A 20-year prospective study of marital separation and divorce in stepfamilies: Appraisals of family stress as predictors

Abstract

The current study aimed to test competing hypotheses about the role of appraisals of family stressor severity in long-term relationship outcomes. Traditional cognitive models of stress predict that those who appraise stress as most serious are at greatest risk of poor outcomes. However, social contextual and dyadic models of stress and coping argue that a belief that one’s spouse shares in this appraisal might play a protective role in marital outcomes. We examined the associations between appraisals of family stressor severity and subsequent marital dissolution in a sample of 170 couples in stepfamilies. Stepfamilies are an at-risk group, given they have been found to experience a greater number and variety of stressors as compared to traditional families, and have an increased risk of marital instability. As predicted by traditional cognitive models of stress, participants who reported family problems that they appraised as more serious were found to be at greater risk of marital dissolution over time. However, the risk of separation or divorce was lower when participants reported that their spouse also considered the problem as serious. In addition, comparing data from both spouses indicated that when both reported the same problem as their most serious, the risk of marital dissolution was also decreased. Our findings support social contextual and dyadic coping models in which shared appraisals of stress, and even the perception of such, can serve a protective function. Understanding how couples appraise the stressors they encounter may help identify useful targets for preventive marital interventions.

Keywords

Cognitive appraisal divorce marital separation spouses stepfamily stress

Introduction

A marital relationship is one of the most important social relationships for most adults. Over 80% of those over the age of 25 have been married for at least some part of their adult life (Clark & Crompton, 2006; Wang & Parker, 2014). Some of these relationships will last a lifetime, while others eventually end in separation and divorce. With divorce, adults potentially stand to lose an important source of social support (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Brashears, 2006), experience poorer physical and mental health (Sbarra, 2015), and face decreased financial stability (Finnie, 1993). Children from divorced families generally experience lower psychological well-being, more behavioral problems, poorer self-concept, social relationships, and academic achievement relative to children from traditional nuclear families (Amato, 2001). These problems tend to worsen with multiple family transitions (Fomby & Cherlin, 2007). Although many studies have examined the predictors and consequences of divorce, most of this research has focused on dissolution of first marriages. Relatively little is known about specific risk factors for divorce in remarriages (DeLongis & Zwicker, 2017; Sweeney, 2010).

Remarriages and stepfamilies are an increasingly common family structure (Guzzo, 2017). In Canada and the U.S., more than half of adults who divorce eventually remarry and one in three marriages is a remarriage for one or both partners (Ambert, 2009; Lewis & Kreider, 2015). Many remarrying individuals bring children from a previous union into their new household to form a stepfamily. In addition, the rate of common-law unions is increasing, resulting in a concomitant increase in stepfamilies formed through cohabitation (Sweeney, 2010). In Canada, 13% of families composed of a couple with children are stepfamilies and 10% of children spend at least some of their time living in a stepfamily context (Ambert, 2009; Vézina, 2012). Compared to first marriages, there is a higher rate of divorce among remarriages (Lewis & Kreider, 2015); however, this risk is especially pronounced when there are children from a previous union (Ambert, 2009; Teachman, 2008). In the U.S., nearly 50% of children from divorced families go through a second divorce of their custodial parent (Ambert, 2009). Given the cost of relationship instability for adults and children, it is important to identify factors that mitigate the risk of divorce in stepfamilies.

Stepfamilies experience a greater number and variety of stressors than traditional nuclear families (Bray & Berger, 1993). Given their more complex family structure, there are potential sources of stress that are unique to stepfamilies (Schramm & Adler-Baeder, 2012). The additional challenges that stepfamilies face in turn may contribute to their increased risk of marital dissolution (Slattery, Bruce, Halford, & Nicholson, 2011). Understanding how spouses in stepfamilies respond to the increased stress they experience may be key to identifying families at risk of poorer outcomes and targeting them for early preventive interventions.

Traditional cognitive models of stress and coping have argued that appraisals of stressors as more serious increase the risk of poor outcomes (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). However, a social contextual model of stress (DeLongis & Holtzman, 2005; DeLongis, Holtzman, Puterman, & Lam, 2010; DeLongis & Zwicker, 2017) argues that the relationship between stress appraisal and outcomes depends on the social context in which it occurs. Among married couples, the spouse is a key part of that social context, resulting in a conjoined process of stress appraisal and coping, often referred to as dyadic coping (Badr & Acitelli, 2017; Berg & Upchurch, 2007; Revenson, Kayser, & Bodenmann, 2005). Within social contextual and dyadic coping frameworks, both spouses’ perspectives need to be considered to fully understand the consequences of family stress. Joint or shared appraisals of stress are expected to facilitate adjustment in models of dyadic coping (Acitelli & Badr, 2005; Berg et al., 2009; Bodenmann, Randall, & Falconier, 2017; Lyons, Mickelson, Sullivan, & Coyne, 1998). Consequently, traditional cognitive models and social contextual or dyadic models of stress and coping result in different predictions regarding stress appraisals in a marital context.

