See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308486441

Siblinghood, Gender, and Families: Are Sisters More Close and Unified Than
Brothers?

Article  in  The Family Journal · October 2016

DOI: 10.1177/1066480716663174

CITATIONS READS
2 3,404

2 authors:

Hadas Doron Adi Sharabi-Nov

Tel-Hai Academic College Tel-Hai Academic College
36 PUBLICATIONS   60 CITATIONS    79 PUBLICATIONS   486 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ASPRE Project View project

modular model of family reslience with a chroniclly- ill children accord to child disease , individal and family variables View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adi Sharabi-Nov on 05 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
The Family Journal: Counseling and
Therapy for Couples and Families
Siblinghood, Gender, and Families: Are 1-10
ª The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
Sisters More Close and Unified Than sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1066480716663174
Brothers? tfj.sagepub.com

Hadas Doron1 and Adi Sharabi-Nov1

Abstract
Research on siblinghood is relatively new and has expanded during the past decade. It deals mostly with mixed-gender siblings and
does not relate to gender at all. The present study is unique in that it focuses on identical gender siblinghood, both female and
male, and its relationship to aspects of siblinghood and family relations in adulthood. Eighty-nine women and 67 men from Israel
participated in the study. Participants answered four self-report questionnaires: a demographic questionnaire; an Emotional
Intelligence Trait Scale used to measure self-efficacy; Furman and Buhrmester’s Sibling Relationship Questionnaire; and Olson,
Portner, and Lavee’s Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale. Measures of conflict were higher in the female than in the
male cohort, and cohesion was higher in the male than in the female cohort. Other findings reveal that among firstborn siblings,
the level of perception of conflict is higher than among middle siblings.

Keywords
sibling relations, gender, the circumplex model

Siblings are the longest-lasting relationship that people expe- shifting the focus to interpersonal relationships between
rience in their lives. Rather than being acquired, this relation- siblings (Gur-Bustanai, 2007).
ship is determined by birth and cannot be annulled (Berg- Relatively little attention has been paid to gender in this
Cross, 2010; Connidis, 2001; Gur-Bustanai, 2007; Spitze & context. As evidence accumulated about the influence of broth-
Trent, 2006). In childhood and adolescence, this relationship ers and sisters on one another in general, researchers began to
usually involves intimate and daily interaction, but in adult- show increasing interest in the influence of siblings on each
hood, it becomes more distant (Berg-Cross, 2010; Gur- other’s gender perceptions.
Bustanai, 2007). Siblings influence one another through daily
interactions and act as models, advisors, partners, friends, and
opponents. Siblings also affect one another indirectly, through Gender Differences in Sibling Relations
the level of influence they have on the roles and dynamic One field of inquiry that is commonly neglected in relation to
relations within the complex structure of the family. In addi- gender is its effect upon qualities and structures in the family.
tion, they provide for one another opportunities and exposure to Many of the skills children learn from interactions between
romantic and social experiences and activities (McHale, Crou- siblings may contribute directly to the development of their
ter, & Whiteman, 2003). Sibling relationships are frequently gender behavior, roles, and attitudes (Day, 2010).
egalitarian, even if power relations and differences in status Studies pointed to the influence of same-gender siblings on
exist due to age, knowledge, intelligence, social skills, socio- gender development and identity formation (Button-Smith &
economic class, achievements, and so on (Berg-Cross, 2010; Rosenberg, 1968). Rust, Golombok, Hines, Johnston, and
Gur-Bustanai, 2007). Golding (2000) and Furman and Buhrmester (1985) found that
Family theoreticians and researchers agree that siblinghood boys with older brothers and girls with older sisters were more
has a powerful effect on the development of the individual, gender typed than single children, and single children were
both as a child and as an adult (Cicirelli, 1995; Day, 2010;
Dunn, 2007; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Gur-Bustanai,
1
2007; McHale et al., 2003; Toman, 1993; Yelland & Daley, Tel-Hai Academic College, Yokneam Moshava, Israel
2009). Early research on siblingship focused on the contribu-
Corresponding Author:
tion of birth order on the cognitive, emotional, and social devel- Hadas Doron, Tel-Hai Academic College, Yokneam Moshava Nahal Keret St.,
opment of the individual. Later, researchers explored Po 149, Yokneam Moshava, Israel.
structural variables, such as extensions of family processes, Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com by guest on September 3, 2016

