Methods Conclusions The Association Between Sibling Closeness Perceptions, Observed Family Communication Patterns, and Adoptive Status Diana R. Samek & Martha A. Rueter DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SOCIAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, MINNEAPOLIS – ST. PAUL Figure 3. First-order factor means across Family Communication Patterns Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis 1: FCPs will be related to adolescent externalizing problems. Proportions of adolescents placed in the high externalizing class for each FCP were: Protective = 14.3%; Consensual = 8.3%; Pluralistic = 16.5%; Laissez-Faire = 20.8%. Results supported hypothesis 1a. Adolescents placed in the Laissez-Faire class were more likely to be placed in the high externalizing class, compared to adolescents in the Consensual class (Fisher Exact: p <.01; OR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.12 – 5.56) Hypothesis 2: Association of sibling closeness perceptions to FCPs and externalizing. Figure 4 describes the pattern of closeness means across FCPs. It was expected that for the full sample, adolescents in Consensual families would report greater closeness, compared to adolescents in Laissez-Faire families. Results supported hypothesis 2a for emotional closeness: The change in –2 x Loglikelihood indicated that, with one exception, adolescents in all classes reported significantly different emotional closeness (Chi-square difference test, all p’s <.03). The exception was that adolescents in Pluralistic and Laissez-Faire families reported similarly low levels of emotional closeness, relative to Consensual. There was no significant difference in behavioral closeness when comparing adolescents in Protective and Consensual families (relative to Laissez-Faire) or between Pluralistic and Laissez-Faire families (relative to Consensual). It was expected that adolescents who reported greater sibling closeness would be less likely to be placed in the high externalizing class. Results supported hypothesis 2b for emotional closeness, (CR = , p <.10; Estimate = -.383, 95% CI = ), but not for behavioral closeness (CR =.039, ns). This study’s findings suggest that the combination of clear, attentive family communication and developmentally appropriate parent control are uniquely associated with adolescents’ perceptions’ of sibling emotional closeness, as well as with adolescent adjustment. Interaction results indicate the unique effect of communication for adopted adolescents, compared to their non-adopted peers. Family members who are genetically related may be able to rely on similar cognitive processes or attitudes to influence feelings of similarity and closeness in families that emphasize conformity and not conversation (due to the heritability of these constructs). By contrast, open communication amongst family members appears equally important in the development of feelings of sibling emotional closeness in adoptive families. Differences in emotional versus behavioral closeness were found indicating the importance in operational definitions and conceptualizations of closeness. This research indicates that spending time and having fun with a sibling (behavioral closeness) is not associated with adolescent adjustment, however it is highly associated with reporting greater feelings of love and care for a sibling (emotional closeness). Moreover, being part of a family that actively emphasizes communication and developmentally appropriate control may lead to increased feelings of sibling emotional closeness. These results suggest that one way in which adolescents may come to feel close to their siblings is through family level communication behaviors. Introduction Results Acknowledgements This research was supported by grants from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (AA 11886) and the National Institute on Mental Health (MH066140). ©2008 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Adolescent externalizing behaviors have been negatively associated with family closeness perceptions (Anderson & Henry, 1994; Roisman, 2002; Hamilton, 2005; Meadows, 2007; Branje, van Lieshout, van Aken, Haselager, 2004), as well as observed family communication patterns (FCPs) (Rueter & Koerner, 2008), and adoptive status (Keyes, Sharma, Elkins, Iacono & McGue. 2008). In fact, recent evidence suggests that FCPs interact with adoptive status to predict externalizing (Rueter & Koerner, 2008). Family Communication Patterns Theory (FCPT) (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002, 2004, 2006) proposes that family communication is a combination of two dimensions, conversation and conformity. These dimensions work together to create a family’s shared social reality. In short, the conversation dimension is a continuum of open communication amongst family members, whereas the conformity dimension is a continuum of adhering to beliefs, values, and attitudes within the family. The combination of these two dimensions produces four family communication patterns (See Figure 1). Families participating in the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS) (McGue et al., 2007) were included in this analysis. SIBS is a longitudinal research study designed to examine gene x environment influences on adolescent drug and alcohol use. Each family consisted of at least one parent and two adolescent children (mean age = 14.9 years, SD = 1.9). Final study sample included 1,232 adolescents (692 adopted adolescents, and 540 non-adopted adolescents) from 616 families. Of the 1,232 adolescents (female: 54.8%), 53.7% were Caucasian, 37.5% were Asian, and 8.8% reported another ethnicity. Measures Sibling emotional and behavioral closeness were assessed using 6 indicators that made up two different scales from the Sibling Relationship Questionnaire (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985). The emotional closeness factor consisted of 3 items that make up the Affect scale (e.g., “…How much do you and this sibling care about each other?”). The behavioral closeness consisted of 3 items that make up the Companionship scale (e.g., “…How much free time do you and this sibling spend together?”). Indicator loadings ranged from The Family Communication Patterns variable was computed based on the same measurement construction plan created by Rueter & Koerner (2008). FCPs were rated by judges observing structured videotaped family interactions, and assessed as two dimensions, conversation (warmth, listening responsiveness, communication), and conformity (control), which became latent class indicators of a 4-class variable. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlations (ICCs) (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). ICCs ranged from Externalizing was assessed with Latent Class Analysis using 5 indicators: (1) self-reports from the Delinquent Behavior Inventory (Gibson, 1967) (α =.894), (2) teacher ratings on externalizing behavior (adapted from Conners, 1969 and Rutter, 1967) (α’s ranged from.88 to.93; Spearman-Brown interteacher reliability ranged from.74 to.77.), (3) externalizing symptom counts from the DICA-R (Weiner et al., 1987) (range = 0 – 32), and trained observers ratings of child hostility to (4) mother and (5) father) (ICC’s ranged from.58 to.78). This variable has been used in a similar fashion in earlier research (Rueter & Koerner, 2008). Figure 2. Study model depicting study hypotheses Figure 4. Sibling emotional and behavioral closeness factor means across FCPs Figure 1. Koerner & Fitzpatrick’s (2006) Family Communication Patterns Model Utilizing FCPT on a sample of adopted and non-adopted youth, Rueter & Koerner (2008) found that adopted adolescents were 5 times more likely, compared to non-adopted adolescents, to have externalizing problems in families that placed little emphasis on family communication and greater emphasis on parent control (Protective families), and were 3 times more likely in families that emphasize neither family communication nor control (Laissez-Faire families). This study extends earlier research by testing five hypotheses which propose that sibling closeness perceptions link FCPs to adolescent externalizing problems, as well as propose a moderating effect of adoptive status on the relationship between FCPs and sibling closeness perceptions. (See Figure 2 for study model). Moreover, this study analyzed sibling emotional closeness and sibling behavioral closeness as separate constructs in order to further understand their similarities and differences. Pluralistic ConsensualProtective Laissez-Faire High Conversation Orientation High Conformity Orientation Low Conversation Orientation Low Conformity Orientation Sibling Emotional Closeness Perceptions Adolescent Externalizing Problems Adoptive Status Family Communication Patterns Sibling Behavioral Closeness Perceptions Age Sex Family Communications Patterns. The FCP latent class variable was created using 16 1st-order factors as indicators of the 2nd-order FCP variable. 1st-order factors had 3 indicators each, where each indicator represented the family member’s behavior towards the other family members (4 family members (mother, father, elder adolescent, younger adolescent) x 4 measures (control, warmth, listening responsiveness, communication). Due to Rueter & Koerner’s (2008) demonstration of the presence of 4 classes using the present study’s sample, class comparisons were not analyzed. To produce the 4-class FCP variable, first-order factor means were set to the values reported by Rueter & Koerner (2008) (See Figure 3). Out of the 616 families, 22.2% were classified as Protective, 6.8% as Consensual, 30.5% as Pluralistic, and 40.5% as Laissez-Faire. Externalizing. By examining the adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), as well as the Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted LRT for the 1-,2-,3- and 4-class models of externalizing, it was determined the 2-class model of externalizing was the best fit due to a relatively substantial drop in the 2-class BIC compared to the other latent class models, as well as the significant LRT p-value (p <.001). 82.4% of the adolescents are in the low externalizing group, and 17.5% are in the high externalizing group. Note: First bar in every set is mother’s mean factor score. Second bar is father’s mean factor score. Third bar: Elder sibling’s mean factor score. Fourth bar is younger sibling’s mean factor score. Bars above 0 represent behaviors above the overall mean, bars below 0 represent behaviors below the overall mean. Note: Laissez-Faire is the reference class (i.e., M = 0). Bars above 0 represent closeness perceptions greater than Laissez-Faire class, bars below 0 closeness represent perceptions below Laissez-Faire class. Hypothesis 3: Moderation of adoptive status between FCPs and sibling closeness. Interaction results supported hypotheses 3a and 3b for emotional closeness, but not for behavioral closeness. Adopted adolescents reported significantly greater emotional closeness in Consensual families (M =.511), compared to Protective families (M =.128), Chi-square difference test: p <.05. By contrast, no significant differences were found non-adopted adolescents in these classes (Consensual =.435; Protective =.204;). On the other hand, non-adopted adolescents reported significantly greater emotional closeness in Protective (M =.204) compared to Pluralistic (M = -.024) families, Chi-square difference test, p <.05. Adopted adolescents reported no significant differences in emotional closeness means for these classes (Protective =.128; Pluralistic =.03). Figure 5. Interaction of Adoptive Status on the relationship between FCPs and Sibling Emotional Closeness