We applied both models to understand the consequences of family stress experienced in stepfamilies. The traditional cognitive model of stress predicts that any stressors that are appraised as more serious will be associated with generally poorer outcomes (DeLongis, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988; Lazarus & DeLongis, 1983; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Dyadic or shared appraisals have not been addressed in this model. Instead the effects of the social context are subsumed under appraisals of social support. However, stressor severity is a key part of this model. Considering family stress severity at the level of the couple, stressors that are appraised as very serious from both spouses’ perspectives would have the highest total severity and would be expected to be associated with the poorest marital outcomes. In contrast, a social contextual model argues that shared spouse appraisals, or even the perception of such, can facilitate successful adaption to stress. Given this, predictions based on this model contrast with the traditional cognitive model in that a shared stress appraisal is expected to serve a protective function, even when both appraise the stressor as serious. Couples in which both partners perceive a family stressor as very serious would be expected to be at lower risk of poor marital outcomes compared to couples in which one partner appraised the stressor as very serious and the other did not. Similarly, spouses who perceive their partner to share their concerns about family stressors are expected to have better marital outcomes than spouses who perceive their partner as not sharing their concerns.

The current study

The current study examined the impact of couples’ stress appraisals on marital stability over time. At baseline, we asked each member of the couple to independently report the seriousness of their most serious family problem. We asked each to report this both from their own perspective and their spouse’s perspective. First, we investigated whether participants who perceived this family problem as more serious were at increased risk of separating over time (path a in Figure 1). Second, we investigated whether participants’ perceptions of how serious their spouse considered the family problem additionally impacted the risk of relationship dissolution (path b in Figure 1). We tested competing predictions about the direction of this relationship. That is, we examined whether participants’ perceptions of their spouses’ assessment of the family problem were associated with an increased risk of marital dissolution (traditional cognitive model) or decreased risk of marital dissolution (social contextual model). Third, we investigated the role of spouse agreement on their most serious problem. That is, we examined whether both spouses had independently identified the same family stressor as “most serious.” This allowed us to examine the impact of each spouse perceiving the other appraised the problem as serious, while controlling for spouse agreement on the most serious family stressor. If spouse agreement is an important predictor of marital outcomes, then interventions could be focused on helping spouses to come to agreement on their most serious family problems. On the other hand, if perceptions of how the spouse views the problem have an independent impact on the risk of marital dissolution, then a focus of marital therapy could be to shift perceptions of the spouse. Finally, given that support from the spouse is a key component of both traditional and social contextual models of stress (DeLongis et al., 2010; Folkman et al., 1986), we investigated whether the effects of stress appraisals were above and beyond the effects of perceived support from the spouse.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized relationships between stress appraisals and marital dissolution. Both traditional cognitive and social contextual models predict a positive relationship for path a. Based on the traditional cognitive model, path b is hypothesized to be positive, whereas based on the social contextual model, path b is hypothesized to be negative.

Method

Data from the current study were drawn from a larger prospective study of psychosocial processes in stepfamilies (DeLongis, Capreol, Holtzman, O’Brien, & Campbell, 2004; DeLongis & Preece, 2002; O’Brien, DeLongis, Pomaki, Puterman, & Zwicker, 2009). There were three waves of data collection across 20 years; the current investigation used data from the first and third waves of data collection, and those procedures and measures are discussed below.

Procedure

All procedures were approved by the Behavioral Research Ethics Board at the University of British Columbia. Participants were recruited from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada, by means of newspaper and radio advertisements, school newsletters, posters on community bulletin boards, and solicitation at local stepfamily groups. To be eligible to participate, respondents had to be fluent in English, be married or living together for at least 2 years in a marriage-like or common-law relationship,¹ and have at least one child from a previous union (of either spouse) living in the home for more than 3 months of the year.

Interested couples who met eligibility criteria were mailed a summary of the research goals and procedures, a consent form, and a preliminary form that assessed demographic variables. Those participants who returned their consent forms were contacted to complete a telephone interview. Members of each couple were interviewed separately by different research assistants and informed that all responses would be kept confidential and not shared with their spouse. Interviews were conducted by trained, female undergraduate students and were audiotaped, with the permission of participants, for accurate coding of open-ended questions and assurance that standardized procedures were being followed. Initial interviews were conducted with 164 wives and 153 husbands from 170 couples in 1991–1993. Sociodemographic characteristics of these couples are summarized in Table 1. In 2009, we recontacted families to obtain information about their marital status and invited them to participate in a follow-up interview. If the couple could not be contacted, public registries were used to obtain additional data on marital status when possible (Hunt & White, 1998). At follow-up, marital statuses were obtained for 112 (66%) of the original 170 couples. Of the 58 remaining couples, 12 had previously declined to participate in follow-up interviews, so no attempt was made to contact them. Attempts to contact the remaining 46 couples were unsuccessful.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic and family characteristics at enrollment in the study.

	Marital status at follow-up
Variable	Married or common-law (n = 71)	Separated or divorced (n = 41)	Unknown (n = 58)
Marital status at enrollment (%)
Legally married	80.0	70.7	74.5
Common-law marriage	20.0	29.3	25.5
Mean number of years legally married (SD)	3.52 (2.65)	3.04 (3.49)	3.74 (2.82)
Mean number of years living together (SD)	4.61 (3.05)	4.74 (3.51)	4.30 (3.26)
Family type (%)
Stepmother only	19.7	14.6	24.1
Stepfather only	22.5	24.4	19.0
Both stepmother and stepfather	57.7	61.0	56.9
Mean number of children (SD)	3.47 (1.50)	3.29 (1.38)	3.63 (1.85)
Mutual children
0	61.4	73.2	71.2
1	28.6	22.0	21.2
2 or more	10.0	4.9	7.7
Mean family income in CAD$1,000 (SD)	87.11 (55.10)	70.58 (30.37)	76.34 (37.74)
Husband’s age (SD)	41.07 (6.28)	40.95 (5.74)	40.33 (7.97)
Wife’s age (SD)	38.29 (5.62)	39.08 (5.49)	36.62 (6.17)
Husband’s highest level of education (%)
Less than high school	5.6	19.5	16.3
High school diploma	14.1	26.8	28.6
Some college or university	80.3	53.7	55.1
Wife’s highest level of education (%)
Less than high school	7.0	12.2	9.4
High school diploma	21.1	19.5	24.5
Some college or university	71.8	68.3	66.0
Husband’s ethnicity (%)
White	87.3	92.5	97.1
Asian	3.6	2.5	2.9
Native/Aboriginal	0.0	2.5	0.0
African heritage	3.6	0.0	0.0
Other	5.5	2.5	0.0
Wife’s ethnicity (%)
White	98.2	88.9	97.1
Asian	1.8	2.8	0.0
Native/Aboriginal	0.0	2.8	2.9
African heritage	0.0	2.8	0.0
Other	0.0	2.8	0.0

Baseline measures

Appraisals of family stressor severity

During the initial interview, participants were asked to describe one family problem or challenge they considered to be the most serious. Examples of the types of problems described are given in Table 2. Participants were asked to rate the seriousness of the problem from their own perspective (“From your perspective, how serious would you say this problem is?”) and from the perspective of their spouse (“From your husband’s/wife’s perspective, how serious would he/she say this problem is?”). Ratings were given on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means not at all serious and 5 means very serious. Together these two items allowed us to capture the perceived severity of the most serious family stressor and how each participant perceives his/her spouse’s appraisal of the severity of this problem relative to his/her own perspective.

Table 2.

Most serious family problems.

Category	Frequency among wives (%)	Frequency among husbands (%)	Example
Problem or challenge raising/parenting child(ren)/stepchild(ren)	50	48	Wife’s description: I guess just having a household of teens in that [we are] in those years when everything you say or do is wrong. The emotional turmoil that always comes from that. There are so many of them (kids). There is always someone to be logger heads with. They’re trying to assert independence. Issue of moving ahead. Things that stem from them growing up and not necessarily related to being a step-family.
Stepparent/stepchild relationship	23	20	Husband’s description: My relationship with my step-son. We don’t get along as well as I would like. It’s gotten to the point where he doesn’t dislike me, but he doesn’t really like me a lot, and that’s probably the main hurdle right now.
Conflict or disagreement with spouse	22	20	Wife’s description: The trust issue. A lack of trust towards my partner. When I first met him, he said he was an honest and trustworthy man. But now, I find that he sometimes is a huge liar. And in the last four months or so we ran into it again.
Conflict involving ex-spouse(s)	16	19	Wife’s description: Communication with my ex-husband. I have sole custody of our two boys, and he has strict visitation rights. He wants flexibility, but he doesn’t have it. He is unreliable at picking the boys up on time. [My ex-husband] wants them on Christmas every year, and favors the oldest boy, [who] gets caught in the middle.
Integrating stepparent into family	8	10	Wife’s description: Feeling apart from the family. [My husband and his son] are father and son. I am friend to [step-son’s name]. Not feeling included, although I usually am—but that’s how I feel about it. Me feeling I cannot be the mother. Lack of confidence with the triangle.
Child(ren)’s adjustment to stepfamily	7	9	Wife’s description: I think it would have to be [my daughter] and how her feelings are in the marriage. She was used to living with just me. She and I were…I was single for almost twelve years, and she was just small, and I raised her from the time she was very small. And suddenly she’s sharing me and she’s feeling left out…
Not enough time for spouse, self, or other	9	6	Husband’s description: We’re on the go all the time—don’t have time to spend with them all. Need to stop working and spend more time with [the kids].
Financial	7	6	Wife’s description: Financial. We are both working now. [It’s] tough to make enough money to meet our needs (i.e., lawyer fees from [husband’s] recent settlement with his ex-partner over maintenance of my stepchild)…[We’d] like to have enough money available to buy a house, but [we are] not in financial position to right now.
Other	7	10	Husband’s description: Depression. My wife’s depression brought about by my heart surgery.

Agreement about most serious problem

Although participants did not know what problem their partner reported when asked to describe what he/she considered to be the most serious family problem, we were able to compare the descriptions of the problems described to identify whether the partners had identified similar problems. Two research assistants independently coded whether the husband and wife in each couple described the same problem (agreement = 1) or different problems (agreement = 0). The two coders made the same ratings 82% of the time. For cases when the two original coders rating were incongruent, ratings from a third coder were used.

Support from spouse

To assess the extent to which participants felt supported by their spouse in coping with the problem they had identified as most serious, ratings on three items were averaged (“To what extent does your husband/wife say or do things that help you with this problem?,” “How satisfied do you feel with the support receive from your husband/wife for this problem?,” and “With this problem, to what extent does your husband/wife say or do things that are unhelpful, whether or not he/she intends to be unhelpful?”). Ratings were given on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a large extent), and these items were averaged such that a higher score indicates higher levels of perceived support. This 3-item scale showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s = .82).

Demographic variables

The demographic variables assessed at baseline include whether the couple was legally married or living in a common-law relationship, duration of marriage, duration of cohabitation, number and age of children, stepfamily type, age, education, ethnicity, and income of husbands and wives.

Follow-up measures

Marital status

In the follow-up interview, participants were asked whether they were currently (1) married, (2) divorced, (3) separated, or (4) widowed from their partner from the start of the study. These categories were collapsed into a dichotomous variable to code for whether the couple was still together at the time of the follow-up interview (married = 0, divorced or separated = 1). Participants who were identified as widowed were excluded from the analysis. Among the couples who could not be reached by phone or mail, six additional couples were confirmed as divorced by retrieving public divorce records.

Statistical analysis

Logistic regression with couples as the unit of analysis was used to model the probability of relationship dissolution over the follow-up period. We used an approach for modeling between-dyad outcomes from individual-level predictors (Kenny, 2014). Because all couples were heterosexual, dyad members could be distinguished based on gender, and we could have four separate predictor variables: appraisal of the wife’s most serious stressor from her perspective (R_F ) and her husband’s perspective (P_F ) and appraisal of the husband’s most serious stressor from his perspective (R_M ) and his wife’s perspective (P_M ). The resulting regression equation would be:

log (Y) = b_{0} + b_{1} R_{M} + b_{2} R_{F} + b_{3} P_{M} + b_{4} P_{F} + e

However, even when dyad members are distinguishable, it is important to test whether they should be modeled as distinguishable dyads (Kenny et al., 2006). If the effects for husbands and wives are not significantly different, we have more power to test the significance of the main effects if the dyad members are treated as indistinguishable. Therefore, we tested whether the effect of the appraisal of stressor severity from the participant’s own perspective was significantly different for male and female participants. That is, we tested the null hypothesis, $H_{0} : b_{1} - b_{2} = 0$ . Similarly, we tested whether the effect of the participant’s appraisal of stressor severity from his/her spouse’s perspective was significantly different for male and female respondents ( $H_{0} : b_{3} - b_{4} = 0$ ). To do this, we estimated equation (2), where the significance of b ₆ tests $(b_{1} - b_{2}) = 0$ , and the significance of b ₈ tests $(b_{3} - b_{4}) = 0$ .

log (Y) = b_{0} + b_{5} (R_{M} + R_{F}) + b_{6} (R_{M} - R_{F}) + b_{7} (P_{M} + P_{F}) + b_{8} (P_{M} - P_{F}) + e

When b ₆ = 0 and b ₈ = 0 (i.e., there are no significant gender differences), equation (2) simplifies to equation (3).

log (Y) = b_{0} + b_{5} R_{M} + b_{5} R_{F} + b_{7} P_{M} + b_{7} P_{F} + e

When effects were not significantly different for male and female respondents, we estimated and reported coefficients for equation (3), as this is a more powerful test of our main hypotheses.

In order to avoid potential bias from restricting our analyses to only complete cases, missing data were estimated using multiple imputation (Graham, 2009). Regression analyses were run on 40 imputed data sets and the estimates were pooled (Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011).

Results

Sample description

Sociodemographic and family characteristics of the participants at the beginning of the study are summarized in Table 1. The couples who completed both baseline and follow-up assessments were not significantly different from those who did not in terms of any of the sociodemographic or family characteristics, as shown in Table 1. Of the 112 couples whose marital status at follow-up was known, 71 (63%) were still married or in a common-law relationship and 41 (37%) were separated or divorced.

Most serious family problems

Examples of the family problems participants described as their most serious are given in Table 2. The types of problems reported included challenges involving parenting children and/or stepchildren, disagreements within the couple, relationships between stepparents and stepchildren, relationships with ex-partners or ex-spouses, and adjustment to living as a stepfamily. With one exception, the type of problem itself was unrelated to subsequent marital status. Wives who reported parenting problems as their most serious were more likely to stay married than wives who reported other types of problems as most serious (χ² ₍₁₎ = 4.18, p = .040).

