the relationship between differential parenting and ...€¦ · sharon pauker master of arts...
TRANSCRIPT
The Relationship between Differential Parenting and Children‟s Other-orientedness
by
Sharon Pauker
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Masters of Art
Applied Psychology & Human Development University of Toronto
© Copyright by Sharon Pauker 2013
ii
The Relationship between Differential Parenting and Children‟s Other-orientedness
Sharon Pauker
Master of Arts
Applied Psychology and Human Development
University of Toronto
2013
Abstract
The current study examined whether there is a curvilinear association between
differential parenting and children‟s Theory of Mind (ToM) and two similar abilities
we defined as “ToM- in-Action”. These were, use of perspective taking language
and cognitive sensitivity (providing tailored verbal or non-verbal guidance) while
completing a challenging task with a younger sibling. A community sample of 372
children (52% were males, average age=5.6), their younger siblings (average
age=3.14) and their mothers were observed in their homes. Acknowledgments (if
any) Findings showed a linear association rather than a curvilinear effect, where
favored older siblings had significantly poorer cognitive sensitivity and
perspective taking when interacting with their younger sibling in a challenging
task. This relationship remained significant when other variables such as age and
SES were controlled. The relationship between differential parenting and ToM
was non-significant. Results demonstrate the specific and complex impact of
differential parenting on children‟s social cognition.
iii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I would like to thank to my supervisor, Dr. Michal Perlman, for her
continuous support and guidance throughout this process. You always made yourself
available and provided me with insight and useful feedback. I feel very fortunate to
have a supervisor who is so kind and considerate of her students.
I would also like to thank my committee member, Dr. Jennifer Jenkins, for providing me
with the framework for this thesis. I greatly appreciate the advice and knowledge you
offered me over the past 2 years.
Furthermore, I would like to thank the families and staff members involved in the Kids,
Families and Places Study. Your involvement made this research possible.
In addition, I would like to thank my classmates for always encouraging and supporting
me. The relationships that we have formed during this time are clearly life long and very
meaningful.
Last but not least, I thank my parents and my husband – you are my inspiration. Your
endless love and support has given me the courage to pursue my dreams.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables................................................................................................................... vi
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Differential Parenting and its impact on children and their sibling relationship quality .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Differential Parenting and Social Cognition .......................................................... 4
1.3 Theory of Mind ....................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Perspective Taking ................................................................................................ 7
1.5 Cognitive Sensitivity ............................................................................................... 8
1.6 Covariates ............................................................................................................. 8
1.7 The Current Study ................................................................................................. 9
2 Methods ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Participants ............................................................................................................ 9
2.2 The Current Study ............................................................................................... 10
2.3 Measures ............................................................................................................. 10
2.3.1 Independent Control Variables ................................................................... 15
2.4 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 15
2.5 Missing Data ........................................................................................................ 16
3 Results ....................................................................................................................... 16
3.1 Preliminary Analysis ............................................................................................ 16
3.2 Main Analyses ..................................................................................................... 18
3.2.1 Model 1: Theory of Mind ........................................................................... 18
3.2.2 Model 2: Perspective Taking .................................................................... 18
3.2.3 Model 3: Cognitive Sensitivity ................................................................... 21
4 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 21
v
5 Limitations ................................................................................................................. 26
6 References ................................................................................................................ 28
vi
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Bivariate Pearson/point biserial correlations, Means and 17
Standard Deviations…………………………………………
Table 2 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis examining 19
the role of differential sensitivity in predicting Theory-of-
Mind…………………………………………………………..
Table 3 Summary of hierarchical logistic regression analysis 21
examining the role of differential sensitivity in predicting
sibling perspective taking………………………………….
Table 4 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis examining 23
the role of differential sensitivity in predicting sibling
cognitive sensitivity……………………………………….
1
1 Introduction
1.1. Differential Parenting and its impact on children and their sibling relationship quality
Differential Parenting has been researched extensively since the seminal work of
Plomin and Daniels in 1987. These authors argued that children in the same family are
different than one another due to experiences in their nonshared environment. One
aspect of the nonshared environment refers to the different ways each parent treats
each of his or her children (i.e., differential parenting). Differential parenting refers to the
degree to which parents display unequal treatment toward their children in terms of the
amounts of negativity, control, sensitivity and warmth they direct to each child. Moderate
amounts of differentiation may reflect sensitive parenting, as the parent adjusts his or
her treatment of each child based on the child‟s distinctive needs (Brody, Stoneman, &
McCoy, 1992; Meunier, Bisceglia, & Jenkins, 2012). However, greater amounts of
differential parenting and harsh parenting predict children‟s propensity for behavioral
problems (Tamrouti-Makkink, Dubas, Gerris, & van Aken, 2004). Research suggests
that differential treatment may be driven both by differences between siblings and stress
on parents. Child effects on differential parenting may include gender, age, and
temperament (Jenkins, Rabash, &, O‟Connnor, 2003). Parental effects may include
social disadvantage (Jenkins, Rabash, & O‟connor, 2003) and parental personality traits
(Browne, Meunier, O‟connor, & Jenkins., 2012). Overall, differential parenting was found
to increase children‟s risk of later behavior problems (Caspi et al., 2004; Burt, McGue,
Iacono, & Krueger, 2006).
2
Studies have consistently shown that children who receive less favorable
treatment than their siblings, present with more externalizing and internalizing behavior,
as well as with lower self-esteem and self-worth (Dunn, Stocker, & Plomin, 1990;
McHale, Updegraff, Jackson-Newson, Tucker, & Crouter, 2000; Singer & Weinstein,
2000; Scholte et al., 2007). Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954) has been
used in understanding these findings. This theory asserts that individuals have an
intrinsic drive to evaluate their own opinions and abilities through self-comparison with
others, particularly to those who are perceived as similar. Considering that siblings
share their environment and family background, they are likely to engage in self-
comparison (Whiteman, McHale, & Soli, 2011). Disfavored siblings who engage in
social comparisons with their favored siblings are likely to experience negative self-
evaluation, which may lead to suboptimal functioning and compromised sibling
relationships (Shanahan et al., 2008). Findings of positive outcomes for favored siblings
are limited. In a large twin and step families study, Reiss, Hetherington, Plomin and
Howe (1995) found that in families where one child received greater amounts of
negativity, the sibling presented with less antisocial behavior. Likewise, in families
where greater amounts of warmth were directed to one child, the sibling presented with
more depressive symptoms. These authors named this phenomenon the “sibling
barricade”. In contrast, other studies have suggested that differential parenting may
result in negative outcomes for all siblings in the family (Boyle et al., 2004) and that at
least for some outcomes excessive amounts of differentiation are likely to have
deleterious effects on a child regardless of whether he or she is being favored or
disfavored (Suitor et al., 2008; Meunier, Bisceglia, & Jenkins, 2012; Meunier et al.,
2013). For example, Rauer and Volling (2007) found that although siblings who received
3
more parental affection reported decreased sibling jealousy and higher self-esteem
(compared to disfavored siblings), they also experienced high rates of romantic
relationship distress. Furthermore, favored siblings were more likely than disfavored
siblings to classify their attachment style as insecure (i.e., dismissive or fearful). These
findings are consistent with Zervas and Sherman‟s (1994) conclusion that individuals
who are treated equally within a family present better outcomes than those who are
being either favored or disfavored.
Deutsch (1985) developed the idea of distributive justice and argued that individuals
experience a negative emotional reaction when an inequality that is perceived as unjust
occurs. Thus, both favored and disfavored children in a family should perceive
differential parenting as violating the principles of distributive justice. Kowal and
colleagues (2002) used distributive justice theory to explain the findings that differential
parenting is harmful to all children within the family. However, it should be noted that
differential parenting does not appear to impact all children in a family equally. That is,
for the outcomes that have been studied to date, disfavored children tend to be
impacted more negatively by differentiation than their favored siblings (Burt, McGue,
Iacono, & Krueger, 2006; Meunier et al., 2013).
Finally, Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977), has been used in explaining the
erosion of the sibling relationship as a result of differential parenting, rather than each
child‟s outcomes. According to this theory, an individual acquires new behaviors and
cognitive attitudes through observation and reinforcement of others‟ behavior. Parents
and older siblings are most likely to be imitated if they are perceived as powerful and
competent (Bandura, 1977). Consistent with this theory, perhaps part of the erosion of
the sibling relationship quality that is associated with differential parenting reflects
4
children imitating maladaptive interactions that their parents model. A child, who
consistently witnesses his or her parent directing high levels of control and aggression
toward his or her sibling, might replicate this harsh behavior pattern when interacting
with that sibling. Supporting this notion, Perlman and Ross (1997) suggested that
children model parental control strategies during sibling conflicts.
1.2. Differential Parenting and Social Cognition
Advanced social cognitive skills such as understanding others‟ emotions and
perspective taking (Fenning, Baker, & Juvonen, 2011) predict children‟s later adaptive
outcomes (Denham et al., 2003), whereas deficits in social cognition have been found
to be correlated with externalizing behavior (Denham et al., 2002) and peer rejection
(Dekovic´ & Gerris, 1994). One hypothesis regarding the development of social
cognition asserts that it is constructed through accumulated experiences, specifically
through parent-child interactions. Dyadic communication is perceived as essential to the
development of social cognition (Dodge, 2006). Furthermore, Vygotsky (1931;1997)
claimed that social understanding is rooted in interpersonal exchanges which are then
internalized by the individual (Fernyhough, 2008).
While there is a large body of research examining the influence of differential
parenting on children‟s behavioral and adjustment outcomes, little if any work has been
done on differential parenting and social cognition. We focus on a specific aspect of
social cognition: other-orientedness - a child‟s ability to understand his or her sibling‟s
perspective, thoughts, beliefs, and to cooperate with him or her. In order to measure
children‟s other-orientedness, we administered ToM tasks in addition to measures of
perspective taking and cognitive sensitivity. These are described below.
5
1.3 Theory of Mind
ToM is a complex skill of understanding and predicting another‟s psychological
state (e.g., feelings, beliefs, and desires; Premack and Woodruff, 1978). Advanced ToM
capacity in children has been linked to social competence (Astington & Jenkins, 1995),
whereas deficits in ToM are associated with behavioral abnormalities, such as autism
and schizophrenia (Baron-Cohen, Leslie, & Frith, 1985). Thus, ToM acquisition is
central in the development of social competence. Numerous studies have examined
ToM in order to understand this mechanism. Particular attention has been given to
variables that predict ToM. Early research suggested ToM to be a maturational process
that is not influenced by environmental factors (Leslie, 1994). However, children are
highly variable in ToM acquisition, which may in part be explained by early social
experiences (see Carpendale & Lewis, 2004; 2006); cross-cultural influences (Vinden,
1999; Wellman et al., 2001) and genetic effects (Hughes & Cutting, 1999). However,
according to a more recent twin-study, with a large sample size, conducted by Hughes,
Jaffee, Happe´, Taylor, Caspi, and Moffitt (2005), no genetic effects were found for
ToM. Further, research findings indicated that 44% of the variance in ToM among twins
was explained by non-shared experiences, and differential parenting in particular. Thus,
differential parenting may accelerate ToM understanding. Since Leslie‟s work in 1994, a
line of studies has looked into the impact of familial experiences on ToM acquisition.
Perner and colleagues (1994) were the first to show that children who had siblings
scored higher on measures of ToM than children without siblings in a family. Astington
and Jenkins (1996) replicated these results with the exception that children with
stronger language skills were not affected by having a sibling. The number of siblings in
a family has also been linked to better ToM (false-belief) ability (Lewis et al., 1996).
6
However, perhaps the quality of the relationship, rather than the mere presence or
absence of a sibling, is the factor that plays a role in accelerating ToM ability (Hughes,
Deater-Deckard, & Cutting, 1999; Hughes & Ensor, 2005). Another line of research has
shown that early experiences such as a secure attachment style (Fonagy et al. 1991;
Meins 1997; Meins, Russell, & Clarck-Carter, 1998; Symons & Clark 2000), maternal
discourse, with an emphasis on mental state talk (see Symons, 2004 for a review), and
maternal mind mindedness (i.e., the tendency of a mother to treat her infant as an
individual with a mind and ability of intentional behavior; Meins et al., 2002) were
associated with ToM.
While understanding another‟s mental state involves a larger range of social
cognitive skills, the majority of the aforementioned studies used only false-belief tasks
(i.e., the ability to judge information provided to an individual when interpreting and
predicting the individual‟s action; even if the information is not compatible with one‟s
own) to measure children‟s ToM. False-belief tasks do not include any social interaction,
but rather are solely directed toward evaluating a child‟s cognitive ability. Consistent
with the growing recognition that ToM research should encompass a fuller spectrum of
mental states (Hughes & Leekam, 2004), we added two measures of social cognition:
(1) perspective taking (i.e., the extent to which a child recognizes that his or her
interaction partner has their own point of view. This recognition is reflected in the kind of
language and reasoning a child directs towards their partner), and (2) cognitive
sensitivity (i.e., the ability to provide tailored and sensitive guidance in teaching a novel
task). We defined these two skills as “ToM-in-Action” because they capture children‟s
abilities to understand others within the context of social interaction rather than within a
purely cognitive task. Perspective taking and cognitive sensitivity were evaluated
7
through observations of a child interacting with a younger sibling, and provided us with
rich evidence on the subjects‟ other-orientedness skills.
1.4 Perspective Taking
Perspective taking was defined by Hoffman (1984) as a cognitive process that
allows one to understand another‟s mental state and includes the explicit ability of
taking another‟s perspective. This skill promotes prosocial behavior, compassion, and
empathy (Hoffman, 1984). According to Premack and Woodruff (1978) ToM is a form of
perspective taking.
Perspective taking has been operationalized differently across various studies.
For instance, emotional/affective perspective taking is described as the ability to
explicitly interpret others‟ emotions or feelings (Hughes & Dunn, 1998; Harwood &
Farrar, 2006). Visual perspective taking refers to the ability to appreciate how the world
looks from another‟s perspective (Bigelow & Dugas, 2009). In the current study,
perspective taking included a combination of two skills: reasoning and internal state talk
because both reflected children‟s understanding that they must explain, justify and
elaborate their responses to their interaction partner. Such perspective taking can occur
during a play interaction, for example, when a child‟s request for blocks from their
siblings is accompanied by reasoning: “I need this block because without it my castle
will collapse”. Internal state talk was also utilized in this sentence as the child expressed
a desire (i.e., I need) and a statement of ownership (i.e., my castle). In the literature,
affective perspective taking was found to be significantly related to but not overlapping
with ToM (Denham, 1986; Harwood & Farrar, 2006), suggesting that the two skills are
different representations of cognitive empathy (Farrant et al., 2011).
8
1.5 Cognitive Sensitivity
Cognitive sensitivity captures an individual‟s ability to correctly assess the
knowledge and state of mind of their partner while cooperating to reach a shared goal
(Prime et al., in press). It is comprised of three processes: building mutuality, mind-
reading, and communicative clarity.
In the current study, we examined pre-school aged children‟s cognitive sensitivity
skills while they interacted with their younger siblings. Cognitive sensitivity was
operationalized as the ability of a child to provide tailored guidance in teaching a
challenging and novel task to a younger sibling. This measure required the child to be
sensitive, cooperative and to perceive his or her younger sibling‟s mental state, point of
view, and knowledge capacity in order to provide the sibling with the appropriate and
comprehensible directions. As ToM understanding requires an individual‟s
representation of another‟s mental states, ToM should be linked to cognitive sensitivity
ability. Findings of associations between ToM and children‟s teaching skills (Strauss et
al., 2002; Davis-Unger & Carlson, 2008; Prime et al., in press) support this notion.
1.6 Covariates
Past research has suggested that variables such as: gender differences in false-
belief (Charman, Ruffman, & Clements, 2002; Happe´, 1995), age (Wellman, Cross, &
Watson, 2001; Onishi & Baillargeon, 2005), language (e.g., Astington & Jenkins, 1999;
Hughes & Dunn, 1998; Jenkins & Astington, 1996), mother‟s educational attainment
(Cutting & Dunn, 1999; Meins & Fernyhough, 1999), and social economic status (Cole &
Mitchell, 1998; 2000; Cutting & Dunn, 1999; Holmes, Black & Miller, 1996) are all
9
correlated with ToM ability. Therefore, in the current study these variables were
controlled in the data analysis.
1.7 The Current Study
The present study expands on the differential parenting literature by examining whether
differential parenting is associated with pre-school children‟s social cognitive ability.
Specifically, is differential parenting related to children‟s other-orientedness skills (ToM,
perspective taking, and cognitive sensitivity). Thus, our goal in the current study was to
explore whether differential parenting cross-sectionally predicted other-orientedness
skills above and beyond covariates (described below). Specifically, in contrast with
social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), and consistent with growing evidence that
suggest that differential parenting negatively affects all children in a family (Boyle et el.,
2004; Meunier, Bisceglia, & Jenkins, 2011; Meunier et al., 2013), as well as with
distributive justice theory (Deutch, 1985), a curvilinear association was hypothesized
between differential sensitivity and ToM, such that, in families with higher rates of
differentiation, children were expected to present lower other-orientedness abilities. As
both perspective taking and cognitive sensitivity measures were captured through
sibling interactions, we expected them to be influenced by various family dynamics
(e.g., differential parenting).
2 Methods
2.1 Participants
The current study is embedded within a larger longitudinal birth-cohort study.
The goals of the larger study were to examine genetic and environmental influences on
children‟s socio-emotional development using a sibling design. Participants were
10
recruited through a program called Healthy Babies Healthy Children, run by Toronto and
Hamilton Public Health, which contacts the parents of all newborn babies within several
days of the newborn‟s birth. To be eligible families had to have a newborn child (called
Sibling 1) with birth-weight being over 1500 grams, a sibling who was less than 4 years
old (called Sibling 2), and an English speaking mother. Five-hundred and one families
make-up the sample data collection. Using 2006 Canada Census Data, the sample was
similar to the general population in terms of number of persons in the household and
personal income, but had a lower proportion of non-intact families, fewer immigrants
and more educated mothers (Meunier, Bisceglia, & Jenkins, 2012).
2.2 The Current Study
Data from the third wave of data collection when younger children were 3 and
older siblings were on average 5.5 years-old was used in the present study. Data was
gathered through questionnaires for mothers and videotaped siblings‟ interactions and
an interaction of mother with each of her children. The ages of the older siblings
represent a sensitive developmental period in theory of mind development, whereas the
younger siblings are at an age where false-belief understanding is unlikely to be evident
(Astington, Harris, & Olson, 1988; Gopnik & Wellman, 1994; Perner, 1991; Wellman,
1990; for a review, see Wellman, Cross, & Watson, 2001). As such, the older siblings
were the focus of our exploration into individual differences. (N=372, males=192, M
age=5.57, SD=0.77, range 4-7.67).
2.3 Measures
Theory of Mind. The Wellman & Liu (2004) scale was used to capture ToM. The
scale includes different tasks presented in a sequential order which target children‟s
11
development of theory of Mind understanding. Higher scores reflect a more complex
Theory of Mind understanding. In addition to the Wellman and Liu scale , we included a
second order belief question (Astington, Pelletier, & Homer, 2002) to promote the
variability in children‟s performance. The testing session was ended once children failed
two consecutive tasks on the scale. All theory-of-mind tasks were presented through
stories which were enacted for children with the use of puppets and props (or pictures,
i.e. 2nd order false belief). For each of the tasks, the child is given a score of 0 (fail) or 1
(pass). A mean was taken across tasks and the internal consistency of the scale was α
= .81.
Cognitive Sensitivity. Sibling pairs were filmed engaging in a cooperative
building task (Aguilar et al., 2001). Dyads were instructed to sit on a yoga mat and use
Duplo building blocks to build a picture of a design in 5 minutes. They were each only
allowed to touch two of the four colours of Duplo blocks used in the model to ensure
collaboration for completion. Interviewers were present in the room with the dyads
during the task but did not provide instructions beyond protocol. If children finished the
design before the end of five minutes, they were given a second model to build. All
children were stopped after five minutes, regardless of completion. The majority of
dyads were engaged with the task for 80% or more of the five minutes.
Videotapes of sibling interactions were coded using a measure of cognitive
sensitivity (Prime et al., 2013).The measure addresses three linked capacities of mind-
reading, mutuality, and communicative clarity. Coders watched the 5-minute film clip in
its entirety and then rated the older sibling on a 5-point likert scale, ranging from „Not at
all true‟ (1) to „Very true‟ (5) on each of the eleven cognitive sensitivity statements.
12
Items started with „This person is…‟ and examples include: sensitive to what his/her
partner knows and/or understands; good at rephrasing what his/her partner does not
understand; gives positive feedback to reinforce his/her partner; clear in his/her
requests for help. This approach provides comparable reliability and validity to a more
time intensive observational coding method while requiring fewer resources (Prime et
al., 2013). The mean was taken across items and internal consistency of the composite
was high, α = .89. Coders included a mix of undergraduate and graduate students who
were trained by an expert coder. Inter-rater reliability was tested by double-coding ten
percent of the interactions and reliability checks were carried out throughout the coding
period to minimize drift. Disagreements were resolved by taking a mean of the coders‟
judgments. Inter-rater reliability on the composite score was acceptable, α = .72. All
coders were blind to the hypotheses of the study.
Perspective Taking. Sibling dyads were video recorded completing the
aforementioned Duplo building blocks task. Family interaction was coded using interval
coding similar to work done by Volling, McElwain, and Miller (2002), Howes and
Matheson (1992), and Perlman & Fletcher (2012), who used it to capture interactions in
other contexts. Coders code the interaction based on fifteen 20 seconds intervals. In
each one of the 15 snapshots observers coded internal state talk (i.e., desire, emotion,
belief, and statement of ownership) and reasoning (e.g., justification, explanations)
expressed by each sibling. If a reasoning or internal state talk were observed, the child
received a score of 1 for that code for that snapshot. A final perspective taking score
was computed by summing up all the snapshots in which reasoning and internal state
talk were observed for each child. As the distribution was zero inflated, the final
perspective taking score was dichotomized. Subjects who had a final score greater than
13
zero were assigned the value of 1. Subjects who had a final score of zero, kept that
score. As the distributions of each of the variables that make-up the perspective taking
construct (i.e., reasoning and internal state talk: desire, belief, emotion, statement of
ownership) were zero inflated as well, they were all dichotomized, using a similar
procedure to the one described above. In order to measure the construct‟s internal
consistency value, a polychoric factor analysis was conducted in Stata (SE 12.0
version), due to the binary nature of all variables included in the perspective taking
construct. Initial eigenvalues showed that the first factor explained 82% of the variance.
All five variables that make-up the perspective-taking construct showed factor loadings
ranging between 0.37-0.7. Inter-rater reliability Kappa values were 0.86 for each of the
siblings.
Mother-child Interaction. Mother was video recorded interacting with each child
across a 5-minute building task and a 5-minute free play period. The building task was
similar to the siblings‟ Duplo building blocks task described above. During free play,
mother and child were instructed to play for five minutes with no toys (Aguilar et al.,
2001). Mother and child were instructed to sit in front of the camera on a “magic carpet”
(yoga mat) while the camera was set to capture their full body. The two interactions
were coded using a scale integrating the Coding of Attachment-Related Parenting
(CARP; Matias, 2006) measure, and the Parchisy (PAR; Deater-Deckard et al., 1997)
assessing three domains of responsivity (i.e., sensitivity, mutuality, and positive control).
Mother‟s sensitivity code (CARP) evaluated the extent to which she promoted her
child‟s autonomy, showed warmth, provided the child with appropriate verbal and non-
verbal feedback, and was able to take her child‟s perspective. The mutuality code
(CARP) targeted the mother-child dyad and is consistent with the concept of “goal-
14
corrected partnership” (Bowlby, 1982). It assessed the reciprocity in the dyad dialogue,
affect sharing, joint engagement in task, and open body posture. The positive control
code (PARCHISY) was indexed by the mother‟s ability to direct her child through the
task using praise, open-ended questions and clarifications. Each of these codes was
rated on a 7-point-likert scale, with a higher score indicating higher levels of the targeted
behavior. Reliability was assessed through double-coding of 10-25% of total interactions
(composite α=.903). A final maternal sensitivity score was computed by calculating the
mean for all three measures (composite internal consistency α=.79).
Differential Sensitivity. A differential sensitivity score was computed using a
multilevel modeling approach in order to partial out the effect of child age. Differential
parenting is highly associated with age of children, specifically with regards to
differential positivity (Jenkins, Rasbash, & O‟Connor, 2003). According to Jenkins and
colleagues, age was found to be a very strong predictor of differential parenting, where
older children received more positive treatment than younger children, and middle
children were treated less positively than younger children. In order to partial out the
effect of age on differential sensitivity, a multilevel regression was performed using a 2-
level model in Stata (SE 12.0 version) with maternal sensitivity (raw score) as the
dependent variable and with children‟s age as the predictor. Regression residuals were
then saved and represented the amount of maternal sensitivity directed to each child
after accounting for the effects of age. Next, younger siblings residual values were
subtracted from those of the older siblings to produce a result of older siblings‟
differential sensitivity score, after accounting for the fixed and random effects of age.
Higher scores on this measure represent being favored.
15
Curvilinear Effect- Differential Sensitivity Quadratic Term. A quadratic term
for differential parenting was computed. In order to reduce multicollineraity between the
linear and the quadratic differential sensitivity terms (Aiken & West, 1991), the quadratic
term was computed using centered differential sensitivity values.
2.3.1 Independent Control Variables
Demographics. Child gender (with boys as the reference category), age (was
measured in years), socioeconomic status and mother‟s education level were included
as covariates. Socioeconomic status variable was comprised of income and assets. To
assess assets the following questions were used: “how many rooms do you have in
your house”; “Do you own or co-own this home/apartment/unit, even if still making
payments”; “Do you own or co-own a car, even if still making payments”. Annual income
was also reported (M= $65,000 - $74,999). Assets and income items were standardized
and a mean was computed, with higher scores indicating higher SES (α = .79). Mothers‟
education level was measured through their reports on the number of years of
education they completed, including secondary and post-secondary education. The
mean education level was 15.53 years (SD=2.47, range 10-22).
2.4 Data Analysis
Two hierarchical linear regressions and one hierarchical logistic regression were
conducted in order to examine the relationship between differential parenting and ToM,
sibling cognitive sensitivity and perspective taking. At step 1 the following variables
were entered in the model: age, gender, socio-economic status, language, and maternal
sensitivity toward target child. At step 2 we added differential sensitivity as a predictor.
Finally, at step 3, the quadratic term for differential sensitivity was entered in the model.
16
2.5 Missing Data
Missing data on mothers‟ reports, observational and child testing measures
ranged from 0 to 17 %. These missing cases if dropped from the analysis can result in
reduction of the statistical power and bias the estimates of parameters (Allison, 2003).
Multiple imputation analysis was conducted to avoid loss of participants (Rubin, 2003).
Multiple imputation analysis was performed using SPSS (version 21) and generated 5
complete datasets that included the covariates, predictors and outcome variables. Each
regression analysis was run across all 5 datasets and produced pooled estimates for all
coefficients.
3 Results
3.1 Preliminary Analysis
Variable means, standard deviations, bivariate pearson and point biserial
coefficients are presented in Table 1. Pearson and point biserial coefficient values
present weak to moderate correlations (-0.17< to r< 0.55). Preliminary bivariate
associations for cognitive sensitivity showed that it was significantly positively
associated with children‟s age, language skills socioeconomic status, perspective
taking, ToM understanding, and with maternal sensitivity. Additionally, cognitive
sensitivity was found to be significantly negatively associated with children‟s gender and
with differential sensitivity. That is, disfavored older girls and children with advanced
language, perspective taking skills and Theory of Mind understanding, and children who
came from higher socioeconomic status households, were more likely to present with
higher cognitive sensitivity. With regards to perspective taking, preliminary bivariate
associations showed that this skill was significantly positively associated with children‟s
17
age, language skills, cognitive sensitivity and ToM. Moreover, perspective taking was
significantly negatively associated with children‟s gender and with differential sensitivity.
Specifically, disfavored older girls, children with higher language skills and children with
advanced cognitive sensitivity and Theory of Mind abilities, were more likely to use
perspective taking language when completing a challenging task with their younger
sibling.
Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 M SD
1.Child Age - 5.57 0.77
2.Child Gender 0.08 - - -
3.Child Language
-0.02 -0.02
- 107.51 13.44
4. Mother education
0.01 -0.03
0.29** - 15.56 2.48
5. SES (assets, income)
-0.07 0.15
0.4** 0.88
** - 0.03 0.71
6. Mother Sensitivity
-0.10
* 0.06 0.38
** 0.33
** 0.41
** - 4.25 0.85
7. Differential Sensitivity
-0.13
*
0.12* 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.55
** - 0.07 0.43
8. Cognitive Sensitivity
0.28** -0.1
* 0.15
** 0.18
** 0.21
** 0.12
* -0.17
** - 2.58 0.71
9. Sibling Perspective
Taking
0.16** -
0.04 0.17
** 0.06 0.09 0.08 -0.11
* 0.40
** - 0.86 .35
10. Theory of Mind
11.Differential Sensitivity- Quadratic Term
0.47**
-0.06
0.01
0.11*
0.32**
0.01
0.14*
0.05
0.20**
0.04
0.15**
-0.00
-0.04
-0.06
0.32**
-0.06
0.23**
-0.03
-
-0.02
-
4.54
0.76
2.09
1.04
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01
Table 1. Bivariate Pearson/point biserial correlations, Means and Standard Deviations
18
3.2 Main Analyses
Three separate hierarchical regression models were conducted to assess the
relationship between the predictor, differential sensitivity and each of the dependent
variables, sibling perspective taking and sibling cognitive sensitivity (i.e., ToM-in-Action
variables), and Theory-of-Mind. Hierarchical regression was selected because it allowed
us to evaluate the unique contribution of the predictor to the model, above and beyond
covariates.
3.2.1 Model 1: Theory of Mind
Results for hierarchical regression examining the relationship between differential
sensitivity and ToM can be found in Table 2. At the first step, the covariates accounted
for a significant amount of the variance in the model, R2=.28, F(6,365)=24.15, p<.001.
Target child‟s age and language skills were found to be significant predictors of ToM
understanding. That is, being older and having stronger language skills were associated
with higher scores on ToM understanding scale. At step 2, differential sensitivity was
included in the model, but it did not explain any more variance in the model, R2
change=.003, F(7, 364)=1.6, p=.3. Thus, differential sensitivity was not significantly
associated with ToM ability. Similarly, at step 3, the differential sensitivity quadratic term
did not explain any additional variance in the model, R2 change<.001, F(8, 363)=.08,
p=.8. These results suggest that differential sensitivity has no curvilinear effect on ToM
understanding scores.
3.2.2 Model 2: Perspective Taking
Results for hierarchical logistic regression examining the relationship between
differential sensitivity and sibling perspective taking can be found in Table 3. In step 1,
19
Theory-of-Mind B SEB β
Covariates
Child gender -0.031 0.024 -0.06
Child age 0.150 0.016 0.444***
Mother education -0.006 0.075 -0.056
Socioeconomic status 0.035 0.079 0.091
Child language skills 0.005 0.051 0.232***
Maternal sensitivity 0.033 0.068 0.106
Predictor
Differential sensitivity -0.019 0.063 -0.063
Curvilinear effect
Differential sensitivity-Quadratic term 0.001 0.047 0.003
Note: ***p < .001, adjusted R2=0.27
Table 2. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis examining the role of differential sensitivity in predicting Theory-of-Mind.
the covariates accounted for a small but statistically significant amount of the sibling
perspective taking variability (Nagelkerke R2 =.06, χ2(6,365)=17.7, p=.01. Child age and
language skills were found to be significant predictors of sibling perspective taking,
where each additional point increase on language skills test increases the odds of using
perspective taking language by 2.4%. In addition, with each year increase in a child‟s
age, he or she were about 47% more likely to use perspective taking language. At step
2, inclusion of differential sensitivity, explained additional 2.2% of variance in the model,
Nagelkerke R2 =.082, χ2(7, 364)=6.44, p=0.02. Differential sensitivity was found to be a
20
significant predictor of sibling perspective taking, such that, each additional unit
increase in mother‟s differential sensitivity toward a target child (being favoured),
decreases the likelihood of that child using perspective taking language towards his/her
younger sibling by about 40%. Lastly, at step 3, differential sensitivity quadratic term did
not significantly explain any additional variance in the model (only explained additional
.001% of the variance) Nagelkerke R2=0.083, χ2(8,363)=..24, p=.65. These results
suggest that there is no curvilinear effect of differential sensitivity on children‟s
perspective taking ability.
Perspective Taking B SE Exp(B)
Covariates
Child gender -0.031 0.253 0.969
Child age 0.370 0.147 1.448*
Mother education 0.016 0.101 1.016
Socioeconomic status -0.145 0.359 0.865
Child language skills 0.021 0.010 1.021*
Maternal sensitivity 0.298 0.193 1.347
Predictor
Differential sensitivity -0.382 0.184 0.683*
Curvilinear effect
Differential sensitivity-Quadratic term -0.042 0.115 0.959
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, Nagelkerke R2=0.08
Table 3. Summary of hierarchical logistic regression analysis examining the role of differential sensitivity in predicting sibling perspective taking.
21
3.2.3 Model 3: Cognitive Sensitivity
Finally, a hierarchical regression was conducted to examine the relationship
between differential sensitivity and sibling cognitive sensitivity (Table 4). At step 1, the
covariates accounted for a significant amount of the variance in sibling cognitive
sensitivity, R2= .12, F(6, 365)=9.23, p<0.001. Child gender and age were found to be
significant predictors of sibling cognitive sensitivity skills. That is, being older was
associated with better cognitive sensitivity directed toward younger sibling. Additionally,
female participants were more likely to use cognitive sensitivity when interacting with
their younger sibling. At step 2, entering differential sensitivity explained additional 3.8%
variance in the model, R2 change=.038, F(7, 364)=17.02, p<.001. Results showed that
directing more sensitivity toward an older child (i.e., being favoured) was a significant
predictor of his or her cognitive sensitivity skills, such that, the more he or she was
being favored, the poorer their cognitive sensitivity towards their younger siblings. In
addition, the inclusion of differential sensitivity in the model contributed to the change in
maternal sensitivity covariate to become statistically significant as well. That is, children
who receive more maternal sensitivity are more likely to present better cognitive
sensitivity skills. Lastly, at step 3, differential sensitivity quadratic term was included in
the model. The quadratic term did not explain any additional significant variance in the
model, R2 change=0.002, F(8, 363)=1.07, p=.32. Thus, these results indicate the
absence of a curvilinear effect in differential sensitivity on cognitive sensitivity ability.
4 Discussion
The goal of the present study was to explore the relationship between children‟s
other-orientedness and differential parenting. To date, no other research in the
22
differential parenting literature has addressed this question. The current study
contributes to this field, firstly by attempting to fill this gap using a representative sample
of Canadian children ages 4-7. Secondly, the present study introduces a novel
measure, ToM-in-Action. ToM-in-Action includes two different observational measures
that were coded using two different coding techniques (i.e., global coding of cognitive
sensitivity and interval coding of perspective taking). Thus, one of the strengths of this
study is that it employed a multiple-measure approach in evaluating other-orientedness
ability on a large sample of families. Further, the present study measured differential
parenting using observations of mother-child interactions.
Cognitive Sensitivity B SEB β
Covariates
Child gender -0.199 0.051 -0.141**
Child age 0.246 0.051 0.269***
Mother education -0.007 0.083 -0.023
Socioeconomic status 0.144 0.095 0.141
Child language skills 0.002 0.057 0.04
Maternal sensitivity 0.151 0.073 0.182*
Predictor
Differential sensitivity -0.193 0.064 -0.242***
Curvilinear effect
Differential sensitivity-Quadratic term -0.033 0.05 -0.049
Note: **p < .01, ***p < .001, adjusted R2=0.15
Table 4. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis examining the role of differential sensitivity in predicting sibling cognitive sensitivity.
23
The novel ToM-in-Action variables, cognitive sensitivity and perspective taking
provided us with richer understanding of ToM as it is applied by young children during a
challenging sibling interaction. Even though the two skills were coded in two different
coding techniques by different sets of coders, the pattern of results using both bivariate
correlations and regression coefficients were similar. This indicates that the two
measures are capturing similar abilities in different ways. Our initial aim of using ToM-in-
Action variables was to examine ToM understanding in the context of an interaction
where the setting is more naturalistic for the child to use this skill compared with a false-
belief task. Our findings support this and would allow future studies to operationalize
ToM in a wider array of contexts.
Consistent with Distributive Justice Theory (Deutch, 1985), we expected that
higher rates of differential parenting would be detrimental for both children in terms of
their ToM and ToM-in-Action skills. Our results confirmed this for favored children.
Interestingly, this was not the case for disfavored children who directed higher rates of
ToM-in-Action towards their younger siblings. Why might this be? Several different
theories may explain our pattern of results.
Firstly, the current study findings can be explained through the lens of Social
Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977). As described earlier, an individual may replicate
behavior patterns he or she observes occurring in the family. Perhaps, favored children
who witness their mother consistently directing more negativity toward their disfavored
sibling may replicate this dynamic when they interact with that sibling. Similarly,
disfavored children who observe their mother directing much sensitivity and positivity
toward their favored sibling, may imitate this relationship dynamic when interacting with
that sibling.
24
Secondly, our findings may suggest the presence of a partner effect within family
dynamics (i.e., siblings and mother-child interactions). A partner effect as used in Social
Relations Models, (SRM; Kenny & La Voie, 1984), refers to the degree to which an
individual elicits certain behaviours from a variety of people he or she interacts with.
SRM allows researchers to examine the family system at the family, dyad, and
individual levels to provide information on factors that impact family functioning. Thus,
disfavoured children may elicit less sensitive behaviour from their mothers and less
cognitive sensitivity and perspective taking language from their siblings. In contrast,
favoured children may pull more sensitive responding from their mother and more
cognitive sensitivity and perspective taking from their disfavored siblings. As was
discussed earlier, differential parenting can be child driven, specifically, children who
present more negative affectivity, aggressiveness and irritability, are more likely to
receive more negative treatment (Pike et al., 1996; Jenkins, Rasbash, & O‟Connor,
2003). For example, perhaps favored younger siblings who pull more cognitive
sensitivity and perspective taking from their older disfavored siblings are in fact, less
skilled and in need of more assistance when completing a challenging task. Their low
levels of ability require greater responsivity when interacting with their mothers as well.
To very briefly explore this possible explanation, bivariate correlations were conducted
to assess whether younger siblings‟ aggression, externalizing behavior, and emotional
problems may be related to levels of differentiation (for a detailed explanation of the
methods of data collection and the scales used see Meunier, Bisceglia, & Jenkins,
2012) . These measures were not found to be significantly correlated with differential
sensitivity. Perhaps other child characteristics that have not been looked at may
influence this relationship.
25
Future research should consider examining a wider array of both children‟s
characteristics in order to further explore potential “partner effects” in explaining this
pattern of results.
Lastly, the current investigation results are consistent with Hughes and
colleagues (2005) hypothesis that in families where differentiation exists, children, who
are particularly sensitive to minor inequalities within the family, are likely to engage in
conflicts and discussions with parents regarding preferred treatment. In turn, these
discussions may enhance children‟s ability to differentiate between different people‟s
perspectives. This hypothesis relied on findings that showed that in families where
conflicts were frequently discussed, children presented with accelerated ToM ability
(Dunn & Slomkowski, 1992). Even though current investigation findings did not indicate
that disfavoured siblings present with better ToM, they indeed suggest that disfavoured
siblings present with more advanced ToM-in-Action skills compared with their favoured
siblings.
The relationship between children‟s ToM-in-Action performance, as part of a
sibling interaction, and differential parenting may be mediated by other familial
processes as suggested in the aforementioned theories of Social Learning and Social
Relations Model. Therefore, these findings may be limited to the sibling dyad and
cannot be generalized to relationships and interactions outside the family unit. This can
also explain why the relationship between differential sensitivity and ToM was not
statistically significant in this study. ToM is a cognitive construct that is measured
independently from any family dynamic and thus, is less likely to be impacted by familial
interactions.
26
Our findings highlight the link between maternal sensitivity and children‟s
cognitive sensitivity. This is consistent with findings that show the relationship between
mother‟s mind-mindedness and children‟s social cognition (e.g., Meins et al., 2002). For
ToM understanding, our results showed that its strongest predictor was age, which
accounted for 22% of the variance. This is consistent with results obtained by other
researchers (e.g., Wellman et al., 2001). Age was found to be a significant predictor of
cognitive sensitivity as well, and may be indicative of the complexity of cognitive
sensitivity skills, which require the child to exhibit an integration of several prosocial
skills. Further, child language skills were shown to be significant predictors of ToM and
of perspective taking. Language has previously been shown to play a central role in the
development of ToM (Astington & Jenkins, 1999). Additionally, both ToM false-belief
tasks and perspective taking measure are highly language loaded tasks (i.e., to score
well requires adequate language skills). Interestingly, language was not found to be a
significant predictor of cognitive sensitivity. Perhaps, children who could compensate for
their low language skills by effectively using non-verbal gestures in providing both
instructions and feedback, and who presented much sensitivity and warmth, could have
received a high score on cognitive sensitivity. Finally, child gender was found to be a
significant predictor only of cognitive sensitivity, with girls showing higher skills in this
domain than boys.
5 Limitations
The cross-sectional design of the present study does not allow us to draw
conclusions regarding directionality of the relationship between differential parenting
and ToM-in-Action variables. Moreover, due to age constraints, younger siblings‟ ToM
27
and ToM-in-Action skills were not investigated. Thus, we cannot speak to the role of
birth order or dyad gender constellation in the relationship between differential parenting
with ToM and ToM-in-Action.
Finally, we did not have enough resources to observe all children within each
family, nor the fathers‟ interactions with each of their children. This can result in
misrepresentations of family dynamics in larger families (>2 children). Particularly, as
larger households were found to promote ToM skills (false-belief understanding; Jenkins
& Astington, 1996). Future research should go beyond a non-trivial sample of 372
children, and include additional family members and use longitudinal methods if at all
possible.
In conclusion, future research should focus on examining potential mediators
such as sibling relationships and partner effect, preferably within a multi-level,
longitudinal study design which will allow investigating causality and within-family
dynamics more thoroughly. It should be noted however, that while the current study
should be replicated and expanded, financial and human resources demands of such a
study would be substantial.
Despite these limitations, the current study provides useful insights about the role
of differential parenting in ToM and ToM-in-Action. Interestingly, for these outcomes
differential parenting seems detrimental for children who are favored by their parents.
This contributes yet another piece to the puzzle of the role of differential parenting in
children‟s outcomes.
28
6 References
Aguilar, B., O‟Brien, K. M., August, G. J., Aoun, S. L., & Hektner, J. M. (2001). Relationship quality of aggressive children and their siblings: A multi-informant, multimeasure investigation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 479– 489.
Aiken, L., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allison, P. D. (2003). Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 545-557.
Astington, J. W., Harris, P. L., & Olson, D. R. (1988). Developing theories of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Astington, J.W., & Jenkins, J.M. (1995). Theory of mind development and social understanding. Cognition & Emotion, 9, 151–165.
Astington, J. W., Pelletier, J., & Homer, B. (2002). Theory of mind and epistemological development: The relation between children's second-order false-belief understanding and their ability to reason about evidence. New Ideas in Psychology, 20(2), 131-144.
Astington, J. W., & Jenkins, J. M. (1999). A longitudinal study of the relation between language and theory of mind development. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1311 – 1320.
Baron-Cohen S., Leslie A.M., & Frith U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21 (1), 37-46
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bigelow, A. E., & Dugas K. (2009). Relations Among Preschool Children's Understanding of Visual Perspective Taking, False Belief, and Lying. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9 (4), 411-433
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664-678.
Boyle, M. H., Jenkins, J. M., Georgiades, K., Cairney, J., Duku, E., & Racine, Y. A. (2004). Differential-maternal parenting behavior: Estimating within- and between-family effects. Child Development, 75, 1457–1476
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & McCoy, J. (1992). Parental differential treatment of siblings and sibling differences in negative emotionality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54(3), 643-651.
29
Browne, D., T., Meunier, J., C., O‟Connor, T., G., & Jenkins, J., M. (2012). The role of parental personality traits in differential parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(4), 542-553.
Burt, S., McGue, M., Iacono, W. G., & Krueger, R. F. (2006). Differential parent-child relationships and adolescent externalizing symptoms: Cross-lagged analyses within a monozygotic twin differences design. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1289-1298.
Carpendale, J. E. M., & Lewis, C. (2004). Constructing an understanding of mind: The development of children‟s understanding of mind within social interaction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 79–150.
Carpendale, J. E. M., & Lewis, C. (2006). How children develop social understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.
Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Morgan, J., Rutter, M., Taylor, A., Arseneault, L., Polo-Tomas, M. (2004). Maternal expressed emotion predicts children‟s antisocial behavior problems: Using monozygotic-twin differences to identify environmental effects on behavioral development. Development Psychology, 40, 149 –161
Charman, T., Ruffman, T., & Clements, W. (2002). Is there a gender difference in false belief development? Social Development, 11, 1–10.
Cole, K., & Mitchel, P. (1998). Family Background in relation to deceptive ability and understanding of the mind. Social Development, 7, 181-197.
Cole, K., & Mitchel, P. (2000). Siblings in development of executive control and a theory of mind. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18, 279-295.
Cutting, A. L., & Dunn, J. (1999). Theory of mind, emotion understanding, language, and family background: Individual differences and interrelation. Child Development, 70, 853-865.
Davis-Unger, A. C., & Carlson, S. M. (2008). Development of teaching skills and relations to theory of mind in preschoolers. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9(1), 26-45.
Deater-Deckard, K., Pylas, M., & Petrill, S. (1997). The Parent-child interaction system (PARCHISY). London: Institute of Psychiatry.
Dekovic´, M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (1994). Developmental analysis of social cognitive and behavioral differences between popular and rejected children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 367–386.
Denham, S. A. (1986). Social cognition, prosocial behavior, and emotion in preschoolers: Contextual validation. Child Development, 57, 194–201.
30
Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K., Auerbach-Major, A., et al. (2003). Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social competence? Child Development, 74, 238–256.
Denham, S. A., Caverly, S., Schmidt, M., Blair, K., DeMulder, E., Caal, S., et al. (2002). Preschool understanding of emotions: Contributions to classroom anger and aggression. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 901–916.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dodge, K. A. (2006). Translational science in action: Hostile attributional style and the development of aggressive behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 791–814.
Dunn, J., & Slomkowski, C. (1992). Conflict and the development of social understanding. In C. Shantz & W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict and development (pp. 70 – 92). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
Dunn, J., Stocker, C. M., & Plomin, R. (1990). Nonshared experiences within the family: Correlates of behavior problems in middle childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 113–126.
Farrant, B., M., Devine, T., J., Maybery, M., T., & Fletcher, J. (2011). Empathy, Perspective Taking and Prosocial Behaviour: The Importance of Parenting Practices. Infant and child development, 21(2), 175-188.
Fenning, R. M., Baker, B. L., and Juvonen, J. (2011). Emotion discourse, social cognition, and social skills in children with and without developmental delays. Child Development, 82(2), 717-731.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Fonagy, P., Redfern, S., & Charman, T. (1997). The relationship between belief-desire reasoning and a projective measure of attachment security (SAT). British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15, 51–61.
Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. (1994). The „„theory theory‟‟. In L. Hirschfield & S. Gelman (Eds.), Domain specificity in culture and cognition (pp.257–293). New York: Cambridge University Press
Happe´, F. (1995). The role of age and verbal ability in the theory of mind task performance of subjects with autism. Child Development, 66, 843–855.
Harwood, M. D., & Farrar, M. J. (2006). Conflicting emotions: The connection between affective perspective taking and theory of mind. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 401–418.
31
Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Interaction of affect and cognition in empathy. In Izard C. E., Kagan, J., & Zajonc, R. B. (Eds.) Emotion, Cognition, and Behavior, (pp.103-131). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, H., A., Black, C., & Miller, S., A., (1996). A cross-task comparison of false belief understanding in Head Start population. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 263-285.
Howes, C., & Matheson, C. (1992). Sequences in the development of competent play with peers: social and social pretend play. Developmental Psychology, 28, 961-974.
Hughes, C., & Cutting, A. L. (1999). Nature, nurture, and individual differences in early understanding of mind. Psychological Science, 10(5), 429-432.
Hughes, C., Deater-Deckard, K. & Cutting, A. L. (1999) “Speak roughly to your little boy?” Sex differences in the relations between parenting and preschoolers‟ understanding of mind. Social Development 8, 143–160.
Hughes, C., & Dunn, J. (1998). Understanding mind and emotion: Longitudinal associations with mental‐state talk between young friends. Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 1026–1037.
Hughes, C., & Ensor, R. (2005). Theory of mind and executive function: A family affair? Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 645–668.
Hughes, C., Jaffee, S R., Happe´ F., Taylor A., Caspi A., & Moffitt T. E. (2005). Origins of individual differences in Theory of Mind: From nature to nurture? Child Development, 76(2), 356-370
Hughes, C., & Leekam, S. (2004). What are the links between Theory of Mind and social relations? Review, reflections and new directions for studies of typical and atypical development. Social Development, 13(4), 590-619.
Fernyhough, C. (2008).Getting Vygotskian about theory of mind: Mediation, dialogue, and the development of social understanding. Developmental Review 28, 225–262
Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Moran, G. S., & Higgitt, A. C. (1991). The capacity for understanding mental states: The reflective self in parent and child and its significance for security of attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 12(3), 201-218.
Jenkins, J. M., & Astington, J. W. (1996). Cognitive factors and family structure associated with theory of mind development in young children. Developmental Psychology, 32, 70-78.
Jenkins, J., M., Rabash, J., O‟Connor, T., G. (2003). The role of shared family context in differential parenting. Developmental Psychology,39, 99–113.
32
Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The Social Relations Model. In L. Berrowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 142-182). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kowal, A. K., Kramer, L., Krull, J. L., & Crick, N. R. (2002). Children‟s perceptions of the fairness of parental preferential treatment and their socioemotional well-being. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 297-306
Leslie, A. (1994). ToMM, ToBY and Agency: Core architecture and domain specificity. In L. Hirschfeld & S. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 119–148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, C., Freeman, N. H., Kyriakidou, C., Maridaki-Kassotaki, K. & Berridge, D. M. (1996). Social influences on false belief access: Specific sibling influences or general apprenticeship? Child Development, 67, 2930–2947.
Matias, C., Scott, S., & O‟Connor, T. G. (2006). Coding of Attachment-Related Parenting (CARP).
McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Jackson-Newsom, J., Tucker, C. J., & Crouter, A. C. (2000). When does parents‟ differential treatment have negative implications for siblings? Social Development, 9, 149–172.
Meins, E. (1997) Security of attachment and the social development of cognition. Psychology Press.
Meins, E. & Fernyhough, C. (1999). Linguistic acquisitional style and mentalising development: The role of maternal mind-mindedness. Cognitive Development 14, 363-380.
Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., Wainwright, R., Das Gupta, M., Fradley, E., & Tuckey, M.
(2002). Maternal mind-mindedness and attachment security as predictors of theory of mind understanding. Child Development, 73(6), 1715-1726.
Meins, E., Russell, J., & Clark-Carter, D. (1998). Security of attachment as a predictor of symbolic and mentalising abilities: A longitudinal study. Social Development, 7, 1–24.
Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308, 255–258.
Meunier, J. C., Bisceglia, R., Jenkins, J. M. (2012). Differential parenting and children‟s behavioral problems: Curvilinear associations and mother-father combined effects. Developmental Psychology, 48 (4) , 987-1002.
Meunier, J. C., Boyle, M., O‟Connor, T. G., & Jenkins, J. M. (2013). Multilevel mediation: Cumulative contextual risk, maternal differential treatment, and children‟s behavior within families. Child Development, 00 (0), 1-22.
33
Perlman, M., & Ross, H. S. (1997). The benefits of parent intervention in children's disputes: An examination of concurrent changes in children's fighting styles. Child Development, 68(4), 690-700.
Perlman, M., & Fletcher, B. A. (2012). Hellos and how are yous: Predictors and correlates of communication between staff and families during morning drop-off in child-care centers. Early Education and Development, 23(4), 539-557.
Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Perner, J., Ruffman, T., & Leekam, S. R. (1994). Theory of mind is contagious: You catch it from your siblings. Child Development, 65, 1228-1238.
Pike, A., McGuire, S., Hetherington, E. M., Reiss, D., & Plomin, R. (1996). Family environment and adolescent depressive symptoms and antisocial behavior: A multivariate genetic analysis. Developmental Psychology, 32, 590–603.
Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 1–16.
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and brain sciences, 1(4), 515-526.
Prime, H., Perlman, M., Tackett, J., & Jenkins, J. (in press, 2013). Cognitive sensitivity in sibling interactions: Development of the construct and comparison of two coding methodologies. Early Education and Development. Special Issue on the Sibling Relationship as a Context for Learning and Development.
Rauer, A.J., & Volling, B.L. (2007). Differential parenting and sibling jealousy: Developmental correlates of young adults‟ romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 14, 351-367.
Reiss, D., Hetherington, M., Plomin R, Howe, G. W., Simmens, S. J., Henderson, S. H., O‟Connor, T. J., Bussell, D. A., Anderson, E. R., & Law, T. (1995). Genetic questions for environmental studies: Differential parenting and psychopathology in adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry 52, 925–936
Rubin, D. B. (2003). Discussion on multiple imputation. International Statistical Review, 71(3), 619-625.
Scholte, R., Engels, R. C., de Kemp, R. A., Harakeh, Z., & Overbeek, G. (2007). Differential parental treatment, sibling relationships and delinquency in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 661−671.
Shanahan, L., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Osgood, D. (2008). Linkages between parents‟ differential treatment, youth depressive symptoms, and sibling relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 480–494.
34
Singer, A.T., & Weinstein, R. (2000). Differential parental treatment predicts achievements and self-perceptions in two cultural contexts. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 491–509.
Strauss, S., Ziv, M., & Stein, A. (2002). Teaching as a natural cognition and its relations to preschoolers' developing theory of mind. Cognitive Development, 17(3-4), 1473-1487.
Suitor, J. J., Sechrist, J., Plikuhn, M., Pillemer, K., & Pardo, S. T. (2008). Within-family differences in parent-child relations across the life course. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 334-338.
Symons, D. K. (2004). Mental state discourse, theory of mind understanding and the internalization of self-other understanding. Developmental Review, 24, 159–188.
Symons, D. K., & Clark, S. E. (2000). A longitudinal study of mother–child relationships and theory of mind in the preschool period. Social Development, 9, 3–23.
Tamrouti-Makkink, I. D., Dubas, J. S., Gerris, J. R., & van Aken, M. A. (2004). The relation between the absolute level of parenting and differential parental treatment with adolescent siblings' adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(8), 1397-1406.
Vinden, P. (1999). Children‟s understanding of mind and emotion: A multi-culture study. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 19–48
Volling, B. L., McElwain, N. L., & Miller, A. L. (2002). Emotion regulation in context: The jealousy complex between young siblings and its relations with child and family characteristics. Child Development, 73(2), 581-600.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1931/1997). Genesis of higher mental functions. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 4). New York: Plenum (Original work published 1931).
Wellman, H. M. (1990). The child’s theory of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72, 655–684.
Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of Theory-of-Mind tasks. Child Development, 75(2), 523-541.
Whiteman, S. D., McHale, S. M., & Soli, A. (2011). Theoretical perspectives on sibling relationships. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 3, 129-139.
Zervas, L., & Sherman, M. (1994). The relationship between perceived parental favoritism and self-esteem. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155, 25–33.