Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality Matters: Sibling Relationships and Friendship Nominations among Adolescents

  • Published:
Child Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several recent studies suggest that individuals exhibit better social skills if raised with siblings. This pattern has been demonstrated among kindergartners and adults, but oddly is inconsistent among adolescents. Analyzing 1662 youths from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), we replicate what others have found—no association between number of siblings and number of friendship nominations received by peers. But we expand on previous research by merging structuralist approaches (focusing primarily on number of siblings) and interactional (emphasizing relationship quality) traditions. We find clear evidence that positive sibling relationships are associated with more peer nominations. This study contributes to growing evidence that sibling relationships shape individuals’ ability to form and maintain relationships with others outside of the family. It also explains why the relationship between number of siblings and social outcomes is not evident during the adolescent years—a period when interactional components of sibship may outweigh structural ones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We are unaware of a more recent nationally representative dataset that has indicators of sibling relationship quality and peer nominations.

  2. Before restricting our analyses to the subsample of adolescents with siblings, we first tested the broader sample to note whether individuals with no siblings received fewer peer nominations than those with any siblings. Like Bobbit-Zeher and Downey (2013), we found no relationship between sibship size and peer nominations.

  3. We also considered the effect of the number of siblings of the same sex as the respondent and the effect of the number of siblings of the opposite sex from the respondent. In order to do this, we tested interactions between respondent’s sex and the number of siblings of the same sex as the respondent, as well as interactions between respondent’s sex and the number of siblings of the opposite sex from the respondent. None of these interactions were statistically significant.

  4. The model fit was assessed using the following fit indices. According to Chi-square goodness of fit test, the chi-square with five degrees of freedom is significant (χ 2(5) = 30.45, p < .001). The insignificant p value for chi-square test indicates that the model fits the data well. However, with large sample sizes (i.e., 400 or more), the chi-square is almost always statistically significant. If the study uses a large sample size like ours, the researcher then examines other fit indices to determine the fit of the model, such as CFI, TLI, and RMSEA (Kenny et al. 2006). On the other hand, for TLI and CFI, values greater than 0.90 are indicative of a good model fit (Hoyle 1995).Some additional fit indices indicate that the model fits the data well; the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.96, the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.95, and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.04, With regard to factor loadings, the standardized coefficients of the five items ranged between 0.58 and 0.95 which is above the acceptance level of 0.30 (Carvalho and Chambel 2016).

  5. We also controlled for the length of time in school by including the current grade at the time of wave 1 in the analyses, but this control variable was not found significant in predicting friendship nominations. Therefore, it was not included in our current models.

References

  • Amato, P. R., Loomis, L. S., & Booth, A. (1995). Parental divorce, marital conflict, and offspring well-being during early adulthood. Social Forces, 73(3), 895–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobbitt-Zeher, D., & Downey, D. B. (2013). Number of siblings and friendship nominations among adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 34, 1175–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobbitt-Zeher, D., Downey, D. B., & Merry, J. J. (2014). Number of siblings during childhood and the likelihood of divorce in adulthood. Journal of Family Issues. doi:10.1177/0192513X14560641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, V. S., & Chambel, M. J. (2016). Work-to-family enrichment and conflict profiles: job characteristics and employees’ well-being. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19(e65), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., Smith, T., & Marsden, P. (2011). The general social surveys: cumulative codebook, 1972–2010. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downey, D. B., & Condron, D. (2004). Playing well with others in kindergarten: the benefits of siblings at home. Journal of Family Issues, 66, 333–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. D. (1999). Peer and sibling aggression: an investigation of intra- and extra-familial bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 871–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • East, P. L., & Rook, K. S. (1992). Compensatory patterns of support among children's peer relationships: a test using school friends, non-school friends, and siblings. Developmental Psychology, 28, 163–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falbo, T. (2012). Only children: an updated review. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 68(1), 38–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. M. (2013). The add health study: design and accomplishments. Carolina Population Center: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Available at http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/data/guides/DesignPaperWIIV.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, E. M. (1988). Parents, children, and siblings: six years after divorce. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: mutual influences (pp. 311–331). Oxford: Claredon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: basic concepts and fundamental issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, L., & Gottman, J. M. (1992). Becoming a sibling: “With a little help from my friends”. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 685–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCoy, J. K., Brody, G. H., & Stoneman, Z. (1994). A longitudinal analysis of sibling relationships as mediators of the link between family processes and youths’ best friendships. Family Relations, 43, 400–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFall, S. (2013). Understanding society-UK household longitudinal study: wave 1–2, 2009–2011, user manual. Colchester: University of Essex.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Whiteman, S. D. (2012). Sibling relationships and influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 913–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson, M. J., Aboud, F. E., & Lanthier, R. P. (1994). Kindergartner’s relationships with siblings, peers, and friends. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40(3), 416–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliva, A., & Arranz, E. (2005). Sibling relationships and adolescent well-being. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2, 253–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polit, D. F., & Falbo, T. (1987). Only children and personality development: a quantitative review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49(2), 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 581–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stocker, C. (1994). Children’s perceptions of relationships with siblings, friends, and mothers: compensatory processes and links with adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and. Psychiatry, 35, 1447–1459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stormshak, E. A., Bellanti, C. J., & Bierman, K. L. (1996). The quality of sibling relationships and the development of social competence and behavioral control in aggressive children. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweet, J. A., & Bumpass, L. L. (1996). The National Survey of Families and Households-Waves 1 and 2: Data description and documentation. .Retrieved 8 Jun 2004, from http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/nsfh/home.htm.

  • Tippett, N., & Wolke, D. (2015). Aggression between siblings: associations with the home environment and peer bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 41, 14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trent, K., & Spitze, G. (2011). Growing up without siblings and adult sociability behaviors. Journal of Family Issues, 32(9), 1178–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). ECLS-K base year public-use data file user’s manual (NCES 2001–029). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogt Yuan, A. S. (2009). Sibling relationships and adolescents’ mental health: the interrelationship of structure and quality. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 1221–1244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolke, D., & Skew, A. J. (2012). Family factors, bullying victimization and wellbeing in adolescents. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 101–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yucel, D., & Downey, D. B. (2010). Assessing the advantages of a multi-method approach: measuring mothering with data from the early childhood longitudinal study—birth cohort. Social Science Research, 39, 894–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yucel, D., & Downey, D. B. (2015). When quality trumps quantity: siblings and the development of peer relationships. Child Indicators Research, 8, 845–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, William Paterson University of New Jersey, 300 Pompton Road, 465 Raubinger Hall, Wayne, NJ, 07470, USA

    Deniz Yucel

  2. Department of Sociology, Ohio State University, 1461 Mt. Vernon Ave, Marion, OH, 43302, USA

    Donna Bobbitt-Zeher

  3. Department of Sociology, Ohio State University, 238 Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Douglas B. Downey

Authors
  1. Deniz Yucel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Donna Bobbitt-Zeher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Douglas B. Downey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deniz Yucel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yucel, D., Bobbitt-Zeher, D. & Downey, D.B. Quality Matters: Sibling Relationships and Friendship Nominations among Adolescents. Child Ind Res 11, 523–539 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9448-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9448-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation