Associations between sibling relationship quality and daily interactions in early adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationship theorists posit that children’s daily interactions with others are the foundation of their overall relationship quality (Hinde, 1979); however, few studies have tested this proposition. Warm sibling relationships have a positive impact on social-emotional adjustment, making it important to consider how the features of daily sibling interactions may be linked to positive sibling bonds. This study investigated the connection between global aspects of sibling relationship quality (i.e., warmth, conflict) and the focal child’s reports of their daily interactions with their sibling; the latter did not participate. Thirty-three early adolescents ( M age = 11.5 years; 14 girls, 19 boys) completed 14 daily diaries regarding positive (e.g., helping) and negative (e.g., fighting) sibling interactions. Participants completed the Sibling Relationship Questionnaire (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) to assess global levels of warmth and conflict. Results provide new insight into the dynamics of daily sibling interactions. For example, being happy with a sibling was most closely associated with global warmth and frequent daily helping was most strongly associated with lower global conflict. On days in which children reported more negative sibling interactions, they also reported fewer positive interactions. When participants reported behaving positively toward their sibling on any given day, they also reported their sibling reciprocated positive behaviors. Global warmth and conflict did not moderate these associations. Our findings help support the theoretical notion that daily interactions are linked, but not interchangeable, with relationship quality. Future research is warranted to further elucidate the forms and dynamics of daily interactions between siblings.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".