Linked in Life and Death: A Note on the Effect of Parental Death on Sibling Relations in Young and Middle Adulthood

Abstract

Despite the important role of adult parent–child and sibling relations in the family system, only few studies have investigated yet, how the common adult experience of parental death impacts sibling relations. Estimating fixed-effects regression models using four waves of data from the German Family Panel (pairfam; n = 4,123 respondents), the present note focused on changes in three dimensions of adult siblings’ relationship qualities following the first parent’s death. Our analysis revealed a short-term positive effect of parental death on sibling contacts as well as longer-lasting increases in emotional closeness and conflicts. Next to an intensification of sibling relations following the first parent’s death, we also detected significant spillover effects from respondents’ relationship with the surviving parent to their sibling relations. Our analysis thus provided evidence for adult parent–child and sibling relations to be “linked in life and death,” underlining the benefits of jointly analyzing intra- and intergenerational family relationships.

Keywords

death family relations parents siblings pairfam

Introduction

Starting out from the general notion of “linked lives” (e.g., Elder, 1998) as well as family systems theory (e.g., Fingerman & Berman, 2000), a growing body of research acknowledges that families should not be analyzed as a set of unrelated dyadic relationships, but rather as a set of interdependent, reciprocally influential subsystems. This perspective has also been proposed as a fruitful framework to study the consequences of death and loss in a family context (e.g., Stroebe, 2010; Walsh & McGoldrick, 2013).

The present study focusses on two core family subsystems and how they are “linked in life and death:” adult parent–child and sibling relationships, whose solidarity relations have been shown to remain closely intertwined across the life-course (for recent studies see de Bel et al., 2019; Hank & Steinbach, 2018). However, parents and siblings not only lead “linked lives,” they have also been suggested to be “linked in death,” as some studies indicate that the loss of a parent might affect various dimensions of adult siblings’ relationship qualities, such as contact, closeness, or conflict (e.g., Fuller-Thomson, 2000; Kalmijn & Leopold, 2019; Mack, 2004).¹

Experiencing a parent’s death often triggers an individual’s final transition into adulthood and a reassessment of existing relationships to surviving family members (Umberson, 2003). Previous U.S. research, based primarily on the National Survey of Families and Households (NSHF), provides a heterogeneous picture of how parental death might change sibling relations across different solidarity dimensions: Fuller-Thomson (2000) found that those who experienced the death of at least one parent were more likely to report conflict with a sibling and Spitze and Trent (2018) found the first parent’s death to be associated with a decline in giving support to one’s sibling. The authors identified no effect on sibling contact, though, which is consistent with Mack (2004). With regard to adult sibling’s closeness, Mack (2004) reported a positive correlation with parental death during childhood, whereas Khodyakov and Carr (2009) found late-life parental death to be associated with a decrease in subsequent sibling closeness in the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study.

In the—to the best of our knowledge—only European study so far, Kalmijn and Leopold (2019) employed four waves of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study (NKPS) to estimate fixed-effects (FEs) regression models. Different from the U.S. evidence reported earlier, they showed that sibling contact intensified after parental death. This effect was longer-lasting after the first parent’s death, but rather short-lived after the loss of the second parent. Also, after the death of the last living parent, there was a short-term increase in sibling conflict, which was not observed after the first parent’s death and is thus only partially consistent with Fuller-Thomson’s (2000) cross-sectional findings. Referring to theories of intergenerational solidarity and kinkeeping, Kalmijn and Leopold (2019) argue that the observed changes in horizontal relations between siblings can largely be explained by changes in their vertical relations to surviving parents.

The scarcity of evidence on how the common adult experience of parental death impacts sibling relations—that is, one of the longest-lasting and closest social relationships across one’s life-course (e.g., Jensen et al., 2020; White, 2001)—seems very unfortunate. Therefore, next to adding in more general terms to the emerging literature on adult siblings’ relationship qualities (e.g., Steinbach & Hank, 2018; Volkom, 2006) and the interrelation of vertical and horizontal family ties (e.g., de Bel et al., 2019; Hank & Steinbach, 2018), the present note specifically aims to validate some of the core empirical findings of previous research, using a different and well-suited dataset: the German Family Panel (pairfam).

Across multiple waves, pairfam provides comprehensive information about up to four respondent–sibling dyads, allowing us to examine changes in adult sibling relations following the first parent’s death by estimating FEs regression models. Our focus is on three dimensions of relationship qualities derived from the solidarity-conflict model (see, e.g., Bengtson et al., 2002), namely, frequency of contact, emotional closeness, and conflict.

