Relational Maintenance Strategies and Satisfaction in the Stepmother

Abstract

Existing research demonstrates the unique communication challenges faced within stepfamilies—particularly within the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad. This study examined the stepmother–stepdaughter relationship using Canary and Stafford’s relational maintenance strategy measure (RMSM). Specifically, researchers identified which relational maintenance strategies (RMS) are utilized by stepmothers and stepdaughters and the relationship between RMS and relational satisfaction. A sample of stepmothers (n = 20) and stepdaughters (n = 61) completed the RMSM and a relational satisfaction measure. Results indicate that stepmothers and stepdaughters most frequently use positivity and share task strategies, and that the openness strategy is strongly and positively related to relational satisfaction. Theoretical implications for scholars and practical implications for counselors and stepfamilies, along with areas for future research, are discussed.

Keywords

relational maintenance strategies family stepmother–stepdaughter dyad equity theory

Shifting demographic and marriage trends have changed the traditional American family structure. One of these trends includes increased divorce rates and subsequent remarriages, resulting in stepfamilies. Over 18% of American adults have a living stepparent (Parker, 2011). Furthermore, it is estimated that approximately 17% of American children will experience living in a stepfamily household prior to the age of 18 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).

According to Golish (2003), “stepfamilies are impacted by a host of hierarchical systems including economic factors, societal stereotypes (i.e., ‘the wicked stepmother’), and a lack of socially-prescribed roles for how stepfamily members should behave” (p. 43). The potential disruption and turbulence of stepfamilies is often more salient for stepmothers and stepdaughters (Clingempeel, Brand, & Ievoli, 1984; Clingempeel & Segal, 1986; Crohn, 2006, 2010; Dainton, 1993; Dedaic, 2001; Fine & Kurdek, 1992; Gallardo & Mellon-Gallardo, 2007; Gosselin, 2010; Schrodt, 2008; Shujja, Malik, Adil, & Atta, 2017).

The presence of competing relational issues in an unstable family context (i.e., a newly formed stepfamily) leads to a less than favorable outlook for healthy relational development between stepmothers and stepdaughters. The role of relational maintenance strategies (RMS) and their relationship to overall satisfaction within the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad is both basic and critical to understand. Golish (2003) has argued that “rather than become preoccupied with what is wrong with stepfamilies, researchers should turn their attention to the behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs that enhance and hinder stepfamily development” (p. 42). In examining RMS and relational satisfaction, valuable insight into “what works” in healthy stepmother–stepdaughter relationships can be gained.

RMS have the potential to improve communication challenges faced by stepmothers with their stepdaughters. Several recent studies on stepfamily communication patterns lend support to this assertion (Crohn, 2010; Golish, 2000; Schrodt, 2016). Current research demonstrates the potential for RMS within stepmother–stepdaughter relationships but stops short of providing a complete picture of how all the maintenance strategies are represented and their subsequent impact on relational satisfaction. This gap in the research is acknowledged, as Golish (2003) states, “what demands further attention is the communication characteristics that facilitate the formation of positive stepfamily bonds” (p. 46). The identification of RMS within stepmother–stepdaughter dyads and their relationship satisfaction will contribute to addressing this gap in the research. In order to counsel stepfamilies effectively, counselors must thoroughly understand the complexity of stepfamily relationships (Gold, 2018). Understanding RMS allows counselors to help clients develop effective interventions and improve communication behavior within the stepmother/stepdaughter relationship. Stepmothers and stepdaughters would benefit from learning which strategies are most useful for negotiating an improved relationship and achieving higher levels of relational satisfaction.

Literature Review

Stepmother–Stepdaughter Relationship

Several research investigations using family systems theory have found that stepmother–stepdaughter relationships (in comparison with stepmother–stepson and stepfather–stepchild) are more problematic, contribute to adjustment problems, and place additional strains on the larger family system (Clingempeel et al., 1984; Clingempeel & Segal, 1986; Gosselin, 2010; Pace, Shafer, Jensen, & Larson, 2015). Stepparenting stress can significantly affect marital quality, adaptability, and sustainability of the stepfamily couple (Gold, 2017), and research demonstrates that the stepmother–stepdaughter relationship can affect stepdaughter adjustment and development. A recent study of stepmothers and stepdaughters found a relationship between stepdaughters’ perception of stepmother rejection and maladjustment, a relationship that is mediated by social competence (Shujja et al., 2017). Family system interpersonal variables (e.g., supervision, warmth, conflict, interest, and order) are strongly related to child adjustment and are influential processes affecting adolescent development (Amato, 1990). Research demonstrates that the stepmother–stepdaughter relationship can significantly affect child adjustment. In their research on stepfamily relationships, Fine and Kurdek (1992) found that warmth and supervision were positively associated with higher grades and higher self-esteem and negatively associated with health problems and drug usage. Conflict was negatively associated with grades and self-esteem and positively associated with health problems and drug usage. These relationships were particularly strong for girls living with stepmothers.

Research suggests that stepmothers often face more obstacles connecting with their new stepchildren than stepfathers (DeGreeff & Platt, 2016; Fine & Kurdek, 1992; Ganong & Coleman, 1994; Golish & Caughlin, 2002; Shujja et al., 2017). This is partially attributed to the loyalty children harbor for their biological mother who is usually their primary caretaker (Ganong & Coleman, 1994). DeGreeff and Platt (2016) also found that jealous feelings also contribute to difficult relationships between stepdaughters and stepmothers and lead to increased family conflicts. Clingempeel, Brand, and Ievoli (1984) contend that stepmothers are less common than stepfathers, have less social support, and have little basis for comparison in creating their role within the family. Furthermore, these social biases can result in stepmothers overcompensating to establish relationships with their stepchildren. Researchers routinely note the lack of cultural and social norms needed to promote healthy stepfamily relationship development (Schrodt, 2016; Schrodt & Braithwaite, 2014; Speer & Trees, 2007). Similarly, research has demonstrated that the issues stepchildren face when assimilating into a new stepfamily are compounded by gender, with female children struggling more and reporting more hostility toward stepparents:

Given cultural stereotypes, stepmothers try harder and earlier on to assume a parental role with stepchildren. Moreover, stepmothers may try even harder with stepdaughters. Premature attempts at parenting may exacerbate loyalty conflicts and lead to psychological adjustment problems for stepdaughters. (Clingempeel & Segal, 1986, p. 482)

In a study of topic avoidance, satisfaction, and parenting styles of stepparent families, Golish (2000) found that stepchildren demonstrated more openness with their stepparents when they were more satisfied with the relationship. Similarly, openness was highlighted in research findings from Crohn (2010). In an investigation of communication about sexuality between young adult daughters and mothers or stepmothers, Crohn found that the stepdaughters were willing to discuss sexual topics more candidly with their stepmothers than their biological mothers. In another study, Golish (2003) found that the use of RMS such as openness (“engaging in everyday talk”), shared activities (“spending time together as a family”), and assurances (“promoting a positive image of the noncustodial parent”) was characteristic of strong stepfamilies. Similar to the previous findings from Golish, Schrodt (2016) discovered that the reciprocal use of “everyday talk” in stepparent–stepchild relationships is positively associated with relational satisfaction.

RMS

Relational maintenance has been defined in multiple ways depending upon relational goals or outcomes. The four commonly identified conceptualizations of relational maintenance include: keeping a relationship in existence, keeping a relationship in a stable condition, keeping a relationship satisfying, and keeping a relationship in repair (Dindia, 2003; Frisby & Sidelinger, 2009; Guerrero & Chavez, 2005). These conceptualizations of relational maintenance are founded on a social exchange perspective and focus on the reciprocity of communication behaviors in maintaining a close relationship (Haas & Stafford, 2005). A well-known perspective on relational maintenance behaviors comes from the work of Stafford and Canary (1991). Based on the principles of equity theory and data from heterosexual married couples, Stafford and Canary (1991) developed a typology of five strategic RMS: positivity, openness, assurances, shared tasks, and social networks. Stafford and Canary’s (1991) original typology of RMS did not include shared activities. Shared activities were introduced based on an extended examination of routine maintenance behaviors conducted in 1993 by Dainton and Stafford (Haas & Stafford, 2005).

The RMS are defined as follows: (a) positivity (i.e., communicating with cheerful and positive affect), (b) openness (i.e., engaging in self-disclosure and meta-relational communication), (c) assurances (i.e., explicit and implicit assurances of a desire for continued involvement in the relationship), (d) shared tasks (i.e., performing duties and chores associated with the relationship), and (e) social networks (i.e., communicating with mutual family and friends; Canary & Stafford, 1992; Dainton & Stafford, 1993; Mansson, Myers, & Turner, 2010). Empirical research supports that relational partners utilize these communication strategies to sustain their relationships.

Early approaches to relational maintenance behaviors were largely focused on heterosexual married couples (Canary & Stafford, 1992; Dainton, Stafford, & Canary, 1994; Ragsdale, 1996; Stafford & Canary, 1991; Weigel & Ballard-Reisch, 1999). This body of research provided a reliable scale for measuring the specific maintenance behaviors (Stafford & Canary, 1991), substantiated the social exchange perspective (specifically, equity theory) as a valid theoretical foundation for relational maintenance behaviors (Canary & Stafford, 1992), and tested a variety of relational characteristics as both predictors and outcomes of the different strategies (Dainton et al., 1994; Ragsdale, 1996; Weigel & Ballard-Reisch, 1999).

As the RMS typology became more established, it was applied to other types of close interpersonal relationships including heterosexual unmarried couples and family relationships (Dailey, Hampel, & Roberts, 2010; Denes, Dhillon, & Speer, 2017; Myers, 2001). More recent approaches to relational maintenance have demonstrated its applicability to a broad range of understudied relational contexts such as transsexual relationships (Alegria, 2010); long-term homosexual partners (Haas & Stafford, 2005); on-again, off-again relationships (Dailey et al., 2010); former in-law relationships (Frisby & Sidelinger, 2009); cross-sex friendships (Guerrero & Chavez, 2005; Weger & Emmett, 2009); computer-mediated relationships (Ledbetter, 2010); grandchild–grandparent relationships (Mansson et al., 2010); military couples (Merolla, 2010); adult daughter–nonresidential father relationships (Miller, 2010); adult sibling relationships (Myers, 2001); and cross-cultural relationships (Yum & Canary, 2009). To date, a search of the literature demonstrates that the context of stepfamily relationships, specifically the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad, has not been investigated using RMS.

Relational Satisfaction

Relational satisfaction is “the extent to which a partner feels enjoyment, contentment, and love in a relationship” (Flora & Segrin, 2000, p. 814). Understanding relational satisfaction gives researchers valuable insight into how each member of a relationship perceives the relationship itself. Satisfaction is a complex construct, and it is influenced by a wide variety of factors. Researchers have studied satisfaction in a variety of relationships, but for the purpose of the current investigation, we will focus on satisfaction within family relationships.

Previous research has shown that several variables affect relational satisfaction within families. For example, topic avoidance negatively affected relational satisfaction between heterosexual and homosexual nonstepfamily members (Soliz, Ribarsky, Harrigan, & Tye-Williams, 2010). Finkenauer, Engels, Brantje, and Meeus (2004) noted that disclosure (an element of openness) plays a more significant role in satisfaction within vertical (parent–child) versus horizontal (parent–parent or child–child) family relationships.

