Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Brief Research Report

Frontiers in Developmental Psychology ·

Volume 4 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fdpys.2026.1958446

The influences of prosocial behavior and family factors on future caregiving intentions among adolescent neurotypical siblings' of autistic individuals

  • Jenna H. Beffel Tolman1
  • Amy K. Nuttall2*corresponding author
  1. 1Department of Psychology, Hope College, Holland, MI, United States
  2. 2Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

Neurotypical siblings (NSs) of autistic individuals provide an important source of care to autistic siblings, yet not all NSs are willing to provide this support. Thus, there is a need to better understand the factors that influence NSs' intentions to provide care. Therefore, the present study examined adolescent NSs' intentions to provide future care for their autistic sibling. Specifically, the authors examined the associations between NS–autistic sibling relationship quality and NS caregiving intentions, NS prosocial behavior directed toward the mother and NS caregiving intentions, and the moderating effects of mothers' expectations for NS caregiving, using observational methods and self-report measures among a sample of 48 adolescent NSs and their mothers. The results of regression analyses revealed that better NS–sibling relationship quality was associated with higher NS caregiving intentions. The findings underscore the importance of the NS–sibling relationship for NS caregiving intentions.

Keywords

Introduction

Aging parents may need assistance caring for their autistic child, and an absence of appropriate care can have long-term consequences (Gerhardt and Lainer, 2011). As such, families may rely on the neurotypical siblings (NSs) of autistic individuals to provide care. Indeed, the majority of adolescent NSs report intending to be involved in caring for their autistic sibling in the future (Mahbot and Alias, 2022). Although it is crucial that we respect that not all NSs may feel able or comfortable assuming a caregiving role, when NSs do provide care, it is an important source of support for families (e.g., Seltzer and Krauss, 2001). Therefore, understanding the factors that influence NS caregiving is a needed first step in determining how to best support NSs so that many feel able and comfortable in a caregiving role.

NS caregiving intentions are influenced by NS–sibling relationship quality (Lee and Burke, 2018). NS outcomes differ based on disability type (e.g., Down syndrome vs. autism; Shivers et al., 2019), yet research has not focused specifically on the influence of sibling relationship quality on caregiving intentions of NSs of autistic individuals.

Additionally, aspects related to the NS–mother relationship may influence NS caregiving intentions. For example, closer NS–mother relationships are associated with a higher likelihood of NSs caring for their adult sibling with mental illness (Greenberg et al., 1999).

Prosocial, or helping, behaviors that occur within family relationships are associated with relationship characteristics (Padilla-Walker and Carlo, 2014). The adolescent–mother relationship includes a prosocial behavior component (Padilla-Walker and Carlo, 2014). Moreover, sibling caregiving is a type of prosocial behavior that occurs within the family context and is associated with prosocial behaviors in contexts outside the sibling relationship (East and Hamill, 2013). This suggests that NS–mother relationship quality and sibling caregiving both have a link to prosocial behavior; however, research has yet to examine the association between prosocial behavior in the NS–mother relationship and NS sibling caregiving.

Parents' expectations for NSs' future caregiving may also be influential. Broad research indicates that children are more likely to provide care within the family (e.g., care for aging parents) when parents expected it (Leopold et al., 2014). Mothers' expectations for NS caregiving may be particularly influential, as NS sibling caregiving may be especially supportive for mothers because they tend to provide more care to children with disabilities than fathers do (Rowbotham et al., 2011). However, research among families with individuals with a learning disability indicates that NSs' and parents' expectations for NSs' future sibling caregiving roles only match about half of the time (Davys et al., 2010). This suggests that mothers' expectations of caregiving alone do not predict NSs' future caregiving intentions; rather, they may interact with other factors that predict NSs' caregiving intentions, such as prosocial behavior directed toward mothers interacting with sibling relationship quality.

The present study

The present study uses observational and self-report methods to (1) investigate how NS–sibling relationship quality may be moderated by mothers' expectations for NS caregiving to predict NS caregiving intentions and (2) examine how NS prosocial behavior directed toward the mother may predict NS caregiving intentions and how mothers' expectations for NS caregiving may moderate this association.

We hypothesized that NS-sibling relationship quality would interact with mothers' caregiving expectations to predict NS caregiving intentions (Hypothesis 1). Specifically, we hypothesized that NSs would have high caregiving intentions when NSs had a high-quality sibling relationships and mothers also had high caregiving expectations. Additionally, we hypothesized that NSs would have moderate caregiving intentions when (1) NSs had a high-quality sibling relationship and mothers had low caregiving expectations and (2) NSs had a low-quality sibling relationship and mothers had high caregiving expectations. Finally, we hypothesized that NSs would have low caregiving intentions when NSs had a low-quality sibling relationship and mothers had low caregiving expectations. Moreover, we hypothesized that NSs prosocial behavior directed toward the mother and mothers' expectations for NS future caregiving would interact to predict NS caregiving intentions (Hypothesis 2). Specifically, we hypothesized that NSs would have high caregiving intentions when NSs displayed high levels of prosocial behavior toward mothers and mothers also had high caregiving expectations. Additionally, we hypothesized that NSs would have moderate caregiving intentions when (1) NSs displayed high levels of prosocial behavior toward mothers and mothers had low caregiving expectations and (2) NSs displayed low levels of prosocial behavior toward mothers and mothers had high caregiving expectations. Finally, we hypothesized that NSs would have low caregiving intentions when NSs displayed low levels of prosocial behavior toward mothers and mothers had low caregiving expectations.

Methods

Participants and procedures

Participants included 48 adolescent NS–mother dyads. Participants were recruited using online (e.g., Facebook advertisements) and physical advertisements placed at local businesses and distributed at autism spectrum disorder (ASD)–focused community events. The inclusion criteria were NSs being between the ages of 13 and 17 years, having a sibling who was diagnosed with ASD and lived at home, and self-identifying as typically developing. NSs ranged in age from 13.0 to 17.8 years (M = 15.3, SD = 1.4), and the majority of NSs were White/Caucasian (90.0%). Mothers ranged in age from 29.8 to 58.6 years (M = 43.0, SD = 5.9), and autistic siblings ranged in age from 4.7 years to 20.9 (M = 13.9, SD = 4.4). For additional demographic information, see Table 1. Mothers and NSs participated in a 15-min conflict discussion, following the Parent–Child Disclosure Task (Campione-Barr and Smetana, 2004) methods, and then completed self-report questionnaires.

Table 1. Participant demographics (N = 48).

VariablesN%Valid N
Gender
Male NS2143.848
Male autistic sibling3879.247
NS is older than autistic sibling2552.146
NS is oldest sibling1735.448
NS is youngest sibling1327.147
Number of children in the family
22347.948
31735.448
4510.448
524.248
612.148

NS, neurotypical sibling.

The current study applied the Iowa Family Interactions Rating Scales (IFIRS; Melby and Conger, 2001) to observations of NSs and mothers engaging in the Parent–Child Disclosure Task (Campione-Barr and Smetana, 2004; Rose et al., 2016). The IFIRS is a systematic coding scheme developed to capture individuals' behavioral characteristics and behavioral exchanges between group members, such as parents and children. The IFIRS has well-established validity and reliability for use in coding observations of behaviors and interactions of parents and adolescents (Melby and Conger, 2001) and has previously been used to code observations of adolescents and mothers engaging in the Parent–Child Disclosure Task (Padilla-Walker et al., 2012). We coded a total of 25 different codes relevant to the NS–mother interaction (e.g., NS and mother communication, NS and mother listener responsiveness). However, the present study focused on one specific code, the IFIRS prosocial behavior scale, to assess NS prosocial behavior directed toward the mother. The prosocial behavior scale assesses how NSs competently and effectively relate to others. It includes behaviors such as cooperation, sensitivity, and helpfulness and ranges from 1 (not at all characteristic) to 9 (mainly characteristic; Melby and Conger, 2001). The IFIRS has not been used in the ASD context. Thus, at the beginning of the project, we considered the possibility of making adaptations to the measure relevant to the ASD context. However, upon starting the project, no adaptations were necessary. Before applying the coding scheme to the data, the primary investigator first completed a 6-week online training program regarding how the prosocial behavior code can be used and has been used in the past.

Next, the investigator met with a reliable IFIRS master coder to discuss the online training and ask questions before coding a subset of the data to achieve reliability. The primary investigator used a subset of the data (20% of the data = 10 videos) as a reliability sample to assess reliability. Specifically, for the first half of the reliability sample (e.g., five videos), the primary investigator coded one video at a time. After coding each of the five videos, the primary investigator's coded prosocial behavior score was compared to the score determined by two reliable IFIRS master coders, who had coded the video together. The reliability between the primary investigator's score and the IFIRS master coders' score was calculated, and any discrepancies were discussed. To avoid coder drift, the primary investigator then started coding the rest of the total sample, but approximately every eighth or ninth video was also coded by the IFIRS master coders for a total of 10% of the sample, or five videos, that were coded by the primary investigator and the IFIRS master coders and included in the reliability set. The reliability for these five videos was calculated, and the primary investigator met with an IFIRS master coder to discuss the scores. In sum, the first half of the reliability sample (10% of the data or five videos) was coded first. The coding of the second half of the reliability sample (10% of the data or five videos) was integrated with coding the total sample (remaining 90% of the data or 38 videos). In total, 20% of the sample (e.g., 10 videos) was used to calculate reliability, but half of the videos in the reliability set were coded in conjunction with the total sample, a procedure used in similar coding projects to avoid coder drift (e.g., Nuttall et al., 2019).

The interrater reliability was first calculated following the methods traditionally used by IFIRS coding teams (Melby and Conger, 2001) and included all 25 IFIRS codes. Using this method, the interrater reliability was calculated for all 25 codes combined (e.g., interrater reliability was not calculated for each code but for all 25 codes as a whole). Specifically, we compared the primary investigator's score and the corresponding IFIRS master coders' score on each of the 25 codes for the 10 videos in the reliability sample. We calculated the percentage agreement of perfect score matches and one-step differences, as well as the total percentage of scores with three-step differences between the primary investigator's and IFIRS master coders' scores for each of the 25 codes. Acceptable reliability was defined as a percentage agreement of perfect score matches and one-step differences above 80% and a total percentage of scores with three-step differences below 10% across all 25 codes combined (Melby and Conger, 2001). The total percentage of perfect score matches and one-step differences was 83.6%, and the total percentage of scores with three-step differences was 3.2%, indicating good reliability. To calculate the interrater reliability for the NS-prosocial-behavior-directed-toward-the-mother code specifically, we also calculated intraclass correlation (ICC), specifically, a one-way, absolute, single-measure, random ICC based on Hallgren's (2012)) suggestions. The ICC for coded NS prosocial behavior directed toward the mother was 0.97, indicating excellent reliability (Hallgren, 2012).

Measures

Intentions for involvement with autistic siblings in the future

This self-report question consists of one item: “I plan to be involved with my brother or sister with ASD when we are adults” (Nuttall et al., 2018). This item was rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Network of relationships inventory–social provisions version (NRI)

The NRI is a 30-item self-report measure that assesses adolescents' perceptions of positive adolescent–sibling relationship quality (Furman and Buhrmester, 1985). Following Campione-Barr et al. (2015), positive adolescent–sibling relationship quality was calculated by computing the average of the adolescents' responses to six subscales (18 items; 3 items per subscale): reassurance of worth, affection, companionship, instrumental aid, reliable alliance, and intimate disclosure. Prior research also included the nurturance subscale in positive sibling relationship quality. However, because our independent variable, sibling caregiving, conceptually overlapped with nurturance, we did not use the nurturance subscale (Campione-Barr et al., 2015). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (little or none) to 5 (the most). A sample item is “How often do you spend fun time with this person [autistic sibling]?” The measure demonstrated good internal consistency, with an alpha of.91.

Mothers' caregiving expectations

We assessed mothers' expectations for NS future sibling caregiving using a single item parallel to the NS caregiving intention item described earlier: “I plan for my teen to be involved with their sibling with ASD when they are adults,” rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This item was developed for the present study.

Results

The descriptive statistics and correlations are displayed in Table 2. Model 1 examined the association between NS–sibling relationship quality and NS caregiving intentions and the potential moderating effects of mothers' caregiving expectations (Hypothesis 1). Model 2 examined the association between NS prosocial behavior directed toward the mother and NS caregiving intentions and the potential moderating effects of mothers' caregiving expectations (Hypothesis 2). All predictors were grand-mean centered. Because our outcome variable (NS caregiving intentions) was positively skewed, we first considered using a log 10 transformation and then an inverse transformation (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013). However, a Shapiro–Wilk test of normality revealed that neither the log 10 transformation nor the inverse transformation solved the non-normality. As such, utilizing the car package (Fox and Wisberg, 2019) in R version 4.0.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) (R Core Team, 2022), we ran Models 1 and 2 using a power transformation (Yeo and Johnson, 2000). The regression results using the power transformation did not significantly differ from the original results using the untransformed variables; therefore, we elected to report the original results. Moreover, because our sample was small, we conducted post-hoc power analyses, which revealed that all models were powered above 0.80.

Table 2. Correlation coefficients and descriptive statistics.

Variables1.2.3.4.
1. Sibling relationship quality––––
2. Prosocial behavior0.17–––
3. Caregiving expectations0.22−0.07––
4. Caregiving intentions0.76**0.30*0.12–
Valid N48484848
Mean2.675.656.045.98
SD0.611.641.241.30
Minimum1.50122
Maximum4.06877

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

In Model 1, there were no significant interaction effects; however, sibling relationship quality was associated with NS caregiving intentions such that higher sibling relationship quality was associated with greater NS caregiving intentions, F (3, 44) = 21.01, b = 1.63, SE = 0.21, p < 0.001, 95% CI (1.20, 2.05). In Model 2, there were no significant effects (see Table 3).

Table 3. Regression models predicting neurotypical sibling caregiving intentions outcomes.

Model 1: sibling relationship qualityVariables
Model R2bSEStand. (β)tp-value
0.59
Intercept6.010.1347.56<0.001
Sibling relationship quality1.630.210.777.74<0.001
Caregiving expectations−0.080.11−0.08−0.730.465
Sibling relationship quality × Caregiving expectations−0.170.15−0.11−1.140.261
Model 2: prosocial behaviorVariables
Model R2*b**SE*Stand. (β)*t**p-*value
0.12
Intercept4.720.677.07<0.001
Prosocial behavior0.220.110.281.940.059
Caregiving expectations0.140.150.130.940.352
Prosocial behavior × Caregiving expectations−0.050.07−0.12−0.840.407

Discussion

Combining observational and self-report methods, the present study found that higher sibling relationship quality was associated with increased NS intentions to provide future care. These findings underscore the importance of the sibling relationship as adolescent NSs consider their future involvement in caring for their autistic sibling. The results revealed a main effect of sibling relationship quality on caregiving intentions, providing additional support for sibling relationship quality being associated with NSs' intentions to provide future care (e.g., Burke et al., 2012). Although NS outcomes may vary based on sibling disability type (Shivers et al., 2019), this finding supports prior research showing that, when NSs of individuals with varying disabilities had a higher quality relationship with their sibling, they were more likely to plan to care for their sibling in the future (e.g., Burke et al., 2012; Greenberg et al., 1999). Therefore, the association between sibling relationship quality and caregiving intentions may be similar across NSs of siblings with varying disabilities.

NS prosocial behavior directed toward the mother was not associated with NS caregiving intentions in Model 2 (e.g., when controlling for the interaction between prosocial behavior directed toward the mother and NS caregiving intentions). Although the two are similar, sibling caregiving and prosocial behavior directed toward the mother are different types of prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior directed toward the mother may be characterized by more low-cost prosocial behaviors (e.g., prosocial behaviors that require little time or energy) than caring for a sibling, which likely is characterized by more high-cost prosocial behaviors (e.g., prosocial behaviors that require significant time and energy). There is evidence that low- and high-cost prosocial behavior are not related to one another (Eisenberg and Shell, 1986), which may explain why we saw no association between the two.

There was no moderating effect of mothers' caregiving expectations, nor were mothers' caregiving expectations associated with NS caregiving intentions. However, it could be that characteristics related to the parent–child relationship (such as parent expectations) may not be as salient to NS caregiving as characteristics of the sibling relationship. Indeed, among NSs of individuals with an intellectual or developmental disability, parent characteristics are less closely tied to NSs' future planning for their sibling than sibling aspects (Casale et al., 2021). Therefore, parental aspects like expectations for future caregiving may not be as strongly associated with NS caregiving intentions as other family factors.

The study's limitations suggest future directions. First, our sample was composed of a relatively homogeneous group of mostly White NSs, and we were unable to verify ASD diagnoses. Furthermore, our measure of caregiving intentions asks about NSs' intentions for future involvement with siblings. Although involvement has been used a proxy for caregiving in prior studies (Nuttall et al., 2018) and may be most developmentally appropriate in a study of adolescents, this broad term could encompass many activities (e.g., minimal support activities, taking on a full-time caregiver role). Future research should include more diverse NS samples and may consider narrower definitions and longitudinal data to examine whether adolescent NSs' intentions to provide future care match their adulthood caregiving involvement.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Alexandra Main, University of California, Merced, CA, United States

Reviewed by: Wenn Lawson, Curtin University, Australia

Ezgi Sumbas, İnönü University, Türkiye

Statements

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research was funded by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Student Award Program (Grant #2022010095.SAP).

Data availability

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because data are still be used as part of other projects. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to nuttall@msu.edu.

Ethics approval

The studies involving humans were approved by Human Research Protection Program Michigan State University. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants' legal guardians/next of kin.

Author contributions

JB: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AN: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Project administration.

References

  1. Burke M. M., Taylor J. L., Urbano R., Hodapp R. M. (2012). Predictors of future caregiving by adult siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Am. J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 117, 33 – 47. doi: doi:10.1352/1944-7558-117.1.33
  2. Campione-Barr N., Lindell A. K., Giron S. E., Killoren S. E., Greer K. B. (2015). Domain differentiated disclosure to mothers and siblings and associations with sibling relationship quality and youth emotional adjustment. Dev. Psychol. 51, 1278 – 1291. doi: doi:10.1037/dev0000036
  3. Campione-Barr N., Smetana J. G. (2004). In the eye of the beholder: subjective and observer ratings of middle-class african american mother-adolescent interactions. Dev. Psychol. 40, 927 – 934. doi: doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.927
  4. Casale E. G., Burke M. M., Urbano R. C., Arnold C. K., Hodapp R. M. (2021). Getting from here to there: future planning as reported by adult siblings of individuals with disabilities. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 65, 246 – 261. doi: doi:10.1111/jir.12806
  5. Davys D., Mitchell D., Haigh C. (2010). Futures planning, parental expectations and sibling concern for people who have a learning disability. J. Intellect. Disabil. 14, 167 – 183. doi: doi:10.1177/1744629510385625
  6. East P. L., Hamill S. B. (2013). Sibling caretaking among mexican american youth: conditions that promote and hinder personal and school success. Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 35, 542 – 564. doi: doi:10.1177/0739986313499003
  7. Eisenberg N., Shell R. (1986). Prosocial moral judgement and behavior in children: the mediating role of cost. Person. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 12, 426 – 433. doi: doi:10.1177/0146167286124005
  8. Fox J., Wisberg S. (2019). An R Companion to Applied Regression (Third). Sage. Available online at: (Accessed March 1, 2024).
  9. Furman W., Buhrmester D. (1985). Children's perceptions of the qualities of sibling relationships. Child Dev. 56, 448 – 461. doi: doi:10.2307/1129733
  10. Gerhardt P. F., Lainer I. (2011). Addressing the needs of adolescents and adults with autism: a crisis on the horizon. J. Contemp. Psychother. 41, 37 – 45. doi: doi:10.1007/s10879-010-9160-2
  11. Greenberg J. S., Seltzer M. M., Orsmond G. I., Krauss M. W. (1999). Siblings of adults with mental illness or mental retardation: current involvement and expectation of future caregiving. Psychiatr. Serv. 50, 1214 – 1219. doi: doi:10.1176/ps.50.9.1214
  12. Hallgren K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 8, 23 – 34. doi: doi:10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023
  13. Lee C. eun, and Burke, M. M.. (2018). Caregiving roles of siblings of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a systematic review. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 15, 237 – 246. doi: doi:10.1111/jppi.12246
  14. Leopold T., Raab M., Engelhardt H. (2014). The transition to parent care: costs, commitments, and caregiver selection among children. J. Marriage Fam. 76, 300 – 318. doi: doi:10.1111/jomf.12099
  15. Mahbot N., Alias A. (2022). The responsibilities of typcial adolescents towards their sibling with autism. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 4, 414 – 427.
  16. Melby J. N., Conger R. D. (2001). “The Iowa family interaction rating scales: instrument summary,” in Family Observational Coding Systems: Resources for Sytemic Research, eds. P. K. Kerig and K. Lindahl (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 33 – 58.
  17. Nuttall A. K., Coberly B., Diesel S. J. (2018). Childhood caregiving roles, perceptions of benefits, and future caregiving intentions among typically developing adult siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 48, 1199 – 1209. doi: doi:10.1007/s10803-018-3464-6
  18. Nuttall A. K., Speidel R., Valentino K. (2019). Expanding and extending the role reversal construct in early childhood. J. Child Fam. Stud. 28, 3132 – 3145. doi: doi:10.1007/s10826-019-01490-w
  19. Padilla-Walker L. M., Carlo G. (eds.). (2014). Prosocial Development: A Multidimensional Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199964772.001.0001
  20. Padilla-Walker L. M., Carlo G., Christensen K. J., Yorgason J. B. (2012). Bidirectional relations between authoritative parenting and adolescents' prosocial behaviors. J. Res. Adolesc. 22, 400 – 408. doi: doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00807.x
  21. R Core Team (2022). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (4.0.3). Available online at: (Accessed March 1, 2024).
  22. Rose A. J., Smith R. L., Glick G. C., Rebecca A. S. M. (2016). Girls' and boys' problem talk: implications for emotional closeness in friendships. Dev. Psychol. 52, 629 – 639. doi: doi:10.1037/dev0000096
  23. Rowbotham M., Carroll A., Cuskelly M. (2011). Mothers' and fathers' roles in caring for an adult child with an intellectual disability. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 58, 223 – 240. doi: doi:10.1080/1034912X.2011.598396
  24. Seltzer M. M., Krauss M. W. (2001). Quality of life of adults with mental retardation/developmental disabilities who live with family. Ment. Retard. Dev. Disabil. 7, 105 – 114. doi: doi:10.1002/mrdd.1015
  25. Shivers C. M., McGregor C., Hough A. (2019). Self-reported stress among adolescent siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder and down syndrome. Autism 23. doi: doi:10.1177/1362361317722432
  26. Tabachnick B. G., Fidell L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th edn.). Pearson Education. Available online at: (Accessed March 1, 2024).
  27. Yeo I. N. K., Johnson R. A. (2000). A new family of power transformations to improve normaltiy or symmetry. Biometrika 87, 954 – 959. doi: doi:10.1093/biomet/87.4.954

Citation

Tolman, J. H. B. & Nuttall, A. K. (2026). The influences of prosocial behavior and family factors on future caregiving intentions among adolescent neurotypical siblings' of autistic individuals. Frontiers in Developmental Psychology, Volume 4. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
4 - 2026

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Beffel Tolman and Nuttall.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Amy K. Nuttall

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

PerspectiveFriluftsliv (open-air life) as a cultural site of emotion socialization in early childhood in NorwayEvi Petersen, Natália Meireles Santos da Costa, Tuva Beyer BrochReviewScreen exposure and cognitive outcomes in school-aged children and adolescents: a narrative review through the lens of Cognitive Load TheoryHiya Al Kalbani, Erin Kitt-LewisBrief Research ReportShort-term familiarity shapes social preference but not word learning in preschoolersJina Ahn, Erica A. Cartmill, Catherine M. Sandhofer