Domain Differentiated Disclosure To Mothers and Siblings and Associations With Sibling Relationship Quality and Youth Emotional Adjustment

Developmental Psychology
2015, Vol. 51, No. 9, 1278 1291
2015 American Psychological Association

0012-1649/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000036
Domain Differentiated Disclosure to Mothers and Siblings and

Associations With Sibling Relationship Quality and Youth
Emotional Adjustment
Nicole Campione-Barr, Anna K. Lindell, Sonia E. Giron, Sarah E. Killoren, and Kelly Bassett Greer
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
University of Missouri
Disclosure, or revealing personal information to others, is important for the development and maintenance of close relationships (Jourard, 1971; Rotenberg, 1995). More recently within developmental
psychology, however, the focus has been the study of adolescent disclosure to parents as a means of
information management regarding their daily activities. This research assumes that a) disclosure
between multiple adolescents and parents within the same family are similar, and b) only information
transmitted from adolescents to parents is important for adolescent well-being. Thus, this article presents
the findings of 2 within-family studies to investigate differences in the amount and social domain
(Smetana, 2006; Turiel, 2002) of youth disclosure to mothers versus siblings, and the influence of
disclosure to siblings on relationship quality and youth emotional adjustment. Study 1 utilized 101 sibling
dyads with youth ranging in age from 1121 years, but all siblings living together. Study 2 investigated
a sample of 58 sibling dyads in which all first-borns were first-year college students and all second-borns
were in high school. All participants completed questionnaire measures to assess study variables.
Findings revealed that while youth disclosed more to mothers than siblings, this difference disappears by
emerging adulthood, particularly depending on the domain of the issue. Additionally, while greater
disclosure among siblings was positive for the quality of the relationship, sibling disclosure was
differentially associated with emotional adjustment depending on whether youth were the disclosers or
being disclosed to, the domain of the issues disclosed, and the gender composition of the dyad.
Keywords: disclosure, sibling relationships, mother child relationships, adjustment
lescent disclosure is the best predictor of, and is most closely

associated with, parental knowledge. Parental knowledge, in turn,
has been found to be associated with lower levels of adolescent
delinquent behavior (see Smetana, 2008 for review). Interestingly,
this previous research has been conducted under the apparent
assumptions that a) disclosure processes between multiple adolescents and parents within the same family are similar, and b) only
the information transmitted from adolescents to parents is important for the well-being of adolescents. As family systems theorists
would argue (Cox & Paley, 1997; Minuchin, 1985), however,
parentadolescent relationships do not occur within a vacuum; the
broader family system and adolescents location within it may
influence these processes. Additionally, social domain theory
(Smetana, 2006; Turiel, 2002) and research from this perspective
(Smetana, 2008) suggests that what adolescents disclose, and to
whom, differ in their impacts on relational and emotional adjustment, as well as, potentially, across relationships. Therefore, the
present studies have two main objectives. The first is to further
advance previous research by using a within-family design to
investigate differences in the amount and domain of adolescent/
emerging adult disclosure to mothers versus siblings. The second
objective is to examine the associations between differing domains
of youth disclosure to siblings and sibling relationship quality and
emotional adjustment (i.e., depressive symptoms), over and above
the role of youths disclosure over these same issues to mothers.
These aims were investigated across two samples, which encompass the entire second decade of life, as well as major develop-
Disclosure, or the revealing of personal information to others

(Jourard, 1971; Rotenberg, 1995), is an important part of the
development and maintenance of close relationships. More recently within developmental psychology, however, the study of
adolescent disclosure has focused specifically on how much, over
what issues, and under what conditions adolescents disclose information about their daily activities to their parents. This research
suggests that when compared to parental monitoring efforts, ado-
This article was published Online First July 20, 2015.

Nicole Campione-Barr, Anna K. Lindell, and Sonia E. Giron, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri; Sarah E. Killoren,
Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of
Missouri; Kelly Bassett Greer, Department of Psychological Sciences,
University of Missouri.
Partial versions of the research described here were presented at the
2013 Society for Research in Child Development Meetings in Seattle, WA.
We thank the University of Missouri Research Council and the MU
College of Arts & Sciences Alumni Board for their financial support of this
research. Finally, we thank the Columbia Public School District and the
many families who participated in this research, as well as our undergraduate research assistants for their participation with family visits and data
entry.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nicole
Campione-Barr, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of
Missouri-Columbia, 210 McAlester Hall, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail:
campionebarrn@missouri.edu
1278
DISCLOSURE TO MOTHERS AND SIBLINGS
mental transitions (i.e., middle to high school, high school to

college, siblings living together vs. living apart).
Research examining disclosure can currently be conceptualized
as falling into one of two genres: a) close relationship researchers
who study the sharing of personal thoughts and feelings with a
variety of close relationship partners (e.g., romantic partners, best
friends, family members; Reis & Shaver, 1988; Rotenberg, 1995)
and more recently b) parentadolescent researchers who are interested in what adolescents do (and do not) choose to share with
parents about their activities. While the first line of research views
disclosure as a means to intimacy in a social relationship (Reis &
Shaver, 1988), the more recent surge of research within the parent
adolescent relationship has focused on adolescents management
of information about their lives as a means of autonomy development (Darling, Cumsille, Caldwell, & Dowdy, 2006; Finkenauer,
Engels, & Meeus, 2002; Finkenauer, Frijns, Engels, & Kerkhof,
2005; Marshall, Tilton-Weaver, & Bosdet, 2005; Smetana,
Metzger, Gettman, & Campione-Barr, 2006). In an attempt to
address the distinction between these two lines of research, TiltonWeaver, Marshall, and Darling (2014) recently suggested that
researchers adopt the use of the term self-disclosure to refer to the
concept of intimate disclosure among close relationship partners as
has been typically studied by social psychologists (e.g., Reis &
Shaver, 1988) and communication scholars (e.g., Baxter, 2011;
Petronio, 2002), and routine disclosure to refer to the concept of
management of mundane, everyday activity-type information as
has been more recently studied by developmental and family
scholars. Tilton-Weaver and her colleagues argue that, although
there is some overlap in these two constructs, there are theoretical
distinctions between them that have been misconstrued by previous researchers when utilizing the same term for both constructs.
Notably, these suggestions by Tilton-Weaver et al. (2014) were
made based solely on the utility of this distinction for adolescents
disclosing to parents.
However, communication scholars have noted that communicative processes across all close relationships involve competing
discourses such as balancing autonomy and connection, openness
and closedness, or certainty and uncertainty, to name a few (relational dialectic theory; Baxter, 2011). Thus, while there may be
differences in the functions and importance of different close
relationships across development (e.g., parent child relationship
more hierarchical, based on care-taking, decline in closeness with
increasing autonomy development during adolescence; friendships, egalitarian, based on intimacy and support, increase in
importance during adolescence; Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011;
Zimmer-Gembeck & Collins, 2008), similar communication and
disclosure processes occur across all of them.
Less understood, however, are the differences in the content of
disclosure across different close relationships, how this may
change over the course of development, and how the content of
disclosure to different close relationship partners may differentially impact the quality of these relationships and the adjustment
of the individual. Social domain theory (Smetana, 2006; Turiel,
2002) may provide a useful way to distinguish different content
domains of disclosure in a way that can be defined consistently
across relationships, and that takes developmental changes in
social knowledge and experience into account.
Previous research from the social domain perspective (Smetana,
2006; Turiel, 2002) has highlighted the domains in which adoles-
1279
cents are more or less likely to disclose information to their

parents. They examined five different domains. Moral issues are
those which pertain to others rights, welfare, and fairness (e.g.,
hitting, stealing). Conventional issues are contextually relative,
and arbitrary, social norms (e.g., table manners). Both moral and
conventional issues are considered to be socially regulated through
societal laws and standards. Personal issues, alternatively, are
those which pertain to aspects of privacy, control over ones body,
preferences, and choices (e.g., what one writes in their diary) and
not thought to be appropriately controlled by others. Prudential
issues are those which pertain to an individuals own comfort,
safety, or health (e.g., drinking, smoking). Finally, multifaceted
issues are those which overlap domains, most typically between
personal and conventional (e.g., the cleanliness of a teens room),
or personal and prudential (e.g., a teens curfew time). Importantly,
individuals typically see multifaceted issues as falling within one
domain or the other, depending on their social experiences or roles.
Thus, parents typically see these issues as conventional or prudential due to their concerns regarding health, safety, and appropriateness of their childrens behavior, while adolescents view them
as personal as a way to espouse their increasing autonomy
(Smetana, 2011).
Smetana et al. (2006) investigated adolescents disclosure and
secrecy with parents within different domains. They found that
adolescents felt they were more obligated to disclose to parents
about prudential issues and less obligated to disclose about personal issues than moral, conventional, and multifaceted issues.
Additionally, adolescents disclosed more information to mothers
than fathers (particularly regarding personal issues), although
mothers overestimated girls disclosure. Finally, disclosure by
adolescents to parents was associated with greater feelings of trust,
a greater sense of obligation to disclose, and the issues being
personal domain in nature.
The previous research by Smetana and colleagues (Smetana et
al., 2006; Smetana, Villalobos, Tasopoulous-Chan, Gettman, &
Campione-Barr, 2009) have been rather consistent in their findings
across these distinctions in parents and adolescents social cognitions regarding disclosure across domains. However, what has
not been investigated from this perspective is how the social
domain judgments made by individuals within different types of
close relationships (e.g., siblings, friendships, romantic relationships) may influence their disclosure behavior within and across
different relationships. The present study is a first step toward
examining the utility of using social domain theory to understand
disclosure similarities and differences across different types of
relationships. Specifically, we examined youth disclosure to mothers and siblings across personal issues, prudential issues, and
multifaceted issues in a sample of families with multiple adolescents and a sample of families with one emerging adult first-born
child and one adolescent second-born child. We chose to focus on
these three domains, and not the moral and conventional domains,
because we expected them to show the greatest frequency and
variability in disclosure. Previous research from a social domain
perspective has found that adolescents and parents generally agree
that moral and conventional issues are legitimately within parents
authority to control and make rules about these issues well into late
adolescence (Smetana, Crean, & Campione-Barr, 2005), likely due
to the fact that these two domains are socially constructed (i.e., via
laws or social conventions; Smetana, 2006; Turiel, 2002). Thus,
1280
CAMPIONE-BARR, LINDELL, GIRON, KILLOREN, AND GREER
given that the social construction and parental authority of these

issues would likely be similar for both siblings, we felt that the
likelihood that siblings would discuss these issues frequently, as
well as variability across families, would be small. Additionally,
due to increasing autonomy across adolescence and emerging
adulthood, as well as greater opportunities to engage in risky
behaviors, we felt that personal and prudential domain issues, as
well as multifaceted issues that combine facets of personal and
prudential domains, would show the greatest variability in disclosure to mothers and siblings.
While research on adolescents disclosure to parents has been
prevalent over the past 15 years, research regarding disclosure to
siblings has been relatively scarce. However, research by Howe
and colleagues has investigated disclosure within the sibling relationship during middle childhood and early adolescence (Howe,
Aquan-Assee, & Bukowski, 1995; Howe, Aquan-Assee, Bukowski, Lehoux, & Rinaldi, 2001; Howe, Aquan-Assee, Bukowski, Rinaldi, & Lehoux, 2000). They found that when comparing three possible recipients of disclosure (i.e., closest in age
sibling, parent, or friend), fifth- and sixth-grade children reported
that they disclosed more frequently to siblings than friends or
parents. The researchers also investigated which topics siblings
were most likely to disclose to one another among family, academic, and friendship issues, but they were unable to detect any
differences. Similar to findings regarding disclosure to parents,
disclosure to siblings was associated with greater trust and emotional support; however, it was also associated with feeling good
about sharing (Howe et al., 2001, 2000). So similar to much of the
research on disclosure within any close relationship, sibling disclosure is thought to be positive and lead to a close bond and
general feelings of support within the relationship. Sibling disclosure may also be associated with positive psychosocial adjustment
as has been found to be the case with disclosure to parents (Kerr
& Stattin, 2000; Laird & Marrero, 2010).
However, while the content of disclosure by early adolescent
siblings has been investigated in a limited context, the social
domain of disclosure to siblings has not been tested to date. Given
that differences in rate and outcome of disclosure in different
domains have been found in parentadolescent relationships, it is
likely that the domain of disclosure among siblings is also important for both the quality of the sibling relationship and the adjustment of individual members of the sibling dyad. Additionally,
given differences in the structure and of the relationships between
parents and siblings (e.g., hierarchical vs. more egalitarian), there
are also likely differences in the rates of disclosure across domain
between these two relationship partners. Finally, given that adolescents likely disclose overlapping information to multiple family
members, albeit potentially for different reasons, it is important to
understand the unique influence of disclosure to siblings over and
above the influence of disclosure to mothers. In the present study,
such influences were investigated with regards to both sibling
relationship quality, and adolescent emotional adjustment.
Previous research from a variety of close relationships have
found evidence of associations between disclosure and relational
and individual well-being. Cross-sectional studies of adolescent
disclosure to parents (e.g., Smetana et al., 2006) and siblings (e.g.,
Howe et al., 2000, 2001) have found that youth report that they are
more likely to disclose in the context of a trusting relationship.
Additionally, longitudinal research on friendships has found that
disclosure (in the form of a specific type considered corumination)

leads to greater ratings of friendship quality (Rose, Carlson, &
Waller, 2007). Thus, it should be the case that greater disclosure
(both disclosing and being disclosed to) is also associated with
greater positive relationship qualities among siblings.
It is also likely the case that disclosure among siblings has
associations with individual youth emotional adjustment, particularly in the form of depression. Research has consistently found
that greater adolescent disclosure to parents is associated with
lower levels of depressive symptoms (Hamza & Willoughby,
2011; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Laird & Marrero, 2010; Smetana et al.,
2009). Findings on the effects of disclosure among more egalitarian relationships, such as friendships, on depression has been more
nuanced, however, with some studies reporting negative associations (Landoll, Schwartz-Mette, Rose, & Prinstein, 2011; Adams
& Cantin, 2013) and others reporting positive associations (Rose et
al., 2007), with gender differences being evident. Research on the
role of sibling disclosure on individual depressive symptoms has
been lacking in the literature, however. While it is likely that
disclosure among siblings is beneficial for emotional adjustment as
has been shown in the parentadolescent literature, it is also
possible that this may depend on what is being disclosed (i.e., the
domain of the issue) and whether the youth is the one doing the
disclosing or receiving the disclosure.
Finally, the present investigation examines two samples: the
first encompassing siblings from the entirety of adolescence, and
the second examining first-year college students who are emerging
adult older siblings with younger adolescent siblings still residing
at home. While much of the earlier reviewed research on disclosure to parents and siblings has examined adolescents, emerging
adulthood is a distinct developmental period (at least within Western industrialized societies) and is typically characterized by a
sense of semiautonomy and a re-centering of family relationships (Arnett, 2006; Conger & Little, 2010), thus changing the
functions of family relationships. As such, the implications of
disclosure within these relationships may differ from the adolescent to early emerging adulthood years, but research has yet to
examine this. Additionally, work by Aldeis and Afifi (2013) suggests that emerging adults may be more willing to disclose about
risky (prudential) issues to siblings than parents, necessitating a
thorough investigation of additional domains of disclosure during
the transition to this developmental period.
The Present Studies

The present studies had two major aims: to examine differences
in adolescents and emerging adults disclosure to mothers and
siblings across three domains (i.e., personal, prudential, and multifaceted), and to examine the influence of each domain of disclosure to siblings on positive sibling relationship qualities, as well as
youth depressed mood, over and above the influence of youth
disclosure to mothers over these same issues. Smetana et al. (2009)
previously found that adolescents disclosed more about prudential
and personal issues to parents than multifaceted issues. This is
likely due to previous findings from the social domain perspective
that multifaceted issues are those that parents are more likely to
conceptualize as prudential (or conventional), while adolescents
are more likely to conceptualize as personal, and thus cause greater
conflicts between parents and adolescents (Smetana, 1989). Thus,
in the present study we hypothesized that youth would be more

likely to disclose personal and prudential issues to mothers than to
siblings. Conversely, we hypothesized that multifaceted issues,
which both siblings would be more likely to view similarly as
personal, but that would potentially invoke more conflict between
mothers and youth, would be disclosed more to siblings than to
mothers. Additionally, we expected that youth gender and age
would influence their disclosure. Howe and colleagues (1995)
previously found that early adolescent girls were more likely to
disclose to their siblings than boys, and that adolescents were more
likely to disclose to a sister than a brother. Additionally, Smetana
and colleagues (2009) previously found that adolescents disclosed
less to parents with increasing age and autonomy. Thus, we expected that adolescent and emerging adult women would disclose
more to both mothers and siblings (particularly sisters) than adolescent and emerging adult men. Additionally, we expected that
older adolescents and emerging adults would disclose less to
mothers and more to siblings than younger adolescents (i.e., reduce
the difference in rate of disclosure between mothers and siblings
with age).
With regard to the associations between sibling disclosure and
sibling relational and emotional adjustment, the present study took
a dyadic approach. Specifically, given that disclosure happens
within a dyad and that youth both disclose to their sibling and are
disclosed to by their sibling, examination of the role of both
directions of disclosure is important. Given previous findings in
both the parentadolescent and sibling literatures that youth disclose in relationships where they report having greater trust (Howe
et al., 2001, 2000; Smetana et al., 2006), we predicted that greater
youth disclosure to siblings and greater disclosure to youth by their
siblings would be associated with greater positivity in the sibling
relationship. Additionally, we predicted this would be particularly
true in the case of disclosure regarding personal or multifaceted
(given that both siblings would be more likely to view multifaceted
issues as more personal as opposed to their parents) issues. We
also hypothesized that greater disclosure by youth to their siblings
would be associated with better emotional adjustment (i.e., fewer
depressive symptoms) as previous cross-sectional research of adolescents disclosure to parents has found this to be the case (e.g.,
Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Laird & Marrero, 2010). However, being
disclosed to by a sibling, particularly regarding prudential or
multifaceted (those issues that may cause conflicts between parents and adolescents because of their potential risks) issues may
not be as helpful to youth adjustment given the potential risks to
health and well-being associated with these issues. Moreover,
being the recipient of disclosure, perhaps particularly from these
domains, may be especially problematic for females. A long history of literature suggests that there is a cost of caring for
females in that they are more likely to experience emotional
distress as a result of being aware of the problems of close others.
One recent study showed that in adolescence, girls report greater
empathetic distress, or that they vicariously experience their
friends distress, than boys (Smith & Rose, 2011). Therefore, it
may be that being the recipient of sibling disclosure may be related
to greater depressive symptoms for girls, while this may not be true
for boys. Also, given that females are more likely to place greater
importance on relationships than males (Maccoby, 1998), being
disclosed to by siblings may be particularly problematic for sisters.
1281
Study 1
Method
Participants. Participants included 101 sibling dyads with at
least one sibling in 10th12th grade. Ages of the participants
ranged from 11 to 21 years of age, with younger siblings ages
ranging from 1117 years (M 13.67, SD 1.56) and older
siblings ages ranging from 14 21 years (M 16.46, SD 1.35).
The mean age difference between older and younger siblings was
2.79 years. The sample was 45.6% male. Sibling sex composition
was as follows: brother brother: 26; sistersister: 33; older
brotheryounger sister: 20; older sisteryounger brother: 22. A
variety of birth orders within each family were represented within
the sample, including 38% first- and second-born dyads, 45%
second- and third-born dyads, 13% third- and fourth-born dyads,
and 4% of the dyads composed of later than fourth-born status
within the family. However, only birth order within the dyad was
utilized in the present study as the pattern of correlations between
overall family birth order position and birth order within the dyad
were the same. Each of the dyads were closest-in-age siblings and
will henceforth be referred to as older siblings or younger siblings
within the dyad, instead of being referred to as their specific birth
order within the entire family. Participant grades ranged from sixth
grade to post-high-school (or college; 5.4%), with 10th grade
being the modal response. For the present study, sibling dyads
were divided into three age cohorts representing the approximate
age composition of the dyad, similar to Campione-Barr and
Smetana (2010). The early adolescent/youngest cohort consisted of
the younger sibling being in middle school and the older sibling
being in high school (n 114), the middle adolescent/middle
cohort consisted of both siblings being in high school (n 66),
and the late adolescent/oldest cohort consisted of the younger
sibling in high school and the older sibling no longer in high
school (n 22). All siblings resided in the same household during
the time of data collection, regardless of college status.
Demographic information was reported by a parent of each
dyad. Based on these reports, the majority of the sample were
European American (85%), with the remainder of the sample
reporting African American (5%), Asian (2%), or other ethnicities
(4%; 4% did not report on ethnicity). The sample consisted of
mostly intact families (72.3%), few parents were married and in a
blended family (12.9%), slightly fewer parents were divorced
(10.9%), and the remainder were single (either never married or
widowed, 3.9%). The parents of the participants were highly
educated, with the majority holding a college or graduate degree
(81.2%). The median annual income was over $100,000 (30.7%).
Measures.
Disclosure. An adapted measure was developed based on previous work assessing adolescent disclosure to parents only
(Smetana et al., 2006; Yau, Tasopoulos-Chan, & Smetana, 2009)
to assess siblings frequency of disclosure across three domains
salient to social domain theory (Smetana, 2006; Turiel, 2002):
personal (11 items), prudential (4 items), and multifaceted (11
items) to parents and siblings. Table 1 includes a full list of all
disclosure items assessed, categorized by domain (based on criterion definitions of social domain theory; Turiel, 2002, and previous research and measures; Smetana et al., 2006; Yau et al., 2009).
Adolescents rated the frequency with which they self-disclosed
1282
Table 1
Percentages of Behaviors Endorsed
Domain of topic
Personal
What I talk about on the phone
How I feel about school
What I write in e-mails, letters, or journals
How I spend my free time
How I spend my own money
Whether I felt happy, excited, enthusiastic during the day
What I talk about with my friends on the phone
Whether I join any clubs, groups or sports teams
Whether I felt unhappy, bored, or depressed during the day
My feelings towards my boy- or girlfriend
Which friends I spend time with
Where I hang out or who I hang out with when Im away from family
Prudential
Whether I smoke cigarettes
How I am doing in different subjects/classes at school
Whether I use marijuana or other illegal drugs
Whether I drink beer, wine, or other alcoholic drinks
Whether I go to parties where alcohol is served
Whether I cut/skip class or school
Multifaceted
What I write about in texts/Instant Messages/chats
The websites I visit on the Internet
If I spend time with someone my parents dont like
Whether I finish my homework or assignments
Whether I watch R-rated movies or listen to R-rated CDs
If or whom I am dating
If I pass notes or dont listen in class
If I pass notes, text, use Facebook, dont listen in class
If I hang out at a friends house when no adult is home
Whether I have sex or am considering having sex
Whether I stay out late
Whether I am going to get (have gotten) a tattoo or piercing
about each item to their mother and sibling on a scale from 1

(never tell) to 5 (always tell), but also had the option of indicating
I never do/feel this way. The percentage of youth who endorsed
each item (i.e., rated it from 15 rather than selecting I never
do/feel this way) is also included in Table 1.
All Cronbach alphas for the disclosure measure used in Study 1
were considered to be within the acceptable range or better.
Alphas were, as reported by younger siblings, .90 (maternal) and
.92 (sibling) for personal domain items, .91 (maternal) and .68
(sibling) for prudential domain items, and .94 (maternal) and .81
(sibling) for multifaceted domain items. For older siblings, Cronbach alphas were .89 (maternal) and .89 (sibling) for personal
items, .83 (maternal) and .68 (sibling) for prudential domain items,
and .87 (maternal) and .86 (sibling) for multifaceted domain items.
Separate mean scores for personal, prudential, and multifaceted
domains for each sibling were used in the final analyses; however,
if adolescents selected the I never do/feel this way option, those
items were excluded from their mean score. Higher scores signified greater frequency of disclosure.
Sibling relationship quality. The Network of Relationships
Inventory (NRI; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) was used to assess
relationship quality with the adolescents sibling. The NRI includes 11 subscales originally created to assess childrens and
adolescents relationships with parents, grandparents, siblings, best
% Reported by
Study 1
participants
% Reported by
Study 2
participants
90.6
96.5
83.7
96.5
94.6
94.6
84.7
81.2
91.6
70.8
96.0
88.8
98.3
72.4
98.3
92.2
94.0
84.4
94.0
86.2
71.6
95.7
94.8
13.4
96.5
26.2
20.3
17.2
95.7
26.7
51.7
66.4
51.7
84.2
92.6
67.3
94.6
66.3
68.3
72.3
74.8
33.7
62.4
30.2
86.2
89.7
66.4
91.4
82.8
70.7
57.8
87.1
41.3
friends, and teachers. Previous work by Adams and Laursen

(2007) has shown that the items of the 11 subscales load on three
distinct factors: support (positivity), negativity, and relative power.
The present study focused solely on the positivity factors (21
items) and included the subscales of: reassurance of worth, affection, companionship, instrumental aid, nurturance, reliable alliance, and support. An additional subscale, intimate disclosure, was
included with these other seven subscales by Adams and Laursen
(2007), but not utilized in the present study due to potential overlap
with the disclosure scale utilized as an independent variable.
All items were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (1 little or
none, 5 the most), with higher scores indicating greater levels of
sibling and mother positivity. Sample items included How often
do you and this person go places and do things together? and
How much do you protect and look out for this person? Cronbach alphas for positivity as reported by both older and younger
siblings were .95. Separate mean scores for each siblings overall
positivity scores were used in final analyses.
Depressed mood. Depressed mood was measured using the
Center for Epidemiology Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). This scale consists of 20 items, rated on a scale from
1 (rarely) to 4 (most or all). Higher scores indicated greater
depressed mood. Sample items included I felt that everything I
did was an effort and I felt lonely. Mean scores of the items
.29
.53
.13
.67
.30
.07
.67
.86
.56
.19
.45
.36
.57
.31
.12
.61
.41
.47
.37
.22
.16
.71
.83
.58
.45
.55
.34
.16
.19
.22
.13
.13
.04
.09
.06
.12
.02
.05
.10
.07
.13
.12
.08
.02
.05
.16
.02
.08
.10
.17
.15
.07
.19
.05
.08
.08
.08
.00
.05
.11
.12
.11
.14
.09
.01
.01
Note. Correlations below diagonal reflect Study 1 variables; above diagonal reflects Study 2 variables. Cohort (1 youngest cohort, 2 middle cohort, 3 oldest cohort). Sex (1 male, 0 female).
Sibling sex (1 male, 0 female). Birth order (1 older, 0 younger). Sibling Proximity (higher values indicate greater distance living from sibling). S. Sibling. M. Mother. Per. Personal.
Pru. Prudential. Mul. Multifaceted. Disc. Disclosure.
p .10. p .05. p .01.
17.02 (1.6)
N/A
3.95 (.99)
3.11 (.86)
3.00 (1.26)
2.52 (.85)
2.65 (.89)
2.52 (1.12)
2.41 (.86)
3.54 (.72)
1.65 (.47)
.11
.11
.04
.06
.21
.18
.11
.09
.03
.03
.00
.07
.10
.21
.18
.06
.04
.37
.28
.30
.66
.29
.56
.17
.21
.29
.10
.09
.55
.38
.62
.85
.65
.14
.05
.26
.15
.01
.40
.58
.40
.68
.14
.22
.31
.07
.02
.60
.38
.53
.11
.15
.12
.00
.05
.85
.63
.06
.13
.15
.02
.02
.63
.02
.24
.03
.12
.03
.86
.17
.17
.20
.02
.13
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Age
Cohort
Sex
S. Sex
Birth Order
S. Proximity
M. Per. Disc.
M. Pru. Disc.
M. Mul. Disc.
S. Per. Disc.
S. Pru. Disc.
S. Mul. Disc.
S. Positivity
Depression
15.06 (2.02)
N/A
3.15 (.85)
3.49 (1.25)
2.65 (1.02)
2.70 (.94)
2.61 (1.35)
2.65 (1.02)
2.90 (.81)
1.74 (.45)
.57
.03
.06
.69
.20
.26
.21
.03
.07
.04
.02
.14
5
4
3
2
1
Study 1
M (SD)
Variable
Differences in disclosure to mothers and siblings (see Table 2).

To test differences in what adolescents disclose to mothers versus
siblings, we conducted a 2 (Birth order) 3 (Age cohort) 4 (Sex
composition) 3 (Domain) 2 (Recipient) mixed model
ANOVA with Domain and Recipient as repeated measures.
Mauchlys test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had
been violated, 2(2) 104.01, p .001; therefore, degrees of
freedom were corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimates of sphericity
( 0.78). Analyses revealed a significant main effect of sibling
sex composition, F(3, 168) 3.30, p .05, 2 .06, but post hoc
t tests revealed no significant differences. Significant main effects
of Domain, F(1.67, 262.51) 15.49, p .001, 2 .08, and
Recipient, F(1, 168) 18.06, p .001, 2 .10, as well as a
Domain Recipient interaction, F(1.56, 262.51) 15.15, p
.001, 2 .08, and a Recipient Age cohort interaction, F(2,
168) 5.35, p .01, 2 .06, were all subsumed under a
significant Domain Recipient Age cohort interaction, F(3.13,
262.51) 2.68, p .05, 2 .03. Post hoc analyses suggested
that adolescents generally disclosed to family members about
prudential issues (M 3.05, SD 1.12) more than personal or
multifaceted issues (M 2.91, SD 1.12; M 2.75, SD .89,
respectively), and that adolescents disclosed more in general to
mothers than siblings (M 3.03, SD .87; M 2.66, SD .95,
respectively). Differences in recipient of disclosure, however, were
based on the domain of the issue, as well as the age of the siblings.
Whereas siblings in the youngest cohort (younger siblings in
middle school with older siblings in high school) disclosed about
all issues to mothers more than siblings (t(106 112) 4.30
Results and Summary
1283
.18
.15
.03
.17
10
11
12
13
14
Study 2
M (SD)
were used in the final analyses. Cronbach alphas were .87 for
younger siblings, and .88 for older siblings.
Procedure. Participants were recruited from three high
schools in a Midwestern suburban district. Families were informed
about the nature of the study through letters sent to families with
adolescents in Grades 10 12. Address information for 3,332 adolescents, some from overlapping families, was provided by
school officials. Approximately 1,500 randomly selected households were mailed letters. Interested families contacted the investigators regarding participation. Inclusion criteria were that at least
one sibling had to be in 10th12th grade, they must have a
closest-in-age sibling less than 5 years older or younger, and both
siblings must be living at home. Participation rates could not be
calculated because it was unknown how many families who received recruitment information were eligible to participate but
chose not to participate versus families who were not eligible, and
thus did not contact investigators. Upon agreeing to participate,
families were sent individual e-mails with links to an online survey
(or, if requested, they were mailed paper questionnaires) to complete at home. Adolescents provided assent/consent and parents
completed a brief questionnaire providing their consent and family
demographic information (93% were mothers). Each sibling was
paid a small honorarium. In order to encourage the timely return of
questionnaires, the investigators conducted a raffle for four $100
gift certificates to participating dyads ($50/sibling) for all sibling
dyads who returned their questionnaires within 3 weeks of receiving them. All study procedures were approved by the authors
campus institutional review board (IRB).
Table 2
Means (SD) and Intercorrelations Among Study Variables
1284
8.30, p .000), siblings in the middle cohort (both siblings in

high school) only differed in disclosing to mothers more than
siblings about personal and prudential issues (t(64) 3.06
4.80, p .003 or better), and oldest cohort (younger sibling in
high school and older siblings post high school) did not differ in
what they told mothers versus siblings.
Associations between domains of disclosure to siblings and
adjustment. Given that adolescents in the present study were
nested within sibling dyads and that both members of the dyad
likely disclosed to one another, the Actor-Partner Interdependence
Model (APIM; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) was utilized as an
analytical strategy to test hypotheses regarding the influences
between each domain of disclosure and sibling relationship positivity and adolescent depressed mood. There was a small amount
of missing data, so the Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm
(Schafer, 1997) in SPSS 20 was utilized to retain all of the data for
analyses (Littles MCAR test, 2 (10,058) 10,256.18, p .05).
All parameter estimates were estimated using Mixed procedures in
SPSS 20. APIM modeling takes full advantage of both dyad
members data and, like multilevel modeling, the true sample size
being utilized is estimated to be somewhere between the number of
individuals (202 in the present study) and the number of dyads
(101 in the present study) within the sample. Given that APIM
models produce both actor (the individual) and partner (the
other member of the dyad) effects, and that both members of the
dyad serve as both an actor and a partner, in the discussion of
findings, all actor-effects refer to adolescents (or boys/girls) and
partner-effects refer to their siblings (or brother/sister). However, sibling dyads are inherently distinguishable due to their birth
order (and in the case of mixed-sex dyads, their sex); thus, Kenny
et al. (2006) recommend the use of the multilevel modeling framework rather than structural equation modeling framework (which
is better for indistinguishable dyads; e.g., same-sex friend pairs)
for APIM. Therefore, individual characteristics such as birth order
and gender were examined in a manner similar to moderators (i.e.,
interactions) to aid in explanation of these distinguishable characteristics.
For each association, models were first run with all possible
interactions (up through four-way interactions). If the four-way
interactions for that model were not significant, the model was
rerun with only three-way interactions and below. If three-way
interactions were not significant, the model was rerun with twoway interactions only, and if those were not significant, the highest
order model presented is the main effects model. When interactions were significant, they were graphed and simple slopes analyses were calculated for interpretation purposes (Aiken & West,
1991) unless the interaction was a lower-order interaction that was
subsumed under a high-order interaction (e.g., if there was a Birth
Order Disclosure interaction and a Sex Birth Order
Disclosure interaction, only the three-way interaction was probed).
In addition, for parsimony, the results of significant interactions
are only discussed in the text if the simple-slope analyses yielded
significant results.
Finally, adolescent disclosure to mothers regarding issues in the
domain being probed was included as a control (along with adolescent age, adolescent sex [0 female, 1 male], sibling sex
[0 female, 1 male], and birth-order position [0 younger,
1 older]) in all analyses. This was done to help ensure that all
associations between adolescent disclosure to siblings and rela-
tional and emotional adjustment were due specifically to the sibling relationship and not just a generally open and communicative
family environment.
Disclosure and sibling relationship positivity (see Table 3).
Significant main effects of both adolescent disclosure and sibling
disclosure regarding personal issues were evident, but qualified by
significant interactions. The adolescent main effect was qualified
by a Birth Order Adolescent Disclosure interaction, such that
the association was somewhat stronger for younger siblings, t
2.87, p .01 than for older siblings, t 2.55, p .01. Thus, the
more adolescents, especially younger siblings, disclosed personal
issues to their siblings, the more positively they felt about their
relationship. The sibling main effect was qualified by a Sibling
Sex Birth Order Sibling Disclosure interaction, but no significant simple slopes emerged.
For disclosure of prudential issues, only a significant main effect
of adolescent disclosure was evident, such that the more adolescents disclosed about prudential issues to their siblings, the more
positively they felt about their sibling relationship (a significant
three-way interaction did not produce any significant simple
slopes). For disclosure of multifaceted issues, significant main
effects of both adolescent disclosure and sibling disclosure were
evident, but again were qualified by significant interactions. The
adolescent disclosure main effect was qualified by a significant
Birth Order Adolescent Disclosure interaction, such that the
association was only significant for older siblings, t 3.19, p
.01, and not for younger siblings, t 1.67, p .10. The sibling
disclosure main effect was qualified by a significant Adolescent
Sex Sibling Sex Sibling Disclosure interaction, such that only
boys whose brothers disclosed multifaceted information to them
reported greater positivity toward their brother, t 2.22, p .03;
associations between all other sex compositions were not significant (t 1.27, p .21 for all remaining).
Disclosure and adolescent depression (see Table 3). For disclosure of personal issues, there was a significant Sibling Sex
Birth Order Adolescent Disclosure interaction. Simple slopes
analyses revealed that older adolescents who disclosed more personal issues to younger brothers, t 3.31, p .01, and younger
siblings who disclosed more personal issues to older sisters,
t 2.00, p .05 reported fewer depressive symptoms (all other
t-values .30, p .76). Additionally, a significant Adolescent
Sex Sibling Sex Sibling Disclosure interaction revealed that
when brothers disclosed more personal issues, adolescent boys
reported fewer depressive symptoms, t 2.51, p .01, while
adolescent girls reported more depressive symptoms (t 2.01,
p .05; all other t-values .60; p .55). A significant Adolescent Sex Birth Order Sibling Disclosure did not produce
significant simple slopes.
For disclosure of prudential issues, there were no significant
main effects or interactions. For disclosure of multifaceted issues,
however, a significant Sibling Sex Birth Order Adolescent
Disclosure interaction was evident. Simple slopes analyses revealed that older adolescents who disclosed more multifaceted
issues to their younger brothers reported fewer depressive symptoms (t 2.87, p .01; all other t-values 1.12, p .27).
Additionally, a significant Adolescent Sex Sibling Sex Sibling Disclosure interaction suggested that the more brothers disclosed multifaceted issues, the more depressive symptoms adolescent girls reported (t 2.23, p .03; all other t-values 1.12, p
1285
Table 3
Standardized Parameter Estimates (SE) for Actor and Partner Reports of Disclosure Predicting Positivity and Depression (Study 1)
Positivity
Personal
disclosure
Intercept
AgeA
DiscloseM_A
SexA
SexP
Birth Order
SexA SexP
SexA Birth Order
SexP Birth Order
SexA SexP Birth Order
DiscloseS_A
DiscloseS_P
SexA DiscloseS_A
SexA DiscloseS_P
SexP DiscloseS_A
SexP DiscloseS_P
Birth Order DiscloseS_A
Birth Order DiscloseS_P
SexA SexP DiscloseS_A
SexA SexP DiscloseS_P
SexA Birth Order DiscloseS_A
SexA Birth Order DiscloseS_P
SexP Birth Order DiscloseS_A
SexP Birth Order DiscloseS_P
.04 (.08)
.05 (.10)
.14 (.08)
.09 (.06)
.10 (.06)
.05 (.08)
.00 (.07)
.01 (.07)
.05 (.07)
.01 (.05)
.47 (.08)
.18 (.07)
.12 (.07)
.07 (.07)
.06 (.07)
.01 (.07)
.15 (.07)
.11 (.08)
.07 (.07)
.05 (.06)
.09 (.07)
.07 (.07)
.11 (.07)
.16 (.07)
Depression
Prudential
disclosure
Multifaceted
disclosure
Personal
disclosure
Prudential
disclosure
Multifaceted
disclosure
.01 (.09)
.08 (.12)
.15 (.09)
.01 (.08)
.03 (.08)
.13 (.10)
.04 (.10)
.01 (.08)
.04 (.08)
.01 (.05)
.22 (.09)
.00 (.08)
.06 (.08)
.02 (.08)
.05 (.08)
.01 (.08)
.04 (.09)
.03 (.09)
.12 (.07)
.15 (.07)
.06 (.08)
.04 (.08)
.01 (.08)
.05 (.08)
.00 (.08)
.13 (.10)
.13 (.08)
.12 (.07)
.02 (.07)
.12 (.08)
.02 (.08)
.03 (.07)
.01 (.07)
.07 (.05)
.45 (.08)
.15 (.07)
.11 (.07)
.14 (.08)
.09 (.07)
.09 (.08)
.14 (.07)
.01 (.08)
.08 (.07)
.15 (.06)
.03 (.07)
.08 (.07)
.01 (.07)
.03 (.07)
.04 (.08)
.14 (.11)
.03 (.10)
.16 (.07)
.10 (.07)
.01 (.10)
.00 (.08)
.09 (.07)
.05 (.07)
.07 (.07)
.18 (.10)
.01 (.08)
.14 (.08)
.14 (.08)
.01 (.08)
.07 (.08)
.10 (.08)
.03 (.08)
.10 (.08)
.22 (.08)
.02 (.09)
.17 (.08)
.30 (.08)
.07 (.08)
.01 (.08)
.09 (.11)
.14 (.09)
.11 (.07)
.06 (.07)
.05 (.10)
.02 (.08)
.08 (.07)
.01 (.08)
.06 (.07)
.02 (.09)
.03 (.08)
.05 (.08)
.11 (.11)
.05 (.10)
.14 (.08)
.02 (.07)
.05 (.10)
.03 (.08)
.09 (.08)
.08 (.08)
.07 (.07)
.12 (.10)
.07 (.08)
.13 (.08)
.10 (.08)
.04 (.08)
.04 (.08)
.05 (.08)
.00 (.08)
.10 (.08)
.21 (.08)
.08 (.08)
.14 (.08)
.21 (.08)
.01 (.08)
Note. SE standard error; A actor; P partner; SexA actor sex; SexP partner sex; Birth Order ordinal position; DiscloseM_A actor
disclosure to mother (for the disclosure domain examined in that model; a control variable); DiscloseS disclosure to sibling (for the disclosure domain
examined in that model). Models represent the highest-ordered models that produced significant simple slopes at the highest interaction level.
p .10. p .05. p .01.
.27). A marginally significant Adolescent Sex Birth Order

Sibling Disclosure interaction did not produce any significant
simple slopes.
Summary of Study 1 Findings

The findings from our early adolescence to emerging adulthood
sample indicate three overarching themes. First, whom youth
choose to disclose information to within their family depends on
both the domain of the issue, as well as the age of the adolescent.
Youth generally disclosed more to mothers than siblings, particularly about prudential issues, and this difference was most pronounced for middle-school-aged youth (youngest cohort), with no
significant difference in any domain by late adolescence/emerging
adulthood (oldest cohort). Second, both disclosing to ones sibling
and being disclosed to by a sibling was generally associated with
better quality sibling relationships. Third, over and above the
effects of disclosure to mothers, adolescents disclosure to siblings
regarding personal and multifaceted issues were associated with
their emotional adjustment, but this differed by birth order, gender,
and whether the youth was disclosing or being disclosed to. Older
siblings who disclosed, and boys who were disclosed to by siblings, had fewer depressive symptoms. Conversely, girls who were
disclosed to by brothers regarding these same issues reported more
emotional adjustment problems.
While Study 1 provided information about the disclosure of
personal, prudential, and multifaceted issues to mothers and sib-
lings by adolescent sibling pairs living within the same home,

questions remain regarding how disclosure may change as one
sibling goes to college and transitions into emerging adulthood,
while the younger adolescent sibling remains home with parents.
Study 2 investigated disclosure to family members within this
developmental transition.
Study 2
Method
Participants. Participants included 58 first-bornsecond-born
sibling dyads with the first-born sibling in their first year (either
first or second semester) of college and the second-born sibling in
high school. Ages of the participants ranged from 13 to 19 years of
age. Younger siblings ranged in age from 1317 years (M 15.67,
SD 1.03) and older siblings ranged in age from 1719 years
(M 18.36, SD .52). The mean age difference between older
and younger siblings was 2.69 years. The sample was 43.1% male.
Sex composition of the dyads was as follows: brother brother: 11;
sistersister: 19; older brotheryounger sister: 9; older sister
younger brother: 19. The majority of the younger siblings resided
in the same household as their mother during the time of data
collection (94.8%); however, the majority of older siblings lived a
few hours away from home or in a different state from their mother
and sibling (87.9%).
1286
Demographic information was reported by a parent and the

first-year undergraduate student. The majority of the sample was
European American (90.5%), with the remainder of the sample
reporting African American (4.3%), Hispanic (3.4%), Asian
(0.9%), or other ethnicities (0.9%). The sample consisted of mostly
intact families (75.9%), few parents were divorced or separated
(12.1%), fewer parents were single (either never married or widowed, 6.9%), and the remainder were married and in a blended
family (5.2%). The mothers of the participants were highly educated with the majority holding a college or graduate degree
(79.3%). The median annual income was over $100,000 (62.1%).
Measures.
Disclosure. The measure utilized in Study 1 (Smetana et al.,
2006) was also used in Study 2, with a few minor alterations.
Several items were updated to better reflect the experiences of
college students (e.g., Whether I join any clubs, groups, or sports
teams) rather than the experiences of high school students (e.g.,
Whether I go out for after-school sports or clubs). The measure
of disclosure in the present study also included items about illegal
drug and alcohol use; again, in order to better reflect college
students experiences. Thus, the measure in Study 2 consisted of
12 personal, six prudential, and nine multifaceted items. Differences between the disclosure items in Study 1 and Study 2 can be
found in Table 1. For younger siblings reports, Cronbach alphas
were: .90 (maternal) and .88 (sibling) for personal domain items,
.95 (maternal) and .92 (sibling) for prudential domain items, and
.88 (maternal) and .84 (sibling) for multifaceted items. For older
sibling reports, Cronbach alphas were .92 (maternal) and .92
(sibling) for personal domain items, .75 (maternal) and .87 (sibling) for prudential items, and .86 (maternal) and .74 (sibling) for
multifaceted items.
Sibling relationship quality. The Network of Relationships
Inventory (NRI; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) utilized in Study 1
to assess sibling relationship quality was also used in the present
study. Cronbach alphas for the positivity subscale as reported by
younger and older siblings were .92 and .94, respectively.
Depressed mood. The Center for Epidemiology Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) used to assess depressed
mood in Study 1 was also used in the present study. Cronbach
alphas were .91 for younger siblings and .94 for older siblings.
Procedure. The sample for Study 2 was part of a larger study.
Participants were initially recruited using a departmental undergraduate data pool. At the beginning of the fall and spring semester, first-year college students enrolled in introductory psychology
completed an online battery of inclusion criteria for multiple data
collection efforts within the department. Students who met specific
criteria were invited via e-mail to participate in the present study.
A student was eligible to participate if they were in their first or
second semester of their first year of college, were the first-born
child in their family, and were not a twin. Students who were
eligible and agreed to participate in the study were e-mailed a link
to an online questionnaire that could be completed at home. In
addition to the other criteria, for the present study first-born
students were also required to have a sibling in high school and
were asked to provide contact information for their parent and a
next-youngest sibling. Parents were contacted via phone to request
verbal permission for their second-born child to participate. Upon
verbally agreeing to participate, parents were first sent an electronic consent form and a link for a brief demographic question-
naire, then once parents provided consent, the younger sibling was
sent an electronic assent form and a link for an online questionnaire similar to the one completed by older siblings. Of the initial
260 students who agreed to participate for the larger study, 139 of
which were first-born individuals, 58 students provided contact
information for a parent and sibling and their families agreed to
participate (22.31%). For participating, students received credit
toward their introductory psychology class. High-school-aged
younger siblings were paid a small honorarium of $5 for participating. In order to encourage the timely return of questionnaires,
the investigators conducted a raffle for six $50 gift cards to the
merchant of their choice (Amazon, Target, Walmart, or iTunes) for
those high-school-aged siblings who completed their surveys
within 3 weeks of receiving them. All procedures were approved
by the authors campus institutional review board (IRB).
Results
Differences in disclosure to mothers and siblings (see Table 2).
To test differences in what adolescents disclose to mothers versus
siblings, we conducted a 2 (Birth order) 4 (Sex composition)
3 (Domain) 2 (Recipient) mixed model ANOVA with Domain
and Recipient as repeated measures. Mauchlys test indicated that
the assumption of sphericity had been violated for the Domain
variable, 2(2) 63.01, p .001. Therefore, degrees of freedom
were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity
( 0.69). Analyses revealed a significant main effect of Domain,
F(1.38, 146.08) 19.23, p .001, 2 .15 and a significant
main effect of Recipient, F(1, 106) 23.96, p .001, 2 .18.
These main effects were qualified by a significant Domain
Recipient interaction, F(1.47, 155.37) 12.98, p .001, 2
.11. Emerging adults disclosed more to mothers about personal
(M 3.11, SD .86) and prudential (M 3.00, SD 1.27)
topics than to siblings (personal: M 2.65, SD .90, t(114)
6.21, p .001; prudential: M 2.52, SD 1.18, t(113) 4.64,
p .001), but not multifaceted topics (mother: M 2.52, SD
.86; siblings: M 2.41, SD .86, t(114) 1.56, ns). A significant main effect of Sex Composition, F(3, 106) 5.90, p .001,
2 .14 was also revealed. This main effect was qualified by a
significant Recipient Sex Composition interaction, F(3, 106)
4.12, p .01, 2 .10. While overall, youth disclosed more to
mothers than siblings and sistersister dyads disclosed more than
all other sex compositions, post hoc analyses revealed that this was
only the case for brother brother (Mothers: M 2.57, SE .19;
Siblings: M 2.34, SE .17; t(21) 2.49, p .05), older
sisteryounger brother (Mothers: M 2.99, SE .14; Siblings:
M 2.37, SE .13; t(36) 4.76, p .001) and older brother
younger sister dyads (Mothers: M 2.54, SE .21; Siblings: M
2.00, SE .19; t(17) 3.28, p .01). Sistersister dyads
disclosed similarly to mothers and siblings (Mothers: M 3.10,
SE .14; Siblings: M 3.04, SE .13; t(17) 3.28, ns).
Associations between domains of disclosure to siblings and
adjustment. Following the same analytical strategy as Study 1,
Study 2 utilized Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling to test
hypotheses regarding the associations between each domain of
disclosure and sibling relationship positivity and youth depressed
mood. Missing values were estimated using the EM algorithm
(Schafer, 1997) in SPSS 20 (Littles MCAR test, 2(4301)
3907.12, p .05). One additional variable was added to Study 2
models, however. Given that the older siblings in Study 2 were all
attending college, we included sibling proximity (on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from living with the sibling to living in a
different state) as a control variable in all analyses, as this may
impact the degree to which siblings are able to disclose to one
another. As is evident in the model tables, proximity was only a
significant control in the models predicting depressed mood, such
that the farther apart siblings lived from one another, the greater
the number of depressive symptoms youth reported.
Additionally, and similarly to Study 1, disclosure to mothers
regarding issues in the domain being probed was included as a
control (along with adolescent age, adolescent sex, sibling sex, and
birth order position) in all Study 2 analyses. In the present study
this control was found to be a significant predictor of depression,
but only in the models probing personal disclosure (not prudential
or multifaceted disclosure). Thus, greater disclosure about personal issues to mothers was generally associated with more positive sibling relationships and fewer depressive symptoms.
Disclosure and sibling relationship positivity (see Table 4).
Significant main effects of both youth disclosure and sibling
disclosure regarding personal issues were evident such that when
youth disclosed more personal information to their siblings or
when siblings disclosed more personal information to them, youth
perceived their sibling relationship to be more positive. For disclosure of prudential information, a significant main effect of
1287
sibling disclosure was evident. Thus, the more siblings disclosed to