Parent–child relationships have been the subject of several empirical investigations of relational satisfaction. In a study of fathers and their young adult children, Martin and Anderson (1995) found that “the most satisfying relationships are those where the interactions are enjoyable and involve showing positive affect, and the self-disclosures are honest” (p. 128). Relational satisfaction between fathers and daughters has also been examined. Punyanunt-Carter (2008) observed a positive correlation between satisfaction and conversation orientation family communication patterns in father–daughter relationships. The various types of conversation orientations affect relational satisfaction.

Research on relational satisfaction in stepfamilies finds that stepparents who share “everyday talk” with stepchildren experience greater levels of relational satisfaction (Schrodt, 2016; Schrodt, Soliz, & Braithwaite, 2008). Additionally, marital satisfaction within a stepfamily couple is affected by communication with a nonresidential parent, or ex-spouse. Communicating with the nonresidential parent, while difficult, enhances relational satisfaction for both members of the remarried couple (Schrodt, 2010). Stepmothers and their maternal experiences were specifically focused on in an exploratory study examining maternal attachment, co-parenting satisfaction, parenting competence, and overall relationship quality with stepchildren (Gosselin & Gosselin, 2016). However, the findings did not distinguish between male and female stepchildren. Most recently, Metts, Schrodt, and Braithwaite (2017) found that emotions children experience during parental divorce influence subsequent stepfamily satisfaction. While informative, these results do not provide substantive treatment of RMS and satisfaction within stepfamilies or within the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad.

Relational Maintenance and Satisfaction

In addition, RMS affect satisfaction in family relationships. Weigel and Ballard-Reisch (2008) discovered a pattern of interdependence between marriage partners because “a spouse’s perceptions of satisfaction and commitment are associated both with their own…and their partner’s…use of maintenance behaviors” (p. 223). Regardless of the definition subscribed to for relational maintenance, specific maintenance behaviors and strategies contribute to “maximizing the satisfaction level within relationships” (Guerrero & Chavez, 2005, p. 341). Dainton (2000) found that “the sheer frequency of the use of maintenance behaviors” was positively associated with relational satisfaction (p. 838). Further, Ragsdale’s (1996) study of heterosexual married couples indicated that “as satisfaction levels rose so did the incidence of relational maintenance behaviors” (p. 364). Openness, assurances, social networks, and positivity help young adults create privacy boundaries between them and their families, and these relational maintenance tactics increase relational satisfaction (Morr Serewicz, Dickson, Morrison, & Poole, 2007). Thus, relational maintenance behaviors are important to creating satisfaction within family relationships.

Studies consistently noted a positive relationship between the use of RMS and satisfaction (Anderson & Emmers-Sommer, 2006; Frisby & Sidelinger, 2009; Mansson et al., 2010; Ragsdale, 1996; Weigel & Ballard-Reisch, 1999, 2008). Yet none of the extant literature studies RMS and satisfaction within the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad. The current investigation utilizes an equity theory framework to explain the relationship between relational maintenance and satisfaction.

Equity Theory

Equity theory is derived from the principle of “distributive justice” (Deutsch, 1985), which asserts that fairness is determined by comparing partners’ input–outcome ratios. Equity occurs when the ratios of inputs and outcomes are identical, or balanced, for the two parties (Adams, 1965). When a partner receives fewer outcomes relative to inputs, they are underbenefited. When a partner receives greater outcomes relative to inputs, they are overbenefited. Research shows that underbenefited individuals can experience depression and frustration as a result of the inequity while overbenefited individuals can experience guilt or anger (Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher, Utne, & Hay, 1985). Therefore, individuals in equitable relationships will report the highest relational satisfaction as compared to those who are over- or underbenefited (Van Yperen & Buunk, 1990).

When relationships are perceived as inequitable, relational partners may enact behaviors to restore equity (Sprecher & Schwartz, 1994). Scholars have suggested several ways to restore equity, including altering one’s inputs, altering one’s outputs, psychologically distorting the inequity, leaving the relationship, influencing the partner to change their inputs or outputs, and punishing one’s partner (Adams, 1965; Sprecher & Schwartz, 1994; Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1973). Some of these strategies are less feasible or less likely to be used; especially in long-term relationships, leaving the relationship is a drastic move and is unlikely (Adams, 1965; Canary & Stafford, 1992). Additionally, maintaining psychological or cognitive distortions over time is difficult (Walster et al., 1973). Considering these limitations, individuals will most likely work to alter their own or their partner’s inputs and outputs to restore equity.

Relationship equity can serve as an important predictor of relational partners’ use of relational maintenance behaviors (Canary & Stafford, 1992). Canary and Stafford proposed that maintenance behaviors are resources and therefore can be considered inputs; furthermore, a partner’s maintenance behaviors can be considered rewards, or outcomes. Equity theory asserts that as long as the input–output ratio is relatively equitable, partners will seek to maintain their relationships (Thibaut & Kelly, 1959). For example, in a study on parent–adolescent maintenance, Vogl-Bauer, Kalbfleisch, and Beatty (1999) found that more relational maintenance was performed in equitable parent–adolescent relationships than in relationships perceived as underbenefited (see also, Messman, Canary, & Hause, 2000; Yum & Canary, 2009). In sum, research indicates a positive relationship between equity and relational maintenance.

Both equity theory and relational maintenance have been linked to relational satisfaction. Individuals in equitable relationships report higher relational satisfaction as compared to inequitable relationships (Van Yperen & Buunk, 1990). In a study of long-term marriages, Mackey and O’Brien (1995) found that equity was significantly associated with relational satisfaction. Additionally, individuals enact relational maintenance to sustain desired relational states and characteristics. As an equitable relationship is a desirable relational state which contributes to relational satisfaction, engaging in relational maintenance not only works to restore equity but also to improve relational satisfaction (Dindia & Canary, 1993).

Among the relational maintenance and satisfaction literature, a gap of knowledge exists. A lack of research focuses on the communication characteristics that influence the development of positive stepfamily relationships. RMS and the relationship between RMS and satisfaction in stepfamilies, specifically in the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad, are understudied. Equity theory helps to address this gap for several reasons. First, conceptualizations of relational maintenance are developed from social exchange theory and reciprocity. These concepts reflect the equity theory tenet of stressing the importance of balance of inputs and outcomes in relationships. RMS are used to maintain balance within the relationship. Second, equity theory is linked to satisfaction. Partners in equitable relationships report higher levels of satisfaction than those in inequitable relationships. Based on these assertions, individuals will use RMS to maintain equity in their relationships and improve relational satisfaction. Understanding how stepmothers and stepdaughters maintain equity and improve relational satisfaction can have important interpersonal implications. Thus, two research questions have been advanced:

Research Question 1: What RMS do stepmothers and stepdaughters use most frequently?

Research Question 2: What is the relationship between the use of RMS and relationship satisfaction within the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad?

Method

Sample

Participants (N = 81) were recruited from introductory communication classes at a large Midwestern university. Students were offered extra credit for participating in an online survey. Snowball sampling through the communication classes via social network websites was also used to identify additional participants. Twenty stepmothers and 61 stepdaughters participated in the study. Stepmothers ranged in age from 24 to 60 years with an average age of 40.35 years. Stepdaughters ranged in age from 18 to 66 years with an average age of 26.9 years. Of the participants, 13.3% reported living with their stepmother/stepdaughter, and participants had been in a stepmother/stepdaughter relationship between 3 months and 18 years, with an average length of relationship of 11.5 years. Additionally, over one third of participants reported seeing each other at least once per month (37%) and once per year (36%), while others reported seeing each other daily (11%), weekly (11%), and never (5%).

Measures

Two existing scales were slightly modified and combined to generate a 36-item survey instrument to assess both RMS and overall levels of satisfaction present within the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad. The relational maintenance strategy measure (RMSM; Canary & Stafford, 1992) was used to measure maintenance strategies used by stepmothers and stepdaughters in their relationships and includes five subscales: positivity (α = .95), assurance (α = .91), openness (α = .94), social networks (α = .94), and shared tasks (α = .93). The RMSM was expanded from Stafford and Canary’s (1991) original instrument to include more items to measure social networks and sharing tasks.

The wording of the RMSM items was slightly modified to apply to stepmothers and stepdaughters rather than significant others (i.e., changing all pronouns to “her” and removing the word “romantic”). Items measured five types of maintenance strategies based on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from never (1) to always (7). Subscales include positivity (i.e., “I attempt to make our interactions very enjoyable”), openness (i.e., “I encourage my stepmother/stepdaughter to disclose thoughts and feelings to me”), assurances (i.e., “I show my love for my stepmother/stepdaughter”), social networks (i.e., “I like to spend time with our same friends”), and tasks (i.e., “I help equally with tasks that need to be done”).

In addition to RMS, the second variable measured by the survey is relational satisfaction. The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988) was used to obtain this measure. The 7 instrument items (α = .93) are scored on a basic 5-point Likert-type scale. Similar to the original intentions behind the RMSM, Hendrick (1988) used the RAS to study couples in romantic relationships. However, Washburn (2009) later identified that the RAS had “potential for much wider application” and, with minor changes, could be used to assess a wide variety of groups (p. 23); therefore, original survey items that contained the term “partner” were altered for the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad (i.e., “How well does your stepmother/daughter meet your needs?” and “How much do you love your stepmother/daughter?”).

Procedures

After ensuring participants met the specific criteria (i.e., engaged in current stepdaughter–stepmother relationship), they were directed to an online survey. Participants were asked to respond to the survey while keeping a specific relationship in mind. Stepdaughters were asked to respond based on their relationship with their stepmother. Stepmothers were asked to choose one specific stepdaughter and respond to the questionnaire based on that relationship only, as (of course) stepmothers likely have different relationships with each of their stepdaughters. By responding based on a single relationship, stepmothers were able to answer more specifically and did not have to generalize the answers to all of their stepdaughters.

Results

Research Question 1: Frequency of Use of RMS

The first research question sought to understand which RMS stepmothers and stepdaughters used most frequently. Frequency was determined by comparing means. Stepmothers (n = 20) reported using shared tasks most frequently (M = 6.05, SD = 1.17), followed by positivity (M = 5.86, SD = 1.08), assurances (M = 5.63, SD = 1.42), social networks (M = 4.75, SD = 1.59), and openness (M = 4.61, SD = 1.34). Stepdaughters (n = 61) reported using positivity most frequently (M = 5.17, SD = 1.40), followed by shared tasks (M = 5.10, SD = 1.55), assurances (M = 4.04, SD = 1.73), social networks (M = 3.61, SD = 1.88), and openness (M = 3.13, SD = 1.76).

An independent samples t test was run to compare stepmothers’ and stepdaughters’ use of RMS. Stepmothers and stepdaughters significantly differed in frequency of use of all RMS: positivity, t(79) = 2.10, p < .05; openness, t(79) = 3.64, p < .05; assurances, t(79) = 3.88, p < .05; social networks, t(79) = 2.39, p < .05; and shared tasks, t(79) = 2.67, p < .05. These results indicate that stepmothers report using all RMS significantly more than stepdaughters (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviation, and Paired-Samples t Tests for Stepmothers.

Maintenance Strategy	n	M	SD	Positivity	Shared Task	Assurances	Social Network
Positivity	20	5.89	1.06
Shared task	20	6.10	1.15	−0.91
Assurances	19	5.63	1.42	0.90	−2.23*
Social network	19	4.75	1.59	2.96*	−3.64*	2.59*
Openness	20	4.70	1.36	3.45*	−4.18	−3.06*	−0.37

*Significant at the .05 level.

