Skip to main content
. 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

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***

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.