youth about prudential issues, the more youth perceived their
relationship to be positive. Finally, regarding disclosure of multifaceted issues, significant main effects of both youth disclosure
and sibling disclosure were evident such that when youth disclosed
more multifaceted information to their siblings and when their
siblings disclosed more multifaceted information to them, youth
perceived their relationship to be more positive. The sibling effect,
however, was qualified by a significant Sibling Sex Sibling
Disclosure interaction. Simple slopes analyses revealed that this
association was significant for brothers, t 2.44, p .05, but not
sisters, t .1.01, p .32, such that the more brothers disclosed
multifaceted issues to youth, the more positively youth viewed
their relationship.
Disclosure and youth depressive symptoms (see Table 4). For
disclosure of personal issues, there was a significant Sibling Sex
Birth Order Sibling Disclosure interaction, however this 3-way
interaction was qualified by a marginally significant Youth Sex
Sibling Sex Birth Order Sibling Disclosure interaction. Given
that a similar effect in Study 1 differed for disclosing to girls
versus boys, and given that the ability to detect significant interactions, particularly higher order interactions, has been found to be
more difficult in nonexperimental designs (McClelland & Judd,
1993), we chose to probe this interaction in order to determine if
there were significant simple slopes that could add to our inter-
Table 4
Standardized Parameter Estimates (SE) for Actor and Partner Reports of Disclosure Predicting Positivity and Depression (Study 2)
Positivity
Personal
disclosure
Intercept
AgeA
Proximity
DiscloseM_A
SexA
SexP
Birth Order
SexA SexP
SexA Birth Order
SexP Birth Order
SexA SexP Birth Order
DiscloseS_A
DiscloseS_P
SexA DiscloseS_A
SexA DiscloseS_P
SexP DiscloseS_A
SexP DiscloseS_P
Birth Order DiscloseS_A
Birth Order DiscloseS_P
SexA SexP DiscloseS_A
SexA SexP DiscloseS_P
SexA Birth Order DiscloseS_A
SexA Birth Order DiscloseS_P
SexP Birth Order DiscloseS_A
SexP Birth Order DiscloseS_P
SexA SexP Birth Order DiscloseS_A
SexA SexP Birth Order DiscloseS_P
.01 (.08)
.02 (.13)
.05 (.08)
.04 (.09)
.00 (.08)
.08 (.08)
.08 (.12)
.02 (.09)
.01 (.07)
.06 (.07)
.03 (.06)
.57 (.10)
.35 (.08)
Depression
Prudential
disclosure
Multifaceted
disclosure
Personal
disclosure
.02 (.11)
.08 (.16)
.07 (.10)
.12 (.09)
.16 (.09)
.11 (.09)
.04 (.15)
.21 (.12)
.03 (.10)
.09 (.09)
.06 (.06)
.08 (.10)
.22 (.09)
.14 (.11)
.00 (.14)
.04 (.09)
.03 (.10)
.14 (.09)
.03 (.09)
.08 (.14)
.13 (.11)
.05 (.09)
.02 (.09)
.10 (.07)
.47 (.11)
.30 (.09)
.04 (.09)
.08 (.09)
.13 (.09)
.20 (.10)
.05 (.10)
.10 (.09)
.12 (.15)
.37 (.21)
.26 (.12)
.26 (.13)
.19 (.13)
.23 (.13)
.06 (.21)
.16 (.15)
.03 (.14)
.04 (.14)
.04 (.12)
.04 (.15)
.22 (.13)
.19 (.14)
.23 (.13)
.07 (.13)
.14 (.14)
.18 (.14)
.17 (.14)
.00 (.13)
.13 (.13)
.13 (.14)
.11 (.13)
.01 (.13)
.32 (.14)
.15 (.14)
.26 (.14)
Prudential
disclosure
Multifaceted
disclosure
.00 (.11)
.30 (.20)
.22 (.11)
.20 (.11)
.14 (.10)
.09 (.10)
.14 (.19)
.00 (.11)
.10 (.10)
.05 (.10)
.04 (.09)
.14 (.12)
.03 (.10)
.02 (.11)
.26 (.20)
.23 (.11)
.16 (.13)
.12 (.10)
.09 (.10)
.09 (.19)
.02 (.12)
.12 (.10)
.04 (.10)
.06 (.09)
.03 (.14)
.02 (.11)
Note. SE standard error; A actor; P partner; SexA actor sex; SexP partner sex; Birth Order ordinal position; DiscloseM_A actor
disclosure to mother (for the disclosure domain examined in that model; a control variable); DiscloseS disclosure to sibling (for the disclosure domain
examined in that model). Models represent the highest-ordered models that produced significant simple slopes at the highest interaction level.
p .10. p .05. p .01.
1288
pretability of this 3-way interaction. The simple slopes revealed

that older brothers disclosure of personal issues to younger sisters,
t 2.34, p .05, was particularly detrimental to their depressive
symptoms, but not for brothers, t .03, ns (all other dyads, ts
1.66, ps ns) There were no significant main effects or interactions evident in the associations between youth disclosure of
multifaceted or prudential issues and youth depressive symptoms.
Summary of Study 2 Findings

Similarly to Study 1, three themes emerged from the findings of
Study 2. First, whom older youth choose to disclose information to
depends on the gender composition of the sibling dyad. In particular, while overall youth still disclosed more to mothers than
siblings (similar to Study 1), this difference was only observed
when siblings were in mixed-sex or brother brother dyads; sister
sister dyads disclosed similarly to mothers and siblings. Second,
both disclosing to siblings, and being the recipient of disclosure by
a sibling, is generally positive for the quality of the sibling relationship, regardless of the domain of the issue (also similar to
Study 1). Third, that over and above the effects of disclosure to
mothers, disclosure within the sibling relationship can be negatively associated with emotional adjustment, but this is dependent
on the domain of the issue and the birth order and gender composition of the dyad. More specifically, older brothers disclosure of
personal issues within the sibling relationship was associated with
younger siblings (particularly sisters) greater depressive symptoms.
General Discussion
Differences in Disclosure to Mothers and Siblings
Consistent with previous research regarding disclosure to mothers (Smetana et al., 2006), in the present studies we found that
youth disclosed most to family members about prudential issues
(as well as personal issues when they were older, Study 2), and
least about multifaceted issues. Given that multifaceted issues are
consistently those over which parents and adolescents have the
most conflict (Smetana, 1989), it is likely that adolescents disclose
less about these issues to avoid conflict. This may be particularly
the case because they are asserting autonomy over these issues
they feel to be personal in nature despite their parents differing
perspectives (Cumsille, Darling, & Martnez, 2010). However, it
was surprising, and counter to hypotheses, that multifaceted issues
were disclosed the least to both mothers and siblings given that
siblings do not have the same degree of authority over youth and
are more peer-like in power by adolescence and emerging adulthood. It may be the case that youth do not disclose these issues to
siblings for different reasons. Instead of fearing conflict, as they
may with parents, they may perceive these issues as none of their
siblings business or they may fear that their siblings would tell
their parents about these issues. Instead, these issues may be more
likely to be discussed with close friends or other nonfamily members and future research would benefit from such comparisons.
Also, while it may seem surprising that adolescents choose to
disclose about prudential issues (issues involving potential harm to
the self) the most to family members, in the younger sample in
particular, most adolescents indicated that they did not do the most
serious of these issues (see percentages in Table 1); thus, they were
typically only disclosing about less serious and academic issues
(e.g., how I am doing in school). Additionally, in previous research
(Smetana et al., 2006), adolescents rated prudential issues as those
they were most obligated to disclose to parents. It is possible this
sense of obligation to disclose such issues among adolescents
hinders their sense of volition in disclosing things they may rather
not (Tilton-Weaver et al., 2014). In the older sample of Study 2,
however, more youth indicated they had participated in more
serious, potentially harmful, prudential behaviors (e.g., drinking,
smoking). By emerging adulthood, the more serious issues may no
longer be illegal, or may be more socially acceptable within the
college environment and considered less serious by the youth, their
siblings, and their parents. Thus, they may feel greater volition in
disclosing about such issues, perhaps particularly to siblings who
are more peer-like and have no authority over them. Alternatively,
because with age and autonomy (and distance from parents when
away at college), emerging adults may feel these issues are more
personal in nature and not within their parents (or siblings)
jurisdiction and not care how they react to their disclosure of such
activities. Greater information regarding older youths social
cognitive reasoning about why they choose to disclose or not about
these issues would be beneficial in future work.
In Study 1, it was also found that adolescents disclosed more to
mothers than siblings. However, this trend appeared to change
with age. Adolescents in the youngest cohort disclosed more about
all domains to mothers than siblings, while adolescents in the
middle cohort only disclosed about personal and prudential issues
more to mothers, and adolescents in the oldest cohort did not differ
in their disclosure to mothers and siblings. In the older sample of
Study 2, it was only the case that youth disclosed more to mothers
than siblings when there was at least one brother in the dyad, while
disclosure within sister pairs was not statistically different from
disclosure to mothers. While it is likely that with age adolescents
are increasingly turning to other close relationships outside of the
family (e.g., friends, romantic partners) and thus disclosing less to
family members in general, this also may be indicative of sibling
relationships becoming less hierarchical and more peer-like in
nature with age (Buhrmester & Furman, 1990). This may be
particularly the case with sisters who have consistently been found
to be closer and more engaged than all other gender compositions
throughout the life course (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Cicirelli,
1989). Importantly, the changing nature of emerging adult sibling
relationships, particularly if they are no longer living together,
requires that they must learn to maintain their relationship to fulfill
important support functions (Aquilino, 2006), as well as to later
collaborate in the caring of aging parents (Cicirelli, 1995) later in
adulthood. Engaging in some disclosure among siblings may help
to facilitate such necessary developmental tasks.
Associations With Sibling Relationship Quality

The findings of both studies also consistently indicated that
when youth disclose to their siblings (and generally when they
were disclosed to by their siblings), regardless of the domain of the
issue, they feel more positively about the quality of the sibling
relationship. However, it appears as though younger siblings may
gain a greater sense of relationship positivity from disclosing about
personal issues, while older siblings feel better about the relation-
ship when disclosing about multifaceted issues (at least within

Study 1). Younger siblings are more likely to solicit and receive
advice from their older siblings than vice versa during adolescence
(Buhrmester, 1992; Tucker, Barber, & Eccles, 1997). Thus, younger
siblings disclosing about personal issues may occur more within the
context of advice seeking. Similarly, given that the multifaceted
issues studied were issues that overlapped with the personal and
prudential domains and are more likely to cause conflict between
adolescents and parents, older siblings may be giving advice to
younger siblings about these issues while disclosing to them about
their own experiences. Consistent across both the younger and
older samples, was the finding that boys who were disclosed to by
their siblings (and particularly brothers) about multifaceted issues,
reported particularly positive sibling relationships. Perhaps given
that the multifaceted issues disclosed in this study were regarding
topics such as dating, sex, curfew, and friendships, it may be that
boys felt more comfortable discussing these issues with a brother
than their mothers. Investigations into boys disclosure to fathers
versus brothers over these issues would be an important addition to
the literature.
Associations With Emotional Adjustment

Associations between disclosure and depressive symptoms particularly differed by gender. The overall pattern of the Study 1
findings suggested that the more siblings disclosed to boys, the
better boys emotional adjustment. However, the more brothers
disclosed to girls, particularly for personal and multifaceted (which
include personal facets) issues, the worse girls fared. Additionally,
in Study 2, younger sisters who were disclosed to by older brothers
regarding personal issues reported more depressive symptoms.
Perhaps it is the case that just being in a sibling relationship which
is high in disclosure, and thus likely to be very close, is protective
for boys overall mental health. Alternatively, girls may feel a
particular need to help or solve the problems of their brothers when
they come to them with these personal issues (or those on the
boundary of the personal domain, i.e., multifaceted). Similar to
findings from peer relationships, this may be adolescent girls
cost of caring (e.g., Smith & Rose, 2011).
Given how beneficial it is to adolescents emotional adjustment
to disclose to parents (e.g., Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Laird & Marrero,
2010), it may seem surprising that disclosing to siblings is not
always as beneficial. However, the previous research on adolescent disclosure to parents has not typically employed a fully dyadic
design (i.e., adolescents disclosure to parents and parents disclosure to adolescents), likely because of the hierarchical nature of
the relationship. However, who is giving or receiving the disclosure was particularly important for depressive symptoms in the
present study. Additionally, in one rare study of maternal disclosure to youth, associations with depressive symptoms have also
been found to differ by gender (Lichtwarck-Aschoff, Finkenauer,
van de Vorst & Engels, 2012). Thus, examining the bidirectional
nature of disclosure within all close relationships likely deserves
further investigation.
Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Directions

Taken together, the findings of the present two studies suggest
that: a) adolescents and emerging adults disclose about their ac-
1289
tivities away from the family with multiple family members and
the difference in disclosure between mothers and siblings seems to
shrink with age, b) disclosing to (and being disclosed to by)
siblings is beneficial to the quality of the sibling relationship, even
after they no longer live together, and c) disclosure within the
sibling relationship has unique implications for youth emotional
adjustment, in both positive and negative ways. These findings
suggest that it is important to continue to examine disclosure
across multiple close relationships in order to better understand the
unique implications of this relational process for each relationship
as well as the implications of each relationship on individual
adjustment. Additionally, these findings provide preliminary evidence for the usefulness of examining disclosure within the context of social domain theory (Smetana, 2006; Turiel, 2002) and
across multiple close relationships, not just to parents as has been
typically examined across the past decade and a half (see Smetana,
2008 for review). Relatedly, examining disclosure within the social domain perspective may also reduce confusion regarding the
implications of different types of disclosure across multiple fields
and area of research (e.g., social psychology, communications,
developmental psychology; Tilton-Weaver et al., 2014).
The present study also adds to previous evidence (Howe et al.,
1995, 2001; 2000; Killoren & Roach, 2014) regarding the importance of the process of disclosure within the sibling relationship.
Sibling relationships are significantly understudied compared to
relationships with parents and peers (see McHale, Updegraff, &
Whiteman, 2012), but high-quality relationships with siblings later
in life have been shown to be significantly beneficial to the
emotional well-being of older adults (Cicirelli, 1989, 2009). Thus,
it is necessary to examine processes within sibling relationships
during adolescence and emerging adulthood that encourage positive relationships given the change in power structure, voluntariness, and decreasing proximity inherent in sibling relationships
during these developmental periods.
Despite the novel nature of the present studies, limitations
remain. First, neither of the studies presented here were longitudinal in design, thus the direction of effects cannot be expressly
determined. It is likely, for example, that siblings who have more
positive relationships are more likely to disclose to one another.
Indeed, this has been found to be the case by Howe and colleagues
(Howe et al., 2000, 2001). Additionally, it is possible that the
emotional adjustment of the individual youth has implications for
their willingness to disclose to their siblings (although the present
study found more implications for partner effects, in which case it
would be harder to infer that the youths depression caused their
sibling to disclose more to them). However, the range of ages
encompassed in the two studies (early adolescence to emerging
adulthood) point toward developmental trends in these associations, and the significant overlap in findings across the two studies
bolster confidence in the effects.
Second, both studies were conducted with predominantly White,
middle- to upper-middle-class samples. Previous research has
found that ethnic minority siblings spend more time together than
White (working- and middle-class) siblings (Updegraff, McHale,
Whiteman, Thayer, & Delgado, 2005). This increase in time spent
together may also increase the amount and effects of disclosure to
one another. Additionally, there may be discrepancies between
higher and lower socioeconomic status families in the amount of
communication that geographically separated members are able to
1290
engage in due to financial constraints of utilizing informationcommunication technologies. Thus, greater ethnic and socioeconomic status diversity is necessary in future studies to examine the
generalizability of the present findings.
Finally, while both of the studies presented were an advancement on much of the previous sibling disclosure research (Howe et
al., 1995, 2001; 2000) in that reports of both members of the dyad
were obtained, a more complete picture of disclosure within the
family system is necessary. Family systems theory advocates that
researchers investigate the interplay among the many individuals
and dyadic relationships within the family (Cox & Paley, 1997;
Minuchin, 1985). In particular, including fathers in these designs,
as well as both parents reports of what their children disclose to
them, would greatly inform this area of research given previous
findings that adolescents disclose at different rates and about
different domains to mothers and fathers (Smetana et al., 2006).
Despite these limitations, the present studies provide an important
first step in examining disclosure among multiple family members
and the role of sibling disclosure in sibling relationship quality and
emotional adjustment across the second decade of life. In particular, disclosure to siblings regarding issues across multiple social
domains appears to have both similar and unique effects in both
frequency and impact on relational and emotional adjustment
when compared to disclosure to mothers across adolescence and
into emerging adulthood.
References
Adams, R. E., & Cantin, S. (2013). Self-disclosure in friendships as the
moderator of the association between peer victimization and depressive
symptoms in overweight adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence,
33, 341362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431612441068
Adams, R. E., & Laursen, B. (2007). The correlates of conflict: Disagreement is not necessarily detrimental. Journal of Family Psychology, 21,
445 458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.445
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Aldeis, D., & Afifi, T. D. (2013). College students willingness to reveal
risky behaviors: The influence of relationship and message type. Journal
of Family Communication, 13, 92113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15267431.2013.768246
Aquilino, W. S. (2006). Family relationships and support systems in
emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging
adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 193217).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/11381-008
Arnett, J. J. (2006). Emerging adulthood: Understanding the new way of
coming of age. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in
America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 319). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
11381-001
Bagwell, C. L., & Schmidt, M. E. (2011). Friendships in childhood &
adolescence. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Buhrmester, D. (1992). The developmental courses of sibling and peer
relationships. In F. Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.), Childrens sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 19 40). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1990). Perceptions of sibling relationships
during middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 61,
13871398. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130750
Campione-Barr, N., & Smetana, J. G. (2010). Who said you could wear
my sweater? Adolescent siblings conflicts and associations with relationship quality. Child Development, 81, 464 471. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01407.x
Cicirelli, V. G. (1989). Feelings of attachment to siblings and well-being in
later life. Psychology and Aging, 4, 211216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0882-7974.4.2.211
Cicirelli, V. G. (1995). Strengthening sibling relationships in the later
years. In G. C. Smith, S. S. Tobin, E. A. Robertson-Tchabo, & P. W.
Power (Eds.), Strengthening aging families: Diversity in practice and
policy (pp. 45 60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cicirelli, V. G. (2009). Sibling death and death fear in relation to depressive symptomatology in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology
Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 64B, 24 32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbn024
Conger, K. J., & Little, W. M. (2010). Sibling relationships during the
transition to adulthood. Child Development Perspectives, 4, 8794.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00123.x
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of
Psychology, 48, 243267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1
.243
Cumsille, P., Darling, N., & Martnez, M. L. (2010). Shading the truth: The
patterning of adolescents decisions to avoid issues, disclose, or lie to
parents. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 285296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.adolescence.2009.10.008
Darling, N., Cumsille, P., Caldwell, L. L., & Dowdy, B. (2006). Predictors
of adolescents disclosure to parents and perceived parental knowledge:
Between and within-person differences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 659 670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9058-1
Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Meeus, W. (2002). Keeping secrets
from parents: Advantages and disadvantages of secrecy in adolescence.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 123136. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1023/A:1014069926507
Finkenauer, C., Frijns, T., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Kerkhof, P. (2005).
Perceiving concealment in relationships between parents and adolescents: Links with parental behavior. Personal Relationships, 12, 387
406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00122.x
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Childrens perceptions of the
personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016 1024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1016
Hamza, C. A., & Willoughby, T. (2011). Perceived parental monitoring,
adolescent disclosure, and adolescent depressive symptoms: A longitudinal examination. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 902915.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9604-8
Howe, N., Aquan-Assee, J., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). Self-disclosure
and the sibling relationship: What did Romulus tell Remus? In K. J.
Rotenberg (Ed.), Disclosure processes in children and adolescents (pp.
78 99). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/CBO9780511527746.004
Howe, N., Aquan-Assee, J., Bukowski, W. M., Lehoux, P. M., & Rinaldi,
C. M. (2001). Sibling as confidants: Emotional understanding, relationship warmth, and sibling self-disclosure. Social Development, 10, 439
454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00174
Howe, N., Aquan-Assee, J., Bukowski, W. M., Rinaldi, C. M., & Lehoux,
P. M. (2000). Sibling self disclosure in early adolescence. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 46, 653 671.
Jourard, S. M. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the
transparent self. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and
several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366 380.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.366

Killoren, S. E., & Roach, A. L. (2014). Sibling conversations about dating
and sexuality: Sisters as confidants, sources of support, and mentors.
Family Relations, 63, 232243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/fare.12057
Laird, R. D., & Marrero, M. D. (2010). Information management and
behavior problems: Is concealing misbehavior necessarily a sign of
trouble? Journal of Adolescence, 33, 297308. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.05.018
Landoll, R. R., Schwartz-Mette, R. A., Rose, A. J., & Prinstein, M. J.
(2011). Girls and boys disclosure about problems as a predictor of
changes in depressive symptoms over time. Sex Roles, 65, 410 420.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0030-5
Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Finkenauer, C., van de Vorst, H., & Engels,
R. C. M. E. (2012). Being mums confidant, a boon or bane? Examining
gender differences in the association of maternal disclosure with adolescents depressive feelings. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41,
449 459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9661-7
Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Marshall, S. K., Tilton-Weaver, L. C., & Bosdet, L. (2005). Information
management: Considering adolescents regulation of parental knowledge. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 633 647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.adolescence.2005.08.008
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114,
376 390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376
McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Whiteman, S. D. (2012). Sibling
relationships and influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 74, 913930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.17413737.2012.01011.x
Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations
from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289 302.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1129720
Petronio, S. S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure.
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for
research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement,
1, 385 401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In
S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery
(Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 367389). Oxford, UK: Wiley.
Rose, A. J., Carlson, W., & Waller, E. M. (2007). Prospective associations
of co-rumination with friendship and emotional adjustment: Considering
the socioemotional trade-offs of co-rumination. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1019 1031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1019
Rotenberg, K. J. (Ed.). (1995). Disclosure processes in children and
adolescents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527746
Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London,
UK: Chapman & Hall. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781439821862
Smetana, J. G. (1989). Adolescents and parents reasoning about actual
family conflict. Child Development, 60, 10521067.
Smetana, J. G. (2006). Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and
1291
variations in childrens moral and social judgments. In M. Killen & J. G.

Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 119 154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smetana, J. G. (2008). Its 10 oclock: Do you know where your children
are? Recent advances in understanding parental monitoring and adolescents information management. Child Development Perspectives, 2,
19 25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00036.x
Smetana, J. G. (2011). Adolescents, families, and social development: How
teens construct their worlds. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Smetana, J., Crean, H. F., & Campione-Barr, N. (2005). Adolescents and
parents changing conceptions of parental authority. New Directions for
Child and Adolescent Development, 2005(108), 31 46. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/cd.126
Smetana, J. G., Metzger, A., Gettman, D. C., & Campione-Barr, N. (2006).
Disclosure and secrecy in adolescentparent relationships. Child Development, 77, 201217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006
.00865.x
Smetana, J. G., Villalobos, M., Tasopoulos-Chan, M., Gettman, D. C., &
Campione-Barr, N. (2009). Early and middle adolescents disclosure to
parents about activities in different domains. Journal of Adolescence, 32,
693713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.010
Smith, R. L., & Rose, A. J. (2011). The cost of caring in youths
friendships: Considering associations among social perspective taking,
co-rumination, and empathetic distress. Developmental Psychology, 47,
17921803. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025309
Tilton-Weaver, L. C., Marshall, S. K., & Darling, N. (2014). Whats in a
name? Distinguishing between routine disclosure and self-disclosure.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 551563. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/jora.12090
Tucker, C. J., Barber, B. L., & Eccles, J. S. (1997). Advice about life plans
and personal problems in late adolescent sibling relationships. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 26, 6376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:
1024540228946
Turiel, E. (2002). The culture of morality: Social development, context, and
conflict. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/CBO9780511613500
Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Whiteman, S. D., Thayer, S. M., &
Delgado, M. Y. (2005). Adolescent sibling relationships in Mexican
American families: Exploring the role of familism. Journal of Family
Psychology, 19, 512522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.512
Yau, J. P., Tasopoulos-Chan, M., & Smetana, J. G. (2009). Disclosure to
parents about everyday activities among American adolescents from
Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 80,
14811498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01346.x
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Collins, W. A. (2008). Autonomy development during adolescence. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.),
Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 174 204). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Received July 14, 2014

Revision received May 29, 2015
Accepted June 12, 2015

Domain Differentiated Disclosure To Mothers and Siblings and Associations With Sibling Relationship Quality and Youth Emotional Adjustment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Domain Differentiated Disclosure To Mothers and Siblings and Associations With Sibling Relationship Quality and Youth Emotional Adjustment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developmental Psychology

2015, Vol. 51, No. 9, 1278 1291

2015 American Psychological Association

Domain Differentiated Disclosure to Mothers and Siblings and

lescent disclosure is the best predictor of, and is most closely

Disclosure, or the revealing of personal information to others

This article was published Online First July 20, 2015.

DISCLOSURE TO MOTHERS AND SIBLINGS

mental transitions (i.e., middle to high school, high school to

cents are more or less likely to disclose information to their

CAMPIONE-BARR, LINDELL, GIRON, KILLOREN, AND GREER

given that the social construction and parental authority of these

disclosure (in the form of a specific type considered corumination)

The Present Studies

DISCLOSURE TO MOTHERS AND SIBLINGS

in the present study we hypothesized that youth would be more

CAMPIONE-BARR, LINDELL, GIRON, KILLOREN, AND GREER

about each item to their mother and sibling on a scale from 1

friends, and teachers. Previous work by Adams and Laursen

p .10. p .05. p .01.

Differences in disclosure to mothers and siblings (see Table 2).

Results and Summary

DISCLOSURE TO MOTHERS AND SIBLINGS

CAMPIONE-BARR, LINDELL, GIRON, KILLOREN, AND GREER

8.30, p .000), siblings in the middle cohort (both siblings in

DISCLOSURE TO MOTHERS AND SIBLINGS

p .10. p .05. p .01.

.27). A marginally significant Adolescent Sex Birth Order

Summary of Study 1 Findings

lings by adolescent sibling pairs living within the same home,

CAMPIONE-BARR, LINDELL, GIRON, KILLOREN, AND GREER

Demographic information was reported by a parent and the

DISCLOSURE TO MOTHERS AND SIBLINGS

sibling disclosure was evident. Thus, the more siblings disclosed to

p .10. p .05. p .01.

CAMPIONE-BARR, LINDELL, GIRON, KILLOREN, AND GREER

pretability of this 3-way interaction. The simple slopes revealed

Summary of Study 2 Findings

Associations With Sibling Relationship Quality

DISCLOSURE TO MOTHERS AND SIBLINGS

ship when disclosing about multifaceted issues (at least within

Associations With Emotional Adjustment

Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Directions

CAMPIONE-BARR, LINDELL, GIRON, KILLOREN, AND GREER

DISCLOSURE TO MOTHERS AND SIBLINGS

variations in childrens moral and social judgments. In M. Killen & J. G.

Received July 14, 2014

You might also like