Content and correlates of sisters’ messages about dating and sexuality

Abstract

Siblings are influential on one another’s romantic relationships and sexual behaviors, and examining mechanisms of this influence is important. Using a sample of 62 sister dyads, we examined the content of sisters’ messages about dating and sexuality and correlates of these messages. Sisters shared messages with one another about dating logistics, dating partners, sex, and the importance of self. Using actor–partner interdependence models, we examined how both dyad members’ romantic relationship status and sexual experiences, intentions, and attitudes were associated with sisters’ messages. We found sisters’ experiences—especially older sisters’ experiences—were associated with the content of messages. Consistent with symbolic interactionism, the findings point to the importance of examining sibling communication about dating and sexuality as an important socialization mechanism through which sisters may influence one another’s romantic relationships and sexuality development.

Keywords

Communication dating romantic relationships sexuality siblings

Siblings are influential on adolescents’ romantic relationships (Doughty, Lam, Stanik, & McHale, 2015), sexual behaviors (Kowal & Blinn-Pike, 2004), and teen pregnancy risk (East & Jacobson, 2001). The processes explaining this influence, however, are understudied. From a symbolic interaction perspective, sibling communication about dating and sexuality may have important implications for adolescents’ romantic relationships and sexual behaviors, intentions, and attitudes by explaining sibling similarities in these constructs. Our descriptive study takes a first step in understanding how sibling communication may play a role in adolescents’ romantic relationship and sexuality development by examining what adolescent siblings talk about regarding dating and sexuality and when they may talk about certain topics. Specifically, we examined both the content and the correlates (i.e., sisters’ own romantic relationship and sexual correlates) of sisters’ conversations about dating and sexuality. To address the goals of our study, we used a dyadic approach and examined the topics older sisters and younger sisters were discussing during these conversations and how both older and younger sisters’ romantic relationship and sexuality experiences, intentions, and attitudes were associated with frequency of conversation topics.

Symbolic interaction theory

Our study is based on principles of symbolic interaction theory; specifically, Christopher’s (2001) theory of adolescent sexuality development. According to this theory, communication is a mechanism of sexual socialization. Parents and adolescents discuss many topics related to dating and sexuality, such as safe sex (Romo, Bravo, Cruz, Rios, & Kouyoumdjian, 2010), and these topics are related to both parents’ and adolescents’ behaviors and attitudes (Romo, Lefkowitz, Sigman, & Au, 2002). Christopher (2001) theorizes that communication about sex is a means of transmitting values and attitudes from one person to another. During adolescence, these conversations with parents help youth make meaning about romantic and sexual relationships and their own romantic and sexual roles (Christopher, 2001). For example, symbolic interactionism involves the individuals’ (e.g., adolescent girls’) search for creating meaning in their environment and interactions with others modify and influence their meaning making. During interactions, both partners reflect on their own experiences and attitudes, shaping the conversation and leading both partners to create meaning. Through this meaning making, individuals (e.g., adolescent girls) group behaviors together and assign roles to those behaviors (e.g., adolescent girls’ social roles as romantic partner, sexual person). Additionally, over time, these repeated interactions (e.g., adolescent girls’ conversations with others) influence adolescents’ sexual self-identity. Although the focus of the theory is on parents’ and peers’ influence on adolescent sexuality, as noted by Christopher (2001), siblings are also influential on adolescents’ sexuality. Sibling conversations about dating and sexuality are ways that siblings learn about one another’s behaviors and attitudes and gain information about romantic relationships and sexuality—contributing to adolescents’ own romantic relationship and sexual roles and identity.

Importance of sibling relationships

The sibling relationship is unique and one of the most long-lasting relationships in life. The interactions and roles within sibling relationships include both complementary roles equivalent to the hierarchical nature involved with parent-child relationships and caretaking behaviors, as well as reciprocal roles equivalent to those found in play behaviors among peers. These relationships can be valuable sources of support (Hollifield & Conger, 2015). While both older and younger siblings can provide support to one another about specific issues, such as those related to the family, younger siblings seek support from older siblings more often than older siblings seek support from younger siblings about issues outside the family (Tucker, McHale, & Crouter, 2001).

Sister–sister relationships are especially important. These sibling dyads tend to exhibit better relationship quality in the form of greater support and intimacy than dyads with brothers (Killoren, Wheeler, Updegraff, Rodríguez de Jesús, & McHale, 2015). Sisters are also more likely to serve as sources of advice and are reported as more influential than older brothers (Tucker, Barber, & Eccles, 1997). Through emerging and later adulthood, sister–sister dyads tend to remain in communication with one another (Lee, Mancini, & Maxwell, 1990) and disclose about personal issues to one another more so than brother–brother or brother–sister dyads (Lindell, Campione-Barr, & Killoren, 2015).

Sibling communication about dating and sexuality

Conversations between adolescent girls and their sisters should differ from conversations between adolescent girls and their parents and be more similar to their conversations with best friends for several reasons. Relationships with parents are hierarchical, while relationships with peers are egalitarian (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985). During childhood, the sibling relationship is hierarchical (similar to the parent–child relationship); however, it becomes more egalitarian and peer-like during adolescence (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985), while relationships with parents remain hierarchical through the third decade of life (Arnett, 2000). The structure of these relationships has implications for conversations about topics such as dating and sexuality. Mothers dominate conversations with adolescents, particularly about sensitive topics such as dating and sexuality (Lefkowitz, Kahlbaugh, & Sigman, 1996), while conversations with peers may involve more turn-taking. Conversations between sisters should be more similar to those with peers than parents. Sisters should feel more comfortable discussing their own feelings, values, and experiences about dating and sexuality because there are fewer repercussions than there may be with mothers (e.g., punishment for disclosing sexual experiences). An observational study of sisters’ conversations about dating and sexuality supports this notion as sisters were confidants, sources of support, and mentors and younger and older sisters were equally likely to serve as confidants and sources of support (Killoren & Roach, 2014). Older sisters were, however, more likely to be mentors for their younger siblings than vice versa, showing that because of older sisters’ greater sexual experiences, they may have more advice to share with younger sisters.

An important contribution of our study is our use of both observational and survey data. Lefkowitz (2002) noted that an important advance in research on sexual communication is the use of several data collection techniques and multiple reporters. In the current study, we use observations to investigate topics of sisters’ communication about dating and sexuality and survey data to examine both older and younger sisters’ romantic relationship and sexuality correlates. By observing sisters’ conversations about dating and sexuality, researchers are able to explore the variability in sisters’ communication (Lefkowitz, 2002). Using self-reports of communication about sex is common; however, studies have shown discrepancies between partners’ reports of conversation frequency (Christopher, 2001). For instance, parents report discussing sex more frequently than their children are reporting—showing the importance of an observational approach (Christopher, 2001).

