Content uploaded by Megan Gilligan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Megan Gilligan on Aug 04, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
M G Iowa State University
C M. S University of Denver
K J C University of California, Davis
Sibling Relationships in Adulthood: Research
Findings and New Frontiers
Sibling relationships, the longest-lasting rela-
tionships in most people’s lives, have been
understudied compared to other family rela-
tionships. The goal of this review is to increase
understanding of sibling relationships from
midlife to older adulthood by integrating
aspects of psychological and sociological theo-
ries, including social exchange, family systems,
and life course perspectives, to better under-
stand the structure, function, processes, and
meaning of sibling relationships in middle and
later life. This theoretical integration promotes
a comprehensive study of sibling relationships
by considering individual and family character-
istics as well as the broader social and cultural
contexts in which sibling ties are situated.
Further, this integration facilitates the study of
sibling relationships across time. In addition to
reviewing current knowledge about sibling rela-
tionships in adulthood, we discuss directions for
future research, the methodological practices
necessary to advance this research, and the
translational signicance of research on adult
sibling relationships for aging populations.
Families are the most basic social unit in
our society, and family members provide
Department of Human Development and Family Studies,
Iowa State University, 2330 Palmer HDFS Building, Ames,
IA 50011 (mgilliga@iastate.edu).
Key Words: Adult siblings, family relations, sibling relation-
ships, well-being.
psychological, nancial, and social sup-
port to one another across the life span
(e.g., Shaw, Krause, Chatters, Connell, &
Ingersoll-Dayton, 2004; Umberson, Crosnoe,
& Reczek, 2010). Current demographic trends
including increases in longevity, postponement
and abstention from marriage, increases in
divorce in later life, and decreases in child-
bearing are likely to have an impact on how
individuals experience multiple family ties
(Gilligan, Karraker, & Jasper, 2018; Suitor,
Gilligan, & Pillemer, 2015b). These changes
may increase the salience of sibling relation-
ships in adulthood. Sibling relationships are the
longest-lasting relationships in most people’s
lives, yet sibling relationships, particularly in
adulthood, have been understudied relative to
research on parent–child and marital relation-
ships (Bedford, 2017; Fingerman & Hay, 2002;
Kluger, 2011).
In this article, we combine propositions
from psychological and sociological theories
including social exchange, family systems, and
life course perspectives to better understand the
structure, function, processes, and meaning of
sibling relationships in middle and later life. In
particular, this theoretical integration promotes
a comprehensive study of sibling relations by
considering individual and family structure and
functioning as well as the broader contexts
of social and cultural arrangements in which
sibling ties are situated. Further, this integration
facilitates the study of sibling relationships
across time.
Journal of Family Theory & Review 12 (September 2020): 305–320 305
DOI:10.1111/jftr.12385
306 Journal of Family Theory & Review
Family scholars have utilized social exchange
theory to examine the emotional, instrumental,
and nancial support exchanges that family
members make with one another (Suitor, Gilli-
gan, & Pillemer, 2015). Social exchange theory
emphasizes the sense of equity that individuals
perceive in their interpersonal relationships
(Austin & Walster, 1975; Cook, Cheshire,
Rice, & Nakagawa, 2013; Walster Hateld,
Walster, & Berscheid, 1978) and the social
comparisons individuals make (Festinger, 1954;
Suls & Wheeler, 2000). In particular, social
exchange theory considers the consequences
of being over- and under-beneted in interper-
sonal relationships (Austin & Walster, 1975;
Walster et al., 1978). Social exchange the-
ory also acknowledges that family members
may be more concerned with “justice” and
“fairness” than they are with equal exchanges
(Stafford, 2008). This theory is particularly
useful for better understanding the implications
of siblings’ exchanges for relationship quality
and well-being.
Family systems theory (P. Minuchin, 1995;
S. Minuchin, 1974) highlights the intercon-
nected nature of relationship dynamics within
and among the three primary family subsys-
tems: marital, parent–child, and sibling (Cox
& Paley, 1997), as well as the family’s place
within the larger social ecosystems (Henry,
Morris, & Harrist, 2015). The family systems
spillover hypothesis explicates how family
subsystems can have an impact on one another
(Engfer, 1988; Repetti, 1987). In other words,
one system adapts to disruptions within another
subsystem. Thus, family systems theory helps
us to understand how the sibling subsystem is
related to other family subsystems.
Finally, the life course perspective empha-
sizes individual and family development across
multiple dimensions of time, including age,
period, cohort, and generational position within
families (Bengtson & Allen, 1993; Gilligan
et al., 2018). As a result, the life course per-
spective encourages the consideration of sibling
relationships across both individual and his-
torical time. Similar to family systems theory,
the life course concept of linked lives proposes
that the lives of family members are inextrica-
bly connected through interpersonal processes
(Elder, 2001; Moen & Hernandez, 2009). The
life course perspective emphasizes the inter-
related nature of individual agency and social
structure (Settersten & Gannon, 2005). Fur-
ther, social exchange, family systems, and the
life course perspective have all been extended
to encourage scholars to consider diversity
(e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic
status) both between and within families to
provide important context to studies of inter-
personal family relationships (Bámaca-Colbert,
Henry, Perez-Brena, Gayles, & Martinez, 2019;
Bengtson & Allen, 1993; Gilligan et al., 2018;
Sherman, Wan, & Antonucci, 2015). Thus, the
integration of these theoretical perspectives pro-
motes the examination of variations in sibling
relationships both between and within families.
We integrate these theoretical perspectives to
guide our review of research on sibling relation-
ships in midlife and old age. First, we identify
key factors that describe and explain variations
in sibling relationships during midlife and older
adulthood. Second, we examine associations
among sibling relationships and individuals’
health and well-being both within and across
generations. Finally, we suggest future areas
of study on sibling relationships, an increas-
ingly relevant family relationship in midlife and
older age.
R C K S
R A
Characteristics of Sibling Relationships
in Adulthood
Research on sibling relationships has tended to
examine sibling ties within a particular devel-
opmental period, and most of this research has
focused on childhood and adolescence (see
McHale, Updegraff, & Whiteman, 2012; White-
man, McHale, & Soli, 2011). More recently,
researchers have examined sibling relationships
during the transition to adulthood, when individ-
uals establish independent lives from their sib-
lings (Conger & Little, 2010; Jensen, Whiteman,
& Fingerman, 2018; Milevsky, Smoot, Leh, &
Ruppe, 2005). We refer readers interested in
these developmental periods to reviews by
McHale et al. (2012) and Feinberg, Solmeyer,
and McHale (2012). In childhood, adolescence,
and emerging adulthood, sibling relationships
are characterized by independent dimen-
sions of affection–warmth, hostility–conict,
and rivalry–parental favoritism (Furman &
Buhrmester, 1985; McHale et al., 2012;Stocker,
Lanthier, & Furman, 1997). Early research on
Sibling Relationships in Adulthood 307
later-life siblings used qualitative interviews
to delineate typologies of sibling relationships
(e.g., Bank & Kahn, 1982; Gold, 1989). A
recent study using a larger sample and quan-
titative data found that, as in earlier stages of
development, older adults’ sibling relationships
were characterized by independent dimensions
of warmth, conict, and rivalry or parental
favoritism (Stocker et al., 2020).
In general, older adults report having positive
relationships with their siblings (Bedford &
Avioli, 2012; Cicirelli, 1995; Connidis, 2010;
White, 2001). For example, levels of sibling con-
ict and parental favoritism are typically lower
than those found in childhood, adolescence,
and young adulthood (Stocker et al., 2020), and
adult siblings are less likely to describe their
relationship as ambivalent than are young-adult
siblings (Fingerman, Hay, & Birditt, 2004).
Adult siblings also report exchanging both
emotional and instrumental support (Camp-
bell, Connidis, & Davies, 1999; Connidis &
Campbell, 1995; Eriksen & Gerstel, 2002;
White, 2001; White & Riedmann, 1992). Pre-
vious research has found that older adults tend
to have positive global views of family relation-
ships (Winkeler, Filipp, & Boil, 2000), to avoid
negative interactions, and to focus on main-
taining positive relationships with the people to
whom they are closest (Carstensen, Isaacowitz,
& Charles, 1999; Lang & Carstensen, 1994).
Thus, it appears that individuals may rate
their sibling relationships more favorably in
later adulthood than during earlier stages of
development.
In adulthood, siblings appear to maintain
contact with one another (Connidis & Camp-
bell, 1995; Jensen, Nielson, & Yorgason, 2019;
Paul, 1997; Spitze & Trent, 2006). For example,
in a recent study, siblings reported being in con-
tact, either in person, over the phone, or on social
media between once a week and several times
a week on average (Stocker et al., 2020). Fur-
ther, an online study of midlife and later-life
adults found that adult siblings maintained con-
tact in a variety of ways, including in person,
over the phone, via email, via text messaging,
and through social media (Jensen et al., 2019).
As older adults become more comfortable using
technology and social media, the impact of
these types of communication on sibling rela-
tionships should be investigated further. For
example, recent research found that college-aged
sibling pairs who used synchronous commu-
nication (i.e., in real time, talking or texting)
had closer relationships than those who used
asynchronous communication (i.e., not in real
time, such as e-mail or Facebook) (Lindell,
Campione-Barr, & Killoren, 2015).
In summary, adults are generally in regu-
lar contact with their brothers and sisters. They
report that their sibling relationships are posi-
tive and supportive, and they report lower levels
of ambivalence, conict, and parental favoritism
than in childhood and adolescence. However, as
in all relationships and across all stages of devel-
opment, there are numerous factors that con-
tribute to variation in the quality of adult sibling
relationships.
Variation in Sibling Relationships in Adulthood
Scholars have used several theoretical perspec-
tives to examine individual- and family-level
predictors of sibling relationships across the
life span. Various factors such as family struc-
ture, other family relationships, and siblings’
disabilities and/or health problems, have been
associated with sibling relationship quality in
midlife and older age. Our review begins with
ndings related to family structure.
Family structure. A substantial amount of atten-
tion has been directed toward understanding
how sibling relationships vary by family struc-
ture characteristics, including gender, family
transitions, and biological relatedness. Research
has examined the inuence of the gender com-
position of the sibling dyad on relationship
quality. Findings show that across all stages
of adulthood, sister–sister pairs have the clos-
est relationships, spend the most time together,
and provide support to each other more than
any other gender constellation (Connidis, 2010;
Gilligan, Suitor, & Nam, 2015; Stocker et al.,
1997; Stocker et al., 2020; White, 2001; White
& Riedmann, 1992).
Life course theory posits links among family
members’ life transitions, such as getting mar-
ried or becoming a parent, and suggests that a
life event or change in status experienced by
one sibling is likely to affect other siblings and
the nature of their relationships (Bengtson &
Allen, 1993; Gilligan et al., 2018). For example,
some research showed that siblings who were
married and had children had lower levels of
contact, support, and exchange than siblings
308 Journal of Family Theory & Review
who were not married and did not have chil-
dren (White, 2001; White & Riedmann, 1992).
However, other research found no signicant
effects of marital status on the quality of sib-
ling relationships in emerging or older adult-
hood (Jensen et al., 2018; Stocker et al., 2020).
Changes in status due to divorce and widow-
hood have been linked to increases in contact
and support between siblings (Connidis, 2010;
White, 2001). The life course perspective sug-
gests that greater attention should be paid to the
timing of these transitions on sibling relations,
in particular, whether transitions happen at “nor-
mative” times (Bengtson & Allen, 1993; Elder,
Johnson, & Crosnoe, 2003). For example, the
impact of divorce on sibling relationship quality
could differ if it occurs in midlife, which might
be considered a normative time, or if it occurs
in older adulthood, which could be considered
an “off time.” It should be noted that the divorce
rate is increasing among older adults (the divorce
rate for those aged 50 and older doubled between
1990 and 2010; Brown & Lin, 2015); thus, sib-
ling support may be particularly important dur-
ing this late-life transition.
In midlife, many people experience the death
of one or both parents, and research on this
topic has produced mixed results. For example,
some research found that siblings became less
close after their parents’ death (Khodyakov &
Carr, 2009). Other work showed that increases
in both sibling contact and conict after a par-
ent’s death were short lived. Over time, siblings
whose parents were deceased had lower lev-
els of contact and conict than siblings whose
parents were alive (Kalmijn & Leopold, 2019).
Another study found that parents’ death had no
impact on contact between siblings and mixed
impact on giving and receiving support (Spitze
& Trent, 2018). Finally, in a study of older
adults, siblings whose parents were alive had
warmer relationships than those whose parents
were deceased (Stocker et al., 2020). Overall,
this pattern of ndings suggests that parents may
play a kin-keeping role that promotes commu-
nication and contact between their adult chil-
dren; future research should address whether
this role varies by race, ethnicity, or culture
(Bámaca-Colbert et al., 2019).
Another feature of family structure is the
degree of biological relatedness between sib-
lings. In two large panel studies, adult full
siblings had more contact and more conict
than did half siblings or stepsiblings (Steinbach
& Hank, 2018; White & Riedmann, 1992).
This topic is worthy of further study because
the diversity of sibling relationship types is
growing (Conger, Stocker, & McGuire, 2009;
Connidis, 2010; Kreider & Lofquist, 2014)
both through family transitions such as divorce,
remarriage, and adoption, as well as via new
technologies related to in vitro fertilization and
surrogacy. Further, increases in marital transi-
tions among older adults (Brown & Lin, 2015)
suggest that research is needed on stepfamilies
in later life. For example, what are the implica-
tions of becoming a stepsibling in adulthood?
How do adult siblings navigate care of an older
stepparent? An established body of scholarship
has examined stepfamilies earlier in the life
course (Ganong & Coleman, 2018; Sanner,
Russell, Coleman, & Ganong, 2018); however,
less attention has been directed toward under-
standing stepfamily formation and maintenance
among later-life families.
In summary, with the exception of
sister–sister sibling pairs being closer than
other sibling gender combinations, ndings
have been mixed on the inuence of fam-
ily structure characteristics on adult siblings’
relationship quality. Research on life course
transitions also has been mixed but suggests that
adult siblings who are married or have children
have less supportive and close relationships than
adults who are single, divorced, or widowed.
Findings also suggest that adult siblings whose
parents are alive have closer relationships than
do those whose parents are deceased. To help
explain the interconnected dynamics of these
lifelong relationships, the next section uses
principles of family systems, social exchange,
and the life course perspectives.
Family relationships. Scholars have examined
the connections among marital, parent–child,
and sibling relationship dynamics across the
life span. In midlife and older adulthood,
researchers have documented positive associa-
tions between parent–child support and sibling
support (Voorpostel & Blieszner, 2008), as well
as between parent–child and sibling emotional
closeness, intimacy, and conict (Steinbach
& Hank, 2018). However, there is also some
evidence for compensatory interactions. In
two studies, siblings appeared to increase their
contact and support when these qualities were
lacking in the parent–child relationship (Hank &
Steinbach, 2018; Voorpostel & Blieszner, 2008).
Sibling Relationships in Adulthood 309
A large body of literature has examined the
connection between parent–adult child and
sibling relationships in the context of parental
differential treatment (PDT). The earliest schol-
arship on PDT focused on families with young
children (Brody, Stoneman, & McCoy, 1994;
Conger & Conger, 1994); however, a growing
body of work has shown that PDT is prevalent
across the life course (e.g., Gilligan, Suitor,
& Pillemer, 2013; Suitor, Gilligan, & Pille-
mer, 2015). In contrast to the studies of younger
families that have emphasized how parents
differentiate among their children in terms of
behaviors (e.g., displays of affection, discipline,
resource distribution), scholarship in adulthood
has focused primarily on parents’ favoritism (or
disfavoritism) toward particular children across
various relational (e.g., closeness and conict),
evaluative (e.g., pride and disappointment), and
supportive (e.g., emotional and instrumental)
dimensions (Suitor, Sechrist, Plikuhn, Pardo,
& Pillemer, 2008). Further, research indicates
that patterns of PDT are relatively stable across
time (Suitor, Gilligan, Peng, Jung, & Pille-
mer, 2015). Taken together, this growing body
of research indicates that parental differential
treatment is common and enduring across the
life span.
Most research that has examined the conse-
quences of parental differential treatment has
utilized social exchange concepts of equity and
social comparison to understand how children’s
perceptions of being over- or under-beneted
have an impact on relational, psychological, and
physical well-being (Suitor et al., 2008). The
literature has demonstrated that in childhood,
adolescence, and adulthood, siblings feel and
express less warmth and more hostility toward
one another when a parent favors one child
over others (Boll, Ferring, & Filipp, 2003,
2005; Brody, Stoneman, & McCoy, 1994; Gilli-
gan, Suitor, Kim, & Pillemer, 2013; Stocker
et al., 2020; Suitor et al., 2009). Interestingly,
in one study of middle-aged adults, recollec-
tions of PDT in childhood were more strongly
associated with sibling relationship quality than
were current perceptions (Suitor et al., 2009).
However, to date, no longitudinal studies have
examined the impact of PDT across devel-
opmental periods (i.e., from childhood into
adulthood). Within-family differences in the
context of caregiving appears to be particularly
detrimental to adult sibling relationships. For
example, Suitor et al. (2013) found that adult
children who provided care to their mothers for
a recent health event reported notably higher
tension with their siblings than did adult chil-
dren who did not provide care. This tension
was exacerbated when adult children perceived
that their mothers favored particular children
as caregivers (Suitor, Gilligan, Johnson, &
Pillemer, 2013). The link between perceptions
of PDT and poor-quality sibling relationships
appear to stand regardless of whether parents
are deceased or alive. For example, there were
no differences in the strength of associations
between PDT and sibling relationship quality as
a function of parents’ living status in a sample
of older adults (Stocker et al., 2020). The liter-
ature on PDT indicates that the consequences
of PDT are attenuated when siblings perceive
that the differential treatment is justied (Boll
et al., 2005). Taken together, the literature sug-
gests that even in adulthood, siblings have better
relationships when they perceive that they are,
or were, treated equitably or fairly by their
parents.
Research on children and adolescents also has
documented associations between the quality
of parents’ marital relationships and children’s
sibling relationships. In general, ndings sup-
port the family systems spillover hypothesis
(Engfer, 1988; Repetti, 1987) in that marital
conict is associated with conict in the sibling
relationships, and marital warmth is linked to
positive sibling relationships (Kim, McHale,
Osgood, & Crouter, 2006; Stocker, Ahmed,
& Stall, 1997). In contrast, some research has
found that warm and supportive sibling rela-
tionships can protect children from the negative
impact of their parents’ marital conict (Davies,
Parry, Bascoe, Martin, & Cummings, 2019;
Gass, Jenkins, & Dunn, 2007). It is unclear
whether these patterns continue into adulthood.
Older parents’ marital conict could cause their
adult children distress, which in turn could lead
to conict between siblings. Alternatively, even
if sibling relationships were not protective in
childhood or adolescence, in adulthood, siblings
could have developed the skills necessary to
support one another in the face of parents’
marital conict. An interesting question is
whether there are links between parents’ marital
relationships and adult children’s sibling rela-
tionships after parents are deceased, or whether
these associations exist only when both parents
are still alive. In summary, propositions from
social exchange, family systems, and the life
310 Journal of Family Theory & Review
course perspectives have been supported by
research showing associations among marital
relationships, parent–child relationships, and
sibling relationships in adulthood.
Siblings with disabilities. Another factor that
may inuence the quality of adults’ sibling
relationships is the health of each sibling.
Goetting (1986) established that social support
is a primary function of sibling relationships
across the life span, and sibling support may
be particularly crucial when one sibling is
living with physical, mental, or developmental
disabilities that interfere with the ability to
function as a fully independent adult (Abdel-
rahim et al., 2016; Bigby, 1998; Heller &
Arnold, 2010). Established adult sibling rela-
tionships may be disrupted by sudden events
such as strokes or traumatic accidents that
require family members to provide caregiving.
However, disabilities that start early in life,
such as Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, and
autism spectrum disorders, could inuence the
formation and functioning of sibling relation-
ships from an early age into adulthood. Parents
typically serve as primary caregivers for chil-
dren with disabilities; however, when parents
age and develop health concerns of their own,
siblings often take over care from their aging
parents (Bigby, 1998; Heller & Arnold, 2010),
and the role of siblings has been identied as
one of the top-ten needs for research on family
support by the Family Support Research and
Training Center at the University of Chicago
(Abdelrahim et al., 2016). The history of the
social-emotional relationships between siblings
may have an impact on the willingness of the
nondisabled sibling to become the primary
caregiver as the sibling with disabilities moves
into later adulthood. For example, if a partic-
ular sibling relationship has a history of being
close and supportive and a “support bank” is
established (Antonucci, 2001), then the sibling
with disabilities may more readily accept care
from that individual than from other siblings.
Similarly, an adult who has a stroke or traumatic
accident may be more likely to accept care
and assistance from a sibling with whom they
already have a positive relationship. In sum,
social exchange, family systems, and life course
theories support the idea that adult siblings are
important actors in families living with disabil-
ities (Arnold, 2018; Heller & Arnold, 2010),
and more attention should be paid to the role of
siblings in the lives of sisters and brothers with
disabilities across time and life transitions.
Impact of Sibling Relationships on Health
and Well-Being
Associations between sibling relationship qual-
ity and psychological adjustment have been
documented in childhood, adolescence, and
emerging adulthood (Conger et al., 2009; Gass
et al., 2007; Hollield & Conger, 2014; Kim
et al., 2006; McHale et al., 2012). The limited
research on links between adult sibling relation-
ships and health and well-being suggests that
the patterns of association are similar to those
in earlier developmental periods. For example,
tension in sibling relationships was associated
with depressive symptoms in middle-aged
adults (Gilligan et al., 2017), and conict in sib-
ling relationships of middle-aged women was
linked to negative self-concept and symptoms
of psychological distress (Paul, 1997). Among
siblings in their 60s, sibling conict and per-
ceptions of parental differential treatment were
positively associated with symptoms of depres-
sion, anxiety, and hostility (Stocker et al., 2020),
whereas high levels of contact between siblings
were linked to greater life satisfaction (Jensen
et al., 2019). Finally, in a small sample of 61- to
91-year-olds, perceptions of closeness to a sister
were associated with lower levels of depression
(Cicirelli, 1989).
Most of this research is based on
cross-sectional data, and the links between
sibling relationship quality and psychological
adjustment in adulthood are not well dened. It
could be that a conictual sibling relationship
contributes to an individual’s feelings of depres-
sion or anxiety. Alternatively, adults who suffer
from internalizing or externalizing problems
may lack the emotional regulatory skills, or
other relationship skills, that would enable them
to develop and maintain positive relationships
with their brothers and sisters. It is also possible
that another construct may operate to connect
sibling relationship quality to psychological
adjustment. For example, results from one
recent study found that older adults’ feelings
of loneliness mediated the association between
sibling relationship quality and psychological
well-being (Stocker et al., 2020). Clearly, lon-
gitudinal research is needed to determine the
direction of effects and mechanisms linking
sibling relationships to adjustment in adulthood.
Sibling Relationships in Adulthood 311
Associations between family relationships
and psychological well-being are demonstrated
in a large body of work regarding links between
parental differential treatment, and well-being
in childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood
(Jensen, Whiteman, Fingerman, & Birditt, 2013;
Richmond, Stocker, & Rienks, 2005; Shana-
han, McHale, Crouter, & Osgood, 2008).
Recently, this line of research has been extended
into midlife (Davey, Tucker, Fingerman, &
Savla, 2009; Pillemer, Suitor, Pardo, & Hen-
derson, 2010; Suitor, Gilligan, Peng, Jung, &
Pillemer, 2015; Suitor et al., 2016). This work
has largely been framed using social com-
parison and equity theories to understand the
psychological consequences of adult children’s
perceptions of being over- or under-beneted
compared to their siblings as a result of PDT
(Peng, Suitor, & Gilligan, 2016; Suitor, Gilli-
gan, Peng, et al., 2015). As would be predicted
by equity theory, Suitor, Gilligan, Peng, et al.
(2015) found that, among middle-aged adult
children, depressive symptoms were greater
when offspring perceived that, compared to
their siblings, they had the most emotional
closeness to their mothers or the greatest con-
ict with their mother, or if they perceived
themselves as being the children in whom moth-
ers were most disappointed. These associations
were stronger in Black than in white families
(Suitor, Gilligan, Peng, et al., 2015). Further,
recent research found that both recollections
of PDT from childhood and perceptions of
current PDT predicted middle-aged adults’
depressive symptoms (Peng et al., 2016) and
that older adults who reported higher levels of
PDT throughout their adult years, regardless of
whether their parents were still living, had more
symptoms of depression, anxiety, and hostility
than did other adults (Stocker et al., 2020).
In addition to links between relationship
quality and the health and well-being of sib-
lings, family systems theory suggests that the
quality of adult children’s sibling relation-
ships may be linked across generations with
their parents’ health and well-being (Cox &
Paley, 1997; Fingerman & Bermann, 2000).
For example, research in childhood has shown
that sibling conict is associated with par-
ents’ increased irritability and depressed mood
(Kramer, 2004; Rinaldi & Howe, 2003); we do
not know whether a similar pattern occurs in
adulthood. However, it is plausible that adult
sibling relationships that are conictual or
distant could cause distress to older parents.
Furthermore, sibling conict and perceptions of
differential parental treatment could interfere
with siblings’ willingness to assist their parents
with the multiple challenges of older age, which
could lead to increases in parents’ physical or
psychological health difculties.
In summary, research to date has noted a
variety of ways that adults’ sibling relationships
are linked to their psychological well-being.
Conictual sibling relationships have been asso-
ciated with both internalizing and externalizing
symptoms. Recollections of both childhood
parental differential treatment and current PDT
were associated with decreased psychological
well-being. Research is needed on the inter-
generational impact of adult children’s sibling
relationship quality on aging parents’ health and
well-being, especially as many adult siblings
share the responsibility for and care of their
parents. Finally, a body of research has shown
that adults’ physical health (e.g., cardiovascular
disease, cancer recovery, mortality) and health
behaviors (e.g., diet, exercise, smoking, alcohol
use) are linked to general social connection,
social isolation, and loneliness (Umberson
et al., 2010), as well as to specic relationships,
most commonly the marital relationship (Waite
& Gallagher, 2000; Wickrama, Surjadi, Lorenz,
Conger, & O’Neal, 2012). Little attention has
been directed toward the links between adult
sibling relationships and physical health. How-
ever, one study found that for older adults who
were in close contact with their sibling, per-
ceptions of receiving less favorable treatment
than the sibling in childhood were linked to
lower self-ratings of physical health (Jensen
et al., 2013). Clearly, this is an area in need of
study.
F D
Over the past few decades, a growing body
of scholarship has started to investigate adult
sibling relationships; this review demonstrates
there are areas that clearly need more atten-
tion. Integrating features of life course, social
exchange, and family systems theories provides
a framework to guide future research on adult
sibling relationships. On the basis of this theo-
retical integration, we encourage future research
to pay particular attention to sibling relation-
ships (a) across the life course, (b) in the context
of other family ties, and (c) in the context of
312 Journal of Family Theory & Review
between- and within-family diversity. We also
suggest methodological practices that are nec-
essary to advance this research, and nally, we
explore the translational signicance of research
on adult sibling relationships for aging popula-
tions.
Sibling Relationships Across the Life Course
Most research has focused on sibling relation-
ships within a development period, and the
research that has considered how earlier sib-
ling relationships inuence later-life outcomes
has typically relied on retrospective reports (e.g.,
Bedford & Avioli, 2012; Connidis, 2010). As
a result, we know little, prospectively, about
how sibling relationships develop across the
life course, and longitudinal research is clearly
needed.
Longitudinal data sets (e.g., Survey of Midlife
in the United States; Wisconsin Longitudinal
Study) allow for the study of sibling relation-
ships across time in adulthood. Further, studies
that have followed participants from adolescence
into middle age—such as the Family Transi-
tions Project (Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010)
and the National Longitudinal Study of Adoles-
cent to Adult Health (Harris & Udry, 2017), will
facilitate research on sibling relationships across
developmental periods. Scholars should take
advantage of longitudinal data and advanced
methodologies such as growth-curve modeling
(Kashy, Donnellan, Burt, & McGue, 2008) and
survival analysis (Singer & Willett, 2003) to
uncover the processes involved and the direction
of inuence in associations among sibling rela-
tionships and health and well-being outcomes.
Future scholarship should consider the impact of
both developmental change and life transitions
on sibling relations across time. Further, inte-
gration of the social exchange and life course
perspectives would promote the study of social
support exchanges across time and would allow
scholars to consider the importance of reci-
procity in sibling support exchanges (Sherman
et al., 2015).
In addition, the existing longitudinal research
on adult sibling relationships has used data from
the National Survey of Families and Households
(Spitze & Trent, 2018). Because these data were
collected in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it
is difcult to know whether results from these
analyses would hold for sibling relationships
in the 21st century. For example, as mentioned
in our review of the current literature, recent
research indicates that older siblings are using
various types of social media to maintain con-
tact with each other (Jensen et al., 2019; Stocker
et al., 2020). It is likely that this type of contact
will be even more common among younger birth
cohorts.
Sibling Relationship in the Larger Family
Context
As suggested by both family systems and life
course theory, it is important to consider adult
sibling relationships in the context of other
familial ties. As mentioned earlier, scholars have
started to document the impact of parent–adult
child relationships on sibling ties. In particular,
there is a growing body of research on parental
differential treatment and adult sibling relation-
ships. Much of this work has drawn from social
exchange theory concepts of social comparison
and equity to examine the consequences of per-
ceptions of PDT on sibling relationships quality
(Gilligan, Suitor, Kim, & Pillemer, 2013; Suitor
et al., 2009). However, this work has largely
focused on how parents’ inuence sibling out-
comes. Future research should also consider the
reciprocal effects of how sibling relationships
inuence parental outcomes. For example, does
sibling conict have an impact on parents’ mar-
ital quality? How does adult sibling cooperation
have an impact on the caregiving experience for
older parents?
In addition, life course theory emphasizes the
inuence of family transitions (e.g., marriage,
divorce, parenthood) on the quality of family
relationships. As this review showed, ndings
are mixed on the impact of family roles on sib-
ling relationship quality. Moreover, what has
been studied less often and what is empha-
sized by family systems theory is how the qual-
ity of these other family relationships inu-
ences sibling relationships. For example, how
are sibling relationships affected if one sibling
dislikes another sibling’s new romantic partner
or spouse? Similarly, although there may be
changes in the sibling relationship that result
from one sibling having children, does the qual-
ity of the relationships between the aunt or uncle
and the niece or nephew affect the quality of the
sibling relationships? There is some evidence to
indicate that adult siblings play important roles
as aunts and uncles in the lives of their siblings’
children (Milardo, 2010). Research should be
Sibling Relationships in Adulthood 313
expanded to investigate how sibling ties t into
larger family systems. Finally, as suggested by
life course theory, research is needed on the tim-
ing of life transitions. For example, how does
the quality of stepsibling relationships differ
for stepsibling relationships that are formed in
childhood versus those formed in adulthood?
Further, integration of the family systems and
life course perspectives would promote the study
of the family system across time (Fingerman
& Berman, 2000). It is important for family
scholars to understand how family dynamics
established earlier in the life course inuence
later-life family outcomes. For example, does
parental favoritism in childhood have an impact
on sibling relationship quality in adulthood? Do
siblings resort back to their previous interaction
patterns when an event occurs that requires them
to increase contact later in life such as an older
parent’s health decline?
As others have noted (e.g., Matthews, 2005),
studies of adult sibling relationships tend to
rely on respondents’ reports of their relation-
ships with one specic sibling (e.g., Spitze
& Trent, 2018) or their reports of all their
sibling relationships in the aggregate (e.g.,
Gilligan et al., 2017). Family systems theory
(Cox & Paley, 1997; P. Minuchin, 1995; S.
Minuchin, 1974) indicates the importance of
considering the experiences of multiple siblings
within a family to better capture the complex
dynamics of sibling relationships. The limited
research in this area has demonstrated variability
in the nature of different sibling relationships
(Gilligan et al., 2015). Future research should
extend this work to capture the perspectives
of multiple siblings’ experiences and better
understand the predictors and consequences
of variations in sibling relations in adulthood.
Qualitative research may be particularly useful
to understand the perspectives of multiple sib-
lings within the same family (Connidis, 2007;
Matthews, 2002; Reczek, 2014).
Diversity Between and Within Families
The extant research on adult sibling relation-
ships has focused almost exclusively on white,
middle-class Americans. Guided by the social
exchange, family systems, and life course
perspectives, which highlight both the cul-
tural context and social structural positions in
which families are situated (Bámaca-Colbert
et al., 2019; Bengtson & Allen, 1993; Gilligan
et al., 2018; Sherman et al., 2015), future
research should consider how diversity between
and within families affects sibling relationships.
Some anthropological research has examined
the cultural norms and practices that inuence
relationships between adult brothers and sis-
ters, such as in relation to marriage practices
(Kolenda, 1993) or shared obligations among
brothers (Derne, 1993). Future research should
draw from this work to better understand adult
sibling relationships in diverse settings.
More recent research on child and adolescent
sibling relationships in Mexican American and
African American families suggests that par-
ticular cultural values can inuence the quality
of sibling relationships (Brody et al., 2006;
Killoren, Alfaro, & Kline, 2016; McHale,
Whiteman, Kim, & Crouter, 2007; Updegraff,
McHale, Whiteman, Thayer, & Delgado, 2005;
Whiteman, Solmeyer, & McHale, 2015). For
example, a Mexican American cultural value of
familism, which emphasizes the centrality of
family, has been positively linked to warmth and
closeness in sibling relationships in Mexican
American adolescents (Updegraff et al., 2005).
Among African American families, spiritual-
ity and ethnic identity were linked to positive
sibling relationships (McHale et al., 2007). It is
unclear how familism or other cultural beliefs
inuence adults’ sibling relationships. Cultural
beliefs regarding aging and care for older rela-
tives may have an impact on characteristics of
sibling relationships in later life. In addition,
broader societal factors such as discrimination
and immigration patterns are likely to inuence
sibling relationships in adulthood across multi-
ple racial and ethnic groups (Bámaca-Colbert
et al., 2019). Research is needed on the nature
and function of sibling relationships in diverse
racial, ethnic, and cultural contexts.
Future scholars should collect data on mul-
tiple sibling dyads within the same families
to better capture within-family diversity. In
particular, scholars should draw on theories
of equity and social comparison to consider
how within-family diversity inuences sib-
ling relationships. For example, different family
formations such as adoptive, foster, and stepfam-
ilies create new sibling relationships at different
points in the life course, even into adulthood
(Baham, Weimer, Braver, & Fabricius, 2008;
Conger et al., 2009). Further, increased rates
of multipartnered fertility (i.e., having children
with more than one partner) as well as new
314 Journal of Family Theory & Review
technologies related to in vitro fertilization and
surrogacy have implications for sibling relation-
ships across time (Guzzo, 2014). In addition, a
growing body of literature has started to consider
the roles of sexual and gender minority identities
in marital and parent–adult child ties (Connidis
& Barnett, 2019; Reczek, 2020). A recent study
showed that individuals who identied as les-
bian, gay, or bisexual had less contact with their
siblings than did individuals who identied as
heterosexual (Perales & Plage, 2020). Future
scholarship should continue to consider how
sexual and gender minority identities have an
impact on sibling relationships. We also need
to investigate how adult sibling relationships
are inuenced by health concerns and disabili-
ties across time (e.g., Abdelrahim et al., 2016;
Arnold, 2018). As suggested by social com-
parison theory, differences in socioeconomic
statuses may affect sibling ties. Connidis (2007)
used a case-study approach to explore how
socioeconomic inequality between siblings in
the same families affected adult sibling rela-
tionship quality. Future scholarship should
continue to consider how differences between
siblings’ achievements (e.g., academic attain-
ment, career and nancial success) may affect
their relationships in adulthood.
Finally, although this review did not draw
explicitly from critical and feminist perspec-
tives, future scholarship should consider inte-
grating these perspectives to further understand
how broader social structures inuence sibling
relations in middle and later life (see Connidis
& Barnett, 2019; Walker, Allen, & Conni-
dis, 2005). Scholars may want to pay particular
attention to intersecting aspects of inequality
that may have an impact on sibling ties. For
example, what are the sibling experiences of
sexual and gender minority individuals in racial
and ethnic minority families (Reczek, 2020)?
P P I
In addition to increasing our knowledge of this
key family relationship, research on adult sibling
relationships has a number of important prac-
tice and policy implications. For example, a fam-
ily systems perspective encourages therapists
to consider family subsystems including sib-
ling relations (Bowen, 1978; P. Minuchin, 1995;
S. Minuchin, 1974). However, family therapy
tends to emphasize the salience of sibling ties
in younger families. Given the increasing body
of research documenting the implications of
adult sibling relationships for well-being, both
individual and family therapists may benet
from translating this research into practice. For
example, therapists may want to explore the
history of sibling relationships and how the
dynamic nature of this family relationship inu-
ences other family relationships and individuals’
psychological well-being (e.g., Bedford & Avi-
oli, 2006; Kahn & Lewis, 1988).
Further, understanding sibling relationships
in adulthood has implications for public health
initiatives, especially with more individuals
living into their 90s and beyond. As parents
age, most assistance is provided by family
members, with adult children contributing
substantially (Dilworth-Anderson, Williams,
& Cooper, 1999; Suitor, Gilligan, & Pille-
mer, 2015; Tolkacheva, van Groenou, de Boer,
& van Tilburg, 2011). Studies have shown that
caregiving is usually a “family affair” negotiated
among multiple adult children, and siblings can
be a source of both support and stress to each
other during parental caregiving (Bedford, 2005;
Matthews, 2002; Tolkacheva, van Groenou, &
van Tilburg, 2014; Tonti, 1988). Siblings who
have established positive relationships seem to
be more supportive of one another when pro-
viding care to older parents than siblings who
do not (Matthews, 2002). Foundational knowl-
edge about sibling relationships in midlife and
old age should be incorporated into programs
designed to train professionals and to assist
families in planning for care of aging parents.
Families with a history of conict may need
outside help in planning and implementing care
(Tonti, 1988). We suggest including an explicit
focus on sibling relationship quality and issues
related to sharing assistance and caregiving
for their parents into programs that address
nancial, medical, and day-to-day living, such
as tools by the AARP (2011) and Powerful Tools
for Caregivers (2013).
In addition to considering the impact of
middle-aged sibling relationships on adult
children’s ability to care for aging parents,
public policy should pay more attention to the
sibling relationships of the aging adults them-
selves. Scholars have documented that siblings
exchange both instrumental and emotional
support to one another in midlife and older age
(Campbell, Connidis, & Davies, 1999; Connidis
& Campbell, 1995; Eriksen & Gerstel, 2002;
White, 2001; White & Riedmann, 1992), and
Sibling Relationships in Adulthood 315
siblings may be a particularly important source
of support for older adults with intellectual
and developmental disabilities (Heller &
Arnold, 2010) and other chronic health con-
ditions. Future research should also consider the
role of brothers and sisters in other aspects of
older adults’ lives, such as senior housing, trans-
portation, medical compliance, and end-of-life
decisions.
In conclusion, this review described demo-
graphic changes associated with our aging pop-
ulation that can alter the structure and experi-
ence of family relationships, and we highlighted
why these changes can be particularly important
for sibling relationships in adulthood. It is worth
repeating that sibling relationships are usually
the longest-lasting relationships in most peo-
ple’s lives and play a signicant role in indi-
viduals’ health and well-being both within and
across generations. However, sibling relation-
ships also vary according to factors such as
family structure, contact, other family relation-
ships, siblings’ health status, and cultural val-
ues and ethnicity; as such, researchers need to
take these constructs into account when design-
ing new studies and interpreting existing data. In
particular, there is a need for prospective, longi-
tudinal studies of siblings as they move through
the many stages of adulthood from young adult
to the oldest old. This review furnishes many
examples of why we need to pay attention to
this dynamic relationship across the life course,
whether viewed from an individual’s lifetime
memories of their sibling relationships or from
longitudinal studies of siblings in diverse con-
texts. In particular, we hope that this review will
motivate researchers, clinicians, and policy mak-
ers to focus their attention on the rich and under-
studied relationships between siblings in midlife
and older age.
R
AARP. (2011). When siblings disagree about what’s
best for mom and dad. Retrieved from https://
www.aarp.org/caregiving/life-balance/info-2017/
siblings-disagree-on-parents-care.html
Abdelrahim, R., Magaña, S., Grossman, B., Morales,
M., Lukaszewski, K., Guzman, J., …Beyerle, R.
(2016). Developing a national agenda for family
support research: A report on a national campaign
to involve family support stakeholders in develop-
ing a research agenda. Chicago, IL: Family Sup-
port Research and Training Center.
Antonucci, T. C. (2001). Social relations: An exam-
ination of social networks, social support, and
sense of control. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie
(Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp.
427–453). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Arnold, C. (2018). Family support from the perspec-
tive of people with intellectual and developmen-
tal disabilities (Dissertation proposal, University
of Chicago, Chicago, IL).
Austin, W., & Walster, E. (1975). Equity with the
world: The trans-relational effects of equity and
inequity. Sociometry,38(4), 474–496. https://doi
.org/10.2307/2786362
Baham, M. E., Weimer, A. A., Braver, S. L., & Fabri-
cius, W. V. (2008). Sibling relationships in blended
families. In J. Pryor (Ed.), The international hand-
book of stepfamilies: Policy and practice in legal,
research, and clinical environments (pp. 175–207).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bámaca-Colbert, M. Y., Henry, C. S., Perez-Brena,
N., Gayles, J. G., & Martinez, G. (2019). Cul-
tural orientation gaps within a family systems per-
spective. Journal of Family Theory & Review,
11(4), 524–543. https://https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr
.12353
Bank, S. P., & Kahn, M. D. (1982). The sibling bond.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bedford, V. H. (2005). Theorizing about sibling
relationships when parents become frail. In
V. L. Bengtson, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen,
P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.),
Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp.
173–174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bedford, V. H. (2017). Commentary 1: The challeng-
ing task of addressing power, control, and inuence
in sibling relationships after the rst two decades
of life. In N. Campione-Barr (Ed.), Power, control,
and inuence in sibling relationships across devel-
opment: New directions for child and adolescent
development (No. 156, pp. 105–108). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Bedford, V. H., & Avioli, P. S. (2006). MeninRela-
tionships: A new look from a life course.NewYork,
NY: Springer.
Bedford, V. H., & Avioli, P. S. (2012). Siblings in
middle and late adulthood. In R. Blieszner &
V. H. Bedford (Eds.), Handbook of families and
aging (2nd ed., pp. 125–153). Santa Barbara, CA:
Praeger.
Bengtson, V. L., & Allen, K. R. (1993). The life
course perspective applied to families over time.
In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm,
& S. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family the-
ories and methods: A contextual approach (pp.
469–498). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Bigby, C. (1998). Parental substitutes? The role of
siblings in the lives of older adults with mental dis-
abilities. Journal of Gerontological Social Work,
29, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J083v29n01_02
316 Journal of Family Theory & Review
Boll, T., Ferring, D., & Filipp, S.-H. (2003). Perceived
parental differential treatment in middle adult-
hood: Curvilinear relations with individuals’ expe-
rienced relationship quality to sibling and parents.
Journal of Family Psychology,17(4), 472–487.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.17.4.472
Boll, T., Ferring, D., & Filipp, S.-H. (2005). Effects
of parental differential treatment on relationship
quality with siblings and parents: Justice evalua-
tions as mediators. Social Justice Research,18(2),
155–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-005-
7367-2
Bowen, M. (1978). Family treatment in clinical prac-
tice. New York, NY: Aronson.
Brody, G. H., Chen, Y. F., Murry, V. M., Ge, X.,
Simons, R. L., Gibbons, F. X., …Cutrona, C. E.
(2006). Perceived discrimination and the adjust-
ment of African American youths: A ve-year
longitudinal analysis with contextual moderation
effects. Child Development,77(5), 1170–1189.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00927
.x
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & McCoy, J. K. (1994).
Forecasting sibling relationships in early ado-
lescence from child temperaments and family
processes in middle childhood. Child Develop-
ment,65(3), 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-8624.1994.tb00782.x
Brown, S. L., & Lin, I. F. (2015). The gray divorce
revolution: Rising divorce among middle-aged and
older adult adults, 1990–2010. Journals of Geron-
tology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social
Sciences,67(6), 731–741. https://doi.org/10.1093/
geronb/gbs089
Campbell, L. D., Connidis, I. A., & Davies, L. (1999).
Sibling ties in later life: A social network analysis.
Journal of Family Issues,20(1), 114–148. https://
doi.org/10.1177/019251399020001006
Carstensen,L.L.,Isaacowitz,D.M.,&Charles,
S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of
socioemotional selectivity. American Psychol-
ogist,54(3), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0003-066X.54.3.165
Cicirelli, V. G. (1989). Feelings of attachment to
siblings and well-being in later life. Psychology
and Aging,4(2), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0882-7974.4.2.211
Cicirelli, V. G. (1995). Sibling relationships across the
life span. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Conger, K. J., & Conger. R. D. (1994). Differen-
tial parenting and change in sibling differences
in delinquency. Journal of Family Psychology,
8(3), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200
.8.3.287
Conger, K. J., & Little, W. M. (2010). Sibling rela-
tionships during the transition to adulthood. Child
Development Perspectives,4(2), 87–94. https://doi
.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00123.x
Conger, K. J., Stocker, C., & McGuire, S. (2009).
Sibling socialization: The effect of stressful life
events and experiences. In L. Kramer & K. J.
Conger (Eds.), Siblings as agents of socialization:
New directions in child and adolescent develop-
ment (Vol. 126, pp. 45–59). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.256
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010).
Socioeconomic status, family processes, and
individual development. Journal of Marriage and
Family,72(3), 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.1741-3737.2010.00725.x
Connidis, I. A. (2007). Negotiating inequality among
adult siblings: Two case studies. Journal of Mar-
riage and Family,69(2), 482–499. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00378.x
Connidis, I. A. (2010). Family ties and aging (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Connidis, I. A., & Barnett, A. E. (2019). Family ties
and aging (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.
Connidis, I. A., & Campbell, L. D. (1995). Close-
ness, conding, and contact among siblings in
middle and late adulthood. Journal of Family
Issues,16(6), 722–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/
019251395016006003
Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R. W., & Nak-
agawa, S. (2013). Social exchange theory. Hand-
book of Social Psychology Handbooks of Sociol-
ogy and Social Research, 61–88. https://doi.org/10
.1007/978-94- 007-6772-0_3
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as sys-
tems. Annual Review of Psychology,48, 243–267.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243
Davey, A., Tucker, C. J., Fingerman, K., & Savla,
J. (2009). Within-family variability in representa-
tions of past relationships with parents. Journals of
Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and
Social Sciences,64B, 125–136. https://doi.org/10
.1093/geronb/gbn001
Davies, P. T., Parry, L. Q., Bascoe, S. M., Martin,
M. J., & Cummings, E. M. (2019). Children’s vul-
nerability to interparental conict: The protective
role of sibling relationship quality. Child Develop-
ment,90(6), 2118–2134. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cdev.13078
Derne, S. (1993). Equality and hierarchy between
adult brothers: Culture and sibling relations in
North Indian urban joint families. In C. W. Nuck-
olls (Ed.), Siblings in South Asia: Brothers and sis-
ters in cultural context (pp. 165–189). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Dilworth-Anderson, P., Williams, S. W., & Cooper,
T. (1999). Family caregiving to elderly African
Americans: Caregiver types and structures. Jour-
nals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sci-
ences and Social Sciences,54B(4), S237–S241.
https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/54b.4.s237
Sibling Relationships in Adulthood 317
Elder, G. H., Jr. (2001). Families, social change, and
individual lives. Marriage & Family Review,
31(1–2), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J002v31n01_08
Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003).
The emergence and development of life course
theory.InJ.T.Mortimer&M.J.Shanahan(Eds.),
The handbook of the life course (pp. 3–19). New
York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Engfer, A. (1988). The interrelatedness of marriage
and the mother-child relationship. In R. A. Hinde
& J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within
families: Mutual inuences (pp. 104–118). Oxford,
England: Clarendon.
Eriksen, S., & Gerstel, N. (2002). A labor of love or
labor itself: Care work among adult brothers and
sisters. Journal of Family Issues,23(7), 836–856.
https://doi.org/10.1177/019251302236597
Feinberg, M. E., Solmeyer, A. R., & McHale, S. M.
(2012). The third rail of family systems: Sibling
relationships, mental and behavioral health, and
intervention. Journal of Child and Family Clinical
Psychology,15(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10567-011-0104-5
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social compari-
son processes. Human Relations,7(2), 117–140.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Fingerman, K. L., & Bermann, E. (2000). Applica-
tions of family systems theory to the study of
adulthood. International Journal of Aging and
Human Development,51(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/
10.2190/7tf8-wb3f- tmwg-tt3k
Fingerman, K. L., & Hay, E. L. (2002). Searching
under the streetlight? Age biases in the personal
and family relationships literature. Personal Rela-
tionships,9(4), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1475-6811.09404
Fingerman, K. L., Hay, E. L., & Birditt, K. S. (2004).
The best of ties, the worst of ties: Close, problem-
atic, and ambivalent social relationships. Journal
of Marriage and Family,66(3), 792–808. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00053.x
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s
perceptions of the qualities of sibling relationships.
Child Development,56(2), 448–461. https://doi
.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1985.tb00119.x
Ganong, L., & Coleman, M. (2018). Studying step-
families: Four eras of family scholarship. Fam -
ily Process,57(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/
famp.12307
Gass, K., Jenkins, J. M., & Dunn, J. (2007). Are
sibling relationships protective? A longitudinal
study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychi-
atry,48(2), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/
e721432007-009
Gilligan, M., Karraker, A., & Jasper, A. (2018).
Linked lives and cumulative inequality: A
multigenerational family life course framework.
Journal of Family Theory & Review,10(1),
111–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12244
Gilligan, M., Suitor, J. J., Kim, S., & Pillemer,
K. (2013). Differential effects of perceptions of
mother’s and father’s favoritism on sibling tension
in adulthood. Journals of Gerontology Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences,68(4),
593–598. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbt039
Gilligan, M., Suitor, J. J., & Nam, S. (2015). Mater-
nal differential treatment in later life families and
within-family variations in adult sibling closeness.
Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychologi-
cal Sciences and Social Sciences,70(1), 167–177.
https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbu148
Gilligan, M., Suitor, J. J., Nam, S., Routh, B., Rurka,
M., & Con, G. (2017). Family networks and psy-
chological well-being in midlife. Social Sciences,
6(3), 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6030094
Gilligan, M., Suitor, J. J., & Pillemer, K. (2013).
Recent economic distress in midlife: Conse-
quences for adult children’s relationships with
their mothers. In P. N. Claster & S. L. Blair (Eds.),
Contemporary perspectives in family research:
Visions of the 21st century family—transforming
structures and identities (Vol. 7, pp. 159–184).
Bingley, England: Emerald.
Goetting, A. (1986). The developmental tasks of sib-
lingship over the life cycle. Journal of Marriage
and the Family,48(4), 703–714. https://doi.org/10
.2307/352563
Gold, D. T. (1989). Sibling relationships in old age:
A typology. International Journal of Aging and
Human Development,28(1), 37–51. https://doi
.org/10.2190/vgyx-brhn-j51v-0v39
Guzzo, K. B. (2014). Trends in cohabitation out-
comes: Compositional changes and engagement
among never-married young adults. Journal of
Marriage and Family,76(4), 826–842. https://doi
.org/10.1111/jomf.12123
Harris, K. M., & Udry, J. R. (2017). National longi-
tudinal study of adolescent to adult health (Add
Health), 1994–2008 [Public use]. Inter-university
Consortium for Political and Social Research
(ICPSR) [distributor].
Heller, T., & Arnold, C. K. (2010). Siblings of adults
with developmental disabilities: Psychosocial out-
comes, relationships, and future planning. Jour-
nal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabil-
ities,7(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-
1130.2010.00243.x
Henry, C. S., Morris, A. S., & Harrist, A. W. (2015).
Family resilience: Moving into the third wave.
Family Relations,64, 22–43. https://doi.org/10
.1111/fare.12106
Hollield, C. R., & Conger, K. J. (2014). The role of
siblings and psychological needs in predicting life
satisfaction during emerging adulthood. Journal of
Emerging Adulthood,3(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/
10.1177/216769814561544
318 Journal of Family Theory & Review
Jensen, A. C., Nielson, M. K., & Yorgason, J. B.
(2019). The longest lasting relationship: Patterns
of contact and well-being among mid to later
life siblings. Journals of Gerontology Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10
.1093/geronb/gbz083
Jensen, A. C., Whiteman, S. D., & Fingerman, K. L.
(2018). “Can’t live with or without them”: Transi-
tions and young adult’s perceptions of sibling rela-
tionships. Journal of Family Psychology,32(3),
385–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000361
Jensen, A. C., Whiteman, S. D., Fingerman, K. L.,
& Birditt, K. S. (2013). “Life still isn’t fair”:
Parental differential treatment of young adult sib-
lings. Journal of Marriage and Family,75(2),
438–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12002
Kahn, M. D., & Lewis, K. G. (Eds.) (1988). Siblings in
therapy: Life span and clinical issues.NewYork,
NY: Norton.
Kalmijn, M., & Leopold, T. (2019). Changing sib-
ling relationships after parents’ death: The role
of solidarity and kinkeeping. Journal of Mar-
riage and Family,81(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10
.1111/jomf.12509
Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., Burt, S. A., &
McGue, M. (2008). Growth curve models for indis-
tinguishable dyads using multilevel modeling and
structural equation modeling: The case of ado-
lescent twins’ conict with their mothers. Devel-
opmental Psychology,44(2), 316–329. https://doi
.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.316
Khodyakov, D., & Carr, D. (2009). The impact of
late-life parental death on adult sibling relation-
ships: Do parents’ advance directives help or hurt?
Research on Aging,31(5), 495–519. https://doi
.org/10.1177/0164027509337193
Killoren, S. E., Alfaro, E. C., & Kline, G. (2016).
Mexican American emerging adults’ relationships
with siblings and dimensions of familism values.
Personal Relationships,23(2), 234–248. https://
doi.org/10.1111/pere.12125
Kim, J., McHale, S. M., Osgood, D. W., & Crouter,
A. C. (2006). Longitudinal course and family cor-
relates of sibling relationships from childhood
through adolescence. Child Development,77(6),
1746–1761. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43
.4.960
Kluger, J. (2011). The sibling effect: What the bonds
among brothers and sisters reveal about us.New
York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Kolenda, P. (1993). Sibling relations and marriage
practices: A comparison on North, Central, and
South India. In C. W. Nuckolls (Ed.), Siblings in
South Asia: Brothers and sisters in cultural context
(pp. 103–141). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kramer, L. (2004). Experimental interventions in sib-
ling relations. In R. D. Conger, F. O. Lorenz, &
K. A. S. Wickrama (Eds.), Continuity and change
in family relations: Theory, methods, and empiri-
cal ndings (pp. 345–382). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kreider, R. M., & Lofquist, D. A. (2014). Adopted
children and stepchildren: 2010 Population char-
acteristics. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/
2014pubs/p20-572.pdf
Lang, F. R., & Carstensen, L. L. (1994). Close emo-
tional relationships in late life: Further support for
proactive aging in the social domain. Psychology
and Aging,9(2), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0882-7974.9.2.315
Lindell, A. K., Campione-Barr, N., & Killoren, S. E.
(2015). Technology-mediated communication
with siblings during the transition to college:
Associations with relationship positivity and
self-disclosure. Family Relations,64(4), 563–578.
https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12133
Matthews, S. H. (2002). Sisters and broth-
ers/daughters and sons: Meeting the needs of
old parents. Bloomington, IN: Unlimited.
Matthews, S. H. (2005). Reaching beyond the dyad:
Research on adult siblings. In V. L. Bengtson,
A. C. Acock, K. A. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson,
& D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory
and research (pp. 181–184). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Whiteman,
S. D. (2012). Sibling relationships and inuences
in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage
and the Family,74(5), 913–930. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.02011x
McHale,S.M.,Whiteman,S.D.,Kim,J.Y.,&
Crouter, A. C. (2007). Characteristics and corre-
lates of sibling relationships in two-parent African
American families. Journal of Family Psychology,
21(2), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-
3200.21.2.227
Milardo, R. M. (2010). The forgotten kin: Aunts
and uncles. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Milevsky, A., Smoot, K., Leh, M., & Ruppe, A.
(2005). Familial and contextual variables and the
nature of sibling relationships in emerging adult-
hood. Marriage & Family Review,37(4), 123–141.
https://doi.org/10.1300/j002v37n04_07
Minuchin, P. (1995). Children and family therapy:
Mainstream approaches and the special case of the
multi-crisis poor. In R. H. Mikesell, D. Luster-
man, & S. H. McDaniel (Eds.), Integrating family
therapy (pp. 113–124). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moen, P., & Hernandez, E. (2009). Social convoys:
Studying linked lives in time, context, and motion.
InG.H.ElderJr.&J.Z.Giele(Eds.),The craft
of life course research (pp. 258–279). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Sibling Relationships in Adulthood 319
Paul, E. L. (1997). A longitudinal analysis of midlife
interpersonal relationships and well-being. In
M. E. Lachman & J. B. James (Eds.), Multiple
paths of midlife development (pp. 171–206).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Peng, S., Suitor, J. J., & Gilligan, M. (2016). The long
arm of maternal differential treatment: Effects of
recalled and current favoritism on adult children’s
psychological well-being. Journals of Gerontology
Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sci-
ences,73(6), 1123–1132. https://doi.org/10.1093/
geronb/gbw105
Perales, F., & Plage, S. (2020). Sexual orientation,
geographic proximity, and contact frequency
between adult siblings. Journal of Marriage and
Family. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf .12669
Pillemer, K., Suitor, J. J., Pardo, S., & Henderson, C.,
Jr. (2010). Mothers’ differentiation and depressive
symptoms among adult children. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family,72(2), 333–345. https://doi
.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00703.x
Powerful Tools for Caregivers. (2013). The caregiver
helpbook (3rd ed.). Portland, OR: Author.
Reczek, C. (2014). Conducting a multi family
member interview study. Family Process,53(2),
318–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12060
Reczek, C. (2020). Sexual-and gender-minority fam-
ilies: A 2010 to 2020 decade in review. Journal of
Marriage and Family,82(1), 300–325. https://doi
.org/10.1111/jomf.12607
Repetti, R. L. (1987). “Links between work and fam-
ily role.” In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Family processes and
problems: Social psychological aspects. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Richmond, M. K., Stocker, C. M., & Rienks, S. L.
(2005). Longitudinal associations between sibling
relationship quality, parental differential treatment,
and children’s adjustment. Journal of Family Psy-
chology,19(4), 550–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0893-3200.19.4.550
Rinaldi, C. M., & Howe, N. (2003). Perceptions of
constructive and destructive conict within and
across family subsystems. Infant and Child Devel-
opment: An International Journal of Research and
Practice,12(5), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/
icd.324
Sanner, C., Russell, L. T., Coleman, M., & Ganong, L.
(2018). Half-sibling and stepsibling relationships:
A systematic integrative review. Journal of Family
Theory & Review,10(4), 765–784. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jftr.12291
Settersten, R. A., & Gannon, L. (2005). Structure,
agency, and the space between: On the chal-
lenges and contradictions of a blended view
of the life course. Advances in Life Course
Research,10, 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s1040-2608(05)10001-x
Shanahan, L., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., &
Osgood, D. W. (2008). Linkages between parents’
differential treatment, youth depressive symptoms,
and sibling relationships. Journal of Marriage and
Family,70(2), 480–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.1741-3737.2008.00495.x
Shaw, B. A., Krause, N., Chatters, L. M., Connell,
C. M., & Ingersoll-Dayton, B. (2004). Emotional
support from parents early in life, aging, and
health. Psychology and Aging,19(1), 4–12. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.19.1.4
Sherman, C. W., Wan, W. H., & Antonucci, T. C.
(2015). Social convoy model. In The encyclopedia
of adulthood and aging (pp. 1–5). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longi-
tudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event
occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Spitze, G., & Trent, K. (2006). Gender difference in
adult sibling relationships in two-child families.
Journal of Marriage and Family,68(4), 977–992.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00308
.x
Spitze, G., & Trent, K. (2018). Changes in individual
sibling relationships in response to life events.
Journal of Family Issues,39(2), 503–526. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0192513X16653431
Stafford, L. (2008). Social exchange theories:
Calculating the rewards and costs of personal
relationships. Engaging Theories in Interpersonal
Communication: Multiple Perspectives, 377–389.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329529.n28
Steinbach, A., & Hank, K. (2018). Full-, half-, and
step-sibling relations in young and middle adult-
hood. Journal of Family Issues,39(9), 2639–2658.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X18757829
Stocker, C., Ahmed, K., & Stall, M. (1997). Mar-
ital satisfaction and maternal emotional expres-
siveness: Links with children’s sibling relation-
ships. Social Development,6(3), 373–385. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00044
Stocker, C. M., Gilligan, M., Klopack, E., Conger,
K. J., Lanthier, R. P., Neppl, T., …Wick ram a,
K. A. S. (2020). Sibling relationships in older
adulthood: Links to loneliness and well-being.
Journal of Family Psychology,34(2), 175–185.
Stocker, C. M., Lanthier, R. P., & Furman, W. (1997).
Sibling relationships in early adulthood. Journal
of Family Psychology,11(2), 210–221. https://doi
.org/10.1037//0893-3200.11.2.210
Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (2000). A selective history
of classic and neo-social comparison theory. In
J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social
comparison (pp. 3–19). Boston, MA: Springer.
Suitor, J. J., Gilligan, M., Johnson, K., & Pillemer,
K. (2013). Caregiving, perceptions of maternal
favoritism, and tension among siblings. Geron-
tologist,54(4), 580–588. https://doi.org/10.1093/
geront/gnt065
320 Journal of Family Theory & Review
Suitor, J. J., Gilligan, M., Peng, S., Con, G., Rurka,
M., & Pillemer, K. (2016). My pride and joy?
Predicting favoritism and disfavoritism in
mother–adult child relations. Journal of Mar-
riage and Family,78(4), 908–925. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jomf.12288
Suitor, J. J., Gilligan, M., Peng, S., Jung, J. H., &
Pillemer, K. (2015). Role of perceived maternal
favoritism and disfavoritism in adult children’s
psychological well-being. Journals of Gerontology
Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sci-
ences,72(6), 1054–1066. https://doi.org/10.1093/
geronb/gbv089
Suitor, J. J., Gilligan, M., & Pillemer, K. (2015). Sta-
bility, change, and complexity in later life families.
In L. K. George & K. F. Ferraro (Eds.), Hand-
book of aging and the social sciences (8th ed., pp.
206–226). New York, NY: Elsevier/Academic.
Suitor, J. J., Sechrist, J., Plikuhn, M., Pardo, S. T.,
Gilligan, M., & Pillemer, K. (2009). The role
of perceived maternal favoritism in sibling rela-
tions in midlife. Journal of Marriage and Family,
71(4), 1026–1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2009.00650.x
Suitor, J. J., Sechrist, J., Plikuhn, M., Pardo, S., &
Pillemer, K. (2008). Within-family differences
in parent–child relations across the life course.
Current Directions in Psychological Science,
17(5), 334–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8721.2008.00601.x
Tolkacheva, N., van Groenou, M. B., de Boer, A.,
& van Tilburg, T. (2011). The impact of informal
care-giving networks on adult children’s care-giver
burden. Ageing & Society,31(1), 34–51. https://doi
.org/10.1017/s0144686x10000711
Tolkacheva, N., van Groenou, M. B., & van Tilburg,
T. (2014). Sibling similarities and sharing
thecareofolderparents.Journal of Family
Issues,35(3), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0192513x12470619
Tonti, M. (1988). Relationships among adult siblings
who care for their aged parents. In M. D. Kahn &
K. G. Lewis (Eds.), Siblings in therapy: Life span
and clinical issues (pp. 417–434). New York, NY:
Norton.
Umberson, D., Crosnoe, R., & Reczek, C. (2010).
Social relationships and health behaviors across
the life course. Annual Review of Sociology,36,
139–157. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-
070308-120011
Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Whiteman,
S. D., Thayer, S. M., & Delgado, M. Y. (2005).
Adolescents’ sibling relationships in Mexi-
can American families: Exploring the role of
familism. Journal of Family Psychology,19(4),
512–522. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.4
.512
Voorpostel, M., & Blieszner, R. (2008). Intergen-
erational solidarity and support between adult
siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family,70(1),
157–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737
.2007.00468.x
Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case
for marriage: Why married people are happier,
healthier, and better off nancially. New York, NY:
Doubleday.
Walker, A. J., Allen, K. R., & Connidis, I. A. (2005).
Theorizing and studying sibling ties in adulthood.
In V. L. Bengtson, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen,
P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.),
Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp.
167–190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walster Hateld, E., Walster, W., & Berscheid E.
(1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
White, L. (2001). Sibling relationship over the life
course: A panel analysis. Journal of Marriage
and the Family,63(2), 555–568. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00555.x
White, L. K., & Riedmann, A. (1992). Ties among
adult siblings. Social Forces,71(1), 85–102.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2579967
Whiteman, S. D., McHale, S. M., & Soli, A. (2011).
Theoretical perspectives on sibling relation-
ships. Journal of Family Theory & Review,3(2),
124–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589
.2011.00087.x
Whiteman, S. D., Solmeyer, A. R., & McHale,
S. M. (2015). Sibling relationships and adoles-
cent adjustment: Longitudinal associations in
two-parent African American families. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence,44(11), 2042–2053.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011- 0104-5
Wickrama, K. A. S., Surjadi, F. F., Lorenz, F. O.,
Conger, R. D., & O’Neal, C. W. (2012). Family
economic hardship and progression of poor mental
health in middle-aged husbands and wives. Family
Relations,61(2), 297–312.
Winkeler, M., Filipp, S. H., & Boll, T. (2000). Positiv-
ity in the aged’s perceptions of intergenerational
relationships: A “stake” or “leniency” effect?
International Journal of Behavioral Develop-
ment,24(2), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/
016502500383296
