Communicative Predictors of a Shared Family Identity: Comparison of Grandchildrenâ•Žs Perceptions of Family-of-Origin Grandparents and Stepgrandparents

From an intergroup perspective on family relationships, the current study investigates family-oforigin grandparents and stepgrandparents to determine similarities and differences in communication and relational dimensions. Participants (N = 88) completed questionnaires on family-of-origin grandparents and stepgrandparent relationships. From the perspective of young adult grandchildren, the research explores the role of supportive communication, reciprocal self-disclosure, nonaccommodative communication, and parental encouragement in predicting a sense of shared family identity with each grandparent type. Results are discussed in terms of implications for intergroup research, grandparent-grandchild communication, and stepfamily relationships. Family communication scholars have long-realized that the notion of a “traditional family” fails to capture the actual variety of family forms and relationships existing in today’s society and, therefore, are now focusing their attention on understudied family forms or relationships (Floyd & Morman, 2006). Two family forms that are receiving increased S O L I Z , J O U R N A L O F F A M I L Y C O M M U N I C A T I O N 7 (2 0 0 7 ) 2 attention are stepfamily relationships (e.g., Afifi & Schrodt, 2003; Braithwaite, Olson, Golish, Soukup, & Turman, 2001; Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2004; Golish & Caughlin, 2002) and grandparent-grandchild relationships (e.g., Harwood, 2000; Lin & Harwood, 2003; Soliz & Harwood, 2006). In both cases, social and demographic trends show that these are common family forms. Bumpass, Ralley, & Sweet (1995) claim that approximately 30% of children will live with stepparents and/or stepsiblings (Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2004). Likewise, the aging of the “baby boomer” population and the increased life span of older adults has resulted in more intergenerational family relationships than in the past (Hetzel & Smith, 2000; Mares, 1995). Logically, an increase in stepfamilies coupled with an increase in grandparent relationships suggests that stepgrandparent relationships are becoming more common in families (Szinovacz, 1998a). Hence, the current study merges these two areas of family scholarship. From an intergroup perspective, the research explores specific communicative dimensions of this family dyad that are associated with perceptions of a shared family identity to gain a better understanding of family-of-origin grandparent and stepgrandparent relationships. Intergroup Perspective on Family Relationships Based on the tenets of Social Identity Theory and Communication Accommodation Theory, an intergroup perspective highlights the notion that our interactions are influenced by personal characteristics as well as more extensive social group orientations (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation; Harwood & Giles, 2005). In other words, communication is often times influenced by intergroup distinctions emerging from our categorization of the social world into ingroups and outgroups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Gaertner and Dovidio’s (2000) Common Ingroup Identity Model (CIIM) is an appropriate framework for situating families in this intergroup perspective as it argues that negative aspects of intergroup interaction may be ameliorated through (re)conceptualizing the intergroup context as intragroup by focusing on a shared (i.e., common ingroup) identity. For example, the discrimination that often taints interracial/ethnic interactions may be reduced if the interaction is reconceptualized as intragroup (e.g., “we are all Americans”). In family relationships, the “family” serves as a common ingroup identity and is, perhaps, “the most salient ingroup category in the lives of individuals” (Lay et al., 1998, p. 434). However, family relationships may also be characterized as intergroup when interactions are influenced by divergent social orientations (e.g., relationships between older and younger family members, interethnic and interfaith family relationships). Hence, perceptions of a shared family identity represent family relationships in which intergroup distinctions are minimized. For example, Banker and Gaertner (1998) address family as a common ingroup identity by exploring the relationship between categorization of stepfamily members (e.g., “us/them” vs. “we”) and stepfamily harmony. The nature of contact between ingroup-outgroup members is recognized as a facilitating condition for (re)conceptualizing a common ingroup identity (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). However, contact has typically been oversimplified in its conceptualization (e.g., positivenegative interaction, favorable-unfavorable contact). Hence, a more complex view of the communication is important for understanding the process of categorization in intergroup contact. S O L I Z , J O U R N A L O F F A M I L Y C O M M U N I C A T I O N 7 (2 0 0 7 ) 3 Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) has been the dominant theory guiding research on intergroup interactions (Williams & Harwood, 2004) as it takes into account the role of social identities in influencing behaviors of conversational partners. In general, CAT focuses on the manner in which individuals adjust communication to appropriately accommodate the perceived needs of their conversational partner whether they alter communication in excess of what is desired (i.e., overaccommodate), or whether they fail to adjust communication to the needs or desired of their conversational partner (i.e., underaccommodate). Appropriate accommodation is associated with more satisfying relationship and its theoretically indicative of a more personalized approach where group differences are not salient. On the other hand, over and under accommodation are more reflective of group-based distinctions (e.g., young adult-older adult) as the intergroup