In observational studies of mother–adolescent communication, Romo and colleagues (2002) examined maternal messages about dating and sexuality and found that mothers shared their own values and opinions, disclosed their own experiences, gave cautionary messages, gave advice and commented on their children’s dating experiences. Further, using self-report surveys, adolescents reported talking to mothers and friends about dating, getting pregnant, using a condom, and sexually transmitted infections (DiIorio, Kelley, & Hockenberry-Eaton, 1999). Specific to sibling conversations, researchers used in-depth interviews to examine Black adolescents’ perceptions of sexual communication with their siblings (Wallace, Hooper, & Persad, 2014). Adolescents reported that they talked to their siblings about sex, their siblings were influential on their sexual behaviors, and their siblings discussed safe sex practices. Our study adds to the literature on sexual communication between siblings by observing siblings during conversations about dating and sexuality and examining the content of the conversations. Consistent with previous work on parent–adolescent and sibling sexual communication and college students’ sexual communication with best friends, we anticipated that sisters would give advice and their opinions related to romantic relationships, dating partners and abstinence, as well as cautionary messages regarding sexually transmitted infections and sexual behaviors.

Associations between conversation topic and sisters’ romantic relationship and sexuality correlates

Adolescents’ communication with their friends about sex is associated with their sexual attitudes and behaviors (Lefkowitz, Boone, & Shearer, 2004; Lehr, DiIorio, Dudly, & Lipana, 2000). For example, more frequent discussions with friends about sexual topics were related to greater sexual experience and more permissive sexual attitudes (Lefkowitz et al., 2004). Given similarities in relationships between friends and siblings (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985), we expected that frequency of sibling discussions about dating and sex-related topics would be associated with their romantic relationship and sexual experiences and attitudes. In support of this hypothesis, one of the few studies on sibling communication about sex found that sibling discussions about condoms (in combination with parent–adolescent discussions about condoms) were positively associated with adolescents’ condom use self-efficacy (Kowal & Blinn-Pike, 2004).

We focused on sisters’ current romantic relationship status, sexual experience (ever had sex), sexual intentions within the next year, and permissive sexual attitudes. Researchers have suggested that conversations about sex reflect sexual experiences (Lefkowitz et al., 2004); thus, adolescents involved in romantic relationships may have more frequent discussions with their sisters about dating and sexuality than adolescents who are not dating. Additionally, adolescents with greater sexual experience may be more likely to talk to their sisters about sex than other adolescents. Given that sexual intentions are associated with later sexual behaviors (Gillmore et al., 2002), it is likely that sisters with greater sexual intentions will talk about sex more frequently than sisters with fewer sexual intentions. Finally, according to Christopher’s model of sexual development, parents’ and peers’ attitudes toward sex have important implications for adolescents’ sexuality development (Christopher, 2001); thus, sisters’ sexual attitudes may be associated with sisters’ conversations about sex.

An important consideration in our study is the focus on sibling birth order during sisters’ conversations about dating and sexuality. Primarily, research on sibling influence has focused on the role of older siblings on their younger siblings’ development. As sibling relationships become more egalitarian during adolescence (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985), it is important to examine influence from younger to older siblings as well as from older to younger siblings (Whiteman, Becerra, & Killoren, 2009). Authors of a recent study on siblings’ influence on one another’s risky behaviors found that younger siblings’ risky behaviors were stronger predictors of older siblings’ risky behaviors than vice versa (Whiteman, Jensen, & McHale, 2017). To this end, we used actor–partner interdependence models (APIMs; Kenny, Kashy & Cook, 2006) to examine how sisters’ romantic relationship and sexuality correlates were associated with the frequency that they discussed dating and sexuality topics and whether birth order moderated these associations. Given that older adolescents have greater sexual experiences than younger adolescents, we expected that older sisters’ (compared to younger sisters’) experiences, intentions, and attitudes may be more strongly associated with frequency of conversation topics.

Present study

Using a diverse sample of adolescent girls (i.e., younger sisters) and their older sisters, we had two goals. First, we examined the content of messages that sisters gave to one another during conversations about dating and sexuality. Second, we examined how these topics were associated with sisters’ romantic relationship (romantic relationship status) and sexuality correlates (ever had sex, sexual intentions, and sexual attitudes), controlling for age spacing between sisters, parents’ marital status, and birth order. We expected stronger associations between frequency of conversation topic and sisters’ romantic relationship and sexuality correlates for older sisters compared to younger sisters.

Method

Participants

As part of a larger study focused on the role of communication as a socialization mechanism of sibling similarities in romantic relationship and sexuality experiences/attitudes, sister dyads (N = 64) were recruited from community organizations (e.g., Planned Parenthood, youth centers, and health clinics), social media sites (e.g., Facebook), school directory information, community-sponsored events (e.g., girls’ leadership conference), and through the use of convenience sampling procedures in Colorado and Missouri (participants were recruited from suburban and rural areas in both states). Data collection took place from 2010 to 2014. Eligibility requirements were that younger sisters were between 11 and 18 years of age and had an older sister. Two families were not included in the present study (observational data were not collected from one family in Colorado and an older sister in Missouri was unable to complete the survey), and the final sample was composed of 62 sister dyads. Older sisters were 19.09 years (SD = 3.85; range 15–37) and younger sisters were 15.33 years (SD = 1.53; range 11–18) with an average age gap of 3.77 years (SD = 3.57). Sixty-five percent of the sister dyads were European American, 27% were Latina (majority were of Mexican descent), 5% were Asian, and 3% were African American. Fifty-two percent of older sisters and 18% of younger sisters had ever had sex and 57% of older sisters and 29% of younger sisters were in a romantic relationship. The average age of first intercourse was 16.47 (SD = 1.83) and 14.91 (SD = 1.51) years for older sisters and younger sisters, respectively. Of those who have had sexual intercourse, older sisters had an average of 1.87 (SD = 1.38; range 1–7) and adolescent girls had an average of 1.50 (SD = .85; range 1–3) sexual partners in the last 12 months. Forty-two of the dyads (68%) reported that their biological parents were married.

Procedures

We collected observational and survey data and participants were paid US$25 for completing the study. To collect the observational data, sisters were videotaped completing a warm-up task and a 7-min conversation about dating. We followed data collection procedures developed by Romo and colleagues (2002) for mother–adolescent dyads. Sisters were told “For the next seven minutes, I want you to discuss your ideas about dating.” Informed consent was obtained from parents for youth under 18 years of age and from youth who were 18 years or older. Youth under 18 years of age gave assent to participate.

Measures

For the larger study, sisters completed surveys and reported on demographic information and romantic relationship and sexual experiences. To describe their romantic and sexual experiences, sisters were asked single-item questions including current romantic relationship status (0 = no, 1 = yes), ever had sexual intercourse (0 = no, 1 = yes), age of first sexual intercourse, and number of sexual partners in the last 12 months.

Younger and older sisters answered 5 items assessing their intentions to engage in sex (within the next year) using a 5-point scale (1 = very unlikely/very unsure; 5 = very likely/very sure) (Killoren, Updegraff, Christopher, & Umaña-Taylor, 2011). Example items were “How likely is it that you will have sexual intercourse in the next year?” and “How likely is it that you would try to persuade someone to have sex with you within the next year?” Higher scores indicated greater sexual intentions for the next year. Cronbach’s α was .84 for both older and younger sisters.

To assess permissive sexual attitudes (Sprecher, McKinney, Walsh, & Anderson, 1988), older and younger sisters responded to 15 items about how acceptable touching under the clothes, oral sex, and sexual intercourse are during different stages of relationships. An example item is “Is touching under the clothes acceptable when a couple just met?” Sisters rated these items using a 1 (Yes, really okay) to 4 (No, really not okay) scale. Higher scores indicated less permissive sexual attitudes. Cronbach’s αs were .94 for older and .92 for younger sisters.

Coding and data analysis

Coding for messages

The videotaped conversations between sisters about dating and sexuality were transcribed verbatim. There were two parts to data analysis. In the first part, three female coders (two European American and one Latina; C.S., S.G., and G.C.K.) separately identified sections of sisters’ conversations that included “messages” that sisters were giving to one another about dating and sexuality. In order to identify which sections of the conversations should be coded as messages, the research group came to an agreement on the definition of messages. That is, messages were defined as statements that included opinions (“I think” or “I feel”), advice (directed to sister or not), back-and-forth ideas about dating and sexuality, discussions about advice that they had given to one another previously, and values. After coders identified messages, they met (with the first author present) and reached a consensus about which sections of the conversations should be coded as messages. The range of number of sections identified as messages (per dyad) was 1 to 18 with an average of 6.61 (SD = 3.46) sections.

Coding for themes

In the second part of coding (i.e., to analyze the types of messages that sisters were giving to one another), we analyzed the content of the conversations using inductive thematic analytic procedures (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and completed several coding steps. The same three female coders who completed the first step, read and completed line-by-line coding of all of the sections of conversations identified as messages. For instance, if an older sister was talking about the importance of using condoms, they coded the segment of text as “condoms.” Then, the research team met and a discussion ensued about different topics and subthemes that represented the line-by-line coding. Subthemes were then categorized into overall themes. Continuing the example above, the line-by-line code of “condom” fits within a subtheme of “safe sex” with the primary theme of “sex.” Following this discussion, a codebook was created that listed the topics that fit within each theme. The research team met several times in order to refine the themes as well as to revise the codebook. After the codebook was finalized, coders went back to the transcripts and identified the messages (i.e., participant’s segment of the conversation before the sister began speaking) that represented these themes to ensure that all of the messages fit within one of the themes. To assess reliability, coders once again identified the themes in the sections of the transcript. It is important to note that sections of conversations (i.e., when one sister is talking before the other sister begins talking) could be coded for multiple themes as sisters shared many ideas in one section of the conversation; however, the same idea was not double coded because it clearly fit into one theme. Kappa analyses were conducted and two coders (third and fourth authors) reached substantial agreement with a α of .80 (Landis & Koch, 1977). The final themes were based on the codes of one of the reliable coders (i.e., the third author).

Actor–partner interdependence models

To test our second goal of associations between messages and romantic relationship and sexuality correlates, we used APIMs. This dyadic analysis allows for the examination of both actor and partner effects (Kenny et al., 2006) on an outcome. Controlling for age spacing between siblings, parents’ marital status, and sibling birth order, we used APIM through a multilevel modeling approach to examine actor and partner effects of current romantic partner, ever had sex, sexual intentions, and sexual attitudes on the themes of messages sisters gave to one another during the conversations. The “actor” effect represents individuals’ own scores on the variable and the “partner” effect represents the sisters’ scores on the variable. Additionally, we tested 2-way interactions between birth order and actor and partner predictor variables (e.g., Current Romantic Partner_Actor × Birth Order). Significant interactions were followed up using simple slope analyses (i.e., testing for significance at different levels of the moderator; 0 = younger sister and 1 = older sister). If the interactions were not significant, the final models included only the direct effects. Models were estimated using Mixed procedures in SPSS (version 23) and were run separately based on theme of messages and romantic relationship/sexuality outcome for a total of 16 models.

Results

The results are organized around the two study goals. First, we describe the types of messages that sisters gave to one another during conversations about dating and sexuality. Second, using APIM, we examined romantic relationship and sexuality correlates of the types of messages that sisters gave to one another during conversations.

Themes of messages

Findings for our first goal revealed that four overall themes categorized the content of the messages. These overall themes included messages related to dating logistics, dating partners, sex, and importance of the self. Each theme had at least two subthemes (see Appendix A for themes and subthemes). To describe whether sister dyads discussed the themes, we calculated the percentage of sister dyads for which each theme was coded. For example, for each dyad, if at least one sister had the theme coded, we would mark that the dyad had discussed the theme. The order of the themes was based on the percentage (from most to fewest) of dyads talking about each theme.

Dating logistics

The first theme, labeled dating logistics, was discussed by 93.5% of sister dyads, and this theme had five subthemes. This theme included messages about the timing/progression of relationships (e.g., pressure to date in high school; high school relationships), qualities/characteristics of relationships (e.g., negative aspects of relationships), behaviors in relationships (e.g., affection, boundaries, trust), values and opinions about relationships (e.g., idealized romantic relationships, costs of or negative attitudes toward dating), and definitions of dating.

In this excerpt, a younger sister (age 15) is reflecting on qualities of romantic relationships and her own experiences: “If you don’t have trust then I guess you don’t really have a relationship. Cause it’s hard for me to trust people. And sometimes it’s hard for guys to trust girls if they hurt them.” Sisters also shared their opinions about dating and romantic relationships. For example, an older sister (age 18) said: “I think it is okay to date different people because you get to know who you are, what kind of person you like, and what kind of person you’re looking for in the future.”

Dating partners

The second most common theme (discussed by 75.8% of dyads) was dating partners. Sisters shared three different types of messages about dating partners including partner preferences (e.g., avoiding characteristics they do not like in guys), how to find a romantic partner and start a relationship (e.g., ideal partner), and their opinions on specific dating partners. One idea that was prevalent in several of the conversations was the importance of a good “fit” between partners. For instance an older sister (age 19) told her younger sister:

Find someone who’s like you. I think it comes down to your values being the same. If we didn’t agree about religious or political things…I couldn’t do that. I’m pretty outspoken about that kind of stuff and so if you can’t take me being outspoken about it and be outspoken with me, we have an issue.

