Sibling relationship quality in the context of digital leisure and geographic distance for college-attending emerging adults.

Eric K Layland, Jerrica O Peets, Camilla J Hodge, Mikala Glaza
Author Information
  1. Eric K Layland: Department of Human Development and Family Studies; The Pennsylvania State University. ORCID
  2. Jerrica O Peets: Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management; The Pennsylvania State University.
  3. Camilla J Hodge: Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Recreation; University of Utah. ORCID
  4. Mikala Glaza: Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management; The Pennsylvania State University.

Abstract

During the transition to adulthood, emerging adults may experience new geographic distance separating them from their siblings. Digital leisure is common among emerging adults and may serve as a tool for maintaining relationship quality across geographic distance. Using qualitative data, we created individual digital leisure diversity scores for four categories of digital leisure identified from a constructed taxonomy. The sample included 185 college-attending emerging adults ( = 20.1, 64.3% male). Analysis of variance indicated dyadic gender differences in social media and gaming. Digital leisure diversity was associated with greater levels of affective and cognitive sibling relationship quality, regardless of sibling dyad gender. The association between digital leisure diversity and cognitive relationship quality was significant for participants who lived closer to their sibling. During the transition to adulthood when new geographic separation is common, digital leisure shows potential as a compensatory activity that may help siblings maintain relationship quality.

Keywords

References

  1. J Soc Pers Relat. 2020 Feb;37(2):516-537 [PMID: 33840878]
  2. Dev Psychol. 2008 Sep;44(5):1497-504 [PMID: 18793080]
  3. J Adolesc. 2016 Feb;47:48-59 [PMID: 26748076]
  4. Stress Health. 2020 Oct;36(4):555-559 [PMID: 32762116]
  5. J Fam Theory Rev. 2011 Jun 1;3(2):124-139 [PMID: 21731581]
  6. Eval Program Plann. 2013 Feb;36(1):97-106 [PMID: 23000632]
  7. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2005 Oct;8(5):423-30 [PMID: 16232035]
  8. J Fam Psychol. 2018 Apr;32(3):385-395 [PMID: 29698011]
  9. Psychol Bull. 2015 Mar;141(2):364-403 [PMID: 25602273]
  10. Comput Human Behav. 2017 Oct;75:311-319 [PMID: 34334933]
  11. Child Dev Perspect. 2010;4(2):87-94 [PMID: 20700389]
  12. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2017 Dec 15;73(1):75-86 [PMID: 28379556]
  13. Future Child. 2008 Spring;18(1):119-46 [PMID: 21338008]
  14. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2018 Aug 14;73(6):985-995 [PMID: 27621306]
  15. J Posit Psychol. 2018;13(1):78-91 [PMID: 29276528]

Grants

  1. T32 DA017629/NIDA NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0leisurerelationshipqualitydigitalemerginggeographicadultsdistanceadulthoodmaysiblingsdiversitysiblingtransitionnewDigitalcommoncollege-attendinggendercognitiveexperienceseparatingamongservetoolmaintainingacrossUsingqualitativedatacreatedindividualscoresfourcategoriesidentifiedconstructedtaxonomysampleincluded185=201643%maleAnalysisvarianceindicateddyadicdifferencessocialmediagamingassociatedgreaterlevelsaffectiveregardlessdyadassociationsignificantparticipantslivedcloserseparationshowspotentialcompensatoryactivityhelpmaintainSiblingcontext

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.