This article was downloaded by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries]On: 09 October 2014, At: 13:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Divorce & RemarriagePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjdr20

Personal, Familial, and Systemic FactorsAssociated with Family Belonging forStepfamily AdolescentsValerie Stephens Leake aa Department of Education and Counseling Psychology, 251-A DickeyHall , University of Kentucky , Lexington, KY, 40506, USAPublished online: 25 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Valerie Stephens Leake (2007) Personal, Familial, and Systemic Factors Associatedwith Family Belonging for Stepfamily Adolescents, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 47:1-2, 135-155,DOI: 10.1300/J087v47n01_08

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J087v47n01_08

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Personal, Familial, and Systemic FactorsAssociated with Family Belonging

for Stepfamily Adolescents

Valerie Stephens Leake

ABSTRACT. While many in the social sciences agree that satisfyingthe need to belong is crucial to the identity formation of adolescents, anddomain-specific, such as with school or family settings, little is knownabout differing levels of family belonging with those in family structuresoutside the cultural norm of the two-parent biological family. Indeed,though prevalent, little is known about what factors are associatedwith level of family belonging for stepfamily adolescents. The currentstudy tested the association of characteristics in various contexts onstepfamily adolescents’ level of family belonging. Participants were stu-dents from high schools and undergraduate university classes in a smallMidwestern city (n = 60). Factors examined included level of familybelonging, the personal characteristics of the adolescent’s age and gender,familial characteristics of stepfamily type, presence of stepsiblings, andsystemic factors such as interfamilial relationships and contact with thenon-residential biological parent. Hierarchical multiple regression anal-ysis was conducted with results indicating that relationship quality withbiological and stepparents accounted for 57% of the variance in levelof family belonging. doi:10.1300/J087v47n01_08 [Article copies availablefor a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH.E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

Valerie Stephens Leake is a Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Educationand Counseling Psychology, 251-A Dickey Hall, University of Kentucky, Lexington,KY 40506.

Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 47(1/2) 2007Available online at http://jdr.haworthpress.com

© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J087v47n01_08 135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

KEYWORDS. Stepfamilies, family belonging, assessment of familybelonging

INTRODUCTION

Feeling a sense of belonging, feeling that one is cared for, accepted,understood, and fits in with some group or system, is essential to theconstruction of a sense of identity, an important developmental taskfor people generally, and for adolescents in particular (Erikson, 1964).For most, the first experience of belonging, or perhaps not belonging,takes place in the family because the family is, as Mikesell and col-leagues note, “the primary context of human experience from the cradleto the grave” (1995, p. xiii). For many, the feeling of belonging withinthe family may seem natural, while for families in transition such asstepfamilies, developing the feeling of belonging may be a more diffi-cult, but necessary task (Visher & Visher, 2000).

Many stepfamilies are found in the United States, with more beingformed every day. The transition to stepfamily living may be challeng-ing for all involved, but this shift appears to be even more difficult foradolescents (Bray & Berger, 1993). Indeed, adolescents in stepfamiliesappear to be at somewhat higher risk for negative outcomes when com-pared with those residing in biological families (Thomson, Hanson, &McLanahan, 1994). As some researchers credit family belonging as aprotective factor from risky behaviors (Resnick et al., 1997), the lack ofresearch to date on stepfamily adolescents and family belonging issomewhat surprising. Working from a systemic perspective, the currentstudy examined factors related to the different contexts of stepfamilyadolescents, factors found within the adolescent, within the stepfamily,and outside the stepfamily, and the relationship of these factors to thestepfamily adolescents’ levels of family belonging. The overall goal ofthe study was to better understand not only stepfamily adolescentsspecifically, but also stepfamilies in general.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Stepfamilies and Adolescents

Stepfamilies have been a salient family form throughout history in theUnited States (Coontz, 1995). According to Bumpass, Raley and Sweetin 1995, stepfamilies nationally comprised approximately one-fourth of

136 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

families with children. The Stepfamily Association of America (SAA)estimates that about 65% of remarriages include children from prior mar-riages, forming stepfamilies (SAA, 2003). Increased study of a familyform that affects a significant proportion of American children is a prior-ity that is called for by numerous researchers (Cherlin & Furstenberg,1994; Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2000; Jones, 2003). While adolescencehas been viewed as a sensitive period for stepfamilies (Hetherington &Jodl, 1994), it also appears to be a particularly difficult time for childrento adapt to stepfamily living with behavior problems tending to reoccurwhen stepchildren enter adolescence (Bray & Berger, 1993). These diffi-culties have been attributed to the divergence between the developmentallevel of the adolescent, who is attempting to individuate and developan identity separate from the family, and the developmental level ofthe stepfamily, which particularly in early years, tends to urge morecloseness and greater belonging (Bray, 2001). Whatever the reasons, re-searchers and professionals working with stepfamilies should seek an in-creased understanding of how adolescents see themselves in terms ofbelonging to their stepfamilies. This understanding may be importantboth in the prevention and treatment of not only the individual problemsof stepfamily adolescents, but also those of their stepfamilies.

