Children-in-laws’ message processing: Associations among uncertainty,perceived topic avoidance,goal inferences,and martial satisfaction

Abstract

Uncertainty is germane to the in-law experience. Although associations between in-law’s doubts and message production are well documented, less is known about how in-law’s uncertainty corresponds with their message processing and how these evaluations associate with relational outcomes. Weaving theorizing on uncertainty and goal detection, the present study examined associations between children-in-law’s uncertainty, message processing, and marital satisfaction. Self-report, survey data from children-in-law (n = 199) revealed that their uncertainty corresponds with biased appraisals of their parents-in-law’s communication, specifically perceived topic avoidance and the goals undergirding their avoidant communication (i.e., goal inferences). Additionally, perceived topic avoidance rather than uncertainty shared a stronger association with goal inferences. Finally, goal inferences were directly and indirectly associated with children-in-law’s marital satisfaction. Results are interpreted in light of their theoretical and practical contributions.

Keywords

Family uncertainty goal inferences in-law relationships relational perceptions relational uncertainty topic avoidance

The lack of relational scripts guiding in-law relationships within U.S. culture make them ripe for uncertainty (Morr Serewicz, 2014). Although scholars have noted ambiguity as a source of distress within extended family ties (e.g., Duvall, 1954; Morr Serewicz, 2006), it was not until recently that the content of in-law’s uncertainty (and resultant relational consequences) were outlined. Current scholarship identifies two forms of uncertainty experienced by in-laws—relational uncertainty and family uncertainty (e.g., Knobloch & Solomon, 1999; Mikucki-Enyart & Caughlin, 2018). These uncertainties have implications for in-law’s communication, including message production, how they generate messages (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018a; Mikucki-Enyart & Caughlin, 2018), and message processing, how they make sense of one another’s messages (Knobloch & Solomon, 2005; Knobloch, Miller, Bond, & Mannone, 2007).

In-law’s inability to interpret one another’s behavior often results in biased evaluations of communication and corresponding goal inferences, the perceived goals undergirding communication behaviors (Palomares & Derman, 2016). In-laws, for instance, often inaccurately cast each other’s communication as avoidant (perceived topic avoidance) and attribute negative goal inferences, such as exclusion, to this behavior (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018b). Children-in-law’s biased message processing amplifies the distressing relational impact of perceived topic avoidance on their relationship satisfaction and family connection with their parent-in-law (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018b). These weakened ties undermine the supportive possibilities of the in-law bond (Goetting, 1990). Additionally, tensions within the in-law duo permeate adjacent family bonds, including children-in-law’s marital satisfaction (Bryant, Conger, & Meehan, 2001), parent–child closeness (Cao, Fine, Fang, & Zhou, 2019), and intergenerational contact (Fingerman, 2004). Despite the documented association between in-law’s biased message processing and relational outcomes, it is unclear as to what factors correspond with biased interpretations of communication behaviors and accompanying goal inferences.

Given the pervasive consequences associated with in-law’s message processing, the current investigation aims to (a) examine associations among uncertainty (i.e., relational uncertainty and family uncertainty) and children-in-law’s perceptions of parents-in-law’s topic avoidance; (b) illuminate contributing factors to children-in-law’s goal inferences regarding perceived parent-in-law topic avoidance; and (c) examine if, and how, children-in-law’s goal inferences correspond with their marital satisfaction.

Theorizing on in-law’s uncertainty and message processing

The associations between uncertainty and message production have been well documented (e.g., Knobloch, 2006; Mikucki-Enyart, 2018a) with fewer studies examining associations between ambiguity and message processing. The handful that have, however, have revealed associations between relational uncertainty and more tentative and pessimistic evaluations of partner’s messages (Knobloch & Solomon, 2005; Knobloch et al., 2007). Given that perceptions of communication and goal inferences are significant determinates of the relational impact of messages (e.g., satisfaction; Caughlin 2010; Donovan-Kicken & Caughlin, 2010; Palomares & Derman, 2016), continued research examining message processing under conditions of uncertainty is warranted.

Uncertainty and in-law relationships

In-laws grapple with uncertainty at both the dyadic and family system level (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018, 2018a, 2018b). At the in-law level, they wrestle with relational uncertainty, defined as “the degree of confidence people have in their perceptions of involvement within close relationships” (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999, p. 264), which is comprised of a trio of uncertainties: self uncertainty, one’s own questions about involvement; partner uncertainty, doubts about the partner’s involvement; and relationship uncertainty, concerns about the nature of the relationship in general. The trio of sources cut across relational domains (e.g., romantic, familial; Knobloch, 2008; Mikucki-Enyart, 2011), yet additional context-relevant issues of relational uncertainty have been identified. For instance, spouses confront questions about how health and finances will impact their marriage (Knobloch, 2008) and cohabiting couples face concerns about individual growth and family planning (Steuber, Priem, Scharp, & Thomas, 2014). Of particular relevance to the present study are relational queries experienced by in-laws.

In addition to relational uncertainty, in-laws confront family uncertainty or questions about the interdependent nature of the in-law bond (Mikucki-Enyart, Caughlin, & Rittenour, 2015). For instance, children-in-law have questions about intergenerational interdependence (e.g., parents-in-law’s relationship with spouse/child and grandchildren/future grandchildren), meddling (e.g., parents-in-law’s desired level of input in couple’s decision making), and balancing family membership (e.g., splitting time between their in-laws and their family-of-origin). Along with the negative relational consequences associated with in-law uncertainty, such as dissatisfaction and a lack of family connection (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018b; Mikucki-Enyart & Caughlin, 2018), theorizing on relational uncertainty suggests that children-in-law’s doubts likely correspond with their message processing (Knobloch & Satterlee, 2009). That is, against a backdrop of uncertainty children-in-law may have a harder time making sense of their parents-in-law’s communication.

Uncertainty and perceived topic avoidance

Within the in-law context, it is not always what is said that is open for (mis)interpretation, but what is perceived not to be said (Merrill, 2007; Mikucki-Enyart, 2018b). Evidence consistently contradicts theoretical arguments advancing the benefits of avoidance (e.g., communication privacy management theory; Petronio, 2002), revealing detrimental relational consequences associated with perceptions of topic avoidance, the intentional evasion of conversational topics (Afifi & Guerrero, 2000). For in-laws, topic avoidance conveys outsider status and suggests that the in-law does not hold family membership (Morr Serewicz & Canary, 2008; Petronio, 2002). Topic avoidance is associated with in-law’s dissatisfaction and decreased sense of family connection (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018b). Furthermore, certain topics of perceived avoidance are more relationally distressing for in-laws than others (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018b). For children-in-law, perceptions of in-law relevant topic avoidance, the evasion of topics relevant to in-law relationship maintenance and family system functioning (e.g., family-of-origin relationships and childbearing/rearing), is a stronger predictor of their relational dissatisfaction than perceived tangential topic avoidance, socially acceptable and preferred topics to eschew with in-laws (e.g., negative life experiences, sexual experiences; Mikucki-Enyart, 2018b). Unfortunately, relational distress within the in-law dyad reverberates throughout the family system affecting children-in-law’s marital relationship (Bryant et al., 2001) and parents-in-law’s bond with their adult children (Cao et al., 2019) and grandchildren (Fingerman, 2004). Despite the documented consequences of perceived topic avoidance, it is unclear as to why in-laws are inclined to cast one another’s communication as avoidant.

