Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Apr 9.
Published in final edited form as: J Soc Pers Relat. 2019 Aug 11;37(2):516–537. doi: 10.1177/0265407519867771

Rethinking Leisure Time Use Metrics: Greater Diversity in Shared Sibling Leisure is Associated with Higher Relationship Quality during Emerging Adulthood

Eric K Layland 1,*, Camilla J Hodge 1,2, Mikala Glaza 1, Jerrica O Peets 1
PMCID: PMC8034487  NIHMSID: NIHMS1617451  PMID: 33840878

Abstract

Leisure diversity—the total number of unique leisure categories shared within a sibling dyad—may vary according to sibling characteristics (e.g. sibling gender, age difference) and predict sibling relationship quality. Using triangulated lists, brief narratives, and focus groups, we constructed a taxonomy of shared sibling leisure in emerging adulthood and then calculated individual leisure diversity scores. The sample (N=185) included college-attending emerging adults with an average age of 20.1 years old (35.7% female). Taxonomic analysis suggested 19 categories of shared sibling leisure. ANOVAs indicated differences by dyadic gender composition in endorsement rates of select leisure categories and average levels of leisure diversity (lowest for mixed gender dyads). Greater shared leisure diversity was associated with higher levels of affective (sister-sister dyads) and cognitive relationship quality (sister-sister and mixed gender dyads). The association of leisure diversity with sibling relationship quality was strongest for sister-sister dyads and not significant for brother-brother dyads. Sibling dyads that include a sister are more likely to be impacted by level of shared leisure diversity. The results of this study introduce leisure diversity as a metric for quantifying sibling leisure and support its potential as a means for understanding and impacting sibling relationship quality in emerging adulthood.

Keywords: brother, emerging adulthood, free time, leisure, mixed methods, relationship quality, siblings, sister

Shared leisure experiences are believed to facilitate family relationship development and maintenance across the lifespan (Orthner, Barnett-Morris, & Mancini, 1994). These conclusions are based almost exclusively on research engaging parents and adolescent children (Hodge et al., 2015, 2017). Sibling relationships are glaringly absent in this literature even though most people in the United States have at least one sibling, and sibling relationships are potentially the longest-lasting familial relationships across the lifespan (Cicirelli, 1994; Whiteman, McHale, & Soli, 2011). Thus, documenting siblings’ shared leisure activities is a crucial step forward for research on family relationships in the leisure context.

Documenting siblings’ shared leisure activities can offer insight into the types of experiences and behaviors that best support sibling relationships across the lifespan, particularly when such documentation accounts for sibling dyad characteristics such as gender and age difference. Indeed, leisure may be an underutilized resource for supporting the sibling relationships that influence individual life satisfaction and psychological well-being across life stages and transitions (Hollifield & Conger, 2015; Spitze & Trent, 2018). Therefore, this study describes and characterizes shared sibling leisure and examines the association between leisure and sibling relationships during emerging adulthood. Specifically, we provide a taxonomy of siblings’ leisure activities in emerging adulthood, explore gender and age difference effects on leisure behaviors and relationship quality, and identify the role of leisure diversity in sibling relationships.

Background

We first discuss sibling relationships across the lifespan. Second, we present the life course perspective with special attention paid to emerging adulthood. Third, we explore age and gender differences in sibling relationship quality and leisure. Fourth, we argue leisure represents one of the most salient life domains for cultivating warm, stable sibling relationships.

Sibling Relationships across the Lifespan

Sibling relationships are more commonly studied in childhood, adolescence, and later life rather than emerging or middle adulthood and are uniquely characterized by longevity and evolving, hierarchical and reciprocal nature (White, 2001; Whiteman et al., 2011). Sibling relationships become more voluntary, particularly during emerging adulthood when one sibling often leaves the home and daily interactions are no longer obligatory (Lindell, Campione-Barr, & Bassett Greer, 2014). Such life events often create, and even necessitate, changes in sibling relationships. Thus, scholars should examine how evolving processes and contexts affect sibling relationships (Whiteman et al., 2011). We draw on the life course perspective to understand how the transition to independence marked by entering or leaving university (Elder, 1994) creates a unique context for sibling relationship development. We focus on emerging adults because they are likely to experience a “dense clustering” of life course transitions in a relatively short amount of time (Bucx, Raaijmakers, & Van Wel, 2010).

Change and stability in sibling relationships.

During life course transitions, families often experience peak levels of stress (Duvall, 1988) as familiar patterns are interrupted and roles evolve or cease in favor of adopting new roles (Bucx et al., 2010). Transitions require adjustments to accommodate emerging expectations and oncoming developmental tasks associated with the next life stage (Ballard, 2012). For example, emerging adults interact less frequently with their siblings when they move away (Spitze & Trent, 2018), and report engaging in fewer shared activities than adolescent siblings (Scharf, Shulman, & Avigad-Spitz, 2005). Indeed, overall contact with family decreases in emerging adulthood even as the general quality of family relationships stabilizes or improves (Lindell & Campione-Barr, 2017). Longitudinal research on early adult siblings provides additional insight into change and stability in sibling relationship quality. Specifically, perceptions of conflict with siblings decreased over five years; however, perceptions of closeness remained stable (Jensen, Whiteman, & Fingerman, 2018).

The timing of life course transitions such as leaving the home may affect sibling conflict and closeness (Conger & Little, 2010; Jensen et al., 2018). For example, assuming adult roles (e.g., parenthood) at nearly the same time may create feelings of equality whereas differences in the timing of transitions may introduce more conflict and reduce closeness (Conger & Little, 2010). In contrast, Jensen and colleagues (2018) found that although sibling conflict decreased over time, indicators of sibling closeness remained stable across multiple life transitions (e.g., marriage, parenthood, and employment). Overall, periods of transition may affect the structural nature of sibling relationships (e.g., increasing reciprocity through changing roles) and may be accompanied by decreased conflict.

Life course transitions in emerging adulthood.

Emerging adulthood is marked by multiple life course transitions. Transitioning out of the parents’ home is often considered an initial step toward independence and is associated with improved family relationships (Aquilino, 2006; Seiffge-Krenke, 2013). Still, the mechanisms driving change in sibling relationships when leaving the home remain minimally explored (Conger & Little, 2010). Beginning postsecondary education is a common transition during emerging adulthood. An estimated 40.5% of all college students in the US are 18 to 24 years old (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). For some emerging adults, leaving home and beginning postsecondary education are coupled as they relocate to pursue education. Therefore, emerging adults are likely to experience changes in family relationships during short-term (e.g., beginning university) and longer-term transitions (e.g., leaving their parents’ home).

Age and Gender in Sibling Relationships

Sibling relationships in westernized countries are typically characterized by rigid hierarchical structure in childhood (Whiteman et al., 2011). Sibling relationships become more reciprocal in adolescence (McHale, Kim, & Whiteman, 2006), and siblings report less conflict and increased emotional closeness as they age (Kim, Mchale, Osgood, & Crouter, 2006; Milevsky, Smoot, Leh, & Ruppe, 2005; Whiteman et al., 2011). Siblings with at least two years difference in age also reported more positive sibling relationships (Milevsky et al., 2005). Thus, individual age and age in relation to a sibling may effect relationship quality. Additionally, conclusions regarding gender in sibling relationship quality are mixed. Some studies found that having a sister is associated with increased warmth and closeness for both women and men (for summary see Norona, Preddy, & Welsh, 2015). At the same time, same-gender sibling dyads were more likely to report getting along than mixed-gender sibling dyads (Norona et al., 2015). In both cases, however, sister-sister relationships were most likely to report highest levels of warmth, closeness, and getting along. Likewise, gender differences in sibling relationships were observed in college and non-college emerging adults such that females and individuals with a female sibling reported more positive relationships (Milevsky et al., 2005). Thus, despite mixed findings, we expect sibling relationship quality in emerging adulthood to vary by sibling dyad age difference and gender composition.

Gender may also influence the types of leisure siblings share. In one study, sisters considered talking together to be important in their relationships while brothers emphasized shared activities (Edwards, Hadfield, Lucey, & Mauthner, 2006). Across mixed gender sibling relationships in childhood, activities were the preferred method of creating closeness, suggesting a gender-specific imbalance favoring brothers’ preferences (Edwards et al., 2006). Research has not established whether such differences persist into emerging adulthood. Indeed, as emerging adults continue to engage in identity exploration, new and previously unconsidered leisure activities may be of interest and available (Layland, Hill, & Nelson, 2018). Leisure can act as a form of resistance against socially constructed definitions of gender and associated behavioral norm (Kleiber, Walker, & Mannell, 2011). Thus, sibling leisure behaviors previously directed by gender norms may shift during emerging adulthood, and research is needed to identify gender effects on leisure activities emerging adult siblings share.

Leisure and Sibling Relationship Quality

Leisure supports family relationships (Agate, Zabriskie, Agate, & Poff, 2009; Hodge et al., 2017; Orthner & Mancini, 1990) and may meet some of the most critical of family relationship needs (Orthner et al., 1994). Indeed, leisure is “the context within which most family members develop their attachments to one another, their sense of cohesion to their relationships, and the communication and problem solving” (Orthner et al., 1994, p. 178). These conclusions, however, are based on studies of parents and children and committed couples, and researchers have overlooked siblings (Hodge et al., 2015). This oversight is significant because siblings share lifelong bonds developed through shared time, family identity, and mutual support (Feinberg, Sakuma, Hostetler, & McHale, 2013). Therefore, we argue family leisure research must include siblings.

In the process of examining sibling relationships broadly, scholars identified instances when leisure supported sibling relationships. When examining adult siblings’ motivations for maintaining their relationships, Myers (2011) found shared common interests (e.g., hobbies) and experiences were one of the most frequent responses. Similarly, Edwards and colleagues (2006) analyzed the everyday talk, activity (including leisure), and care between siblings to better understand how siblings built and ascribed meaning to their relationships.

Family leisure changes across the life course (Orthner et al., 1994) as families, including siblings, transition through life stages. Emerging adult siblings, especially when one sibling leaves the home, are less likely to engage in daily shared activities. In a review of sibling relationships change during emerging adulthood, Scharf and Shulman (2015) observed a decrease in the amount of time emerging adult siblings spend together and less involvement in shared activities. This change suggests sibling leisure adaptations may be especially visible during transitions as siblings seek to maintain relationships even as the contexts change. Leisure, as a life domain with comparatively greater amounts of autonomy (Kleiber et al., 2011; Layland et al., 2018), may be exceptionally well-suited as a mechanism for supporting sibling relationships during transitions. Therefore, understanding the influence of leisure on sibling relationship quality during life course transitions may prove to be a productive resource for supporting sibling relationships.

Current Study

We aimed to describe and characterize emerging adults’ sibling leisure into discrete categories and investigate differences in leisure and relationship quality by age difference and gender composition. We anticipated differences by gender-dyad [H1] in leisure categories and leisure diversity (i.e., quantity of unique shared leisure categories). Additionally, we examined the impact of shared leisure on sibling relationship quality. We expected leisure diversity to be associated with relationship affective [H2] and cognitive quality [H3] and examined moderation by gender composition and age difference. We expected age difference [H4] and gender composition [H5] would moderate the association of leisure diversity with affective and cognitive relationship quality.

Methods

Data were from a study of college-attending emerging adults conducted at a large university in the northeastern US. The current study includes a subsample wherein all participants had at least one sibling. We restricted the sample to participants who identified a sibling in the same life stage (i.e., emerging adulthood) or in adjacent stages (e.g., adolescence, down to age 12; young adulthood, up to age 39). Data were collected in accordance with ethical protocol approved for research with human participants. Project details pertinent to the current study are provided.

Sample

Participants (N=185) were recruited from an undergraduate research methods course and a general education course and invited to complete a web-based survey for extra credit There were two data collection rounds with identical recruitment and measurement procedures conducted first in March/April (Phase 1) and then July/August (Phase 2) 2016 to increase sample size. We tested differences between the two data collection phases on measures of leisure diversity, leisure frequency, and leisure time. No differences were found between each data collection phase; thus, the samples from each phase were combined for all analyses.

The sample (35.7% female) had a mean age of 20.1 years (SD=1.5) and ranged from 18 to 26 years old. Participants were predominantly White (81.1%) with other participants identifying as non-White Hispanic/Latino (5.9%), Asian (6.5%), Black (3.8%), mixed race (2.2%), or Middle Eastern (<1%). Slightly more than half of the participants (56.2%) were in their first two years of college (i.e., freshmen and sophomores). Most participants were first (36.2%), second (42.2%), or third born (14.6%). Participants were asked to identify the sibling with whom they have the closest relationship and were prompted to respond with this sibling in mind for all sibling related items. These siblings were more frequently female (53.5%) than male and averaged 21.0 years old (SD = 4.7). Siblings ranged from 9 years younger to 17 years older than the participant with an average relative age difference of −1.0 year (SD = 4.3). Participants selected a younger sibling 51.8% of the time and most participants (65.9%) identified a sibling who was also an emerging adult (18-29 years old; Arnett, 2004; Layland et al., 2018). Sibling dyads were identified as sister-sister (18.9%), brother-brother (28.6%), and mixed gender (50.8%).

College-attending emerging adults were the focus of this study because of the family, educational, and peer context transitions expected among this subgroup of emerging adults. Upon completing the survey, participants were invited to participate in in-person focus groups. Seven focus groups were conducted by a single researcher with groups of four to six participants. In total, 32 participants (17.3%) participated in sibling leisure focus groups.

Measures

Survey items were piloted with a sample recruited from the same population. Participants reported their own and their siblings’ demographic information, relationship quality, and shared leisure activities. The dyadic gender composition was indicated by pairing participant gender with reported sibling gender. Resulting dyads were sister-sister (reference group), brother-brother, and mixed gender. Age difference was calculated by subtracting the age of the sibling from the age of the participant; thus, a positive value indicated the participant was older than the sibling.

Relationship quality.

Sibling relationship quality was measured using the Adult Affect (AA) and Adult Cognition (AC) subscales from the Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale (LSRS; Riggio, 2000). Both subscales contain eight items on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree [5] to strongly disagree [1]) and have demonstrated high reliability (AA, α=0.91; AC, α=0.87). The items on each subscale are summed to indicate attitudinal dimensions toward the adult sibling relationship with a maximum score of 40 points on each subscale. Affective quality was operationalized by assessing emotions experienced within and toward the sibling relationship (AA; Riggio, 2000). AA items included “I enjoy my relationship with my sibling” and “My sibling makes me very angry” (reverse-coded). Cognitive quality was operationalized by assessing participants’ beliefs about the sibling relationship (AC; Riggio, 2000). AC items included “I believe I am very important to my sibling” and “My sibling and I are not very close” (reverse-coded). The AA and AC demonstrated high reliability in this study (α=0.86; α=0.79).

Sibling leisure.

To create an exhaustive depiction of shared sibling leisure, we triangulated qualitative measures. Questions elicited lists, brief narratives, and focus group discussion. The open-ended format utilized the subjective approach to leisure engagement (Kuykendall, Tay, & Ng, 2015) which allowed participants to define leisure by constructing responses based on their individual perception. First, participants were asked to “List all the in-person leisure activities you participate in with your sibling.” Second, participants responded to the prompt “Thinking of your life since beginning college, please describe one leisure or recreation experience you shared with your sibling that has had an impact on your relationship.” Finally, focus groups participants were asked many questions regarding shared sibling leisure such as “What types of leisure do you do together?”, “How important is it to have shared leisure with your sibling?”, and “How has leisure with your sibling changed since you started college?” Leisure diversity was operationalized as the total number of discrete leisure categories a participant shared with their sibling. Using responses to list, narrative, and focus group questions, a comprehensive list of all participant-reported sibling leisure was compiled and sorted through a list taxonomy process (details in analysis section). Leisure diversity scores represent a continuous, person-specific indicator of the total shared sibling leisure categories. Leisure diversity scores had a possible range between zero (reported no shared leisure) and 19 (reported all shared leisure categories). Using leisure diversity as a metric is a novel approach to capturing leisure behavior (for review of leisure measurement and conceptualization see Kuykendall et al., 2015). Activity diversity, a broader construct including—but not limited to—leisure, demonstrated utility for studying wellbeing across adulthood (see Lee et al., 2018) but has not been applied among siblings nor in emerging adulthood.

Covariates.

Leisure time indicated the proportion of shared sibling time categorized as leisure, with values ranging from 0-100 percent (“What percent of the time you spend with your sibling do you consider to be leisure?”). Leisure frequency indicated how often the participant engaged in leisure activities in-person with their sibling. Likert-scale response values ranged from “never” (1) to “daily” (7). Additional controls were added for birth order, geographic distance from sibling, year in school, and race/ethnicity. Birth order was discretized into a three-level variable with first born, second born, and third born or later. Birth order was entered into the model as dummy coded variables (first born: 1=first born, 0=not first born; second born: 1=second born, 0=not second born). Geographic distance was a binary variable that indicated whether participants lived 25 miles or less from their sibling (1=25 miles or less, 0=greater than 25 miles). Year in school was included as a binary variable to contrast first year students with participants who had been in school longer (1=first year, 0=second year or later). Race/ethnicity was a binary variable indicating White (1) versus non-White (0).

Analysis

We used: (1) a taxonomic analysis to describe and characterize the categorical structure and diversity in the sibling leisure domain; (2) ANOVAs to compare dyadic gender differences across leisure categories and leisure diversity; and (3) regression to model the associations of sibling leisure diversity with affective and cognitive sibling relationship quality, moderated by dyad gender and age difference. For the taxonomic analysis, the full sample was used (N=185). Further analyses included a subsample of participants who provided responses to gender, age, and open-ended shared leisure questions (n=158).

Shared sibling leisure categories and leisure diversity.

Taxonomic analysis fits within cultural domain analysis, an ethnographic approach for understanding how groups of people understand and make meaning of content and structure (i.e., relation between content elements) within a shared cultural domain (Baxter, 1991; Bernard & Ryan, 2010). Taxonomic analysis concentrates on eliminating component redundancy by grouping related elements together within the broader domain structure (Baxter, 1991).

To create an exhaustive list of participant-identified activities (i.e., content) within the parameters of shared sibling leisure (i.e., domain), coders utilized in vivo coding across list, narrative, and focus group responses. First, lists coding produced 180 distinct activities, after eliminating duplicates. Next, coders isolated activities identified in the brief narratives (e.g., “lots of golf,” “go on drives places,” and “hanging out at his apartment”) producing 78 additional activities not identified in lists. Finally, coders extricated sibling leisure activities from focus group responses, producing 44 additional activities not identified previously. Altogether, coding identified 302 in vivo coded activities. These coded activities are considered the raw content for the taxonomic analysis.

Coders used the in vivo activity codes from the lists to create a preliminary taxonomic analysis and then verified the structure of the taxonomy by replicating the taxonomic analysis with the activity codes from the brief narratives and focus groups. The taxonomic analysis followed a structural leisure approach (Kuykendall et al., 2015) in which researchers made decisions about the nature of leisure activities based on their functional form. Researchers followed three basic steps: (1) creating broad categories based on activities with similar components (e.g., technology vs. food), (2) grouping broad categories based on higher level attributes (e.g., active participation vs. passive spectating), and (3) reviewing activity codes that were more ambiguous in their relation to other codes. This final step often resulted in the fragmentation, combination, addition, or elimination of existing code categories. The result of this iterative, three-step process was a categorical leisure taxonomy derived from the response to leisure lists. The same process was then repeated with the narrative and focus group activity codes, and the taxonomy was reviewed when differences emerged. The final taxonomy reflected triangulated data derived from all three types of open-ended questions.

Differences by dyad gender composition.

To investigate differences by sibling dyad gender in leisure categories and leisure diversity, we completed ANOVAs and accompanying pairwise comparisons. Bonferroni corrections accounted for multiple tests of comparisons and reduced the chance of Type I error. A series of tests compared endorsement rates within each leisure category across gender dyads, and an additional test compared average leisure diversity scores across gender dyads.

Leisure diversity and sibling relationship quality.

Separate regression models were built to predict outcomes of affective quality and cognitive quality. First, a main effects model was tested including leisure diversity, dummy variables for brother-brother and mixed gender dyads (sister-sister reference), age difference, and all covariates. Two-way interactions of leisure diversity with gender dyads and age difference were added to test whether dyad characteristics moderated the association of leisure diversity with relationship quality. Finally, significant interactions were probed through examination of simple slopes (Aiken & West, 1991; Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006).

Results

Characterizing shared sibling leisure.

Figure 1 shows categorical divisions within nine parent categories into 19 terminal leisure categories (indicated by italics in-text) later used to examine gender dyad differences. At the broadest level, shared sibling leisure was delineated by physical activity (active vs. passive). Passive leisure was further divided by level of engagement into three sub-categories: consumption, participation, and non-activity (e.g., “stay home,” “hang out”). Consumption was subdivided based on content and grouped into shopping (e.g. “going to the mall”, “shopping”) and parent categories of physical, spectating, and excursion leisure. Physical consumption leisure included meals (e.g., “going out to eat,” “cooking”) and substances (e.g., “going to bars,” “psychedelics”). Spectating consumption was subdivided into entertainment events outside the home (e.g., “live sporting events,” “concerts”) and TV/movies viewed at home (e.g., “watching tv,” “Netflix”). Excursion-based consumption included travel (e.g., “vacation,” “road trips”) and driving (e.g., “driving for fun,” “car rides”) when a car rather than a destination was the focal point of the activity. Like consumption, participation-based, passive leisure was subdivided by how participants engaged in non-physically active leisure. Leisure in larger, organized groups was labeled social (e.g., “family gatherings,” “church”). Communication (e.g., “talking on the phone,” “conversations”) included leisure with a purpose of communicating with their sibling, and helping (e.g., “teaching skills,” “helping with homework”) was marked by the participant acting in a generative or collaborative manner with their sibling. Participation-based leisure also included a broad repertoire of music/art (e.g., “dance parties,” “singing”) and a cluster of game-related categories which was further subdivided into video games (e.g., “gaming,” “Xbox”) and non-digital games (e.g., “play cards,” “board games”).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Sibling leisure taxonomy with aggregate, parent (gray boxes) labels and terminal categories (white) used in analyses and leisure diversity scores.

Active leisure included all leisure marked by physical activity. Active leisure was divided by environmental context: constructed vs. natural. Leisure in constructed environments was further divided into leisure with a fitness objective, exercise (e.g., “going to the gym,” “running”), and leisure with an organized, competitive structure, sport. Sport was subdivided into team sport (e.g., “football,” “field hockey”) when siblings were likely to play on a team together, and individual sport when siblings competed against one another (e.g., “ping pong,” “golf”). Because participants often listed sport generally (e.g., “sport,” “backyard sport,” “play sports”), team sport and individual sport were collapsed together and grouped with general sport to create a category called all sport for quantitative analyses. Leisure in the natural environment was discretized by inherent activity risk level resulting in high risk (e.g., “parasailing,” “mountain biking”) and low risk (e.g., “fishing,” “playing outside”). In summary, the terminal categories included shopping, meals, substances, entertainment events, TV/movies, travel, driving, social, communication, helping, music/art, video games, non-digital games, non-activity, exercise, team sport, individual sport, high risk, and low risk.

Most participants reported one or more categories (84.9%; 13.5% non-response/missing). The most frequently reported shared leisure categories were all sport (41%), meals (34%), and TV/movies (33%) (see Table 1). The average leisure diversity score (i.e., sum of reported unique shared leisure categories) was 3.04 (SD = 1.56) and values ranged from zero categories (e.g., “nothing,” “too busy [for leisure]”) to nine categories. Although participants were prompted to report “in-person” leisure with their sibling, some participants reported leisure activities that they engaged in with a sibling but not in-person (e.g., talking on the phone). Some participants may have chosen not to list these types of activities because they did not engage in-person.

Table 1.

Leisure Categories and Leisure Diversity Dyadic Gender Differences

Leisure categories Sister-sister (n=29) Brother-brother (n=46) Mixed gender (n=83) Total (n=158)
M [SD] FRQ M [SD] FRQ M [SD] FRQ M [SD] FRQ
Non-Activity 0.10 [0.31] 3 0.21 [0.41] 10 0.11 [0.31] 9 0.14 [0.35] 22
Meals 0.48 [0.51] 14 0.21 [0.41] 10 0.36 [0.48] 30 0.34 [0.47] 54
Substances 0.28 [0.46] 8 0.23 [0.43] 10 0.17 [0.38] 14 0.21 [0.41] 32
Entertainment Events 0.31 [0.47] 9 0.17 [0.38] 8 0.17 [0.38] 14 0.19 [0.40] 31
TV/Movies 0.34 [0.48] 10 0.42 [0.50] 19 0.28 [0.45] 23 0.33 [0.47] 52
Travel 0.28 [0.46] 7 0.17 [0.38] 8 0.20 [0.41] 17 0.21 [0.41] 32
Driving 0.10 [0.31] 3 0.02 [0.14] 1 0.11 [0.31] 9 0.08 [0.27] 13
Shopping 0.41a [0.50] 12 0.06b [0.25] 2 0.13b [0.34] 11 0.16 [0.37] 25
Social 0.03 [0.19] 1 0.06 [0.25] 2 0.04 [0.19] 3 0.04 [0.21] 6
Communication 0.21 [0.41] 6 0.17 [0.38] 8 0.18 [0.39] 15 0.18 [0.39] 29
Video Games 0.00a [0.00] 0 0.42b [0.50] 18 0.06a [0.24] 5 0.16 [0.36] 23
Non-digital Games 0.03 [0.19] 1 0.08 [0.28] 4 0.06 [0.24] 5 0.06 [0.24] 10
Helping 0.07 [0.26] 1 0.02 [0.14] 2 0.02 [0.15] 2 0.03 [0.18] 5
Music/Art 0.17 [0.38] 5 0.08 [0.28] 4 0.00 [0.00] 0 0.06 [0.23] 9
All Sport 0.31ab [0.47] 9 0.71a [0.46] 32 0.27b [0.44] 22 0.41 [0.49] 63
Exercise 0.24 [0.44] 7 0.15 [0.36] 7 0.18 [0.39] 15 0.18 [0.39] 29
High Risk 0.03 [0.19] 1 0.08 [0.28] 4 0.08 [0.28] 7 0.08 [0.26] 12
Low Risk 0.28 [0.46] 8 0.15 [0.36] 6 0.18 [0.39] 15 0.19 [0.39] 29
Leisure Diversity1 3.69a [1.31] 3.40a [1.70] 2.61b [1.43] 3.04 [1.56]
Open in a new tab

Note. FRQ=Frequency. Bold indicates significant between group differences; superscripts indicate pairwise differences. Bonferroni corrected p=0.00092593 for leisure category pairwise comparisons.

1

p<0.05.

Differences by sibling dyad gender composition.

After correcting for multiple tests of comparison (p<0.0009), ANOVAs for shared leisure categories by gender composition revealed significant differences in three terminal leisure categories: shopping, video games, and all sport (Table 1). Participants in sister-sister dyads reported shopping more frequently (41%) than participants in brother-brother (6%) and mixed gender dyads (13%). In contrast, participants in brother-brother dyads reported video games more frequently (42%) than participants in mixed gender (6%) and sister-sister dyads (0%). Finally, participants in brother-brother dyads reported all sport more often (71%) than mixed gender dyads (27%), but not significantly more than sister-sister dyads (31%). No other pairwise comparisons were significant.

The average leisure diversity for participants in mixed gender dyads (M=2.59; SD=1.43) was significantly lower than participants in brother-brother (M=3.34; SD=1.67) and sister-sister dyads (M=3.76; SD=1.36), who did not differ significantly. Thus, we reject the null hypothesis [H1] and find support for dyadic gender differences in select leisure categories and leisure diversity.

Leisure diversity and sibling relationship quality.

Leisure diversity was positively associated with affective and cognitive sibling relationship quality (Table 2, Models 1 and 3); thus, providing evidence for an association between leisure diversity and affective [H2] and cognitive [H3] sibling relationship quality. Age difference was not associated with relationship quality.

Table 2.

Moderating the Association of Leisure Diversity with Relationship Quality by Sibling Dyad Characteristics

Affective Quality Cognitive Quality
Model 1: Main Effects Model 2: Moderation Model 3: Main Effects Model 4: Moderation
β B CI β B CI β B CI β B CI
Intercept 34.13 [31.15, 37.11] 32.83 [29.81, 35.84] 35.49 [32.10, 38.88] 34.28 [30.86, 37.70]
Covariates
 Leisure Frequency 0.04 0.12 [−0.42, 0.66] 0.00 0.00 [−0.54, 0.54] 0.17 0.60 [−0.04, 1.24] 0.12 0.43 [−0.21, 1.08]
 Leisure Time 0.42 7.95 [4.94, 10.96] 0.44 8.29 [5.31, 11.27] 0.27 6.07 [2.53, 9.60] 0.29 6.45 [2.92, 9.98]
 First born −0.06 −0.69 [−3.22, 0.64] −0.06 −0.69 [−3.17, 1.79] −0.09 −1.11 [−4.08, 1.86] −0.09 −1.06 [−3.99, 1.88]
 Second born −0.13 −1.36 [−3.35, 0.64] −0.12 −1.26 [−3.20, 0.69] −0.09 −1.06 [−3.44, 1.33] −0.08 −0.93 [−3.27, 1.41]
 Geographic Distance −0.04 −0.51 [−2.74, 1.71] −0.03 −0.40 [−2.59, 1.79] −0.19 −2.83 [−5.48, −0.18] −0.18 −2.64 [−5.25, −0.03]
 First Year 0.03 0.30 [−1.86, 2.33] 0.07 0.78 [−0.94, 2.49] 0.01 0.09 [−1.90, 2.08] 0.05 0.71 [−1.29, 2.70]
 White 0.24 0.02 [−1.86, 2.33] 0.00 0.00 [−2.05, 2.05] −0.06 −0.97 [−3.40, 1.46] −0.08 −1.34 [−3.73, 1.06]
Leisure Diversity (LD) 0.22 0.75 [0.22, 1.28] 0.78 2.62 [1.29, 3.95] 0.26 1.00 [0.37, 1.63] 0.76 2.95 [1.41, 4.49]
Dyad Characteristics
 Brother-brother (BB) −0.15 −1.69 [−3.91, 0.54] 0.64 7.23 [1.15, 13.31] −0.17 −2.30 [−4.92, 0.31] 0.55 7.28 [0.22, 14.33]
 Mixed gender (M) −0.14 −1.48 [−3.63, 0.66] 0.525 5.45 [−0.29, 11.19] −0.25 −3.01 [−5.50, −0.52] 0.32 3.81 [−2.77, 10.39]
 Age difference (A) −0.07 −0.09 [−0.33, 0.15] −0.05 −0.07 [−0.30, 0.17] −0.05 −0.07 [−0.35, 0.22] −0.03 −0.05 [−0.33, 0.24]
Moderation
 BB*LD −0.15 −2.41 [−3.95, −0.88] −0.79 −2.63 [−4.43, −0.83]
 M*LD −0.12 −1.86 [−3.35, −0.37] −0.52 −1.86 [−3.61, −0.12]
 A*LD 0.01 0.07 [−0.07, 0.19] 0.09 0.09 [−0.06, 0.24]
Open in a new tab

Note. N=159. Bold indicates p<0.05. β=standardized coefficient; B=unstandardized coefficient; CI=lower and upper 95% confidence intervals.

Age difference did not moderate the association of leisure diversity with sibling relationship quality, thus, we fail to reject the null hypothesis [H4]. Significant interactions of brother-brother and mixed-gender dyads with leisure diversity (Table 2, Models 2 and 4) indicated differences in the association between leisure diversity and both affective and cognitive relationship quality for brother-brother and mixed gender dyads compared to sister-sister dyads [H5]. As depicted in Figure 2, simple slopes estimates revealed that leisure diversity was positively associated with sister-sister (B=2.47, p<0.001) affective relationship quality, marginally significant for mixed gender dyads (B=0.64, p=0.09), and not significant for brother-brother (B=0.28, p=0.47) dyads (see Table 3). Likewise, leisure diversity was positively associated cognitive relationship quality for sister-sister (B=2.56, p=0.00) and mixed gender (B=1.03, p=0.02), but not among brother-brother dyads (B=0.42, p=0.37). Additional two-way interactions between leisure diversity and both leisure time and leisure frequency were explored but were not significant.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Simple slopes for dyadic gender moderation of association between leisure diversity (centered) and sibling relationship quality. Solid lines indicate significant effects at p<0.05.

Table 3.

Dyad gender and leisure diversity interactions simple slopes estimates

Affective Cognitive
B p B p
Leisure Diversity
 Sister-Sister 2.47 0.00 2.56 0.00
 Brother-Brother 0.28 0.47 0.42 0.37
 Mixed Gender 0.64 0.09 1.03 0.02
Open in a new tab

Note. N=158. Bold indicates p<0.05. B=unstandardized coefficient.

Discussion

Findings contribute to literature in three ways: (1) The taxonomy enables theory-building exploration of mechanisms linking shared sibling leisure and leisure diversity to sibling relationship quality. (2) Differences in shared sibling leisure and leisure diversity point to gender’s role in what siblings do together, and the number of different activities they share. (3) Further examination of the moderating influence of gender and age difference revealed some conditions under which shared leisure contributes to sibling relationship quality.

Constructing a Sibling Leisure Taxonomy

The absence of siblings in family leisure research is problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is that the sibling relationship may be the longest lasting relationship a person has (Feinberg et al., 2013). If, as Orthner and colleagues (1994) argued, family relationships, and the skills to maintain them, are developed in a leisure context, then scholars must consider the role of leisure in sibling relationship quality across the lifespan. By constructing a taxonomy of emerging adult sibling leisure using multiple robust qualitative methods, we take a step toward addressing this gap in literature. Additional empirical testing in other samples and more diverse populations will facilitate continued taxonomy refinement.

With this taxonomy, scholars can build theory regarding leisure’s contribution to sibling relationships. Specifically, scholars can explore why some forms of leisure may be associated with positive sibling relationship quality when others are not, or why certain combinations of leisure facilitates relationship maintenance during transitions. Scholars hypothesize that fundamentally different processes occur in different types of leisure. For example, familiar activities occurring in a familiar environment may be more conducive to processes such as communication (Iso-Ahola, 1980; Melton, 2017; Zabriskie & McCormick, 2001). Conversely, novel activities occurring in unfamiliar environments may divert cognitive resources from interpersonal interactions to navigating a new activity or environment (Melton, 2017). Thus, some types of leisure may support sibling relationship quality by providing opportunities for bonding through communication and interaction while others may support adaptability and flexibility by creating opportunities for trying new roles (Zabriskie & McCormick, 2001). The utility of this leisure taxonomy lies in (a) applying it to identifying the mechanisms (e.g., communication) within sibling leisure that influence relationship quality, (b) testing the hypothesis that leisure diversity is related to relationship quality, and (c) beginning to identify the attributes of leisure activities that benefit sibling relationships.

Understanding mechanisms and attributes within leisure that support sibling relationships is particularly salient across life course transitions. Transitions require individuals and families to accommodate emerging expectations and tasks (Ballard, 2012). This means family roles may evolve or be replaced (Ballard, 2012; Bucx et al., 2010), and families may subsequently experience increased stress during transitional periods (Ballard, 2012; Duvall, 1988). Higher levels of leisure diversity may support sibling relationships because siblings have already ‘tested’ adaptations of their relationship in a variety of contexts and activities. Essentially, shared leisure may create low-stakes experiences in which siblings can ‘try on’ new roles. Thus, leisure diversity becomes a resource through which siblings learn the skills they need to maintain their relationships across life course transitions.

Reinforcing or Resisting Gendered Leisure?

Although shared leisure may provide siblings with opportunities for practicing new roles, it may also be a context in which gender-specific behavior expectations are reinforced rather than resisted. Findings from this study identified significant differences in sibling leisure activities by gender dyad. Specifically, we see differences in shopping (more likely to be reported by sister-sister dyads) and video games and sports (more likely to be reported by brother-brother dyads). Previous research has identified gender effects in leisure behaviors in individuals (Kleiber et al., 2011) and siblings in childhood and adolescence (Edwards et al., 2006). Findings from this study suggest in at least some categories, gendered leisure appears to persist rather than be resisted by sibling dyads, and activities we would expect to be the most gendered are still the most gendered. It may be that while some individuals change their leisure behavior to challenge gendered expectations, sibling leisure behavior does not change. Perhaps sibling relationships shaped by early life experiences in which leisure may have been highly gendered continue to rely on established and predictable patterns of leisure.

Age, Gender, Sibling Relationship Quality and Leisure Diversity

Family research must account for the various points in the ‘constellation’ of sibling relationships (McHale et al., 2006). Of the constellation points included in this study, we highlight two: age and gender. Previous research has found that although adults’ recollection of sibling relationship quality during childhood differed by age difference, their perception of their adult relationship quality did not (Riggio, 2000). Our findings indicated no association of age difference with relationship quality, meaning emerging adult sibling relationships may more closely resemble adult than child sibling relationships. Thus, future emerging adult sibling research may be best framed in adult sibling literature, at least in the case of age difference.

When considering gender, we found significant differences in relationship quality. Specifically, sister-sister sibling dyads reported the highest overall relationship quality. This finding is consistent with previous research (Norona et al., 2015; Oliva & Arranz Freijo, 2005; Spitze & Trent, 2006). Sisters tend to engage in the highest levels of communication and contact (Spitze & Trent, 2006) and value shared activities that allow for communication. Gender also influences life course transitions. Women report less decline in sibling contact as they age than do men (White, 2001). Therefore, communication may be one of the mechanisms driving gender-based differences in siblings’ relationship quality and leisure.

Interestingly, while brother-brother dyads did not achieve the same average level of relationship quality reported by sister-sister dyads, mixed gender dyads consistently reported the lowest average levels of relationship quality among all three dyadic configurations. Mixed gender dyads also consistently reported the lowest participation rates across the three gendered-leisure categories identified in this study. For example, when sister-sister dyads reported higher rates of shopping than brother-brother dyads and when brother-brother dyads reported higher rates of video games than sister-sister dyads, mixed gender dyads were always more similar to the dyad demonstrating lower rates of participation. These findings suggest a potential ‘gender limitation’ to sibling leisure behaviors wherein siblings of different genders appear to participate in gendered activities at lower rates.

Sibling dyad gender also moderated the association between leisure diversity and relationship quality. The positive association between leisure diversity and sibling relationship quality was strongest for sister-sister dyads, weaker for mixed gender dyads, and non-significant for brother-brother dyads. Dyads with two brothers may not, therefore, benefit as much as dyads with a sister from increasing the number of different leisure activities they share. Interestingly, mixed gender dyads reported lower levels of leisure diversity, however, greater leisure diversity was still associated with more positive relationship quality, especially cognitive quality. Therefore, sibling dyads including a sister may benefit more from increased leisure diversity than brother-brother dyads. The presence of a sister may change the qualitative nature of sibling leisure and relationships because sisters are more likely to engage in communication than brothers (Edwards et al., 2006). Likewise, because greater leisure diversity predicts greater sibling relationship quality and mixed gender dyads tend to report lower levels of relationship quality, intentional diversification of leisure among mixed gender sibling dyads may offer the greatest potential for growth and change in relationship quality. Such findings may be instructive for parents seeking to foster positive relationships between their children and for practitioners seeking to design and implement high-yield interventions or leisure education.

Leisure diversity was a particularly strong predictor of sibling relationship quality even when controlling for multiple covariates. When accounting for additional factors (e.g., birth order, geographic distance, first year status, and race/ethnicity), the association between leisure diversity and sibling relationship quality did not change. Furthermore, controlling for more traditional measures of leisure time and frequency demonstrated the strength of leisure diversity as a predictor of relationship quality above and beyond shared time and frequency of shared leisure. Indeed, leisure frequency, the most commonly used measure of leisure engagement of those modeled in this study, was not associated with relationship quality in any model. The stability of leisure diversity in these models has implications for future family leisure research broadly as the idea of leisure diversity has not yet been explored as a key contributor to family relationships. Scholars may therefore have an incomplete understanding of family leisure’s influence on family relationship well-being because leisure diversity has not been examined.

Strengths and Limitations

This study had several strengths, and we highlight three. First, sibling leisure and sibling relationships during emerging adulthood have been somewhat ignored, and this paper addresses that gap. Second, we examined a new construct in leisure studies: leisure diversity. Previous research has considered the concept of a leisure repertoire (Iso-Ahola, 1980; Kleiber et al., 2011) as a function of life span development such that leisure activities are continued, stopped, and replaced as individuals age. Indeed, changes to leisure repertoire are most likely to occur during life stage transitions (Raymore, Barber, & Eccles, 2001). Leisure repertoire, however, does not capture the concept of leisure diversity as contained in this study for two reasons: first, a leisure repertoire centers on an individual (not a dyad or other group), and second, leisure repertoire includes “all activities a person considers potentially usable during his daily leisure” (Iso-Ahola, 1980). Whether a person engages in those behaviors is unknown. Leisure diversity accounts for actual behaviors rather than knowledge or awareness. Engaging in a spectrum of leisure behaviors demonstrates newly identified effects on individual and shared outcomes, and we introduced a potentially impactful concept into family leisure research. Third, this study applied multiple qualitative methods to identify and construct the sibling leisure taxonomy. Coding of open-ended list responses and testing those codes in brief narratives and focus group data resulted in a robust taxonomy that can be further refined through testing in other populations.

As with all research, this study also has limitations. First, this study was limited by a design that elicited responses from one sibling only. Of note, in the mixed gender subsample (n=94), participants were more often male (n=64, 68%) than female, in other words, the mixed gender subsample included more brothers reporting on their relationship with a sister, than a sister reporting about a brother. The gender imbalance in this subsample may account for the differences in starting levels of relationship quality because brothers tend to report lower relationship quality overall (e.g., Norona et al., 2015). Future research would be strengthened by engaging sibling dyads together in a study, especially when including brother-sister dyads. Engaging siblings together could be a useful way to explore how leisure may be a space for both harmony and conflict. In focus groups, accounts of conflict in leisure emerged on rare occasions. Second, only the study respondent was identified as an emerging adult. While most identified siblings were also emerging adults, the sibling age range extended from childhood to middle adulthood. Future research may consider study designs and sample recruitment that constrains age differences between siblings to focus precisely on how leisure impacts sibling relationships during emerging adulthood. Third, this study was cross-sectional, and therefore we are unable to speak to causality. It may be that leisure diversity is predicted by sibling relationship quality. We caution inferring causality from these findings. Likewise, college-attending emerging adults were the focus of this study because they were likely to be navigating many transitions in family, peer, and school relationships, however, this cross-sectional study was unable to model actual transitions over time. Fourth, by asking respondents to think about their closest sibling when responding to sibling relationship quality questions, our estimates of the association of leisure and sibling relationship quality may be conservative. Leisure may be a stronger predictor than reported in this study or have greater variability if we had asked participants about siblings with whom they were less close. Overall, future research can build upon this study to increase understanding of the association between shared leisure and emerging adult sibling relationship quality during periods of life transition.

Future Directions

We point scholars to the following future research directions. First, we encourage expansion upon the concept of leisure diversity. Other disciplines (e.g., biological and sociological sciences) study the impact of diversity in multiple ways. We suggest family leisure and human development scholars may be able to better leverage categorical data on leisure diversity to understand what combinations of leisure may be most beneficial to individual and family well-being as has been done when considering time use more broadly in individual, adult development (Lee et al., 2018). Indeed, such examinations may be well suited to recommending levels (i.e., dosages) or combinations of leisure to support relationships during transitional periods. Likewise, we encourage scholars to consider the ways in which sibling relationships impact individual health over the lifespan. If, as suggested by this study, leisure plays a role in sibling relationship quality, and if, as suggested by other studies, sibling relationships can be protective, then future research must consider both. Future research should also consider expanded study populations and designs. Replication studies in other populations (larger, more diverse, and non-college) will enable further testing and refinement of the emerging adult sibling leisure taxonomy. Because the sample was composed entirely of college students at a single university, it may be that emerging adult sibling experiences are guided by a context with educational structure, a residential campus, and lower rates of full-time work. When one or both siblings are non-student emerging adults, the context for sibling leisure may introduce different opportunities and barriers to leisure and relationship building not encountered by this sample. Longitudinal study designs will enable scholars to explore questions of causality in understanding the association between shared leisure and sibling relationship quality.

Finally, by controlling for leisure frequency and leisure time, we demonstrate the strength of approaching the study of sibling relationships through leisure diversity. Future research could utilize multiple measures of sibling leisure engagement to model a more complex constellation of the sibling leisure context. Finite mixture modeling could be used to detect subgroups of siblings who engage in leisure in different ways and may thus experience different benefits and limitations to their leisure and relationship outcomes. Finally, further research can uncover how leisure diversity is differentially associated with various outcomes in comparison to more traditional measures of leisure like leisure frequency.

Conclusion

Sibling relationships are overlooked in family leisure research. By introducing and testing leisure diversity in shared sibling leisure, we provide an additional way to conceptualize leisure and investigate its impact on relationships. We find more leisure diversity is associated with higher relationship quality with this association being strongest for sister-sister dyads. The associations of leisure diversity with both affective and cognitive relationship quality and the moderation by gender encourages continued exploration of how sibling leisure qualitatively differs across the life course and how this relation is moderated by characteristics of sibling dyads or even more complex systems of siblings.

Acknowledgments

Funding note. The first author was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health (grant T32 DA017629). The views expressed in this article belong to the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the granting agency.

Footnotes

Conflicting Interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Agate JR, Zabriskie RB, Agate ST, & Poff R (2009). Family leisure satisfaction and satisfaction with family life. Journal of Leisure Research, 41(July 2015), 205–223. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aiken LS, & West SG (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aquilino W (2006). Family relationships and support systems in emerging adulthood. In Arnett JJ & Tanner JL (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 193–218). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ballard MB (2012). The family life cycle and critical transitions: Utilizing cinematherapy to facilitate understanding and increase communication. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 7(2), 141–152. 10.1080/15401383.2012.685004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baxter LA (1991). Content analysis. In Montgomery BM & Duck S (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 239–254). New York: The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernard HR, & Ryan GW (2010). Cultural domain analysis: Free lists, judged similarities, and taxonomies. In Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches (pp. 163–490). Thousand Oaks Calif.: SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bucx F, Raaijmakers Q, & Van Wel F (2010). Life course stage in young adulthood and intergenerational congruence in family attitudes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(1), 117–134. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00687.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cicirelli VG (1994). The longest bond: The sibling life cycle. In L’Abate L (Ed.), Handbook of developmental family psychology and psychopathology (p. 462). New York: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  9. Conger KJ, & Little WM (2010). Sibling Relationships During the Transition to Adulthood. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00123.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  10. Duvall EM (1988). Family development’s first 40 years. Family Relations, 37(2), 127–134. 10.2307/584309 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Edwards R, Hadfield L, Lucey H, & Mauthner M (2006). Sibling identity and relationships: Sisters and brothers. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  12. Elder GH (1994). Time, Human Agency, and Social Change: Perspectives on the Life Course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4–15. 10.2307/2786971 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Feinberg ME, Sakuma KL, Hostetler M, & McHale SM (2013). Enhancing sibling relationships to prevent adolescent problem behaviors: Theory, design and feasibility of Siblings Are Special. Evaluation and Program Planning, 36(1), 97–106. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.08.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hodge CJ, Bocarro JN, Henderson KA, Zabriskie R, Parcel TL, & Kanters MA (2015). Family leisure an integrative review of research from select journals. Journal of Leisure Research, 47(5), 577–600. 10.18666/JLR-2015-V47-I5-5705 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hodge CJ, Duerden MD, Layland EK, Lacanienta A, Goates MC, & Niu XM (2017). The association between family leisure and family quality of life: A meta-analysis of data from parents and adolescents. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(3), 328–346. 10.1111/jftr.12202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hollifield CR, & Conger KJ (2015). The role of siblings and psychological needs in predicting life satisfaction during emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 3(3), 143–153. 10.1177/2167696814561544 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Iso-Ahola SE (1980). Social psychological perspectives on leisure and recreation. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown Co. Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jensen AC, Whiteman SD, & Fingerman KL (2018). “Can’t live with or without them:” Transitions and young adults’ perceptions of sibling relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(3), 385–395. 10.1037/fam0000361 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim AJ, Mchale SM, Osgood DW, & Crouter AC (2006). Longitudinal Course and Family Correlates of Sibling Relationships from Childhood through Adolescence. Child Development, 77(6), 1746–1761. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kleiber DA, Walker GJ, & Mannell RC (2011). A social psychology of leisure. State College, PA: Venture Pub. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kuykendall L, Tay L, & Ng V (2015). Leisure engagement and subjective well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 364–403. Retrieved from 10.1037/a0038508.supp [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Layland EK, Hill BJ, & Nelson LJ (2018). Freedom to explore the self: How emerging adults use leisure to develop identity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(1), 78–91. 10.1080/17439760.2017.1374440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lee S, Koffer RE, Sprague BN, Charles ST, Ram N, & Almeida DM (2018). Activity diversity and its associations with psychological well-being across adulthood. Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 73(6), 985–995. 10.1093/geronb/gbw118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lindell AK, & Campione-Barr N (2017). Continuity and change in the family system across the transition from adolescence to emerging adulthood. Marriage and Family Review2, 53(4), 388–416. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lindell AK, Campione-Barr N, & Bassett Greer K (2014). Associations between adolescent sibling conflict and relationship quality during the transition to college. Emerging Adulthood, 2(2), 79–91. 10.1177/2167696813502778 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. McHale SM, Kim J-Y, & Whiteman SD (2006). Sibling relationships in childhood and adolescence. In Noller P & Feeney JA (Eds.), Close relationships: Functions, forms, and processes (pp. 127–149). New York: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Melton KK (2017). Family activity model: Crossroads of activity environment and family interactions in family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 39(5), 457–473. 10.1080/01490400.2017.1333056 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Milevsky A, Smoot K, Leh M, & Ruppe A (2005). Familial and contextual variables and teh nature of sibling relationships in emerging adulthood. Marriage and Family Review, 37(4), 123–141. [Google Scholar]
  29. Myers SA (2011). I have to love her, even if sometimes I may not like her”: The reasons why adults maintain their sibling relationships. North American Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 51–62. [Google Scholar]
  30. National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics, 2016. Retrieved June 6, 2018, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_302.60.asp
  31. Norona JC, Preddy T, & Welsh D (2015). How gender shapes emerging adulthood. In Arnett JJ (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Emerging Adulthood (pp. 62–86). New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Oliva A, & Arranz Freijo EB (2005). Sibling relationships during adolescence. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2(3), 253–270. 10.1080/17405620544000002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Orthner D, Barnett-Morris L, & Mancini J (1994). Leisure and family over the life cycle. In L’Abate L (Ed.), Handbook of developmental family psychology and psychopathology (pp. 176–201). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  34. Orthner D, & Mancini J (1990). Leisure impacts on family interaction and cohesion. Journal of Leisure Research, 22(2), 125–137. [Google Scholar]
  35. Preacher KJ, Curran PJ, & Bauer DJ (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–438. [Google Scholar]
  36. Raymore LA, Barber BL, & Eccles JS (2001). Leaving home, attending college, partnership and parenthood: The role of life transition events in leisure pattern stability from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(2), 197–223. [Google Scholar]
  37. Riggio H (2000). Measuring attitudes toward adult sibling relationships: The Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(6), 707–728. https://doi.org/0803973233 [Google Scholar]
  38. Scharf M, & Shulman S (2015). Closeness, distance, and rapprochement in sibling relationships. In Arnett JJ (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Emerging Adulthood (pp. 190–202). New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Scharf M, Shulman S, & Avigad-Spitz L (2005). Sibling relationships in emerging adulthood and in adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20(1), 64–90. 10.1177/0743558404271133 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Seiffge-Krenke I (2013). “She’s Leaving Home. . .” Antecedents, Consequences, and Cultural Patterns in the Leaving Home Process. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 114–124. 10.1177/2167696813479783 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Spitze GD, & Trent K (2018). Changes in individual sibling relationships in response to life events. Journal of Family Issues, 39(2), 503–526. 10.1177/0192513X16653431 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Spitze G, & Trent K (2006). Gender differences in adult sibling relations in two-child families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68174254(4), 977–992. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4122888 [Google Scholar]
  43. White L (2001). Sibling relationships over the life course : A panel analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(May), 555–568. [Google Scholar]
  44. Whiteman SD, McHale SM, & Soli A (2011). Theoretical perspectives on sibling relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3(2), 124–139. 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2011.00087.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Zabriskie RB, & McCormick BP (2001). The influences of family leisure patterns on perceptions of family functioning. Family Relations, 50(3), 281–289. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2001.00281.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES