Sibling Jealousy in a Triadic Context with
Mothers and Fathers
Alison L. Miller and Brenda L. Volling, The University of Michigan
and Nancy L. McElwain, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Abstract
The current study focused on jealousy between toddler and preschool siblings. Sixtytwo families participated in triadic interaction sessions, in which mothers and then
fathers were instructed to focus on one child (older sibling or toddler) while encouraging the other child to play with other toys in the room. Results indicated that child
jealousy reactions differed between mothers and fathers, and parents behaved differently with older and younger siblings. Although older and younger siblings showed
jealousy, older children were better than their toddler-age siblings at regulating jealousy responses and engaging in focused play. Further, younger siblings showed differences in jealous behavior when interacting with each parent, whereas older siblings
showed somewhat greater behavioral consistency across parents, indicating internalization of emotion regulation style. Mothers expressed more happiness than fathers,
and parents responded differently to older versus younger siblings’ behaviors. Findings underscore the importance of examining emotion regulation processes within
salient family relationships and of considering sibling interaction as a socialization
context in which young children learn to negotiate emotional challenges.
Keywords: jealousy; siblings; family relationships
Understanding the role of interactional context is crucial in uncovering individual differences in children’s emotion regulation styles, as well as for examining developmental changes in the ability to regulate affect (Bridges & Connell, 1991; Sroufe,
1996; Thompson & Calkins, 1996). Many studies have evaluated the role of context
by varying either the situation used to evoke distress for a child (e.g., Braungart-Rieker
& Stifter, 1996; Field, Vega-Lahr, Scafidi, & Goldstein, 1986; S. Hart, Field, DelValle,
& Letourneau, 1998a; S. Hart, Field, Letourneau, & DelValle, 1998b; Masciuch &
Kienapple, 1993; Murray & Trevarthen, 1985) or actions used by a parent (typically
the mother) to soothe the child (Bridges, Grolnick, & Connell, 1997; Diener,
Mangelsdorf, McHale, & Frosch, 1998). Because emotion regulation is an interpersonal process (particularly in early childhood), parental unresponsiveness and attentiveness to other tasks challenge a child’s ability to regulate emotion (Field, 1994; S.
Hart et al., 1998a; Masciuch & Kienapple, 1993; Neubauer, 1983; Robey, Cohen, &
Epstein, 1988; Thompson, 1988).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alison L. Miller or Brenda Volling, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 525 E. University, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1109, USA.
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected].
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
434
Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
Previous research primarily examining mother-infant dyads has evaluated how different types of maternal unresponsiveness (e.g., ignoring requests, holding a ‘still face’
while facing the child, responding only in a limited way) may affect children’s emotional responses (Braungart-Rieker, Garwood, Powers, & Notaro, 1998; Bridges et al.,
1997; Diener et al., 1998; Grolnick, Bridges, & Connell, 1996). Such studies have
determined that infants experience more negative emotion when parents are instructed
to remain passive or unresponsive during challenging situations than when parents are
encouraged to interact with the child. Further, infants become more distressed when
mothers break the regulatory process by holding their faces completely still than when
the infants are separated from their mothers (Field et al., 1986), or when their mothers
are interrupted by an experimenter (Murray & Trevarthen, 1985), indicating that maternal unresponsiveness, rather than absence, is particularly challenging (Field, 1994).
Although these studies on early mother-infant interaction underscore the importance
of co-regulation in the development of early infant emotion, social relationships continue to play a regulating role as children mature. Relationships with mothers and
fathers, for example, may each contribute differently to the development of a child’s
regulation style (Braungart-Rieker et al., 1998; Lamb, 1997). Indeed, the work of Dunn
and her colleagues (Dunn, 1991; Dunn & Brown, 1991; Dunn & Munn, 1985) has
demonstrated how early family relationships, especially the emotionally intense relationship between young siblings, provide a window onto a child’s ability to manage
emotionally meaningful social interactions and the affective expressions that may arise
in such situations. For young children, such early social relationships are particularly
salient, and the emotion regulation skills acquired in these interactional contexts may
lay the groundwork for how a child responds in future relationships. In the present
investigation, we chose to focus on sibling jealousy reactions in response to parental
inattentiveness as a means of demonstrating children’s ability to regulate powerful
emotions in a social-relational context.
Jealousy and Social Context
Jealousy is a complex emotion that acquires meaning by attending to the social context
in which individuals interact. The emotional experience of jealousy has been defined
as the potential threat of losing a valued relationship to a ‘rival’ (Izard, 1991; Parrott,
1991; Salovey & Rothman, 1991). Specifically, Parrott (1991) notes that the loss
of ‘formative attention’ (i.e., attention that is essential to one’s self-concept; see
Tov-Ruach, 1980) from the valued person to the rival is what is common to all forms
of jealousy (e.g., between romantic partners or siblings). Jealousy appears, then, primarily in triadic contexts involving the jealous individual, the rival, and the valued
relationship with a significant other (Hansen, 1991; Parrott, 1991). Although jealousy
has often been examined in adults (e.g., with romantic partners), much less work has
been done on childhood jealousy. Concerns about sibling rivalry, however, have historically been a focus of developmental and clinical studies, as well as psychoanalytic
literature (Neubauer, 1983; Provence & Solnit, 1983), parenting manuals (Grossman,
1996; Pruitt, 1998) and pediatric visits (Griffin & De La Torre, 1985; Pietropinto,
1985). The sibling relationship is thus a logical context in which to examine child jealousy, as sibling jealousy has been characterized as ‘the most powerful jealousy of
youth’ (Parrott, 1991, p. 17).
In a triadic situation involving two siblings and a parent, children may display
sadness, anxiety, or distress when their sibling ‘rival’ wins what the child desires: the
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Sibling Jealousy
435
parent’s attention (Dunn & McGuire, 1992; Izard, 1991). Given this triadic social
context, such reactions may be interpreted as jealousy. According to Izard (1991) and
Parrott (1991), the emotions displayed in jealousy reactions include anger about feeling
neglected or betrayed by a loved one (e.g., the parent) and fear of losing the valued relationship. Parrott (1991) further notes that the overall emotional experience of jealousy
may consist of many different emotional displays (e.g., anxiety, sadness, anger),
depending on the individual’s focus (e.g., the loss of the relationship versus betrayal of
the partner; see also Hupka, 1984). Thus, jealousy reactions can only be interpreted
with respect to the social context. In previous research on children’s jealousy, jealousy
reactions have included emotional displays of anxiety and distress, as well as vocal
protests and distracting or negative behaviors that may include touching the parent
or the object that is the focus of the parent’s attention (S. Hart et al., 1998a, 1998b;
Masciuch & Kienapple, 1993). We thus considered emotional displays of anger,
anxiety, and sadness shown by the child who was not the focus of parental attention
during triadic interaction with a parent and sibling as jealousy reactions. Further, we
viewed children’s distracting and negative behaviors directed toward the parent or
sibling as indicating jealousy because the child was attempting to interrupt the interaction between the valued object (i.e., the parent) and the rival (i.e., the sibling) and win
back the parent’s attention (S. Hart et al., 1998a, 1998b; Masciuch & Kienapple, 1993).
Previous work on child jealousy has considered the role of context when evoking
jealousy reactions in an experimental laboratory setting. For example, Hart and colleagues (S. Hart et al., 1998a, 1998b) found that maternal attention to a realistic doll
evoked more jealousy reactions from children than maternal attention to a more neutral
stimulus such as a book. Masciuch and Kienapple (1993) found that infants, toddlers,
and preschoolers showed jealousy reactions (e.g., seeking attention, distracting,
showing aggression) when their mothers cuddled an unrelated infant, and older children were the most jealous when their mothers read to a same-age peer. Thus, children’s jealousy reactions seem to depend on the context and the object used to evoke
jealousy. Although jealousy has been elicited in such studies using objects, dolls, and
unrelated children, we believed that a situation involving highly salient interactional
partners (i.e., siblings and parents) would more closely approximate naturally occurring jealousy reactions. Thus, the first goal of this investigation was to demonstrate
that a triadic social context could evoke sibling jealousy responses in a relatively short,
controlled laboratory paradigm.
Developmental Differences
The second goal of this study was to examine developmental differences in older and
younger siblings’ jealousy reactions and their abilities to regulate their emotional and
behavioral displays of jealousy during triadic interaction sessions with a parent and a
sibling. Strategies for regulating emotion become more complex and internalized
throughout development. By the time they are in preschool, children typically have
more well-developed emotion regulation strategies at their disposal than do infants
and toddlers (Sroufe, 1996), and parents may expect more mature self-regulation of
emotion and behavior on the part of older siblings who are preschool age or older
(Kopp, 1989; Thompson, 1994). Younger toddler-age siblings may not be expected to
self-regulate as effectively, although they may be learning how to negotiate emotionally charged situations (e.g., conflicts) by watching their older siblings (Dunn &
Munn, 1985).
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
436
Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
Although researchers have evoked jealousy reactions in children as early as one year
of age (S. Hart et al., 1998a, 1998b), some have also found evidence suggesting that
older children may become more distressed and jealous than infants and young toddlers when competing for adult attention (Masciuch & Kienapple, 1993). As children
get older, they may begin to pay more attention to subtle yet salient contextual features that evoke jealous feelings (Masciuch & Kienapple, 1993). Indeed, studies have
shown that older siblings feel more resentment and experience more feelings of jealousy toward younger siblings than younger siblings do toward older siblings (Dunn &
Kendrick, 1982; Robey et al., 1988). As noted above, however, if older children have
more effective strategies to maintain their behavioral and emotional organization, then
older siblings should be better at regulating such jealousy reactions than their younger
siblings.
Differences in Mother and Father Behavior
Mothers and fathers both provide essential socializing influences on children’s emotion
regulation abilities (Braungart-Rieker et al., 1998; Bridges, Connell, & Belsky, 1988;
Boyum & Parke, 1995; Carson & Parke, 1996; Parke, MacDonald, Burks, Carson,
Bhavnagri, Barth, & Beitel, 1989; Volling & Belsky, 1992). Mothers and fathers may
differ, however, in their effectiveness at managing challenging situations that require
children to regulate emotion based on their individual characteristics, parenting experiences, or characteristics of the children (Bridges & Connell, 1991; Lamb, 1997;
Siegal, 1987; Stocker, 1995). As mothers tend to be the primary caregivers during the
early years, they may have more experience than fathers when it comes to soothing
infant and toddler distress (Parke & Tinsley, 1981; Wille, 1995). Furthermore, fathers
seem more comfortable interacting with older children (e.g., preschoolers) than
infants, as older children typically require less moment-to-moment care and fathers
can interact in the playful, rough-and-tumble manner that they seem to prefer (Lamb,
1997; MacDonald & Parke, 1986; Parke & Tinsley, 1987; Yogman, 1987). Fathers also
begin to spend more time with older siblings once new babies are born, compensating for mothers who are busy caring for newborn infants by helping out and emotionally supporting the older sibling (Gottlieb & Mendelson, 1990; Parke & Tinsley,
1981; Rustia & Abbott, 1993; Volling & Elins, 1998).
Overall, one might expect stylistic differences between mothers and fathers with
regard to their contributions to children’s emotion regulation behavior. Several studies
found that fathers not only engaged in more physical play with their children than did
mothers (e.g., MacDonald & Parke, 1986; McBride & Mills, 1993; Parke & Tinsley,
1987), but also that fathers who were able to keep their children from becoming upset
during emotionally arousing physical play sessions had children who were rated more
popular among preschool peers than children of fathers who were less able to control
their children’s emotions during such play (MacDonald & Parke, 1984). Research on
early mother-father differences in interactional style has also revealed that although
young infants responded negatively to unresponsiveness from mothers and fathers,
they looked toward unresponsive fathers but away from mothers, suggesting differences in the way mothers and fathers regulate negative affect for these infants
(Braungart-Rieker et al., 1998). Such differences in maternal and paternal emotion
socialization practices may become apparent during emotionally challenging family
situations such as managing sibling jealousy. Thus, the third goal of this study was to
examine whether there were mean-level differences between mothers’ and fathers’
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Sibling Jealousy
437
responses to children’s emotional and behavioral displays of jealousy. We also examined whether mothers and fathers in the same family showed similar emotional reactions and behavioral responses in the Challenge context and whether individual
differences in mothers’ and fathers’ behavior were consistent across siblings (e.g.,
whether mother’s behavior with the older sibling was related to her behavior with the
younger sibling). As a fourth goal, we examined whether parents’ emotional displays,
control, unresponsiveness, and positive facilitating behavior were related to individual differences in sibling jealousy reactions during the triadic sessions.
Individual Differences in Jealousy Reactions and Emotion Regulation
The fifth goal of this investigation was to assess whether there were consistent individual differences in how children negotiated sibling jealousy across triadic sessions
with mothers and with fathers. As noted above, we differentiated between specific
emotional and behavioral displays of jealousy. Specifically, we defined child jealousy
reactions as emotional displays of anger, anxiety, and sadness, as well as distracting
and negative behaviors directed toward the parent or sibling. Examining whether there
are consistent individual differences in children’s social interactions with mothers and
fathers allows one to address how stable a child’s self-regulatory capacities are across
social contexts and how sensitive his or her emotion regulation abilities are to the
dynamics of parent-child interaction. One would expect significant and moderately
robust correlations across mother and father sessions if emotion regulation strategies
have been internalized and are being used consistently across situations to cope with
emotional challenges. Fewer significant correlations would be expected if the child’s
jealousy reactions were more dependent on the social dynamics of the interactions
with parents and siblings. As such, we expected stronger associations to exist across
mother and father sessions for the more developmentally mature older sibling than we
did for the younger toddler, as older children should be at an age where emotion regulation has been internalized to some extent, whereas toddlers are more in need of
parental guidance to regulate emotions (Kopp, 1992; Sroufe, 1996; Thompson, 1994).
In sum, the current study had five goals: 1) to test whether a salient triadic social
context could evoke jealousy in a relatively brief paradigm, 2) to examine developmental differences between older and younger siblings’ jealousy reactions, 3) to identify differences and similarities in maternal and paternal behavior toward siblings, 4)
to investigate interrelations between parent behaviors and sibling jealousy reactions,
and finally, 5) to assess consistent individual differences in sibling behavior across
mothers and fathers, and in parent behavior across siblings.
Method
Participants
Study participants included mothers, fathers, and sibling pairs from 62 maritally-intact
families who were participating in a short-term longitudinal study of parent-child and
sibling relationships in infancy and early childhood. Families were initially recruited
from birth announcements and referrals from participating families, and were required
to meet three criteria in order to be eligible for the study. These included: 1) intact
marital status, 2) participation from both mothers and fathers, and 3) at least two children in the family, with the youngest child nearing 12 months of age and the older
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
438
Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
sibling between the ages of 2 and 6 years. Complete data were available for 60 families, as one family was dropped from the study due to marital separation, and one
family chose to leave the study before the sibling assessment occurred. Data for one
mother-toddler session were lost due to equipment failure.
Participating families were primarily European-American (n = 56), with one NativeAmerican couple and three interracial couples. Parents had been married for an
average of 7 years (range: 3–16 years) at the time of data collection. On average,
fathers were 35.6 years old, had completed 17.4 years of education, and had a mean
income of $53,759. Mothers were, on average, 33.2 years old, had completed 16.5
years of education, and had a mean income of $19,850. In the current investigation,
the age of the younger sibling (toddler) in all families was 16 months, the mean age
of the older sibling was 50 months (range: 2–7 years), and the average age difference
between siblings was 35 months (range: 11–68 months). Most of the toddlers in the
study were second born (n = 44), and the remaining 16 toddlers were third through
fifth born. For families with more than two children, the older sibling closest in age
to the 16-month-old was asked to participate. The sample included 20 girl/girl dyads
(younger/older), 14 boy/boy dyads, 10 girl/boy dyads, and 16 boy/girl dyads.
Procedure
Families were invited to participate in laboratory visits when the younger siblings were
12-, 13-, and 16-months of age. The current study focused on family observations that
were made during the 16-month visit. The 16-month visit consisted of a 15-minute
(warm up) free play session with the entire family, a 10-minute sibling free play session
while the parents filled out questionnaires in the same room, a 9-minute triadic interaction paradigm with each parent (see below), a 5-minute sibling separation with
parents out of the room, a 3-minute reunion with the entire family, and a 5-minute
cleanup task. Only data from the triadic interaction sessions were used for the current
investigation.
At the 16-month visit, parents and children were videotaped in a triadic interaction
paradigm similar to one developed by D. Teti and Ablard (1989): once with the mother
and the two siblings and once with the father and the two siblings. Parents were given
an attractive toy (a Lego playset or a talking phone) to use during the interaction sessions (order of the mother and father sessions were counterbalanced). Family triads
were videotaped in three 3-minute sessions. In the first, 3-minute session, the parent
was instructed to focus on one child (either the older sibling or the toddler, determined
by counterbalancing) while encouraging the other child to play with the other toys in
the room. For the second, 3-minute session, parents switched their involvement and
played with the other child, while the first child was instructed to play with the other
toys in the room. After this 3-minute session, the parent was instructed to play with
both children in any way he or she chose. The purpose of the last segment was to
provide a transitional period between mother and father sessions with the intent of
alleviating any lingering negative affect on the part of the children. This third session
was not coded because jealousy reactions were the behaviors of interest for the current
investigation and it was not clear which child was the focus of the parent’s attention
(i.e., parents were told to play with both children).
This triadic paradigm is seen as a jealousy-inducing situation for very young children because it requires that older and younger siblings regulate their emotional displays in response to their parent’s inattention. We use the term ‘involved child’ to refer
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Sibling Jealousy
439
to the child parents interacted with directly, and the term ‘challenged child’ to refer
to the child who was asked to engage in alternate play activities. Thus, the toddler was
challenged during the sessions where the parent was involved with the older sibling,
and the older sibling was challenged during parent-toddler sessions. Although these
observation sessions were brief, others have found that children’s distress and protest
behaviors coded during such sessions were related to insecure attachment status (D.
Teti & Ablard, 1989; L. Teti & Kouloumbre, 1995). Developmental differences in
young children’s expression of joy and distress, as well as toy play, have also been
found using this paradigm (L. Teti, in press), suggesting that behaviors observed in
this interactional context may be useful in order to examine different aspects of children’s socioemotional development. Further, interaction sessions of similar duration
have frequently been used in other studies of child jealousy (S. Hart et al., 1998a,
1998b; Masciuch & Kienapple, 1993). Finally, in order to validate this paradigm for
use in the current study, we assessed how well the Challenge sessions evoked jealousy
reactions by comparing children’s responses to being the focus of the parent’s attention (i.e., Involved session) versus their sibling being the focus of parental attention
(i.e., Challenge session). Child and parent behavior observed during the Challenge
sessions were of primary interest with regard to our other goals in this investigation.
Observational Coding of Emotional Displays and Behavior
Videotapes of the triadic sessions were coded for parents’, toddlers’, and older siblings’ global emotional displays. These codes are discussed first. In addition to coding
global emotional displays and emotion regulation style, three parenting behaviors, five
older child behaviors and four toddler behaviors were coded in 15-second intervals.
We used global ratings of emotional displays in order to best represent the emotional
dynamics (i.e., intensity and duration) and emotional meaning of the interaction
(Bakeman & Gottman, 1997; Thompson, 1994; Sroufe, 1996). We used interval codes
for behaviors, as others have noted that such coding schemes best capture discrete
behaviors (Isabella, 1993; Isabella & Belsky, 1991).
Independent raters assessed parent and child emotional displays and behaviors. In
addition, different coders assessed mothers and fathers from the same family, toddlers
and older children in the same session, and the same child across sessions with mothers
and fathers. Coders were trained on a subsample of tapes until interobserver agreement was 80% or higher. Interobserver agreement for parent codes was calculated on
16 (or 25% of) father sessions, and 16 mother sessions (25%). Interobserver agreement for child codes was calculated on 12 toddlers (20%) and 14 older siblings (23%).
Interobserver agreement percentages and Cohen’s Kappa values are reported after the
descriptions of the codes. Weighted Kappa procedures were used to calculate reliability for the global codes, as these are considered the most appropriate type of reliability statistic for rating scales (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997).
Global emotional displays. Parent and child emotional displays were rated globally
during both the Challenge and Involved segments (in order to compare children’s
emotional reactions across each situation). Child emotional display codes captured
affective expressions indicating jealousy reactions. The emotional display codes
were adapted from previous work by Cole and her colleagues (Cole, Barrett, &
Zahn-Waxler, 1992; Cole, Michel, & L. Teti, 1994) and captured the intensity, as
well as frequency and duration of emotional displays during the entire 3-minute
segment.
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
440
Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
Facial expression and vocal tone were considered when rating global happiness/joy
(e.g., smiling, laughing, enthusiasm), sadness (e.g., turned-down facial expression,
whining voice, slackening of muscular tone in face or body), anger (e.g., hostility,
annoyance, harsh tone of voice), and anxiety (nervousness, fearfulness, constricted
strain in voice) for parents and older siblings. Each was coded on a 7-point scale,
ranging from 0 (no display of emotion during segment) to 6 (frequent and full displays
of emotion during segment). Global ratings of toddlers’ happiness and distress (e.g.,
fussing, whining, crying) were also coded on a 7-point scale. Toddlers’ negative affect
was limited to a more encompassing ‘distress’ code, as it is often difficult to distinguish
anger, fear, and sadness in infant distress reactions (Sroufe, 1996). Child negative affect
was coded only when it was directed toward the parent and sibling who were involved
in play so other displays of negative affect (e.g., in response to frustration with a toy or
to physical discomfort without reference to the parent) were excluded.
Interrater agreement for global emotional displays averaged 90% for parent codes
(Weighted Kappa = .74), and 72% for child codes (Weighted Kappa = .72). Certain
emotional displays (mother and father sadness, anxiety, and anger, older sibling
anxiety and anger) occurred infrequently and were dropped from analyses. Emotional
displays used in subsequent analyses included mother and father happiness, older
sibling and toddler happiness, older sibling sadness, and toddler distress.
Child behavior. Five older child behaviors and four toddler behaviors were coded
for each 15-second interval during the Challenge session as a means of assessing jealousy reactions and were based on the work of D. Teti and Ablard (1989). These behaviors were coded only during the Challenge session, as they were meaningful only in
this triadic, jealousy-inducing context. Older siblings’ and toddlers’ jealousy behaviors included distracting the parent and/or focal child from their activity (e.g., placing
self between parent and sibling, playing with sibling’s toy), as well as negativity toward
parent and negativity toward sibling (e.g., hitting, pushing). Presence or absence of
rough play (e.g., throwing toy on floor, banging toy in an aggressive or inappropriate
manner) by the older child was also coded. Interobserver agreement for the child
behavior codes averaged 94% (Cohen’s Kappa = .70).
In order to examine children’s abilities to organize their play and attention during
the Challenge situation, older children’s and toddlers’ play involvement was coded.
This code captured the extent to which the challenged child was able to focus his/her
attention and play with other toys in the room. Play involvement was rated on a 3point scale, ranging from 1 (uninvolved in play by self) to 3 (fully involved with a toy
or an activity by self). Play involvement was not considered to be a jealousy behavior, but instead represented a form of behavioral and attentional regulation. Percentage agreement for play involvement was 87% (Weighted Kappa = .86).
Mean scores were created for child behavior codes for each session. Descriptive
statistics revealed that certain codes (negativity toward sibling and parent, older sibling
rough play) occurred too infrequently to be considered for analysis. Therefore, only
the toddler and older sibling distracting behavior and play involvement codes were
used in subsequent analyses.
Parent behavior. The presence or absence of three parenting behaviors were coded
using interval sampling in 15-second intervals in order to assess the parent’s behavior in response to the challenged child’s bids for attention. Parenting codes were based
on the work of Belsky, Youngblade, Rovine, and Volling (1991) and included facilitative (e.g., uses reasoning, maintains warm, nurturing tone of voice), controlling (e.g.,
uses commands, harsh tone of voice), and unresponsive (e.g., ignores child’s bids)
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Sibling Jealousy
441
behavior. Although parent facilitative and controlling behavior could occur without a
bid from the challenged child, parent unresponsive behavior was contingent upon the
child’s behavior, as parents could not be coded as being unresponsive unless the child
made an explicit bid for attention.
Interobserver agreement averaged 96% (Cohen’s Kappa = .83) for parent behavior
codes. A proportion score was created for each parenting behavior directed toward the
challenged child in which the sum of that behavior (e.g., facilitative parenting) was
divided by total parenting behavior (i.e., facilitative + controlling + unresponsive)
observed during the session, and thus reflected the proportion of total parental behavior that was facilitative, controlling, or unresponsive with regard to the challenged
child’s bids for attention.
Results
Data Analytic Strategy
The validity of our jealousy-inducing paradigm (i.e., the effect of context on child
emotional displays) was examined by conducting 2 (emotion: sadness vs. happiness)
¥ 2 (context: Challenge vs. Involved) ¥ 2 (parent: mother vs. father) repeated measures ANCOVAs for older and younger siblings, with emotion, context, and parent as
the repeated factors and child emotional displays as the dependent variables (controlling for order). Mean-level developmental differences between older sibling and
toddler emotional displays and behaviors during the Challenge session were next
assessed by conducting 2 (parent) ¥ 2 (sibling: older sibling vs. toddler) repeated measures ANCOVAs, with parent and sibling as the repeated factors and child jealousy
reactions (emotional displays and behaviors) as the dependent variables. In order to
determine whether mean levels of mothers’ and fathers’ displays of happiness differed
based on whether the toddler or the older sibling was the challenged child, a 2 (parent)
¥ 2 (sibling) repeated measures ANOVA, with parent and sibling as the repeated
factors and mothers’ and fathers’ displays of happiness as the dependent variables, was
conducted. Next, in order to determine whether mean levels of parenting behaviors
differed based on whether the toddler or the older sibling was the challenged child, a
2 (parent) ¥ 2 (sibling) ¥ 3 (behavior: facilitative vs. controlling vs. unresponsive)
repeated measures ANCOVA was conducted, with parent, sibling, and behavior as the
repeated measures and parenting behaviors as the dependent variables. Correlational
analyses were then used to investigate individual differences in parents’ and children’s
emotional displays and behaviors during the Challenge session. Specifically, correlations were used to determine whether mothers and fathers treated older and younger
siblings differently, whether parents in the same family treated children differently,
and whether older and younger siblings in the same family behaved differently with
mothers and fathers.
Preliminary Analyses
Preliminary analyses examining relations between family constellation variables (age
spacing between siblings, birth order, gender, older sibling age) and the variables of
interest were conducted. Correlations revealed no significant relationships between
sibling age spacing, birth order, gender, or older sibling age and any parent or child
behaviors or emotional displays. Thus, these variables were not considered further.
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
442
Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
One-way ANOVAs were used to test for effects involving the order of counterbalancing in the Challenge session (i.e., which sibling was challenged first, by which
parent). These analyses revealed order effects for the following: older sibling play
involvement with mothers, F (3, 56) = 2.94, p < .05; toddler play involvement with
mothers, F (3, 55) = 8.12, p < .001, and fathers, F (3, 56) = 2.88, p < .05; toddler distracting behavior with mothers, F (3, 55) = 5.40, p < .01, and fathers, F (3, 56) = 5.07,
p < .01; toddler distress with fathers, F (3, 56) = 3.34, p < .05; and father’s controlling behavior toward older siblings, F (3, 56) = 4.36, p < .01. Older siblings showed
more focused play with their mothers when the Challenge session occurred first (M =
2.13) than when it occurred second (M = 1.63). Toddlers showed more focused play
with mothers when the Challenge session occurred second (M = 1.37) than when it
occurred first (M = 1.91) and showed more focused play when they were the second
sibling to be challenged with fathers (M = 1.88) than when they were the first (M =
1.44). Toddlers showed more instances of distracting behavior (mother M = .53, father
M = .47) when they were the first sibling to be challenged than when they were the
second sibling to be challenged (mother M = .24, father M = .23). Toddlers who were
challenged first cried more (M = 2.50) than those who were challenged second (M =
.67). Fathers showed more controlling behavior in response to older siblings when
older siblings were challenged second (M = .14) than when they were challenged first
(M = .01). All subsequent analyses involving these variables (i.e., older sibling and
toddler play involvement, toddler distracting behavior, toddler distress, paternal controlling behavior) thus included order as a covariate. Table 1 displays means and standard deviations for the variables of interest.
Table 1. Overall Means and Standard Deviations for
Behaviors and Emotions
Mother
Proportion Score
Facilitative
Controlling
Unresponsive
Global Rating
Happiness
Proportion Score
Distract
Play Involvement
Global Rating
Happiness
Sadness/Distressa
Father
.40 (.17)
.07 (.09)
.08 (.09)
.37 (.17)
.07 (.10)
.09 (.09)
2.46 (.99)
1.86 (.79)
Older Sibling
Toddler
.54 (.21)
1.87 (.38)
.35 (.16)
1.64 (.33)
2.21 (.81)
.97 (.63)
1.48 (.79)
1.42 (1.08)
Note: a Sadness coded for older siblings, distress coded for
toddlers.
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Sibling Jealousy
443
Validity of the Challenge Context as a Jealousy-Inducing Paradigm
In order to determine whether the triadic paradigm reliably elicited emotional displays
of jealousy from older siblings and toddlers (i.e., distress or sadness), repeated measures ANCOVAs with context (Challenge vs. Involved) and emotion (sadness vs. happiness) as the repeated measures were conducted for older siblings and toddlers,
controlling for order. For older siblings, results revealed a main effect for emotion and
an emotion ¥ context interaction, F (1, 58) = 48.20, p < .001 (see Figure 1). Followup paired t tests revealed that although older siblings displayed more happiness than
sadness overall, they displayed more sadness in the Challenge context (M = 1.41) than
in the Involved context (M = .54), and more happiness in the Involved context (M =
2.49) than in the Challenge context (M = 1.93).
Figure 1. Older sibling and toddler emotional displays as a function of context.
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
444
Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
Table 2. Repeated Measures ANCOVA: Child Emotions and Behaviors as a
Function of Parent and Sibling (Challenge context only)
Parent
Mother
Challenged Sibling
Father F (1, 58) Older Sibling Toddler F (1, 58)
Child Emotions and Behaviors
Happiness
1.70
1.63
1.38
Sadness/Distressa 1.71
Distraction
.45
.45
Play Involvement 1.75
1.76
.24
3.00
.08
.01
1.92
1.41
.55
1.87
1.38
1.66
.35
1.64
9.38**
1.43
31.82***
12.66***
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Note: a Sadness coded for older siblings, distress coded for toddlers.
Results also revealed an emotion ¥ context interaction for toddlers’ emotional displays, F (1, 58) = 9.11, p < .01 (see Figure 1). Follow-up paired t tests revealed that
toddlers showed more distress in the Challenge context (M = 1.67) than in the Involved
context (M = 1.17). Toddlers also showed more happiness (M = 1.58) than sadness (M
= 1.15) in the Involved context. We thus assumed that the triadic paradigm reliably
created a challenging, jealousy-inducing situation both for toddlers and their older
siblings.
Differences in Child Behavior as a Function of Parent and Sibling
In order to examine developmental differences in older sibling and toddler emotional
displays and behaviors (jealousy reactions) during the Challenge session, a series of
2 (parent) ¥ 2 (sibling: older sibling vs. toddler) repeated measures ANCOVAs with
parent and sibling as the repeated measures were conducted, controlling for order when
necessary. Analyses revealed significant main effects for sibling with regard to happiness, distraction, and play involvement (see Table 2). Older siblings in the Challenge
context distracted more, and showed more focused play than did challenged toddlers.
Challenged older siblings also displayed more happiness than did challenged toddlers.
There were no main effects for parent and no parent ¥ sibling interactions with regard
to any child emotional displays or behaviors.
Differences in Parent Behavior as a Function of Parent and Sibling
A 2 (parent) ¥ 2 (sibling) repeated measures ANOVA with parent and sibling as the
repeated measures was conducted in order to examine mean differences in parents’
displays of happiness. This analysis revealed a main effect for parent, F (1, 58) = 12.07,
p < .01. Overall, mothers showed more happiness (M = 2.46) than fathers (M = 1.86)
in the Challenge context.
Next, a 2 (parent) ¥ 2 (sibling) ¥ 3 (parenting behavior) repeated measures
ANCOVA model with parent, sibling, and behavior as the repeated factors (controlling for order) was used to test for mean-level differences in parenting behaviors
directed toward the older sibling and the toddler during Challenge sessions (see
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Sibling Jealousy
445
Table 3. Repeated Measures ANCOVA: Parenting Behaviors as a Function of
Parent, Sibling, and Behavior (Challenge context only)
Mothers
To Older
Sibling
Parenting Behavior
Facilitative
.76
Controlling
.08
.12
Unresponsivea
Fathers
To
Toddler
t (58)
To Older
Sibling
To
Toddler
t (59)
.69
.09
.13
1.35
-.34
-.28
.73
.07
.19
.60
.14
.10
-2.67**
2.56*
3.03**
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Note: a Overall repeated measures model showed a three-way interaction between parent,
sibling, and behavior (p < .05).
Table 3). Analyses revealed a 3 way parent ¥ sibling ¥ behavior interaction. Followup paired t tests revealed that fathers were more controlling with toddlers than with
older siblings, more facilitative with older siblings than with toddlers, and more unresponsive to older siblings than to toddlers ( p’s < .05). There were no differences in
mothers’ parenting behaviors as a function of which sibling was challenged.
Consistency in Parent and Child Behaviors and Emotional Displays Across
Parent Sessions
Partial correlation analyses were conducted in order to examine individual differences
in older and younger siblings’ emotional displays and behaviors across parent sessions,
controlling for order (see Table 4). These analyses revealed consistent individual
differences for older siblings and toddlers across mother and father sessions.
Specifically, challenged older siblings displayed similar levels of happiness and distracting behavior across parents. Toddlers also displayed similar levels of happiness
across parents, but toddlers who distracted mothers tended to distract fathers less
often.
MULTICORR, a program designed to compare elements of the same correlation
matrix, was used to test for differences in these correlational patterns for older
and younger siblings (Steiger, 1979; 1980). In this analysis, the hypothesis that two
correlation matrices are different is evaluated using the chi square statistic. The analysis revealed that patterns of older sibling and toddler distracting behavior differed
across parents; older siblings distracted fathers and mothers similarly, whereas toddlers who distracted mothers more often distracted fathers less often (c2(1) = 9.86,
p < .01).
Partial correlations were also conducted in order to examine consistencies in parenting behavior across mother and father sessions (see Table 4). These analyses
revealed no significant correlations, indicating that neither mothers nor fathers were
consistent in emotional displays or the parenting behaviors they directed toward
challenged older siblings or toddlers.
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
446
Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
Table 4. Correlations across Mother-Father Challenge Sessions for Parent and Child Emotions and
Behaviors
Pearson r Between
Mother-Father Sessions
Older Sibling Emotions / Behaviors
1. Happiness
.32**
2. Sadness
.19
3. Distract
.34**
4. Play Involvement
.13
Toddler Emotions / Behaviors
1. Happiness
2. Distress
3. Distract
4. Play Involvement
.28*
.05
-.26*
-.13
Parent Emotions / Behavior with Older Sibling
.16
1. Happinessa
2. Facilitative
.02
3. Controlling
.01
4. Unresponsive
.04
Parent Emotions / Behavior with Toddler
-.07
1. Happinessa
2. Facilitative
.17
3. Controlling
.16
4. Unresponsive
-.04
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Note: a Parent happiness not directed toward a specific child.
Consistency in Parent Behaviors and Emotional Displays Across
Sibling Sessions
Partial correlations were next used to examine consistencies in parent emotional
displays and behavior across older sibling and toddler Challenge sessions, controlling
for order when necessary (see Table 5). With regard to parent emotional displays
across sibling sessions, correlational analyses revealed that mothers and fathers
who displayed happiness during Challenge sessions with toddlers also did so with
older siblings. With regard to parent behavior, there were no significant correlations
for mothers across older and younger siblings. Fathers, on the other hand, were
consistent in their controlling behavior directed toward older siblings and toddlers
during Challenge sessions and in their unresponsiveness to older siblings and
toddlers. Analyses using MULTICORR revealed that these mother-father differences were marginally significant only for unresponsiveness, however (c2(1) = 3.01,
p < .08).
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Sibling Jealousy
447
Table 5. Correlations across Older Sibling-Toddler
Challenge Sessions for Parent Emotions and
Behaviors
Pearson r Between Older
Sibling-Toddler Sessions
Father Emotions / Behaviors
1. Happiness
2. Facilitative
3. Controlling
4. Unresponsive
.25*
.08
.25*
.26*
Mother Emotions / Behaviors
1. Happiness
.39**
2. Facilitative
.14
3. Controlling
.12
4. Unresponsive
-.07
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Associations Between Parent and Child Behaviors and Emotional Displays
In an effort to examine the associations between parent and child variables, partial
correlations between parent and child behaviors and emotional displays were conducted, controlling for order when necessary (see Table 6). Parents’ emotional displays
were included in these analyses, although they must be interpreted differently as these
global ratings captured overall affect in the session and not emotion directed to a specific child, whereas the parenting behaviors were coded with respect to the challenged
sibling only. Correlations revealed that mothers used a higher proportion of controlling behavior when older siblings displayed more sadness, used more distracting
behavior, and were less involved in play. In addition, mothers were more unresponsive toward older siblings who displayed more distracting behavior. Older children displaying less sadness had mothers who displayed more happiness. With respect to
toddlers, more maternal controlling behavior was associated with more toddler distress and marginally less play involvement.
Fathers were more controlling with older siblings when the older siblings were less
involved in play and showed more sadness. Fathers were more controlling to toddlers
when the toddlers showed more instances of distracting behavior, and were more facilitative to toddlers when the toddlers were less involved in play. Finally, fathers were
more unresponsive during Challenge sessions when toddlers displayed less happiness
and more distress (see Table 6).
Discussion
The main goal of this investigation was to examine young children’s abilities to
regulate jealousy reactions during triadic interactions with their mothers, fathers,
and siblings. Given the different developmental levels of the two children, we were
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
448
Mother Behaviors
Father Behaviors
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Facilitative
Controlling
Unresponsive
Happiness
Facilitative
Controlling
Unresponsive
Happiness
Older Sibling
1. Happiness
2. Distress
3. Distract
4. Play
Involvement
.23+
-.16
-.02
-.13
-.14
.36**
.27*
-.32*
-.03
.13
.26*
.04
.06
-.37**
-.19
.12
.12
-.01
-.03
.12
-.19
.26*
.16
-.33*
.08
-.05
.15
-.09
-.11
-.06
-.21
.05
Toddler
1. Happiness
2. Distress
3. Distract
4. Play
Involvement
-.11
.05
.03
-.08
-.11
.42***
.03
-.23+
.19
-.09
.10
-.17
.04
-.09
.10
-.17
.17
.04
.23+
-.29*
.17
.16
.33*
-.17
-.27*
.33*
.19
-.11
.02
.02
-.07
-.06
+
p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Note: a Parent happiness not directed toward a specific child.
Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Table 6. Correlations between Parent and Child Behaviors and Emotions in Challenge Context
Sibling Jealousy
449
interested in mean-level differences in older and younger siblings’ jealousy reactions,
as well as whether parents directed different behaviors to older and younger siblings
commensurate with the children’s age and in line with greater expectations for more
mature self-regulation of emotion and behavior for older siblings. We also examined
whether mothers and fathers treated children similarly or whether they responded
differently to children’s jealousy, and whether children reacted differently to the
challenge of observing maternal versus paternal attention to a sibling. Finally, we
investigated associations between parent and child behavior and emotional displays
when interacting with different family members in the Challenge context.
Validity of the Challenge Context as a Jealousy-Inducing Paradigm
Because we had coded emotional displays in both the Challenge and the Involved contexts, we could directly test whether the triadic context used in the current study would
evoke jealousy by comparing children’s emotions (happiness and sadness / distress)
across the Involved and Challenge contexts. We found emotion by context interactions
for both older siblings and toddlers, suggesting that the Challenge session did evoke
emotional reactions of jealousy from the children. Older siblings and toddlers both
showed higher levels of negative affect in Challenge sessions than in Involved sessions, indicating that they were upset by the triadic situation. In addition, toddlers
showed more positive than negative affect during Involved sessions. Although older
siblings showed more positive than negative affect overall, they showed significantly
higher levels of positive affect in Involved sessions than in Challenge sessions, indicating that the demands of the Challenge situation may have dampened older siblings’
expressions of positive emotion. We did not expect the children in the current study
to display extremely high levels of sadness or distress, as the triadic interaction context
is intended to mirror the dynamics of everyday sibling interaction, rather than provide
an excessively stressful experience. Further, intense displays of negative affect are not
considered necessary in order to constitute a jealousy response (see Hupka, 1984;
Parrott, 1991). Thus, these findings validate the use of this paradigm to elicit jealousy
from siblings of this age. More generally, the findings from the current study underscore the essential role that social relationships and the social context play in determining the emotional tone of social interactions, specifically with regard to jealousy,
even as early as toddlerhood.
Differences in Child Behavior as a Function of Parent and Sibling
The Challenge paradigm evoked jealousy reactions for young children, but there were
also developmental differences in how siblings managed such reactions. Although
younger siblings as a group did not show higher levels of specific jealousy reactions
than their older siblings (i.e., distress or distraction) in the Challenge context, they were
less happy than their older siblings, probably due in part to their limited abilities to
engage and find pleasure in alternative play when challenged. Our finding that toddlers
had more difficulty engaging in other play activities during the Challenge session than
did their older siblings is consistent with research and theory indicating that older siblings possess better emotion regulation strategies and should be able to maintain their
focus more easily under challenging conditions (Kopp, 1992; Sroufe, 1996).
Challenged older siblings displayed their jealousy reactions by distracting parents
more than toddlers did. Older children may have used their more advanced verbal
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
450
Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
abilities to distract the parent by talking or asking questions, as opposed to becoming
angry, as a strategy to cope with their feelings of jealousy when the parent’s attention
was focused on the toddler. Coping with jealousy by using such distraction techniques
is arguably a more adaptive way to manage such a powerful emotion in this challenging
context than becoming angry, upset, or aggressive (Cole et al., 1994; S. Hart et al.,
1998b; Sroufe, 1996). For example, adults may be more likely to respond to distracting behavior with facilitative suggestions, as opposed to using stronger disciplinary
measures, as may occur in response to a child’s anger or aggression (Sroufe, 1996).
Further, as noted above, the Challenge situation did not appear to impede older siblings’ abilities to become involved in alternative play activities, as challenged older
siblings maintained higher levels of focused play than did challenged toddlers. Developmentally, as expected, older children were better equipped than were their younger
siblings to handle the parent’s strict attention to a younger toddler. The finding that
older siblings were more highly involved in play suggests that children of preschool
age or older have begun to acquire regulation strategies that allow them to show more
adaptive responses to emotionally challenging situations (Kopp, 1992; Thompson,
1994).
In summary, we found evidence that children as young as 16 months of age reacted
with jealousy in this challenging context. The fact that displays of sadness and distress differed across the Involved and Challenge sessions supports the validity of this
paradigm for eliciting emotional displays of jealousy in young siblings. Children’s
jealousy reactions had some common manifestations across ages (i.e., negative affect),
but there were also developmental differences in adaptive coping strategies (i.e., ability
to maintain play focus). It is therefore essential to keep in mind that although this
complex social emotion appears early in development, particularly in the sibling relationship context, it is multifaceted and is displayed differently at different ages. Future
research in this area will need to disentangle effects of age and birth order (for
example, by comparing how older and younger siblings of similar ages react to
parental attention to a sibling) in order to address further questions about developmental differences in sibling jealousy.
Differences in Parent Behavior as a Function of Parent and Sibling
Mothers expressed more happiness than did fathers in triadic sessions with older and
younger siblings. This finding may reflect differences in the cultural socialization of
emotional expressiveness for males and females. Brody and Hall (1993) reported, for
example, that women tend to express higher levels of positive affect than do men (see
also Halberstadt, Hayes, & Pike, 1988). As parents expressed little negative emotion
in the paradigm, we were unable to explore parent differences in the expression of
such emotion. Differences in negative affect expression may become evident, however,
in settings evoking more negative emotion for parents. Such a possibility should be
investigated, as differences in the ways mothers and fathers express negative as well
as positive emotion may have implications for their parenting styles and their children’s emotion socialization.
When examining group differences in parenting behaviors, we found that mothers
and fathers both directed more facilitative behavior toward challenged older siblings
than toddlers, indicating that parents may hold different expectations for emotional
displays and behavioral regulation based on child age. Facilitative behavior, for
example, often included talking with the challenged child while remaining engaged
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Sibling Jealousy
451
with the other child. As parents were explicitly instructed not to initiate interaction,
but to respond as they would at home, such behavior was therefore most likely to
appear in response to the older sibling’s questions or comments. The 16-month-old
toddlers, who were not as proficient as their preschool-age siblings with regard to language and less likely to initiate conversations, received fewer verbal responses from
parents. Thus, mothers and fathers appeared to base their parenting strategies and
emotion socializing behavior on characteristics (i.e., age) of their children.
A parent by sibling by behavior interaction suggested that fathers were more unresponsive and facilitative with older than with younger siblings, whereas mothers were
equally unresponsive and facilitative across siblings. Fathers were also more controlling with younger siblings than older siblings, whereas mothers were not. Fathers may
hold different emotion regulation expectations for toddlers and older siblings, just as
they have different experiences with children of different ages (Lewis, 1997). It may
be that fathers expect older siblings to maintain a regulated state on their own and are
thus either less apt to respond to older siblings’ distracting behavior, or to respond to
such behavior by talking to the older child. In contrast, fathers may respond to toddler
distress by using controlling tactics if they are uncomfortable with a younger child’s
distress (Wille, 1995). Future research on father-child interaction should consider
these issues and would benefit from examining relationships between fathers and children across a wider age range.
Consistency in Child and Parent Behavior and Emotional Displays Across
Parent Sessions
We found limited support for our hypothesis that older siblings would show more emotional and behavioral consistency across parent sessions than younger siblings. Our
individual differences analyses revealed that older siblings displayed similar levels of
happiness and distraction across mother-father Challenge sessions. Older sibling
sadness and play involvement were not consistent across parents, however. With regard
to toddlers, displays of happiness were consistent when interacting with each parent,
whereas distress and play involvement were not. Toddlers’ distracting behavior differed consistently across parents, with toddlers who showed high levels of distraction
with mothers showing low levels of distraction with fathers. Overall, these findings
moderately support our prediction that younger siblings would require more external
regulation than older siblings and thus be more susceptible to maternal and paternal
influences, particularly with regard to distracting behavior.
With regard to individual differences in mother and father behavior across Challenge sessions, parents were not consistent in terms of how they interacted with older
siblings or with toddlers. That is, mothers’ parenting behaviors and emotional displays
with older siblings were not related to fathers’ behaviors or emotional displays with
the same older siblings, and mothers’ behaviors and emotional displays with toddlers
were unrelated to fathers’ behaviors and emotional displays with the same toddlers.
Thus, mothers and fathers in the same family responded differently to the same child’s
jealousy displays.
Overall, we found some support for consistency in child behavior across Challenge
sessions with their mothers and fathers, but little support for consistency in parent
behavior with older and younger siblings in the same family. Such inconsistency
across parents and contexts indicates that many of these behaviors and emotional
displays are highly sensitive to the dynamics and features of the social context (e.g.,
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
452
Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
interactional partners). More broadly, with regard to emotion regulation across different contexts, these findings imply that it is essential to consider not only the behaviors of interest, but also the context in which such behaviors are observed.
Consistency in Parent Behavior and Emotional Displays Across Sibling Sessions
With regard to parental consistency across sibling sessions, mothers and fathers were
both consistent in the levels of happiness displayed with older and younger siblings
during Challenge sessions. With regard to parenting behaviors, however, fathers but
not mothers behaved similarly across siblings, showing consistency in their controlling and unresponsive behavior across sibling sessions. Although follow-up analyses
revealed that differences between mother and father correlations were only marginal
for parental unresponsiveness, consistency in paternal behavior across siblings may
indicate that fathers are less likely to change their parenting to suit the age of the child.
This finding is consistent with other research suggesting that fathers may be less likely
to alter their parenting strategies based on the age and cognitive ability of the child
(C. Hart & Robinson, 1994).
Associations between Parent and Child Behavior and Emotional Displays
We found that mothers’ displays of happiness were negatively related to older siblings’
displays of sadness, but unrelated to other child emotional displays. Paternal displays
of happiness were also unrelated to child emotions. This indicates that the jealousyinducing context, as expected, may have precluded shared positive affect states
between parents and their children and may have been somewhat challenging for
parents as well as children.
When examining associations between parent and child behaviors, we found that
parents used controlling or unresponsive behavior in response to child jealousy reactions, indicating that jealousy reactions may be associated with non-facilitative parenting. For example, mothers showed higher proportions of controlling behavior when
children showed high levels of distress, sadness, and distraction, as well as less focused
play. Results held for both older and younger siblings. Further, mothers were highly
unresponsive when older siblings used high levels of distraction. Similarly, fathers’
controlling behavior was also related to child jealousy reactions as indicated by less
focused play and more sadness on the part of older siblings, as well as more toddler
distraction. In addition, fathers were unresponsive to bids when toddlers showed less
happiness and more distress. Thus, although both mothers and fathers both used facilitative more than controlling or unresponsive parenting overall, child jealousy reactions were related specifically to controlling and unresponsive parenting behavior.
Parents may either ignore sibling jealousy reactions in the hope of extinguishing such
behavior, or become frustrated and therefore act in a controlling manner. In future
research, it would be interesting to consider the role of parenting behavior with regard
to sibling jealousy not only during childhood, but also later in development.
Mothers and fathers also differed somewhat in their responses to child jealousy.
Mothers were controlling with older siblings and toddlers who showed sadness or distress, for example, as well as with older siblings who showed distracting behavior.
Unlike mothers, fathers were not controlling in response to older siblings’ distracting
behavior, but were controlling in response to toddlers’ distracting behavior and older
sibling sadness. Fathers were unresponsive, however, to toddlers’ distress. One pos© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Sibling Jealousy
453
sible explanation for these findings may be due to fathers’ discomfort confronting the
toddler’s distress. Research on men’s and women’s emotion regulation in the context
of marital conflict has indicated that some men became more aroused than women
by uncontrolled negative affect expression and avoided encounters that led to such
physiological arousal (Levenson, Carstensen, & Gottman, 1994). Similarly, fathers of
distressed toddlers may become emotionally flooded when faced with dysregulated
toddler affect and become unresponsive in order to avoid toddlers’ negative affective
displays, but respond with control to such behavior from older siblings. As fathers
have been found to use power-assertive and controlling discipline techniques (C. Hart
& Robinson, 1994), and tend to see themselves as the disciplinarian in the family
(Holland, 1994), they may hold higher expectations for older siblings’ abilities to regulate their emotions once they reach preschool age and thus react with control when
their older children become upset. In contrast, mothers, who may have more experience managing two children at once (McBride & Mills, 1993; Wille, 1995), seem to
react with control to displays of jealousy from either child.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
The current study makes an important contribution to the literature on children’s emotional development in that it is one of the few to examine child jealousy. Our finding
that children displayed more jealousy reactions in the Challenge than in the Involved
sessions indicates that even a 3-minute period of interaction can elicit emotional reactions, given the proper relational context. By using a triadic interaction paradigm to
evoke jealousy reactions from siblings, we have a clear example of the importance of
social relationships and interactional contexts in research on social and emotional
development. However, there are a number of potential limitations to the current study
that must be acknowledged.
An important caveat is that all of the above findings are correlational in nature.
Thus, one must interpret them carefully and note that cause and effect relationships
cannot be determined from these data. It may be, for example, that mothers were controlling because children were upset, or that children became upset because their
mothers were controlling. In our paradigm, however, as parents were instructed not to
initiate interaction with the challenged child but to respond naturally to both children,
it seems reasonable to propose that parent behavior was in response to child behavior
in this investigation. Future research may benefit from more fine-grained analyses of
such behavioral sequences, which the data in the current study could not address.
In addition, the families in the current study are a relatively low-risk, highly educated sample. In order to generalize our findings to a more diverse population, it would
be essential to conduct research with participants who represent a broader range of
socio-demographic characteristics. Such research is necessary not only for purposes
of generalization to other samples, but also in order to investigate the wide variety of
cultural influences that may contribute to differences in emotional and behavioral displays of jealousy and parental expectations for behavioral and emotional regulation in
childhood.
Conclusion
In sum, the current findings underscore the importance of examining emotional displays and behavioral regulation processes within social relationship contexts. The
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
454
Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
sibling relationship, particularly with respect to rivalry and jealousy reactions, is one
of the earliest contexts in which children learn to attend to the emotional reactions of
others and themselves (Dunn, 1994; Dunn & Brown, 1991; Dunn & Munn, 1985).
Interactions with siblings can evoke strong emotional reactions from young children,
and the ways in which mothers and fathers respond to such reactions may influence
the development of children’s emotion regulation styles in future relationships outside
the family (Denham, Mitchell-Copeland, Strandberg, Auerbach, & Blair, 1997; C.
Hart, DeWolf, Wozniak, & Burts, 1992; Kennedy, 1992). As initial emotion regulation abilities develop primarily in the context of family relationships, future work
needs to consider how young children manage their emotions in each of these socially
meaningful relationships (mothers, fathers, and siblings) if we truly wish to understand the processes that underlie the development of young children’s emotion
regulation.
References
Bakeman, R. & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential
analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Belsky, J., Youngblade, L. M., Rovine, M., & Volling, B. L. (1991). Patterns of marital change
and parent-child interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 461–474.
Boyum, L. A. & Parke, R. D. (1995). The role of family expressiveness in the development of
children’s social competence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 593–608.
Braungart-Rieker, J. M., Garwood, M. M., Powers, B. P., & Notaro, P. C. (1998). Infant affect
and affect regulation during the still-face paradigm with mothers and fathers: The role of
infant characteristics and parental sensitivity. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1428–1437.
Braungart-Rieker, J. M. & Stifter, C. A. (1996). Infants’ responses to frustrating situations: Continuity and change in reactivity and regulation. Child Development, 67, 1767–1779.
Bridges, L. J. & Connell, J. P. (1991). Consistency and inconsistency in infant emotional and
social interactive behavior across contexts and caregivers. Infant Behavior and Development,
14, 471–487.
Bridges, L. J., Connell, J. P., & Belsky, J. (1988). Similarities and differences in infant-mother
and infant-father interaction in the strange situation: A component process analysis. Developmental Psychology, 24, 92–100.
Bridges, L. J., Grolnick, W. S., & Connell, J. P. (1997). Infant emotion regulation with mothers
and fathers. Infant Behavior and Development, 20, 47–57.
Brody, L. R. & Hall, J. A. (1993). Gender and emotion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.),
Handbook of emotions (pp. 447–460). New York: Guilford.
Carson, J. L. & Parke, R. D. (1996). Reciprocal negative affect in parent-child interactions and
children’s peer competence. Child Development, 67, 2217–2226.
Cole, P. M., Barrett, K. C., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1992). Emotion displays in two-year-olds during
mishaps. Child Development, 63, 314–324.
Cole, P. M., Michel, M. K., & Teti, L. O. (1994). The development of emotion regulation and
dysregulation: A clinical perspective. In N. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development (pp. 73–100), 59 (2–3, Serial No. 240).
Denham, S. A., Mitchell-Copeland, J., Strandberg, K., Auerbach, S., & Blair, K. (1997).
Parental contributions to preschoolers’ emotional competence: Direct and indirect effects.
Motivation and Emotion, 21, 65–86.
Diener, M., Mangelsdorf, S. C., McHale, J., & Frosch, C. A. (1998, April). Mother-father differences and paternal correlates of infant emotion regulation. In M. Diener & T. Spinrad
(Chairs), Emotion regulation in infants and young children: Contributions of parenting and
temperament. Symposium conducted at the 11th Biennial International Conference on Infant
Studies, Atlanta, GA.
Dunn, J. F. (1991). Sibling influences. In M. Lewis & S. Feinman (Eds.), Social influences and
socialization in infancy (pp. 97–109). New York: Plenum Press.
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Sibling Jealousy
455
Dunn, J. F. (1994). Experience and understanding of emotions: Relationships, and membership
in a particular culture. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 352–355). New York: Oxford University Press.
Dunn, J. F. & Brown, J. (1991). Relationships, talk about feelings, and the development of affect
regulation in early childhood. In J. Garber (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation and
dysregulation (pp. 89–108). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dunn, J. F. & Kendrick, C. (1982). Siblings: Love, envy, and understanding. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Dunn, J. F. & McGuire, S. (1992). Sibling and peer relationships in childhood. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 67–105.
Dunn, J. F. & Munn, P. (1985). Becoming a family member: Family conflict and the development of social understanding in the second year. Child Development: Special Issue: Family
Development, 56, 480–492.
Field, T. (1994). The effects of mother’s physical and emotional unavailability on emotion regulation. In N. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral
considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, (pp.
208–227), 59 (2–3, Serial No. 240).
Field, T., Vega-Lahr, N., Scafidi, F., & Goldstein, S. (1986). Effects of maternal unavailability
on mother-infant interactions. Infant Behavior and Development, 9, 473–478.
Gottlieb, L. N. & Mendelson, M. J. (1990). Parental support and firstborn girls’ adaptation to
the birth of a sibling. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11, 29–48.
Griffin, E. W. & De La Torre, C. (1985). New baby in the house: Sibling jealousy. Medical
Aspects of Human Sexuality, 19, 110–116.
Grolnick, W. S., Bridges, L. J., & Connell, J. P. (1996). Emotion regulation in two-year-olds:
Strategies and emotional expression in four contexts. Child Development, 67, 928–941.
Grossman, E. R. (1996). Everyday pediatrics for parents. Berkeley, CA: Celestial Arts
Publishing.
Halberstadt, A. G., Hayes, C. W., & Pike, K. M. (1988). Gender and gender role differences in
smiling and communication consistency. Sex Roles, 19, 589–604.
Hansen, G. L. (1991). Jealousy: Its conceptualization, measurement, and integration with
family stress theory. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 211–230).
New York: Guilford Press.
Hart, S., Field, T., DelValle, C., & Letourneau, M. (1998a). Infants protest their mothers’ attending to an infant-size doll. Social Development, 7, 54–61.
Hart, S., Field, T., Letourneau, M., & DelValle, C. (1998b). Jealousy protests in infants of
depressed mothers. Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 137–148.
Hart, C. H., DeWolf, D. M., Wozniak, P., & Burts, D. C. (1992). Maternal and paternal disciplinary styles: Relations with preschoolers’ playground behavioral orientations and peer
status. Child Development, 63, 879–892.
Hart, C. H. & Robinson, C. C. (1994). Comparative study of maternal and paternal disciplinary strategies. Psychological Reports, 74, 495–498.
Holland, A. M. (1994). Father-child relationships: The issue of discipline. Australian Journal
of Marriage & Family, 15, 15–22.
Hupka, R. B. (1984). Jealousy: Compound emotion or label for a particular situation? Motivation and Emotion, 8, 141–155.
Isabella, R. A., (1993). Origins of attachment: Maternal interactive behavior across the first
year of life. Child Development, 64, 605–621.
Isabella, R. A. & Belsky, J. (1991). Interactional synchrony and the origins of infant-mother
attachment: A replication study. Child Development, 62, 373–384.
Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
Kennedy, J. H. (1992). Relationship of maternal beliefs and childrearing strategies to social
competence in preschool children. Child Study Journal, 22, 39–60.
Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view.
Developmental Psychology, 25, 343–354.
Kopp, C. B. (1992). Emotional distress and control in young children. In N. Eisenberg &
R. A. Fabes (Eds.), Emotion and self-regulation in early development: New Directions in
Child Development (pp. 41–56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lamb, M. E. (1997). The role of the father in child development (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
456
Alison L. Miller, Brenda L. Volling and Nancy L. McElwain
Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1994). Influence of age and gender on
affect, physiology, and their interrelations: A study of long-term marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 56–68.
Lewis, C. (1997). Fathers and preschoolers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child
development (3rd ed.) (pp. 121–142). New York: Wiley.
MacDonald, K. & Parke, R. D. (1984). Bridging the gap: Parent-child play interaction and peer
interactive competence. Child Development, 55, 1265–1277.
MacDonald, K. & Parke, R. D. (1986). Parent-child physical play: The effects of sex and age
of children and parents. Sex Roles, 15, 367–378.
Masciuch, S. & Kienapple, K. (1993). The emergence of jealousy in children 4 months to 7
years of age. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 10, 421–435.
McBride, B. A. & Mills, G. (1993). A comparison of mother and father involvement with their
preschool age children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 457–477.
Murray, L. & Trevarthen, C. (1985). Emotional regulation of interactions between two-montholds and their mothers. In T. M. Field & N. Fox (Eds.), Social perception in infants (pp.
177–197). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Neubauer, P. B. (1983). The importance of the sibling experience. Psychoanalytic Study of the
Child, 38, 325–336.
Parke, R. D. & Tinsley, B. (1981). The father’s role in infancy: Determinants of involvement in
caregiving and play. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (1st
ed., pp. 429–457), New York: Wiley.
Parke, R. D. & Tinsley, B. (1987). Family interaction in infancy. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2nd ed., pp. 579–641). New York: Wiley.
Parke, R. D., MacDonald, K. M., Burks, V. M., Carson, J., Bhavnagri, N., Barth, J. M., & Beitel,
A. (1989). Family and peer systems: In search of the linkages. In K. Kreppner & R. M.
Lerner (Eds.), Family systems and life-span development (pp. 65–92). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Parrott, W. G. (1991). The emotional experiences of envy and jealousy. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The
psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 3–31). New York: Guilford Press.
Pietropinto, A. (1985). The new baby. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 19, 155–163.
Provence, S. & Solnit, A. J. (1983). Development-promoting aspects of the sibling experience:
Vicarious mastery. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 38, 337–351.
Pruitt, D. B. (1998). Your child: What every parent needs to know about child development from
birth to preadolescence. New York: Harper-Collins.
Robey, K. L., Cohen, B. D., & Epstein, Y. M. (1988). The child’s response to affection given
to someone else: Effects of parental divorce, sex of child, and sibling position. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 17, 2–7.
Rustia, J. G. & Abbott, D. (1993). Father involvement in infant care: Two longitudinal studies.
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 30, 467–476.
Salovey, P. & Rothman, A. J. (1991). Envy and jealousy: Self and society. In P. Salovey (Ed.),
The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 271–286). New York: Guilford Press.
Siegal, M. (1987). Are sons and daughters treated more differently by fathers than by mothers?
Developmental Review, 7, 183–209.
Sroufe, L. A. (1996). Emotional development: The organization of emotional life in the early
years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steiger, J. H. (1979). Multicorr: A computer program for fast, accurate, small-sample testing
of correlational pattern hypotheses. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 39,
677–680.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.
Stocker, C. M. (1995). Differences in mothers’ and fathers’ relationships with siblings: Links
with children’s behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 499–513.
Teti, D. M. & Ablard, K. E. (1989). Security of attachment and infant-sibling relationships: A
laboratory study. Child Development, 60, 1519–1528.
Teti, L. O. (in press). The attachment Q-sort as an index of emotion regulation in preschoolaged children.
Teti, L. O. & Kouloumbre, V. (1995, March). Emotion regulation and quality of attachment in
the preschool years. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Sibling Jealousy
457
Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. In N. Fox
(Ed.), The development of emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (pp. 25–52), 59 (2–3, Serial
No. 240).
Thompson, R. A. & Calkins, S. D. (1996). The double-edged sword: Emotional regulation for
children at risk. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 163–182.
Tov-Ruach, L. (1980). Jealousy, attention, and loss. In A. O. Rorty (Ed.), Explaining emotions
(pp. 465–488). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Volling, B. L. & Belsky, J. (1992). The contribution of mother-child and father-child relationships to the quality of sibling interaction: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 63,
1209–1222.
Volling, B. L. & Elins, J. L. (1998). Family relationships and children’s emotional adjustment
as correlates of maternal and paternal differential treatment: A replication with toddler and
preschool siblings. Child Development, 69, 1640–1656.
Wille, D. E. (1995). The 1990s: Gender differences in parenting roles. Sex Roles, 33, 803–817.
Yogman, M. W. (1987). Father-infant caregiving and play with preterm and full-term infants.
In P. W. Berman & F. A. Pedersen (Eds.), Men’s transitions to parenthood (pp. 175–195).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported through a faculty grant from the Horace H. Rackham School
of Graduate Studies and the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of
Michigan to the second author. We wish to express our thanks to the families who participated
in this research and to Anouk Bonnewit, Stacey Connoy, Jennifer Fedewa, Kimberly Freeman,
and Melissa Schnaar, who helped code the videotapes.
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Social Development, 9, 4, 2000