Reproducing work and family norms through daughter

Abstract

This study contributes to the literature on work and family socialization by examining the nature of daughter–parent (i.e., mothers vs. fathers) communication and daughters’ likelihood to transmit parents’ memorable messages regarding work and family. Results indicated that (a) daughters’ report of mothers’ and fathers’ respectful accommodation and self-disclosure positively predicts daughters’ relational satisfaction with the target parent and (b) daughters’ relational satisfaction with their parent positively relates to daughters’ likelihood to transmit their parent’s memorable messages about work or family. However, results held true for both fathers and mothers, with no support for the hypothesis that daughters would be more likely to transmit mothers’ messages more than fathers’ messages. The authors discuss practical implications, directions for future research, and limitations of the study.

Keywords

Family memorable messages parent–child communication work young adult daughters

Upon reflecting on one’s cognitions and behaviors about work/career and family, chances are that there are influences of messages about work/life issues received from parents. Clark’s (2000) work/family border theory explains how we manage and negotiate the nature of work and family domains as two different but interactive environments to attain work and family balance. Work and family balance is “satisfaction and good functioning at work and home, with minimum role conflict” (Clark, 2000, p. 751). Research is necessary to examine how this state of satisfaction and good functioning at work and home can be achieved and promoted particularly among women who because of gender socialization may be expected to play active and successful roles in both domains.

According to Clark (2002), physical, temporal, and psychological parameters separate social roles and influence work and family responsibilities. Additionally, boundaries between these social roles are characterized by flexibility and permeability. Flexibility is the extent to which spatial temporal parameters do not restrict one from accomplishing role-related tasks and responsibilities, whereas permeability is the extent to which elements from one domain may enter another domain (Clark, 2002). The lines of demarcation between the two domains are strengthened when an individual can blend role-related tasks and responsibilities of different but interactive domains.

Work and family are two different domains with different rules that demand different thought patterns and behavior from individuals engaged in these domains. Rokeach (1973) described the difference between work and family domains in terms of difference between value means and value ends. While the value means of work is instrumental in providing security and money to afford things you want, family has an intrinsic value. The perspective of family as value ends makes the world a better place to live because of the existence of family. The family is an agent of socialization and can provide emotional support, happiness, and companionship. Clark and Farmer (1998) as cited in Clark (2000) found that responsibility and capability are the means to attain desired ends at work, whereas loving and giving are used to attain happiness at home. They also found that whereas home life satisfies the need for maintaining close and personal relationships, work–life satisfies the need for self-accomplishment and source of income.

Work–life issues have been studied (e.g., Byron, 2005; Eby et al., 2005) with a focus on the intersection of employees’ work and personal lives that primarily focused on work and family domains. They have received scholarly attention from communication studies, psychology, sociology, family studies, and political science. Organizational communication scholars contribute to research on work–life issues by examining how communication constitutes the sensemaking processes and structures surrounding work–life phenomena. See Kirby et al. (2003) for a review. Work–life research increased in the early 21st century to attend to global and societal changes in people’s everyday behaviors that occurred based on demographic, economic, and moral changes.

The advent of communication technologies, for instance, has made profound changes to work–life (Kossek & Lautsch, 2012). For employees and organizations, these technologies are cost saving and provide work flexibility but can be sources of stress, burnout, and conflict in the home. Work and family boundaries are blurring because organizational members occupy themselves more with work by answering phone calls and sending text messages or emails during weekends and when at home (Kossek & Lautsch, 2008). Excessive use of communication technologies causes work overload and role ambiguity (Ayyagari et al., 2011).

Kirby and Buzzanell (2014) framed the sensemaking processes and structures surrounding work–life phenomena around five constitutive communicative processes—two of which pertain to this study: (a) policying work–life in organizations, (b) norming (or not) issues of work–life in organizations, (c) constructing (gendered, working) identities, (d) acting practically and routinizing work and (personal) life, and (e) (re)producing ideal workers and the primacy of work.

The construction of gendered working identities pertains well to this study, with its focus on the complexity of women and men negotiating their worker and caregiving identities. Compared to men, women experience higher demands with respect to housework and childcare (Bianchi et al., 2006; Hochschild & Machung, 2012). There is a public/private distinction between men’s and women’s work and personal life which remains influential even though that may no longer be a given in Western culture (Kirby & Buzzanell, 2014). While both men’s and women’s work and family life dually influence each other (Tracy & Rivera, 2010), issues that involve a woman’s family can impact other family members as well as organizational members because of the woman’s key expectations for caregiving and traditional role or in part, expected role in the family (Bianchi et al., 2006; Hochschild & Machung, 2012).

Another framework (Kirby & Buzzanell, 2014) that pertains to this study is acting practically and routinizing work and personal life. This area of scholarship focuses on everyday routines that constitute work and personal life. Golden and Geisler (2007) examined the role of mobile communication technologies in everyday routines to construct boundaries between home and work. Joiner et al. (2015) noted a secondary gender-based digital divide in the use of communication technologies where there are differences in the use of and attitudes toward technology. Cheong (2007) found that in higher education settings, males had levels of both information and communication technology-related self-efficacy and technology use more than female students. There is also a gendered trend in less women pursuing technology-related careers (Buche et al., 2007). Other researchers (e.g., Medved, 2007, 2010) explored the relationship between issues of routine domestic and family labor such as care labor and household work, and organizational life.

Research has identified gendered work and family norms but not how parental socialization reproduces these norms. This study contributes to the literature on work and family socialization and family communication. Given that women are at the center of the work and family discourse because the divisions of domestic labor are gendered (Alberts et al., 2011; Baxter, 2005; Baxter et al., 2005; Medved, 2004, 2009), we focus on the communication dynamics of daughters’ relationship with their fathers and mothers (and parents as a whole) and how this dynamic reproduces work and family norms. In the sections that follow, we review relevant literature on gendered parent socialization as well as the relationship among relational satisfaction, respectful accommodation, and self-disclosure that contribute to the likelihood of memorable messages about work and family being reproduced.

Gendered socialization messages

Dallimore (2003) and Heisler (2000) noted that socialization messages addressing work/career and family shape our interpretations of femininity and masculinity and vice versa. For example, the ideal worker is generally masculine with leadership and technical skills, upholds autonomy and competition, and spends unlimited time at work (Acker, 2004; Alvesson & Billing, 2009). Society’s false, dichotomizing assumptions of males as highly masculine and females as highly feminine lead to the notion, then, that the ideal worker is male. Adjacently, females are plagued with the notion that the ideal woman is devoted and attentive to her family needs (Buzzanell & D’Enbeau, 2009) and—should she work—balances work and family without much evidence of physical and psychological strain (D’Enbeau & Buzzanell, 2010). This ideal woman engages in effortless perfection. Parents can be a source for some of these consequential gendered messages and interpretations.

Mothers versus fathers: Trends in daughter–parent communication regarding work/career and family

Heisler (2000) found sex differences in the nature and frequencies of socialization messages regarding work and family. Additionally, participants were quick to remember gender-appropriate behaviors. There are also stereotypes in traditional gender roles that pertain to kinds of work such as in the profession of medicine where women are nurses and men are doctors. Research (e.g., Goodnow et al., 1991) conducted under the rubric of anticipatory vocational socialization indicates that children learn how to perform skills like delegating and soliciting assistance, through their parents in ways consistent with traditional gender norms, for use in their future workplace.

While fathers play a role in the cognitive development, well-being, and social competence of their children (Day & Lamb, 2004), Kellas (2010) proposed that the mother–daughter relationship has contextual ripeness to provide insights into the transmission of family messages. Mothers, rather than fathers, are the primary source of memorable messages (Keating et al., 2012) particularly regarding daughters’ relational obligations (e.g., directing more attention from work to children after childbirth) and work and family (Medved & Graham, 2006)—topics that are likely interwoven for women. Perhaps, this trend is because of gender similarities between mothers and daughters regarding their roles in the family (Martin & Ruble, 2004). The gender makeup of the parent–child relationship likely relates to socialization power and is likely responsible for Gordon (1998) and Orr’s (2000) position that mother–child interaction is important to transmit worldviews to daughters.

There is some evidence that socialization messages change in content based on gender. For instance, Galvin (2006) and Bianchi et al. (2006) noted that mothers, more than fathers, tend to communicate with children. These studies support the idea that children engage in conversation with their mothers more than with their fathers. They also support the idea that mothers, more than fathers, are likely to communicate with their children. Therefore, we anticipate that daughters will experience relational satisfaction with their mothers because of their greater likelihood to engage in conversations and maintain relational closeness.

Existing research on parent–child communication provides some guidance. Piotrkowski and Stark (1987) found that fathers reported frequently engaging in conversations with their children about their jobs, whereas mothers reported talking about paid labor experiences. There was a positive correlation between parents’ and their children’s assessments of job satisfaction. These findings suggest gendered relationships. In these relationships, daughters identify more with their mothers than with their fathers on issues of work, family, and well-being.

Mothers educate and socialize daughters on a plethora of topics like motherhood (Gilchrist & Camara, 2012) and health care (Fischer, 2014). Women co-author one another’s lives as they communicate among themselves as female family members to discursively construct and reproduce their realities about life (Miller-Day, 2004). Hinton-Johnson (2004) described the mother–daughter relationship as the most significant and enduring of women’s relationships because of the wealth of information transmitted from mother to daughter, which often results in maternal modeling. The mother–daughter relationship is a central family relationship (Williams & Nussbaum, 2001) because daughters, like sons, spend more time with their mothers (Youniss & Smollar, 1985).

Mother–daughter relationships are significant to both women in providing solidarity and support (La Sorsa & Fodor, 1990). According to Fischer (1991), compared to other intergenerational relationships, these relationships have shown to be intense in emotional connection and interdependence that can be satisfying to both partners. When there is openness in the mother–daughter relationship, and both women self-disclose, they will be more likely to benefit from the relationship and feel satisfied. However, not all mother–daughter relationships are of high quality. We further explore the dynamics of relationship quality between daughters and their fathers and mothers, as well as parents in general, in supporting the reproduction of work/career and family norms.

Daughter–parent communication: Relational satisfaction, respectful accommodation, and self-disclosure

According to Pearson (1989), satisfaction is the primary criterion for evaluating the quality of family communication. Rusbult et al. (1998) described the extent to which people associate a feeling of happiness and contentment with the relationship they share with another person as relational satisfaction. Relational satisfaction in conjunction with memorable messages has been examined to provide insight into the gendered nature of parent–child relationships.

Herman (1989) argued for the centrality of the mother–daughter relationship in every woman’s life. Daughters closely identify with their mothers such that the sameness bonds them (Bassoff, 1987). There is evidence of a positive correlation between mother–daughter closeness and the overall level of mother–daughter self-disclosure (e.g., Hernández & Kahn, 2013). Given the bond between daughters and their mothers, the researchers anticipate that interpersonal closeness will be indicative of relational satisfaction. This relational satisfaction suggests the presence of other communication behaviors such as self-disclosure and respectful accommodation that enhance family bonds.

Aiming to maintain a good relationship, family members engage in respectful accommodation (i.e., showing respect for the opinions and perspectives of others; Harwood, 2000). This accommodative behavior is relevant in the context of this study because of the likelihood of divergent perspectives regarding work/career and family. In the context of family members’ disclosing their gay identity to the families, Soliz et al. (2010) found a positive association between respectful accommodation and self-disclosure and respectful accommodation and relational satisfaction. This trend suggests the importance of respecting others’ opinions and perspectives to encourage openness in communication and strengthen relationships with others. This importance should carry through with the delivery and receipt of messages among daughters and their parents for greater relational satisfaction.

However, if daughters have stronger bonds with their mothers than with their fathers (Bassoff, 1987) and report greater relational satisfaction with mothers, we anticipate that daughters will be more likely to transmit their mother’s messages than their father’s messages—memorable messages. In the next section, we review memorable messages as a tool for reproducing work and family norms.

Memorable messages

Stohl (1986) explained memorable messages as those messages we receive early on in our lives, remember them for a long period, and influence our sensemaking of related issues. They are a rich source of information about us, society’s expectation for communication, and personal standards. They are communicated in the form of proverbs, colloquialisms, and rules of thumb (Barge & Schlueter, 2004). Traditionally, memorable messages are communicated by respected, older individuals who are of a higher status than the recipient of the message (Knapp et al., 1981). Parents and older siblings can be communicators of memorable messages in the family.

Honeycutt and Cantrill (2001) suggested that family communication is inherently a site for communicating memorable messages about important life lessons that include work and family realms, given the crucial nature of one’s well-being regarding these two realms. These memorable messages are heuristic frames that can have a carryover effect on individuals’ ongoing sensemaking processes of career and family issues (Knapp et al., 1981). Waldron et al. (2014) described memorable messages as tools used by parents to transmit morals to their children.

Individuals can recall both positive and negative memorable messages (Holladay, 2002; Knapp et al., 1981). In effect, behaviors and attitudes resulting from the content of memorable messages have potential to be positive or negative (Holladay, 2002; Lucas & Buzzanell, 2012). Despite the valence of the message, positively perceived messages contribute to greater relational satisfaction (Starcher, 2015), which can inform the transmission of memorable messages. However, to be sure that relational satisfaction predicts the likelihood of daughters to transmit their parents’ memorable messages, irrespective of which parent is delivering the message, we posited that both parents would receive a satisfaction and transmission correlation. In the following hypotheses, predictions regarding communication dynamics of daughters’ relationship with their fathers and mothers and how this dynamic reproduces work and family norms are forwarded:
H1: Daughters’ report of fathers’ and mothers’ respectful accommodation and self-disclosure will be positive predictors of daughters’ relational satisfaction.

H2: Daughters’ relational satisfaction with parents will predict their likelihood to transmit memorable messages.

H3: Daughters will be more likely to transmit mothers’ messages than fathers’ messages.

Method

Participants and procedures

Participants were 254 females aged 18–35 years (M = 23.93, SD = 5.10). Six participants did not report their age. Regarding participants’ race/ethnicity, 201 (79.10%) were White/Caucasian, 26 (10.20%) Black/African America, 11 (4.30%) Asian/Pacific Islanders, 7 (2.0%) Hispanic/Latinos, 3 unknowns (1.20%), and 2 (0.80%) Native American/American Indian. One hundred and thirty-two (52.00%) participants indicated employment, 155 (61.00%) students, 10 (3.90%) homemakers, 7 (2.80%) out of work but looking for work, 5 (2.00%) self-employed, and 4 (1.60%) out of work but not looking for work. One hundred and twenty-eight (50.40%) participants reported taking some college credits, 66 (26.00%) with graduate degree (e.g., master’s and PhD), 44 (17.30%) with bachelor’s degree, 11 (4.30%) completed some high school/General Education Development, 3 (1.20%) did not indicate their level of education, and 2 (0.80%) reported having professional certificates. Regarding relationship status, 128 (50.40%) participants were married, 66 (26.00%) in a long-term committed relationship, 44 (17.30%) divorced, 11 (4.30%) singles, 3 (1.20%) did not respond to the question, and 2 (0.80%) were engaged.

The participation criteria were (a) be female and (b) be at least 18–35 years old as this is the designated age for the “young adult” age-group (Petry, 2002). Participants were solicited over a period of 6 months from multiple sources: online chatrooms, a midwestern university, LISTSERV lists, and social networking sites. Participants answered questions based on memorable messages from either their mother or their father about work and family that they had previously received.

Measurement

Unless otherwise noted, possible responses for all items range from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. High scores indicate high levels of that construct. All composite scores were computed using mean scores. Negatively keyed items were reverse coded.

Respectful accommodation

Respectful accommodation refers to the show of respect for others’ perspectives and opinions particularly in situations where communication partners may have divergent views. It was measured using 6 items. Two items were adapted from Soliz et al.’s (2010) measurement of respectful accommodation: “my mother is respectful to me and my opinions” and “in our interactions, my mother takes my views and my opinions into account.” Four items were adapted from Harwood’s (2000) measurement of grandchild reluctant accommodation and grandchild accommodating role relations. Sample items include “I feel respect for my mother’s knowledge and wisdom” and “I don’t always say what I think to my mother.” Cronbach’s α was .82 (M = 4.77, SD = 1.27) and .89 (M = 4.93, SD = 1.24) for mother and father targets, respectively.

Self-disclosure

Self-disclosure was measured using a 6-item scale (Laurenceau et al., 1998) adapted to assess the reciprocal self-disclosure in the parent–daughter relationship regarding work and family. Sample items include “How much do you express your feelings about work and family to your mother?” and “How much of your mother’s feelings about work and family does she express to you?” Possible responses for all items ranged from (1) not at all to (5) a great deal. Previously, researchers have found this scale to be reliable, with Cronbach’s αs between .83 and .93 (Harwood et al., 2005; Rittenour & Soliz, 2009; Soliz et al., 2009). In this study, Cronbach’s α was .91 (M = 3.98, SD = 1.24) and .92 (M = 3.61, SD = 0.88) for mother and father targets, respectively.