In theorizing about relational uncertainty, Knobloch and Satterlee (2009) argued that relational uncertainty impedes relational knowledge. As such, individuals experience an information deficit making it difficult to make sense of relational events (Knobloch & Satterlee, 2009). When an information deficit complicates understanding, people tend to rely on heuristics to help them process messages (Knobloch & Satterlee, 2009). Despite evidence that in-law relationships can be a great source of support (Morr Serewicz, 2014), cultural schemas of in-laws are often negative (Cotterill, 1994; Merrill, 2007). Popular mythology cast in-laws in an unflattering light, suggesting that they are in direct competition with one another as they vie for the affection of the linchpin (i.e., spouse/child-in-law; Morr Serewicz, 2014). These deleterious heuristics may result in negative (and potentially inaccurate) assessments of one another’s behavior. Indirect evidence supports this possibility. Children-in-law, for instance, often characterize parents-in-law’s communication as under involved or nonaccommodating (e.g., silence, avoidance; Rittenour & Koenig Kellas, 2015). In other words, children-in-law often feel like their parents-in-law strategically avoid communicating with them. Although not direct examinations of uncertainty, findings suggest that heuristics resultant from negative in-law stereotypes coupled with doubts may shape in-law’s pessimistic evaluations of each other’s communication via perceptions of topic avoidance. Thus, uncertainty likely corresponds with negative evaluations of parent-in-law communication, specifically perceptions of topic avoidance. More formally stated:

H1: Relational uncertainty (H1a) and family uncertainty (H1b) is positively associated with perceived topic avoidance.

In addition to broad patterns of associations, certain sources of uncertainty may be more instrumental in shaping appraisals of perceived topic avoidance. In fact, Solomon, Knobloch, Theiss, and McLaren (2016) argue that partner and relationship uncertainty “serve as touchstones for comprehension” (p. 7), suggesting that these sources may be stronger predictors of biased appraisals of communication than self uncertainty. Previous research supports this conclusion, revealing that self uncertainty often corresponds differently with cognitions (e.g., perceptions of hurtful behavior; McLaren, Solomon, & Priem, 2011; Priem & Solomon, 2011) than partner and relationship uncertainty. Moreover, within the in-law domain, family uncertainty and relationship uncertainty are more potent predictors of parents-in-law’s own topic avoidance than self or partner focused queries (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018a). Thus, in addition to examining general trends, a first research question inquires about the relative strength of uncertainties in predicting perceptions of topic avoidance:

RQ1: Is a particular source of uncertainty (relational or family) a stronger predictor of perceived topic avoidance?

Uncertainty and goal inferences

In addition to understanding how relational and family uncertainty contribute to in-law’s perceptions of avoidance, it is important to illuminate if, and how, it corresponds with their goal inferences, perceptions about other’s communicative aims (Palomares & Derman, 2016). Drawing from previous scholarship (Afifi & Guererro, 2000; Golish & Caughlin, 2002), Mikucki-Enyart (2018b) identified several goals that in-laws attribute to perceived topic avoidance: boundary fortification, identity management, relationship protection, other protection, and conflict avoidance. Across relational contexts, goal inferences have the ability to attenuate or amplify the negative relational implications of perceived topic avoidance (Donovan-Kicken & Caughlin, 2010; Mikucki-Enyart, 2018b). Perceptions that partners engage in topic avoidance to protect themselves, for instance, intensifies the negative association between perceived topic avoidance and relational satisfaction in marital and parent–child relationships (Caughlin & Afifi, 2004; Donovan-Kicken & Caughlin, 2010). Within the in-law dyad, parents-in-law’s perceptions that children-in-law avoided to maintain privacy boundaries corresponded with dissatisfaction and a lack of family connection with their children-in-law (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018b). Interestingly, parents-in-law who perceived that children-in-law’s avoidance was spurred by the goal of maintaining their identity (e.g., “My child-in-law wanted me to view him/her as a ‘good’ child-in-law”) were less dissatisfied with perceived avoidance (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018b). Given the relevance of goal inferences on relational outcomes associated with perceived topic avoidance, understanding conditions, such as uncertainty, that correspond with more or less cynical goal inferences can provide critical theoretical insight regarding uncertainty’s role in message processing.

Although previous research has demonstrated associations between uncertainty and in-law’s own interaction goals, it is unclear if uncertainty is correlated with goal inferences. However, theorizing outlined earlier would support the argument that children-in-law experiencing uncertainty likely make biased evaluations about their in-law’s communication behavior and goals. More precisely, the information deficit resulting from uncertainty impedes children-in-law’s ability to make concrete conclusions about the intentions underlying their perceptions of their parents-in-law’s topic avoidance (Knobloch & Satterlee, 2009). As a result, they likely rely on negative heuristics (e.g., “My in-law sees me as competition and wants to keep me as an outsider”), to inform their understanding of goals for perceived avoidance (Solomon, Knobloch, Theiss, & McLaren, 2016). However, given a lack of evidence demonstrating associations between uncertainty and goal inferences, a second research question examines this proposed connection:

RQ2: How, if at all, is children-in-law’s relational uncertainty (RQ2a) and family uncertainty (RQ2b) associated with their goal inferences?

Additionally, just as the sources of uncertainty may diverge when evaluating behavior, the sources may also share nuanced patterns of associations with goal inferences (e.g., McLaren et al., 2011; Priem & Solomon, 2011). Relationship uncertainty, for instance, might elicit goal inferences that in-laws avoid conflict since they lack knowledge regarding appropriate communication topics, whereas family uncertainty may diminish more generous and seemingly “prosocial” goal inferences. A third research question explores these possibilities:

RQ3: Is a particular source of uncertainty (relational or family) a stronger predictor of goal inferences?

Uncertainty, perceived topic avoidance, and goal inferences

Although uncertainty is likely one factor associated with in-law’s goal inferences, it may not be a sufficient condition to fully explain perceived aims. Theorizing on goal detection (Palomares, 2008) adds depth to understanding goal inferences under conditions of ambiguity. According to Palomares (2008, 2014), context and tactics (or perceived tactics) are two key determinates of goal inferences. Contextual factors, which include but are not limited to circumstances, roles, and relational types, help shape goal inferences. For instance, contextual ambiguity inhibits goal inferences, whereas particular settings like a job interview or first date may suggest precise goal possibilities (Palomares, 2008). Perceived tactics, which are perceptions of goal-directed behaviors, are also indicators of goals. Given that all behavior is goal-driven, it is logical that people deduce goals from behavior (Palomares, 2014). Despite consensus that context and perceived tactics shape goal inferences, Palomares (2014) argued that it is unclear when perceptions of tactics or contextual factors are more or less important to goal inferences. That is, which determinant is more strongly tied to goal inferences?

The integration principal (Palomares, 2009) states that whether a perceived tactic (e.g., perceived topic avoidance) or a contextual factor (e.g., uncertainty) emerges as the primary predictor of goal inferences is dependent on two factors. First, the extent to which contextual factors help circumscribe potential goals limits the importance of perceived tactics in shaping goal inferences (Palomares, 2014). If the context indicates few potential goal possibilities than a goal inference is likely to be surmised based on context versus the perception of a tactic. However, if the context evokes numerous goal potentials than the perceived tactic may be particularly important. Second, alignment or divergence between the goal possibilities activated by perceived tactics and context shape goal inferences (Palomares, 2014). When context and perceived tactic suggest similar aims, then goal inferences are straightforward. However, when potential goals elicited by context contradict those suggested by the perceived tactic, people rely on their perceptions of the tactic to shape their goal inferences.

Uncertainty likely increases rather than decreases goal possibilities. In fact, under conditions of relational uncertainty people have difficulty making sense of interactions because they “…lack knowledge that would help them select among a variety of possible inferences” (Solomon et al., 2016, p. 6). Additionally, Palomares (2008) argued that ambiguity obfuscates people’s ability to infer goals and that perceived tactic may be a better goal indictor when experiencing ambiguity. This argument, however, has an important caveat. If, under conditions of uncertainty, a perceived tactic produces multiple potential goal inferences, then the perceived tactic may also be insufficient in isolating a goal inference (Palomares, 2008). The aims undergirding in-law’s topic avoidance are myriad, ranging from prosocial (e.g., protect the relationship) to antisocial (e.g., exclusion; Mikucki-Enyart, 2018a), which make it difficult for children-in-law to infer parents-in-law’s goals for topic avoidance based on avoidant communication. Collectively, these competing arguments demonstrate the need to untangle if, and how, context and perceived tactic work in relation to one another to shape goal inferences. Another research question is offered to clarify this issue:

RQ4: Which determinant, context (i.e., relational and family uncertainty) or perceived tactic (i.e., perceived topic avoidance), is most relevant to children-in-law’s goal inferences?

Goal inferences and relational perceptions

The study of interaction goals largely focuses on discrete interactions (Caughlin, 2010; Palomares, 2014); contemporary theorizing, however, acknowledges that enduring perceptions (or pursuit) of goals occur across interactions (e.g., Donovan-Kicken & Caughlin, 2010; Mikucki-Enyart, 2018a). As a result, goal inferences become akin to relationship attributions (Donovan-Kicken & Caughlin, 2010) and have “entrenched consequences” for relationships (Palomares, 2014, p. 94). In fact, in-law’s global goal inferences correspond with their own perceptions of family connection with their in-law and in-law satisfaction (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018a). Pro-social goal inferences, such as maintaining identity or protecting the in-law relationship, are positively associated with relational outcomes, whereas aims like boundary fortification have negative relational ramifications (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018a). Although important outcomes on their own, the climate of the in-law relationship also has consequences for adjacent family bonds, such as children-in-law’s marriage (e.g., Bryant et al., 2001).

Previous research has examined associations between goal inferences and children-in-law’s own sense of family connection with their parents-in-law (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018a), I extend this conversation and argue that goal inferences also correspond with perceived family connection, children-in-law’s sense that their parent-in-law considers them a genuine family member. The belief that parents-in-law engage in topic avoidance to erect boundaries around private personal and family information, for instance, may be viewed as a marker of outgroup status. Conversely, perceptions that parents-in-law avoid to protect the relationship may suggest positive regard for the child-in-law and inclusion in the family circle. The extent to which children-in-law perceive their parent-in-law has conferred in-group status is associated with their feelings of satisfaction with the in-law relationship, which is in turn associated with their marital satisfaction (Morr Serewicz, Hosmer, Griffin, & Ballard, 2008). In other words, the goal inferences children-in-law assign to perceived parent-in-law topic avoidance influence their marital satisfaction through goal inferences’s association with perceived family connection and in-law satisfaction. A hypothesis is advanced to test this association:

H2: Perceived family connection and in-law satisfaction mediate the association between children-in-law’s goal inferences and their marital satisfaction.

Method

As part of a larger investigation on the transition to extended family, children-in-law married within the past 5 years and soon-to-be children-in-law were recruited through several means including snowball sampling, an advertisement in an e-newsletter distributed to university faculty and staff, and flyer posted throughout the local community. Participants completed a secured, online questionnaire. All participants had the option to enter an incentive raffle, which was not linked to their survey data to ensure anonymity of their survey responses.

Participants

Children-in-law (n = 111) and soon-to-be children-in-law (n = 88) participated in the study (N = 199). Daughters-in-law comprised the majority of the sample (n = 169; sons-in-laws, n = 30). Participants were, on average, 27.38 years of age (range 19–53, SD = 5.57) and identified as primarily White, non-Hispanic (86%) as well as African-American (6%), Asian (5%), Hispanic (3%), and Other (.005%). Married participants overwhelmingly reported on their first marriage (n = 108) which ranged in length from 1 month to 4.16 years (M = 1.41 years, SD = 1.05 years). Similarly, affianced participants reported on their first engagement (n = 85), with engagements ranging from 1 month to 8 years (M = 8.82 months, SD = 11.31 months). The majority of participants and their partners were child-free (n = 158).

Participant’s spouses/fiancés ranged in age from 20 to 58 years (M = 29.03 years, SD = 6.51 years) and reflected a similar racial background as participants: White, non-Hispanic (80%), African-American (8%), Asian (6%), Hispanic (4%), and four unreported (2%). Participants primarily reported on their relationship with their mother-in-law (n = 151), with the remaining participants reporting on their relationship with their father-in-law (n = 47). Parents-in-law ranged in age from 39 to 82 years of age (M = 56.98 years, SD = 7.59 years). Participants and parents-in-law had been acquainted with one another for an average of 4.71 years (range 4 months to 12 years, SD = 3.50 years). Parents-in-law were predominately White, non-Hispanic (85%), followed by African-American (7%), Asian (6%), Hispanic (2%), and one unreported.

Measures

Participants were asked to report on their uncertainty, their perceptions of their in-law’s topic avoidance, goal inferences, perceived family connection, and satisfaction. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted on all multidimensional scales (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Once unidimensionality was confirmed, items on each measure were averaged to create a composite score. Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients of the measures.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of study variables.

Scale	M	SD	α
Uncertainty
Self uncertainty	1.67	0.58	.89
Partner uncertainty	1.78	0.59	.88
Relationship uncertainty	1.77	0.55	.82
Family uncertainty	1.53	0.35	.89
Perceptions of topic avoidance
Tangential	3.74	1.22	.92
In-law relevant	2.78	1.25	.91
Goal inferences
Boundary fortification	2.67	1.33	.88
Relationship protection	5.42	1.16	.85
Identity management	5.60	1.10	.91
Other protection	4.48	1.53	.86
Conflict avoidance	4.38	1.56	.87
Relational perceptions
Perceived family connection	4.25	0.79	.88
In-law relationship satisfaction	5.48	1.13	.92
Marital relationship satisfaction	6.43	0.73	.90

Note. N = 199. Higher scores indicate greater uncertainty, perceived topic avoidance, goal inferences, perceived family connection, and relationship satisfaction.

Relational uncertainty

Knobloch’s (2008) relational uncertainty short-form was employed to assess in-law’s self, partner, and relationship uncertainty. The 12-item scale was preceded by the stem “How certain are you about…?” and responses were measured on a 6-point scale, 1 = completely or absolutely uncertain, 6 = completely or absolutely certain, which were reverse scored to reflect uncertainty. Three, 4-item subscales assessed self uncertainty (e.g., “Your feelings for your parent-in-law”), partner uncertainty (e.g. “Your parent-in-law’s feelings for you”), and relationship uncertainty (e.g. “The state of the relationship at this time”). Consistent with previous research, a CFA confirmed that each scale was unidimensional and the three scales were distinct: χ²/df = 2.21, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .07, 90% CI [.059, .098].

