MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 1
Abstract
Research dealing with siblingship is relatively new and has expanded during the past decade. Most siblingship research deals with mixed-gender siblings or does not relate to gender at all. This research is unique in that it focuses on gender-identical siblings – female siblingship versus male siblingship, and its relation to aspects of siblingship and family relations in adulthood.
Of the 156 participants in the study, 89 were women and 67 were men. The participants answered four self-reporting questionnaires: a demographic questionnaire; an emotional intelligence trait scale (Kirk, Schutte, & Hine, 2008), used to measure self-efficacy; Furman &
Buhrmester's (1985) Sibling Relationship Questionnaire; and Olson, Portner, and Lavee's (1985)
Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACE III). The research found that measures of conflict were high in the female-sibling cohort as compared to the male-sibling cohort. Cohesion was found to be higher in the male cohort as compared to the female. Other findings reveal that among firstborn siblings, the level of perception of conflict is higher than among middle siblings. Cohesion was found to be higher among families residing in cities as compared to families residing in other types of communities (kibbutz, moshav). In addition, persons with learning disabilities exhibit more warmth and closeness towards their siblings and also exhibit relatively higher status and power than persons without learning disabilities. MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 2
Male* versus Female** Siblingship
Are They Different Families?
Review of the Literature
Sibling Relationships
Siblings are an important part of family life, and most children are raised in households with at least one brother or sister (Dunn, 2007; McHale, Crouter, & Whiteman, 2003). This is the longest-lasting relationship that people experience during their lives and, rather than being acquired, is determined by birth and is impossible to annul (Spitze & Trent, 2006 ; Connidis,
2001; Berg-Cross,201 0; Gur-Bustanai, 2007). During childhood and adolescence this relationship usually involves intimate and daily interaction, as compared to adulthood, when contact becomes more distant (Berg-Cross,201 0; Gur-Bustanai, 2007). Siblings have influence on one another through their daily interactions because they act as models, advisors, partners, friends, and opponents. Siblings also impact one another indirectly through the level of influence they have on roles and dynamic relations within the complex structure of the family.
In addition, they provide one another opportunities and exposure to romantic and social experiences and activities (McHale et al., 2003). Sibling relationships are frequently egalitarian, even if power relations and differences in status exist because of age, knowledge, intelligence, social skills, socio-economic class, achievements, etc. (Gur-Bustanai, 2007; Berg-Cross,201 0).
Theoreticians and researchers agree that siblingship has a powerful impact on the development of an individual, both as a child and an adult (Gur-Bustanai, 2007; Furman &
Buhrmester, 1985; Cicirelli, 1995; Day, 2010; Dunn, 2007; Toman, 1993; McHale et al., 2003; MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 3
Yelland & Daley, 2009). In the past, research concerning siblingship focused on the contribution of birth order on cognitive, emotional, and social development of the individual. Later, researchers suggested relating to such structural variables as extensions of family processes; the focus then shifted to interpersonal relationships between siblings (Gur-Bustanai, 2007). Even though it is widely accepted that siblings have a powerful influence on one another, very little attention has been paid to gender development in this context. As support gathered for the influence of brothers and sisters on one another in general, researchers began to show more and more interest in the influence of siblings on the genders of one other, and therefore on the development of gender perceptions. In reality, many of the skills children learn from interaction between siblings may directly contribute to the development of gender behavior, roles, and attitudes (Day, 2010).
Studies point to the influence of like-sex siblings in gender development and forming identity. Rust, Golombok, Hines, Johnston, and Golding (2000) found that boys with older brothers and girls with older sisters were more sex-typed than singleton children, and singleton children were more sex-typed than children with siblings of the opposite sex. In addition, it was found that having an older brother is associated with more masculine behavior and less feminine behavior among both boys and girls, whereas boys with older sisters were more feminine but not less masculine and girls with older sisters were less masculine but not more feminine.
Wong, Branje, VanderValk, Hawk, and Meeus (2010) report that older siblings, especially if they are of the same sex, have substantial influence on the identity formation of their younger siblings during adolescence and emerging adulthood. In addition, the study provides support for identity processes and "modeling" between siblings.
Updegraff, McHale, and Crouter (2000) found that there are significant implications to MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 4 having like-sex or opposite-sex brothers or sisters on the experiences of young adolescents with their peer group, including choice of friends and the qualities of their friendships. In adolescent opposite-sex sibling dyads, girls learned control strategies from their older brothers and implemented them on their friends. It was also found that firstborn and second-born sisters were more intimate with their friends than were brothers.
Other studies point to the contribution of like-sex siblingship on the quality of relations between siblings, especially among women. Weaver, Coleman and Ganong's research (2003) emphasized that siblings, especially sisters, play a significant role in providing support during early adolescence. Eriksen and Grestel (2000) found that women, especially those with sisters, reported on frequent telephone contact with their siblings as compared to men or participants with no sisters. No gender differences were found regarding physical meetings. Riggio's (2000) study among students points to gender differences in sibling relationships. Women reported more on positive emotions and interaction with their siblings. Furthermore, the participants reported on more positive emotions and interactions with sisters than with brothers. Other studies found that women provided more help and emotional support to their siblings than men
(Eriksen & Grestel, 2002; White, 2001).
Measures of siblingship according to Furman and Buhrmester.
The present study will examine if there is a difference between feminine siblingship as compared to masculine siblingship during adulthood regarding four measures of relations according of Furman and Buhrmester's (1985) Sibling Relationship Questionnaire.
Warmth and closeness.
This quality is defined by Furman and Buhrmester (1985) as intimacy, sociability, partnership, resemblance, admiration, and affection. A study by Cole and Kerns (2001) MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 5 distinguished between brother dyads and sister dyads and found that brother dyads reported lower levels of positive relations (characterized by solicitude, intimacy, and conflict resolution).
Another study by Spitz and Trent (2006) tested the influence of emotional closeness, contact, and assistance among adult siblings in families with two children. It was found that gender is an important aspect influencing the nature of relations between adult siblings. Women reported more on a sense of closeness to siblings and the ability to get along with them well. The findings also show that siblings are central to adult life and most relationships between siblings involve frequent contact and positive feelings. This is supported by Van Volkom's (2006) study that shows that sisters provide more emotional support to one another than do brothers.
Status and power.
These aspects are defined by Furman and Buhrmester (1985) as the quality of care- giving, admiration, and power involved in their obligation, according to Buhrmester (1992), and experiences in complementary and mutual relations according to gender. They are connected to roles siblings take on or receive. For example, older sisters were ascribed as more able to take responsibility for teaching and the nurturing their younger siblings than an older brother
(Cicirelli, 1995). A study that examined the correlation between like-gender sibling dyads and displaying sibling roles and perceptions of closeness showed that sister dyads tended to report more on care-giving and formative roles they provide to one another as sisters (Weaver et al.,
2003). Voorpostel, Van Der Lippe, Dykstra, and Flap (2007) found a clear differentiation between sister dyads and opposite-gender dyads in helping with household tasks and in advising one another. Moreover, sisters supported one another more and reported on special bonds between them.
Rivalry. MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 6
Furman and Buhrmester (1985) define rivalry as competition and parental discrimination/favoritism. In a study that examined the various influences on relations between opposite-sex siblings among college students, it was found that according to their reports, rivalry between brothers reaches its peak during childhood and adolescence, and usually disappears during adulthood (Van Volkom, Machiz, & Reich, 2011). Yelland and Daley (2009) emphasize that sibling relationships include elements of rivalry and conflict. High levels of rivalry and conflict among siblings is found to be connected to negative findings including anxiety, depression, and a variety of behavioral problems. Rauer and Volling (2007) reported that differential parental affection has a negative effect both on the personal level and on the future romantic relationships of the siblings. No gender-related differences were found, though most of the research participants were women. In an earlier study conducted by Boll, Ferring, and Filipp
(2003), it was found that parental favoritism in a family was a predictor of deteriorated inter- sibling relations.
Conflict.
Conflict was defined by Furman and Buhrmester (1985) as competition (for resources, attention, appreciation, etc.), animosity, and rivalry that can be expressed by bullying, yelling, cursing, hitting, and the like. Stocker, Burwell, and Briggs (2002) studied the connection between sibling conflict and psychological adjustment during childhood and early adolescence.
Kim, McHale, Osgood, and Crouter (2006) examined changes in levels of intimacy and conflict between brothers during late childhood and early adolescence over four years. They discovered a stable relations pattern among like-sex siblings; in comparison, they discovered a U-shaped change pattern among opposite-sex siblings – relations were better at the beginning and end of the study, but deteriorated during early adolescence. Furthermore, they found that the highest MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 7 level of intimacy was found between sisters, and the level of conflict in relations among brothers lessens as they age. Another study, by Finzi-Dottan and Cohen (2011), examined the connection between sibling relations, parental favoritism, and personal narcissism. It found a high level of conflict between sisters; yet, women, in comparison to men, also reported warmth towards their siblings. Finzi-Dottan and Cohen noted that when women feel close to their sisters and brothers, their intense emotional involvement can indeed result in conflict situations.
In the next section we will review the second variable of our research: coherence and flexibility and their correlation to gender identity.
Cohesion and Adaptability in the Family
Olson (Olson, Sprenkel, & Russell, 1979; 1986; Olson, 2000) coined the terms cohesion and adaptability as they relate to family relationships. Cohesion measures how the family system balances separateness with togetherness. There are four levels of cohesion: disengaged
(very low), separated (low-balanced), connected (high-balanced), enmeshed (high). On the balanced levels (separated and connected), family members are able to experience both aspects of cohesion; that is, they can be independent but connected to the family. When the level of family cohesion is high, there is too much consensus and little independence for the individual.
At the disengagement level, family members are busy with their own lives and feel minimal obligation towards family members (Olson, 2000).
Flexibility is a measure of the openness or closeness of a system, moving on a continuum between rigid, structured, flexible, and chaotic (Olson, 2000). A relatively open family system is characterized by clear but flexible borderlines, and accepts feedback and criticism from the environment and processes it in keeping with its needs. A relatively closed family system is characterized by inflexible external borderlines and distortion of information introduced to it. It MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 8 is heavily dependent on the environs and especially heavily dependent on its members
(Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1988; Hoffman, 1988).
Recent studies dealing with the Circomplex Model and sibling relationships or siblingship were generally carried out on families in which a member had become ill (Houtzager et al., 2004), had a mental health problem (Barnett & Hunter, 2011), or another disability
(Mandleco, Frost Olsen, Dyches, & Marshall, 2003; Richardson, 2009). Almost no research has been carried out examining the correlation between the Circomplex Model and gender in siblingship. Gorbett and Kruczek (2008) found a positive correlation between the number of siblings and high family cohesion, and high social self-esteem. However, gender was not found in their study to be a significant predictor. Jin Yu and Gamble's (2007) study found that the family environment, including cohesion and expressing positive emotions, is significant in lowering aggression and suppressed problems in siblings. Moreover, the gender of the siblings was not found to be a significant predictor. In another study, by Hardy (2001), physical aggression and sexual behaviors between siblings was examined. Family cohesion and flexibility were not found to be predictors, though siblings who reported on high levels of aggression and sexual behaviors reported high levels of intrafamiliar stress.
The present research will for the first time examine the connection between sibling relations and perceptions of cohesion and flexibility in adult families characterized by masculine versus feminine sibling gender identity. In addition, we will examine the contribution of additional variables, such as emotional intelligence, learning disabilities, birth order, and place of residence.
The Sample
A total of 156 subjects participated in this study; 67 men (42.9%) and 89 women MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 9
(57.1%). The participants were randomly recruited through the internet. All participants were secular, their parents were married, and they ranged in the age from 18-35 years (M = 27.51, SD
= 3.987). All participated voluntary. The participants were divided into three cohorts: Cohort I
– male siblings, Cohort II – female siblings, Cohort III – mixed-gender siblings. Cohort I comprised 59 participants; Cohort II, 42; and Cohort III, 42. Table 1 describes the sample.
Table 1: Description of sample and frequencies (N=156)
In addition to the above, Table 1 shows that 38.5% of the sample lives in cities, slightly more than one quarter live in a moshav or kibbutz, and only 6.4% live in rural communities.
According to the table, close to 40% of the participants are middle children and over 30% are either firstborn or last-born. Most of the sample participants do not have learning disabilities, with participants with learning disabilities making up 26.3% of the total sample. The mean number of children in the families is 3.75 with a SD of 0.843.
Findings
Table 2: Single-Direction Differences between the Three Research Cohorts (N = 156)
Figure 1: Single-Direction Differences between the Three Research Cohorts (N = 156)
As can be seen from the data presented in Table 2 and the accompanying bar diagram, no significant differences between the three research cohorts were found in the means of the various variables, with the exception of conflict, which is the section of the questionnaire that tests sibling relationships. A Scheffe post-hoc test uncovered a difference between the male and female cohorts (F(2,155) = 4.449, p < .0); that is, in the female cohort the conflict variable was significantly higher than in the male cohort, but no significant differences were found between these two cohorts and the mixed-gender cohort. Accordingly, the table shows that the conflict variable accounts for most of the differential between the cohorts – 5.5% of the differentials can MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 10 be explained by this variable. Another variable that accounts for a relatively large percentage is warmth and closeness in sibling relations; it accounts for 2.2% of the differential between the research subjects.
In addition, the differences between men and women regarding each of the research variables was tested, using an independent t-sample test to find the differences between the gender cohorts. The findings are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Family/Siblingship Variables according to Gender
The results show that no significant differences were found between the research variables, with the exception of cohesion, for which a significant difference was found between women and men (t(154) = -2.629, p < .01). This suggests that men perceive more cohesion in their families of origin than do women.
Among women, a higher level of conflict was found, though not statistically significantly so in relation to that variable in the male cohort.
To examine differences between the birth-order cohorts – firstborn, middle child, last- born – a series of analyses of variance (single-direction ANOVA) for each of the research variables was conducted. The findings are presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Family/Siblingship Variables according to Birth Order (N=156)
The findings of the single-direction ANOVA analysis also show no significant differences between the cohorts regarding any of the research variables, with the exception of conflict (F(2,155) = 3.744, p < .05). Here the Scheffe post-hoc test found a significant difference only between firstborn and middle children, with firstborns indicating a significantly higher level of conflict in sibling relations than middle children. Moreover, no difference was found between these cohorts and the last-born cohort. Here as well, the conflict variable accounts for the higher MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 11 percentage of differences – 4.6%.
Moreover, differences between respondents with learning disabilities and those without learning disabilities were also tested for all of the variables. To find the differences between these cohorts an Independent Sample T test was conducted. The results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Family/Siblingship Variables according to Learning Disabilities (N = 156)
As reported in Table 5, significant differences exist between respondents with learning disabilities and those without non-learning disabilities regarding the warmth and closeness variable (t(154) = 2.307, p < .05), so that respondents with learning disabilities demonstrate more warmth and closeness towards their siblings than respondents without learning disabilities. The same holds true of the status and power variable (t(154) = 2.994, p < .01), with respondents with learning disabilities demonstrating a higher level of status and power towards their siblings than respondents without learning disabilities. It is interesting to note that the only variable to show the opposite relationship is conflict, in which respondents without learning disabilities reported a higher average of conflict than respondents with learning disabilities, though the difference was not statistically significant.
Moreover, differences between the various places-of-residence cohorts; that is, between cohorts residing in cities and in other types of communities, were tested for all the research variables. An Independent Sample T test was conducted to find the differences between these cohorts. The findings are presented in Table 6.
Table 6: Family/Siblingship Variables According to Place of Residence (N = 156)
As the table shows, the only variable for which a significant difference was found between the cohorts was cohesion (t(154) = 1.985, p < .05). For this variable, cohesion was higher among families residing in cities than for families residing in other types of communities. MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 12
No significant differences were found among the cohorts regarding other research variables.
A Pearson Correlation was conducted to find the degree of correlation between the various research variables in the male-sibling cohort. The results are presented in Table 7.
Table 7: Pearson Correlation Matrix between Research Variables in the Male-Sibling Cohort (n
= 156)
As shown in the table, there is a moderate but significant positive correlation between the status and power and the warmth and closeness variables (Pr = .496, p < .01); that is, the higher the level of status and power, the higher the level of warmth and closeness, and vice versa.
Likewise, a moderate but significant positive correlation was found between the cohesion and the closeness and warmth variables (Pr = .653, p < .01); that is, the higher the level of cohesion, the higher the level of warmth and closeness, and vice versa. Also, a moderate but significant positive correlation was found between the flexibility and the cohesion variables (Pr=.519, p < .
01); that is, the higher the level of flexibility, the higher the level of cohesion, and vice versa. In addition, a weak but significant positive correlation was found between the cohesion and the emotional intelligence variables (Pr = .275, p < .05); that is, the higher the level of emotional intelligence, the higher the level of cohesion, and vice versa.
Similarly, a Pearson Correlation was conducted to find the degree of correlation between the various research variables in the female-sibling cohort. The results are presented in Table 8.
Table 8: Pearson Correlation Matrix between Research Variables in the Female-Sibling Cohort
(n = 156)
As shown in the table, there is a weak but significant positive correlation between the conflict and the status and power variables; that is, the higher the level of conflict, the higher the level of status and power, and vice versa. Further, a moderate but significant positive correlation MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 13 was found between the closeness and warmth, status and power, and cohesion variables; that is, the higher the level of warmth and closeness, the higher the level of status and power and of cohesion, and vice versa. Other correlations were also found.
Moreover, a Pearson Correlation was conducted to find the degree of correlation between the various research variables in the mixed-gender sibling cohort. The results are presented in
Table 9.
Table 9: Pearson Correlation Matrix between Research Variables in the Mixed-Gender Sibling
Cohort (n=156)
A reading of the tables shows that there are higher perceptions of conflict in the female- sibling cohort and the mixed-gender cohort (which also includes females). There is a significant correlation between the conflict and the status and power variables; that is, the higher the perception of conflict, the higher the perception of status and power towards siblings in the female-sibling cohort and the mixed-gender cohort. In addition, the reverse is also true; the higher the perception of status and power, the higher the conflict between brothers.
Among the male sibling cohort and the mixed-gender cohort a significant correlation was found between the cohesion and the emotional intelligence variables, while in the female-sibling cohort there was no such correlation. That is, among the male-sibling cohort, the higher the perception of cohesion, the higher the emotional intelligence between the brothers.
In addition, a regression analysis of the research variables was carried out to ascertain the level of conflict among the families in the research.
Table 10: Regression Analysis of the Research Variables Predicting the Level of Conflict
(N=156) MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 14
The results in Table 10 show that it is possible to predict the level of cohesion among siblings according to four variables: cohesion, status and authority, age, and flexibility. In addition, the percentage of differential explained by the conflict variable is 22%. It is explained by the different variables in the table.
Discussion
Our study found that the level of conflict was higher in the female-sibling cohort relative to the male-sibling cohort. No such difference exists between women and men in general. This finding is similar to that of Finzi-Dottan and Cohen (2011), who reported a high degree of conflict among sisters.
A theoretic explanation for this can be found in the writings of Freud.
Freud (1916-1917) considered siblings important players in the development of the child because they represent rivals in the struggle for parental affection and attention. He claimed that siblings are primordial adversaries for the absolute love, in all its forms, of the parents, especially of the mother (Day, 2010; Finzi-Dottan & Cohen, 2011). In terms of gender, Freud (1962) emphasized the differences between boys and girls in sexual development during the phallic stage. Boys, during this stage, fear castration and becoming female. According to Freud, resolution of the Oedipus Complex and extrication from the phallic stage are more complex among girls than among boys. During their early childhood, girls are bound to their mothers; they consider their fathers competitors and reject them. Furthermore, when boys discover their penis during the phallic stage, the girls discover their clitoris, which is perceived to correspond with the penis.
