connidis!!!

8/13/2019 Connidis!!!

1/10

Journal of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES1994, Vol. 49, No. 6, S3O9-S317 Copyright 1994 by The Cerontological Society of America

Sibling Support in Older AgeIngrid Arnet Connidis

Department of Sociology, University of Western Ontario.

Data from a multi-stage quota sample which includes 528 respondents aged 55 and overwithat leaston living siblingare used to examine instrumental support financial, help during illness, other) from siblings, the perception ofsiblings as a source of support if needed in a crisis, long-term illness, coresidence), and the characteristics ofrespondents and their sibling networks associated w ith receiving help and perceiving help to be available. A minorityof respondents have received sibling support, and a majority perceive siblings to be available in a crisis. Thosewithtw oor more siblings are m ore likely to have received help and to perceive siblings as available than those with one sibling.Significant differences by gender, marital status, parent status, and geographic proximity are discussedwithreferenceto models of support, particularly the functional-specificity of relationshipsmodel

T HE issue of informal support is a burning o ne with regardto those groups who lack the ties which customarilyprovide needed support in old age. Given that a spouse andchildren are the two primary providers of intensive support(Avioli, 1989; Brody, 1985; Johnson, 1988), to whom dothe single (never married), divorced, widowed, and child-less turn for informal support? Answers to this question areparticularly crucial given increasing rates of divorce andchildlessness and decreasing fertility (Connidis, 1989a).Siblings are a potential source of support for the roughly 80percent of persons aged 65 and over who have at least oneliving sibling (Avioli, 1989; Connidis, 1989a). This mayprove to be especially true of the baby boom cohort who,when they reach old age, will have fewer children and moresiblings than any preceding cohort (Bengtson, Rosenthal,and Burton, 1990; Seltzer, 1989).Two primary questions have dominated research on thesibling tie and aging: What is the nature of the sibling tie inlater life; and How do middle-aged siblings sort out the carethey provide to their older parents? In the first category,studies have examined unique aspects of the sibling tie inlater life (e.g ., Bedford, 1989; Cicirelli, 1988; Conn idis,1989b; Gold, 1987) and predictors of either qualitativefeatures of the sibling tie (Gold, 1989a; Gold, Woodbury,and George, 1990) or actual contact between siblings (Con-nidis, 1989c; Lee, Mancini, and Maxwell, 1990; Suggs,1989). In the second category, researchers have identifiedcharacteristics of the sibling network which enhance theprovision of care to older parents and have noted somerepercussions for siblings of providing such care (Brody,1989;Cicirelli, 1984; Coward and Dwyer, 1990; Matthew s,1987a, 1987b; Matthews and Rosner, 1988; Stoller, Forster,and Duniho, 1992; Strawbridge and Wallhagen, 1991;Tonti, 1988).

Research on the social support networks of adults of allages finds that a substantial portion ofthesupport received byrespondents is provided by siblings (Wellman and Wortley,1989,1990). However, because a relatively small proportionof older persons actually receives instrumental help fromtheir siblings, little attention has been paid to the factorsassociated with the provision of such support by siblings in

old age (Cicirelli, Coward, and Dw yer, 1992). Research doesindicate that sibling ties are particularly close and activeamong women (Adams, 1986; Cicirelli, 1982; Connidis,1989b, 1989c; Gibson and Mugford, 1986; Goetting , 1986;Gold, Woodbury, and George, 1990; McCallum, 1986;Wellman and Wortley, 1989; 1990), and among older per-sons who are single (Connidis, 1989b, 1989c; Wenger,1984), divorced (Connidis, 1992; Rosenberg and Anspach,1973), widowed (Connidis and Davies, 1992; O'Bryant,1988), and childless (Kendig et al., 1988; Ward, LaGory,and Sherman, 1985). Characteristics of the sibling networkalso have a bearing on sibling ties. For example, having achildless sibling enhances the likelihood of receiving sup portfrom a sibling among younger adults who are mentally ill(Horwitz et al., 1992). As well, the gender structure of thesibling network influences the division of labor for parent care(Coward and Dwyer, 1990; Matthew s, 1987a; see also Spitzeand Logan, 1991) and sibling dyad characteristics affectcontact between siblings (Connidis, 1989c).A recent study by Cicirelli, Coward, and Dwyer (1992)does examine the characteristics of impaired elders whoreceive unspecified forms of help from siblings. They findthat recipients of sibling help tend to be younger, single(never married), divorced or widowed, to have fewer chil-dren, and to live in small cities. Similarly, in her sample ofsixty respond ents, Gold (1989b) finds that unmarried personsare more likely than married ones to receive instrumentalsupport from siblings. Thu s, siblings appear to serve a uniquerole in the lives of older persons without a spouse and/orchildren as providers of care. As well, although adults of allages are more likely to perceive sibling support than toreceive it, simply perceiving that sibling support would beavailable if needed promotes well-being among older persons(Cicirelli, 1989; Gold, 1989b; White and Riedmann, 1992).

To date, research on sibling support in late life hasaddressed neither the forms of instrumental support that areprovided nor the characteristics of sibling networks that areassociated with receiving sibling support. Examining vari-ous forms of instrumental support increases our understand-ing of the sibling tie and helps identify potential strengthsand weaknesses in the support which is available from

S309

atARISTOLEUNIVERSITYOFTHESSALONIKIonApril

26,2012

ht

tp://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom
http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/

8/13/2019 Connidis!!!

2/10

S310 CONNIDIS

siblings. As some of the studies cited above suggest, charac-teristics of the sibling network may be central to understand-ing the supportive potential of the sibling relationship. Con-sidering characteristics of respondents an d their siblingnetwork highlights the interactive nature of relationships.In this article, the following research questions areaddressed:1. Am ong older adult s, to what extent are siblings a sourceof instrumental support?2. Am ong older adult s, to what extent are siblings perceivedto be potential sources of support should the need arise?3. Which characteristics of older respondents and theirsibling networks are related to receiving and perceivingsibling support?

Theoretical models of support are relevant to this discus-sion of sibling relationships. Typically such discussionsfocus upon two models: the hierarchical-compensatorymodel (Cantor, 1979) and the task-specificity model(Litwak, 1985). In the former, older persons are assumed tohave a hierarchy of preferred relationships from whom theyseek all forms of help. Spouse and children are assumed tobe at the top ofthishierarchy and thus favored as approp riateproviders of a broad range of support. If unavailable, tieslower in the hierarchy serve as substitutes, thus compensat-ing for the missing relation ships. Th e task-specificity modelfocuses on the match between the features ofagiven task andthe features of a given relationship. A task requiring regularcontact is most likely to be performed by someone who canmaintain regular contact (spouse, friend, neighbor, a childonly// proximate). A third model (Simons, 1983-84) thefunctional specificity of relationships model adds muchneeded flexibility and variability in the conception of sup-port. A ccording to this model, differences can be expected inhow relationships are negotiated such that, e.g., for some aspouse may be the most likely provider of support duringillness while for others a sibling or friend might be. Thus,relationships may be functionally specific bu t functions arenot tied to specific relationships. As well, one relationshipmay perform a broad array of functions. An example willillustrate how this alters our interpretation of support.In their conclusion, Cicirelli and his colleagues (1992, p.346) argue that their findings of greater sibling supportamong the unmarried and those with fewer children len dsupport to the concept of substitution hiera rch y and that the lack of available helpers higher in the substitutionhierarchy appears to be related to the greater involvement ofsiblings in careg ivin g. However, applying the functional-specificity of relationships model would suggest that thisinterpretation applies best to the previously married, forwhom siblings may indeed substitute for a former spouse.But, the single and childless may more properly be regardedas having negotiated uniquely supportive ties with theirsiblingsover lifetime(Connidis and Davies, 1990; Simons,1983-84).

Previous research and the support models just outlinedlead us to expect several respondent characteristics to affectreports of instrumental support which has been received orwhich is perceived to be available from siblings. Suchsupport is expected to be greater among women than men;

the single (never married), divorced, and widowed than themarried; and the childless than parents. Regarding siblingnetwork characteristics, support is expected to be morelikely among those with sibling networks which includesisters, unmarried (single, divorced, or widowed) siblings,and childless siblings.Studying various forms of support will provide evidenceof whether siblings tend to perform specific tasks for oneanother, as indicated by the task specificity model (Litwak,1985). Any differences based upon respondent and siblingnetwork characteristics would be indicative of either func-tional specificity the differential negotiation of the sametie (siblings) by different groups (e .g ., single versus marriedpersons) (Connidis and Davies, 1990; Simons, 1983 -84), orcompensation for lost ties (Cantor, 1979). Whether thecomp ensatory or functional-specificity of relationship smodel is favored will reflect in part the degree of ethnocen-tric bias embodied in assuming the preeminence of spousaland parent-child relationships, as is done in the hierarchical-compensatory model.The functional-specificity model challenges us to map outdifferent hierarchies of relationships for different groups ofpeople rather than assume that all instances of divergencefrom reliance on a spouse or children represent compensa-tion among those with inferior support networks (Connidisand Davies, 1990). I argue that the hierarchical-compensatory model is, at best, suited to comparisons be-tween those who currently have a given tie and those whoonce did (e.g ., the married versus the widowed). Even here,the compensatory model loses its applicability as the timewithout a given tie increases (e.g., those who are widowedor divorced in late life versus those who are so in earlyadulthood or middle age). The view of social support net-works encouraged here resembles that of the convoy, de-scribed by Antonucci and Akiyama (1987, p. 5 19, emphasisadded) as:

a protective layer... of family and friends who surround theindividual and help in the successful negotiation of life'schallenges. Each person canbethought of as moving throughlife surrounded by a group of otherpeopleto whom he or sheisrel ted through the exch ngeof social support. Convoysare thought to be dyn mic and lifelong in nature, that is,changing in some ways but remaining stable in others, acrosstime and situations.Thus, the social exchange relationship, no t assumed staticfeatures of a given relationship (spouse, child, sibling),defines membership in the convoy (or support network).

M ETH O D SSample. The data reported on here are from interviewswith a multistage quota sample of 678 persons aged 55 andover who reside in a Canadian city of 300,0 00. The study'sgeneral purpose is to examine the social support networks ofolder persons with particular emphasis on groups which are

statistically atypical. Thus, the sample deliberately overrep-resents men, the single (never married), divorced, and child-less in order to ensure large enough numbers in these groupsfor comparative analysis of all gender, parent, and marital


26,2012

ht


Downloadedfrom

8/13/2019 Connidis!!!

3/10

SIBLING SUPPORT IN OLDER AGE S311

status group s. Because the sibling relationsh ip is the focus ofthis article, those respondents who do not have any livingsiblings are excluded from the following analyses, leaving asample of 528 respondents (79% of the total sample).In the first stage of sample selection, cases were random lyselected from a sampling frame g arnered from provin cial taxassessment listings. The gender and age of potential respon-dents were known prior to contact and marital status wasestimated based on the presence and characteristics of co-residents, if any. Potential respondents were screened basedon gender, marital status, child status, and age until prede-termined quotas were filled. In the first phase of sampleselection, potential participants were only selected on thebasis of gender and age, the response rate was 34 percent,and 283 participants were recruited. In the second phase,more intensive screening was used in order to fill quotas forthe more unusual subgroups, the response rate was 43percent (i.e., 43% of those who met the screening criteriaparticipated), and the remaining 395 respondents were re-cruited. Interviews were conducted in the respond ents' 'home during 1990 and 1991 and lasted an average of onehour and nine minutes.The distribution of sam ple characteristics is given in Table1. As can be seen, just over half the sample are women.There is roughly equal representation of married, widowed ,and divorced or separated respondents and somewhat fewersingle respondents. There are more parents than childless inthe sample (three-fifths vs two-fifths) and a fairly evendistribution by 5-year age group. One third ofthesample hasone sibling and the remaining two-thirds, two or moresiblings. Close to half of the sample has both brothers and

sisters; just over one-third, a sister or sisters only; and one-fifth, a brother or brothers only . Nearly one-fifth of respon-

Table 1. Percentage Distributionof Sample Characteristics N =528)Gender of Respondent

MaleFemale

Marital Status of RespondentMarriedSingleWidowedDivorced/Separated

Parent Status of RespondentParentsChildless

Age of Respondent55-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980 +

4654271427326040141921241210

Gender of Sibling NetworkSister(s)Brother(s)Both

Marital Status of SiblingNetwork

All marriedSome marriedNone married

342145

443818

Parent Status of Sibling NetworkAll parentsSome parents

Number of SiblingsOn eTw oThreeFourFive or more

Geographic Proximity of Closest Sibling (miles)0- 910-5960-720721-9998

37123021

68323327171112

dents have no married siblings and one-third has at least onechildless sibling. The subsequent analysis involves within-sample comparisons rather than estimates of populationcharacteristics (for details regarding the entire sample, seeConnidis and McMullin, 1993).

Measures. The table of sample characteristics includesthe independent and control variables used for analysis. Theindependent variables are: the gender of both the respondentand his or her sibling network (female and sister/s as refer-ence categories for dummy coding); the parent status of boththe respondent and his or her sibling network (parent, allparents as reference categories); and marital status of boththe respondent and his/her sibling network (married and allmarried as reference cate gories). C ontrol variables are age ofrespondent, number of siblings (where applicable), andgeographic proximity to the nearest sibling, all entered ascontinuous variables.Two categories of dependent variables are examined: (1)received instrumental support (instrumental support whichhas actually been received), and (2) perceived support ex-change (instrumental support which is assumed would beforthcoming or given as needed). Received instrumentalsupport has three indicators: receipt of help when ill, receiptof financial assistance, and receipt of other forms of help.For each form of support, respondents indicated whetherthey had ever received such support from each of theirsiblings.

Perceived support has four indicators: whether sibling/swould be approached for help in a crisis, whether sibling/swould be approached for longer-term help due to illness,whether the respondent would live with sibling/s if it werenecessary to live with someone, and whether sibling/s couldlive with the respondent if it were necessary for sibling/s tolive with someone. Again, respondents were asked if theyperceived such help would be available from each of theirsiblings or, in the lattercase,whethereachsibling could livewith them.

Data An alysis. Analyses are performed separately forthose with one sibling (n = 174) and those with two or moresiblings n =354). Because received and perceived supportare dichotomous dependent variables (yes or no), logisticregression is used. The amount or frequency of supportmight be a better dependent variable. However, withoutknowing how much help is actually needed, such a depen-dent variable could create a false sense of certainty aboutdifferences in sibling ties; more support could be a functionof more supportive sibling ties or a greater need for support.For those with more than one sibling, a code of yesindicates that the respondent answered in the affirmative forat least one but not necessarily all siblings. The number ofsiblings from whom help is received or perceived to beavailable by the number of siblings among those with two ormore siblings is analyzed separately. In addition to testingfor main effects in the multivariate models, an interactionterm for gender of respondent by gender of sibling networkwas entered in separate m odels. Th e model w ith the best fit isdiscussed in the Results section.


26,2012

ht


Downloadedfrom

8/13/2019 Connidis!!!

4/10

S312 CONNIDIS

RESULTSTable 2 presents the percentage distribution of variousforms of sibling support for two groups, those with onesibling and those with more than one sibling. The percentagewho include at least one sibling as a source of support rangesfrom 6 percent for financial assistance among those with onesibling to 74 percent for approaching a sibling for help in acrisis among those with two or more siblings. There aresome notable statistically significant differences betweenthose with one and those with two or more siblings. Thosewith two or more siblings are more likely to report receivinghelp with things other than financial help or help when ill atsome time, expecting help from a sibling in a crisis, andexpecting longer-term help due to illness from a sibling.

Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Sibling Support

VariablesRespondents WithOne Sibling8 n = 174)

Instrumental SupportHelp when ill received from

No siblingsOne or more siblings

Financial assistance receive sib)

Marital Status of Sibling NetworkAll marriedSome marriedNone married

Parent Status of Sibling NetworkAll parentsSome parents

Geographic ProximityNumber of SiblingsModel

CrisisLogit

- .21

.70

.31

.11

.54- .02

-1 .13*- . 6 6

- . 4 6-1 .23*

.16_ 04-2***

.00X2 = 43.84

df = 13p

8/13/2019 Connidis!!!

8/10

S316 CONNIDIS

in light of the fact that one person m ay suffice for most formsof support. This scenario also receives some support fromthe findings of greater dispersion of sibling support acrossthe network for ot he r forms of support and for theperception of potential support during a crisis, for long-termillness, and for coresidence. A more complete understandingof the impact of family size requires research which ad-dresses the process by which siblings become involved inproviding assistance to one another.Instances where respondent or sibling network character-istics (gender, marital status, parent status) are significantpredictors of sibling support lend support to the functionalspecificity of relationships model (Simons, 1983-84). Sig-nificant differences b etween the married and the widowed ordivorced could provide support for the substitution orhierarchical-compensatory model (Cantor, 1979). How ever,in the absence of empirical evidence that one supportiverelationship is considered a substitute for another, it is moresuitable to view differences among these groups as a reflec-tion of the different ways in which relationships have beennegotiated , as encouraged by the functional-specificitymodel. Clearly, longitudinal research which studies theevolution of networks or convoys over time is needed toaddress directly the relevance of substitution or compensa-tion to the negotiation of relationships over time.Regarding gender, those with one sibling are more likelyto have received sibling support during an illness if theirsibling is a sister. Similarly, among those with two or moresiblings, perceived support during a crisis is higher amongthose with sisters only than those with brothers only. Thesefindings confirm a substantial body of literature regardingthe stronger familial ties established among women thanmen (Connidis, 1989a; Finch, 1989). However, perhaps asnotable is the fact that ge nder is not significant in any of theother models.

Marital status is the most frequent predictor of siblingsupport among those with two or more siblings. Single andwidowed respondents are more likely than the married tohave received sibling support during illness. They are alsomore likely to expect long-term support during illness ifneeded. The single, divorced, and widowed are also morelikely to say that a sibling could live with them if needed. A swell, among those with one sibling, support during an illnessis more probable if that sibling is divorced. These findingsshow that the single and widowed have negotiated particu-larly active sibling ties, characterized to some degree byreciprocity. Reciprocity is an important feature of supportiverelationships generally (Antonucci and Jackson, 1990) andmay be especially so in the sibling relationship given itsegalitarian nature (Cicirelli, 1982; Cumm ing and Schneider.1961). The divorced are more available to their siblingsduring illness and as potential coresidents but are not morelikely to receive or expect to receive support from them . Thisimbalance could prove problematic and suggests the value ofexploring the issue of reciprocity in sibling support ex-changes.One somewhat inconsistent finding is the lower likelihoodof considering siblings a source of support during a crisisamong those whose two or more siblings are all unmarried.These cases may represent families in which several siblings

have experienced widowhood and/or divorce in fairly quicksuccession, or in which several siblings have never married.Both possibilities may either inhibit the negotiation of sup-portive ties among siblings or reflect a given family's generalinability to form supportive ties.Parent status is a predictor of support in two modelsinvolving those w ith two or more siblings. Childless respon-dents are more likely than parents to have ever received helpfrom a sibling during illness, and those whose sibling net-work includ es at least one childless sibling are more likely tohave received other forms of help from a sibling. Onceagain, there is evidence of the differential negotiation ofsibling ties; in this case the childless neg otiate more su pport-ive ties with siblings than do parents.Finally, in four of the five significant models for thosewith two or more siblings, geographic proximity is a signifi-cant predictor of support, with greater distance lowering theprospects of receiving or perceiving support. In a societytypified by mobility, this suggests some precariousness inrelying on siblings as primary providers of support. As well,the similarity in age of siblings means that growing frailtymay occur in tandem. Con sequently, among those receivingaid from siblings, instrumental support tends to go downwith age and over time, with regret but without rancour(Cicirelli, Coward, and Dwyer, 1992; Gold, 1989b). How-ever, this vulnerability in the sibling tie is not unique;precisely the same concern applies to support betweenspouses. In both situations, the essential issue is the need fordiversity in social support networks (Simons, 1983 -84).If future research takes as its premise the view thatdiversity is critical in the support networks of all olderpersons, including the married, the tendency to assume thatany tie is able to meet most or all needs will be minimized.Such an all-encompassing assumption about marriage mayrun the risk of actually isolating married individuals fromother sources of support, including siblings, both in real lifeand in research. Thus, future research can build upon theresults reported here by examining the different supportnetworks of various groups of older persons and establishingempirically w hose networks are most diverse and most likelyto meet the needs of their members. The latter issue can onlybe addressed by treating as a research question whethersmaller or atypical networks leave older persons with moreof their needs for support unmet.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The data reported-here are from a study funded by the MCSS ResearchGrants Program, sponsored by the Ministry of Community and SocialServices, Ontario Government, and administered by the Research andProgram Evaluation Unit in cooperation with the Ontario Mental HealthFoundation. Ongoing data analysis has been supported by a grant from theSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The authorthanks both agencies for their support.Address correspondence to Dr. Ingrid Arnet Connidis, Department ofSociology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, CanadaN6A 5C2.