Family uncertainty

A 20-item scale evaluated family uncertainty (Mikucki-Enyart & Caughlin, 2018). The family uncertainty scale is comprised of four subscales that tap into intergenerational influence (e.g., “How involved your parent-in-law wants to be in your children or future children’s life?”), meddling (e.g., “How much input your parent-in-law expects to have in your life?”), balancing family membership (e.g., “How to split time between your spouse’s family and your own?”), and extended family relationships (e.g., “Whether or not your parents and parent-in-law will get along?”). The subscales were unidimensional at both the first-order level, χ²/df = 1.94, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .07, 90% CI [.058, .081], and second-order level, χ²/df = 1.86, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .06, 90% CI [.056, .076]. Guided by previous research (e.g., Mikucki-Enyart & Caughlin, 2018) and the aims of the present study, a composite index of family uncertainty was utilized. Consistent with past scholarship, the four uncertainty scales—self, partner, relationship, and family—were unidimensional and discrete from one another: χ²/df = 1.85, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .06, 90% CI [.059, .073].

Perceptions of topic avoidance

Following research that has demonstrated the importance of assessing the topic avoided (e.g., Mikucki-Enyart, 2018a, 2018b; Palomares & Derman, 2016), participant’s perceptions of two types of in-law topic avoidance were assessed: tangential topic avoidance and in-law relevant topic avoidance (for full review see Mikucki-Enyart, 2018a). Scale items were prefaced by the stem “I think my parent-in-law avoids…” and responses were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale, 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree. The 16-item tangential topic avoidance scale, adapted from Golish and Caughlin (2002) and Guerrero and Afifi (1995) examined avoidance of commonly withheld topics across relational domains (e.g., friendships, stepfamilies, romantic partnerships), such as relationship issues, negative life experiences, money, other family members, and sexual experiences (e.g., “Discussing things I have failed at,” and “Discussing past relationship problems I’ve had”). The in-law relevant topic avoidance (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018b) scale assessed topics germane to the in-law bond (e.g., “Talking about me and my spouse having children” and “Talking about my family”). The two scales were distinct from one another and each scale was unidimensional, χ²/df = 2.18, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .07, 90% CI [.068, .086].

Goal inferences

Five subscales, adapted from Mikucki-Enyart and Caughlin (2018), assessed in-law’s goal inferences regarding perceived topic avoidance: boundary fortification (2 items; e.g., “Prevent me from discovering personal information about him/her”), relationship protection (3 items; e.g., “Avoid damaging our relationship”), identity management (3 items; e.g., “Have me view him/her as a ‘good’ parent-in-law”), other protection (3 items; e.g., “My parent-in-law doesn’t want to upset me”), and conflict avoidance (3 items; e.g., “My parent-in-law doesn’t want to get into an argument”). Responses were assessed on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) and were preceded with the prompt “I think my parent-in-law avoids discussing the topics that she/he does with me because…” CFA results revealed that all four subscales were distinct and each scale was unidimensional, χ²/df = 2.41, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .08, 90% CI [.068, .101].

Relational perceptions

Perceived family in-group was assessed with Morr Serewicz and Canary’s (2008) family in-group scale. Responses for the 5-item scale (e.g., “My parent-in-law considers me to be a family member”) were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Negatively valenced items were reverse scored. The scale demonstrated unidimensionality, χ²/df = .68, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, 90% CI [.000, .090]. Relationship satisfaction with the in-law relationship and marital relationship was evaluated with a modified version of Huston, McHale, and Crouter’s (1986) Marital Opinion Questionnaire. Participants reported the extent to which they agreed or disagreed (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with eight anchor items describing the in-law relationship and the marital relationship, separately (e.g., rewarding, miserable). After reverse scoring negatively valenced items, procedures outlined by Huston et al. (1986) were utilized to create composite satisfaction scores for the in-law relationship, χ²/df = 1.34, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .04, 90% CI [.000, .078], and the marital relationship, χ² /df = 2.63, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .09, 90% CI [.063, .119].

Results

Preliminary analyses

Bivariate correlations between all the variables in the study were conducted and are presented in Table 2. Additionally, several possible covariates were examined, including relationship length, relationship status of the child-in-law (i.e., engaged or married), the presence or absence of children/grandchildren, age (participant’s and in-law’s), as well as participant sex (female vs. male) and in-law sex (mother-in-law vs. father-in-law) were examined. Consistent with previous findings (Mikucki-Enyart & Caughlin, 2018), no statistically significant covariates emerged.

Table 2.

Bivariate correlations among study variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Self uncertainty	—
2. Partner uncertainty	.56**	—
3. Relationship uncertainty	.67**	.67**	—
4. Family uncertainty	.49**	.52**	.58**	—
5. Boundary fortification	.30**	.31**	.37**	.32**	—
6. Relationship protection	−.29**	−.21**	−.26**	−.27**	−.28**	—
7. Identity management	−.34**	−.28**	−.38**	−.31**	−.36**	.78**	—
8. Other protection	−.09	−.01	−.04	−.05	.15*	.21**	.10	—
9. Conflict avoidance	.09	.13	.09	.06	.20**	.09	.00	.80**	—
10. Tangential topic avoidance	.32**	.26**	.35**	.34**	.34**	−.28**	−.35**	.23**	.37**	—
11. In-law relevant topic avoidance	.41**	.34**	.35**	.42**	.44**	−.37**	−.43**	.09	.26**	.67**	—
12. Perceived family connection	−.36**	−.26**	−.32**	−.32**	−.33**	.53**	.54**	.03	−.15*	−.49**	−.54**	—
13. In-law satisfaction	−.49**	−.36**	−.44**	−.37**	−.36**	.54**	.56**	.07	−.16*	−.47**	−.51**	.62**	—
14. Marital satisfaction	−.19**	−.23**	−.26**	−.29**	−.31**	.12	.10	.01	−.08	−.06	−.24**	.24**	.26**	—

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

Primary analyses

Uncertainty and perceived topic avoidance

Results revealed that relational uncertainty and family uncertainty were positively associated with perceived tangential and in-law relevant topic avoidance (H1; see Table 2). That is, the more uncertainty children-in-law experienced the more they perceived their parent-in-law to be engaging in avoidant communication. To examine if a particular source of uncertainty—relational or family—was a stronger predictor of perceived topic avoidance (RQ1), two regression analyses were conducted. When tangential topic avoidance was regressed on the sources of relational uncertainty and family uncertainty, the overall model was significant F (4, 177) = 8.47, p < .001, R ² = .16, but only family uncertainty was a significant, positive predictor. For in-law relevant topic avoidance, the overall model was significant F (4, 180) = 13.73, p < .001, and both self uncertainty and family uncertainty were significant, positive predictors. A summary of these findings are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Summary of regression results with perceived topic avoidance regressed on uncertainty (RQ1).

	Tangential topic avoidance			In-law relevant topic avoidance
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Self uncertainty	.30	.20	.14	.57	.19	.26**
Partner uncertainty	−.04	.20	−.02	.13	.19	.06
Relationship uncertainty	.35	.23	.16	−.06	.23	−.03
Family uncertainty	.66	.30	.19*	.94	.29	.27**

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

Uncertainty and goal inferences

Findings demonstrated that relational uncertainty and family uncertainty were significantly associated with three of five goal inferences (RQ2)—boundary fortification, relationship protection, and identity management (see Table 2). Specifically, relational uncertainty (self, partner, and relationship) and family uncertainty were positively associated with children-in-law’s beliefs that parents-in-law engaged in topic avoidance to fortify boundaries, but negatively correlated with their inclination to believe parents-in-law employed topic avoidance with the aim of protecting the relationship or managing their identity.

A series of multiple regressions were conducted to examine if a source of relational uncertainty or family uncertainty emerged as a more potent predictor of goal inferences (RQ3). Separate regression were conducted for each goal inference, which served as the dependent variable, and relational uncertainty and family uncertainty as independent variables. Similar to the results of RQ3, three of the five models were significant—boundary fortification, F (4, 182) = 8.48, p < .001, R ² = .16; relationship protection, F (4, 182) = 5.57, p < .001, R ² = .11; and identity management, F (4, 182) = 9.03, p < .001, R ² = .17. More precisely, for the models examining boundary fortification and identity management, relationship uncertainty emerged as the sole predictor of these goal inferences, however in opposite directions. That is, relationship uncertainty shared a positive association with boundary fortification and a negative association with identity management. When the goal inference of relationship protection was regressed on uncertainty, only self uncertainty was significantly and negatively associated with this goal inference. The models for conflict avoidance, F (4, 177) = .84, p = .50, R ² = .02, and other protection, F (4, 179) = .50, p = .73, R ² = .01, were not statistically significant. A summary of these results are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Summary of regression results with goal inferences regressed on uncertainty (RQ3).

	Boundary fortification			Relationship protection			Identity management			Other protection			Conflict avoidance
Predictor	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Self uncertainty	.12	.21	.05	−.38	.19	−.19*	−.25	.18	−.13	−.30	.27	−.11	.05	.29	.02
Partner uncertainty	.14	.22	.06	.01	.19	.01	.01	.18	.01	.19	.27	.07	.36	.28	.14
Relationship uncertainty	.52	.25	.22*	−.10	.23	−.05	−.47	.21	−.24*	.03	.32	.01	−.00	.33	−.00
Family uncertainty	.48	.32	.13	−.50	.29	−.15	−.32	.27	−.10	−.18	.40	−.04	−.10	.41	−.02

*p < .05.

Uncertainty, perceived topic avoidance, and goal inferences

To untangle which, if any, determinant—context (uncertainty) or perceived tactic (perceived topic avoidance)—was a stronger predictor of goal inferences (RQ₄ ), a series of regression analyses were conducted. In separate analyses, each goal inference was regressed on uncertainty (relational and family) and topic avoidance (tangential and in-law relevant). All of the models were significant: boundary fortification, F (6, 169) = 10.02, p < .001, R ² = .26; relationship protection, F (6, 169) = 6.66, p < .001, R ² = .19; identity management, F (6, 169) = 10.62, p < .001, R ² = .28; other protection, F (6, 167) = 2.60, p < .05, R ² = .08; and conflict avoidance, F (6, 165) = 5.18, p < .001, R ² = .16. For four of the five goal inferences, perceived tactic (perceived topic avoidance) was a stronger predictor of goal inferences than context (uncertainty; see Table 5 for summary of results). For the goal inferences of privacy management and relationship protection, in-law relevant topic avoidance was the sole predictor of inferences and was positively associated with privacy management, but inversely associated with relationship protection. For the goal inferences of other protection and conflict avoidance, tangential topic avoidance, which was positively associated with each goal inference, was the only predictor that was statistically significant. Finally, both context and perceived tactic were significant predictors of identity management. Specifically, relationship uncertainty and in-law relevant topic avoidance were negatively associated with the belief that parents-in-law avoided to maintain their identity.

Table 5.

Summary of regression results with goal inferences regressed on context and perceived tactic (RQ4).

	Boundary fortification			Relationship protection			Identity management			Other protection			Conflict avoidance
Predictors	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Self uncertainty	.02	.20	.01	−.20	.18	−.10	−.02	.16	−.01	−.35	.27	−.14	−.06	.28	−.02
Partner uncertainty	.07	.20	.03	.07	.18	.04	.01	.16	.01	.30	.27	.12	.42	.27	.16
Relationship uncertainty	.39	.24	.17	−.27	.22	−.14	−.55	.20	−.30**	−.24	.33	−.09	−.25	.32	−.10
Family uncertainty	.45	.31	.13	−.25	.08	−.08	−.09	.25	−.03	−.27	.41	−.07	−.32	.41	−.07
Tangential topic avoidance	.05	.09	.05	−.03	.09	−.03	−.06	.08	−.07	.38	.13	.31**	.43	.13	.34**
In-law relevant topic avoidance	.29	.10	.28**	−.22	.09	−.25*	−.22	.08	−.27**	−.01	.13	−.01	.11	.13	.08

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

Goal inferences and relational outcomes

Serial mediation analyses in PROCESS (model 6) were conducted (Hayes, 2018) to test the hypothesis linking goal inferences to marital satisfaction (H2). Specifically, the causal sequence of goal inference → perceived family connection → in-law satisfaction → marital satisfaction was examined. Five models were executed with each analysis treating a different goal inference as the independent variable, perceived family connection and in-law satisfaction as mediators, and marital satisfaction as the outcome variable. Bootstrapping, which allows for nonnormality within the sampling distribution, was employed to examine the statistical significance of indirect effects, specific and total. If zero was not within the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (BC CI) the indirect effect was deemed significant (Hayes, 2018). The paths for the serial mediation model are presented in Figure 1 and their corresponding coefficients in Table 6.

Figure 1.

A serial mediation model with perceived family connection and in-law satisfaction as proposed mediators of goal inferences effects on marital satisfaction.

Table 6.

Summary of results from serial mediation model examining goal inferences effect on marital satisfaction through perceived family connection and in-law satisfaction (H2).

	Goal Inference
	Boundary fortification	Relationship protection	Identity management	Other protection	Conflict avoidance
Path Estimates	Coeff. (SE)	Coeff. (SE)	Coeff. (SE)	Coeff. (SE)	Coeff. (SE)
Goal inference → perceived family connection (a ₁)	−.20*** (.04)	.37*** (.04)	.40*** (.05)	.02 (.04)	−.07* (.04)
Goal inference → in-law satisfaction (a ₂)	−.15** (.05)	.29*** (.06)	.34*** (.07)	.04 (.04)	−.05 (.04)
Perceived family connection → marital satisfaction (b ₁)	.08 (.08)	.13 (.09)	.14 (.09)	.14 (.09)	.14 (.09)
Perceived family connection → in-law satisfaction (d ₂₁)	.79*** (.08)	.65*** (.09)	.62*** (.09)	.87*** (.09)	.87*** (.09)
In-law satisfaction → marital satisfaction (b ₂)	.07 (.06)	.15* (.06)	.14* (.06)	.13* (.06)	.13* (.06)
Goal inference → marital satisfaction (c)	−.17*** (.04)	.07 (.05)	.07 (.05)	.01 (.04)	−.04 (.04)
Goal inference → marital satisfaction (c′)	−.14*** (.04)	−.05 (.06)	−.07 (.06)	−.00 (.03)	−.01 (.03)
Indirect effects	Coeff. (SE) [95% BC CI]	Coeff. (SE) [95% BC CI]	Coeff. (SE) [95% BC CI]	Coeff. (SE) [95% BC CI]	Coeff. (SE) [95% BC CI]
Total	−.04 (.02) [−.089, −.006]	.12 (.05) [.046, .236]	.14 (.05) [.064, .257]	.01 (.01) [−.011, .039]	−.03 (.01) [−.055, −.006]
Goal inference → perceived family connection → marital satisfaction (a ₁ b ₁) 1	−.16 (.02) [−.056, .023]	.05 (.03) [−.012, .113]	.06 (.03) [.001, .129]	.00 (.01) [−.005, .024]	−.01 (.01) [−.033, .000]
Goal inference → in-law satisfaction → marital satisfaction (a ₂ b ₂) 3	−.01 (.01) [−.044, .003]	.04 (.03) [.004, .123]	.05 (.03) [.005, .125]	.00 (.01) [−.005, .026]	−.01 (.01) [−.028, .002]
Goal inference →perceived family connection → in-law satisfaction → marital satisfaction (a ₁ d ₂₁ b ₂) 2	−.01 (.01) [−.042, .004]	.03 (.02) [.004, .094]	.03 (.02)[.003, .099]	.00 (.00) [−.004, .016]	−.01 (.01) [−.026, −.001]
	R ² = .12, F (3, 183) = 8.73, p < .001	R ² = .08, F (3, 183) = 5.43, p < .001	R ² = .08, F (3, 183) = 5.36, p < .01	R ² = .10, F (3, 180) = 6.46, p < .001	R ² = .37, F (3, 178) = 6.59, p < .001

Note. Unstandardized path coefficients are reported per Hayes (2018) and correspond with paths presented in Figure 1. Significant indirect effects are in bold.

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

For three of the five models—relationship protection, identity management, and conflict avoidance—goal inferences were linked to children-in-law’s marital satisfaction through perceived family connection and in-law satisfaction. More precisely, when children-in-law perceived their in-law’s topic avoidance was aimed at protecting the relationship or maintaining their identity, children-in-law reported a stronger sense of perceived family connection that was in turn associated with increased in-law satisfaction, which resulted in increased marital satisfaction. The opposite pattern was evident when conflict avoidance was the perceived goal of topic avoidance, such that conflict avoidance decreased feelings of family connection and subsequent in-law satisfaction, which resulted in marital dissatisfaction. Interestingly, the association between the goal inference of boundary fortification and marital satisfaction was not through any of the proposed mediators, but instead shared a direct, negative association with marital satisfaction. Thus, when children-in-law believed their parents-in-law avoided to prevent them from gleaning insight into private personal or family information they were less satisfied with their marriage. The goal inference of other protection was not associated with any relational outcomes.

Discussion

This study examined children-in-law’s message processing; specifically, how they make sense of parents-in-law’s communication under conditions of uncertainty. Broadly, findings suggest that children-in-law’s uncertainty corresponds with biased evaluations, including perceptions of topic avoidance and pessimistic goal inferences. Additionally, perceived tactic rather than context corresponds with goal inferences. Finally, children-in-law’s goal inferences are directly and indirectly associated with their marital satisfaction. These results are discussed in terms of their practical and theoretical import.

Implications for understanding in-law dynamics

The present investigation provides theoretically grounded insight into the often overlooked, yet socially significant in-law relationship. Broadly, results demonstrate that uncertainty obfuscates children-in-law’s message processing, resulting in increased perceptions of topic avoidance and negative goal inferences. The information deficit spurred by uncertainty likely obscures children-in-law’s ability to make sense of their parent-in-law’s communication (Knobloch & Satterlee, 2009). As such, children-in-law rely on heuristics to interpret in-law behavior (Knobloch & Satterlee, 2009; Palomares, 2009). Children-in-law likely draw from negative tropes portraying parents-in-law as exclusionary and divisive (e.g., Rittenour & Koenig Kellas, 2015), resulting in unfavorable assessments about their in-law’s communication. Consequently, any communication that is not marked by unfettered openness is cast as avoidant and the perceived goals for avoiding are equally as deleterious, reasoning that aligns with qualitative accounts of children-in-law’s reflections of in-law relationships (e.g., Merrill, 2007; Cotterill, 1994).

Unfortunately, these biased perceptions correspond with negative relational outcomes. More specifically, goal inferences shared direct and indirect associations with children-in-law’s marital satisfaction. Boundary fortification, for instance, shared a direct, negative association with marital satisfaction. It appears that the “outsider” status implied by boundary fortification casts a pall on children-in-law’s perceptions of their marriage. Due the interconnected nature of in-law bonds (Morr Serewicz, 2008), perhaps children-in-law feel that parents-in-law’s attempt to keep them out of the family fold reflects their spouses intentions as well. Additionally, it can be that children-in-law who hold this goal inference feel that their spouse (the linchpin) is not doing enough to push back on parents (in-law) that are keeping them at arm’s length or are not themselves actively including their spouse in the family system. The role of the linchpin in mitigating or exacerbating relational distress between parents- and children-in-law is an important site for future research. Other goal inferences, however, correspond with marital satisfaction indirectly through their association with family connection and in-law satisfaction. Children-in-law believing that in-law avoidance is not aimed at a prosocial intent, like protecting the relationship, doubt the extent that their in-laws consider them a bona fide family member, which corresponds with decreased in-law satisfaction and ultimately, marital dissatisfaction (e.g., Morr Serewicz et al., 2008). These findings highlight the interdependent nature of in-laws bonds and the impact that chronic goal inferences have on in-law’s relational perceptions (Morr Serewicz, 2008; Palomares, 2014).

Despite documented difficulties in establishing and maintaining in-law ties (Cotterill, 1994; Merrill, 2007), few marriage education programs focus on providing theoretically-based resources to help couples manage challenging in-law relationships. This is unfortunate as the tenor of in-law bonds are consequential to the health of the broader family network, including children-in-law’s marital stability and satisfaction (Bryant et al., 2001; Morr Serewicz et al., 2008) and willingness to provide aid to aging/ailing parents-in-law (Rittenour & Soliz, 2009). Additionally, strained in-law relationships affect parents-in-law’s closeness and contact with their adult children (Cao et al., 2019) and grandchildren (Fingerman, 2004). Thus, isolating strategies to reduce (or eliminate) biased message processing is advantageous for the family system.

The present findings can be utilized in both formal and informal therapeutic settings to help in-laws address biased message processing. First, children-in-law should be encouraged to engage in perspective taking, approaching an interaction from another’s view point (Galinsky, Ku, & Wang, 2005), when assessing their parents-in-law’s behavior. The mental overlap and enhanced sense of psychological closeness elicited through perspective taking (Galinsky et al., 2005) may result in more accurate or potentially positive appraisals of communication and goal inferences (Palomares, 2009). Given that perceptions of communication behaviors are often potent predictors of relational outcomes, encouraging children-in-law to view their parents-in-law through rose colored glasses may be an effective, low-stakes strategy to reduce pessimistic message processing.

Second, uncertainty’s role in biasing message processing highlights the need to examine uncertainty management beyond broad constructs, such as information-avoiding and information-seeking, and delineate discrete uncertainty management message strategies. Research is currently underway examining message features (e.g., politeness, level of message sophistication) that assist in-laws in managing uncertainty while simultaneously protecting their bond from relational harm. Resultant strategies can advance concrete recommendations that can serve as scripts for in-laws traversing uncertain relational terrain. The ability to effectively manage uncertainty may help reduce or eliminate children-in-law’s negative biases surrounding in-law communication and relationships. An outcome that has relational benefits for in-laws and extended family networks.

Finally, results regarding the negative relational impact of the perceived aim of conflict avoidance coupled with previous findings (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018b) suggest that in-laws should engage in rather than avoid conflict. For children-in-law, conflict avoidance may imply a lack of family connection, which has implications for in-law and marital satisfaction. Although conflict avoidance can be functional (Roloff & Wright, 2009), children-in-law’s perceptions that their parents-in-law avoid to avert conflict may signal that the relationship is not considered intimate (Cloven & Roloff, 1994) or strong enough to withstand confrontation. Given that addressing conflict constructively can strengthen family bonds, providing in-laws with evidence-backed conflict management skills may be an important strategy in helping them develop and maintain satisfying bonds with each other and the broader family network.

Implications for theorizing on uncertainty and message processing

The practical import of the current findings are rooted in their theoretical advancements to the study of uncertainty and message processing. Beyond the focus on message-processing versus message-production, the present study augments uncertainty and message processing scholarship in four key ways. First, analyzing relational and family uncertainty together illuminated uncertainty’s nuanced role within family relationships. Self uncertainty, at times, displayed divergent patterns of association when statistically accounting for the variance associated with the other sources of uncertainty (e.g., Priem & Solomon, 2011; Theiss & Solomon, 2006). Specifically, self uncertainty (along with family uncertainty) predicted in-law relevant topic avoidance and was the sole predictor of the relationship protection goal inference. Children-in-law grappling with inward focused doubts may project their communicative tendencies onto their perceptions of their parents-in-law’s behaviors. In ambiguous situations, one’s own proclivities are often a lens for interpreting partner behavior (Palomares, 2011). Children-in-law’s own tendency to engage in topic avoidance and reduced desire to protect the relationship when experiencing self uncertainty (Mikucki-Enyart & Caughlin, 2018) may serve as a default interpretation of their parents-in-law’s communication.

Interestingly, self uncertainty was not the dominant predictor across all models. In fact, family uncertainty was the sole predictor of tangential avoidance, whereas relationship uncertainty was the only statistically significant form of uncertainty associated with the goal inferences of boundary fortification and identity management. It appears that wrestling with doubts about the in-law relationship (relationship uncertainty) and its impact on adjacent family bonds (family uncertainty) may play a more critical role in in-law’s assessments of communication than dyadic centered concerns (self and partner uncertainty). This pattern highlights the interdependent nature of in-law ties and the unique functioning of uncertainty within family relationships. This interpretation, however, should be considered in light of the theoretically driven decision to examine the sources of relational uncertainty independently versus temporally. Although the RTT positions self and partner uncertainty as predictors of relationship uncertainty (Solomon et al., 2016), theorizing on in-law relationships suggest that the scriptless nature of in-law bonds (Morr Serewicz, 2014) makes them susceptible to experiencing relationship uncertainty (e.g., doubts about norms, etc.) independent from self and partner uncertainty. However, it is possible that examining relationship uncertainty downstream from self and partner uncertainty would have rendered different results and is an important site of future inquiry. Nevertheless, the current results reinforce the benefit of examining sources of relational uncertainty and family uncertainty simultaneously to capture meaningful variation missed in independent analyses (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018a; Solomon et al., 2016). Furthermore, considered alongside previous research (e.g., Mikucki-Enyart, 2018a; Mikucki-Enyart & Caughlin, 2018), findings demonstrate the importance of tailoring uncertainty measures. Armed with both scales—relational uncertainty and family uncertainty—scholars can drill down and glean nuanced insight into in-law dynamics, while simultaneously comparing relational uncertainty across contexts.

Second, results introduce goal inferences as a biased cognitive appraisal linked to relational uncertainty (Solomon et al., 2016). Relational turbulence research has examined associations between relational uncertainty and myriad biased cognitive appraisals including perceptions of support networks (Knobloch & Donovan-Kicken, 2006), appraisals of partner’s irritating behavior (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004), and relationship dissatisfaction (Knobloch, 2008). Present findings demonstrate that relational doubts correspond with biased judgments about the aims undergirding partner’s communication. Furthermore, RTT (Solomon et al., 2016) couches biased cognitive appraisals within specific episodes; however, current findings corroborate previous work and reveal that uncertainties link to global evaluations of goals and communication (e.g., Donovan-Kicken & Caughlin, 2010; Mikucki-Enyart, 2018a). Palomares (2009) argued that goal inferences are often attributed to “unchanging reasons across situations” (p. 476) and can become “chronically linked” to environmental stimuli or relational partners (Palomares, 2014, p. 87). The persistent nature of children-in-law’s uncertainty likely colors their evaluations of their parents-in-law’s behavior and aims across encounters, akin to attributions (e.g., Donovan-Kicken & Caughlin, 2010). Given that perceptions of behaviors are often more powerful in shaping relational outcomes than actual behaviors (e.g., Sillars, Roberts, Dun, & Leonard, 2001) and that perceptions of goals have the ability to amplify or attenuate the negative association between perceived topic avoidance and relational outcomes (Donovan-Kicken & Caughlin, 2010; Mikucki-Enyart, 2018b), attending to how relational and family uncertainty can be allayed appears to be an important direction of future inquiry.

Third, although interaction goals are a mainstay of communication scholarship (e.g., Berger, 2002, Wilson, 2002) until recently how goals developed was largely overlooked. Palomares (2008, 2009) nominated several factors including context (e.g., contextual ambiguity), behavior, and timing as determinants of goal inferences. In conversation with this scholarship, current evidence specifies relational uncertainty and family uncertainty as forms of contextual ambiguity that share direct associations with goal inferences. Unfortunately, goal inferences trend toward the negative under conditions of uncertainty, such that children-in-law wrestling with uncertainty cast their in-law’s aims for avoidance as malevolent versus benign or even pro-social. Fourth, and relatedly, this study provides an initial answer to Palomares’s (2014) inquiry regarding which determinant, tactic (or perceived tactic) or context, is most influential in shaping goal inferences. In-law’s perceptions of tactic (i.e., perceived topic avoidance) appear to be a stronger predictor of goal inferences than context (i.e., uncertainty). When considered alongside the associations between uncertainty and goal inferences, results support theorizing on goal detection and suggest that contextual ambiguity may correspond with too many goal possibilities and inhibit the ability to draw inferences about communicative aims (Palomares, 2014). As a result, perceived tactic appears to delimit goal potentials and assist in generating concrete goal inferences (e.g., Palomares, 2014). Although topic avoidance is a multifaceted communication strategy used to achieve myriad aims (Afifi & Guerrero, 2000; Golish & Caughlin, 2002), present results suggest socially agreed upon goal inferences associated with avoidance. Additionally, perceived aims seem to vary based on the topic being evaded. For instance, in-law relevant avoidance, which reflects topics family members “should” discuss (Mikucki-Enyart, 2018a), is linked with negative goal inferences, including parents-in-law’s desire to fortify boundaries or their lack of intention to protect the in-law relationship. However, tangential topic avoidance, which encompasses conversational topics children-in-law often prefer to eschew (e.g., previous relationship, past failures, etc.) corresponds with prosocial goal inferences of other protection and conflict avoidance. In other words, when topic avoidance violates standards of openness or “good” family communication (Caughlin, 2003), children-in-law cast their parents-in-law’s goals as malevolent, yet conversational evasion of “taboo” topics corresponds with generous evaluation of aims. Together, these results emphasize the significance of perceived tactics as a determinant of goal inferences, particularly when uncertainty is a salient contextual feature.

Concluding thoughts

The present study offers insight into in-law dynamics and extends theorizing on uncertainty and message processing. The contributions of this study, however, must be considered alongside its limitations. First, the pronounced floor effects and positive skew of the uncertainty measures may obscure the strength of associations in the present study. Although current means are similar to previous research utilizing Knobloch and Solomon’s (1999) original scale, a revised Likert-type relational uncertainty scale, which captures the presence versus valence of relational uncertainty (Solomon & Brisini, 2017), has demonstrated higher mean scores and greater variance (Solomon & Brisini, 2017). Future research employing this scale may be able to more accurately quantify the degree of uncertainty expressed through in-law’s descriptive accounts (Mikucki-Enyart et al., 2015). Second, the sample lacks diversity. From specific family communication cultures, such as privacy orientations (Morr Serewicz & Canary, 2008), to broader cultural orientations toward uncertainty and expectations for in-law communication (Rittenour & Soliz, 2009), culture affects in-law relationships. Understanding the role culture plays in in-law’s communication can help them distinguish tensions that can be attributed to cultural versus interpersonal differences. Evaluating in-law behaviors through the appropriate cultural lens may help reduce biased perceptions of communication and goal inferences, subsequently enhancing relational perceptions. Despite these shortcomings, the present study advances theoretical understanding of associations between uncertainty and message processing and illuminates the role of goal inferences on relational outcomes. Further, findings highlight sources of in-law difficulty (i.e., uncertainty, biased perceptions) and lay the foundation for evidence-based, practical interventions to help in-laws traverse a sometimes challenging, yet important family relationship.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sylvia L. Mikucki-Enyart

Open research statement

This research was not pre-registered. The data and materials used in the research are available upon request by emailing sylvia-mikucki-enyart@uiowa.edu.

References

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: Erlbaum.

Berger

C. R.

(2002). Goals and knowledge structures in social interaction. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 181–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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.

Bryant

C. M.

Conger

R. D.

Meehan

J. M.

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

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:10.1093/hcr/29.1.5

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

Caughlin

J. P.

Afifi

T. D.

(2004). When is topic avoidance unsatisfying?: A more complete investigation into the underlying links between avoidance and dissatisfaction in parent-child and dating relationships. Human Communication Research, 30, 479–513.

Cloven

D. H.

Roloff

M. E.

(1994). A developmental model of decisions to withhold relational irritations in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 1, 143–164.

Cao

Fine

Fang

Zhou

. (2019). Chinese adult children’s perceived parents’ satisfaction with adult children’s marriage, in-law relationship quality, and adult children’s marital satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 36, 1098–1122.

10.

Cotterill

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

11.

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

12.

Duvall

E. R. M.

(1954). In-laws, pro and con: An original study of inter-personal relations. New York, NY: Associated Press.

13.

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

14.

Galinsky

A. D.

Wang

C. S.

(2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 109–124. doi:10.1177/1368430205051060

15.

Goetting

(1990). Patterns of support among in-saws in the United States: A review of research. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 67–90. doi:10.1177/019251390011001005

16.

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:10.1093/hcr/29.1.41

17.

Guerrero

L. K.

Afifi

W. A.

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

18.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford.

19.

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: Erlbaum.

20.

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

21.

Knobloch

L. K.

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

22.

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

23.

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:10.1177/0265407508090869

24.

Knobloch

L. K.

Satterlee

K. L.

(2009). Relational uncertainty: Theory and application. In Afifi

T. D.

Afifi

W. A.

(Eds.), Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications (pp. 106–127). New York, NY: Routledge.

25.

Knobloch

L. K.

Solomon

D. H.

(1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50, 261–278. doi:10.1177/0093650205275384

26.

Knobloch

L. K.

Solomon

D. H.

(2005). Relational uncertainty and relational information processing. Questions without answers? Communication Research, 32, 349–388. doi:10.1177/0093650205275384

27.

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

28.

Merrill

D. H.

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

29.

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

30.

Mikucki-Enyart

S. L.

(2018). Parents-in-law’s topic avoidance: Understanding the role of interaction goals and relational characteristics. Personal Relationships, 25, 433–457. doi:10.1111/pere.12252

31.

Mikucki-Enyart

S. L.

(2018a). Parents-in-law’s topic avoidance: Understanding the role of interaction goals and relational characteristics. Personal Relationships, 25, 433–457. doi:10.1111/pere.12252

32.

Mikucki-Enyart

S. L.

(2018b). Perceived topic avoidance and relational outcomes: The moderating role of in-laws’ goal inferences. Journal of Family Communication, 18, 317–333. doi:10.1080/15267431.2018.1492411

33.

Mikucki-Enyart

S. L.

Caughlin

J. P.

(2018). Integrating the relational turbulence model and a multiple goals approach to understand topic avoidance during the transition to extended family.”. Communication Research, 45, 267–296. doi:10.1177/0093650215595075

34.

Mikucki-Enyart

S. L.

Caughlin

J. P.

Rittenour

C. E.

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

35.

Morr Serewicz

M. C.

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

Morman

M. T.

(Eds.), Widening the family circle: New research on family communication (2nd ed., pp. 85–101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

36.

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

37.

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: Erlbaum.

38.

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:10.1177/026540750708796

39.

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

40.

Palomares

N. A.

(2008). Toward a theory of goal detection in social interaction: Effects of contextual ambiguity and tactical functionality on goal inferences and inference certainty. Communication Research, 35, 109–148. doi:10.1177/0093650207309364

41.

Palomares

N. A.

(2009). Did you see it coming? Effects of the specificity and efficiency of goal pursuit on the accuracy and onset of goal detection in social interaction. Communication Research, 36, 415–509. doi:10.1177/0093650209333032

42.

Palomares

N. A.

(2011). The dynamics of goal congruency and cognitive busyness in goal detection. Communication Research, 38, 517–542. doi:10.1177/0093650210380866

43.

Palomares

N. A.

(2014). The goal construct in interpersonal communication. In Berger

C. R.

(Ed.), Interpersonal communication (pp. 77–99). Berlin, DE: De Gruyter.

44.

Palomares

N. A.

Derman

. (2016). Topic avoidance, goal understanding, and relational perceptions. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650216644649

45.

Petronio

(2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

46.

Priem

J. S.

Solomon

D. H.

(2011). Relational uncertainty and cortisol responses to hurtful and supportive messages from a dating partner. Personal Relationships, 18, 198–223. doi:10.111/j.1475-6811.2011.01353.x

47.

Rittenour

C. E.

Koenig Kellas

(2015). Making sense of hurtful mother-in-law messages: Applying attribution theory to the in-law triad. Communication Quarterly, 63, 62–80. doi:10.1080/0146337.2014.965837

48.

Rittenour

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

49.

Roloff

M. E.

Wright

C. N.

(2009). Conflict avoidance: A functional analysis. In Afifi

T. D.

Afifi

W. A.

(Eds.), Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications (pp. 320–340). New York, NY: Routledge.

50.

Sillars

Roberts

Dun

Leonard

(2001). Stepping into the stream of thought: Cognition during marital conflict. In Manusov

Harvey

J. H.

(Eds.), Attribution, communication behavior, and close relationships (pp. 193–210). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Solomon

D. H.

Brisini

K. S.

(2017). Operationalizing relational turbulence theory: Measurement and construct validation. Personal Relationships, 24, 768–789. doi:10.1111/pere.12212

52.

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

53.

Solomon

D. H.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

McLaren

R. M.

(2016). Relational turbulence theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 42, 1–26. doi:10.1111/hcre.12091

54.

Steuber

K. R.

Priem

J. S.

Scharp

K. M.

Thomas

(2014). The content of relational uncertainty in non-engaged cohabiting relationships. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 07–123, doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.874569

55.

Theiss

J. A.

Solomon

D. H.

(2006). A relational turbulence model of communication about irritations in romantic relationships. Communication Research, 33, 391–418. doi:10.1177/0093650206291482

56.

Wilson

S. R.

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