Risk Factors

While some researchers have downplayed the role of family structurein lowered well-being for adolescents (see Demo & Acock, 1996 orHetherington, Bridges, & Insabella, 1998), most of the extant literaturehas associated stepfamily membership with poorer outcomes for ado-lescents, usually decreased well-being (Thomson et al., 1994), increasedrisk of psychopathology (O’Connor, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1998), andof experiencing more problems (Demo, 1997). Remarriage has beenimplicated in adolescents’ increased risk for substance use (Needle &Su, 1990), for smoking (Scal, Ireland, & Borowsky, 2003), for juveniledelinquency (Coughlin & Vuchinich, 1996), and for association withdelinquent peers (Kim, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999). Barber and Lyons(1994) found stepfamily adolescents to be more depressed, worried, andhave lower self-esteem than those in biological families. The “stepfamilyeffect” has appeared in the academic realm for adolescents as well, withadolescents in stepfamilies reported to have lower grade-point averages,fewer expectations for attending college, and poorer school attendance(Astone & McLanahan, 1991) as well as lower scores on achievementtests (Pong, 1997). Because stepfamily adolescents have appeared to be

Valerie Stephens Leake 137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

at particular risk for negative outcomes across numerous domains, ef-forts to determine factors that may contribute to greater resiliency andhigher associations with positive outcomes, such as family belonging,for this population are necessary.

Belonging

The term “belonging” became prominent within the hierarchy ofneeds theorized by Maslow (1970) who described belonging needs as aperson’s “hunger for contact, for intimacy, for belongingness” and threat-ened “maladjustment and more severe pathology” (p. 44) when theseneeds remained unmet. Belonging was defined by Goodenow (1992) asa “reciprocal social network” and as “the feeling of being included, ac-cepted, and valued” (p. 185). Baumeister and Leary (1995) denoted be-longing as “a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimumquantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships”where frequency of interactions are coupled with a stable mutual rela-tionship (p. 497), in a review of the empirical literature on belonging.Recent findings with regard to belonging seem domain-specific, focus-ing on school or family belonging (see Anderman & Freeman, 2004;King, Vidourek, Davis, & McClellan, 2002 or Osterman, 2000, forexample). Research in the domain related to belonging and families,however, has not kept up with research on belonging in schools. Resnicket al. (1997) demonstrated the protective nature of higher levels of schooland family belonging for adolescents, finding that level of familyconnectedness explained 15% of the variance in the adolescents’ emo-tional distress.

Risks of Unfulfilled Belonging. Recent research has implicated theunfulfilled need for belonging in negative effects for individuals and forsociety. Huffine (2004) lists fragmented familial ties as a factor in youthviolence, particularly school shootings. Anderman and Freeman (2004)stated that not all outcomes of fulfilling the need for belonging are posi-tive ones. Affiliation with deviant peers is highly correlated with the ini-tiation and increase of adolescent substance use (Wills & Yaeger, 2003;Wills et al., 2001). Clark (1992) also noted an increased tendency of ad-olescents who lack a sense of belonging in other contexts to embrace de-viant subcultures such as Satanism, neo-Nazism, and violent gangmembership, findings echoed by Curtis and Curtis (1993) with regard toreligious cults, and Turpin-Petrosino (2002) with regard to hate groups.Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that when healthy family andsocial relationships are not present, the thwarted need for belonging

138 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

may steer youth into associations with groups like cults, gangs and hategroups with negative implications for themselves and society.

Family Belonging. Family belonging, sometimes referred to as fam-ily connectedness or family cohesiveness, is considered to be one of themost significant protective factors keeping adolescents from risk-takingbehaviors (Resnick et al., 1997). Adolescents’ sense of feeling close to,of being understood by, of feeling satisfied with and of feeling caredabout in their familial relationships appears to be a factor in protectingadolescents from tobacco use (Scal et al., 2003) and suicide (Borowsky,Ireland, & Resnick, 2001). But while family belonging may be consid-ered a protective factor for adolescents in general, those in stepfamiliesare seen as more disengaged from their families than those in biologicalfamilies, particularly from their stepparents (Hetherington & Jodl, 1994).Stepfamilies are also thought to exhibit lower levels of cohesion than bi-ological families (Bray, 1995; Pink & Wampler, 1985). To date, littleresearch has been conducted that has focused specifically on adoles-cents’ feelings of belonging in stepfamilies, and the factors that mayinfluence such feelings.

Systemic Perspective

From a systemic perspective, the various systems within and outsidethe family, have effects on both the individuals and on the family it-self (Pinsof, 1992). Individual characteristics such as age and genderof the adolescent, familial characteristics such as type of stepfamily andpresence of stepsiblings, and other influences such as intra- and extra-familial relationships such as between adolescent and resident parentsand adolescent and non-resident parent may have interwoven effects onone another and on the adolescent’s feelings of family belonging. Asyet, in terms of a greater understanding of family belonging, these char-acteristics are unexplored.

Age and Gender. Some researchers indicate that gender and age differ-ences exist in stepchild outcomes. Bray (1999) found gender differencesin adolescent adjustment and family functioning, and individual child-stepparent relationships (Bray, 1995). Hetherington, Cox, and Cox (1985)found that remarriage appeared to cause more disruption to girls’ livesthan boys’ lives, while Bray and Kelly (1998) found improvement inachievement test scores only for boys in stepfamilies. Some research hasimplicated differential “stepfamily effects” by gender including a higherincidence of early home-leaving for girls (Aquilino, 1991), greater risk ofearly delinquency for boys (Coughlin & Vuchinich, 1996), and earlier

Valerie Stephens Leake 139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

and greater substance use for girls, but fewer substance use consequencesfor boys (Needle & Su, 1990). Extant research tends to support differencesin stepfamily adolescents according to age as well. Bray (1995) postu-lates that adolescent development within stepfamilies generally is morefraught with problems than within stepfamilies with younger children dueto clashes between the differing developmental need of the stepfamily tofoster cohesion and the need of the adolescent to individuate from the fa-milial unit. Baer (2002) found decreases in family cohesion as adolescentsgrew older, and Cooksey and Fondell (1996) found differing academicoutcomes not only for preteens who live with stepfathers and stepsiblings,but also for teenagers living with stepfathers, although not for youngerchildren. Therefore, an adolescent’s gender and age may be significantfactors in level of belonging to the stepfamily.

