The Horizontal Dimensions of
Family Life:
Coparenting and Siblings
www.Fam Found.net
Mark E. Feinberg, PhD
Senior Scientist & Research Professor
Prevention Research Center
The Pennsylvania State University
This line of research was conducted
with support from NIH Grants:
HD042575, MH064125, and DA025035
With much appreciation to Penn State graduate
students Jesse Boring, Susie Doughty,
Megan Goslin, Carmen Hamilton, Marni Kan,
Carolyn Ransford, Elizabeth Riina,
Anna Solmeyer, and Samuel Sturgeon.
Penn State Research Associates who contributed
to this research include Kari-Lyn Sakuma,
Michelle Hostetler, Damon Jones, Michelle
Hostetler, Richard Puddy, Louis Brown, and Jill
Zeruth.
Mom
Kid
Mom
Kid
Dad
Mom
Kid
Dad
Kid 2
Mom
Kid
Dad
Kid 2
Grandparents
Mom
Kid
Dad
Kid 2
Grandparents
Mom
Kid
Dad
Kid 2
Grandparents
Mom
Kid
Dad
Kid 2
Grandparents
Mom
Kid
Dad
Kid 2
Mom
Kid
Dad
Kid 2
Couple Conflict
Parent-related Outcomes:
depression
parenting quality (emotional availability,
harsh)
family violence
parent-child relations
Child Outcomes:
attachment security
child depression, aggression
school outcomes
substance use
peer and partner relationship problems
Shared parenting responsibility & coordination
More precise
Linked, but separate
Stronger predictor
Buffer
Domains of Co-parenting
Joint Family
Management
Support/
Undermining
Division
Of Labor
Childrearing
Agreement
Feinberg, 2003
15
Parental
Adjustment
Environmental Stress/
Support
Mother
characteristics
Couple
Relationship
Father
characteristics
Theoretical
Model
Coparenting
alliance
Child
Temperament
Parenting
Child
Outcomes
TRANSITION
Structure
Topics Covered
Expectations
Co-parenting
Parenting
TARGETS FOR CHANGE

Feelings
Efficacy/confidence-couple, parent
 Stresses are normal
 Aware of feelings, relaxing, coping


Thoughts
Information
 Expectations
 Self-talk


Communication/Behaviors
Skills in communication, problem solving
 Role Coordination

 167
couples
 Eligibility



First-time parents
Living together
Over 18 years old
Wave 1 Characteristics
Mean
SD
Mother Age
28.42
4.89
Father Age
29.87
5.53
$64,593
$34,233
Mother Education
15.08
1.82
Father Education
14.54
2.19
Family Income
% Married
83
% Non-Hispanic White
92
Participant Comments:
‘I am thankful I am included in these
classes… this will help me to be a better
parent’.
‘This class is worthwhile and quite frankly
more than I originally expected’.
‘I think these classes are perfect for firsttime parents’.
‘It’s an enjoyable class. It’s helpful in
getting us to think realistically about
having a child’.
FAMILY OUTCOMES*: THROUGH CHILD AGE 3
(COMPARED TO RANDOMIZED CONTROL GROUP)
Coparenting:
more support, less competition/triangulation
Couple relationship: more affection
Parental Adjustment:
More confidence (parental efficacy)
Less parental stress
Less depression
Parenting:
More warmth, sensitivity
Less negativity, harshness, over-reactivity
FAMILY OUTCOMES: THROUGH CHILD AGE 3
(COMPARED TO RANDOMIZED CONTROL GROUP)
Children
Better attention span
More capacity for self-regulation
Better social competence
Fewer behavior problems
GENERAL MEDIATION MODEL
Coparenting
Competition 2
a1
b1
Observed
Child
Adjustment 3
c
FF Program 1
b2
a2
Coparenting
Positivity 2
RESULTS FOR MOTHERS
Coparenting
Competition 2
.05
.07
-.35**
FF Program 1
-.10
.22
Child
Adjustment 3
-.03
.18
.05
-.09
Coparenting
Positivity 2
PINK coefficients are for daughters
BLUE coefficients are for sons
** p < .01
.39**
RESULTS FOR FATHERS
Coparenting
Competition 2
-0.17†
.25**
.03
FF Program 1
.05
-.15
Coparenting
Positivity 2
† p < .10; ** p < .01
Child
Adjustment 3
MEDIATED EFFECTS
FF  Competition 
Child adjustment
Mothers with sons
Mothers with
daughters
Fathers
Mediated effect
(bias-corrected
bootstrap test)
95% CI
% of total effect
-0.22
(-0.40 – 0.10)
39%
---
---
---
-0.06
(-0.17 – 0.01)
55%
MODERATED EFFECTS ON
FAMILY AGGRESSION
Effect on Psychological P-C Aggression Frequency
Moderated by Pre-Test Psychological IPV Frequency
P-C Psych Aggression Freq
25
20
15
Control
Intervention
10
5
0
Low psych IPV
High psych IPV
28
2/7/2013
FAMILY AGGRESSION
Effect on Mothers’ Physical P-C Aggression Frequency
Moderated by Pre-Test Couple Conflict
P-C Physical Aggression Freq
20
15
Control
Intervention
10
5
0
Low conflict
High conflict
FAMILY FOUNDATIONS:
SCHOOL-AGE FOLLOW-UP
Mean age: 6.3, SD=0.56, range = 5.3 to 8.1
Teacher report on CBCL
FAMILY FOUNDATIONS:
SCHOOL-AGE FOLLOW-UP
Mean age: 6.3, SD=0.56, range = 5.3 to 8.1
Teacher report on CBCL
Intervention effect for:
•
Internalizing: d=0.47
FAMILY FOUNDATIONS:
SCHOOL-AGE FOLLOW-UP
Mean age: 6.3, SD=0.56, range = 5.3 to 8.1
Teacher report on CBCL
Intervention effect for:
Internalizing: d=0.47
• Externalizing
•
•
•
No effect for girls
Boys: d= 0.67
Moderation of CBCL Externalizing
By Baseline Observed Hostility
Moderating Effect of Treatment on Negative Communcation
Predicted CBCL Externalizing Behavior
-5
0
5
10
for Predicted CBCL Externalizing Behaviors
-.5
-.4
-.3
-.2
-.1
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
Level of Negative Communicaton
Condition=0
Condition=1
.5
.6
.7
CURRENT PROJECTS
Randomized Trials
 FF


+ Childbirth Ed = “Childbirth Plus”
R21: Relations of daily stress and family relations,
with daily diary methodology
R21:Periodic interviews to assess couple and
parent-child physical aggression (Marshall)
 DVD/workbook
home-study version
 FF adapted for low-income, urban teens
(Children’s National Medical Center, D.C.)
35
A MOTHER…
“I was very young when I had my son. I’ve seen
other girls that were …very rebellious and
stubborn towards their baby’s father, and yes, I
agree, I was one of those girls that were very,
very hard on him. And it’s like back then I felt as
though that’s what he needed. But now that I
look back on it, he just needed somebody to
encourage him more than instruct him, you
know. They have feelings just like we have
feelings. They just have a harder time showing
it.”
36
A FATHER…
“I feel as though she makes all the decisions,
important decisions about him, and I got no
say so. And when I say something to her, she
catches an attitude and I just leave it alone
because I don’t want to get into it.”
CURRENT PROJECTS
Randomized Trials
 FF