Relational satisfaction

Relational satisfaction was measured using the adapted version of the Marital Opinion Questionnaire (Huston et al., 1986) that has 10 semantic differentials (Soliz et al., 2010). The 10 semantic differentials assess specific and global dimensions of satisfaction over the last month. Sample items include “Miserable…Enjoyable” and “Rewarding…Disappointing.” Rittenour and Soliz (2009) and Soliz et al. (2010) found this version to be reliable, with Cronbach’s αs between .85 and .96. In this study, Cronbach’s α was .88 (M = 2.85, SD = 0.67) and .92 (M = 2.95, SD = 0.65) for mother and father targets, respectively.

Likelihood to transmit memorable message about work and family

The likelihood of participants to transmit memorable messages from parents was examined using a 5-point Likert-type 1-item scale. The directions defined a memorable message as a message that is vividly remembered and believed to have had a large impact on how we behave, the attitudes we hold, and the decisions we make or anticipate making in the future (Medved et al., 2006). This definition was followed with two examples of memorable message formats (i.e., piece of advice and words of wisdom; Steimel, 2013; Stohl, 1986), noting the possibility of those memorable messages to have influenced behavior at work, organizational expectations, career decisions, and the interpretation of work and family. Having a memorable message about work and family from each parent in mind, participants rated their likelihood of passing the message onto their 18-year-old daughters (i.e., a projection, as none of the participants had 18-year-old daughters of their own at the time of data collection). The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the instrument could not be computed because the measure is a single item. Mean scores of 4.32 (SD = 1.07) and 4.27 (SD = 1.08) were obtained for the measure of reports on fathers and mothers, respectively. This 1-item scale bears clarity and transparency about the construct of interest (Postmes et al., 2013).

Data analysis

Prior to exploring all three hypotheses of the study, Pearson product-moment correlations were computed among all variables for each parent as well as a composite of both parents (see Table 1). H1 argued that daughters’ report of fathers and mothers’ respectful accommodation and self-disclosure will be positive predictors of daughters’ relational satisfaction. A multiple regression analysis was used to test the hypothesis. H2 and H3 argued about daughters’ relational satisfaction with their parents and daughters’ likelihood to transmit messages regarding work/career and family. A Pearson product-moment correlation was computed among the variables to answer H2: daughters’ report of relational satisfaction and likelihood to transmit memorable message. For H3, a one-tailed independent samples t-test was computed to compare the two groups’ (i.e., daughters’ report on fathers and mothers) mean scores on the likelihood to transmit message.

Table 1.
Correlations among variables.

Variables 1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c 4a 4b 4c

1. Respectful accommodation —

1a. Mother

1b. Father

1c. Mother and father

2. Relational satisfaction —

2a. Mother .74

2b. Father .59

2c. Mother and father .69

3. Self-disclosure —

3a. Mother .54 .6

3b. Father .45 .53

3c. Mother and father .20 .25

4. Likelihood to transmit memorable message —

4a. Mother .30 .28 .42

4b. Father .29 .53 .31

4c. Mother and father .31 .40 .15*

* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

Results

H1 argued that daughters’ report of mothers’ and fathers’ respectful accommodation and self-disclosure would be positive predictors of daughters’ relational satisfaction with the target parent. Pearson product-moment correlations showed that respectful accommodation (r = .69) and self-disclosure (r = .25) were significantly (p < .001) and positively related to relational satisfaction (see Table 1 for both target parent and composite scores). Multiple regression analysis was computed to predict daughters’ relational satisfaction based on their report of their mothers’ and fathers’ respectful accommodation and self-disclosure (see Table 2). A significant model was obtained, F(2, 238) = 115.04, p < .001, R ² = .49, with both respectful accommodation (β = .67, p < .001) and self-disclosure (β = .11, p = .02) serving as predictors. H1 was supported.

Table 2.
Multiple regression using respectful accommodation and self-disclosure to predict relational satisfaction.

Predictor variables B SEB β t p

Respectful accommodation .67 .05 .67 14.18 .00

Self-disclosure .12 .05 .11 2.42 .02

H2 argued that daughters’ relational satisfaction with their parents would be related positively with daughters’ likelihood to transmit their parent’s memorable messages. Pearson product-moment correlations revealed that relational satisfaction and likelihood to transmit memorable message were significantly (p < .001) and positively related (r = .40; see Table 1 for target-parent scores as well). H2 was supported.

H3 argued that daughters would be more likely to transmit mothers’ messages than fathers’ messages. Results of a one-tailed independent samples t-test, t(244) = −.14, p = .89, showed no significant difference between daughters’ likelihood to transmit memorable messages from mothers (M = 4.30, SD = 1.08) and fathers (M = 4.32, SD = 1.08). H3 was not supported.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the communication dynamics of daughters’ relationship with their fathers and mothers (and parents as a whole) and how these dynamics reproduce work and family norms. We rely on Kirby and Buzzanell’s (2014) two frameworks to make sense of results of the study.

Construction of gendered working identities

In the construction of gendered working identities, there is a public/private distinction between men’s and women’s work and personal life (Kirby & Buzzanell, 2014). This distinction is evident in Medved et al.’s (2006) study where women reported more often than men that they were advised to stop work with the arrival of children. Among male–female-led families, 48.8% of homes are dual-career, with mothers working slightly less often than husbands, but still the sole breadwinner in 6.8% of these families (compared to men as sole breadwinner at 19.1%; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). As Americans shift from the male breadwinner model, we experience shifts in the messages that families convey about gender and family. The breadwinner model defines the husband as the primary income provider through his paid work in the public sphere, whereas the wife manages the home and children although she may earn supplemental income (Chapman, 2004).

The question that this study helps us answer is, what about the dynamics of the relationship supports the reproduction of known gendered norms of work and family? Results of this study suggest that despite mothers’ long history of heightened involvement with their adult children, particularly young adult daughters (Bassoff, 1987), there is a similar trend of the “changing culture of fatherhood.” In the light of this changing culture, we found that there is no significant difference between the likelihood for daughters to transmit memorable messages from mothers or fathers. Both fathers and mothers hold a significant parental position that present them with equal opportunities to have their messages about work and family reproduced.

Consider, for instance, the male breadwinner model. This model is intrinsically related to the traditional ideal masculine identity such that an unemployed or underemployed husband is a threat to masculinity (Smithson et al., 2004). Hence, the reason a parent will communicate this model to their daughter is to orient her on her role in the home and expectations for work. Conversely, in a household with a nontraditional female breadwinner, for reasons such as recession in 2008 that resulted in some highly paid husbands being laid off (Meisenbach, 2010), the communicated message about work and family will be different. Whatever memorable messages daughters are receiving from their fathers and mothers, they are enacting these messages with a higher tendency for this reproduction when daughters experience relational satisfaction.

Acting practically and routinizing work and personal life

Our study findings show that the quality of the daughter–parent communication contributes to the effectiveness of the communicated message in terms of likelihood to transmit communicated messages. Daughters’ experience of respectful accommodation and self-disclosure in daughter–parent communication result in relational satisfaction. Certainly, this quality can be attributed to a consistent high-quality communication exchange between daughters and their fathers and mothers, but the relational quality should not be ignored. We examined two ways to develop relational satisfaction in parent–daughter relationship: respectful accommodation and self-disclosure.

Practically, in parent–daughter communication, the elements of respectful accommodation and self-disclosure can be fostered to promote a healthy intergenerational relationship with daughters. Significantly, daughters will be able to disclose other life-related issues to both parents and others without the constraint of being disrespected for their perceptions and decisions but would receive social support from family. Likewise, if organizations promote the essence of respectful accommodations and self-disclosure among organizational members, healthy organizational relationships can be formed and maintained. Employees should be respected for their personal work/life boundaries and the content/depth of personal information to self-disclose.

Respectful accommodation and self-disclosure are two communication behaviors that are ongoing to serve as a backdrop for the more targeted memorable messages. Previous studies (e.g., Cayanus et al., 2009; Fowler & Soliz, 2013; McCann et al., 2003; Rittenour & Soliz, 2009; Soliz, 2007) have shown the effectiveness of the two communication behaviors, particularly in intergroup communication contexts, which is applicable to this study, given its intergenerational context. This is applicable in organizational contexts where due to the inherent hierarchical nature of organizations, an outgroup/ingroup dynamic exists. Additionally, intergenerational relationships between older and younger folks exist in organizations, both in terms of organizational members’ ages and in terms of longevity in the workplace.

In communication between parents and daughters, interaction and perceptions are shaped by intergroup factors including, but not limited to, gender, age, or worldview (Harwood et al., 2005, 2006). Inasmuch as young adults may be more conscious of their age difference with their grandparents (Soliz, 2007), they may also be conscious of the age difference between them and their parents. As Miller-Day (2008) argued, adult children between the ages 18 years and 25 years negotiate between developing adult identity and family interdependence that would make such age salience quite feasible.

Looking across intergroup communication contexts, it is vital for the sake of relational quality and individual well-being that both parties recognize the need to be respectful of the intergroup factors to which they may be bound. As Soliz and Harwood (2006) posited, the personalized nature of accommodative behaviors (e.g., supportive communication, respectful accommodation, self-disclosure, or storytelling) puts the interlocutors in an optimum position in which they may move beyond social distancing intergroup factors to the highly personalized interactions that are based on the characteristics of the two engaged individuals. Accommodative behaviors have been linked to positive outcomes of relationships (Soliz et al., 2010; Soliz & Rittenour, 2009, 2012; Williams & Harwood, 2004) and so it is unsurprising that in this sample, it was linked to heightened parent–child relationship quality irrespective of the gender of the parent.

Future directions and limitations

Several factors contribute to the quality of parent–daughter relationships. As indicated by the results of this study, a relationship with greater relational satisfaction makes room for the reproduction of work and family norms. Conversely, a relationship with less satisfaction inhibits the reproduction of work and family norms. Research has noted topic avoidance as a cause of relational dissatisfaction. Even though this study did not examine young adult daughters’ likelihood of engaging in topic avoidance, it is possible that they will engage in topic avoidance as a relationship maintenance strategy with parents whose values and ideals about work/career and family may not be the same as that of daughters. Avoidance of conflict or uncomfortable situations can be a form of relationship maintenance and a strategy for relational satisfaction. Taboo topics are known to serve as face-saving tools and contribute to relational satisfaction, but it may also mare relational closeness. Future research on this topic should clarify our projections and further examine taboo topics about work and family.

Findings of this study are crucial in highlighting the fact that work socialization indeed occurs in the family. Having established this fact, future research should examine the content and context of these memorable messages that are being reproduced. This line of research would help educators in designing family education programs that facilitate communication about work/career and family as well as better equip parents to foster healthy interpersonal relationships. For future research, seeking parents’ perspectives on their relationship satisfaction, self-disclosure, and respectful accommodation will illuminate the specific dynamics of the daughter–parent communication. Knowing which memorable message parents think they may have given their daughters and the contexts for communicating those messages will shed light on the congruence or incongruence in communicated messages. It would also provide practical recommendations on how to avert communicating mixed and perhaps, negative messages. The desired norms of work and family can be strategically reproduced.

Another line of future research is to examine the moderating effect of daughters’ age on the reception of messages as memorable. At which points exactly in children’s lives do they receive these memorable messages and until when do they stop receiving memorable messages from parents? In the continued experience of respectful accommodation and self-disclosure in daughter–parent communication resulting in relational satisfaction, does relational satisfaction continue to predict daughters’ likelihood to reproduce memorable messages from their mothers and fathers? Answers to these questions will further educate us on family communication dynamics and effects on gendered work identities as well as how these effects reflect in young adult children’s work and personal life.