Stepfamily Type and Stepsibling Presence. As the characteristics ofthe individual influence the development and atmosphere of the familyoverall, so too must the characteristics of the family also influencethe individual adolescent. Currently, the literature appears somewhatdivided as to the effects of type of stepfamily (either stepfather orstepmother family) and the presence or absence of stepsiblings on ado-lescents. Some researchers have found that children in stepfather fami-lies exhibited higher self-esteem rather than in stepmother families(Fine & Kurdeck, 1992) and greater relationship strength between step-fathers and stepchildren as compared with stepmothers and stepchildren(Ambert, 1986). Downey (1995) found more favorable outcomes forchildren in stepfather families in the areas of economic resources, inter-personal parental resources, and educational outcomes. Other studiesshow either mixed results in stepchild well-being outcomes, such asthat by Thomson et al. (1994), or slight or non-existent differences inadjustment between adolescents in stepmother or stepfather families(Coleman & Ganong, 1990; Fine, Kurdek, & Hennigen, 1992). Like-wise, no pervasive trend appears in extant literature as to whether thepresence of stepsiblings has either the same positive effect as the pres-ence of biological siblings or is an increased irritant in stepfamily lifefor adolescents. In general, siblings are thought to act as socializingagents (Kahn & Bank, 1980) and contributors to identity formation forone another (Dunn, 1983), as well as arbiters and upholders of familynorms (Ihinger-Tallman, 1987). Hetherington et al. (1999) noted theimportance of stepsiblings as a factor in family functioning and adoles-cent adjustment to their stepfamilies. However, Mekos, Hetherington,and Reiss (1996) found differential parenting and problem behaviorswere greater if siblings did not share a biological father, and Coleman

140 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

and Ganong (1993) found children to have fewer positive interactionswith stepsiblings than with other siblings. Therefore, stepfamily typeand the presence of stepsiblings may be other important factors relatedto family belonging for stepfamily adolescents.

Relationship with Resident and Non-Resident Parents. While step-families are affected by personal and familial characteristics of theadolescent and his/her stepfamily, stepfamilies also are affected by in-teractions occurring internally within the stepfamily and with systemsoutside the stepfamily as well (Visher & Visher, 2000). Previous re-search has established the centrality of individual relationships withinthe family to the happiness of the whole family (Crosbie-Burnett,1984). Additional studies by Quick, Newman, and McKenry (1995)found reciprocal effects of family process variables on relationshipsbetween stepmothers and stepchildren for both. For stepparents, somesmall effects on the number of home activities and number of positiveresponses toward stepchildren have been attributed to the amount andquality of stepchildren’s contact with their non-resident biologicalparent (Thomson & McLanahan, 1992). Gunnoe and Hetherington(2004) reported better adjustment and greater perceived social support forchildren who had more contact with their non-custodial mothers. Pre-vious research has emphasized nonresident fathers’ continued contactwith their children as important to a variety of positive outcomes,including fewer problem behaviors (Amato & Rivera, 1999), andimproved relationships (Arditti & Keith, 1993) while others foundfew effects on the child’s behavior (Jacobson, 1987) or well-being(Furstenberg, Morgan, & Allison, 1987). Yet others note negativeeffects, such as Hetherington and Jodl (1994) where increasedcontact with non-custodial mothers was implicated in difficulties inestablishing positive stepchild-stepmother relationships. In short, re-searchers have not assessed definitively how frequency of contactwith the non-resident biological parent is related to the adolescent’sfeelings toward his or her stepfamily, though some effects wouldbe expected.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were drawn from a larger study recruited from two highschools and undergraduate classes at the local university in a mid-size

Valerie Stephens Leake 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Midwestern city. After obtaining informed consent, participants anony-mously completed the survey packet containing a demographics sheet, ahousehold roster, a measure of time spent with the non-residential bio-logical parent and a family belonging questionnaire.

Stepfamily sample. A sub-sample of stepfamily adolescents was se-lected by the endorsement by the adolescent within the Demographicssection that he or she lived in a stepfamily or with a person designated as“stepmother” or “stepfather.” In the stepfamily sample (n = 60), 75.0%were female and had a mean age of 16.7 years (SD = 1.69). 73.3% wereWhite, 18.3% were African American, 1.7% were Hispanic, 1.7% wereAsian American or Pacific Islander, and 1.7% were American Indian.3.3% of participants identified themselves as “other.” High school stu-dents made up 65.0% of the stepfamily sample. 81.7% lived in stepfatherstepfamilies, 18.3% had stepmother stepfamilies, and of these 26.7% hadboth stepfather and stepmother stepfamilies. 26.3% had stepsiblings. Asexpected, the majority of respondents lived in stepfather families, but sur-prisingly, few respondents had stepsiblings (see Table 1).

Measures

Family Belonging Scale-Revised. The Family Belonging Scale-Revised(FBS-R) (Leake, 2003), a 10-item measure of family belonging wasadministered to the participants. Questions pertained to the participants’perceptions of their families’ closeness to, warmth with, acceptance of,and understanding of the participant, as well as the participant’s per-ception of his or her fit within the family. The responses were coded ona Likert-type scale with scores ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 representing“Not at all” and 5 representing “Very much.” The mean of all items onthe FBS-R represented the level of family belonging, ranging from 1 to5, where higher scores indicated a higher level of family belonging.

The original FBS was adapted from the larger Parent-Family Conn-ectedness Scale from the National Longitudinal Study of AdolescentHealth (ADD Health), a scale with acceptable construct validity (Sievinget al., 2001; Borowsky et al., 2001), acceptable internal reliability of .76to.83 for the full sample (Borowsky et al., 2001), and good reliability of.81to.84 with specific populations (Sieving et al., 2001). The FBS-Rcontains additional items referring to acceptance and developmentalfit (Leake, 2003, 2004) that exhibited face- and construct-validity withthe existing literature on belonging (Goodenow, 1993; Baumeister &Leary, 1995; Maslow, 1970). Coefficient alpha of the FBS-R for thesample within this study was .91.

142 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Demographics. The demographic questionnaire included questionspertaining to the respondent regarding age, and gender of the respon-dent. Gender (GEND) was measured by a single item, coded either0 = male, or 1 = female, and age (AGE) was measured by a single itemranging from 14 to 19 years.

Household roster. The household roster requested that participantslist basic information about the people who resided with them. Gender

Valerie Stephens Leake 143

TABLE 1. Frequency Statistics for Demographic Variables for Stepfamily Sam-ple (n = 60)

Variable n Percentage

Gender

Female 45 75.0

Male 15 25.0

Age in Years

14 4 6.7

15 16 26.7

16 12 20.0

17 6 10.0

18 8 13.3

19 14 23.3

Ethnicity

African-American 11 18.3

American Indian 1 1.7

Asian-American 1 1.7

Hispanic 1 1.7

White 44 73.3

Other 2 3.3

More Than One 0 0.0

Primary Family Structure

Stepmother Stepfamily 11 18.3

Stepfather Stepfamily 49 81.7

Educational Level

High School 39 65.0

College 21 35.0

Stepsiblings

Had Stepsiblings 16 26.3

Had No Stepsiblings 44 73.3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

of the stepparent (SFTYPE) was derived from the relationship to anadult in their resident households, coded 1 = stepmother and 0 = stepfa-ther. Presence of stepsiblings (STEPSIBS) was noted if the respondentstated that any members of the household were a “stepbrother” or “step-sister,” coded 0 = no stepsiblings and 1 = presence of stepsiblings.

Parent-adolescent relationship. The Family Belonging question-naire included 2 questions each regarding the adolescent’s closeness toand satisfaction with the biological/adoptive parent and the stepparent.Responses are scored on a 1-5 Likert scale with 1 representing “Not atall” and 5 representing “Very much,” with relationship with the biologi-cal/adoptive parent (BIOPARREL) operationalized as the mean scoreof the 2 items related to this relationship. Relationship with the steppar-ent (STPARREL) also was operationalized as the mean score of the2 items related to relationship to the stepparent (see Table 2). Coefficientalphas for both scales were .90.

Time spent with non-resident biological parent. Time spent with thenon-resident biological parent (NRBPTI) was operationalized as aone-item measure ranging from 1 = Never/less than once per year to 5 =Several times a week/daily.

RESULTS

Analysis

Correlational analysis was performed ensuring that dependent vari-ables were not overly correlated as shown in Table 3. Better relationshipwith the biological/adoptive parent was highly significantly associatedwith higher levels of family belonging (t = .73, p < .001). Also sig-nificantly associated was a better relationship with the stepparent (t = .37,

144 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

TABLE 2. Descriptive Statistics for Selected Demographic, Dependent, andIndependent Variables for Stepfamily Sample

Variable M SD Min. Max. n

BIOPARREL 4.33 .84 1.00 5.00 60

STPARREL 3.51 1.25 1.00 5.00 60

AGE 16.67 1.69 14.00 19.00 60

NRBPTI 6.47 2.78 2.00 10.00 60

FBS-R 3.92 .71 1.00 5.00 60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

p < .001), though not as closely associated as that of the biological parent.Of the personal characteristics of the adolescent, only age was signifi-cantly associated (t = .34, p < .01) indicating that in this study, being olderwas affiliated with higher levels of family belonging. Neither of the fa-milial characteristics was significantly associated, nor was the frequencyof time spent with the non-resident biological parent. However, two ofthe independent variables were significantly related to one another. Hav-ing stepsiblings was negatively associated with frequency of time spentwith the non-resident biological parent (t = �.27, p < .05), indicating thatin this study having a stepsibling was associated with spending less timewith the non-resident parent. All variables and data were examinedand found suitable for multivariate analysis, sample size was adequate(Green, 1991), and residual scores normally distributed.

Using hierarchical multiple regression, in Step 1 the control variablesof the relationship quality between the adolescent and resident biologicalparent and the relationship quality between the adolescent and stepparent,were entered first in order to be consistent with the established literature(Crosbie-Burnett, 1984). Step 2 added personal characteristics of the ado-lescent, namely age and gender. Step 3 added characteristics of the step-family, particularly stepfamily type and whether stepsiblings were present.Finally, Step 4 included amount of time spent with the non- residential bio-logical parent.