Method

Data, Sample, and Analytic Strategy

We use data from Waves 5, 7, 9, and 11 of the German Family Panel (pairfam; see Brüderl et al., 2020; Huinink et al., 2011), which is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as a long-term project. Nationally representative of three birth cohorts (1971–1973, 1981–1983, and 1991–1993), more than 12,000 computer-assisted personal interviews were conducted in Wave 1 (2008/2009), followed by annual re-interviews.

The “baseline” wave for the present four-wave longitudinal analysis is pairfam’s Wave 5 (2012/2013), by which the youngest cohort had grown into young adulthood and from which onwards a biannual module collecting detailed information on respondents’ relationships with up to four randomly selected siblings has been included in the survey. Of the 7,248 respondents participating in Wave 5, we kept those who reported having one or more siblings (n = 6,418)² as well as both parents still alive (n = 4,802) and who participated in at least one further wave collecting information on sibling relations (that is Waves 7, 9, or 11). This reduced our analytic sample to n = 4,123 respondents of whom 357 experienced the first parent’s death during the 6-year observation window. On average, respondents in our analytic sample reported having 1.95 siblings at baseline, providing information on their relations to 1.67 siblings, resulting in 7,371 unique sibling dyads in total. We created an unbalanced dyad-year file, because interviews in a given wave were held in two calendar years.

For all dependent variables (see further), we estimated FEs linear³ regression models (e.g., Brüderl & Ludwig, 2015). The FE approach disregards differences in baseline levels between individuals, but compares each individual with his-/herself at an earlier time as her/his control. In our case, the effect compares the relationship qualities of a sibling dyad before the first parent’s death to the relationship qualities of the same dyad after the parent’s death. FE thereby eliminates all time-invariant factors by exploiting within-person variability (that is, intra-individual changes over time) only. We thereby avoid that potentially unobserved time-invariant confounders bias our estimates. To account for the fact that a single respondent may have reported on his or her relationships to multiple siblings, all models were estimated with cluster-robust standard errors for sibling dyads nested in families.

Measures

Dependent variables

Our operationalization of sibling contact, closeness, and conflict follows previous studies using pairfam (see Hank & Steinbach, 2018; Steinbach & Hank, 2018). Frequency of contact was represented by the question: How often are you in contact with your sibling, adding up all visits, letters, phone calls, etc. (response categories: 0 “never,” 1 = “Less often than several times per year,” 2 = “Several times per year,” 3 = “1 to 3 times per month,” 4 = “Once per week,” 5 = “Several times per week,” and 6 = “Daily”)? To assess emotional closeness, respondents were asked to indicate how emotionally close they feel to each sibling these days (response categories: 0 = “Not at all close,” 1 = “Somewhat less close than average,” 2 = “About average,” 3 = “Somewhat more close than average,” and 4 = “Very close”). Our measure of conflict was a scale based on two items derived from the Network of Relationship Inventory (NRI) (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985), namely, (a) How often do you and your sibling argue and fight with each other and (b) How often are you and your sibling annoyed or angry with each other (response categories: 0 = “Never,” 1 = “Seldom,” 2 = “Sometimes,” 3 = “Often or always”)? Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .87. Note that merely very few respondents had missing values for frequency of contacts with siblings, but because sibling closeness and conflict was only measured, if the respondent reported having had any contact in the previous year, the number of sibling-dyad observations was smaller for these two dependent variables.

Independent variables

Following Kalmijn and Leopold (2019), we employed both an indicator and a duration variable to represent the effect of the first parent’s death on the outcome variables. The indicator variable “year of death” took the value zero in all years preceding the parent’s death, taking the value one in the death year and thereafter. The duration variable “years after death” was set to zero for all years in which the parent remained alive and for the year of death, then counting the years after death. This allowed us to estimate the duration effect together with the transition effect, which applies to the year of death, since this was coded zero on the duration variable. Note that if the parent died in a calendar year that was also an interview year, information from the interview may apply to a situation shortly before the parent’s death.

Control variables

Since we estimated FEs regressions, standard time-invariant control variables (such as gender; see, e.g., Steinbach & Hank, 2018) were omitted. Our most important control in all models was the respondent’s age. To assess its effects on sibling relationships, we used linear and quadratic specifications in the models, centering the age variables at the sample mean. Moreover, because changes in siblings’ relationship qualities may be influenced by changes in respondents’ relationship with (surviving) parents (e.g., Hank & Steinbach, 2018; Kalmijn & Leopold, 2019), we controlled for the parent–child equivalents of the dependent variables in all models. Parent–child frequency of contacts, emotional closeness, and conflicts was measured in the same way as the respective outcomes for siblings and if both parents were still alive, we used the highest value. See Table 1 for descriptive sample statistics.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	M	SD	Min.	Max.	n
Dependent variables
Sibling contacts	3.41	1.77	0	6	25,672
Sibling closeness	2.44	1.10	0	4	24,085
Sibling conflicts	.95	.82	0	3	24,057
Independent variables
Year of death^a	2015.36	1.72	2012	2019	693
Years after death^b	2.58	1.45	1	6	1,069
Control variables
Age	31.78	8.47	19	48	25,672
Contacts w/ parent	4.85	1.19	0	6	25,659
Closeness w/ parent	3.10	.87	0	4	25,602
Conflicts w/ parent	1.34	.83	0	3	25,412

Notes. ^aDescriptives refer to year of death only.

Descriptives refer to years after death only.

Results

Estimation results for all three dependent variables are displayed in Table 2. Whereas the coefficient for “year of death” indicates the immediate impact of the first parent’s death on the outcome (transition effect), “years after death” represents the within-dyad change in the outcome for every year following the parent’s death (duration effect); see Kalmijn and Leopold (2019). We observe statistically significant transition effects for sibling contact, closeness, and—notably—conflicts, all pointing to an intensification of sibling relations in the year of death. However, whereas contact frequency declined again in the years thereafter, no statistically significant duration effects were observed in the models for closeness and conflicts, indicating longer-term changes in siblings’ relationship qualities (for better and for worse).

Table 2.

Fixed-effects Regressions of Changes in Siblings’ Relationship Qualities.

	Contacts	Closeness	Conflicts
Year of death	0.22*** (0.06)	0.11* (0.05)	0.11** (0.04)
Years after death	−0.07** (0.02)	−0.02 (0.02)	−0.02 (0.01)
Age (mean centered)	−0.04*** (0.00)	−0.01*** (0.00)	−0.03*** (0.00)
Age²	0.00*** (0.00)	−0.00 (0.00)	0.00*** (0.00)
Contacts w/ surviving parent	0.28*** (0.02)
Closeness w/ surviving parent		0.20***(0.01)
Conflicts w/ surviving parent			0.17***(0.01)
Constant	1.93***(0.08)	1.82***(0.04)	0.66***(0.02)
# of observations (dyad-years)	25,617	24,015	23,869
# of dyads	7,387	7,357	7,314
r² (within)	0.08	0.03	0.06

Source: Author’s calculations based on pairfam (Version 11.0.0).

Notes. Robust standard errors in parentheses.

Significance: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

Next to these effects of the first parent’s death, sibling relations also appear to be strongly altered by changes in their relationship to the surviving parent. All models consistently indicated substantial and statistically significant spillover effects, that is, more frequent contacts, greater closeness, and more conflicts with the parent were mirrored in similar changes in respondents’ relationships with siblings. Importantly, in models without controls for characteristics of the survivor parent–child relationship (details not shown), duration effects of parental death on sibling closeness and conflicts remained insignificant.

Discussion

Taking a family systems perspective, the present study set out to contribute to the yet scarce literature investigating effects of parental death on adult siblings’ relationship qualities. Using four waves of data from the German Family Panel, we estimated FEs regression models for three outcomes derived from Bengtson’s solidarity-conflict model.

With regard to siblings’ frequency of contacts, the analysis revealed a short-term positive effect of the first parent’s death. Whereas this partially confirms Kalmijn and Leopold (2019), who identified a similar but longer-lasting effect in a Dutch sample, such an effect remains to be shown for the United States. So far, only two American studies—both reporting no significant effect—looked at this outcome, using one (Mack, 2004) or two (Spitze & Trent, 2018) waves of the NSFH collected in the late 1980s and early 1990s, respectively.

Siblings’ emotional closeness was shown to increase in the year of the parent’s death and to remain on this higher level in subsequent years. This result from a sample of respondents in young and middle adulthood, in which the average age of those experiencing the loss of their first parent was 38.2 years, is consistent with Mack (2004), who reported greater closeness among siblings who lost a parent during childhood. However, contrary findings of decreasing sibling closeness following late-life parental death (see Khodyakov & Carr, 2009) may point to complex dependencies in the relationship between a parent’s death and sibling closeness across various stages of the life-course.

Finally, we also observed transition and duration effects indicating a sustained higher frequency of sibling conflicts following the first parent’s death. Whereas this result is in line with Fuller-Thomson’s (2000) cross-sectional findings from the NSFH, it stands in contrast to Kalmijn and Leopold’s (2019) longitudinal evidence from the NKPS: The authors observed no effect after the first parent’s death and merely a short-term increase in sibling conflict following the second parent’s death. This discrepancy might result from different reference periods in the respective analyses: Whereas Kalmijn and Leopold (2019) focused on the situation some years before the parent’s death (supposedly reflecting a “normal” family situation), we did not exclude observations shortly before the death year of the parent. During the potentially critical period preceding a parent’s death, tensions between siblings may develop, triggering an eventually higher frequency of conflicts already prior to the actual event (also see Khodyakov & Carr, 2009).

In sum, these findings suggest an intensification of sibling relations following parental death, which is consistent with Dutch evidence showing that those who experienced a serious physical illness—as a negative life event—have more supportive and active sibling ties, but also higher levels of conflict (Voorpostel et al., 2012). This pattern is plausible from an exchange theoretical perspective, where sibling relationships are subject to normative obligations in the family. It is also in line with research indicating that more interaction (i.e., contacts) tends to be associated with both positive (i.e., closeness) as well as negative (i.e., conflicts) aspects of sibling relationships (e.g., Steinbach & Hank, 2018) and often at the same time (i.e., ambivalence; see, e.g., Connidis, 2015).

We also detected significant spillover effects, across all outcomes, from changes in respondents’ relationship with the surviving parent to changes in their relationship with siblings.⁴ Our analysis thus provided evidence for adult parent–child and sibling relations to be “linked in life and death.” This finding clearly underlines the benefits of jointly analyzing intra- and intergenerational family relationships as linked family subsystems (Hank & Steinbach, 2018; also see de Bel et al., 2019).

We conclude with our study’s limitations, which also bear in them perspectives for future research. First, because our sample is so relatively young—aged 31.8 years on average versus 45.5 years in the study by Kalmijn and Leopold (2019), for example—we did not observe a sufficiently large number of events for a separate assessment of effects on changes in sibling relations resulting from the second parent’s death. This is unfortunate, because the consequences of losing the first and the last living parent have been suggested to differ (see Kalmijn & Leopold, 2019). Second, whereas pairfam has the advantage of relatively short intervals of two years between observations of siblings’ relationship qualities, the total observation period in our study was just six years, which is similar to Spitze and Trent (2018) but only half as long as in the study by Kalmijn and Leopold (2019). Obviously, this limited the extent to which we were able to examine longer-lasting duration effects.

Third, previous research indicated that the first parent’s death was associated with a decline in emotional and instrumental support given to a sibling (Spitze & Trent, 2018). However, we were not able to consider this kind of “functional solidarity” in our analysis, because no appropriate measures of it were available in our data. Fourth, pairfam’s multi-actor design (see Huinink et al., 2011) does not extend to siblings. We thus had to rely on one respondent’s assessment of her or his relationship to multiple siblings (also see Kalmijn & Leopold, 2019). However, as the participation of secondary respondents in multi-actor studies tends to be relatively low and biased towards more positive relationships (e.g., Hünteler & Wetzel, 2020), employing a survey design including direct interviews with siblings would not have been without its own problems.

Fifth, and finally, despite some variation in specific patterns of (intergenerational) family relations across developed “Western” societies (e.g., Silverstein et al., 2010), there is a great deal of overall similarity. We also see this when situating the results of the present study from Germany in the context of previous findings from the United States and the Netherlands. Whereas this is good news with regard to the generalizability of the hitherto existing body of evidence to other “Western” countries, it seems worth investigating the effects of parental death on surviving offspring’s (horizontal) family ties in a broader cross-cultural perspective (see Rosenblatt, 2013, for a related discussion).

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for methodological advice from Thomas Leopold.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Karsten Hank

Notes

References

Bengtson

V. L.

Giarrusso

Mabry

J. B.

Silverstein

(2002). Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence: Complementary or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 568–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00568.x

Breen

Karlson

K. B.

Holm

(2018). Interpreting and understanding logits, probits, and other nonlinear probability models. Annual Review of Sociology, 44, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041429

Brüderl

Drobnič

Hank

Neyer

F. J.

Walper

Alt

Bozoyan

Finn

Frister

Garrett

Gonzalez Avilés

Greischel

Gröpler

Hajek

Herzig

Huyer-May

Lenke

Minkus

Peter

. . . Wilhelm

(2020). The German Family Panel (pairfam). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5678 Data file Version 11.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/pairfam.5678.11.0.0

Brüderl

Ludwig

(2015). Fixed-effects panel regression. In Best

Wolf

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of regression analysis and causal inference (pp. 327–357). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288146.n15

Connidis

I. A.

(2015). Exploring ambivalence in family ties: Progress and prospects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12150

de Bel

Kalmijn

Duijn

M. A. J. van

. (2019). Balance in family triads: How intergenerational relationships affect the adults sibling relationship. Journal of Family Issues, 40, 2707–2727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19860181

Derkman

M. M. S.

Engels

R. C. M. E.

Kuntsche

Vorst

H. van der.

Scholte

R. H. J.

(2011). Bidirectional associations between sibling relationships and parental support during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 490–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9576-8

Elder

G. H.

Jr. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/1132065

Fingerman

K. L.

Berman

(2000). Applications of family systems theory to the study of adulthood. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 51, 5–29. https://doi.org/10.2190/7TF8-WB3F-TMWG-TT3K

10.

Fuller-Thomson

(2000). Loss of the kin-keeper? Sibling conflict following parental death. OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying, 40, 547–559. https://doi.org/10.2190/J357-QF31-F0FC-PV4U

11.

Furman

Buhrmester

(1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016–1024. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1016

12.

Hank

Steinbach

(2018). Intergenerational solidarity and intragenerational relations between adult siblings. Social Science Research, 76, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.08.003

13.

Huinink

Brüderl

Nauck

Walper

Castiglioni

Feldhaus

(2011). Panel Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family Dynamics (pairfam): Conceptual framework and design. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 23, 77–100. https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-235

14.

Hünteler

Wetzel

(2020). Relationship-based selective participation of secondary respondents in a German multi-actor panel study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82, 1677–1695. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12671

15.

Jensen

A. C.

Nielson

M. K.

Yorgason

J. B.

(2020). The longest-lasting relationship: Patterns of contact and well-being among mid- to later-life siblings. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 75, 2240–2249. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbz083

16.

Kalmijn

Leopold

(2019). Changing sibling relationships after parents’ death: The role of solidarity and kinkeeping. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81, 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12509

17.

Khodyakov

Carr

(2009). The impact of late-life parental death on adult sibling relationships. Do parents’ advance directives help or hurt? Research on Aging, 31, 495–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027509337193

18.

Kim

Y. K.

Boerner

Birditt

K. S.

Zarit

S. H.

Fingerman

K. L.

(2019). Recent parental death and relationship qualities between midlife adults and their grown children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81, 616–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12549

19.

Mack

K. Y.

(2004). The effects of early parental death on sibling relationships in later life. OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying, 49, 131–148. https://doi.org/10.2190/BTUQ-011V-ANEW-V7RT

20.

Rosenblatt

P. C.

(2013). Family grief in cross-cultural perspective. Family Science, 4, 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2013.819226

21.

Silverstein

Gans

Lowenstein

Giarrusso

Bengtson

V. L.

(2010). Older parent–child relationships in six developed nations: Comparisons at the intersection of affection and conflict. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1006–1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00745.x

22.

Spitze

G. D.

Trent

(2018). Changes in individual sibling relationships in response to life events. Journal of Family Issues, 39, 503–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X16653431

23.

Steinbach

Hank

(2018). Full-, half-, and step-sibling relations in young and middle adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 39, 2639–2658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X18757829

24.

Stokes

J. E.

(2016). The influence of intergenerational relationships on marital quality following the death of a parent in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514558962

25.

Stroebe

M. S.

(2010). Bereavement in family context: Coping with the loss of a loved one. Family Science, 1, 144.151. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2010.576081

26.

Umberson

(2003). Death of a parent: Transition to a new adult identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511500046

27.

Volkom

M. van

. (2006). Sibling relationships in middle and older adulthood. A review of the literature. Marriage & Family Review, 40, 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v40n02_08

28.

Voorpostel

van der Lippe

Flap

(2012). For better or worse: Negative life events and sibling relationships. International Sociology, 27, 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580911423051

29.

Walsh

McGoldrick

(2013). Bereavement: A family life cycle perspective. Family Science, 4, 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2013.819228

30.

White

(2001). Sibling relationships over the life course: A panel analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00555.x