10.

1177/0192513X02250098
JOURNAL
Weaver et al.OF
/ SIBLING
FAMILY RELATIONSHIP
ISSUES / March 2003
IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD ARTICLE

The Sibling Relationship

in Young Adulthood
Sibling Functions and Relationship Perceptions
as Influenced by Sibling Pair Composition

SHANNON E. WEAVER
University of Connecticut
MARILYN COLEMAN
LAWRENCE H. GANONG
University of MissouriColumbia

The relationship between sibling pair type (i.e., sister-sister, sister-brother, brother-brother,
brother-sister) and performance of sibling functions (i.e., services that siblings perform for
each other) was investigated using a sample of 224 college students. Also examined was the
relationship between perceived sibling functions and perceptions of closeness. As hypothe-
sized, sister pairs were more likely to report performing certain sibling functions than were
other sibling pair types. The expectation that sibling functions and sibling closeness would
be related was partially supported, particularly for women responding about either a sister or
a brother.

Keywords: young adulthood; siblings; sibling functions

Nearly 95% of adults in the United States have at least one sibling of some
type, with more than 85% having a full sister or brother (Crispell, 1996).
Time spent interacting with these family members is substantial and has
been estimated to exceed the time spent with parents (Waters, 1987). Al-
though frequency of contact lessens as children enter adolescence and
young adulthood, siblings still remain important fixtures in each others
lives (Pulakos, 1987). It is uncommon for siblings to discontinue their re-
lationship over the life course (Cicirelli, 1985) even if experiences be-
tween them have been mainly negative (Ross & Milgram, 1982). There-
fore, because a link between siblings persists throughout adulthood, there
is the continued potential of siblings to influence each other (Cicirelli,
1991). However, just how brothers and sisters affect each others lives and
development over the life course is relatively unexplored, particularly in

JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES, Vol. 24 No. 2, March 2003 245-263

DOI: 10.1177/0192513X02250098
2003 Sage Publications

245
246 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / March 2003

young adulthood. Most of the sibling literature has focused on relation-

ships in childhood and, more recently, late adulthood (Stewart, Verbrugge,
& Beilfuss, 1998). In fact, it can be argued that at present, the greatest gap
in knowledge about the course of sibling relationships across the life span
is in young adulthood (Cicirelli, 1995, p. 218). Additional empirical in-
vestigations at this stage in life would not only contribute to an awareness
of young adult sibling relations but also to a greater understanding of sib-
ling relationships across the life course (Cicirelli, 1995).
Although this lack of research seems to imply that relationships be-
tween siblings during early adulthood are inconsequential to the function-
ing of individuals and families, the few studies that have investigated such
relationships suggest that this is not the case. Researchers who have stud-
ied young adult sibling relationships have found that these relationships
are important to the individuals involved, that such relationships are
viewed positively and perceived to be close, and that siblings are in rela-
tively frequent contact with each other (Cicirelli, 1980; Newman, 1991;
Pulakos, 1989). Although empirical support is limited, the perception is
that young adulthood sibling relationships are important family ties de-
serving more study. Additional investigations are needed to develop a
clearer understanding of young adult sibling relationships, particularly
the roles they play and the functions they fulfill for each other.
According to Cicirelli (1980, 1995), siblings in young adulthood may
serve as confidantes, teachers, role models, and friends to each other. Sim-
ilarly, Goetting (1986) proposed that siblings typically serve as compan-
ions and sources of emotional support, work together to care for parents,
and provide aid and direct services to each other during young and middle
adulthood. However, this assistance between siblings in young and middle
adulthood tends to be on an as needed basis (e.g., care during times of
illness, helping with each others children, lending and sharing of re-
sources such as clothes and money).
Many of Goettings (1986) sibling tasks are similar to what Bank and
Kahn (1975, 1976) referred to as sibling functions, roles that siblings may
fulfill and services they may provide for each other. According to Bank
and Kahn, performance of these functions is one way that brothers and sis-
ters influence each others status and power. In this study, sibling func-
tions are defined as:

Identity formation. Siblings may have as great an influence on each

others identity formation as do their parents (Bank & Kahn, 1975,
1976). This is accomplished in two ways, identification and differentia-
 Weaver et al. / SIBLING RELATIONSHIP IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD 247

tion (Bank & Kahn, 1975, 1976; Schvanveldt & Ihinger, 1979). In identi-
fication, children see aspects of themselves in their siblings, live vicari-
ously through them, and by viewing their siblings experiences, develop
new possibilities for themselves. Differentiation operates in the opposite
way. Rather than identifying with siblings, brothers or sisters serve as
comparisons for what one does not want to be. For example, a girl whose
older sister is an athlete may focus on and excel in academics in an effort to
be different from her sibling.