Development of feminine identity and personality is largely influenced by the lack of a penis and women's consciousness that this puts them at a disadvantage. The path to development MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 15 of a girl's femininity is a difficult one, characterized by hostility towards the mother figure and women in general. This hostility stems from realizing that her mother is inferior because she lacks the male sex organ. Unlike men, women almost never become free of this hostility. Girls who turn their backs on their mothers generate envy directed on other people, on brothers and sisters, on rivals, as well as on their fathers (Malach-Pines, 2007; Freud, 2005).
Based on the writings of Freud, envy and jealousy are among the characteristics of women's identity and are already present at a young age. The girl desires to win the heart of the father and when she fails, she experiences frustration and jealousy. In addition, Freud explains that envy and jealousy are especially turned toward women in general, especially the mother.
We assume that when there are a number of girls in a family competition becomes stronger, with all the sisters competing to win the heart of the sole father, and an intense level of identity characteristics are manifested (Freud, 2005; Malach-Pines, 2007) This may explain the high level of conflict in families with female siblings, as we found in the present research.
Another finding relates to the difference in the cohesion variable between men and women. The level of cohesion was found to be higher among men. This difference was moderated when we examined this variable according to sibling cohorts; that is, male respondents from the mixed-gender cohort reported a higher level of cohesion relative to the men in the male-sibling cohort. We believe that sibling gender structure contributes to the perception of cohesion in the family. Spitze and Trent (2006) emphasized that gender is one of the most important components impacting relations between adult siblings, and found that women reported more on being able to get along with siblings. In our opinion, the cohesion and conflict variables among the men in the study rise significantly when there are both male and female siblings in a family. It can be argued that the present research suggests a certain correlation MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 16 between perception of family cohesion and the gender structure of the siblings – a connection that until now has not been widely researched in the professional literature.
Birth Order
The research found a high level of conflict between firstborn and middle children; it was the firstborn who usually reported on feeling conflict. Gur-Bustanai (2007) explains that the firstborn are used as agents of socialization for their younger siblings, introducing them to the peer group and guiding them in acceptable social behaviors. In our opinion, the role played by the firstborn as described above is likely to have the effect of producing feelings of intense conflict in them; that is, the role they play as guide and educator may cause them to come into frequent conflict with their siblings.
The difference in the level of conflict by birth order can also be explained by Adler's
(1968) theory, which refers to the special psychological characteristics of each family member as a result of birth order. According to Adler, firstborn children begin their lives as only children and have a sense of power, dominance, and superiority. These feelings are undermined when another sibling joins the family and may be replaced by hostility and envy towards the younger sibling. On the other hand, Alder assumed that second-born siblings begin their lives in a better position for developing cooperation and tend to develop moderate rivalry and a healthy drive to overtake their older siblings.
Place of Residence
Our findings indicate that the cohesion variable is higher among families that live in cities than in families that reside in other types of communities (kibbutz, moshav). This finding can be explained by differences in sense of community between the city and the kibbutz or moshav. In our estimation, places of residence that are smaller than a city are characterized by MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 17 more community life and cooperation, which, among their residents, fulfills the need for cohesion from their surroundings rather than from the family. This is supported by Glynn's
(1981) research, which found that a sense of community is stronger among kibbutz members than among city residents in the United States. Life in the city is different: the community is less important, so that the need for family cohesion increases.
Learning Disabilities
Our findings indicate that there are differences between learning-disabled respondents and non-learning disabled respondents in two central relational variables: warmth and closeness and status and power. In other words, the respondents with learning disabilities exhibit more warmth and closeness towards their siblings as well as more status and power. The professional literature ascribes persons with learning disabilities with emotional difficulties, poor social skills, low self-esteem, tendency to anxiety, and social isolation (Lupi, et al., 2004; Hyman, 2004;
Arthur, 2003). In our estimation, persons with learning disabilities try to compensate for their social and emotional difficulties through the quality of relations within the family and a search for warmth and closeness. It may be that their social isolation stimulates the desire for strong family relations.
Limitations of the Research and Suggestions for Future Research
The number of participants in the research was only 156. It may be that a larger sample would have yielded additional and/or other significant findings. Furthermore, most of the participants were women, as were most of the researchers; therefore, there is a possibility that the assumptions and findings of the research were influenced by feminine bias. Regarding place of residence, the participants were asked where they reside today rather than where they grew up and matured. It is possible that if their original residences had been referred to instead, the MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 18 findings would have been different and more meaningful.
Our study focused on families with like-sex siblings, an area that has not been widely researched; therefore it would be desirable to expand and deepen knowledge of the topic. It is important to note that additional studies could learn more about this family structure and study it in relation to other variables and/or populations. The present research focuses on sibling relations in adulthood and does not reflect on sibling relations during other stages of life. For this reason, future research could examine how sibling relations and perceptions of cohesion and flexibility are manifest in families during various stages, for example, childhood and adolescence, and make comparisons between them. In addition, we suggest examining the perceptions of siblings from the same family, as well as their parents. Such a study could richen our understanding of relations beyond the personal perceptions of a single representative of a family. MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 19
References
Adler, A. (1968). The practice and theory of individual psychology. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield,
Adams.
Arthur, A. R. (2003). The emotional lives of people with learning disability. British Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 31(1), 25–30. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-3156.2003.00193.x
Barnett, R. A., & Hunter, M. (2011). Adjustment of siblings of children with mental health
problems: Behaviour, self-concept, quality of life and family functioning. Journal of
Child Family Study, 21(2), 262-272.
Berg-Cross, L. (2010). Basic concepts in family therapy: Vol. 1. Kiryat Bialik, Israel: Ach (in
Hebrew).
Boll, T., Ferring, D., & Filipp, S. H. (2003). Perceived parental differential treatment in middle
adulthood: Curvilinear relations with individuals' experienced relationship quality to
sibling and parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(4), 472-487. doi:10.1037/0893-
3200.17.4.472
Buhrmester, D. (1992). The developmental course of sibling and peer relationships. In F. Boer &
J. Dunn (Eds.), Children's sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues (pp.
19-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1995). Sibling relationship across the life span. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Cole, A., & Kerns, K. A. (2001). Perceptions of sibling qualities and activities of early
adolescents. Journal of early adolescents, 21(2), 204-227. doi:
10.1177/0272431601021002004
Connidis, I. A. (2001). Family ties and aging. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 20
Day, B. L., (2010). The influence of sibling relationship on the attitudes of men toward women.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Hartford, West Hartford, CN.
Dunn, J. (2007). Siblings and socialization. In J.E. Grusec & P.D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of
socialization: Theory and research. New York, NY: Gilford (pp. 309-327).
Eriksen, S., & Gerstel, N. (2000). Adult siblings as family resources: Factors that shape contact
and care. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Sociological Association,
Washington, DC.
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. doi: 10.1177/019251302236597
Finzi-Dottan, R., & Cohen, O. (2011). Young adult sibling relations: The effect of perceived
parental favoritism and narcissism. The Journal of Psychology, 145(1), 1-22.
doi:10.1080/00223980.2010.528073
Freud, S. (1916–1917). Introductory lectures on psychoanalysis (Standard Ed., Vols. 15–16).
London, England: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1962). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. New York, NY: Avon.
Freud, S. (2005). Sexuality and love. In Y. Burman (Ed.) Tel Aviv, Israel: Am Oved).( In
Hebrew)
Furman, W. & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children's perceptions of the qualities of sibling
relationships. Child Development, 56(2), 448-461.
Gur-Bustanai, T. (2007). The contribution of the quality of sibling relations to criminality among
adolescents in the context of parental approaches, social supper, and peer-group relations.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Haifa University, Israel (in Hebrew). MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 21
Glynn, T. J. (1981). Psychological sense of community: Measurement and application. Human
Relations, 34(9), 789-818. doi: 10.1177/001872678103400904
Gorbett, K., & Kruczek, T. (2008). Family factors predicting social self-esteem in young adults.
The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 16(1), 58-65.
doi: 10.1177/1066480707309603
Hardy, M. S. (2001). Physical aggression and sexual behavior among siblings: A retrospective
study. Journal of Family Violence, 16(3), 255-268.
Hoffman, M. S. W. (1988). The family life cycle and discontinuous change. In B. Carter & M.
McGoldrick (Eds.), The changing family life cycle (pp.191-207). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Houtzager, B. A., Oort, F. J., Hoekstra-Weebers, J. E. H. M., Caron, H. N., Grootenhuis, M. A.,
& Last, B. F. (2004). Coping and family functioning predict longitudinal psychological
adaptation of siblings of childhood cancer patients. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
29(8), 591-605. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsh061
Hyman, T. (2000). Social adaptation of learning disabled pupils. Perspectiva, 16-17, 47-55.
Jin Yu, J., & Gamble, W. C. (2007). Familial correlates of overt and relational aggression
between young adolescent siblings. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(6), 655-673.
doi 10.1007/s10964-007-9208-0
Kim, J. Y., McHale, S. M., Osgood D. W., & Crouter, A. C. (2006). Longitudinal course and
family correlates of sibling relationships from childhood through adolescence. Child
Development, 77, 1746–1761.
Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2008). Development and preliminary validation of an
emotional self-efficacy scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(5), 432-436. MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 22
Lupi, D., Elbar, A., & Levy, N. (2004). Assessing capability, cognitive links, and personal
characteristics of adolescents with learning disabilities. Issues in Special Education and
Rehabilitation, 19(1), 69-82.
Malach-Pines, A. (1998). Psychology of the genders (Vol. 2, 1st ed.). Tel Aviv, Israel: The Open
University).
Mandleco, B., Frost Olsen, S., Dyches, T., & Marshall E. (2003). The relationships between
family and sibling functioning in families raising a child with disability. Journal of
Family Nursing, 9(4), 365-396. doi: 10.1177/1074840703258329
McHale, S., Crouter, A., & Whiteman, S. (2003). The family contexts of gender development in
childhood and adolescence. Social Development 12, 125-148.
Olson, D. H. (2000). Circumplex model of family systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22(2),
144–167. doi: 10.1111/1467-6427.00144
Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES III. St. Paul, MN: University of
Minnesota.
Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. (1979). Circumplex Model of marital and family
systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications.
Family Process, 18, 3-28.
Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. (1986). Circumplex Model 7: Validation studies and
FACES III. Family Process, 26, 337-351.
Rauer, A. J., & Volling, B. L. (2007). Differential parenting and sibling jealousy: Developmental
correlates of young adults’ romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 14(4), 495–
511. doiI: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00168.x MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 23
Richardson, S. S. (2009). A developmental approach to sibling relationships: Disaggregating the
components of sibling relationship quality over time for siblings of individuals with
intellectual disability. Unpublished master's thesis, Georgia State University, Atlanta,
GA.
Riggio, H. (2000). Measuring attitudes towards adult sibling relationships: The lifespan sibling
relationship scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 707–728.
Rust, J., Golombok, S., Hines, M., Johnston, K., & Golding, J. (2000). The role of brothers and
sisters in the gender development of preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 77(4), 292-303.
Spitze, G., & Trent, K. (2006). Gender differences in adult sibling relations in two-child families.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 977-992. Doi: 10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2006.00308.x
Stocker, C. M., & Burwell, R. A., Briggs, M. L. (2002). Sibling conflict in middle childhood
predicts children's adjustment in early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(1),
50-57.
Toman, W. (1993). Family constellation (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A .C. (2000). Adolescents' sex-typed friendship
experiences: Does having a sister versus a brother matter? Child Development, 71(6),
1597-1610.
Van Volkom, M. (2006). Sibling relationship in middle and older adulthood: A review of the
literature. Marriage and Family Review, 40, 151-170. MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 24
Van Volkom, M., Machiz, C., & Reich, A. E. (2011). Sibling relationships in the college years:
Do gender, birth order, and age spacing matter? North American Journal of Psychology,
13(1), 35-50.
Voorpostel, M., Van Der Lippe, T., Dykstra, P. A., & Flap, H. (2007). Similar or different?: The
importance of similarities and differences for support between siblings. Journal of
Family Issues, 28(8), 1026-1053. doi: 10.1177/0192513X07300713
Watzlawick, P. Weakland, J. & Fisch, R. (1978). Change: Principles of problem formation and
resolution (2nd ed.). Tel Aviv, Israel: Sifriat Hapoalim (in Hebrew).
Weaver, S. E., Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. H. (2003). Sibling functions and relationship
perceptions as influenced by sibling pair composition. Journal of Family Issues, 24(2),
245-263. doi: 10.1177/0192513X02250098
White, L. (2001). Sibling relations over the life course: A panel analysis. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 63, 555-568. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00555.x
Wong, T. M. L., Branje, S. J. T., VanderValk, I. E., Hawk, S. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2010). The
role of siblings in identity development in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Journal
of Adolescence, 33(5), 673-682. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.003
Yelland, I., & Daley, D. (2009). Expressed emotion in children: Associations with sibling
relationships. Child: Care, Health and Development, 35(4), 568-577. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.00958.x MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 25
Table 1
Description of Sample and Frequencies (N=156)
Variables N % Gender Male 67 42.9 Female 89 57.1 Place of residence City 60 38.5 Moshav 44 28.2 Kibbutz 42 26.9 Rural community 10 6.4 Birth order Firstborn 47 30.1 Middle child 61 30.8 Last-born 48 30.8 Learning disabilities Yes 41 26.3 No 115 73.7 Type of family Only sons 59 37.8 Only daughters 55 35.3 Mixed-gender 26.9 42 Mean SD Age 27.51 3.987 Number of children in the 3.74 0.843 family MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 26
Table 2
Single-Direction Differences between the Three Research Cohorts (N=156)
Variable / n=59)Boys) n=55)Girls) n=42)Mixed) Cohort
2 M SD M SD M SD (F(2,155 η P
