family communication patterns, sibling closness

7/27/2019 Family Communication Patterns, Sibling Closness

1/17

DIANA R. SAMEK AND MARTHA A. RUETER University of Minnesota

Associations Between Family Communication

Patterns, Sibling Closeness, and Adoptive Status

Previous research has demonstrated the pro-tective effect of family and sibling closenesson child adjustment, but fewer studies haveinvestigated how closeness is promoted within

families. Guided by Family Communication Pat-terns Theory, we tested the association between

family communication and sibling emotional andbehavioral closeness, and whether adoptive sta-tus moderated this relationship. Participating

families included 616 adoptive and nonadoptivefamilies with two adolescent children. Hypothe-ses were tested using structural equation mod-eling. Sibling closeness was highest in familiesthat emphasized both conversation and confor-mity and lowest in families that emphasized onlyconversation or neither conversation nor confor-mity. Emotional and behavioral closeness weredifferentially associated with adoption status,

sibling age, and sibling gender. Few moderatingeffects of adoption status were found. Post hocanalyses showed moderating effects of sibling

gender composition.

Substantial evidence demonstrates that fam-ily and sibling closeness are negatively asso-ciated with adolescent externalizing (Branje,van Lieshout, van Aken, & Haselager, 2004;Criss & Shaw, 2005; Hamilton, 2005; Meadows,

Department of Family Social Science, 290 McNeal Hall,1985 Buford Avenue, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul,MN 55108 ([email protected]).

This article was edited by Cheryl Buehler.

Key Words: adolescence, adoption, communication, familyinteraction.

2007) and internalizing problems (Hamilton;Meadows; Pilowsky, Wickramaratne, Nomur,& Weissman, 2006). Yet little research demon-strates family characteristics that promote per-ceptions of family and sibling closeness. In orderto further the understanding of how to pro-mote sibling closeness as a protection againstadolescent adjustment problems, we examined

the association between observed family com-munication patterns and two forms of siblingcloseness.

An important consideration when examiningsibling closeness in todays families is familymember genetic relatedness. Adoptive families,stepfamilies, and families formed using assistedreproductive technology are all increasing innumber (Centers for Disease Control, 2007;Kreider, 2003; Nickman et al., 2005). Siblings inthese families are often not genetically related,

and genetic relatedness is associated with per-ceived closeness (Jankowiak & Diderich, 2000;Pollet, 2007). Thus, this study examined asso-ciations among family communication, siblingcloseness, and sibling genetic relatedness inadoptive and nonadoptive families. We alsoexamined sibling genetic relatedness as a moder-ator of the association between communicationand closeness.

FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERNS THEORY

This study was guided by Family Commu-nication Patterns Theory (FCPT; Koerner &Fitzpatrick, 2006). FCPT proposes that to func-tion optimally, families create a family sharedsocial reality (FSSR), broadly defined as shared

Journal of Marriage and Family 73 (October 2011): 1015 1031 1015DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00865.x


2/17

1016 Journal of Marriage and Family

understanding of one another. Fully establishinga shared reality requires that family membersperceive a topic similarly, believe others sharetheir attitudes and perceptions, and finally, be

accurate in their beliefs.The topics family members agree on appear to

matter; for example, parents and adolescents aremore likely to agree on topics regarding valuesand moral issues, but not as much on more mun-dane topics (Laursen & Collins, 2004) such asdaily hassles (Adams & Laursen, 2001). On theother hand, parents are more intensely affectedby disagreement over daily hassles compared toadolescents (Steinberg, 2001), perhaps becauseof incongruent perceptions and expectations

affecting parents more than children (Laursen& Collins).

