UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The relationship between family rituals and family functioning in the remarried family Goranson-Coleman, Jane Susan 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A8 G67.pdf [ 7.88MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0053768.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0053768-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0053768-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0053768-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0053768-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0053768-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0053768-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0053768-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0053768.ris

Full Text

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAMILY RITUALS AND FAMILY FUNCTIONING IN THE REMARRIED FAMILY by JANE SUSAN GORANSON-COLEMAN B.A., The University of Minnesota, 1986 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Counselling Psychology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1989 © Jane Susan Goranson-Coleman In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date 1 F e b r u a r y 1990  DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT T h i s paper proposes t h a t r e m a r r i e d f a m i l i e s who have a h i g h e r l e v e l of f a m i l y r i t u a l observance w i l l a l s o have a h i g h e r l e v e l o f f a m i l y f u n c t i o n i n g . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was t e s t e d i n a study i n v o l v i n g 60 i n d i v i d u a l s comprising 30 couples r e m a r r i e d over two y e a r s , and w i t h a s t e p c h i l d under 13 y e a r s of age. Each p a r t n e r responded t o a q u e s t i o n n a i r e composed of f a m i l y f u n c t i o n i n g measures (FACES I l l - A d a p t a b i l i t y and Cohesion s u b s c a l e s , Family S a t i s f a c t i o n S c a l e , Q u a l i t y Marriage Index) f a m i l y r i t u a l measures (Family T r a d i t i o n s Index, Family C e l e b r a t i o n s S c a l e , Family Time and Routines Index), and demographic i n f o r m a t i o n . Data was examined u s i n g C o r r e l a t i o n , A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , and R e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t women e x p e r i e n c i n g a h i g h e r l e v e l o f f a m i l y r o u t i n e s a l s o e x p e r i e n c e g r e a t e r f a m i l y s a t i s f a c t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , women who had c o u n s e l l i n g i n the re m a r r i e d f a m i l y , r e p o r t g r e a t e r m a r i t a l q u a l i t y , and women who work o u t s i d e the home r e p o r t a h i g h e r l e v e l o f a d a p t a b i l i t y . For men, a h i g h e r l e v e l o f cohesion and f a m i l y c e l e b r a t i o n s were found f o r men where the r e m a r r i e d f a m i l y i n c l u d e s a c h i l d from the c u r r e n t marriage. These r e s u l t s suggest t h a t awareness of f a m i l y r i t u a l s p r e s e n t i n re m a r r i e d f a m i l i e s and the e f f e c t of p a r t i c u l a r demographic v a r i a b l e s can be u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r both f a m i l y t h e r a p i s t s and t he f a m i l i e s themselves. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENT x i I. INTRODUCTION 1 I I . REMARRIED FAMILY ISSUES 7 Family L i f e C y c l e . . . . 8 S o c i a l and C u l t u r a l Issues 9 Lack of Remarried Family C u l t u r e 10 Lack of L e g a l S t a t u s 11 Lack of C o n s i s t e n t Terminology f o r Remarried F a m i l i e s 13 Boundaries: I n t e r n a l and E x t e r n a l 17 i v E x t e r n a l Boundaries and Family Membership..18 I n t e r n a l Boundareies and D i s t a n c e s and Intimacy 19 Shared H i s t o r y and P a r e n t - C h i l d C o a l i t i o n s 20 Role D e f i n i t i o n and R e l a t i o n s h i p Rules 22 The Wicked Stepmother and Other Role C o n f l i c t s 24 C o n f l i c t of L o y a l t y . . . . . 26 M o d i f i c a t i o n of P a r e n t a l Roles 27 Power and Decision-Making 27 Loss and Mourning 29 Family U n i t y 30 I I I . FAMILY FUNCTIONING 33 Olson's Circumplex Model of Family Functioning..34 Cohesion 35 0 O iUliWl X\ 1 Ccl t 3. OX1 • • o o o c o o v « e « e o « o a f l o « « 0 « a o « « * c < * « 4 4 IV. RITUAL AND THE REMARRIED FAMILY. 46 V Family R i t u a l s 49 Family R i t u a l s i n the Remarried Fa m i l y . . . . 55 Summary 59 Hypotheses 61 V . METHODOLOGY 63 D e f i n i t i o n s . 63 Design 64 Su b j e c t s 1 65 Targe t P o p u l a t i o n 65 Sample Group 66 Procedure 68 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Instruments 68 Data C o l l e c t i o n 68 Sub j e c t C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y 69 D e s c r i p t i o n o f Measures 69 C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e : Demographic Information..69 Dependent V a r i a b l e : F a m i l y F u n c t i o n i n g 72 FACES-III 73 Family S a t i s f a c t i o n S c a l e 76 Q u a l i t y Marriage Index 80 Independent V a r i a b l e : Family R i t u a l s 84 v i Family Time and Routines Index 87 Family Celebrations Index 89 Family Traditions Scale 90 Analysis of Data 92 Procedures 93 Data Transformation 94 Husband-Wife Scores 94 Dependent Variables 96 Independent Variables 97 VI. RESULTS 100 Section One: Descriptive S t a t i s t i t c s 100 Section Two: Analysis of Data 104 (i) Hypothesis One. 106 ( i i ) Hypothesis Two I l l ( i i i ) Hypothesis Three 114 Summary 117 Section Three: Control Variables 118 Discussion of Control Variables 119 Testing of Control Variables 123 Summary of Findings..... 132 v i i VII. DISCUSSION 134 Summary of Theory 135 General Trends i n Results 13 6 Number of S i g n i f i c a n t Results 136 Greater Number of S i g n i f i c a n t Results fo r Women 139 Si g n i f i c a n t Findings for Independent Variables 141 Family Time and Routines and Family S a t i s f a c t i o n f o r Women 141 Si g n i f i c a n t Findings for Control Variables 143 Family Celebrations, Presence of a Chi l d of the Current Marriage, and Cohesion, fo r Males 143 Quality of Marriage and Counselling, f or Women 145 Adaptability and Wife's Employment Status, for Women 147 Summary 148 Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Further Research 150 C l i n i c a l Implications 154 v i i i VIII. CONCLUSION . 156 REFERENCES 159 APPENDIX 1: Questionnaire 171 APPENDIX 2: Poster 185 APPENDIX 3: Covering Letter 187 APPENDIX 4: Diagram of Hypotheses 189 APPENDIX 5: Comparison of Sample Scores and Norms for Dependent and Independent Measures.... 193 ix LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Scoring - and D i r e c t i o n a l i t y of Dependent and  Independent Measures 93 2. L i v i n g Situation, from Parents' Perspective,  for Children of the Previous Marriage of  Females and for Children of the Previous Marriage of Males 103 3. Means and Standard Deviations for the Dependent Variables 105 4. Correlation Between Family Functioning  Measures and Family R i t u a l Measures f o r Females and Males 107 5. Summary of Analysis of Variance f o r Females and Males: Adaptability by Family Celebrations,  Family Traditions, and Family Time and Routines.....109 6. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Females and  Males: Cohesion by Family Celebrations. Family  Traditions and Family Time and Routines 110 7. Summary of Analysis of Covariance f o r Males:  Cohesion by Family Celebrations with A l l Covariates 124 8. Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Males:  Cohesion by Family Celebrations with Covariate,  Presence of a Child of the Current Marriage 125 9. Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Females: Adapt a b i l i t y by Family Traditions and Family Time and Routines with A l l Covariates 12 6 10. Summary of Analysis of Covariance f o r Females:  Adaptability by Family Traditions and Family Time  and Routines with Covariates. Length of Marriage,  Employment Status of Wife. 12 6 X 11. Regression Table f o r Females f o r Quality of  Marriacre on Family Time and Routines with A l l Control Variables 128 12. Regression Table f o r Females f o r Quality of  Marriage on Family Time and Routines with  Control Variables of Counselling, Length of Present Marriage 129 13. Regression Table for Females f o r Family  S a t i s f a c t i o n on Family Time and Routines with A l l Control Variables 130 14. Regression Table f o r Family S a t i s f a c t i o n  on Family Time and Routines with Control  Variables of Counselling, Length of Present  Marriage „ 131 APPENDIX 5 Comparison of Sample Scores and Norms or  Comparative Scores for Dependent and Independent Measures 195 To Rick, my Word Warrior and Thesis Police, f o r love and support beyond measure and To Alex, my frie n d , who stayed as long as he could, and l e f t with love and To Shuka, the gentle and j o y f u l f l e e t i n g s p i r i t -1-CHAPTER ONE Introduction The stepfamily or remarried family (Wald, 1981) has existed h i s t o r i c a l l y as a family configuration. At the turn of the century, the most common reason for remarriage was the death of the spouse. Today, with an almost t h i r t y year increase i n average l i f e spans, changes i n laws and expectations of marriage, and s o c i a l acceptance of divorce, divorce rather than death of the spouse has become a fa r more common reason f o r remarriage. (McGoldrick, 1988). In 1980 i t was estimated that i n the United States, one i n three marriages ended i n divorce (Stevens-Long, 1984), with 56% of these divorces involving children (McGoldrick, 1988). Of these divorced people, over 85% of the men and 75% of the women were expected to remarry, and of t h i s remarried group, 64% of the men and 58% of the women were expected to redivorce. Projected estimates from the U.S. 198 0 census are even less o p t i m i s t i c . McGoldrick (1988) estimates that 50% of marriages of those currently i n t h e i r twenties w i l l end i n divorce, and by 1990, one i n three children under the age of nineteen w i l l have experienced parental separation. -2-Canadian s t a t i s t i c s are s l i g h t l y more encouraging. Although divorce rates have r i s e n dramatically since 1921, i n recent years, the divorce rate per 100,000 population has declined (McKie, Prentice, & Reed, 1983). The Family History Survey reports that i n 1984, only 10% of ever-married males and 12% of ever-married females had been divorced (Burch, 1985). But despite the apparent r e l a t i v e success of marriage i n general i n Canada, remarriages i n which both spouses were previously married i s less o p t i m i s t i c . Divorce: Law and the  Family i n Canada (McKie et a l , 1983), states: In a l l cases where at le a s t one spouse was previously widowed or divorced, a disproportionately high percentage have duration of marriage of le s s than f i v e years. However, v a r i a t i o n e x i s t s within t h i s group. In one of every three (33.9%) unions between a singl e female and a previously married male, breakup occurs before t h e i r f i f t h wedding anniversary, compared with 44.8% when both were previously married and 30.0% when ju s t the wife was previously married. Only 19.6% of marriages where both spouses were single upon marriage have a duration of under f i v e years, (p. 89) These figures suggest that the d i f f i c u l t i e s of divorce and remarriage remains a d a i l y r e a l i t y f o r thousands of North Americans, including Canadians. -3-Various researchers have investigated the complexity of issues, r e l a t i o n s h i p patterns, developmental tasks and s i t u a t i o n a l stressors confronting remarried f a m i l i e s . Other d i s c i p l i n e s , notably anthropology and sociology, have addressed issues of fa m i l i e s and kinship groups which are s i m i l a r to the issues of the remarried family. In p a r t i c u l a r , Bossard and B o l l (1950), systematically examined family r i t u a l s which they saw as the core of family culture. Family functioning and family r i t u a l s have been linked i n both family research and c l i n i c a l p r actice, although the connections appear to be more i n t u i t i v e and assumed than s p e c i f i c a l l y delineated. In research, the emphasis has been on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of family r i t u a l s (Bossard & B o l l , 1950), presence or absence of family r i t u a l s (Wolin & Bennett, 1984), and the ramifications of these r i t u a l p ractices on the l i f e of the family. Other researchers have included reference to family r i t u a l s i n the context of a general theory of family stress (McCubbin & Thompson, 1987) and family paradigm (Reiss, 1981). In c l i n i c a l p r actice, r i t u a l i s used i n several ways: re e s t a b l i s h i n g family r i t u a l s that have f a l l e n into disuse (e.g. family dinner together) (Wolin & Bennett, 1984), creating new r i t u a l s intended to meet a p a r t i c u l a r i d e n t i f i e d need (e.g. bedtime r i t u a l s f o r parents and children) (Imber-Black, 1988), or a therapist-prescribed r i t u a l designed to challenge a usual -4-mode of operation (e.g. prescribed d a i l y c r i t i c i s m r i t u a l f or a conf l i c t - a v o i d a n t family) ( S e l v i n i - P a l a z z o l i , B o s c o l l i , Cecchini, & Prata, 1978; van der Hart & Ebbers, 1981) . Although each of these uses of r i t u a l vary i n both purpose and d e f i n i t i o n , among them ex i s t s a common thread. In each case there i s an assumption that the use of r i t u a l s w i l l enhance and influence family functioning, whether spontaneously enacted, prescribed, or constructed i n a therapeutic s e t t i n g . The observance of family r i t u a l and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the functioning of the remarried family i s the area of enquiry of t h i s paper. The research problem i s whether family functioning i s l e s s problematic and more s a t i s f y i n g i n remarried families that have included a greater number of family r i t u a l s i n t h e i r family l i f e . In p a r t i c u l a r , the following questions w i l l be addressed: 1. Are remarried families who observe more family r i t u a l events better functioning than remarried f a m i l i e s who observe fewer r i t u a l events? 2. Do remarried families with a higher number of family r i t u a l s have a higher l e v e l of family s a t i s f a c t i o n than remarried families with a lower number of family r i t u a l s ? -5-3. Do remarried families with a greater number of family r i t u a l s have a higher l e v e l of marital quality? 4. Do remarried families with a higher l e v e l of family r i t u a l s have greater emotional bonding (cohesion) between family members than remarried families with a lower l e v e l of family r i t u a l s ? 5. Do remarried families with a higher l e v e l of family r i t u a l s have a lowered a b i l i t y to change (adaptability) than remarried families with a lower l e v e l of family r i t u a l s ? I f the hypothesis that remarried families with a greater number of family r i t u a l s are better functioning i s supported by the data, there are several implications f o r therapy with remarried f a m i l i e s . For example, therapists could look for evidence of functioning and l o s t family r i t u a l s i n distressed remarried f a m i l i e s and where appropriate, a s s i s t the family i n negotiating new, modified, adapted, or re-established r i t u a l s into t h e i r family l i f e . These r i t u a l s could be drawn from fam i l i e s of o r i g i n or the nuclear f a m i l i e s , which would address the family's need fo r continuity and membership i n a larger family system. The family could also be assisted i n creating new r i t u a l s that w i l l help i n defining r o l e s , expectations, and family i d e n t i t y . -6-The next three chapters constitute the l i t e r a t u r e review and theory section of t h i s paper. The next chapter discusses problems and issues facing remarried f a m i l i e s . The t h i r d chapter examines the theory of family functioning and how i t r e l a t e s to remarried f a m i l i e s . The fourth chapter looks b r i e f l y at the d e f i n i t i o n s and function of r i t u a l i n the general culture, the d e f i n i t i o n and function of family r i t u a l i n the family culture, and proposes a linkage between remarried family issues, family functioning and family r i t u a l observance. The methodology chapter s p e c i f i c a l l y restates the problem and proposes an empirical t e s t i n g of the hypothesis. The f i n a l three chapters w i l l report the r e s u l t s ; discuss the findings, the l i m i t a t i o n s , and c l i n i c a l implications of the study; and the f i n a l chapter addresses the conclusions. -7-CHAPTER TWO Remarried Family Issues Introduction As noted i n the f i r s t chapter, there has been an ongoing increase i n the divorce rate i n North America i n the l a t t e r h a l f of the twentieth century, with a p a r a l l e l increase i n remarriage, and with a considerable f a i l u r e rate f o r these remarriages. Viewing the f a i l u r e of remarriages from a systemic perspective involves an examination of the d i f f i c u l t i e s the family has i n managing the systems that form or impinge on t h e i r l i v e s and the r e s u l t i n g aspects of remarried family functioning. Remarried families face a complex s i t u a t i o n i n which they must confront problems of l i v i n g that are common to a l l families as well as a set of problems that are unique to t h e i r p o s i t i o n as a remarried family, and are beyond the experience of the nuclear family. Issues faced by remarried f a m i l i e s include varying family l i f e c y l e s ; lack of l e g a l , cultural,and s o c i a l support; complex extended family systems; i n c l u s i o n and other i n t e r n a l and external boundary issues; r o l e d e f i n i t i o n ; r e l a t i o n s h i p r u l e s ; past h i s t o r y ; loss and mourning. -8-From a s o c i o l o g i c a l viewpoint, Che r l i n (1978) hypothesized that remarriage i s an incomplete i n s t i t u t i o n ; that s o c i a l roles, functions and rules that govern the f i r s t marriage are missing i n remarriage. Cherlin further suggests that the source of family unity f o r the modern family comes from i t s interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s , but also observes that nuclear f a m i l i e s are supported by s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s that extend from p o l i t i c a l and l e g a l systems to r e l i g i o n and language. He states that families base t h e i r behavior on s o c i a l norms which r e s u l t i n habitualized behavior. I t i s t h i s habitualized behavior that a f f e c t s family unity by narrowing the a v a i l a b l e choices. By narrowing the choices, there are fewer choices, therefore fewer disagreements and correspondingly, greater family unity. For the remarried family, the support of those s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s that a s s i s t s the nuclear family i n achieving family unity i s missing e n t i r e l y or i s inadequate to t h e i r needs. Society has yet to recognize the remarried family as a family type as v a l i d as the nuclear family (Visher & Visher, 1982; Cherlin, 1979). This i s manifested i n family l i f e c y c l e , l e g a l and s o c i a l / c u l t u r a l issues, boundaries, r o l e d e f i n i t i o n , family membership, parent-child c o a l i t i o n s , mourning and family unity. Family L i f e Cycle The nuclear family moves through the family l i f e cycle i n a -9-somewhat orderly progression from marriage and i t s inherent adjustments of operating as a couple, followed by the progressive addition of childr e n and the c h i l d - r e a r i n g years, to the launching years with the childr e n leaving home, and readjustment to being a couple. But, f o r the remarried family, the progression through the family l i f e cycle proceeds on multiple l e v e l s simultaneously. The remarried family must negotiate a number of i n d i v i d u a l , marital, and family l i f e cycles that are operating at d i f f e r e n t developmental stages at any one point i n time. The needs and tasks at each of these l i f e cycle stages may not be consistent with each other thus creating further c o n f l i c t . Tasks f o r the remarried family, while resembling those of the nuclear family, are compounded because they must be dealt with concurrently rather than sequentially as i n a nuclear family. For example, i n addition to the task of e s t a b l i s h i n g a spousal r e l a t i o n s h i p , the couple must parent childr e n of eit h e r or both partners and c h i l d r e n born into the new marriage, as well as managing the extended f a m i l i e s of a l l parents, both step and b i o l o g i c a l (Sager, et a l . , 1983). S o c i a l and C u l t u r a l Issues Numerous examples of the lack of i n s t i t u t i o n a l support for remarried f a m i l i e s e x i s t . These areas of missing support are -10-represented i n the following three sections, which are i l l u s t r a t i v e of the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered by remarried f a m i l i e s . Lack of Remarried Family Culture. The absence of a d i s t i n c t remarried culture, a structure and process between i n d i v i d u a l s , i s further evidence of a lack of s o c i e t a l support. Bossard and B o l l (1950) envisioned families as possessing t h e i r own d i s t i n c t cultures. These researchers suggest that f a m i l i e s , l i k e other s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , have a structure and process of i n t e r a c t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l s . They note: The family culture pattern covers the range of family l i v i n g . I t includes marriage and courtship procedures, sex mores, husband-wife re l a t i o n s h i p s , divorce, d i s p o s i t i o n of c h i l d ' s earnings, family s o l i d a r i t y , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y towards aging parents, attitudes towards extramarital re l a t i o n s h i p s , use of l e i s u r e time and many other matters (p.193). For remarried families issues of family c u l t u r e — i d e n t i t y , boundaries, hierarchies, r o l e expectations, values, family structure, and family expectations—are p a r t i c u l a r l y problematic. Society has not evolved a concept of remarried family culture f o r addressing these issues as i t has f o r the nuclear family. Thus each remarried family must create t h e i r own family culture without the guidelines and patterns available -11-to the nuclear family. There are no i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d r i t u a l s , r e l a t i o n s h i p patterns, or l i f e paths for the remarried to use as a s t a r t i n g point from which they can choose to make i d i o s y n c r a t i c modifications or complete changes. A c h i l d ' s rhyme r e c a l l s the c u l t u r a l expectation of marriage i n " f i r s t comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Suzy with a baby carriage." Suzy does not get divorced, l i v e as a single parent, remarry or become a stepmother to her spouse's c h i l d r e n . The scenario of popular culture ignores t h i s altogether frequent circumstance. With no c u l t u r a l norms for remarried family, f a m i l i e s searching f o r a model of normal remarried functioning f i n d that western culture has produced extremes; the cruel and wicked stepmother of f a i r y t a l e s i s the worst of a l l p o s s i b i l i t i e s and the modern media standard f o r the stepfamily, the sitcom "The Brady Bunch," the u n r e a l i s t i c and unreachable best of a l l p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Unfortunately both give the remarried family inappropriate and u n r e a l i s t i c expectations that can be d i f f i c u l t to resolve. Lack of Legal Status. Although one of the situ a t i o n s most common to remarriages i s that of assuming a parental r o l e to the chi l d r e n of the f i r s t marriage, stepparents are l e g a l l y i n a highly ambiguous p o s i t i o n . While they may function as a parent i n terms of emotional support, f i n a n c i a l support, c h i l d care, d i s c i p l i n e and -12-household tasks, they have no l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e i r stepchildren. Stepparents who attempt to see to a c h i l d 1 s emergency or nonemergency medical needs may f i n d doctors and hospitals unwilling to accept the stepparent's authority without written permission from the b i o l o g i c a l parent (Visher & Visher, 1979; Cherlin, 1978). Schools may also be reluctant to release any information or school records to a stepparent without written permission from the b i o l o g i c a l parent (Wald, 1981). A stepparent may also f i n d that although they have been the c h i l d ' s parental figure for nearly the c h i l d ' s e n t i r e l i f e , i f the marriage breaks down, they have no l e g a l grounds to seek custody or even access to the c h i l d except by priva t e arrangement with the natural parent. This tenuous connection with the s t e p c h i l d may cause the stepparent to r e f r a i n from a deep emotional connection to the c h i l d , thus depriving both of a more s a t i s f a c t o r y r e l a t i o n s h i p . I f the natural parent dies, the stepparent may f i n d that any ongoing connection to the st e p c h i l d i s at the option of the surviving l e g a l r e l a t i v e s , who can l e g a l l y choose to l i m i t or eliminate access for the stepparent. The death of one parent could r e s u l t i n the c h i l d or childr e n being removed from the home i n which they grew up and sent to v i r t u a l strangers, thus -13-l o s i n g not one parent but both (Visher & Visher, 1979). S i m i l a r l y , the s t e p c h i l d does not have any l e g a l r i g h t of inheritance from the stepparent unless s p e c i f i e d i n the stepparent's w i l l (Wald, 1981). Stepparent adoptions are frequently seen as a way to confirm the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the stepparent and stepchild, as well as remedy some of the l e g a l d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered by remarried f a m i l i e s , but t h i s too has i t ' s problems. In B r i t i s h Columbia, the non-custodial b i o l o g i c a l parent must r e l i n q u i s h a l l claims on the c h i l d before an adoption can take place. This action removes a l l r i g h t s and obligations that e x i s t between parent and c h i l d , including inheritance and c h i l d support. Few parents are w i l l i n g to agree to t h i s complete termination of parental status, and the law does not provide any intermediate measures. Lack of Consistent Terminology f o r Remarried Families. That there i s l i t t l e guidance for the new rules of l i v i n g that apply to the remarried family on a c u l t u r a l or s o c i e t a l l e v e l (Cherlin, 1978; Visher & Visher, 1979; Wald, 1981) i s exemplified by the lack of s o c i e t a l support i n the area of language. There i s no consensus on what to c a l l t h i s type of family r e l a t i o n s h i p . Various researchers have grappled with t h i s question with l i m i t e d success. Visher & Visher (1979) argue that the step r e l a t i o n s h i p and i t s accompanying terms -14-stepparent, stepmother, stepfather, stepchild, should be the term of choice because i t i s generally understood by the majority of the population and they f i n d i t preferable to newly created terms. Other researchers argue that stepfamily and, p a r t i c u l a r l y , the term s t e p c h i l d and stepmother have strong negative connotations that can, despite a supposedly enlightened age, create unpleasant expectations for a l l p a r t i e s (Sager, et a l . , 1983; Messinger, 1984). The term blended family i s commonly used to describe the idea of combining d i f f e r e n t f a m i l i e s . Others have supported the idea of reconstituted f a m i l i e s to denote the integration of disparate parts into a family (Ransom, et a l . , 1979). Some researchers, disagreeing with a l l of the above have proposed the remarried family (Wald, 1981) as the optimal choice of a neutral term. Remarried family seems to have neither the negative connotation of stepfamily, the implied s a c r i f i c e of the unique i d e n t i t y of each composite part of blended family, or the fantasy of the "nuclear family made whole again" inherent i n the term reconstituted family. Remarried family, while avoiding many of the problems mentioned above, i s not the id e a l term either, and a number of problems remain. The terms remarried family, remarried father, and remarried mother, are unwieldy, and the terms remarried c h i l d and remarried c h i l d r e n are at best semantic p e c u l i a r i t i e s . 15-In addition, although common i n academic l i t e r a t u r e , the term i s not well-known or immediately understood by the general public. The complex family, system that r e s u l t s from a remarriage also requires terminology that w i l l encompass the family systems of the spouses as well as d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h i s new type of extended family system from that of the nuclear family. To address t h i s need, Ahrons (1979) coined the term binuclear  family which denotes a family system composed of two i n t e r r e l a t e d households (the two nuc l e i of the c h i l d ' s family of orientation) that together form a binuclear system. The two households may or may not have equal importance i n the c h i l d ' s l i f e experience, but the c h i l d has f u l l membership i n both. Even within the remarried family the lack of consensus and guidance on terminology i s apparent. One of the questions that f a m i l i e s have to determine f o r themselves i s the t i t l e the c h i l d w i l l use to address the stepparent and describe other people i n the remarried family. Some families use the same term f o r any person i n the same parenting r o l e , e.g. "Daddy". Others opt for a s i m i l a r or d i f f e r e n t term f o r the nuclear father and the stepfather, e.g. "Daddy" and "Father," respectively. S t i l l others choose to have the children address the new spouse by f i r s t name or allow the c h i l d to choose the name with which he or she i s most comfortable. In describing the people i n the new family, the c h i l d may describe the stepparent as a stepparent, a 16-parent or as the b i o l o g i c a l parent's spouse (e.g. "stepmother," "mother," or "my dad's wife"), and ste p s i b l i n g s as stepbrothers and s t e p s i s t e r s or j u s t as brothers and s i s t e r s . Adults may also use s i m i l a r v a r i a t i o n s such as "my st e p c h i l d , " "my c h i l d , " or "my spouse's c h i l d . " Other name problems can occur concerning the l a s t name the chi l d r e n w i l l use. Some children view the remarried family as an embarrassing departure from the norm and use the new stepfather's l a s t name i n order to appear as a nuclear family. Other c h i l d r e n are adamant that they use t h e i r l e g a l l a s t name. The question of l o y a l t y to the parent or o r i g i n a l family being stronger than the question of the remarried status of the family. S t i l l other children do not appear to be unduly concerned about the issue and use eithe r or both l a s t names. The reaction of the parents can vary as widely as the c h i l d ' s reaction. Some parents are threatened by the c h i l d ' s r e f u s a l to use the new l a s t name, f e e l i n g the c h i l d i s r e j e c t i n g the new partner the parent has chosen. Other stepfathers are uncomfortable with a c h i l d that i s not t h e i r own using t h e i r name, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f another c h i l d i s born into the new marriage who i s l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d to the father's l a s t name. The terminology used within the remarried family i s frequently a source of c o n f l i c t and anxiety f o r a l l family members and r e f l e c t s other unresolved issues i n the binuclear family system. -17 Boundaries: Internal/External These questions of family culture, l e g a l r i g h t s , terminology r e l a t e to the issues of family membership, which i n turn, i s a question of i n t e r n a l and external boundaries. Boundaries, i n the current usage, i s the process of e s t a b l i s h i n g "the rules defining who p a r t i c i p a t e s , and how" (Minuchen, 1974). Internal boundaries r e f e r to boundaries established within the family between subsystems, and external boundaries r e f e r s to those boundaries that d i f f e r e n t i a t e those within the family from those outside of the family. Clear and defined boundaries are seen as necessary f o r good family functioning. However, because of the complex family system r e s u l t i n g from remarriage, both i n t e r n a l and external boundaries are ambiguous, changeable and therefore frequent sources of d i f f i c u l t y f o r family members. Negotiation of the complex structure of r e l a t i o n s h i p s produced by remarriage i s one aspect of boundaries that a f f e c t s the remarried family. As noted above, the binuclear family system consists of two i n t e r r e l a t e d households, maternal and paternal, each comprising part of a sing l e binuclear family system (Ahrons, 1979). Included within t h i s larger family system are subgroupings, subsystems, that may be grouped by generation (e.g. parents), by sex (e.g. mother and daughters), by nuclear family (e.g. b i o l o g i c a l parent and c h i l d r e n ) , by r o l e (e.g. b i o l o g i c a l father and stepfather) or by one household of -18-the binuclear family system. Other examples of subsysytems i n the remarried family are the subsystems formed by the stepparent and new st e p s i b l i n g s ; the ex-spouse and new partner; the grandparents of a l l the child r e n ; or the extended families of the c l e a r couple and t h e i r new spouses. The subsystems operating i n the remarried family are not l i m i t e d to two people nor are they l i m i t e d to those l i s t e d above but may consist of any subgrouping with a common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . External Boundaries and Family Membership. Families and therapists attempting to r e l a t e to these subsystems quickly become aware that no rules are provided by society to determine the structure or function of these complicated r e l a t i o n s h i p s . There i s no benchmark from which a family can create t h e i r own version of family structure. Families have the simultaneous problem and advantage of having to create t h e i r own rules and structure to manage t h e i r system. Even family membership can be a contentious issue as remarried f a m i l i e s are frequently unable to c l e a r l y i d e n t i f y or agree on who i s to be included as a family member. Family membership i s not determined by simply answering the question "who l i v e s i n t h i s house?" The stepchildren who v i s i t have t h e i r own bedrooms or l i v e with e i t h e r parent for varying lengths of time may have f u l l membership i n both parent's households with two d i f f e r e n t sets of rules, structures, and -19-expectations. Families create various ways of coping with these differences that present themselves repeatedly i n everyday family l i f e . Each person may have a d i f f e r e n t family membership l i s t . A c h i l d may include both nuclear parents, while each of the parents may exclude each other but include a new spouse. The stepparent may include childr e n from the nuclear family and the stepchildren, while each of the groups of ch i l d r e n may or may not include each other. Grandparents have a p o t e n t i a l l y problematic s i t u a t i o n i n determining the appropriate closeness and type of r e l a t i o n s h i p they should have with a new spouse and his or her ch i l d r e n ; and whether the chi l d r e n should be treated the same as or d i f f e r e n t l y than the other grandchildren. The issue of family membership i s frequently an issue f o r t r a n s i t i o n a l events such as graduations, weddings, and funerals. Internal Boundaries and Distance and Intimacy. Other issues regarding boundaries r e l a t e to the i n t e r n a l boundaries around various subsystems i n the remarried family and appropriate and comfortable l e v e l s of distance and intimacy between i n d i v i d u a l s i n the subsystems. Lack of c l e a r intimacy boundaries, together with the nonbiological t i e s of the remarried family, increase the p o s s i b i l i t y of incest i n the remarried family through the weakening of the incest taboo. Ahrons and Rodgers (1987) state that "the p o t e n t i a l f o r sexual - 2 0 -f e e l i n g s and possible abuse between nonblood parents and c h i l d r e n as well as between adolescent s t e p s i b l i n g s , i s high" (p.178). The distance and intimacy between various subsystems i n the remarried family i s another issue of i n t e r n a l boundaries. For example, the l e v e l of permeability of the boundary around the mother and c h i l d subsystem a f f e c t s the l e v e l of intimacy within that subsystem, as well as the l e v e l of intimacy between the mother and the r e s t of the family, the c h i l d and the r e s t of the family, or the two spouses (Rodgers and Conrad, 1986). That i s , i f the boundary around the mother and c h i l d i s a r i g i d boundary, the stepfather w i l l be prevented from sharing i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . At the same time, the boundary between the mother and c h i l d may be very d i f f u s e with the mother and c h i l d overinvolved with each other. As a r e s u l t of t h i s overinvolvement and i s o l a t i o n of the stepfather, the l e v e l of intimacy between the c h i l d and the stepfather, as well as between the mother and her new spouse, w i l l be reduced with neither r e l a t i o n s h i p able to progress beyond a s u p e r f i c i a l intimacy, while the c h i l d never learns to achieve autonomy from the mother. Shared History and Parent-Child C o a l i t i o n s . Unlike the nuclear family i n which the two adults have a h i s t o r y together p r i o r to the addition of children, the -21-remarried parents not only do not have a lengthy h i s t o r y together, but at le a s t one other member of the family shares experiences and memories with the parent that excludes the new partner (Wald, 1981). While the absence of a h i s t o r y of a shared time and space i s a fac t of l i f e f o r remarried fa m i l i e s , past family h i s t o r y can be used as a way of distancing the parent-children subsystem from the stepparent or of sharing the past with the new stepparent, depending on the intent of the person discussing the past and the attitude of the r e c i p i e n t of the information. Children may d e l i b e r a t e l y discuss memories of an event i n which t h e i r father i s included, knowing that the stepfather w i l l f e e l excluded. A mother may reminisce with c h i l d r e n about the nuclear family as a way to distance he r s e l f from her current partner. The stepparent may f e e l r e s e n t f u l or threatened by references to the shared h i s t o r y . Families may also share memories as a way of including new family members i n the family. The experience of shared family h i s t o r y would appear to be one of the elements operating i n parent-child c o a l i t i o n s i n remarried f a m i l i e s , a sp e c i a l type of i n t e r n a l boundary issue. In a recent study (Anderson & White, 1984), researchers examined parent-child c o a l i t i o n s i n remarried f a m i l i e s . A parent-child c o a l i t i o n occurs when the cross-generational subsystem between parent and c h i l d i s stronger than the subsystem between the spouses. The r e s u l t i n g boundary around the parent-child -22-subsystem excludes the stepparent. The researchers found that both functional and dysfunctional stepfamilies had parent-child c o a l i t i o n s , which tended to lead to weaker emotional bonding between a l l members of the remarried family. However, the existence of c o a l i t i o n s d i d not automatically lead to dysfunction since c o a l i t i o n s existed i n both functional and dysfunctional stepfamilies with the dysfunctional stepfamilies having stronger parent-child c o a l i t i o n s than the functional stepfamilies. In both cases, the bonds were between the b i o l o g i c a l parent and c h i l d . A t h i r d f i n d i n g from the study, related to boundaries, determined that functional remarried families used s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer exclusion statements than dysfunctional remarried families and were, i n fa c t , not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from nuclear f a m i l i e s on that v a r i a b l e . Statements excluding the stepparent appear to occur i n dysfunctional stepfamilies, although there i s no way of knowing whether the excluding statements contributed to the dysfunction or whether the dysfunction gave r i s e to the excluding statements. Role D e f i n i t i o n and Relationship Rules Boundary issues are c l o s e l y t i e d to r o l e d e f i n i t i o n and re l a t i o n s h i p r u l e s . Indeed, many of the issues f o r remarried f a m i l i e s do not neatly f i t into one category or another, but are -23-an amalgam of a number of dynamics i n operation simultaneously. Questions of r o l e expectations and d e f i n i t i o n s are present i n the new remarried family along with questions of structure and hierarchy f o r the new family. Because a l l models of family functioning are based on rules from the nuclear family, remarried families f i n d that new r o l e d e f i n i t i o n s must be created despite the lack of c u l t u r a l or s o c i e t a l support or d i r e c t i o n (Walker and Messinger, 1979; Wald, 1981). On t h e i r own, families must grapple with the questions concerning r o l e s of family members. What i s the r o l e of each family member? How i s t h i s decided? What r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are part of these r o l e s and how i s t h i s determined? How do c u l t u r a l and family myths influence roles (e.g. the "wicked stepmother" myth)? In addition to r o l e d e f i n i t i o n , these question also r a i s e issues of family structure, power structure, hierarchy,and family rules and expectations. Individuals i n the culture hold a concept of the "appropriate" r e l a t i o n s h i p between a wife and her mother-in-law or between grandparents and grandchildren. But there i s no s o c i a l l y prescribed r e l a t i o n s h i p between an ex-wife and her ex-husband's mother or f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the parents of a newly remarried person and the new spouse's c h i l d . While i n d i v i d u a l s may struggle to make the above r e l a t i o n s h i p conform to the i d e a l i z e d r o l e s i n nuclear f a m i l i e s , there are no comparable r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the nuclear family f o r the re l a t i o n s h i p between the ex-spouse and the new spouse or fo r the two new spouses or even f o r the ex-spouses although a l l four of these i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l be involved to some degree i n the c h i l d rearing of the children of the f i r s t marriage(s) and w i l l l i k e l y have contact at some point depending on the age of the children involved. The p o t e n t i a l complexity and confusion of re l a t i o n s h i p s i n the binuclear family system i s r e a d i l y apparent i n the term "Former Spouses's Current Partner's Former Spouse" (Ahrons & Rodgers, 1987). Research indicates that given a serie s of hypothetical s i t u a t i o n s , there was no agreement among remarried people concerning the appropriate l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n with other members of the binuclear family system (Goetting, 1978 c i t e d by Cherlin, 1978), thus further thwarting any s o c i e t a l guidelines on the re l a t i o n s h i p between members of the binuclear family system. The Wicked Stepmother and Other Role C o n f l i c t s . In western culture, the archetype of the "wicked stepmother" continues to influence the expectations of the stepmother on conscious and subconscious l e v e l s . This view of stepmotherhood comes from centuries old f a i r y t a l e s i n which the children and t h e i r kind but defenseless father s u f f e r at the hands of a heartless and unloving woman. Society's automatic, unconscious -25-acceptance of t h i s myth i s experienced by stepmothers who f i n d t h e i r a f f e c t i o n a t e and caring i n t e r e s t i n t h e i r step childr e n viewed as unusual or even suspect (Wald 1981). Stepmothers report d i f f i c u l t y i n escaping the l a b e l both with others and i n t h e i r own evaluation of t h e i r stepparenting (Visher & Visher, 1988) . The archetype of the poor and neglected and/or abused s t e p c h i l d also comes from f o l k l o r e . Even today a comment of f e e l i n g " l i k e a s t e p c h i l d " i n s t a n t l y conveys the sense of getting l e s s than everyone else, or being i l l - t r e a t e d without cause. Indeed, f o r various psychological, h i s t o r i c a l , and anthropological reasons, these characterizations s t r i k e a responsive chord i n people and have survived over time despite the p o s i t i v e experience of many in d i v i d u a l s i n step r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Radomisli, 1981; Wald, 1981). The d i f f i c u l t y a r i s e s when an assumption i s made that the archetype i s the norm rather than an i n t e r e s t i n g characterization of one of a number of possible stepfamily relationships that have existed throughout h i s t o r y . The problem f o r stepmothers i s part of a larger problem i n which the stepparent frequently finds i t d i f f i c u l t to determine the appropriate r o l e to adopt i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r spouse's children. The spouse may want a partner who w i l l assume part of the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the children, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the areas -26 of d i s c i p l i n e , f i n a n c i a l support and emotional support. At the same time, the stepparent may not be w i l l i n g or able to meet these expectations. In addition, the c h i l d may r e s i s t the stepparent's attempts to act i n a parental r o l e with the well-known, "you can't t e l l me what to do, you're not my r e a l dad/mom." The demands of the parental r o l e , r e l a t i n g to children, ex-spouse, and others can leave l i t t l e time alone for the new couple to nurture t h e i r own r e l a t i o n s h i p . Role problems generate questions on a number of issues that must be answered by the remarried family, including hierarchy, decision-making and d i s c i p l i n e : Who i s i n charge? How are decisions made? Who sets the rules and who enforces them? C o n f l i c t of Loyalty. The r o l e of the stepparent can be confusing to the c h i l d , p a r t i c u l a r l y when the nuclear parent i s s t i l l a l i v e . This i s one of many areas i n which the c h i l d f e e l s divided l o y a l t i e s . The c h i l d may think that to obey, accept, or even f e e l p o s i t i v e l y towards the stepparent i s d i s l o y a l to the absent parent and supports t h e i r replacement. B i o l o g i c a l parents may resent the presence of the stepparent i n t h e i r parental r o l e and may ov e r t l y or covertly seek to undermine the stepparent through the c h i l d . Stepparents may be uncertain about t h e i r r o l e , r i g h t s , and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n t h e i r new family, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f these issues have not been e x p l i c i t l y discussed. -27-Modification of Parental Roles. Ahrons and Rodgers (1987) note that f o r the b i o l o g i c a l parents, the task of separating and r e l i n q u i s h i n g t h e i r spousal r o l e s while maintaining and modifying t h e i r parental r o l e s can be very d i f f i c u l t . The addition of a new spouse can be very s t r e s s f u l f o r both adults and c h i l d r e n when the new spouse steps into these r o l e s . C o n f l i c t can a r i s e i n a v a r i e t y of areas. A lack of c l a r i t y between those tasks and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s that belong to the spousal subsystem and those of the parental subsystem may reintroduce spousal c o n f l i c t into the ex-couple's attempt to co-parent. For example, a couple s t i l l t r y i n g to assess blame fo r the marital breakdown could f i n d t h e i r attempts to discuss co-parenting d e t e r i o r a t i n g into an angry replay of old marital arguments. Not only i s t h i s a c o n f l i c t of r o l e s , but of the boundaries between the now defunct spousal subsystem and the s t i l l a c t i v e parental subsystem. These differences must be c l a r i f i e d f o r the remarried family to operate s u c c e s s f u l l y i n the binuclear family system. Power and Decision-Making As f a m i l i e s grapple with the differences between rules and expectations f o r nuclear and remarried fam i l i e s , they are again struggling with the questions of family membership, boundaries -28-between the new family and the r e s t of the binuclear family system, transmission of b e l i e f s and values to the next generation and the form of decision-making. The question of who makes the rules and who enforces them becomes i n t r i n s i c to r o l e d e f i n i t i o n and hierarchy i n the new family, as well as r e f l e c t i n g the values and b e l i e f s of the parents. The parent often looks to the new spouse as another adult with whom to share the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of c h i l d - r e a r i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the areas of d i s c i p l i n e and l i m i t - s e t t i n g . Parents who abdicate a l l or a major part of decision-making or d i s c i p l i n e to t h e i r new spouses may f i n d the childr e n unwilling to accept the stepparent i n that, or any, r o l e . There i s confusion between the spousal subsystem and the parental subsystem. I f the childr e n f e e l that the new spouse has taken on an inappropriate parental r o l e , they may d e l i b e r a t e l y oppose the spouse or attempt to involve t h e i r parent i n a c o a l i t i o n against the new spouse i n order to combat what the c h i l d r e n perceive as an i n t r u s i o n into t h e i r family. The d i f f i c u l t y or ease with which the parent and childr e n are able to adapt to a new s i t u a t i o n i n t h e i r family speaks to the state of the boundaries surrounding the family and family a d a p t a b i l i t y . A remarried family that accepts the new member(s) with disconcerting ease may have boundaries that are too permeable and do not allow f o r appropriate r o l e d e f i n i t i o n and -29-expectations. Remarried families that block any access f o r the new members or even changes to the e x i s t i n g system may be too r i g i d . Remarried fa m i l i e s with healthy boundaries w i l l display both some resistance to the changes i n the family system as well as the a b i l i t y to f l e x i b l y accommodate new members. Loss and Mourning Most, i f not a l l , members of the remarried family have experienced a major loss of a parent, a spouse, or the family and family l i f e as a whole through divorce, or les s frequently, through death. Both parent and c h i l d need to mourn t h e i r own loss i n order to move forward with a sense of r e s o l u t i o n and willingness to p a r t i c i p a t e f u l l y i n the remarried family (Visher & Visher, 1976; Ransom, et a l . 1979; Wald, 1981; Sager, et a l . , 1983). The need f o r both the parent and c h i l d to mourn may go unrecognized or unacknowledged i f the parent i s unable to r e l i n q u i s h the emotional bonds, even negative emotions such as anger, with the ex-spouse. The parent may be confused by the sadness aroused by the termination of the marriage and worry that they made a mistake i n ending the marriage. Both adults and c h i l d r e n may experience feelings of g u i l t , anger, and sadness i n r e l a t i o n to the breakup of the f i r s t marriage which need to be resolved, i n part, through grieving. By t h e i r example, the parent's process of grieving f o r the nuclear family helps f a c i l i t a t e the c h i l d ' s grieving process. I f children are -30-not allowed or able to acknowledge and mourn t h e i r l o s s , they are l i k e l y to a c t i v e l y r e s i s t and undermine the functioning of the remarried family. Issues of l o y a l t y to the nuclear family or to one or both of the parents may be exacerbated by an interrupted grieving process. Issues of l o y a l t y c o n f l i c t , exclusion, boundary confusion, family membership and c o a l i t i o n s are, i n part, a r e s u l t of an unresolved attachment to the nuclear family f o r both the children and the parent. Family Unity As previously stated, the complex structure of remarried f a m i l i e s requires the negotiation of rela t i o n s h i p s and si t u a t i o n s unknown i n the nuclear family. Because of the remarried family's greater complexity and decreased rather than increased system of support from s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , Cherlin (1978) has hypothesized that choices for problem-solving i n the remarried family are f a r more numerous and complex than i n the nuclear family. An increased number of choices also increases the number of disagreements and configurations of dissenting family members. A remarried family, f o r instance, may have to consider the wishes of the other b i o l o g i c a l parent, spouse, children, grandparents, etc. i n planning a birthday celebration fo r a c h i l d , instead of simply t h e i r own preference. Cherlin sees family unity as necessary f o r the family to -31-continue to operate as a family. He does not define family unity, but, by context, i t appears to be very s i m i l a r to the concept of family functioning. In drawing a connection between family unity and i n s t i t u t i o n a l support, the lack of i n s t i t u t i o n a l support i s seen as having d i r e c t consequences on family unity. There i s no suggested method, l e v e l of integration, or s o c i a l l y appropriate routine f o r remarried f a m i l i e s to follow i n eithe r the routines of t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s , or i n nonroutine family events. This lack of i n s t i t u t i o n a l d i r e c t i o n engenders a chaotic approach to problem-solving, r e s u l t i n g i n the family being required to make too many decisions from too great a range of options. Inevitably t h i s r e s u l t s i n disagreements and a family system lacking i n unity. The e f f e c t of t h i s lack of unity frequently can be on-going c o n f l i c t , misunderstandings, and poor remarried family adjustment. Lack of unity leads, then, to inadequate family functioning and the increased r i s k of marital breakdown. These remarried families continue to l i v e at a c r i s i s l e v e l , with l i t t l e connection to the past or sense of control of the present or future. They are not able to create new versions of family unity which enhance the functioning of both parts of the binuclear family system, and thus provide a more secure and dependable c h i l d - r e a r i n g atmosphere. - 3 2 -Summary The problems of remarried families discussed represent core issues f o r remarried family functioning. They include issues concerning boundaries, both i n t e r n a l and external, roles and rules i n the family, power structure of the family, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n areas of d i s c i p l i n e and decision-making, values and b e l i e f s , parent-child c o a l i t i o n s , family history, mourning, and emotional bonding. The l i t e r a t u r e i n the following chapter does not s p e c i f i c a l l y address remarried family functioning, but the core issues of remarried families, noted above, can be examined using the concepts developed for general family functioning, which i s discussed i n the following section. -33-CHAPTER THREE Family Functioning Many authors of family systems theory have addressed issues of family functioning—What i s good family functioning? What elements comprise family functioning and how i s family functioning to be assessed? Predictably, many d i f f e r e n t terminologies and methodologies have resulted from these endeavors. Minuchen (1974) assesses the family v i a the family structure, looking at interactions, r o l e s , and emotional distance between subsystems of the family; Haley (1976) and Madanes (1981) view the family i n l i g h t of the purpose s p e c i f i c family problems play i n family functioning using hierarchy, power, c o a l i t i o n s , and metaphorical communication. S a t i r ' s (1974) approach i s grounded i n communication theory, perceiving and i n t e r p r e t i n g verbal and non-verbal communication to understand the pattern of family i n t e r a c t i o n . Beavers (1981) and Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell (1979) both use a s i m i l a r model, but d i f f e r i n the construction of t h e i r scales. Beavers adopted a family functioning continuum from severely disturbed to optimal using the dimensions of ad a p t a b i l i t y and c e n t r i p e t a l / c e n t r i f u g a l family s t y l e . Olson (1979) uses the dimensions of Adapt a b i l i t y and Cohesion which are s i m i l a r to the Beavers model, but uses a c u r v i l i n e a r model i n which the extremes of both dimensions are perceived as problematic. Despite the differences between these t h e o r i s t s , c e r t a i n commonalities e x i s t between the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s each sees as important to family functioning although terminology and r e l a t i v e importance v a r i e s . A sense of closeness between family members i s addressed i n some way i n the various theories as i s the communication s t y l e or s k i l l s . Physical and psychological boundaries between family members and between the family and the outside world are commonly described i n the l i t e r a t u r e , as i s the a b i l i t y and/or willingness of the family to change or modify t h e i r patterns of i n t e r a c t i o n and power structure. Olson's Circumplex Model of Family Functioning Olson's Circumplex Model (Olson et a l . 1983) was chosen as the basis f o r the following t h e o r e t i c a l discussion of family functioning. Olson's model was selected because i t includes a broad spectrum of concepts of family functioning within i t ' s three dimensions of Cohesion, A d a p t a b i l i t y and Communication. The dimensions and rel a t e d concepts addressed i n the Circumplex Model r e l a t e to c l u s t e r i n g of over f i f t y concepts developed to describe family and marital dynamics that were conceptually 35-s i m i l a r although defined i n varying terminology (Olson et a l . , 1983) . In Olson's Circumplex Model, family functioning i s assessed by evaluating the family on the three dimensions of Cohesion, A d a p t a b i l i t y and Communication. Cohesion and Ada p t a b i l i t y are seen as c u r v i l i n e a r dimensions with the mid-range of each dimension representing more v i a b l e family functioning and the extremes as problematic family functioning. The Communication dimension mediates the Cohesion and Ada p t a b i l i t y dimensions. That i s , Communication does not appear i n the circumplex model, but i s theorized as a t h i r d dimension that allows the i n d i v i d u a l or family to move along the Cohesion and Ada p t a b i l i t y dimensions, to greater or l e s s e r cohesion and/or a d a p t a b i l i t y i n t h e i r family through the use of communication s k i l l s . Cohesion, ad a p t a b i l i t y , and communication are defined as follows: Cohesion Cohesion i s defined as "the emotional bonding family members have with each other." Cohesion ranges from low to high with the low extreme termed Disengagement and the high extreme Enmeshment. Both are perceived to be more problematic and less functional than the mid-range of Separated and Connected. Disengaged [Separated Connected] Enmeshed Extreme Range Functional Mid-range] Extreme Range Enmeshment i s extreme emotional bonding that r e s u l t s i n a 36-lack of autonomy and a b l u r r i n g of interpersonal boundaries between family members. At the opposite end i s disengagement, an extreme lack of bonding between family members r e s u l t i n g i n a high degree of autonomy, but a low degree of connectedness and l o y a l t y between family members. The mid-range, separated and connected, represents a healthy cohesion i n the family, allowing f o r both emotional interconnectedness and autonomy. The Cohesion dimension i s composed of a number of concepts that r e l a t e to the interplay of autonomy and closeness, emotional involvement and interpersonal connections between family members. S p e c i f i c a l l y , these are: -Internal and External Boundaries -Emotional Bonding and A f f e c t i v e Response -Parent-Child C o a l i t i o n s -Marital Relationship (degree of emotional closeness) Internal Boundaries are those boundaries which d i f f e r e n t i a t e one family member from another. This concept contains the sub-concepts of time, space and decision-making as s p e c i f i c areas i n which boundaries between family members are" considered. For example, poor boundaries of space are indicated i n f a m i l i e s i n which closed doors on bedrooms are not tolerated or i n which i n d i v i d u a l s have no place that i s safe from i n t r u s i o n from other family members. Poor boundaries concerning time are indicated when a couple does not spend time together as - 3 7 -a couple due to the demands of jobs and c h i l d r e n . Poor boundaries of decision-making are evident i n couple who frequently countermand each other's decisions. C o n f l i c t s over i n t e r n a l boundaries occur i n remarried f a m i l i e s as time and space are frequently i n s u f f i c i e n t to the demands of the family, and decision-making has not been e x p l i c i t l y discussed. External Boundaries are those which delineate between people within the family and those outside the family. External boundaries indicate whether the family's o v e r a l l focus i s directed mainly inside or outside the family. The sub-concepts of friends, i n t e r e s t s , and recreation are three areas that can be pursued i n d i v i d u a l l y or shared with the family. For example, a disengaged family may not know each other's friends as each person sees t h e i r friends apart from the family. Mid-range fam i l i e s (Separated and Connected) may have i n d i v i d u a l friendships that are occasionally shared with the family. For the Enmeshed family, there w i l l be few i n d i v i d u a l friendships f o r family members with most being family friends. In the remarried family, external boundaries may be a source of confusion due to disagreement about who i s a family member, as well as which configuration of family members i s to be included i n a c t i v i t i e s . Parent-Child C o a l i t i o n s r e f e r to the tendency i n some fami l i e s to form stronger cross-generational bonds than those between parents or s i b l i n g s . This tendency i s generally seen as i n d i c a t i v e of dysfunction i n nuclear family systems i n which a parent and c h i l d or children "gang-up" on or i s o l a t e the other parent (Minuchen, 1974). However, as noted i n the previous section, unlike nuclear f a m i l i e s , parent-child c o a l i t i o n s e x i s t i n functional stepfamilies, with stronger parent-child c o a l i t i o n s e x i s t i n g i n dysfunctional stepfamilies (Anderson & White, 1985). Emotional bonding and a f f e c t i v e response indicate the closeness between family members, both through fee l i n g s of closeness and through p o s i t i v e emotional response to each other. A degree of emotional bonding i s indicated when family members enjoy being together. For the remarried family, the emotional bonding e x i s t s i n i t i a l l y between the spouses and the b i o l o g i c a l parent and children, although the remarried family may c e r t a i n l y achieve emotional bonding over time. Remarried couples frequently have d i f f i c u l t y because they expect instant love between a l l members of the remarried family, and f e e l they have f a i l e d i f they do not love t h e i r stepchildren or the chi l d r e n do not love t h e i r new stepparent. Other factors that e f f e c t the degree of cohesion exhibited by a family are: The family's place i n the family l i f e cycle (Olson, et a l . , 1983); the presence or absence of s t r e s s f u l events or c r i s i s events i n the family (Russell, 1979); c u l t u r a l -39-or ethnic expectations of the family (Olson, et a l . , 1983). Olson et a l . (1983) state that a family's l e v e l of cohesion w i l l vary over the family l i f e c y c l e , and f a m i l i e s with younger chi l d r e n w i l l experience greater cohesion than f a m i l i e s with adolescents preparing to leave home. In times of stress, f a m i l i e s may exh i b i t greater or l e s s e r cohesion than they do normally, with the family coping with the increased stress by e i t h e r " p u l l i n g together" more than usual or " f a l l i n g apart" into autonomous units with no common purpose. The remarried family may experience e i t h e r or both of these s i t u a t i o n s . Remarried families with younger ch i l d r e n may experience greater cohesion than those with adolescents, as suggested by the finding that stepmothers are more l i k e l y to have a good r e l a t i o n s h i p with younger children, although age of the s t e p c h i l d i s not a factor for stepfather-stepchild r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Duberman, 1975). The multiple issues of remarried families and demands on them can produce s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n s . A response to the s i t u a t i o n that engenders a greater sense of family i n the remarried family would l i k e l y increase cohesion, while a response that exacerbated e x i s t i n g problems would decrease cohesion. F i n a l l y , f amilies i n various c u l t u r a l and ethnic groups value a much higher l e v e l of cohesion i n t h e i r f a m i l i e s . The -40-c r i t i c a l f actor i n viewing these s i t u a t i o n s as non-problematic i s that the cohesion l e v e l experienced by the family i s one to which a l l family members agree. Thus the family with a r e l i g i o u s , c u l t u r a l , or ethnic background that values a very close family system with l i t t l e autonomy would not be considered problematic unless family members disagreed with the e x i s t i n g l e v e l of cohesion. S i m i l a r l y , remarried f a m i l i e s who experienced d i f f e r i n g l e v e l s of cohesion from nuclear families would not be considered problematic i f a l l family members agreed with the e x i s t i n g l e v e l of cohesion. That i s , i f the family were lower i n cohesion than nuclear f a m i l i e s , t h i s would not be problematic i f a l l family members were i n agreement with the l e v e l of cohesion. Remarried families who are experiencing t h e i r family as being simultaneously at several d i f f e r e n t points of the family l i f e c y c l e are l i k e l y to f i n d some v a r i a t i o n i n t h e i r l e v e l of cohesion. V a r i a t i o n i n cohesion could also r e s u l t from the stress engendered by the complex structure and demands of a remarried family. Within the remarried family, l e v e l s of cohesion are expected to be lower than those of the nuclear family due to the presence of parent-child c o a l i t i o n s i n remarried f a m i l i e s , the lower p o s i t i v e involvement between stepfathers and stepchildren, the many types of boundary issues i n remarried f a m i l i e s , and the addition, through remarriage, of a family member who lacks a common hi s t o r y with the res t of the -41-family. Extreme l e v e l s of cohesion would be expected i n the disengaged range rather than the enmeshed range, i n d i c a t i n g a l e s s emotional bonding between the family members. Ada p t a b i l i t y A d a p t a b i l i t y i s defined as the a b i l i t y of a marital/family system to change i t s power structure, r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and r e l a t i o n s h i p r u l e s i n response to s i t u a t i o n a l or developmental stress (Olson, et al.,1983). Concepts addressed within the A d a p t a b i l i t y dimension are: -Family roles -Relationship rules -Family power structure -Negotiation s t y l e , d i s c i p l i n e and control -Feedback, p o s i t i v e and negative These concepts r e l a t e to issues such as leadership; of who i s i n charge of the family and how do they operate. What are the unwritten guidelines for the family decision-making process, and who has a voice i n the process? How i s d i s c i p l i n e handled i n the family? How strongly does the family r e s i s t change, and how does change occur? Also these concepts prescribe ways fo r spouses, s i b l i n g s , parents and children, nuclear and extended fam i l i e s to i n t e r a c t and the degree to which the family i s able to accommodate change i n these areas. -42-Similar to Cohesion, Adaptability i s theorized to be a c u r v i l i n e a r dimension with the mid-range of structured and f l e x i b l e , as more functional and le s s problematic than the extreme ranges of chaotic and r i g i d . Chaotic [ F l e x i b l e Structured] R i g i d Extreme Range [Functional Mid-range] Extreme Range The chaotic family, with extreme ada p t a b i l i t y , i s highly f l e x i b l e and changes i t s power structure, r o l e s and rules too frequently f o r the family to function e f f e c t i v e l y . The chaotic family may appear to lack these structures due to t h e i r changeability. For example, a c h i l d i n a chaotic family may not have a usual bedtime or mealtime and the rules may vary e r r a t i c a l l y — i d e n t i c a l behavior may be severely punished one day and ignored the next. Members of a chaotic family may f i n d t h e i r l i v e s unpredictable and confusing. The chaotic remarried family may be unable to set and maintain consistent rules either i n response to c o n f l i c t or i n an attempt to avoid c o n f l i c t . At the other end of the continuum, the r i g i d family i s extremely r e s i s t a n t to change, therefore unable to make the necessary adjustments i n t h e i r method of functioning to suc c e s s f u l l y meet new si t u a t i o n s facing the family. Family rules tend to be more i m p l i c i t than e x p l i c i t , and therefore less e a s i l y negotiated. The r i g i d family, f o r example, w i l l have d i f f i c u l t y changing t h e i r patterns of interactions as children become older. Parents may expect teenagers spend t h e i r l e i s u r e -43-time with the family rather than with peers because they are unable to recognize or accept the c h i l d ' s need f o r greater independence. In the remarried family, i n attempting to act f a i r l y , a l l c h i l d r e n may be given the same bedtime without recognition of t h e i r d i f f e r i n g ages. The mid-range of Adaptability, Structured and F l e x i b l e , allows f o r a balanced flow between forces seeking to maintain the status quo (morphostasis) and those seeking change and growth (morphogensis). Families i n t h i s c e n t ral area w i l l have more e x p l i c i t rules and fewer i m p l i c i t rules, which allow for review and negotiated change. These families would, f o r example, review curfews and allowances as childre n get older, and make changes as necessary. A remarried family that holds family meetings to discuss rules and decisions f o r the family are making the family rules e x p l i c i t and therefore negotiable, and therefore showing greater a d a p t a b i l i t y . Family r o l e s are learned and reinforced i n the family. Children learn the r o l e of the c h i l d by experience and the roles of spouse and parent by observation. These role s , too, may be perceived on the continuum of chaotic to r i g i d . For example, i n a r i g i d family, only males may operate the lawnmower and only females, the washing machine. In chaotic f a m i l i e s , no one i s assigned or takes r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the lawn or the laundry as part of t h e i r r o l e , while i n structured and f l e x i b l e f a milies -44-the r o l e s are assigned, but may s h i f t as necessary. Remarried fa m i l i e s often experience the clash of two c o n f l i c t i n g family systems over appropriate roles f o r each member of the family, family r u l e s , and the power structure operating to decide, enforce, and negotiate these issues. The a b i l i t y of the remarried family to respond to s i t u a t i o n a l and developmental stress i s r e f l e c t e d along the continuum of chaotic to r i g i d . The remarried family may attempt to "throw out" both of the family systems and attempt to create a new system f o r the family, r e s u l t i n g i n a chaotic, confusing and unpredictable s i t u a t i o n f o r a l l family members. The remarried family may also attempt to continue to function as i t d i d p r i o r to the remarriage with l i t t l e adaptation to the family's changed circumstances. Communication Within the Circumplex Model, Communication i s regarded as a f a c i l i t a t i n g dimension that allows i n d i v i d u a l s and fam i l i e s to move along the Cohesion and Adapt a b i l i t y dimensions. More balanced f a m i l i e s are i n the mid-range of both dimensions and have more p o s i t i v e communication s k i l l s than the fam i l i e s at the extremes. That i s , families with good communication s k i l l s w i l l be able to discuss t h e i r needs and work towards becoming more cohesive or more autonomous, as necessary. - 4 5 Communication r e f e r s to the p o s i t i v e and negative communication s k i l l s that e i t h e r enable or prevent family members from sharing t h e i r needs and preferences (Olson, et a l . , 1983) . Concepts included i n the communication dimension are c l a r i t y and expressive and receptive communication s k i l l s . Receptive s k i l l s are comprised of empathy, attentive l i s t e n i n g and supportive comments. Expressive s k i l l s r e f e r to the frequency of speaking f o r s e l f , frequency of speaking f o r others, and i n t r u s i o n or premature closure. C l a r i t y i s also considered as a communication s k i l l and concerns the presence or absence of inconsistent or unclear verbal messages as well as incongruent verbal and non-verbal messages. Lack of these communication s k i l l s r e s u l t s i n negative communication including c r i t i c i s m , double messages,and double-bind messages which minimize the a b i l i t y of the family members to share opinions and needs. Summary As noted throughout t h i s section, the problems experienced by remarried f a m i l i e s can be rela t e d to the dimensions and concepts of family functioning. The core issues of i d e n t i t y , boundaries, r o l e expectation, values, family structure and expectations are addressed by the concepts within each of the dimensions of the Circumplex Model. - 4 6 -CHAPTER FOUR Ri t u a l and the Remarried Family Not a l l remarried families f a l l v i c t i m to the confusion inherent i n t h e i r family s i t u a t i o n s . Some remarried f a m i l i e s have been able to create a system i n which the lack of i n s t i t u t i o n a l support has not overwhelmed them, and i n which the family has managed to remain more u n i f i e d . The mechanisms by which t h i s occurs may vary. This study proposes that one of these mechanisms may be a more active r i t u a l l i f e i n remarried fa m i l i e s experiencing l e s s problematic family functioning. R i t u a l i n remarried families w i l l be approached by looking f i r s t at the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and functions of r i t u a l i n the culture and i n the family. S o c i a l / C u l t u r a l R i t u a l Numerous authors from the areas of sociology, anthropology and philosophy have sought to define r i t u a l . B i r d (1980) defines r i t u a l as " c u l t u r a l l y transmitted symbolic codes which are s t y l i z e d , r e g u l a r l y repeated, dramatically structured, a u t h o r i t i v e l y transmitted and i n t r i n s i c a l l y valued." Mann - 4 7 -(1980) states " r i t u a l i s a symbolic transformation of b e l i e f s , ideas, myths, ethics and experiences. I t i s a form of communication which e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y t ransfers c u l t u r a l patterns from one person to another or from one group to another." In anthropology, r i t u a l has been defined as "any formal actions following a set pattern which expresses through symbols a public or shared meaning." (Ambercrombie, H i l l , & Turner, 1984). Common elements of these d e f i n i t i o n s include a structured pattern, regular r e p e t i t i o n of the procedure, communication among p a r t i c i p a n t s and shared symbolic content that r a i s e s the experience above the l e v e l of mere habitual behaviour. These elements also d i s t i n g u i s h r i t u a l from r i t u a l i s t i c neurotic behaviour and r i t u a l i s m (Bird, 1980). R i t u a l i s t i c neurotic  behaviour i s behavior that i s performed by an i n d i v i d u a l , seemingly beyond his/her control or awareness and according to a pri v a t e l o g i c . Ritualism or empty habitual behavior i s defined (Bird, 1980) as a r b i t r a r y procedures that are not i n t r i n s i c a l l y valued, do not f u l f i l l t h e i r s o c i a l or personal functions, that obscure rather than express human feelings, and lack a sense of dynamic energy. Bird c i t e s E r i c Erickson who d i f f e r e n t i a t e d "dead r i t u a l i s m " from " l i v e r i t u a l " . I t i s t h i s "dead r i t u a l i s m " which i s occurring when a family finds i t s e l f " j u s t going through the motions" of a r i t u a l but "getting nothing out of i t " . For the family, i t i s not the procedure that i s missing but the symbolic meaning they a t t r i b u t e to i t . For one family, attending church on Christmas Eve may be a treasured and u n i f y i n g r i t u a l , while f o r another family i t may have become a meaningless yearly habit. S o c i a l Functions of R i t u a l . According to Bird (1980) the s o c i a l functions of r i t u a l for groups and f o r i n d i v i d u a l s are as follows: 1. R i t u a l i d e n t i f i e s and maintains s o c i a l and personal boundaries and i d e n t i t y . For example, the r i t u a l of seating family and friends of the bride and groom separately f o r the wedding ceremony i d e n t i f i e s and establishes the boundaries of family membership p r i o r to the ceremony. 2. R i t u a l asserts and invokes p a r t i c u l a r norms, standards-, and values; reaffirms personal standards and values. Celebrating a national holiday, such as Remembrance Day, evokes a sense of national pride and patriotism which i s valued by the society. 3. R i t u a l fosters and invigorates attachments to s o c i a l groups; fosters a sense of s e l f apart from p a r t i c u l a r roles and involvements. Church members experience a sense of communality with t h e i r congregation and others -49-who embrace t h e i r r e l i g i o n . They see t h e i r r o l e as one of an adherent to the p r i n c i p l e s of t h e i r r e l i g i o n . 4. R i t u a l serves as a means fo r augmenting a sense of communal power and status, and protecting the boundaries of the group. A trade union group singing t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l song of common struggle and strength, " S o l i d a r i t y Forever," creates a sense of communality and group power i n the p a r t i c i p a n t s . Mann (1980) sees r i t u a l as a form of communication that e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y transfers c u l t u r a l patterns from one group to another. Formal r i t u a l connects actions and t h e i r meanings while informal r i t u a l r e f l e c t s changing values and b e l i e f s . The v i t a l i t y and continuity of a r i t u a l can be maintained by allowing for f l e x i b i l i t y i n i t s performance to meet the demands of changed circumstance. For example, the celebration of Thanksgiving i s maintained whether the family eats t h e i r dinner together at home or i n a restaurant. Family R i t u a l s D e f i n i t i o n of Family R i t u a l . The d e f i n i t i o n of family r i t u a l adopted here consists of four c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Family r i t u a l s are behaviours or a c t i v i t i e s (1) involving most or a l l members of the family which (2) occur e p i s o d i c a l l y (3) have a symbolic meaning for family -50-members beyond the l i t e r a l meaning of the experience and (4) are valued by the pa r t i c i p a n t s such that they would l i k e the a c t i v i t y to be c a r r i e d on i n the future. Each of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s discussed below. 1. Family r i t u a l s involve most or a l l members of the family as at l e a s t participant-observers. A r i t u a l such as a toast between newly married spouses could occur when they are alone, but when the children are present, they would be participant-observers and experience the r i t u a l . 2. Family r i t u a l s occur e p i s o d i c a l l y . Time between the r i t u a l episodes i s not set. A family could experience a dinner r i t u a l on a d a i l y basis, a vacation r i t u a l on a yearly basis and the marriage of a c h i l d only once, but a l l have occurred on an episodic basis. 3. One of the most c r i t i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g habit from r i t u a l i s the symbolic meaning attached to the r i t u a l . Symbolism may be subtle, such as i n the dinner r i t u a l , i n which the exchange of information and opinions supports and strengthens the family sense of bonding and i d e n t i t y , or symbolism may be very d i s t i n c t , such as the children p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the baptism ceremony of t h e i r new s i b l i n g to symbolize the new c h i l d -51-belonging to the family, not j u s t the parents. 4. The value that the family attaches to the r i t u a l and t h e i r desire f o r the r i t u a l to continue i n the future d i f f e r e n t i a t e s family r i t u a l s from harmful r i t u a l i s m . A family p r a c t i c e of scapegoating a family member would not be defined as a r i t u a l because i t lacks formality and prescribed procedure. While scapegoating could operate as a patterned means for the family to displace t h e i r anxiety about the past or the future, i t i s u n l i k e l y the family would d e l i b e r a t e l y choose to value the a c t i v i t y . Nor would they be l i k e l y to consciously choose to continue i t i n the future, although i t could involve most or a l l family members and occur e p i s o d i c a l l y . Functions of Family R i t u a l . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of family r i t u a l s to family culture (see d e f i n i t i o n p.13, above) i s p a r a l l e l to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i e t a l r i t u a l s and the society i n which i t appears. Family r i t u a l s can perform the same functions i n the family that r i t u a l s i n a society perform f o r the society. Examples of family r i t u a l s i n each of the four r i t u a l functions described by Bi r d are as follows: 1. S o c i a l and Personal Boundaries: The r i t u a l of a family -52-having a s p e c i f i c seating pattern f o r family members at the dinner table recognizes an i d e n t i t y , and establishes personal boundaries for each person at the table, e.g. The father s i t t i n g at the head of the table. 2. Norms, Standards, and Values: A family attending the yearly Peace March together are i d e n t i f y i n g family values and standards through that a c t i v i t y . 3. Attachments to S o c i a l Groups; Fosters a Sense of S e l f : Family r i t u a l s provide attachment to the family through r i t u a l s such as a marriage ( r i t e of passage) that reaffirms family membership. 4. Sense of Communal Power and Status, and Protecting the Boundaries of the Group: A family reunion enhances the sense of family membership, recognizes r o l e s within the family and d i f f e r e n t i a t e s the family from the r e s t of society through family s t o r i e s , family h i s t o r y and a common i d e n t i t y . Family r i t u a l s constitute a part of the family culture as "patterns of behavior of which the family i s proud and i t s members approve. I t i s a part of family l i f e that the family sees about i t s e l f that i t l i k e s and wants to continue" (Bossard & B o l l , 1950). Family r i t u a l s serve as a means to punctuate -53-family l i f e by regulating and celebrating the large and small events. By addressing continuity, commonality, group i d e n t i t y , values, b e l i e f s and boundaries through r i t u a l , the issues of family and kinship groups noted above acquire a procedure to deal with these issues within the culture of the family. Observance of Family R i t u a l s . Differences i n the observance of r i t u a l s can vary s u b s t a n t i a l l y from family to family, as can the i n t e r a c t i o n and patterns of d a i l y l i f e . For instance, f a m i l i e s can d i f f e r i n t h e i r perception of the purpose of dinnertime. Families may regard i t as simply a time to consume food alone or with others, a time to watch t e l e v i s i o n , to communicate about the day, make plans, or simply to spend time together. Parents may disagree on the " r i g h t " way to celebrate Christmas or birthdays. Family t r a d i t i o n s from the parent's family of or i e n t a t i o n or procreation can ei t h e r enhance a celebration or increase the disagreement depending on how the family chooses to view the differences. Knowledge of c u l t u r a l l y appropriate forms of celebration comes from a v a r i e t y of sources, both i n t e r n a l and external to the family. Internally, family expectations of proper behavior for a p a r t i c u l a r holiday are learned from older members of the family. Families celebrate by r e p l i c a t i n g r i t u a l s that may have been established generations ago or by using r i t u a l s established -54-r e l a t i v e l y recently, within the l i f e t i m e of at l e a s t some of the celebrants. Family r i t u a l s are b u i l t on these prescribed r e l a t i o n s h i p s and procedures. Traditions such as "Thanksgiving with the Family" are observed as expected, established and r e p e t i t i v e family r i t u a l s . External to the family, child r e n i n western society learn throughout t h e i r l i v e s how family l i f e should proceed. As adults they know the expected roles of wife, husband, grandparents, in-laws, and children. Even when these roles and procedures are not performed i n the prescribed manner, in d i v i d u a l s i n the society have learned what the rol e s "should" be. S i m i l a r l y , c h i l d r e n learn the pattern f o r culture-wide celebrations from the education system which punctuates the school year with observance of culture-wide events such as Christmas and t r a d i t i o n a l events such as birthday celebrations. Media contributes to the picture of appropriate holiday r i t u a l i n a v a r i e t y of ways, from women's magazines with the annual holiday dinner p i c t o r i a l and menu, to TV advertising for everything from turkeys to holiday telephone c a l l s to absent family members. Not a l l families adhere to the stereotyped picture, but as a "pattern" i t i s ava i l a b l e f o r additions, subtractions, i d i o s y n c r a t i c innovations, or t o t a l omission. -55-R i t u a l i n the Remarried Family Remarried fa m i l i e s seeking to e s t a b l i s h family r i t u a l s have a d i f f e r e n t s t a r t i n g point than the nuclear family. C h e r l i n 1 s hypothesis of incomplete i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n (1978), mentioned previously, perceives remarried families as operating i n a state of "anomie" or normlessness. As discussed above, they do not have the s o c i e t a l norms afforded to the fam i l i e s of the f i r s t marriage on which to base t h e i r r i t u a l a c t i v i t i e s . For the remarried family, r i t u a l o f f e r s an opportunity to i d e n t i f y and address complex si t u a t i o n s i n such a way that the remarried family and the binuclear family system as a whole can gain s t a b i l i t y and come to function i n a more int e g r a t i v e way (Ahrons & Rodgers, 1987; Visher and Visher, 1988; Whiteside, 1988). The functions of r i t u a l , as discussed above, can a s s i s t the remarried family i n addressing problems which negatively i n t e r f e r e with family functioning. 1. By i d e n t i f y i n g and maintaining personal/social boundaries, r i t u a l helps the remarried family with issues of i n t e r n a l and external boundaries, family membership, parent-child c o a l i t i o n s , and emotional bonding. For example, a r i t u a l i z e d time f o r the b i o l o g i c a l parent and children to be together without the stepparent, acknowledges the importance of that - 5 6 -subsystem to the remarried family, and avoids creating a negative connotation to the parent-child c o a l i t i o n . 2. R i t u a l helps the remarried family with issues of values and b e l i e f s , family power structure, e s p e c i a l l y d i s c i p l i n e and decision-making, family r u l e s and expectations, and mourning by asserting and invoking norms, standards, and values. A remarried family r i t u a l of family meetings i d e n t i f i e s family values and power structure, and sets a procedure f o r problem-solving, and decision-making i n the new family. 3. R i t u a l s that foster and invigorate attachments to s o c i a l groupings help the remarried family deal with issues of family membership, emotional bonding, and family r o l e s . An example of t h i s function i s a dinner r i t u a l i n which a l l family members p a r t i c i p a t e . The sense of membership i n the remarried family i s enhanced and an opportunity i s provided to communicate with each other and to experience family r o l e s . 4. R i t u a l s that augment a sense of communal power and status a s s i s t the remarried family with issues of family membership, family history, parent-child c o a l i t i o n s , and i n t e r n a l and external boundaries. By the c h i l d r e n attending and/or p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the remarriage - 5 8 -A second source for family r i t u a l i s r i t u a l s previously engaged i n with the families of the f i r s t marriage. While affording a l i n k to the past, and probably, at f i r s t , appearing to be an a t t r a c t i v e choice to the children, t h i s approach may well be counterproductive u n t i l / u n l e s s a l l family members experience a high degree of comfort and secu r i t y i n the remarried family. While most r i t u a l s i n the remarried family w i l l contain an element of loss of the nuclear family, nuclear family r i t u a l s with new par t i c i p a n t s may exacerbate an already s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n . For the wife, p a i n f u l memories or unresolved issues may resurface. For the c h i l d who misses h i s b i o l o g i c a l dad, the pain of loss and the anger over the c o n f l i c t of l o y a l t y generated due to the new spouse i n an old r o l e may combine to produce extreme emotional turmoil. For the new spouse, the sense of i s o l a t i o n from the shared h i s t o r y and emotional c o a l i t i o n of the parent and c h i l d may leave him f e e l i n g angry and rejected. A l l family members may experience confusion and d i f f i c u l t y d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g the r i t u a l r o l e from the person. A t h i r d source of family r i t u a l s f or the remarried family would be innovations i n both formal celebrations and family routines that proclaim " t h i s i s who we are as a family now." This category could include t r a d i t i o n s revived from the families of o r i e n t a t i o n of the adults, or mutually agreed to va r i a t i o n s of c u l t u r a l celebrations such as Christmas i n the mountains -59-instead of i n the c i t y . Also a v a i l a b l e would be the creation of family a c t i v i t i e s that would r i s e above d a i l y habits by t h e i r d eliberate enactment and symbolic value. This could include r i t u a l s such as a regular s p e c i a l weekend breakfast prepared by the stepparent and the children. Or, a c h i l d ' s bedtime prayer including the stepparent i n the sp e c i a l blessings reserved for family members. Both would symbolically include the stepparent as a family member, and define a unique r o l e f o r the stepparent, d i f f e r e n t from the r o l e of the b i o l o g i c a l parent, thus reducing the c o n f l i c t of l o y a l t y for the c h i l d . Summary The functions and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of r i t u a l i n the culture are r e p l i c a t e d i n family r i t u a l and serve s i m i l a r functions within the family. The addition of r i t u a l to remarried family l i f e i s a means of l i m i t i n g options, the function performed by i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n i n a nuclear family. R i t u a l s prescribe process and behavior f o r si t u a t i o n s , reducing the av a i l a b l e choices and thus reducing p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t and enhancing family unity and family functioning i n the remarried family. Remarried families who engage i n family routines purposefully designed to strengthen the family as well as family -60-t r a d i t i o n s , r i t e s of passage and c u l t u r a l celebrations such as Christmas, are a c t i v e l y , although i n d i r e c t l y , dealing with many of the issues confronting remarried f a m i l i e s . Through r i t u a l s , r o l e s f o r various family members are defined or redefined. The creation of a predictable, established event, be i t the pattern of a c t i v i t y preceeding a v i s i t to the non-custodial spouse or the customary New Year's celebration, contributes to the sec u r i t y and unity of the family. Remarried families e s t a b l i s h continuity between t h e i r past and present by incorporating r i t u a l s from t h e i r f a m i l i e s of or i e n t a t i o n and procreation as well as creating new r i t u a l s that service t h e i r unique family structures. The remarried family i s e s s e n t i a l l y attempting to both e s t a b l i s h a new family culture as well as maintain important patterns and t r a d i t i o n s from t h e i r f a m i l i e s of o r i g i n and t h e i r nuclear f a m i l i e s . The proposed r e l a t i o n s h i p between family r i t u a l and family functioning f o r remarried families i s described i n the following section on hypotheses. For a diagram summarizing the hypotheses and proposed d i r e c t i o n of each r e l a t i o n s h i p , see Appendix 4. 1 -61-Hypotheses The amount of family r i t u a l i n the l i f e of the remarried family as perceived by the remarried person and measured by the Family Celebrations Index, the Family Traditions Survey and the Family Time and Routines Index i s p o s i t i v e l y related to the l e v e l of family functioning as measured by the Quality Marriage Index, FACES I I I , and the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale. Rationale: The functions of family r i t u a l as discussed i n the previous chapters, address the family functioning issues that are foremost f o r remarried f a m i l i e s . By p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n family r i t u a l s that address such issues as family membership, ro l e s , family r u l e s , boundaries, family functioning i s enhanced. Hypothesis One Remarried persons with a higher score on the Family Time and Routines Index w i l l have (a) a higher score on the Quality Marriage Index; (b) a higher score on the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale; (c) a higher mean score on FACES III -Cohesion subscale; (d) a lower mean score on FACES III -A d a p t a b i l i t y subscale. Rationale. Family routines are one type of family r i t u a l and should show that remarried families that engage i n a high l e v e l of family routines w i l l have a better functioning family and, because of the systemic aspect of family functioning, greater marital q u a l i t y . In addition, family members w i l l be more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r family because the family functions better. Stable and predictable routines w i l l contribute to defined roles and i n t e r n a l boundaries, and i n c l u s i o n among family members, increasing cohesion. But the family's a b i l i t y to change or respond with f l e x i b i l i t y to s i t u a t i o n s the family encounters w i l l be decreased because prescribed routines do not allow s u f f i c i e n t l a t i t u d e to create novel responses, thus lowering a d a p t a b i l i t y . Hypothesis Two Remarried persons with a higher score on the Family Traditions Scale w i l l have (a) a higher score on the Quality Marriage Index; (b) a higher score on the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale; (c) a higher mean score on FACES-III -Cohesion subscale; and (d) a lower mean score on the FACES III - A d a p t a b i l i t y subscale. Rationale. Family t r a d i t i o n s are one type of family r i t u a l i n which -62-a c t i v i t i e s are those that connect the past and the present and w i l l l i k e l y be c a r r i e d on by family members i n the future. Remarried fa m i l i e s that engage i n a high l e v e l of family t r a d i t i o n should show better functioning, and because of the systemic aspect of family functioning, a high l e v e l of marital q u a l i t y . Family members w i l l f e e l more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r family because they f e e l p o s i t i v e l y about various aspects of t h e i r family and wish to continue into the future those a c t i v i t i e s that create and enhance these f e e l i n g s . Family t r a d i t i o n s , which l i n k the past and future, provide a shared experience f o r family members that enhances the emotional bonding and boundaries around the family, creating greater cohesion between family members. However, family t r a d i t i o n s that are c a r r i e d from the past into the future reduce the remarried family's f l e x i b i l i t y and a b i l i t y to adapt to changes as t r a d i t i o n s tend to maintain the status quo, thus reducing the family's a d a p t a b i l i t y . Hypothesis Three Remarried persons with a higher score on the Family Celebrations Index w i l l have (a) a higher score on the Quality Marriage Index; (b) a higher score on the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale; (c) a higher mean score on FACES III -Cohesion subscale; and (d) a lower mean score on FACES III -Ada p t a b i l i t y subscale. Rationale. Family celebrations are one type of family r i t u a l . Families that engage i n a high l e v e l of family celebrations should show better functioning, and because of the systemic aspect of family functioning, a higher l e v e l of marital q u a l i t y ; w i l l have greater family s a t i s f a c t i o n because family members f e e l p o s i t i v e l y about various aspects of t h e i r family and wish to continue into the future a c t i v i t i e s that create and enhance these f e e l i n g s . Due to t h e i r shared experiences that enhance the emotional bonding and boundaries around the family, the family w i l l experience greater cohesion. Because family celebrations prescribe the behaviors and occasions observed by family members i n the l i f e of the family, the structured nature of these family celebrations, reduces the remarried family's f l e x i b i l i t y and a b i l i t y to adapt to changes because celebrations tend to maintain the status quo. -63-CHAPTER FIVE Methodology De f i n i t i o n s The following terms w i l l be used to define the hypothesis: Remarried family: A two-parent, two-generation uni t formed by the l e g a l remarriage of two partners, one or both of whom have previously married, and have at l e a s t one b i o l o g i c a l or adopted c h i l d from the previous union, with the new family uni t sharing a common domicile, and the child(ren) l i v i n g with the remarried couple at l e a s t 50% of the time. C h i l d : The b i o l o g i c a l or adopted o f f s p r i n g , l e s s than 13 years of age, of one of the remarried partners. Legally married couple: A husband and wife who have gone through the l e g a l ceremony of marriage, excluding couples who are regarded as married, by law, as a r e s u l t of cohabitation (common-law marriage). Family R i t u a l s : Family r i t u a l s are behaviours or a c t i v i t i e s (1) involving most or a l l members of the family which (2) occur e p i s o d i c a l l y (3) have a symbolic meaning for family members beyond the l i t e r a l meaning of the experience and (4) are valued by the p a r t i c i p a n t s such that they would l i k e the a c t i v i t y to be c a r r i e d on i n the future. These a c t i v i t i e s r e f l e c t t r a d i t i o n s observed both on a c u l t u r a l and i d i o s y n c r a t i c family l e v e l . Family Traditions: A type of family r i t u a l which the family has done i n the past and would l i k e to continue i n the future, and which they value and/or respect. Family Celebrations: A type of family r i t u a l i n which the family d e l i b e r a t e l y observes an event that i s e i t h e r a culture-wide event, such as Mother's Day, or an event s p e c i f i c to the i n d i v i d u a l family such as a birthday. Family Routines: A type of family r i t u a l i n which habitual family behaviors possess a symbolic meaning beyond the l i t e r a l meaning of the behavior. An a c t i v i t y such as a designated weekly "family night" not only orients the family towards spending time together, but also allows the family to experience a sense of togetherness as a family. Design The question of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between family r i t u a l and family functioning i n remarried f a m i l i e s w i l l be addressed as a s i n g l e group, ex post facto, d e s c r i p t i v e study with a s e l f - s e l e c t e d , non-probability sample. There i s no experimental manipulation of the independent variable, but rather the va r i a b l e s have occurred i n the natural s e t t i n g of the remarried family and are being reported by the subjects. This research i s attempting to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p , i f any, between the dependent and independent v a r i a b l e s . The observation of family r i t u a l s , even i f l o g i s t i c a l l y possible, would be i n e f f e c t i v e as the presence of an observer would change the nature of the r i t u a l being observed, as would any attempt to manipulate or impose the performance of family r i t u a l s at a p a r t i c u l a r time or place. Within the design, the independent v a r i a b l e , family r i t u a l , i s measured by three separate but re l a t e d measures. The dependent v a r i a b l e i s also measured by three instruments, but for FACES I I I , two subscores representing the dimensions of cohesion and a d a p t a b i l i t y w i l l be used. Four scores w i l l therefore represent family functioning. In addition, a questionnaire regarding subjects' demographics w i l l be used to describe the sample and provide control v a r i a b l e s . -65-Many studies of remarried families do not contain control groups or other comparison groups, and use an ex post facto design and have only d e s c r i p t i v e q u a l i t i e s . Although t h i s type of design i s s c i e n t i f i c a l l y weaker due to the absence of a comparison group, an appropriate comparison group f o r the remarried family can be d i f f i c u l t to define. Comparisons to nuclear f a m i l i e s , although an ostensible choice, would not be appropriate because equivalent remarried and nuclear families would be d i f f i c u l t to determine. For example, neither the length of the marriage, the age of the children, nor the ages of the partners would provide an appropriate comparison group. Subjects Target Population The target population consists of l e g a l l y remarried couples who have been married two years or more; have at l e a s t one c h i l d l e s s than 13 years of age, who i s the b i o l o g i c a l or adopted c h i l d from e i t h e r spouse's previous marriage, and who l i v e s with the couple the majority of the time. Rationale f o r Target Population. By using only l e g a l l y married couples, possible differences between couples i n a common-law re l a t i o n s h i p and a l e g a l -66-marriage are eliminated. Further, i n a study i n which family r i t u a l s i n remarried f a m i l i e s are examined, i t i s appropriate to include only remarried couples who have undergone the r i t u a l of the marriage ceremony. In t h i s study, the d i v i d i n g point of a marriage over two years i n length was based on the estimate that a remarried family requires at l e a s t two years to s t a b i l i z e as a u n i t (Visher & Visher, 1979). An age r e s t r i c t i o n f o r a c h i l d under 13 years was established because adolescent issues inherent i n the "launching" phase could confound any perceived differences i n family functioning i n remarried f a m i l i e s . In addition to resolvi n g t h e i r issues of the remarried family, adolescents are also dealing with issues inherent i n the launching stage of development. These changes at adolescence are r e f l e c t e d i n differences i n the scores of the family functioning instruments used i n t h i s study (Olson, et a l . , 1985), and would tend to be a confounding element i n the measurements. Sample Group This study was conducted using a non-random, non-probability sample of couples from remarried families l i v i n g i n B r i t i s h Columbia. A t o t a l of 60 i n d i v i d u a l s (30 couples) comprised the sample group. - 6 7 -Unlike remarried family research i n the United States where marriage records and previous marital status are av a i l a b l e to the public, marriage records i n B r i t i s h Columbia are c o n f i d e n t i a l , except f o r the current marital status of a s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l , i . e . B.C. V i t a l S t a t i s t i c s w i l l t e l l a member of the public that John Jones i s or i s not married, but not whether t h i s i s hi s f i r s t marriage, nor to whom Mr. Jones i s married. Therefore, no l i s t e x i s t s of remarried i n d i v i d u a l s or couples from which to make a random s e l e c t i o n . Subjects f o r the study are c l a s s i f i e d as an a v a i l a b i l i t y sample and were s o l i c i t e d through a number of sources: Newspaper advertisements i n both d a i l y newspapers as well as neighborhood newspapers with wide c i r c u l a t i o n s ; through community announcements on cable t e l e v i s i o n ; posters and f l y e r s (see Appendix 2) i n family service agencies, community centers, community schools, l i b r a r i e s , public markets, family drop-in centers, other family-oriented community organizations, and doctors and lawyers o f f i c e s . Subjects also volunteered as a r e s u l t of snowballing from other subjects. In addition, word-of-mouth advertising through the researcher's personal contacts and through the Counselling Psychology Department and i t s counselling center was used. -68-Procedure Administration of Instruments Both the remarried husband and wife were asked to i n d i v i d u a l l y and independently respond to a set of s i x measures, three of which measure the dependent va r i a b l e , family functioning, and three the independent v a r i a b l e , family r i t u a l . Each subject also completed a demographics sheet. A l l i n s t r u c t i o n s to subjects were i d e n t i c a l . Data C o l l e c t i o n . Questionnaires and demographic data sheets were delivered to the subjects' homes (unless a subject preferred to have the questionnaires mailed) and the completed instruments picked up by the researcher at a prearranged time. This approach accelerated c o l l e c t i o n of data and reduced the p o s s i b i l i t y of l o s t data by by-passing the mail system. In addition, the personal contact with the researcher l i k e l y increased the subjects commitment to completing the questionnaire, r e s u l t i n g i n a higher return rate. To minimize any systematic bias i n the data due to the proximity of data c o l l e c t i o n to society-wide c u l t u r a l r i t u a l s (e.g. Christmas, Easter) a l l subjects were r e c r u i t e d p r i o r to the administration of the questionnaire. A l l questionnaires -69-were administered within a ten week i n t e r v a l which d i d not contain a major holiday. Subject C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . Respondents were guaranteed c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y through the following means: A l l i d e n t i f y i n g information, e.g. names and addresses of subjects, w i l l be destroyed upon completion of the study. Questionnaires are number-coded to match husbands and wives, but names of subjects did not appear on any of the instruments nor on the demographics sheet. A l l linkage between code numbers and names w i l l be destroyed and names erased upon completion of the study. Coded data w i l l be kept on computer d i s c and erased a f t e r three years. Actual questionnaires w i l l be destroyed upon completion of the study. (See Appendix 3) Description of Measures Control Variables: Demographic Information Information requested on the demographics section of the questionnaire comprised the control variables noted below. These va r i a b l e s have been shown (McKie et a l . , 1983; Albrecht, 1979; Lewis & Spanier, 1979) to have a possible e f f e c t on the measure of family functioning and/or marital quali t y , or are suggested by ava i l a b l e s t a t i s t i c a l information on remarried f a m i l i e s . -70-1. Length of marriage. Length of marriage may have an e f f e c t on the dependent va r i a b l e s . Remarried families of less than two years have been excluded from the study as they are s t i l l i n the formation process and may have not had s u f f i c i e n t time to c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h family r i t u a l s . As families l i v e together over time, both higher l e v e l s of family r i t u a l and family functioning may r e s u l t . This may be p a r t i c u l a r l y notable i n remarriages over f i v e years i n duration because the highest marital breakdown rate occurs before f i v e years (McKie et a l . , 1983) and the most problematic marriages w i l l have ended early. Remarriages that have survived longer than f i v e years are l i k e l y to be the better functioning marriages. The sample was divided into two subgroups of those who had been married over f i v e years and those married over two but less than f i v e years. This two-group length of marriage v a r i a b l e i s used as a control for s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the two groups on the dependent v a r i a b l e . 2. Presence of children. Albrecht (1979) found that the presence of childr e n i n remarried f a m i l i e s was p o s i t i v e l y , but not strongly r e l a t e d to marital happiness. In reference to nuclear f a m i l i e s , Lewis and Spanier (1979) propose that the more the household composition i s perceived as optimal, the higher the marital q u a l i t y . To -71-c o n t r o l f o r possible v a r i a t i o n s such as c h i l d l e s s remarried couples or remarried couples without c h i l d r e n from previous marriages, only couples with at l e a s t one c h i l d from e i t h e r spouse's previous marriage l i v i n g with the remarried couple are included. The t o t a l number of c h i l d r e n and the configuration ( i . e . from e i t h e r parent's previous marriage or from the current marriage) are also i d e n t i f i e d . 3. Religious a f f i l i a t i o n . Because r e l i g i o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and a c t i v i t y have been shown to have a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p with marital happiness (Albrecht, 1979), as well as the close t i e between r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s and family r i t u a l , the use of r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n and a statement of whether the subject considers himself or h e r s e l f to be currently p r a c t i c i n g t h e i r r e l i g i o n i s included. 4. Gender. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of subjects by gender i s included to allow separate analysis of husbands' and wives' responses. 5. Occupation. The general trend of greater marital s a t i s f a c t i o n among white c o l l a r workers (Lewis & Spanier, 1979) was contradicted by Albrecht (1979) who found a s l i g h t trend f o r greater marital s a t i s f a c t i o n among b l u e - c o l l a r workers i n h i s study of remarried f a m i l i e s . -72-6. Income. Income l e v e l s may have an e f f e c t on family functioning, and w i l l be used as a control variable to describe the sample. 7. Employment. The s i t u a t i o n i n which one of the partners i s not employed outside the home could influence the observance of family r i t u a l s due to the possible increase i n time a v a i l a b l e to plan and prepare f o r family r i t u a l s . In addition, the l e v e l of employment may d i r e c t l y influence income l e v e l . Lewis and Spanier (1979) suggest that the greater the socioeconomic adequacy of the family, the greater the marital q u a l i t y . 8. Education. Lewis and Spanier (1979) suggest that, based on t h e i r synthesis of a number of studies, (Burr, 1973; Cutright, 1971; Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Bumpass & Sweet, 1972; Havighurst, et al.,1962; and Goode, 1956) the higher the educational l e v e l , the higher the marital q u a l i t y . Dependent Variable: Family Functioning For t h i s study, the dependent va r i a b l e f o r family functioning i s measured by FACES II I (Olson et a l . , 1982), the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale (Olson & Wilson, 1982), and the Quality Marriage Index (Norton, 1983). -73-1. FACES I I I . (Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985) FACES I I I i s a twenty-item questionnaire that can be administered to an i n d i v i d u a l , couple, or family, and i s designed to measure family functioning on the dimensions of cohesion and a d a p t a b i l i t y . Concepts re l a t e d to the cohesion dimension include: emotional bonding, family boundaries, c o a l i t i o n s , time, space, family decision-making, and i n t e r e s t and recreation. Concepts related to the a d a p t a b i l i t y dimensions include assertiveness, leadership, d i s c i p l i n e , negotiation, r o l e s and r u l e s . Cohesion i s defined as the emotional bonding between family members (McCubbin & Thompson, 1987). Of the four possible l e v e l s i n the cohesion dimension—disengaged, separated, connected, and enmeshed—the middle two l e v e l s (mid-range), separated and connected, are seen as more functional while the two extremes, disengaged and enmeshed, are seen are more problematic (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1987), Ad a p t a b i l i t y i s defined as the a b i l i t y of a marital or family system to change i t s rules, r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s and r e l a t i o n s h i p rules i n response to developmental stress. There are also four l e v e l s of a d a p t a b i l i t y : r i g i d , structured, f l e x i b l e and chaotic. Similar to the above dimension, the -74-middle two l e v e l s (mid-range), structured and f l e x i b l e , are seen as more functional than the two extremes, r i g i d and chaotic. (a) Scoring. Each of the twenty statements i n FACES II I i s rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from "(1) Almost Never" to "(5) Almost Always", i n d i c a t i n g how frequently the described behavior occurs i n the family. The t o t a l numerical value for the odd-numbered responses determines the cohesion score. The t o t a l f o r the even-numbered responses determines the a d a p t a b i l i t y score. Although FACES III i s a family functioning instrument, the scores are i n d i v i d u a l scores r e f l e c t i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s perception of the family. Olson et a l . (1983) state that "research with s e l f - r e p o r t instruments has consistently demonstrated a lack of agreement between family members on a v a r i e t y of scales with an average c o r r e l a t i o n being i n the .40's" (p. 22). For FACES I I I , c o r r e l a t i o n s between husband and wife i s r=.46 fo r cohesion and r=.33 fo r a d a p t a b i l i t y (Olson et a l . , 1985). I t i s t h i s lowered c o r r e l a t i o n that supports the use of i n d i v i d u a l scores i n t h i s study because combining husband and wife scores, p a r t i c u l a r l y by averaging the scores, could remove p o t e n t i a l l y important differences i n perceptions. (b) R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y -75-FACES III was developed to address the high c o r r e l a t i o n between Cohesion and Adaptability i n FACES II (r=.65), and to develop e m p i r i c a l l y independent dimensions. The increased independence of the two dimensions was achieved through factor analysis of twenty items, ten f o r each dimension. Cohesion items loaded on Factor 1 and Adap t a b i l i t y items loaded on Factor 2, with high c o r r e l a t i o n between items i n each factor and the t o t a l scale f o r that factor. For FACES I I I , the c o r r e l a t i o n between Cohesion and Adap t a b i l i t y was reduced to .03 (Olson et a l . , 1985). In addition, FACES III shows low c o r r e l a t i o n between each of the dimensions and s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . For cohesion and s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , r=.35 and f o r a d a p t a b i l i t y and s o c i a l d e s i r e a b i l i t y , r=.00. These low co r r e l a t i o n s support the idea that these measures are not simply measuring s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . Error i n measurement i s u n l i k e l y to be a r e s u l t of a respondent t r y i n g to give a s o c i a l l y acceptable response. Internal consistency ( s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y ) i s .77 f o r cohesion and .62 f o r adaptability, with a t o t a l r=.68. This suggests that the items are f a i r l y homogeneous and that the halves of the t e s t would tend to produce the same rank order. The c o r r e l a t i o n s may have been lowered due to the several concepts that comprise each dimension and are r e f l e c t e d i n the items. -76-As noted i n Chapter 2, cohesion and a d a p t a b i l i t y each share s i m i l a r concepts with other systemic family functioning theories i n the areas of family bonding and change, which supports the content v a l i d i t y of the scale as being i n d i c a t i v e of a c t u a l l y measuring each of the dimensions. These dimensions and t h e i r r e l a t e d concepts are of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n the study of remarried f a m i l i e s and r i t u a l s . (c) There are no norms av a i l a b l e f o r FACES III f o r remarried f a m i l i e s . Instructions for FACES III ask the respondents to describe t h e i r family now, which automatically d i f f e r e n t i a t e s i t from the previous nuclear family. Respondents determine which i n d i v i d u a l s they regard as i n the family now, and answer i n that context. Norms provided for FACES III are based on a national survey of 1,100 "normal" couples and families (2,692 individuals) by Olson et a l . i n 1983, and could be used f o r comparative purposes. 2. Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale (Olson & Wilson, 1982) The Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale i s a 14-item scale that d i r e c t l y assesses s a t i s f a c t i o n with the family from the perspective of the i n d i v i d u a l family member. While the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale contains subscales of -77-a d a p t a b i l i t y and cohesion, the developers state that the t o t a l score i s the most r e l i a b l e and v a l i d measure; that family s a t i s f a c t i o n i s a unidimensional measure. Olson et a l . (1983) found that although there were a number of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n measures, no measures of family s a t i s f a c t i o n were av a i l a b l e . The o r i g i n a l method of measuring family s a t i s f a c t i o n (using discrepancy score between the perceived and the i d e a l on two administrations of FACES II) has been replaced, due to s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y d i s t o r t i o n f a c t i o n on the i d e a l measure, by the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale. Two q u a l i f y i n g hypotheses included i n the measure of Family S a t i s f a c t i o n are p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the remarried family. F i r s t , Olson hypothesized that the family functioning w i l l d i f f e r according to the l o c a t i o n of the family on the family l i f e cycle (Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1983). Remarried fa m i l i e s as a v a r i a t i o n of family structure, can also be seen as having a family l i f e cycle (Papernow, 1984; Carter & McGoldrick, 1980; Ransom, Schlesinger & Derdeyn, 1979), v a r i a t i o n s of which w i l l also be expected to be r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i r l e v e l s of cohesion, a d a p t a b i l i t y , and family s a t i s f a c t i o n . Second, that the family w i l l function well as long as a l l family members indicate s a t i s f a c t i o n with the family s i t u a t i o n despite the p o s s i b i l i t y that the family may score i n the extreme -78-ranges of the circumplex dimensions. I t i s l e s s important where the family i s located on the model i n terms of t h e i r cohesion and a d a p t a b i l i t y scores than how they f e e l about t h e i r l e v e l s of a d a p t a b i l i t y and cohesion. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important i n assessing remarried couples whose scores on family functioning measures may be d i s s i m i l a r to nuclear f a m i l i e s , but may be s a t i s f a c t o r y to the remarried couple. (a) Scoring. The Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale consists of a ser i e s of 14 statements concerning how s a t i s f i e d the respondent i s with a p a r t i c u l a r aspect of family l i f e . Each item i s scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) D i s s a t i s f i e d to (5) Extremely S a t i s f i e d . The t o t a l score i s obtained by summing the numbered response to each item. Olson et a l . (1985) combined the husband's and wife's scores to obtain a mean score for the couple, due to the s i m i l a r i t y of the scores. This procedure i s reasonable only i f the scores are very s i m i l a r , otherwise p o t e n t i a l differences between the perceptions of husband and wife are ignored and the purpose of using the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale as an additional measure to further c l a r i f y the family functioning i s defeated. Therefore, f o r t h i s study, the scores of husband and wife w i l l be considered separately. (b) R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y . Subjects indicate t h e i r l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n with each item 79 on the scale. Each item represents an aspect of family functioning that i s highly correlated with the t o t a l score. Content v a l i d i t y i s supported by an examination of i n d i v i d u a l items that indicates an adequate representation of s a t i s f a c t i o n with aspects of family functioning. Construct v a l i d i t y was obtained through factor analysis of a 28-item questionnaire i n which each of the subconcepts of the cohesion and a d a p t a b i l i t y dimensions were represented by two items, of which one was chosen because of i t s high variance, high communality and high fa c t o r loading on the f i r s t factor. On the f i n a l instrument, every item loaded more than .50 on the f i r s t f a ctor. High c o r r e l a t i o n between each item and the t o t a l score indicates that the family s a t i s f a c t i o n scale i s unidimensional. Cronbach's Alpha f o r the t o t a l scale (the summed 14 items) i s .92. This c o r r e l a t i o n indicates a high degree of i n t e r n a l consistency, that i s , a high degree of s i m i l a r i t y of responses to the items, which further supports the contention that t h i s i s a s i n g l e f a c t o r being measured. The t e s t - r e t e s t Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , based on a f i v e week i n t e r v a l , was .75 for the t o t a l score. This c o r r e l a t i o n indicates that the t e s t remains stable over time and i s able to produce a s i m i l a r rank order of scores on a l a t e r administration of the t e s t . (c) The Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale was chosen because i t i s a unidimensional measure that i s conceptually and t h e o r e t i c a l l y 80-re l a t e d to the dimensions on the Circumplex Model. In addition, the i n c l u s i o n of a family s a t i s f a c t i o n scale was deemed necessary to adequately convey a more complete picture of remarried family functioning, because remarried subjects might score i n the more extreme ranges of a d a p t a b i l i t y and cohesion, as measured by FACES I I I , and s t i l l be s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r current l e v e l of family functioning. As with FACES I I I , norms are not av a i l a b l e f o r remarried fa m i l i e s , but norms f o r "normal" families obtained from the National Survey of Families Across the Family L i f e Cycle i n January, 1982 are avail a b l e for comparative purposes. 3. Quality Marriage Index (Norton, 1983) The Quality Marriage Index i s a 6-item scale r e f l e c t i n g a unidimensional measure of the "goodness" of the marital r e l a t i o n s h i p . The s i x items are highly correlated and " r e f l e c t an evaluative g e s t a l t that both describes and commends the whole r e l a t i o n s h i p " (Norton, 1983). This type of index d i f f e r s from instruments such as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) (Spanier, 1976) i n which items r e f l e c t agreement or disagreement on a number of aspects of -81-marital l i f e considered to be i n d i c a t i v e of good marital adjustment. In contrast, items on the Quality Marriage Index evaluate the r e l a t i o n s h i p as a whole and are highly i n t e r r e l a t e d . L i t e r a t u r e on the assessment of marital q u a l i t y indicates that, currently, there are two general approaches to measuring what has v a r i o u s l y been termed marital q u a l i t y / s a t i s f a c t i o n / adjustment. According to Bradbury and Fincham (1987), problems i n measurement are a r e s u l t , i n part, of a lack of c l a r i t y and consensus concerning the construct being measured. These measures range from reports of s p e c i f i c behaviors occurring i n marriage ("Do you k i s s your mate?" 1) to evaluative inferences concerning the marriage as a whole ("Our marriage i s s t r o n g " 2 ) . Bradbury and Fincham contend that measures such as the DAS confound the d e s c r i p t i o n of marriage with i t s evaluation. Further, through the use of global, evaluative measures such as the Quality Marriage Index, interpretations are c l e a r e r because items are semantically s i m i l a r , and items of marital q u a l i t y do not overlap with items r e f l e c t i n g various dimensions that describe properties assumed to be i n d i c a t i v e of marital q u a l i t y . As an additional measure of family functioning, the Quality Marriage Index, a unidimensional measure of marital q u a l i t y , i s more useful because the p o s s i b i l i t y of overlap with 1. This item from the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976). 2. This item from the Quality Marriage Index (Norton, 1983). 82-items from the independent v a r i a b l e i s eliminated. (a) Scoring. The f i r s t f i v e items on the Quality Marriage Index are scored on a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from (1) Very Strong Disagreement to (7) Very Strong Agreement. The s i x t h item asks the respondents to indicate t h e i r degree of happiness i n the marriage on a ten point scale from (1) Very Unhappy to (10) P e r f e c t l y Happy. According to Donohue and Ryder (1982), most measures of marital q u a l i t y are skewed, with a large majority of men and women reporting that they believe t h e i r marriage to be happier than the average marriage. S i m i l a r l y , Quality Marriage Index raw scores are also skewed. Because the f i r s t f i v e Quality Marriage Index items have a d i f f e r e n t measurement scale than the s i x t h item, the raw scores must be converted to standardized (z) scores. The r e s u l t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n allows the comparison of the score of the i n d i v i d u a l respondents to the sample mean. I f , for example, the sample mean i s high, a low score may appear more extreme than i f the mean of the sample group were lower. In that case, a low score would be more l i k e l y to f a l l c l o s e r to the average score (Norton, 1983). (b) R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y . Norton (1983) states that f o r an evaluative index, three - 8 3 -c r i t e r i a should be met. F i r s t , items should have s i m i l a r semantic values; second, items should r e f l e c t the evaluative nature of the phenomenon; and t h i r d , the index should be r e s t r i c t e d to a r e l a t i v e l y small range of items that define a q u a l i t y score so that i n t e r e s t i n g covariates that are not part of the index can be evaluated as dependent variables i n l i g h t of the index. For the Quality Marriage Index, d e s c r i p t i v e words are s i m i l a r i n that they are evaluative and have q u a l i t i e s of preference and commendation, i . e . , "strong" marriage suggests that t h i s i s both a p r e f e r e n t i a l and p o s i t i v e aspect of the marriage (content v a l i d i t y ) . The Quality Marriage Index does not l i s t or describe q u a l i t i e s that might be considered properties of a good marriage, such as areas of agreement or disagreement, but evaluates only on a global basis. By evaluating the q u a l i t y of marriage as a unidimensional measure, the Quality Marriage Index provides a cleaner measure of marital q u a l i t y that does not define marital q u a l i t y through other va r i a b l e s considered to be possible constructs of marital q u a l i t y such as sexual r e l a t i o n s h i p , communication or s i m i l a r goals, which can then be examined separately i n r e l a t i o n to marital q u a l i t y . V a l i d i t y was determined using twenty items (of 2 61 items on the Partner Communication Scale) that f i t Norton's c r i t e r i a . - 8 4 -Two types of analysis were used: (a) c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i e c i e n t s among the twenty items, and (b) factor analysis. Seven items correlated highly and eight items loaded highly on factor one. Of these items, two were dropped because they did not meet the semantic c r i t e r i a . Of the remaining s i x items, fa c t o r analysis showed a high loading on the same factor and low, <.40, on other factors with inter-item c o r r e l a t i o n s ranging from .68 to .86, supporting the contention that the Quality Marriage Index i s unidimensional. The Quality Marriage Index taps another aspect of family functioning not s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed by e i t h e r FACES III or the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale by looking at the experience of each partner, i n a global sense, i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r marriage. The items p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l a t e to the strength of the emotional bond and closeness, and as such, the sense of cohesion between the couple. As measure of family functioning, the use of the Quality Marriage Index implies a systemic view of family functioning. That i s , that the q u a l i t y of the marital r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l a f f e c t the family functioning, and poor family functioning w i l l have a deleterious e f f e c t on marital q u a l i t y . Independent Variable: Family Rituals The independent v a r i a b l e f o r t h i s study i s family r i t u a l - 8 5 -observance. Three instruments developed by the Family Stress, Coping, and Health Project at the University of Wisconsin-Madison as part of a cross-sectional study of n o n c l i n i c a l f a m i l i e s focussing on Family Traditions, Family Celebrations and Family Time and Routines (McCubbin & Thompson, 1987) w i l l be used to measure r i t u a l observance. These three measures of family r i t u a l were developed i n association with each other and are i n t e r r e l a t e d i n the purpose of capturing a pi c t u r e of a family's r i t u a l l i f e . Although these are measurements of family r i t u a l s , they are i n d i v i d u a l measures representing the perception of the respondent. These measures do not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between c u l t u r e - s p e c i f i c t r a d i t i o n s and more f a m i l y - s p e c i f i c celebrations. Rather, the authors conceptualize the differences between t r a d i t i o n s , celebrations and family time and routines as t r a d i t i o n s having continuity and value across time, celebrations as important to take time to observe i n the present, and routines as s t a b i l i z i n g the family on a day-to-day basis and helping make i t strong. Repetition, i n t e n t i o n a l i t y , and valuing the action f o r purposes apart from immediate r e s u l t s (e.g. "important to keeping the family together and strong") are s p e c i f i e d . Both c u l t u r a l l y s p e c i f i c celebrations such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, New Year's, as well as r i t u a l s whose observance i s determined by the family are included i n these family r i t u a l measures. Examples of these family-determined r i t u a l s include birthday celebrations - 8 6 -and anniversary celebrations. R i t u a l p r a c t i c e s unique to a s p e c i f i c family are present i n c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n s . For example, a family r i t u a l procedure for s e t t i n g up the Christmas tree (a c u l t u r a l aspect) the Sunday before Christmas, includes the father putting on the l i g h t s and the youngest c h i l d putting on the star at the top of the tree (an i d i o s y n c r a t i c family aspect). In r i t e s of passage marking l i f e t r a n s i t i o n s such as weddings, funerals, graduations, baptisms, etc. there i s also a meld of c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e and family t r a d i t i o n . A bride may wear a piece of jewelry that i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y worn by brides i n her family as she p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the c u l t u r a l r i t e of passage from the s i n g l e state to the married state. Families also develop family routines that are i d i o s y n c r a t i c to t h e i r family and transcend mere habits due to the value the family places on them. Because the meaning a family attaches to a r i t u a l event can vary i n depth and breadth, these measures do not attempt to explore the i n d i v i d u a l and unique purpose r i t u a l s perform f o r a family, but rather, they indicate that these purposes, whatever they may be, e x i s t and are performed i n s p e c i f i c areas of family l i f e . Examination of the family r i t u a l measures supports t h e i r face v a l i d i t y . The measures contain items which are considered -87-family, r i t u a l s i n Western Society, with both culture-wide and f a m i l y - s p e c i f i c examples. Because family r i t u a l has r a r e l y been addressed i n research, these instruments represent the only a v a i l a b l e p e n c i l and paper (as opposed to personal interviews) measures a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e . Norms are not avai l a b l e f o r the family r i t u a l measures, however, means and frequencies f o r a sample of 304 f a m i l i e s could be compared to remarried f a m i l i e s . 