2 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families

more gender typed than children with siblings of the opposite Warmth and Closeness
sex. Moreover, it was found that having an older brother is
Furman and Buhrmester (1985) defined warmth and closeness
associated with more masculine and less feminine behavior
as intimacy, sociability, partnership, resemblance, admiration,
among both boys and girls, whereas having an older sister was
and affection. A study by Cole and Kerns (2001) distinguished
associated with more feminine but not less masculine behavior
between brother and sister dyads and found that brother dyads
for boys, but with less masculinity but not more femininity for
reported lower levels of positive relations (characterized by
girls. Wong, Branje, Vander Valk, Hawk, and Meeus (2010)
solicitude, intimacy, and conflict resolution). A study by Spitz
reported that older siblings, especially if they are of the same
and Trent (2006) tested the influence of emotional closeness,
gender, have substantial influence on the identity formation of
contact, and assistance among adult siblings in families with
their younger siblings during adolescence and emerging adult-
two children. Gender was an important aspect affecting the
hood. The study also provided support for identity processes
nature of relations between adult siblings. Women reported a
and ‘‘modeling’’ between siblings.
higher sense of closeness to siblings and greater ability to get
Updegraff, McHale, and Crouter (2000) found that there
along with them than men did. This was supported by Van
were significant implications of having same-gender or
Volkom’s (2006) study showing that sisters provided more
opposite-gender siblings on the experiences of young adoles-
emotional support to one another than did brothers.
cents within their peer group, including choice of friends and
the quality of their friendships. In adolescent opposite-gender
sibling dyads, girls learned control strategies from their older Relative Status and Power
brothers and implemented them on their friends. Firstborn and
second-born sisters were more intimate with their friends than Furman and Buhrmester (1985) defined the aspects of relative
were firstborn and second-born brothers. status and power as the quality of caregiving, admiration, and
Other studies point to the contribution of same-gender sib- power involved in their obligation. Relative status and power is
lingship to the quality of relations between siblings, especially connected to the roles that siblings take on or are assigned to.
among women. Weaver, Coleman, and Ganong’s research For example, older sisters have been described as being better
(2003) emphasized that siblings, especially sisters, played a able to take responsibility for teaching and nurturing their
significant role in providing support during early adolescence. younger siblings than older brothers (Cicirelli, 1995). A study
Eriksen and Grestel (2000) found that women, especially those that examined the correlation between same-gender sibling
with sisters, reported frequent telephone contact with their sib- dyads and the display of sibling roles showed that sister dyads
lings, unlike men or participants with no sisters. No gender tended to report more caregiving than brother dyads did (Wea-
differences were found regarding physical meetings. Riggio’s ver, Coleman, & Ganong, 2003). Voorpostel, Van Der Lippe,
(2000) study points to gender differences in sibling relation- Dykstra, and Flap (2007) found a clear difference between
ships. Women students reported more positive emotions and sister dyads and opposite-gender dyads in helping with house-
interaction with their siblings than men students did. Further- hold tasks and in giving advice to one another. Finally regard-
more, participants reported more positive emotions and inter- ing relative power and status, children perceived older siblings
actions with sisters than with brothers in general. Other studies of the same sex to be more dominant than older siblings of the
similarly found that women provided more help and emotional opposite sex (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985).
support to their siblings than men did (Eriksen & Grestel, 2002;
White, 2001).
However, when inquiring patterns of physical, psychologi-
Rivalry
cal, and sexual abuse among siblings, Morrill and Bachman Furman and Buhrmester (1985) defined rivalry as competition
(2013) found somewhat counterintuitive findings, indicating and parental discrimination or favoritism. In a study that exam-
that women were more likely to be perpetrators of sibling sex- ined the various influences on relations between opposite-
ual abuse than men, while no gender differences were found in gender siblings among college students, rivalry between
being victims of sibling abuse, nor in perpetrating physical or brothers reached its peak during childhood and adolescence,
emotional abuse (Morrill & Bachman, 2013). and usually disappeared in adulthood (Van Volkom, Machiz, &
Reich, 2011). Yelland and Daley (2009) emphasized that sib-
ling relationships included elements of rivalry and conflict.
High levels of rivalry and conflict among siblings were shown
Measures of Siblingship According to Furman
to be related to negative findings such as anxiety, depression,
and Buhrmester and a variety of behavioral problems. Rauer and Volling (2007)
A useful typology for characterizing siblings’ relationship was reported that differential parental affection has a negative
presented by Furman and Buhrmester (1985), containing four effect on the personal level and on future romantic relation-
characteristics: warmth and closeness, status and power, riv- ships of the siblings, regardless of gender (most of the partici-
alry, and conflict. Hereinafter we will present Furman and pants, however, were women). In an earlier study conducted by
Buhrmester’s characteristics, each followed by some relevant Boll, Ferring, and Filipp (2003), parental favoritism was found
findings. to be a predictor of deteriorated intersibling relations.

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com by guest on September 3, 2016

