Sibling relationships

Sibling Relationship 1

Sibling Relationships: Gender and Socioeconomic Differences

Gaspe, Fatima C.

BA PSYCHOLOGY II

AY 2011 - 2012


INTRODUCTION

The researchers focused and highlighted more on the study on

parent-child relationships leaving sibling relationship as a

variable to the study. This leads to the lacking of information

about relationships among brothers and sisters. Yet sibling

relationships are essential to one’s child development. The

relationship we have with our siblings will be the most lasting

and enduring relationship we can have since most siblings outlive

parents and they begin earlier than those we establish with

friends. Furthermore, according to Brown and Peterson, the

quality of the relationship that siblings establish with one

another during adolescence has the potential to bring them

together, or draw them apart, throughout the remainder of adult

life (1996).


During adolescence, sibling relationship acquires a

significant effect towards the character of the person. Brothers

and sisters bring each other happiness, fights, pain, and

pleasure. Siblings emotionally support each other. Siblings

turned out to each other for advices and solidarity that they

think their parents can’t give them. Naturally in this age,

adolescents think that they are emotionally independent from

their parents but they are not.

Researchers have made efforts to narrow down the

characteristics of sibling behavior and psychology but some

underlying themes in the study remained understudied and unknown.

All studies about sibling relationships offer the same concepts

but the difference that these can make depend upon the context of

the study. Out of the different studies done in different places,

comparisons are made that bring sibling relationship more

interesting field to study. Sibling relationships cover a wide

range of function namely, gender, birth order, birth spacing,

family size. These are the variables that are being studied by

the researcher and they get the same results out of it.


Above mentioned variables related to sibling relationship,

only socio-economic status was not included. So the researcher

realized that it is essential to know the relationship of

siblings and their socio-economic status since in most studies,

it is the only variable rarely included to relate with of sibling

relationships. It is also important to know how parents resolve

sibling conflicts. Sibling conflicts may come in physically,

emotionally and financially. The researcher is also eager to find

out the quality of relationship adolescents have with their

siblings may it be positive or negative. Then, the study would

like to extend the variables’ relationship with sibling behavior.

These variables include gender and age. This would cater the

studies of sibling relationships new dimensions and ideas.


Review of Related Literature

“Our siblings. They resemble us just enough to make all

their differences confusing, and no matter what we choose to make

of this, we are cast in relation to them our whole lives long”

(Merrell, n. d). Sibling relationships are unique. Sibling

relationships are the longest-lasting relationship that most

individuals share. Sibling relationships are essential (Connidis

& Campbell 1995; Dunn 2007 as cited in Soli, McHale & Whiteman,

2011). Connidis, Campbell and Dunn stated that siblings are

central in the lives of individuals and families across life

span. Siblings serve as companions, confidants and role models in

childhood and adolescence and functions as a support system

throughout childhood according to Connidis, Campbell and Dunn.

Throughout the review, there are theories that serve as grounds


for the research of sibling relationship and studies done for

sibling relationships.

One of the theories explaining the dynamics of sibling

relationship are the social learning theories. According to

social learning theories, individuals obtain cognitive behaviors

such as attitudes and beliefs through two mechanisms, the

reinforcement and observation of others’ behaviors (Bandura, 1997

as cited in Soli, McHale & Whiteman, 2011). This applies to

siblings that shape their own relationship in the context of

their social exchanges. Siblings reciprocate and reinforce

positive and negative behaviors by observing and imitating one

another. In this case, younger siblings observe their elder

siblings’ behaviors and imitate them. Social learning theory

suggests that parents have an influence on sibling relationship.

According to Soli, McHale and Whiteman, the marital relationship

of the parents reflects on the quality of the sibling

relationship. As mention by Jenkins (1992) in Soli, McHale and

Whiteman that intense marital conflict resulted to siblings to

grew more intimate, turning to one another for emotional support.


Another theory that explains the social psychological

processes in sibling relationships is the social comparison

theory. Individuals compare themselves to feel good on their

selves and to motivate their selves to be better via upward and

downward comparison. Given the shared family background and

experiences, siblings are the primary targets for social

comparison. Consistent with the theory, siblings compare their

selves to their other siblings that resulted to sibling rivalry

and parents’ treatment to their children.

On the other hand, based on the writings of John Bowlby ,

attachment theory makes clear of an individual’s developmental

changes in social relationship. This perspective targets the

early bond between infants and their primary caregivers as

critical to the infants' survival. In connection with sibling

relationships, with maturity, individuals increasingly form

mutual and reciprocal relationships, wherein each partner's

responsiveness to the needs of the other becomes important. In

this way, siblings' behaviors toward each other may exert an

influence on the sibling relationship, with each sibling's


working model influencing the creation of an attachment

relationship between them (1969). “Sibling relationships are

unique in that they are characterized by both hierarchical and

reciprocal elements, which change across place and time. Whether

and how attachment relationships between siblings form and

develop are important issues but the reviews on attachment theory

and sibling relationship are limited (Dunn, 2007; East,

2009; McHale, Kim, & Whiteman, 2006 as cited in Soli, McHale &

Whiteman, 2011).

The literature review shows that sibling relationship is

tied with parent-child relationship. The theories underlying the

dynamics of sibling relationship have been reviewed namely, the

social learning theory, the social comparison theory and Bowlby’s

attachment theory. Now, the studies conducted show evidence to

other variables related to sibling relationship such as gender,

age and socio-economic status. The method commonly used was

surveying. Adolescents and young adults were the primary target

respondents of the studies. The following studies proved that

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2011.00087.x/full#b48





sibling relationship is the longest-lasting relationship an

individual can have.

Gender. In a study conducted by Katoch and Nandwana (2009) on the

perception of sibling relationship during middle adulthood,

gender was a significant variable that had an impact on sibling

relationship. Among the five types of sibling relationship

namely, Intimate, Congenial, Loyal, Apathetic and Hostile. The

results show that males have Apathetic type of relationship with

their siblings whereas females have Loyal type of sibling

relationship. None of the male respondent fall in the Intimate

and Hostile category, only female respondents had Intimate and

Hostile kind of relationship with their sibling (p.71). The same

results were found out by Arranz and Oliva (2005) that good

relationship with their siblings linked to good relationship with

parents and peers. In contrast, boys had no interest in linking

their sibling relationship with the relationship they have with

their parents and peers. The two studies done are mere evidences

of Bowlby’s Attachment Theory that with maturity, sibling

relationships are affected by the influence of parents and peers.


One of the primary reasons for the increased intimacy among

sister’s relationship is women’s emotional investment in family

ties and keen responsibilities of women within the family. The

results are in line with Bedford (1996) as cited in Katoch and

Nandwana (2009) who reported that females exhibit more nurturing

behavior, empathy and emotional expression. Moreover, it is the

female siblings have the interest initiating and maintaining

family relationships (p. 70). This is in accordance with the sex

role socialization theory by Harter (1990) as cited in Arranz and

Oliva (2005) that boys focus more on the control and exploration

of their world while girls focus on interpersonal relationships

especially within family environment (p. 265).

For the variable gender, studies have shown similar results.

The outcome of the study conducted by Nandwana and Katoch (2009)

agreed to what Connidis and Campbell (1995), Dunn (2007) have

stated that siblings turned to each other for emotional support

(as cited in Soli, McHale & Whiteman, 2011).

Age. Sibling relationships are evident across life span. Dunn

(1983) stated that “taking into account the closeness in age and


early association of siblings, they can bond for a lifetime” (p.

787). “And that the closer siblings are in age, the greater their

chance is of sharing developmental events in similar ways” (Bank

& Kahn, 1982 as cited in Socialisation in the Family, n. d).

Sibling relationships during adolescence are never

exclusively conflictive, containing elements of inter-sibling

help and social support (Lempers & Clark-Lempers, 1992; Steinberg

& Morris, 2001 as cited in Arranz & Oliva, 2005). On the other

hand, the general tendency for middle-aged siblings (40-60 yrs.

old) is of social support that consists more of the psychological

support compared to teenagers (12-18 yrs. old) that treat their

siblings as an emotional support system (Katoch & Nandwana,

2009). The support system may vary as we aged but siblings

contributed to the development of an individual.

With age comes birth order. Conflicts are the same but

varied at different levels when it comes to the order of the

child in the family. Science Daily (2010) reported that both

younger and older siblings reported conflicts for personal space

but older siblings are more frequently confronted with this kind


of conflict. This would mean that older siblings are more

sensitive when it comes to privacy.

In addition, Katoch and Nandwana (2009) affirmed that

competition among siblings is evident during middle adulthood

years. Conflict arises when siblings are jealous of each other

because of their different socio-economic status. Parents give

praise to the child whose family life is better. This would be

the basis for conflict between siblings. But according to an

article in Science Daily (2010) these conflict had no impact on

the quality of sibling relationship.

Socio-economic status. “Siblings who have fewer economic

resources tend to demonstrate greater concordance in their

socioeconomic statuses” (Becker &Tomes, 1986; Mazumder & Levine,

2003 as cited in Lawson & Mace, 2011). In this manner, those

children who belong to the lower class seek to have more

resources resulting to conflicts while those children who belong

to the upper class are satisfied with their resources. Lawson &

Mace demonstrated that number of siblings had a larger influence


on parental investment than any other variables, including

socioeconomic indicators and parental age.

Related studies on sibling relationship and socio-economic

status are limited. In part of the child’s development, the

effect on socio-economic status on the sibling relationship is

insufficient enough to elaborate more the study.

Statement of the Problem

The study entitled Sibling Relationship during Adolescence

aims to assess the effect of gender and socio-economic status in

sibling relationship.

The purpose of the study is to answer the following

questions:

1. What is the common activity shared between sibling among

the respondents?

2. What is the prevailing reason for the conflict among

siblings?

3. What is the method used by parents in conflict resolution


4. Is there a significant difference between male and female

teenagers in the type of sibling relationship?

5. Is there a significant difference between the respondents

who belong to middle class and lower class in the type of

sibling relationship?

6. Is there a significant difference between male and female

teenagers in the quality of sibling relationship?

7. Is there a significant difference between the respondents

who belong to middle class and lower class in the quality

of sibling relationship?


Conceptual Framework

Fig. 1 displays

Gender

Male

Female

Quality of Sibling

Relationship

Close

Distant

Type of Sibling

Relationship

Negative

Positive

Socio-economic Status

Middle Class

Lower Class


the conceptual framework of the study. It represents the relation

of the variable with each other.

The variables considered in the study are gender, socio-

economic status, the type of sibling relationship and the quality

of sibling relationship. Gender is the biological orientation of

an individual. Gender has two categories; male and female. Then,

socio-economic status as defined by Merriam Webster’s Dictionary

is an evaluation of one’s self in terms of family’s income,

educational attainment and occupation. Socio-economic status is

varied at two levels; the middle class and the lower class.

Third, it is the type of sibling relationship that may be in

positive and in negative type. The positive type of sibling

relationship refers to higher rating on the positive adjectives

in the scale while the negative type of sibling relationship does

otherwise. Lastly, it’s the quality of sibling relationship. The

quality was categorized in two levels, the closed and the distant

one.

In Fig. 1, the diagram shows that gender has a relationship

with the type of sibling relationship and the quality of sibling


relationship. In line with Bowlby’s attachment theory, females

establish an internal working model in their relationship with

parents develop trust in others that leads them to have a close

and a positive relationship with their siblings and peers. In

addition, females initiate to keep ties in terms of interpersonal

relationships like family. On the other hand, males have

independent relationship with their parents, siblings and peers

leading that resulted to a negative and distant relationship with

their siblings. The diagram also shows that socio-economic status

has an association with the type and quality of sibling

relationship. Since socio-economic status is the least studied

variable in sibling relationships, theories are very limited

about it.

Out of the diagram, the researcher has drawn hypothesis for

the study. These are the hypotheses to the relationship of the

variables based on the diagram:

(1) There is a significant difference between male and

female teenagers in the quality and type of sibling relationship.


(2) There is no significant difference between respondents

who belong to middle class and lower class in the quality of

sibling relationship

METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses about the gathering of data; the

setting and the sampling design and the analysis of data.

This study makes use of the descriptive-comparative research

design. The descriptive-comparative research design is a

combination of a descriptive and a comparative research wherein

both qualitative and quantitative are being used.

Research Setting

The collection and gathering of data happened in Lilo-an.

Lilo-an is composed of 14 barangays. The research setting was in

Barangay Cotcot in the two sitios of Sitio Ilacot and Sitio

Tulay. Lilo-an is the fifth district of Cebu with 45.92 km2 land

area. Since Lilo-an is the home of ceramic manufacturers, making

plant pots, jars and bricks are their major source of livelihood.


Sampling Design

The research unit used in the study was the number of

households. The sampling design used was systematic sampling with

a random start with the k of 1. The number of households of Sitio

Ilacot was 112 and 89 households of Sitio Tulay. With 95%

confidence interval and 5% margin of error, the sample sizes were

87 and 73 which was 160 in total. The target population for the

two sitios in Barangay Cotcot yielded 160 respondents.

Research Respondents

Table1. Characteristics of the Respondents

Characteristics

f p

GenderMale 96 59.6Female 64 39.8

Mean SdAge 16.21 1.74


The table 1 shows the characteristics of respondents in term

of age and gender. The respondents of the study were the

residents of Sitio Ilacot and Sitio Tulay in Barangay Cotcot,

Lilo-an, Cebu. There were 96 males and 64 females. The

respondents’ mean age is 16.21 with a standard deviation of 1.64.

Research Instrument

The instrument used was a questionnaire through surveying.

The instrument consisted of five questions; three were the

considered open-ended question. The first question was about the

activities done by the respondent together with his/her

sibling(s). The second question was the reasons for conflict. The

last open ended question was about parent’s way of solving the

conflict.

For the quality of sibling relationship a Sibling

Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ) (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985 as

cited in Tehrani, 2006) was used. This questionnaire measures the

nature of children’s relationships with their siblings. The


questionnaire contains 16 scales in two versions, with 48 items

and 39 items but the researcher only selected five items that

were relevant to the study. And for the type of sibling

relationship, the adjective rating scale was used where six

adjectives were used to describe the respondents’ relationship

with their siblings. Both the type and the quality of sibling

relationship were rated as SK as supak kaayo, S as supak, T as

tunga-tunga, U as uyon and UK as uyon kaayo.

Data Analysis

The variables were coded. For gender, female was 1 and male

was 0. In socio-economic status, middle class was 0 and lower

class was 1. Since there was no respondent who belong to the

upper class, the researcher decided to collapse the category

upper class. The answers to the open-ended questions were tallied

in frequencies using the method of multiple responses.

In comparing the means of gender and socio-economic status

with the quality and the type of sibling relationship, t-test for

independent groups was used. In all test, 0.05 level of

significance was always used.


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the tables and interpretation of the

data collected. This also discusses the results of the study.

Table 2. Activities done Together with the Siblings

*Multiple responses

Activities f pEating 37 23.12Chitchatting 26 16.25Watching TV 28 17.50Singing 10 6.25


Playing games 39 24.38Laughing 7 4.38Doing household chores

12 7.50

Strolling 56 35None 15 9.38

N=160

The results show the top three activities done by siblings.

The most common activity done together by siblings was strolling

with 35%. Strolling included the activities such as window

shopping in malls and going to parks. The second activity most

often done by siblings was playing games. The third activity most

common among siblings was eating with 23.12%. Eating activity

consisted of talking with siblings about their life specifically,

academics and an open conversation with siblings. Among the

activities enlisted in table 2, the least common activity was

laughing with 4.38%.


Table 3. Reasons of Conflict among Siblings

*Multiple responses

Reasons of Conflict f p

Jealousy 15 9.38

Different Ideas 47 29.38

Attitude of sibling 85 53.12

Personal things 34 21.25

Money 8 5

Teasing 21 13.12

Household chores 24 15

Favoritism 8 5

None 2 1.25

N=160

Table 3 reveals the most frequent reason of conflict which

was the attitude of sibling comprising 53.12% of the respondents’

answers. The attitude of sibling included sibling’s disrespect

for the older sibling, laziness and stubbornness on tasks.

Different perspectives of siblings resulting to different ideas

that causes the conflict between them. Different ideas with

29.38% came in the second most frequent reason of conflict.


Table 4. Parent’s Resolution to the Conflict

*Multiple responses

Parents’ Resolutionto the Conflict

f p

Open Conversation 98 61.25

No care 8 5

Individualresolutions

4 2.5

Physical punishment 30 18.75

Verbal punishment 18 11.25

No resolution 30 18.75

N=160

The result shows that majority of the parent’s resolution to

conflict was open conversation. In an open conversation, parents

gave advices, talked to their children and suggested ways for

conflict not to arise. Physical punishment and no resolution were

equal in number with 18.75%. Verbal punishment was used

frequently compared to parents’ no care treatment.

Table 5.


Means and Standard Deviations of Gender and the Quality and Typeof Sibling Relationship

Gender

N Mean Std.Deviation

Quality of SiblingRelationship

Female

64 2.8739 .59015.60657

Male 96 2.7917

Type of Sibling Relationship

Female

64 2.9378 .67851.64405

Male 96 2.7603

The means obtained by female (M=2.87, SD=0.59) and male

(M=2.79, SD=0.61) has no significant difference on the quality of

sibling relationship. Also, the means obtained by female (M=2.94,

SD=0.68) and male (M=2.76, SD=0.64) has no significant difference

on the type of sibling relationship.

Table 6.1. Difference between gender and the type of Sibling Relationship

t df Sig.(2-

tailed)

Type ofSiblingRelation

ship

1.672 158 0.097

p<0.05*, p<0.01**


The results show that the obtained t(158)=1.672 is not

significant at 0.05 alpha. This would mean that male and female

teenagers have no significant difference on the type of sibling

relationship may it be positive or negative.

Table 6.2. Difference between gender and the quality of Sibling Relationship

t df Sig.(2-

tailed)

Qualityof

SiblingRelationship

0.849 158 0.397

p<0.05*, p<0.01**

It was found out that the quality of sibling relationship

was not significant at 0.05 alpha with an obtained t(158)=0.849.

Therefore, female and male respondents did not differ in the how

close and how distant their relationship with their siblings.


Table 7. Means and Standard Deviations of Socio-economic status and theQuality and Type of Sibling Relationship

Socio-economicstatus

N Mean Std.Deviati

onQuality of Sibling Relationship

lower class 72 2.8893

.49769

middle class 88 2.7716

.66970

Type of Sibling Relationship

lower class 72 2.7708

.60383

middle class 88 2.8808

.70511

The means obtained by the respondents who belong to the

lower class (M=2.89, SD=0.50) and respondents who belong to the

middle class (M=2.77, SD=0.67) has no significant difference on

the quality of sibling relationship. Also, the means obtained by

the respondents who belong to the lower class (M=2.77, SD=0.60)

and respondents who belong to the middle class (M=2.88, SD=0.70)

has no significant difference on the type of sibling

relationship.


Table 8.1. Difference between socio-economic status and the type of SiblingRelationship

p<0.05*, p<0.01**

The results

show that the

obtained t(158)=-1.046 is not significant at 0.05 alpha. This would

mean that responendent from middle class and lower class have no

significant difference on the type of sibling relationship may it

be positive or negative.

Table 8.2.Difference between socio-economic status and the quality ofSibling Relationship

p<0.05*, p<0.01**

It was found out

that the quality of

t df Sig.(2-

tailed)

Type ofSiblingRelationship

-1.046 158 0.297

t df Sig.(2-

tailed)

QualityofSiblingRelationship

1.238 158 0.218


sibling relationship was not significant at 0.05 alpha with an

obtained t(158)=0.849. Therefore, middle class and lower class

respondents did not differ in the how close and how distant their

relationship with their siblings.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This chapter discusses the summary of the results and the

conclusions of the study. The researcher had drawn out

conclusions of the problems asked.

After the collection and the analysis of the data, the

researcher has come up with the following conclusions:

The results revealed that thirty five percent of the

respondents said that the common activity that they share with

their siblings is strolling while the least common activity that


they do with their siblings is laughing with 4.38% .Therefore,

the most common activity shared between siblings among

respondents is strolling. In this activity interaction between

siblings is considered as essential.

Conflict may lead to sibling rivalry. In line with the

theory of social comparison, siblings compare their selves to

their other siblings. Results show that this comparison leads to

jealousy among siblings. But the study generated a different

result. Most of the respondents’ reason of having conflict with

their siblings is the attitude of their siblings with 53.12%.

This includes laziness, disrespectful, stubbornness, disobedience

which are the behaviors manifested their siblings. The reasons

that got the lowest percentage are money and favoritism with 5%.

Therefore, the prevailing reason for the conflict among siblings

is the attitude of the siblings.

Most of the parents’ resolution to the conflict between

siblings is open conversation with 61.25%. Through open

conversation, children are more open minded to accept their

mistakes. It is followed by physical punishment with 18.75%. The

resolution that got the lowest is individual resolutions with


2.5%. Parents resorted to individual resolutions because they

think that their children are mature enough to handle problems.

Therefore, the most common method used by parents in resolving

conflict is Open Conversation.

Results show that there is no significant difference

between male and female teenagers in the type of sibling

relationship. Therefore, gender doesn’t affect the type of

sibling relationship.

There is no significant difference between the

respondents who belong to middle class and lower class in the

type of sibling relationship. Therefore, socio-economic status

doesn’t affect the type of sibling relationship of the

respondents.

Results show that there is no significant difference

between male and female teenagers when it comes to quality of

sibling relationship. Therefore, gender is not a predictor to the

quality of sibling relationship of the respondents.

There is no significant difference between the

respondents who belong to middle class and lower class in the

quality of sibling relationship. Therefore, socio-economic status


cannot predict the quality of sibling relationship of the

respondents

REFERENCES

Arranz, E. & Oliva, A. (2005). Sibling Relationship during

Adolescence. European Journal of

Developmental Psycholoy,2(3), 253-270.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment Theory. Retrieved on March 27, 2012

from


http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/online/inge_origins.p

df

Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling Relationships in Early Childhood. Child

Development, 54(4), 787-811.

Katoch, M. & Nandwana, S. (2009). Perception of Sibling

Relationship during Middle Adulthood

Years: A Typology. J Soc Sci, 2(1), 67-72.

McHale, S., Soli, A., Whiteman, S. (2011). Theoretical

Perspectives on Sibling Relationships.

Journal of Family Theory and Review, 3(2), 124-139.

Merell, S. (n. d). Sibling Quotes. Retrieved on March 27, 2012

from http://www.love-quotes-and- quotations.com/brother-and-

sister-quote.html

Socialisation of the Family. (n. d). Retrieved on March 27, 2012

from

http://etd.uwaterloo.ca/etd/mmalekit2006.pdf

http://etd.uwaterloo.ca/etd/mmalekit2006.pdf

http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/online/inge_origins.pdf

http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/online/inge_origins.pdf


Science Daily. (2010). Retrieved on March 26, 2012 from

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100405122313.htm

Tehrani, K. (2006). Sibling Relationship Questionnaire. Retrieved

on March 27, 2012 from

http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/DLiT/2002/family/sibrel.htm

APPENDICES

Appendix A

The Instrument:

Maayong adlaw. Ako si Fatima C. Gaspe, usa ka tinun-an sa University of the Philippines-Cebu nga nagkuha sa kursong BA Psychology. Nagbuhat ako ug pagtuki kabahin sa Managsuong Relasyon. Mangayo unta ko og gamay nga oras aron mutubag sa akonggagmay nga pangutana. Daghang salamat!

Aduna ka bay igsuon?

1. Unsa ang imo buhaton kuyog imong mga igsuon? Mamahimo nga muhatag ug daghan nga mga tubag.

2. Mag-away bam o sa imong mga igsuon? Unsa man ang mga rason ngano mag-away mo sa imong mga igsuon? Mamahimo nga muhatag ug daghan nga mga tubag.

http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/DLiT/2002/family/sibrel.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100405122313.htm


3. Gi-unsa man sa pamilya pag resolbar sa away? Mamahimo nga muhatag ug daghan nga mga tubag.

4. Palihug ug butang ug tsek (/) sa kahon nga nag-representar sa inyong opinyon sa kada numero nga naghisgot kabahin sa managsuongrelasyon.

SK S T U UK Supak Kaayo Supak Tunga-tunga Uyon Uyon kaayo

SK S T U UK1. Suod ko sa akong mga igsuon.2. Naay kompetensiya sa mga magsuon

kabahin sa kalamposan sa edukasyon.

3. Patas ang pag-atiman sa among mga ginikanan namung mga mag-igsuon.

4. Pabigat ang akong mga igsuon nako.5. Akong gigahin ang akong dakong oras

sa pagkuyog sa akong mga igsuon.

Ang relasyon nako sa akong mga igsuon kay:SK S T U UK

1. Mahigugmaon2. Lisod3. Komportable4. Walay kadasig5. Magkahi-usa6. Maawayon

Edad:Sekswalidad: ___Babaye ___ LalakiEstado sa Panginabuhi:

_____ Dato


_____ Tunga-tunga_____ Pobre

Appendix B

Frequency of Age among the Respondents


AgeFrequenc

yPercen

tValidPercent

Cumulative

Percent12 1 .6 .6 .613 12 7.5 7.5 8.114 23 14.3 14.4 22.515 18 11.2 11.3 33.816 27 16.8 16.9 50.617 21 13.0 13.1 63.818 58 36.0 36.3 100.0Total

160 99.4 100.0

Total 161 100.0

Appendix C


Coding Manual

Gender Code

Lalaki 0

Babaye 1

Socio-economic Status Code

Tunga-tunga 0

Pobre 1

Code

Positive Negative

Supak Kaayo 0 4

Supak 1 3

Tunga-tunga 2 2


Uyon 3 1

Uyon Kaayo 4 0

Appendix D

Raw Data

Gender

Socio-economicStatus

Type of SiblingRelationship

Quality of SiblingRelationship Age

1 0 3.5 2.8 161 0 3.5 3.4 150 1 2.5 3 150 0 1.83 1.6 161 0 2.5 1.6 160 0 2.17 2.2 161 0 2 3 151 1 3 3 161 1 3 2.8 160 0 2.83 3.2 161 1 3 2.8 160 1 1.67 2.4 151 1 2 2.2 16


1 0 1.83 2.8 160 0 2.17 2 161 0 3 2.6 161 0 1.83 1.6 160 0 2.33 2.8 160 0 2.33 3.4 161 0 2.67 3.2 151 1 2.17 2.6 140 0 4 3.2 180 0 3.67 3.6 181 0 2.83 2.8 181 0 1.83 2.5 181 0 3.5 2.4 141 0 2.67 2.8 181 0 1.5 1.8 170 1 3.5 3.2 180 1 2 2 181 0 2.5 2.6 171 1 2 2 181 0 2.67 2.8 180 1 3.5 3.4 181 0 4 3.2 181 1 2.83 3 180 1 2.33 3 180 1 3.5 3.2 180 0 2.5 1.8 180 1 3 2.6 160 1 1.83 3.2 180 0 2.5 2.8 180 0 3 2.8 170 1 3 2.8 141 0 3 3.6 131 0 3.5 3.4 181 0 2.5 2.8 161 0 3 2.8 151 0 3.5 3 141 0 3 2.8 151 0 2 2.8 13


1 0 3.83 3.6 131 0 4 3.8 140 0 3.83 3.4 161 0 2.67 2.4 170 0 2.17 2.6 131 0 2.67 2.4 171 0 3 3 141 1 3 3.2 180 1 3 2.4 140 0 3.33 3.2 150 1 3.83 3.8 160 1 2.5 2.6 170 1 2.17 2.8 160 1 2.5 3 180 0 3.33 2.4 140 1 2.5 2.6 140 1 1.5 2.2 181 0 3.5 2.2 181 1 3.17 2.8 180 0 3 3 131 0 2.17 2.2 161 0 2.33 2.4 170 1 2 2.6 171 1 3.5 2.83 160 0 2 2 131 1 2.33 3.2 151 0 4 4 181 0 4 4 180 0 2.33 3.4 150 0 2 1 181 0 3.5 3.6 140 1 2.33 3 181 1 3.33 2.8 150 0 2.5 2.2 180 1 3.17 3.2 140 1 2.17 2 140 1 3.17 2.8 130 0 3 1.8 14


0 1 3.5 3.6 160 0 2.17 2.4 160 1 2.67 2.6 150 1 2 3.2 140 1 2.17 2.4 140 1 1.83 1.6 130 1 3.17 3.4 140 1 2.67 2.4 140 1 2.83 3 170 1 2.67 3.2 170 1 3 2.8 160 1 3.5 2.8 150 0 2.33 2.6 180 1 3 2.6 180 1 4 3.8 180 1 2.33 3.4 170 0 3.67 3 170 1 2.83 3 150 1 1.83 2.2 180 1 2.5 3.2 160 1 3.67 3.4 151 1 2.33 2.2 180 1 2.67 2.4 151 0 2.5 3.2 141 0 2.5 2.2 180 1 3.5 2.8 140 1 2.5 2.8 130 1 2 3.2 150 0 2.5 2.6 160 1 2.33 3.2 140 1 2.33 2.4 140 1 3.5 3 130 1 3.5 4 180 1 2.83 3.8 120 0 3 2.6 150 1 3.67 3.6 130 0 2 2 181 1 2.5 2.6 13


1 1 3.17 2.6 140 1 2.83 3 171 0 2 2 181 0 3 2.8 170 0 2.83 2.6 181 0 3.67 3.6 170 0 3.33 2.4 171 0 3.67 3.6 171 1 3.67 4 170 1 3.33 3.4 181 0 2.17 2 180 0 4 3.4 180 0 2.67 2.4 180 0 3.5 2.8 170 0 3.17 3.4 180 0 4 3.6 141 0 4 4 181 0 4 3.4 170 1 3.67 2.6 180 0 3.17 2.6 170 1 2 3.2 180 0 3.17 3.8 181 0 3.67 3.6 180 0 1.5 1 180 0 2.83 3 180 0 1.83 2.6 181 0 3.17 2.6 180 0 2 1.4 181 0 2.5 2.6 180 1 3.33 3.4 181 0 4 3.4 181 0 3.67 3.6 180 1 2.67 2.2 18

Sibling relationships

Documents

Transcript of Sibling relationships