Achieving a shared reality (agreement, accu-racy, and congruence in beliefs and attitudes)increases the chance that family members willunderstand and be understood by one another,leading to more efficient interactions and fewerdisagreements and conflicts. It may be thatachieving FSSR is particularly challenging infamilies with adolescent children because oftheir increasing need for autonomy (Fuligni,

1998) and desire for peer rather than familyinteraction (Larson & Richards, 1991; Stein-berg & Silverberg, 1986). There is some evi-dence that links these developmental changes toincreased family conflict (Youniss & Smollar,1985), particularly in families where adoles-cents feel like their autonomy is restricted(Fuligni & Eccles, 1993; Smetana, 1995). Still,there is evidence of a negative associationbetween parent adolescent disagreement andwarm, supportive family interactions (Rueter &

Conger, 1995). Altogether, this suggests that asense of shared social reality appears to con-tribute to healthy family functioning, even if itis somewhat more challenging to achieve withadolescents.

Families create a shared reality using acombination of two orientations, conversationand conformity (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006).Those emphasizing the conversation orientationencourage members to share thoughts, feelings,and opinions in an attempt to understand one

anothers view of a topic. Families emphasiz-ing conformity expect that all family memberswill view a topic similarly. This shared view isoften determined by a dominating and influ-ential family member, such as an authorityfigure.

FIGURE 1. KOERNER& FITZPATRICKS (2006) FAMILY

COMMUNICATION PATTERNS MODEL, BASED ON THE

CROSSING OF THE TWO DIMENSIONS

pluralistic

HighConversationOrientation

consensual

High Conformity Orientation

protective

LowConversationOrientation

laissez-faire

Low Conformity Orientation

Combining the conversation and confor-mity orientations produces four communicationpatterns (see Figure 1). Consensual familiesachieve shared reality by balancing high levels ofboth conversation and conformity. In these fam-ilies, members talk often about their views andopinions, but typically an authority figure makes

the final decision with the expectation that every-ones behavior will then conform to the decision.

Protective families rely heavily upon conformityto achieve shared reality, emphasizing deferral toa dominating family members view over con-versation. Pluralistic families emphasize con-versation, putting little emphasis on conformingto a single view. Laissez-faire families are lessinterested in sharing reality and thus emphasizeneither orientation. Family members are highlyindividualistic and may appear disengaged.

The FCPT family communication patternsshare similarities with other typologies, includ-ing Baumrinds (1971) parenting styles. Consen-sual families often have authoritative parents.Parents in protective families are typicallyauthoritarian, whereas pluralistic families tendto have permissive parents (Isaacs & Koerner,2008). Also, laissez-faire families show thedisengagement of Baumrinds neglectful par-ents. Associations between family communica-tion patterns (FCP) and adolescent adjustment

(Rueter & Koerner, 2008) are also consistentwith research showing a strong link betweenwarm, firm parenting and healthy child adjust-ment (Steinberg, 2001).

There are two distinct differences betweenFCP classes and parenting styles. Using a


3/17

Family Connections and Sibling Closeness 1017

systems perspective, FCPT proposes that everyfamily member contributes to a familys com-munication pattern, rather than focusing onparental behavior alone. Also, FCPT goes

beyond descriptive typologies to explain whyconversation and conformity are theoreticallyrelevant to sibling closeness. According toFCPT, whether through conversation about atopic (e.g., curfew) or by conforming to a sin-gle view of the topic, achieving a shared realitymeans all family members agree on the topic andunderstand and accept each others perspective(McLeod & Chaffee, 1972, 1973). Having thisshared reality reduces family conflict, leading toimproved family relationships, including sibling

relationships. In other words, FSSR is theo-retically proposed to mediate the associationbetween FCP classes and healthy functioning.

There is some evidence that FCP are asso-ciated with interpersonal closeness (Ledbetter,2009). We use FCP to anticipate sibling close-ness. According to FCPT, because consensualfamilies avail themselves of both conversationand conformity to create shared reality, they aremost likely to achieve it. Therefore, (Hypothesis1a) siblings in consensual families are expected

to report greater closeness than all other familytypes. Protective and pluralistic families empha-size a single orientation. They are moderatelylikely to achieve shared reality, leading us toexpect that (Hypothesis 1b) siblings in protectiveor pluralistic families will report less closenessthan siblings in consensual families, but greatercloseness than siblings in laissez-faire families.Finally, laissez-faire families are least likely toachieve shared reality and (Hypothesis 1c) sib-lings in laissez-faire families are expected to

report the lowest closeness levels.

SIBLING GENETIC RELATEDNESS

Aside from kin, sibling group, and stepparentadoptions, adopted children are not geneticallyrelated to their parents or siblings. Childrenwho are not genetically related to their familymembers tend to report lower family closenessthan those who are (Jankowiak & Diderich,2000; Pollet, 2007). In FCPT, this finding is

explained by lower levels of shared reality inadoptive families. Indeed, others have proposedthat achieving shared reality is more challeng-ing among adoptive families relative to familieswith genetically related members (Brodzinsky,Schechter, & Henig, 1992; Deater-Deckard &

Petrill, 2004; Grotevant, Wrobel, van Dulman,& McRoy, 2001).

One of the possible explanations for theadded challenge to achieving shared reality

among adoptive families comes from behavioralgenetics research. Many cognitive processes,attitudes, and physical characteristics underly-ing perceptions are, to some extent, a function ofgenetic inheritance (e.g., Jang, McCrae, Angleit-ner, Reimann, & Livesley, 1998; Lykken,Bouchard, McGue, & Tellegen, 1993; Olson,Vernon, Harries, & Jang, 2001; Scourfield, Mar-tin, Lewis, & McGuffin, 1999; Tesser, 1993).The possible presence of inherited similaritiesallows genetically related family members to

sometimes view a topic similarly, even withoutdiscussing the topic. We and others propose thatgenetically unrelated family members, who donot have this advantage, must rely more heavilyon conversation to fully achieve shared real-ity (Brodzinsky et al., 1992; Grotevant et al.,2001; Rueter & Koerner, 2008; Stein & Hoopes,1985). Thus, we expected conversation to playa stronger role in promoting adopted siblingcloseness than nonadopted sibling closeness.

Our second set of hypotheses focused on

how adoptive status may moderate the relation-ship between FCP classes and sibling closeness.Specifically, we expected the pattern of close-ness levels proposed in Hypotheses 1a 1c to bethe same for nonadopted siblings but reorderedfor adopted siblings. Thus, (Hypothesis 2a) fornonadopted siblings, we proposed that consen-sual families would have the closest siblings,protective and pluralistic families would havesimilarly moderate levels of sibling closeness,and laissez-faire siblings would be the least

close. Among adopted siblings (Hypothesis 2b)we also expected the highest sibling closenesslevels in consensual families and the lowest lev-els in laissez-faire families. Because of theirgreater emphasis on conversation, however, weexpected adopted siblings in pluralistic familiesto report greater closeness than adopted siblingsin protective families.

COVARIATES

There is clear evidence that sibling age dif-ference and gender composition also influencesibling closeness. For example, closeness tendsto increase as siblings age (Feinberg, McHale,Crouter, & Cumsille, 2003). Also, siblings closein age report greater closeness than siblings


4/17


with a larger age gap (Furman & Burhmester,1985). Finally, nearly every study of siblingrelationship qualities has found sister sister sib-ling pairs report greater closeness compared to

mixed gender or brother brother pairs (Furman& Buhrmester, 1992; Noller, 2005; Stoneman &Brody, 1993). In fact, there is some evidencethat all girls and women report greater siblingcloseness, regardless of the gender of their sib-ling (Burhmester & Furman, 1987; Furman &Burhmester, 1992; Kim, McHale, Osgood, &Crouter, 2006). Finally, birth order and adoles-cent age were also explored as covariates ofsibling closeness because they have been associ-ated with other characteristics of sibling relation-

ship quality, such as conflict (Campione-Barr &Smetana, 2010). Based on this evidence, siblingage, sibling age difference, birth order, gender,and gender composition were all included in thepresent study as covariates of sibling closeness.

METHODOLOGICAL ADVANCES

In addition to advancing our knowledge of howgenetic relatedness moderates the relationshipbetween communication and closeness, we fur-

ther explore this relationship using observation.As mentioned, existing research established anassociation between communication and familycloseness (Schrodt, 2006; Vazsonyi, Hibbert, &Snider, 2003). Even so, the majority of studiesthat examine communication use self-reportedsurveys that assess global aspects of familycommunication (e.g., How satisfied are youwith the communication you have with yourfamily? How open is the communicationbetween you and your family members?) These

findings point to a connection between commu-nication and closeness; nevertheless, it is stillunclear what specific aspects of family commu-nication are influencing adolescents perceptionsof closeness. Therefore we sought to extend ourknowledge on what communication practices, assystematically rated by an outside observer, arerelated to closeness perceptions. Additionally,we coded multiple family members communi-cation behavior (father, mother, elder sibling,and younger sibling) rather than focusing on the

communication practices of one family memberalone.

We also examined two dimensions ofsibling closeness. Family closeness is definedas emotional bonding (Olson et al., 1983;Olson & Goral, 2003; White, 2000) or

emotional joining (Anderson & Henry, 1994;McCubbin, Thompson, Pirner, & McCubbin,1988) and also behavioral interdependence(Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989) among

family members. Empirical evidence supportsthe presence of two distinct closeness factors,feeling close and behaving close (Aron, Aron,& Smollan, 1992). Previous research hasfound that siblings are more similar in avariety of adjustment outcomes when theyhave greater emotional closeness (Rowe &Gulley, 1992) and the more they participate inshared activities (Tucker, McHale, & Crouter,2008). The presence of two closeness factorsled us to assess sibling closeness as two

separate constructs, emotional closeness andbehavioral closeness, to further examine theirpotential similarities and differences in relationto family communication. Emotional closenesswas defined as perceived love, trust, and carebetween siblings. Behavioral closeness wasdefined as perceived amount and quality of timespent together.

In sum, the following hypotheses were tested:

Hypothesis 1: FCP classes will be associated with

sibling closeness.

Hypothesis 1a: Siblings in consensualfamilies will report greater closeness than

all other family types.

Hypothesis 1b: Siblings in protective orpluralistic families will report less closeness

than siblings in consensual families, but

greater closeness than siblings in laissez-faire families.

Hypothesis 1c: Siblings in laissez-faire fam-ilies will report the lowest closeness levels.

Hypothesis 2: Adoptive status will moderate

the association between FCP classes and siblingcloseness.

Hypothesis 2a: Among biologically relatedchildren, results will mirror Hypotheses

1a1c.

Hypothesis 2b: Among adopted children,

results will also mirror Hypothesis 1a and

Hypothesis 1c. The moderating effect of

adoptive status is expected to be due todifferent associations between pluralistic

and protective families and sibling close-

ness. Specifically, we expect that adoptedsiblings in pluralistic families will report

greater closeness than adopted siblings in

protective families.


5/17


METHOD

Data were obtained from the Sibling Interac-tion and Behavior Study (SIBS; McGue et al.,

2007), a study designed to examine the effect ofgene environment interactions on adolescentsubstance use (data collected in 1998). Families(N= 617) included parents with two childrenwho were (a) both adopted and not geneticallyrelated to their parents or each other (n = 285;one family from this group was excluded fromall study analyses because the adopted childrenwere genetically related to each other), (b) bothbiological offspring of their parents (n = 208),or (c) genetically unrelated with one child the

biological offspring of his or her parent andone adopted child (n = 123). Therefore the finalsample included 616 families. Families with twobiological children were identified through statebirth certificates. Adoptive families were identi-fied through three adoption agencies records.

Researchers located 90% of the identifiedadoptive and 85% of the nonadoptive families.In a prescreened phone interview, one parent(usually the mother) reported on each childsadoption status and each family members eth-

nicity and birth date. Additionally, this parentreported on each parents income and educa-tion, among other key demographic variables.Study eligibility was limited to families wholived within driving distance of the research lab.Participating children were required to have nophysical or mental disabilities and to be no morethan 5 years apart in age. Adopted children wereall placed with their families before the age of2 years (M= 4.7 months, SD = 3.4 months).

Fifty-seven percent of the eligible nonadop-

tive and 63% of the eligible adoptive familiesagreed to participate. Three quarters of the eligi-ble nonparticipating parents were interviewed byphone to determine sample representativeness.Comparisons of parents education, occupation,and marital status, as well as behavioral disor-ders in children, showed that the study sampleis generally representative of the metropolitanregion where the university is located (McGueet al., 2007). Family members who participatedin the laboratory were paid $50.

Study Participants

The final sample included 616 families with1,232 adolescents (692 adopted adolescents, 540nonadopted adolescents; 54.8% female; 53.7%

Caucasian, 37.5% Asian, 8.8% other ethnic-ity; one adolescent was deemed ineligible dueto IQ performance). Adolescent mean age was14.9 years, SD = 1.9 (elder siblings M age =

16.1, SD = 1.5; younger siblings M age =13.8, SD = 1.6). One quarter (25.3%) of thesibling pairs were brothers, 34.9% were sisters,23.7% were younger sister with elder brothersibling pairs, and 16.1% were younger brotherwith elder sister sibling pairs. The average agedifference in sibling pairs was 2.34 years (SD =0.89). Among adoptees, 514 were internationallyadopted (female: 60.3%; Asian: 89.2%) and 178were domestically adopted (female: 41%; Cau-casian: 78.7%). On average, 56% of participating

parents were college-educated (61% adoptiveparents, 44% nonadoptive parents). The major-ity of parents (91.1%) were married. Consistentwith the demographics of the area, 96% of par-ents were Caucasian. Additional sample demo-graphics are available in McGue et al., 2007.

Procedures

Participating family members came to theresearch lab to complete informed consent

forms, diagnostic interviews, self-report sur-veys, and two 5-minute videotaped family inter-actions. Family interactions were recorded inrooms decorated like a living/dining room, withfamily members seated around a table. The videocamera was inconspicuously placed in a book-case, although family members were aware theywere being recorded. A trained lab technicianexplained the family interaction tasks to thefamily members, answered any questions aboutthe tasks, and left the room during the video

recording. For the first task, families were askedto come to an agreement about what a Rorschachinkblot represented. For the second task, fami-lies read a story about a man whose spouse hadbeen diagnosed with a disease that was incurableunless she took one drug; this drug, however,was unaffordable. Family members were askedto decide whether the man should steal the drugfor his spouse, as well as whether he should stealthe drug for someone in the same circumstancesbut whom he did not know (Kohlberg, 1981).

Measures

Family communication patterns. The FCP vari-able was assessed as a latent class variable usingfour observational scales adapted from the Iowa


6/17


Family Interaction Scales (Melby et al., 1998).Trained observers globally rated each familymembers behavior toward each other familymember using a scale ranging from 1 (not at all

characteristic of the person) to 9 (mainly char-acteristic of the person). All observers receivedapproximately 100 hours of training and wererequired to pass written tests before indepen-dent coding. Observers also attended bimonthlymeetings for continued training. Reliability wasassessed by double coding 25% of tapes. Double-coded ratings were compared using intraclasscorrelations (ICC; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979; Suen& Ary, 1989).

Following the measurement strategy ofRueter and Koerner (2008), the communica-tion, listening responsiveness, and warmth scaleswere used to assess the conversation orientation(which emphasizes open and frequent commu-nication in the cocreation of FSSR); the controlscale was used to assess the conformity orienta-tion (which emphasizes conforming to the viewsof a dominating family member in the creationof FSSR). Each family member received onecode per scale that was aggregated across both

family tasks. Each family member was ratedfor behavior toward every other family member(three ratings for each of the four scales).

Communication (ICC range: .60 .75, M(SD) range: 3.11 (1.14) 4.99 (1.44)) wasdefined as the extent to which the familymember explained his or her reasoning ina clear, neutral-to-positive manner. Listeningresponsiveness (ICC range: .34 .63, M (SD)range: 1.82 (0.99) 3.21 (1.28)) measured thedegree to which the family member listened to,showed interest in, and validated another familymember. Warmth (ICC range: .44 .72, M (SD)range: 1.57 (1.00) 2.73 (1.64)) measured thedegree to which the family member expressedsupport, appreciation, or care for another familymember. Control (ICC range: .56 .76, M (SD)range: 3.79 (1.54) 5.38 (1.41)) measured theextent to which the family member successfullyinfluenced others to conform to the behaviors,opinions, and points of view desired by the

family member. For example, if a familymembers answer to the question of whetherthe man should steal the drug for his wifewas accepted by other family members withoutquestion, that person would receive a high ratingfor control.

Sibling closeness perceptions. Sibling emo-tional closeness and sibling behavioral closenesswere measured by the adolescents responses tothe Sibling Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ;

Furman & Buhrmester, 1985). The SRQ asksadolescents to rate interactions with the other sib-ling on a scale of 1 (hardly at all) to 5 (extremelymuch). Emotional closeness was assessed as alatent factor indicated by three items: (a) Howmuch is there a strong feeling of affection (love)between you and this sibling? (b) Some sib-lings care about each other a lot while othersiblings dont care about each other that much.How much do you and this sibling care abouteach other? and (c) How much do you and

this sibling love each other? ( = .89).Behavioral closeness was also assessed as a

latent factor indicated by three items: (a) Somesiblings play around and have fun with eachother a lot, while other siblings play around andhave fun with each other a little; how much doyou and this sibling play around and have funwith each other? (b) How much do you andthis sibling go places and do things together?and (c) Some kids spend lots of time with theirsiblings, while others dont spend so much. How

much free time do you and this sibling spendtogether? ( = .86).

Data Analysis Plan

Findings are reported based on staged tests ofthe study hypotheses using mixture modelingperformed in Mplus 5.1 (Muthen & Muthen,1998 2007).

Family communications patterns latent classes.

The FCP variable was operationalized as afour-class latent factor. This latent factor wascreated using Latent Class Analysis (LCA)following procedures described in Rueter andKoerner (2008). That study used the same sam-ple and measures as were used in the presentstudy. The LCA included 16 first-order latentfactors (4 family members: mother, father, elderadolescent, younger adolescent 4 observedmeasures: communication, listener responsive-ness, warmth, control) as indicators of the

second-order FCP variable. Each first-order fac-tor (e.g., mothers communication) had threeindicators, one for each family members behav-ior toward each of the other three family mem-bers. Rueter and Koerner compared one-, two-three-, four- and five-class models and found that


7/17


Table 1. First-Order Factor Means for Four-class LCA of Family Communication Patterns (N= 616)

Protective Consensual Pluralistic Laissez-faire

Control: mother .38 .40 .08 .34

Control: father .13 .54 .07 .21

Control: elder sibling .28 .25 .03 .18

Control: younger sibling .09 .26 .05 .06

Communication: mother .00 1.06 .55 .62

Communication: father .01 .82 .33 .41

Communication: elder sibling .27 .99 .14 .42

Communication: younger sibling .06 .88 .25 .32

Warmth: mother .28 1.54 .05 .45

Warmth: father .28 1.02 .03 .30

Warmth: elder sibling .74 1.47 .36 .37

Warmth: younger sibling .38 .99 .08 .32

Listening: mother .08 1.35 .50 .59

Listening: father .17 .90 .24 .44

Listening: elder sibling .38 1.19 .06 .46

Listening: younger sibling .17 .80 .19 .38

Note: Scores above 0 indicate scores above the overall factor mean; scores below 0 indicate scores below the overall mean.

the four-class solution produced the best-fittingmodel. For the present study, the first-orderfactor means were set to the four-class valuesreported by Rueter and Koerner (see Table 1).

Sibling emotional closeness and behavioralcloseness latent factors. Emotional closenessand behavioral closeness were operationalizedas latent factors (emotional closeness: M=.00, SD = .71; behavioral closeness: M= .00,SD = .74). Standardized factor loadings rangedfrom .83 to. 89 (emotional closeness) and .78 to.84 (behavioral closeness). The two factors werestrongly correlated (r = .69, t= 15.26, p

family communication patterns, sibling closness

Documents