+ Childbirth Ed = “Childbirth Plus”
R21: Relations of daily stress and family relations,
with daily diary methodology
R21:Periodic interviews to assess couple and
parent-child physical aggression (Marshall)
 DVD/workbook
home-study version
 FF adapted for low-income, urban teens
(Children’s National Medical Center, D.C.)
 FF + Home visiting (Ammerman; Cincinnati)
38
Father Involvement
Enhanced participation
More involved w/ child
Home Visiting
with Family
Foundations
(HVFF)
Coparenting Quality
More coparenting
Low depression
Low parenting stress
Proximal Targets of
Family Foundations
Parent Adjustment
Parental Stress
Parental Efficacy
Depression
Parental Quality
Warmth
Engagement
Negativity
Maternal Life
Course
Education
Employment
Repeat Pregnancy
Infant Care
Safety
Health
Proximal Targets of
Home Visitation
Child Outcomes
Cognitive
Emotional
Behavioral
CURRENT PROJECTS
Implementation
 UK,
12 cities
 U.S. Dept of Defense, FY 2013
CURRENT PROJECTS
Implementation
 UK,
12 cities
 U.S. Dept of Defense, FY 2013
 www.FamFound.net


Direct to consumer
Business to business
Siblings Are Special:
A Universal Intervention to Prevent
Behavior Problems and Substance Use
Funding was provided by NIDA (DA025035), PI: Mark E. Feinberg
WHY TARGET SIBLINGS?
 Sibling
relationships are linked to youths’
development, mental health, and behavioral
risk (Bahr et al., 2005; Bank et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2007;
Rende et al., 2005; Feinberg et al, 2012)
 Often
the longest lasting relationships
 Emotionally intense
Emotional Intensity & Ambivalence
“It snowed last year too: I made a snowman
and my brother knocked it down and I
knocked my brother down and then we had
tea.”
Dylan Thomas
2/7/2013
44
WHY TARGET SIBLINGS?

Sibling relationships are linked to youths’
development, mental health, and behavioral risk
(Bahr et al., 2005; Bank et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2007; Rende et al.,
2005; Feinberg et al, 2012)
Often the longest lasting relationships
 Emotionally intense
 In the U.S., children are more likely to grow up
in a home with a sibling (>85%) than with a
father (75%); (see Hernandez, 1997).
 Siblings are children’s most frequent out-ofschool companions in European-American
families, and this pattern is even more
pronounced in minority families (Updegraff et
al., 2005).

46
Companionship
“The highlight of my
childhood was making
my brother laugh so
hard that food came out
of his nose.”
Garrison Keillor
2/7/2013
Ratings of Parent-Child Conflict Frequency
(N=200; M age =12.8)
SIBLING VIOLENCE
 Incidence:
60-80% with CTS
 Linked to violence with peers, romantic partners
 Siblings cannot leave situation
 Psychological abuse:


Intimidation, humiliation, bullying, ridicule
Sexual abuse/coercion?
How can we help siblings get along
better?
50
Sibling
Dynamics
Proximal
Risks
Processes and
Contexts
Coercive
Style
School
Problems
Deviant
Peers
Impaired
Parenting
Positive
ATOD
Attitudes
Exposure to
ATOD
Low
Peer/Social
Competence
Sibling
Relationship
Sibling
Deviance
Training
Low SelfEsteem/
Depressio
n
Susceptible
to Peer
Pressure
Desire to
Change
Internal
Experiences
Unmonitored
Activities
Feinberg, Solmeyer, & McHale (2012)
Behavior
Problem
s
ATOD Use
Conduct
Problems
SIBLINGS ARE SPECIAL CURRICULUM
 Hands-on
exercises, role-playing, discussion, and
didactic presentation
 PATHS/Bierman Social
 6 targeted
skills
Skills’
53
Intervention Targets
(Program mediators)
Short-term Outcomes:
Sibling
Relationship
Parenting of
Siblings
Relationship
Skills
Management of
Sibling
Relations
Relationship
Cognitions
Parent
Mediation of
Sibling Conflict
Sibling relationship quality, parent-child
and marital relations, family
cohesiveness
Medium-term Outcomes:
Self control, conduct problems, peer
competence, school attachment,
internalizing symptoms, peer /sibling
deviance exposure/ training
Long-term Outcomes:
Relationship
Activities
Parental
Involvement
Adjustment problems and ATOD use
How can we help siblings get along
better?
The Siblings are Special Curriculum
 12 Afterschool Sessions (1.5 hours

2 Group leaders

1 group = 4 sibling dyads

Older sibling: 5th grade

Younger sibling: 1-4 years younger
 3 Family
each)
Nights (2.5 hours each)
54
Timeline
 Responsibilities
vs.
Privileges
 Privileges
increase with age but so do
responsibilities.
 Discussion
between siblings
Compliment Circle
1.
Ways People Look

2.
Things People Have

3.
“You run fast.”
The Way People Are

5.
“I like your bicycle.”
Things People Do

4.
“I like your hair.”
“You’re a good friend.”
The Way People Behave

“You’re good at sharing.”
Stop, Breathe, Say
Ears, Agree
Make the Deal!
Feelings Balloon
Fair Play Skit
 Skit:
One sibling knows they are losing so
he/she tries to change the rules of the game
in the middle.
RANDOMIZED TRIAL
 176 families randomly
 78% non-Hispanic
 Average annual
White
income $64,400
 Recruited through16
 38% of
assigned
school districts
eligible families agreed to participate
60
DATA COLLECTION
 Home
interviews conducted separately with
each family member

Parents filled out surveys; siblings were
interviewed

Videotaped sibling interaction tasks
 Mailed
teacher surveys
Feasibility
 Program engagement was
high

88% attendance at after school sessions

92% of families attended at least 1 Family Night
 Group leaders delivered program

with fidelity
> 80% of material covered as rated by observers
 Positive feedback from
principals, counselors, and parents

Principal would recommend to other schools: 3 on 4-pt scale

School Administrator rating of program reception: 4.9 on 5 pt scale

Parents’ rating of program expectations for their involvement 3. 05
on scale of 1 (expect too little) to 5 (expect too much)
62
Results – Sibling relationships
Outcome
B
(SE)
Effect size
Fair play (M)
0.15*
(.06)
.34
Fair play (F)
0.03
(.08)
---
Sibling intimacy (C)
0.07
(.09)
---
Sibling conflict (C)
0.13
(.08)
---
Sibling positivity (O)
0.28*
(.13)
.32
Sibling negativity (O)
0.01
(.10)
---
Note. (M) = mother-reported; (F) = father-reported; (C) = child-reported; (O) = observed
* p < .05.
Results – Child adjustment
Outcome
B
(SE)
Effect size
Externalizing (M)
-0.59
(.41)
---
Externalizing (F)
0.01
(.59)
---
Internalizing (M)
-0.55*
(.22)
.31
Internalizing (F)
-0.32
(.33)
---
Self-control (M)
0.12*
(.06)
.24
Self-control (F)
0.14*
(.07)
.29
Social competence (T)
0.22**
(.08)
.32
Academic performance (T)
0.08*
(.04)
.24
Note. (M) = mother-reported; (F) = father-reported; (T) = teacher-reported
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Results – Parent adjustment
Outcome
B
(SE)
Effect size
Depressive symptoms (M)
-0.10**
(.03)
.23
Depressive symptoms (F)
-0.03
(.04)
---
Note. (M) = mother-reported; (F) = father-reported
** p < .01.
Results – Parenting The
sibling dyad
Outcome
B
(SE)
Effect size
Authoritarian control (M)
-0.07
(.09)
---
Authoritarian control (F)
-0.15
(.11)
---
Positive guidance (M)
0.07
(.09)
---
Positive guidance (F)
-0.10
(.09)
---
Non-intervention (M)
0.19*
(.09)
.27
Non-intervention (F)
0.19*
(.09)
.29
Note. (M) = mother-reported; (F) = father-reported
* p < .05.
GROUP DIFFERENCES AT 1-YEAR
FOLLOW-UP

Sibling relationship
Lower bossiness and overall negativity (observed)
 Higher overall positivity (older siblings only;
observed)


Parenting
Higher maternal monitoring (younger siblings only)
 Higher maternal affection (observed)
 Lower paternal conflict (father report)


Adjustment
Higher social competence (mother report)
 Lower peer conflict and hyperactivity (younger
siblings only; teacher report)

CONCLUSION
 One
of the few randomized trials to take
advantage of sibling influences to prevent
adolescent substance use and behavior
problems
 Universal,
non-stigmatizing approach is
appealing to families and produced promising
effects on a broad range of outcomes
WWW.FAMFOUND.NET
QUESTIONS:
LOVE@PSU.EDU
The Development of Sibling
Intimacy
2/7/2013
70
The Development of Sibling Conflict
Sibling Relationships: A Missing Piece of the Family Puzzle
Susan McHale - The Pennsylvania State University
2/7/2013
71
Session
Title
Goals
1
Building Positive Feelings
Introduction to program and promote positive environment
2
Understanding Feelings
Build emotional awareness and self-control via Traffic Light tool
3
OK and NOT OK
Identifying feelings and identifying appropriate behaviors
4
Working together
Building TEAM concept
5
Ears and Ideas
Teaches sibling communication and problem solving skills via Yellow Light tool.
6
Win-Win
Teaches siblings how to think of alternative solutions
7
Rejection and T.E.A.M.
Building sibling cohesion
8
Fair Play
Reinforcing positive sibling relationship and appropriate behaviors
9
Respect
Building positive sibling relationships through Respect
10
Goal Setting
Teaches siblings how to set goals and how to problem solve to achieve their goals
11
Fairness Among Siblings
Addresses differential treatment
12
Siblings Are Special
Promote sibling bonds
FFN1
Family Fun Night 1
Introduce the importance of sibling relationships and the tools used in sessions 1-4 to
parents. Provide coaching strategies and a few SAS activities that can be used at home
as family activities
FFN2
Family Fun Night 2
Introduce tools used in sessions 5-8 and discuss parent management of sibling
relationship and strategies for mediating sibling conflict using tools learned in SAS.
FFN3
Family Fun Night 3
Introduce tools used in sessions 9-12 and discuss parent involvement with siblings and
their conflicts. Promote sibling and family bonding.
Appendix: The SAS Program

Session 1: Building positive feelings


Session 2: Understanding feelings


Identify ways to communicate feelings without blaming or hurting
others' feelings; manage strong feelings (jealousy); use Traffic Light
to calm down in stressful situations.
Session 4: Working Together


Introduce Traffic Light to foster self-control; children practice
identifying own and others' feelings and levels of intensity.
Session 3: OK vs Not OK


Establish rules and routines of program foster positive group
environment and promotes positive sibling relationships
Idea that siblings work together as a team; foster positive team
associations; practice listening and staying calm.
Family Night 1:

Introduce parents to the Red Light and compliment skills their
children are learning; discuss ways to foster stronger sibling
relationships and manage conflicts.
73

Session 5: Ears and Ideas


Session 6: Win-Win


Brainstorm win-win solutions to problems with feeling rejected and
learn ways to be more inclusive with sibling; reinforce negotiation
and agreement skills.
Session 8: Fair Play


Negotiate and agree on a good idea; evaluate ideas and seek WINWIN solutions
Session 7: Rejection


Build problem solving skills including listening and discussion of
options.
Discussion and activities concerning Fair Play in games and activities
Family Night 2

Introduce parents to the problem solving skills their children are
learning and discuss ways to use these tools to manage conflicts.
74

Session 9: Respect


Session 10: Goal Setting


Understand and deal with issues of fairness and differential
treatment; develop empathy for sibling; problem-solve unfair
situations.
Session 12: Siblings are Special


Goal setting and planning focused on reducing difficult situations
between siblings; appropriate ways to ask for help; social support
within the family; and limiting tattling.
Session 11: Fairness between Siblings


Discussion of showing respect to sibling and connection to
strengthening sibling team.
Review siblings’ progress as a dyad; foster continued positive
development of sibling relationship.
Family Night 3

Present information regarding substance use risk and discuss ways
to monitor and manage children’s free time.
75