Appraisal of stressor severity and subsequent marital status

The means, standard deviations, and correlations between baseline family stress characteristics and marital status at follow-up are summarized in Table 3. At the bivariate level, the severity of the participant’s most serious family problem from his/her own perspective at baseline was associated with an increased likelihood that the couple would be divorced or separated at follow-up (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = [1.10, 2.00], t(67) = 2.64, p = .010). This relationship remained significant in regression models with controls for participant’s appraisals of stressor severity from their spouse’s perspective, agreement on the most serious family stressor within the couple, and perceived support from the spouse (Table 4).

Table 3.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations between stress appraisals at baseline and marital status at follow-up.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Husband’s appraisal of stressor severity from his perspective
2. Husband’s appraisal of stressor severity from his wife’s perspective	0.65***
3. Husband’s appraisal of support from his wife	−0.07	−0.05
4. Wife’s appraisal of stressor severity from her perspective	0.41***	0.38***	−0.14
5. Wife’s appraisal of stressor severity from her husband’s perspective	0.28***	0.21*	−0.11	0.57***
6. Wife’s appraisal of support from her husband	−0.12	−0.02	0.28***	−0.18*	0.04
7. Couple’s agreement on most serious problem	0.24**	0.31***	0.02	0.29***	0.28***	0.05
8. Marital status at follow-up	0.24*	−0.06	−0.20*	0.26**	0.09	−0.24*	−0.10
Mean	3.78	3.86	3.56	4.01	3.43	3.20	0.45	0.37
SD	1.05	1.12	1.04	0.99	1.32	1.09	—	—

Note. Marital status: 0 = married or common-law; 1 = separated or divorced.

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

Table 4.

Logistic regression predicting odds of marital dissolution from stress appraisals.

	Model 1: Initial model			Model 2: Adjusted for problem agreement			Model 3: Adjusted for perceived support
	OR	95% CI	p	OR	95% CI	p	OR	95% CI	p
Participant’s appraisal of stressor severity from his/her perspective	2.09	[1.35, 3.22]	.001	2.22	[1.40, 3.51]	<.001	1.98	[1.27, 3.08]	.003
Participant’s appraisal of stressor severity from his/her spouse’s perspective	0.68	[0.50, 0.92]	.013	0.72	[0.53, 0.99]	.047	0.70	[0.51, 0.95]	.024
Couple’s agreement on most serious problem				0.36	[0.13, 0.99]	.037
Participant’s appraisal of support from his/her spouse							0.80	[0.62, 1.01]	.062

To examine the additional impact of participants’ perceptions of how serious their spouse considered their most serious family problem, participants’ appraisals of stressor severity from their own perspective and from their spouse’s perspective were both entered into the regression model simultaneously (Model 1 in Table 4). Above and beyond the effects of seeing the problem as serious from their own perspective, participants who felt that their spouse saw this family problem as serious were less likely to get divorced (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = [0.50, 0.92], t(106) = 2.52, p = .013). Figure 2 summarizes the combined effect of participant’s appraisals of stressor severity from both partner’s perspectives. The predicted probability of divorce is highest for participants who consider their most serious problem as very serious and who perceived that their spouse does not consider this problem serious at all. In comparison, participants who consider their most serious problem to be very serious but also perceive that their spouse considers this problem to be very serious have a lower probability of divorce.

Figure 2.

Relationship between stress appraisals and probability of marital dissolution.

Agreement about the most serious problem

Comparing the descriptions of the most serious family stressor from each member of each couple revealed that both members described the same problem in 45% of couples. Agreement on the most serious problem may also reflect a joint view of the severity of family stressors. Model 2 in Table 4 shows that both agreement on the most serious family problem and appraisals of family stressor severity are uniquely predictive of subsequent marital status. Couples in which both spouses report the same problem as the most serious family problem were at a lower risk of marital dissolution (OR = 0.36, p = .037), controlling for how serious they both thought that problem was. However, the protective effect of participants’ perceptions of their spouses’ appraisals of stressor severity appears to be above and beyond agreement about the most serious problem.

Appraisals of social support

Although appraisals of social support from the spouse were correlated with subsequent marital status (Table 3), this did not fully account for the association between participants’ perceptions of their spouses’ appraisals of stressor severity and a lower risk of marital dissolution (Table 4, Model 3). The protective effect of participants’ perceptions of their spouses’ appraisals of stressor severity appears to be above and beyond participant’s perceptions of social support from their spouse.

Gender differences

None of the predictors of marital status at follow-up were found to be significantly different for husbands and wives (Online Supplementary Tables S1–S3). Therefore, the estimates in Table 4 reflect the effects for both husbands and wives.

Discussion

Our findings support a traditional cognitive model of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) in pointing to the key role that cognitive appraisal of family stress plays in marital outcomes across decades. Participants who reported family problems that they appraised as more serious were found to be at greater risk of marital dissolution over time. However, our findings also point to the limitations of that model. They underscore the need for social contextual and dyadic coping models that take into account the importance of the perspectives of both members of the marital dyad and the potential benefits of shared appraisals of stress.

