SIBLING RIVALRY:

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY

Patricia W. Cook

University of London Institute of Education

Thesis submitted for the Degree of PhD 1977
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the mothers and children who

gave so freely of their time to make this project

possible.

To Professor Basil Bernstein, my sincere thanks for

the many hours of stimulating discussion and debate,

and for the encouragement and assistance he gave me

throughout the project.

I would also like to thank Wally Brandis of the

Sociological Research Unit, University of London

Institute of Education, for his help with various

statistical problems; Dr. Nartin Herbert of Leicester

University for his guidance with the Children's Test;

Steve Pickering of the Computing Centre at Enfield,

and Ros Greenbaum who typed the manuscript.

 ABSTRACT

The research is an investigation of sibling rivalry and its socialization.

Eighty mothers of two, three and four-child families were interviewed

and 189 of their children tested by means of a specially constructed

Children's Test. The test provides a matrix of the child's attitude

to and involvement with all family members. The mother's interview data

indicate the extent to which the mother differentiates between her children,

her perception of sibling relationships and her general orientation to

key socialization issues.

The first part of the thesis, sets out the 'demographic' data on

maternal preference and sibling relationships. Patterns of maternal

preference were observed in two and three-child families, but not in

four-child families. The analysis of sibling attitudes indicated that

positive and negative sibling affect is related to ordinal position and

sibling status.

The second part, focusses on socialization issues. The socialization

style of the mother was conceptualized as either personal or positional

and operationalized by means of a specially constructed scale. This

personal-positional factor was closely related to the mother's handling

of key socialization issues and, more specifically, to her attitude to

and handling of sibling rivalry. When the children of personal mothers

are compared with those of positional mothers, different amounts of

reported jealousy are found, but the direction of the influence varies

with family size. The effect of a personal or positional socialization

seems to be to lessen or heighten the significance of structural influences

in the family.
 CONTENTS

page

1 Introduction 5-

2 Research Methodology .27

3 The Children's Test 442
4 Parent-Child Relationships 72
5 Sibling Relationships /19
6 Socialization Style /8/

7 The Socialization of Sibling Rivalry...../p-

8 Conclusions 016-7

Appendices
A The mother's interview schedule As
B The original Personal-Positional scale 30&

C The coding frame

Bibliography
 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

In general, studies of family life have focussed on the mother-

child relationship, almost to the complete exclusion of other family

members. Recent writers (Danziger, 1970; Goslin, 1969) have criticized

the prevailing dyadic paradigm arguing for a systems approach to family

research; an approach that considers any dyadic relationship in the

context of the total constellation of relationships. Danziger, for

instance, argues very strongly for a consideration of the father's role

and influence when interpreting mother-child relationships and their

effects. He cites as an example the work of Ancona (1970) in which

the effect of father absence on the male child differs according to the

nature of the relationship between mother and father - between husband

and wife.

"In so far as the socialization of the child takes place in the

nuclear family, it forms part of a structured and bounded system.

The effect of gross change like maternal employment or father

absence will therefore remain unpredictable unless we possess

additional information that enables us to assess the relevant

transformations in the family system." (Danziger, 1970, p.13)

Another prevalent assumption in fs ily life research that has also

been strongly questioned is the assumption that the direction of effects

in socialization is always downward; i.e. from parent to child. This

vertical emphasis in family research assumes that the parents are the

sole possessors of power and influence within the family and the child

is the passive in the face of that power; as the parents consciously

or subconsciously direct so the child becomes. The parent acts by loving

or by punishing, and the child responds accordingly. He develops a

strong conscience, becomes achieving, anxious, more masculine/more feminine....

depending on the behaviour, attitudes and values of his parents. This

tabula rasa image of the child has come under increasing attack. Recent

research on children as young as three weeks indicates that parental

behaviour is in its turn reciprocally influenced by the qualities and

behaviour of the child (Moss, 1967; Bell, 1971). The parent-child

relationship is thus given a dynamic aspect in which the qualities of

the mother and the child mesh; their reciprocal interactions are in

a state of constant adjustment as each reinforces the other. Thus in-

dulgence or punitiveness is not a quality inherent in the mother but is

called out by a particular child and his behaviour. It is also a function

of the situation, one component of which is any other family relations

mother and child engage in, e.g. husband-wife relationship, or the relation-

ship between siblings. This accounts for transformations in the mother's

behaviour over time, and also the different response that the mother may

have to different children. The family situation has its own inner

dynamism and, as the parents and children change, both as a result of

maturation and increased external involvement, so the balance within

the family is adjusted. Examples of such changes are school involve-

ment, work, puberty....and, of course, the addition of new family members.

When the family is viewed as a system, all members are engaged

in two kinds of relationship: vertical-across the generations from parent

to children; and horizontal-within the generation, husband to wife, and

each child to his sibling. Only a few studies have considered the role

of siblings in the social development of the child and those that have,

have concentrated on its presumed outcomes or effects. As fathers have

been 'the forgotten men' of socialization studies, the influence of siblings

has been equally neglected. The presumed effects are comprehensively

considered in Liutton-Jmith and Rosenberg (1970) which reviews much of

the work in the field of sibling influences and attempts a synthesis.

The relationship between siblings has none the less remained a largely

unresearched area. Commenting on the lack of empirical research in

the area, D.P. Irish (1964) notes:

"The interactions between and among children in the home - the

horizontal relationship within the younger generation itself -

seems to have been given relatively little heed. An examination

of the research literature for the decades since World War I

provide very few examples of empirical studies focussed primarily

on sibling relations."

The situation has changed little since 1964, and in 1974, Hope Leichter

wrote in a very similar vein:

"xperience with siblings is virtually universal; even only children

often have spouses with siblings or end up the parents of more

than one child. Yet much of the research on child rearing and

parental influence on children either omits considerations of

siblings altogether, or holds sibling composition 'constant',

or gives it minor attention. In effect, there has been little

study of the process by which siblings influence each other."

(p.192)

In view of the fact that most children are reared with brothers and/or

sisters; that a large part of the child's life at home is spent in the

presence of these siblings; that these relationships may be the most

acrimonious or the most rewarding of an individual's life, the lack of

research is surprising. Research indicates the relationships between

siblings in childhood influence adult behaviour in such matters as choice

of spouse and marital adjustment (Toman, 1961; Noonan, 1973). Other

studies indicate sibling influences on such factors as achievement

(Schacter, 1963; Chittenden, roan, Zweil and Smith, 1968); anxiety

(among others Schacter, 1959; Sampson and Hancock, 1967); conformity

(Becker and Carroll, 1962; Schmuck, 1963); and sex role preference

(Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg, 1964).

Bank and Kahn (1975) note that there is a cultural bias in the

study of the family by American and European social scientists. This

is reflected in the concentration of research effort on the romantic

relationship between the marital pair, and its tangible outcome - the

children. In other societies in which the sibling relationship is more

important than the marital relationship, sibling relationships and especially

the control of sibling rivalry are important themes of social and cultural

organization (Paul, 1950). In American society, Cummings and Scheidner

(1961) report that there are occasions in an individual's life in which

the sibling relationship assumes more significance than that with the

spouse. Bossard and Boll (1954), in their study of large families,

found that sibling relationships were frequently more important than

the parent-child relationship as a source of security.

The parent-child relationship is thought to be of paramount importance

to the social and emotional development of the child, since parent and

child are in close, intense and intensive interaction for almost two

decades. By the same reasoning, since siblings have an equally emotional

and enduring relationship with each other, it is reasonable to assume

that they have equally powerful influences on each other.

The relationships between children within the family - between

siblings - are important for several reasons; the typical family consists

of more than one child and it is therefore important to delineate some

of the important aspects of sibling interaction and their relationship

to other factors of family life. It has already been suggested that

the sibling relationship can be one of the most formative influences

in the development of the child; so the ways in which sibling forces

 9

are operant in different family types and with what effects is of more

than passing interest to students of the family. 13owerman and Dobash

(1974) suggest that the experience of sibling relationships may affect

the child's attitude to family living in general. If the daily contact

between siblings is harmonious or acrimonious, the fact that it is a

frequent and regular occurrence means that it is a pervasive and powerful

influence on the child. If the relationships between children are

pleasant or unpleasant they may strongly affect the child's feelings

about family life.

Sibling Interactions

A child within the nuclear family is typically engaged in three

types of relationship: with his parents, his siblings and, for all but

the very youngest of children, with his peers. Each of these relation-

ships has different qualities and characteristics and involves the

child in different types of learning and interaction. The parent-child

relationship is high in affect and unequal in power; the sibling relrction-

ship is also high in affect (both achieved and ascribed) but more equal

in power; the peer relationship is unequal in po4er and variable in

its affect with friendship being equal in power and high in affect.

Peer group relationships are not completely equal in power, because in

such groups status-based differences relating to age and sex exist;

however, in a same-sex, same-age friendship group, although there are

still variations in the personal power of the individuals in the group,

such power is probably achieved.

The equality of power in the sibling relationship offers to the

child an arena in which to practice the interpersonal skills that will

later be applied to the wider world of the peer group. It provides

the child with a half-way house between the family and the outside world.

Not only does the sibling experience in itself provide a forum for learning

but since children are privy to the world of childhood, that parents

see only from the other side of 'the generation gap', they possess know-

ledge to which parents do not have access. That knowledge can be trans-

mitted directly between siblings, as, for example, an elder child schooling

his younger sibling in the correct dress, mode of speech, attitude, etc.,

to adopt when entering a new school; or indirectly by providing a model

for the sibling to emulate. Contact with older/younger siblings and

with opposite sex siblings provides a means of learning about each of

these groups. That such learning takes place and is utilized is evidenced

in the work of Koch (1957) showing how friendship patterns at school,

mirror the child's relationships with siblings. Toman (1961) further

suggests that marital relationships and their success are also influenced

by these sibling experiences.

Older children may also act as educators (in the formal sense of

the word) to their younger siblings. Dunkin (1966) found that a large

number of children who entered school already able to read had been taught

at home by their older siblings - often while playing 'School' in which

they took the role of the pupil and their siblings that of teacher.

On a slightly more exalted level, Bertrand Russell (1967) recalls in

his biography how his elder brother undertook to teach him Euclidean

geometry at the age of eleven, the beginnings of a life-long interest:

Older siblings especially may also mediate peer group attitudes and values

to the child, that may conflict with or further endorse those transmitted

by the parents (Leichter, 1974). They may also be responsible for

mediating parental attitudes and behaviour within the family; siblings

challenge and stimulate each other directly and utilize one another in

working out self-definitions (Davis and Northway, 1957).

 — --

The sibling group offers to the child the opportunity for participating

in a miniature social system on a more or less equal footing with other

members of that group, in contrast to the relationship with the parent

in which the child has only a little direct power and influence. Although

visa vis the parent each child individually may have low power, by acting

in coalition siblings together may form an effective countervailing power

to that of the parents. Bossard and Boll (1956) reported that siblings

were often seen as being fairer than the parents; and that sharing the

world of childhood they often have a more accurate perception of the rights

and wrongs of certain situations and childhood problems. The possibility

of acting co-operatively to achieve a joint goal, or to redress - with

only altruistic motives - the wrong done to another sibling either by

a parent or by someone outside the family, is a manifestation of the

sibling relationship as a social system in itself. It is self-regulating,

developing its own rituals patterns of behaviour, principles of co-operation

and justice. Although within the family the relationship between siblings

may be monitored by the parents, since much of the contact between siblings

is outside of parental scrutiny, the relationship develops its own system

of checks and balances. Older children learn that the power they exert

by virtue of their greater physical and social stature carries with it

a responsibility to care for and protect the younger child. The younger

child, subjected to the attempted domination by the older sibling, may

develop more devious and machiavellian strategies to obtain his desired

ends (Sutton-Smith and losenberg, 1968). Boys with sisters and girls

with brothers have the opportunity to learn something about the opposite

sex, an opportunity not vouchsafe to children with same sex siblings

(Koch, 1956; Brim, 1958).

In clinical literature the parent-child relationship is often taken

as a template for future relationship with authority. The derivation

of this notion is clear: with our parents we learn basic attitudes to

authority, and this early learning is extremely difficult to eradicate

and will therefore tinge all future relationships with authority (with

father-figures). By the same reasoning, therefore, with our siblings

we learn how to handle relationships with our peers: with members of

the opposite sex and of the same sex; we learn how to handle emotions

of competition and jealousy, of sharing and trusting; how to fight and

defend one's rights, how to make up and repair broken relationships.

With his siblings, the child competes for parental attention or love;

and with the same siblings he forms a coalition as a countervailing

force against the greater power of adults. Siblings may act co-operatively

or act against each other. It is between siblings within the framework

of the family that notions of interpersonal equality and justice are

first elaborated.

It has already been suggested that the quality of the relationship

between siblings may colour the child's attitude not only to his siblings

but to family life in general. What applies to the children applies

also to the parents; if the emotional tone of the household is affected

by sibling rivalries and conflicts, then the parents become involved

and have to take action. Exactly what kind of attitude and action to

take may spawn further argument, this time between the parents. Parents

may side with different children in the conflict and in this way the

area of tension and friction is extended.

Sibling Research

In clinical psychology sibling relationships have received rather

more attention, although more often introduced as an explanatory concept

than empirically researched. Alfred Adler was one of the first psychologists

to consider the influence of position in the family and sex of siblings

on personality development (Adler, 1928, 1959). In the same psycho-

analytic framework other clinical research was undertaken by Levy (1936,

1939) and J. and Z. Henry (1942) in cross-cultural settings, and in a

child-guidance setting (M. Sewall, 1930). This research offers few

general guidelines for the analysis of sibling rivalry among normal

children in seemingly well-adjusted families. It deals with families

in which jealousy has become a problem, not with the successful manage-

lent of that feeling in non-problem families.

In the vocabulary of the psychotherapist, 'sibling rivalry' is

a very important concept, only slightly less significant than the 'Oedipus

complex' to which it is related. Despite the theoretical popularity

of sibling jealousy, there is very little thorough investigation of the

concept; there is no thorough consideration of its antecedents and its

effects. Uo comprehensive coverage of sibling relations per se exists,

neither in clinical literature where sibling rivalry is an important

theme, nor in the traditional family studies in sociology and psychology.

As a review of the literature reveals, there are existing studies in

tangential areas; for example, the studies that relate ordinal position,

sex of the child and sex of the sibling, to such factors as anxiety,

adjustment to adults and to peers, and achievement. These studies

indicate the 'what' of family and sibling structure rather than the

'how' (iiosenberg and Sutton-Smith, 1970). Because most of the existing

research is peripheral, there is no general review of the literature.

Where these. tangential findings impinge on the research their significance

is indicated in the consideration of the results.

In this research the emphasis will be on the issues of the relation-

ships that siblings have with each other and the ways it is influenced

by the relationships that siblings have with their parents. The number

and the type of sibling that a child has directly influences his access
to parental affection and attention. Sibling status - a child's position

in the sibling group, is therefore an 'ecological variable' offering

different degrees of access to desired resources depending on the child's

position, sex, and sex of siblings. The issue of sibling rivalry and

conflict may be a major source of disruptioh within the family and require

a great deal of socialization effort by the parents. How and with what

effects this takes place is the subject matter of the latter part of

the research.
 Is-

The Theoretical Background

The initial and most basic model for the research is an exchange

model of family behaviour. This model was selected for its usefulness

in highlighting sibling rivalry and related areas. In sociology and

social psychology, exchange theory is systematically outlined by Blau

(1964), Romans (1966) and Thibaut and Kelley (1959). Briefly, all these

theoretical formulations attempt to explain social behaviour in terms

of rewards exchanged and costs incurred in interaction. The individual

attempts to maximize rewards and to minimize costs, thus obtaining a

favourable outcome. Outcomes are evaluated against a comparison level.

This is an important concept in considering sibling rivalry. Comparison

level is influenced by past experience in this and similar relationships;

judgements of what others like himself are receiving in comparable situations

and perceptions of the outcomes available in alternative situations.

Equilibrium is said to occur when the distribution of rewards and costs

within the group is satisfactory to all members.

For the child - especially the young child for whom peer group

affiliations are weak - the family is a completely closed system, a total

institution. No other source of reward is available, other than in the

family. There may be sources of satisfaction other than the parents

within the home, for example, a grandparent, but for most families this

is not a reality.' Thus, the main mediators of rewards to the child

are the parents; the child is forced to interact within the family if he

wishes to receive the rewards available there. The only alternative

available is to withdraw, according to some radical psychiatrists into

some forms of mental illness (Laing, 1965).

1 The Newsons (1970) report that 10% of their sample of 700 families
had an additional adult in the home.
 when the general assumptions of exchange theory are translated into

a more specific set of assumptions about the family, we assume that:

1. Parentsand children are in possession of certain resources that

are scarce. These resources are used as rewards for others. The reward

power of parents is limited, as time energy, attention and material resources

are limited. The resources of both parents and children are primarily

affective, although they may be operationalized in material or temporal

terms. If a parent loves a child he spends time, energy, and money on

that child. Love is primarily a qualitative thing, it is not measured

in itself by material things or in a quantitative way. However, a child

who feels that he is less well regarded than his sibling may express

it in very strong terms by saying that he is not loved, or in slightly

weaker terms by alleging preferential treatment of his sibling. The

power of family members is first and foremost affective power. In normal

families we are concerned not with outright rejection of any one child,

not with the presence or absence of love, but with degrees of feelings.

Thus, although it may be true that love cannot be counted, the routine,

run-of-the-mill everyday interactions, which are minor indicators of

feelings, can be counted. This is what a child does when he persistently

complains that another child gets more attention, more affection, more

'things' than he does.

According to the general theory of exchange, the family is an ideal

arena for close and detailed comparison of what another is getting.

"With the triad and larger groups, status comparisons may be quite

important, for it becomes possible for two (or more) persons to

be receiving much the same kinds of rewards or cost cutting from

a third person. The prime example of course is that of sibling

rivalry." (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959, p.61)

2. The resources are asymmetrically distributed, the parents have

the greater power of reward since they are rewarding in themselves and

can mediate other rewards to the child. Even if the resources are not

asymmetrically distributed, the capacity to utilize these resources differs

between parents and their children. Most studies have tended to minimize

the countervailing power of the child, but whilst admitting this power,

the manipulation of affectual resources is easier for parents than for

children. This is because parents can separate emotion and action far

more easily than the child can. The effectiveness of love withdrawal

as a strategy of control, is due to the fear that love is really with-

drawn from the child: because of the inability to separate his own feelings

and actions the child experiences the appearance of love withdrawal not

simply as a strategy but as an actuality. As the child increases his

own emotional control he is more able to utilize his own affective power,

and he may also realize that love withdrawal is a strategy of control.

The interpretation the child places on the mother's actions is dependent

on the total relationship in which they are both involved, and it high-

lights the danger of considering any behaviour outside of the context

of the total relationship.

3. The resources that the parents have are to be distributed according

to some systems of rules. These rules legitimize the allocation:

"Individuals subject to a powerful fate control, restricted to

one another in their contacts and denied opportunities for covert

consumption of rewards become extremely concerned about how they

stand in comparison with their fellows." (Thibaut and Kelley,

1959, p.227)

This concern requires that the allocation be legitimized. Thus recipients

of rewards will assess their rewards according to various criteria, the

most important of which is comparison with others of equal status, viz.

their siblings. The system of rules the parents work with may or may

not be acceptable to the children. If the rules of distribution are

not acceptable, this gives rise to tensions between parent and child(ren)

and between siblings. The conflict within the family between the siblings

is potentially very disruptive, for the child has no access to equivalent

rewards elsewhere.

The mother allocates resources according to some more or less coherent

system. If the child accepts the basis of the distribution and the

mother is more or less consistent in her behaviour, then comparative

calm may prevail. Difficulties arise when the system of the mother is

either not adhered to by the mother, i.e. she breaks her own rules, or

the child is operating according to a different set of rules. The so-

called comparison level reflects what the child thinks he ought to be

receiving. Sibling rivalry arises from the child's concept of distributive

justice (i.e. his notion of what he ought to receive) and his actual

allocation.(i.e. what he is receiving). His notion of distributive

justice may be learned directly from his parents and it is outraged by

the fact that the parents are not practising what they are preaching.

It may also stem from outside the family from the wider culture (for

example, the child may learn from his peers at school that others are

treated according to a different set of rules), and it is transformed

into sibling rivalry by invidious comparison with his siblings (his com-

parison level).

Conflict can be said to be almost inherent in the family. It

arises because of the clash between two strongly held norms that govern

family behaviour, or, more specifically, parental behaviour. The first

of these is the Complete Equality Norm. The main orientation governing

parent-child relationships in most normal families is that of completely

equal love or affection for each child. The love for each child in the

family is the same, although the liking and preference of the mother

may vary according to special circumstances or special qualities of the

child. This nice distinction is very important in theory although its

operational aspects are difficult to envisage. Differences in temperament

and personality elicit different responses that may vary with the child's

age and stage of development. The Complete Equality Norm is culturally

prescribed; in other cultures preferences are officially sanctioned.

ale children are preferred to female children; the first born to sub-

sequent children - the first born male, that is. In our culture, too,

there is a weak preference for male children, and a feeling that the

youngest child occupies a special place in the mother's affections.

However, 'weaknesses' apart, the general prevailing norm is one of equality.

Coexistent with the Complete Equality Norm are a whole set of values

and beliefs that take the individual as the main focus for concern.

The personal characteristics and state of the child are very important

to the mother when dealing with her child. Current child-rearing and

educational theory stresses the uniqueness of each individual child;

stresses that there can be no standard mode of treatment since there

is no standard child, and the aim of upbringing is to accentuate the

individuality of the child - 'to let him become himself'. Thus the

Complete Equality Norm says they are the same and the Individualistic

Norm stresses that they be treated differently.

The mother is thus sensitized to individual states and qualities.

These qualities elicit a response from the mother and some are preferred

to others. The commitment to love equally may be difficult to demonstrate

when one child is more difficult, another more sympathetic and more attractive,

from the point of view of the mother. (The child may not seem so to

others outside of the family). Thus the mother is walking a tightrope.

 —Z 0

She has to balance the equality of affect against the 'inequality' of

the children and strike some kind of a balance. How does this affect

the child? The child's notions of fairness, equality and similar concepts

are derived from the mother. The ambivalences that the mother experiences

in this area will also be transmitted to the child.

4. Primarily the child also adopts the standards of equal affection

and involvement. Problems arise from three sources; (i) where the

children are not identical, identical treatment is therefore impossible.

The mother then has to establish that the treatment, though different

is equivalent and therefore equal, i.e. the mother has to legitimize

differences and apparent inequalities. The distribution of these resources

has to be justified and the legitimation may not be acceptable to the child.

(ii)the legitimation may be acceptable, but the mother may fail to put

her theory into practice. Her behaviour may be inconsistent and erratic.

(iii)she may also choose a system of legitimation that is difficult to

understand in practice. These points will be elaborated later, when

two different models of legitimization are outlined.

This research is concerned with the differential allocations of

parental resources, and the strategies that are adopted to ameliorate

tensions arising from unequal allocation. The actual process of allocation,

i.e. what a child does receive, is a function of the child's own attributes,

as well as the parent's notion of distributive justice as it is reflected

in their socialization practice and beliefs. Though parents are committed

to the general theory of complete equality of treatment/affection between

children, they simultaneously confess to "soft spots", to preferences,

or greater ease with one child than with others. What this highlights

is the inherent weakness in the theory of equal allocation, for equal

 1 ,
feeling are not the order of the day. .6ven though we may recognize

that the mother's concern is equally for all children, this is not necessarily

put into practice with such meticulousness that the "it's not fair" is

forever silenced. The personal preference of parents is not permitted

in terms of democratic equal-share ideology of family affection; it

leads to claims of "favouritism" - it leads to sibling rivalry. As

children differ in sex and age, they also differ in their personal charac-

teristics, in their needs, motives and dispositions. Any of these qualities

or characteristics might become the basis for a special closeness between

parent and child. These personal differences may also call forth differential

treatment, differences which are more difficult to justify for they also

have implications about personal worth. A child who feels that his

Personal qualities are judged deficient in some way, feels greater loss

of self-esteem than if he occupied a low status role.

Despite the fact that the parents may be committed to a view of

complete parity of affection and are reluctant to show any inequalities

or differentiation in treatment, the different attributes of the child

may lead the mother to preferential treatment of one. Here her own

policy of complete equality and impartiality may be undermined by the

fact that one child is easier to get along with, temperamentally more

attractive to her, of an age that she finds appealing, a longed-for boy

in a family of girls or vice versa. All of these factors modify the

mother's behaviour, causing her to treat each child in a different manner.

How this differential treatment is interpreted by the child's siblings

then becomes a key issue. If the sibling feels that the mother is

"Are parents meant to love their children equally? This question

worries a lot of conscientious parents because they suspect that in
some ways they don't" (Spock, 1969, p.36)
consistently showing partiality to one, then the seeds of envy and jealousy

have been sown.

To recap: the child-rearing ideology of the parents will be in

terms firstly of equal love and affection for their off-spring. Beyond

that the mother, faced with children of different ages, sex, ordinal

position, and temperament, will discriminate and differentiate. The

differentiation between the children and equality of affection for them,

have to be balanced, and "unequal equality" achieved. The basis on

which this is operated will vary between families and we hypothesize

that these variations will be related to the oroduction and resolution

of rivalry in the family. The next section outlines two models of family

socialization ideology and practice and suggests ways in which these

either modify or exacerbate sibling rivalry.

Socialization Style

The forces of rivalry are mediated through two types of family,

which we shall call the personal and the positional, and it seems likely

that parental notions of distributive justice are differently exemplified

in these family types. The personal/positional distinction is based

on a classification by Professor B. Bernstein (1971), of the sociological

Research Unit, at the Institute of Education (University of London).

The families are distinguished according to the strength of boundary

maintaining procedures in the group. ihere boundary maintaining procedures

are strong, i.e. the positional family, differentiation of family members

is in terms of clear-cut unambiguous definitions of status, and socialization

is with reference to status attributes.

"The boundaries between statuses are strong and the social identities

of members very much a function of their age, sex and age-related

status." (Bernstein, 1971, p.210)

In personal families, status attributes are still relevant, but boundary

maintaining procedures are weak or flexible, and differentiation is based

more on the differences between persons. Individual attributes, states

and intentions become very relevant to the assessment of behaviour and

the socialization of the child. All families take into account both

positional and personal attributes of members, but the two families differ

in the emphasis they place on these attributes. The following examples

are taken from the pilot surveys: the former in each set is positional,

the latter personal.

(i) 'Now that he is eight, he can stay up longer' as opposed to

'He can go out alone when he is more responsible'.

(ii) 'I think that all little girls like to teach their brothers'

as opposed to 'I don't believe in boys' toys and girls' toys,

if John wants to play with dolls I wouldn't comment on it'.

'I told him he shouldn't speak to his father like that'

(iii)

as opposed to 'You know it irritates Daddy when you do that'.

ie would also expect the positional mother to have a strong clear-

cut and generalized child-rearing ideology. The personal mother may

have an equally strong ideology but it is less clear-cut and more in-

dividualized. These notions are considered in more detail later (see

Chapter E).

Positional and personal families would probably handle sibling

rivalry rather differently. We would hypothesize that the positional

family is more successful at creating non-comparability; that by presenting

and reinforcing clearly defined roles, the parents are limiting the tendency

of siblings to compare themselves with each other. In such families

the child will be able to recognize a privilege system and the rules

that govern its working (for example, the seven-year-old will know that

when he is nine he will get the same amount of pocket money his nine-
year-old brother is getting now). Stronger boundaries will produce a

stronger sense of property and territory, and these factors will be very

relevant in any dispute.

On the other hand, it seems likely that the personal family will

have greater difficulty in creating equity, since the assessment and

interpretation of particular attributes is such an uncertain and ambiguous

process (for example, in the instances quoted above, how is the child's

'responsibility' to be assessed?). Thus the awarding of privileges

may appear more arbitrary and produce more contention than in positional

families. The fact that boundaries are weakly defined suggests that

we can expect poorly defined property and territory notions and property

and territory become a focus of contention. In personally oriented

families, the main focus is on internal states of the individual and

rules do not exist independently of the individual or particular situations.

Since there are no rules implicit in the environment, a new situation

or confrontation may call forth a different interpretation and response.

Essentially, we are asking the questions - does the extent, expression

and range of rivalry vary between these two family types? and, what

steps do positional and personal mothers take to minimize the disruptive

effects of rivalry?

The personal-positional distinction is also incorporated into the

methodology of the research. The concepts are used as the basis of

the coding frame that is used to interpret the mothers' open-ended inter-

view data. In the final chapter the usefulness of the exchange model

and the concepts of personal and positional orientation will be assessed.

Definitions

There are three very closely related concepts, all of which have

relevance to this study. They are jealousy, envy and rivalry. All

three have different meanings and significance, but they are occasionally

confused in everyday understanding.

Jealous is defined by the shorter Oxford English Dictionary as

"troubled by the belief, suspicion or fear that the good that one desires

to gain or keep for oneself has been or may be diverted to another".

Thus the state of jealousy requires that at least three people be involved:

the giver and the two (or more) possible recipients.

Envy by comparison needs a minimum of two persons and is defined

as "mortification and occasioned by contemplation of another's

superior advantage".

The negative affect that characterizes both envy and jealousy is

not an essential part of rivalry. A rival is "one who is in pursuit

of the same object as another; one who strives to equal or outdo another

in any respect".

SUMMARY

In this chapter we have set out the basic theoretical presuppositions

that have guided the project, and we have attempted to translate these

into research propositions. Specifically, the research aims are: first

to demonstrate the patterns of parental preference and sibling rivalry

within the family. Two models of family ideology and practice were

suggested - the personal and positional family. The second aim of the

research is to consider the effect of these family styles on the extent

and manifestation of rivalry. In view of the dearth of material in

this field, we are also concerned to create and test methods by which
family interactions can be adequately and validly assessed. Final assess-

ment of the research, therefore, will be focussed on both the substantive

findings and also the usefulness and validity of the methods used to

reach these conclusions.

 27_

Chapter 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In Chapter 1 an outline was given of the theoretical basis of the

research, and it was suggested that because of the dearth of empirical

material directly concerned with sibling relationships, especially rivalry,

the main intention is to provide a 'general map of the area, rather than

a precise street guide'. This approach will be validated in so far

as it is heuristically useful, illuminating and a springboard for future

research. The number of 'possibly relevant' variables in family research

is legion, and it is impossible to control rigorously for the effects

of all of them. Typically psychologically-oriented researchers have

attempted to deal with one or two of these variables, often ignoring

the influence of others. In this research a more holistic approach

to family behaviour has been chosen rather than test a few neatly operationalized

very specific hypotheses. The aim of the research is insight and illumination

rather than incontrovertible 'proof'. Where the accepted methods of

establishing the statistical validity of statements can be applied, they

have been, but on occasions what we consider to be interesting relation-

ships have been inferred although they cannot be statistically verified.

Hugh Lytton (1971), in a methodological review of parent-child

interaction studies, notes that:

"Psychology in its historical development has probably skipped

too rapidly the essential step of descriptive normative studies

of its subjects'behavioural repertoire. (....) Ecological

methods, implying less rigorous control, represent in fact the

most appropriate strategy for such basic research, the most

relevant case in point for us being parents'and children's

reciprocal interactions." (p.665)

 The fact that a methodologicaletight" approach to sibling rivalry

has not been chosen does not mean that the research is of a purely speculative

nature. '4here statistical tests can be applied they have been, and

where the data may weakly indicate a relationship, this finding has been

cross-referenced to others in related fields. Thus, a finding that

is 'weak' in this research may be bolstered by corroborative data in

other more specific pieces of research.

The general theoretical ideals are mirrored in the methodology

of the research. In this case data is collected from three sources,

viz. the mother, the father, and the children. Each method of data

collection is considered in more detail later, but the guiding principle

behind the research instruments is the desire for "objective subjectivity",

i.e. a desire to keep where possible the spontaneous responses and reactions

of family members and, at the same time, to have responses that are

standardized and comparable. Thus the mother's interview is semi-structured

and is analysed by using the coding frame developed by Jenny Cook-Gumperz

(1973). In this flexible coding frame, the mother's own explanations,

rationales and other qualifications, can be captured. The 'free' personal-

subjective view of the mother is contained in a flexible coding scheme,

which makes comparisons possible. Likewise in the children's test (see

Chapter 3), the child constructs his own family, allocates feelings freely

to members but in such a way that interpersonal comparison is possible.

Chapter 1 indicated that a systems approach is highly desirable

in the area of family life research. But despite the fact that data

was collected from both parents, due to the pressures of time only the

mother's data has been analysed. The role of the father in the family

has rarely been comprehensively reviewed or investigated. Various studies

have indicated that increased home-centredness means increased paternal

involvements (i:ewsons, 1970). It has also been suggested that there

is increasing role desegregation between husband and wife (Bronfenbrenner,

1961), and this is leading to the increasing involvement of the father

in domains previously in the sole charge of the mother, viz. housework

and children. many of these tendencies are assumed, they have not been

empirically documented.

The very tentative indications from this research suggest that the

role of the father within the family is rather complex and not at all

obvious. For example, within the children's test, there is evidence

that the children's perception of the mother's involvement in the family

is fairly constant across the whole range of the sample families. There

were definite trends in the perception of maternal preference. For

paternal preference no such trends are manifest; nor is there obvious

evidence that the father's role is parallel to, or complementary with,

that of the mother. An explanation is offered in terms of the clearly

understood role prescriptions for the mother within the family, and the

changing, more ambiguous position of the father. Repeating the stipulations

already made about the importance of taking the whole family network

and the dearth of material in this area, future research in this area

is likely to yield very interesting results.'

To sum up: working with a fairly loosely constructed model, in

which we hope to map the general area of sibling interactions, we have

adopted methods to match. 4e have tried to use methods that retain

as far as possible the authentic 'flavour' of the material, and at the

same time structure the data in such a way that legitimate comparisons

can be made.

1 The data from the personal-positional scale indicates that each parent
may have quite different perspectives on some aspects of child-rearing
(see Chapter 6).
THE SAMPLE

The sample was originally contacted by courtesy of Professor B. Bernstein

of the Institute of Education, University of London. As part of a large-

scale enquiry into Language and Educability, working and middle-class

mothers had been interviewed and Professor Bernstein agreed to make available

the names and addresses of the middle-class families in the sample.

There were 116 families in total, all of whom had at least one child of

about eleven years.

The mothers were contacted by letter and asked if they would agree

to participate in a research project which was concerned with relationships

within the family. The letter was kept deliberately vague, so as not to

bias in any way the subsequent interview responses. The sample was

restricted to two, three and four-child families. The initial response

was as follows: 70 families agreed to participate; 23 families refused

or were unsuitable because their families were one-child or consisted

of more than four children; 23 families could not be traced.

During the interview period nine other families were lost for a

variety of reasons. The final sample consisted of 61 families which

was considered rather small in view of the large number of relevant variables.

The sample was therefore supplemented by asking mothers randomly selected

from the sample of sixty-one to nominate other families with between

two and four children, one of whom was about eleven years old. In this

way another nineteen families were recruited to the sample, making a

1
final sample size of eighty.

The families selected were all from the middle-class. This was

deliberate policy on the part of the researcher. The rationales behind

it were two: (a) to minimize the effect of social class as a variable,

1
One tape was found to be inaudible and the final sample size is therefore
seventy-nine mothers.
and (b) in line with the original aim of interviewing all family members,

it was felt that it was unlikely that many working-class fathers would

be willing to be interviewed. The criterion of social class adopted

by the researchers at the Sociological Research Unit was an amalgam of

educational and occupational factors of both the mother and the father,

using the Hall-Jones scale to measure occupational prestige (Hall-Jones,

1951). The index has three components: (i) the rating of the father's

present occupation; (ii) the rating of the mother's highest ever occupation

(the mother's occupation at the time of the interview may have been deter-

mined by domestic circumstances rather than by the mother's occupational

potential or her previous occupational attainment); (iii) the mother's

educational attainment. These three factors were put together to give

an index of social class more subtle than the usual measures of occupational

prestige. Thus, although not all the members of the present sample

are middle-class when judged purely by the occupational status of the

father, when other considerations are taken into account, the sample

can be considered as homogenous. Table 2.1 sets out the social class

distribution of the present sample as grouped by occupation.

Table 2.1

Social Class of Sample Families

Social Class*: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No info.

Frequency 20 23 18 9 6 0 0 3
*The classes are grouped according to the Hall-Jones
Scale of Occupational Prestige for Males

The Hall-Jones scale Class 5 is divided into two sections, 5(a)

and 5(b). 5(a) refers to routine grades of non-manual work and 5(b)

to skilled manual work. For the purposes of dividing the sample according

to traditional manual/non-manual criterion, group 5(a), routine non-manual

 -

has been included in Class 4. If the scale is now grouped according

to manual/non-manual grouping the figures are:

Table 2.2

Non-manual Manual No info. Total

70 6 3 79

The original Sociological Research Unit sample was contacted through

the primary schools in what were predominantly working or middle-class

areas. The sample for this research are residents of a South London

suburb which is mainly middle-class and is said to be a typical well-

defined suburban community which has voted solidly Conservative since

1945.
The eighty families had two hundred and twenty-three children between

them of whom 189 completed test profiles. The ages of the children

who were tested ranged from seven to sixteen years old. When the sample

of eighty mothers is subdivided, there are thirty-four two-child families,

twenty-nine three-child families and seventeen four-child families.

These are small samples and, when further subdivided, are even smaller,

and the findings from these samples must therefore be accepted with some

reservations as to their general applicability. On the other hand, with

such small samples, the differences between two sample means must be

quite marked, for a significant difference to be recorded.

Similarly for the children tested, there are sufficient numbers

for adequate and valid comparisons between the sexes and ordinal positions.

When further subdivided by family size and sibling composition, cell

sizes become very small and therefore the general applicability of the

results must be qualified.

The need for breaking down the sample into more and more controlled

sub-samples is to ascertain the influence of the whole range of variables

operating on the child in the family. The multiplicity of variables

creates another difficulty in this research. With the large number

of variables operating in any particular case, the number of possible

explanations is increased, any onerfinding therefore can be interpreted

in several ways. At this stage in family research, there is no general

theory from which specific hypotheses can be derived and specific findings

interpreted, and we are therefore in the situation of plotting relation-

ships, without being able to offer a definitive interpretation of findings.

Table 2.3

Sample Characteristics

Number of mothers interviewed 80

Number of fathers interviewed 63

Number of children 223

Number of children tested 189

Sample Characteristics of Children Tested

Table 2.4

Sex and Family Size

Sex

Family Size N M F Total

2-child 34 32 35 67

3-child 29 40 32 72

4-child 17 21 29 50

Total 80 93 96 189
 Table 2.5

Ordinal Position

I II III IV Total

2-child 34 33 - - 67

3-child 25 27 18 - 70*

4-child 15 14 14 7 50

*excluding twins

Table 2.6

Age Distribution

(months) Male Female Total

5-7 (60-83) 2 2 4

7-9 (84-107) 14 16 30

9-11 (108-131) 15 16 31

11-13 (132-155) 46 40 86

13-15 (156-179) 10 15 25

15+ (180 - ) 6 7 13

Total 93 96 189

THE INTERVIEW

Of all the areas of research, research into family life is one

of the most fraught from the methodological point of view. Many studies

have shown the consistent and persistent biasing of maternal reports in

the direction of cultural stereotypes. The image of the happy family

is one of the most potent in modern society and any failure to live up

to that image rebounds on the parents, particularly on the mother.

Ever since Freud the sins of the children have been visited on the parents,

and when reporting negative behaviours of their children mothers are

therefore very conscious that the report reflects back on them.

 "Stripped of all elaboration, mother's interview responses represent

self description by extremely ego involved reporters." (Yarrow,

1963, p.217)

Hence the finding of bias in maternal reports is widespread (Yarrow,

1963; Chamberlain, 1969). This is particularly true when the mother

is giving a retrospective report; the passage of time dims the memory

and what memory cannot provide imagination elaborates, an elaboration

that is often in a direction that is socially desirable. Reports of

current beliefs and practices are more accurate and reliable. Reliability

studies have shown that there are wide discrepancies between the report

of the same mother at different times (Mednick and Schaffer, 1967);

of the same mother with a different interviewer and in different areas

(Haggard, Brekstad and Skard, 1960). When data is obtained from more

than one source, there is again a lack of consonance (Eron, Banta, Waldter

and Laulicht, 1961).

Several ways have been suggested to improve the reliability of

the mother's report. According to Chamberlain (1969), if the mother

is asked for a statement on current beliefs and practices, then the reports

reach a satisfactory level of validity and reliability. When parents

are asked to describe rather than interpret, reliability and validity

measures have been satisfactory. Hoffman (1960) recommended that researchers

concentrate on eliciting detailed reports of recent events. The focussing

on details can lead to fragmentation of the event described, weakening

its Gestalt properties. This can divest the event of much of its emotional

tone, producing more revealing, less defensive and, therefore, more accurate,

recall. Yarrow (1963) likewise stresses the greater reliability of

description over interpretation, and also suggests that, as a check on

the maternal report, the researchers should systematically seek out in—

formation from different sources, noting areas of concordance and discordance.

 -36

As far as the validity of interviews is concerned, this will vary

even within the test depending on the sensitivity of the area probed,

to that particular mother. Bearing in mind these stipulations, we have

tried, where possible, to take at least one other check on the mother's

interview data; generally corroborative or negating data is available

from the children's test.

The interview with the mother consisted of a semi-structured in-

terview which lasted approximately one to one-and-a-half hours. The

interview schedule consisted of a list of set questions and included,

where necessary, a probe to elicit the desired information. The inter-

viewers were instructed to stick to the wording on the questionnaire as

far as possible and, where probing was allowed, they were instructed

as to the precise wording. On some questions which were designed to

lead the mother in and out of certain areas, the interviewers were given

more leeway and told to rephrase the questions in whatever way they felt

was suitable. The mothers' responses were in most cases not coded at

the time; however, some obviously closed questions, such as whether or

not the mother worked, were coded at the time on the interview schedule.

The whole interview, which took approximately one hour, was taped, and

subsequent coding was done from the tape. In this way we were able

to work out a coding system based upon the mother's own response, rather

than the pre-ordained categories of the researcher. It also meant that

a more sophisticated and complex coding scheme could be worked out.

The Interviewers

The interviewers were both female, both without children, and both

considerably younger than the mothers they were interviewing. As such

they appeared to the mothers as unthreatening - in that they themselves

were thought unlikely to have any strong sentiments about questions of

bringing up children. Their comparative youth allowed the mother to

take up a knowledgeable role and to expand on her own theories and practices.
 In line with the original theoretical outline, data was collected

in the following areas:

The first section concerned 'demographic' information about the

family; information such as sex and age of the children; then home

and school activities; the family's social class and its social mobility;

the mother's working and social life.

The interviewer then moved the mother into a consideration of in-

dividual children within the family and her perception of those children.

The reaction of the mother to the individual qualities and personal traits

of her children is clearly one of the most important factors in the child's

perceptionof favouritism - especially if this is coupled with a strong

emphasis on equal evaluation of all children in the family. The questions

therefore were designed to ascertain the extent to which the mother

differentiates between her children and how the differential attributes

of each, be they personal or positional, are evaluated. Does this in-

dicate a preference for one child? And can it be linked with rivalrous

feelings from others?

Also within this section we considered the range of emotional ex-

pression allowed by the mother to her children; this indicates both

positive and negative affects but primarily the latter. The attitude

of the mother to such questions may influence the mother's own report

of rivalry and may also be reflected in the emotional style of the children,

as manifest in their test profiles.

The notion of personal and positional orientation in socialization

matters is part of a wider concept of boundary definition in social

relationships. The notion of boundary definition has a physical as

well as a psychological component. Where the boundaries between statuses

and persons are strong, the boundaries between space, time and property

may also be strong and clearly differentiated. Thus, in such families

we would expect a clear division of property, of time and of space, and

sharply defined and clearly understood rules appertaining to these matters.

In the third section of the questionnaire, the arrangement of the environ-

ment within the home and the expectations of rules governing that environ-

ment are considered.

Allied to these matters, the mother is then asked specifically

about the importance she places on certain positional attributes. These

attributes are those of sex, ordinal position, age, and sex and age relations.

Thus far in the interview we have information on the mother's attitude

to certain child characteristics and forms of behaviour, the meaning

these characteristics have for her, but as yet we have no information

on how these factors are made relevant in the resolution of family problems,

particularly those of sibling relationships. To tap this aspect of

parental control, the mother is given a set of hypothetical situations,

and asked what she would do, if she were confronted with such a situation.

In this way we can identify the communication and control system within

the family.

The final brief section is concerned with the mother's own back-

ground, both social and personal. An item of interest here is the fact

that there appear to be rather more first-born among the sample of mothers

than one would expect: 42 of the 79 mothers (5:,25) were first-born.

This finding, though not statistically tested in any way, is similar

to the finding that first-born volunteer more often for psychological

experiments (Cappa and Dittell, 1962; Edsenman, 1965; Suedfeld, 1964;

Varela, 1964).

A copy of the mother's questionnaire is given in Appendix A.

 -35 -

THE PERSONAL-POSITIONAL SCALE

Since the issue of personal versus positional orientation to socialization

matters is so important in dividing families, the information obtained

from the interview was supplemented by a scale designed to measure the

mother's boundary-maintaining orientation. The scale consists of a

fixed choice situation. The mother is given a card with two statements

on it - one personal in flavour, one positional, and asked to ring the

one with which she most agrees. There are thirty-one statements in

all, covering her general orientation to socialization matters, attitudes

to questions of property, territory and time, and attitudes to status

characteristics such as sex, age and position. These are given at the

end of the thesis in Appendix B, which sets out the list of items given

to the mother. In the subsequent analysis, the original 32 items are

factor analysed and a purer scale of fifteen items is used to differentiate

the sample.

NOTATION

Throughout the research, a particular notation is used to denote

the sex, ordinal position and sibling status of any child in the study.

Sex is denoted by the initials M or F, for male and female respectively.

Where ordinal position is a variable Roman numerals are used, i.e. I

first-born, II = second-born, etc.

Family type is related as per birth order. Thus there are three

family types in which there are two boys and one girl (MMF, MFM and FMM);

or there are two types of opposite sex two-child families (MF and FM),

depending on whether or not the first born child is male (MF) or female (FM).

When referring to a particular child in the family, that child is

denoted by having his ordinal position indicated: the elder of two boys
is denoted M1H; any reference to the younger brother of this dyad is MM2.

In the four-child family, FJM3iI refers to the third-born boy who has two

older sisters and one younger brother.

Within the two-child families in the sample there are eight possible

sibling positions:

Table 2.7

Sibling Position in Two-Child Families (N = 34)

Sex of S Ord. Posn. Sex of Sib. Notation No.

M I M M M 6
1
M I F M F 10
1
M II II MM 6
2
M II F FM 10
2
F I M F M 10
1
F I F FF 8
1
F II M MF 10
2
FF 7
2

There are enough children in each category to make sibling status com-

parisons possible within two-child families. Within three-child families

there are eight possible family types and twenty-four sibling positions.

The frequency with which each family type occurs is set out below:

Three-Child Family Types (N = 29) No.

MHM 5

k.k.b 2

MFM 6

FMF 3
MMF 6

PPM 3
FMM 3
Not all of the children within each three-child family have been tested:

in thirteen families only two of the three children have been tested

and in one family only one child has been tested. The reasons are that

the children are either too young to understand and complete the test,

or, less commonly, they are older and no longer living at home. The

low cell frequencies mean that no comparison between different sibling

positions is possible in the three-child family. The same reasoning

applies even more strongly to the four-child family where data on sibling

status can indicate only the weakest of relationships because of low

cell sizes. The children's test is outlined in Chapter 3.

SUMMARY

As far as possible research methods have been adopted that are

consonant with the general theoretical position. We have tried to use

methods that are compatible with a holistic exploratory model of sibling

and family relationships, retaining the spontaneity of response and allowing

quantitative analysis at the same time.

 Chapter 3

THE CHILDREN'S TEST

Increasingly research into the mother-child dyad indicates that

the attribution of power only to the parent is mistaken; like any other

relationship, that between mother and child is two-way, being dependent

on the characteristics and behaviour of both actors. The power of the

child, his ability to modify and change parental behaviour - if not to

control it - is attested to by parents and empirically demonstrated in

experimental situations (Rheingold, 1969; Moss, 1967; Bell, 1971).

The direction of effects is not always downward, from the powerful parent

to the powerless child, but as in other relationships consists of tensions

resolved by negotiations.

The attribution of power only to the parent is reflected in family-

life research design and methods. Information is generally obtained

from the mother and her interpretations of the child's behaviour and

its significance form the basic data from which conclusions about the

child and the mother-child relationship are drawn. The 'child's eye

view' of the matter which may differ significantly from that of the mother

is seldom Eolicited. Apart from the fact that the mother may misinterpret

the effects of her behaviour upon the child (Loevinger, 1959), various

writers have shown the unreliability of maternal reports, especially

if they are given retrospectively (Haggard, Hrekstad and Skard, 1960;

Yarrow, 1963; Mednick and Schaffer, 1967). A mother reporting her

own behaviour and its presumed influence on the child, is likely to play

down certain aspects and give the interviewer a somewhat rose-coloured

version of her own behaviour. This is not to suggest that the mother

deliberately lies (she may do so), but simply that by exaggerating certain

aspects of her behaviour and omitting references to others, she gives a

biased report. The mother is a very ego involved reporter, subject

to strong cultural pressures to be what counts as a 'good mother', a

situation that is not conducive to a high level of objectivity. In so

far as the behaviour of the child also reflects upon herself, she may

also conceal certain facts about the child's behaviour and feelings.

This points up the need for information from other sources to act

as a reliability check on the mother's report and the need for a first-

hand report of the effects of the mother's behaviour on the child -

i.e. a report from the child. In reporting his feelings the child may

also "colour" or deny certain feelings and actions, since pressures to

be a 'good child' are equally operative, but the feelings (of denial)

are the child's own and, as such, have value. Very few studies have

considered in any systematic way the child's perceptions and responses

to members of his family, either as a dependent variable or as a check

on the mother's report. The reason probably relates to the difficulties

of interviewing children about their emotions and feelings (Yarrow, 1960),

for children, especially young children, do not have the vocabulary to

undertake a detailed examination of their own and other people's emotional

states; some feelings may be too difficult to voice, for others they

may simply lack the means of expressing themselves. For these reasons

any direct questioning or interviewing is not feasible, and it would also

be difficult to sustain the child's interest for the amount of time needed

to elicit the required information. If the child's perceptions are

considered to be worth-while data, some alternative form of data gathering

is needed.

test was therefore needed to plot the matrix of emotional involve-

ment of the child with his family. Such a test also acts as a reliability

check on the mother's report of the same events. Not only do mothers

bias their reports in the direction of culturally approved stereotypes,

but they are also differentially sensitive to rivalry and other motivational

states. To one mother teasing may be the partial expression of deep-

seated conflict between her children, whereas to another it may be interpreted

as good wholesome fun. Maternal reports therefore reveal the interpretations

of the mother rather than the child's own experience.

Since we are considering family relationships as a system, the

reactions of the child to hiszibling are viewed in the light of his per-

ception of other family members, their behaviour and feelings. The

most obvious link of this kind lies in the assumed link between the mother's

preference or favouring of one child, and the jealousy that this may

engender in that child's sibling. In a similar way an Oedipal situation

would be described by the child's positive reactions to his mother, plus

a perception of the mother's strong sexualized feelings for the father,

which generates a hostility (or possibly an ambivalence) on the part of

the child towards his father - a classical Oedipal syndrome. The child's

eye view therefore of all members of the family is a vital ingredient

when interpreting his/her reactions to any one member.

The requirements were for a test that could be given to children

from the age of six to sixteen and would maintain their interest for

a fair amount of time. The test should also indicate in a straight-

forward way the feelings of the child to each family member, and his

perception of their feelings towards himself and other family members,

i.e. a matrix of perceptions and feelings within each family. Since

the test was to be administered to a large number of children, it should

be in a form that allowed easy quantitative analysis. The test profiles

1
of the children should be standardized and comparable.

Although the research provides us with the child's eye view of the
mother, the categories in which the information is construed are
necessarily those of the researcher.
 The most suitable clinical test available was the Bene-Anthony

Family Relations Test (1957) which allows the child to construct his

own view of his family and makes the data available in a form that the

researcher can treat quantitively. The Bene-Anthony Family Relations

Test was devised primarily for use in the clinical situation, and was

conceived as "an objective technique for exploring emotional attitudes

in children".

The Family Relations Test material is designed to give a concrete

representation of the child's family. It consists of 20 cardboard figures,

representing people of various ages, shapes and sizes, sufficiently stereo-

typed to stand for members of any child's family, yet ambiguous enough

to become under suggestion any specific family. The figures range from

a grandmother to perambulated baby, and for these the child is able to

create his own significant circle, including a figure for self. In

addition to the family members, another important figure is incorporated

into the test; whereas other figures are pictured facing the subject,

this figure faces away from the test subject and stands for 'nobody'.

It is used to accommodate items that do not apply to anyone in the family.

Each of the figures is attached to a box-like base which has a slit in

the top.

The interviewer asks the child to take a cardboard figure to rep-

resent his father, mother and siblings, and anyone else living in the

family. These are then set up in a semi-circle facing the child.

To this group the interviewer then adds 'Mr Nobody'.

In addition, there is a set of item cards, each bearing a generalized

statement (e.g. "This person in the family is very nice"; "I can feel

very cross with this particular person"), and the child is asked to allocate

each item card to the person in his family whom he thinks it best fits.

The allocation is made by "posting" the card into the appropriate figure/box.
 6

The child has two alternatives other than to make a direct allocation:

he may either assign an item to more than one person at the same time

(multiple choice) or he may place it into a residual category (the 'nobody'

box), indicating that the item does not apply to anyone in his family.

The Bene-Anthony Family Relations Test items cover a range of feeling,

both to and from the child. It consists of 100 item cards grouped into

three general sections:

(1) Outgoing feelings from the child to other family members. These

are further sub-divided into positive and negative feelings to those

family members; the positive and negative feelings are sub-grouped according

to the intensity of the feeling into mild and strong emotions. Examples

of each category are given below.

i. Outgoing positive - mild: 'This person in the family is very nice

to play with'.

ii. Outgoing positive - strong or sexualized: 'I sometimes wish that

I could sleep in the same bed with this person'.

iii. Negative outgoing - mild: 'This person in the family is sometimes

quick-tempered'.

iv. Negative outgoing - strong: 'Sometimes I would like to kill this

person in the family'.

(2) Incoming feelings, statements that reveal the child's perception of

the way others in the family relate to him/her. They are also sub-grouped

in the same way as the outgoing feelings. Examples are:

i. Incoming positive - mild: 'This person in the family is kind to me'.

ii. Incoming positive - strong or sexualized: 'This person in the family

likes to kiss me'.

iii. Negative incoming - mild: 'This person in the family sometimes

tells me off'.

iv. Incoming negative - strong or hostile: 'This person in the family

makes me feel unhappy'.

(3) Maternal over-protection and maternal and paternal over-indulgence.

Example: 'This is the person in the family mother pays too much attention

to'.

When the child has constructed his family, the interviewer reads

to him the statement on the card and asks the child to post the item

to a family member. Older children read the cards themselves. They

are presented in random order, except that the interviewer always starts

and completes the test with two non-threatening positive items. The

child allocates all test items and the distribution of these items is

then plotted on a test sheet by the tester; this profile gives a picture

of the extent and direction of the child's emotional involvements.

The Pilot Test

A pilot test was conducted using the Bene-Anthony Family Relations

Test. The pilot sample consisted of 28 middle-class children, aged

approximately between eight and twelve. All came from families of four

or less and in most cases at least one of their siblings was also tested.

The results of the pilot indicated that although the format was suitable,

there were several aspects of the test that made it unsuitable for the

particular needs of this project.

With regard to content, certain of the Bene-Anthony items were

emotionally loaded to such an extent that they aroused extreme anxieties

in the children and proved too difficult to cope with. This is particularly

true of the sexualized and hostile items, a very high proportion of which

were placed in the 'nobody' category. In the clinical situation in

which the child is familiar with the interviewer and in which inhibitions

have been broken down, the test can be successfully applied. However,

in a non-clinical situation, faced with an unfamiliar interviewer, the

children were very guarded in their response to items arousing strong

emotions, and such items failed to serve a discriminatory function (i.e. to

 -41)"

be allocated to a particular family member). The Bene-Anthony is grounded

in psychoanalytic theory and the test is intended for use in the clinical

situation; it fails to work in a more 'normal situation' in which the

expression of love and hate are more muted.

In one other area there was a short-coming of the Bene-Anthony test.

The items are not specifically directed at 'tapping' any particular area

of family interaction. The items are very general in their application.

Since the particular concern of this research project is the investigation

of sibling relationships, there was a need for test items that were more

focussed in their application, and which would give more detailed information

about the nature of child-child relationships.

However, since the format of the Family Relations Test is suitable,

it was decided to retain the general format and to create a set of new

item cards which were more suitable to the sample and more focussed on

the issues of the research. Items were selected that had relevance

to a wider age range and the language was brought into line with that of

the sample group; where some of the Bene-Anthony items had a stiff,

formal and slightly repetitive sound, the new items had a more idiomatic

and spontaneous wording. It was hoped that in this way the test appeared

less as a test and more as a game. Items that included value terms,

such as 'This is the person in the family father pays too much attention

to' and '...mother makes too big a fuss about' were seen as requiring

complex value judgements on the part of the child and therefore were

considered too difficult to handle easily. In the piloting stage several

children hesitated over items with value terms in them, saying, for example,

"Well, my mother makes a fuss of so-and-so, but not too big, a fuss".

Such items were therefore excluded and, as far as possible, all statements

were simple and straight-forward, could be easily understood and therefore

easily allocated. All the revisions were designed to make the test
interesting, easy to handle and to allow a spontaneous and, it is hoped,

unguarded response.

A major factor in the decision not to use the original Family Relations

Test was the need to have data on areas of family interaction of particular

relevance to the problem of sibling rivalry. Items were introduced

to pinpoint dimensions that have a bearing on the dynamics of rivalry,

especially those appertaining to the distribution of scarce resources

within the family. These areas of particular interest are the child's

perception of parental favouritism or preference, and the comparative

element in rivalry. Six items were therefore introduced relating to

maternal and paternal preference; and to get a measure of the comparative

element seven items were composed and incorporated into the test. Other

aspects of sibling tensions are also important but are not necessarily

linked to rivalry. Children who spend a great deal of time together

may exhibit negative attitudes to each other that are the outcome of

spending a great deal of time together, rather than indicating hostility

of a more deep-seated nature. These items are referred to a 'sibling

friction' as opposed to the more chronic and deeply felt emotions of

jealousy that are assessed by the comparative section.

In order to balance out the somewhat negative content of the test,

more positive items were included. These split into three sections,

taking the form of dependability, e.g. "This person in the family never

lets you down"; and sharing, e.g. "This person in the family doesn't

try to get more than anyone else'; and,finally, general positive items,

e.g. "I really enjoy talking to this person". These latter items were

designed to be placed at the beginning and end of the test in order to

lead the child in and out of the test without arousing anxieties.

The new test items were then piloted with a small group of middle-

class children and those that elicited a high 'nobody' response were

eliminated, and the remaining items that served a clear discriminatory

function were retained. Thus in its final form the test has the same

general format as the Family Relations Test; the child constructs his

family and allocates item cards to them. The item cards, however, are

completely new being designed to meet the specific requirements of the

sample and the research aims. The total number of new items is 59 and

the test takes approximately 15 minutes to administer. A complete list

of items is given in Table 3.1. The test is presented in the form of

a game and administered to each child individually. To older children,

the interviewer stated that they were writing a book about how children

felt about their families, and solicited their help.

When the test has been completed, the interviewer makes a record

of the item allocations and a pattern or profile emerges of where these

"cluster". This allows a measure to be taken of the child's total involve-

ment with each of his family members (a quantitative measure) and of the

direction of that involvement, i.e. whether positive or negative (a qualitative

measure). The extent to which the child has used the 'nobody' category

or multiple-choice, as distinct from allocations to one person ("committalf)

may be used as a measure of the child's guardedness or inhibition. The

advantages of the test lie in the fact that the child is not asked to

verbalize analytically his many complex and often conflicting feelings

for his family 'on the spot'. This is likely to be outside the inclinations

and abilities of most of the younger children. The child is expected

to commit himself to a choice of pre-selected emotional attitudes; the

item is fixed but the placement is free. Thus the profiles of different

children are directly comparable. The 'feeling' thrust into the figures

immediately vanishes from sight leaving no incriminating trace. There

is no visible reminder to the child of the distribution of love and hate,

and consequently there may be less guilt to interfere with the freedom

of expression. A sample profile is appended at the end of the chapter.

 Table 3.1

Children's Test

Maternal Preference

00 This person is Mother's favourite

01 Mother pays a lot of attention to this person

02 Mother tends to take this person's side in an argument

03 Mother spoils this person a bit

04 Mother doesn't seem to see this person's faults

05 Mother has a soft spot for this person

Paternal Preference

06 This person is Father's favourite

07 Father pays a lot of attention to this person

08 Father tends to take this person's part if there is an argument

09 Father rather spoils this person

10 Father seems not to see this person's faults

11 Father has rather a soft spot for this person

Outgoing Positive Feelings

12 This is the person I go to when I'm unhappy

13 This person has the nicest ways of the family

14 I think this person deserves a nice present

15 This person is very kind-hearted

16 This person is very nice indeed

17 I wish I could be like this person in the family

18 I get on well with this person

19 I feel happy with this person

Outgoing Negative Feelings

20 Sometimes I get a bit fed up with this person

21 This person gets on my nerves a bit

Table 3.1 (cont.)

Outgoing Negative Feelings (cont.)

22 I don't get on very well with this person

23 Sometimes I want to do things just to annoy this person

24 This person can make me feel very angry

25 This person can really upset me

26 I can feel very cross with this particular person

27 At times I feel like hitting this person

Friction Items

28 I think this person is rather bossy

29 This person tries to get me into trouble

30 This person picks on me

31 This person tries to make me look silly

32 This person disturbs me when I'm getting on with something

33 This person takes my things without asking

34 This person tries to make me lose my temper

Comparative Items

35 This person gets more than their fair share

36 This person thinks they're better than me

37 This person gets away with things

38 This person is a show-off

39 This person can always get what they want

40 This person always has their own way

41 I'm a bit jealous of this person

Dependability

42 This person sticks up for me

43 This person never lets you down

44 This person always finds time to help me

45 I know I can rely on this person

46 This person listens to what I have to say

 Table 3.1 (cont.)

Sharing

47 This person always tries hard to be fair

48 This person doesn't try to get more than anyone else

49 This person lets me join in with them

50 This person shares things with me

51 This person doesn't always try to win

Additional Positives

52 This is the person I spend most time with

53 This is the person I play with most of all

54 I'd like to spend more time with this person

55 I like to help this person

56 I enjoy talking to this person

57 This is the person I tell my secrets to

58 I really like this person

59 I like to share my things with this person

The test was given individually to each child within the sample

families (N = 189); the profiles could then be compared within the families

to see if there is evidence for a family style; between individuals

grouped according to structural variables such as sex, age, ordinal position,

etc., to ascertain the significance of demographic factors; between families

to correlate where possible with the mother's socialization style; and,

finally, to act as a reliability check on the mother's report.

Reliability

None of the usual methods for assessing the reliability of a test

is suitable for the Children's Test. The test—retest method is unsuitable,

for if the test is administered after a short time the memory of the original

allocations will influence the retest score. If the test is readministered

after a longer time, then the child and the family may have undergone

transformations and comparisons of first and second test scores are there-

fore invalid.

The split-half method is not suitable either, since the test items

are not homogeneous and the number of choices a child can make for each

item varies from case to case. Following the procedure adopted by Bene-

Anthony for assessing the reliability of the Family Relations Test, the

following modification of the split-half method was used.

Apart from the sections dealing with maternal and paternal preference,

the test basically divides intotwo sections: one dealing with positive

items (N = 26) and the other with negative affects (N = 22). Each of

these items can be allocated to 'nobody', Mother, Father, Self or siblings,

and, where applicable, to others in the family.

Dealing with the positive and negative items separately, separate

reliability coefficients were obtained for each family member by dividing

the scores by odd and even, regarding each score as if it were the result

of a separate test. Within each score two sub-scores were computed

where the score to that person reached or exceeded six. Thus for each

subject with more than six allocations in the positive section of the

test, we have two separate scores for positive to mother, to father and

to the highest scoring sibling. Positive scores to other siblings in

the family were too low to warrant computation. Within the negative

section, since very few negative items are allocated to the parents,

only the scores to the highest and second highest scoring sibling have

been computed. The results are set out in Table 3.2. To correct for

halving the length of the test, the Spearman Brown prophesy formula was

applied (Maxwell, 1970).

 - J

Table 3.2

Correlations between odd and even numbered items per person

(where allocations to that person 1 6)

POSITIVE N r. Corrected r.

Mother 80 .75 .86

Father 76 .67 .80
Sibling 50 .71 .83

ilEGATIVE N r. Corrected r.

First-born sibling 78 .65 .79

Second-born 74 .62 .765

Correlation coefficients indicate that the test is reliable.

Validity

The issue of validity is equally thorny when dealing with a test

that measures not only conscious feelings but also unconscious sentiments;

not only fact but also fantasy, and not only direct expression but also

defensive and guarded expression. How is such a test to be validated?

Cronbach and Meehl (1955) point out that in the case of tests whose

validity cannot be established in the usual manner, construct validity

has to be established. By constructs they refer to the postulated attributes

of people which are assumed to be reflected in their test performance.

Such constructs are implicitly defined by the network of associations

in which they occur and evidence for their validity collects as the research

proceeds and the construct becomes more securely tied to more and more

observables and to other constructs.

Attempts to establish the validity of the Children's Test are made

from a variety of angles. The methods and the results of the investigations

are set out below*

A COMPARISON WITH MOTHER'S REPORT

Both the Children's Test and the mother's interview make a direct

report on favouritism and on sibling jealousy. So each acts as a check

on the other and, in the following section, we consider to what extent

there is agreement between mother and the children in the family on these

issues. The results are set out by family size.

Two-Child Families

There is general agreement on the ordinal position of the favourite,

with a strong statement from the mother in favour of the second child,

and a weaker statement from the children (see Chapter 4). Is there also

agreement within individual families?

We considered the two-child families in which the mother specified

a "soft spot" (Question 39), and the self choices of their children.

There are nine such families and the scores of both children in these

families are presented in Table 3.3. The children's scores are derived

from the maternal preference section of the test.

Table 3.3

Degree of Agreement between Mother and Child Reports

Mat. Pref. to self

Ord. Pos. 0-2 3+

I 8 1

II 4 5

The scores of the first-born are in exact agreement with that

of their mother, i.e. the eight who are not favoured give themselves

low scores and the one for whom the mother does have a "soft spot" reflects

this in a high score to self. Of the eight second-born the mother

favours, all but three indicate this in their score. Bearing in mind
that the self category is very seldom used, then this result is very

significant, indicating that there is valid reporting in the children's

test, and that the maternal interview data is substantiated from another

family source (744 agreement). Where the mother reports a favourite,

the child named as favourite is accurate in his report. Do the siblings

of these children also report the parental preference accurately?

Similarly, if the mother reports that she has no special preference (no

"soft spot"), or that she has a soft spot for both, is there also agree-

ment among the children that this is so?

The method of measuring the degree of agreement is set out below.

1. If the mother reports a soft spot for one child, and that child

gets two or more preference items, than his or her siblings, the reports

are said to be in agreement.

2. If the mother reports 'none', then the reports of the child, of

their own preference score and that of their sibling, should be within

one item of each other.

3. If the mother reports 'both', each child allocates the same number

of items plus or minus one to self and to his sibling.

The criteria for 'none' and 'both' are therefore the same.

Example:

Sample No. Sib. Status Mat. Pref. Total

Self Sib.

13 Ml 1 1 1
F2 0 0 1

19 l 4 3 5
F2 0 1 3

210 M1 1 5 1
M2 0 0 5
In these cases, if the mother had stated none, then five of the six children

would agree with their mothers. The exception is 210.M1. All others

give scores that are the same or within one point of their sibling.
M1 gives five items to his sister and one only to himself. He therefore

perceives her as the favourite. His sister, by contrast, is in complete

agreement that their mother has no soft spot.

Results

Where the mother specifies "soft spot" for one child (N = 9 families),

in two cases both children agreed with her. In five cases only one child

agreed with Mother, and in two cases both disagreed. That is, nine

children agreed and nine disagreed. Out of eleven families where Mother

reports no "soft spot", in nine cases both children agreed with her, and

in two cases one child disagreed. That is, out of twenty-two children,

twenty were in agreement with their mother. There were thirteen families

in which the mother stated that she had a soft spot for both. In four

families both children agreed; in eight families one child agreed and the

other disagreed and in one family both children disagreed. On this

measure, fifteen children were in agreement with their mothers and ten
1
disagreed.

What, then, is the degree of overall agreement between mother and

children in two-child families?

Table 3.4
Summary of Mother-Child Agreement on Favouritism:
Two-Child Families

Mother states No. of children

agreeing disagreeing

One 9 9
Both 15 10

None 20 2

Total 44 21

1
The number of children in the thirteen families is 25, not 26, because
one child has no test profile.
 Thus, the overall degree of agreement between mothers and their

children is 67%. This high degree of consonance between the two sources

suggests that considerable reliance can be placed on the data. These

results are very encouraging in that they validate the children's test

and. substantiate the interview data of the mother. Bearing in mind

the use of defensive and fantasy strategies that might be expected on

a test of this nature, the degree and accuracy of the reporting is very

high indeed.

On the issue of the mother's preference, the mother is reporting

her own experience and the children are reporting their perception of

the mother's feeling.

With the question of 'jealousy', the situation is reversed. Here

the children are reporting the first-hand experience and the mother is

reporting her perception of the matter. Is there the same degree of

agreement on the question of jealousy as there was in the matter of favouritism?

What is the extent of agreement between mothers and children on the question

of jealousy?

We considered the allocations madeby the children cited as jealous,

on item 41 on the Children's Test, viz. 'I sometimes feel jealous of this

person'. Ten first-born children were cited and only one gives this

item to his sibling; eight give it to 'nobody' and one to mother.

The second-born (non-jealous) siblings of these reputedly jealous children

allocate this item to their sibling (the jealous child) more often!

Of the four second-born, who are named as jealous by their mother, only

one gives this item to his sibling. This means that of the fourteen

children, only two are in agreement with their mother; by far the majority

of them claim to experience no jealousy - not even 'sometimes'.

It is possible, although unlikely, that the mother would claim

that there is jealousy where noneexists. It is far more likely that

 -6 0 -

the feeling exists but that the children are too inhibited to admit it

and therefore allocate such items into the 'nobody' category. In view

of the fact that most of the children cited as jealous are first-born,

and in view of the evidence presented later in this chapter that the

first-born are more likely than other children to make defensive allocations,

then the likelihood of misreporting on the mother's part is decreased.

In respect of this particular issue, greater reliance may be placed on

the report of the mother than of the child.

In eight families the mother claims that both of the children are

jealous. On item 41, four of the sixteen children involved allocated

the card to their siblings (all second-born); the remaining twelve all

made a 'nobody' choice. There are eleven mothers who state that there

is no jealousy between their children and in this case there is a high

degree of agreement between mother and children: eighteen children agree

with their mother and make a 'nobody' allocation of item 41 on the Children6

Test, three children make an allocation to their sibling, and one to the

mother herself. Table 3.5 sets out the total degree of agreement between

mother and children on the question of jealousy.

Table 3.5

Summary of Mother-Child Agreement on Jealousy:

Two-Child Families

Mother states No. of Children

N agreeing disagreeing

One 14 2 12

Both 8 4 12

None 11 18 3

Total 33 24 27
 - CI-

Thus the total extent of agreement is 47% between mother and children

in the matter of jealousy. Most of the disagreement between mother

and children stems from the situation in which the mother makes a state-

ment that one or both of her children are jealous; in this case the

children claim that they do not experience jealousy, and their report

appears to be of a defensive nature. Most of the children reporting

no jealousy when their mother thinks them jealous are first-born, and

it is clear from an analysis of the 'nobody' allocations that the first-

born are more inhibited and defensive than later born (see page ).

Three-Child Families

In the Children's Test there is evidence that the youngest child

was the mother's favourite (Chapter 4) and the middle child was the most

jealous, especially the middle girl (Chapter 5). In general, for the

three-child family these results are confirmed from the mother's interview

data. Are they also confirmed from the individual data? That is,

if a mother states that the third child is her favourite, do the children

in that family concur? The table below sets out the results for all

three-child families.

Table 3.6

Summary of Mother-Child Agreement on Favouritism:

Three-Child Families

Mother states No. of No. of Children Total*

Families
Agreeing Disagreeing

One 15 25 10 35

All 9 18 4 22

None 5 10 4 14

Total 29 53 18 71

*The totals do not add up to three times the number of families because
some of the children in the families did not complete the test.
 --6

In all, then, 53 children agree with their mothers and 18 disagree.

This represents an overall agreement of 75%, which is very high reinforcing

the validation findings from two-child families.

Is there the same degree of consonance between mother and children

when there is reporting of jealousy? When the mother names the child

as jealous, does that child make a statement to the same effect when

allocating item 41 of the Children's Test? Table 3.7 sets out the extent

of the mother-child agreement in the case of a report of jealousy.

Table 3.7

Summary of Mother-Child Agreement on Jealousy:

Three-Child Families

Mother states N. Children's report

Agree Disagree No inf.

One child 15 4 11* -

Two or more 7 6 8 7

None 7 14 5 2

Total 29 24 24 9

*Only the allocations on Qn. 41 of the children named as jealous

The extent of the agreement in three-child families is slightly higher

than that in two-child families at 50/0. Again, the degree of agreement

is lowest when one child is specified and highest when there is said to

be no jealousy.
 - 63 -

Four-Child Families

Within the three-child family there is a very clear general state-

ment that the mother favours the youngest child. Examination of the

pattern of favouritism within the four-child family reveals no such trend

however, indicating that the finding in the three-child family is not

due to any bias in the favouritism items, which, stressing the nurturant

aspects of the mother's role, will therefore tend to produce a higher

tendency to allocate favouritism items to youngest children. Within

the four-child family, there is a general spread of maternal preference

throughout the whole family. When mother and children reports are compared

to check the degree of concordance, the results are as set out in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8

Summary of Mother-Child Agreement on Favouritism:

Four-Child Families

Mother states A. Children's report

Agree Disagree No inf.

One child 7 3 17 7
Two or more 3 5 5 2

None 5 16 0 4

Total 15 24 22 13

This represents an agreement of 52% between the reports of mother and

child. This is high considering the variety of mechanisms both conscious

and unconscious that may operate on the child's part to distort the results.

This result is lower than that in two and three-child families, because,

as the number of children's reports considered increases, the possibility

that distortion and error may creep into the report of any one child also

increases.
 -6 44 -

The comparison for the report of jealousy is set out in Table 3.9.

Table 3.9

Comparison of Mother-Child Agreement on Jealousy:

Four-Child Families

Mother states N. Children's reports

Agree Disagree No inf.

One child 4 1 3
Two or more 5 6 5
None 6 16 4 2

Total 15 23 12 10

This represents the highest degree of agreement on jealousy at 60.

What is the total degree of agreement between mother and children

in the two areas of favouritism and jealousy'? Table 3.10 sets out the

degree of agreement for the total sample.

Table 3.10

Comparison of Mother-Child Agreement on Favouritism:

All FRmilies

Mother states N. Children's reports

Agree Disagree No inf.

One child 31 37 36 7
More than one 25 38 19 3
None 21 46 6 4

Total 77 121 61 14
This represents an overall agreement of 66.5%. The extent of the agree-

ment varies according to the report of the mother, being lowest for the

case in which she names one child (50.6%), intermediate in the case of

more than one child being cited (66.6%), and highest in the case of no

'soft spot' (88.4%). These results indicete that where the mother makes

a statement of preference, the children do not concur in all cases.

It is likely that the suspicion that the mother has a favourite provokes

a defensive reaction in other children in the family, and most especially

in the parent-oriented first-born. 4hen the mother states that she has

a 'soft spot' for one of her children, in many cases the other children

in the family make allocations to 'nobody'. The allocations to 'nobody'

may also be a reflection of the socialization behaviours of the mother;

that is, the mother may admit having a 'soft spot', but as a general

practice she transmits to the children the belief that they are all equally

valued. Her 'soft spot', therefore, may be concealed and not apparent

to the other children in the family. The hypothesis that certain items

produce a defensive reaction and this is more likely to be evoked in

some children rather than others is considered later in this chapter,

and supporting evidence is offered for this hypothesis.

If the issue of favouritism elicits defensive reactions on the

part of the children, does the more sensitive issue of jealousy also

reflect the same patterns? The overall picture for the question of

jealousy is set out in the following table.

 66 -
Table 3.11

Comparison of Mother-Child Agreements on Jealousy:

All Families

Mother states N. Children's reports

Agree Disagree No inf.

One child 33 7 26 0

More than one 20 16 25 13

None 24 48 12 5

Total 77 71 63 18

The overall extent of agreement is 53% and, again, varies depending on

the nature of the mother's statement. When the mother alleges that

one of her children is jealous, the extent of agreement is only 21%;

if the mother claims that more than one child is jealous, then there

is a higher degree of agreement (39%) and, finally, where the mother

states that none of her children are jealous, there is an overall degree

of agreement in 80% of cases. This reveals that there is a high degree

of denial on a highly charged issue such as favouritism and jealousy.

The use of defensive strategies on a test that probes highly personal

and sensitive issues of family life is to be expected. It remains to

be seen if the use of such defensive strategies is systematically related

to other variables such as sex and ordinal position. If the use of

denial strategies can be identified as being a part of the psychological

style of particular types of children, then the difficulty of interpreting

the results of the test, the question of whose report to accept when

mother and children are of divergent opinions, can be dealt with.

 -67-

If the relationship between test variables and other structural

variables - between dependent and independent variables - can be established

in accordance with findings from similar studies, then the construct

validity of the test will be further consolidated. In seeking to account

for the low degree of agreement where the mother names one child as jealous,

we have suggested that the failure of the child to agree is due to inhibition

or denial. This issue is dealt with in the next section.

B USE OF NOBODY CATEGORY

Within the Children's Test, the Nobody category is reserved for

those items that do not apply to any family member, or items that do

apply to a family member but which the child is too inhibited to allocate.

Thus a Nobody allocation is either a direct statement of fact or a denial

stratagem. If the use of Nobody is a sign of guardedness or inhibition,

we would expect variations between children in the extent to which they

utilize this category, since there is evidence that some kinds of children

are more inhibited than others.

Proportionately more first-born children are cited as being jealous

and we would hypothesize that the first-born is more likely to reveal

test inhibition and, therefore, to have a higher use of Nobody. Likewise,

we would expect that girls, being more inhibited, would have a higher

use of Nobody than boys.

These hypotheses are in line with the work of Sears, Maccoby and

Levin (1957), MacFarlane, Allen and Honzik (1954), Rosenberg and Sutton-

Smith (1964), suggesting that the first-born are more prone to be anxious,

especially when confronting a test situation. Being more anxious, the

first-born are therefore more likely to allocate the sensitive and dis-

turbing items into the emotionally safe category of Nobody. On a similar

theme, conformity studies also indicate that first-borns and girls are
 -6e •

more conforming in test situations (Carrigan and Julian, 1966; Becker

and Carroll, 1962). When confronting a strange interviewer the first-

born and girls (we hypothesize) are more likely to present to the inter-

viewer an image of a happy family life, in conformity with the prevailing

cultural ideal. Tables 3.12 and 3.13 set out the results for the total

use of the Nobody category, comparing boys and girls and first-born and

later-born children. The data is grouped into high and low categories,

depending on the extent to which the Nobody category is used. The dividing

line between the categories is the sample median. Analysis by chi-square

test with Yates correction for low expected frequencies where necessary.

Table 3.12

Total Use of Nobody X Sex

Use of Nobody:
Nos. of subjects

Family Size Sex Low High chi-sq. P•

All families Male 55 42 11.126 < .001

Female 29 63

2-child Male 24 12 5.302 < .05

Female 11 20

3-child Male 21 12 5.849 < .02

Female 13 27

4-child Male 10 18 .338 not sig.

Female 5 16

As predicted, girls display more inhibition than boys throughout

the whole test, as indicated by a higher use of Nobody. The relation-

ship is statistically supported in two and three-child families, but

not in four-child families. The hypothesis that first-borns would tend

to use Nobody more than later-born children is also substantiated.

 -0-
Table 3.13

Total Use of Nobody for Different Ordinal Positions:

All Families

Use of Nobody (Nos. of subjects)

0-9 10-19 20-29 29 - Total

First born 3 33 28 9 73

Later born 29 40 37 a 114

Total 32 73 65 17 187

chi-sq. = 14.822 on 3 d.f. p = < .01

When the relationship is further analysed by family size, first

and later-borns have a significantly different pattern only in four-child

families (p = < .02). In two and three-child families the groups do

not significantly differ in their use of Nobody.

The findings indicate that the use of the Nobody category can be

considered as a measure of guardedness or inhibition and they are in

line with existing research into sex and ordinal position effects.

The breakdown by family size introduces the proviso that the results

are modified by family size; thus sex differences do not apply in four-

child families, whereas ordinal position effects are maintained only in

the four-child families. These differences are held in mind when inter-

preting the test results, and data relative to the use of Nobody on different

sections of the test is given before the results are outlined.

C PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

There is one other factor in the psychological style of the first-born

that can also be used to establish construct validity. It has frequently

been established that the first-born is more parent-oriented - and generally

more adult-oriented (Koch, 1955 ) than later-born children. Specifically,

Sutton-Smith, Rosenberg and Houston (1968), testing 40 male children

from two-child families aged from five to eleven years with a modified

version of the Bene-Anthony Family Relations Test, found that the first-

born placed more items in parent boxes than their later-born siblings.

As an indicator of the validity of the Children's Test, the hypothesis

that the first-born would show more parent involvement was tested.

Analysis was by t-test for independent samples (Blalock, 1960). Table 3.14

reveals that the first-born have higher involvement with their parents

on all positive measures, on negative outgoing, and on total involvement.

Table 3.14

Involvement with Parents:

Comparison of first and later-born children

Variable First-born Later-born p. < (one-tailed)*

Pos. to parents 7.3 6.5 .05

Neg. to parents 1.1 0.7 .05
Dep'cy to parents 4.9 3.7 .001

Sharing to parents 2.7 2.0 .01

Pos. and neg. 8.4 7.2 .01

Total involvement 16.9 13.6 .001

* direction predicted

These results indicate the greater parent involvement of the first-born.

 To summarize, the findings relating to sex and ordinal position

are in accord with the already accumulated evidence on these subjects.

These two general themes are important contributions to the construct

validity of the test. Several other findings throughout the research

will further consolidate the test (see data on sibling status effects,

friction scores and other aspects of the children's test behaviour as

reported in Chapter 4). The findings on inhibition offer a means of

interpreting favouritism and jealousy scores with greater confidence,

when the reports of the mother and the children are at odds. In some

circumstances, it will allow more credence to be given to the reports

of the mother rather than the children; for example, in the case of the

mother reporting one child as jealous.

In general, taking conflicting considerations into account, the

Children's Test offers a reasonably valid measure of the emotional profiles

of the children in the sample. When combined with reports on the same

issues from other sources - the mother and the other children in the

family - we obtain a picture of family interaction that can be taken

as a valid and reliable one.

 123
SATTLE NC:
EXAEPLE OF :

CHILDREN'S TEST
** ( 20.4.04 )
SCORING SHEET
JOHN 7:10 2,1
2.me•
, Age: Sex:

'aze, Age, Sex of Sibling::: 1 ANN (11:6 F)

MARY (9:1 F)
3

thers in Famil;i: .. 2 3

SIBLINGS OTHERS
N F N S
1 2 3 1 2 3
00 00
ernal 01 1 01
ference 02 tr 02
03 - V 03
04 V 04
05 V 05
1 5
06 J 06
07 07
arnal 08 08
Terence 09 vi 09
10 1 1 10
11 11
____—_17
12 12
13
_wing
14 A . ,
le,
15 15
_five 16 10
.ings 17 17
18 18
19 lq
1
20 i 20
21 V 1 21
22 V 1 22
:oing 23 23
.tive 24 .4
ings 2 25
26 26
27 ,-'7
)--"""---'
L 1 3 1 4 1

is profile is not an actual profile of a sample family.

 - 2-

g SIBLINGS OTHERS
N F M
1 2 1 2
28 28
29 2_,4
ct: on , 30
=1

_5 L 33

'AL 1 1
;r

Tarnive :7 1/
38 ,

40 40
41 1 41
AL , 2 1 4
4,
7: V 42
43 1 np
endability 44 44
6 MI
4 1 2
4 ■ ■ 4

rine. 115111011ra nq
50 ro
51 V 51
'T, 2 1 1 1
2
53 53
54 1 54
55 yi 55
56 f 56
57 1r 57
58 ,/ 58
(-) 59
vL
 Chapter 4

PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS

Social relationships within and without the family are often con-

trasted. As opposed to the extra familial world in which the achieve-

ments or achieved status of the individual is his most important feature,

in the family these considerations are supposedly irrelevant. Within

the family the child is loved and rewarded for what he is rather than

for what he does.

"Basically, the thing that makes each child secure in the family

is the feeling that his parents love him and accept him for him-

self, whether he is boy or girl, smart or dull, handsome or

homely." (Spock, 1969, p.313)

Parents are enjoined by the cultural norms governing their behaviour

to feel and express equal affection and regard for their children and

not show any partiality or evidence of preferring one child to another.

The children are to be loved equally, as the children of their parents;

they do not have to earn that love or to achieve it in any way; it is

ascribed to them, it is theirs simply because they are the children of

their parents. This at least is the prevailing ideology for family

relationships. Often in reality a child is prized by his parents because

of his achieved status outside of the home, e.g. school attainments.

Middle-class mothers are very comparative in regard to the attributes

of their children as compared to other children. Thus children are

evaluated not only in comparison with their siblings but also vis a vis

other children outside of the family.

The behaviour of the parents is also governed by another norm that

is in many ways potentially contradictory. In a society dominated by

individualism, parents likewise are enjoined to treat their children

as individuals and to be sensitive to their varying needs and abilities.

do child is like any other child - not even within the same family -

and the aim of the conscientious parent is to recognize and accentuate

that individuality. Thus, although all the children are to be loved

the same, they are not necessarily to be treated the same way. They

are to be treated differently according to their special and different

needs. The mother and father have to recognize the different attributes

of each of their children and to respond to them in the appropriate manner.

In recognizing differences the mother will also respond to these differences

and the attributes of one child may be preferred to the attributes of

the others. What these attributes are may vary from mother to mother,

although there may be some widespread preferences, for example, mother-

son favouritism as predicted by psychoanalytic theory. The awareness

of and differential reaction to the unique qualities of the child may

lead the parent into an apparent partiality for one of the children over

the others. This may in turn generate sibling rivalry among the other

children and become one of the main sources of contention within the family.

It may not appear problematic to the parents who may reconcile

the two aspects by saying that 'I love them both the same but (sometimes)

I like one more than the others'.

This nice distinction may be conceptually very clear to the mother

but it may be difficult for the child to understand in practice. This

dilemma can be seen in the quote that follows, from the mother of two

children, a boy and a girl:

"She often says to me 'you don't spend as much time with me as

you do with Paul' He tends to be more fun and I fall into

the trap of spending more time with him and I know she kind of

times it. I spend five minutes with him and two with her."

When the mother consistently 'falls into the trap' of spending more time

with one, or of being more indulgent or lenient to that child, then the
accusation of favouritism may arise. In charging the mother with 'favouritism',

the child is claiming that the mother has a preference for one child

over his sibling. This accusation can be very disruptive and the handling

of the discontent that results may involve a great deal of family effort

and emotional energy.

Several factors may offset the tensions resulting from parental

favouritism. There may be a balancing between the generations in the

two-child family; the mother may favour one of the children and the

father the other. These links may exist across a wide number of families,

for example, a general mother-son and father-daughter favouritism would

be expected if psychoanalytic theorists are to be believed. An alternative

hypothesis is that fathers may take more interest in the first-born and

mothers in second-born children; or, alternatively, the ordinal position

effects may be modified by sex, in which case the father may show favouritism

to the first-born male but not to the first-born female. These very

general hypotheses are about the structure of family relations within

the two-child family; within the three-child family the situation is

different again. Here the two-two balance is not feasible and some

other structural variations may appear.

.4ithin the family the child's position creates an environment which

offers differential access to parents and to the rewards they can mediate.

But position is not the only relevant ecological variable, for the effects

of birth order are also influenced by the sex of the child, family size,

the age and sex of his siblings, all of which are important environmental

influences.

The family context gives the child his/her 'filial value' (Krout, 1939).

As the only child becomes the elder child and then the eldest, at each

stage his changed position calls forth a different response from his

parents. The new response depends on the age and sex of the new addition
to the family. Sears (1959) suggested that ordinal position be treated

as an ecological variable, since the relevant point about position was

that it elicited a different set of reactions from cther family members

and therefore presents each child with a different learning environment.

Sufficient evidence has now accumulated to demonstrate that ordinal position

can be further broken down depending on the age and sex of others in the

sibling constellation. Thus, for example, there are marked psychological

differences between the younger sister of a brother ) and the younger

2
sister of a sister (FF2) (Koch, 1956; Altus, 1966).

Since on one level the treatment each child receives in the family

is a function of the total family structure, in this chapter all references

to parent-child relationships are set out as per family size and, where

possible, sibling status effects are considered.

There is increasing evidence of sibling status effects on such

matters as achievement (Altus, 1966; Sampson, 1962), cognitive functioning

(Koch, 1954), masculinity and femininity (Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg, 1964),

sex role identification (Brim, 1958), and various other areas. To inter-

pret these findings, two types of intermediary hypotheses are advanced:

the first centres on horizontal relationships between siblings and emphasizes

direct learning from, and competition with, siblings. The second has

a wider family referent and considers the different types and kinds of

parental attention available to different sibling positions. In this

chapter the latter type of relationship is under review and the issues

of differential parental warmth towards children in different sibling

positions is considered.

Although there are many a priori assumptions about parental attitudes

to children of different sex, age or position, only a few studies have

directly investigated this aspect of family behaviour. Krout (1939)

asked 19-year-old subjects for their retrospective accounts of parental

favouritism and discipline. The subjects came from families of various

sizes and sibling structures. This study is subject to the usual caveats

concerning retrospective reporting. Lasko (1954), in a longitudinal

study of the attitudes of mothers to their first and second-born children

when the children were of the same age, reported differences in maternal

warmth to each ordinal position, with the mother showing more warmth and

indulgence to the second-born. Sears, Maccoby and Levin (1957) found

that the mother's attitude to children subsequent to the first was a function

of the age and sex of the existing children. Mothers were most enthusiastic

about their pregnancy if they already had only daughters rather than

only sons, and least enthusiastic if they already had one child of each

sex. This attitude persisted after the birth and mothers were relatively

cold to second-born sons if they already had a son, but not so to daughters,

if they already had one daughter.

Some researchers have reported differences in socialization dependent

on the sex of the parent and of the child. Typically each parent is

reported to be more indulgent of the child of the opposite sex and more

restrictive and punitive towards the child of the same sex (Winch, 1962;

Rothbart and Maccoby, 1966). These reports parallel the psychoanalytic

concepts of Oedipal attraction between the generations. Others have

reported ordinal position differences in maternal warmth and behaviour.

Lasko (1954) reported the mother as warmer towards the second-born;

Hilton (1967), in an experimental situation, found that the mothers of

first-born children were more interfering, extreme and inconsistent towards

them when compared with mothers and their second-born.

Rothbart (1971), in an analysis of mother-child interaction in an

experimental situation, noted interaction effects between ordinal position

and sex. The mother was more lenient and less critical of the first-

born boy and the second-born girl. The explanation Rothbart offers
has a psychoanalytic connotation: she suggests that the mother feels

a special attraction to the first-born boy and is rivalrous with the

first-born girl. This leaves the second-born boy with fewer expressions

of approval and the second-born girl with more expressions of approval

than the first.

The widespread finding that the first-born is more jealous (Sewall,

1930; Ross, 1931; Koch, 1955) may be a function both of the first-born's

dethronement and the continued favouring of the second-born. Koch's

report (1955), that the first-born with a younger opposite sex sibling

is particularly jealous, again suggests an interaction effect between

ordinal position, sex of child, and sex of sibling.

Differences in behaviour do not necessarily signify a difference

in parental warmth, although they are often taken as indicators of such.

This chapter sets out the results of the mother's interview when questioned

directly about her attitudes both positive and negative to her children.

As corroboration, the results of the children's test are also reported

to gauge the extent of the agreement between mother and children.

MATERNAL PREFERENCE

HYPOTHESES AO RESULTS

Two-Child Families

Maternal preference: (a) Mother's report

Four questions are included in the mother's interview that relate

to the mother's feeling towards her children; they are:

(22) With which child does the mother get on best?

(28) Which child can twist her round his/her little finger?

(39) For whom does the mother have a 'soft spot'?

(41) If another child is jealous, of which child are they jealous?

(Question number in parentheses)

 -7e'

The mother has the possibility of answering 'both' or 'none', or

of citing a particular child. It is assumed that the more a child is

named, the greater the mother's partiality for that child. The responses

of the mother to these four questions are summed. If the mother names

the same child three times in answer to these questions, then that child

gets a score of three; if one, then he gets one. The scores for each

sex or ordinal position can then be compared. This is a rather crude

measure since probably not all the questions are of equal value in tapping

the mother's feelings; it is, however, a better guide than using one

question only.

In so far as the attitude of the mother to the children is governed

by the norm of equal affection, to ask for differences in feeling is to

touch on a 'taboo' subject. Of the total sample of 79 mothers, 16 (20%)

claimed to have no 'soft spot' (Question 39); 25 (35%) stated 'both'

or 'all' and 37 (48%) named a particular child. The possibility that

there is some under-reporting of preferences therefore has to be borne

in mind.

T. The first hypothesis to be tested was that mothers will be more

positive towards male than towards female children. This belief in

cross sex affect is strongly rooted in psychoanalytic theory (the Oedipus

complex) and empirically Rothbart and Kaccoby (1966) have established

that parents are more indulgent to opposite sex children. In Krout's

research (1939), there are four favoured positions in two-child families,

three of which are occupied by male children. dhere mothers have a

child of each sex, the male child is preferred.

To test the hypothesis of cross sex favouritism, only the reports

of the twenty mothers with a child of each sex were considered. There

were no statistically significant differences between the mean allocations

to boys (1.1) and girls (u.9) and the hypothesis was therefore rejected.
II. Following Lasko's findings (1954), that the mother is warmer to

the second-born, the hypothesis that second-born children are more positively

regarded by their mothers was tested. This hypothesis is also given

some weak support from the greater reported jealousy of the first-born

(Sewall, 1930; Ross, 1931; Koch, 1955), assuming that what the first-

born are jealous of is the favoured position of the younger sibling.

The hypothesis that mothers would be more positive towards their

second-born was confirmed. The data was analysed by dilcoxon Test for

Correlated Samples (McCall, 1970), and the difference was significant

at p< .005 level. (The mean score to the first-born was 0.34 and to

the second-born 1.36.)

III. Many researchers in the field of sibling studies have reported

interaction effects between sex of subject, sex of sibling and ordinal

position. Further consideration of ordinal position effects suggests

the hypothesis that the second-born in an opposite sex dyad elicits a

more positive response from the mother than a second-born in a same sex

dyad, i.e. that sex differences enhance ordinal position differences.

Koch (1955) reported that the first-born were particularly jealous if

the younger sibling was of the opposite sex. Sears, accoby and Levin

(1957) found that the mother was particularly warm to the second-born

boy if the first was a girl. Freedman, Freedman and Jhelpton (1960),

in a study of attitudes to fertility, emphasize the cultural importance

of having one child of each sex.

In this context, it is also hypothesized that the second-born male

with an older sister (FM2)will be a particular favourite of his mother.

This is reported by Sears et al (1957), Rosenberg (1965), and Koch (1955),

who also reported that his older sister is very concerned with parental

alignments and issues of favouritism.

 Table 4.1 sets out the mean allocations from the mother to each

child in the two-child families.

Table 4.1

Mother's Positive Perceptions X Sibling Status:

Two-Child Families

Dyad N I-born II-born

MM 12 0.5 1.0

FF 16 0.25 1.25

MF 10 0.22 1.4

FM 10 0.4 1.8

Same sex 28 0.357 1.142

Opposite sex 40 0.315 1.63

Analysis

Although the mean allocations from the mother to each sibling are

set out in Table 4.1, the mean scores are not used in the statistical

calculations. They are presented only for information since the assumptions

of normality and homogeneity of variance cannot be met, and t-test cannot

be used to test the significance of the difference between group means.

A one-tailed sign test is used (Maxwell, 1961; Robson, 1973) to

calculate the probability that the allocations to the second-born exceed

the allocations to the first-born, more often than could be attributed

to chance. Throughout the research, one-tailed statistical tests are

used when the direction of the difference is predicted. In cases where

many means are compared and where the direction is not predicted, two-

tailed tests are utilized.

 The results indicate that the preference for the second-born is

most marked if the elder child is of the opposite sex. A one-tailed

sign test comparing the allocations to the first and second-born in opposite

sex dyads, was significant at p <.001 level. The difference in the

same sex dyads did not reach the necessary level of statistical significance.

Further analysis within each dyad revealed that the difference in favour

of the second-born remained statistically significant in each opposite

sex dyad (c <.03), whereas there were no statistically significant differences

in either same sex dyad.

When we examine the replies to the question about the mother's

'soft spot' (Qn.39),of the nine families in which the mother admits to

a 'soft spot' for one child, seven of the nine are opposite sex dyads

(35g of such families) and two are same sex dyads (14.3%). Ave of the

seven opposite sex dyads specified are FM. This data matches with that

from the mother's report on all positive feelings and the children's

test data.

Maternal preference: (b) Children's report

Within the Children's Test, there are six items that relate to

perceived maternal preference. It is, therefore, possible to match

the direct report of the mother with complementary data from each child.

Hypotheses are put forward which match exactly those investigated on

the mother's interview responses. Before considering to whom each child

allocated the maternal preference items, the extent to which the Nobody

category was utilized is reviewed to see if there are any differences

between the sexes and between different ordinal positions.

Table 4.2 is a frequency table for use of Nobody in the maternal

preference section of the test; the results are set out here for the

total sample. The overall distribution is approximately symmetrical

about the central value of 3; the minimum allocation score is zero

indicating that all preference items were allocated to a family member,

and the maximum is 6, indicating that all items were placed in the Nobody

category. A chi-square test for 'goodness of fit' (with Yates correction),

indicated that the distribution is approximately normal and variations

within the group could therefore be identified.

Table 4.2

Maternal Preference, Frequency Distribution

of Use of 'Nobody'

No. of N Allocation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

No. of subjects 23 22 35 33 29 28 19 189

% of sample 12.17 11.64 18.51 17.46 15.34 14.81 10.05 100

chi sq. = 7.72 on 6 d.f. P (.3 Not significant

For the total sample of children, there are differences between

the sexes in their use of Nobody, and also between the first and last

born. Table 4.3 sets out the scores.

Table 4.3

Maternal Preference and Use of 'Nobody': All Families

Use of Nobody
(nos. of subjects)

Low 0-1 Med. 2-4 High 5-8 Chi Sq. p <

Male 22 55 16 6.227 .05

Female 23 42 31

First born 10 43 21 6.218 .05

Last born 33 54 26
 Most of the differences between boys and girls is in the medium

and high categories. Both have equal low use of the Nobody category.

mien sex and ordinal position are considered together, the differences

between the sexes only applies to the first born (p < .05). First-born

girls have very low and very high Nobody use, whereas first-born boys

'peak' in the medium category. This is a rather odd result on the face

of it, for it discounts the notion that girls are generally more inhibited

than males. Some are, but some others are less inhibited than males,

and the reason probably relates to family size and sibling composition.

A recurrent finding throughout this research is that girls are more affected

by their siblings than boys, but the direction of the effect is related

to family size and more precisely to sibling structure. There are no

differences in the pattern of scores of later-born girls and later-born

boys.

Turning now to the effect of ordinal position on the frequency

of allocations to the Nobody category, whereas the difference between

the sexes was in the low and the high categories, the difference between

first and later-born lies in the medium and low categories. Later-born

children are more than twice as likely to give only one or no allocations

to Nobody, as are first-born. In only ten cases do the first-born allocate

all (or all but one) of the maternal preference items. These items,

with their implied criticism of the parents, are often avoided by the

rather inhibited and parent-oriented first-born. The younger later-

born children, who are less parent directed, do not share their siblings

inhibitions and express their feelings more freely.

Within the two-child families, chi-square 'goodness of fit' test

indicates that the distribution of Nobody scores in two-child families

is also approximately normal. The distribution is set out in Table 4.4.

 Table 4.4

Maternal Preference and Use of 'Nobody': Two-Child Families

No. of N. Allocations 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

No. of Subjects 6 7 14 15 7 7 11 67

X2 10.41 with 6 d.f. p < .2 not significant

The mean scores on use of Nobody can then be compared for each sex,

ordinal position, and sibling status.

Are there any differences between boys and girls and the first

and second-born in their tendency to utilize the Nobody category? The

mean scores are set out in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5

Maternal Preference and Use of Nobody: Two-Child Families

(N = 34)

Dyad N I-born N II-born

MM 6 2.8 6 2.2

MF 10 3.4 10 3.6

FF 8 4.0 7 4.0

FM 10 2.5 10 2.4

All 34 3.2 33 3.1

Sex N Same sex N Opp. sex All

dyad dyad

Male 12 2.5 20 2.9 2.7

Female 15 4.0 20 3.05 3.5

 This table indicates that scores are most similar within each dyad,

rather than across the dyads and between those in the same ordinal position

or sex. Only the all male dyad shows a slight difference in mean use

of Nobody; a difference that is not statistically significant. There

is no difference between the first and second-born in the two-child families

in their use of Nobody, but girls use Nobody more than boys (t = 1.9;
p < .05, one-tailed). Girls with sisters have a very high use of Nobody

in the maternal preference section, giving an average of four out of

six items into the Nobody category, but this is not significantly different

from scores of girls with brothers.

Use of the Self Category in the Maternal Preference Section

As well as being allocated to Nobody or to a family member, the

items of the Children's Test can also be given by the subject to his or

her self. Do children often see themselves as the preferred child?

On the whole, there is a very low use of the Self in the maternal and

paternal preference section.

Of the total sample, 41% of the children never use self at all

in the maternal preference section. The score in the paternal preference

section is 49%; 30% and 26% gave one item to self on maternal and paternal

preference respectively, making a total of 71% and 75% who gave no items

or one item only to self on these sections. For this reason, no tests

were undertaken which relied solely on the use of the Self Category.

In some cases self choices are used in conjunction with other data.

The hypotheses concerning the children's allocations of maternal

preference items are given below, with the results of the statistical

analysis.

I. Girls with brothers will tend to see them as preferred by their

mothers. This is the 'child's eye view' of the cross sex preference
and may also reflect a higher premium placed on having a male child in

a patriarchal society.

Comparison of the mean preference scores to self and from sibling,

of the twenty boys and twenty girls in cross sex dyads, does not support

the hypothesis that boys are more favoured by their mothers. Girls

have a slightly higher mean score (3.1) than boys (2.65). A t-test

of the difference between means was not significant.

However, when girls with brothers are compared with girls with

sisters, an interesting cross sex effect is apparent. Table 4.6 sets

out the differences between children in the same and opposite sex dyads,

in the allocations that they make to their siblings.

Table 4.6

Mean Maternal Preference Score to Sibling

in Same and Cross Sex Dyads

Sex of S. Sex of Sib. N. x to sib. p (one-tailed)

Male Male 12 1.33

not sig.
Male Female 20 1.65

Female Female 14 0.733

.05*
Female Male 20 1.75

*t = 1.71 with 33 d.f. p (one-tailed) < .05

The table suggests that whereas there are no differences in the allocations

to siblings of boys with brothers and those with sisters; girls with

brothers are more likely to think their siblings favoured than are girls

with sisters.
II. First-born children will see their younger siblings as preferred,

since they are reported more jealous and insistent on their rights (Koch,

1955).
The hypothesis that the first-born are more likely to see their

younger siblings as favoured is not statistically upheld. There is

a slight but non-significant tendency for the first-born to give more

allocations than they received (1.63 as opposed to 1.03).

III. The first-born in a cross sex dyad will see the second-born as

more preferred than the first-born in a same sex dyad, and especially

that the older sister of a younger brother (F1M) will see her younger

brother as highly favoured.

Within the same and opposite sex dyads the mean scores to siblings

are set out in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7
Mean Maternal Preference Score to Sibling:

Two-Child Families Sex Wads

Dyad I-born II-born

MM 1.83 0.83

MF 1.7 1.2

FF 0.87 0.5

FM 2.1 1.6

All 1.6 1.03

Same sex 1.35 0.66

Opp. sex 1.9 1.4

Although the first-born in opposite sex dyads allocate more items to

their siblings (1.9) than do first-born in same sex dyads (1.35), the

difference is not statistically significantly different. The second-

born in opposite sex dyads also allocate more favouritism items than do

second-born in same sex dyads (1.4 to 0.66, difference not significant).

DISCUSSION

Contrary to the tenets of psychoanalytic theory, there is no evidence

from this research of a special relationship between mother and son.

There is, in fact, slight evidence from the children that the girl is

more favoured, although this is not statistically supported. Research

from other sources suggests that in socialization behaviour at least,

there is a cross sex effect with mothers being more indulgent of their

sons (Rothbart and Maccoby, 1966; Winch, 1962). Matching this (American)

evidence with the results of the present research and therefore assuming

no general cultural differences, it would appear that differences in

behaviour are not necessary indicators of differences in feeling. The

mother does not act less punitively towards her son because she feels

warmer towards him. This finding is similar to Lasko's report (1954)

that in socialization behaviour and principles, the mother was consistent

over time and to each (same sex) child, but there were differences in

warmth to each child depending on ordinal position.

If the differences in behaviour do not indicate a difference in

feeling, what do they signify? There is a complementarity of behaviour

between parents depending on the sex of the child. If the mother is

harsh, the father is more indulgent and vice versa. It is possible

that the mother, perceiving the relationship between father and son

(between two males) as being based on power and control, 'balances' this

by a greater indulgence of the son. Conversely, expecting the father

to be more indulgent of a daughter, as would be expected from cultural

stereotypes, she exerts greater control of the daughter. This model

of family relationships resembles the model of family interaction put

forward by Parsons and Bales (1947) who suggest that balance is achieved

within the family by role specialization. The mother's role is pre-

dominantly socio-emotional, being mainly concerned with feelings and

emotional expression and functionally directed to the maintenance of

family harmony. The father's role is predominantly instrumental, focussing

on power and control in the family and on external matters. The com-

plementarity of roles is necessary to family equilibrium. It is possible,

however, that the roles played by each parent are not ipso facto role

characteristics, but are to a large extent a function of situational demands,

of which the sex of the child and the general cultural constraints governing

parent-child relationships and intersex relationships generally, are

highly relevant.

Although there is no evidence of cross sex favouritism, a cross

sex effect is apparent in the scores of girls with brothers compared

with girls who have a sister. The family of two girls is reported to

be very harmonious (Koch, 1956; Bowerman and Dobash, 1974), and there

is a very low perception of maternal favouritism in this family type.

The younger sister (FF2) is reported by Koch to be one of the most feminine

of all females in two-child families at six; her sister, too, (F1F) scores

high on feminine role characteristics. This would suggest that both

of them may be denying preferential feelings. Also, according to Koch,

these girls have a fairly good relationship with each other; although

it is also reported that the younger sister enjoys a special relation-

ship with the mother while the older girl is closer to her father (Koch,

1956). Rothbart (1966) also reports that the mother is more indulgent

and less critical of 2F compared with F1F. If this situation prevails

2
at eleven, i.e. that FF is favoured by the mother, there is no evidence
2
for it in the Children's Test. There is a slight, but not statistically

significant, difference between the allocations the mother makes to the

girls, in this dyad; she gives slightly more positive choices to FF

2
(differences not significant), nor does the mother's report of the father's

'soft spot' suggest that he has a weakness for the first-born (F1F).

Since, in the two-child family, sibling sex characteristics are assimilated

(Brim, 1958), the family of two girls is highly feminine. This enhanced

femininity is reflected in harmonic family/sibling relationships (role-

consonant behaviour for girls) and in high denial on 'taboo' topics in

the Children's Test. Both of these traits are reflected in allocations

to sibling on the Maternal Reference section.

By contrast, the girl with a brother gives him a high maternal

preference score, especially if he is a younger brother. The score of

the girl with a brother is similar to that of the boys in the sample.

The effect of having a brother is to 'masculinize' the profile of the

girl; for boys there is no parallel effect. This finding, of the greater

effect of brothers on sisters than vice versa, is widely reported in

sibling studies (Koch, 1955; Brim, 1958; Schoonover, 1959; Sutton-

Smith and Rosenberg, 1964) and, in general, reflects the greater tendency

of females to emulate male models than conversely (Bandura, Ross and

Ross, 1963).

The most assertive and aggressive of the girls as measured by the

Children's Test scores, and the girl who least uses the Nobody category

to conceal her feelings, is the girl with a younger brother (Fp).

This girl is found on Koch's data to be very concerned with her relation-

ship with her mother, jealous and competitive. In the Children's

Apperception Test, she shows a concern with mother and child relation-

ships of both a positive and a negative character, and with accounts of

favouritism (Koch, 1960). In her interview she expresses the view that
 -5/
she would like to change places with her younger brother, whom she sees

as getting more attention and cuddling than she does. She quarrels

with him a great deal. On the maternal preference section she allocates

more items to him than any other child in the two-child families. This

allocation matches precisely that from the mother, who gives FM2 the

highest positive score, of all children in two-child families.

The finding that the mother is warmer to the second-born is in

direct agreement with the report of Lasko (1954) and Hilton (1967).

Studies of the mother's descriptions of first and second-born children

(Dean, quoted Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg, 1970), reveals a picture of

an anxious and dependent first-born and a more relaxed and sociable second

child. The subsequent displacement of the first-born may enhance difficulties

with him/her and the comparatively more relaxed relationship with the

second-born may be a more rewarding experience for the mother and a

situation of mutual reinforcement between mother and second-born is

established. The positive aspects of the relationship with the second-

born may be further accentuated if the first-born reacts to his dethronement

by negative attention-seeking behaviour.

Most of the difference in the mother's attitude to first and second-

born children is due to the high regard the mother reports for the second

child in an opposite sex dyad. This interaction between ordinal position

and sibling status is also found in the work of Koch (1955), who reported

that although the first-born were more jealous and insistent on their

rights, the first-born in a cross sex sibling group were most markedly so.

Sears et al (1957) reported the mother's attitude to the pre-school boy

who was second born was warmer if the first was a girl; no similar effects

were reported for girls. Koch (1956) also reports this boy as mother-

indulged and 'babied'. There is no equivalent report for MF2, the younger

sister of a brother.
 The higher score of the second-born in the opposite sex dyad (FM2

and MF ) lends some support to the general thesis that the more the mother
2
can differentiate between her children, the more able she is to have and

to admit her preference. It appears that when there is a class difference

between the children, the mother finds it easier to admit (to the inter-

viewer) and to express (to the child) a preference. If the children

are of the same sex, then an admission that she prefers one is seen as

an indication of personal favouritism, whereas if there is a sex difference

then it is a preference for a class, and therefore more acceptable.

In a similar vein, Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg (1970) argue that same

sex siblings are more threatening to each other because they are together

more, often have similar interests, and are compared more; by contrast,

opposite sex siblings are less threatening and more stimulating since

conflict over a class difference is less upsetting than over more unique

personal characteristics. Likewise, the fact that the children are

demonstrably different may lead the mother to treat them more differently

than the children feel is justified and this unjustified behaviour may

be seen as favouritism. The mother can justify differences by reference

to differences in sex, and armed with this excuse may indulge the preferred

(younger) child. When children are of the same sex, the mother feels

more pressure to treat them in a similar or even identical fashion.

Koch (1955) suggested that displacement by a younger opposite sex

sibling, with its implied rejection of the sex identity of the elder

child, makes the first-born in an opposite sex dyad doubly jealous.

The effect is apparent not only in the reports of jealousy, but at age

six years cross sex siblings are both more stressful and more stimulating

than same sex siblings, and the effects are especially marked for the

first-born. The dispossession of the first-born is enhanced by the

fact that his rival is of the opposite sex. If he reacts negatively

and jealously, then the second will appear easier by contrast and the

sex difference will make the first and second seem even more different.

Since there is a premium on having one child of each sex (Freedman,

Freedman and Whelpton, 1960), then the satisfaction experienced at the

birth of a second opposite sex child may lead to a continued prizing

of this child. In a patriarchal society this effect will be accentuated

if the second-born is a male. Koch reports this boy to be the least

jealous, the most mother-oriented of the boys, the most "sissyish" and

indulged. His sister is highly jealous and concerned with issues of

favouritism (1955) and in this research gives him the highest of all

maternal preference scores.

Within the two-child family, there is a failure of the children's

reports to confirm unequivocally the reports of the mother. The mother's

preferences are quite clearly stated but none of the hypotheses relating

to the Children's Test reach the necessary level of statistical significance.

There are two possible reasons why this should be so; first, the children

are 'denying' the facts by placing a high number of maternal preference

items in Nobody. The first-born less favoured children would be expected

to do this more than the second-born. However, examination of the use

of the Nobody category shows that this is not so since the mean allocations

to Nobody is the same for each member of each dyad (see Table 4.5).

An alternative hypothesis is that although the mother has a preference

She quite effectively conceals the more obvious manifestations from the

children; she probably states that there are no favourites and what

is being reported by the children, therefore, is successful socialization

techniques! This is probably more likely in the two-child family in

which the situation is more of a zero-sum game (where 'I win - you lose'

or 'You win - I lose' is the outcome of the game). where this situation

applies, the mother is probably very careful to avoid showing any favouritism.
 In conclusion, therefore, what is reported in the two-child family

demonstrates the interaction effects of sex and ordinal position, in

determining which child is closer to the mother. In Chapter 5 the same

effect will be apparent in the reporting and expression of jealousy in

the two-child family.

Three-Child Families

Maternal preference: (a) Mother's report

Within the two-child family, the mother expresses a greater warmth

towards the second-born, especially in the cross sex dyad. Is the fond-

ness for the youngest also found in the three-child family? There is

evidence that suggests that the mother's closeness to the youngest might

be even greater in the three-child family. The Newsons (1970) report

that in larger families there is a conscious prolongation of the child-

hood of the youngest, who is more 'babied' and indulged as a result.

Sears, Maccoby and Levin (1957) report that mothers said they were more

indulgent of later-born children in larger size families (but not in

the two-child family). There is very little direct research into the

three-child family, although there are certain structural pressures in

the triad that make it of particular interest (Simmel, 1950; Caplow, 1968).

Within the three-child family, there is the likelihood of a coalition

forming among the children, on either a longstanding or a temporary basis.

This situation of two against one makes the three-child family possibly

more unstable than any other size. As far as the general issue of parental

favouritism is concerned, it suggests that the mother may find it easier

to express (to the child and in the interview situation to the interviewer)

a special regard for one of the children, since it is possible to make

a distinction between 'youngest' and 'older', where older entails two

and youngest is then a 'justifiable' choice.

I. The hypothesis that the mother will allocate more positive items

to the youngest in the three-child family was tested. Taking for each

mother the highest number of choices given to one of her three children,

that child was then designated 'mother's favourite'. If the mother

gives an equal number of allocation to two children, then each child

is allocated one-half. If all three children have the same score, then

that family is considered to have no favourites and is dropped from the

analysis.

Table 4.8

Mother's Positive Choice X Ordinal Position

I II III Total

Mother's choice: 4 8 16 28*

*1 family with three equal allocations

Analysis: chi-square (with Yates correction for 1 d.f. case) = 8.05;

p < .01

The results reveal that the mother is closer to the third-born in three-

child families.

II. Using the same method, the choices to male and female children

were compared, in the twenty-two families that had at least one child

of each sex. Twelve choices were made to male children and ten to female

which is approximately thirty per cent of each category, and suggests

that there is no sex preference on the mother's part.

Looking at the question relating to 'soft spot', one first-born

child was chosen (3% of F.B.); five second-born children (17%) and nine

third-born (31%). In the three-child families, twice as many male children

are specified as female children, i.e. ten males and five females.
This is 25% of males in three-child families and 15% of females. The

slight advantage of males over females in the favoured group is not due

to the higher number of youngest males for there are equal numbers in

this group (N = 9). This may reflect the favoured position of a male

with two sisters (Rosenberg, 1965; Sears, Maccoby and Levin, 1957).

Maternal preference: (b) Children's report

Within the three-child family, there are no differences between

the sexes, nor between different ordinal positions, in their use of Nobody.

In the three-child families, the total of self allocations and

allocations received from siblings are added together to form a single

score for each child in the family. The median for the families was

then calculated and the sample divided according to the total preference

allocations received. Chi-square tests (with Yates corrections) were

then utilized on the resulting tables.

I. The youngest in a three-child family is seen as preferred by the

mother.

There were twenty-seven three-child families; of these, there

were fifteen in which all three children were tested and twelve in which

two out of three children were tested. The results for three-profile

and two-profile families are presented separately in the following table

and then the two are added together.

 Table 4.9
Maternal Preference Scores X Ordinal Position:

Three-Child Families

A. Families in which all three children have been tested (N = 15)

(median = 2.0)

No. of allocations I II III Total

Low (0 - 2.0) 11 8 4 23

High (2.0 - 6.0) 4 7 11 22

15 15 15 45

chi-square = 6.85 with 2 d.f; p < .02

B. Families in which two out of three children have been tested (N = 12)

No. of allocations I II III Total

Low (0 - 2.0) 8 7 2 17
High (2.5 - 6.0) 4 5 10 19
12 12 12 36

chi-square = 6.11 with 2 d.f; p < .05

C. Totals for all families (N = 27)

No. of allocations I II III Total

Low (0 - 2.0) 19 15 6 40

High (2.0 - 6.0) 8 12 21 41

27 27 27 81

chi-square = 13.04 with 2 d.f; p < .01

 9f

The same type of analysis was performed to test the hypothesis that children

in mixed sex families would see male children as preferred to female

There was no difference in the mean allocation made to male and female

children.

DISCUSSION

As in the two-child family, there is evidence of an ordinal position

effect on the mother's preference but no evidence of a sex effect. The

finding that the mother is more positive to the youngest is reported

by both the mother and the children in the family; in contrast with

the two-child family in which the report of the mother was not confirmed

by the children.

Within the two-child families, there was a positive report of maternal

preference only in those families in which there was clear role distinction;

i.e. in the families with one child of each sex. Where the children

were very similar in status -same sex and generally close in age - the

mother and children denied any preferential feelings. In the three-child

family, an age based role structure emerges with an eldest, middle and

youngest child. To the eldest goes status and responsibility; the

middle child is in a rather difficult position unless he/she is of a

different sex, in which case sex serves as a differentiating factor;

the youngest is frequently seen as the 'baby' of the family and, as the

Newsons (1970) report, the parents may consciously prolong his/her child-

hood. A quote from one of the mothers in the sample illustrates the

importance of distinct familial roles.

"I think it's important for a child to have a special position

in the family and whatever that position happens to be, I think

it's up to the parents to (recognize it? accentuate it? P.C.)

um.... John is likely to say: 'Well, I'm the eldest'; well,

then Michael can say, 'Well, I'm Mummy's baby', or 'I'm special
 because I'm the baby'. And Liz can turn around and say, 'Well,

I'm special because I'm the only girl'."

Sears et al (1957) reported mothers as indulgent of the youngest

in the family, only in families of more than two children. Mothers

with only two children are possibly reluctant to express a preference

for one, with its implied rejection of the other. As for the reporting

of maternal favouritism, it is probably easier for both mother and children

to name one child as preferred with the implication that two are less

preferred; in the two-child family when one child is chosen the implication

that the other one is not preferred is less palatable. Further, for

the children, they may feel that the youngest child has 'diplomatic immunity'

(Bene-Anthony, 1957) and as the baby of the family may legitimately be

spoiled.

The general point seems to have been established in both two and

three-child families, that where there are class or status differences

between the children, the mother and children are more likely to claim

that maternal preference exists. The attribution of value to a class

is presumably less threatening than claiming greater personal value for

one child.

It is possible that the finding in favour of the youngest may be

a test artifact reflecting the nurturant aspect of the mother's role,

as indicated in maternal preference items. If this is the case, then

the finding for the youngest child should be seen in the four-child family.

The evidence from the four-child family does not reveal a maternal preference

for the youngest. The finding in the three-child family, therefore,

is a function of the structure of parent-child relationships in the three-

child family and not due to test factors.

If the relationship between mother and child becomes easier with

each new addition to the family, then the relationship the mother has with

the third child must be very relaxed and mutually reinforcing.

Four-Child Families

Maternal preference: (a) Mother's report

There is no evidence in four-child families of the same preference

for the youngest seen in the three-child family. Using the same criteria

of favouritism as in the three-child analysis, the results are as set

out in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10

Mother's Positive Choice X Ordinal Position

17)

I II III IV None Total

Mother's choice: 4 5 3 3 2 17

When the scores for boys and girls in the fourteen families with

children of each sex are compared, there are no differences in the choices

mothers give to each.

There were six families in which there are three children of one

sex and only one child of the opposite sex. The concept of 'filial

value' (Krout, 1939), suggests that the child's filial value is increased

if he is the sole member of one sex in a family composed of opposite sex

children. "The filial value of any individual to his parents is in inverse

proportion to the number of the same sex in the family"(Krout, 1939, p.27).

Such a child has a status monopoly by virtue of his/her exclusive position

and has strong claims for special treatment. Consideration of the data

reveals that in two families the mother has a 'soft spot' (Question 39)

for the singleton, but in the other four families there was no evidence

of a particular partiality for this single sex child.

 Maternal preference: (b) Children's report

On the use of Nobody, there were no differences between girls and

boys in the four-child families, but the first-born uses Nobody more

than later-born in the four-child family (p < .02).

Summing the allocations that children make to themselves and those

they receive from their siblings, for each family a 'favourite' (scoring

more than the rest) emerges. The distribution of favourites according

to ordinal position is set out in Table 4.11 and reveals no differences

between various ordinal positions.

Table 4.11

Maternal Preference Score X Ordinal Position

I II III IV None Total

Highest scoring sib. 2 4 1 4 4 15*

*Two families in which only two of the four children have

completed the Children's Test are not included.

There are eleven families with children of each sex; in three

of these families boys had the highest maternal preference score and

in eight families a girl had the highest scores. This represents roughly

la% of all boys in these families, and 21% of girls.

DISCUSSION

Unlike the two-child and three-child family, in which a role structure

based on sex and position is apparent as a major determinant of the mother's

stated preference, there is no intrinsic role-based preference apparent in the

four-child family. It is possible that the move from three to four

children signifies a radical change in the basic organization of the family,

with a move from status-based differentiation to the more personality-

based differentiation Bossard and Boll (1955) describe as typical of the

larger family.
 Since the reaction to personality-based differences is more variable

than the reaction to roles, there is less consistency across the four-

child families than across the smaller families. That sex is not a

relevant differentiating variable in the four-child family has already

been established in the total use of Nobody. The differences for the

total sample between boys and girls were significant at p < .001. This

difference is significant in two and three-child families, but disappears

in the four-child family. Conversely, ordinal position differences in

involvement with parents are not sustained in two and three-child families,

but remain significant in the four-child family. Sex differences seem

to lose their importance and the only remaining structural difference is

that between the first-born and later-born children.

 - /03-

PATERNAL PREFERENCE

The fact that the family is a small intensively interacting group

with strong boundaries makes the role of every family member important

to the understanding of the total group's functioning. The preferences

of the father are therefore also relevant to sibling relationships and

their repercussions. If the father has a preference that 'balances'

that of the mother's - as in a cross-sex match in two-child families -

then the rivalry may be ameliorated. If the preferences coincide, then

the sibling tensions may be accentuated.

There is a direct report from the children on perceived paternal

preference and also a report from the mother on the 'soft spot' of her

husband. The mother's report is given in Table 4.12 and 4.13.

Table 4.12

Father's 'soft spot' (report from mother) for each sex

Family size N. Male Female Both/All None No inf.

2-child 33 6 8 4 15 0

3-child 29 5 7 1 13 3
4-child 17 5 5 1 3 3

The table reveals no evidence of a cross-sex preference although other

researchers have indicated that the father is more indulgent towards the

girl (Rothbart&Maccoby, 1966; Winch, 1962; Bronfenbrenner, 1961).

The mother's report suggests that like herself the father has a

soft spot for the youngest in each family size. The tendency is only

weak in the two-child family but fairly clear in three and four-child

families.
 Table 4.13

Father's 'soft spot' (report from mother) for each ordinal position

Family size N. I II III IV All None No inf.

2-child 33 6 8 - - 4 15 0

3-child 29 0 4 9 - 1 13 2

4-child 17 1 0 3 6 2 5 0

Table 4.13 reveals that preference for the father is similar to

the mothers in the two and three-child family, but tends more towards

the youngest in the four-child family. In the following section, these

'second-hand' reports are compared with the first-hand reports from the

children.

Paternal preference: Children's report

The use of Nobody varies between different family sizes with differences

between the sexes in the three and four-child families, but not in the

two-child families. There are no differences in the responses between

the first and later-born, for any family size.

The overall use of Nobody in the paternal preference section is very

similar to that in the maternal preference section. The frequency table

4.14 sets out the distribution, which reveals that fathers and mothers

are as likely as each other to have preferences, though which child is

preferred may vary.

Table 4.14

No. of times Nobody used 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Maternal preference 23 22 35 33 29 28 19 • 189

Paternal preference 21 26 31 36 33 21 21 189

Despite the overall similarity in the use of Nobody, the differences apparent

in the maternal preference section between the sexes and between first and

later-born children do not appear when father's preferences are considered.

Table 4.15 sets out the differences between the sexes, for the total sample.

Table 4.15

Paternal Preference, Use of Nobody X Sex: All families

Use of Nobody
Family Size Sex Low Medium High Chi-sq. p <

All families Male 26 53 14

5.512 N/S
Female 21 47 28

2-child Male 9 19 4
4.404 N/S
Female 8 15 12

3-child Male 15 17 8
9.651 .01
Female 2 21 9

4-child Male 2 17 2
9.251 .01
Female 11 11 7

There are differences between boys and girls in three and four-child

families. In the three-child family the difference is in the predicted

direction, with girls showing higher use of Nobody. In the four-child

family, however, the difference is not completely in the predicted direction,

since eleven girls have low use of Nobody. The difference reinforces

the comments already made about the lesser importance of sex as an influence

on behaviour, in the four-child family.

 - /0 6 -

HYPOTHESES AND RESULTS

I. For the two-child families the overall distribution of preference

choices is similar to that in the maternal preference section. There is

no evidence, however, that the father has a preference for the second-born,

in either the same sex or in opposite-sex dyads. Mean scores of each

dyad member to his/her sibling are set out in Table 4.16.

Table 4.16

Mean Paternal Preference Score to Sibling

2-child Families

Dyad N. I II

MM 12 1.3 1.3

ids' 20 1.7 0.9

14 1.1 1.2

FM 20 1.2 1.7

same sex 26 1.2 1.1

opp. sex 40 1.4 1.3

Scores in the same-sex dyads are the same; in the opposite-sex

dyads, although the difference is not statistically significant, girls

receive more allocations than their brothers (1.7 compared to 1.05).

Table 4.17

Mean Paternal Preference Score to Sibling

Male Female
same sex 1.3 1.1

opp. sex 1.05 1.7

 - 1107-

This slightly higher preference score for girls in opposite-sex families

assumes more possible significance when compared with the higher choice

given to girls in the three-child family.

II. In the three-child families, whilst there is no evidence of an ordinal

position preference (as the mother suggests), there is a sex preference.

Fathers are seen by their children as preferring girls rather than boys.

Analysis: The sample median was 2.5 allocations and the scores of boys

and girls in cross sex families were classified high and low accordingly.

The data was then fitted into a two by two table and analyzed by chi-

square test, with Yates correction for the one degree freedom case.

Table 4.18

Paternal Preference X Sex: 3-child Families

(N = 20)

Pref. score Male female Total

Low 20 10 30

High 13 17 30

33 27 60

chi-sq. = 4.26 with 1 d.f. p < .05

A t-test on the same data (after a chi-square test for 'goodness of fit',

chi-square = 8.00 with 5 d.f.), showed that the mean paternal preference

for boys (1.95) was different from that for girls (2.71). The probability

level is less than .02 on a one-tailed test, t = 2.00, with 58 d.f.

Both the chi-square and the t-test were undertaken on twenty families

with at least one child of each sex.

 -
III. In the four-child families there is no evidence of a preference

for any ordinal position. Using the criteria of a 'net' favourite on

self and sibling allocations, as in the maternal preference section,

thirteen children were perceived by themselves and other family members

as preferred by their father. The ordinal position distribution of

these thirteen is:

I II III IV

3 1 2 5
indicating a slight but not significant leaning towards the youngest.

Eleven mixed sex families had a 'net' favourite, six of whom were male

and five female. There is, therefore, no evidence for cross-sex affect

between father and daughters in the four-child family.

DISCUSSION

The preference of the father in the two-child family is far less

marked than that of the mother. (The mother reports that 5 of their

husbands have no 'soft spot' for any particular child.) In the remaining

families in which he is seen as having a special relationship with one

child, there are no sex or ordinal position differences in these preferences.

Nor do the children perceive their fathers as having particular favourites,

although girls in cross-sex dyads get higher scores than their brothers

(difference not significant). Two items of interest emerge although

they are not statistically supported: one, that both girls in the two-

girl family give each other more paternal preference allocations than

maternal preference allocations, possibly suggesting that there is less

inhibition in reporting paternal preference. The girl with a younger

brother, who gives him the highest maternal preference score, gives her

brother a much lower paternal preference score.

The three-child family is the only one in which there is a clear

statement of paternal preference, and this is a cross-sex preference

which is reported by the children but not by the mother. The mother

reports a slight ordinal position effect, which parallels her own preference

for the youngest.

There are twenty families with children of both sexes; in thirteen

there is an only girl and in seven an only boy. Closer consideration

indicates that these 'single' children score higher on paternal preference

than their siblings, and than same-sex children in other three-

child families. The same trend is not evident in the maternal preference

section (see Table 4.19).

Table 4.19

Maternal and Paternal Preference to 'Singletons': 3-child Families

Pat. Pref. Mat. Pref.

subject's
Family type N. N* subject's
pref. score • pref. score

'only' girl (with) 13 2.9 14 2.2

Two brothers 26 1.8 28 2.5

'only' boy (with) 7 2.4 6 2.8

two sisters 14 2.0 12 3.0

* number of families considered in maternal preference section

differs, because where all children have same score family
omitted from analysis.

Looking at the paternal preference allocations,

the onAy girl (F1MM, 1 '2M, MMF3) scores significantly higher than

her two brothers on preference allocations (t = 2.14, with 37 d.f.;

p < .025 (one-tailed)). She also scores significantly more than girls

with one brother and one sister (IMF, DUFF, FFM) (t = 1.94, with 21 d.f.;

p < .05 (one-tailed)). The only boy, however, does not score significantly

more than his two sisters, nor more than the boy with a brother and a sister.
 -

For the mother, the 'only' children in three-child families score less

than their siblings, although the differences are very slight, and without

statistical significance.

For the mother, the most relevant role characteristic in the three-

child family is ordinal position (age?), for fathers it is sex. Girls

are seen by their siblings to be their father's favourite, especially

if they have two brothers. Two possible explanations are available:

the first relates primarily to the girl's sex and perceives this link

as an Oedipal one. This, however, raises the question of why the same

pattern does not appear in families of other sizes? Although there is

no definite evidence there is a hint that a similar relationship may exist

in the two-child cross-sex families, where F1M and MF2 both receive high

scores from their brothers. No such evidence is apparent in the four-

child families. Bronfenbrenner (1961) notes that in an American context

"in the sphere of affection and protectiveness (..) the tendency to be

especially warm and solicitous with girls is more pronounced among fathers

than among mothers" (p.123). Similarly, the father will experience less

'disciplinary friction' with a girl, since the disciplining of girls

is generally undertaken by mother, fathers having more to do with the

disciplining of boys (Straus, 1967; Bronfenbrenner, 1961).

The second explanation is that the father sides with the 'odd man

out', and in so doing balances the coalition between the same-sex children.

Caplow (1968) reported that a three-child family often develops a sibling

pattern of two and one; the two joining forces generally do so on the

basis of similarity, the most usual basis being sex. So, the two factors

of (a) father's closer relationship to a girl, and (b) siding with the

odd one out in the sibling group, may work in conjunction, so that only

girls score higher than their brothers, but a single boy does not get

a much higher score than his sisters.

 For the children, it is probably easier to report that the father

favours the single-sex child, rather than a child of the same sex as

oneself, since the latter may carry with it implications of personal

unworthiness, not present when another class of child is chosen, i.e.

opposite sex.

The filial value of a child according to Krout (1939) is enhanced

by uniqueness in the family group, but this affect only seems to be applicable

to fathers. There is no evidence that the mother has a special regard

for the single sex child in a three-child family. It is possible that

since the mother is with the children more often and has more control

over everyday matters, she strives harder to be impartial and equitable

in her behaviour. The degree of her success is measured in the very

few sharp favouritism patterns evident from the children's reports.

The four-child family reveals no ordinal or sex preferences.

The same general remarks that applied to the maternal preference section

are also relevant to this section. As family size increases beyond

three the basic role structure and organization of the family is modified.
 -

MOTHER'S NEGATIVE PERCEYTIONS

A mother's relationships with her children are not consistently

harmonious, nor does she always get along equally well with each of them.

The second part of this chapter is concerned with the more negative and

difficult relationships the mother may have with any one of her children.

The data on the mother's negative perceptions came from her answers

to four questions. The questions were: which child

(22b) do you have difficulty with?

(29) is demanding?

(31) is temperamental?

(41) is jealous of his/her sibling?

The question numbers are in parentheses.

The mother has the possibility of replying 'all' or 'none', or

of naming one or more children.

The first review of the data indicated that these questions were

far more complex than they had first appeared on the surface. Although

mothers had no difficulty giving straightforward answers to the more

positive questions, the answers to the four questions relating to negative

affects were so bounded with qualifications and provisos that in many

cases the meaning of the question was altered and then a different question

was answered. This can be seen in (22b) which relates to difficulty

the mother may experience with a particular child. Since the answers

may then not be directly comparable, these questions are considered separately,

unlike the positive perception questions.

1. The question, "With which child do you have difficulty?" was inter-

preted in two different ways: one referred to the difficulties the mother

experienced in her interaction with the child, i.e. their clashes of

temperament or personality; this was the intended meaning. The other

refers to her concern about the child, for example, difficulty in school

or in making friends.
 The two different possible interpretations were separately coded.

Most mothers interpreted the question as it had been intended, i.e. a

difficult relationship. Nine mothers took the question to mean 'concern

about' the child. Table 4.20 sets out the answers: the most difficult

child is the first by a very slight edge.

Table 4.20

Question 22b "Difficult" X Ordinal Position

Ordinal Position
Mother's reply I II III IV A11 None No inf.
•■•

No 28 22 4 1 5 12 6

Percentage of
each ord. pos. 37.8 30.0 12.5 14.2

When this table is broken down by family size, there are more first-

born in two-child families cited as difficult, and slightly more middle

children in three-child families.

2. The second question of the four negative perception questions is

"Which child is the most demanding?" The assumption behind the question

is that the child who 'demands' is dissatisfied with the existing distribution

of resources. He feels himself deserving of more than he is getting

and is therefore more demanding. Table 4.21 sets out the replies for

all mothers in the sample; percentages refer to the percentage specified

from each ordinal position. Thus 24 per cent of first-born are named

as "demanding".
 Table 4.21

Question 29 "Demanding" X Ordinal Position

Ordinal position
Mother's reply I II III IV None All No inf.

No 18 23 16 5 6 10 1

Percentage of
each ord. pos. 24.0 31.0 50.0 71.0.

There are several ways in which a child can be demanding. Three

mothers stated that the child was physically demanding; nine referred

to emotional demands and thirty-three made general reference to demands

that were made on their time, energy and resources. Other mothers simply

answered the question, without stating what they understood the question

to mean.

The reasons for the child's demands were various, but most fell

into two groups: personal or individual reasons and those that offered

status or positional reasons. Twenty-seven mothers gave personal reasons

and most of these referred to the temperament of the child or the difficulty

the child had in some personal relationship, either with parents or siblings.

Twenty-five mothers offered status reasons, the most important of these

being the fact that younger children were around the house all day and

were constantly demanding of time and energy. This is reflected in

the fact that the lower the ordinal position of the child, the higher

the percentage regarded as demanding. So, it appears that in at least

half of the cases where the mother cites a child as 'demanding', it is

not necessarily a negative reaction on her part.

3. The third of the negative perception questions asks if any of the

children are temperamental. The whole question is predicated on the

assumption that the mother 'understands' the notion of temperament.

Not all mothers do and this is reflected in the fact that this question

elicited the response 'none' more often than any other (28%).

The ambiguity of these questions, which was not apparent at the

piloting stage, is the prime reason these results, when considered to-

gether, fail to yield consistent results. The most important of these

questions is that relating to 'jealousy' and this is covered independently

in the next chapter.

Themsponses to the negative perception questions illustrates very

clearly that although questions can be standardized, meanings cannot.

Given a sensitive issue, when questioned directly, the respondent may

restate the question in a less threatening form and then proceed to answer

the newly formulated question. Often the interviewer cannot restate

the question for fear of shattering the interview rapport that has been

built up. This is even more likely since the respondents who restructure

sensitive issues are likely to be the most guarded and defensive subjects.

The advantage of a semi-structured as opposed to a closed interview

schedule is that it allows some rephrasing of the question by the inter-

viewer; by taping the subjects' replies, some changes in question meaning

become apparent, and can be allowed for in the analysis if necessary.

Bearing in mind all the qualifications, the negative perceptions

of the mother are presented for each family size. Results are only in-

dicative of general tendencies; there is no statistical analysis.

Two-child Families

There were no differences at all related to sex, ordinal position

nor to sibling status in two-child families. The table for sib-status

is set out below.

 7/6 -

Table 4.22

Mother's Negative Allocations X Sib-Status

Dyad N. I II

MM 12 1.16 0.83

FF 15 0.75 1.125
MF 20 1.1 1.1

FM 20 1.6 0.8

All 67 1.15 0.963

One score of interest is the highest score, that of FiN, whose

brother gets the highest positive score from their mother. This girl

has the highest comparative score of all the girls in two-child families;

only the very masculine and competitive MM gets a higher score. Although
2
this girl is very challenged and stimulated by her younger brother, she

is nonetheless in conflict and competition with him (Koch, 1956).

Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg (1965) report that this dyad has the highest

scores on the clinical measures of conflict (MMPI) and is referred to

as a creative-clinical dyad. All the reports on this dyad so far endorse

this view.

Three-child Families

The mean score for each ordinal position is 1.2 allocations to the

first-born; 1.5 to the middle-born; and 0.7 to the youngest. Bearing

in mind that most of the score to the youngest is in answer to the question

about demanding behaviour and is not therefore a negative evaluation,

this low score coincides with the data on the youngest child presented

to date. The difficult position of the middle-child has already been

referred to and the fact that this child gets the highest score (although

by a very small margin) gives a very slight support to the argument.

 --//7 -

Although there is only a little work in this area, what there is tends

to suggest that the position of the middle-born in a three-child family

is a rather difficult one. All the research relating to middle-born

children have negative implications. They show more negative attention

getting (Gewirtz, 1948), are most changeable (Brock and Becker, 1965),

are less often given affectionate nicknames by their parents (Clausen,

1966), and are least popular (Sells and Roff, 1963). These responses,

according to Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg (1970), are most often the out-

come of neglect or harsh treatment. There is, however, no direct evidence

that this is so.

Looking a little further into the incidence of more negative per-

ceptions in the three-child families, those children who received three

or more negative items from their mother were considered separately.

There were fourteen such children in thirteen families, of whom five

were first-born and eight were second-born. (This is 17% of all first-

born children and 27% of all second-born.) Of the thirteen families,

five of these have first and second children of the same sex. All of

the first-born children who were particularly difficult have second-born

siblings of the same sex, i.e. they belong to family type M1M (NM or

FlF (F/M). Of the eight second-born who are problems, all three girls

in this category have an older and a younger brother, i.e. they are MF2M.

Of the five problem middle boys, two have opposite-sex older siblings

and three of the same sex; three have opposite-sex younger siblings

and two have same-sex younger siblings. Any conclusions from this data

can only be of the most tentative nature, but it might be hypothesized

that the first-born experiences difficulty if he/she is followed by a

same-sex sibling and then another. For the second-born boys, no general

theme is apparent, but the girl 'sandwiched' between two boys may have

difficulties.
 7/8 -

Four-child Families

dithin the four-child families, there are no patterns or trends.

The mother does not report more difficulties with boys than with girls

nor with any particular ordinal position.

In conclusion, therefore, although the data from the negative per-

ception questions is rather doubtful, it gives very slight endorsement

to some of the other findings of sibling studies. In two-child families

the girl with a younger brother gets a high negative score as might be

expected from existing research in the two-child family (Koch, 1955, 1956)

and Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg (1965). In the three-child family there

was a suggestion that the middle-child had a difficult position; this

is in line with all other findings on the middle-child, including the

data presented in this research (see Chapter 5). Also, within the three-

child family, there was a suggestion that the sibling constellation might

be a significant influence on the development of problems in either the

first or second-born. A similar finding is reported by Rosenberg and

Sutton-Smith (1964) who found that sex role identification was similarly

affected by the sibling constellation.

 Chapter 5

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS

Most of the research into sibling behaviour has concentrated on

the effects of variations in sibling position, sex and age-spacing,

with only little direct attention being paid to the character of the

sibling relationship in itself. This chapter deals with the children's

reports of their positive and negative feelings towards their siblings.

Since reports are available from all the children in the family, a check

can be made on the extent to which feelings are reciprocated.

One of the few empirical studies in the area of sibling affect

is that of Bowerman Dobash (1974), who studied patterns of sibling

affect in a sample of 8,000 subjects. They found very high levels of

positive affect between siblings, with W'/, of siblings reporting that

they felt 'close' to their siblings. Much lower levels of negative

sibling affect were recorded: 10% claimed that they were 'not parti-

cularly close' and 3% said 'not at all close'. The level of positive

affect to sibling, compares with 71% who stated that they were close

to their mother and 61% close to their father. This information was

gathered by means of a questionnaire, which asked the subject how close

he was to his sibling and classified the answer into five categories,

ranging from 'very close' to 'not at all close'. If these results

are compared with those obtained from the Children's Test, in which

subjects allocate an item either to a parent or to a sibling (the option

of multiple choice is seldom taken up), in this sample much lower levels

of positive sibling affect are recorded. Parents receive most of the

positive affect and siblings most of the negative affect. .Although

this forced choice probably distorts slightly the type of involvement

with both parents and siblings, by underestimating the amount of negative

affect to one and positive affect to the others, nonetheless it offers

a clear picture of to whom the child reports most positive or most negative

affect.

Children in the same family spend a great deal of time together.

John & Elizabeth Newson (1970) report that 57% of their sample four-

year-olds played with their siblings 'often' most days), 24% 'sometimes',

and only 19% 'never'. With this degree of contact it is very likely

that the children will work a modus vivendi, which is often determined

by the age and sex of the siblings. Koch (1955, 1956) reveals that

emotional and personality traits of six-year-olds are systematically

related to sibling differences. The intermediary hypotheses generally

refer to the amount and type of contact between siblings. Koch speculates

that same-sex siblings are more likely to play together and this seems

to have a rather depressing effect on the development of the younger

child, who constantly plays an inferior role to his/her older sibling.

This effect may be seen, for example, in the better adjustment of i11.12

at wider age-spacing (Koch 1956), for at wider age-spacing the second-

born boy probably has a circle of his own and is less overshadowed by

his older brother. Likewise, at middle age-spacing (2 - 4 years),

FF were "clearly outclassed by their siblings and were hangers-on in

2
the siblings play group scoring less in self confidence and more in

indirection than their older siblings" (Koch, 1956, p.416). By contrast,

the second-born with an opposite-sex sibling seem to benefit from their

position, in that they are stimulated by the presence of an older opposite-

sex sibling without being depressed by the constant contact and comparison

with them.