REFERENCESAdams, BertN. 1986.The Family: A Sociological Interpretation(4th ed.).Toronto: Harcourt Brace Javanovich.Antonucci, Toni C. and Hiroko Akiyama. 1987. Social Networks in Adult


26,2012

ht


Downloadedfrom

8/13/2019 Connidis!!!

9/10

SIBLING SUPPORT IN OLDER AGE S317

Life and a Preliminary E xamination of the Convoy M ode l. Journal ofGerontology 42:519-527.An tonu cci.T oniC . and James S. Jackson. 1990. Th e Role of Reciprocityin Social Sup port. In Barbara R. Sarason, Irwin G. Sarason, andGregory R. Pierce (Eds.),Social Support: An Interactional View. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.Avioli, Paula Smith. 1989. Th e Social Support Functions of Siblings inLater Lif e. American Behavioral Scientist 33:45-57.Bedford, Victoria. 1989. Sib ling Research in Historical Perspec tive: TheDiscovery ofaForgotten Relations hip.''Am erican Behavioral Scientist33:6-18.Bengtson, Vern, Carolyn Rosenthal, and Linda Burton. 1990. Fam iliesand Aging: Diversity and He terog eneit y. In Robert H. Binstock andLinda K. George (Eds.), Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences(3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Brody, Elaine M. 1985. Paren t Care as a Normative Family Stres s. Th eGerontologist 25:19-29.Brody, Elaine M. 1989. Caregiving Daughters and Their Local Siblings:Percept ions , Stra ins , and Interact ions . The Gerontologist29:529-538.Cantor, Marjorie. 1979. Neighb ors and Friends: An Overlooked Resourcein the Informal Support System. Research on Aging 1:434-463.Cicirelli, Victor G. 1 982 .''Sib ling Influence Throughout the Lifespa n. InMichael E. Lamb and Brian Sutton-Smith (E ds.),Sibling R elationships:Their Nature and Significance Across the Lifespan. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.Cicirel li, Victor G. 1984. Div orc e as a Factor Influencing Adult Chil-dren's H elping Behavior to Elderly Parents: A Path An alysis . Journalof Family Issues 5:440-449.Cicirelli, Victor G. 1988. Interpersonal Relationships Among ElderlySib ling s. In Michael D. Kahn and Karen Gail Lewis (Eds. ), Siblingsin Therapy: Life Span and Clinical Issues. New York: Horton.Cicirelli, Victor G. 1989. Feelings of Attachment to Siblings and WellBeing in Later Life. Psychology and Aging 4:211-216.Cicirelli, Victor G., Raymond T. Coward, and Jeffrey W. Dwyer. 1992. Siblings as Caregivers for Impaired Elders. Research on Aging14:331-350.

