Marital Quality for Men and Women in Stepfamilies

Abstract

Although economic pressure and family stress models have been examined with samples of men and women in first marriages, previous models have neglected to focus on men and women in stepfamilies and to examine stress sources unique to stepfamilies. This study examines the effect of economic pressure on both common stressors and stepfamily-specific stressors and the subsequent effects on negativity, positivity, and marital quality. Results of structural equation modeling with a sample of 490 men and women in stepfamilies indicate that the proposed stepfamily stress model fit the data well for both men and women. For women, stepfamily-specific stressors have a direct inverse effect on positivity, negativity, and marital quality. For men, stepfamily-specific stressors were predictive of both positivity and marital quality. Findings from the study advance previous research on economic pressure, family stress, and marital quality.

Keywords

stepfamily economic pressure stressors marital quality family stress

The most recent population statistics indicate that approximately half of all marriages entered into today in the United States are a remarriage for one or both partners (Teachman & Tedow, 2008). An estimated 65% of those who remarry will bring a child into the relationship, thus forming a stepfamily (Bumpass, Raley, & Sweet, 1995). Furthermore, there have been considerable increases in rates of nonmarital childbearing in recent decades—indications are that growing numbers of first marriages between adults with children from previous relationships also form stepfamilies, although exact figures are unknown (Bumpass et al., 1995; Ganong & Coleman, 2004). Consequently, remarriages and stepfamilies are becoming one of the most common family forms in the United States (Fein, Burstein, Fein, & Lindberg, 2003).

Although the number of studies on remarriage and stepfamilies has increased dramatically in the past two decades, this literature is still relatively small compared with the volume of studies with spouses in first marriages. The majority of the empirical studies of stepfamilies have centered primarily on the effects of stepfamily living on children, which is not only because of the importance of and interest in the topic but also likely because of large data sets focused on children that are easily accessible (Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2000). Fewer research efforts, however, have focused on factors that influence the marital quality of men and women in stepfamilies (Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004; Coleman et al., 2000).

The few previous studies that have focused on the marital relationships of men and women in stepfamilies, potential stressors, and marital quality (e.g., Buunk & Mutsaers, 1999; Johnson et al., 2008) have largely overlooked the role and potential effect that economic pressure may have on the marital quality of men and women in stepfamilies. A growing body of research has examined the negative effect that economic hardship and economic pressure have on marriage and family relationships for spouses in first marriages. Much of this work stems from the Iowa Youth and Families Project (Conger & Elder, 1994; Conger, Rueter, & Elder, 1999), which focuses primarily on rural Midwest couples. Moreover, the stress models developed by Bodenmann and colleagues emphasize the negative impact of both external and internal stressors on communication and subsequent marital satisfaction (Bodenmann, 2005; Bodenmann, Ledermann, & Bradbury, 2007). Together, these frameworks provide a foundation to explore empirical research questions associated with the economic pressure and unique stressors men and women in stepfamilies face, and their association with marital quality.

Guided by Berkowitz’s (1989) reformulation of the frustration-aggression hypothesis, Conger and colleagues developed family stress models that postulate a succession of associations between economic hardship, economic pressure, marital interaction, conflict, spousal behaviors (i.e., warmth and hostility), and marital quality and stability (Conger et al., 1990; Lorenz, Conger, Simons, Whitbeck, & Elder, 1991). Several studies using variants of this family stress model provide mounting evidence that economic pressure, defined as the distressing realities that are generated as a result of hardship conditions, is a primary catalyst that influences other processes and aspects of a couple’s relationship (e.g., perception of other stressors, emotions, behaviors, relationship quality; Bodenmann, 2005). Although it is likely that economic pressure is also related to the marital quality of men and women in stepfamilies, this specific question has not been examined.

Although discussed in some clinical literature (Papernow, 1993; Visher & Visher, 1996), empirical research with spouses in stepfamilies also has largely failed to disentangle potential differences between common stressors that are experienced by most couple relationships (e.g., finding time together, intimacy problems, employment/work stress spillover) and stressors that are specific to living in a stepfamily (e.g., coparenting relationships with ex-partners, disciplining stepchildren, establishing stepfamily roles and rules) and the relative effects of both types of stressors on marital quality. Establishing that stepfamilies are structurally different from first families, with context-specific stressors, broadens the stress and marriage literature by using a cultural lens. The previously unmeasured stressors become empirically “seen.” For families with distinct and unique stressors, important pieces of the puzzle are introduced and compared in their predictive potency with other general stressors, historically measured. This advances our understanding of relative importance to couple outcomes.

Using information from previous research, as well as clinical assertions about the impact of stepfamily issues on marital quality relative to the impact of common stressors, the present study examines whether economic pressure acts as a primary stressor that affects the level of both common stressors and stepfamily-specific stressors for men and women in stepfamilies, which in turn, are related to levels of marital quality. In addition, the model examines whether common stressors and stepfamily-specific stressors mediate the effect of economic pressure on marital quality and socioemotional behaviors such as expressions of positivity (i.e., positive behavioral expressions of affection) and negativity (i.e., negative behavioral expressions), a common path in existing family stress models (Conger et al., 1990; Conger, Ge, & Lorenz, 1994). These hypothesized pathways are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized stepfamily stress model and relations among variables

Empirical Background

Stressors and Marital Quality

Several studies show a consistent inverse relationship between stressors and subsequent marital quality, with negative correlations ranging between −.22 and −.59 (Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004; for an overview, see Bodenmann, 2005). In a 5-year longitudinal study of 63 couples, Bodenmann and Cina (2006) found that couples that reported higher levels of everyday stress at the first measurement were significantly more likely to be distressed or divorced at the end of 5 years. Similarly, Karney, Story, and Bradbury (2005) conducted a 4-year study of 172 middle-class newlywed couples and found that couples experiencing relatively high levels of stress not only reported lower marital satisfaction overall but also seemed to have more difficulty maintaining their satisfaction over time.

Although they contend that it is often the chronic stress of daily life that slowly erodes marital quality and stability, Karney and Bradbury’s (1995) theoretical framework indicates that major stressful life events (i.e., external factors) can also contribute to marital distress. Previous research also supports the link between economic pressure and stressors in the family. Conger and Elder (1994) reviewed numerous studies conducted in the 1980s that showed that economic pressure contributes to negative parenting behaviors for both mothers and fathers by creating an irritable and stressful psychological state, which was related to lower levels of marital quality. Economic pressure, they report, exacerbated depressive symptoms and increased psychological distress and feelings of hostility that resulted in ineffective parenting. Lavee, Sharlin, and Katz (1996) also found that perceived economic stress influenced the level of parenting stress and subsequent marital quality in a study of 287 couples in first marriages. A study with newly married couples in first marriages revealed that wives felt less stress and were better able to balance their roles when they felt less financially strained (Marks, Huston, Johnson, & MacDermid, 2001). Sobolewski and Amato (2005), using longitudinal data, studied the effect of economic pressure on children who are now adults and concluded that “trying to make ends meet with insufficient income leads to perceptions of hardship, including feelings of stress” (p. 142). Clinicians have suggested that issues related to economic strain be addressed early in the counseling process to evaluate its potential impact on the marital relationship, as financial stress is often linked with the perception of other problems and stressors in the marriage (Freeman, Carlson, & Sperry, 1993). Freeman et al. point out that clinicians should be cognizant of the likelihood that “economic hardship may bring about new problems or may exacerbate old ones” (p. 331). They emphasize that some empirical work indicates that feeling economic pressure “spills over” into the perception of higher levels of stressors in other areas of life. Identifying these specific stressors and understanding the nuanced processes involved not only enhances our empirical knowledge base but also offers a more informed model for intervention.

Two decades ago, Bray, Berger, Silverblatt, and Hollier (1987) pointed out that “there is a critical need for researchers to identify stressors . . . that contribute to . . . adaptation to family dissolution and reorganization” (p. 261). Evidence indicates that the structure and context of living in a stepfamily frames unique elements and situations that carry the potential for stressors not found in first families. A number of studies have demonstrated that a difficult relationship to navigate in a stepfamily is between the stepparent and the stepchild. The quality of this relationship has been found to be closely tied with marital quality (Bray & Kelly, 1998; Coleman et al., 2000). Furthermore, both the existence of and the quality of coparenting relationships with former spouses has been shown to affect the relationship quality of the new marriage (e.g., Buunk & Matsaers, 1999; Knox & Zusman, 2001). There is also evidence that when a parent remarries, the child(ren) may perceive a shift in access to the resident parent, creating a stressful situation for the resident parent. This comes from children feeling displaced and can result in declines in marital satisfaction (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Visher & Visher, 1996). Spouses in stepfamilies may also experience declines in marital satisfaction as they strive to find and balance their time with their spouse while often simultaneously developing workable relationships with children and stepchildren and managing multiple relationships with former partners and possibly nonresident children (Ganong & Coleman, 2004; Visher & Visher, 1979). Palisi, Orleans, Caddell, and Korn (1991) found that the stress related to making decisions and coming to agreement on issues related to stepchildren was a strong predictor of marital adjustment in their sample of stepfamilies. Although there has been some evidence found for the effect of stepfamily-specific stressors on marital quality, no study has simultaneously examined these stressors, other common stressors, and marital quality.

Socioemotional Behaviors and Marital Quality

Although evidence of direct effects of stressors on marital quality exists, other research demonstrates the indirect effect of stressors on marital quality, mediated by socioemotional behaviors. Using a sample of more than 400 couples in first marriages over a 3-year period, Conger, Rueter, et al. (1999) found that economic pressure at Time 1 predicted hostility, anxiety, transactional conflict, and tense silence at Time 2, which in turn predicted marital quality at Time 3. This body of work provides unique insight into some of the processes or mechanisms through which economic pressure affects marital quality. Additionally, Karney and Bradbury (1995) developed a stress-vulnerability-adaptation model from a meta-analysis of studies of marital quality and stability that supports the assumption that when couples experience stressors, they are more likely to use negative expressions and fewer positive affectional expressions, which is related to lower levels of perceived marital quality.

The framework developed by Bodenmann (2005) assumes that external stress (e.g., financial stress, work stress), which originates outside the couple relationship, increases the likelihood of tension and negative communication behaviors and slowly erodes relationship quality. More specifically, this model hypothesizes that external stressors reduce marital satisfaction by decreasing the time partners spend together and diminishing the positive interaction and increasing negative interaction. Applying this framework and testing the actor–partner mediator model with a sample of 198 couples, Bodenmann et al. (2007) found that partners reporting high levels of external stressors also reported higher levels of internal daily stressors, which was related to lower levels of marital satisfaction. Moreover, they found that internal stressors within the couple relationship mediated the association between external stressors and marital satisfaction.

Drawing on the works of Conger and Elder (1994) and Bodenmann (2005), the present study combines and extends current scientific understanding of models of predicting marital quality in at least three primary ways. First, it focuses on the experiences of men and women in stepfamilies. Previous research examining stress models has largely neglected men and women in stepfamilies. Overall, there is comparatively little known regarding factors that are associated with the marital quality of men and women in stepfamilies when compared with what is known about spouses in first marriages (Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004). Rather than comparing individuals in stepfamilies with men and women in first-married families, as is often the research design, this study focuses on the test of a stress model that is context specific and unique to stepfamilies. An important piece of this contribution is the study’s examination of the comparative influence of common stressors and stepfamily-specific stressors on men’s and women’s level of positivity, negativity, and marital quality. Although some scholars assert that stressors unique to men and women in stepfamilies are more potent predictors of marital quality than common stressors, this has not been empirically examined. Second, we combine the research that has shown stressors to mediate the relationship between economic pressure and positivity and negativity and the research that has shown positivity and negativity to mediate the relationship between economic pressure and marital quality and simultaneously examine these mediated relationships. Third, we explore gender differences for men and women in stepfamilies. Because the extant literature on stepfamily couples provides no information on which to base a hypothesis, our initial examination of gender differences in our hypothesized model is exploratory in nature.

Method

Sample

The sample for this study included 314 women and 176 men in stepfamilies, none of whom were married to each other. Of the 314 women, 78% identified themselves as White, 7% were Hispanic, 4% African American, and 11% in the “Other” category. Of the 176 men, 79% indicated they were White, 6% were African American, 6% were Asian American, and 9% were “Other.” The average age was 40 for women (range = 20-65, SD = 8.65) and 41 for men (range = 21-76, SD = 11.23). The total household mean income was $69,014 for women and $57,744 for men. The women, on average, were married 72.54 months and the men were married an average of 50.75 months. Participants were recruited using two different methods: marriage license records and reply cards returned by men and women who received them as inserts in copies of a marriage handbook provided to all newlywed couples in a southern state (N = 152) and through the National Stepfamily Resource Center listserve (N = 338).

Measures

This study incorporated measures in six conceptual areas: economic hardship, economic pressure, common stressors, stepfamily-specific stressors, socioemotional behaviors, and marital quality. Furthermore, answers to questions about marriage and relationship history, basic demographics, and children from current and previous relationships and to other questions about family composition were collected from participants.

Economic hardship and economic pressure

The objective measure of economic hardship consisted of two indicators. The first is the income-to-needs ratio. Participants were asked to indicate their current annual household income before taxes. Total income was then divided by the 2005 poverty guidelines, which takes into account the total number of adults and children living in the household, which was totaled for both men and women individually before dividing the income by the guideline threshold (e.g., $19,350 for a family of four, $25,870 for a family of six). In this manner, the resulting income-to-needs ratio number depends on the total number of persons in the household. This method has been shown to be more representative of economic hardship experiences compared with total family income (Mayer & Jencks, 1989). Education was the second objective indicator of economic hardship. It was assessed by having each participant self-report how many years of education they have completed. White and Rogers (2000), in their decade review of economic circumstances and family outcomes point out that education is a fairly commonly used indicator of economic hardship, with a higher education correlating negatively with economic hardship.

The subjective measure of economic pressure assesses men and women’s perceptions of everyday difficulties related to the lack of economic resources (Conger, Rueter, et al., 1999) using three multiitem indicators used by Conger and colleagues across several of their projects. The first subscale, Financial Concerns, consists of five questions and taps feelings of worry and concern with regard to meeting current and future needs (e.g., “I do not know how I will be able to support myself this next year”). In the current study, Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient was .88 for both men and women.

The second subscale, Felt Constraint: Material Needs, consists of seven items that assess whether the participants perceive that there is enough money to afford specific material needs such as food, medical care, furniture, and clothing (e.g., “We have enough money to afford the kind of food we should have”). Participants answer on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Answers were reverse-coded and summed, and the mean score was used. Cronbach’s α coefficient was .93 for men and .91 for women.

The third subscale, Can’t Make Ends Meet, consists of three items that assess the perceived ability to keep up on bills and expenses and meet the needs of the family with the current income (e.g., “Since getting married, how much difficulty have you had with paying your bills?”). The three items are summed for each participant, with higher scores indicating higher levels of economic pressure. Reported α coefficients range from .81 for men to .84 for women (Conger, Conger, Matthews, & Elder, 1999). Cronbach’s α coefficients were .81 for men and .76 for women in the current study.

Stepfamily-specific stressors

To assess the level of stepfamily stressors, the Questionnaire to Assess the Difficulties of Couples in Stepfamilies (Beaudry, Parent, Saint-Jacques, Guay, & Boisvert, 2001) was used. It consists of 52 questions that are divided into four subscales and uses items that tap situations unique to stepfamily structure: (a) the Spousal Domain (11 questions; e.g., “Accepting the presence of a former spouse in my life as a couple,” “Being recognized as a couple by each of our families of origin”), (b) the Social Domain (11 questions; e.g., “Having to function in society as a stepfamily,” “Having access to resources or people who are capable of understanding the difficulties I am experiencing as a member of a stepfamily”), (c) the Parental Domain (13 questions; e.g., “Supporting my spouse when he or she deals with my children,” “Knowing how to react when my children express negative emotions about our stepfamily”), and (d) the Stepparent Domain (17 questions; e.g., “Establishing a relationship of trust with my spouse’s children,” “Clearly understanding my spouse’s expectations with regard to my role as a stepparent”). For each item, the participant indicates the extent to which each statement matches the level of stress experienced on a scale ranging from 1 (it is not at all a current difficulty) to 5 (it is a significant difficulty). The reliability coefficients for each of these scales have been shown to be higher than .80, indicating a high level of internal consistency with this instrument (Beaudry et al., 2001). For men, Cronbach’s α coefficients were .85 for the spousal domain (.86 for women), .84 for the social domain (.83 for women), and .89 for both the parent (.91 for women) and stepparent domains (.92 for women).

Common stressors

To measure areas of stress that are more common to all men and women in marriage, regardless of whether they are in a first marriage or remarriage/stepfamily, an adapted version of the Life Distress Inventory (LDI; Thomas, Yoshioka, & Ager, 1992) was used. The LDI is an 18-item instrument designed to measure self-reported distress across several areas of social functioning. However, for purposes of this study, only 12 items related to the social functioning subscale (7 items; e.g., “relationship to other relatives,” “recreation/leisure”) and life satisfaction subscale (5 items; e.g., “expectations for future,” “management of time”) were used. Participants were instructed to circle a number between 1 (No distress) and 7 (The most distress I’ve ever felt) for each potential stressor listed. Cronbach’s α coefficients for the social functioning subscale were .81 for men and .75 for women, whereas the life satisfaction subscale αs were .81 for men and .79 for women.

Socioemotional behaviors

The levels of positivity and negativity were measured using the Socioemotional Behavior Index developed by Huston and Vangelisti (1991). This measure assesses seven positive affectional expressions (e.g., “Do something nice for your spouse”) and six negative expressions (e.g., “Criticize or complain to your spouse”), referred to as positivity and negativity in the present study. On the survey, participants were asked, “Please think about your daily interactions with your spouse. On a typical day, how frequently do you . . .” The response format ranges from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Both scales have acceptable reliability levels, with the positivity α coefficients ranging from .78 to .84 for husbands and wives and the negativity α coefficients ranging from .78 to .91 for husbands and wives (Huston & Chorost, 1994). In the current study, Cronbach’s α coefficients for positivity were .85 for men and .86 for women. For the negativity scale, αs were .72 for men and .75 for women.

Marital quality

Marital quality was measured as a latent construct with two multiitem indicators. The two measures were chosen because they reflect different aspects of marital quality, including satisfaction and cohesion. These areas have been shown to be distinct components that make up marital quality (Busby, Crane, Christensen, & Larson, 1995). The first indicator of marital quality was the Dyadic Satisfaction subscale taken from the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Busby et al., 1995). This subscale consists of four questions that ask about participants’ thoughts regarding ending their relationship, how often they quarrel and get on each others’ nerves, and whether they ever regret they are married. Answers are based on a scale ranging from 1 (all the time) to 6 (never). The subscale has a reliability coefficient of .85 (Busby et al., 1995). In the current study, Cronbach’s α coefficients were .86 for men and .85 for women.

The second indicator of marital quality, the Quality of Marriage Index (QMI; Norton, 1983), is designed to be a global measure of spouses’ perceived marital quality but has questions that appear to tap a cohesive aspect of marital quality with six items that ask participants to rate the extent to which they agree with broad statements about their marriage (e.g., “I feel like part of a team with my spouse”). Scores range from 6 to 45, as five of the items have responses ranging from 1 to 7, and one item has a response scale ranging from 1 to 10. The QMI, as a global measure of marital quality, does not include questions pertaining to specific behaviors or interaction patterns that are related to other variables of interest in this study and thus has been recommended for use in research related to marriage (Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000). Furthermore, the QMI has shown high levels of reliability with coefficient αs ranging from .94 to .98 for wives and from .94 to .97 for husbands (Karney, Bradbury, Fincham, & Sullivan, 1994; McNulty & Karney, 2004). In the current study, Cronbach’s α coefficients were .95 for men and .97 for women.

Results

Assessing Model Fit for Men and Women

Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure that the variables were related to each other in expected ways, allowing for the testing of the proposed models. Additionally, independent samples t tests were conducted to test for differences in demographic characteristics and independent and dependent variables for men and women. Table 1 indicates that significant differences exist, with women generally exhibiting higher stress scores and lower relationship satisfaction than men, which is not uncommon (Dillaway & Broman, 2001). Results also showed that the women in stepfamilies were married longer, on average; had more children living at home; and reported higher average incomes, when compared with men. Hence, we controlled for these differences in the next analyses. We used AMOS 7.0 software (Arbuckle, 2006) to examine the relationships between variables and overall model fit for men and women with full information maximum likelihood estimation. Fit for the measurement and structural models in the study was determined by examining common fit indices including the chi-square fit statistic, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the comparative fit index (CFI). Browne and Cudeck (1993) suggest that RMSEA values ranging from .05 to .08 indicate a moderate fit and values less than .05 indicate an excellent fit. An acceptable fit for the CFI is higher than .90 (Crowley & Fan, 1997). Prior to evaluating the structural equation models, we specified and tested the measurement model. We specified five latent constructs for both men and women—economic hardship, economic pressure, common stressors, stepfamily-specific stressors, and marital quality—and two manifest variables: positivity and negativity. To examine the fit of the measurement model, we carried out a confirmatory factor analysis. The resulting fit indices suggested that the models for both men: χ²(71) = 101.11, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, and women: χ²(71) = 128.48, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .06, provided an adequate fit with the data.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent Variables for Women and Men in Stepfamilies

Variables	Women (n = 314), M (SD)	Men (n = 176), M (SD)
Total months married	72.54* (70.79)	50.75 (63.23)
No. of times married	1.81* (0.73)	2.07 (0.92)
Age	40.39 (8.65)	41.50 (11.23)
Ethnicity (percentage White)	78.50	79.40
Education (years)	12.17 (2.77)	12.42 (2.62)
Children living at home	1.24* (1.50)	0.58 (1.14)
Income (in dollars)	69,014* (22,202)	57,744 (27,695)
Financial constraint	2.38 (0.96)	2.56 (1.14)
Financial concerns	2.08 (1.00)	2.12 (1.05)
Can’t make ends meet	7.59 (2.91)	7.66 (2.97)
Life satisfaction	2.85* (1.20)	2.52 (1.14)
Social functioning	2.34* (1.03)	2.03 (1.08)
Spousal stressors	2.16* (1.04)	1.76 (0.96)
Social stressors	2.07* (0.93)	1.52 (0.78)
Parent stressors	2.14* (1.08)	1.61 (0.92)
Stepparent stressors	2.44* (1.21)	1.69 (0.96)
Positivity	3.54* (0.82)	3.78 (0.78)
Negativity	2.04* (0.58)	1.88 (0.61)
Quality Marriage Index	34.77* (9.41)	38.43 (8.16)
Dyadic Satisfaction	4.63* (0.88)	5.07 (0.81)

Indicates a statistically significant difference in mean scores (p < .05).

The hypothesized relationships in Figure 1 were examined simultaneously using multiple-group analysis in SEM. We estimated the overall fit of the unconstrained model and examined the standardized path coefficients for both men and women. The results for men and women are generally consistent with the hypothesized relationships depicted in the model. Overall, the model fit the data well, χ²(160) = 342.949, p < .001, CFI = .950, RMSEA = .048.

Next, we conducted an analysis to determine whether gender differences were evident in the model. In AMOS, this is determined by successively constraining measurement path coefficients and structural path coefficients to be equal for both men and women. Each model that is constrained is compared with a less constrained model, which frees more coefficients for estimation. In Model 2, measurement paths are constrained to be equal, and in Model 3, the measurement paths and the statistically invariant paths between groups are constrained to be equal. Finally, in Model 4 all measurement and structural paths are constrained to be equal. A significant chi-square difference between the unconstrained model (Model 1) and the constrained measurement model (Model 2) indicates that the measurement model is not equal for both groups and suggests that measurement should be held equal between groups before interpreting structural differences between groups. A significant chi-square difference between Models 2 and 3 is not expected as the only difference between models is the holding of paths that are not statistically different to be the same. A significant chi-square difference between Models 3 and 4 indicates that after holding measurement and invariant paths to be equal across groups, the remaining structural paths are not equal for both groups. In such a case, results should be interpreted from Model 3 (Arbuckle, 2006).

In our analysis, the first model (unconstrained) fit the data well, χ²(160) = 342.49, p < .01, CFI = .950, RMSEA = .048. In Model 2, we constrained the measurement paths to be equal between the women’s and men’s models and the resulting chi-square difference test indicated a significant difference, Δχ²(8) = 35.47, p < .01, indicating a significant difference for gender. Next, as expected, the constrained measurement model (Model 2) and the model constraining measurement and invariant paths (Model 3) were not significantly different, Δχ²(7) = 10.41, p > .05. Finally, to determine whether structural paths were significantly different between men and women, we constrained all paths to be equal for both groups and compared this model (Model 4) with Model 3, and the results were significant, Δχ²(4) = 26.78, p < .01, indicating there were gender differences in the remaining structural paths. Therefore, we interpret and discuss results from Model 3 (see Figure 2). Although this model did not fit the data as well, it still had acceptable fit, χ²(175) = 388.37, p < .01, CFI = .942, RMSEA = .050 (see Figure 2). We examined the pairwise parameter comparisons for significant critical ratios for differences in the structural paths of Model 3 and found three paths that were significantly different. Specifically, for women in stepfamilies, the relationship between economic pressure and stepfamily-specific stressors was significantly stronger than the path for men. Furthermore, the structural path from stepfamily-specific stressors to positivity was also significantly stronger for women when compared with men. Conversely, for men, the structural path from common stressors to negativity was significantly stronger for men than women.

Figure 2.

Final model with measurement paths and invariant paths constrained across groups

Although we hypothesize direction of effects between variables, we acknowledge that use of cross-sectional data warrants testing alternative relationships; therefore, an alternate model was fit to the data to determine whether the reordering of the variables fits the data better than the hypothesized model. Specifically, it is plausible that economic hardship and economic pressure might be directly related to more negative (and less positive) behaviors in marriage, which creates common stress and stepfamily-related stress, resulting in poor marital quality. However, results (not shown) indicate that the path coefficients from economic pressure are not significantly associated with positivity for men (β = .02) or women (β = −.03), and there is not a significant relationship between economic pressure and negativity for men (β = .04) or women (β = .02). Thus, we have more confidence in the hypothesized model and the associated relationships when compared with an alternate model.

Tests for Mediation

One of the central questions in this study was whether common stressors and stepfamily-specific stressors mediate the relationships between economic pressure and positivity and economic pressure and negativity for men and women. Similarly, we were interested in determining whether common and stepfamily-specific stressors mediated the path between economic pressure and marital quality for men and women. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), in order to establish mediation, the relationships between economic pressure and positivity and negativity have to be significant, the relationships between economic pressure and common and stepfamily-specific stressors have to be significant, and the relationships between common stressors and positivity and negativity as well as the relationships between stepfamily-specific stressors and positivity and negativity must be significant. Initial results for men indicated that the path coefficient between economic pressure and positivity and economic pressure and stepfamily stress was not statistically significant. Likewise, for men, neither common stressors nor stepfamily-specific stressors could be tested as mediators because each had a path that was not significant. Thus, mediation tests for men only included examining economic pressure, common stressors, and negativity. For women, there was not a statistically significant relationship between economic pressure and negativity, nor was there a significant relationship between common stressors and marital quality, so only mediation tests for positivity and stepfamily-specific stressors could be carried out.

Initial results for men indicated that the structural coefficient between economic pressure and negativity was significant (β = .23, p < .01) prior to testing for mediation. The separate structural paths tested independently between economic pressure and common stressors (β = .33, p < .001) and between common stressors and negativity (β = .31, p < .01) were all statistically significant. Common stressors were then examined as a potential mediator. The path between economic pressure and negativity was constrained to zero. The resulting chi-square statistic was compared with the chi-square statistic when all paths in the model were unconstrained, and the results indicated that the unconstrained model did not improve the model fit, Δχ²(1) = 3.40, p = n.s. These results indicate that common stressors do, in fact, mediate the relationship between economic pressure and negativity for men, as the previously statistically significant structural coefficient between economic pressure and negativity was not significant after the common stressors construct was added as a mediator (β = .15, p = .06).

For women in our sample, initial results indicated that the structural coefficient between economic pressure and positivity were significant (β = −.12, p < .04) prior to testing for mediation, but the relationship between economic pressure and negativity was not significant. The separate structural paths were tested independently between economic pressure and stepfamily-specific stressors (β = .31, p < .001), between economic pressure and common stressors (β = .45, p<.001), between stepfamily-specific stressors and positivity (β = −.55, p < .001), and between common stressors and positivity (β = −.22, p < .01). For women, the common stressors construct was first examined as a potential mediator. The path between economic pressure and positivity was constrained to zero and the resulting chi-square statistic was compared with the chi-square statistic when all paths in the model were unconstrained and the delta chi-square difference test indicated that the unconstrained model did not improve the fit of the model, Δχ²(1) = .22, p = n.s. The results indicate that common stressors fully mediate the relationship between economic pressure and positivity as the previously statistically significant structural coefficient between economic pressure and positivity was not significant after common stressors was added as a mediator, β = −.03, p = .64).

Next, stepfamily-specific stressors were examined as a potential mediator between economic pressure and positivity for women. The delta chi-square difference test indicated there was no significant improvement in model fit, Δχ²(1) = 1.16, p = n.s., indicating that stepfamily stressors fully mediate the relationship between economic pressure and positivity as the prior statistically significant structural coefficient was no longer statistically significant (β = −.06, p = .30).

Stepfamily-specific stressors were then examined as a potential mediator between economic pressure and marital quality for women. The separate structural paths were tested independently between economic pressure and stepfamily-specific stressors (β = .31, p < .001), between economic pressure and marital quality (β = −.25, p<.001), and between stepfamily-specific stressors and marital quality (β = −.90, p < .001). The delta chi-square difference test indicated there was no significant improvement in model fit, Δχ² (1) = .02, p = n.s., indicating that stepfamily stressors fully mediate the relationship between economic pressure and marital quality as the prior statistically significant structural coefficient was no longer statistically significant (β = .00, p = .94).

Discussion

Building on previous family stress models, this research examined a family stress model that is unique to men and women in stepfamilies. We examined the relationships between economic pressure and common and stepfamily-specific stressors, negativity, positivity, and subsequent marital quality. Several conclusions and unique contributions can be gleaned from the results of this study.

First, this study provides evidence that economic pressure is associated with common stressors for men and women and stepfamily-specific stressors for women. This builds on Conger et al.’s (1990) work by introducing a path between economic pressure and stressors, rather than direct effects of economic pressure on socioemotional behaviors, thus providing preliminary support that economic pressure may spill over and contribute to perceptions of higher levels of stress in other areas of the relationship, which then leads to positive and negative behaviors, with positivity being associated with perceptions of marital quality. Furthermore, these findings add to the work of Bodenmann and colleagues (Bodenmann, 2005; Randall & Bodenmann, 2009) and their dimensions of stress in close relationships (internal vs. external, major vs. minor, acute vs. chronic) by examining the relationship between economic pressure (external stress) and stressors (both internal and external) within a stepfamily context, which has not been explored.

Second, as noted earlier, comparatively few studies have specifically examined factors related to marital quality for men and women in stepfamilies. Results from this study indicate that high levels of stepfamily-specific stressors are associated with lower levels of marital quality for men and women, controlling for all else in the model, including common stressors. This provides empirical support for assertions that were previously assumed (e.g., Prado & Markman, 1999) but not systematically studied. That is, men and women in stepfamilies experience unique stressors in addition to stressors that are common to most relationships, and these stressors account for unique variance in marital quality. For women, this finding was particularly salient, as stepfamily-specific stressors were predictive of positivity, negativity, and marital quality, whereas common stressors had no effect on negativity or marital quality. This finding suggests that for women in stepfamilies, the stressors associated with stepfamily living are much more of a threat to marital quality than stressors that are common to most men and women. For men, the results were generally similar—higher levels of stepfamily-specific stressors were associated with lower levels of positivity and marital quality, whereas no relationship existed between stepfamily-specific stressors and negativity.

Interestingly, for both men and women, negativity did not have an effect on marital quality, whereas there was a significant effect of positivity on marital quality for both men and women. This provides further support for suggestions that positivity and negativity are distinct/separate constructs and should be considered and analyzed separately, rather than on a continuum (e.g., Bradbury et al., 2000). This finding is also consistent with observational studies that find that it is positive expressions of affect in general and during conflict rather than negative expressions that predict marital happiness among newlyweds and divorce among stable couples (e.g., Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998). As previous studies exclude men and women in stepfamilies or do not distinguish them, the current study extends this research by explicitly examining these patterns among men and women in stepfamilies and provides some of the first evidence that an individual’s expression of positivity, compared with negativity, is more closely related to the individual’s perception of marital quality for spouses in stepfamilies. It should be noted, however, that because reports of spouse’s behavior were not assessed, we do not know the impact of a spouse’s behaviors on the perception of marital quality of the other spouse.

A closer examination of the gender differences between the men’s and women’s models indicates that for women in stepfamilies, economic pressure is associated with higher levels of stepfamily-specific stress when compared with men. This unexpected finding suggests that the economic pressure that stems from economic hardship spills over into the relational aspects associated with stepfamily living for women. The level of stepfamily stress that men experience, however, is not affected by economic pressure, as this path was not significant. Interestingly, however, there were no significant gender differences in the relationship between economic pressure and common stressors, which supports previous findings by Conger, Rueter, et al. (1999). The stronger connection between economic pressure and stepfamily stressors for women may be because a child support obligation is more common for men than for women. Wives in stepfamilies may be more attuned to the resources of the family being shared with previous partners. Studies indicate that this can be a source of marital conflict in stepfamilies, initiated by current wives (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

Other gender differences were found for positivity and negativity. First, when women report experiencing high levels of stress associated with living in a stepfamily, they are much less likely to engage in positive behaviors such as initiating physical affection, sharing emotions and feelings, and complimenting their spouse. This finding is particularly noteworthy as there were no gender differences between the level of common stress and positivity, suggesting that stepfamily stress, particularly for women, is tied closely with positive behavioral expressions. This finding has implications for counselors, advocates, and family life educators working with women in stepfamilies. Although these results may not be generalized to the full population of women in stepfamilies, they do suggest that women in stepfamilies in the current sample experience stepfamily stress in a unique way. They withhold or express positive behaviors toward their husbands in relation to the amount of stepfamily stressors felt. The other gender difference in the final model was found for the relationship between common stressors and negativity for men. Men in the current study were significantly more likely than women to engage in negative behaviors such as showing anger and impatience and failing to do something that their spouse asks when feeling stress due to common stressors.

There is some evidence in prior research that men are more likely to be senders of negativity than receivers (Larson & Almeida, 1999). The findings from our study advance this body of research related to gender, as they indicate that when women in stepfamilies experience stepfamily-related stress, they are more likely than men to withhold positive behaviors in their marriage. Conversely, men in stepfamilies who experience common stressors are more likely to demonstrate negative behaviors aimed at their spouse, whereas there was no relationship between common stress and negativity for women.

Another important contribution of this research is the information related to mediating variables. Several portions of the stress and marital quality literature are bridged. Previous family stress models have examined the direct effects of economic pressure on positivity and negativity, but this is the first study to examine whether economic pressure has an effect on stressors related to other areas of life, which in turn, affects levels of positivity, negativity, and marital quality. In the present study, common stressors mediated the association between economic pressure and negativity for men and economic pressure and positivity for women. Furthermore, for women, stepfamily-specific stressors mediated the effect of economic pressure on positivity and marital quality. Consistent with the frustration aggression hypothesis and similar to previous research indicating that economic strain leads to perceptions of stress in other areas (Lavee et al., 1996; Marks et al., 2001), this suggests that economic pressure leads to the perception of other frustrations and stressors, which then affects levels of negativity for men and positivity for women. This finding builds on empirical work conducted by Karney et al. (2005) that showed that elevated levels of stress were related to decreased levels of marital quality and on a separate study (Karney, Garvan, & Thomas, 2003) in Florida that found that those who encountered struggles related to finances also had more challenges in their intimate relationship. The findings from this study bridge these studies and are the first to demonstrate that stepfamily-specific stressors mediate the effect of economic pressure on marital quality for women.

Finally, the results from this study have several practical implications. We reemphasize Adler-Baeder and Higginbotham’s (2004) recommendation that educators and counselors be cognizant of the developmental and contextual differences between couples in first marriages and those in stepfamilies. In addition to common stressors experienced by most couples, stepfamilies often face unique stressors, and our results indicate that these stresses are significantly more likely to be associated with marital quality than general stressors. Furthermore, Adler-Baeder and Higginbotham emphasize that educators may run the risk of leaving out important information and skills if they focus solely on research that centers on couples in first marriages. Additional information that may be important for educators to know is that the current study offers the initial finding that women in stepfamilies who experience economic hardship and economic pressure may also be more likely to experience higher levels of stepfamily stress, in addition to the stress that is common for most couples. And according to the results, educators and counselors should be aware of the negative effect that stepfamily stressors may have not only on marital quality but also on the amount of positive maintenance strategies that women use.

Although the present research provides unique insight into factors that are associated with marital quality for husbands and wives in stepfamilies, there are limitations that necessitate attention. First, although the sample is considered one of the largest of men and women in stepfamilies (Sweeney, 2010), it is not considered randomly selected and representative of the population of men and women in stepfamilies. Although slightly more diverse than most studies of stepfamilies, the majority of the respondents were predominantly Caucasian. Generalizability of the findings to minority populations cannot be explicated with confidence. Future research with men and women in stepfamilies should make further attempts to include a more representative national sample, with understudied populations oversampled, and to explore potential within-group differences based on ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Another limitation of the current study is the cross-sectional nature of the data. The model is not recursive, as spouses were only surveyed at one point in time, making it impossible to test change and assert direction of effects. Although determinant assumptions were made through structural equation modeling, the associations represent covariations between variables, and cannot establish causality. The test of an alternate model provides some additional support for the hypothesized direction of effects. We consider this a first step in this area of inquiry and suggest the use of longitudinal research to verify directional assumptions and findings in this study. Future research should also incorporate multiple methods such as observations of socioemotional behaviors and the combination of surveys and interviews with stepfamily couples over time. In this way, the effect of economic pressure, common stressors, and particularly stepfamily-specific stressors on marital quality can be measured even more reliably and examined developmentally, leading to an enhanced understanding of marital dynamics for men and women in stepfamilies.

Conclusion

The primary contribution of this study is the extension of the research that focuses on both economic pressure and marital quality, the research on stress and marital quality, and the research regarding factors that affect the marital quality of spouses living in stepfamilies. Although previous research has examined various economic hardship models with couples in first marriages (these studies may have included remarriages, but it was not the focus), this is the first known study that has examined the effects of economic pressure specifically on men and women in stepfamilies. It also includes the linking of mediational tests between economic pressure and marital quality, involving both intrafamilial stressors and couple behaviors. Furthermore, this study provides a comparative examination of types of stressors among stepfamily couples. Stepfamily-specific stressors have a direct inverse effect on marital quality for both spouses, controlling for all else in the model. That is, stepfamily-specific stressors contribute uniquely to the prediction of relational behaviors and marital quality and are more potent predictors of marital quality than common stressors. And finally, although both men and women in stepfamilies experience common stress and stepfamily-specific stress, the relationship of the stress to positivity and negativity was significantly different. Higher levels of stepfamily-specific stress for women was associated with significantly lower levels of positivity for women, whereas higher levels of common stress for men was associated with significantly higher levels of negativity for men. Continued work in this area holds the promise of establishing reliable, predictive process models of marital quality unique to stepfamily couples. Growing knowledge in this area will serve to inform both prevention and intervention efforts and potentially contribute to building strengths among a significant portion of married couples.

Footnotes

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.

References

Adler-Baeder

Higginbotham

(2004). Implications of remarriage and stepfamily formation for marriage education. Family Relations, 53, 448-458.

Arbuckle

J. L.

(2006). AMOS 7.0 user’s guide. Spring House, PA: AMOS Development Corporation.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Beaudry

Parent

Saint-Jacques

M. C.

Guay

Boisvert

J. M.

(2001). Validation of a questionnaire to assess the difficulties of couples in stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 35, 155-172.

Berkowitz

(1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59-73.

Bodenmann

(2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In Revenson

Kayser

Bodenmann

(Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33-50). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bodenmann

Cina

(2006). Stress and coping among stable-satisfied, stable-distressed and separated/divorced Swiss couples: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 44, 71-89.

Bodenmann

Ledermann

Bradbury

T. N.

(2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14, 551-569.

Bodenmann

Shantinath

S. D.

(2004). The couples coping enhancement training (CCET): A new approach to prevention of marital distress based upon stress and coping. Family Relations, 53, 477-484.

10.

Bradbury

T. N.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 964-980.

11.

Bray

J. H.

Berger

S. H.

Silverblatt

A. H.

Hollier

(1987). Family process and organization during early remarriage: A preliminary analysis. In Vincent

J. P.

(Ed.), Advances in family intervention, assessment, and theory (pp. 253-279). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

12.

Bray

Kelly

(1998). Stepfamilies: Love, marriage, and parenting in the first decade. New York, NY: Broadway.

13.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

14.

Bumpass

L. L.

Raley

R. K.

Sweet

J. A.

(1995). The changing character of stepfamilies: Implications of cohabitation and nonmarital childbearing. Demography, 32, 425-436.

15.

Busby

D. M.

Crane

D. R.

Christensen

Larson

J. H.

(1995). A revision of the dyadic adjustment scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 289-308.

16.

Buunk

B. P.

Mutsaers

(1999). The nature of the relationship between remarried individuals and former spouses and its impact on marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 165-174.

17.

Coleman

Ganong

Fine

(2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1288-1307.

18.

Conger

R. D.

Conger

K. J.

Matthews

L. S.

Elder

G. H.

Jr. (1999). Pathways of economic influence on adolescent adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 519-541.

19.

Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H.

Jr. (1994). Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

20.

Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H.

Jr. Lorenz

F. O.

Conger

K. J.

Simons

R. L.

Whitbeck

L. B.

. . . Melby

J. N.

(1990). Linking economic hardship to marital quality and instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 643-656.

21.

Conger

R. D.

Lorenz

F. O.

(1994). Economic stress and marital relations. In Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H.

Lorenz

F. O.

Simons

R. L.

Whitbeck

L. B.

(Eds.), Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America. (pp. 187-203). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

22.

Conger

R. D.

Rueter

M. A.

Elder

G. H.

Jr. (1999). Couple resilience to economic pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 54-71.

23.

Crowley

S. L.

Fan

(1997). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and application in personality assessment research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 508-531.

24.

Dillaway

Broman

(2001). Race, class, and gender differences in marital satisfaction and divisions of household labor among dual-earner couples: A case for intersectional analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 309-327.

25.

Fein

D. J.

Burstein

N. R.

Fein

G. G.

Lindberg

L. D.

(2003). The determinants of marriage and cohabitation among disadvantaged Americans: Research findings and needs. Cambridge, MA: Abt.

26.

Freeman

Carlson

Sperry

(1993). Adlerian marital therapy strategies with middle income couples facing financial stress. American Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 324-332.

27.

Ganong

L. H.

Coleman

(2004). Stepfamily relationships: Development, dynamics, and interventions. New York, NY: Kluwer.

28.

Gottman

J. M.

Coan

Carrere

Swanson

(1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5-22.

29.

Hetherington

E. M.

Kelly

(2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

30.

Huston

T. L.

Chorost

A. F.

(1994). Behavioral buffers on the effect of negativity on marital satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Personal Relationships, 1, 223-239.

31.

Huston

T. L.

Vangelisti

(1991). Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in marital relationships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 721-733.

32.

Johnson

A. J.

Wright

K. B.

Craig

E. A.

Gilchrist

E. S.

Lane

L. T.

Haigh

M. M.

(2008). A model for predicting stress levels and marital satisfaction for stepmothers utilizing a stress and coping approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 119-142.

33.

Karney

Bradbury

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34.

34.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

Fincham

F. D.

Sullivan

K. T.

(1994). The role of negative affectivity in the association between attributions and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 413-424.

35.

Karney

B. R.

Garvan

C. W.

Thomas

M. S.

(2003). Family formation in Florida: 2003 baseline survey of attitudes, beliefs, and demographics relating to marriage and family formation. Gainesville: University of Florida.

36.

Karney

B. R.

Story

L. B.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2005). Marriages in context: Interactions between chronic and acute stress among newlyweds. In Revenson

T.A.

Kayser

Bodenmann

(Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 13-32). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

37.

Knox

Zusman

M. E.

(2001). Marrying a man with ‘Baggage’: Implications for second wives. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 35, 67-80.

38.

Larson

R. W.

Almeida

D. M.

(1999). Emotional transmission in the daily lives of families: A new paradigm for studying family process. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 5-20.

39.

Lavee

Sharlin

Katz

(1996). The effect of parenting stress on marital quality. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 114-135.

40.

Lorenz

F. O.

Conger

R. D.

Simons

R. L.

Whitbeck

L. B.

Elder

G. H.

(1991). Economic pressure and marital quality: An illustration of the method variance problem in the causal modeling of family processes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 375-388.

41.

Marks

S. R.

Huston

T. L.

Johnson

E. M.

MacDermid

S. M.

(2001). Role balance among white married couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1083-1098.

42.

Mayer

S. E.

Jencks

(1989). Poverty and the distribution of material hardship. Journal of Human Resources, 24, 88-114.

43.

McNulty

J. K.

Karney

B. R.

(2004). Positive expectations in the early years of marriage: Should couples expect the best or brace for the worst? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 729-743.

44.

Norton

(1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141-151.

45.

Palisi

B. J.

Orleans

Caddell

Korn

(1991). Adjustment to stepfatherhood: The effects of marital history and relations with children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 14, 89-106.

46.

Papernow

(1993). Becoming a stepfamily. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

47.

Prado

L. M.

Markman

H. J.

(1999). Unearthing the seeds of marital distress: What we have learned from married and remarried couples. In Cox

M. J.

Brooks-Gunn

(Eds.), Conflict and cohesion in families: Causes and consequences (pp. 51-85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

48.

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

(2009). The role of stress on close relationship and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 105-115.

49.

Sobolewski

J. M.

Amato

P. R.

(2005). Economic hardship in the family of origin and children’s psychological well-being in adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 141-156.

50.

Sweeney

M. M.

(2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 667-684.

51.

Teachman

Tedow

(2008). The demography of stepfamilies in the United States. In Pryor

(Ed.), The international handbook of stepfamilies: Policy and practice in legal, research, and clinical environments (pp. 3-29). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

52.

Thomas

E. J.

Yoshioka

M. R.

Ager

R. D.

(1992). Life distress inventory (3rd ed.). In Corcoran

Fischer

(Eds.), Measures for clinical practice: A sourcebook (pp. 129-132). New York, NY: Free Press.

53.

Visher

E. B.

Visher

J. S.

(1979). Stepfamilies: A guide to working with stepparents and stepchildren. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

54.

Visher

E. B.

Visher

J. S.

(1996). Therapy with stepfamilies. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

55.

White

Rogers

S. J.

(2000). Economic circumstances and family outcomes: A review of the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1035-1051.