Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Issues. 2021 Jul 3;43(5):1235–1262. doi: 10.1177/0192513x211022401

Life Course Statuses and Sibling Relationship Quality during Emerging Adulthood

Lindsey Aldrich 1, Kei Nomaguchi 1, Marshal Neal Fettro 1
PMCID: PMC9683197  NIHMSID: NIHMS1833480  PMID: 36438182

Abstract

Using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (N = 1,366), we examine how major life course statuses are related to sibling relationships during emerging adulthood with attention to similarities and differences in these statuses between sibling dyads. We find that full-time employment, marriage/cohabitation, and parenthood are related to more distant sibling relationships, whereas college education is related to closer sibling relationships. Similarities in employment between the siblings are related to closer relationships, but differences in education, marriage/cohabitation, and parenthood are related to closer relationships, in that respondents report more help-seeking and emotional closeness with their siblings who have higher education than theirs; unpartnered respondents report more calls and fewer fights with their partnered siblings; and childless respondents report more visits and emotional closeness with their parenting siblings. Examining both one’s and one’s sibling’s life course statuses is important in understanding life course variations in sibling relationships.

Keywords: emerging adulthood, exchange, homophily, life course, quantitative, sibling relationship/quality/satisfaction

Introduction

Emerging adulthood, referring to the ages of 18–25 years (Arnett, 2000), is a life stage when young people begin to have a series of life course statuses—living away from the parental home, pursuing and completing higher education, having a full-time job, living with a romantic partner, and having children (Conger & Little, 2010; Whiteman et al., 2011). These life course statuses signal emergent adults’ increasing autonomy from parents and other members of their family of origin (Conger & Little, 2001; White, 2001). Researchers, thus, have investigated how these life course statuses affect parent–child relationships during emerging adulthood (Aquilino, 1997; Bucx et al., 2012; Kaufman & Uhlenberg, 1998). Relatively less research has scrutinized sibling relationships (Jensen et al., 2018; Milevsky et al., 2005), however. This gap in the literature is surprising, given that sibling relationships are among the longest-lasting relationships that individuals may have in their lives, and thereby how sibling relationship quality varies across life stages has been of great interest to family and human development researchers (White, 2001; Whiteman et al., 2011). There are studies that examined the effects of these life course statuses on sibling relationship quality using nationally representative samples of adults aged 18 and older (Spitze & Trent, 2018; Tanskanen & Danielsbacka, 2020; Voorpostel et al., 2007; White, 2001). The wide age range of the samples used in these studies sometimes makes the interpretation of the findings out of context. For example, the effects of parenthood on adult lives differ depending on whether childless adults in the comparison group are in their reproductive ages or not (Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2020). As such, we suspect that the effects of these life course statuses on sibling relationships might not be the same across different life stages. More research that focuses on emerging adulthood is needed because this is a unique period when maintenance of sibling relationships becomes more voluntary than it was in adolescence (Conger & Little, 2010; Jensen et al., 2018; Lindell et al., 2014). In addition, having a supportive sibling during early adulthood is beneficial for individuals’ well-being (Milevsky, 2005; Van Volkom et al., 2011) and thus it is important to identify factors that are linked to sibling relationship quality during this life stage.

Using data from Wave III of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), which were collected from 2001 to 2002 when the respondents were aged 18–26, we examine how emerging adults’ life course statuses—education, employment, marriage or cohabitation, and parenthood—are related to sibling relationship quality, net of sibling relationship quality reported in Wave II when the respondents were teenagers (aged 13–18) living in their parental home in 1996. We look at five aspects of sibling relationship quality that have been examined in previous research, including visits (seeing each other), phone calls (talking on the telephone and sending or receiving letters or email), help-seeking (turning for help on personal, school, or work problems), fights, and emotional closeness. Drawing on the life course perspective (Elder, 1998) and research that used this perspective to examine sibling relationships (Conger & Little, 2010; Jensen et al., 2018; Spitze & Trent, 2018; White, 2001), we predict how these life course statuses are related to sibling relationship quality. The unique data allow us to examine not only the effects of respondents’ life course statuses, but also the effects of their focal siblings’ life course statuses. We examine whether similarities or differences in these life course statuses between siblings are related to sibling relationship quality, contributing to the debate as to whether the concept of homophily or exchange applies to sibling relationships (Eriksen & Gerstel, 2002; Voorpostel et al., 2007).

Sibling Ties during Emerging Adulthood

A large majority of Americans have at least one sibling (Kreider & Ellis, 2011). Family researchers have long been interested in what influences the nature of sibling ties in different life stages (Conger & Little, 2010; Gilligan et al., 2020; White, 2001; Whiteman et al., 2011). Although a majority of studies focus on either adolescence or later life (e.g., Buist et al., 2013; Connidis & Campbell, 1995; Gilligan et al., 2020; Kalmijn & Leopold, 2019), an increasing number of studies have investigated sibling relationship quality during early adulthood, mostly using convenience samples collected in local areas or on college campuses (Jensen et al., 2018; Lindell et al., 2014; Milevsky, 2005; Milevsky et al., 2005; Van Volkom et al., 2011). Reflecting the multifaceted nature of sibling relationships, various aspects of sibling relationship quality have been examined, such as frequency of visits, talking on the phone or communicating via email (Milevsky, 2005; Milevsky et al., 2005; Stocker et al., 1997), giving or receiving emotional or instrumental help (Milevsky, 2005; Milevsky et al., 2005), conflict or negativity (Jensen et al., 2018; Lindell et al., 2014; Stocker et al., 1997), and emotional closeness (Jensen et al., 2018; Lindell et al., 2014; Milevsky, 2005; Milevsky et al., 2005; Van Volkom et al., 2011).

Research has suggested that during emerging adulthood, sibling relationships are less close than they are in adolescence when measured by contact frequency (Conger & Little, 2010; Scharf et al., 2005; Stocker et al., 1997; White, 2001). Fewer contacts do not necessarily mean less emotional closeness: Young adults report sharing more personal issues with their siblings and feeling closer to their siblings than they were in adolescence (Milevsky et al., 2005; Milevsky & Heerwagen, 2013; Scharf et al., 2005). A couple of studies found that young adults living away from their parental home reported more emotional closeness and less conflict with their younger siblings than they did when they were still living in their parental home (Lindell et al., 2014; Whiteman et al., 2011), perhaps because living away from one another may make the siblings appreciate the support and companionships that they can provide to one another (Jensen et al., 2018). Sibling relationships in emerging adulthood vary by various contexts surrounding the sibling pairs. Not surprisingly, greater geographic distance is related to fewer visits (Milevsky et al., 2005; Stocker et al., 1997). Characteristics of sibling pairs, such as gender compositions, age differences, and birth order, are also related to sibling relationship quality (Lindell et al., 2014; Milevsky et al., 2005; Van Volkom et al., 2011; Whiteman et al., 2011).

The life course perspective (Elder, 1998) contends that it is not age per se but differences in social statuses that individuals typically have across life stages that influence differences in their relationships with the members of their family of origin across those life stages. Conger and Little (2010) argue that in order to understand sibling relationships that are unique to emerging adulthood, research should investigate how life course statuses that young people begin to achieve during this life stage—for example, higher education, full-time employment, romantic partnerships, and parenthood—may affect sibling relationships. Only a few studies have examined the effects of some of these life course statuses on sibling relationships during emerging adulthood, using samples collected in local areas (Jensen et al., 2018; Milevsky et al., 2005). To extend this line of research, we use a sample collected across the United States to examine how emerging adults’ education, employment, marriage or cohabitation, and parenthood are related to five aspects of sibling relationship quality, including frequencies of visits, phone calls or emails, fights, help-seeking, and emotional closeness.

The Links Between Life Course Statuses and Sibling Relationship Quality During Emerging Adulthood

Past research on sibling relationships using the life course perspective has theorized that, in general, major life course statuses, such as higher education, full-time employment, romantic partnerships, and parenthood, tend to limit the time and energy people have to spend with their siblings (Conger & Little, 2010; Jensen et al., 2018; Spitze & Trent, 2018; White, 2001). These life course statuses help people create social ties with other people while making ties with their siblings less central to their daily life (Conger & Little 2010). Empirical findings of these studies show some support for this view, but also suggest that it may depend on the types of social statuses. In the following, we discuss how higher education, employment, marriage or cohabitation, and parenthood are related to sibling relationship quality during emerging adulthood.

Education

A college degree is a major life course status that a majority of young people in the United State are aspired to attain (Goyette, 2008). College education opens up opportunities for emerging adults to participate in various intellectual, social, civic, and political activities (Schieman & Glavin, 2011). Through these opportunities, emerging adults may expand their networks of close friends and support groups. The expansion of social connections may reduce time as well as motivation for emerging adults to keep close contact with their siblings. In contrast, these opportunities that education creates may facilitate emerging adults’ effort to reconnect with their siblings, perhaps motivating them to discuss new ideas and social issues that they became aware of (Dolgin & Lindsay, 1999). Among adults aged 18 and older in the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH), White (2001) found that higher levels of education were related to less contact but more giving or receiving help between siblings, suggesting that the effects of education on sibling relationships may depend on aspects of the relationships. Very few studies examined the effects of education on sibling relationship quality focusing on emerging adulthood. Using a convenience sample of young adults collected in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, Jensen et al. (2018) did not find differences in sibling conflict or closeness by education levels.

Employment

A full-time job is another major status that young people have in early adulthood. Paid work requires individuals to commit much time and energy; and thus longer paid work hours are related to individuals feeling a lack of time for family and personal life (Nomaguchi et al., 2005). This is especially the case for younger adults for whom resources in the workplace that help them balance work and family responsibilities tend to be more limited than for older adults (Nomaguchi & Fettro, 2019). Thus, it is possible that working full-time is related to distant relationships with siblings. In contrast, having a job may mean having more resources—for example, owning a car, purchasing a cell phone, or having better internet access at home—that allow young adults to go to see or contact their siblings more often than not having a job. Past research generally supports the idea that full-time employment may curtail one’s time for siblings. Among a small convenience sample of young adults collected in a northeastern rural university town, Milevsky et al. (2005) found that participants who were working for pay reported less positively on their sibling relationships than those who were not working. Jensen et al. (2018), in their study mentioned earlier, found that full-time employment was related to less sibling conflict, but this might mean that they had less time to interact with each other, indicating rather a distant, not close, relationship. Among adults aged 18 or older in the NSFH, Spitze and Trent (2018) found that the increase in paid work from part-time to full-time work between the two waves was related to fewer visits with one’s siblings.

Romantic Partnership

A majority of Americans live with a romantic partner during early adulthood, more unmarried than married (Manning, 2013). Researchers argue that relationships with a romantic/intimate partner are considered more central in adults’ daily life than relationships with their siblings as a source of social and emotional support (White, 2001). Empirical research, focusing on mid- to later-life, generally shows that marriage or cohabitation is negatively related to frequencies of contact and giving or receiving help among siblings (Connidis & Campbell, 1995; Eriksen & Gerstel, 2002; Spitze & Trent, 2018; Voorpostel et al., 2007). Thus, we may find a negative association between romantic partnership and sibling relationship quality during emerging adulthood as well. Alternatively, some research suggests that married or cohabiting unions during early adulthood tend to be less stable and more conflictual than those that formed in their late 20s or early 30s (Uecker, 2012). Uncertainty in romantic partnerships may make emerging adults feel like keeping close ties with their siblings for support as frequently as those who remain single. Jensen et al. (2018) found no effects of marital status on sibling conflict and closeness among young adults in their study.

Parenthood

Some American young adults have children. The median age at the transition to parenthood for American women in the 2000s was around 25 years old (Mathews & Hamilton, 2016). Past research has illustrated that children can bring both demands and resources to adult lives (Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2020). Young children require parents to commit a great deal of time and energy, which may curtail parents’ ties with other people, such as friends and acquaintances (Kalmijn, 2012), which may include siblings. Other research shows that parents’ social circles tend to center around people in their children’s daily lives, including parents of their children’s friends (Wrzus et al., 2013). At the same time, children create an opportunity to reconnect with families and relatives (Gallagher & Gerstel, 2001; Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2020). A new addition to one’s family may promote more visits among siblings. Having young nephews or nieces may motivate young adults to make phone calls to their siblings and may influence them to feel close to one another. Jensen et al. (2018) found in their Philadelphia study that parenthood was related to an increase in conflict and a decrease in closeness with siblings among young adults. The two aforementioned studies that used the NSFH (Spitze & Trent, 2018; White, 2001) found that becoming a parent was not related to sibling contacts or receiving or giving help.

Do Status Similarities or Differences Between Siblings Matter?

Two social psychological perspectives provide contrasting views regarding the role of similarities and differences in life course statuses between siblings in influencing their relationship quality. The idea of homophily suggests that people who share similar social characteristics are more likely than those who differ in such characteristics to experience rewarding interactions and thus are more likely to like each other (Homans, 1974). In contrast, the exchange perspective posits that people with different resources engage in exchange to maximize their rewards (Cook et al., 2013). Whether these ideas can be applied to sibling relationships has been debated (Eriksen & Gerstel, 2002; Jensen et al., 2018; Voorpostel et al., 2007). Jensen et al. (2018), in their study of young adults living in the Philadelphia area, concluded that neither similarities nor differences in employment, partnership, or parenting statuses between siblings were related to sibling relationship quality. Eriksen and Gerstel (2002), using a convenience sample of women aged 25–70 in a northeast city, also found that similarities in partnership status or parenthood between siblings were not related to sibling relationship quality. Using adults aged 18 or older in the National Netherlands Kinship Panel Study, Voorpostel et al. (2007) found that similarities in partnership and parenthood statuses brought siblings closer, measured by frequency of providing housework or advice, only when neither siblings had a partner and neither siblings had children, respectively. Voorpostel et al. (2007) also found that siblings with less education reported interest in knowing about the lives of their siblings with higher education and that childless siblings reported interest in knowing about lives of their parenting siblings, suggesting that differences in education and parenthood might make siblings closer to each other. Together, we expect that whether similarities or differences in life course statuses between siblings are related to closer sibling relationships may depend on types of such statuses. Specifically, as speculated by Voorpostel et al. (2007), differences in education levels may be related to closer sibling relationships because young adults with college education can provide their siblings without college experiences with information and advice about college in exchange for respect and admiration. Past research has shown that young people who have attended college tend to pass information about the college to their siblings who have not attended college (Goodman et al., 2019). Differences in parental status may also be related to closer sibling relationships in that childless siblings may provide their parenting siblings with babysitting assistance in exchange for pride and esteem of being an uncle or aunt that they can enjoy while not having the demands of parenting in their own lives.

This Study

This study examines how education, employment, marriage or cohabitation, and parenthood, are related to sibling relationship quality during emerging adulthood. On the basis of the idea that major social statuses reduce the time and energy that people spend with siblings or these statuses replace their siblings as a primary source of support, we expect that having higher education, working full-time, having a spouse or a cohabiting partner, or having children is related to distant sibling relationships, such as fewer visits, fewer phone calls, less help-seeking, more fights, and less emotional closeness. In contrast, drawing on the idea that social statuses bring opportunities for people to reconnect with their siblings, we also expect that there is a possibility that having higher education, working full-time, having a spouse or a cohabiting partner, or being a parent is related to close sibling relationships, such as more visits, more phone calls, more help-seeking, fewer fights, and more emotional closeness. For the role of status similarities or differences between siblings, drawing on past findings, we predict that differences in education levels and parenthood are related to closer sibling relationships, whereas neither differences nor similarities in employment and partnership status are related to sibling relationship quality.

We control for characteristics that are related to life course statuses and sibling relationship quality. These characteristics include sibling type (full-, half-, or step-siblings, Steinbach & Hank, 2018), gender composition of the sibling dyad (Lindell et al., 2014; Milevsky et al., 2005; Tanskanen & Danielsbacka, 2020), age and age-gap between siblings (Milevsky et al., 2005), birth order (McHale et al., 2009; Milevsky et al., 2005), geographic distance between siblings (Milevsky & Heerwagen, 2013; Milevsky et al., 2005), and race/ethnicity (Cherlin, 2010; Spitze & Trent, 2018). We also control for sibling relationship quality in adolescence because past sibling relationship quality may have lasting effects on sibling relationship quality in the next life stage (Aquilino, 1997; Conger & Little, 2010; Elder, 1998).

Method

Data

Add Health provided a school-based nationally representative sample of adolescents in grades 7–12 during the 1994–1995 school year (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth). It is a stratified, random sample of all high schools in the United States. Eligible schools had 11th grade and at least 30 enrolled students, or were a feeder school that had a 7th grade that sent on to high school. Wave I was collected in 1994–1995 when the respondents were 12–17 years old; and 20,745 students participated in at-home interviews. All adolescents in Grades 7 through 11 in Wave I were re-interviewed in 1996 when they were 13–18 years old for Wave II (n = 14,738, 88.6%) in-home interviews. Wave III was collected in 2001 and 2002 when the respondents were 18–26 years old and 15,170 (approximately 73%) participants were retained from Wave I.

The sample for the present analysis was drawn from the “genetic sample” in Wave III. The genetic sample was originally selected in Wave I as a sibling-pair sample where adolescents who reported living with a twin, half-sibling, step-sibling, adopted sibling, or foster sibling between 11 and 20 years of age were included (Harris et al., 2013). In addition, a probability sample of full-sibling pairs from all adolescents in the survey was included. Both siblings in these pairs participated in the in-home interviews as individual respondents. This means that one household could have more than one pair of siblings in the sample. The genetic sample in Wave I included 3,114 sibling pairs (6,228 respondents). In Wave II, 2,218 sibling pairs (4,436 respondents) were reinterviewed. As prior research has identified (McHale et al., 2009), there was a large amount of missing information in the Wave I genetic sample. Thus, we used the Wave II genetic sample, instead of the Wave I genetic sample, to measure sibling relationship quality in adolescence as a control. In the Wave III genetic sample, 4,367 respondents who were in the Wave II genetic sample were reinterviewed, and were no longer paired (Carolina Population Center, 2003). From the 4,367 respondents, we first removed 13 cases, because the respondent ID and the sibling ID were identical (n = 4,354). We selected the 3,260 respondents who were in the core longitudinal sample (i.e., those who had values in the longitudinal weight variable; Chen & Chantala, 2014). Then we selected respondents whose focal siblings were the same between Waves II and III. In both Waves II and III, respondents were asked to evaluate the quality of their relationship with each of all siblings they had, including those who were not in the genetic sample. Unfortunately, the focal siblings on whom the respondents answered about the quality of relationship were not always the same between Waves II and III. Using the respondent IDs and the sibling IDs, we found that, of the 3,260 respondents, 1,753 respondents reported relationship quality with the same focal siblings in both Waves II and III. Finally, we excluded 387 respondents who were living with focal siblings in Wave III. Thus, the analytical sample size was N = 1,366.

Those who were in the present sample were more likely than those who were dropped to have less than high school education or a 4-year college degree, less likely to be twins, more likely to live far from each other, and more likely to report fewer visits, fewer phone calls, less help-seeking, and less emotional closeness with siblings, although they were similar in age and race/ethnicity (data not shown). Although the present sample was not representative of emerging adults and their siblings in the U.S. general population, it included both respondents’ and their siblings’ life course statuses and other basic demographic information, which other large-scale, longitudinal national data did not provide.

Dependent Measures

The dependent variables were five aspects of sibling relationship quality, including visits, phone calls or emails, help-seeking, fights, and emotional closeness. Visits were measured by the question, “How often do you and he/she see each other?” (0 = never, 1 = a few times a year, 2 = once or twice a month, 3 = once or twice a week, 4 = almost every day). Phone calls or emails were measured as the average of the two questions: (a) “How often do you and he/she talk on the phone?” and (b) “How often do you send letters or email or receive them from him/her?” (0 = never, 1 = a few times a year, 2 = once or twice a month, 3 = once or twice a week, 4 = almost every day). Help-seeking was measured by the question, “How often do you turn to him/her for help when you have personal problems, or problems at school or work?” (0 = never, 1 = seldom, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = very often). Fights were measured by the question: “How often do you and {he/she} quarrel or fight?” (0 = never, 1 = seldom, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = very often). Emotional closeness was measured by the question: “How close do you feel toward him/her?” (0 = not at all close, 1 = not very close, 2 = somewhat, 3 = quite close, 4 = very close).

Independent Measures

Respondent’s education status was measured as five dummy variables—(a) less than high school, (b) high school diploma or high school equivalency diploma (GED),(c) some college education, (d) in college, and (e) bachelor’s degree or beyond—using questions asking about the highest degrees the respondents received and, if the respondents were currently attending college, which year of college they were currently in. We created five dummy variables measuring the focal sibling’s education status as well. Education status similarities between the paired siblings were measured as three dummy variables including (a) same education levels, (b) respondents had higher levels of education than paired siblings, and (c) respondents had lower levels of education than paired siblings, created using the five aforementioned education categories.

Respondent’s employment status was measured by the question, “How many hours a week do you usually work at this job?” We created three dummy variables of employment status including (a) not working for pay, (b) working part-time (<35 h per week), and (c) working full-time (35 or more hours per week). We created three dummy variables for the focal siblings’ employment status in the same fashion. Employment status similarities between paired siblings were measured as three dummy variables, including (a) same employment statuses, (b) respondents were working more than siblings, and (c) respondents were working less than siblings, created using the three employment categories.

Romantic partnership status and its sibling status similarities were measured as four dummy variables, including (a) both respondents and their siblings living with a spouse or partner, (b) only respondents living with a spouse or partner, (c) only their siblings living with a spouse or partner, (d) neither respondents nor their siblings were living with a spouse or partner (reference). These variables were created using two dichotomous variables indicating whether respondents and their focal siblings, respectively, were married or living with a romantic partner or not (0 = single, 1 = married or living with a romantic partner).

Parenthood status and its sibling status similarities were measured as four dummy variables, including (a) both respondents and their siblings had children, (b) only respondents had children, (c) only siblings had children, and (d) neither respondents nor their siblings had children (reference), created by using two dichotomous variables indicating whether respondents and their focal siblings, respectively, had children living in the household (0 = no child, 1 = at least one child).

Control Measures

Sibling type comprised four dummy variables indicating whether the respondent’s focal sibling is a full non-twin sibling (reference), a half-sibling, a step-sibling, or a twin. Gender composition of the sibling pair was comprised of four dummy variables, (a) both respondents and the focal siblings were women (sister/sister, reference), (b) both the respondents and the focal siblings were men (brother/brother), (c) the respondents were men and the focal siblings were women (brother/sister), and (d) the respondents were women and the focal siblings were men (sister/brother). The respondents’ age was measured in years. Age-gap between the paired siblings was measured in years. The respondent’s birth order was measured as dummy variables including (a) older (reference), (b) younger, (c) same-age (non-twins), and (d) twins. The respondents’ race/ethnicity was comprised of four dummy variables indicating whether the respondent identified as White (reference), Black, Hispanic, or other races. Geographic distance was measured by the question, “How far in travel time do you and he/she live from one another?” We created a dummy variable indicating whether the respondents were living an hour or more away from the focal siblings (= 1) or living within an hour (= 0).

Three aspects of sibling relationship quality in adolescence, emotional closeness, frequency of fights, and time spent together, measured in Wave II, were included as controls. Emotional closeness was measured by the question, “How often do you feel love for {Name of the focal sibling}?” (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often). Frequency of fights was measured by the question, “How often do you and {Name of the focal sibling} quarrel or fight?” (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often). Frequency of time spent together was measured by the question, “How much time do you and {Name of the focal sibling} spend together?” (1 = none, 2 = a little, 3 = some, 4 = a lot).

Analytic Strategy

We used ordinary-least-squared (OLS) regression models to examine the association between each of the four life course statuses and each of the five aspects of sibling relationship quality. Following prior research (Jensen et al., 2018; Spitze & Trent, 2018; White, 2001), we examined each aspect of relationship quality separately.1 The non-independence sampling design (i.e., school-based) of Add Health, as well as the matched sibling sample (i.e., siblings came from the same households in Wave II), required a statistical correction to account for the standard error inflation. Thus, all analyses used SAS PROC Surveymean and PROC Surveyreg and were weighted to account for the sampling design (Siller & Tompkins, 2006). We used multiple imputation suggested by Allison (2001) to deal with missing values. By including sibling relationship quality reported in adolescence (Wave II, ages 13–18), the models controlled for earlier relationship quality. We did not measure the change in sibling relationship quality between the waves because aspects of relationship quality and the question wordings differed between Waves II and III. We did not measure changes in life course statuses, because in Wave II all respondents were in high school, lived in their parental home, were not married or cohabiting with a partner, and did not have children. Thus, the life course statuses in Wave III essentially reflected changes in these statuses from Wave II.

Results

Descriptive statistics for variables are presented in Table 1. With the range from 0 (never) to 4 (almost every day), the average frequency of visits score was 2.22, and the average frequency of phone calls or emails score was 1.64. With the range from 0 (never) to 4 (very often), the average score for help-seeking was 1.75 and the average score for fighting was 1.06. The average emotional closeness score was 2.94 with the range from 0 (not at all close) to 4 (very close).

Table 1.

Weighted Means (SD) or Proportions for Variables in the Analyses (N = 1,366).

Sibling Relationship Quality Controls
Visits [0–4] 2.22 (0.72) Sibling type
 Phone calls or emails [0–4] 1.64 (0.53)  Full, non-twins 0.66
 Help seeking [0–4] 1.75 (0.75)  Half 0.12
 Fights [0–4] 1.06 (0.62)  Step 0.12
 Emotional closeness [0–4] 2.94 (0.61)  Twins 0.10
Life course status Gender composition (R-S)
 Education  Sister–sister 0.31
  R < high school 0.09  Brother–brother 0.28
  R high school 0.37  Brother–sister 0.19
  R some college 0.15  Sister–brother 0.22
  R in college 0.31 Age and age gap
  R bachelor’s or higher 0.08  Respondents’ age in years 21.87 (1.42)
 Education status similarities  Age gap between siblings 2.09 (0.93)
  R and S same 0.40 Birth ordera
  R higher than S 0.28  Older 0.43
  R lower than S 0.32  Younger 0.42
  Employment  Same (non-twin) 0.04
  R non-employed 0.27 Race/ethnicity (R)
  R employed, part-time 0.22  White 0.68
  R employed, full-time 0.51  Black 0.15
 Employment status similarities  Hispanic 0.08
  R and S same 0.41  Other race 0.08
  R works more than S 0.28 Geographic distance
  R works less than S 0.31  More than one hour 0.44
 Romantic partnership and status similarities Sibling relationship quality in W2
  R single, S same 0.38  Emotional closeness [1–5] 3.97 (0.90)
  R partnered, S same 0.16  Frequent fights [1–5] 3.09 (0.81)
  R partnered, S single 0.26  Time spent together [1–4] 3.09 (0.61)
  R single, S partnered 0.20
 Parenthood and status similarities
  R w/o children, S same 0.50
  R w/children, S same 0.13
  R w/children, S w/o children 0.22
  R w/o children, S w/children 0.15
Open in a new tab

Notes. “R” stands for respondents; “S” stands for siblings.

a

These dummy variables and twins add up to 100%.

Turning to life course statuses, the distribution for respondents’ educational attainment was 9% having no high school diploma, 37% having a high school diploma or equivalent, 15% having some college education, 31% being in college, and 8% having a bachelor’s degree or higher. Forty percent of the respondents and their focal siblings had the same level of education, whereas 28% of the respondents had higher levels of education than their focal siblings and 32% of the respondents had lower levels of education than their focal siblings. For employment status, 27% of the respondents were not employed, whereas 22% were employed working less than 35 h per week (“part-time”), and 51% were employed working 35 h or more per week (“full-time”). Forty-one percent of the respondents and their focal siblings had the same employment statuses, whereas 28% of the respondents worked more than their focal siblings and 31% worked less than their focal siblings. For romantic partnership status, 38% of the respondents reported that neither they nor their focal siblings were married or living with a partner, whereas 16% reported that both of them were married or living with a partner. Twenty-six percent were married or living with a partner while their focal siblings were single, and 20% were single while their focal siblings were married or living with a partner. Finally, 50% of the respondents reported that neither they nor their siblings had children, whereas 13% reported both of them had children. Twenty-two percent had children while their focal siblings did not, and 15% did not have children while their focal siblings had children. Because the average age of the respondents was about 22 years old and that the average age at first birth among U.S. women in 2003 was about 25 years old (Mathews & Hamilton, 2016), the pattern that half of the sample did not have children mirrors fertility patterns of the general U.S. population.

The results from the OLS regression models that examined the association between the four life course statuses and the five aspects of sibling relationship quality are presented in Table 2. Overall, higher education was related to closer sibling relationships. Compared with respondents with a high school diploma, respondents with some college education reported more visits and more emotional closeness with their focal siblings. The respondents who were in college at the time of the interview reported more phone calls and the respondents who had a bachelor’s degree or higher reported more phone calls and more help-seeking with their focal siblings. In contrast, the respondents who did not have a high school diploma reported fewer calls and less emotional closeness with their focal siblings. For status similarities and differences, the respondents who had less education than their focal siblings reported more help-seeking and more emotional closeness than those who had the same levels of education, consistent with the findings by Voorpostel et al. (2007) that siblings with less education reporting being interested in knowing about lives of their siblings with higher education.

Table 2.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Coefficients for the Associations Between Life Course Statuses and Sibling Relationship Quality During Early Adulthood (Aged 18–26) (N = 1,366).

Visits
 Phone Calls or Emails
 Help-Seeking
 Fights
 Emotional Closeness
b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE
Life course status
 Educationg
  R < high school −.055 .073 −.227 .083** −.096 .117 .041 .070 −.285 .072**
  R some college .211 .058** .097 .057 −.008 .065 −.086 .069 .168 .048***
  R in college −.011 .050 .249 .052*** .094 .064 −.116 .067 .098 .059
  R bachelor’s or higher −.074 .074 .541 .055*** .322 .081*** −.041 .100 .110 .069
  Education status similaritiesa
   R higher .031 .067 −.024 .048 .043 .063 −.027 .070 .083 .059
   R lower .021 .053 .133 .063 .140 .058* −.092 .062 .141 .049**
 Employmentg
  R employed, part-time −.086 .053 −.059 .055 .056 .067 −.139 .056* −.084 .051
  R employed, full-time −.054 .064 .206 .060** −.082 .092 .137 .064* −.249 .074**
  Employment status similaritiesa
   R works more −.096 .061 −.174 .058** −.099 .072 −.174 .062* .022 .077
   R works less −.034 .062 .098 .062 −.236 .084* .069 .063 −.200 .083*
 Romantic partnershipg
  R partnered, S same −.103 .049* −.027 .042 −.112 .064 −.396 .070*** −.022 .055
  R partnered, S single −.118 .032*** −.119 .036**a −.173 .057** −.355 .054*** −.014 .038
  R single, S partnered −.009 .032ae .103 .032**bf −.024 .053d −.392 .050*** −.073 .046
 Parenthoodg
  R w/children, S same .106 .073 −.055 .073 −.246 .096* −.126 .070 .027 .067
  R w/children, S w/o children .094 .050 −.105 .061 −.214 .074* −.116 .071 −.084 .080
  R w/o children, S w/children .171 .063*d .097 .056f −.032 .075cd .096 .061cd .221 .053***be
Controlsg
 Half-sibling −.129 .071 −.018 .057 −.134 .094 −.062 .071 −.023 .097
 Step-sibling −1.002 .034*** −.631 .057*** −.978 .053*** −.452 .061*** −.996 .070**
 Twins −.052 .071 .164 .088 .404 .102** .112 .100 .087 .089
 Age gap between siblings .023 .009* −.007 .019 −.007 .017 −.023 .013 −.023 .021
 Brother–brother −.120 .048* −.376 .054*** −.620 .062*** −.369 .062*** −.059 .049
 Brother–sister −.214 .056** −.406 .046*** −.612 .067*** −.428 .055*** −.178 .072*
 Sister–brother −.176 .050*** −.556 .047*** −.657 .059*** −.117 .064 −.377 .066***
 Living more than one hour apart −1.477 .029*** .028 .038 −.204 .048*** −.240 .031*** −.059 .038
 R’s age −.045 .012*** −.023 .011* −.031 .019 −.042 .017* .007 .015
 Black .081 .046 −.057 .050 −.115 .054* −.043 .044 .058 .064
 Hispanic −.021 .058 −.025 .049 .104 .067 .215 .074** .206 .053***
 Other race −.091 .026*** .020 .031 .321 .045*** .044 .038 .021 .038
  Sibling relationship in adolescence
   Emotional closeness .049 .021* .062 .018** .149 .025*** .026 .019 .189 .022***
   Frequency of fights −.018 .016 .008 .018 .031 .022 −.190 .016*** .070 .017***
   Frequency of time together .070 .021** .082 .024** .280 .034*** −.051 .028 .193 .033***
  Younger −.269 .049*** −.143 .044** .144 .073 −.176 .058* .032 .062
  Same age (non-twins) .167 .100 −.300 .118** −.313 .139 −.021 .139 −.176 .161
Intercept 3.861 .271*** 1.861 .270** 1.623 .397*** 3.433 .392*** 1.604 .302***
R 2 .521*** .189*** .240*** .171*** .210***
Open in a new tab

Notes.

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01;

***

p < .001.

Differences from “R partnered & S partnered” or “R with children & S with children” are significant at

a

p < .05,

b

p < .01, and

c

p < .001.

Differences from “R partnered & S unpartnered” or “R with children & S without children” are significant at

d

p < .05,

e

p < .01, and

f

p < .001.

“R” stands for respondents; “S” stands for siblings.

g

Omitted reference categories are: R high school diploma, R & S had same education levels, R non-employed, R & S had same employment statuses, R single & S same, R non-parents & S same, full sibling, sister–sister, living within one hour apart, White, and older.

The patterns of the findings for the effects of employment on sibling relationships were less robust. Compared with the respondents who did not work, respondents who worked full-time reported more phone calls, more fights, and less emotional closeness with their focal siblings, whereas those who worked part-time reported fewer fights. The association between full-time work and less emotional closeness with their siblings was consistent with prior findings by Milevsky et al. (2005) using a local sample. Looking at the effects of sibling status similarities, we found that compared with the respondents whose work status was the same as their focal siblings, the respondents who worked more than their focal siblings reported fewer phone calls and fewer fights with the siblings. As Jensen et al. (2018) speculated, fewer fights, along with fewer calls, might mean that the siblings did not have an opportunity to fight because they contacted each other less often. Additionally, respondents who worked less than their focal siblings reported less help-seeking and less emotional closeness. Unlike Jensen et al. (2018), our findings suggest that similarities in employment hours between siblings are related to closer sibling relationships.

Turning to the effects of romantic partnerships on sibling relationships, compared with single respondents whose siblings were also single2, partnered respondents whose focal siblings were also partnered reported fewer visits and fewer fights. Partnered respondents reported fewer visits, fewer calls or emails, less help-seeking, and fewer fights with their unpartnered siblings. As in the findings for the effects of employment, fewer fights could be due to fewer contacts. There were no significant differences in the coefficients between the two groups (except that partnered respondents were less likely to call single siblings than partnered siblings), suggesting that one’s romantic partnership was related to more distant sibling relationships regardless of one’s sibling’s partnership status. In contrast, respondents who were single and whose siblings were living with a partner or a spouse reported more calls or emails and fewer fights, although fewer visits. In supplemental analyses (not shown), we found that the patterns of findings were very similar whether these partnerships were marriage or cohabitation. In sum, romantic partnerships were related to distant sibling relationships, except that unpartnered respondents were more likely to reach out to, and less likely to fight with, their partnered siblings than their unpartnered siblings.

Finally, the effects of parenthood3 on sibling relationships differed by whether it was the respondents or the focal siblings who had children. The respondents who had children reported less help-seeking with their siblings, regardless of whether their focal siblings also had children, suggesting that, similar to the findings by Wrzus et al. (2013), parenthood may shift one’s primary confidants from siblings to other people. Alternatively, because the survey question specified whether respondents sought help from their siblings on personal, work, or school problems, it could be that problems associated with parenting may take over personal, work, or school problems regardless of whether they turn to their siblings for these problems. Childless respondents whose focal siblings had children reported more visits and more emotional closeness with their siblings, perhaps helping their parenting siblings by babysitting their nephews or nieces or doing errands (Voorpostel et al., 2007).

Discussion

Drawing on previous research using the life course perspective, this article examined whether emerging adults’ life course statuses—higher education, employment, romantic partnership, and parenthood—would be related to more distant sibling relationships in five dimensions including visits, calls or emails, help-seeking, fights, and emotional closeness. In addition, as per the debate on whether homophily or exchange applies to sibling relationships, we examined whether similarities or differences between siblings in these life course statuses would be related to closer sibling relationships during emerging adulthood.

We find that higher education is related to closer sibling relationships during the transition to adulthood. Using a sample of adults aged 18 or older, White (2001) found that higher education was related to less contact but more giving or receiving help between siblings. In our study, young adults with higher education are no less likely to visit each other and are more likely to contact through phone calls or emails, more often seeking help, and feeling emotionally close. Whether these differences in findings between White (2001) and this study are due to differences in life stages the studies examined needs to be investigated in future research. Life course status differences between siblings are related to closer relationships in that young adults with less education report more help-seeking and closeness with their siblings who have more education than they do. As predicted by Voorpostel et al. (2007), our findings suggest that young adults who have not gone to college or have not finished college seem to reach out to their siblings who have done so as a source of advice and resources. The effects of college education on sibling relationships may depend on the context. Some research has shown that liberalization in attitudes toward social issues at college could lead emerging adults to have more disagreements and conflicts with members of their family of origin, namely parents, who may not share the same liberal views (Lee & Liu, 2001). Future research may want to examine how changes in social and political views during emerging adulthood, which are often tied with life course statuses such as higher education, may affect sibling relationship quality.

In keeping with previous findings (Milevsky et al., 2005; Spitze & Trent, 2018), working full-time is related to less closeness in sibling relationships. Unlike Jensen et al. (2018), our results suggest the importance of status similarities in paid work in shaping sibling relationship quality. Specifically, the respondents report fewer phone calls and fewer fights—perhaps indicating fewer contacts—with their siblings if they worked more hours than the siblings; and the respondents report less help-seeking and less emotional closeness to their siblings if they work fewer hours than the siblings. The less robust patterns of findings for the effects of employment on sibling relationships quality, overall, may be because full-time work hours have different meanings, especially during this life stage. Some young adults may be working full-time with odd jobs to support themselves to pay college tuition. Other young adults may be working full-time at the start of their careers. It would be interesting to examine how job characteristics at the early stage of careers affect sibling relationship quality. Much research has examined the effects of job characteristics on other types of family relationships, but very few have focused on sibling relationships.

As found in previous studies focusing on siblings in mid- or later-life (Spitze & Trent, 2018; Voorpostel et al., 2007), we find that marriage or cohabitation is related to distant sibling relationships during emerging adulthood. Status similarities do not matter in that one’s own partnership is related to reports of more distant sibling relationship regardless of one’s sibling’s partnership status. Life course status differences between siblings appear to be related to closer relationship only when the respondents do not have a partner and their siblings do. Given that romantic partnerships are considered a primary source of adult intimacy, companionship, and social support in U.S. society (White, 2001), it is expected that people who have partners will rely on their partners more than their siblings for social support. As Bucx et al. (2012) noted, partnered young adults are less dependent on their family of origin, seeking less social support from their siblings. One question is whether adults who experience a loss of romantic partnerships can regain close relationships with their siblings as a primary source of social support (Connidis & Campbell, 1995; Spitze & Trent, 2018). We were unable to examine this question because the number of cases who experienced divorce was too small to make a meaningful analysis.

For parenthood, similar to prior research (Wrzus et al., 2013), we find that young adults with children are less likely than those without children to rely on their siblings for advice, suggesting that parenthood may redirect adults’ social networks. For childless respondents, however, the new role as aunts or uncles brings more opportunities to visit and feel emotional closeness to their parenting siblings. It could be that childless siblings might feel the sense of altruism or obligation to help their siblings cope with daily parenting demands especially when they do not have such demands (Voorpostel et al., 2007). Together, our findings are aligned with the previous notion that parenthood is related to both strains and opportunities for adults to maintain social relationships (Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2020).

In sum, our findings generally support the idea that life course statuses, such as full-time employment, marriage/cohabitation, and parenthood, are related to distant sibling relationships (Conger & Little, 2010; Jensen et al., 2018; Spitze& Trent, 2018; White, 2001) with some notable exceptions. Higher education is generally related to closer sibling relationships. Similarities in employment hours are related to closer sibling relationships, but for education, marriage/cohabitation, and parenthood, differences in these statuses between the siblings are related to closer relationships in that siblings report more help-seeking and closeness with their siblings who have more education than they do, unpartnered siblings report more calls and fewer fights with their partnered siblings than their unpartnered siblings, and childless young adults report more visits and emotional closeness with their parenting siblings than their childless siblings. These findings suggest the merit of further examination of sibling relationships using the homophily as well as exchange perspectives, depending on social characteristics that are examined as factors influencing the sibling relationships.

The present analysis has limitations that future research should address. The genetic sample of Add Health provided rich longitudinal data of matched siblings, including both siblings’ life course statuses and evaluations of sibling relationship quality, but the sample was not representative. In part because of many mismatches in focal siblings between Waves II and III, we were unable to examine the influences of life course status on changes in sibling relationship quality fully (though we were able to control for sibling relationship quality in adolescence). Future research that uses a representative sample of sibling dyads would help to better understand the associations between life course statuses and sibling relationships. Given the recent trends in postponing major adult life transitions (Mathews & Hamilton, 2016), the present analysis captured the early stages of experiencing these life course statuses. The average age of the respondents in the present sample was 21.9 years old: Many of the respondents were too young to finish their bachelor’s degrees or advanced degrees, get married, or have children. More than one-third of the respondents reported that both they and their siblings were single. Half of the respondents reported that neither they nor their siblings have children. Many of these single or childless respondents will form a romantic union or/and have children later, which we were unable to examine in the present analysis. Because adults with higher levels of education are more likely than adults with lower levels of education to postpone union formation and childbearing (Cherlin, 2010), the present analyses did not capture the effects of life course statuses on sibling relationships among adults with higher levels of education fully. Wave IV, when the respondents were in their late 20s to early 30s and were more likely to have achieved the life course statuses we analyzed in this study, did not include information about sibling relationship quality. Future research that examines the effects of life course statuses on sibling relationship quality during a wider span of young adulthood is warranted. Another avenue for future research is to examine variation in the effects of life course statuses on sibling relationships by different contexts and social groups such as birth order, gender composition of siblings, race/ethnicity, or multiple social roles. Further, the present analysis mostly used single-item measures of sibling relationship quality, which is not ideal. Multiple questions regarding key aspects of sibling relationships should be included in future survey research. Some aspects of sibling relationship quality may be worth getting more attention conceptually. Finally, the present sample was collected in 2001–2002 which was before smartphones and social media became dominant. Future research should investigate whether today’s emerging adults contact their siblings more often than emerging adults in the early 2000s through texting or social media.

Sibling relationships are close relationships that many people maintain throughout their entire life. The present analysis examined various aspects of sibling relationship quality—visits, phone calls or emails, help-seeking, fights, and emotional closeness—during emerging adulthood, a period when siblings begin to acquire life course statuses such as higher education, paid work, cohabitation and marriage, and parenthood. The findings suggest the merit of further investigating how sibling relationships change as their life course statuses change across different life stages. In doing so, it is vital to examine one’s and one’s sibling’s life course statuses in order to better understand the dynamics in sibling relationships.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD05959).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

1.

Other research has investigated how different domains of sibling relationship quality, such as conflict and closeness, are related to one another (e.g., Lindell et al., 2014), which is beyond the scope of this study and an important venue for future research. We examined Pearson’s correlation γ among the five aspects of sibling relationship quality. Correlations were relatively high between making phone calls and help-seeking (γ = .51, p < .001), between making phone calls and emotional closeness (γ = .50,p < .001), and between help-seeking and emotional closeness (γ = .62, p < .001) and lower between making phone calls and fights (γ = .06, p < .05) and fights and emotional closeness (γ = −.05, p < .05).

2.

In supplemental analyses that are not shown, we ran the same regression models rotating the reference group among the four romantic partnership statuses. Significant differences are noted in Table 2.

3.

Similar to romantic relationship statuses, we ran the same regression models rotating the reference group among the four parenthood statuses. Significant differences are noted in Table 2.

References

  1. Allison P (2001). Missing data Sage. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aquilino WS (1997). From adolescent to young adult: A prospective study of parent-child relations during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(3), 670–686. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnett JJ (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bucx F, van Wel F, & Knijn T (2012). Life course status and exchanges of support between young adults and parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(1), 101–115. [Google Scholar]
  5. Buist KL, Dekovic M, & Prinzie P (2013). Sibling relationship quality and pathology of children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(1), 97–106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Carolina Population Center. (2003). National longitudinal study of adolescent health wave III, sibling code book April 2003. University of North Carolina. http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/documentation/restricteduse/datasets. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen P, & Chantala K (2014). Guidelines for analyzing Add Health data. Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina Retrieved on September 20, 2020 from 10.17615/C6BW8W. [DOI]
  8. Cherlin A (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 403–419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Conger KJ, & Little WM (2010). Sibling relationships during the transition to adulthood. Child Development Perspectives, 4(2), 87–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Connidis IA, & Campbell LD (1995). Closeness, confiding, and contact among siblings in middle and late adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 16(6), 722–745. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cook K, Cheshire C, Rice E, & Nakagawa S (2013). Social exchange theory. In DeLamater J & Ward A (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 61–82). Springer Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dolgin KG, & Lindsay KR (1999). Disclosure between college students and their siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(3), 393–400. [Google Scholar]
  13. Elder GH Jr. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69, 1–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Eriksen S, & Gerstel N (2002). A labor of love or labor itself: Care work among adult brothers and sisters. Journal of Family Issues, 23(7), 836–856. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gallagher SK, & Gerstel N (2001). Connections and constraints: The effects of children on caregiving. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 265–275. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gilligan M, Stocker CM, & Jewsbury Conger K (2020). Sibling relationships in Adulthood: Research findings and new frontiers. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12, 305–320. [Google Scholar]
  17. Goodman J, Hurwitz M, Mulhern C, & Smith J (2019). O brother, where start thou? Sibling spillovers in college enrollment (No. w26502). National Bureau of Economic Research. [Google Scholar]
  18. Goyette KA (2008). College for some to college for all: Social background, occupational expectations, and educational expectations over time. Social Science Research, 37(2), 461–484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Harris KM, Halpern CT, Haberstick BC, & Smolen A (2013). The national longitudinal study of adolescent health (Add Health) sibling pairs data. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16(1), 391–398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Homans GC (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. [Google Scholar]
  21. 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. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kalmijn M (2012). Longitudinal analyses of the effects of age, marriage, and parenthood on social contacts and support. Advances in Life Course Research, 17(4), 177–190. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kalmijn M, & Leopold T (2019). Changing sibling relationships after parents’ death: The role of solidarity and kin keeping. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81(1), 99–114. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kaufman G, & Uhlenberg P (1998). Effects of life course transitions on the quality of relationships between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(4), 924–938. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kreider RM, & Ellis R (2011). Living arrangements of children: 2009 (Current Population Reports No P70–126) U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-126.pdf [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee RM, & Liu HTT (2001). Coping with intergenerational family conflict: Comparison of Asian American, Hispanic, and European American college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 410. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lindell AK, Campione-Barr N, & Greer KB (2014). Associations between adolescent sibling conflict and relationship quality during the transition to college. Emerging Adulthood, 2, 79–91. [Google Scholar]
  28. Manning W (2013). Trends in cohabitation: Over twenty years of change, 1987–2010. Family profiles (pp. 13–12). National Center for Family & Marriage Research. Retrieved from http://ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/familyprofiles/file130944.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mathews TJ, & Hamilton BE (2016). Mean age of mothers is on the rise: United States, 2000–2014. NCHS data brief, no 232 National Center for Health Statistics. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. McHale SM, Bissell J, & Kim JY (2009). Sibling relationship, family, and genetic factors in sibling similarity in sexual risk. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(4), 562–572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Milevsky A (2005). Compensatory patterns of sibling support in emerging adulthood: Variations in loneliness, self-esteem, depression, and life satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(6), 743–755. [Google Scholar]
  32. Milevsky A, & Heerwagen M (2013). A phenomenological examination of sibling relationships in emerging adulthood. Marriage & Family Review, 49(3), 251–263. [Google Scholar]
  33. Milevsky A, Smooth K, Leh M, & Ruppe A (2005). Familial and contextual variables and the nature of sibling relationships in emerging adulthood. Marriage & Family Review, 37(4), 123–141. [Google Scholar]
  34. Nomaguchi K, & Fettro MN (2019). Childrearing stages and work–family conflict: The role of job demands and resources. Journal of marriage and family, 81(2), 289–307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Nomaguchi K, & Milkie MA (2020). Parenthood and well-being: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 198–223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Nomaguchi K, Milkie M, & Bianchi S (2005). Time strains and psychological well-being do dual-earner mothers and fathers differ? Journal of Family Issues, 26(6), 756–792. [Google Scholar]
  37. Scharf M, Shulman S, & Avigad-Spitz L (2005). Sibling relationships in emerging adulthood and in adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20(1), 64–90. [Google Scholar]
  38. Schieman S, & Glavin P (2011). Education and work-family conflict: Explanations, contingencies and mental health consequences. Social Forces, 89(4), 1341–1362. [Google Scholar]
  39. Siller AB, & Tompkins L (2006, March). The big four: Analyzing complex sample survey data using SAS, SPSS, STATA, and SUDAAN Proceedings of the thirty-first annual SAS® Users Group international conference, San Francisco, (pp. 26–29). [Google Scholar]
  40. Spitze GD, & Trent K (2018). Changes in individual sibling relationships in response to life events. Journal of Family Issues, 39(2), 503–526. [Google Scholar]
  41. Steinbach A, & Hank K (2018). Full-, half-, and step-sibling relations in young and middle adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 39(9), 2639–2658. [Google Scholar]
  42. Stocker CM, Lanthier RP, & Furman W (1997). Sibling relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 11(2), 210–221. [Google Scholar]
  43. Tanskanen AO, & Danielsbacka M (2020). Parenthood status and relationship quality between siblings. Journal of Family Studies, 26(2), 260–271. [Google Scholar]
  44. Uecker JE (2012). Marriage and mental health among young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 53(1), 67–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Van Volkom M, Machiz C, & Reich AE (2011). Sibling relationships in the college years: Do gender, birth order, and age spacing matter? North American Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 35–50. [Google Scholar]
  46. Voorpostel M, van der Lippe T, Dykstra PA, & Flap H (2007). Similar or different? The importance of similarities and differences for support between siblings. Journal of Family Issues, 28(8), 1026–1053. [Google Scholar]
  47. White L (2001). Sibling relationships over the life course: A panel analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 555–568. [Google Scholar]
  48. Whiteman SD, McHale SM, & Crouter AC (2011). Family relationships from adolescence to early adulthood: Changes in the family system following first-borns’ leaving home. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(2), 461–474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Wrzus C, Hänel M, Wagner J, & Neyer FJ (2013). Social network changes and life events across the life span: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 53–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES