Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
The current study focused on jealousy between toddler and preschool siblings. Sixty-
two families participated in triadic interaction sessions, in which mothers and then
fathers were instructed to focus on one child (older sibling or toddler) while encour-
aging the other child to play with other toys in the room. Results indicated that child
jealousy reactions differed between mothers and fathers, and parents behaved differ-
ently with older and younger siblings. Although older and younger siblings showed
jealousy, older children were better than their toddler-age siblings at regulating jeal-
ousy responses and engaging in focused play. Further, younger siblings showed dif-
ferences in jealous behavior when interacting with each parent, whereas older siblings
showed somewhat greater behavioral consistency across parents, indicating internal-
ization of emotion regulation style. Mothers expressed more happiness than fathers,
and parents responded differently to older versus younger siblings behaviors. Find-
ings underscore the importance of examining emotion regulation processes within
salient family relationships and of considering sibling interaction as a socialization
context in which young children learn to negotiate emotional challenges.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
434 Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
Previous research primarily examining mother-infant dyads has evaluated how dif-
ferent types of maternal unresponsiveness (e.g., ignoring requests, holding a still face
while facing the child, responding only in a limited way) may affect childrens emo-
tional responses (Braungart-Rieker, Garwood, Powers, & Notaro, 1998; Bridges et al.,
1997; Diener et al., 1998; Grolnick, Bridges, & Connell, 1996). Such studies have
determined that infants experience more negative emotion when parents are instructed
to remain passive or unresponsive during challenging situations than when parents are
encouraged to interact with the child. Further, infants become more distressed when
mothers break the regulatory process by holding their faces completely still than when
the infants are separated from their mothers (Field et al., 1986), or when their mothers
are interrupted by an experimenter (Murray & Trevarthen, 1985), indicating that mater-
nal unresponsiveness, rather than absence, is particularly challenging (Field, 1994).
Although these studies on early mother-infant interaction underscore the importance
of co-regulation in the development of early infant emotion, social relationships con-
tinue to play a regulating role as children mature. Relationships with mothers and
fathers, for example, may each contribute differently to the development of a childs
regulation style (Braungart-Rieker et al., 1998; Lamb, 1997). Indeed, the work of Dunn
and her colleagues (Dunn, 1991; Dunn & Brown, 1991; Dunn & Munn, 1985) has
demonstrated how early family relationships, especially the emotionally intense rela-
tionship between young siblings, provide a window onto a childs ability to manage
emotionally meaningful social interactions and the affective expressions that may arise
in such situations. For young children, such early social relationships are particularly
salient, and the emotion regulation skills acquired in these interactional contexts may
lay the groundwork for how a child responds in future relationships. In the present
investigation, we chose to focus on sibling jealousy reactions in response to parental
inattentiveness as a means of demonstrating childrens ability to regulate powerful
emotions in a social-relational context.
Developmental Differences
The second goal of this study was to examine developmental differences in older and
younger siblings jealousy reactions and their abilities to regulate their emotional and
behavioral displays of jealousy during triadic interaction sessions with a parent and a
sibling. Strategies for regulating emotion become more complex and internalized
throughout development. By the time they are in preschool, children typically have
more well-developed emotion regulation strategies at their disposal than do infants
and toddlers (Sroufe, 1996), and parents may expect more mature self-regulation of
emotion and behavior on the part of older siblings who are preschool age or older
(Kopp, 1989; Thompson, 1994). Younger toddler-age siblings may not be expected to
self-regulate as effectively, although they may be learning how to negotiate emotion-
ally charged situations (e.g., conflicts) by watching their older siblings (Dunn &
Munn, 1985).
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
436 Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
Although researchers have evoked jealousy reactions in children as early as one year
of age (S. Hart et al., 1998a, 1998b), some have also found evidence suggesting that
older children may become more distressed and jealous than infants and young tod-
dlers when competing for adult attention (Masciuch & Kienapple, 1993). As children
get older, they may begin to pay more attention to subtle yet salient contextual fea-
tures that evoke jealous feelings (Masciuch & Kienapple, 1993). Indeed, studies have
shown that older siblings feel more resentment and experience more feelings of jeal-
ousy toward younger siblings than younger siblings do toward older siblings (Dunn &
Kendrick, 1982; Robey et al., 1988). As noted above, however, if older children have
more effective strategies to maintain their behavioral and emotional organization, then
older siblings should be better at regulating such jealousy reactions than their younger
siblings.
Method
Participants
Study participants included mothers, fathers, and sibling pairs from 62 maritally-intact
families who were participating in a short-term longitudinal study of parent-child and
sibling relationships in infancy and early childhood. Families were initially recruited
from birth announcements and referrals from participating families, and were required
to meet three criteria in order to be eligible for the study. These included: 1) intact
marital status, 2) participation from both mothers and fathers, and 3) at least two chil-
dren in the family, with the youngest child nearing 12 months of age and the older
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
438 Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
sibling between the ages of 2 and 6 years. Complete data were available for 60 fam-
ilies, as one family was dropped from the study due to marital separation, and one
family chose to leave the study before the sibling assessment occurred. Data for one
mother-toddler session were lost due to equipment failure.
Participating families were primarily European-American (n = 56), with one Native-
American couple and three interracial couples. Parents had been married for an
average of 7 years (range: 316 years) at the time of data collection. On average,
fathers were 35.6 years old, had completed 17.4 years of education, and had a mean
income of $53,759. Mothers were, on average, 33.2 years old, had completed 16.5
years of education, and had a mean income of $19,850. In the current investigation,
the age of the younger sibling (toddler) in all families was 16 months, the mean age
of the older sibling was 50 months (range: 27 years), and the average age difference
between siblings was 35 months (range: 1168 months). Most of the toddlers in the
study were second born (n = 44), and the remaining 16 toddlers were third through
fifth born. For families with more than two children, the older sibling closest in age
to the 16-month-old was asked to participate. The sample included 20 girl/girl dyads
(younger/older), 14 boy/boy dyads, 10 girl/boy dyads, and 16 boy/girl dyads.
Procedure
Families were invited to participate in laboratory visits when the younger siblings were
12-, 13-, and 16-months of age. The current study focused on family observations that
were made during the 16-month visit. The 16-month visit consisted of a 15-minute
(warm up) free play session with the entire family, a 10-minute sibling free play session
while the parents filled out questionnaires in the same room, a 9-minute triadic inter-
action paradigm with each parent (see below), a 5-minute sibling separation with
parents out of the room, a 3-minute reunion with the entire family, and a 5-minute
cleanup task. Only data from the triadic interaction sessions were used for the current
investigation.
At the 16-month visit, parents and children were videotaped in a triadic interaction
paradigm similar to one developed by D. Teti and Ablard (1989): once with the mother
and the two siblings and once with the father and the two siblings. Parents were given
an attractive toy (a Lego playset or a talking phone) to use during the interaction ses-
sions (order of the mother and father sessions were counterbalanced). Family triads
were videotaped in three 3-minute sessions. In the first, 3-minute session, the parent
was instructed to focus on one child (either the older sibling or the toddler, determined
by counterbalancing) while encouraging the other child to play with the other toys in
the room. For the second, 3-minute session, parents switched their involvement and
played with the other child, while the first child was instructed to play with the other
toys in the room. After this 3-minute session, the parent was instructed to play with
both children in any way he or she chose. The purpose of the last segment was to
provide a transitional period between mother and father sessions with the intent of
alleviating any lingering negative affect on the part of the children. This third session
was not coded because jealousy reactions were the behaviors of interest for the current
investigation and it was not clear which child was the focus of the parents attention
(i.e., parents were told to play with both children).
This triadic paradigm is seen as a jealousy-inducing situation for very young chil-
dren because it requires that older and younger siblings regulate their emotional dis-
plays in response to their parents inattention. We use the term involved child to refer
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Sibling Jealousy 439
to the child parents interacted with directly, and the term challenged child to refer
to the child who was asked to engage in alternate play activities. Thus, the toddler was
challenged during the sessions where the parent was involved with the older sibling,
and the older sibling was challenged during parent-toddler sessions. Although these
observation sessions were brief, others have found that childrens distress and protest
behaviors coded during such sessions were related to insecure attachment status (D.
Teti & Ablard, 1989; L. Teti & Kouloumbre, 1995). Developmental differences in
young childrens expression of joy and distress, as well as toy play, have also been
found using this paradigm (L. Teti, in press), suggesting that behaviors observed in
this interactional context may be useful in order to examine different aspects of chil-
drens socioemotional development. Further, interaction sessions of similar duration
have frequently been used in other studies of child jealousy (S. Hart et al., 1998a,
1998b; Masciuch & Kienapple, 1993). Finally, in order to validate this paradigm for
use in the current study, we assessed how well the Challenge sessions evoked jealousy
reactions by comparing childrens responses to being the focus of the parents atten-
tion (i.e., Involved session) versus their sibling being the focus of parental attention
(i.e., Challenge session). Child and parent behavior observed during the Challenge
sessions were of primary interest with regard to our other goals in this investigation.
Results
Data Analytic Strategy
The validity of our jealousy-inducing paradigm (i.e., the effect of context on child
emotional displays) was examined by conducting 2 (emotion: sadness vs. happiness)
2 (context: Challenge vs. Involved) 2 (parent: mother vs. father) repeated mea-
sures ANCOVAs for older and younger siblings, with emotion, context, and parent as
the repeated factors and child emotional displays as the dependent variables (control-
ling for order). Mean-level developmental differences between older sibling and
toddler emotional displays and behaviors during the Challenge session were next
assessed by conducting 2 (parent) 2 (sibling: older sibling vs. toddler) repeated mea-
sures ANCOVAs, with parent and sibling as the repeated factors and child jealousy
reactions (emotional displays and behaviors) as the dependent variables. In order to
determine whether mean levels of mothers and fathers displays of happiness differed
based on whether the toddler or the older sibling was the challenged child, a 2 (parent)
2 (sibling) repeated measures ANOVA, with parent and sibling as the repeated
factors and mothers and fathers displays of happiness as the dependent variables, was
conducted. Next, in order to determine whether mean levels of parenting behaviors
differed based on whether the toddler or the older sibling was the challenged child, a
2 (parent) 2 (sibling) 3 (behavior: facilitative vs. controlling vs. unresponsive)
repeated measures ANCOVA was conducted, with parent, sibling, and behavior as the
repeated measures and parenting behaviors as the dependent variables. Correlational
analyses were then used to investigate individual differences in parents and childrens
emotional displays and behaviors during the Challenge session. Specifically, correla-
tions were used to determine whether mothers and fathers treated older and younger
siblings differently, whether parents in the same family treated children differently,
and whether older and younger siblings in the same family behaved differently with
mothers and fathers.
Preliminary Analyses
Preliminary analyses examining relations between family constellation variables (age
spacing between siblings, birth order, gender, older sibling age) and the variables of
interest were conducted. Correlations revealed no significant relationships between
sibling age spacing, birth order, gender, or older sibling age and any parent or child
behaviors or emotional displays. Thus, these variables were not considered further.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
442 Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
One-way ANOVAs were used to test for effects involving the order of counterbal-
ancing in the Challenge session (i.e., which sibling was challenged first, by which
parent). These analyses revealed order effects for the following: older sibling play
involvement with mothers, F (3, 56) = 2.94, p < .05; toddler play involvement with
mothers, F (3, 55) = 8.12, p < .001, and fathers, F (3, 56) = 2.88, p < .05; toddler dis-
tracting behavior with mothers, F (3, 55) = 5.40, p < .01, and fathers, F (3, 56) = 5.07,
p < .01; toddler distress with fathers, F (3, 56) = 3.34, p < .05; and fathers control-
ling behavior toward older siblings, F (3, 56) = 4.36, p < .01. Older siblings showed
more focused play with their mothers when the Challenge session occurred first (M =
2.13) than when it occurred second (M = 1.63). Toddlers showed more focused play
with mothers when the Challenge session occurred second (M = 1.37) than when it
occurred first (M = 1.91) and showed more focused play when they were the second
sibling to be challenged with fathers (M = 1.88) than when they were the first (M =
1.44). Toddlers showed more instances of distracting behavior (mother M = .53, father
M = .47) when they were the first sibling to be challenged than when they were the
second sibling to be challenged (mother M = .24, father M = .23). Toddlers who were
challenged first cried more (M = 2.50) than those who were challenged second (M =
.67). Fathers showed more controlling behavior in response to older siblings when
older siblings were challenged second (M = .14) than when they were challenged first
(M = .01). All subsequent analyses involving these variables (i.e., older sibling and
toddler play involvement, toddler distracting behavior, toddler distress, paternal con-
trolling behavior) thus included order as a covariate. Table 1 displays means and stan-
dard deviations for the variables of interest.
Mother Father
Proportion Score
Facilitative .40 (.17) .37 (.17)
Controlling .07 (.09) .07 (.10)
Unresponsive .08 (.09) .09 (.09)
Global Rating
Happiness 2.46 (.99) 1.86 (.79)
Proportion Score
Distract .54 (.21) .35 (.16)
Play Involvement 1.87 (.38) 1.64 (.33)
Global Rating
Happiness 2.21 (.81) 1.48 (.79)
Sadness/Distressa .97 (.63) 1.42 (1.08)
Results also revealed an emotion context interaction for toddlers emotional dis-
plays, F (1, 58) = 9.11, p < .01 (see Figure 1). Follow-up paired t tests revealed that
toddlers showed more distress in the Challenge context (M = 1.67) than in the Involved
context (M = 1.17). Toddlers also showed more happiness (M = 1.58) than sadness (M
= 1.15) in the Involved context. We thus assumed that the triadic paradigm reliably
created a challenging, jealousy-inducing situation both for toddlers and their older
siblings.
Mothers Fathers
To Older To To Older To
Sibling Toddler t (58) Sibling Toddler t (59)
Parenting Behavior
Facilitative .76 .69 1.35 .73 .60 -2.67**
Controlling .08 .09 -.34 .07 .14 2.56*
Unresponsivea .12 .13 -.28 .19 .10 3.03**
Table 3). Analyses revealed a 3 way parent sibling behavior interaction. Follow-
up paired t tests revealed that fathers were more controlling with toddlers than with
older siblings, more facilitative with older siblings than with toddlers, and more un-
responsive to older siblings than to toddlers ( ps < .05). There were no differences in
mothers parenting behaviors as a function of which sibling was challenged.
Pearson r Between
Mother-Father Sessions
Discussion
The main goal of this investigation was to examine young childrens abilities to
regulate jealousy reactions during triadic interactions with their mothers, fathers,
and siblings. Given the different developmental levels of the two children, we were
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
448
Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
Table 6. Correlations between Parent and Child Behaviors and Emotions in Challenge Context
Older Sibling
1. Happiness .23+ -.14 -.03 .06 .12 -.19 .08 -.11
2. Distress -.16 .36** .13 -.37** -.01 .26* -.05 -.06
3. Distract -.02 .27* .26* -.19 -.03 .16 .15 -.21
4. Play -.13 -.32* .04 .12 .12 -.33* -.09 .05
Involvement
Toddler
1. Happiness -.11 -.11 .19 .04 .17 .17 -.27* .02
2. Distress .05 .42*** -.09 -.09 .04 .16 .33* .02
3. Distract .03 .03 .10 .10 .23+ .33* .19 -.07
4. Play -.08 -.23+ -.17 -.17 -.29* -.17 -.11 -.06
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Involvement
+
p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Note: a Parent happiness not directed toward a specific child.
Sibling Jealousy 449
interested in mean-level differences in older and younger siblings jealousy reactions,
as well as whether parents directed different behaviors to older and younger siblings
commensurate with the childrens age and in line with greater expectations for more
mature self-regulation of emotion and behavior for older siblings. We also examined
whether mothers and fathers treated children similarly or whether they responded
differently to childrens jealousy, and whether children reacted differently to the
challenge of observing maternal versus paternal attention to a sibling. Finally, we
investigated associations between parent and child behavior and emotional displays
when interacting with different family members in the Challenge context.
Conclusion
In sum, the current findings underscore the importance of examining emotional dis-
plays and behavioral regulation processes within social relationship contexts. The
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
454 Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
sibling relationship, particularly with respect to rivalry and jealousy reactions, is one
of the earliest contexts in which children learn to attend to the emotional reactions of
others and themselves (Dunn, 1994; Dunn & Brown, 1991; Dunn & Munn, 1985).
Interactions with siblings can evoke strong emotional reactions from young children,
and the ways in which mothers and fathers respond to such reactions may influence
the development of childrens emotion regulation styles in future relationships outside
the family (Denham, Mitchell-Copeland, Strandberg, Auerbach, & Blair, 1997; C.
Hart, DeWolf, Wozniak, & Burts, 1992; Kennedy, 1992). As initial emotion regula-
tion abilities develop primarily in the context of family relationships, future work
needs to consider how young children manage their emotions in each of these socially
meaningful relationships (mothers, fathers, and siblings) if we truly wish to under-
stand the processes that underlie the development of young childrens emotion
regulation.
References
Bakeman, R. & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential
analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Belsky, J., Youngblade, L. M., Rovine, M., & Volling, B. L. (1991). Patterns of marital change
and parent-child interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 461474.
Boyum, L. A. & Parke, R. D. (1995). The role of family expressiveness in the development of
childrens social competence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 593608.
Braungart-Rieker, J. M., Garwood, M. M., Powers, B. P., & Notaro, P. C. (1998). Infant affect
and affect regulation during the still-face paradigm with mothers and fathers: The role of
infant characteristics and parental sensitivity. Developmental Psychology, 34, 14281437.
Braungart-Rieker, J. M. & Stifter, C. A. (1996). Infants responses to frustrating situations: Con-
tinuity and change in reactivity and regulation. Child Development, 67, 17671779.
Bridges, L. J. & Connell, J. P. (1991). Consistency and inconsistency in infant emotional and
social interactive behavior across contexts and caregivers. Infant Behavior and Development,
14, 471487.
Bridges, L. J., Connell, J. P., & Belsky, J. (1988). Similarities and differences in infant-mother
and infant-father interaction in the strange situation: A component process analysis. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 24, 92100.
Bridges, L. J., Grolnick, W. S., & Connell, J. P. (1997). Infant emotion regulation with mothers
and fathers. Infant Behavior and Development, 20, 4757.
Brody, L. R. & Hall, J. A. (1993). Gender and emotion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.),
Handbook of emotions (pp. 447460). New York: Guilford.
Carson, J. L. & Parke, R. D. (1996). Reciprocal negative affect in parent-child interactions and
childrens peer competence. Child Development, 67, 22172226.
Cole, P. M., Barrett, K. C., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1992). Emotion displays in two-year-olds during
mishaps. Child Development, 63, 314324.
Cole, P. M., Michel, M. K., & Teti, L. O. (1994). The development of emotion regulation and
dysregulation: A clinical perspective. In N. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regula-
tion: Biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development (pp. 73100), 59 (23, Serial No. 240).
Denham, S. A., Mitchell-Copeland, J., Strandberg, K., Auerbach, S., & Blair, K. (1997).
Parental contributions to preschoolers emotional competence: Direct and indirect effects.
Motivation and Emotion, 21, 6586.
Diener, M., Mangelsdorf, S. C., McHale, J., & Frosch, C. A. (1998, April). Mother-father dif-
ferences and paternal correlates of infant emotion regulation. In M. Diener & T. Spinrad
(Chairs), Emotion regulation in infants and young children: Contributions of parenting and
temperament. Symposium conducted at the 11th Biennial International Conference on Infant
Studies, Atlanta, GA.
Dunn, J. F. (1991). Sibling influences. In M. Lewis & S. Feinman (Eds.), Social influences and
socialization in infancy (pp. 97109). New York: Plenum Press.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported through a faculty grant from the Horace H. Rackham School
of Graduate Studies and the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of
Michigan to the second author. We wish to express our thanks to the families who participated
in this research and to Anouk Bonnewit, Stacey Connoy, Jennifer Fedewa, Kimberly Freeman,
and Melissa Schnaar, who helped code the videotapes.