Results of the regression as indicated in Table 4, showed that the mostsignificant predictors of level of family belonging were by far the rela-tionship quality between adolescents and their resident parents (p < .001)and their stepparents (p < .01). When taken together, these relationships

Valerie Stephens Leake 145

TABLE 3. Intercorrelations Between Dependent and Independent Variables(n = 60)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. BIOPARREL � .17 .20 �.07 .19 .08 .02 .73**2. STPARREL .17 � .21 �.07 .14 .14 �.16 .37**3. AGE .20 .21 � �.02 .06 .10 .04 .34**4. GEND �.07 �.07 �.02 � .03 .09 .06 �.105. SFTYPE .19 .14 .06 .03 � �.20 .00 .246. STSIBS .08 .14 .10 .09 �.20 � �.27* �.127. NRBPTI .02 �.16 .04 .06 .00 �.27* � �.028. FBS-R .73*** .37*** .34*** �.10 .24 �.12 �.02 �

*p � .05, **p � .01, ***p � .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

accounted for 57% of the variance in level of family belonging in Step 1.In Step 2, neither the adolescent’s age nor the adolescent’s gender was asignificant predictor of the level of family belonging. However, with theaddition of the stepfamily type and the presence of stepsiblings in Step 3,the adolescent’s age became a significant positive predictor of family be-longing (p < .05) while the presence of stepsiblings was a significant neg-ative predictor of family belonging (p < .05). The full model yielded anexplanation of 62% of the variance in level of family belonging for thestepfamily adolescents in this study as indicated in Table 4.

DISCUSSION

Adolescents’ Familial Relationships

In keeping with the research of Crosbie-Burnett (1984) and Quick,Newman, and McKenry (1995), in the current study, the overwhelminglystrongest predictors of higher levels of family belonging for stepfamilyadolescents were the adolescents’ satisfaction with their parental andstep-parental relationships. These findings suggest that the individualrelationships that adolescents in stepfamilies have with their residentparents, both biological and stepparents, have the greatest impact on theadolescents’ feelings of belonging within their stepfamilies.

146 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

TABLE 4. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predict-ing Stepfamily Adolescents’ Level of Perceived Family Belonging (n = 60)

Predictor Beta (Step 1) Beta (Step 2) Beta (Step 3) Beta (Step 4)

BIOPARREL .69*** .66*** .66*** .67***

STPARREL .25** .21** .24** .23**

AGE .16 .18* .18*

GEND �.04 �.02 �.01

SFTYPE .03 .04

STSIBS �.21* �.22*

NRBTI �.06

F 40.60*** 21.81*** 17.07*** 14.55***

Adjusted R2 .57 .59 .62 .62

�R2 .59** .03 .05* .01

*p � .05, **p � .01, ***p � .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Adolescents’ Personal Characteristics

Neither of the personal characteristic variables gender or age alonepredicted level of family belonging for stepfamily adolescents. One in-terpretation may be that as the previous studies finding gender differ-ences are at best 6 to 10 years or more from current, perhaps male andfemale adolescents of today are more similar to one another in attitudesregarding their families than previous cohorts were. Another possibleinterpretation of this finding is that family belonging perhaps cannot beviewed as an outcome-type variable similar to adjustment, family func-tioning, or school achievement, but rather as a moderator for theseoutcomes. More research is needed to explore if female and malestepfamily adolescents are affected by levels of belonging in differentways. With regard to age, in the current study, older adolescents es-poused higher levels of family belonging, but only after controlling forthe familial variables of stepfamily type and presence of stepsiblings.While these results differ from those of Baer (2002) who found de-creases in family cohesion as adolescents grew older, this may be attrib-utable to the differences between constructs. Another interpretationmay be that older adolescents, either those already attending or prepar-ing to enter college, who also do not live with stepsiblings, have higherlevels of family belonging as a result of having the majority of the fam-ily’s attention and resources focused on them alone, consistent withfindings by Evenhouse and Reilly (2004). Also, the older adolescents inthe present study generally were in their first or second year of college,and may not have established strong bonds with other groups yet tosatisfy their belonging needs as theorized by Maslow (1970), therebyviewing their families as the primary source of satisfaction for thoseneeds.

Adolescents’ Familial Characteristics

While earlier research found differential effects between stepfatherand stepmother families on children’s self-esteem (Fine & Kurdek,1992), parental relationship strength (Ambert, 1986), and academicachievement (Downey, 1995), recent findings tended to find few differ-ences between stepmother and stepfather families (Jones, 2003). Thepresent study found no significant difference in level of family belong-ing between adolescents who were in stepfather families and those instepmother families. As noted, most extant research was conducted

Valerie Stephens Leake 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

with stepfather families because of their prevalence, and the differencesfound in earlier and later research could be accounted for by the emer-gence of more research on stepmother families, and with the advent ofmore joint custody arrangements following divorce.

The prediction of lower levels of family belonging for those withstepsiblings was supported. The decrease in family belonging associ-ated with the presence of stepsiblings in the present study, is consistentwith the direction of stepsibling influence alluded to in other studies(Coleman & Ganong, 1993; Mekos et al., 1996) and may be attributedto a variety of causes. One possibility consistent with the research ofEvenhouse and Reilly (2004) is that the presence of stepsiblings may di-lute familial resources, not only material resources, but also those oftime and energy, perhaps weakening the parental and step-parental rela-tionships central to family belonging. Another explanation, particularlyas all study participants had younger stepsiblings, may be that the ne-cessity of having to consider younger siblings’ needs as primary, or thatthe work involved in helping care for younger stepsiblings, may have adeleterious effect on stepfamily adolescents’ level of family belonging.

