#alternate alternate Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more... * NCBI NCBI Logo * Skip to main content * Skip to navigation * Resources * How To * About NCBI Accesskeys My NCBISign in to NCBISign Out PMC US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Search database[PMC_____________________] Search term ____________________ (BUTTON) Search * Advanced * Journal list * Help * Journal List * HHS Author Manuscripts * PMC3686301 Logo of nihpa Res Hum Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 Jun 19. Published in final edited form as: Res Hum Dev. 2012; 9(2): 106–125. Published online 2012 May 23. doi: 10.1080/15427609.2012.680843 PMCID: PMC3686301 NIHMSID: NIHMS384690 PMID: 23794954 In-law Relationships Before and After Marriage Karen L. Fingerman, Megan Gilligan, Laura VanderDrift, and Lindsay Pitzer Karen L. Fingerman University of Texas at Austin Find articles by Karen L. Fingerman Megan Gilligan Purdue University Find articles by Megan Gilligan Laura VanderDrift Purdue University Find articles by Laura VanderDrift Lindsay Pitzer University of Notre Dame Find articles by Lindsay Pitzer Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer Karen L. Fingerman, University of Texas at Austin; Contributor Information. Contact information: Karen Fingerman, PhD, Professor, Human Development & Family Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, A2702, Austin, Texas 78712, ude.saxetu.nitsua@namregnifk, Phone: 512-471-0618, Fax: 512-475-8662 Copyright notice See other articles in PMC that cite the published article. Abstract Relationships with in-laws play an important role in individuals’ lives, but we do not know how these ties are formed. We considered two pathways through which early relationships with mothers-in-laws may affect subsequent in-law relationship qualities: a) dimensions of the early relationship and, b) beliefs and expectations of the future relationship. Sixty men and women engaged to be married and their mothers (N = 240) completed interviews prior to, and 6 to 8 months following the wedding. Measures at Time 1 assessed three dimensions of the in-law relationship: a) behavioral (contact by phone, in person), b) emotional (positive and negative relationship qualities), and c) cognitive (knowledge about the other person). Participants also described positive and negative expectations of their future tie. Multilevel models revealed that dimensions of the tie prior to the marriage were associated with post-wedding in-law relationship qualities. When the parties had individual contact with one another and positive feelings before the wedding, ties were stronger following the wedding. Data from open-ended descriptions of negative expectations obtained before the wedding predicted negative relationship qualities after the wedding. Husbands, wives, and mothers-in-law showed similar patterns with regard to relationship qualities. Discussion focuses on the role of early emotional qualities of the in-law tie for subsequent in-law relationships. Keywords: mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, intergenerational relationships, romantic relationship Most Americans consider relationships with in-laws important (Fingerman & Hay, 2002; Santos & Levitt, 2007). The significance of these relationships is evident in many facets of life, including the quality of romantic relationships (Bryant, Conger, & Meehan, 2001; Sprecher & Felmlee, 2000; Timmer & Veroff, 2000), grandparents’ ties to grandchildren (Fingerman, 2004), and as a source of stress or support (Fischer, 1983; Morr Serewicz, 2006). Yet, a content analysis of studies published in family and relationship journals revealed that fewer than 1% examined in-law ties (Fingerman & Hay, 2002). This study fills a significant gap in the literature by examining the formation of in-law ties. Dynamics of the early in-law relationships may help explain subsequent in-law relationship qualities. Several features of the formation of the tie are distinct. In-law ties are non-voluntary (Morr Serewicz & Hosmer, 2011), arise in adulthood, and are predicated on a third party (i.e., the romantic partner; Rittenour & Soliz, 2009; Sechrist, Suitor, Kim, & Pillemer, 2011). The in-law tie involves a formal demarcation not evident in friendships or many other ties, a discrete ritual—the wedding. Before the marriage, the individuals may have a relationship, but the “in-law” label is acquired when the spouses marry. Mothers-in-law warrant special consideration because they are more involved with married children and children-in-law (Fingerman & Hay, 2002; Fischer, 1983; Lee, Spitze, & Logan, 2003), and engage in more frequent contact with the couple (Willson, Shuey, & Elder, 2003) than fathers-in-law. Stereotypes stemming back 50 years portray the mother-in-law as the most problematic family tie (Duvall, 1954; Merrill, 2007). As a result, mothers-in-law evoke stronger emotional reactions than fathers-in-law (Willson et al., 2003). In sum, this study included romantic couples and each of their mothers-in-law. We collected data a few months before, and a few months after the wedding. We considered two pathways through which early relationships may affect subsequent relationship qualities: a) dimensions of the early relationship and, b) expectations of the future relationship. Behaviors, emotions, and cognitions evident while the tie is formed may persist in subsequent in-law ties. Further, individuals’ expectations of the tie may shape future relationship qualities. Dimensions of the Early In-Law Relationship Although relationships with in-laws share some characteristics of relationships with parents, ties to in-laws must be formed in adulthood and do not share the long history of parent/child ties. Theorists have identified factors during the “getting acquainted” stage that may provide a platform for future intimacy in other types of relationships (Adams & Blieszner, 1993). These dimensions include behavioral, emotional, and cognitive factors. That is, to form a relationship, individuals must behave in ways that allow them to get to know one another (behavioral), they must develop affection or intimate feelings about the other (emotional), and they must acquire basic information about the other (cognitive). These dimensions are not discrete, but serve as a heuristic for studying the formation of in-law ties. Behavior in the relationship Theorists posit that frequency of contact is an important indicator of interpersonal closeness (Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 2004). Foa and Foa (1974) argued that several behavioral conditions are necessary for an “acquaintance” to become a close relationship, particularly regarding contact. Two specific conditions apply to in-law ties: opportunities to get together (i.e., repeated encounters to develop trust) and a degree of privacy (to allow formation of intimacy). For in-law ties, contact may occur due to a close tie between the child and his or her own mother, rather than the in-law’s desire to be