Doron and Sharabi-Nov 3

Conflict reported greater sibling closeness than those with authoritarian

or neglectful parents (Milevsky, Schelchter, & Machlev, 2011).
Conflict was defined by Furman and Buhrmester (1985) as
Volling, McElwain, and Miller (2002) studied jealousy among
competition (for resources, attention, appreciation, etc.), ani-
siblings and found that positive marital relationship quality
mosity, and jealousy. It can manifest as bullying, yelling, cur-
(i.e., love and relationship maintenance) was a particularly strong
sing, hitting, and the like. Stocker, Burwell, and Briggs (2002)
predictor of the siblings’ abilities to regulate jealousy reactions.
studied the connection between sibling conflict and psycholo-
Brody (1998) presented a model of different variables that
gical adjustment in childhood and early adolescence and found
affect sibling relations; family factors included in Brody’s
that high level of sibling conflict during childhood was con-
model were marital processes, parent–child relationships, and
nected to higher anxiety, depressed mood, and delinquent beha-
affectivity of parents, as significant variables to sibling rela-
vior in adolescence. Kim, McHale, Osgood, and Crouter (2006)
tionships. Several theories support this association. Attachment
examined changes in levels of intimacy and conflict between
theorists propose that children develop internal representations
brothers in late childhood and early adolescence over 4 years.
of relationships from interactions with their primary caregivers,
They discovered stable relationship patterns among same-
which they subsequently use in maintaining other relationships.
gender siblings and a U-shaped change pattern among
Social learning theorists have shown that behavior patterns
opposite-gender siblings, where relations were better at the
enacted during parent–child interactions are generalized to
beginning and end of the study but deteriorated in early ado-
children’s interactions with their siblings. Not surprisingly,
lescence. They also found that the highest level of intimacy was
therefore, higher levels of positive parent–child relationship
found between sisters and that the level of conflict between
are linked with higher levels of positive affectivity and proso-
brothers lessened with age. A study by Finzi-Dottan and Cohen
cial behavior among siblings. Similarly, negativity, intrusive-
(2011) examined the connection between sibling relations, par-
ness, and overcontrol are associated with aggressive and
ental favoritism, and personal narcissism. They found a high
self-protective behavior in the sibling relationship.
level of conflict between sisters, beyond the effects of narcis-
In addition, Brody’ s (1998) model includes parental man-
sism and perceived parental favoritism. Nevertheless, sisters
agement strategy of siblings’ disputes and differential treat-
reported greater warmth toward their siblings than brothers did.
ment, as factors determining sibling relations. More recent
Finzi-Dottan and Cohen (2011) noted that when women felt
lines of studies also stress parental differentiated treatment
close to their sisters and brothers, their intense emotional invol-
(PDT) as an influential factor (see Feinberg, Solmeyer, &
vement could result in conflict situations.
McHale, 2012). Moreover, Feinberg, Solmeyer, and McHale
Derkman, Scholte, Van der Veld, and Engels (2010) further
(2012) indicate that congruency between parents, even under
clarify Furman and Buhrmester’s model (1985) indicating that it
differential treatment, plays a significant role. A single parent’s
contains two overarching dimensions, that is, warmth/closeness
favoritism toward one child may reflect an intergenerational
and conflict. The warmth/closeness dimension includes the fol-
coalition, whereas congruence between parents’ PDT reflects
lowing underlying qualities: intimacy, prosocial behavior, com-
positive coparenting (Feinberg et al., 2012). Parents interven-
panionship, affection, similarity, admiration of the sibling, and
ing in their children’s disputes address issues that the children
admiration by the sibling. The conflict dimension includes the
raise, take positions on those issues, and enforce rules for the
following qualities: quarreling, antagonism, and competition.
children’s treatment of one another. When parents do not inter-
vene, older siblings are likely to dominate their younger sib-
lings. Alternatively, mother’s discussions with siblings of
Family Characteristics and Sibling Relations preschool age about their younger siblings’ needs and feelings
The family, being the primary context in which siblings grow have been found to be associated with sibling caregiving and
and mutually enact, inevitably plays a significant role in deter- friendliness. When mothers discussed these issues during rou-
mining their relationship. As sibling relationships develop tine daily activities, siblings engaged in friendlier and more
within a larger family system (Minuchin, 1985), it is note- sensitive interactions. Presumably, these naturally occurring
worthy to examine the associations between qualities of sibling conversations help children to develop empathic and
relations and family characteristics. perspective-taking competencies that enhance their sibling
McHale, Crouter, and Whiteman (2003) suggest that sibling relationships (Feinberg et al., 2012).
influence may be both direct, as when sisters and brothers serve
as models and social partners, and indirect, as when they help to
shape the structure of their families and influence everyday
Sibling Relations, Family Characteristics, and Gender
family activities and routines. Milevsky, Schelchter, and The literature that addresses the association between the gender
Machlev (2011) examined the relations between parental styles of children and family characteristics is scarce. Research did
and sibling relations. In their study of parental styles and par- find some evidence for differentiated influences of the family
ents’ involvement patterns in sibling’s conflict, they found that upon the development of boys and girls in adolescence. For
adolescents with authoritative and permissive parents reported example, in the development of self-esteem, boys were more
greater sibling support than those with authoritarian and neglect- sensitive to the control/autonomy aspect of parental interac-
ful parents. In addition, participants with authoritative parents tions, whereas girls were affected by support and participation

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com by guest on September 3, 2016

4 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families

of parents. Kenny and Donaldson (1991), in a study of late member had become ill (Houtzager et al., 2004), had a
adolescents, found that females were more likely than males mental health problem (Barnett & Hunter, 2011), or other
to utilize their parents for help in stressful situations, including disability (Mandleco, Frost Olsen, Dyches, & Marshall,
seeking emotional support from parents. According to McHale 2003; Richardson, 2009). Scarce research has been con-
et al. (2003), the structure of the family, in particular whether ducted to examine the relation between family characteris-
the family includes opposite-sex parents and/or opposite-sex tics according to the circumplex model, gender, and
siblings, can afford or constrain opportunities for sex-type pat- siblingship. Gorbett and Kruczek (2008) found a positive
terns of family roles, relationships, and activities. correlation between the number of siblings and high family
Baer (1999) mentions previous studies that found that fam- cohesion as well as high social self-esteem. Nevertheless,
ily structure (i.e., single parent family) appears more important gender was not found to be a significant predictor for cohe-
for boys and family conflict a more salient issue for girls. An sion and/or adaptability of the family. Jin Yu and Gamble
examination of the dyadic communication between mothers (2007) found that the family environment, including cohe-
and their adolescent offspring showed girls and their mothers sion and expressing positive emotions, was significant in
had higher levels of conflict than boys and their mothers (Hill lowering aggression and suppressed problems in siblings.
& Holmbeck, 1987; Paikoff & Brooks-Gunn, 1991, in Baer, Moreover, the gender of the siblings was not found to be
1999). However, in her study, Baer (1999) failed to find gender a significant predictor of aggression. Hardy (2001) exam-
differences in the effect of communication with both mother ined physical aggression and sexual behaviors between sib-
and father on family conflict. Neither gender did not moderate lings. Family cohesion and flexibility were not found to be
the relationship between family structure and conflict. She did, predictors of aggression, although siblings who reported
however, find ethnic difference in the level of communication high levels of aggression and sexual behaviors also reported
of adolescent boys and girls with parents. high levels of intrafamily stress.
To date, we failed to find even a single research addressing
the differences in family characteristics between sisters and
The Circumplex Model brothers, according to the circumplex model. The present study
One of the most prevalent models that addressed family char- aims to address this gap and to widen our understanding as to
acteristics used in family research is Olson’s (2000) circumplex whether girls’ families differ in cohesion and adaptability than
model of family cohesion and adaptability. boys’ families, and the impact of these qualities upon sibling
Olson (Olson, 2000; Olson, Sprenkel, & Russell, 1979, relations.
1986) defined the terms cohesion and adaptability as they relate
to family relationships. Cohesion measures how the family
system balances separateness with togetherness or the amount The Current Study
of emotional bonding (Romig & Bakken, 1992). There are four
levels of cohesion: disengaged (very low), separated (low Summing up, the present literature on gender differences is
balanced), connected (high balanced), and enmeshed (high). yet to be exhausted, revealing a somewhat trend toward
On the balanced levels (separated and connected), family mem- sisters being more passionate, caring, and close to their
bers were able to experience both aspects of cohesion, that is, siblings than brothers, however, this complex connection
they were independent but connected to the family. When the is mediated by age and family variables. The present study
level of family cohesion was high, there was too much consen- aims to broaden the understanding of gender differences in
sus and little independence for the individual. At the disengage- sibling relations. In addition, we examine, for the first
ment level, family members were busy with their own lives and time, the connection between sibling relations and percep-
felt minimal obligation toward family members (Olson, 2000). tions of cohesion and adaptability in adult families char-
Adaptability was a measure of the openness or closeness of a acterized by masculine versus feminine sibling gender.
system, along a continuum ranging from rigid, to structured, In this exploratory research, we phrased the following
flexible, and chaotic (Olson, 2000). A relatively open family questions:
system was characterized by clear but flexible borderlines,
Research Question 1: Is there a difference in sibling
accepted feedback and criticism from the environment, and
relations between cohorts of different genders? (femi-
processed it in keeping with its needs. A relatively closed fam-
nine vs. masculine same-sex cohorts, opposite-sex
ily system was characterized by inflexible external borderlines
cohorts).
and distortion of information introduced to it; it was heavily
dependent on the environment and especially on its members Research Question 2: Is there a difference in family char-
(Hoffman, 1988; Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1978). acteristics (cohesion, adaptability) between cohorts of
different genders? (feminine vs. masculine same-sex
cohorts, opposite-sex cohorts).
The Circumplex Model and Sibling Relations Research Question 3: Is there a connection between family
Recent studies on the circumplex model and sibling rela- characteristics of cohesion and adaptability and qualities of
tionships were generally conducted on families in which a sibling relations?

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com by guest on September 3, 2016

Doron and Sharabi-Nov 5

Method power, rivalry, and conflict) and in their perception of family

dimensions (cohesion and adaptability).
Participants and Procedure In order to address Research Question 3, we calculated Pear-
One hundred fifty-six participants, 67 men (42.9%) and 89 son correlation coefficients between dimensions of sibling rela-
women (57.1%), were randomly recruited through the e-mail, tions (warmth/closeness, status and power, rivalry, and
using the researchers’ distribution list and the snowball conflict) and dimensions of family characteristics (cohesion
method. All participants were drawn from the normative adult and adaptability).
population and ranged in age between 18 and 35 years (M ¼
27.51, SD ¼ 3.987). Participants were divided into three
cohorts, according to the siblings’ gender constellation in their Results
families-of-origin: Cohort I (male siblings), Cohort II (female
siblings), and Cohort III (mixed-gender siblings). Cohort I
Difference Between Men and Women in Sibling
group comprised 59 participants, Cohort II group comprised Relations and Family Characteristics
42, and Cohort III group comprised 42. The questionnaires Table 1 presents means and SDs of the research variables and
were returned to the researchers by e-mail, within a period of the MANOVA results for one-direction differences between
3 weeks from distribution. the groups. Table 1 show that a significant difference between
the three cohorts in the conflict variable, where the female
cohorts scored significantly higher in conflict than both the
Measures male cohorts and the mixed-gender cohorts, F(2,155) ¼
4.449, p < .05, yet a Scheffe post hoc test did not find a signif-
1. Demographic questionnaire: containing age, gender,
icant difference between male and female cohorts and the
sibling’s gender, number of children in the family.
mixed-gender cohorts.
2. Furman and Buhrmester’s (1985) Sibling Relationship
The table shows that the conflict variable accounts for the
Questionnaire: This measure contains 5 items measur-
largest portion of the difference between the cohorts and
ing the four dimensions of sibling relations: warmth/
explains 5.5% of the difference.
closeness, relative status and power, rivalry, and
In order to get a clearer image as to whether males and
conflict.
females differ in sibling relations and in family characteristics,
3. Family Climate (FACES III): The Family Adaptability
we divided our sample into men and women and conducted
and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES III; Olson,
independent t-tests to measure gender differences regarding
2000) assesses the degree of cohesiveness and adapt-
each of the research variables. The findings are presented in
ability within the family. The scale consists of 20 items
Table 2.
composing two subscales of 10 items each rated on a 5-
The results show a significant difference between men and
point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to
women in family cohesion, where men rated higher cohesion in
5 (almost always).
their families than women, t(154) ¼ 2.629, p < .01. Other-
The Cohesion subscale refers to emotional bonding, family wise, men and women did not differ in measures of siblingship
boundaries, and time spent together (e.g., ‘‘Family members and of family adaptability. A higher level of conflict was found
feel closer to other family members than to people outside the among women than among men, but the difference was not
family’’). The Adaptability subscale refers to discipline, roles, statistically significant.
negotiation, and flexibility within the family, focusing on how
the family system balances stability versus change (e.g., ‘‘We Relations Between Sibling Relations and Family
shift household responsibilities from person to person’’). The Characteristics
score is the average of the items on the relevant subscale. Thus,
a higher score reflects a higher level of cohesion and adapt- In order to address Research Question 3, we conducted a Pear-
ability. The validity of the scale was established, as were con- son correlation between the sibling relations variables and the
sistent reliability (cohesion ¼ .77, adaptability ¼ .62–67) family characteristics variables in the different cohorts. The
across studies and test–retest reliability (.80–.83; Olson, Spren- results are presented in Table 3.
kle, & Russell, 1986). For the current sample, a Cronbach’s a As shown in Table 3, there is a significant positive correla-
of .87 was obtained for cohesion and .70 for adaptability. tion between the status and power, and the warmth and close-
ness variables in all cohorts (Pr ¼ .496, .465, .561, p < .01 for
males, females, and mixed gender, respectively): the higher the
level of status and power, the higher the level of warmth and
Data Analysis closeness is.
In order to address Research Questions 1 and 2, we conducted a A significant relation was also found between status and
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) aimed to deter- power, and conflict in both the females and the mixed-gender
mine whether the different cohort groups vary in the sibling cohorts (Pr ¼ .347, .468, p < .01, respectively), but not for the
relations’ dimensions (warmth/closeness, relative status and males.

