Stepfamily Address Terms: “Sometimes They Mean Something and Sometimes They Don't.”∗

Journal of Family Communication, 8: 238–263, 2008Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN 1526-7431 print / 1532-7698 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15267430802397153

HJFC1526-74311532-7698Journal of Family Communication, Vol. 8, No. 4, August 2008: pp. 1–43Journal of Family Communication

ARTICLES

Stepfamily Address Terms: “Sometimes They Mean Something and Sometimes

They Don’t.”

Stepfamily Address TermsKOENING KELLAS, LECLAIR-UNDERBERG, AND NORMAND

Jody Koenig KellasDepartment of Communication Studies

University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Cassandra LeClair-UnderbergDepartment of Communication Studies

Texas State University San Marcos

Emily Lamb NormandDepartment of Communication

Olivet Nazarene University

A seemingly rudimentary, but potentially significant and understudied communicativeaspect of stepfamily development involves the choice of terms family members useto address one another. Ganong and Coleman (2004) argued that appropriate namesfor stepfamily relationships do not exist. Anthropologists and sociolinguists havelong maintained, however, that the nature of personal relationships can be revealedthrough the use and choice of personal address terms (Beidelman, 1963; Emihovich,1981). Therefore, in the present study we examined the use and meaning of stepfamilyaddress terms in an attempt to understand how stepchildren use them and make

This paper was presented to the Interpersonal and Small Group Interest Group at the CentralStates Communication Association Annual Convention, Indianapolis, IN, April 2006. It received aTop Four Paper Award.

Correspondence should be addressed to Jody Koenig Kellas, Department of Communication Studies,University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 428 Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, NE 68688. E-mail: [email protected]

STEPFAMILY ADDRESS TERMS 239

sense of relational identities as well as potentially difficult stepfamily transitions.Results of 39 in-depth interviews suggest that the variety of address terms may begrouped according to formal, familiar, and familial terms and suggest stepchildrenregularly engage in code-switching depending on their audience. Stepchildrenreported using address terms to signify solidarity, separateness, and/or to managethe balance of stepfamily life. Four clusters of stepchildren types emerged basedon their use of address terms, including Isolators, Gatekeepers, Validators, andJugglers. Finally, meanings of stepfamily address term stories and advice about theuse of terms are also discussed in the findings.

Stepfamilies are an increasingly common family form in the United States(Ganong & Coleman, 2004), and although stepfamily structure and functioning canresemble that of the nuclear family form (Coleman & Ganong, 1995), familyresearchers have been careful to consider issues that are unique to stepfamilies.Hetherington and Stanley-Hagen (2000) argued that the divorce and remarriageprocess “introduce[s] and reintroduce[s] stresses and risks associated with chang-ing family roles, relationships, and circumstances” (p. 173). In recent years, familycommunication researchers have recognized that most of the challenges thatstepfamily members face are highly communicative. For example, stepfamilymembers are often forced to define and redefine communicative boundaries withinthe new family, adjust to change in both their relational and physical environments,manage escalating conflict, and communicatively negotiate their new roles in thestepfamily (Baxter, Braithwaite, & Nicholson, 1999; Braithwaite, Baxter, &Harper, 1998; Braithwaite, Olsen, Golish, Soukup, & Turman, 2001).

Because of stepfamilies’ lack of relational history, their lack of relational norms,and their unclear family boundaries, Cherlin (1978) described stepfamilies as incom-plete institutions. The uncertainty and complexity surrounding stepfamily relation-ships makes adjustment difficult during the early stages of stepfamily formation,especially for stepchildren, who may find divorce and remarriage more difficult tocognitively and emotionally process than adults (Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2004).Therefore, a general purpose of the present study was to understand how stepchil-dren deal with and make sense of this potentially difficult time in their lives throughtheir communication with stepfamily members. Examining the ways in which step-families negotiate the transition to stepfamily life is instrumental to researchers,practitioners, and stepfamily members interested in assessing and implementingcommunication strategies that facilitate individual and family functioning.

In particular, this study investigates a seemingly rudimentary, but potentiallysignificant and understudied communicative aspect of stepfamily development:the terms family members use to address one another. Ganong and Coleman(2004) argued that appropriate names for stepfamily relationships do not exist.American culture has yet to identify labels for stepfamily relationships other thanadding the prefix “step” before mother, brother, etc. The authors reasoned “the

240 KOENIG KELLAS, LECLAIR-UNDERBERG, AND LAMB NORMAND

absence of appropriate terms for specific [stepfamily] relationships makes it hardto think about, much less communicate about, them” (p. 27). On the other hand, itis arguable that the terms stepfamily members have at their disposal (e.g., “step,”“Mom,” or the stepparent’s first name) suffice, but that the functions and meaningsbehind these terms have been underspecified and underexplored. In other words,it may be the meanings that family members assign to address terms that illuminatesome of the intricacies of stepfamily life.

Anthropologists and sociolinguists have long maintained that the nature offamily and/or personal relationships can be revealed through the use and choice ofpersonal address terms (Beidelman, 1963; Emihovich, 1981). Beidelman arguedthat a change in relational roles should change the choice of address terms rela-tional partners use. This suggests that address terms are meaningful and have func-tions in the building and maintaining of identity. Despite the fact that the use ofaddress terms provides important clues to understanding our social and personalrelationships, little is known about address terms within stepfamilies and how theiruse affects and reflects the burgeoning relationships among members. In thepresent study we examined the use and meaning of stepfamily address terms in anattempt to understand how stepchildren use address terms and make sense of thispotentially difficult and sensitive relational transition. Investigating stepfamilyaddress term use should reveal information about the negotiation of stepfamilyculture in ways that can assist developing families effectively manage the transitionto stepfamily life.

In order to access the meaning-making process associated with negotiatingstepfamily address terms, we collected narratives about their practical andsymbolic nature. Telling stories about the negotiation of new roles, status,and membership within and outside the stepfamily (Afifi, 2003) – experiences thatmay be difficult for stepchildren to deal with – may help stepchildren decidewho belongs in the family and who does not (Braithwaite et al., 1998). Suchan investigation may also answer the call of previous researchers aboutimportant questions that constitute some of stepchildren’s more difficulteveryday stepfamily interactions such as: “What do stepchildren call theirstepparents?” or “How do stepfamily members introduce each other?” (i.e.,These are my parents; This is my mom and my stepdad; Ganong & Coleman,2004, p. 29).

In what follows, we review literature that assesses the meaning-making andidentity-building functions of address terms in developing stepfamilies. We firstsummarize the small body of research on address terms across various contexts.Next, we briefly discuss the potential identity and sense-making functions offamily address terms. Finally, we present the results of the current study on step-child address term use in which several common, and sometimes contradictory,themes emerged for both the practical and symbolic use of stepfamily addressterms.


Address Terms

Personal address terms serve a number of functions in everyday conversationsuch as identifying the formality or informality of a particular context, identifyingpower relationships between and among people, and expressing social identity(Emihovich, 1981; Ervin-Tripp, 1971). In fact, the use and choice of address termsbetween people are indicative of the nature and type of relationship they share(Beidelman, 1963; Emihovich, 1981). Philipsen and Huspek (1985) argued thataddress term choice in particular situations is intentional or systematic.

