Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Feb 12.
Published before final editing as: Dev Psychol. 2024 Aug 12:10.1037/dev0001827. doi: 10.1037/dev0001827

Sibling Disclosure and Adolescents’ Coping from Before to During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Study

Weimiao Zhou 1, Shawn D Whiteman 1, Aryn M Dotterer 1, Leslie Page 1, Sarfaraz Serang 2, Sahitya Maiya 3, Jennifer L Maggs 4, Brian C Kelly 5, Sarah A Mustillo 6
PMCID: PMC11936713  NIHMSID: NIHMS2056323  PMID: 39133600

Abstract

The extraordinary disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic created a unique context to investigate the links between family communication and adolescent adjustment. Given that widespread stay-at-home orders increased time spent in the family setting, the present study examined reciprocal links between older and younger adolescent siblings’ disclosure toward each other and concurrent and prospective links between those disclosures and their own and their siblings’ coping from before to during the early stages of COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were two adolescent-aged siblings (older siblings: 51% female, M = 15.67 years; younger siblings: 48% female, M = 13.14 years) and one parent (85% mothers, M = 45.15 years) from 682 families (N = 2,046) in five Midwestern states in the United States Participants completed web-based assessments on three occasions: Time 1 (March 2019 – February 2020); Time 2 (May – June 2020); Time 3 (July 2020 – February 2021). Using structural equation modeling, results revealed that the prospective reciprocal linkages between older and younger siblings’ disclosures were often moderated by the gender composition of the sibling dyad. Further, older and younger siblings’ disclosures both were concurrently associated with their own coping during the pandemic, but not prospectively associated with later perceived coping. There were mixed findings regarding the actor and partner associations between siblings’ disclosure and adolescents’ perceived coping. Results emphasize the complexity and bidirectional nature of sibling disclosure and the potential protective effects of disclosing to siblings in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Keywords: family communication, sibling disclosure, sibling relationships, coping, COVID-19 pandemic, adolescents

The major developmental tasks of adolescence involve identity formation, redefinition of family relationships, and social connection with peers (Vashchenko et al., 2007). The COVID-19 pandemic, however, altered adolescents’ social interactions and healthy development given the extraordinarily stressful experiences resulting from social restrictions during the initial shutdown period and changes in schooling later in the pandemic (Rao & Fisher, 2021). Stay-at-home orders and school safety regulations restricted face-to-face interactions with peers, while forcing adolescents to spend more time with family members in their households (Campione-Barr et al., 2021; McMahon et al., 2023). Stressors associated with difficulty in maintaining social connection with peers and fear of missing out were likely detrimental for adolescent adjustment (Parent et al., 2021). For example, Romm et al. (2021) found that adolescents reported greater levels of depression, negative affect, and feelings of isolation during the pandemic shutdowns. Further, adolescents’ most frequent COVID-19-related concerns were about restrictions in social activities and getting delayed in school (McMahon et al. 2023; Van Loon et al., 2021). Needless to say, the pandemic profoundly influenced adolescents’ social lives and adjustment.

Although youths’ social activities with peers were constrained, their interaction with family members increased during the pandemic (Campione-Barr et al., 2021; McMahon et al., 2023). Beyond documenting increased time and quantity of interactions with family members, few studies have examined the role of family communication processes in shaping youth adjustment over the course of the pandemic. Past research has documented the protective role of adolescents’ disclosure to parents including reducing psychological distress (Tang et al., 2021) and emotional problems and delinquency (Kapetanovic & Skoog, 2021) as well as promoting positive coping (Almas et al., 2011). In addition to parents, siblings can serve as confidants who provide trust, understanding, and emotional support for one another (Howe et al., 2001). Nevertheless, little is known regarding the development of adolescents’ disclosure of private information to their siblings and its implications for their coping, especially during the early stages of the pandemic when uncertainty and disruptions to daily life were heightened. Using a within-family longitudinal design, we addressed this gap by examining the reciprocal links between older and younger adolescent siblings’ disclosure toward each other and the concurrent and prospective links between sibling disclosure and coping from before to during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Disclosure as Resources for Coping

According to family stress theory (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983), existing and new family resources can help individuals meet the accumulated demands under stressful circumstances. When unpredictable events occur, positive communication with family members can serve as useful resources for coping with stress (Segrin & Flora, 2019). Such communicative processes can provide cohesion, shared identity, and social support in the family wherein individuals feel that they are “cared for and loved”, “esteemed and valued”, and “belong to a network of mutual obligation and understanding” (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983, p.15). Members in the family might benefit from communication that promotes social support and validation toward one another. These family conversations might help adolescents construct narratives that could include information or guidance about social and emotional events as well as facilitate adolescents’ understanding of and dealing with difficult and challenging experiences, which are crucial for developing adaptive coping strategies (Kil et al., 2018).

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, home confinement and changes to school formats placed adolescents under extreme uncertainty for maintaining close relationships with peers (Rao & Fisher, 2021). Despite increased online contact with friends, adolescents reported that their online interactions were less satisfying than in-person ones (McMahon et al., 2023). Given the restricted face-to-face contact with peers during COVID-19 shutdowns and the ongoing impact of the pandemic on adolescents’ social lives, it is important to examine how adolescents’ disclosure about their activities and interactions evolved across the pandemic. Thus, the present study focused on a specific form of self-disclosure: adolescents’ disclosures about their personal and social activities from before to during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The protective role of adolescents’ disclosure in facilitating coping has been well documented. Almas and colleagues (2011) indicated that adolescents who were more willing to disclose their feelings, thoughts, and activities to parents generally utilized more positive coping strategies (e.g., seeking social support and self-reliance); whereas adolescents who tended to be more secretive with parents generally engaged in more negative coping strategies (e.g., distancing). Ayres and Leaper (2012) found that disclosure about discrimination helped adolescent girls make sense of and cope with experiences of discrimination. In distressing situations, adolescents’ disclosure about nighttime fears (Gordon et al., 2007) and negative emotions (DeFrino et al., 2016) also could promote support-seeking from their social network (especially parents), contributing to active responses in problem solving. The protective role of family communication has been understood primarily from the perspective that disclosure promotes parental knowledge about their children’s feelings, thoughts, and acts in respnegatonses to stressors (Kil et al., 2018), which could encourage parents’ provision of social support and adolescents’ coping. Less attention, however, has been devoted to the potential benefits of disclosing to siblings. To address this gap, we investigated the longitudinal associations between siblings’ disclosure and adolescents’ coping across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sibling Disclosure and Coping

Previous research suggests that adolescents may feel subtly coerced to disclose personal information to parents, especially when their parents exert high psychological control (Smetana et al., 2006). Unlike parents, siblings can act as peer-like confidants who share more intimate information with one another (Howe et al., 2001). Sibling interactions are characterized by both complementary features found in parent-child relationships (e.g., controlling, modeling, and caretaking) and reciprocal features common to friendships (e.g., mutual sharing and playful exchange of information and emotions; Howe et al., 2000). Slightly different from peer relationships, sibling interactions involve highly affective expressions (e.g., coexistence of positive and negative emotions; Campione-Barr & Killoren, 2019). Siblings also have a shared developmental history and long-term mutual knowledge about one another (Howe et al., 2000). Studying sibling interactions is of particular importance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, as adolescents’ time and interactions with siblings became more salient (Campione-Barr et al., 2021). Prepandemic research has identified siblings as a source for coping with negative events, through providing practical guidance, emotional support, and assistance in decision-making (Perricone et al., 2014). Recent work focused on the COVID-19 shutdown period found that although parents shaped adolescents’ adjustment in ways similar to prepandemic studies, sibling influence on adolescent adjustment (e.g., anxiety, substance use) was conditioned by COVID-19-related stress (Campione-Barr et al., 2021; Whiteman et al., 2023). These findings implied that siblings might play a significant role in adolescents’ coping because they were the only “peers” consistently available during the COVID-19 shutdowns. Less is known regarding whether the protective role of sibling interactions, especially communicative processes, persisted as the pandemic endured and many adolescents began to return to face-to-face interactions with peers.

The Current Study

Using a within-family longitudinal design, the present study investigated the potential protective effects of adolescents’ disclosure about personal and social activities to their siblings in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we examined (a) the development of adolescent sibling dyads’ mutual disclosure, and (b) the role of sibling disclosure in shaping their own and their siblings’ perceived coping from before to during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Past research illustrates that individuals reciprocate self-disclosure (Miller & Kenny, 1986), which signifies mutual influences, trust, and liking in close relationships (Canary & Stafford, 1994). In close relationships that involve communicators as a dyad, one person’s disclosing behavior can thus be linked to the disclosing behavior of the other. Focusing on the motivation of disclosing to their siblings, previous research found that whereas older siblings engaged in disclosure more aimed at teaching their younger siblings, younger siblings used disclosure in order to seek advice and emotional support from their older siblings (Dolgin & Lindsay, 1999). This study also showed that older and younger siblings’ disclosure did not differ in their motivations of conveying and receiving information (the most common forms of disclosure). These findings are aligned with the concept of sibling disclosure reciprocity, but also imply that disclosure motivations might differ because of relative age of the sibling. In light of these developmental assumptions, we first hypothesized that older siblings’ reports of disclosure would be positively associated with younger siblings’ disclosure in the next wave (top-down effects) and the same process would occur for younger siblings’ disclosure (bottom-up effects) from before pandemic (March 2019 – February 2020) to during the shutdown period (May – June 2020), and to the successive period with eventual loosening of COVID social restrictions (July 2020 – February 2021). Given that the reciprocal processes of sibling disclosure are shaped by both actor and partner genders (Campione-Barr et al., 2015), the present study further explored whether reciprocal links between older and younger siblings’ disclosure behaviors varied across sister-sister, brother-brother, and mixed-gender dyads.

Family communication has been identified as a protective factor that promoted adolescent psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic (Tang et al., 2021). Yet little research has examined whether and how sibling communication influenced adolescents’ coping during this unique period. Guided by family stress theory (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983) and previous empirical work (e.g., Campione-Barr et al., 2015; Howe et al., 2000), we expected that disclosure would serve as a protective factor for youth during the pandemic and specifically investigated the links between siblings’ disclosure and perceived coping both concurrently and prospectively (see Figure 1). Paralleling the reciprocal disclosure analyses, we examined the potential moderating effects of gender composition of sibling dyads on the concurrent and prospective associations between sibling disclosure and perceived coping. We accounted for the influence of parents’ own coping during the pandemic as a measure of parental resources from the family stress framework (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983). Based on prior research (Hussong et al., 2021; Perricone et al., 2014; Vashchenko et al., 2007), we also included adolescents’ age, sibling dyad gender composition, and annual household income as control variables in the analyses.

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Reciprocal Linkages between Sibling Disclosure and their Concurrent and Prospective Associations with Adolescents’ Perceived Coping from before to during the First Year of COVID-19 Pandemic.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Note. OS = older sibling, YS = younger sibling. T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2, T3 = Time 3.

Method

Participants included one parent and two adolescent siblings (N = 2,046) from 682 families participating in a longitudinal study designed prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to investigate the connections between family processes and adolescents’ health and adjustment. At Time 1 (data collected between March 2019 and February 2020), older siblings (51% female) and younger siblings (48% female) averaged 15.67 (SD = .68) and 13.14 (SD = 1.11) years, respectively. Participating parents (M = 45.15, SD = 5.37 years) were predominantly mothers (85%; 15% fathers, < 1% transgender) and biological parents (97%; 1% stepparents, 1% adopted parents, and 1% other kin). The sibling dyads included 173 sister-sister dyads, 180 brother-brother dyads, 327 mixed-gender dyads, and two dyads with a transgender older sibling; 97% of siblings were biologically-related, 2% were step-siblings, and 1% were adopted siblings. Most parents identified as White (87%), followed by Black/African American (9%), and other (4%) racial groups; 5% of parents identified as Latinx. At Time 1, 82% of parent participants were married, 59% worked full-time, 23% worked part-time, 3% were looking for work, 3% were students, 10% were retired/not looking for work, and 2% were disabled. For household income, 21% of the parents reported incomes below $59,999, 22% between $60,000 and $99,999, 27% between $100,000 and $149,999, and 30% above $150,000.

Procedure

Participants were recruited from five Midwestern states in the U.S. (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). A mix of rural, suburban, and exurban counties from each state were targeted for recruitment and counties with major cities were generally excluded given goals of the larger study. A sampling frame that included families with one child in Grades 8 through 10 within these states was purchased from a survey research firm. Families were sent prenotification letters that described the study’s purpose, response procedures, and inclusion criteria. In order to participate, parents needed to indicate that they had an additional consecutively-born adolescent-aged child (in Grades 5 through 9) in the household. Each prenotification letter included a unique eight-digit code that parents entered on a screening website, where they provided demographic information and were notified of eligibility to participate. The screening survey was completed by 1,448 parents and 1,008 families met eligibility criteria. Of the eligible families, 682 had all three family members participate at Time 1.

Upon completion of the screening survey, interested and eligible parents provided contact information (email addresses and phone numbers) for themselves and both eligible children, and were redirected to an explanation of the consent processes. After informed consent was obtained from parents (for both themselves and their children), a link to an annual online survey for Time 1 was sent via email to all three participants. Before youth completed their surveys, they provided informed assent. Surveys were designed to be completed in less than one hour (Mdn = 38 minutes for parents; Mdn = 38 minutes for youth), and each family member who completed the survey was compensated $30. Participating families were balanced across the five states, with 21% (144) from Illinois, 12% (84) from Indiana, 25% (172) from Ohio, 26% (175) from Pennsylvania, and 16% (107) from Wisconsin. Families were distributed across counties within each state, with families residing within 31 counties in Illinois, 41 counties in Indiana, 56 counties in Ohio, 47 counties in Pennsylvania, and 38 counties in Wisconsin.

The original study design included plans for three annual assessments. Upon the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the design was augmented to include a special assessment of participants’ experiences during the initial phases of pandemic shutdown between May 1 and June 15, 2020 (Time 2). This time period was selected to overlap with national and/or state stay-at-home orders that restricted adolescents’ social interactions with peers and increased their time spent in households. Each member of the 682 participating families was asked to complete a survey about their management of health, work/school, family processes, and individual wellbeing during the pandemic shutdown. Parents (Mdn = 36 minutes) and youth (Mdn = 26 minutes) completed their surveys in about 30 minutes and were compensated $20 each.

Of the 2,046 participants from Time 1, 1,622 (79% of the total sample; 568 parents (83%), 528 older siblings (77%), and 526 younger siblings (77%)) completed the shutdown assessment survey. Compared to those who only participated at Time 1, parents who completed assessments at both Time 1 and Time 2 reported more years of education (t = 2.38, p = .02, Cohen’s d = .25) and higher annual incomes (t = 3.70, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .42). No differences emerged between these groups in parents’ age, gender, marital status, employment status, race, youths’ age or youths’ gender. No differences in sibling disclosure were observed between youth who completed the survey at both Time 1 and 2 and those who only participated at Time 1.

Data for Time 3 were collected between July 2020 and February 2021 using similar methods. Each family member received $40 for completion of the Time 3 surveys (Mdn = 38 minutes for parents; Mdn = 29 minutes for youth). Of the 2,046 participants from Time 1, 1,893 (92% of the total sample; 650 parents (95%), 624 older siblings (91%) and 619 younger siblings (91%)) completed surveys at Time 3. There were no differences between parents who completed only Time 1 and those who completed Times 1 and 3 in terms of education, annual income, age, gender, marital status, employment status, or race, and also no differences in terms of youth age or gender. Moreover, there were no differences in sibling disclosure between youth who participated in both Time 1 and Time 3 and those that only completed Time 1.

To improve interview efficiency and decrease respondent burden and overall costs, the study utilized a three-form planned missing data design (Graham et al., 2006) at all three measurement occasions. For scales with more than four items, 25% of items were randomly missing. This design introduces no bias, as data are missing completely at random (Little & Rubin, 2019). All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at Utah State University (IRB; protocol #8740). This study was not preregistered. Materials and analysis code are available upon reasonable request by contacting the corresponding author.

Measures

Sibling Disclosure

Youths’ disclosure of their behaviors and activities to their older/younger sibling was indexed at each time point using four items from a measure of relational disclosure (Campione-Barr et al., 2015). On a scale ranging from 1 (Never tell) to 5 (Always tell), youth rated the degree to which they shared personal and social behaviors with their sibling, with higher scores denoting greater disclosure. Items included, “If or who I am dating”, “How I spend my free time”, “What I talk about with my friends”, and “Which friends I spend time with”. Participants also could indicate whether they had never done the behavior at all (subsequently coded as missing). A latent variable was estimated from responses to all four items. Older and younger siblings’ reports of disclosure were significantly correlated at Time 1 (r = .36, p < .001), Time 2 (r = .32, p < .001), and Time 3 (r = .36, p < .001). Cronbach’s alphas indicated strong internal consistency, ranging from .80 to .87.

Coping

Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, youths’ and parents’ perceived coping was assessed using the Coping subscale of the Rhode Island Stress and Coping Inventory (RISCI; Fava et al., 1998) at Times 2 and 3. This scale includes five items designed to examine perceived coping behaviors independent of specific stress situations. Example items included “I was able to cope with difficult situations” and “I felt able to cope with stress”. Participants responded with their perceptions regarding their coping in the preceding month on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (Never) to 4 (Frequently). Latent variables were estimated separately for each respondent (i.e., parent and both siblings). Older and younger siblings’ reports of perceived coping were positively correlated at Time 2 (r = .23, p < .001) and Time 3 (r = .10, p < .05). Across respondents, Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .84 to .91.

Demographic Variables

Demographic covariates of interest included older and younger siblings’ age, gender composition of sibling dyad, household income, family size, and youths’ schooling arrangements post-COVID onset. Parents provided family background information including the age (measured in years) and gender (0 = female; 1 = male) of each household member. Gender composition of the sibling dyad was coded as a three-level (i.e., sister-sister dyad; brother-brother dyad; mixed-gender dyad) dummy variable with brother-brother dyad as the reference group. Parents also provided reports of their annual household income (continuous from 1 “< $10,000” to 14 “>$250,000”) as well as their children’s schooling arrangements at Times 2 and 3 (0 = online and hybrid and other formats, 1 = in-person class). At Time 2, 99% of youth were in non-traditional (not in-person) school formats. At Time 3, 22% of older and 26% of younger siblings attended school in-person daily, respectively. Neither schooling arrangements nor family size was significantly associated with any key study variables, so these variables were not included as controls in the final model.

Analytic Plan

Structural equation modeling was used to examine the reciprocal links between older and younger siblings’ disclosure about their personal and social activities, as well as the concurrent and prospective associations between sibling disclosure and perceived coping from before to during the first year of COVID-19 pandemic. Longitudinally, we fit a cross-lagged panel model in the actor-partner interdependence framework (APIM; Kenny et al., 2006) using Mplus 8.6 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). This approach allowed us to specify both the actor and partner associations in the adolescent sibling dyads to estimate the reciprocity and the direct effects of sibling disclosure on adolescents’ coping over time while controlling for dyadic interdependence.

To examine the first research aim on reciprocal linkages of sibling disclosure, we specified the actor effects of siblings’ disclosure on their own later disclosure and partner effects of older siblings’ disclosure on their younger siblings’ later disclosure and the same process for young siblings’ disclosure from Time 1 to Time 2, and from Time 2 to Time 3. The predictor variables of sibling disclosure at Time 1 and outcome variables of sibling disclosure at Times 2 and 3 were entered as exogenous and endogenous variables in the model, respectively.

To investigate the second aim focused on the potential protective role of siblings’ disclosure in shaping adolescents’ coping, we added older and younger siblings’ coping at Times 2 and 3 as endogenous variables. To investigate the short-term and long-term effects of sibling disclosure on adolescent coping in the context of COVID-19 pandemic, we specified both the concurrent and lagged paths. These longitudinal linkages were specified with respect to the actor and partner effects in the sibling dyads. Third, to account for the potential influence of parents’ own coping on youths’ coping in the pandemic, we entered parents’ report of their coping at Times 2 and 3 as latent covariates for older and younger siblings’ coping at Times 2 and 3, respectively. Gender composition of the sibling dyad, both older and younger siblings’ age were included as control variables for siblings’ reports of disclosure and coping, respectively; household income was included as an additional control for coping.

Finally, multiple group analyses were conducted to examine whether gender composition of the sibling dyad moderated the reciprocal longitudinal linkages between older and younger siblings’ disclosure from before to during the first year of COVID-19 pandemic. We also tested whether the role of sibling disclosure in shaping youths’ perceived coping differed across sister-sister, brother-brother, and mixed-gender dyads. We utilized the MODEL TEST command in Mplus to test equality of each path parameter across groups by comparing the constrained and unconstrained paths (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). In the current study, Wald chi-square test statistics together with parameter estimates of each group were used to determine the moderating effects of sibling dyad gender composition.

Among the observed indicators of all latent variables, no severe violations of normality were detected; absolute values of skewness ranged .01 – 1.45 and kurtosis ranged .02 – 1.51. We accounted for missingness with full information maximum likelihood. Evaluations of model fit were based upon inferential goodness of-fit statistics (χ2), and several other indices including the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Values of CFI and TLI greater than .90 and values of RMSEA and SRMR less than or equal to .08 indicate acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Models are considered to fit the data well if the chi-square test is non-significant and acceptable if the chi-square test is significant in case of large sample sizes (Kline, 2016).

Results

Descriptive Data

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of the study variables. Older siblings’ disclosure at Time 2 was concurrently (r = .20, p < .001) and prospectively (r = .14, p = .002) associated with their own perceived coping; younger siblings’ disclosure at Time 2 was concurrently (r = .15, p =.002), but was not prospectively (r = .00, p = .95) associated with their own perceived coping during the pandemic. Older siblings’ disclosures about social and personal acts decreased from Time 1 to Time 2, t = 5.21, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .24; and increased from Time 2 to Time 3, t = –3.13, p = .002, Cohen’s d = –.15; no significant differences were observed between Time 1 and Time 3, t = 1.88, p = .06, Cohen’s d = .08. Similarly, younger siblings’ disclosures about social and personal activities decreased from Time 1 to Time 2, t = 3.53, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .17; and increased from Time 2 to Time 3, t = –2.94, p = .003, Cohen’s d = –.14. There were no significant differences between older and younger siblings’ disclosure or coping on each occasion, with the exception that older siblings reported greater perceived coping than younger siblings at Time 3, t = 3.17, p =.002, Cohen’s d = .13.

