Sibling Differences in Divorced Families Author(s): Susanne C. Monahan, Christy M. Buchanan, Eleanor E. Maccoby and Sanford M.

Dornbusch Reviewed work(s): Source: Child Development, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Feb., 1993), pp. 152-168 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1131443 . Accessed: 14/07/2012 13:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Blackwell Publishing and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Child Development.

http://www.jstor.org

delinquency.Sibling Differences in Divorced Families Susanne C. Snow. by parents. 0009-3920/93/6401-0007$01. SUSANNE C. 1985. Differences in family processes were associated with differences in adjustmentfor pairs who lived together as well as pairs who lived apart. Christy M. In a study measuring differences in environment. Grant Foundation. Monahan.. In addition. MACCOBY. The association between differences in these types of family processes and differences in sibling adjustment is not surprising because we know that differences in processes are related to differences in children's adjustment across families. Dornbusch Stanford University SANFORD E.. 1984. M. siblings who lived apart after their parents' divorce differed more than siblings who lived together. 64. Sibling Differences in Divorced Families.ELEANOR differences in family processes and individual adjustment were examined for 133 sibling pairs (10-18 years old) in divorced families. 1982). Dunn.CA 94305-2135.. Children. Sibling This research was supported by the W. In light of this. school outcomes. & Dornbusch. StanfordUniversity. All rights reserved. and feelings of being caught between parents are low to moderate (Buchanan. sibling interaction. Daniels and Plomin (1985) found that adolescents believed that they were treated differently by siblings and by peers and. 1983). making them as different from one another as children in different families (Daniels et al. 1993. and that environmental influences differentiate siblings. CHRISTY M. 1993. 1987. 1981. Address correspondence to the authors at the Center for the Study of Families. marital status. television) as areas in which siblings may experience nonshared environments. 1981). Buchanan. Eleanor E. and different environments are associated with differences in sibling adjustment. birth order. Recent work challenges the assumption that children in the same family experience a shared environment. Some have argued that similarities among siblings are primarily attributable to genetic influences (Buss & Plomin. Researchers have found that siblings experience different environments (e. and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments on earlier drafts of this paper. and Sanford M.. Rowe and Plomin (1981) outlined a conceptual framework for understanding differential sibling experiences. to a lesser extent. 64. BUCHANAN. and DORNBUSCH.. Daniels et al. 1991). (1985) found that differential sibling adjustment was predicted by differences in parental treatment (i. Plomin & Daniels. We would like to thank Sue Dimicelli for her technical assistance. it is perhaps not surprising that adolescents in the same family often respond differently to a shared pivotal event such as divorce. [Child Development. 1990. Daniels et al. MONAHAN. birth spacing. 152-168. Stanford. 1983.g. CHILDDEVELOPMENT. similarly. the sibling to whom mothers reported being closer was less emotionally distressed. Dunn & Plomin. Scarr & Grajek. & Plomin.. and extrafamilial networks (e. contradicting past research that found negligible effects of shared environment on sibling similarities. Dunn. The possibility that siblings might live apartbecause they were initially more different was considered. For example. Rowe. level of father's education. (1985) found that other demographic factors such as family size. Building 460.00] .. 1983. gender). peer groups. grant 88119688 to Eleanor E.g. 1980. Maccoby and Sanford M. Maccoby.T.. the sibling who was expected to do more chores was less delinquent. Daniels. Rowe & Plomin.g.g. Jacklin.. and Youth. sibling correlations for adjustment outcomes like depression. Furstenberg. Inc. teachers.e. Although all siblings differed. 152-168. This hypothesis was not supported in the limited tests permitted by the data. and found to explain only 1% to 10% of the variance in differential sibling adjustment (Plomin & Foch. The relation between demographic factors (e. Within divorced families. Dornbusch. Maccoby. Dunn. ? 1993 by the Society for Researchin Child Development. birth order. identifying family composition (e. parent reports of differences in how they treat their children and differences in individual child reports of how their parents treat them). 1985. 1982). & Maccoby. Scarr & Grajek. sex) and sibling differences has also been investigated. parental treatment.

Maccoby. siblings may experience different residential arrangements or patterns of visitation with the nonresidential parent. Buchanan. Alternatively. In the same study. such as similar or differ- . & Fraleigh. for a description of that sample). 1992). this may be viewed as an extreme case of nonshared environment. Thomas. each explaining less than 2% of the variance in sibling differences. to the divorce situation than does a sibling who seldom sees the nonresidential parent. there are environmental factors of interest that are specific to the divorce situation. See Buchanan et al. For the current study on sibling differences. Forehand. we will explore divorce-specific environmental influences. & Chen. Prior to scheduled interviews. much of which focused on developing and maintaining rapport with the adolescents. At the conclusion of the interivew.Monahan et al. Guidibaldi. the Stanford Child Custody Study (see Maccoby. A sibling who sees his or her nonresidential parent frequently may adjust better. Method Sample Our sample of sibling pairs was drawn from the Stanford Adolescent Custody Study. Dornbusch. 1992. 1989). then we would expect that siblings who live apart after their parents' divorce will look no more different than siblings who live together. When considering postdivorce adjustment. Previous work on nonshared environments provides direction for understanding sibling differences in divorced families. have a split-residence arrangement). While they share the same parents and a history of living together and of family disruption. researchers should control for the effects of age on sibling differences.e. & Tschann. Fauber. we will attempt to replicate findings concerning the association between withinhousehold nonshared environments and differences in sibling adjustment. if sharing a home environment operates to cause sibling similarities. & Lightel. and ethnicity were also weak predictors of differences in developmental adjustment. Depner. Their parents had been interviewed by telephone 6 months (T1). Adolescents who lost the scales sheet or did not receive it in the mail were asked to copy the scales onto a sheet of paper as the interviewer described them. adolescents were sent 10 dollars and a letter thanking them for participating. Sibling differences may also be influenced by differences in the total amount of visitation contact that each child has with the nonresidential parent. 1986) as well as styles of parental control and management (Buchanan et al. we would expect that siblings who live apart after a divorce will look more different than siblings who live together. Adolescents whose parents had filed for divorce in two northern California counties between September 1984 and March 1985 were interviewed approximately 41/2 years (T4) following their parents' separation. 1990. 11/2 years (T2). If living in separate residences is a differentiating factor. & Mnookin. Mont-Reynaud. although the sample had a limited age range. Second.. Dornbusch.. Ritter. Kline. (in press) for a more detailed description of the procedures and the sample for that study. or 153 ent residential history. interviewers mailed respondents a copy of the scales needed to answer questions. 1992. If the unshared environmental elements within a home differentiate siblings as much as environments across homes differentiate unrelated children. Roberts. interviewers went through a minimum of 35 hours of training.. Because adolescent adjustment is associated with affective relationships between parents and children (e. When siblings live in different residences (i. averaging 1 hour in length. Perry. 1990. & Wierson. 1990. only 1%to 4% of the variance in adjustment differences was predicted by age difference. including information on the ethnicity and socioeconomic status of subjects. First. Hetherington & Clingempeel. Nastasi. however. Because children who are not at the same developmental stage may be treated differently or may respond differently to similar events and family processes. Interviews with adolescents. This paper has a dual emphasis. for example.. they do not currently share a home environment. Leiderman. Guidibaldi et al. we will examine both of these aspects of the home environment. 1987. that may be associated with sibling differences in adjustment. especially when there is a wide age range within the sample. In order to maximize the reliability and validity of the informationcollected. and 31/2years (T3) after sepa- ration as part of a related project. were conducted by telephone. Cleminshaw. & Dornbusch. 1986. Ritter. we selected all sibling pairs in conceivably worse (see Johnston.g. the magnitude of sibling differences should depend on the total amount of time siblings have spent in a shared or split residence.

At the time of the adolescent interview (T4). four had shared an arrangementat only one interview wave. 2 Our sample included 26 adolescents who lived in dual-residence arrangements. a total of 99 pairs had shared a residential arrangement at all time points since their parents' separation. but independently of each other. and 14 had shared an arrangement at three interview waves. Measures Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the measures used. = some graduate or professional training. For household organization. For adolescents in dual residence.1Three sibling pairs were excluded from the analyses because one of the siblings had not lived with one or both parents in the past year. 6 = college graduate. or at least 3 months (not all vacation) each year with each parent. Children in dualresidencespent spent 11 or moreovernights every2 weeks with theirfathers. Sibling age difference ranged from 0 (twins) to 7 years. if both parents' reports were available. of the remaining pairs. and 8 = completed graduate degree. 14 had shared an arrangement at two interview waves. and average parentchild conflict. For adolescents in dual residence. 7 (with or without some non-college training). 10 lived in dual-residence arrangements. Children living in dual-residence arrangements perceived relatively similar environments across homes. but had shifted together.-A 7-point scale was used to indicate the highest level of ed3 = grade 9-12. the sibling pair was selected randomly. the residential parent's perceptions of child irritabilityat T1 and parental involvement at T3 were used. and 75 were same-sex pairs (35 sister pairs and 40 brother pairs). we selected same-sex pairs because there were fewer boy-boy or girl-girl pairs than mixed-sex pairs in families where only two siblings were interviewed. Children in split-residence arrangementshad different residential arrangements. the mean score of the child's reports of each parent was used. Parents were asked how often the child resisted when the parent asked him or her to at least four overnights every 2 weeks. In addition. Adolescents ranged in age from 10 to 18 years. and in 14 pairs. and the results did not change. . Considering all four available time points.parental monitoring. Child irritability. closeness to the residential parent. 15 pairs had shifted residence at least once. at least 1 week out of the month.father) arrangement. the majority of pairs (84) had lived together in the same residential arrangementsince their parents' separation. 4 = high school graduate families where two children had been interviewed. where 2 = grade 0-8. we selected two siblings from each family in which three or more siblings had been interviewed. Fifty-eight of the sibling pairs were mixed-sex (with sister older in 26 of the pairs and brother older in 32 of the pairs). 2 father/dual). From these larger families. perform all analyses using the scores for the dual-resident parent with whom the child spent the most absolute time (mean scores were still used for adolescents who split their time exactly evenly between homes).Children in mother residencespent11ormoreovernights in father Children residence every2 weekswiththeirmothers. although the magnitude of the differences was substantially lower than the size of the differences reported by siblings living together in a sole-residence (mother. When there was more than one same-sex sibling pair in a family. we used the adolescent's report about the primary residential parent. Similarly.Paired t tests indicated that dual-residence adolescents experienced significantly different environments across their two homes. then a mean score was computed. there may be a problem with reportingbias where a single reporterperceives two settings to be more similar than two reporters perceive a single setting to be. both siblings shifted residential arrangement. the average age difference was 2. two had never ucation completed. We did. Alternatively.8 years. leaving 133 sibling pairs in the final sample.This may indicate that a child in a dual-residence arrangementexperiences a more similar environment across two homes than does a sibling pair within a single home. 4 mother/dual. 1 Residencerefersto de factoresidencerather thanlegal custody. however. Thus. 19 pairs were split when only one sibling shifted residential arrangement. Sibling residence had also been assessed in each of the three previous interviewing waves. This procedure yielded 136 sibling pairs.154 Child Development shared a residential arrangement.-Child irritability was a composite of three questions from the interview of the residential parent at T1. 86 of the sibling pairs lived primarily with their mother. 12 lived primarily with their father. 5 = some college. and 25 lived in split-residence arrangements (19 mother/ father.2 using a mean score to represent their experiences allowed us to approximatethe overall environment of dual-residence children. Parent's education.

...83.....7) (2........-Using a scale rang- Father hostility/mother hostility. ado- Depression.3 113...7 5..3) 2 9 5 10 10 1 0 0 4 6 5 1 5 83.7) (9. stomach ache.5 38..3 (SD) (1.. Cronbach's felt lonely. M 5...2) (.7 10 54 15 45 45 5 12 30 16 24 11 8 24 168.6 5... TABLE 1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OLDER SIBLING Na Demographics: Parent's education . Substance use...3 8....1 5. and skipped class (Dornbusch....... Antisocial behavior...8 15. and fatherhostility are family-level measures. & Steinberg..7) (2....4) (1.5) (..7 1......-Interviewers rated the general hostility of each parent toward the ex-spouse at T1..9) (2..... Caught . Father hostility (T1) ... Substance use . School deviance.... hostile.. trouble sleeping) and emotional (e. (1 = never to 5 = very often).. Mont-Reynaud.3) (7..... Chen. from 1 = never to 4 = often......2) (1. and critical.. Age ...... cheated.... smoked marijuana...-Using a scale ranging told us how often in the preceding 12 months they had smoked cigarettes. used a phony ID... Preexisting characteristics: Child irritability (T1)...0) 8. Parental monitoring.. For all other measures..1) (2...83..5 10 4 1 1 Max 8 18 14 10 10 133 266 194 86 115 12. Closeness to residential parent...... bought beer.2) 238 266 256 266 228 256 266 266 265 266 266 266 246 266 8......0 .3) (9....3 8...6) (3.. (1. Closeness to nonresidential parent........1 Parent'seducation.. come to class late.2) (1.Monahan et al. 1991). how often the child lost his or her temper (1 = never to 5 = very often).. felt "low" or depressed.. Average parent-child conflict......3) (2....6 8.9 4.....3) (2.... Psychosocial adjustment: Depression .4) (7..6) (8.7) (13.....7 5..5 5... Cronbach's alpha for the school deviance measure was ... headache. Cronbach's alpha for this measure was . been drunk.8) (7... School effort...6 35.3 (1. Ritter..0 109.........g.3 11... felt nervous) symptoms in the month preceding the interview (Buchanan et al...1 16.3) (2.6 14..3) (2....7 7.....7 2.........1) (6.2) (SD) Min 2. ......1) (8....and used a drug other than marijuana (Dornbusch et al..70..4 31. Cronbach's alpha for these items was .9) (2....8) (15...... adolescents ing from 1 = never to 4 = often.... Family processes: Involvement of primary residential parent (T3).... 1991)...........5) (1.N indicates the number of families for whom this measure was available.. and do something (1 = usually resists or argues how often the child was irritable or sullen alpha for this measure was .....9) (3. cents told us how often in the preceding 12 months they had copied homework. ........ N indicates the number of children for whom the measure was available. from 0 = never to 3 = 3 or more times...8) (3..83. "Worst of three" .....3 14..-Using a scale ranging lescents told us how often they had experienced 10 physical (e........ 1991).0 36...9 11... Grades. adoles- School deviance...... a 155 YOUNGER SIBLING M .3) (2.....g.4 32... Mother hostility (T1).4 6...8 8. to 5 = usually agrees cheerfully and willingly)...0 5.......2) (2.0 5...3) (2..7 35.....7 15. motherhostility...8 (2.... Household organization............... using a scale where 1 = someone who speaks quite favorablyabout the ex-spouse to 10 = someone who is extremely bitter...

knowing who was responsible for chores. and gotten in trouble with the police (Dornbusch et al. adolescents told us how often certain routines occurred in their homes: eating an evening meal with family members. adolescents responded to nine questions regarding issues such as how openly they talked with their parents. and how often their parents acted affectionately towards them (Buchanan et al.156 Child Development Antisocial behavior. and for the purposes of analysis were assigned a score for grades equal to the grade for the tenth percentile ("about half C's and half D's"). being expected to be home for dinner. there were two questions measuring the amount of time spent on homework.-The closeness measure was a composite of items asked about each parent. and being able to count on getting telephone messages (Buchanan et al. damaged school property on purpose.55. These four questions were not asked of high school graduates. how interested their parents were in them. Grades.. The household organization composite was a sum of these items for the residential home. Average parent-child conflict. 1987). which friends they spent time with.. where they were most afternoons after school. studying in the same place each day. Parental monitoring. how they spent their money. 1992)..-Parental involvement was a single item asked of the child's primaryresidential parent in an interview at T3.-Because adolescents may exhibit adjustment problems in different ways (i. knowing when family members would arrive home in the evening. and school effort by assigning a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16 to each. Parents were given examples of types of involvement and then asked." "mostly B's. Closeness to the nonresidential parent was not computed for siblings in dual residence. Categories were ranked from 1 (lowest) to 8 (highest).88 for the residential parent and . "worst of three" was defined as the maximum of the three scores. stolen something of value from another person. For the discussions they had. Responses were rated on a scale where 1 = doesn't know.-We asked adolescents whether they had discussed the following topics with their residential parent in the preceding 2 weeks: doing chores. 1992)." "about half A's and half B's.-The school effort composite consisted of four items. Dornbusch.91 for the nonresidential parent.e. delinquency. one might become depressed while another acts out or slacks off in school). Household a organization. curfews. and 3 = knows a lot.53.we asked adolescents how much their residential parent really knew about where they went at night. with a Cronbach's alpha of .78. letting their parents know where they were when they were out of the house. gotten into a physical fight at school. 2 = knows a little. "Thinking of what is relevant to you.-Using a scale always.-Using scale from 1 = almost never to 6 = almost 1 = almost never and 6 = almost always. eating at the same time each evening. and other things they could or should have done. a score was constructed that represented an adolescent's worst problem. After standardizing depression. how often does your mind wander in your classes" were rated on a 6-point scale where addition. In ranging from 1 = never to 4 = often. Involvement of the primary residential parent. & Kraemer. Cronbach's alpha for antisocial behavior was . adapted from Natriello and Dornbusch (1984). Parents responded separately for each child that lived with them. Closeness to residential and nonresidential parent. having a regular time for cleaning the house. what they did with their free time.75. using a scale from 1 . how comfortable they felt admitting fears to parents or asking for help from them..-To measure monitoring. they were asked to rate how angry the discussions were. "Worstof three". 1990)." to "mostly below D" (Dornbusch et al. Cronbach's alpha for this measure was . Using a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = very. Cronbach's alpha for the four items was .-Adolescents were asked to describe their grades in recent years using categories ranging from "mostly A's. how close they felt to their parents. having friends over when their cents told us how often in the preceding 12 months they had carried a weapon to school. High school dropouts did not answer this question. 1991). how involved are you in your child's life?" Responses ranged from 1 = low involvement to 10 = high involvement.. School effort. and who their friends were (Lamborn. chores getting done when they were supposed to. adoles- parents were not home. "How often do you really pay attention to the classwork during your classes?" and "In general. Cronbach's alpha for this measure was .

more conservative. we did want to accurately characterize differences between siblings given their differences in age. one sibling pair-an 18year-old boy and his 15-year-old brotherhad identical depression scores of 16. 3Age was positively associated with feeling caught between parents. Because we did not hy- pothesize that the older sibling's rank in the distribution of all older siblings was related to the younger sibling's rank in the distribution of all younger siblings.. difference scores. residualized gain scores were not appropriate(Rovine. reported a higher score on a given attribute (Rovine. This conflict scale was adapted from Steinberg (1988)." and negatively associated with parental involvement. discrepancy scores were used to represent sibling differences. = not at all angry to 5 = extremely angry. Cronbach'salpha for the "caught"composite was . Although we were not interested in questions of birth order. Because of their age difference. Only average parent-child conflict was not related to age. and school effort. (2) given our decision to use difference scores to represent sibling differences. time shared. In this study. and (3) how to adjust for differences in our measures due to age. grades. these siblings were more different from each other regarding depression than their raw scores indicated. in press). these variables were then standardized and added together with the standardized score for "How often do you feel caught in the middle between your parents?"(scale ranged from 1 composite that ranged from 0 to 12 (Buchanan et al. For example. we converted individual raw scores for measures of family process and individual adjustment into residual scores.4 In sum.. school deviance.g. Across the sample.. Adolescents who had not discussed any of these topics with their residential parent were assigned the lowest conflict score. depression. in press).3 Simple absolute difference scores did not adequately account for differences in parenting or adjustment that would be expected based on age differences. whether we should use relative or absolute sibling difference scores. if anything. Relative difference scores are used when birth order hypotheses are tested. the older or younger. Because we were interested in any difference between siblings. we did not test a birth-order hypothesis. In this study. and "worst of three. while the younger sibling's score was higher than the score of the average 15-year-old in our sample. A ranged from 1 = never to 4 = very often). Although their raw scores were the same. Results using residuals are. and these scores were computed as the absolute value of the difference between the two siblings' age-residualized scores for any given measure. Rovine (in press) argues that the use of difference scores is appropriatewhen testing hypotheses predicting the magnitude of sibling differences.-The following paired questions were asked about each parent: "Does mother ask questions about father [and father about mother]?" ("yes" or "no" response). creating a caught ranged from 1 = never to 4 = very often). where an individual's residual score represented the degree to which he or she deviated from the average score of his or her age cohort on a given measure. the sign (+ or -) of the difference indicates which sibling. antisocial behavior. "How often does mother ask you to carrymessages to father [and father to mother]?" (scale and "How often do you hesitate to talk about dad to mom [and mom to dad]?" (scale variable representing the maximum score for each of the three pairs was created. = never to 4 = very often). Feelings of being caught between parents. 4 We also performed analyses using difference scores without age residuals. substance use. parental monitoring. 1991). household organization. . regardless of its direction.g. we hypothesized positive relations between aspects of environment (e. closeness to the residential and nonresidential parent. 157 Results Measures of Sibling Differences We considered three general issues in constructing our measures of sibling differences: (1) which model of sibling differences (e. magnitude of differences in perceived parenting practices) and the magnitude of differences in reported adjustment.Monahan et al. age was strongly related to individual scores on most of our process and adjustment measures. we computed difference scores as the absolute value of the difference between the two siblings. To adequately characterize this discrepancy. 1.64. the older sibling's score was about the same as the average 18-year-old's score in our study. residualized gain scores) was most appropriate for the questions we were addressing. These residual scores were then used to create the sibling difference measures.

....15 for depression..01.............. contingency table analysis) to explore the possibility that sibling differences were the cause......03 ..... ...50.....27**** Parental 09 monitoring....... using correlations.. and "worst of three" to .. the sibling correlations for adjustment were significant but low.27**** 35**** Caught . Level of Parent's Education and Sex Composition Same-sex pairs of siblings were not more similar to each other than opposite-sex pairs......... logistic regression.. ranging from ... and analysis of variance............. sibling correlations based on residential parent reports of child irritability at T1 and parental involvement with each sibling at T3 (one reporter for both siblings) were higher than the correlations using individual child reports (different reporters for each sibling) of processes and outcomes..... .... Sex grouping predicted differences in school deviance. we then explored... p +p .........158 Child Development most part..p ..... Analyses We employed a variety of methods to address the research questions: (1) How different are siblings from one another? and (2) What factors predict sibling differences? Sibling similarities were examined using intraclass sibling correlations......61**** Family processes: Involvement of primary residential parent (T3).10..... Pearson correlations were used to test the association between total amount of shared time in a residential arrangement and sibling differences...... p ..... For the TABLE 2 SIBLING INTRACLASS CORRELATIONS Correlation Preexisting child characteristics: Child irritability .. Grades . The sibling correlations were low enough to indicate that children in the same family frequently differed in their reported experiences of family processes and.......15* .......33**** Closeness to nonresidential parent... in their adjustment............................... ....... . the effects of level of parent's education and siblingpair sex composition on sibling differences......05............... Not surprisingly.................... Antisocial behavior...........27 for substance use... and antisocial behavior......... Substance use ......... We used ANOVA to predict process and adjustment difference scores with sex grouping.......................... We used analysis of variance to investigate whether the size of sibling differences varied across residential arrangements.......... .. *p . F(2...32**** Average parent-child conflict .... of nonshared environments.22*** 15* . sister-sister pairs reported larger differences in school deviance than did brother-brother Sibling Correlations Intraclass sibling correlations for perceptions of family processes and self-reported psychosocial adjustment (see Table 2) are based on age residual scores......................... and not the effect...... 130) = . Closeness to residential parent............. ..... simple regression. Post-hoc t tests indicated that 4................. we used correlation and discriminant analyses (e..... Finally... F(2.......35 for feelings of being caught between parents).0001.10........42.... p Sp -5 .......... "Worst of three" ..... school effort....... 129) = 2....05............g............001.... ... School ... especially...15* (N) (97) (86) (133) (123) (133) (115) (123) (133) (133) (132) (133) (133) (133) (113) (133) Psychosocial adjustment: D epression......55**** Household organization............ and to explore whether differences in perceptions of family processes were systematically related to differences in perceptions of sibling adjustment............ The correlations for sibling perceptions of family processes were somewhat higher (as high as ...........16* ........ effort....27**** ... School deviance .....

p . sibling perceptions of family processes and individual adjustment did not vary significantly across brother-brother. closeness to the nonresidential parent.01 to .18.9). antisocial behavior. Residence Factors and Sibling Differences Analysis of variance was used to predict differences in sibling reports of family processes and child adjustment with T4 residential arrangement (mother. household organization. substance use. The size of sibling differences was also largely unrelated to parental education.25. ranging from less than -. p : . Paired t tests indicated that siblings who had never lived apart(n = 99). split). school deviance. household organization. and school effort were also low but positive. the magnitude of the differences was consistently higher for split-residence siblings than for siblings who shared a residence (e. the more similar were their reports of family processes and individual adjustment.01 to -. Other differences in family processes and sibling adjustment were not. ranging from less than .g. and thus presumably had the greatest shared backgrounds. implying a cumulative effect of shared time. it was a more powerful predictor of differences than demographic factors such as sex grouping and level of parent's education. which we call "shared time. we created a measure.. Sibling differences were not simply determined by whether or not siblings had been split at the time of the fourth interview.5.. parent-child conflict. p . "worst of three"). Correlations between level of correlated (r = -. for all measures.05) with sibling 159 parent's education and differences in closeness to the residential parent. closeness to the residential parent. siblings living in the same residence were also significantly different from one another.Monahan et al. pairs (t = 2.05). depression. Differences in parental involvement at T3.21. grades. 6%of the variance in antisocial behavior. father.06. p . average conflict with residential parent. caught. Although differences in other process and adjustment scores did not vary significantly by residential arrangement. but also by the amount of time they had been apart. pointing to the effects of within-home nonshared environment. and less than 3% of the variance in sibling difference scores for the other measures. substance use. or dual residence with regard to parental involvement. Using paired t tests. in addition to the differences that stemmed from having lived in different households. and between 0% and 12%for the other difference scores).05). and "worst of three" had negative but insignificant correlations with level of parent's education. Level of parent's education was significantly differences in parental monitoring: siblings whose parents had more education reported smaller differences in monitoring. closeness to the nonresidential parent." to indicate the number of interviewing waves at which siblings shared a residential arrangement. and mixed-sex pairs. Although siblings in split residence generally reported the largest differences in processes and adjustment. Are the greater differences among sibling pairs in split residence the result of siblings living in different residences at T4? Or are differences the result of a greater total amount of time that siblings have spent living apartsince their parents' separation? To look at this. In general.01) or opposite-sex pairs (t = 2. Residence explained between 1%and 13%of the variance in sibling difference scores. Table 4 shows the zero-order correlations between amount of shared time and age-adjusted sibling differences in family processes and adolescent adjustment.larger differences in brother pairs reported antisocial behavior than did sister-sister pairs (t = 2.88.14. The correlations confirm that the more time sibling pairs spent in a shared residential arrangement. Siblings in split residence were significantly more different from one another than siblings who lived together in mother. we compared sibling scores within each of the four residential arrangements and found that. father. antisocial behavior. sister-sister. SD = 0.Values for this measure ranged from 0 to 4 (mean = 3. correlated with level of parent's education. The findings on split residence suggest that either (1) different households provide sufficiently different environments to provoke sibling differences in adjustment. Parent's education explained 5% of the variance in differences in parental monitoring and between 0% and 2% of the variance in other sibling difference scores. still differed significantly in their reports of processes and adjustment. dual. or (2) . Although shared time explained fairly small amounts of the variance in difference scores (24% for parental involvement at T3. Sex grouping explained 4% of the variance in school deviance. however. and school effort (see Table 3). differences between siblings were significantly greater than zero (p . and that brother. parental monitoring.05). however.

.. C .-.i Io C)i --.C1 - m i oi . z i-c.-..5 mo Cmm Ooo0mmom om m z w "olH 0. co ~ 4~~~) 0 L ~ co ~ 00-c f co)o ?rr cde r cinc c Io 6 o~~-o 0 C-1 m 1 00 Ci)-C~1 in u ? -~-40OC<O 00 00 040 O~~O mJ bbI ~ 4 w ~O v V **Q."-A "T "-A.4 .oM... Ao 4• . C#) Z>4l A1) r-4 r-4f"..4 .ow vvVo . 44M.-4 "O--•-4coin i q C• z z u u mmmmmm m NMMm mmm ~~~~-C-1 0 -.1...N .-.c --.-4.) C:0.o 0 vv C-1 VcCOcD c•CVc) C-1 V CO C-1C-1 V CO) V C O) M 0 . . 0 O . Ci• qC" --" " -"4 aq I M -" -.5 ...+ NQr. " C00r-i C.. .. ..4 0-4 ~ ~m C.. ...

............ indicating that larger differences in perceptions of environmental influences were associated with larger differences in reported adjustment....... grades..... In other words......0001.. ....18* -....... "Worstof ...12 **** p 5. Of the correlations that were significant at p < ...Monahan et al..." we looked directly at the association beLikewise..... Household organization...... Ninety-eight correlations were performed.06 -..... . TABLE 4 ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONSBETWEEN SHARED TIME AND DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONSOF FAMILY PROCESS AND PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT 161 Correlation with Shared Time Family processes: Involvement of primary residential parent (T3)..00 ..01... ...04 .......... substance use.......somewhat when the sample was limited to ment........" the Pearson correlation coefficients and the grades......... antisocial behavior..... however.. School ....25** -.00 .. siblings who differ most select into..... effort . and (2) the subsample of sibling pairs ences in reported adjustment weakened who had always shared a residential arrange......... while only two were negative..... amount of explained variance for (1) all sibCorrelations between differences in ling pairs......... larger differences in parent-child tween sibling differences in perceptions of conflict were associated with larger differfamily processes and sibling differences in ences in substance use.....001..05 .... ***p .. differences in sibling reports of household organization were positively associated with difTo address the hypothesis that different ferences in depression.03 ....05............. or parents may select for them................00 ..... 33 were positive...........................02 -.......12 .06 ......................... Next we address these possibilities.......17+ -........ or are placed into....... ..07 . self-reported adjustment.... Substance use....... Antisocial behavior .....02 -.00 ....10........... Nonshared Environments and Psychosocial Adjustment adjustment................. different households............... and "worst of three. school effort.. Closeness to nonresidential parent....01 -............... siblings that had never lived apart because we were concerned about confounding the effects of differences in perceptions of family processes in the same household with the effects of living in separate households.35** -..... and that these similarities predict similarities in who are most different from each other on some preexisting dimensions may be more likely to end up living apart after divorce.........49**** ........ Parental monitoring .. Caught..............24 ... sibling differences may be the cause and not the result of differences in environments............. ........ Average parent-child Closeness to residential parent .. + p ........ * p ** p (N) (117) (133) (123) (123) (133) (115) (133) (133) (132) (133) (133) (133) (113) (133) R2 ............. For example..... conflict... deviance...... environments provoke different adjustment...................10..... including those who had lived perceptions of family processes and differapart.......... Alternatively.03 .... Grades .... three"....25** ................. differences As the results in Table 5 show.... and "worst of three....03 ..... The first possibility implies that siblings in the same household have more similar experiences than siblings living in split households......... sibling in peceptions of family pro- cesses were generally positively associated with differences in reported adjustment.....23* -. We included data on the subsample those pairs who had always shared a residen- ... Siblings may select environments based on their differences....... Psychosocial adjustment: Depression .............26** -.....17+ -.... Table 5 presents school effort. School ..02 .

..03 ............09 ..............................01 ..............09 .............27* . dential parent: Depression .32*** School ........ ....02 ................................07 .....................00 .01 .........00 ...01 .00 ..00 ..02 ....19+ School ...00 ......03 "Worstof three" -.12 ..........11 ....... 05 Child's report of closeness to the nonresidential parent: Depression .00 ......00 ............10.03 .....00 .............03 ............19+ ...03 Substance use .....02 .. .17+ "Worstof three" .08 ..................... ** p .....00 .................. ....03 ....... effort...00 ....................... ..........01 ..18+ ........16+ Antisocial behavior .....15 -.......... ... effort..........05 .....17 ................... ..............30*** Child's report of parental .........04 School effort.........06 "Worstof three" 14 . -...04 Substance use .....................05 -.22* Child's report of caught in the middle ....04 ...................................03 ....................00 .06 .......... . -. -................ ............................00 ................................................................ .........12 School deviance ....................30** ......04 ...... ..........00 ...13 -..18 -..06 -.....33* Primaryresidential parent's report of parental involvement: Depression ..................................04 ..........03 .............. ..................06 ......02 ..............10 ......07 -..25** Grades 05 ...10 ....0001..01 ..05 ....... ... monitoring: D epression . -.00 ...........20* .. 15+ Antisocial behavior................02 .05 .... ..............07 . Antisocial behavior .04 Substance use ..........001....12 Grades ..33** ..............00 .................... .....00 ..02 ....13 ..00 .... effort................03 ...05 .00 .........03 .........01 ........18+ "Worstof three"..........02 .. Child'sreportof household .....05 .. ...28** "Worstof three" ......22* -.....02 School deviance .......... effort .18+ -...........15 .............. .......00 ...13 Substance use ..00 ......16+ School .....................00 ....16+ School deviance ..............................02 ....20* Grades ......00 ......02 ..................01 ........05 .............00 ...21* School deviance .. *** p ..... ..............01.....00 .....02 .00 ..........04 .....06 ............... -.23* Antisocial behavior.....06 Antisocial behavior...................07 ..06 ..05 School deviance .................. Substance use . School effort........04 .02 .....11 ...........26* .......07 .03 ....15 .00 ......00 .... ...................07 ......................01 .........00 .....................00 .....02 -.................17+ .....00 .......00 . .... ..04 ....03 ........... .......12 ..12 ....................01 .....02 . ...................00 ..08 Grades 19* ....17+ Child's report of closeness to the resi..12 .03 .....00 ......08 ........00 .............................05....00 ....03 ...00 ......03 .................25** Grades ...02 .. .................02 .....................01 "Worstof three" ...00 ....04 ......06 ..16+ Antisocial behavior ...00 ................... between parents: Depression .....TABLE 5 CORRELATIONSBETWEEN DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONSOF FAMILY PROCESSESAND DIFFERENCES IN REPORTS OF PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT PAIRS WHOHAVE ALL SIBLING PAIRS ALWAYS LIVED TOGETHER (N = 94-133) FAMILY PROCESS (N = 72-99) r R .... ...........07 -...........00 ..02 ........03 R2 ..00 ... ... **** p .......01 ......................04 ....06 ... *p +p ...04 ..00 ... ......01 ...................00 .31*** "Worstof three" ..........13 Substance use ...05 School deviance . -.......... School effort.......04 School ...09 ......25** Grades ............. ............00 ....20* -...............03 Substance use .......04 ..... .....10 .. organization: D epression ............. ....14+ Antisocial behavior.......05 School deviance ...........................24* ...........13 Grades... Child's report of parent-child conflict: D epression ..........................00 ...01 ...

... Siblings who differ in temperament may end up living apart.... Nonetheless. Overall.. differences in other family processes also proved important. in the whole sample.. For example..01..s..00 .00 ..001. and closeness to parents and lower scores in average parent-child conflict and feelings of being caught between parents had better adjustment than their worsescoring siblings (data not shown)..... Age of older sibling . Nonetheless....04 .... tial arrangement....22** .... In order to make sure that the dif- 163 ference scores were related in a meaningful way.03 (N) (98) (133) (133) (133) (133) (72) (86) Correlation with Shared Time -. Several preexisting factors may account for differences in residence... antisocial behavior.... however..11 -. school effort... differences in average parent-child conflict were significantly associated with substance use. the effects continued to operate in the same directionlarger differences in perceptions of family processes were associated with larger differences in adjustment... ** p . it might be the sibling who reports the most conflict who is better adjusted on outcome measures..17* .... we examined the mean levels of the adjustment variables for the sibling in each pair who was higher on a process variable and the sibling who was lower... the age of the older child and the age difference between siblings may be associated with differences in residence.... Age difference ... Age of younger sibling ... Table 6 summarizes the associations between the preexisting factors and shared Predictors of Nonshared Environments TABLE 6 PREDICTORS OF SHARED TIME AND SPLIT RESIDENCE AT T4 Zero-Order Predictor Child irritability (T1) . Mixed sex Father hostility .Monahan et al.. + p... and "worst of three". in press). Sex difference may be an important factor predicting split residence.. Parents' hostility toward each other may also be associated with differences in residence: higher levels of parental hostility may divide the loyalties of siblings and result in split-residence decisions. The decrease in the magnitude and significance of the correlations reflected not only a decrease in the sample size but also the fact that the whole sample had a larger range of differences in perceptions of environmental influences than did the subsample... mixed-sex pairs may be more likely to live apart than same-sex pairs.. Siblings who are different from one another in adjustment or personality variables related to adjustment may be more likely to live apart... *p ......21+ .. grades. **** p .......... the two differences might not "match" in a meaningful way..05 ....28** -. differences in the perceptions of each family process were related to differences in reports of at least one adjustment measure. household organization. Even though sibling differences in processes were correlated with differences in adjustment. differences in household organization and differences in parent-child conflict seemed to be the most powerful predictors of differences in sibling adjustment. when siblings differ on how much conflict with a parent they report. (T1)... only associations with differences in grades and differences in school effort remained significantly associated with differences in conflict.. parental monitoring. for example.. siblings with higher scores in parental involvement.. *** p . Mother hostility (T1) . We found that sibling differences in environmental influences were meaningfully related to the differences in adjustment.05.23* .01 -.......0001. in the subsample of siblings who had always shared a residential arrangement..02 -... Zero-Order (N) (98) (133) (133) (133) (133) (72) (86) Correlation with Split Residence ....10..20+ -. Conceivably. Because older children are more likely to make their own residence decisions and to shift residences to avoid conflict with a parent (Maccoby & Mnookin........

age of the younger child. 1990. Although we suspected that preexisting factors might also predict differences in Discussion The sample of siblings from divorced families offered an opportunity to examine the shared and nonshared environments of adolescents. More time in a shared residence was related to smaller differences in most of the family process and psychosocial adjustment measures.06 to .. the greater the age difference. 1981. while the correlations of their reports of adjustment were lower.20. Although we had very little longitudinal information on the psychological adjustment of the children in our study. and to have shared less time with a sibling. Higher initial father hostility toward mother was. we found that a shared environment was a major source of similarities among siblings: siblings who lived apart after their parents' divorce were more different than pairs who lived together. the less shared residence and the more likely siblings were to be split at T4. 1982).. 1981.18 to .time siblings spent in a sibling was. Contrary to the conclusions of some past researchers (e. mother's hostility. ranging from . antisocial behavior from . the effects of shared time increased while the effects of father hostility disappeared. we found no evidence supporting the claim that background factors or early differences in child temperament predicted differences in family processes. as has been claimed (Daniels et al. Because split residence at T4 was a dichotomous variable. the level of hostility was indirectly related.22. and school effort than did those living together. and "worst of three. the less time siblings spent in the same residence and the more likely the pair was to be split at T4. 1982).01 to . the fact that older children were more likely to be in splitresidence arrangements. Paired comparisons of sibling reports confirmed that siblings who lived together differed in their perceptions of their home and reported different adjustment. Thus.29. through shared time. 1983. with similarly consistent results. 1985. The results are reported as Pearson correlation coefficients.. not a direct cause of the greater differences in adjustment among split-residence siblings. Dunn. cannot explain the greater differences that were found in sibling pairs after age effects were controlled. Rowe & Plomin. time and split residence at T4. R2 of substance use from . school deviance. Scarr & Grajek. Not surprisingly.30. Siblings who were living apart when we interviewed them reported larger differences in household organization. Similarly. Plomin & Daniels. 1987. sibling correlations for family processes were somewhat higher than those for individual adjustment. we conclude that nonshared environments within the same home do exist. we did have parents' reports of child irritability at T1. Shared time and split residence at T4 were related to age difference and age of the older sibling (p . therefore. there were also significant differences between siblings who shared a residence arrangement. grades. although not significantly so in the cases of feeling caught between parents.07). Daniels et al. Daniels et al. Scarr & Grajek. Instead. Given that we removed the effects of age from our difference scores. The R2 for sibling differences in some of the adjustment measures increased substantially when level of father's hostility was added to the shared-time model (e. The relatively . We found that neither split residence at T4 nor shared time was predicted by differences in child irritability at T1. substance use. we also performed logistic regressions predicting split residence at T4 with child irritability. (1985) found that intraclass sibling correlations of child reports of family processes ranged from . and father's hostility. Dunn. When we predicted differences in sibling adjustment with a multiple regression model including shared time and father's hostility. however. A higher initial level of father hostility toward mother was weakly associated with less time in a shared residence and a greater likelihood of a sibling pair being split at T4.12 to .. and their relation to sibling differences in adjustment. The older the elder . 1983.g. to differences in adjustment. We performed a contingency table analysis of split residence at T4 by sex grouping. parents of "split" siblings reported larger differences in the level of parental involvement with the two siblings than other parents. age difference. closeness to the nonresidential parent. 1985. and "worst of three" from . 1987. the results of these analyses were consistent with the Pearson correlations. age of the older child.01). but that these environments are not as different as environments across households. Plomin & Daniels. parent-child conflict.12 to . Rowe & Plomin.164 Child Development home environment." Although sibling pairs who lived apart were more different than pairs who lived together. Dunn & Plomin.g. Likewise.

1985. Hetherington. Plomin & Foch. to a large extent. perhaps making it easier for a child to concentrate on academic work by removing the distractions of irregular schedules. school deviance. how- 165 ever. 1980. Household organization may be a proxy for the extent to which the adolescent's expectations of the home are being met. betweenhousehold environmental influences (e. measured as a familylevel variable. It would not be surprising to find that siblings who differ in their satisfaction with the household also differ in their adjustment. Previous research has shown that household organization.Monahan et al. & Perry-Jenkins. Differences between siblings in parentchild conflict were also associated with differences in several measures of adjustment. In general. Because all of the adjustment and family process measures (except parental involvement at T3) were reported in the T4 interview wave. grades.. For example.g. 1979. Hess & Camara. Perhaps reports of household organization vary depending on a sibling's awareness of or involvement in routines. Differences in perceptions of family prohousehold organization cesses-especially and parent-child conflict-were related to differences in all of the adjustment measures and were the strongest predictors of differences in depression. Even if routines are objectively the same for each sibling. we suggested that both within-household.. 1986. differences in perceptions of the environment and psychosocial adjustment were not related to sex composition of sibling pairs nor to level of parent's education. the results of the present study of sibling differences indicate that adolescent perceptions of the coherence of the general home environment may be equally important. adolescents who are involved in a great deal of overt conflict with their parents may react by acting out behaviorally in other contexts. Conversely. MacDermid. household organization seemed to capture aspects of the household that should be most consistent across children. 1978). shared time) may result in . as reported by adolescents. a child who is highly engaged in the home and a child who is involved in a lot of activities outside the home may have different levels of awareness of any household routines that do exist. 1982). Daniels et al. Similarly. nonshared environments (e. high sibling correlations for parents' reports of parental involvement and child irritability were consistent with Daniels et al. McHale. Our results indicate. is associated with positive adjustment.. and "worst of three. child-driven. 1976. Based on theoretical considerations and previous research. differences in perceptions of family processes) and same-family. 1990." Shared time was the strongest predictor of differences in substance use. confirming previous findings that demographic factors explain extremely small amounts of the variance in difference scores (Daniels et al. Scarr & Grajek. Cox.'s finding that parents tended to report more similar sibling experiences than did the siblings themselves. A structured home seems to facilitate positive academic adjustment. Although previous research has found that parent-child relationships mediate adjustment in both divorced and intact families (see Astone & McLanahan. Our results indicate that household organization. we could not determine the causal order of the relations between differences in family processes and differences in sibling adjustment. Hetherington et al. Of the family process measures. 1991. adolescents engaged in deviant behavior and who are performing poorly in school may experience more conflict with their parents over their behavior. that perceptions of household organization are. adolescents who have different expectations or hopes for their home life may perceive a given set of routines in different ways. Crouter. The relation between parent-child conflict and all of the adjustment measures except for depression and school deviance indicates an association among externalizing problems. & Cox.g. split residence. established routines seem to foster positive affective adjustment. 1978).'s (1985) findings regarding the association between differences in family processes and differences in adjustment were also confirmed: we found that pairs who reported more different perceptions of family environments also reported more different adjustment. antisocial behavior. school effort. Why were differences in household organization especially strong in predicting differences in adjustment? We found it somewhat puzzling that siblings differed as much as they did in their reports of household organization in the same home. particularly in divorced families (see Guidibaldi et al.. is important: differences in perceptions of household organization are associated with differences in adjustment. Thus..

Our findings indicated that early differences in child irritability were not associated with the occurrence of split residence at T4 or the amount of shared time over the 41/2 years following parental separation. adolescent reports of parental monitoring were correlated with a T3 item asking parents about how difficult it was to keep track of their child (r = -. 1985). that differences justment-not.. Although our tests were limited. the relation that this methodology would demonstrate. however. the effects of nonshared time increased. Daniels & Plomin.. the findings on the relation between differences in processes and differences in adjustment may have a common response bias. when the level of initial father hostility was controlled. correlations between T4 adolescent measures and earlier parental reports of treatment and adolescent adjustment were statistically significant and in the direction expected. However. Therefore. Similarly. Although initial level of father hostility was associated with siblings spending more time apart. Were these relations an artifact of initial selection? Do siblings who are initially most different spend less time in the same household? We examined the alternative hypothesis that differences in adjustment or personality lead to split residence.166 Child Development parent's T3 report of parent-child closeness correlated . Nonetheless. In those cases where we have some earlier parental indicator of an adolescent-reported construct. the relation between shared time and sibling similarities cannot be attributed to samesource bias. between two children's perceptions of a particular environmental factor are related to differences in adjustment. is that children's perceptions of differential parental treatment are related to differences in adas we found.22). the relations reported based on a single source are likely to be somewhat inflated.44) and school effort (r = . amount of shared time. Our information on the amount of residential time siblings had spent together was largely based on prior parental reports obtained at several successive time points following the parents' separation. while independent observers would provide objective information about adolescent experiences. an adolescent may be asked to directly compare his or her experiences with those of a sibling (e. father hostility did not explain sibling differences in adjustment. The fact that we also found relations between differences in family processes and differences in adjustment when process is reported by parents (e. enabling researchers to address the question of which is more important in differentiating siblings measured differences in the -objectively environment. Other approaches to the study of sibling differences are to be encouraged. differences in adjustment. Data gathered by multiple or independent observers would help to remedy this problem.30) as well as with a composite of monitoring items asked of the residential parent at T3 (r = -. Multiple observers (e.. Siblings who report that they are treated more differently by their parents may also differ more in adjustment. The residential parent's T3 report of the adolescent's school progress was correlated with the adolescent's T4 reports of grades (r = . both parents' and children's perspectives) would increase confidence in the validity of the measures.g. but it should be recognized that they may address slightly different questions. In fact.g.32 with the adolescent's report of closeness at T4. The residential . we did not find much support for the claim that early sibling differences lead to residence differences or differences in experiences within the same home.33). For example. parental involvement) and adjustment is reported by adolescents gives us further confidence in our results. We also found that background factors and early child differences did not predict differences in family processes. and greater differences in family processes were all associated with greater differences in adjustment. This research addressed the question of whether differences in sibling and parent reports of environmental factors predict differences in sibling reports of adjustment.g. and from those reports we constructed scores to represent the differences between siblings. or differences as perceived by the actors. Our results support the importance of both in that split residence. Given this situation. because the data on family processes and adjustment were largely gathered from a single source-adolescents-at a single time period. We found that siblings who spent more time apart after divorce differed more in their experiences of family processes and in their reports of adjustment. what information do we have concerning the validity of the adolescentreported measures? The little information we do have indicates that the measures are reasonably valid. We asked adolescents to report their experiences of family processes and their perceptions of their adjustment.

. Maccoby. Plomin. New York:Basic. C.Parental monitoring strategies in an ethnically mixed sample. S. Leiderman. E. Hetherington. Chen. A mediational model of the impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of disrupted parenting. Z. (1987). P. (in press). Coping with family transitions: A family systems perspective. (1992). R.. & Mnookin. (1985). L. Family Relations. Jr. R. S. & Foch. & Plomin. M. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.. Family structure. E. Perry. M. S. R. M. Maccoby. 35. McHale. (1978). J. DC: NAYEC. Dunn. E. Hetherington. In J. D.. 111-130)..Monahan et al. Child Development. The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. R.. J. Thomas. (1991). Stressful events and their correlates among adolescents of diverse backgrounds. M. Furstenberg. 227). Washington. Cox. R. M. (1991). Environmental differences within the family and adjustment differences within pairs of adolescent siblings.and singleearner families. Mother-child.M... Cambridge. D. Atlanta. American Sociological Review. T. Journal of Marriage and the Family. R. H. G. 10. R.. 309-320. & Kraemer. Buss.. M. & Fraleigh. J. & Dornbusch. Parentalmonitoring and perceptions of children's school performance and conduct in dual. E. 79-98. E. A. M. & Plomin. Ritter. Dunn. & Tschann. (1987). (1983). Fauber. F. M. R. & Plomin.. Stevens. Lamborn.. M. M. P. & McLanahan. (1980).). & Dornbusch. Dornbusch. G. Child Development. M. NY: Aldine de Gruyter. & Plomin.Journal of Adolescent Research.. Hetherington. Differential experience of siblings in the same family. 54. Coparenting in the second year after divorce. C. E. Adolescent stress: Causes and consequences (pp.. 787-811. Kline. S. S.. R... R. M. Temperament: Early developing personality traits.. Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry... E. Forehand.. Developmental Psychology. Nastasi.. Mont-Reynaud. Gore (Eds.. Daniels. Journal of Social Issues. Dornbusch.. Cleminshaw. 57(2-3. (1990). (1984). J. 1112-1123.. & Camara. M.. Child Development. S. K. F. Mont-Reynaud. R. & Mnookin. & Dornbusch. Matthews (Eds. Natriello. Guidibaldi.. 143-160. Serial No. (1989).. F. C. Maccoby.. (1984). Depner. 61. D. P. (1990. while siblings differed from one another in all family situations. should encourage researchers to reconsider the importance of shared environment and to focus on the effects of both shared and nonshared environments. L. Family Coordinator. S. E. L. Z. 59. Hess. Separate lives: Why siblings are so different. (1985). R. Child Development. 25. Post-divorce family relationships as mediating factors in the consequences of divorce for children. & Perry-Jenkins. S.). (1991).. Daniels.. B. R. S. 2. The aftermathof divorce. 58. Buchanan.. Ritter. Hawthorne.A. 21. & Chen. Developmental Psychology. L.fatherchild relations.. 141-155... 5... E. A.. D. 1244-1257. 261-291... Ritter. M. M. J. E. (1990). Ongoing post-divorce conflict in families contesting custody: Effects on children of joint custody and frequent access.. & Cox. (1990). it was not the case that siblings in different homes were as similar as siblings in the same home. 56.. 649-657. Maccoby. (1990). Teacher evaluative standards and student effort.S. M.. S. W. 62. Divorced fathers. Dornbusch. J. 576-592. Sibling relationships in early childhood. 167 References Astone. Johnston. E. R. The role of selected family environment factorsin children's post-divorce adjustment. & Wierson. (1976). C.J. A. J. Roberts. 764-774. 1-60. (1992). H. MA: Harvard University Press. A twin study of objectively assessed personality in childhood. R. 417-428. The finding that siblings who lived apart after divorce were more different than siblings who lived together. E.. H. Cox. (1986). and high school completion. & Steinberg.J. D.K. MacDermid... In M. Family decisionmaking and academic performance in a di- verse high school population. Journal of Research on Adolescents. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence. M.. Adolescents and their families after divorce: Three residential arrangements compared. & Lightel. H. 26. P. M. E. Buchanan. M. 1008-1029. Crouter.. & Clingempeel. 52. R. (1979). & Daniels. 56. & M. E. N. . Dividing the child: The social and legal dilemmas of custody. 35. 141-151.. T. Hillsdale. New York: Longmans. & Cox. M. Dornbusch. K. In sum. Child Development. M.parental practices. Colten & S. March). D. M. Plomin. H. NJ: Erlbaum. (1990). Dunn. H. 747-760. S. even though they came from the same nuclear family. Caught between parents: Adolescents' experience in divorced homes.

Rovine. Hillsdale.S. E. E. (1988). Separate social worlds of siblings: Impact of nonshared environment on development. 39. 589-595. 357-381).. In M. E. Child Development. . M. Lamb & B.). Similarities and differences among siblings. & Grajek. 416-423. 680-688. R.. D.S. C. Rowe. & Maccoby. Reciprocal relation between parent-child distance and pubertal maturation. 24. Hetherington. Jacklin.). (1983). 517-531. D. Rowe. Snow. D. (1981). M.. Steinberg. Birth order differences in peer sociability at 33 months. NJ: Erlbaum. 122128. NJ: Erlbaum. N. & R.168 Child Development Scarr. Reiss. M. Child Development. C. E. 54. (1982).. Developmental Psychology. Sibling relationships: Their nature and significance across the lifespan (pp. Sutton-Smith(Eds. The importance of nonshared environmental influences in (El) behavioral development. (in press). Developmental Psychology. L. Hillsdale. Plomin (Eds. 52. In E. & Plomin. A biometrical analysis of perceptions of family environment: A study of twin and singleton sibling kinships. 17. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (1981). Estimating nonshared environment using sibling discrepancy scores. C.