1. Family Time and Routines Index. (McCubbin, McCubbin, and Thompson, 1986) The Family Time and Routines Index assesses the a c t i v i t i e s and routines used by families on a d a i l y basis and the value the fa m i l i e s place on these actions. The Family Time and Routines Index i s a 30 item scale consisting of 8 subscales: Parent-Child Togetherness; Couple Togetherness; C h i l d Routines; Meal Togetherness; Family Time Togetherness; Family Chores Routine; Relatives Connection; and Family Management. (a) Scoring. Each of the t h i r t y items i s scored twice; f i r s t , on a four-point scale to measure the extent of the family's observance of these a c t i v i t i e s ("False", "Mostly False", "Mostly True" and "True"), and second, to indicate the importance or -88 value the family attaches to each a c t i v i t y ("Not", "Somewhat", and "Very") I f the subject does not have the family members noted i n the item, a "Not Applicable" response i s used. Consistent with the d e f i n i t i o n of family r i t u a l , that i s that a habitual behavior has a symbolic value and i s valued by the pa r t i c i p a n t s , a family routine w i l l be considered a family r i t u a l only i f i t i s noted as "mostly true" or "true" and that i t i s "somewhat" or "very important." (b) R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y . Overall i n t e r n a l r e l i a b i l i t y i s .88 (Cronbach's Alpha). This indicates that the t e s t items are homogeneous and the accuracy of the t e s t i s quite high. That i s , subsets of the t e s t w i l l produce the same rank order. Factor loadings are provided for each item i n each of the eight factors (subscales), suggesting that there i s an accurate r e f l e c t i o n of the subscale by the factors. An examination of the items shows that for content v a l i d i t y , the family routines r e f l e c t a broad range of family a c t i v i t i e s , but that these a c t i v i t i e s may be more representative of middle-class values and a two-parent family configuration, which while appropriate to the current study, may render the instrument le s s useful o v e r a l l . -89-2. Family Traditions Scale. (McCubbin & Thompson, 1983) The Family Traditions Scale addresses those events, a c t i v i t i e s and practices that the family has done i n the past, are l i k e l y to continue to do and which the family values and respects. The Family Traditions Scale consists of four subscales : Holidays, which measures the extent to which fa m i l i e s maintain t r a d i t i o n s around holidays; Family Transitions (marriage, ceremonies, rules, e t c . ) ; Religious Traditions (rules, l o c a t i o n s , p a r t i c i p a n t s ) ; and Special Events (reunions, unique family events, e t c . ) . McCubbin and Thompson (1987) state that while a l e s s e r emphasis on t r a d i t i o n s can be observed at the couple and adolescent launching stages of the family l i f e cycle, the differences across stages i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . (a) Scoring. Each item i s scored by adding 1 f o r a "yes" response ( i n d i c a t i n g that the stated a c t i v i t y i s a t r a d i t i o n i n the family) and 0 f o r a "no" response. By adding the number of "yes" responses f o r each of the four subscales, the subscale scores can be determined. The t o t a l score i s the sum of the -90-subscale scores. (b) R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y . The o v e r a l l i n t e r n a l r e l i a b i l i t y i s .85 (Cronbach's Alpha). V a l i d i t y i s l i m i t e d to a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p of r=.29 between the Family T r a d i t i o n Scale and the Family Celebrations Index, which i s reasonable as they are both measuring family r i t u a l a l b e i t d i f f e r e n t aspects of i t . 3. Family Celebrations Index. (McCubbin & Thompson, 1983) McCubbin and Thompson (1987) define celebrations as those s p e c i a l events that are marked by a family i n a p a r t i c u l a r way. This includes events observed by the culture as a whole, such as Mother's Day, and events s p e c i f i c to a family such as birthdays. The Family Celebrations Index measures the degree to which the family i s involved (taking time and e f f o r t to appreciate the s i t u a t i o n or event) i n the family process of celebrating s p e c i a l , t r a d i t i o n a l , and s i t u a t i o n a l events. (a) Scoring. The nine items are scored on a Likert-type scale i n d i c a t i n g how often t h i s event i s celebrated (e.g. 0=never to 3=always and 0=not a p p l i c a b l e ) . The t o t a l Family Celebrations Index score i s the sum of the numerical responses. -91-(b) R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y . The o v e r a l l i n t e r n a l r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the Family Celebrations Index i s .69 (Cronbach's Alpha), which suggests that the items are homogeneous and are f a i r l y accurate i n measuring family celebrations. V a l i d i t y measures are provided as factor loadings on two factors and behaviors: Unique and Intra-family which describe the type of t r a d i t i o n s that comprise the items. An examination of the items for face v a l i d i t y shows that the Family Celebrations Index has an adequate range into which a wide v a r i e t y of family celebrations could be accurately categorized. -92-Analysis of Data The o v e r a l l design of the Family Traditions i n Remarried Families project i s a single group, ex post facto, survey study. Subjects were asked to report t h e i r perceptions of the functioning of t h e i r remarried family and t h e i r family r i t u a l s i n questionnaire form which included a demographic information section. The data were analyzed by computing the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t between each of the l i n e a r family functioning scores (Quality Marriage Index and Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale) and the family r i t u a l scores, and an Analysis of Variance between the scores of the c u r v i l i n e a r family functioning measures (Cohesion and Adaptability) and the family r i t u a l scores. Correlations were expected to be p o s i t i v e , with higher family functioning scores occurring with higher family r i t u a l scores. Higher Cohesion mean scores were expected to occur with higher l e v e l s of family r i t u a l scores, while a lower mean Ada p t a b i l i t y score was expected to occur with higher l e v e l s of family r i t u a l scores. Table 2 shows a summary of the scoring and d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of the measures. -93-Table 1 Scoring and D i r e c t i o n a l i t y of Dependent and Independent Measures | Range of | Range of Possible Measure | Item Scores | Total Scores  DEPENDENT VARIABLE: FAMILY FUNCTIONING 1. Quality Marriage Index (6 questions) 2. Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale (14 Questions) 3. FACES I I I (10 questions f o r each dimension) 0-7 (questions 1-5) 0- 10 (question 6) 1- 5 1-5 Converted to z-scores 14-70 Adaptability:10-50 Cohesion: 10-50 INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: FAMILY RITUAL 4. Family 0-3, N/A 0-27 Celebrations Index (9 questions) occasions 5. Family Traditions 0-1, N/A 0-20 Scale (20 questions) 6. Family Time 0-3 (observed) 0-96 and Routines 0-2 (important) 0-64 Note. 0 i s always low score f o r those items with 0 as a possible item score, f o r a l l other items, a low score i s 1. Procedures A mechanism i s not avai l a b l e to t o t a l the scores i n each v a r i a b l e to produce a single family functioning score and a 94-s i n g l e family r i t u a l score. Therefore, using s t a t i s t i c a l procedures f o r each dependent measure, scores f o r each of the three independent measures were compared with the scores f o r each of the four dependent measures, which yielded a t o t a l of twelve s t a t i s t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Data Transformation Husband-Wife Scores. Data were c o l l e c t e d from p a i r s of remarried spouses. While recognizing the value of family or dyadic scores over i n d i v i d u a l scores, the data were dealt with as i n d i v i d u a l scores. Although i d e n t i f i e d as family measures, the instruments are, i n fact, i n d i v i d u a l measures of perception of the family member. Each administration of the measurements to a remarried couple y i e l d s two sets of measures: the perception of the wife and the perception of the husband. Using scores from remarried couples w i l l reduce the subject to subject v a r i a b i l i t y . Scores f o r males and females were considered separately. A husband's and wife's scores are not independent, thus the shared variance between the huband's and wife's scores could create a c o r r e l a t i o n that i s more an a r t i f a c t of t h i s variance than actual c o r r e l a t i o n . In the current l i t e r a t u r e , considerable attention has been direc t e d to the treatment of husband-wife scores, with a v a r i e t y 95 of systems proposed for combining i n d i v i d u a l scores into a sin g l e couple score, as well as arguments against any combination of scores due to the possible loss of information about the spouse's perceptions as well as other s t a t i s t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l considerations (Thompson & Walker, 1982; Fisher, Kokes, Ransom, P h i l l i p s , & Rudd, 1985; Sigafoos & Reiss, 1985). Thompson and Walker (1982) note that " f o r many family researchers the decision on whether or not to sum i s post facto based on an examination of the s i m i l a r i t y of partner reports. I f the c o r r e l a t i o n between husbands and wives i s high, a couple score i s used. I f the c o r r e l a t i o n i s low, i n d i v i d u a l reports are used separately i n further analysis" (p.899). In Lavee, McCubbin, and Olson (1987), the nature of the information reported i n the instrument determined whether i t was used as i n d i v i d u a l scores or as a combined husband-wife score. Se l f - r e p o r t measures, i n which the subject reported attitudes towards s e l f and spouse, were considered as separate scores for husbands and wives as each partner was reporting t h e i r own fe e l i n g s . On the other hand, for measures that reported shared family behavior, the mean of the couples scores was used. Using t h i s system f o r dealing with husband and wife scores, the Quality Marriage Index and the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale would y i e l d separate husband and wife scores scores. Thus for -96-hypotheses involving these two measures, each of the measures of family r i t u a l would be compared to an i n d i v i d u a l husband or wife score. While t h i s method i s conceptually a t t r a c t i v e and would r e s u l t i n both i n d i v i d u a l and combined scores for measures used i n t h i s study, Cronbach (1958) cautions against using both combined and i n d i v i d u a l scores i n the same analysis, suggesting that the r e s u l t i n g c o r r e l a t i o n could be more an a r t i f a c t of the procedure than a true c o r r e l a t i o n of the v a r i a b l e s . With t h i s caveat i n mind, data were analyzed as i n d i v i d u a l male and female scores. Dependent Variables. Of the four dependent variables, a l l but the Quality Marriage Index are simple additive measures which produce a s i n g l e summed score for each case. The Quality Marriage Index scores were transformed to standard scores p r i o r to being added because the index contains two scales of d i f f e r e n t magnitudes. For the Quality Marriage Index and the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale, a higher score indicates greater marital q u a l i t y and greater family s a t i s f a c t i o n , respectively. The other two family functioning scales, Cohesion and Adaptabilty, are c u r v i l i n e a r with better family functioning located i n the mid-range rather than at e i t h e r extreme. -97-Independent Variables. Two of the three independent variables, Family Celebrations Index and Family Traditions Scale are also simple additive measures i n which raw scores are summed to produce a single t o t a l score f o r each case. A higher t o t a l score indicates more observance of the s p e c i f i e d family r i t u a l s . The Family Time and Routines Index required a transformation of scores because each item consisted of a two-part response i n d i c a t i n g whether the a c t i v i t y was performed by the family (scoring a possible 0 to 3), and whether the respondent f e l t i t was important for keeping the family together and strong (scoring a possible 0 to 2). For the item to meet the d e f i n i t i o n of family r i t u a l , a habit or routine would need to be observed e p i s o d i c a l l y and have symbolic meaning beyond the l i t e r a l meaning (e.g. eating together as valued beyond j u s t intake of food) to be considered a family r i t u a l . Thus, only those family routines which were rated as "mostly true" or "true" of the family and "somewhat" or "very" important were counted i n the Family Time and Routines Index score. Some consideration was given to d i f f e r e n t i a l weighting of responses such as "somewhat important" and "very important", but was not done fo r two reasons. F i r s t , a numerical weight d i f f e r e n t i a l f o r "somewhat" and "very" would end up being an a r b i t r a r y and a r t i f i c i a l designation that may or may not r e f l e c t r e a l i t y or be s t a t i s t i c a l l y v i a b l e . Second, the issue under consideration was - 9 8 -simply whether or not the a c t i v i t y was performed and whether or not i t had symbolic meaning f o r the respondent. Items that were considered to have symbolic meaning to the respondent, but were not performed by the family, or performed by the family, but not considered meaningful to the respondent, d i d not contribute to the t o t a l Family Routines score. The product of the performance of the a c t i v i t y (false=0 true=l) and the value of the a c t i v i t y (not important=0, important=l) were added to give a t o t a l Family Time and Routines Index score f o r each subject. To f a c i l i t a t e the comparison of each family r i t u a l score to the A d a p t a b i l i t y and Cohesion scores, each of the family r i t u a l measures were divided into two l e v e l s , high and low r i t u a l observance, using the median as the d i v i d i n g point and providing nearly equal numbers to each group. McCubbin and Thompson (1987), i n t h e i r discussion of family typologies, divided Family Celebrations, Family Traditions, and Family Time and Routines each into high and low l e v e l s (p.41, p.43). Although they d i d not specify what s t a t i s t i c , mean or median, was used, graphs picture equal sized units f o r each l e v e l , suggesting the use of the median. In ei t h e r case, t h i s sample would not be greatly affected as there was l i t t l e or no difference between the scores at the median and the mean for each measure. 99-Summary The dependent variables, the Quality of Marriage Index and the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale are correlated with the independent variables, Family Celebrations Index, Family Traditions Scale, and the Family Time and Routines Index. Analysis of Variance i s used with the dependent variables A d a p t a b i l i t y and Cohesion and the independent variables noted above. Control variables are used to control f o r possible influence on family functioning from factors other than family r i t u a l . The r e s u l t s of the s t a t i s t i c a l manipulation of the dependent and independent variables w i l l be reported i n the next chapter. -100-CHAPTER SIX Results The r e s u l t s chapter i s divided into three sections. The f i r s t section reports the des c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s of the sample group, the second section reports the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of data as i t r e l a t e s the proposed hypotheses, and the t h i r d section deals with the desc r i p t i o n and s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of control v a r i a b l e s . Section One: Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s Of t h i r t y - f o u r sets of questionnaires that were d i s t r i b u t e d , t h i r t y were used i n the analysis of data. Of the remaining four, one couple d i d not meet the d e f i n i t i o n of a remarried couple, one spouse refused to complete the questionnaire, and two sets of couple data were l o s t i n the mail. Two couples were included i n the study although t h e i r c h i l d from a previous marriage turned 13 years of age a f t e r the couples volunteered to answer the questionnaire and before the questionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d . The age of the subjects ranged from 27 years to 51 years -101-with a mean of 36.7 years. The average age of women i n the sample was 35.8 (range of 28 years to 46 years), and the average age of men i n the sample was 37.568 (range of 27 to 51 years). Unlike the general population of f i r s t marriages, i n which 4.5% of wives are older than t h e i r husbands by three to ten years (McKie et a l ) , i n twenty percent (20%) of the couples i n t h i s sample, the wives were older than t h e i r husbands by three to ten years. Of the couples i n which the husband was older, the range of age diffe r e n c e was one to twenty years. The length of the current marriage ranged from 1.8 years to seven years with a mean of 3.8 years. Eleven couples have been married f i v e years or longer and eighteen couples have been married l e s s than f i v e years. A discrepancy between members of one couple regarding the length of t h e i r current marriage placed one squarely i n the "less than f i v e years" group and the the other i n the "over f i v e years" group. Because the couple could not be contacted, each stated length of marriage remained as part of the data. Twenty-seven of the t h i r t y couples (90%) l i v e d together p r i o r to marriage for an average of 1.99 years, with a range of 0.1 to 6.0 years. T h i r t y - f i v e percent (35%) of the remarried couples have had family or marital counselling for an average of 7.3 sessions. Eighteen (60%) of the remarried couples have had a c h i l d , and seven of the couples have had two children, which was the -102-maximum number of children born into these remarried f a m i l i e s . The ages of these childr e n ranged from 0.2 years to 5 years. Twenty-two men and twenty-seven women, had been previously married. The length of the f i r s t marriage f o r t h i s group ranged from 1.8 years to 19 years. The average marriage f o r the sample was 7.73 years. For the women, the average length of marriage was 7.68 years (range 2 years to 17 years) and s i m i l a r l y , f o r the men, the average length of the f i r s t marriage was 7.83 years with a range of 1.8 to 19 years. Three i n d i v i d u a l s had second marriages, which ranged i n length from 0.7 years to 14 years, p r i o r to t h e i r current marriage. Of the twenty-seven women with childr e n from a previous marriage, twenty-five have a l l of t h e i r ch i l d r e n l i v i n g with them, and two have some of the children l i v i n g with them and some with t h e i r ex-spouse. Of the seventeen men with children from a previous marriage, s i x have a l l t h e i r c h i l d r e n l i v i n g with them and another four have some of t h e i r ch i l d r e n l i v i n g with them and some with t h e i r ex-spouse. Two men and one woman have adult c h i l d r e n l i v i n g on t h e i r own. Table 1 summarizes the l i v i n g s i t u a t i o n of the children of previous marriages from the parent's perspective. Age range f o r the children of the previous marriage i s 7 years to 24 years. -103-Table 1 Previous Marriage of Females and for Children of the Previous Marriage of Males . Parent's Number Gender with Children Lives with a l l children Lives with a l l childre n Lives with no chil d r e n Has adult ch i l d r e n on t h e i r own Female 27 of 30 25 2 0 1 Male 17 of 3 0 6 4 7 2 Subjects were predominantly raised Protestant (56.7%) and Catholic (31.7%), but only 23% of the t o t a l sample currently p r a c t i c e t h e i r r e l i g i o n . The sample was well educated, with over three-quarters of the t o t a l having some type of education beyond Grade 12. The occupational l e v e l of the group was also high with over 80% of the men and 39% of the women i n professional or managerial pos i t i o n s . Almost one-third of the women stated they were homemakers or not employed. Overall, the income l e v e l s seemed to r e f l e c t the high occupational l e v e l s . The combined family incomes ranged from $20,000 to over $75,000 with a mean of $50,001 to $ 6 0 , 9 0 0 and formed a tri-modal d i s t r i b u t i o n of $30,001-$40,000 (16.7%), $50,001-$60,000 (30%) and above $75,000 (23.3%). -104-Section Two: Analysis of Data This section reports the mean and standard deviation f o r each of the dependent variables, describes the t e s t i n g of the hypotheses posed i n Chapter 3 and reports the r e s u l t s of the analysis of the data for males and females separately, both i n s t a t i s t i c a l terms, and whether each hypothesis was supported or not supported. Data were divided by gender since husband and wife p a i r s are not independent. Results of the hypothesis t e s t i n g are presented i n three subsections c o n s i s t i n g of each of the three hypotheses. The research question being addressed i s whether remarried fa m i l i e s with a greater number of family r i t u a l s are better functioning than those remarried families with fewer family r i t u a l s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , do remarried families who score higher on family r i t u a l measures also score higher on measures of family functioning? To answer t h i s question, each of three family r i t u a l measures was compared with each of four family functioning measures using either Pearson Correlations or Analysis of Variance as appropriate to the measures. As stated i n the previous chapter, four dependent variables were used i n t h i s study. The f i r s t v a r i able, marital quality, was measured by the Quality Marriage Index. For t h i s sample, the QMI was transformed from raw scores to Z scores. The mean -105-f o r females and males was, t h e r e f o r e , 0.00 and the s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s 5.3 4 and 5.12, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The second v a r i a b l e , f a m i l y s a t i s f a c t i o n , measured by the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n S c a l e , had a mean f o r females of 46.60, and a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 9.08. The mean f o r males was 46.79, standar d d e v i a t i o n , 9.01. The t h i r d v a r i a b l e A d a p t a b i l i t y and the f o u r t h v a r i a b l e , Cohesion, were both measured by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s u b s c a l e s of FACES-III. The A d a p t a b l i t y mean f o r females was 26.00 w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 5.13; and f o r males, the mean was 26.57 w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 4.74. For Cohesion, the mean f o r females was 39.24, standard d e v i a t i o n , 5.98; and f o r males, the mean was 38.23, standar d d e v i a t i o n , 5.72. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s summarized i n T a b l e 3, below. A comparison o f sample s c o r e s and norms i s p r e s e n t e d i n Appendix 5. T a b l e 3 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r the Dependent V a r i a b l e s V a r i a b l e Mean Standard D e v i a t i o n  Q u a l i t y M arriage Index Females 0.00 5.18 Males 0.00 5.28 Family S a t i s f a c t i o n S c a l e Females 46.60 9.08 . . Males 46.79 9.01 A d a p t a b i l i t y Females 26.00 5.13 Males 26.57 4.74 Cohesion Females 39.24 5.98 Males 38.23 5.72 Note. A l l s c o r e s are raw s c o r e s except the Q u a l i t y Marriage Index which has been converted t o s t a n d a r d (z) s c o r e s . -106-(i) Hypothesis One Hypothesis One proposes that taking the time and e f f o r t to appreciate and observe a greater number of family events i s rel a t e d to better family functioning i n the remarried family. I t states that remarried persons with a higher score on the Family Celebrations Index w i l l have (a) a higher score on the Quality Marriage Index; and (b) a higher score on the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale; (c) and that the mean of Adapt a b i l i t y w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t for higher and lower l e v e l s of Family Celebrations Index scores; and (d) that the mean of Cohesion w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r higher and lower l e v e l s of Family Celebrations Index scores. Ka) Family Celebrations and Quality Marriage Index. The f i r s t part of Hypothesis One proposes that those who take time and e f f o r t to appreciate a greater number of family events w i l l also have a higher evaluation of the q u a l i t y of t h e i r marriage. S p e c i f i c a l l y , those i n d i v i d u a l s with a higher Family Celebrations Index score w i l l also have a higher Quality Marriage Index Score. This hypothesis was not supported f o r e i t h e r females (r=.225, p<.231) or males (r=.133, p_<.484). As shown i n Column 1 of Table 4, there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Family Celebrations Index and the Quality Marriage Index. -107-Table 4 Cor r e l a t i o n Between Family Functioning Measures and Family  R i t u a l Measures f o r Females and Males Dependent Variables Factor Quality Marriage Index Family r D r S a t i s f a c t i o n Females (n=30) Family Celebrations .225 .231 .299 .109 Family Traditions . 043 .821 .062 .744 Family Time Routines & .504* .005* .561* .001* Family Celebrations .133 Males (n=30) .484 .262 .170 Family Traditions .131 .945 .075 .699 Family Time & Routines .291 .119 .267 . 162 *E<„05, two-t a i l e d . Mb)-Family Celebrations and Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale. The second part of Hypothesis One proposes that those who take time and e f f o r t to celebrate more family occasions, such as birthdays and anniversaries, are more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r family l i f e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n d i v i d u a l s with a higher Family Celebrations Index score w i l l also have a higher Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Score. -108-This hypothesis was not supported f o r e i t h e r females, r=.299, p_<.109, or males, r=.262, p_<.170). As shown i n Column 2 of Table 4, there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Family Celebrations Index and the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale. 1(c) Family Celebrations and Adaptability. The t h i r d part of Hypothesis One proposes that those who observe more family celebrations w i l l have a more r i g i d family structure and therefore less f l e x i b i l i t y to adapt to changes than those who observe fewer family celebrations. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the means of A d a p t a b i l i t y f o r higher and lower l e v e l s of Family Celebrations scores w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , and the higher Family Celebration l e v e l w i l l have a lower Adap t a b i l i t y mean. This hypothesis was not supported f o r e i t h e r females, F ( l , 28)=1.63, p_<.215 or males, F(l,29)=2.66, p_<.117. As indicated i n Column 2 of Table 5, no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was indicated between family celebrations and a b i l i t y to adapt to changes. -109-Table 5 Summary of Analysis of Variance f o r Females and Males:  A d a p t a b i l i t y by Family Celebrations. Family Traditions, and  Family Time and Routines Factor F d.f. Prob. of F Family Celebrations 1.63 Females (n=29) 1 .215 Family Traditions 5.22* 1 .032* Family Time & Routines 4.78* 1 .040* Family Celebrations 2.661 Males (n=3 0) 1 .117 Family Traditions 3.435 1 .077 Family Time & Routines .017 1 .899 *p_<.05, two-tailed. 1(d) Family Celebrations and Cohesion. The l a s t part of Hypothesis One proposes that those who observe more family celebrations w i l l have a greater sense of family closeness and bonding (Cohesion) than those who observe fewer family celebrations. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the mean of Cohesion for higher and lower l e v e l s of Family Celebrations scores w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , and the higher Family Celebration l e v e l w i l l have a higher Cohesion mean. This r e l a t i o n s h i p was not supported f o r females, F(l,28)=0.496, p_<.488). However, the hypothesis was supported for males, F(l,29)=4.720, p_<.041). There seems to be a -110-differ e n c e i n the way men and women regard family celebrations and family closeness, with a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two e x i s t i n g only for males. This f i n d i n g i s indicated i n Table 6. Table 6 Summary of Analysis of Variance for Females and Males: Cohesion  by Family Celebrations. Family Traditions and Family Time and  Routines Factor F d.f. Prob. of F  Females (n=29) Family Celebrations 0.496 1 .488 Family Traditions 2.139 1 .158 Family Time & Routines 1.233 1 .279 —————— Family Celebrations 4.720* 1 .041* Family Traditions 1.190 1 .287 Family Time & Routines 0.442 1 .513 *p_<.05, two-tailed. Thus, f o r Hypothesis One, only i n part (d) was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between Family Celebrations and Cohesion found, and then only for males. No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s were found for females. Overall, the hypothesis i s only p a r t i a l l y supported f o r males, but not f o r females. -111-(ii) Hypothesis Two Hypothesis Two suggests that a greater observance of family t r a d i t i o n s , those a c t i v i t i e s the family always does, has done i n the past and i s l i k e l y to do i n the future, i s re l a t e d to better family functioning i n the remarried family. Hypothesis Two states that remarried persons with a higher score on the Family Traditions Scale w i l l have (a) a higher score on the Quality Marriage Index; and (b) a higher score on the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale. Further, (c) the mean of Ada p t a b i l i t y w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r higher and lower l e v e l s of Family Traditions Scale scores; and (d) the mean of Cohesion w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t for higher and lower l e v e l s of scores on the Family Traditions Scale. 2 fa) Family Traditions and Quality Marriage Index. The f i r s t part of Hypothesis Two proposes that those who observe a greater number of family t r a d i t i o n s w i l l evaluate the qu a l i t y of t h e i r marriage as higher than those who observe fewer family t r a d i t i o n s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , those i n d i v i d u a l s with a higher score on the Family Traditions Index w i l l also have a higher score on the Quality Marriage Index. The hypothesis was not supported f o r ei t h e r females (r=.043, p<.821) or males (r=.131, E<-945). As shown i n Column 1 of Table 4, there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Family -112-Traditions Scale and the Quality Marriage Index. 2(b) Family Traditions and Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale. The second part of Hypothesis Two proposes that those who observe more family t r a d i t i o n s , which l i n k the past, present and future, are more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r family l i f e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n d i v i d u a l s with a higher Family Traditions Scale score w i l l also have a higher Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Score. The hypothesis was not supported for eithe r females (r=.062, p_<.821) or males (r=.075, p_<.699). As shown i n Column 2, Table 4, no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between the Family Trad i t i o n s Scale and the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale. 2(c) Family Traditions and Adaptability. The t h i r d part of Hypothesis Two proposes that those who observe more family t r a d i t i o n s w i l l have le s s f l e x i b i l i t y and therefore be les s able to adapt to changes than those who observe fewer family celebrations. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the mean of Ad a p t a b i l i t y f o r higher and lower l e v e l s of Family T r a d i t i o n Index scores w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , and the higher l e v e l of Family Traditions w i l l have a lower Ada p t a b i l i t y mean. This hypothesis was not supported f o r males, F(l,29)=3.435, E<.077, or f o r females, F(1,28)=5.22, p<.032, despite a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p for females between family t r a d i t i o n s -113-and a d a p t a b i l i t y , as shown i n Row 3 of Table 5 because the hypothesized d i r e c t i o n s of difference i s not supported when c e l l means of t h i s Analysis of Variance are examined. C e l l means for higher and lower l e v e l s of family t r a d i t i o n s indicate that for females, a greater a b i l i t y to adapt i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to a higher, not lower, l e v e l of family t r a d i t i o n s . Thus the hypothesis i s not supported. 2(d) Family Traditions and Cohesion. The fourth part of Hypothesis Two proposes that those who observe more family t r a d i t i o n s w i l l have a greater sense of family closeness and bonding (Cohesion) than those who observe fewer family t r a d i t i o n s . S p e c i f i c a l l y the mean of Cohesion for higher and lower l e v e l s of Family T r a d i t i o n Index scores w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , and the higher Family Traditions l e v e l w i l l have a higher Cohesion mean. This r e l a t i o n s h i p was not supported for females, F(l,28) =2.139, p_<.158, or males, F(1,29)=1.190, p_<.287. As indicated i n Table 6, there appears to be no difference i n a sense of family bonding for high and low l e v e l s of of family t r a d i t i o n s . Therefore, f o r Hypothesis Two, only one s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p , 2(c), was found between the higher l e v e l of family t r a d i t i o n s observance and greater a d a p t a b i l i t y , but only for females. Overall, for Hypothesis Two, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between -114-family t r a d i t i o n and family functioning variables appears to not be supported f o r females. ( i i i ) Hypothesis Three Hypothesis Three proposes that a greater observance of family routines that hold a p a r t i c u l a r meaning f o r the respondent, i s rela t e d to better family functioning i n the remarried family. Hypothesis Three states that remarried persons with a higher score on the Family Time and Routines Index w i l l have (a) a higher score on the Quality Marriage Index; (b) a higher score on the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale; (c) that the mean of Adapt a b i l i t y w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t fo r higher and lower l e v e l s of Family Time and Routine Index scores; and (d) that the mean of Cohesion w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r higher and lower score l e v e l s on the Family Time and Routine Index. 3(a) Family Time and Routines and Quality Marriage Index. The f i r s t part of Hypothesis Three proposes that those who observe a greater number of meaningful family routines w i l l evaluate t h e i r marriage as being of a higher q u a l i t y than those who observe fewer meaningful family routines. S p e c i f i c a l l y , those i n d i v i d u a l s with a higher score on the Family Time and Routines Index w i l l also have a higher score on the Quality Marriage Index. -115-Th i s hypothesis was supported f o r females, r=.504, p_<.005, but not f o r males, r=.291, p_<.119. Females observing a greater number of meaningful family routines also evaluate t h e i r marital r e l a t i o n s h i p more p o s i t i v e l y . As shown i n Column 1 of Table 4, there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Family Traditions Scale and the Quality Marriage Index f o r females, but not f o r males. 3(b) Family Time and Routines and Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale. The second part of Hypothesis Three proposes that those who observe a greater number of meaningful family routines, are more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r family l i f e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n d i v i d u a l s with a higher Family Time and Routines Index score w i l l also have a higher Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Score. This hypothesis was supported for females, r=.561, p_<.001, but not for males, r=.267, p_<.162. Females with more meaningful family routines f e e l more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r family l i f e . As shown i n Column 2 of Table 4, there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Family Time and Routines Index and the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale f o r females, but not f o r males (Row 6 of Table 6). 3(c) Family Time and Routines and Adaptability. The t h i r d part of Hypothesis Three proposes that those i n d i v i d u a l s who have a larger number of meaningful family -116-routines have le s s f l e x i b i l i t y and are therefore le s s able to adapt to changes than those who observe fewer meaningful family routines. S p e c i f i c a l l y , there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the mean of Adapt a b i l i t y f o r higher and lower l e v e l s of Family Time and Routines Index scores with the higher l e v e l of Family Routines having a lower Adap t a b i l i t y mean. This hypothesis was supported f o r females, F(1,28)=4.78, p_<.040, but was not supported f o r males, F(1,29) = . 017, p<.899. As indicated i n Row 4 of Table 5, a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p , fo r females, appears to e x i s t between family t r a d i t i o n s and a b i l i t y to adapt to changes, but further examination of the c e l l means indicates that the hypothesized d i r e c t i o n s of difference i s not supported. For females, a greater f l e x i b i l i t y and a b i l i t y to adapt to changes i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to a higher rather than a lower l e v e l of meaningful family routines. Thus the hypothesis i s not supported. 3(d) Family Time and Routines and Cohesion. The l a s t part of Hypothesis Three proposes that those who observe a greater number of meaningful family routines w i l l have a greater sense of family closeness and bonding (Cohesion) than those who observe fewer family routines. S p e c i f i c a l l y the mean of Cohesion f o r higher and lower l e v e l s of Family Time and Routines Index scores w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , and a higher Family Routines l e v e l w i l l have a higher Cohesion mean. -117-Th i s r e l a t i o n s h i p was not supported f o r females, F(l,28)= 1.233, p_<.279, or males, F(l,29)=0.443, p_<.513. As indicated i n Table 6, there appears to be no difference i n a sense of family bonding f o r high and low l e v e l s of family routines. Thus, f o r Hypothesis Three the r e l a t i o n s h i p between meaningful family routines and and family functioning variables i s supported f o r females on 3(a) Family Routines and Ma r i t a l Quality,, and 3(b) Family Routines and Family S a t i s f a c t i o n . A further s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p , a l b e i t opposite to the hypothesized d i r e c t i o n , was found f o r females on 3(c) between the higher l e v e l of Family Routines and a higher mean of Ada p t a b i l i t y . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t findings f o r males for Hypothesis Three, consequently, Hypothesis Three appears to be supported f o r females, but not f o r males. Summary At t h i s point we might conclude the following: A greater number of s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s were found f o r females than f o r males: four for females and one f o r males. The single s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p for males was found on Hypothesis One, between Cohesion and the Family Celebrations Index. Males involved i n taking the time and e f f o r t to observe various kinds of family events tend to f e e l greater emotional bonding to t h e i r family, and a more defined sense of family boundaries. For Hypothesis Two, only one s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found, for -118-females, between Ad a p t a b i l i t y and the Family Traditions Scale. Females who are involved i n a c t i v i t i e s that the family values and respects and have done i n the past and are l i k e l y to continue i n the future, also have f l e x i b i l i t y and are able to adapt to changes i n r o l e and rules as developmental needs require. The hypothesis predicted l e s s adaptabilty rather than more, therefore the hypothesis i s not supported. Hypothesis Three had three s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a l l f o r females, between the Quality Marriage Index and the Family Time and Routines Index; between the Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale and the Family Time and Routines Index; and between Adapt a b i l i t y and the Family Time and Routines Index. Females who had a greater number of meaningful and valued family routines also had a higher q u a l i t y marriage, were more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r family l i f e , and were more able to adapt to change i n response to developmental needs. Therefore, Hypotheses One was p a r t i a l l y supported f o r males, and Hypothesis Two was not supported for females because the s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t was not i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n . Hypothesis Three was supported for females, but not for males. Section Three: Control Variables Further examination of the s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s found i n the previous section was undertaken to reduce the p o s s i b i l i t y -119-that the re l a t i o n s h i p s between family r i t u a l measures and family functioning measures were spurious, due to factors other than those s p e c i f i e d i n the hypotheses. Control v a r i a b l e s were selected from the demographic data c o l l e c t e d i n the questionnaires, on the basis of previous research on the dependent va r i a b l e , and i n the case of dependent variables not assessed against these control variables i n the l i t e r a t u r e , on the basis of l o g i c a l extrapolation. The f i v e control variables w i l l be discussed, followed by the r e s u l t s of c o n t r o l l i n g f o r these v a r i a b l e s . Discussion of Control Variables The f i r s t control v a r i a b l e tested was length of marriage. In research on nuclear f a m i l i e s , length of marriage as a s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i c a t o r of marital q u a l i t y was reported by Nock (1979), but not supported by Anderson, Russell & Schumm (1983) while R o l l i n s and Feldman (1970) found that marital s a t i s f a c t i o n di d not vary as much over the family l i f e cycle f o r husbands as i t d i d for wives. As noted i n Chapter Four, various researchers have indicated that the remarried family requires at l e a s t two years (Visher & Visher, 1979) to f i v e years ( M i l l s , 1984) for the formation of the stepfamily to be accomplished. This time frame, together with the high marital termination rate f o r those remarried l e s s than f i v e years (see p. 10, Chapter 4), suggests that a longer marriage rather than any influence of family - c o -routines , may lead to greater marital qual i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y for females. Length of marriage, i n years, was used i n both the Analysis of Covariance and Regression equations. A second control v a r i a b l e examined was the Presence of Children from the Current Marriage. Nuclear family research on marital q u a l i t y and children, f o r obvious reasons, has not addressed t h i s p a r t i c u l a r issue, concentrating instead on the number of c h i l d r e n i n the family as the important v a r i a b l e . Albrecht (1979), i n h i s research on remarried f a m i l i e s , found that males with childr e n from the current marriage reported "greater comparative happiness" than males without c h i l d r e n from the current marriage. But for females the r e s u l t s were the opposite, females without childr e n from the current marriage reported greater marital happiness than females with childr e n from the current marriage. Presence of a c h i l d from the current marriage could lower the marital q u a l i t y score f o r females, and could decrease female a d a p t a b i l i t y as the mother a f f e c t a more t r a d i t i o n a l parental r o l e than she might as a parent or stepparent with childr e n from the previous marriage. Family s a t i s f a c t i o n may be increased because the remarried family would f i t the i d e a l i z e d nuclear format more c l o s e l y . For men, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f they are stepfathers rather than b i o l o g i c a l fathers, the greater comparative happiness could be r e f l e c t e d i n a greater sense of emotional bonding to the family. In both the Analysis of Covariance and Regression procedures discussed -121-below, Presence of a C h i l d from the Current Marriage i s coded 0 = no c h i l d of the current marriage and 1 = one or more children of the current marriage. A t h i r d control v a r i a b l e i s the Wife's Employment Status, divided into two types: wives who are employed outside the home, and wives who are not employed outside the home. Rapoport and Rapoport (1971) found that couples where both partners work report decreased marital q u a l i t y . In addition, f o r remarried f a m i l i e s , the multiple demands on time i s one of the most frequently noted areas of d i f f i c u l t y (Wald, 1981). With one spouse having more avail a b l e time to meet the demands of running a complex household, the r e s u l t could be that more time i s ava i l a b l e to the couple f o r t h e i r own re l a t i o n s h i p , thus enhancing t h e i r marital q u a l i t y . Greater family s a t i s f a c t i o n may r e s u l t from a smoother running household, and more time a v a i l a b l e f o r the needs of family members to be addressed. Without the demands of both family and job, the wife may f e e l more f l e x i b l e and able to adapt to changes as necessary, rather than maintaining a less useful but e f f i c i e n t structure. Wife's Employment Status was coded as a dummy var i a b l e with 0 = not employed outside the home and 1 = employed outside the home for both Regression and Analysis of Covariance. The p r a c t i c e of r e l i g i o n was the fourth control v a r i a b l e considered. Albrecht (1979) found that r e l i g i o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n -122-and a c t i v i t y only weakly related to the degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the present marriage. For t h i s study, the p o s s i b i l i t y that r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e could provide a more s i g n i f i c a n t influence on marital q u a l i t y rather than family routines or family t r a d i t i o n s was considered. Religious p r a c t i c e could also e f f e c t the l e v e l of family s a t i s f a c t i o n of e i t h e r more or les s family s a t i s f a c t i o n . Religious p r a c t i c e of one spouse could cause c o n f l i c t i n the family, decreasing family s a t i s f a c t i o n , or r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e could enhance family s a t i s f a c t i o n by o f f e r i n g a sense of s p i r i t u a l assistance to the family. Religious p r a c t i c e , i f an area of family agreement, could enhance Cohesion. Religious p r a c t i c e was expected to decrease or have no e f f e c t on Adaptability. Religious p r a c t i c e was coded as a dummy va r i a b l e with 0 = not p r a c t i c i n g r e l i g i o n and 1 = currently p r a c t i c i n g r e l i g i o n . The f i f t h control variable considered was the possible e f f e c t of family or marital counselling on marital q u a l i t y , family s a t i s f a c t i o n , and adaptability, f o r females and on cohesion f o r males. No research was found that looks at the re l a t i o n s h i p between counselling and these dependent variables i n remarried f a m i l i e s , but, the rati o n a l e of e f f e c t i s as follows: Counselling i s intended to increase the l e v e l of family functioning. Because t h i s study consists of a n o n - c l i n i c a l sample, couples who sought counselling may have had a lower q u a l i t y of marriage, which, following counselling, has -123-been r a i s e d to equal to or greater than the norm f o r the group. Families who had received counselling would be more s a t i s f i e d due to the changes that resulted from the counselling. Counselling could also e f f e c t A d a p t a b i l i t y as families experience change i n t h e i r family's s i t u a t i o n and accept that change i s normal i n remarried f a m i l i e s . Counselling may also e f f e c t Cohesion as resolution of family problems allow members to f e e l c l o s e r to each other. Counselling was coded as a dummy var i a b l e with 0 = received no counselling and 1 = received counselling. Testing of Control Variables Each of the hypotheses from Section Two with s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t findings were further tested using the control v a r i a b l e s described above. Results for each of these hypotheses are reported below by Hypotheses One, Two and Three. Results f o r hypothesis 1(d) showed that the mean of Cohesion for higher and lower l e v e l s of the Family Celebrations Index was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t for males. This f i n d i n g was further tested with four control v a r i a b l e s ; Presence of a C h i l d from the Current Marriage, Religious Practice, Counselling, and Length of Marriage using Analysis of Covariance. For males i n the remarried family, the sense of family closeness i s influenced by the presence of a c h i l d of the current marriage more than i t i s influenced by the observance of family events and celebrations. -124-Table 7 shows that the presence of a c h i l d accounted f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t proportion of the variance of Cohesion, F(l,l)=6.050, p_<.021, compared to Family Celebrations, F(l,1)=3.593, p_<.07, which l o s t s i g n i f i c a n c e when the f i v e control variables were used. Table 7 Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Males: Cohesion by Family  Celebrations with A l l Covariates Variable F d.f. Prob. of F Covariates: Presence of a Ch i l d (1,0) 6.050* 1 .021 Religious Practice (0,1) 3.194 1 .087 Counselling (0,1) 0.509 1 .483 Length of Marriage (years) 0.123 1 .728 Independent Variable: Family Celebrations 5.018 1 .070 *E<.05, two-tailed. Religious Practice, Counselling, and Length of Marriage were not s i g n i f i c a n t , although Religious Practice approached s i g n i f i c a n c e , F(l,29)=3.194, p_<.087. A further Analysis of Covariance with only Presence of a Ch i l d of the Current Marriage as a covariate resulted i n a increase i n the proportion of variance accounted for by the Presence of a C h i l d F(l,29)=8.195, p<.008. While the proportion of variance f o r Family Celebrations decreased somewhat, the s i g n i f i c a n c e rose s l i g h t l y but remained non-significant, -125-F(1,29)=3.925, p_<.058. These r e s u l t s are shown i n Table 8. Table 8 Summary of Analysis of Covariance f o r Males: Cohesion by Family  Celebrations with Covariate. Presence of a C h i l d of the Current  Marriage Variable F d.f. Prob. of F Covariates: Presence of a Ch i l d (0,1) Independent Variable: Family Celebrations *p_<.05, two-tailed. For Hypothesis 2(c) a s i g n i f i c a n t difference was found between the means of Adaptability f o r females for high and low l e v e l s of Family Traditions observance. A further Analysis of Covariance was performed using a l l f i v e control variables, noted above, as covariates. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between Ad a p t a b i l i t y and Family Traditions appears to be spurious. When the Wife's Employment Status i s controlled, the variance accounted for by Family Traditions could be due to chance. As noted i n Table 9, a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between Ad a p t a b i l i t y and Wife's Employment Status, F(l,29)=5.352, p_<.031 and the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Adaptability and Family Traditions disappeared, F(l,29) =1.219, p_<.283. 8.195* 1 .008 3.925 1 .058 -126-Table 9 Summary of Analysis of Covariance f o r Females: Ad a p t a b i l i t y by  Family Traditions and Family Time and Routines with A l l  Covariates Variables F d.f. Prob. of F Covariates: Length of Marriage (yrs) 1. 199 1 .215 Presence of a C h i l d (0,1) 0. 080 1 .780 Wife's Employment (0,1) 5. 352* 1 .031* Counselling (0,1) 1. 014 1 .326 Religious Practice (0,1) 0. 248 1 .624 Independent Variables: Family Traditions 1. 219 1 .283 Family Time and Routines 2. 647 1 .119 *p_<.05, two-tailed. A second Analysis of Covariance was run using the two covariates with the highest F r a t i o . Results shown i n Table 10, indicate that the Wife's Employment Status appeared to have greater s i g n i f i c a n c e when only two covariates were used, F(1,29)=6.931, p_<.15. Family Traditions remained nonsignificant. Wife's employment status accounted f o r 53% of the explained variance and 18.7% of the t o t a l variance of females' Adaptability. Table 10 Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Females: Adap t a b i l i t y by  Family Traditions and Family Time and Routines with Covariates,  Length of Marriage. Employment Status of Wife Variables F d.f. Prob. of F Covariates: Length of Marriage (years) 1.133 1 .260 Wife's Employment (0,1) 6.931* 1 .015* Independent Variables: Family Traditions 2.134 1 .157 Family Time and Routines 2.114 1 .159 *p_<.05, two-tailed. -127-For Hypothesis 3(a) a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between a greater number of meaningful Family Time and Routines and a higher evaluation of Ma r i t a l Quality. This c o r r e l a t i o n was further tested using the f i v e control variables,noted above, i n a stepwise regression p r e d i c t i n g Quality of Marriage. Four of the f i v e v ariables used a dummy var i a b l e with 0 i n d i c a t i n g the absence of the va r i a b l e and 1 i n d i c a t i n g the presence of the va r i a b l e . The f i f t h v a r i able, Length of Marriage, was i n years. Counselling was found to comprise a s i g n i f i c a n t proportion of the variance of M a r i t a l Quality, F(1,28)=4.881, p_<.038, while the four other control variables were not s i g n i f i c a n t . The proportion of Ma r i t a l Quality explained by Counselling reduced the proportion of variance accounted f o r by Family Time and Routines to a nonsignificant l e v e l , F(1,28)=1.190, p<.287. Thus the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Family Time and Routines and Ma r i t a l Quality appears to be spurious, but the r e l a t i o n s h i p of Counselling and Ma r i t a l Quality s i g n i f i c a n t . Results of t h i s regression equation are shown i n Table 11. -128-Table 11 Regression Table f o r Females f o r Quality of Marriage on Family  Time and Routines with A l l Control Variables Variables P a r t i a l Correlation F Prob. of F Step One Control Variables: Counselling (0,1) Wife's Employment (0,1) Length of Marriage (years) Religious Practice (0,1) Presence of C h i l d (0,1) Step Two Independent Variable: Family Time and Routines .2266 1.190 .287 R^= .2529 Change of R 2= .0404 *p<.05, two-tailed. A second stepwise Regression was computed using the same dependent and independent variables, but with the e f f e c t of Length of Marriage and Counselling, the two larg e s t F scores i n the f i r s t regression equation, control l e d . Length of marriage remained nonsignificant, but the F score f o r Counselling increased, F(1,28)=5.902, p<.022, as noted i n Table 12. Those who have had marital or family counselling i n the remarried family have a higher q u a l i t y marriage. .4261 4.881* .038* -.0620 0.085 .773 -.1090 0.264 .612 -.0001 0.000 .999 -.0693 0.106 .748 -129-Table 12 Regression Table f o r Females f o r Q u a l i t y of Marriage on Family  Time and Routines w i t h C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s of C o u n s e l l i n g . Length  of Present Marriage V a r i a b l e s P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n F Prob. of F Step One C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s : C o u n s e l l i n g (0,1) .4091 Length of Marriage (years) -.1397 Step Two Independent V a r i a b l e : Family Time and Routines .2599 1.883 .182 R2=.2629 Change of R2=.0534 *p_<.05, t w o - t a i l e d . Hypothesis 3(b) found t h a t there was a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between Family S a t i s f a c t i o n and Family Time and Routines. S i m i l a r t o 3(a) above, t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p was f u r t h e r t e s t e d by running two stepwise r e g r e s s i o n procedures, f i r s t u s i n g a l l f i v e , c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s , and second, u s i n g only the two c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s from the f i r s t r e g r e s s i o n w i t h the highest F scores, Wife's Employment Status and C o u n s e l l i n g . In the f i r s t r e g r e s s i o n procedure, the s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between Family S a t i s f a c t i o n and Family Time and. Routines was maintained, F( 1,29) =4.486, p_<.046, and none of the c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s were found t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r t i o n of the v a r i a n c e of Family S a t i s f a c t i o n . These r e s u l t s are shown i n Table 13. 5.902* .022* .517 .478 -130-Table 13 Regression Table f o r Females f o r Family S a t i s f a c t i o n on Family  Time and Routines with A l l Control Variables Variables P a r t i a l C orrelation F Prob. of F Step One Control Variables: Counselling (0,1) Wife's Employment (0,1) Length of Marriage (years) Religious Practice (0,1) Presence of C h i l d (0,1) .3341 2.276 .111 .1769 0.711 .408 .1223 0.334 .569 -.1062 0.251 .621 -.0715 0.113 .740 Step Two Independent Variable: Family Time and Routines .4116 4.486* .046 R*=.2920 Change of R2=.1444 *p_<.05, two-tailed. A second regression equation was run c o n t r o l l i n g f o r Counselling and Wife's Employment Status. The amount of variance i n Family S a t i s f a c t i o n explained by Counselling and Wife's Employment Status increased somewhat but, i n neither case did i t reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . These r e s u l t s , i n Table 14, show that the s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between Family S a t i s f a c t i o n and Family Time and Routines has increased s l i g h t l y , and 16.4% of the variance i n Family S a t i s f a c t i o n i s accounted f o r i n t h i s second equation. -131-Table 14 Regression Table f o r Family S a t i s f a c t i o n on Family Time and  Routines with Control Variables of Counselling. Length of  Present Marriage Variables P a r t i a l Correlation F Prob. of F Step One Control Variables: Counselling (0,1) .3100 2.765 .108 Wife's Employment (0,1) .1557 .646 .429 Step Two Independent Variable: Family Time and Routines .4291 4.479* .023 R^=.2748 Change of R2=.1637 *p_<.05, two-tailed. The f i n a l hypothesis to be tested i s 3(c), which found that females with a higher l e v e l of Family Time and Routines also had a higher mean of Adaptability. Females who observed more meaningful family routines were also more able to adapt to change. This r e l a t i o n s h i p was tested to see i f i t was spurious using Analysis of Covariance with two groups of control v a r i a b l e s as covariates, a l l f i v e control v a r i a b l e s i n the f i r s t group, and i n the second, the two covariates i n the f i r s t group with the lar g e s t F r a t i o s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between Adapt a b i l i t y f o r females and Family Time and Routines i s spurious, with more v a r i a b i l i t y accounted f o r by Wife's Employment Status. Wives who are employed outside the home are more able to adapt to changes as necessary than wives who are not employed outside the home. -132-In the f i r s t Analysis of Covariance, Wife's Employment Status was found to account f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t proportion of the variance of Adaptability, F(1,28)=5.352, p_<.031, and the proportion of the variance explained by Family Time and Routines was reduced to a nonsignificant l e v e l . These r e s u l t s are shown i n Table 8. The second Analysis of Covariance used Length of Marriage and Wife's Employment Status as covariates. In t h i s instance, the F score increased, and the p r o b a b i l i t y of F decreased f o r Wife's Employment Status, F(l,28)=6.931, p_<.015. Length of Marriage and Family Time and Routines remained nonsignificant, as indicated i n Table 9. Summary of Findings To summarize the r e s u l t s of t e s t i n g f o r the e f f e c t of control v a r i a b l e s on the s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s noted i n Section Two: The wife's employment outside the home had greater impact on her a b i l i t y to be f l e x i b l e and adapt to changes than d i d the observance of family t r a d i t i o n s or meaningful family routines. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between females' Adap t a b i l i t y and Family Traditions and females' Adap t a b i l i t y and Family Time and Routines were both spurious with the s i g n i f i c a n t proportion of variance A d a p t a b i l i t y accounted for by the Wife's Employment -133-Status. A greater proportion of the v a r i a b i l i t y of marital q u a l i t y was explained by having had family or marital counselling i n the remarried family than by the observance of meaningful family routines. Those i n d i v i d u a l s who had family or marital counselling also evaluated t h e i r marital q u a l i t y higher. The c o r r e l a t i o n between Quality of Marriage, f o r females, and Family Time and Routines was, therefore, found to be spurious when co n t r o l l e d f o r the e f f e c t of Counselling. Males who have a c h i l d of the current marriage experience a greater sense of family closeness, and have a tendency towards a higher l e v e l of Family Celebrations. A s i g n i f i c a n t proportion of Cohesion was accounted f o r by the Presence of a C h i l d of the Current Marriage rather than the observance of a higher l e v e l of Family Celebrations, although there was a d e f i n i t e tendency towards s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r Family Celebrations i n t h i s Analysis of Covariance. Thus the i n i t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between Family Celebrations and Cohesion f o r males i s no longer s i g n i f i c a n t . The only s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n which was unaffected by any of the control variables, i s between Family S a t i s f a c t i o n for females and Family Time and Routines. Women who have a greater number of meaningful family routines are also more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r f a m i l i e s . -134-CHAPTER SEVEN Discussion The primary aim of t h i s study was to t e s t whether remarried f a m i l i e s who observe a greater number of family r i t u a l s also experience better family functioning. Previously i t was suggested that issues found to be p a r t i c u l a r l y problematic to remarried f a m i l i e s — t h o s e of i n t e r n a l and external boundaries, d e f i n i t i o n of family r o l e s , family rules, power structure and d i s c i p l i n e , loss and mourning—are also issues that f i n d expression and resolution i n the functions of family r i t u a l . Theory suggests that family r i t u a l s a s s i s t i n creating and maintaining a family culture and family i d e n t i t y (Bossard & B o l l , 1950) i n which the remarried family issues are given a structure and pattern. I t also suggests that r i t u a l s contribute to a family's sense of common purpose and enhance the s t a b i l i t y of the family (Wolin & Bennett, 1984). To t e s t the hypothesis, three measures of family r i t u a l , the independent variable, (Family Celebrations Index, Family Traditions Scale, Family Time and Routines Index) were each compared with four measures of family functioning (Quality Marriage Index, Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale, FACES III — -135-A d a p t a b i l i t y and Cohesion subscales). A difference between the number of s i g n i f i c a n t findings f o r males and females was noted, four f o r females and one for males. When co n t r o l l e d f o r various demographic variables, the number of s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the dependent and independent variables dropped to one f o r females, between Family Time and Routines and Family S a t i s f a c t i o n . The r e l a t i o n s h i p , f o r males, between Family Celebrations and Cohesion was very close to s i g n i f i c a n c e , and w i l l be discussed as a strong trend. In addition, several s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between control variables and dependent variables w i l l be discussed. Summary of Theory Cherlin (1979) hypothesized that remarried families lack the normative i n s t i t u t i o n s provided by society to the nuclear family. These i n s t i t u t i o n s create family unity by narrowing the range of behavior choices, thus reducing the number of disagreements and r e s u l t i n g i n greater family unity. The remarried family, Cherlin suggests, operates from a state of anomie (normlessness) due to the lack of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n . The current study suggests that those remarried f a m i l i e s who have incorporated a greater number of family r i t u a l s into t h e i r l i f e have employed a s i m i l a r process f o r achieving greater family unity (and therefore better family functioning) by creating and adapting structures and prescribed behaviors to replace the missing s o c i e t a l norms. -136-General Trends i n Results In looking at the r e s u l t s , two d i s t i n c t trends are noted. F i r s t , the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t findings f o r some categories of family r i t u a l s , and second, the greater number of s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s f o r females. Number of S i g n i f i c a n t Results. Regarding the f i r s t issue, there i s a lack of s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s f o r Family Traditions, and, to a le s s e r degree, Family Celebrations. The question i s whether t h i s i s due to d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the data or the theory. To r e j e c t the theory s o l e l y on the basis of r e s u l t s from a small n i s not reasonable both because a lar g e r n may have produced a greater number of s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s , and because there were s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s for some types of family r i t u a l s . Thus i t i s necessary to look at the measures fo r those types of r i t u a l s which d i d not get s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s , the Family Traditions Scale and Family Celebrations Index, and determine whether they are v a l i d i n d i c a t o r s f o r t h i s study, or i f the theory requires modification. Looking f i r s t at the question of v a l i d i n d i c a t o r s , i n l i g h t of the de s c r i p t i o n of the sample, and from an examination of the Family T r a d i t i o n Scale there i s a question of whether some of the -137-items contribute to an adequate, representative p i c t u r e of