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to test a model rank ordering the degree to which RMS are used by stepmothers. A test of the linear order of maintenance strategies was significant for stepmothers, f(1, 18) = 30.25, p < .05, partial η² = .544. Follow-up paired samples t tests indicate stepmothers use shared tasks, positivity, and assurances significantly more than social networks and openness (see Table 1). A test of the model rank ordering the degree to which RMS are used by stepdaughters was significant, f(1, 60) = 120.48, p < .05, partial η² = .668. Follow-up t tests indicate stepdaughters use positivity and shared tasks significantly more than assurances, social networks, and openness. Analysis indicates an identical model of RMS use for stepmothers and stepdaughters with positivity and shared tasks being used most frequently, followed by assurances, social networks, and openness. The rank order of means for stepmothers and stepdaughters is essentially the same. The linear test indicates that each group has the same ordering of strategies; however, the means for each group differ.

Research Question 2: RMS and Relational Satisfaction

For both stepmothers and stepdaughters, relational satisfaction is significantly correlated with positivity, stepmothers, r(20) = .74, p < .05, stepdaughters, r(61) = .79, p < .05; assurances, stepmothers, r(20) = .60, p < .05, stepdaughters, r(61) = .76, p < .05; and shared tasks, stepmothers, r(20) = .45, p < .05, stepdaughters, r(61) = .49, p < .05. Additionally, openness, r(61) = .56, p < .05, and social networks, r(61) = .69, p < .05, significantly predict relational satisfaction for stepdaughters, but not for stepmothers. Results suggest that the more positivity, assurances, and shared tasks stepmothers and stepdaughters reported using, the higher their reported relational satisfaction. Furthermore, the more stepdaughters reported using openness and social networks, the higher their reported satisfaction levels.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine the specific use of RMS within stepmother–stepdaughter dyads and the relationship of RMS usage to assessments of relational satisfaction. The extent to which positivity, openness, assurances, shared tasks, and social networks affect relational satisfaction within a challenging and ambiguous relational context was identified and measured.

Referring back to the first research question regarding reported frequency of use of RMS, the results of this analysis reveal that stepmothers use shared tasks most often to engage in relational maintenance with their stepdaughters. Stepmothers report similar moderate levels of use of positivity and assurances and lower levels of social networks and openness. Stepdaughters’ reported frequencies were similar, in that their top two RMS were also positivity and shared tasks, although stepdaughters reported positivity more frequently than shared tasks. Stepdaughters also reported moderate use of assurances and lower levels of social networks and openness. Stepmothers’ use of shared tasks and stepdaughters’ use of positivity were statistically significant, indicating a substantial reliance on their preferred RMS—shared tasks for stepmothers and positivity for stepdaughters. One of the more compelling findings is the significant difference found in self-reporting of actual RMS use—with stepmothers consistently reporting that they use all five RMS more often than stepdaughters.

The theoretical implications of these findings indicate inconsistencies with previous related research and highlight a concern regarding equity theory. While there are no existing studies that directly address RMS in stepfamilies, several previous studies mention the importance of openness in positive stepfamily functioning and improved stepmother–stepdaughter relationships (Crohn, 2010; Golish, 2000, 2003; Schrodt et al., 2008). The current findings contradict these studies to some extent, with both stepmothers and stepdaughters consistently rating openness as the least frequently used RMS. This finding could be interpreted one of two ways: (1) Openness is simply not as important as the previous literature indicates or (2) openness is still important; it is simply underutilized by the current sample of stepmothers and stepdaughters. Regardless, communication researchers must broaden their approach to look beyond the benefits of openness and carefully evaluate the merits of alternative maintenance strategies to positive stepfamily functioning and improved stepmother–stepdaughter relationships.

Examining the frequency of RMS use results through the lens of equity theory also highlights a noteworthy element. Stepmothers reported significantly higher frequencies of use for all five RMS than stepdaughters. This indicates a perceptual discrepancy between the two groups. It is logical to assume that these perceptions of high RMS use by stepmothers could potentially lead to feelings of inequity within the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad. Stepmothers may perceive themselves as engaging in more relational work than their stepdaughters, resulting in sentiments of underbenefitedness.

From a practical perspective, these findings represent preliminary and valuable insight into an understudied relationship, applying a very straightforward assessment of relational maintenance. The previously demonstrated utility of RMS within other understudied relational contexts supports its application and utility within the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad. The results clearly demonstrate that positivity, assurances, and shared tasks are significantly related to relational satisfaction for stepmothers and stepdaughters as well as the most often reported by both. These three RMS represent “what works” for both members of the dyad in cultivating a positive relationship and achieving higher levels of relational satisfaction. Similarly, these results provide a clear direction for more directed future research efforts into effective RMS within the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad.

The focus of the second research question, the relationship of RMS to relational satisfaction, produced results that were, at face value, more aligned with one another. Both stepmothers and stepdaughters indicated a significant positive relationship between relational satisfaction and positivity, assurances, and shared tasks. Despite these similarities, a key difference was observed. Stepdaughters indicated that both openness and social networks (RMS that were reported with the two lowest frequencies by both members of the dyad) were crucial to relational satisfaction, whereas this was not significant for stepmothers.

Theoretically, these findings fill a gap in the existing body of research and solidify the importance of including some measure of relational quality or relational satisfaction when examining RMS in interpersonal relationships. Previous research calls for more attention to the specific communication characteristics within stepfamilies that generate positive bonds (Golish, 2003). Identifying the specific types of RMS that predict relational satisfaction within the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad provides data that respond to this gap in the existing research. Additionally, assessing relational satisfaction can be accomplished relatively quickly and easily with economical scale items. If this had not been added to the survey instrument, a less nuanced perspective of RMS within the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad would have been reported.

The relevant practical considerations related to these findings highlight an opportunity for stepmothers to further engage with their stepdaughters. Both social networks and openness were reported with low levels of actual frequency but were also significantly important to stepdaughters in predicting relational satisfaction. Counselors, family communication scholars, and most importantly stepmothers can and should capitalize on this valuable insight into stepdaughter’s perceptions of how a satisfying relationship with their stepmother could be successfully cultivated using more obscure and underrated maintenance strategies.

Research should continue to understand the unique dynamics in stepfamilies and serve as a resource for empirically based counseling interventions (Gold, 2017). Counselors should consider the unique culture of families and design interventions that are appropriate to the family culture (Perron, 2018). In family conflict and times of family stress, individuals can only control their own behavior. Similarly, to counsel clients ethically, counselors must handle relational issues in an individualized context, and individual family members have the right to disavow the existence of a family issue (Gold, 2018). Therefore, in order to improve relationships, individuals should be counseled to focus on their own communication and behaviors and use communication strategies, such as RMS, to work on improving their relationships and relational satisfaction. Specifically, this research suggests that stepmothers should be counseled to model and encourage openness in their relationships with stepdaughters. Finally, parents should strive to demonstrate care, warmth, and positive affection to their children, as these behaviors are associated with child-enacted pro-social behaviors (Perron, 2018). Care, affection, and warmth can be demonstrated both verbally and nonverbally through a variety of RMS (e.g., positivity, shared tasks, openness). Practitioners should educate clients on RMS and collaborate with clients to develop skills in using these strategies to enhance relational satisfaction in the stepmother–stepdaughter relationship.

Limitations and Future Research

Although this research has several theoretical and practical implications, several limitations must be noted. The survey did not include shared activities, which is sometimes grouped with tasks but in other instances is considered a distinct RMS strategy by itself. Although some RMS items mentioned activities, the survey questions did not uniquely mention doing activities together as the dyad. Thus, the data collected regarding shared activities could have been more specific. Other limitations to the study are related to the nature of the sample. Only 25% of the sample consisted of stepmothers. Ideally, the sample would have had more input from stepmothers and been more evenly divided between stepmothers and stepdaughters. Stepmothers are clearly the more understudied of the dyad.

The size of the combined sample (N = 81) generates a problem of statistical power for the analyses presented. While Type I error is not impacted, the problem of Type II error is increased with a smaller sample size as well as larger confidence intervals for any particular statistical estimate. What this means is that a nonsignificant finding may be the result of low power. The particular statistical estimate has less accuracy due to the smaller sample size, and the size of the effect should be interpreted cautiously.

With an understanding of the current limitations, scholars should endeavor to recruit a larger and more diverse sample in future studies. Ideally, future studies of this dyad will be evenly balanced between stepmothers and stepdaughters. Limiting the sample to matched stepmother–stepdaughter dyads who both complete the survey could also yield intriguing and more explanatory results. As always, longitudinal studies would be a welcome addition to this growing body of research, to measure how the use of RMS changes over the course of the stepmother–stepdaughter relationship lifecycle.

Further research may be necessary to compare the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad to other relational dyads including mother–daughter, stepmother–stepson, and so on. Comparing the dyads may result in intriguing similarities, or differences, in their use of RMS. Future studies could reveal the uniqueness of the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad or discover that the use of RMS is consistent across various dyads, regardless of the relationship. Is the stepmother–stepdaughter relationship really such a unique dyad, or is it more similar to other dyads than we think?

One variable to incorporate into future studies is the perception of received RMS. The current results clearly indicate what stepmothers and stepdaughters report using the most, but what RMS do the stepmothers and stepdaughters think the other half of the dyad is using? Measuring this variable, and its influence on satisfaction, could provide valuable information for members of this understudied interpersonal context.

Concluding Remarks

The primary goal of this investigation was to apply a well-known and valid measure of relational maintenance to the stepmother–stepdaughter dyad and make concrete connections between RMS and relational satisfaction. Due to the dearth of research on relational maintenance within stepfamilies, the results of this investigation provide much-needed insight into a particularly challenged dyad within the stepfamily unit. The practical implications of these findings are perhaps the most immediately useful to practitioners, scholars, and stepfamilies, as they demonstrate clear evidence of which particular RMS are being used by stepmothers and stepdaughters to navigate an improved relationship with one another.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Anna R. Herrman

References

Adams

(1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.2307/2070758

Alegria

(2010). Relationship challenges and relationship maintenance activities following disclosure of transsexualism. Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing, 17, 909–916. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2850.2010.01624.x

Amato

P. R.

(1990). Dimensions of the family environment as perceived by children: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52, 613–620. doi:10.2307/352928

Anderson

T. L.

Emmers-Sommer

T. M.

(2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in online romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 57, 153–172. doi:10.1080/10510970600666834

Canary

D. J.

Stafford

(1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243–267. doi:10.1080/03637759209376268

Clingempeel

Brand

Ievoli

(1984). Stepparent-stepchild relationships in stepmother and stepfather families: A multimethod study. Family Relations, 33, 465–473. doi:10.2307/584718

Clingempeel

Segal

(1986). Stepparent-stepchild relationships and the psychological adjustment of children in stepmother and stepfather families. Child Development, 57, 474–484. doi:10.2307/1130602

Crohn

H. M.

(2006). Five styles of positive stepmothering from the perspective of young adult stepdaughters. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 46, 119–134. doi:10.1300/J087v46n01_07

Crohn

H. M.

(2010). Communication about sexuality with mothers and stepmothers from the perspective of young adult daughters. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 51, 348–361. doi:10.1080/10502551003652108

10.

Dailey

Hampel

Roberts

(2010). Relational maintenance in on-again/off-again relationships: An assessment of how relational maintenance, uncertainty, and commitment vary by relationship type and status. Communication Monographs, 77, 75–101. doi:10.1080/03637750903514292

11.

Dainton

(1993). The myths and misconceptions of the stepmother identity: Descriptions and prescriptions for identity management. Family Relations, 42, 93–98. doi:10.2307/584928

12.

Dainton

(2000). Maintenance behaviors, expectations for maintenance, and satisfaction: Linking comparison levels to relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 827–842. doi:10.1177/0265407500176007

13.

Dainton

Stafford

(1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relationship type, partner similarity, and sex differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 255–272. doi:10.1177/026540759301000206

14.

Dainton

Stafford

Canary

D. J.

(1994). Maintenance strategies and physical affection as predictors of love, liking, and satisfaction in marriage. Communication Reports, 7, 88–98. doi:10.1080/08934219409367591

15.

Dedaic

M. N.

(2001). Stepmother as electron: Positioning the stepmother in a family dinner conversation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5, 372–400. doi:10.1111/1467-9481.00155

16.

DeGreeff

B. L.

Platt

C. A.

(2016). Green-eyed (step) monsters: Parental figures’ perceptions of jealousy in the stepfamily. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 57, 112–132. doi:10.1080/10502556.2015.1127876

17.

Denes

Dhillon

Speer

(2017). Relational maintenance strategies during the post-sex time interval. Communication Quarterly, 65, 307–332. doi:1080/01463373.2016.1245206

18.

Deutsch

(1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

19.

Dindia

(2003). Definitions and perspectives on relational maintenance communication. In Canary

D. J.

Dainton

(Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 1–28). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

20.

Dindia

Canary

D. J.

(1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on maintaining relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 163–173. doi:10.1177/026540759301000201

21.

Fine

M. A.

Kurdek

L. A.

(1992). The adjustment of adolescents in stepfather and stepmother families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 725–736. doi:10.2307/353156

22.

Finkenauer

Engels

R. C. M. E.

Brantje

S. J. T.

Meeus

(2004). Disclosure and relationship satisfaction in families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 195–209. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.0013.x.i1

23.

Flora

Segrin

(2000). Relational development in dating couples: Implications for relational satisfaction and loneliness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 811–825. doi:10.1177/0265407500176006

24.

Frisby

Sidelinger

(2009). Parents’ post-divorce relationships: Maintenance with former in-laws. Ohio Communication Journal, 47, 77–95.

25.

Gallardo

Mellon-Gallardo

(2007). Stepmothering and identity: A co-constructed narrative. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 48, 125–139. doi:10.1300/J087v48v01_07

26.

Ganong

L. H.

Coleman

(1994). Remarried family relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Gold

J. M.

(2017). Assessment of stepfamily marriages: Implications for family counselors. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 25, 322–326. doi:10.1177/1066480717732171

28.

Gold

J. M.

(2018). Recognizing and resolving ethical issues: In counseling stepfamilies. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 26, 73–76. doi:10.1177/1066480718754768

29.

Golish

T. D.

(2000). Is openness always better? Exploring the role of topic avoidance, satisfaction, and parenting styles of stepparents. Communication Quarterly, 48, 137–158. doi:10.1080/01463370009385587

30.

Golish

T. D.

(2003). Stepfamily communication strengths: Understanding the ties that bind. Human Communication Research, 29, 41–80. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00831.x

31.

Golish

T. D.

Caughlin

J. P.

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

32.

Gosselin

(2010). Individual and family factors related to psychosocial adjustment in stepmother families with adolescents. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 51, 108–123. doi:10.1080/10502550903455174

33.

Gosselin

(2016). Women’s maternal experiences in Canadian stepfamilies: An exploratory study. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 57, 389–410. doi:10.1080/10502556.2016.1196848

34.

Guerrero

L. K.

Chavez

A. M.

(2005). Relational maintenance in cross-sex friendships characterized by different types of romantic intent: An exploratory study. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 339–359. doi:10.1080/10570310500305471

35.

Haas

S. M.

Stafford

(2005). Maintenance behaviors in same-sex and marital relationships: A matched sample comparison. The Journal of Family Communication, 5, 43–60. doi:10.1207/s15327698jfc0501_3

36.

Hatfield

Traupmann

Sprecher

Utne

Hay

(1985). Equity in close relationships. In Ickes

(Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 91–117). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5044-9

37.

Hendrick

S. S.

(1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 93–98. doi:10.2307/352430

38.

Ledbetter

(2010). Assessing the measurement invariance of relational maintenance behavior when face-to-face and online. Communication Research Reports, 27, 30–37. doi:10.1080/08824090903526620

39.

Mackey

O’Brien

(1995). Lasting marriages: Men and women growing together. Westport, CT: Praeger.

40.

Mansson

Myers

Turner

(2010). Relational maintenance behaviors in the grandchild-grandparent relationship. Communication Research Reports, 27, 68–79. doi:10.1080/08824090903526521

41.

Martin

M. M.

Anderson

C. M.

(1995). The father-young adult relationship: Interpersonal motives, self-disclosure, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 43, 119–130. doi:10.1080/01463379509369963

42.

Merolla

(2010). Relational maintenance during military deployment: Perspectives of wives of deployed US soldiers. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 4–26. doi:10.1080/00909880903483557

43.

Messman

S. J.

Canary

D. J.

Hause

K. S.

(2000). Motives to remain platonic, equity, and the use of maintenance strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 67–94. doi:10.1177/0265407500171004

44.

Metts

S. M.

Schrodt

Braithwaite

D. O.

(2017). Stepchildren’s communicative and emotional journey from divorce to remarriage: Predictors of stepfamily satisfaction. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 58, 29–43. doi:10.1080/10502556.2016.1257904

45.

Miller

(2010). Young adult daughters’ accounts of relationships with nonresidential fathers: Relational damage, repair, and maintenance. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 51, 293–309. doi:10.1080/10502551003651985

46.

Morr Serewicz

Dickson

F. C.

Morrison

J. H. T. A.

Poole

(2007). Family privacy orientation, relational maintenance, and family satisfaction in young adults’ family relationships. Journal of Family Communication, 7, 123–142. doi:10.1080/15267430701221578

47.

Myers

S. A.

(2001). Relational maintenance behaviors in the sibling relationship. Communication Quarterly, 49, 19–34. doi:10.1080/01463370109385612

48.

Pace

G. T.

Shafer

Jensen

T. M.

Larson

J. H.

(2015). Stepparenting issues and relationship quality: The role of clear communication. Journal of Social Work, 15, 24–44. doi:10.1177/1468017313504508

49.

Parker

(2011, January 13). A portrait of stepfamilies. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from http://pewsocialtrends.org/2011/01/13/a-portrait-of-stepfamilies

50.

Perron

N. C. D.

(2018). The four Cs of parenting: Applying key counseling concepts for raising healthy children across countries, cultures, and families. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 26, 48–55. doi:10.1177/1066480717753014

51.

Punyanunt-Carter

(2008). Father-daughter relationships: Examining family communication patterns and interpersonal communication satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 25, 23–33. doi:10.1080/088240900701831750

52.

Ragsdale

J. D.

(1996). Gender, satisfaction level, and use of relational maintenance strategies in marriage. Communication Monographs, 63, 354–369. doi:10.1080/03637759609376399

53.

Schrodt

(2008). Sex differences in stepchildren’s reports of stepfamily functioning. Communication Reports, 21, 46–58. doi:10.1080/08934210802019462

54.

Schrodt

(2010). Coparental communication with nonresidential parents as a predictor of couples’ relational satisfaction and mental health in stepfamilies. Western Journal of Communication, 74, 484–503. doi:10.1080/10570314.2010.512282

55.

Schrodt

(2016). Relational frames as mediators of everyday talk and relational satisfaction in stepparent-stepchild relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 217–236. doi:10.1177/0265407514568751

56.

Schrodt

Braithwaite

D. O.

(2014). No longer understudied, but still misunderstood. Expanding communication research on stepfamily relationships. In Floyd

Morman

M. T.

(Eds.), Widening the family circle: New research on family communication (2nd ed., pp. 171–189). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483387956.n11

57.

Schrodt

Soliz

Braithwaite

D. O.

(2008). A social relations model of everyday talk and relational satisfaction in stepfamilies. Communication Monographs, 75, 190–217. doi:10.1080/03637750802023163

58.

Shujja

Malik

N. I.

Adil

Atta

(2017). Stepmother rejection and psychological maladjustment among stepdaughters: Mediating role of social competence. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 27, 17–29.

59.

Soliz

Ribarsky

Harrigan

M. M.

Tye-Williams

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

60.

Speer

R. B.

Trees

A. R.

(2007). The push and pull of stepfamily life: The contribution of stepchildren’s autonomy and connection-seeking behaviors to role development in stepfamilies. Communication Studies, 58, 377–394. doi:10.1080/10510970701648590

61.

Sprecher

Schwartz

(1994). Equity and balance in the exchange of contributions in close relationships. In Lerner

M. J.

Mikula

(Eds.), Entitlement and the affectional bond: Justice in close relationships (pp. 11–41). New York, NY: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0984-8_2

62.

Stafford

Canary

D. J.

(1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 217–242. doi:10.1177/0265407591082004

63.

Thibaut

J. W.

Kelly

H. H.

(1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley. doi:10.4324/9781315135007

64.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Living arrangements of children 2004. Washington, DC: Arthur.

65.

Van Yperen

N. W.

Buunk

B. P.

(1990). A longitudinal study of equity and satisfaction in intimate relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 287–309. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420200403

66.

Vogl-Bauer

Kalbfleisch

P. J.

Beatty

M. J.

(1999). Perceived equity, satisfaction and relational maintenance strategies in parent-adolescent dyads. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 27–49. doi:10.1023/A:1021668424027

67.

Walster

Berscheid

Walster

G. W.

(1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60057-x

68.

Washburn

I. J.

(2009). Rasch modeling in family studies: Modification of the Relationship Assessment Scale (Master’s Thesis). Oregon State University. Retrieved from https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/5425kc78f

69.

Weger

Emmett

(2009). Romantic intent, relationship uncertainty, and relationship maintenance in young adults’ cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 26, 964–988. doi:10.1177/0265407509347937

70.

Weigel

D. J.

Ballard-Reisch

D. S.

(1999). The influence of marital duration on the use of relationship maintenance behaviors. Communication Reports, 12, 59–70. doi:10.1080/08934219909367711

71.

Weigel

D. J.

Ballard-Reisch

D. S.

(2008). Relational maintenance, satisfaction, and commitment in marriages: An actor-partner analysis. Journal of Family Communication, 8, 212–229. doi:10.1080/15267430802182522

72.

Yum

Canary

(2009). Cultural differences in equity theory predictions of relational maintenance strategies. Human Communication Research, 35, 384–406. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2959.2009.01356.x

Relational Maintenance Strategies and Satisfaction in the Stepmother–Stepdaughter Dyad

Abstract

Keywords

Literature Review

Stepmother–Stepdaughter Relationship

RMS

Relational Satisfaction

Relational Maintenance and Satisfaction

Equity Theory

Method

Sample

Measures

Procedures

Results

Research Question 1: Frequency of Use of RMS

Research Question 2: RMS and Relational Satisfaction

Discussion

Limitations and Future Research

Concluding Remarks

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References