Mutual regulation. The sibling relationship is one in which individuals

can try new roles and behaviors and be given feedback before they enact
them in front of other family members and peers (Bank & Kahn, 1975,
1976). This mutual regulatory function is facilitated by the egalitarian or
peerlike aspect of sibling relationships and may be explicit or implicit. For
example, a sister may explicitly ask for her sisters advice on clothes or tell
her brother when he is doing something he should not. However, she may
also be implicitly regulated by responding to her sisters nonverbal reac-
tions to her clothes, and her brothers inappropriate behavior may be regu-
lated by her nonverbal signals as well. Solidarity, or unity, between sib-
lings is strengthened when mutual regulatory behaviors increase the
rewards and reduce the costs of new roles and behaviors for siblings
(Schvanveldt & Ihinger, 1979). As long as each sibling perceives that con-
tinued contact will result in receiving benefits, the relationship will be
strengthened.

Defend/protect. Siblings can serve as allies against individuals within

and outside the family who may be seen as threatening. This can involve
protecting the sibling from others as well as providing care for them when
no one else is available. An additional way siblings perform the defend/
protect function is through keeping secrets and/or tattling. Brothers and
sisters may be more aware than parents of what each other has done and is
doing (Schvanveldt & Ihinger, 1979). Protecting a sibling may simply
take the form of not telling a parent about each others activities. For ex-
ample, a brother who knows his sister is living with her boyfriend may not
mention this to his parents because it would get her in trouble. This, in
turn, may influence his sister not to reveal to the parents something
equally damaging about him. Keeping each others secrets often creates a
sense of loyalty between siblings. Bank and Kahn (1975, 1976) likened
this to siblings being the guardians of each others private worlds (1976,
p. 505).
248 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / March 2003

Interpret. Siblings may serve to interpret parental behaviors for each

other. For example, they may discuss parental moods and attitudes and
their potential repercussions for behavior. Siblings also may interpret
each others behavior to parents. A sister may tell her parents that her
brother is moody because he had a fight with a friend or is experiencing
difficulty at work. In addition to interpreting behavior from parents, sib-
lings may interpret the behavior of other adults in the family. For example,
an older brother may tell a younger brother and sister what to expect from
their senile grandfather. This interpretive function may aid in creating mu-
tual understanding that might not otherwise exist (Bank & Kahn, 1975,
1976; Schvanveldt & Ihinger, 1979) as family members understand each
other better due to the added insight the sibling provides.

Provide direct services. Because sibling interaction tends to be fre-

quent, they can influence daily life. For example, siblings can directly of-
fer each other services such as lending money, allocating other resources,
providing help, doing favors, introducing others, and providing care. The
mutual provision of these services strengthens the sibling relationship
(Bank & Kahn, 1975, 1976).

Teach new skills and abilities. In this last function, brothers and sisters
serve as teachers. This includes directly instructing each other on how to
do things (e.g., an older sister may help a younger brother with math
homework or a job application).

INFLUENCES ON PERFORMANCE
OF FUNCTIONS AND ROLES

The performance of any roles and functions is likely to be affected by

many characteristics of the sibling relationship, including family struc-
ture, type of sibling (full, half, or step), birth order, number of children in
the family, age spacing, and sex, to name a few. One specific influence that
has received some attention is the sex composition of the sibling dyad. For
example, it appears that throughout adulthood sisters are closer and more
intimate than brothers or brother-sister pairs, as evidenced by sistersmore
frequent contact (Cicirelli, 1995; Connidis, 1989; Lee, Mancini, &
Maxwell, 1990; Newman, 1991; Scott, 1983; White & Riedmann, 1992),
the provision of more support and/or caregiving (Adams, 1968; Cicirelli,
1977, 1985; Johnson, 1985; Pulakos, 1987), more sharing of confidences
(Connidis, 1989; Monck, 1991), and greater perceptions of closeness and
attachment (Cicirelli, 1982, 1989; Connidis, 1989).
 Weaver et al. / SIBLING RELATIONSHIP IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD 249

Sex of sibling pairs has been found to be related to behaviors similar to

those described in Bank and Kahns (1975, 1976) model. Advice, part of
the Mutual Regulation function, has been found to be shared more be-
tween sisters than brothers or mixed-sex sibling pairs. Furthermore,
women are more likely than men to convey that they are influenced by a
sibling and are more satisfied with such advice (Tucker, Barber, & Eccles,
1997). Young adult sisters also spend a greater amount of time talking
about significant others, family members, health, clothes, decisions, and
future hopes than brothers (Pulakos, 1989). They also perceive that their
siblings hold similar values, respect their views, understand them, and as-
sist and guide them more than men (Moser, Paternite, & Dixon, 1996).
The differences in sibling experiences of women and men may be ex-
plained in two ways. The first relates to the number of women in the rela-
tionship (i.e., the femaleness principle). The more women that are involved,
the closer and more supportive the relationship (Akiyama, Elliott, &
Antonucci, 1996). Therefore, sisters are more likely than brothers or
mixed-sex sibling pairs to provide support and assistance because there
are at least two women in the relationship rather than none or one. The sec-
ond explanation, sex commonality, rests on the idea that same-sex siblings
are closer and more likely to help each other than opposite sex siblings
(Akiyama et al., 1996). Therefore, sister pairs and brother pairs should
provide more services to each other than opposite-sex sibling dyads.
These principles have been tested with mid- to late adult siblings and there
was moderate support for both (Akiyama et al., 1996).

PERFORMANCE OF FUNCTIONS
AND RELATIONSHIP PERCEPTIONS

There is limited evidence that perceived performance of Bank and

Kahns (1975, 1976) sibling functions is related to sibling closeness. For
example, Cicirelli (1985) has reported that sibling closeness reflects shar-
ing of confidences, listening to problems, and providing help, all of which
are aspects of sibling functions as defined by Bank and Kahn. Cicirelli
(1989) and Pulakos (1987) also found that provision of support and assis-
tance was related to closeness and positive affect in adult sibling relation-
ships; furthermore, this relation between support and attachment was
stronger when a sister was involved (Cicirelli, 1989). A relationship be-
tween performance of sibling functions and perceptions of closeness was
also proposed but not empirically tested by Schvanveldt and Ihinger
(1979). They stated that performance of the various sibling functions as
identified by Bank and Kahn should lead to greater solidarity (i.e., har-
250 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / March 2003

mony). Although there is some empirical and theoretical support for a

positive relation between sibling function performance and perceived
closeness, it is quite limited and additional research is needed to fully un-
derstand why and how this occurs.
Sibling functions and the relation of these functions and sibling close-
ness are important to consider during young adulthood due to their poten-
tial influence on development. For example, Cicirelli (1980) theorized
that performance of certain Bank and Kahn (1975, 1976) sibling functions
would be particularly important to young adult sisters as they begin to de-
velop adult identities and break out of traditional feminine roles into the
male worlds of education and careers. In addition, during the young adult-
hood, women and men are attempting to individuate from their parents.
Although the development of autonomy during young adulthood is im-
portant, the need for help and connections to the family of origin often re-
main. Siblings could continue to provide support for each other while still
maintaining a sense of independence from parents.
Others have speculated that siblings in young adulthood may be impor-
tant sources of support and socialization for each other as they encounter
normative transitions in their development (Newman, 1994; Stocker,
Lanthier, & Furman, 1997). Exchanges between sisters and brothers may
also teach necessary skills for functional social development (Furman &
Buhrmester, 1985). However, the influence of siblings on each other as
potential instructors of skills and behavioral models during times of nor-
mative transitions has not been empirically examined in a systematic way
(Cicirelli, 1991). Therefore, the present study investigates the extent to
which young adult sibling pairs perform the theorized Bank and Kahn
(1975, 1976) functions according to sibling dyad type and the relation that
this has with perceptions of positive affect in the relationship.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The first purpose of this study is to examine the relation between the
performance of sibling functions and sibling dyad types (i.e., sister-sister,
sister-brother, brother-brother, and brother-sister). Adams (1968) found
that services and assistance that young adult siblings provide for each other
are influenced by the sex composition of the sibling dyad, with sister-sister
dyads being more likely to provide help, followed by brother-brother
dyads, and then opposite-sex sibling pairs. Sister pairs and brother pairs
may be more likely than opposite sex siblings to perform such services for
 Weaver et al. / SIBLING RELATIONSHIP IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD 251

each other because of a greater likelihood of similar experiences (Bank &

Kahn, 1982) or, in other words, the sex commonality principle. Therefore,
the first hypothesis is that sister pairs and brother pairs will be more likely
to perform the sibling functions than opposite-sex sibling dyads.
However, the sex commonality principle does not account for why sis-
ters would be more likely than brothers to provide such care. This may be
explained by the femaleness principle. That is, if women have been taught
to care and assist those around them, it would be expected that they would
provide services and support for each other more often during young
adulthood than all other sibling pair types. Therefore, a second hypothesis
is that sisters will be more likely than brother-brother, brother-sister, or
sister-brother pairs to perform the sibling functions for each other. It may
also be expected, from the femaleness principle, that pairs with one sister
would be more likely to provide services than male-only dyads. A third
hypothesis is that female-sibling dyads will be more likely to provide ser-
vices than male-only pairs.
A second purpose of this study is to assess the relation between the per-
ceived performance of sibling functions and perceptions of closeness in
the relationship. Assistance and supportive behaviors have been indicated
as criteria for assessing closeness in relationships with brothers or sisters
(Cicirelli, 1995). Providing help and services has been found to be related
to perceptions of closeness with adult siblings, particularly for women
(Cicirelli, 1989). Therefore, the fourth hypothesis is that closeness and the
performance of sibling functions will be positively related for all sibling
pair types.

METHOD

SAMPLE

The sample consisted of 224 college students between the ages of 18

and 24 (M = 20.2 years) enrolled in an introductory human development
and family studies course at a large midwestern university. The majority
(83.9%) of the students were European American, 7.6% were African
American, 5.8% were Asian American, and 2.7% were Hispanic. The bio-
logical parents of most (76.5%) of the students in the sample were still
married to each other, 2.3% had parents who were currently separated or
divorced, 13.1% had at least one parent who had remarried after divorce,
252 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / March 2003

4.6% had a deceased parent, and 3.7% had a parent who had remarried after
the death of her or his spouse. All 224 students had at least one full sibling.

