Content uploaded by Geoffrey Greif
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Geoffrey Greif on Oct 04, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW
Daughters-in-law and their Mother-in-law: Predictors of a Positive Relationship
Geoffrey L. Greif, PhD and Michael E. Woolley, PhD
Professor Associate Professor
ggreif@ssw.umaryland.edu mwoolley@ssw.umaryland.edu
410-706-3567 410-706-7839
University of Maryland School of Social Work
525 W. Redwood St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
1
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 2
Abstract
This article describes factors related to a daughter-in-law reporting a positive relationship
with her mother-in-law. With over 2 million marriages annually in the U.S. (CDC, 2015),
gaining an understanding of in-law relationships is of paramount importance. These relationships
affect multiple generations in the family across the lifespan. Drawing on a survey of 351
daughters-in-law who participated in a Qualtrics platform, a regression analysis is used to see
what variables most highly predict a positive relationship. Six items predict such a relationship:
the daughter-in-law and mother-in-law sharing interests; the daughter-in-law’s perception that
her husband is close with his mother; the daughter-in-law feeling close to her father-in-law; the
daughter-in-law feeling caught between her husband and her mother-in-law; the daughter-in-law
believing the mother-in-law is closer to another child-in-law; and the amount of time the
daughter-in-law and mother-in-law spend together. Boundary ambiguity is used as a lens to
understand the relationship. Gaining an understanding of what role other family members play in
this relationship, particularly the spouse/son, can be useful in helping those
daughters-in-law/mothers-in-law who are struggling with their relationships. Implications for
therapy include helping the family to draw clearer boundaries in their relationships. Directions
for research are offered.
Key words: in-laws; daughter-in-law; mother-in-law; father-in-law; marriage
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 3
Daughters-in-law and their Mother-in-law:
Predictors of a Positive Relationship
When a couple marries, three new families are formed: each of the newlywed’s family of
origin adds a child-in-law and the couple also begins their own family (Morr Serewicz & Canary,
2008). Such newly formed in-law relationships hold the potential for great joy; yet many also
generate significant familial strain, potentially impacting multiple generations (Merrill, 2007).
With more than two million marriages occurring each year in the U.S. (CDC, 2015), gaining a
greater understanding of in-law relationships is of paramount importance to multiple generations
of the family including, parents, parents-in-law, children-in-law, and grandchildren.
Women are often considered central in these relationships. For example, research has
found they frequently play the role of kin-keeper in the family, demonstrating a greater
investment than men in inter-generational relationships (Santos & Levitt, 2007; Rittenour, 2012),
sibling relationships (Mikkelson, 2014), and childrearing (Medved, 2014). Women also often
devote more time to caretaking of the elderly (Chesley & Poppie, 2009) as well as to other
family members (Caputo, Pavalko, & Hardy, 2016). In the current study we focus on the
daughter-in-law/mother-in-law relationship from the perspective of the daughter-in-law.
With the multiple roles often occupied by many mothers and mothers-in-law, the
daughter-in-law and her spouse have the challenge of finding a place for themselves within each
of their newly formed families. To be successful, the daughter-in-law and her spouse will most
likely prioritize their own marriage (Silverstein, 1990) and, in doing so, may need to build a
boundary around that relationship to prevent unwanted interference from both sets of parents/in-
laws. The daughter-in-law, our focus here, will have to build a satisfactory relationship with her
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 4
parents-in-law – and perhaps the mother-in-law in particular, given her often central role in the
family – in order to make life easier for her spouse and to increase the likelihood of having a
satisfactory marriage (Bryant, Conger, & Meehan, 2001). This often requires a balancing act in
the potential triangle formed between the daughter-in-law, her spouse, and her mother-in-law
(Morr Serewicz, 2008) – a balancing act which may also include other family members, most
notably her father-in-law.
Drawing on a survey of 351 daughters-in-law, the purpose of this article is to describe the
factors related to a daughter-in-law reporting a positive relationship with her mother-in-law. We
begin by reviewing the limited available research that has examined this understudied but
consequential family relationship. We then detail the methods used to collect the sample of
survey data and complete the analyses reported. Following a discussion, we offer implications
for family therapy, study limitations, and directions for future research.
Background
Unless there has been communication leading up to the wedding about their expectations
for each other, the daughter-in-law, her spouse, and her mother-in-law may be unclear regarding
how to interact with each other, which could lead to boundary ambiguity and ambivalence (e.g.,
Turner, Young, & Black, 2006). Boundary ambiguity has been used in research to understand the
shifting relationships in divorce, remarriage, and stepfamily situations (Carroll, Olson, &
Buckmiller, 2006). Boundary ambiguity can be defined as, “… not knowing who is in or out of
your family or relationship…A high degree of boundary ambiguity becomes a risk factor, which
predicts depression, somatic symptoms, and family conflict” (Boss, 2006, p. 12). For example, if
a daughter-in-law, her spouse, and mother-in-law are all unclear about who makes social plans
for the couple or who is in charge of caring for the daughter-in-law’s spouse (the mother-in-
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 5
law’s son) if he has a serious disease, family conflict can occur. These communications could be
even more difficult if differences are present in their backgrounds. Such differences could come
to the fore if the marriage is inter-racial and family members are not comfortable with each other
(Campbell & Herman, 2015) or if people marry from different socio-economic classes (Ross,
1995).