For example, Beidelman explained that people often reserve informal addressterms for family members such as, spouses, children, siblings, and use more formaladdress terms when communicating with strangers, employers, or persons inauthority. However, address term usage may change if the nature of the relation-ship changes or if roles in the relationship change, serving not only as “signs of,but contributors to, the change” (Beidelman, p. 314). For example, Beidelman foundthat people initially addressed parents-in-law formally unless the relationship laterbegan to resemble “real kinship,” and then they began using informal terms.Alternatively, chosen address terms could affect the formality of a relationship.If, for example, upon meeting his daughter’s fiancé, a father insists that his futureson-in-law call him “Pop,” the father may have set the stage for an informal andclose relationship. Indeed, Beidelman argued that a chosen address term shouldtest whether one’s relationship should remain formal or whether it can progressto an informal level.

More recently, Tracy (2002) provided an everyday talk perspective on thesignificance of communicating address terms. Along with Beidelman (1963),Tracy argues that “person-referencing practices” signify aspects of individualand relational identity such as formality, closeness, and interactant equality:

The terms we select in ordinary exchanges are an important way we build our ownidentities as a certain kind of person. . . . It is also a fundamental part of how wealtercast others . . . these terms enable us to build relationships with others in whichwe are distant or close, equal or differing in social rank and status (p. 60).

When building identities and negotiating relationships, person-referencingpractices do significant work, and despite their quotidian status, also often posechallenges to communicators. Tracy (2002) notes the communicative complexityof address term use by referencing Sacks’ work on the membership categoriza-tion device (MCD), or rule-oriented categories for referring to other persons.References to stepfamily members may be complicated by the underdevelopedrules for such naming practices (Ganong & Coleman, 2004). Additionally, Tracy alsoacknowledges that the identity implications of person-referencing practices maybe accompanied by discomfort because choice of terms carries significant meaningfor the interactants’ faces and the ways in which they position themselves in


relation to each other. For example, a stepchild may struggle with a stepmother’srequest to call her “mom.” Although the child may not want to threaten thestepmother’s positive face (i.e., desire to be liked and respected), he maywant to protect his own negative face (i.e., desire to be autonomous and freefrom constraints; Brown & Levinson, 1987) by asserting his independencefrom the newly forming stepfamily and/or communicate loyalty to his biologicalmother.

In sum, address terms, although common and often taken for granted, haveimplications for affecting and reflecting relational and individual identity.Moreover, address terms may function as a type of social lubricant such thatinterlocutors select certain address terms to make a situation easier or please therecipient (e.g., the son-in-law calling the father-in-law “Pop” simply to make himor his wife happy).

Address Terms and the Family

Little research to date had focused explicitly on address terms in the family.The few studies that have, however, highlight identity as a central frameworkfor understanding family address term use and their implications. For example,Bergen, Suter, and Daas (2006) studied the ways in which lesbian families usedterms of address to construct legitimate identities for nonbiological mothers wholack social and legal recognition of ties to their children. Bergen et al. report thatthe majority of mothers in their sample used three forms of parallel address termsincluding parallel derivative forms of “mother” (e.g., “Mommy”), identicalderivative forms of “mother” (e.g., “Momma T” and “Momma M”), and a deriva-tive form of “mother” in English for the biological mother and from another cultureand/or language for the nonbiological mother (e.g., “Mommy” and “Ama”)(p. 207). They argue that parallel forms of address helped nonbiological mothersto develop, maintain, and legitimate their identities in the eyes of the child, forthemselves, and for generalized others. Their findings highlight the symbolicnature of address terms in constructing identity.

Identity legitimation also emerged as an important factor in Briggs, Augoustinos,and Delfabbro’s (2007) analysis of recognition practices in an Australian fostercare system. They identified terms of address as an issue central to recognizingand legitimating foster carers’ identity, the quality of the care they provide, andthe likelihood of staying in the foster care system. Specifically, they comparedand contrasted the terms “foster carer” with “foster parent” and suggested that thelatter “. . . affords a space for care providers who may be struggling with a desirefor recognition that they do not see reflected in foster care policy more broadly”(p. 66). Foster parents in their study indicated that terms of address are influentialin validating or invalidating their identities and facilitating a sense of respect fortheir role as parents.


Taken together, these studies suggest that family address terms are symbolic,meaningful, negotiated, and have implications for individual, relational, and societalconstructions of identity. Like lesbian mothers and foster parents, members of step-families must negotiate terms of address in the face of personal, familial, and societalpreferences and constraints. Despite this, scholars have not yet addressed the implica-tion of address term use in stepfamilies. However, because stepfamilies are oftendeveloping and potentially incomplete institutions (Cherlin, 1978), everyday addressterm choices may be particularly telling about stepfamily relationships and the waysin which members manage their feelings as well as the identity of the stepfamily.

The option of adding the “step” prefix to describe the different relationshipswithin the family may, in fact, be preferred by some stepfamily members, espe-cially during the early stages of stepfamily formation when these members havenot yet accepted the presence of new people in their household or within theirfamily (Lamb, 2004a). However, in a study examining emotional communicationbetween stepsiblings, Lamb (2004b) found that participants reported more posi-tive regard for their stepsiblings once they dropped the “step” prefix, calling theirstepsiblings simply “brother” or “sister.” Thus, with address term use, meaningsabout the relationship changes and vice versa.

Because we know little about the processes, meanings, and functions associ-ated with stepfamily address term use, the current study sought to understand indepth the ways in which address terms affect and reflect family relationships,membership, and meanings by posing the following research questions:

RQ1: What terms do stepchildren report using to address their stepfamilymembers?

RQ2: How, if at all, do stepchildren report managing family identity throughthe communication of address terms?

RQ3: What meanings, if any, do stepchildren report attributing to theirfamilies’ use of address terms?

Finally, because the use of particular address terms between people has beenlinked to the nature of their relationship (Beidelman, 1963; Emihovich, 1981),research on address terms may have important practical applications for researchersand stepfamily members alike. The ways in which stepfamily members negotiateaddress term use may affect (e.g., increase resentment if forced to use particularterms) or reflect (e.g., demonstrate relationship closeness) family relationships.Thus, the successes and failures that stepchildren report experiencing in negotiatingthese choices can benefit other families facing these potentially awkward, if notcomplicated, choices. Based on this notion, we asked the following question inorder to generate practical guidelines for stepfamilies dealing with this issue:

RQ4: What advice would stepchildren give to new stepfamily members aboutthe use of address terms?


METHOD

Participants

Thirty-nine stepchildren from a large Midwestern U.S. university were interviewedabout the use of address terms in their stepfamilies. Participants were recruitedthrough announcements in communication studies courses. We also utilized amodified “snowball” technique by asking participants to share flyers with others theyknew who might be willing to participate. Finally, participants were recruitedusing the “network” method in which individuals we knew passed the flyers topeople they knew who met the participation criteria.

Individuals recruited through the modified “snowball” technique or “network”method contacted the researchers via e-mail if interested in participating. Ofthe 39 participants, 22 were female and 17 were male. Participants ranged inage from 18–30 years of age. The average age of participants was 21.44 years(SD = 2.78). Thirty-seven of the participants identified themselves as Caucasian,one as Hispanic, and one as multi-ethnic. Thirty of the participants reported thattheir mother had remarried. The average length of these stepfamilies was report-edly 7.83 years (SD = 4.04). Twenty-three persons reported that their fathers hadremarried an average of 8.17 years ago (SD = 4.42). Thirty-five participantsreported having stepsiblings. Seventeen participants reported that both theirmothers and fathers were remarried, thus positioning them as members of twostepfamilies at the time of the interviews.

Procedure

In order to understand the meanings and identity-building functions associatedwith stepfamily address term use, we asked stepchildren to tell us stories aboutaddress term use based on narrative theorizing which suggests stories help tomake sense of and shape identities and relationships (see Koenig Kellas, 2008).Meaning-making through family storytelling generally occurs around a family’sdevelopmental transition points (Fiese & Sameroff, 1999). Telling stories aboutthese potentially confusing and/or significant experiences ought to reveal theways in which stepfamily members’ negotiated and use address terms andmay help researchers understand the nature of stepfamily identities and themeanings relevant to communicating in these relationships. Because interviewscan evoke narratives that are integral in the life story (Linde, 1993; Riessman,1993) and can allow us to understand the meaning of address terms stories fromthe participants’ perspective (McCracken, 1998), we conducted individualin-depth, semi-structured interviews (Smith, 1995; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) togain insight into the experiences of stepchildren with respect to address termsstories.


Although self-report data, such as interviews, are often critiqued for theirlimitations, this method of data collection was optimal for understanding theidentity management and meanings associated with address term use. First, anunderstanding of the use, identity functions, and meanings associated with addressterms requires participants’ reported practices and interpretations. Second, becauseaddress terms use is often communicated in private settings (e.g., the home), itwould be difficult, if not invasive, to observe address term use in-situ. Thus,although the current data represent retrospective accounts of address term usage,a narrative frame suggests that this form of data collection is appropriate foruncovering a participant’s perspective on the identity building and meaning-makingfunctions of communication (Bruner, 1990; Koenig Kellas, 2008; McAdams,1997; Riessman, 1993).

Thirty-four interviews were conducted in person and five were conducted overthe telephone. Based on a comparison of detail-level and length, we determined thatthe telephone interviews elicited levels of richness similar to those conductedface-to-face. The interviews, which included additional questions about stepfamilyformation not analyzed for the current paper, were approximately 40 to 60 minutes inlength. The subset of data analyzed for the current manuscript was situated at theend of an in-depth interview about stepfamily origin stories. Although not pertinentto the current findings, stepchildren had provided extensive detail and backgroundinformation about how their family came to be and whom they considered as partof their stepfamilies. Thus, although the data reported here represented only partof the stepfamily’s “story,” answers to questions about address terms were situated ina larger, rich interview. All interviews were audio taped after the participant signedan informed consent form. Upon completion, the interviews were transcribed bythe interviewer verbatim, resulting in approximately 364 pages of single-spacedtext. Each participant and the family members on which he or she reported wereassigned pseudonyms for the purposes of protecting participant anonymity inreporting our results.

The participants were first asked to fill out the Blended Family Tree Demo-graphic Sheet developed by Baxter et al. (1999). This demographics tool providesinformation about the stepfamily structure. Next, in order to answer the first researchquestion, we asked participants what they called their stepfamily members. Wethen asked participants to tell a story about when the use of address terms wasparticularly meaningful or mattered to them. Participants were instructed thatthey could tell address terms stories that related to their use of address termsfor other members, other stepfamily member’s use of terms to address them, orstories about how other members of the stepfamily used address terms with oneanother, so long as the story was meaningful to participants. If the stepchild wasa member of multiple stepfamilies, he or she was asked to discuss the stepfamilywith which he or she had the strongest memories. After the participants sharedtheir stories, we asked follow-up questions regarding their feelings about the


story and how this story affected their feelings toward their stepfamily. Partici-pants were also asked about the moral, or meaning, of their story, the importanceof address terms within their stepfamily, and what advice they would give to newstepfamily members regarding the use of address terms.

Data Analysis

To assess the meanings, identities, and advice relevant to stepfamily addressterms as identified in Research Questions 1–4, we employed in-depth qualitativeanalyses. To begin, two of the authors read through each transcript in its entiretyto gain familiarity with the data (Creswell, 1998). During the first phase of analysiswe identified the terms of address each stepchild reported using in his or her family.Next, we built an interpretive framework for assessing the significance of addressterms within different contexts and relationships, including use, identity, meaning,and advice. Using Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) constant comparative approach,we engaged in iterative rounds of open, axial, and selective coding relevant to theconceptually guided categories outlined by the research questions.

Open coding allows researchers to form categories of information based onthe data (Creswell). Through this process, transcripts were reread by both researchersand themes were recorded in the margins and later placed into categories. Withaxial coding, “categories are related to their subcategories to form more preciseand complete explanations about phenomena” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 124).Thus, we next identified emergent themes and compared and contrasted them to thethemes that emerged during the open coding. A new category was created everytime a new theme was identified (Creswell). The two authors discussed possiblethemes that emerged throughout the process of open and axial coding. After identi-fying initial themes, we engaged in iterative rounds of reading and rereading thetranscripts individually and then meeting again to develop a master list of themes(Smith, 1995). After all of the data were coded for these categories, we met again todiscuss our interpretations. Additionally, we then had the third author read throughall the transcripts and further verify the thematic coding scheme. This author’simpressions coincided with the themes assigned during the initial rounds of coding.

Based on initial rounds of coding, we then engaged in selective coding. Specifi-cally, the data were compiled into cross-case data matrices (Miles & Huberman,1994). These matrices were used in subsequent rounds of coding to ensure thetrustworthiness and transferability of the themes (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). With thematrices as guides, we reread all of the transcripts and identified the explanatorypower of the coding scheme using negative case analysis (Bulmer, 1979). Morespecifically, in instances when the scheme did not represent the experience of aparticipant, a new code was identified and later categorized into themes once thecross-case analysis was completed. Because of the qualitative nature of our data, itwas possible for participants’ interviews to contain more than one theme.


We further assessed the validity of our analysis by engaging in member-checking.We asked 15% (n = 6) of our participants who had previously granted us access totheir contact information to read our results and verify the extent to which they felttheir experiences and perspectives were represented in the data. Four of these par-ticipants (10%), who represented membership across three of the four stepchildclusters described in the results, responded to our request and verified that thedescription of our findings matched their experiences.

RESULTS

The Use of Address Terms in Stepfamilies

Research Question 1 asked about the forms of address used in stepfamilies.Participants primarily reported on what they called their stepparents or stepsiblings.Because we were interested in understanding better the use of stepfamily addressterms, we asked participants to report on what stepfamily members called oneanother. Participant responses varied across types of address terms. Some partici-pants reported on direct address terms used within stepfamilies (e.g., terms theyused to address one another), while others talked extensively about the referentialaddress terms they used (e.g., terms they used to refer to one another with otherpeople). Others reported on both. Because we did not directly ask participants todistinguish between direct and referential address terms, the nature of our datadid not allow us to offer a separate analysis of direct and referential terms.

They did, however, reveal a recurrent set of themes in stepfamily address termuse across both types of terms. Specifically, the analyses revealed three typesof address terms. Formal address terms include those that defined the personin reference to a third party, rather than in reference to oneself. For example,stepchildren reported referring to stepparents as “my dad’s wife” or “my mother’shusband.” Similarly, some stepchildren reported that their stepparents referred tothem in reference to the third party, such as “my husband’s daughter.” Familiaraddress terms were those that included stepparents’ first names (e.g., Sue) orincluded the word “step” in reference to the parent or sibling (e.g., “stepdad;”“stepsister”). Finally, we identified familial address terms as those that stepchildrenin our study referred to their stepfamily members with “nuclear” family terms bydropping the prefix “step.”

For example, stepchildren used what we termed as familial address termswhen they referred to their stepparents as “mom” or “dad” or their stepsiblings as“sister” or “brother” either referentially or directly. Table 1 offers examples ofeach category of address term. The formal terms are exclusively referential,whereas the familiar and familial terms were used both directly and referentially.For example, stepchildren referred to their stepparents formally by introducing


them as “my Dad’s wife” or “my Mom’s husband,” but used familiar and familialterms to refer to their family members (e.g., “This is my stepdad”) or to directlyaddress them (e.g., “Hi Mom”).

Although Table 1 indicates a fairly straightforward and limited breakdown ofpredictable direct and referential address terms, the open-ended responses of ourparticipants painted a much more complex and nuanced picture about the use ofaddress terms in families. Specifically, 26 (66.6%) of our participants discussedthe ways in which they varied the terms of address they used to identify theirstepfamily members depending on context, audience, and/or relationship. Thiscode-switching between categorical types of address terms reflected an oftencomplicated set of both implicit and explicit rules that guided communicationwithin and outside of the stepfamily. Across cases, we noticed this complexity interms of internal as well as external code-switching.

Internal code-switching indicated that some members of the family werereferred to as “step” whereas other family members were referred to without thestep prefix. Approximately two-thirds of our sample referred to their stepparentby using familiar terms, but only a handful used familial terms. On the otherhand, however, almost one-half of our sample dropped the prefix “step” whenreferring to their stepsibling, opting to use familial terms by calling him or her“brother” or “sister.” Many stepchildren also reported code-switching withinthe family when directly addressing or referring to different stepparents (e.g.,referring to one stepparent as “Dad” and the other as “Julia” or “stepmom”).These practices reflected feelings of family closeness as is discussed in theresults for Research Question 2.

External code-switching represented changes in referential address terms tolessen confusion among audience members or for simple ease of interpretation.For example, several participants reported referentially calling their stepsibling

TABLE 1Stepfamily Address Term Use

Formal Address Terms Familiar Address Terms Familial Address Terms

Stepparent “ . . . If anyone would refer to her as my stepmom, I would be like ‘You mean my dad’s wife’.”

“I call my stepdad Curtis. I don’t call him dad or anything.”

“When I refer to my biological father, he is my father and when I refer to Paul, he’s dad.”

Stepsiblings “Blake is her son.” “I’d refer to her as my stepsister, Wendy, not my sister.”

“With my stepsister, I just call her sister: This is my sister. Around everybody, to her face, to anybody who asks, that’s just my sister.”


sibling (e.g., “my sister”) to others to bypass a lengthy explanation about familydynamics in a conversation about something else. For example, one participantdescribed the use of external code-switching in her stepfamily in the followingway:

If I am with my family at a dinner or something, I call my dad “Dad” and mystepmom “Maggie.” If I am outside the family and people ask me where I am goingI say I am going to my mom and dad’s house. So face-to-face, I call them by theirnames, but with everybody else, it’s just my mom.

Our findings indicate that rules and practices for direct and referential addressterms are implicit and explicit, internally and externally managed communicativepractices. The implications and meanings of these practices are further addressedin the answers to Research Questions 2–4 below.

Managing Stepfamily Identity Through the Use of Address Terms

Research Question 2 asked how, if at all, stepchildren report managingfamily identity through the communication of address terms. Stepchildrenin our study reported using address terms to manage stepfamily identity inthree primary ways, including (a) communicating solidarity, (b) communi-cating separateness, and/or (c) managing the balance of stepfamily life.Overwhelmingly, our data indicate that the use of address terms were relevant,if not central, to our participants’ perceptions about managing the family’sidentity.

Communicating Solidarity. First, many participants indicated that theyeither explicitly or implicitly selected and used address terms in order to commu-nicate solidarity within their families. In other words, stepchildren reportedusing address terms or being addressed in ways that symbolized family closeness,emotional bonding, and/or signifying that they were becoming a “real” family.For example, as a young child one of our participants chose to call her biologicalfather “Dad” and her stepfather “Daddy” to distinguish between the two, butalso to communicate the closeness she felt to her stepfather. She explained,“It really made me reinforce that my stepdad had raised me, that he was asignificant part of my life . . . Me calling my stepfather Daddy . . . that washis role. He was my dad away from my dad.” Similarly, another participantemotionally described hearing his stepbrother call him brother for the firsttime: “I was overhearing my little brother talking to his friends and he was soexcited to be my brother and he called me his brother . . . . After I heard thatit went from being a stepfamily and that divide to being an actual family . . .I think it made me closer to them.” In total, 23 (58.9%) of our participantsreported using or hearing address terms in ways that communicated familycloseness and solidarity.


Communicating Separateness. A smaller, but sizable portion of ourparticipants (n = 13, 33.3%) also reported using address terms to communicateseparateness from stepfamily members. These stepchildren were strategic and pur-poseful in their use of address terms to separate themselves from their stepfamilymembers. For example, one woman explained:

At the very beginning I wouldn’t even call her my stepmom. I would call her mydad’s wife. I had a very hard time. I would, if anyone would refer to her as my step-mom, I would be like “You mean my dad’s wife.” I mean, I just didn’t want to havethat label anywhere there. . . . I was like “Back off. I don’t want you to be a part ofmy life.” So I didn’t want that connection or that stepmom label.

Of all the participants who reported that they or their family members usedaddress terms to communicate separateness, only one of them reported feelinghurt by this process. For the most part, stepchildren in our study who reportedseparateness either used address terms purposefully to create distance or appreciatedthe distance created when their stepfamily members addressed them in ways thatcommunicated separateness. For example, Josie spoke specifically about theneed to separate stating:

When Martha calls me like, this is Gary’s daughter, she excludes me a little bit,which is like, I kind of like that, because I don’t really want to be like associatedwith her as much as with like, oh, this is Gary’s daughter. So that makes me feelbetter that she would like separate that.

Managing the Balance of Stepfamily Life. Several stepchildren (n = 21,53.8%) reported using address terms to manage the balance of stepfamily life.Three themes recurred throughout participant interviews and help to explain thisbalance. First, they repeatedly discussed the challenges and awkwardness ofchoosing terms for stepparents that did not demean or hurt the feelings of theirbiological parents. In other words, stepchildren reported they addressed stepfamilymembers the way they did to relieve any tension between their biological familyand their stepfamily. For example, one stepchild explained why he calls his step-mother “stepmom” stating, “It’s almost an act of respect toward my mother sopeople know, you know what I mean, so I don’t let people get the impression thatAnne is my mother.” Another stepchild explained the awkwardness of managingthe balance between biological and nonbiological parents when she discussedher inability to use the term “Daddy” for her stepfather across relational contexts.She explained, “It’s really awkward, because still to this day when I call mydad and stepmom . . . I have to be really careful about what I call [my mom andstepdad] . . . I always have to refer to them as my mom and Paul even thoughthat’s not what I call him.”

