relational aggression in adolescents’ sibling relationships: links to sibling and...

Relational Aggression inAdolescents’ Sibling Relationships:

Links to Sibling andParent-Adolescent Relationship

Quality*

Kimberly A. Updegraff Shawna M. Thayer Shawn D. Whiteman Donna J. Denning Susan M. McHale**

Abstract: This study examined the links between sibling relational aggression and other sibling relationship qualities(i.e., intimacy, negativity, and temporal involvement) and broader parenting dynamics. Participants included 185adolescent sibling pairs and their mothers and fathers. Data were gathered during home interviews and a series ofnightly phone calls with adolescents and parents. Findings revealed that sibling relational aggression was related tosibling intimacy and negativity. In addition, connections emerged between relational aggression and qualities of theparent-child relationship, parents’ differential treatment, and parents’ strategies for handling sibling conflict.

Key Words: adolescence, parent-adolescent relationships, relational aggression, siblings.

Sisters and brothers play central roles in children’slives and in shaping family dynamics. The majorityof families in U.S. society today include at least twochildren (Eggebeen, 1992), and by middle child-hood, children spend more time with their siblingsthan in any other social context (McHale &Crouter, 1996). The nature of children’s inter-actions with their siblings is linked to their psycho-social adjustment, to the quality of parent-childrelationships, and to parental stress. Warm and sup-portive relationships with siblings are associated

with peer acceptance and competence in middlechildhood (e.g., Stormshak, Bellanti, & Bierman,1996) and supportive friendships in adolescence(e.g., Updegraff, McHale, & Crouter, 2002). Incontrast, sibling conflict predicts unique variance inchildren’s antisocial behavior, even after accountingfor parent-child relationship experiences (e.g., Bank& Burraston, 2001). Sibling conflict and negativityalso may elevate parental stress (Patterson, 1986).

Most research has focused on the correlates ofwarmth/support and conflict or physical aggression

*We are grateful to the families and youth who participated in this project.We thank Ella Bashore,Matthew Bumpus, DevonCorneal, Heather Helms, Julia Jackson-Newsom,

MaryMaguire, JosephNovotny,RobertSmith, JenniferTanner, andCorinna JenkinsTucker for their assistance in conducting this investigation andAnnCrouter for her valuable

comments on thismanuscript. Portions of this paper were presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research inChildDevelopment, Tampa, FL, April 2003. Funding

was provided by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant R01HD29409-01A3 (Ann C. Crouter and Susan M.McHale, coprincipal investigators).

**Kimberly A. Updegraff is an Associate Professor in at the Department of Family and Human Development, P.O. Box 872502, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

85287-2502 ([email protected]). Shawna M. Thayer is a doctoral candidate at the Arizona State University. Shawn D. Whiteman is an Assistant Professor

in the Department of Child Development and Family Studies at Purdue University. Donna J. Denning is a Psychometric Analyst with Aries Technology. Susan

M. McHale is a Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the Pennsylvania State University.

Family Relations, 54 (July 2005), 373–385. Blackwell Publishing. Printed in the USA.Copyright 2005 by the National Council on Family Relations.

between siblings. The present study is designed toextend the understanding of sibling relationships inadolescence by exploring how siblings’ experiencesof relational aggression are connected to other quali-ties of the sibling relationship and broader parentingdynamics. Relational aggression, or behaviors thatare intended to harm others’ social relationships, hasreceived attention in the context of peer group inter-actions (e.g., Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, & Ferguson,1989; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995, 1996). Specifically,relational aggression encompasses girls’ and boys’efforts to damage others’ social relationships throughbehaviors such as social alienation and exclusion, tell-ing secrets and spreading rumors, and withholdingsupport and acceptance (Cairns et al.; Crick &Grotpeter, 1995, 1996). Recently, researchers havesuggested the importance of exploring relationalaggression in other social contexts, such as romanticrelationships, friendships, and sibling relationships(Crick et al., 2001). Given that negative affect is acommon part of sibling relationships (Dunn, 1993),relational aggression may be particularly importantto consider in this relationship context. A study of50 sibling pairs in middle childhood revealed that sib-lings reported using relationally aggressive strategiesmore often than both verbal and physical aggression(Crick et al.; O’Brien, 1999).

There are a number of reasons to study relationalaggression in the sibling relationship and within thebroader family context. First, social learning princi-ples suggest that siblings provide each other withopportunities to learn interpersonal behaviors andskills that may carry over to peer interactions. Ex-ploring relational aggression between siblings mayprovide insights about potential antecedents of peerrelational aggression. Second, naturally occurring dif-ferences across families in the sex constellation ofthe sibling dyad allow for comparisons of relation-ally aggressive behaviors in same- versus mixed-sexdyads. Given the extent of gender segregation in thepeer group in childhood and early adolescence(Ruble & Martin, 1998), sibling relationships offera unique opportunity to explore the role of genderin relational aggression. Finally, relational and socialforms of aggression have been identified as a majorconcern for parents (Underwood, 2003), particu-larly parents of teenage girls, and have received con-siderable attention in the media (e.g., ‘‘Meet theGAMMA Girls,’’ 2002). Thus, information that canlead to the development of intervention programswith a family component may be beneficial.

Links Between Sibling RelationalAggression and Other Qualities of

the Sibling Relationship

Our first goal was to explore how sibling relationalaggression was related to other qualities of firstbornand second-born adolescents’ sibling relationships,including intimacy, negativity, and temporal in-volvement. Information about the connections be-tween relational aggression and both positive andnegative dimensions of adolescents’ sibling relation-ships could potentially provide insights about therelationship context in which relational aggressionoccurs. Perspectives on social development highlightadolescence as a time when the formation of closereciprocal relationships with other youth is animportant developmental task (Sullivan, 1953).Studies of girls’ and boys’ social networks indi-cate that siblings, as well as friends, can fulfill rolesin adolescents’ lives as sources of support (e.g.,Buhrmester, 1992). Given the developmental signif-icance of social connections with other youth, weanticipated that siblings’ efforts to harm the other’ssocial relationships would be linked to lower levelsof intimacy and involvement and higher levels ofnegativity in adolescents’ sibling relationships. Wealso expected that relational aggression would bemore harmful to girls’ than to boys’ sibling relation-ships, a pattern that is suggested by girls’ greater ori-entation toward interpersonal relationships (Ruble& Martin, 1998) and by studies of peer relationalaggression (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).

Sibling and peer relationships differ in ways thatmay have implications for the links between rela-tional aggression and other relationship qualities.First, sibling relationships typically include individu-als who differ in power or status and in the roles theyassume. Younger siblings are more likely to modeltheir older siblings (e.g., McHale, Updegraff, Helms-Erikson, & Crouter, 2001) and to place greater valueon the relationship than are their older siblings(Buhrmester, 1992). Thus, we expected that rela-tional aggression would be more strongly linked tothe qualities of the sibling relationship for youngerthan for older siblings. Second, an important contri-bution of this study was its exploration of the linksbetween relational aggression and sibling relationshipquality for same- versus mixed-sex sibling pairs.Maccoby (1998) proposed that one consequence of

Family Relations � Volume 54, Number 3 � July 2005374

gender segregation in early and middle childhood isthat boys and girls learn different strategies for inter-acting in social groups and handling disagreements.Boys are more concerned with dominance and statusand more likely to settle disagreements through overtand physical aggression, whereas girls use differentforms of discourse and are more likely to handle dis-agreements with peers via conflict-minimizing strate-gies and relational aggression (Maccoby, 1998). Thesedifferences in girls’ and boys’ socialization experiencesand exposure to relational aggression lead us to ex-plore the possibility that relational aggression is differ-entially linked to relationship qualities in same- versusmixed-sex sibling pairs. Given the greater emphasisgirls place on relationships (Ruble & Martin, 1998),relational aggression may be linked to more negativerelationship experiences for sisters.

Sibling Relational Aggressionand Parenting

Our second goal involved examining how relationalaggression was linked to parenting dynamics. Wedrew upon Parke and Buriel’s (1998) model of par-enting, which distinguishes between parents’ directand indirect influences on their children’s relation-ships. Indirect influences, such as those describedby social learning theory, suggest that parents havean impact on their children’s social relationshipsthrough the more general influence of parent-childrelationship quality on children’s social development(e.g., MacDonald & Parke, 1984). Parents’ directinfluences, in contrast, refer to parents’ efforts toguide their offspring’s relationship experiences andinclude the strategies parents use to intervene in sib-ling conflicts and their efforts to encourage siblingsto spend time together (e.g., McHale, Updegraff,Tucker, & Crouter, 2000).

Indirect Parental Influences

To study how the general quality of the parent-childrelationship was linked to siblings’ relational aggres-sion, we focused on two relationship dimensions,parental warmth and involvement. We assessed sib-lings’ experiences with both mothers and fathers andexamined each sibling’s dyadic relationship experi-ences with his or her parents as well as parents’ dif-ferential treatment (PDT) of the two siblings in thedomains of warmth and involvement.

Beginning with parenting of each sibling as anindividual, evidence of links between parent-childand child-sibling relationships has emerged in a num-ber of studies: Consistent with social learning tenets,positivity in the parent-child relationship is associ-ated with more positive and less negative sibling rela-tionships (e.g., Stocker & McHale, 1992). However,when mother-child and father-child relationshipsboth have been studied as potential correlates of sib-ling relationships, some research has found thatfather-child experiences are more closely linked tothe nature of sibling exchanges (e.g., Stocker &McHale, 1992). Mothers and fathers tend to adoptdifferent roles with their children, with mothersfocusing on caregiving and fathers on play and lei-sure (Parke & Buriel, 1998). Experiences withfathers may be more strongly linked to sibling rela-tionship characteristics to the extent that siblings areleisure oriented rather than care oriented. Further,maternal roles tend to be more scripted than thoseof fathers, and the greater variability in paternal rolesmay engender stronger links with a range of youth‘‘outcomes’’ including sibling relationship qualities(Crouter, Helms-Erikson, Updegraff, & McHale,1999). These studies highlight the congruence be-tween parent-child and child-sibling relationships.Based on social learning theory and on prior em-pirical work, we hypothesized that higher levelsof parental warmth and involvement would beassociated with lower levels of sibling relationalaggression.

Our consideration of indirect parental influenceswas further informed by a nonshared family perspec-tive (Dunn & Plomin, 1990), which directs atten-tion to the differential parenting of siblings. Anumber of studies have shown that PDT, such aswhen parents are perceived as spending more timewith or being more affectionate toward one childrelative to another, is related to the quality of thesibling relationship. At the most general level, differ-ential treatment, or favoritism, is linked to morenegativity in sibling relationships (e.g., Brody,Stoneman, & Burke, 1987), particularly when PDTis perceived as unfair or without good reason (Kowal& Kramer, 1997; McHale, Updegraff, Jackson-Newsom, Tucker, & Crouter, 2000). Some evidencefurther suggests that adolescents are more reactiveto differential treatment than are younger children(McHale, Updegraff, Jackson-Newsom, et al.).Building on the nonshared family perspective, weanticipated that when adolescents experienced more

Sibling Relational Aggression � Updegraff et al. 375

favorable treatment (relative to their siblings), theywould be less likely to initiate relational aggression.

Direct Parental Influences

Parents’ direct efforts to guide or intervene in theirchildren’s sibling relationships also may be related tothe frequency of relational aggression experienced bysiblings. Research with young children and adoles-cents demonstrates links between parents’ strategiesfor handling sibling conflict and the qualities of thesibling relationship (e.g., Kramer, Perozynski, &Chung, 1999; McHale et al., 2000). In young chil-dren’s sibling relationships, parents’ lack of interven-tion in sibling conflicts is associated with futureconflict (Kramer et al.); however, there is some evi-dence that in older child (Kramer et al., 1999) andadolescent dyads (McHale et al., 2000), parentalintervention is associated with less positive or morenegative sibling relationships. This pattern of find-ings suggests that implications of parental interven-tion may differ across developmental periods.Further evidence that parents can play a role comesfrom intervention research. Adams and Kelley(1992), for example, demonstrated that maternaltraining in discipline techniques was related toa reduction in sibling aggression in early childhoodsibling pairs. Thus, we explored the associations be-tween parents’ direct involvement in sibling conflictsand sibling relational aggression. We hypothesizedthat intervention in sibling conflict would be posi-tively associated and parental coaching negativelyassociated with relational aggression. Overall, weanticipated that parental influences would be moreclosely linked to girls’ experiences of sibling relationalaggression given the greater developmental emphasisplaced on girls’ social relationships (Ruble & Martin,1998) and the greater concern parents express overrelational aggression in girls (Underwood, 2003).

Summary and Hypotheses

In sum, our first goal was to examine the links be-tween sibling relational aggression and the qualitiesof girls’ and boys’ sibling relationships (i.e., intimacy,negativity, and involvement). We conceptualizedrelational aggression as the independent variable andhypothesized that relational aggression would occurin the context of less intimacy and involvement and

more negativity. Our second goal focused on the roleof parents’ indirect and direct involvement in the sib-ling relationship and relational aggression, includingparent-adolescent dyadic relationship qualities, PDT,and parents’ strategies for handling sibling conflicts.For this second goal, relational aggression was thedependent variable. We hypothesized that parents’warmth and involvement and their efforts to coachtheir offspring would be negatively related, and dif-ferential parenting and direct intervention in siblingconflicts would be positively related, to relationalaggression. We tested our models separately formothers’ and fathers’ parenting activities and exam-ined the role of adolescents’ gender in parentingdynamics, given evidence of the importance of gen-dered socialization processes during adolescence (e.g.,Crouter, Manke, & McHale, 1995).

Method

Participants

Data were collected from older (i.e., firstborn) andyounger (i.e., second born) siblings and both mothersand fathers in 197 families as part of a short-term lon-gitudinal study of family relationships and adoles-cent development (Crouter, Bumpus, Head, &McHale, 2001; McHale, Updegraff, Tucker, &Crouter, 2000). The families were recruited via letterssent home to families of students in seven counties(13 school districts) in a northeastern state. Lettersdescribed the study and requested that parents returnpostcards to express their interest in the project. Eli-gible families included nondivorced couples witha firstborn in the 8th through 10th grade and asecond-born child approximately 1 to 3 years youn-ger. The participation rate was 95% for eligible fam-ilies who expressed an interest in the project. Ninefamilies were excluded from the present analysesbecause, despite the initial screening procedures, theyfailed to meet one or more of the criteria, and threeadditional families were excluded because of missingdata. The final sample consisted of 185 families with99 older brothers and 89 older sisters and equal num-bers of younger sisters and brothers (ns ¼ 94).

Families were from predominantly middle- andworking-class backgrounds and resided in ruralareas, towns, and small cities. Reflecting the demo-graphics of the region (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990),


participants were predominantly of European Amer-ican origin and the remaining 3% were Asian. Theaverage annual income for families was $61,849(SD ¼ $34,737). Both parents had completed anaverage of 2 years of education beyond high school.Mean ages were 15.95 years (SD ¼ .72) for oldersiblings and 13.47 years (SD ¼ 1.02) for youngersiblings. Parents had been married an average of19.50 years (SD ¼ 3.29).

Procedure

Data collection involved home visits and a series ofnightly telephone interviews during three annual vis-its. Separate home interviews lasting approximately2–3 hr were conducted with all four family mem-bers. Home interview measures for the present studyincluded older and younger siblings’ ratings of sib-ling and parent-adolescent relationship experiencesand parents’ ratings of their strategies for managingsibling conflict.

In the 2–3 weeks following the home visit, dailytime-use data were collected from siblings duringa series of seven nightly phone calls (five weekdays,two weekend days). Each parent participated in fourof the seven calls. Specifically, these calls weredesigned to gather information about siblings’ dailyhome and personal activities (i.e., excluding schoolactivities). Using a cued-recall strategy (McHale,Crouter, & Bartko, 1992), each sibling reported onhis or her involvement in 63 daily activities, includ-ing how long each event lasted (in minutes) andwho else participated. From these data, we calcu-lated siblings’ time spent in activities together andeach sibling’s time spent with their mothers andwith their fathers.

Measures

Measures for the present analyses were drawn fromthe second year of the study when siblings’ reportsof relational aggression were collected.

Sibling relational aggression. Older and youngersiblings completed a six-item scale to assess adoles-cents’ perceptions of how frequently they were thetargets of relationally aggressive behaviors from theirsibling (O’Brien, 1999; O’Brien & Crick, 1995).Qualitative data were collected from school-aged sib-lings to develop the items for this measure, and pilotwork was conducted to select the final items (K. M.O’Brien, personal communication, April 18, 1999).

Sample items were ‘‘(Sibling’s name) leaves me outof things when he/she is mad at me’’ and ‘‘(Sibling’sname) tells me that he/she won’t like me anymoreunless I do what he/she says.’’ Items were rated ona 5-point Likert scale (never to very often) to indicatethe frequency with which these events occurred, andsummed. Cronbach’s alphas were .83 for older sib-lings and .76 for younger siblings.

Sibling relationship qualities. Older and youngersiblings described the degree of intimacy they feltwith their sibling on an eight-item scale (Blyth &Foster-Clark, 1987). Higher numbers on thissummed 5-point scale score indicated greater per-ceived intimacy. Cronbach’s alphas were .86 forolder siblings and .84 for younger siblings.

Siblings also rated the degree of negativity ona five-item scale designed to tap the extent to whichsiblings disagreed, initiated conflicts, or felt angry ateach other (Stocker & McHale, 1992). Items wererated on a 5-point scale and summed to create thescale score, with high numbers indicating more neg-ativity. Alphas were .74 and .81 for older and youn-ger siblings, respectively.

Siblings’ temporal involvement or time spent inshared activities was measured by the number ofminutes siblings participated in activities together,using daily activity data. The number of minutessiblings spent in activities together was aggregatedacross the seven calls to measure siblings’ temporalinvolvement.

Parent-adolescent relationship qualities. Siblingsdescribed the degree of warmth in their relationshipwith mothers and fathers using the 24-item ChildReport of Parental Behavior Inventory (Schwarz,Barton-Henry, & Pruzinsky, 1985). Higher scoreson this summed scale reflect greater warmth in therelationship. Alphas were above .91 for both sib-lings’ descriptions of mother- and father-adolescentwarmth.

Mothers’ and fathers’ temporal involvement witheach sibling was assessed by time-use data collectedduring the series of nightly phone interviews. Specif-ically, the duration (in minutes) that each siblingreported spending in dyadic activities with theirmothers was aggregated across the seven phone calls;a parallel measure was created for fathers’ involve-ment with each sibling. We used siblings’ reportsbecause they participated in all seven calls, whereasparents only participated in four phone calls. Corre-lations between parents’ and siblings’ reports of tem-poral involvement for the four phone calls in which


they both participated ranged from r ¼ .56, p ,

.001 to r ¼ .69, p , .001.Older and younger siblings also rated the degree

of differential treatment they perceived with respectto parental warmth (i.e., ‘‘Who does your mother/father seem more affectionate or nice to?’’) and tem-poral involvement (i.e., ‘‘Who does your mother/father spend more time with?’’) using the format ofthe Sibling Inventory of Differential Experiences(Daniels & Plomin, 1985). Siblings responded tothese items on a 5-point rating scale that was recodedinto three groups: (1) older siblings favored, (2)equal treatment, and (3) younger siblings favored.

Parents’ direct involvement in the siblingrelationship. Mothers and fathers completed a mea-sure of parents’ strategies for handling sibling con-flict that included three subscales (see McHale,Updegraff, Tucker, et al., 2000). For a series of fivevignettes about problems that may have occurredbetween the siblings during the past year, parentsrated the extent to which they used particular strate-gies for handling the conflict. In the present analy-ses, we included mothers’ and fathers’ coaching(e.g., giving advice about how to handle the conflict)and intervention (e.g., punishing the siblings).Cronbach’s alphas were above .85 for mothers’ andfathers’ reports for both subscales.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

As a preliminary step, we conducted a factor analysisof the three measures of sibling relationship qualityrated by adolescents (i.e., intimacy, negativity, and rela-tional aggression) to ensure that relational aggressionwas a distinct relationship dimension. Principal com-ponents analyses, conducted separately for older andyounger siblings’ ratings, revealed three factors basedon examination of the scree plots and eigenvalues.For older and younger siblings, intimacy representedthe first factor (eigenvalues ¼ 5.45 and 5.64, re-spectively), relational aggression items comprised thesecond factor (eigenvalues ¼ 2.85 and 3.32, respec-tively), andnegativity items represented the third factor(eigenvalues ¼ 1.66 and 1.62, respectively).

Next, we conducted a series of 2 (older sibling’ssex) � 2 (younger sibling’s sex) � 2 (sibling) mixedmodel analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to test for sex

constellation differences in relational aggression andother qualities of the sibling relationship (i.e., inti-macy, negativity, and temporal involvement). Meansand standard deviations are shown in Table 1. Wefound no evidence of sex or dyad constellationeffects for relational aggression. However, consistentwith previous work (e.g., Buhrmester, 1992), wefound an Older Sibling’s Sex � Younger Sibling’sSex interaction for sibling intimacy, F(1, 181) ¼11.48, p , .01, and Tukey’s follow-up tests showedthat sister-sister pairs reported higher levels of inti-macy compared to all other dyads. An overall siblingeffect, F(1, 181) ¼ 8.13, p , .01, was qualifiedby a Sibling � Younger Sibling’s Sex interaction,F(1, 181) ¼ 4.71, p , .05; younger sisters but notyounger brothers reported higher levels of intimacythan their older siblings. No differences emerged forsibling conflict. For involvement, there was an OlderSibling’s Sex � Younger Sibling’s Sex interaction,F(1, 179) ¼ 9.84, p , .01. Follow-up tests showedthat sister-sister pairs spent more time together thanmixed-sex pairs.

Goal 1: Links Between Sibling Relational Aggressionand Qualities of the Sibling Relationship

To address our first goal, we tested a series of multi-level models using the Hierarchical Linear Modelingprogram (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2001). Thisapproach is advantageous because it extends multipleregression to incorporate nested data. In the presentstudy, because there were two siblings from eachfamily, siblings were nested within the family. Wealso included sex, birth order, and sex compositionof the sibling dyad to test whether differencesemerged for any of these individual or dyad char-acteristics. The two-level model partitions vari-ance into (a) between-sibling (or within-family) and(b) between-family components. At Level 1, thebetween-sibling model, explanatory variables thatwere specific to each sibling (i.e., each sibling’sreports of relational aggression, sex, birth order) wereincluded. Additionally, interaction terms between allthe Level 1 variables were computed and included.Continuous variables were centered prior to creatinginteraction terms, and dichotomous variables wereeffect coded (.5 vs. 2.5). At Level 2, the between-family model, the sex composition of the siblingdyad (same vs. mixed sex) was included. Cross-levelinteractions with sex composition of the sibling dyadand the Level 1 predictors also were computed to


examine all possible two-, three-, and four-way in-teractions. Analyses were conducted separately bysibling relationship dimension. The equations for thecomplete model are presented in the Appendix. Indescribing the results, we focus only on main effectsand interactions involving relational aggression.

Sibling intimacy. Theanalysis revealeda significantmain effect of relational aggression. As hypothesized,relational aggressionwas negatively associatedwith sib-ling intimacy,c¼2.35, SE¼ .06, p, .001, such thatgreater relational aggression predicted less intimacybetween siblings. There were no interactions, suggest-ing that the overall negative association betweensibling intimacy and relational aggression was consis-tent for older and younger siblings, boys and girls,and siblings from the four dyad sex constellations.

Sibling negativity. As with sibling intimacy, theHLM model revealed a significant main effect ofrelational aggression at Level 1, c ¼ .72, SE ¼ .05,p , .001; higher scores on relational aggression werelinked to greater sibling negativity. At Level 2, a sig-nificant main effect of sex composition of the siblingdyad, c ¼ .92, SE ¼ .46, p , .05, was qualified bya significant Relational Aggression � Sex � BirthOrder � Sex Composition interaction, c ¼ 1.06,SE ¼ .42, p , .05, but follow-up analyses were notsignificant.

Siblings’ temporal involvement. The third HLMmodel examined siblings’ temporal involvement andrevealed no significant effects involving relationalaggression.

Goal 2: Exploring Links Between Parenting Dynamicsand Sibling Relational Aggression

Our second goal was to investigate the connectionsbetween parenting dynamics and sibling relationalaggression. Specifically, we tested associations be-tween three dimensions of parenting (i.e., parent-adolescent warmth and involvement, PDT, andparents’ direct involvement in the sibling relation-ship) and sibling relational aggression.

Parent-adolescent warmth and involvement. Wetested HLM models to examine parent-adolescentwarmth and temporal involvement as predictors ofsibling relational aggression. These analyses wereconducted separately for mothers and fathers and bypredictor (i.e., separately for warmth and temporalinvolvement). Similarly to the previous models, vari-ance was partitioned into two levels: (a) between-sibling and (b) between-family components (see theAppendix).

With respect to the connection between parent-child warmth and sibling relational aggression, the

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Relational Aggression, Intimacy, Negativity, and Temporal Involvement

Sibling Dyad Sex Constellation

Older

Sister–Younger

Sister

Older

Sister–Younger

Brother

Older

Brother–Younger

Sister

Older

Brother–Younger

Brother

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Relational aggression

Older siblings’ report 13.53 4.38 13.69 4.96 13.13 3.70 13.35 4.02

Younger siblings’

report

14.00 4.74 13.12 4.31 13.94 5.34 13.76 3.62

Intimacy


Younger siblings’ report 27.18 5.62 21.88 6.56 22.83 5.79 23.06 5.01

Negativity



Temporal involvementa



aMeasured as hours per seven phone calls.


HLM models revealed similar effects for mothers andfathers. Greater parental warmth predicted less rela-tional aggression between siblings, c ¼ 21.35, SE ¼.35, p , .001 for mothers, and c ¼ 21.21, SE ¼.31, p , .001 for fathers. Neither model revealed sig-nificant interactions involving structural characteris-tics of the dyad.

For the model examining the connection be-tween maternal temporal involvement and siblingrelational aggression, no effects or interactions weresignificant. However, there was a significant maineffect for paternal involvement, c ¼ 25.16, SE ¼2.43, p , .05: When youth spent more time in thecompany of their fathers, they exhibited lower levelsof relational aggression toward their siblings.

Parental differential treatment. We conducted aseries of 2 (sibling gender) � 3 (differential treat-ment, younger more; equal treatment, older more) �2 (sibling: older vs. younger) mixed model ANOVAs,with siblings’ reports of relational aggression as thedependent variable. This analytic strategy was selectedbecause all the predictors were categorical variablesand mixed model ANOVAs take into account thecorrelated nature of data from siblings. This ap-proach is more parsimonious and comprehensible forcategorical data than HLM and is consistent withrecommendations for analyzing this type of data(Hertzog & Rovine, 1985; Rovine & von Eye,1991).

The mixed model ANOVAs including older sib-lings’ sex and perceptions of mothers’ and fathers’differential warmth were not significant. In contrast,the 2 (younger sibling’s sex) � 3 (differential treat-ment) � (Sibling) mixed model ANOVAs includingyounger siblings’ reports of differential treatment asthe independent variable and both siblings’ reportsof relational aggression as the dependent variablewere significant. For younger siblings’ reports ofmothers’ differential warmth, we found an overalldifferential treatment effect, F(2, 179) ¼ 5.08, p ,

.01, and follow-up tests revealed that siblings’ aver-age reports of relational aggression were lower whenyounger siblings perceived equal treatment (M ¼13.04) as compared to when younger siblings werefavored (M ¼ 14.96). For fathers’ differentialwarmth, we also found an overall differential treat-ment effect, F(2, 179) ¼ 6.75, p , .01, which wasqualified by an interaction with younger siblings’sex, F(2, 179) ¼ 4.41, p , .05. Follow-up testsshowed that, for dyads that included younger sisters,the frequency of relational aggression for the dyad as

a whole was highest when younger sisters werefavored by fathers (M ¼ 16.16) as compared toequal treatment (M ¼ 12.50) or older siblings beingfavored (M ¼ 13.04).

Older siblings’ reports of maternal and paternaldifferential time and younger siblings’ reports ofmaternal differential time were not related to siblingrelational aggression. However, for younger siblings’reports of differential time with fathers, there was anoverall differential treatment effect, revealing thatsiblings reported the least relational aggression whenyounger siblings perceived that older siblings werefavored (M ¼ 12.69) as compared to when they per-ceived equal treatment (M ¼ 13.26) or the youngersibling being favored (M ¼ 14.58), F(2, 179) ¼5.17, p , .01.

Parents’ direct involvement in the sibling relation-ship. We conducted a series of HLM models witholder and younger siblings’ reports of relationalaggression as the outcome variable and parents’strategies for handling sibling conflicts as the predic-tors. Analyses were conducted separately for mothersand fathers and for each strategy (i.e., parents’ use ofcoaching and intervention). Again, variance was par-titioned into two levels: (a) between-sibling (within-family) and (b) between-family components (see theAppendix). At Level 1, the between-sibling model,the sex of each child, birth order, and the Sex �Birth Order interaction were entered. Because par-ents’ strategies were shared by siblings, the measuresof parents’ coaching and intervention were includedat Level 2 (the between-family model). Finally,interactions were computed to examine all possibletwo-, three-, and four-way interactions (see theAppendix).

The model predicting siblings’ relational aggres-sion from maternal coaching revealed a Coaching �Sex Composition � Sex interaction, c ¼ 2.39,SE ¼ .19, p , .05, but follow-ups were not signifi-cant, and there were no significant effects for paren-tal coaching.

For the model predicting siblings’ relationalaggression from mothers’ intervention, there was a sig-nificant main effect of maternal intervention, c ¼.08, SE ¼ .03, p , .01, showing that, when mothersintervened in sibling conflict, sibling relationalaggression was more frequent for both siblings.However, the main effect was qualified by a signifi-cant Maternal Intervention � Sex interaction, c ¼2.21, SE ¼ .05, p , .001. Maternal interventionwas associated with higher levels of relational


aggression for daughters (M ¼ 15.92 for highmaternal intervention vs. M ¼ 12.37 for low mater-nal intervention) but not for sons (M ¼ 13.72 andM ¼ 14.14 for high vs. low maternal intervention).

For the model predicting siblings’ relationalaggression from fathers’ intervention, there weretwo significant two-way interactions. A Paternal In-tervention � Sex interaction, c ¼ 2.19, SE ¼ .06,p , .01, suggested that fathers’ intervention wasmore strongly linked to girls’ than to boys’ relationalaggression (Ms ¼ 15.27 and 13.12 for high vs. lowpaternal intervention with daughters and Ms ¼13.40 and 14.34 for high vs. low paternal interven-tion with sons). A Paternal Intervention � SexComposition of the sibling dyad interaction, c ¼2.13, SE ¼ .07, p ¼ .05, suggested further thatpaternal intervention was more strongly linked torelational aggression in same-sex as compared tomixed-sex dyads (Ms ¼ 14.85 and 13.21 for highvs. low paternal intervention with same-sex dyadsand Ms ¼ 13.82 and 14.25 for high vs. low paternalintervention with mixed-sex dyads).

Discussion

This study was designed to investigate the linksbetween siblings’ experiences of relational aggressionand other qualities of the sibling relationship as wellas broader parenting dynamics in families with ado-lescents. We adopted a multi-informant and multi-method approach that included self-report datafrom older and younger siblings and their parentsand daily activity data from adolescent siblings.Although relational aggression has received attentionin the context of peer group interactions (Cairnset al., 1989; Crick et al., 2001), little is known aboutthis potentially important dynamic in the context ofsibling relationships. Our findings revealed that rela-tional aggression is tied to qualities of both siblingand parent-adolescent relationships. However, inconsidering these findings, it is important to notethe limitations of this work. First, this study wascorrelational in design, preventing us from drawingconclusions about direction of effects. An importantnext step will be to conduct longitudinal studies andexperimental interventions to further explore thedirection of effects linking sibling relational aggres-sion and family relationship qualities. Second, fami-lies were predominantly European American, and

there is a need for future work with ethnicallydiverse samples. Relationally aggressive behaviorsbetween siblings may be differentially linked to fam-ily dynamics in other cultural contexts. In addition,it will be important to explore these sibling relation-ship dynamics in other family structures (e.g.,single-parent, divorced, and remarried families).Finally, it will be important to conduct additionalresearch to further explore the measurement of rela-tional aggression in the context of sibling relation-ships. This study represents a first step in exploringrelational aggression in the context of adolescents’sibling relationships and broader family dynamics.

Sibling Relational Aggression and Other Qualitiesof the Sibling Relationship

Our results revealed that relational aggression is a dis-tinct dimension of the sibling relationship; as in thecase of peer relationships, it differs from overt hostil-ity between siblings. We also found that relationalaggression was linked to sibling intimacy and nega-tivity in expected ways. Specifically, relationalaggression occurred within the context of less emo-tional support and more negativity between siblings,a pattern that is consistent with perspectives on socialdevelopment (Sullivan, 1953). Although we antici-pated that relational aggression might be particularlyharmful for girls’ as compared to boys’ relationshipswith siblings, our findings suggest that relationalaggression in the context of the sibling relationshipmay hinder closeness and support for both girls andboys in adolescence. We also considered the possibil-ity that connections between relational aggressionand sibling quality may be stronger for girls withsisters as compared to other dyads. However, ourfindings suggested that relational aggression wasassociated with low levels of intimacy and high levelsof negativity for all siblings, regardless of the sex con-stellation of the sibling dyad. Given that adolescenceis a developmental period when peer relationshipsbecome more salient (Sullivan, 1953), efforts toharm social relationships may be equally salient forall youth at this stage of development.

Contrary to our expectations, we did not findthat sibling relational aggression was associated withthe amount of time siblings spent in shared activi-ties. The pattern of findings in this study and inother work suggests that adolescents spend signifi-cantly more time with same-sex than with opposite-sex siblings (Buhrmester, 1992). It may be that


common interests are more important than behav-iors such as relational aggression in predicting thetime that siblings spend together in adolescence.

Overall, our findings highlight associationsbetween the emotional climate of the sibling rela-tionship (i.e., intimacy and negativity) and relationalaggression. However, it is important to note thatrelational aggression may precede or be the result ofproblematic sibling relationships. Given the generalpattern of findings, intervention efforts aimed atreducing sibling relational aggression may haveimplications for sibling relationship quality in thesame way that interventions have been successful inreducing physical aggression between siblings (e.g.,Adams & Kelley, 1992).

We anticipated that relational aggression wouldbe more strongly associated with qualities of the sib-ling relationship for younger than for older siblings.Our findings suggested more similarities than differ-ences in the links between relational aggression andsibling relationship quality for older and youngersiblings. Adolescence is a developmental periodwhen sibling relationships are thought to becomemore egalitarian and more similar to peer relation-ships in their balance of power than in earlier devel-opmental periods (e.g., Buhrmester, 1992). Thistransition to a more egalitarian relationship maymean that the greater significance of the relationshipfor younger siblings is less common than in earlierdevelopmental periods. It will be important toextend studies of sibling relational aggression toother developmental periods to learn about thenature of relational aggression for both siblings inthe dyad from early childhood through adolescence.

Sibling Relational Aggression and Parenting Dynamics

We examined the role of both indirect and directparenting processes in sibling relational aggres-sion. Our findings revealed consistent connectionsbetween parent-adolescent relationship qualities (i.e.,warmth, involvement) and older and younger sib-lings’ experiences of relational aggression. Whenolder and younger siblings reported lower levels ofacceptance from both mothers and fathers, theyexperienced more relational aggression. In addition,when fathers (but not mothers) spent less time withsiblings, relational aggression was more frequent.One interpretation of these findings, consistent witha social learning perspective and Parke and Buriel’s(1998) model of parenting, is that less positive

relationship experiences with mothers and fatherscontribute to sibling relational aggression. The otherpossibility is that parents are less warm toward andinvolved with siblings who engage in high levels ofrelational aggression. Findings that fathers’ but notmothers’ temporal involvement was linked to siblingrelational aggression were consistent with some priorwork on other sibling relationship dimensions in doc-umenting stronger connections between the father-child relationship (as compared to the mother-childrelationship) and sibling relationship qualities (Stocker&McHale, 1992). As we suggested, mothers’ parentalrole may be more scripted, and the greater variabilityamong fathersmaymake for stronger linkages (Crouteret al., 1999). In particular, fathers spend a greater per-centage of their time in leisure and play-oriented activ-ities with their offspring (Parke & Buriel, 1998). Thismay mean that the father-child relationship is a morerelevant model for sibling relationships than themother-child relationship, which tends to involvemorecaregiving.

Grounding our study in Parke and Buriel’s(1998) model of parenting, we also examined par-ents’ strategies for handling sibling conflict as poten-tial correlates of relational aggression. Our findingsrevealed that parents’ intervention in sibling con-flicts (particularly girls’ sibling conflicts), but nottheir efforts to coach siblings on conflict resolution,were associated with sibling relational aggression. Inthis study, parents’ direct intervention encompassedmore authoritarian strategies (e.g., punishing sib-lings) and thus, it may not be surprising that par-ental intervention was linked to more relationalaggression. However, the fact that coaching was notan effective strategy for reducing relational aggres-sion was surprising, given findings on the efficacy ofsuch an approach in early childhood (Kramer et al.,1999). It may be that parents intervene in the earlyyears to help siblings learn how to resolve conflicts,but in later years, parental intervention is primarilyin response to problematic relationship dynamics.Another possibility is that when parents are involvedin girls’ sibling conflicts, girls respond by using rela-tional aggression with their siblings. To the extentthat girls are dissatisfied with how their parents stepin and administer punishments, they may retaliateagainst their siblings by using relational aggression.Although it is not possible to determine the direc-tion of effects from this study, our findings implythat intervention programs should highlight the neg-ative implications of power-assertive or authoritarian


approaches and provide information to parents onthe potentially positive implications of their spend-ing time in the company of the sibling dyad(McHale, Updegraff, Tucker, et al., 2000).

PDT was associated with siblings’ experiences ofrelational aggression. The overall pattern showed thatdyads reported the lowest levels of relational aggressionwhen younger siblings perceived mothers and fathersas treating siblings equally. This pattern is consistentwith work on differential treatment and sibling rela-tionship dynamics in revealing more positive and lessnegative relationships between siblings who perceiveequal or fair treatment (e.g., Kowal & Kramer, 1997;McHale, Updegraff, Jackson-Newsom, et al., 2000).Relational aggression toward younger girls was pro-nounced when fathers were perceived as being warmertoward these girls as compared to their older siblings.Because fathers’ favoritism of younger daughters maybe nonnormative (McHale & Crouter, 1996), thismay be a dynamic to which siblings are particularlyreactive. We did not find connections between oldersiblings’ perceptions of differential treatment and rela-tional aggression. Older siblings, who, in this sample,were inmiddle to late adolescence,maybemore focusedon their experiences outside the family (e.g., peer andromantic relationships) and less focused on PDT.

Implications

Relationally aggressive behaviors in the peer context,particularly among young adolescent girls, have re-ceived considerable attention in the media and havebeen highlighted as a potential concern among par-ents (Underwood, 2003). Our findings suggest theimportance of attending to relational aggressionwithin the sibling relationship as well. Interventionprograms designed to address sibling relationalaggression and the role that parents may play in pro-moting or discouraging this harmful element of thesibling relationship have the potential to provideimportant information as well as contribute to theoryabout sibling relationships in adolescence.

Experimental interventions designed to target ele-ments of the sibling relationship are relatively sparseand have tended to focus on reducing sibling aggres-sion and conflict in young children’s and preadoles-cents’ relationships (for a review, see Kramer, 2004).Kramer (2004) proposes that a limitation of siblingintervention programs is a focus on decreasing nega-tive behaviors (e.g., conflict or aggression) withouta complementary component on fostering prosocial

interactions (e.g., initiation of play, perspective tak-ing). With young children, this may translate toteaching social skills for initiating and declining playactivities, expressing feelings, and resolving conflicts.In adolescence, our findings suggest that teachingadolescents skills that promote emotional supportmay foster more positive interactions and reduce rela-tional aggression. In addition, research suggests thatthe family’s shared leisure events—the extent thatsiblings and parents engage in activities together—arelinked to positive sibling relationship qualities(McHale, Updegraff, Tucker, et al., 2000). Thus,intervention efforts designed for the reduction of sib-ling relational aggression may be most effective ifcombined with program elements that foster in-creased involvement of adolescent sisters and brothersin activities that both enjoy, and in turn, emotionalsupport and closeness in the sibling dyad.

The connections between sibling relational aggres-sion and parenting dynamics found in this studydirect attention to the importance of including a par-ent component in addition to a sibling component inefforts to intervene. Parent training has been success-ful in previous intervention work to improve siblingrelations (e.g., Adams & Kelley, 1992). Parents maybenefit from knowledge about the nature of relationalaggression, its connections to sibling dynamics, andthe ways in which parent-adolescent relationshipquality, strategies for handling sibling conflicts, anddifferential treatment are related to relational aggres-sion. If parents are taught specific skills for handlingsibling relational aggression and for promoting posi-tive sibling involvement, a parent component mayfurther increase the efficacy of intervention programs.

Moving beyond program-level recommenda-tions, our findings also provide direction for profes-sionals working with families. Parents and childrenindicate that conflict over how siblings get along isa primary source of parent-child conflict in bothmiddle childhood and early adolescence (McHale &Crouter, 2003). These findings highlight that rela-tional aggression, in addition to overt conflict, maycontribute to siblings’ problematic interactions.Working with parents and siblings to identify rela-tionally aggressive and overt conflict patterns, pro-viding alternative strategies for handling anger, anddeveloping approaches for enhancing positive fea-tures of the relationship may enable siblings todevelop more harmonious relationships.

It is also important to consider the family dynam-ics that may promote or discourage sibling relational


aggression in working with individual families. Ourfindings draw attention to the role of parentingdynamics—adolescents’ individual relationshipswith their mothers and fathers, the ways in whichboth mothers and fathers manage daughters’ siblingconflicts, and the degree of preferential treatmentthat younger siblings perceive from parents—asimportant. Talking with adolescent siblings and par-ents about adolescent siblings’ perceptions of prefer-ential treatment and fairness (Kowal & Kramer,1997; McHale, Updegraff, Jackson-Newsom, et al.,2000), for example, may aid in identifying familydynamics to which siblings react with relationalaggression. To the extent that clinicians are able toexplore the potential contributions of these differentparenting processes in their work with individualfamilies, efforts to alter family dynamics that pro-mote or discourage relational aggression may bemore successful. Such efforts can have larger effectson the family system, given links between siblingconflict and parental stress (e.g., Patterson, 1986).

Our findings also provide some insights for pro-fessionals working with parents of girls. Althoughgirls and boys were equally likely to experience rela-tional aggression from their siblings, links betweensome elements of parenting and relational aggressionwere specific to families with girls. When parentsintervened in girls’ sibling conflicts, higher levels ofrelational aggression were apparent between siblings.Parents’ efforts to coach adolescents in resolving sib-ling conflict, in contrast, were not associated withrelational aggression for girls. These findings high-light the importance of attending to the ways par-ents handle sibling conflicts with daughters whenrelational aggression is a problem in the family. Alsonotable was the role of preferential treatment, withrelational aggression being more prominent whenyounger girls received more favorable treatmentfrom fathers than their older siblings. Because it isuncommon for younger girls to receive preferentialtreatment from fathers (McHale & Crouter, 1996),siblings may respond negatively to this familydynamic. Helping parents address these issues in thecontext of everyday family life may prove beneficial.

References

Adams, C. D., & Kelley, M. L. (1992). Managing sibling aggression:Overcorrection as an alternative to time-out. Behavior Therapy, 23,707–717.

Bank, L., & Burraston, B. (2001). Abusive home environments as predic-tors of poor adjustment during adolescence and early adulthood. Jour-nal of Community Psychology, 29, 195–217.

Blyth, D. A., & Foster-Clark, F. (1987). Gender differences in perceivedintimacy with different members of adoloescents’ social networks. SexRoles, 17, 689–718.

Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & Burke, M. (1987). Child temperaments,maternal differential behavior, and sibling relationships. DevelopmentalPsychology, 23, 354–362.

Buhrmester, D. (1992). The developmental courses of sibling and peer rela-tionships. In F. Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.), Children’s sibling relationships:Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 19–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cairns, R., Cairns, B., Neckerman,H.,&Ferguson, L. (1989). Growth in aggres-sion: 1. Childhood to adolescence.Developmental Psychology, 25, 320–330.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, andsocial-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children’s treatment by peers:Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopa-thology, 8, 367–380.

Crick, N. R., Nelson, D. A., Morales, J. R., Cullerton-Sen, C., Casas, J. F.,& Hickman, S. E. (2001). Relational victimization in childhood andadolescence. In J. Javonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school:The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 196–214). New York:Guilford Press.

Crouter, A. C., Bumpus, M. F., Head, M. R., & McHale, S. M. (2001).Implications of overwork and overload for the quality of men’s familyrelationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 404–416.

Crouter, A. C., Helms-Erikson, H., Updegraff, K. A., & McHale, S. M.(1999). Conditions underlying parents’ knowledge about children’sdaily lives in middle childhood: Between and within-family compari-sons. Child Development, 70, 246–259.

Crouter, A. C., Manke, B. A., & McHale, S. M. (1995). The family con-text of gender intensification. Child Development, 66, 317–329.

Daniels, D., & Plomin, R. (1985). Differential experience of siblings in thesame family. Developmental Psychology, 21, 747–760.

Dunn, J. (1993). Young children’s close relationships: Beyond attachment.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1990). Separate lives: Why siblings are so different.New York: Basic Books.

Eggebeen, D. J. (1992). Changes in sibling configurations for Americanpreschool children. Social Biology, 39, 27–44.

Hertzog, C., & Rovine, M. (1985). Repeated measures analysis in develop-mental research. Selected issues. Child Development, 56, 787–809.

Kowal, A., & Kramer, L. (1997). Children’s understanding of parental dif-ferential treatment. Child Development, 68, 113–126.

Kramer, L. (2004). Experimental interventions in sibling relations. InR. D. Conger, F. O. Lorenz, & K. A. S. Wickrama (Eds.), Continuityand change in family relations: Theory, methods, and empirical findings(pp. 345–382). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kramer, L., Perozynski, L. A., & Chung, T. (1999). Parental responses tosibling conflict: The effects of development and parent gender. ChildDevelopment, 70, 1401–1414.

Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

MacDonald, K. B., & Parke, R. D. (1984). Bridging the gap: Parent-childplay interaction and peer interactive competence. Developmental Psy-chology, 23, 705–711.

McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (1996). The family contexts of children’ssibling relationships. In G. H. Brody (Ed.), Sibling relationships: Theircauses and consequences (pp. 173–195). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2003). How do children exert an impacton family life? In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influenceon family dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 207–220). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Bartko, W. T. (1992). Traditional andegalitarian patterns of parental involvement: Antecedents, conse-quences, and temporal rhythms. In D. Featherman, R. Lerner, &M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior, Vol. 2 (pp.49–81). New York: Erlbaum.

McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Helms-Erikson, H., & Crouter, A. C.(2001). Gender development in middle childhood and early adoles-cence: Explaining similarities and differences between siblings. Develop-mental Psychology, 37, 115–125.


McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Jackson-Newsom, J., Tucker, C. J., &Crouter, A. C. (2000). When does parents’ differential treatmenthave negative implications for siblings? Social Development, 9, 149–172.

McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Tucker, C. J., & Crouter, A. C. (2000).Step in or stay out? Parents’ roles in adolescents’ sibling relationships.Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 746–760.

Meet the GAMMA girls. (2002, June 3). Newsweek, 44–51.O’Brien, K. M. (1999). Sibling relationship quality among relationally and

physically aggressive children. In K. M. O’Brien (Chair), Sibling rela-tionship quality in at-risk and normative families: Influence, behaviorpatterns, and consequences. Symposium conducted at the Society forResearch in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.

O’Brien, K. M., & Crick, N. R. (1995). The sibling qualities measure.Unpublished scale, University of Minnesota.

Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. B. (1998). Socialization in the family: Ethnicand ecological perspectives. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of childpsychology (5th ed., pp. 463–552). New York: John Wiley.

Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. AmericanPsychologist, 41, 432–444.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Appli-cation and data analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rovine, M., & von Eye, A. (1991). Applied computational statistics in longi-tudinal research. New York: Academic Press.

Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon(Ed.),Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., vol. 3, pp. 933–1016).NewYork:Wiley.

Schwarz, J. C., Barton-Henry, L. M., & Pruzinsky, T. (1985). Assessingchild-rearing behaviors: A comparison of ratings made by mother, father,child, and sibling on the CRPBI. Child Development, 56, 462–479.

Stocker, C., & McHale, S. M. (1992). The nature and family correlates ofpreadolescents’ perceptions of their sibling relationships. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 9, 179–195.

Stormshak, E. A., Bellanti, C. J., & Bierman, K. L. (1996). The quality of sib-ling relationships and the development of social competence and behav-ioral control in aggressive children.Developmental Psychology, 32, 79–89.

Sullivan,H. S. (1953).The interpersonal theory of psychiatry.NewYork:Norton.Underwood, M. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New York: Guilford.U. S. Census Bureau (1990). Census of population and housing public law

94–171 data: Age by race and Hispanic origin. Retrieved from http://censtats.census.gov/pl94/pl94.shtml

Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2000). Adolescents’sex-typed friendship experiences: Does having a sister or a brothermatter? Child Development, 71, 1597–1610.

Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2002). Adolescents’sibling relationships and friendships: Developmental patterns and rela-tionship associations. Social Development, 11, 182–211.

Appendix.

Equations for Sibling Relationship and Indirect Parenting Models (Sibling Relationship Example)

Level 1: Y ¼ b0 1 b1 (relational aggression) 1 b2 (gender) 1 b3 (birth order) 1 b4 (Gender� Birth Order) 1 b5 (Relational Aggression � Gender) 1 b6 (Relational Aggression� Birth Order) 1 b7 (Relational Aggression � Gender � Birth Order)1 r

Level 2: b0 ¼ c00 1 c01 (sex composition of the sibling dyad)1 u0b1 ¼ c10 1 c11 (sex composition of the sibling dyad)

b2 ¼ c20 1 c21 (sex composition of the sibling dyad)





Equations for Direct Parent Influence Models (Mother Coaching Example)

Level 1: Y ¼ b0 1 b1 (gender) 1 b2 (birth order) 1 b3 (Gender � Birth Order)1 rLevel 2: b0 ¼ c00 1 c01 (sex composition of the sibling dyad) 1 c02 (maternal coaching) 1

c03 (Maternal Coaching � Sex Composition of the Sibling Dyad)1 u0b1 ¼ c10 1 c11 (sex composition of the sibling dyad) 1 c12 (maternal coaching) 1

c13 (Maternal Coaching � Sex Composition of the Sibling Dyad)

b2 ¼ c20 1 c21 (sex composition of the sibling dyad) 1 c22 (maternal coaching) 1


b3 ¼ c30 1 c31 (sex composition of the sibling dyad) 1 c32 (maternal coaching) 1



relational aggression in adolescents’ sibling relationships: links to sibling and...

Documents