nature of the relationships is salient. Hence, in the family, accommodative behaviors are more strongly associated with a shared family identity whereas nonaccommodative behaviors are representative of outgroup distinction (Soliz & Harwood, 2006). Both stepfamily relationships and grandparent-grandchild relationships must manage intergroup categorizations for positive relationships. For stepfamilies, many of the barriers to developing a sense of a collective family stem from an “us vs. them” distinction (Banker & Gaertner, 1998). Similarly, grandparent-grandchild relationships may be hindered by perceived age difference in the relationship (Harwood, Hewstone, Paolini, & Voci, 2005). Hence, stepgrandparent relationships may be characterized by multiple levels of distinction (i.e., stepfamily vs. family-of-origin family, young adult vs. older adult). Grandparent-Grandchild Relationships Despite research demonstrating the various types and roles of grandparenting (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1986; Szinovacz, 1998b), societal perceptions of grandparent-grandchild relationships have been fairly static, most likely due to an influence of stereotypical representations of grandparents (Hummert, Garstka, Shaner, & Strahm, 1994). Moreover, compared to other family relationships, grandparent-grandchild relationships have been relatively understudied (Soliz, Anderson, Lin, & Harwood, 2006). However, this family relationship is important considering that, aside from parents, grandparents may be the most influential family member in the lives of children and young adults (Kornhaber, 1985). Specifically, the grandparent plays an important role in the lives of the grandchildren in terms of passing down family history, introducing family identity, transmitting values and beliefs, reinforcing cultural/ethnic or religious identity, providing emotional and financial support, and/or serving as a primary caregiver to grandchildren (Block, 2002; Brussoni & Boon, 1998; Cogswell & Henry, 1995; Hayslip & Kaminski, 2005; Kornhaber & Woodward, 1981; Wiscott & Kopera-Frye, 2000). However, grandparents and grandchildren must overcome challenges unique to this specific relationship (see Soliz et al., 2006). Perhaps the most significant barrier to quality grandparent-grandchild relationships is age. Specifically, for young adults, the age difference may play an important role as relationships with grandparents who “seem old” (i.e., age is salient in interactions) are typically more negative than relationships where age is not a factor. Within the framework of an intergroup perspective on families, age represents S O L I Z , J O U R N A L O F F A M I L Y C O M M U N I C A T I O N 7 (2 0 0 7 ) 4 an outgroup distinction whereas a perceived sense of shared family identity represents an intragroup categorization of the relationship. Not surprisingly, age salience and shared family identity have been shown to be negatively related in previous research on grandparentgrandchild relationships (Soliz & Harwood, 2006). The intergroup perspective has been used as a framework for understanding the grandparent-grandchild relationship by applying CAT to investigate the communicative aspects associated with overcoming the age barriers to create a sense of shared family identity. The following discussion highlights important communicative dimensions of the grandparentgrandchild relationship. Supportive communication and reciprocal self-disclosure Within the framework of CAT, perceptions of appropriate accommodation from grandparents are related to satisfaction in these interactions (Harwood & Williams, 1998; Williams & Giles, 1996). Both supportive communication and reciprocal self-disclosure are theoretically representative of accommodating communication. In any personal relationship, the role of supportive interaction is not only important in the everyday coping but also to the development and maintenance of that relationship (Burleson, 1990; Leatham & Duck, 1990). Within the context of the grandparent-grandchild relationship, social support has emerged as a key characteristic in classifying styles of grandparenting (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1985; Neugarten & Weinstein, 1964). In addition to providing wisdom and knowledge (Kivnick, 1981), grandchildren turn to grandparents for financial support (Block, 2002), emotional support (Sanders & Trygstad, 1993), and as “sounding boards” concerning stressful events (Block, 2002; Kennedy, 1992) and during family strife (Cogswell & Henry, 1995; Findler, 2000). Likewise, from a relational standpoint, self-disclosure is an important dimension in relational development (Altman & Taylor, 1987) and closeness (Berg & Archer, 1983; Parker & Gottman, 1989; Rubin & Shenker, 1978). In terms of a shared family identity, both supportive communication and reciprocal selfdisclosure are person-centered communication styles which were shown, in the previous research, to be strongly associated with relational satisfaction as well as strong predictors of a shared family identity (Soliz & Harwood, 2006). In other words, supportive communication and reciprocal self-disclosure are associated with interactions where intergroup salience is minimal and the interactions are operating under a common ingroup identity— in this case, a shared family identity. Nonaccommodation Under and over accommodation are communication styles typically associated with negative perceptions of the interaction (Harwood & Williams, 1998). Overaccommodation is highlighted by a patronizing style of communication on the part of the grandparent (e.g., treating the grandchild like a “little kid”). Meanwhile, underaccommodation is characterized by failure to appropriately adjust communication styles to the needs or desires of the grandchildren (e.g., complaining about health). Nonaccommodative communication can S O L I Z , J O U R N A L O F F A M I L Y C O M M U N I C A T I O N 7 (2 0 0 7 ) 5 create social distance between individuals and, thus, is associated with group distinctiveness. Hence, grandparent nonaccommodation may make age salient in that the grandchild attributes this more negative communication to age differences. Parental encouragement Parents typically encourage grandchildren to communicate and maintain relationships with their grandparents although the role of parental encouragement in stepgrandparent relationship is not as clear. From an intergroup perspective, parental encouragement is indicative of “institutional support” (Allport, 1954), an important factor in transcending intergroup differences. Accordingly, parental encouragement has been shown to be positively associated with relational satisfaction as well as predicting a sense of shared family identity with the grandparent (Soliz & Harwood, 2006). Research on accommodating behavior in grandparent-grandchild relationships has focused exclusively on family-of-origin grandparents or did not specifically differentiate between these grandparents and stepgrandparents. Hence, we know little about the communicative and relational dynamics of stepgrandparent relationships. Stepgrandparents and shared family identity Research on stepfamilies has focused on how family members manage relational issues and stepfamily development (Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2004). This line of research has increased our understanding of stepfamily development (Braithwaite et al., 2001), challenges stepfamilies face and strategies for overcoming the challenges (Golish, 2003), uncertainty and topic avoidance in stepfamily interactions (Afifi & Schrodt, 2003; Golish & Caughlin, 2002), communication and coparenting in the family (Braithwaite, McBride, & Schrodt, 2003), and dialectical tensions in stepparent-stepchild relationships (Baxter, Braithwaite, Bryant, & Wagner, 2004). Braithwaite and colleagues (2001) summarize some of the unique challenges. Issues of solidarity and loyalty to family-of-origin, lack of family history with stepfamily members, feelings of loss or guilt toward noncustodial parents, and parental pressure to “become a family” are all barriers to connection and closeness with stepfamily members. The negative implication of failing to overcome these barriers is evidenced by the fact that stepfamilies relationships may not be as close as relationships between family-of-origin members (Fine, Voydanoff, & Donnelly, 1993; Kurdek & Fine, 1991). Hence, achieving a sense of shared family identity is a challenge most stepfamilies must face (Golish, 2003). Much of the research on stepfamilies has focused on the immediate family (i.e., parentchild) because most stepfamily interactions take place within this family context. However, as stepgrandparents are becoming more common, family researchers should also turn their attention to the grandparent-grandchild relationship in stepfamilies as grandparents play a significant role in grandchildren’s lives. The stepgrandparent is a unique family figure in that he or she represents two potential intergroup barriers—age salience and stepfamily distinction—to achieving a shared family identity. As research on grandparent-grandchild relationship has shown, age (and, therefore, age salience) is communicatively negotiable (Harwood, Giles, & Ryan, 1995) in that this barrier can be overcome to develop a sense of shared family identity. Likewise, these S O L I Z , J O U R N A L O F F A M I L Y C O M M U N I C A T I O N 7 (2 0 0 7 ) 6 same communicative behaviors should also alleviate challenges and barriers associated with the intergroup distinction of family-of-origin vs. stepfamily. Although not specifically positioned in the intergroup approach, much of the research on stepfamilies centers on the role of communication in achieving family solidarity, or a shared family identity. If supportive communication, reciprocal self-disclosure, and parental encouragement alleviate age-based distinctions in family-of-origin grandparents, they should play a similar role in alleviating barriers associated with stepfamilies. In other words, in comparing family-of-origin grandparents and stepgrandparents, we would expect to see the similar trends in the role of supportive communication, reciprocal self-disclosure, and parental encouragement in predicting shared family identity. H1: For family-of-origin grandparents and stepgrandparents, perceptions of grandparent supportive communication, reciprocal self-disclosure, and parental encouragement are positively associated with shared family identity. In a similar vein, we would also expect nonaccommodative communication to operate in a similar manner. H2: For family-of-origin grandparents and stepgrandparents, grandparent nonaccommodative communication is negatively associated with shared family identity. Although it is expected that these communicative behaviors will predict shared family identity in similar patterns across family-of-origin and stepgrandparent relationships, it is unclear as to: (a) whether there are significant differences between these grandparent types, and (b) the degree to which shared family identity can be reached. In terms of the latter point, one possibility is that, regardless of the type of communication present in the relationship, there will always be a stronger sense of shared family identity with familyof-origin grandparents. On the other hand, one could argue that, because stepgrandparent relationships are not as clearly “defined,” the type of communication will play a more significant role in predicting shared family identity. Therefore the following research questions are put forth: RQ1: Is there a difference between family-of-origin grandparents and stepgrandparents in perceptions of supportive communication, reciprocal selfdisclosure, parental encouragement, nonaccommodative communication, and shared family identity? RQ2: Is there a difference between family-of-origin grandparents and stepgrandparents in the predictive value of communicative dimensions on perceptions of a shared family identity? S O L I Z , J O U R N A L O F F A M I L Y C O M M U N I C A T I O N 7 (2 0 0 7 )