Second, many stepchildren in the present study reported using particularaddress terms because it is was easier for them and it helped to lessen confusion


over who was a legitimate member to people outside the family. In otherwords, the code-switching referenced earlier often helped them to managethe balance of stepfamily life. For example, one stepchild explained whyshe included the prefix “step” when introducing her stepsiblings to others:“I refer to them as my stepsiblings just because it solves some confusion thatsome people might have about how that happened and how they are relatedbecause they are so much younger.” Another stepchild discussed how hetries to make it easier on himself and others when introducing stepfamily.He reported:

Whenever I talk about them with people it’s always my stepdad, my stepmom,stepsister, and now Kendra, I always [say] half-sister, so it’s just I always put thoseterms in there because I do have a biological, real sister and so I guess, I try to helppeople out because obviously my family’s really confusing so I just use it to helppeople out.

Other stepchildren commented that it was sometimes easier on them tojust ignore it when others left out the “step” prefix for stepfamily members.For example, one stepchild explained how he sometimes lets others refer to hisstepfather as his “dad” stating, “When I referred to him I always referred to himas James or my stepdad, but still consider him one of my parents, so when otherpeople refer to him as my dad I just ignored it because I knew they were talkingabout James.”

Finally, in interviews where stepchildren reported managing the balanceof stepfamily life, a recurrent theme of struggling with address terms emerged.Participants reported struggling to find terms to show respect for their stepparents.Moreover, they reported guilt and sadness over their use of address termsbecause the terms often contradicted the way they felt about their families.In other words, whereas some participants used address terms to purposefullycommunicate solidarity or separateness, these participants reported using termsto manage confusion, but lamented the implications of the terms’ meanings.For example, one participant explained: “I remember like calling Bill my step-dad, but it’s always just been like that. I wish I just referred to him as my dad, butit never just came. So I always felt bad about calling him my stepdad becauseI felt like it demeans our relationship, when it isn’t because he really is the onethat raised me.”

Overall, our results indicate that stepchildren managed stepfamily identitythrough their use of address terms by communicating either solidarity or sepa-rateness and/or by managing the complexity of stepfamily life. They reportedstruggling with role management between families and guilt over their use ofaddress terms. They also, however, celebrated the use of address terms for theirability to communicate the special nature of stepfamily relationships, respect forstepparents, and family closeness.


The Meaning of Address Terms

Research Question 3 looked at the meanings stepchildren attributed to their families’use of address terms. In the present data, stepchildren assigned meaning to theaddress term stories they told and offered overall story conclusions (morals) forwhat the story signified. Specifically, stepchildren reported that (a) address terms“don’t matter,” (b) address terms “do matter,” particularly in terms of reflectingrelational meaning, and (c) address terms reflect larger moral meanings abouthow important it is to accept one’s stepfamily situation.

Address Terms “Don’t Matter”: Minimizing Address Term Significance.When asked to discuss the moral of the use of address terms in the stories theytold, 17 (43.6%) of our participants reported that address terms “don’t matter,”“aren’t a big deal,” and/or “don’t affect us,” etc. Interestingly, however, eachof these individuals also reported on the significance and meaning of addressterm use elsewhere in the interview. In other words, although they dismissedthe overall importance of address terms in assessing the story moral, the sto-ries themselves signified the symbolic and strategic importance of addressterm use. For example, when asked how important address terms were to herfamily one stepchild stated, “It doesn’t really affect, I can’t say that the labelsaffect the way I feel, I mean I care about them all.” However, earlier in theinterview as referenced above she claimed, “I always felt bad about callinghim my stepdad because I felt like it demeans our relationship, when it isn’tbecause he really is the one that raised me.” Thus, in her own words, she statesat one point that address terms do not affect the relationship, but at anotherthat they explicitly do.

Another participant claimed: “I don’t think it would really matter if I calledhim Dad or Matt, I think I’m just more comfortable calling him Matt and we stillknow what our relationship is no matter what we call each other.” However,when asked to tell a story about address terms, this stepchild stated, “I’ve toldhim [stepfather] before like when I was little that I wanted him to be my dad, andthat really sticks out to me because that really meant a lot to him and me.” Theinterviewer asked, “What did he say to you when you told him that?” The step-child replied, “That he would be proud to be my dad.” Thus, despite her claimthat address terms do not matter, this stepchild commented on how much thatmoment meant to her and their relationship. This was common to all the partici-pants who said that address terms “don’t matter.”

The potential contradiction between the importance and nonimportance ofaddress terms can be explained by three types of meanings reflected in partici-pants’ responses. First, some participants reported that address terms don’t matterin the current context of their family relationships, but did at the time that theterms were negotiated. Thus, although the terms may have mattered a great dealwhen they were determined, they no longer matter symbolically or pragmatically


for participants. Second, some stepchildren in our study noted a distinctionbetween the symbolic and pragmatic nature of address terms in a way that helpedexplain why they felt address terms “don’t matter.” For example, the addressterms were symbolically meaningful (e.g., show my love for my stepparent), butbecause they were second-nature in use they did not think about them as meaningfulin day-to-day practice. Others recognized a difference between the symbolicstruggle over how to adequately respect their family members and the knowledgethat stepfamily members knew they loved them no matter what they called them.

Third, and finally, some participants reported that address terms mattered insome contexts, but not in others. Most of these participants noted that terms mat-ter less inside the family than they do outside the family for either lessening con-fusion or communicating relationship status as is reflected in the meaningspresented here.

Address Terms “Do Matter”: Reflecting Relational Meaning. On the otherhand, many participants explicitly discussed the importance of address term use,often stating explicitly the ways in which address terms communicate, affect,and/or signify family relationships. This echoes some of what we found above inthe ways that stepchildren use address terms to manage family identity, but thesestatements emerged directly in response to the question “What is the moral ofthis story?” For example, one stepchild told the story of his brother dropping theprefix of “step,” and his reported moral was, “I think it takes away that wholestepfamily label and it creates that bond that family bond. You [know] wherepeople say you’re just a stepfamily, or you’re not my real dad or you know, allthat stuff, it gets rid of that.” Another stepchild commented specifically on howaddress terms affect stepfamily relationships stating, “If I had to make one[moral] perhaps, it’s that the terms that we use dictate the closeness of ourrelationships or that the closeness of our relationships dictate our terms.” Not allmorals reflected closeness, however. For her story, one stepchild explained howshe didn’t want her daughter calling her stepmother “Grandma” because she didn’tfeel that close to her. When asked the moral of that story, she reported, “there’s nota strong emotional attachment yet you’re using these words that have this reallydeep meaning as far as their attachment to you, so it’s really awkward.”

Acceptance. After telling their address term stories, many stepchildrenreported that another moral was accepting your stepfamily because they are notgoing to go anywhere. Thus, although we asked about the morals of the specificaddress term story, participants’ responses implicated larger moral meaningsabout stepfamily life in general. For example, one stepchild reported, “I thinkchildren that are in remarriages just need to accept it and take it . . . let them be inyour life.” Another stepchild explained, “[Play] the hand that life gives youI guess, gotta adapt to it, I got to know them [his stepfamily] really well . . . andI guess just have fun with it, don’t let it get you too bad because you are missing


out on good times.” Ultimately, many stepchildren believed they should useaddress terms to accept the family.

Follow-Up Analyses: Stepchild Clusters

From our analysis of Research Questions 1 and 2, and drawing from the results ofResearch Question 3, we noticed commonalities among stepchildren in their useof address terms that were not fully captured or synthesized based on an exami-nation of terms, identity, and meaning separately. In order to further analyzethese commonalities, we conducted additional analyses that would allow a moresynthesized interpretation. Specifically, following Miles and Huberman (1994),we engaged in interpretive synthesis (Denzin, 1989), using a combinationof case-oriented and variable-oriented strategies to identify clusters or types ofstepchildren according to their use of address terms.

