

Afifi

W. A.

(1995b). Some things are better left unsaid: Topic avoidance in family relationships. Communication Quarterly, 43, 276-296. doi:10.1080/01463379509369977

29.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice.

30.

Hayes

A. F.

(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360

31.

Hunter

J. E.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor analysis, and causal models. In Staw

B. W.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 267-320). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

32.

Huston

T. L.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

(1986). When the honeymoon’s over: Changes in the marriage relationship over the first year. In Gilmour

Duck

(Eds.), The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 109-132). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

33.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

34.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2006). Relational uncertainty and message production within courtship: Features of date request messages. Human Communication Research, 32, 244-273. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00275.x

35.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2007). The dark side of relational uncertainty: Obstacle or opportunity? In Spitzberg

B. H.

Cupach

W. R.

(Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 31-59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

36.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2008). The content of relational uncertainty in marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 467-495. doi:10.1177/0265407508090869

37.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2010). Relational uncertainty and interpersonal communication. In Smith

S. W.

Wilson

S. R.

(Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research (pp. 69-93). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Knobloch

L. K.

Carpenter-Theune

K. E.

(2004). Topic avoidance in developing romantic relationships: Associations with intimacy and relational uncertainty. Communication Research, 31, 173-205. doi:10.1177/0093650203261516

39.

Knobloch

L. K.

Delaney

A. L.

(2012). Themes of relational uncertainty and interference from partners in depression. Health Communication, 27, 750-765. doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.639293

40.

Knobloch

L. K.

Donovan-Kicken

(2006). Perceived involvement of network members in courtships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Personal Relationships, 13, 281-302. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00118.x

41.

Knobloch

L. K.

Ebata

A. T.

McGlaughlin

P. C.

Theiss

J. A.

(2013). Generalized anxiety and relational uncertainty as predictors of topic avoidance during reintegration following military deployment. Communication Monographs, 80, 452-477. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.828159

42.

Knobloch

L. K.

Miller

L. E.

Bond

B. J.

Mannone

S. E.

(2007). Relational uncertainty and message processing in marriage. Communication Monographs, 74, 154-180. doi:10.1080/03637750701390069

43.

Knobloch

L. K.

Miller

L. E.

Carpenter

K. E.

(2007). Using the relational turbulence model to understand negative emotion within courtship. Personal Relationships, 14, 91-112. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00143.x

44.

Knobloch

L. K.

Sharabi

L. L.

Delaney

A. L.

Suranne

(2015). The role of relational uncertainty in topic avoidance among couples with depression. Communication Monographs. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/03637751.2014.998691

45.

Knobloch

L. K.

Solomon

D. H.

(1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50, 261-278. doi:10.1080/10510979909388499

46.

Knobloch

L. K.

Solomon

D. H.

(2002). Information seeking beyond initial interaction: Negotiating relational uncertainty within close relationships. Human Communication Research, 28, 243-257. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00806.x

47.

Knobloch

L. K.

Solomon

D. H.

(2004). Interference and facilitation from partners in the development of interdependence within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 11, 115-130. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00074.x

48.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

(2010). An actor-partner interdependence model of relational turbulence: Cognitions and emotions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 595-619. doi:10.1177/0265407510368967

49.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

(2011). Relational uncertainty and relationship talk within courtship: A longitudinal actor-partner interdependence model. Communication Monographs, 78, 3-26. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.542471

50.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

(2015). Experiences of U.S. military couples during the post-deployment transtition: Applying the relational turbulence model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 423-450. doi:10.1177/0265407511431186

51.

McLaren

R. M.

Solomon

D. H.

Priem

J. S.

(2011). Explaining variation in contemporaneous responses to hurt in premarital romantic relationships: A relational turbulence model perspective. Communication Research, 38, 543-564. doi:10.1177/0093650210377896

52.

McLaren

R. M.

Solomon

D. H.

Priem

J. S.

(2012). The effect of relationship characteristics and relational communication on experiences of hurt from romantic partners. Journal of Communication, 62, 950-971. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01678.x

53.

Merrill

D. H.

(2007). Mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law: Understanding the relationship and what makes them friends or foe. Westport, CT: Praeger.

54.

Meyer

J. R.

(2002). Contextual influence on the pursuit of secondary goals in request messages. Communication Monographs, 69, 189-203. doi:10.1080/03637750216539

55.

Mikucki-Enyart

S. L.

(2011). Parent-in-law privacy management: An examination of the links among relational uncertainty, topic avoidance, in-group status, and in-law satisfaction. Journal of Family Communication, 11, 237-263. doi:10.1080/15267431.2010.544633

56.

Mikucki-Enyart

S. L.

(2013). [Children-in-law’s uncertainty within the in-law triad]. Unpublished raw data.

57.

Mikucki-Enyart

S. L.

(in press). Communication among in-laws. In Berger

Roloff

(Eds.), International encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

58.

Mikucki-Enyart

S. L.

Caughlin

J. P.

Rittenour

C. E.

(2015). Content and relational implications of children-in-law’s relational uncertainty within the transition to extended family. Communication Quarterly, 63, 286-309. doi:10.1080/01463373.2015.1039714

59.

Mikucki-Enyart

S. L.

Rittenour

C. E.

(2012). [Children-in-law’s topic avoidance with parents-in-law: The content and reasons]. Unpublished raw data.

60.

Mongeau

P. A.

Morr Serewicz

M. C.

Ficara Therrien

(2004). Goals for cross-sex first dates: Identification, measurement, and the influence of contextual factors. Communication Monographs, 71, 121-147. doi:10.1080/0363775042331302514

61.

Morr Serewicz

M. C

. (2006). The difficulties of in-law relationships. In Kirkpatrick

D. C.

Duck

Foley

(Eds.), Relating difficulty: The process of constructing and managing difficult interaction (pp. 101-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

62.

Morr Serewicz

M. C

. (2008). Toward a triangular theory of the communication and relationships of in-laws: Theoretical proposal and social relations analysis of relational satisfaction and private disclosures in in-law triads. Journal of Family Communication, 8, 264-292. doi:10.1080/15267430802397161

63.

Morr Serewicz

M. C

. (2014). Relationships with parents-in-law. In Floyd

K. W.

Morman

M. T.

(Eds.), Widening the family circle: New research on family communication (2nd ed. pp. 85-102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

64.

Morr Serewicz

M. C.

Canary

D. J

. (2008). Assessments of disclosures from in-laws: Links among disclosure topics, family privacy orientations, and relational quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 333-357. doi:10.1177/0265407507087962

65.

Morr Serewicz

M. C.

Hosmer

Ballard

R. L.

Griffin

R. A

. (2008). Disclosures from in-laws and the quality of in-law and marital relationships. Communication Quarterly, 56, 427-444. doi:10.1080/01463370802453642

66.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In Hayes

A. F.

Slater

M. D.

Snyder

L. B.

(Eds.), The SAGE sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

67.

Prentice

C. M.

(2008). The assimilation of in-laws: The impact of newcomers on the communication routines of families. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 74-97. doi:10.1080/00909880701799311

68.

Rittenour

C. E.

Soliz

(2009). Communicative and relational dimensions of shared family identity and relational intentions in mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationships: Developing a conceptual model for mother-in-law/daughter-in-law research. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 67-90. doi:10.1080/10570310802636334

69.

Sabee

C. M.

Wilson

S. R.

(2005). Students’ primary goals, attributions, and facework during conversations about disappointing grades. Communication Education, 54, 185-204. doi:10.1080/03634520500356154

70.

Samp

J. A.

Monahan

J. L.

(2011). Communicating about a relational problem while (not) intoxicated: Influences on goal judgments and message features. Communication Studies, 62, 328-348. doi:10.1080/10510974.2010.550667

71.

Samp

J. A.

Solomon

D. H.

(1999). Communicative responses to problematic events in close relationships II: The influence of five facets of goals on message features. Communication Research, 26, 193-239. doi:10.1177/009365099026002005

72.

Solomon

D. H.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2001). Relationship uncertainty, partner interference, and intimacy within dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 804-820. doi:10.1177/0265407501186004

73.

Solomon

D. H.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2004). A model of relational turbulence: The role of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of irritations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 795-816. doi:10.1177/0265407504047838

74.

Solomon

D. H.

Theiss

J. A.

(2011). Relational turbulence: What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. In Cupach

W. R.

Spitzberg

B. H.

(Eds.), The dark side of close relationships II. (2nd ed., pp. 197-216). New York, NY: Routledge.

75.

Solomon

D. H.

Weber

K. M.

Steuber

K. R.

(2010). Turbulence in relational transitions. In Smith

S.W.

Wilson

S.R.

(Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research (pp. 115-134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

76.

Stephenson

M. T.

Holbert

R. L.

(2003). A Monte Carlo simulation of observable versus latent variable structural equation modeling techniques. Communication Research, 30, 332-354. doi:10.1177/0093650203030003004

77.

Steuber

K. R.

Solomon

D. H.

(2008). Relational uncertainty, partner interference, and infertility: A qualitative study of discourse within online forums. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 831-855. doi:10.1177/0265407508096698

78.

Theiss

J. A.

Estlein

(2014). Antecedents and consequences of the perceived threat of sexual communication: A test of the relational turbulence model. Western Journal of Communication, 78, 404-425. doi:10.1080/10570314.2013.845794

79.

Theiss

J. A.

Knobloch

L. K.

Checton

M. G.

Magsamen-Conrad

(2009). Relationship characteristics associated with the experience of hurt in romantic relationships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Human Communication Research, 35, 588-615. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01364.x

80.

Theiss

J. A.

Nagy

M. E.

(2012). A cross-cultural test of the relational turbulence model: Relationship characteristics that predict turmoil and topic avoidance for Koreans and Americans. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 545-565. doi:10.1177/0265407512443450

81.

Timmer

S. J.

Veroff

(2000). Family ties and the discontinuity of divorce in black and white newlywed couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 349-361. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00349.x

82.

Turner

M. J.

Young

C. R.

Black

K. I.

(2006). Daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law seeking their place within the family: A qualitative study of differing viewpoints. Family Relations, 55, 588-600. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00428.x

83.

Tyszkowa

(1991). The role of grandparents in the development of grandchildren as perceived by adolescents and young adults in Poland. In Smith

P. K.

(Ed.), The psychology of grandparenthood: An international perspective (pp. 50-67). London, England: Routledge.

84.

Veroff

Douvan

Hatchett

S. J.

(1995). Marital instability: A social and behavioral study of the early years. Westport. CT: Praeger.

85.

Wilson

S. R.

(2002). Seeking and resisting compliance: Why people say what they do when trying to influence others. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.