Speaking specifically about the demands from family on the marital relationship,
Minuchin wrote, “…the capacity for complementary accommodation between spouses requires
freedom from interference by in-laws and children, and sometimes by the extrafamilial. The
development of skills for negotiating with peers, learned among siblings, requires
noninterference from parents” (1974, p. 54). Thus, while a newlywed couple attempts to build
multiple new relationships, including with their families of origin, a daughter-in-law may
struggle to form a boundary around her relationship with her spouse. If the daughter-in-law does
not know where she stands with her mother-in-law, she is likely to feel uncomfortable with her.
Boundary ambiguity can be conceptually linked to triangulation: “[u]nproductive triangles
involve three individuals in a struggle so that clear dyadic relationships are not possible” (Visher
& Visher, 1982, p. 348). When boundaries are unclear, cross-generation (e.g., mother-in-law,
son, and daughter-in-law) coalitions may form that lead to triangulation (Horsley, 1996). These
triangulations can be promulgated in the women’s relationship, in the mother-son relationship, or
even in a marital dyad if the daughter-in-law and spouse pull in or fail to keep out the mother-in-
law/mother.
Despite the negative societal tropes and jokes about daughters-in-law and sons-in-law
and their struggles with mothers-in-law, many daughters-in-law actually consider their mother-
in-law to be both close and important to them (Serovich & Price, 1994; Santos & Levitt, 2006;
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 6
Rittenour, 2012). Serovich and Price (1994) drew a sample of 618 coupled children-in-law from
the National Survey of Parents and Households. The participants reported a great deal of
satisfaction with in-laws – daughters-in-law were as equally satisfied with their relationship with
their mother-in-law as their father-in-law. Santos and Levitt (2006) surveyed 170 children-in-law
(120 were daughters-in-law) and asked them to place their parents-in-law in a network diagram
indicating how close and important they were. A majority (58%) placed their mother-in-law in a
manner that indicated they were considered a significant part of their network (49% rated their
father-in-law similarly).
Rittenour (2012), using a sample of 624 daughters-in-law from both listserv groups and
websites that focused on family and relationship issues, found that daughters-in-law were more
satisfied with their relationship with their mother-in-law when the mother-in-law disclosed
information about family issues (such as problems tied to past family relationships) and when
this was accompanied by generally supportive communication. Inclusive gestures demonstrated
by the mother-in-law (i.e., sharing personal information) conveyed acceptance of the daughter-
in-law and promoted greater trust in their relationship (Rittenour, 2012). Morr Serewicz and
Canary (2008) also found that positive disclosures by parents-in-law were related to closeness.
The sharing of personal information could be interpreted as drawing a boundary that could be
seen as inclusive around the daughter-in-law and mother-in-law relationship.
Showing respect for as well as having shared values and goals with were the most
frequently cited reasons for getting along with their mother-in-law, among a rural sample of 55
daughters-in-law (Marotz-Baden & Cowan, 1987). A lack of interference by the mother-in-law,
in the couple’s relationship, was also cited as a reason. If a daughter-in-law was struggling with
her mother-in-law, she was most likely to turn to her husband for advice.
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 7
The amount of time spent together and the number of years married have also been
related to closeness in a daughter-in-law/mother-in-law relationship. Santos and Levitt (2006)
found that the greater the daughters-in-law’s frequency of contact and the more years married,
the better the relationship. Fowler and Rittenour (2017) asked married college students to
complete a survey about their relationship with their parents-in-law. Students who were not
married could approach others they knew to complete the survey. The majority of the 179
respondents were daughters-in-law. Of these daughters-in-law, the majority reported on their
mother-in-law. Taking a life-span approach, Fowler and Rittenour (2017) also found that the
frequency of interaction with a parent-in-law was positively correlated with measures of
closeness. Contrary to Santos and Levitt (2006), however, the number of years married was
negatively correlated with in-law relationships. Their findings may be explained by the strains in
the relationships that emerge from the emotional toll of caring for aging parents and parents-in-
law. The data were not analyzed by gender of either respondent or in-law so it is difficult to
know the extent to which responses from sons-in-law or feelings about fathers-in-law influenced
the findings.
Willson, Shuey, and Elder (2003) further highlighted the difficulties that occur inter-
generationally as parents age and as the daughter-in-law/parent-in-law dynamic shifts. The
authors used the concept of ambivalence to understand data collected from a sample of 1,599
rural Iowans. Ambivalence – defined as holding simultaneous feelings towards someone that are
positive and negative – may occur as power and dependency shift with age and losses and gains
between family members fluctuate. Willson and colleagues (2003) found, “In general, there is
more ambivalence among dyads of women, in relationships with in-laws, with parents or in-laws
in poor health…and for adult children who did not get along well with parents in early life”
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 8
(2003, p. 1067). Ambivalence can also be tied to boundary ambiguity. For example, a daughter-
in-law and a mother-in-law may experience a reversal in their status in relation to each other
when the daughter-in-law must assist an aging mother-in-law with shopping and bathing, who
just a decade earlier had helped her with childcare. Thus, with the changing roles and the
accompanying feelings across the lifespan, the boundaries between them may become less clear.
