Sibling Relationships in Early Adulthood: the Associations Between Social Statuses and Sibling Ties

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN EARLY ADULTHOOD: THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SOCIAL STATUSES AND SIBLING TIES

Lindsey L. Aldrich

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

December 2016

Committee:

Kei Nomaguchi, Advisor

Karen Benjamin Guzzo

I-Fen Lin

ii ABSTRACT

Kei Nomaguchi, Advisor

Early adulthood is a period when individuals begin to obtain major social statuses, such as finishing school, starting a full-time job, getting married, or becoming a parent. How these social statuses may influence the quality of sibling relationships has rarely been examined. Sibling relationships are common, likely some of the longest relationships most individuals who have siblings will experience, and can be a source of support throughout the life course. Thus, it is important to decipher factors that influence sibling relationship quality. This thesis project uses matched sibling dyads data from the sibling sample in Wave III of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (N = 1,451), to examine the associations between social statuses— education, employment, marriage or cohabitation, and parenthood—and five aspects of sibling relationship quality, including emotional closeness, conflict, direct contact, indirect contact, and turning to one’s sibling for help or advice, among respondents aged 18 to 26. Supporting the time demands perspective, the respondents’ or the siblings’ marriage or cohabitation is related to less direct or indirect contact and fewer fights between siblings. When one sibling is in college, the other sibling tends to report less direct contact. In contrast, supporting the role expansion perspective, older siblings’ parental status is related to younger siblings’ reports of more contact and emotional closeness with the sibling. Those who have a college degree are more likely than those without it to have more indirect contact with their siblings. These findings suggest interconnectedness of siblings’ lives during the transition to adulthood. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to thank my advisor and thesis chair, Kei Nomaguchi, for her patience, guidance, and kindness. Dr. Nomaguchi shaped this challenging process into an invaluable learning experience, offering her expertise and encouragement every step of the way. Through

her mentorship, I have become a more organized, cognizant, and critical sociologist. Next, I

would like to thank my thesis committee, Karen Benjamin Guzzo and I-Fen Lin, as they have offered thoughtful and constructive comments, and have trained me to be more methodologically minded in my research. I would also like to thank Marshal Neal Fettro for his time and efforts, as

I quite literally could not have completed the coding for this thesis project without his instruction.

Further, I would like to thank all of my lovely and encouraging friends, family members, and fellow sociologists who have offered their kind and motivating words throughout this entire process, particularly Taylor and Kasey who were always willing to be there for me in whatever way I needed. It is so reassuring to know others believe in you, when you are struggling to believe in yourself.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 3

Sibling Ties during the Transition to Adulthood ...... 3

The Link Between Social Roles and Sibling Relationship Quality ...... 5

Education ...... 6

Employment...... 7

Relationship Status ...... 8

Parental Status ...... 9

Possible Confounding Factors...... 10

Birth order ...... 10

Sibling types ...... 11

Gender composition of sibling dyads ...... 12

Geographic distance ...... 12

Age and age gap between siblings ...... 12

Race/Ethnicity...... 13

Sibling relationship quality in adolescence ...... 13

THE CURRENT STUDY ...... 14

DATA AND METHODS ...... 16

Data …………………...... 16

Dependent Variables...... 18

Independent Variables ...... 19 v

Control Variables ...... 19

Analytic Strategy ...... 20

RESULTS ...... 22

Closeness ...... 22

Quarrel ...... 24

Direct Contact ...... 26

Indirect Contact ...... 29

Aid Seeking ...... 31

Summary of Findings ...... 33

DISCUSSION ...... 35

REFERENCES ...... 40

APPENDIX A ...... 45

INTRODUCTION

The transition to adulthood is a period when young people begin to experience a series of

life events—breaking away from their family of origin, finishing school, starting full-time work,

beginning to live with a partner or getting married, and becoming a parent (Conger & Little,

2010). Prior research has examined determinants of occurrence and timing of these life events

and how these life events influence young adults’ economic well-being, as well as physical and

mental health (e.g., Settersten, 2012; Sironi & Furstenberg, 2012). Relatively less is known

regarding how the social roles and statuses young adults begin to acquire through these life

events during young adulthood—i.e., educational attainment, employment hours, marriage or

cohabitation, and parenthood—influence relationships with members of their family of origin. In

particular, although past research has examined how young people’s newly acquired social

statuses influence intergenerational ties (e.g., Kaufman & Uhlenberg, 1998), little research has

focused on sibling relationship quality. This is a critical gap in the literature, considering that a

majority of adults in the United States have at least one sibling, and the relationship one has with

a sibling is likely one of the longest-lasting relationships an individual will experience (Milevsky

& Heerwagen, 2013; Stocker, Lanthier, & Furman, 1997). Further, as close social ties enhance

mental and physical health in general (Umberson & Montez, 2010), research has shown that having a close relationship with siblings in early adulthood is related to better well-being and mental health—less loneliness, less depression, more life satisfaction and more self-esteem

(Milevsky, 2005; Sherman, Lansford, & Volling, 2006). As individuals experience the many life

events associated with early adulthood, it may be particularly important for their well-being to

have supportive, quality relationships, specifically with their siblings. Given the benefits 2

associated with sibling relationship quality, it is important to better understand factors that

influence sibling relationship quality.

This thesis examines factors that influence sibling relationships during the transition to

adulthood, focusing on the period when individuals are aged 18 to 26, using unique sibling data

from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). Drawing on

the life course perspective (Elder, 1994) and role theories (Barnet & Hyde; Goode, 1960;

Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2008; Sieber, 1974), I focus on how specific social statuses that young people begin to acquire during early adulthood, such as higher education, employment, marriage or romantic partnership, and parenthood, are related to five aspects of sibling relationship quality, including emotional closeness, conflict, direct contact, indirect contact, and asking for help or advice.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Sibling Ties during the Transition to Adulthood

Sibling relationships are, like other ties within the family, multidimensional which include associational (direct contact and indirect contact), affective (emotional closeness and conflict), and functional (asking for help and advice) aspects (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2008). Past studies have typically considered levels of sibling contact (Milevsky, 2005; Milevsky, Smooth,

Leh, & Ruppe, 2005; Stocker et al., 1997), warmth, conflict, rivalry or power (Shortt & Gottman,

1997; Stocker et al., 1997), closeness (Milevsky, 2005; Milevsky et al., 2005; Van Volkom,

Machiz, & Reich, 2011), and giving and receiving help (Milevsky, 2005; Milevsky et al., 2005).

Adult siblings can provide support, love, and friendship for one another (Van Volkom et al.,

2011). In addition to emotional support and companionship through communication, siblings may also provide care for each other when they are ill (Milevsky, et al., 2005). Siblings can be a source of advice or a confidant to whom young adults discuss life challenges (Dolgin & Lindsay,

1999). I examine each aspect of sibling ties separately, although some studies have conceptualized contact as a predictor of emotional closeness (e.g., Stocker et al., 1997).

I specifically focus on sibling relationship quality during early adulthood. Though research concerning sibling ties has grown in recent years, much of the recent research has been concentrated in the periods of childhood, adolescence, middle adulthood, and the later years

(Connidis & Campbell, 1995; Kim, McHale, Osgood, & Crouter, 2006). A limited amount of research has focused on sibling ties during the period of emerging adulthood or early adulthood

(Milevsky, 2005; Milevsky et al., 2005; Sherman et al., 2006; Shortt & Gottman, 1997; Van

Volkom et al., 2011; Whiteman, McHale, & Crouter, 2011). In addition, most studies used 4

convenience sampling of college students and non-college students in a local area, and so it is less clear to what extent the findings can be generalized.

Early adulthood is a time when young people begin to acquire major social statuses and roles, such as pursuing further education, beginning a career, entering a committed romantic relationship, and parenthood (Conger & Little, 2010; Whiteman et al., 2011). A life course perspective contends that transitions in one family member’s life can influence other family members (Elder, 1994; White, 2001). One of the principal concepts of the life course perspective is linked lives, which maintains that individuals’ experiences are connected through family or other close relationships (Elder, 1994). According to this idea, circumstances in siblings’ lives could have implications for the quality of relationships they have with one another. Past research that focused on parent-child relationship quality suggests that there is merit in considering education, employment, relationship status, and parental status when analyzing how life events and statuses affect the quality of ties among family members during early adulthood (e.g. Conger

& Little, 2010; Kaufman & Uhlenberg, 1998). Yet prior research on sibling relationships has

mostly focused on sibling dyad or group compositions, such as gender, birth order, and age

spacing, as factors influencing sibling relationship quality during early adulthood (e.g.,

Milevsky, 2005; Shortt & Gottman, 1997; Stocker et al., 1997; Van Volkom et al., 2011).

Relatively less is known as to how characteristics that are uniquely relevant in this particular life

stage, (i.e., education, employment, cohabitation or marriage, and parenthood) would influence sibling relationship quality. In this thesis project, I examine this question. By exploring how social roles and statuses may influence the strength and direction of various sibling relationship qualities, we can begin to better understand the dyadic influence siblings may have on one another as they transition into and through adulthood. 5

The Link Between Social Roles and Sibling Relationship Quality

On the basis of prior research that examined the associations between social roles and social relationships (Conger & Little, 2010; Milevsky et al., 2005; Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2008), I conceptualize how educational status, employment hours, cohabitation or marriage, and parenthood are related to sibling ties. In particular, drawing on roles theories, I focus on two contrasting perspectives of how social statuses may shape individuals’ relationships with their siblings; (a) time demands and (b) role expansion perspectives.

The time demands perspective is derived from the role strain theory (Goode, 1960). This perspective suggests that a social role demands its occupants to invest time and energy. Role strain theory argues that holding multiple roles may be difficult and cause an individual to experience role overload in response to the time demands and commitments required of various roles. During early adulthood, a number of statuses and roles are introduced, and individuals are expected to fulfill the responsibilities and demands attached to this conglomerate of roles and statuses. As such, the growing number of roles an individual acquires may cause the role of sister or brother to lose precedence, due to the pressure associated with maintaining sibling relationships. Furthering one’s education, employment hours, being married or cohabiting, and having a child all put constraints on an individual’s time. A similar idea was suggested by White

(2001) who argued that the family life course model of sibling relationships proposes that siblings are both permanent and flexible members of an individual’s social network, thus these relationships can fluctuate and adapt over time in response to life events and competing relationships and responsibilities. Sibling relationships may become secondary to other interpersonal relationships in adulthood such as romantic partners and their own children. It is likely that time constraints and time availability are essential to understanding how these roles 6

and statuses are affecting levels of emotional closeness, quarreling, and contact, as well as,

asking for aid and advice, between siblings during early adulthood (Connidis & Campbell,1995).

In contrast, the role expansion perspective, or role enhancement or role accumulation perspective (Barnett & Hyde 2001; Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974), contends that individuals are able to use their time and energy flexibly, and thus are able to do well fulfilling multiple responsibilities (Barnet & Rivers, 1996; Bianchi, 2000; Marks & MacDermid, 1996). Unlike the assumption of role strain or time demands, people can find ways to organize multiple responsibilities and activities in a balanced, nonhierarchical fashion (Marks & MacDermid,

1996). Furthermore, social roles provide opportunities in individuals’ lives to expand economic

resources and social contacts (Marks 1977; Sieber, 1974). These ideas suggest that social

statuses that are oftentimes introduced during early adulthood, such as education, employment,

romantic partnerships, or parenthood, may not curtail time and energy from individuals to keep

connected with their siblings. Moreover, those social statuses could provide siblings with

opportunities to reconnect with one another.

In the following, I discuss more specifically as to how educational status, employment,

marriage or cohabitation, and parenthood may be related to sibling relationship quality from each

of these two perspectives.

Education. One’s educational status may influence their availability and allocation of

both their time and their resources. Pursuing higher education requires an individual to put forth

a good deal of time and effort. The demands of higher education can curtail the amount of time

and effort an individual has to put into other roles. College provides young people with

numerous intellectual as well as social and political activities in which to participate. The time

demands of school and friends minimize the amount of time siblings have to put into their 7

relationships. From the time demands perspective, having a higher level of education may reflect

less emotional closeness between siblings, more conflict, less contact, and asking for less help or

advice. In contrast, the role expansion perspective indicates that education could create more

opportunity for siblings to connect (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2008). Some studies suggest that people with higher socioeconomic status (SES) have less negative relationships with their siblings in part because they have enough resources and do not have to compete with one another (Conger,

Conger, & Elder, 1994). Also, young adults may seek more advice from a sibling who has a higher level of education.

Little research has examined the association between education and sibling relationship quality in early adulthood. However, among older adults, Connidis and Campbell (1995) focused on individuals who were at least 55 years old and who had one or more siblings, and found that

though higher levels of education were related to greater levels of reported closeness toward their

closest sibling, this same report was not true for the overall sibling network. Overall, for adults in

the middle and later years of life, education tended to have an inverse relationship with sibling

contact when considering the sibling network as a whole (Connidis & Campbell, 1995). Perhaps with more young adults furthering their education and obtaining college degrees, we can better understand the association between education and various sibling relationship qualities.

Employment. Employment requires individuals to commit time and energy in U.S. society

(Frase & Gornick, 2013). Longer paid work hours is known as a key indicator of time crunch for individuals’ family life (Nomaguchi, Milkie, & Bianchi, 2005). Although most research has focused on the influence of full-time employment on time or relationship with children or with spouse (e.g. Bianchi, 2000) it is possible that longer employment hours are related to young

adults’ relationship quality with their sibling. Thus, the time demands perspective suggests that 8

employment would lead to less emotional, less contact, more conflict, and a decreased likelihood

to ask for help or advice, given that work generally requires a good deal of an individual’s time

and energy. In contrast, according to the role expansion perspective, having employment will likely increase material resources available to an individual. Having more material resources—

money, owning a car, purchasing a better communication tool such as a cell phone and having

internet access at home—will likely allow greater opportunity to travel or have contact with

siblings, allow for greater emotional closeness, less conflict, and greater likelihood of asking

one’s sibling for help.

Little research has focused on the link between employment and sibling relationship

quality during early adulthood. Milevsky and colleagues (2005) found that participants who were

not working or who were not suffering from economic stress reported more closeness and

warmth in their sibling relationships. It is important to remember that most participants were

college students and that not working and having economic stress likely manifests differently for

these individuals than non-college individuals.

Relationship Status. Marriage could be a “greedy” institution that keeps individuals away

from other social networks (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2008). Romantic relationships tend to absorb a

good deal of an individual’s time and energy, which likely leaves little time for others. The time

demands perspective would argue that the time and efforts that marriage, and to the lesser extent

cohabitation, require of a romantic partner would lead to less contact between siblings, less

emotional closeness and more conflict, given siblings’ emotional closeness to their romantic

partner, and a decreased likelihood to ask help or advice. Sarkisian and Gerstel (2008) found that

married adult children are less likely than those who are not married to contact or provide

support for their parents. Alternatively, the role expansion perspective contends that marriage or 9 romantic relationships could bring siblings closer. Those who are involved in romantic partnerships or who are married tend to have more available resources (Simon & Barrett, 2010).

Thus, the role expansion perspective would expect those in romantic partnerships to have greater sibling closeness, more contact, less conflict, and to be more likely to ask their sibling for help with their problems.

Empirical research that examined marital status and sibling relationship quality has inconsistent results. One study that analyzed closeness, confiding, and contact among siblings during their middle and later adult years found that marital status negatively affected personal contact between siblings (Connidis & Campbell, 1995). In line with the concept of time availability, single individuals had the greatest level of involvement and contact in their sibling relationships. Greater levels contact did not necessarily to greater levels of closeness (Connidis

& Campbell, 1995). In contrast, White (2001) found that getting married was not related to sibling contact and receiving or giving advice.

Parental Status. Children require adults to commit a great deal of time (Nomaguchi &

Milkie, 2003). Some research has shown that parenthood is related to decline in social activities

(Munch, McPherson, & Smith-Lovin, 1997). The time demands perspective would predict that being a parent would cause less sibling closeness, less contact, more conflict, and asking for less help from siblings, than individuals who do not have children. In contrast, the role expansion perspective suggests that children create an opportunity to connect with others, especially their kin. A few studies have found that the transition to parenthood was related to an increase in contact with families and friends (Gallagher & Gerstel, 2001; Ishii-Kuntz & Secombe, 1989;

Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2003). It could be that having children may be related to more closeness, contact, and aid among siblings during early adulthood because of the excitement of becoming a 10

new aunt or uncle.

Empirical studies on parenthood and sibling relationship quality have produced

inconsistent findings. White (2001) found that the sibling networks where all individuals are

childless have less confiding amongst themselves than when sibling networks include both

childless individuals and parents (Connidis & Campbell, 1995). In the middle and later adult

years it was found that individuals without children reported confiding in their siblings more than

individuals who are parents (Connidis & Campbell, 1995). This may be due to the shared interest of children in the family, especially when childless siblings do not have children of their own to serve as a time constraint. All in all, there were few differences in parenthood and sibling

contact, receiving or giving help.

Possible Confounding Factors

All analyses controlled for characteristics related to explanatory variables discussed

above (i.e., education, employment, etc.) and the quality of sibling ties. These include: sibship

characteristics, that is, sibling type, (i.e. full biological, half-siblings, and stepsiblings), gender

composition of the sibling dyad, age-gap between siblings, geographic distance between siblings,

sibling relationship quality in adolescence, age, and race/ethnicity.

Birth order. Because I focused on respondents who were in early adulthood—i.e., aged

18 to 26, whether they were the younger sibling or the older one in the sibling dyad made

differences in the prevalence of whether they or their siblings had completed a higher level of

education, entered a committed romantic partnership, or become a parent. Prior research has

shown that perceived relationship quality varies by birth order, although the patterns of findings

are inconsistent. Younger siblings may look at up to older siblings and report strong siblings ties; 11

however, older siblings may or may not choose to mentor their younger siblings or to be actively

involved in their lives. In Milevsky and colleagues’ study (2005), younger siblings were more likely to report warmth in their sibling relationships than older siblings, while older sibling were less likely to report conflict within their sibling relationship. Dolgin and Lindsay (1999) used a sample of college undergraduates (N = 196) and disclosures about their siblings to find that younger siblings may be more likely than older siblings to seek advice from their siblings, while older siblings are more likely to teach younger siblings, rather than the other way around. Shortt and Gottman (1997) measured closeness using warmth, conflict, and power, among sibling pairs that were comprised of a college student and their sibling whose ages ranged from 18-30 (N =

168, 84 sibling pairs). Analyses found that reports of sibling closeness could not be explained by birth order of siblings (Shortt and Gottman, 1997).

Sibling types. Sibling types—biological, half, or stepsiblings—may be related to levels of education, relationship status, and parental status in early adulthood as well as sibling relationship quality. Prior research has shown that young people who experienced multiple changes in their parents’ romantic partnerships and who are more likely to have half or stepsiblings than those who lived with two-biological parents, are more likely to leave home at younger ages and to form cohabiting unions than to marry (Ryan, Franzetta, Schelar, & Manlove,

2009). Divorced or blended families are more likely than families without divorce or

remarriage/recoupling to involve conflict between parents or adults in the siblings’ lives

(Milevsky & Heerwagen, 2013). The conflict or complications associated with these situations

are likely to cause difficulties in sibling relationships. Ginther & Pollak (2004) find that net of

mother’s education and family income, individuals from nuclear biological families have 12

significantly better educational outcomes than individuals from single-parent or blended

families.

Gender composition of sibling dyads. Gendered socialization suggests that women are more likely than men to care for maintaining a close relationship with others and play a role of kin-keeping (Gerstel & Gallagher, 1993). Milevsky and colleagues (2005) found that female siblings reported more warmth in their sibling dyads than males. Dolgin and Lindsay (1999) found that female respondents had a higher likelihood of disclosing to siblings to receive emotional support than males; however, females did not report more disclosures overall, or deeper disclosures than males. Additionally, among a sample of college students (N = 228)

Newman (1991) found that female respondents were active in initiating communication with siblings, but gender did not have an effect on affective measures.

Geographic distance. Past research has shown that greater distances between siblings are negatively related to closeness and frequency of contacts between siblings among college students (Milevsky & Heerwagen, 2013; Milevsky et al., 2005), although other studies found no

significant association between geographic distance and sibling relationship quality when focusing on warmth, conflict, and power or rivalry (Shortt & Gottman, 1997; Stocker, et al.,

1997), using undergraduate samples.

Age and age gap between siblings. Older respondents are more likely than younger respondents to have finished a higher education, have gotten married, and have children. Past research has suggested that respondents’ age could be related to perceived quality of sibling relationships. Milevsky and colleagues (2005) found that sibling’s age mediated the relationship between participant’s age and sibling conflict; the level of conflict in the sibling dyad was related to the age of the older sibling. 13

Race/Ethnicity. Race and ethnicity are not generally considered in studies that analyze sibling relationship ties. However, given the differences in educational attainment, relationship formation behaviors, and fertility behaviors across races, it seems important to control for race and ethnicity when analyzing how these transitions affect reports of sibling ties. Compared to

White individuals, Black and Hispanic individuals are less likely to have a Bachelor’s degree

(Ryan & Bauman, 2016). Compared to Black individuals, White and Hispanic individuals have an earlier median age at first marriage, however, the median age at first marriage does not occur until White and Hispanic women are 27.6, and occurs even later for men (Anderson & Payne,

2014) meaning that many individuals in the current sample will have yet to form marital unions.

When considering both cohabitation and marriage, there are few racial/ethnic differences at age of union formation (Manning, Brown, & Payne, 2014). Given the general differences in trends across race/ethnicities it is important to control for race and ethnicity.

Sibling relationship quality in adolescence. It is important to control for sibling relationship quality in adolescence, as past research has found that sibling relationship quality in adolescence is an important predictor for sibling relationship quality in adulthood (Riggio, 2000).

THE CURRENT STUDY

Despite the importance of sibling relationship quality in influencing young adults’ mental health, limited research has examined factors that are related to ties in sibling relationships in this life stage. In particular, little research has focused on how education, employment, marriage or cohabitation, and parenthood are related to sibling closeness. On the basis of (a) the time demands perspective and (b) the role expansion perspective, I state the following hypotheses:

H1a: Either respondents’ or siblings’ higher levels of education are related to respondents’

reports of less closeness with siblings, more conflict with siblings, less direct and indirect

contact with siblings, and respondents asking their sibling for less help and advice than

individuals with lower levels of education.

H1b: Either respondents’ or siblings’ higher levels of education are related to respondents’

reports of more closeness with siblings, less conflict with siblings, greater direct and indirect

contact with siblings, and respondents asking their sibling for more help and advice than

individuals with lower levels of education.

H2a: Either respondents’ or siblings’ longer work hours are related to respondents’ reports of

less closeness with siblings, more conflict with siblings, less direct and indirect contact with

siblings, and respondents asking their sibling for less help and advice than individuals with

fewer hours of employment.

H2b: Either respondents’ or siblings’ longer work hours are related to respondents’ reports of

more closeness with siblings, less conflict with siblings, greater direct and indirect contact

with siblings, and respondents asking their sibling for more help and advice than individuals

with fewer hours of employment. 15

H3a: Either respondents’ or siblings’ marriage or cohabitation is related to respondents’ reports of less closeness with siblings, more conflict with siblings, less direct and indirect contact with siblings, and respondents asking their sibling for less help and advice.

H3b: Either respondents’ or siblings’ marriage or cohabitation is related to respondents’ reports of more closeness with siblings, less conflict with siblings, greater direct and indirect contact with siblings, and respondents asking their sibling for more help and advice.

H4a: Either respondents’ or siblings’ parental status is related to respondents’ reports of less closeness with siblings, more conflict with siblings, less direct and indirect contact with siblings, and respondents asking their sibling for less help and advice.

H4b: Either respondents’ or siblings’ parental status is related to respondents’ reports of more closeness with siblings, less conflict with siblings, greater direct and indirect contact with siblings, and respondents asking their sibling for more help and advice.

DATA AND METHODS

Data

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) was used

for this study. Add Health is a nationally representative sample of students in grades 7-12 in

1995 - 1996. (Harris & Udry, 2008). The sampling frame was comprised of stratified, random

sample of all high schools in the United States. Eligible schools had an 11th grade and at least 30

enrolled students, or were a feeder school that had a 7th grade that sent on to high school. The

second stage involved in-home interviews with a sample of 27,000 students. These students were drawn from the core sample from each community, as well as the special oversamples that were selected (Harris & Udry, 2008). This project used information mostly from the Wave III. Wave

III respondents were Wave I respondents who could be located and re-interviewed, six years after the initial interviews, which took place in 2001 and 2002. Wave III respondents fell in the

18-26 year old age range, with the exception of twenty-four respondents who were 27 or 28 when they were re-interviewed. Wave III included 15,197 in-home interviews (Harris, & Udry,

2008).

The present analyses utilized the genetic oversample, which I call the sibling sample, that

gathered information on sibling pairs from various familial compositions, including twins, full

biological siblings, half siblings, stepsiblings, and adopted or other unrelated siblings who were

raised in the same household, collected as part of Wave III (n = 4,368). Add Health started

collecting information about siblings at Wave I, focusing on respondents’ siblings who were in

grades 7 to 12 and living in the household only. Wave II and III asked respondents about their

siblings who lived with them at some time from 1995 and 1996 (i.e., at the time of Wave 1).

From the Wave III sibling sample, one respondent was removed because he/she was actually not 17

supposed to be in the sample (n = 4,367). An additional 13 cases were removed, because the

respondent ID and sibling ID were identical (n = 4,354). I dropped 1,886 respondents because

they did not report relationship quality with the same siblings in Wave II (n = 2,468). Many cases did not have relationship quality in Wave II, in part because of differences in survey structures in Waves II and III. Wave III asked respondents to report on up to four siblings (I

focused on the first sibling), whereas Wave II asked respondents to choose only one. Also, Add

Health did not have a strong strategy to identify the same siblings across the waves. In Wave III, respondents were asked about their siblings “who lived with them at some time from 1995 and

1996,” but were not asked about the particular siblings about whom they answered in Wave II.

The sample was further reduced from 2,468 to 1,492, when twins and siblings who reported the same ages (n = 702) and respondents with missing data for age or sibling type (n = 274) were excluded. I did not include twins and same-age siblings, because prior research has shown that twins tend to have distinct relationships with each other from other types of siblings (Noller,

2005). Further, the sample had far more twins than the general population of the United States did due to oversampling. Several variables in the analyses had a very small percentage of missing data. Listwise deletion resulted in a final sample of N = 1,451.

In all analyses, the sample was divided into two subsamples. The first subsample included respondents who were younger than their matched sibling (n = 752)—referenced as the younger sample—and the second subsample included respondents who are older than the matched sibling (n = 699)—called the older sample below. There were more older siblings than younger siblings who had missing data for age, sibling type, or other characteristics, so in the process of restricting cases more older siblings than younger siblings were dropped, resulting in 18

different sample sizes. This sample is unique, as there has not been a comparable large-scale,

longitudinal, U.S. sibling pair design like the one Add Health presents (Harris et al., 2013).

Dependent Variables

The dependent variables were five aspects of sibling ties, including closeness to, conflict with, direct contact with, indirect contact with, and aid from siblings. Sibling closeness was measured by the question: “How close do you feel toward him/her?” Responses were based on a

Likert Scale (0 = not at all close, 1 = not very close, 2 = somewhat, 3 = quite close, 4 = very close). Sibling conflict was measured by the question: “How often do you and {he/she} quarrel or fight?” Responses were based on a Likert Scale (0 = never, 1 = seldom, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = very often). Sibling direct contact was measured by the following question: “How often do you and he/she see each other?” Response were based on a Likert Scale (0 = never, 1 = a few times a year, 2 = once or twice a month, 3 = once or twice a week, 4 = almost every day).

Sibling indirect contact was measured using the following questions: “How often do you and he/she talk on the phone?” “How often do you send letters or e-mail or receive them from him/her?” Response were based on a Likert Scale (0 = never, 1 = a few times a year, 2 = once or twice a month, 3 = once or twice a week, 4 = almost every day). Responses from these two questions were used to create a summed scale for indirect contact, where greater values represent more indirect contact. Sibling aid was measured by the following question “How often do you turn to him/her for help when you have personal problems, or problems at school or work?”

Responses were based on a Likert Scale (0 = never, 1 = seldom, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = very often).

Independent Variables

The independent variables are from Wave III and were measured as follows. Both the respondents’ and their siblings’ education was comprised of five dummy variables: less than high school, high school diploma/GED (reference) some college, in college, and B.A. and beyond. Both the respondents’ and their siblings’ employment were measured based on work hours, measured by the question, “How many hours a week do you usually work at this job?”

Responses ranged from 0 to 90, and then responses were top coded into the 95th percentile. I used paid work hours, rather than employment status, because the time demands perspective indicates that long work hours would hinder siblings’ ability to spend time with one another.

Both the respondents’ and their siblings’ relationship status were measured using three dummy variables: single (reference), cohabiting, and married. Parental status was measured using a dummy variable where those with any children under age 18 in the home were coded as 1.

Control Variables

Sibling type was comprised of three dummy variables indicating whether the respondent’s sibling was full-biological (reference), half, or step. Gender composition of the sibling dyad was comprised of four dummy variables, (a) both respondents and siblings were women (sister/sister, reference), (b) both respondents and siblings were men (brother/brother),

(c) respondents were men and siblings were women (brother/sister), and (d) respondents were women and siblings were men (sister/brother). Age-gap between siblings was measured by the age difference between the respondent’s age and their sibling’s age. Geographic distance was measured by the question, “How far in travel time do you and he/she live from one another?”

Responses included the following ranges (0 = live together, 1 = within 5 minutes of each other, 2

= between 5 and 30 minutes apart, 3 = between 30 minutes and an hour apart, 4 = between an 20

hour and a half-day apart, 5 = between a half-day and a day apart, 6 = more than a day apart.)

Age was measured in years. Race/Ethnicity was comprised of four dummy variables indicating

whether the respondent identifies as White, Black, Hispanic, or other races. Birth order was comprised of two dummy variables indicating whether the respondent was the older sibling or

the younger sibling. Sibling relationship quality in adolescence measures came from Wave II

questions. Love for one’s sibling in adolescence was measured by the question, “How often do

you feel love for {NAME}?” (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often)

and divided into low love (1, 2, or 3), high love (4 or 5; reference) and missing. Conflict for one’s sibling in adolescence was measured by the question, “How often do you and {NAME} quarrel or fight?” Responses were based on a Likert Scale (1 = very often, 2 = often, 3 = sometimes, 4 = seldom, 5 = never) and divided into low quarrel (3, 4, or 5; reference), high quarrel (1 or 2), and missing. Time spent with one’s sibling in adolescence was measured by the question, “How much time do you and {NAME} spend together? Likert Scale responses were reverse-coded (1 = none, 2 = a little, 3 = some, 4 = a lot) and divided into less time (1, 2, or 3; reference), a lot of time (4), and missing.

Analytic Strategy

Following prior research (McHale, Bissell, & Kim, 2009), I used ordinary-least-squared

(OLS) regression models to examine the associations between social statuses—education, employment, relationship status, and parenthood—and each of the five aspects of sibling relationship quality for the younger and older siblings separately, because as discussed earlier, younger and older siblings have different perceptions of the relationship with their siblings. For each, I examined six models. Model 1 includes one aspect of the quality of sibling relationships with control variables. Models 2, 3, 4, 5 introduce the respondents’ and their siblings’ education, 21 employment, relationship, and parental statuses, respectively. Finally, Model 6 includes all four independent variables

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics for all variables in the analyses are shown in Table 1 (Appendix A, page 45) for the younger and older sibling samples separately. Below I presented the results from the OLS regressions predicting the association between life event statuses and five aspects of sibling relationships for the younger sibling sample and the older sibling sample.

Closeness

The first aspect of sibling relationship quality was closeness. I examined the younger sibling sample first (Appendix A, Table 2, page 47). Model 1(baseline model) included the control variables only. Model 2 tested the association between the respondents’ and their older siblings’ educational statuses and sibling closeness with control variables. Respondents who were in college reported significantly higher levels of closeness with their older siblings (b

=0.23, p <.05) compared to respondents with a high school diploma or GED. Model 3 examined the association between the respondents’ and their older siblings’ employment hours and sibling closeness with the control variables. There were no significant differences based on the respondents’ or their older siblings’ work hours. With regard to marriage and partnerships,

Model 4 shows that compared to single respondents, married respondents reported significantly less closeness (b = -0.25, p <.05) to their older siblings. Parenthood was also related to sibling closeness. As shown in Model 5, compared to respondents with no children, respondents who were parents reported significantly lower levels of closeness (b =-0.19, p<.05) to their older siblings. When their older siblings were parents, respondents report significantly higher levels of closeness with them (b= 0.22, p<.05). Model 6 included all social statuses. There were no significant differences based on educational, employment, or relationship statuses. However, compared to those without children, when the older sibling, but not the respondent, is a parent, 23

respondents reported significantly higher levels of sibling closeness (b =0.24, p <.05). In sum,

only one social status— older siblings’ parental status—was associated with levels of sibling

closeness.

It may be worth noting that some of the control variables were related to sibling

closeness. Stepsiblings, but not half-siblings, reported significantly lower levels of closeness

compared to biological siblings. Sister/brother, but not brother/brother or brother/sister sibling dyads, reported significantly lower levels of closeness compared to sister/sister sibling dyads.

Age-gap between siblings and distance from sibling did not significantly influence reports of sibling closeness. Those who were missing on adolescent measures did not significantly differ from those who were not missing on adolescent measures. Respondents who reported low levels love (compared to high levels of love) for their older sibling in adolescence reported significantly lower levels of closeness. Respondents who reported spending a lot of time (compared to less time) with their older sibling in adolescence reported significantly higher levels of closeness.

There were no significant differences in closeness reported by respondents based on measures of quarreling in adolescence. Neither the respondents’ age nor their race/ethnicity significantly influenced reports of sibling closeness.

Next, I examined the same set of models analyzing closeness for the older sibling sample

(Appendix A, Table 3, page 49). There were no significant differences reported based on the respondents’ or their younger siblings’ educational status (Model 2), work hours (Model 3), relationship statuses (Model 4), or parental statuses (Model 5) in the individual or full models

(Model 6). In sum, none of social statuses examined in this thesis were associated with levels of sibling closeness for the older sibling sample. 24

For control variables, stepsiblings, but not half-siblings, reported significantly lower levels of closeness compared to biological siblings. Brother/sister and sister/brother, but not brother/brother, sibling dyads, reported significantly lower levels of closeness compared to sister/sister sibling dyads. Age-gap between siblings and distance from siblings did not significantly influence reports of sibling closeness. Those who were missing on adolescent measures did not significantly differ from those who were not missing on adolescent measures.

Respondents who reported low levels love (compared to high levels of love) for their younger sibling in adolescence reported significantly lower levels of closeness, while respondents who reported spending a lot of time (compared to less time) with their younger sibling in adolescence reported significantly higher levels of closeness. There were no significant differences in closeness reported by respondents based on measures of quarreling in adolescence. Respondents’ age did not significantly influence reports of sibling closeness. However, respondents who identify as Black and as other races, but not as Hispanic, reported higher levels of closeness compared to White respondents.

Quarrel

The second aspect of relationship quality was quarreling with sibling. Again, I examined the younger sibling sample first (Appendix A, Table 4, page 51). There were no significant differences reported based on the respondents’ or their older siblings’ educational status (Model

2), work hours (Model 3), or parental statuses (Model 5). However, compared to single respondents, respondents who were cohabiting reported significantly lower levels of quarreling

(b = -0.26, p <.05) (Model 4). The negative association between the respondents’ cohabitation and quarreling with their older sibling remained in the full model (Model 6). In sum, only the 25

respondents’ cohabitation status was significantly associated with reports of quarreling with

one’s older sibling.

For control variables, stepsiblings, but not half-siblings, reported significantly lower

levels of quarreling compared to biological siblings. Brother/brother and brother/sister, but not sister/brother sibling dyads, reported significantly lower levels of quarreling compared to

sister/sister dyads. Age-gap between siblings nor distance between siblings significantly

influenced reports of quarreling. Those who were missing on adolescent measures did not

significantly differ from those who were not missing on adolescent measures, nor did

respondents who reported low levels of love (compared to high levels of love) for their sibling or a lot of time spent (compared to less time spent) with their sibling in adolescence. However, respondents who reported high levels of quarreling (compared to low levels of quarreling) in adolescence reported significantly greater levels of quarreling. Respondent age nor race/ethnicity reflected significant differences in respondents’ reports of quarreling with their sibling.

Table 5 (Appendix A, page 53) presents the results for the older sibling sample. As shown in Model 2, compared to those whose younger siblings who had a high school diploma or

GED, those whose younger siblings had a B.A. or beyond (b = 0.49, p <.05) reported

significantly higher levels of quarreling. Model 3 reflects that the younger siblings’, but not the

respondents’, work hours reflected significantly higher levels of quarreling (b = 0.00. p <.05).

Compared to single respondents, respondents who were married report significantly lower levels

of quarreling (b =-0.30, p <.01) (Model 4). Neither the respondents’ nor the younger siblings’

parental status significantly influenced reports of quarreling (Model 5). When all social statuses

were included in the model (Model 6), educational statuses did not significantly influence reports

of quarreling, while younger siblings’ work hours continued to reflect significantly higher 26

reports of quarreling. Further, compared to their single counterparts, married respondents and

those whose younger siblings were cohabiting (b = -0.23, p <.05) reported significantly less

quarreling. The other relationship statuses and parental statuses did not reflect significant

differences in reports of quarreling. In sum, two of the social statuses examined in the present analyses were associated with reports of quarreling: younger siblings’ work hours, and

relationship status, specifically the respondents’ marital status, and the younger siblings’ cohabitation status.

