The Self-Concept of Siblings of Handicapped Children:

A Comparison

LILYDYSON
University of Victoria
REBECCA R. FEWELL
Tulane University

Self-concept of siblings of handicapped children was compared with that of children without handi.
capped siblings. Results of a standardized children’s self-concept scale showed that siblings of handi-
capped children did not differ from other children in self-concept. Extreme scores, however, suggested
differential responses among the siblings. Some children in both groups had poor self-concept scores.
Though statistically insignificant, females in both groups showed higher self-concept scores than males.
Males with handicapped siblings had higher self-concepts than the males without handicapped siblings.
Results are discussed in terms of theoretical models and research evidence. Suggestions are made for in-
tervention and research.

The relationship between siblings is special
and intimate. This is especially true during
childhood when siblings serve each other as
playmates and models of identification, as
well as caretakers and socializing agents
(Cicirelli, I982; Werner, 1979). In these roles
siblings can have profound influences on
each other’s social and emotional develop-
ment (Dunn, 1983; Sutton.Smith & Rosen-
berg, 1970). Roles are affected by family size
and birth order, for example, which are
related to a child’s intelligence (Belmont &
Marolla, 1973; Zajonc, 1976). On the prac-
tical level, siblings share family resources
and may affect resources available to each
other, and hence, each other’s development.
Sibling relationships take’on special
significance when one sibling is handi-
capped (Powell & Ogle, 1985). The roles a
sibling normally assumes are necessarily
altered. A handicapped child may not func-
tion as a playmate, a caretaker, or a socializ.
ing agent for his siblings. In some families,
the handicapped child may generate care-
taking responsibilities for his siblings and
provide a negative model of identification.
The sibling relationship may be negatively
affected by the additional resources required
by the handicapped child.
A child may also be negatively influenced
by a handicapped sibling indirectly, through
parental reaction. A handicapped child re-
quires parents to revise their hopes for their
child. Research supports the notion that a
handicapped child creates stress for the
parents (Bradshaw & Lawton, 1978; Cum-
mings, 1976; Dyson & Fewell, 1986). Paren-
tal stress may in turn negatively affect the
siblings. Ample reasons thus exist to sug-
gest that a child may be adversely affected

230

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

by a handicapped sibling, particularly in self-
concept, which is theorized to be a motiva-
tional force with pervasive consequences
(Coopersmith, 1967), and a determinant of a
person’s behavior and sense of self-worth
(Harvey & Greenway, 1984). Siblings influ-
ence a child’s self-concept (Tesser, 1980).
Their effect is likely to be negative when the
sibling is handicapped, due to character-
istics of the handicapped sibling and the
nature of the relationship with a handi-
capped sibling.
There are few empirical studies of the self-
concept of siblings of handicapped children,
and their results are conflicting. Some stud-
ies have found a lower than average self-
concept in siblings of physically handi-
capped children (Harvey & Greenway, 1984)
and of diabetic children (Ferrari, 1987).
Other studies, however, have found no dif-
ferences in the self-concept of siblings of
chronically ill (Ferrari, 1984), developmen-
tally handicapped (Lobato, Barbour, Hall, &
Miller, 1987), or nonhandicapped children.
Still another study found a higher than
average self-concept in siblings of children
with cystic fibrosis (Gayton, Friedman,
Tavormina, & Tucker, 1977).
Equally unclear is the role of the sibling’s
sex and birth order in a relationship with a
handicapped child. These are variables that
are recognized to influence sibling relation-
ships (Sutton-Smith & Rosenberg, 1970),
and sex and birth order have been found to
influence the psychological adjustment of
siblings of handicapped children (Breslau,
Weitzman, & Messenger, 1981; Lavigne &
Ryan, 1979). The influence of these variables
on a sibling’s self-concept is less clear. For
example, the effect of sex has been found to
be negligible (Ferrari, 1987; Lobato et al.,
1987) and the impact of birth order also not
significant in studies of siblings of handi-
capped children (Ferrari, 1984; 1987).
Likewise, family socioeconomic status (SES)
has been related to the psychological func-
Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
tioning of handicapped children (Gath,
1973) but not to self-concept (Lobato et al.,
1987).
Disparate findings on the effect of a hand-
icapped child on his siblings’ self-concept
and the effect of sibling and familial vari-
ables may be partly due to methodological
weaknesses. These include a lack of a con-
trol group (e.g., Gayton, Friedman, & Tavor-
mina, 1977), inadequate control for sex and
age, and unequal sample size (e.g., Harvey &
Greenway, 1984). More stringent experimen-
tal control was applied by Ferrari (1984;
1987) and Lobato et al. (1987), yet conflict.
ing results remain. Further investigation is
needed to understand the impact of a hand-
icapped child on siblings.
The main purpose of this study was to in-
vestigate self-concept in siblings of handi-
capped children and siblings of nonhandi-
capped children. The study also examined
the mediating effect of sibling and familial
characteristics such as sex of the sibling,
type of handicap, and socioeconomic status.
METHOD
Subject
The subjects were 74 children equally di-
vided into two groups: children with handi-
capped siblings (handicapped group) and
children without handicapped siblings (non-
handicapped group). The two groups were
matched by sex, geographical region,
socioeconomic status (SES), and age within
18 months. There were 52 Americans and
22 Canadians, with 26 Americans and 11
Canadians in each group. There were 34
males and 40 females, with ages ranging
from 7 to 14 years (mean age, 10 years).
Demographic information on subjects is
presented in Table 1.
The handicapped children ranged in age
from one to 16 years (mean age 7.5 years).
Fifteen of the American siblings of handi-
231
TABLE 1
Demographic Characteristics o/Subjects (1‘I
capped children had attended a sibling pro-
gram offered quarterly by a university-based
family support program that included out-
ings and workshops featuring discussion
groups and opportunities for the siblings to
raise and share concerns and questions per-
taining to .their handicapped brother or
sister (Meyer, Vadasy, ~ Fewell, 1985).
’
Procedure
Siblings of handicapped children were re-
cruited from the special education programs
in which the handicapped children were en-
232
Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
=
74)
rolled. The Canadian siblings of nonhandi-
capped children were recruited from private
sources and a private school. The American
siblings of nonhandicapped children were
selected from a public school in a middle-
income neighborhood. Upon provision of in-
formed consent by the parents or schools, a
children’s self-concept scale was admin-
istered to the subjects either at home, at a
workshop, or at school. With the American
sample, the scale was administered to two
classes of children in the public school. Sib-
lings of nonhandicapped children who
matched the siblings of handicapped chil-
dren in sex, age, SES, and the presence of a
sibling were included in the final sample.
Instrumentation
The study employed the Piers-Harris Chil-
dren’s Self-Concept Scale-The Way I Feel
About Myself (CSCS) (Piers & Harris, 1969).
The CSCS consists of 80 yes-no items, and
was standardized on children grades 4
through 12. The scale can be administered
individually or in a group. Sample items in-
clude, &dquo;I am strong,&dquo; &dquo;I am shy,&dquo; and &dquo;It is
hard for me to make friends:’ The internal
consistency ranges from .88 to .93, and the
test-retest reliability from .42 to .96 (Epstein,
1985). The correlation between this scale
and Coopersmith’s Self-Esteem Inventory
was .85 (Piers, 1976). The CSCS is psycho-
metrically sound (Bentler, 1972; Epstein,
1985; Jeske, 1985) and a promising re-
search tool (Wylie, 1974).
The CSCS provides a total self-concept
score. A high score represents a positive and
high self-concept, and a low score, a negative
and low self-concept. A total of six cluster
scales are factorially determined and in-
clude : Factor I-Behavior, Factor 2-Intel-
lectual and School Status, Factor 3-Physical
Appearance and Attributes, Factor 4-Anxi-
ety, Factor 5-Popularity, and Factor 6-Hap-
piness and Satisfaction.
RESULTS
Comparison of the American and
Canadian Sample _
Differences in the level of self-concept be-
tween the American and the Canadian sam-
ple were first examined to determine if the
two samples represented two distinct popu-
lations. The difference between the two
groups was not statistically significant (p
.13), though the Canadian sample obtained
slightly higher mean self-concept
Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
=
65.4) than the American sample (M =
61.3). In subsequent analyses the two sam-
ples were treated as a homogeneous group.
Comparison of the Handicapped and the
Nonhandicapped Group
Table 2 shows mean self-concept scores for
the handicapped siblings, the nonhandi-
capped siblings, and for the combined group
of siblings. The mean self-concept score of
62.5 for the total group falls in the top range
of the normative data compiled by Piers and
Harris (1969). There were no significant dif-
ferences between the two groups.
Differences between the two groups of
siblings within each region were also ex-
amined to reaffirm the effects so far ob-
served. As with the total group, no difference
was found between the handicapped and the
nonhandicapped group in either sample. A
wide range of self-concept scores was found
within both groups. For the siblings of hand-
icapped children, the minimum score was
38 and the maximum 78, with a range of 40
(median, 65). A similar distribution was ob-
served in the nonhandicapped siblings’
group with a minimum of 33, maximum of
80, a range of 47, and a median of 63.
The two groups of siblings were further
compared on the six-factor scales of the
Piers-Harris. No factor differentiated the two
groups. Comparisons of the two groups
along the subscales were also made within
each geographical region. Again, no differ-
ences on any of the factors were found be-
tween the handicapped and the nonhandi-
capped group in either the Canadian or the
American subsample.
To ensure that significant differences be-
tween the groups were not overlooked, the
two groups were compared on all items
using chi square. The results showed that
=
the two groups were distinguished only on 5
of the 80 items, a proportion no greater than
scores (M that expected by chance.
233
TABLE 2
Means and Standard Deviations of Self-
Comparison of Males and Females
Table 3 shows comparisons by sex on self-
concept scores across samples. Although
sex differences failed to reach statistical sig-
nificance (p =
.09), a trend was found with
females scoring significantly higher than
males when the two groups of siblings were
pooled. When males were compared across
groups, the mean self-concept score of
males with handicapped siblings was 61.2,
compared to 59.5 for males with nonhandi-
capped siblings. The mean scores for the
females in the handicapped and nonhandi-
capped group were nearly the same, 64.7
and 64.3, respectively. Neither of these dif-
ferences was significant.
Comparisons of Other Conditions
In comparing the effects of different types of
handicaps, we collapsed the five categories
of handicaps into four due to the low fre-
quencies of speech disorders and develop-
mental delays. This produced four categor-
ies for analyses:
1. Speech disorders and developmental
delays
2. Physical and sensory handicaps
TABLE 3
Comparisons o jSexes on Mean Self. Concept Scores Across Samples
234
Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
Concept Scores
3. Severe behavior disorders (autism)
4. Mental retardation
These categories were submitted to a one-
way analysis of variance. The results showed
no differences among the siblings of dif-
ferent kinds of handicapped children (F [3,
32] 2.24, p
=
.10). Statistical analyses
=
were further performed to examine the ef-
fects of birth order and SES in the handi-
capped group. As with the type of handicap
no significant differences were detected on
birth order (t = -.65,p .52)orSES(F[l,
=
35] .14, p = .71).
=
Finally, a comparison was made between
the siblings who were enrolled in the sibling
support program and other siblings of hand-
icapped children from the same geographi-
cal region. No significant difference was
found between the two groups (t = -.98,
p = .34).
DISC(ISSION
This study included siblings from two coun-
tries, the U.S. and Canada. The two groups of
siblings were mostly combined for analyses
’
since they showed a similar level of self-con-
cept. All analyses showed no differences in
the level of self-concept between siblings of
children with handicaps and siblings of non-
handicapped children. The two groups also
did not differ along various dimensions of
self-concept. It appears that, as a group, sib-
lings of handicapped children are more sim-
ilar to than different from other children in
self-concept. Although conflicting with re-
ports on siblings of diabetics (Ferrari, 1987)
and physically handicapped children (Har-
vey & Greenway, 1984), the present observa-
tion is consistent with findings on siblings of
children with pervasive developmental dis-
abilities and diabetes (Ferrari, 1984), cystic
fibrosis (Gayton et al., 1977), autism (Mates,
1982), and various developmental handi-
caps (Lobato et al., 1987).
Differential levels of self-concept, however,
did emerge, with a wide range of scores for
siblings of handicapped children. Whereas
most of these siblings displayed a high self-
concept, a few showed an extremely low self-
concept. This phenomenon, however, was
not unique to the siblings of handicapped
children and thus may reflect a general de-
velopmental pattern in children.
When all subjects, regardless of group
assignment, were compared, a trend ap-
peared in which the self-concept of females
was higher than that of males. When sex dif-
ferences within groups were examined, no
differences were found in either group, or in
the combined group. The study also failed to
find significant effects for birth order or SES,
although siblings who were older than their
handicapped brother or sister tended to
have a lower self-concept score (X =
62.3)
than the siblings who were younger (X
65.0) than their handicapped brother or
sister. These findings suggest that personal
and familial attributes such as sex, birth
order, and SES may not have significant ef-
fects. These results, however, need to be
viewed cautiously because of the small sam-
Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
pie size and uneven distribution in birth
order and SES which may have obscured the
effects of these variables.
Siblings enrolled in a support program
did not differ from other siblings in self-
concept. This may be attributed to the short
duration and infrequent meetings of the
group. Perhaps participation in widely
spaced quarterly workshops and discussion
groups was insufficient to cause changes,
especially in a relatively enduring personali-
ty dimension such as self-concept.
We found no evidence to support that the
type of handicap affected self-concept. The
significance level (p .10), however, sug-
=
gests the small numbers in several of the
handicap groups may have masked the ef-
fects of type of handicap.
Two hypotheses may account for the find-
ings that siblings of handicapped children
did not differ from other children in self-
concept. One hypothesis is that the actual
effect of a child’s handicap on sibling self-
concept is slight because of the permanent
nature of self-concept. A second hypothesis
suggests that siblings may have developed a
positive concept through certain transac-
tional processes. A model of stress and cop-
ing proposes that a family’s response to the
stress of a handicapped child could be in-
fluenced by the family’s resources (Crnic,
Friedrich, & Greenberg, 1983). The siblings
under study may have developed adaptive
coping due to the family’s social supports,
individual, and group resources. A handi-
capped sibling may also provide oppor-
tunities for a child’s growth (Pless & Pinker-
ton, 1975) and may hence contribute
through transactional experiences to a pos-
=
itive self-concept. These opportunities may
come with the increased responsibilities for
the care of the handicapped sibling, thus
developing competence. Performance com-
petence has been found to correlate with a
sense of self-worth (Harter, 1986). A handi-
capped sibling may further provide a frame
235
 of social comparison that would elevate a
child’s self-concept. Siblings provide a ready
comparison for one’s own performance
(Tesser, 1980), and a higher self-concept
could result when a child compared himself
with a handicapped sibling. Handicapped
children with higher self-esteem were found
to compare themselves with those whose
achievement was like their own, rather than
with normally achieving peers (Harter,
1986). It is perhaps no coincidence that non-
gifted siblings of gifted children, who repre-
sent the opposite situation, were reported to
be less well adjusted than comparison
children (Cornell, 1984). Cornell hypothe-
sized that low self-concept may result from a
child’s unfavorable comparison with a more
able sibling.
The present findings suggest that the ef-
fect of handicapped children on their sib.
~
lings’ self-concept are individual. A child’s
self-concept, therefore, may not be affected
by the mere presence or absence of a hand-
icapped sibling. Other factors may exist that
would affect a child’s self-concept.
Research has not provided decisive infor-
mation on the possible contribution of hand-
icap type (i.e., autism, mental retardation,
chronic illness, etc.) to siblings’ self-concept.
Though this study failed to find statistically
significant differences at preset alpha levels
in self-concept among siblings whose
brother or sister had specific types of hand-
icaps, the results point to a trend (p .10)
that might be further investigated in a larger
study. In the two studies by Ferrari (1984;
1987), conflicting results were found from
the same measurement scale, the Piers-
Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale. Our
results are consistent with Ferrari’s earlier
study (1984). The major factor distinguish-
ing Ferrari’s recent study (1987) from his
earlier study (1984) is the type of handicap
studied. In his 1987 study, Ferrari included
only diabetic children, whereas his earlier
study, like the present study, included other
236
Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
handicapping conditions. Diabetes requires
attention to a daily medical regimen and,
more than other handicaps, may create in-
convenience and stress for the entire family,
possibly affecting the sibling’s self-concept.
The effect of the type of handicap has also
been found in other studies (Holroyd &
McArthur, 1976; Lavigne & Ryan, 1979). It is
quite clear that the influence of the type of
handicap on self-concept and personal ad-
justment needs further investigation in well-
designed studies.
The self-concept of siblings of handi-
capped children may also be influenced by
psychological factors. Parents’ attitudes and
perceptions have been related to siblings’
acceptance of the handicapped child (Gra-
liker, Fishler, ~ Koch, 1962; Grossman,
1972) and self-concept (Dyson & Edgar,
1986). Studies need to take into account
psychological resources that may mediate
the self-concept of children with a handi-
capped sibling.
This study is limited by a small sample
size, a limited age range, and a lack of con-
trol of birth order and family structure (only
one single-parent family was represented in
the handicapped group). Inconsistent find.
ings on the effect of birth order suggest that
the effect of this variable may be negligible.
Nonetheless, an expanded study is sug-
gested with improved control on such at-
tributes as birth order.
=
A second concern that might be addressed
in future studies is instrumentation. The
findings of this study are based on a single
self-report measure. The validity of findings
might be increased by employing multiple
measures of self-concept. Particularly help-
ful would be the addition of an observational
measure of sibling interactions, using proce-
dures similar to those employed by Stone-
man, Brody, Davis, and Crapps (1987). Other
possible measurement strategies include
parent, teacher, or peer ratings of sibling
self-esteem.
 Despite these limitations this study pro-
vides further evidence that living with a
brother or sister with special needs does not
necessarily have a negative impact on how -
siblings come to view themselves. The study
indicates that siblings have very normal per-
ceptions of themselves despite the presence
of a sibling with a disability.
REFERENCES
Belmont, LZ., & Marolla (1973). Birth order, fam.
ily size, and intelligence. Science, 182,
1096-
1101.
Bentler, P.M. (1972). A review of the Piers-Harris
Self-Concept Scale for Children. In O. Buros
(Ed.), Mental measurements yearbook (7th
ed.) (pp. 124-126). New Jersey: Gryphon
Press.
Bradshaw, J., & Lawton, D. (1978). Tracing the
causes of stress in families with handicapped
children. British Journal of Social Work,
181.192.
Breslau, N., Weitzman, M., & Messenger, K. (1981).
Psychologic functioning of siblings of dis-
abled children. Pediatrics, 67(3),344.353.
Cicirelli, VG. (1982). Sibling influence throughout
the lifespan. In M.E. Lamb & B. Sutton-Smith
(Eds.), Sibling relationships (pp. 267.284).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
S. The antecedents
Coopersmith, (1967).
esteem. San Francisco: N.H. Freeman.
Cornell, D.G. (1984). Families of gifted children.
Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press.
Crnic, K.A., Friedrich, W.N., & Greenberg, M.T.
(1983). Adaptation of families with mentally
retarded children: A model of stress, coping,
and family ecology. American Journal of
Mental Deficiency, 88,
125-138.
Cummings, S.T. (1976). The impact of the child’s
deficiency on the father: A study of fathers of
mentally retarded and of chronically ill chil-
dren. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
46, 246-255.
Dunn, L (1983). Sibling relationships in early
childhood. Child Development, 54
, 787-811.
Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
Dyson, L., & Edgar, E. (1986). The self-concept of
siblings of handicapped children-An explor-
atory study. (Report No. EC182-371). Seattle,
WA: University of Washington. (ERIC Docu-
ment Reproduction Service No. 268 767).
Dyson, L., & Fewell, R.R. (1986). Stress and adap-
tation in parents of young handicapped and
nonhandicapped children: A comparative
study. Journal of the Division for Early Child-
hood, 10, 25-35.
Epstein, J.H. (1985). Review of Piers-Harris
Children’s Self-Concept Scale (The Way I Feel
About Myself). In J.V. Mitchel, Jr. (Ed.), The
ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp.
1167-1169). Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute
of Mental Measurements, University of
Nebraska.
Ferrari, M. (1984). Chronic illness: Psychological
effects on siblings—I. Chronically ill boys.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
25,459.476.
Ferrari, M. (1987). The diabetic child and well sib-
Risks to the well child’s self-concept.
lings:
Children’s Health Care, 15
(3), 141-147.
8(2),
Gath, A. (1973). The school-age siblings of mon-
gol children. British Journal of Psychiatry,
123, 161-167.
Gayton, W.F, Friedman, S.B., Tavormina, J.F, &
Tucker, F. (1977). Children with cystic fibrosis:
I. Psychological test findings of patients, sib-
lings and parents. Pediatrics,
59(6),888-894.
Graliker, B.V., Fishler, K., & Koch, R. (1962). Teen-
age reaction to a mentally retarded sibling.
of self- American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 66,
838-843.
Grossman, F.K. (1972). Brothers and sisters of
retarded children: An exploratory study. Syra-
cuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Harter, S. (1986). Processes underlying the con.
struction, maintenance, and enhancement of
the self-concept in children. In J. Suls & A.G.
Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives
on the (Vol
self 3, pp. 137-181). Hillsdale, NJ:
.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harvey, D.H.P, & Greenway, A.P. (1984). The self-
concept of physically handicapped children
and their nonhandicapped siblings: An em-
pirical investigation. Joumal of Child Psycho-
logy and Psychiatry, 25(2),273.284.
237
Holroyd, J., & McArthur, D. (1976). Mental retarda.
tion and stress on the parents: A contrast be-
tween Down’s syndrome and childhood
autism. American Journal of Mental Deficien.
cy, 80
, 431-436.
Jeske, P.J. (1985). Review of Piers-Harris Chil-
dren’s Self-Concept Scale (The WayI Feel
About Myself). In J.V. Mitchel, Jr. (Ed.), The
ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp.
1169-1170). Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute
of Mental Measurements, University of
Nebraska.
Lavigne, J., & Ryan, M. (1979). Psychologic adjust-
ment of siblings of children with chronic il-
lness. Pediatrics, 63, 616-626.
Lobato, D., Barbour, L., Hall, L.J., & Miller, C.T.
(1987). Psychosocial characteristics of pre-
school siblings of handicapped and non-
handicapped children. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 15(3),329-338.
Mates, T.E. (1982, July). Which siblings of autistic
children are at greater risk for the development
of school andlor personality diffculties? Paper
presented at the National Society for Autistic
Children, Omaha, NE.
Meyer, D.J., Vadasy, P.F., & Fewell, R.R. (1985). Sib-
shops: A handbook for implementing work.
shops for siblings of children with special
needs. Seattle: University of Washington
Press.
Piers, E.V., & Harris, D.E. (1969). The Piers-Harris
Children’s Self-Concept Scale (The Way I Feel
About Myself). Nashville: Counselor Record-
ings and Tests.
238
Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016
Piers, E.V. (1976). The Piers-Harris Children’s Self-
Concept Scale: Research Monograph No. 1.
Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests.
Pless, I.B., & Pinkerton, P. (1975). Chronic child-
hood disorder. London: Henry Kimpton
Publishers.
Powell, T.H., & P.A.
Ogle, (1985). Brothers and
sisters: A specialpart of exceptional families.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Stoneman, Z., Brody, G.H., Davis, C.H., & Crapps,
J.M. (1987). Mentally retarded children and
their same-sex siblings: Naturalistic in-home
observations. American Journal of Mental Re
-
tardation, 92, 290-298.
Sutton-Smith, B., & Rosenberg, B.G. (1970). The
sibling. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Tesser, A. (1980). Self-esteem maintenance in
family dynamics. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39, 77-91.
Werner, E.E. (1979). How children influence
children: The role of peers in the socializa-
tion process. Children Today, 8(2),11-15.
Wylie, R. (1974). The self.concept (Vol. 1) (rev. ed.).
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Zajonc, R.B. (1976). Family configuration and in-
telligence. Science, 192, 227-236.
Address corresportdence to Rebecca Fewell, Fortier Hall,
Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118.