Reciprocal and Complementary Sibling Interactions: Relations With Socialization Outcomes in the Kindergarten Classroom

Abstract

Research Findings To examine associations between sibling interaction patterns and later social outcomes in single- and two-parent families, 113 kindergarteners took part in naturalistic observations at home with siblings, classmates participated in sociometric interviews, and teachers completed behavior ratings. Sibling interactions were coded using a newly-developed 39-item checklist, and proportions of complementary and reciprocal sibling interactions computed. Complementarity occurred more among dyads where kindergartners were with toddler or infant siblings than among kindergartners with older or near-age younger siblings. Higher levels of complementarity predicted lower levels of internalizing but were not related to externalizing problems. Kindergartners’ sociometric status in the classroom differed as a function of sibling interaction patterns, with neglected and controversial children experiencing less complementarity/more reciprocity than popular, average, and rejected children. Finally, there was some evidence for differential associations of sibling interaction patterns with social outcomes for children in single- versus two-parent families: regressions testing interaction effects show sibling reciprocity positively associated with kindergartners’ social skills only in single-parent families, and complementary sibling interactions positively related to internalizing problems only in two-parent families. Implications for Practice Those working with divorcing or other single-parent families might consider sibling interactions as a potential target for social skill building.

Sibling feeding behavior: Mothers as role models during mealtimes

“…Siblings are family members who are likely to influence the child's behavioral development. Specifically, siblings may act as caregivers and role models (Dunn, 1983; Harrist et al, 2014). In the context of mealtimes, siblings may contribute to pressuring the child to eat by delivering many of the encouragements to eat during the meal (Mosli at al., 2015a).…”

Integrating Parents' Views on Sibling Relationships to Tailor an Evidence‐based Parenting Intervention for Sibling Conflict

“…The precipitation and onset of sibling conflict has been linked to many different factors in the empirical literature. Whether it is the age gap between siblings (Dunn et al, 1994;Howe & Recchia, 2006;Pepler, Abramovitch, & Corter, 1981), sibling birth order (Brody, Stoneman, MacKinnon, & MacKinnon, 1985;Howe & Recchia, 2006), developmental stage (Dunn, Creps, & Brown, 1996;Dunn & Munn, 1985;Tesla & Dunn, 1992), parental marital status and conflict (Harrist et al, 2014;Iturralde, Margolin, & Shapiro, 2013), parent gender (Kramer et al, 1999), peer influences (Bassett Greer, Campione-Barr, Debrown, & Maupin, 2014), or parental favoritism (Richmond, Stocker, & Rienks, 2005), the factors influencing sibling relationships are diverse and plentiful. Interestingly, however, although previous research has identified that parents consider their children's sibling relationships among the most significant issues they face (Ralph et al, 2003), few, if any, studies directly have asked parents what they believe are the underlying causes of their children's sibling relationship problems.…”

Observed and parent‐reported conscience in childhood: Relations with bullying involvement in early primary school

“…Given the supposed cognitive and temperamental underpinnings of conscience (Eisenberg et al, ; Frick & Morris, ; Kochanska et al, ), and the debate on whether the low empathy—bullying association reflects a direct effect or is confounded by low socioeconomic background or a low intelligence (Jolliffe & Farrington, ), we accounted for children's sociodemographic background, cognition and temperament in the analyses. Furthermore, whether a child has siblings is another important covariate to consider given the role of sibling interactions for children's socialization processes (Harrist et al, ). Although these variables can all be viewed as potential confounders explaining the conscience—bullying association, some of these variables can also be antecedents or mediators of this association (e. g., temperament or cognition).…”