Table 1.

Results of Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Older sibling disclosure T1 —
2. Older sibling disclosure T2   .54*** —
3. Older sibling disclosure T3   .51***   .59*** —
4. Older sibling coping T2   .12**   .20***   .15** —
5. Older sibling coping T3   .13**   .14**   .08*   .38*** —
6. Younger sibling disclosure T1   .36***   .27***   .32***   .09*   .06 —
7. Younger sibling disclosure T2   .33***   .32***   .38***   .07   .07   .44*** —
8. Younger sibling disclosure T3   .33***   .32***   .36***   .06 –.06   .49***   .55*** —
9. Younger sibling coping T2   .06   .08   .05   .23***   .13**   .11*   .15**   .17*** —
10. Younger sibling coping T3 –.01 –.01   .03   .13**   .10*   .06   .00   .09*   .25*** —
Mean 2.85 2.66 2.77 2.50 2.47 2.77 2.61 2.74 2.57 2.31
SD 1.01 1.05 1.00   .92   .92 1.02 1.09 1.09   .97   .95
Open in a new tab

Note. T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2, T3 = Time 3.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

At Time 1, there were significant gender composition group differences for older and younger siblings’ disclosures, respectively. Specifically, both older (M = 3.21, SD = 1.01) and younger sisters (M = 3.17, SD = 1.10) disclosed more personal and social information to each other compared to siblings from mixed-gender (older sibling: M = 2.72, SD = .98; younger sibling: M = 2.64, SD = .94) and brother-brother dyads (older brother: M = 2.73, SD = .98; younger brother: M = 2.65, SD = .99). At Time 2, older sisters’ disclosure to their younger sisters (M = 3.00, SD = 1.15) was greater than older siblings from mixed-gender dyads (M = 2.47, SD = 1.01), but not differed from older brothers from brother-brother dyads (M = 2.69, SD = .95); younger sisters’ disclosure to their older sisters (M = 2.93, SD = 1.19) was greater than younger siblings from mixed-gender (M = 2.49, SD = 1.02) and brother-brother dyads (M = 2.54, SD = 1.08). Significant gender composition effects were evident at Time 3 for both older and younger siblings’ disclosure, respectively. Similarly to above, both older (M = 3.14, SD = 1.09) and younger sisters (M = 3.28, SD = 1.12) disclosed more information to each other, compared to older and younger siblings from mixed-gender (older sibling: M = 2.57, SD = .93; younger sibling: M = 2.57, SD = 1.03) and brother-brother dyads (older brother: M = 2.81, SD = .92; younger brother: M = 2.54, SD = .99).

Model Results

The model showed good model fit: χ2(1556) = 2283.73, p <.001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .026, 90% CI [.024, .029]. Table 2 presents both the unstandardized and standardized coefficients of the effects of covariates for the sibling disclosure and adolescents’ coping and the covariances of exogenous variables, as specified in the model. Notably, there was strong evidence supporting the interdependence of sibling dyads, with significant correlations between older and younger siblings’ disclosure at Time 1 (β = .51, p < .001) and Time 2 (β = .30, p = .002), respectively, as well as between older and younger siblings’ coping at Time 2 (β = .18, p = .001).

Table 2.

Results of the Covariate and Covariance Coefficients from the Structural Equation Model

b SE p β SE p
Older sibling covariates
Older sibling age (T1) → older sibling disclosure (T2)   .05   .06   .43   .04   .04   .42
Younger sibling age (T1) → older sibling disclosure (T2)   .01   .04   .74   .02   .04   .74
Sister-sister dyads (T1) → older sibling disclosure (T2)   .07   .10   .51   .03   .05   .51
Mixed-gender dyads (T1) → older sibling disclosure (T2) –.16   .09   .07 –.09   .05   .07
Older sibling age (T1) → older sibling disclosure (T3) –.07   .05   .23 –.05   .04   .23
Younger sibling age (T1) → older sibling disclosure (T3) –.02   .03   .55 –.03   .04   .55
Sister-sister dyads (T1) → older sibling disclosure (T3)   .06   .10   .54   .03   .05   .54
Mixed-gender dyads (T1) → older sibling disclosure (T3) –.08   .08   .36 –.04   .05   .36
Household income (T1) → older sibling coping (T2)   .05***   .01 <.001   .20***   .05 <.001
Older sibling age (T1) → older sibling coping (T2) –.11*   .06   .046 –.09*   .04   .045
Younger sibling age (T1) → older sibling coping (T2) –.03   .04 38 –.04   .05   .38
Sister-sister dyads (T1) → older sibling coping (T2) –.32**   .10   .002 –.17**   .05   .001
Mixed-gender dyads (T1) → older sibling coping (T2) –.12   .09   .17 –.08   .06   .17
Parent coping (T2) → older sibling coping (T2)   .19*   .08   .01   .13*   .05   .01
Household income (T1) → older sibling coping (T3)   .01   .01   .23   .05   .05   .23
Older sibling age (T1) → older sibling coping (T3)   .06   .05   .17   .06   .05   .17
Younger sibling age (T1) → older sibling coping (T3)   .02   .03   .51   .03   .05   .51
Sister-sister dyads (T1) → older sibling coping (T3) –.10   .08   .25 –.06   .05   .25
Mixed-gender dyads (T1) → older sibling coping (T3) –.09   .07   .22 –.06   .05   .22
Parent coping (T3) → older sibling coping (T3)   .07   .06   .26   .05   .05   .26
Younger sibling covariates
Older sibling age (T1) → younger sibling disclosure (T2) –.04   .06   .55 –.03   .05   .55
Younger sibling age (T1) → younger sibling disclosure (T2)   .03   .04   .36   .04   .05   .36
Sister-sister dyads (T1) → younger sibling disclosure (T2)   .18   .11   .10   .09   .06   .10
Mixed-gender dyads (T1) → younger sibling disclosure (T2)   .00   .10   .98   .00   .06   .98
Older sibling age (T1) → younger sibling disclosure (T3)   .02   .06   .75   .01   .05   .75
Younger sibling age (T1) → younger sibling disclosure (T3)   .00   .04   .96   .00   .04   .96
Sister-sister dyads (T1) → younger sibling disclosure (T3)   .29**   .11   .007   .14**   .05   .007
Mixed-gender dyads (T1) → younger sibling disclosure (T3)   .08   .09   .36   .04   .05   .36
Household income (T1) → younger sibling coping (T2)   .02   .01   .11   .08   .05   .10
Older sibling age (T1) → younger sibling coping (T2) –.10   .06   .11 –.08   .05   .11
Younger sibling age (T1) → younger sibling coping (T2) –.02   .04   .68 –.02   .05   .68
Sister-sister dyads (T1) → younger sibling coping (T2) –.28**   .11   .009 –.15**   .06   .008
Mixed-gender dyads (T1) → younger sibling coping (T2) –.22*   .09   .02 –.14*   .06   .01
Parent coping (T2) → younger sibling coping (T2)   .33***   .09 <.001   .21***   .05 <.001
Household income (T1) → younger sibling coping (T3)   .03**   .01   .004   .14**   .05   .003
Older sibling age (T1) → younger sibling coping (T3)   .03   .05   .58   .03   .05   .58
Younger sibling age (T1) → younger sibling coping (T3)   .01   .03   .88   .01   .05   .88
Sister-sister dyads (T1) → younger sibling coping (T3)   .06   .10   .54   .04   .06   .54
Mixed-gender dyads (T1) → younger sibling coping (T3)   .05   .09   .57   .03   .06   .57
Parent coping (T3) → younger sibling coping (T3)   .06   .07   .38   .05   .05   .38
Covariances
Older sibling disclosure (T1) ←→ younger sibling disclosure (T1)   .38***   .05 <.001   .51***   .05 <.001
Older sibling disclosure (T2) ←→ younger sibling disclosure (T2)   .10**   .03   .003   .30**   .09   .002
Older sibling coping (T2) ←→ younger sibling coping (T2)   .10**   .03   .001   .18**   .05   .001
Parent coping (T2) ←→ parent coping (T3)   .18***   .02 <.001   .61***   .04 <.001
Older sibling disclosure (T1) ←→ parent coping (T2)   .05*   .02   .03   .11*   .05   .03
Younger sibling disclosure (T1) ←→ parent coping (T3)   .06*   .02   .01   .12*   .05   .01
Open in a new tab

Note. T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2, T3 = Time 3.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001. Only significant covariances are presented.

Highlighting some significant covariate effects, younger sisters from sister-sister dyads disclosed more personal and social information than younger brothers from brother-brother dyads at Time 3. For coping, greater household income was positively associated with older siblings’ coping at Time 2 as well as younger siblings’ coping at Time 3. Parent coping at Time 2 predicted both older and younger siblings’ greater perceived coping at Time 2, but not at Time 3. Older siblings’ age at Time 1 was negatively associated with their own coping at Time 2 but not at Time 3. Compared to siblings from brother-brother dyads, both older and younger sisters and younger siblings from mixed-gender dyads reported lower levels of perceived coping at Time 2. No significant gender composition differences were found in youths’ perceptions of coping at Time 3.

Table 3 provides the parameter estimates for the reciprocal linkages between older and younger siblings’ disclosure and the concurrent and prospective associations between siblings’ disclosure and adolescents’ perceived coping from Time 1 to Time 2 and from Time 2 to Time 3. Regarding the first aim focused on reciprocal linkages of sibling disclosure, younger siblings’ disclosure at Time 2 was positively associated with older siblings’ later disclosure at Time 3 after controlling for the auto-regressive effects of disclosure and the aforementioned control variables. However, younger siblings’ disclosure at Time 1 was not significantly associated with older siblings’ later disclosure at Time 2. There were no significant reciprocal linkages between older siblings’ disclosure and younger siblings’ later disclosure across occasions.

Table 3.

Results of the Reciprocal Linkages between Sibling Disclosure and the Concurrent and Prospective Associations between Siblings’ Disclosure and Adolescents’ Coping

b SE p β SE p
Older sibling outcomes
Actor effects
Older sibling disclosure (T1) → older sibling disclosure (T2)   .73***   .08 < .001   .74***   .05 < .001
Older sibling disclosure (T2) → older sibling disclosure (T3)   .71***   .07 < .001   .72***   .05 < .001
Older sibling disclosure (T1) → older sibling coping (T2) –.07   .11   .49 –.08   .12   .49
Older sibling disclosure (T2) → older sibling coping (T2)   .27*   .11   .01   .29*   .12   .01
Older sibling coping (T2) → older sibling coping (T3)   .34***   .05 < .001   .38***   .05 < .001
Older sibling disclosure (T2) → older sibling coping (T3)   .11   .09   .24   .14   .11   .23
Older sibling disclosure (T3) → older sibling coping (T3) –.02   .09   .80 –.03   .11   .80
Partner effects
Younger sibling disclosure (T1) → older sibling disclosure (T2)   .04   .07   .55   .04   .06   .55
Younger sibling disclosure (T2) → older sibling disclosure (T3)   .12*   .06   .04   .12*   .06   .04
Younger sibling disclosure (T1) → older sibling coping (T2)   .14   .10   .15   .14   .10   .15
Younger sibling disclosure (T2) → older sibling coping (T2) –.11   .09   .23 –.12   .10   .23
Younger sibling disclosure (T2) → older sibling coping (T3)   .13   .09   .16   .16   .11   .16
Younger sibling disclosure (T3) → older sibling coping (T3) –.20*   .09   .02 –.24*   .10   .02
Younger sibling outcomes
Actor effects
Younger sibling disclosure (T1) → younger sibling disclosure (T2)   .65***   .08 < .001   .64***   .06 < .001
Younger sibling disclosure (T2) → younger sibling disclosure (T3)   .74***   .08 < .001   .72***   .05 < .001
Younger sibling disclosure (T1) → younger sibling coping (T2) –.03   .10   .76 –.03   .11   .76
Younger sibling disclosure (T2) → younger sibling coping (T2)   .21*   .10   .03   .22*   .10   .03
Younger sibling coping (T2) → younger sibling coping (T3)   .25***   .05 < .001   .27***   .05 < .001
Younger sibling disclosure (T2) → younger sibling coping (T3) –.15   .11   .16 –.17   .12   .16
Younger sibling disclosure (T3) → younger sibling coping (T3)   .21*   .10   .03   .24*   .11   .03
Partner effects
Older sibling disclosure (T1) → younger sibling disclosure (T2)   .10   .07   .12   .10   .07   .12
Older sibling disclosure (T2) → younger sibling disclosure (T3)   .07   .06   .26   .07   .06   .26
Older sibling disclosure (T1) → younger sibling coping (T2) –.02   .12   .90 –.02   .13   .90
Older sibling disclosure (T2) → younger sibling coping (T2) –.01   .12   .91 –.01   .12   .91
Older sibling disclosure (T2) → younger sibling coping (T3) –.06   .10   .58 –.07   .12   .58
Older sibling disclosure (T3) → younger sibling coping (T3) –.01   .10   .96 –.01   .12   .96
Open in a new tab

Note. T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2, T3 = Time 3.

*

p < .10.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

To further examine whether these longitudinal reciprocal associations between older and younger siblings’ disclosure differed across sister-sister, brother-brother, and mixed-gender dyads, multiple group analyses were employed (see Table 4). Results showed the link between younger siblings’ disclosure at Time 1 and older siblings’ disclosure at Time 2 was qualified by gender composition such that only younger brothers’ disclosing social and personal information before the pandemic promoted their older brothers’ disclosing behavior during the pandemic shutdowns. There also were significant moderating effects of gender composition on the link between older siblings’ disclosure at Time 1 and younger siblings’ disclosure at Time 2: the positive associations were only salient for sister-sister dyads. From Time 2 to Time 3, gender composition moderated the association between older siblings’ disclosure and their younger siblings’ later disclosure. Specifically, older brothers’ disclosing behavior during the pandemic shutdowns promoted their younger brothers’ disclosing behavior during the evolving pandemic period; this pathway, however, was not significant for sister-sister or mixed gender dyads. Younger siblings’ disclosure at Time 2 consistently promoted older siblings’ disclosure at Time 3 across all gender composition groups.

Table 4.

Multiple Group Analysis Results for the Moderating Effects of Sibling Dyad Gender Composition on the Longitudinal Reciprocal Linkages of Older and Younger Siblings’ Disclosure

Path Constrained Sister-sister dyad (n = 173)
 Mixed-gender dyad (n = 327)
 Brother-brother dyad (n = 180)
 χ2 (df =1) p
b SE β b SE β b SE β
Younger sibling disclosure (T1) → older sibling disclosure (T2) −.10   .14 −.10   .26*   .11   .24 4.07   .04
−.10   .14 −.10 −.05   .11 −.05   .08   .78
−.05   .11 −.05   .26*   .11   .24 4.04   .04
Older sibling disclosure (T1) → younger sibling disclosure (T2)   .54***   .14   .48 −.14   .13 −.15 12.22 < .001
  .54***   .14   .48   .05   .09   .05 8.92   .003
  .05   .09   .05 −.14   .13 −.15 1.38   .24
Younger sibling disclosure (T2) → older sibling disclosure (T3)   .10   .18   .10   .07   .11   .07   .03   .86
  .10   .18   .10   .17*   .08   .17   .12   .72
  .17*   .08   .17   .07   .11   .07   .62   .43
Older sibling disclosure (T2) → younger sibling disclosure (T3) −.30   .21 −.31   .28*   .13   .29 5.45   .02
−.30   .21 −.31   .05   .09   .05 2.33   .13
  .05   .09   .05   .28*   .13   .29 2.24   .13
Open in a new tab

Note. T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2, T3 = Time 3.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Regarding the second aim focused on the role of sibling disclosure in shaping adolescents’ coping, both older and younger siblings’ disclosures at Time 2 were positively associated with their own coping in the same period, after accounting for covariates and prospective effects of disclosure at Time 1 on coping at Time 2. Results also indicated that younger siblings’ disclosure at Time 3 was positively associated with their own coping at Time 3, but negatively associated with their older siblings’ coping at Time 3, after controlling for covariates, auto-regressive effects of coping at Time 2, and prospective effects of disclosure at Time 2 on coping at Time 3. None of the prospective associations between disclosure and coping were significant.

Analyses investigating the potential moderating effects of gender composition on the concurrent and prospective associations between sibling disclosure and perceived coping revealed no significant differences between sister-sister, mixed-gender dyads, and brother-brother dyads, χs2 (1) = .02–2.11, ps = .15–.90. One exception suggested that the concurrent link between older siblings’ disclosure at Time 2 and younger siblings’ perceived coping at Time 2 was moderated by gender composition, χ2 (1) = 4.42, p = .04. Simple slopes probing, however, revealed that the paths were non-significant for all three groups (sister-sister dyads: b = –.55, SE = .50, p = .27; brother-brother dyads: b = –.48, SE = .29, p = .10; mixed-gender dyads: b = .21, SE = .15, p = .16). Overall, results indicated no significant moderating effects of gender composition on any concurrent or prospective associations between siblings’ disclosure and adolescents’ perceived coping.

Discussion

Social disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic posed extraordinary challenges to adolescents’ well-being due to changes in their social networks (Campione-Barr et al., 2021), confinement-related limits in space and daily routine (Prime et al., 2020), exacerbated feelings of loneliness (McMahon et al., 2023), and demands in navigating developmental needs for peer affiliation (Van Loon et al., 2021). Given that communication is central to social support and coping processes, it is imperative to understand how family communication processes evolved over the course of the pandemic and served as potential protective factors to help youth cope with and rebound from these unique pandemic-related experiences (Mikucki-Enyart & Maguire, 2021).

Although previous research suggests that interactions with siblings might have been particularly salient during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic (Campione-Barr et al., 2021), little work has explored sibling communication processes from a dyadic perspective and their actor and partner associations with adolescents’ perceived coping. Using a three-wave longitudinal design (Time 1: March 2019 – February 2020; Time 2: May – June 2020; Time 3: July 2020 –February 2021), the current study investigated older and young adolescent siblings’ disclosure about personal and social activities to their siblings and the concurrent and prospective associations between siblings’ disclosure and adolescents’ perceived coping. Overall, we found that siblings’ disclosures were reciprocally linked, however, these associations were often moderated by the gender composition of the sibling dyad. Furthermore, siblings’ disclosure was concurrently associated with their own coping (especially at Time 2), but not prospectively associated with their own or their siblings’ coping across the occasions.

Development of Adolescent Siblings’ Disclosure and Reciprocity Across the Pandemic

From before to during the early stages of the pandemic, both older and younger siblings’ disclosing social and personal activities to their siblings positively predicted their own later disclosure behaviors, indicating stability in disclosure behaviors over time. After accounting for the stability of adolescents’ own disclosure to their siblings and other control variables, we found that older and younger siblings’ disclosures were prospectively linked, however, these associations were mostly moderated by the gender composition of the sibling dyad. For example, from before (Time 1) to during the shutdowns of the pandemic (Time 2) younger brothers’ disclosure was linked to their older brothers’ later disclosure, whereas only older sisters’ disclosure was linked to their younger sisters’ later disclosure. Different patterns emerged during the first year of the pandemic. Specifically, from the pandemic shutdowns (Time 2) to the evolving period (Time 3), younger siblings’ disclosure promoted their older siblings’ later disclosure across sister-sister, brother-brother, and mixed-gender dyads, whereas only older brothers’ disclosure facilitated their younger brothers’ later disclosure. These findings are generally consistent with past work noting the reciprocity of disclosure in sibling relationships depends on the gender composition of the dyad (Campione-Barr et al., 2015).

From a dyadic perspective in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, our findings revealed nuances in the development of adolescent siblings’ disclosing personal and social information toward each other. Across the three waves, an interesting trend emerged that younger brothers’ disclosing about personal and social information prior to the pandemic promoted their older brothers’ disclosures during the pandemic shutdowns, which in turn, encouraged the younger brothers to disclose more during the evolving pandemic period. Perhaps, the home confinement during the pandemic shutdowns created a unique environment for brothers to share, confide, and serve in more peer-like roles, which promoted the reciprocal process of disclosing as the pandemic evolved.

For sister-sister dyads, we found that older sisters’ pre-pandemic disclosure facilitated their younger sisters’ disclosure during the shutdowns. These findings are consistent with pre-pandemic research indicating that sisters are expressive toward each other and consistently share and disclose personal information and activities (Campione-Barr et al., 2015). During the pandemic (from Time 2 to Time 3), however, the promotive effects of younger siblings’ disclosure on their older siblings’ disclosure were salient across all groups, but there was no significant linkage between older sisters’ disclosure and younger sisters’ later disclosure (although their disclosure to each other was greater than other groups). The significant bottom-up effect of younger siblings’ disclosure is consistent with the idea that younger siblings’ influence on older siblings increases as the developmental divide between siblings diminishes and their relationships become more egalitarian later in adolescence (Buhrmester & Furman, 1990). Younger siblings often benefit more from perceptions of positive and supportive relationships (Campione-Barr et al., 2015) and tend to seek support and solicit advice from their older siblings (Dolgin & Lindsay, 1999). In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is possible that when families were required to stay home together and activities in schools and other institutions were limited, younger siblings were willing to share their personal and social life with heightened stress and uncertainty, which could then encourage their older siblings’ later disclosure.

The promoting effects of older siblings’ disclosure on their younger siblings’ later behaviors were not found in sister-sister or mixed-gender dyads. These findings may reflect less impact of the pandemic on sister-sister dyads given their tendency to engage in higher levels of disclosure (Campione-Barr et al., 2015) and report greater relational intimacy during adolescence (Kim et al., 2006). Prior to the pandemic, mixed-gender brothers and sisters may have been less involved in disclosing private information such as dating, friends, and their personal acts given their physical differences, especially in early and middle adolescence (age range of younger siblings in this study) when the segregation of the sexes persists (e.g., Mehta & Strough, 2009). Indeed, results indicated that while there were no significant effects of disclosing to each other in mixed-gender sibling dyads from before to during the pandemic shutdowns, younger siblings from mixed-gender dyads disclosure in the pandemic shutdowns encouraged their mixed-gender older siblings’ later disclosure in the evolving pandemic. These findings support the argument that siblings’ interactions could be more salient and impactful during the pandemic (Campione-Barr et al., 2021), even for the mixed-gender dyads who may be less involved in their sibling relationships compared to same-gender siblings.

Longitudinal Links between Sibling Disclosure and Perceived Coping

Regarding the role of sibling disclosure in shaping adolescents’ perceptions of coping across the pandemic, siblings’ disclosure was associated with youths’ coping concurrently, but not prospectively. Results of the concurrent associations were consistent across sister-sister, brother-brother, and mixed-gender dyads. Both older and younger siblings’ self-disclosure was generally predictive of their own perceived coping during the same period. These concurrent positive associations are consistent with family stress theory (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983) and previous literature regarding the protective role of sibling disclosure (Campione-Barr et al., 2015; Howe et al., 2000, 2001). In the face of significant adversity or crisis, family communication is at the center of coping processes such as meaning making (Ayres & Leaper, 2012; Kil et al., 2018), seeking and providing social support (Perricone et al., 2014), and strengthening resilience (Theiss, 2018). Focusing on adolescent sibling dyads, the present study revealed the positive impact of disclosing to siblings for youths’ own coping (actor effects) during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

There were mixed findings, however, on the potential risk of being disclosed to by a sibling during the evolving period of the COVID-19 pandemic (Time 3). Being disclosed to by younger siblings was negatively related to older siblings’ perceived coping; however, being disclosed to by older siblings was not associated with younger siblings’ perceived coping. In line with previous findings that “disclosing to siblings is not always as beneficial” (Campione-Barr et al., 2015, p. 1289), the current study provides supporting evidence that in the evolving pandemic period, younger sibling’s disclosing personal and social information can foster their own coping in a positive way, but also influence their older siblings’ coping in a negative manner. Past research has suggested that younger siblings are motivated to disclose to their older siblings for seeking advice and emotional support, whereas older siblings are motivated to disclose to their younger siblings for the purpose of influencing and modeling (Dolgin & Lindsay, 1999). Therefore, it is possible that younger siblings benefit from receiving informational and emotional support messages from their older siblings that helped them adaptively cope with the stressors of the enduring pandemic. For older siblings, being disclosed information about younger siblings’ needs for advice and emotional support could, on the one hand, help boost their self-efficacy via supporting and helping their younger siblings (especially during the pandemic shutdowns). On the other hand, it could exacerbate older siblings’ own psychological burnout and be negatively linked to their perceptions of coping especially if they were asked to provide continuous instrumental and emotional support. This pattern may have been especially likely as the COVID-19 pandemic endured and older siblings coped with their own social stressors. Indeed, younger siblings’ disclosures about their personal and social life in the evolving pandemic period may have served as a double-edged sword that could facilitate their own but hinder their older siblings’ perceptions of coping.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite several strengths including using three waves of longitudinal data from multiple informants allowing the investigation of concurrent and longitudinal associations between sibling disclosure and youths’ perceived coping across the pandemic, we note several important limitations. First, although we considered parental influence and accounted for parent reports of their perceived coping as control variables at Times 2 and 3, adolescents’ disclosure to parents about their social and personal activities over time was not assessed. Future work would benefit from understanding the effects of disclosing to both siblings and parents for youths’ adjustment in the COVID-19 pandemic context. Second, youths’ and parent’s perceptions of coping were only assessed at Times 2 and 3 following the onset of the pandemic. Information about respondents’ perceived coping before the pandemic would have been valuable indicators of the pre-existing family resources before the crisis. Third, to further understand the mechanisms that undergird the linkages between siblings’ disclosure and adolescents’ perceived coping, it would be worthwhile to measure processes such as siblings’ dyadic coping (Killoren et al., 2023), family’s communal coping (Afifi et al., 2020), and communication processes of social support (e.g., seeking and receiving informational and emotional support; Burleson et al., 1994). Fourth, this investigation focused on frequency of self-disclosure behaviors, not valence or content of disclosures. Results generally revealed that more frequent disclosure to siblings served as a protective factor for one’s own coping. Future research should investigate the functions of other communication processes such as communication valence (e.g., constructive behavior such as validation and adaptation or destructive behavior such as criticism and withdrawal; Solomon et al., 2016), negative (e.g., venting and expressing concerns; Schrodt & Afifi, 2018) and positive disclosure content (e.g., sharing knowledge, good news, and entertainment; Derlega et al., 2011), and different communication channels including in-person and online settings (Utz, 2015). Finally, the generalizability of our findings is limited to families who were primarily white from the Midwestern U.S. Although, the racial composition was largely representative of the five states sampled (81.4% white, 12% Black, 9.2% Latinx; U.S. Census Bureau, 2019), research notes that the COVID-19 pandemic and confinement measures exacerbated existing inequalities of underrepresented families with adolescents (e.g., Anakwe et al., 2021; Astle et al., 2022). It is possible that sibling relationships and disclosures could provide additional benefit in families that experienced greater stress during the pandemic (e.g., sibling compensation dynamics) and future research would benefit from exploring such possibilities with more diverse samples.

Notwithstanding these limitations, this study makes key contributions to the understanding of the protective role of siblings’ disclosure for adolescents’ perceived coping across the first year of COVID-19 pandemic. Findings underscore how sibling relationship processes, such as disclosure, can promote (or inhibit) positive adjustment. In fact, the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which in-person social interactions with peers were restricted, may have provided a natural setting where sibling relationship processes held even more meaning for youths’ adjustment. Indeed, the reciprocal influence of older and younger siblings’ disclosures in this study and other recent work (e.g., Campione-Barr et al., 2021; Whiteman et al., 2023) highlights the potential compensatory role that siblings may have played for each other in the absence of typical in-person peer relationships and social activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. It will be critical for future work to examine whether these patterns of mutual disclosure continued and carried ramifications for siblings’ longer-term relationships and well-being in the enduring pandemic and post-pandemic periods.

Public Significance Statements.

Disclosure of personal information to siblings predicted adolescents’ coping across the first year of COVID-19 pandemic. Younger siblings’ disclosure during the pandemic shutdowns further promoted older siblings’ later disclosure behaviors, highlighting how interactions with siblings while socially isolated may have compensated for those of peers. Overall, findings highlight the important role of siblings from a family communication perspective.

Acknowledgments

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute On Alcohol Abuse And Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers R01AA025331 and R01AA030191 (to Shawn D. Whiteman). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

This study was not preregistered. The data generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not yet publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Afifi TD, Basinger ED, & Kam JA (2020). The extended theoretical model of communal coping: Understanding the properties and functionality of communal coping. Journal of Communication, 70(3), 424–446. 10.1093/joc/jqaa006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Almas AN, Grusec JE, & Tackett JL (2011). Children’s disclosure and secrecy: Links to maternal parenting characteristics and children’s coping skills. Social Development, 20(3), 624–643. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2010.00602.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Anakwe A, Majee W, Ponder M, & BeLue R (2022). COVID-19 and crisis communication among African American households. Families, Systems, & Health, 40(3), 408–412. 10.1037/fsh0000705 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Astle SM, Duncan JC, Toews ML, Perez-Brena NJ, McAllister P, Maddy MA, & Feinberg E, M. (2022). “A little bit closer”: A mixed method analysis of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of adolescent parents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 0(0). 10.1177/07435584211062116 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ayres MM, & Leaper C (2012). Adolescent girls’ experiences of discrimination: An examination of coping strategies, social support, and self-esteem. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28(4), 479–508. 10.1177/0743558412457817 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Buhrmester D, & Furman W (1990). Perceptions of sibling relationships during middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 61(5), 1387–1398. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02869.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Burleson BR, Albrecht TL, & Sarason IG (1994). Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community. Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  8. Campione-Barr N, & Killoren SE (2019). Love them and hate them: The developmental appropriateness of ambivalence in the adolescent sibling relationship. Child Development Perspectives, 13(4), 221–226. 10.1177/0192513X19829501 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Campione-Barr N, Lindell AK, Giron SE, Killoren SE, & Greer KB (2015). Domain differentiated disclosure to mothers and siblings and associations with sibling relationship quality and youth emotional adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 51(9), 1278–1291. 10.1037/dev0000036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Campione-Barr N, Rote W, Killoren SE, & Rose AJ (2021). Adolescent adjustment during COVID-19: The role of close relationships and COVID-19-related stress. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(3), 608–622. 10.1111/jora.12647 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Canary DJ, & Stafford L (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine interaction (pp. 3–20). In Canary DJ & Stafford L (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. DeFrino DT, Marko-Holguin M, Cordel S, Anker L, Bansa M, & Van Voorhees B (2016). “Why should I tell my business?”: An emerging theory of coping and disclosure in teens. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, 30(2), 124–142. 10.1891/1541-6577.30.2.124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Derlega VJ, Anderson S, Winstead BA, & Greene K (2011). Positive disclosure among college students: What do they talk about, to whom, and why?. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(2), 119–130. 10.1080/17439760.2010.545430 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dolgin KG, & Lindsay KR (1999). Disclosure between college students and their siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(3), 393–400. 10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.393 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fava JL, Ruggiero L, & Grimley DM (1998). The development and structural confirmation of the Rhode Island Stress and Coping Inventory. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 21, 601–611. 10.1023/A:1018752813896 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gordon J, King N, Gullone E, Muris P, & Ollendick TH (2007). Nighttime fears of children and adolescents: Frequency, content, severity, harm expectations, disclosure, and coping behaviours. Behaviour research and therapy, 45(10), 2464–2472. 10.1016/j.brat.2007.03.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Graham JW, Taylor BJ, Olchowski AE, & Cumsille PE (2006). Planned missing data designs in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 11(4), 323–343. 10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.323 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Howe N, Aquan-Assee J, Bukowski WM, Rinaldi CM, & Lehoux PM (2000). Sibling self-disclosure in early adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 653–671. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23092569 [Google Scholar]
  19. Howe N, Aquan-Assee J, Bukowski WM, Lehoux PM, & Rinaldi CM (2001). Siblings as confidants: Emotional understanding, relationship warmth, and sibling self-disclosure. Social Development, 10(4), 439–454. 10.1111/1467-9507.00174 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hu LT, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/1070-5519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hussong AM, Midgette AJ, Thomas TE, Coffman JL, & Cho S (2021). Coping and mental health in early adolescence during COVID-19. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 49(9), 1113–1123. 10.1007/s10802-021-00821-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kapetanovic J & Skoog T (2021). The role of the family’s emotional climate in the links between parent-adolescent communication and adolescent psychosocial functioning. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 49(2), 141–154. 10.1007/s10802-020-00705-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (2006). Dyadic data analysis. The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kil H, Grusec JE, & Chaparro MP (2018). Maternal disclosure and adolescent prosocial behavior: The mediating roles of adolescent disclosure and coping. Social Development, 27(3), 652–664. 10.1111/sode.12287 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Killoren SE, Roos J, Bordere T, Randall AK, Rivero Rodriguez A, Alfaro EC, Campione-Barr N, and Jones SK (2023). Perceived discrimination and Latina college students’ depressive symptoms: The roles of dyadic coping with sisters and familism values. Family Process, 62(3), 1176–1195. 10.1111/famp.12822 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kim JY, McHale SM, Wayne Osgood D, & Crouter AC (2006). Longitudinal course and family correlates of sibling relationships from childhood through adolescence. Child Development, 77(6), 1746–1761. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00971.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kline RB (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Little RJ, & Rubin DB (2019). Statistical analysis with missing data (Vol. 793). John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  29. McCubbin HI, & Patterson JM (1983). The family stress process: The double ABCX model of adjustment and adaptation. In Social stress and the family (pp. 7–37). The Haworth Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. McMahon TP, Villaume SC, & Adam EK (2023). Daily experiences and adolescent affective wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: The CHESS model. Current Opinion in Psychology, 53,1–6. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101654 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Mehta CM, & Strough J (2009). Sex segregation in friendships and normative contexts across the life span. Developmental Review, 29(3), 201–220. 10.1016/j.dr.2009.06.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mikucki-Enyart SL, & Maguire KC (2021). Introduction to the special issue on family communication in the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Family Communication, 21(3), 145–151. 10.1080/15267431.2021.1933038 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Miller LC, & Kenny DA (1986). Reciprocity of self-disclosure at the individual and dyadic levels: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 713–719. 10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.713 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (2017). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  35. Parent N, Dadgar K, Xiao B, Hesse C, & Shapka JD (2021). Social disconnection during COVID-19: The role of attachment, fear of missing out, and smartphone use. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(3), 748–763. 10.1111/jora.12658 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Perricone G, Fontana V, Burgio S, & Polizzi C (2014). Sibling relationships as a resource for coping with traumatic events. Springerplus, 3(1), 1–6. 10.1186/2193-1801-3-525 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Prime H, Wade M, & Browne DT (2020). Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist, 75(5), 631–643. 10.1037/amp0000660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rao N, & Fisher PA (2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on child and adolescent development around the world. Child Development, 92(5), e738–e748. 10.1111/cdev.13653 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Romm KF, Park YW, Hughes JL, & Gentzler AL (2021). Risk and protective factors for changes in adolescent psychosocial adjustment during COVID-19. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(3), 546–559. 10.1111/jora.12667 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Schrodt P, & Afifi TD (2018). A social relations model of negative relational disclosures and closeness in families. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(2), 180–201. 10.1177/0265407516680304 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Segrin C, & Flora J (2019). Models of family stress and coping. In Segrin C & Flora J (Eds.), Family communication (3rd. ed., pp. 223–244). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  42. Smetana JG, Metzger A, Gettman DC, & Campione-Barr N (2006). Disclosure and secrecy in adolescent–parent relationships. Child Development, 77(1), 201–217. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00865.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Solomon DH, Knobloch LK, Theiss JA, & McLaren RM (2016). Relational turbulence theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 507–532. 10.1111/hcre.12091 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tang S, Xiang M, Cheung T, & Xiang YT (2021). Mental health and its correlates among children and adolescents during COVID-19 school closure: The importance of parent-child discussion. Journal of Affective Disorders, 279, 353–360. 10.1016/j.jad.2020.10.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Theiss JA (2018). Family communication and resilience. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46(1), 10–13. 10.1080/00909882.2018.1426706 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. US Census Bureau (2019). Quick Facts: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, United States. Retrieved March 21, 2021, from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/PA,OH,IN,IL,WI,US/PST045219
  47. Utz S (2015). The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: Not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 1–10. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.076 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Loon AWG, Creemers HE, Vogelaar S, Miers AC, Saab N, Westenberg PM, & Asscher JJ (2021). Prepandemic Risk Factors of COVID-19-Related Concerns in Adolescents During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(3), 531–545. 10.1111/jora.12651 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Vashchenko M, Lambidoni E, & Brody LR (2007). Late adolescents’ coping styles in interpersonal and intrapersonal conflicts using the narrative disclosure task. Clinical Social Work Journal, 35, 245–255. 10.1007/s10615-007-0115-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Whiteman SD, Maiya S, Cassinat JR, Serang S, Kelly BC, Mustillo SA, & Maggs JL (2023). Sibling influences on adolescent alcohol use during the spring 2020 COVID-19 pandemic shutdown. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 37(7), 961–968. 10.1037/adb0000841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES