1. Longitudinal Associations between Siblings’ Technology-Mediated Communication and Relationship Quality during Emerging Adulthood
Author: Brittany Redden Mentor: Dr. Anna Lindell University of Wisconsin – Whitewater, Department of Psychology
Introduction
Sibling relationships are the longest-lasting relationships in an individual’s life (Cicirelli, 1995).
Research surrounding emerging adults, their relationships with their siblings, and the impacts of information communication technologies (ICTs) on those relationships is lacking during emerging adulthood compared to earlier points in the lifespan and is a focal point in this study.
Technology-mediated communication can be asynchronous or synchronous. Synchronous communication occurs when immediate responses can be provided, such as talking over the phone or video chat. Asynchronous communication occurs when immediate responses are not required, such as through social media interactions. (Rabby & Walther, 2003)
Studying sibling relationships during emerging adulthood is important because this is the first time most siblings live a part. Thus, how individuals navigate their relationships during emerging adulthood can set up how they manage their relationship for the rest of their life.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
We computed an ANCOVA to examine differences in Time 1 Communication Frequency by Communication Type (Synchronous vs. Asynchronous), Gender, Sibling Gender Composition, Birth Order, and Sibling Age Spacing (entered as a covariate).
Discussion, Limitations & Conclusions
Research Question #1
Siblings increasingly rely on technology to communicate, but their use differs depending on the type of technology, gender, and sibling gender composition.
As hypothesized, students communicated using synchronous methods more than asynchronous, same-gender siblings had a higher communication frequency than mixed-gender siblings, and females utilized technology to communicate more than males.
Research Question #2
More frequent technology-mediated communication at Time 1 was generally associated with more positive sibling relationships at Time 2.
As hypothesized, this depended on various characteristics of the technology, participants, and their siblings. Specifically, this was most true for male college students, and second-borns with their same-gendered older sibling. This suggests that males and younger siblings may especially benefit from technology to maintain and benefit from their relationships.
Limitations & Implications
Limitations of this study included only utilizing first-born and second-born siblings as well as only relying on data from one member of each dyad. Thus, our study may not show a complete picture of the sibling relationship.
The results of the study are important because our findings indicate that technology may play a crucial role in emerging adults’ sibling relationships, especially for males.
Main Effect of Sibling Gender Composition, F(1, 244) = 19.77, p < .001).
Emerging adults with a same-gendered sibling reported higher communication frequency in their sibling relationships compared to emerging adults with a mixed-gender sibling gender composition.
The Present Study
Research Question #1: What are college students’ patterns of technology-mediated communication with their siblings?
Hypothesis: College students should use synchronous communication more frequently than asynchronous communication, and females should communicate more than males. (Lindell & Campione-Barr, Killoren 2015).
Research Question #2:
How does technology-mediated communication at Time 1 relate to sibling relationship quality at Time 2? Is this association moderated by communication type (synchronous vs. asynchronous), gender, gender composition, and birth order?
Hypotheses: More frequent communication should be
associated with more positive relationships over time (Lindell & Campione- Barr, Killoren 2015).The associations will be strongest for synchronous communication (Lindell, Campione-Barr, Killoren, 2015), females (Boneva, Kraut & Frolich, 2001), same-gender siblings, and younger siblings (Van Volkom & Beaudoin, 2016).
Communication Type X Gender Interaction, F(1, 244) = 5.84, p = .016.
Males and females utilized synchronous communication more than asynchronous communication.
Females communicated via synchronous communication more frequently than males.
References
Adams, R. E., & Laursen, B. (2007). The correlates of conflict: Disagreement is not necessarily detrimental. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 445–458. doi: /
Boneva, B., Kraut, R., & Frohlich, D. (2001). Using e‐mail for personal relationships: The difference gender makes. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 530–549. doi: /
Cicirelli, V.G. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. New York: Plenum Press.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016– doi: /
Lindell, A., Campione‐Barr, N., & Killoren, S. (2015). Technology‐mediated communication with siblings during the transition to college: Associations with relationship positivity and self‐disclosure. Family Relations, 64(4),
Rabby, M. K., & Walther, J. B. (2003). Computer-mediated communication effects on relationship formation and maintenance. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Van Volkom, M., & Beaudoin, E. (2016). The effect of birth order and sex on perceptions of the sibling relationship among college students. College Student Journal, 50(3),
Methods
Participants
Procedures
First-year college students were recruited to complete an online survey about their technology usage, family relationships, and other aspects of their well-being from Introductory Psychology classes at the University of Missouri. Three years later, when most were in their fourth year of college, they were invited to complete a similar survey online. At Wave 1, participants received class credit for their participation. At Wave 2, they received a small monetary reward.
Measures
Relationship Positivity: We used the Network of Relationships Inventory (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) to assess participants’ perceptions of positivity (24 items on the following subscales: Affection, Companionship, Instrumental Help, Intimacy, Nurturance, Reliable Alliance, Support, and Admiration) within their sibling relationship. (1 = low to 5 = high positivity; Cronbach alpha = .94 at T1 and T2). Communication Methods: Participants rated how frequently they used seven methods to communicate with their sibling (Lindell et al., 2015). Asynchronous items: sending a private message on Facebook, , looking at updates on Facebook/Twitter, posting to sibling’s social media page (Cronbach alpha = .72); synchronous items: texting, phone calls, video chat (Cronbach alpha = .71). Responses ranged from 1 = less than once a month to 5 = multiple times per day.
Associations Between T1 Communication Frequency and T2 Sibling Positivity
We conducted a multilevel model examining the association between T1 communication frequency with siblings and T2 sibling relationship positivity, with moderators of communication type, gender, sibling gender composition, ordinal position, and age spacing. Models controlled for face-to-face communication and T1 sibling relationship positivity.
Males/Females
n = 49 / n = 101
Age
M = years (SD=.94)
Parental Marital Status
72% Married, 18% Divorced, 9.2% Widowed
Ethnicity
87.6% White, 6.0% African American, 2.8% Asian or Pacific Islander, 2.4% Hispanic
Sibling Composition
135 First Born, 115 Second Born
Gender
96 Males, 154 Females
Communication Frequency X Gender Interaction, b = .07, SE = .04, p < .05.
For males, greater technology-mediated communication at T1 was associated with more positive sibling relationships at T2.
Communication Frequency X Birth Order X Sibling Gender Composition Interaction, b = -.08, SE = .03, p < .01.
For second-born emerging adults, greater technology-mediated communication at T1 with a same-gendered older sibling was associated with more positive sibling relationships at T2.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by a Research Council Grant from the University of Missouri, awarded to Nicole Campione-Barr (PI), Anna Lindell (Co-PI), and Sarah Killoren (I). We would like to thank the Department of Psychological Sciences at the University of Missouri and members of the Family Relationship and Adolescent Development Lab at the University of Missouri for their contributions to the data collection. We would also like to thank the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Undergraduate Research Program for awarding Brittany Redden an Undergraduate Research Grant to complete this poster.