Longitudinal Associations Between Adult Relations with Intimate Partners and Siblings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Drawing on a relational developmental systems approach, this brief report examines spillover and compensation processes in self‐disclosure and conflict in adult relations with intimate partners and siblings. Background Although some studies have examined links between sibling and partner relationships during adolescence, no research has examined the link between dynamics with siblings and intimate partners in adulthood. Method This study draws on longitudinal survey data from 1,709 individuals participating in the German Family Panel (pairfam) study and latent change score modeling to answer the research questions. Results Several associations supported the spillover hypothesis: those with more self‐disclosure or conflict with their partner also tended to report more self‐disclosure or conflict with their sibling at baseline and those who experienced intraindividual reductions in self‐disclosure and conflict in one relationship over time also experienced concurrent intraindividual reductions in self‐disclosure and conflict in the other relationship. Those with higher initial levels of conflict with their partner also experienced a more gradual decrease in sibling conflicts across time. Two findings provided evidence of compensatory processes: those who reported more frequent conflicts with their partner at baseline also reported higher concurrent self‐disclosure with their sibling and those experiencing increased conflict with a partner experienced steeper declines in future sibling conflict. Conclusion These findings underscore the importance of considering spillover and compensation in adult relationships with siblings and intimate partners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".