Consistent with social contextual and dyadic coping models (DeLongis et al., 2010; Revenson et al., 2005), we found that the risk of separation or divorce was lower when participants reported that their spouse also considered the problem as serious. In addition, comparing data from both spouses indicated that when both reported the same problem as their most serious, the risk of marital dissolution was also decreased. This suggests that getting spouses to agree on their most serious family problem and changing how the spouse is perceived may both help improve marital outcomes.

When spouses have discrepant appraisals of the severity of important family problems, this may result in worse marital outcomes because it hinders effective coping efforts. For example, collaborative coping (i.e., spouses pooling resources and problem solving jointly) often requires that both members of the couple recognize the problem or stressor as something that needs to be resolved (Berg et al., 2008; Hoppmann & Gerstorf, 2013). The protective effect of perceived spouse appraisals on marital stability was found to be independent of whether spouses saw the same problem as most serious. That is, even when each spouse reported a different problem as “most serious,” reporting that the other also thought the problem was serious was associated with better outcomes. This suggests that fostering a sense of shared perspective (i.e., “I think that my spouse and I both see this problem as serious”) may be effective even if both partners do not see the problem in the same way. Perceiving that one’s spouse does not take your stress seriously is one component of negative dyadic coping (Bodenmann, 2008) that may ultimately be detrimental for the longevity of the relationship. Past research has shown that perceptions of the spouse can significantly impact the relationship, above and beyond whether these perceptions are accurate. For example, perceived similarity has been shown to be a stronger predictor of marital well-being than actual similarity (Acitelli, Douvan, & Veroff, 1993). For any given individual, a perception that one’s spouse also takes an identified family problem seriously may reflect a broader set of shared views that strengthens their relationship and identity as a couple (Acitelli, 1993; Agnew, Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998; Berger & Kellner, 1964). The process of forming a shared identity may be especially important in stepfamilies. Jacobson (1996) has argued that one of the reasons stepfamilies are less stable than traditional two-parent families stems from the challenges of integrating family members with distinct world views from different family cultures.

Support in times of stress has been consistently associated with better individual and dyadic outcomes (Cutrona, 1996; House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988; Uchino, 2009). Indeed, we found that social support from the spouse was correlated with a lower likelihood of marital dissolution over the follow-up period. However, our findings also add to a growing literature that suggests social support measures do not fully capture key aspects of dyadic interactions during periods of stress (Coyne & DeLongis, 1986; Revenson et al., 2005). The effects of appraisals of stress on marital stability were above and beyond the effects of perceived support from the spouse. The protective effects of married couples’ shared appraisals of stressors are not fully explained by spouse support, but rather add to our ability to predict marital stability over the long term. Nevertheless, the brief measure of social support used in the current study was limited to support interactions in the context of the most serious family problem and does not reflect other forms of support from the spouse that may also be important for marital outcomes (Rafaeli & Gleason, 2009).

Our study used reports from one member of the dyad to capture appraisals of stressor severity from both partner’s perspectives. An alternative approach would be to ask each dyad member to rate the severity of the same problem from his/her own perspective and his/her partner’s perspective. This second approach would allow researchers to assess the effects of accurately perceiving the other’s perspective. Studies of the effects of accurately perceiving others using this kind of approach have yielded some interesting insights that our design does not capture (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010). However, this alternative approach is not without its own limitations. Applied to our study, it would have required us to disclose the most serious problem reported by one member of the couple to their spouse, so that both partners could rate the severity of the same problem. Instead, we maintained each participant’s confidentiality and did not share any of their responses with their spouse. In doing so, participants may have been more willing to disclose very serious problems, even ones they are not comfortable discussing with their spouse.

Ours was a study of stepfamilies, who typically experience higher levels of family stress than do more traditional family forms (Bray & Berger, 1993; Sweeney, 2010). Whether our findings generalize to less stressed couples, or couples in other family forms, is unclear and requires additional research. However, despite the increasing prevalence of stepfamilies, they remain an understudied family structure and therefore an important one on which to focus. The current longitudinal study adds to the limited literature on stepfamilies by providing unique insights into the role that stress plays in predicting divorce. Nevertheless, the sample is relatively small, predominantly White, and higher than average socioeconomic status. Our findings may not generalize to other socioeconomic, racial, or ethnic contexts, in which the stressors couples face and the coping resources they have available may vary. However, our sample included stepfamilies with a range of structures and compositions (e.g., ages of children, stepfamily type). Capturing families at a variety of life stages may have contributed to the diversity of stressors they reported.