Adolescents’ Outside Influences

The amount of time stepfamily adolescents spent with the “other”parent appeared to have no association with how much belonging ado-lescents felt within their stepfamilies. Perhaps this lack of association isunsurprising given that stepfamily adolescents participating in the studyonly saw their non-residential parents an average of once per month.However, an unexpected finding of the current study was that thepresence of stepsiblings was associated with less time spent with thenon-residential biological parent. As all participants in the study who hadstepsiblings had younger stepsiblings, perhaps participants may bepressed into helping to care for and attend to these younger siblings,leaving them less time for the non-residential biological parent. Withstepsiblings, there may be more possibilities for shared interests or ac-tivities that may decrease the amount of time available to spend on thenon-resident parent as well. This finding was consistent with familysystems theory, which postulates that systems within and without thefamily have reciprocating input into the functioning of the family andthe individuals.

148 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

IMPLICATIONS

Implications for Adolescents and Parents

The results of this study point to the conclusion that adolescents andadults in the stepfamily should become aware of and value the recipro-cal effects each member of the stepfamily has on the others, and strive todevelop a place for each individual in the context of the family. Perhapsthe most important lesson from this study for stepfamily adolescentsand their parents is that the sum of the individual relationships appearsto contribute heavily to the whole, when referring to family belonging.In order to foster an increased sense of belonging and the protec-tion from risk associated with higher levels, both adolescents andadults should be willing to nurture individual relationships within theirstepfamilies. Adults in the stepfamily should strive to understand theimpact developmental levels have, particularly that of the adolescents inthe stepfamily, as well as those of the other individuals and of thestepfamily itself. Because the presence of stepsiblings was associatedwith lower levels of family belonging, stepfamily adults must be mind-ful of the tendency to “spread themselves too thin” among the childrenin the stepfamily, and may also need to attend to the needs of adoles-cents as well as to those of the younger stepsiblings. As always, adultsand adolescents in stepfamilies should seek outside help when neces-sary from those providers, such as therapists and educators, who aretrained to offer them assistance.

Implications for Therapists and Educators

In keeping with the family systems perspective, those environmentsfrom which stepfamilies seek support and services will also have animpact on the functioning of these stepfamilies. Therapists and educa-tors first should have a basic understanding of how stepfamilies differfrom biological families, and be able to both respect and normalizethose differences, particularly the greater number of outside influences.Given the strength of the association between relationships with parentsand level of family belonging, therapists who treat stepfamilies withadolescents should understand the importance of individual relationshipswithin the family, helping adults and children nurture improved relation-ships with each other. Understanding the importance of stepparent-childrelationships in the promotion of higher levels of family belonging

Valerie Stephens Leake 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

should have an impact on the policies prevalent in many secondaryschool systems, policies that negatively affect these important relation-ships. Mental health professionals and educators should understand bothstepfamily development and adolescent development, as well as how thedevelopment of one may not necessarily mesh well with the developmentof the other. The findings of this study also suggest that therapists neednot subscribe to a blanket assumption that adolescents always strive toseparate themselves from their stepfamilies. Ideally, therapists and edu-cators alike will be able to use the findings of this study to enrich and in-form their practice with stepfamily adolescents.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

The strengths of this study centered on the assessment, the consis-tency of the results with established theoretical constructs and prior re-search, and the research method itself. The FBS-R was based on a scalefrom research with a large nationally stratified dataset (ADDHealth) thatwas validated with a large sample of stepfamily adolescents. TheFBS-R is the first assessment of family belonging to recognize the im-portance of acceptance and developmental fit as part of the construct offamily belonging, and one of the few to recognize the importance of theadolescent’s voice. Another asset included the consistency of resultswith the literature by Anderman and Freeman (2004), Baumeister andLeary (1995), Goodenow (1992), and Crosbie-Burnett (1984), amongothers. Finally, the inclusion of students in both public and private highschools, from varied socioeconomic statuses, and from various abilitylevels (i.e., advanced, average, and special education classes) addedstrength to the findings.

Limitations include possible threats to external validity as adoles-cents could have participated in the study because either they had greaterconcerns or greater confidence in their familial situation. Also possiblemight have been that adolescents may have been influenced by socialdesirability by taking the survey in the presence of peers. The ability togeneralize the results of this study may be somewhat limited also due tothe collection of data in one geographical area, the sample size, the useof a fairly new measure, and because survey collection was limited tothose participants currently attending school.

150 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Future research could answer many questions about specific popula-tions within the broad category of “stepfamily,” and the relationshipsbetween family belonging and other related constructs should be inves-tigated. Because the sample size of the current study was too small to in-clude specific details related to stepsiblings and adolescents’ familybelonging, these relationships are still unknown. Additionally, futureresearch could focus on the predictive value of level of family belonging,as measured by the FBS-R, as associated longitudinally with positiveand negative outcomes for stepfamily and other adolescents as theysegue into adulthood. These areas for additional research could add con-siderably to the current body of knowledge on stepfamily adolescentsand the stepfamilies themselves.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Much research has been conducted where results unfavorably com-pared the outcomes for stepchildren with those of adolescents who live inother types of families. Some researchers even have discussed the need tolimit the number of stepfamilies formed (Popenoe, 1994) but the truthis that the stepfamily, as a family structure, has existed for centuries(Coontz, 1995) and shows no signs of disappearing in the future. Insteadof degrading, disparaging, and discouraging stepfamily members, re-searchers, educators, and therapists working with stepfamilies shouldlook to discovering new ways to value and nurture individuals within thecontexts of their stepfamilies. Positive and healthy stepfamilies can onlyenrich society in general, and the individuals involved in particular. Forstepchildren, the benefits of living in a healthy stepfamily and feeling thefull positive effects of feeling a sense of belonging within that stepfamilyare manifold. A well-functioning stepfamily can offer adolescents a “sec-ond chance” to observe and learn the relationship skills through modelingthat these children will need in their own adult relationships, as well asproviding a nurturing environment in which adolescents may flourish. Fi-nally, researchers and practitioners should continue to look for new toolsand techniques to assist stepfamilies in helping all members, especiallyadolescents, feel a strong sense of family belonging for increased mutualnurturance.

