Personal Relationships, 12 (2005), 1–22. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright Ó 2005 IARR. 1350-4126=02

DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR ARTICLE

Sibling relationships in adolescence: Learning and

growing together

PATRICIA NOLLER
University of Queensland, Australia

Patricia Noller received her Ph.D. from the University of

Queensland in 1981 and is currently Emeritus Professor
of Psychology there. For seven years, she was director of
the University of Queensland Family Centre. She has
published extensively in the area of marital and fam-
ily relationships, including 12 books and about one
hundred journal articles and book chapters. She received
an Early Career Award from the Australian Psychologi-
cal Society and is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social
Sciences in Australia and of the National Council on
Family Relationships (USA). She has served on the
editorial boards of the Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, Personal Relationships, Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, Human Communication Research, Journal of
Family Studies, and Journal of Family Communication.
She has served as associate editor of the Australian
Psychologist and was appointed as foundation editor of
Personal Relationships Journal of the International Soci-
ety for the Study of Personal Relationships, a position
she held from 1993 to 1997. She was president of that
society from 1998 to 2000.

Abstract
In this article, I discuss the reasons for my interest in sibling relationships, and showcase studies on sibling relation-
ships in adolescence carried out with my colleagues and students, in the context of the broader literature on sibling
relationships. Our studies have focused on a number of important issues concerned with sibling relationships. First,
I report on the associations between sibling relationships and other family relationships and the ways that the various
family relationships affect each other. Second, I report a study of sibling relationships in the context of parental
separation and divorce and show that sibling relationships in these families are more likely to be high in both
warmth and hostility than is true for relationships in 2-parent families. Third, I report on several data sets showing
an association between the quality of sibling relationships and adolescent adjustment and the link between
differential parenting, adolescent adjustment, and the quality of the sibling relationship. Fourth, I report on a study
of comparison and competition in sibling relationships and the associations between sibling relationship quality and
reactions to being outperformed by a sibling. Finally, I discuss possible future directions for research on sibling
relationships, including the importance of multimethod studies and a longitudinal perspective.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution of a number of colleagues, students, and former students to the studies
reported in this article. The colleagues involved include Judy Feeney, Candida Peterson, and Yvonne Darlington; the
former students include Grania Sheehan and Kirsty Northfield; the current students include Anita Blakeley-Smith and
Susan Conway.
Correspondence should be addressed to Patricia Noller, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Queens-
land 4072, Australia, e-mail: pn@psy.uq.edu.au.

1
2 P. Noller
After being a researcher who tended to focus
on variables such as family functioning and
between-family differences, in the mid-1990s
I became more interested in the factors re-
lated to within-family differences and how sib-
lings become so different. This change in my
thinking came about as a result of reading Dunn
and Plomin’s (1990) book Separate Lives:
Why Siblings Are So Different. I recognized
that I, like many other researchers, had tended
to ‘‘treat the family as a monolithic unit’’
(Pike, Manke, Reiss, & Plomin, 2000, p. 96)
and focus on variables related to the family as
a whole, without differentiating the varied ex-
periences of siblings in the same family. In
addition, I had, at times, studied just one child
in a family, without acknowledging the fact
that studying a different child in that same
family may have led to a different perception
of that family. As Dunn (2000) notes
The message is not that family influence
is unimportant, but that we need to investi-
gate those experiences that are specific to
each child within the family. (p. 247)
For these reasons, I have come to believe
that the study of sibling relationships has a
unique contribution to make to the study of
relationships. The study of siblings and sib-
ling relationships has required that scholars
take note of these kinds of within-family dif-
ferences and focus on more than one child in
a family. In addition, the sibling relationship,
for most of us the longest relationship we
will ever have, involves siblings relating to
each other in many different ways and occu-
pying different roles with regard to each
other. Siblings can be ‘‘attachment figures,
antagonists, playmates, protectors and social-
izers’’ (Davies, 2002, p. 94). Because of their
shared history and the strength of the bonds
between them, siblings can also provide one
another with support, guidance, and compan-
ionship, as well as with intense emotional
experiences. Bedford and Volling (2004) com-
ment on the intense nature of the emotions
experienced in sibling relationships. Of course,
these intense emotions can range from intense
love to intense hostility. As Dunn (1988)
notes, aggression and conflict are as common
among siblings as are laughter, humor, and
kindness.
In this article, I want to showcase the re-
search that my colleagues, students, and I
have carried out on sibling relationships in
adolescence over the last decade or so but to
present this work in the context of the broader
literature on sibling relationships. For this rea-
son, I will begin by highlighting the general
characteristics of the sibling relationship across
the life span. In this section, I will show the
importance of sibling relationships and the
extent to which they affect our lives. I will
also look at the evidence for the sibling rela-
tionship as involving an attachment bond.
As family researchers, we were interested
in improving our understanding of the links
between the sibling relationship and other
relationships in the family. For example, we
wondered how siblings learn their conflict
patterns. Do they learn these patterns directly
from the way their parents deal with conflict
in their relationship, from the way their
parents behave in conflict with them, or from
both of these sources? We were also inter-
ested in the association between conflict in
the marital and parent-child relationships and
family membersÕ perceptions of one another.
Later, I report studies on this issue carried
out with colleagues.
We were also interested in the existence
of different types of sibling relationships,
given that not all sibling relationships are
friendly and supportive and some are even
hostile. In addition, having tended to find
congruence between sibling relationships and
other family relationships, we wanted to
carry out a stronger test of the compensation
hypothesis (that siblings would compensate
for poor relationships with parents, e.g., by
becoming closer). For this reason, we explored
the issue of the differences between sibling
relationships in married families and in fami-
lies where parents are separated or divorced.
We found that the relationships of siblings
in separated or divorced families tend to
differ from sibling relationships in married
families because of older siblingsÕ concern
for their younger siblings and younger sib-
lingsÕ resentment at being ‘‘parented’’ by
their older siblings, providing mixed support
Sibling relationships in adolescence
for the compensation hypothesis. I will also
report on this study.
A further focus of our work has been the
implication of the quality of sibling relation-
ships for adolescent adjustment. Associated
with this link are the issues of nonshared
environment and parental differential treat-
ment in particular. We explore the associa-
tions among differential treatment by parents
and individual adjustment and the quality of
the sibling relationship.
Exploring the issue of nonshared environ-
ment led us to wonder about the ways that
siblings handle the inevitable comparison and
competition in their relationships. We assess
this issue using Tesser’s (1980) Self-Evaluation
Maintenance Model, which proposes that
individuals strive to maintain a positive self-
evaluation even in situations where they are
outperformed by close others. Tesser also
argues that reactions to situations of com-
parison and competition will be affected by
whether the participant outperforms or is out-
performed by the other, the closeness of the
relationship between the competitors, and the
relevance of the particular activity to the par-
ticipant’s self-concept.
I should make the point here that in study-
ing sibling relationships, we have frequently
used twins as participants. In fact, it was
reading a book about twins that gave me the
idea of using Tesser’s Self-Evaluation Main-
tenance Model to explore comparison and
competition in twin and sibling relationships,
although I will only report the findings for
nontwin siblings here. The issue of the advan-
tages and disadvantages of using twins will
be taken up in a later section where I discuss
methodological issues related to studying dif-
ferential treatment in families and its impact
on sibling relationships.
Characteristics of the sibling relationship
The complexity of sibling relationships.
Most of what we know about the sibling rela-
tionship comes from research in Western
industrialized countries in the last 30 or so
years. It is important to keep in mind that
many of the comments made below should
be understood in the light of this limitation.
3
Although about 80% of individuals in West-
ern countries have siblings (Dunn, 2000), the
sibling relationship is one of the most
neglected in terms of research, at least until
more recent times. Of course, there are now
countries such as China where having more
than one child is discouraged and sibling
relationships are much more rare. Yet, in
Western countries, most siblings live together
over an extended period of time, have daily
interaction, and spend lots of time together. It
is likely that they spend even more time with
each other than they spend with parents
(Dunn). Of course, in terms of taking a histor-
ical perspective, individuals born 60 or so
years ago would have generally had more
siblings than is usual these days where most
people would have only one.
It is important to keep in mind that life is
likely to be very different for those children
whose parents are separated or divorced.
These children are likely to spend some time
with each of the parents, and some of them
may be split between their parents, spending
some time alone with their residential parent
and some time with their sibling and the non-
resident parent. Where children have more
than one sibling, relationships may be even
more complex. Children in stepfamilies are
likely to have stepsiblings and half siblings.
They may spend some time just with full sib-
lings and some time with step- or half sib-
lings. They may live with a stepsibling or
just share living space (such as a bedroom or
even a bed) with a stepsibling who spends
some weekends with their nonresident parent.
Ambert (1986) found that relations between
stepsiblings were more positive when they
lived together rather than just visited. It is
important to keep in mind throughout this
review that the complexity of sibling rela-
tionships means that findings that apply to
the married families often studied cannot be
assumed to apply to other types of families
such as the ones discussed above.
The influence of siblings on one another.
There is plenty of evidence that the sibling
relationship affects the cognitive, social, and
emotional development of siblings. Warm
sibling relationships are likely to be positively
4 P. Noller
associated with the development of self-
disclosure and skills in social support, in the
development of social and cognitive skills,
emotion regulation, and cooperativeness.
Hinde (1979) has argued that the nature of
sibling relationships makes it highly likely
that siblings will become confidants, al-
though others have shown that the warmth of
the sibling relationship is the best predictor
of both the level of self-disclosure and of
emotional understanding perceived by the sib-
lings (Howe, Aquan-Assee, Bukowski, Lehoux,
& Rinaldi, 2001). In this study, self-disclosure
was more likely where a sibling had a positive
attitude about sharing feelings and less likely
when there was a lack of trust or emotional
understanding.
Siblings also influence the development
of each other’s social and cognitive skills
(Dunn, 1992). Dunn (2000) comments that
the sibling relationship provides children
with a range of opportunities to learn about
themselves and how they come across to
others and about how others react to different
situations. There is some evidence that chil-
dren who talk about feelings with their sib-
lings and engage in pretend play with them
are likely to have a greater ability to recog-
nize and understand the feelings of others
(Dunn, 1995, 1999). It is interesting to note,
in this context, that Riggio (1999) found that
adults who had no siblings were marginally
more neurotic than those who had siblings.
Perhaps, their focus is more on their own
feelings than on the feelings of others.
Bedford and Volling (2004) present a
dynamic ecological systems perspective on
the sibling relationship as a context for the
development of emotion regulation in chil-
dren and adults. They argue that sibling inter-
actions can include contexts that undermine
the individual’s development of strategies of
emotional self-regulation, as well as contexts
that promote that development. They note
that siblings mutually influence each other’s
behavior over time by creating a relationship
dynamic that contributes either positively or
negatively to their ability to express their
emotional reactions in ways that are open
and yet also socially acceptable. Patterson
(1986) characterizes the negative aspect of
this relationship dynamic as having the poten-
tial to become, over time, a vicious cycle in
which siblings reinforce each other’s coer-
cive and aggressive behavior at a greater and
greater intensity. On the other hand, the sib-
ling relationship can also be the context for
learning cooperative and prosocial behavior
(Dunn & Munn, 1986). Although parents
tend to be involved in childhood in helping
children develop cooperative relationships
with their siblings (Sroufe, 1996; Tronick,
1989), by adolescence such control must be
exerted by the siblings themselves, who can
regulate the amount of time they spend with
siblings and choose whether to spend their
free time with an uncooperative sibling or to
spend more time with peers.
Hochschild (1973) contrasts the nature of
the sibling bond with that of the parent-child
bond and notes that the sibling bond involves
both reciprocity and similarity between two
people. Reciprocity implies equality and
a willingness to return assistance in equal
measure. She argues that similarity can have
both positive and negative effects: providing
the potential for the pursuit of similar inter-
ests but also the potential for rivalry because
of the desire to fulfill similar needs. The
parent-child relationship, of course, is not
based on equality but on the dependence of
the child on the parent. Nor is it based on
similarity, as ‘‘in the parent-child bond there
are fewer similar needs, resources or experi-
ences’’ (p. 65).
Buhrmester and Furman (1990) argued that
the factors defining the sibling relationship
included warmth, hostility, relative status, and
rivalry, and they have developed a question-
naire, the Sibling Relationship Questionnaire
(SRQ; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985), to assess
these aspects of the sibling relationship. Al-
though little research has focused on the
implications of the sibling relationship for
adolescent adjustment, there is evidence that
the quality of sibling relationships in child-
hood is related to the adjustment variables of
self-esteem, depression, and anxiety (McHale
& Gamble, 1989; C. M. Stocker, 1993). I will
discuss this issue in more detail at a later
time and report on several studies where we
have used Furman and Buhrmester’s measure.
Sibling relationships in adolescence
The sibling relationship as a lifelong rela-
tionship. In order to understand the sib-
ling relationship in adolescence in the
context of the life span, I will first discuss
the sibling relationship as a lifelong relation-
ship. As noted earlier, for most people, their
sibling relationships are the longest they
experience, beginning with the birth of them-
selves or their sibling and ending when one
of them dies. There is considerable evidence
that the arrival of a sibling is associated with
a range of problems for firstborn children
(Dunn, 1993; Stewart, Mobley, van Tuyl, &
Salvador, 1987). Dunn (2000) notes that these
problems are related to changes in parent-
child interaction and involve ‘‘a notable
increase in critical, negative behavior from
mothers to children, an increase in demand-
ing, difficult behavior by the firstborn, and
a decrease in happy joint activities shared by
parents and firstborn’’ (p. 245).
According to Dunn (1992), the nature of
sibling relationships changes as children
grow and develop. Younger siblings tend to
play an increasingly active role in the rela-
tionship during the preschool years, and older
siblings begin to take more interest in their
younger siblings when those siblings reach
the preschool years, perhaps because they are
now more competent as playmates. Siblings
become more important in terms of sociocog-
nitive development of children at about 4
years of age, and they become both effective
companions and effective protagonists.
During middle childhood, sibling relation-
ships tend to become more egalitarian,
although it is not clear whether this change is
because of a change in attempts at dominance
by both siblings or because younger siblings
begin to exert increasing power. In adoles-
cence, there is often a decrease in warmth,
but this change is likely to be associated with
increased involvement with peers, particu-
larly by older siblings (Dunn, 1992).
In adulthood, the importance of the sibling
relationship continues to change over time
(Doherty & Feeney, in press), with the sib-
ling relationship being especially important
for older childless siblings and those without
partners. By early adulthood, many siblings
will be living apart and may even be in dif-
5
ferent states or countries. Cicirelli (1996)
argues that despite their reduced physical pro-
ximity, most siblings stay in touch and share
visits and recreational activities, although
contact tends to decrease in early adulthood
because of work and family responsibilities,
particularly for those who have children. Sib-
lings may be seen more frequently, however,
once child-rearing responsibilities decline
(Goetting, 1986). They may also need more
contact as they deal with the problem of car-
ing for aged parents.
Contact can also be affected by how close
siblings live to one another, the emotional
closeness of the relationship, the level of con-
flict, family expectations about sibling res-
ponsibility, and family characteristics such
as the number of siblings and the sex of
the sibling pair (Lee, Mancini, & Maxwell,
1990). In this study by Lee et al., sibling
pairs involving two sisters were more likely
to have frequent contact than were pairs in-
volving two brothers or a brother and a sister.
Overall, siblings who kept in close contact
tended to live closer to one another, to experi-
ence greater emotional closeness, to feel more
responsible for one another’s welfare, to ex-
perience more conflict in their relationship,
and to have a smaller number of siblings.
In old age, siblings, especially sisters, are
likely to have greater contact with one an-
other than are brothers or brother-sister pairs,
although the variables found by Lee et al.
(1990) are still likely to be predictive of
levels of contact. Older siblings may spend
time reminiscing about their common experi-
ences and validating their perceptions of fam-
ily life (Goetting, 1986). In addition, siblings
may support one another at this time, and
these relationships may be particularly im-
portant for those who are childless or whose
children live far away.
The sibling relationship as an attachment
relationship. Given the importance of sib-
ling relationships across the life span, it
follows that researchers have explored the
possibility that sibling relationships are at-
tachment relationships. This question has pri-
marily been studied with late adolescents and
young adults. The concept of an attachment
6 P. Noller
relationship is based on the work of Bowlby
(1969, 1980), and individuals are generally
considered to be attachment figures if they
fulfill five functions: can be used as a safe
haven in times of distress, can function as
a secure base when an individual is venturing
out independently, have a strong emotional
tie with the person, seek to be in close prox-
imity to the individual, and would mourn the
loss of the person (usually called separation
protest) (Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997).
Feeney and Humphreys (1996), in a sample
of university students, found that siblings were
often rated as providing closeness, comfort,
and security, suggesting that sibling rela-
tionships serve the critical functions of attach-
ment relationships (proximity seeking, safe
haven, and secure base). It is important to note,
however, that parents and romantic partners
tended to be rated more highly than siblings.
Trinke and Bartholomew (1997) explored
the characteristics of attachment hierarchies
in adolescents. Attachment bonds were as-
sessed in terms of the five attachment func-
tions mentioned earlier. Although participants
ranked romantic partners (if they had them)
most highly, siblings were ranked above best
friends in terms of strength of attachment but
below romantic partners and parents. A sib-
ling was the primary attachment figure for
only 8% of participants, but 58% reported
being attached to at least one sibling.
In a larger study of attachment networks
of adults across the life span, Doherty and
Feeney (in press) showed that sibling rela-
tionships met the criteria for full-blown
attachment (rated highly for the three basic
functions of safe haven, secure base, and sep-
aration protest) and were the primary attach-
ment relationship for some. Around 22% of
participants reported being attached to at
least one sibling, and attachment tended to be
stronger for singles and single parents than
for those in dating, child-rearing, or empty-
nest relationships.
Links between other family relationships
and sibling relationships
Given the centrality of the sibling relation-
ship in the lives of individuals, links between
this relationship and other key relationships
in the family would be expected. Here, I will
report on a study we conducted exploring the
links among the three central family relation-
ships: marital, parent-child, and sibling, in
terms of how conflict is dealt with (Noller,
Feeney, Peterson, & Sheehan, 1995). It is
important to note that the families in this
study were all married families; otherwise,
we could not have explored the association
between the marital relationship and other
relationships. We acknowledge that the asso-
ciations are likely to be different for other
types of families.
Two hypotheses have been proposed to
describe the possible links between the vari-
ous dyadic relationships in the family. The
congruence hypothesis (Boer, Goedhart, &
Treffers, 1992) proposes a positive associa-
tion between the quality of different family
relationships (Brody & Stoneman, 1995; Dunn,
1992). For example, the congruence hypothe-
sis would propose that if parents are positive
in their relationships with one another, they
will also be positive in their relationships
with their children and children will be posi-
tive in their relationships with their siblings.
The compensation hypothesis, on the other
hand, proposes an inverse relation between
dyadic relationships in the family, particu-
larly with regard to the parent-child relation-
ship and the sibling relationship (S. Bank &
Kahn, 1982; Bossard & Boll, 1956). In other
words, these theorists suggest that where
the parent-child relationship is highly con-
flicted, the sibling relationship is likely to
compensate by being particularly close. There
is some evidence that in particular kinds of
stressful situations, older siblings may try to
compensate for perceived deficits in their
younger siblingsÕ relationships, particularly
those with parents. I will report later on a study
of sibling relationships in divorcing families
that is relevant to this issue.
Seginer (1998) carried out a study explor-
ing the associations between adolescentsÕ
reports of relationships with their older siblings,
parents, and peers and testing the compen-
sation and similarity (congruence) hypothe-
ses. Her findings provided support for the
congruence hypothesis. The adolescents in
Sibling relationships in adolescence
this study reported similarly close relation-
ships with siblings, parents, and peers, espe-
cially with regard to warmth and closeness.
We carried out a study exploring the as-
sociations among the different family rela-
tionships in terms of communication during
conflict. We expected that the congruence
hypothesis would be supported (Boer et al.,
1992). We expected that if parents were coer-
cive in relationships with their children, then
siblings would also be coercive in relation-
ships with one another. In other words, we
proposed a positive association between the
quality of various relationships in the family.
Parent-child relationships and sibling rela-
tionships. In our study (Noller et al.,
1995), we used a modified version of the
Communication Patterns Questionnaire (CPQ;
Christensen, 1988; Christensen & Sullaway,
1984; Noller & White, 1990), which assessed
the behaviors of mutuality, coercion, and
demand-withdraw during conflict interaction,
as well as the level of postconflict distress
experienced. We found significant associa-
tions for daughtersÕ reports of mother-daughter
and father-daughter conflict communication
and the daughtersÕ reports of their conflict
communication with their sisters for all four
behaviors, although these associations were
not significant when the parentsÕ reports of
parent-child communication were used rather
than those of the daughters.
For sons, we found strong correlations
between parent-child communication and sib-
ling communication for coercion, demand-
withdraw, and postconflict distress but not for
mutuality. This finding was similar for both
mothers and fathers. For mother-adolescent
son communication, the correlations for
demand-withdraw and postconflict distress
remained significant when the mother’s reports
of parent-adolescent communication were used
rather than those of the adolescent; for fathers,
the correlations remained significant only for
postconflict distress.
ParentsÕ marital relationships and sibling
relationships. A number of studies have
shown links between marital and sibling rela-
tionships, with more sibling conflict being
7
reported in families where there were high
levels of conflict and dissatisfaction be-
tween parents (Brody, Stoneman, McCoy, &
Forehand, 1992b; Erel, Margolin, & John,
1998; C. Stocker, Ahmed, & Stall, 1997). In
a longitudinal study of community families,
Dunn, Deater-Deckard, Pickering, Golding,
& the ALSPAC Study Team (1999) found
that differences in the quality of sibling rela-
tionships were associated with the affection
and hostility in the mother-partner relation-
ship 4 years earlier. In a path analysis, they
showed, for example, that 18% of the
variance in older sibling negativity toward
a younger sibling could be explained by
a direct pathway from mother-partner hostil-
ity to sibling negativity and by an indirect
pathway mediated by parent-child negativity.
Although we tested the links between con-
flict patterns in the marital relationship and
in the sibling relationship, we found no evi-
dence of any associations. In other words,
siblings do not seem to model their conflict
behavior directly on that of their parents. In
fact, the correlations between parent-adolescent
and sibling communication and the lack of
correlation between the marital and sibling
relationship point to the likelihood that ado-
lescents learn their conflict patterns in inter-
action with their parents. It is interesting to
note that Reese-Weber (2000), using a dif-
ferent measure of conflict patterns, found that
the influence of interparental conflict resolu-
tion on sibling conflict resolution was mediated
by the conflict resolution in the parent-
adolescent relationship. Based on our own
work reported here, we have concluded that
children learn the conflict patterns they use
with their siblings in interaction with their
parents. We have termed this process ‘‘inter-
action-based transmission’’ (Noller, Feeney,
Sheehan, & Peterson, 2000).
In seeking to understand differences
between the studies reported earlier and the
Noller et al. (1995) study, I have concluded
that the varied findings are due to the dif-
ferent dependent variables that were the
focus. In the Noller et al. study, we explored
associations among actual conflict patterns
in these relationships, whereas the other
studies (Brody et al., 1992b; Erel et al., 1998;
8 P. Noller
C. Stocker et al., 1997) show that there is
greater frequency of conflict and more nega-
tivity in sibling relationships from families
where there are higher levels of interparental
conflict. Actual conflict patterns tend not to
be the focus of these studies.
We also carried out a further study to
explore the effects of marital and parent-child
conflict on family membersÕ perceptions of
one another (Noller et al., 2000). Family mem-
bers (both parents and their twins) reported
on the conflict in their relationships, with
parents using the CPQ and adolescents using
the Conflict Resolution Styles measure (Rands,
Levinger, & Mellinger, 1981). Parents reported
on relationships with one another and with
their adolescents, and adolescents reported
on relationships with their parents and their
siblings.
The four family members also engaged in
a videotaped decision-making interaction and
then made global ratings of each other’s
behavior five scales (calm-anxious, involved-
uninvolved, friendly-unfriendly, loving-rejecting,
controlling-democratic). We were interested
in links between parentsÕ reports of the
behaviors used in dealing with marital con-
flict and adolescent twinsÕ global ratings of
one another, following the videotaped inter-
action. We assessed the links between these
two sets of variables using canonical correla-
tion analysis. As for the Noller et al. (1995)
study, we found no consistent links between
mothersÕ or fathersÕ ratings of marital con-
flict and twinsÕ ratings of one another,
although we did find that fathers who rated
their conflict with their spouses as problem-
atic had more negative perceptions of their
adolescents (Noller et al., 2000).
We also assessed the links between mothersÕ
and fathersÕ reports of negative parent-child
conflict and adolescentsÕ ratings of one an-
other’s behavior during the videotaped inter-
action task. We found no consistent links
between mothersÕ ratings of parent-child con-
flict and twinsÕ ratings of one another, but we
did find links for fathersÕ ratings. FathersÕ
reports that their interactions with their first-
born twin involved high levels of coercion
and postconflict distress and low levels of
mutuality were associated with the second-
born twin rating the firstborn twin as
unfriendly. In addition, fathersÕ reporting that
interactions with their second-born twin were
high in demand-withdraw was associated with
firstborn twins rating the second-born twin as
anxious, involved, and rejecting. In other
words, in families where fathers reported
destructive patterns of conflict with their ado-
lescents, the twins had more negative percep-
tions of one another than was the case for
families where fathers did not report negative
father-child interaction.
These findings point to the association
between other family relationships (particu-
larly, the parent-child relationship) and the
sibling relationship. As I have noted earlier,
it seems clear that children learn their pat-
terns of conflict in interaction with their par-
ents. In addition, negative father-adolescent
relationships are associated with more nega-
tive sibling relationships, providing support
for the congruence hypothesis. Perhaps, ado-
lescents pick up negative attitudes to one
another from their fathers, in much the same
way that they learn their conflict patterns. If
fathers criticize adolescent siblings in one an-
other’s presence and continually make nega-
tive comments about them, siblings are likely
to take on these negative attitudes, particu-
larly if they see the other sibling’s behavior
as affecting their father’s general demeanor
or his attitude to them, personally.
Types of sibling relationships
Research on sibling relationships has pointed
to the high level of variability in sibling rela-
tionships, with sometimes dramatic differ-
ences between them (Boer & Dunn, 1992;
Brody, 1996). Some sibling relationships are
continually hostile and aggressive, whereas
others are affectionate, supportive, and com-
panionable (Dunn, 2000; Kaplan, Ade-Ridder,
& Hennon, 1991). In addition, as McGuire,
McHale, and Updegraff (1996) have shown,
many are sometimes hostile and sometimes
affectionate and supportive, particularly those
relationships of young people in difficult sit-
uations such as experiencing the separation or
divorce of their parents (see also Sheehan,
Darlington, Noller, & Feeney, 2004).
Sibling relationships in adolescence
McGuire et al. (1996) constructed a typol-
ogy of sibling relationships, based on the two
dimensions of warmth and hostility (Furman
& Buhrmester, 1985). McGuire et al. found
that four types of sibling relationship could
be defined, based on these two dimensions:
harmonious, hostile, affect-intense, and unin-
volved. Harmonious sibling relationships
were high in warmth and low in hostility,
hostile relationships were high in hostility
and low in warmth, affect-intense relation-
ships were high on both warmth and hostility,
and uninvolved relationships were low on
both warmth and hostility.
We have used this typology in a study of
sibling relationships during parental divorce
(Sheehan et al., 2004). A sample of siblings
whose parents had divorced or were in the
process of divorcing and a sample of siblings
from married families were included in the
study. The adolescent siblings completed the
SRQ (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985), as well
as other measures not relevant to this particu-
lar part of the study. Where possible, the ado-
lescents from the divorced/divorcing families
were also interviewed on two occasions about
12 months apart.
Quantitative data. We carried out a cluster
analysis based on the main factors of the
SRQ, warmth and hostility as used by
McGuire et al. (1996). We found the same
clusters as those found in their study: harmo-
nious, affect-intense, hostile, and uninvolved.
Siblings from divorced/divorcing families
reported more hostility in the sibling relation-
ship than those from intact families. In addi-
tion, sibling relationships in divorced/divorcing
families were twice as likely to be affect-
intense as they were to be classified as unin-
volved or hostile. The sibling relationships in
two-parent families were more evenly spread
across the four types.
Adolescents in affect-intense and harmoni-
ous relationships reported equally high levels
of nurturance of and by their sibling and
higher levels of nurturance compared to those
in other types of relationships. Similarly,
adolescents in affect-intense and hostile rela-
tionships reported equally high levels of
dominance of and by their siblings and higher
9
levels of dominance compared to those found
in other types of sibling relationships. In
other words, affect-intense relationships are
as nurturant as harmonious relationships and
as conflicted as hostile relationships.
Type of sibling relationship was also asso-
ciated with different styles of conflict resolu-
tion. Those in affect-intense and harmonious
relationships reported higher levels of mutual
conflict resolution than the other sibling
types, whereas those in affect-intense and
hostile relationships reported higher levels of
attacking than other types. Thus, affect-
intense relationships are characterized by
high levels of both warmth and hostility and
by both mutual conflict resolution and at-
tacking. The interview data provided us with
some interesting examples of how these pro-
cesses worked out in the divorced/divorcing
families. I report on this issue in the next
section.
Qualitative data. The interviews held with
children from divorced/divorcing families
were transcribed and analyzed using Ethno-
graph to locate passages focusing on the sib-
ling relationship. Comments made by the
young people in the interviews clarified for
us the processes that were occurring in these
families. When the parents were in crisis,
older siblings tended to feel highly responsi-
ble for their younger siblings, providing sup-
port and nurturance for them. One older
sibling commented, for example,
We look out for him, you know, watch out
for him and stuff. But sometimes he doesn’t
like what we do and gets upset with us.
This example illustrates clearly the sense of
responsibility felt by the older sibling and the
ambivalence of the younger sibling about
being nurtured in this way. A quote from
a younger sibling elucidates the nature of this
ambivalence:
Sometimes it pisses me off, but at other
times it’s like I understand why he does it.
Like he’s protective—which is sometimes
good and sometimes bad.
10
These quotes illustrate why affect-intense
relationships are more common among sib-
lings in divorced or separated families, with
older siblings trying to protect younger sib-
lings and younger siblings feeling conflicted
about the level of control involved in that
protectiveness.
Some younger siblings, however, were more
appreciative of the efforts of their older siblings
to care for them. One younger sibling noted
If Mum and Dad were yelling and stuff,
she let me in her room. Or she comes in
my room and talks to me and makes me
feel better.
This study highlights the value of having
both quantitative and qualitative data from
a sample of participants. The comments made
in the interviews help us understand the
quantitative data from the perspective of the
adolescents themselves. Knowing that more
siblings in the divorcing sample were in affect-
intense relationships is not really enough in
itself. What the qualitative data add is a new
understanding of how hostility and nurtur-
ance can coexist in the sibling relationships
of children experiencing the crisis of parental
separation and divorce.
These findings suggest a more complex
picture than that proposed by the compensa-
tion hypothesis. It seems that older siblings
do try to compensate for the problems in the
marital (and hence parent-child relationship)
by being particularly nurturant of their youn-
ger siblings. This nurturance, however, tends
to introduce more conflict into the relation-
ship because younger siblings respond by
resenting the level of control (at least implied
control) being exerted by their older siblings.
Thus, while sibling relationships in this con-
text may become closer, they may also become
more conflicted.
The sibling relationship and
adolescent adjustment
Given that the sibling relationship is so long
lasting for most people and that relationships
with siblings, at least those with whom one
lives, form an integral part of a young per-
P. Noller
son’s social world, this relationship would be
expected to be associated with the psycholog-
ical adjustment of individuals, whether dys-
functional relationships lead to adjustment
problems or vice versa. Dunn (2000) com-
ments on the potential influence of the sibling
relationship on the emotional well-being of
individual siblings: ‘‘that emotional intensity,
and the intimacy of the relationship, the famil-
iarity of children with each other, and the
significance of sharing parents mean that
the relationship has considerable potential for
affecting children’s well-being’’(p. 244). Dunn
et al. (1999) note that differences in the qual-
ity of the sibling relationship in childhood are
related to children’s concurrent and later
adjustment. For example, Patterson and col-
leagues have shown how children’s aggressive
behavior is shaped by the reinforcement pro-
vided by the siblings when these siblings fight
back, tease, and work at escalating the conflict
(e.g., L. Bank, Patterson, & Reid, 1996).
Noller and Northfield (2000) carried out
a study of sibling relationships in late adoles-
cence. Along with measures of the quality of
sibling relationships (Furman & Buhrmester,
1985), they also included measures of psy-
chological adjustment and a diary about
interactions with their siblings to be com-
pleted by study participants over a period of
a week. Individual adjustment was expected
to relate to perceptions of the quality of the
sibling relationship, and siblings in high-
quality relationships were expected to have
longer and more pleasant interactions than
those reporting low-quality sibling relation-
ships. In terms of links with adjustment, the
warmth of the sibling relationship was nega-
tively associated with trait anxiety and self-
esteem for both males and females and with
depression only for males.
Satisfaction with the sibling relationship
was positively correlated with the length of
interactions, the number of interactions, and
the levels of involvement and disclosure in
interactions with the sibling, supporting our
contention that adolescents manage the time
that they spend with siblings, spending more
time with siblings whom they see as friendly
and cooperative. In addition, relationship sat-
isfaction was negatively correlated with the
Sibling relationships in adolescence
levels of negative emotion, sibling dominance,
and conflict occurring in those interactions.
Dominance during interactions was predicted
by a lack of warmth, conflict, or hostility and
an unequal relationship.
This study seems to show that warmth/
closeness in the sibling relationship is more
important for predicting individual adjust-
ment and the quality of sibling interactions
than are other aspects of the sibling relation-
ship. This relation is probably bidirectional,
with healthy adjustment predicting more posi-
tive sibling relationships and a positive sib-
ling relationship buffering individuals against
adjustment problems. Thus, the quality of
sibling relationships does seem to have an
impact on individual adjustment. However, re-
search of this kind suggests that both siblings
are affected similarly by the quality of the
sibling relationship. We are then left to try to
explain why, in so many families, siblings are
so different (Dunn & Plomin, 1990). I will
explore this issue in the following sections.
What makes siblings different?
Sibling differences are usually explained in
terms of nonshared environment, a term that
refers to ‘‘those environmental factors that
work to make siblings in the same family dif-
ferent from one another rather than similar’’
(Pike et al., 2000, p. 96). The importance of
nonshared environment was first recognized
by Rowe and Plomin (1981). Dunn and
Plomin (1990) argue that even though siblings
may be brought up in the same family, not all
aspects of their experience are shared. The
nonshared aspects of their environment would
include, among other variables, age (unless
they are twins), birth order, illnesses and dis-
abilities, relationships with parents (perhaps
particularly if siblings are in stepfamilies and
have different parents), differential treatment
by parents, relationships with friends, and
school experiences. In fact, Daniels and
Plomin (1985) showed that siblingsÕ experien-
ces differed across four domains: nonmutual-
ity of sibling interaction, differential parental
treatment, differential peer characteristics,
and events specific to each individual. In our
work, we have focused most on differential
11
parental treatment, as well as the nonmutual-
ity of sibling interaction.
As an illustration of the ways that the
experiences of siblings can differ in the same
family, McHale, Updegraff, Jackson-Newson,
Tucker, and Crouter (2000) found that differ-
ential treatment by parents varied depending
on the gender of the parent, the age-group of
the siblings (child or adolescent), and the gen-
der constellation of the sibling dyad. Findings
also depended on the particular aspect of dif-
ferential treatment being assessed (e.g., dif-
ferential affection or differential control). Sex
typing was particularly evident in the areas of
parental involvement and the allocation of
household chores, with girls, whether younger
or older than their brothers, being expected to
be more involved in housework. MothersÕ
warmth and involvement with their offspring
was particularly low where the sibling dyad
involved two boys. In mixed-sex sibling
dyads, parents tended to be more involved
with the sibling of his or her own sex.
Methodological issues related to the study
of differential treatment
Before moving to discuss differential parental
treatment in more depth and to describe some
of the work we have done in this area, I want
to address two methodological issues related
to this work. The first involves the issue of
sampling in studies of siblings, and particu-
larly the use of twins, and the second involves
the issue of the assessment of differential
treatment.
Sampling. One of the problems in study-
ing siblings is that nontwin siblings differ in
terms of age and birth order, and these varia-
bles can affect the dependent variables of
interest. One way of controlling for these
differences is to use twins as participants
because twins generally have a very small
difference in age (average of about an hour),
and birth order differences should be less sig-
nificant for them. For this reason, we have
frequently used twins as participants in our
studies of sibling relationships. In addition,
we have generally used same-sex twin pairs
to avoid the five-cell design that is possible if
12
twins of mixed sex are included. We would
also argue that same-sex siblings or twins are
likely to have more in common with one
another than are mixed-sex twins or siblings.
This fact is likely to be important when
studying the impact of differential treatment
by parents on sibling relationships or compe-
tition and comparison in those relationships.
There are both advantages and disadvan-
tages to using a twin paradigm when studying
siblings. The twin design allows for the ge-
netic contribution to differential parenting to
be controlled, at least for monozygotic twins.
Plomin and his colleagues (Plomin, Chipuer,
& Neiderhiser, 1994; Plomin, Nitz, & Rowe,
1990) have particularly stressed the impor-
tance of the genetic contribution to nonshared
environment and differential parenting. The
twin paradigm also allows for differences
between siblings in age and birth order to be
controlled and ensures that the respondent is
reporting on his/her relationship with a sibling
with whom he/she most identifies and to whom
he/she has high access. There is evidence that
the extent to which differential treatment is
distressing for children depends on their simi-
larity to their sibling in terms of needs, per-
sonality, and age (Kowal & Kramer, 1997).
The disadvantages of a twin paradigm
concern differences between twin and non-
twin siblings in the extent and nature of
shared family environmental influences.
Because of the similarities between twins in
terms of both genetic and developmental
characteristics, the extent of differential
parental treatment may be at a minimum. On
the other hand, of course, the family environ-
ment of twins may be an environment where
because of the high levels of similarity
between twins, parental differential treatment
is a more powerful determinant of rivalry and
distress (Kowal & Kramer, 1997; Sheehan,
2000).
A further issue is whether it is appropriate
to generalize findings from studies of twins
to families where siblings differ in age and
genetic makeup. Given the advantages of the
twin paradigm discussed earlier, it would
seem likely that the advantages and disadvan-
tages cancel each other out, at least to some
extent.
P. Noller
Measuring differential treatment. Although
differential parental treatment is generally
assessed using self-report questionnaires
(completed by siblings, parents, or both),
researchers differ in terms of the number and
nature of the dimensions measured. Tucker,
McHale, and Crouter (2003) have used five
dimensions of differential parental treatment:
privileges, chores, affection, discipline, and
temporal involvement. In another study,
McHale et al. (2000) assessed three dimen-
sions of differential treatment: warmth, tem-
poral involvement, and allocation of
household tasks. We have, however, tended
to focus on the dimensions of affection and
control as used by Dunn and Plomin (1990).
These dimensions, as measured by the scales
of the Sibling Inventory of Differential Expe-
rience (SIDE), tend to include items related
to the dimensions used by other researchers.
Daniels and Plomin (1985) argue that dif-
ferential parental treatment as assessed by the
SIDE shows little genetic influence and thus
should be considered as primarily environ-
mental in origin. Some other researchers,
however, have found evidence for moderate
levels of genetic influence (Manke, McGuire,
Reiss, Hetherington, & Plomin, 1995; Pike
et al., 2000). Pike et al. assessed the levels of
agreement between siblings on a measure of
differential treatment in a sample of early
adolescents. They found evidence of moder-
ate agreement between siblings, and this level
was higher for older than for younger sibling
pairs, suggesting that older adolescents may
have developed a shared schema about their
differential experiences of parenting. These
researchers also found moderate stability in
SIDE scores over a 3-year period.
It is also important to keep in mind that
scores on a measure of differential treatment
can be calculated in two ways: absolute dif-
ferential treatment and relative differential
treatment. Absolute differential treatment is
the difference between siblings in the amount
of affection or control they receive from par-
ents, not taking into account who is favored
and who is disfavored. Scores for relative dif-
ferential treatment, on the other hand, take
into account who is favored and who is dis-
favored. As we shall see later, absolute and
Sibling relationships in adolescence
relative scores for differential treatment tend
to be related in different ways to measures of
adolescent adjustment, as well as to measures
of the sibling relationship. The optimum situ-
ation, with the most positive effects on adjust-
ment, is to receive less control and more
affection from the parents than one’s sibling.
The most negative situation is to receive less
affection and more control than the sibling
(Dunn & Plomin, 1990).
In a study using nontwin siblings, sex
composition of the sibling dyad predicted
adolescentsÕ and parentsÕ reports of mothersÕ
differential affection and fathersÕ differential
control. Parents and adolescent females
reported that the females received more
maternal affection than their brothers, while
parents and adolescent males reported that
males received more parental control than
their sisters (Sheehan, 2000).
In a related study using twins as respond-
ents, male and female twins tended to report
that the female twin received more maternal
affection and less paternal control than her
twin brother. Fathers reported being more
affectionate to the male twin than to his
sister, whereas mothers tended to report ex-
pressing more affection to the female twin
than to her brother (Sheehan, 2000).
It is important to note that the situation is
likely to be more complex in families that do
not involve two biological parents. Half sib-
lings and stepsiblings are likely to perceive
differences between biological and steppar-
ents, and stepparents are likely to treat bio-
logical children differently from children in
whom they have no parental investment.
Differential treatment and
sibling adjustment
An important issue for researchers is the link
between differential parental treatment and
psychological adjustment in adolescents.
There is quite a deal of evidence that differ-
ential treatment of siblings is associated with
more negativity in the sibling relationship
and lower levels of psychological adjustment
for the disfavored child (Brody, Stoneman, &
Burke, 1987; Bryant & Crockenberg, 1980;
Dunn, Stocker, & Plomin, 1990; Volling &
13
Belsky, 1992). As we shall see later, my col-
leagues and I have also explored these issues
in samples of adolescent twins.
Tucker et al. (2003) focused on the five
domains of differential treatment mentioned
earlier. They found that most parents reported
treating their children equally, except for
privileges and discipline. Most parents gave
more privileges to firstborn children than to
second-borns, although older second-borns
also received privileges. More than half the
parents reported equal treatment with regard
to the allocation of chores, although, where
differential treatment was displayed, first-
borns were assigned more chores than their
younger siblings. In contrast to the findings
of the earlier study (McHale et al., 2000),
these researchers found that assignment of
chores was not related to sex or to sex-typed
qualities but does seem to be related to birth
order and age.
With regard to assessments of differential
affection, about half the parents reported
equal treatment, either one or both parents
reported favoring second-born siblings in
about 30% of families, and less than one-
sixth reported favoring their firstborn. With
regard to the assessment of differential disci-
pline, adolescentsÕ sex-typed qualities were
significant predictors of mothersÕ discipline.
Mothers disciplined firstborns relatively more
frequently if they were younger (the age
range in this study was 13–17) and if they
were more emotional, and second-born sib-
lings were disciplined more if they were
more active and less expressive. Fathers also
disciplined emotional adolescents more,
whether they were firstborn or second-born,
as well as more instrumental second-borns.
As in the earlier study, adolescent sex was
the strongest predictor of parentsÕ time
involvement with their adolescents, with
parents tending to favor adolescents of the
same sex.
There is also evidence of an association
between differential parenting and security of
attachment. Sheehan and Noller (2002) tested,
on a sample of twin dyads aged between
15 and 18 years, the associations between
relative differential parenting (affection and
control) and attachment in adolescents. An
14
association was found between differential
parental treatment as measured using a modi-
fied version of the SIDE (Dunn & Plomin,
1990) and the dimensions of the Attachment
Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Feeney, Noller, &
Hanrahan, 1994). Of the five scales of the
ASQ (confidence in self and others, discom-
fort with closeness, need for approval, preoc-
cupation with relationships, and relationships
as secondary), only two were related to rela-
tive measures of differential parental treat-
ment. Twins who reported receiving less
maternal affection than their cotwin also
reported less confidence in self and others
than those twins who reported that they were
favored or those who reported that they and
their cotwin were treated equally. In addition,
twins who reported less paternal affection
than their cotwin reported more discomfort
with closeness than their cotwin. These find-
ings underline the importance of differen-
tial parental affection to adolescentsÕ security
of attachment. It is important to note that
being high on discomfort with closeness is
likely to have an impact on later romantic
relationships.
In this same study (Sheehan & Noller,
2002), there were also associations between
relative differential parental treatment and
measures of adjustment (personal self-esteem
and social self-esteem as assessed by the
Self-Esteem Inventory [Coopersmith, 1975]
and anxiety as measured using the trait
scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Scales
[Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1968]).
TwinsÕ reports of differential maternal affec-
tion or differential maternal control were cor-
related with low personal self-esteem and
high anxiety for the disfavored twin. In addi-
tion, twinsÕ reports of differential paternal
affection were related to low personal self-
esteem for the disfavored twin. On the other
hand, receiving more control from the father
than the cotwin was associated with high
self-esteem, perhaps because even negative
attention from the father is likely to have
a positive effect on an adolescent.
We also tested the hypothesis that attach-
ment security would mediate the relationship
between differential parental treatment and
adjustment. We suspected that insecure attach-
P. Noller
ment would account for the association be-
tween differential parenting and adolescentsÕ
psychological adjustment. Our hypothesis
was partially supported, with attachment
mediating the association between differen-
tial maternal affection and adolescentsÕ
reported anxiety and personal self-esteem.
The relationship was strongest for the link
between confidence in self and others and
anxiety, with those lower in confidence in
self and others being higher in trait anxiety
and lower in self-esteem. In addition, discom-
fort with closeness mediated the association
between differential paternal affection and
personal self-esteem, with those high in dis-
comfort with closeness reporting lower self-
esteem. In other words, for those adolescents
experiencing differential treatment, the im-
pact of that differential treatment on their
adjustment could be accounted for by their
attachment security. The impact tended to be
stronger for those who were low in confi-
dence or high in comfort with closeness. Of
course, it is important to keep in mind that
these data are correlational and collected at
one point in time, and the direction of the
effects cannot be assumed.
Nevertheless, there is evidence of a link
between differential parental treatment and
individual adjustment, as well as evidence
that the association is at least partly ac-
counted for by attachment insecurity. An
interesting question, however, concerns the
association between parental differential treat-
ment and the sibling relationship and whether
the sibling relationship is similarly affected
for both favored and disfavored siblings. I
explore this issue in the next section.
Differential parenting and the
sibling relationship
Sheehan and colleagues (Sheehan, 1997,
2000; Sheehan, Feeney, Noller, & Peterson,
1997) explored the association between two
sources of nonshared family experience: dif-
ferential parental treatment and communica-
tion in the sibling relationship. The research
to date examining the relation between differ-
ential parenting and the sibling relationship
provides evidence for both shared and non-
Sibling relationships in adolescence
shared sibling relationship outcomes. Research
using observational measures provides evi-
dence of some commonality in siblingsÕ expe-
riences of their relationship, both for those
siblings who receive more and those who
receive less of the particular parental behav-
ior being observed (Brody et al., 1987). Find-
ings from research assessing the quality of
the relationship at the dyadic level also sug-
gest shared environmental outcomes with
respect to children’s experiences of the sib-
ling relationship (Brody, Stoneman, & McCoy,
1992a). Such findings support the hypoth-
esis that differential parental treatment is
related to a negative relationship dynamic
between siblings from which both siblings
experience similar negative outcomes. As we
noted earlier, the development of a negative
relationship dynamic between siblings can
lead to a vicious cycle of coercive and ag-
gressive behavior (Bedford & Volling, 2004;
Patterson, 1986).
The aim of the study we conducted was to
examine the relation between twinsÕ percep-
tions of differential parental treatment and
differences between twins in their experien-
ces of communication in the sibling relation-
ship. We used standardized self-report scales
described earlier to assess differential paren-
tal treatment (SIDE; Daniels & Plomin, 1985)
and twinsÕ communication patterns during
sibling conflict (Conflict Resolution Style
Questionnaire; Rands et al., 1981).
For a subset of twins, we also carried out
observation-based assessment of a videotaped
interaction between the twins. Following
the taping, twins rated their own and each
other’s behavior on five scales: anxious-calm,
friendly-unfriendly, loving-rejecting, demo-
cratic-controlling, and involved-uninvolved.
For each set of global ratings, scales of nega-
tivity and involvement were treated sepa-
rately. The twins were also rated by an outside
observer on the same five scales, which were
combined to form ratings of positivity,
arousal, and democratic-controlling.
TwinsÕ and parentsÕ reports of absolute dif-
ferential parenting (averaged across affection
and control scales) were related to the twinsÕ
negative behavior during the videotaped
interaction. When mothers and twins reported
15
differential treatment, the twins were more
likely than those who reported equal treat-
ment to rate their behavior toward one
another as negative. This finding was sup-
ported by analyses using outside observersÕ
ratings of twinsÕ behavior. When parents
reported differential treatment, the twins were
rated as behaving more negatively toward
each other during the videotaped interaction.
The higher the levels of differential treatment
reported, the more negative the reports of
behavior in the videotaped interaction.
It is interesting to note that the parentsÕ
but not the twinsÕ reports of differential treat-
ment were related to the observersÕ ratings,
but the twinsÕ reports were related only to
their ratings of their own and their cotwinsÕ
behavior. While it makes sense that adoles-
centsÕ perceptions of differential treatment
are likely to be driving their views of each
other’s behavior, parentsÕ ratings of differen-
tial treatment may be more ‘‘objective,’’ and
thus more like those of an outside observer.
Twins did tend to report more differential
treatment than did their parents, particularly
for maternal control and paternal affection.
We have evidence from other studies (e.g.,
Noller, Seth-Smith, Bouma, & Schweitzer,
1992) of parentsÕ ratings being more objec-
tive, although some self-serving bias could
be expected when parents are rating differen-
tial treatment.
We also explored the associations between
reports of relative differential treatment
(where which twin is favored and which is
disfavored is taken into account) and observ-
ersÕ ratings of the twin interaction. ParentsÕ
reports of relative differential treatments were
related to differences between twins in the
observersÕ ratings of the twinsÕ negativity and
involvement during the videotaped interac-
tions. Specifically, mothersÕ reports of differ-
ential treatment of their twins were related to
observersÕ ratings of the disfavored twin as
more negative and less involved in the inter-
action than their favored cotwin.
In this case, the twinsÕ reports of relative
differential treatment were related to differ-
ences between the twins both for observersÕ
ratings of the twinsÕ negativity during their
twin interaction and the twinsÕ ratings of their
16
own negative behavior during the interaction.
Specifically, twinsÕ reports of their mother’s
differential affection were related to the
observer rating the disfavored twin as more
negative during the interaction than the
favored cotwin. In contrast, the twinsÕ reports
of their mother’s differential affection were
related to the favored twin rating his or her
own behavior more negatively than was true
for the disfavored twin.
Thus, in families where differential par-
enting was reported, twins were rated by both
the observer and one another as behaving
more negatively than was true for families
where equal treatment was reported. In addi-
tion, the communication behavior of the
disfavored twin tended to be rated more neg-
atively than that of his or her cotwin. These
findings are in line with earlier research by
Brody et al. (1987, 1992a). In the 1987 study,
paternal differential negative behavior pre-
dicted low rates of positive relational behav-
ior (such as praises, smiling, laughing, and
expressions of enthusiasm) enacted by both
the older and younger sibling during a video-
taped interaction. In the 1992 study, Brody et
al. found high levels of negative relational
behavior by siblings (such as threats, insults,
and sarcasm) as characteristic of sibling dyads
in families where differential paternal treat-
ment occurred. These studies and the one
from our own laboratory support the negative
association between differential parental
treatment and adolescent siblingsÕ day-to-day
relational communication.
Competition and comparison in
sibling relationships
While it seems clear that differential parental
treatment has a negative association with the
quality of relationships between siblings and
with the psychological adjustment of the dis-
favored sibling, another factor likely to be
associated with the relationship between sib-
lings is the way they handle various kinds of
competition and comparison that occur so fre-
quently in sibling relationships. We explored
this issue using Tesser’s (1980) Self-Evalua-
tion Maintenance Model to assess siblingsÕ
responses to competition and comparison and
P. Noller
their own retrospective reports of situations
in which they were in competition with
their sibling or were being compared to that
sibling.
In his study, Tesser (1980) used the age
difference between siblings as a measure of
their closeness and their perceived similar-
ity as a measure of their identification with
one another. Performance was assessed with
a global measure, and identification was used
as the dependent variable. For males, identifi-
cation decreased with closeness when the
respondent was outperformed. Friction be-
tween the siblings increased with closeness
when the respondent was outperformed, espe-
cially if the younger sibling outperformed the
older sibling.
In our studies1 (Noller, 2002), siblingsÕ ret-
rospective reports of instances of comparison
and competition were varied in terms of the
closeness of the relationship (sibling or friend),
performance (better or worse), and the rele-
vance of the activity to their self-concept
because Tesser has argued that reactions to
situations involving comparison and competi-
tion will depend on these variables. We have
carried out this research with both twins and
nontwin siblings and using both adolescent
and young adult samples. Only the data for
adolescent siblings will be reported here.
In this study, participants were asked to
describe eight situations in which they had
been in competition with their sibling or
a friend or were being compared with a sib-
ling or a friend. They were then asked to rate
their reaction to each situation in terms of
how positive and how negative their reactions
were, as well as the likelihood that they
would downplay the significance of their suc-
cess or failure and the likelihood that they
would continue engaging in that activity.
We found evidence that emotional reac-
tions to these situations of comparison and
competition were related to closeness, perfor-
mance, and relevance, as well as birth order.
The strongest emotional reactions in these
situations were with siblings rather than with
1. These studies have been carried out with students
Susan Conway and Anita Blakeley-Smith.
Sibling relationships in adolescence
friends and when older siblings were outper-
formed by their younger siblings in activities
of high relevance to their self-concept. In
addition, with regard to high-relevance activi-
ties, older siblings reported that they would
be more likely to downplay the significance
of their performance when they performed
worse than their sibling than when they per-
formed better. Of course, it is important to
keep in mind that when older siblings are
outperformed, they are outperformed by a
younger sibling, a situation that they are
likely to find difficult to cope with.
These findings tend to show that it is par-
ticularly comparisons with siblings that indi-
viduals find difficult, presumably because of
the closeness and intensity of the relation-
ship. After all, they do have to live with their
siblings and maintain a lifelong relationship
with them. In addition, siblings are in compe-
tition for the same resources, including the
love and attention of parents (Dunn, 2000).
By correlating emotional reactions to sit-
uations of competition and comparison with
the warmth and hostility factors of the SRQ
(Furman & Buhrmester, 1985), we were also
able to show the link between warmth in the
sibling relationship and emotional reactions
to situations of comparison and competition.
Siblings feel more positive and less negative
toward their sibling in competitive situations
when the sibling relationship is high in
warmth and low in conflict, irrespective of
their performance. Thus, these data would
suggest that, contrary to our expectations, how
well adolescent siblings deal with situations
of competition and comparison is more
clearly related to the quality of the sibling
relationship than to performance.
Conclusions
In this paper, I have reported on a number of
studies of sibling relationships carried out by
our research team and sought to discuss these
studies in the context of the wider literature
on sibling relationships. We have looked
particularly at the associations between the
sibling relationship and other family relation-
ships, sibling relationships during parental
separation and divorce, the impact of differ-
17
ential treatment on sibling adjustment and the
sibling relationship, and at competition and
comparison in the sibling relationships of
adolescents.
Using questionnaire data, we have ex-
plored the link between the way conflict is
dealt with in the sibling relationship and how
it is dealt with in other relationships in the
family. We found evidence for links between
the parent-child and sibling relationships
but not between the marital and sibling rela-
tionships. Although other researchers have
found associations between conflict in the
marital relationship and negativity in the sib-
ling relationship, they have tended to be
using more general measures of the frequency
and intensity of marital conflict than we used
in our study, where the focus was on particu-
lar conflict behaviors. This study points to
the links between family relationships, partic-
ularly between the parent-child and sibling
relationships.
With regard to the compensation and con-
gruence hypotheses, much of our work has
shown congruence between communication
in the sibling relationship and other relation-
ships (e.g., Noller et al., 1995), despite find-
ing no evidence of the sibling relationship
being modeled directly on the marital rela-
tionship. We have generally found little
evidence for the compensation hypothesis,
although, at least in the affect-intense sibling
relationships in the separated and divorcing
families, it seems that older siblings do try
to compensate for the continual conflict
between their parents by providing extra nur-
turance to their siblings.
We were able to lend further empirical
support to the typology of McGuire et al.
(1996) for intact families, as well as for sepa-
rated and divorced families. Sibling relation-
ships could be categorized in terms of their
warmth and hostility. In addition, we found
that relationships high in both warmth and
hostility are characteristic of separated and
divorced families. We were also able, using
comments from some of the young partici-
pants in our study, to show that older siblings
tend to try to nurture their younger siblings
but that younger siblings are quite ambivalent
about that nurturance, resenting the control
18
aspects of their siblingsÕ behavior. This resent-
ment of the younger siblings may stem from
the fact that the older siblingsÕ behavior goes
against the norm of reciprocity and equality
in sibling relationships (Hochschild, 1973).
Our findings with regard to the association
between relative differential parenting and
sibling adjustment indicate that where there
is differential parenting, the disfavored sib-
ling is likely to have problems in his or her
psychological adjustment. We found evi-
dence that these individuals are likely to be
insecure in attachment and lower in self-
esteem and higher in anxiety than their favored
siblings. We also were able to show that
attachment security mediates the association
between siblingsÕ reports of differential paren-
tal affection and their anxiety and self-
esteem. This relation was strongest for differ-
ential maternal affection predicting anxiety.
In other words, the association between
mothersÕ differential affection and psycholog-
ical adjustment variables such as self-esteem
and trait anxiety can be accounted for by
attachment insecurity.
We also explored the association between
differential parenting and the sibling relation-
ship, using both questionnaire and observa-
tional data and both insider and outsider
reports of the siblingsÕ behavior in the video-
taped interaction. Measures of absolute differ-
ential parenting were related to twinsÕ negative
behavior during the interaction, with twins
who reported differential treatment rating
their behavior toward one another as more
negative than those who reported equal treat-
ment. In addition, twinsÕ reports of relative
differential maternal affection were related to
the outside observer’s rating of the disfavored
twinsÕ behavior as more negative. Thus, al-
though the quality of the relationship is affected
by differential parenting for both siblings, it
seems that it is the disfavored sibling’s be-
havior that is particularly affected. Of course,
it is always possible that differential treatment
is a reaction to the child’s behavior rather than
the cause of that behavior. Deal, Halverson,
and Wampler (1994) tested the hypothesis
that perceived similarity of children’s tem-
peraments would lead to similar treatment
but found little support for that proposition.
P. Noller
Our research also shows that the quality of
the sibling relationship is critical to how sib-
lings react to situations of comparison and
competition. It seems that sibling quality is
correlated similarly with emotional reactions
in these contexts, irrespective of whether the
respondents performed better or worse than
their siblings. These findings suggest that
the quality of the sibling relationship may be
more important to siblingsÕ reactions to com-
parison and competition than are the variables
suggested by the Self-Evaluation Maintenance
Model of Tesser (1980). Perhaps, a warm sib-
ling relationship helps an individual to main-
tain a positive self-evaluation, whatever the
circumstances.
Overall, our findings tend to support the
importance of the sibling relationship to fam-
ily life and to the adjustment of individual
siblings. Having a warm and supportive sib-
ling relationship has positive effects on the
individual adjustment of siblings. In addi-
tion, this warm and supportive relationship
seems to enable adolescents to deal more
constructively with the inevitable situations
of comparison and competition that they will
encounter.
But our findings also point to the impact
that differential parental treatment can have
on the sibling relationship and on the adjust-
ment of the individual siblings. Having a
warm and supportive sibling relationship is
difficult, where there is pervasive differential
treatment that is likely to undermine the rela-
tionship and have a negative impact on the
adjustment of the disfavored sibling.
It is also clear that the sibling relationship
impacts on and is impacted by other relation-
ships in the family. Adolescents who are
insecure in attachment because of early rela-
tionships with parents seem most likely to be
affected negatively by differential treatment.
In addition, conflict in other family relation-
ships, particularly in the parent-child relation-
ship, is associated with more destructive
conflict patterns in the sibling relationship.
Clearly, much more work needs to be
done for us to have a better understanding of
this important relationship. For example, we
need to understand more about the impact
of sibling relationships, both mixed sex and
Sibling relationships in adolescence
same sex, on romantic relationships in adult-
hood. Do dysfunctional sibling relationships
make it harder for individuals to choose
wisely in terms of romantic partners, and
more difficult for them to establish secure,
stable relationships? Another interesting issue
is the extent to which the impact of differen-
tial parenting on sibling relationships leads to
insecurity that may later affect romantic rela-
tionships. We have found some evidence that
this is so. We also need to understand more
about how relationships between twins differ
from relationships between nontwin siblings
and about relationships between stepsiblings
and half siblings, and other siblings who only
see each other part of the time. As yet, how-
ever, the sibling relationship has not captured
the attention of researchers to the extent that
other family relationships have.
Although there are these substantive areas
where I would like to see more research on
sibling relationships, I would also like to see
more studies carried out involving multiple
methods as we have tried to do in our re-
search. There has been a lot of focus on ques-
tionnaire methods, and I would not want to
downplay the value of these in documenting
family membersÕ perceptions of one another
and their relationships. I would, however, like
to see more focus on using questionnaires in
conjunction with other methods such as obser-
vation, interview, and experiment.
We have certainly been able to show the
value of combining methods in our research,
and I would like to encourage others to do
the same. For example, in our study of sib-
ling relationships in separated and divorcing
families (Sheehan et al., 2004), we were able
to use the interview data to help us under-
stand the findings from the typology and how
the combination of high affect and high
intensity worked out in the daily interactions
of these siblings. We were also able to detect
the ambivalence of many of the younger sib-
lings about the nurturance provided by their
older siblings.
In our study of marital conflict and family
membersÕ perceptions of one another (Noller
et al., 2000), we combined questionnaire meth-
ods with family membersÕ ratings of video-
taped interactions. Combining these methods
19
enabled us to explore the associations be-
tween family conflict and family membersÕ,
including siblingsÕ, perceptions of one another
during a discussion.
Longitudinal studies of sibling relation-
ships are also needed. Such studies would
enable researchers to clarify the direction of
associations between sibling relationships
and psychological adjustment and to explore
how changes in one of these variables would
impact the others. Longitudinal studies would
also help improve our understanding of how
sibling relationships impact cognitive, social,
and emotional development. Following sib-
lings through the process of the divorce and
separation would also enable researchers to
explore further the implications of family
breakup for sibling relationships prospec-
tively rather than retrospectively as we did.
Such undertakings are not, however, for those
like me who are nearing the end of their
research careers but may be an ideal under-
taking for those at earlier stages of their
careers who are interested in this undoubtedly
important relationship.
Above all, I would like to see more ac-
knowledgment in family research of within-
family differences and the various factors
that affect the development of siblings and
lead to differences between them. Such stud-
ies would require focusing on more than one
child in a family and would add a further
level of complexity to family research, but
the effort should be well rewarded.
References
Ambert, A. M. (1986). Being a stepparent: Live-in and
visiting stepchildren. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 48, 795–804.
Bank, L., Patterson, G. R., & Reid, J. B. (1996). Nega-
tive sibling interaction as predictors of later adjust-
ment problems in adolescent and young adult males.
In G. H. Brody (Ed.), Sibling relationships: Their
causes and consequences (pp. 197–229). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Bank, S., & Kahn, M. D. (1982). The sibling bond. New
York: Basic Books.
Bedford, V., & Volling, B. (2004). A dynamic ecological
systems perspective on emotion regulation develop-
ment within the sibling relationship. In F. Lang &
K. Fingerman (Eds.), Growing together: Personal
relationships across the lifespan (pp. 76–101). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
20
Boer, F., & Dunn, J. (1992). Children’s sibling relation-
ships: Developmental and clinical issues. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Boer, F., Goedhart, A. W., & Treffers, P. D. A. (1992).
Siblings and their parents. In F. Boer & J. Dunn
(Eds.), Children’s sibling relationships: Develop-
mental and clinical issues (pp. 41–54). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bossard, J. H. S., & Boll, E. S. (1956). The large fam-
ily system. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attach-
ment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss.
New York: Basic Books.
Brody, G. H. (Ed.). (1996). Sibling relationships: Their
causes and consequences. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brody, G. H., & Stoneman, Z. (1995). Sibling relation-
ships in middle childhood. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals
of child development: A research annual (Vol. 11,
pp. 73–93). Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & Burke, M. (1987). Child
temperaments, maternal differential behavior and
sibling relationships. Developmental Psychology, 23,
354–362.
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & McCoy, J. K. (1992a).
Parental differential treatment of siblings and sibling
differences in negative emotionality. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 54, 643–651.
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., McCoy, J. K., & Forehand,
R. (1992b). Contemporaneous and longitudinal asso-
ciations of sibling conflict with family relationship
assessment and family discussions about sibling
problems. Child Development, 63, 391–400.
Bryant, B., & Crockenberg, S. (1980). Correlates and
dimensions of prosocial behavior: A study of female
siblings with their mothers. Child Development, 51,
529–544.
Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1990). Perceptions of
sibling relationships during middle childhood and
adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1387–1398.
Christensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction pat-
terns in couples. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick
(Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 31–
52). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Christensen, A., & Sullaway, M. (1984). Communication
Patterns Questionnaire. (Available from A. Christen-
sen, Department of Psychology, UCLA, Los Angeles,
CA 90024).
Cicirelli, V. (1996). Sibling relationships in middle and
old age. In G. H. Brody (Ed.), Sibling relationships:
Their causes and consequences (pp. 47–73). Nor-
wood, NJ: Ablex.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). Antecedents of self esteem. San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Daniels, D., & Plomin, R. (1985). Differential experien-
ces of siblings in the same family. Developmental
Psychology, 21, 747–760.
Davies, B. (2002). The grief of siblings. In N. B. Webb
(Ed.), Helping bereaved children: A handbook for
practitioners (2nd ed., pp. 94–127). New York: Guil-
ford.
Deal, J. E., Halverson, C. F., & Wampler, K. S. (1994).
Sibling similarity as an individual difference variable.
Within family measures of shared environment. In
E. M. Hetherington, D. Reiss, & R. Plomin (Eds.),
Separate social worlds of siblings: The impact of
P. Noller
nonshared environment on development (pp. 205–
218). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Doherty, N. A., & Feeney, J. A. (in press). The composi-
tion of attachment networks throughout the adult
years. Personal Relationships.
Dunn, J. (1988). The beginnings of social understanding.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dunn, J. (1992). Sisters and brothers: Current issues in
developmental research. In F. Boer & J. Dunn
(Eds.), Children’s sibling relationships: Developmen-
tal and clinical issues (pp. 1–17). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Dunn, J. (1993). Social interaction, relationships, and the
development of causal discourse and conflict man-
agement. European Journal of Psychology of Educa-
tion, 8, 391–401.
Dunn, J. (1995). Children as psychologists: The later cor-
relates of individual differences in understanding of
emotions and other minds. Cognition and Emotion,
9, 187–201.
Dunn, J. (1999). Making sense of the social world: Mind-
reading, emotion and relationships. In P. D. Zelazo,
J. W. Astington, & D. R. Olson (Eds.), Devel-
oping theories of intention, social understanding
and self control (pp. 229–242). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Dunn, J. (2000). State of the art: Siblings. The Psycholo-
gist, 13, 244–248.
Dunn, J., Deater-Deckard, K., Pickering, K., Golding, J.,
& The ALSPAC Study Team. (1999). Siblings, parents
and partners: Family relationships within a longi-
tudinal community study. Journal of Child Psychol-
ogy and Psychiatry, 40, 1025–1037.
Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1986). Siblings and the develop-
ment of prosocial behavior. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 9, 265–284.
Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1990). Separate lives: Why sib-
lings are so different? New York: Basic Books.
Dunn, J., Stocker, C. M., & Plomin, R. (1990). Non-
shared experiences within the family: Correlates of
behavioural problems in middle childhood. Develop-
ment and Psychopathology, 2, 113–126.
Erel, O., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1998). Observed
sibling interaction: Links with the marital and the
mother-child relationship. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 34, 288–298.
Feeney, J. A., & Humphreys, T. (1996, November).
Parental, sibling and romantic relationships; explor-
ing the functions of attachment bonds. Paper presented
at the 5th Australian Family Research Conference,
Brisbane, Australia.
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994).
Assessing adult attachment: Developments in the
conceptualisation of security and insecurity. In M. B.
Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in
adults: Theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 128–
152). New York: Guilford.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s per-
ceptions of the qualities of their sibling relationships.
Child Development, 56, 448–461.
Goetting, A. (1986). The developmental tasks of sib-
lingship over the lifespan. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 48, 703–714.
Hinde, R. A. (1979). Towards understanding relation-
ships. New York: Academic Press.
Hochschild, A. R. (1973). The unexpected community.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sibling relationships in adolescence
Howe, N., Aquan-Assee, J., Bukowski, W., Lehoux,
P. M., & Rinaldi, C. M. (2001). Siblings as confi-
dants: Emotional understanding, relationship warmth
and sibling self-disclosure. Social Development, 10,
439–454.
Kaplan, L., Ade-Ridder, L., & Hennon, C. B. (1991).
Issues of split custody: Siblings separated by divorce.
Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 16, 253–274.
Kowal, A., & Kramer, L. (1997). Children’s understand-
ing of parental differential treatment. Child Develop-
ment, 68, 113–126.
Lee, G. R., Mancini, J. A., & Maxwell, J. W. (1990).
Sibling relationships in adulthood: Contact patterns
and motivations. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 52, 431–440.
Manke, B., McGuire, S., Reiss, D., Hetherington, E. M.,
& Plomin, R. (1995). Genetic contributions to adoles-
centsÕ extrafamilial social interactions: Teachers, best
friends and peers. Social Development, 4, 238–256.
McGuire, S., McHale, S. M., & Updegraff, K. A. (1996).
Children’s perceptions of the sibling relationship in
middle childhood: Connections within and between
family relationships. Personal Relationships, 3, 229–
239.
McHale, S. M., & Gamble, W. C. (1989). Sibling rela-
tionships of children with disabled and nondisabled
brothers and sisters. Developmental Psychology, 25,
421–429.
McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Jackson-Newson, J.,
Tucker, C. J., & Crouter, A. C. (2000). When does
parentsÕ differential treatment have negative implica-
tions for siblings. Social Development, 9, 149–172.
Noller, P. (2002, July). Conflict in the family system:
Links between marital, parent-child and sibling rela-
tionships. Paper presented at the 8th International
Conference on Language and Social Psychology,
Hong Kong.
Noller, P., Feeney, J. A., Peterson, C., & Sheehan,
G. (1995). Learning conflict patterns in the family. In
T. Socha & G. Stamp (Eds.), Parents, children and
communication: Frontiers of theory and research
(pp. 273–298). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Noller, P., Feeney, J. A., Sheehan, G., & Peterson, C.
(2000). Marital conflict patterns: Links with family
conflict and family membersÕ perceptions of one
another. Personal Relationships, 7, 79–94.
Noller, P., & Northfield, K. (2000, April). Young adult
sibling relationships: Relationship quality and indi-
vidual adjustment. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the Society of Australasian Social Psy-
chologists, Perth, Australia.
Noller, P., Seth-Smith, R., Bouma, R., & Schweitzer, R.
(1992). Parent and adolescent perceptions of family
functioning: A comparison of clinic and nonclinic
families. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 101–114.
Noller, P., & White, A. (1990). The validity of the Com-
munication Patterns Questionnaire. Psychological
Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 2, 478–482.
Patterson, G. R. (1986). The contribution of siblings to
training for fighting. A microsocial analysis. In
D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), De-
velopment of antisocial and prosocial behavior (pp.
235–261). New York: Academic Press.
Pike, A., Manke, B., Reiss, D., & Plomin, R. (2000). A
genetic analysis of differential experiences of adoles-
21
cent siblings across three years. Social Development,
9, 96–114.
Plomin, R., Chipuer, H. M., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (1994).
Behavioral genetic evidence for the importance
of nonshared environment. In E. M. Hetherington,
D. Reiss, & R. Plomin (Eds.), Separate social worlds
of siblings: The impact of nonshared environment on
development (pp. 1–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Plomin, R., Nitz, K., & Rowe, D. C. (1990). Behavioral
genetics and aggressive behavior in childhood. In
M. Lewis & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of devel-
opmental psychopathology. Perspectives in devel-
opmental psychology (pp. 119–133). New York:
Plenum Press.
Rands, M., Levinger, G., & Mellinger, G. (1981). Pat-
terns of conflict resolution and marital satisfaction.
Journal of Family Issues, 2, 297–321.
Reese-Weber, M. (2000). Middle and late adolescentsÕ
conflict resolution skills with siblings: Associations
with interparental and parent–adolescent conflict
resolution. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29,
697–711.
Riggio, H. (1999). Personality and social skills differen-
ces between adults with and without siblings. The
Journal of Psychology, 133, 514–522.
Rowe, D. C., & Plomin, R. (1981). The importance of
nonshared (E-sub-1) environmental influences in be-
havioural development. Developmental Psychology,
17, 517–531.
Seginer, R. (1998). AdolescentsÕ perceptions of relation-
ships with older siblings in the context of other close
relationships. Journal of Research in Adolescence, 8,
287–308.
Sheehan, G. (1997). Adolescent sibling conflict. Family
Matters, 46, 37–39.
Sheehan, G. (2000). Parental favoritism: Implications for
adolescentsÕ family relationships. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, University of Queensland, Queens-
land, Australia.
Sheehan, G., Darlington, Y., Noller, P., & Feeney, J. A.
(2004). Children’s perceptions of their sibling rela-
tionships during parental separation and divorce.
Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 41, 69–94.
Sheehan, G., Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Peterson, C.
(1997, November). Sibling Differences in Communi-
cation: The Influence of Parental Favoritism. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the American
Association for Behavioral Therapy, Miami, FL.
Sheehan, G., & Noller, P. (2002). AdolescentsÕ percep-
tions of differential parenting: Links with attachment
style and adolescent adjustment. Personal Relation-
ships, 9, 173–190.
Spielberger, C., Gorsuch, R., & Lushene, R. (1968). The
State-Trait Anxiety Scale. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
PsychologistsÕ Press.
Sroufe, L. A. (1996). Emotional development: The orga-
nization of emotional life in the early years. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, R. B., Mobley, L. A., van Tuyl, S. S., & Salvador,
M. A. (1987). The firstborn’s adjustment to the birth
of a sibling: A longitudinal assessment. Child Devel-
opment, 58, 341–355.
Stocker, C., Ahmed, K., & Stall, M. (1997). Marital sat-
isfaction and maternal emotional expressiveness:
Links with children’s sibling relationships. Social
Development, 6, 373–385.
22
Stocker, C. M. (1993). SiblingsÕ adjustment in middle
childhood: Links with mother-child relationships.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14,
485–499.
Tesser, A. (1980). Self-esteem maintenance in family
dynamics. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 39, 77–91.
Trinke, S. J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of
attachment relationships in young adulthood. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 603–625.
P. Noller
Tronick, E. Z. (1989). Emotions and emotional communi-
cation in infants. American Psychologist, 44, 112–119.
Tucker, C. J., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2003).
Dimensions of mothersÕ and fathersÕ differential treat-
ment of siblings: Links with adolescentsÕ sex-typed
qualities. Family Relations, 52, 82–89.
Volling, B., & Belsky, J. (1992). The contribution of
mother-child and father-child relationship to the qual-
ity of sibling interaction: A longitudinal study. Child
Development, 63, 1209–1222.