Connidis, Ingrid Arnet. 1989a. Family Ties and Aging. Toronto:Butterworths.Connidis, Ingrid Arnet. 1989b. Siblings as Friends in Later Lif e.American Behavioral Scientist33:81-93.Connidis, Ingrid Arnet. 1989c. Conta ct Between Siblings in Later Lif e.Canadian Journal of Sociology 14:429-442.Connidis, Ingrid Arnet. 1992. Life Transitions and the Adult Sibling Tie:A Qualitative Study. Journal of Marriage and the Family54:972-982.Connidis, Ingrid Arnet and Lorraine Davies. 1990. Confidants and Com-panions in Later Life: The Place of Family and Friends. Journal ofGerontology: Social Sciences45:S141S149.Connidis, Ingrid Arnet and Lorraine Davies. 1992. Confidants and Com-panions: Choices in Later Life. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sci-ences4 7:S115-S122.Connidis, Ingrid Arnet and Julie Ann McMullin. 1993. To H ave or HaveNot: Parent Status and the Subjective Well-being of Older Men andWomen . The G erontologist 5:630-636.Coward, Raymond T. and Jeffrey W . Dwyer. 1990. Th e Association ofGender, Sibling Network Composition, and Patterns of Parent Care byAdult C hildren. Research on Aging 12:158-181.Cum ming, Elaine and David M. Schneider. 1961. Sibling S olidarity: AProperty of American Kinship.''Am erican Anthropologist63:498-508.Finch, Janet. 1989. Family Obligations and Social Change. Cambridge,MA: Polity Press.Gibson, Diane and Stephen Mugford. 1986. Expressive Relations andSocial Sup port. In Hal L. Kendig (Ed.), Ageing and Families: ASocial Networks P erspective.Boston: Allen & Unwin.Goetting, Ann. 1986. Th e Development Tasks of Siblingship Over theLife Cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family48:703-714.Gold, Deborah T. 1987. Siblings in Old Age: Something Specia l.Canadian Journal on Aging 6:211-227.Gold, Deborah T. 1989a. Sibling Relationships in OldAge:a Typology.International Journal of Aging and Hum an Development 28:37-51.Gold, Deborah T. 1989b. Generational Solidarity: Conceptual Anteced-ents and C onsequences. American Behavioral Scientist 33:19-32.

Gold, Deborah T., Max A. Woodbury, and Linda K. George. 1990. Relationship Classification Using Grade of Membership Analysis: ATypology of Sibling Relationships in Later Lif e. Journal of Gerontol-ogy: Social Sciences45:S43-S51.Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1973.The Unexpected Community. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Horwitz, Allan V., Richard C. Tessler, Gene A. Fisher, and Gail M.Gam ache. 1992. Th e Role of the Adult Siblings in Providing SocialSupport to the Severely Mentally 111. Journal of Marriage and theFamily54:233-241.Johnson, Colleen L. 1988. Relationships Among Family Members andFriends in Later Life. In Robert M. Milardo (Ed.), Families andSocial Networks.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Kendig, Hal L., Rita Coles, Yvonne Pittelkow, and Sue Wilson. 1988. Confidants and Family Structure in Old Age. Journal of Gerontol-ogy: Social Sciences 43:S31-S40.Lee, Thomas R., Jay A. Mancini, and Joseph W. Maxw ell. 1990. SiblingRelationships in Adulthood: Contact Patterns and Mo tivations . Jour-nal of Marriage and the Family52:431-440.Litwak, Eugene. 1985. Helping the Elderly: The Complementary Roles ofInformal Networks and Formal Sy stem s. New York: Guilford Press.Matthews, Sarah H. 1987a. Provision of Care to Old Parents: Division ofResponsibility Among Adult Children. Research on Aging 9:45-60.Matthews, Sarah H. 1987b. Perceptions of Fairness in the Division ofResponsibility for Old Paren ts. Social Justice Review1:425-437.Matthews, Sarah H. and TenaT arler Rosner. 1988. Shared F ilial Respon-sibility: The Family as the Primary Caregiver. Journal of Marriageand the Family50:185-195.McCallum , John. 1986. Retirement and Widowhood Tran sitions. In HalL. Kendig (Ed.),Ageing and Fam ilies: A Social Networks Perspective.Boston: Allen & Unwin.O'Bryan t, Shirley. 1988. Sibling Support and Older Widow s' Well-Being. Journal of Marriage and the Family50:173-183.Rosenberg, George S. and Donald Anspach. 1973. Sibling Solidarity inthe Working Class . Journal of Marriage and the Family35:108-113.Seltzer, Mildred M. 1989. Th e Three Rs of Life Cycle Sibships: Rivalries,Reconstructions, and Relationships. American Behavioral Scientist

33:107-115.Sim ons, Ronald L. 198384. Specificity and Substitution in the SocialNetworks of the Elderly. International Journal of Aging and HumanDevelopment 18:121-139.Spitze, Glenna and John R. Logan. 1991. Sibling Structure and In-tergenerational Relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family53:871-884.Stoller, Eleanor Palo, Lorna Earl Forster, and Tamara Sutin Duniho. 1992. Systems of Parent Care Within Sibling Networks. Research onAging 14:28-49.Strawbridge, William J. and Margaret I. Wallhagen. 1991. Impac t ofFamily Conflict on Adult Child Caregivers. The Gerontologist31:770-777.Suggs, Patricia. 1989. Predictors of Association Among Siblings: ABlack/White Comparison. American B ehavioral Scientist 33:70-80.Tonti, Mario. 1988. Relationships Among Adult Siblings Who Care forTheir Aged Par ents . In Michael D. Kahn and Karen Gail Lewis(Eds.),Siblings in Therapy: Life Span and Clinical Issues. New York:Horton.Ward, Russel A., Mark LaGory, and Susan R. Sherman. 1985. SocialTies of the Elderly. Sociology and Social Research 70:102-106.Wellman, Barry and Scot Wortley. 1989. Bro thers' K eepers: SituatingKinship Relationships in Broader Networks of Social Supp ort. Socio-logical P erspectives32:273-306.Wellm an, Barry and Scot Wo rtley. 1990. Differen t Strokes from D iffer-ent Folks: Community Ties and Social Support. American Journal ofSociology96:558-588.Wenger, G. Clare. 1984. The Supportive Network: Coping with Old Age.Boston: George Allen & Unwin.White, Lynn K. and Agnes Riedmann. 1992. Tie s Among Adult Sib-l ings . Social Forces71:85-102.

Received August 20, 1993Accepted February 15, 1994


26,2012

ht


Downloadedfrom

8/13/2019 Connidis!!!

10/10

RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPSINGERONTOLOGYAT THE UNIVERSITYOFMICHIGANPostdoctoral research fellowships, supported in part by train-ing grants from the National Institute on Aging are available atthe University of Michigan Institute of Gerontology. Stipendsand related expenses will be provided to qualified applicants.Postdoctoral trainees must have completed a Ph.D., M.D., orequivalent degree. Prospective faculty mentors represent thebehavioral, biological, clinical and social sciences, and thehumanities as follows:W. A. Achenbaum , Ph.D., R. C. Adelman, Ph.D., N. B. Alexan-der, M.D., A. Ashton-Miller, P h.D., F. L. Boo kstein, Ph.D ., S. F.Bradley, M.D., D. T. Burke, Ph.D., B. M. Carlson, M.D., Ph.D.,J.A. Faulkner, Ph.D., D. J. Fink, M.D., B. E. Fries, Ph.D., A.Gafni, Ph.D., S. A. Goldstein, Ph.D., M. M. Gross, Ph.D., K.Guan, Ph.D., J. B. Halter, M.D., A. R. Herzog, Ph.D., N.Krause, Ph.D.,J. Liang, Ph.D., X. Liu, Ph.D., R. A. Miller, M.D.,Ph.D., D. E. Rosenblatt, M.D., Ph.D., A. B. Schultz, Ph.D., D.G. Steel, Ph.D., M. A. Supiano, M.D., M. S. Terpenn ing, M.D.,B. R. Troen, M.D., L. M. Verbrugge, Ph.D., W. G. Weissert,Ph.D.Candidates should forward a letter of interest, identification ofa potential mentor, complete curriculum vitae and bibliogra-phy, graduate transcript, representative article if available),and at least three letters of recommendation to: GabrieleWienert, Institute of Gerontology, University of Michigan, 300North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2007. The applica-tion deadline for fellowships is March 31 ,199 5.The University of Michigan is an Equal Opportun ity/AffirmativeActionEmployer

hePh D rograminGerontology

or write:Admissions Information ServiceUniversityofMassachusetts BostonBoston,MA02125-3393

This doctoral program offersadvanced interdisciplinary studyinaging and socialpolicy. By bringingtogether theories, concepts, andresearch methods from severalsocial sciences, it providesaframe-work for assessing critical socialquestions andtoolsfor consideringnew responses.The program seeks highly qualifiedstudents of diverse backgrounds. Itwill prepare its graduates to expandthe frontiers of gerontologies knowl-edge through research, teaching, orpolicy developmentand toplayleadership roles in our agingsociety.

Please note: the application deadline is February1.GRE scores arerequired.


26,2012

ht


Downloadedfrom

connidis!!!

Documents