PERCEIVED PARENTAL ROLES IN STEPFAMILIES:

IMPLICATIONS FOR FAMILY COHESION AND FUNCTlONlNG

Jennifer S. Kennett

B.A., Simon Fraser University, 1994

THESIS SUBMlllED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Faculîy of Education

O Jennifer S. Kennetî 2001

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

April2001

All rights reserved. This work may no1 be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. igitlons and AcqWionset ?rBi ographii Ssnricss services bibliographiques

The author has grauted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence ailoWmg the exc1usive permettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, toan, distniute or sel1 reproduk, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thése sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/flm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni &s extraits substantiels may be pninted or ohenvise de de-cine doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. zu1tosisation. 1he purpose of this sludy was to examine the effects of perceived parental roles and sslected family variables: length of marriage, length of time as a single parent famiiy, age of children, gender of children on stepfarnily functioning. The sample consisted of 120 participants from 33 stepfamilies. Data were collected from al1 family members by questionnaires including the Dyadic Adjustment

Scale, the Farnily Environment Scale, the Parenting Roles and Behaviours

Questionnaire, and several demographic variables.

The results showed that perceived parenting roles and behaviours tended to follow gender stereotypes. Mothers and fathers mostly acted according to conventional expectations. Family mernbers tended to be congruent in their perceptions of the parental roles. Neither length of time in the stepfarnily nor length of time in a single parent family was significantly correlated with family functioning. Older stepchildren perceived stepfamily functioning in a more negative fashion. Both stepparents and biologieal parents were dso perceived as engaging in less parenting behaviours with older children. Finally, stepfamily functioning was significantly predicted by couple functioning, gender of the eldest stepchild, and level of agreement among family members on parenting values.

Implications of these results and suggestions for future research are discussed. This work is dedicated to rny children:

Kerowyn, Kya, Sterling and Theona ACKNOWCEDGEMENTS

My first thanks must be to the participants who opened their homes and shared their experiences with me. The time and information they gifted to me helped me build a solid foundation for future therapeutic work and research. Iwill always especially treasure the narratives they shared after completing their questionnaires.

I would also like to express my thanks to several indMduals without whom this thesis would have never been completed. To my husband, Kurt Kennett, who offered his support in the forrn of constructive feedback and in countless hours of childcare, as well as the constancy of his love and belief in the value of rny work. To Dr. Adam Horvath for his guidance, his willingness to letting me find my own path, and his patience with my need to combine my graduate program with a family. To Dr. Lucy LeMare for her thoughtful cornments on my written work. To Dr. Beth Havercamp for her careful review and questioning of my research. I must also extend my hearîfelt gratitude to Reo Audette both for the many hours he dedicated to helping me complete my statistical analyses, and for his wry sense of humour that helped keep me sane while I completed them.

Special thanks goes to Denise Evans and Shelagh Huston for their willingness to share their time and their keen intelligence. Their contributions added significant polish and depth to rny own thaughts. I would iinally tike to acknowiedge the significant contribution of rny large, and ever expanding, family bramble. If not for the kaleidoscape of experiences I shared as a member of various stepfamily constellations, I would never have been inspired to leam the narrative of the human psyche. TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL ii

ABSTRACT iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER III: Methodology

Participants

Consent

Procedure

Instrumentation

Demographic Questionnaire

Parenting Roles and Behaviours Questionnaire

Dyadic Adjustment Scale

Family Environment Scale

Data Analysis

Dependent Variables

Independent Variables vii

CHAPTER III: RESULTS

Demographics of the Total Sample

Fathers

Mothers

Children

Statistical Procedures

Descriptive Analyses of the General Factors

Fathers and Mothers

Biological Parents and Stepparents

Biological Fathers and Biological Mothers

Stepfathers and Stepmothers

Biological Father's Attributions of Stepmother

Stepmother's Attributions of Biological Father

Biological Mother's Attributions of Stepfather

Stepfathets Attributions of Biological Mother

Children's Perceptions of Fathers and Mothers

Children's Perceptions of Biobgical Parents and Stepparents

Children's Perceptions of Biological Fathers and Mother

Children's Perceptions of Stepfathers and Stepmothers

Male and Female Children

General Trends viii

Descriptive Analyses of the Behavioural Components

Age of the Stepchild

Length of Time in Current Family

Length of Time in a Single Parent Family

Family Agreement as a Measure of Family Functioning

Predictor Variables for Family Functioning in Stepfamilies

CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION

Limitations.

Parenting Values and Behaviours.

Family Variables.

Family Agreement.

Predictors of Family Functioning.

Conclusions.

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

Appendix A: University Ethical Approval Letters

Appendix B: Information Shed

Appendix C: Information Sheet for Chiklren

Appendix O: Consent Form Appendix E: Questionnaire Package - Biological Parent Form Appendix F: Questionnaire Package - Stepparent Form Appendix G: Questionnaire Package - Child Form Appendix H: Glossary of Key Ternis Appendix 1: Scale Reliability Results 149

Appendix J: Sum of Squared Differences Equation 151

Appendix K: Demographics Tables 155

Appendix L: lnferential Statistics Results Tables 159

Appendix M: Fisher's Z Transformation for Dependent Samples 165

Appendix N: Research Questions not included for Lack of Power 167 UST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1 : Comparison of the current sample with the Moos and Moos sample .. 35

Figure 2: Comparison of the current sample to the Spanier normative sample .. 36 Figure 3: Comparison of Fathers and Motherç on General Parenting Factors ... 38

Figure 4: Comparison of Biological Parents and Stepparents on General

Parenting Factors ...... 39 Figure 5: Comparison of Biological Fathers and Mothers on General Parenting

Factors ...... 41

Figure 6: Comparison of Stepfathers and Stepmothers on General Parenting

Factors ...... 42

Figure 7: Comparison of Biological Fathers and Steprnothers on General

Parenting Factors ...... 43

Figure 8: Biological Fathers ratings of Stepmothers versus Stepmothers ratings

of Self...... 45

Figure 9: Stepmothers rating of Biological Fathers versus Biological Fathers ratings of Self ...... 46

Figure 10: Biological Mothers ratings of Stepfathers versus Stepfathers ratings of

Self ...... 48

Figure 1 1 : Stepfathers ratings of Biological Mothers versus Biological Mothers

ratings of Self ...... 49

Figure 12: Comparison of Biological Mothers and Stepfathers on General

Parenting Factors ...... 50 Figure 13: Children's Ratings of Fathers and Mothers on General Parenting

Factors ...... 52

Figure 14: Children's Ratings of Biological Parents and Stepparents on General

Parenting Factors...... 53

Figure 15: Children's Ratings of Biological Fathers Compared to Biological

Mothers on General Parenting Factors ...... 54

Figure 16: Children's Ratings of Biological Fathers Compared to Biological

Fathers Ratings of Self ...... 56

Figure 17: Children's Ratings of Biological Mothers Compared to Biological

Mothers Ratings of Self ...... 57

Figure 18: Children's Ratings of Stepfathers Compared to Stepmothers on

General Parenting Factors ...... 59

Figure 19: Children's Ratings of Stepfathers Compared to Stepfathers Ratings of

...... Self ...... 60

Figure 20: Children's Ratings of Stepmothers Compared to Steprnothers Ratings

of Self ...... *....,...... 61

Figure 21 : Male and Female Children's Perceptions of Biological Fathers and

Mothers on General Parenting Factors ...... 63

Figure 22: Male and Female Children's Perceptions.of Stepfathers and

Stepmothers on General Parenting Factors ...... 64

Figure 23: Fathers and Mothers Self Assessrnents of Parenting Behaviours ..... 68

Figure 24: Biological and Stepparents Self Assessments of Parenting

Behaviours ...... 69 Figure 25: Biological Fathers. Stepfathers. Biological Mothers and Stepmothers

Self Assessrnents of Parenting Behaviours...... $70

Figure 26: Children's Evaluations of Fathers'. Mothers'. Biological Parents' and

Stepparents' Parenting Behaviours ...... 73

Figure 27: Children's Evaluations of Biological Fathers'. Biological Mothers'.

Stepfathers' and Stepmothers' Parenting Behaviours ...... 74

Figure 28: Male and Female Children's Perceptions of Biological Parents and Stepparents Parenting Behaviours ...... 75

Figure 29: Male and Female Children's Perceptions of Biological Fathers and

Biological Mothers Parenting Behaviours ...... 76

Figure 30: Male and Female Children's Perceptions of Stepfathers and

Stepmothers Parenting Behaviours...... 77

Figure 31 : Age of the Child plotted against Child FES Scores ...... 79 Figure 32: Agreement on Stepparents Parenting Behaviours plotted against FES

Scores ...... 83

Table 1-1 : DAS Reliability Data Cornparisons ...... 150

Table 1-2: FES Reliability Data Cornparisons ...... 150 Table 1-3: PRBQ Reliability Data ...... 150

Table K-1: Comparison of DAS and FES Scores for Married and Cohabiting

Couples ...... 156

Table K-2: Comparison of Married and Cohabiting Couples on Demographic

Variables ...... 157

Table K-3: Demographics for Fathers and Mothers ...... 158 xiii

Table L-1 : FES Normative Data Compared to Current Sample Data ...... 160

Table L-2: DAS Normative Data Compared to Current Sample Data ...... 160 Table L-3: Predictor Variables Correlation Matrix ...... 161

Table L-4:Regression Results ...... 163 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

The role of the modern stepparent is difficult because there are few social

role expectations associated with the stepparent role. The roles that do exist tend to be negative stereotypes such as "abusive stepfather", and "wicked stepmother", or they are unrealistically roseate, assuming that marriage confers parental status (Wald, 1981). Social role theory postulates that lack of clarity in a social role may create role strain because individuals are unable to ascertain what is appropriate behaviour (Secord & Backman, 1974). This is particularly true when individuals enter new social rotes, as happens in the stepfamily.

The stepfamily is not a new family form. Life expectancy was much lower

before World War II, and particula!ly before the turn of the century.

Consequently, it was common for children to !ose a biological parent, and then

be raised in a stepfamily. In 1921, 17.8% of remarried individuals were widowed

prior to remarriage, whereas only 1.5% of al1 people who remarried were

previously divorced (Vital Statistics, 1921). However, the concept of "nuclear

family" was not yet the nom. The expectation that Mom and Dad were the only

ones who had a hand in raising the children was not widely accepted, and so the

pressure associated with societal expectations concerning raising a family was

less. Children were often raised in an extended family setting. Consequently, the

presence of aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, and other community

members often mitigated the stresses of the addition of a new parental figure. However, in the late 1940's and the 1950is, the concept of the famiiy was revised. The extended family dectined in prominence and the nuclear family took its place as the cultural yardstick of the family. Interestingly, an aspect of this change involved how governmenis classified families. Before the 1941 census, a

'family' was classified as ali members of a household (Che-Alford, Allan, & Butlin,

1994). In 1941, the Canadian Census changed their definition of families from all relatives wititin one household to only members of the immediate famiiy, despite the fact that other relatives might be financially dependent on the head of the household. In addition, the life expectancy improved so the stepfamily dedined as a common family form. In the 1950's and 1960Js,9 out of 10 marriages involved never-before married persons (Che-Alford et. al., 1994). Finally, more nuclear family units moveâ away from ttieir extended family primarily for economic reasons.

Since the 19701s,divorce rates have risen dramatically. In the 1995 statistics, 15.1% of al1 individuals were divorced prior to remarriage in 1995; compared to only 1.25% who were widowed (Statistics Canada, 1998). This has led to stepfarnilies once again becoming a significant portion of al1 families raising children. However, the stepfamilies of the latter half of the 20~century are qualitatively different from the historicai stepfamily. Issues of conflicted Ioyalty and role strain are much more salient because divorce, rather than death, has been the more typical precursor to remarriage. For the parent, ties to the former partner usually cannot be completely severed. The children are often expected to cope with multiple residences; two or more sets of rules of behaviour; a broad range of ernotional experiences such as grief, anger, even guilt over the farnily separation; and sornetirnes even the rote of go-between for their biological parents.

Cornpounding the potential turmoil within the farnily system are the cultural views on divorce and stepfamilies. Our culture includes nurnerous narratives that highlight the negative aspects of stepfamilies and step-parenthood in particular.

Her "wicked stepmother and cruel stepsistersntonnent Cinderella. Snow White's evil jealous steprnother plots to kill her. Hansel and Gretel are sent off into the woods by their steprnother and aie nearly eaten by a witch. Harnlet's stepfather rnurders his biological father. These stories may reinforce the stereotype that stepparents are sinister and harrnful (Wald, 1981)

Furthetmore, the language used to describe divorce often irnplies failure.

Children come frorn "broken homes". Adults have suffered "filed marriagesn.

The terrn "stepchild" is often synonymous with "neglected". Even substitutes for the word "stepfarnily", such as "reconstituted" or "second", irnply that the families are patched together or tess worthy than biologically intact farnilies. Add to this the lanyuage that is used ta describe biologically intact families: "normal",

"natural", and "first". The tanguage may play a role in undermining to the efforts of the family systern to becorne a singular, cohesive unit.

Interestingly, mass media, and television in particular, rnay have swung the pendulum in the opposite direction, and created a conflicting set of cultural myîhs. Shows such as The Brady Bunch modeled the rnyth that 'instant love' and

'instant farnily' are what can realistically be expected in a newly formed stepfamily. They suggested that remarriage confers parental status. The cultural assumption that has blossomed out of the role models provided by Hollywood may have led to stepparents experiencing considerable social pressure to assume the same kind of role as the biological parent (Newman, 1994; Ganong and Coleman, 1997; Claxton-Oldfield and Butler, 1998). This expectation can hamper development of genuine relationships in the stepfamily (Mills, 1984).

What does the modern adaptive stepfamily look like? Only recently has the question received much attention in the clinical and research literature. lnherent in much of the empirical work undertaken in the past 35 years is the bias that families that do not conform to the "norm" are at minimum poorly adjusted and at worst are deviant or pathological (Visher & Visher, 1988; Esses &

Campbell, 1984). Before the 1980s, divorce and remarriage were often synonymous with psychological harm in much of the research literature. For instance, Thies (1977) states in her opening sentence, "Remarriage is a potential crisis for children, comparable to divorce (p. 59)". Stepfamilies were compared to biological families, and they nearly always came up short. The 'problem- orientation' or 'deficit-comparison model', as it has corne to be known, assumes that structural variations from the 'intact' nuclear family produce conflict within the farnily and undesirable effects in children (Ganong & Coleman, 1984). Even now, such a perspective continues to be endorsed by a considerable segment of the research community. The nuclear family has been used as a comparison gtoup in neariy half the studies reported since 1983 (Ganong & Coleman, 1987). In the early 1980s, many researchers began to question how appropriate it was to compare stepfamilies and biologically intact families (Furstenberg, 1980;

Crosbie-Burnett, 1984, 1989; Anderson & White, 1986; White & Booth, 1985;

Ambert, 1986). Were they companng apples and oranges? Problem-oriented research seemed to have failed to provide useful insight into the challenges that stepfamilies faced. Therefore, researchers began looking at what stepfamilies were like as a distinct social system.

Many researchers have moved towards an examination of the stepfamily as a unique family form. In both theoretical and empirical work, there has been

greater emphasis on teasing out the various aspects of stepfamily development,

adjustment, and structure. Research has focused on a wide range of issues.

Stepfamilies have been examined in terms of dimensions such as marital quality

in simple versus complex stepfamilies (Clingempeel, 1981), and those with and

without child-focused problems (Brown, Green & Druckman, 1990). Researchers

have also explored what factors influence stepparent and child adjustment in

stepfamilies (Clingempeel, Brand, & levoli, 1984; MacDonald & DeMaris, 1996;

Clingempeel & Segal, 1986; Crosbie-Burnett & Giles-Sims, 1994; Ganong &

Coleman, 1987). The thread that links this body of research is the fact that they

seek to understand stepfamilies as a unique family form, separate and distinct

from the bio-intact family.

Oespite the gains made in understanding stepfamily dynamics,

stepparents still struggle with how to develop positive relationships with their

stepchildren. Social role theory provides some dues as to why stepparents find their role (or lack thereof) particularly stressful. A role can be defined as " a set of complementary expectations regarding the actor in his [sic] interaction with other

individualsu(Getzels & Guba, 1954, p. 164). Roles are developed through

interaction with others and are both reflexive and symbolic (Burke & Reitzes,

1981); actions, behavioufs, and the responses to them add up over time to

confirm or disconfirm an individual's role expectations. If the responses to an

individual's role behaviours are positive, the individual becomes more confident

of and committed to the role, thereby increasing role salience (Hoelter, 1983).

60th 'mother' and 'fathet are universal role categories (Secord &

Bachman, 1974). As such, they are imbued with certain broad expectations.

Secord and Bachman (1974) state that role partnerships (e.g. mother-father- child) involve ".. .well-established shared expectations [that] usually have an obligatory quality. The other person is not only expected to behave in a certain way, it is believed that he [sic] shouid behave in that way" (italics added - p. 403). When only some members of a social system agree on who is a role partner, or if

some role partners do not perceive each other as such, role conflict and

confusion may develop (Secord & Bachman, 1974).

It is easy to extrapolate from the above discussion that 'stepparent' must

also be a role category in our culture. However, unlike 'mother' and 'father',

several theorists have argued that 'stepparent', as an abstract role, is rife with

problematic expectations (Cherlin, t 978; Visher & Visher, 1988, Robinson,

1991). These theorists suggest that when the stepparent does not obtain social

support, guidance, and sanction from society for the stepparent role, he or she turns to the perceived nearest role: that of the biological parent, However, others within the famiiy system rarely respond in the fashion expected by the stepparent. Consequently, role confusion and role conflict rnay be common experiences for the stepparent. The stepparent may then %tep up" his or her attempts to fit the role of biological parent, which in tum leads to entrenchment.

In essence, a role mrrflict develops between the ideal role expectations ihat the stepparent holds and the actual role manifestations and consequences.

Theorists and clinicians have slowly begun to delineate which factors are necessary for a stepfamily to be successful, Visher and Visher (1990) assert that a fundamental element to successful stepfamily functioning is the development of satisfactory step-relationships. Fundamental to this assertion is the idea that if the stepparent avoids stepping into a "parental" role, there is a much greater chance of positive step-relations foming between the stepparent and the children. Other clinicians have echoed this sentiment. Bray and Harvey (1995) argue that parenting for the stepparent in the early stages of stepfamily development (first 3 years) is best when it resembles that of friend, camp counsellor or sitter raîher than parent. Moreover, bonding is a necessaiy pre- requisite to the assumption of parenting duties, particulariy discipline.

Parenting has been identified as one of the most conflictual aspects of stepfamily development (Visher & Visher, 198û; 1979; Dahl et al 1987;

Messinger & Walker, t 981 ; Mills, 1984), The biological parent and the children have a relationship based on a shared history. The couple has a relationship based on choice. Yet, for the most part, the stepparent and the children have neither; it is not surprising that much of the tension and disharrnony within the stepfamily system may corne frorn negotiating acceptable roles.

Although parenting has been identlied as a significant issue for stepfamilies, little research has been undertaken to determine what kind of roles stepparents tend to negotiate. Clinical and anecdotal reports suggest that stepparents-and stepfathers in parh'cular-often take on a supplemental, non- parental role within the stepfarnily (Gross, 1987; Visher and Visher, 1990;

Crosbie-Burnett 8 Giles-Sims, 1994: Furstenberg, 1987). The findings suggest several possible roles that stepparents can assume such as: substitute parent, supplemental parent, and biological parent's spouse, among others. However,

rarely have researchers asked the family mernbers themselves whether they can clearly articulate a cohesive, consistent description of their own role and the role of others in the family. It is also not known how these alternate roles may affect the family's bonding process and sense of identity. Furthermore, no research to

date has looked carefully at specific behaviours within the family that combine to

make up a role within the family. Moreover, if it is actually the case that role confusion develops if only some members of the systern perceive each other as

belonging to that system, then assessing the level of correspondence between

farnily members on their perceptions of the parent and stepparent roles is a

crucial step in understanding the dynamics of stepfamilies.

This study is an effort to define the nature of the roles in which stepfathers

and steprnothers engage. The study also attempts to evaluate the effect of these

roles on stepfamily cohesion and functioning. Some of the questions to be addressed in this research are: What are the actual parental rotes as perceiveci by the various memben of the stepfamily? Is there a relationship between stepfamily functioning and the level of agreement between family members on the role of the stepparent? Is the age of the stepchild a significant factor in the perception of the stepparent role or in the perception of stepfamily functioning?

Does the length of time in the current stepfamily affect the perception of the stepparent role or the perception of the stepfamily functioning? Does the length of time in a single parent family affect the perception of the stepparent role or in the development of stepfamily cohesion? Do stepparents engage in less

"parentingnwith older stepchildren? What factors predict stepfamily functioning? CHAPTER Il: UTERATüRE REVIW

Social role theory postulates that individuals behave in a certain manner in particular situations based on their understanding of their own social role. Some social roles, such as 'rnothet and 'fathet seem to have cleariy defined behaviour expectations. Moreover, biologicalîy intact families seem to have socially implicit expectations, norms, and support that the stepfamily lacks. The incomplete institutionalization hypothesis articulated by Cherlin (1978) suggests that stepfamilies struggle to form mhesive family units because stepfamily members have little or no sense of well-established roles within society or within the family sphere. This means that each stepfamily must develop their own set of guidelines, norms, and support system, often in the face of considerable opposing pressure from society to replicate the bio-intact family form. Despite the fact that stepfamilies have become a significant and enduring family form in the past 50 years, institutionalization seems to be slow to develop.

In the clinical literature, the establishment of interactional patterns in the absence of common history has been found to be related to role ambiguity in stepfamilies (Robinson, 1991; Visher & Visher, 1988). The fact that researchers

have asked the question "who belongs to my famiiy" implies that family

membership is viewed as a wntentious issue within the stepfamily system

(Ihinger-Tallman, 1988). Several studies have attempted to shed light on whether

Cherlin's incomplete institutionalization hypothesis provides a pragmatic

paradigm within which to study stepfamily experiences (Clingempeel, 1981 ; Clingempeel, Brand & levoli, 1984; Schwebel, Fine & Renner, 1991; McDonald &

DeMaris, 1995). The results have been mixed.

Schwebel, Fine, and Renner (1991) found that college students saw the stepparent role as more ambiguous than that of both biotogical and adoptive parents, There was greater variability for what kinds of behaviours were deemed appropriate for stepparents, In addition, respondents thought that stepparents were both less cornpelled and less likely to engage in supportive behaviours than either adoptive or biotogical parents were. The findings also indicated a signifiant gender difference: females were more likely to indicate that stepparents should and will engage in parental behaviours than were males

(Schwebel, Fine 8 Renner, 1991). Therefore, while this study did provide some insight into the expectations of a college population about stepfamilies, it did not attempt ta ascertain whether stepfamily members also view the stepparent role as ambiguous.

ln an attempt to delineate the nature of the relationship between role ambiguity and marital quality, Clingempeel(1981) explored the questions of whether cornplex stepfamilies (Le. families in which both parents have children from previous relationships) would exhibit lower marital quality than simple stepfamilies (Le. stepfamilies in which al1 the children are biologically related to only one adult). He also explored whether greater frequency of contact with former spouses (quasi-kin) would influence marital quality. He argued that

Cherlin's hypothesis woutd predict that marital quality would be lower as the

frequency of contact with quasi-kin increased. He did find that marital quality was higher in simple stepfamilies, as predicted. However, he also found that the relationship between contact with quasi-kin and marital quality was cunrilinear: moderate levels of contact were associated with the highest level of marial quality. Clingempeel argued that the permeable boundaries needed for moderate contact with quasi-kin provided the most empathetic understanding of the needs of the children to be connected with more than one household. No contact implied a rejection of the desires of the children to maintain a relationship with the nonçustodial parent. High levels of contact may have signalled that the marital ties from the former relationship had not been completely severed, which would lead to poor marital quality in the present family. Thus, Clingempeel's

(1981) findings provided some degree of support for Cherlin's hypothesis, but

also hint that stepfamily relationships are more cornplex than the incomplete

institutionalization hypothesis implies.

MacDonald and DeMaris (1995) also explored the impact of remarriage and stepchildren on the level of marital conflict. They found that remarried couples were no more likely, and in certain circumstances less likely than first-

married families, to exhibit marital discord. The effect of the presence of

stepchildren seemed to Vary depending on the length of the marriage. They

concluded that remarriage and the presence of stepchildren did not mate

conflict by themselves.

Although their study was not a direct exploration of Cherlin's hypothesis,

Anderson and White (1986) provided interesting insight into whether the

stepparent role is poorly defined. They found that in functional stepfamilies, the stepfather and child had reciprocal impressions of the positive involvement of their relationship, whereas in dysfunctional stepfamilies, there was little reciprocity between the stepfather and child's view of the relationship (Anderson

& White, 1986). It would seem that role ambiguity rnight have been more a function of familial stress than the structural composition of the stepfamily.

Clingempeel, Brand, and levoli (1984) hypoîhesized that due to the more rare nature of stepmother families, boys and girls would have greater difficulty relating to stepmothers because the stepmother role would be less salient than the stepfather role. However, their results indicated that both boys and girls related to stepfathers and stepmothers equaliy well.

MacDonald and DeMaris (1995) argued that the incomplete institutionalization hypothesis may disregard some of the unique strengths that stepparent and the stepfamily fom can bring to bear. For instance, they argued single parents were more likely to evaluate potential mates with their ability to parent in mind; therefore, the coupte would not have to suffer through the stress that was typicaliy associaied with first-time parenthood. They would be able to negotiate parenting during courtship, and even tiy "trial parenting" during the dating phase of the relationship. However, their argument failed to consider that parenting is one of the most frequently cited sources of stress and conflict in stepfamilies (Visher & Visher, 1988; 1979; Dahl et al, 1987; Messinger & Walker,

1981; Mills, 1984, Lutz, 1983; Cherlin, 1978). Rarely does the stepparent have any idea of the stress that they will experience as the stepfamily adjusts to new roles and expectations. "Trial parenting" (the idea that a biological parent will evaluate a potential mate on his or her parenting) may seem logical, but stepchildren rarely appear willing to accept such a concept. The majority of stepchildren, particularly adolescent stepchildren, tend to resist al1 forms of parenting by the stepparent, even after a legal marriage has taken place (Visher

& Visher, 1979; 1996; Mills, 1984). For first time parents in bio-intact families, it is not necessarily the parenting per se that causes the stress: it is the newness of the experience. The newness of a stepfamily situation would likely be a stressful adjustment no matter how much parenting experience a person has had.

Cherlin's hypothesis provides some insight into the stresses facing stepfamilies, but empirical support for his theory seer~ismixed. While individuals in the general population viewed the stepparent rote as more variable than the biological parent role, role ambiguity did not seem to be an inherent experience for stepfamily members. Conflict, rather than role ambiguity, seemed to be a more rneaningful correlate with marital distress and lack of reciprocity in the relationship between stepparent and stepchild (Brown, Green & Druckman, 1990;

Anderson & White, 1986; Roberts & Price, 1989).

Daly (1993) suggests that the role of 'father' may itself be less salient than in previous generations. He found that the men he intenriewed had tremendous difficulty identifying specific role models from within their own lives. The men instead chose to incorporate particular behaviours they saw as desirable from a wide variety of sources. Moreover, these men tended to turn to their wives and mothers for guidance on the role of father. Finally, their own fathers tended to serve as negative role models; the participants used the behaviour of their fathers to identify ways in which they did not want to behave with their own children. Interestingly, mat of the men in the study identified being a positive role mode1 to their children as being of significant importance. Daly argues that the absence of influential father figures in the participants' lives made the construction of their own identity as fathers challenging. It may be possible to infer from this research that stepfathers and fathers engage in similar processes dunng the early stages of the transition to parental status. Perhaps society has become more tolerant of a more fluid and dynamic process of fatherhood identity development. Certainly, the couple relationship seemed to influence the development of role salience for fathers.

Couple functioning rnay therefore be an important variable to consider in assessing the relationship behrveen stepfamily roles and family functioning.

Roberts and Price (1989) found that farnily cohesion increases as marital adjustrnent increases. Therefore, it is also possible that marital adjustment is a significant predictor of family cohesion, as other researchers have found (Skopin,

Newman, and McHenry, 1993; Anderson and White, 1986). Researchers also often make the implicit #neaiconneclion between marital conflict and divorce

(MacDonald & DeMaris, 1995). However, research in couple functioning has shown that the relationship between conflict and marital stability is more complex. For example, researchers have determined that conflict is not a primary factor in marital dissolution; it is the ratio between positive and negative utterances that predicts stability in the marital relationship (Gottman, 1994). In other words, it is possible for a highly conflicted couple to be stable if they are also very loving and positive dunng moments of hannony. Unlocking the connection between family functioning, parental role salience and marital adjusûnent seems key to fully understanding stepfamilies.

Research on parenting in stepfamilies has tended to focus on a particular individual's perception of parenting in the family system (Claxton-Oldfield, 1992;) or has focused on holistic measures of parenting (Gamache, 1992; Anderson &

White, 1986; Clingempeel, 1981; Clingempeel, Brand & levoli, 1984;

Clingempeel, & Segal, 1986). No one has attempted to describe in detail the roles taken on by stepparents. Moreover, few researchers have asked more than one family member to articulate their perceptions of family life in order to assess family congruence. Theorists and clinicians argue that it is often more productive if the new partner can consider alternate roles to play with the stepchildren (Mills,

1984; Bray & Harvey, 1995; Crosbie-Bumett & Ahrons, 1985; Papemow, 1988).

Therefore, defining the constellation of parenting behaviours seems a prudent next step for stepfamily research.

Some exploration of the holistic roles of stepparents has been completed

(Brown, Green & Druckman, 1990; Vuchinich, Hetherington, Vuchinich &

Clingernpeel, 1991; Claxton-Oldfield, 1992). Much of the research supports the notion that stepparents in well-functioning families tend to take on less discipline- focused roles. f he findings also seem to support the impression that avoidance of a disciplinary rote is linked to better family outcomes.

Research suggests that stepfathers engage in more pro-social and less controlling behaviours towards their stepchildren when compared to biological fathers, suggesting that developing a strong positive bond is an important component to attaining parental status (Vuchinich, Hetherington, Vuchinich &

Clingempeel, 1991). Claxton-Oldfield (1992) found that stepchildren held a less positive perception of stepfathers who carried out a disciplinary role than of fathers who disciplined children. Findings also showed that stepfathers who carried out an affectionate role were not perceived less positively than biological fathers were. However, affectionate behaviour was seen as more likely to make the stepchildren uncomfortable (Claxton-Oldfield, 1992).

Brown, Green, and Druckman (1990) found no difference between the amount of nurturing or discipline related behaviours of stepparents in stepfamilies with and without child-focused problems. However, the criticai element seemed to be how the children responded to those behaviours. Specifically, in stepfamilies in therapy, the children tended to be far less responsive to the overtures of the stepparent. Moreover, stepparents with child-focused problems

reporteci significantly less satisfaction with their role as a stepparent, These findings suggest that canflict within stepfamilies is not simply a product of the

inherent structural difference from bio-intact families. The findings also suggest that role reciprocity enhances role clariîy and hence role satisfaction.

The age of the children when the stepfamily forms has been suggested to

be a prirnary factor in how long adjustment to the stepfamily will take. Mills (1984)

argues that "...a stepparent may expect to achieve a role approximating (not

equal to) that of a biological parent in a time scale on the order of the age of the

child at the time the stepfamily forms. That is, 3 years for a 3 year old, etc." (p. 370). In addition, past research agrees that adjustment to the formation of a stepfamily is most diificult for adolescents (Visher & Visher, 1988; 1979;

Vuchinich, Hetherington, Vuchinich & Clingempeel, 1991; Bray, 1988; Giles-Sims

& Crosbie-Bumett, 1989; Hetherington, 1989). Some researchers have attributed the difficulty to the developmental stage of separation, individuation, and identity exploration that adolescents tend to be experiencing (Perkins & Kahan, 1979;

Mills, 1984). Gamache (1998) argues that up to age 8, children are open to inviting a 'psychological parent' into their lives. Between ages 8 and 12, openness to a new parental figure is more dependent on individual factors like temperament, circumstances surrounding the divorce, etc. After approximately age 12, most children are unwilling to add new parental figures to their experiential reality. In other words, it is likely that the step-parenting role witl be more friend-like the older the child is at the time of stepfamily formation. Other researchers have speculated that some of the difficulty with adolescents adjusting to stepfamily life may lie in their uncertainty about sex roles in relation to their stepparents (Vuchinich, Hetherington, Vuchinich, & Clingempeel, 1991).

The gender of both the stepchiMren and the stepparent can also affect family functioning. Daughters, paiticularly in adolescence, seemed to have more difficulty adjusting to their mother's remarriage than did sons (Clingempeel,

Brand, & levoli, 1984; Bray, 1988; GYes-Sims & Crosbie-Bumett, 1989;

Hetherington, 1989; Pink & Wampler, 1985). Girls also tended to show more withdrawn behaviour than boys do towards stepfathers (Vuchinich, Hetherington,

Vuchinich & Clingempeel, 1991). In addition, "...daughters in stepfamilies tend to avoid conflict as well as other behaviours with stepfathers, but when initiated against them, their oppositional response may be persistent" (Vuchinich,

Hetherington, Vuchinich, & Clingempeel, 1991, p. 623). In stepmother families, better psychological adjustment was associated with a higher percentage of positive interactions between stepchildren and stepmothers, particularly for girls

(Clingempeel & Segal, 1986).

When stepparents were asked whether they found it easier to think of themselves as a friend rather than a parent to their stepchildren, the length of time in the stepfamily was a factor (Furstenberg, 1987). Sixty-one percent of stepparents in stepfamilies formed within the previous three years responded that they saw themselves as a friend, compared to only forty-seven percent who had resided in the stepfamily for seven years or more. In contrast, Gamache

(1992) found that the length of time since the remarriage did not predict variance

in stepfamily adjustment.

Another component that needs to be assessed in relation to family functioning is the length of time that the biological parent and the children were part of a single parent family. For a child, the events leading up to a divorce tend to be traumatic and disconcerting. Once the parental separation process is over, the chiidren may have had a period where they had their biological parent

(usually the mother) exclusively to themselves. This may have led to a period of

enmeshment or the development of a partner-like bond between the biological

parent and children. Enmeshment is often most pronouncd for the eldest child

(Visher & Visher, 1988; Crosbie-Bumett, 1989; Gamache, 1992). The biological parent rnay also turn to her children for emotional support and expect adult-like behaviour frorn them. Consequently, the eldest child rnay have been assigned a new and powerful identity within the farnily. Therefore, one rnay infer that the length of tirne spent together as a single parent family would influence how easily the stepfamily develops close positive bonds.

Contact between the children and the non-custodial biological parent has been identified as another cornponent to farnily functioning in a stepfamily (Pink

& Warnpler, 1985; Clingempeel, 1981). Families characterized by a high degree of contact with the biological father had stepfathers with the highest regard towards the adolescent (Pink 81Warnpler, 1985; Clingempeel & Segal, 1986). In addition, the degree of regard between stepfathers and adolescents seemed to have a linear relationship with degree of contact with non-custodial father. In contrast, in steprnother families with girls, better adjustment was associated with fewer visits frorn the biological mother (Clingempeel & Segal, 1986). This rnay have been due to the unusual circumstances of a biological mother not having custody . Likewise, the quality of relationship between the parenting coalition rnay also have an impact on farnily functioning. Lutz (1983) found that adolescents rated "experiencing one natural [sic] parent talking negatively about the other natural parent" as the most stressful aspect of stepfamily life. The association between moderate levels of contact with quasi-kin and good marital functioning rnay also indicate that the parenting coalition has negotiated acceptable levels of cooperation, although that was not a facet of the research study (Clingernpeel, 1981). Clinicians have long urged the parenting coalition to negotiate harmonious parenting relations for the sake of the children (Visher & Visher, 1988; 1996;

Gamache, 1998; Stanton, 1986; Crosbie-Bumett, 1989).

Agreement between various family members may be a significant aspect to evaluating family functioning in stepfamilies in particular. As mentioned earlier, in a stepfamily the roles that each member takes on may be less lucid than in a bio-intact family. However, if the individuals within the family have a tendency to see the roles similarly, chances are high that better functioning will also be present. Several studies confirrn this idea. Fine (1986) found that in functional stepfamilies, as with both functional and dysfunctional bio-intact families, stepfathers and children tend to agree on their perceptions of the relationship.

Anderson and White (1986) found that reciprocal perspectives of the relationship between stepparent and child indicated positive family functioning. Brown,

Green, and Druckman (1990) found that stepchildren were more receptive to the relationship overtures of stepparents when the family climate was positive.

Clearly, social role theory and the incomplete institutionalization hypothesis provide a theoretical framework within which to study the unique challenges stepfamilies face. However, to date, research has not provided unequivocal support for the theory. Few trends emerge from the current body of knowledge on stepfamilies. Researchers and clinicians continue to struggle to idenfi key elements in stepfamily functioning. However, studies of the stepparent role seem to indicate that in well-functioning stepfamilies, stepparents who are able to avoid discipline and control have stronger, more positive, and more fulfilling relatianships with tbir spouses and their stepchildren. Moreover, family functioning tends to be higher. Thus, further exploration of the stepparent role and behaviours seems a fruitful endeavour. CHAPTER III: METHOWLOGY

Particimnts

Data were collected from 120 members of thirîy-three stepfamilies. Family members un& the age of seven were excluded because they were unable to fully understand the questionnaires. The families included simple stepfamilies

(those with children from only one marital partner); complex stepfamilies (children present from both marital partners); and mixed stepfamilies (families with a combination of "his", "hemnand "ours" children). Complex stepfamilies were included in the data collection if only one set of children (the husband's OR the wife's children) resided in the household on a full-time basis. Collecting data from atl family members afforded the opportunity for examining family patterns concerning perceiveci parental roles. In addition, this method allowed for the use of the farnily as the unit of analysis rather than the individual.

Consent

Participants were provided with an explanatiwi of the nature of the research before beginning the questionnaires. The researcher exptained that the study was voluntary, that answers would be kept anonymous and confidential, and that they could choose to not answer any questions. They were inforrned that they could refuse to participate or stop participating at any time. They were also provided with information about how and to whom to register complaints regarding the research. Procedure

Participants were recruited using advertisements and articles in several local newspapers, posters in various community agencies, and television and radio appearances by the author. Respondents resided both in the Lower

Mainland and in various communities on Vancouver Island. Potential participant families contacted the researcher after accessing one of the advertisements,

The researcher verified whether the family fit the research criteria.

Stepfarnilies in which both parents acted as a biological parent and a stepparent simultaneously were excluded if al1 the children resided in the famiiy full time.

Stepfamilies in which the stepparent who were only involved with their stepchildren on a part tirne basis (non-custodial stepfamilies, for example) were also excluded. Finally, gay and tesbian stepfamilies were excluded due to potential confounding factors.

One of the adults was asked by the researcher to verify that al1 family members (over age 6) were willing to participate. If the spouse and the children agreed, a date and time were set for the family to complete the questionnaire package in their home (or in a neutral setting such as a restaurant).

All data were collected within one meeting. The researcher provided the rationale for the study and obtained both infomed consent from the adults and assent from al! children participating (see Appendices B - D for information sheet and informeci consent forrns). The instruments were administered to al1 family rnembers by the researcher (the author). The participants were instructed to not discuss their responses with other family members until after they had completely filled out their questionnaires. If a child had difficulty completing the questions, the researcher read the items aloud and provided explanatims when needed.

After the participants cornpleted the questionnaires, they were given the opportunity to ask any additional questions. The researcher also provided a basic debriefing on the research hypotheses and on the potential relevance of the research to future academic and clinical applications after al1 the participants bd concluded answering the questionnaires. Time to complete the questionnaires ranged from 45 minutes to 2 hours, depending on number of children, as well as individual differences in reading speed, etc.

Instrumentation

All members of the family completed a demographics questionnaire as well as a modified Parenting Roles and Behaviours Questionnaire (Mowder,

1993; Lawton, Coleman, Boger, Galejs, Pease, Poresky, & Looney, 1983), and the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1981). In addition, both adults completed the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) to assess the couple's functioning.

ûernoaranhlc Questionnaire. A 1&item demographics questionnaire was developed specifically for this research with questions involving basic

demographic information as well as items that tapped the unique aspects of stepfamily life (Appendices E to G). Parentina Roles and Behaviours Questionnaire. The Parenting Roles and Behaviours Questionnaire (PRBQ) has three sections for adults and two for the child fom (see Appendix G). On the adult forms, the first two sections measured the perceived importance of six general parenting factors that contribute to the parenting role. The various farnily rnernbers used these items to discern the endorsed parenting values. The behavioural portion was used to assess the type and level of daily involvement by both parents. For the purposes of this research, the behavioural portion of the Parenting Roles and Behaviours

Questionnaire was modified in several ways. The items used in Version 3 of the

PRBQ were replaced with the items from the modified NC-158 Q-sort lnventory of Parenting Behaviours (Lavuton, Coleman, Boger, Galejs, Pease, Poresky, &

Looney, 1983). The 75 q-sort items measured a more sophisticated level of parenting behaviours. Additionally, a supplementary 20-item scale was added to the q-sort items to tap the 'inclusion' or 'belonging' aspect of parenting behaviours. Sample items include statements such as, "1 help the family plan to do things togethet' and "1 share family history with (stories about one's own childhood, parents' childhoad, etc)". This was deemed necessary based on

Whiteside's (1989) assertion that family rituals are an essential component to developing family connections. The PRBQ was not compared to previous reliability assessments as the items and measurement methods had been significantly altered from previous research. However, interna1 consistency on the behavioural component was assessed using Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha

(1951). Table 1-3 shows the reliability estimates for the Parenting Roles Behaviours Questionnaire for the behavioural subscales and total. The total scale reliability was a = .96. The data indicate that the total scale and its components have sufficiently high reliability to justify their use.

ûvadic Adiustment Scale. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier,

1976) is a 32-item measure designed to gauge couple functioning. The DAS has been used since 1976 in psychological and sociological research to assess couple functioning (Spanier, 1976). Content validity for the DAS was original@ verified by Spanier by having three independent judges evaluate the items.

Comparing the responses of married and divorced couples tested criterion- related validity. The responses were found to differ significantly @ < ,001). The

Oyadic Adjustment Scale was then correlated with the LackeWallace Marital

Adjustment Scale (1959--the most frequently used scale) to assess construct validity. 60th married and divorces couples responses were highly correlated

=.86 and 1=.88 respectively).

Familv Environment Scale. The Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos

& Moos, 1981) measures three dimensions of family functioning using 10 subscales. The first dimension, Relationship, is measured using three subscales-

~Cohesion,Expressiveness, and Conflict. The second dimension, Personal

Growth, is composed of seven subscale measures, namely Independence,

Achievement Orientation, lntellectual-Cultural Orientation, Active-Recreational

Orientation, and Moral-Religious Emphasis. The final dimension, System

Maintenance, is composed of the two subscales Organization, and Control. The

Relationship and System Maintenance dimensions primarily tap the family's intemal ability to functbn healthily, whereas the Personal Growth dimension refWthe family's ties to îhe larger social environment (Mm& Maus, 1994).

For the purposes of this research, the Relationship and System Maintenance

dimensions were combined 10 mate a composite family cohesion score.

The FES has been in use for nearly twenty years. It has been validated

with a variety of family types. It has also been used to assess family functioning

over tirne. Significant psychometric assessrnent work has been done to achieve

high construct, content, and criterion validity. lntemal cansistency ranges from a

low of a =.61 for lndependence to a =,78 for Cohesion, lntellectual-Cultural

Orientation, and Moral-Religious Emphasis. "As expected, families that scored

high on Cohesion tended to score low on Conflict, and those high on

Expressiveness and lndependence tended to be Iow on Contror (Moos & Moos,

1994, p. 21). Test-retest reliabilities for the subscales over a 2-month or Cmonth

interval between testing range from a =.68 for independence to a high of a =.86

for cohesion. Long-term reliabilities are, on average, in the .60 to -65 range

(MOOS& Moos, 1994).

D8îa Analvsis

All of the data were mded and analyzed using the Statistical Package for

the Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 7.0 for Windows. As the literature clearly shows, family functioning has importance for al1 famiiy research; in stepfamilies, it is a reasonable rneasure of how well the stepfamily has managed signifiant transitions and has develaped a cohesive sense of family. As a large body of family research has used the Family

Environment Scale to assess the level of family functkning, the FES was chosen for the current study in part to facilitate cornparison with other studies.

For the purpose of this research, stepfamily functioning could have been measured in several ways. First, the Family lncongruence Score could have been computed for the ES. The family lncongruence Score measures how much the family disagrees about the family climate. However, this method was not chosen because of concerns that the Family lncongruence Score and the

Family Agreement score on the PRBQ would actually measure similar dimensions within the farnily. The FES also has a subscale specifically measuring cohesion, which could have been used. However, given that only 10 items were included in the cohesion subscale, it was determined to be an inadequate measure of family funtiining. Finally, it was also possible to combine the Relationship Dimension and the System Maintenance Dimension to obtain a composite score. As mentioned previously, these two subscales tap the families ability to develop a healthy farnily systern. Therefore, wmbining the

Relationship and System Maintenance Dimensions was choçen for this research as the best way to obtain a robust measure of functioning. lndemndent Variables

The following independent variables were included: length of separation

(how long between separation and remarriage), age of children at the time of stepfamily formation, gender of stepchildren, length of current relationship, quality of current parenting coalition relationship, and level of family agreement on the two areas of the PFIBQ. The DAS score and gender of the eldest stepchild were forced into the regression equation first based upon the theoretical perspective that these items would be strongly correlated with family functioning.

By forcing them in first, their relative weight would be held constant to determine if other variables added significantly to the regression equation.

In this study, two family agreement scores were generated from the

PRBQ: one for the general parenting factors and one for the behavioural component. Family agreement was calculated by using the sum of squared differences between family members assessments of parenting values, and between family members assessments of parenting behaviours. In both cases, the individual famiiy mernbers scores were subtracted from each other for each item, and the difference was squared. The squared differences were averaged for the family, and then finally, the square mot was used as an index of agreementldisagreement (see Appendix J for the equation used).

Socio-economic status has long been included as a variable in a multitude of psychological research. This variable had originally been included as a predictor of family functioning. However, due to lack of sufficient range, this variable was not included in the regression equation. CHAPTER III: RESULTS

This chapter presents the findings of this study, The first section presents the demographic profile of the sampte. The second section details sbtistieal cornparisons made beWeen rnarried and cohabiting couples, and between biological parents who had one versus multiple relationships between the initial break-up of the original family unit (in which the child or children had been conceived). The next section introduces the cornparison of the DAS and FES scores from the current sample and the validation sarnples (Spanier, 1976; Moos

& Mms, 1994). A detailed profile of the general values and specific behaviours espoused by the farnily rnemberç is presented in the fourth section. The final section presents the inferential statistical findings.

Demoaraphics of the Total Sample

Eighty-seven families responded ta the advertisements. Of those 87 families, 120 family members in thirty-lhree stepfamilies both fit the criteria and agreed to participate. Of the 54 families that were not utilized, 32 did not fit the criteria (including three lesbian stepfamilies), 12 were unwilling to participate, and

I was unable to contact fourteen families.

The current sample consisted mainly of Caucasian, middle to upper rniddle class, educated and well functioning individuals, as would be expected of a self-selected group. Of the 33 farnilies that participated, 85% &28) were stepfather families and 15% (n=5) were stepmother families. The average lengtfi of time as a stepfamily was 5.8 years w=3.09),and ranged from 1.5 years to

15 years together. Families averaged 1.6 children overall. The majority of families had only one child (54.5%, -1 8), and 34.5% had two children b=12).

Fifty-eight percent of the sampk was currently married (n=19) and 42.4% was cohabiting. Three quarters of the biological parents @=25) had not had any other serious relationships between the relationship that produced the children and the current relationship.

The ethnic background of the participants included 83.5% Caucasian

&101), 7% First Nations &9), 3% Asian b4),2.5% East lndian (n=3), 1%

African Canadian @=1), and 2.5% who did not answer. For adults, 47% had college or technical school training @=31),26% had High School (n=17), 21% had a university Undergraduate degree (n=14), and 4.5% had a Graduate degree

@=3).The following occupations were represented: 27% in Managementl

Business (n=18), 18% in Blue Collar work @=12), 15% in Professional work

(plO), with the remaining 35% involved in Clerical, Service, Education, and at

home @=23). Nearly half (47%) of aduîts placed themselves in the $30-60K

incorne range (see Table K-2 in Appendix K for a complete table of demographic

information).

Fathers. The average age for fathers was 43 years old (S0=6.37). The

majority of men were Caucasian (Mo', p29), 9% were First Nations (n=3), and

3% were Asian and Other @=1).

Biological fathers had an average age of 42 years (SD4.39). Sixty

percent were Caucasian (n=3) and 40% were First Nations @=2). Stepfathers had an average age of 43 years (SD=6.61). Ninety-three percent were

Caucasian @=26), 4% were Asian &=1), and 4% were classified as Other b=1).

Mothers. The average age was 39 years (SD=4.82). Eighty-eight percent classified themselves as Caucasian &=29), 6% as Asian (n=2), 3% as First

Nations (pl), and 3% as East lndian (n=l).

Biological rnothers had an average age of 40 years (SD=4.93). Eighty six percent were Caucasian (n=24), 7% were Asian @=2), 4% were First Nations

@=1), and 4% were East lndian (r~=1).Stepmothers had an average age of 37 years (SO=3.56). All were Caucasian ha).

Children. The children ranged in age from 6 to 19, with the average age being 12 years (SD=3.25). Fi-two percent of the children were male &1=28), and 4870 were female (n=26). Eighty-three percent were Caucasian (n=42), 11 % were First Nations @=6), 4% were East lndian @=2), 2% were Asian @=l),and

2% were African Canadian (n=1). Nearly two-thirds of the sarnple (63%) consisted of eldest or only children @=31).

Statistical Procedures

Oemographic data for the parents were analyzed for significant differences on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the Family Environment Scale with respect to the following variables: married vs. cohabiting and single vs. multiple remamages. As no statistically significant differences on either measure (DAS or

FES) were found at the p>.05 level, the data were pooled. It is interesting to note that while the married and cohabiting groups did not differ significantly on the Dyadic Adjustrnent Scale, a trend seemed to ernerge: specifically, cohabiting couples scored higher on all four subscales, with the Affectional Expression t3.919, p.057) and Dyadic Cohesion (F=3.147, p.086) approaching significance (se8 Appendix K). In addition, biological parents living in cohabiting

relationships had a significantiy higher level of education than married biological parents (F=5.387, ~=.02;see Appendix K).However, the question of whether these differences were rneaningful was not answerable.

Prior stepfamily research has been criticized for using measures of family functioning (e.g. ENRICH, FACES) that have not been standardized on a broad

range of family types. Therefore, it seemed prudent to consider whether the current sample varied signifmntty from the sample used by Moos and Moos to

standardire the measure (Moos & Mms, 1994). 1 converted the subscale scores

for the current sample to z scores and compared them to the standardization

sample to examine if the distributions d the subscale means were similar. The

current sample was not statistically different from the original sample (Figure 1;

see Table L-1 in Appendix L for the table of means, standard deviation, and z-

scores). A similar analysis was run to compare the means of the Dyadic

Adjustment Scale found by Spanier (1 976) during the scale reliability and validity testing with the means found in the current study. As Figure 2 shows, no

statistically significant differences were detected (see Table L-2, Appendix L for

means, standard deviation, and z- scores). Figure 2

Dyrdk Aâidjurwmnt Lib: Cornpirion oi Cumnt Sompb Io Nomithm Umpk

Descriptive Analvses of the Geneml Factors

The data for the General Factors and the Behavioural Components of the

Parenting Roles and Behaviours Questionnaire were explored using several contrasts to answer the question: What are the parental rotes rprted by the

various members of the stepfamily? Means for the following groups were compared: parents were compared along gender and relational lines (fathers were compared to mothers, biological parents compared to stepparents, etc.).

Children's perceptions of parents were also compared along gender and

relational lines. Children's perceptions of biological fathers and mothers, and

stepfathers and stepmothers were compared to the self-assessments of those groups. The data from the children were also broken down in ternis of the gender of the child.

The patterns were noted based on the following criteria: if the rank order of factors was different andlor if the differences in means were greater than 0.5.

This criteria seemed to capture the essence of the patterns observed. However, because the research is exploratory, these differences are descriptive rather than statistical.

Fathers and Mothera When fathers and mothers were compared on the general parenting factors, few differences emerged (Figure 3). Fathers and mothers displayed the same rank order for the six general factors. Specifically, both fathers and mothers rated Bond as the most important and Discipline as the least important aspects of parenting. Protection and General Welfare was assessed as the second most important, then Sensitivity, Responsivity, and then

Education. In addition, the means for fathers and mothers were similar, with the largest difference between means being 0.4. Although these differences seem small, the sample fi made the question of whether they were statistical significant difficult to answer.

Bioloclical Parents and Steooarenta The comparison of biological and stepparents revealed a similar pattern to the one found by comparing fathers and mothers (Figure 4). Bond was ranked first, Protection and General Wetfare was second, and Sensitivity was ranked third. Biological parents rated Responsivity as fourth and Education fifth, whereas stepparents rated the two in reverse.

However, the diierences in means were extremely small. 2.1 (SD = 1.28)

O

2.9 (SD = 1.39)

3.1 (SD= 1.m)

P 1 4.4 (St)= 1.38) 2 2 4.0 (SD = 1.a) 2

3.0 (SD = 1.26)

c 3.2 (SD = 1.22) a l 5.2 (SD= 1.14)

2.0 (SD= 1.25)

I l m 0 3.0 (SD = 154) O? - 3.1 (SD = 133) aO I I I

'"[ '"[ 4.4 (SD = 1.30) l l I 3.2 (SD = 1.25) 3 E. 3.0 (SD = 1.23) S. 9 I

3.8 (SO t 1.02)

3.2 (SD = 1.42) Biolodcal Fathers and Bioloaical Mothem. Comparison of biological fathers and biological mothers also revealed two notable differences in ranking

(Figure 5). Biological fathers ranked Discipline fourth, whereas biological mothers ranked Discipline as the least important factor. Sensitivity was ranked second by biological mothers whereas biological fathers ranked it as the least important factor. Additionally, the mean scores on Sensitivity were different for biotogical fathers and biological mothers (means = 2.42,4.03 respectively). No test of significance was performed due to lack of power.

Ste~fathersand Stemnothers. Stepfathers and stepmothers rateci

Bond, and Protection and General Welfare as the top two factors (Figure 6).

However, stepfathers rated Sensitivity and Responsivity higher than Education and Discipline and stepmothers rated Education and Discipline higher than

Responsivity and Sensitivity. In addition, the difference in means for Bond,

Discipline, Education, and Sensitivity were al1 greater than 0.5 (0.75 for Bond,

1.1 7 for Discipline, 1.19 for Education, and 1.39 for Sensitivity). No tests of significance were performed due to lack of power. Considering the n for

stepmothers is very small, and a similar pattern was evident for biotogical fathers

self-assessrnents, it is possible that this result is particular to this sample

(Figure 7).

Figure 7

~SC'Z=OS)L L'C %!

(60'WS) 96'2 0 Biolmical Fathsr's Attrlbutlons Concstnina the Steprnother

Commred to Stepmother'r Self-attrlbutions. In al1 families, the parents were asked to rankorder the six factors of the PRBQ for themselves with respect to each child, and also to assess how their partner would rank-order the six factors for him-or herself with respect to each child. This was to altaw comparisons between self and other attributions.

Biological fathers assumed that Sensitivity and Education were valued more by the stepmothers than they actually were (Figure 8). Moreover, biological fathers assumed that Discipline and Education were valued far less than stepmothers actually valued them. Additionally, four factors showed differences in means greater than 0.5: Bond (1.48), Discipline (1.1 1), Education (1.37), and

Sensitivity (1.49). Specifically, biological fathers made attributions that tended to follow traditional gender role expectations. Interestingly, as Figure 7 shows, the self-assessments of biological fathers and stepmothers had exactly the same

rank ordering.

Stenmother's Attributions about Bioloaical Father comoared to

Bioloaical Father's Selfatiributions. Stepmothers made similar misattributions

about biological fathers as biological faîhers made about stepmothers: Sensitivity

was seen as more highly valued by biological fathers than it actualty was, and

Discipline was rated as valued much lower than biologicai fathers rated it (Figure

9). Both factors showed a difference in means of 1.O5 for Bond and 1.22 for

Sensitivity. Additionally, Protection and General Welfare was given the same

rank order, but had a difference in means of 0.66. Figure 8

Biolacrical Mother's Attributions about Ste~fathercommred to

Sbmfather's Self-attributions. Biological mothers thought that stepfathers would rate Protection and General Welfare over Bond; stepfathers rated the two factors in the opposite order (Figure 10). In addition, biological mothers expected

Education and Discipline to be rated higher than Sensitivity by their partners, whereas stepfathers saw Sensitivity as the third most important factor, and

Discipline as the least important. Bond, Discipline and Sensitivity also showed differences in means of 1.19, 1.34, and 0.55 respectively.

Ste~father'sAttributions about Bioloaical Mother com~aredto

Btoloaical Mother's Self-attributions. Stepfathers' assessment of what their partners valued most and least (Bond and Discipline, respectively) were accur

(Figure 11). However, stepfathers thought that biological mothers valued

Protection and General Welfare and Education higher than Sensitivity, whereas biological mothers rated Sensitivity as the second most important factor. Two factors showed differences in means that met the criteria for inclusion for discussion: Protection and General Welfare showed a difference in means of

0.64, and Sensitivity showed a difference of 0.95.

As with stepmother families, biological mothers and stepfathers had more similar self-rankings than their attributions showed (Figure 12). In fact, only the order of Sensitivity and Protection and General Welfare was different. Biological mothers rated Sensitivity as the second most important factor and stepfathers rated Protection and General Welfare second. Additionally, only Sensitivity showed a difference in means of 0.57.

Figure 12 Children's Perceptions of Mothors and Fathers. Children perceived mothers and fathers as being quite similar in their values (Figure 13). Bond,

Protection and General Welfare, and Education were both ranked first to aiird.

Fathers were perceived to be more focused on Discipline, whereas mothers were more focused on the nurturing factors (Responsivity and Sensitivity). Bond and

Discipline showed differences in means of 0.86 and 0.6, respectively. However, it is also important to note that the range (means between 2.54 and 4.98) is more restricted than the range for parents' self-assessments (means between 2.0 and

5.3). Children were less likely to agree amongst themselves on which factors were most valued.

Children's Perceptions of Bioloaical Parents and Steppatents. There was virtually no difference on the rank order of items in this cornparison (Figure

14). However, it is interesting to note that the means for stepparents were higher than for biological parents on five of six factors (the exception being Bond). Bond showed a difference in means of 1.OZ.

Childien's Perceptions of Biolodcal Fathers and Bioloaical Mothers.

Children's perceptions of biological fathers and mothers seemed to follow gender based lines (Figure 15). Bond was ranked first for both, but Discipline was tied with Protection and General Welfare for biological fathers. In contrast, Discipline was ranked last for biological mothers. However, the small fi for biological fathers makes any trend suspect. Differences in means were evident for Bond (0.54),

Discipline (1.76), and Responsivity (0.96). Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 When children's perceptions of biological fathers were compared to biological fathers' self-assessments, two minor differences emerged (Figure 16).

Children ranked Discipline and Protection and General Welfare equally (as the second most important factors), whereas biological fathers ranked Protection and

Generai Weifare secand, and Education the third most important. Furthermore, differences in means were present for Bond (0.61), Discipline (1.13), and

Responsivity (0.56)

Children's perceptions of biological mothers were also compared to biological mothers' self-assessments (Figure 17). Children and biological mothers agreed on the ranking of Bond, Discipline, and Responsivity (first, sixth, and fourth, respectively). However, where children ranked Protection and

General Welfare second, biological mothers ranked Sensitivity second. Children ranked Education as the third most important factor, but biological mothers ranked it fifth. Despite the differences in ranking, the means on each factor were very similar, except for Discipline (0.52) and Sensitivity (0.98). Figure 16 Figure 17 Children's Perce~tlonsof Steofathers and Stemnothen. In a marked departure from trends described earlier, Protection and General Welfare was ranked first for both stepfathers and stepmothers (Figure 18). Bond and

Education were ranked second and third in hthcases. However, stepmothers were perceived as valuing Discipline fourth, while in mtrast, stepfathers were perceived as valuing Sensitivity. Only Sensitivity had a diierence in means greater than 0.5, with the actual difference equal to 0.78.

Children's perceptions of stepfathers were fairiy consistent with stepfathers' self-assessments on rank order (Figure 19); most factors were ranked with a positional difference of one (Le. children ranked X as 1 and stepfathers ranked X as 2). The rnost salient differenœ was found in the ranking of Education. Children thought that stepfathers would rank Education as the third most important factor. In actuality, stepfathers ranked Education fifth. The one factor that both groups agreed upon was Discipline. Interestingly, it also had a large discrepancy in mean scores (0.93 difference). Only Bond had a greater discrepancy (1.30 difference). Education had a difference in mean of 0.89.

Children and steprnothers had extremely similar perceptions (Figure 20).

The only difference was the ordering of Bond and Protection and General

Welfare. Stepmothers ranked Bond first, whereas children ranked Protection and

General Welfare as the most important factor. The means al1 were within 0.5 of

each other. Figure 18 5.27 (-1 22)

13K 2.87 (SD= 1.44) l.e<(Sü=l.20) I 'a 1 w

m P 3.74 (SD=l. 18) k! k! I S s 2.6 (Sb1-27) I t I Po. :[ 4.08 (SD~1.39) 1 3 2 4.41 (Sk1.31) =& * % 'P

3.13 (Sb1.18) I id.3 % 3.08 (SD=1.33) 3

a 3.23 (SD4.62) L I 9. 3.46 (SD4.26) 1 Figure 20 El Male and Female Children. The rankings that children provided were broken down in terms of the child's gender (Figure 21). Male and female children tended to rank in a similar pattern for biological fathers and biological mothers.

The only difference was that male children ranked Education higher than

Sensitivity (fifth and sixth, respectively), whereas female children ranked them in reverse. A larger difference was noted when comparing the rankings for biological mothers: males tended to rank Education third, whereas femates ranked it fifth. It is also interesting to note that both male and female children ranked Discipline fourth for biological fathers and last for biological mothers. The only factor which showed a differences in means for male and female children was Education. Male and female children showed a difference in means for

Biological Fathers of 0.9, and of 0.8 for Biological Mothers.

When the rankings of male and female children on stepparents were compared, further differences were apparent (Figure 22). Male children tended to

rate Discipline as being more important and Responsivity as less important to stepfathers than female children did. Interestingly, female chitdren rated

Discipline and Responsivity in closer agreement to what stepfathers rated for themselves. Female children rated Bond as the most important factor for

stepmothers. The particularly interesting component of this result was the high

mean. The mean for Stepmothers on Bond as rated by female children was 5.5,

wmpared to 3.7 for male children (1.20 diierence). It was also the only situation

in which any children rated Bond as the most important; in ail other situations

Protection and General Wetfare was rated first. Figure 21 Figure 22

W013S)8's (0Si=aS) S'E Geneml Tmnds. Bond was assessed as being the most valued factor in nearly al1 cases. The only notable exception was that children assessed

Protection and General Welfare as being marginally more important to stepparents (both stepfathers and stepmothers).

Protection and General Welfare was highly valued by al1 family members as well. It was rated as the second most important factor in al1 but hocases.

Biological mothers rated Sensitivity higher than Protection and General Welfare.

As noted above, children perceived Protection and General Welfare as the most important for stepparents. In addition, children were more likely to rate Protection and General Welfare in closer equivalency to other factors, particularly

Education.

Gender influenced the factor ranking. In rnost cases, family members created ranking profiles that highlighted the expectation that fathers are more focused on the protection and discipline aspects of parenting, and mothers emphasize the nurturing aspects of parenting.

A secondary trend concerned stepparents. Stepmothers seerned to emphasize Discipline, Protection, and Education when compared to biological mothers. The trend was oontinued with the children's ratings. In addition, biological fathers seerned to emphasize the more nurturing aspects of parenting.

However, the lack of power for stepmother families limited the interpretation.

There was also some evidence that stepfathers valued the more nurturing aspects of parenting. Stepfathers rated Responsivity and Sensitivity higher than did biological fathers. Chiklren also rated stepfathers as valuing Responsivity and

Sensitivity higher than biological fathers.

Stepmother families showed a particular emphasis on Discipline as an important factor. Both biological fathers and stepmothers ranked Discipline higher than any other group. Given the small n, there is no way to know whether this trend is evident in the larger population. Ratings of Discipline also showed the largest discrepancies between self-assessments and the assessments of others. Two exceptions were evident: stepfathers rated biological mothers in a manner similar to how biological mothers rated thernselves. Second, children raid both biological mothers and stepmothers in a similar fashion to how both groups rated themselves.

Children tended to show greater variance in ranking the factors. In other words, children were more likely to rate factors other than Bond as the first or second most important. Therefore, the means for each factor were more similar than the means for parents' rankings. No clear trend emerged regarding the rankings based on the gender of the children.

Detscrimtive Analvses of the Behavlounl Components

The behavioural components of the PRBQ assessed how family members rated each other on daily behaviours. In terms of these parenting behaviours, a clear gender trend emerged (Figure 23). Mothers rated themselves as more involved than fathers on al1 five aspects of parenting behaviours (Physical,

Intellectual, Social, Emotional, and Belonging). In addition, the means for mothers for the five areas ranged hm2.7 for lntellectual to 3.2 for Belonging.

The means for fathers ranged from 2.3 to 2.6.

The comparison of biological and stepparents also showed a clear pattern: biological parents rated themselves higher on all five parenting behaviour groups

(Figure 24). However, this was likely because 85% of the biological parents were female. Hence, the trend conformed almg gender-based lines.

When the groups were subdivided into biological fathers, biological

mothers, stepfathers, and stepmothers, the gender trend continued (Figure 25).

60th biological mothers and stepmothers rated themselves as engaging in more

parenting behaviours across the five categories than either biological fathers or

stepfathers did.

When gender was removed as a factor, biological ties became the next

most salient trend. Both biological fathers and biological mothers rated

themselves as more involved than did either stepfathers or stepmothers in al1

categories except Belonging. Stepfathers rated themselves as equally involved

as biological fathers when engaging in parenting behaviours that promote

belonging. Similady, stepmothers rated thernselves as nearly equal to biobgical

mothers in the Belonging category. Moreover, Belonging was rated as one of

behaviour groups engaged in more often (means range from 2.6 to 3.2). Figure 23

g t

ei O -

m (s~.o=os)Z'f > . dO (ZS.WS)~'Z 8

1

-m (ii'm)L'E C O 'a

(wo=as)Ç'Z WE a 0 3

b 3 (i~O=dO'E

(wo=os) 9-2 m O S aS - L (wotas)L'Z 3 , -i O (rs.o=aslcz -c

(osW~S)O'E 3 -E ~ps-ws)8'2 0'

r Figure 24 Figure 25 The trend along gender lines continued with the children's ratings of fathers and mothers (Figure 26). Children rated mothers as being more involved in al1 five areas of parenting behaviours than fathers (rneans range from 2.3 to

2.7 for fathers and 2.6 to 2.9 for rnothers). They also rated biological parents as being more involved than stepparents (means range from 2.6 to 2.9 for biological parents and 2.3 to 2.7 for stepparents).

Further comparisons between children's ratings of biological fathers, biological mothers, stepfathers, and steprnothers showed gender continued to be the most defining factor in rating parenting behaviours (Figure 27). Both biological mothers and stepmothers were rated higher than biological fathers and stepfathers, respectively on al1 five aspects of parenting behaviours.

When children's ratings of biological fathers and stepfathers were compared, biological fathers were rated as being more involved than stepfathers in three of the five areas: Social, Emotional, and Belonging (Figure 28).

Stepfathers were seen as being marginally more involved in the areas of

Physical (means of 2.4 for stepfathers and 2.3 for biological fathers) and lntellectual (means of 2.3 for stepfathers and 2.2 for biological fathers) behaviours. In contra&, children rated biological mothers as more involved in al1 five parenting behaviour groups than steprnothers.

The children's' behavioural ratings of parents were also contrasted based on the gender of the child. Female children tended to rate biological parents two points higher on average than male children. The results were not so clear-cut for stepparents. Male children rated stepparents marginally higher on the Physical, Social, and Emotbnal subscales than did female children. Female ctiildren had highei scores for stepparents on the lntellectual and Belonging subscales.

However, the means for male and female ctiildren were within one point for al1 five subscales. It is unlikely that the results showed meaningful differences.

Also interesthg to note were the contrasts between male and female children for biological fathers and mothers, and stepfathers and stepmothers

(Figure 29). Female children saw a greater difference between biological fathers and mothers on parenting behaviours than did male children. Male children also rated biological fathers higher than biological mothers on Belonging, whereas female children rated biological mothers as higher.

Male and female chitdren viewed the parental participation of stepfathers and stepmothers very similarly (Figure 30). Stepmothers were rated as being more involved than stepfathers were by both males and females. A clear gender trend ernerged for this contrast. Figure 26 Figure 27

Figure 29 Figure 30 Aae of the Stemhild

In order to assess the impact of the age of the stepchild or stepchildren on the perception of the stepparent's role and on the perception of stepfamily functioning, several correlations were computed.

1s the age of the stepchild a signikxnt factor in the petception of the

stepparent role? The age of the stepchild was correlated with the stepparent

involvement score (as assessed by al1 children in the family). The correlation was

not significant (L = -.20, g=.28).

1s the age of the stepchild a significant factor in the perception of

stepfamily functioning? The age of the stepchild was correlated the children's

scores on the FES. The result was not significant (r = -.22, g=.24). The individual

scores for each child on the FES were then plotted against age and an outlier

was revealed (Figure 31 ). Figure 31

FES Scores Plotted Against Age of Children

FES

a PSRS PSAOE

0 WFES WAGE RRS PJAGE

Age of the Child

When the outlier was removed, the resulting correlation was significant

@=-.38,p.04). Therefore, it is likely that older children tend to perceive family functioning more negatively than do younger children. The outlier did not affect the significance of any other correlations with age as a variable.

When age of the children was correlated with the family FES score (family functioning as assessed by al1 family members) the result was not statistically significant when the outlier was present (p.15, p=.41), or when the outlier was removed &=-.31, p.09).However, the large change in the correlation coefficient with the removal of one data-point indicated that this question might merit further study.

Are stepparents perceived as engaging in less "parenting behaviours" with older stepchildren? The parenting behaviours scores for the stepparent were summed across al1 areas and then correlated with the age of the stepchildren. A correlation was also computed between the biological parent's parenting behaviours and children's age. These scores were then compared using a

Fisher's z-transformation for dependent samples (Glass and Stanley, 1970) to see if children perceived al1 parents as engaging in less parenting behaviours with older children rather than just stepparents.

Parenting behaviours were negatively correlated with age for both biological parents (r= -.44, g=.011) and stepparents &= -.29, p.113). When these correlations were compared using Fisher's transformation, the resulting z was non-significant (t = .8l4; see Appendix M for equation used). Children's age was significantly correlated with total parenting behaviours for biological parents and stepparents combined (r=-.43, p.014). In other words, al1 parents tend to be perceived as engaging in less parenting behaviours with older children, regardless of the type of parental relationship present.

Lenath of Time in Current Famih

1s the length of time in the mentstepfamily related to the perception of the stepparent role? The length of time in the current family was correlated with the average parenting behaviours score as assessed by al1 family members. The result was not signifiant (I = -07, p.78). It was not the case that the longer a stepfamiiy was together, the more salient the stepparents' role became.

Is the length of timin the currmt stepfamiiy related tu the perception of the stepfamiiy tùnciioning? The length of time in the current stepfamiiy was correlateci with the family's composite score used to measure stepfamily functioning. No significant result was found & = -.25, e=.163). Stepfamily functioning does not seem to change based on how long the family has been together.

tength of ïime in a Sinale Purent Family

1s the length of fime in a single parent family a significant factor in the perception of the stepparent role?The length of time in a single parent family was correlated with the overall parenting behaviours score for the stepparent.

The result was non-signif.int (1 = -.14, ~=.45).In other words, the stepparent was no more likely to be perceived as an interloper in situations where a single parent had been the primary caregiver for a substantial period of time than in families witti a relatively short single parent intewal.

1s the length of time in a single pannt family a significant factor in the prceptbn of stepfamily functkning? The length of time in the single parent family was correlated the composite score on the FES for the biological parent and children (I = -.00, ~=.99),and for children alone (I = -.Il,~=.56). Family mernbers who had spent a significant amount of time as a single parent famiiy sub-system were no more likely to assess family functioning negatively than family members who had spent only a short pend of time in a lone parent family.

Familv Aareement as a Measure of Familv Functioninq

1s there a relationship between the level of agreement between family members on the general factors and parenting behaviours and stepfamily functioning? The two measures of family agreement (PRBQ) were correlated with the family FES score. The correlation between family agreement on the general factors was significantly negatively correlated, as expected (Z = -.40, ~=.03).

Family functioning tends to increase when family members agreed on which parenting factors are most valued, Interestingly, the correlation beîween family agreement on the parenting behaviours and the family FES score approached significance in the opposite direction Cr = 34, p.06). However, upon review of the scatter plot, an outlier was detected. When the outlier was removed, the correlation became non-significant (p.25, p.1 8). In other words, it appears that famify functioning is unrelated to the level of agreement on how the biological parent and stepparent behave on a day-to-day basis.

Is there a relationship between the level of agreement between family members on the role of the stepparent and stepfamily functforiing? A subset of the family agreement scores was created to assess the level of agreement on the role of and the level of involvement of the stepparent. First, family agreement on the stepparent's values was correlated with family functioning as measured by the FES. The correlation was not statistically signifiant (r=-.l1, p=.59). Family agreement on the level of involvement of the stepparent was also correlated with the family's composite score from the FES (Figure 32). The scatter plot showed the existence of a possible outlier. However, neither correlation was significant, although the correlation approached significance both with and without the outlier present (I = .35, g=.055). In other words, when family rnembers agree on the stepparent's parenting behaviours, family functioning may tend to be lower.

Possible explanations for this counter-intuitive result will be explored in the discussion section.

Figure 32

FES Scores Plotted Against Stepparents Parenting Behaviours Scores Predictor Variables for Familv Functlonirw in Steofamilim

What factos predkt stepfamily functioning and cohesion? The following factors were entered into the regression equation using the stepwise rnethod: length of separation (how long between separation and remarriage), age of children at the time of stepfamily formation, gender of stepchildren, bngth of current relationship, qualiîy of current parenting coalition relationship, and level of family agreement on the two areas of the PRBQ with the farnily's composite score from the FES as the dependent variable. Couple functioning (as measuied by the DAS), gender of the eldest stepchild, and the PRBQ rank agreement were entered into the equation first as they were significant correlation coefficients with farnily functioning (see Table L-4 in Appendix L).

Couple functioning, Ipender of the eldest stepchild, and PRBQ rank agreement accounted for 67% of the variability in family functioning (adjusted

h.666; F49.58, p=.OO). No other dependent measures met the entry criteria of p.05. Therefore, no other variables accounted for any significant portion of the variabiliîy in family functioning.

Upon further investigation, the gender of the eldest stepchild predicted family functioning in the following manner. If the eldest child was female, family functioning was significantly more likely to be high than if the eldest child was

male @=-.254,~e.05). The age of the eldest child was not significantly different

when partitioned along gender lines. CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION

This study was an effort to define the nature of the roles in which stepfathers and stepmothers engage, and to compare them to the roles of biologiial parents. This study was also an attempt to evaluate the effect of parenting roles and specific family variables on stepfamily functioning.

Several general themes emerged from the statistical analyses. Foremost, the stepfamilies surveyed managed well. Moreover, they did not differ greatly from the normative samples used by Spanier and by Moos and Moos on measures of couple and family functioning. This finding was consistent with

Anderson and White's (1986) finding that well functioning biologically intact families and well functioning stepfamilies were more similar to each other than to families of either type who were struggling to remain cohesive.

Second, mothers and fathers seemed to behave based upon what could be considered traditional gender roles. Mothers were seen as nurturers and fathers were seen as protectors regardless of the blood relationship to the children. Mothers seemed to be considered more involved, and fathers seemed to be perceived as having a more hands-off approach.

Finally, couple functioning and familial agreement on parenting values were predictive of stepfamily functioning. Gender of the eldest child was also predictive of family functioning; however, in marked contrast to other research findings (Clingempeel, Brand, & levoli, 1984; Bray, 1988; Giles-Sims & Crosbie-

Bumett, 1989; Hetherington, 1989; Pink & Wampler, 1985; Vuchinich, Hetherington, Vuchinich and Clingempeel, 1991), family functioning was higher in families where the eldest stepchild was female.

The current study included some distinctive aspects in response to criticism of past research. Specifically, the data were collected from al1 family members in an attempt to obtain a more robust and cornplete picture of the parental role undertaken by stepparents. In addition, the current research used a well-known measure of family functioning (the FES) to increase comparability to other research studies.

Limitations.

Stepfamily research is particularly challenging because there are no simple methods by which to identify stepfamilies within the larger population.

Census Canada does not collect data regarding remarriage or stepfamilies. In addition, no large organizations in Canada have mailing lists of stepfamilies.

Therefore, obtaining a random sample is challenging. The current sample came

from self-selected families. As a result, the families were not representative of a

broad range of stepfamilies. The hornogeneity of the sample limited both the

interpretation of the findings and the ability to generalize beyond the current

sample. Specifically, there was little variance on dyadic adjustment, family

functioning, or on the perception of parental roles, values, and behaviours. Only

one or two of the thirty-three families could be described as conflictual or pwr

functioning. Moreover, nearly al1 the families were white, upper middle class

families with high educational status. Finally, the sample size is small @=33). Thus, it would be difficult to generalize the findings to the *averagenCanadian stepfamily. However, it is important to remember that the study was an exploratory attempt to understand the factors that define a well-functioning stepfamily. The current results did provide a picture of well-functioning stepfamilies without any of the possible confounding factors such as poverty, lack of education, etc.

In addition, as no standardized measure of parenting roles existed, a questionnaire was adapted specifically for the purposes of this research. As

such, comparison with other studies is not possible. Moreover, the reliability

scores on the PRBQ subscales were only moderate. Finally, this study was

correlational in nature. It is therefore impossible to infer causal relationships

between any of the variables. In any discussion of trends, no statistical reliability

is implied, unless specifically stated. Any conclusions should be read as

tentative. It is within light of these limitations that the findings must be

considered.

Parentina Values and Behavlours.

The current results indicated that family members in well functioning

steptamilies used the typical social roles of 'mother' and 'father' as templates for

the stepparent roles. Mothers and fathers tended to value aspects of the

parenting role that are traditionally associated with females and males

respectively. However, when gender was removed from the comparison (i.e.

comparing males to males and females to females) stepfathers valued more nurturing parental factors (such as Sensitivity and Responsivity) and use less limit-setting types of behaviours when compared with biological fathers. These findings were consistent with Vuchinich, Hetherington, Vuchinich, and

Clingempeel's (1991) findings that stepfathers tended to be more responsive with children in terms of positive social behaviour and less likely to engage in disciplinary or controlling behaviours. In contrast, stepmothers were more likely to value Iimit setting as well as engage in setting boundaries for the children when compared with biological mothers. It is possible that stepmothers enact

rigid limits as a response to being expected to assume the role of primary caregiver. It is also possible that there is greater sanction for stepmothers to engage in disciplinary parenting within well-functioning stepfamily systems.

Kurdek and Fine (1993) also found that stepmother families seemed to be less permissive than stepfather families.

Discipline seemed to be the most contentious value among family

members. Parent's self-assessments rarely matched the assessment of others.

This finding was not surprising given the myriad of claims that have shown discipline to be a contentious issue in stepfamily dynamics (e.9. Claxton-Oldfield,

1992; Gross, 1987; Visher & Visher, 1990; Crosbie-Burnett & Giles-Sims, 1994;

Furstenberg, 1987). It also supported clinicians' recommendation for stepparents to avoid taking on a "parental role" in the stepfamily, as it may be the aspect of

step parenting most likely to cause marital and familial discord. No other

parenting value showed as large a discrepancy. ln fact, the level of

correspondence between family members seemed to indikate that farnily members had a clear sense of the roles of both the biological parent and the stepparent.

A gender trend also emerged for parenting behaviours: mothers rated themselves and were perceived by children to be more involved that fathers on al1 five aspects of parenting behaviour, regardless of the relationship to the children (Le. biological versus step), This finding may be consistent with the social expectation that the mottier should be the primary caregiver, and the father should be bath the provider and a secondary caregiver.

A second trend indicated that biological parents were seen as being more involved that stepparents, with one exception: stepfathers rated themselves higher in involvement than biological fathers, and stepmothers rated themselves equal to biological mothers on promoting belonging. This finding was consistent with Whiteside's (1989) assertion that developing family rituals is a vital primary step to prornoting family cohesion. It may also be a more neutral area of parenting that stepparents and children can collaborate on without the history of the previous family intsrfering. In addition, children saw stepfathers as marginally more involved than biological fathers on parenting behaviours concerning physical care (Physical) and the support of academic work (Intellectual). This again may be an area that stepparents can gain a rofe without creating interpersonal discord between themselves and their stepchildren. The children's attributions were often consistent with the stepparent self-perceptions for both stepfathers and stepmothers The gender of the child had an impact on ratings of parenting behaviours.

Specifically, girls rated biological parents an average of two points higher than boys, and saw greater differences between biological fathers and biological mothers on parenting behaviours (the sample size made it impossible to ascertain whether this difference was statistically meaningful). However, no clear trend emerged for stepparents based on the gender of the child. This result may have been particular to this sample; however, it may be interesting to compare the ratings of girls and boys in both biologically intact families and stepfamilies to assess whether this trend is confirmed.

Familv Variables.

Family variables such as the age of the stepchildren, length of time in the stepfamily and length of time in a single parent family did not affect how well-functioning stepfamilies conceptualized the stepparent role or how cohesive the family unit was. The only notable exceptions were that older stepchildren assessed family functioning more negatively, and agreement on the stepparent's behaviours seemed to be linked to lower family functioning.

The age of the child or children was not correlated with the perception of stepparent involvement. Children's age was also significantly negatively correlated with the children's perception of family functioning. In other words, older children were more likely to see the family as functioning poorly. These findings do not support Mills (1984) postulation that it takes as long again as the child has lived for the child to perceive the stepparent in a parental role. It may also challenge the "psychological parent" theory put forth by Gamache (1998). It is possible that it is psychologically appropriate for adokscents in well functioning families to feel as though their farnily system is no longer idyllic in order to make an emotional separation as part of developing a separate identity, and in anticipation of independence. In any case, the issues of the impact of the age of the child on the acceptame of the stepparent, and on the perception of stepfamily functioning seem to ment funher study.

However, it was more diicutt to answer the question of whether the entire family rated family functioning more poorly when older children were present.

The reported results appeared arnbiguous: the strength of the correlation changed dramatically with the removal of just one data-point. It is possible that a negative relationship between children's age and family functioning would be more evident with a more diverse sample.

All parents (regardless of the relationship to the children) were viewed as engaged in less parenting behaviours with older children. The finding lends further support to the hypothesis that the developmental needs of adolescents are for separation and individuation from the family of origin. However, the current results did not come close to answering this question conclusively, and therefore it may be a profitable area of further study. As well, the question of whether a similar trend would be present in well-functioning bio-intact families might also prove rewarding. If a similar trend were present in bio-intact families, it would help to confirm that less parenting with older children is due to the developmental needs of adolescents. Length of time in the stepfamily was not statistically related to the average parenting behaviour scores. The salience of the stepparent role seemed unaffected by time; it may be possible that the clarity of the stepparent role was determined more by the positive dynamics of the system than the amount of time that had passed. In addition, time in the stepfamily did not influence the perception of family functioning. The limited variance on family functioning may partially explain why families did not seem to either become more cohesive, as

Papernow (1988) theorized, or less cohesive over time. However, this finding was consistent with Gamache's (1992) finding that the length of the marriage was unrelated to stepfamily adjustment. Pink and Wampler (1985) also found no relationship between years married and stepfamily cohesion or stepfamily adaptability.

Stepparents were not perceived in a more negative fashion in stepfamilies preceded by a long period of single-parenthood than in stepfamilies with a relaliveiy short single-parent interval. Nor did family functioning Vary depending on the length of the single parent interval. Again, the limited variance may have played a factor in these findings. Although some clinidans have postulated that strong parent-child coalitions can develop between the custodial biological parent and the eldest child (e.g. Visher & Visher, 1988; Wald, 1981; Newman, 1994) the current results seemed more consistent with Pink and Wampler's (1985) finding that no relationship existed between length of time between the previous marriage and remarriage, and family cohesion. At minimum, it seems possible that any coalitions that might have existed did not negatively influence family functioning. Perhaps problematic parent-child coalitions are more characteristic of stepfamilies that are struggling to becorne cohesive, as the findings of

Anderson and White (1986) and Brown, Green and Druckrnan (1990) suggest.

Stepfamily functioning did not seem to be negatively irnpacted by using a conventional family model as a template for the values and behaviours of successful stepfamilies. Perhaps much of the chical and anecdotal literature that concludes that avoiding "taditional" roles is the wisest course for stepparents actually tapped into a different population of stepfamilies.

Further research may also need to be pursued to assess whether the marital status of the parents is a statislically relevant component to stepfamily dynamics. It was evident from the current study that differences between married and cohabiting couples were present. Whettier the differences influenced family functioning was not clear, but rnight prove valuable for further investigation.

Family agreement on parenting values appeared to be related to family functioning in cohesive stepfamilies. The finding was consistent with Skopin,

Newman and McKenry (1993) conclusion that agreement between husband and wife regarding the raising of the adolescent was positively related to the perception of the stepfather-adolescent relationship. The result was not surprising; one would expect that closeiy aliied values would be an aspect of family harmony. It might also suggest that the biological parent and stepparent would have congruent parenting styles. Family functioning was unrelated to the level of agreement between family memôeis on the day-to-day pareniing behaviours. However, a possible trend

emerged: high levels of agreement on the parenting behaviours of the stepparent seemed to be associated with lower family functioning. One possible explanation for this finding would be that families in conflict over parenting issues would be more defined in terrns of the parenting tasks that each adult had taken on. It is

also possible that family members all agreed upon who was doing what, but that

no one was happy with the particular division of parenting tasks. The findings

warrant further study on this issue.

Piedictors of Famib Functionina.

It was clear frorn the results that when the couple had a strong positive

relationship, the family was also stronger. This result was not surprising; a strong

positive couple relationship rnay lay the foundation for the family, and may

provide good role modeling. Moreover, a lack of tension between the marital

dyad could also promote family hamny. In conjunction with dyadic functioning,

famiiy agreement on parentiflg values seerned to help promote positive farnly

functioning. In families in which Ihe family members held similar views on what

parenting values were most important, the famiiy was more likely to score high

on family cohesion and adaptability. The results from the current study were

consistent with the findings of Roberts and Price (1989), Skopin, Newman and

McHenry (1993), Fine (1986), and Andem and White (1986). Gender of the eldest stepchild was also a predictor of family functioning.

However, contrary to the findings of previous research (Clingempeel, Brand, &

levoli, 1984; Bray, 1988; Giles-Sims & Crosbie-Bumett, 1989; Hetherington,

1989; Pink & Wampler, 1985; Vuchinich, Hetherington, Vuchinich and

Clingempeel, 1991) the current study showed that families where the eldest child

was a girl had significantly higher Family Environment Scale scores than did

families where the position of the eldest child was occupied by a boy. As the

current sample consisted of well-functioning families, one possible hypothesis

could be that girls may be more sensitive to the emotional climate within the

stepfamily. However, the current findings cannot answer this question

conclusively, and therefore finding the answers must be left for future

researchers.

Conclusions.

Cherlin's incomplete institutionalization hypothesis (1978) argues that

stepfamilies struggle to form cohesive family bonds due to a lack of implicit

guidelines and expectations on family roles as well as considerable pressure to

mimic the "bio-intact" family model. If the roles of "stepfather" and "stepmother"

were still poorly institutionalized, one would expect to see little agreement

between families on what stepfathers and stepmothers value and how they

behave. One would also expect large variances within each factor or subscale,

indicating a lack of role clarity. In this study, the roles and behaviours of

biological parents and stepparents seemed salient to al1 the participants. Moreover, attributions from family members about the roles and behaviours reflected the self-perceptions of family membrs quite closely. In addition, the level of agreement amongst famiiy members was quite strong. Moreover, the standard deviation scores for subscales were often very small. These results could be seen as a refutation of Cherlin's (1978) hypothesis. However, it is important to recognize that the past 22 years have seen considerable social change, particularly concerning increased flexibility in the conceptuakation of

'family'. Perhaps it is now easier for stepparents to navigate their way into their new role because the social roles of "stepfather" and "stepmothef have become more institutionalized. Certainly, the stigma that was once attached to stepfamily membership has bengreatly reduced, if not completely eradicated. In addition, perhaps the social roles of "fathep and "rnother" have also become more inclusive and flexible (Daly, 1993). Finally, it is possible that there are subtle but meaningful differences between Canadian and American stepfamilies vis-à-vis the clarity of stepfamily roles. Cherlin's hypothesis (1978) may be strongly embedded within a social-historical context that no longer exists. Thus, he articulated a problern that seerns to have since been resolved: stepfarnilies have become institutionalized within Our culture.

Future research needs to be undertaken to broaden the scope of the current study. A larger, more diverse sample, and more stepmother families would increase the robustness of the current findings tremendously. In addition, further research on the impact of the age and gender of the stepchildren on the perception of family functioning would be beneficial. It may also be important to further unravel the link between farnily agreement on parenting behaviours and family functioning.

The current findings support clinician's recornmendation for stepparents and stepfathers in particular, to embrace the more nurturing and guidance aspects of the parenting role as a means of developing positive bonds with stepchildren. Therefore, although not rushing into a parental role seems to be a good initial strategy for stepparents, over time, parental roles will likely be anticipated and accepted by family members.

The findings also support the notion that the adult couple needs to rnake a cornmitment to rnaintaining a strong marital relationship as a component of developing a strong foundation for the family. Moreover, therapists may benefit frorn helping the family to highlight the aspects of the parenting values upon which family rnembers agree as a rneans of prornoting family harrnony. Finally, it seerns crucial that therapists recognize that the structural change from bio-intact farnily to stepfarnily does not seem to inherently create stress. Therefore, assuming that any problems within the family are simply because they are a stepfarnily could have the potentiai to cause greater harm.

More than anything else, stepfamilies can take heart that they seem to be adjusting well to the challenges of being in a stepfamily unit. They seem to be able to develop a shared sense of the des of both adults in the parenting arena.

The reciprocity and congruence among farnily mernbers concerning family values

seern to strongly indicate that the stepparent role has become institutionalized within the current culture. REFERENCES

Amato, Paul R., & Ochiltree Gay. (1987). lntewiewing children about their families: A note on data quality. Journal of Marriaae and the Familv. 49,669-675.

Ambert, Anne-Marie. (1986). Being a stepparent: Live-in and visiting stepchildren. Journal of Marriaae and the Familv. 48,795-804.

Anderson, J. Zucker & White, G. D. (1986) An empirical investigation of interaction and relationship patterns in functional and dysfunctional nuclear families and stepfamilies. Familv Process. 25,407-422.

Bowen, Gary L. (1988). Family life satisfaction: A value-based approach.

Familv Relations. 37,458-462.

Bray, James H. & Harvey, David M. (1995). Adolescents in stepfamilies:

Developmental family interactions. Psvchothera~v.32, 122-130.

Brown, Anne Chalfant, Green, Robert Jay, & Druckman, Joan. (1990). A comparison of stepfamilies with and without child-focused problems. American

Journal of Ortho~svchiatrv.60 (4), 556-566.

Cheriin, Andrew. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete institution.

American Journal of Socioloav. 84(3). 634-650.

Claxton-Oldfield, S. (1992). Perceptions of stepfathers: Disciplinary and affectionate behaviour. Journal of Familv Issues. 13 (31,378-389.

Claxtan-Oldfield, S. & Butler, B. (1998). Portrayal of stepparents in movie plot summaries. Psvcholoaical Reports. 82, 879-882. Clingempeel, W. Glenn. (1981). Quasi-kin relationships and marital quality in stepfather families. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvcholoav. 41 (51,890-

901.

Clingempeel, W. Glenn, Brand, E, & levoli, B. (1984) Stepparent-stepchild relationships in stepmother and stepfather families: A multimethod study. Family

Relations. 33,4659473.

Clingempeel, W. Glenn, & Segal, S. (1986). Stepparent-stepchild relationships and the psychological adjustment of children in stepmother and stepfather families. Child Development. 57,47444.

Coleman, M. & Ganong, L. The cultural stereotyping of stepfamilies in

Remarriage and stepparenting: Current research and theory. (1987). Pasley, Kay

& Ihinger-Tallman, Marilyn (eds.) New York: Guilford Press.

Coleman, Marilyn & Ganong, Lawrence H. (1984). Effects of family structure on family attitudes and expectations. Familv Relations. 33. 425-432.

Coleman, Marilyn, & Ganong, Lawrence H. (1990). Remarriage and stepfamily research in the 1980s: lncreased interest in an old family form. Journal of Marriaae and the Familv. 52,925-940.

Crosbie-Bumett, M. (1984) The Centrality of the Step Relationship: A challenge to Family Theory and Practice, Familv Relations. 33,459-463.

Crosbie-Burnett, Margaret. (1989). Application of family stress theory to remamage: A mode1 for assessing and helping stepfamilies. Familv Relations, -38,323-331. Crosbie-Bumett, M. (1989). The Stepfamiily Adjustment Scale: Tite

Dewlopment of a New Instrument Oesigned to Measure the Unique Aspects of

Stepfamilies. Paper presented at the lbeory Construction and Research

Methdology Pre-Conference Workshop of the National Council on Family

Relations, New Orleans, November, 1989.

Crosbie-Burnett, Margaret & Giles-Sims, Jean. (1994). Adolescent adjustment and stepparenting styles. Familv Relations, 43,394-399.

Daly, Kerry. (1993). Reshaping Fatherhood: Finding the Madels. Journal of Familv Issues, 14 (41,510-530.

Duberman, Lucile, (1973). Stepkin relationships. Joumal of Marriaqe and the Famiiv, 35.283-292.

Furstenberg, Frank F. Jr. nie new extended famiIy: 7he expenence of parents and chiUren after remamage. in Remarriage and stepparenting: Current research and theory. (1987). Pasley, Kay & Ihinger-Tallman, Marilyn (eds.) New

York: Guilford Press

Gamache, Susan. (1992) Younci aduit ~ers~ectiveson ste~farnily adiustrnent duriria adolescence: The essential role of sinale parent family dvnamics within the ste~famihr.Unpublished master's thesis, Simon Fraser

University, Bumaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Ganong, Lawrence H. & Coleman, Mariîyn M. (1 997). How socieîy views stepfamilies. Marriam and Familv Review, 26(1/2). 85-106. Ganong, Lawrence H. & Coleman, Marilyn M. (1986). A oomparison of clinical and empirical literature on children in stepfamilies. Journal of Marriaae and the Famitv, 48.309-31 8.

Ganong, Lawrence H. & Coleman, Marilyn M. (1987). Stepchildren's perceptions of ttieir parents. Journal of Genetic Psvcholoav, 148(1), 5-17.

Ganong, Lawrence H. & Coleman, Marilyn. (1984). The effects of remarriage on chitdren: A review of the empirical literature. Familv Relations. 33,

389-406.

Glass, G. & Stanley, J. (1970). Statistical Methods in Education and

Psvcholoav. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goldner. V. (1982). Remarriage family: Structure, system, future. In J. C.

Hansen & L. Messenger (Eds.), Therapy with Remarried Families pp. 187-206,

Rockville, MD: Aspen

Gotîman, John Mordechai. (1994). What ~redictsdivorce? The relationship between marital Processes and marital outcornes. Hilisdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc,

Helherington, E. Mavis. (1989). Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers, and survivors. Child Develo~ment.60. 1-18.

Ihinger-TaHman, Marilyn. (1984). Epilogue. Familv Relations, 33.483-487.

Ihinger-Tallman, Marilyn. (1988). Research on stepfamilies. Annual Review of

Socioloav. t 4.34-48.

Ihinger-Tallman, Mariiyn 8 Pasley, Kay. (1987). Remarriage. Sage

Publications, Inc: Newbury Park, CA. Keshet, Jamie K. (1980). From separation to stepfamily: A subsystem analysis. Journal of Familv Issues. 1(4). 5 17-532.

Jamie K. Keshet. The Remamed Couple: Stresses and Successes. in

Relative strangers: Studies of stepfamily processes. (1988). Beer, William R.

(ed.) Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield

Kurdek, Lawrence A. & Fine, Mark A. (1993). Parent and nonparent

residential family members as providers of warmth and supervision to young adolescents. Journal of Familv Psvctioloqy, 1.245-249.

Kurdek, Lawrence A. & Fine, Mark A. (1993). The relations between family

structure and young adolescents' appraisal of family climate and parenting

behaviour. Journal of Familv Issues, l4(2). 279-290.

Lutz, Patricia. (1983). The stepfamily: The adolescent's perspective.

Familv Relations. 32.367-375.

MacDonald, William L., and DeMans, Alfred. (1995). Remarriage,

stepchildren, and marital conf ict: Challenges to the incomplete institutionalization

hypothesis. Journal of Marriaae and the Familv. 17I11, 387-398.

MacDonald, William L., and Demaris, Alfred. (1996). Parenting

stepchildren and biological children. Journal of Familv Issues. 17(l L 5-25.

Marsiglio, William. (1 992). Stepfathers with minor children living at home.

Journal of Familv Issues. l3(2). 195-214.

Mills, David M. Stepfarniliés in context. in Relative strangers: Studies of

stepfamily processes. (1988). Beer, William B. (ed.) Totowa: Rowman &

Littlefield. Minton, Carmelle & Pasley, Kay. (1996). Fathers' parenting rote identity and father involvement: a comparison of non-divorced and divorced, nonresident fathers. Journal of Familv Issues. 17(1), 26-45.

Mowder, Barbara A., Harvey, Virginia Smith, Moy, Linda & Pedro,

Mariana. (1995). Parent role characteristics: Parents views and their implications for school psychologists. Psvcholoav in the Schools. 32.27-37.

Mowder, Barbara A., Harvey, Virginia Smith, Pedro, Mariana, Rossen,

Robert & Moy, Linda. (1993) Parent role questionnaire: Psychometric qualities.

Psvcholoav in the Schools. 30.205-21 1.

Newman, Margaret. (1994). Stepfamily Realities: How to overcome ditficulties and have a happy family. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.

Palisi, Bartolomeo J., Orleans, Myron, Caddell, David, & Kom, Bonnijean.

(1991). Adjustment to stepfatherhood: The effects of marital history and relations with children.

Papernow, Patricia L. Stepparent role development: From outsider to intimate. Relative strangers: Studies of stepfamily processes. (William B. Beer,

Ed.), pp. 54-82 [1988] Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Litîlefield/Rowman and Allanheld.

Pease, Damaris, Boger, Robert, Melby, Janet N., Pfaff, Judy & Wolins,

Leroy. (1989). Reliability of the q-sort inventory of parenting behaviours.

Educational and Psvcholodcal Measurement. 49.1 1-17.

Pink, JO Ellen Theresa & Wampler, Karen Smith. (1985). Problem areas in stepfamilies: cohesion, adaptability, and the stepfather-adolescent relationship.

Familv Relations, 34 327-335. Pruchno, Rachel, Burant, Christopher & Peters, Norah O. (1994). Family mental health: Marital and parent-child consensus as predictors. Journal of

Marriaae and the Familv. 56.747-758.

Roberts, Thomas W. & Price, Sharon J. (1989). Adjustment in remarriage:

Communication, cohesion, marital, and parental roles. Joumal of Divorce. 13(1)

17-43.

Robinson, Bryan E. (1984). The contemporary Amencan stepfather.

Familv Relations. 33,381 -388.

Rodgers, Roy H. & Conrad, Linda M. (1986). Courtship for remarriage:

Influences on family reorganization after divorce. Joumal of Marriaae and the

Familv, 48.767-75.

Schwebel, Andrew I., Fine, Mark A. & Renner, Maureena A. (1 991). A study of perceptions of the stepparent role. Journal of Familv Issues, 12(1). 43-

57.

Secord, Paul F. & Backman, Carl W. (1974). Social Psychology (2"6 ed.)

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Skopin, Ann R., Newman, Barbara M. & McHenry, Patrick C. (1993).

Influences on the quality of stepfather-adolescent relationships: Views of both family members. Journal of Divorce and Remarriaae. 19(3/4). 181-196.

Tein, Jenn-Yun, Roosa, Mark W. & Michaels, Marcia. (1994). Agreement beiween parent and child reports on parental behaviours. Joumal of Marriaae and the Familv. 56.341 -355. Visher, Emily B. 8 Visher, John S. (1990). Dynamics of successful stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce and Remarriaae. 14(1). 3-12.

Visher, Emily. B. & Visher, John. S. (1988). Old Loyakies, New Ties:

Thetapeuth Strategies with Sepfamilies. New York: Bmnner/Mazel Pubtishers.

Vuchinich, Samuel, Hetherington, E. Mavis, Vuchinich, Regina, A, &

Clingempeel, W. Glenn. (1 991). Parent-child interactions and gender differences in earîy adolescents' adaptation to stepfamilies. Develo~mentalPsvcholoav, -27(4). 618-626. Wald, Esther. (1 981) The Remamed Family: Challenge and Promise. New

York: Family Service Association of America.

Whiteside, Mary F. (1989). Family rituals as a key to kinship connections in rernarned families. Familv Relations. 38.34-39.

A~mndixA

University Ethical Approval Letters SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

BüRNABY, BRiTISH COLUMBIA CANADA V5A 1% Telephone: (W)a14152 FAX: (604)291460

Ms. Jennifer Kennett Graduate Student Educa tion Simon Fraser University

Dear Ms. Kennett:

Re: Perceived Parental Roles in Stepfamilies: Implications for Family Cohesion and Functioning

1 am pleased to inform you that the above referenced Request for Ethical Approval of Research has been approved on behalf of the University Research Ethics Review Committee. This approvai is in effect for twenty-four months from the above date. Any changes in the procedures affeaing interaction with human subjects should be reported to the University Research Ethics Review Committee. Signhcant changes will require the subrnission of a revised Request for Ethical Approval of Research. This approval is in effect only while you are a registered SFU student.

Best wishes for success in this research.

Bruce P. Clayman, Chair University Research Ethics Review Committee c: A. Horvath, Supervisor BR/hme 109 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

BüRNABY, BRITISHCOLUMBIA CANADA V5A 156 Telephone: (60()2914152 FAX: (004) 291-

November 7,1997

Ms. jennifer Kmtt Graduate Student Education Simon Fraser University barMs. Kennett: Re: Perceived Parental Roles in Stepfamilies: Implications for Family Cohesion and Functioning

In response to your request dated November 3,1997,I am pleased to approve, on behalf of the University Research Ethics Review Cornmittee the minor revisions in the research protocol of the above referenced Requesi for Ethical Approval of Research originally approved on September 4.19%. ktwishes for success in this research. Sincerely.

fi~ruceP. ciayman, Chair University Research Ethics Review Cornmittee c: A. Homath, Supervisor

BR/hme MlCH KAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Ms. Jennifer Kemett Apt 217 Carrigan Court Bumdaby, British Columbia Canada V3N4Jl

Dear Ms. Kennett:

The manual of the NC-158 Q-Sort Inventory of Parenting Behaviors is attached as regarding our telephone conversation of last evening. 1 have aiso enclosed a reprint of an article regarding the relibility of the O-Sort, which you may find of interest. 1 am sorry you had difficultyin reaching me and 1 hope these materials are helpfûl to you in your research.

COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY Robert P. Boger Professor Michigan Stata Uniwrsity 107 HumEcolooy Easl Lansing, Michigan 48824-1030 5171 355-7680 FM 5171 432-2953 Information Sheet Faculty of Education Simon Fraser University Bumaby, B.C. V5A 1S6

Researchers from Simon Fraser University are siudying slepfamilies. We need written consent so it is clear that al1 participants are aware of what the study is about, and that they understand what their rights are as research parîicipanls.

Ms. Jennifer Kennett (a graduate student) is conducting this study under the supervision of Dr. Adam Hotvath. If you would like to participate please read this information sheet and sign the attached consent form.

To take part, you will fil1 out a set of questionnaires. They will take from 45 minutes to 2 hours ta finish. The questionnaires include questions about how you see yourself and your partner in ternis of parenting roles, your ideas about your relationship with your partner, and your thoughts about your family life. The only possible risk of participating in this study is that some participants, depending on their situation, may find answering some of these questions upsetting. Please note that you may, for this mionor for any other reawn, withdmw hmthe study at any tim, or choose not to answer rom or al1 of the questions.

All information proviâed by you wlll be held ln the strictest confldenca and kept in a locked flling cabinet. Your name will MOT appear on the questionnaires. Once we receive your completed package, the consent fom will immediately be separateci from the questionnaires so you cannot be connected with the answers that you provide. Only Jennifer Kennett, Dr. Hotvath, and Ms. Kennett's research assistant wilt be able to see your answers. Your nam will not be givrn out to anyone nor will you ba Wtllied in connedon with the results of the study. You may withdraw from the study at any tirne, or refuse to complete any part of it.

If you have any questions or concerns about the study at any time, please contact Dr. Horvath or Ms. Kennett. You may also contact Dr. Robin Barrow, Faculty of Education, SFU (291-3395) with any questions or concerns about the study. If yau wish to receive a summary of the results of the study, please send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to:

Slepiamily Projeci C/o Jennifer S. Kennett Faculty of Education Simon Fraser University Bumaby, B.C. V5A 1S6

Please note that we cannot proviele you with commenls about your family specifically, but we can give you a description of the major goals and results of the study. Thank you for your time and co- operation. A~mndixC

Information Shwt for Children Chlldren's Information Sheet (to be read to chlldren under 12 years of age)

I am asking your family 10 help me understand more about stepfamilies by answering some questions.

I want to ask you some questions about the kind of things that your momlstepmom does and the kind of things your dadlstepdad does as a parent. 1 will also ask you about what you think they should do. I will also ask you about what it is like to be in your family. It will probably take about an hour to finish answering al1 the questions. I will read you sentences about things your rnom/stepmom and your dadhtepdad do and you will decide whether each sentence card sounds exactly like your mom/stepmorn/dad/stepdad, sounds never like your mom/stepmom/dad/stepdad or is somewhere in between.

What you tell me will not be shown to anyone else. Your parents won't get to see what you answer. If you don't want to begin, you can just Say so. If you don't want to answer a question, you don't have to. You can even tell me you want to stop at any tirne.

Do you have any questions? Appendix D

Consent Form Having been asked by JENNIFERKENNETT of the Faculîy of Education, Simon Fraser University to participate in this research project, I have read the instructions in information package. a I understand what is involved in taking part in this project and the possible personal risks and benefis to me. a I understand that my participation is completely voluntary and that I may stop participalhg in this project at any time. I also understand that I may send any cornplaint I may have about the project to Ms. Kennett, Dr. Horvath, or to Dr. Robin Barrow, Faculty of Education, SFU (291-3395). a I have been informed that the research material will be held confidential by the principal investigator.

As the parent of I agree to allow my childichildren participate in this study.

I certify that I understand the procedures to be used and that they have been fully explained to my childchildren. Helshelthey know that participation is voluntary and that helshdthey may wilhdraw al any time.

Parents: Name (please print): Signature:

Name (please print): Signature:

Childmn: Name (please print): Signature:

Name (please print): Signature:

Name (please print): Signature:

Narne (please print): Signature:

Name (please print): Signature: Date: Wiess: Amendlx E

Questionnaire Packaget - Biologieal Parent Forrn DEMOGRAPHICS - BIOLOGICAL PARENT FORM Please fiIl out the following items completely.

1.) Current Age:

2.) Your gender:

[ ] MALE [ ] FEMALE

3.) Ethnic background:

Caucasian African Canadian Asian First Nations East lndian Other (please specify):

4.) Occupation:

[ ] Clerical [ ] Blue Collar (manual labour, trades, technical) [ 1 Senrice [ ] Education [ ] ManagemenVBusiness [ ] Professional [ ] At home [ ] Unemployed

5.) Level of completed education (ptease fiIl out one only):

[ ] High school [ ] CollegeKechnical school [ ] University Undergraduate degree (BA, ElSc., etc.) [ ] Universly Graduate degree (MA, Ph.D., etc.)

6.) Income:

[ ] less than $29,999 [ ] $30,000-$60,999 [ ] $61,000-$90,999 [ ] more than $91,000 7.) Current marial status:

[ ] Legally married ( ] Cohabiting

8.) Length of current relationship (piease put part years in decimal form i.e. 2 Y2 years=2.5 years):

years

9.) How would you describe the separation beiween yw and your children's mothernather?

friendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 hostile

10.) How would you describe your curnnt relatianship with your ex?

friendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 hostile

11.) How long was it between the time you separated from purchildren's fatherlmother and the beginning of your current relationship (piease put months in decimal form)?

12.) Have you had other serious relationships since your separation?

12.a) If you answered YES to the previous questions, please identify the length of time you were involved in any marriagedcohabiting relationships in between your separation from your children's motherifather and your current relationship from least recent to most recent: 1. 2. 3. 4.

13.) How old were your children when you separated from their other parent (from eldest to youngest)? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

14.) Do both you and your current partner have children from previous marriageslrelationships?

14. a) If YES, how often does your curient partnets children stay with you? (Please fiIl out ONE of the folfowing measures which most clearly explains your situation) days per week wwks per month months per year 15.) How often do your diildren see ttieir other biological parent? Parenting Roles and Behaviours Questionnaire

1, Please rank order how important you see each 01 the following factors is with regards to your psrenting tols with each child in your family wiîh I=mtimportant and Weast important.

Child 1 Child 2 Child 3 Child 5 !w-+L- AL- Age- -Bond (feslina Iwo for and demonstrating- uffdon for your child) -..- Discidine (imposing rules and assuring adherence to th8 rules) - Education (guldlng, teachlsrg and aducatlng your child)

Protection & Generat Weifare (keeplng your &lld hmharm and providing for their basic -8) Resmsivity (being msponiive to your child and your child's needs) Sensitivitv (being rwislthie to your child and your child's needs) II. Please tank order how important you think your parînerlspuse sser each of the following factors is with regards to hl8 or her pamntlng mlr with each child in your family wilh l=mt impdant and 6=Ieast important.

1 Child 1 Child 2 Child 5 AL Ag.!%=- (feeling love for and demonstrating aifecüon for your child) /* - Disci~line (imposing ruks and assuring adherence to the iules)

Education (gulding, teachlng and eâucirttng your child) -- Protection & General Welfare (kplngyour chiid fiom harm and providing for their basic nds)

Reswnsivity (being mponshre to your chiM and your ctiild's needs) r Sensith@ (being ucrrltlve to your child and your chilcrs needs) --t"-- III. On the following pages, you will read a series of parenting behaviours. With only one chlld in mind at a time, please read each item carefully and decide how often you engage in the following behaviouir. Completely fiIl in the circle on the answer shwt that best describes how frequently you perform each behaviour. As you read each statement, ln pur mind, insert the name of the child you are thinking about in the blanks.

Rarely Sometimes Frequently Very Frequently

11 A B C D I provide meals for -. B C D I participate in nuclear family celebrations (Birthdays, etc.) l A B C D l encourage -to spend tirne with both boys i and girls. I A B C D Iam involved in regular family rituals (Le. meals together, watching a TV show together, l etc.) 5 A B C D 1 reward -kr good behaviour (with gins, privileges, etc.). 6; A 0 C D I provide explanations to -for how or why , things happen. 71 A B C D I help the family plan to do things together. ! 8, A B C D I encourage -to get involveci in cornpetitive group activities.

9 !' A B C D l take onday trips (ta the zoo, park, museum, etc.) 10 A B C D I set rules for -. 11 A B C D l encourage -to get involved in

I cooperative group activities. 12 i A B C D l teach -to initiite contact with other children. 13 j' A B C D l encourage -to maintain relationships with members of the extenâed family. 14 / A B C D l take toteam or sport events that shehe I participates in. 1 15 A B C D l teach -life skills (Le. how to do housework, fix a car, cook, etc.). 16 1 A B C D l encourage -to ask for explanations for things. 17 A B C D l encourage -to try new physical activities. 18 / A B C D 1 talk about what being a family means with

A B C D Iget invohred in 'sschool activities for parents. Rarely Sometimes Frequently Very Frequently

1 provide educational toys, games and oppariunities for -. I share my own feelings with. l encourage -to do things on hisher own. Iteach problem solving to. Italk to aboutwhat happened for himiher during the day. I step in when -has problems with childrenipeople outside the family. I teach and encourage sharing behaviour ta. l praise. l compliment-. l teach -to be polite. l encourage -to stay involved in physical activities in spite of minor bumps and bruises. Ishare family history wRh -(stories about one's own chiklhood, parents chiidhood, etc) I think up ideas for family vacations. l encourage Iospnd time withlplay with Re same age peers. l teach -how ta be assertive and stand up for her or himself. l encourage -to be affectionate. l teach -to take tums. l show -some sort of physical afiection daily (i.e. kisses, hugging, etc.). I read to orlisten while sheihe reads aloud. 1 participate in extended family celebrations (Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc.) I mode1 family cooperation. I try to include al1 family members. I encourage and assist -in leaming gwd hand to eye coordination (i.e. by assembling puzzles, making crafts, catching a ball, etc.) I teach responsibility to. Italk with -about hislher bodies. l invoive -in farnily decisions. Rarely Sometimes Frequently Very Frequently 46 i A B C D l provide -with oppurtunities to have fun i ! I teach -gaad memory skilts (play memory card games, help -to figure out how to find los! items, remember a story shehhas heatd, etc.). Iteach -phpical coordination (Le, to roll, kick, catch or throw a ball, etc.) I talk to -about hisher misbehaviour. l help -with homework. I tisten to . I take -to medical and dental checkups. I help creale regular family rituals. I require help around the house from . I support the other parent on parenting issues oanceming -. l encourage -to rnove about and explore freely. t teach .how to use things or how things work (Le. like how a light bulb turns an and off, how to use appliances or twls, etc.). l teach -to obey family rules. I corne up with activities that we do as a family. l teach -social behaviour though examples. l esk forinput on family ruks and expectations. Iorganite day trips for -(to the zoo, park, museum, etc.) I encourage -to participa@in group physical or sport activities. l encourage -to be sociable and not shy. l encourage -to ask for help when shehe needs it. I provide opportunities for -to make choices so that shehe leams to be independent. I talk to -about the television prograrns that she/he watches. Rarely Sometimes Frequently Very FrequenUy

l let -make mistakes even when Icould prevent them (unless it places himher in danger). l teach -good health habits (cleaning hisiher teeth, washing face and hands, etc.). l encourage -to be creative. l teach -personal safety (Le. don't talk to strangers, look both ways before crossing the Street, etc.). i comfort -when shehe is sad or upset. l teach -to help others. I spend time making sure -has opportunities to take part in family conversations. l send -to hisher room or for timeouts when helshe misbehaves. t mode1 good communication to -. l encourage -to defend himselfherself if necessary. I enforce discipline for misbehaviour. Ispend time being physically active with -(Le. play sports, take walks, go to the swimming pool, etc.). l encourage -to read on hislher own. l encourage -to eat a nutritionally balanced diet. l help -1 sheihe has nightmares. l encourage -to interact with children from different backgrounds, cultures, etc. 1 am a spectatori cheerleader in 'sactivities (i.e. sports toumaments. music recitals, plays, etc.) l encourage -to participate in family discussion of problems. 1 make sure -have time to rest andior relax. I participate in family activities. I encourage -to express feelings openly. Istep in when children in family argue. Rarely Sometimes Frequently Very Frequently

D l teach -to be considerate of ùthen. il Itaik about past fun family times with -. D l help get along with other parent. D I teach moral values (Le. right [rom wrong) to -. O 1 play number and word games with -to assist in learning. D I make sure 'sprivacy is respect&.

IV. (Optimal Question) What do puthink are your most important roles as a parent? Phase iâentify any roles that are important to you, especially any roles lhat were left out of aie preceding questions. Clrck me: Mak Femaie DYADIC ADJUSTWNT SCALE 16. How ofmdo you discussorhrveyou consiâd divace, wratioii. of ~clationship-hgY 17. Howoftcndoyouor ma leave the ruse after a fight? - 18. In genenl, how often & you think that things ktween you.dyour partna are going well? 19. Do you confide in your mate? 20. Doyoucvcr~that you marricd (alivsd together)? 2 1. How often do you and pur partnuquaml? 22. How often do you and pur motc "get on each othcrs' nervcs"?

23. Do you lriss yorir mate?

Aiî of Most of Some of Vey kw None of niem niem Thm of- Than 24. Do yw and your mate engage in outside intatsts togethcr? How oficn wouid pusay the following cvents occur ktween yw and pur mate?

25. Have afeimuI;rting exchge of idcas

These arc ~ancthings about which couples dmes and somaimts disap. tidicate if either item below caused diffaenas dopinions a were poblems in yora nlationsbip during rbe few weeks. (Check yes or no.)

29. Bcing tm tidfor stx 30. Not showing love

3 1. 'Ihe dots on ihe foiiowing line repircscnt diifennt &grecs of happiness in your re~~.nie uddie point, "happy",reptesenu lise degitc of happincs ofmm rtlrtionship. Pltue chle die dot whieh best describes the depof happiness, al1 ihings consideied, of your dationShip.

32.. Which of ihe following statemena bat describes how you feel about the funin of your dationship?

1want despcrately famy rtlationship c sucaed, and would go to dmost any lengih to sec that it -does. 1want vay much for my nlationship m succeed, and willdo al1 1can to sec that it doer

It would bc nice if my dationship succeeded, but 1cadt do much more than 1am doing now to help it succecd

Tt wouid be nice if it succeaial, but 1refuse oo do any more thI am &hg now m keep tbe relationship going. * hl r - - œ u am 2 L .- Uc3~;-2 % ostS=-*a 2&h - a = c mu c u*5 .- -8 25 2 - $5 'O Sc- == SU2 ." 25 a P g< 8% mi,f 3 szt; 5 ;= 53 'SE>- M UU 0" 03) -21 55 am o.5 52 2-0 El 3:s m* ;2= gC = 2-.= E >OUE ,,5: Sa0 4 0% 22 O as -O -*à=- = 2'3% p O -Wb CO fO 020 2- .z03 O 'g si :$ ,, $ "2 CC m-.. $5 4; ='g 9. €5 ;-= .E WC= *cc,a, so so 23 fi. =3E=La ~2 fg1nà3 Eii"3 ~&L=EUC,=a: E~C=8 5 gt ëz ob hl- uu us mc-*.~~a n O8 0' s~h~s~s~Y33 -32 P.E ISI Y Ca IZ

Amendix F

Questionnblre Package - Stepparent Form DEMOGRAPHICS - STEPPARENT FORM' Please fiIl out the following items completely.

1.) Current Age:

2.) Your gender:

[ ] MALE [ ] FEMALE

3.) Ethnic background:

] Caucasian ] African Canadian ] Asian ] First Nations ] East lndian ] Other (please specify):

4.) Occupation:

] Clerical ] Blue Collar (manual labour, trades, technical) ] Service ] Education ] ManagemenUBusiness ] Professional ] At home ] Unemployed

5.) Level of completed education (please fiil out one only):

[ ] High school [ ] CollegeKechnical school [ ] University Undergraduale degree (BA, B.%., etc.) [ ] University Graduate degree (MA, Ph.& etc.)

6.) Income:

[ ] less than $29,999 [ ] $30,000-$60,999 [ ] $61,000-$90,999 [ ] more than $91 ,MM

1 Demographics questionnaire only as the Parenting Roles and Behaviours Questionnaire (PRBQ) and the Family Environment Scale (FES) for stepparents have exactly the same wordings. 7.) Cunent maiial status:

[ ] Legally married [ 1 Cohabiting

8.) Length of current relationship (please put part years in decimal form i.e. 2 Yi years=2.5 years):

9.) Have you been married previously?

10.) Do you have children from a previous mamage?

If you answemd NO, plean stop hem. If you answered YES, plecin complets the mlndor of the questions.

11. ) How would you describe the separation between you and your children's motherffather?

friendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 hostile

12.) How would you describe your current relationship with your ex?

friendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 hostile

13.) How long was 1 between the time you separated from your children's fatherlmother and the beginning of your current relationship (please put months in decimal form)?

Years

14.) Have you had other serious relationships since your separation?

14.a) If you answered YES to the previous questions, please identify the length of time you were involved in any mamageslcohabiting relationships in between your separation from your children's motherffather and your current relationship from least recent to most recent: 1. 2. 3. 4.

15.) How olci were your children when you separated from their other parent (from eldest to youngest)? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 16.) How oîîen do you see your children from your previous maniagelrelationship? per week per month -per year ] Never Ao~endlxG

Questionnaire Package - Child Form DEMOGRAPHICS - CHlLD FORM

Please fiIl in completely.

1.) How old are you?

2.) What grade are you in?

3.) Your gender:

[ ] MALE [ ] FEMALE

4.) Ethnic background:

( Caucasian [ ] African Canadian [ ] Asian [ ] East lndian [ ] First Nations [ ] Other (please specify): PAREWTlNG ROLES AND BEHAVIOURS QUESTIONNAIRE

1. This is a list of sme of the things that parents do wiîh their ctiildren. Please rank order hm important you Viink each of these are with l=most important and 6=least important.

1 Biologicai Parent ) Sepparent -Bond r'--- (feeling love for and demonstrating aifaction for you) - - Disci~line (impoalng nib and assuring adherence to the rules) ------t------Education (gulding, teachlng and ducatbig you) Protection B. General Welfare r---- (bplng you hmham and providing for your basic nds)

Resmnsivity (being responsive ta you and your needs) Fr.---p Sensitivity (king mnslUve to you and your ne&) ri--- II. On the following pages, you will read some sentences describing things parents may do with their child. With only one parent in mind at a tirna, please read each sentence carefully and decide how oRen your pmmt or stopparent does each thlng wiîh you. Completely fiIl in the circle that matches the correct letter below.

Rarely Sometimes Frequently Very Frequently

Provides meals for me. Participates in nuclear family celebrations (Birlhdays. etc.) Encourages me to spend time with bath boys and girls. Is involved in regular family rituals (Le. mals together, watching a TV show together, etc.) Rewards me for good behaviour (with gifts, privileges, etc.). Provides explanations to me for how or why things happen. Helps the family plan to do things together Encourages me to get involved in competitive group activities. Takes me on day trips (to the zoo, park. museum, etc.) Sets rules for me. Encourages me to get involved in cooperative group activities. Teaches me to initiate contact with other children. Encourages me to maintain relationships with members of the extendeci family. Takes me to team or sport events that I parücipate in. Teaehes me Ile skills (i.e. how to do housework, fix a car, cook, etc.). Encourages me to ask for explanations for things. Encourages me to try new physical acüviiies. Talks about what being a family means wiîh him or her. Get involved in my school activities for parents. Rarely Sometimes Frequently Very Frequently

Provides educational toys, games and opporîunities for me. Shares hisher feelings with me. Encourages me to do things on my own. Teaches problem solving to me. Talks to me about what happened for me during the day. Steps in when I have problems with childrenJpeople outside the family. Teaches and encourages me to use sharing behaviour. Praises me. Compliments me. Teaches me to be polite. Encourages me to stay involved in physical actMies in spite of minor bumps and bruises. Shares family history with me (stories about his or her own childhwd, parents childhwd, etc) Thinks up ideas for family vacations Encourages me to spend time withlplay with the same age peers. Teaches me how to be assertive and stand up for myself. Encourages me to be affectionate. Teaches me to take turns, Shows me some sort of physical affection daily (Le. kisses, hugging, etc.). Reads to me or listens while I read aloud. Participates in extended family celebrations (Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc.) Models family cwperation. Tries to include al1 family members. Rarely Sometimes Frequently Very Frequently

Encourages and assists me in leaming good hand to eye coordination (Le. by assembling puzzles, making crafts, catching a ball, etc.) Teaches responsibility to me. Talks with me about my body. lnvolves me in family decisions. Provides me with opportunities to have fun outdwrs. Teaches me good memory skills (play memory card games, help me to figure out how to find lost items, remember a story I have heard. etc.). Teaches me physical coordination (Le. to roll, kick, catch or throw a ball, etc.) Talks to me about my misbehaviour. Helps me with homework. Lislens to me. Takes me to medical and dental checkups. Helps create regular family rituals. Requires help around the house from me. Supports other parent on parenting issues conceming me. Encourages me to move about and explore freeiy. Teaches me how to use things or how things work (i.e. like how a light bulb tums on and off, how to use appliances or tools, etc.). Teaches me to obey family rules. Carnes up with activities that we do as a farnily Teaches me social behaviour though exarn pies. Asks me for input on family rules and expectations. Organites day trips for me (to the zoo, park, museum, etc.) Encourages me to participate in group physical or sport activities. Rarely Sometimes Frequently Very FrequenUy

Encourages me to be sociable and not shy. Encourages me to ask for help when I need it. Provides opportunities for me to make choices so that I leam to be independent. Talks to me about the television programs that I watch. Lets me make mistakes even when sihe could prevent them (unless it places me in danger). Teaches me good health habits (cleaning my teeth, washing my face and hands, etc.). Encourages me to be creative. Teaches me personal safety (Le. don't talk to strangers, look both ways before crossing the Street, etc.). Cornforts me when I am sad or upset. Teaches me to help others. Spends time talking together as a family Sends me to my room or for timeouts when I misbehave. Models good communication to me. Encourages me to defend myself if necessary. Enforces discipline for misbehaviour. Spends time king physically active with me (Le. play sports, take walks, go to the swimming pool, etc.). Encourages me to read on my own. Encourages me to eat a nutritionally balanceci diet. Helps me if Ihave nightmares. Encourages me to interact with children from different backgrounds, cultures, etc. Is a spectatort cheerleader in my activities (i.e. sports tournaments, music recitals, plays, etc.) Rarely Sometimes Frequently Very Frequently

Encourages me to participate in family discussion of problems. Makes sure Ihave time to rest andior relax. Participates in family activities. Encourages me to express feelings openly. Steps in when children in family argue. Teaches me to be considerate of others. Talks about past fun family times with me. Helps me get along with other parent. Teaches moral values (Le. right from wrong) to me. Plays number and word games with me to assist in learning. Make sure my privacy is respected. 68. In our family each pcrwin hu 80. Rules uc pretty inflexible in different iôeas about what b our hoiKchdd. ri&t and wrong. 81. Then ir Wnty of time and at- 69. Each person's dutia are clearly tention for mryone in our defincd in our family. family. 70. We ando whatcvtr we want 82. Then are a lot of sponuntws to in our family. discuirions in our family. 71. We really get along well with 83. In Our family, wt believe you each other. don't mrget anywhtre by raising your voice. 72. We are uuially areful about what we ny to each other. 84. We an not really encounged to spkup for ourselvcs in 73. Family membcn often try to our family. one-up or outdo each other. 85. Family memkrs are often 74. It's hard to k by ywnelf compircd with othen as to without hurting someone's how wdl thcy are doing at ftelinp in our househdd. work or whool. 75. "Work before play" is the rule 86. Family memben rdylike in our family. music, art and lterature. 76. Watching T.V. is mort 87. Our main fonn of entertain- important chan reading in ment is watching T.V. or our family. listening to the radio. 88. Family membm belim bat 77. Family membcn go out a lot. if you sin you will bt punished. 78. The Bible is a vcry important 89. Dirhcr an usudly dont book in our home. immcdktely after eating. 79. Money is not handled very 90. You can't pt away with much carefully in wr family. in our hmily. 1. Çimily memberr really help 20. There art very few rults to fd- 36. We are not that internted in 54. Family membcrs almost and support one another. low in ou? family. cultural activitla. alwayr rety on them~lvts 2. Family members often keep 21. We put a lot of tntrgy inro 37. WC oftcn go to movies, sports when r problem comcs up. thsir feeling to thcmselva. what we do at home. tvents, camping, etc. 55. Family mtmbcrr rircly worry 3. WC fight a lot in our family. 22. It's hard to "blow off steam" 38. We don? believe in heaven ar about job promotions, xhd at home without upsetting hdl. @es, etc. 4. We don't do thingr on our romebody. awn very often in our family. 39. Being on timc is very important 56. Somwne in our family plays 23. Family mcmbcrs uimctima in our family. a musical instrument. 5. We feel Ir is important to be gct ro angry they throw things. the best at whatevcr you do. 40. There are set ways of doing 57. Family memben are not 24. WC think thing out for thin* at home. very invdved in rccreational 6. We often talk about political ourstlvcs in oui kmily. 41. We rarely voluntecr when activitier outside work or and social problerns. 25, How much money a person somtthing has to be done at ~hd. 7. We spcnd mort wcckcndr and makts ir not very important home. 58. We believe there are sme evenings a home. to us. 42, If we fcel like doing something thingr you just have to take 8. . Family membtrs attend church, on the spur of the moment we on faith. 26. Learning about ntw and often just pick up and go. synagogue, or Sunday School diffcrtnt thingr is very 59. Family mcmbcrs make sure fairly oflen. important in our family. 43. Family mcmbcri often their roarrts are nea. criticizc tach othcr. 9. Activities in out farnily are 27. Noboby in our farnily is active pretty caccfully planned, 64). Everyone has an equal wy in in sports, Little League, bowling, 44. There is wry little privacy in family dccisions. Our family. 10. Family rntmbers are rarely etc. 45. We always suive to do things 61. There b vtry litde group spirit ordered around. 28. We often ulk abwt the nllgws in our farnily. muning of Christmas, Passover, jus1 a little better the next 11. We often wem to be killing tirne. 62. Moncy and paying bills is timt at home. or other holidays. 46. We rarely have Inttllectual openly talked about in our 12. We say anything we want to 29. It's often hard to find thing discussions. family. when you nœd them in Our around home. 63. If thcre'r a disagrecment in househdd. 47. Ewryone in our family his a 13. Family mcmbcn rarely bc- hobby or two. our family, we try hard to come openly angry. 30. There is one family mernbcr. 48. Family mcmbcrs have strict smooth thin@ovtr and keep L I who makes most of the 14. In our family, we arc rvongly the wce. decisions. ideu about what is right encouraged to bc indtpendcnt. and wrong. 64. hmily members strongly 31. There ir a feeling of together- 49. People changc their minds encourage uchother to stand 1S. Getting ahead in llfe ir very ncss in our famil y. up for their rights. important In our family. oftcn in our family. 16, WC rarely go to lectures, plays 32. We tell uchother about our 50. There is a stfong tmphasis on 65. In our family, m don't try ar concerts. personal problems. following rulos in our famil y. that hard to succeed. 17. Friends often come over for . 33. Family members hardly ever 51. Famlly members nally back 66. Family mtmbers often go to dinner or to visk. lose their tempers. uch orher up. the iibrary. 18. Wtdon't say praycrs in Our 34. We come and go as we want to 52. Sommne usually gels upsct if 67. Farnily membcrs rometima family. in our family. you complain in our family. attend courses or wke lesdons for hobby or interest rn 19. We are gcncrally vtry neat and 35. We believe in cornpetition and 53. Family members rometimes hit somc orderly. "may the bnt man win." eacb other. (outside of school). Amendix H

Glossary of Key Terms Agreement score a measure of the degree to which members of a stepfamily concur on the roles for biological parents and stepparents. Bleintact family a family in which both parents are related to al1 children biologically. Blological parent the parent that is biologically related to the children in the stepfamily. Complex stepfamily a stepfamily where each adult has children from previous relationships and so occupies both a biological parent and a stepparent position within the stepfamily. tialf sibling a child that has only one parent in common with the other children in the family (Le. shares either a mother or a father but not both). Mixed stepfamily a stepfamily where there are both step and half siblings present; a stepfamily where the two adults have at least one child that is biologically related to both of lhem. Non-cuatodial biological a parent that is biologically related to at least one of the Parent children in the stepfamily but does not live within the same household. This person is frequently referred to as "the ex". Parental position a theoretical placement within the family constellation. Parental role the behaviours that the biological parent or stepparent is perceived as doing on a daily basis as part of hidher job. Participant a person that is studied in a research project. a duty or responsibility, or constellation of duties and responsibilities. Simple stepfamily a stepfamily in which al1 the children are biologically related to only one adult. (Either a stepfather or a stepmother family) Step siMing a sibling that is related through marriage rather than biology.

a family composed of a parent, a stepparent, and a child or children by a previous relationship. Stepfamily mernber any person belonging to a stepfamily. Appendix I

Scale Reliability Resuits Table 1-1

Comparison of DAS reliability data from Spanier's research and the cuvent research.

Spanier Sample Current Research Dyadic Consensus .90 -92 ~yadicAffectional Expression .73 .82 Dyadic Satisfaction .94 .91 Dyadic Cohesion .86 .86 Dyadic Adjustment Total .96 .96

Table 1-2

Comparison of FES reliability data from Moos & Moos research and the cuvent research

Mms & Moos Sample Current Sample Cronbach's Alpha Cohesion .78 -68 Expressiveness .69 .70 Conflict .75 .76 Organization .76 .59 Control .67 .75

Table 1-3

Reliability for the Parenüng Roles and Behaviours Questionnaire

Cronbach's alpha Physical .52 lntellectual .36 Social .34 Emotional .44 Belonging .36 Parental .87 Participation Appendix J

Sum of Squared Differences Equation Credit for this section must be given to Shelagh Huston. She assisted me in creating a mathematical formula for the sum of squared differences. where i=(0, 1), j=(O,. .. ,6); ifj

"variable"' subscri~tdescri~tion participant who is assessing i=O- 1, j=0-6; i#j parent who is being assessed h=0-1, ka-1; h=i, k#j parenting factor m=1-6, n=1-6; m=n with respect to chitd # p=i-5, q=1-5; p=q; if i= 2-6, p=q= (i-1)

The kind of notation I'm suggesting here gives a single symbol for the variable, and subscripts for each instance of the variable' Vsee PPS footnote, iater). l'm calling- the variable X, which is the assessment variable describina the laiven] participants assessment of how the [aivenl parent values their own laivenl parentina factorwith the laivenl child. Each X has a set of subscripts, which give the four components in the sentence above. The GENERIC X used in the formula has the form Xihmpand &,. This is mildly exasperating, as both these Xs are effectively identical. It would be nicer if we could just have one X, of Say the form Xam, where a=participant, b=parent, c=parenting factor, and d=child, 00th Xm, and qk, do in fact describe exactly this, meaning that both i=j=participant, h=k=parent, m=n=parenting factor, and p=q=child. l'II corne back to why I did it this way in a moment. Each of the data points is a SPECIFICX. For example, Xf032means: the stepparents assessment of how the biologicalparent values their own education with the second child. Each of the differences in the formula is a difference between ong specific X and another. For example, the first pair are (pObl- plsbl), which Itranslate (as explained below) as (&il- Xloll). An example from somewhere in the middle is (ple5-p6se5), translated as (XIOS- &135), This sort of notation is like a condensed set of instructions for carrying out an actual calculation. If you imagine the subscripts as a sort of rolling odometer, wery possible combinatbn of actual values of the subscripts is run through in expanding the generic formula intd a calculation. To make the set of specific Xs non-infinite, one must define the range of values each subscript can take. For example, m=n=l to 6. So back to why have two subscripts to define the same thing? Because the FIRST X in each pair of Xs in a differem does not obey the same rules as the SECOND X. There may be another way to do this, but I cannot think of one. This way, one can constrain the variables ta obey the necessary niles. As I said, one must define the range of values each subscript can take, but in this case the ranges are necessary but not sufficient constraints. There are a number of other requirernents the formula must indude. For participant$, for the first one of the pair of variables in each difference in this equation, it appears that the only participants doing the assessing are the bio- and stepparents. In the formula, for the first Xof the pair, the subscript i is used, with i= 0-1. For the second X of the pair, al1 participants are assessing, so the subscript j is used, with j= 0-6. Because the whole point of this exercise is to rneasure diierences behiveen one participant's assessment and another's, one must also ensure that the first Xdoesn't use the same participant as the second X; that is, i f k, This is an exarnple of why we canY use the same subscript for both Xs, as it makes no sense to Say i#i. On the other hand, the parenting factoris always the same for both Xs of the pair in each difference. In the formula, this is provided for by having m=n. Using rn for both Xs wouldn't work, as m can take on any value from 1-6, and could therefore be 2 in one place and 5 in the other unless we said otherwise, and saying m=m doesn't quite make this clear (to me anyway). The parent is defined more simply here than in the SPSS notation, as either O (bio) or 1 (step) - I hope that I really did understand about that s, which slips into and out of existence like the smile of the Cheshire Cat, and means one thing or another at will like the speech of Humpty Dumpty. Very Alice in Wonderland. There's also a little twist here: in the first Xof each pair, the parent participant (the only kind) is self-assessing, whereas in the second X, no parücipant is ever self-assessing (child assesses both parents, each parent assesses the other.) This is expressed as h=i and k#j. The birth order begins simply enough, with p=1-5, q=1-5 and p=q, rather like the patenting factor. However, there is the further constraint that for child participants, they are only assessing parents with respect to themselves, not wrt siblings, therefore we must use the constraint that if i= 2-6, p+ i - 1. At first I was busily assigning 'variable' symbols to the comwnents of the assessment scores, but then I realized that for this purpose at least, it's the assessment score (X), not the components, which count as being a 'variable' - it's a specific X which is a numerical score. The components are just a descriptor for the parts, or addresses for the cell in the matnx, or something like that. I get lost in the jargon. For tidiness, I still would like sorne symbol for each component, like (say) the participant number, something which includes both i and j. (1 was using iï for a while.) But a symbol isn't actually needed for creating this formula.

Table K-1

Cornparison of Married and Cohabitating Couples on the DAS and FES

- Sum of Mean Squares Square 37.600 37.600 Groups Within 1511.037 48.743 Groups Total 1548.636 DASAFE Beîween Groups Within Groups Total DASSAT Between Groups Within Groups Total DASCOH Between Groups Within Groups Total DASTOT Between Groups Within Groups Total FES Between Groups ~ Within Groups L Total Table K-2

Cornparison of Married and Cohabitating Couples on Demographic Variables

NOVA Sum of

Groups Within Groups Total POJOB Belween Groups Within Groups Total PIEDUC üetween Group Within Groups Total PlJOB Between Groups Within Groups Total POINCOME üetween Groups Within Groups Total PlINCOME üetween Groups Within Groups Total Table K-3

Demographics for Fathers & Mothers

- Fathers Biological Stepfathers Mothen Biological Stepmothers (p33) f aihers @=28) &33) Mothers @=5) (nJ) (n=28) Ag0

Educrtkn High Schwl Collegel Tech Schaol University Undergrad University Graduate Missing Q=mbn Clerical Blue Collar Service Education Management1 Business Professional At Home Unemployed Missing lnconn $0-$29,999 $3OK - $60,999 $61 K - $90,999 $91,000 + 1. Standard Deviation. 2. Number of cases. Amendlx L

lnferential Statistics Results Tables Tabie L-1

Cornparison of the Family Environment Seale Normative Data with Data fmm the Current Sample.

Population Pop. Sampte mean mean so z p-value Cohesion 6.89 6.73 1.47 0.11 0.912 Expressiveness Conflict Independence Achievement Orientation InteHectual-Cultural Orientation Active-Recreational Oli'entat ion Moral-Religious Emphasis Organization Control

Table L-2

Cornparison of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale Normative Data with Data from the Current Sample l Population Pop 1 Sample mean mean SD z p-value Consensus 50.36 57.9 8.5 -0.89 0.375 Affectional 10.39 9.0 2.3 0.61 0.544 1 Expression Satisfaction 40.08 40.5 7.2 -0.06 0.953 Cohesion 16.89 13.4 4.2 0.83 0.405 ,Total 1 17.73 1 14.8 17.8 0.16 0.869 Table L-3

Predictor Variables Correlation Matrix FES Rank Behaviour ParenUng Marital Age ol Single Parent Length of Stepparent DA$ Gender Eldest Coalition Status Child Family Merriane Gender ChUd Family Functionlng I Family Rank Agreement

Family Behaviour Agreement

Quellty of Current Parenling Coaliuon

Marital Sîatus

- Ag8 of Child at Stepfamily Fonnath

Length of Tlme in a Slngle Parent Family

Relalbnship

Stepparent's Gender

Dyadic Adjusment

' p>.os, "'p>.01 Table L-4

Regression Results

Std. Error Variables Adjusted of the Model Entered Removed R R Square R Square Estimate 1 Dyadic Adjustment. Rank .838 .702 .666 ,65999 Agreement, Genâer of

Eldest ~hild*" - A a. Dependent Variable: FES b. Method: Enter c- Method: Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-entei c= .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove>= .100). d. lndependent Variables: (Constant). P~GEND.DASTOT. RNKAGREE e. All requested variables entered.

Sum of Mean Model Squares df Square F 1 Regression 25.592 3 8.531 19.584 Residual 10.890 25 .436 Total 36.482 28 A a- Dependent Variable: FES b. lndependent Variables: (Constant). Dyadii Adjustment, Rank Agreement, Gender of Eldest Child Unstandardized 1 Standardized ents 1 Coefficients Wodel 1 (Constant) Rank Agreement Dyadic Adjustment Gender of Eldest Child a. Oependent Variable: FES

-- Zollinearity Partial Statistics Wodel Correlation -Tolerance I Behavioural .801 Agreement .257 Quality of Curnnt -.161 396 Parenting Coalition Marital .O1 3 ,870 Status Age of Child at .Il9 360 Stepfamily Formation Length of Time in Single .O07 .a43 Parent Family iength of Current -.O07 .898 Relationship PIGEND .O76 .927 a. Dependent Variable: FES b. Independent Variables in the Model: (Constant),Dyadic Adjustment, Rank Agreement, Gender of Eldest Stepchild Fisher's Z Transformation for Dependent Samples Where n is the sample size, r, is the sample correlation of X and Y, r, is the sample correlation of X and Z, and r, is the sample correlation of Y and Z.

In the current sample: Research Qmstlons not included for Lack of Powsr Questions Not Answemd Due to Small N. Several questions were not answerable due to insufficient numbeis.

Do underlying factors or patterns for parenting behaviours emerge?

Is there a general attitude factor regarding parenting roles, or are

parenting roles more determined by individual differences within dyadic

relationships?

Do cross-sex stepchild-stepparent pairings have more positive

perceptions of the stepparent role than sarne-sex stepchild-stepparent

pairings?