A prominent message was that there are things one should avoid in relationships, such as a guy being “brutal or mean.” Another example comes from a younger sister (age 17) talking about standards for her dating partners, she said: “they might be unrealistic and I don’t realize it, like no drugs, no alcohol, no violence…but I’ll try to stick to it as much as I can.”

Sex

Sex, the next identified theme (discussed by 37.1% of dyads), categorized sisters’ messages about opinions about sex, premarital sex, sexual pressure, past discussions about sex, and protection during and consequences of sex. Some sisters emphasized the importance of waiting for marriage and others said that sex was okay within the context of a serious relationship. Many messages were cautionary, such as ones given during this conversation excerpt:

Older sister (age 15):

Being pregnant in high school takes away everything. You gotta keep in mind like, mom and dad would pay for the baby obviously, but they’re not gonna buy daycare. You’re just gonna stop going to school and go home. And it’s literally just throwing your life away.

Younger sister (age 12):

It’s gonna be terrible.

Older sister:

Not to mention all the STDs that are going around. That’s disgusting.

Importance of self

The final theme was the importance of self and was discussed by 25.8% of dyads. Sisters gave two messages to one another about the importance of self. The first message was independence, such as putting oneself first. An older sister (age 20) said: “It’s important to be independent because you need to know what you want to do and it shouldn’t be dictated by what your boyfriend wants to do or like you should make your own decisions.”

The second message was the need to have priorities (importance of balancing a romantic relationship with other significant relationships). When talking about dating, an older sister (age 19) said: “Dating is too distracting from what we should be doing like school and figuring out what we want to do with the rest of our lives.” Another older sister (age 16) emphasized the importance of school, family, and friends and told her younger sister: “I’m really focused on school and everything and some people are different. I think the people who have like family and friends who support them aren’t looking for somebody.”

Romantic relationship and sexuality correlates of messages

Our second goal was to examine associations between frequency of message theme and romantic relationship and sexuality correlates. Specifically, we examined how the frequency of themes was associated with older and younger sisters’ current romantic relationship status, sexual experience (i.e., ever had sexual intercourse), sexual intentions, and sexual attitudes. We calculated the frequency of themes by adding the number of times the theme was coded for older and younger sisters separately. We controlled for age gap between siblings, parents’ marital status, and birth order in all analyses. Correlations and descriptive statistics for older and younger sisters are shown in Table 1. In all analyses, birth order was a significant predictor of messages about dating logistics and messages about dating partner—revealing that older sisters gave more messages than younger sisters (see Table 2).

Table 1.

Correlations and descriptive statistics for all study variables.

	Older sister, M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Younger sister, M (SD)
1. Age spacing	3.77 (3.57)	—	.14	−.18	−.04	−.13	−.05	.02	.19	.11	−.09	3.77 (3.57)
2. Parents’ marital status	—	.14	—	−.23	−.12	−.17	.07	−.24	.22	.22	.29*	—
3. Dating logistics	3.18 (2.76)	−.09	−.15	—	.12	.25*	.12	.03	−.08	−.13	−.42**	2.27 (2.20)
4. Dating partner	1.42 (1.48)	−.07	−.17	−.08	—	.16	−.12	−.02	−.05	.10	.04	0.85 (1.16)
5. Sex^a	0.65 (0.69)	−.10	.06	−.01	.14	—	.20	−.11	.14	.21	.08	0.61 (1.26)
6. Importance of self^b	0.29 (0.69)	−.04	−.04	.37**	−.12	.03	—	.00	−.14	.21	.08	0.11 (0.37)
7. Romantic relationship status	—	−.10	−.19	.01	−.14	.12	.20	—	−.35**	−.36**	−.16	—
8. Ever had sex	—	.37**	.32*	−.22	−.01	−.09	.03	−.32*	—	.62**	.07	—
9. Sexual intentions	2.45 (1.13)	.39**	.18	−.12	−.09	−.18	−.07	−.41**	.60**	—	.09	1.71 (0.86)
10. Sexual attitudes^c	2.27 (0.71)	.21	.14	.02	−.19	−.18	.18	−.02	.43**	.57**	—	2.54 (0.84)

Note. Younger sisters are above the diagonal and older sisters are below the diagonal. Parents’ marital status, 0 = not married, 1 = married; romantic relationship status, 0 = no, 1 = yes; ever had sex, 0 = no, 1 = yes.

^a Untransformed variables are reported (for transformed variable: M = .42, SD = 2.65).

^b Untransformed variables are reported (for transformed variable: M = .17, SD = 1.73).

^c Higher values indicate less permissive sexual attitudes.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 2.

Standardized parameter estimates (standard errors) for actor and partner reports of frequency of messages on current romantic partner and ever had sex.

	Dating logistics	Dating partner	Sex	Importance of self
Current romantic partner
Intercept	.00 (.11)	−.00 (.10)	.07 (.13)	.00 (.09)
Age spacing	−.11 (.10)	−.03 (.10)	−.08 (.12)	−.06 (.08)
Parents’ marital status	−.17 (.11)	−.17 (.11)	−.09 (.12)	.09 (.09)
Birth order	.17 (.07)*	.20 (.08)*	.04 (.06)	.14 (.09)
Current Romantic Partner_A	−.02 (.09)	−.10 (.09)	−.01 (.10)	.11 (.09)
Current Romantic Partner_P	.03 (.09)	−.08 (.09)	−.12 (.10)	.15 (.09)⁺
Birth Order × Romantic Partner_A	—	—	.10 (.10)	—
Birth Order × Romantic Partner_P	—	—	−.17 (.10)	—
Ever had sex
Intercept	.00 (.10)	.00 (.10)	.15 (.14)	.00 (.09)
Age spacing	−.07 (.11)	−.03 (.11)	−.09 (.13)	−.03 (.09)
Parents’ marital status	−.13 (.11)	−.13 (.11)	−.07 (.12)	.08 (.09)
Birth order	.15 (.08)⁺	.21 (.08)*	.03 (.06)	.16 (.10)
Ever Had Sex_A	−.05 (.10)	.00 (.10)	.06 (.10)	−.09 (.10)
Ever Had Sex_B	−.14 (.09)	−.00 (.10)	.09 (.10)	−.06 (.09)
Birth Order × Ever Had Sex_A	—	—	−.18 (.12)	—
Birth Order × Ever Had Sex_P	—	—	.24 (.12)⁺	—

Note. Birth order (0 = younger, 1 = older). Parents’ marital status (0 = not married, 1 = married). A = Actor, P = Partner. Messages about sex and importance of self variables were transformed using the square root transformation. Em dash indicate nonsignificant interactions.