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com by guest on September 3, 2016

6 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families

Table 1. Single-Direction Differences Between the Three Research Cohorts.

Boys (n ¼ 590) Girls (n ¼ 55) Mixed (n ¼ 42)

Variable/Cohort M SD M SD M SD F(2,155) Z2 p

Emotional intelligence 3.512 .483 3.483 .465 3.434 .491 0.327 .004 .845
Warmth and closeness 3.618 .627 3.800 .546 3.585 .746 1.732 .022 .310
Rivalry 2.839 .393 2.845 .472 2.960 .407 1.181 .015 .310
Status and power 2.341 .627 2.404 .547 2.188 .663 1.545 .019 .217
Conflict 1.678b .503 1.987a .745 1.674b .584 4.499 .055 .013*
Cohesion 3.883 .552 3.907 .495 3.840 .653 0.169 .002 .845
Flexibility 2.869 .495 2.870 .513 2.902 .560 0.059 .007 .943
Note. N ¼ 156.
*p < .05.

Table 2. Family and Siblingship Variables by Gender. Variables Predicting Level of Siblings Conflict
Women Men We conducted a regression analysis of the research variables to
(n ¼ 89) (n ¼ 67) ascertain the level of conflict within the families.
Table 4 shows that it is possible to predict the level of
Variables/Cohorts M SD M SD T(154) p conflict among siblings based on four variables: family cohe-
Emotional intelligence 3.441 .498 3.535 .446 1.225 .223 sion, status and power, age, and family adaptability. The con-
Warmth and closeness 3.683 .683 3.660 .578 0.227 .821 flict variable explained 22% of the differences.
Rivalry 2.897 .448 2.843 .398 0.776 .439
Status and power 2.352 .575 2.283 .661 0.693 .489
Conflict 1.862 .714 1.684 .493 1.837 .068 Discussion
Cohesion 3.783 .605 4.009 .467 2.629 .009**
Flexibility 2.837 .524 2.934 .505 1.165 .246 Gender Differences in Sibling Relations and in Family
**p < .01.
Characteristics
In the present study, we found that the level of conflict was
A significant positive correlation was found in all cohorts higher in the female sibling than in the male sibling cohort.
between closeness and warmth and both the family variables: a This finding is consistent with Finzi-Dottan and Cohen (2011)
strong positive relation between closeness/warmth and cohe- who reported a high degree of conflict among sisters.
sion (Pr ¼ .653, .530, .600, p < .01 for males, females, and A theoretical explanation for this finding can be found in the
mixed gender, respectively) and a moderate positive relation writings of Freud (1916–1917) who considered siblings to be
between closeness/warmth and adaptability (Pr ¼.306, .313, important players in the development of the child because they
.470, p < .05 for males, females, and mixed-gender, respec- represent rivals in the struggle for parental affection and atten-
tively). Meaning, the higher the level of cohesion and adapt- tion. He claimed that siblings are primordial adversaries for the
ability in the family, the higher the level of warmth and absolute love of the parents (especially of the mother), in all its
closeness in sibling relationship. forms (Day, 2010; Finzi-Dottan & Cohen, 2011). Freud (1962)
In addition, a significant relation was found between status emphasized the differences between boys and girls in sexual
and power and family cohesion, in the males and the females development, claiming that the resolution of developmental
cohorts (Pr ¼ .275, p < .05 for males, Pr ¼ .478, p < .01 for complexes are more complex among girls than among boys.
females), but not in the mixed-gender cohorts. Meaning—the According to Freud, development of the feminine identity
more status and power was strong among same-sex siblings, and personality is influenced largely by a sense of lack (of a
but not among mixed-gender siblings, the higher was the cohe- penis) and identification of self as disadvantaged. The path to
sion in their families. the development of a girl’s femininity is a difficult one, char-
In the female cohorts only, but not in the males and the acterized by hostility toward the mother figure and toward
mixed genders, there was a significant relation between status women in general. This hostility stems from realizing that the
and power and adaptability (Pr ¼ .293, p < .05); meaning—the mother is inferior because she lacks the male sex organ. Unlike
more status and power was strong among sisters, the higher was men, women almost never become free of this hostility. Girls
the adaptability in their families. who turn their backs on their mothers generate envy aimed at
Finally, a moderate but significant positive correlation was other people, brothers and sisters, rivals, and their fathers
found between the flexibility and the cohesion variables in all (Freud, 1997; Malach-Pines, 1997).
cohorts (Pr ¼ .519, .604, .638, p < .01 for males, females, and According to the writings of Freud, therefore, envy and
mixed gender, respectively): the higher the level of family jealousy are among the characteristics of women’s identity and
adaptability, the higher the level of family cohesion. are already present at young age. The girl desires to win the

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com by guest on September 3, 2016

Doron and Sharabi-Nov 7

Table 3. Pearson Correlation Matrix Between Research Variables in the Different Sibling Cohorts.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Males 1 Emotional intelligence —