One limitation of the study is the reliance on daughter perspectives to examine daughter–parent relationships. Future studies should consider using dyadic data (i.e., mothers–daughters and fathers–daughters) in examining this trend. Having information on both perspectives will be more informing on interpersonal and intrapersonal dynamics than relying on one side to report on the other. Relatedly, the scope of this study should be extended to focus on young adult sons to fill the gap in the literature on memorable messages about family and work/career that parents communicate to sons. This extension is important to further explain gendered working identities.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to examine the communication dynamics of daughters’ relationship with their fathers and mothers (and parents as a whole) and how these dynamics reproduce work and family norms. Results indicated that (a) daughters’ report of mothers’ and fathers’ respectful accommodation and self-disclosure positively predict daughters’ relational satisfaction with the target parent and (b) daughters’ relational satisfaction with their parent positively relates to daughters’ likelihood to transmit their parent’s memorable messages about work and family. However, daughters did not report to likely transmit mothers’ messages more than fathers’ messages. There were no gender differences reported in the reproduction process of memorable messages about work and family. However, from previous research, we know that these memorable messages are gendered. Two communication dynamics that contribute to the reproduction of these gendered memorable messages are respectful accommodation and self-disclosure. These two behaviors account for the relational satisfaction, a necessary condition in the parent–child relationship, to allow for the reproduction of gendered memorable messages.

Predictor variables	B	SEB	β	t	p
Respectful accommodation	.67	.05	.67	14.18	.00
Self-disclosure	.12	.05	.11	2.42	.02

Footnotes

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Rita Daniels

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The materials used in the research are available. However, due to concerns for confidentiality agreements between researchers and participants, data and materials cannot be shared.

References

Acker

(2004). Gender, capitalism, and globalization. Critical Sociology, 30, 117–141. http://doi.org/10.1163/156916304322981668

Alberts

J. K.

Tracy

S. J.

Trethewey

(2011). An integrative theory of the division of domestic labor: Threshold level, social organizing, and sensemaking. Journal of Family Communication, 11, 21–38. http://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2011.534334

Alvesson

Billing

Y. D.

(2009). Understanding gender and organizations (2nd ed.). Sage.

Ayyagari

Grover

Purvis

(2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35, 831–858. http://doi.org/10.2307/41409963

Barge

J. K.

Schlueter

D. W.

(2004). Memorable messages and newcomer socialization. Western Journal of Communication, 68, 233–257. http://doi.org/10.1080/10570310409374800

Bassoff

E. S.

(1987). Mothering adolescent daughters: A psychodynamic perspective. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65, 471–474. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1987.tb00758.x

Baxter

(2005). To marry or not to marry: Marital status and the household division of labor. Journal of Family Issues, 36, 300–321. http://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X04270473

Baxter

Hewitt

Western

(2005). Post-familial families and the domestic division of labor. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 36, 583–600. http://doi.org/hdl.handle.net/10620/3071

Bianchi

Robinson

Milkie

(2006). Changing rhythms of American family life. Russell Sage Foundation.

10.

Buche

M. W.

Davis

L. R.

Vician

(2007). A Longitudinal investigation of the effects of computer anxiety on performance in a computing-intensive environment. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18, 415–423. https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/business-fp/288

11.

Buzzanell

P. M.

D’Enbeau

(2009). Stories of caregiving: Intersections of popular gender, academic research, and one woman’s experiences. Qualitative Inquiry, 15, 1199–1224. http://doi.org/10.1177/1077800409338025

12.

Byron

(2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.009

13.

Cayanus

J. L.

Martin

M. M.

Goodboy

A. K.

(2009). The relation between teacher self-disclosure and student motives to communicate. Communication Research Reports, 26, 105–113. http://doi.org/10.1080/08824090902861523

14.

Chapman

(2004). Gender and domestic life. MacMillan.

15.

Cheong

P. H.

(2007). Gender and perceived internet efficacy: Examining secondary digital divide issues in Singapore. Women’s Studies in Communication, 30, 205–228. http://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2007.10162513

16.

Clark

S. C.

(2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53,747–770. http://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536001

17.

Clark

S. C.

(2002). Communicating across the work/home border. Community, work, and family, 5, 23–48. http://doi.org/10.1080/13668800020006802

18.

D’Enbeau

Buzzanell

P. M.

(2010). Caregiving and female embodiment: Scrutinizing (professional) female bodies in media, academe, and the neighborhood bar. Women and Language, 33, 29–52.

19.

Dallimore

E. J.

(2003). Memorable messages as discursive formations: The gendered socialization of new university faculty. Women’s Studies in Communication, 26, 214–265. http://doi.org/10.1080/07491409200310162460

20.

Day

Lamb

(2004). Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement: Pathways, problems, and progress. In Day

Lamb

(Eds.), Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement (pp. 1–16). Erlbaum.

21.

Eby

L. T.

Casper

W. J.

Lockwood

Bordeaux

Brinley

(2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.003

22.

Fischer

C. L.

(2014). Coping together, side by side: Enriching mother-daughter communication across the breast cancer journey. Hampton Press.

23.

Fischer

L. R.

(1991). Between mothers and daughters. Marriage and Family Review, 16, 237–248. http://doi.org/10.1300/J002v16n03_02

24.

Fowler

Soliz

(2013). Communicative responses to the painful self-disclosures of familial and non-familial older adults. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 77, 163–188. http://doi.org/10.2190/AG.77.3.a

25.

Galvin

(2006). Gendered communication in families. In Dow

Wood

J. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of gender and communication (pp. 41–55). Sage.

26.

