Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee At Martin]On: 06 October 2014, At: 14:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Early Education and DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20
“It's Mine!” Does Sharing with Siblingsat Age 3 Predict Sharing with Siblings,Friends, and Unfamiliar Peers at Age 6?Naomi White a , Rosie Ensor a , Alex Marks a , Lorna Jacobs a & ClaireHughes aa Centre for Family Research, University of CambridgePublished online: 27 Jan 2014.
To cite this article: Naomi White , Rosie Ensor , Alex Marks , Lorna Jacobs & Claire Hughes (2014) “It'sMine!” Does Sharing with Siblings at Age 3 Predict Sharing with Siblings, Friends, and Unfamiliar Peersat Age 6?, Early Education and Development, 25:2, 185-201, DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2013.825189
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.825189
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
‘‘It’s Mine!’’ Does Sharing with Siblings at Age 3Predict Sharing with Siblings, Friends, and
Unfamiliar Peers at Age 6?
Naomi White, Rosie Ensor, Alex Marks, Lorna Jacobs, and Claire Hughes
Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge
Research Findings: Studies of children’s prosocial behavior typically focus on prosocial acts with a
specific partner (e.g., a friend, peer, or sibling), and comparisons of prosociality in different contexts
are rare. To address this gap, the current study examined predictive links among children’s spon-
taneous sharing (a common and important form of prosocial behavior) with siblings, friends, and
unfamiliar peers. At ages 3 and 6 years, 81 children (48 boys) were filmed playing with an older
sibling (44 brothers); at age 6 the children were also filmed playing with a best friend (at school)
and with 2 unfamiliar peers (in a lab). Older siblings shared more frequently than the target children
at the 1st time point, but this contrast was not apparent at the 2nd time point. Average rates of sharing
with a sibling did not differ by gender at the 1st time point, but girls shared more frequently than
boys at the 2nd time point. When effects of gender composition were controlled, early spontaneous
sharing with an older sibling predicted later sharing with unfamiliar peers (but not with a friend).
Practice or Policy: Learning to share with a sibling can help children acquire the prosocial skills
needed to form positive relationships with their peers.
Prosocial behaviors such as sharing, comforting, or helping, by definition, are of benefit to
others (Eisenberg, 1982), but such behaviors also reap their own rewards—for example, in
developing friendships and promoting popularity (Denham, McKinley, Couchoud, & Holt,
1990; Wojslawowicz Bowker, Rubin, Burgess, & Booth LaForce, 2006). The antecedents of
prosocial behavior emerge early in life: For example, 3-day-old infants respond empathically
to another infant’s distress (e.g., Simner, 1971), and sharing, helping, and comforting typically
emerge in the second year of life (Dunn, Kendrick, & MacNamee, 1981) and increase in both
variety and frequency throughout toddlerhood (Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, Wagner, &
Chapman, 1992) and the preschool years (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). However, the origins of
prosocial behavior remain unclear. One crucible for prosocial development is the birth of a sib-
ling (Dunn & Kendrick, 1982). Somewhat surprising, then, is that research on prosocial behavior
has focused heavily on children’s interactions with peers or adults, such that much less is known
about prosocial behavior between siblings.
In their pioneering study, Dunn and Kendrick (1982) found that the birth of a sibling is
associated with an increase in family talk about others’ mental states. In particular, the feelings,
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Claire Hughes, Centre for Family Research, University
of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge, CB2 3RQ, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Early Education and Development, 25: 185–201
Copyright # 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-9289 print/1556-6935 online
DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2013.825189
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
wants, and interests of the newborn sibling often become a key focus of conversation between
mothers and older siblings (Dunn & Hughes, in press; Dunn & Kendrick, 1982). Such talk about
mental states may facilitate both children’s prosocial behavior and positive sibling relationships.
For example, in a study of preschool-age children and their 1-year-old siblings, firstborns’ and
mothers’ references to the younger child’s feelings and skills were associated with positive beha-
vior between the siblings (Howe & Ross, 1990). Similarly, 3- and 4-year-old siblings who talked
more frequently about mental states with their younger siblings also showed more positive
affective behavior toward them (Howe, 1991). Likewise, children’s early displays of interest
and affection toward their new sibling have been shown to predict friendly behavior between
siblings 14 months later (Dunn & Kendrick, 1982).
Nevertheless, as young children develop, their relationships with siblings often change dra-
matically, reflecting both the narrowing gap between siblings’ cognitive and physical skills,
and social milestones (such as the transition to school) that enable children to form close rela-
tionships outside of the family (Kramer & Kowal, 2005). Both age-related decreases and the
substantial stability of individual differences in positive sibling interaction over the preschool
years have been reported in some studies (Dunn, Creps, & Brown, 1996; Dunn, Slomkowski,
& Beardsall, 1994), whereas other studies have shown little change over time in mean levels
of siblings’ prosocial behavior and limited stability of individual differences (Abramovitch,
Corter, Pepler, & Stanhope, 1986).
Findings about age-related changes in sibling prosocial behavior in later childhood are also
mixed. One cross-sectional study of 5- to 12-year-old children and their older siblings reported
more positive sibling relationships among older dyads (Stoneman & Brody, 1993), whereas
longitudinal findings from the same research group indicated that over a 4-year period
school-age children’s prosocial behavior with siblings actually decreased (Brody, Stoneman,
& McCoy, 1994). These discrepant findings may be explained in terms of differences in defini-
tions adopted by each research group: Abramovitch and colleagues focused on prosocial beha-
viors (e.g., affection, sharing, helping, comforting, praise, and cooperation); in contrast, Dunn
and colleagues adopted a broader view of positive behavior that included friendly behavior
(e.g., playing together, desiring to be with the sibling, sharing humor) as well as prosocial beha-
viors. Furthermore, Brody and colleagues used questionnaire measures of children’s perceptions
of their sibling relationship quality (Stoneman & Brody, 1993) or composite measures of
observational and questionnaire data (Brody et al., 1994).
Research findings on prosocial behavior between siblings highlight a consistent effect of
gender (at both the individual and dyad levels). Girls typically exhibit more prosocial beha-
vior than boys (e.g., Abramovitch, Corter, & Lando, 1979; Abramovitch, Corter, & Pepler,
1980; Abramovitch et al., 1986; Pepler, Abramovitch, & Corter, 1981), but this contrast
may be restricted to older siblings (e.g., Cicirelli, 1975; Lamb, 1978a; Sutton-Smith &
Rosenberg, 1970). Older sisters are thought to be particularly prosocial, taking on the role
of ‘‘little mothers’’ (Abramovitch et al., 1979, p. 1001). At the dyad level, same-sex
preschool siblings appear to exhibit more prosocial behavior (Dunn & Kendrick, 1981,
1982) than opposite-sex dyads, whereas school-age sisters appear to be more prosocial than
school-age brothers and preschool brothers or sisters (Brody, Stoneman, MacKinnon, &
MacKinnon, 1985). Furthermore, in a study of 2-year-olds and their infant siblings followed
over 6 months, Dunn and Kendrick (1982) found that friendly behavior increased over time
for same-sex dyads but decreased for opposite-sex dyads. Researchers’ understanding of
186 WHITE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
dyad-level gender differences in sibling prosocial behavior is somewhat limited, however,
because most studies have examined differences between same-sex and opposite-sex dyads
or between brothers and sisters.
The first aim of the current study was to add to researchers’ understanding of sibling prosocial
behavior by examining gender effects and developmental changes over a 3-year period in one
type of prosocial behavior: spontaneous sharing. Specifically, we examined (a) gender and
age gap effects on frequencies of spontaneous sharing, (b) changes over time in mean levels
of spontaneous sharing for both older and younger siblings, (c) correlations between the target
children’s sharing and their siblings’ sharing (i.e., partner effects), and (d) the stability of indi-
vidual differences in target children’s and siblings’ sharing across the 3-year study period. Note
that strong partner effects within each time point (i.e., how much a child shares may depend on
how much his or her sibling shares during that play session) do not necessarily entail strong stab-
ility over time (this is more likely to reflect enduring within-child traits). Equally, within a time
point a child’s sharing behavior may be contingent on sharing by the partner (e.g., sibling,
friend, unfamiliar peer), but this does not necessarily entail cross-situational consistency in
children’s sharing.
The study period spanned the younger siblings’ transition to primary school, and thus we
expected less stability in children’s sharing than in other studies of prosocial behavior (e.g.,
Dunn et al., 1994; Stillwell & Dunn, 1985). Consistent with previous research, we also
expected to observe significant correlations between target children’s and older siblings’ shar-
ing at both time points (Abramovitch et al., 1986) and gender differences favoring girls at
both the individual and dyad levels (Abramovitch et al., 1979, 1980, 1986; Brody et al.,
1985; Pepler et al., 1981). With regard to differences in prosocial behavior between siblings,
the current study provided a unique opportunity to examine whether age-related changes in
prosocial development or the older child’s role as the more capable member of the dyad
underpin the higher rates of sharing that are typically reported for older siblings (e.g., Abra-
movitch et al., 1986). Specifically, we compared older siblings’ sharing at the first time point
with younger children’s sharing at the second time point (i.e., when both children were, on
average, 6 years old).
To our knowledge, this study is the first to use a single behavior (as opposed to composite
measures) to index sibling prosociality. This is surprising: Specific prosocial behaviors are
known to be distinct from one another and to have differential correlates (Dunfield & Kuhlmeier,
2013; Dunfield, Kuhlmeier, O’Connell, & Kelley, 2011; Eisenberg-Berg & Hand, 1979). For
example, in a recent study Dunfield and Kuhlmeier (2013) found that there was no consistency
in preschoolers’ prosocial responding in response to three different types of negativity (instru-
mental need, emotional distress, and material desire) displayed by an adult experimenter. More-
over, the importance of investigating developmental trajectories of distinct behaviors rather than
global measures has been emphasized in other domains (e.g., antisocial behavior; Fontaine,
Carbonneau, Vitaro, Barker, & Tremblay, 2009). Diversity among prosocial behaviors is
unsurprising, as these behaviors vary in the degree to which they reflect other-oriented
motivation. Unlike helping or cooperation, spontaneous sharing is thought to be particularly
other-oriented because it typically entails a cost to the child and does not reflect mere
compliance with another’s request (Eisenberg-Berg & Hand, 1979). Furthermore, Eisenberg
and colleagues (1999) reported that preschoolers’ spontaneous sharing with peers predicted a
range of measures of children’s prosocial behavior up to 17 years later, including
SHARING WITH A SIBLING 187
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
self-, mother-, and friend-reported prosocial behavior as well as observed behavior and
perspective taking. For each of these reasons, in the current study we chose to use spontaneous
sharing as an index of prosocial behavior.
In contrast with the focus of previous studies on older siblings’ care giving and helping beha-
vior toward their younger siblings, the current study focused on the younger siblings’ behavior.
In a recent review of family influences on early moral development, Dunn and Hughes (in press)
gave at least one striking example of how younger children can display prosocial behavior
toward an older sibling: Jay, a 30-month-old, tries repeatedly to comfort his older brother,
Len, who has just bitten him and is upset at being reprimanded by their mother! To date, how-
ever, younger siblings’ prosocial behaviors toward older siblings have received very little sys-
tematic investigation. In this respect our choice of spontaneous sharing is particularly apt
because, unlike helping, it does not require the child to possess more advanced knowledge or
capabilities than his or her sibling.
Our second goal was to examine whether spontaneous sharing with an older sibling at age 3
predicted spontaneous sharing with a best friend or with unfamiliar peers at age 6. Links among
sibling relationships, friendships, and peer relationships are predicted from several distinct theor-
etical perspectives. For example, attachment theory proposes that early experiences with care-
givers influence relationships with others, including siblings and friends (Bretherton, 1985),
whereas personality theory suggests that a child’s relatively stable temperament will evoke simi-
lar responses from different social partners (Caspi & Elder, 1988). Finally, social learning theory
posits a more direct link between sibling relationships and friendships, whereby children learn
behaviors in sibling relationships and then generalize them to relationships outside the family
(Parke, MacDonald, Beitel, & Bhavnagri, 1988).
Findings from empirical research, however, are less straightforward. Berndt and Bulleit
(1985) found very few associations between children’s observed behavior with siblings and
peers, and Stocker and Dunn (1991) reported no association between parent- and teacher-
reported peer relations and sibling relationship quality. Similarly, although one study of pre-
school children found links between closeness of friendships and friendly behavior toward
younger siblings (Kramer, 1990), other researchers have found no relationship between friend-
ships and sibling relationships (Abramovitch et al., 1986). Furthermore, another study found
associations between negative aspects of the sibling relationships (e.g., competitiveness, control-
ling behavior, and hostility) and positive behavior and closeness in friendships (Stocker & Dunn,
1991).
These mixed findings can be explained in several ways. The lack of associations among
sibling relationships, peer relationships, and friendships may be due to differences among the
three relationships. While sibling relationships and friendships are both close relationships,
friendships are voluntary and thus usually involve a higher degree of mutual affection and recip-
rocity (Dunn & McGuire, 1992). Sibling relationships, in contrast, tend to be characterized by
ambivalence (e.g., Dunn, 1983). Friendships also involve two children from different families,
and the combination of their different relationship experiences may produce very different beha-
vior from that shown within family relationships (Dunn & McGuire, 1992). Moreover, peer rela-
tionships are not as close as either friendships or sibling relationships, such that children might
be expected to show fewer prosocial behaviors in interactions with peers (Dunn & McGuire,
1992). In one study of 4- to 6-year-olds’ prosocial responses to a hypothetical scenario, children
showed more frequent sympathetic responses and offered more interventions to the plight of a
188 WHITE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
friend than an acquaintance (Costin & Jones, 1992). Finally, negative relationships between
sibling relationships and friendships may reflect compensatory processes, or children may
develop social understanding abilities from conflict with their siblings that enable them to
maintain positive friendships (Dunn & McGuire, 1992).
The predictive power of sibling prosocial behavior may also differ for sharing with a friend
versus sharing with unfamiliar peers because these contexts represent very different relation-
ships. On the one hand, sibling relationships may be more similar to friendships than relation-
ships with unfamiliar peers because they are characterized by high levels of familiarity with a
partner. On the other hand, sharing with friends may be heavily influenced by relationship
quality and past experiences within the friendship, whereas sharing with unfamiliar peers
may provide a purer indication of children’s underlying propensity for prosocial behavior
because children have fewer prior expectations of the relationship. For this second reason,
we expected sibling sharing to be a better predictor of sharing with unfamiliar peers than with
a friend.
In sum, the first aim of the current study was to examine sibling spontaneous sharing over the
3-year period when the younger child was ages 3 to 6 years. We expected that girls would share
more than boys at the individual and dyad levels, that strong partner effects would be present,
and that rates of sharing would show some stability across the 3-year period for both siblings.
Because of the conflicting findings in the literature we had no clear hypothesis about mean-level
changes in sibling sharing over time. Our second goal was to examine predictive links between
sharing with an older sibling at age 3 and sharing with a friend and with unfamiliar peers at age
6. We hypothesized that if early sharing predicted later sharing with another child, this link
would be stronger for sharing with unfamiliar peers than for sharing with a friend.
In fulfilling these goals, the study makes several unique contributions to research on sibling
prosocial behavior. First, in contrast to previous research, we used a single behavior, spon-
taneous sharing, as an index of prosociality. Researchers interested in both prosocial and anti-
social behavior have emphasized the need to examine developmental trajectories of individual
behaviors separately rather than use global measures (Dunfield et al., 2011; Eisenberg-Berg
& Hand, 1979; Fontaine et al., 2009). Second, we examined sharing in three contexts—with sib-
lings, friends, and unfamiliar peers—which allowed us to compare predictive links between
early sibling prosocial behavior and prosociality with friends versus unfamiliar peers. Third,
we focused on the younger rather than the older child. Finally, the time period of our study
spanned the younger child’s transition to school. This period represents a period of change in
the sibling relationship as children’s social horizons expand (Kramer & Kowal, 2005) and
bridges previous research, which has typically focused on sibling relationships between
preschoolers or school-age children.
METHOD
Participants
The current study was conducted as part of an ongoing longitudinal study of children’s cognitive
and social development (Hughes, 2011). Participating families were recruited through mother–
toddler groups and support groups for mothers in Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, and
SHARING WITH A SIBLING 189
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Hertfordshire, United Kingdom. Criteria for inclusion in the study included having a toddler
between 24 and 36 months of age and speaking English as a first language. Of the 192 families
contacted, 140 (73%) consented to participate in the study. The current study focused on a sub-
sample of children who participated at age 3 and age 6 with an older sibling. Table 1 shows the
study children’s age, family structure, and family background at the three time points. The study
families showed a high level of social diversity: About a fifth of mothers were lone parents at
each time point, 32% of mothers had university degrees, 20% had A-levels (age 18 qualifica-
tions), 33% had General Certificates of Secondary Education (age 16 qualifications) or equiva-
lent, and 15% had no educational qualifications at the start of the study. Reflecting the local
population, 95% of the children were White.
During home visits conducted at both age 3 (X age¼ 3 years, 4 months; SD¼ 4 months) and
6 years (X age¼ 6 years, 1 month; SD¼ 4 months), 81 children (48 boys) were each observed
playing with an older sibling (44 older brothers). In families with more than two children, the
target child was observed playing with their closest-in-age older sibling. Children with younger
siblings, those with considerably older siblings (>7 years older), and twins or triplets were
excluded from the analysis to produce a more homogeneous sample. The siblings were on aver-
age just less than 3 years older than the target children, although there was substantial variation
in the age difference (X¼ 2 years, 11 months; SD¼ 1 year, 5 months; range¼ 1 year, 1 month to
7 years, 0 months). In terms of gender composition, the sibling observations included 28 boy–
boy pairs, 17 girl–girl pairs, and 36 opposite-sex pairs (20 boy–older sister and 16 girl–older
brother pairs).
At the age 6 time point children were also observed playing with a self-nominated best friend.
Friends were typically the same gender as the child (80% same-sex dyads) and the same age
(X¼ 5 years, 11 months; SD¼ 6 months; t¼�0.53, p> .05). In terms of family variables,
friends were equally likely as target children to come from lone-parent families, but a difference
was found for maternal education (v2¼ 7.01, p¼ .07). Specifically, mothers of friends appeared
to have marginally fewer years of education than mothers of the target children.
TABLE 1
Characteristics of the Sample at the Age 3 and Age 6 Time Points
Characteristic Time 1 Time 2
Mean child age (years) 3.33 (0.33) 6.08 (0.33)
Mean sibling age (years) 6.25 (1.42) 8.92 (1.42)
Family structure
Lone parent 18% 24%
1 sibling 46% 40%
2 siblings 38% 43%
3 siblings 11% 11%
4 or more siblings 5% 6%
Maternal education
University degree 32% 37%
A-levels (age 18 qualification) 20% 30%
General Certificates of Secondary Education (age 16 qualification) 33% 25%
No educational qualifications 15% 9%
190 WHITE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Procedure
Home, school, and lab visits were conducted by graduate researchers who had received training
in the procedures from the last author. At both time points, pairs of researchers visited families
at home for 2 hr, typically in the early evening. During these visits, children were filmed
playing with their sibling with toys provided by the researchers: dress-up materials and toys
(e.g., a fairy outfit, a fireman outfit and accessories, toy animals) at the first time point and
a Playmobil1 zoo (e.g., enclosures, animals) at the second time point. Play sessions lasted
approximately 20min at the first time point (X¼ 21.31min, SD¼ 2.73min) and 15min at
the second time point (X¼ 16.86min, SD¼ 2.28min). During the play session the researchers
filmed the children discreetly from a corner of the room and responded as little as possible to
comments from the children. At each time point families were given £20 as thanks for
their time.
At the second time point, researchers visited the target children at school. During this visit
children were observed playing with a self-nominated friend for 15min (X¼ 16.09min,
SD¼ 1.57min) in an empty classroom. The play session was conducted in the same way and
used the same toys as the sibling play session at the same time point. At the end of the visit
schools were given gift tokens to thank them for their participation.
Around the same time, the target children were invited to the university lab in groups of three
for a triadic play session. Triads were chosen on the basis of gender and age, with the added
criterion that the children did not know one another before the testing session (i.e., children were
not at the same school). After the children had been introduced to one another they completed a
t-shirt decorating task as a warm-up activity. Triads then played for 5min (X¼ 5.21min,
SD¼ 0.67min) with each of three different sets of props (giant Jenga1, a trampoline, and a jun-
ior ping-pong set) presented in a counterbalanced order. These play sessions were filmed using
three concealed cameras, with researchers watching from behind a two-way mirror. Families
were given £5 and a DVD of their child as a token of thanks for participating, and their travel
costs were reimbursed.
Coding
The videos of the sibling play sessions at age 3 and age 6 and the play sessions with a friend and
unfamiliar peers at age 6 were coded for instances of prosocial behavior (sharing, helping,
comforting, praising, and general positive behavior) using a coding scheme adapted from
Hay, Castle, Davies, Demetriou, and Stimson (1999). Each instance of prosocial behavior
was coded as either responsive (i.e., responding to a request or to the other child’s distress)
or spontaneous. For the purposes of this article we focus only on instances of spontaneous shar-
ing. A share was classified as a child offering an object previously in his or her possession, giv-
ing an object into the other’s hands or lap, or adding an object to an array within which the other
was situated. A total of 20% of transcripts at each time point were double-coded by two graduate
researchers for reliability, and disagreements were resolved by discussion. These videos showed
good interrater reliability (mean kappa for the whole coding scheme¼ .85, range¼ .82–.88;
mean percent agreement for spontaneous sharing¼ 89%, range¼ 79%–93%). One researcher
then coded the remaining videos in each context. The lab triadic play sessions were shorter than
SHARING WITH A SIBLING 191
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
the play sessions, and so instances of sharing were less frequent (less than half of children shared
in a given session). Therefore, to maximize the distributions of sharing rates, we summed counts
of sharing with unfamiliar peers during the triadic play sessions in the lab over the three activi-
ties (trampolining, giant Jenga1, and ping-pong). A measure of unfamiliar peers’ sharing toward
the target child (i.e., partner effects) was calculated by summing the number of spontaneous
shares each peer directed toward the target child.
RESULTS
Data Reduction
Behavioral counts of spontaneous sharing with siblings, friends, and unfamiliar peers were
converted into hourly rates to account for variation in observation length between and within
time points (due to interruptions, toilet breaks, etc.). Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for
and correlations between the background and sharing variables. Rates of spontaneous sharing
with all partners were positively skewed: In each context there were many children who showed
no spontaneous sharing (28%–56%). Nonparametric tests and Spearman’s correlations were
therefore used to examine changes in sibling sharing over time and associations between target
children’s and siblings’ sharing. Log-transformed variables were used in the second set of analy-
ses to examine predictive links between early prosocial behavior with siblings and later prosocial
behavior with friends and unfamiliar peers.
Sharing Between Siblings: Effects of Gender and the Age Gap
Based on previous research (e.g., Abramovitch et al., 1986; Dunn & Kendrick, 1981, 1982),
gender differences in prosocial behavior were expected at both the individual and dyad levels.
At Time 1, Mann–Whitney tests showed no gender differences in target children’s and sib-
lings’ spontaneous sharing (U� 755.00, p> .05). At Time 2, however, target girls shared more
frequently than target boys (U¼ 502.00, z¼�2.93, p< .01, r¼�.33) and older sisters shared
more frequently than older brothers (U¼ 615.50, z¼�2.08, p< .05, r¼�.23). Next Kruskal–
Wallis tests were used to compare mean levels of target children’s and older siblings’ sharing
for the four different dyad gender combinations (girl–older sister, boy–older brother, girl–older
brother, boy–older sister). These tests showed that the effect of gender composition on the tar-
get children’s sharing was nonsignificant at Time 1 (v2¼ 0.56, p> .05) but significant at Time
2 (v2¼ 12.98, p< .01). Pairwise Dunn’s tests were conducted to examine simple effects using
a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of .008 (which translates to a critical z score of 2.64). While
the mean ranks for sharing suggested that target girls with older sisters showed particularly
high rates of sharing at time 2 relative to all the other groups, with this stringent alpha level
only the contrast between girls with older sisters and boys with older sisters was significant
(z¼ 3.36, z range for the other contrasts¼ .64� 2.33). No gender effects were found for
older siblings’ sharing at either time point (v2¼ 0.92, p> .05 for Time 1; v2¼ 4.34, p> .05
for Time 2).
Sharing in the sibling dyad was also related to the age difference between siblings, but in
this case only at Time 1 (see Table 3). When same-sex and opposite-sex dyads were considered
192 WHITE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
TABLE2
CorrelationMatrix
(Spearm
an’s
Rho)andDescriptiveStatisticsforBackgroundVariablesandHourlySpontaneousSharingRates
Variable
12
34
56
78
910
1112
XSD
Ran
geProportion
1.T1Childage
—3.33
0.33
2.92–4.18
2.T2Childage
.76��
—6.08
0.33
5.24–7.26
3.Siblingagedifference
–.06
–.08
—2.89
1.40
1.10–6.98
4.T1maternal
educationa
.01
–.07
–.07
—1.69
1.08
0–3
5.T1childsharing(sibling)
.08
.03
.16
–.14
—4.86
7.58
0–50
65
6.T1siblingsharing
–.15
–.19y
.31��
–.15
.45��
—7.62
9.78
0–52
72
7.T2childsharing(sibling)
.03
.07
.10
–.02
.03
–.01
—4.85
9.34
0–73
54
8.T2siblingsharing
.21y
.31��
–.06
–.14
.08
.06
.25�
—4.27
10.16
0–68
43
9.T2childsharing(friend)
–.04
–.11
–.11
–.05
–.11
–.05
.15
–.03
—6.34
7.78
0–44
68
10.T2friendsharing
–.11
–.17
.27�
.09
.01
–.09
.16
.07
.29�
—7.21
7.12
0–32
72
11.T2childsharing(unfamiliarpeer)
–.11
–.15
.05
–.10
.22y
.09
.01
.11
–.15
.16
—3.07
4.14
0–19
44
12.T2unfamiliarpeersharingb
–.03
–.04
.00
–.09
.16
.30��
.32��
–.02
.09
.12
.29�
—3.23
4.28
0–23
50
Note.
Proportion¼proportionofchildrenwhoshowed
atleastonce
instance
ofspontaneoussharing;T1¼Tim
e1;T2¼Tim
e2.
aAssessedona4-pointscale:
0¼noage16qualifications,1¼age16qualifications,2¼age18qualifications,3¼university
degree.
bThehourlyrate
atwhicheither
unfamiliarpeershared
withthetarget
child.
y p<.1.
� p<.05.
��p<.01.
193
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
separately, it became clear that the positive association between age difference and sibling
sharing at Time 1 was largely carried by the relationship for same-sex dyads. For opposite-sex
dyads the association between age difference and sibling sharing at Time 2 was significant but
negative.
Sharing With a Sibling: Age and Role Effects
Mean levels of spontaneous sharing for the target children and their siblings were compared
using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test at each time point. Older siblings showed higher levels
of spontaneous sharing than younger siblings at Time 1 (z¼ 2.55, p< .05, r¼ .28) but not at
Time 2 (z¼ 1.33, p> .05). This contrast could reflect either an age-related increase in prosocial
behavior or an effect of the sibling’s role as the older child in the dyad. To assess these alter-
native accounts we compared frequencies of sharing for the older sibling at Time 1 and the target
child at Time 2 (i.e., when both groups were on average 6 years old). Older siblings showed
significantly more spontaneous sharing at age 6 (Time 1) than the target children at the same
age (Time 2; z¼ 2.21, p< .05). This suggests that children’s sharing with siblings reflects not
only their age but also their role within the relationship.
Note also that the reduced contrast in levels of sharing by children and their older siblings
over time may be explained by an increase over time in target children’s sharing, a decrease
in older siblings’ sharing, or both. These alternative accounts were tested using Wilcoxon
signed-rank tests to examine within-child shifts in sharing between the two time points, for both
the target children and their siblings. Across the two time points, levels of spontaneous sharing
did not differ significantly for the target children (z¼�0.16, p> .05) but decreased significantly
for their older siblings (z¼�3.24, p< .01, r¼�.36). These analyses were also conducted with
the dyads split by gender composition, and by age difference, and showed that the significant
drop in sibling sharing over time was only evident among brother–brother dyads (z¼�3.11,
p< .01, r¼�.59) and among dyads in which the older sibling was more than 3 years older than
the target child (z¼�3.25, p< .01, r¼�.57).
TABLE 3
Is the Child–Sibling Age Gap Related to Child and Sibling Spontaneous
Sharing? Spearman’s Correlations by Dyad Type
Dyad Time 1 Time 2
All dyads
Child .16 .10
Sibling .32�� –.06
Same-sex dyads
Child .21 .26
Sibling .39�� .20
Opposite-sex dyads
Child .06 –.10
Sibling .19 –.37�
�p< .05.��p< .01.
194 WHITE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Sharing With Siblings, Friends, and Peers: Partner Effects and Stability
Partner effects were explored by examining correlations between rates of sharing for the child
and his or her different partners (see Table 2). At both time points, sibling and child sharing were
significantly intercorrelated (rTime 1¼ .45, p< .001; rTime 2¼ .25, p< .05). Partner effects were
also observed in children’s sharing during the play sessions with a friend (r¼ .29, p< .05) and
with unfamiliar peers (r¼ .29, p< .05) at the second time point. These significant correlations
highlight the dyadic nature of prosocial behavior between children, especially during the
preschool years.
To assess the temporal stability of prosocial behavior, we examined correlations between Time 1
and Time 2 sharing for both target children and siblings (see Table 2). The results indicated no stab-
ility in individual rates of sharing for younger or older siblings. Correlations between children’s
sharing toward a sibling, friend, and unfamiliar peers at Time 2 were not significant, suggesting
that there was also a lack of cross-situational consistency in children’s sharing behavior. This lack
of stability could be due to differences in partners’ behavior over time or situation; to control for
this, we repeated correlation analyses using residual scores for children’s (log-transformed) rates
of sharing with siblings, friends, and unfamiliar peers and for siblings’ rates of sharing with the
target child. These analyses showed similar results: Across the 3-year period between study time
points there was no temporal stability in target children’s or siblings’ spontaneous sharing, even
when we controlled for partners’ prosocial behavior (rchild¼ .05; rsibling¼ .01, p> .05). Similarly,
child sharing with a sibling at age 6 was not significantly correlated with sharing with unfamiliar
peers (r¼�.09, p> .05) or with a friend (r¼ .12, p> .05). One unexpected finding was that when
partners’ sharing was taken into account, children’s sharing with a friend was negatively related toconcurrent sharing with unfamiliar peers (r¼�.25, p< .05).
Does Sharing with a Sibling Predict Later Sharing with a Friend or with UnfamiliarPeers?
Preliminary correlational analyses (see Table 2) indicated that age 3 sharing with a sibling was
marginally associated with age 6 sharing with unfamiliar peers. However, the correlation
between early sharing with a sibling and later sharing with a friend was not significant: Sharing
with a friend was only associated with friends’ sharing toward the child (i.e., partner effects).
The correlations between early sibling sharing and later sharing with unfamiliar peers and with
a friend were significantly different in strength (t¼ 2.53, p< .05). Note also that (as shown in
the bottom row of Table 2) the frequencies with which unfamiliar children shared with the study
children at age 6 correlated significantly with the frequencies of (a) older siblings’ sharing with
the study children at age 3, suggesting that some children may evoke sharing behaviors; and (b)
study children’s sharing both with siblings at age 6 and with these unfamiliar peers in the lab,
suggesting that partner effects are apparent, even between unfamiliar peers.
Next a hierarchical regression analysis was performed to assess whether variation in
children’s scores for spontaneous sharing at Time 1 predicted variance in children’s Time 2
spontaneous sharing with two (same-sex) unfamiliar peers. All sharing variables were log-
transformed before use in the analyses to correct for skewness. Preliminary analyses (see
Table 2) indicated that of the background variables (socioeconomic status, age, dyad gender
SHARING WITH A SIBLING 195
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
composition, child gender, and sibling age difference), gender composition (same sex vs.
opposite sex) alone predicted sharing with unfamiliar peers (t¼ 3.16, p< .01), so only this mea-
sure was included in further analyses. As displayed in Table 4, at Step 1, gender composition
accounted for 10% of the variance in sharing with unfamiliar peers (p< .01). To account for
partner effects, we entered older siblings’ sharing at Time 1 and unfamiliar peers’ sharing
toward the child at Time 2 in the second step, and these predicted an extra 4% of the variance
(p> .05). Finally, child spontaneous share scores with siblings at Time 1 were entered in the
third step of the regression model and explained a further 5% of the variance in sharing with
unfamiliar peers (p< .05).
DISCUSSION
This 3-year longitudinal study examined children’s sharing with an older sibling at two time
points, when the target children were approximately 3 and 6. This time frame represents a period
of great developmental change, particularly for the younger children, who started school
between the first and second time points. Our first set of findings supports a relationships
perspective of children’s sharing and highlights the dynamic nature of sibling relationships over
time.
Consistent with previous research (e.g., Abramovitch et al., 1986; Dunn & Kendrick, 1981,
1982), we found significant gender differences in siblings’ sharing, but the varying strengths of
these effects at the two time points also highlight changes in sibling relationships over time.
Significant gender differences were only found at the second time point, perhaps reflecting
the impact of differential socialization practices for girls and boys. For both older and younger
siblings, girls shared more than boys at the second time point. However, in contrast with
research suggesting that gender differences may be more pronounced for older siblings (e.g.,
Cicirelli, 1975; Lamb, 1978b; Sutton-Smith & Rosenberg, 1970), dyad-level gender contrasts
TABLE 4
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Sharing between Siblings at Age 3
Predicts Unique Variance in Children’s Sharing with Unfamiliar Peers
Sharing with unfamiliar peers
Step Variable B SE B b
1 Sibling dyad composition –.31 .10 –.34��
2 Sibling dyad composition –.27 .10 –.30��
T1 sibling sharing .05 .10 .06
T2 unfamiliar peer sharing .18 .12 .18
3 Sibling dyad composition –.27 .10 –.30��
T1 sibling sharing –.04 .11 –.05
T2 unfamiliar peer sharing .18 .11 .17
T1 child sharing with sibling .25 .12 .25�
Note. Adjusted R2¼ .10��for Step 1; DR2¼ .04 for Step 2; DR2¼ .05�for Step 3. Bs
and betas are presented for the final model. T1¼Time 1; T2¼Time 2.�p< .05.��p< .01.
196 WHITE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
were found for younger siblings’ sharing only. Specifically, 6-year-old girls with older sisters
shared more frequently than 6-year-old boys with older sisters.
The age difference between siblings also appeared to influence children’s sharing. At the first
time point, older siblings from dyads with a large age gap shared more than older siblings from
closely spaced dyads. This association was particularly strong for same-sex dyads and may
reflect age-related developments in social understanding. Children who are much older than their
siblings may have more advanced social understanding abilities that allow them to appreciate
their younger siblings’ limited capabilities and adjust their social advances toward them by shar-
ing more frequently. A contrasting result was found at the second time point: For opposite-sex
dyads only, older siblings with a large age gap shared less often than older siblings who were
closer in age to their younger sibling. This finding may reflect a lack of shared interests among
widely spaced opposite-sex dyads.
Differences between older and younger siblings’ sharing also changed over time. Older sib-
lings shared more often than target children at the first time point, but by the second time point
mean rates of sharing did not differ between the target children and their older siblings. This
finding suggests that sibling interactions are dynamic and reflect children’s developing social
skills. Older siblings appear to play a scaffolding role, leading sibling play with their very young
sibling but relinquishing this role as siblings develop into more competent social partners. It
should be noted, however, that although older and younger siblings showed equal rates of spon-
taneous sharing at the second time point, older siblings may continue to scaffold interactions as
their siblings get older. Studies of sibling helping suggest that older siblings show more helping
behavior than younger siblings when younger children are 6 years old (Brody et al., 1985;
Cicirelli, 1975), a finding that highlights the need for fine-grained analyses of specific prosocial
behaviors.
Our comparisons of older and younger siblings also indicated that when compared at the
same age (6 years old), older siblings displayed more spontaneous sharing than younger siblings.
This finding suggests that the presence of a younger sibling may provide a fertile context for
developing prosocial behaviors. The majority of young children’s interactions are with indivi-
duals of the same age or older (e.g., parents, friends, and other adults). Relationships with
younger siblings provide many children with their first sustained opportunities to engage with
individuals who are less capable than themselves and so may foster prosocial behaviors such
as sharing and helping.
Our findings of significant partner effects in siblings’ sharing confirm similar findings using
aggregate measures of prosocial behavior (e.g., Abramovitch et al., 1986; Lamb, 1978a). What is
interesting is that we also found partner effects for sharing with an unfamiliar peer and with a
friend, indicating that sharing reflects contextual factors. In contrast to previous research (e.g.,
Abramovitch et al., 1986; Dunn et al., 1994, 1996), our analyses revealed a lack of stability
in children’s sharing with siblings across time. This lack of stability may reflect changes in
the sibling relationship as younger children begin to make new friendships outside of the home
(Kramer & Kowal, 2005) or the different props (dress-up materials vs. the Playmobil1 zoo) used
at the two time points.
Children’s sharing with a sibling at age 6 was also unrelated to concurrent sharing with a
friend or unfamiliar peer, even though the sibling and friend play sessions used the same
methods and props. This finding highlights contextual influences on children’s prosocial
behavior and echoes previous work stressing contrasts among sibling, friend, and peer
SHARING WITH A SIBLING 197
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
relationships (e.g., Costin & Jones, 1992; Dunn & McGuire, 1992). For example, some
children may be especially likely to share with a familiar social partner (e.g., a friend or
sibling) rather than with an unfamiliar peer, whereas others may be particularly influenced
by whether they are observed in a voluntary relationship (e.g., with a friend vs. a sibling or
unfamiliar peer).
Perhaps the most important finding to emerge from this study is that frequencies of chil-
dren’s early sharing with siblings predicted frequencies of sharing with same-sex unfamiliar
peers 3 years later (as did the gender composition of the sibling dyad—compared with children
with opposite-sex siblings, those with same-sex siblings were more likely to share with
same-sex unfamiliar peers). This finding contrasts with the results from several studies that
failed to find associations between sibling and peer relationships (Berndt & Bulleit, 1985;
Stocker & Dunn, 1991). However, these studies examined relationships with peers that were
known to the child (i.e., classmates) rather than unfamiliar peers. Children’s spontaneous
sharing with unfamiliar peers may more accurately reflect underlying prosocial tendencies
(Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997) than relationships with classmates because children have had
no prior experience with these peers. In line with Abramovitch and colleagues’ (1986) findings,
sharing with a sibling did not predict sharing with a friend, suggesting that children’s propensity
to share is not consistent in all contexts. In contrast to sharing with an unfamiliar peer,
spontaneous sharing with a friend may be particularly influenced by past experiences in the
friendship and with positive expectations of reciprocity due to the intimacy and enduring nature
of the relationship.
Taken together, the findings from the current study add an additional nuance to Dunn and
McGuire’s (1992) arguments regarding associations between relationship quality among sib-
lings, friends, and peers. Their arguments for and against consistency in children’s behavior
in different relationships assumed similar patterns of association between sibling and friend
and between sibling and peer relationships. Our findings suggest that these associations are quite
different. Children’s shared history with their friend may have a large influence in determining
behavior. Sharing with a friend probably reflects affection for the friend and expectations of
reciprocity in the relationship based on previous interactions. Conversely, unfamiliar peers have
no shared history, and thus children’s actions in this context may reflect underlying patterns of
behavior that are present in other early relationships.
Children’s behavior (including their sharing) toward unfamiliar peers may be an important
indicator of their ability to develop new friendships. The current study’s findings suggest that
learning to share with a sibling may facilitate sharing with other peers. Sibling relationships
may therefore provide an important context for interventions to help children at risk for poor
peer relations. The lack of stability in rates of spontaneous sharing between siblings over the
3-year study period highlights the developmentally dynamic nature of the sibling relation-
ship—recognizing this may help parents accept and understand the ebb and flow of sibling rela-
tionships. At the same time, parents who encourage their young children to act prosocially
toward their sibling may also foster the development of skills that children can apply in interac-
tions with new acquaintances later in childhood. Further research is needed to investigate
whether there are strategies that parents can adopt to promote sharing between siblings, and
whether these will in turn increase children’s prosociality with unfamiliar children. One strategy
mothers might employ is the use of references to the children’s mental states. For example, Dunn
and Kendrick (1982) found that in families in which mothers talked frequently about a new
198 WHITE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
baby’s wants, feelings, likes, and dislikes, firstborns showed more friendly behavior toward their
younger sibling 14 months later. Several other studies with slightly older children have also
highlighted the importance of family mental state talk in children’s prosocial behavior (Howe,
1991; Howe & Ross, 1990).
Our study has at least three strengths, but it also has some limitations. First, the study spanned
the younger child’s entry into primary school, a developmental milestone that may impact sib-
ling relationships because children have more opportunities to make friendships outside of the
home (Kramer & Kowal, 2005). Second, our analyses examined sharing in two peer contexts:
with a friend and with unfamiliar peers. This design illuminated relationship-specific contrasts
in children’s sharing with peers. Third, our regression analyses controlled for the strong partner
effects present in children’s interactions with other children.
However, the observational nature of this study means that the sample size was, by necessity,
quite small, limiting the power of comparisons between different sibling gender compositions.
That said, some of these contrasts (e.g., child sharing at the second time point, across-time
change in older sibling sharing) were significant in this sample. Another limitation is that we
were only able to observe each child interacting with one older sibling, even though more than
half of the children in the study had more than one sibling. As parents with three or more chil-
dren often report, specific sibling relationships can differ markedly. However, recent evidence
suggests that sibling relationship quality does, in general, cluster within families (Jenkins,
Rasbash, Leckie, Gass, & Dunn, 2012), and so our findings are likely to have reasonable gen-
eralizability. Moreover, we did not have any information about children’s or siblings’ early
experiences with other children outside the home (i.e., attendance at day care, mother–toddler
groups) before they started school. Such experiences may influence sharing in children’s sibling
relationships and in their relationships with friends and unfamiliar peers. In the United Kingdom
children are entitled to 15 hr of free child care per week from the age of 3 until the start of
primary school. Therefore, it is likely that most children in the sample attended a nursery for
a significant amount of time before entering school. Finally, our data were based on relatively
short observations, and so effects of day-to-day variability will also have limited the power of
our analyses. Note, however, that this observational approach did allow us to focus on a specific
behavior and avoid the problems of reporter biases associated with questionnaire or interview
measures.
Three key conclusions emerged from this study. First, sharing between siblings reflects both
children’s individual characteristics and the changing dynamics of the sibling relationship:
Children spontaneously share with their younger siblings quite readily when the younger sib-
ling is still small but significantly less often when the younger sibling is of school age (and the
between-sibling gap in competencies has narrowed). Second, many of our study findings
involved a complex set of moderating factors (e.g., gender at both the individual and dyad
levels and age gap), such that having a clear focus on one specific prosocial behavior
(spontaneous sharing) rather than adopting an aggregate approach was valuable in simplifying
analyses of changes in behavior over time and predictive links across contexts. We hope that
this work sets the stage for further fine-grained examinations of other aspects of children’s pro-
social behavior toward siblings (such as helping and comforting). Third, given the time interval
(3 years) and the contrast in context (home vs. lab), it is striking that over and above robust
effects of gender, levels of children’s spontaneous sharing with siblings predicted their
spontaneous sharing with unfamiliar peers. Parents who despair when repeatedly called in as
SHARING WITH A SIBLING 199
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
a referee in sibling disputes should take heart from this finding because it suggests that learning
to share with a sibling can indeed help children acquire the prosocial skills needed to form
positive relationships with their peers.
REFERENCES
Abramovitch, R., Corter, C., & Lando, B. (1979). Sibling interaction in the home. Child Development, 50,
997–1003.
Abramovitch, R., Corter, C., & Pepler, D. (1980). Observations of mixed-sex sibling dyads. Child Development, 51,1268–1271.
Abramovitch, R., Corter, C., Pepler, D., & Stanhope, L. (1986). Sibling and peer interaction: A final follow-up and a
comparison. Child Development, 57, 217–229.
Berndt, T., & Bulleit, T. (1985). Effects of sibling relationships on preschoolers’ behavior at home and at school.
Developmental Psychology, 21, 761–767.
Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 50(1=2), 3–35.Brody, G., Stoneman, Z., MacKinnon, C., & MacKinnon, R. (1985). Role relationships and behavior among
preschool-aged sibling pairs. Developmental Psychology, 21, 124–129.
Brody, G., Stoneman, Z. & McCoy, J. (1994). Forecasting sibling relationships in early adolescence from child
temperaments and family processes in middle childhood. Child Development, 65, 771–784.Caspi, A., & Elder, G. (1988). Emergent family patterns: The intergenerational construction of problem behavior and
relationships. In R. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families (pp. 218–240). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1975). Effects of mother and older sibling on the problem-solving behavior of the older child.
Developmental Psychology, 11, 749–756.
Costin, S. E., & Jones, D. C. (1992). Friendship as a facilitator of emotional responsiveness and prosocial interventions
among young children. Developmental Psychology, 28, 941–947.Denham, S., McKinley, M., Couchoud, E., & Holt, R. (1990). Emotional and behavioral predictors of preschool peer
ratings. Child Development, 61, 1145–1152.
Dunfield, K., & Kuhlmeier, V. A. (2013). Classifying prosocial behavior: Children’s responses to instrumental need,
emotional distress, and material desire. Child Development, 84, 1766–1776. doi:10.1111=cdev.12075Dunfield, K., Kuhlmeier, V. A., O’Connell, L., & Kelley, E. (2011). Examining the diversity of prosocial behavior:
Helping, sharing, comforting in infancy. Infancy, 16, 227–247.
Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling relationships in early childhood. Child Development, 54, 787–811.
Dunn, J., Creps, C., & Brown, J. (1996). Children’s family relationships between two and five: Developmental changes
and individual differences. Social Development, 5, 230–250.
Dunn, J., & Hughes, C. (in press). Family talk about moral issues: The toddler and preschool years. In C. Wainryb &
H. E. Recchia (Eds.), Talking about right and wrong: Parent-child conversations as contexts for moral development
(pp. 19–43). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Dunn, J., & Kendrick, C. (1981). Social behavior of young siblings in the family context: Differences between same-sex
and different-sex dyads. Child Development, 52, 1265–1273.
Dunn, J., & Kendrick, C. (1982). Siblings: Love, envy, and understanding. London, England: Grant McIntyre.
Dunn, J., Kendrick, C., & MacNamee, R. (1981). The reaction of first-born children to the birth of a sibling. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22, 1–18.
Dunn, J., & McGuire, S. (1992). Sibling and peer relationships in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 33, 67–105.Dunn, J., Slomkowski, C., & Beardsall, L. (1994). Sibling relationships from the preschool period through middle
childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30, 315–324.
Eisenberg, N. (1982). Introduction. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 1–24). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. (1998). Prosocial development. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3,
pp. 701–778). New York, NY: Wiley.
200 WHITE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I., Murphy, B., Shepard, S., Cumberland, A., & Carlo, G. (1999). Consistency and development
of prosocial dispositions: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 70, 1360–1372.
Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Hand, M. (1979). The relationship of preschoolers’ reasoning about prosocial moral conflicts to
prosocial behavior. Child Development, 50, 356–363.
Fontaine, N., Carbonneau, R., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., & Tremblay, R. (2009). Research review: A critical review
of studies on the developmental trajectories of antisocial behavior in females. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 50, 363–385.
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S.
Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–824). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hay, D., Castle, J., Davies, L., Demetriou, H., & Stimson, C. (1999). Prosocial action in very early childhood. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 905–916.
Howe, N. (1991). Sibling-directed internal state language, perspective taking, and affective behavior. Child Development,62, 1503–1512.
Howe, N., & Ross, H. (1990). Socialization, perspective-taking, and the sibling relationship. Developmental Psychology,
26, 160–165.
Hughes, C. (2011). Social understanding and social lives: From toddlerhood through to the transition to school. London,England: Psychology Press.
Jenkins, J., Rasbash, J., Leckie, G., Gass, K., & Dunn, J. (2012). The role of maternal factors in sibling relationship
quality: A multilevel study of multiple dyads per family. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 622–629.Kramer, L. (1990, April). Becoming a sibling: With a little help from my friends. Paper presented at the 7th International
Conference on Infant Studies, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Kramer, L., & Kowal, A. K. (2005). Sibling relationship quality from birth to adolescence: The enduring contributions of
friends. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 503–511.Lamb, M. E. (1978a). The development of sibling relationships in infancy: A short-term longitudinal study. Child
Development, 49, 1189–1196.
Lamb, M. E. (1978b). Interactions between 18-month-olds and their preschool-aged siblings. Child Development, 49,
51–59.
Parke, R., MacDonald, K., Beitel, A., & Bhavnagri, N. (1988). The role of the family in the development of peer
relationships. In R. McMahon & R. Peters (Eds.), Social learning and systems approaches to marriage and the
family (pp. 17–44). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner=Mazel.
Pepler, D. Abramovitch, R., & Corter, C. (1981). Sibling interaction in the home: A longitudinal study. Child
Development, 52, 1344–1347.
Simner, M. (1971). Newborn’s response to the cry of another infant. Developmental Psychology, 5, 136–150.
Stillwell, R., & Dunn, J. (1985). Continuities in sibling relationships: Patterns of aggression and friendliness. Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry, 26, 627–637.
Stocker, C., & Dunn, J. (1991). Sibling relationships in childhood: Links with friendships and peer relationships. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 227–244.
Stoneman, Z., & Brody, G. (1993). Sibling temperaments, conflict, warmth, and role asymmetry. Child Development, 64,1786–1800.
Sutton-Smith, B., & Rosenberg, B. (1970). The sibling. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Wojslawowicz Bowker, J. C., Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., & Booth LaForce, C. (2006). Behavioral characteristics
associated with stable and fluid best friendship patterns in middle childhood.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 671–693.Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., & Chapman, M. (1992). Development of concern for others.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 126–136.
SHARING WITH A SIBLING 201
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
enne
ssee
At M
artin
] at
14:
09 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
