Structural Variations in Inter-Sibling Affect Author(s): Charles E. Bowerman and Rebecca M.

Dobash Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Feb., 1974), pp. 48-54 Published by: National Council on Family Relations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/350993 . Accessed: 31/05/2012 09:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

Structural Variations in Inter-Sibling Affect*

E. BOWERMAN** CHARLES State University Washington M. DOBASH REBECCA Stirling University Although sibling interaction is a very prevalent form of behavior, it has received relativelylittle attention by sociologists. The topic is importantas one aspect of family behaviorand for the effects of the interactionon socializationand other dimensionsof family interaction, such as husband-wiferelations. The present study analyzes data from over 8000 subjectson siblingaffect as related to sex of subjectand sibling,age of subject (junior or senior high), older versusyounger sibling, and family size. Females are more likely to have high affect toward siblings than males, the same-sexsibling is preferred, affect is higher, on the average, toward older than younger siblings, it decreaseswith age, and is strongerin two-childfamilies. In comparison with the impressiveamount of theoretical and empirical investigation of husband-wife and parent-child interaction, it is curious that so little attention has been paid to the interaction between siblings. A number of writers have pointed to this gap in the literature,and Irish(1964) has documentedthe situation in an article titled, "Sibling Interaction: A Neglected Aspect in Family Life Research."In a way, this neglect is understandable. The husband-wife relationship undoubtedly rates a higher priority for both theoretical and practical reasons, since that relationshipis more central to family process and continuity and it involves people over a largerportion of their life span. The parent-child relationship also has a more critical influence on the group interaction as well as having significant consequencesfor the socializationprocess. A number of psychological studies have related variablessuch as birth order and sibling rivalry to psychological variables,and anthropologists have studied the age and sex structure of siblingsin the kinship system. However, the sociological study of the effects of the sibling relationship on the family system has been almost totally neglected. There are at least three ways in which the relationship among siblings could be viewed as important in the study of the family. First, the kind of relationships the child has with siblings will
*Data for this study were collected under Public Health Service Grant M-2045 from the National Institute of Mental Health. Analysis was supported by Project 0170, Department of Rural Sociology, Washington State University, and is Scientific Paper No. 3552, Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. **Department of Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99163.

influence very strongly the level of personal satisfaction he obtains from livingin the family during his early years. Most individuals spend approximately the first fourth of their lives as children in a family along with one or more brothers and sisters. Since a certain amount of contact and interaction with siblings is inevitable in the joint living space they occupy, the kinds of activity and levels of affect which characterize these relationships will play a major part in determining whether he finds family living pleasant or unpleasant. Furthermore, a number of studies find that interaction among adult kin is frequent, and that siblings are among the most significant links in this adult kin network. Bert N. Adams (1968) is among those who have studied the amount of social interaction among adult kin and finds it related to feelings of closeness that have developed earlier. Almost half of his adult subjects say that they feel close to their siblings, and, consistent with our findings reported here, that females are more likely to feel close to sisters than males are to brothers (61 per cent to 39 per cent). Relationshipswith siblings during the early years may therefore have lifetime significance as well as affecting the quality of life during childhood and adolescence. Second, sibling interaction may have significant effects on other interrelationshipsin the family. For example, Caplow (1968:98) states that "Hardlyany aspect of family life has been studied less than the interaction of siblings," and comments on the importance for family study of triads and coalitions involvingsiblings. Our own data show a moderatelyhigh relationship between subject'saffect toward siblingand February1974

48

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY

affect for both mother and father, as well as perception of sibling's affect toward mother and father. There is evidence that marital satisfaction may be a little lower, on the average, for couples with children, and that those with children decreased in satisfaction after the first years of marriage.One explanatory hypothesis is that conflict between siblings reduces the level of harmony in the family and is a source of difference of opinion, conflict of interest, etc., between the mother and father. Therefore, sibling relationshipsmay be worth studying not only for the direct effect on the children involved, but for their consequences for other dyadic relationshipsand entire family functioning. Finally, the possible influence of the sibling relationship on socialization during childhood and adolescence has received scant attention. Clausen, for example (1968:146), notes that siblings are an important part of the socialization setting, but that the social interaction of the child with his sibs "hasbeen little studied." Elder (1968) also points to the paucity of researchon sibling interactionthat can be cited in the context of adolescent socialization. As well as being a direct source of influence and learning, the sibling may serve to validate and reinforce parentalnorms and beliefs, especially during a period when adult credibility may be questioned. A seminar project at Washington State University provides evidence that the amount of sibling influence may be considerable. In analysis of data from 350 college freshmen and sophomores with at least one brother or sister, Kathleen Marrafound that siblings were perceived as having severalkinds of influence, mostly favorable,on the subjects. About 60 per cent said siblingsmade home life more pleasant, 38 per cent were said to have helped the subjectbe more confident (versus20 per cent less confident), 41 per cent said they had more friends because of siblings, only 23 per cent of siblings were said to have no influence on beliefs, attitudes, ideas of right and wrong, and of those perceivedas havingan influence it was "mostly for the good" in 70 per cent of cases. For 15 per cent, the influence of siblings and parents was reported as about equal on opinions, ideals, and values, while in another 8 per cent, siblings were thought to have more influence than parents. Marra found that older siblings were seen as more influential than younger siblings, in most respects, and there was a moderate association between amount of influence and a measureof affect for sibs February1974

The present study deals with one of the fundamental questions in the study of sibling interaction-the level of affect among siblings. As a basis for other levels of analysis, we wish to document some of the variations in sibling affect due to certain structural differences in the family, namely, sex of subject and of sibling, age of adolescent (early versus later adolescence), whether affect is towardan older or youngersibling,and size of family. The data for this study were obtained by questionnaire as part of a larger study of adolescents in Ohio and North Carolina.About half of the subjects came from each state, half were from cities of over 100,000 population, and the remainder from smaller cities and centralized county systems. All students from the seventh through twelfth grades who were in attendance on the day of administration were questioned in their classrooms. Since the proportion of nonwhite students in the sample was small, they were eliminated from this analysis. All data reported here are for students who reported living with both real parentsand who had no step or half siblings. Table 1 gives the per cent of subjects reportingthat they felt close to their next older and next youngersibling, cross-classified by the five descriptive categories used in our analysis. Closeness was indicated by a response of "extremely close" or "quite close" to the question, "How close is your relationshipwith your older brother or sister(next oldest, if you have more than one)?" The alternate response categorieswere "somewhat close," "not particularly close," and "not at all close." The same question was later asked about the next younger brother or sister. Sex of the next older or younger siblingwas determinedfrom an item asking whether siblings of the subject were older, younger, or both, and in each case whether brothers, sisters, or some of each. In order to identify sex of siblingunambiguously, we have used only cases whose older and/or younger siblings were all of the same sex. This also eliminatesthe sticky problemsof dealingat this stage with the interaction effects of multiple siblings of both sexes. After eliminating subjects for reasons mentioned, and those who were only children or lacking identifying information on all six of our variables,we were left with 8168 responses for which clear-cut comparisons could be made. Since approximately 1100 of these subjects answered both the older sibling and the younger siblingitems, the total number of subjectsincluded was close to 7100. 49

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY

0 O 0

TABLE 1. PER CENT OF SUBJECTS REPORTING CLOSE FEELINGS TOWARD SIBLING, BY SEX AND AGE OF SU SIBLING, AND SIZE OF FAMILY Male Subjects Male Sibling Female Sibling 62.45 [261] 64.58 [384] 63.72 70.27 [148] 50.50 [299] 57.05 Total Two-Child Family Older 63.48 Sibling 69.60 Younger Sibling Total 66.97 Older 65.66 Sibling 54.76 Younger Sibling Total 58.15 Three or More Child Family Older 58.65 Sibling 58.98 Younger Sibling Total 58.89 Older 59.44 Sibling 49.15 Younger

M Si

pe
Z

Subs. 7-9th Grades

z
Subs. 10-12th Grades

Z~
0

Older Sibling Younger Sibling Total Older Sibling Younger Sibling Total

64.50 [262] 75.81 [310] 70.63 59.83 [117] 59.17 [289] 59.36

6 [3 7 [3 6 6 [1 6 [3 6

Hj

Subs. 7-9th Grades

Subs. 10-12th Grades

Older Sibling Younger Sibling Total Older Sibling Younger

60.81 [296] 65.48 [420 ] 63.55 61.54 [1431 50.97

55.93 [236] 51.02 [343] 53.02 56.60 [106] 46.92

7 [3 6 [3 6

6 [ 5

C7"

