ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SIBLING RELATIONSHIP QUALITY AND
EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE IN MIDDLE CHILDHOOD
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Child Development
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Child Development
(Theory and Research)
by
Nancy Lynne Alkema
SUMMER
2013
ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SIBLING RELATIONSHIP QUALITY AND
EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE IN MIDDLE CHILDHOOD
A Thesis
by
Nancy L. Alkema
Approved by:
___________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Juliana Raskauskas
___________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Sheri Hembree
____________________
Date
ii
Student: Nancy L. Alkema
I certify that the student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Dr. Kristen Alexander
Department of Child Development
iii
_______________________
Date
Abstract
of
ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SIBLING RELATIONSHIP QUALITY AND
EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE IN MIDDLE CHILDHOOD
by
Nancy Lynne Alkema
Statement of Problem Siblings often rely upon each other as a support system.
Therefore, it is important that the sibling relationship is a supportive one. Sometimes,
however, the sibling relationship can be highly conflictual or even abusive which can
lead to a negative outcome that impacts their relationships and general well-being
throughout their lives. It is important that the quality of the sibling relationship is one in
which siblings can trust and confide in one another, experience warmth, and learn to
navigate the negative encounters they will inevitably face in a productive manner.
Learning the competencies to handle emotionally-charged situations will give children a
better chance for a more optimal outcome.
Sources of Data Children from two after school clubs and one church youth group were
asked to participate in this study. Twenty-three sibling pairs volunteered for the study.
iv
Children ranged in age between 8 and 14. Most of the children were from middle class,
intact families and had low to moderate levels of conflict within the sibling relationship.
Conclusions Reached Based on the research and analyses for this study, it is concluded
that sibling warmth and empathy are related. However, overall sibling relationship
quality and emotional competence did not appear to be significantly correlated due to the
lack of significant correlations found between factors within these two areas. It is also
concluded that there may be differences in the way these two areas are developed.
Sibling relationship quality appears to be more of an individual perception based on age
and birth order whereas emotional competence appears to be a learned trait that is shared
between siblings.
_________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Juliana Raskauskas
_______________________________
Date
v
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to the children in whom this research is intended to help
both in the areas of sibling relationship quality and emotional competence. To the
children, I hope that others will better understand how to create the environment
necessary for your learning in how to regulate emotions, so that the quality of your
relationships with your siblings improves, and the intimacy that flows through this
positive, supportive system will offer the benefits of learning to empathize with one
another.
I would also like to dedicate this thesis to my husband Jason and my children,
David, Christine, Billie and Autumn. Through great sacrifices of my time, efforts, and
financial difficulties, I hope you benefit from the things I have learned. I hope you
benefit in the way we spend our time together in the future, that it might be more full,
rewarding, and that we might increase our level of intimacy and be a stronger support to
one another. I hope that you, my children, will always be a support to one another
through life’s many challenges. Though space might divide you, stay close. To my
husband, I appreciate your efforts to support me through this long, time-consuming
endeavor while we both worked to support the family, and provide the children with the
things they need, including our time.
I know that the professors who have helped me throughout this process, mainly my
sponsor, Dr. Juliana Raskauskas, have worked diligently on my behalf to help me through
this process. For you, I know you also made sacrifices with your time to help bring out
vi
the best in my abilities that I might present something of worth to others. I appreciate all
the help I have received from you, as well as my second reader, Dr. Sheri Hembree, and
Dr. Karen O’Hara who helped me get started and refine my ideas. I would also like to
acknowledge the help of a couple of friends who helped with the technology aspect of
creating this thesis. First, I would like to thank my friend, Michael Dyck for helping me
with the formatting. It made the final process go much smoother having a friend I could
call to help with formatting questions and help at the last minute. My friend Margaret
King was also a great help with the power point I worked on for this thesis. She was also
a voice of encouragement throughout the process.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 3
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 4
Method .................................................................................................................... 6
Definition of Terms................................................................................................. 7
Limitations .............................................................................................................. 8
Organization of Study ............................................................................................. 9
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 10
Attachment Theory ............................................................................................... 11
Sibling Relationship Quality..................................................................................16
Reciprocal versus Complementary Relationships.................................................18
Sibling Conflict ..................................................................................................... 21
Warmth/Support/Disclosure ................................................................................. 23
Emotional Competence ......................................................................................... 25
Emotion Regulation .............................................................................................. 26
viii
Empathy ................................................................................................................ 28
Summary ............................................................................................................... 30
3. METHODS .................................................................................................................. 32
Participants ............................................................................................................ 32
Measures ............................................................................................................... 34
Demographic Survey ............................................................................................ 34
Sibling Relationship Questionnaire ...................................................................... 34
Emotional Competence ......................................................................................... 35
Procedure .............................................................................................................. 36
4. RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 38
Analysis Plan ........................................................................................................ 38
Reliability Analysis ............................................................................................... 39
Sibling Similarities and Differences ..................................................................... 40
Comparison of Siblings......................................................................................... 41
5. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 48
Sibling Relationship Quality and Emotional Competence ................................... 49
Key Findings ......................................................................................................... 50
Affection and Empathy ......................................................................................... 50
Intimacy and Empathy .......................................................................................... 51
Admiration and Empathy ...................................................................................... 51
Competition and Empathy .................................................................................... 52
Nurturance and Empathy ...................................................................................... 53
ix
Nurturance and Emotion Regulation .................................................................... 54
Sibling Comparisons ............................................................................................. 54
Relative Status/Power ........................................................................................... 56
Conflict ................................................................................................................. 56
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 57
Limitations and Future Research .......................................................................... 59
Appendix A. Letter of Consent to Participate in Research .............................................. 61
Appendix B. Family Demographics Questionnaire ......................................................... 63
Appendix C. Letter of Assent to Participate in Research ................................................ 64
Appendix D. Sibling Relationship Questionnaire............................................................ 66
Appendix E. Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Form ............................ 72
References ......................................................................................................................... 74
x
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
1.
Page
Descriptive Statistics for Emotional Competence and Sibling Relationship
Quality....................................................................................................................44
2.
Correlation Matrix for Sibling Relationship Quality and Emotional
Competence............................................................................................................45
3.
Paired Sample Statistics for Significant Differences Between Siblings................46
4.
Correlations Matrix for Older Versus Younger Sibling Pairs...............................47
xi
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Study
Researchers have investigated sibling relationship quality and its relationship to
social understanding (Brody, 1998; Cutting & Dunn, 2006; Howe, Aquan-Assee,
Bukowski, Lehoux, & Rinaldi, 2001; Kramer, 2008). Some of this research includes
sibling rivalry and conflict and other research has taken a more positive view focusing on
sibling support and warmth. Relative status/power is another area that has been
examined in its role on sibling relationships (Karos, Howe & Aquan-Assee, 2007). Not
much research, however, has covered the role of siblings’ perception of their relationship
quality and its association with emotional competence.
Empathy and emotion regulation are two components of emotional competence
learned through others in the child’s environment (Kennedy & Kramer, 2008; Tucker,
Updegraff, McHale, & Crouter, 1999). It is through emotional understanding of self and
others that one can learn to regulate emotions. A well-developed ability to regulate one’s
emotions is an important element to quality relationships (Blair, Denham, Kochanoff, &
Whipple, 2004; Kennedy & Kramer, 2008). Empathy involves more than the ability to
recognize emotions. It is the capacity to feel what another person is feeling or
experiencing, or the ability to sympathize with that person (Eisenberg, 2005; Tucker et
al., 1999), and thus an essential component of social interactions.
2
The sibling relationship is an important context for learning social skills, including
emotion regulation and empathy (Brody, 1998; Stormshak, Bellanti, & Bierman, 1996;
Tucker et al., 1999; Youngblade & Dunn, 1995). Emotion regulation includes both
extrinsic and intrinsic processes that aide in the way one acts or reacts emotionally
(Kennedy & Kramer, 2008; Thompson, 1994). Positive sibling interactions strengthen
bonds and encourage the development of these skills (Kennedy & Kramer, 2008; Tucker
et al., 1999). Therefore, learning how to regulate emotions and empathize with one
another strengthens the quality of the relationship, and the quality of the relationship
contributes to further opportunities to learn to regulate and empathize.
It was the purpose of this study to gain further understanding into the complexities
of the sibling relationships and its ties to emotional competence by examining individual
perceptions of sibling relationship quality from both siblings through self-assessment
questionnaires. Associations between sibling relationship quality and emotional
competence were examined in order to get an accurate depiction of whether self - reports
of sibling relationship quality and emotional competence were consistent between
siblings. It was also the purpose of this study to determine whether sibling relationship
quality and emotional competence are linked. The reason for this was to demonstrate
whether sibling relationship quality is based primarily on individual perception, or true
quality. Because of the daily interactions that siblings face with each other in dealing
with conflict and learning strategies to help navigate through the relationship, it helps to
understand how each sibling perceives his relationship as well as how each sibling is
perceived by the other sibling. In knowing this, it becomes clearer how differences affect
3
perception.
Areas examined within sibling relationship quality included warmth, conflict, and
relative status/power. Status/power indicates the type of relationship, bringing further
understanding to differences between sibling scores. By studying the associations
between emotional competence and sibling relationship quality, one can better
understand the characteristics of positive and negative sibling relationships and attempt to
identify ways siblings influence each other’s social and emotional development through
their daily interactions.
Statement of the Problem
Sibling relationships are one of the most stable and long lasting (Kennedy &
Kramer, 2008). Though sibling relationships are often noted for their warmth, and
support, they are also known for intense levels of contention, conflict, and sometimes
violence. Prolonged sibling conflict can have a detrimental influence on the well-being
and the psychological health of a child. Conflict in sibling relationships has been found
to be associated with an increase in children’s anxiety, depressed mood, and delinquent
behavior (Stocker, Burwell, & Briggs, 2002). Children who experience sibling violence
may experience long-term consequences into adulthood (Kessler & Magee, 1994; Wiehe,
1997). Having such a powerful long-term effects on each other, it is optimal that sibling
relationships are warm and supportive.
4
Significance of the Study
Siblings play a unique role in each other’s social development. They often spend
more time together than with their parents or peers (Dunn, 2002; McHale & Crouter,
1996). In general, sibling relationships are more helpful with socio-emotional and
cognitive development than with peer relationships (Karos et al., 2007). The following
studies indicate these benefits. Cutting and Dunn (2006) found that children have greater
success with an older sibling than with a friend in areas of communication, shared
pretense and conflict. Older siblings were found by Azmitia and Hesser (1993) to
provide more expansive explanations, offer more feedback, and allow their younger
siblings to have more control over the task than a peer. Based on these findings, it can be
concluded that the benefits in social-emotional and cognitive development work together
to enhance the intimacy and support between siblings.
Positive sibling relationships have been linked with intimacy and emotional
support within the sibling relationship (Howe et al., 2001; Voorpostel & Van Der Lippe,
2007). When childhood feelings and experiences are shared in confidence between
siblings, they learn more about each other and can develop greater emotional
understanding. For example, children learn about their own and other’s emotions and
responses when they learn to identify feelings, regulate emotions, and are better able to
talk about and identify specific internal states (Howe et al., 2001; Lam, Solmeyer &
McHale, 2012). Bryant (1992) found through 21 interviews with American siblings
between the ages of 13 to 17 that siblings often confide in each other about stressful life
5
experiences when the child does not find the parent approachable.
Although siblings hold a unique role and share intimate details of each other’s lives,
the perceptions of those experiences are different. In looking at these differences it is
valuable to know whether their perceptions of their relationship quality are also different.
If siblings do agree on their sibling relationship quality, this would show consistency in
the relationship quality, or an actual quality. If the Sibling Relationship Questionnaire
(SRQ) scores are consistent with the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire
(TEIQue) scores, it would reveal a correlation between sibling relationship quality and
emotional competence. However if the scores do not agree, this would likely be due to
individual differences based on their perception.
Perception of the sibling relationship has a lot to do with the way siblings react to
their environment and interact with each other. These perceptions and responses help
construct the internal working model of the relationship as well as the individual
(Bretherton, 1990; Bowlby, 1969). Even though they experience the same events, their
interpretation of these events can be very different. A child with more status/power may
perceive bullying a younger brother or sister as a bonding experience because they do not
see the harm in their actions, whereas the sibling being bullied may resent the older
sibling, and therefore have a negative perception of the sibling as well as the relationship.
6
Method
The present study examined associations between sibling perceptions of emotional
competence and sibling relationship quality. Twenty-three sibling dyads were recruited
from a church youth group and two after-school programs in Sacramento, California.
Both male and female siblings were recruited without preference or discrimination
regarding the combination of gender within the relationship. Requirements for this study
were that the siblings were both between the ages of 8 to 14. Recruitment took place at
the sites. At the first after school club the children were told about the study and were
given a packet to take home. The packet contained an invitation for the study, the
consent form (see Appendix A) and a demographic survey (see Appendix B). At the
second after school center, sibling pairs were pre-identified and a packet was sent home
with the children. At the church youth group, packets were handed to the parents. They
were all asked to return the completed packet if interested. Once the forms were returned
interviews were scheduled.
Data were collected using a modified version of the SRQ by Furman and
Buhrmester (1985) (see Appendix D) and a modified version of the TEIQue by
Mavroveli, Petrides, Shove and Whitehead (2008) (see Appendix E). Administration of
the SRQ and the TEIQue took approximately 30 minutes all together for each child. Data
from the SRQ and the TEIQue were analyzed through correlational analyses to determine
significant associations between sibling relationship quality and emotional competence.
A paired t-test was also conducted in order to compare scores between older and younger
7
siblings. If differences were found using t-tests then factors were put into a Univariate
analysis to include possible covariates and demographics to compare older and younger
siblings.
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of the current study, Emotional Competence is “the regulation of
emotional expressiveness and experience when necessary and knowledge of their own
and other’s emotions” (Denham, Bassett, & Zinsser, 2012, p. 137). The way in which
emotions are used leads to the development of emotional competence. Attaining
emotional competence is crucial and includes both emotion regulation, and empathy.
Emotion Regulation is the ability to monitor, evaluate and modify emotional reactions to
accomplish one’s goals through the use of intrinsic and extrinsic processes (Thompson,
1994) while Emotional Understanding is the ability to understand the functions of
emotions, the reciprocity inherent in emotional exchanges, and the ability to employ
internal state language (Howe et al., 2001). Empathy is the capacity to feel what another
person is feeling or experiencing (Tucker et al., 1999).
Sibling Relationship Quality refers to the quality of sibling relationships based on
the level of warmth and conflict within the relationship, as well as the balance or
unbalance of power/status (Karos et al., 2007). Relative Status/Power refers to aspects of
reciprocity or complementary in relationships. Siblings in reciprocal relationships
exhibit mutual and egalitarian interactions, while complementary exchanges are more
8
hierarchical (Karos et al., 2007).
Limitations
Although the present study extends previous research, there are many limitations
to this study. One limitation was the small sample size. A larger sample may have had
adequate power to detect more significant results. Another limitation was the majority of
children interviewed came from white, middle-class, intact families, which limits
generalizability. Therefore, children of low-income or ethnic families were
underrepresented. There were also low to moderate levels of conflict within the sibling
relationships that restricted the range of this variable. Future research should seek to
duplicate these findings with more diverse and representative samples.
A correlational design was used to test the hypotheses. Correlations are used for
the purpose of examining relationships between variables collected at the same time from
each sibling as well as variables between siblings. Correlations examine only the
relationships between variables and do not infer causality since relationships are
bidirectional (Cozby, 2007). Longitudinal and intervention studies that can look at
temporal or causal relationships between sibling relationships characteristics and
emotional factors are needed. In addition, the questionnaires used were both self-report
measures. Children ages 8 to 14 were asked to read questions about their emotional
competencies and sibling relationship quality by circling a number from 1 to 5 on a
9
Likert scale. This limitation is not only subjective, but is limited in its capacity to
accurately describe the responses.
Future research should ask whether competition in sibling relationships is a form
of conflict for most siblings or a form of bonding. Is it an experience of normative
conflict, or do competitive sibling relationships create more negative feelings than
warmth? Research should also further examine how differences between sibling
perceptions affect the relationship. For example, if one sibling reports a high sibling
relationship quality, and the other reports a low quality, and their emotional competencies
are similar, there should be other factors considered, such as individual temperament. An
objective view from the parents should also be added to sibling self-reports.
Organization of Study
Chapter 1 has introduced the idea that siblings are a unique support system.
Through their role as attachment figures, their important contributions to each other’s
social and cognitive development are different than any other relationship. Chapter 2
provides a review of the literature in which the areas of sibling relationship quality and
emotional competence were explored and hypotheses identified. The methods for
gathering data were then laid out in Chapter 3, followed by the findings in Chapter 4.
Chapter 5 is a discussion of the results including conclusions based on these findings.
10
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Siblings often spend more time together than with friends or parents; these ongoing daily interactions form critical relationships that span the course of one’s life
(Kennedy & Kramer, 2008) and influence a person’s well-being and adjustment that
affect them throughout their life (Brody, 1998; Stocker et al., 2002). These sibling
interactions help them gain social understanding and develop necessary social skills
(Howe, Rinaldi, Jennings & Petrakos, 2002; Youngblade & Dunn, 1995). Some of the
social skills learned through sibling interactions are the ability to understand and regulate
emotions and to empathize with one another (Brody, 1998; Stormshak et al., 1996;
Tucker et al., 1999; Youngblade & Dunn, 1995).
Emotion regulation, the ability to display emotionally appropriate behavior
consists of extrinsic and intrinsic processes in monitoring and modifying emotional
reactions (Kennedy & Kramer, 2008; Thompson, 1994). Emotion regulation contributes
to how one reacts emotionally in difficult social experiences such as conflict in sibling
relationships. Cole, Martin, and Dennis (2004) distinguish emotion regulation from
regular emotions by the processes of appraising, and preparing for both action and social
interaction. Kennedy and Kramer (2008) found that once 4 to 8-year-old siblings were
taught emotion regulation skills the quality of the sibling relationship improved as did the
ability to control negative emotions without parental intervention.
11
Empathy, the ability to feel what another person is feeling or experiencing, is a
building block for interpersonal relationships that is often learned through the sibling
experience (Shapiro, 2002; Tucker et al., 1999). The sibling relationship is a critical one
because of the influence siblings have over one another in promoting emotional
competence, but also because of the lifetime connections that can be used as a source of
support in difficult times (Punamaki, Qouta, Sarraj, & Montgomery, 2006; Voorpostel &
Van Der Lippe, 2007).
The level of intimacy in a sibling relationship can either create a warm,
supportive relationship of trust or deep levels of conflict, mistrust and abuse. The
literature on sibling relationship quality and emotional competence centers around a
warm, supportive relationship as key to a child’s social, emotional, and cognitive
development (Amitia & Hesser, 1993; Howe et al., 2001; Kennedy & Kramer, 2008;
Tucker et al., 1999) whereas negative relationships filled with conflict can be detrimental
(Stocker et al., 2002; Camodeca & Nocentini, 2010). Thus siblings can influence
development either in a positive or a negative way at an intimate level. This study will
examine both aspects of the sibling relationship in an aim to determine more insight into
how emotional competencies work to create positive sibling relationships.
Attachment Theory
Attachments are a “lasting psychological connectedness between human beings”
(Bowlby, 1969, p. 194) and can also be described as “the way one person attaches to or
12
bonds with another, especially when ill, injured, or distressed” (Mercer, 2011, p. 37).
These definitions work together to describe the psychological process between two
people in a way that promotes well-being for both parties as well as the dynamics of their
relationship in how they interact. These dynamics that develop in early childhood serve
as the foundation of a person’s future relationships (Bowlby, 1969).
Although mothers are generally the primary attachment figure for a young child,
attachment figures can also include fathers, grandparents, and siblings (Schaeffer &
Emerson, 1964, as cited in McLeod, 2009). Siblings enter the general trajectory for the
stages of attachment from the birth of the second sibling. From here to about three
months of age, infants respond equally to any caregiver (Schaeffer & Emerson, 1964, as
cited in McLeod, 2009) and are therefore responsive to siblings who provide care. When
the younger sibling is about four months, he may begin to distinguish caregivers as first
and second, thereby placing the older sibling in a relationship of appropriate attachment
order. By seven months the younger sibling will begin to choose certain people for
security, comfort, and protection, thereby further distinguishing the role of the older
sibling.
Since the role of caregivers is interchangeable and the degree of distress is
lessened when a child is left with an attachment figure (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters &
Wall, 1978; Jin, Jacobvitz, Hazen, & Jung, 2012), it is often convenient for a parent to
leave the room, and allow an older sibling to care for a younger sibling, which affords
further opportunity for the siblings to form attachments. When toddlers gain more
independence at around nine months, they have possibly formed several attachments
13
(McLeod, 2009). Once again, siblings have been an integral part of each other’s lives
from the beginning; providing care and play, and are therefore natural attachment figures.
The components of attachment describe the pragmatics of sibling relationships
(Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1969). Siblings can serve as a Safe Haven when
frightened or threatened. They sometimes either choose or find it necessary to rely on
each other as a confidant and as a source of comfort, such as when parents are
unavailable or perhaps the reason for their distress (Bryant, 1992). In unfamiliar
territory, or when parents are not in view, they serve as a Secure Base, instilling more
confidence in the exploration of their environment. The level of Proximity Maintenance
is kept according to the situation, age and development in order to diminish Separation
Distress (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Jin et al., 2012). Howe and Ross (1990) found that
when placed in a Strange Situation, older siblings between the ages of 3 to 5 would
sometimes stroke, kiss, make reassuring statements and offer toys to their younger sibling
at14 months. This example indicates that siblings prefer to receive emotional support
from a sibling versus that of an adult caretaker with whom they have no attachment.
From this study we can also conclude that siblings step up as the main attachment figure
when separated from their parents.
In cases when parents separate or divorce, siblings have been found to be the
closest attachment figure and are known to adopt a caretaking role prior to the parents’
separation (Shumaker, Miller, Ortiz, & Deutsch, 2011). This study raises new questions
for family courts on how sibling attachments effect the placement, custody and visitations
after a divorce. The stress of parental conflict has been hypothesized to be harder for
14
children with insecure attachment styles versus children with secure attachment
(Cummings, Schermerhorn, Davies, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2006). Therefore,
maintaining strong attachments between siblings may serve as a buffer for the disruption
of the parental attachment.
Close sibling relationships can also counteract isolation and break the cycle of
destructive intergenerational family behavioral patterns (Hunter, 1993). This study
examined homeless, high-risk families and how restoring relatedness can empower
siblings to nurture each other and alleviate the effects of isolation from friends, extended
family, and parents dealing with the causes and crises of homelessness. Although social
workers were brought in to assist siblings with their relations, it was found that with
increased sibling support, there was also a higher level of self-esteem and interpersonal
skills.
Secure attachments are optimal to a child’s social and emotional development and
are formed by responding sensitively and appropriately to their needs (Bowlby, 1969).
