Advertisement

Relationship Quality Among Half Siblings: the Role of Childhood Co-residence

  • Antti O. Tanskanen
  • Mirkka Danielsbacka
Research Article

Abstract

It is argued that the childhood co-residence duration is one of the most important kin detection mechanisms among siblings and thus should influence the relationship quality between them. Using data from the German Family Panel (Pairfam) sibling module, we detect whether childhood co-residence predicts relationship quality (as indicated by the contact frequency and emotional closeness) among adult half siblings. Individuals who have co-resided with their half siblings during childhood report a better relationship quality with these siblings compared to individuals who have not co-resided with half siblings. Among individuals who have co-resided for most of their childhood with half siblings, the relationship quality is better in same-sex dyads than opposite-sex dyads. Finally, no difference in relationship quality was detected between full and half siblings in cases in which they lived together during their childhood. These findings indicate that childhood co-residence tends to regulate relationship quality among adult half siblings.

Keywords

Childhood co-residence Half siblings Kin detection 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The presented analyses are based on data from the German Family Panel (Pairfam), release 7.0 (Brüderl et al. 2016). A detailed description of the study can be found in Huinink et al. (2011). The German Family Panel Pairfam is coordinated by Josef Brüderl, Karsten Hank, Johannes Huinink, Bernhard Nauck, Franz Neyer, and SabineWalper. Pairfam is funded as a longterm project by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

References

  1. Antfolk, J. (2014). Incest aversion: The evolutionary roots of individual regulation. Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar
  2. Antfolk, J., & Wolf, A. P. (2016). Itemising Westermarck’s hypothesis: the assumptions embedded in Westermarck’s explanation of human incest avoidance. In O. Lagerspetz, J. Antfolk, Y. Gustafsson, & C. Kronqvist (Eds.), Evolution, human behaviour and morality: the legacy of Westermarck (pp. 72–84). Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Antfolk, J., Karlsson, M., Bäckström, A., & Santtila, P. (2012). Disgust elicited by third-party incest: the roles of biological relatedness, co-residence, and family relationship. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 217–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bevc, I., & Silverman, I. (2000). Early separation and sibling incest. A test of the revised Westermarck theory. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 151–161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bressan, P., & Kramer, P. (2015). Human kin detection. WIREs Cognitive Science, 6, 299–311.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bressan, P., Colarelli, S. M., & Cavalieri, M. B. (2009). Biologically costly altruism depends on emotional closeness among step but not half or full sibling. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(1), 147470490900700116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brüderl, J., Hank, K., Huinink, J., Nauck, B., Neyer, F.J., Walper, S., Alt, P., Buhr, P., Castiglioni, L., Fiedrich, S., Finn, C., Hajek, K., Herzig, M., Huyer-May, B., Lenke, R., Müller, B., Peter, T., Salzburger, V., Schmiedeberg, C., Schütze, P., Schumann, N., Th€onnissen, C., Wetzel, M., & Wilhelm, B. (2016). The German Family Panel (Pairfam). GESIS data archive, cologne. ZA5678 Data file version 7.0.0.  https://doi.org/10.4232/pairfam.5678.7.0.0.
  8. Danielsbacka, M., & Tanskanen, A. O. (2015). The association between unequal parental treatment and the sibling relationship in Finland: the difference between full and half siblings. Evolutionary Psychology, 492–510.Google Scholar
  9. Fessler, D. M. T., & Navarrete, C. D. (2004). Third-party attitudes toward sibling incest: evidence for Westermarck’s hypotheses. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 277–294.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.05.004.Google Scholar
  10. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Huinink, J., Brüderl, J., Nauck, B., et al. (2011). Panel analysis of intimate relationships and family dynamics (pairfam): conceptual framework and design. Journal of Family Research, 23, 77–101.Google Scholar
  12. Krupp, D. B., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2011). Cooperation and conflict in the light of kin recognition systems. In C. Salmon & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary family psychology (pp. 345–362). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lieberman, D., & Lobel, T. (2012). Kinship on the Kibbutz: coresidence duration predicts altruism, personal sexual aversions and moral attitudes among communally reared peers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(1), 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2003). Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Biological Scince B, 270, 819–826.Google Scholar
  15. Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445, 727–731.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Pollet, T. V. (2007). Genetic relatedness and sibling relationship characteristics in a modern society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 176–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pollet, T.V., & Hoben, A. D. (2011). An evolutionary perspective on siblings: rivals and resources. In C. Salmon and T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on evolutionary family psychology (pp. 128–148). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Steinbach, A., & Hank, K. (2018). Full-, half-, and step-sibling relations in young and middle adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 39.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X18757829.
  19. Sznycer, D., De Smet, D., Billingsley, J., & Lieberman, D. (2016). Coresidence duration and cues of maternal investment regulate sibling altruism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 159–177.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Talmon, Y. (1964). Mate selection in collective settlements. American Sociological Review, 29, 491–508.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tanskanen, A. O., & Danielsbacka, M. (2014). Genetic relatedness predicts contact frequencies with siblings, nieces, and nephews: results from the generational transmissions in Finland surveys. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Westermarck, E. A. (1921). The history of human marriage. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations