Journal of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES 1994, Vol. 49, No.

6, S3O9-S317

Copyright 1994 by The Cerontological Society of America

Sibling Support in Older Age

Ingrid Arnet Connidis
Department of Sociology, University of Western Ontario.

Data from a multi-stage quota sample which includes 528 respondents aged 55 and over with at least one living sibling are used to examine instrumental support (financial, help during illness, other) from siblings, the perception of siblings as a source of support if needed (in a crisis, long-term illness, coresidence), and the characteristics of respondents and their sibling networks associated with receiving help and perceiving help to be available. A minority of respondents have received sibling support, and a majority perceive siblings to be available in a crisis. Those with two or more siblings are more likely to have received help and to perceive siblings as available than those with one sibling. Significant differences by gender, marital status, parent status, and geographic proximity are discussed with reference to models of support, particularly the functional-specificity of relationships model.

Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at ARISTOLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI on April 26, 2012

HE issue of informal support is a burning one with regard to those groups who lack the ties which customarily provide needed support in old age. Given that a spouse and children are the two primary providers of intensive support (Avioli, 1989; Brody, 1985; Johnson, 1988), to whom do the single (never married), divorced, widowed, and childless turn for informal support? Answers to this question are particularly crucial given increasing rates of divorce and childlessness and decreasing fertility (Connidis, 1989a). Siblings are a potential source of support for the roughly 80 percent of persons aged 65 and over who have at least one living sibling (Avioli, 1989; Connidis, 1989a). This may prove to be especially true of the baby boom cohort who, when they reach old age, will have fewer children and more siblings than any preceding cohort (Bengtson, Rosenthal, and Burton, 1990; Seltzer, 1989). Two primary questions have dominated research on the sibling tie and aging: What is the nature of the sibling tie in later life; and How do middle-aged siblings sort out the care they provide to their older parents? In the first category, studies have examined unique aspects of the sibling tie in later life (e.g., Bedford, 1989; Cicirelli, 1988; Connidis, 1989b; Gold, 1987) and predictors of either qualitative features of the sibling tie (Gold, 1989a; Gold, Woodbury, and George, 1990) or actual contact between siblings (Connidis, 1989c; Lee, Mancini, and Maxwell, 1990; Suggs, 1989). In the second category, researchers have identified characteristics of the sibling network which enhance the provision of care to older parents and have noted some repercussions for siblings of providing such care (Brody, 1989; Cicirelli, 1984; Coward and Dwyer, 1990; Matthews, 1987a, 1987b; Matthews and Rosner, 1988; Stoller, Forster, and Duniho, 1992; Strawbridge and Wallhagen, 1991; Tonti, 1988). Research on the social support networks of adults of all ages finds that a substantial portion of the support received by respondents is provided by siblings (Wellman and Wortley, 1989,1990). However, because a relatively small proportion of older persons actually receives instrumental help from their siblings, little attention has been paid to the factors associated with the provision of such support by siblings in

old age (Cicirelli, Coward, and Dwyer, 1992). Research does indicate that sibling ties are particularly close and active among women (Adams, 1986; Cicirelli, 1982; Connidis, 1989b, 1989c; Gibson and Mugford, 1986; Goetting, 1986; Gold, Woodbury, and George, 1990; McCallum, 1986; Wellman and Wortley, 1989; 1990), and among older persons who are single (Connidis, 1989b, 1989c; Wenger, 1984), divorced (Connidis, 1992; Rosenberg and Anspach, 1973), widowed (Connidis and Davies, 1992; O'Bryant, 1988), and childless (Kendig et al., 1988; Ward, LaGory, and Sherman, 1985). Characteristics of the sibling network also have a bearing on sibling ties. For example, having a childless sibling enhances the likelihood of receiving support from a sibling among younger adults who are mentally ill (Horwitz et al., 1992). As well, the gender structure of the sibling network influences the division of labor for parent care (Coward and Dwyer, 1990; Matthews, 1987a; see also Spitze and Logan, 1991) and sibling dyad characteristics affect contact between siblings (Connidis, 1989c). A recent study by Cicirelli, Coward, and Dwyer (1992) does examine the characteristics of impaired elders who receive unspecified forms of help from siblings. They find that recipients of sibling help tend to be younger, single (never married), divorced or widowed, to have fewer children, and to live in small cities. Similarly, in her sample of sixty respondents, Gold (1989b) finds that unmarried persons are more likely than married ones to receive instrumental support from siblings. Thus, siblings appear to serve a unique role in the lives of older persons without a spouse and/or children as providers of care. As well, although adults of all ages are more likely to perceive sibling support than to receive it, simply perceiving that sibling support would be available if needed promotes well-being among older persons (Cicirelli, 1989; Gold, 1989b; White and Riedmann, 1992). To date, research on sibling support in late life has addressed neither the forms of instrumental support that are provided nor the characteristics of sibling networks that are associated with receiving sibling support. Examining various forms of instrumental support increases our understanding of the sibling tie and helps identify potential strengths and weaknesses in the support which is available from

S309

S310

CONNIDIS

siblings. As some of the studies cited above suggest, characteristics of the sibling network may be central to understanding the supportive potential of the sibling relationship. Considering characteristics of respondents and their sibling network highlights the interactive nature of relationships. In this article, the following research questions are addressed: 1. Among older adults, to what extent are siblings a source of instrumental support? 2. Among older adults, to what extent are siblings perceived to be potential sources of support should the need arise? 3. Which characteristics of older respondents and their sibling networks are related to receiving and perceiving sibling support? Theoretical models of support are relevant to this discussion of sibling relationships. Typically such discussions focus upon two models: the hierarchical-compensatory model (Cantor, 1979) and the task-specificity model (Litwak, 1985). In the former, older persons are assumed to have a hierarchy of preferred relationships from whom they seek all forms of help. Spouse and children are assumed to be at the top of this hierarchy and thus favored as appropriate providers of a broad range of support. If unavailable, ties lower in the hierarchy serve as substitutes, thus compensating for the missing relationships. The task-specificity model focuses on the match between the features of a given task and the features of a given relationship. A task requiring regular contact is most likely to be performed by someone who can maintain regular contact (spouse, friend, neighbor, a child only //"proximate). A third model (Simons, 1983-84) the functional specificity of relationships model adds much needed flexibility and variability in the conception of support. According to this model, differences can be expected in how relationships are negotiated such that, e.g., for some a spouse may be the most likely provider of support during illness while for others a sibling or friend might be. Thus, relationships may be functionally specific but functions are not tied to specific relationships. As well, one relationship may perform a broad array of functions. An example will illustrate how this alters our interpretation of support. In their conclusion, Cicirelli and his colleagues (1992, p. 346) argue that their findings of greater sibling support among the unmarried and those with fewer children "lend support to the concept of substitution hierarchy" and that "the lack of available helpers higher in the substitution hierarchy appears to be related to the greater involvement of siblings in caregiving." However, applying the functionalspecificity of relationships model would suggest that this interpretation applies best to the previously married, for whom siblings may indeed substitute for a former spouse. But, the single and childless may more properly be regarded as having negotiated uniquely supportive ties with their siblings over a lifetime (Connidis and Davies, 1990; Simons, 1983-84). Previous research and the support models just outlined lead us to expect several respondent characteristics to affect reports of instrumental support which has been received or which is perceived to be available from siblings. Such support is expected to be greater among women than men;

the single (never married), divorced, and widowed than the married; and the childless than parents. Regarding sibling network characteristics, support is expected to be more likely among those with sibling networks which include sisters, unmarried (single, divorced, or widowed) siblings, and childless siblings. Studying various forms of support will provide evidence of whether siblings tend to perform specific tasks for one another, as indicated by the task specificity model (Litwak, 1985). Any differences based upon respondent and sibling network characteristics would be indicative of either functional specificity the differential negotiation of the same tie (siblings) by different groups (e.g., single versus married persons) (Connidis and Davies, 1990; Simons, 1983-84), or compensation for lost ties (Cantor, 1979). Whether the compensatory or functional-specificity of relationships model is favored will reflect in part the degree of ethnocentric bias embodied in assuming the preeminence of spousal and parent-child relationships, as is done in the hierarchicalcompensatory model. The functional-specificity model challenges us to map out different hierarchies of relationships for different groups of people rather than assume that all instances of divergence from reliance on a spouse or children represent compensation among those with inferior support networks (Connidis and Davies, 1990). I argue that the hierarchicalcompensatory model is, at best, suited to comparisons between those who currently have a given tie and those who once did (e.g., the married versus the widowed). Even here, the compensatory model loses its applicability as the time without a given tie increases (e.g., those who are widowed or divorced in late life versus those who are so in early adulthood or middle age). The view of social support networks encouraged here resembles that of the convoy, described by Antonucci and Akiyama (1987, p. 519, emphasis added) as: a protective layer... of family and friends who surround the individual and help in the successful negotiation of life's challenges. Each person can be thought of as moving through life surrounded by a group of other people to whom he or she is related through the exchange of social support. Convoys are thought to be dynamic and lifelong in nature, that is, changing in some ways but remaining stable in others, across time and situations. Thus, the social exchange relationship, not assumed static features of a given relationship (spouse, child, sibling), defines membership in the convoy (or support network).
METHODS

Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at ARISTOLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI on April 26, 2012

Sample. The data reported on here are from interviews with a multistage quota sample of 678 persons aged 55 and over who reside in a Canadian city of 300,000. The study's general purpose is to examine the social support networks of older persons with particular emphasis on groups which are statistically atypical. Thus, the sample deliberately overrepresents men, the single (never married), divorced, and childless in order to ensure large enough numbers in these groups for comparative analysis of all gender, parent, and marital

SIBLING SUPPORT IN OLDER AGE

S311

status groups. Because the sibling relationship is the focus of this article, those respondents who do not have any living siblings are excluded from the following analyses, leaving a sample of 528 respondents (79% of the total sample). In the first stage of sample selection, cases were randomly selected from a sampling frame garnered from provincial tax assessment listings. The gender and age of potential respondents were known prior to contact and marital status was estimated based on the presence and characteristics of coresidents, if any. Potential respondents were screened based on gender, marital status, child status, and age until predetermined quotas were filled. In the first phase of sample selection, potential participants were only selected on the basis of gender and age, the response rate was 34 percent, and 283 participants were recruited. In the second phase, more intensive screening was used in order to fill quotas for the more unusual subgroups, the response rate was 43 percent (i.e., 43% of those who met the screening criteria participated), and the remaining 395 respondents were recruited. Interviews were conducted in the respondents' ' home during 1990 and 1991 and lasted an average of one hour and nine minutes. The distribution of sample characteristics is given in Table 1. As can be seen, just over half the sample are women. There is roughly equal representation of married, widowed, and divorced or separated respondents and somewhat fewer single respondents. There are more parents than childless in the sample (three-fifths vs two-fifths) and a fairly even distribution by 5-year age group. One third of the sample has one sibling and the remaining two-thirds, two or more siblings. Close to half of the sample has both brothers and sisters; just over one-third, a sister or sisters only; and onefifth, a brother or brothers only. Nearly one-fifth of respon-

dents have no married siblings and one-third has at least one childless sibling. The subsequent analysis involves withinsample comparisons rather than estimates of population characteristics (for details regarding the entire sample, see Connidis and McMullin, 1993). Measures. The table of sample characteristics includes the independent and control variables used for analysis. The independent variables are: the gender of both the respondent and his or her sibling network (female and sister/s as reference categories for dummy coding); the parent status of both the respondent and his or her sibling network (parent, all parents as reference categories); and marital status of both the respondent and his/her sibling network (married and all married as reference categories). Control variables are age of respondent, number of siblings (where applicable), and geographic proximity to the nearest sibling, all entered as continuous variables. Two categories of dependent variables are examined: (1) received instrumental support (instrumental support which has actually been received), and (2) perceived support exchange (instrumental support which is assumed would be forthcoming or given as needed). Received instrumental support has three indicators: receipt of help when ill, receipt of financial assistance, and receipt of other forms of help. For each form of support, respondents indicated whether they had ever received such support from each of their siblings. Perceived support has four indicators: whether sibling/s would be approached for help in a crisis, whether sibling/s would be approached for longer-term help due to illness, whether the respondent would live with sibling/s if it were necessary to live with someone, and whether sibling/s could live with the respondent if it were necessary for sibling/s to live with someone. Again, respondents were asked if they perceived such help would be available from each of their siblings or, in the latter case, whether each sibling could live with them. Data Analysis. Analyses are performed separately for those with one sibling (n = 174) and those with two or more siblings (n = 354). Because received and perceived support are dichotomous dependent variables (yes or no), logistic regression is used. The amount or frequency of support might be a better dependent variable. However, without knowing how much help is actually needed, such a dependent variable could create a false sense of certainty about differences in sibling ties; more support could be a function of more supportive sibling ties or a greater need for support. For those with more than one sibling, a code of yes indicates that the respondent answered in the affirmative for at least one but not necessarily all siblings. The number of siblings from whom help is received or perceived to be available by the number of siblings among those with two or more siblings is analyzed separately. In addition to testing for main effects in the multivariate models, an interaction term for gender of respondent by gender of sibling network was entered in separate models. The model with the best fit is discussed in the Results section.

Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at ARISTOLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI on April 26, 2012

Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Sample Characteristics (N = 528)

Gender of Respondent Male Female Marital Status of Respondent 46 54 27 14 27 32 60 40 14 19 21 24 12 10 Gender of Sibling Network Sister(s) Brother(s) Both Marital Status of Sibling Network All married Some married None married 34 21 45

Married
Single Widowed Divorced/Separated Parent Status of Respondent Parents Childless Age of Respondent 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

44 38 18

Parent Status of Sibling Network All parents 68 Some parents 32 Number of Siblings One Two Three Four Five or more 33 27 17 11 12

Geographic Proximity of Closest Sibling (miles) 37 0-9 12 10-59 60-720 30 21 721-9998

S312

CONNIDIS

RESULTS

Table 2 presents the percentage distribution of various forms of sibling support for two groups, those with one sibling and those with more than one sibling. The percentage who include at least one sibling as a source of support ranges from 6 percent for financial assistance among those with one sibling to 74 percent for approaching a sibling for help in a crisis among those with two or more siblings. There are some notable statistically significant differences between those with one and those with two or more siblings. Those with two or more siblings are more likely to report receiving help with things other than financial help or help when ill at some time, expecting help from a sibling in a crisis, and expecting longer-term help due to illness from a sibling.

Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Sibling Support

Respondents With One Sibling8 (n = 174) Instrumental Support Help when ill received from No siblings One or more siblings Financial assistance receive<i from: No siblings One or more siblings Help with other things received from:* No siblings One or more siblings X2 = 6.93, df = l,p^ 83 17 Respondents With Two or More Siblings'1 (n = 354)

Variables

80 20

94 6

90 10

86 15 .01 Perceived Help

76 24

Perceived help in a crisis available from:* No siblings One or more siblings X2 = 17.93, df = \,p^ .001 Longer term help due to illness perceived to be available from:* No siblings One or more siblings X2 = 9.76, df = l,p^ Coresidence with sibling perceived to be available from: No siblings One or more siblings Coresidence of siblings withi respondent perceived to be available for: No siblings One or more siblings

45 56

26 74

81 19 .001

68 32

Regardless of family size, there is a greater willingness among respondents to have a sibling live with them if necessary than to live with a sibling if necessary. On balance, a larger family appears to have advantages for support in later life. What is unclear regarding family size is whether those with two or more siblings are more likely to receive or perceive sibling support because they are more likely to have one sibling to rely upon or because larger families are generally more supportive than smaller ones. As a preliminary test of these two possibilities, the number of siblings from whom help is received or perceived to be available by the number of siblings is examined. As Table 3 shows, despite fairly small numbers some trends are evident. For help when ill and financial assistance, the most common pattern is for respondents to have received assistance from one sibling in their network. An exception occurs among those with three siblings for help during illness, in which case one-third of the respondents received assistance from two siblings and another one-fifth from all siblings. Also, among the largest families, receiving help from only one sibling is less common, but this remains the modal category (55% for help when ill and 60% for financial assistance). For other forms of help, support is spread more broadly across the sibling network, so that 44 percent of those with two siblings have received support from both siblings, 37 percent of those with three siblings have received support from all three, and one quarter of those with four siblings and five or more siblings have received support from all four or from five or more. Perceived support in a crisis is most likely to be spread across the sibling network, with higher percentages of respondents in all family sizes expecting help from two or more siblings than from only one. For all network sizes, substantial portions expect support would be forthcoming from most or all of their siblings. A similar but less marked trend is evident for perceived long-term help during illness. This is notable given the extra degree of commitment such assistance entails. A majority (54% to 83%) of respondents would live with one sibling if needed, but one-fifth of those with five or more siblings would live with five or more of their siblings. The possibility that siblings could live with the respondent is distributed more extensively across the sibling network. A majority of respondents report that all of their siblings could live with them if needed, except those with three siblings, where 48 percent give this response. Table 4 summarizes the only statistically significant model for instrumental support among those with one sibling: support during illness. In this case, the model with the interaction term (model 2) is a significantly better fit than the main effects model (model 1, shown for information only). Marital status of the sibling is a significant predictor; respondents who have a divorced sibling are more likely to have received help during an illness than those with a married sibling. The calculated effects for the interaction between gender of respondent and gender of sibling indicate that men with a sister are least likely to receive such support, followed by men with a brother, and then women with a brother. Women with a sister are more likely than all these groups to receive help when ill. Women with a sibling of either gender

Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at ARISTOLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI on April 26, 2012

81 19

75 25

42 58

40 60

"Represents reported value. Represents mean for all siblings. Statistically significant differences between those with 1 and those with 2 or more siblings based on x2-

SIBLING SUPPORT IN OLDER AGE

S313

Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Number of Siblings From Whom Help Is Received or Perceived To Be Available Among Those With Two or More Siblings Reporting Sibling Support
Number of Siblings (n) 2 (28) 3 (19) 4 (13) 5 + (ll) 2 (18) 3 (6) 4 (5) 5 + (5) 2 (27) 3 (27) 4 (12) 5 + (20) 2 (102) 3 (62) 4 (47) 5 + (49) 2 (28) 3 (19) 4 (13) Number of Siblings Who Do/Would Provide Help One 89 47 85 55 94 83 100 60 56 44 * 58 45 40 47 30 31 89 47 85 Two 11 32 15 27 6 17 Three Four Five

Type of Support Received Support Help when ill

21 0

Financial assistance

9
0 0 0 37 0 5

0 20
44

Other things*

19
17 15 60 23 21 18 11 32 15 27 44 29

0 0 0 0 25 10 _ 43 10 0 0

9 20 25 _ 33

Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at ARISTOLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI on April 26, 2012

Perceived Support Help in a crisis*

Help when ill

31 6 8 21 0

5 + (H)
Long-term help if ill* 2 (39) 3 (31) 4 (19) 5 + (20) 2 (27) 3 (24) 4 (14) 5 + (24) 2 (84) 3 (48) 4 (34) 5 + (46)

55
56 61 42
40

9
10 11 10 0
0

21
20

26
10
7

9
20 21 63

Respondent would live with sibling

59
83
71

41
17 21

Sibling could live with respondent

54 30 27
15 13

17 70 25 6

4 48 12 4

4 68 11

Significantly greater likelihood of receiving/perceiving support than those with one sibling (see Table 2).

are more likely than men with a sibling of either gender to report receipt of help when sick. For both men and women, there is a greater likelihood of reporting such aid from a sibling of the same sex, but with a much stronger likelihood of doing so among women. Among those with two or more siblings, two models are significant: receiving help during illness and receiving other forms of help (see Table 5). Regarding illness, respondent's marital and parent status and geographic proximity are the significant predictors. The likelihood of receiving help when ill is higher among the widowed than the married, among the childless than parents, and among those with a sibling living nearer by. Similar differences between the single and married are marginally significant. Features of the sibling network emerge as significant predictors of receiving other forms of help. Sibling networks that include at least one more proximate sibling and at least one childless sibling are associated with a greater likelihood of receiving such support. Considering now perceived instrumental support, none of

the models is significant for those with only one sibling. Among those with two or more siblings, there are three significant models (see Table 6): perceived help in a crisis, long-term help due to illness, and assuming that siblings could live with the respondent if living with someone became necessary. In all cases, the model with the interaction term was not a significantly better fit than the main effects model. Marital status is significant in three models. Single and widowed respondents are more likely than married respondents to report that they would approach a sibling for long-term support during an illness. All unmarried respondents (i.e., single, widowed, and divorced) are more likely than the married to say that a sibling could live with them if needed. For help during a crisis, it is the marital status of the sibling network that is significant. Those with no married siblings are less likely than those whose siblings are all married to expect help from a sibling during a crisis. Gender of the sibling network is also significant, with those with brothers only significantly less likely than those with sisters

S314

CONNIDIS

Table 4. Factors Associated With Receiving Instrumental Support From Sibling (Respondents with 1 Sibling, n = 174)a Support During Illness Model 1 Independent Variables Gender Female Male Marital Status Married Single Widowed Divorced/Separated Parent Status Parents Childless Logit Odds Model 2 Logit Odds

Table 5. Factors Associated With Receiving Instrumental Support From Siblings

(Respondents With 2 or More Siblings, n = 354)"

Other Than Help With Illness and Finances Odds Logit Odds

Illness Independent Variables Logit

-1.90***

.15

-2.76***

.06

Gender Female Male Marital Status Married Single Widowed Divorced/Separated Parent Status Parents Childless Age Gender of Sibling Network Sisters Brothers Both Marital Status of Sibling Network All Married Some married None married Parent Status of Sibling Network All parents Some parents Geographic Proximity Number of Siblings Model

.46

.63

-.31

.73 Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at ARISTOLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI on April 26, 2012

.82 -.41

.45

2.27 .66 1.57

.85 -.59 .42

2.34 .55 1.51

.96 + .92* .53

2.62 2.51 1.70

.38 .41 .42

1.47 1.50 1.52

Age
Gender of Sibling Network Sister Brother Gender by Gender of Sibling Male-Brother Gender by Gender of Sibling Calculated Effects Female-Sister Female-Brother Male-Sister Male-Brother Marital Status of Sibling Network Married Single Widowed Divorced/Separated Parent Status of Sibling Network Parent Childless Geographic Proximity Model

.48 .05

1.61 1.04

.51 .06

1.67 1.06

99** .01

2.70

.22 -.02

1.24 .98

.99

-.50

.61

-1.02 1.99

.36 7.29

N/A

.72 .22

.48 .80

-.27 -.23

.76 .79

N/A -1.02 -2.76 -1.79 .36 .06 .16

.14 .09

1.15 1.10

.19 .13

1.20 1.14

.24 .04"2* - .06

2

.79
1.00

.73** -.04- 2 ** -.02

2.07 1.00 .98

.14 .09 1.37

1.15 1.09 3.93

.44 .14 1.51*

1.56 1.15 4.53

.94

X = 39.42 df = = 13 P< .001

X2 = 26.30 df = 13 p< .05

.24 .00

1.23 1.00

.17 -1.02

1.18 .36

X 2 = 27.48 df = 12 p< .01 -2LL == 127.84

X2 = 30.61 df = 13 p< .01 -2LL = 124.70

"Only significant models are reported; results of logistic regression analysis. + p = .056; *p < .05; **p < .01.

Only significant models are reported; results of logistic regression analysis. *p< .05;***p< 001.

only to consider siblings a source of support during a crisis. Geographic proximity is inversely related to two forms of perceived support, help in a crisis and long-term help if ill.
DISCUSSION

Overall, only a minority of the respondents have received any of the instrumental forms of help examined here from their siblings. At most, one-quarter have received such help, and this was' 'other'' help received by those with at least two siblings. This is not surprising given that a substantial

portion of the sample has other ties who might serve as more likely sources of such support, namely, a spouse, a child, or both. As well, this is a community sample in which 76 Dercent reDort good or excellent health. Regarding perceived help, a majority would turn to a sibling for help in a crisis and would share their homes with a sibling. From one-fifth (one sibling) to a third (more than one sibling) of respondents would turn to a sibling for longer-term help when ill, and one-fifth (one sibling) to one quarter (more than one sibling) would live with a sibling if needed. These results indicate that siblings are considered a potentially significant source of support by older persons, supporting the view of siblings as an important "insurance policy" in later life (Hochschild, 1973). They also provide evidence of task-specificity wherein siblings appear especially important as potential helpers in a crisis, underlining

SIBLING SUPPORT IN OLDER AGE

S315

Table 6. Factors Associated With Perceived Instrumental Support Between Siblings (Respondents with 2 or More Siblings, n = 354)a
Crisis Independent Variables Gender Female Male Marital Status Married Single Widowed Divorced Parent Status Parents Childless Age Gender of Sibling Network Sister Brother Both (> 1 sib) Marital Status of Sibling Network All married Some married None married Parent Status of Sibling Network All parents Some parents Geographic Proximity Number of Siblings Model Logit Odds Logit Illness Odds Sibling Live With Respondent Logit Odds

-.21

.81

-.13

.88

.05

1.05

.70 .31 .11

2.01 1.37 1.11

1.39** .69* .05

4.02 1.99 1.05

1.08** .68* .82**

2.93 1.97 2.28

Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at ARISTOLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI on April 26, 2012

.54 -.02

1.72 .97

.12 -.03

1.13 .97

-.39 -.03

.68 .97

-1.13* -.66

.32 .52

-.24 -.53

.78 .59

.04 -.25

1.04 .78

-.46 -1.23*

.63 .29

.27 -.11

1.31 .89

-.40 .01

.67 1.01

.16
_ 04-2***

1.17 .99 1.00 X2 = 43.84 df = 13 p < .001

-.16 -.03" 2 *

.85
.99 1.09
X2 = 32.91

.44 .00

1.55 1.00 1.10

X2 = 29.97

.00

.08
df = 13 p < .001

.09
df = 13 p< .01

Only significant models are reported; results of logistic regression analysis *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

the need to distinguish among different forms of instrumental support. Regarding the issue of family size, when compared to respondents with two or more siblings, those with one sibling are less likely to have received sibling help other than financial or care when ill and are less likely to expect sibling support during a long-term illness or a crisis. Our results also show important differences in the predictors of support from siblings by family size such that factors which make a difference among those with at least two siblings are often irrelevant to those with only one. This suggests that, in the absence of choice, there is a tendency to make do with what you have. However, for those with one sibling, only one model is significant, indicating that having only one sibling itself diminishes the support received and perceived to be available from siblings. On the other hand, for other forms of support (financial assistance, longer-term help due to illness, and the possibility of coresidence with or by a sibling) there is neither a significant difference between those with only one and those with more than one sibling, nor are there differences among those with one sibling in the likelihood of reporting support.

In all these cases, respondents with only one sibling can be said to "make do" with only one sibling regardless of respondent or sibling characteristics. The preceding comparisons do not address the issue of family size among those with two or more siblings. The fact that number of siblings never emerges as a significant predictor of received or perceived help from siblings suggests that, in general, those with two or more siblings must be relying primarily upon one or two siblings for their support. Our examination of number of siblings by number of siblings who either provide support or are perceived to be available to do so lends weight to this conclusion. However, this conclusion is equivocal because simply knowing how many siblings provide a given form of support does not indicate the family dynamics involved in that outcome. Instead, there are at least two possible scenarios. In the first, one sibling provides support to another because only that sibling is willing to do so. In the second, one sibling provides support to another following an active consultation and negotiation process among all or most siblings in the network aimed at ensuring that the sibling requiring support gets it from someone in the family; The latter possibility seems credible

S316

CONNIDIS

in light of the fact that one person may suffice for most forms of support. This scenario also receives some support from the findings of greater dispersion of sibling support across the network for "other" forms of support and for the perception of potential support during a crisis, for long-term illness, and for coresidence. A more complete understanding of the impact of family size requires research which addresses the process by which siblings become involved in providing assistance to one another. Instances where respondent or sibling network characteristics (gender, marital status, parent status) are significant predictors of sibling support lend support to the functional specificity of relationships model (Simons, 1983-84). Significant differences between the married and the widowed or divorced could provide support for the substitution or hierarchical-compensatory model (Cantor, 1979). However, in the absence of empirical evidence that one supportive relationship is considered a substitute for another, it is more suitable to view differences among these groups as a reflection of the different ways in which relationships have been negotiated, as encouraged by the functional-specificity model. Clearly, longitudinal research which studies the evolution of networks or convoys over time is needed to address directly the relevance of substitution or compensation to the negotiation of relationships over time. Regarding gender, those with one sibling are more likely to have received sibling support during an illness if their sibling is a sister. Similarly, among those with two or more siblings, perceived support during a crisis is higher among those with sisters only than those with brothers only. These findings confirm a substantial body of literature regarding the stronger familial ties established among women than men (Connidis, 1989a; Finch, 1989). However, perhaps as notable is the fact that gender is not significant in any of the other models. Marital status is the most frequent predictor of sibling support among those with two or more siblings. Single and widowed respondents are more likely than the married to have received sibling support during illness. They are also more likely to expect long-term support during illness if needed. The single, divorced, and widowed are also more likely to say that a sibling could live with them if needed. As well, among those with one sibling, support during an illness is more probable if that sibling is divorced. These findings show that the single and widowed have negotiated particularly active sibling ties, characterized to some degree by reciprocity. Reciprocity is an important feature of supportive relationships generally (Antonucci and Jackson, 1990) and may be especially so in the sibling relationship given its egalitarian nature (Cicirelli, 1982; Cumming and Schneider. 1961). The divorced are more available to their siblings during illness and as potential coresidents but are not more likely to receive or expect to receive support from them. This imbalance could prove problematic and suggests the value of exploring the issue of reciprocity in sibling support exchanges. One somewhat inconsistent finding is the lower likelihood of considering siblings a source of support during a crisis among those whose two or more siblings are all unmarried. These cases may represent families in which several siblings

have experienced widowhood and/or divorce in fairly quick succession, or in which several siblings have never married. Both possibilities may either inhibit the negotiation of supportive ties among siblings or reflect a given family's general inability to form supportive ties. Parent status is a predictor of support in two models involving those with two or more siblings. Childless respondents are more likely than parents to have ever received help from a sibling during illness, and those whose sibling network includes at least one childless sibling are more likely to have received other forms of help from a sibling. Once again, there is evidence of the differential negotiation of sibling ties; in this case the childless negotiate more supportive ties with siblings than do parents. Finally, in four of the five significant models for those with two or more siblings, geographic proximity is a significant predictor of support, with greater distance lowering the prospects of receiving or perceiving support. In a society typified by mobility, this suggests some precariousness in relying on siblings as primary providers of support. As well, the similarity in age of siblings means that growing frailty may occur in tandem. Consequently, among those receiving aid from siblings, instrumental support tends to go down with age and over time, with regret but without rancour (Cicirelli, Coward, and Dwyer, 1992; Gold, 1989b). However, this vulnerability in the sibling tie is not unique; precisely the same concern applies to support between spouses. In both situations, the essential issue is the need for diversity in social support networks (Simons, 1983-84). If future research takes as its premise the view that diversity is critical in the support networks of all older persons, including the married, the tendency to assume that any tie is able to meet most or all needs will be minimized. Such an all-encompassing assumption about marriage may run the risk of actually isolating married individuals from other sources of support, including siblings, both in real life and in research. Thus, future research can build upon the results reported here by examining the different support networks of various groups of older persons and establishing empirically whose networks are most diverse and most likely to meet the needs of their members. The latter issue can only be addressed by treating as a research question whether smaller or atypical networks leave older persons with more of their needs for support unmet.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at ARISTOLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI on April 26, 2012

The data reported-here are from a study funded by the MCSS Research Grants Program, sponsored by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Ontario Government, and administered by the Research and Program Evaluation Unit in cooperation with the Ontario Mental Health Foundation. Ongoing data analysis has been supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The author thanks both agencies for their support. Address correspondence to Dr. Ingrid Arnet Connidis, Department of Sociology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2.
REFERENCES

Adams, BertN. 1986. The Family: A Sociological Interpretation (4th ed.). Toronto: Harcourt Brace Javanovich. Antonucci, Toni C. and Hiroko Akiyama. 1987. "Social Networks in Adult

SIBLING SUPPORT IN OLDER AGE

S317

Life and a Preliminary Examination of the Convoy Model." Journal of Gerontology 42:519-527. Antonucci.ToniC. and James S. Jackson. 1990. "The Role of Reciprocity in Social Support." In Barbara R. Sarason, Irwin G. Sarason, and Gregory R. Pierce (Eds.), Social Support: An Interactional View. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Avioli, Paula Smith. 1989. "The Social Support Functions of Siblings in Later Life." American Behavioral Scientist 33:45-57. Bedford, Victoria. 1989. "Sibling Research in Historical Perspective: The Discovery of a Forgotten Relationship.'' American Behavioral Scientist 33:6-18. Bengtson, Vern, Carolyn Rosenthal, and Linda Burton. 1990. "Families and Aging: Diversity and Heterogeneity." In Robert H. Binstock and Linda K. George (Eds.), Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Brody, Elaine M. 1985. "Parent Care as a Normative Family Stress." The Gerontologist 25:19-29. Brody, Elaine M. 1989. "Caregiving Daughters and Their Local Siblings: Perceptions, Strains, and Interactions." The Gerontologist 29:529-538. Cantor, Marjorie. 1979. "Neighbors and Friends: An Overlooked Resource in the Informal Support System." Research on Aging 1:434-463. Cicirelli, Victor G. 1982.''Sibling Influence Throughout the Lifespan." In Michael E. Lamb and Brian Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Sibling Relationships: Their Nature and Significance Across the Lifespan. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cicirelli, Victor G. 1984. "Divorce as a Factor Influencing Adult Children's Helping Behavior to Elderly Parents: A Path Analysis." Journal of Family Issues 5:440-449. Cicirelli, Victor G. 1988. "Interpersonal Relationships Among Elderly Siblings." In Michael D. Kahn and Karen Gail Lewis (Eds.), Siblings in Therapy: Life Span and Clinical Issues. New York: Horton. Cicirelli, Victor G. 1989. "Feelings of Attachment to Siblings and Well Being in Later Life." Psychology and Aging 4:211-216. Cicirelli, Victor G., Raymond T. Coward, and Jeffrey W. Dwyer. 1992. "Siblings as Caregivers for Impaired Elders." Research on Aging 14:331-350. Connidis, Ingrid Arnet. 1989a. Family Ties and Aging. Toronto: Butterworths. Connidis, Ingrid Arnet. 1989b. "Siblings as Friends in Later Life." American Behavioral Scientist 33:81-93. Connidis, Ingrid Arnet. 1989c. "Contact Between Siblings in Later Life." Canadian Journal of Sociology 14:429-442. Connidis, Ingrid Arnet. 1992. "Life Transitions and the Adult Sibling Tie: A Qualitative Study." Journal of Marriage and the Family 54:972-982. Connidis, Ingrid Arnet and Lorraine Davies. 1990. "Confidants and Companions in Later Life: The Place of Family and Friends." Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 45:S141S149. Connidis, Ingrid Arnet and Lorraine Davies. 1992. "Confidants and Companions: Choices in Later Life." Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 47:S115-S122. Connidis, Ingrid Arnet and Julie Ann McMullin. 1993. "To Have or Have Not: Parent Status and the Subjective Well-being of Older Men and Women." The Gerontologist 5:630-636. Coward, Raymond T. and Jeffrey W. Dwyer. 1990. "The Association of Gender, Sibling Network Composition, and Patterns of Parent Care by Adult Children." Research on Aging 12:158-181. Cumming, Elaine and David M. Schneider. 1961. "Sibling Solidarity: A Property of American Kinship.'' American Anthropologist 63:498-508. Finch, Janet. 1989. Family Obligations and Social Change. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Gibson, Diane and Stephen Mugford. 1986. "Expressive Relations and Social Support." In Hal L. Kendig (Ed.), Ageing and Families: A Social Networks Perspective. Boston: Allen & Unwin. Goetting, Ann. 1986. "The Development Tasks of Siblingship Over the Life Cycle." Journal of Marriage and the Family 48:703-714. Gold, Deborah T. 1987. "Siblings in Old Age: Something Special." Canadian Journal on Aging 6:211-227. Gold, Deborah T. 1989a. "Sibling Relationships in Old Age: a Typology." International Journal of Aging and Human Development 28:37-51. Gold, Deborah T. 1989b. "Generational Solidarity: Conceptual Antecedents and Consequences." American Behavioral Scientist 33:19-32.

Gold, Deborah T., Max A. Woodbury, and Linda K. George. 1990. "Relationship Classification Using Grade of Membership Analysis: A Typology of Sibling Relationships in Later Life." Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 45:S43-S51. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1973. The Unexpected Community. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Horwitz, Allan V., Richard C. Tessler, Gene A. Fisher, and Gail M. Gamache. 1992. "The Role of the Adult Siblings in Providing Social Support to the Severely Mentally 111." Journal of Marriage and the Family 54:233-241. Johnson, Colleen L. 1988. "Relationships Among Family Members and Friends in Later Life." In Robert M. Milardo (Ed.), Families and Social Networks. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kendig, Hal L., Rita Coles, Yvonne Pittelkow, and Sue Wilson. 1988. "Confidants and Family Structure in Old Age." Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 43:S31-S40. Lee, Thomas R., Jay A. Mancini, and Joseph W. Maxwell. 1990. "Sibling Relationships in Adulthood: Contact Patterns and Motivations." Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:431-440. Litwak, Eugene. 1985. "Helping the Elderly: The Complementary Roles of Informal Networks and Formal Systems." New York: Guilford Press. Matthews, Sarah H. 1987a. "Provision of Care to Old Parents: Division of Responsibility Among Adult Children." Research on Aging 9:45-60. Matthews, Sarah H. 1987b. "Perceptions of Fairness in the Division of Responsibility for Old Parents." Social Justice Review 1:425-437. Matthews, Sarah H. and TenaTarler Rosner. 1988. "Shared Filial Responsibility: The Family as the Primary Caregiver." Journal of Marriage and the Family 50:185-195. McCallum, John. 1986. "Retirement and Widowhood Transitions." In Hal L. Kendig (Ed.), Ageing and Families: A Social Networks Perspective. Boston: Allen & Unwin. O'Bryant, Shirley. 1988. "Sibling Support and Older Widows' WellBeing." Journal of Marriage and the Family 50:173-183. Rosenberg, George S. and Donald Anspach. 1973. "Sibling Solidarity in the Working Class." Journal of Marriage and the Family 35:108-113. Seltzer, Mildred M. 1989. "The Three Rs of Life Cycle Sibships: Rivalries, Reconstructions, and Relationships." American Behavioral Scientist 33:107-115. Simons, Ronald L. 198384. "Specificity and Substitution in the Social Networks of the Elderly." International Journal of Aging and Human Development 18:121-139. Spitze, Glenna and John R. Logan. 1991. "Sibling Structure and Intergenerational Relations." Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:871-884. Stoller, Eleanor Palo, Lorna Earl Forster, and Tamara Sutin Duniho. 1992. "Systems of Parent Care Within Sibling Networks." Research on Aging 14:28-49. Strawbridge, William J. and Margaret I. Wallhagen. 1991. "Impact of Family Conflict on Adult Child Caregivers." The Gerontologist 31:770-777. Suggs, Patricia. 1989. "Predictors of Association Among Siblings: A Black/White Comparison." American Behavioral Scientist 33:70-80. Tonti, Mario. 1988. "Relationships Among Adult Siblings Who Care for Their Aged Parents." In Michael D. Kahn and Karen Gail Lewis (Eds.), Siblings in Therapy: Life Span and Clinical Issues. New York: Horton. Ward, Russel A., Mark LaGory, and Susan R. Sherman. 1985. "Social Ties of the Elderly." Sociology and Social Research 70:102-106. Wellman, Barry and Scot Wortley. 1989. "Brothers' Keepers: Situating Kinship Relationships in Broader Networks of Social Support." Sociological Perspectives 32:273-306. Wellman, Barry and Scot Wortley. 1990. "Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support." American Journal of Sociology 96:558-588. Wenger, G. Clare. 1984. The Supportive Network: Coping with Old Age. Boston: George Allen & Unwin. White, Lynn K. and Agnes Riedmann. 1992. "Ties Among Adult Siblings." Social Forces 71:85-102.

Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at ARISTOLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI on April 26, 2012

Received August 20, 1993 Accepted February 15, 1994

RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS IN GERONTOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Postdoctoral research fellowships, supported in part by training grants from the National Institute on Aging are available at the University of Michigan Institute of Gerontology. Stipends and related expenses will be provided to qualified applicants. Postdoctoral trainees must have completed a Ph.D., M.D., or equivalent degree. Prospective faculty mentors represent the behavioral, biological, clinical and social sciences, and the humanities as follows: W. A. Achenbaum, Ph.D., R. C. Adelman, Ph.D., N. B. Alexander, M.D., A. Ashton-Miller, Ph.D., F. L. Bookstein, Ph.D., S. F. Bradley, M.D., D. T. Burke, Ph.D., B. M. Carlson, M.D., Ph.D., J. A. Faulkner, Ph.D., D. J. Fink, M.D., B. E. Fries, Ph.D., A. Gafni, Ph.D., S. A. Goldstein, Ph.D., M. M. Gross, Ph.D., K. Guan, Ph.D., J. B. Halter, M.D., A. R. Herzog, Ph.D., N. Krause, Ph.D., J. Liang, Ph.D., X. Liu, Ph.D., R. A. Miller, M.D., Ph.D., D. E. Rosenblatt, M.D., Ph.D., A. B. Schultz, Ph.D., D. G. Steel, Ph.D., M. A. Supiano, M.D., M. S. Terpenning, M.D., B. R. Troen, M.D., L. M. Verbrugge, Ph.D., W. G. Weissert, Ph.D. Candidates should forward a letter of interest, identification of a potential mentor, complete curriculum vitae and bibliography, graduate transcript, representative article (if available), and at least three letters of recommendation to: Gabriele Wienert, Institute of Gerontology, University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2007. The application deadline for fellowships is March 31,1995.
The University of Michigan is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer.

Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at ARISTOLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI on April 26, 2012

The Ph.D. Program in Gerontology

This doctoral program offers advanced interdisciplinary study in aging and social policy. By bringing together theories, concepts, and research methods from several social sciences, it provides a framework for assessing critical social questions and tools for considering new responses. The program seeks highly qualified students of diverse backgrounds. It will prepare its graduates to expand the frontiers of gerontologies! knowledge through research, teaching, or policy developmentand to play leadership roles in our aging society.

or write: Admissions Information Service University of Massachusetts Boston Boston, MA 02125-3393 Please note: the application deadline is February 1. GRE scores are required.