Anna K. Lindell and Nicole Campione-Barr Sarah E. Killoren
University of Missouri – Columbia
University of Missouri – Columbia∗
Technology-Mediated Communication with Siblings During the Transition to College: Associations with Relationship Positivity and Self-Disclosure
An important task for emerging adults is the effective maintenance of sibling relationships given their importance for well-being later in adulthood. However, little is currently known about how siblings maintain communication with one another during this developmental stage when they often live apart for the first time, or about whether different communication patterns have unique relational implications. Using a sample of first-year college students (n = 250), the present study identified four distinct groups of emerging adults who used information and communication technologies differently in communicating with their siblings. Emerging adults who frequently used synchronous communication methods (as opposed to more passive methods) generally had more positive and self-disclosive relationships with their siblings about a variety of topics, although there were important gender and birth order Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, 210 McAlester Hall, Columbia, MO 65211(
[email protected]). ∗ Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Missouri, 314 Gentry Hall, Columbia, MO 65211. Key Words: communication, emerging adulthood, relationship maintenance, siblings, technology.
differences. Implications for college administrators and mental health professionals are discussed. Sibling relationships are among individuals’ longest lasting relationships and are important for well-being across the life span (Cicirelli, 1995). Siblings are frequent companions during childhood (McHale & Crouter, 1996) and adolescence (Updegraff, McHale, Whiteman, Thayer, & Delgado, 2005), and they remain central to the lives of many adults (Gold, 1989; Spitze & Trent, 2006). Despite decreasing contact and proximity during adulthood (Carstensen, 1992; White, 2001), for many people siblings continue to play a particularly important role during major life events and transitions such as marriage, the birth of children, divorce, and the death of family members (Connidis, 1992). However, some sibling relationships are considerably apathetic and disconnected by the time adulthood arrives (Gold, 1989). Although this may stem from a continuation of relationships that were distant during childhood (McGuire, McHale, & Updegraff, 1996), there is some evidence that siblings may become less close during adulthood as a result of new sibling rivalries related to parental differential treatment (e.g., Suitor, Gilligan, &
Family Relations 64 (October 2015): 563–578 DOI:10.1111/fare.12133
563
564 Pillemer, 2013). However, only in rare cases do siblings actually react negatively to parental differential treatment (Kowal, Krull, & Kramer, 2006). Thus, other important processes may contribute to siblings’ abilities to maintain positive and involved relationships with one another through later stages of life. An investigation of sibling relationships during the initial transition out of the family home may be a particularly fruitful avenue by which to better understand why some siblings eventually drift apart while others remain close through old age. According to Erikson’s (1968) theory of psychosocial development, a major task for late adolescents is the development of an integrated identity based on both prior familial relationships and individual exploration. This requires a recentering of close relationships, whereby peer and romantic relationships gain prominence as ties with parents (Tanner, 2006) and siblings (Conger & Little, 2010) decline. Put more specifically, siblings experience a significant reduction in companionship (Scharf, Shulman, & Avigad-Spitz, 2005), communication (White, 2001), and conflict (Whiteman, McHale, & Crouter, 2011), which are often initiated by the departure from the family home. A possible catalyst for this initial separation for many emerging adults is college attendance, as a large minority (40%) of 18- to 24-year-olds in the United States are enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). Given the suddenly more voluntary nature of sibling engagement during this time, the initial transition to college may shed important light on the development of relationship maintenance patterns that could set up siblings for their relationship as adults (Aquilino, 2006). Technology and Family Relationships Unfortunately, little is known about how siblings maintain their relationships during the initial transition out of the family home; however, many different technologies are available to help siblings maintain communication, and college students who move away from the family home may be one group that relies heavily on these methods (Conger & Little, 2010). As Hertlein (2012) proposed in her multitheoretical model addressing the intersections between technology and family life, technology introduces additional avenues for family interaction, which may have
Family Relations important consequences for our interpretation of family relationship qualities as well as our methods of relationship maintenance. Sociotechnological theory (Lanigan, 2009) suggests that information and communication technologies (ICTs) may influence these aspects of family relationships to varying degrees based on ICT characteristics, individual traits, and family-wide factors. Specifically, ICTs allow for two possible types of communication (Hertlein, 2012; Rabby & Walther, 2003): synchronous and asynchronous. Methods such as talking on a phone, communicating via video chat, and even instant messaging (including texting) facilitate synchronous communication, in which users either communicate in real time or are expected to view and respond to messages immediately (Rabby & Walther, 2003). When used to communicate with family members, both talking on the phone and sending text messages create feelings of “connected presence” (Christensen, 2009) and are often the primary mechanism for maintaining family relationships during college (Chen & Katz, 2009). In contrast, asynchronous communication occurs via ICTs that do not require an immediate response (e.g., e-mail, social networking websites; Rabby & Walther, 2003), and encourage editing and reflection before sending messages. Asynchronous methods are often preferred by some users given the private setting for self-disclosure that they afford (Joinson, 2001), and they are also useful for maintaining long-distance relationships between college students and their parents (Padilla-Walker, Nelson, Carroll, & Jensen, 2010). Although little is known about ICT use with siblings specifically, college students tend to view social networking websites (e.g., Facebook) as more appropriate for communicating with siblings than with parents (Goby, 2011). Therefore, sibling relationships may be a unique context for this type of ICT use. Thus, the first goal of the present study was to identify distinct groups of college students on the basis of their use of different ICTs to communicate with their siblings. Previous empirical and theoretical work suggests the possibility of four separate groups. Given that individuals often display preferences for certain ICTs (Räsänen, 2008), and that synchronous and asynchronous forms of ICTs comprise two broad classes of technology with unique implications, we expected that one group, who primarily uses
Technology-Mediated Communication with Siblings synchronous forms of technology, along with a second group, who primarily uses asynchronous forms, would emerge. In addition, media multiplexity theory (Haythornthwaite, 2005) suggests that individuals with strong relationship ties use a greater variety of methods to communicate. We therefore expected a third group whose members frequently use both synchronous and asynchronous ICTs to emerge. Finally, because of significant decreases in sibling contact across this period (White, 2001), we expected to identify a final group who communicates with their siblings infrequently across all ICT types. Implications of ICTs for Sibling Relationships Given the prevalence of ICTs in Western society, an important question is whether certain patterns of ICT use are more beneficial for maintaining sibling relationships than others. One study found that the type of ICTs college students used did not predict their closeness or satisfaction with their family relationships broadly (Baym, Zhang, Kunkel, Ledbetter, & Lin, 2007). However, whether this applies to siblings specifically, or to other relationship qualities, including positivity and self-disclosure, is unknown. Relationship Positivity During childhood there is considerable variability in the level of closeness and hostility within sibling relationships (McGuire et al., 1996). However, even frequent sibling conflict during adolescence may be a predictor of healthy relationships by emerging adulthood (Lindell, Campione-Barr, & Greer, 2014). In addition, although most siblings report significant decreases in shared time (Scharf et al., 2005) and communication (White, 2001) during the transition to college, intimacy and closeness with siblings often remain stable (Burhmester, 1992) or even increases (Scharf et al., 2005). Siblings may also be important sources of support for emerging adults (Searcy & Eisenberg, 1992), especially when support from other social partners is lacking (Milevsky, 2005). Although many improvements in the quality of sibling relationships across the transition to emerging adulthood appear to be related to whether or not siblings move out of the family home (Whiteman et al., 2011) or choose to pursue work (Milevsky, Smoot, Leh, & Ruppe,
565 2005), less is known about whether other factors, such as communication methods, are also indicative of higher quality relationships. Hertlein’s (2012) theoretical model suggests that ICTs should indeed help foster the maintenance of family relationships. Given empirical work suggesting that both synchronous and asynchronous ICTs enhance family relationships (e.g., Baym et al., 2007), and that siblings who communicate more frequently during emerging adulthood also report greater warmth in their relationships (Stocker, Lanthier, & Furman, 1997), we predicted that adolescents who used ICTs with greater frequency would report more positive sibling relationships. However, communicating via synchronous methods appears to be more important for facilitating feelings of connectedness between adolescents and their parents than asynchronous methods (Padilla-Walker, Coyne & Fraser, 2012). Thus, the quality of sibling relationships may also differ depending on the types of ICTs emerging adults use. Self-Disclosure Also unknown is whether different ICTs have unique implications for self-disclosure between first-year college students and their siblings. Siblings are unique recipients of self-disclosure given both their reciprocal (i.e., peer-like) and complementary (i.e., nurturing) characteristics (Hinde, 1979). During early adolescence, siblings disclose to one another about a variety of topics, and with greater frequency, than to parents or friends, in particular when the relationship is warm, trusting, and supportive (Howe, Aquan-Assee, Bukowski, Lehoux, & Rinaldi, 2001; Howe, Aquan-Assee, Bukowski, Rinaldi, & Lehoux, 2000). Although peers become increasingly important during emerging adulthood, siblings still disclose to one another often (Dolgin & Lindsay, 1999), especially to seek support and convey affection (Rocca, Martin, & Dunleavy, 2010). Also, it is important to note that they report being just as willing to disclose their risky behaviors to siblings as to peers (Aldeis & Afifi, 2013). Although little is known about the role of ICTs in facilitating self-disclosure between siblings, we expected that emerging adults who engaged in greater ICT use with their siblings would also report more voluntary disclosure to them, particularly given that some types of ICTs facilitate high levels of self-disclosure (e.g.,
566 Hertlein, 2012; Joinson, 2001). We believed this might differ by the topic of disclosure, however. Social domain theory (Smetana, 2006; Turiel, 2002) suggests that individuals interpret various realms of their social world differently and that although adolescents tend to consider some issues (especially prudential/risk-taking ones) to be legitimate topics of disclosure to parents, more personal issues are less likely to be viewed as important information to be shared (Smetana, Metzger, Gettman, & Campione-Barr, 2006). Because siblings often play both nurturing and peer-like roles, we were interested to see whether ICT use would differently predict sibling disclosure depending on the domain of the issues. In the present study we investigated siblings’ disclosure of topics falling within three domains central to social domain theory (Smetana, 2006; Turiel, 2002). First, we focused on prudential topics (potentially harmful behaviors) because risk-taking behaviors peak during the college years (Schulenberg & Zarrett, 2006), and siblings may serve as important sources of support or advice when these issues are discussed. We were also interested in whether disclosing about personal topics (private information not readily shared with others) might seem less important than disclosing about serious prudential topics given that the college years are characterized by increasing independence from the family (Tanner, 2006). Finally, we were interested in the disclosure of multifaceted issues that overlap between personal and prudential domains. As college students gain more autonomy, these issues should begin to shift from the prudential to personal domain as many of these issues become more age appropriate (e.g., sexual activity, alcohol). However, little research has examined exactly when during development these issues become more personal and thus become less legitimate topics of disclosure (Daddis & Smetana, 2005). By examining these topics among first-year college students we may gain a better understanding about how multifaceted issues function in comparison to personal and prudential topics of sibling disclosure after adolescence. Although we expected that ICT use would have different implications for each self-disclosure domain, we did not make any specific hypotheses.
Family Relations Sibling Constellation Variables The association between ICT use and sibling relationship positivity and self-disclosure may also depend on sibling constellation variables such as gender composition and birth order. Across the life span, females tend to value intimacy in their close relationships more than males (Maccoby, 1998), and they report greater communication, support, and warmth with their siblings (especially with sisters) than males (Buhrmester & Furman, 1990; Dolgin & Lindsay, 1999; Milevsky et al., 2005; Spitze & Trent, 2006). Females are also more likely to use ICTs to maintain long-distance family relationships than males (Boneva, Kraut, & Frolich, 2001) and by adulthood often serve as “kin keepers” of the family (Lee, Mancini, & Maxwell, 1990). In addition, during adolescence, younger siblings tend to be more invested in their sibling relationships than older siblings and are more likely to seek out their older siblings’ support than vice versa (Buhrmester & Furman, 1990). Because of the unique roles of gender and birth order in sibling processes, we were interested in their potential moderating role in associations between ICT use and relationship positivity and self-disclosure. The Present Study Given our limited understanding of sibling relationship maintenance during late adolescence and beyond, in this study we sought to identify different patterns of ICT use with older and younger siblings during adolescents’ initial transition to college. On the basis of theory, we expected to identify four unique groups: (a) a low-communication group, (b) a synchronous group, (c) an asynchronous group, and (c) a broader technological group who used a variety of ICTs. Because ICTs have unique implications for family relationships, we expected the groups to differ in their levels of sibling relationship positivity and three domains of self-disclosure. We also investigated whether these associations were moderated by sibling gender composition and birth order. Method Participants and Procedure. First-year college students were recruited through the authors’ departmental undergraduate data pool during the
Technology-Mediated Communication with Siblings 2012–2013 academic year. Students were invited via e-mail to participate in the present study for class credit if they were the first- or second-born child in their family and had a biological secondor first-born sibling. Of 727 students contacted, 260 agreed to participate (35.76%). (Invited students may have already participated in other studies at the time of recruitment, resulting in our lower response rate.) Of those who agreed to participate, students were included in the present study if they had complete data for our communication methods measure, resulting in a final sample size of 250. Those dropped from the analyses did not differ significantly from the retained participants on demographic or study variables. Our final sample included 135 first-born and 115 second-born students (96 males, 154 females) averaging 18.49 years of age (SD = 0.94). Participants were members of the following first-born/second-born sibling gender compositions: brother/brother (n = 45), sister/sister (n = 77), brother/sister (n = 59), sister/brother (n = 69). Younger siblings of first-born participants averaged 15.59 years of age (SD = 1.74), and older siblings of second-borns averaged 21.73 years (SD = 2.25). Most participants reported living more than 30 minutes from their sibling during the school year (84.4%). Most reported White ethnicity (87.6%; 6.0% reported Black/African American, 2.8% reported Asian/Pacific Islander, 2.4% reported Hispanic, and 1.2% reported “Other” or “Not reported”), and median annual parental income was $85,000–$99,999 (14.8%). Most students reported that their biological parents were married (72.8%; 18.0% said their parents were divorced, and 9.2% said they had a single [widowed, never married] parent). Participants were sent an individualized link to an online questionnaire that was completed at their convenience. Respondents gave their consent and answered demographic questions and items about several aspects of close relationships, such as communication methods, relationship positivity, and self-disclosure. Measures Communication Methods. Participants rated how frequently they used eight methods to communicate with their sibling: (a) looking at their Facebook page and/or their updates on Facebook or Twitter; (b) posting to their wall
567 or timeline on Facebook; (c) sending a private message or chatting on Facebook; (d) e-mail; (e) texting; (f) making phone calls via a cell phone or a land line telephone; (g) video chat (e.g., Skype); and (h) talking face to face (in person). Participants reported whether they communicated via each of these methods less often than once a month (coded as 1), every couple of weeks to monthly (2), weekly (3), every 1–2 days (4), or multiple times per day (5). First-born participants reported about their communication with their second-born sibling; second-borns reported about their first-born sibling (as with all study measures; Cronbach’s 𝛼 = .79). Relationship Positivity. We used the Network of Relationships Inventory (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985), a well-validated measure (Adams & Laursen, 2007), to assess participants’ perceptions of positivity (24 items on the following subscales: Affection, Companionship, Instrumental Help, Intimacy, Nurturance, Reliable Alliance, Support, and Admiration) within their sibling relationship. Participants rated the extent to which each item described their relationship on a scale that ranged from 1 (little or none) to 5 (the most). Sample items included “How much does your sibling like or love you?” and “How much do you turn to your sibling for support with personal problems?” A mean score of the items was used in analyses (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = .85). Self-disclosure. A 27-item scale adapted from previous work on parent–adolescent disclosure (Smetana et al., 2006; Smetana, Villalobos, Tasopoulos-Chan, Gettman, & Campione-Barr, 2009; Yau, Tasopoulos-Chan, & Smetana, 2009) assessed participants’ self-disclosure to their siblings across three social domains: (a) personal (12 items), (b) prudential (6 items), and (c) multifaceted (9 items). In previous work, items asked adolescents to rate their voluntary disclosure of each topic to their parents, but in the present study participants rated their frequency of voluntarily disclosing each topic to their sibling on a scale that ranged from 1 (never tell) to 5 (always tell). Items were updated to be applicable to college students (e.g., “Whether I join any clubs, groups or sports teams” instead of “Whether I go out for after school sports or clubs”). Sample items included “What I talk about on the phone” (personal domain);
568
Family Relations
“Whether I drink beer, wine, or other alcoholic drinks” (prudential domain), and “Whether I finish my homework or assignments” (multifaceted domain). Participants had the option of indicating that they had never done the activity mentioned in each item, and those responses were coded as missing values. Mean scores were calculated separately by domain (Cronbach 𝛼s: personal, .94; prudential, .86; multifaceted, .87). Because disclosure items were coded as missing if participants reported never doing a particular activity, there were some missing data (17%). For example, for the prudential item “whether I smoke cigarettes,” 72% of the sample reported never engaging in that behavior, and that response was therefore coded as missing for those participants. Because we were interested in investigating patterns of disclosure by domain rather than individual topics, we computed mean scores for each domain on the basis of items that participants actually reported doing. Results Describing Sibling Communication Methods We first conducted cluster analyses on students’ reports of the frequency with which they used each of the eight communication methods with their sibling to identify different patterns of ICT use, via a two-step method. The data were range standardized to retain the natural distribution of the variable scores (Milligan & Cooper, 1988). We conducted a hierarchical cluster analysis based on squared Euclidean distance using Ward’s method and, based on dendogram examination, interpretability, and cell size, we retained a four-cluster solution. We replicated this four-cluster solution through a k-means approach based on squared Euclidean distance, whereby 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations were run to identify the most stable solution (Steinley, 2008). A significant number of participants (81.6%) fell in the same group across both clustering methods, 𝜒 2 (9) = 443.08, p < .001, and the k-means results were used for the final analyses. As seen in Figure 1, the first group identified from the k-means analysis was a low communication group (n = 78), characterized by college students who reported low frequencies on all eight communication methods. A passive communication group (n = 71) included participants who reviewed their sibling’s Facebook
and Twitter pages frequently but used other methods less often. A synchronous communication group (n = 56) included participants who primarily used telephone calls, text messages, and in-person communication. Finally, a technological communication group (n = 45) included those who used all technology-based communication methods frequently but rarely communicated in-person. Eight one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) followed by Tukey comparisons indicated significant differences in the communication method frequencies across the four clusters. See Figure 1 for significant differences. Demographic Characteristics of Communication Groups Low Communicators. The low communication group included a relatively equal distribution of males (n = 40) and females (n = 38), as indicated by a nonsignificant binomial test (p = .91, two-tailed), as well as an equal distribution of those with a brother (n = 41) versus a sister (n = 37, p = .73). The group included more first-borns (n = 48) than second-borns (n = 30, p = .05), and 11 (14.10%) in the group reported living within 30 minutes of their sibling. Passive Communicators. The passive communication group included more females (n = 51) than males (n = 20, p < .01), but members were equally likely to have a brother (n = 38) or a sister (n = 33, p = .64). There were similar numbers of first-borns (n = 38) and second-borns (n = 33, p = .64) in the group, and five (7.04%) lived within 30 minutes of their sibling. Synchronous Communicators. The synchronous communication group included more females (n = 37) than males (n = 19, p = .02), although there was a similar distribution of those with a sister (n = 31) versus a brother (n = 25, p = .50). There were similar numbers of first-borns (n = 24) and second-borns (n = 32, p = .35), and 16 (28.57%) lived within 30 minutes of their sibling. Technological Communicators. The technological communication group included a relatively equal distribution of females (n = 28) and males (n = 17, p = .14), as well as those with a sister (n = 27) versus a brother (n = 18, p = .23). There were relatively equal numbers of first-borns
Technology-Mediated Communication with Siblings
569
FIGURE 1. Four-Cluster Solution of Sibling Communication Patterns.
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 FB/Twitter Look
FB Post
FB Chat
E-mail
Text
Call
Skype
In-Person
Low Communicators
Passive Communicators
Synchronous Communicators
Technological Communicators
Note.Values are range standardized. One-way analyses of variance with Tukey post hoc comparisons examined differences in each communication method by group membership. FB/Twitter Look: all groups were significantly different (ps < .05). FB Post, FB Chat, E-mail, and Skype: Low < (Passive = Synchronous) < Technological (ps < .05). Text and Call: Low < Passive < (Synchronous = Technological, ps < .05). In-Person: (Low = Passive = Technological) < Synchronous (ps < .05). FB = Facebook.
(n = 25) and second-borns (n = 20, p = .55), and five (11.11%) lived within 30 minutes of their sibling. Demographic Differences Between Groups. Chi-square analyses indicated that the groups did not significantly differ in their makeup of first- or second-borns, 𝜒 2 (3) = 4.63, p = .20, or members with brothers or sisters, 𝜒 2 (3) = 4.63, p = .41. In terms of gender, 𝜒 2 (3) = 9.10, p = .03, however, the low communication group included more males than the other three groups, and the passive communication group included more females than the other three groups. Finally, members of the synchronous communication group were more likely to live within 30 minutes of their sibling than members of the other three groups, 𝜒 2 (3) = 12.22, p = .01. In terms of ethnicity, parent marital status, total number of children in one’s family, and parental income, all groups followed distribution patterns similar to those of the overall sample. Associations Between Cluster Membership and Relationship Variables We used four 2 (Sex) × 2 (Sibling Sex) × 2 (Birth Order) × 4 (Cluster) between-subjects ANOVAs
to examine differences in relationship positivity and the three disclosure domains (personal, prudential, multifaceted) as a function of communication cluster membership and sibling constellation variables. Participant age, sibling age spacing, and geographic distance from sibling (in town vs. not) were controlled. For parsimony, main effects and lower order interactions are described in the text only when they are not subsumed under a significant higher order interaction and, given the large number of post hoc examinations, we corrected for Type I error using the Bonferroni method. Partial 𝜂 2 and Cohen’s d (J. Cohen, 1988) are provided as measures of effect size. Means of relationship variables by sibling gender constellation and cluster membership, and significant differences, can be found in Tables 1 and 2. Table 3 includes correlations between the positivity and self-disclosure variables. Positivity. The ANOVA examining differences in positivity revealed a main effect of cluster membership, F(3, 213) = 17.47, p < .01, 𝜂 2 = .20. Follow-up comparisons indicated that low communicators reported less positivity in their sibling relationship than those in all other communication groups (ds = 0.66–1.57).
570
Family Relations
Table 1. Means (and Standard Deviations, in Parentheses) of Sibling Positivity and Self-Disclosure by Birth Order, Sex, and Sibling Sex Variable
n
Positivity
Personal Disclosure
Prudential Disclosure
Multifaceted Disclosure
Overall Males With brother With sister Females With brother With sister With brother With sister
250 96 45 51 154 77 77 122 128
3.32 (0.73) 3.23 (0.72) 3.41 (0.66) 3.08 (0.74) 3.38 (0.74) 3.17 (0.65) 3.59 (0.77) 3.26 (0.66) 3.38 (0.80)
2.53 (0.94) 2.25 (0.87)a 2.53 (0.91) 2.00 (0.75) 2.70 (0.94)b 2.38 (0.84) 3.01 (0.93) 2.43 (0.87) 2.61 (0.99)
2.65 (1.14) 2.40 (1.05)a 2.78 (1.04) 2.05 (0.94) 2.80 (1.17)b 2.56 (1.16) 3.05 (1.14) 2.64 (1.12) 2.65 (1.17)
2.53 (0.94) 2.20 (0.77)a 2.42 (0.78) 2.01 (0.73) 2.73 (.98)b 2.47 (0.89) 2.99 (1.00) 2.45 (0.85) 2.60 (1.02)
First-borns Males With brother With sister Females With brother With sister With brother With sister
135 50 24 26 85 44 41 68 67
3.31 (0.74) 3.14 (0.74) 3.38 (0.67) 2.91 (0.74) 3.41 (0.72) 3.15 (0.62) 3.69 (0.73) 3.23 (0.64) 3.39 (0.82)
2.51 (0.93) 2.19 (0.92) 2.56 (1.00) 1.84 (0.68) 2.70 (0.89) 2.28 (0.74) 3.14 (0.81) 2.38 (0.85) 2.65 (0.99)
2.52 (1.12) 2.26 (1.03) 2.76 (1.04) 1.78 (0.79) 2.67 (1.14) 2.28 (1.02) 3.07 (1.13) 2.45 (1.05) 2.58 (1.19)
2.50 (0.95) 2.07 (0.78) 2.42 (0.82) 1.74 (0.57) 2.74 (0.95) 2.39 (0.85) 3.12 (0.93) 2.40 (0.83) 2.59 (1.05)
Second-borns Males With brother With sister Females With brother With sister With brother With sister
115 46 21 25 69 33 36 54 61
3.34 (0.73) 3.33 (0.69) 3.43 (0.65) 3.25 (0.72) 3.34 (0.77) 3.19 (0.70) 3.48 (0.80) 3.29 (0.69) 3.38 (0.77)
2.54 (0.95) 2.31 (0.82) 2.50 (0.81) 2.16 (0.80) 2.69 (1.01) 2.50 (0.96) 2.86 (1.04) 2.50 (0.90) 2.57 (1.00)
2.80 (1.16) 2.54 (1.06) 2.81 (1.08) 2.32 (1.02) 2.97 (1.20) 2.91 (1.25) 3.02 (1.16) 2.87 (1.17) 2.73 (1.15)
2.56 (0.93) 2.35 (0.75) 2.42 (0.74) 2.28 (0.77) 2.71 (1.02) 2.57 (0.96) 2.84 (1.07) 2.51 (0.87) 2.61 (0.99)
Note. Means with different subscripts within columns indicate significant differences in positivity or disclosure based on main effects of sex (p < .05). An additional main effect of birth order for prudential disclosure was marginal (p = .06).
Furthermore, passive communicators reported less positivity than technological communicators (d = 1.02). Synchronous communicators did not differ in positivity from passive or technological communicators. Personal Disclosure. The ANOVA examining differences in personal disclosure revealed a main effect of the covariate, age spacing, such that the closer siblings were in age the more participants reported disclosing about personal issues, F(1, 211) = 3.97, p = .05, 𝜂 2 = .02. There was also a main effect of the covariate, distance, F(1, 211) = 4.91, p = .03, 𝜂 2 = .02, such that those who did not live in town with their sibling (M = 2.55, SD = 0.90) disclosed about personal issues more than those who did (M = 2.45, SD = 1.10, d = 0.11). A main effect of sex was
qualified by a significant Sex × Sibling interaction, F(1, 211) = 4.11, p = .04. Our t tests indicated that females disclosed to sisters more than to brothers (d = 0.72); males disclosed to brothers more than to sisters (d = 0.64); females disclosed to sisters more than males disclosed to brothers (d = 0.52); and, when disclosing to sisters, females disclosed more than males (d = 1.17). A main effect of cluster membership was qualified by a significant Birth Order × Cluster interaction, F(3, 211) = 3.18, p = .03, 𝜂 2 = .04, where post hoc t tests suggested that for both first-borns and second-borns low communicators disclosed to their siblings about personal issues significantly less than both synchronous and technological communicators (ds = 1.24–2.24), but similarly to passive
Technology-Mediated Communication with Siblings
571
Table 2. Means (and Standard Deviationss, in Parentheses) of Sibling Positivity and Self-Disclosure by Cluster Membership
Variables Positivity Sex Male Female Sibling Brother Sister Birth order First-born Second-born Personal disclosure Sex Male Female Sibling Brother Sister Birth order First-born Second-born Prudential disclosure Sex Male Female Sibling Brother Sister Birth order First-born Second-born Multifaceted disclosure Sex Male Female Sibling Brother Sister Birth order First-born Second-born
Low Communicators (n = 78)
Passive Communicators (n = 71)
Synchronous Communicators (n = 56)
Technological Communicators (n = 45)
2.85 (0.72)a
3.29 (0.61)b
3.56 (0.62)b,c
3.88 (0.53)c,d
2.92 (0.70) 2.78 (0.77)
3.15 (0.67) 3.35 (0.58)
3.56 (0.61) 3.56 (0.63)
3.72 (0.57) 3.98 (0.49)
2.96 (0.69 )a 2.73 (0.77)a
3.24 (0.59)a,b 3.35 (0.64)b
3.39 (0.55)a,b 3.70 (0.65)b,c
3.75 (0.60)b,c 3.97 (0.47)c,d
2.88 (0.70) 2.80 (0.78)
3.27 (0.57) 3.32 (0.67)
3.46 (0.64) 3.64 (0.60)
4.03 (0.55) 3.69 (0.45)
1.86 (0.70)a
2.38 (0.78)b
2.99 (0.83)c
3.30 (0.77)c
1.81 (0.70) 1.91 (0.71)
2.06 (0.68) 2.51 (0.78)
2.60 (0.80) 3.19 (0.79)
3.10 (0.76) 3.42 (0.76)
1.93 (0.75) 1.79 (0.64)
2.30 (0.77) 2.48 (0.78)
2.72 (0.70) 3.21 (0.88)
3.44 (0.48) 3.20 (0.91)
1.93 (0.68)a 1.76 (0.73)a
2.38 (0.77)a,b 2.39 (0.79)a,b,d
2.88 (0.91)b,c 3.07 (0.78)c
3.44 (0.66)c 3.11 (0.87)c,d
3.18∗
2.00 (0.95)a
2.55 (1.02)b
2.95 (01.14)b
3.52 (0.93)c
13.45∗∗∗
2.03 (0.96)a 1.97 (0.95)a
2.01 (0.79)a,1 2.76 (1.03)b,2
2.71 (1.07)a,b 3.08 (1.17)b,c
3.34 (0.84)b 3.62 (0.98)c
2.77∗
2.09 (1.06) 1.91 (0.81)
2.60 (0.95) 2.49 (1.11)
2.82 (1.10) 3.06 (1.18)
3.70 (0.79) 3.39 (1.01)
2.02 (0.89)a 1.98 (1.05)a
2.49 (1.03)a 2.62 (1.03)a,c
2.34 (1.11)a,1 3.41 (0.95)b,c,2
3.65 (0.86)b 3.35 (1.02)b,c
4.01∗∗
1.94 (0.75)a
2.43 (0.82)b
2.91 (0.91)c
3.15 (0.78)c
13.16∗∗∗
1.92 (0.65)a 1.96 (0.84)a
1.94 (0.65)a,1 2.62 (0.80)a,b,2
2.50 (0.83)a,c,1 3.12 (0.89)b,c,2
2.85 (0.65)b,c 3.33 (0.81)a,b
2.74∗
1.95 (0.84)a 1.93 (0.63)a
2.44 (0.71)a 2.41 (0.93)a,b
2.59 (0.65) a,c,1 3.16 (1.02)b,2
3.24 (0.38)b,c 3.09 (0.96)b
2.82∗
1.95 (0.66)a 1.92 (0.87)a
2.40 (0.87)a,b 2.47 (0.77)a,b
2.78 (1.06)b,c 3.01 (0.78)b
3.28 (0.60)c 2.98 (0.95)b
2.84∗
F 28.36∗∗∗
2.96∗
26.09∗∗∗
Note. Means with different alphabetical subscripts across rows indicate significant differences. Means with different numerical subscripts within columns indicate significant different within cluster. Bonferroni corrections were used for all analyses. ∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.
572
Family Relations siblings about prudential issues than first-born siblings (d = 1.05).
Table 3. Correlations Between Constellation Variables, Relationship Positivity, and Self-Disclosure Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ordera
1. Birth — −.03 — 2. Sexb .03 −.03 — 3. Sibling sexc 4. Positivity .02 .10 .09 — 5. Personal disclosure .01 .23∗∗ .10 .68∗∗ — 6. Prudential .12∗ .17∗∗ .01 .52∗∗.77∗∗ — disclosure 7. Multifaceted .04 .27∗∗ .08 .56∗∗.86∗∗.79∗∗— disclosure a 1 = first-born, c 1 = male,
2 = second-born. b 1 = male, 2 = female. 2 = female. ∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01.
communicators. For first-borns, technological communicators disclosed more than passive communicators (d = 1.45), and for second-borns synchronous communicators disclosed more than passive communicators (d = 0.87). Prudential Disclosure. In the ANOVA that examined prudential disclosure, significant main effects of sex and cluster membership were qualified by a Sex × Cluster interaction, F(3, 211) = 2.77, p < .05, 𝜂 2 = .04. Among both males and females, technological communicators disclosed about prudential issues significantly more than low and passive communicators (ds = 0.85–1.71). In addition, among females (but not males), both passive and synchronous communicators also disclosed significantly more than low communicators (ds = 0.79–1.04). Finally, among passive communicators, females disclosed significantly more than males (d = 0.79). A marginally significant main effect of birth order was qualified by a Birth Order × Cluster interaction, F(3, 211) = 4.01, p < .01, 𝜂 2 = .05. Among both first- and second-borns, technological communicators disclosed significantly more than low communicators (ds = 1.32–1.85). Among second-borns (but not first-borns), synchronous communicators also disclosed more than low communicators (d = 1.43); among first-borns (but not second-borns), technological communicators disclosed more than both passive and synchronous communicators (ds = 1.20–1.32). Finally, among synchronous communicators, second-born siblings were significantly more likely to disclose to their
Multifaceted Disclosure. In the ANOVA that examined multifaceted disclosure, there was a main effect of age spacing, such that the closer siblings were in age, the more frequent their disclosure, F(1, 212) = 5.06, p < .05, 𝜂 2 = .02. Main effects of sex and cluster membership were qualified by a significant Sex × Cluster interaction, F(3, 212) = 2.74, p < .05, 𝜂 2 = .04. First, among both males and females, low and passive communicators disclosed less than technological communicators (ds = 0.88–1.43). Among females (but not males), low communicators also disclosed less than synchronous communicators (d = 1.16). Finally, among passive communicators, females disclosed more than males (d = 0.92). A Sibling Sex × Cluster interaction, F(3, 212) = 2.82, p < .05, 𝜂 2 = .04, indicated that among emerging adults reporting about either brothers or sisters, technological communicators disclosed more than low communicators (d = 1.47). Synchronous communicators disclosed to sisters (but not brothers) more than low communicators (d = 1.48), and technological communicators disclosed to brothers (but not sisters) more than passive communicators (d = 1.28). Finally, a Birth Order × Cluster interaction, F(3, 212) = 2.84, p < .05, 𝜂 2 = .04, indicated that, among both first- and second-borns, synchronous and technological communicators disclosed more than low communicators (ds = 0.87–1.74). In addition, among first-borns (but not second-borns), technological communicators also disclosed significantly more than passive communicators (d = 1.14). Discussion Some siblings remain close throughout adulthood and old age while others become more apathetic, and it is possible that relationship maintenance behaviors that begin during emerging adulthood may set the stage for adult sibling relationships (Aquilino, 2006). For many, college marks the first time siblings live apart, making their interactions relatively voluntary for the first time in the life span and often necessitating the use of technology to communicate when in-person contact is impossible. In the present study, therefore, we examined patterns
Technology-Mediated Communication with Siblings of technology-mediated sibling communication during the first year of college and investigated whether these patterns had unique implications for relationship positivity and voluntary self-disclosure to siblings. Our data illustrated that ICTs are paramount in maintaining sibling relationships once at least one sibling has left the family home to begin college. Less than one quarter of our sample (22.8%) reported engaging in face-to-face communication with their siblings once per week or more and instead relied on technology-based methods. However, not all students used the same technologies to similar degrees, and four unique groups were identified: (a) low, (b) passive, (c) synchronous, and (d) technological communicators. We were not surprised to note that low communicators (those who communicated very little with their siblings) were the largest group. Across adolescence and emerging adulthood, sibling communication declines as individuals’ social networks continually shift away from the family (Tanner, 2006; White, 2001). However, in line with a social relations perspective (Collins & Laursen, 1992) that recognizes that “closed” relationships, such as those between siblings, are relatively stable across development, most of our sample reported communicating or at least keeping up with their siblings frequently in some way. Previous research suggests that both synchronous and asynchronous communication methods enhance family relationships, but our findings suggest that these methods have unique implications for sibling relationships during the transition to college, as would be expected within a sociotechnological framework (Lanigan, 2009). Emerging adults who used a wide range of both asynchronous and synchronous ICTs (technological communicators) and those who relied mainly on synchronous methods (including phone calls, texting, and talking in person) reported the most positive relationships. It is interesting to note that low communicators who interacted infrequently across all methods, as well as passive communicators who simply “kept up” with their siblings via social networking websites, reported the least positivity. Emerging adults engaged in these more passive forms of sibling relationship maintenance without engaging in more active communication appear to gain a large portion of their knowledge about their siblings’ lives from relatively publicly available sources (i.e., Facebook,
573 Twitter). Although this group was quite large in our sample (28.4%), it may be a high-risk group. Some research suggests that excessive viewing of social networking websites is related to loneliness (Song et al., 2014) and other mental health problems (Reid & Weigle, 2014). Given that this group appears to have lower quality sibling relationships, it will be important for future work to examine whether these deficits in relationship quality extend to other close relationships, such as friendships, which could be indicative of broader issues related to general well-being and social functioning. In general, our findings suggest that using synchronous forms of communication, such as calling, texting, or talking in person (regardless of whether asynchronous forms are also used), is particularly useful for maintaining positive sibling relationships, in line with the idea that they create a “connected presence” (Christensen, 2009). Self-disclosure is important for wellfunctioning sibling relationships (Howe et al., 2001), and siblings’ disclosure about personal and multifaceted topics was relatively frequent among those who used phones and in-person communication (i.e., synchronous communicators), as well as those who also used additional asynchronous methods such as e-mail and social networking websites (i.e., technological communicators). This suggests that those who frequently use synchronous ICTs (including those who may also use asynchronous ICTs) tend to be more willing to tell intimate information to their siblings. It is interesting, however, that first-born synchronous communicators were no more likely to disclose about prudential issues than passive communicators, and only those who used a wide range of ICTs (technological communicators) disclosed frequently about prudential topics. First-born siblings are typically less invested in their sibling relationships than younger siblings (Buhrmester & Furman, 1990). Thus, first-borns who use many types of ICTs may be uniquely invested in their sibling relationships compared to the typical pattern of first-borns’ sibling relationships. This is in line with media multiplexity theory (Haythornthwaite, 2005), which suggests that individuals with especially strong relational ties should be more inclined to use a broader variety of ICTs to communicate. As a result of their potentially larger investment in their sibling relationships, this particular
574 group of first-borns may feel more comfortable discussing risky issues with their siblings than most. Future work is needed to understand the context of these first-borns’ discussions of risky behaviors with their siblings—for example, whether the disclosure intended to serve as guidance to their younger siblings or whether they may be seeking support for themselves (perhaps because of a lack of other sources of social support; Milevsky, 2005). Overall, however, the second-borns in our sample (in particular those who relied mostly on phone and in-person communication) were significantly more likely to engage in prudential disclosure than first-borns, likely as a way to seek out older siblings for guidance regarding these issues. This may be particularly beneficial given the protective nature of warm relationships with older siblings against externalizing problems (Branje, van Lieshout, van Aken, & Haselager, 2004). Previous research indicates that parents are more legitimate recipients of disclosures about prudential topics than others (e.g., personal, multifaceted; Smetana et al., 2006). Thus, it may be that, given older siblings’ nurturing role, younger siblings feel similarly inclined to disclose these topics to them. Our findings suggest that synchronous forms of ICTs may be especially helpful in soliciting advice and support from older siblings regarding younger siblings’ risk-taking behaviors. The present study also contributes to our understanding of gender differences within sibling relationships. A larger percentage of our male participants (41.7%) were classified as low communicators compared to females (24.7%), whereas more females (33.1%) were classified as passive communicators compared to males (20.8%). Thus, when considering those emerging adults who rarely engage in active communication with their siblings, females still maintain their sibling ties more than males by at least keeping up with their siblings via social networking websites. This finding is in line with previous work suggesting that, across development, females maintain more intimacy with their siblings and are more likely to facilitate the continuation of adult family ties than are males (e.g., Buhrmester & Furman, 1990; Lee et al., 1990). During adolescence, sisters tend to report the warmest relationships of all sibling dyad gender compositions (Buhrmester & Furman, 1990). In the present study, however, males
Family Relations and females reported similar levels of relationship positivity. This is consistent with Whiteman et al.’s (2011) finding that boys’ (but not girls’) sibling relationships showed considerable improvement across the transition to college; therefore, boys and girls may reach similar levels of positivity by the beginning of college. In terms of self-disclosure, however, across all three domains females reported disclosing more frequently than males, in contrast to findings during early adolescence that suggest no gender differences in disclosure frequency (Howe et al., 2000, 2001). Self-disclosure is important for maintaining relationship intimacy, and given that adult females tend to be interested in keeping up with their siblings for discretionary rather than obligatory reasons (Lee et al., 1990), our findings suggest that such discretionary maintenance behaviors may be evident as early as the first year of college. Limitations, Conclusions, and Implications Although the present study advances our understanding of sibling relationship maintenance during the initial transition to college, several limitations remain. First, the present study relied on data from only one member of each sibling dyad, providing an incomplete picture of these relationships. Second, our data are correlational and do not speak to whether the use of certain types of ICTs promote certain relationship qualities or whether the reverse is true. Although Hertlein’s (2012) theoretical framework suggests that technology provides individuals with additional avenues to engage in the same types of relationship processes, she also acknowledged that technology may change the way that relationships are interpreted and maintained. A critical area for future work will be to determine whether ICT use is a function of the existing quality of sibling relationships, whether technology has a causal role in shaping these relationships, or whether bidirectional forces are in play. On a related note, future work would also benefit from an examination of the quality of these sibling relationships during adolescence to assess whether siblings’ technology-mediated communication patterns and relationship qualities after leaving home reflect the previous state of the relationship or whether they are suggestive of improvements that may have occurred after beginning college (e.g., Whiteman et al., 2011).
Technology-Mediated Communication with Siblings Our study is also limited in its ability to fully explain the content and quality of siblings’ conversations via each communication method. Although sibling conflict declines significantly during the transition to emerging adulthood (Whiteman et al., 2011), siblings may still have negative interactions on occasion. More in-depth examinations, perhaps using daily diary methods to capture the length and content of ICT-mediated conversations, as well as assessing siblings’ familiarity and comfort using various types of ICTs (e.g., Kaba & Osei-Bryson, 2012; Lewis, Coursol, & Kahn, 2001), are needed to fully understand the context of sibling ICT use. Finally, although college students comprise one group of emerging adults who are particularly likely to require the use of ICTs for maintaining their familial relationships, our findings may not generalize to the majority of emerging adults who are not enrolled in college. Although individual differences are likely more indicative of developmental variability than college enrollment status (P. Cohen, Kasen, Chen, Hartmark, & Gordon, 2003), it will be important for future work to examine how individuals who do not attend 4-year colleges, such as those engaged in the workforce, the military, vocational training programs, or community colleges, maintain contact with their siblings (Conger & Little, 2010). In addition, although we examined a key period of development—individuals’ initial entry into college—it will be important to determine whether communication group membership is stable across college, and whether sibling self-disclosure continues to remain salient despite the increasing importance of peers, as well as the long-term implications of actively maintaining relationships with siblings during emerging adulthood (i.e., for individual well-being, relationship satisfaction, social support). The present study advances our understanding of the maintenance of sibling relationships during emerging adulthood, which may have important long-term implications for these relationships into adulthood as well as for individual well-being (Cicirelli, 1995). First-year college students communicate with their siblings using many different ICTs, but synchronous communication (i.e., texting, talking on the phone) appears to be associated with particularly positive and self-disclosive relationships, especially for the disclosure of risky behaviors such as drug
575 and alcohol use. Older siblings are especially important sources of knowledge and advice for their younger siblings, and they may play an important compensatory role during emerging adulthood when other sources of social support are scarce (Milevsky, 2005). Unfortunately, siblings have often been neglected in therapeutic settings as salient sources of intervention and support (Feinberg et al., 2013). Our findings suggest that parents, as well as clinicians and university officials who work closely with early college students, should consider conveying the importance of maintaining frequent communication with siblings. In particular, these important adult figures should be vigilant if they recognize emerging adults engaging in low levels or only passive forms of sibling communication, as this may be indicative of underlying problems within these relationships or for individual well-being, in particular if these troubling patterns are also present in other close relationships (i.e., friendships). Parents and therapists should also convey the importance of communicating through more intimate synchronous methods, including talking on the phone and texting, as potentially valuable mechanisms for ensuring not only the long-term functioning of sibling relationships but also healthy individual adjustment. Note This research was supported by a Faculty Research Incentive Award from the University of Missouri–Columbia Arts and Sciences Alumni Organization awarded to Nicole Campione-Barr. Portions of this research were presented at the 2014 Society for Research on Adolescence Biennial Meeting in Austin, TX. We express appreciation to several undergraduate research assistants for their help with data collection. References Adams, R. E., & Laursen, B. (2007). The correlates of conflict: Disagreement is not necessarily detrimental. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 445–458. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.445 Aldeis, D., & Afifi, T. D. (2013). College students’ willingness to reveal risky behaviors: The influence of relationship and message type. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 92–113. doi:10.1080/15267431.2013.768246 Aquilino, W. S. (2006). Family relationships and support systems in emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett
576 & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 193– 217). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y., Kunkel, A., Ledbetter, A., & Lin, M. (2007). Relational quality and media use in interpersonal relationship. New Media & Society, 9, 735–752. doi:10.1177/1461444807080339 Boneva, B., Kraut, R., & Frohlich, D. (2001). Using e-mail for personal relationships: The difference gender makes. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 530–549. doi:10.1177/00027640121957204 Branje, S. J. T., van Lieshout, C. F. M., van Aken, M. A. G., & Haselager, G. J. T. (2004). Perceived support in sibling relationships and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1385–1396. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00332.x Buhrmester, D. (1992). The developmental courses of sibling and peer relationships. In F. Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.), Children’s sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 19–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1990). Perceptions of sibling relationships during middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1387–1398. doi:10.2307/1130750 Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7, 331–338. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.331 Chen, Y., & Katz, J. E. (2009). Extending family to school life: College students’ use of the mobile phone. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 67, 179–191. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.09.002 Christensen, T. (2009). “Connected presence” in distributed family life. New Media & Society, 11, 433–451. doi:10.1177/1461444808101620 Cicirelli, V.G. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. New York: Plenum Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, P., Kasen, S., Chen, H., Hartmark, C., & Gordon, K. (2003). Variations in patterns of developmental transmissions in the emerging adulthood period. Developmental Psychology, 39, 657–669. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.4.657 Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (1992). Conflict and the transition to adolescence. In C. U. Shantz & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent development (pp. 216–241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Conger, K. J., & Little, W. M. (2010). Sibling relationships during the transition to adulthood. Child Development Perspectives, 4, 87–94. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00123.x Connidis, I. A. (1992). Life transitions and the adult sibling tie: A qualitative study. Journal
Family Relations of Marriage and the Family, 54, 972–982. doi:10.2307/353176 Daddis, C., & Smetana, J. (2005). Middle-class African American families’ expectations for adolescents’ behavioural autonomy. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 371–381. doi:10.1080/01650250500167053 Dolgin, K., & Lindsay, K. (1999). Disclosure between college students and their siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 393–400. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.393 Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Feinberg, M. E., Solmeyer, A. R., Hostetler, M. L., Sakuma, K., Jones, D., & McHale, S. M. (2013). Siblings are special: Initial test of a new approach for preventing youth behavior problems. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, 166–173. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.10.004 Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016–1024. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1016 Goby, V. (2011). Psychological underpinnings of intrafamilial computer-mediated communication: A preliminary exploration of CMC uptake with parents and siblings. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 365–370. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0289 Gold, D. T. (1989). Sibling relationships in old age: A typology. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 28, 37–51. doi:10.2190/ VGYX-BRHN-J51V-0V39 Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication & Society, 8, 125–147. doi:10.1080/13691180500146185 Hertlein, K. M. (2012). Digital dwelling: Technology in couple and family relationships. Family Relations, 61, 374–387. doi:10.1111/ j.1741-3729.2012.00702.x Hinde, R. A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships. New York: Academic Press. Howe, N., Aquan-Assee, J., Bukowski, W. M., Lehoux, P. M., & Rinaldi, C. M. (2001). Siblings as confidants: Emotional understanding, relationship warmth, and sibling self-disclosure. Social Development, 10, 439–454. doi:10.1111/14679507.00174 Howe, N., Aquan-Assee, J., Bukowski, W. M., Rinaldi, C. M., & Lehoux, P. M. (2000). Sibling self-disclosure in early adolescence. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 46, 653–671. Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177–192. doi:10.1002/ejsp. 36
Technology-Mediated Communication with Siblings Kaba, B., & Osei-Bryson, K. (2012). An empirical investigation of external factors influencing mobile technology use in Canada: A preliminary study. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 8, 1–14. doi:10.4018/jthi.2012040101 Kowal, A. K., Krull, J. L., & Kramer, L. (2006). Shared understanding of parental differential treatment in families. Social Development, 15, 276–295. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006.00341.x Lanigan, J. D. (2009). A sociotechnological model for family research and intervention: How information and communication technologies affect family life. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 587–609. doi:10.1080/01494920903224194 Lee, T. R., Mancini, J. A., & Maxwell, J. W. (1990). Sibling relationships in adulthood: Contact patterns and motivations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 431–440. doi:10.2307/353037 Lewis, J., Coursol, D., & Khan, L. (2001). College
[email protected]: A study of comfort and the use of technology. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 625–631. Lindell, A. K., Campione-Barr, N., & Greer, K. B. (2014). Associations between adolescent sibling conflict and relationship quality during the transition to college. Emerging Adulthood, 2, 79–91. doi:10.1177/2167696813502778 Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. McGuire, S., McHale, S. M., & Updegraff, K. (1996). Children’s perceptions of the sibling relationship in middle childhood: Connections within and between family relationships. Personal Relationships, 3, 229–239. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00114.x McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (1996). The family contexts of children’s sibling relationships. In G. Brody (Ed.), Sibling relationships: Their causes and consequences (pp. 173–195). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 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, 743–755. doi:10.1177/0265407505056447 Milevsky, A., Smoot, K., Leh, M., & Ruppe, A. (2005). Familial and contextual variables and the nature of sibling relationships in emerging adulthood. Marriage & Family Review, 37, 123–141. doi:10.1300/J002v37n04_07 Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1988). A study of standardization of variables in cluster analysis. Journal of Classification, 5, 181–204. doi:10.1007/BF01897163 Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., & Fraser, A. M. (2012). Getting a high-speed family connection: Associations between family media use and
577 family connection. Family Relations, 61, 426–440. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00710.x Padilla-Walker, L. M., Nelson, L. J., Carroll, J. S., & Jensen, A. C. (2010). More than just a game: Video game and internet use during emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 103–113. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9390-8 Rabby, M. K., & Walther, J. B. (2003). Computermediated communication effects on relationship formation and maintenance. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 141–162). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Räsänen, P. (2008). The aftermath of the ICT revolution? Media and communication technology preferences in Finland in 1999 and 2004. New Media & Society, 10, 225–245. doi:10.1177/1461444807086471 Reid, D., & Weigle, P. (2014). Social media use among adolescents: Benefits and risks. Adolescent Psychiatry, 4, 73–80. doi:10.2174/22106766040 2140709115810 Rocca, K., Martin, M., & Dunleavy, K. (2010). Siblings’ motives for talking to each other. Journal of Psychology, 144, 205–219. doi:10.1080/0022 3980903356099 Scharf, M., Shulman, S., & Avigad-Spitz, L. (2005). Sibling relationships in emerging adulthood and in adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 64–90. doi:10.1177/0743558404271133 Schulenberg, J. E., & Zarrett, N. R. (2006). Mental health during emerging adulthood: Continuity and discontinuity in courses, causes and functions. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 135–172). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Searcy, E., & Eisenberg, N. (1992). Defensiveness in response to aid from a sibling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 422–433. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.422 Smetana, J. G. (2006). Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children’s moral and social judgments. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 119–154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Smetana, J. G., Metzger, A., Gettman, D. C., & Campione-Barr, N. (2006). Disclosure and secrecy in adolescent–parent relationships. Child Development, 77, 201–217. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624. 2006.00865.x Smetana, J. G., Villalobos, M., Tasopoulos-Chan, M., Gettman, D. C., & Campione-Barr, N. (2009). Early and middle adolescents’ disclosure to parents about activities in different domains. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 693–713. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.010
578 Song, H., Zmyslinski-Seelig, A., Kim, J., Drent, A., Victor, A., Omori, K., & Allen, M. (2014). Does Facebook make you lonely? A meta analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 446–452. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.011 Spitze, G., & Trent, K. (2006). Gender differences in adult sibling relations in two-child families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 977–992. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00308.x Steinley, D. (2008). Stability analysis in K-means clustering. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 255–273. doi:10.1348/000711007X84849 Stocker, C. M., Lanthier, R. P., & Furman, W. (1997). Sibling relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 210–221. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.11.2.210 Suitor, J. J., Gilligan, M., & Pillemer, K. (2013). Continuity and change in mothers’ favoritism toward offspring in adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 1229–1247. Tanner, J. L. (2006). Recentering during emerging adulthood: A critical turning point in life span human development. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 21–55). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Turiel, E. (2002). The culture of morality: Social development, context, and conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Whiteman, S. D., Thayer, S. M., & Delgado, M. Y. (2005).
Family Relations Adolescent sibling relationships in Mexican American families: Exploring the role of familism. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 512–522. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.512 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Table 302.60: Enrollment rates of 18- to 24-year-olds in degree-granting institutions, by level of institution and sex and race/ethnicity of student: 1967 through 2012. In U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (Ed.), Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed. gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_302.60.asp White, L. (2001). Sibling relationships over the life course: A panel analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 555–568. doi:10.1111/j.17413737.2001.00555.x Whiteman, S. D., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2011). Family relationships from adolescence to early adulthood: Changes in the family system following firstborns’ leaving home. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 461–474. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00683.x Yau, J. P., Tasopoulos-Chan, M., & Smetana, J. G. (2009). Disclosure to parents about everyday activities among American adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 80, 1481–1498. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01346.x