Family Tr a d i t i o n s . Of the twenty Family Traditions items, at l e a s t seven could be c l a s s i f i e d as r e l i g i o u s or qu a s i - r e l i g i o u s [e.g. regarding t r a d i t i o n s around changes, "Who i s involved i n ceremony? ( i . e . same m i n i s t e r ) " ] . The subjects i n t h i s sample were not p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l i g i o u s l y active. Therefore, most of the t o t a l scores f o r the subjects i n t h i s sample would automatically be lowered by at l e a s t one-third of the t o t a l possible points, and the between-groups variance reduced. While i t i s reasonable to say that subjects who are active i n t h e i r r e l i g i o u s practice w i l l have more r e l i g i o u s family r i t u a l s , i t i s not reasonable to assume that those subjects who are not r e l i g i o u s do not have as many family r i t u a l s , on the whole, or that r e l i g i o u s family r i t u a l s constitute as large a portion of family t r a d i t i o n s i n r e a l i t y as suggested by the Family Traditions Scale. In addition, both the response patterns f o r the Family Trad i t i o n s Scale and Family Celebrations Index indicate some items are worded i n such a way that subjects are very l i k e l y to give the same answer, which r e s u l t s i n items that do not discriminate well, or at a l l . For example, for the item " G i f t - g i v i n g and sharing around holidays i s a t r a d i t i o n i n our family," a l l s i x t y subjects answered "Yes". The second p o s s i b i l i t y more d i r e c t l y concerns whether the theory requires modification or r e j e c t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to Family -138-T r a d i t i o n and Family Celebration types of family r i t u a l s . The Family Traditions Scale contains items that r e f e r to a c t i v i t i e s of more culturally-normative types of r i t u a l s than f a m i l y - i d i o s y n c r a t i c types of r i t u a l s , and the Family Celebrations Index contains a mixture of both i d i o s y n c r a t i c and normative family r i t u a l items. One important underlying component of normative family r i t u a l s that i s present f o r the remarried family i s the loss of the nuclear family, r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and family l i f e . Both family t r a d i t i o n s and some family celebrations are more l i k e l y to have a historically-determined structure, and carry with them t h i s loss component. Family routines, which are usually the creation of the p a r t i c i p a n t s , have fewer emotional t i e s to the past. The issues of family membership and family boundaries are more problematic i n Family Traditions and Celebrations than i n Family Routines, and issues such as l o y a l t y to the nuclear family are invoked l e s s frequently i n Family Routines than i n Family Traditions or Celebrations, due i n part to t h i s loss component. For example, i n the nuclear family, Family Traditions are important events f o r reaffirming family /roles, family membership, external boundaries, family values and b e l i e f s . But f o r the remarried family, these same events are more complex and can cause c o n f l i c t with the ex-spouse, confusion and tension over family r o l e s and expectations, power struggles between family -139-members, and l o y a l t y c o n f l i c t s f o r the c h i l d . Despite these p o t e n t i a l problems, the normative aspect and perceived importance of family r i t u a l s drives the remarried family to modify or adapt the r i t u a l s to allow continued observance. These changes to the t r a d i t i o n s and celebrations are not r e f l e c t e d i n the items of the two measures. For example, the family i s u n l i k e l y to have a family t r a d i t i o n f o r the r o l e the childr e n take i n the marriage ceremony of t h e i r parent, or for the r o l e of the stepmother of the bride. Nor would remarried families have t r a d i t i o n s of who i s i n v i t e d to the second wedding, who presides at the second wedding, etc. Therefore, i t would appear that the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s f o r Family Traditions and Family Celebrations i s due to the nature of the items: a high number of r e l i g i o u s items f o r a r e l a t i v e l y nonreligious sample; and items that do not capture the innovations made by remarried families i n order to comfortably maintain observance of family t r a d i t i o n s and celebrations. Greater Number of S i g n i f i c a n t Results f o r Women. The second trend concerned the greater number of s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s f o r women than men. In t h i s study, o v e r a l l , men appeared to be l e s s affected by family r i t u a l s of any type than were women. One possible reason f o r t h i s may be the composition of the remarried family i n the sample. In t h i s sample, 90% of the women had a l l or some of t h e i r c h i l d r e n l i v i n g with them while -140-only 20% of the men had a l l or some of t h e i r c h i l d r e n l i v i n g with them, thus the more prevalent family type would be the stepfather family. Even i n remarried families with c h i l d r e n of both parents, the wife i s l i k e l y to have more influence on the punctuation of family l i f e through r i t u a l events. Reiss and O l i v e r i (1983) reported that i n the shaping of the nuclear family's i d e n t i t y , the family i s l i k e l y to come to f e e l more l i k e the mother's family than the father's. In addition, Sweetser (1963) reported that major family r i t u a l s such as dinner time practices were more s i m i l a r to the mother's than the father's family of o r i g i n . As a remarried family with more family h i s t o r y shared between the mother and c h i l d r e n than between the partners, the female o r i e n t a t i o n of family r i t u a l s i s l i k e l y to be i n t e n s i f i e d with the mother str u c t u r i n g more of the family celebrations, t r a d i t i o n s , and e s p e c i a l l y d a i l y routines as well as simply being more aware of the r i t u a l s because they involve her b i o l o g i c a l c h i l d r e n . The stepfather, because the c h i l d r e n are not h i s b i o l o g i c a l children, may have le s s input into the determination of family r i t u a l s , and some of the family t r a d i t i o n s may well predate h i s involvement i n the family. -141-S i g n i f i c a n t Findings for Independent Variables The s i n g l e s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between an independent and dependent measure i s discussed below. I n i t i a l s i g n i f i c a n t findings that subsequently showed greater influence by control variables i s discussed i n the next section. Family Time and Routines and Family S a t i s f a c t i o n f o r Women. In t h i s sample, remarried women (for men, the trend was also present, but not s i g n i f i c a n t ) who have, or create, and i n t e n t i o n a l l y observe more meaningful family routines are more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r family l i f e , i n a global sense, although they s t i l l may have some areas of s p e c i f i c d i f f i c u l t i e s . I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d that Family S a t i s f a c t i o n r e l a t e s to how close to i t s i d e a l mode of operation the family a c t u a l l y achieves, and Family Time and Routines re l a t e s to the number of meaningful a c t i v i t i e s and routines the family observes on a regular basis. Family routines create a l e v e l of family behavior with which members f e e l content and i n agreement. The d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s that f a m i l i e s f i n d important to keeping t h e i r family together and strong provide a pattern to the d a i l y l i f e , and a structure for b u i l d i n g the kind of family l i f e they want. The p o s i t i v e impact of these family routines has more influence on an o v e r a l l f e e l i n g of family s a t i s f a c t i o n , for women, than more cu l t u r a l l y - p r e s c r i b e d family t r a d i t i o n s or celebrations such as yearly holidays, birthdays, or weddings. -142-Olson et a l . (1983), states that Family S a t i s f a c t i o n i s a unidimensional measure of the ind i v i d u a l ' s agreement with t h e i r family's mode of operation, and that higher Family S a t i s f a c t i o n i s r e l a t e d to better family functioning. Results from the present remarriage study suggest that remarried women with a greater number of meaningful family routines are happier and more content with t h e i r family l i f e , regardless of whether they perceive t h e i r family l i f e as s i m i l a r or d i f f e r e n t from other f a m i l i e s . They are s a t i s f i e d with how t h e i r family works, and a large component of that s a t i s f a c t i o n resides i n a greater number of family routines. McCubbin and McCubbin (1987) indicate the importance of family r i t u a l over the family l i f e cycle. When viewed from the perspective of the remarried family, the r e l a t i v e importance of t r a d i t i o n s , celebrations, and routines may a l l seem to vary when the couple i s at the beginning of the family l i f e c ycle of the new marriage while t h e i r c h i l d r e n from the previous and new marriages are simultaneously at other stages of the family l i f e c y c le. According to McCubbin and McCubbin (1987) Family Celebrations are at t h e i r highest l e v e l at the couple stage; Family Traditions are at t h e i r highest l e v e l during the pre-school and schoolage stage; while Family Time and Routines tend to be important throughout the l i f e c y c l e , except f o r the adolescent/launching stage. The selected target group was intended to minimize the impact of adolescence by specifying that -143-the family have at l e a s t one nonadolescent c h i l d . That Family Routines was s i g n i f i c a n t suggests that the impact of adolescents i n the sample was minimized. S i g n i f i c a n t Findings f o r Control Variables The i n c l u s i o n of the e f f e c t of control variables on the dependent va r i a b l e s brought some i n t e r e s t i n g and unexpected r e s u l t s . Family Celebrations. Presence of a Ch i l d of the Current  Marriage, and Cohesion, f o r Males. For males, i n addition to the re l a t i o n s h i p , between Family Celebrations and Cohesion, there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between Cohesion and Presence of a Ch i l d of the Current Marriage. Family Celebrations, those events that the family takes the time and e f f o r t to observe, involve culture-wide events such as Thanksgiving, c u l t u r a l l y - prescribed family events such as birthday celebrations, or celebrations i d i o s y n c r a t i c to the family such as the celebration of a promotion or good report card. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between Family Celebrations and Cohesion became nonsignificance (p_=.058) when co n t r o l l e d for Presence of a Chil d of the Current Marriage, which accounted f o r more of the variance of Cohesion than d i d Family Celebrations. This r e s u l t suggests that these fathers f e l t an increased sense of family bonding when the family c o n s t e l l a t i o n included a c h i l d of the current union. -144-Looking f i r s t at the the re l a t i o n s h i p between Family Celebrations and Cohesion, which, although not t e c h n i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , i s s t i l l worth examining. As noted above, a remarried family i n t h i s sample i s more l i k e l y to contain b i o l o g i c a l mother and a stepfather. The s i t u a t i o n of the male j o i n i n g the family c o n s t e l l a t i o n of a mother and c h i l d or chi l d r e n i s l i k e l y to produce issues r e l a t i n g to boundaries, p a r t i c u l a r l y parent-child c o a l i t i o n s , and family membership (Anderson & White, 1984; Visher & Visher, 1988; Sager et a l . , 1983) . The man may f e e l l e s s emotionally bonded to the family and l e s s than a f u l l family member i n the face of the i n t e r n a l boundaries around the mother-child subsystem. Family celebrations may a f f e c t these boundaries, and thus Cohesion, by incorporating an event which a l l family members take time and e f f o r t to celebrate, thus increasing the sense of shared experience and allowing each family member a r o l e i n the event. As an active p a r t i c i p a n t i n the celebration, the male's r o l e and membership i n the remarried family i s validated, and because family celebrations tend to occur f a i r l y often, the f e e l i n g of communality these shared events engenders i s frequently reinforced. Secondly, the s i g n i f i c a n t impact of a c h i l d of the current marriage on males' cohesion also f i t s t h i s scenario w e l l . Upon the b i r t h of a baby into the remarried family, the boundaries around parents and children are realigned as the stepfather becomes a b i o l o g i c a l father to at l e a s t one c h i l d i n the family. -145-Celebrations that previously helped the male to maintain an emotional connection to the remarried family take on an added dimension as the boundaries around the remarried family now c l e a r l y include the male. His increased observance of family celebrations, concomitant with an increased sense of family bonding, may be due to a greater awareness of the e x i s t i n g family celebrations as well as his p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the creation of new celebrations involving the new c h i l d . Quality of Marriage and Counselling, f o r Women. The i n i t i a l r e s u l t s for the t h i r d hypothesis indicated that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between Family Time and Routines and Quality of Marriage, for women. When cont r o l l e d for Counselling and Length of Marriage, the s i g n i f i c a n c e of Family Time and Routines disappeared, but Counselling was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t and Length of Marriage, not s i g n i f i c a n t , f o r Quality of Marriage, f o r women. The connection to Family Time and Routines would not seem to be e n t i r e l y spurious, but could be rela t e d to the counselling process. As part of the counselling process, the family might create new family a c t i v i t i e s and behaviors ( r i t u a l s ) that would be performed on a frequent basis as a way of introducing both structure and a unifying a c t i v i t y to the remarried family. For example, a remarried couple i n marital counselling may be -146-encouraged to spend time together r e g u l a r l y to help nurture the marital r e l a t i o n s h i p . The couple may f i n d t h i s a c t i v i t y b e n e f i c i a l and b u i l d i t into t h e i r family l i f e as a r i t u a l that allows them time together because they f e e l i t helps keep t h e i r marriage and, therefore t h e i r family, together and strong. Remarried women who have had marital or family counselling i n the remarriage evaluated t h e i r marital q u a l i t y as higher than remarried women who have not had counselling. That t h i s e f f e c t was seen fo r women but not for men may be because women are more' l i k e l y to seek counselling or because the woman was more d i s s a t i s f i e d with the marital q u a l i t y i n the f i r s t place, as noted i n the following f i n d i n g by R o l l i n s and Feldman (1970) of le s s marital s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r woman i n the c h i l d r e a r i n g years.: In general, husbands seem to be much les s affected by stage of the family l i f e cycle i n t h e i r subjective evaluations of marital q u a l i t y than are wives... However, the wives have a substantial decrease i n general marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and a high l e v e l of negative f e e l i n g from marital i n t e r a c t i o n during the childbearing and ch i l d r e a r i n g phases, u n t i l the c h i l d r e n leave home. (pp. 26,27) The remarried fa m i l i e s represented by t h i s sample, are experiencing various stages of the family l i f e c y c l e simultaneously, but a l l are involved i n the c h i l d r e a r i n g stages during which women f i n d the l e a s t marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . -147-Although not s i g n i f i c a n t , Family S a t i s f a c t i o n showed a tendency towards a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p with Counselling f o r women, which may have been achieved with a larg e r n. Olson et a l . (1985) suggest that "while i t may be more d i f f i c u l t to observe change i n cohesion and ad a p t a b i l i t y r e s u l t i n g from treatment programs, family s a t i s f a c t i o n might be more se n s i t i v e to treatment change.11 (p. 13). Family S a t i s f a c t i o n appears to r e f l e c t a global view of the family that i s also affected by the family having had counselling, but to a le s s e r degree than for marital q u a l i t y . Both the Quality Marriage Index and Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale are unidimensional measures, and as such are able to r e g i s t e r an o v e r a l l p o s i t i v e increase, whereas other measures that look at multiple aspects or dimensions perceived to contribute to marital or family happiness, may not r e g i s t e r any change unless that p a r t i c u l a r aspect i s dealt with i n counselling. Thus both measures are se n s i t i v e to the "goodness" of the marital or family r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n a global sense. Ad a p t a b i l i t y and Wife's Employment Status, f o r Women. For the second and t h i r d hypotheses, the proportion of the variance of Adapt a b i l i t y accounted f o r by Family Traditions and Family Time and Routines was reduced to a nonsignificant l e v e l when Wife's Employment Status was controll e d . Remarried women who are employed outside the home have a higher l e v e l of -148-A d a p t a b i l i t y than remarried women who are not employed outside the home. Mothers working outside the home, whether nuclear or remarried, have had to create a new, more v i a b l e way of being a parent and partner than the t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e accorded a mother at home. Because of the increased complexity of remarried families, both i n time demands and unique and complicated r e l a t i o n s h i p s , there are even more demands and les s a v a i l a b l e time to meet those demands. By allowing greater f l e x i b i l i t y i n her approach to the family's r o l e s , tasks and structure, the remarried woman i s better able to ensure more of the needs and demands of the remarried family are met. For the remarried woman not employed outside the home, s i m i l a r demands s t i l l e x i s t , but she has more time a v a i l a b l e to meet these demands and i s , therefore, more l i k e l y to take a more t r a d i t i o n a l approach than to opt for a more novel approach to meeting family needs. For example, because of time constraints, a remarried woman not employed outside the home i s more l i k e l y to be involved i n organizing a family reunion than i s the employed remarried woman who may choose to share the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and tasks f o r the event with other r e l a t i v e s , spouse, and children. Summary Results of t h i s study indicate that remarried women are more affected by family r i t u a l s than remarried men. This may be because women have a greater influence on family r i t u a l forms and -149-observance, and/or because more of the women i n t h i s study had b i o l o g i c a l c h i l d r e n l i v i n g with them than did the men. I t was not f e a s i b l e to s t a t i s t i c a l l y control for which parent had b i o l o g i c a l c h i l d r e n i n the family because the sample contained too few men whose children l i v e d with them. The lack of s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s for Family Traditions and Family Celebrations may to be rela t e d to the f a i l u r e of the measures to adequately r e f l e c t the remarried family's experience of modifying and adapting normative family r i t u a l s to f i t t h e i r unique s i t u a t i o n s . Meaningful Family Routines that were, by d e f i n i t i o n , more i d i o s y n c r a t i c to each family and constructed by the family to punctuate t h e i r l i f e i n symbolic ways, appear to be rela t e d to women's Family S a t i s f a c t i o n . As suggested by Olson (1983) greater family s a t i s f a c t i o n means the family i s i n agreement with the way i t operates. This agreement may lead to better family functioning and thus greater family unity. For men, a sense of Cohesion appears most strongly associated with having a c h i l d from the current union, although, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a greater number of family celebrations does seem to have some importance. In both cases i t could be that through realignment of family boundaries, the male i s drawn cl o s e r to the family and his family membership more s o l i d l y established. -150-For the remarried woman, the experience of counselling may have a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e impact on her evaluation of the qu a l i t y of her marriage, and to a le s s e r degree, on her s a t i s f a c t i o n with her family. Remarried women employed outside the home showed greater a d a p t a b i l i t y than t h e i r at-home counterparts, although both f e l l within the functional range f o r Adaptability f o r t h i s sample. Greater a d a p t a b i l i t y indicates that, i n p a r t i c u l a r , employed remarried women have accepted that "Change i s Normal" (Visher and Visher, 1988) and desired r e s u l t s can be attained by having a f l e x i b l e approach to situ a t i o n s i n the remarrried family. Limitations of the Study and Recommendations fo r Further Research The following three general areas of l i m i t a t i o n are evident: (1) The use of a nonrandom sample; (2) the use of in d i v i d u a l scores; (3) the use of s p e c i f i c measurement instruments. Each area i s discussed below, and where appropriate, recommendations fo r further research are made. (1) Use of Non-random Sample. As with any study i n which the sample i s a volunteer sample, -151-there are questions that r e s u l t from the use of a nonrandomly selected subjects. The f i r s t question concerns the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s . This sample, although not random, came from a wide v a r i e t y of sources, thus avoiding sampling bias from a singl e source (e.g. a c l i n i c or church group). While overgeneralization of r e s u l t s should be avoided, some cautious inference to a population that possesses the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as the sample group might be possible, (see p. 65 for d e s c r i p t i o n of the target group) The second question concerns the assumptions f o r the type of s t a t i s t i c a l analyses used. Both Analysis of Variance and Corr e l a t i o n assume that the sample i s randomly selected and normally d i s t r i b u t e d . Examination of the frequencies f o r each measurement found that a l l had nearly normal d i s t r i b u t i o n s except the Quality Marriage Index, which was p o s i t i v e l y skewed. This normality supported the use of these procedures despite the lack of random s e l e c t i o n . However, again, due to the non-random se l e c t i o n , overgeneralization should be avoided. (2) Use of Individual Scores. A second area of l i m i t a t i o n s r e l a t e s to the use of in d i v i d u a l scores rather than couple or family scores. The d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent i n combining i n d i v i d u a l scores to represent a couple or family score i s discussed on pages 94 and 95. However, as a consequence of avoiding these p i t f a l l s , r e s u l t s of t h i s study can -152-be generalized only to groups of in d i v i d u a l s (e.g. remarried women and men) and not to couples or fa m i l i e s , and as such, do not represent the remarriage experience f o r couples or a l l family members. Future research using couple or family measures would provide a more complete view of the remarried family experience than i s afforded by t h i s study. (3) Use of S p e c i f i c Measurement Instruments. A t h i r d area of l i m i t a t i o n s concerned the measurement instruments and whether measurements more s e n s i t i v e to the remarried family may have produced more s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . This i s a p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant question since several studies have pointed out that remarried f a m i l i e s do not operate the same way as nuclear families and that family theory requires some adjustments i n l i g h t of these differences (Crosbie-Burnett, 1984; Albrecht, 1984; Anderson & White, 1986). This i s a c t u a l l y two questions, the f i r s t concerning whether the measurements used were v a l i d i n d i c a t o r s of family r i t u a l i n remarried f a m i l i e s , and second, concerning the use of family measurements i n remarriage studies i n general. In answer to the f i r s t question, r e s u l t s i n d i c a t i n g a re l a t i o n s h i p between a high l e v e l of family routines and greater family s a t i s f a c t i o n , f o r women, i s a substantive f i n d i n g . There e x i s t s a d e f i n i t e connection f o r remarried women between t h e i r meaningful d a i l y routines and how they f e e l about t h e i r family, -153-that was not found f o r family t r a d i t i o n s or family celebrations, thus tapping an element of family r i t u a l s that i s unique f o r remarried f a m i l i e s . I t may also be that these measurements do not capture the modifications and adaptations made to normative family r i t u a l s to enable the family to continue observance i n some manner despite the addition of the binuclear family system and the influence of family h i s t o r y . I t may be that the manner of observance i s as important to the remarried family as the f a c t of observance. Regardless, even i f t h i s speculation were true, the s i g n i f i c a n c e of family routines f o r remarried women would not be undermined or contradicted. Future research i n v e s t i g a t i n g the process of observance of family t r a d i t i o n s using more q u a l i t a t i v e means would a s s i s t i n understanding the possible meanings these types of r i t u a l s hold f o r remarried f a m i l i e s , as well as the e f f e c t of p a r t i c u l a r types of modifications. Concerning the second question, the lack of remarried family measurement instruments i s not j u s t a l i m i t a t i o n of t h i s study, but of the area of remarriage i n family research as a whole. The existence of differences between remarried and nuclear families i s s t i l l a t o p i c at the forefront of remarriage research. Further a r t i c u l a t i o n of, and measurement of v a r i a t i o n s i n remarried f a m i l i e s w i l l be an area f o r future investigators. -154-More p r a c t i c a l l y , research to produce norms f o r remarried f a m i l i e s f o r established family functioning measures i s needed to enable researchers to better understand the meaning and implications of the differences they discover. In the area of family r i t u a l , further research on the v a r i a t i o n s of family r i t u a l s employed by remarried families as well as the source of these r i t u a l s w i l l be useful f o r understanding and a s s i s t i n g remarried f a m i l i e s more f u l l y . I t i s important that future research proceed from a p o s i t i o n of respect f o r the remarried family as a v a l i d and functional form of family with differences that are unique and not as a substandard version of the nuclear family. C l i n i c a l Implications An important therapeutic implication of t h i s study i s the apparent value of marital or family counselling on the wife's marital and family s a t i s f a c t i o n . Remarried couples frequently comment that they had no idea what they were getting into by remarrying, and that the problems commonly faced by remarried f a m i l i e s were unexpected and have taken a serious t o l l on the marital and family r e l a t i o n s h i p s . They are reluctant to seek counselling, perhaps because they f e e l i t signals another marital f a i l u r e . Papernow (1984) suggests "the education of the stepfamily members about normal stepfamily development i s a -155-powerful therapeutic t o o l i n i t s e l f . " Counselling, as an e f f e c t i v e means to achieving marital and perhaps family s a t i s f a c t i o n , could be emphasized to remarried f a m i l i e s f o r education and early intervention rather than a l a s t desperate e f f o r t to save the marriage. Through counselling, remarried f a m i l i e s can begin to understand the structure and process of remarriage, and use t h i s knowledge as a basis f o r further therapeutic intervention. One type of intervention suggested by the r e s u l t s of t h i s study i s a s s i s t i n g the remarried family i n t h e i r observance of family r i t u a l s . In p a r t i c u l a r , the creation of symbolic family routines and family celebrations that help the remarried family define i t s e l f i n a p o s i t i v e manner. In addition, b u i l d i n g on increased family functioning gained from creating new r i t u a l s that consolidate the remarried family, the family can be assisted i n approaching the observance of t r a d i t i o n a l family events such as holidays and r i t e s of passage with more innovative a l t e r n a t i v e s . With f l e x i b i l i t y , the p o t e n t i a l l y problematic events can be celebrated and enjoyed by the whole binuclear family i n ways that enhance and do not diminish the remarried family. -156-CHAPTER EIGHT Conclusion Family r i t u a l has long been seen as c o n s t i t u t i n g a part of family culture as "patterns of behavior of which the family i s proud and i t s members approve," (Bossard & B o l l , 1950), and a s s i s t i n g i n e s t a b l i s h i n g family i d e n t i t y and strengthening family bonding. The functions of r i t u a l i n f a m i l i e s are analogous to the issues faced by remarried families i n areas such as boundaries, family membership, role s , rules, power structure and values. The observance of family r i t u a l s was hypothesized as a l i n k to good remarried family functioning for the remarried family. Of the r e s u l t s generated by t h i s study, meaningful family routines (daily, or weekly r i t u a l events that are i d i o s y n c r a t i c to the family) appeared to be related to family s a t i s f a c t i o n for remarried women. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between normative t r a d i t i o n s and celebrations d i d not appear to be e f f e c t i v e l y measured because the instruments may not have r e f l e c t e d the modifications made by remarried families to enable them to continue to observe -157-these events. Men and women seemed to experience the influence of family r i t u a l s d i f f e r e n t l y , with each responding to a d i f f e r e n t type of r i t u a l . For remarried women who observed a higher l e v e l of meaningful family routines greater family s a t i s f a c t i o n was also reported. For men, i n addition to having a c h i l d from the current marriage, family celebrations (spontaneous or regular events that serve to punctuate important family occurrences) were rel a t e d to greater cohesion with the family. Factors other than family r i t u a l s were found to be relevant to good family functioning i n some instances. Women who have had marital or family counselling perceived themselves to have higher marital q u a l i t y , and, to a le s s e r degree, higher family s a t i s f a c t i o n . Remarried women working outside the home were found to operate with greater adaptability, changing t h e i r approach to the rol e s , r e l a t i o n s h i p s and rules of the family to f i t the needs of the s i t u a t i o n . As remarried families continue to represent a large proportion of the family types i n North America, the need fo r a better understanding of the issues and challenges faced by these fam i l i e s w i l l continue to grow. Family r i t u a l s can a s s i s t the remarried family i n moving from i t s state of anomie to a state of good family functioning. In addition, through research on -158-remarriage, counselling for remarried couples and fam i l i e s , and dissemination of information about remarriage to the public, a v a r i e t y of r e a l i s t i c and innovative ways for remarried families to i n t e r a c t with each other and the r e s t of society can evolve which allows the remarried family to take pride i n i t s e l f and i t s wealth of family r e l a t i o n s h i p s . -159-REFERENCE LIST Ahrons, CR. (1979). The binuclear family: Two households, one family. A l t e r n a t i v e L i f e s t y l e s , 2, 499-515. Ahrons, CR. & Rodgers, R.H. (1987). Divorced f a m i l i e s : A  m u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y view. NY: Norton. Albrecht, S.L. (1979). Correlates of marital happiness among the remarried. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 41, 857-867. Ambert, A. (1986). Being a stepparent: L i v e - i n and v i s i t i n g stepchildren. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 48, 795-804. Anderson, J.Z. & White, G.D. (1986). An empirical i n v e s t i g a t i o n of i n t e r a c t i o n and r e l a t i o n s h i p patterns i n functional and dysfunctional nuclear families and stepfamilies. Family Process. 25, 407-422. Anderson, S.A., Russell, C.S., & Schumm, W.R. (1983). Perceived marital q u a l i t y and family l i f e - c y c l e categories: A further analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 45, 127-139. Beal, E.W. (1980). Separation, divorce and single-parent f a m i l i e s . In E.S. Carter and M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The family  l i f e c y cle: A framework for family therapy. NY: Gardner Press. Beavers, W.R. (1981). A systems model of family f o r family t h e r a p i s t s . Journal of Marriage and the Family. 7, 299-307. Beavers, W.R. & Voeller, M.N. (1983). Family models: Comparing and contrasting the Olson Circumplex Model with the Beavers Systems Model. Family Process. 22., 85-98. B e l l , N.W. (1962). Extended family r e l a t i o n s of disturbed and well f a m i l i e s . Family Process. 1, 175-193. -160-Bennett, L. & McAvity, K. (1985). Family research: A case for interviewing couples. In G. Handel (Ed.), The psychosocial  i n t e r i o r of the family. (pp. 75-94). NY: Aldine Publishing. Bennett, L.A. & Wolin, S.J. (1986). Manual f o r coding  interviews from a study of a l c o h o l i c and non-alcoholic family  environments: Consequences to children. Unpublished manuscript, George Washington University Medical Center, Center for Family Research, Washington, DC. Bennett, L.A., Wolin, S.J., Reiss, D., & Teitelbaum, M. (1987). Couples at r i s k f o r transmission of alcoholism: Protective influences. Family Process. 26. 111-129. Bergquist, B. (1984). The remarried family: An annotated bibliography, 1979-1982. Family Process. 23., 107-119. Bird, F. (1980). The contemporary r i t u a l m i l i e u . In R.B. Browne (Ed.), R i t u a l s and ceremonies i n popular culture. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green University Popular Press. Bossard, J.H.S. & B o l l , E.S. (1950). R i t u a l i n family l i v i n g . Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Browne, R.B. (Ed.). (1980). Rituals and ceremonies i n popular  culture. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green University Popular Press. Burch, T.K. (1985). Family h i s t o r y survey. Ottawa, Ontario: Housing, Family and S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s D i v i s i o n , S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Carter, E.S. & McGoldrick, M. (1980). The family l i f e cycle and family therapy: An overview. In E.S. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The family l i f e cycle: A framework for  family therapy. NY: Gardner Press. Carter, E.S. & McGoldrick, M. (1980). Forming a remarried family. In E.S. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The family l i f e  c y c le: A framework for family therapy. NY: Gardner Press. -161-Cherlin, A. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete i n s t i t u t i o n . American Journal of Sociology. 84, 634-650. Clingempeel, W.G., Brand, E., & I e v o l i , R. (1984). Stepparent-stepchild re l a t i o n s h i p s i n stepmother and stepfather f a m i l i e s : A multimethod study. Family Relations. 33. 465-473. Clingempeel, W.G., I e v o l i , R., & Brand, E. (1984). Structural complexity and the qu a l i t y of stepfather-stepchild r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Family Process. 23., 545-560. Coleman, M. & Gangong, L.H. (1984). E f f e c t of family structure on family attitudes and expectations. Family Relations. 33., 425-432. Cronbach, L.J. (1958). Proposals leading to a n a l y t i c treatment of s o c i a l perception scores. In Renato T a g i u r i & L u i g i P e t r u l l o (Eds.) Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford Unversity Press. Crosbie-Burnett, M. (1984). The c e n t r a l i t y of the step r e l a t i o n s h i p : A challenge to family theory and p r a c t i c e . Family Relations. 33., 459-463. Demaris, A. (1984). A comparison of remarriages with f i r s t marriages on s a t i s f a c t i o n i n marriage and i t s relationshp to p r i o r cohabitation. Family Relations. 33., 443-449. Donohue, K.C. & Ryder, R.G. (1982). A methodological note on marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s . Journal of Marriage  and the Family. 44, 743-747. Duberman, L. (1975). The reconstituted family: A study of  remarried couples and t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Esses, L.M. & Campbell, R. (1984). Challenges i n researching the remarried. Family Relations. 33., 415-424. Fincham, F.D. & Bradbury, T.N. (1987). The assessment of marital q u a l i t y : A reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and the  Family. 49, 797-809. -162-Fine, M.A. (1986). Perceptions of stepparents: V a r i a t i o n i n stereotypes as a function of current family structure. Journal  of Marriage and the Family. 48, 537-543. Fisher, L., Kokes, R.F., Ransom, D.C, P h i l l i p s , S.L., & Rudd, P. (1985). A l t e r n a t i v e strategies f o r creating " r e l a t i o n a l " family data. Family Process. 24., 213-224. Fogarty, M., Rapoport, R., & Rapoport, R. (1971). Sex, career,  and family. London: George A l l e n & Unwin. Ford, F.R. (1983). Rules: The i n v i s i b l e family. Family  Process. 22., 135-145. Friedman E.H. (1980). Systems and ceremonies: A family view of r i t e s of passage. In E.S. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The  family l i f e c y cle: A framework for family therapy. NY: Gardner Press. Furstenberg, F.F. & Spanier, G.B. (1984). The r i s k of d i s s o l u t i o n i n remarriage: An examination of Cherlin's hypothesis of incomplete i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n . Family  Relations. 33. 433-441. Gangong, L.H. & Coleman, M. (1984). The e f f e c t s of remarriage on c h i l d r e n : A review of the empirical l i t e r a t u r e . Family  Relations. 33. 389-406. G i l b e r t , R., Christensen, A., & Margolim, G. (1984). Patterns of a l l i a n c e s i n nondistressed and multiproblem f a m i l i e s . Family Process, 23_, 75-87. Haley, J . (1976). Problem-solving therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hoffman, L. (1980). The family l i f e cycle and discontinuous change. In E.S. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The family l i f e  c y c le: A framework for family therapy. NY: Gardner Press. Imber-Black, E. (1988). Celebrating the uncelebrated. Networker, Jan/Feb, 60-66. -163-Imber-Coppersmith, E. (1985). We've got a secret: A nonmarital therapy. In A.S. Gurman (Ed.), Casebook of marital  therapy (369-386). NY: Guildford Press. Kafka, J.S. (1983). Challenge and confirmation i n r i t u a l action. Psychiatry. 46 (1), 31-39. Kantor, S. & Vickers, M.I. (1983). Divorce along the family l i f e c y c l e . In H.A. Liddle (Ed.), C l i n i c a l implications of the  family l i f e cycle. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems. Ke l l y , J.B. & Wallerstein, J.S. (1976). The e f f e c t s of parental divorce: Experiences of the c h i l d i n early latency. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 20-32. Kerlinger, F.N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. NY: Holt, Reinhart & Winston. Kidder, L.H. & Judd, CM. (1986). Research methods i n s o c i a l  r e l a t i o n s (5th ed.). NY: Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston. Kitson, G., Sussman, M.B., Williams, G.K., Zeehandelaar, R.B., Shickmanter, B.K., & Steinberger, J.L. (1982). Sampling issues i n family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 965-981. Kleinman, J . , Rosenberg, E., & Whiteside, M. (1979). Common developmental tasks i n forming reconstituted f a m i l i e s . Journal  of M a r i t a l and Family Therapy. 5, 79-86. Kobak, R.R. & Waters, D.B. (1984). Family therapy as a r i t e of passage: The play's the thing. Family Process. 23, 89-100. Lair d , J . (1984). Socerers, shamans, and s o c i a l workers: The use of r i t u a l i n s o c i a l work pra c t i c e . S o c i a l Work. Mar-Apr, 123-129. LaRossa, R., Bennett, L.A. & Gelles R.J. (1981). E t h i c a l dilemmas i n q u a l i t a t i v e family research. Journal of Marriage  and Family, 43. 303-313. -164-Lavee, Y., McCubbin, H.I., & Olson, D.H. (1987). The e f f e c t of s t r e s s f u l l i f e events and t r a n s i t i o n s on family functioning and well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 49, 857-873. Lewis R.A. & Spanier, G.B. (1979). Theorizing about the q u a l i t y and s t a b i l i t y of marriage. In Wesley R. Burr, Rueben H i l l , F. Ivan Nye, & Ira L. Reiss (Eds.) Contemporary theories  about the family. NY: Free Press. Madanes, C. (1981) . Strategic family therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mann, D.A. (1980) . R i t u a l i n architecture: The celebration of l i f e . In Ray B. Browne (Ed.) Ri t u a l s and ceremonies i n popular  culture. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green Univ e r s i t y Popular Press. McCubbin, H.I. & McCubbin, M.A. (1987). Family stress theory and assessment. In H.I. McCubbin & A.I. Thompson (Eds.), Family  assessment inventories f o r research and p r a c t i c e (pp. 3-25). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison. McCubbin, H.I. & Thompson, A.I. (1987). Family typologies and family assessment. In H.I. McCubbin & A.I. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment inventories f o r research and p r a c t i c e (pp. 35-49). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison. McCubbin, H.I., McCubbin, M.A. & Thompson, A.I. (1987). FTRI: Family Time and Routines Index. In H.I. McCubbin & A.I. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment inventories for research and  p r a c t i c e . (pp. 133-141). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison. McCubbin, H.I. & Thompson, A.I. (1987). FTS: Family Traditions Scale. In H.I. McCubbin & A.I. Thompson (Eds.), Family  assessment inventories f o r research and p r a c t i c e (pp. 163-165). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison. McCubbin, H.I. & Thompson, A.I. (1987). FCI: Family Celebrations Index. In H.I. McCubbin & A.I. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment inventories for research and p r a c t i c e (pp. 169-171). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison. 165-McCubbin, H.I. and Thompson, A.I. (Eds.). (1987). Family  assessment inventories for research and p r a c t i c e . Madison, WI: Un i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin-Madison. McGoldrick, M. (1988, February). Marriage, divorce and remarriage. In workshop presented by the Northwest Family Training I n s t i t u t e i n Seattle, WA. McKie, D.C, Prentice, B., & Reed, P. (1983). Divorce: Law  and the family i n Canada. Ottawa: Research and Analysis D i v i s i o n , S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Messinger, L. & Walker, K.N. (1981). From marriage breakdown to remarriage: Parental tasks and therapeutic guidelines. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 51, 429-438. Messinger, L. (1984). The shape of the new family of the 1980s. In Remarriage: A family a f f a i r (pp. 215-233). NY: Plenum Press. Messinger, L. (1984). Remarriage: a family a f f a i r . In Remarriage: A family a f f a i r (pp. 149-214). NY: Plenum Press. Messinger, L., Walker, K.N., & Freeman, S.J. (1978). Preparation f o r remarriage following divorce: The use of group techniques. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 48, 263-272. M i l l s , D.M. (1984). A model f o r stepfamily development. Family Relations. 33., 365-372. Minuchen, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nock, S.L. (1979). The family l i f e cycle: empirical or conceptual t o o l . Journal of Marriage and the Family. 41, 15-26. Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital q u a l i t y : A c r i t i c a l look at the dependent v a r i a b l e . Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141-151. -166-Norusis, M.J. (1988). SPSS-X introductory s t a t i s t i c s guide for  SPSS-X Release 3. Chicago: SPSS Inc. 0 1Conner, J . J . (1984). The resurrection of a magical r e a l i t y : treatement of functional migraine i n a c h i l d . Family Process, 23, 501-509. Olson, D., McCubbin, H.I., Barnes, H L., Larsen, A.S., Muxen, / M.J., & Wilson, M.A. (1983). Families: What makes them work. Beverly H i l l s , CA.: Sage Publications. Olson, D., McCubbin, H.I., Barnes, H L., Larsen, A.S., Muxen, M.J., & Wilson, M.A. (1985). Family inventories. St. Paul, MN: Author. Olson, D.H., Russell, C.S., & Sprenkle, D.H. (1983). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: VI. Theoretical update. Family Process. 22, 69-83. Olson, D.H., Sprenkle, D.H., & Russell, C S . (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: I. Cohesion and a d a p t a b i l i t y dimensions, family types, and c l i n i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s . Family Process. 18, 3-27. Papernow, P.L. (1984). The stepfamily cycle: An e x p e r i e n t i a l model of stepfamily development. Family Relations. 33. 355-363. Pasley, D., Ihinger-Tallman, M., & Coleman, C. (1984). Consensus s t y l e s among happy and unhappy remarried couples. Family Relations, 33., 451-457. Quinn, W.H., Newfield, N.A., & Protinsky, H.O. (1985). Rites of passage i n fa m i l i e s with adolescents. Family Process. 24., 101-111. Radomisli, M. (1981). Stereotypes, stepmothers and s p l i t t i n g . American Journal of Psychoanalysis. 41, 121-127. Ransom, J.W., Schlesinger, S., & Derdeyn, A.P. (1978). A stepfamily i n formation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 49, 36-43. -167-Reiss, D. (1981). The family's construction of r e a l i t y . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reiss, D. & O l i v e r i , M.E. (1983). The family's construction of s o c i a l r e a l i t y and i t s t i e s to i t s k i n network: An exploration of causal d i r e c t i o n . Journal of Marriage and the Family. 45, 81-91. Robinson, B.E. (1984). The contemporary American stepfather. Family Relations. 33. 381-388. Rodgers, R.H. & Conrad, L.M. (1986). Courtship f o r remarriage: Influences on family reorganization a f t e r divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 48, 767-775. R o l l i n s , B.C. & Feldman, H. (1970). M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n over the family l i f e cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 32, 20-28. Russell, C S . (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: I I I . Empirical evaluation with f a m i l i e s . Family  Process. 18, 29-45. Sager, C.J., Walker, L., Brown, H.S., Crohn, H.M., & Rodstein, E. (1981). Improving functioning of the remarried family system. Journal of M a r i t a l and Family Therapy. 7, 3-13. Sager, C.J., Brown, H.S., Crohn, H.M., Engel, T., Rodstein, E. & Walker, L. (1983). Treating the remarried family. NY: Brunner/Mazel. S a t i r , V. (1967). Conjoint family therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior. Seltzer, W.J. & Seltzer, M.R. (1983). Material, myth and magic: A c u l t u r a l approach to family therapy. Family Process. 22, 3-14. S e l v i n i - P a l a z z o l i , M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1977). Family r i t u a l s a powerful t o o l i n family therapy. Family Process, 16, 445-453. -168-S e l v i n i - P a l a z z o l i , M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1978). A r i t u a l i z e d p r e s c r i p t i o n i n family therapy: Odd days and even days. Journal of Marriage and Family Counselling. 4, 3-9. Sherman, R. & Fredman, N. (1986). Handbook of structured  techniques i n marriage and family therapy. NY: Brunner/Mazel. Sigafoos, A., Reiss, D., Rich, J . & Douglas, E. (1985). Pragmatics i n the measurement of family functioning: An i n t e r p r e t i v e framework f o r methodology. Family Process. 24 189-203. Siggins, L.D. (1983). Psychoanalysis and r i t u a l . Psychiatry. 46, 2-15. Spatz, C. & Johnson, J.O. (1984). Basic s t a t i s t i c s : t a l e s of  d i s t r i b u t i o n . (3rd ed.). Monteray, CA: Brooks/Cole. Steinglass, P. (1987). The a l c o h o l i c family. NY: Basic Books. Stevens-Long, J . (1984). Adult l i f e . (2nd ed.) Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Sweetser, D.A. (1963). Asymmetry i n intergenerational family r e l a t i o n s h i p s . S o c i a l Forces. 41, 346-352. Terkelson, K.G. (1980). Toward a theory of family l i f e cycle. In E.S. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The family l i f e cycle: A  framework for family therapy. NY: Gardner Press. Thompson, L. & Walker, A.J. (1982). The dyad as the unit of analysis: Conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of  Marriage and the Family. 44., 889-900. Tooley, K. (1976). A n t i s o c i a l behavior and s o c i a l a l i e n a t i o n post divorce: The "man of the house" and h i s mother. American  Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 33-42. -169-Turner, V. (1977). The r i t u a l process: Structure and  ant i - s t r u c t u r e . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Van der Hart, 0. & Ebbers, J . (1981). Rites of separation i n s t r a t e g i c psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Theory. Research and  Practice . 18. 188-194. Visher, E.B. & Visher, J.S. (1978). Common problems of stepparents and t h e i r spouses. American Journal of  Orthopsychiatry. 48., 252-262. Visher, E.B. & Visher, J.S. (1979). Stepfamilies: A guide to  working with stepparents and stepchildren. NY: Brunner/Mazel. Visher, E.B. & Visher, J.S. (1988). Old t i e s , new l o y a l t i e s :  Theraputic strategies with stepfamilies. NY: Brunner/Mazel. Wald, E. (1981). The remarried family: Challenge and  promise. NY: Family Services Association of America. Walker, K.N., Brown, H.S., Crohn, H.M., Rodstein, E., Z e i s e l , E., & Sager, C.J. (1979). An annotated bibliography of the remarried, the l i v i n g together and t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Family  Process. 18, 193-212. Walker, K.N. & Messinger, L. (1979). Remarriage a f t e r divorce: Di s s o l u t i o n and reconstruction of family boundaries. Family  Process. 18, 185-192. Wallerstein, J.S. & Kelly, J.B. (1976). The e f f e c t s of parental divorce: Experiences of the c h i l d i n l a t e r latency. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 46, 256-269. White, J.M. (1984). Not the sum of i t s parts. Journal of  Family Issues. 5, 515-518. Whiteside, M. (1982). Remarriage: A family developmental process. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 8, 59-68. -170-Whiteside, M. (1983). Families of remarriage: The weaving of many l i f e c ycle threads. In H.A. Liddle (Ed.) C l i n i c a l  Implications of the Family L i f e Cycle. Rockville, Md.: Aspen Systems. Whiteside, M. (1988). Creation of family i d e n t i t y through r i t u a l performance i n early remarriage. In E. Imber-Black, J . Roberts, & R. Whiting (Eds.), Rituals and Family Therapy. NY: Norton Press. Whiteside, M. & Auerbach, L.S. (1978). Can the daughter of my father's new wife by my s i s t e r ? : Families of remarriage i n family therapy. Journal of Divorce. 1, 271-283. Wiersma, W. (1986). Research methods i n education: an  introduction (4th ed.). Toronto: A l l y n and Bacon. Wolin, S.J. & Bennett, L.A. (1984). Family r i t u a l s . Family  Process. 23., 401-420. Wolin, S.J., Bennett, L.A., & Jacobs, J.S. (1988). Assessing family r i t u a l s . In E. Imber-Black, J . Roberts, & R. Whiting (Eds.), R i t u a l s and Family Therapy. NY: Norton Press. Wolin, S.J., Bennett, L.A. & Noonan, D.L. (1979). Family r i t u a l s and the recurrence of alcoholism over generations. American Journal of Psychiatry. 136. 589-593. Wolin, S.J., Bennett, L.A., Noonan, D., & Teitelbaum, M. (1980). Disrupted r i t u a l s : A factor i n the intergenerational transmission of alcoholism. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 41 199-214. Wood, B. & Talmon, M. (1983). Family boundaries i n t r a n s i t i o n : A search for a l t e r n a t i v e s . Family Process. 22 347-357. -171-Appendix 1 - 1 7 2 -Items below are similar, but focus on slightly different aspects of your relationship with your spouse. Please read each item and circle your answer according to the scale provided. Y E S ! = Very Strong Agreement NO! = Very Strong Disagreement Y E S = Strong Agreement NO = Strong Disagreement yes = agreement no = disagreement ? = neither agreement nor disagreement 1. We have a good marriage. 2. My relationship with my partner is very stable. 3. Our marriage is strong. 4. My relationship with my partner makes me happy. 5. I really feel like part of a team with my partner. NO! NO no ? yes Y E S YES! NO! NO no ? yes Y E S Y E S ! NO! NO no ? yes Y E S YES! NO! NO no ? yes Y E S Y E S ! NO! NO no ? yes Y E S YES! On the scale below, indicate the point which best describes the degree of happiness, everything considered, in your marriage. The middle point, "Happy" represents the degree of happiness which most people get from marriage. The scale gradually increases on the right side for those few who experience extreme joy in marriage and decreases on the left side for those who are extremely unhappy. 6. Very Unhappy 1 Happy 5 7 Perfectly Happy 9 10 -173-Please use the following scale to describe your family on each of the items listed below. 1 ' 2 ' 3 4 5~~ Almost Once in Sometimes Frequently Almost Never a While Always Please describe your family now; _ _ _ _ _ 1. Family members ask each other for help. 2. In solving problems, the children's suggestions are followed. 3. We approve of each other's friends. 4. Children have a say in their discipline. 5. We like to do things with just our immediate family. 6. Different persons act as leaders in our family. 7. Family members feel closer to other family members than to people outside the family. 8. Our family changes its way of handling tasks. 9. Family members like to spend free time with each other. 10. Parent(s) and children discuss punishment together. 11. Family members feel very close to each other. 12. The children make the decisions in our family. 13. When our family gets together for activities, everybody is present. 14. Rules change-in our family. 15. We can easily think of things to do together as a family. 16. We shift household responsibilities from person to person. 17. Family members consult other family members on their decisions. 18. It is hard to identify the leader(s) in our family. 19. Family togetherness is very important. 20. It is hard to tell who does which household chores. -174-Please use the following scale to describe your feelings about your family at present. 1 2 3 4 5 Somewhat Generally Very Extremely Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU: 1. With how close you feel to the rest of your family? 2. With your ability to say what you want in your family? 3. With your family's ability to try new things? 4. With how often parents make decisions in your family? 5. With how much father and mother argue with each other? 6. With how fair the criticism is in your family? 7. With the amount of time you spend with your family? 8. With the way you talk together to solve family problems? 9. With your freedom to be alone when you want to? 10. With how strictly you stay with who does what chores in your family? 11. With your family's acceptance of your friends? 12. With how clear it is what your family expects of you? 13. With how often you make decisions as a family rather than individually? 14. With the number of fun things your family does together? -175-Please read each special event'occasion and decide how often your family C E L E B R A T E S (takes time and effort to appreciate the event/special situation) on these occasions. Please circle the appropriate answer: Never (0), Seldom (1), Often (2), or A l w a y s (3). Please respond to all items. We celebrate these special moments: Never Seldom Often Always N/A 1. Friend's special events 2. Children's birthday(s) 3. Relative birthdays /anniversaries 4. Spouse's birthdays 5. Religious occasions (holy days, etc.) 6. Yearly major holidays (New Years, Thanksgiving) 7. Occasions (i.e. Valentine' Day Mother's Day) 8. Special changes and events (i.e. graduation, pro-motion) 9. Special surprises and successes (i.e. good report card, passed a test) no friends no children no relatives no spouse none to celebrate none to celebrate -176-In our family we may have traditions. TRADITIONS are those things we do as a family...things such as decorating a tree at Christmas, which we always do, which we have done in the past, which we are likely to continue to do, and which we value and/or respect. Which of the following apply to your family? Please circle Yes (Y) or No (N) for each item. Please respond to every statement. This is a tradition in our family. NO YES TRADITIONS AROUND HOLIDAYS 1. Decoration (House, Room, Table, N Y Tree, etc) 2. Gift Giving and Sharing N Y 3. Place of Gathering (i.e. Grand- N Y parents' home, etc.) 4. Special Rules and Duties for N Y Everyone to Follow 5. Special Activities N Y (i.e. Going Caroling) 6. People to Include (i.e. Special N Friends/Relatives) TRADITIONS AROUND CHANGES (i.e. Marriage, Death, etc.) Where Ceremony is Held N (i.e. Same Church, etc.) Who is Involved in Ceremony N (i.e. Same Minister) 9. Type of Ceremony (i.e. Religious, N Private, etc.) 10. Type of Rules to follow (i.e. Passing N down of Heirlooms, Reception after Wedding/Funeral, etc) 11. Special Experiences (i.e. Songs, N Dances, Foods, etc.) 12. Special Rituals (i.e. choose names N planting of a tree, having special flowers, etc.) -177-This is a tradition in our family. NO Y E S R E L I G I O U S O C C A S I O N S 13. Who leads the Service N Y 14. How Children participate in Service N Y 15. Special Rules to Follow N Y (i.e. Fasting, etc) 16. Special Location (i.e. Church, Park, N Y in the home, etc.) F A M I L Y S P E C I A L E V E N T S (i.e. Reunions, etc.) 17. Which members participate N Y 18. Location of the Family Event N Y 19. Experiences at the Event (i.e. Food, N Y Music, etc.) 20. Activities at the Family Event N Y (i.e. baseball, etc.) First , read the following statement* end decide to what extent each or the R O U T I N E S listed below is false or true about your family. Please circle the number (0, 1, 2, 3) which best describes your family experiences: (False (0), Mostly False (1), Mostly True (2), True (3). Second, determine the importance of each routine to keeping your family together and strong. (Not Important (NI), Somewhat Important (SI), Very Important (VI). Please circle the letters (NI, SI,or VI) which best expresses how important the routines are to your family. If you do not have chi ldren, relatives, teenagers, etc., please circle N A = Not Applicable . R O U T I N E Workday and Leisure Time Routines: 1. Parentis) have some time each day for just talking to the children. Mostly Mostly False False True True How important to keeping the Family Together and Strong Important to the Family Not Somewhat Very CO NI SI VI Not Appl icable N A Working parent has a regular play time with the children after coming home from work. Working parent takes care of the children some time every day. Non-working parent and children do something together outside the home almost every day (walking, shopping etc.) NI NI NI SI SI SI VI VI VI N A N A N A How important to keeping the Fami ly Together and Strong Mostly False False True True Important to the Family Not Somewhat Very 10. Family has a quiet time each evening when everyone talks or play9 quietly. Family goes some place special together each week. Family has a certain Family time each week when they do things together at home. Parentis) read or tell stories to the children almost every day. Each child has some time each for playing alone. ChildrenrTeens play with friends daily. Parentis)' Routines 11. Parents have a certain hobby or Bport they do together regularly. 12. Parents have time with each other quite often. 13. Parents go out together one or more times a week NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI Not Appl icable N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A I H I 14. Parents often spend time with teenagers for private talks. Family Bedtime Routines 15. Children have special things they do or ask for each night at bedtime (e.g. story, goodnight kiss, hug) 16. Children go to bed at the same time almost every night-Family Meals 17. Family eats at about the same time each night. 18. Whole family eats one meal together daily. Extended Family Routines 19. At least one parent talks to his or her parent regularly. 20. Family has regular visits with the relatives. 21. Children/ Teens spend time grandparent(s) quite often. How important to keeping the Family Together and Strong Important to the Fami ly Not ... M o s t lJl „. N?t Somewhat Very Appl icable False False True True — 0 1 2 3 NI SI VI N A NI SI VI N A 03 O NI SI VI N A 0 1 2 3 NI SI VI N A 0 1 2 3 NI SI VI N A 0 1 2 3 NI SI VI N A 0 1 2 3 NI SI VI N A 0 1 2 3 NI SI VI N A How important to keeping the Family Together and Strong Mostly False False True True Important to the Family Not Somewhat Very Not Appl icable 22. We talk w i t h / write to relatives usual ly once a week. Leaving and Coming Home 23. F a m i l y checks in or out wi th each other when someone comes or leaves home. 1 2. 3 NI NI SI SI VI VI N A N A 24. W o r k i n g parent(s) comes home f rom work at the same t ime each d a y . 25. F a m i l y has certain things they almost a l w a y s do to greet each other at the end of the d a y . 26. We express car ing and affection for each other da i ly . Family Disc ipl inary Routines 27. Parent(s) have certain things they almost a l w a y s do each t ime the chi ldren get out of l ine. 28. Parents discuss new rules for ch i ldren and teenagers w i t h them quite often. 1 2 3 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 NI NI NI NI NI SI SI SI SI SI VI VI VI VI VI N A N A N A N A N A Mostly False False True Family Chores 29. C h i l d r e n do regular household 0 1 2 chores. 30. Mothers do regular household 0 1 2 chores. 31 . Fa thers do regular household 0 1 2 chores. 32. Teenagers do regular household 0 1 2 chores. How important to keeping the Family Together and Strong True Important to the Family Not Not Somewhat Very Appl icable 3 N I S I V I N A 3 N I SI V I N A 3 N I SI V I N A 3 N I SI V I N A - 1 8 3 -FAMTLY TRADITIONS IN REMARRIED FAMILIES PROJECT DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION There is a separate demographic form for each spouse. Please ensure you have each filled out a form. 1. Age 2. Sex: Female Male 3. Sex and age of your children in the family and with which parent they live: Children of this marriage: Age Sex Your children from your previous marriage: Who does child live with the majority of the time: Age Sex Self Ex-Spouse Other(specify) 3. Your highest level of education attained: Grade 10 or less Grade 12 Post Secondary Training University Graduate Post Graduate Work 4. Your type of Occupation: Professional and Executive Managerial and Supervisory Clerical, Sales, Service Manual Farm Labourer Homemaker Not employed -184-5. Total Yearly Combined Family Income: Under $20,000 $20,001 to $30,000 $30,001 to $40,000 $40,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $60,000 $60,001 to $75,000 Above $75,001 In which of the following groups would you be placed? (1) Francophone (7) Greek (2) Chinese (8) British (3) Japanese (9) Italian (4) Native Indian (10) German (5) East Indian (11) American (6) Eastern European (12) Other. 7. In which religious group were you raised? (1) None (2) Roman Catholic (3) Jewish (4) Protestant (5) Other, please specify Are you currently practicing your religion? Yes No 8. Length of your first marriage from wedding to final separation (in years): Length of time between final separation from your first spouse and remarriage to your current spouse (in years): 10. Length of your present marriage (in years): 11. If applicable, length of time you lived together prior to legally marrying (in years): 12. Has this family received marital or family counselling since remarriage? Yes No If yes, how many sessions? -185-Appendix 2 -187-Appendix 3 -189-Appendix 4 -190-Hypotheses and Proposed Direction of Relationship  Between Independent and Dependent Variables HYPOTHESIS ONE; FAMILY CELEBRATIONS INDEX HYPOTHESIS TWO: FAMILY TRADITIONS SCALE QUALITY MARRIAGE INDEX FAMILY SATISFACTION F: + M: + F: + SCALE ADAPTABILITY COHESION < r ;T M: + QUALITY MARRIAGE INDEX FAMILY SATISFACTION SCALE ADAPTABILITY F:-M:-F: + M: + F: + M: + F: + M: + COHESION HYPOTHESIS THREE: FAMILY TIME AND ROUTINES INDEX QUALITY MARRIAGE INDEX FAMILY SATISFACTION SCALE ADAPTABILITY COHESION -191-I n i t i a l Resulting Significance and Direction of Relationships  Between Independent and Dependent Variables HYPOTHESIS ONE: FAMILY CELEBRATIONS INDEX QUALITY MARRIAGE INDEX FAMILY SATISFACTION SCALE ADAPTABILITY COHESION HYPOTHESIS TWO: FAMILY TRADITIONS SCALE QUALITY MARRIAGE INDEX FAMILY SATISFACTION M:^ SCALE ADAPTABILITY COHESION M: F: + M:jef M:^ HYPOTHESIS THREE: FAMILY TIME AND * ROUTINES INDEX QUALITY MARRIAGE INDEX FAMILY SATISFACTION SCALE ADAPTABILITY COHESION - 1 9 2 -S i g n i f i c a n t Results Using Control Variables HYPOTHESIS ONE: FAMILY CELEBRATIONS < - -> COHESION > M: -f INDEX PRESENCE OF A CHILD OF THE CURRENT MARRIAGE HYPOTHESIS TWO: FAMILY TRADITIONS 4 - - - - - - - - - - •> ADAPTABILITY >F:-f SCALE WIFE'S EMPLOYMENT STATUS HYPOTHESIS THREE: , QUALITY MARRIAGE > F: + 3?INDEX COUNSELLING FAMILY TIME AND , ROUTINES XV INDEX FAMILY SATISFACTION-SCALE ->F:-f-WIFE'S EMPLOYMENT STATUS. »ADAPTABILITY >F:+-= I n i t i a l Results = Results Using Control Variables -193-Appendix 5 -194-Dependent and Independent Measures. Measures Mean Standard Deviation Rancre DEPENDENT MEASURES Quality Marriage Index Total Sample: 0. 00 5.19 24.74 Females: 0.00 5.18 20.41 Males: 0.00 5.28 24.74 Norm:a N/A N/A N/A Family S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale Total Sample: 46. 67 8.97 40. 00 Females: 46. 60 9.08 40. 00 Males: 46.79 9.01 35. 00 Norm:b 47.00 N/A N/A Ada p t a b i l i t y Total for Sample: 26.28 4.90 24.00 Females: 26.00 5.13 24.00 Males: 26.57 4.74 18.00 Norm:b 24.10 4.70 N/A Cohesion Total f o r Sample: 38.73 5.82 23 . 00 Females: 39.24 5.98 23.00 Males: 38.23 5.72 20.00 Norm:b 39.80 5.40 N/A INDEPENDENT MEASURES Family Celebrations Total f o r Sample: 20. 08 3 . 65 15.00 Females: 20.77 3 .84 15. 00 Males: 19.40 3.37 14.00 Comparative Score: 0 20.55 3 .10 19.00 Family Traditions Total for Sample: 28.43 3.93 17.00 Females: 29.03 4.35 17.00 Males: 27.833 3 .15 11. 00 Comparative Score: c 26.33 4.44 19.00 Family Time and Routines 0 fNorms for the Quality Marriage Index were not ava i l a b l e . Norms f o r these measures are based on a group of i,02 6 couples (scores for husbands and wives were combined). Some s t a t i s t i c s are not available. cNorms for these measures were not avai l a b l e . Comparative scores are based on 304 fami l i e s . dThere i s no comparative score for t h i s measure because d i f f e r e n t methods were used to score the measure. Note. A l l scores are raw scores except the Quality Marriage Index which has been converted to standard (z) scores. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0053768/manifest

Comment

Related Items