2 Warmth and closeness .277 —
3 Rivalry .002 .188 —
4 Status and power .021 .496** 0.126 —
5 Conflict .161 .29 0.58 .247 —
6 Cohesion .275* .653** 1.36 .275* .39 —
7 Adaptability .375 .306* 0.29 .187 .140 .519**
Females 1 Emotional intelligence —
2 Warmth and closeness .057 —
3 Rivalry .203 .025 —
4 Status and power .110 .465** 0.076 —
5 Conflict .014 .098 0.127 .347** —
6 Cohesion .233 .530** 0.143 .478** .188 —
7 Adaptability .160 .313* 0.120 .293* .023 .604**
Mixed gender 1 Emotional intelligence —
2 Warmth and closeness .277 —
3 Rivalry .053 .093 —
4 Status and power .119 .561** 0.142 —
5 Conflict .054 .227 0.095 .463** —
6 Cohesion .346* .600** 0.049 .232 .092 —
7 Adaptability .375* .470** 0.082 .236 .157 .638**
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 4. Regression Analysis of the Research Variables Predicting to get along with siblings than men did. Yet, the present
Level of Conflict. research does not seem to support this claim. Moreover, broth-
ers (whether of boys and girls) reported higher family cohesion
Variables B SE B b
than sisters. This finding somewhat corresponds to our conflict
Cohesion .37 .10 .33*** finding, as it can be claimed that boys perceive more cohesion
Adaptability .23 .11 .19* in their families and are less in conflict with their siblings than
Status and power .41 .08 .40*** girls. The combination of these findings might be an indicator
Age .03 .01 .21** of more positive affectivity toward the family among boys
R2 .22 compared to girls, yet such an assertion demands further
F 10.92***
research. The practical relevance of this finding lies in some
Note. N ¼ 156. prior research that found that family climate variables are more
*p < .05. **p < .01.*** p < .001. influential among boys than among girls (e.g., Larkin, Frazer,
& Wheat, 2011, for the impact of family environment on inter-
heart of the father, and when she fails, she experiences personal relations; Annunziata, Hogue, Faw, & Liddle, 2006,
frustration and jealousy. Freud also explains that envy and for the impact of family functioning and parenting on school
jealousy are especially directed at women in general, espe- success). Family climate, therefore, might be a more significant
cially the mother. It is plausible that with several girls in a factor for boys’ adjustment and outcomes than for girls.
family, competition becomes stronger, and an intense level
of identity characteristics is manifested (Freud, 1997;
Malach-Pines, 1997). This can explain the high level of Relation Between Sibling Relations and Family
conflict in families with female siblings, as we found in the
Characteristics
present research.
Another finding relates to the difference in the cohesion To our knowledge, no prior research examined the relations
variable between men and women, with men reporting higher between Furnam and Buhrmester’s dimensions of sibling rela-
levels of cohesion in their family. This difference was moder- tions and Olson’s Circumplex model of family cohesion and
ated when we examined this variable by sibling cohorts, with adaptability. Not surprisingly, we found that the warmth/close-
male respondents from the mixed-gender cohort reporting a ness dimension correlated with family cohesion among all of
higher level of cohesion than did men in the male sibling our cohorts—males, females, and mixed gender. This can be
cohort. Spitze and Trent (2006) emphasized that gender is one explained by Olson’s (2000) definition of cohesion as ‘‘the
of the most important components affecting relations between emotional bonding that family members have toward one
adult siblings and found that women reported being better able another’’ (p. 516). Being an affective variable, it is reasonable

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com by guest on September 3, 2016

8 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families

to be correlated with the perception of warmth and closeness Limitations of the Research and Suggestions
among siblings. for Future Research
More intriguing is our finding of correlation between
warmth and closeness in sibling relations and family adaptabil- The present study, being first to integrate the circumplex model
ity among all our participants. Family flexibility is defined as of family characteristics with qualities of siblingship, suffers
the amount of change in the family’s leadership, role relation- from some pitfalls.
ships, and relationship rules. The focus of flexibility is on how First, a larger sample is likely to have yielded additional
the family system balances stability versus change (Olson, significant findings.
2000). The association of this concept to warmth and closeness Our study focused on families with same- versus opposite-
among siblings indicates that close siblings can manifest flex- gender siblings, an area that has not been widely researched. It
ibility in their relationship, or otherwise, closeness and affec- would be desirable to expand our knowledge of this topic, learn
tion between siblings may play as a buffer for the family in the more about these family structures, and study them in relation
face of change and external demands and enable flexibility to other variables and populations.
within the family. This assertion merits further research of The present study focused on sibling relations in adulthood
siblings and their families. Specifically, research in the area and did not reflect on other stages of life. Future research
of families in stressful events might shed some more light on should examine how sibling relations and perceptions of cohe-
the relations between siblings’ closeness and warmth and the sion and flexibility manifest during various stages, for exam-
family’s coping and adaptability. ple, childhood and adolescence. Studying this topic among
Another siblinghood dimension that yielded significant earlier ages may track the emergence of family perceptions
correlations with family characteristics was relative power among children and perhaps discover whether and how they
and status. We found status and power to be significantly are embedded in the formation of gender identity. We also
correlated with cohesion among families with same-sex sib- suggest examining and comparing the perceptions of siblings
lings—that is, brothers or sisters—but not among mixed- in the same family, with the perceptions of their parents. Such a
gender families. In addition, we found status and power to study could advance our understanding of relations beyond the
correlate with family adaptability among sisters. Furman and personal perceptions of a single representative of the family.
Buhrmester’s (1985) status and power refers to the degree Summing up, in the present study, we shifted the focus of
and direction of asymmetry in the sibling relationship and sibling relations from the individual and dyad perspective, to a
constitutes an important dimension of sibling relations. Chil- more comprehensive, family-level perspective. Further
dren consistently report that older siblings have greater status research of sibling relations should continue this line and widen
and power than younger siblings. During childhood, older its scope of inquiry from micro- to macro-level and shed more
siblings show more positive power (teaching, helping, and light on siblings within the wider system in which they enact—
nurturing) and more negative power (domineering and their families.
powering) toward their younger siblings, while this trend
diminishes in part toward adulthood (Shortt & Gottman,
1997). Our finding indicates that among same-sex siblings, Implications for Family and Couple Practice
be it sisters or brothers, relative status and power contributes The findings of the present study contain some practical sig-
to family cohesion or either is fostered by family cohesion. nificance. Sibling relations have their impact upon a range of
We assume that when sisters only or brothers only are developmental outcomes for families and individuals. There-
involved—role taking, nurturing, or even dominance among fore, there is a need in widening the scope of reference and
the siblings is somehow necessary to avoid jealousy and dis- treatment of siblings, from the dyadic and individual context, to
tancing and to maintain a sense of emotional bonding within a more comprehensive one—the familial context. Such a sys-
the family. As for sisters, practices of status and power seem temic reference to siblings would allow for practitioners—fam-
to be connected also with adaptability within the family. This ily therapists, social workers, and others—to diagnose, locate,
could be related to our aforementioned discussion about the and intervene with subsystems (siblinghood) within the wider
development of feminine identity. Thus, sisters’ manifested frame of the family, in order to achieve desirable goals for the
expressions of status and power relations, rather than unex- family as a whole.
pressed affect, may bring about family’s adaptation. The Moreover, the distinction highlighted in the present research
complex nature of power and status is well described by between different gender-like siblings (sisters, brothers, and
Shortt and Gottman (1997): ‘‘We think that power struggles mixed sex) allows for individual and family therapists to hold
. . . is the social process that is particularly salient, and is a deeper understanding regarding their patients’ motives,
associated with the sibling task of resolving power imbal- affect, and functioning.
ances . . . [it] has been characterized as a developmental The detection and observation of sibling relations in child-
milestone for siblings to accomplish’’ (p. 158). Further study- hood may play a role in the determination of family dynamics
ing of the difference between sisters and brothers in status further in the family’s life cycle. The efforts to maintain and
relations and power within the wider context of the family nourish healthy families, then, may focus in initiating
system is needed. interventions with siblings during their childhood, with