with the future mother-in-law. Thus, it is important differentiate contact in general (that may include one’s romantic partner) from contact that occurs alone with the in-law. Here, we considered whether the bride and groom had met their future in-law, how often they visited in person and by phone, and whether they visited individually or with the romantic partner present. We expected parties that had more frequent contact, particularly solo contact without the romantic partner, to report better quality relationships after the wedding. Emotional qualities of the relationship In general, relationships that start with positive feelings grow closer over time. Early positive and negative qualities of romantic ties tend to persist into later years of marriage (Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith & George, 2001). Similarly, emotional qualities of early in-law ties may endure. In retrospective studies, individuals report continuities in qualities of ties to in-laws from the early relationship to years after marriage (Merrill, 2007; Prentice, 2008). Family systems theory also suggests it is difficult to alter established emotional patterns in family ties (Fingerman & Bermann, 2000). Therefore, we expected early positive or negative qualities of the tie to persist. Cognitive aspects of acquaintanceship When establishing a tie, individuals must become acquainted and gain basic knowledge about the other party (Adams & Blieszner, 1993; Foa & Foa, 1974). Indeed, intimacy arises when individuals share and disclose information about themselves and the social partner expresses interest in learning this information (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromoaco, 1998). Because the in-law tie involves a third party, relationships could evolve in the absence of basic knowledge of one another. We expected the amount of personal information (e.g., birthdate, childhood history) one party knows about the other to serve as an indicator of early interest and investment in the tie. Future Expectations of Positive and Negative Changes Two research perspectives suggest individuals’ beliefs about the future tie also shape subsequent qualities of that tie: a) stereotypes and b) possible selves. These perspectives suggest a self-fulfilling prophecy. People who believe their ties will be positive develop strong ties. Likewise, for those with negative expectations, anticipated problems may materialize. A variety of studies have shown that cultural stereotypes can be internalized and unconsciously shape subsequent outcomes (Levy, Chung, & Canavan, 2011). In the US, stereotypes and media portrayals of mothers-in-law are predominantly pejorative (Duvall, 1954; Merrill, 2007). If individuals embrace negative expectations of their future in-law, the tie may manifest negative qualities. In this study, we focused on expectations of the actual relationship rather than broader stereotypes about in-laws. More specifically, we drew on the possible selves literature. Psychologists have shown that expectations for positive or negative “possible selves” shape individuals’ goals, hopes and fears (Eagly, Eastwick & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2009; Markus & Nurius, 1986). That is, when individuals hold positive images of what they may become in the future, they are motivated to behave in ways that support (and lead to) those images of the self. Likewise, individuals may harbor expectations about future relationships, particularly in the acquaintanceship stage. Individuals may hold positive and negative expectations of how their in-law ties will develop and change once the wedding takes place. Based on stereotypes and media presentations of mothers-in-law (Merrill, 2007), brides and grooms may harbor fears that the other party will be intrusive and critical. Mothers-in-law may worry about exclusion by the child-in-law (Morr Serewicz, & Hosmer, 2011). Such worries may be associated with negative relationship qualities after the wedding. By contrast, a study of the in-law tie found most children and mothers-in-law described the early relationship with positive expectations (Turner, Young, & Black, 2006). The hope for a warm and close relationship may manifest in stronger bonds after the wedding. Other Variables Associated with Relationship Patterns We also considered variables associated with differences in in-law ties. Brides, grooms and their future mothers-in-law may approach this tie with distinct expectations, emotions, and behaviors due to their generation, gender, or individual characteristics. Perceptions of the tie may differ by generation. The older generation typically values the intergenerational relationship more than the younger generation (Bengtson & Kuypers, 1971; Fingerman, 2001; Martini, Grusec, & Bernardini, 2001). Similarly, mothers-in-law may be more knowledgeable of their future child-in-law, rate the relationship more positively, and have more positive expectations of the tie. Differences also may be evident in ties involving sons- versus daughters-in-law. Wives typically feel closer to their mothers than husbands feel to their own mothers and likely assimilate their husbands into their own family (Lopata, 1999; Santos & Levitt, 2007). Additionally, parents-in-law rate ties to sons-in-law more positively than ties to daughters-in-law (Fingerman, 2004). The shared gender between daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law may heighten emotions (Kivett, 1989; Willson et al., 2003). Due to these differences, the bride’s mother and groom may begin the relationship with more positive feelings, fostering closer ties. Third party relationship factors also might influence ties. The period of courtship prior to engagement varies, and some in-laws may be recently acquainted whereas others may have known one another for years. Therefore, we considered how long the party had known the in-law. Further, because the ties are triadic in nature (Morr Serewicz, 2006) the quality of the partner’s relationship with his or her own parent may influence the in-law tie. Structural factors also influence relationships. Distance may affect the ability to get together with in-laws in person (Lawton, Silverstein, & Bengtson, 1994). Higher levels of education are associated with both increased distance between generations and increased support exchanges (Henretta, Grundy, & Harris, 2002). Therefore, it is important to consider education’s effects on the in-law relationship as well. In sum, this study prospectively examined the formation of the in-law tie by collecting data from couples engaged to be married and each of their mothers. We predicted that: a) early behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions of the relationship, and b) individuals’ beliefs about the relationship would be associated with qualities of the relationship after the wedding. More specifically, we expected individual contact, positive feelings, and knowledge of the other party to be associated with better quality relationships. We expected family members who anticipated warm and loving relationships would manifest more positive relationship quality whereas fears that the other party would be demanding or exclusive would be associated with poorer quality relationships. Methods Sample This convenience sample included couples engaged for their first marriage and each of their mothers. Analyses focused on families in which each member participated in two interviews approximately 6 months prior to the wedding and approximately 6 months after the wedding. For simplicity, we refer to the parties as “bride/wife,” “groom/husband,” “wife’s mother” and “husband’s mother.” The romantic couples resided in the greater Indianapolis area. Recruitment strategies included: a) notices posted at stores, in public venues, and on college campuses, b) flyers at wedding shows, c) contacting individuals from bridal registries at local department stores, d) contact with couples who announced their engagement in local newspapers, e) African American hair stylists and radio, and f) word of mouth. Initially 66 families participated and of those, 60 families included all four members at both Times of data collection (N = 240). Of the families who completed Time 1 interviews: two families were missing the husband, two families were missing the husband’s mother, one family was missing the wife’s mother, and one family was missing both mothers at Time 2 (n = 6). The majority of the participants included in the final sample (N = 240) had a high school education, were employed for pay, in good self-reported health, and Protestant. Over 90% were White (not Hispanic origin). See Table 1 for descriptive information about the sample. Table 1 Sample Characteristics at Time 1 Brides (n = 60) Grooms (n = 60) Brides’ Mothers (n = 60) Grooms’ Mothers (n = 60) Means (SD) Age 24.47 (3.53) 25.13 (4.28) 50.80 (5.36) 51.71 (5.39) Years of education 16.53 (1.89) 16.44 (2.02) 14.67 (2.89) 14.90 (2.60) Self rated health ^a 3.90 (0.80) 4.05 (0.83) 4.03 (0.78) 3.95 (0.87) Distance to mother- in-law in miles 305.67 (759.67) 253.34 (447.35) -- -- Months has known mother-in-law 34.46 (29.22) 29.47 (20.11) -- -- Proportions African American .05 .03 .05 .03 White- not Hispanic .92 .97 .93 .95 White Hispanic - - .02 .02 Asian .02 - .02 - Other .02 - - - Open in a separate window ^aSelf-rated health rated: 1 (poor) 2 (fair) 3 (good) 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Procedure Each family member completed individual telephone interviews at Times 1 and 2. At Time 1, the bride and groom answered questions regarding their romantic relationship, their own mother, and their relationship with their future mother-in-law. Mothers answered questions about relationships with their own child and future child-in-law. At Time 2, interviews included similar or follow up questions from Time 1. Participants received $15 for each interview. Dependent Variables In-law relationship quality At Time 2, participants completed the 12-item Relationship Qualities Scale (Newsom, Morgan, Nishishiba, & Rook, 2000) with regard to their in-law. Six items assess positive qualities of the relationship and six items assess negative qualities of the relationship. The six positive items were used to create a positive relationship quality scale that ranged from 7 to 30 (M = 23.75, SD = 4.46, α = .87) and the six negative items were used to create a negative relationship quality scale that ranged from 6–22 (M = 7.84, SD = 2.90, α = .86). Example items included: “How often has your [mother-in-law / daughter/son-in-law] acted warm or affectionate toward you?” “How often has your [mother-in-law / daughter/son-in-law] done favors or other little things for you?” “How often has your [mother-in-law / daughter/son-in-law] not given you help when you wished he/she would?” and “How often has your [mother-in-law / daughter/son-in-law] acted angry or hostile toward you?” Responses to these questions ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Dimensions of In-law Relationships Behavioral dimensions At Time 1, we asked whether participants had met their future in-law (1 = yes, 0 = no) and if so, how long they had known them. Most participants (98.75%) had met their future in-laws, but two grooms had not. Participants indicated they had known the in-law from one month to 16 years (M = 2.51 years, SD = 1.86 years). We assessed frequency of in-person and telephone contact with both the mother or own child and the future in-law in the past year using a scale of 1 (never), 2 (once), 3 (2 to 5 Times), 4 (6 to 10 Times), 5 (more than 10 Times). We refer to these indicators as “general contact.” Participants also indicated how often they had such contact on their own (without the romantic partner) on the same scale. We refer to this as “individual contact.” Cognitive dimension We assessed familiarity with the in-law prior to the wedding. At Time 1, participants answered 18 questions regarding their own mother/child and their future in-law. For example, the bride and groom reported their mother’s and mother-in-law’s marital status, occupation, whether her parents were currently living, and so forth. Coders scored the number of questions the participants answered correctly, using the target’s responses to these questions as the answer key. The proportion of responses scored correctly served as the index. Scores for knowledge of one’s own mother or child served as a proxy for validity of the measure (i.e., we expected participants to have more knowledge of their own child or mother). Emotional dimension Participants rated the quality of their relationship with their future in-law at Time 1. The first item, “How would you rate the overall quality of your relationship with your mother-in-law at this Time?” was rated 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Three other items “How much do you like your mother-in-law?”, “Think of your ideal image of a mother-in-law. To what extent does your mother-in-law fit that image?”, and “How much do you think your mother-in-law likes you?” were rated 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much), for the 4 items, α = .85. Expectations of Positive and Negative Change Participants responded to open-ended questions about positive changes and problems in their relationships with their in-law. At Time 1, we asked: a) “Marriage introduces new opportunities for you in your relationship with your in-laws. What do you expect to like best about your relationship with your mother-in-law after you are married?” and b) “Marriage also introduces challenges dealing with your in-laws as you establish a new life. What do you expect to be the biggest problem in your relationship with your mother-in-law as a result of your marriage?” Questions were altered to address the appropriate party (e.g,. daughter-in-law). We transcribed participants’ answers verbatim during the interview. The coding scheme reflected the data, as well as theory regarding these ties. Parallel themes were coded for positive and negative expectations, including: relationship qualities (e.g. contact, intimacy), adult relationship (e.g. equality in the relationship)/autonomy (e.g. unsolicited advice), assistance/support (e.g. emotional or financial help), other family relationships (e.g. grandchildren, the romantic tie) and personal comments (e.g. individual attributes, behaviors, or personality). We included codes for negative comments during a positive-target section, and positive comments given during a negative-target section. A code for “No change” encompassed reports for no expected changes. Independent raters determined whether each code was present in the transcripts (i.e., codes were not mutually exclusive). Each coder engaged in 4 weeks of training and attended twice weekly meetings during the coding process. Reliability was established on 74 participants’ positive responses and 72 participants’ negative responses. Coders decided on final coding of disputed cases during weekly meetings. Descriptions of the codes are found in Table 2. Average reliability in coding was high, mean kappa = .89; and ranged from .74 for “personal comments” to .92 for “more adult relationship” in response to expected positive changes . Table 2 Proportion of Expected Relationship Changes at Time 1 Codes Bride (n = 60) Groom (n = 60) Bride Mom (n = 60) Groom Mom (n = 60) Positive Changes Closer/positive relationship 0.83 0.57 0.57 0.68 Other relationships 0.50 0.37 0.58 0.60 More adult relationship ^a 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Assistance/support 0.08 0.12 0.02 0.07 Personal comments 0.18 0.27 0.37 0.32 Negative comments 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.10 No change/No response 0.02 0.22 0.08 0.08 Negative Changes Less close relationship 0.37 0.25 0.23 0.28 Other relationships 0.53 0.43 0.50 0.42 Autonomy/dependence^a 0.40 0.38 0.33 0.30 Assistance/support 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.02 Personal comments 0.22 0.13 0.30 0.22 Positive comments 0.08 0.10 0.17 0.15 No change/No response 0.12 0.17 0.28 0.23 Open in a separate window Note. ^aComments for positive changes typically referred to a more adult or peer-like relationship. The comparison code for negative changes pertained to increased dependency or lack of autonomy. Background information and covariates Participants provided standard background information such as age, gender, ethnicity, years of education, and work status. Mothers also provided their marital status. We measured distance in miles between parties using home addresses provided for participant payment and entered the de-identified miles in the database. Couple’s relationship The couple provided information regarding their relationship including when they met, length of dating relationship and Time until wedding at Time 1. The length of Time since the couple had met ranged from 6 months to 16 years (M = 3.47 years, SD = 2.43 years). Time dating prior to interview ranged from 4 months to 8.4 years (M = 2.52 years, SD = 1.57 years). The average Time to the wedding was 5.57 months (SD = 5.23; Range = 0.5 to 56 months). Further, 40% of the romantic couples were cohabitating. Relationship with own child/mother Participants also completed the Relationship Qualities Scale with regard to their own child or mother at Time 2. The positive relationship quality scale ranged from 7 to 30 (M = 26.09, SD = 3.56, α = .84) and the negative scale ranged from 6 to 24 (M = 9.25, SD = 3.16, α = .81). Analytic Strategy We first provide descriptive information regarding the dimensions of the relationship and the open-ended expectations of positive and negative changes after the wedding. We considered possible differences between family members on these variables and gave examples of the types of responses participants provided regarding expected changes. In analyses, for continuous outcomes, we used multilevel modeling in SAS PROC MIXED due to possible dependence in responses among family members. That is, sons-in-law and their mothers-in-law would be expected to report frequency of contact scores that are highly correlated, the couple’s reports of quality of tie to the reciprocal mother-in-law might be correlated and so forth. By taking into account the dependence among the individual responses within the same family, we estimated standard errors more accurately. MLM accounts for within-family dependence by incorporating a unique random effect for each family. The variability in the random effects is taken into account when estimating the standard errors. Analyses controlled for participants’ ages, education level, relationship duration with the mother/child in-law, and physical distance between mother-in-law and child in-law. We also controlled for the quality of the relationship between the mother and her own child. Results Descriptive Overview of Variables Dimensions of the in-law relationship Table 3 presents the descriptive information for each family member reporting on his/her relationship with his/her in-law. As can be seen in Table 3, family members reported having contact 6 to 10 Times in the past year. Over half of family members reported having contact with the future in-law alone (as opposed to with the romantic partner present). Participants generally rated the quality of their relationship high at Time 1. Average scores for participants’ knowledge of their in-laws was 75% correct (SD = .14). In comparison, average knowledge of their own child or mother was higher, 89% correct (SD = .07); paired t = 15.07, p < .001 (results not shown). Table 3 Descriptive Information for Dimensions of In-Law Relationships at Time 1 and In-Law Relationship Qualities at Time 2 by Family Member Variable Wife n = 60 Husband n = 60 Wife’s Mother n = 60 Husband’s Mother n = 60 __________________________________________________________________ Time 1 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Contact ^a 4.43 (0.79) 4.45 (0.73) 4.31 (0.79) 4.42 (0.77) Individual contact ^b 0.66 (0.34) 0.54 (0.35) 0.55 (0.41) 0.71 (0.34) Affective Quality^c 4.09 (0.79) 4.01 (0.72) 4.20 (0.65) 4.24 (0.61) Quiz score^d 0.77 (0.12) 0.72 (0.12) 0.76 (0.15) 0.76 (0.16) Time 2 Positive Relationship Quality ^e 24.30 (4.28) 23.30 (4.63) 23.50 (4.41) 23.90 (4.58) Negative Relationship Quality ^e 8.30 (3.22) 8.42 (3.52) 7.02 (1.65) 7.62 (2.68) Open in a separate window Note. ^aContact rated 1 (never) 2 (once) 3 (2–5 Times) 4 (6–10 Times) 5 (over 10 Times) ^bProportion that had individual contact ^cRelationship quality ranges from 1 to 5 with higher values indicating greater positive relationship quality ^dProportion of items correctly answered about inlaw mother/child ^eTime 2 relationship quality scales range from 6 to 30 with higher numbers indicating either greater positive or negative relationship quality Preliminary analyses examined within family differences with regard to all Time 1 predictors and Time 2 relationship qualities. Predictor variables were generation (1 = mother-in-law, 0 = child-in-law), participant gender (1 = male, 0 = female), and side of family (1 = bride or bride’s mom, 0 = groom or groom’s mom). With control variables, multilevel models (i.e., SAS 9.2 PROC MIXED) revealed no difference between the family members, i.e. either mother-in-law, sons and daughters, on the cognitive predictor quiz score, or the affective predictor (relationship quality) at Time 1, or positive and negative qualities of the relationship at Time 2. Because behaviors (i.e., contact) involve two parties, we did not test for differences in contact. Expected positive changes We also examined the open-ended responses. As can be seen in Table 2, many participants described expectations of a closer relationship with their in-laws. Some of these responses referred to gaining a new parent or child. A bride commented, “…it’s just like having another mother that I’m close enough to that I can confide in.” Other responses focused on more personal issues. A bride’s mother remarked, “…We share a love of music and that is what I always enjoy with him. I think this shared love of music will help bring us closer.” A second dominant positive theme involved relationships other than the in-law tie, especially future grandchildren. A bride sought advice, “…My fiancé has a bigger family and I was an only child. We plan to have more children like her family and learn from her.” Some participants commented on the marital tie (rather than the in-law tie). A groom’s mother stated, “…They look forward to starting a new life together and I think it is pretty exciting. She makes him happy and so she makes me happy….” Some participants made negative comments in discussing positive changes. One bride explained, “….I think our relationship will grow more because she’ll want to talk more since she doesn’t really get along with her other daughter-in-laws very well.” Several participants indicated they did not expect changes, particularly grooms, “…Just because you get married doesn’t mean there has to be tons of changes. Especially, since we have lived together anyway. Things shouldn’t change either way.” Expected negative changes Responses regarding expected problems varied. Some participants feared the relationship wouldn’t grow close. A bride explained, “It’s just harder for me to talk to her than it was to talk to some of my other friends’ parents. She doesn’t give a lot of feedback…” Another dominant problem theme involved autonomy. A groom expressed this concern, “The biggest challenge will be to have her trust us enough to know that we can do things on our own.” Mothers-in-law were aware of stereotypes they hoped to avoid. A groom’s mother explained, “…and I don’t want to butt in and I want to be sensitive to them and not impose on them. That would be the only place that we could have problems is if they think I am imposing.” In-law Relationship Quality at Time 2 We estimated models to ascertain whether pre-wedding relationship dimensions (behavioral, affective, cognitive) predicted post-wedding Time 2 positive and negative relationship quality scales. Positive relationship quality Table 4 shows that general contact with the in-law (i.e., contact with the romantic partner present) at Time 1 was significantly negatively associated with Time 2 positive relationship quality. By contrast, Time 1 individual contact (b = 1.88, p < .05) and positive relationship quality (b = 3.49, p < .001) were each significantly positively associated with Time 2 positive relationship quality. Table 4 In-law Relationship Quantitative Measures at Time 1 Predict Time 2 Relationship Quality^e Positive Relationship Quality Negative Relationship Quality __________________________________________________________________ Predictor Variables B SE B SE Intercept 6.15^* 3.06 13.69^*** 2.21 Behavioral Contact^a −0.92^* 0.41 0.82^** 0.29 Individual contact^b 1.95^* 0.78 −0.68 0.56 Affective Time 1 relationship quality^c 3.27^*** 0.39 −1.90^*** 0.28 Cognitive Quiz score^d 1.95 1.87 1.51 1.34 Control Variables Age −0.02 0.02 −0.03^* 0.01 Education 0.07 0.10 −0.06 0.07 Distance to in-law 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Relationship duration with in-law 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Relationship quality with own mother/child 0.19^* 0.08 −0.01 0.05 Open in a separate window Note. ^aContact rated 1 (never) 2 (once) 3 (2–5 Times) 4 (6–10 Times) 5 (over 10 Times) ^bHad individual contact 1 (yes) 0 (no) ^cRelationship quality from 1 to 5 with higher values indicating greater positive relationship quality ^dProportion of items answered correctly about inlaw ^eTime 2 relationship quality scales range from 6 to 30 with higher numbers indicating either greater positive or negative relationship quality. ^***p < .001, ^**p < .01, ^*p < .05 Negative relationship quality At Time 2, general contact with the in-law (b = 0.83, p < .01) was significantly associated with negative relationship quality. By contrast, Time 1 positive relationship quality (b = −1.91, p < .001) was significantly and negatively associated with Time 2 negative relationship quality. In other words, better relationships at Time 1 predicted fewer conflicts or demands at Time 2. Open Ended Expectations and Relationship Quality at Time 2 We estimated multilevel models examining each code (with at least 20% of participants’ responses fitting the code) as a predictor of relationship quality at Time 2. Based on distributions (see Table 2), we estimated 3 models for positive changes (i.e., close relationships, other people, and personal comments), and 4 models for expected problems (i.e., less close relationship, other people, lack of autonomy, and personal comments). Although we had expected anticipation of a warm and close relationship at Time 1 to be associated with better relationship quality at Time 2, this was not the case. No code was significantly associated with the positive relationship quality subscale at Time 2. Associations between descriptions of problems and subsequent negative relationship quality were found for two codes: a) fears that the relationship would not grow closer, and b) situations involving other parties (see Table 5). Our initial predictions had included concerns about autonomy or intrusion by the mother-in-law, but these concerns were not associated with poorer relationship quality at Time 2. Table 5 Expectations of Changes at Time 1 Predict Time 2 Negative Relationship Quality^e Predictor Variables B SE B SE Intercept 12.23^*** 2.05 13.10^*** 2.03 Codes Less close relationship 1.04^** 0.37 Other relationships 1.18^* 0.48 Control Variables Age −0.04^** 0.01 −0.04^** 0.01 Education −0.06 0.08 −0.08 0.08 Distance to in-law 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Relationship duration with in-law 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Relationship quality with own mother/child −0.09 0.06 −0.09 0.06 Open in a separate window Note. ^***p < .001, ^**p < .01, ^*p < .05 Examples of concerns about the closeness of the relationship included comments that the other party was sensitive or expected more closeness than possible. Several