Gilchrist

E. S.

Camara

(2012). Cultural dis/continuity in African American and Ghanaian mothers’ voices and identities. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41, 81–108. http://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2011.651152

27.

Golden

A. G.

Geisler

(2007). Work-life boundary management and the personal digital assistant. Human Relations, 60, 519–551. http://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707076698

28.

Goodnow

J. J.

Bowes

J. M.

Warton

P. M.

Dawes

L. J.

Taylor

A. J.

(1991). Would you ask someone else to do this task? Parents and children’s ideas about household work requests. Developmental Psychology, 27, 817–828. http://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.817

29.

Gordon

R. M.

(1998). The Medea complex and the parental alienation syndrome: When mothers damage their daughters’ ability to love a man. In Fenchel

G. H.

(Ed.), The mother-daughter relationship: Echoes through time (pp. 207–225). Jason Aronson.

30.

Harwood

(2000). Communicative predictors of solidarity in the grandparent-grandchild relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 743–766. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500176003

31.

Harwood

Hewstone

Paolini

Voci

(2005). Grandparent-grandchild contact and attitudes towards older adults: Moderator and mediator effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 393–406. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271577

32.

Harwood

Soliz

Lin

M. C.

(2006). Communication accommodation theory: An intergroup approach to family relationships. In Braithwaite

D. O.

Baxter

(Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 19–34). Sage.

33.

Heisler

J. M.

(2000). The socialization of gender roles through parental memorable message [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Michigan State University.

34.

Herman

(1989). Too long a child: The mother-daughter dyad. Free Association Books.

35.

Hernández

Kahn

J. H.

(2013, February). Parent-adolescent agreement on adolescent self-disclosure. Poster session presented at the National Association of School Psychologists Convention.

36.

Hinton-Johnson

(2004). African American mothers and daughters: Socialization, distance, and conflict. The Alan Review, 31, 45–49.

37.

Hochschild

Machung

(2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home. Penguin.

38.

Holladay

S. J.

(2002). “Have fun while you can,” “You’re only as old as you feel,” and “Don’t ever get old!”: An Examination of memorable messages about aging. Journal of Communication, 52, 681–697. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02568.x

39.

Honeycutt

J. M.

Cantrill

J. G.

(2001). Cognition, communication, and romantic relationships. Erlbaum.

40.

Huston

T. L.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

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

Duck

(Eds.), The Emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 109–132). Erlbaum.

41.

Joiner

Stewart

Beaney

(2015). Gender digital divide: Does it exist and what are the explanations? In Rosen

L. D.

Cheever

N. A.

Carrier

L. M.

(Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of psychology (pp. 74–88). Wiley-Blackwell.

42.

Keating

D. M.

Shaw

A. S.

Smith

S. W.

(2012, November). The Intersection of family communication patterns and parental memorable messages about family communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association.

43.

Kellas

J. K.

(2010). Transmitting relational worldviews: The Relationship between mother-daughter memorable messages and adult daughters’ romantic relational schemata. Communication Quarterly, 58, 458–479. http://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2010.525700

44.

Kirby

E. L.

Buzzanell

P. M.

(2014). Communicating work-life issues. In Putnam

L. L.

Mumby

D. K.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (3rd ed., pp. 351–373). Sage.

45.

Kirby

E. L.

Golden

A. G.

Medved

C. E.

Jorgenson

Buzzanell

P. M.

(2003). An organizational communication challenge to the discourse of work and family research: From problematics to empowerment. In Kalbfleisch

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 27 (pp. 1–43). Erlbaum.

46.

Knapp

M. L.

Stohl

Reardon

K. K.

(1981). “Memorable” messages. Journal of Communication, 31, 27–41. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb00448.x

47.

Kossek

E. E.

Lautsch

B. A.

(2008). CEO of me: Creating a life that works in the flexible job age. Pearson.

48.

Kossek

E. E.

Lautsch

B. A.

(2012). Work-family boundary management styles in organizations: A Cross-level model. Organizational Psychology Review, 2, 152–171. http://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611436264

49.

La Sorsa

V. A.

Fodor

I. G.

(1990). Adolescent daughter/mid-life mother dyad: A new look at separation and self-definition. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 593–606. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1990.tb00233.x

50.

Laurenceau

J. P.

Barrett

L. F.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

(1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1238–1251. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238

51.

Lucas

Buzzanell

P. M.

(2012). Memorable messages of hard times: Constructing short-and long-term resiliencies through family communication. Journal of Family Communication, 12, 189–208. http://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2012.687196

52.

Martin

C. L.

Ruble

(2004). Children’s search for gender cues: Cognitive perspectives on gender development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 67–70. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00276.x

53.

McCann

R. M.

Ota

Giles

Caraker

(2003). Accommodation and non-accommodation across the lifespan: Perspectives from Thailand, Japan, and the United States of America. Communication Reports, 16, 69–92. http://doi.org/10.1080/08934210309384492

54.

Medved

C. E.

(2004). The everyday accomplishment of work and family: Exploring practical actions and commonsense rules in everyday routines. Communication Studies, 55, 128–154. http://doi.org/10.1080/10510970409388609

55.

Medved

C. E.

(2007). Investigating family labor in communication studies: Threading across historical and contemporary discourses. Journal of Family Communication, 7, 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267430701392172

56.

Medved

C. E.

(2009). Crossing and transforming occupational and household gendered divisions of labor. In Beck

(Ed.), Communication yearbook, 33 (pp. 457–482). Sage.

57.

Medved

C. E.

(2010). Communication work-life research. In Sweet

Casey

(Eds.), Work and family encyclopedia. Sloan Work and Family Research Network. https://workfamily.sas.upenn.edu/wfrn-repo/object/3kb6k5cb4ft79l8c

58.

Medved

C. E.

Brogan

S. M.

McClanahan

A. M.

Morris

J. F.

Shepherd

G. J.

(2006). Family and work socializing communication: Messages, gender, and ideological implications. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 161–180. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327698jfc0603_1

59.

Medved

C. E.

Graham

E. E.

(2006). Communicating contradictions: (Re)producing dialectical tensions through work, family, and balance socialization messages. In Turner

L. H.

West

(Eds.), Family communication sourcebook (pp. 353–372). Sage.

60.

Meisenbach

(2010). The female breadwinner: Phenomenological experience and gendered identity in work/family spaces. Sex Roles, 62, 2–19. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9714-5

61.

Miller-Day

M. A.

(2004). Communication among grandmothers, mothers, and adult daughters: A Qualitative study of maternal relationships. Erlbaum.

62.

Miller-Day

(2008). Talking to youth about drugs: What do late adolescents say about parental strategies? Family Relations, 57, 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00478.x

63.

Orr

(2000). Mothers as moral educators: Teaching language and nurturing souls. In O’Reilly

Abbey

(Eds.), Mothers and daughters: Connection, empowerment, and transformation (pp. 161–174). Rowman & Littlefield.

64.

Pearson

J. C.

(1989). Communication in the family: Seeking satisfaction in changing times. Harper and Row.

65.

Petry

N. M.

(2002). A comparison of young, middle-aged, and older adult treatment-seeking pathological gamblers. The Gerontologist, 42, 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/42.1.92

66.

Piotrkowski

C. S.

Stark

(1987). Children and adolescents look at their parents’ jobs. New Directions for Child Development, 35, 3–19. http://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219873503

67.

Postmes

Haslam

S. A.

Jans

(2013). A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 597–617. http://doi.org/10.111/bjso.12006

68.

Rittenour

C. E.

Soliz

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

69.

Rokeach

(1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.

70.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

J. M.

Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x

71.

Smithson

Lewis

Cooper

Dyer

(2004). Flexible working and the gender pay gap in the accountancy profession. Work, Employment and Society, 18,115–135. http://doi.org/10.1177/0950017004040765

72.

Soliz

(2007). Communicative predictors of a shared family identity: Comparison of grandchildren’s perceptions of family-of-origin grandparents and step grandparents. Journal of Family Communication, 7, 177–194. http://doi.org/10.1080/15267430701221636

73.

Soliz

Harwood

(2006). Shared family identity, age salience, and intergroup contact: Investigation of the grandparent–grandchild relationship. Communication Monographs, 73, 87–107. http://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500534388

74.

Soliz

Ribarsky

Harrigan

M. M.

Tye-Williams

(2010). Perceptions of communication with gay and lesbian family members: Predictions of relational satisfaction and implications for outgroup attitudes. Communication Quarterly, 58, 77–95. http://doi.org/10.1080/01463370903538622

75.

Soliz

Rittenour

C. E.

76.

Soliz

Rittenour

C. E.

(2012). Family as an intergroup arena. In Giles

(Ed.), The Handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 331–343). Routledge.

77.

Soliz

Thorson

A. R.

Rittenour

C. E.

Murry

V. M.

(2009). Communicative correlates of satisfaction, family identity, and group salience in multiracial/ethnic families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 819–832. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00637.x

78.

Starcher

S. C.

(2015). Memorable messages from fathers to children through sports: Perspectives from sons and daughters. Communication Quarterly, 63, 204–220. http://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1012221

79.

Steimel

(2013). Communicating with volunteers: Memorable messages and volunteer identification. Communication Research Reports, 30, 12–21. http://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2012.746220

80.

Stohl

(1986). The role of memorable messages in the process of organizational socialization. Communication Quarterly, 34, 231–249. http://doi.org/10.1080/01463378609369638

81.

Tracy

S. J.

Rivera

K. D.

, (2010). Endorsing equity and applauding stay-at-home moms: How Male voices on work-life reveal aversive sexism and flickers of transformation. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 3–43. http://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909352248

82.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019). Employment characteristics of families – 2018. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm

83.

Waldron

V. R.

Kloeber

Goman

Piemonte

Danaher

(2014). How Parents communicate right and wrong: A Study of moral messages recalled by emerging adults. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 374–397. http://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2014.646032

84.

Williams

Harwood

(2004). Intergenerational communication. In Nussbaum

J. F.

Coupland

(Eds.), Handbook of communication and aging research (2nd ed., pp. 115–137). Erlbaum.

85.

Williams

Nussbaum

J. F.

(2001). Intergenerational communication across the lifespan. Erlbaum.

86.

Youniss

Smollar

(1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. University of Chicago Press.

Variables	1a	1b	1c	2a	2b	2c	3a	3b	3c	4a
1. Respectful accommodation	—
1a. Mother
1b. Father
1c. Mother and father
2. Relational satisfaction				—
2a. Mother	.74**
2b. Father		.59**
2c. Mother and father			.69**
3. Self-disclosure							—
3a. Mother	.54**			.6
3b. Father		.45**			.53**
3c. Mother and father			.20**			.25**
4. Likelihood to transmit memorable message										—
4a. Mother	.30**			.28**			.42**
4b. Father		.29**			.53**			.31**
4c. Mother and father			.31**			.40**			.15*

Reproducing work and family norms through daughter–parent communication

Abstract

Keywords

Gendered socialization messages

Mothers versus fathers: Trends in daughter–parent communication regarding work/career and family

Daughter–parent communication: Relational satisfaction, respectful accommodation, and self-disclosure

Memorable messages

Method

Participants and procedures

Measurement

Respectful accommodation

Self-disclosure

Relational satisfaction

Likelihood to transmit memorable message about work and family

Data analysis

Results

Discussion

Construction of gendered working identities

Acting practically and routinizing work and personal life

Future directions and limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iD

Open research statement

References