Mixed feelings are not uncommon in daughter-in-law/mother-in-law relationships. Out of
23 daughters-in-law who participated in focus groups and individual interviews as part of a study
conducted by Turner and colleagues (2006), many described feelings of discomfort with their
mother-in-law. The daughters-in-law reported being eager to please their mother-in-law while
also trying to maintain autonomy and independence. Many felt closer to their mother-in-law
before the marriage only to feel shut out or disregarded by her post-nuptially and over the years.
These would be examples of how the boundaries in the relationship can shift over time.
Additionally, other research has illustrated the importance of focusing on boundaries that
are dynamic between generations. Fischer (1983) found a shift occurred between the daughter-
in-law and mother-in-law with the birth of a child such that the daughter-in-law gravitated away
from her mother-in-law and toward her own mother for assistance. This is in contrast to Santos
and Levitt’s (2006) study, where the children-in-law who had their own children placed the
mother-in-law in the diagram indicating greater closeness than the children-in-law without
children. Chong, Gordon, and Don (2017) discovered that, for new mothers, having a great deal
of contact with both their parents and their in-laws was related to feeling supported by them
(fathers-in-law and mothers-in-law were combined as one variable for this research). Yet, if the
daughter-in-law had greater contact with her own mother than her in-law, less emotional support
was received from the in-laws. For these studies we see mixed results as to how the level of
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 9
closeness and contact between the daughter-in-law and mother-in-law changes with the birth of a
new child.
Silverstein (1990), Horsley (1996), and Meyerstein (1996), all clinicians, focus on
boundaries in their work with families struggling with in-law issues. Silverstein (1990) suggests
that children-in-law who are nurtured well and allowed autonomy by their own parents when
young are more capable of forming nurturing relationships with their parents-in-law and can
avoid boundary issues. Horsley (1996), in a book dedicated to in-law relationships, drew on
Murray Bowen’s theory to help family members differentiate from their family emotional system
and thus learn to clarify boundaries. Meyerstein (1996) suggested ways of working with either
parents-in-law or children-in-law. One of her case examples centered on a daughter-in-law who
believed her husband was more closely tied to his parents than to her. Meyerstein’s (1996)
intervention focused, in part, on drawing a boundary around the younger couple and improving
their communication. This resulted in the husband’s increased differentiation from his parents
and lead to greater clarification of the intergenerational boundaries.
As the research shows, the daughter-in-law/mother-in-law relationship is not easily
characterized. While many daughters-in-law find the relationship close and satisfying, others
struggle and pull away as their parents-in-law age or at the birth of their child. However, feeling
included by the mother-in-law and sharing similar values can help the daughter-in-law feel closer
to the mother-in-law, as can frequent contact. When there are ambiguous boundaries, it can be
harder for daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law to achieve closeness.
Building on this prior research, we use the concepts of boundary ambiguity, linked to a
myriad of mainstream family therapy theories, to explore the correlates of closeness between
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 10
these two key family members. We also use this concept to suggest, based on our findings, how
to work clinically with families.
Methods
Data analyzed for this study were collected with a 114 item quantitative survey
developed by the authors, piloted in live interviews by the authors and masters students enrolled
in an advanced-level research course, and then formatted in the Qualtrics platform by the
authors. Qualtrics is an on-line survey platform in which researchers may design, format, and
administer their own surveys via email. Qualtrics has an infrastructure to administer surveys to a
sample of qualified respondents for researchers. The authors, supported by a grant from
(Authors’ institution), hired Qualtrics to administer this survey in 2017. Initial screening
questions assured that respondents met the study criteria. Those screening questions included: 1)
being female; 2) being married to a male; 3) having a living mother-in-law; and 4) having or had
interactions with that mother-in-law. For the current study we focused on daughter- to mother-in-
law relationships in heterosexual marriages. Other research we are conducting is exploring gay
and lesbian couple’s in-law relationships as well as the relationships of other in-laws (Authors,
Under contract).
Sample
Qualtrics made the survey available to their sample frame of potential respondents on
July 20th, 2017. Over the next 12 days, 1,042 potential daughter-in-law respondents initiated the
survey with the targeted sample of at least 250 achieved on August 1, 2017 and the survey
closed. The four screening questions screened out 691 of those 1,042 as not meeting all four
study eligibility criteria. The final sample included 351 daughters-in-law with a mean age of 39.6
(SD=10.7) and an age range from 18 to 69. The mothers-in-law’s mean age was 67.4 (SD=11.1)
and their ages ranged from 43 to 94. The mean length of time these daughters-in-law had been
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 11
married into the family was 12.7 years (SD=10.4). Of the 351 daughters-in-law, 250 (71%)
reported being European American or White, 35 (10%) reported being Asian, 23 (6%) Latina or
Hispanic, 14 (4%) Black or African American, 3 (1%) American Indian or Alaska Native, 1
(<1%) Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 3 (1%) multiple races/ethnicities, and 22 (7%)
reported being another race. Respondents had an average of 15 years (SD=2.5) of education
(three years beyond a high school degree) with a range of 7 to 22 years. In terms of combined
household income, 54 (15%) endorsed $40,000 or below, 103 (29%) between $41,000 and
$80,000, 104 (30%) $81,000 to $120,000, 49 (14%) $121,000 to $160,000, and 41 (12%) above
$160,000. Of the total sample, 62.4% had children from the current marriage and 20% reported
“Does not apply” when asked about their father-in-law.