Sibling Total
Total All Subjects % N

[259] 54.73
62.98 2096

[211] 50.16
56.94 1988

52.78
60.04 4048

Sibling Total

[ 6

pi
?xD

RESULTS Sixty-five per cent of our subjectsreportthat they feel close to their siblings; about twothirds of these said "quite close" and the others were "extremely close." At the other extreme, only about three per cent said they were "'not al all" close, and ten per cent "not particularly" close. The picture, then, is one of fairly high levels of affect among the majority of brothers and sisters, with relatively few living in a state of conflict and rivalry producing negative feelings. The per cent responding in the two negative categoriesvariedlittle by age or sex of subject or for older versusyounger siblings.By comparison,the same question was asked about closenessto mother, father, and best friends;71 per cent said they felt close to their mother, 61 per cent to father, and 68 per cent to best friends. These items appearedin differentparts of the questionnaire,and their relativeconsistency, along with the direction of differences, lends support to the validity of the assessment. Another bit of evidence for validity of the item is the fact that it scaled along with seven other items in three scales of affectional orientation towardsmother, father, and friends. Table 1 shows considerable variability in closeness associated with the independent variables. Four of the 32 cells have percentages over 75, six are betweeen 70 and 75, five

between 65 and 70, seven between 60 and 65, six between 55 and 60, and four are under 55; the standarddeviation of percentagesin the 32 cells is 8.6. The data in this table are summarizedin Table 2 in order to look at the effect of each of the structuralvariablessingly and in combination. Since we are interested in the effect of these variable combinations on difference in closeness, ratherthan the proportion of people of varioustypes who are close, the summaries in Table 2 were obtained by averagingunweightedpercentagesin the cells of Table 1. Thus, for example, the 62.24 per cent for male subjects answeringfor male sibs is the unweighted averageof the eight percentagesin of the first column of Table 1. The arrangement these summaries in Table 2 first controls for sibling sex composition in the four rows, then differences in percentages are given for the other three descriptive conditions singly and with each of the other two variablescontrolled. Sex of Sibling With the exception of age, sex composition is probably the most important characteristicof the siblingstructureto be taken into account in the study of sibling relationships. Averagesib closeness for the four sex combinations is shown in the first column of Table 2. Females are somewhat more likely than males to feel close to their siblings of either sex. Also, as
Relative Age of SiblingGraderadeof Subject

TABLE 2. PER CENT OF SUBJECTS REPORTING CLOSE FEELINGS TOWARD SIBLINGS: SUMMARY OF VARIABLES IN TABLE 1 Relative Age of Sibling Total (1) 62.24 66.20 Younger Sib (2) 62.86 64.49 Older Sib (3) 61.67 67.90 School Grade of Subject 7-9 (4) 66.65 69.47 10-12 (5) 57.88 62.92

Sex
of Subject M F

Sex
of Sibling M M

7-9
Younger Sib (6) 70.65 67.89 Older Sib (7) 62.65 71.05

10-12
Younger Sib (8) 55.07 61.08 Older Sib (9) 60.68 64.75

M
F Total

F
F

57.29
72.34 64.52

53.26
68.08 62.16

61.31
76.59 66.87

58.50
74.20 67.21

56.07
70.47 61.83

57.80
73.17 67.38

59.19
75.23 67.03

48.71
62.99 56.96

63.43
77.94 66.70

Family Size 2 Child Sex of Subject M F M F Total Sex of Sibling M M F F 3+ Child 2 Child

Relative Age of Sibling by Family Size 3+ Child Older Sib (13) 62.17 67.21 66.36 78.82 68.64 Younger Sib (14) 58.23 61.90 48.97 63.50 58.15 Older Sib (15) 61.18 68.68 56.27 74.35 65.09 2 Child 7-9 (16) 70.15 69.24 63.52 76.39 69.83

Grade of Subject by Family Size 3+ Child 10-12 (17) 59.50 65.04 60.39 75.09 65.01 7-9 (18) 63.15 69.70 53.48 72.01 64.58 10-12 (19) 56.26 60.79 51.76 65.84 58.66

(10) 64.83 67.14 61.95 75.74 67.42

(11) 59.70 65.24 52.62 68.93 61.62

Younger Sib (12) 67.49 67.07 57.54 72.66 66.19

February1974

JOURNALOF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY

51

expected, each sex feels closer to a sibling of the same sex. The combination of these two principlesgivesthe largestdistinction-about 15 per cent-between attitude of male and female subjects toward a female sibling. Females are somewhat more likely than males to feel close to a same-sexsibling, and in cross-sexrelations there is a strong asymmetry since females are more likely to feel close to a male sibling than males are to a female sib. It can be seen that these differences hold up, with minor variations, within the various control categories in the remainderof the table. One might hypothesize a rank ordering of sibling structures favorable for family unity ranging from all female children, all male children, mixed with just one of each, to the least favorablesituation of two or more of each sex with increased probabilityof opposingcoalitions. RelativeAge of Sibling and Age of Subject Comparing attitudes toward older and younger siblings (Columns two and three) we find an average difference of almost five per cent in favor of the older sibling. This difference is most pronouncedin the feeling of both male and female subjects toward sisters, whereas there is little difference in closeness toward older and younger brothers, with the other variablesnot controlled. Looking next at the effect of increasingage (Columns four and five), over 67 per cent of the seventh-to-ninth graders feel close to their siblings while less than 62 per cent of those in the tenth to twelfth grade say they feel close. Again there are sex differences in this trend; decrease in closeness toward sisters is slight duringthis age period, whereas the per cent of both sexes feeling close to a brotherdecreasesconsiderably more as subjects get older, with the largest decrease(nine per cent) between brothers. When we look at the joint effects of sex, age, and birth order, several significant structural features of the relationship emerge (Columns six to nine). We have noted that subjects are more likely to feel close to an older sister than to a younger sister. When we control for age of subjects, however, we see that this difference almost disappearsfor the junior high subjects, but that there is a 15 per cent difference in preferenceof both older males and females for the older ratherthan younger sister. The same direction of changeoccurs in closenessbetween brothers, where eight per cent of the younger boys feel close to a younger brother, but over five per cent more of the older boys are closer to the older than to the youngerbrother.In all 52

comparisons, the ratio of older to younger closeness increaseswith age of subject. This age trend in ratio of closenessis consistent with the observation that younger adolescents have greater orientation toward the family and therefore towards those youngersiblingswith a similarorientation,whereasin later adolescence they are increasinglyoriented toward the peer society and find more congeniality and similarity of interests with older siblings who have alreadyreachedthis stage of development. The principlejust expressedis supported by looking at the data in another way. With increase in age of subject, there is a slight decrease in per cent feeling close to an older brother and a little increasein the per cent who are close to an older sister. During the same period, however, there is an averagedecreasein closeness to younger siblings of over 10 per cent. The shift in older/youngerratio, then, is due primarilyto a decreasein closenesstoward the younger sibling. At the same time, the basis for the relationship and feeling of closeness with an older sibling may change in the directionsuggested. It was suggestedearlierthat the differencein attitude between girlsfor brothersand boys for sisters produced an asymmetry in the sibling relationship that was a potential source of conflict. Let us follow up on this idea by constructing a crude index of asymmetry for each age/sex combination. In column seven we have 62.65 per cent for younger males toward older brothers, and in column eight there is 55.07 for older males toward youngerbrothers; the difference is 7.58. The same comparisonin the female-femalerow gives 12.24 per cent. For an older male and younger female, the difference is 71.05 - 48.71 = 22.34, while for the older female and younger male it is 59.19 - 61.08 = - 1.89. Comparison of these differences suggests that the affectional relationship between cross-sex siblingsis fairly well balanced when the female is older, and that it is loaded toward the older siblinga little bit in the case of same-sex siblings. However, there is considerable asymmetry in the brother-sister relationship when the male is older, with a difference in closeness of over 22 per cent. Although this index does not control completely for variations in age of the older and younger within classified categories, variations should cancel out among the four comparisons. Looked at in this way, the data indicate that the greatest contrast in sibling feeling, and hence the situation having the most potential for producing conflict, exists in the brothersister relationship when the brother is older, February1974