This process required additional systematic coding of the data. In particular,we assigned codes to each case based on the individuals’ reported use of stepparentaddress terms (1 = formal address terms, 2 = familiar terms, 3 = familial addressterms) and strategies for managing family identity (1 = solidarity, 2 = separateness,3 = managing the balance). Stepparent address terms were chosen, in particular,because all participants reported on address term use for at least one stepparent.Not all participants (n = 17, 43.5%) reported on their use of address termswith their stepsiblings and therefore these address terms were not included in thefollow-up analysis.

Stepchildren were assigned one primary code for stepparent address term use.Specifically, we assigned them a code based on the stepparent relationship(if they reported on more than one) that dominated the content of the interview.Moreover, if stepchildren engaged in code-switching, we coded for the addressterms they used when speaking face-to-face with their stepparents. Two codersread through the transcripts and assigned a code for all 39 participants. Intercoderreliability was good (κ = .83, % of agreement = .95) and any discrepancies werediscussed until consensus was reached and one primary code was assigned.

A similar procedure was followed for the ways in which stepchildren reportedusing address terms to manage family identity. Specifically, participants wereassigned a code of communicating solidarity, communicating separateness, ormanaging the balance of stepfamily life1. Intercoder reliability was adequate

1As discussed in the results of Research Question 2, some stepchildren reported on more than oneway to manage family identity through address term use. For the follow-up analyses on stepchildclusters, however, we assigned each participant one primary code for managing identity. In order tomost accurately represent the data, we created decision rules for assigning one code based on theidentity management strategy that dominated the interview. This procedure allowed us to accuratelyrepresent participants’ experiences while also meaningfully synthesizing the data into commonstepchild clusters.


(kappa = .69, % of agreement = .77). Discrepancies were discussed at length andone code was assigned for each stepchild.

Once these codes were assigned, we grouped stepchildren according to bothsets of categories. For example, stepchildren who reported using familiar termswere assigned a code of 2. Similarly, children who we identified as using addressterms to communicate solidarity received a code of 1. We then combined thesecodes to determine clusters of stepchildren such that, for example, a child whoused familiar address terms and communicated solidarity received a code of 21.

From this coding procedure six clusters of stepchildren emerged. Because thecluster analysis we used is a combination of case-oriented and variable-orientedstrategies (Miles & Huberman, 1994), we also used the qualitative meaningsderived from Research Question 3 to guide our interpretation of the six stepchildclusters that emerged from the codes assigned based on address term use andmanaging identity. Specifically, we read through the transcripts in each cluster toverify commonalities among the groups. Our analysis revealed consistencywithin clusters, however, in combination with the meanings woven throughoutthe interviews, our interpretive synthesis suggested that two sets of clusters mightbe combined to provide a more parsimonious and meaningful interpretation ofstepchildren’s experiences.

Specifically, those who reported using familiar and familial terms tocommunicate solidarity expressed similar meanings and sentiments in theirinterviews and were therefore combined. Similarly, participants who usedfamiliar or familial terms to manage the balance of stepfamily life reportedsimilar meanings about the use of address terms across their interviews. Thusthese two categories were also combined. Thus, the final set of clusters reflectedsimilarity among stepchildren’s use, identity-management, and meanings associatedwith stepparent address terms. The four clusters are described next and presented inTable 2.

We titled the first cluster of stepchildren “Isolators” (n = 4, 10.3%). Theseparticipants reported using formal relationship terms to address their stepparentsand also identified using address terms to communicate separateness. Theseparticipants reported strategically and purposefully using address terms to excludefamily members, separate and guard themselves from others. Although they foundthe process confusing and unfortunate, these children were unapologetic and matter-of-fact about their use of terms and identified the importance of membership andhierarchy in the use of address terms.

These individuals differ slightly from those in the second cluster, termed“Gatekeepers” (n = 8, 20.5%). These individuals were concerned with controllinguse and access to particular address terms. They used familiar terms to refer totheir stepparents and also reported using address terms to separate themselvesfrom the stepfamily. They differ from Isolators in that they were not closed tothe idea of eventually developing closer relationships with their stepparents

256

TA

BLE

2S

tepc

hild

Clu

ster

s B

ased

on

Rep

orte

d A

ddre

ss T

erm

Use

Rep

orte

d A

ddre

ss T

erm

Use

Fam

ily

Iden

tity

Man

agem

ent

Exa

mpl

eF

orm

alF

amil

iar

Fam

ilia

lSo

lida

rity

Sepa

rate

ness

Man

agin

g th

e B

alan

ce

Isol

ator

sX

X“I

don

’t e

ven

thin

k of

her

as

my

step

mot

her

. . .

I th

ink

of h

er

as m

y fa

ther

’s w

ife.

”G

atek

eepe

rsX

X“R

ight

now

I d

on’t

for

esee

eve

r ca

llin

g m

y st

epm

othe

r, m

om;

I ha

ve a

har

d ti

me

calli

ng h

er s

tepm

om a

s it

is r

ight

now

. B

ut I

gue

ss if

the

rela

tions

hip

gets

to a

poi

nt w

here

you

get

in

tim

ate

enou

gh a

nd y

ou’r

e ac

quai

nted

eno

ugh

wit

h ea

ch

othe

r, th

en y

ou c

an h

ave

sort

of

affe

ctio

nate

add

ress

term

s,

mom

or

son,

and

thin

gs li

ke th

at. B

ut I

thin

k it

take

s tim

e.”

Val

idat

ors

XX

X“I

’ve

told

him

bef

ore

. . .

that

I w

ante

d hi

m to

be

my

dad,

and

th

at r

eally

stic

ks o

ut to

me

beca

use

that

rea

lly m

eant

a lo

t to

him

and

me

. . .

.[H

e sa

id] h

e w

ould

be

prou

d to

be

my

dad

. . .

.I c

onsi

der

them

to b

e m

ore

than

just

my

step

fam

ily a

nd

that

’s p

roba

bly

like

wha

t aff

ects

my

feel

ings

bec

ause

ther

e ar

e m

ore

emot

ions

. Som

e pe

ople

mig

ht ju

st s

ay th

at h

e’s

just

my

mom

’s h

usba

nd o

r w

hate

ver

. . .

[but

] I

feel

like

I ha

ve m

ore

of a

fam

ily n

ow, l

ike

I fe

el li

ke I

can

say

, K

yle

is m

y da

d.”

Jugg

lers

XX

X“W

hen

I re

fer

to m

y bi

olog

ical

fat

her,

he

is m

y fa

ther

and

w

hen

I re

fer

to J

ohn,

he’

s da

d . .

. us

ing

that

term

for

Joh

n af

fect

ed m

e, c

omin

g to

term

s w

ith,

how

do

I re

spec

t Joh

n fo

r w

hat h

e do

es f

or m

y fa

mily

and

me,

and

sti

ll m

aint

ain

resp

ect a

nd a

dora

tion

for

my

biol

ogic

al f

athe

r.”


and, thus, changing their address terms accordingly. They all, however, reportedfeeling pressured or rushed into using address terms unnaturally or in waysthat masked the disconnect, coldness, or sadness they felt about the stepfamily’sformation.

