The Jealousy Complex Between Young Siblings and Its Relations with Child and Family Characteristics

Child Development, March/April 2002, Volume 73, Number 2, Pages 581–600

Emotion Regulation in Context: The Jealousy Complex between Young Siblings and Its Relations with Child and Family Characteristics

Brenda L. Volling, Nancy L. McElwain, and Alison L. Miller

Jealousy is a social emotion that has received little attention by developmental researchers. The current study examined sibling jealousy and its relations to child and family characteristics in 60 families with a 16-month- old toddler and an older preschool-age sibling. Sibling jealousy was elicited in social triads consisting of a par- ent (mother or father) and the two siblings. Positive marital relationship quality (i.e., love and relationship maintenance) was a particularly strong predictor of the older siblings’ abilities to regulate jealousy reactions in the mother sessions. Younger siblings’ jealous affect with mothers was linked to the child’s temperament, whereas older siblings’ jealous affect with mothers was related to the child’s emotional understanding. Younger siblings displayed more behavioral dysregulation in the mother–sibling triads if there was greater sibling ri- valry reported by mothers. Session order (i.e., which sibling was challenged first in the jealousy paradigm) had a strong effect on both the affect and behavioral dysregulation displayed by the older and younger siblings. Results are discussed with respect to the need for future research to consider social relationships as develop- mental contexts for young children’s emotion regulation.

INTRODUCTION personal regulation, certain complex emotions, such Emotion regulation has recently received a great deal as jealousy, cannot be understood nor even defined of attention by developmental and clinical scholars. without reference to the interpersonal context. In the Acquiring emotional control and managing one’s present article, we argue that studying jealousy be- emotions in social situations is considered a central tween young siblings provides a window on early developmental task of early childhood (Kopp, 1989; emotion regulation within the context of family rela- Sroufe, 1996; Thompson, 1994); yet, as Thompson tionships. The study of sibling jealousy underscores (1994) has noted, the concept of emotion regulation is the contextual sensitivity of certain emotional reac- still “in search of definition,” and various definitions of tions, as well as the complexity of family dynamics in emotion regulation can be found (e.g., Cole, Michel, & contributing to and explaining emotional expression Teti, 1994; Garber & Dodge, 1991). Thompson (1994, and its regulation. p. 28) offered the following definition: “Emotion regu- lation consists of the extrinsic and intrinsic processes What Is Jealousy? responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and modify- ing emotional reactions, especially their intensive and Jealousy is a complex social emotion, unlike the ba- temporal features, to accomplish one’s goals.” Even sic emotions of anger, fear, sadness, and joy. Jealousy though this definition, like others, underscores both has been studied predominantly by social psycholo- internal and external processes, Campos, Mumme, gists within the context of adult romantic relation- Kermoian, and Campos (1994) pointed out that current ships (see Salovey, 1991) and is not an emotion that empirical work that examines emotion regulation tends has garnered the attention of most developmental or to focus on emotion regulation as an intrapersonal pro- family researchers. This is rather unfortunate given cess and rarely considers the contextual factors that that concerns about childhood jealousy, often seen as may contribute to regulation strategies. According to sibling rivalry, surface frequently in clinical and pediat- Campos et al. (1994, p. 298), “no treatment of emotion ric texts (DelGuidice, 1986; Griffin & De La Torre, 1985; regulation from a functionalist perspective can avoid Leung & Robson, 1991; Neubauer, 1983; Pietropinto, discussion of the social context that elicited the need 1985), as well as in dozens of books offering childrear- for regulation in the first place and that specifies the ing advice to parents (e.g., Bode, 1991; Faber & Maz- rules of proper conduct.” The purpose of the present lish, 1998; Goldenthal, 1999). As with most emerging report was to expand on the study of emotion regula- disciplines, research on romantic jealousy is littered tion by examining the social emotion of jealousy and with controversy concerning the conceptualization, its regulation in early childhood. Even though the predominant model of much of © 2002 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. current emotion regulation research focuses on intra- All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2002/7302-0016

582 Child Development measurement, and causes of jealousy, and debates her attention from them and interacts with their have erupted over the distinction between jealousy brother or sister. and envy; whether jealousy is a simple, complex, or The definition of jealousy and the theoretical blended emotion; and whether it is caused by threats framework guiding the current work is based on the to self-esteem or threats to a valued relationship (for original model of romantic jealousy proposed by reviews of this literature, see Salovey, 1991; White and White and Mullen (1989, p. 1): “. . . jealousy is neither Mullen, 1989). Although different definitions have an emotion, nor merely a state of mind, still less a way been formulated based on different theoretical orien- of behaving. Rather, we believe it is more useful to tations, the important point to be stressed for devel- think of jealousy as particular patterns of emotions, opmental researchers interested in the study of emo- thoughts, and actions that emerge in particular social tion is that jealousy absolutely cannot be defined nor and psychological situations.” Jealousy, then, is an or- understood without reference to the social context. ganized complex of emotions, cognitions, and behav- Regardless of theoretical orientation, one distinguish- iors following the threat to or loss of a beloved rela- ing characteristic has continued to be underscored by tionship to a rival. In the world of siblings, the all jealousy theorists: jealousy occurs in the context of beloved is one’s parent and the rival is one’s sibling. a social triangle. It should be noted, however, that the Consistent with White and Mullen (1989), we use triangle may not always involve a third person, as in the term jealousy complex to underscore this notion the case of a woman who is jealous of her husband’s that jealousy is a complex of interrelated affects, be- love of golf. “What is always true is that jealousy in- haviors, and cognitions organized within a specific volves a triangle of relations” (Parrott, 1991, p. 16). social context (for a similar discussion on the organi- The present study focused on the social triangle, zation of emotion, see Averill, 1997). In any jealousy- given our interest in sibling jealousy. inducing situation, there may be several possible jeal- White and Mullen (1989) have referred to the “in- ousy complexes, and different complexes may be terpersonal jealousy system” to describe the system seen in different social triangles. Thus, there is no sin- of relationships between the three participants of the gle complex of behaviors, emotions, or cognitions social triangle. There are three dyadic relationships that would constitute the jealousy response. For exam- within the triangle in addition to the triadic relation- ple, one complex may include a cognitive appraisal of ship system: (1) the relationship between the jealous potentially losing the relationship to another, the emo- individual and the beloved (the primary or jealous re- tional expression of sadness, and behavioral with- lationship), (2) the relationship between the beloved drawal from the beloved; whereas another complex and the rival (the secondary or rival relationship), might include a cognitive appraisal of the partner’s and (3) the relationship between the jealous individ- betrayal, the emotional expression of anger, and ag- ual and the rival (the adverse relationship). Several gression against the partner as a behavioral response. criteria need to be satisfied for the emotion of jealousy The current research sought to examine the interrela- to be elicited. As already mentioned, jealousy occurs tions between expressed emotions and behavioral within a social triangle, yet any three people ran- coping in a laboratory-based jealousy paradigm. Given domly grouped together will not elicit jealousy. Thus, the young age of the children studied, we did not fo- a second requirement is that the relationship between cus on cognitive factors such as primary appraisal the jealous person and the beloved must be a valued processes, because these were well beyond the devel- close relationship. This relationship need not be a opmental level of the young children studied. Observ- love relationship, but often the most powerful jeal- able behaviors and emotional expressions seemed like ousy reactions are observed when a love relationship a more plausible place to begin. is involved (Buss, 2000). Third, jealousy is triggered White and Mullen’s (1989) model is consistent with by the real or perceived loss of this relationship to a current developmental thinking that underscores the rival. The feelings arising from the loss of a love re- organization of behavior, affect, and cognition (Sroufe, lationship due to death or separation would not con- 1996), as well as with dynamic systems and transac- stitute jealousy. Finally, it is not simply the loss of tional models of emotional development (Fogel et al., love that produces jealousy, because jealousy can oc- 1992; Izard, 1991; Sameroff & Emde, 1989). Jealousy cur in nonromantic relationships. Tov-Ruach (1980) not only defines the person (i.e., the intrapersonal), it claims it is the loss of formative attention (i.e., the at- also defines a social situation (i.e., the interpersonal). tention that sustains one’s self-concept) from the be- Any person within the triad is embedded within a loved to a rival that is similar across all forms of jeal- more complex network of relationships and any ousy. Young siblings are no doubt reacting to this change in one component of the system (intraper- loss of formative attention when a parent turns his or sonal or interpersonal) can bring about change in an-

Volling, McElwain, and Miller 583 other. These dynamic transactions between person beloved or the rival, developing alternative sources of and context can change over time as children mature pleasure, or avoidance of the social situation. Several and relationships change. It is possible, however, that of these regulatory strategies bear little resemblance the jealousy complex remains stable over time. In to those coded frequently in current developmental other words, even though observable behaviors and research examining the self-regulation of infants, tod- emotional expressions may change, continuity may dlers, or preschoolers (e.g., Buss & Goldsmith, 1998; still be seen in the underlying organization of the re- Calkins & Johnson, 1998). Jealousy, however, is a so- sponse (e.g., a focus on betrayal, aggression, and an- cial emotion. Therefore, the repertoire of regulatory ger). Finally, characteristics of the siblings, character- strategies coded for toddlers and preschoolers in jeal- istics of their parents, the quality of the relationships ousy situations must include how these young children within the social triangle, and external features of the cope by altering the constellation of social relationships social environment contribute to both the intraper- giving rise to the jealous emotional experience. The sonal and interpersonal dynamics of jealousy. current research focused on three possible behavioral coping strategies that might be used by toddler and preschool siblings when confronted with jealousy: (1) The Emotional Experience of Jealousy attempts to interfere with the interaction between the What exactly is the emotional experience of jeal- sibling and the parent, (2) directing hostility toward ousy? Several have proposed that jealousy is a com- either parent or sibling, and (3) focusing attention on pound or blended emotion consisting of anger, sad- alternative pleasurable activities (i.e., play). ness, or fear (Izard, 1991; Plutchik, 1980), but Hupka (1984) has shown quite convincingly that individuals Can Young Children Experience Jealousy? in jealousy-inducing situations express a range of emo- tions including fear, anger, or even relief, depending on Is there empirical evidence to suggest that young the individual’s focus of attention with respect to children respond to the loss of a formative relation- the social triangle. If individuals focus on the loss of ship with a beloved? Several lines of research indicate the relationship, for instance, sadness may be re- that very young children are sensitive to the loss of ported; if they focus on the betrayal of their partner, parental attention to another. First, Dunn (Dunn, they may feel anger; and if they focus on being left 1988; Dunn & Kendrick, 1982) has reported that tod- alone, they may feel anxiety or fear. Thus, Hupka sug- dler and preschool children were very attuned to the gests that the term jealousy does not describe the interactions occurring between their parents and emotional experience, but provides the explanation their sibling and would often try to disrupt the ongo- of the experience. The basic emotions are sufficient to ing interaction. Second, the few extant studies that describe the emotional expressions observed. As addressed childhood jealousy have documented that Hupka notes, jealous people feel anger, but if asked children as young as 1 year of age were sensitive to “why are they angry?”, the explanation given is “be- maternal attention directed toward an infant-size doll cause they are jealous.” In the current work, the basic (Hart, Field, DelValle, & Letourneau, 1998; Hart, Field, emotional expressions of anger, distress, sadness, and Letourneau, & DelValle, 1998), a newborn infant (Case, fear were coded from observations of triadic interac- Hayward, Lewis, & Hurst, 1988), or an unfamiliar tion involving a parent, child, and sibling, and the ex- peer (Case et al., 1988; Masciuch & Kienapple, 1993). planation for why these emotions were expressed in It appears, then, that even infants and young children these social triangles was assumed to be due to the are sensitive to the loss of attention from parents to child’s jealousy. another, whether this loss is experienced in relation to a doll, a peer, or a sibling. Coping with the Emotional Experience of Jealousy Sibling Jealousy in Early Childhood How do individuals cope with jealousy and regulate the emotional reaction? Based on Lazarus’s (Lazarus & Sibling jealousy has been described by Parrott Folkman, 1984) cognitive–transactional theory of stress (1991, p. 17) as the “most powerful jealousy of youth” and coping, White and Mullen (1989) offered several and the parent–child relationship that is threatened possible coping responses that individuals may use by a sibling rival is the most important and formative once they have appraised the threat of a rival relation- relationship of a young child’s early life. Adults have ship. Examples included attempts to improve one’s pri- actually used terms such as “total rage,” “ferocious,” mary relationship, interference with the rival relation- and “outrageous” to describe their jealousy reactions ship, seeking support from others, derogating the upon learning of the betrayal of a romantic partner

584 Child Development

(Bernhard, 1986); yet, little is known about the inten- were participating in a short-term longitudinal study sity of jealousy between young siblings. What is of parent–child and sibling relationships in infancy known is that parents cannot attend and respond to and early childhood. Families were initially recruited both children’s needs at all times. Thus, intense jeal- from birth announcements, local day-care centers, ousy could very well be a normal, perhaps daily, ex- and through referrals from participating families. perience for these young children. Families were required to meet three criteria to be el- In an earlier article (Miller, Volling, & McElwain, igible for the study: (1) intact marital status; (2) partic- 2000), we reported on the development and valida- ipation from both mothers and fathers; and (3) at least tion of a laboratory-based, observational protocol de- two children in the family, with the youngest child signed to elicit jealousy reactions in young toddler nearing 12 months of age and the older sibling be- and preschool siblings. During observations of social tween the ages of 2 and 6 years. Of the total families triangles involving the mother and the siblings, and meeting study criteria, 69% agreed to participate. All the father and the siblings, we found that both older parents were the biological mothers and fathers of the and younger siblings were more likely to express jeal- two children. Participating families were primarily ousy (i.e., sadness and distress) during sessions in European American (n ϭ 56), with one Native Amer- which the parent’s attention was directed toward the ican couple and three interracial couples. Parents had sibling than when the parent was interacting with the been married for an average of 7 years (range ϭ 3–16 child. Further, there were developmental differences years). On average, fathers were 35.6 years old and in the older and younger siblings’ jealousy responses, had completed 17.4 years of education, whereas with older children much less likely to show negative mothers were, on average, 33.2 years old and had affect and better able to focus attention and play dur- completed 16.5 years of education. The mean family ing the jealousy paradigm. This earlier study also ex- income was $73,607 (SD ϭ $41,791). The age of the amined consistent individual differences in parent and younger sibling (toddler) in all families was 16 child behaviors across siblings; the associations be- months at the time of the third visit the mean age of tween parent behaviors and child behaviors within the the older sibling was 50 months (range ϭ 2–6 years), jealousy session; and finally, differences in how and the average age space between siblings was 35 mothers and fathers responded to jealousy with older months (range ϭ 11–68 months). Most of the toddlers and younger siblings. in the study (n ϭ 44) were second-born; the remaining The current work extended this earlier research in 16 toddlers were third- through fifth-born. For fami- several ways. First, the intercorrelations between chil- lies with more than two children, the older sibling dren’s expressed emotion and their behavioral coping closest in age to the 16-month-old was asked to par- were examined within the jealousy triangle in an ef- ticipate. The sample included 20 girl/girl dyads fort to determine whether affect and behavior were or- (younger/older), 14 boy/boy dyads, 10 girl/boy ganized in line with the notion of a jealousy complex. dyads, and 16 boy/girl dyads. Second, children’s jealousy responses were addressed with mothers and fathers to ascertain whether there Procedures was consistency across social triangles with respect to children’s jealousy or whether these responses were Families were invited to participate in laboratory sensitive to, and therefore, specific to a given social visits when the younger sibling was 12, 13, and 16 triangle. Third, family and child correlates of young months of age. The 12- and 13-month visits were coun- children’s jealousy reactions were examined. Specifi- terbalanced assessments of mother–infant and father– cally, this study addressed whether children’s emo- infant interaction and will be referred to as 12/13 tional understanding, negative emotionality, their at- month visits throughout. Data for the current report tachment relationships to mother and father, parenting are from the triadic interactions involving parents and behavior, and the quality of marital and sibling rela- siblings completed during the 16-month visit. The 16- tionships predicted both the older and younger sib- month laboratory visit was approximately 90 min and lings’ jealousy with mothers and fathers. included (1) a puppet interview with the older sibling; (2) 15 min of family free play involving mother, father, and the two siblings; (3) a 10-min sibling free-play ses- METHOD sion during which parents completed questionnaires at a nearby table; (4) triadic interaction with first parent Participants (9 min); (5) triadic interaction with second parent (9 Study participants included mothers, fathers, and min); (6) a separation (5 min), (7) a 3-min reunion with sibling pairs from 60 maritally intact families who the entire family; and (8) a 5-min family cleanup. All

Volling, McElwain, and Miller 585 sessions were videotaped in the laboratory with the Observational coding of emotional displays and behav- use of wall-mounted cameras and split-screen capabil- ior. Videotapes of the triadic sessions were coded ity. Mothers and fathers were also asked to complete a using global ratings for the toddlers’ and older sib- series of questionnaires to assess the marital relation- lings’ emotional displays and 15-s interval sampling ship and children’s temperament (at 12/13 months), as for the children’s behavioral coping strategies and well as sibling relationship quality (at 16 months). At parent behavior. Global rating scales of emotional dis- 12/13 months, mothers and fathers completed the At- plays were used to represent the emotional dynamics tachment Q-Set (AQS; Waters & Deane, 1985) for older (i.e., intensity and duration), as well as the emotional siblings and the Strange Situation was conducted to as- meaning of the interaction (Bakeman & Gottman, sess infant–mother and infant–father attachments for 1997; Sroufe, 1996; Thompson, 1994). Interval coding the younger sibling. Finally, the older siblings’ emo- was used for behavioral coding because others have tional understanding was assessed during the puppet noted that these coding schemes are best for captur- interview at the 16-month visit. ing discrete behaviors (e.g., Isabella & Belsky, 1991). Independent raters (n ϭ 7) assessed toddlers and older children in the same session, and the same child Observations of Social Triangles across sessions with mothers and fathers. Behaviors At the 16-month visit, siblings were videotaped in and emotions were coded by the same coder, but dur- a triadic interaction paradigm (once with mother and ing separate passes through the videotape. Coders once with father) similar to one developed by Teti and were trained on a subsample of tapes until interob- Ablard (1989). Parents were given an attractive toy (a server agreement was 80% or higher. Reliability for Lego™ playset or a talking phone) to use during the parent and child codes was calculated on approxi- interaction sessions (order of the mother and father mately 20% of mother and father sessions. Cohen’s ␬ sessions was counterbalanced). Family triads were coefficients are reported below after the description videotaped in three 3-min sessions. In the first 3-min of the codes. Weighted ␬ coefficients were used to session, the parent was instructed to focus on one calculate reliability for the global scales, because child (either the older sibling or the toddler, deter- these are considered more appropriate for assessing mined by counterbalancing) while encouraging the the reliability of rating scales (Bakeman & Gottman, other child to play with other toys in the room. Par- 1997). ents were instructed to interact with their children as Global emotional displays. Children’s emotional dis- they would at home if a new toy were brought into plays were rated globally during each 3-min segment the house (e.g., a birthday gift). For the second, 3-min and captured affective expressions indicating jeal- session, parents switched their involvement and ousy reactions (e.g., anger, fear, and sadness). The played with the other child, while the first child was emotional display codes were adapted from previous instructed to play with other toys in the room. After work by Cole and colleagues (Cole, Barrett, & Zahn- this 3-min session, the parent was instructed to play Waxler, 1992; Cole, Zahn-Waxler, & Smith, 1994). Each with both children in any way he or she chose. This emotion was coded on a 7-point scale, ranging from 0 third session was viewed as a transitional period be- (no display of emotion during segment) to 6 (frequent tween the mother and father sessions and was in- and full displays of emotion during segment). The tended to alleviate any distress that may have been global rating took into consideration the intensity, as elicited during the jealousy sessions. Toddler jealousy well as the frequency and duration, of emotional dis- was the focus during the sessions in which the parent plays during the entire 3-min segment. Facial expres- was involved with the older sibling, whereas older sion and vocal tone were considered when rating global sibling jealousy was the focus during parent–toddler sadness (e.g., turned-down facial expression, whin- interaction sessions. Only child behavior and emo- ing voice, and slackening of muscular tone in face or tions observed during these sessions were of interest body; weighted ␬ ϭ .82), anger (e.g., hostility, annoy- to this investigation. ance, and harsh tone of voice; weighted ␬ ϭ .77), and This triadic paradigm reliably elicits jealousy reac- fear/anxiety (e.g., nervousness, fearfulness, and con- tions in young children (Miller et al., 2000). Mean dif- stricted strain in voice; ␬ ϭ .47) for older siblings. Be- ferences as a function of sibling, parent, and context cause fear/anxiety for the older sibling was coded in- (challenged versus involved) along with cross-sibling frequently and the reliability for this code was low, it correlations and correlations between sibling and was dropped from analyses. parent behavior using the triadic observational para- Global ratings of toddlers’ distress (e.g., fussing, digm with the current sample can be found in our ear- whining, and crying; weighted ␬ ϭ .72) were also lier article (Miller et al., 2000). coded on a 7-point scale. Toddlers’ negative affect

586 Child Development was limited to this more encompassing “distress” coded using 15-s interval sampling to assess the par- code because it is often difficult to distinguish among ents’ behavior in response to the children’s bids for at- anger, fear, and sadness in infant distress reactions tention during the jealousy paradigm. Parent codes (Sroufe, 1996). Young children can experience distress were based on the work of Belsky, Youngblade, Ro- for a number of reasons other than jealousy. In the vine, and Volling (1991) and included facilitative (e.g., present study, toddler distress was not coded as a jeal- uses reasoning; maintains warm, nurturing tone of ousy response if it occurred in response to parental voice), controlling (e.g., uses commands, harsh tone prohibitions in other parts of the room (e.g., parent re- of voice), and unresponsive (e.g., ignores child’s bids) trieves wandering toddler from climbing on chair), behaviors. Interobserver agreement averaged 96%, frustration with an object (e.g., toddler is unable to Cohen’s ␬ ϭ .83, for parent behavior codes. A propor- open cabinet door), or pain (e.g., toddler stands up tion score was created for each parenting behavior in and bumps head on table). Distress was coded as a which the sum of that behavior (e.g., facilitative) was jealousy response when it was directed at the parent– divided by total parenting behavior (facilitative ϩ con- sibling interaction (e.g., trying to get toy from sibling, trolling ϩ unresponsive) observed during the triadic pushing self into parent’s lap, parent prohibiting tod- session. Parents were more likely to use facilitative be- dler from playing with new toy). As a result, we were havior than controlling or unresponsive behavior in re- fairly confident that the toddler’s distress was due sponse to their children’s bids for attention (see Miller more to jealousy than to the other possible sources of et al., 2000). Therefore, only facilitative behavior was distress reactions listed above. included as the parental control variable in subse- Child behavioral coping. Child and toddler behav- quent multivariate analyses. iors were coded for each 15-s interval of the 3-min ses- sion as a means of assessing coping behaviors. Older Measures of Emotionality, Emotion Understanding, siblings’ and toddlers’ behaviors were coded for the and Family Relationship Functioning presence or absence of distracting the parent and/or sibling from their activity (e.g., placing self between Evaluation of the sibling relationship. To assess the parent and sibling; ␬ ϭ .82). As a means of assessing older sibling’s behavior, mothers and fathers com- the children’s ability to regulate their emotions in this pleted 49 items of a modified version of the Sibling In- context and focus on an alternate pleasurable activity, ventory of Behavior (SIB; Schaefer & Edgerton, 1981) the older children’s and toddlers’ play involvement developed by Hetherington and Clingempeel (1992), was coded, weighted ␬ ϭ .87 for older sibling and .84 which has six sibling relationship scales: involve- for younger sibling. This captured the extent to which ment, empathy, rivalry, avoidance, aggression, and the challenged child was able to focus his or her atten- teaching. Each item was answered using a 5-point tion on an alternative activity and play with other Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). A toys in the room. Play involvement was coded on a 3- 15-item positive involvement scale consisting of the point scale, ranging from 1 (uninvolved in play by sum of teaching, empathy, and involvement, ␣ ϭ .84 self) to 3 (fully involved with a toy or an activity by and .85 for mothers and fathers, respectively (e.g., self). Mean scores were created for each child behav- “treats younger sibling as a good friend”) and a 12- ior by summing across intervals and dividing by the item aggressive rivalry scale consisting of the sum of number of 15-s intervals coded during the session. rivalry and aggression, ␣ ϭ .91 for both mothers and Disruptive behavior was captured by three codes: fathers (e.g., “is very competitive with younger sib- negativity toward parent, negativity toward sibling ling”) were created. The five-item avoidance scale (e.g., hitting, pushing), and rough play (e.g., banging was dropped because the internal consistency for one toy in an aggressive or inappropriate manner). Each of the scales was low, ␣ ϭ .43 and .69 for mothers and was coded as present or absent during each of the 15-s fathers, respectively. Because many of the items on intervals and a composite of the older siblings’ hostile the original SIB were inappropriate for a 16-month- behavior was created by summing across all three cat- old toddler (e.g., “makes plans that include the older egories, ␬ ϭ .60. Negativity toward parent and sibling, sibling”; “babysits the older sibling”), parents com- as well as rough play, rarely occurred for the younger pleted only 13 items from the SIB and an additional 18 toddlers and these were not considered further. items from the Sibling Relationships in Early Child- Parent behavior. To provide a stringent test of the hood questionnaire (Volling, 1997; Volling & Elins, unique effect of child and family characteristics on 1998). Each item was answered on a 5-point Likert sibling jealousy, it was necessary to control for parent scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Intercorrelations behavior observed during the triadic interaction. The between these items were examined and revealed presence or absence of three parenting behaviors was two internally consistent dimensions for the younger

Volling, McElwain, and Miller 587 siblings’ behavior that corresponded closely to the ship between each parent and the older sibling. two scales used for the older siblings: (1) an eight- Mothers and fathers each received materials and de- item positive involvement scale, ␣ ϭ .86 and .76 for tailed instructions for the AQS during the 12/13- mothers and fathers, respectively (e.g., “has fun or a month visits. The AQS consists of 90 cards, with each good time with sibling”); and (2) a seven-item con- card describing a young child’s behavior in the home flict/rivalry scale, ␣ ϭ .73 and .61 (e.g., “has physical (e.g., easily comforted by adult; explores objects thor- fights with older sibling, not just for fun”). oughly). Parents were instructed to read through all Correlations between mothers’ and fathers’ reports the cards, then put the sorting task away for a week were fairly low for the younger siblings, average and watch their child at home. After 1 week, parents cross-parent r ϭ .20, and moderate for the older sib- sorted the 90 cards into nine piles (10 cards each) lings, average cross-parent r ϭ .45. Dynamics within ranging from “least characteristic” to “most charac- the social triangles with mothers and fathers might be teristic” of their child. Teti and McGourty (1996) have very different given that mothers and fathers may recently shown mothers’ AQS assessments were sig- favor or treat the two children differently (Volling & nificantly correlated with AQS assessments conducted Elins, 1998). The individual parent’s perceptions of by “blind” observers and concluded that mothers sibling behavior may be a better predictor of the chil- should be preferred raters for the AQS because they dren’s jealousy within a specific social triangle in- observe a broader, more representative sample of volving either the mother or the father. Therefore, children’s behavior in the home. Although fathers’ mothers’ reports to predict the siblings’ jealousy in AQS assessments were not examined by Teti and Mc- mother sessions and fathers’ reports to predict the Gourty (1996), we argue that fathers should also be children’s jealousy in the father sessions were used. viewed as preferred raters given their frequent inter- Assessment of the marital relationship. Husbands and action with their children in the home. Scores of at- wives completed the Intimate Relations Scale (Braiker tachment security for the older siblings were calcu- & Kelley, 1979). This 25-item questionnaire assessed lated by correlating mothers’ and fathers’ sorts with a four interpersonal aspects of the marital relationship: criterion sort representing the hypothetically “most (1) maintenance (five items)—the extent to which secure” child. Higher scores indicate a closer fit to the spouses attempted to enrich, improve, and maintain criterion sort for a securely attached child. For pur- their relationship, ␣ ϭ .78 and .75 for wives and hus- poses of data analyses, Fisher’s r-to-z transformation bands, respectively; (2) conflict (five items)—the ex- was used to transform the correlation coefficients. tent to which couples engaged in marital disputes, ␣ ϭ Three mothers and four fathers did not return the .79 and .86; (3) love (10 items)—the extent to which AQS, and therefore, these families’ data were missing spouses reported feelings of love for one another, ␣ ϭ for analyses examining the older siblings’ attachment .92 and .93; and (4) ambivalence (five items)—the ex- security (n ϭ 57 and 56, respectively). Mothers’ and tent to which spouses reported ambivalent feelings fathers’ scores were uncorrelated, r ϭ Ϫ.01. about their relationship, ␣ ϭ .87 and .67. Items were Infant–parent attachment. Infants were observed at answered on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1 12 and 13 months of age (counterbalanced across par- (very little or not at all) to 9 (very much or extremely). ents) in the Strange Situation following procedures Because of the significant intercorrelations between outlined by Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall marital scales, husbands’ and wives’ reports were (1978). The Strange Situation is a standardized proce- first standardized and then two composites were dure consisting of seven, 3-min episodes in which in- formed: (1) positive marital relations, which was the fants are exposed to increasing levels of stress in an sum of marital love and maintenance, rs ϭ .52 for effort to examine whether they use the parent as a se- mothers and .56 for fathers, p Ͻ .001; and (2) negative cure base to explore and rely on the parent to provide marital relations, which was the sum of marital con- comfort. On the basis of the infants’ exploratory be- flict and feelings of ambivalence, rs ϭ .57 for mothers havior, their orientation to the stranger and their and .71 for fathers, p Ͻ .001. Given that husbands’ and behavior on reunion with the parent, infant–parent wives’ composites were highly intercorrelated, r ϭ .52 relationships are classified into three types of attach- for positive marriage and r ϭ .75 for negative mar- ment: Infants who greet the parent positively on re- riage, p Ͻ .001, husbands’ and wives’ scores were av- union, approach the parent, and find comfort in con- eraged to create global composites of positive and tact with the parent when distressed are classified as negative marital relationship quality. securely attached; infants who turn away from the Preschooler’s attachment to mothers and fathers. The parent on reunion or avoid interaction are classified AQS (Waters & Deane, 1985) was completed by as insecure–avoidant; and infants who have diffi- mothers and fathers to assess the attachment relation- culty being comforted by the parent on reunion and

588 Child Development who both seek and resist contact with the parent are scared), and 0 for incorrect valence (e.g., choosing a classified as insecure–resistant/ambivalent. All Strange happy face when the target emotion was anger) or no Situations were videotaped and subsequently coded response. as insecure–avoidant (A), secure (B), or insecure– Because many of the youngest children did not re- resistant (C), according to the classification system of spond to all vignettes, missing data were not ran- Ainsworth et al. (1978). Videotapes were scored by domly distributed within the sample. A simple sum three coders who had achieved acceptable reliability of scores across the 15 vignettes would mean the with a coding tape provided by L. Alan Sroufe prior younger children would be excluded from all analy- to coding. Interrater reliability among the three cod- ses and the results would only be representative of ers was 84%, ␬ ϭ .76. Disagreements on classifications the older children in the sample who had scores on all were resolved by consensus. 15 vignettes. Further, because the nontypical vignettes Of the 60 father–infant dyads classified, 20% required parents to tell the experimenter which emo- were insecure–avoidant (n ϭ 12), 58.3% were secure tion the child might display in a particular situation, (n ϭ 35), and 21.7% were insecure–resistant (n ϭ 13). children were often being tested on different emo- For the mother–infant dyads, 15.3% were classified tions during the last seven vignettes (e.g., some par- as insecure–avoidant (n ϭ 9), 69.4% as secure (n ϭ ents claimed the child would be scared in response to a 41), and 15.3% as insecure–resistant (n ϭ 9). Because big dog, whereas others claimed the child would be of video equipment problems, Strange Situation happy). Therefore, we composited across the vignettes data were missing for 1 of the mother–infant dyads. in a manner that allowed the youngest children to be Two attachment groups were created by collapsing included in the analyses and also took into consider- the avoidant and resistant classifications into one in- ation the number of times a child was tested on a spe- secure group and comparing it with the secure cific emotion. An emotion understanding score was group. computed by first averaging responses across each in- Emotion understanding of older sibling. Older sib- dividual emotion (i.e., happy, sad, angry, and scared), lings’ understanding of emotions was assessed using yielding four scores ranging from 0 to 2. These four Denham’s (1986) puppet interview at the 16-month scores were then summed to create a total score, rang- visit. Children were introduced to a puppet of the ing from 0 to 8. One child refused to participate in the same gender and shown four faces (happy, sad, an- interview; thus, data were available for 59 children. gry, and scared) that could be affixed to the puppet’s Temperament. The Toddler Behavior Assessment face. Children were first asked to label each expres- Questionnaire (TBAQ; Goldsmith, 1996) was given to sion (“How does Jenny/Johnny feel when she/he both mothers and fathers at the 12/13 month visits to wears this face?”) and point to the face that matched be completed for the older siblings, and the IBQ (Roth- the label provided by the interviewer (“Show me a bart, 1981) was completed by mothers and fathers at face where Jenny/Johnny feels happy”). Children 12/13 months for the younger siblings. The TBAQ sub- were then presented with 15 vignettes depicting emo- scales included activity level, social fear, anger prone- tional reactions to different situations and asked to ness, tendency to express pleasure, and interest/per- choose the face that matched the story character’s sistence; whereas the IBQ subscales included activity emotion (“Can you find the face that shows how level, smiling and laughter, distress and latency to ap- Jenny/Johnny feels?”). In eight vignettes, the story proach sudden or novel stimuli, distress to limitations, character’s emotional reaction was typical for the soothability, and duration of orienting. Parents rated given situation (e.g., being scared after having a bad how often their child performed certain behaviors dream); whereas in seven nontypical vignettes, the using a 7-point scale (1 ϭ never; 7 ϭ always), and mean emotional reaction was more equivocal. Prior to the scores were calculated across subscale items. The IBQ interview, parents had been asked how their child and TBAQ were developed as parallel temperament would most likely feel in these nontypical situations measures for younger and older children, and have (e.g., scared of a big dog) and a different emotional re- good convergent and discriminant validity (Gold- action was presented to the child during the inter- smith, Rieser-Danner, & Briggs, 1991). Prior research view (e.g., happy to see a big dog). Children’s responses has found greater conflict and rivalry between siblings to each of the 15 vignettes were coded according to pro- high on negative emotionality (e.g., Stoneman & cedures used by Denham (1986) wherein children re- Brody, 1993). Therefore, only the anger proneness scale ceived 2 points for the correct identification of an from the TBAQ for older siblings and the distress to emotion (e.g., picking an angry face when the target limitations scale from the IBQ for younger siblings emotion was anger), 1 point for correct valence (e.g., were chosen to be included in the analyses. Internal picking a sad face when the target emotion was consistency for these two subscales were anger prone-

Volling, McElwain, and Miller 589 ness: father ϭ .92, mother ϭ .85; and distress to limita- distress and distraction were positively related within tions: father ϭ .82, mother ϭ .84. Correlations between mother and father sessions, but negatively correlated mothers’ and fathers’ reports of temperament revealed with toddlers’ ability to remain involved in play (see moderate associations (older siblings’ proneness to an- Table 3). Although there were fairly robust and con- ger, r ϭ .37, p Ͻ .01; younger siblings’ distress to limi- sistent patterns of intercorrelations within the mother tations, r ϭ .26, p Ͻ .05. To increase construct validity and father sessions for both the preschool and toddler (Rushton, Brainerd, & Pressley, 1983), mothers’ and siblings, it is striking that few significant associations fathers’ reports were averaged to create one score for were revealed when the children’s behavior across each child and are referred to as temperamental anger mother and father sessions were correlated. Correla- throughout the remainder of this article. tions down the diagonals of Tables 2 and 3 indicate The intercorrelations, means, and standard devia- the associations between the children’s (older sibling tions for all independent variables are presented in or toddler) jealousy reactions with mother and jeal- Table 1 for descriptive purposes only and will not be ousy reactions with father. With the exception of the discussed further. older siblings’ distracting behavior, there was little in- dication that children’s jealousy reactions were simi- lar across mother and father sessions. RESULTS Based on these intercorrelations, two composites In an effort to address the coherence of emotional ex- were created for both the older siblings and the pression and behavior elicited in the triadic paradigm, younger toddlers. One reflected a composite of jeal- intercorrelations between emotional expressions and ous affect and consisted of standardizing and sum- behavioral coping strategies were examined. Based on ming sadness and anger for the older children and these intercorrelations, composites of emotional ex- using only the distress variable for the younger chil- pression (i.e., jealous affect) and behavioral dysregula- dren. The second composite reflected behavioral dys- tion were created. Next, analyses addressed whether regulation and included for the older siblings, stan- the emotional and behavioral composites differed as a dardizing and summing hostility and distraction, and function of family structure variables (e.g., age spac- then subtracting play involvement. For the toddlers, ing, gender, and birth order), as well as a function of this included subtracting play involvement from dis- the order of counterbalancing during the laboratory traction. Emotions and behaviors were composited sep- visits. Correlations between these composites of jeal- arately as a means of assessing the children’s emotional ous affect and behavioral regulation were conducted reactivity and behavioral regulation given that several and related to facilitative parenting behavior, child researchers have proposed that emotional reactivity characteristics, and family characteristics. Finally, hier- and regulation of that reactivity are distinct constructs archical multiple regression models were developed to that can operate independently (Braungart-Rieker & test the unique and combined influence of family and Stifter, 1996; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1992; Rothbart & child characteristics in predicting jealousy responses. Derryberry, 1981). Even though reactivity and regula- tion may be distinct, there can be an association be- tween them, as there was in this case, r ϭ .53 for older Intercorrelations of Jealous Emotions and Behavior and .54 for younger siblings’ jealous affect and behav- To address whether emotions and behaviors co- ioral dysregulation with mothers; r ϭ .57 for older and hered in a manner consistent with the notion of a jeal- .58 for younger siblings’ jealous affect and behavioral ousy complex, correlations between emotional ex- dysregulation with fathers, p Ͻ .001. Correlations be- pressions and behavioral coping were conducted. tween the older and younger siblings’ composites were Tables 2 and 3 show the intercorrelations among chil- conducted across mother and father sessions and re- dren’s emotional expressions and coping behaviors in vealed that for older siblings, the more global compos- the jealousy paradigm. As expected, there were sig- ites of behavioral dysregulation, r ϭ .29, p Ͻ .05, and nificant relations between the children’s emotional jealous affect, r ϭ .27, p Ͻ .05, were moderately related expressions and their behavioral coping. For older across mother and father sessions, although this was siblings, a general pattern indicated that anger, sad- not the case for the toddlers’ behavioral dysregulation, ness, distraction, and hostile behavior were positively r ϭ Ϫ.00, or jealous affect, r ϭ .06 from Table 3. intercorrelated within mother and father sessions and that all of these were negatively correlated with the Family Structure and Order Analyses older sibling’s ability to focus on play activities (see Table 2). A similar pattern of intercorrelations was evi- One-way ANOVAs and correlations were con- dent for the toddler sessions with mother and father: ducted to examine whether the dependent variables 590 Child Development ϭ ϭ .27* .19 .01 .29* .05 .03 .09 Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ .11.18 .18 .05 .17 .07 .05 .13 .01 .09.03 .02 .10 Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ .26 .03 .16 .34* .14 .17 .03 .12 .01 .03 .07 .23 Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ fathers’ reports; Pos marriage fathers’ reports; ϭ .08 .03 .16 .28* .19 .09 Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ .02 (1.00) .03 (.98) .76 (.24) .73 (.21) Ϫ ere the same for both children, the correlations be- the correlations the same for both children, ere sibling rivalry; F ϭ .49*** .19 .03 .30* .04 .18.32* .18 .14 .16 .15 .08 .14 ger sibling. Correlations between older and younger sib- ger sibling. Correlations Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ .49*** — .03 .24 .15 .11 .07 .13 Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ mothers’ reports; Sib rival mothers’ reports; ϭ *** .01 .21 .07 .12 .06 — .53*** .08 .49*** .25 .11 .01 .00 .28* .47 parental facilitative behavior during triadic challenge sessions (proportion scores); YS scores); facilitative behavior during triadic challenge sessions (proportion parental Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ ϭ *** .20 .19 .34** .42** .30* .47*** .15 .04 .08 .24 .04 .08 .15 .59 .16 .16 Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ ** .12 .33* .29* .65*** .06 .03 .10 .18 .42 sibling positive involvement; M Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ ϭ attachment security; Facilitate ϭ *** .09 .03 .20 .05 .38** .26* .07 .16 .28* .59 Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ .30* .12 .02 .06 .45*** .06.15 .00 .07 .19 .06 .04 .07 .15 .03 Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ Ϫ negative marriage; Attach negative marriage; ϭ emotion understanding; Sib pos ϭ 2467123456 89101112 .001. Ͻ

p .01; *** Ͻ

older sibling; EU p ϭ ) YS measures — 3.90 (.60) 28.70 (4.70) 15.51 (3.51) 27.68 (3.89) 14.12 (3.16) — — .69 (.46) .58 (.50) .68 (.36) .61 (.37) ) OS measures 6.24 (2.11) 3.59 (.69) 50.65 (8.30) 31.59 (6.29) 48.93 (8.49) 30.87 (6.37) 103.35 (12.27) 35.00 (11.85) OS .05; ** SD SD Ͻ

( ( p 1. OS EU 9. Attach (M) 7. Pos marriage8. Neg marriage .09 .17 .23 .06 .13 3. Sib pos (M) .09 2. Temperament 4. Sib rival (M)5. Sib pos (F) .16 6. Sib rival (F) .12 Table 1Table Intercorrelations and Descriptive Statistics of Child Family Characteristics 10. Attach (F) 11. Facilitate (M) 12. Facilitate (F) M Note: M positive marriage; Neg marriage tween these measures are reported twice. Emotion understanding was assessed for the older sibling only. reported are tween these measures * younger sibling. Correlations above the diagonal are for the older sibling and correlations below the diagonal are for the youn below the diagonal are for the older sibling and correlations above the diagonal are younger sibling. Correlations w of the marital relationship in the diagonal. Because measures boldfaced and presented (when applicable) are ling measures Volling, McElwain, and Miller 591

Table 2 Intercorrelations among Older Siblings’ Emotions and Table 3 Intercorrelations among Younger Siblings’ Emotions Behaviors in Mother and Father Sessions and Behaviors in Mother and Father Sessions

Anger Sadness Distract Hostility Play Distress Distract Play

Anger .14 .66** .18 .62** Ϫ.24 Distress .06 .47** Ϫ.55** Sadness .46** .20 .35** .60** Ϫ.39** Distract .60** Ϫ.25 Ϫ.78** Distract .28* .41** .33* .39** Ϫ.69** Play Ϫ.46** Ϫ.70** Ϫ.12 Hostility .62** .28* .26* .23 Ϫ.45** Play Ϫ.41** Ϫ.32* Ϫ.74** Ϫ.37** .13 Note: Correlations for triadic session with mother are presented in the upper diagonal; correlations for triadic session with father are Note: Correlations for triadic session with mother are presented in presented in the lower diagonal. Correlations between toddlers’ the upper diagonal; correlations for triadic session with father are emotions and behaviors across sessions with mothers and fathers presented in the lower diagonal. Correlations between older sib- are boldfaced and presented in the diagonal. lings’ emotions and behaviors across sessions with mothers and ** p Ͻ .01. fathers are boldfaced and presented in the diagonal. * p Ͻ .05; ** p Ͻ .01.

tively) with their fathers. Older siblings were more of jealous affect and behavioral dysregulation dif- dysregulated with fathers when they were chal- fered as a function of the older siblings’ age, age lenged second rather than first (Ms ϭ .68 and Ϫ.68). It space, birth order, and gender composition of the sib- appears, then, that the contextual manipulation of the ling dyad. Age of the older siblings and the age space jealousy paradigm results in different jealousy reac- between siblings was negatively correlated with the tions for older and younger siblings, at least with older siblings’ jealous affect in mother sessions, rs ϭ fathers. Thus, session order and age of the older sib- Ϫ.29 for both. One-way ANOVAs examining the gen- ling were controlled when examining the relations der of the older and younger siblings, as well as the with child and family characteristics in the correla- gender composition of the dyad, were all nonsignifi- tional analyses below. cant. Thus, gender was not considered further. There were also no birth order effects. Because the age of the Family and Child Correlates of Jealousy younger siblings was the same in all families (i.e., 16 and Dysregulation months), the age of the older children and the age space between children provided virtually identical To address the family and child correlates of chil- information given that there would be wider age dren’s jealous affect and behavioral dysregulation, spaces for those dyads in which the older siblings partial correlations were conducted between the two were older. In the multivariate regression analyses composites and parents’ reports of family relation- that follow, age space between siblings was used as ship quality, children’s temperamental anger, the the control variable, rather than including both vari- older siblings’ emotional understanding, and par- ables in the models. ents’ facilitative behavior during the observational One-way ANOVAs examining order effects of sessions (Table 4). Older siblings with higher emo- counterbalancing (i.e., which child was challenged tional understanding scores were less likely to ex- first) revealed order effects for toddler jealous affect, press jealous affect and behavioral dysregulation in F(1, 57) ϭ 4.35, p Ͻ .05, and behavioral dysregulation the social triangle with mothers. Older siblings were for mother sessions, F(1, 57) ϭ 21.18, p Ͻ .001; and or- also more behaviorally dysregulated in the mother ses- der effects for toddler jealous affect, F(1,58) ϭ 6.93, sions when parents reported that older siblings were p Ͻ .05, and behavioral dysregulation, F(1, 58) ϭ more temperamentally prone to anger, marriages 13.44, p Ͻ .001, in father sessions. Order effects were were less positive and more negative, and older sib- also found for the older siblings’ behavioral dysregu- lings had less secure attachments to their mothers. lation, F(1, 58) ϭ 5.26, p Ͻ .05, in father sessions. Tod- Not one of the sibling behavior scales was signifi- dlers were more distressed (M ϭ 2.45) and dysregu- cantly correlated with older siblings’ behavioral dys- lated (M ϭ .99) when they were challenged first than regulation or jealous affect with mothers. Jealous af- when they were challenged second (Ms ϭ 1.40 and fect expressed by older siblings in the social triangles Ϫ.96 for distress and dysregulation, respectively) with fathers, however, was positively related to sib- with their mothers. Similarly, toddlers were more dis- ling rivalry. Older siblings’ behavioral dysregulation tressed (M ϭ 2.0) and dysregulated (M ϭ.79) when was significantly associated with temperamental challenged first than when challenged second (Ms ϭ anger, sibling rivalry, and a less secure attachment to .80 and Ϫ.79 for distress and dysregulation, respec- the father. 592 Child Development

Table 4 Correlates of Older and Younger Siblings’ Jealous Affect and Behavioral Dysregulation

Mother Session Father Session

Jealous Behavioral Jealous Behavioral Affect Dysregulation Affect Dysregulation

Older sibling Emotion understanding Ϫ.35** Ϫ.27* .02 Ϫ.12 Temperamental anger .22 .31* .09 .26* Sibling positive interaction Ϫ.02 Ϫ.22 Ϫ.06 Ϫ.13 Sibling rivalry .16 Ϫ.02 .30* .27* Positive marriage .06 Ϫ.34** .20 Ϫ.12 Negative marriage .21 .31* .16 .25 Attachment security Ϫ.05 Ϫ.31* Ϫ.12 Ϫ.27* Facilitative parenting Ϫ.18 Ϫ.03 Ϫ.12 Ϫ.12 Younger sibling Temperamental anger .29* Ϫ.06 .08 .09 Sibling positive interaction Ϫ.10 .11 Ϫ.02 .04 Sibling rivalry .20 .35** .15 .09 Positive marriage .24 .21 .04 Ϫ.10 Negative marriage .09 Ϫ.07 .07 .10 Attachment security .01 .02 .13 .10 Facilitative parenting .11 .20 .06 .31*

Note: Partial correlations for older siblings controlled for older sibling age and order of sessions. Par- tial correlations for younger siblings controlled for order of sessions. Average scores across mothers’ and fathers’ reports were utilized for marriage and temperament, whereas separate measures for mothers’ and fathers’ reports were utilized for sibling interaction, attachment, and facilitative parent- ing. Younger sibling attachment was coded as 0 ϭ insecure, 1 ϭ secure. * p Յ .05; ** p Յ .01.

For the younger toddlers, jealous affect in the (marriage, sibling, attachment security) were then en- mother sessions was significantly related to parents’ tered in the third step. Although the attachment secu- reports of temperamental anger (see Table 4). The tod- rity score could easily be entered as a single variable dlers’ behavioral dysregulation in mother sessions in the final step, composites of positive sibling rela- was also positively correlated with mothers’ reports tionship quality and positive marital relationship of sibling rivalry, but to no other family characteristic. quality were created by subtracting the negative di- Dysregulated toddler behavior in father sessions was mension from the positive dimension for both the positively related to fathers’ facilitative behavior dur- marital and sibling relationships. Each composite ing interaction. Fathers were responding with more score was then entered as a single variable in the final facilitative behavior to the bids of the more behavior- step of the regressions. This strategy allowed for the ally dysregulated toddler. ability to run identical regression models for both sib- lings across both parents so that the strength of family and child characteristics in predicting jealousy could Multiple Prediction of Jealous Affect be compared across siblings. and Behavioral Dysregulation The regression analyses for the older siblings’ jeal- The final analyses addressed whether children’s ousy in mother and father sessions is summarized in jealous affect and behavioral dysregulation could be Table 5. Beta coefficients reported in Step 3 are those uniquely predicted by family and child characteris- from the final regression when all variables were en- tics, controlling for age space, session order, and facil- tered into the model. In the regression examining the itative parent behavior directed toward the child dur- older siblings’ jealous affect with mothers, a signifi- ing the jealousy sessions. For each hierarchical multiple cant 33% of the total variance was explained. The regression model tested, the age space between sib- older children’s temperamental anger and emotion lings, session order, and parents’ facilitative behavior understanding accounted for a significant 19% of the were entered in the first step. Child characteristics variance over the age space, session order, and parent (i.e., temperament, emotion understanding) were behavior when entered in Step 2. Family characteris- then entered in the second step. Family indicators tics did not account for any additional variance in the Volling, McElwain, and Miller 593 children’s jealous affect when entered in the final relationships. Attachment security with mothers re- step. Only the older siblings’ emotion understanding vealed a marginal association with the children’s remained significant in the final equation when fam- behavioral dysregulation, with more securely attached ily characteristics were entered in the third step. children displaying less dysregulated behavior. An examination of the regression results using the In the case of the older siblings’ jealous affect in the older siblings’ behavioral dysregulation with mothers father sessions, Table 5 indicates that none of the vari- as the criterion revealed that 32% of the variance was ables considered, including child and family charac- explained in the final model. Once child characteris- teristics, predicted the older siblings’ jealous affect tics were entered in the second step of the regression, with fathers. For the older siblings’ behavioral dys- 12% of the variance had been accounted for by these regulation with fathers, session order was the only variables. Family relationship functioning accounted unique predictor in the final regression model, yet the for a significant 14% of the variance in the older chil- R2 for the final model was only marginally significant. dren’s behavioral dysregulation with mothers when Table 6 summarizes the regression findings that ex- entered in the third step. As Table 5 indicates, how- amined the younger siblings’ jealousy reactions in ever, only session order and the positive quality of both the mother and father sessions. Looking at the the marital relationship were significant predictors results from the final regression predicting the chil- of the older siblings’ behavioral dysregulation in the dren’s jealous affect with mothers, a significant 25% mother sessions above age space, session order, par- of the variance was accounted for in the final model, ent behavior, and child characteristics in the final re- with the addition of the children’s temperament in gression. Children were better at regulating their jeal- the second step explaining a significant 9% of addi- ousy when parents reported more positive marital tional variance. The addition of family characteristics

Table 5 Emotion Understanding, Temperamental Anger, and Family Relationships as Predictors of Older Siblings’ Jealousy in the Triadic Sessions

Older Sibling in Older Sibling in Mother Session Father Session

Jealous Behavioral Jealous Behavioral Predictors Affect Dysregulation Affect Dysregulation

Step 1 Age space Ϫ.25 Ϫ.11 Ϫ.05 Ϫ.11 Session order .15 .16 .25 .35** Facilitative parenting Ϫ.18 Ϫ.13 Ϫ.11 Ϫ.13 Step 2 Age space .10 .15 Ϫ.08 .05 Session order .14 .17 .24 .34** Facilitative parenting Ϫ.21 Ϫ.15 Ϫ.12 Ϫ.14 Emotion understanding Ϫ.40** Ϫ.20 .08 Ϫ.08 Temperamental anger .29* .33* .06 .24 Step 3 Age space .08 .03 Ϫ.07 Ϫ.06 Session order .20 .31* .21 .32* Facilitative parenting Ϫ.24 Ϫ.24 Ϫ.15 Ϫ.21 Emotion understanding Ϫ.38* Ϫ.15 .12 Ϫ.06 Temperamental anger .21 .14 Ϫ.01 .14 Marital relationship Ϫ.05 Ϫ.29* .09 Ϫ.10 Sibling relationship Ϫ.17 Ϫ.21 Ϫ.24 Ϫ.11 Attachment security Ϫ.05 Ϫ.27ϩ .01 Ϫ.14 Step 1: R2 .12 .05 .08 .16* Step 2: ⌬R2 .19** .12* .01 .05 Step 3: ⌬R2 .02 .14* .04 .05 Total R2 .33* .32* .13 .27ϩ

Note: ␤s presented in Step 3 are from the final model in which all variables were entered. * p Յ .05; ** p Յ .01; ϩ p ϭ .06. 594 Child Development

Table 6 Temperament and Family Relationships as Predictors of Younger Siblings’ Jealousy in the Triadic Sessions

Younger Sibling in Younger Sibling in Mother Session Father Session

Jealous Behavioral Jealous Behavioral Predictors Affect Dysregulation Affect Dysregulation

Step 1 Age space Ϫ.12 Ϫ.08 .23 .24* Session order .27* .56*** .32* .43*** Facilitative parenting .13 .16 .10 .33** Step 2 Age space Ϫ.18 Ϫ.08 .22 .23 Session order .21 .56*** .33** .44*** Facilitative parenting .17 .15 .11 .34** Temperamental anger .31* Ϫ.01 .05 .07 Step 3 Age space Ϫ.18 Ϫ.07 .24 .23 Session order .21 .56*** .30* .43** Facilitative parenting .17 .14 .10 .33** Temperamental anger .32* Ϫ.01 .05 .08 Marital relationship .05 .14 .06 Ϫ.05 Sibling relationship Ϫ.27* Ϫ.23* Ϫ.22 Ϫ.11 Attachment security .04 .05 .15 .13 Step 1: R2 .09 .31*** .15* .31*** Step 2: ⌬R2 .09* .00 .00 .01 Step 3: ⌬R2 .07 .07 .06 .03 Total R2 .25* .37*** .22ϩ .35**

Note: ␤s presented in Step 3 are from the final model in which all variables were entered. * p Յ .05; ** p Յ .01; *** p Յ .001; ϩ p ϭ .06.

did not explain a significant amount of additional counted for by all the variables in the model. Session variance in the younger siblings’ jealous affect, but order was the only significant predictor of the the positive quality of the sibling relationship and the younger siblings’ jealous affect in the final step (see children’s temperamental anger were significant pre- Table 6). A significant 35% of the variance in the dictors in the final regression model. Younger siblings younger siblings’ behavioral dysregulation was ac- who were less temperamentally angry and who had counted for in the final regression model, with ses- more positive sibling relationships were less likely to sion order and fathers’ facilitative behavior during display jealous affect in the mother sessions. the jealousy paradigm the only significant predic- For the regression results that examined the younger tors in the final model. Child characteristics and siblings’ behavioral dysregulation with mothers, a to- family relationship quality did not account for addi- tal of 37% of the variance was accounted for in the tional variance in these models. final model. The majority of the variance (31%) was explained in the first step. The addition of the child DISCUSSION and family relationship variables in the last two steps did not add unique variance. In the final step of the The current investigation addressed the social emo- model, only session order and the positive quality of tion of jealousy in early childhood, with a specific em- the sibling relationship were significant predictors phasis on sibling jealousy. We were particularly inter- of the younger siblings’ dysregulated behavior with ested in the organization of emotional expressions mothers (see Table 6). and coping behaviors in a jealousy-inducing para- In the two remaining models that examined the digm consisting of parents and young siblings. We younger siblings’ jealous affect and behavioral dys- were also interested in whether there was consistency regulation with fathers, only a marginal 22% of the across social triangles with mothers and fathers with variance in the children’s jealous affect was ac- respect to the children’s behavior and emotions, and Volling, McElwain, and Miller 595 whether children’s jealousy could be predicted from The contextual manipulation, however, did not child and family characteristics. have the same effect on older and younger siblings. Younger siblings expressed more jealousy if they had been challenged first, rather than second, and this The Jealousy Complex between Young Siblings was true for both mother and father sessions. In con- As expected, there were coherent patterns of inter- trast, older siblings were more jealous with their correlations between emotional expressions and cop- fathers if they had been challenged second. Why this ing behaviors within the triadic contexts for older and was the case is not entirely clear. Obviously, the younger siblings and within the mother and father younger toddlers had a more difficult time regulating sessions. A general pattern suggested that those chil- their jealousy when they were not allowed to play dren who expressed negative affect were more likely with their parent and the exciting new toy first. When to interfere with the interaction between parent and the parents did attend to them first, they were less sibling, and less likely to focus their attention on alter- jealous of their older sibling in the later session, as if native play activities. This pattern of intercorrelations being first somehow left them contented and better between behavior and emotion was replicated for able to regulate their jealousy when their parents at- both siblings and with both parents, thus providing tended to their older sibling. It is more difficult to un- confirmation in four instances that jealousy can be de- derstand why the older sibling would exhibit more scribed as a complex of emotion and behavior within jealousy with fathers when they were challenged sec- a specific relationship context. If the findings pertain- ond. Knowing that younger siblings were more dis- ing to the older siblings’ emotional understanding are tressed when their older brother or sister had special taken into account, there is also evidence for the cog- time with the father first reveals that this “special nitive component of the jealousy complex, at least on time” was actually taking place in the presence of a the part of the older siblings. Recall that the older sib- jealous younger sibling trying to intrude on the inter- lings’ emotional understanding was significantly cor- action between the father and the older sibling. Per- related with their jealous affect and behavioral dysreg- haps older siblings were more jealous with fathers ulation in the mother–sibling sessions, with greater when challenged second because they felt cheated emotional understanding associated with less jealous out of having their time with the father, particularly affect and less behavioral dysregulation. These rela- when the distressed toddler took their place and was tions between jealous affect, behavioral dysregulation, now getting all of father’s attention; or perhaps there and emotion understanding would seem to support was an emotional contagion effect, wherein the dis- the notion that jealousy is an interrelated complex of tress of the younger sibling left the older sibling more behavior, affect, and cognition in a particular social aroused during the second session and hence, less situation, even among these young children. able to maintain a regulated state. Whichever sce- Despite this organized coherence within the mother nario is more accurate is hard to know without future and father sessions, there was little consistency in the investigations into children’s jealousy, but in either same child’s behaviors and emotions across mother case, these findings underscore how contextual chal- and father sessions. In other words, if the child was lenges may not have similar effects on children of dif- angry with the mother, this did not mean that the ferent ages and that contextual changes that elicit child was angry with the father. This was the case emotional reactions from one participant in the triad even though the mother and father sessions were may, in turn, initiate emotional reactions in others. only separated by a short period of 3 min. The jealousy When emotional expressions and behaviors were complex appears to be sensitive to the dynamics inher- composited at a more global level, correlations across ent in a specific triad and does not necessarily general- mother and father sessions indicated that the older ize across social triangles, at least for this young age siblings’ behavioral dysregulation and jealous affect group. Further support for contextual specificity was were moderately related; however, this was not the found in many of the final regression models, wherein case for the younger toddler siblings. What might ex- the session order continued to be a strong indepen- plain these findings? One possibility is that older pre- dent predictor of both children’s jealousy in several school children are better at self-regulated coping and cases, and this was particularly true for the younger less dependent than their toddler siblings on external toddler. That is, the contextual manipulation as to regulation from caregivers. Thus, for older siblings which child was challenged first or second continued there may be greater consistency across contexts at to exert a significant and unique effect on the chil- the organizational level (i.e., relations between jeal- dren’s affect and behavior even after controlling for ous emotions and behaviors) than there is when ex- child and family characteristics. amining the cross-context relations for independent 596 Child Development behaviors and affects. In contrast to the older siblings, once session order, age space, and parent behavior the younger toddlers were more likely to be depen- were controlled. As noted above, however, the fathers’ dent on external regulation from parents and had yet behavior during the jealousy paradigm was a signif- to develop an organized, coherent pattern of self- icant predictor in the final regression analyses that regulatory coping (Kopp, 1989; Sroufe, 1996). As ex- examined the younger siblings’ behavioral dysregu- pected, then, behavioral and emotional responses for lation, indicating that fathers were able to provide these children may have been determined almost en- the assistance necessary for these young children to tirely by the social dynamics inherent in a specific regulate their jealous behavior. Given the lack of jealousy triangle. Again, the regression results indi- studies on childhood jealousy, in general, and with cated that session order remained one of the strongest fathers specifically, it is difficult to know what might predictors of the toddlers’ jealousy within both account for the current findings with fathers. Per- mother and father sessions, with those toddlers who haps aspects of family life not captured in the current were challenged first displaying more jealous affect investigation (e.g., co-parenting) would better pre- and behavioral dysregulation with their mothers and dict children’s jealousy in the father–sibling triads. fathers than if they were challenged second. In addi- Only continuing investigations of children’s jealousy tion to session order, the fathers’ facilitative behavior can provide some insight into why child and family during the triadic paradigm was the only other signif- characteristics did not predict the children’s affect icant predictor of the younger siblings’ behavioral and behavior in the father sessions. dysregulation with the father, indicating that the When associations were found for jealous affect, it fathers’ facilitative management of the children’s be- was mainly the children’s characteristics that re- havior within the social triangle supported the tod- vealed the most consistent findings. Yet, different dlers’ coping with jealousy. child characteristics were predictive of the older and younger siblings’ jealous affect. In the final regres- sions, temperamental anger was clearly significant in Predicting Emotions and Behavior from predicting the expression of the toddlers’ jealous af- Child and Family Characteristics fect with mothers, but it was the older children’s cog- In most cases, there were more significant rela- nitive understanding of emotions, not their tempera- tions between the child and family indicators and the ment, that was the sole predictor of the older siblings’ children’s behavioral dysregulation than between jealous affect with mothers. As children mature, their these indicators and jealous affect. In the correla- cognitive understanding of cultural display rules and tional analyses, for example, older siblings were the appropriate expression of anger in social situa- more behaviorally dysregulated with mothers when tions may eventually temper the child’s biological they were less secure in their attachment to their proclivity to react angrily. Children with a more so- mothers, and their parents reported more negative phisticated understanding of others’ emotions are and less positive marital relationships. They were better at affective perspective taking and have the ca- more behaviorally dysregulated with their fathers pacity to empathize with others (Lennon, Eisenberg, when fathers reported more sibling rivalry, and chil- & Carroll, 1983). Rather than simply reacting with an- dren had an insecure attachment to their fathers and ger, older children would not be expected to be as were prone to anger. In the regression analyses, how- emotionally reactive in the jealousy paradigm be- ever, positive marital interaction was the only signif- cause they can cognitively process the social situation icant family predictor of the older siblings’ ability to in such a way that more positive, empathic feelings regulate behavior in the jealousy triad with mothers, for the younger sibling are aroused. Older children and session order remained a strong predictor of the may simply have a better understanding of why their older siblings’ behavioral dysregulation with both parents may direct more attention toward a younger mothers and fathers. In the case of the younger sib- sibling than toward themselves (e.g., she’s my baby lings, the quality of the sibling relationship was the sister and cries a lot) and this understanding helps only family indicator to predict the younger chil- them cope effectively with jealousy (Kowal & dren’s behavioral dysregulation and jealous affect, Kramer, 1997). with less jealous affect and dysregulation when mothers reported more positive involvement be- Family Processes in Two-Child Families tween siblings. Surprisingly, none of the child or family characteristics predicted either the older or Children in the same family do not experience the younger siblings’ jealous affect and behavioral mothers, fathers, siblings, and marriages in the same dysregulation with fathers in the final regressions, manner (Hetherington, Reiss, & Plomin, 1994). Be- Volling, McElwain, and Miller 597 cause of differences in age, gender, and timing of fam- who interact with an older sibling who is emotion- ily transitions, family relationship functioning need ally regulated, cooperative, and caring toward the not have a uniform effect on all children in the family. younger child may be less likely to experience be- This may explain, in part, why attachment security havioral dysregulation. In this regard, Tremblay, Na- and marital functioning revealed more associations gin, Seguin, and Zoccolillo (2001) recently reported with the older siblings’ jealousy with mothers, whereas that having a sibling in the home was the largest risk sibling behaviors were the primary correlates of the factor in predicting the developmental trajectory of younger siblings’ jealousy with mothers. Recall that a highly aggressive group of toddlers starting at 17 many of the older children in these families had an ex- months of age. clusive relationship with their mothers 16 months earlier. This changed dramatically and swiftly once Positive Marriages and Family Life their baby siblings arrived. Little is known about changes in family life over this transition period. With so much emphasis on the link between mari- How parents cope with and manage stress, as well as tal conflict and children’s behavioral and emotional minimize disruption and conflict in family relation- maladjustment (e.g., Cummings & Davies, 1994), it ships during this time, surely has an effect on the was striking to find that positive marital relationship older children’s emotional well-being and their abil- functioning emerged as the most significant family ity to cope with jealousy of the younger siblings (Bay- predictor of the older child’s behavioral dysregula- dar, Greek, & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Kendrick & Dunn, tion with mothers.1 Older children were better regu- 1982; Stewart, Mobley, Van Tuyl, & Salvador, 1987; lated when spouses’ accounts of their marriage were Teti, Sakin, Kucera, Corns, & Das Eiden, 1996). more positive. The positive marital relationship com- Changes in the mother–child relationship across this posite consisted of the spouses’ reported feelings of transition period (e.g., increased control, decreased love for one another, as well as their attempts to en- positive involvement) have been found to mediate hance their marital relationship through discussion, the effects of the sibling birth on the older children’s disclosure, and problem solving. Discussion and socioemotional and cognitive development (Baydar problem solving reflect a set of behavioral skills and et al., 1997). Thus, the quality of parent–child and communication patterns that others have found to marital relationships, and change in these relation- predict satisfying, long-term marriages (Gottman, ships over the transition period, may be the best 1994; Prado & Markman, 1999). It is possible that par- predictors of the older siblings’ behavioral coping ents involved in such marital communication model a with sibling jealousy. form of problem-solving or conflict resolution for As for the younger siblings, who have only their children that allows them to cope adaptively known life with an older brother and sister, the par- with sibling conflict and jealousy. Another possibility ents’ attention and love must always be shared with for explaining the significance of positive marital re- an older sibling. How well the older siblings adapt lationships is that spouses who love one another and to this transition and the quality of the developing make efforts to enhance their marital relationship cre- sibling relationship may be a better predictor of the ate a family environment that is filled with positive toddler siblings’ coping with jealousy than the qual- emotions (e.g., happiness, contentment, and plea- ity of other family relationships. Older preschool sure). As a consequence, there is less reason to be jeal- siblings are more mature physically, emotionally, ous in a home in which love and happiness are shared and cognitively than the younger toddlers. They and expressed by all family members. Thus, it is not also initiate more sibling conflict (Volling, Young- simply the absence of anger or fear in children’s lives blade, & Belsky, 1997) and are more likely to manage that leads to optimal child development, but the pres- sibling interaction than are younger siblings (Stone- ence of love, joy, and contentment that allows chil- man, Brody, & MacKinnon, 1984). If, as Patterson dren to feel emotionally secure (Cummings & Davies, (1986) ascertains, sibling relationships are a “train- 1 In a follow-up regression analysis, the marital relationship ing ground” for childhood aggression, the quality of composite was broken down into its positive and negative di- the sibling relationship may be particularly relevant mensions and the regression analyses were rerun using both the for the developing toddlers’ emotion regulation. negative and positive marital composites as separate indicators Those toddlers who interact with a behaviorally of marital relationship functioning. Spouses’ reports of positive dysregulated, jealous older sibling who is physically marital functioning (i.e., love and maintenance), not negative marital functioning (i.e., conflict and ambivalence), continued to stronger and more likely to instigate conflict may be predict the older siblings’ behavioral dysregulation with mothers, at risk for the development of emotion regulation above and beyond the Step 1 variables (i.e., age space, session disorders (Cole et al., 1994), whereas those toddlers order, and parent behavior) and child characteristics. 598 Child Development

1996), to broaden their attention to environmental ACKNOWLEDGMENTS events (Fredrickson, 1998), and to explore and learn This research was supported by a faculty grant from from these experiences (Sroufe, 1996). the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies The current research marks a first step in uncover- and the Office of the Vice President for Research at the ing the complexity of social emotions within the fam- University of Michigan to the first author. The authors ily. There are a number of limitations to this work that are grateful to the families who participated in this re- must be noted. First, the current sample was relatively search; and to Kimberly Freeman, Anouk Bonnewit, small, and consisted of young toddler and preschool Jill Blakemore, Stacey Connoy, Jennifer Fedewa, and siblings and families who were primarily European Melissa Schnarr for their assistance with videotape American, maritally intact, and low risk. It is not clear coding. They also appreciate the helpful and thought- whether similar findings would emerge in different ful comments of Ross Thompson and three anony- family structures (e.g., stepfamilies, families with mous reviewers on an earlier draft of this article. Por- twins), families with older children, families of color, tions of this research were presented at the biennial or high-risk families. Second, given the young age of meeting of the Society for Research in Child Develop- the siblings studied, assessments of children’s cogni- ment, Albuquerque, NM, 1999. tive processes were not included in delineating the jealousy complex. From a developmental perspective, cognitive appraisal processes should emerge over ADDRESSES AND AFFILIATIONS time and become more sophisticated as the young child relies less on others for self-regulation and more Corresponding author: Brenda L. Volling, Depart- on internalized strategies of regulation. Needless to ment of Psychology, University of Michigan, 525 E. say, such possibilities should be explored further. University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1109; e-mail: In closing, the present investigation attempted to [email protected]. Nancy L. McElwain is at the Uni- expand the study of emotion regulation by including versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Ali- more complex social emotions and attending to the son L. Miller is at Brown University, Providence, RI. social relationships that help to define and explain such emotions. We presented a preliminary model of sibling jealousy in childhood based on prior work on REFERENCES romantic jealousy in adulthood. The current model Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). presents an initial attempt to formulate the jealousy Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. complex between young siblings and provide a Averill, J. (1997). The emotions: An integrative approach. In framework from which future developmental re- R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of search on jealousy can begin. Because there are so few personality psychology (pp. 513–541). San Diego, CA: developmental studies addressing jealousy, it is diffi- Academic Press. cult to know how much of the proposed model will Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: endure scientific scrutiny and how much will need to An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). Cam- be amended. The model has been developed specifi- bridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press. Baydar, N., Greek, A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). A longitu- cally to describe and explain sibling jealousy, but dinal study of the effects of the birth of a sibling during there are certainly other areas within child develop- the first 6 years of life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, ment in which a similar model might be applied. Jeal- 59, 939–956. ousy is suspect in explaining the hostility exchanged Belsky, J., Youngblade, L. M., Rovine, M., & Volling, B. L. between individuals involved in any close intimate (1991). Patterns of marital change and parent-child inter- relationship, whether it be between best friends, an- action. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 461–474. gry spouses, or dating adolescents (Bookwala, Frieze, Bernhard, K. F. (1986). Jealousy: Its nature and treatment. Smith, & Ryan, 1992; Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Han- Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. sen, 1985; Paul, Foss, & Galloway, 1993). Much of what Bode, J. (1991). Truce: Ending the sibling war. New York: developmental researchers have coded as aggression, Franklin Watts. conflict, hostility, and anger could indeed be one piece Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., Smith, C., & Ryan, K. (1992). Pre- dictors of dating violence: A multivariate analysis. Vio- of a more complex social and emotional dynamic. lence and Victims, 7, 297–311. Without attention to the larger social relationship Braiker, H., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the develop- contexts in which emotions, behaviors, and cognitive ment of close relationships. In R. Burgess & T. Huston appraisals occur, the meaning of emotional experi- (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 135– ences, their explanation, and the possibilities for in- 168). New York: Academic. tervention remain limited. Braungart-Rieker, J. M., & Stifter, C. A. (1996). Infants’ re- Volling, McElwain, and Miller 599

sponses to frustrating situations: Continuity and change K. L., Matusov, E., & Holt, S. A. (1992). Social process the- in reactivity and regulation. Child Development, 67, 1767– ory of emotion: A dynamic systems approach. Social De- 1779. velopment, 1, 122–150. Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? necessary as love and sex. New York: Free Press. Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319. Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to Garber, J., & Dodge, K. A. (1991). The development of emotion violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Jour- regulation and dysregulation. New York: Cambridge Uni- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346–361. versity Press. Buss, K. A., & Goldsmith, H. H. (1998). Fear and anger reg- Goldenthal, P. (1999). Beyond sibling rivalry: How to help your ulation in infancy: Effects on the temporal dynamics of children become cooperative, caring, and compassionate. New affective expression. Child Development, 69, 359–374. York: Henry Holt. Calkins, S. D., & Johnson, M. C. (1998). Toddler regulation Goldsmith, H. H. (1996). Studying temperament via con- of distress in frustrating events: Temperamental and ma- struction of the Toddler Behavior Assessment Question- ternal correlates. Infant Behavior and Development, 21, naire. Child Development, 67, 218–235. 379–395. Goldsmith, H. H., Rieser-Danner, L. A., & Briggs, S. (1991). Campos, J., Mumme, D. L., Kermoian, R., & Campos, R. Evaluating convergent and discriminant validity of tem- (1994). Commentary: A functionalist perspective on the perament questionnaires for preschoolers, toddlers, and nature of emotion. Monographs of the Society for Research infants. Developmental Psychology, 27, 566–579. in Child Development, 59(2–3, Serial No. 240). Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship Case, R., Hayward, S., Lewis, M., & Hurst, P. (1988). Toward between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, a Neo-Piagetian theory of cognitive and emotional de- NJ: Erlbaum. velopment. Developmental Review, 8, 1–51. Griffin, E. W., & De La Torre, C. (1985). New baby in the Cole, P. M., Barrett, K. C., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1992). Emo- house: Sibling jealousy. Medical Aspects of Human Sexual- tion displays in 2-year-olds during mishaps. Child Devel- ity, 19, 110–116. opment, 63, 314–324. Hansen, G. L. (1985). Perceived threats and marital jealousy. Cole, P. M., Michel, M. K., & Teti, L. O. (1994). The develop- Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 262–268. ment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: A clinical Hart, S., Field, T., DelValle, C., & Letourneau, M. (1998). In- perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child fants protest their mothers attending to an infant-size Development, 59(2–3, Serial No. 24). doll. Social Development, 7, 54–61. Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Smith, K. D. (1994). Expres- Hart, S., Field, T., Letourneau, M., & DelValle, C. (1998). sive control during a disappointment: Variations related Jealousy protests in infants of depressed mothers. Infant to preschoolers’ behavior problems. Developmental Psy- Behavior and Development, 21, 137–148. chology, 30, 835–846. Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1992). Coping Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. (1994). Children and marital with marital transitions: A family systems perspective. conflict: The impact of family dispute and resolution. New Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Develop- York: Guilford. ment, 57(2–3, Serial No. 227). Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. (1996). Emotional security as Hetherington, E. M., Reiss, D., & Plomin, R. (1994). Separate a regulatory process in normal development and the de- social worlds of siblings: The impact of the nonshared environ- velopment of psychopathology. Development and Psycho- ment on development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pathology, 8, 123–139. Hupka, R. B. (1984). Jealousy: Compound emotion or label for DelGiudice, G. T. (1986). The relationship between sibling a particular situation? Motivation and Emotion, 8, 141–155. jealousy and presence at a sibling’s birth. Birth: Issues in Isabella, R. A., & Belsky, J. (1991). Interactional synchrony Perinatal Care and Education, 13, 250–254. and the origins of infant-mother attachment: A replica- Denham, S. (1986). Social cognition, prosocial behavior, and tion study. Child Development, 62, 373–384. emotion in preschoolers: Contextual validation. Child Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotion. New York: Development, 57, 194–201. Plenum. Dunn, J. (1988). The beginnings of social understanding. Cam- Kendrick, C., & Dunn, J. (1982). Protest or pleasure? The re- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. sponse of first-born children to interactions between Dunn, J., & Kendrick, C. (1982). Siblings: Love, envy, and un- their mothers and infant siblings. Journal of Child Psychol- derstanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University ogy and Psychiatry, 23, 117–129. Press. Kopp, C. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emo- Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1992). Emotion, regulation, tions: A developmental view. Developmental Psychology, and the development of social competence. In M. S. 25, 343–354. Clark (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology Kowal, A., & Kramer, L. (1997). Children’s understanding (Vol. 14, pp. 119–150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. of parental differential treatment. Child Development, 68, Faber, A., & Mazlish, E. (1998). Siblings without rivalry: How 113–126. to help your children live together so you can live too. New Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and York: Avon. coping. New York: Springer. Fogel, A., Nwokah, E., Dedo, J. Y., Messinger, D., Dickson, Lennon, R., Eisenberg, N., & Carroll, J. (1983). The assess- 600 Child Development

ment of empathy in early childhood. Journal of Applied Stewart, R. B., Mobley, L. A., Van Tuyl, S. S., & Salvador, M. A. Developmental Psychology, 4, 295–302. (1987). The firstborn’s adjustment to the birth of a sib- Leung, A., & Robson, W. (1991). Sibling rivalry. Clinical Pe- ling: A longitudinal assessment. Child Development, 58, diatrics, 30, 314–317. 341–355. Masciuch, S., & Kienapple, K. (1993). The emergence of jeal- Stoneman, Z., & Brody, G. H. (1993). Sibling temperaments, ousy in children 4 months to 7 years of age. Journal of So- conflict, warmth, and role asymmetry. Child Develop- cial and Personal Relationships, 10, 421–435. ment, 64, 1786–1800. Miller, A. L., Volling, B. L., & McElwain, N. L. (2000). Sibling Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., & MacKinnon, C. E. (1984). Nat- jealousy in a triadic context with mothers and fathers. uralistic observations of children’s activities and roles Social Development, 9, 433–457. while playing with their siblings and friends. Child De- Neubauer, P. B. (1983). The importance of the sibling expe- velopment, 55, 617–627. rience. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 38, 325–336. Teti, D. M., & Ablard, K. E. (1989). Security of attachment Parrott, W. G. (1991). The emotional experiences of envy and infant-sibling relationships: A laboratory study. and jealousy. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy Child Development, 60, 1519–1528. and envy (pp. 3–30). New York: Guilford. Teti, D. M., & McGourty, S. (1996). Using mothers versus Patterson, G. R. (1986). The contribution of siblings to train- trained observers in assessing children’s secure base be- ing for fighting: A microsocial analysis. In D. Olweus, J. havior: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antiso- Child Development, 67, 597–605. cial and prosocial behavior (pp. 235–261). New York: Aca- Teti, D. M., Sakin, J. W., Kucera, E., Corns, K. M., & Das Ei- demic Press. den, R. (1996). And baby makes four: Predictors of at- Paul, L., Foss, M. A., & Galloway, J. (1993). Sexual jealousy tachment security among preschool-age firstborns dur- in young women and men: Aggressive responsiveness ing the transition to siblinghood. Child Development, 67, to partner and rival. Aggressive Behavior, 19, 401–420. 579–596. Pietropinto, A. (1985). The new baby. Medical Aspects of Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in Human Sexuality, 19, 155–163. search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. in Child Development 59(2–3, Serial No. 240). New York: Harper & Row. Tov-Ruach, L. (1980). Jealousy, attention, and loss. In A. O. Prado, L. M., & Markman, H. J. (1999). Unearthing the seeds Rorty (Ed.), Explaining emotions (pp. 465–488). Berkeley, of marital distress: What we have learned from married CA: University of California Press. and remarried couples. In M. Cox & J. Brooks-Gunn Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D. S., Seguin, J. R., & Zoccolillo, (Eds.), Conflict and cohesion in families: Causes and conse- M. (2001). Predictors of high level aggression from 17 quences (pp. 51–85). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. to 42 months after birth. Manuscript submitted for Rothbart, M. K. (1981). Measurement of temperament in in- publication. fancy. Child Development, 52, 569–578. Volling, B. L. (1997). The family correlates of maternal and Rothbart, M. K., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Development of paternal perceptions of differential treatment in early individual differences in temperament. In M. E. Lamb & childhood. Family Relations, 46, 1–9. A. L. Brown (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology Volling, B. L., & Elins, J. (1998). Family relationships and (Vol. 1, pp. 37–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. children’s emotional adjustment as correlates of mater- Rushton, J., Brainerd, C., & Pressley, M. (1983). Behavioral nal and paternal differential treatment: A replication development and construct validity: The principle of ag- with toddler and preschool siblings. Child Development, gregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 18–38. 69, 1640–1656. Salovey, P. (1991). The psychology of jealousy and envy. New Volling, B. L., Youngblade, L. M., & Belsky, J. (1997). Young York: Guilford. children’s social relationships with siblings and friends. Sameroff, A. J., & Emde, R. N. (1989). Relationship distur- American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 102–111. bances in early childhood: A developmental approach. New Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Defining and assessing in- York: Basic. dividual differences in attachment relationships: Q- Schaefer, E., & Edgerton, M. (1981). The sibling inventory of methodology and the organization of behavior in in- behavior. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. fancy and early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Sroufe, L. A. (1996). Emotional development: The organization Research in Child Development, 50(1–2, Serial No. 209). of emotional life in the early years. New York: Cambridge White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, University Press. and clinical strategies. New York: Guilford.