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com by guest on September 3, 2016

Doron and Sharabi-Nov 9

gender-correlated strategies. For example, our findings related Day, B. L. (2010). The influence of sibling relationship on the atti-
to power and status may imply in favor of interventions that are tudes of men toward women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
designed to structure roles for sisters and brothers within their University of Hartford, West Hartford, CN.
families, and by doing so, impact the flexibility and cohesion of Derkman, M. M. S., Scholte, R. H. J., Van der Veld, W. M., & Engels,
the whole family. R. (2010). Factorial and construct validity of the sibling relation-
Parents may apply their parental perceptions and practices ship questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assess-
without necessarily considering the issue of siblings’ gender. ment, 26, 277–283.
Practitioners should, therefore, illuminate for parents the Dunn, J. (2007). Siblings and socialization. In J. E. Grusec & P. D.
importance of the gender issue, by means of parent guiding Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research
workshops and the like. (pp. 309–327). New York, NY: Gilford.
Finally, this study bears some implications for the treatment Eriksen, S., & Gerstel, N. (2000). Adult siblings as family resources:
and intervention with families in crises and stressful circum- Factors that shape contact and care. Paper presented at the annual
stances. Coping resources may derive from either family meeting of American Sociological Association, Washington, DC.
mechanisms (like cohesion and flexibility) or sibling-related Eriksen, S., & Gerstel, N. (2002). A labor of love or labor itself: Care
mechanism (warmth/closeness, status, and roles). Being these work among adult brothers and sisters. Journal of Family Issues,
two spheres interrelated, practitioners intervening with families 23, 836–856. doi:10.1177/019251302236597
in crises should address both spheres in order to maximize the Feinberg, M. E., Solmeyer, A. R., & McHale, S. M. (2012). The third
families’ coping and functioning in the face of crises and stress. rail of family systems: Sibling relationships, mental and behavioral
health, and preventive intervention in childhood and adolescence.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15, 43–57.
Finzi-Dottan, R., & Cohen, O. (2011). Young adult sibling relations:
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The effect of perceived parental favouritism and narcissism. The
Journal of Psychology, 145, 1–22. doi:10.1080/00223980.2010.
528073
Funding
Freud, S. (1916–1917). Introductory lectures on psychoanalysis
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- (Standard ed., Vols. 15–16). London, England: Hogarth.
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Freud, S. (1962). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. New York,
NY: Avon.
References Freud, S. (1997). Sexuality and the psychology of love. New York,
Annunziata, D., Hogue, A., Faw, L., & Liddle, H. A. (2006). Family NY: Touchstone.
functioning and school success in at-risk, inner-city adolescents. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 100–108. qualities of sibling relationships. Child Development, 56, 448–461.
Baer, J. (1999). The effects of family structure and SES on family Gorbett, K., & Kruczek, T. (2008). Family factors predicting social
processes in early adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 22, self-esteem in young adults. The Family Journal: Counseling and
341–354. Therapy for Couples and Families, 16, 58–65. doi:10.1177/
Barnett, R. A., & Hunter, M. (2011). Adjustment of siblings of chil- 1066480707309603
dren with mental health problems: Behaviour, self-concept, quality Gur-Bustanai, T. (2007). The contribution of the quality of sibling
of life and family functioning. Journal of Child Family Study, 21, relations to criminality among adolescents in the context of par-
262–272. ental approaches, social supper, and peer-group relations. Unpub-
Berg-Cross, L. (2010). Basic concepts in family therapy (Vol. 1). lished master’s thesis, Haifa University, Israel (in Hebrew).
Kiryat Bialik, Israel: Ach (in Hebrew). Hardy, M. S. (2001). Physical aggression and sexual behavior among
Boll, T., Ferring, D., & Filipp, S. H. (2003). Perceived parental differ- siblings: A retrospective study. Journal of Family Violence, 16,
ential treatment in middle adulthood: Curvilinear relations with 255–268.
individuals’ experienced relationship quality to sibling and par- Hill, J. P., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1987). Disagreements about rules in
ents. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 472–487. families with seventh-grade girls and boys. Journal of Youth and
Brody, G. H. (1998). Sibling relationship quality: Its causes and con- Adolescence, 16, 221–246.
sequences. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 1–24. Hoffman, M. S. W. (1988). The family life cycle and discontinuous
Button-Smith, B., & Rosenberg, B. G. (1968). Sibling consensus on change. In B. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The changing family
power tactics. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 112, 63–72. life cycle (pp. 191–207). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1995). Sibling relationship across the life span. New Houtzager, B. A., Oort, F. J., Hoekstra-Weebers, J. E. H. M., Caron, H.
York, NY: Plenum Press. N., Grootenhuis, M. A., & Last, B. F. (2004). Coping and family
Cole, A., & Kerns, K. A. (2001). Perceptions of sibling qualities and functioning predict longitudinal psychological adaptation of
activities of early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescents, 21, siblings of childhood cancer patients. Journal of Pediatric Psy-
204–227. chology, 29, 591–605. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsh061
Connidis, I. A. (2001). Family ties and aging. Thousand Oaks, CA: Jin Yu, J., & Gamble, W. C. (2007). Familial correlates of overt and
Sage. relational aggression between young adolescent siblings. Journal

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com by guest on September 3, 2016

10 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families

of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 655–673. doi:10.1007/s10964-007- Romig, C., & Bakken, L. (1992). Intimacy development in middle
9208-0 adolescence: Its relationship to gender and family cohesion and
Kenny, M. E., & Donaldson, G. A. (1991). Contributions of parental adaptability. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 325–338.
attachment and family structure to the social and psychological Rust, J., Golombok, S., Hines, M., Johnston, K., & Golding, J. (2000).
functioning of first-year college students. Journal of Counseling The role of brothers and sisters in the gender development of pre-
Psychology, 38, 479–486. school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77,
Kim, J. Y., McHale, S. M., Osgood, D. W., & Crouter, A. C. (2006). 292–303.
Longitudinal course and family correlates of sibling relationships Shortt, J. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Closeness in young adult
from childhood through adolescence. Child Development, 77, sibling relationships: Affective and physiological processes. Social
1746–1761. Development, 6, 142–164.
Larkin, K. T., Frazer, N. L., & Wheat, A. L. (2011). Responses to Spitze, G., & Trent, K. (2006). Gender differences in adult sibling
interpersonal conflict among young adults: Influence of family of relations in two-child families. Journal of Marriage and Family,
origin. Personal Relationships, 18, 657–667. 68, 977–992.
Malach-Pines, A. (1997). Psychology of the genders (Vol. 2, 1st ed.). Stocker, C. M., Burwell, R. A., & Briggs, M. L. (2002). Sibling con-
Tel Aviv, Israel: The Open University [Hebrew]. flict in middle childhood predicts children’s adjustment in early
Mandleco, B., Frost Olsen, S., Dyches, T., & Marshall, E. (2003). The adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 50–57.
relationships between family and sibling functioning in families rais- Toman, W. (1993). Family constellation (4th ed.). New York, NY:
ing a child with disability. Journal of Family Nursing, 9, 365–396. Springer.
McHale, S., Crouter, A., & Whiteman, S. (2003). The family contexts Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2000). Adoles-
of gender development in childhood and adolescence. Social cents’ sex-typed friendship experiences: Does having a sister ver-
Development, 12, 125–148. sus a brother matter? Child Development, 71, 1597–1610.
Milevsky, A., Schlechter, M. J., & Machlev, M. (2011). Effects of Van Volkom, M. (2006). Sibling relationship in middle and older
parenting style and involvement in sibling conflict on adolescent adulthood: A review of the literature. Marriage and Family
sibling relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relation- Review, 40, 151–170.
ships, 28, 1130. Van Volkom, M., Machiz, C., & Reich, A. E. (2011). Sibling rela-
Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations tionships in the college years: Do gender, birth order, and age
from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289–302. spacing matter? North American Journal of Psychology, 13,
Morrill, M., & Bachman, C. (2013). Confronting the gender myth: An 35–50.
exploration of variance in male versus female experience with Volling, B. L., McElwain, N. L., & Miller, A. L. (2002). Emotion
sibling abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1693–1708. regulation in context: The jealousy complex between young
Olson, D. H. (2000). Circumplex model of family systems. Journal of siblings and its relations with child and family characteristics.
Family Therapy, 22, 144–167. Child Development, 73, 581–600.
Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. (1979). Circumplex Voorpostel, M., Van Der Lippe, T., Dykstra, P. A., & Flap, H. (2007).
model of marital and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability Similar or different? The importance of similarities and differences
dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family for support between siblings. Journal of Family Issues, 28,
Process, 18, 3–28. 1026–1053.
Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. (1986). Circumplex Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1978). Change: Principles
Model 7: Validation studies and FACES III. Family Process, 26, of problem formation and resolution (2nd ed.). Tel Aviv, Israel:
337–351. Sifriat Hapoalim (in Hebrew).
Paikoff, R. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1991). Do parent-child relation- Weaver, S. E., Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. H. (2003). Sibling func-
ships change during puberty? Psychological bulletin, 110, 47–66. tions and relationship perceptions as influenced by sibling pair
Rauer, A. J., & Volling, B. L. (2007). Differential parenting and sib- composition. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 245–263. doi:10.
ling jealousy: Developmental correlates of young adults’ romantic 1177/0192513X02250098
relationships. Personal Relationships, 14, 495–511. doi:10.1111/j. White, L. (2001). Sibling relations over the life course: A panel anal-
1475-6811.2007.00168.x ysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 555–568. doi:10.1111/j.
Richardson, S. S. (2009). A developmental approach to sibling rela- 1741-3737.2001.00555.x
tionships: Disaggregating the components of sibling relationship Wong, T. M. L., Branje, S. J. T., VanderValk, I. E., Hawk, S. T., &
quality over time for siblings of individuals with intellectual Meeus, W. H. J. (2010). The role of siblings in identity develop-
disability. Unpublished master’s thesis, Georgia State University, ment in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Journal of Adoles-
Atlanta, GA. cence, 33, 673–682. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.003
Riggio, H. (2000). Measuring attitudes towards adult sibling relation- Yelland, I., & Daley, D. (2009). Expressed emotion in children: Asso-
ships: The lifespan sibling relationship scale. Journal of Social and ciations with sibling relationships. Child: Care, Health and Devel-
Personal Relationships, 17, 707–728. opment, 35, 568–577.

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com by guest on September 3, 2016

View publication stats