The third cluster, termed “Validators” (n = 12, 30.7%), combined individualswho used familiar and familial terms to refer to their stepparents based on thecommon use of address terms to communicate solidarity. These individuals,although realistic about stepfamily life, also reported that using familiar or familialaddress terms made them feel connected and special, created a sense of belonging,pride, and closeness, and represented a wide degree of support and love. In otherwords, these people were both grateful and purposefully inclusive of other familymembers in their use of address terms.

Finally, like Validators, “Jugglers” (n = 15, 38.5%) either used familiar orfamilial terms to refer to their stepparents. These individuals, however, reportedthat they used address terms primarily to manage the balance of stepfamily life.The driving impetus for the struggle of these stepchildren revolved around find-ing ways to show love and respect for their stepparents while at the same timeprotecting the feelings of their biological parents and clearing up confusion withoutsiders. Thus, Jugglers acknowledged the importance of their stepfamilies, butstruggled with balancing the tensions exerted by forces outside the family. Thus,their use of address terms was often accompanied by guilt and confusion. Table 2offers a cross-case analysis table to illustrate the communicative management ofaddress terms across each cluster.

Advice to New Stepfamilies

Research Question 4 asked what advice stepchildren would give to stepfamilymembers currently dealing with the use of address terms. Each participant inour study offered advice based on his or her own experiences. Advice, in order offrequency, included four categories. First, the majority of our participants recom-mended that families “do what’s comfortable.” Specifically, they advisedthat stepfamily members call one another whatever the stepchildren feel com-fortable calling their family members. Second, many participants reiteratedthe phrase “don’t force it.” These children recommended letting appropriateaddress terms emerge instead of forcing members to address one another bya certain term. Perhaps not surprisingly, our stepchildren participants alsosuggested a third category of advice, namely that forming stepfamilies should“let kids decide” on which address terms to use. Finally, several participantsrecommended that stepfamilies “discuss it.” A small number of participantsmentioned the importance of talking about the use of address terms as a familybefore adopting specific terms. Frequencies and examples of each type ofadvice appear in Table 3.


DISCUSSION

The present study enhances the growing body of research on stepfamilies as wellas growing research that focuses on the ways in which everyday talk affects andreflects relationship culture (e.g., Wood & Duck, 2006). Stepchildren in thepresent study identified stories of address terms that helped them make sense oftheir role in the stepfamily. As Ganong and Coleman (2004) discussed, the use ofaddress terms can be difficult for stepchildren. Thus, discussing these situationsallows stepchildren to make sense of stepfamily membership. Our results alsoindicate, however, that the use of address terms is not always difficult or prob-lematic; instead address terms were often seen as ways to symbolically enhancefamily cohesion and strategically manage communication with members outsidethe family. Whether positive or negative, the stepchildren’s experiences withaddress terms were meaningful and significant. In the discussion that follows, wesynthesize our findings by highlighting the significant conclusions, implications,and directions for future research that emerge from this study.

First, the results of the current study overwhelmingly indicate that, althoughrudimentary and everyday, address terms affect and reflect relationships andrelationship quality. Moreover, address terms are significant to negotiating the

TABLE 3Frequencies and Examples of Advice for Using Stepfamily Address Terms

Category of Advice Example

“Do what’s comfortable” (n = 25, 64%) Just to do what you feel comfortable with, don’t. Just because the parents say “well oh, you have to call him dad,” you don’t have to; that’s your choice, no matter what, it’s what you feel comfortable with and you need to feel comfortable with it.

“Don’t force it” (n = 13, 33.3%) If you have a really good connection with your stepfamily and you know, you don’t hold feelings behind or just, like, you know, make it as natural as you can, so if you feel like calling them mom or dad, brother, sister, go ahead and do it; there’s no reason that you shouldn’t. But if you don’t, don’t make yourself do it. Don’t force it.

“Let kids decide” (n = 7, 17.9%) To not push it on anyone. Um, especially if there are young kids involved. To um, back off and let the kid, the child decide when he or she wants to establish that relationship with the stepparent.

“Discuss it” (n = 7, 17.9%) I think it’s really important to sit down and talk about it. I mean, even though I was really, really young when I had this discussion, I still remember it as a significant point in my family’s formation.


meanings and stepfamily identities of the stepchildren we interviewed. Thisis consistent with previous research that person-referencing practices reflectrelationships and change as relationships change (Tracy, 2002) and serve tolegitimate or invalidate individual and relational identity (Bergen et al., 2006; Briggset al., 2007). At the same time, as our title indicates, one participant aptly explained:“So I would just say just let them [address terms] emerge and realize that sometimesthey mean something and sometimes they don’t.” This simple statement reflects thecommon experience of stepchildren in our study. Sometimes address terms carry agreat deal of significance and reflect feelings – both positive and negative – aboutfamily members, whereas sometimes they are automatic, second-nature, and/or stra-tegically used to simplify interactions both within and outside the family.

Although several stepchildren in our study discussed the idea that addressterms “don’t matter,” every participant discussed address term use as significantand important (and often extremely so) at some point in his or her interview.Indeed, many of our participants offered the story moral that stepfamily addressterms “do matter” when communicating relationship ties. The contradictionsbetween the importance and nonimportance of stepfamily address terms in partic-ipants’ interviews suggests a potentially complex system of rules, meanings, andprocesses for managing identity and meaning in and outside the family. Of theparticipants who reported that address terms “don’t matter,” Jugglers consistentlycited a struggle between the symbolic importance of terms (i.e., using addressterms in a way that shows my love for both my step- and biological parents) andthe nonimportance of term usage in everyday talk (i.e., “Calling him Gregdoesn’t mean I don’t view him as a father”).

Given the both/and significance of address terms, future research might inves-tigate the motivations and means by which stepfamily members communicativelymanage dialectical tensions, such as autonomy-connection, particularly whenbalancing between direct and referential address term code-switching. Forinstance, stepchildren might use familial address terms referentially when tryingto convey an image of desirable family closeness among new acquaintances, butswitch to familiar terms when directly referencing stepfamily members in orderto establish greater levels of autonomy within the stepfamily system. Futureresearch would also benefit from teasing out the differences in use and meaningbetween referential and direct address terms. In the current study, stepchildrenwere clear about the ways in which both direct and referential terms communi-cated family identity, however, identifying the factors that discriminate how andwhy stepfamily members use direct and referential terms differently is a neces-sary next step in understanding the ways in which the use of address terms affectsand reflects stepfamily functioning.

A second important finding in this study involves the types of address terms thatstepchildren use to refer to their family members. Ganong and Coleman (2004)claimed that stepfamily members do not have appropriate terms for referencing


one another. Although many of our participants reported struggling with terms(e.g., guilt, sadness, respect), the results also painted a clear picture of threeclear and available types of terms: formal, familiar, and familial.

Our analysis of stepchild clusters reveals that these types of terms mayreflect a continuum of stepfamily closeness. In other words, the terms usedconsistently signified whether stepchildren were using terms to create close,moderate, or distant relationships. Specifically, formal terms were used byIsolators in our sample to communicate separateness. Thus, it appears that for-mal terms might be placed at the distant end of the continuum. At the oppositeend of the spectrum, Validators used familial terms to communicate cohesivefamily culture.

Finally, for the most part, familiar terms fell in the middle of the continuumand communicated either separateness, solidarity, or managing the balance ofstepfamily life, as illustrated by the difference in Gatekeepers and Jugglers. Thus,although formal terms communicated separateness and familial terms communi-cated closeness in our sample, familiar terms were used differently by differentparticipants. The continuum may be represented in this way:

This finding is consistent with Tracy’s (2002) typology of address terms, whichis also organized according to a continuum of closeness/distance. Future researchmight use additional narrative analyses and/or other theories of meaning-making,such as attribution and appraisal theories, to unravel how and why the same termsare used to communicate closeness and distance.

Third, identifying the clusters of stepchildren and the types and continuum ofaddress term use offers several practical implications and is of value to familyresearchers and practitioners. The current study will be beneficial to new step-families that are currently negotiating the use of address terms. This is supportedby the finding that participants who reported that address terms do not matternow acknowledged that they did matter when the stepfamily formed. Althoughour results indicate that address terms were meaningful and symbolic acrosstime, stepchildren reported that they were especially important pragmaticallywhen the stepfamily formed. Developing stepfamilies may benefit from themeanings associated with address term use as well as the advice gathered fromstepchildren with firsthand experience.

Such information could be made available in counseling and therapy offices.Our results indicate that it is particularly important to advise forming stepfamilies

Communicating Distance

Communicating Closeness

Isolators Gatekeepers Jugglers Validators


on the importance of address terms and the importance of not forcing them on thechildren in the families. Most of the advice stepchildren gave revolved aroundthe idea of emergence, comfort, and flexibility. Such advice ought to be usefulto parents attempting to make a potentially difficult transition easier on theirfamilies. Moreover, we believe that although underrepresented in our sample ofadvice, more discussion on the topic of address terms should take place early instepfamily development. The participants who were able to negotiate the use ofaddress terms in a comfortable and flexible way appeared to be more satisfied withtheir stepfamily relationships and the communication that characterized them.

Although this study is influential in understanding stepchildren’s perceptionsabout the communication of address terms, it is not without limitations. We onlyconducted interviews with one member of each stepfamily – a stepchild. Inter-viewing other stepfamily members involved in the negotiation of address termswould provide a richer understanding of this communicative process. In addition,most of our participants were college students whose stepfamilies formed inadolescence. It might prove fruitful for future researchers to gain the insight andexperiences of stepchildren whose stepfamilies formed at different periods oftheir lives to see how the use of address terms may differ depending on age atstepfamily formation.

The fact that the stories we received about address terms were in many casespositive might be another limitation of this study. This could be a result of aself-selection and positivity bias. Stepchildren who volunteered to participatemay have had more positive experiences with their stepfamilies and/or they mayhave operated under a social bias to provide responses that reflect happier families.Despite this, our findings are consistent with previous research on stepfamilies inwhich researchers found positive coparenting (Graham, 1997) and stepfamilyformation (Baxter et al., 1999) trajectories to be the most common patterns ofreported relationship development. To ensure a more representative sample,however, future research should seek to include participants whose stepfamilyexperiences were more difficult.

Finally, it would also be beneficial for future researchers to have a more eth-nically diverse sample to see if the use of address terms varies across families ofdifferent races and ethnicities. Whereas the goal of qualitative research is to iden-tify “recurring patterns of interaction” (Braithwaite, 1995, p. 149) regardless ofsample size, future researchers would benefit from a larger sample. Includinga larger number of participants would allow researchers to investigate if thestories about the use of address terms are linked in any way to particular outcomevariables such as family satisfaction as well as the factors that discriminatedifferent forms and functions of address terms across individuals and families.

Despite its limitations, the current study offers support for the ways in whichaddress terms function in the identity and meaning-making processes of stepfamilydevelopment. It is clear that, at least some of the time, address terms matter both


symbolically and pragmatically, and the current study offers an initial glimpseinto the ways in which stepchildren manage and make sense of address term use.

REFERENCES

Afifi, T. D. (2003). “Feeling caught” in stepfamilies: Managing boundary turbulence throughappropriate communication privacy rules. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20,729–766.

Baxter, L., Braithwaite, D. O., & Nicholson, J. (1999). Turning points in the development of blendedfamily relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 291–313.

Beidelman, T. O. (1963). Term of address as clues to social relationships. In A. W. Gouldner &H. P. Gouldner (Eds.), Modern sociology: An introduction to the study of human interaction(pp. 308–327). New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Bergen, K. M., Suter, E. A., & Daas, K. L. (2006). About as solid as a fish net: Symbolic constructionof a legitimate parental identity for nonbiological lesbian mothers. Journal of Family Communication,6, 201–220.

Braithwaite, D. O. (1995). Ritualized embarrassment at “coed” wedding and baby showers. Commu-nication Reports, 8, 145–147.

Braithwaite, D. O., Baxter, L. A., & Harper, A. M. (1998). The role of rituals in the management ofthe dialectical tension of “old” and “new” in blended families. Communication Studies, 48,101–112.

Braithwaite, D. O., Olson, L. N., Golish, T. D. Soukup, C., & Turman, P. (2001). "Becoming afamily": Developmental process represented in blended family discourse. Journal of AppliedCommunication Research, 29, 221–247.

Briggs, D. W., Augoustinos, M., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2007). “Basically it’s a recognition issue”:Validating foster parent identities. Family Matters, 76, 64–69.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bulmer, M. (1979). Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data. Sociological Review 27, 651–677.Cherlin, A. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American Journal of Sociology, 84,

634–650.Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. H. (1995). Family reconfiguring following divorce. In S. Duck & J. T.

Wood (Eds.), Confronting relationship challenges (pp. 73–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2004). Communication of stepfamilies. In A. L. Vangelisti

(Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 215–232). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 16,Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Emihovich, C. (1981). The intimacy of address: Friendship markers in children’s social play.Language in Society, 10, 189–199.

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1971). Sociolinguistics. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Advances in the sociology oflanguage (pp. 15–92). The Hague: Mouton.

Fiese, B. H., & Sameroff, A. J. (1999). The family narrative consortium: A multidimensionalapproach to narratives. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,64, 1–36.


Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (2004). Stepfamily relationships: Development, dynamics, andinterventions. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Graham, E. E. (1997). Turning points and commitment in post-divorce relationships. CommunicationMonographs, 64, 350–368.

Hetherington, E. M., & Stanley-Hagen, M. (2000). Diversity among stepfamilies. In D. Demo,K. Allen, & M. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of family diversity (pp. 173–196). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Koenig Kellas, J. (2008). Narrative theories: Making sense of interpersonal communication. InL. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication(pp. 269–279). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lamb, E. N. (2004a). Communication privacy management of stepsiblings. Paper presented at themeeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

Lamb, E. N. (2004b). The experience and expression of emotion within stepsibling relationships.Poster presented at the meeting of the International Association for Relationship Research,Madison, WI.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Linde, C. (1993). Life stories: The creation of coherence. New York: Oxford University Press.McAdams, D. P. (1997). The stories we live by. New York: The Guilford Press.McCracken, G. (1998). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd

ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Philipsen, G., & Huspek, M. (1985). A bibliography of sociolinguistic studies of personal address.

Anthropological Linguistics, 27, 203–237.Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Smith, J. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, &

L. Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 9–26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and

techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Tracy, K. (2002). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities. New York: The Guilford Press.Wood, J. T., & Duck, S. (2006). Composing relationships: Communication in everyday life. Belmont,

CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Stepfamily Address Terms: “Sometimes They Mean Something and Sometimes They Don't.”∗

Documents

Transcript of Stepfamily Address Terms: “Sometimes They Mean Something and Sometimes They Don't.”∗