Valerie Stephens Leake 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

REFERENCES

Amato, P. & Rivera, F. (1999). Paternal involvement and children’s behavior prob-lems. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 375-385.

Ambert, A. (1986). Being a stepparent: Live-in and visiting stepchildren. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 48, 795-804.

Anderman, L. & Freeman, T. (2004). Students’ sense of belonging in school. InP. R. Pintrich, & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Motivating students, improving schools:Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 27-63). New York: Elsevier.

Aquilino, W. (1991). Family structure and home-leaving: A further specification of therelationship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 999-1010.

Arditti, J. & Keith, T. (1993). Visitation frequency, child support payment, andthe father-child relationship postdivorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55,699-713.

Astone, N. & McLanahan, S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and highschool completion. American Sociological Review, 56, 309-320.

Baer, J. (2002). Is family cohesion a risk or protective factor during adolescent devel-opment? Journal of Marriage & the Family, 64, 668-676.

Barber, B. & Lyons, J. (1994). Family processes and adolescent adjustment in intactand remarried families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 421-436.

Baumeister, R. & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonalattachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,497-529.

Borowsky, I., Ireland, M., & Resnick, M. (2001). Adolescent suicide attempts: Riskand protectors. Pediatrics, 107, 485-494.

Bray, J. (1995). Systems-oriented therapy with stepfamilies. In R. H. Mikesell,D. Lusterman, & S. H. McDaniel (Eds.), Integrating family therapy: Handbook offamily psychology and systems theory (pp.125-140). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Bray, J. (1999). Stepfamilies: The intersection of culture, context, and biology. Mono-graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 64, 210-218.

Bray, J. (2001). Therapy with stepfamilies. In S.H. McDaniel, D. Lusterman, & C. L.Philpot (Eds.), Casebook for integrating family therapy: An ecosystemic approach(pp. 127-140). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bray, J. & Berger, S. (1993). Developmental issues in StepFamilies Research Project:Family relationships and parent-child interactions. Journal of Family Psychology,7, 76-90.

Bray, J. & Kelly, J. (1998). Stepfamilies: Love, marriage and parenting in the first de-cade. New York: Broadway Books.

Bumpass, L., Raley, R., & Sweet, J. (1995). The changing character of stepfamilies: Im-plications of cohabitation and nonmarital childbearing. Demography, 32, 415-436.

Cherlin, A. & Furstenberg, F. (1994). Stepfamilies in the United States: A reconsidera-tion. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 359-382.

Clark, C. (1992). Deviant adolescent subcultures: Assessment strategies and clinicalinterventions. Adolescence, 27, 283-293.

152 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Coleman, M. & Ganong, L. (1990). Remarriage and stepfamily research in the 1980’s:Increased interest in an old family form. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52,925-941.

Coleman, M. & Ganong, L. (1993). An exploratory study of stepsibling subsystems.Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 19, 125-141.

Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating marriage: Anotherdecade of progress. Journal of Marriage & Family, 62, 1288-1308.

Cooksey, E. & Fondell, M. (1996). Spending time with his kids: Effects of familystructure on fathers’ and children’s lives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58,693-708.

Coontz, S. (1995). The American family and the nostalgia trap: Attributing Americans’social problems to the breakdown of the traditional family. Phi Delta Kappan,76, 1-20.

Coughlin, C. & Vuchinich, S. (1996). Family experience in preadolescence and the de-velopment of male delinquency. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 491-501.

Crosbie-Burnett, M. (1984). The centrality of the step relationship: A challenge to fam-ily theory and practice. Family Relations, 33, 459-463.

Curtis, J. & Curtis, M. (1993). Factors related to susceptibility and recruitment bycults. Psychological Reports, 73, 451-460.

Demo, D. (1997). Family type and adolescent adjustment. Research Findings. Re-trieved October 1, 2003 from http://www.saafamilies.org/faqs/findings/2.htm

Demo, D. & Acock, A. (1996). Family structure, family process, and adolescent well-being. Journal of Research on Adolescents, 6, 457-488.

Downey, D. (1995). Understanding academic achievement among children in step-households: The role of parental resources, sex of the stepparent, and sex of child.Social Forces, 73, 875-895.

Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling relationships in early childhood. Child Development, 54,787-812.

Erikson, E. (1964). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.Evenhouse, E. & Reilly, S. (2004). A sibling study of stepchild well-being. Journal of

Human Resources, 30(1), 248-276.Fine, M. & Kurdek, L. (1992). The adjustment of adolescents in stepmother and step-

father families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 725-737.Fine, M., Kurdek, L., & Hennigen, M. (1992). Perceived self-competence, stepfamily

myths, and (step)parent role ambiguity in adolescents from stepfather and step-mother families. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 69-76.

Furstenberg, F., Morgan, S., & Allison, P. (1987). Paternal participation and children’swell-being after marital dissolution. American Sociological Review, 52, 695-701.

Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology andthe study of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 177-196.

Green, S. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis?Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 499-510.

Gunnoe, M. & Hetherington, E. M. (2004). Stepchildren’s perceptions of noncustodialmothers and noncustodial fathers: Differences in socioemotional involvement andassociations with adolescent adjustment problems. Journal of Family Psychology,18, 555-563.

Valerie Stephens Leake 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hetherington, E., Bridges, M., & Insabella, G. (1998). What matters? What does not?American Psychologist, 53, 167-185.

Hetherington, E., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1985). Long-term effects of divorce and remar-riage on the adjustment of children. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psy-chiatry, 24, 518-530.

Hetherington, E., Henderson, S., O’Connor, T., Insabella, G., Taylor, L., Anderson, E.,et al. (1999). Adolescent siblings in stepfamilies: Family functioning and adoles-cent adjustment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,64, 1-209.

Hetherington, E. & Jodl, K. (1994). Stepfamilies as settings for development. InA. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies: Who benefits? Who does not? Hillsdale,N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Huffine, C. (2004). Youth violence: Its meanings to society in the 21st century. Adoles-cent Psychiatry, 27, 361-374.

Ihinger-Tallman, M. (1987). Sibling and stepsibling bonding in stepfamilies. InK. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Remarriage and stepparenting: Currentresearch and theory (pp. 164-182). New York: Guilford.

Jacobson, D. (1987). Family type, visiting patterns, and children’s behavior in thestepfamily: A linked family system. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Re-marriage and stepparenting: Current research and theory (pp. 257-272). NewYork: Guilford.

Jones, A. (2003). Reconstructing the stepfamily: Old myths, new stories. Social Work,48(2), 228-236.

Kahn, M. & Bank, S. (1980). Therapy with siblings in reorganizing families: II. Inter-national Journal of Family Therapy, 2, 155-158.

Kim, J., Hetherington, E., & Reiss, D. (1999). Associations among family relation-ships, antisocial peers, and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors: Gender and familytype differences. Child Development, 70, 1209-1230.

King, K., Vidourek, R., Davis, B., & McClellan, W. (2002). Increasing self-esteem andschool connectedness through a multidimensional mentoring program. Journal ofSchool Health, 72(7), 294-299.

Leake, V. (2003). How to assess family belonging for stepfamily adolescents: Currentassessments and possibilities for future study. Unpublished manuscript, Universityof Kentucky, Lexington.

Leake, V. (2004). How many steps to a family: Adolescents and stepfamily belong-ing. Poster presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association,Honolulu, HI.

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality, 2nd edition. New York: Harper and Row.Mekos, D., Hetherington, E., & Reiss, D. (1996). Sibling differences in problem be-

havior and parental treatment in nondivorced and remarried families. Child Devel-opment, 67, 2148-2165.

Mikesell, R., Lusterman, D., & McDaniel, S. (1995). Integrating family therapy:Handbook of family psychology and systems theory. Washington, D.C.: AmericanPsychological Association.

Needle, R. & Su, S. (1990). Divorce, remarriage and adolescent substance use: A pro-spective longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 157-170.

154 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

O’Connor, T., Hetherington, E., & Reiss, D. (1998). Family systems and adolescentdevelopment: Shared and nonshared risk and protective factors in nondivorced andremarried families. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 353-375.

Osterman, K. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Journalof Educational Research, 70, 323-367.

Pink, J. & Wampler, K. (1985). Problem areas in stepfamilies: Cohesion, adaptability,and the stepfather-adolescent relationship. Family Relations, 34, 327-335.

Pinsof, W. (1992). Toward a scientific paradigm for family psychology: The integra-tive process systems perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 432-447.

Pong, S. (1997). Family structure, school context, and eighth grade math and readingachievement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 734-746.

Popenoe, D. (1994). The evolution of marriage and the problem of stepfamilies: Abiosocial perspective. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies: Who benefits?Who does not? Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Quick, D., Newman, B., & McKenry, P. (1995). Influences on the quality of the step-mother-adolescent relationship. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 24, 99-114.

Resnick, M., Bearman, P., Blum, R., Bauman, K., Harris, K., Jones, J. et al. (1997).Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Studyon Adolescent Health. JAMA, 278, 823-832.

Scal, P., Ireland, M., & Borowsky, I. (2003). Smoking among American adolescents: Arisk and protective factor analysis. Journal of Community Health, 28, 79-98.

Sieving, R., Beuhring, T., Resnick, M., Bearinger, L., Shew, M., Ireland, M. et al.(2001). Development of adolescent self-report measures from the National Longi-tudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 28, 73-81.

Stepfamily Association of America (2003, May 23). What is a stepfamily? Frequentlyasked questions. Retrieved October 1, 2003 from http://www.saafamilies.org/faqs/faqs.html

Thomson, E., Hanson, T., & McLanahan, S. (1994). Family structure and child well-being: Economic resources vs. parental behaviors. Social Forces, 73, 221-243.

Thomson, E. & McLanahan, S. (1992). Family structure, gender, and parental social-ization. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(2), 368-379.

Turpin-Petrosino, C. (2002). Hateful sirens. . .Who hears their song? An examinationof student attitudes toward hate groups and affiliation potential. Journal of SocialIssues, 58, 281-301.

Visher, E. & Visher, J. (2000). Tasks for stepfamilies. In Stepfamily Association ofAmerica, Stepfamilies stepping ahead: An eight-step program for successful familyliving. Lincoln, NE: SAA.

Wills, T., Cleary, S., Filer, M., Shinar, O., Mariani, J., & Spera, K. (2001). Tempera-ment related to early-onset substance use: Test of a developmental model. Preven-tion Science, 2, 145-163.

Wills, T. & Yaeger, A. (2003). Family factors and adolescent substance use: Modelsand mechanisms. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 222-226.

doi:10.1300/J087v47n01_08

Valerie Stephens Leake 155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

54 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014