MEASURES

The Sibling Relations Questionnaire (SRQ). The SRQ measures the ex-
tent to which functions are performed by the respondent and his or her sib-
ling. Originally developed by Ganong and Coleman (1993) for a study of
siblings and stepsiblings between the ages of 10 and 18, the 18-item mea-
sure was theoretically derived based on the sibling functions proposed by
Bank and Kahn (1976). An additional 30 items also derived from Bank
and Kahns model were added to the measure for purposes of this investi-
gation. The SRQ, as used in this study, consisted of 48 items comprising
six subscales that examine different ways that siblings interact with each
other. In each subscale, there are reciprocal items to reflect the mutual help
and assistance that is purported to characterize caregiving by adult sib-
lings (Seltzer, 1989): for example, I loan them money, and They loan
me money. Respondents are asked to rate how frequently they or their
siblings engage in these behaviors using a Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (never) to 5 (always). Responses to items are added to create scale
scores, with higher scores indicating greater frequency of behaviors.
The first subscale, Identity Formation, consisted of 14 items. Sample
questions include I encourage them to be like me, I watch them to find
out how I should act, and They admire the kind of person I am. Coeffi-
cient alpha for this subscale was .87. The second subscale, Mutual Regu-
lation, included 10 items (e.g., I ask their advice, I tell them when they
are doing something wrong, and They tell me when I am doing some-
thing I shouldnt.). Coefficient alpha for this subscale was .61. The third
subscale, Defend/Protect, had 6 items, including I join with them against
the adults in the family, I take care of them when no one else is around,
and They protect me when someone else in the family is angry. Coeffi-
cient alpha was .82 for this subscale. Interpret, the fourth subscale, con-
sisted of 8 items, such as I explain my parents behavior to them and
They discuss family problems with me. Coefficient alpha was .82.
There were 6 items in the fifth subscale, Provide Direct Services. Ques-
tions included I do favors for them, I loan them money or things they
need, and They help me do things. Coefficient alpha was .87. For the
sixth and final subscale, Teach New Skills and Abilities, there were 4
items including I teach them things and They help me do things. Coef-
ficient alpha was .78 for this subscale.
 Weaver et al. / SIBLING RELATIONSHIP IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD 253

Family Relations Semantic Differential (FRSD). The FRSD (Ganong

& Coleman, 1989) consists of 12 items designed to measure how posi-
tively a person perceives a specific family member. This measure was
used to assess the perception of closeness and positive affect toward ones
sibling. Items consist of bipolar adjectives such as close/distant and loving/
unloving, and a 7-point rating scale was used for these adjective pairs.
Scores can range from 12 to 84; the higher the score, the more positively
the relationship is perceived. Coefficient alpha for the FRSD was .96.

PROCEDURE

As part of an option for a class assignment, students voluntarily com-

pleted a battery of tests that included the SRQ and the FRSD. Students
chose times to complete the questionnaires outside the regular class pe-
riod. Instruments were administered on campus to small groups of stu-
dents by faculty or graduate research assistants.
The students were instructed to respond to the SRQ and FRSD for the
sibling closest to them in age. Individuals were eliminated from the analy-
ses if the sibling was older than young adulthood or younger than adoles-
cence. This was done because of the likelihood that siblings with greater
age differences would have very different relationships than those who are
closer in age. The age range of siblings being responded to was 14 to 35
years (M = 21.3). Forty participating male students responded about a re-
lationship with a brother, 26 males responded about a sister, 99 females re-
sponded about a brother, and 57 females responded about a sister. Data
from students who did not specify the sex of their sibling were omitted
from the analyses.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to analyze the

data. The dependent variables in the MANOVA were the six SRQ
subscales, with the independent variables being sex of respondent and
type of sibling. Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were then ex-
amined as well as Fishers least significant differences (LSD) for compari-
sons between the four sibling pair types. Pearson correlations were used to
determine if there were relationships between the theoretical subscales of
the SRQ and the FRSD.
254 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / March 2003

Multivariate analysis revealed a significant effect for the Sex Type of

Sibling interaction; F(6, 215) = 3.41, p < .01. Univariate analyses of vari-
ance revealed significant effects for five of the six subscales: Identity For-
mation, F(1, 220) = 17.52, p < .0001; Mutual Regulation, F(1, 220) = 9.68,
p < .005; Interpret, F(1, 220) = 4.43, p < .05; Direct Services, F(1, 220) =
7.62, p < .01; and Teach New Skills, F(1, 220) = 9.05, p < .005. The
univariate effect for the Defend/Protect subscale, F(1, 220) = 0.33, p = .57,
was not significant.
Fishers least significant difference test was used to investigate the
three hypotheses that sibling pair composition would be related to perfor-
mance of functions in differing ways (see Table 1). Sister-sister pairs were
significantly more likely than the other three sibling pairs to perform the
functions of Mutual Regulation, Interpret, and Provide Direct Services.
Sister pairs also scored significantly higher than sister-brother and
brother-sister dyads on Identity Formation and Teach New Skills. Brother
pairs were significantly more likely than sister-brother pairs to perform
the function of Identity Formation. The first hypothesis that same-sex
dyads would be more likely than brother-sister or sister-brother pairs to
perform the sibling functions was supported by the data for sisters but not
brothers. Sisters scored significantly higher than opposite-sex sibling
pairs on five of the six functions. On the other hand, brother-brother dyads
significantly differed from sister-brother pairs on Identity Formation only.
The second hypothesis, that sister pairs would be more likely to perform
the functions than all other sibling pair types, was supported for Mutual
Regulation, Interpret, and Provide Direct Services. The third hypothesis,
that dyads with women (sister-sister, sister-brother, brother-sister) would
provide more services than all male dyads was not supportedonly sister-
sister pairs consistently differed from brother-brother dyads.
To test whether self-reported performance of sibling functions was re-
lated to sibling closeness, Pearson correlations between the SRQ
subscales and the FRSD were analyzed (see Table 2). For sister dyads, the
SRQ subscales correlated significantly with the FRSD, except for the
function of Defend/Protect. These correlations were also significant for
sister-brother dyads. Moreover, correlations between the FRSD and Iden-
tity Formation, Mutual Regulation, and Provide Direct Services were sig-
nificant for all four sibling pair types. Therefore, the second hypothesis
that sibling closeness and the performance of sibling functions would be
positively related, was generally supported by the data (17 of 24 correla-
tions were significant).
 Weaver et al. / SIBLING RELATIONSHIP IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD 255

TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations (in parentheses)
for the SRQ for Sibling Pairs
Sibling Pairs
Sister/Sister Sister/Brother Brother/Brother Brother/Sister
Function (n = 57) (n = 99) (n = 40) (n = 26)

Identity Formation 3.47ac (.08) 3.02 (.06) 3.26

a
(.09) 2.99 (.11)
abc
Mutual Regulation 3.55 (.06) 3.29 (.04) 3.33 (.07) 3.30 (.09)
Defend/Protect 3.03 (.08) 2.95 (.11) 2.90 (.13) 2.85 (.16)
abc
Interpret 3.86 (.08) 3.42 (.06) 3.35 (.09) 3.39 (.12)
abc
Provide Direct Services 3.87 (.10) 3.57 (.08) 3.53 (.12) 3.32 (.15)
ac
Teach New Skills 3.63 (.09) 3.20 (.06) 3.40 (.10) 3.10 (.13)

NOTE: SRQ = Sibling Relations Questionnaire.

a. Significantly different from sister-brother pairs.
b. Significantly different from brother-brother pairs.
c. Significantly different from brother-sister pairs.

TABLE 2
Correlations Between Performance of
Functions (SRQ) and Sibling Closeness (FRSD)
Sibling Pairs
Sister/Sister Sister/Brother Brother/Brother Brother/Sister
Function (n = 57) (n = 99) (n = 40) (n = 26)

Identity Formation .63**** .54**** .53*** .72****

Mutual Regulation .55**** .48**** .38* .51**
Defend/Protect .12 .08 .21 .19
Interpret .54**** .49**** .16 .34
Provide Direct Services .54**** .51**** .51*** .52**
Teach New Skills .47*** .30** .31 .43*

NOTE: SRQ = Sibling Relations Questionnaire; FRSD = Family Relations Semantic

Differential.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. ****p < .0001.

DISCUSSION

DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE
OF SIBLING FUNCTIONS

The sex composition of the sibling dyad did not affect the performance
of sibling functions to the extent that was anticipated. Neither the sex com-
monality or femaleness principle is solely able to explain the differences
256 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / March 2003

(or account for the lack thereof) in performance of sibling functions. How-
ever, if the sex commonality and the femaleness principles are combined,
they may be able to partially explain the greater likelihood of sisters to per-
form some of these functions more so than men or opposite-sex sibling
pairs. Sisters appear to regard each others opinions and input more highly
than do other sibling pairs, as is seen in their greater likelihood to give ei-
ther verbal or nonverbal feedback about new roles and behaviors they are
thinking of adopting, to interpret the behavior of family members to each
other, to explain each others behavior to other family members, and to
provide assistance to each other, such as loaning of resources and doing fa-
vors. If such behaviors occur because sisters share the same sex and have a
greater chance of common experiences, then they would not perform such
functions to a greater extent than brother pairs. We speculate that these dif-
ferences may result from the influence of gender socialization.
Women, more than men, are socialized to talk about feelings and opin-
ions, and they more often use conversation to develop or maintain emo-
tional ties and show commitment to and involvement with others (Saxton,
1996; Tannen, 1990, 1994). Womens discussions are more often centered
around supportive and responsive expressions and feelings, and their talk
is frequently rooted in equality and inclusion (Pearson, West, & Turner,
1995; Wood, 1999). These characteristics of communication are impor-
tant to behaviors related to interpreting and explaining the actions of fam-
ily members and providing verbal feedback to regulate siblings conduct.
Because women are socialized more than men to engage in such behav-
iors, it is not surprising that sisters engage more in such functions (i.e.,
Mutual Regulation and Interpret) for each other than brothers or opposite-
sex sibling pairs.
Gender socialization may also explain why sisters would be more
likely than other sibling dyads to provide each other with assistance of
various kinds. This finding is consistent with several previous studies
(Adams, 1968; Cicirelli, 1977, 1985, 1995; Johnson, 1985; Pulakos,
1987). This greater likelihood of assistance is often attributed to women
being socialized as nurturers, oriented to the needs of others (McGoldrick,
1989). This is congruent with the femaleness principle; due to women be-
ing more oriented to provide care and support, the more women in the rela-
tionship, the more services and assistance are exchanged.
However, sisters were not more likely than brother-brother pairs to
identify with each other. Same-sex sibling dyads were more likely to per-
form this function, which lends some support to Bank and Kahns (1982)
idea that identification between same-sex siblings is more common than
 Weaver et al. / SIBLING RELATIONSHIP IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD 257

between opposite-sex siblings. Young adult siblings of the same sex may
influence each others identity more because of commonalities in their
lives due to shared experiences as male or female. In addition, emulating
the behavior and identity of a same-sex sibling may be more accepted by
others than adopting characteristics of an opposite sex sibling. Actions
that violate gender-appropriate behavior often generate negative re-
sponses; this is particularly the case for males who exhibit stereotypical
feminine traits or conduct (Martin, 1990). Therefore, the sex commonality
principle may be more applicable to certain functions than others, particu-
larly those functions that involve modeling and emulating behavior.
The results regarding Teach New Skills were also unanticipated. Al-
though sisters are more likely to serve as teachers for each other than
sister-brother and brother-sister pairs, they do not differ significantly from
brother-brother pairs. This is surprising given that instruction by an older
sister has been found to be more likely and more effective in childhood
(Azmitia & Hesser, 1993). The age and developmental level of the sibling
may be the salient factors operating in young adulthood rather than just the
sex of the sibling.
Also contrary to expectations, the sibling composition of the pairing
was not related to the Defend/Protect function. It may be that protecting
lessens in importance as siblings enter young adulthood. Because the indi-
viduals from this sample are in college, they may have less contact with
parents or others who may be perceived as threatening. Parents also are
much less likely to find out what their children are doing or have done
when they no longer share a residence. Therefore, there may be fewer op-
portunities for the performance of protective activities.

SELF-REPORTED SIBLING
FUNCTIONS AND SIBLING CLOSENESS

As anticipated, there is a relationship between perceptions of closeness

and performance of sibling functions, and this is particularly true for
women responding about siblings of either sex. However, the expected re-
lation was not found for all sibling pair types and for all functions. For ex-
ample, closeness is positively related to identification, conduct regulation,
and providing assistance. On the other hand, protective behavior is not re-
lated to closeness for any of the sibling pairs, and interpretive behavior
and instruction of skills is related to closeness only in sibling relationships
of women responding about either a sister or a brother. These results may
be explained by the decrease in importance of the Protect function as sib-
258 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / March 2003

lings become young adults. If protecting is less likely to occur, it may also
be less important in assessments of relationship quality.
The relation between positive affect and performance of the Interpret
and Teach New Skills functions for only the women in the sample may be
another manifestation of gender socialization. The relations between in-
terpretive and teaching behaviors and perceptions of closeness indicates
that verbal exchanges are more important to womens perceptions of sib-
ling closeness than mens perceptions. Saxton (1996) and Tannen (1990,
1994) have proposed that women use conversation to establish and main-
tain emotional ties and to express feelings, propositions supported by this
study.
In general, the findings of this study support the models postulated by
Bank and Kahn (1975, 1976) and Goetting (1986). Young adult siblings,
and particularly sisters, are providing the roles and services described by
the sibling functions, and this in turn is positively related to perceptions of
closeness in the relationship. Young women provide their siblings with
companionship and emotional support as friends and confidantes and are
sources of aid and services as they are needed. Although sex composition
of the dyad does relate to enactment of sibling behavior and assistance, it
was not to the extent that was expected. The principles of sex commonal-
ity and femaleness were not able to account for the differences that were
found.

IMPLICATIONS

Although additional research is needed to further explore what siblings

do for each other in young adulthood, this study indicates the potential
supportive role of siblings, especially sisters, during this stage in the life
cycle. This finding may be helpful to those who work with and assist fami-
lies. For example, during times of crisis and change, it is important for
practitioners to know that parents may not be the only resources available
to young adults. Siblings, and especially sisters, may be both willing and
able to provide needed emotional support. For instance, performance of
the Identity Formation, Mutual Regulation, and Teaching functions may
be helpful to young women and men as they change or acquire new roles in
their lives such as professional, spouse, or parent. During times of family
change, including addition of new members due to marriage, remarriage,
birth, or adoption, siblings interpreting the behaviors of new members for
each other may facilitate individual and familial adjustment. For example,
stepsiblings have been found to explain their biological parents behavior
 Weaver et al. / SIBLING RELATIONSHIP IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD 259

to each other (Beer, 1989), actions that are included in the Interpret func-
tion. Therapists could use this behavior to help facilitate the formation of
relationships between stepfamily members.
When resources normally sought from parents may not be available
due to divorce or death, these may instead be received from sisters and
brothers through provision of direct services. It has been previously found
that siblings in childhood and adolescence whose parents have divorced
are more likely to provide caretaking than siblings from first-married fam-
ilies (Cicirelli, 1995; MacKinnon, 1989). This may be another family pro-
cess that may be beneficial for therapists to recognize. These possible
transitions and the role that sibling functions may play during these times
are an important area for future research on the roles siblings fulfill for
each other in young adulthood.
Even though the results indicate that siblings, and particularly sisters,
are performing the theorized sibling functions, additional research is nec-
essary to develop a clearer understanding of when and why siblings pro-
vide these roles and services for one another. Suggestions for future re-
search include incorporating more diverse samples, examining the
influence of gender socialization on sibling roles and relationships, con-
sidering sibling constellation variables, and analyzing the influence of
current life events on sibling relations.
Most of what is known about siblings is from research on White, middle-
class individuals, primarily young children or the elderly. This study also
is focused largely on results from middle-class, European American col-
lege students who lived in the Midwest. To increase generalizability of re-
sults, data are needed from young adult siblings from populations that are
more diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, education
level, and geographic region. Sibling functions may be quite different for
noncollege young adults or for African American or Latino college stu-
dents because previous research has found contact and exchange of re-
sources between adult siblings to differ by race and socioeconomic status.
For instance, siblings who are African American were found to have the
most contact, and those that were European American to have higher rates
of exchanging resources and assistance. Help and exchange were also
lower among those with the least financial resources (Riedmann & White,
1996).
In addition to inclusion of noncollege samples, participants from vari-
ous family forms should also be sought for future research on sibling func-
tions. The majority of respondents in this study (77%) had parents who
were still married to each other. Performance of sibling functions may dif-
fer in families headed by single parents, those experiencing the process of
260 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / March 2003

divorce, or families formed by remarriage. For example, the growing

number of single-parent families increases the importance of siblings and
their roles in the family (Cicirelli, 1995). Sibling support may be particu-
larly important if parental monitoring and caregiving is diminished during
multiple family transitions; siblings can provide services for each other
that would have previously been supplied by a parent. Testing the similari-
ties and differences of performance of sibling functions between family
types is key to understanding the role siblings play in each others lives
over the course of family change due to parental divorce, death, or remar-
riage. Unfortunately, our sample size was not adequate to test this relation-
ship between performance of functions and changes in family structure.
An important potential area of future research is gender socialization
of siblings. Differences between sibling pair types have been previously
attributed to gender role socialization (McGoldrick, 1989), but this con-
nection has not been empirically tested. For example, in this study, sisters
were more likely to provide direct services to each other. Although it was
theorized that this resulted from womens socialization to be nurturers
(Baines, Evans, & Neysmith, 1991), these data did not allow us to draw
conclusions regarding socialization. Including measures of gender role
orientation and communication styles would allow the testing of differ-
ences in performance of functions and closeness between sibling pair
types as a result of gender socialization. This would further test the princi-
ple of femaleness in close relationships.
In addition to the inclusion of gender in future explorations of what sib-
lings do for each other, it may also be important to consider other sibling
constellation variables. These include number of siblings in the family,
birth order, and age spacing. These characteristics have previously been
demonstrated to influence the sibling relationship and may in fact also af-
fect the provision of sibling functions. For example, it may be hypothe-
sized that older siblings would be more likely to provide assistance or
teach skills to a younger sibling than vice versa. Unfortunately, our sample
was too small to allow us to control for these variables or to include them
in the analyses.
A final recommendation for future research is to consider characteris-
tics and life events of young adulthood that may influence their sibling re-
lationships. If, as this study indicates, sisters and brothers provide services
to and perform important functions for each other during early adulthood,
they may also be particularly likely to help each other during times of tran-
sition (e.g., divorce, marriage, and remarriage of themselves and parents;
career decisions; and parenthood). It is important for researchers to further
 Weaver et al. / SIBLING RELATIONSHIP IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD 261

explore this potential. It is likely that helping professionals have

underutilized siblings as possible resources during family or individual
crises.

REFERENCES

Adams, B. N. (1968). Kinship in an urban setting. Chicago, IL: Markham.

Akiyama, H., Elliott, K., & Antonucci, T. C. (1996). Same-sex and cross-sex relationships.
Journals of Gerontology Series BPsychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 51B(6),
P374-P382.
Azmitia, M., & Hesser, J. (1993). Why siblings are important agents of cognitive develop-
ment: A comparison of siblings and peers. Child Development, 64, 430-444.
Baines, C., Evans, P., & Neysmith, S. (1991). Caring: Its impact on the lives of women. In
C. Baines, P. Evans, & S. Neysmith (Eds.), Women caring: Feminist perspectives (pp. 11-
35). Toronto, Canada: McLelland and Stewart.
Bank, S. P., & Kahn, M. D. (1975). Sisterhood-brotherhood is powerful: Sibling subsystems
and family therapy. Family Process, 14, 311-337.
Bank, S. P., & Kahn, M. D. (1976). Sisterhood-brotherhood is powerful: Sibling subsystems
and family therapy. Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development, 1976,
493-519.
Bank, S. P., & Kahn, M. D. (1982). The sibling bond. New York: Basic Books.
Beer, W. R. (1989). Strangers in the house: The world of stepsiblings and half-siblings. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1977). Relationships of siblings to the elderly persons feelings and con-
cerns. Journal of Gerontology, 32, 317-322.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1980). A comparison of college womens feelings toward their siblings and
parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 111-118.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1982). Sibling influence throughout the life span. In M. E. Lamb & B. Sutton-
Smith (Eds.), Sibling relationships: Their nature and significance across the life span
(pp. 267-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1985). Sibling relationships throughout the life cycle. In L. LAbate (Ed.),
The handbook of family psychology and psychotherapy. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1989). Feelings of attachment to siblings and well-being in later life. Psy-
chology and Aging, 4, 211-216.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1991). Sibling relationships in adulthood. In S. P. Pfeifer & M. B. Sussman
(Eds.), Families: Intergenerational and generational connections (pp. 291-310).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cicirelli, V. C. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. New York: Plenum.
Connidis, I. A. (1989). Siblings as friends in later life. American Behavioral Scientist, 33,
81-93.
Crispell, D. (1996). The sibling syndrome. American Demographics, 18(8), 24-30.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Childrens perceptions of the qualities of sibling rela-
tionships. Child Development, 56, 448-461.
Ganong, L., & Coleman, M. (1993). An exploratory study of stepsibling subsystems. Jour-
nal of Divorce and Remarriage, 19(3-4), 125-141.
262 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / March 2003

Goetting, A. (1986). The developmental tasks of siblingship over the life cycle. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 48, 703-714.
Johnson, C. L. (1985). Growing up and growing old in Italian-American families. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Lee, T. R., Mancini, J. A., & Maxwell, J. W. (1990). Sibling relationships in adulthood: Con-
tact patterns and motivations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 431-440.
MacKinnon, C. E. (1989). Sibling interactions in married and divorced families: Influence of
ordinal position, socioeconomic status, and play context. Journal of Divorce, 12(2/3),
221-234.
Martin, C. L. (1990). Attitudes and expectations about children with nontraditional and tra-
ditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 22, 151-165.
McGoldrick, M. (1989). Sisters. In M. McGoldrick, C. M. Anderson, & F. Walsh (Eds.),
Women in families: A framework for family therapy (pp. 244-266). New York: Norton.
Monck, E. (1991). Patterns of confiding relationships among adolescent girls. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, 333-345.
Moser, M. R., Paternite, C. E., & Dixon, W. E. (1996). Late adolescentsfeelings toward par-
ents and siblings. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(4), 537-553.
Newman, J. (1991). College-age siblings relationships with siblings. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 20, 629-644.
Newman, J. (1994). Conflict and friendship in sibling relationships: A review. Child Study
Journal, 24(2), 119-152.
Pearson, J. C., West, R. L., & Turner, L. (1995). Gender and communication. Dubuque, IA:
Brown and Benchmark.
Pulakos, J. (1987). Brothers and sisters: Nature and importance of the adult bond. Journal of
Psychology, 121, 521-522.
Pulakos, J. (1989). Young adult relationships: Siblings and friends. Journal of Psychology,
123, 237-244.
Riedmann, A., & White, L. (1996). Adult sibling relationships: Racial and ethnic com-
parisons. In G. H. Brody (Ed.), Sibling relationships: Their causes and consequences
(pp. 105-126). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ross, H. G., & Milgram, J. L. (1982). Important variables in adult sibling relationships: A
qualitative study. In M. E. Lamb & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Sibling relationships: Their
nature and significance across the life span (pp. 225-249). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Saxton, L. (1996). The individual, marriage, and the family. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Schvanveldt, J. D., & Ihinger, M. (1979). In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, R. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss
(Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family: Vol. 1. Research-based theories
(pp. 453-467). New York: Free Press.
Scott, J. P. (1983). Siblings and other kin. In T. H. Brubaker (Ed.), Family relationships in
later life (pp. 47-62). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Seltzer, M. M. (1989). The three Rs of life cycle sib-ships: Rivalries, reconstructions, and re-
lationships. American Behavioral Scientist, 33(1), 107-115.
Stewart, R. B., Verbrugge, K. M., & Beilfuss, M. C. (1998). Sibling relationships in early
adulthood: A typology. Personal Relationships, 5, 59-74.
Stocker, C. M., Lanthier, R. P., & Furman, W. (1997). Sibling relationships in early adult-
hood. Journal of Family Psychology, 11(2), 210-221.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just dont understand me. New York: William Morrow.
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
 Weaver et al. / SIBLING RELATIONSHIP IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD 263

Tucker, C. A., Barber, B. L., & Eccles, J. S. (1997). Advice about life plans and personal
problems in late-adolescent sibling relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
26(1), 63-76.
Waters, B. (1987). The importance of sibling relationships in separated families. Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 8(1), 13-17.
White, L. K., & Riedmann, A. (1992). When the Brady Bunch grows up: Step/half- and full-
sibling relationships in adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 197-208.
Wood, J. (1999). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.