I
4‘. it):
.t 73....
6..» \3...,
:3 t.

s.» nah...

: :1 . ..\
9 1:11}:

a ...
.

i. .Lu “3.3.”qu ,. . $319.? 2.3.. .
, = . ,

3.5 $54 n v.

 

£\ .42; . . .545

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UBRARIES

01420 2794

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

DETERMINANTS AND INFLUENCES OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS

Date

0-7639

IN CHILDHOOD AND ADOLESCENCE

presented by

Linda Pailiang Juang

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
' of the requirements for V

M o A . degree in PsyChO] 09y

//'- Y-q‘)‘

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to romovo this chookout from your rooord.

TO AVOID FINES rotum on or boioro duo duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

. APR 2.351999
”9 2 3 I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Io An Nﬁrmdivo ActiorVEqul Opportunity Imam
Wm:

DETERMINANTS AND INFLUENCES OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS
IN CHILDHOOD AND ADOLESCENCE

by

Linda Pailiang Juang

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1995

ABSTRACT

DETERMINANTS AND INFLUENCES OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS
IN CHILDHOOD AND ADOLESCENCE

By

Linda Pailiang Juang

This study examined how family structure variables (e. g. , birth order) and the
quality of the parent-child relationship inﬂuence the child—sibling relationship, and
how this related to child functioning at age three and adolescence.

The sample included 83 sibling pairs from the New York Longitudinal Study
(Thomas & Chess, 1977). Children (38 males, 45 females; all Caucasian) were from
well educated, two-parent families of middle— or upper-middle SES.

Results indicated that later borns had more positive sibling relationships
compared to ﬁrst borns at both times. Maternal concern at age three predicted more
sibling problems. During adolescence, males who rated their relationship with their
mother more positively had more positive sibling relationships. More positive father-
daughter interaction was related to negative sibling relationships. Quality of sibling
relationships was positively related to age three child functioning, and to social skills
for females during adolescence. Sibling relationships did not show continuity from

age three to adolescence.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Jacqueline Lemer, who has always been a good
example to me of someone who is succeeding in both work and family. Also thank
you to Alex von Eye and Ellen Strommen for much kindness and for helpful
suggestions. Of course, I have to thank the other three Muskateers - Alex, Domini,
and Lisa, for being there through all the times we thought we for sure would fail, but
somehow always helped each other succwd. To Huong, for taking care of me so
well and for giving me so much support in everything - in school and life. And
ﬁnally, to my parents, for giving me the motivation I nwded to ﬁnish this Master’s
thesis by calling me with encouragements almost everyday for the past year. Thank

you!

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................... vi
CHAPTER 1: Problem Statement ......................... 1
CHAPTER 11: Literature Review .......................... 3
CHAPTER III: Method ................................ 51
CHAPTER IV: Results ................................ 67
CHAPTER V: Discussion .............................. 92
Appendix A: Completely Standardized Solution for LISREL Analyses

at Age 3 .............................. 100
Appendix B: Completely Standardized Solution for LISREL Analyses

at Adolescence ........................... 102
LIST OF REFERENCES .................................. 104

iv

Table 1:
Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5 :

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Table 11:

LIST OF TABLES

Descriptive Statistics for Family Structure Variables .........

Descriptive Statistics for the Adolescent Parenting Ratings .....

Correlations between the Determinants and the Quality of

Sibling Relationship at Age 3. ......................

Correlations Between the Determinants and the Quality of the

Sibling Relationship at Age 3 by Sex. ..................

Correlations Between the Determinants and Quality of Sibling

Relationship During Adolescence. ....................

Correlations Between Determinants and Quality of Sibling

Relationships During Adolescence by Sex ...............

Birth Order Main Effect on the Sibling Relationship for Boys

and Girls During Adolescence. ......................

Descriptive Statistics for Measures Used in the LISREL Model -

Year3 ....................................

Descriptive Statistics for Measures Used in the LISREL Model -

Adolescence ................................
Covariance Matrix in LISREL Analyses for Year 3 .........

Covariance Matrix in LISREL Analyses for Adolescent Data . . . .

55

6O

69

7O

74

82

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Theoretical model of the primary determinants and inﬂuences of

the quality of sibling relationships .................... 18
Figure 2: Research model of sibling relationships at age 3 and adolescence . 52
Figure 3: Final LISREL model of sibling relationships at age 3 ........ 80
Figure 4: Final LISREL model of sibling relationships at adolescence . . . . 81
Figure 5: T-values for model of sibling relationships at age 3 .......... 87

Figure 6: T-values for model of sibling relationships at adolescence ...... 90

vi

CHAPTER I
PROBLEM STATEMENT

Siblings can be rivals, conﬁdants, best friends, and/or a combination of all
these. Most children (over 80%) in the United States have siblings (Dunn, 1992)
whom they spend a signiﬁcant amount of time with, especially in the young childhood
years. This shared time affords them many opportunities for interaction, most likely
leading them to inﬂuence each other in their development. Over the course of their
lifetime, some siblings will develop close relationships with one another while others
will have conﬂictual relationships that begin at a young age and continue into
adulthood. These differences in the way siblings interact are a concern for parents.
Some parents may worry as to why their children don’t seem to get along or why one
is so hostile towards the other (Dunn, Slomkowski & Beardsall, 1994).

Because the ways in which siblings relate to one another have been associated
with their psychological adjustment and well-being (Daniels, Dunn, Furstenburg Jr.,
& Plomin, 1985), with various aspects of socio-cognitive development (Dunn, 1983;
Dunn, Brown, Slomkowski, Tesla & Youngblade, 1991), and with being a protective
buffer against the possible effects of a conﬂictual martial relationship (Jenkins, 1992),
the interactions and relationships that develop between siblings are of interest to
researchers. This is evidenced by the great increase in the number of studies on
siblings within the last several years (Boer & Dunn, 1992).

A child grows up in the context of the family, of which a majority include
siblings. The prominent role of the family as an inﬂuence on the developing child is

well-documented. The family serves as the link between the child and society (Lerner

2

& Spanier, 1978), and is arguably the most signiﬁcant context in which children are
socialized (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Garbarino, 1982). Garbarino (1982) describes the
family as the "headquarters for human development." Subsequently, members within
the family (not only parents, but brothers and sisters as well), can have major
developmental inﬂuences on the child.

Several researchers (Dunn, 1992; Maccoby & Martin, 1983) have advocated
the study of these within family processes in addition to between family processes.
Research in both areas are useful in elucidating the process of a child’s development.
However, studies of intrafamilial relationships are worthwhile since differences within
families may be as vast as the differences between families. This current study will
use the New York Longitudinal Study (NY LS), a dataset spanning three decades, to
investigate several aspects of an individual’s development in the context of his or her
sibling relationship.

To understand how a child develops there is a need to look not only at the
child but to also take a broader look into the context, or ecology in which he or she
lives. In Bronfenbrenner’s (1989) words, "human development is understood in its
human context." A perspective that describes human growth and change in relation
to his or her surroundings is developmental contextualism. Adopting this viewpoint as
a theoretical basis for conducting research in this area of human development (sibling
relationships) will be useful since it recognizes the complex factors inﬂuencing a
developing child. A review of the concept of developmental contextualism will lay
the groundwork for the rationale of this current study, followed by a discussion of the

literature in the area of interest - sibling relationships.

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Wan)

Views on human development have evolved much over the years in the ﬁeld of
psychology. Very brieﬂy, early theories on human development proposed a one-way
path from the environment to the child. The child was simply a black box receiving
stimuli from the environment. One component of the environment that was the focus
of many studies was the child’s parents. Until the 19605, studies of the parent-child
relationship assumed that the path of inﬂuence ﬂowed from the mother and father to
the child. Bell (1968), however, astutely pointed out that these studies were all
correlational in nature. There was no direct evidence that parental child-rearing
caused certain child characteristics. Bell concluded that the child may very well be
affecting their parents as parents were affecting their child.

Piaget (1965) also had a great impact on the way children were
conceptualized. He emphasized that children were active participants in shaping their
own development. Due to theorists like Bell and Piaget, views of child development
gave way to the realization that children were not merely passive recipients of
environmental inﬂuences but rather that they, too, impacted their environment. They
actively affected their surroundings just as their context affected them. This constant
interaction between the child and environment is now recognized to be a major
component of a child’s development. A perspective that emerged from these theories
is developmental contextualism (Lerner, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1991). This perspective

emphasizes the uniqueness of each individual and attempts to describe the remarkable

4

complexity of human development. It is a very contextually sensitive approach to
understanding the growing child.

Lerner (1984) describes two key propositions in the developmental contextual
view of human development - those of embeddedness and dynamic interaction. The
concept of embeddedness proposes that individuals live and function on many levels,
often simultaneously. These multiple levels are: the inner biological, individual
psychological, dyadic, social network, community, societal, cultural, outer-physical,
ecological, historical, etc. (Lerner, 1993). .

Bronfenbrenner (1989) has also articulated several qualitatively different
systems of inﬂuence, each including an increasingly wider range of settings, that are
very similar to the idea of levels in developmental contextualism. Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological systems theory describes four distinct systems in which an individual is
embedded. First, there is the microsystem (consisting of the immediate settings
experienced by the individual), the mesosystem (characterized by the relationships
between each of these settings), the exosystem (the relationship between the
mesosystem and systems that indirectly inﬂuence the individual), and ﬁnally, the
macrosystem (encompassing cultural and societal inﬂuences in which all the three -
micro-, meso-, and exo-system - are embedded). An individual is connected to, and
is a part of, these many different systems. Thus, a child’s functioning is affected by
the people around them (e.g., their family, their peer group), the people and
institutions they are not directly involved with (e. g., their parent’s work place, the

school board), and other, less tangible inﬂuences (e.g., society, culture).

5

These various levels that Lerner and Bronfenbrenner articulate interact,
inﬂuence and are inﬂuenced by, shape and are shaped by the individual. Change at
one level results in change in all other levels (Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Lerner, 1986,
1991). This is presented by Lerner as the second key proposition of developmental
contextualism - of dynamic interaction. The different levels in which an individual
exists and interacts are at the same time affecting and being affected by one another
(Lerner, 1991; Nesselroade & von Eye, 1985).

For example, there is a process of mutual inﬂuence between a parent and child
that characterizes the development and socialization of the child (Lerner & Spanier,
1978). Likewise, the process of mutual inﬂuence between siblings does the same. In
both cases, each of the participants have unique qualities and experiences that they
each bring to the relationship. These qualities and experiences that characterize each
child act upon one another, resulting in bidirectional effects between the siblings.
The inﬂuences of a child and his or her sibling (or other aspects of the environment)
are not additive, but rather, they are interactional. Thus, the whole (e.g., the
relationship) is more than the sum of its parts (e.g., each individual)
(Bronfenbrenner, 1989).

Because an individual affects and is affected by the people, events, and
environment surrounding them, the process of development that the individual
undergoes can be elucidated by the analysis of the nature of these many linkages.
Since these relationships do not remain static and unchanging, the analysis must also
include the dimension of time (Lerner, 1991). Developmental contextualism is a

”multi—leveled“ and ”change-oriented" view of human development (Lerner, 1993). It

6

is a complex but very ”real” way of examining the processes of deve10pment at any
point in life.

Although the developmental contextualism perspective is a comprehensive and
useful framework to adopt in understanding the developing child, it is not feasible to
conduct research that simultaneously attempts to examine the multitude of factors
involved. Therefore, the researcher must decide on a speciﬁc area of inﬂuence on the
child to study. Since the context of the family is central to the development of a
child, the current researcher chose to examine the relationships between family
members, with a focus on siblings.

For many years researchers have only examined the motherchild dyad in
attempting to understand the development of the child. Now, however, it is widely
acknowledged that the mother is not the sole inﬂuencer of the child. Researchers
such as Lamb (1975, 1976) and Parke (1978) have delineated the important role
fathers can play in raising a child. Nonetheless, the child grows up in a network of
relationships that includes more than the mother and father. Within the family, a
child and his or her siblings also interact and affect each other’s development. This
interaction between siblings is qualitatively different from interactions between parents
and their son or daughter (Baskett & Johnson, 1982). Many researchers now
recognize that family relationships must be envisioned as a system where there exists
signiﬁcant and complex interactions between members on one another. Siblings are a
part of this interacting network.

Bank and Kahn (1982) describe certain changes in our culture over the last

hundred years that have prompted the sibling relationship to be viewed as a more

7
relevant part of the family system. One is the diminished family size. A child will

now mostly likely have only one or two siblings, thus creating more opportunities for
”greater interdependence and intensity" in that relationship. There is also a prolonged
time period for these opportunities to occur since the increasing life-expectancy that is
possible today allows siblings to share a longer lifetime together. Furthermore, the
researchers speculate that the ease with which one can move throughout the country
(so that family members are now more easily separated), along with high rates of
divorce, may encourage siblings turn to one another to act as a support system.

In sum, siblings have the potential to impact one another. Thus, the
relationship between them warrants closer examination. The following sections will
present literature that has accumulated over the years regarding siblings. The review
will begin with a look at the unique aspects that characterize the sibling relationship,
then focus on the tasks that this relationship fulﬁlls. This will lead into a discussion
on the nature and qualities of sibling relationships in childhood and adolescence.
Lastly, the primary determinants and inﬂuences of the quality of sibling relationships
are reviewed.

WWW

There are certain characteristics of the sibling relationship that distinguish it
from the relationships a child experiences with other members of his or her family
and peers. Cicirelli (1982) points out four unique aspects of the bond between
brothers and sisters. First, is the duration of the relationship. The relationship a
child has with a sibling may be the longest lasting one in his or her entire lifetime.

The birth of the second child marks the beginning of a relationship that continues on

8
until the death of one of the siblings. Secondly, siblings share a great deal of life

experiences with one another. They have a "common genetic heritage" (those siblings
that are not adopted), a ”common cultural milieu", and “common early experiences."
Thirdly, for most siblings, those who do not have many years between them, the
relationship is characterized as being egalitarian. Similar to their peer relationships,
siblings interact on the same level. Lastly, another deﬁning characteristic of a sibling
relationship is that there is no choice of terminating the relationship. Unlike
friendships, which begin and perhaps end, depending on the circumstances, siblings
are bound together for a lifetime. They share a family tie that cannot be broken‘.
Siblings can be a "lifelong source of friendship and support," (Cicirelli, 1982).

I] [S'lli 131' h'

Goetting (1986) outlined the developmental ”tasks" of siblingship over the life
cycle, recognizing that at different points during their lifetime, siblings will vary in
their function and degree of inﬂuence. Some of the tasks of siblings during childhood
and adolescence (and perhaps later on as adults) are: companionship and emotional
support, caretaking, and aid and direct services (e.g., joining together for support in
dealing with parents). Based on her review of the literature, Goetting states that
certain sibling functions ”are constant, weaving threads of consistency from birth to
death, while others stand out as idiosyncratic to the context of the particular stage in

the life cycle. "

 

‘However, despite this unbreakable family tie, it may also be the case that some siblings
may choose not to continue to maintain contact with one another and thus, the interaction and
inﬂuence between siblings is lessened. This is just one example of the many individual
differences that exist within the range-of these unique aspects of sibling relationships.

9

The unique connection between a child and his or her sibling and the potential
for this connection to affect each of their lives has prompted researchers to explore
this relationship further. Following is a review of the literature of sibling
relationships in childhood, and then, of sibling relationships later in life, during
adolescence.

' in l ' hi i hil h

It is during the childhood years that siblings will most likely spend the most
extensive amount of time with one another compared to other points in their lifespan.
Siblings (those who are not separated by parental divorce or adoption) are in direct
contact with one another on a daily basis. They must learn to share space and
common resources such as toys, food, and parental attention.

In a review on sibling relationships in childhood, Dunn (1983) attempts to
explain the nature of the relationship by categorizing the interaction between siblings
as being reciprocal, complementary, or expressing elements of both. Reciprocal
interaction is also characteristic of peer relationships. It involves the imitation of
siblings, usually the younger of the older. Pepler, Corter, and Abramovitch (1982)
found that almost one third of all interactions between the 20~month old second born
and their older siblings were imitative. Lamb (1978a, 1978b) also found a high
frequency of the younger sibling imitating the older. He suggested that this imitative
aspect of the relationship may lead the older sibling to help their younger in ”mastery
of the object environment", and in this way, inﬂuence the cognitive development of

the young child.

10

Another aspect of the reciprocity of the sibling relationship can be seen in the
affect, whether it is positive or negative, between siblings. For example, in the
Pepler et al. (1982) study, siblings displayed affectionate behavior towards one
another and enjoyed cooperating together while playing games. Expressions of
concern and attempts to help and comfort one another were also frequently noted.
Dunn (1983) summarizes the close affect that can exist between siblings, ”since what
distresses, pains, or excites a sibling is very close to what distresses, pains, or excites
the child, the child is likely to be far better placed to understand and ﬁnd remedies
for a sibling’s distress than for the distress of an adult."

In addition to reciprocal interaction between siblings, another type of
interaction is characterized as being complementary. Complementarity is more
characteristic of parent-child relationships rather than peer relationships. For
example, complementarity can be seen in the caregiving, attachment and teaching
behaviors between siblings. Stewart’s (1983) study of four year olds and their
younger siblings revealed that if younger siblings were distressed when separated
from their mothers, more than half of the older siblings effectively and promptly
comforted their younger siblings. In this same study, attachment behaviors (e.g.
moving closer and using the older siblings as a ”secure base") were exhibited by the
younger siblings when they were left in a strange room.

Another aspect of complementarity is the teaching behaviors that can be
evident in sibling relationships. Cicirelli (1972, 1976) conducted several studies-on
siblings and found that older siblings (age 8 or 9 years) could act as effective teachers

to their younger siblings (age 6 or 7 years). Azmitia and Hesser (1993) also found,

1 1
in their sample of 7 and 9 year old child-sibling pairs and child-peer pairs, that

siblings were more effective teachers than peers were. When compared to older
peers, older siblings gave more explanations, more positive feedback, and let their
younger siblings take more control of the task. However, these were not only one-
way actions. The younger children also requested more explanations and exerted
more pressure to take more control of the task from their older siblings instead of
their older peers. The researchers concluded that siblings are unique and important
agents of cognitive development.

The concept of continuity in sibling relationships was addressed by Stillwell
and Dunn (1984) in their study of aggression and friendliness in sibling relationships
in preschoolers. The researchers were interested in how stable these qualities were
over time. They found that over a three to four year period, the ﬁrst bom’s behavior
(showing aggression and/or friendliness) towards their younger sibling remained quite
stable. These results suggest that certain dimensions evident in the sibling
relationship at an early age may exist for at least several years. One limitation of the
Study, however, is that the sample size was very small (13 girls and 12 boys), so
tllttse results cannot be generalized.

Dunn et a1. (1994) also found stability in individual differences (positive or
negative behavior) in the way children behaved towards their siblings from preschool
to early adolescence. Although there was evidence of continuity over this period of
time, the researchers note that the quality of some of the sibling relationships did not
I'emain stable, but changed. They describe several life-events (e.g., marital

disharmony, maternal illness, accidents) and social developments (e. g. , development

12

of relationships with friends, teachers, etc.) that could contribute to the change in the
relationship.

Another aspect of continuity, whether early experiences have later effects on
the sibling relationship, was studied by Volling and Belsky (1992). Based on their
ﬁndings, they concluded that early relationship experience between parents and their
ﬁrstborn children (e. g. being insecurely vs. securely attached) at one year of age, had
a lasting effect on the quality of sibling relationships ﬁve years later. More
speciﬁcally, those children who had insecure attachments to their mother at one year
had higher levels of conﬂict and aggression with their sibling at 6 years, compared to
those who were securely attached. These studies support the notion that there appears
to be some continuity in relationship experiences with siblings over time, at least
within the time periods studies.

i ' h ' ' R l ' hi

Furman and Buhrmester (1985a) investigated the qualities of sibling
relationships in elementary school-aged children. When the children talked about
their siblings they gave very detailed descriptions about the positive and negative
features of the relationship. Through interviewing these children, four dimensions of
the relationship emerged - warmth/closeness, relative power/ status, conﬂict, and
rivalry. The results were replicated in a later study on sibling relationships also
involving school-aged children (Vandell, Minnett, & Santrock, 1987).

With the exception of power/ status, these dimensions continue to be
descriptive of sibling relationships later on in life. For example, Stocker and

McHale’s (1992) study involving preadolescents reported that affection, hostility and

l3

rivalry were observed between siblings. Both these researchers and Vandell et al.
(1987) found that the positive and negative dimensions, warmth/closeness and
conﬂict, were relatively independent and uncorrelated, suggesting that they are not
simply "bipolar aspects” of the relationship. Instead, both qualities can and do exist
simultaneously in the relationship. The failure to ﬁnd the power/status aspect in the
preadolescent sibling pairs that Stocker and McHale studied could be due to the fact
that, as other research has documented (Buhrmester & Furman, 1990; Cicirelli, 1982;
Stoneman, Brody, Davis & Crapps, 1989), the relationship between siblings becomes
more egalitarian as the children grow older. These studies reveal a multifaceted
picture of the nature of sibling relationships in young childhood continuing on into
adolescence.

5.11.13]. 1"!!!

Earlier research on sibling relationships has solely focused on the early
childhood years. Perhaps because as children approached adolescence they began to
spend less and less time at home, it was thought that the inﬂuence and signiﬁcance of
the sibling relationship also became less and less, leading to such a narrow range of
study (Stocker & McHale, 1992). Researchers such as Cicirelli (1982), however,
highlighted the need to broaden the focus and to look at the relationship across the life
span. Lamb and Sutton-Smith ( 1982) adopt the life-span perspective in
acknowledging that over time, all relationships (including sibling) undergo changes
and that ”any ’effects’ may be eliminated, reinforced, or altered by later

experiences. " Consequently, in order to understand the nature and effects of the

14

sibling relationship it is important to study a later point of the lifespan such as
adolescence.

What does the sibling relationship look like in adolescence? Siblings are still
considered to be signiﬁcant people in the world of adolescents (Blyth, Hill & Thiel,
1982; Lempers & Clark-Lempers, 1992). Adolescents regarded their relationships
with their brothers and sisters as being conﬂictual as well as nurturing and intimate
(Furman & Buhrmester, 1985b; Lempers & Clark-Lempers, 1992).

The sibling relationship can be an arena where intimacy and arguments are
both allowed expression. This may permit ”unique learning experiences" (Furman &
Buhrmester, 1985b) for certain aspects of adolescent development such as autonomy
or self-esteem. For example, arguments may lead adolescents to learn how to resolve
disagreements, and to come to a mature understanding of themselves as unique
individuals possessing different ideas and opinions from others. (Lempers & Clark-
Lempers, 1992). In support of this, Raffaelli’s (1992) study of sibling conﬂict in
early adolescence suggests that conﬂict during this period of life performs several
functions such as ”reinforcing family and relationship rules and delineating
interpersonal boundaries. "

How does the sibling relationship during adolescence compare to the
relationship during childhood? There are conﬂicting ﬁndings regarding certain
aspects of the sibling relationship as it continues over time. Some investigators report
that the relationship becomes increasingly close and supportive (Cicirelli, 1982).-
Likewise, in Stoneman and Brody’s (1993) study, as the children grew from early

childhood reaching towards adolescence, siblings became more socially engaged with

15

each other, and the relationships became more positive. However, other investigators
report no signiﬁcant changes in emotional closeness in the relationship (Raffaelli &
Larson, 1987).

For most siblings, the relationship during adolescence is characterized by the
development of an ”egalitarian, role-sharing relationship" (Cicirelli, 1982; Stoneman
et al., 1989). Similar to Cicirelli (1982) and Stoneman et al.,‘s (1989) ﬁndings,
Buhrmester and Furman (1990) also found less asymmetry and more egalitarian
sibling relationships in adolescence’. They also noted that as children grew older
their relationships became less intense in both the warmth/closeness and the conﬂict
dimensions. They attributed this to the decrease in interaction with family and the
increase in the amount of time that adolescents spend with their peers. Perhaps in the
adolescents’ quest for autonomy, they prefer to spend less time with their family
(which includes siblings) and more with friends. The researchers do reiterate,
however, that some adolescents will maintain very close relationships with their
siblings and that examining group averages, as they did in their study, masks
individual differences in the relationships.

Sibling relationships in adolescence are similar in some respects to
relationships in childhood. For example, the notions of reciprocity and

complementarity documented in studies of young children appear to exist in

 

2Of course, it may be less likely for those siblings with many years between them to
develop an egalitarian relationship. The years of separation may make it difﬁcult to view
each other as equals. However, perhaps in adulthood when the age differential may not be
as dramatic (for example, the difference between a 10 year old and 20 year old is much
greater than the difference between a 40 and 50 year old) it is possible that age spacing will
not contribute much to the quality of sibling relationships.

16

adolescent sibling relationships as well (Abramovitch, Corter, Pepler & Stanhope,
1986). And in other respects, the relationship may differ. For example, Furman &
Buhrmester (1990) reported that the intensity of the sibling relationship on several
dimensions (e.g., warmth/closeness, conﬂict, power status) appeared to lessen as
children move into adolescence.

The range of qualities that characterize the relationship can vary greatly in
both age periods. Some siblings are warm and intimate with one another, others
conﬂictual and negative. Most likely, interactions between siblings encompass a
combination of both. The following section examines research on the inﬂuences on
the sibling relationship that may account for this range of qualities.
Wm

Furman and Buhrmester (1985a) proposed a model of the bidirectional
inﬂuences of sibling relationships and other variables. The sibling relationship itself
is comprised of four dimensions - warmth/closeness, relative power/status, conﬂict,
and rivalry - that Furman and Buhrmester (1985a) distinguished after analyzing
interviews in which children and their siblings described aspects of their relationships
with each other.

The three domains of variables that seem to be primary determinants of the
quality of these relationships between siblings have been identiﬁed by these
researchers. These domains are 1) family structure variables (also called sibling
status variables or family constellation variables), 2) parent-child relationships, and 3)
characteristics of individual children. The ﬁrst domain of family structure variables

includes age of siblings, age difference between siblings, the child and sibling sex

l7

pattern, family size, and birth order. The second domain of parent-child relationship
variables includes the quality of relationships and the management of sibling
relationships. Lastly, the third domain of determinants, characteristics of the
individual children (the child and his or her siblings), include socio-cognitive factors
such as perspective-taking skills, and personality factors such as temperament and
child functioning. These domains of determinants, with the exception of family
structure variables which are unchangeable, have bidirectional links to the sibling
relationship. Each domain affects the other.

One criticism of the Furman and Buhrmester model is that it does not include
the dimension of sibling separation, which is for the most part ignored in the sibling
literature. The choice to move (not necessarily physically) away from a sibling could
be due to "apathy, geographic separation, lack of emotional availability, and
divergence in values and lifestyle,” (Bedford, 1989). These choices of separation
will, of course, affect the relationship siblings have with one another. Research in
this area is needed to clarify factors contributing to these decisions that weaken the
sibling bond, and what developmental signiﬁcance, if any, this holds.

The following will describe each of the components of a slightly modiﬁed (a
bit more detailed) model of sibling relationships proposed by Furman and Buhrmester
(1985a) (see Figure 1). The ﬁrst domain of inﬂuences on the quality of sibling
relationships (family structure variables) will be discussed ﬁrst, followed by the
second domain (the parent-child relationship), and lastly, the third domain,

(characteristics of the individual children).

18

.39: Emma: $53825 ecu 585“. :0 88m...

«33823.8 959m Co gene 2: B 80535 new $555.98 2955 on. Co .80.: 338.09: .P 23?.

      
          

 

  

82825.2
05.9% .o EoEommcms.
20830.: 3.22050

 

     
       

23m mascoama
a. acorn-o. Co 3%:
95:39.2 .320 c QEwcgﬂonmu
“COESOQEOP \ . .
2.2m o>=_cmoo.o_oow :20. c an.

555 on. Co
8508920

       

  

38.55 .820

      
          

  

 

EoEmaano...
$.50. ozgcmoooﬁom .020 5.5
220 2.6 3.». 2:5".
«cameoﬁmamco Edam 529588 xcm
~0_¢COO UCﬁuﬂQW QO<
magmtogoa 026.0". 355% Co om<
mmocomoczﬁcm; ﬂog,

aEmcozsom 959w 23026 2:53

l9
Eamilxitmsturelariables

Past research has simply looked at how family structure variables are linked to
child outcomes. One example is the many studies on the effects of birth order on
achievement (Schacter, 1963) and personality traits (Lahey, Hammer, Crumrine, &
Forehand, 1980; Sampson, 1965). A drawback of these studies, however, is that they
did not speciﬁcally attempt to investigate why these links appeared to exist. For
instance, is it because parents treat ﬁrst and second borns differently, thus leading
each child to develop differently?

In response to this gap in the literature, more recent research has attempted to
describe the process that links family structure variables to certain child outcomes.
Furman and Buhrmester (1985a) have proposed that the sibling relationship and the
parent-child relationship be conceptualized as mediating variables linking the family
structure variables (e. g., birth order, age spacing) to certain child characteristics.

The literature is mixed regarding the relative inﬂuence of family structure variables
on the sibling relationship. Some studies report the variables to have an effect on
sibling relationships (Minnett, Vandell & Santrock, 1983) while others report no or
very little effect (Dunn, 1987; Dunn & Munn, 1986; Stocker, Dunn & Plomin, 1989).
Although there has been a shift away from the focus of family structure variables on
to other inﬂuences (e. g. child temperament, parental differential treatment) on the
sibling relationship and resultant outcomes, family constellation effects are still

informative.

20

smears

Sibling closeness appears to change across the lifespan (Ross & Milgram,
1982). That the sibling relationship appears to become increasingly positive with age
has been documented in several studies. For siblings in middle childhood,
companionship and ”positive emotional tone” increased as the children grew older
(Vandell et al., 1987). Along the same lines, Stocker et al. (1989) found in their
sample of school-aged children that more positive and less negative sibling
relationships were more characteristic of older, second-bom children compared to
those second-bom children who were younger. The mothers of older second-boms
rated the sibling relationships more positively than did mothers of younger second-
boms. Likewise, in Stoneman and Brody’s (1993) study of 5-14 year olds,
chronologically older siblings experienced warmer and more positive relationships.
As mentioned above in the discussion on sibling relationships in adolescence, studies
have reported that as the children approached adolescence, the relationship with their
sibling appeared to become increasingly close and supportive (Cicirelli, 1982, Ross &
Milgram, 1982).

However, in some cases, although the relationships appear to become more
positive, there may also be more conﬂict involved. Vandell et al.,‘s (1987) study
found that even though the positive emotional tone of the sibling relationship
increased with the age of the children, sibling conﬂict also increased. Minnett et al.
(1983) speculate that the negative behaviors (e. g. aggression, cheating, dominance)

observed in their sample of school-age children, could be because of the increased

21

opportunity for competition when both siblings attend school. These ﬁndings again
point to the multidimensional nature of the sibling relationship.

The diverse ﬁndings on the effect of age on the sibling relationship suggest
that other inﬂuences may outweigh this structural variable. Life events, the wider
range of relationships experienced, and the development of a child’s social skills all
may be more powerful contributers to the sibling relationship than age.

I l l E l .1 1' .

There appear to be differences in the interaction between female sibling pairs
and male sibling pairs. In preschool and school aged children, male sibling pairs
were more physically aggressive than female sibling pairs (Abramovitch, Corter, &
Lando, 1979; Minnett et al., 1983). Another study on school-aged children reported
that male sibling pairs engaged in less interaction and at the same time, proportionally
more negative interactions than female sibling pairs (Stoneman & Brody, 1993). Gold
( 1989) found that sisters in old age have the closest relationships compared to brothers
and to sister-brother pairs. Similarly, Buhrmester and Furman (1990) found that girl
sibling dyads in middle childhood and adolescence rated their relationships
signiﬁcantly higher than boy sibling dyads in intimacy, companionship, similarity, and
admiration. Their results replicated an earlier study (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985a)
that also showed girls feeling more positive towards their sisters than boys to their
brothers. Cicirelli (1982) found that in early adulthood, sisters felt closer to each
other than brothers did. The majority of the studies indicates that sister pairs may be

more positive than brother pairs.

22
v 'x x
There are conﬂicting ﬁndings on the effects of the sex combination of sibling
dyads in regards to the sibling relationship. Several studies involving infants and
preschool age children have not found one combination to be experience a more
positive relationship than the other (Dunn et al., 1994; Lamb, 1978a, 1978b, Volling
& Belsky, 1992). However, other studies have found differences. For example,
same-sex pairs have been found to be less controlling and less competitive and were
described by their mothers as having more positive relationships than mixed-sex pairs
age (Stocker et al., 1989). Same-sex pairs have also been found to report greater
feelings of warmth and closeness (Dunn, 1983; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985a), and
more frequently exhibited positive social behavior (Dunn & Kendrick, 1981) when
compared to mixed-sex pairs in very young children. To explain their ﬁndings, Dunn
& Kendrick (1981) suggest that children are more likely to get along with siblings of
the same sex since they would identify with each other more. It was interesting that
in the Dunn & Kendrick (1981) study, for same-sex sibling pairs, a negative
correlation was found between the positive and negative behaviors shown by the older
child to the younger. However, in different sex pairs, there was no signiﬁcant
correlation between positive and negative behaviors - some pairs showed a high
frequency of positive and negative behaviors towards their siblings. In this sample, it
appears as if different-sex sibling pairs may experience a more ambivalent relationship
than same-sex pairs. Studies of siblings in other cultures also reveal that same-sex
siblings show more friendly behavior and less aggressive, hostile behavior than

different-sex pairs (Whiting & Whiting, 1975).

23

In contrast to these studies that ﬁnd same-sex sibling dyads interacting more
positively than different-sex sibling dyads, Minnett et al., (1983) found that in their
sample of school-age children (7-8 years old) more cheating, aggression, and
dominance were evident in same-sex than different-sex pairs. These researchers
suggest that their conﬂicting ﬁndings could be due to the fact that the children in their
sample were older than the previously cited studies, and perhaps were now more
competitive towards each other in the school-age years. Or, the conﬂicting ﬁndings
could be due to methodological reasons - in this study the mother was not present
with the children, and the children did not know that they were being observed
whereas in the other studies the mothers and the observers were in the presence of the
children.

Dunn et al.’s (1994) longitudinal study of children and their siblings from
preschool to early adolescence found that gender composition effects were evident
during early adolescence, but were not apparent during the earlier ages. Regarding
younger sisters, adolescent girls reported more warmth and intimacy with their
younger sisters than adolescent boys with their younger sisters. There was no such
difference when these older children were in preschool. The results of this study
contradicts Minnett et al.’s (1983) ﬁndings.

It does appear that different-sex siblings do become increasingly closer as they
grow older, especially during adolescence (Ross & Milgram, 1982). This is
congruent to the research presented earlier that found sibling relationships to become
more positive with age. However, Ross and her colleagues did not compare mixed-

with same-sex dyads to see if one combination was more positive than the other.

24

A review of the literature suggests that a deﬁnitive conclusion can not be
reached on whether same-sex or different-sex pairs of siblings differ from one another
on the quality of the relationship. However, it appears as if more studies ﬁnd same-
sex pairs getting along better than mixed-sex. Perhaps the structural variable of
gender combination does not contribute as much to the quality of the sibling
relationship than other factors, such as parental differential treatment or child
temperament. More research in this area is needed to clarify the effects of gender
composition on the sibling relationship.

Binhmsler

A vast body of research exists on the effects of birth order. Birth order has
been linked to child personality (Lahey et al., 1980; Sampson, 1965), intelligence
(Zajonc, 1976; Zajonc & Markus, 1975), and achievement (Schacter, 1963)
outcomes. However, many of these studies have not sought to determine the process
of how birth order is linked to these various child outcomes. According to Furman
and Buhrmester’s (1985a) model, birth order and its outcomes can be mediated by
both the parent-child and sibling relationship. The focus of this next section will
consider the direct effects of birth order on sibling relationships.

In previous studies on sibling interaction, children who are the older sibling
have expressed more aggressive and prosocial behavior, and have also taken more of
a leadership role than their younger sibling (Dunn, 1983; Pepler et al., 1982). The
child who is younger has been found to imitate the older sibling (Lamb, 1978a,
1978b), and to be more submissive in his or her interactions with the older child

(Abramovitch, et al., 1979; Brody, Stoneman & Mackinnon, 1982). Furman and

25
Buhrmester (1985a) found that earlier born siblings reported more nurturing and

dominance in their relationships over their later siblings. Moreover, later born
siblings reported more admiration for their older sibling.

Buhrmester and Furman (1990) investigated perceptions of the sibling
relationships during middle childhood and adolescence. They found that earlier and
later born siblings differed in their assessment of the relationship. Later born siblings
reported a more intimate relationship with their older sibling than was perceived by
the older sibling. Furthermore, earlier born siblings rated the relationship with their
younger sibling as more antagonistic than the younger siblings did. The researchers
speculate that the earlier born siblings may be striving towards more independence
while the later born siblings want to be ”more grown up” and do this by identifying
with their older sibling. Cicirelli (1982) found that later in life, during the college
years, later born siblings rated their relationship more positively with their older
sibling than vice versa. Thus, it seems as if the order of birth will affect the siblings’
perception of the relationship as well as the types of interactions (e. g. nurturing,
dominance) that occur.

mamas

Siblings closer in age (less than two years apart) portrayed their relationships
as being closer and warmer than those with a greater (more than two years apart) age
difference in Furman & Buhrmester’s ( 1985a) study of school-aged children. Yet,
these children also reported the highest level of conﬂict at the same time. Buhrmester
and Furman (1990) likewise found that more quarreling and antagonism was

associated with narrower spacing between siblings in their sample of school-aged

26

children and adolescents. Minnett et al. (1983) also found in their school-aged
sample that wider spaced siblings expressed more positive behaviors in their
interactions while closer spaced siblings expressed more aggressive behaviors.

Other researchers such as Abramovitch and her colleagues (Abramovitch et
al., 1979; Abramovitch, Corter & Pepler, 1980) and Dunn & Kendrick (1982) found
that for young children (infants, toddlers and preschoolers) age spacing did not seem
to have an effect on the quality of the sibling relationship. However, in these studies
age was confounded with the age interval - the oldest children were always in the
wider spaced sibling dyads. Cicirelli’s (1982) much older sample of college women
reported feeling more positive to siblings who were closer in age. Here, however,
there is a confounding with stage of development since there is evidence that sibling
relationships become more positive with age.

Perhaps with very young children age spacing does not contribute to
relationships with their siblings, but during middle childhood and adolescence, it does
have an effect because of an increase in opportunities for competition due to school.
However, in the later years this competition and rivalry seems to attenuate (Allan,
1977; Ross & Milgram, 1982), as does the effects of age spacing, at least for some
siblings. As children become adults, perhaps some of the sources of childhood
rivalry are outgrown. Thus, it is possible that age spacing, as with the gender
combination variable, is not as inﬂuential for the quality of the sibling relationship as
children become older. It is conceivable that other factors may outweigh or mediate

age spacing effects.

27

W

Family size has been associated directly with child outcomes such as
intelligence (Zajonc, 1976) and sociability (Kidwell, 1981). However, little research
exists on whether having one or many siblings affects the relationship siblings have
with one another, which may mediate child outcome variables. The effect of size of
family on the quality of sibling relationships may be linked to the child-rearing
practices of the parents. For example, Elder and Bowerman (1963) suggest that
opportunities for parental frustration increase when there are a greater number of
children in the family since parents will have to deal with each child’s wants and
needs as well as the interactions that occur between siblings. These frustrations may
result in parenting styles that are more punitive in an attempt to control children’s
behavior. Likewise, Kidwell (1981) proposes that more children in the family
increases demands on parents for "time, energy, and patience". In an attempt to meet
these demands, parents may have "less time for explanation and for one-to-one
interaction of a supportive and positive nature" with each of their children. However,
if older siblings were encouraged to take on some of the childcare responsibilities,
this may alleviate some of the stress parents may experience due to having a large
family. There have not been enough studies conducted to determine whether this is
true.

In contrast, in Raffaelli’s (1992) study involving young children, results reveal
that children with two siblings compared to those with three or more, reported a
signiﬁcantly higher frequency of conﬂict in their relationships. The researcher did

not speculate why children in a larger family appeared to have less arguments with

28

one another. This aspect was not elaborated upon in this study, and is the only study
that has reported these results. As with other family structure variables mentioned
above, research on how this variable of inﬂuence affects the sibling relationship
would be useful.

il ' l

The review of literature suggests that some family structure variables do seem
to have an inﬂuence on the relationship between siblings. The age of the child, the
sex of the siblings, the order of birth, age spacing, family size, all have been found to
affect the relationship, some perhaps to a greater degree than others, and at different
points in the lifecycle’. While this is the case, researchers have realized that this
does not give us the complete picture (Dunn, 1983; Munn & Dunn, 1989; Stocker et
al. , 1989).

Although more research on how family structure variables inﬂuence the sibling
relationship is needed to clarify the effects, it is perhaps more beneﬁcial to look to
other determinants, such as the parent-child relationship, that may be a more
powerful, direct contributor to the quality of sibling relationships. It is now
recognized that familial relationships are intertwined, each relationship within the
family affecting the relationships around it. The parent-child relationship may also
act as a mediating variable that links family structure variables to the sibling

relationship. This leads into a discussion of the second domain of determinants that

 

3For example, as siblings become older and their developmental statuses become more
and more similar, the age spacing between them will be of less importance in determining
the quality of their relationship.

29

inﬂuence the quality of sibling relationships - the interaction and bond between the
parent and child.
E _ Cl '1 l E l . l .

The quality of the parent-child relationship appears to be inﬂuential in
determining the quality of the sibling relationship. Several aspects of parenting can
play a role in determining the quality of the relationship between a parent and child -
child-rearing practices of the parent, maternal differential treatment, and lastly,
management of sibling relationships. The next sections will review literature on how
these aspects of parenting affect the quality of the relationship between a child and his
or her parent, and how this, in turn, inﬂuences the relationship between siblings.

Prosocial behavior between a young child and his or her sibling seems to be
fostered by parents who are responsive to their child’s needs and behaviors (Bryant &
Crockenberg, 1980). In Bryant and Crockenberg’s study prosocial behavior was
deﬁned as ”activity undertaken for the well-being of others. " Operationally it was
deﬁned through a cluster of behaviors such as comforting, sharing, helping,
defending, etc. These researchers also noted that the expression of verbal antisocial
behavior between siblings correlated with the unresponsiveness and insensitivity of the
mother. Similarly, other researchers (McHale & Gamble, 1989) have found less
ﬁghting and less hostility between siblings when their mothers were more responsive
and less negative to their children. In another study, maternal rejection was
associated with conﬂictual sibling relationships (Patterson, 1986). These results are

in line with Hoffman’s (1976) position that when an individual’s own concerns are

3O

taken care of, it is more likely that that individual will be able to express concern for
others.

In addition to responding to a child’s nwds, other maternal child-rearing
practices also relate to the quality of sibling interaction. Brody, Stoneman and
MacKinnon’s (1986) study of school-aged children found that managing and helping
behaviors exhibited by the older sibling to his or her younger sibling were positively
associated with maternal encouragement of curiosity and openness in children, and
negatively related to maternal inconsistency and anxiety induction. Less antagonistic
and more prosocial behavior between siblings were linked to the mother’s practice of
nonpunitive control techniques. On the other hand, maternal child-rearing practices
that are characterized as being intrusive or overcontrolling have been correlated with
sibling conﬂict and aggression in preschool children (Volling & Belsky, 1992).

The studies of the link between maternal child-rearing practices and the quality
of the mother-child relationship to the relationship between siblings appears to hold
for older children as well. In addition, this link between child-rearing practices and
sibling relationships exists for fathers. Preadolescents in Stocker and McHale’s
(1992) study showed more affection and less hostility toward their siblings when the
relationship with their father was characterized by high levels of warmth. The
amount of time that the preadolescent spent alone with their fathers also contributed to
the quality of the sibling relationship. Those who spent the most time with fathers,
and perceived more warmth in their relationship reported being in the most positive

and least negative relationship with their siblings.

31

These results indicate that warm and positive child-rearing practices tends to
foster the development of prosocial behaviors between siblings. However, in some
cases a poor quality parent-child relationship may actually foster a close relationship
between siblings. For instance, Essman (1977) found that when parents were
uninvolved and/or uncommitted to their children, this created a context for siblings to
take over and fulﬁll the caretaking role for one another. This does not mean that
siblings in this situation are necessarily acting positively towards one another, but
there is potential for a close relationship to develop between the sibling caretaker and
the child. Similarly, in Bryant & Crockenberg’s (1980) study, the ignoring and
unavailability of the mothers to their children were also associated with prosocial
interactions between the siblings. The researchers found signiﬁcant correlations
between maternal ignoring and the older siblings’ behaviors (who were all ﬁrst borns)
with their younger siblings (who were later borns, two or three years younger than
the eldest). They suggested that if requests for help by the older sibling (who were
10 years old) were ignored, this may have encouraged them to become more self-
reliant and prompted them to seek out their sibling and become more actively engaged
with them. Younger children (who were 7 years old), however, did not show
signiﬁcant correlations between maternal ignoring and exhibiting more prosocial
behavior. Thus, the age of the sibling seemed to play an important role in whether
maternal ignoring would inﬂuence sibling interactions positively or negatively.

This study further suggests that the behaviors of a child are affected by the
mother’s behavior towards the child’s sibling. In addition to inﬂuencing her child’s

behaviors directly, a mother’s behavior towards her ﬁrst-bom child appears to have

32

an effect on the quality of the relationship between the ﬁrst- and second-bom (Dunn
& Kendrick, 1982; Stewart, Mobely, Van Tuyl, & Salvador, 1987). Dunn (1983)
states that ”the behavior of any two members of the mother-two child triad can have
marked and immediate effects on the behavior of the third member. " This again
demonstrates the interconnectedness of each of the members in a family system.
Furthermore, that maternal ignoring was correlated to both siblings’ prosocial as well
as antisocial interactions demonstrates the complexity of the relationships between
family members. In this family system the child is embedded in a network of
relationships that can have salient developmental inﬂuences on each of the members.

WWW

Recently, there has been a growing interest in the ﬁeld of behavioral genetics
in the question of why siblings, who share the same genetic material and are raised in
the same families, can grow up to be different from one another (for a review, see
Hoffman, 1991). This has led researchers to attempt to account for sibling
differences. One inﬂuence that seems to partially explain these differences is the
within-family environmental variation (Loehlin, Willerman & Horn, 1988; Plomin &
Daniels, 1987; Scarr, Webber, Weinberg & Wittig, 1981). More speciﬁcally, this
includes differences in the way parents treat their children. This differential treatment
appears to inﬂuence the way siblings relate to one another.

Parental partiality as perceived by the siblings themselves has been associated
with feelings of competition and conﬂict between siblings (Furman & Buhrmester,
1985a). Stocker, et al. (1989) found that greater differential behavior shown by the

mother to the child and sibling led to a less positive and more conﬂictual sibling

33
relationship. Likewise, Bryant and Crockenberg (1980) discovered that the children

in their sample were more likely to express more negative behaviors towards their
siblings, even if their own needs were well met, if there was a discrepancy in
treatment of the child and sibling by the mother. These studies, and others (Daniels
et al., 1985; Hetherington, 1988), conclude that differential treatment by the mother
to her children is associated with the development of a more negative relationship
between siblings.

Volling and Belsky (1992) have addressed whether paternal differential
treatment, as well as maternal differential treatment, can also shape the sibling
relationship. They investigated whether both were linked to sibling conﬂict and
prosocial behavior in young children. They reported several interesting interactions.
The connection between parental differential affection and prosocial sibling interaction
depended on the quality of the father and older child relationship. If fathers were
intrusive or uninvolved in their children, then differential displays of affection
towards their children did not affect whether there was more or less prosocial sibling
interaction. In contrast, if the father was characterized as being ”facilitative" with
their relationship with their older child, differential behavior did have an effect - more
differential affection was associated with less prosocial sibling interaction.

Regarding mothers, if the older child was previously insecurely attached to
their mother, then differential maternal control of the older child did not make a
difference whether siblings were involved in more or less conﬂict. However, if the '
older child was securely attached to their mothers, then differential maternal control

did have an effect - more control of the older child was associated with more sibling

34

conﬂict. These are analogous to the ﬁndings with the fathers. This study suggests
that differential treatment by the parents (such as displays of affection or control) does
have an effect on the relationships between siblings when certain relationship qualities
with parents exists. Volling and Belsky ( 1992) hypothesize that perhaps an infant
who develops a secure attachment with their mother or a supportive relationship with
their father "experience a sense of loss when the parent now directs the attention and
affection that once was solely theirs to a younger sibling. This, in turn, may breed
feelings of resentment and jealousy, and more conﬂict and less cooperation between
siblings.” Volling and Belsky’s study lends support to the ﬁndings of Dunn and
Kendrick (1982). The latter group of researchers found that when mothers and their
ﬁrst-born daughters experienced an "intense playful relationship” before the siblings’
birth, the daughters were more likely to display hostile and unfriendly behavior with
their younger sibling, and vice versa, 14 months later. The researchers also
hypothesized that a sense of a loss of affection may also explain their results.
McHale and Pawletko (1992) point out that differential treatment will have
different meanings across different contexts. For example, in a child-sibling
relationship where the sibling is quite a bit younger, or where the sibling is
handicapped in some way, the other sibling will probably expect his or her parents to
differentially treat the less able sibling because of the differing developmental
abilities. Differential treatment in this context will less likely lead siblings toward a
conﬂictual relationship. It is not known exactly what "level" of parental differential
treatment may lead to poorer sibling relationships and what is considered ”normal"

differential treatment.

35

The studies cited above are examples of what Bronfenbrenner and Crouter
(1983) call a "process by context” interaction. In order to fully understand a process
(e.g., parental differential treatment on sibling relationships), one must also examine
the context (e. g. the family structure or quality of the parent-child relationship) in
which this process occurs. The process by context model allows the researcher to
assess developmental outcomes as well as the processes that produce these outcomes
(Bronfenbrenner, 1989). The parent-child relationship is a context for which the
processes of the developing sibling relationship are taking place. Differential
treatment, along with other inﬂuences on the sibling relationship, must be "grounded
within the larger ecology of the family," (McHale & Pawletko, 1992).

m n i i l i hi

Parents will have expectations of how they want their children to relate to one
another, and this will determine the discipline and/or management styles they employ
(Furman and Buhrmester, 1985a). The manner in which parents deal with their
children’s interactions may inﬂuence the sibling relationship. Kendrick and Dunn
(1983) examined how mothers responded to their children’s quarrels with one another.
They found that the mother’s intervention in the quarrels was positively correlated to
the expression of hostile behavior among siblings, but more so for boys than for girls.
Again, similar to much of the research linking parenting practices to sibling
relationships, causal inferences cannot be drawn. It could be that the expression of
hostile behavior among siblings provoked mothers to intervene more. Unfortunately,

no one has followed up this study to clarify this connection further.

36
i n - il l i n hi

The parenting practices described above, along with the characteristics of the
children, will play a role in determining what the quality of sibling relationships will
be. Based upon the literature, it appears as if parents who are characterized as being
warm and positive, compared to those who ignore or are overcontrolling, will more
likely have a relationship characterized by closeness and positive interactions with
their children, and thus also be more likely to encourage positive sibling relationships.
This last section covering parent-child relationships will focus on how the quality of
the parent-child relationship affects the interactions between siblings.

A study by Daniels et al. (1985) found maternal closeness to the child to be
associated with the sibling relationship. Less sibling friendliness was evident when
there was less maternal closeness. A study mentioned earlier, by Volling and Belsky
(1992), also looked at a construct similar to maternal closeness, attachment between
the child and their mother, and how this attachment relationship affected the
relationship the child had with their sibling. This study was unique in that it
speciﬁcally attempted to link two bodies of literature of child development -
attachment to the care-giver, and sibling relationships. Also, this study included
fathers, who have too often been ignored despite the loud calls for research to include
this long-neglected group. The researchers found that children who were insecurely
attached to their mothers at one year of age experienced a more conﬂictual
relationship with their sibling at three years of age. Furthermore, results revealed
that when mothers reported a high level of conﬂict with their children, it related

positively to sibling conﬂict and aggression. However, as with many other sibling

37

studies, the direction of effects here is not clear. Perhaps siblings who engage in
more conﬂict induce mothers to intervene more frequently and thus produces more
mother-child conﬂict as well.

An earlier study by Teti and Ablard (1989) also found that insecurely attached
toddlers did not respond as promptly, or at all, to their younger sibling’s distress
while they were separated from their mother. Moreover, the researchers reported that
if both the older and the younger child were insecurity attached to their mother, then
both displayed more aggression in their interactions compared to those siblings who
were both securely attached. From these investigations, it appears as if a more
positive parent-child relationship tends to encourage a more positive child-sibling
relationship.

i n - ' l ' hi

The literature reviewed has clearly shown that the relationship between a
parent and child will have an effect on the quality of the child’s relationship with their
sibling. Although, 11% the relationship will parent-child relationship will affect
sibling interactions is not clear-cut. The studies suggest that generally, a child who
experiences a positive relationship with their parent seems to also experience a more
positive relationship with their sibling. As we have seen, however, in some cases
where there is a lack of parental involvement, siblings turn to each other for comfort
and reassurance. That negative parenting behavior can be associated with both
positive as well as negative sibling interactions points to the realization that other
factors, such as the age of the children or their attachment history, must also be

considered when trying to elucidate the connections. Again, the application of the

38

process by context model would be most useful in understanding this aspect of
development.

Although all of the studies have examined the parent-child relationship and its
effect on the sibling relationship unidirectionally, as stated earlier, the direction of
effects can not be established. We must keep in mind that the sibling relationship will
also have an effect on how the child interacts with the parent and vice versa.

Research focusing the bidirectional path of inﬂuence that links the two relationships is
needed.
i i lin h ris i

Examining the individual child that makes up part of the parent-child or the
sibling-child relationship is also important. Again, just as the parent-child and
sibling-child relationships are bidirectionally linked, so is the child and the sibling-
rclationship mutually inﬂuential. The unique characteristics that a child brings to the
relationship will also be shaped by the relationship itself. The last domain of the
determinants of the quality of sibling relationships is the characteristics of the
children. This section will focus on temperament and socio-cognitive skills.

W

Temperament has been found to inﬂuence the quality of the sibling relationship
(Kendrick & Dunn, 1983). Temperament is the ”stylistic" component of a child’s
behavior. It describes how a child behaves rather than what the behavior is or why
the behavior is expressed (Thomas, Chess & Birch, 1968). A child’s temperament is
believed to exist very early in life, to be modiﬁed as they continue to grow, and to be

a part of the child’s genetic makeup (Buss & Plomin, 1986; Lerner, Lemer, Windle,

39
Hooker, Lenerz, & East 1986). Lerner et al., (1986) have described the important

role that temperament plays in the development of a child. Temperament is regarded
as "a useful dimension of individuality with which to study child effects on others, to
study transactional relations between children and their social context, and to study
the means by which children may promote their own development," (Lerner, 1993;
Lerner, Castellino, & Perkins, 1993).

Thomas and Chess and their colleagues have identiﬁed three temperament
types: easy, difﬁcult and slow-to-warm up. Easy children are characterized by having
positive moods, positive approaches to new stimuli, and can adapt quickly to change.
In contrast, difﬁcult children are characterized by having relatively frequent negative
moods, a tendency to withdraw from new stimuli, and do not adapt quickly to change.
Slow-to-warm-up children are characterized by slow adaptability, frequent withdrawal
from new stimuli, and have a mild intensity of expression of moods. The child’s
temperament, along with the combination of the child’s and their sibling’s
temperament may inﬂuence their developing relationship. Examples of the role of
temperament in determining the quality of the relationship between siblings follows.

Research in two contexts, the home and school, point to the likelihood of
children characterized by difﬁcult temperaments to have more difﬁcult relationships
with their siblings as well as peers. Children characterized by difﬁcult temperaments
appear to be more likely to get involved in negative interactions with peers. This
seems to be true in interactions with siblings as well.

Munn and Dunn (1989) found that when the older sibling displayed a high

degree of inﬂexibility, there was less play behavior between the older sibling and the

40
younger sibling. When the older sibling was high in negative mood and high in

distractibility (aspects of a difﬁcult temperament), there was more conﬂict between
siblings. Likewise, when the child was characterized as being high in negative mood,
this was also predictive of a conﬂictual child-sibling relationship. These results
indicate that children possessing difﬁcult temperaments seem to be more likely to be
involved in more contentious relationships with their siblings than other children with
easier temperaments.

Not only with siblings, but children’s interactions with their peers, have been
documented to be inﬂuenced by the type of temperament they possess. For example,
difﬁcult preschoolers were observed to hit, push and wrestle with their peers more
frequently than those who were easy or slow—to—warm up (Billman & McDevitt,
1980). In another study of preschoolers, those who were rated by their mothers as
unmalleable, intense, moody and active, were found to behave more negatively
towards their classmates as compared to other children (Stevenson-Hinde, Hinde &
Simpson, 1986).

In addition to looking only at one child’s temperament in the sibling
relationship, several studies have examined how the combination of both the child’s
and sibling’s temperament can interact and effect the relationship with one another.
There are two hypotheses about how temperament affects the sibling relationship
when both the child and their sibling’s temperament are considered. One is the
match-mismatch hypothesis, and the other is the buffering hypothesis. The match-
mismatch view on temperament is proposed by Munn and Dunn (1989). These

researchers examined the sibling relationship in preschoolers with respect to their

41

temperaments. Their results reveal that the greater the dissimilarity in temperament
of sibling pairs, the higher the levels of conﬂict in their interactions. In other words,
there was a ”lack of ﬁt" between the temperament of the child and the sibling, thus
creating dissonance between the two.

In contrast, Brody, Stoneman and Burke (1987) offer an alternative
hypothesis, that dissimilarity between temperaments of a child and their sibling will
result in a "buffering” effect. For example, if a child has a very easy temperament
while his or her sibling has a very difﬁcult one, the child’s easy temperament will act
as a buffer against the difﬁcult temperament of the sibling. Thus, the relationship
would most likely continue on peacefully.

Stoneman and Brody (1993) attempted to further clarify the relationship
between child temperament and sibling relationships in their study on school-age
(kindergarten to eighth grade) sibling pairs. These researchers examined how two
dimensions of temperament, activity and adaptability, in differing combinations,
affected the quality of the sibling relationship. They found that the relationships that
had the most negativity and conﬂict were composed of both siblings that were high in
activity and where the older sibling was rated as more active than the younger. The
youngest sibling’s easy temperament did not appear to be strong enough to buffer the
effects of an active older sibling. The relationships that were characterized as being
the least conﬂictual were when both siblings were low in activity. Their ﬁndings
demonstrate that looking solely at one sibling’s temperament and examining its

inﬂuence on the relationship does not give us the whole picture.

42
Stoneman and Brody (1993) pr0pose that both the match-mismatch and the

buffering models are needed to explain their ﬁndings. It appears as if the different
combinations of the aspects of temperament (adaptability or activity) in sibling pairs
interact to promote different qualitative aspects of the sibling relationship. One
limitation of the Stoneman and Brody (1993) study is that the data was collected at
one point in time. Consequently, although the hypothesis was that temperament
would inﬂuence the relationship, this study could not conﬁrm it directly.
Longitudinal research needs to be done to clarify the direction of effects. However,
this study reinforces the view that the conceptualization of the sibling dyad as an
"interactive family subsystem” is most appropriate.

Brody, Stoneman & McCoy (1992) report that sibling differences in
temperament (e. g, negative emotionality) are linked to the rate of parental differential
treatment of siblings. In their study of school-age children, they observed a higher
frequency of maternal and paternal differential treatment (favoring the younger
sibling) when the younger sibling, compared to the older sibling, was rated as having
a signiﬁcantly higher negative emotionality. The disparity in parental treatment
towards their children was observed to be less when the older sibling was rated as
having a higher negative emotionality and when negative emotionality of the two
children were regarded as being similar. Given these results, the researchers suggest
that the combination of sibling temperaments, rather than an individual child’s
temperament, may be more important in determining the degree of parental
differential treatment towards their children. This path of inﬂuence may also be

reciprocal. Perhaps differences in negative emotionality between the siblings will

43

become greater as more differential treatment is given to the siblings. This
discrepancy in treatment towards siblings has been shown to inﬂuence the sibling
relationship.

Temperament has been included in studies of children during their early years
of development, such as the examination of the reciprocal interaction between
parenting behaviors and attributes of the infant (Maccoby, Snow & Jacklin, 1984), or
how temperament is linked to the quality of sibling relationships, as discussed above.
However, temperament has been largely ignored (with the exception of Lerner and
her colleagues - Lerner, 1983; Nitz, Lerner, Lerner, & Talwar, 1988 - work on the
test of the "goodness of ﬁt” model) in studies of later points in development such as
adolescence (Bronfenbrenner, Kessel, Kessen & White, 1986).

S . . . l ri i

Several studies (Dunn et al., 1991; Howe & Ross, 1990; Light, 1979) that
have investigated how the sibling relationship is linked to socio-cognitive skills (e.g.
role-taking ability) of children, assumed the direction of inﬂuence to ﬂow from the
sibling relationship to the socio-cognitive development of the child. However, these
researchers recognized that this could not be proven since they conducted a
correlational study, and that the path of inﬂuence was most likely bidirectional.
Thus, a child who is more socially competent, who has a greater ability to take the
perspective of another child, will probably be more likely to demonstrate this with
their sibling, thus fostering a more positive relationship.

To date there has not been a study that has investigated how differing socio-

cognitive skills that each child possesses can affect how he or she interacts with

44

siblings. More research is nwded to uncover the direction of inﬂuence between a
child’s socio—cognitive skills and the quality of his or her sibling relationship.
f i i l ' hi

The research reviewed indicates that various factors such as family structure
variables, the parent-child relationship, and the characteristics of the individual
children all can play a role in determining the quality of the sibling relationships.
The range of the quality of the relationship between siblings can vary greatly
depending on the connections and interplay between these different factors. As
Furman and Buhrmester (1985a) point out, brothers and sisters ”can be close or
distant, harmonious or conﬂicted, cooperative or competitive.” Because there exists
such different relationships, there are several interesting questions that naturally
follow. What are the consequences of these contrasting relationships? How are
children who experience conﬂictual sibling relationships affected regarding their social
development? Do sibling relationships in childhood remain as close, or as conﬂictual
later on in adolescence? Examining the sibling relationship itself is needed to
understand and assess its inﬂuences on a child’s development. This leads into a
discussion on studies that have investigated this link.
lnﬂuengs of the Sibling Relationship

Research that has not focused on the determinants of the quality of sibling
relationships has focused on the inﬂuences of, or potential "outcomes", linked to this
relationship. Outcomes that have been linked to sibling relationships are also
recognized to be determinants of the relationship. The term "outcome" is used when

looking at a child’s development at one point in time. The current researcher

45

recognizes that when examining the development of a child across time, these factors
that the sibling relationship seems to affect will reciprocate and also act as mutual
inﬂuencers. Therefore, the word "outcome” will not be used in this present study
since it implies an end point to a process. Most likely, pathways that connect the
sibling relationship to child characteristics are bidirectional and do not ever stop
inﬂuencing one another. The rest of the discussion will examine child factors, such
as socio-cognitive skills and child functioning that are inﬂuenced by the sibling
relationship.

i i iv v 1 men

Light (1979), in a study of four year old children and their siblings, found that
the quality of the sibling relationship was associated with the development of socio-
cognitive skills. Those children who experienced closer relationships with their
siblings demonstrated signiﬁcantly higher role-taking skills and were more socially
sensitive than those children who did not experience close relationships with their
siblings. Light’s (1979) ﬁndings suggest that an optimal environment for the
development of the socio-cognitive and communicative skills that is required in role-
playing activities, is created by some sibling relationships.

Similarly, Stewart and Marvin ( 1984) found a link between preschoolers’
development of perspective-taking abilities and friendly sibling relationships. When
preschoolers and their infant siblings were left alone during a modiﬁed ”strange
situation" (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall, 1978), the majority of preschoolers .
who enjoyed friendly relations with their siblings promptly comforted their distressed

younger siblings, demonstrating their ability to understand and respond to another

46

person’s needs. In Howe and Ross’s (1990) study of preschoolers and their one-year
old brothers and sisters, the friendlier siblings were towards one another, the more
the older child would directly discuss feelings and thoughts with, and for the most
part of, their younger siblings. This lends support to Light’s (1979) and Stewart and
Marvin’s (1984) ﬁndings. Dunn & Munn (1986) have documented young children
and their siblings showing "surprisingly mature powers of cooperation, sharing and
comforting. ” The researchers conclude that the sibling relationship is one context in
which very young children may learn to develop these capabilities of prosocial
behavior.

More recently, researchers have reported that sibling dyads who show more
cooperative behaviors with one another performed better on social cognition tasks
than siblings who did not exhibit a cooperative relationship (Dunn et al., 1991). As
with previous studies, the direction of effects was not clear. It is likely that
cooperative sibling relationships, an awareness of other’s needs, and a greater
understanding of other children’s thoughts, feelings, and actions are mutually
inﬂuential.

We have seen that the quality of sibling relationships seems to affect the
siblings themselves and the development of socio-cognitive skills. Evidence for these
skills have been documented in studies of the interaction children and siblings. To
take this further, one can ask whether any links exist between sibling relationships and
another context besides the home, such as the child’s relationships with his or her
peers and/or friends. Bemdt and Bulleit’s (1985) study of preschoolers and their

peers did not ﬁnd many relationships between child and sibling interaction and child

and pe
sibling 1
group i
connect
relation
the mot
and DUI
relation
conﬂict

closer r

relation
have an
influenc
relation

her flit

ground
Pattern
Sibling
SChn-an

IIOlCnCe

47

and peer interaction. Stocker and Dunn ( 1990) also did not ﬁnd associations between
sibling relationships and peer relationships. However, they narrowed the child’s peer
group further and looked at the child’s friends. Here the researchers found a
connection. The children who were observed and reported to have hostile
relationships with their sibling experienced more positive friendships (as reported by
the mother), and closer friendships (as reported by the children themselves). Stocker
and Dunn offer an explanation for this negative correlation between the sibling
relationship and the child’s friendships. They speculate that children who are in
conﬂictual relationships with their siblings may compensate for this by developing
closer relationships with their friends.

The few studies that have addressed the question of whether the child-sibling
relationship has an impact on extrafamilial relationships indicates that it does seem to
have an inﬂuence on the children’s friendships, but not with peer interaction. The
inﬂuence of a sibling on a child appears to extend further outside of the sibling
relationship, outside of the family, and into the relationships the child has with his or
her friends. More research is needed to clarify the nature of these connections.

Several researchers have argued that sibling conﬂict may act as a ”training
ground for the development and maintenance of aggression,” (Patterson, 1986,
Patterson, Dishion & Bank, 1984). Other researchers have examined the extreme of
sibling conﬂict - that of sibling abuse (Graham-Bermann, Cutler, Litzenberger, &
Schwartz, 1994). These researchers reported a negative lasting effect of sibling

violence in the early childhood years on emotional well-being as young adults. Based

48

on these studies, it appears as if an extremely conﬂictual sibling relationship can
undermine later child functioning.

Poor sibling relationships of 3-4 year old boys have been reported to be
correlated with ”antisocial and disturbed behavior" several years later when the
children were 8 years of age (Richman, Stevenson, & Graham, 1982). Investigating
adjustment differences within pairs of adolescent siblings, researchers found that
perceptions of the sibling relationship by the adolescent’s parents and teachers, as
well as the adolescent’s themselves, are associated with certain aspects of the
adolescent’s child functioning (Daniels et al., 1985). For example, there was a
negative correlation between a teacher’s report of the disobedience of the adolescent
and the adolescent’s friendliness in his or her sibling relationship. Similarly, parents
who perceived their adolescent as more disobedient perceived the adolescent-sibling
relationship as less friendly. Adolescents who perceived themselves as more
delinquent were also reported to experience a less friendly relationship with their
sibling. The researchers concluded that the different experiences of siblings related to
their emotional adjustment. As has been documented in adolescence, however,
”normal” levels of sibling conﬂict may also fulﬁll a more positive function, that of
encouraging an understanding of individuality and resolving conﬂict (Raffaelli, 1992).
Thus, whether a poor, conﬂictual relationship with a sibling will lead to later
difﬁculties in child functioning, may depend on the level of conﬂict.

' w i r
There are a myriad of factors that can undermine or enhance the quality of the

sibling relationship. Examining these various factors, along with the sibling

49

relationship itself, can illuminate the process of these reciprocal inﬂuences. The
quality of the sibling relationship has been linked to the development of socio-
cognitive skills, aggression, and to child functioning. Evidence for the existence of
these connections should encourage researchers to investigate further the nature of
these relationships.
W

There are several aims to this study. The ﬁrst is to examine the bidirectional
paths of inﬂuence between the quality of sibling relationships and the primary
determinants of the relationship. Secondly, this study will investigate whether the
resulting differences in sibling relationships lead to certain child characteristics.
Lastly, this study will examine how the sibling relationship changes across time.
Hopefully, this study will shed more light on the sibling relationship during this later
point in life (adolescence), and also help clarify the developmental trend of the sibling
relationship.

This study is unique in that it examines the sibling relationship from childhood
to adolescence. Previous research has, at most, looked at the relationship within a
span of ﬁve years. Also, this study attempts to incorporate the determinants of the
sibling relationship to see how they are linked to the relationship itself, and, in
addition, how they are linked to certain child characteristics. Previous investigations
of the sibling relationship has focused solely on one side of this process. In other
words, these studies have either examined the inﬂuences on the quality of the

relationship, or have examined certain developmental outcomes related to the

50
relationship. More speciﬁc predictions are detailed in the hypotheses on pages 65 -

66.

CHAPTER III
METHOD

Figure 2 illustrates the research models to be used in the present study. Due
to the archival nature of the data set being examined, the research models cannot
include all the variables of the theoretical model. These models are comprised of
three primary determinants of the siblings relationship: 1) family structure variables,
2) quality of the parent-child relationship, and 3) child characteristics. The pathway
between sibling relationships and the quality of the parent-child relationship, and child
characteristics, reciprocally inﬂuence one another. This is represented by the
bidirectional arrows linking these variables. Family structural variables, on the other
hand, can only inﬂuence and not be inﬂuenced by other factors, thus there is a
unidirectional arrow representing the connections.
Sample

The sample includes 83 two—parent families drawn from the "core sample” of
the New York Longitudinal Study (NYLS) (Thomas & Chess, 1977). The sample has
been followed since 1956, beginning in early infancy, to their young adulthood. The
families are predominantly of Caucasian background, are middle- or upper-middle
socioeconomic status, and are well educated (40% of the mothers and 60% of the
fathers had both college educations and postgraduate degrees, and fewer than 10%
had no college education at all). The attrition rate for this sample has been
extremely low; of the 136 subjects that started, 133 still remain active participants. .

Two time periods during the lifespan will be examined - when the children

51

52

  

3:282 .820
EoESonEo...
2.2m o>2cu82oow
220 we a
damaged

oocoomﬂonm new m can “a 3.230.229 05.2% .o .0008 coamooom .m Baum

 

    
 

228222 a 2.80
millilzmcozmam
220.22 a

 

       

 

.2550
muocomoﬁiEtm;

 

    

2:82.22 92.2w

   

520 25m
mum 2:5“.
5:252:00 xom
050QO oo<
823...... a 8<
84%»

eaaaaw zen".

     
    

     

  

53

were of preschool age, and when they were adolescents. There are 83 children (38
males and 45 females) who had siblings both during preschool and adolescence.
Preschool data were collected when the children were three years of age. Adolescent
data were collected when the participants were 14-17 years of age. Only 107
adolescents were interviewed. Adolescents without siblings, and those cases with
more than 50% missing data were eliminated, leaving a total of 83 cases. The
number of siblings that the children in this study have varies. Therefore, if the child
had more than one sibling, only one sibling was randomly chosen for the analyses.

In order to investigate these relationships, a longitudinal design will be
employed, because "longitudinal research, especially when it is of sufﬁcient duration
and contextual sensitivity, may be particularly suited to appraise dynamic interactions
in the biological, psychological, and social domains,” (Baltes, Reese, & Nesselroade,
1977). Likewise, Lerner and Lerner ( 1989) state that "only when such studies are
multilevel ones, wherein both contextual and individual variables are assessed
repeatedly, can links between changes in the person and his or her social world be
ascertained." If the sibling relationship is examined longitudinally, the direction of
effects may become clearer.
Wm

The methods used in the NYLS have been explained in detail elsewhere (Chess

& Thomas, 1984; Thomas & Chess, 1977; Thomas, Chess & Birch, 1968). Very
brieﬂy, parents were interviewed periodically (about every three months) regarding .
the behaviors and functioning of their children beginning in the child’s ﬁrst month of

infancy, for the ﬁrst two to three years. When the children reached adolescence,

54

they, along with their parents, were interviewed on ”various aspects of the
adolescents’ personal and interpersonal functioning. "
Measures
i v ' 1

Data on the family structure variables were gathered through the parental
interview for the three-year assessment and from the adolescent interview for the
adolescent. The range, mean and standard deviations for the family structure
variables are listed in Table l.

Eatentghild relationship
Parent-child relationship. To measure the quality and characteristics of the parent-
child relationship, parents were interviewed when the children were three years of age
regarding child-rearing issues and relationships with their children. Because mothers
and fathers gave such similar responses, only the mother’s responses were coded.
The interview covered parenting topics such as ”the degree of parental conﬂict and
tension; the degree of warmth, protectiveness, and permissiveness directed toward the
child; and the degree and forms of discipline employed.” Transcriptions of these
interviewers were then coded by raters. Cameron (1977) then selected 70 items that
were related to issues of parenting and entered them into a cluster analysis using the
Tryon and Bailey (1966) system. The 70—item matrix formed eight oblique
dimensions of parenting:
Dimension 1: Parental disapproval, intolerance, and rejection

Dimension 2: Parental conﬂict regarding child rearing

55

 

Table 1
'v ' ' f mil V '
W
M 52 3.328:
Birth Order 2.02 .78 l - 4
Family Size“ 2.54 .72 2 - 5
Age Spacing 3.13 2.68 O - 14
min" f-f m-f
Sex combination N = 20 24 30

 

*Family size during adolescence (M = 2.98, SD = .92, Range = 2 - 5)
"m = male, f = female

56

Dimension 3: Parental strictness vs. permissiveness
Dimension 4: Maternal concern and protectiveness
Dimension 5: Depressed living standards
Dimension 6: Limitations on the child’s material supports
Dimension 7: Inconsistent parental discipline
Dimension 8: large family orientation

Several studies have validated the use of these parent ratings. Cameron’s
study (1977) found a relationship between parental rejection, parental conﬂict
regarding child-rearing, maternal inconsistency, and maternal acceptance with a
child’s temperament and risk for behavioral problems. Other research using these
parent ratings (Lerner & Galambos, 1985; Vicary & Lerner, 1986) have also related
these measures to maternal role satisfaction, child temperament, and adolescent drug
use. Thus, these ratings seem to be a valid measure of these aspects of parenting.
Not all dimensions will be utilized in assessing the quality of the parent-child
relationship. The following will describe the dimensions chosen in more detail.

Dimension 1, labeled the rejection cluster, is made up of six items regarding
parental disapproval and rejection. Parents with a high score indicates a low
tolerance, little feeling, and a bias against the child. They are more frequently
described by the interviewer as being ”cold and detached”. In addition, these parents
seemed to prefer the other children in the family to the study child. These scores
ranged from 38 to 78, M = 50.15 and SD; 9.34.

Dimension 2 is the parental conﬂict cluster, and is made up of six items

regarding the degree of disagreement, conﬂict or confusion between parents regarding

57
how to parent the child. Higher scores indicate higher conﬂict between parents.

These high conﬂict parents also express low levels of conﬁdence in their abilities as
parents. These scores ranged from 35 to 71, M = 51.57 and SD_= 10.17.

Dimension 3, the strictness cluster, is made up of three items regarding
parental permissiveness and discipline. A high score on this factor indicates strict
discipline is enforced with the child. These scores ranged from 33 to 77, M_= 50.33
and 511; 10.03.

Dimension 4, is the maternal concern cluster that is made up of six items
regarding the level of support shown by the mother. Those with high scores on this
dimension are very concerned with their child’s safety and spend considerable time
within the home in supporting, protecting, and working for their children. These
scores ranged from 36 to 76, M_= 50.55, and S_D_= 9.67.

Dimension 7, representing the inconsistent cluster, is made up of two items
that reﬂect the inconsistency with which a child is disciplined. Parents with high
scores in this cluster have a higher pattern of inconsistency in the disciplining of their
children. There is a higher frequency of issues in the home pertaining to child
discipline, and a higher number of conﬂicts that can arise around these issues of
discipline. These scores ranged from 40 to 92, M= 49.54 and SD = 9.51.

The following explains why certain dimensions will not be included in this
current study. Dimension 5, the depressed living standard cluster, will not be used.
Perhaps because the sample is so homogenous, with such a low variability in the high
living standards, this cluster would not be very useful as a predictor for certain

variables such as the quality of the parent-child relationship. This cluster does not

58

seem to be a very good predictor for another variable, children’s temperament.
Cameron (1977) found this cluster to have "scattered” correlations with temperament.
Dimensions 6, the material support limitations cluster, will also not be included in the
present study. Dimensions 6 and 5 were signiﬁcantly correlated (.37). Similar to the
depressed living standard cluster, the material support limitations cluster may not have
sufﬁcient variability to accurately demonstrate its relationships with certain variables.
Dimension 8 (large family orientation) will not be incorporated in this study.
Cameron (1977) did not ﬁnd a greater number of signiﬁcant correlations with
dimensions 6 and 8 and children’s temperament than would be expected by chance.
He concludes that the reliability and validity of the items comprising these two
clusters were questionable.
Parent-adolescent relationship. This was assessed through the parent and adolescent
interviews. Tubman and Lemer (1994a, 1994b) content analyzed all of the parent and
adolescent interviews for statements regarding two aspects of the parent-adolescent
relationship: the emotional quality and the interactional quantity of the relationship.
They came up with 7912 statements from the interview. Raters (between ﬁve and
ten were used, based on availability) coded statements on each of these two
dimensions. The statements on emotional quality (e.g., closeness or distance, love or
hate, conﬂict, tension) were rated on a three-point scale, positive (3), mixed,
variable, ambivalent or neutral (2), and negative (1). Statements on the interactional
quantity (e.g., giving advice, sharing problems, expressing feeling, performing joint
activities) were rated as high (3), medium (2), and low (1). Scores were then given

for each adolescent and his or her parent on the two dimensions of affective

59

experiences between the parent and the adolescent. These scores were created by
"averaging across raters for each statement and then averaging across statements in
the two affective experience dimensions”. A high score represented a good
relationship, a low score a more negative one. Inter-rater reliability was 89.6% for
emotional quality and 88.2% for interaction quantity for 20% of the sample of
statements that were randomly selected. Table 2 shows the means and standard
deviations for twelve the parenting indicators.

Mammal

Child Temperament. Thomas and Chess (1977) have delineated nine
dimensions of temperament. These dimensions have been assessed through parental
interviews and questionnaires. Parents were speciﬁcally asked about their child’s
activity level, rhythmicity, approach/withdrawal, adaptability, threshold of
responsiveness, intensity of reaction, quality of mood, distractibility, and attention
span/persistence. Thomas and Chess ( 1977) rated the children on a three-point scale
(1 = low, 2 = moderate, 3 = high) on the frequency and intensity of these
dimensions which resulted in temperament scores for each child. The validity and
usefulness of these ratings have been documented in many studies involving the
NYLS data set (e.g. Chess & Thomas, 1984; Lemer, Hertzog, Hooker, Hassibi &
Thomas, 1988; Thomas et al., 1968).

Along with the nine dimension scores, a difﬁculty score was also given. A
high score corresponded to a child with a difﬁcult temperament, while a low score
corresponded to a child with an easy temperament. A temperamentally difﬁcult child

was characterized as having low rhythmicity, low adaptability, withdrawal responses,

Table 2

 

'v ' 'c h 1e n P enin R 'n

M SD
Interactimtﬂuamitx
l. Adolescent rating father 1.62 .45
2. Adolescent rating mother 1.74 .49
3. Adolescent rating parents 1.90 .35
4. Father rating adolescent 1.80 .63
5. Mother rating adolescent 1.71 .38
6. Parents rating adolescent 1.83 .43

m ' n i

7. Adolescent rating mother 2.01 .59
8 Adolescent rating father 2.05 .66
9. Adolescent rating parents 2.15 .44
10. Father rating adolescent 2.05 .61
11. Mother rating adolescent 1.95 .46
12. Parents rating adolescent 1.97 .47

 

61
negative mood, and high intensity of reactions (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Each

child’s "difﬁculty” score was comprised of these ﬁve aspects of temperament. The
reliability and validity of these temperament scores have been reported in detail
elsewhere (Thomas et. al., 1963; Thomas & Chess, 1977). Brieﬂy, studies have
found the difﬁcultness of a child’s temperament to be predictive of later adjustment
problems such as drug use (Lerner & Vicary, 1984), behavior problems (Chess &
Thomas, 1984; Thomas et al., 1968) and psychiatric disorders (Thomas, 1976).
Therefore, the difﬁcultly temperament scores will be used in this present study. The
scores ranged from -.28 to 4.13, M = 1.76, SD = .86, standardized alpha = .61.
Adolescent temperament. Temperament was assessed through the adolescent
interview. Adolescents were rated on the nine dimensions of temperament as
described earlier. As with the children’s temperament ratings, a ”difﬁculty score”
was given to each adolescent. A low score corresponded to a more difﬁcult
temperament. The scores ranged from -23 to —4, M = -14.43 , SD = 4.14,
standardized alpha = .62.

l i n ' wi i In
Child-sibling relationship. From the interviews, statements regarding the child’s
relationships with his or her siblings were coded in the Preschool Behavioral
Adjustment Rating Scale. The three items that assessed the child’s relationship with
their sibling were: Child quarrels with, hurts or bullies sibling, Child is intimidated
by or expresses dislike of sibling, and Child expresses preoccupation with sibling.
An example of this last item is: ”Wants to play and be with sister all the time. Is

much more aggressive with sister than anyone else in the family or out. Asks for

62

sister when she’s in school. Increased rivalry with sister over parents," (taken from
Preschool Behavioral Adjustment manual, #1). There were no ”positive“ items since
the purpose of the Behavioral Adjustment Scale was to assess whether the child was
experiencing any behavioral problems. These items were rated from 1 =
insigniﬁcant to 5 = severe. Ratings were summed across items, and a higher score
indicated a more negative relationship. The scores ranged from 1.0 to 2.5, M =
1.27, SD = .46.

Adolescent—sibling relationship. The relationship an adolescent shared with their
sibling was assessed through interviews with the adolescent and with their parents.
The interview included a question that asked them to describe their relationship with
their sibling. Responses were extracted from the interviews and were coded on a
scale of l to 5: l = very positive, 2 = somewhat positive, 3 = neutral or
ambivalent, 4 = somewhat negative, and 5 = very negative. Inter-rater agreement
was 88% for two raters on 20 randomly chosen interviews. The scores ranged from
1 to 5, M = 3.56, SD = .95 for the adolescent rating. For the parent rating the
scores ranged from 1 to 5, M = 3.62, S_D = .98.

azild socio-cognitive skills. As with the above mentioned variables, the parent
interview was coded into the Preschool Behavioral Adjustment Rating Scale. To
assess the child’s socio-cognitive skills, the ”nonfamily relationships” subscale,
consisting of seven items, were coded pertaining to the child’s interactions with
nonfamily members. An example is, "Child is aggressive and bossy with playmates.”

Items were scored from 1 = insigniﬁcant to 5 = severe. The ratings for the seven

63

items were summed and averaged. A lower score indicates the child possesses higher
socio-cognitive skills. The M = 1.19, SD = .26.

Adolescent socio-cognitive skills. This was assessed through the adolescent interview
where questions about the relationship with their peer group were examined. To
obtain sociecognitive skill ratings, raters read through all relevant interview material
for each subject and evaluated the statements regarding social functioning. Then, the
raters assigned a summary score that ranged from l= poor to 7 = excellent. Thus, a
higher score indicated the adolescent had higher socio-cognitive skills. The M =
4.38, SJ; = 1.73.

Grildﬁtnctioning. The three year-old child’s functioning was assessed by examining
the parental interviews which covered behavioral functioning topics: sleeping, eating,
elimination, sex, fears, speech, motor behavior, relationships with parents, discipline,
relationships with siblings, relationships outside the family, coping, and parental
attitudes towards the child. A coding protocol was developed by Thomas and Chess
and colleagues to rate the children (1 = insigniﬁcant to 5 = severe) in various
aspects of their development. By doing so, they were able to identify children who
were experiencing difﬁculties functioning. Interrater reliabilities (intraclass
correlations) for these ratings ranged from .34 to .98 (average L= .72). Using the

scores from the above mentioned categories (except for sex and parental attitudes)‘,

 

‘Sex was not included in the calculation because the items did not differentiate levels

of adjustment. For example, the items scores for curiosity, masturbation, and sex preference
did not necessarily reﬂect a difference in level of adjustment, except for a rare extreme
position. Parental attitudes was not included because the items referred to the parents and
not to the child.

64

an overall, or global, child functioning score was calculated by summing up the score
for each category and dividing by the number of categories with scores. For those
records where there was more than one rater, the raters’ scores were averaged.
Thus, a higher number indicated a poorer level of adjustment. The M = 1.36, SD =
.20.
Adolescent ﬁlnctioning. In adolescence, interviews were also conducted with the
adolescents themselves. The categories discussed pertaining to their psychological
functioning were: self-evaluation, family relationships, school functioning, sexual
functioning, social functioning, goals, implementation of goals, coping patterns,
person orientation, task orientation, communication, and emotional expressiveness.
In each of these areas, adolescents were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = poor to 7 =
excellent). Twenty subjects were selected at random and used to check inter-rater
reliability. Using these 20 subjects, a .93 coefﬁcient of agreement on the ratings was
achieved for the two raters. As with the child interview, raters examined the
adolescent interview and indicated if the subject was experiencing any problems and if
so, the severity of the problem (e.g. Thomas et al., 1963, 1968). An adolescent
functioning score was also computed by summing up the category scores and dividing
by the number of categories. A higher number would indicate a higher level of
adjustment. The M = 5.49, SD = 1.59, standardized alpha = .89.
Hmtbsses

The data will be analyzed to determine whether the proposed model of sibling.
relationships can be supported. Based on the above literature, it is hypothesized that

both family structure variables and the quality of the parent-child relationship will be

65
correlated to the quality of the sibling relationship, and that the quality of the sibling

relationship will mediate the effect of family structure variables and partially mediate
the effect of the parent-child relationship on child characteristics.

More speciﬁc hypotheses:

Regarding family structure variables and the sibling relationship:

H1: Adolescent children will experience less conﬂictual relationships with their
siblings compared to preschool children.

H2: Male siblings pairs will be more conﬂictual than female sibling pairs.

H3: Children with the same-sex sibling will have warmer and closer relationships
than mixed-sex siblings.

H4: Later born siblings will perceive a more positive relationship with their
siblings in childhood and adolescence than ﬁrst born siblings.

H5: Children who are more widely spaced from their sibling will experience more
positive sibling relationships.

H6: Children with a larger family size (at least four children in the family) will
experience a more negative relationship with their siblings than those from smaller
family sizes (two or three children in the family).

Regarding the parent-child relationship and the sibling relationship:

H7: Sibling relationships will not be as positive for children of parents who ignore
them as compared to children of parents who show warmth and respond to their
needs.

Regarding child characteristics and the sibling relationship:

66

H8: Children who are characterized as having an easy temperament will be more
likely to experience a warmer and closer relationship with their sibling than those
children characterized by difﬁcult temperaments.
H9: Children who have warmer and closer sibling relationships will score higher
on socio-cognitive skills and child functioning measures.
Continuity of the sibling relationship:
H10: The preschool measures of the quality parent-child relationship and the three
child characteristics - temperament, socio-cognitive skills, and child functioning will
predict the quality of the adolescent sibling relationship.

The hypotheses stated above have been based on literature that has assumed
the effects of variables to ﬂow in one direction.
H11: The variables considered (with the exception of family structure variables) will

have bidirectional inﬂuences on one another.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to examine how family structure variables (e.g.,
birth order and family size), the quality of the parent-child relationship, and certain
child characteristics inﬂuenced the quality of the child’s relationship with his or her
sibling at two time periods - when the child was three years of age, and during
adolescence. Furthermore, since the current study was longitudinal, it was possible to
investigate whether the quality of relationships between siblings would change from
childhood through adolescence, and whether the same variables would be equally as
inﬂuential to the sibling relationship at these two time periods.

i n V ' 1

To assess the relationships between family structure, child characteristics, the
quality of parent-child relationship and the quality of the sibling relationships,
correlations were calculated. As can be seen in Table 3, there were several
signiﬁcant correlations, one from each domain of the determinants of sibling
relationships.

Additional correlations were calculated to examine whether there were any sex
differences in the relationships between family structure variables, quality of the
parent-child relationship, child characteristics, and the quality of the sibling
relationship. Table 4 shows that only two sex differences emerged. Tables 5 and 6
display correlations between the variables of interest during adolescence. As can be
seen from the tables, birth order was the only variable that was signiﬁcantly

correlated with the quality of sibling relationships at both age three and adolescence.

67

68

 

Table 3

Hr Ni or all 3.1 r r! r 0 no It {In 1
3..

Quality ef Sibling Relatienship

Wendie
Sex of sibling pairs -. 13
Sex combination of sibling pairs -.11
Birth order -.30*
Age spacing .01
Family size .01
Parental disapproval, intolerance, and rejection -.02
Parental conﬂict regarding child rearing -.01
Parental strictness vs. permissiveness .14
Maternal concern and protectiveness .28*
Inconsistent parental discipline .16
Cl .1 l l . .
Difﬁcult temperament .1 l
Socio—cognitive skills .12
Child functioning .37*

 

tn<.01

69

 

 

Table 4
Hinton £1.11 1 D ‘lllIeJ. 1‘ l 0 s 0 11 1 290110
AWL
l f w
nudity bf sibling relatieasbip
@ys Qitls
E 'l v . l 1
Sex combination of sibling pairs -.13 -.08
Birth order -.40* -.13
Age spacing -.05 .02
Family size -.02 .05
Parental disapproval, intolerance, and rejection -.07 .05
Parental conﬂict regarding child rearing .02 —.16
Parental strictness vs. permissiveness .15 .21
Maternal concern and protectiveness .29 .17
Inconsistent parental discipline .24 .05
Cl '1 1 l . .
Difﬁcult temperament .28 -.00
Socio—cognitive skills .12 .15
Child Functioning .31 .38*

 

‘p< .05

Nle— d—

7O

 

 

Table 5
011' -_0 .L-twna- .1‘ D‘ ‘ ° gr 1-1! 0 .' f iblin Rl.oin i D °
Adolescence.
ggenelatjen Qeetﬁeient
. l' 1 . n .
Adolesceat
:3th rating
v ' le

Sex of sibling pairs .06 -.01
Sex combination of sibling pairs -. 14 .16
Birth order .18 .35*
Age spacing -.06 -.01
Family size -.01 -.17
Adolescent rating father - interaction quantity -.06 -.14
Adolescent rating mother - interaction quantity .24* .25“
Adolescent rating parents - interaction quantity .18 .18
Father rating adolescent - interaction quantity -. 14 -.20
Mother rating adolescent - interaction quantity .00 -.06
Parent rating adolescent - interaction quantity .08 .04
Adolescent rating mother - emotional quality .21 .17
Adolescent rating father - emotional quality .02 -. 12
Adolescent rating parents - emotional quality .05 .16
Father rating adolescent - emotional quality .04 .01
Mother rating adolescent - emotional quality -.02 .21
Parents rating adolescent - emotional quality .04 .07
E l l l . .
Difﬁcult temperament -. 12 -.O7
Socio-cognitive skills .24* .22
Child functioning .14 .16

 

*p<.05

71

3v:-

 

 

 

oo. 8. 2 . 2. >52: 35:25 - Boone—ecu w::8 3:03:
5. no. 2. not >526 35:95 - 2886:: 3:8 553.:
not mo. 2. 8. >53: E:o:o_:o - 20820:: w::8 35:”—
va. .2. no. 2 .- .063: 35:25 - 3:28 3:8 88863.
2.- 3.. _~.- um. 5:56 35:25 - 5:3 3:8 E3833.
mo. mm. 8. 3. 3:56 35:08... - 559: 3:8 .:oomo_o:<
5.- mo. cm. um. 5:53: 8:0885 - Boone—ova w::ﬁ :53:
2. mo. 8.- 3.- >553: 5:02:25 - .5828: w::8 6522
*9. 3.. mm. 2. .323: E50825 - .5828: 3:8 22:“:
3. on. E. 3. >553: 8:6825 - 8:93: w::§ .5822}:
E. 3. *mm. on. 5:53: 5:0835 - 552: w::8 Enema—03‘
5.- 8.. am: not 5:53: 5:852: - 558 w::E E0822?
2.- 3. nut mo.- onv. 3:5:
2. co. 3.- 2.- 9:08... ow<
2.9.. 3 . mm. mm. 8:8 5:5
2 . co. E. 2 .- Ea: age: :8 5:25:80 xom
Masada: Handmade «23g 5 _
36 £3
4 . .4. .u- ..a .u a .1 .m M— .=.. . o . ii .5: .Q «r 1“ .. —.C.

72

 

no.

em.

8.

S.-

wscouoce 2:6

«:2... 02:38:68
“:2:quan 3:055
"magma:

 

83:08 0 03$.

73

During adolescence, adolescent functioning was no longer signiﬁcantly correlated with
the relationship quality with siblings. Instead, socio-cognitive skills emerged as being
signiﬁcant. As with the correlations at age three, during adolescence there were
certain aspects of parenting that signiﬁcantly related to an adolescent’s relationship
with his or her sibling. The adolescent and parent rating of the quality of sibling
relationship were signiﬁcantly positively correlated with one another (1= .61 ,
p < .001).

i rV'l h iblianinhi

The one way ANOVA procedure was used to analyze how the quality of
sibling relationships differed with variations in family structure variables. At age
three, differences in only one of the family structure variables - birth order - was
signiﬁcantly associated with the differences in the relationships between siblings.
Later borns were more likely to experience a more positive relationship with their
sibling compared to ﬁrst borns at age three (E(1,80)=9.04, p< .01) and adolescence
according to the adolescent rating (13(1,75)=7.94, p< .01) as well as the parental
rating (E(l,70)= 11.50, p< .01).

When differences in birth order and quality of sibling relationship for boys and
girls were looked at separately, it was found that the birth order variable was
signiﬁcant for boys (E(l,30)=5.81, p< .05),but not for girls at age 3. The analyses
revealed that there was a sex difference in birth order differences on sibling
relationships in adolescence as well (see Table 7). For girls but not for boys, those
who were later born had more positive relationships with their siblings than ﬁrst

borns.

74

 

Table“)
in 011" 11-1 1%. H .' .1'; 40110 0 a. 1' U n
Adolescence- -
E . E l .H. 1 . I.
1391: Girls
N=31 N=41
M SD M 5.12
First born 3.20 1.16 2.50 1.10
Later born 3 81 .68 3.83 .94

E(l,29)=3.42, p< .08 E(1,39)=9.80, p< .01
E I] . [I '1]. l . I.

m Qiﬂs

N=34 N=43

M SD M 5.12
First born 3.46 .92 2.36 .90
Later born 3.52 .63 3.86 .98

E(1,32)=.06, p< .81 13(1,41)=14.24, p<.001

 

75

n . . n i . . . hi

Multiple regression was used to assess whether the quality of the parent-child
relationship had any effect on the sibling relationship. There were ﬁve
parentingpredictors in the equation: parental conﬂict, maternal concern, parental
inconsistency in discipline, parental rejection, and parental strictness. Variables were
entered simultaneously since there was no a priori theory as to the relative importance
of each variable. It was found that at age three, only one dimension of parenting
signiﬁcantly predicted sibling problems. Those children who had more problems with
their sibling had mothers who were more concerned about their children (3:13:29,
t=2.60, p< .05). Those mothers who were more concerned spent more time with
their children, and invested more time regarding the health and safety of their
children. There were no sex differences in how well certain parenting dimensions
predicted the sibling relationship at age 3.

To examine how the parent-adolescent relationship related to the quality of
sibling relationships during adolescence, the interactional quantity and the emotional
quality of the parent-adolescent relationship were used as predictors of the adolescents
relationship with their brother or sister. In all, there were twelve indicators of the
quality of the relationship between the adolescent and their parents - with each person
rating the other (the adolescent rated the relationship with the mother, father, and
parents together, and the mother, father, and parents together rated the relationship
with the adolescent) on the two above mentioned dimensions.

Multiple regression was used to analyze these relationships. Separate

regressions were run, with each group of these variables in the regression equation: 1)

76

the adolescent rating of the amount of interaction in the relationship with their
parents, 2) the parents’ ratings of the amount of interaction in the relationship with
their adolescent , 3) the adolescent rating of the emotional quality of the relationship
with their parents, and 4) the parents’ ratings of the emotional quality of the
relationship

with their adolescent. The variables were entered simultaneously since there was no a
priori theory as to which ratings were be the best predictor of the parent-adolescent
relationship. In addition, these equations were run using the adolescent as well as the
parent rating of the quality of sibling relationship.

The analyses indicated that only one of the parent-adolescent relationship
ratings signiﬁcantly predicted the quality of sibling relationships using the adolescent
rating of sibling relationship. When the father reported a higher quantity of
interaction with his adolescent, the adolescent experienced a less positive sibling
relationship, as rated by both parents m=-.29, t=-2.06, p< .05). Further
analyses were conducted to examine these ﬁndings more closely. Several sex
differences were found. Female, but not male, adolescents who had more interaction
with their father (as rated by their father) had more negative sibling relationships,
with both the adolescent rating m=n46 , t=-2.3l, p< .05 ) and parent rating
(Beta=-.6l, t=3.36, p< .01). For males, when they rated the emotional quality of
their relationship with their mother as being positive, they also had a more positive

sibling relationship, using the parental rating (Beta = .45, 1=2.l7, p< .05).

77
CHIC] .. 11 5.”. B] . 1.

Using linear regression, it was found that difﬁcult temperament did not
signiﬁcantly affect the quality of sibling relationships at either age three or
adolescence. However, the quality of sibling relationships at age three predicted the
child functioning variable Ma”, t=3.52, p< .001). When this was tested for
boys and girls separately, the results show that the sibling relationship variable
signiﬁcantly predicted child functioning for girls m=.38, t=2.70, p< .001), but
not for boys.

Results revealed that the quality of sibling relationship (as rated by the
adolescent) signiﬁcantly predicted only one adolescent characteristic - socio—cognitive
skills (BEEF-24. t=2.12, p < .05). When males and females were separated, it
was found that for females, but not for males, the quality of sibling relationship (as
rated by the adolescent and parent) signiﬁcantly predicted socio-cognitive skills
Mai“, t=2.07, p<.05 - adolescent rating) Ma”, t=2.57, p<.05 - parent
rating). Adolescents with better sibling relationships had higher socio-cognitive skills.

1 ' n hi r

Sibling problems at age three and quality of adolescent sibling relationships
were not signiﬁcantly correlated. Using multiple regression, difﬁcult temperament,
socio—cognitive skills and child functioning at three years old did not signiﬁeantly
predict the adolescent sibling relationship, as rated by the adolescent or by the parent.
Separating males and females also revealed nonsigniﬁcant predictions of child

characteristics at age three and later relationships with siblings.

 

It was difﬁcult to assess whether the quality of sibling relationships at the two
time periods differed from one another because two difference measures were used.
Over 60% of parents rated sibling problems at year three to be insigniﬁcant. It is
unclear as to whether that meant the relationship was positive. Approximately 8% of
the parents rated their children as experiencing sibling conﬂict occasionally, about 5%
reported problems frequently. During adolescence, 35% of the adolescents and 17%
of the parents rated the sibling relationship as being ambivalent or neutral. Twelve
percent (adolescent rating) and 19% (parent rating) reported a negative relationship,
and 45% (adolescent rating) and 51% (parent rating) reported a positive relationship.
A chi-square independence test of these two variables indicated that the sibling
relationships at year three and adolescence are independent of one another.
Bjdiregg’gnaity 9f Relgg'gnships

LISREL (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1981) was used to assess whether the variables
considered (with the family structure variables) exerted bidirectional inﬂuences on one
another. Unfortunately, the original model which predicted bidirectional inﬂuences
was not successful. When the model was deﬁned with bidirectional paths between
variables, the model failed. The sample size was too small and there was not enough
power to estimate all the parameters. The analyses were not stopped here, instead,
unidirectional paths were tested since the data appeared to drive the model in this
direction. Therefore, a much simpler model of sibling relationships was tested, with

no estimation of reciprocal inﬂuences between variables.

79

With

Figures 3 and 4 show the ﬁnal LISREL models of sibling relationships.
Tables 8 and 9 show the means and standard deviations for the measures used in the
LISREL analyses. The covariance matrix of variables at both time periods was
chosen to be analyzed (see Tables 10 and 11), because of various problems (e.g.,
incorrect computation of standard errors, chi-square and other goodness of ﬁt
measures) that may be encountered in using the correlation matrix for analyses (see
Joreskog & Sorbom, 1988). Since LISREL cannot analyze raw data with missing
values, values were estimated using regression. Those cases that had more than 40%
of the values missing were removed. To estimate the model parameters, the
maximum likelihood method was used. ‘
1111 [5.11. 131° 1' 1: 3

The loading of the quality of sibling relationships was ﬁxed to 1.00, given that
this latent construct had only a single indicator. Each of the remaining latent
constructs were deﬁned by setting one of the factors loadings to 1.00 (family size for
Family Structure, parental inconsistency for Quality of Parent-Child Relationship, and
child functioning for Child Characteristics).

Model ﬁt

When the model of sibling relationships at year three was initially run, the
goodness of ﬁt indices revealed that the data did not ﬁt the model well. The chi-
square with 46 degrees of freedom = 95.17 (p=.00). Other goodness of ﬁt measures
also indicated a poor ﬁt. The Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = .85, the Root Mean

Square Residual (RMSR) = 1.87, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .90, and the

80

m can a 82223.9 8.3a 3 .085 dam: as... .0 «so:

 

:_co:oc2
.306

 

 

220$:

 

 

 

300m

 

A

 

 

8858.20
220

 

   

           

 

9:20:32
35%
.6 2:8:

 

 

2.0395
:55:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

mﬁcoog 85:00 £880
E23 Soﬁa 3529:
3:80:39.
.230
Evan
Savage
2:...
oﬁw 9500 .690
>=Eﬂ xom 5.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

 

05:28::
.0006

 

 

c850

 

 

 

 

008

AL

 

 

8.0.0806

$0000.00:

005000.000

   

a 8.68.0.9 9.3.0 .o .08.: dam... as“. .0 050.“.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

  

 

:0: :90 00c: :50
0_cmc0_ﬁ_o..
€008.00:
20:00
2:05:30:
8.30
.o 2.1.50
05:: 959
E200 .000
DECO @N_m Ofgomam baa-O
.8 2.2“. can 5....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

 

Table 8
h; in f .61! i! I ’ 01! 1- Y
M 5.12
Family Structure Variables
Birth order 2.02 .78
Sex combination 2.14 .82
Family size 2.54 .72
Quality of Parent-child Relationship
Maternal concern 50.55 9.51
Parental conﬂict 51.51 10.17
Parental inconsistency 49.54 9.51
Parental limitations 50.33 10.03
Parental rejection 50.15 9.34
Quality of Sibling Relationship
Sibling problems 1.27 .46
Child Characteristics
Socio-cognitive skills 1.19 .26
Difﬁcult temperament 1.76 .86
Child functioning 1.36 .20

 

83
Table 9

hex. unV‘ -11 i r ;«. ' {2.0 in h LI REL Mod] -

‘col‘s ‘ "

 

Family Structure Variables
Birth order
Sex combination
Family size
Age spacing

Quality of Parent-adolescent Relationship
Adolescent rating interaction quantity with father
Father rating interaction quantity with adolescent
Adolescent rating emotional quality with father
Father rating emotional quality with adolescent

Quality of Sibling Relationship
Relationship rated by adolescent
Relationship rated by parent

Adolescent Characteristics
Socio-cognitive skills
Difﬁcult temperament
Child functioning

M

2.02
2.14
2.98
3.35

1.62
1.80
2.05
2.05

3.56
3.62

4.38
-l4.43
5.49

SD

.78
.82
.92
2.66

.45
.63
.66
.61

.95
.98

1.73
4.14
1.59

 

84

9.; on. 006—- Eda

a . war 3.-

No.nm and.
3.8
.N— .2 .c— .o

and

3.-

bag.-

86

9.3

2.:

ho.-

aN.N-

www.m—

24--

9.8

C.-

no.

we.-

mm;-

mm;-

8.-

mm.

3.

5.

2..

MN.-

8.—

.0.-

mo.

ON. 5; no.-

No.- 8.- co.-

hm. E..— 8.

8. mm; 2.—

ae. no. no.-

No.- 86 me.-

_o.- 8.- 8.

mo. na. 5.

Nb. 3.
a.
.n .N .—

8383 .385 .2
.35 5.5 .:
”85000 .555 .2
3:00.88:— 3§am .o
5350 .0580: .w
3580 .585 .5
823388 .3 .o
85 2:5". .m

2.3. 2.3335 .4
«53-..»? .50.. .n
.Eaeaas .3055 .N

3038.. «£30 .—

 

Scam—gov

c— 050,—.

85

w— . no.-

2.”.

.N—

.2

ma.-

2.

2.

em.

.2

8.-

2.

no.

3.

ho.-

so.-

no.-

mac-N

no.

no.

5.

m0.-

am.

3.-

no.-

S.-

$.-

3.

co.- hc -
an. 2..-
om. mm.-
mm. 00.-
VN. hm.-
o_. m..-
5 0m.-
.o.- 2.
end wed-
ON:
m .e

 

3. 2.
mm N0.-
3. 8.-
w. . 3.-
wo. 3.-
No. 3.-
3.- No.-
No. 8.
ac; om.
FWN- 3.-
ca.N an.
mm.

m .N

2. . siege... .2
2.6 8. m3......
8. .8283 35:. .N.
.050". 3.. 950x
8. 08.850 2.5 .:
2.5 a. 2.3.
S.- .5..8§=. .05... .c.
.050... .8 9501
8- 8.532... 2.5 .a
we: 03.2.3an now .w
8. 86 3.5.... s
8.- 2.8% a... .0
on. «23......» 5%.... .m
ww- ..§:.3E.o .4
mm. 2...... 320 .n
3.. as? .55.. .3. an .N
m... as? .83 .3. am ..

 

3:05.60

2 030.9

86

parsimony ratio = .08. An investigation of the modification indices indicated that
the model could be improved if the errors between several observed variables,
parental conﬂict and child functioning, parental conﬂict and family size, and birth
order and socio-cognitive skills, were allowed to correlate.

The modiﬁed model demonstrated good ﬁt with the data. The chi-square with
46 degrees of frwdom = 56.63 (p=.l4). Other goodness of ﬁt measures also
indicated a good ﬁt. The GFI = .90, the RMSR = .06, CFI =.90, and the
parsimony ratio = .06.

Measurementm

Looking at the t—values’ (Figure 5) one can see that the measurement model
was weak. None of the observed variables loaded signiﬁcantly on the latent variable
of family structure, and only one of the parent-child relationship measures loaded
significantly on the latent variable of quality of parent-child relationship. Only the
latent variable of child characteristics seemed to be adequately measured. The
observed variables for this latent structure did load signiﬁcantly.

W

The t-values show that the hypothesized relationship between family structure
variables and the sibling relationship was not supported. This is not too surprising
since there is literature that gives evidence both for and against the effects of family
structure variables. The parent-child relationship was thought to inﬂuence the quality

of sibling relationships. However, the data from this study did not support this

 

5The paths that do not have a t-value associated with them are the ones that were
ﬁxed to 1.00.

87

 

< 5232 c. 8.3.8 800.0200 222.28..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.00.802
. 330.0
n 00.000.00.030

 

 

 

«0 000 .0 003000.03. 00.3.0 .0 .0002 .0. 0020?... .0 0.30.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
      

    
  

 

  
  

 

 

 

 

 

20:00.0. 0.3... 0.0000... «0.5.00 0.00000
30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 .0630...
cod 3. P 00. _. mm.
5.0 03000203.
230
30.00
03000.50. .
9.3.0 00
.o 2.030
mm. P 2303.0
2.50.
08030.0
00.3.0 vm. F
E. P
050 30.00 .00-.0

 

2.0.0. .30 5.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

88
relationship either. The R square for the quality of sibling relationship predicted by

family structure variables and the parent-child relationship was very small (.02).

Some hypothesized relationships were conﬁrmed. The hypothesis that the
parent-child relationship had an effect on child characteristics was supported.
However, the estimate for this parameter was very small (.01). There was also
evidence that child characteristics such as child functioning, difﬁcult temperament,
and socio-cognitive skills, are affected by the relationship he or she has with his or
her brother or sister. The estimate for this parameter was . 16. The R square for
child characteristics predicted by the quality of sibling relationships and the parent-
child relationship was .34. When the arrow between the quality of sibling
relationships and child characteristics was reversed (to examine if child characteristics
affected the sibling relationship) the path was signiﬁcant (3 = 2.82), and the model ﬁt
well, but the measurement model was weaker. Thus, the model in which the quality
of sibling relationships predicted child characteristics was chosen as the ﬁnal model.

' 1i 1 ' n hi rin 01 n

Each of the latent constructs were deﬁned by setting one of the factor loadings
to 1.00 (family size to Family Structure, father rating the quantity of interaction with
his child for Quality of Parent-Child Relationship, adolescent rating of the sibling
relationship for Quality of Sibling Relationship, and adolescent functioning for
Adolescent Characteristics). Regarding the Quality of Parent-Child Relationship
construct, only the four ratings involving fathers (e. g., fathers rating the adolescent or
the adolescent rating the father) were used as indicators. The other ratings, those

involving the mother and both parents, failed in the model testing.

 

89
MosleLﬂt

When the adolescent model was initially run, there was poor ﬁt between the
hypothesized model and the data. The chi-square with 60 degrees of freedom =
96.58 (p=.00), the GFI = .86, the RMSR = .08, CFI = .88, and the parsimony
ratio = .07. An examination of the modiﬁcation indices revealed that a better ﬁt
could be obtained if the errors between several observed variables, child rating of
emotional quality of relationship with father and child rating of quantity of interaction
with father, father rating of the emotional quality of relationship with the child and
father rating of quantity of interaction with the child, and birth order and age spacing,
were allowed to correlate. When the measurement error of these variables were
allowed to correlate, there was a much better ﬁt between the data and model. The
following describes this ﬁnal model in more detail.

There was good model ﬁt with the data. The chi-square with 57 degrees of
freedom = 57.79 (p< .45). Other goodness of ﬁt measures also indicated a good ﬁt.
The GFI = .91, CFI = 1.00, RMSR = .09, and the parsimony ratio = .06.

W

The measurement model for the adolescent model of sibling relationship was
better than the year three model. As can be seen in Figure 6, with one exception, all
of the observed measurement variables loaded signiﬁcantly onto their respective latent
variables. Unfortunately, the measures for the quality of the sibling relationship did

not signiﬁcantly load onto the latent variable.

 

0 0282 c. 8.5.8 0800.820 290.058.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«0000000300 .0 003000003. 00.3.0 .0 .0000. .0. 00203.0 0.00.“.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
        
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.. 00.0 03.. M00 .0
0 v D. m- 5.0
0030.300. 0.0000003.
300.0 30000300
30.00
03000.33.
n 00.300.00.000 00.3.0
000.03 5.0. 30000300 .0 3:030
. 00. 0.0.02.0
0.80 o. 0 2.50.
00..
00.3. 00.3. 00.0-
30.00 .000 .
0. v 00.0
2.8 8.... 9.8% .83
.00 2.20. 80 5.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

91
W

Regarding the structural model, it looked similar to the model at age 3.
Family structure and the parent-adolescent relationship did not seem to predict the
quality of relationship the adolescent had with their sibling. The R square for these

relationships was very small (.03). Again, as hypothesized at year three, the quality

of parent-adolescent relationship was signiﬁcantly related to adolescent characteristics.

The estimate for this parameter was 4.31. The hypothesis that the quality of sibling
relationship would signiﬁcantly relate to adolescent characteristics was also
conﬁrmed. The estimate for this parameter was .73. The R square for adolescent
characteristics predicted by the relationship the adolescent had with their sibling and
the parent-adolescent relationship was .59. When the arrow was reversed between
sibling relationships and adolescent characteristics (to see if adolescent characteristics
would effect the quality of sibling relationships), the path was not signiﬁcant (1 =
1.33). Thus, the model where the path led from sibling relationships to adolescent
characteristics was chosen as the ﬁnal model.

The models seem to adequately ﬁt the data, which does not necessarily mean
that the model is correct, but that it is not incorrect (Cliff, 1983). All we can
conclude is that the models shown here are possible representations of what is
happening in a population given this particular data set (Raykov, Tomer &

Nesselroade, 1991).

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION

The analyses revealed that some hypotheses were conﬁrmed while others were
not. The unexpected results could be due to several factors - perhaps there were
problems in the theoretical reasoning and hypotheses building, perhaps the reasoning
was correct but not for this sample, or perhaps there were methodological problems.
For instance, regarding the latter, in year three, the quality of the sibling relationship
was given an overall rating for the child and all his or her siblings. In other words,
if a child had two or more siblings, one rating would be given by the parent on how
problematic the child’s relationship was with his or her brothers and/or sisters.
However, this study required that only one sibling be chosen for analyses. Thus, the
measure of quality of the sibling pair relationship did not necessarily capture the
quality of relationship the child experienced with the sibling that was chosen.

Another drawback was that there was a focus only on the negative aspects of
the sibling relationship - only sibling problems were assessed at age 3. Furthermore,
there was not much variation in these ratings - a majority of parents (60%) rated
sibling problems as insigniﬁcant. For the ratings of sibling relationships during
adolescence, interviews were given one numeric rating. Some of the interviewees
gave very detailed descriptions of the sibling relationship. Others did not have much
to say - perhaps a sentence or two. It was difﬁcult to assign ratings based on only a
few words that did not draw a very complete picture of the relationship. Obtaining a

consistent set of information on several aspects of the relationship would have given a

92

93

stronger, more accurate evaluation of the relationship. In sum, a better measure of
the central focus of this study - sibling relationships - would have been valuable.

Another methodological weakness was that bidirectional inﬂuences between
variables could not be assessed. This was unfortunate since much of the research on
sibling relationships conducted thus far has been correlational in nature. Directions of
inﬂuence have been hypothesized but have not been conﬁrmed empirically. In this
study the sample size was not sufﬁcient to adequately estimate the numerous
parameters, and the measurement model was somewhat weak. Unfortunately, the
weak area involved the main variable of the study, and only a much simpler
unidirectional model was assessed. Despite the numerous limitations to this study,
there is an important advantage in using archival data. The ability to examine sibling
relationships longitudinally for more than a decade is very rare in psychological
research.
ﬁndings

The only family structure variable that seemed to affect how siblings relate to
one another was birth order. The ﬁndings support the hypothesis that later borns
seem to experience more positive relationships with their siblings than ﬁrst borns.
Some researchers have speculated that earlier born siblings may be striving for more
independence (Buhrmester & Furman, 1990), or perhaps resentful of losing their
special status as the only child warranting attention, as hypothesized by other
researchers (Dunn & Kendrick, 1982; Volling & Belsky, 1992). In contrast, later .
born siblings may want to be ”more grown up” and do this by imitating and perhaps

admiring their older sibling (Buhrmester & Furman, 1990). An unexpected ﬁnding

 

94

was that this was true only for boys at age three, but then during adolescence it was
true only for girls.

Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg (1970) suggest that sex and birth order need to be
examined simultaneously to have a more complete understanding of what it means to
be a brother or sister. For example, being a third born male with two older brothers
and one younger brother, would be different than being a male with twogolder sisters
and one younger brother. For the latter boy, he may be treated more like a ﬁrst
born rather than a third born child because of his position in relation to the sex of his
sibling. Unfortunately, this sex by birth order combination could not be examined in
such detail in this study.

Other family structure variables, such as age spacing and family size, were not
inﬂuential to the sibling relationship. One reason could be because there was such
limited variance for these variables. For example, almost 40% of the participants
were spaced 2-3 years apart from their sibling, and 92% came from a family size of
either 2 or 3. Another family structure variable of interest, the sex composition of
the sibling dyads, also did not seem to affect the relationship between siblings. For
year three, this could be because the ratings for the sibling relationship was an overall
rating. As stated previously, if a child had more than one sibling, there was no way
to determine the quality of relationship the child had with each sibling pair. Thus, the
sibling that was chosen for the sibling pair was not necessarily the one rated
speciﬁcally. For the adolescent time period, it is very probable that at this age there
are other inﬂuences on the sibling relationship that may outweigh the inﬂuence of

structural variables.

95

As reviewed in the literature, there are studies that report little or no effect of
family structure variables on the sibling relationship (Dunn, 1987; Dunn & Munn,
1986; Stocker, Dunn & Plomin, 1989). Instead, other variables such as the parent-
child relationship may be a more powerful contributor in determining the quality of
relationships between siblings. Using LISREL analyses, this study did not support
this hypothesis at either year three or during adolescence. Earlier studies that have
analyzed, in detail, how a mother behaves towards her children, have found maternal
behavior to have an effect on the quality of relationship between the siblings (Dunn &
Kendrick, 1982; Stewart et al., 1987). Perhaps if this study had included a more
detailed measure of how the parents actually interacted with the child and his or her
sibling in this study, a connection between parenting and the sibling relationship
would have been supported.

However, using regression with certain aspects of the parent-child relationship,
did reveal some signiﬁcant linkages to the sibling relationship. For example, it was
hypothesized that more maternal concern at age three would predict a more positive
sibling relationship, but the opposite was found. More sibling problems were
associated with more maternal concern. Perhaps those children with mothers who
were more involved with them did not want their sibling to receive any of the
attention they enjoyed, thus causing more conﬂict between siblings. These ﬁndings
would lend support to Dunn and Kendrick’s (1982) study that found that ﬁrst born
daughters who experienced an intense, close relationship with their mother
experienced more negative relationships with their siblings. The researchers

suggested that possibly these ﬁrst borns felt jealous toward their siblings and were

96

angry at the loss of attention. However, it is also possible that those siblings who
interacted more negatively with one another prompted the mother to show more
concern and spend more time and energy with her children. Regression analyses do
not provide sufﬁcient information to show the direction of effects.

It was hypothesized that an adolescent who experienced more positive
interaction with his or her parents would have a more positive sibling relationship, but
the opposite was found for females. For females, more interaction with their father
(but not their mother) meant more sibling conﬂict. Again, similar to what was found
in year three, perhaps those female adolescents who enjoyed a close relationship with
their father did not nwd a close relationship with their sibling, or were protective of
the relationship they had with their father, resulting in more problems with their
sibling. Perhaps these female teenagers already had conﬂictual relationships with
their siblings, encouraging the father to spend more positive time with them. Crouter
and Crowley (1990) propose that fathers’ interaction may have a greater affect on
their daughters than sons because it is expected that fathers interact with sons, but less
so for daughters. Thus, higher levels of father-daughter involvement may be seen as
something more ”special,” and thus may inﬂuence the girls’ well-being more so than
boys. Interestingly, for males, it was mothers that seemed to affect the relationship
they had with their sibling. Male adolescents who rated the emotional quality of their
relationship with their mother as being more positive also had a more positive
relationship with their brother or sister.

In other ﬁndings, sibling relationships did seem to affect child and adolescent

characteristics. We can make a causal statement such as this since structural equation

 

97

modeling was used to analyze these relationships. Regression analyses revealed that

sibling relationships predicted child characteristics for girls, but not for boys. At year

three, girls with more positive sibling relationships were better adjusted than those

with less positive sibling relationships. During adolescence, females experiencing

better relationships with their brother or sister scored higher on ratings of social

functioning. This supports prior research that ﬁnds an inverse relationship between

positive sibling relationships and behavior problems (Daniels et al. , 1985; Richman, ..
Stevenson & Graham, 1982) and a direct relationship between positive sibling I I
relationships and social sensitivity (Light, 1979; Stewart & Marvin, 1984).

It is puzzling that these connections were true for girls but not for boys.
Earlier studies report that girls seemed to experience more intense and closer
relationships with their sisters than did boys with their brothers in preschool children
(Minnett et al., 1983), school-age children (Buhrmester & Furman, 1990; Stoneman
& Brody, 1993), adolescents (Buhrmester & Furman, 1985b), early adulthood
(Cicirelli, 1992), and old age (Gold, 1989). Perhaps sibling relationships contribute
more to girls’ development than to boys’. This would support Larson and
Asmussen’s (1991) ﬁndings that girls seem to have a greater sensitivity to the family
environment than boys.

Having a difﬁcult temperament did not seem to relate to the relationship the
child had with his or her siblings. Perhaps, in this sample, examining only one
child’s temperament was not sufﬁcient. Instead, examining the combination of both
the child’s and sibling’s temperament, as several researchers suggest (Munn & Dunn,

1989; Stoneman & Brody, 1993) may have revealed more.

98
In this study, child characteristics at age three did not predict the quality of

sibling relationships during adolescence. Along the same lines sibling problems at
age three did not signiﬁcantly correlate with or predict the adolescent sibling
relationship. Given these ﬁndings, it would seem that at age three, it is not feasible
to make a deﬁnitive statement on how the child will interact with his or her brother or
sister as a teenager. Furthermore, for this sample, the quality of the relationship a
child has with his or her sibling does not appear to be continuous in the time period
examined, but rather has potential to change. Investigating the factors and processes
that relate to this change would shed more light on the complex nature of sibling
relationships.

W

The sample for this study was a very select sample of white, upper-middle
class children and their families. Research on sibling relationships in other
demographically diverse groups is nwded. There is evidence that in other ethnic
groups, or other cultures, siblings play a major role in a child’s development. In
some cultures, siblings replace the parent as the primary caretaker. In these contexts,
the relationship between brothers and sisters may be much more salient to a child’s
development.

As in this study and all other studies on siblings, only sibling pairs have been
studied. No studies exist that have examined interactions between three or more
siblings. Investigating these types of interactions would be increasingly complex.
However, knowing that a child exists in a network of relationships should prompt

researchers to attempt to understand the quality of relationship a child has with all of

99

his or her brothers and sisters. If a child has two or more siblings, it is of course
possible that he or she may have a very supportive relationship with one and be
antagonistic to the other. No research has been conducted to ﬁnd out how these
differing relationships together affect the child.

In this study it was found that the quality of sibling relationships was not
continuous from the third year of life to adolescence. It would be interesting to look
at the sibling relationship in adulthood, and examine whether sibling relationships tend H

to stabilize as individuals move past adolescence and into adulthood, and old age.

 

This study provides some evidence that birth order and several aspects of the
parent-child relationship are related to how well a child relates to his or her brother or
sister. It has also shown that the sibling relationship can be related to a child’s life
such as child functioning and social interactions. Further investigations in this area
can be an avenue for understanding more fully the impact of the family and family

relationships on child development.

Appendix A

Completely Standardized Solution for LISREL Analyses at Age 3

100

LAMBDA-Y
qualsib chchar
SIBPROB .92
ODIFFCH .36
GLOBAL .86
NONFAM .57
LAMBDA-X

famsmrc narshild
FSIZE 3.57
SEXCOMB 5.44
BIRTHOR -3.09

PARCONF . 18
PARCONC .07
PARINC .87
PARLIM -. 14
PARREI .33
BETA
qualsib 091.10
qualsib
chchar .39
GAMMA
{am am hi1
qualsib -2.59 .06
chchar .37

CORRELATION MATRIX OF ETA AND KSI

h r f il
qualsib 1.00
chchar .46 1.00
famstruc .01 -.01 1.00
parchild .18 .44 -.05 1.00
PSI
qualsib 09110

1.03 .66

 

lOl
THETA-EPS

WM
.15 .87 .26 .67

THETA-DELTA-EPS

IBPR DIFFC L BAL AM
FSIZE
SEXCOM
PARCONF .24
PARCON C
PARINC
PARLIM
BIRTHOR .33
PARREI

THETA-DELTA

EX PAR R N P IN
FSIZE 1.08
SEXCOM 1. 19
PARCONF .39 .97
PARCON C -.27 1 .00
PARINC .24
PARLIM .98

R RR
BIRTHOR 1 .06
PARREI .89

REGRESSION MATRIX ETA ON KSI (STANDARDIZED)

lemmas; narclﬂd
qualsib -2.59 .06

chchar -1.01 .39

Appendix B

Completely Standardized Solution for LISREL Analyses at Adolescence

 

102
LAMBDA - Y
£112.01 319113.:
SIBRELA .50
SIBRELB 1.13

SOCIAL .65
DIFFI‘EEN -,64
GLOBAL .95
LAMBDA - x
1303109 203021
SPACE .49
Fsrzra .53

SEXCOM -l.01
BIRTI-IOR .02

CINTF .54
CINTC .46
CRATF .79
FRATC .62
BETA
sibrel adchar
sﬂnzﬂ
adchar .22
GAMMA
{mm 0001
sibrel . l3 -. 13
adchar .76

CORRELATION MATRIX OF ETA AND KSI

l f l

sibrel 1 .00
adchar . 13 1.00
famstruc . 12 .08 1.00

paradol -.12 .73 .07 1.00

 

 

103
PSI
sibrel adchar
.97 .41
THETA-EPS
P E BA
.75 -.28 .57 .59 .09
THETA-DELTA
z E M INTF FINT RATF FRAT BIRTH R
SPACE .76
FSIZE .72
SEXCOM -.02
CINTF .71
FINTC .79
CRATF .27 .37
FRATC .31 .62
BIRTHOR .33 1.00

REGRESSION MATRIX ETA ON KSI (STANDARDIZED)

farmers: 12029.91
sibrel .13 -.13
adchar .03 .73

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abramovitch, R. ,,Corter C., & Lando, B. (1979). Sibling interaction in the home.
W 10, 997-1003.

Abramovitch, R., Corter, C., & Pepler, D. (1980). Observations of mixed-sex
sibling dyads. Went, 5_Q, 997.1003.

Abramovitch, R., Corter, C., Pepler, D., & Stanhope, L. (1986). Sibling and peer
interaction: a ﬁnal follow-up and a comparison. Child Development, L7, 217-
229.

Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). W.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Allan. G. (1977). Sibling solidarity. WW2. 177-
184.

Azmitia, M. & Hesser, J. (1993). Why siblings are important agents of cognitive

development: A comparison of siblings and peers. MW, 69.,
430-444.

Baltes, P. Reese, H., & Nesselroade, J. (1977). W
W Monterey. CA: Brooks/Cole

Bank, 8. & Kahn, M. (1982). Intense sibling loyalties. In M.E. Lamb & B. Sutton-

Smith (Eds), i lin l in hi ° Th irn r i niﬁ
lifespan, 251-266. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baskett, L. & Johnson, S. (1982). The young child’s interactions with parents
versus siblings: A behavioral analysis. Child Develepment, 53, 643-650.

Bedford, V. (1989). Sibling research in historical perspective. AW
5521011151 3311.). 6-18-

Bell, R. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of

socialization. Psyehelegiﬂ Review, 15, 81-95.

Bemdt, T. & Bulleit, T. (1985). Effects of sibling relationships on preschoolers’
behavior at home and at school. WW, Zjﬁ), 761-767.

104

 

105

Billman, J. & McDevitt, S. (1980). Convergence of parent and observer ratings of
temperament with observations of peer interactions in nursery school. Chile

12925219201901.11, 395400.

Blyth, D., Hill, J. & Thiel, K. (1982). Early adolescents’ signiﬁcant others: Grade
and gender differences in perceived relationships with familial and nonfamilial

adults and young pmple. WWW. 1.116)-

Boer. F. & Dunn. J. (1992). WWW
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brody, G., Stoneman, 2., & Burke, M. (1987). Child temperaments, maternal

differential behavior, and sibling relationships. MW,
21(3), 354-362.

Brody, G., Stoneman, 2. & MacKinnon, C. (1982). Role asymmetries in interactions
between school-aged children, their younger siblings, and their friends. Child

122mm. 53, 1364-1370.

Brody, G., Stoneman, Z. & MacKinnon, C. (1986). Contributions of maternal child-
rearing practices and play Contexts to sibling interactions. MW

Way, 2. 225- 236.

Brody, G. Stoneman, 2., & McCoy, K. (1992). Parental differential treatment of
siblings and sibling differences 1n negative emotionality.1euma]_qf_Manjage

30041112311111! L. 643-651.

Bronfenbrenner. U- (1979). Wm
W. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. We
Mm. e 187-249.

Bronfenbrenner, U. & Crouter, A. (1983). The evolution of environmental models in
developmental psychology. In W. Kessen (Ed. ), W

W 357-414 New York:
Wiley.

Bronfenbrenner, U. Kessel, F., Kessen, W. ,& White, S. (1986). Toward a social

history of developmental psychology. WW, _1_ﬂ_1,), 1218-
1230.

Bryant, B. & Crockenberg, S. (1980). Correlates and dimensions of prosocial
behavior: A study of female siblings with their mothers. Chile Develepmeet,
51, 529-544.

 

106

Buhrmester, D. & Furman, W. (1990). Perceptions of sibling relationships during
middle childhood and adolescence. W, 61, 1387-1398.

Buss, A. & Plomin, R. (1986). The EAS approach to temperament. In R. Plomin &

J. Dunn (Bdsu) Wanna
Mm. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.

Cameron, J. (1977). Parental treatment, children’s temperament, and the risk of

childhood behavioral Problems. WW. 41(4).
568-576.

Cicirelli, V. (1972). Concept learning of young children as a function of sibling
relationships to the teacher. W, 9.3. 282-287.

Cicirelli, V. (1976). Siblings help siblings. In V. L. Allen (Ed), IeteL-age
1n Lmeﬁ en in ehileren. New York: Academic Press.

Cicirelli, V. (1982). Sibling inﬂuence throughout the lifespan. In M. E. Lamb & B.
Sutton-Smith (Eds. ), i In re i 11 hi Th it i i
W. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

CheSS. S. &ThomaS. A. (1984). MW. New

York: Brunner/Mazel.

Cliff, N. (1983). Some cautions concerning the applications of causal modeling

methods. W. 18. 115-126.

Crouter, A. & Crowley, M. (1990). School-age children’s time alone with fathers in
single- and dual-earner families: Implications for the father-child relationship.

Weapons. LQ, 29e312.

Daniels, D., Dunn, J., Furstenberg Jr., P. & Plomin, R. (1985). Environmental
differences within the family and adjustment differences within pairs of

adolescent siblings. Chile Develepment, 5.6. 764-774.

Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling relationships in early childhood. MW, 2,
787-811.

Dunn, J. (1987). The beginnings of moral understanding: Development 1n the second
year. In J. Kagan & 8. Lamb (Eds. ), r n m i n
ehileeen, 91 111. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. -

Dunn, J. (1992). Siblings and development. Cerren; Dirgggin len sin Esyehelegigg
521.199. .111). 6-9.

 

107

Dunn, J ., Brown, J ., Slomkowski, C., Tesla, C. & Youngblade, L. (1991). Young
children’s understanding of other people’s feelings and beliefs: Individual
differences and their antecedents. Chﬂeﬂexelepmeet, 62, 1352-1366.

Dunn, J. & Kendrick, C. (1981). Social behavior of young siblings in the family
context: Differences between same-sex and different-sex dyads. Child

W. 52. 1265-1273-

Dunn. J. & Kendrick. C. (1982). W112.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dunn, J. & Munn, P. (1986). Siblings and the deve10pment of prosocial behavior.
WW. 2. 265-284

Dunn, J ., Slomkowski, C., & Beardsall, L. (1994). Sibling relationships from the
preschool period through middle childhood and early adolescence.

We). 10. 315-324.

Elder, G. & Bowerman, C. (1963). Family structure and child rearing patterns. The

effect of family size and sex composition. MW,
28, 891-905.

Essman, C. (1977). Sibling relations as socialization for parenthood. family
Mater. 2.6. 259-262.

Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985a). Children’s perceptions of the qualities of
sibling relationships. Chile Development, 16, 448-461.

Furman, W. & Buhrmester, D. (1985b). Children’s perceptions of the personal

relationships in their social networks. W, 21, 1016—
1021. '

Garbarino, J. (1982). The family as a social system. In J. Garbarino’ s Chﬂemnm
families in the mejal envipenment. Aldine Publishers.

Goetting, A. (1986). The developmental tasks of siblingship over the lifecycle.
WM. 4.8. 703- 714.

Gold, D. (1989). Sibling relationships 1n old age. A typology. IntematienaLLQumal
W18, 37-50.

Graham-Bermann, S., Cutler, S., Litzenberger, B., & Schwartz, W. (1994).
Perceived conﬂict and violence in childhood sibling relationships and later

emotional adjustment. MW, 811), 85-97.

 

 

108

Hetherington, E. (1988). Parents, children and siblings six years after divorce. In

R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds. ), W, 311-
331. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hoffman, M. (1976). Empathy, role taking, guilt, and the development of altruistic

motives. In T. Lickona (Ed.), W. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Hoffman, L. (1991). The inﬂuence of the family environment on personality.

Accounting for sibling differences. WJM, 187-203.

Howe, N. & Ross, H. (1990). Socialization, perspective-taking, and the sibling
relationship. WM. 211(1). 160-165.

Jenkins, J. (1992). Sibling relationships in disharmonious homes: Potential
difﬁculties and protective effects. In F. Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.) Chilem

ﬁmmgletatjmshjps, (125-138) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
JOYCSkOS. K. & Sorbom, D. (1981). WW

II 1r. 1‘ .II1 I I 11 1111 ' ' 1III .._1I 11 1I1I
Chicago: International Educational Services.

Kendrick, C. & Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling quarrels and maternal responses.
Woe). 12(1). 62-70.

Kidwell, J. (1981). Number of siblings, sibling spacing, sex, and birth order: Their

effects on perceived parent-adolescent relationships. 1.0—W
theEanLil): - 315 332

Lahey, B., Hammer, D., Crumrine, P., & Forehand, R. (1980). Birth order x sex

interactions in child behavior problems. W. 16, 608-
615.

Lamb, M. (1975). Fathers: Forgotten contributors to child development. 1111mm
W: 1.8: 245-266‘

Lamb, M. (1976). (Ed.), flfhe rele 91 the father in ehile eevelepmeht. New York:
Wiley.

Lamb, M. (1978a). Interactions between 18-month-olds and their preschool-aged
siblings W. .2. 51-59.

Lamb, M. (1978b). The development of sibling relationships in infancy: A short-
term longitudinal study. Chile Develepment, .419, 96-137.

 

 

109

Lamb M.. & Sutton-Smith. B. (1982). W
W. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Larson, R. & Asmussen, L. (1991). Anger, worry, and hurt in early adolescence:
An enlarging world of negative emotions. In M.E. Colten, & S. Gore (Eds.)

WWW (pp- 21-41). New York: Aldine
De Gruyter.

Lempers, J. & Clark-Lempers, D. (1992). Young, middle, and late adolescents’
comparisons of the functional importance of ﬁve signiﬁcant relationships.

WWW. 2.111). 53-96.

Lerner, J. (1983). A "goodness of ﬁt” model of the role of temperament in

psychosocial adaptation in early adolescents. Jeu mg pf Cen netie Esyehel egy,
150, 149- 157.

Lerner, J ., Castellino, D., & Perkins, D. (1993). The inﬂuence of adolescent
behavior and psychological characteristics on maternal well-being. Paper
presented at a symposium titled "Domains of generativity: Linkages between
parenting, self, and family.” (Co-chairs Karen Hooker and Barbara Fiese).
Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development. New Orleans. (March 24-28, 1993).

Lerner, J ., & Galambos, N. (1985). Maternal role satisfaction, mother-child
interaction, and child temperament: A process model. Mental

W. 2.1.. 1157-1164.

Lerner, J., Hertzog, C., Hooker, K., Hassibi, M., & Thomas, A. (1988). A
longitudinal study of negative emotional states and adjustment from early
childhood through adolescence. Wm. 52, 356-366.

Lerner, J. & Lerner, R. (1989). Introduction: Longitudinal analyses of biological,
psychological, and social interactions across the transitions of early

adolescence. MW. 213). 175-180.

Lemer, J. & Vicary, J. (1984). Difﬁcult temperament and drug use: analyses from
the New York Longitudinal Study. When, 15(1), 1-8.

Lerner, R. (1984). On the nature of human plasticity. W
dexelonmem. Cambridge

Lerner, R. (1986). Across life in broad strokes. WM, 21, 41.

110

Lerner, R. (1988). Review of "Human development and the life course:

Multidisciplinary pcmpectives' WW. 1.0.1. 285-
290.

Lerner, R. (1991). Changing organism-context relations as the basic process of
development: A developmental contextual perspective. Delelepmental

125111110102» 2.7.1.1.). 2732.

Lemer, R. (1993). A developmental contextual view of human development. In S. C.

Hayes, L.J. Hayes, H.W. Reese, &T..R Sarbin (Eds.), _an'etjes_qf_seienti_ﬁe
W. Reno, NV: Context Press.

Lemer, R., & Lerner, J., Windle, M., Hooker, L., Lenerz, K., & Fast, P. (1986).
Children and adolescents in their contexts: Tests of a goodness of ﬁt model.

In R. Plomin & 1- Dunn (Eds). W
W. Hillsdale, NJ: Iawrence Erlbaum.

Lerner, R. & Spanier, G. (1978). A dynamic interactional view of child and family
development. In R. M. Lerner & G. B. Spanier (Eds. ), CmMJnﬂeenqem

WW. 1-22 New York:
Academic Press.

Light. P. (1979). WWW Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Loehlin, J., Willerman, L. & Horn, J. (1988). Human behavior genetics. Annual
Wm). 32. 101- 133

Maccoby E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-
child interaction. In P.M. Mussen (Ed.), i i i n r n i '

mam. 1-102. W). M4 4 h ). New York:
Wiley.

Maccoby, E., Snow, M., & Jacklin, C. (1984). Children’s dispositions and mother-
child interaction at 12 and 18 months: A short-term longitudinal study.

WM. 29. 459472.

McHale, S. & Gamble, W. (1989). Sibling relationships of children with disabled

and nondisabled brothers and sisters. Wm, 21(3), 421-
429.

McHale, S. & Pawletko, T. (1992). Differential treatment of siblings in two family
contexts. Chilﬂlexelmmem. 63. 68-81.

 

lll

Minnett, A., Vandell, D., & Santrock, J. (1983). The effects of sibling status on
sibling interaction: inﬂuence of birth order, age spacing, sex of child, and sex

of sibling. ChileﬂleIQpnnent, 14, 1064-1072.

Munn, P. & Dunn, J. (1989). Temperamentv and the developing relationship between
siblings. ,12, 433-451.

Nesselroade 1 &Von Eye. A. (Eds..)(1985) W
W. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Nitz, K., Lemer, R., Lerner, J., & Talwar, R. (1988). Parental and peer
ethnotheory demands, temperament, and early adolescent adjustment. 101111131

WW. 8131. 243-263.

Parke, R. (1978). Perspectives on father-infant interaction. In J .D. Osofsky (Ed.),
WM)!- New York: Wiley.

Patterson, G. (1986). The contribution of siblings to training for ﬁghting. A
microsocial analysis. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. R. Radke-Yarrow (Eds. ),

”V .'l n . ‘. 1.x 201.01'0011201‘ 1v VI'I'R 9’: l 160 . _JI_
issues, 235-261. New York: Academic Press.

Patterson, G., Dishion, T., & Bank, L. (1984). Family interaction: A process model
of deviancy training. Aggreggive Behevier, 10, 253-267.

Piaget, J. (1965). W. New York: Free Press.
(Original work published in 1932.

Pepler, D., Corter, C., & Abramovitch, R. (1982). Social relations among children:
Comparison of sibling and peer interaction. In K. Rubin & H. Ross (Eds.),

l ' 11 hi i kill in hil . New York: Springer-Verlag.

Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family so different
from each other? Wm. 1.0. 1-16.

Raffaelli, M. (1992). Sibling conﬂict in early adolescence. W51
IheEamilx. 3. 652-663.

Raffaelli, M. & Larson. R. (1987). W
aeelest‘enee. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Baltimore. -

Raykov, T., Tomer, A., & Nesselroade, J. (1991). Reporting structural equation
modeling results in 11W: Some proposed guidelines.
W. ﬁg). 499-503.

112

Richman, N., Stevenson, J. & Graham, P. (1982). EtesethteeeheeLJ
hehau'eutaumex. London: Academic Press.

Ross, H. & Milgram, J. (1982). Important variables in adult sibling relationships. In
M. E. Lamb & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds. ), i 1i 1 1 hi i r

W. Hillsdale. New Jersey ErlbaIIIn

Sampson, E. (1965). Study of ordinal position antecedents and outcomes. In B.

Maher (Ed. ). W. New York: Academic
Press.

Scarr, S. Webber, P., Weinberg, R., & Wittig, M. (1981). Personality resemblance
among adolescents and their parents in biologically related and adoptive

parents. lenrnal ef Pergnnlity gne 5min! Peyehelegy, 50, 885-898.

Schacter, S. (1963). Birth order, eminence, and higher education. mm 3
W1. 757-767. 1

Stewart, R. (1983). Sibling attachment relationships: Child input interactions in the

Strange Situation. MW.

Stewart, R., & Marvin, R. (1984). Sibling relations: The role of conceptual

perspective-taking in the ontogeny of sibling caregiving. Chﬂeﬂelelepment,
55, 1322-1332.

Stewart, R., Mobely, L., Van Tuyl, S. & Salvador, M. (1987). The ﬁrstbom’s
adjustment to the birth of a sibling: A longitudinal assessment. Chﬂe

12231921111111. 5.8. 341-355.

Stevenson-Hinde, J ., Hinde, R., & Simpson, A. (1986). Behavior at home and
friendly or hostile behavior in preschool. In D. Olweus, J. Block, 8: M.

Randke-Yarrow (Eds. ). W
W, 127-145. New York. Academic Press.

Stillwell, R. & Dunn, J. (1984). Continuities 1n sibling relationships: Patterns of

aggression and friendliness. MW.
2914 ), 627- 637.

Stocker, C. & Dunn, J. (1990). Sibling relationships 1n childhood. Links with

friendships and peer relationships Bdﬁshloumalotﬂexelonmenm
PM 8. 227- 244

Stocker, C., Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1989). Sibling relationships: Links with child
temperament, maternal behavior, and family structure. h] D v 1 ,
e0, 715-727.

113

Stocker, C. & McHale, S. (1992). The nature and family correlates of
preadolescents’ perceptions of their sibling relationships. W
W. 2. 179-195.

Stoneman, 2., & Brody, G. (1993). Sibling temperaments, conﬂict, warmth, and
role asymmetry. mm. (a, 1786-1800.

Stoneman, 2., Brody, G., Davis, C., & Crapps, J. (1989). Role relations between
mentally retarded children and their older siblings: Observations in three in-

home contexts. WM. 10. 61-76.

Sutton-Smith, B. & Rosenberg, B. (1970). Ihe_51b11ng. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.

Teti, D. & Ablard, K. (1989). Security of attachment and infant-sibling relationships:
A laboratory study. W901, ﬂ). 1519-1528.

Thomas, A. (1976). Evolution of behavior disorders into adolescence. Ametjean
mam. 121(5), 539-542.

Thomas, A. & Chess, S. (1977). W. New York:

Brunner/Mazel.

Thomas, A., Chess, S. & Birch, H. (1968). Temmnament ane hehnvier eimreets in
ehﬂeeen. New York: New York University Press.

Tubman, J. & Lerner, R. (1994a). Continuity and discontinuity in the affective
experiences of parents and children: Evidence from the New York

Longitudinal Study. WW. (an). 112-124.

Tubman, J. & Lerner, R. (1994b). Affective experiences of parents and their
children from adolescence to young adulthood: Stability of affective

experiences. W. 1.7. 81-98.

Tryon, R. & Bailey, D. (1966). The BCTRY computer system of cluster and factor
analysis. W. 1.11). 95-111.

Vandell, D. Minnett, A. ,,Santrock J. (1987). Age differences 1n sibling

relationships during middle childhood. WWW
Emhglggy. 3. 247-257.

Vicary, J. & Lerner, J. (1986). Parental attributes and adolescent drug use. 19.012031
WM. 2. 115-122.

114

Volling, B. , & Belsky, J. (1992). The contribution of mother-child and father—child
relationships to the quality of sibling interaction: A longitudinal study. Chi1d

12222199111201. ﬂ. 1209-1222.

Whiting. B. & Whiting. J. (1975). W
analysis. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Zajonc, R. (1976). Family conﬁguration and intelligence. Seienee, 192, 227-236.

Zajonc, R. & Markus, G. (1975). Birth order and intellectual development.
W. 8.012 .74-88.

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV . LIBRnRIES
1| I ll ”MI I“ W ”I W WI W ”l W I“ Ill W [W 1 1 1|
31293014202794