responses also pertained to dividing time or holidays. A bride remarked, “Sharing time, definitely not spending holidays and important dates with her. She will get very jealous.” Other responses included geographic distance. A groom’s mother indicated, “Like I said before, each of us getting enough time with them. I just want a little piece of them. I am not asking for a lot, but…I hope she remembers and comes and visits me.” These types of comments were associated with more negative relationship qualities at Time 2. With regard to other relationships, a variety of concerns were associated with poorer quality relationships at Time 2. Some concerns pertained to the romantic relationship. For example, a bride worried her mother-in-law would side with the groom in an argument, “…and if James and I get in a fight…then I think it might be a sticky situation…she might want to take his side when we are in an argument….” Grandchildren also figured in these responses. For example, a groom’s mother lamented that she might not have grandchildren, “They don’t want any kids and so that would be a place we could bond, but we won’t be able to.” A groom mentioned the relationship between his mother-in-law and his wife’s sibling, “The conflict between her treating my fiancé differently than her sister…. That is a problem between them and subsequently could be for me as well.” Post-hoc Tests Finally, to examine stability in findings, we estimated the multilevel models for Time 2 relationship quality separately for each dimension of the relationship at Time 1: (a) emotional (relationship quality), (b) cognitive, (knowledge of the other party), and (c) behavioral (contact). In these models, the quiz scores for knowledge of the other party were significantly associated with Time 2 positive and negative relationship qualities in expected directions. We also estimated regression models separately for wife, husband, wife’s mother and husband’s mother to ensure patterns were the same for each family member. Because data were no longer nested within families, we computed multiple regression rather than MLM. Due to diminished power in these models, we considered each predictor individually. Results from these regressions showed the pattern as a whole was consistent for each individual family member. Thus, in this study, our overall pattern of results appears to be robust across gender, across generation, across side of family, and across specific family members. Observed effects in Tables 4 and ​and55 do not appear to be driven by one member of the family, or by any dimension on which the members of the family necessarily systematically differ (e.g., generation membership). Finally, it is possible that qualities of the couple’s relationship shape the in-law relationship. We assessed the quality of the couple’s relationship after the wedding. We found that couple’s relationship was significantly associated with both positive and negative in-law relationship quality in bivariate tests. When we added this variable as a covariate to the models presented in Tables 4 and ​and5,5, however, the overall patterns do not change (i.e., those predictors that were significant before remained significant, and those predictors that were non-significant before remained non-significant). Thus, more factors pertaining to the in-law relationship (contact, feelings of affection) shape this relationship above and beyond the marital tie. Discussion This study presents unique data examining the formation of mother-in-law and child-in-law relationships over time from the perspective of four family members. Findings support retrospective studies of the in-law tie that have found early emotional qualities are associated with reported relationship qualities after marriage (Merrill, 2007; Prentice, 2008). We found that early relationship qualities and contact alone with the future in-law facilitated better relationships after the wedding. Individuals’ beliefs about positive changes in the future relationship did not appear to set the stage for self-fulfilling prophecies, but two types of expected problems were associated with poorer quality relationships. Relationship Qualities and Expectations The majority of brides, grooms, and mothers-in-law did not endorse negative feelings about their in-law relationships portrayed in media images and cultural stereotypes (Merrill, 2007). Rather, findings were consistent with a qualitative study showing mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law reported positive expectations and feelings in the relationship (Turner et al., 2006). Surprisingly, there were no significant generation, gender, or side of family differences on the relationship dimensions (behavioral, affective, cognitive) at Time 1 or in the positive and negative relationship qualities scales at Time 2 (after controlling for age, education, time known the in-law and other variables). Theory on the topic of in-law ties typically considers the daughter-in-law/mother-in-law dyad to be more conflict-ridden than the son-in-law/mother-in-law dyad (Fischer, 1983; Kivett, 1989). Methodological differences may help account for the discrepancy in patterns of findings. The vast majority of studies of in-law ties have been qualitative in nature (e.g., Merrill, 2007; Prentice, 2008; Turner, et al., 2006), and relationship indicators examined here were quantitative in nature. Thus, we were able to include control variables, and to examine potential differences systematically. Nonetheless, we may have missed subtle nuances. One study did find gender differences in quantitative ratings of in-law ties, with daughters-in-law rating greater conflict and ambivalence with their mothers-in-law (Willson, Shuey, & Elder, 2003). That study examined a distinct population, however, encompassing rural farm families in Iowa in the late 1990s. Gender differences in in-law ties may have waned in more recent cohorts, particularly among non-rural populations such as the participants in this study. Alternately, gender differences may have less to do with mean differences in relationship qualities and more to do with the components of those qualities. Early Relationship Dimensions and Post-Wedding Relationship Qualities Findings revealed that behavioral and emotional aspects of the relationship formation stage were associated with post-weddings quality of the in-law relationship. The patterns fit research and theory on the formation of friendships and romantic ties (Adams & Blieszner, 1993; Berscheid et al., 2004; Foa & Foa, 1974). Findings involving contact with future in-laws revealed interesting complexities. Having more contact in general was associated with lower positive relationship quality and increased negative relationship quality after marriage. This finding is surprising; more contact typically is associated with increased intimacy and positive feelings (Lawton et al., 1994). Yet, individual contact was associated with more positive feelings about the relationship after the wedding. These findings may reflect the triadic nature of the in-law relationship (Rittenour & Soliz, 2009; Sechrist et al., 2011). That is, contact in general includes the romantic partner. In some instances, the reporting family member may have felt coerced to interact with the future in-law. By contrast, contact that is individually initiated may be chosen and foster intimacy. Positive relationship qualities during the relationship formation period were associated with more positive feelings and fewer negative feelings after marriage. Retrospectively, mothers-in-law and children-in-law have reported continuity in qualities of their tie from before the marriage (Merrill, 2007). The findings also are consistent with a study that documented stability in romantic, family, and friend relationships before the wedding into the early years of marriage (Sprecher & Felmlee, 2000). Moreover, family systems theory suggests relationship patterns involving multiple family members are difficult to change (Fingerman & Bermann, 2000). Here, we controlled for the relationship between the mother and own child; thus, the stability in the in-law tie is above and beyond that involving the grown child. Knowledge of the other party was associated with Time 2 relationship qualities when it was included as the sole predictor in bivariate analyses, but was not associated with Time 2 relationship qualities when we included relationship qualities and behaviors in the same model. These findings suggest that knowledge of the other party may be a facet of relationship quality; relationship quality was associated with subsequent positive and negative aspects of the tie. Expectations of the In-Law Tie and Post-Wedding Relationship Qualities This study also included a unique feature by examining expectations of the future relationship. Literature regarding possible selves suggests expectations motivate behaviors and generate self-fulfilling prophecies (Markus & Nurius, 1986). Interestingly, expectations of the relationship were not associated with positive relationship qualities, but a limited set of expectations were linked to negative qualities of relationships. Methodological issues such as the selection of codes or phrasing of the questions may partially explain the paucity of findings, but the pattern is consistent with the literature. Most individuals enter the in-law relationship with positive expectations of their future relationship (Turner et al., 2006), making it difficult to detect differences in positive qualities. The ability to detect negative qualities of the relationship may reflect Tolstoy’s famous quote, “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Two anticipated problems distinguished negative relationship quality. Fears that the relationship would not be close were prescient of a more conflicted relationship. Notably, many such responses pertained to feeling torn between the two families, particularly with regard to holidays. Holidays may play a key role in relationships because they make visible otherwise unspoken feelings (Fingerman, Buckser, & Turiano, 2009), in this case, family loyalties. Moreover, mentioning other parties, such as birth family members, as a potential source of problems was associated with increased negative feelings about in-laws. These findings substantiate the important role network members play in shaping marital ties (Sprecher & Felmlee, 2000) and in-law ties early on. It is notable that anticipated problems with regard to autonomy and boundaries were not associated with the subsequent qualities of the tie. Prior research on mothers and daughters has found that problems involving exclusion and criticism or intrusion were associated with conflict in the relationship (Fingerman, 1996). Similarly, theory regarding in-law ties led us to expect that anticipating such problems would predict poorer relationships (Morr Serewicz & Hosmer, 2011). Findings from this study suggest that anticipated problems extending to the larger family (e.g. divided loyalties, mentioning other people) may be more indicative of future conflict. Individuals may master the ability to deal with boundaries of their dyadic tie, but the larger constellation of family members Limitations and Future Directions The study is limited in several respects. The challenges of recruiting four family members in the throes of planning a wedding were daunting, and people who participated may represent a biased group, favorably inclined towards their in-laws. Likewise, the sample was homogenous. The scant literature on in-law ties suggests patterns differ across racial and cultural groups. For example, ties to mothers-in-law are highly valued in Black families (Goodwin, 2003; Veroff, Douvan, & Hatchett, 1995). In-law relationships also may vary by other demographic factors such as economic status. Future studies should attempt to capture a broader cross-section of the population. Further, father-in-laws deserve attention in future research because findings indicate that gender of the parent-in-law affects this tie (Willson et al., 2003). In sum, this study added a unique perspective by assessing in-law relationships before and after the wedding and using all four family members’ perspectives. Findings revealed that the relationship between mothers-in-law and children-in-law may not be as conflict-ridden or difficult as media stereotypes. There were also fewer differences between daughters-in-law and sons-in-law than expected. Moreover, in general, early positive relationship dimensions were associated with more positive and fewer negative relationship qualities after the marriage. Expectations of the future tie were less important for the future relationship than the actual early qualities of the tie. Nonetheless, anticipating certain problems were associated with increased conflict with in-laws. Thus, it is important for scholars to consider the relationship of in-laws before and after a wedding to understand how a tie unfolds over time. Acknowledgement This study was funded by the Berner Hanley Scholar Fund and the Center on Aging and the Life Course at Purdue University and by R01AG027769 from the National Institute on Aging. Contributor Information Karen L. Fingerman, University of Texas at Austin. Megan Gilligan, Purdue University. Laura VanderDrift, Purdue University. Lindsay Pitzer, University of Notre Dame. References * Adams RG, Blieszner R. Older adult friendship patterns and mental health. Washington, D.C.: Final Report to the AARP Andrus Foundation; 1993. [Google Scholar] * Bengtson VL, Kuypers JA. Generational difference and the developmental stake. International Journal of Aging and Human Development. 1971;2:249–260. [Google Scholar] * Berscheid E, Snyder M, Omoto AM. Measuring closeness: The relationship closeness inventory (RCI) revisited. In: Mashek DJ, Aron AP, editors. Handbook of closeness and intimacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004. pp. 81–101. [Google Scholar] * Bryant CM, Conger RD, Meehan JM. The influence of in-laws on change in marital success. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2001;63:614–626. [Google Scholar] * Duvall E. In-laws: Pro and con. New York: Associated Press; 1954. [Google Scholar] * Eagly AH, Eastwick PW, Johannesen-Schmidt M. Possible selves in marital roles: The impact of the anticipated division of labor on the mate preferences of women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2009;35:403–414. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] * Fingerman KL. Sources of tension in the aging mother and adult daughter relationship. Psychology and Aging. 1996;11:591–606. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] * Fingerman KL. Aging mothers and their adult daughters: A study in mixed emotions. New York: Springer; 2001. [Google Scholar] * Fingerman K. The role of offspring and in-laws in grandparents’ ties to their grandchildren. Journal of Family Issues. 2004;25:1026–1049. [Google Scholar] * Fingerman KL, Bermann E. Applications of family systems theory to the study of adulthood. International Journal of Aging and Human Development. 2000;51:5–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] * Fingerman KL, Buckser A, Turiano NA. Holidays and relationships. In: Reis HT, Sprecher SK, editors. Encyclopedia of human relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009. [Google Scholar] * Fingerman KL, Hay EL. Searching under the streetlight? Age biases in the personal and family relationships literature. Personal Relationships. 2002;9:415–433. [Google Scholar] * Fischer LR. Mothers and mothers-in-law. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1983;45:187–192. [Google Scholar] * Foa UG, Foa EB. Societal structures of the mind. Oxford, England: Charles C. Thomas; 1974. [Google Scholar] * Goodwin PY. African American and European American women’s marital well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003;65:550–560. [Google Scholar] * Henretta JC, Grundy E, Harris S. The influence of socio-economic and health differences on parents’ provision of help to adult children: A British-United States comparison. Aging & Society. 2002;22:441–458. [Google Scholar] * Huston TL, Caughlin JP, Houts RM, Smith SE, George LJ. The Connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delights, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;80:237–252. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] * Kivett VR. Mother-in-law and daughter-in-law relations. In: Mancini JA, editor. Aging parents and adult offspring. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1989. pp. 17–32. [Google Scholar] * Laurenceau JR, Barrett LF, Pietromoaco PR. Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998;74:1238–1251. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] * Lawton L, Silverstein M, Bengtson V. Affection, social contact, and geographic distance between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1994;56:57–68. [Google Scholar] * Lee E, Spitze G, Logan RJ. Social support to parents-in-law: The interplay of gender and kin hierarchies. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2003;65:396–403. [Google Scholar] * Levy BR, Chung P, Canavan M. Impact of explanatory style and age stereotypes on health across the lifespan. In: Fingerman KL, Berg C, Smith J, Antonucci TC, editors. Handbook of lifespan development. New York: Springer Publishers; 2011. pp. 437–456. [Google Scholar] * Lopata HZ. In-laws and the concept of family. Marriage and Family Review. 1999;28:161–172. [Google Scholar] * Markus H, Nurius Possible selves. American Psychologist. 1986;41:954–969. [Google Scholar] * Martini TS, Grusec JE, Bernardini SC. Effects of interpersonal control, perspective taking, and attributions on older mothers’ and daughters’ satisfaction with their helping relationships. Journal of Family Psychology. 2001;15:688–705. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] * Merrill DM. Mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law: Understanding the relationship and what makes them friends or foe. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers; 2007. [Google Scholar] * Morr Serewicz MC. The difficulties of in-law relationships. In: Kirkpatrick DC, Duck S, Foley M, editors. In Relating difficulty: The processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006. pp. 101–118. [Google Scholar] * Morr Serewicz MC, Hosmer RA. In-laws or outlaws: The dark and the bright in in-law relationships. In: Cupach WR, Spitzberg B, editors. The dark side of close relationships II. New York: Routledge; 2011. pp. 217–242. [Google Scholar] * Newsom JT, Nishishiba M, Morgan DL, Rook KS. Development of new comparable measures of negative and positive social exchanges. Washington, DC. Paper presented at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America.Nov, 2000. [Google Scholar] * Prentice C. The assimilation of in-laws: The assimilation of newcomers on the communication routines of families. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 2008;36:74–97. [Google Scholar] * Rittenour C, Soliz J. Relational dimensions of shared family identity and relational intentions in mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationships: Developing a conceptual model for mother-in-law/daughter-in-law research. Western Journal of Communication. 2009;73:67–90. [Google Scholar] * Santos JD, Levitt MJ. Intergenerational relations with in-laws in the context of the social convoy: Theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Social Issues. 2007;63:827–843. [Google Scholar] * Sechrist J, Suitor JJ, Kim S, Pillemer K. Manscript under review. 2011. Relationships with children-in-law and the quality of intergenerational relations. [Google Scholar] * Sprecher S, Felmlee D. Romantic partners’ perceptions of social network attributes with the passage of Time and relationship transitions. Personal Relationships. 2000;7:325–340. [Google Scholar] * Timmer SG, Veroff J. Family ties and the discontinuity of divorce in black and white newlywed couples. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2000;62:349–361. [Google Scholar] * Turner JM, Young CR, Black KI. Daughters-in law and mothers-in-law seeking their place within the family: A qualitative study of differing viewpoints. Family Relations. 2006;55:588–600. [Google Scholar] * Veroff J, Douvan E, Hatchett S. Marital instability: A social and behavioral study of the early years. Greenwhich, CT: Greeenwood; 1995. [Google Scholar] * Willson AE, Shuey KM, Elder GH. Ambivalence in the relationship of adult children to aging parents and in-laws. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003;65:1055–1072. [Google Scholar] Formats: * Article | * PubReader | * ePub (beta) | * PDF (311K) | * Citation Share * Share on Facebook Facebook * Share on Twitter Twitter * Share on Google Plus Google+ Support Center Support Center External link. Please review our privacy policy. NLM NIH DHHS USA.gov National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD, 20894 USA Policies and Guidelines | Contact statistics