Emotional 3.512 0.483 3.483 0.465 3.434 0.491 0.327 0.004 0.845 intelligence Warmth 3.618 0.627 3.800 0.546 3.585 0.746 1.732 0.022 0.310 and closeness Rivalry 2.839 0.393 2.845 0.472 2.960 0.407 1.181 0.015 0.310 Status and 2.341 0.627 2.404 0.547 2.188 0.663 1.545 0.019 0.217 power Conflict b1.678 0.503 a1.987 0.745 b1.674 0.584 4.499 0.055 *0.013 Cohesion 3.883 0.552 3.907 0.495 3.840 0.653 0.169 0.002 0.845 Flexibility 2.869 0.495 2.870 0.513 2.902 0.560 0.059 0.007 0.943
* p < .05. MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 27
Table 3
Family/Siblingship Variables according to Gender
Variables / Cohorts n=89)Women) n=67) Men)
M SD M SD (T(154 P
Emotional intelligence 3.441 0.498 3.535 0.446 -1.225 0.223 Warmth and closeness 3.683 0.683 3.660 0.578 0.227 0.821 Rivalry 2.897 0.448 2.843 0.398 0.776 0.439 Status and power 2.352 0.575 2.283 0.661 0.693 0.489 Conflict 1.862 0.714 1.684 0.493 1.837 0.068 Cohesion 3.783 0.605 4.009 0.467 -2.629 **0.009 Flexibility 2.837 0.524 2.934 0.505 -1.165 0.246
** p < .01. MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 28
Table 4
Family/Siblingship Variables according to Birth Order (N=156)
Variables / Firstborn Middle child Last-born Cohorts (n=47) (n=61) (n=48
2 M SD M SD M SD F(2,155) η P
Emotional 3.521 0.426 3.485 0.536 3.437 0.451 0.366 0.004 0.694 intelligence Warmth and 3.730 0.566 3.692 0.588 3.594 0.761 0.580 0.007 0.561 closeness Rivalry 2.822 0.579 2.945 0.317 2.833 0.365 1.414 0.018 0.246 Status and 2.402 0.635 2.296 0.604 2.277 0.606 0.583 0.007 0.560 power Conflict a1.959 0.750 b1.632 0.508 ba1.812 0.615 3.744 0.046 0.026* Cohesion 3.921 0.569 3.872 0.483 3.850 0.644 0.200 0.002 0.819 Flexibility 2.923 0.453 2.859 0.570 2.860 0.511 0.248 0.003 0.781
* p < .05. MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 29
Table 5
Family/Siblingship Variables according to Learning Disability (N=156)
Variables / Learning Non-Learning Cohorts Disabled Disabled (n=41) (n=115)
M SD M SD T(154) P
Emotional 3.512 0.549 3.470 0.451 0.477 0.634 intelligence Warmth and 3.840 0.481 3.614 0.678 2.307 0.023* closeness Rivalry 2.979 0.380 2.836 0.438 1.860 0.065 Status and 2.562 0.547 2.237 0.614 2.994 0.003** power Conflict 1.758 0.557 1.796 0.659 0.323- 0.747 Cohesion 3.943 0.513 3.857 0.575 0.849 0.397 Flexibility 2.997 0.551 2.836 0.499 1.724 0.087
* p < .05. ** p < .01. MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 30
Table 6
Family/Siblingship Variables according to Place of Residence (N=156)
Variables / Cities Others Cohorts (n=60) (n=96)
M SD M SD T(154) P
Emotional 3.522 0.504 3.455 0.460 0.854 0.394 intelligence
Warmth and 3.760 0.680 3.619 0.608 1.342 0.181 closeness
Rivalry 2.908 0.423 2.852 0.430 0.794 0.428
Status and 2.430 0.584 2.255 0.623 1.752 0.082 power
Conflict 1.753 0.620 1.806 0.643 0.508- 0.613
Cohesion 3.991 0.500 3.810 0.586 1.985 0.049*
Flexibility 2.850 0.495 2.896 0.531 0.550- 0.583
* p < .05. MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 31
Table 7
Pearson Correlation Matrix between Research Variables in the Male-Sibling Cohort (N=156)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Emotional intelligence -
2. Warmth and closeness 0.277 -
3. Rivalry 0.002 0.188 -
4. Status and power 0.021 0.496** 0.126 -
5. Conflict 0.161 0.29- 0.58 0.247 -
6. Cohesion 0.275* 0.653** 1.36 0.275* 0.39 -
7. Flexibility 0.375 0.306* 0.29 0.187 0.140 0.519** -
*p < .05.** p < .01. MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 32
Table 8
Pearson Correlation Matrix between Research Variables in the Female-Sibling Cohort (n=156)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Emotional - intelligence 2. Closeness and 0.057 - warmth 3. Rivalry 0.203- 0.025- - 4. Status and power 0.110- 0.465** 0.076 - 5. Conflict 0.014 0.098- 0.127- 0.347** - 6. Cohesion 0.233 0.530** 0.143 0.478** 0.188- - 7. Flexibility 0.160 0.313* 0.120 0.293* 0.023 0.604** -
* p < .05. ** p < .01 MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 33
Table 9
Pearson Correlation Matrix between Research Variables in the Mixed-Gender Sibling Cohort
(n=156)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Emotional - intelligence 2. Warmth and 0.277 - closeness 3. Rivalry 0.053 0.093- - 4. Status and 0.119 0.561** 0.142 - power 5. Conflict 0.054- 0.227 0.095- 0.463** - 6. Cohesion 0.346* 0.600** 0.049- 0.232 0.092- - 7. Flexibility 0.375* 0.470** 0.082 0.236 0.157 0.638** -
* p < .05. ** p < .01. MALE VERSUS FEMALE SIBLINGSHIP 34
Table 10
Regression Analysis of the Research Variables Predicting Level of Conflict (n=156)
Variable B SE B β
Cohesion 0.37- 0.10 0.33-*** Flexibility 0.23 0.11 0.19* Status and authority 0.41 0.08 0.40*** Age 0.03- 0.01 0.21-** R² 0.22 F 10.92***
* p < .05.** p < .01. *** p < .001.