For control variables, stepsiblings, but not half siblings, reported significantly lower

levels of quarreling compared to biological siblings. Brother/brother, brother/sister, and

sister/brother sibling dyads, reported significantly lower levels of quarreling compared to

sister/sister dyads. Larger age-gaps between siblings reflect significantly higher levels of

quarreling. While larger distances between siblings reflect significantly less quarreling.

Respondents who reported high levels of quarreling (compared to low levels of quarreling) in

adolescence reported significantly greater levels of quarreling. None of the other adolescent

measures nor the respondents’ age significantly influenced reports of quarreling with their

sibling. Compared to White respondents, Black respondents, but not Hispanic or other race

respondents, reported significantly lower levels of quarreling.

Direct Contact

The third aspect of sibling relationship quality was direct contact. For the younger sibling

sample (Appendix A, Table 6, page 55), older sibling’s education, respondents’ relationship

status, older siblings’ relationship status, and older siblings’ parental status were related to levels

of direct contact. More specifically, as shown in Model 2, when older siblings were in college (b

= -0.18, p <.05) or had a B.A. or beyond (b = -0.23, p <.05) (compared to having a high school 27

diploma/GED) respondents reported significantly lower levels of direct contact. Model 4

suggests that compared to single respondents, respondents who were cohabiting (b = -0.34, p

<.001) and respondents who were married (b = -0.34, p <.001) reported significantly lower levels

of direct contact with their older siblings. Compared to respondents without children, respondents with children reported significantly lower levels (b = -0.18, p <.01) of direct contact with their older sibling (Model 5). While compared to those whose older siblings did not have children, respondents whose older siblings had children reported significantly higher levels (b

=0.22, p <.01) of direct contact. When all statuses were included in the model (Model 6), the negative associations between older siblings’ in college status, respondents’ marriage or cohabitation status, and direct contact with siblings remained significant, and a negative association between older siblings’ marital status (b = -0.24. p<.01) and direct contact emerged.

The positive association between older siblings’ parental status and direct contact with one’s sibling also remained significant. To summarize, three social statuses were associated with levels of direct contact between respondents and older siblings: older siblings’ in-college educational status, relationship status, specifically, respondents’ cohabiting and marital statuses and older siblings’ marital status, and older siblings’ parental status.

In terms of control variables, stepsiblings, but not half-siblings, reported significantly lower levels of direct contact compared to biological siblings. There were no significant differences based on the gender composition of the sibling dyad or the age-gap between siblings.

Distance between siblings was associated with significantly lower levels of direct contact with one’s sibling. None of the adolescent measures, the respondents’ age nor the respondents’ race/ethnicity significantly influenced reports of direct contact with one’s sibling. 28

Next, direct contact for the older sibling sample was analyzed (Appendix A, Table 7,

page 57). Model 2 suggests that when younger siblings had less than a high school diploma

(compared to having a high school diploma/GED) respondents reported significantly lower

levels of direct contact (b = -0.25, p <.05). As shown in Model 4, compared to respondents with

single younger siblings, respondents whose younger siblings were cohabiting (b = -0.20, p <.05),

but not married, reported significantly lower levels of direct contact with their younger siblings.

Model 6 included all social statuses. Compared to respondents whose younger siblings had a

high school diploma or GED, respondents whose younger siblings had less than a high school diploma or who were in college (b = -0.15, p<.05) reported significantly lower levels of direct contact. Compared to those with single younger siblings, those with cohabiting younger siblings, but not married younger siblings, reported significantly lowers of level of direct contact. To summarize, two social statuses were associated with reports of direct contact: younger siblings’

less than high school and in college educational statuses, and relationship status, specifically, the younger siblings’ cohabiting status.

Half-siblings and stepsiblings reported significantly lower levels of direct contact compared to biological siblings. Neither the gender composition of sibling dyad nor the age-gap between siblings significantly influenced reports of direct contact. Distance between siblings was associated with significantly lower levels of direct contact with one’s sibling. None of the adolescent measures nor the respondents’ age significantly influenced reports of direct contact.

Finally, compared to White respondents, Black respondents and respondents from other races, but not Hispanic respondents, report significantly greater levels of sibling direct contact.

Indirect Contact

I also examined indirect contact—by phone, by mail, or via email, the fourth aspect of

sibling relationship. For the younger sibling sample, (Appendix A, Table 8, page 59), the results

were somewhat different from those for direct contact. Compared to respondents with a high

school diploma or GED, respondents who were in college report significantly higher levels of

indirect contact (b = 0.63, p <.01) with their sibling (Model 2). When one’s older sibling has less

than a high school diploma (compared to a high school diploma or GED) respondents report

significantly lower levels of indirect contact (b = -0.78, p <.05) with their older sibling. Work

hours were not related to levels of indirect contact (Model 3). Both respondents’ and their older

siblings’ relationship statuses were related to levels of indirect contact. Specifically, compared to

single respondents, respondents who were cohabiting (b = -1.17, p <.001) and respondents who were married (b = -1.42, p <.001) reported significantly lower levels of indirect contact with their older siblings. Respondents also reported significantly lower levels of indirect contact when their older siblings were cohabiting (b =-0.90, p <.001) or married (b =-0.86, p <.001), rather than single. Compared to respondents without children, respondents with children reported significantly lower levels (b = -0.57, p <.05) of indirect with their older sibling (Model 5). When all social statuses were included in the model (Model 6) the negative associations between the respondents’ and older siblings’ relationship statuses and indirect contact remained significant.

Further, though respondent’s parental status was no longer significantly related to reports of indirect contact, older siblings’ parental status was; those whose older siblings were parents

reported significantly greater levels of indirect contact (b = 0.52, p <.05) compared to those

whose older siblings were not parents. In sum, two social statuses were associated with reports of indirect contact with one’s older sibling: relationship status, specifically, respondents’ 30 cohabitation and marital statuses and older siblings’ cohabitation and marital statuses, and older siblings’ parental status.

In terms of control variables, stepsiblings, but not half-siblings, reported significantly lower levels of indirect contact compared to biological siblings. Compared to sister/sister sibling dyads, brother/sister, but not brother/brother or sister/brother, sibling dyads reported significantly less indirect contact. Age-gap between siblings did not significantly influence reports of indirect contact. Distance between siblings was associated with significantly lower levels of indirect contact with one’s sibling. Those who reported low levels of love (compared to high levels of love) for their sibling in adolescence reported significantly lower levels of indirect contact with their sibling. No other adolescent measures significantly influenced indirect contact. Neither the respondents’ age nor race/ethnicity significantly influenced reports of indirect contact with one’s sibling.

Table 9 (Appendix A, page 61) presents the results for the older sibling sample.

Compared to respondents with a high school diploma or GED, respondents who were in college

(b =0.71, p <.05) or who had a B.A. or beyond (b = 1.26, p <.001) reported significantly higher levels of indirect contact with their sibling (Model 2). When one’s younger sibling had a B.A. or beyond (compared to a high school diploma or GED) respondents reported significantly greater levels of indirect contact (b = 1.56, p <.05) with their younger sibling. Compared to single respondents, respondents who were cohabiting (b = -1.19, p <.001) and respondents who were married (b = -1.20, p <.001) reported significantly lower levels of indirect contact with their younger siblings (Model 4). Respondents also reported significantly lower levels of indirect contact when their younger siblings were cohabiting (b = -1.36, p <.001) or married (b = -0.80, p

<.05), rather than single. Respondents with children reported significantly lower levels (b = - 31

0.82, p <.001) of indirect with their younger sibling, compared to respondents without children.

Model 6 added all social status variables. Compared to respondents and younger siblings with a high school diploma or GED, when respondents or their younger siblings had a B.A. or beyond, respondents reported significantly greater levels of indirect contact with their younger sibling.

When respondents or their younger siblings were cohabiting or married (compared to single), respondents reported significantly less indirect contact with their younger sibling. To summarize, two social statuses were associated with reports of direct contact: educational and relationship status; specifically, respondents’ and their younger siblings’ B.A. or beyond educational status, and both the respondents’ and their younger siblings’ cohabitation and marital statuses.

In terms of control variables, compared to biological siblings, both half-siblings and stepsiblings reported significantly less indirect contact with their siblings. Neither the gender composition of sibling dyads nor the age-gap between siblings significantly influenced reports of direct contact. Greater distance between siblings was associated with significantly less indirect contact. None of the adolescent measures nor the respondents’ age significantly influenced reports of indirect contact. However, compared to White respondents, respondents who identify as other races, but not as Black or Hispanic, reported significantly greater levels of indirect contact with their sibling.

Aid Seeking

The fifth aspect of sibling relationship quality analyzed was aid (help/advice) from sibling. For the younger sibling sample (Appendix A, Table 10, page 63), respondents’ marital status (b = -0.44, p <.01) (Model 4) and parental status (b = -0.32, p<.01) (Model 5) were negatively related to frequency of seeking aid from their older siblings, but both associations 32 disappeared when all social statues were included in the model (Model 6). In sum, none of the social statuses examined in this thesis significantly influenced reports of sibling aid.

Several control variables were related to levels of aid seeking. Stepsiblings, but not half- siblings, reported significantly lower levels of sibling aid compared to biological siblings.

Compared to sister/sister sibling dyads, brother/brother, brother/sister, and sister/brother dyads reported asking for significantly less aid from their older siblings. Age-gap between siblings did not significantly influence reports of aid. Distance between siblings was associated with significantly lower levels of asking for help or advice from one’s sibling. Those who reported a lot of time spent (compared to less time spent) with their older sibling in adolescence reported receiving significantly greater sibling aid. The other adolescent measures did not significantly influence reports of sibling aid. Neither the respondents’ age nor race/ethnicity significantly influenced reports of help or advice received from one’s sibling.

Table 11 (Appendix A, page 65) presents the results for the older sibling sample. Those whose younger siblings had less than a high school diploma (compared to having a high school diploma or GED) reported asking their younger sibling for significantly less aid (b =-0.57, p

<.001) (Model 2). However, none of the other educational statuses (Model 2), work hours

(Model 3), relationship statuses (Model 4), nor parental statuses (Model 5) were related to reports of receiving sibling aid. When all statuses were included in the model (Model 6), only having a younger sibling with less than a high school diploma was related to reports of asking for sibling aid.

It seems worth noting that both half-siblings and stepsiblings reported asking for significantly less sibling aid, compared to full-biological siblings. Further, compared to sister/sister sibling dyads, brother/brother, brother/sister, and sister/brother sibling dyads all 33

reported asking for significantly less sibling aid. Neither the age-gap between siblings nor the

respondents’ age significantly influenced reports of sibling aid. Respondents who reported a lot

of time (compared to less time) with their younger sibling in adolescence reported asking for

significantly more sibling aid. There were no other significant differences reported based on

adolescent measures. Finally, compared to White respondents, respondents who identify as

Hispanic or as other races, but not as Black, reported asking for significantly more sibling aid.

Summary of Findings

In sum, for the younger sibling sample, there was some support for both the time demands and role expansion perspectives. Table 12 (Appendix A, page 67) summarizes the overall findings for the younger and older sibling samples. I found that the respondents’ relationship status was associated with reports of significantly less quarreling, direct contact, and indirect contact with their older sibling. None of the respondents other social statuses influenced reports of sibling relationship quality for the younger sibling sample. However, respondents’ reports of sibling relationship qualities were associated with three out of four of their older siblings’ roles or statuses. Supporting the time demands perspective, the respondents’ older siblings being in college or being married were associated with significantly less direct contact.

Further, when their older siblings were cohabiting or married, respondents reported significantly less indirect contact. In contrast, supporting the role expansion perspective, if their older siblings were parents, respondents reported significantly more closeness, direct contact, and indirect contact with their older sibling, perhaps, because of positive feelings about their status as an aunt or an uncle. Neither the respondents’ educational status nor the respondents or their older siblings’ employment statuses were significantly associated with sibling relationship quality. 34

Similar to the younger sibling sample, there was some support for both the time demands and the role expansion perspective in the older sibling sample, and respondents’ reports of sibling relationship quality seemed more responsive to their younger siblings’ statuses or roles than their own. Respondents who were married reported significantly less quarreling and indirect contact with their younger sibling. Respondents who were cohabiting also reported significantly less indirect contact with their younger sibling, while respondents who had a B.A. or beyond reported significantly more indirect contact with their younger sibling. Younger siblings’ educational status had interesting associations with contact. When younger siblings had less than a high school diploma or were in college, respondents reported significantly less direct contact, but if younger siblings had a B.A. or beyond respondents reported significantly more indirect contact. Additionally, when younger siblings had less than a high school, diploma respondents reported asking for significantly less aid. Younger siblings’ employment hours were associated with significantly more quarreling, while younger siblings’ cohabiting status was associated with reports of significantly less quarreling, as well as, significantly less direct contact. Younger siblings’ relationship status (cohabitation and marriage) were associated with reports of significantly less indirect contact.

DISCUSSION

The current study aimed to explore the relationship between siblings’ social roles and

statuses, and sibling relationship quality, for both younger and older siblings using matched

sibling dyad pairs. Drawing on role theories, I used two contrasting perspective—the time demands and the role expansion perspectives—which led to two contrasting predictions. The findings suggest that both perspectives garnered partial support in the analyses.

Several findings show support for the time demands perspective. With regard to education (H1a), siblings’ higher level of education (in-college) was associated with less direct contact for both the younger and older sibling samples. For employment (H2a), siblings’ longer work hours were associated with greater reports of quarreling, although for the older sibling sample only. In terms of marriage and romantic relationships (H3a), siblings’ cohabitation status was associated with reports of less direct contact for the older sibling sample, and both the respondents’ and their siblings’ cohabitation and marital statuses were associated with reports of significantly less indirect contact for both the younger and older sibling samples. Although I hypothesized that the time demands perspective would be related to more quarreling, the results of the present analysis showed do not support this hypothesis for either the younger and older

samples. It could be that if siblings do not have a chance for contact with one another, they have

a fewer opportunities to fight. For parental status, I did not find any support for the time demands

perspective (H4a).

Other findings are consistent with the role expansion perspective. For education (H1b),

siblings’ lower education level (less than high school) was associated with less direct contact and

asking for less sibling aid, although for the older sibling sample only. Further, both the

respondents’ and their siblings’ higher levels of education (B.A. or beyond) were associated with 36

reports of significantly greater indirect contact for the older sibling sample. For cohabitation and marriage, respondents’ cohabitation status for the younger sibling sample, and respondents’ marriage and siblings’ cohabitation statuses for the older sibling sample, were associated with less quarreling (H3b). Finally, for parental status (H4b), siblings’ parental status was associated with significantly more closeness, direct contact, and indirect contact, although for the younger sibling sample only. These findings are consistent with prior research, which suggested that becoming a parent is related to more contact with family members (Nomaguchi & Milike, 2003).

All in all, relationship status showed the most robust associations with aspects of sibling relationship quality. In line with the time demands perspective, relationship status was associated with less direct contact (respondents’ cohabitation and marital statuses and siblings’ marital status for the younger sibling sample, and siblings’ cohabitation status for the older sibling sample) and indirect contact (respondents’ and siblings’ cohabitation and marital statuses for both the younger and older sibling sample) between siblings. I found that relationship status

(respondents’ cohabitation status for the younger sibling sample, and respondents’ marital status and siblings’ cohabitation status for the older sibling sample) was associated with less quarreling between siblings. These findings are consistent with prior findings that marriage is related to reduced parent-child ties (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2008). As Sarkisian and Gerstel (2008) argued, as

U.S. culture emphasizes the importance of romantic ties as the most important interpersonal ties in adult lives, marriage and partnership could undermine other close relationships, such as parent-child relationships and sibling relationships. Note that I found that neither the respondents’ nor their siblings’ relationship status significantly influenced reports of closeness, suggesting that past studies that have primarily focused on closeness and other limited or combined measures of sibling relationship quality (e.g. Van Volkom et al., 2011), were not 37 sufficiently measuring sibling relationship quality. At the same time, my findings suggest that less contact, due to marriage or cohabitation, may not necessarily lead to less emotional closeness among sibling.

Surprisingly, when considering the respondents’ own social roles/statuses there were not any significant associations with reports of closeness or asking for aid, for the younger or older sibling samples. Further, neither the respondents’ employment nor parental statuses significantly influenced reports of sibling relationship quality for either the younger or older sibling samples, and the respondents’ educational status was associated with more indirect contact, for the older sample only. For the respondents (rather than the siblings) in both the younger and older sibling samples, relationship status was the only significant status or role predicting sibling relationship quality (with the exception of respondents’ educational status being associated with more indirect contact, for the older sibling sample). These findings suggest that, except for romantic relationships, it is namely their siblings’ social statuses that are significantly influencing reports of sibling relationship quality. Each of the four social statuses of the siblings’ were associated with at least one of the five aspects of sibling relationship quality, and each of the five aspects of sibling relationship quality was significantly influenced by siblings’ roles/statuses at least once.

Because the sample is not representative and focusing on only one sibling pair per household, I am cautious about making strong conclusions. Future research should examine how the association between social roles and sibling relationships vary depending on whose social statuses and whose perceptions of sibling relationship quality are being analyzed.

Even though there is not a comparable large-scale, longitudinal, U.S. sibling pair designs like the one Add Health presents, the sample has a limitation, as it is not generalizable. I was able to control for sibling relationship quality in adolescence, but for this purpose, I had to restrict the 38 sample to those who had information about the same siblings in Waves II and III. It would be interesting to investigate how sibling relationships change across three waves, but Wave IV did not have comparable sibling relationship measures to Waves II and III. Hopefully future waves will continue to ask about specific aspects of sibling relationships, though one limitation of the current sibling relationship measures is that they do not consider a specific time frame, such as the past 12 months. Additionally, this study only includes the first, different-aged sibling listed for each respondent, so it does not include additional siblings, or twins.

There are other limitations that future research should address. First, this thesis project did not examine past life events that could influence sibling relationship quality, such as job loss and divorce, or duration of marriage or cohabitation. Some research has shown that these life events are related to parent-child relationship quality (Kaufman & Uhlenberg, 1998), suggesting the merit of investigating their implications for sibling relationship quality. Future research might want to examine more complicated questions, such as whether similarities and disparities in social statuses between siblings influence each sibling’s perception of relationship quality with each other. Finally, although I examined multiple aspects of sibling relationship quality, there are more aspects that I did not examine, such as rivalry or instrumental support.

Nonetheless, this study advances past research by considering how social statuses are related to a wide range of aspects of sibling relationship quality—closeness, quarreling, direct contact, indirect contact, aid—for both siblings in the dyad. Further, common independent variables in past sibling relationship studies (e.g. gender composition of sibling dyad, sibling relationship type) are controlled for in this study. Sibling relationships are common, but also complex and diverse. Understanding factors influencing sibling relationships in different life 39 stages may provide better insight into close relationships in individuals’ lives across the life span.

REFERENCES

Anderson, L. & Payne, K. K. (2016). Median age at first marriage, 2014. Family profiles, FP-16-

07. Bowling Green, OH: National Center for Family & Marriage Research.

http://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/anderson-payne-median-age-

first-marriage-fp-16-07.html

Barnet, R.C. & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family. American Psychologist,

56(10), 781-796.

Barnet, R.C. & Rivers, C. (1996). She works/he works: How two-income families are happy,

healthy, and thriving. Harvard University Press.

Bianchi, S. M. (2000). Maternal employment and time with children: Dramatic change or

surprising continuity? Demography, 37(4), 401-414.

Conger, K. J. Conger, R. D. & Elder Jr, G. H. (1994) Sibling relations during hard times. In R.

D. Conger & G. H. Elder (Eds.), Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural

America (pp. 235-252). New York: de Gruyter

Conger, K.J. & Little, W.M. (2010). Sibling relationships during the transition to Adulthood.

Child Development Perspectives, 4(2), 87-94.

Connidis, I.A. & Campbell, L.D. (1995). Closeness, confiding, and contact among siblings in

middle and late adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 16(6), 722 - 745.

Dolgin, K.G. & Lindsay, K.R. (1999). Disclosure between college students and their Siblings.

Journal of Family Psychology, 13(3), 393-400.

Elder Jr, G.H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 4-15. 41

Frase, P. & Gornick, J.C. (2013). The time divide in cross-national perspective; The work week,

education and institutions that matter. Social Forces, 91(3), 697-724.

Gallagher, S.K. & Gerstel, N. (2001). Connections and constraints: The effects of children on

caregiving. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 265-275.

Gerstel, N., & Gallagher, S.K. (1993). Kinkeeping and distress: Gender, recipients of Care, and

work-family conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 598-608.

Ginther, D. K. & Pollak, R. A. (2004). "Family structure and children’s educational outcomes:

Blended families, stylized facts, and descriptive regressions." Demography (41)4, 671-

696.

Goode, W.J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 483-496.

Harris, K.M. & Udry, R.J. (1994- 2008). National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult

Health (Add Health, Wave I). Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of

North Carolina-Chapel Hill [producer]. Anna Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium

for Political and Social Research [distributor].

Ishii-Kuntz, M. & Secombe, K. (1989). The impact of children upon social support Networks

throughout the life course. Journal of Marriage and Family, 777 - 790.

Kaufman, G. & Uhlenberg, P. (1998). Effects of Life Course transitions on the quality of

relationships between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and Family,

60: 924-938

Kim, J.Y., McHale, S.M., Wayne Osgood, D. & Crouter, A.C. (2006). Longitudinal course and

family correlates of sibling relationships from childhood through adolescence. Childhood

Development, 77(6), 1746-1761. 42

Manning, W. D., Brown, S. L., & Payne, K. K. (2014). Two decades of stability and change in

age at first union formation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2), 247-260.

Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and

commitment. American Sociological Review, 42(6), 921-936.

Marks, S. R. & MacDermid, S.M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 417-432.

McHale, S.M., Bissell, J., & Kim, J.Y. (2009). Sibling relationship, family, and genetic factors in

sibling similarity in sexual risk. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(4), 562- 572.

Milevsky, A. (2005). Compensatory patterns of sibling support in emerging adulthood:

Variations in loneliness, self-esteem, depression, and life satisfaction. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships, 22(6), 743-755.

Milevsky, A. & Heerwagen, M. (2013). A phenomenological examination of sibling

Relationships in emerging adulthood. Marriage & Family Review, 49(3), 251- 263.

Milevsky, A., Smooth, K., Leh, M., & Ruppe, A. (2005). Familial and contextual variables and

the nature of sibling relationships in emerging adulthood. Marriage & Family Review,

37(4), 123-141.

Munch, A., McPherson, J.M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1997). Gender, children, and social contact:

The effects of childrearing for men and women. American Sociological Review, 509 -

520.

Newman, J. (1991). College students’ relationships with siblings. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 20(6), 629-644.

Noller, P. (2005). Sibling relationships in adolescence: Learning and growing together. Personal

Relationships, 12(1), 1-22. 43

Nomaguchi, K. M., & Milkie, M.A. (2003). Costs and rewards of children: The effects of

becoming a parent on adults’ lives. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(2), 356-374.

Nomaguchi, K.M., Milkie, M.A., & Bianchi, S.M. (2005). Time strains and psychological well-

being do dual-earner mothers and fathers differ? Journal of Family Issues, 26(6), 756-

792.

Riggio, H. R. (2000). Measuring attitudes toward adult sibling relationships: The Lifespan

Sibling Relationship Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(6), 707-

728.

Ryan, C. L., & Bauman, K. (2016). Educational Attainment in the United States: 2015.

Ryan, S., Franzetta, K., Schelar, E., & Manlove, J. (2009). Family structure history: Links to

relationship formation behaviors in young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family,

71(4), 935-953.

Sarkisian, N., & Gerstel, N. (2008). Till marriage do us part: Adult children’s relationships with

their parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(2), 360-376.

Settersten, Jr., R. A. (2012). The contemporary context of young adulthood in the USA: From

demography to development, from private troubles to public issues. In Booth, A., Brown,

S.L., Landale, N.S., Manning, W.D., McHale, S.M. (Eds.), Early Adulthood in a Family

Context (pp. 3-26). Spring New York: New York, NY.

Sherman, A.M., Lansford, J.E., & Volling, B.L. (2006). Sibling relationships and best

friendships in young adulthood: Warmth, conflict, and well-being. Personal

Relationships, 13, 151-165.

Shortt, J.W. & Gottman, J.M. (1997). Closeness in young adult sibling relationships: Affective

and physiological processes. Social Development, 6(2), 142-164. 44

Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review,

39(4), 567-578.

Simon, R. W., & Barrett, A. E. (2010). Nonmarital romantic relationships and mental health in

early adulthood does the association differ for women and men? Journal of Health and

Social Behavior, 51(2), 168-182.

Sironi, M. & Furstenberg, F.F. (2012). Trends in economic independence of young adults in the

United States: 1973-2007. Population and Development Review, 38(4), 609-630.

Stocker, C.M., Lathier, R.P., & Furman, W. (1997). Sibling relationships in early adulthood.

Journal of Family Psychology, 11(2), 210-221.

Umberson, D., & Montez, J. K. (2010). Social relationships and health a flashpoint for health

policy. Journal of health and social behavior, 51(1 suppl), S54-S66.

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.

White, L. (2001). Sibling relationships over the life course: A panel analysis. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 63, 555-568.

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(2), 461-474.

APPENDIX A

Table 1: Means (Std.) for Variables in the Analysis. Younger Sample Older Sample (N = 752) (N = 699) Relationship Quality with the Focal Sibling Closeness 2.86 (1.14) 2.95 (1.05) Quarrel 1.11 (1.10) 1.11 (1.06) Direct contact (seeing each other) 2.64 (1.52) 2.90 (1.47) Indirect contact (phone/letters/emails) 4.15 (3.27) 4.46 (3.30) Seeking help 1.75 (1.31) 1.58 (1.31) Social statuses Education R Less than high school diploma 0.15 0.11 R High school diploma or GED 0.35 0.37 R Some College 0.10 0.18 R In College 0.38 0.20 R Bachelor’s Degree & beyond 0.02 0.14 S Less than high school diploma 0.12 0.13 S High school diploma or GED 0.33 0.35 S Some College 0.26 0.39 S In College 0.17 0.09 S Bachelor’s Degree & beyond 0.13 0.03 Employment R Work hours 24.35 (19.31) 28.95 (19.41) S Work hours 29.78 (19.39) 23.79 (19.20) Relationship Status R Single 0.71 0.60 R Cohabiting 0.16 0.18 R Married 0.13 0.22 S Single 0.57 0.75 S Cohabiting 0.18 0.15 S Married 0.25 0.10 Parental Status R Parents 0.37 0.41 S Parents 0.40 0.34 Controls Sibling type Biological-sibling 0.59 0.63 Half-sibling 0.19 0.19 Step-sibling 0.22 0.18 46

Brother/brother 0.26 0.26 Brother/sister 0.19 0.22 Sister/brother 0.24 0.24 Sister/sister 0.31 0.27 Respondent- Age 20.60 (1.49) 22.99 (1.38) Sibling pair age gap 2.47 (1.26) 2.39 (1.28) Geographic Distance from Sibling 2.48 (1.85) 2.33 (1.85) Respondent- Race/ethnicity White 0.52 0.51 Black 0.23 0.24 Hispanic 0.15 0.14 Other race 0.10 0.11 Sibling Relationship Quality in Adolescence Love Missing 0.14 (0.35) 0.17 (0.38) Low 0.28 (0.45) 0.22 (0.41) High 0.58 (0.49) 0.61 (0.49) Quarrelling Missing 0.14 (0.35) 0.17 (0.38) Low 0.62 (0.49) 0.60 (0.49) High 0.24 (0.43) 0.23 (0.42) Time together Missing 0.14 (0.35) 0.17 (0.38) Less 0.58 (0.49) 0.51 (0.50) A lot 0.28 (0.45) 0.32 (0.47) Note. “R” stands for “Respondent”; “S” stands for “Sibling 47

Table 2: Coefficients from Ordinary-Least-Squared Regression Models Predicting the Association Between Social Statuses and Closeness to Sibling: Younger Sibling (N = 752) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE Educationa R < high School 0.08 0.13 0.09 0.13 R Some College 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.14 R In College 0.23 0.10* 0.19 0.10 R B.A. & beyond -0.01 0.29 -0.02 0.30 S < high School -0.26 0.14 -0.27 0.14 S Some College 0.03 0.12 0.04 0.12 S In College -0.20 0.11 -0.19 0.11 S B.A. & beyond -0.12 0.14 -0.06 0.15 Employment R Work hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S Work hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Relationship Statusa R Cohabiting -0.03 0.11 0.01 0.11 R Married -0.25 0.13* -0.16 0.13 S Cohabiting 0.01 0.11 -0.01 0.11 S Married -0.03 0.10 -0.11 0.10 Parental Status R Parent -0.19 0.09* -0.12 0.10 S Parent 0.22 0.09* 0.24 0.10* Control Variables Sibling Typea Half-siblings -0.18 0.11 -0.15 0.11 -0.18 0.11 -0.17 0.11 -0.17 0.11 -0.15 0.11 Step-siblings -0.72 0.10*** -0.69 0.10*** -0.71 0.10*** -0.71 0.10*** -0.71 0.10*** -0.70 0.10*** Gender Compositiona Brother/brother 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.09 0.11 Brother/sister 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.12 48

Sister/brother -0.30 0.11** -0.30 0.11** -0.30 0.11** -0.29 0.11** -0.25 0.11* -0.24 0.11* Age-gap -0.01 0.04 -0.02 0.04 -0.01 0.04 -0.01 0.04 -0.01 0.04 -0.01 0.04 Distance from sibling -0.04 0.02 -0.04 0.02 -0.04 0.02 -0.03 0.02 -0.04 0.02 -0.03 0.02 Sibling Relationship Quality in Adolescencea Missing -0.18 0.12 -0.20 0.13 -0.18 0.12 -0.17 0.13 -0.19 0.12 -0.20 0.13 Low love -0.36 0.09*** -0.36 0.09*** -0.36 0.09*** -0.35 0.09*** -0.34 0.09*** -0.34 0.10*** High quarreling -0.10 0.10 -0.08 0.10 -0.09 0.10 -0.10 0.10 -0.10 0.10 -0.11 0.10 A lot of time together 0.34 0.09*** 0.33 0.09*** 0.33 0.09*** 0.35 0.09*** 0.33 0.09*** 0.34 0.09*** R Age 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.03 R Race/Ethnicitya Black 0.14 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.11 Hispanic -0.05 0.12 0.01 0.12 -0.05 0.12 -0.03 0.12 -0.04 0.12 0.00 0.12 Other races -0.27 0.14* -0.24 0.14 -0.28 0.14 -0.26 0.14 -0.25 0.14 -0.22 0.14 Intercept 3.19 0.70*** 3.14 0.73*** 3.15 0.71*** 2.93 0.71*** 3.21 0.70*** 2.99 0.74*** R² 0.15*** 0.16*** 0.15*** 0.15*** 0.16*** 0.18*** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Note: “R” stands for Respondent; “S” stands for Sibling. aOmitted reference groups are: R high school diploma, S high school diploma, R single, S single, biological siblings, sister/sister, high love for sibling in adolescence, low quarreling with sibling in adolescence, low time spent with sibling in adolescence, white.

Table 3: Coefficients from Ordinary-Least-Squared Regression Models Predicting the Association Between Social Statuses and Closeness to Sibling: Older Sibling (N = 699) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE Educationa R < high School 0.03 0.14 0.03 0.14 R Some College 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.11 R In College 0.00 0.11 -0.03 0.12 R B.A. & beyond 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.14 S < high School -0.23 0.12 -0.21 0.13 S Some College 0.05 0.14 0.02 0.15 S In College 0.00 0.09 -0.01 0.10 S B.A. & beyond 0.01 0.24 -0.01 0.24 Employment R Work hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S Work hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Relationship Statusa R Cohabiting -0.01 0.10 0.02 0.11 R Married -0.07 0.10 -0.03 0.11 S Cohabiting 0.09 0.11 -0.07 0.11 S Married -0.07 0.13 -0.04 0.14 Parental Status R Parent -0.03 0.08 -0.01 0.09 S Parent 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.09 Control Variables Sibling Typea Half-siblings -0.11 0.10 -0.08 0.11 -0.11 0.10 -0.10 0.11 -0.11 0.10 -0.07 0.11 Step-siblings -0.79 0.10*** -0.77 0.10*** -0.79 0.10*** -0.78 0.10*** -0.78 0.10*** -0.76 0.11*** Gender Compositiona Brother/brother -0.11 0.11 -0.09 0.11 -0.12 0.11 -0.13 0.11 -0.16 0.11 -0.15 0.11 Brother/sister -0.22 0.11* -0.21 0.11 -0.23 0.11* -0.23 0.11* -0.25 0.11* -0.24 0.12* 50

Sister/brother -0.21 0.11* -0.20 0.11 -0.23 0.11* -0.23 0.11* -0.24 0.11* -0.26 0.11* Age-gap -0.05 0.03 -0.05 0.03 -0.05 0.03 -0.06 0.03 -0.06 0.03 -0.06 0.04 Distance from sibling -0.02 0.02 -0.03 0.02 -0.02 0.02 -0.02 0.02 -0.03 0.02 -0.02 0.02 Sibling Relationship Quality in Adolescencea Missing -0.07 0.11 -0.06 0.12 -0.09 0.11 -0.08 0.12 -0.06 0.11 -0.07 0.12 Low love -0.35 0.10*** -0.34 0.10*** -0.35 0.10*** -0.35 0.10*** -0.34 0.10*** -0.34 0.10*** High quarreling -0.06 0.09 -0.08 0.09 -0.06 0.09 -0.06 0.09 -0.07 0.09 -0.10 0.10 A lot of time together 0.24 0.09** 0.24 0.09** 0.23 0.09* 0.25 0.09** 0.24 0.09** 0.24 0.09* R Age 0.00 0.03 -0.02 0.03 -0.01 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 -0.01 0.03 R Race/Ethnicitya Black 0.32 0.10** 0.34 0.10 0.33 0.10*** 0.31 0.10** 0.35 0.10*** 0.37 0.10*** Hispanic 0.13 0.12 0.19 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.20 0.12 Other races 0.27 0.13* 0.25 0.13 0.28 0.13* 0.26 0.13* 0.27 0.13* 0.26 0.13* Intercept 3.40 0.70*** 3.63 0.74*** 3.37 0.70*** 3.31 0.72*** 3.48 0.71*** 3.60 0.75 R² 0.15*** 0.16*** 0.15*** 0.15*** 0.15*** 0.18*** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Note: “R” stands for Respondent; “S” stands for Sibling. aOmitted reference groups are: R high school diploma, S high school diploma, R single, S single, biological siblings, sister/sister, high love for sibling in adolescence, low quarreling with sibling in adolescence, low time spent with sibling in adolescence, white.

Table 4: Coefficients from Ordinary-Least-Squared Regression Models Predicting the Association Between Social Statuses and Conflict with Sibling: Younger Sibling (N = 752) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE Educationa R < high School 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.13 R Some College -0.05 0.14 -0.08 0.14 R In College 0.11 0.10 0.05 0.10 R B.A. & beyond 0.18 0.29 0.08 0.29 S < high School -0.07 0.14 -0.08 0.14 S Some College 0.17 0.12 0.16 0.12 S In College 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.11 S B.A. & beyond 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.15 Employment R Work hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S Work hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Relationship Statusa R Cohabiting -0.26 0.11* -0.22 0.11* R Married -0.20 0.12 -0.12 0.13 S Cohabiting 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.11 S Married -0.08 0.10 -0.06 0.10 Parental Status R Parent -0.14 0.09 -0.10 0.10 S Parent -0.07 0.09 -0.02 0.09 Control Variables Sibling Typea Half-siblings -0.01 0.11 0.03 0.11 -0.01 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.03 0.11 Step-siblings -0.57 0.10*** -0.53 0.10*** -0.57 0.10*** -0.55 0.10*** -0.53 0.10*** -0.51 0.10*** Gender Compositiona Brother/brother -0.24 0.10* -0.23 0.11* -0.23 0.11* -0.27 0.11* -0.29 0.11** -0.28 0.11* Brother/sister -0.31 0.11** -0.31 0.11** -0.31 0.11** -0.35 0.11** -0.34 0.11** -0.36 0.12** 52

Sister/brother 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.11 -0.01 0.11 -0.01 0.11 -0.01 0.11 Age-gap -0.05 0.04 -0.05 0.04 -0.05 0.04 -0.05 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 0.04 Distance from sibling -0.03 0.02 -0.04 0.02 -0.03 0.02 -0.02 0.02 -0.04 0.02 -0.03 0.02 Sibling Relationship Quality in Adolescencea Missing -0.06 0.12 -0.02 0.13 -0.06 0.12 -0.05 0.12 -0.04 0.12 -0.02 0.13 Low love 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.10 High quarreling 0.31 0.10** 0.31 0.10** 0.32 0.10** 0.31 0.10** 0.32 0.10*** 0.31 0.10** A lot of time together -0.10 0.09 -0.09 0.09 -0.10 0.09 -0.09 0.09 -0.09 0.09 -0.09 0.09 R Age -0.06 0.03 -0.06 0.03 -0.06 0.03 -0.04 0.03 -0.05 0.03 -0.04 0.03 R Race/Ethnicitya Black -0.02 0.10 -0.02 0.10 -0.03 0.10 -0.05 0.10 0.01 0.10 -0.03 0.11 Hispanic 0.17 0.12 0.18 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.22 0.12 0.18 0.12 Other races 0.11 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.14 Intercept 2.70 0.69*** 2.49 0.72*** 2.68 0.70*** 2.42 0.70*** 2.62 0.69 2.31 0.74** R² 0.10*** 0.11*** 0.10*** 0.11*** 0.11*** 0.12*** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Note: “R” stands for Respondent; “S” stands for Sibling. aOmitted reference groups are: R high school diploma, S high school diploma, R single, S single, biological siblings, sister/sister, high love for sibling in adolescence, low quarreling with sibling in adolescence, low time spent with sibling in adolescence, white.

Table 5: Coefficients from Ordinary-Least-Squared Regression Models Predicting the Association Between Social Statuses and Conflict with Sibling: Older Sibling (N = 699) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE Educationa R < high School -0.23 0.14 -0.25 0.14 R Some College -0.16 0.11 -0.16 0.11 R In College 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.11 R B.A. & beyond 0.07 0.13 0.01 0.14 S < high School 0.17 0.12 0.20 0.12 S Some College 0.06 0.14 0.04 0.14 S In College -0.03 0.09 -0.02 0.10 S B.A. & beyond 0.49 0.24* 0.44 0.24 Employment R Work hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S Work hours 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00* Relationship Statusa R Cohabiting -0.15 0.10 -0.12 0.11 R Married -0.30 0.10** -0.24 0.10* S Cohabiting -0.18 0.11 -0.23 0.11* S Married 0.06 0.13 0.00 0.14 Parental Status R Parent -0.16 0.08 -0.07 0.09 S Parent 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09 Control Variables Sibling Typea Half-siblings -0.25 0.10* -0.23 0.11* -0.24 0.10* -0.18 0.10 -0.23 0.10* -0.17 0.11 Step-siblings -0.50 0.10*** -0.50 0.11*** -0.50 0.10*** -0.47 0.10*** -0.50 0.10*** -0.49 0.11*** Gender Compositiona Brother/brother -0.18 0.11 -0.19 0.11 -0.20 0.11 -0.24 0.11* -0.21 0.11 -0.25 0.11* Brother/sister -0.36 0.11** -0.32 0.11** -0.36 0.11** -0.40 0.11*** -0.40 0.11*** -0.37 0.12** 54

Sister/brother -0.20 0.11 -0.22 0.11* -0.23 0.11* -0.25 0.11* -0.21 0.11* -0.28 0.11* Age-gap 0.07 0.03* 0.08 0.03* 0.07 0.03* 0.07 0.03* 0.07 0.03* 0.08 0.04* Distance from sibling -0.09 0.02*** -0.09 0.02*** -0.08 0.02*** -0.08 0.02*** -0.09 0.02*** -0.08 0.02*** Sibling Relationship Quality in Adolescencea Missing 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.00 0.12 Low love 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.10 -0.01 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.10 High quarreling 0.65 0.09*** 0.67 0.09*** 0.64 0.09*** 0.63 0.09*** 0.66 0.09*** 0.65 0.09*** A lot of time together 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.09 -0.01 0.09 0.00 0.09 -0.01 0.09 -0.01 0.09 R Age -0.03 0.03 -0.04 0.03 -0.03 0.03 -0.02 0.03 -0.03 0.03 -0.03 0.03 R Race/Ethnicitya Black -0.28 0.10** -0.28 0.10** -0.27 0.10** -0.33 0.10*** -0.28 0.10** -0.33 0.10** Hispanic 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.06 0.12 Other races 0.01 0.13 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.13 -0.02 0.13 0.02 0.13 0.00 0.13 Intercept 2.02 0.70** 2.28 0.73** 1.98 0.70** 1.92 0.71** 2.12 0.70** 2.13 0.74** R² 0.17*** 0.19*** 0.18*** 0.19*** 0.17*** 0.21*** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Note: “R” stands for Respondent; “S” stands for Sibling. aOmitted reference groups are: R high school diploma, S high school diploma, R single, S single, biological siblings, sister/sister, high love for sibling in adolescence, low quarreling with sibling in adolescence, low time spent with sibling in adolescence, white.

Table 6: Coefficients from Ordinary-Least-Squared Regression Models Predicting the Association Between Social Statuses and Direct Contact with Sibling: Younger Sibling (N = 752) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE Educationa R < high School -0.16 0.10 -0.16 0.10 R Some College 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.11 R In College 0.11 0.07 0.02 0.08 R B.A. & beyond -0.02 0.22 -0.12 0.22 S < high School -0.05 0.11 -0.03 0.11 S Some College -0.08 0.09 -0.09 0.09 S In College -0.18 0.08* -0.22 0.08* S B.A. & beyond -0.23 0.11* -0.21 0.11 Employment R Work hours -0.00 0.002 0.00 0.00 S Work hours -0.00 0.002 0.00 0.00 Relationship Statusa R Cohabiting -0.34 0.08*** -0.35 0.08*** R Married -0.34 0.09*** -0.34 0.10*** S Cohabiting -0.08 0.08 -0.15 0.08 S Married -0.13 0.07 -0.24 0.08** Parental Status R Parent -0.18 0.07** -0.09 0.07 S Parent 0.22 0.07** 0.25 0.07*** Control Variables Sibling Typea Half-siblings -0.11 0.08 -0.09 0.08 -0.11 0.08 -0.08 0.08 -0.10 0.08 -0.09 0.08 Step-siblings -0.76 0.08*** -0.77 0.08*** -0.77 0.08*** -0.74 0.07*** -0.76 0.08*** -0.78 0.08*** Gender Compositiona Brother/brother 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.08 Brother/sister -0.04 0.09 -0.03 0.09 -0.03 0.09 -0.10 0.09 -0.05 0.09 -0.09 0.09 56

Sister/brother -0.17 0.08* -0.17 0.08* -0.17 0.08* -0.20 0.08* -0.12 0.08 -0.16 0.08 Age-gap 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 Distance from sibling -0.66 0.02*** -0.66 0.02*** -0.66 0.02*** -0.64 0.02*** -0.66 0.02*** -0.64 0.02*** Sibling Relationship Quality in Adolescencea Missing -0.13 0.10 -0.16 0.10 -0.12 0.10 -0.09 0.09 -0.13 0.09 -0.14 0.09 Low love -0.14 0.07* -0.16 0.07* -0.15 0.07 -0.12 0.07 -0.12 0.07 -0.14 0.07 High quarreling 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.07 A lot of time together 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.07 R Age -0.03 0.02 -0.03 0.02 -0.03 0.02 -0.01 0.02 -0.04 0.02 -0.01 0.02 R Race/Ethnicitya Black 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.08 -0.05 0.08 Hispanic -0.13 0.09 -0.08 0.09 -0.14 0.09 -0.13 0.09 -0.13 0.09 -0.15 0.09 Other races -0.16 0.10 -0.13 0.11 -0.17 0.10 -0.16 0.10 -0.14 0.10 -0.13 0.10 Intercept 5.23 0.53*** 5.32 0.55*** 5.18 0.54*** 4.78 0.53*** 5.25 0.53*** 4.96 0.55 R² 0.72*** 0.73*** 0.72*** 0.73*** 0.73*** 0.74*** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Note: “R” stands for Respondent; “S” stands for Sibling. aOmitted reference groups are: R high school diploma, S high school diploma, R single, S single, biological siblings, sister/sister, high love for sibling in adolescence, low quarreling with sibling in adolescence, low time spent with sibling in adolescence, white.

Table 7: Coefficients from Ordinary-Least-Squared Regression Models Predicting the Association Between Social Statuses and Direct Contact with Sibling: Older Sibling (N = 699) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE Educationa R < high School 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 R Some College 0.14 0.09 0.13 0.09 R In College 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.09 R B.A. & beyond 0.07 0.10 0.01 0.11 S < high School -0.25 0.10* -0.25 0.10* S Some College 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.11 S In College -0.10 0.07 -0.15 0.08* S B.A. & beyond 0.01 0.19 -0.04 0.19 Employment R Work hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S Work hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Relationship Statusa R Cohabiting -0.09 0.08 -0.07 0.08 R Married -0.17 0.08 -0.16 0.08 S Cohabiting -0.20 0.08* -0.22 0.09* S Married -0.11 0.10 -0.14 0.11 Parental Status R Parent -0.05 0.07 -0.01 0.07 S Parent -0.11 0.07 -0.06 0.07 Control Variables Sibling Typea Half-siblings -0.27 0.08*** -0.25 0.08** -0.27 0.08*** -0.22 0.08** -0.27 0.08** -0.22 0.08* Step-siblings -0.57 0.08*** -0.56 0.08*** -0.57 0.08*** -0.54 0.08*** -0.56 0.08*** -0.54 0.08*** Gender Compositiona Brother/brother -0.01 0.08 0.01 0.08 -0.01 0.08 -0.06 0.08 -0.06 0.09 -0.06 0.09 Brother/sister -0.09 0.09 -0.08 0.09 -0.09 0.09 -0.12 0.09 -0.12 0.09 -0.12 0.09 58

Sister/brother -0.08 0.08 -0.07 0.08 -0.09 0.08 -0.12 0.08 -0.11 0.09 -0.14 0.09 Age-gap 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 Distance from sibling -0.65 0.02*** -0.65 0.02*** -0.65 0.02*** -0.64 0.02*** -0.65 0.02*** -0.64 0.02*** Sibling Relationship Quality in Adolescencea Missing 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.09 0.00 0.09 Low love -0.05 0.08 -0.06 0.08 -0.05 0.08 -0.06 0.08 -0.04 0.08 -0.07 0.08 High quarreling 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.08 A lot of time together 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.07 R Age -0.05 0.02* -0.07 0.03* -0.05 0.03* -0.04 0.03 -0.05 0.02* -0.05 0.03 R Race/Ethnicitya Black 0.21 0.08** 0.22 0.08** 0.21 0.08** 0.17 0.08* 0.24 0.08** 0.19 0.08* Hispanic 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.09 Other races 0.27 0.10** 0.27 0.10** 0.27 0.10** 0.25 0.10* 0.28 0.10** 0.26 0.10* Intercept 5.71 0.56*** 5.94 0.58*** 5.69 0.56*** 5.56 0.56*** 5.80 0.56*** 5.86 0.59*** R² 0.73*** 0.73*** 0.73*** 0.73*** 0.73*** 0.74*** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Note: “R” stands for Respondent; “S” stands for Sibling. aOmitted reference groups are: R high school diploma, S high school diploma, R single, S single, biological siblings, sister/sister, high love for sibling in adolescence, low quarreling with sibling in adolescence, low time spent with sibling in adolescence, white.

Table 8: Coefficients from Ordinary-Least-Squared Regression Models Predicting the Association Between Social Statuses and Indirect Contact with Sibling: Younger Sibling (N = 752) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE Educationa R < high School -0.54 0.32 -0.52 0.32 R Some College 0.08 0.35 0.07 0.35 R In College 0.63 0.24** 0.41 0.25 R B.A. & beyond 0.36 0.73 0.11 0.72 S < high School -0.78 0.34* -0.64 0.35 S Some College -0.07 0.29 -0.12 0.29 S In College 0.14 0.27 -0.04 0.27 S B.A. & beyond 0.62 0.36 0.54 0.37 Employment R Work hours -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 S Work hours 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Relationship Statusa R Cohabiting -1.17 0.27*** -1.02 0.28*** R Married -1.42 0.31*** -1.10 0.33*** S Cohabiting -0.90 0.27*** -0.79 0.28** S Married -0.86 0.24*** -0.91 0.25*** Parental Status R Parent -0.57 0.23* -0.02 0.23 S Parent 0.02 0.22 0.52 0.23* Control Variables Sibling Typea Half-siblings -0.64 0.27* -0.26 0.27 -0.64 0.27* -0.50 0.26 -0.57 0.27* -0.28 0.27 Step-siblings -1.99 0.25*** -1.76 0.25*** -1.99 0.25*** -1.89 0.24*** -1.87 0.26*** -1.82 0.25*** Gender Compositiona Brother/brother 0.28 0.27 0.31 0.26 0.32 0.27 0.03 0.26 0.16 0.28 0.26 0.27 Brother/sister -0.47 0.29 -0.49 0.28 -0.45 0.29 -0.72 0.28* -0.56 0.29 -0.65 0.28* 60

Sister/brother -0.30 0.27 -0.17 0.27 -0.30 0.27 -0.44 0.26 -0.30 0.27 -0.21 0.27 Age-gap 0.00 0.09 -0.04 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.09 -0.01 0.09 Distance from sibling -0.86 0.05*** -0.88 0.05*** -0.86 0.05*** -0.80 0.05*** -0.88 0.05*** -0.81 0.05*** Sibling Relationship Quality in Adolescencea Missing -0.35 0.32 -0.18 0.31 -0.34 0.32 -0.12 0.31 -0.30 0.32 -0.08 0.31 Low love -0.68 0.24** -0.53 0.24* -0.69 0.24* -0.58 0.23* -0.61 0.24* -0.51 0.23* High quarreling 0.31 0.24 0.38 0.24 0.32 0.24 0.34 0.24 0.33 0.24 0.36 0.24 A lot of time together -0.09 0.24 -0.02 0.23 -0.11 0.24 0.06 0.23 -0.08 0.24 0.05 0.23 R Age -0.12 0.08 -0.13 0.08 -0.10 0.08 0.00 0.08 -0.11 0.08 -0.03 0.08 R Race/Ethnicitya Black -0.01 0.26 0.11 0.25 -0.05 0.26 -0.36 0.25 0.07 0.26 -0.39 0.27 Hispanic -0.22 0.30 0.09 0.30 -0.24 0.30 -0.20 0.29 -0.06 0.30 -0.11 0.30 Other races -0.08 0.35 -0.08 0.34 -0.11 0.35 -0.13 0.34 -0.01 0.35 -0.13 0.34 Intercept 9.74 1.77*** 9.45 1.80*** 9.53 1.78*** 7.84 1.74*** 9.52 1.77*** 8.23 1.80*** R² 0.34*** 0.37*** 0.34*** 0.39*** 0.35*** 0.41*** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Note: “R” stands for Respondent; “S” stands for Sibling. aOmitted reference groups are: R high school diploma, S high school diploma, R single, S single, biological siblings, sister/sister, high love for sibling in adolescence, low quarreling with sibling in adolescence, low time spent with sibling in adolescence, white.

Table 9: Coefficients from Ordinary-Least-Squared Regression Models Predicting the Association Between Social Statuses and Indirect Contact with Sibling: Older Sibling (N = 699) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE Educationa R < high School -0.71 0.37 -0.68 0.36 R Some College 0.21 0.29 0.18 0.29 R In College 0.71 0.29* 0.34 0.30 R B.A. & beyond 1.26 0.35*** 0.82 0.36* S < high School -0.24 0.33 -0.16 0.33 S Some College 0.41 0.39 0.32 0.38 S In College 0.10 0.25 -0.08 0.25 S B.A. & beyond 1.56 0.63* 1.28 0.62* Employment R Work hours 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 S Work hours 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 Relationship Statusa R Cohabiting -1.19 0.27*** -0.92 0.28** R Married -1.20 0.26*** -0.89 0.28** S Cohabiting -1.36 0.28*** -1.31 0.29*** S Married -0.80 0.35* -0.79 0.36* Parental Status R Parent -0.82 0.23*** -0.23 0.24 S Parent -0.25 0.24 0.12 0.24 Control Variables Sibling Typea Half-siblings -1.26 0.28*** -0.95 0.28*** -1.26 0.28*** -0.81 0.28** -1.18 0.28*** -0.65 0.28* Step-siblings -1.64 0.29*** -1.46 0.29*** -1.64 0.29*** -1.44 0.27*** -1.57 0.28*** -1.40 0.28*** Gender Compositiona Brother/brother 0.09 0.29 0.16 0.28 0.04 0.29 -0.27 0.28 -0.24 0.30 -0.21 0.30 Brother/sister -0.01 0.30 0.21 0.30 -0.04 0.30 -0.23 0.29 -0.29 0.30 -0.05 0.31 62

Sister/brother -0.21 0.29 -0.24 0.29 -0.24 0.29 -0.47 0.28 -0.43 0.29 -0.52 0.29 Age-gap 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.09 -0.01 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.09 Distance from sibling -0.93 0.06*** -0.99 0.06*** -0.93 0.06*** -0.89 0.05*** -0.94 0.06*** -0.93 0.06*** Sibling Relationship Quality in Adolescencea Missing -0.21 0.31 -0.11 0.31 -0.23 0.31 -0.36 0.30 -0.10 0.31 -0.29 0.30 Low love 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.16 0.27 0.11 0.26 0.24 0.27 0.19 0.26 High quarreling 0.12 0.26 0.17 0.25 0.10 0.26 0.02 0.25 0.08 0.25 0.05 0.25 A lot of time together 0.33 0.25 0.40 0.24 0.31 0.25 0.38 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.38 0.24 R Age -0.10 0.09 -0.17 0.09 -0.11 0.09 -0.01 0.08 -0.11 0.09 -0.10 0.09 R Race/Ethnicitya Black 0.19 0.26 0.32 0.26 0.23 0.27 -0.14 0.26 0.38 0.27 0.04 0.27 Hispanic -0.37 0.32 -0.11 0.32 -0.35 0.32 -0.36 0.30 -0.21 0.32 -0.11 0.31 Other races 0.95 0.35** 0.82 0.34* 0.98 0.35** 0.75 0.33* 1.02 0.34** 0.75 0.33* Intercept 9.05 1.93*** 10.15 1.97*** 9.07 1.93*** 8.11 1.88*** 9.84 1.91*** 9.64 1.96*** R² 0.35*** 0.39*** 0.35*** 0.41*** 0.37*** 0.43*** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Note: “R” stands for Respondent; “S” stands for Sibling. aOmitted reference groups are: R high school diploma, S high school diploma, R single, S single, biological siblings, sister/sister, high love for sibling in adolescence, low quarreling with sibling in adolescence, low time spent with sibling in adolescence, white.

Table 10: Coefficients from Ordinary-Least-Squared Regression Models Predicting the Association Between Social Statuses and Asking Sibling for Help: Younger Sibling (N = 752) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE Educationa R < high School -0.11 0.15 -0.10 0.15 R Some College -0.03 0.16 -0.07 0.16 R In College 0.02 0.11 -0.10 0.12 R B.A. & beyond -0.04 0.34 -0.14 0.34 S < high School -0.10 0.16 -0.15 0.16 S Some College 0.00 0.14 0.01 0.14 S In College -0.01 0.12 -0.07 0.13 S B.A. & beyond 0.24 0.16 0.26 0.17 Employment R Work hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S Work hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Relationship Statusa R Cohabiting -0.17 0.13 -0.14 0.13 R Married -0.44 0.14** -0.31 0.15 S Cohabiting -0.01 0.12 0.02 0.13 S Married -0.07 0.11 -0.09 0.12 Parental Status R Parent -0.32 0.10** -0.25 0.11 S Parent 0.12 0.10 0.17 0.11 Control Variables Sibling Typea Half-siblings -0.28 0.12* -0.22 0.13 -0.29 0.12* -0.27 0.12* -0.25 0.12* -0.23 0.13 Step-siblings -0.93 0.11*** -0.89 0.12*** -0.93 0.11*** -0.91 0.11*** -0.88 0.12*** -0.87 0.12*** Gender Compositiona Brother/brother -0.49 0.12*** -0.49 0.12*** -0.46 0.12*** -0.51 0.12*** -0.53 0.12*** -0.49 0.13*** Brother/sister -0.43 0.13** -0.44 0.13*** -0.42 0.13** -0.46 0.13*** -0.47 0.13*** -0.49 0.13*** 64

Sister/brother -0.52 0.12*** -0.48 0.12*** -0.51 0.12*** -0.51 0.12*** -0.49 0.12*** -0.43 0.13*** Age-gap 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.04 Distance from sibling -0.06 0.02* -0.06 0.02* -0.06 0.02* -0.05 0.02* -0.07 0.02** -0.06 0.03* Sibling Relationship Quality in Adolescencea Missing -0.01 0.14 0.02 0.14 -0.01 0.14 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.14 0.02 0.14 Low love -0.26 0.11* -0.23 0.11* -0.27 0.11* -0.24 0.11* -0.22 0.11* -0.20 0.11 High quarreling -0.06 0.11 -0.05 0.11 -0.06 0.11 -0.07 0.11 -0.06 0.11 -0.07 0.11 A lot of time together 0.41 0.11*** 0.42 0.11*** 0.40 0.11*** 0.44 0.11*** 0.41 0.11*** 0.42 0.11*** R Age -0.06 0.04 -0.07 0.04 -0.05 0.04 -0.03 0.04 -0.05 0.04 -0.04 0.04 R Race/Ethnicitya Black -0.16 0.12 -0.14 0.12 -0.19 0.12 -0.20 0.12 -0.13 0.12 -0.21 0.13 Hispanic -0.04 0.13 0.00 0.14 -0.06 0.13 -0.02 0.13 0.03 0.14 0.02 0.14 Other races -0.07 0.16 -0.06 0.16 -0.09 0.16 -0.05 0.16 -0.03 0.16 -0.03 0.16 Intercept 3.70 0.80*** 3.84 0.83*** 3.64 0.80*** 3.22 0.81*** 3.63 0.79*** 3.53 0.84*** R² 0.17*** 0.18*** 0.17*** 0.18*** 0.18*** 0.20*** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Note: “R” stands for Respondent; “S” stands for Sibling. aOmitted reference groups are: R high school diploma, S high school diploma, R single, S single, biological siblings, sister/sister, high love for sibling in adolescence, low quarreling with sibling in adolescence, low time spent with sibling in adolescence, white.

Table 11: Coefficients from Ordinary-Least-Squared Regression Models Predicting the Association Between Social Statuses Asking Sibling 65 for Help: Older Sibling (N = 699) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE Educationa R < high School -0.05 0.17 -0.08 0.17 R Some College 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.13 R In College -0.08 0.13 -0.13 0.14 R B.A. & beyond 0.21 0.16 0.21 0.17 S < high School -0.57 0.15*** -0.57 0.15*** S Some College 0.00 0.17 0.01 0.18 S In College 0.00 0.11 -0.02 0.12 S B.A. & beyond 0.09 0.29 0.10 0.29 Employment R Work hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S Work hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Relationship Statusa R Cohabiting -0.01 0.13 0.07 0.13 R Married -0.04 0.12 0.03 0.13 S Cohabiting -0.20 0.13 -0.16 0.14 S Married -0.03 0.16 -0.01 0.17 Parental Status R Parent -0.14 0.10 -0.10 0.11 S Parent -0.02 0.11 0.04 0.11 Control Variables Sibling Typea Half-siblings -0.38 0.13** -0.33 0.13* -0.38 0.13** -0.36 0.13** -0.37 0.13** -0.31 0.13* Step-siblings -0.78 0.13*** -0.76 0.13*** -0.78 0.13*** -0.77 0.13*** -0.77 0.13*** -0.76 0.13*** 66

Gender Compositiona Brother/brother -0.73 0.13*** -0.70 0.13*** -0.72 0.13*** -0.75 0.13*** -0.78 0.13*** -0.69 0.14*** Brother/sister -0.62 0.13*** -0.62 0.14*** -0.62 0.14*** -0.63 0.14*** -0.67 0.14*** -0.61 0.14*** Sister/brother -0.56 0.13*** -0.53 0.13*** -0.56 0.13*** -0.58 0.13*** -0.59 0.13*** -0.56 0.14*** Age-gap -0.03 0.04 -0.03 0.04 -0.03 0.04 -0.03 0.04 -0.03 0.04 -0.03 0.04 Distance from sibling -0.07 0.03** -0.08 0.03** -0.07 0.03** -0.07 0.03** -0.07 0.03** -0.08 0.03** Sibling Relationship Quality in

Adolescencea Missing 0.17 0.14 0.20 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.19 0.14 0.21 0.14 Low love -0.16 0.12 -0.17 0.12 -0.17 0.12 -0.17 0.12 -0.15 0.12 -0.17 0.12 High quarreling 0.02 0.11 -0.02 0.11 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.11 -0.03 0.12 A lot of time 0.41 0.11*** 0.40 0.11*** 0.41 0.11*** 0.42 0.11*** 0.40 0.11*** 0.40 0.11*** together R Age -0.03 0.04 -0.05 0.04 -0.02 0.04 -0.02 0.04 -0.03 0.04 -0.04 0.04 R Race/Ethnicitya Black -0.14 0.12 -0.11 0.12 -0.15 0.12 -0.16 0.12 -0.11 0.12 -0.12 0.13 Hispanic 0.22 0.14 0.31 0.14* 0.21 0.14 0.22 0.14 0.24 0.14 0.31 0.15* Other races 0.40 0.15* 0.36 0.15* 0.39 0.15* 0.37 0.16* 0.41 0.15** 0.35 0.16* Intercept 2.91 0.86*** 3.42 0.89*** 2.87 0.86*** 2.90 0.87** 3.03 0.86*** 3.55 0.91*** R² 0.18*** 0.21*** 0.18*** 0.18*** 0.18*** 0.21*** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Note: “R” stands for Respondent; “S” stands for Sibling. aOmitted reference groups are: R high school diploma, S high school diploma, R single, S single, biological siblings, sister/sister, high love for sibling in adolescence, low quarreling with sibling in adolescence, low time spent with sibling in adolescence, white.

Table 12. Summary of Results Education Employment Partnership Parent R S R S R S R S Younger Sibling Sample Closeness + Quarreling - Direct Contact - - - + Indirect Contact - - + Aid Older Sibling Sample Closeness Quarreling + - - Direct Contact - - Indirect Contact + + - - Aid - Notes. R stands for respondents; S stands for siblings. “+” refers to a positive association; “-“ refers to a negative association.