JOURNALOF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY

and that the least contrast is found in the brother-sisterrelationship with an older sister, thus modifying our earlier hypothesis about conflict in cross-sexsiblingrelationships. Size of Family Increased size of family results in greater complexity of relationships,with potential for conflicts, coalitions, and diffusion of sentiments. The romantic expectation of a large family being an exceptionally close-knit group is not supportedby our data. Those adolescents in a two-child family are more likely, by about six per cent, to report close feelings toward siblings than are those in families with three or more children(Columns 10 and 11). The effect of family size shows up most in closeness to a younger sibling, where eight per cent more of the subjects feel close to the youngersiblingin a two-child family than in a family with three or more children (Columns 12 to 15). The comparabledifference toward the older sibling is just 3.5 per cent. This size difference in closeness to younger siblings holds up for all four sex combinationsof siblings;however,it is only in the male toward older sister combination that subjects were appreciablycloser to an older sibling in a two-child compared with a three-childfamily, with a differenceof 10.1 per cent. Comparingattitude toward siblingin each of the family size groupings, we note that in two-child families preference for an older female siblingholds up, but that the differences toward a male sibling are mixed, with males more likely to feel close to a younger male sibling than to an older male sibling. In the three-child families, preference for the older sibling holds for all four sex combinations, though it is stronger in the case of an older sibling who is female. This raises the question of possibledifferencesin largerfamilies depending on whether the subject is a middle child, with both older and younger siblings, or is either the oldest or the youngest child in the family. It will be recalledthat our data in Table 1 combined closeness toward the next older sibling for subjects having only an older sibling with those also having a younger sibling, and toward younger sibling of those only havinga younger sibling with those also having an older sibling. In a special tabulation, those having both older and youngersiblingswere compared with subjectshavingonly older or only younger siblings. With the exception of males toward sisters, the middle child was very slightly more likely to feel close to siblings compared with the oldest or youngest child; for the six February1974

comparisonsof the remainingthree sex combinations toward older and younger siblings, the averagedifference was only 1.5 per cent higher for subjects with both older and younger siblings. However, 4.7 per cent more males reported close feelings toward an older sister if all sisterswere older than if they had both older and younger sisters, and an oldest male was 2.3 per cent more likely to feel close to a younger sister than a middle male who also had an older sister. The same kind of analysis limited to subjects in families with three or more children showed an averageof 4.7 per cent more of the middle children feeling close to siblings compared with subjects who were oldest or youngest in the family. It is interesting that birth order, which has been so much studied, has less apparent influence on sibling affect than directionof age difference, age of subject, sex combination, or family size. Possibly we have a clue here that the conflicting findings of the birth order studies may result-in part from failure to control for these other structuralvariablesas well as dynamicsof the relationshipthat could modify ordereffects. Finally, the controls used in columns 16 to 19 indicate little effect of age of subject on the differences by family size that were reported, or of size of family on differences by age of subject. SUMMARY It is evident that there is considerable variability in the amount of affect that adolescents have toward their siblings. The majority feel at least moderatelyclose and relativelyfew are actually hostile to sibs. Females are more likely to have favorablefeelings than are males, the same sex siblingis preferred,on the average, subjects feel closer to an older than to a younger sibling, affect toward sibs generally declines somewhat as adolescentsget older, and there is a little more sibling closeness in two-child than in largerfamilies. A scale which differentiated more degrees of affect would undoubtedly reveal even more variationwithin and between these structuralcategories. Once again, the "furtherresearchis needed" plea can be made. If siblinginteractionis linked in a significant way with other dimensions of family behavior, as we have suggested,we need to know more about the reasons for the development of differences in the kinds of interaction and feelings among siblings, and we should link sibling behaviorsystematicallywith other variableswhich are foci of family study. The development of more comprehensiveex53

JOURNALOF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY

planatory theories of the family would be greatlyenrichedby such research.

REFERENCES Adams, Bert 1968 Kinship in an Urban Setting. Chicago:Markham. Caplow, Theodore 1968 Two Against One: Coalitions in Triads. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall. Clausen, John 1968 "Perspectives on childhood socialization." Pp. 130-181 in John Clausen (ed.), Socialization and Society. Boston:Little Brown. Elder, Glen 1968 Adolescent Socialization and Personality Development. Chicago:Rand McNally. Irish, D. P. 1964 "Sibling interaction: a neglected aspect in life research." Social Forces family 42:279-288.

~?~~:.'.iS~'~Ki'i~i~I~C~?L~~--'-===-==== =-.='=.'.======?.~?'=?===~i :-:?~ ~=:=?'=-'=-:~:-:==?:~:-~-ii~=? ~j~ ~~?~~?--~-~`""L= r~-~.....~~~ ;~:-?~QC~?SS~P~PCS~iJ~iiiji S~r;PB~Il-Pbl?j :?X?:-~l?:?' ~ .-a~wrar~ '~''' ir :;'~8R;iF~:;i~PsaPP~pp~pL~R~~ =i

BUT NOT LONELYALONE, forthesingle, Thoughts widowed, or divorced woman

by Dr. WayneJ. Anderson

$3.95
With rareinsight, basedon many yearsof talkthose whoare alone,Dr. ing withand counseling of Family at J. Anderson-Professor Wayne Living the University of Minnesota-offers tried andproven for moreconfident guidelines living.

60 East South Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84110

54

JOURNALOF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY

February1974