“Stop going in my room”: A grounded theory study of conflict among stepsiblings

• Published date: 01 February 2022
• Author: Olivia Landon,Lawrence Ganong,Caroline Sanner
• Date: 01 February 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12595

RESEARCH

“Stop going in my room”: A grounded theory study

of conflict among stepsiblings

Olivia Landon

1

| Lawrence Ganong

1

| Caroline Sanner

2

1

Human Development and Family Science,

University of Missouri–Columbia, Columbia,

Missouri, USA

2

Human Development and Family Science,

Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg,

Virginia, USA

Correspondence

Lawrence Ganong, Human Development

and Family Science, University of

Missouri–Columbia, 410 Gentry Hall,

Columbia, MO 65203, USA.

Email: ganongl@missouri.edu

Abstract

Objective: This research explores how, and under what con-

ditions, stepsiblings engage in, manage, and resolve conflict.

Background: Interpersonal conflict is widely recognized as

a meaningful and consequential relational dynamic.

Although stepfamily conflict has been studied in a variety

of family contexts (e.g., spousal, parent–child, stepparent–

stepchild), conflict among stepsiblings has received scant

attention. The growing prevalence of stepsiblings, coupled

with the role of conflict in shaping family dynamics, war-

rants greater attention be paid to stepsibling conflict.

Method: Twenty-five adults were interviewed about their

relationships with 71 stepsiblings. Grounded theory proce-

dures were used.

Results: For conflict between stepsiblings to occur, three con-

ditions had to be in place: (a) opportunity (i.e., shared time,

shared space), (b) intimacy (i.e., perceived closeness between

stepsiblings or familiarity), and (c) similarity (i.e., age, gen-

der, or role). Sources of conflict included (a) stepsibling

behaviors, (b) territory violations (e.g., bedrooms), and

(c) differential treatment by stepparents/parents. Conflict

management included both intrapersonal and interpersonal

strategies.

Conclusion: Stepsibling conflict should be normalized as an

indication of relational closeness, trust, and security.

Implications: Stepsibling conflicts may help them develop

closer bonds. Parents should make space for children, main-

tain bonds with children, promote stepsibling ties, monitor

stepsibling conflicts, and consider children’sperspectives.

KEYWORDS

conflict, grounded theory, stepfamily, stepsiblings

Received: 14 August 2020 Revised: 13 November 2020 Accepted: 23 January 2021

DOI: 10.1111/fare.12595

© 2021 National Council on Family Relations.

256 Family Relations. 2022;71:256–278.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/fare

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about stepsibling relationships (Sanner et al., 2018), despite relatively large

numbers of individuals with stepsiblings (Guzzo, 2016). Stepfamily researchers have focused

primarily on remarried spousal relationships and stepparent–stepchild relationships (Ganong &

Coleman, 2017), but other relationships, such as stepsiblings, also contribute to stepfamily

members’well-being and the functioning of family units (Ganong & Coleman, 1993). As part

of a larger project examining adult stepchildren’s relationships, in this study, we explored how

and under what conditions stepsiblings engaged in, managed, and resolved conflicts.

WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT STEPSIBLINGS?

Unlike full siblings or half-siblings (i.e., individuals who genetically share two or one biological

parent), stepsiblings are not genetically or legally related but are linked to each other because

their parents have romantically repartnered. Stepsiblings may reside together full time, may

share a residence periodically, or they may never live together. It is possible for stepsiblings to

have limited or no contact, while others may have frequent interactions daily (Ganong &

Coleman, 2017).

Researchers have cautioned that study findings based on full siblings or half-siblings should

not be generalized to stepsibling relationships (Sanner et al., 2018). Compared with families

with full or half-siblings only, complex stepfamilies with stepsibling subsystems are more likely

to experience an enduring period of heightened stress following stepfamily formation

(Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). The additional complexity of stepfamilies with stepsibling sub-

systems means more people, more relationships, and more roles and system rules that contrib-

ute to more potential stressors for stepchildren to manage (Ganong & Coleman, 2017). From

the beginning of their stepfamilies, stepsiblings are faced with building new ties with ste-

psiblings, stepparents, and extended step-kin while also maintaining bonds with siblings and

parents (Ganong & Coleman, 2017). Stepsiblings face numerous obstacles when attempting to

develop new family relationships, such as spending limited time together because of divergent

custody arrangements, lacking shared family histories and identities, and bridging diverse fam-

ily rituals and practices (Ganong & Coleman, 1993). The addition of a stepparent and one or

more stepsiblings, even when not sharing a residence full time, means that the size and complex-

ity of stepsiblings’family networks increase (Afifi, 2003). In addition, a child may find them-

selves in a new birth order position with new stepsiblings. For instance, an only child may

become one of several children when a parent remarries, or an oldest sibling may suddenly be

“in the middle.”

To date, research on stepsibling relationships consists of two broad categories: (a) outcomes

associated with having stepsiblings and (b) predictors of stepsibling relationship quality (Sanner

et al., 2018). Both categories are marked by the frequent use of between-group comparison

study designs in which children with stepsiblings are compared with those with biological sib-

lings only or stepsibling relationships are compared to biological sibling ties. Most research has

focused on the former category (identifying individual or family-level outcomes associated with

the presence of stepsiblings in the household), generally finding small but consistent negative

associations between the presence of stepsiblings and child outcomes.

The second category (predictors of sibling relationship quality) comprises fewer studies, but the

most widely investigated predictor of relationship quality is genetic relatedness (Sanner et al., 2018).

In particular, two biologically based theories, kin selection theory (Hamilton, 1964) and parent–

offspring conflict theory (Schlomer et al., 2011), propose that greater parental investments in geneti-

cally related children over other children in the family lead to competition and conflicts over

CONFLICT AMONG STEPSIBLINGS 257