| SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS N = 222 Mean Age = 17.5 (range 13 to 22 years) Gender: Male 31% Female 69% |
|
LIVING ARRANGEMENTS With target sibling: 62% (and with parents): 55% |
| CONTACT WITH SIB Daily: 63% Weekly: 27% Monthly or less: 10% |
| FAMILY SIZE 2 children only: 33% 3 or more children: 67% |
| DYAD COMPOSITION Sister - Sister: 48% Sister - Brother: 42% Brother - Brother: 10% |
CONFLICT RESOLUTION STYLE
| DIMENSION | TYPE | SAMPLE ITEM |
|---|---|---|
| Mutual Problem Solving (8 items: 4 self, 4 sibling) | Constructive |
"I listen to what my sibling has to say and try to understand how my sibling really feels." |
| Attack (8 items: 4 self, 4 sibling) | Destructive |
"My sister gets really angry and starts yelling." |
| Avoid (8 items: 4 self,4 sibling) | Destructive |
"She clams up holding in her feelings." |
The results indicated a dichotomy in the sample between strictly
equitable (52 percent) and imbalanced sibling relationships. Out of the
total (48 percent) who perceived their relationship with their closest
sibling as inequitable, 52 percent (or 2596 of the total sample) felt
exploited by their sibling (dubbed 'underbenefit' ) and 48 percent (23 %
of the total) felt they gained too much (dubbed overbenefit). The
external validity of these subjective impressions was indicated by the
significant agreement we observed between the pairs of siblings from the
same family as to both the degree and the direction of the inequalities
arising between them. In contrast to previous research (Peterson et al.
,1994), no differences in equity patterns emerged as a function of
siblings gender, the gender match of the dyad or birth order (see Table
3).
Table 3: Sibling Equity Patterns
Equity and Relationship Satisfaction
There was no statistically significant difference due to gender in the
amount of satisfaction respondents derived from their sibling
relationship. Male and female groups were therefore combined for the
analysis of the relationship between equity and satisfaction. According
to Equity Theory ( Hatfield et al., 1979), both underbenefit (to a large
extent) and overbenefit (to a lesser extent) serve to undermine
satisfaction with an intimate relationship, relative to the experience
of
strictly equitable fairness. Table 4 shows the mean levels of
satisfaction gained by siblings whose relationships belonged to each of
these equity categories.
| Relationship Type | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| EQUITY | UNDER- BENEFIT | OVER- BENEFIT | |
| Number of Subjects | 155 | 55 | 50 |
|
MEAN SATISFACTION SCORE | 31.9 | 28.3* | 31.1 |
Subjects who felt underbenefitted by their sibling were significantly
less satisfied than those who were overbenefitted or equitably treated.
Though there was a trend for overbenefit to yield lower levels of
satisfaction than strict equity, the difference did not achieve
statistical significance (see Table 4).
Equity and Conflict-Resolution Style
Table 5 shows how the styles of conflict resolution siblings routinely
practiced with one another related to patterns of equity or inequity in
the sibling relationship.
Table 5 : Mean Conflict-Resolution Scores as a Function of Relationship Equity
Conflict-Resolution Style and Satisfaction
Table 6 shows the correlations between satisfaction with the sibling
relationship and respondents' reports of their own and their target
sibling's typical strategies for resolving the conflicts arising between
them.
Siblings who perceived their relationship with one another as strictly equitable were less likely to employ aggressive or attacking conflict-resolution strategies and viewed their sibling as using more constructive mutual problemsolving than those who felt overbenefitted or exploited. Possibly this may reflect the equity-restoring properties of effective airing of views, listening to the other's perspective and mutual negotiation. Alternatively, siblings who use attacking methods of dealing with conflict may create perceived inequities for self and/or their sibling through the act of aggression itself.
Table 6 : Correlations between Satisfaction and Conflict-Resolution Style
These results support the differentiation between destructive and
constructive conflict processes that was outlined earlier. Both
attacking and avoidant strategies were destructive to the extent that
they were linked with low satisfaction, whereas mutual problem-solving
and satisfaction were positively correlated.
Sibling Equity and All Other Variables Combined
Table 7. Correlations between degree of inequity in the sibling relationship and other variables
Table 7 shows the patterns of univariate correlation between the degree to which the sibling relationship departed from strict equity (irrespective of whether the direction of the discrepancy benefitted or exploited the respondent) and the other major variables included in this study. As these results indicate, the experience of inequity in the sibling relationship is associated with less favourable outcomes than is the perception of strictly equitable fairness between siblings. To the extent that they feel either under- or over-benefitted, adolescents are inclined tO experience diminished relationship satisfaction. In addition, siblings whose relationship is inequitable are inclined to disagree frequently with one another over issues like money, chores, each other's behaviour, and moral values. In line with the results for categorical equity discussed earlier, there was also a tendency for hostile conflict resolution to be practiced by siblings in inequitable relationships.
Reference
Peterson, C, Feeney, J., Noller, P. Sheehan, G (1994). Adolescents' sibling relationships Global equity and differential parental treatment. Groningen: 7th International Conference on Personal Relationships