Clinical interventions for prevention and treatment of couple relationship problems in the context of stepfamily living are extremely limited (Whitton, Nicholson, & Markman, 2008). Reducing the stress that couples face is an important goal of many interventions designed to improve marital satisfaction and stability (Lavner & Bradbury, 2017). Our findings support the importance of early preventive interventions that target reducing family stress. Additional research is necessary to determine if interventions that target early appraisals of family stress can reduce the long-term risk of divorce and to increase understanding of the mechanisms involved. For couples who are facing serious problems or challenges, feeling that they both view these stressors as serious and are facing the stress together may help prevent a sense of alienation that has been related to declines in relationship satisfaction and eventual breakup (Bodenmann et al., 2007). Instead, shared appraisals of stress may help reinforce a sense of shared experience and commitment that bolsters the longevity of the relationship (Agnew et al., 1998). Marital therapists have long acknowledged that a shared appraisal of the presenting problem between spouses is an important prognostic indicator (Lebow, Chambers, Christensen, & Johnson, 2012). Our findings suggest that getting couples to agree on their sources of family stress may be helpful, but that clinicians may also need to foster an understanding that the spouse is taking family problems seriously.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material, jspr-17-323-File005 - A 20-year prospective study of marital separation and divorce in stepfamilies: Appraisals of family stress as predictors

Supplemental Material, jspr-17-323-File005 for A 20-year prospective study of marital separation and divorce in stepfamilies: Appraisals of family stress as predictors by Ellen Stephenson and Anita DeLongis in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by research grants to the last author and a doctoral fellowship to the first author, all from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Supplemental material

Supplementary material for this article is available online.

Note

References

Acitelli

L. K.

(1993). You, me, and us: Perspectives on relationship awareness. In Duck

(Ed.), Individuals in relationships (pp. 144–174). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781483326283.n6

Acitelli

L. K.

Badr

(2005). My illness or our illness? Attending to the relationship when one partner is ill. In Revenson

T. A.

Kayser

Bodenmann

(Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 121–136). doi:10.1037/11031-006

Acitelli

L. K.

Douvan

Veroff

(1993). Perceptions of conflict in the first year of marriage: How important are similarity and understanding? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 5–19. doi:10.1177/0265407593101001

Agnew

C. R.Van

Lange

P. A. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

Langston

C. A.

(1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954.

Amato

P. R.

2001 Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355–370. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.355

Ambert

(2009). Divorce: Facts, causes & consequences (3rd ed.). Ottawa, Ontario: The Vanier Institute of the Family. Retrieved from http://www.vaderinstituut.be/doc/pdf/091101_divorce_facts_causes_consequences.pdf

Badr

Acitelli

L. K.

(2017). Re-thinking dyadic coping in the context of chronic illness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 44–48. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.001

Berg

C. A.

Skinner

Butler

J. M.

Palmer

D. L.

Butner

Wiebe

D. J.

(2009). The fit between stress appraisal and dyadic coping in understanding perceived coping effectiveness for adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 521–530. doi:10.1037/a0015556

Berg

C. A.

Upchurch

(2007). A developmental-contextual model of couples coping with chronic illness across the adult life span. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 920–954. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.920

10.

Berg

C. A.

Wiebe

D. J.

Butner

Bloor

Bradstreet

Upchurch

… Patton

(2008). Collaborative coping and daily mood in couples dealing with prostate cancer. Psychology and Aging, 23, 505–516. doi:10.1037/a0012687

11.

Berger

P. L.

Kellner

(1964). Marriage and the construction of reality: An exercise in the microsociology of knowledge. Diogenes, 12, 1–23. doi:10.1177/039219216401204601

12.

Bodenmann

(2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar: Test manual [Dyadic Coping Inventory: Test manual]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.

13.

Bodenmann

Charvoz

Bradbury

T. N.

Bertoni

Iafrate

Giuliani

… Behling

(2007). The role of stress in divorce: A three-nation retrospective study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 707–728. doi:10.1177/0265407507081456

14.

Bodenmann

Randall

A. K.

Falconier

M. K.

(2017). Systemic-transactional model of dyadic coping. In Falconier

M. K.

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

(Eds.), Couples coping with stress: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 5–22). New York, NY: Routledge.

15.

Bray

J. H.

Berger

S. H.

(1993). Developmental issues in StepFamilies Research Project: Family relationships and parent-child interactions. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 76–90. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.76

16.

Buuren

Groothuis-Oudshoorn

. (2011). mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45, 1–67.

17.

Clark

Crompton

(2006). Till death do us part? The risk of first and second marriage dissolution. Canadian Social Trends. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/9198-eng.htm

18.

Coyne

J. C.

DeLongis

(1986). Going beyond social support: The role of social relationships in adaptation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 454–460. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.54.4.454

19.

Cutrona

C. E.

(1996). Social support in couples: Marriage as a resource in times of stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

20.

DeLongis

Capreol

Holtzman

O’Brien

Campbell

(2004). Social support and social strain among husbands and wives: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 470–479. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.3.470

21.

DeLongis

Folkman

Lazarus

R. S.

(1988). The impact of daily stress on health and mood: Psychological and social resources as mediators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 486–495. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.3.486

22.

DeLongis

Holtzman

(2005). Coping in context: The role of stress, social support, and personality in coping. Journal of Personality, 73, 1633–1656. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00361.x

23.

DeLongis

Holtzman

Puterman

Lam

(2010). Spousal support and dyadic coping in times of stress. In Sullivan

Davila

(Eds.), Support processes in intimate relationships (pp. 153–174). New York, NY: Oxford Press.

24.

DeLongis

Preece

(2002). Emotional and relational consequences of coping in stepfamilies. Marriage & Family Review, 34, 115–138. doi:10.1300/J002v34n01_06

25.

DeLongis

Zwicker

(2017). Marital satisfaction and divorce in couples in stepfamilies. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 158–161. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.11.003

26.

Finnie

(1993). Women, men and the economic consequences of divorce. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 30, 205–241.

27.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Kerr

P. S. G.

(2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 627–658. doi:10.1037/a0019792

28.

Folkman

Lazarus

R. S.

Dunkel-Schetter

DeLongis

Gruen

R. J.

(1986). Dynamic of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992–1003.

29.

Fomby

Cherlin

A. J.

(2007). Family instabilty and child well-being. American Sociology Review, 72, 181–204.

30.

Graham

J. W.

(2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Reviw of Psychology, 60, 549–576. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530

31.

Guzzo

K. B.

(2017). Shifts in higher-order unions and stepfamilies among currently cohabiting and married women of childbearing age. Journal of Family Issues, 8, 1775–1799. doi: 10.1177/0192513X16664180

32.

Hoppmann

C. A.

Gerstorf

(2013). Spousal goals, affect quality, and collaborative problem solving: Evidence from a time-sampling study with older couples. Research in Human Development, 10, 70–87. doi:10.1080/15427609.2013.760260

33.

House

J. S.

Landis

K. R.

Umberson

(1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241, 540–545. doi:10.1126/science.3399889

34.

Hunt

J. R.

White

(1998). Retaining and tracking cohort study members. Epidemiologic Reviews, 20, 57–70.

35.

Jacobson

(1996). Incomplete institution or culture shock: Institutional and processual models of stepfamily instability. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 24, 3–18. doi:10.1300/J087v24n01_02

36.

Kenny

D. A.

(2014). Between- and within-dyad outcomes [Webinar]. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/webinars/powerpoints/Dyad/Standard/Between_or_Within_Outcome.ppt

37.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

38.

Lavner

J. A.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2017). Protecting relationships from stress. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 11–14. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.003

39.

Lazarus

R. S.

DeLongis

(1983). Psychological stress and coping in aging. The American Psychologist, 38, 245–254. doi:10.2190/T43T-84P3-QDUR-7RTP

40.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

41.

Lebow

J. L.

Chambers

A. L.

Christensen

Johnson

S. M.

(2012). Research on the treatment of couple distress. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 145–168. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00249.x

42.

Lewis

J. M.

Kreider

R. M.

(2015). Remarriage in the United States. American Community Survey Reports (Vol. ACS-30). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

43.

Lyons

R. F.

Mickelson

K. D.

Sullivan

M. J. L.

Coyne

J. C.

(1998). Coping as a communal process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 579–605. doi:10.1177/0265407598155001

44.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Brashears

M. E.

(2006). Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review, 73, 353–375. doi:10.1177/000312240807300610

45.

O’Brien

T. B.

DeLongis

Pomaki

Puterman

Zwicker

(2009). Couples coping with stress: The role of empathic responding. European Psychologist, 14, 18–28. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.14.1.18

46.

Rafaeli

Gleason

(2009). Skilled support within intimate relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 1, 20–37. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00003.x

47.

Revenson

T. A.

Kayser

Bodenmann

(2005). Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

48.

Sbarra

D. A.

(2015). Divorce and health: Current trends and future directions. Psychosomatic Medicine, 77, 227–236. doi:10.1097/PSY.0000000000000168

49.

Schramm

D. G.

Adler-Baeder

(2012). Marital quality for men and women in stepfamilies: Examining the role of economic pressure, common stressors, and stepfamily-specific stressors. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 1373–1397. doi:10.1177/0192513X11428126

50.

Slattery

M. E.

Bruce

Halford

W. K.

Nicholson

J. M.

(2011). Predicting married and cohabiting couples’ futures from their descriptions of stepfamily life. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 560–569. doi:10.1037/a0024538

51.

Sweeney

M. M.

(2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 667–684. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00724.x

52.

Teachman

(2008). Complex life course patterns and the risk of divorce in second marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 294–305.

53.

Uchino

B. N.

(2009). Understanding the links between social support and physical health: A life-span perspective with emphasis on the separability of perceived and received support. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 236–255. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01122.x

54.

Vézina

(2012). 2011 General Social Survey: Overview of families in Canada—Being a parent in a stepfamily: A profile. Statistics Canada. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-650-x/89-650-x2012002-eng.pdf

55.

Wang

Parker

(2014). Record share of Americans have never married: As values, economics and gender patterns change. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

56.

Whitton

S. W.

Nicholson

J. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2008). Research on interventions for stepfamily couples: The state of the field. In Pryor

(Ed.), The international handbook of stepfamilies: Policy and practice in legal, research, and clinical environments (pp. 455–484). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118269923.ch19

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB