USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The relations between young adults' retrospective perceptions of differential parental treatment, quality of the childho...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The relations between young adults' retrospective perceptions of differential parental treatment, quality of the childhood and current sibling relationship, and current psychological adjustment
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Clark Culpepper, Tangela R
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Family relations
Emotional problems
Parenting behaviors
College students
APIM
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: This study explored the relations among young adults' perceptions of differential parental treatment, temperamental style, attitudes toward their childhood and current sibling relationships, and psychological adjustment. Participants included 87 college students and their siblings between the ages of 18 and 25 years. Students completed measures in small groups, and siblings completed the surveys via mail. The data were analyzed using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kashy & Kenny, 1999). Results revealed that participants' perceptions of their sibling relationship during childhood were related to their current attitudes toward the relationship. In addition, siblings were in agreement regarding their overall attitudes toward the sibling relationship as well as in their perceptions of their interactions with their parents. Siblings' reports higher levels of differential maternal and paternal control were related significantly to perceptions of less positive sibling interactions. Females and individuals with a sister reported higher levels of positivity in the sibling relationship than did males and individuals reporting on a brother. Level of psychological adjustment was found to be better for individuals who experienced more paternal control according to their sibling. Temperamental characteristics were found to be related to attitudes toward the sibling relationship and reports of parenting behaviors. Results are discussed within the context of family-based research regarding parent-child and sibling relationships.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Tangela R. Clark Culpepper.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 121 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001926041
oclc - 191822934
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001910
usfldc handle - e14.1910
System ID:
SFS0026228:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

The Relationship Between Young Adults' Retrospective Perceptions of Differential Parental Treatment, Quality of the Chil dhood and Current Sibling Relationship and Current Psychological Adjustment by Tangela R. Clark Culpepper A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Vicky Phares, Ph.D. Tammy Allen, Ph.D. Judith Becker Bryant, Ph.D. Karen Obremski Brandon, Ph.D. Ellis Gesten, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 1, 2007 Keywords: family relations, emotional problems, parenting behaviors, college students, APIM Copyright 2007, Tangela Clark Culpepper

PAGE 2

Acknowledgements I would like to take the time to acknowle dge those who inspired, encouraged and contributed to me being able to see this pr oject through. It is onl y through my faith and belief in God that I was able to complete this part of my journey--I am thankful for all of the lessons I learned and the things and peopl e placed in my path to contribute to my growth. I would like to thank Vicky Phares, Ph.D. for being the best advisor and whose encouragement helped me to bring closure to this process; my committee members: Tammy Allen, Ph.D., Karen Obremski Bra ndon, Ph.D., Judith Becker Bryant, Ph.D., Ellis Gesten, Ph.D., and Norman Poythress, Ph.D., who inspired me to produce a quality project; my silent committee member: Dr. William Cook who so graciously gave of his time to walk me through w ithout any obligation to do so; my oldest friends who were my constant supporters and ch eerleaders and who gave a list ening ear or offered their own expertise: Cheryl Burnett, Sylvia Baker Blair, Ph.D., Cherrolyn Smith, Ph.D., Amina Porter, Ph.D., and Terrilyn Jones; my newest friend, Judith Lowell, whose family provided a second home to my daughter when I needed an extra hand; my husband, Gary Culpepper for taking care of me, dealing with my ups and downs, and encouraging me as I completed this journey; my daughter Kamali Culpepper who inspires me everyday to be and do better and who had been my little rese arch assistant earning her own Masters and Doctorate in the process; my parents: Leon and Pearlie Cl ark who set the example of making a way out of what appeared to be no wa y; my labmates: Idia Sherecce, Jess, and Ariz who supported me in a number of ways; you will all be great assets to the field; and all other friends and family who inspired, en couraged or prayed for me along the way.

PAGE 3

i Table of Contents List of Tables iii Abstract v Introduction 1 Differential Parental Treatment 3 Differential Parental Treatment and Sibling Outcome 5 Long-Term Consequences of Diffe rential Parental Treatment 7 Lifespan Attachment Theory-Par ent and Sibling Bonds 9 Adult Sibling Relationships 10 Contributors to Differences in Individual Sibling Outcome 11 Factors Related to Differential Parental Treatment 12 Gender 12 Marital Distress 12 Temperament 14 Temperament and Sibling Relationships 14 The Relationship Between Sibling and Peer Interactions 16 Sibling Gender and Relationship Quality 18 Consistency in Sibling Ratings 19 Summary 20 Purpose of Research and Hypotheses 22 Method 28 Participants 28 Participants Without Sibling Data 31 Measures 34 Demographics 34 Psychological Functioning 35 Sibling Relationship 35 Temperament 36 Parental Behavior 37 Procedure 39 Results 41 Descriptive Statistics 41 Data Analytic Strategies 43 Actor-Partner Interdep endence Model (APIM) 45 Current Analyses 48 Interdependence 48 Test of Hypotheses 49

PAGE 4

ii Perceptions of the Ov erall Sibling Relationshi p and Perceptions of Direct Parental Treatment Towa rd the Self versus the Sibling Hypothesis 1 49 Perceptions of the Childhood and Adult Sibling Relationship Hypothesis 2 50 Perceptions of the Ch ildhood and Young Adult Sibling Relationship and the Amount of Disp arity in Parental Trea tment Hypothesis 3 51 Gender Constellation of the Sibling Dy ad and Overall Perceptions of the Sibling Relationship Hypothesis 4 56 Perceptions of Relative Differential Parental Treatment and Psychological Symptoms Hypothesis 5 56 Temperament and Perceptions of the Childhood and Adult Sibling Relationship Hypothesis 6 58 Post-Hoc Analyses Temperament and Direction of Differential Parental Treatment 61 Discussion 63 References 84 Appendices 96 Appendix A: Demographics Questionnaire 97 Appendix B: Sibling Dem ographics Questionnaire 100 Appendix C: Brie f Symptom Inventory 101 Appendix D: Temperament Survey for Adults 105 Appendix E: Lifespan Si bling Relationship Scale 108 Appendix F: The Sibling I nventory of Differential Experiences Revised Inventory of Family Experiences Self 110 Appendix G: The Sibling I nventory of Differential Experiences Revised Inventory of Family Experiences Sibling 112 Appendix H: USF Student Consent Form 114 Appendix I: Educational Debriefing 117 Appendix J: Sibling Inform ation and Instruct ions Form 118 Appendix K: Sibling Consent Form 119 About the Author End Page

PAGE 5

iii List of Tables Table 1. Demographic Information for Sibling and Parent Relationships 30 Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Students with Participating and NonParticipating Siblings 32 Table 3. Means, Sta ndard Deviations, and Ranges 41 Table 4. Significant Predictors of the Sibling Relationship 52 Table 5. Perceptions of Relative Differential Parental Treatment and Level of Psychological Functioning 57 Table 6. Temperamental Style and Percep tions of the Sibling Relationship 59

PAGE 6

iv List of Figures Figure 1. Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) 46

PAGE 7

The Relationship Between Young Adults' Retrospective Perceptions of Differential Parental Treatment, Quality of the Childhood and Current Sibling Relationship, and Current Psychological Adjustment Tangela R. Clark Culpepper ABSTRACT This study explored the relations among young adults perceptions of differential parental treatment, temperamental style, attitudes toward their childhood and current sibling relationships, and psychological adjustment. Participants included 87 college students and their siblings between the ages of 18 and 25 years. Students completed measures in small groups, and siblings completed the surveys via mail. The data were analyzed using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kashy & Kenny, 1999). Results revealed that participants perceptions of their sibling relationship during childhood were related to their current attitudes toward the relationship. In addition, siblings were in agreement regarding their overall attitudes toward the sibling relationship as well as in their perceptions of their interactions with their parents. Siblings reports higher levels of differential maternal and paternal control were related significantly to perceptions of less positive sibling interactions. Females and individuals with a sister reported higher levels of positivity in the sibling relationship than did males and individuals reporting on a brother. Level of psychological adjustment was found to be better for individuals who experienced more paternal control according to their sibling. Temperamental characteristics were found to be related to attitudes toward the sibling relationship and v

PAGE 8

reports of parenting behaviors. Results are discussed within the context of family-based research regarding parent-child and sibling relationships. vi

PAGE 9

1 Introduction Research has demonstrated that siblings raised in the same family may have different perceptions of various aspects of the family environment. Specifically, the literature indicates that one aspect of the family environment that may differ for siblings while growing up is parenting behaviors (Brody, Copeland, Sutton, Richardson, & Guyer, 1998; Dunn, Stocker, & Plomin, 1990; Furman & Giberson, 1995; McHale, Updegraff, Jackson-Newsom, Tucker, & Cr outer, 2000; Parke, 2004; Richmond, Stocker & Rienks, 2005; Shebloski, Conger, & Widaman, 2005). Differential parent-child relationships as reported by siblings have been found to have a significant impact on the sibling relationship as well as on individual outcome (Barrett, Singer, & Weinstein, 2000; Boll, Ferring, & Filipp, 2003; Brody & Stoneman, 1994; Cicirelli, 1989; 1995; 1996; Daniels, Dunn, Furtenberg, & Plomin, 1985; Dunn, Stocker, & Plomin, 1990; Parke, 2004; Plomin, Asbury, & Dunn, 2001; Richmond et al., 2005; Shebloski et al., 2005; Tamrouti-Makkink, Dub, Gerris, & van Aken, 2004). In general, the literature suggests that higher levels of positivity (e.g., impartial responsivity and positive affect) in the parent-child relationship are associated with higher levels of self-esteem, positive affectivity and prosocial behavior in the sibling relationship while higher levels of parental negativity, intrusiveness, and control are associated with more internalizing and externalizing behaviors and conflict between siblings (Brody, Copeland, Sutton, Richardson, & Guyer, 1998; Dunn, Stocker, & Plomin, 1990; Furman & Giberson, 1995; Kowal, Krull, & Kramer, 2004; Kowal, Krull, & Kramer, 2006; Kramer & Kowal, 2005;

PAGE 10

2 McElwain & Volling, 2005; Plomin, Asbury, & Dunn, 2001; Stocker & McHale, 1992; Volling & Belsky, 1992; Volling, 2003). Research has also demonstrated that another factor that impacts the sibling relationship is temperamental style (Brody et al., 1998; Brody & Stoneman, 1996; Buss & Plomin, 1984; Furman & Lanthier, 1996). Specifically, children with more difficult temperaments (e.g., high levels of activity, emotionality and anger) tend to experience more interpersonal conflict, particularly in their interactions with siblings (Brody et al., 1998; Brody & Stoneman, 1996; Furman & Lanthier, 1996). The literature has demonstrated that individuals with more of an agreeable temperamental style (e.g., conscientiousness, agreeableness, and sociability) however, tend to experience more warmth and less conflict in their relationship with siblings (Brody et al., 1998; Brody & Stoneman, 1996; Furman & Lanthier, 1996). Much of the research on siblings however, has focused on younger children and/or adolescents. Research that has examined various aspects of the adult sibling relationship has mainly focused on older adults. These studies have primarily investigated care-taking behaviors, social support, and the impact of marriage and other major life changes on the sibling relationship later in life (Bedford, 1992; 1998; Cicirelli, 1989; 1995; 1996; Dunn, 1985; Ross & Milgram, 1982). The few studies that have examined the long-term sequelae of differential parental treatment offer evidence that the negative consequences of such parenting persist through the transition from childhood/adolescence to adulthood (Bedford, 1992; Ross & Milgram, 1982). Other findings suggest that siblings negative interaction patterns during childhood have a significant impact on outcome during adulthood (Bank, Patterson, & Reid, 1996; Barrett-

PAGE 11

3 Singer & Weinstein, 2000; Bedford, 1998; Schrepferman, 2002). There is less known however, about the influence of perceive d differential parental treatment during childhood and temperament on both the sibling relationship and individual adjustment later in life. Furthermore, many of the studies examining adult sibling relationships have relied on the perceptions of only one sibling. Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to explore the relationship between young adult siblings retrospective reports of differential parental behaviors, temperamental style, the quality of the childhood and current sibling relationship, and current levels of psychological adjustment. Differential Parental Treatment Much of the research conducted on the influence of differential parental treatment has focused on maternal behaviors. It has typically been assumed that the impact that fathers have on their children is minimal given the fact that many fathers have traditionally played a secondary role in childrearing, particularly during the early years of their childrens lives (Brody & Stoneman, 1994). The recent trend in family research, however, is to try to include fathers because both parents have been found to be influential in the normal and abnormal development of their children (Clark & Phares, 2004; Katz & Gottman, 1993; Phares, 1996; 1999; Phares, Lopez, Fields, Kamboukos, & Duhig, 2005; Tamrouti-Makkink et al., 2004). For example, McHale and colleagues (2000) conducted a study that examined the implications of differential parental treatment on self-esteem, siblings perceptions of parents fairness, and positivity in the sibling relationship during middle childhood and adolescence. The findings revealed that for siblings who were not disfavored, higher levels of maternal and paternal warmth were associated with greater self-esteem and sibling positivity. Furthermore, while siblings

PAGE 12

4 from mixed-sexed dyads rated maternal and paternal involvement as less fair than those from same-sex dyads, adolescent females who experienced differential paternal warmth rated this behavior as being less fair in comparison to female children and adolescent males who perceived similar treatment from their fathers. In contrast, Furman and Giberson (1995) found that while different degr ees of maternal warmth were associated with less warmth in sibling relationships, reports of differential paternal treatment were not significantly related to perceptions of the sibling relationship. The discrepancy in these findings may be attributed to the manner in which aspects of the sibling relationship were assessed. Whereas the previously mentioned authors relied on self-report measures to gather data on siblings perceptions of their relationships, Furman and Giberson (1995) combined the parents and childrens reports to obtain information regarding the quality of sibling interactions which may contribute to the differences in the relationship between these variables. Boer, Goedhart, and Treffers (1992) examined the relationship between childrens perception of differential parental treatment and the quality of the sibling relationship. Interestingly, the authors found a positive relationship between ratings of parental behavior and childrens perceptions of favoritism directed toward the sibling and favoritism directed toward themselves. Specifically, similar to the disfavored child, children who felt favored over their siblings perceived their parents as being detached and hostile suggesting that the childrens experience of such treatment may have an impact on both siblings. Furthermore, the fi ndings revealed that perceptions of parental favoritism were associated with negativity in the sibling relationship, regardless of the direction of the favoritism. The authors concluded that it is the parents differential

PAGE 13

5 behavior in general rather than the direction that breeds hostility, which may lead to conflict between siblings (Boer et al., 1992). Differential Parental Treatment and Sibling Outcome Various researchers who have examined the degree to which differential experiences within the family, particularly in terms of maternal parenting behaviors, are associated with internalizing and externalizing behaviors among siblings (Daniels, Dunn, Furstenberg, & Plomin, 1985; Dunn, Stocker, & Plomin, 1990; Plomin, Asbury, & Dunn, 2001; Tejerina-Allen, Wagner, & Cohen, 1994). Specifically, children and adolescents who perceived that they received less affection and more control from their mothers relative to their sibling exhibited more internalizing and externalizing behaviors including anxiety, depression, disobedience, hyperactivity, and suicidal ideation. Children and adolescents who perceived that they were favored by more affection and less control from mothers however, were reported to be more psychologically welladjusted (Daniels et al., 1985; Dunn et al., 1990; Plomin et al., 2001; Tejerina-Allen et al., 1994). Researchers who have included perceptions of both parents differential behaviors have found that such parenting was related to children/adolescents and young adults well-being (Barrett-Singer & Weinstein, 2000; Brody, Copeland, Sutton, Richardson, & Guyer, 1998; Parke, 2004; Kowal, Kramer, Krull, & Crick, 2002; Plomin et al., 2001; Tamrouti-Makkink et al., 2004; Schlette et al., 1998). Specifically, Kowal and colleagues (2002) e xplored relations between perceptions of the amount of differential parental treatme nt and childrens socioemotional well-being. Findings revealed that while the amount of differential control was related to more

PAGE 14

6 externalizing behavior problems, lower levels of internalizing behavior problems and greater global self-esteem were indicated when children perceived that such parenting was fair. Similarly, Tamrouti-Makkink and colleagues (2004) examined the role of absolute levels of differential parental behaviors in adolescents level of psychological adjustment. The findings indicated that re gardless of who was favored, differential parental control was associated with internalizing behaviors for females while differential warmth exhibited by fathers was linked to externalizing behaviors suggesting the significant role of parent and child gender when exploring the relationship between differential parenting behaviors and children/adolescents outcome. Brody and colleagues (1998) examined the relationship between perceptions of parental favoritism and young adults level of adjustment and family functioning. The authors found that participants who perceived themselves as being disfavored by parents also reported more feelings of shame and fear in comparison to participants who perceived that they were favored by parental behaviors. In addition, individuals who rated themselves as disfavored also reported lower family cohesion, higher family disengagement, and higher family conflict than individuals who perceived being favored by parents. In addition, Barrett-Singer and Weinstein (2000) examined the relationship between young adults perceptions of differential parental treatment, academic achievement, and self-perceptions. While the findings revealed that being favored by parents (i.e., more affection or less control) and reporting less differential treatment (above and beyond which sibling was favored) was associated with more positive achievement and self-perceptions, the authors found that the direction of differential

PAGE 15

7 parental treatment was significantly more predictive of level of adjustment than the magnitude of such parenting behaviors. Specifically, although perceptions of differential treatment by mothers did not predict achievement, less differential maternal affection was significantly associated with positive self-perceptions of ability and global self-worth. In contrast, perceptions of differential treatme nt by fathers predicted both achievement and self-perceptions such that less differential paternal control was positively related to academic achievement and young adults perceptions of ability. Long-Term Consequences of Differential Parental Treatment Volling and Belsky (1992) conducted a longitudinal study that examined the contribution of the parent-child relationship to the quality of sibling interaction. This study assessed various aspects of mother-child and father-child interaction for parents of two children whose first-borns age spanned between 1 and 6 years over the course of the study. The findings revealed that when the first-born was 6-years-old, conflicted sibling interactions were associated with higher levels of conflict between the mother and the two children, intrusive and over-controlling maternal behaviors, and insecure motherinfant attachment. Prosocial sibling relations, however, were found to be associated with fathers who were more affectionate and facilitative of their childrens cooperative play behavior. In addition, Brody and Stoneman (1994) conducted a study examining the maternal and paternal direct and differential behaviors that contributed to the longitudinal prediction of their childrens sibling relationship quality at one-year follow-up. Direct behavior was defined as that which a parent exhibits toward an individual child, without regard to the behavior the parent enacts with the childs siblings. The results of this

PAGE 16

8 study revealed that although rates of direct and differential behaviors were similar for fathers and mothers, fathers behavior appeared to be associated more strongly with their childrens behavior and sibling relationships. That is, paternal differential responsive and controlling behaviors were associated with higher rates of negative behavior from both siblings. Paternal differential positive and negative behaviors however, were related to fewer positive and more negative perceptions of the sibling relationship (Brody & Stoneman, 1994). These authors also conducted a longitudinal study of the relationship between differential parental treatment, sibli ng problem-solving strategies, and conflict in sibling relationships. The findings revealed that fathers unequal treatment of siblings during problem-solving discussions was related to siblings negative problem-solving behavior, whereas such treatment from mother s was associated with siblings reports of conflicted relationships (Brody & Stoneman, 1994). Furthermore, more recent research assessing the associations between parental differential treatment and adjustment across time have found that parental partiality was negatively related to children and adolescents externalizing behaviors and positively associated with depressive symptoms and f eelings of self-worth (Richmond et al., 2005; Shebloski et al., 2005). In order to examine the long-term consequences of differential parental treatment, researchers have explored the degree to which parental favoritism during childhood was related to the quality of sibling relationships during adulthood and adult child-parent bonds (Bedford, 1992; Belsky, Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, & Silva, 2003; Boll et al., 2003; Panish & Stricker, 2001). Overall findings sugge sted that adults who perceived that they

PAGE 17

9 were disfavored by differential parental treatment also reported less affection and more conflict in the current relationship with their parents and siblings. These findings have implications regarding the nature of the parent-child and sibling relationship across time. The life span attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988; Cicirelli, 1989; 1995, 1996; Collins, Guichard, Ford, & Feeney, 2004) suggests that the childs early attachments to his/her primary caregiver as well as to other family members influence the nature of those relationships later in life. Lifespan Attachment TheoryParent and Sibling Bonds Attachment, which refers to the emotional bond between parent and child, forms during the first year of the child's life and continues over time, with the quality of the attachment demonstrating relative stability across time (Bowlby, 1988; Collins et al., 2004; Cummings & Davies, 1994). In the early years of life, the presence or absence of attachment figures is significant relative to the child's perception of how emotionally available and responsive his or her caretakers are to the child's needs. In addition, the degree to which children perceive their attachment figures as accessible when needed is also important, particularly as children mature. Therefore, parental emotional responses that contribute to children feeling secure impact the manner in which children adaptively define themselves and evaluate others (Bowlby, 1988). Furthermore, attachment theorists postulate that children develop internal representations of relationships based on interactions with their primary caregivers that are generalized to other relationships (Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986, as cited in Brody et al., 1998). For example, researchers have explored the degree to which attachment styles among college students are related to various relationship factors. Individuals whose relationship with their parents was

PAGE 18

10 consistent with the secure attachment style reported greater satisfaction with their romantic relationships than persons whose parent-child relationship was characteristic of an avoidant-attachment style (Collins et al., 2004). In addition, Volling and Belsky (1992) found that in families where the firstborn child had been insecurely attached to the mother at 12 months of age, siblings experienced more conflict in their relationships when the older child was 6. Furthermore, research has offered support regarding the degree to which thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with the childhood sibling relationship persist through the transition to adulthood (Bedford, 1992, 1998; Ross & Milgram, 1982; Weaver, Coleman, & Ganong, 2003). Adult Sibling Relationships Ross and Milgram (1982) conducted a qualitative study of adults ranging in age from 22 to 93 years that explored how per ceptions of closeness, sibling rivalry, and critical incidents impact the adult sibling relationship. The findings suggested that adult siblings current feelings of closeness and rivalry originated during childhood. Siblings reported that the factors that contributed to their closeness during childhood included shared family experiences, experiences shared with groups or particular siblings, shared family and personal values, and shared physical space (e.g., bedroom). Those factors that contributed to the maintenance of siblings closeness during adulthood included shared personal values, goals and interests, family traditions, personal commitments to family values and traditions and communication with family members. The authors found that rivalrous feelings between adult siblings that originated during childhood were reported to be adult-initiated (e.g., by parents) through overt or

PAGE 19

11 covert comparisons or generated by the siblings themselves. Sibling rivalry that persists into adulthood was found to be most often maintained by such factors as continued parental preferential treatment and overt comparisons, competitive behaviors between the siblings, and the siblings reluctance to discuss their rivalries (Ross & Milgram, 1982). Similarly, Boll and colleagues (2003) found that adult siblings perceived less positivity in their current relationship when they perceived that their parents were differentially affectionate and/or the parents sought support from one sibling more than the other. Bedford (1998) investigated the degree to which adults cope with the negative aspects of their sibling relationships was related to well-being. The findings revealed that positive reappraisals of sibling problems in childhood were related to higher levels of social support and positive affect in adulthood. Adults appraisals of existing negativity in the sibling relationship however, were not associated with current levels of well-being. These findings offer further support regarding the potential significance of early experiences with siblings to well-being later in life. Contributors to Differences in Individual Sibling Outcome Various theories have attributed differences in siblings individual outcome to evolutionary, neurobiological, genetic, envir onmental and/or a combination of these factors (Daniels & Plomin, 1985; Dunn & Plomin, 1990; Plomin & Daniels, 1987). Much of the research conducted in this area has focused on the contribution of various family constellation variables including age, gender, spacing, and birth-order on individual sibling outcome. These variables have been found to be modestly related to sibling differences between and across families (Daniels & Plomin, 1985). Accordingly, research has begun to focus on the role of such within-family environmental influences as

PAGE 20

12 siblings perceptions of differential parental treatment and fairness, marital distress, characteristics of individual family members (e.g., temperament and history of mental disorder), quality of the sibling relationship, and relationship with peers to explain differences in sibling outcome (Beardsall & Dunn, 1992; Belsky et al., 2003; Brody et al., 1998; Dunn, Stocker, & Plomin, 1990; Fei nberg et al., 2000; Kramer & Kowal, 2005; McElwain & Volling, 2005; McHale et al., 2000). Factors Related to Differential Parental Treatment Gender Parents may feel the need to treat their children based on their individual developmental needs and, to some degree, the gender of the child (Brody et al., 1998; Dunn & Plomin, 1990). McHale and colleagues (2000) found that for children whose ratings indicate that they receive less preferential parental treatment, females tended to report lower self-esteem in comparison to males, particularly when such parenting behaviors were considered to be unfair. In addition, while siblings from same-sex dyads reported lower fairness for chores and parental warmth, first-born siblings from same-sex dyads who rated their household task involvement as less fair, reported lower self-esteem than those from same-sex dyads who perceived their treatment as fair. Marital distress Another aspect of the family environment that may influence parents differential treatment of their children is marital distress (Parke, 2004). Research has indicated that interparental conflict has the potential to impact the parentchild relationship adversely. It is possible that the negative emotions associated with marital distress may be carried over into the parent-child relationship and influence the degree to which the parent is emotionally available and supportive to the child (Clark & Phares, 2004; Cummings & Davies, 1994; Neighbors, Forehand, & Bau, 1998; Osborne

PAGE 21

13 & Fincham, 1996). Furthermore, as a function of such negative emotionality, each parents relationship with the opposite-sexed child may be influenced given that this child may be reminiscent of the spouse (OLeary, 1984). In addition, research has indicated that men in unhappy marriages tend to withdraw from their wives and therefore, may emotionally distance themselves from their children (Howes & Markman, 1987). Because children tend to identify with the same-sexed parent, exposure to interparental conflict may also adversely impact their perceptions of the relationship with the opposite-sexed parent (Osborne & Fincham, 1996). For example, McHale (1995) found that marital conflict was associated with fathers withdrawal from parent-child interaction, particularly in relationships with their daughters. It is possible that hostility between parents serves as a model for children who learn that these responses to conflict are appropriate (Jenkins, 1992) and may go on to engage in similar interactions with siblings and peers (Brody et al., 1998). In some cases, however, the literature suggests that children exposed to interparental conflict may have the ability to develop and maintain close relationships with their siblings (Jenkins, 1992). This outcome may occur if the negativity associated with marital distress is not carried over into parenting behaviors (Brody et al., 1998). In fact, research has demonstrated that if parenting does not become hostile, marital distress and parental depression have no significant effect on the quality of the sibling relationship (Brody et al., 1998; Hetherington, 1988). Jenkins (1992) found that children in disharmonious homes who did manage to have a moderately close or very close relationship with a sibling had a significantly lower level of emotional and behavioral problems than children who did not have positive relations with their siblings. However, children from disharmonious homes

PAGE 22

14 who had poor mother-child relationships had higher levels of emotional and behavioral problems (Jenkins, 1992). A similar trend has been found in research examining adult sibling relationships wherein recall of exposure to higher levels of marital conflict during childhood was associated with more conflicted adult sibling interactions (Panish & Stricker, 2001). Temperament Finally, parents may respond differentially to their children depending on the temperament of each child. Temperament is defined as inherited personality characteristics that appear during the first two years of life and endure as basic components of personality. An individuals temperament produces certain behavioral pattern to which others respond (Buss & Plomin, 1975; Buss & Plomin, 1984). That is, if a child has a difficult temperament, the parent may reciprocate this behavior in his/her interactions with the child. Therefore, parents may exhibit less positive and more negative affect with that child in comparison to a sibling who has more of an agreeable temperamental style. Various studies have found that higher levels of positivity in the parent-child relationship are associated with commensurate levels of positive sibling interactions. Conversely, higher levels of negativity, intrusiveness, and control in the parent-child relationship are related to increased negativity and conflict in the sibling relationship, particularly when pare nts engage in such behaviors differentially among their children (Brody et al., 1998; Brody & Stoneman, 1994; Hetherington, 1988). Temperament and Sibling Relationships Research has demonstrated that children with more difficult temperaments tend to have more conflicted relations with thei r siblings (Brody, 1998; Brody et al., 1998; Brody & Stoneman, 1994; Mash & Johnson, 1983; Pike & Atzaba-Poria, 2003). Specifically,

PAGE 23

15 the results of various studies have found that children who were highly emotional and active tended to experience significantly more conflict in their interactions with siblings than children who exhibited lower levels of emotionality and activity. In order to explore the influence of individual characteristics on sibling relationships, Furman and Lanthier (1996) examined the Five-Factor Model of personality relative to various aspects of the sibling relationship including warmth, conflict, relative power, and competition for parental attention. The results revealed that in comparison to younger siblings, older siblings personality characteristics were associated more with the distribution of power in the relationship. In addition, conscientiousness was found to be positively related to warmth and negatively associated with conflict, relative power, and parental competition. Agreeableness was found to be negatively related to conflict as well as differences in power in the sibling relationship. Stoneman and Brody (1993) conducted an observational study examining the degree to which the positive temperamental qualities of one sibling serve to buffer the negative influence of the difficult temperament of the other sibling on the relationship. The findings indicated that siblings experienced higher levels of negativity and conflict when the older child was highly active and the younger child was not. Sibling dyads consisting of a highly active younger child and a less active older sibling however, exhibited more positivity and lower levels of conflict. The authors postulated that given the typical power differential of the older sibling over the younger interpersonally, it is likely that the temperament of the older child defines the nature of the sibling interactions.

PAGE 24

16 The literature also suggests that problematic interaction patterns between siblings may carry over into other interpersonal relations outside of the family (Cicirelli, 1989; 1995, 1996; Dunn, 1992; Dunn & Plomin, 1990; Pike & Atzaba-Poria, 2003). The Relationship Between Sibling and Peer Interactions The literature suggests that the nature and quality of the relationship between siblings influences the manner in which children interact with their peers (Bank et al., 1996; Dunn & McGuire, 1994; Dunn & Plomin, 1990). Children or adolescents who have conflicted sibling relations are also more likely to have problematic interactions with their peers (Bank, Patterson, & Reid, 1996; Hetherington, 1988; Seginer, 1998). Specifically, high levels of emotionality have been found to be associated with increased negativity in sibling and peer interactions while positivity in sibling and peer relationships has been linked with sociability (Pike & Atzaba-Poria, 2003). Bank and colleagues (1996) explored the degree to which negative sibling interaction patterns predicted later adjustment problems in adolescent and young adult males. The findings revealed that antisocial behaviors (i.e., number of arrests) and selfreported levels of psychopathology during young adulthood were associated with negative sibling interactions during middle childhood and adolescence. In addition, individuals who engaged in negative interactions with siblings and mothers during middle childhood were more likely to use verbal and physical aggression with a significant partner and peers as well during young adulthood. Seginer (1998) examined adolescents perceptions of relationships with an older sibling relative to the adolescent-parent and adolescent-peer relationships. The findings revealed that adolescents relationships with older siblings were similar to self-reported

PAGE 25

17 relationships with mothers, fathers, and peers. In addition, positive sibling relationships were more associated with the adolescents sense of emotional and school-related support than with either parental or peer acceptance. Howe and Ross (1990), however, found that sibling interaction patterns involving both negative (e.g., conflicted) and positive (e.g., discussion of feelings) exchanges were positively related to maternal caregiving (e.g., providing reassurance to a distressed child and verbal/physical interaction with child) during early childhood. Similarly, Hetherington (1988) found that sibling relationships characterized by a balance of conflict and support (Brody et al., 1998) were associated with childrens relationship with peers and school adjustment. Specifically, brothers whose relationship consisted of high levels of both aggression and warmth were rated by their teachers as having more positive peer relationships and fewer externalizing problems as opposed to children whose sibling relationships were highly conflictual and low in support. Furthermore, McElwain and Volling (2005) examined the extent to which peer and sibling relationship quality each contributed to childrens behavioral adjustment. The authors found that when sibling relationship quality was poor, positive peer interactions were associated with the child engaging in fewer aggressive-disruptive behaviors as reported by parents. When sibling interactions were more positive, however, the associations between the relationship with peers and problem behaviors were non-significant suggesting that positive peer interactions appear to buffer the negative effect of less positive sibling interactions on childrens behaviors. Additionally, Kramer and Kowal (2005) examined the continuity in sibling relationships across childhood and the degree to which childrens relationship with their

PAGE 26

18 peers prior to the birth of their sibling predicted problem behaviors as well as the quality of the sibling relationship in adolescence. The findings revealed that children who had more positive interactions with their peers prior to the birth of their sibling and engaged in prosocial behaviors with their sibling demonstrated more prosocial interactions with both their siblings and friends in adolescence and exhibited fewer externalizing behavior problems. The authors concluded that childrens early peer relationships appear to contribute significantly to their social development across time. Sibling Gender and Relationship Quality Various studies have demonstrated the significance of the gender constellation of sibling dyads when exploring factors contributing to the quality of the sibling relationship (Cicirelli, 1989; 1995, 1996; Riggi o, 2000; Riggio, 2006; Stocker, Lanthier, & Furman, 1997; Tucker, McHale, & Crouter, 2001;Weaver et al., 2003). Although some research suggests that same sex siblings experience greater warmth and closeness in their relationship than opposite sex siblings during late childhood and adolescence (Buhrmester, 1992), other findings suggest that during this time period, sister pairs report higher levels of positivity in their relationships than mixed or male sibling dyads (McHale et al., 2000; Riggio, 2000; Riggio, 2006) For adult sibling relationships, however, the literature suggests that siblings report more warmth and affection in their relationships when the pair consists of at least one sister (Cicirelli, 1989; 1995, 1996; Riggio, 2000; Riggio, 2006; Stocker, Lanthier, & Furman, 1997; Weaver et al., 2003). Tucker and colleagues (2001) investigated older and younger siblings support of one another during middle childhood and adolescence in the domains of parent-child relations, social-life issues, school work, and risky behavior. Both older and younger

PAGE 27

19 sisters provided more support than did older and younger brothers. In addition, although older sisters gave more support about social life to their siblings when they were more competent with peers, they tended to provide the most support about such issues to younger sisters (Tucker et al., 2001). The literature suggests that perceptions of higher levels of closeness between adult siblings has been found for sibling pairs consisting of at least one sister (Cicirelli, 1989; 1995, 1996; Panish & Stricker, 2001; Riggio, 2000; Riggio, 2006; Stocker, Lanthier, & Furman, 1997; Weaver et al., 2003). The perception of a close bond to sisters by either men or women has also been found to be related to psychological adjustment, as indicated by fewer symptoms of depression (Cicirelli, 1989; 1995, 1996; Panish & Stricker, 2001). Other research has found that differences due to the gender constellation of the sibling dyad depend on aspects of the sibling relationship being explored. For example, Weaver and colleagues (2003) found that while female sibling pairs were more likely to provide assistance to each other than brother pairs and oppositesex siblings, sisters did not differ significantly from male sibling pairs in terms of identifying with each other and teaching behaviors. Consistency in Sibling Ratings Much of the research that is conducted on siblings regarding sibling relationships and individual outcome is based on either parental report or the perspective of one sibling. Those studies that have employed th e perceptions of both siblings either do not examine congruence in sibling ratings or have mixed findings relative to consistency in siblings views of parental behaviors and sibling relations. For example, several studies of child and adolescent siblings found little to no consistency in siblings perceptions of

PAGE 28

20 differential treatment (Dunn & McGuire, 1994; McHale & Crouter, 1996) as well as in their perceptions of the sibling relationship (Dunn & McGuire, 1994) suggesting that each sibling may attribute different meanings to the same family dynamics The literature on adult siblings, however, suggests low to moderate consistency in siblings perceptions of parenting behaviors (Brody et al., 1998; Daniels & Plomin, 1985; Kowal, Krull & Kramer, 2006; McCrae & Costa, 1988; Schwarz, Barton-Henry, & Pruzinsky, 1985) and substantial consistency relative to perceptions of the sibling relationship (Stocker et al., 1997). These findings suggest that perceptions of the sibling relationship may have a developmental course. Because most siblings live at home with their parents during childhood/adolescence when the family dynamics are more salient, they may be more sensitive to any amount of disparity in parenting behaviors. Adult siblings who are less likely to be living at home and who have had more time to reflect on their parents, however, may be somewhat more stable and consistent in their views about family members as they come to terms with the characteristics of their family relations. In fact, conclusions based on longitudinal research assessing the stability of adolescents reports of parenting behaviors over time suggested that adolescents recall of events were the most stable beginning between the ages of 19 and 23 (Schlette, Brandstrom, Eismann, Sigvardsson, Nylander, Adolfsson, & Perris, 1998; Winfield, Goldney, Tiggermann, & Winfield, 1990). Summary Overall, the literature suggests that individuals who receive less warmth and affection and more control from their parents in comparison to their siblings, tend to experience significantly more internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems and

PAGE 29

21 difficulty with peers (Daniels et al., 1985; Dunn, Stocker, & Plomin, 1990; McHale et al., 2000; Tejerina-Allen et al., 1994). In addition, differential parental treatment has often been associated with conflicted sibling relations regardless of which sibling is favored (Boer et al., 1992; Brody & Stoneman, 1994; Furman & Giberson, 1995). Furthermore, higher levels of conflict and negativity in sibli ng interactions appear to be associated with difficult temperamental characteristics (Furman & Lanthier, 1996; Pike & Atzaba-Poria, 2003), particularly for individuals who perceive that they experienced less positivity in the parent-child relationship relative to their siblings (Boll et al., 2003; Brody et al., 1998; Mash & Johnson, 1983; Stoneman & Brody, 1993). In contrast, close bonds with siblings have been associated with fewer emotional and behavioral problems among children and adolescents (Beardsall & Dunn, 1992; Cicirelli, 1989; 1995, 1996; McHale et al., 2000). The literature also suggests that although children and adolescents report more positivity in same sex sibling relationships (Buhrmester, 1992; McHale et al., 2000; Tucker et al., 2001), adult siblings report more positivity in their relationships when the pair consists of at least one sister (Cicirelli, 1989; 1995, 1996; 1995; 1996; Panish & Stricker, 2001; Riggio, 2000; Riggio, 2006; Stocker et al., 1997; Weaver et al., 2003). In addition, whereas research comparing siblings perceptions of relationships within the family have found little to no consistency in child/adolescent ratings, small but significant associations have been observed for adult siblings. Furthermore, the literature indicates that early experiences persist during the transition from childhood/adolescence to adulthood and have a significant impact on adjustment later in life (Bank et al., 1996; Bedford, 1992, 1998; Ross & Milgram, 1982). The purpose of this research, therefore, was to explore perceptions of differential parental treatment and individual temperament

PAGE 30

22 in relation to the quality of the childhood and current sibling relationship and psychological adjustment in young adults. Purpose of Research and Hypotheses The degree to which siblings perceive disparity in the way parents relate to their individual children as well as their childrens temperamental style may be adversely related to the quality of the sibling relationship (Brody et al., 1998; Dunn, Stocker, & Plomin, 1990; Furman & Giberson, 1995; McHa le et al., 2000; Stocker & McHale, 1992; Volling & Belsky, 1992). According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), sibling relations during childhood can serve as a model for social interactions outside of the family (Brody et al., 1998; Cicirelli, 1989; 1995, 1996; Dunn, 1990; Dunn & Plomin, 1990; Jenkins, 1992; Pike & Atzaba-Poria, 2003). Because of the potential consequences of negative sibling interactions for children, parents, and society (e.g., peers and romantic partners), it is worthwhile to explore the relationship between parenting behaviors (i.e., differential parental treatment), temperamental style, children and young adults sibling relationships, and psychological adjustment. The purpose of this research was to investigate the relationship between perceptions of differential parental treatment during childhood, temperamental characteristics, perceptions of the childhood and current sibling relationship, and current levels of psychological adjustment in college students and their siblings. In order to assess the relationship between psychological consequences in adulthood and differential parental treatment earlier in life, it is appropriate to examine older offspring. Very little research has been conducted on differential parental treatment, temperamental style, childhood and current sibling relationships, and psychological adjustment in young

PAGE 31

23 adults. Thus, this research may provide insight regarding relationship and emotional/behavioral problems experienced by young adults that are related to temperament and perceptions of differential parental treatment during childhood. Based on the literature, it appears that the extent to which these problems are experienced depends on the quality of the parent-child relationship and negativity in sibling interactions during childhood. Furthermore, in order to determine the degree to which these problems persist into adulthood, it is necessary to examine this trend among older adolescents and young adults (e.g., undergraduate college students and their siblings). A significant issue that arises in collecting this type of data, however, pertains to the validity of retrospective reports given the fact that the information obtained was based on recollections of childhood experiences as opposed to experiences that occur currently. It has been suggested that such recollections are typically subject to distortions as a function of normal limitations in memory, general memory deficits associated with psychopathology, and mood-congruent memory processes (Brewin, Andrews & Gotlib, 1993). Results of several studies that examined the relation between participants' depression and retrospective recall of their parents' parenting behaviors, however, provide evidence of the validity of retrosp ective reports of these early experiences (Brewin et al., 1993). The findings revealed that recall was similar whether or not the person was depressed at the time that the self-report measures were completed. Therefore, depressed mood did not appear to influence recall of childhood memories substantially. Relative to these findings, it has been suggested that for such personally significant experiences as parenting and childhood sibling interactions, individuals access the same set of highly selected and rehearsed memories regardless of their mood state.

PAGE 32

24 On the other hand, memories that are less well-rehearsed (i.e., recent experiences) may be more influenced by mood (Brewin et al., 1993). Consistent with the literature regarding the relationship between differential parental treatment, temperament, childhood and current sibling relationships, and young adults psychological adjustment, the following hypotheses were generated: Hypothesis 1 a. It was expected that siblings ratings of their overall attitudes toward the sibling relationship would be positively related. b. It was expected that siblings ratings of parental treatment that occurred during childhood would be related. This hypothesis is based on the literature on adult siblings that suggests low to moderate consistency in siblings perceptions of parenting behaviors (Brody et al., 1998; Daniels & Plomin, 1985; McCrae & Costa, 1988; Schwarz, BartonHenry, & Pruzinsky, 1985) and significant consistency regarding perceptions of the sibling relationship (Stocker et al., 1997). Hypothesis 2 It was expected that participants retrospective reports of the childhood sibling relationship would be positively related to their own perceptions of the current sibling relationship. This hypothesis is based on the literature which suggests that thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with the childhood sibling relationship persist through the transition to adulthood (Bedford, 1992, 1998; Riggio, 2000; Riggio, 2006; Ross & Milgram, 1982).

PAGE 33

25 Hypothesis 3 Individuals who perceive more disparity in parental treatment, regardless of the direction, were expected to report more negativity in the childhood and current sibling relationship than would individuals who perceived that their parents engaged in less differentiating behaviors. This hypothesis is based on the literature which suggests that differential parental treatment is associated with conflicted sibling relations regardless of which sibling is favored (Boer et al., 1992; Boll et al., 2003; Brody & Stoneman, 1994; Furman & Giberson, 1995). Therefore, it is the parents differential behavior in general rather than the direction that the differentiating occurs that breeds hostility and conflict between siblings (Boer et al., 1992). Furthermore, the literature indicates that these early experiences persist during the transition from childhood/adolescence to adulthood (Bank et al., 1996; Bedford, 1992, 1998; Ross & Milgram, 1982). Hypothesis 4 Sibling pairs with at least one female were expected to report more positive overall attitudes toward the sibling relationship than would male sibling dyads. This hypothesis is based on the literature which suggests that adult siblings report more positivity in their relationships when the pair consists of at least one sister (Cicirelli, 1989; 1995, 1996; Panish & Stricker, 2001; Riggio, 2000; Riggio, 2006; Stocker et al., 1997; Weaver et al., 2003). Hypothesis 5 Individuals reporting that they received differentially less warmth and/or more control from their parents relative to their siblings were expected to report higher

PAGE 34

26 levels of psychological symptoms than individuals who reported experiencing relatively more warmth and/or less control from their parents. This hypothesis is based on the findings of various studies which revealed that children and adolescents who receive less warmth and affection and more control from their parents tend to experience significantly more internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems (Daniels et al ., 1985; Dunn, Stocker, & Plomin, 1990; McHale et al., 2000; Tejerina-Allen, et al ., 1994). These findings are consistent with the adult literature which suggested that the direction of differential parental treatment was significantly more predictive of level of adjustment than the magnitude of such parenting behavi ors. Specifically, individuals who experienced lower levels of parental warmth and higher levels of parental control during childhood reported more negative self-perceptions of ability and selfworth (Barrett-Singer & Weinstein, 2000; Brody et al., 1998; Schlette et al., 2001). Hypothesis 6 Individuals reporting more negative temperamental characteristics (higher levels of activity, emotionality, and anger and lower levels of sociability) were expected to report less positivity in their attitudes toward the childhood and adult sibling relationship. This hypothesis is based on the literature which suggests that individuals with more difficult temperaments tend to have more conflicted sibling relationships (Brody et al., 1998; Brody & Stoneman, 1994; Furman & Lanthier, 1996; Pike & Atzaba-Poria, 2003).

PAGE 35

28 Method Participants A power analysis with an alpha of .05, power of .80 and an expectation of a medium effect size indicated that a minimum of 84 sibling pairs would be required for an adequate test of the hypotheses. A total of 316 students recruited from the Psychology and Communication Sciences and Disorders Departments at the University of South Florida (USF) participated voluntarily in the study. Of these students, 89 had siblings who returned completed packets. Two of the 89 siblings were outside of the age range (18-25 years, with a sibling within three years of the students age) required for the current study. Therefore, the final sample included a total of 87 sibling pairs consisting of undergraduate students at USF and their siblings. In order to ensure a relatively homogeneous sample with respect to age, only students between 18 and 25 years of age and one sibling who was also between the ages of 18 and 25 and within three years of the students age were invited to participate. Of the student participants, a total of eight (9%) were male and 79 (91%) were female. A total of 33 (38%) siblings were male and 54 (62%) were female. Participants had a mean of 2.83 ( SD = 3.21) siblings (including biological, ha lf, step, and adopted siblings). The majority of participants (92%) reported on their biological sibling. Thirty-seven percent of the pairs consisted of a female student and her brother ( n = 32), 54% ( n = 47) consisted of a female student and her sister, 1% ( n = 1) were made up of male students reporting on a brother, and 8% ( n = 7) consisted of a male student reporting on his sister.

PAGE 36

29 Participants and their siblings reported relatively frequent contact with each other (an average of 10-11 times per month). The mean age of the student participants was 20.53 years ( SD = 1.68) and the mean age of the siblings was 20.80 ( SD = 1.96). The mean age difference between the student and sibling was 2.01 years ( SD = .90). The sample was ethnically diverse such that 74% of the sibling pairs were Caucasian, 12% of the siblings were African American, 11% of the siblings were Latino/La tina, and 3% of the sibling pairs were identified as Other. In terms of residential status, student participants reported most commonly that they currently reside in an apartment (48%) while the most common living situation of their siblings was with their parents (44%). The remaining participants reported other living arrangements including dormitory, with sibling, with family members or spouse, or some other living situation. Participants reported on their biological mother (94%) and their biological father (87%) predominantly. Sixty-four percent of the participants indicated that their parents were currently married to each other, 26% reported that their parents were separated/divorced and neither were married, or that one or both of their parents were remarried. The remaining 10% reported various parental marital constellations. Participants and their siblings reported relatively frequent contact with their parents. Specifically, student participants reported that they saw their mother and father on an average of 8-10 times per month ( SD = 11.87 for mothers and 11.54 for fathers) and had contact with them 12-19 times per month ( SD = 13.14 for mothers and 12.29 for fathers). Siblings reported seeing their parents an average of 17-20 times per month ( SD = 33.92 for mothers and 34.02 for fathers) and having contact with them

PAGE 37

30 between 13-18 times per month ( SD = 19.25 for mothers and 17.74 for fathers). Table 1 lists the demographic information for siblings and their parents. Table 1. Demographic Information for Sibling and Parent Relationships Range Mean SD Frequency of sibling contact per/month Student Sees sibling 0-31 10.23 12.07 Contact with sibling 31 11.42 10.51 Sibling Sees sibling 0-100 10.71 15.45 Contact with sibling 0-35 11.14 11.13 Frequency of contact with parents per/month Student Sees mother 0-31 10.57 11.87 Contact with mother 0-60 19.39 13.14 Sees father 0-31 8.75 11.54 Contact with father 0-60 12.65 12.29 Sibling Sees mother 0-300 19.96 33.92 Contact with mother 0-120 17.84 19.25 Sees father 0-300 17.12 34.02 Contact with father 0-100 12.93 17.74 N % Gender Constellation of participant and sibling Female-male 32 37 Female-female 47 54 Male-male 1 1 Male-female 7 8 Genetic Relationship to Sibling Biological 80 93 Adopted 1 1 Half 2 2 Step 3 4

PAGE 38

31 Table 1 (Continued). Demographic Information for Sibling and Parent Relationships N % Current Parental Marital Status Still married to each other 56 64 Separated/divorced not remarried 10 12 Divorced only mother remarried 8 8 Divorced only father remarried 5 6 Divorced both remarried 3 3 Mother passed away, father single 1 1 Father passed away, mother single 2 2 Father passed away, mother remarried 2 2 Other 1 1 Participants Without Sibling Data Analyses were completed to compare participants whose sibling did or did not complete the measures. Of the student participants whose siblings did not participate in the study, a total of 192 (84%) were female and 36 (16%) were male. The specific gender constellation was as follows: 101 (44%) female student/female sibling, 91 (40%) female student/male sibling, 17 (8%) male student/female sibling, and 19 (8%) male student/male sibling. To determine whether there were significant differences between student participants whose siblings did versus did not participate in the study with respect to students age, reports of parenting behaviors, amount of contact with sibling and parents, temperamental style, sibling relationship, and psychological symptoms, several t-tests were conducted. The means and results of the t-tests can be seen in Table 2. Ratings of the amount of differential maternal control were significantly greater for students whose siblings did not participate (M = .43) than for those whose sibling did participate in the study (M = .30), df = 308, t = -2.16, p < .05). In addition, significantly higher levels of

PAGE 39

32 anger were reported for students whose siblings did not participate (M = 2.64) than for those whose siblings did (M = 2.40), df = 311, t = -2.08, p < .05). There were no significant differences between students whose si blings did and did not participate in the study on the other 21 variables that were explored. A chi-square analysis was also conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference in response rate for participants reporting on same versus oppositesexed siblings. The findings revealed no significant relationship between response rate and siblings being the same (75%) versus opposite gender (69%), 2 (1, N=228) = 1.01, p = .32). Table 2. Means, and Standard Deviations of Students w ith Participating and Non-Participating Siblings __________________________________________________________________ Students with Participating Students with Non-Participating Siblings (n = 87) Siblings (n = 228) Mean SD Mean SD t Age 20.53 1.68 20.43 1.92 __ BSI .74 .59 .77 .61 __ TSA Sociability 3.43 .91 3.46 .85 __ Activity 3.01 .85 3.09 .84 __ Emotionality 2.21 .90 2.34 .99 __ Anger 2.40 .85 2.64 .91 -2.08* LSRS Total Adult 90.30 19.10 88.37 20.34 __ Total Child 88. 96 20.08 85.68 19.25 __ LSRS Total 178.52 32.20 173.64 34.43 __ SIDE-R Amt of MA .38 .51 .44 .51 __ Amt of MC .30 .44 .43 .50 -2.17* Amt of PA .44 .45 .54 .63 __ Amt of PC .33 .57 .40 .52 __

PAGE 40

33 Table 2 (Continued). Means, and Standard Deviations of Students w ith Participating and Non-Participating Siblings __________________________________________________________________ Students with Participating Students with Non-Participating Siblings (n = 87) Siblings (n = 228) Mean SD Mean SD t SIDE-R Dir of MA .03 .64 .09 .67 __ Dir of MC .06 .53 .11 .65 __ Dir of PA .10 .62 -.04 .82 __ Dir of PC .02 .66 -.05 .66 __ Freq. of sibling contact p/mo. Sees 10.23 12.15 10.01 12.01 __ Contact 11.53 10.52 12.71 11.95 __ Freq. of contact w/parents p/mo. Sees mom 10.52 11.93 10.30 11.66 __ Contact mom 18.92 12.46 18.28 11.77 __ Sees dad 8.79 11.60 7.45 10.78 __ Contact dad 12.56 12.33 11.59 10.83 __ Note. Dashes ( __ ) indicate a nonsignificant t-test comparison (p < .05). p < .048. BSI = Brief Symptom Inventory; TSA = Temperament Survey for Adults; LSRS = Lifespan sibling Relationship Scale; SIDE-R = The Sibling Inventory of Differential Experience-Revised (Amt of MA= Amount of Maternal Affection; Amt of MC= Amount of Maternal Control; Amt of PA= Amount of Paternal Affection; Amt of PC= Amount of Paternal Control; Dir of MA= Direction of Ma ternal Affection; Dir of MC= Direction of Maternal Control; Dir of PA= Direction of Pa ternal Affection; Dir of PC= Direction of Paternal Control). Given the number of t-test analyses that were conducted, modified Bonferroni tests were computed to reduce the alpha level required for statistical significance (Keppel, 1991). The modified Bonferroni method is calculated by multiplying alpha (.05) by the number of planned comparisons minus 1 and dividing this number by the number of planned comparisons.

PAGE 41

34 The significant differences between students whose siblings did or did not participate with respect to reported levels of anger and amount of differential maternal control remained significant after modified Bonferonni correction (p < .048). These results suggest that there were few differences between students with participating and non-participating siblings on a variety of parenting, relationship, and personal characteristics. Based on these findings, the student sample appears to be representative of college students at the university. Therefore, given the minimal differences between student participants whose sibling did versus did not participate in the study, the final sample of 87 sibling pairs appears to be representative for an adequate (although somewhat limited) test of the hypotheses. Measures Demographics. A demographics questionnaire (Appendix A) was included and inquired about students' current living situation (e.g., currently residing with chosen sibling, at home, in a dorm, apartment, etc.), age, gender, race, age of chosen sibling, gender of sibling, biological relationship to sibling (i.e., full, half, step, or adopted), and frequency of contact between siblings and parents and siblings. The participants were asked to base their responses to items on all questionnaires related to siblings on one sibling whose age was within three years of their own. That sibling was sent a packet of information including a demographics questionnaire (Appendix B) and the measures. The sibling was asked to respond to all questions keeping in mind the sibling identified as having participated in the study as well as the same set of parents as the student.

PAGE 42

35 Psychological functioning. Students and sibling were asked to complete the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Spencer, 1982; Appendix C) which is a 53-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure current levels of psychological distress. The respondent is asked to rate each item on a scale from 0 ( not at all ) to 4 ( extremely ) regarding how much they are distressed by a particular problem. This scale can be scored and profiled in terms of nine primary symptom dimensions: 1) Somatization, 2) Obsessive-Compulsive, 3) Interpersonal Sensitivity, 4) Depression, 5) Anxiety, 6) Hostility, 7) Phobic Anxiety, 8) Paranoid Ideation, and 9) Psychoticism. The BSI also consists of three global indices which include: 1) Global Severity Index (GSI), 2) Positive Symptom Distress Index (PSDI), and 3) Positive Symptom Total (PST). The questionnaire has been shown to be internally consistent (alphas range from .71 on the Psychoticism dimension to .85 on Depression) and reliable over time (test-retest at two weeks ranged from .68 on Somatization to .91 for Phobic Anxiety). A reliability coefficient of .90 on the Global Severity Index indicates that this instrument is stable across time. For the purpose of this study, only the Global Severity Index was interpreted in order to obtain an overall assessment of psychological and physical wellbeing. In the current sample, alphas for the Global Severity Index for students and their siblings were .96. Higher numbers on the meas ure reflect greater psychological distress. Sibling relationship. Students and siblings were asked to complete the Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale (LSRS; Riggio, 2000; Appendix D) which is a 48-item selfreport instrument that measures three dimensions of the sibling relationship in childhood and adulthood: frequency and positivity of behavior toward the sibling, affect toward the sibling, and beliefs about the sibling and the sibling relationship. Respondents are asked

PAGE 43

36 to complete the LSRS with only one sibling relationship in mind and are asked to rate each item on a scale from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree). The LSRS has demonstrated internal reliability (alphas range from .84 to .89, .87 to .91, and .96 for the Child, Adult and total scales, respectively) and stability (test-retest at the time of norming and at one month yielded correlations greater than .80 and .91 for the total scale) in responses over time. In the current sample, alphas for the Child, Adult, and total scales for students were .83 to .92, .88 to .90, and .96, respectively and ..87 to .88, .83 to .88, and .96, respectively for siblings. Furthermore, the LSRS has been shown to have convergent and discriminant validity with measures of personality, social support, psychological well-being, social desirability, and an alternative measure of adult sibling relationship quality. Higher scores on the LSRS reflect more positivity in the sibling relationship. Temperament. Students and siblings were asked to complete the Temperament Survey for Adults (TSA; Buss & Plomin, 1984; Appendix E) questionnaire which is a 20item self-report measure that yields three dimensions of temperament: emotionality, defined as the tendency to become upset easily and intensely, activity level, and sociability, the tendency to prefer the presence of others to being alone (Buss & Plomin, 1984). Respondents are asked to rate the items on a scale from 1 ( not characteristic or typical of yourself) to 5 ( very characteristic or typical of yourself ). The adult version of the EAS, which was used in the present study, yields a further three subdivisions of the emotionality subscale: anger, fear, and emotional distress. Only the anger and emotional distress (emotionality) scales were included for use in the current study given that these characteristics have consistently been found to be related to the quality of the parent-

PAGE 44

37 child and sibling relationship whereas fearfulness has not been studied relative to such relationships. On average, test-retest reliability for the adult EAS scale was .82 for a two week interval (Buss & Plomin, 1984). In the current sample, alphas for the Sociability, Activity, Emotionality, and Anger scales for students were .71, .71, .79 and .62, respectively, and .65, .61, .74, and .57, respectively for siblings. Higher numbers on each scale reflect higher levels of that temperamental characteristic. Parental behavior. Students and siblings were asked to complete the Sibling Inventory of Differential Experience-Revised (SIDE-R; Barrett-Singer & Weinstein, 2000; Appendix F G) which is an adaptation of the SIDE (Daniels & Plomin, 1985) designed to assess siblings differential experience with regard to perceived parental affection and control. The SIDE requires that the respondents make direct comparisons between the way his/her parents treated them and one sibling on the same questionnaire, whereas the SIDE-R was designed as a quantitative measure of the perceptions of direct parental treatment of self and of the sibling on independent scales. The SIDE assesses four domains: non-mutuality of sibling interaction, differential parental treatment, differential peer characteristics, and events specific to each sibling. Like the SIDE, the SIDE-R also assesses differential parental treatment in the domains of maternal and paternal Differential Control and Differential Affection. Unlike the SIDE, the SIDE-R only measures parental behaviors across 8 subscales: maternal affection toward participant (MA.self), maternal control toward participant (MA.self), maternal affection toward sibling (MA.sib), maternal control toward sibling (MC.sib), paternal affection toward participant (PA.self), paternal control toward participant (PA.self), paternal affection toward sibling (PA.sib), and pate rnal control toward sibling (PC.sib).

PAGE 45

38 The Differential Control and Differential Affection scales of this instrument were used to measure the respondents perceptions of the magnitude of maternal and paternal differential treatment directed toward themselves and that experienced by their sibling while growing up. Respondents are asked to report on their and their siblings interactions with each parent on independent scales. Respondents rate each item on a scale from 1 ( Almost Never) to 4 ( Almost Always ) relative to how their parents treated them on one scale and treated their sibling on a separate scale in the domains of control and affection. The Control scale includes four items assessing parental strictness, punishment, blame, and discipline. The Affection scale consists of five items that measure parental pride, interest, favoritism, enjoyment, and sensitivity. The instructions are worded so that responses for individuals whose parent(s) are deceased or are divorced are based on the mother and father with whom they lived for the longest period of time. For each respondent, a relative differential treatment score is obtained by subtracting the score for perceived treatment of sibling from the score for perceived treatment of self. Relative differential treatment measures convey the perceived direction and magnitude of differential parental treatment. Each relative response can be recoded on an absolute scale such that scores are obtained from the mathematical absolute value of each relative differential treatment item score. Absolute differential treatment measures convey the perceived overall amount of differential parental treatment, regardless of direction. Therefore, an absolute differential treatment item score of means that there was no perceived parental differential treatment while an absolute differential treatment score of means that there were high levels of perceived parental differential treatment.

PAGE 46

39 To examine participants perceptions of their direct interactions with their parents without regard for the frequency of their parents interactions with their sibling, the maternal affection toward participant (MA.self), paternal affection toward participant (PA.self), maternal control toward participant (MC.self), and paternal control toward participant (PC.self) can be used. For each subscale, the individual subscale item scores are added together and divided by the number of items for that subscale. Test-retest reliability at two-weeks for the affection and control subscales of the SIDE for each parent range from .77 to .93, with a mean of .84 (Daniels & Plomin, 1985). The alpha coefficients for the scales of the SIDE-R are .79 for differential affection and .76 for differential control (Barrett-Singer & Weinstein, 2000). The alpha coefficients for the current sample range from .74 to .79 for maternal affection, .71 to .83 for maternal control, .77 to .84 for paternal affection, and .76 to .88 for paternal control. Procedure The procedures outlined by the Psychology Department and Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of South Florida were followed regarding the use of the subject pool. Participants recruited from the university were provided with extra credit points as an incentive to encourage participation in the study. Willing students completed an address label for questionnaires that were sent to their sibling. As an incentive to participate, the students siblings were informed that their names would be entered into a drawing allowing them to have the opportunity to receive one of two cash prizes of $100 each or one of a selection of small gift certificates to local merchants. After providing consent to participate in the study (Appendix H), each student participant completed the battery of questionnaires in a small group. The questionnaires

PAGE 47

40 were organized in such a manner to avoid sensitizing the participants to the goals of the research: the BSI, TSA, LSRS, and the SIDE-R. The measure of psychological and physical symptoms (the BSI) was distributed first in order to avoid mood induction based on recalled events. The total amount of time required to complete the questionnaires was approximately 30-45 minutes. Students were asked to fill in their siblings address on a label that was stamped with an identification number for matching student and sibling measures. The labels were attached directly to the packet of sibling questionnaires and mailed to the siblings. Siblings were provided with a business-reply return envelope addressed to the researcher. At the end of the session, each student received a receipt for extra credit and an Educational Debriefing form (Appendix I). The packet that was mailed to the siblings consisted of a description of the study (Appendix J), a consent form (Appendix K), the measures, and information regarding the opportunity to obtain one of two cash prizes of $100 or one of a selection of small gift certificates to local merchants when their name was entered into a drawing as a function of their participation. The siblings were also provided with instructions regarding the order in which the questionnaires should be completed and were asked to respond to all questionnaires, keeping in mind the sibling who was identified on the instructions and demographics forms as having participated in the study. Siblings were also instructed to respond to the parent measures, keeping in mind the same set of parents as the student.

PAGE 48

41 Results Descriptive Statistics Table 3 lists the means, standard deviations, and ranges for each scale. The mean BSI, TSA, LSRS, and SIDE-R scores are consistent with findings in other samples (Barrett-Singer & Weinstein, 2000; Buss & Plomin, 1984; Derogatis & Spencer, 1982; Riggio, 2000). Specifically, participants reported little psychological/emotional distress, were relatively even-tempered, had generally positive perceptions of the sibling relationship, and reported relatively little differential parental treatment. Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Measures __________________________________________________________________ Scale Mean SD Range BSI Females .73 .61 .02-3.58 Males .65 .51 .04-2.64 TSA Females Sociability 3.42 .92 .75-5 Activity 2.87 .77 1-4.75 Emotionality 2.25 .93 1-4.75 Anger 2.45 .90 1-5 Males Sociability 3.27 .87 1.75-5 Activity 2.66 .85 1-4.50 Emotionality 1.79 .70 1-3.50 Anger 2.34 .78 1-4.50 LSRS Females Total Adult 92.04 18.35 35-120 Total Child 91.02 19.70 42-120 LSRS Total 183.05 32.14 109-238

PAGE 49

42 Table 3 (Continued). Means, Standard Deviations, And Ranges of Measures Scale Mean S.D. Range LSRS Males Total Adult 80.24 15.99 49-120 Total Child 78.85 17.11 23-118 LSRS Total 159.10 22.13 90-204 SIDE-R Females Maternal Direct Affection 3.12 .64 1.00-4.00 Direct Control 2.42 .70 1.00-4.00 Affection to Sibling 3.12 .61 1.00-4.00 Control to Sibling 2.38 .76 1.00-4.00 Amount of DfA .35 .45 .00-2.00 Amount of DfC .32 .43 .00-2.00 Direction of DfA .002 .57 -2.00-2.00 Direction of DfC .04 .53 -2.00-1.75 Paternal Direct Affection 2.90 .77 1.00-4.00 Direct Control 2.29 .84 1.00-4.00 Affection to Sibling 2.84 .74 1.00-4.00 Control to Sibling 2.22 .81 1.00-4.00 Amount of DfA .39 .42 .00-2.00 Amount of DfC .35 .54 .00-2.75 Direction of DfA .06 .58 -1.40-2.00 Direction of DfC .07 .64 -2.75-2.75 Males Maternal Direct Affection 3.01 .65 1.40-4.00 Direct Control 2.38 .79 1.00-4.00 Affection to Sibling 3.15 .56 1.80-4.00 Control to Sibling 2.29 .63 1.00-4.00 Amount of DfA .49 .66 .00-2.60 Amount of DfC .46 .46 .00-2.00 Direction of DfA -.14 .81 -2.60-1.20 Direction of DfC .09 .65 -2.00-1.50 Paternal Direct Affection 2.73 .63 1.00-4.00 Direct Control 2.26 .75 1.00-4.00

PAGE 50

43 Table 3 (Continued). Means, Standard Deviations, And Ranges of Measures Scale Mean S.D. Range SIDE-R Males Paternal Affection to Sibling 2.73 .79 1.00-4.00 Control to Sibling 2.19 .80 1.00-3.75 Amount of DfA .46 .44 .00-2.00 Amount of DfC .36 .48 .00-1.75 Direction of DfA -.01 .64 -1.20-1.60 Direction of DfC .07 .60 -1.75-1.75 Note. BSI = Brief Symptom Inventory; TSA = Temperament Survey for Adults; LSRS = Lifespan sibling Relationship Scale; SIDE-R = the Sibling Inventory of Differential Experience-Revised (DfA = Differential Affection; DfC = Differential Control). Data Analytic Strategies Analyses were conducted using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kashy & Kenny, 1999). This model takes into account the interdependence (i.e., nonindependence) of observations between indi viduals involved in dyadic relationships (e.g., couples, siblings, roommates) wherein each member of the dyad may directly or indirectly influence the others cognitions, emotions, and behaviors (Campbell & Kashy, 2002; Cook & Kenny, 2005; Cook & Snyder, 2005; Kenny & Cook, 1999; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) as a result of existing in the same context and being exposed to similar influences (Kenny, 1996). Due to this interdependence, members of the dyad may score similarly on measures of personal or relational characteristics (Kenny, 1996; Kenny & Cook, 1999). As a result of this similarity, the responses from partners are often correlated, making it difficult, to determine whether the variance in the outcome variables is related to the specified set of predictors in the study or due to factors associated with dyad membership. Therefore, it has been posited that the analysis of

PAGE 51

44 dyadic data should reflect this interpersonal system as opposed to treating the data as if they were obtained from a set of individuals whose scores are independent (Campbell & Kashy, 2002; Cook & Kenny, 2005; Cook & Synder, 2005; Kenny & Cook, 1999; Kenny & Kashy, 1999). When interdependence is reflected in dyadic data and the individual is treated as the unit of analysis, a bias in the significance testing can result in an increase in Type I or Type II errors (Kashy & Synder, 1995; Kenny, 1995). When the issue of nonindependence is ignored, research involving dyads has often involved either separately correlating the outcome variable with the predictor scores of each person in the dyad, assuming that each person is affected only by his or her own score on the predictor variable, or conducting separate analyses on the basis of some distinguishing feature (e.g., gender; Kenny & Cook, 1999; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Researchers may also adopt a partner-oriented approach wherein the assumption is that the person is affected by his or her partners score but is not affected by his or her own score. These methods, however, fail to account for the bi-directional influences that are typical in interpersonal relationships. Consequently, the observed effects may be overestimated due to failure to control for actor or partner effects with either approach. Because dyad members scores on the predictor variables may be correlated, such controls are necessary. Therefore, given that the sibling dyad represents an interpersonal system, it is necessary for each person to be considered simultaneously (Kenny & Cook, 1999) in order to illustrate the interpersonal nature of such relationships. For example, while an individuals temperamental style may be related to his or her own perceptions of their relationship with the sibling, the siblings temperamental style may also be related to that individuals perceptions of the relationship.

PAGE 52

45 In recent years, multilevel modeling (i.e., hierarchical linear modeling) has become a popular method for analyzing dyadic data because it takes into account the interdependence of observations between partners. In multilevel modeling, the lower level is the individual and the upper level represents the dyad. The variance associated with each level is estimated. Kenny and colleagues (Kashy & Kenny, 2000; Kenny & Cook, 1999) proposed the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM), which offers several advantages as compared to other data analytic strategies for dyadic data. Specifically, the APIM is a type of multilevel model that addresses the fact that the level of analysis in research involving dyads should represent an interpersonal system such that the unit of analysis is the dyad as opposed to the individual. Therefore, the APIM allows for both individual and partner effects to be examined simultaneously. Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) In the APIM (see Figure 1), the dyad is the unit of analysis and each member of the dyad has a score on a particular independent or predictor variable, as denoted by A1 and B1 in the figure. Each member of the dyad also has a score on the dependent or outcome variable, represented by A2 and B2 in the figure. In the model, actor effects are defined as the direct effect an individuals independent variable has on his or her ow n dependent variable (A1.A2; B1.B2). For example, the effect of one siblings temperam ental style on his or her own perceptions of the sibling relationship is an actor effect. In contrast, partner effects represent the influence that an individuals independent variable has on his or her part ners dependent variable (A1.B2; B1.A2), while controlling for actor effects. Partner effects are a source of non-independence and reflect the mutual or bi-directional influences inherent in interpersonal relationships that

PAGE 53

affect each persons outcome (Campbell & Kashy, 2002; Cook & Kenny, 2005; Cook & Snyder, 2005; Kenny, 1996; Kenny & Cook, 1999; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). An example is the influence that one siblings temperamental style has on his or her siblings perception of the sibling relationship. As previously stated, partner effects essentially reflect the amount of interdependence between members of a dyad and serve as evidence that the dyad is an interdependent system (Kenny & Cook, 1999). Figure 1. Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) 46 A1 A2 e1 e2 B2 B1 The correlation between the residual scores (e1. e2) in the model indicates that there is still interdependence in siblings scores even after the effect of interpersonal influence has been controlled. In the current study, the level of interdependence in sibling attitudes toward their relationship may be due to additional factors associated with being raised in the same family (e.g., level of communication within the family, shared values, goals and interests; Ross & Milgram, 1982). In addition, the degree of nonindependence in siblings level of functioning may be attributed, but not limited, to other sources of variance including shared genetic background, exposure to marital conflict, abuse/neglect, parental level of functioning, and unshared experiences (e.g., accidents, illness, traumatic events, relationship with peers; Bank, et al., 1996; Barrett-Singer & Weinstein, 2000; Bearsdall

PAGE 54

47 & Dunn, 1992; Boer et al., 1992; Brody et al., 1998; Clark & Phares, 2004; Daniels et al., 1985; OLeary, 1984; Tejerina-Allen et al., 1994). The APIM approach was used given the potential of interdependence in the current sample of sibling dyads who, as a function of being raised in the same family, are likely to influence each others thoughts, emotions, and behaviors both directly and indirectly (Dattilio, 2005; Minuchin, 2002). Specifically, this method was utilized in order to clarify the role that each person has relative to his or her own and his or her siblings temperamental characteristics and perceptions of differential parental treatment with regards to assessment of the sibling relationship and current level of functioning (i.e., psychological adjustment). The independent variables included perceptions of parental treatment (towards the self, amount of differential treatment, and direction of differential treatment), gender constellation of the sibling dyad, and temperamental style. The dependent variables were perceptions of di rect parenting behavior toward the sibling, ratings of the sibling relationship (overall, childhood, and adulthood), and level of functioning. The APIM model was analyzed using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) in SPSS. Note that in the results presented below, the estimates for actor and partner effects are unstandardized regression coefficients which represent the slope of the regression line and are interpreted as the average amount that the dependent variable changes when the independent changes one unit and other independent variables are held constant. In other words, this coefficient reflects the incremental impact of each predictor variable while controlling for other predictors in the model. The t statistic assesses the significance of individual b coefficients, specifically testing the null hypothesis that the regression coefficient is zero.

PAGE 55

48 Current Analyses. To test the hypotheses a total of 11 models were tested based on the APIM. The first model examined each siblings overall perceptions of the sibling relationship. The next four models assessed participants perceptions of direct parenting behaviors (i.e., affection and control) exhibited by each parent toward the sibling. In the sixth model, perceptions of the amount of differential parental treatment were tested against perceptions of sibling interactions during childhood. The seventh model tested perceptions of the amount of differential parental treatment and attitudes toward the sibling relationship during childhood relative to reports of current sibling interactions. The eighth model included the gender constellation of the sibling dyad and overall perceptions of the sibling relationship. In the ninth model, perceptions of the direction of differential parental treatment were tested against reported level of functioning. The last two models assessed reported temperamental style relative to participants perceptions of sibling interactions during childhood and currently. Interdependence To test for the degree of interdependence in siblings outcome scores (perceptions of direct parenting behavior toward the sibling, ratings of the sibling relationship, and psychological symptoms) and validate the use of multilevel modeling, and the APIM more specifically, intraclass correlations (ICC) were computed. The ICC estimates the proportion of variance in the outcome variable that is due to dyad membership/similarity. The ICC can also be used to test the level of agreement between dyad members scores on the same measure. The ICCs were estimated within the APIM and were calculated by taking the ratio of the dyad covariance to the total variance. A positive ICC means positive dependence or similarity within dyads, and a negative ICC means negative dependence or dissimilarity within dyads. If the intraclass correlation

PAGE 56

49 has a p value of .15 or less, the data are considered to be nonindependent (Cook, personal communication, 2006) and the assumption of independence of observations has been violated. In this instance, individuals scores within the same dyad should not be considered independent from each other in terms of analyzing the data. Kenny (2004) suggests that a more liberal p value of .25 can be used. Kenny and Cook (1999) recommend that when observations are determined to be independent, however, it is still important to include dyad level effects in the analysis, even when the person is the unit of analysis, in order to avoid bias in the p values. Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998) have demonstrated that the loss of power that occurs when the dyad is the unit of analysis is often trivial. According to Kenny and Cook (1999), when conducting dyadic research, it is suggested that nonindependence should be assumed even if it cannot be detected statistically. Tests of Hypotheses Perceptions of the Overall Sibling Relationship and Perceptions of Direct Parental Treatment Toward the Self versus the SiblingHypothesis 1. In order to test the hypothesis that siblings overall perceptions of their relationship would be related an intraclass correlation between their total scores on the LSRS was examined. As expected, siblings ratings of the overall sibling relationship were significantly related, ICC = .535, p < .001. To explore the relationship between each participants perceptions of parental treatment that occurred during childhood (Hypothesis 1b), partner effects were tested in four models. A partner effect in this model would represent a relation between an

PAGE 57

50 individuals perceptions of how their sibling was treated by the parents and his or her siblings ratings of their own interactions with the parents. The variables included in these analyses were each siblings scores based on ratings of direct parental Affection and Cont rol toward the self and sibling: MA.self, MC.self, PA.self, and PC.self, MA.sib ling, MC.sibling, PA.sibling, and PC.sibling subscales of the SIDE-R (for each sibling). For the purpose of these analyses, parental behavior toward the self was denoted as the predictor variable and parental behavior toward the sibling was defined as the outcome variable. Defining of the variables was arbitrary. As expected, individuals whose sibling rated themselves as receiving high/low levels of parental affection/control perceived that the sibling experienced high/low levels of parental affection/control. (MA.self b = .286, t (157) = 4.78, p < .001; MC.self ( b = .155, t (148) = 2.58, p < .05; PA.self b = .244, t (150) = 4.24, p < .001; PC.self b = .118, t (164) = 2.14, p < .05). Perceptions of the Childhood and Adult Sibling Relationship-Hypothesis 2. To explore the relationship between each participants perceptions of his or her interactions with the sibling during childhood relative to how they view their current relationship, actor effects were tested while controlling for partner effects. The variables included in this model were each siblings scores based on the Total Child and the Total Adult scale scores on the LSRS. For the purpose of this analysis the variables were defined such that ratings of the childhood sibling relationship were denoted as the predictor variable and perceptions of the adult sibling relationship were defined as the outcome variable. Accordingly, an intraclass correlation was calculated to determine the proportion of variation in participants ratings of the relationship with their sibling during adulthood

PAGE 58

51 that was due to the sibling dyad to which one belongs. The positive intraclass correlation indicated that 43% of the variation in ratings of the adult sibling relationship was due to the particular sibling dyad to which an individual belongs, ICC = .428, p < .01. Although the primary interest was actor effects when examining the relationship between these variables, it was necessary to control for the partner effect in the analysis to avoid overestimation of the actor effect. A significant actor effect for siblings ratings of the childhood sibling relationship revealed that, in support of Hypothesis 2, participants reports of positivity in the relationship during childhood were associated with positivity in the adult sibling relationship, b =.343, t (156) = 3.90, p < 001. The results are listed in the last row of Table 4. Perceptions of the Childhood and Young Adult Sibling Relationship and the Amount of Disparity in Parental TreatmentHypothesis 3 To test the degree of nonindependence in siblings ratings of their current relationship as well as in their interactions during childhood, intraclass correlations were computed. As previously mentioned above, the positive intraclass correlation for siblings perceptions of their relationship during childhood indicated that 43% of the variation in ratings of the childhood sibling relationship was due to the particular sibling dyad to which an individual belongs [ICC = .428, p < .01]. In addition the significant intraclass correlation for siblings ratings of their current relationship revealed that 60% of the variation in scores for perceptions of the adult sibling relationship were accounted for by sibling dyad [ICC = .600, p < .001]. Two models based on the APIM were used to examine the relationship between siblings perceptions of the amount of disparity in parental treatment and the quality of

PAGE 59

52 the childhood and current sibling relationship. In the first model, absolute levels of differential maternal and paternal Control and Affection were entered as predictors and ratings of the childhood sibling relationship were defined as the outcome variable. For the second model, the same predictor variables were used while ratings of the current sibling relationship were defined as the outcome variable. Absolute differential treatment scores were created by computing the absolute values from the relative differential treatment score, which was derived by subtr acting the score for perceived treatment of sibling from the score for perceived treatment of self. Table 4 lists the significant results. Table 4. Significant Predictors of Perceptions of the Sibling Relationship _________________________ Childhood Adult Effect b t b t Amount of MA Actor -5.91 -1.89 -7.88 -2.75** Partner -1.95 -.62 .50 .17 Gender x MA -6.22 -3.45** Amount of MC Actor -9.46 -2.63* -4.15 -1.27 Partner -1.59 -.46 -6.63 -2.11* Partner x Age -6.98 -2.08* Amount of PA Actor -6.05 -1.54 -5.96 -1.66 Partner -1.43 -.36 -9.10 -2.53* Amount of PC Actor .62 .19 2.82 .98 Partner 4.43 1.38 2.64 .92 Perceptions of the Childhood Sibling Relationship Actor .34 3.90*** MA = Maternal Affection; MC = Maternal Control; PA = Paternal Affection; PC = Paternal Control. p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

PAGE 60

53 Exploratory analyses were conducted to determine whether gender, gender constellation of the sibling dyad (i.e., mixedversus same-gender), and birth order moderated the relationship between perceptions of differential parental treatment and ratings of childhood and current sibling interac tions. Given that there was only one pair of brothers in the sample, data from this dyad were not included when examining effects due to gender constellation of the sibling dyad. In the first model, each siblings perceptions of the amount of differential maternal affection, amount of differential maternal control, amount of differential paternal affection, and amount of differential paternal control based on the Affection and Control subscales of the SIDE-R were examined as predictors relative to perceptions of the childhood sibling relationship (Total Child scale score based on the LSRS), which was the outcome variable. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, a significant actor effect for maternal control (b = -9.46, t (142) = 2.63, p < .05) revealed that the more differentially controlling mothers were perceived to be toward siblings, the less positively the participants rated their interactions with their sibling during childhood. It is noteworthy that the actor effect for maternal affection approached significance ( b = -5.91, t (135) = 1.89, p = .06). Exploratory analyses revealed that the association between differential maternal control and perceptions of the sibling relationship was moderated by gender. The results revealed a stronger effect for females in comparison to males. Specifically, this finding indicated that females whose mothers were perceived to be differentially affectionate toward siblings reported less positive interactions with their sibling during childhood ( b = -6.22, t (124) = 3.45, p < .01).

PAGE 61

54 Contrary to expectations, actor effects for the amount of affection and control displayed by fathers were not found to be related significantly to perceptions of the sibling relationship during childhood (Paternal Affection b = -6.05, t (137) = -1.54, p = .13; Paternal Control b = .620, t (152) = .19, p = .85). Partner effects Partner effects for the amount of differential parental control and affection were not found to be related significantly to perceptions of the sibling relationship during childhood (Maternal Affection b = -1.95, t (135) = -.62, p = .53; Maternal Control b = -1.59, t (153) = -.46, p = .65 ; Paternal Affection b = -1.43, t (137) = -.36, p = .72; Paternal Control b = 4.43, t (152) = 1.38, p = .17). These findings suggest that one siblings perceptions of the childhood sibling relationship were not related significantly to the other siblings perceptions of the amount of differential affection and control exhibited by either parent. Exploratory analyses revealed that the relationship between reported amount of maternal control and perceptions of the sibling relationship during childhood was moderated by age ( b = -6.98, t (136) = -2.08, p < .05). Specifically, this finding indicated that, for younger in contrast with ol der siblings, having a sibling who perceived that the mother was differentially controlling was associated with reports of less positivity in sibling interactions during childhood. The exploratory analyses did not reveal significant moderating effects of the gender constellation of the sibling dyad for the relationship between reported amount differential parenting behaviors and perceptions of the sibling relationship during childhood.

PAGE 62

55 In the second model, the same predictor variables were examined for their effects on perceptions of the adult sibling relationship (Total Adult scale score based on the LSRS). A significant actor effect for the amount of differential maternal affection revealed that, as expected, the more differentially affectionate mothers were perceived to be toward siblings, the less positively the participants rated their current interactions with their sibling (b = -7.88, t (118) = -2.75, p < .01). Contrary to what was expected, significant actor effects were not found for the amount of differential maternal and paternal control or for differential paternal affection (Maternal Control b = -4.14, t (126) = -.31, p = -1.27; Paternal Control b = 2.81, t (135) = .98, p = .33; Paternal Affection b = -5.96, t (120) = -1.66, p =.10). These findings indicated that perceptions of the amount of differential affection and contro l from fathers and differential control displayed by mothers were not related significantly to perceptions of the adult sibling relationship. Partner effects. The results revealed negative partner effects for the amount of differential maternal control ( b = -6.63, t (126) = -2.11, p < .05) and amount of differential paternal affection ( b = -9.10, t (120) = -2.53, p < .05). That is, having a sibling who perceived that their mother was more differentially controlling toward the siblings was associated with less positivity in ratings of the current relationship with the sibling. In addition, participants whose sibling reported that their father exhibited greater discrepancies in affection toward the siblings also reported less positivity in sibling interactions during adulthood. Signi ficant partner effects were not found for degree of differential maternal affection and paternal control, indicating that one siblings perceptions of these parenting behaviors were not related significantly to the other

PAGE 63

56 siblings perceptions of the adult sibling relationship (Maternal Affection b = .50, t (118) = .17, p = .86; Paternal Control b = 2.64, t (135) = .92, p = .36). Exploratory analyses did not reveal any significant moderating effects of gender, gender constellation of the sibling dyad, or age (i.e., older versus younger sibling) on the relationship between reported amount differential parenting behaviors and perceptions of the current sibling relationship. Overall, there was mixed support for Hypothesis 3. Gender Constellation of the Sibling Dyad and Overall Perceptions of the Sibling RelationshipHypothesis 4. The hypothesis that sibling dyads consisting of at least one sister would report more positive sibling relations than would all male sibling dyads could not be tested given that there was only one pair of brothers in the sample. The results revealed, however, positive actor and partner effects for gender indicating that females and individuals reporting on a sister rated overall sibling interactions more positively than did males and individuals reporting on a brother (actor gender b = 13.97, t (124) = 3.48, p < .01; partner gender b = 9.21, t (124) = 2.22, p < .05). The actorpartner interaction comparing sameversus opposite-gender sibling pairs revealed no significant differences in ratings of the overa ll sibling relationship for sisters and mixed gender sibling dyads ( b = .47, t (125) = .12, p = .90). Perceptions of Relative Differential Parental Treatment and Psychological Symptoms Hypothesis 5 The intraclass correlation of .157 (p = .07) indicates that approximately 16% of the variance in reported psychological symptoms was shared between siblings. This correlation is similar to results of other studies examining differential parenting behaviors and adjust ment (Buss & Plomin, 1984; Daniels et al., 1985).

PAGE 64

57 Actor and partner effects for siblings perceptions of the direction of differential treatment were examined with respect to reported level of psychological functioning. A relative differential parental treatment score was derived by subtracting the score for the participants ratings of each parents behavior toward their sibling from the score based on how they rated each parents behavior toward themselves for Control and Affection. The predictors for this model included: direction of differential maternal affection, direction of differential maternal control, direction of differential paternal affection, and direction of differential paternal control ba sed on the Affection and Control subscales of the SIDE-R The outcome variable was the Global Severity Index (GSI) score based on the BSI. The results are listed in Table 5. Table 5. Perceptions of Relative Differential Parental Treatment and Level of Psychological Functioning Effect b t Direction of MA Actor .08 1.02 Partner .03 .36 Direction of MC Actor -.10 -1.12 Partner -.16 -1.83 Direction of PA Actor -.04 -.45 Partner -.04 .44 Direction of PC Actor .10 1.33 Partner .17 2.22* MA = Maternal Affection; MC = Maternal Control; PA = Paternal Affection; PC = Paternal Control. *p < .05

PAGE 65

58 Actor effects. Contrary to what was expected, significant actor effects were not found for relative maternal or paternal affection and control (Maternal Affection b =.08, t (132) = 1.02, p =.31; Maternal Control b = -.10, t (139) = -1.12, p =.26; Paternal Affection b = -.04, t (144) = -.45, p = .66; Paternal Control b = .10, t (164) = 1.33, p = .19). Partner effects. The results revealed a positive partner effect for direction of differential paternal control. Interestingly, participants whose sibling perceived being relatively less controlled by their father reported fewer psychological symptoms ( b = .17, t (164) = 2.22, p < .05). Significant partner effects were not found for direction of maternal affection and control or for direction of paternal affection, indicating that one siblings perceptions of these parenting behaviors were not related significantly to the other siblings reported level of functioning (Maternal Affection b =.03, t (132) = .08, p = .72; Maternal Control b = -.16, t (139) = -1.82, p = .07; Paternal Affection b = .04, t (144) = .44, p = .66). Exploratory analyses did not reveal any significant moderating effects of gender, gender constellation of the sibling dyad, or age on the relationship between reported direction of differential parental be haviors and level of functioning. Temperament and Perceptions of the Childhood and Adult Sibling Relationship Hypothesis 6 Intraclass correlations were calculated to determine the proportion of variance in perceptions of the sibling relationship during childhood and adulthood that was due to the sibling dyad to which participants belonged. The findings indicated that 43% of the variation in ratings of the childhood sibling relationship and 60% of the variation in scores for perceptions of the adult sibling relationship was due to the

PAGE 66

59 particular sibling dyad to which an individual belongs [ICC = .428, p < .01; ICC = .600, p < .001]. Two models were tested to examine actor and partner effects for temperamental style in relation to siblings attitudes toward the childhood and adult sibling relationship. In the first model, reported levels of sociability, activity, emotionality, and anger were entered as predictors and ratings of the childhood sibling relationship were defined as the outcome variable. For the second model, the same predictor variables were used while ratings of the current sibling relationship were defined as the outcome variable. The results are listed in Table 6. Table 6. Temperamental Style and Perceptions of the Sibling Relationship Childhood Adult Effect b t b t Sociability Actor 5.37 3.34*** 6.50 2.14*** Partner .35 .21 2 .19 1.51 Activity Actor 1.97 .97 2.19 .99 Partner -2.21 -1.09 .63 .35 Emotionality Actor -1.16 -.59 -1.69 -.97 Partner 2.39 1.21 -1.06 -.60 Anger Actor -2.41 -1.22 -1.02 -.58 Partner -2.25 1.13 -2.10 -1.20 MA = Maternal Affection; MC = Maternal Control; PA = Paternal Affection; PC = Paternal Control. p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 The model examining the effects of reported levels of sociability, activity, emotionality, and anger (subscale scores based on the TSA) on perceptions of the

PAGE 67

60 childhood sibling relationship (Total Child scale score based on the LSRS), offered partial support for Hypothesis 6. Specifically, a significant actor effect for sociability indicated that participants who rated themselves as sociable perceived higher levels of positivity in the childhood sibling relationship than did individuals who rated themselves as less sociable ( b = 5.37, t (153) = 3.34, p < .01). Contrary to what was expected, actor effects for individuals reported levels of activity ( b = 1.97, t (151) = .97, p = .33), emotionality ( b = -1.16, t (141) = -.59, p = .56) and anger (b = -2.41, t (143) = -1.22, p = .23) were not related significantly to participants perceptions of the childhood sibling relationship. Partner effects. Significant partner effects were not found for sociability ( b =.35, t (153) = .21, p = .83), activity ( b = -2.21, t (152) = -1.09, p = .28), emotionality ( b = 2.39, t (141) = 1.21, p = .23), and anger ( b = -2.25, t (143) = -1.13, p = .26), suggesting that one siblings reported levels of these temperamental characteristics were not related to the other siblings perceptions of the childhood sibling relationship. For the model testing the degree to which participants temperamental characteristics predicted perceptions of the adult sibling relationship, results offered minimal support for the hypothesis in that a positive actor effect was found for sociability ( b = 6.50, t (139) = 4.48, p < .001). That is, individuals who reported being more sociable rated the adult sibling relationship more positively than did siblings who rated themselves as less sociable. Contrary to what was expected, significant actor effects were not found for reported levels of activity ( b = 2.19, t (136) = .99, p = .32), emotionality ( b = -1.69, t (126) = -.97, p = .34) and anger (b = -1.02, t (128) = -.58, p =

PAGE 68

61 .56), indicating that these temperamental characteristics were not related to siblings perceptions of the adult sibling relationship. Partner effects. Significant partner effects were not found for sociability ( b = 2.19, t (139) = 1.51, p = .13), activity ( b = .63, t (136) = .35, p = .73), emotionality ( b = 1.06, t (126) = -.60, p = .55), and anger ( b = -2.10, t (128) = -1.20, p = .23), indicating that one siblings reported levels of these temperamental characteristics were not related to the other siblings perceptions of the adult sibling relationship. Exploratory analyses did not reveal any significant moderating effects of gender, gender constellation of the sibling dyad, or age on the relationship between the reported temperamental characteristics and perceptions of the sibling relationship. Thus, there was little support for Hypothesis 6. Post-Hoc Analyses Temperament and Direction of Differential Parental Treatment Four models were tested using multilevel analyses based on the APIM to examine the relationship between siblings temperamental characteristics (predictor) and perceptions of the direction of parental differe ntial treatment (outcome). Only significant findings are presented. Actor Effects. Temperament was significantly related to reported direction of parental differential treatment. Specifically, individuals who rated themselves as being more angry perceived that they received less maternal affection than did their siblings ( b = -.154, t (156) = -2.15, p < .05). In addition, a positive actor effect for anger revealed that individuals who reported experiencing more anger perceived that they received more paternal control relative to their sibling ( b =.141, t (155) = 2.13, p < .05).

PAGE 69

62 Partner Effects. A negative partner effect for anger revealed that individuals whose sibling reported being more angry reported receiving less paternal control than did their siblings (b = -.133, t (155) = -2.00, p < .05). None of the other models were significant.

PAGE 70

63 Discussion Overall, the current findings offer support for the literature which suggests that early life experiences, particularly those occurring within an individuals family of origin, are related to adjustment later in life. Specifically, young adult siblings retrospective perceptions of differential parental treatment were found to be associated with perceptions of the childhood and adult sibling relationship. The findings also indicated that other factors, including gender and temperamental characteristics, were related to perceived sibling relationship quality for some characteristics. Analyses conducted to determine whether significant differences between students whose sibling did versus did not participate in the study revealed reports of higher levels of differential maternal control and anger for participants whose sibling did not participate. These findings suggest that those individuals who experience more anger and perceived that their mothers were more differentially controlling toward the siblings are likely to have had more complicated interactions with their sibling than the students whose sibling did participate in the study. This, in turn, may have been related to their siblings lack of willingness to participate in the study. It is noteworthy that the exploratory anal yses did not reveal any significant effects of the gender constellation of the sibling dyad with respect to the relationship between perceptions of differential parental treatment, temperament, ratings of the sibling relationship, and level of functioning. In other words, temperamental characteristics predicted perceptions of the sibling relationship in a similar manner for males and

PAGE 71

64 females in sameand mixed-gender sibling dyads. In addition, reports of differential parental treatment predicted perceptions of the sibling relationship as well as level of psychological functioning similarly for sameand mixed-gender sibling dyads. Therefore, it appears that temperament and perceptions of parenting behaviors were better predictors of participants current level of functioning and attitudes toward the sibling relationship moreso than the gender of ones sibling. In addition, it may be suggested that participants included in this sample may better adjusted and have comparatively healthier relationships with their siblings and parents than those participants whose sibling did not participate in the study. However, inclusion of all solicited sibling pairs may not have altered the current findings significantly given the relatively small differences in reported levels of anger and amount of differential maternal control of students who did or did not participate. Given that there were no other major differences between students who did or did not participate, the current sample appears to be representative of young adults at this university. Consistency in Sibling Ratings As predicted, significant associations were found relative to young adult siblings overall attitudes toward the sibling relationship as well as in their perceptions of differential parental treatment. These findings provide support for the literature regarding the consistency in siblings perceptions of the sibling relationship (Stocker et al., 1997) and reports of parenting behavi ors (Brody et al., 1998; Daniels & Plomin, 1985; Kowal et al., 2002; Kowal et al., 2006; McCrae & Costa, 1988; Schwarz, BartonHenry, & Pruzinsky, 1985).

PAGE 72

65 The findings also supported the hypothesis that participants perceptions of their interactions with their sibling during childhood would be similar to their ratings of the current sibling relationship. This finding is consistent with the literature which suggests that thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with the childhood sibling relationship persist through the transition to adulthood (Bedford, 1992, 1998; Riggio, 2000; Ross & Milgram, 1982). Perceptions of Differential Treatment and Quality of the Sibling Relationship As expected, participants who perceived that their mothers were differentially controlling toward the siblings rated their relationship with their sibling during childhood less positively. This pattern appeared to be more salient for younger siblings whose siblings perceived that their mothers were differentially controlling, suggesting the possibility of an interpersonal power differential in the relationship. That is, during childhood, younger siblings are more likely to take direction from the older sibling who may engage in such a manner with his/her sibling that sets the tone and characterizes the nature of sibling interactions during childhood. Disparities in maternal control toward siblings may have been most related to perceptions of the childhood sibling relationship given the fact that such parenting behaviors involve discipline and punishment which are more likely to occur during this earlier period in life. Exploratory analyses, however, revealed that for females, perceptions of differential affection exhibited by mothers were related to less positive attitudes toward the sibling relationship during childhood. The fact that this relationship was not found for males suggests that females may be more sensitive to such differential behavior by mothers with whom they are likely to identify with closely. The overall findings support the literature which suggests that differential

PAGE 73

66 parental treatment, regardless of who is favored, has the potential of compromising the sibling relationship (Boer et al., 1992; Boll et al., 2003; Brody & Stoneman, 1994; Furman & Giberson, 1995). Contrary to what was predicted, perceptions of the amount of differential affection and control exhibited by fathers were not related to perceptions of the sibling relationship during childhood. These findings are consistent with those of Furman and Giberson (1995). Other studies that have found that differential behaviors exhibited by fathers were related to siblings perceptions of their relationship have either relied on the report of one sibling, examined perceptions of fairness of parents differentiating behaviors, or analyzed the effects of mothers and fathers separately. Thus, many times perceptions of mothers and fathers behaviors are analyzed in different models without considering that one parents behavior may account for more variance in outcome over the other or simple correlations are computed (Boer et al., 1992, Boll et al., 2003; Brody & Stoneman, 1994; Kowal et al., 2006; McHale et al., 2000). Although the literature suggests that fathers have become more involved in childrearing responsibilities (Brody & Stoneman, 1994; Jones & Heermann, 1992; Smith & Reid, 1986) than in the past when mothers traditionally assumed the role as primary caregiver, research indicates that mothers continue to be more involved in the majority of day-to-day care-taking activities and spend more time with their children than do fathers (Lamb, 2004). The current findings suggest that differences in mothers interactions with their children are more salient and emotionally significant than fathers behaviors (Furman & Giberson, 1995) and thus related more to how siblings interact and perceive the quality of their relationship during childhood. This appears to have been particularly relevant for

PAGE 74

67 females regarding perceptions of their mothers differentially affectionate behaviors. In the future, researchers may want to consider parental availability as a factor related to the salience of parenting behaviors for males and females with respect to both parents. Regarding perceptions of the adult sibling relationship, as predicted, participants who perceived that their mothers were differentially affectionate reported less positivity in current interactions with their sibling. This finding supports other research which indicates that siblings experience less warmth in their relationship in response to their parents differentiating behaviors toward si blings (Boer et al., 1992; Boll et al., 2003; Brody & Stoneman, 1994; Furman & Giberson, 1995). Contrary to what was expected, participants perceptions of differential affection exhibited by fathers and reported disparities in control displayed by both parents toward siblings were not related significantly to their feelings about the current sibling relationship. Based on the previously described literature which suggests that mothers tend to spend more time with their children during childhood and have traditionally taken on the role as nurturer, disparities in affection from mothers are likely to be more salient to children than those exhibited by fathers. Research suggests that this trend continues into adulthood wherein mothers are more likely to provide emotional support than fathers, who primarily gave advice to their adult children (Miller & Lane, 1991). In addition, parental controlling behaviors may be less influential for participants current perceptions of their relationship with their sibling, given that parents do not typically discipline their young adult children. Interestingly however, one siblings perceptions of differential parental control and affection were related to the other siblings attitudes about their current relationship. Specifically, individuals whose siblings percei ved that their parents were differentially

PAGE 75

68 affectionate (fathers) and controlling (mothers), rated their current relationship with their sibling less positively. These findings suggest that siblings are mutually influenced by each others experiences of differential parental treatment with respect to their attitudes toward their current relationship. The fact that this bi-directionality was not reflected to the same degree in siblings perceptions of their relationship during childhood may be suggestive of a developmental shift in ones ability to make the connection between interpersonal relationships within the family of origin and current relationship dynamics. Specifically, children may only be focused on how they are affected by their own experiences within the family but may lack insight regarding the extent to which they are influenced by their siblings experiences as well. Adults, who have had time to reflect on early life experiences, however, may possess a level sophistication that allows them to identify the reciprocal dynamics in their relationships with both parents and siblings. Young adults, therefore, may be better able to recognize the manner in which these experiences have possibly shaped their current relationships with family members, particularly their interactions with siblings. Given the bi-directional influence between siblings with respect to parenting behaviors and feelings about their current relationship, these findings appear to extend equity theory which suggests that in social relationships, being either favored or disfavored can be experienced as inequitable and may lead to conflicted interactions as a result of attempts to achieve a sense of equilibrium (Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1978). In addition, these findings offer suppor t regarding the significance of considering both actor and partner level effects when c onducting sibling research to explore whether

PAGE 76

69 similar or unique patterns of associations would be revealed. Furthermore, the fact that these bi-directional associations were found across all participants (i.e., not moderated by age or gender) may offer additional evidence of the significant role of parenting behaviors in siblings attitudes toward their current relationship. Gender Constellation of the Sibling Dyad and Perceptions of the Sibling Relationship The hypothesis that sibling dyads consisting of at least one sister would report more positivity in the adult sibling relationship than male sibling dyads could not be tested given that there was only one pair of brothers in the sample. The findings revealed, however, that females and individuals reporting on a sister rated the overall sibling relationship more positively than did males and participants reporting on a brother. Sister pairs and mixed-sex sibli ng dyads did not differ significantly in their overall attitudes toward the sibling relationship. These findings offer support for the literature regarding sibling relationships during adulthood (Buhrmester, 1992; Riggio, 2000; Riggio, 2006; Tucker et al., 2001) which s uggests that feelings of closeness to siblings tend to gradually increase with age, particularly throughout the transition from late adolescence through adulthood and into old age with sibling dyads consisting of at least one sister reporting higher levels of closeness than brother-only dyads (Cicirelli, 1989; 1995, 1996; Panish & Stricker, 2001; Riggio, 2000; Riggio, 2006; Stocker, Lanthier, & Furman, 1997; Weaver et al., 2003). Direction of Differential Parental Treatment and Psychological Adjustment Contrary to what was expected, participants level of psychological adjustment was not significantly predicted by their perceptions of the direction of differential

PAGE 77

70 parental treatment. These findings are inconsistent with the literature which suggests that children, adolescents, and young adults who perceive that they were disfavored by more parental control and less parental affection relative to their sibling also reported poorer adjustment than individuals who felt that they were favored by such treatment exhibited by either parent (Barrett-Singer & Weinst ein, 2000; Brody et al., 1998; Daniels et al., 1985; Dunn et al., 1990; Feinberg, Neiderhise r, Simmens, Reiss, & Hetherington, 2000; Katz & Gottman, 1993; Kowal et al., 2002; Mc Hale et al., 2000; Richmond et al., 2005; Shebloski et al., 2005; Tamrouti-Makkink et al., 2004). The inconsistency in findings may be related to differences in the manner in which level of functioning was defined. Whereas the previous studies assessed adjustment in terms of perceived ability, selfesteem, self-worth, internalizing/externalizing problem behaviors, delinquency, and disobedience, the current study conceptualized adjustment as overall global functioning. Therefore, the discrepancy in findings appear to be related to the level of specificity in defining problem behaviors which may suggest that the results of the current study may have been more comparable with the literature by exploring outcome in a similar manner. Interestingly, however, participants who, according to their siblings, received less control from fathers reported more psychological symptoms than participants who were perceived by their siblings to be less controlled by their father. This finding suggests a paradoxical effect of fathers behavior toward siblings such that control may be perceived in a positive light. That is, according to the literature that indicates that significant differences in the amount of time that mothers and fathers spend with their children (Lamb, 2004; Wilson, Tolson, Hinton, & Kiernan, 1990), control from fathers that is not overly harsh or punitive may be interpreted by the child as favoritism. Based on the

PAGE 78

71 possibility that the ideal father is perceived as someone who provides strong guidance that involves disciplinary behavior and monitoring (Sheehan & Noller, 2002), such behavior may serve as a protective factor with respect to overall adjustment. Although the literature indicates that the behaviors of both parents are related to childrens and adolescents level of psychological functioning (Barrett-Singer & Weinstein, 2000; Brody et al., 1998; Dunn et al., 1990; Katz & Gottman, 1993; McHale et al., 2000; Tamrouti-Makkink et al., 2004), pe rceptions of maternal behaviors during childhood were not found to be related significantly to adjustment later in life. This finding suggests that differences in the availability of and/or the amount of time spent with mothers versus fathers may become more evident as the role of each parent is considered relative to current level of functioning. Therefore, fathers behaviors may begin to carry more meaning for siblings, particularly if the father was perceived to be less available than the mother during childhood. If the father was relatively less involved than the mother and mainly perceived as the disciplinarian, this primary mode of interaction may be considered or valued as a form of attention. Therefore, as young adults reflect on these early life experiences with the father, differences in this perceived level of attentiveness may impact the manner in which each sibling views his/her relative importance within the family. Consequently, ones experiences with his/her father may contribute to his/her self-perception and ultimately level of psychological functioning later in life. The finding that participants level of functioning was more strongly related to their siblings perception of disparities in control displayed by their fathers than to their own perception of such parenting behavior may be indicative of the degree to which

PAGE 79

72 social comparison processes occur between siblings. Specifically, sibling comparison theory (Feinberg et al., 2000) proposes that when siblings are influenced by social comparison, children will experience more positive adjustment if their sibling is disfavored by parental treatment and more nega tive adjustment if their parents behavior favors the sibling. Children who are less concerned about sibling comparison, however, may be less influenced by how their sibling is treated and experience outcomes that are related to how they perceive their own interactions with their parents (Feinberg et al., 2000). It appears that sibling comparison processes may explain the current findings such that fathers display of control may be perceived in a positive manner wherein the participant whose sibling is perceived to be favored by such behavior is more likely to be better adjusted than participants whose sibling is perceived to be less favored by their father (Sheehan & Noller, 2002). The lack of age and gender-moderated findings as well as the non-significant findings for other parenting behaviors (i.e., relative differential affection displayed by both parents and direction of differential maternal control) may offer support for the salience of early experiences with fathers, particularly the level of significance that siblings may attribute to paternal control, relative to their current level of functioning (Sheehan & Noller, 2002). Temperament and Perceptions of the Sibling Relationship As expected, individuals who rated themselves as sociable reported higher levels of positivity in childhood and adult sibling interactions. This finding is supported by the literature which suggests that individuals with more positive temperamental characteristics report more positivity in interactions with siblings (Brody et al., 1998;

PAGE 80

73 Brody & Stoneman, 1994; Furman & Lanthier, 1996; Pike & Atzaba-Poria, 2003). The non-significant partner effect for sociability indicates that a persons own level of sociability is more strongly related to his/her own attitudes toward the sibling relationship than to that individuals siblings perceptions of their relationship. Furthermore, individuals who are sociable tend to enjoy interacting with others and are likely to experience more positive social interactions in general than those who are less sociable (Pike & Atzaba-Poria, 2003). These findings suggest that the desire and tendency to seek out social interactions may influence the nature and quality of sibling relationships moreso than do other temperamental qualities. Contrary to what was expected, reported activity level, emotionality, and anger were not related significantly to perceptions of the sibling relationship. These findings are inconsistent with the literature which suggests that individuals with more difficult temperaments tend to experience more interpersonal conflict, particularly in their interactions with siblings, than individuals with more of an agreeable temperamental style (Brody et al., 1998; Brody & Stoneman, 1996; Furman & Lanthier, 1996; Tucker, McHale & Crouter, 2003). The lack of findings for the other temperamental characteristics suggests that, even when one or both siblings possess negative temperamental characteristics, the positive attribute of sociability may function as a buffer to protect the sibling relationship from the detrimental effects of the difficult or negative temperamental quality. However, the non-significant findings may suggest that the current sample consists of individuals who possess more of an agreeable temperamental style.

PAGE 81

74 Post-Hoc Analyses Temperament and Direction of Differential Parental Treatment Post-hoc analyses revealed a significant relationship between participants reported temperamental qualities and siblings perceptions of who was favored/disfavored by their parents. Specifically, individuals who had a tendency to experience more anger also perceived that they received more control from their fathers and less affection from their mothers than did their sibling. These findings are consistent with previous research which suggests that parents may reciprocate their childrens temperamental behavior in their interactions with the child such that less positive and more negative affect may be exhibited with that child in contrast to a sibling who may have more of an agreeable temperamental style (Brody et al., 1998; Brody & Stoneman, 1994; Hetherington, 1988). In addition, research with young adults has found that negative emotionality is related to less positivity in parent-child interactions during adulthood (Belsky et al., 2003). The current findings suggest that in response to negative emotionality, particularly anger, which is often associated with acting out behaviors, fathers may be likely to exert more control while mothers may withdraw more emotionally from the child than his/her sibling who exhibits less anger. The difference in parents responses to such behavior may be accounted for by the manner in which their roles are defined within the family. Specifically, in families where the mothers primary role is nurturer and fathers take on more of the role as disciplinarian, it is possible that mothers display relatively more warmth and fathers exhibit relatively less control in response to a child whose sibling engages in more angry acting out behaviors.

PAGE 82

75 Unlike the child measure, the adult temperament measure assesses for anger as an aspect of emotionality. Therefore, this temperamental characteristic may be more strongly related to parents differentiating behaviors toward their children than degree of sociability, activity level and general feelings of distress. It may be that activity level in adults is not perceived as a negative attribute; when associated with sociability, it may be perceived as extraversion. When paired with emotionality and low persistence, however, activity level for children has been found to be related to negative parental response (Brody et al., 1998; Brody & Stoneman, 1996; Furman & Lanthier, 1996). In addition, the non-significant findings for participants reported level of sociability may indicate that this characteristic is not necessarily associated with the degree to which parents engage in differentiating behaviors toward siblings, but may be more related to the quality of parents direct interactions with their children. The finding that anger was found to be a stronger predictor of differential parenting behaviors than the other temperamental characteristics offers support for the literature which suggests that differential parental treatment is more related to childrens externalizing behavioral problems than internalizing behaviors (Boyle, Jenkins, Georgiades, Cairney, Duku, & Racine, 2004; Kowal, Cramer, Krull, & Crick, 2002; Richmond, Stocker, & Rienks, 2005). Thus, children who exhibit acting out behaviors may receive harsher treatment than their sibling whose behaviors are not as problematic. Such differentiation by parents may result in an increase in acting out by the disfavored sibling and further exacerbate parents disparite treatment (Richmond et al., 2005). Unfortunately, unlike longitudinal experimental research, the correlational design of the current study does not allow for determination of the direction of effects.

PAGE 83

76 Strengths and Limitations Major strengths of the study are the inclusion of the perspective of both siblings and the manner in which the data were analyzed. While sibling research conducted with children and adolescents has typically included both siblings, the adult literature is primarliy based on the perspective of one sibling. Obtaining input from both siblings is significant from a validity standpoint as well as when exploring variables that are interpersonal in nature. By including both siblings, it was possible to analyze the current data using the APIM data analytic technique that addresses and controls for the issue of nonindependence that can be problematic with dyadic data. This approach was appropriate based on the sample which consisted of sibling dyads who, as a function of being raised in the same family, are likely to influence and be influenced by each others thoughts, feelings, attitudes, behaviors, and experiences within the family. By analyzing the data based on the APIM, which is a method typically utilized in couples research (Campbell & Kashy, 2002; Cook & Kenny, 2005; Cook & Synder, 2005; Kenny & Kashy, 1999), the current findings offer new in sight regarding the reciprocal dynamics that are assumed to be integral to relationships among family members, particularly siblings. By controlling for the interdependence between siblings, the findings extend the current literature and demonstrate statistically, the manner in which siblings may be affected by each others experiences within the family. In addition, by controlling for both actor and partner effects, the current study was able to delineate circumstances in which participants attitudes toward their relationship with their sibling and level of functioning were more strongly predicted by their own versus their siblings perceptions of differential parental treatment. In fact, the

PAGE 84

77 interdependent processes that were observed between siblings appear to be the most salient during adulthood with respect to current perceptions of the sibling relationship and overall adjustment. Such bi-directional influences may, therefore, be indicative of a developmental progression in ones ability to identify aspects of those early life experiences that have the most impact on current relationships and level of functioning. The APIM data analytic technique also improved upon the manner in which the data were previously analyzed wherein nonindependence between siblings observations was not controlled for. By ignoring the issue of nonindependence, it was assumed that individuals were not affected by factors a ssociated with being members of the same family. Therefore the individual was used as the unit of analysis which led to an increase in Type II errors. Specifically, the previous analyses failed to detect the distinct manner in which differential behaviors displayed by both parents were associated with siblings perceptions of their relationship as well as th e unique contributions of fathers perceived parenting behaviors in relation to the psychological adjustment of their adult children. The findings regarding the role of fathers in their childrens level of functioning offer additional support for the significance of including fathers, or at least perceptions of fathers, in family research (Lamb, 2004). One shortcoming of the study is the limited number of males in the sample. Future researchers may consider emphasizing the recruitment of young adult male sibling pairs to explore more thoroughly perceptions of the adult sibling relationship as a function of the gender constellation of the sibling dyad. Given that the data were collected from the Psychology and Communication Science and Disorders Departments, both dominated by females, recruiting efforts could focus on soliciting both male and

PAGE 85

78 female participants from departments that have a higher percentage of males (e.g., math, physical sciences, and engineering). Within those departments, specific efforts could be made to target males with a brother, both of whom meet the age specifications required for participating in the study. Inclusion of brother dyads would allow for a full test of the hypothesis that sibling pairs consisting of at least one female report closer sibling relationships when compared to brothers (Cicirelli, 1989; 1995; 1996). The data obtained in this study were partially based on recollections of childhood experiences. An issue often arises regarding the validity of retrospective reports because these recollections may be subject to distortions due to limitations in memory and moodcongruent processes (Brewin et al., 1993). Research has suggested, however, that current mood or psychological distress does not have a significant impact on the recall of parenting behaviors given that, for such a personally significant experience as parenting individuals tend to access the same set of highly selected and rehearsed memories (Brewin et al., 1993). However, schema theory suggests that ones cognitive schema influences the manner in which one attends to and recalls information (Birkeland, Thompson, Herbozo, Roehrig, Cafri, & va n den Berg, 2005; Dattilio, 2005; Mandler, 1979; 1984). Based on this theory, schemata are formed or developed from repeated exposure or experience with specific people, events, and objects (Birkeland et al., 2005; Mandler, 1979; 1984). Therefore, individuals who experienced frequent conflicted interpersonal relations with family members are likely to have developed a schema that is consistent with these negative experiences. Consequently, such persons may recall events that occurred during childhood based on this schema. Specifically, individuals whose interactions with their sibling and parents were characterized by negativity are

PAGE 86

79 likely to attend to information that is consistent with this schema. For such persons, certain behaviors exhibited by family members may be more salient, and thus recall of these early life experiences may differ from the recollections of individuals who experienced more positive interactions. Although ones current schema may contribute to how information about childhood experiences are recalled, the significant relationship found between siblings ratings of the parenting behaviors and perceptions of the sibling relationship is consistent with previous research regarding the similarity in siblings reports of various aspects of family dynamics (Brewin et al., 1993; Kowal, Krull & Kramer, 2004; 2006; Schwarz et al., 1985). Furthermore, the findings of long itudinal research assessing the stability of adolescents reports of parenting behaviors over time indicated that regardless of any cognitive distortions that affecting childrens ratings, reports were the most stable beginning between the ages of 19 and 23 (Schlette, Brandstrom, Eismann, Sigvadsson, Nylander, Adolfsson, & Perris, 1997; Winefield & Goldrey, 1990) which is the average age of participants in the current study. Therefore, the current data provide further support for the validity of siblings retrospective reports of childhood experiences. Future Directions The current findings provide a good foundation for which aspects of family relationships/functioning can be explored in the future. Future researchers are encouraged to examine both actor and partner effects using the APIM to allow for a more thorough examination of factors that may facilitate and/or interfere significantly with family functioning and individual outcome. Specifically, longitudinal research with siblings would be helpful in exploring whether similar or unique patterns would be

PAGE 87

80 observed during childhood and adulthood. Such a research design would allow future researchers to examine the extent to which a developmental shift occurs between childhood and adulthood in terms of considering how one may be impacted by his or her siblings experiences within the family. In addition, future research examining the relationship between differential parental treatment and psychological functioning in adulthood should also have a longitudinal design. Future studies could also examine issues regarding perceptions of parental availability as well as each parents primary role in terms of discipline and emotional support. Such research may further clarify the association between siblings perceptions of who was favored/disfavored by parents and overall adjustment during childhood and adulthood. Specifically, given that previous research on children and adolescents has primarily examined externalizing and internalizing behaviors, it would be interesting to observe whether a similar trend involving global functioning would be revealed for siblings during childhood and continuing through their transition to adulthood. Clinical Implications Despite the limitations of this study, the findings provide additional insight regarding the relationship between perceptions of differential parental treatment, attitudes toward the sibling relationship, temperamental style, and psychological adjustment in young adulthood. The unique pattern of associations that were revealed between these variables have useful clinical implications. First, these findings offer support for a family systems approach to treatment ( Minuchin, 2002 ). In particular, when a child is referred for services, it is not only

PAGE 88

81 important to obtain input from the parents, it would also be beneficial to include the childs sibling(s) in the treatment process. Although it may appear that the child who is initially targeted for treatment should be the focus of intervention, these findings suggest that each child in the family may be impacted in similar or unique ways by various family dynamics (e.g., differential parental treatment) as well. Therefore, it may be beneficial to include all members of the family in the treatment process. Within the context of therapy, clinicians should increase family members awareness of the potential role that each person has in facilitating healthy and unhealthy functioning in the family. More specifically, the extent to which differential parental treatment may be contributing to and maintaining poor adjustment and negativity in sibling and parent-child interactions should be explored. To facilitate this process, open communication between parents and children should be encouraged regarding each childs perceptions of their parents behavior as well as parents rationale for engaging in such behavior (Tucker, McHale, & Crouter, 2003). Intervention may also emphasize building positive relationships within the family by allowing family members to identify and focus on each others strengths, with the goal of reducing problem behaviors that may lead to parents disparity in treatment as well as sibling negativity. Parents should also be introduced to strategies that will assist in dealing with problem behaviors that may include conflict between siblings. In addition, parents could be informed about the potentially detrimental effects for both the favored and disfavored child relative to how each perceives the quality of their relationships within the family (Boer et al., 1992). Information on differential parental treatment could also be included in parent education literature or workshops focused on

PAGE 89

82 enhancing parenting skills and dealing with sibling rivalry (Tucker et al., 2003). In working with parents, clinicians could also describe characteristics of children that are often associated with differential treatment and under which circumstances such behavior is normative (e.g., having one child with special needs or children who are widely-spaced in terms of age). When working with adult clients, this issue could also be examined when exploring relationship patterns within the family of origin to determine the extent that such family dynamics are associated with the presenting problem. In this event, the therapist should assist the client in working through their feelings about such experiences. The therapists focus would be to help him/her to explore whether the parents differentiating between siblings was justified based on individual characteristics of each child or the extent to which such parenting behaviors appeared to be unfair. It would also be helpful to assist the client in processing any negative emotions associated with these early life experiences to facilitate positive resolution. To the extent that it is feasible, it may also be important to encourage the client to resolve these issues with the parent(s) and sibling(s) given the significant role of the parent-child and sibling relationships for well-being (Bank et al., 1996; Barrett-Singer & Weinstein, 2000; Brody et al., 1998; Daniels et al., 1985; Dunn et al., 1990; Feinberg et al., 2000; Hetherington, 1988; Howe & Ross, 1990; Katz & Gottman, 1993; Kowal et al., 2002; Kramer & Kowal, 2005; McElwain & Volling, 2005; McHa le et al., 2000; Richmond et al., 2005; Shebloski et al., 2005; Tamrouti-Makkink et al., 2004).

PAGE 90

83 Summary Overall, this study provided further evidence of the connections between parental treatment, the sibling relationship, and psyc hological functioning from recollections of childhood and current reports in young adulthood. The APIM data analytic techniques appear to be appropriate for exploration of sibling and parent relationships given the bidirectional influences in these relationships.

PAGE 91

84 References Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bank, L., Patterson, G., Reid, J. (1996). Negative sibling interaction patterns as predictors of later adjustment problems in adolescent and young adult males. In G.H. Brody (Ed.), Sibling relationships: Their causes and consequences (pp. 197-229). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Barrett-Singer, A.T. & Weinstein, R.S. (2000). Differential parental treatment predicts achievement and self-perceptions in two cultural contexts. Journal of Family Psychology 14 491-509. Beardsall, L. & Dunn, J. (1992). Adversities in childhood: Siblings experiences and their relations to self-esteem. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 33 349359. Bedford, V. (1992). Memories of parental favoritism and the quality of parentchild ties in adulthood. Journal of Gerontology 47 S149-S155. Bedford, V. (1998). Sibling relationshi p troubles and well-being in middle and old age. Family Relations 47 369-376. Belsky, J., Jaffee, S.R., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. (2003). Intergenerational relationships in young adulthood and their life course, mental health, and personality correlates. Journal of Family Psychology 17 460-471.

PAGE 92

85 Birkeland, R., Thompson, J.K., Herbozo, S., Roehrig, M., Cafri, G., van den Berg, P. (2005). Media exposure, mood, and body image dissatisfaction: An experimental test of person versus product priming. Body Image, 2 53-66. Boer, F., Goedhart, A., & Treffers, P. (1992) Siblings and their parents. In F. Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.), Childrens sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 41-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Ehrlbaum Associates. Boll, T., Ferring, D., & Filipp, S. (2003). Perceived parental differential treatment in middle adulthood: Curvilinear relations with individuals experienced relationship quality to sibling and parents. Journal of Family Psychology 17 472-487. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development New York: Basic Books. Boyle, M.H., Jenkins, J.M., Georgiades, K., Cairney, J., Duku, E. & Racine, Y. (2004). Differential-maternal parenting behavior: Estimating withinand betweenfamily effects on children. Child Development 75 1457-1476. Brewin, C.R., Andrews, B., & Gotlib, I.H. (1993). Psychopathology and early experience: A reapprasial of retrospective reports. Psychological Bulletin 113 82-98. Brody, G. (1998). Sibling relationship quality: Its causes and consequences. Annual Review of Psychology 49 1-24. Brody, G. & Stoneman, Z. (1994). Sibling relationships and their association with parental differential treatment. In E.M. Hetherington, D. Reiss, & R. Plomin (Eds.), Separate social worlds of siblings: The impact of nonshared environment on development (pp. 129-142). Hillsdale, NJ: Ehrlbaum Associates.

PAGE 93

86 Brody, L., Copeland, A., Sutton, L., Richardson, D, & Guyer, M. (1998). Mommy and Daddy like you best: Perceived family favouritism in relation to affect, adjustment and family process. Journal of Family Therapy, 20 269-291. Buhrmester, D. (1992). The developmental courses of sibling and peer relationships. In F. Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.), Childrens sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 19-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Ehrlbaum Associates. Buss, A.H. & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development New York: Wiley-Interscience. Buss, A.H. & Plomin, R.A. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Campbell, L. J., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM5: A brief guided tour. Personal Relationships 9 327-342. Cook, W. (2006). Personal Communication. Cook, W. & Kenny, D.A. (2005). The actorpartner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development 29 101-109. Cook, W. & Snyder, D.K. (2005). Analyzing nonindependent outcomes in couples therapy using the actorpartner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology 19 133.

PAGE 94

87 Cicirelli, V. (1989). Feelings of attachment to siblings and well-being in later life. Psychology and Aging ,. 4 211-216. Cicirelli, V. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span New York: Plenum Press. Cicirelli, V. (1996). Sibling relationships in middle and old age. In G.H. Brody (Ed.), Sibling relationships: Their causes and consequences (pp. 47-73). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Clark, T. & Phares, V. (2004). Feelings in the family: Interparental conflict, anger, and expressiveness in families with older adolescents. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 12 129-138. Collins, N., Guichard, A.C., Ford, M. B., & Feeney, B.C. (2004). Working models of attachment: New developments and emerging themes. In W.S. Rholes and J.A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Th eory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 196-239). New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Cummings, E.M. & Davies, P. (1994). Children and marital conflict: The impact of family dispute and resolution New York: Guilford Press. Daniels, D., Dunn, J., Furstenberg, F., and Plomin, R. (1985). Environmental differences within the family and adjustment differences within pairs of adolescent siblings. Child Development 56 764-774. Daniels, D. Plomin, R. (1985). Diffe rential experience of siblings in the same family. Developmental Psychology 21 747-760.

PAGE 95

88 Dattilio, F.M. (2005). The restructuring of family schemas: A cognitive-behavior perspective. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 31 15. Derogatis, L. & Spencer, P. (1982). The brief symptom inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring, and procedures manual Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research. Dunn, J. (1985). Sisters and brothers Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Dunn, J. (1992). Sisters and brothers: Current issues in developmental research. In F. Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.), Childrens sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 1-18). Hillsdale, NJ: Ehrlbaum Associates. Dunn, J. & McGuire, S. (1994). Young childrens nonshared experiences: A summary of studies in Cambridge and Colorado. In E.M. Hetherington, D. Reiss, & R. Plomin (Eds.), Separate social worlds of siblings: The impact of nonshared environment on development (pp. 111-128). Hillsdale, NJ: Ehrlbaum. Dunn & Plomin (1990). Separate lives: Why siblings are so different New York: Basic. Dunn, J., Stocker, C., & Plomin, R. (1990). Nonshared experiences within the family: Correlates of behavioral problems in middle childhood. Development and Psychopathology 2 113-126. Feinberg, M.E., Neiderhiser, J.M., Simmens S., Reiss, D. & Hetherington, E.M. (2000). Sibling comparison of differential parental treatment in adolescence: Gender, self-esteem, and emotionality as mediators of the parenting-adjustment association. Child Development 71 1611-1628.

PAGE 96

89 Furman, W., & Giberson, R. (1995). Identifying the links between parents and their children's sibling relationships. In S. Shulman, (Ed.), Close relationships in socialemotional development (pp. 95-108). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hetherington, E.M. (1988). Parents, children, and siblings six years after divorce. In R.A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 311-331). Oxford: Clarendon. Howe, N. & Ross, H. (1990). Socialization, perspective-taking, and the sibling relationship. Developmental Psychology 26 160-165. Howes, P. & Markman, H.J. (1989). Ma rital quality and child functioning: A longitudinal investigation. Child Development 60 1044-1051. Jenkins, J. (1992). Sibling relationships in disharmonious homes: Potential difficulties and protective effects. In F. Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.), Childrens sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 125-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Ehrlbaum. Jones, L.C. & Heermann, J.A. (1992). Parental division of infant care: contextual influences and infant characteristics. Nursing Research 41 228-234. Katz, L.F. & Gottman, J.M. (1993). Pattern s of martial conflict predict children's internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology 29 940-950. Kenny (2004). Dyadic analysis On-line tutorial. Kenny, D.A. & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships 6, 433448.

PAGE 97

90 Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D.T. Gilbert, St.T. Fiske, & G. Lindsey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4 th ed., Vol. 1, pp 233-265). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Cook, W.L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press. Kowal, A. & Kramer, L. (1997). Childrens understanding of parental differential treatment. Child Development 68 13-126. Kowal, A., Krull, J., & Kramer, L. (2004). How the differential treatment of siblings is linked with parent-child relationship quality. Journal of Family Psychology 18 658-665. Kowal, A., Krull, J., & Kramer, L. (2006). Shared understanding of parental differential treatment in families. Social Development 2 276-295. Kowal, A., Kramer, L., Krull, J. L., & Crick, N. R. (2002). Childrens perceptions of the fairness of parental preferential treatment and their socioemotional well-being. Journal of Family Psychology 16 297-306. Lamb, M.E. (Ed.). (2004). The role of the father in child development (4 th ed.) New York: Wiley. Mandler, J.M. (1979). Categorical and schematic organization in memory. In C.R. Puff (Ed.), Memory organization and structure pp. 259-299. Mandler, J.M. (1984). Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (1988). Recalled parent-child relations and adult personality. Journal of Personality 56 417-434.

PAGE 98

91 McHale, S. & Crouter, A. (1996). The family contexts of childrens sibling relationships. In G.H. Brody (Ed.), Sibling relationships: Their causes and consequences (pp.173-198). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. McHale, S., Updegraff, K., Jackson-Newsom, J., Tucker, C., & Crouter, A. (2000). When does parents differential treatment have negative implications for siblings? Social Development 9 149-172. Minuchin, P. (2002). Looking toward the horizon: Present and future in the study of family systems. In J. P. McHale & W. S. Grolinick (Eds.), Retrospect and prospect in the study of families Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Osborne, L.N. & Fincham, F.D. (1996). Marital conflict, parent-child relationships, and child adjustment: Does gender matter? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 42 48-75. O'Leary, K.D. (1984). Marital discord and children: Problems, strategies, methodologies, and results. In A. Doyle, D. Gold, & D.S. Moskowitz (Eds.), Children in families under stress San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Panish, J.B. & Stricker, G. (2001). Parental marital conflict in childhood and influence on adult sibling relationships. Journal of Psychotherapy in Independent Practice 2 3-16. Parke, R. (2004). Development in the family. Annual Review of Psychology 55 365-399. Phares, V. (1996). Fathers and developmental psychopathology New York: Wiley.

PAGE 99

92 Phares, V. (1999). Poppa psychology: The role of fathers in childrens mental well being Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Phares, V. & Compas, B.E. (1992). The role of fathers in child and adolescent psychopathology: Make room for daddy. Psychological Bulletin 111 387-412. Phares, V., Lopez, E., Fields, S., Kamboukos, D., & Duhig, A.M. (2005). Are fathers involved in pediatric psychology resear ch and treatment? Journal of Pediatric Psychology 30, 631-643. Plomin, R., Asbury, K., & Dunn, J. (2001). Why are children in the same family so different? Nonshared environment a decade later. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46, 225-33. Richmond, M.K., Stocker, C.M. & Rienks, S.L. (2005). Longitudinal associations between sibling relationship quality, parental differential treatment, and childrens adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology 19 550-559. Riggio, H. (2000). Measuring attitudes toward adult sibling relationships: The lifespan sibling relationship scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 17 707728. Riggio, H. (2006). Structural features of sibling dyads and attitudes toward sibling relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Family Issues 27 1233-1254. Ross, M. & Milgram, J. (1982). Important variables in adult sibling relationships: A qualitative study. In M.E. Lamb & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Sibling relationships: Their nature and significance across the lifespan (pp. 225-249). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

PAGE 100

93 Seginer, R. (1998). Adolescents percepti ons of relationships with older siblings in the context of other close relationships. Journal of Research on Adolescence 8 287308. Schlette, P., Brandstrom, S., Eismann, M., Sigvardsson, S., Nylander, P., Adolfsson, R. & Perris, C. (1998). Perceive d parental behaviours and termperament and character in healthy adults. Personality and Individual Differences 24 661-668. Schwarz, J., Barton-Henry, M. & Pruz insky, T. (1985). Assessing child-rearing behaviors: A comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child, and sibling on the CRPBI. Child Development 56 462-479. Shebloski, B., Conger, K.J., & Widaman, K.F. (2005). Reciprocal links among differential parenting, perceived partiality, a nd self-worth: A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology 19 633-642. Sheehan, G. & Noller, P. (2002). Adolescents perceptions of differential parenting: Links with attachment style and adolescent adjustment. Personal Relationships 9 173-190. Smith, A. D. & Reid, W. J. (1986). Role sharing marriage New York: Columbia University Press. Stocker, C., Lanthier, R., & Furman, W. (1997). Sibling relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology 11 210-221. Stocker, C. & McHale, S. (1992). The nature and family correlates of preadolescents perceptions of their sibling relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 9 179-195.

PAGE 101

94 Tamrouti-Makkink, I.D., Dub, J.S., Gerris, J., & van Aken, A.G. (2004). The relation between the absolute level of parenting and differential parental treatment with adolescent siblings adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45 1-10. Tejerina-Allen, M., Wagner, B.M., & Cohen, P. (1994). A comparison of acrossfamily and within-family parenting predictors of adolescent psychopathology and suicidal ideation. In E.M. Hetherington, D. Re iss, and R. Plomin (Eds.), Separate social worlds of siblings: The impact of nonshared environment on development (pp. 143-154). Hillsdale, NJ: Ehrlbaum. Thompson, L. & Walker, A.J. (1989). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family 51 845-871. Tubman, J.G., Lerner, R.M., Lerner, J.V., & von Eye, A. (1992). Temperament and adjustment in young adulthood: A 15-year longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 62 564-574. Tucker, McHale, & Crouter (2001). Conditions of sibling support in adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology 15 254-271. Volling, B. & Belsky, J. (1992). The contribution of mother-child and fatherchild relationships to the quality of sibling interaction: A longitudinal study. Child Development 63 1209-1222. Walster, E., Walster, G.W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

PAGE 102

95 Weaver, S.R., Coleman, M., & Ganong, L.H. (2003). The sibling relationship in young adulthood; Sibling functions and relationship perceptions as influenced by sibling pair composition. Journal of Family Issues 24 245-263. Wilson, M.N., Tolson, T.F.J., Hinton, I.D., & Kiernan, M. (1990). Flexibility and sharing of childcare duties in Black families. Sex Roles 22 409-425. Winfield, H. & Goldney, R., Tiggermann, M., & Winfield, A. (1990). Parental rearing behaviors: Stability of reports over time and relation to adult interpersonal skills. Journal of Genetic Psychology 151 211-219.

PAGE 103

96 Appendices

PAGE 104

97 Appendix A. Demographics Questionnaire Please write in or circle your responses to the following questions. 1. Your age: _____ 2. Your race/ethnicity: (0) White (1) Black/African-American (2) Latino/Latina (3) Asian (4) Native American (5) Other 3. Sex: (0) Male (1) Female 4. Where are you currently living? (1) Dormitory (2) Apartment (3) With parents (4) with sibling(s) (5) With other family members or spouse (6) Other 5. Your biological/adoptive parents' current marital status: (1) Still married to each other (2) Separated/divorced and neither is remarried (3) Divorced and mother is remarried, father is not (4) Divorced and father is remarried, mother is not (5) Divorced and both are remarried (6) Mother has passed away and father is single (7) Mother has passed away and father is remarried (8) Father has passed away and mother is single (9) Father has passed away and mother is remarried (10) Both have passed away (11) Other 6. If your parents are not married currently, how old were you when they separated? _____ 7. If your mother remarried, how old were you when she remarried? _____ 8. If your father remarried, how old were you when he remarried? _____ 9. Number of times your mother has been married ____.

PAGE 105

98 Appendix A. (Continued). 10. Number of times your father has been married ____. 11. While growing up, who is it that you considered to be your mother? (1) Biological mother (2) Adoptive mother (3) Stepmother (4) Grandmother (5) Relative (aunt, female cousin) (6) Other 12. While growing up, who is it that you considered to be your father?. (1)Biological father (2)Adoptive father (3)Stepfather (4)Grandfather (5)Relative (uncle, male cousin) (6)Other 13. How many siblings do you have? ____ Biological ____ Step ____ Half ____ Adopted 14. While growing up, how many siblings did you live with? ___Biological Ages __________________ ___Step Ages___________________ ___Half Ages___________________ 15.We are going to ask that one of your siblings complete some brief questionnaires. Please write the name, age, and gender of a sibling who is within 3 years of your age and who is at least 18 years old If you have more than one sibling in this age range, please select the sibling whose first name comes first alphabetically. _______________________ _____________ ________ Sibling Name Gender Age 16. On average, how many times a month do you see this sibling? ____ 17. On average, how many times a month are you in contact with this sibling (NOT including the times you see him/her). In other words, how many times a month do you have phone, written, or e-mail contact with this sibling? ____ 18. On average, how many times a month do you see your mother? ____

PAGE 106

99 Appendix A. (Continued). 19. On average, how many times a month are you in contact with your mother (NOT including the times you see her). In other words, how many times a month do you have phone, written, or e-mail contact with your mother? ____ 20. On average, how many times a month do you see your father? ____ 21. On average, how many times a month are you in contact with your father (NOT including the times you see him ). In other words, how many times a month do you have phone, written, or e-mail contact with your father? ____ Please fill out your selected siblings contact information on the mailing label below ***Please answer the following questionnaires with these parents and THIS SIBLING in mind.

PAGE 107

100 Appendix B. Sibling Demographics Questionnaire Please write in or circle your responses to the following questions. 1. Your age: _____ 2. Your race/ethnicity: (0) White (1) Black/African-American (2) Latino/Latina (3) Asian (4) Native American (5) Other 3. Sex: (0) Male (1) Female 4. Where are you currently living? (1) Dormitory (2) Apartment (3) With parents (4) With sibling(s) (4) With other family members or spouse (5) Other 5. Your selected sibling is __________________________. 6. On average, how many times a month do you see this sibling? ____ 7. On average, how many times a month are you in contact with this sibling (NOT including the times you see him/her). In other words, how many times a month do you have phone, written, or e-mail contact with this sibling? ____ 8. On average, how many times a month do you see your mother? ____ 9. On average, how many times a month are you in contact with your mother (NOT including the times you see her). In other words, how many times a month do you have phone, written, or e-mail contact with your mother? ____ 10. On average, how many times a month do you see your father? ____ 11. On average, how many times a month are you in contact with your father (NOT including the times you see him ). In other words, how many times a month do you have phone, written, or e-mail contact with your father? ____ *Please think of same set of parents as you r sibling as well as the sibling indicated above when you answer the following questionnaires.

PAGE 108

101 Appendix C. Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) Instructions: Below is a list of problems people sometim es have. Please read each one carefully, and circle the number to the right that best describes HOW MUCH THAT PROBLEM HAS DISTRESSED OR BOTHERED YOU DURING THE PAST 7 DAYS INCLUDING TODAY Circle only one number for each problem and do not skip any items. If you change your mind, erase your first mark carefully. Read the example below before beginning, and if y ou have any questions please ask about them. 0 = NOT AT ALL 1 = A LITTLE BIT 2 = MODERATELY 3 = QUITE A BIT 4 = EXTREMELY HOW MUCH WERE YOU DISTRESSED BY: 1. Nervousness or shakiness inside 0 1 2 3 4 2. Faintness or dizziness 0 1 2 3 4 3. The idea that someone else can control your thoughts 0 1 2 3 4 4. Feeling others are to blame for most of your troubles 0 1 2 3 4 5. Trouble remembering things 0 1 2 3 4 6. Feeling easily annoyed or irritated 0 1 2 3 4 7. Pains in heart or chest 0 1 2 3 4 8. Feeling afraid in open spaces 0 1 2 3 4 9. Thoughts of ending your life 0 1 2 3 4 10. Feeling that most people cannot be trusted 0 1 2 3 4 11. Poor appetite 0 1 2 3 4 12. Suddenly scared for no reason 0 1 2 3 4 13. Temper outbursts that you could not control 0 1 2 3 4 14. Feeling lonely even when you are with people 0 1 2 3 4 15. Feeling blocked in getting things done 0 1 2 3 4

PAGE 109

102 Appendix C (Continued). 0 = NOT AT ALL 1 = A LITTLE BIT 2 = MODERATELY 3 = QUITE A BIT 4 = EXTREMELY HOW MUCH WERE YOU DISTRESSED BY: 16. Feeling lonely 0 1 2 3 4 17. Feeling blue 0 1 2 3 4 18. Feeling no interest in things 0 1 2 3 4 19. Feeling fearful 0 1 2 3 4 20. Your feeling being easily hurt 0 1 2 3 4 21. Feeling that people are unfriendly or dislike you 0 1 2 3 4 22. Feeling inferior to others 0 1 2 3 4 23. Nausea or upset stomach 0 1 2 3 4 24. Feeling that you are watched or talked about by others 0 1 2 3 4 25. Trouble falling asleep 0 1 2 3 4 26. Having to check and double check what you do 0 1 2 3 4 27. Difficulty making decisions 0 1 2 3 4 28. Feeling afraid to travel on buses, subways, or trains 0 1 2 3 4 29. Trouble getting your breath 0 1 2 3 4 30. Hot or cold spells 0 1 2 3 4 31. Having to avoid certain things, places, or activities because they frighten you 0 1 2 3 4 32. Your mind going blank 0 1 2 3 4 33. Numbness or tingling in parts of your body 0 1 2 3 4

PAGE 110

103 Appendix C (Continued). 0 = NOT AT ALL 1 = A LITTLE BIT 2 = MODERATELY 3 = QUITE A BIT 4 = EXTREMELY HOW MUCH WERE YOU DISTRESSED BY: 34. The idea that you should be punished for your sins 0 1 2 3 4 35. Feeling hopeless about the future 0 1 2 3 4 36. Trouble concentrating 0 1 2 3 4 37. Feeling weak in parts of your body 0 1 2 3 4 38. Feeling tense or keyed up 0 1 2 3 4 39. Thoughts of death or dying 0 1 2 3 4 40. Having urges to beat, injure, or harm someone 0 1 2 3 4 41. Having urges to break or smash things 0 1 2 3 4 42. Feeling very self-conscious with others 0 1 2 3 4 43. Feeling uneasy in crowds 0 1 2 3 4 44. Never feeling close to another person 0 1 2 3 4 45. Spells of terror or panic 0 1 2 3 4 46. Getting into frequent arguments 0 1 2 3 4 47. Feeling nervous when you are left alone 0 1 2 3 4 48. Others not giving you proper credit for your achievements 0 1 2 3 4 49. Feeling so restless you couldnt sit still 0 1 2 3 4 50. Feelings of worthlessness 0 1 2 3 4

PAGE 111

104 Appendix C (Continued). 51. Feeling that people will take advantage of you if you let them 0 1 2 3 4 52. Feelings of guilt 0 1 2 3 4 53. The idea that something is wrong with your mind. 0 1 2 3 4

PAGE 112

105 Appendix D. Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale (LSRS) Instructions:.In this questionnaire, you will read statements about your sibling. For all questions, please answer with one sibling relationship in mind. Pleas e answer each item indicting the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statement concerning your sibling relationship. 1= Strongly Disagree 2= Dis agree 3= Neither Agree nor Disag ree 4= Agree 5= Strongly Agree 1. My sibling makes me happy. 1 2 3 4 5 2. My siblings feeling are very important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I enjoy my relationship with my sibling. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I am proud of my sibling. 1 2 3 4 5 5 My sibling and I have a lot of fun together. 1 2 3 4 5 6. My sibling frequently makes me angry. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I admire my sibling. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I like to spend time with my sibling. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I presently spend a lot of time with my sibling. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I call my sibling on the telephone frequently. 1 2 3 4 5 11. My sibling and I share secrets. 1 2 3 4 5 12. My sibling and I do a lot of things together. 1 2 3 4 5 13. I never talk about my problems with my sibling. 1 2 3 4 5 14. My sibling and I borrow things from each other. 1 2 3 4 5 15. My sibling and I hang out together. 1 2 3 4 5 16. My sibling talks to me about personal problems. 1 2 3 4 5 17. My sibling is a good friend. 1 2 3 4 5 18. My sibling is very important in my life. 1 2 3 4 5 19. My sibling and I are not very close. 1 2 3 4 5 20. My sibling is one of my best friends. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 113

106 Appendix D (Continued). 1= Strongly Disagree 2= Dis agree 3= Neither Agree nor Disag ree 4= Agree 5= Strongly Agree 21. My sibling and I have a lot in common 1 2 3 4 5 22. I believe I am very important to my sibling. 1 2 3 4 5 23. I know that I am one of my siblings best friends. 1 2 3 4 5 24. My sibling is proud of me. 1 2 3 4 5 25. My sibling bothered me a lot when we were children. 1 2 3 4 5 26. I remember loving my sibling very much when I was a child. 1 2 3 4 5 27. My sibling made me miserable when we were children 1 2 3 4 5 28. I was frequently angry at my sibling when we were children. 1 2 3 4 5 29. I was proud of my sibling when I was a child. 1 2 3 4 5 30. I enjoyed spending time with my sibling as a child. 1 2 3 4 5 31. I remember feeling very close to my sibling when we were children. 1 2 3 4 5 32. I remember having a lot of fun with my sibling when we were children. 1 2 3 4 5 33. My sibling and I often had the same friends as children. 1 2 3 4 5 34. My sibling and I shared secrets as children. 1 2 3 4 5 35. My sibling and I often helped each other as children. 1 2 3 4 5 36. My sibling looked after me (OR I looked after my sibling) when we were children. 1 2 3 4 5 37. My sibling and I often played together as children. 1 2 3 4 5 38. My sibling and I did not spend a lot of time together when we were children. 1 2 3 4 5 39. My sibling and I spent time together after school as children. 1 2 3 4 5 40. I talked to my sibling about my problems when we were children. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 114

107 Appendix D (Continued). 1= Strongly Disagree 2= Dis agree 3= Neither Agree nor Disag ree 4= Agree 5= Strongly Agree 41. My sibling and I were buddies as children. 1 2 3 4 5 42. My sibling did not like to play with me when we were children. 1 2 3 4 5 43. My sibling and I were very close when we were children. 1 2 3 4 5 44. My sibling and I were important to each other when we were children. 1 2 3 4 5 45. My sibling had an important positive effect on my childhood. 1 2 3 4 5 46. My sibling knew everything about me when we were children. 1 2 3 4 5 47. My sibling and I liked all the same things when we were children. 1 2 3 4 5 48. My sibling and I had a lot in common as children. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 115

108 Appendix E. Temperament Survey for Adults (TSA) Instructions: Please rate each of the items on a scale of 1 (not characteristic or typical of yourself) to 5 (very characteristic or typical of yourself). Not Very Typical Typical 1. I like to be with people. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I usually seem to be in a hurry. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I am easily frightened. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I frequently get distressed. 1 2 3 4 5 5. When displeased, I let people know it right away. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I am something of a loner. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I like to keep busy all the time. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I am known as hot-blooded and quick-tempered. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I often feel frustrated. 1 2 3 4 5 10. My life is fast paced. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Everyday events make me feel troubled and fretful. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I often feel insecure. 1 2 3 4 5 13. There are many things that annoy me. 1 2 3 4 5 14. When I get scared, I panic. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I prefer working with others 1 2 3 4 5 rather than alone.

PAGE 116

109 Appendix E (Continued). Not Very Typical Typical 16. I get emotionally upset easily. 1 2 3 4 5 17. I often feel as if Im bursting with energy. 1 2 3 4 5 18. It takes a lot to make me mad. 1 2 3 4 5 19. I have fewer fears than most people my age. 1 2 3 4 5 20. I find people more stimulating than anything else. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 117

110 Appendix F. The Sibling Inventory of Differential Experiences Revised (SIDE-R) Inventory of Family Experiences Self Instructions: This questionnaire is designed to ask y ou about things that happen in families and about what life was like for you and your parents/guardians over the years when you were growing up and living at home. If your parents were divorced or if one died answer the questions for the mother/guardian and father/guardian with whom you lived for the longest period of time. Each statement says something that is true in some families, and not true in other families. For example, some parents/guardians make a lot of rules for their children, other parents/guardians do not. Please mark the circle which best represents your answer. For the entire questionnaire, think about your exp eriences in your family over the years when you were growing up and living at home My Relationship with My Mother/Guardian Over the Years When I Was Growing Up And Living At Home Almost SomeOftenAlmost Never times Always 1. My mother/guardian has been strict with me. 1 2 3 4 2. My mother/guardian has been proud of the things I have done. 1 2 3 4 3. My mother/guardian enjoyed doing things with me 1 2 3 4 4. My mother/guardian has been sensitive to what I think and feel. 1 2 3 4 5. My mother/guardian has punished me for my misbehavior. 1 2 3 4 6. My mother/guardian has shown interest in the things I like to do. 1 2 3 4 7. My mother/guardian has blamed me for what another family member did. 1 2 3 4 8. My mother/guardian has tended to favor me. 1 2 3 4 9. My mother/guardian has disciplined me. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 118

111 Appendix F (Continued). My Relationship with My Father/Guardian Over the Years When I Was Growing Up And Living At Home Almost SomeOftenAlmost Never times Always 1. My father/guardian has been strict with me. 1 2 3 4 2. My father/guardian has been proud of the things I have done. 1 2 3 4 3. My father/guardian enjoyed doing things with me 1 2 3 4 4. My father/guardian has been sensitive to what I think and feel. 1 2 3 4 5. My father/guardian has punished me for my misbehavior. 1 2 3 4 6. My father/guardian has shown interest in the things I like to do. 1 2 3 4 7. My father/guardian has blamed me for what another family member did. 1 2 3 4 8. My father/guardian has tended to favor me. 1 2 3 4 9. My father/guardian has disciplined me. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 119

112 Appendix G. The Sibling Inventory of Differential Experiences Revised (SIDE-R) Inventory of Family Experiences Sibling For the entire questionnaire, answer the questions for the SIBLING that you identified on the demographics questionnaire. This siblings age: _______________. This siblin g is male / female (circle one). Instructions: This questionnaire is designed to ask y ou about things that happen in families and about what life was like for your sibling who is closest in age to you and your parents/guardians over the years when you were growing up and living at home. If your parents were divorced or if one died, answer the questions for the mother/guardian and father/guardian w ith whom you lived for the longest period of time. Each statement says something that is true in some families, and not true in other families. For example, some parents/guardians make a lot of rules for their children, other parents/guardians do not. Please mark the circle which best represents your answer. For the entire questionnaire, think about your siblings experiences in your family over the years when you were growing up and living at home My Siblings Relationship with My Mother/Guardian Over the Years When I Was Growing Up And Living At Home Almost SomeOftenAlmost Never times Always 1. My mother/guardian has been strict with my brother or sister. 1 2 3 4 2. My mother/guardian has been proud of the things my brother/sister has done. 1 2 3 4 3. My mother/guardian enjoyed doing things with my brother/sister. 1 2 3 4 4. My mother/guardian has been sensitive to what my brother/sister thinks and feels. 1 2 3 4 5. My mother/guardian has punished my brother/sister for his/her misbehavior. 1 2 3 4 6. My mother/guardian has shown interest in the things my brother/sister likes to do. 1 2 3 4 7. My mother/guardian has blamed my brother/sister for what another family member did. 1 2 3 4 8. My mother/guardian has tended to favor my brother/sister. 1 2 3 4 9. My mother/guardian has disciplined my brother/sister. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 120

113 Appendix G (Continued). My Siblings Relationship with My Father/Guardian Over the Years When I Was Growing Up And Living At Home Almost SomeOftenAlmost Never times Always 1. My father/guardian has been strict with my brother or sister. 1 2 3 4 2. My father/guardian has been proud of the things my brother/sister has done. 1 2 3 4 3. My father/guardian enjoyed doing things with my brother/sister. 1 2 3 4 4. My father/guardian has been sensitive to what my brother/sister thinks and feels. 1 2 3 4 5. My father/guardian has punished my brother/sister for his/her misbehavior. 1 2 3 4 6. My father/guardian has shown interest in the things my brother/sister likes to do. 1 2 3 4 7. My father/guardian has blamed my brother/sister for what another family member did. 1 2 3 4 8. My father/guardian has tended to favor my brother/sister. 1 2 3 4 9. My father/guardian has disciplined my brother/sister. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 121

114 Appendix H. USF Student Consent Form UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE WHO TAKE PART IN RESEARCH The following information is being presented to help you decide whether or not you want to be a part of a minimal risk research study. Please read carefully. Anything you do not understand, ask the Person in Charge of the Study. Title of Study: College Students, Sibli ngs, and Current Functioning Principle Investigator: Dr. Vicky Phares Person in Charge of the Study: Tangela Clark Study Location: Psychology and Communication Disorders (PCD) Building at the University of South Florida General Information about the Research Study This study will assess various aspects of sibli ng relationships among young adults. Your participation has been solicited because of your current enrollment as a college student. Participants will be administered a packet cons isting of several questionnaires. There will be approximately 400 participants in the study. These questionnaires will ask participants about their perceptions of the current sibling rela tionship and during childhood, perceptions of each parent, and current feelings. The information th at will be obtained in this study may assist in understanding factors that influence the sibling relationship across the lifespan. Benefits of Being Part of this Research Study Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You will earn one (1) experimental point per half hour of participation. In addition, by taking part in this research study, you may increase your overall knowledge and unde rstanding of the relationship be tween your past and current functioning. If you elect to withdraw at any point of the study, you may do so without penalty. The time commitment for this study is approximately 30 to 45 minutes. You must be at least 18 years old to participate. Risks of Being a Part of this Research Study It is expected that this study poses minimal risk to participants. Because of the nature of the questions, however, some students may find the study to be distressing. Therefore, all participants will receive an Educational Debriefi ng form that will provide information about free counseling services available to them through U SF's Counseling Center for Human Development (CCHD). The CCHD may be contacted at (813) 974-2831. Other referrals are available upon request. Alternatives of Being Part of this Research Study An alternative to participating in this study is to participate in another one of the various research projects being conducted through th e Department of Psychology. In Case of Illness or Injury In the event that you get sick or injured while on this study, call Tangela R. Clark, at (813) 6553534. If you have an emergency, go to the closest emergency room or clinic for treatment. After

PAGE 122

115 Appendix H (Continued). you have been treated for your illness or injury, call the USF Self Insurance Programs, at (813) 974-8008. They will investigate the matter. Confidentiality of Your Records All information will be kept strictly confidential and will be maintained in a secure manner. The information from this study will not be repeated in any way that is associated with your identification for any reason. All forms will only be coded with an identification number and will not be matched with your name. The consent form on which you will have written your name will not be coded with a number and will be sep arated from the completed questionnaires when you hand them to the person running the study. The completed forms will be kept locked in a file cabinet in a secure laboratory. Only the resear cher and the research team will have access to the information from this study. However, author ized research investigators, agents of the Department of Health and Human Services and the USF Institutional Review Board may inspect your records from this research project. The results of the study may be published. However, the data obtained from you will be combined with da ta from other people in the publication. The published results will not include your name or any other information that would in any way personally identify you. If you agree to participate, please sign this consent as well as the copy provided for your own records. If you have any questions or con cerns regarding this study, you may contact the researcher, Tangela R. Clark, at (813) 655-3534, or her faculty advisor, Dr. Vicky Phares at (813) 974-0493. If you have any questions about your rights as a person that is participating in a research study, you may contact a member of the Division of Compliance Services at the University of South Florida at (813) 974-5638. I agree to participate in this study of college students sibling relations hips. I understand all of the above information and have ha d any questions answered to my satisfaction. I understand that I may withdraw at any time without being penali zed. I will receive one experimental point per half hour of time volunteered. I am at least 18 years old. By signing this form I agree that: I have fully read or someone has read and explained to me in my native language, this informed consent form describing this research project. I have had the opportunity to ques tion the persons in charge of this research and have received satisfactory responses. I understand that I am being asked to participate in research. I understand the risks and benefits and I freely give my consent to participate in the research proj ect outlined in this form, under the conditions indicated in it. I have been provided a signed copy of this informed consent form, which is for my personal records. __________________________ ______________________ __________ Signature of Participant Printe d Name of Participant Date

PAGE 123

116 Appendix H (Continued). INVESTIGATOR STATEMENT: I have carefully explained to the subject the nature of the study. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, the subject signing this consen t form understands the nature, demands, risks, and benefits involved in pa rticipating in this study. __________________________ _____ __________________ __________ Signature of Investigator Prin ted Name of Investigator Date Or Authorized research investigators designated by the Principal Investigator INSTITUTIONAL APPROVAL OF STUDY AND INFORMED CONSENT: This research project and informed consen t form were reviewed and approved by the University of South Florida Institutional Review Board for the protection of human subjects. This approval is until the date provided below. This board ma y be contacted at (813) 974-5638. Approval Consent Form Expiration Date: Revision Date:_______________

PAGE 124

117 Appendix I. Educational Debriefing This study examined the relationship between perceptions of the family environment in which young adults were raised, sibling relationships, and thei r current levels of adjustment. Participants were asked questions regarding percepti ons of differential parental treatment, childhood and current sibling relationships, and psychological well-being. Because very little resear ch has been conducted relative to the association between differential parental treatment sibling relationships, and individual outcome in young adults, this research is expected to provide insi ght regarding sibling and emotional/behavioral problems experienced by young adults as a function of experien cing differential parental treatment during childhood. Based on the literature, it appears that the extent to which the negative effects of differential parental treatment persist into adulthood depends on several factors including perceptions of the treatment, the quality of the parent-child re lationship, and negative sibli ng interactions during childhood. For further reading, please c onsult the following references: Barrett-Singer, A.T. & Weinstein, R.S. (2000). Differential parental treatment predicts achievement and self-perceptions in two cultural cont exts. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(3), 491-509. Stocker, C., Lanthier, R., Furman, W. (1997). Sibling relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology 11 (2), 210-221. Riggio, H. (2000). Measuri ng attitudes toward adult sibli ng relationships: The lifespan sibling relationship scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 17(6), 707-728. If you have experienced any distress related to this study or to this topic, please feel free to contact the researcher, Tangela R. Clark, at 813-655-3534. In a ddition, free counseling services are available for students at the USF Counseling Center for Human Development (CCHD). The CCHD is located in the Student Services Center (SVC) in Room 2124. You may also contact them at 974-2831. You may also contact the following agencies to locate low-cost resources that are available in your city: The American Psychologi cal Association (APA) 1400 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 1-888-357-7924 www.psych.org NMHA: National Mental Health Association 1021 Prince Street Alexandria, VA 22314 1-800-969-NMHA(6642) www.nmha.org Thank you for participating in this research project!

PAGE 125

118 Appendix J. Sibling Information and Instructions Form Please write YOUR NAME in the space below to ensure that your sibling completes the forms with you in mind. Your sibling _____________________________________, participated in a study on college students, siblings, and current functioning. You were selected by your sibling to participate in this study because you are within three years of his/her age. Your participation is voluntary, however if you complete the following questionnaires, your name will be entered in a drawing for the possibility to win ONE of two cash prizes of $100 each or ONE of a selection of small gift certificates to local merchants. If you agree to participate, please read and sign the consent form that is attached. The information from the study will not be repeated in any way that is associated with your identification for any reason. All forms will only be coded with an identification number and will not be matched with any names. The consent form on which your name is written will not be coded with a number and will be separated form the completed questionnaires when the person running the study receives your packet. The completed forms will be kept in a separate file cabinet in a secure laboratory. INSTRUCTIONS: After signing the consent form, please complete the following forms with the sibling indicated above in mind. The forms are to be completed in this order: Demographics Questionnaire, BSI, TSA, LSRS, and the SIDE-R. After completing the questionnaires which will take approximately 30 to 45 minutes, please place all information in the selfaddressed, stamped envelope provided and place in the mail. Thank you in advance for your participation!

PAGE 126

119 Appendix K. Sibling Consent Form UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE WHO TAKE PART IN RESEARCH The following information is being presented to help you decide whether or not you want to be a part of a minimal risk research study. Please read carefully. Anything you do not understand, please contact the Person in Charge of the Study (Tangela Clark (813) 6553534 or tclark@luna.cas.usf.edu). Title of Study: College Students, Sibli ngs, and Current Functioning Principle Investigator: Dr. Vicky Phares Person in Charge of the Study: Tangela Clark Study Location: Psychology and Communication Disorders (PCD) Building at the University of South Florida (Siblings complete questionnaires at their own home) General Information about the Research Study This study will assess various aspects of sibli ng relationships among young adults. Your participation has been solicited because your sibling participated in this study and selected you to participate because you are within three years of hi s/her age. Participants will be administered a packet consisting of several questionnaires. Ther e will be approximately 400 participants in the study. These questionnaires will ask participants a bout their perceptions of the current sibling relationship and during childhood, perceptions of each parent, and current feelings. The information that will be obtained in this study may assist in understanding factors that influence the sibling relationship across the lifespan. Benefits of Being Part of this Research Study Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your name will be entered into a drawing for the possibility to win one of two cash prizes of $100 each or one of a selection of small gift certificates to local merchants. In addition, by taking part in this research study, you may increase your overall knowledge a nd understanding of the relations hip between your past and current functioning. If you elect to withdraw at any point of the study, you may do so without penalty. The time commitment for this study is approximately 30 to 45 minutes. You must be at least 18 years old to participate. Risks of Being a Part of this Research Study It is expected that this study poses minimal risk to participants. Because of the nature of the questions, however, some individuals may find the study to be distressing. Therefore, all participants will receive an Educational Debriefi ng form that will provide information about free or reduced cost counseling services available to them. Alternatives of Being Part of this Research Study An alternative to participating in this study is to choose not to participate in the study. In Case of Illness or Injury In the event that you get sick or injured while on this study, call Tangela R. Clark, at (813) 6553534. If you have an emergency, go to the closest emergency room or clinic for treatment. After

PAGE 127

120 Appendix K. (Continued). you have been treated for your illness or injury, call the USF Self Insurance Programs, at (813) 974-8008. They will investigate the matter. Confidentiality of Your Records All information will be kept strictly confidential and will be maintained in a secure manner. The information from this study will not be repeated in any way that is associated with your identification for any reason. All forms will only be coded with an identification number and will not be matched with your name. The consent form on which you will have written your name will not be coded with a number and will be sep arated from the completed questionnaires when you hand them to the person running the study. The completed forms will be kept locked in a file cabinet in a secure laboratory. Only the resear cher and the research team will have access to the information from this study. However, author ized research investigators, agents of the Department of Health and Human Services and the USF Institutional Review Board may inspect your records from this research project. The results of the study may be published. However, the data obtained from you will be combined with da ta from other people in the publication. The published results will not include your name or any other information that would in any way personally identify you. If you agree to participate, please sign this consent as well as the copy provided for your own records. If you have any questions or con cerns regarding this study, you may contact the researcher, Tangela R. Clark, at (813) 655-3534, or her faculty advisor, Dr. Vicky Phares at (813) 974-0493. If you have any questions about your rights as a person that is participating in a research study, you may contact a member of the Division of Compliance Services at the University of South Florida at (813) 974-5638. I agree to participate in this study of college students sibling relations hips. I understand all of the above information and have ha d any questions answered to my satisfaction. I understand that I may withdraw at any time without being penalized. My name will be entered into a drawing for the opportunity to win one of two cash prizes on one-hundred dollars or one of a selection of small gift certificates to local merchants. I am at least 18 years old. By signing this form I agree that: I have fully read or someone has read and explained to me in my native language, this informed consent form describing this research project. I have had the opportunity to ques tion the persons in charge of this research and have received satisfactory responses. I understand that I am being asked to participate in research. I understand the risks and benefits and I freely give my consent to participate in the research project outlined in this form, under the conditions indicated in it. I have been provided a signed copy of this informed consent form, which is for my personal records. ___________________________ _______________________ __________ Signature of Participant Printe d Name of Participant Date INVESTIGATOR STATEMENT:

PAGE 128

121 Appendix K. (Continued). I have carefully explained to the subject the nature of the study. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, the subject signing this consen t form understands the nature, demands, risks, and benefits involved in pa rticipating in this study. ___________________________ _______________________________ _______________ Signature of Investigator Prin ted Name of Investigator Date Or Authorized research investigators designated by the Principal Investigator INSTITUTIONAL APPROVAL OF STUDY AND INFORMED CONSENT: This research project and informed consen t form were reviewed and approved by the University of South Florida Institutional Review Board for the protection of human subjects. This approval is until the date provided below. This board ma y be contacted at (813) 974-5638. Approval Consent Form Expiration Date: Revision Date:_______________

PAGE 129

About the Author Tangela Clark Culpepper received a Bachelors and Masters Degree in Psychology and Community Psychology, respecti vely, from Florida A&M University in 1992 and 1995. She entered the Clinical Psychology Ph.D. program at the University of South Florida in 1997 where she was the recipi ent of the Graduate Education Opportunity Grant for four years. While in the Ph.D. program at the University of South Florida, Mrs. Clark Culpepper committed herself to working with children and adolescents ranging in a variety of emotional and behavioral issues. She provided many of these services through the Psychological Services Center and th e Hillsborough County School District in Tampa, Florida. Mrs. Clark Culpepper is also the co-author of publications in the Encyclopedia of Pediatric and Child Psychol ogy and The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001926041
003 fts
005 20080205131945.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 080205s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001910
035
(OCoLC)191822934
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
BF121 (ONLINE)
1 100
Clark Culpepper, Tangela R.
4 245
The relations between young adults' retrospective perceptions of differential parental treatment, quality of the childhood and current sibling relationship, and current psychological adjustment
h [electronic resource] /
by Tangela R. Clark Culpepper.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2007.
3 520
ABSTRACT: This study explored the relations among young adults' perceptions of differential parental treatment, temperamental style, attitudes toward their childhood and current sibling relationships, and psychological adjustment. Participants included 87 college students and their siblings between the ages of 18 and 25 years. Students completed measures in small groups, and siblings completed the surveys via mail. The data were analyzed using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kashy & Kenny, 1999). Results revealed that participants' perceptions of their sibling relationship during childhood were related to their current attitudes toward the relationship. In addition, siblings were in agreement regarding their overall attitudes toward the sibling relationship as well as in their perceptions of their interactions with their parents. Siblings' reports higher levels of differential maternal and paternal control were related significantly to perceptions of less positive sibling interactions. Females and individuals with a sister reported higher levels of positivity in the sibling relationship than did males and individuals reporting on a brother. Level of psychological adjustment was found to be better for individuals who experienced more paternal control according to their sibling. Temperamental characteristics were found to be related to attitudes toward the sibling relationship and reports of parenting behaviors. Results are discussed within the context of family-based research regarding parent-child and sibling relationships.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 121 pages.
Includes vita.
590
Adviser: Vicky Phares, Ph.D.
653
Family relations.
Emotional problems.
Parenting behaviors.
College students.
APIM.
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1910