Measures
All measures were items, or sets of items, from the 114 item survey. Most items used for
this analysis were either dichotomous (Yes, No) or had the same response set except two, Time
Spent Together and Income, for which the response options are detailed below. The response set
for all other survey items was a 5-point Likert scale from Strongly Agree (coded 4), Agree (3),
Neutral (2), Disagree (1), to Strongly Disagree (coded 0).
Dependent Variable. Four survey items, all measuring positive aspects of the daughter’s
reports of her relationship with her mother-in-law, were used as indicators of a four item latent
variable measure. The four items included: 1) My mother-in-law and I have a close relationship;
2) Overall, I admire my mother-in-law, 3) I can ask my mother-in-law for advice, and 4) I enjoy
spending time with my mother-in-law. The scale including these four items had strong internal
consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = .94), with the scale mean used as the dependent variable,
which will be referred to as Positive Relationship.
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 12
Independent Variables. There were twelve independent variables included in the current
analysis. Five variables measured demographic characteristics of the daughter-in-law respondent
and her marriage. Three dichotomous (Yes, No) survey items asked about characteristics of the
marriage. The first asked about Children from Marriage, which stated: Do you have any children
from this marriage? The second about the daughter-in-law and her husband being the Same SES
Growing Up: Were you and your husband the same family socioeconomic status growing up?
The third dichotomous item was Same Race, which asked: Are you and your husband the same
race or ethnicity? The Income Range of the daughter-in-law and her husband was measured by
the following item: In what range is your combined household income? Response options
included: Up to $40,000 (1), $41,000 and $80,000 (2), $81,000 to $120,000 (3), $121,000 to
$160,000 (4), or Above $160,000 (5). Finally, Race or ethnicity was dummy coded in the model,
with white or European American as the reference group, four groups were entered into the
analysis including Black or African American, Asian American, Latina or Hispanic, and Other
Race or Ethnicity (to which the following response groups were included due to small sample
sizes: Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Multiple
Races or Ethnicities, and Another Race or Ethnicity).
Seven survey items measured factors related to family relationships across three
categories: 1) three items measuring interactions with and factors related to the mother-in-law; 2)
two items assessing factors related to the husband of the daughter-in-law/son of the mother-in-
law (husband/son); and 3) two daughter-in-law factors not about interactions with the mother-in-
law.
The first item of the three measures related to the mother-in-law centered on the
daughter-in-law having Similar Interests (the survey item stated: My mother-in-law and I have
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 13
similar interests). The second item requested the daughter-in-law’s report of the mother-in-law
being Closer to another Child-in-law (the survey item stated: My mother-in-law is closer to
another child-in-law than me). The third item measured the daughter-in-law’s reports of the Time
Spent Together with the mother-in-law (the survey item asked: In a typical month, how much
time do you spend interacting with your mother-in-law including among other methods: in
person, on the phone, online, emailing or texting?). Response options for Time were: Less than 1
hour (coded 1), 1-5 hours (2), 5-10 hours (3), 10-15 hours (4), 15-20 hours (5), 20-30 hours (6),
or More than 30 hours (coded 7).
The first of two items related to the husband/son was Caught Between, which measured
whether the daughter-in-law felt caught between her husband and her mother-in-law (the survey
item stated “I sometimes feel caught between my husband and my mother-in-law”). The second
item asked the daughter-in-law to report her perception of whether her husband was close to his
mother, labeled Husband Close MIL (the survey item stated: My husband is close with his
mother).
Two survey items were about the daughter-in-law herself. The first assessed the
daughter-in-law’s self-report of being close to the Father-in-Law (the survey item stated: I
am/was close with my father-in-law). The second item measured whether the daughter-in-law felt
Close to her Mother (the item survey item stated: I am/was close with my mother).
Analytic Strategy
The goal of the current study was to identify the factors that predicted a daughter-in-law
reporting a positive relationship with her mother-in-law. The regression analysis reported was
informed by the prior literature and by the family theory concepts of boundary ambiguity and
triangles. We note that those dyadic and triangle relationships affecting the daughter-in-law to
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 14
mother-in-law relationship could both predate the marriage (daughter-in-law close with her
mother, husband close to his mother) or have originated with the couple’s courtship and marriage
(daughter-in-law close to father-in-law, daughter-in-law feeling caught between husband and
mother-in-law, mother closer to another child-in-law). The survey was set up requiring all
respondents to provide a response to all questions. This resulted in no missing values in the data.
However, some questions had “Does not apply” (DNA) as a response option when the nature of
the question suggested the need for such a response choice. For the survey item about the
mother-in-law being Closer to another Child-in-law, 73 respondents (20.8%) responded DNA,
which we presume meant that the mother-in-law did not have other childr4e-in-law. For the item
about the daughter-in-law reporting being Close to Father-in-law, 54 respondents (15.4%)
responded DNA, which we presume meant the father-in-law was either deceased or the daughter-
in-law had never had any contact with the father-in-law. Those DNA responses were coded for
the analysis as missing values with an available-case analysis (pair-wise deletion) missing values
strategy used in the regression model reported below.
Results
Table 1 details descriptive statistics for the twelve variables in the current analysis. Close
Relationship, the dependent variable, revealed that, on average, across the four survey items
measuring aspects of the daughter-in-law to mother-in-law relationship, daughters-in-law
reported being between neutral (2) and agreeing (3) with a mean of 2.45 in reporting a positive
relationship with their mother-in-law. The daughters-in-law reported slightly less than neutral (2)
at a mean of 1.89 about having similar Interests as their mothers-in-law. On average, they
reported neutral (2) at a mean of 1.73 that their mother-in-law was closer to another child-in-law.
In terms of Time Spent interacting in person, on the phone, or electronically, the mean response
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 15
was 2.3, which translates to between 1-5 hours and 5-10 hours. One of the most positive
responses was to the daughter-in-law’s husband being happy with her relationship with the
mother-in-law (M=2.92) at slightly below agree. However, some of these same daughters-in-law
also reported feeling caught between their husband and mother-in-law, with a mean response of
just between neutral and disagree (1.45). The average response to the daughters-in-law’s
perception of their husband being close to his mother (M=2.80) was a little below agree (3) and
the daughters-in-law on average were above neutral (2) in terms of reporting feeling close to
their father-in-law at a mean of 2.21.
The results from the regression model are presented in Table 2. This model accounted for
65% of the variance (R=.81) in the dependent variable, a large proportion of the variance in the
outcome measure. The largest standardized coefficient and, therefore, the most predictive of a
positive relationship with mother-in-law, was the daughter-in-law reporting having similar
interests with the mother-in-law (β=0.37). The second largest was the daughter-in-law’s belief
that her husband was close to his mother (β=0.28). The third largest influence was the daughter-
in-law reporting feeling close with her father-in-law (β=0.21). The next largest standardized
coefficient was a negative predictor, the daughter-in-law reporting feeling caught between her
husband and her mother-in-law (β=-0.17). (Daughters-in-law who agreed or strongly agreed their
husband was close with the husband’s mother were no more likely to feel caught between the
two of them than those who did not agree their husband was close with his mother.) The next
most influential factor was also a negative predictor, the daughter-in-law’s perception that her
mother-in-law was closer to another child-in-law than to her (β=-0.14). Finally, the next most
predictive variable was the daughter-in-law’s report on the amount of time spent interacting with
the mother-in-law (β=0.13).
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 16
Several variables in the model were not predictive of the nature of the daughter-in-law to
mother-in-law relationship. Daughters-in-law’s reports of having children from the marriage,
having been the same SES (or not) growing up as the husband, or being the same race or
ethnicity (or not) as her husband were all not predictive. Further, the age of the daughter-in-law,
her race, and ethnicity, and her husband’s combined income were also not associated with her
relationship with her mother-in-law.
Discussion
Daughters-in-law in our sample reported on average a positive relationship with their
mothers-in-law. For example, 49% either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, I feel
close with my mother-in-law, 25% were neutral, and 22% disagreed or strongly disagreed with
slightly more strongly disagreeing than disagreeing. As our measure is different from other
researchers’ measures, it is difficult to make a cross-sample comparison (note that Serovich &
Price, 1994 and Santos & Levitt, 2006 reported close relationships). The responses here indicate
that more than one fifth of daughters-in-law may be struggling with their relationship with their
mother-in-law. These responses also pointed out that a significant minority (25%) have neither
especially close nor especially distant relationships. These “neutrals” may be daughters-in-law
who have made peace with or figured out how to manage the relationship. Some daughters-in-
law manage problems in their relationships by ignoring them (Marotz-Baden & Cowan, 1987).
Of course, not every family relationship has to be in a more definite domain and “neutrals” may
not be feeling this is problematic unless the daughter-in-law was specifically wishing she would
be closer to her mother-in-law and yet is unable to achieve that. Such relationships may also be
the ones marked by ambivalence (e.g., Willson et al., 2003) and thus are difficult for the
daughter-in-law to more specifically characterize.
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 17
A strong predictor of a positive relationship is if the daughter-in-law believes she shares
similar interests with her mother-in-law. Marotz-Baden and Cowan (1987) found that sharing
similar values was related to closeness. Sharing similar interests may make it easier for the two
to spend enjoyable time together and may lessen any sense of not being included when compared
with daughters-in-law who have less in common and may struggle to interact in gratifying ways
when together.
Some of the other strong predictors of a daughter-in-law reporting a positive relationship
with her mother-in-law hinge on the involvement of other people. In close and inclusive family
relationships, if the son is close with his mother he will, most likely, want his wife to be close
with her too and be happy when they are close. In some cases, the daughter-in-law could feel
threatened by the mother-son closeness if it excludes her or if she feels her husband is siding
with his mother against her. In such a situation, the boundaries between family members can be
ambiguous, as Boss (2006) cautioned, which could lead to conflict. The son’s closeness with his
mother as a predictor of his wife’s closeness with his mother can be interpreted in more than one
way. On the face of it, this could be the sign of a close knit family where people get along well.
Unlike Meyerstein’s (1996) example of a daughter-in-law feeling shut out by closeness between
her husband and his parents, the closeness between a husband and his parents is not prima facie
an enmeshed system that excludes the daughter-in-law. Rather, the close dyadic relationship
between son and mother could help to draw a wider boundary, which includes the wife/daughter-
in-law. Further unpacking the concept of being close, it may be that some of the daughters-in-
law do not think that a high level of closeness between their husband and his mother – a potential
sign of family enmeshment – is necessarily a good thing. The daughter-in-law may also be part
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 18
of an enmeshed system (e.g., Minuchin, 1974) where she and the mother-in-law feel close and
could thus be a sign of the ambiguous boundaries between them.
The daughter-in-law being close with the father-in-law is notable. Forty-three percent of
the daughters-in-law strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that they were close with their
father-in-law while 30% were neutral, and 27% disagreed or strongly disagreed. (Of note, 20%
of the daughters-in-law answered Does Not Apply to this statement, indicating either the father-
in-law was deceased or that they had not had contact with the daughter-in-law. To qualify for the
survey, a daughter-in-law had to only have a living mother-in-law with whom she has or had
contact.) Santos and Levitt’s (2007) sample of children-in-law reported greater closeness with
the mother-in-law than with the father-in-law, while Serovich and Price’s (1994) sample of
daughters-in-law reported similar levels of closeness between both in-laws. The daughters-in-law
in our research are not as close with their fathers-in-law as their mothers-in-law but, when they
are close with their father-in-law, that closeness can provide an additional boost to the
relationship with the mother-in-law. Considering how triangles operate, this boost may be due to
the mother-in-law helping to ease the relationship between her husband and her daughter-in-law
when needed, an action consistent with the role that women often play in the family (e.g.,
Rittenour, 2012). It could also be that the father-in-law helps to ease the relationship between his
wife and his daughter-in-law by reducing any potential tension in the dyad. In some families it
could be both.
A predictor for the daughter-in-law reporting a less positive relationship with their
mother-in-law is when the daughter-in-law feels her mother-in-law is closer with another child-
in-law (son-in-law or daughter-in-law) than with her, which can be looked at through the lens of
boundary ambiguity. In these situations, the daughter-in-law may feel less included and less
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 19
favored. In fact, according to Dunn and Plomin (1991), it is estimated that feelings of parental
favoritism have occurred in more than half of all families. The daughter-in-law feeling less close
to the mother-in-law may be reflective of at least two different family situations. On the one
hand, the daughter-in-law could feel that she is not as close with the mother-in-law because of
her own interactions with the mother-in-law. On the other hand, it could be that her husband is
not as close with his mother as one of the husband’s married siblings. The daughter-in-law and
husband, as a pair, may not be as close as the other sibling and spouse, so, the daughter-in-law
does not feel as close. With either dynamic the boundary drawn with the daughter-in-law and her
husband and mother-in-law may be more ambiguous if the daughter-in-law feels unsure where
she stands in relation to other family members. This finding requires a consideration not only of
the daughter-in-law/mother-in-law dyad but also of the role of the husband/son as well as his
siblings and their spouses.
Finally, similar to what others have found (Fowler & Rittenour, 2017; Santos & Levitt,
2006), the amount of time spent together is another predictive factor related to a positive
relationship. The more time the daughter-in-law and mother-in-law spend together – as long as it
does not feel like a burden on the daughter-in-law or a threat to her relationship with her husband
– the more likely they may be to develop shared interests and the more clear their boundaries
may become. Daughters-in-law, when they have the option, would most likely avoid spending
time with their mother-in-law if they did not have a positive relationship with her. However,
avoiding spending time may be difficult for some daughters-in-law if their husband is close with
his mother, if they live geographically close to each other, or if the mother-in-law is assisting
with child care.
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 20
Implications
Our findings point strongly to the systemic nature of the relationship between the
daughter-in-law and mother-in-law involving the inclusion of other family members. Society
makes light of in-law relationships with jokes that are usually based on a dyad—the daughter-in-
law’s struggles with her mother-in-law and the son-in-law’s struggles with his mother-in-law.
Here we see confirmation for considering the spouse/son, along with the father-in-law, as
potentially pivotal members of this relationship. Achieving a balanced relationship within any
family is highly idiosyncratic and will depend on the daughter-in-law, the mother-in-law, and the
couple’s relationship, as well as the whole family’s needs, styles of communication, and culture.
Our findings suggest the inclusion of other family members when issues are raised as well as
possibly even in the therapy room, depending on the situation. Our findings also suggest that
considering boundaries from a clinical perspective may help family members understand to what
extent they are being included, excluded, or are unclear about their level of inclusion.
If there is triangulation as the result of unclear boundaries, the role of the spouse/son is
the first to consider in the therapeutic setting. As noted, drawing a boundary around the wife and
husband relationship is a priority (Silverstein, 1990). The husband feeling close to his mother
and the daughter-in-law feeling caught between his mother and her husband would be the initial
focus. Boss (2006), when approaching boundary ambiguity, suggests listening to the
conversational voice of the family and observing their interactions when they are together. We
suggest introducing the father-in-law into the therapy frame by considering both his alignment
with the mother-in-law (his wife) as well as his alliance with the daughter-in-law. Thus, it may
be a triangle with two people occupying one corner if mother-in-law and father-in-law either act
as one or are seen as one by the daughter-in-law, while her husband represents the third corner. If
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 21
the two parents-in-law are living out of state, they may travel together to visit, may offer
financial assistance together to the children or grandchildren, and, if they live locally, may
provide childcare assistance together. In essence, the father-in-law (or the partner of the mother-
in-law) may be an important figure to consider when working with a daughter-in-law around the
struggles she is having with her mother-in-law as he may have his own positive relationship with
the daughter-in-law (Bryant et al, 2001), which can be brought into the therapy frame and used to
help the two women’s relationship. Encouraging both women to spend time together, thereby
allowing them to discover shared interests, may facilitate both the daughter-in-law and mother-
in-law developing a healthy relationship and may shift the daughter-in-law’s perception of not
being as close to the mother-in-law as another child-in-law. Feeling less favored as a child-in-
law could also be a reflection of the daughter-in-law’s own upbringing if she came from a family
where sibling favoritism was shown (Greif & Woolley, 2016).
Having a positive relationship with a mother-in-law and having the impression that one’s
husband is close with his mother needs to be understood within a context. According to another
item on the survey, almost one fifth of the daughters-in-law who believed their husband was
close with his own mother were uncomfortable with some aspects of that relationship. It may be
that the daughter-in-law felt her husband was too close to his mother and that the boundary
between mother and son was blurred while the daughter-in-law still had a good relationship with
her mother-in-law. Thus the therapist should inquire about what closeness means for family
members, how that closeness may enhance or hinder other family relationships, and how the
family members want to interact as a family.
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 22
Limitations
The current findings need to be interpreted in light of the limitations of this study. The
first limitation is all data were self-reports from daughters-in-law and therefore subject to the
limitations of individual perceptions and interpretations of social relationships. The second
limitation is similar in that data were collected from one family member who reported about her
thoughts and feelings, as well as the perceived feelings of two other members of that family (her
mother-in-law and husband) who did not provide any of their own data. Third, although the
sample size was sufficient for the analyses reported and the effect size is substantial, this is a
cross-sectional sample of daughters-in-law gleaned from the survey sample frame established by
Qualtrics’ online survey platform. Therefore, caution should be taken in generalizing our
findings. With these limitations, we believe our findings are consistent with other scholarly
conclusions in this area of limited research and that these findings lend additional aspects of
particular relevance to clinicians.
Future Research
Longitudinal research into the relationship trajectories between parents(-in-law) and adult
children(-in-law) across the lifespan and within the multiple triangular in-law relationships may
provide more clues for when families are most at risk for developing problems. In addition,
conducting research on a more racially diverse sample than the current sample could aid in
understanding differences between races but also in exploring issues that arise with inter-racial
and inter-ethnic marriages, which our data were not able to discern. Finally, concurrently
collecting data from multiple members of a family about these understudied family relationships
would provide insights not available when analyzing data from one respondent in a family. With
adults living longer and with inter-racial and inter-ethnic marriage on the rise, gaining an up-to-
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 23
date understanding of these vitally important family relationships can go a long way toward
sustaining healthy marriages and promoting well-functioning inter-generational relationships.
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 24
References
Authors, (Under Contract). Book.
Allendorf, K. (2017). Like her own: Ideals and experiences of the mother-in-law/daughter-in-
law relationship. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 2102-2127.
Boss, P. (2006). Loss, trauma, and resilience: Therapeutic work with ambiguous loss. New
York: Norton.
Bryant, C. M., Conger, R. D., & Meehan, J. M. (2001). The influence of in-laws on change in
marital success. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 614-626.
Campbell, M.E. & Herman, M.R. (2015). Both personal and public: Measuring interethnic
marriage attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 71, 712-732.
Carroll, J. S., Olson, C. D., & Buckmiller, N. (2007). Family boundary ambiguity: A 30-year
review of theory, research, and measurement. Family Relations, 56, 210-230.
Caputo, J, Pavalko, E. K., & Hardy, M.A. (2016). The long-term effects of caregiving on
women’s health and mortality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 1382-1398.
Centers for Disease Control/National Center for Health Statistics (2015). National Marriage and
Divorce Rate Trends, November 23. Atlanta, Georgia.
Chesley, N. & Poppie, K. (2009). Assisting parents and in-laws: Gender, type of assistance, and
couples’ employment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 247-262.
Chong, A., Gordon, A. E., & Don, B. P. (2017). Emotional support from parents and in-laws:
The roles of gender and contact. Sex Roles, 76, 369-379.
Dunn, J. & Plomin, R. (1991). Why are siblings so different? The significance of differences in
sibling experiences within the family. Family Process, 30, 271-283.
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 25
Fowler, C. & Rittenour, C. (2017). A life-span approach to children-in-law’s perception of
parent-in-law communication. Journal of Family Communication, 17, 254-272.
Greif, G. L. & Woolley, M. (2016). Adult sibling relationships. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Horsley, G. C. (1996). In-laws: A guide to extended family therapy. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Marotz-Baden, R. & Cowan, D. (1987). Mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law: The effect of
proximity on conflict and stress. Family Relations, 36, 385-390.
Medved, C. E. (2014). Fathering, caregiving, and masculinity: Stay-at-home fathers and family
communication. In K. Floyd & M.T. Morman (Eds.), Widening the family circle: New
research on family communication, 2nd ed., (pp. 115-132). Los Angeles: Sage.
Merrill, D. M. (2007). Mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law: Understanding the relationship
and what makes them friends or foe. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Meyerstein, I. (1996). A systemic approach to in-law dilemmas. Journal of Marital & Family
Therapy, 22, 469-480.
Mikkelson, A. C. (2014). Adult sibling relationships. In K. Floyd & M.T. Morman (Eds.),
Widening the family circle: New research on family communication, 2nd ed., (pp. 19-34).
Los Angeles: Sage.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Morr Serewicz, M. C. & Canary, D. J. (2008). Assessments of disclosure from the in-laws:
Links among disclosure topics, family privacy orientations, and relational quality.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 333-357.
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 26
Prentice, C. M. (2008). The assimilation of in-laws: The impact of newcomers on the
communication routines of families. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36,
74-97.
Rittenour, C. (2012). Daughter-in-law standards for mother-in-law communication: Associations
with daughter-in-law perceptions of relational satisfaction and shared family identity.
Journal of Family Communication, 12, 93-110.
Ross, J. L. (1995). Social class tensions within families. The American Journal of Family
Therapy, 23, 338-350.
Santos, J. D. & Levitt, M. J. (2007). Intergenerational relations with in-laws in the context of the
Social Convoy: Theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 827-
843.
Serovich, J. M. & Price, S. J. (1994). In-law relationships: A role theory perspective.
International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 24, 127-146.
Serewicz, M. C. M. (2008). Toward a triangular theory of the communication and relationships
of in-laws: Proposal and social relations analysis of relational satisfaction and private
disclosure in in-law triads. Journal of Family Communication, 8, 264-292.
Silverstein, J. L. (1990). The problem with in-laws. Journal of Family Therapy, 14, 399-412.
Turner, M., Young, C. R., & Black, K. I. (2006). Daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law seeking
their place within the family: A qualitative study of differing viewpoints. Family
Relations, 55, 588-600.
Visher, J. S. & Visher, E. B. (1982). Stepfamilies and stepparenting. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal
family processes, (pp. 331-353). New York: Guilford.
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 27
Willson, A. E., Shuey, K. M., & Elder, G. H. (2003). Ambivalence in the relationship of adult
children to aging parents and in-laws. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 1055-1072.
Yoshimura, C. G. (2014). Siblings-in-law, unwidened. In K. Floyd & M.T. Morman (Eds.),
Widening the family circle: New research on family communication, 2nd ed., (pp. 103-
114). Los Angeles: Sage.
DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW 28
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables
Variable Range Mean SD
Positive Relationship 0 - 4 2.45 1.14
Similar Interests 0 – 4 1.89 1.14
Caught between Husband and MIL 1 - 4 1.45 1.26
Closer to another Child-in-law 0 – 4 1.73 1.43
Time Spent Together 1 – 7 2.32 1.58
Husband Close MIL 0 – 4 2.80 1.13
Close to Father-in-law 0 – 4 2.21 1.14
Close to Mother 0 - 4 3.20 1.09
Note: Sample included 351 daughters-in-law reporting about their relationships with their
mothers-in-law.
Running head: DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW AND THEIR MOTHERS-IN-LAW 29
Table 2
Regression Model Predicng Daughter-in-law Posive Relaonship with Mother-in-law
Variable BβSE t P
Constant -0.53 0.15 -2.27 .02
Black or African American 0.05 0.01 0.24 0.22 .83
Asian American 0.05 0.01 0.16 0.29 .77
Latina or Hispanic 0.01 0.00 0.20 -0.04 .97
Other Race or Ethnicity 0.07 0.02 0.17 0.43 .66
Income Range 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 .98
Children from Marriage -0.15 -0.06 0.10 -1.54 .12
Similar Interests 0.37 0.37 0.05 7.92 .00
Caught between Husband
and MIL -0.15 -0.17 0.04 -3.96 .00
Closer to another Child-in-
law -0.11 -0.14 0.03 -3.33 .00
Time Spent Together 0.09 0.13 0.03 2.86 .00
Husband Close MIL 0.28 0.28 0.05 5.97 .00
Close to Father-in-law 0.21 0.21 0.04 4.97 .00
Close Mother 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.38 .70
Same Race 0.04 0.01 0.14 0.31 .76
Same SES Growing Up 0.06 0.02 0.10 0.57 .57
Note: Sample included 351 daughters-in-law surveyed about their relationship with their mother-
in-law. Outcome variable was the mean of four survey items assessing positive aspects of the
daughter- to mother-in-law relationship. This regression model explained 65% of the variance in
the dependent variable (R=.81)
29