Children with secure attachments are more likely to self-disclose (Bryant, 1992; Howe et
al., 2001), have higher self-esteem, self-awareness, and self-actualization than children
with ambivalent or avoidant attachments (Hamarta, Deniz, & Saltali, 2009). Children
who do not form secure attachments tend to have more difficulties with behavior in later
childhood and throughout life. They struggle with adjustment issues such as depression
and anxiety as well as problems with relationships such as social cognition, affective
perspective taking and emotion regulation (Stocker et al., 2002). Affective perspective
taking is one way a person learns to empathize with another.
15
The nature of a child to his caregiver is due in part to the child’s inner working
model (Bowlby, 1969). These behavioral patterns developed early in life include the way
one regulates emotions and empathizes with others. Experiences within a relationship of
secure attachment offer the necessary tools for the development of future relationships as
well as coping skills (Hamarta et al., 2009; Torquati & Vazsonyi, 1999). The complexity
of the psychological functions involved with forming attachments may never be
completely realized. However, it is through an understanding of the lasting benefits, and
simplicity of building bonds that should motivate the desire to form attachments.
Through positive experiences of warmth, a natural intimacy is fostered in the sibling
relationship, and likewise, through intimate sibling interactions, children’s socioemotional and cognitive development is afforded (Dunn, 1996; Howe et al., 2001).
Attachment is observed in this study through the use of analyzing sibling
relationship quality and the social competencies that affect this quality. When looking at
how warmth is related to empathy, or conflict is related to emotion regulation, it becomes
clearer as to how attachments are formed and maintained. If, for example, empathy is
linked to nurturance, it would be understood that nurturance of a sibling promotes
empathy. Since empathy is a component of emotional competence, it would represent a
link between attachment as well. This connection is justified in that attachments are
bonds infused by warmth and caretaking.
16
Sibling Relationship Quality
Sibling attachment is dependent on sibling relationship quality as it affects the
way siblings interact. The quality is based on the level of warmth and conflict within the
relationship, as well as the balance of power (Karos et al., 2007). These three areas:
warmth, conflict, and power/status, along with their respective subscales will be assessed
in the current study and are detailed below. These subscales include trust and intimacy
within the realm of warmth; abuse and bullying within conflict; and caretaking and
nurturing within power/status. Complementary traits such as nurturing tend to cross over
into warmth, but are actually items that fall within the power/status scale.
The nature of sibling relationships is determined, in part, on how well they
regulate their emotions (Kennedy & Kramer, 2008) and empathize with one another
(Tucker et al., 1999). The ability to regulate influences the relationship on an emotional
level, on whether or not they can control their reactions, express their feelings
appropriately, and respond in a civil manner. When children empathize with each other
their relationship benefits through shared concern for each other. It is through
interactions of regulation and empathizing at different levels that helps form the patterns
of their relationship (Blair et al., 2004; Tucker et al., 1999). The perceptions and
responses that contribute to interactions between siblings contribute to the internal
working model of the relationship as well as the individual (Bowlby, 1969; Bretherton,
1990). Therefore, the sibling relationship is built on interactions between siblings over
time.
17
It would seem that perceptions of the quality of the sibling relationship between
siblings would be shared, since it is the same relationship. However, perceptions
between two siblings can vary, as each sibling encounters a different understanding of the
relationship in how they are treated, and how well they treat their sibling. This means
that siblings share a working identity while at the same time have different perceptions of
what that is. Siblings have different views on shared experiences such as the quality and
quantity of time spent together. For example, one sibling might have a great time playing
with his sibling, while the other feels mistreated by the interactions during play.
Therefore, they would perceive that aspect of their relationship differently. Another
example is that one sibling may feel she does not spend much time with her sibling
because they only get to play for a couple of hours after school, while the other sibling
feels this is plenty of time. In this example, they would perceive the quantity of time
spent differently. Their views on quantity of time are an aspect of the sibling relationship
that establishes warmth within the relationship.
Sibling relationship quality is likely to remain stable from middle childhood to
adolescence (Dunn, 1996; Vandell & Bailey, 1992). However, a longitudinal study by
Brody, Stoneman, and McCoy (1994) showed different results between rivalrous and
harmonious sibling relationships. Older siblings ranged between 6 to 11 years old, and
younger siblings ranged between 4 to 9 years old. This study found an increase in rivalry
and a decrease in companionship in 71 competitive sibling relationships between middle
childhood and early adolescence. This was in contrast to harmonious relationships that
remained steady. Therefore, sibling relationships marked by rivalry and competition are
18
prone to get worse whereas harmonious relationships are more likely to remain that way.
Vandell and Bailey indicate long-term consequences on the sibling relationship over
time. Although the emotional climate of the sibling relationship can be fairly stable, the
storms can rage one day, with sunny skies the next. These fluctuating highs and lows are
common in sibling relationships (Brody et al., 1994; Howe et al., 2002). Social skills
learned through the sibling experience determine the quality of the sibling relationship,
can bring harmony or disharmony to the family (Brody, 1998) and are transferable to
peer relationships (Menesini, Camodeca, & Nocentini, 2010). Therefore, sibling
relationships can endure a few storms here and there, but the overall climate of the
relationship is the true indicator of future relationship patterns, adjustment and wellbeing.
For the current study, the climate is considered as the overall quality, with the patterns
being the competencies.
Reciprocal versus Complementary Relationships
The two main categories of sibling relationships that contribute to the ways in
which siblings interact are reciprocal and complementary. Reciprocal relationships are
egalitarian in nature, whereas complementary relationships are defined as hierarchical or
asymmetrical, with one sibling, usually the older child, having more authority, greater
ability, or intelligence over the other (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Karos et al., 2007).
Reciprocal sibling interactions have been positively associated with social understanding
and perspective taking, whereas complementary relationships are theorized to be more
nurturing and helpful, which helps siblings express more prosocial behaviors (Howe &
19
Ross, 1990; Howe et al., 2002; Youngblade & Dunn, 1995). However, Karos et al.,
(2007) found that when younger children desire more autonomy, complementary
relationships can be conflictual. Whether the interactions between siblings are reciprocal
or complementary, they contribute to the climate of the sibling relationship. Based on the
descriptions of these two types of sibling interactions, it is hypothesized that siblings with
complementary relationships have different perceptions of their sibling relationship
quality; whereas reciprocal sibling interactions often agree with each other on the
perceptions of the sibling relationship quality.
Even though sibling relationships can be distinguished in terms of reciprocity and
complementary, these relationship types can also work together within the same
relationship. The combination of reciprocal and complementary relationship traits
between siblings promote social understanding in ways that are different from friendships
(Azmitia & Hesser, 1993). Siblings are often more helpful than peers in areas of socioemotional and cognitive development, such as communication, shared pretense and
conflict (Cutting & Dunn, 2006; Karos et al., 2007). Communication, shared pretense,
and conflict fall under the blanket of social, emotional and cognitive development.
Communication and shared pretense are both cognitive and social since they require
thought processes and social interactions. Siblings in conflict would therefore benefit
from the development of emotional skills since conflicts are more likely to be positively
resolved through emotion regulation and empathy (Bryant, 1992; Kennedy & Kramer,
2008).
20
Another way in which peer and sibling relationships are different, is that older
siblings are said to provide more expansive explanations, offer more feedback, and share
control more than peers when interacting (Azmitia & Hesser, 1993). This falls in line
with sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) in that this approach assumes that language
and emotional development are interlinked as well as guided participation and how we
can be socialized through our everyday interactions with others (Rogoff, 1991). Siblings
are therefore able to teach each other cognitive and socio-emotional skills due to the
complementary nature of their relationship. It appears that the younger sibling receives
more of the benefit since they have a more knowledgeable, experienced older sibling and
a relationship in which the natural role is for the older sibling to teach. However, in
teaching the younger sibling, the older sibling may benefit through practice and later
mastery in the area of learning.
As research indicates, the culmination of the intense nature of sibling
relationships, and the emotionality in pretense, provides a valuable environment for the
development of social understanding (Azmitia & Hesser, 1993; Goncu, 1993;
Youngblade & Dunn, 1995). The act of pretense allows siblings to work things out
together through play. Through these interactions siblings can share their perspective and
come to a shared understanding. It is through exposure to the emotional elements of
sibling interactions, that children learn successful tools to promote positive negotiation,
to be responsive and caring to each other’s emotions, and to learn to reason with one
another in a sophisticated manner.
21
Reciprocal and complementary relationships are examined in this study through
the role of nurturance and dominance. These two areas help determine the balance of
power between siblings. When looking at reciprocity, this study will compare nurturance
and dominance scores with empathy and emotion regulation. This is intended to show
how power status and emotional competencies work together.
Sibling Conflict
While siblings may gain social and emotional benefits from their daily interactions,
they may also learn negative and conflictual ways of dealing with conflict. A certain
level of conflict, if it is not excessive or abusive, is considered normative in sibling
relationships (Stocker et al., 2002). It can therefore be used as a constructive form of
social learning in which children learn social and emotional competence, and negotiation
strategies in dealing with conflict (Bedford, Volling, & Avioli, 2000; Howe et al., 2002).
Benefits in negotiation include sharing and turn taking. Emotional responsivity (rapid
changes in emotional states), prosocial skills (the skills that help children make friends)
and sophisticated reasoning skills such as backing off or creating a diversion, are also
included within the social skills learned through the sibling experience (Howe et al.,
2002; Stormshak et al., 1996). This is an important aspect to their development because
through their intense daily interactions with each other, siblings can better learn how to
negotiate, be emotionally responsive, and use sophisticated reasoning skills to help end
negative conflict.
22
Although normative conflict is considered a potentially positive aspect of sibling
relationships, too much conflict can prove detrimental (Howe et al., 2002; Stocker et al.,
2002). High levels of sibling aggression have been shown to be the most prevalent form
of family violence and abuse (Erikson & Jenson, 2006; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz,
2003). Accounts of mild to severe sibling violence over the history of the sibling
relationship have incidence as high as 83% (Kettry & Emery, 2006). These studies point
to serious issues that can arise within sibling relationships when problems are not
resolved. Not only is sibling violence detrimental, but it also appears to be much more
common than expected.
The long-term consequences of sibling conflict include increased anxiety,
depressed mood, delinquent behavior, high levels of loneliness, difficulties with social
cognition such as affective perspective taking or emotion regulation and internalizing and
externalizing difficulties (Duncan, 1999; Stocker et al., 2002). Sibling conflict has been
associated with negative social learning such as hostile parent-child relationships, and
marital discord (Stocker et al., 2002). As children become older, they sometimes look to
siblings for support, especially when they feel their parent is negative or emotionally
unavailable (Bryant, 1992). Based on the cumulative research, when children grow up in
a conflictual environment, where problems are not solved but allowed to escalate, the
results are poor adjustment and a host of learning, behavioral, psychological, and
relationship difficulties. It is helpful to remember, then, that sibling relationships with
moderate levels of conflict and warmth predict better social adjustment than relationships
with high levels of conflict and low levels of warmth (Stormshak et al., 1996). Siblings
23
may need help learning emotional skills but once they have developed the ability to
regulate emotions and empathize with others they become capable of navigating positive
sibling and peer relationships. An investigation into conflict and social competencies
will be examined in this study in an effort to realize the significance between the lack of
emotion regulation and empathy and its relationship to sibling relationship quality.
Warmth/Support/Disclosure
Siblings can also be a source of emotional support, providing love,
companionship, support and aid (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Voorpostel & Van Der
Lippe, 2007). Studies indicate the benefits of warm relationships where siblings feel
secure. Siblings in warm relationships report higher levels of emotional understanding,
trust, and self-disclosure as well as problem-solving skills (Brody et al., 1994; Howe et
al., 2001). Trust is a necessary component to disclosure since one who feels safe within
the relationship will be more likely to disclose personal information. When siblings are
able to turn to each other in warmth and trust, they can counteract other negative
influences in their lives by seeking solutions to their problems.
Siblings can serve many roles with each other, including caretakers, confidants,
role models, and teachers (Bryant, 1992; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Howe et al.,
2002). As caretakers they provide care for each other when the parents are unavailable or
do not respond in an effective, or sensitive way. As confidants, they talk to each other
about stressful emotional situations and disclose intimate details about their lives (Bryant,
1992). As role models they set the example for empathy in understanding the perceptions
24
of others (Tucker et al., 1999). As teachers, their influence can work to promote both
social and cognitive skills (Azmitia & Hesser, 1993). These attributes of sibling
relationships are positive experiences so long as the social skills of emotional competence
are incorporated, the older sibling is a positive role model, and there are high levels of
trust and warmth.
In cases when families experience trauma, siblings can step in as a source of
strength and support. Punamaki et al. (2006) found that when 65 families experienced
psychological distress due to military trauma in Palestine, older siblings at 19 years old
suffered depressive symptoms and PTSD, while 15-year-old siblings took on the role as
the “Sunshine Child.” These “Sunshine Children” showed more resilience, fewer
symptoms, and were able to serve as a support for the older sibling. Therefore, while the
older siblings were the “symptom carriers,” the younger siblings were their strength and
support.
The importance of siblings as support is a crucial part of this study. There are
times when all families experience hardships or trauma of some sort. If sibling
relationships are strong, their ability to cope and to help each other through struggles will
be enhanced. Since siblings share so many experiences, both good and bad, having and
developing empathy is vital to a healthy outcome during difficulties.
25
Emotional Competence
Emotional competence is the ability to identify and understand emotions in self
and others, and to regulate those emotions appropriately (Denham et al., 2012;
Humphries, Keenan, & Wakschlag, 2012). It includes emotional expressiveness,
knowledge, regulation, social skills, peer interactions and prosocial behaviors (RoseKrasnor, 1997). There are many benefits to emotional competence including better
interpersonal relationships, success in academics and at work, life satisfaction and wellbeing (Denham, 2006; Denham, Bassett, Mincic, Kalb, Way, Wyatt, & Segal, 2012;
Newman, Joseph, & MacCann, 2010; Palmer, Donaldson, and Stough, 2002). High
emotional competence is also beneficial to the sibling relationships itself since the ability
to understand emotions is related to warmth within the relationship (Howe et al., 2001).
The two aspects of emotional competence examined in this study, empathy and
emotion regulation, are considered vital to quality relationships. It takes a certain amount
of emotional understanding to regulate one’s emotions and an even higher level of
understanding emotions to empathize with the way someone else is feeling. These
competencies contribute to the quality of the sibling relationship since the ability to
successfully manage one’s emotions, and understand the other person’s perspective, and
emotions at an intimate level creates the warmth necessary for quality relationships.
When siblings are able to regulate their emotions in an effective way, they are able to talk
about difficult things, and work out their differences. They are able to process how they
are feeling, to mediate their emotions, and to successfully monitor their behavior in a way
26
that is conducive to a productive outcome for both siblings. When empathy is used, this
serves as a way to process how someone else is feeling, to access, assimilate and
integrate that information, and to have the capacity to respond to it in a productive
manner. The current study investigates two aspects of emotional competence thought to
be particularly relevant with respect to sibling relationships: emotion regulation and
empathy development as they are valuable pieces to the complexities of quality sibling
relationships.
Emotion Regulation
Emotion Regulation is viewed by researchers as a complex process that plays an
important role in a child’s social development, and emotional competence, especially in
the area of interpersonal relationships (Blair et al., 2004). According to Thompson
(1994) it is the ability to monitor, evaluate and modify emotional reactions to accomplish
one’s goals through the use of intrinsic and extrinsic processes. In order to understand
the regulatory aspects of development it is important to examine the conceptual relations
between emotion and cognition (Bell & Wolfe, 2004). Howe et al. (2001) suggested that
the ability to regulate one’s emotions is an important factor underlying emotional
understanding. Therefore, emotion regulation is the combination of emotion and
cognition since it incorporates the ability to control emotions, meaning that cognition is
able to detect and identify emotions as they occur and then exercise some management
over it. Emotion regulation explains how and why emotions are organized cognitively,
and assist other psychological processes such as focusing attention and problem solving
27
by facilitating actions to overcome obstacles, solve problems, and maintain well-being
(Cole et al., 2004).
Kennedy and Kramer (2008) claim emotion regulation to be high on the list for
specific competencies which underlie the supportive structure for the development of
prosocial sibling relationships and found it to be positively related to an improvement in
the quality of the sibling relationship. Thompson (1994) suggests that the acquisition of
controlling and managing emotions is central to a child’s early development. Siblings
know how to press each other’s buttons, and make each other angry, but they also know
how to make each other laugh. They use encouragement to get their brother or sister to
play with them, or coercion to get them to comply. In other words, it is through the
intimate interactions of playing, fighting, regulation, and management that siblings
construct the same environment from which they learn. As a component of emotional
competence, emotion regulation is a valuable skill in building sibling relationships.
Emotion regulation is the part of emotional competency that helps individuals cope with
stressful situations in an effective way (Blair et al., 2004; Kennedy & Kramer, 2008). In
this research Blair et al. make the claim that emotional disregulation is linked to the
display of relational and externalizing problems in young children. The Blair study
examined 153 preschool children and used parent and teacher reports for temperament,
emotion regulation, and social competence to show how preventative or interventional
strategies used in the classroom can develop productive emotion regulation skills for
children.
Kennedy and Kramer (2008) found their results through an intervention study that
28
offered instruction for siblings on emotion regulation. The group who received
instruction on how to regulate their emotions noticed an improvement in the quality of
their sibling relationships whereas the control group did not. Another study by Maszk,
Eisenberg, and Guthrie (1999, as seen in Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Reiser, 2002)
found that emotion regulation was linked to areas of social functioning in preschoolers,
including socially appropriate behavior, adjustment, and sympathy. This study examined
four-to six-year-old middle class preschool, daycare and kindergarteners and was based
on teacher and peer report. Measures included children’s coping, intensity of
emotionality (negative), regulation, and aggression. Based on the research cited in this
section, emotion regulation appears to be a key aspect of emotional competence and a
vital component to its respective abilities such as coping, display of socially appropriate
behavior, adjustment and sympathy, all of which build quality relationships. Therefore,
when siblings use these skills, they work together in an amicable way that promotes
warmth and trust. In order to get a better idea as to how emotion regulation works within
warmth, conflict, and status/power, perceptions of both siblings in each dyad will be
examined.
Empathy
Empathy has been described as the ability to identify with or experience another
person’s emotional state, and to sympathize, (Eisenberg, 2005; Tucker et al., 1999). In
examination of this definition, the word “experience” is most notable as it represents
more than just understanding. It connotes a form of knowledge that one person feels
29
what the other person is experiencing or feeling.
Sibling relationships high in warmth and low in conflict have been found to
represent high levels of empathy between siblings (Lam et al., 2012). Tucker et al. (year)
found that older siblings were a primary teaching influence for empathy for their younger
siblings. Developmental differences in empathy have been indicated by Lam et al.
(2012) as a gender-related factor where girls increase in empathy to age 12, whereas boys
show no increase going into puberty. The research within this article suggests that
through direct instruction, discipline, opportunities to learn empathy, and setting high
standards, older siblings set an example of empathy to younger siblings. This research
reinforces the claim that older siblings are socializers for their younger siblings (Tucker
et al., 1999). If empathy is a skill that can be taught, then the ability to empathize can be
learned through experiences with others, so long as it is modeled.
Siblings who experience low levels of empathy along with high levels of conflict
within sibling relationships are more likely to experience bullying and victimization
within the sibling relationship for both boys and girls (Menesini et al., 2010). Therefore,
low levels of empathy should also be related to low sibling relationship quality. It also
appears that low levels of empathy and high levels of conflict work together to influence
negative experiences for siblings. Empathy, therefore, is an important result of positive
sibling relationships, since understanding and sympathizing with others on an intimate
level would indicate warmth within the relationship.
30
Summary
Siblings have a unique relationship in which emotional competencies such as
emotion regulation and empathy are learned. When these skills are used in a constructive
way, the quality of the sibling relationship is one of warmth, trust and support instead of
conflict, mistrust, and potential violence. These skills are key to a child’s social,
emotional, and cognitive development (Amitia & Hesser, 1993; Howe et al., 2001;
Kennedy & Kramer, 2008; Tucker et al., 1999). On the other hand, negative, conflictual
relationships are detrimental (Camodeca & Nocentini, 2010; Stocker et al., 2002).
The working models developed through these relationships are based on the
acquisition and employment of these competencies and affect a child’s outcome both
presently and in the future. The way in which siblings attach to one another early in life
contributes to the quality of the relationship since the emotional competencies learned in
the home and from each other help create the working model, or patterns of behavior.
Although these patterns or determined early on, there are interventions that can be used to
help the sibling relationship improve such as the Big Sisters, Big Brothers Program
(Kennedy & Kramer, 2008).
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between sibling perception
of their sibling relationship quality and two aspects of emotional competence: emotion
regulation and empathy in order to better understand the interactions between emotional
competencies and sibling relationship quality. The study posed two research questions.
First, are warmth, normative levels of conflict, and reciprocal relationships significantly
31
related to areas of emotional competence such as emotion regulation and empathy?
Second, which aspects of warmth/intimacy, conflict, or relative status/power are most
significantly associated with emotional competence? An example of this would be that
children with high levels of intimacy would also show high levels of empathy.
In looking through the current literature on sibling relationships and these emotion
skills: warm, supportive sibling relationships with normative levels of conflict result in
trust, as indicated by higher levels of disclosure (Howe et al., 2001) were expected to be
linked to higher levels of emotion regulation and empathy (Azmitia & Hesser, 1993;
Howe et al., 2001; Kennedy & Kramer, 2008). On the contrary, sibling relationships
high in conflict and low in support sibling were expected to be related to lower emotional
competence among participants. These hypotheses were based on the idea that siblings
who have the skills to recognize, talk about, and regulate their feelings will be more
likely to disclose their personal thoughts, feelings and experiences so long as they feel
safe or the environment merits the behavior.
This research was designed to further previous research in the area of sibling
relationship quality and emotional competence. By looking at the perception of both
individuals in the sibling dyad, we will also get a better sense of whether warmth, and
self-disclosure is an individual or a shared experience of the dyad.
32
Chapter 3
METHODS
A correlational design was employed in this study to examine the relationships
between sibling relationship quality variables and emotional competence variables. Data
were collected from self-report measures from siblings and analyzed using correlations
and paired t-tests. The purpose of this design was to first, examine correlations between
variables, and second, to test whether older and younger siblings reported similarities in
their relationship quality and emotional competence.
Participants
Twenty-three school-aged sibling dyads (number of kids, because not simply
doubled in number because of using some as older and younger??) from 15 families were
recruited from two after-school programs and a church youth group. One after school
club was from a K – 8 Montessori public charter school and the other was from a K – 6
public school. The youth group and their siblings were members of a Christian church
known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. All three groups were found
within a five mile radius in a mid-sized city in Northern California. These sites were
chosen for their convenience in reaching a large sample of sibling pairs within the desired
age range and gaining access to parents for consent.
Both male and female siblings were recruited without preference as to the
33
combination of gender within the relationship. Participants were between the ages of
eight and 14 years: younger sibling (M = 8.30 years, SD = .99) and older sibling (M =
11.00 years, SD = 1.29). There were 12 older sisters, and 11 older brothers, 17 younger
sisters, and six younger brothers who participated in the study. There were 9 girl-girl
dyads, 3 boy-boy dyads, 8 older sister-younger brother dyads, and 3 older brotheryounger sister dyads. Children were chosen from this age group based on the idea that
they are old enough to understand the questions and answer accurately, and they are
young enough to remember their experiences. This age was also targeted because both
measures used had been previously used with these ages.
From the Montessori after school club, a small group of about 25 children were
asked to participate in a small group setting, if they met the requirements for the study.
Information about the study was also left by the sign out sheet so parents and guardians
could view the information while picking up their children from the center. A short blurb
was also posted in the school newsletter. The school had 243 students, 162 of which
were signed up in the after-school club. Three sibling pairs from this site volunteered and
were interviewed. At the public K – 6 after school program, three sibling pairs were preidentified and given the forms to take home. All three families returned the paperwork,
but only one sibling dyad was available for interviews. In the youth church group, ten
families were given the forms following a weekly activity. All ten of these families
returned the forms and 16 sibling pairs were created due to some of the families having
three children, where each child (A, B and C) reported on the other two siblings for the
SRQ. Perceptions of both children in each dyad were examined to assess the factors of
34
the relationship quality.
Measures
Demographic Survey
The parents completed a demographic survey that included information about the
children’s names ages, gender, how many other children live in the home, and how the
children are related (i.e., foster, adopted and half or full siblings). It also asked about
anyone else who lived in the home. The choices included grandparents, great
grandparents, biological parents, step-parents, siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles. It also
asked to identify the range of the family income and the cultural heritage of the family
(see Appendix B).
Sibling Relationship Questionnaire
A modified version of the SRQ (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) was used to assess
the children’s perceptions of three main aspects of sibling relationship quality. The SRQ
includes 42 items within three subscales: (a) warmth (b) conflict, and (c) power/status.
Although intimacy is a subscale within the warmth scale, it was emphasized throughout
the study and singled out as an important component on its own in the analyses, as this
aspect of sibling relationships is an indicator of the trust within the relationship and is an
area of research that needs further attention. Other subscales included within warmth
35
were prosocial behavior, companionship, similarity, admiration and affection. The
conflict scale included items on quarreling, antagonism, and competition. The
power/status scale included subscales for nurturance and dominance.
The older siblings in each dyad completed the form on their own, except for a set of
eight-year-old twins who were both interviewed. The younger siblings were interviewed
and the forms were completed by the interviewer. Those who were interviewed were
asked each question on the form as written by the authors. Interviews were conducted in
a private area (of the school or church?) to protect the confidentiality of the participants
and in order to answer any questions participants had to aid in understanding the wording
on the questionnaire. Responses on the SRQ were based on a 5-point Likert scale that
included: Hardly at all (1), Not too much (2), Somewhat (3), Very much (4), and
Extremely much (5). The choices were written out in advance on a piece of cardboard
and given to the participant for them to see during the interview. If the child was
concerned about saying the answer out loud, they could point to the answer on the
cardboard.
Emotional Competence
Emotional competence was also assessed by survey measure. For the current study,
subscales of the TEIQue were used. This test uses combined research from published
articles and books that provide empirical data and includes fourteen facets of emotional
intelligence. For this study, two areas were analyzed: emotional regulation (ER) and
empathy. The child form of the TEIQue examines self- perception on the emotional traits
36
ER, and empathy. There are a total of 36 items on this questionnaire. Choices were
based on a 5-point Likert scale and were arranged as disagree completely (1), disagree
(2), neither agree nor disagree (3), agree (4), and agree completely (5).
The participants were given directions on this measure, and encouraged to inquire if
they did not understand the directions or the questions. Except for one participant who
needed help reading, the participants completed this survey on their own. Subscales for
the SRQ and the TEIQue were created based on established subscales for the measures
where means were calculated across subsets of items. Specific subscales are identified in
Table 1 in the Results section along with the number of items, mean, standard deviation,
and Chronbach’s alpha for each.
Procedure
Data were collected from sibling dyads. Recruitment was done by first contacting
the leaders of the after school clubs, and church to see who was willing to allow research
to be done at their site. After approval from the sites, parents were given notification of
the research by sending a packet home with the children and through the school
newsletter. Packets were handed out to all students who wanted one. The students were
asked to bring the packets home for their parents to sign, and then to have their parent
return the packet. Participants were offered a small prize for their participation.
This packet contained a consent form and a demographic survey, which the parents
completed. The researcher collected the forms and interview dates were scheduled. All
37
identifying information was kept confidential. The children were interviewed separately,
while the other sibling remained under the supervision of a parent or after school staff
member. The first few minutes were used to develop rapport with the child and introduce
the topic of sibling relationships, and emotional competence. The assent form (see
Appendix C) was then explained to the child, after which the child signed the form.
Every child was told that they have the right to stop the research at any time. The
children first completed the SRQ either by being interviewed or completing the measure
on their own. They then completed the modified TEIQue on their own with the
researcher sitting nearby. Administration of the SRQ and the modified TEIQue took
approximately 30 minutes for each child. Upon completion, the questionnaires were then
placed in a locked brief case, and a small prize was given to each participant. Once all of
the questionnaires were completed, they were compiled and the analyses were conducted.
Subscale scores were obtained by computing the total score, which was then averaged.
38
Chapter 4
RESULTS
Analysis Plan
The first hypothesis was to determine significant relationships between Sibling
Relationship Quality (warmth, conflict, and status/power) and Emotional Competence
(empathy and emotion regulation). It was expected that warmth would be significantly
related to empathy and emotion regulation. It was also expected that conflict would be
negatively correlated with these emotional competency skills. To find the correlations
between children’s perceptions of their own emotional competence (regulation and
empathy) and each siblings’ perception of their sibling relationship quality
(warmth/intimacy, conflict, and power/status) for the dyad, the software program SPSS
was utilized first, to examine the overall relationship between sibling relationship quality
and emotional competence. Subscales were also analyzed for intercorrelations to
determine areas of significance such as the relationship between conflict and regulation;
and power/status and empathy.
The purpose of the second hypothesis was to find similarities between older and
younger sibling scores on both the SRQ and the TEIQue. It was expected that older and
younger siblings would show differences in status/power, with the older sibling showing
more status/power than the younger sibling. Therefore, older siblings would have higher
scores for items such as dominance. It was also expected that scores would be similar
39
between siblings for both sibling relationship quality and emotional competency.
Therefore, if one sibling scored high in relationship quality, the other sibling would also
score high. Similarly, if one sibling socred high in emotional competency, the other
sibling would also score high ,unless the status/power of the relationship was uneven. A
paired t- test was conducted to determine differences within each sibling dyad’s
perception of the sibling relationship quality (SRQ) and emotional competence
(TEIQue). Correlations between siblings in sibling relationship scores were also
conducted to examine whether perceptions of the sibling relationship were associated.
Reliability Analysis
During analyses, items were grouped into subscales which had already been
identified for these measures. Before entering the items into the correlations and t-tests it
was important to examine internal consistency for this sample. To assess internal
consistency Chronbach’s alphas were conducted for each subscale. All of the subscales
were found to have acceptable internal consistency with alpha more than .70 except
prosocial (alpha = .58) (see Table 1). Prosocial was still entered into analyses since it
was central to the purpose of this study but due to the low alpha any conclusions based on
findings with this subscale will have to be made with caution.
40
Sibling Similarities and Differences
A correlational analysis was conducted to test hypothesized correlations between
the SRQ subscales (prosocial, admiration of a sibling, admiration by a sibling, quarreling,
nurturance of a sibling, nurturance by a sibling, dominance of a sibling, dominance by a
sibling, affection, companionship, antagonism, similarity, intimacy and competition) and
TEIQue subscales (emotion regulation and empathy). It was predicted that high levels of
warmth, normative levels of conflict, and reciprocal relationships would be positively
associated with emotion regulation and empathy.
Correlational results for sibling groups are reported in Table 2. The results from
these analyses indicated that, overall, sibling relationship quality and emotional
competence were not significantly related. In regard to the second hypothesis, overall
warmth, conflict and power status were not related to emotion regulation (ER). However,
one significant relationship was found between emotion regulation and nurturance by a
sibling r (46) = .34, p = .02. These results indicate that siblings who scored high on ER,
also scored high on nurturance by a sibling, thus suggesting that siblings who report high
scores in emotion regulation also report that their sibling is nurturing toward them.
Nurturance by a sibling was also significantly related to empathy r(46) = .46, p = .00.
Siblings who reported high scores for empathy also scored high in nurturance of a
sibling. Similarly, siblings who reported high levels of nurturance by a sibling also had
high scores for empathy r(46) = .40, p = .01. Empathy was significantly related to
different aspects of warmth within the sibling relationship including intimacy r(46) = .38,
41
p = .01, admiration of a sibling r(46) = .38, p = .01, and admiration by a sibling r(46) =
.33, p = .03. Therefore, siblings who report high levels of empathy, also report high for
intimacy and admiration. Competition was also significantly related to empathy within
the sibling relationship r(46) = .33, p = .02. This would indicate that siblings who score
high in empathy tend to have competitive sibling relationships.
Comparison of Siblings
The second hypothesis examines the differences between scores for older versus
younger siblings to indicate whether emotional competence is based primarily on the
actual quality or perception of the individual. The second analysis was a paired samples
test that was also run through the SPSS software program. The purpose of this analysis
was to determine if there were any significant differences between scores for older versus
younger siblings.
As shown in Table 3, in the area of nurturance of a sibling, significant differences
were seen between older and younger sibling, with the younger sibling (M = 2.26, SD =
.94) scoring significantly lower in nurturance than the older sibling (M = 3.30, SD = .93),
t(22) = -5.022 , p < .000. There were also significant differences between siblings for
dominance, with the younger sibling (M = 2.0, SD = .70) scoring lower than the older
sibling (M = 3.04, SD = .93) for sibling 2, t(22) = -3.398, p = .003. Thus, older siblings
report higher dominance and lower nurturance in the sibling relationship than younger
siblings.
For the subscale of antagonism, scores were significantly different as well (t(22) =
42
-2.415, p = .024). (M = 2.43, SD = 1.03) for younger sibling and (M = 3.04, SD = .93) for
older sibling. Therefore, older siblings scored significantly higher in antagonism, thus
indicating that older siblings report more antagonism toward their younger sibling.
Similarly, competition showed a significant difference in scores between siblings with (M
= 2.54, SD = 1.18) for younger sibling and (M = 3.51, SD = 1.00) for older sibling, t(22)
= -4.129 p < .000. There were no significant differences found within emotional
competence scores for emotion regulation or for empathy.
Since differences are not the same as relationships, correlations were also used to
compare the responses of the siblings on the subscales. The correlations are reported in
Table 4. In comparing the significant relationships from the correlations with the paired
t-test, it was found that both differences for the paired t-test and similarities for the
correlations were found in two subscales: nurturance of a sibling r(46) = .43 p < .05 and
competition r(46) = .48 p < .05. Therefore, although siblings reported significant
differences in these two areas, they also both reported positive relationships where when
one sibling scored high the other tended to score high as well.
Table 4 shows significant positive correlations existed between older and younger
sibling scores on several of the sibling quality scales and emotion measures. Positive
correlations indicate that both siblings tended to be high or low on the scales. Findings
indicate that overall siblings scores were more similar that different. For example, older
and younger sibling’s scores were significantly and positively correlated on prosocial
skills, nurturance of a sibling, intimacy, admiration of a sibling, admiration by a sibling,
and competition. Younger sibling’s empathy was related to older sibling’s affection,
43
admiration of a sibling, nurturance of a sibling and nurturance by a sibling. There were a
few areas where negative correlations existed, most notably between older sibling
prosocial skills and younger sibling quarreling such that older siblings with lower
prosocial skills had younger siblings who reported higher quarrelling and vice versa (see
Table 4).
44
45
46
47
48
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
This study extends previous work in the area of sibling relationships by focusing
on the two elements of emotional competence that capture important features of the
quality of relationships. Although parents are considered major players in their children’s
social development, it is also important to examine the direct link between siblings in the
areas of sibling relationship quality and emotional competence because siblings also play
an important role in each other’s social development (Brody, 1998; Dunn, 2002).
The purpose of this study was to analyze differences between sibling perceptions
of their sibling relationship quality and investigate associations between sibling
relationship quality and both emotion regulation and empathy. Other studies have
focused on the parent contribution to a child’s emotional competence development or to
single aspects of sibling relationship quality, such as conflict and adjustment (Kramer,
2008) or warmth and intimacy (Howe et al., 2001). Brody (1998) did a more
comprehensive study that examined various factors of sibling relationship quality,
however, emotional competence was not considered in his investigation. Therefore, the
aim of the current study was to further current research, determine associations between
sibling relationship quality and emotional competence and find differences between
sibling perceptions.
49
Sibling Relationship Quality and
Emotional Competence
This study found significant correlations between the scales of warmth and
empathy, emotion regulation and relative status/power, and empathy and status/power.
Further, nurturance by a sibling was also linked to emotion regulation. It was also found
that empathy is significantly related to three areas of warmth within the sibling
relationship. These areas include intimacy, admiration of a sibling, and admiration by a
sibling. In the area of status/power, empathy is significantly related to nurturance by, and
nurturance of a sibling. The most interesting correlation found however, was that
empathy was positively related to competition. There was also one significant correlation
found between nurturance by a sibling and emotion regulation.
Significant differences between older and younger siblings were found within
sibling relationship quality but not emotional competence scales. Older siblings scored
higher in areas of warmth, but not in areas of empathy or emotion regulation. In the
correlational analysis between siblings there were more positive associations between
relationship quality than negative. Similarities were found between siblings in the use of
prosocial skills, nurturance of a sibling, intimacy, competition, admiration of a sibling,
and admiration by a sibling. Empathy was the emotional variable most related to
relationship quality measures. Still, siblings did not show significant differences in
emotional competency skills nor significant correlations. This was not consistent with
50
prior research that suggested that siblings may share similar traits within emotional
competence because they are learned through their social environment either outside of
the home, but together as siblings, or from older siblings inside of the home (Kennedy &
Kramer, 2008; Tucker et al., 1999). Relationship quality on the other hand may be based
primarily upon perception, and differences will be found with different perceptions. It
could be that older children view the quality of the relationship differently than younger
siblings due to the complementary dynamics of the relationship. However, other factors
not examined in this research, such as individual temperament, may also contribute to the
positive or negative aspects of sibling perception.
Key Findings
Affection and Empathy
It was expected that warmth, low levels of conflict, and reciprocal sibling
interactions would be correlated with high levels of emotion regulation and empathy.
Affection and empathy showed a moderate correlation. This result is not surprising and
reinforces the expectation that warm, affectionate sibling relationships are those in which
empathy is a present in sibling interactions. This expectation was based on prior research
that ties warmth with social and interpersonal competencies (Brody, 1998; Howe et al.,
2001; Kennedy & Kramer, 2008; Stormshak et al., 1996). The findings are consistent
with prior research in that affection, which is a warm characteristic was found to be
51
associated with empathy. It is through warm, affectionate sibling relationships to which
siblings can learn to understand each other at a level in which an understanding of
feelings are shared (Howe et al., 2001).
Intimacy and Empathy
Intimacy is another area of warmth that was significantly correlated with
empathy. This finding is also consistent with prior research by Howe et al., who found
emotional understanding to be a key factor in intimate relationships in which siblings are
able to disclose personal thoughts and feelings with one another. Disclosure between
siblings is often indicative of the level of intimacy within the relationship, according to
Howe. Research reviewed by Howe indicated that the ability to understand another’s
emotions as a component to empathy. When siblings have empathy for another sibling, it
is likely that the relationship will be open to disclosure and intimacy, which are
dependent upon high levels of trust (Howe et al., 2001).
Admiration and Empathy
Admiration of and by a sibling were also significantly linked to empathy. This
link suggests that children in warm, empathic sibling relationships tend to look up to,
appreciate, and admire each other (Mavroveli et al., 2008). It also suggests that
empathic sibling relationships are those in which the siblings feel admiration from their
sibling. These traits may indicate that siblings who share a relationship of admiration,
highly value each other, and siblings who highly value each other admire each other.
52
They are therefore more positive in the way they interact as well as in their perceptions of
each other. Similarly, siblings who are more positive in their interactions highly value
each other. Howe and Ross (1990) found that perspective taking and an understanding
that younger siblings have feelings was associated with warm sibling relationships. This
would be true for empathy in all areas of warmth within the sibling relationship since
perspective taking is a way to understand another’s feelings through intimacy, disclosure,
acts of affection, and feelings of admiration.
Competition and Empathy
The positive correlation between competition and empathy is particularly
noteworthy, since it seems more likely that competitive sibling relationships would
indicate conflict rather than warmth. Perhaps competition is such a natural part of sibling
relationships, that even though it creates conflict at times, it also affords interactions that
help form strong attachments. For example, competition between siblings could mean
playing sports or games together, to see who can run faster, or win at a video game.
After all, normative levels of conflict promote social skills related to emotional
competence and still allow for positive sibling relationships (Bedford et al., 2000; Howe
et al., 2002). Competition could be a form of normative conflict that would benefit the
sibling relationship. Questions from the emotional competence scale in the area of
competition asked participants if they try to outdo each other, beat each other, and do
things better than their sibling. Older siblings scored higher in competition than younger
siblings on the paired t-test and on the correlational analysis, siblings who scored high on
53
competition also tended to score high on empathy. However, there were no significant
differences for empathy between siblings. Therefore, when older siblings are more
competitive, the empathy between siblings is high.
Nurturance and Empathy
Both nurturance of a sibling and by a sibling were significantly correlated with
empathy. This may mean that empathy is a trait experienced by siblings who are
nurtured by a sibling as well as those who offer the nurturing. When children are
empathic with one another through perspective taking and understanding it often
indicates that they will also have a warm supportive sibling relationship (Howe & Ross,
1990). Nurturance is considered a warm interaction; however, it falls under the category
of relative status/power and is indicative of complementary interactions within the sibling
relationship. Complementary relationships are considered more helpful to siblings in
regard to prosocial behaviors (Karos et al., 2007). When older siblings set the example
for empathy within the relationship, younger siblings learn to empathize as well (Howe &
Recchia, 2005; Tucker et al., 1999). It is through the act of nurturance that establishes
care from one child with greater authority, abilities and intelligence over the one who
receives that care. The act of nurturance is a part of the development of healthy
attachments since according to attachment theory, those who meet the needs of the child,
are the ones in which they form healthy attachments (Ainsworth et al., 1978). If siblings
are nurturing, the affordance for healthy attachment is present.
54
Nurturance and Emotion Regulation
Only one significant correlation was found for emotion regulation. This
significant finding between nurturance and emotion regulation may indicate that positive
perceptions of being nurtured by a sibling are related to the ability to regulate one’s
emotions. If nurturance of a sibling were also significantly correlated with emotion
regulation that would suggest that the ability to regulate one’s emotions is indicative of
how well one nurtures his or her sibling. However, since this correlation did not reach
significance, perhaps the link is not as strong. Future research could focus on these two
areas in depth to better determine the differences and similarities between being nurtured
by a sibling, or nurturing a sibling, and emotion regulation. Since siblings who are
nurtured by a sibling are generally younger, examining birth order should be a variable.
Sibling Comparisons
Some differences and similarities were found between siblings with older siblings
having higher scores in the following areas: nurturance of a sibling, dominance of a
sibling, antagonism and competition. This means that older siblings are more likely to
report that they nurture, dominate, and antagonize younger siblings than the reverse. It
also shows that they report being more competitive than their younger siblings. These
results show that for this study complementary interactions between siblings are present
in these areas. This also suggests that reciprocal interactions may be more present in
55
other aspects of the relationship such as prosocial skills, nurturance by a sibling,
admiration, quarreling, dominance by a sibling, affection, companionship, similarity, and
intimacy. However, according to correlational analysis between siblings in this study,
comparative similarities were found in areas of prosocial skills, nurturance of a sibling,
intimacy, competition, admiration of and admiration by a sibling. An interesting note is
that even though competition was significantly correlated between younger and older
siblings, older siblings reported higher differences on the paired t-test.
On the paired t-test, significant differences were found between siblings in sibling
relationship scores, but not in the emotional competence measure. More specifically,
siblings reported differences in areas of warmth, but not in areas of empathy or ER.
Siblings, however, did not report similarities in emotional competence on the correlations
between siblings, even though prior research indicates these competencies to be learned
from the social environment that begins with familial influences, but can also be taught
through intervention programs (Kennedy & Kramer, 2008; Tucker et al., 1999). Sibling
relationship quality on the other hand may be based primarily upon perception, and
differences will be found with different perceptions. It could be that older children view
the quality of the relationship differently than younger siblings due to the complementary
dynamics of the relationship. However, other factors not examined in this research, such
as individual temperament and parental influence may also contribute to the positive or
negative aspects of sibling perception.
56
Relative Status/Power
Dominance and nurturance for a sibling, which are both subscales within relative
status/power domain, both showed significant results for older siblings over younger
siblings. It seems a natural part of the sibling relationship for older siblings to dominate
younger siblings, especially when the balance of power suggests a complementary
relationship. Items for dominance suggest that siblings who scored high in this area, tend
to tell each other what to do, order each other around and make each other do things.
On the same token, it is also indicative of complementary sibling relationships for
the older sibling to show nurturance for the younger sibling (Karos et al., 2007) since
older siblings often serve as attachment figures for younger siblings (Seibert & Kerns,
2009) given the position of the older child to care for the younger sibling from infancy.
Nurturance of a sibling showed significant results for emotion regulation in this study.
The interpretation of this finding is that older siblings are more skilled at social
interactions, and therefore more capable of regulating emotions. Research by Blair
(2004) discusses how emotion regulation is a social competency used in the development
of interpersonal relationships. Older siblings also work as an attachment figure for
younger siblings, giving them a natural placement for nurturing.
Conflict
Older siblings showed more antagonism than younger siblings on the t-test.
Antagonism from an older sibling may be indicative of the status/power as well. When
one has the ability to dominate within the relationship, there is also a presumed license to
57
antagonize. The difference between status/power and conflict, however, is the same as
the difference between a description of the power and what can be an abuse of that power
by the sibling with greater status/power. As indicated in the correlations analysis
between siblings in table 4, conflict was significant, with a greater level of conflict for
older siblings, as was indicated in the paired t-test.
Although competition was another area in which older siblings scored higher, it
was also linked with empathy on the correlational analysis. Since older siblings scored
higher for competition than younger siblings, yet competition was tied to empathy, it is
probably due to the competitive nature of older siblings and the interaction of competitive
situations that brings out the empathy. One reason for this finding may be explained by
the development of understanding someone’s feelings through the heightened emotions
of competition.
Conclusion
This study was able to compare sibling scores to evaluate whether siblings
reported differences in the quality of their relationship and emotional competence.
Relationships between sibling relationship quality and emotional competence were also
examined. Lastly, associations were identified between siblings. This study examined
perception of each sibling as a way to determine whether the answers to the initial
research questions were based primarily upon perception or actual quality. The
58
perception of the sibling relationship quality was not always consistent between siblings,
therefore suggesting different experiences for each sibling. Although differences
between sibling emotional competence scores were not found, similarities were not found
either. This study found that overall sibling relationship quality and emotional
competence are not related, but there are areas of warmth and empathy that are
significantly related. In examining subscales, however, this study found significant
correlations between the scales of warmth and empathy, emotion regulation and relative
status/power, and empathy and status/power. More specifically, nurturance by a sibling
was also significantly related to emotion regulation. Empathy was significantly related to
intimacy, admiration of a sibling, and admiration by a sibling. Empathy was also
significantly related to nurturance by, and nurturance of a sibling, and competition. Only
one significant correlation was found for emotion regulation: nurturance by a sibling.
Older siblings scored higher than younger siblings in areas of warmth, but not in
areas of empathy or emotion regulation. Similarities between siblings were found for
prosocial skills, nurturance of a sibling, intimacy, competition, admiration of a sibling,
and admiration by a sibling.
Although overall sibling relationship quality was only found to be related to
emotional competence in the area of warmth, other factors may influence the sibling
relationship such as birth order, which was seen in the results of dominance, nurturance,
competition and antagonism. It may also be due to perception based on individual
temperament. Most importantly, however, is the social environment in which siblings
learn to interact. For young children, the family is their first and most influential
59
encounter with social influences. These reciprocal interactions that take place within the
family structure are as variable and individual as each person.
Limitations and Future Research
Although the present study extends previous research, there are many limitations
to this study. The first limitation is that with the use of self-report measures, the answers
given may not be objective. The two questionnaires given to each participant asked them
to evaluate their sibling relationship quality and their emotional competency based on
their own perceptions. This was most important in evaluating the findings regarding
empathy, a subscale was showed several significant relationships and differences but had
a low internal consistency. This implies that there may be some other factor that is
related to both empathy and sibling relationship quality (like attachment) that needs to be
examined more closely to understand the relationships between these variables. Future
research should include attachment or use a different measure of empathy.
The second limitation is that the sample size was small; a larger sample would
have more power to identify significant relationships and differences. Another limitation
of this study is that the majority of the children interviewed for this study come from
white, middle-class, intact families which limits generalizability. Future research should
include larger and more representative samples.
60
As for the testing, a correlational design was used to test the hypotheses.
Correlations are used for the purpose of examining relationships between variables
collected at the same time from each sibling as well as variables between siblings.
Correlations examine only the relationships between variables and do not infer causality
since relationships are bidirectional (Cozby, 2007). Longitudinal and intervention studies
that can look at temporal or causal relationships between sibling relationships
characteristics and emotional factors are needed.
Siblings with higher levels of conflict should also be included in future research
in this area. Future research should ask if the impact of nurturance by or for a sibling on
emotion regulation has more to do with birth order and age or the act of nurturing or
being nurtured. Another interesting question for future research would be: In which type
of circumstances is sibling competition linked to warm or conflictual sibling
relationships?
61
Appendix A
Letter of Consent to Participate in Research
Your children are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by
Nancy Alkema, a student in Child Development at California State University,
Sacramento. This study will examine associations between sibling relationships quality
and EI.
If your family participates you will be asked to complete the enclosed background
survey and return it with this consent form in the envelope provided. The two children
participating will be interviewed based on questions from the Sibling Relationship
Questionnaire (SRQ) by Furman and Buhrmester (1985). They will also be asked to
complete a short questionnaire on EI. If you would like to view the questions before
consenting, you may contact me at na623@saclink.csus.edu. Interviews will take place
in a private location at the school, or, in your home.
Participation is completely voluntary. Your return of the background form and
this consent form acknowledges your willingness for your children to participate. Even
with your consent your children have the option to decline or stop the process at any time
with no penalty. At the completion of the study you may receive a copy of the study
findings with all sibling pairs aggregated; you will not have access to your children’s
individual responses. Your children will each receive a small toy for taking the time to do
the interview. While neither you nor your children are likely to benefit directly from
participating in this research, siblings have a powerful influence over each other’s lives,
62
and therefore, learning more about the importance of positive interactions and trust can
help us to understand this relationship more.
The findings from this study may be presented at conferences or published in
journals but only in group aggregate. Your children’s information will be kept
confidential and no identifying information will be used. Your children’s answers to the
questions and interview transcripts will be coded with ID numbers and stored in a
password protected laptop.
If you have any questions, you may contact Nancy Alkema at na623@csus.edu or
my research sponsor Dr. Juliana Raskauskas at jraskau@csus.edu. Your signature below
indicates that you have read this page and agree to participate.
___________________________
Name of parent, please print
____________________________
Signature of Parent
__________________
Date
Name of first child _____________________________ age _________________
Name of second child ____________________________ age __________________
63
Appendix B
Family Demographics Questionnaire
1. Please answer for the older sibling participating in the interview:
Name _______________________ Age ________ Gender: [ ] Male [ ] Female
2. Please answer for the younger sibling participating in the interview:
Name ________________________Age __________Gender: [ ] Male [ ]
Female
3. How many other children live in the home? _______________
4. How are the participating siblings related:
[ ] Biological [ ] Step [ ] Half [ ] Adopted
5. Please check all the people living in the children’s primary home:
[ ] Biological Mother [ ]Biological Father [ ] Step Mother
[ ] Step Father [ ] Guardian [ ] Family Friend [ ] Full Brother
[ ] Half Brother [ ] Step Brother [ ] Full Sister [ ] Half Sister
[ ] Step Sister [ ] Grandmother [ ] Grandfather [ ] Great Grandmother
[ ] Great Grandfather [ ] Aunt [ ] Uncle [ ] Cousins
6. Please indicate the estimated total family yearly income:
[ ] Under $20,000 [ ] $20 – 30,000 [ ] $31 – 40,000 [ ] $41- 50,000
[ ] $51- 60,000 [ ] $61-75,000 [ ] $76 – 99,000 [ ] $100,000 or more
7. Ethnic/Cultural Heritage:
[ ] African American [ ] Asian [ ] American Indian [ ] Hispanic
[ ] Caucasian [ ] Russian [ ] Hmong [ ] Pacific Islander [ ] Other, ______
64
Appendix C
Letter of Assent to Participate in Research
You are being asked to participate in research conducted by Nancy Alkema, a
student in Child Development at California State University, Sacramento. This study will
investigate factors related to emotional regulation, the ability to control, alter or maintain
emotions; emotional expression, the ability to talk about feelings; and empathy, which is
how well we understand the feelings of others. It will also examine the quality of your
sibling relationships. This includes positive and negative feelings and experiences
(warmth and conflict) as well as disclosure, which is when you tell someone you trust
about your personal thoughts, feelings, and experiences. You will not be asked to reveal
the specific things you disclose with your sibling. It will also ask about relative
status/power, which determines if your relationship with your brother or sister is even or
uneven (equal or unequal).
If you were contacted at your school or after-school site, your interview will take
place at the site in a private location. There will be two parts to the interview. One part
is an interview in which I will ask you a series of 43 questions and ask you to answer the
questions on a 5-point Likert scale which means you will choose one out of five possible
answers.
The second part of this study will have a short questionnaire for you to fill out.
Directions will be given to you on the questionnaire, and verbally for the younger sibling.
This should take about 30 minutes all together.
65
This research is voluntary which means it is your choice if you want to
participate. If for any reason, you choose to not participate, you may skip items or stop at
any time. Some of the items are personal about your relationships with your sibling and
how you feel. If after the survey you want to talk to someone about how you feel, you can
call the Youth Line Hotline at (800) 852-8336. Any personal information will be kept
confidential. No one will know your individual answers except for the researchers. You
will receive a small toy for participating in this study. If you have any questions about
this research, you may contact Nancy Alkema at na623@saclink.csus.edu or her research
sponsor Dr. Juliana Raskauskas at jraskau@saclink.csus.edu.
Your signature below indicates that you have read this page and agree to participate in
the research.
____________________________
Name of Participant
Signature
___________________
Date
66
Appendix D
ID # _________________________
GROUP ______
Sibling Relationship Questionnaire - Revised (Child) 3/90
My name is ______________________________________(completed by)
The phrase “this sibling” refers to __________________ (completed about)
1. Some siblings do nice things for each
other a lot, while other siblings do nice
things for each other a little. How
much do both you and this sibling do
nice things for each other?
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
2. How much do you show this sibling
how to do things he or she doesn’t
know how to do?
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
3. How much does this sibling show you
how to do things you don’t know how
to do?
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
4. How much do you tell this sibling what [ ]Hardly at all
to do?
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
5. How much does this sibling tell you
what to do?
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
67
6. Some siblings care about each other a
lot while other siblings don’t care
about each other that much. How
much do you and this sibling care
about each other?
7. How much do you and this sibling go
places and do things together?
8. How much do you and this sibling
insult and call each other names?
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
9. How much do you and this sibling like [ ]Hardly at all
the same things?
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
10. How much do you and this sibling tell
each other everything?
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
11. Some siblings try to out-do or beat
each other at things a lot, while other
siblings try to out-do each other a
little. How much do you and this
sibling try to out-do each other at
things?
12. How much do you admire and respect
this sibling?
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
68
13. How much does this sibling admire
and respect you?
14. How much do you and this sibling
disagree and quarrel with each other?
15. Some siblings cooperate a lot, while
other siblings cooperate a little. How
much do you and this sibling
cooperate with other?
16. How much do you help this sibling
with things he or she can’t do by him
or herself?
17. How much does this sibling help you
with things you can’t do by yourself?
18. How much do you make this sibling
do things?
19. How much does this sibling make you
do things?
20. How much do you and this sibling
love each other?
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
69
21. Some siblings play around and have
fun with each other a lot, while other
siblings play around and have fun with
each other a little. How much do you
and this sibling play around and have
fun with each other?
22. How much are you and this sibling
mean to each other?
23. How much do you and this sibling
have in common?
24. How much do you and this sibling
share secrets and private feelings?
25. How much do you and this sibling
compete with each other?
26. How much do you look up to and feel
proud of this sibling?
27. How much does this sibling look up to
and feel proud of you?
28. How much do you and this sibling get
mad at and get in arguments with each
other?
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
70
29. How much do both you and your
sibling share with each other?
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
30. How much do you teach this sibling
[ ]Hardly at all
things that he or she doesn’t know?
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
31. How much does this sibling teach you
[ ]Hardly at all
things that you don’t know?
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
32. How much do you order this sibling
[ ]Hardly at all
around?
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
33. How much does this sibling order you
[ ]Hardly at all
around?
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
34. How much is there a strong feeling of
[ ]Hardly at all
affection (love) between you and this
[ ]Not too much
sibling?
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
35. Some kids spend lots of time with their [ ]Hardly at all
siblings, while others don’t spend so
[ ]Not too much
much. How much free time do you and [ ]Somewhat
this sibling spend together?
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
36. How much do you and this sibling bug [ ]Hardly at all
and pick on each other in mean ways?
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
71
37. How much are you and this sibling
alike?
38. How much do you and this sibling tell
each other things you don’t want other
people to know?
39. How much do you and this sibling try
to do things better than each other?
40. How much do you think highly of this
sibling?
41. How much does this sibling think
highly of you?
42. How much do you and this sibling
argue with each other?
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
[ ]Hardly at all
[ ]Not too much
[ ]Somewhat
[ ]Very much
[ ]Extremely much
72
Appendix E
Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Form
S. Mavroveli & K.V. Petrides, Institute of Education, University of London
INSTRUCTIONS:

Please try to answer all questions.

Please remember there are no right or wrong answers.

Work as quickly as possible and do not think too much about the questions.

Circle the answer that you believe describes you best.
5
Agree
Agree
completely
Agree
completely
Neither agree
nor disagree
4
Disagree
Disagree
3
Disagree
completely
Disagree
completely
2
Neither agree
nor
disagree
Agree
1
1.
When I feel sad, I try to keep myself busy.
1
2
3
4
5
2.
It’s easy for me to show how I feel.
1
2
3
4
5
3.
I get angry and I don’t know why.
1
2
3
4
5
4.
If someone makes me angry, I tell them.
1
2
3
4
5
5.
1
2
3
4
5
6.
When I’m annoyed with someone, I just try not to think about
it.
I’m a very happy kid.
1
2
3
4
5
7.
I’m interested in my friends’ problems.
1
2
3
4
5
8.
I’m often upset.
1
2
3
4
5
9.
I don’t like helping others.
1
2
3
4
5
10. I always try to be in a good mood.
1
2
3
4
5
11. I can easily show my feelings to other people.
1
2
3
4
5
12. I can’t control my anger.
1
2
3
4
5
73
13. I can tell when a friend is sad.
1
2
3
4
5
14. I like being with other people.
1
2
3
4
5
15. I often feel sad.
1
2
3
4
5
16. I usually know exactly what I’m feeling.
1
2
3
4
5
17. I usually say things I don’t mean.
1
2
3
4
5
18. I often get into fights.
1
2
3
4
5
19. I know how to show to others how much I care about them.
1
2
3
4
5
20. I’m very good at understanding how other people feel.
1
2
3
4
5
21. If I’m sad, I try to put on a happy face.
1
2
3
4
5
22. I find it difficult to understand what others are feeling.
1
2
3
4
5
23. When I feel sad, I try to do something to change my mood.
1
2
3
4
5
24. If I’m happy with someone, I will tell them.
1
2
3
4
5
25. I get angry very easily.
1
2
3
4
5
26. I get used to new people very quickly.
1
2
3
4
5
27. I’m not good at controlling the way I feel.
1
2
3
4
5
28. I can tell when someone is angry.
1
2
3
4
5
29. Usually, I’m in a bad mood.
1
2
3
4
5
30. It’s easy for me to understand how I feel.
1
2
3
4
5
31. I don’t know how to talk about my feelings.
1
2
3
4
5
32. I don’t usually argue with other kids.
1
2
3
4
5
33. I often feel angry.
1
2
3
4
5
34. Usually, I think very carefully before I talk.
1
2
3
4
5
35. It’s easy for me to talk about my feelings.
1
2
3
4
5
36. I can’t find the right words to tell others how I feel.
1
2
3
4
5
74
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Azmitia, M., & Hesser, J. (1993). Why siblings are important agents of cognitive
development: A comparison of siblings and peers. Child Development, 64, 430 444.
Bedford, V. H., Volling, B. L., & Avioli, P. S. (2000). Positive consequences of sibling
conflict in childhood and adulthood. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 51, 53 – 69.
Bell, M. A., & Wolfe, C. D. (2004). Emotion and cognition: An intricately bound
developmental process. Child Development, 75, 366 – 370.
Blair, K. A., Denham, S. A., Kochanoff, A., & Whipple, B. (2004). Playing it cool:
Temperament, emotion regulation, and social behavior in preschoolers. Journal
of School Psychology, 42, 419 - 443.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1 Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bretherton, I. (1990). Communication patterns, internal working models, and the
intergenerational transmission of attachment relationships. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 11, 237 – 252.
Brody, G. H. (1998). Sibling relationship quality: It’s causes and consequences. Annual
Review of Psychology, 49, 1 - 24.
Brody, G.H., Stoneman, Z., & McCoy, J.K. (1994). Contributions of family relationships
and child temperaments to longitudinal variations in sibling relationship quality
and sibling relationship styles. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 274 – 286.
Bryant, B. K. (1992). Sibling caretaking: Providing emotional support during middle
childhood. In F. Boer & J. Dunn, (Eds.), Children’s sibling relationships:
Developmental and critical issues (pp. 55-69). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific
construct: Methodological challenges and directions for child development
research. Child Development, 75, 317 – 333.
75
Cozby, P.C. (2007). Methods in behavioral research (9th ed.). New York: McGrawHill.
Cummings, E. M., Schermerhorn, A. C., Davies, P. T., Goeke-Morey, M. C., &
Cummings, J. S. (2006). Interparental discord and child adjustment: Prospective
investigation of emotional security as an explanatory mechanism. Child
Development, 77, 132 – 152.
Cutting, A. L., & Dunn, J. (2006). Conversations with siblings and with friends: Links
between relationship quality and social understanding. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 24, 73 - 87.
Denham, S. A. (2006). Social–emotional competence as support for school readiness:
What is it and how do we assess it? Early Education and Development, Special
Issue: Measurement of School Readiness, 17, 57–89.
Denham, S. A., Bassett, H., Mincic, M., Kalb, S. A., Way, E., Wyatt, T., & Segal, Y.
(2012). Social–emotional learning profiles of preschoolers' early school success:
A person-centered approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 178–189.
Denham, S. A., Bassett, H., & Zinsser, K. (2012). Early childhood teachers as socializers
of young children’s emotional competence. Early Childhood Education Journal,
40, 137 – 143.
Duncan, R. D. (1999). Peer and sibling aggression: an investigation of intra-and extrafamilial bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 871 – 886.
Dunn, J. (1996). Brothers and sisters in middle childhood and early adolescence:
Continuity and change in individual differences. In G. H. Brody (Ed.), Sibling
relationships: Their causes and consequences (pp. 31 – 46). Westport, CT: Ablex
Publishing.
Dunn, J. (2002). Sibling relationships. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell
handbook of childhood social development (pp. 223–237). Malden: Blackwell
Publishing.
Eisenberg, N. (2005). The development of empathy-related responding. In G. Carlo &
C.P. Edwards (Eds.), Moral motivation through the life span, 73 – 117. Lincoln,
NE: University of Nebraska Press.
76
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2002). The role of emotionality
and regulation in children’s social competence and adjustment. In L. Pulkkinen,
& A. Caspi (Eds.), Paths to successful development: Personality in the life course
(pp. 46-70). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Erikson, S., & Jensen, V. (2006). All in the family? Family environmental factors in
sibling violence. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 497 – 507.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the qualities of sibling
relationships. Child Development, 56, 448 - 461.
Goncu, A. (1993). Development of intersubjectivity in social pretend play. Human
Development, 36, 185 – 198.
Hamarta, E., Deniz, M. E., Saltali, N. (2009). Attachment style as a predictor of
emotional intelligence. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 9, 213 – 229.
Howe, N., Aquan-Assee, J., Bukowski, W. M., Lehoux, P. M., & Rinaldi, C. M. (2001).
Siblings as confidants: Emotional understanding, relationship warmth, and sibling
self-disclosure. Social Development, 10, 439 – 454.
Howe, N., & Recchia, H. (2005). Playmates and teachers: reciprocal and complementary
interactions between siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 497 – 502.
Howe, N., Rinaldi, C. M., Jennings, M., & Petrakos, H. (2002). “No! The lambs can stay
out because they got cozies”: Constructive and destructive sibling conflict,
pretend play, and social understanding. Child Development, 3, 1460 – 1473.
Howe, N., & Ross, H.S. (1990). Socialization, perspective-taking, and the sibling
relationship. Developmental Psychology, 26, 160 - 165.
Humphries, M. L., Keenan, K., Wakschalag, L. S. (2012). Teacher and observer ratings
of young African American children’s social and emotional competence.
Psychology in the Schools, 49, 311 – 327.
Hunter, L. B. (1993). Sibling play therapy with homeless children: An opportunity in the
crisis. Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice, and Program, 72, 65 – 75.
Jin, M. K., Jacobvitz, D., Hazen, N., & Jung, S. H. (2012). Maternal sensitivity and
infant attachment in Korea: Cross – cultural validation of the strange situation.
Attachment and Human Development, 14, 33 – 44.
77
Karos, L. K., Howe, N. & Aquan-Assee, J. (2007). Reciprocal and complementary
sibling interactions, relationship quality and socio-emotional problem solving.
Infant & Child Development, 16, 577 - 596.
Kettry, H. H. & Emery, B. C. (2006). The discourse of sibling violence. J. Family
Violence, 21, 407 - 416.
Kennedy, E. E. & Kramer, L. (2008). Improving emotion regulation and sibling
relationship quality: The more fun with sisters and brothers program. Family
Relations Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 5, 567 – 578.
Kessler, R. C. & Magee, W. J. (1994). Childhood family violence and adult recurrent
depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 13 – 27.
Lam, Solmeyer & McHale, 2012. Sibling relationships and empathy across the transition
to adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 4, 1657 – 1670.
Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K.V., Shove, C., & Whitehead, A. (2008). Investigation of the
construct of trait emotional intelligence in children. European Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 17, 516 – 526.
McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (1996). The family contexts of children’s sibling
relationships. In G. H. Brody (Ed.), Sibling relationships: Their causes and
consequences (pp. 173 - 195). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
McLeod, S. A. (2009). Attachment theory. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from
http://www.simplypsychology.org.
Menesini, E., Camodeca, M., & Nocentini, A. (2010). Bullying among siblings: The role
of personality and relational variables. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 28, 921 – 939.
Mercer, J. (2011). Attachment theory and its vicissitudes: Toward an updated theory.
Theory and Psychology, 21, 25-45.
Newman, D. A., Joseph, D., & MacCann, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence and job
performance: The importance of emotion regulation and emotional labor context.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice,
3, 159 – 164.
Palmer, B., Donaldson, C., & Stough, C. (2002). Emotional intelligence and life
satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1091 – 1100.
78
Punamaki, R. L., Qouta, S., Sarraj, E. E. & Montgomery, E. (2006). Psychological
distress and resources among siblings and parents exposed to traumatic events.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 385 – 397.
Rogoff, B. (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),
American Psychological Association (pp. 349 – 364). Washington, D.C.
Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social
Development, 6, 111 – 135.
Schaeffer, H. R., & Emerson, P. E. (1964). The development of social attachment in
infancy. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 29, 94.
Seibert, A. C., & Kerns, K. A. (2009). Attachment figures in middle childhood.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33, 347 – 355.
Shapiro, J. (2002). How do physicians teach empathy in the primary care setting?
Journal of Medical Education, 77, 323 – 328.
Shumaker, D. M., Miller, C., Ortiz, C., & Deutsch, R. (2011). The forgotten bonds: The
assessment and contemplation of sibling attachment in divorce and parental
separation. Family Court Review, 49, 46 – 58.
Stocker, C. M., Burwell, R. A., & Briggs, M. L. (2002). Sibling conflict in middle
childhood predicts children’s adjustment in early adolescence. Journal of Family
Psychology, 16, 50 - 57.
Stormshak, E. A., Bellanti, C. J., & Bierman, K. L. (1996). The quality of sibling
relationships and the development of social competence and behavioral control in
aggressive children. Developmental Psychology, 32, 79 – 89.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (2003). Spare the rod? In M. Silberman
(Ed.), Violence and Society: A Reader, 136 - 145.
Thompson, R. (1994). Emotional regulation: A theme in search of definition.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 25 – 52.
Torquati, J. C., & Vazsonyi, A. T. (1999). Attachment as an organizational construct for
affect, appraisals, and coping of late adolescent females. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 28, 545 – 562.
79
Tucker, C. J. Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (1999). Older siblings
as socializers of younger siblings’ empathy. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19,
176 - 198.
Vandell, D. L., & Bailey, M. D. (1992). Conflict between siblings. In C. U. Shantz & W.
W. Hartup, (Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent development, (pp. 242 – 269).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Voorpostel, M. & Van Der Lippe, T. (2007). Support between siblings and friends: Two
worlds apart? Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1271 - 1282.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wiehe, V. R. (1997). Sibling abuse: Hidden physical, emotional and sexual trauma
(2nd ed.). (pp. 4 – 34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Youngblade, L. M., & Dunn, J. (1995). Individual differences in young children’s
pretend play with mother and sibling: links to relationships and understanding of
other people’s feelings and beliefs. Child Development, 66, 1472 – 1492.