⁺p < .10; *p < .05.

Current romantic partner

No significant associations were observed between content of messages and sisters’ romantic relationship status (see Table 2).

Ever had sex

For messages about sex, there was a trend-level (i.e., p < .10) Ever Had Sex_Partner × Birth Order interaction (see Table 2). Simple slope analyses revealed that for younger sisters, if their partners (older sisters) had ever had sex, then younger sisters reported more messages about sex (b = .33, t = 1.93, p = .06) than if their older sisters had not had sex. The association was not significant for older sisters (b = −.15, t = −.86, ns).

Sexual intentions

For messages about dating partners, there was a trend-level Sexual Intentions_Partner × Birth Order interaction (see Table 3). Simple slope analyses revealed that for younger sisters (but not older sisters, b = −.08, t = −.72, ns), partners’ (older sisters’) sexual intentions were positively related to younger sisters’ messages about dating partners (b = .36, t = 2.05, p < .05). Additionally, for messages about sex, there were significant interactions between Sexual Intentions_Actor × Birth Order and Sexual Intentions_Partner × Birth Order. Follow-up analyses of the Sexual Intentions_Actor × Birth Order interaction revealed that for older sisters (compared to younger sisters, b = −.13, t = −1.01, ns), their own sexual intentions were positively associated with messages about sex (b = .31, t = 1.92, p = .06) at the trend level. Follow-up analyses of the Sexual Intentions_Partner × Birth Order interaction revealed that for younger sisters (compared to older sisters, b = −.09, t = −.66, ns), their partners’ sexual intentions were positively associated with messages about sex (b = .37, t = 2.23, p = .06) at the trend level.

Table 3.

Standardized parameter estimates (standard errors) for actor and partner reports of messages on sexual intentions and permissive sexual attitudes.

	Dating logistics	Dating partner	Sex	Importance of self
Sexual intentions
Intercept	.01 (.11)	.14 (.14)	.17 (.14)	−.01 (.09)
Age spacing	−.09 (.11)	−.01 (.11)	−.08 (.13)	−.05 (.09)
Parents’ marital status	−.16 (.11)	−.16 (.10)	−.11 (.11)	.05 (.09)
Birth order	.18 (.08)*	.24 (.08)*	.03 (.06)	.10 (.10)
Sexual Intentions_A	−.05 (.10)	.03 (.10)	.08 (.10)	.04 (.10)
Sexual Intentions_P	−.07 (.09)	.14 (.10)	.14 (.11)	−.07 (.09)
Birth Order × Sexual Intentions_A	—	−.15 (.10)	−.22 (.11)*	—
Birth Order × Sexual Intentions_P	—	.22 (.11)⁺	.23 (.11)*	—
Permissive sexual attitudes^a
Intercept	.08 (.11)	−.02 (.12)	.11 (.15)	.03 (.11)
Age spacing	−.20 (.11)⁺	−.19 (.12)	−.12 (.16)	−.03 (.12)
Parents’ marital status	−.08 (.10)	−.08 (.11)	−.08 (.15)	.02 (.11)
Birth order	.19 (.08)*	.23 (.09)*	.01 (.06)	.12 (.11)
Sexual Attitudes_A	−.15 (.10)	−.05 (.10)	.00 (.11)	.09 (.11)
Sexual Attitudes_P	−.17 (.09)	.01 (.10)	−.00 (.11)	.04 (.11)
Birth Order × Sexual Attitudes_A	.30 (.11)*	—	—	—
Birth Order × Sexual Attitudes_P	−.41 (.10)*	—	—	—

^a Higher values indicate less permissive sexual attitudes.

⁺p < .10; *p < .05.

Permissive sexual attitudes

For messages about dating logistics, there were two significant 2-way interactions, Sexual Attitudes_Actor × Birth Order and Sexual Attitudes_Partner × Birth Order (see Table 3). Simple slope analyses for the Sexual Attitudes_Actor × Birth Order interaction revealed that for older sisters (but not younger sisters, b = .11, t = .62, ns), their own permissive sexual attitudes were negatively associated with messages about dating logistics (b = −.31, t = −2.97, p < .01). For the Sexual Attitudes_Partner × Birth Order interaction, for younger sisters (but not older sisters, b = .19, t = 1.65, ns), partners’ (older sisters’) permissive sexual attitudes were negatively associated with messages about dating logistics (b = −.44, t = −2.89, p < .05).

Summary

There were several significant associations between sisters’ messages and romantic relationship and sexuality correlates. Older sisters gave more messages about dating logistics and dating partners than did younger sisters. Younger sisters reported more messages about sex if their older sisters had sex than if their older sisters had not had sex. Further, for younger sisters, their older sisters’ sexual intentions were positively associated with messages about dating partners. For both older and younger sisters, there were positive associations between older sisters’ sexual intentions and messages about sex. Turning to sexual attitudes, for younger sisters and older sisters, as older sisters’ attitudes were less permissive (and more conservative), there were fewer messages about dating logistics.

Discussion

Siblings are influential on one another’s romantic relationship and sexuality development, but the majority of research does not focus on mechanisms of influence. In line with symbolic interactionism (Christopher, 2001), our study took a descriptive look at sisters’ communication about dating and sexuality as a potential mechanism of influence on adolescents’ romantic relationship and sexuality development by coding the content of sisters’ conversations. We also explored the correlates of the conversation content to gain an understanding of how sisters’ conversations were associated with their romantic relationship status and their sexual behaviors, intentions, and attitudes. We found that older sisters’ sexual experiences, intentions, and attitudes were related to the frequency with which older and younger sisters gave messages about dating and sexuality. Supporting symbolic interaction principles (Christopher, 2001), our findings point to the importance of examining sisters’ communication about dating and sexuality and the role of older sisters as potential socializing agents of adolescent girls’ romantic relationships and sexuality development.

During sisters’ conversations about dating and sexuality, sisters shared messages with one another about dating logistics, dating partners, sex, and importance of self, with messages about dating logistics and dating partners being the most frequent. Beginning with dating logistics, there were several topics that sisters covered in these conversations, such as the timing or progression of relationships, qualities of relationships, behaviors in romantic relationships, values and opinions on relationships, and the definition of dating. Turning to partner preferences, sisters discussed how to find a romantic partner and their opinions about guys. Importantly, the messages focused on dating logistics and dating partners were mostly about healthy romantic relationships and making smart decisions about dating partners.

Messages about healthy romantic relationships were prominent as sisters talked about the importance of having positive relationship qualities, such as open communication, appropriate boundaries, trust, and honesty. These qualities are known to be associated with healthy interpersonal relationships (Reis & Shaver, 1988). Sisters also discussed avoiding negative relationship qualities such as abuse. Several studies have examined the messages that parents give to their adolescent children about preventing dating violence, but studies have not included siblings and this may be a valuable endeavor (Corona, Gomes, Pope, Shaffer, & Yaros, 2016).

Further, discussions about the costs of dating occurred, including negative effects on peer relationships and school achievement (Rueda, Nagoshi, & Williams, 2014). Ending a dating relationship also is associated with negative adjustment including increased depressive symptoms and greater substance use when compared to adolescents who did not experience a breakup (Barber, 2006). Siblings are important sources of emotional support (Milevsky, 2005) and may help one another as they navigate the negative consequences of dating.

Sisters also gave messages about sexuality. Talking about the realities of sexual pressures that they may experience from peers or dating partners is important and sisters gave cautionary messages about this. Another beneficial message was the importance of protection (e.g., birth control, condoms) when teenagers do engage in sex. In one of the few studies of sibling communication about sex, Kowal and Blinn-Pike (2004) found that greater sibling communication about condoms (in combination with parent–adolescent communication about sex) was related to adolescents’ greater condom use self-efficacy.

Many of the messages given by sisters were consistent with societal views on adolescent sexuality—to avoid having sex until married (although some noted that it is okay in committed and intimate relationships)—and the negative consequences resulting from having sex as a teenager (Harden, 2014). These are messages that they likely hear from their parents, schools, and the media and young women have internalized them. Missing from these conversations were the positive benefits of sex—for instance, physical satisfaction and greater intimacy with sexual partners (Vasilenko, Lefkowitz, & Maggs, 2012). Perhaps this is one way in which older sisters (who were more likely to have had sex than younger sisters) were trying to protect their younger sisters. Older sisters may buy in to this idea that sex should be delayed as long as possible and that is why they are not sharing with their younger sisters the positive aspects of having sex.

Focusing on the importance of self-care and not ignoring other significant relationships while being in a romantic relationship was another important message given by sisters. Young women felt that this was important because of their own previous dating experiences or those of their sisters. A common message was that over involvement in a dating relationship (e.g., spending too much time with a romantic partner) may lead to less school achievement and can harm one’s relationships with friends. Consistent with these ideas, Rueda and colleagues (2014) conducted focus groups with European American and Mexican adolescents and found that adolescents felt that when in relationships, they were consumed with thinking about their relationships and their dating partners and they would spend time with their partners instead of focusing on school work. They believed that this contributed to a decline in their school achievement. Additionally, adolescents said that both being in a relationship and experiencing a breakup were associated with poorer peer relationships (e.g., more conflict). Because engaging in romantic relationships is common during adolescence (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003) and developing intimate relationships with a romantic partner is a central task of adolescence and emerging adulthood (Roisman, Masten, Coatsworth, & Tellegen, 2004), it is important that adolescents learn how to form and maintain healthy romantic relationships in which they balance their relationship with other important areas of their lives, such as school, friendships, and family.

In addition to examining the content of messages given during these conversations, we also were interested in the correlates of these messages. In our study, older sisters’ sexual experiences, intentions, and attitudes played an important role in shaping conversations about dating partners, romantic relationships, and sex. For instance, younger sisters gave more messages about sex if their older sisters had had sex, gave more messages about dating partners and sex if their older sisters had intentions to have sex within the next year, and gave fewer messages about dating logistics if their older sisters’ attitudes were more conservative. For older sisters, their own behaviors and attitudes were associated with the messages that they were giving. Specifically, older sisters gave more messages about sex when they had higher sexual intentions (compared to lower sexual intentions) and fewer messages about dating logistics when their attitudes were more conservative and less permissive.

According to symbolic interactionism (Christopher, 2001), sisters may internalize messages that they hear from one another—and in our study, it appears that older sisters’ experiences, intentions, and attitudes were more salient for the messages given by both younger and older sisters compared to younger sisters’ experiences, intentions, and attitudes. Messages given during conversations about dating and sexuality may help sisters make meaning of their environment (i.e., romantic relationships) and help them to define their sexual roles and identity. Further, the socialization that occurs during communication is a result of repeated interactions. Many of the sisters in our study mentioned previous discussions that they had with one another about dating and sexuality and the nature and frequency of these conversations may have important implications for adolescents’ development. Future work needs to be conducted to see if sisters’ conversations about dating and sex are associated with future sexual development (similar to findings on parent–adolescent conversations about sex), as our study shows support for the potential role of sisters—particularly older sisters—as socialization agents of adolescent girls’ romantic relationship and sexuality development.

Overall, birth order played an important role in determining the frequency with which sisters discussed different dating and sexuality topics. For instance, older sisters gave more messages about dating logistics and dating partners than younger sisters. This makes sense from a socialization lens as older sisters are likely to have more romantic relationship experiences than their younger sisters (because of their greater age status) and may have more opinions or advice about being in a romantic relationship. Further, older sisters may feel a responsibility to make sure that their younger sisters are making healthy decisions regarding dating and selection of dating partners as well as ensure that their younger sisters are avoiding negative experiences that they may have encountered. Although sibling relationships may become more egalitarian throughout adolescence and both sisters’ experiences may have an influence on one another’s behaviors (Whiteman et al., 2017), in areas such as dating and sexuality—where adolescents are exploring and developing their sexual identity (Christopher, 2001)—older sisters may play a greater role in younger sisters’ sexual socialization than vice versa. Future research should examine how sisters’ conversations about dating and sexuality are associated with adolescents’ romantic relationship and sexual correlates over time to gain a greater understanding of the socialization process.

Our study also revealed other important dynamics of sisters’ relationships with one another. Because sibling relationships are peer-like (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) but also “involuntary” relationships (Collins & van-Dulmen, 2006), sisters may feel comfortable being open and honest with one another in ways they would not when engaging with parents or friends. Sisters gave one another messages about disapproval of sisters’ romantic partners or sisters’ behaviors, and rules about what their sisters should or should not do—messages that could be harmful in other relationships (e.g., adolescent may get into an argument with her friend and/or end a friendship if she is open about her disapproval of friend’s partner) or have more significant implications in other relationships (e.g., parent may forbid adolescent to date someone of whom they do not approve). Additionally, previous work has revealed that mothers are more dominant in mother–adolescent conversations about sexuality and exhibit lower turn-taking in conversations about sexuality compared to conversations about other less taboo topics (Lefkowitz et al., 1996). Although older sisters were likely to discuss some topics more than others, both older and younger sisters gave messages related to dating logistics, dating partners, sex, and importance of self—topics that they may be less likely to talk about with parents. These dynamics may be useful in programs designed to promote healthy relationships and reduce the negative consequences of teen sex.

Limitations and directions for future research

Although this study makes several contributions to the literature, its limitations need to be addressed with future research. First, our study focused on sisters and we did not examine dyads including brothers. Recent work highlights the romantic relationship benefits of having an opposite sex sibling (Doughty et al., 2015) and, for adolescent girls, some of the risks that may come along with having an older brother (e.g., older brothers’ friends are potential dating and sexual partners; Killoren, Rodríguez de Jesús, Updegraff, & Wheeler, 2017). Future studies on sibling influence on romantic relationship and sexuality development should include all sibling sex constellation dyads. Second, we examined sisters’ conversations about dating and sexuality at one point-in-time and it is important to examine how sisters’ messages during these conversations are associated with future romantic relationship and sexual correlates. Third, our observations were not naturalistic; thus, sisters may have been cautious during their conversations. Fourth, older sisters in our study ranged from 15 to 37 years of age. Although we controlled for sibling age spacing in our analyses, it is likely that the conversations between sisters may be different if there is a large compared to small age gap between them. Further, the variability in the sexual intentions variable is greater for older sisters compared to younger sisters, which may represent older sisters’ greater likelihood of being in a committed romantic/sexual relationship. Finally, our study was cross-sectional and we were unable to establish temporal precedence. As noted previously, examining how sisters’ conversations about dating and sexuality are related to their later romantic relationship and sexual attitudes and experiences is important to define the potential role that sisters (older sisters in particular) may play in intervention/prevention programs for adolescents’ romantic relationships and sexual health.

Conclusion

Our study shows that sisters give messages to one another about dating logistics, dating partners, sex, and the importance of self. Consistent with symbolic interactionism (Christopher, 2001), sisters’ messages were often framed within the context of their own experiences with dating and sexuality. Older sisters’ sexual experiences, intentions, and attitudes were particularly important in shaping sisters’ conversations about dating and sexuality. The messages that sisters in our study gave to one another should not be concerning to parents or other authority figures. Sisters were having conversations about important topics, and treating topics as taboo and discouraging conversations would be a disservice to adolescent girls and their sisters—particularly given that conversations about this topic with sisters are likely more comfortable for teens than conversations over the same topics with parents or other adults. In sum, our findings suggest that older sisters may play an important role in family-based prevention programs focused on adolescent girls’ healthy relationships and healthy sexuality development.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the young women who participated in this project and also thank Anna Lindell, Andrea Roach, Emily Rolan, Vikki Shahan, and our undergraduate research assistants for their help with data collection and coding.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was financially supported by the University of Missouri Research Council, the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Hatch project 1006258 awarded to Sarah Killoren), and Award Number F32HD061171 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Appendix A

Coded themes and subthemes	Example quotations
Dating logistics
Timing/progression of romantic relationships Dating in high school, age to start dating	“I think that in high school if you find the person you love or whatever just wait out, don’t ask to get married, just calm down.” “I don’t know high school relationships, like when you step back and look at them, they seem like a waste of time.”
Characteristics of relationships Negatives aspects of relationships, quality of relationships	“I really hate when people change for other people. That’s the worst thing dating can do.” “I feel like communication between partners is very important. That’s how you get problems solved.”
Behaviors in romantic relationships Trust, physical affection, online communication	“I think online dating is a cool way to meet people, but…you’re gonna have to meet, you know?” “If somebody cheats on you, don’t date them again.”
Values/opinions about romantic relationships Dating expectations, benefits/costs of dating, dating rules	“You can’t date until you’re 16. Well, it’s recommended.” “I think that dating can be a positive or negative thing.”
Defining dating Ideas about what dating is	“My idea is you have a boyfriend and you hang out and you do…boyfriend-girlfriend things like go out to dinner.” “I think dating is whatever you want it to be.”
Dating partner
Partner preferences Maturity, partner characteristics to avoid, attractiveness, age of partners	“I’m not all about looks and personality, but they have to be attractive and have a good personality.” “If your boyfriend does not want to meet your parents then you don’t want to be with him.”
Finding romantic partner and starting relationships Ideal partner, how to find a romantic partner, how to start dating	“I believe you should have a conversation first…before you even do anything. I just don’t know. I just feel like there’s not a guy out there for me.” “You should go on more dates so you can get to know a person if you’re gonna try to make it official.”
Opinions about specific partners Comments about one’s own or sisters’ romantic partner(s), including disapproval of partner	“I think your new boyfriend is weird.” “You should find someone like Chris cause I still think you guys would be cute together.”
Sex
Opinions about sex Readiness for sex, timing of sex, delaying sex	“When you look at everybody at school, you see how many people are having sex, there’s people you wouldn’t think.” “Don’t have sex with somebody until you’re like committed.”
Premarital sex Attitudes about premarital sex, morals, religion	“Wait on having sex and heavy touching until you’re married and saving it for your husband.” “In my values, I think it’s okay to have sex only after your married, cause then it’s special.”
Sexual pressure Pressure from partner, conflicting messages from family, religion, friends	“Most of our society does think about sex and all that, which I don’t think that’s right…or promoting it in magazines and stuff. You should wait until you’re married but that also could have been because we were raised in a Christian household.” “The longer you guys are dating, the higher the expectations will go…now we have to do this…I don’t want you to feel that pressure.”
Past discussions about sex Previous discussions sisters have had with one another about sex	“We always talk about sex. We talk about peer pressure during sex…since we’re sisters, she’s more comfortable talking to me about sex than to mom.”
Protection and consequences of sex Birth control, pregnancy, STDs, importance of using protection if having sex	“I think if you are going to have sex, you should get regular check-ups to keep you safe.” “When you have sexual intercourse, you need a condom.”
Importance of self
Independence Staying single, importance of independence	“Don’t have a boyfriend all the time. It really builds skills to be independent.” “I think serious boyfriends when you’re younger, they hold you back from doing stuff and you can’t really grow as an individual.”
Priorities Focus on school, dating as distraction, self-care	“Every day, you’re with that person so you cut off your own friends.” “Make sure you’re happy before the other person is happy, because if you are unhappy then you’re just betraying yourself.”

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Barber

B. L.

(2006). To have loved and lost…adolescent romantic relationships and rejection. In Crouter

A. C.

Booth

(Eds.), Romance and sex in adolescence and emerging adulthood: Risks and opportunities (pp. 29–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063o

Carver

Joyner

Udry

J. R.

(2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In Florsheim

(Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 23–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Christopher

F. S.

(2001). To dance the dance: A symbolic interactional exploration of premarital sexuality. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Collins

W. A.

van Dulmen

(2006). Friendships and romance in emerging adulthood: Assessing distinctiveness in close relationships. In Arnett

J. J.

Tanner

J. L.

(Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 219–234). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.

Corona

Gomes

M. M.

Pope

Shaffer

Yaros

(2016). Love shouldn’t hurt: What do African American maternal caregivers tell their daughters about dating violence? The Journal of Early Adolescence, 36, 465–489. doi:10.1177/0272431614566945

DiIorio

Kelley

Hockenberry-Eaton

(1999). Communication about sexual issues: Mothers, fathers, and friends. Journal of Adolescent Health, 24, 181–189. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(98)00115-3

Doughty

S. E.

Lam

C. B.

Stankik

C. E.

McHale

S. M.

(2015). Links between sibling experiences and romantic competence from adolescence through young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2054–2066. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0177-9

10.

Dunn

(1993). Young children’s close relationships: Beyond attachment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

11.

East

P. L.

Jacobson

L. J.

(2001). The younger siblings of teenage mothers: A follow-up of their pregnancy risk. Developmental Psychology, 37, 254–264. doi:10.1037/00121649.37.2.254

12.

Furman

Buhrmester

(1985). Children’s perceptions of the qualities of sibling relationships. Child Development, 56, 448–461. doi:10.2307/1129733

13.

Gillmore

M. R.

Archibald

M. E.

Morrison

D. M.

Wilsdon

Wells

E. A.

Hoppe

M. J.

… Murowchick

(2002). Teen sexual behavior: Applicability of the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 885–897. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00885.x

14.

Harden

K. P.

(2014). A sex-positive framework for research on adolescent sexuality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 455–469. doi:10.1177/1745691614535934

15.

Hollifield

C. R.

Conger

K. J.

(2015). The role of siblings and psychological needs in predicting life satisfaction during emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 3, 143–153. doi:10.1177/2167696814561544

16.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

17.

Killoren

S. E.

Roach

A. L.

(2014). Sibling conversations about dating and sexuality: Sisters as confidants, sources of support, and mentors. Family Relations, 63, 232–243. doi:10.1111/fare.12057

18.

Killoren

S. E.

Rodríguez de Jesús

S. A.

Updegraff

K. A.

Wheeler

L. A.

(2017). Sibling relationship quality and Mexican-origin adolescents’ and young adults’ familism values and adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41, 155–164. doi:10.1177/0165025415607084

19.

Killoren

S. E.

Updegraff

K. A.

Christopher

F. S.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2011). Mothers, fathers, peers, and Mexican-origin adolescents’ sexual intentions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 209–220. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00799.x

20.

Killoren

S. E.

Wheeler

L. A.

Updegraff

K. A.

Rodríguez de Jesús

S. A.

McHale

S. M.

(2015). Longitudinal associations among parent-adolescent acceptance, familism values, and sibling intimacy in Mexican-origin families. Family Process, 54, 217–231. doi:10.1111/famp.12126

21.

Kowal

A. K.

Blinn-Pike

(2004). Sibling influences on adolescents’ attitudes toward safe sex practices. Family Relations, 53, 377–384. doi:10.1111/j.0197-664.2004.00044.x

22.

Landis

J. R.

Koch

G. G.

(1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33, 363–374.

23.

Lee

T. R.

Mancini

J. A.

Maxwell

J. W.

(1990). Sibling relationships in adulthood: Contact patterns and motivations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52, 431–440. doi:10.2307/353037

24.

Lefkowitz

E. S.

(2002). Beyond the yes-no question: Measuring parent-adolescent communication about sex. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 97, 43–56. doi:10.1002/cd.49

25.

Lefkowitz

E. S.

Boone

T. L.

Shearer

C. L

. (2004). Communication with best friends about sex-related topics during emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 339–351. doi:10.1023/B: JOYO.0000032642.27242.c1

26.

Lefkowitz

E. S.

Kahlbaugh

P. E.

Sigman

M. D.

(1996). Turn-taking in mother-adolescent conversations about sexuality and conflict. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 307–321. doi:1007/BF01537387

27.

Lehr

S. T.

DiIorio

Dudly

W. N.

Lipana

J. A.

(2000). The relationship between parent-adolescent communication and safer sex behaviors in college students. Journal of Family Nursing, 6, 180–196. doi:10.1177/107484070000600206

28.

Lindell

A. K.

Campione-Barr

Killoren

S. E.

(2015). Technology-mediated communication with siblings during the transition to college: Associations with relationship positivity and self-disclosure. Family Relations, 64, 563–578. doi:10.1111/fare.12133

29.

Milevsky

(2005). Compensatory patterns of sibling support in emerging adulthood: Variations in loneliness, self-esteem, depression and life satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 743–755. doi:10.1177/0265407505056447

30.

Reis

H. T.

Shaver

(1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Duck

(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). Chichester, England: Wiley.

31.

Roisman

G. I.

Masten

A. S.

Coatsworth

J. D.

Tellegen

(2004). Salient and emerging developmental tasks in the transition to adulthood. Child Development, 75, 123–133. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00658.x

32.

Romo

L. F.

Lefkowitz

E. S.

Sigman

T. K.

(2002). A longitudinal study of maternal messages about dating and sexuality and their influence on Latino adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 59–69. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(01)00402-5

33.

Romo

L. F.

Bravo

Cruz

M. E.

Rios

R. M.

Kouyoumdjian

. (2010). El sexo no es male [In Spanish]: Maternal values accompanying contraceptive use advice to young Latina adolescent daughters. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7, 118–127. doi:10.1007/s13178-009-0001-6

34.

Rueda

H. A.

Nagoshi

J. L.

Williams

L. R.

(2014). Mexican American and European American adolescents’ dating experiences across the ecosystem: Implications for healthy relationships within an ecodevelopmental framework. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 24, 358–376. doi:10.1080/10911359.2013.831013

35.

Sprecher

McKinney

Walsh

Anderson

(1988). A revision of the Reiss premarital sexual permissiveness scale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 821–828. doi:10.2307/352650

36.

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, 63–76. doi:10.1023/A:1024540228946

37.

Tucker

C. J.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

(2001). Conditions of sibling support in adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 254–271. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.2.254

38.

Vasilenko

S. A.

Lefkowitz

E. S.

Maggs

J. L.

(2012). Short-term positive and negative consequences of sex based on daily reports among college students. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 558–569. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.589101

39.

Wallace

S. A.

Hooper

L. M.

Persad

(2014). Brothers, sisters and fictive kin communication about sex among urban Black siblings. Youth & Society, 46, 688–705. doi:10.1177/0044118x12450176

40.

Whiteman

S. D.

Becerra

J. M.

Killoren

(2009). Mechanisms of sibling socialization in normative family development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 126, 29–43. doi:10.1002/cd.254

41.

Whiteman

S. D.

Jensen

A. C.

McHale

S. M.

(2017). Sibling influences on risky behaviors from adolescence to young adulthood: Vertical socialization or bidirectional effects. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 156, 67–85. doi:10.1002/cad.20197