"It seems not unlikely that a sibling of the same sex is more

threatening and/or less stimulating than one of the opposite

sex. Children of the same sex}'rave more overlapping and hence

 more competing interests, are thrown into each other's company,

are compared with each other more frequently and find it difficult

to line up for support each with a different parent." (Koch, 1955, p.41)

It is a general finding in social psychology that propinquity and

similarity breed liking (Zajonc, 1968; Byrne, 1961) and from this it

would be expected that like-sex siblings and siblings close in age will

show more positive feelings towards each other. The 'likeness' of

siblings is also enhanced depending on the general context in which

siblings find themselves. In this respect, siblings outside of the

home might be expected to show more cohesiveness and less competition

than within the home setting, since outside the home others may classify

family members together and intra-family differences are minimized.

Often older children are charged with the care of younger siblings when

outside of the home and in this care-taking capacity they are likely

either by example or by direct teaching to socialize their younger siblings

into the appropriate peer group behaviour. After all, the younger

child is a member of the same family and, therefore, likely to be judged

in that capacity; the elder child may, therefore, take steps to see
1
that the younger sibling does not tarnish his image.

Although within the family siblings may be in conflict with each

other for various privileges and favours available in the home, outside

of the home they may be lumped together by others as members of the

same group, and each may be judged by the standing of the other. The

fact that to an outgroup all siblings are members of the same ingroup

may make their behaviour to each other outside of the home more cohesive

1 Mrs. Gloria Carter Spann, sister of the 1976 Democratic Party Presidential
candidate, Jimmy Carter, recalls: "The day I started school, he asked
me not to tell anybody I was his sister because I didn't talk right:
I had been raised out there in the country around the black children
and I talked like they did". (Newsweek, July 19th, 1976)
and friendly. Many mothers reported that children who were quarrelsome

and competitive at home would defend each other vigorously if threatened

outside of the home.

Because of the frequent contact between siblings, a system of

mutual rights and obligations develops which operates between siblings

and to govern their relationships with parents. With the parents a

system of privileges, often age-graded, exists: Allison Davis (1941)

points out that when the system is breached in favour of one child,

then this is taken to be a mark of personal favour. By the same token

it is resented by the other siblings who then pressure the parents into

abiding by the rules they have set up. Anna Freud describes the mechanisms

by which this comes into being:

"The child's first approach to the idea of justice is made during

these developments of the brother-sister relationship, when the

claim to be favoured oneself is changed to the demand that no

one should be favoured...i.e. there should be equal rights for

everybody." (1951, p.164)

When the system is consistently breached in favour of one child,

then the other children are likely to feel jealous, and their feelings

of resentment of unfair treatment may draw them together.

In Chapter 1, an outline was given of the forces within the family

likely to produce sibling rivalry. This discussion focussed on the

conflict that arises between siblings when competing for the same limited

resources. There are other factors that are likely to be involved

in sibling conflicts that have not yet been outlined. According to

Sutton-Smith & Rosenberg (1968), siblings adopt different power strategies

depending on their sibling status. Thus, as a whole, the first-born

are more likely to use direct power strategies, such as bossing, commanding,

hitting; the second-born are more likely to use indirect methods, like

pleading, whining, and attacking property. To a certain extent these

methods are modified by sex of the subject and also sex of sibling;

so that while the second-born use more indirect influence nethods, the

second-born boy with an older sister (FM ) uses more direct power tactics
2
than she does, probably because he has the best chance of all second-

borns of succeeding with these methods, and overthrowing his sister.

Looking behind these results, it appears that the methods adopted

by siblings relate to the bases of power within the sibling group, of

which there are probably two major ones: viz. ordinal position and sex.
1

Ordinal position is perhaps the more important of the two with its related

attributes of superior physical and mental competence. In both human

and animal groups those who are larger in size and ability generally

exercise dominance in order to assure themselves of a greater share

of the available rewards. In most conflicts between siblings, therefore,

assuming no outside interference, the older sibling will generally be

triumphant. The significance of ordinal position will be lessened

when the children are close in age and the ability differential is there-

fore diminished, or if the later-born child has a marked superiority

either in physical stature or mental capacity, and is not willing to

accept the domination of the elder. Generally, however, lacking 'full

frontal power', later-born children are more likely to use indirect

influence methods, typical examples being: attacking property, reasoning

and pleading (Sutton-smith & Rosenberg, 1968).

Other factors may be important sources of power in individual families

such as high status outside the family or special talent, for example.
The (apparently) low power strategy of reasoning or making the sibling
feel obligated, may be more effective where children are socialized
into personalized relationships, than the (apparently) high power
tactic of attacking or hitting which may be severely sanctioned in
such families. Therefore, to equate direct and overt power with
high power and more indirect or covert power with low power, minimizes
the effect of context which may determine which tactics are more or
less effective/powerful.
 Not only do older children capitalize on their age-related attributes

to exercise direct control of their younger siblings, they are often

the recipients of delegated power from the parents, and this further

reinforces them in their use of direct power tactics. The parent-

delegated power is easily assumed by the first-born who more closely

model after their parents than later-born children, and slip easily

into parent surrogate roles, even when choosing occupations in later

life (Sutton-Smith, Roberts & Rosenberg, 1964).

The sibling-power results of Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg are obtained

directly from the children themselves and are consensual reports; i.e.

when a child states that he uses a particular strategy to get his sibling

to do as he/she wants, that sibling concurs. What this study considers

is the type of influence tactic used, but not its effectiveness nor the

frequency with which it is elicited, although both of these factors

may be more significant influences in the sibling relationship in the

longer term. Some types of power may be more effective in some contexts,

or types of family.

The second base of power - sex - is slightly more tricky ground

on which to speculate without stereotyping. Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg's

work cited above confirms the cultural stereotype: as expected, boys

and girls use different influence tactics with their siblings, with

sex of sibling a further confounding variable. Boys use attack and

offensive tactics (i.e. direct use of interpersonal power) and girls

use more indirect methods, such as reasoning, defense, making the sibling

feel obligated. There is an obvious parallel here with the first and

later-born sibling relationship.

Is type of influence tactic related to effectiveness? Do the

more direct methods of the first-born, and of males, assure them of more

real influence than the less overt methods of girls and second-born children?
 -42

Not necessarily so, but the more direct methods imply recognized (though

not necessarily stated) power backing, either delegated as from the

parents, or because 'might is right', (the law of the jungle) or by

implication from the wider cultural setting in which males have more

power than females. The more indirect methods are dependent on inter-

personal negotiation, seen clearly, for example, in the use of reasoning

or making the sibling feel obligated. In the latter case, if the sibling

is sufficiently well understood, these methods may be extremely effective,

but overall it is more likely that direct methods are more successful.

Some family settings may also enhance the effectiveness of indirect

power tactics.

If boys are presented with models indicating that the use of direct

power is appropriate to their sex (and from media models this is frequently

physical power), they are likewise actively encouraged to resist the

domination attempts of others, especially females. Similar pressures

scarcely exist for girls. Generalizing therefore to the family boys

will be more likely than girls to resist the power attempts of others

especially females, and in the sibling relationship boys are more likely

to resist the domination attempts of their siblings; if younger to

directly confront their sibling and most especially if the older sibling

is female. The high incidence of quarrelling in the 11M dyad and par-

ticularly in the FM dyad (Koch 1960) offers some support for this hypothesis.

If males are subtly encouraged to assert themselves, by force if

necessary, the socialization of girls still predominantly emphasizes

home-making and the maintenance of good family relationships as an integral

part of the feminine role (Women's Lib. notwithstanding). Although

this may not be transmitted to the child in so many words, the choice
1
of books, toys, available female models, all reinforce the stereotype.

1
The extent to which traditional female attributes are emphasized may
vary within different sub-cultures, and in different family types.
It may be that some families are more responsive to social change
and the impact of current changes in the family will have most marked
effects on the girls in these families (see Chapter 7).
 Girls would therefore be expected to 'back off' more readily than

boys when there is conflict within the family. Though saying that good

family relationships and their maintenance are role consonant states

for females, it does not follow that girls do not get involved in even violent

confrontations both with parents and with siblings, but the theshold

for such activities may be higher for girls than for boys and the in-

cidence of such occurrence is therefore lessened. From the methodological

point of view, it is also probable that when doing the Children's Test,

girls are more susceptible to social desirability effects.

When there is only one basis for power, as there is in single-

sex families, then other things being equal, a stable hierarchical relation-

ship will develop in the sibling group. Because males are more likely

to be in conflict with each other and such behaviour if not culturally

approved is at least tolerated, then attempts to unsettle the older sibling

will be most likely in the all male family. We have already noted the

high rate of quarrelling in this family type. 15*irl family by contrast

is very harmonious (Koch 1956, 1960).

Where there are children of both sexes then difficulties may arise.

If the two criteria of power are coincident as in the case of the older

boy and younger girl, then the power relationship should be quite stable.

In the family with an older girl and a younger boy, a certain amount

of conflict might be expected. The powerful first-born is undermined

by her sex and may therefore be overthrown by her brother who is weak

as a second-born, but strong as a male. Age-spacing is probably a

critical factor in this relationship, with greater friction the closer

the ages.

In the previous section the general cultural content of sex roles

and their likely outcomes have been set out. In reality the specific

performance of sex roles and the general prescriptive elements will

diverge to a greater or lesser degree, and in many families conscious

 1
efforts may be made to minimize the influence of sex typing. Two

family factors are important in the realization and performance of sex

roles: one, the direct socialization by the parents and, second, the

models available within the family, and in this chapter we will consider

specifically the influence of sibling models. In her work with six-year-

old children from two-child families, Helen Koch found that such factors

as 'primary mental' abilities (1954), personality traits (1955), emotional

attitudes (1956), and friendships (1957), showed significant relation-

ships to the child's sibling position. These data were collected from

teacher ratings of six-year-olds, and in a re-analysis of the same data

Brim (1958) suggests that in the sibling relationship there is a certain

degree of role assimilation. Thus boys with sisters show more 'feminine'

characteristics than boys with brothers, and similarly girls with brothers

are rated as having more 'masculine' characteristics than girls with

sisters. These effects are most marked for the younger (less powerful

members) of the sibling dyad: FM2 and MF2; findings which are compatible

with the general hypothesis that in role playing situations the less

powerful members are more likely to adopt role characteristics of the

stronger than vice versa.

The categories 'masculine' and 'feminine' are derived from a re-

interpretation of the teacher ratings given to Koch. The ratings are

classified by four judges according to the pertinence of each trait

to the masculine or feminine role. The conception of the characteristics

of the sex roles was based on empirical studies and on the major theoretical

The more subtle deep-seated indicators of gender are very difficult

for parents to consciously modify, and may run counter to their overtly
expressed intentions. For example, while strongly stressing equal
educational opportunity for both sexes, parents may on a deeper per-
sonality level reinforce dependent behaviour in girls which then acts
as a brake on their aspirations and achievements.
treatment of such differences by Parsons (1955). The Parsonian distinction

revolves around the twin concepts of instrumental and expressive behaviours

as typical of male and female sex roles and in Brim's study each teacher

rating was classified according to the extent to which it pertained to

the instrumental or expressive category. Thus 'tenacity' and 'competitive-

ness' are rated as instrumental, while 'responds to sympathy and approval

from adults' and 'cheerfulness' are predominantly expressive.

The results indicated that in cross-sex dyads there is an assimilation

of the sex linked characteristics of the sibling, particularly marked

for the younger sibling. Brim suggests that one of the factors that

influences the degree of sex role assimilation by siblings is the extent

to which parents assist children in differentiating their sex roles.

If it is the policy of the parents to minimize sex role differences,

then we would expect even greater sex role assimilation in these families

than in families in which sex role differences are sharply accentuated.

The possibility that families vary in their attitude to sex role differences

is taken up and considered in more detail in Chapter 7.

These findings are restricted to two-child families and in larger

families other factors may come into play. In three or four-child families

parents may actively assist the solitary-sex child in differentiating

sex roles, or in a four-child family consisting of two children of each

sex, the same siblings may pair off by sex, thus minimizing cross-sex

effects.

The assimilation of cross-sex characteristics by children in opposite

sex family groups (and the reinforcement of sex characteristics in same-

sex dyads) suggests that children will vary in their attitude to their

siblings depending on the sex of that sibling. There is empirical

evidence that this is the case from the work of Bowerman and Dobash (1974),

Cahn (1952), Koch (1955, 1956, 1960), Bigner (1971).

 Girls, and to a lesser extent boys with female siblings, may show

more concern about family relationships and sibling relationships than

boys. Boys (and siblings who assimilate the more masculine and aggressive

traits of boys) may reveal a more negative picture of the sibling relation-

ship. These effects may vary further with ordinal position variations

and age-spacing.

Summary

1. Empirically, there is evidence that sex of subject and sex of sibling

have significant effects on (a) reported affect towards siblings;

(b) power and influence tactics siblings use in interaction with each

other; (c) various personality and cognitive traits; (d) measures of

masculinity and femininity as assessed on an instrumental-expressive axis.

2. Theoretically, in line with general cultural stereotypes, boys will

be expected to show more direct and overt aggression than girls (Sears,

1951; Sutton-Smith & Rosenberg, 1968) and girls will show more concern

with domestic and emotional issues, i.e. boys and girls will manifest

different attitudes to family life.

3. In this research, allocations made by the children on the Children's

Test will show the effects of these influences. More directly aggressive

subjects will have less inhibitions about allocating hostile items to

their siblings. Similarly, subjects concerned with the maintenance

of family harmony will allocate fewer negative and more positive items

to their siblings.

4. however, sex-linked influences are not due solely to subject and

sibling interactions, they are also socialized directly by the parents.

These effects are not considered in this chapter but are dealt with in

some detail in Chapter 7. Most of the discussion and empirical work

has been restricted to two-child families; what research there is suggests

that different mechanisms may be at work in larger families.

 — /30

CHILDREN'S TEST RESULTS

To assess the direction and type of affect within the family,

four sections of the Children's Test are considered. They are the

positive items, negative, friction and comparative sections. The latter

two sections are specifically geared to relate to sibling rivalry and

tensions. Specifically the friction items are aimed at gauging the

tensions and conflicts that arise between siblings as the inevitable

outcome of spending time together, e.g. 'This person disturbs me when

I am getting on with something'. The comparative items to measure

jealousy; a feeling that arises between peers when one seems to be

getting more than he deserves and the feeling on the part of the other

that he is 'losing out', or receiving less than his fair share, e.g.

'This person can always get what they want'. In many families these

two feelings are ii.equently confounded since the child may experience

both conflict with, and jealousy of, his sibling.

Use of Nobody (total sample 189)

1. Positive: there are no differences between boys and girls; nor

between the first and later-born in the extent to which they utilize

the Nobody category on this section of the test.

2. Negative: there are no sex differences; but chi-square test in-

dicated that the first-born were more likely to give negative items

to Nobody than later-born children (see Table 5.1).

Table 5.1

Negative Feelings, Use of Nobody X Ordinal Position

Use of Nobody'
Low High Total
First-born 53 21 74
Later—born 95 18 113
Chi-square = 3.867 on 1 d.f.; p = < .05
3. Friction. As Table 5.2 reveals, there are sex differences in the
use of Nobody in all family sizes except the four-child.

Table 5.2

riction, Use of Nobody X Sex

Use of Nobody
Family Size Sex Low High Uhi-s .

All families Male 53 33 7.248 .01

female 36 60

2-child male 23 9 6.774 .01

female 13 22

3-child male 19 19 6.624 .02

female 11 21

4-child male 11 10 0.233 N/S

female 12 17

When first and later-born children are compared, there are differences

for the total sample (p = < .05) but these differences are not maintained

within each family size. The reason there is little difference between

the first-born and later-born in this section, is possibly because the

items are of a factual rather than an emotional nature, for example 'This

person tries to make me look silly', or 'This person disturbs me when

am getting on with something', and as such are almost equally likely

to be allocated by first as by later-born children.

4. Comparative. Table 5.3 indicates the extent of the differences between

the sexes in using Nobody in the Comparative section; as in some other

sections of the test, girls use Nobody more than boys. When the data

is further broken down by family size, the differences are maintained

only in three-child families.

 Table 5.3
Comparative, Use of Nobody X Sex

Use of Nobody
Family Size Sex Low High Chi-s .
All families male 51 40 8.022 .01

female 34 62

2-child male 19 13 2.480 N/S

female 13 22

3-child male 22 16 6.391 .02

female 8 24

4-child male 10 11 .008 N/S

female 13 16

5. Ordinal position. There are differences that relate to ordinal position,

first-borns using Nobody more than later-borns. When the differences

are considered in different family sizes they reach significance only

in the four-child family (see Table 5.4).

Table 5.4

Comparative, Use of Nobody X Ordinal Position

Use of Nobody
' 0

All families F-B 26 48 5.264 .02

L-B 59 54

2-child F-B 14 20 .724 N/S

L-B 18 15

3-child F-B 10 15 .012 N/S

L-B 20 25

4-child F-B 2 13 7.423 .01

L-B 21 14
1
In sum: there are sex differences in the use of Nobody on all three

negative indices, but these differences are maintained only in the three-

child family on friction and comparative, and the two-child family on

friction measures only. In the four-child family, there are no sex

differences in the use of Nobody on these sections of the test, but

in four-child families there are ordinal position differences on the

comparative section. There are no ordinal position differences in two

or threekr-child families.

That these sex and ordinal ,00sition differences are differently

manifest in each family size, further reinforces the need to consider

the results of the Children's Test according to size of family. What

these tables suggest is that sex is an important discriminating variable

•
in three-child families but not in the four-child family, where ordinal

position is perhaps more significant.

HELLTIONSHIPS L TAU-CHILD FAMILIES

Table 5.5 sets out the scores to highlight the effects of-sex

and ordinal position in two-child families (N = 33).

 Table 5.5

Mean Scores to Sibling on Positive, egative,

Friction & Comparative

Sub'ect i1. Sib. Pos. ides. uric. Com ..

14 32 M &. P 0.68*** 5.0 4.0*** 3.6***

F 34 M & F 1.9 4.0 2.3 2.0

1.4 4.4 2.8 2.0

IT 33 Mw F 1.2 4.9 3.5 2.4
M & F 26 s/sex 2.1*** 4.4 2.2* 1.9
M& F 40 o/sex 0.8 5.1 3.6 2.5

12 ii 0.8 4.9 4.1 2.8

20 0.6 5.0 4.0 2.3

F 14 F 3.2*** 3.9*** 1.43*** 1.0*

F 20 M 0.9 5.3 3.1 2.65
I 13 s/sex 2.4** 3.7 2.1* 2.45
I 20 o/sex 0.7 4.9 3.5 2.5
TI 13 s/sex 1.84 4.4 3.3 2.3
II 20 o/sex 0.85 5.3 3.65 2.45

* p< .05 ** p< .02 *** p< .01

Analysis: t-test (two-tailed) after chi-square "goodness of fit" test

on all measures. Chi-square is significantly different on positive

measures (p< .05), but since the t-test is robust for departures from

normality (Robson, 1973), t-tests have been done on the positive scores.

Results

Reading down the table the following relationships are apparent.

1. Sex. Girls are more positive to their siblings than boys (p< .01).

This finding echoes that of Bowerman and Dobash (1974) in which more

girls than boys claimed to be closer to their siblings. Girls also

score significantly less on the friction and comparative sections than

boys (p< .01), but not significantly less on the negative section.

Since the negative section is more general in its scope than the friction

and comparative sections which are specifically geared to sibling inter-

 —/S5 —

actions, the reported difference is in sibling attitudes rather than

a more general avoidance of negatively-tinged issues.

2. Ordinal position. There are no statistically significant differences

between the scores of the first and second-born on any of the four measures.

This is a rather surprising finding in that we had expected more friction

items would be allocated by the second-born, since they are at the receiving

end of the first-borns' bossiness and general domineering behaviour

(Sutton-Smith & Rosenberg, 1968). Subsequent analysis, however, indicates

that sibling status effects run counter to expected ordinal position

effects in some cases (i.e. MY).

3. Same-sex Opposite sex. As expected, same-sex dyads are more positive

to each other than opposite-sex dyads (p< .01), and report less friction

(p< .05). This is in line with the general finding that similarity

breeds liking (Byrne, 1961) and specific sibling study findings. In

Bowerman and Dobash's survey (1974), subjects with same sex siblings

reported themselves as closer to their siblings than did those with

cross-sex siblings. In a sociometric test (Cahn, 1952) same-sex

siblings reported themselves as closer to each other than opposite-sex

siblings. Sutton-Smith, Rosenberg and Houston (1968), using an adapted

form of the Bene-Anthony Family Relations Test, also found that same-sex

siblings (male) showed more involvement of both a positive and negative

nature with each other than did boys with sisters.

3(a). Same-sex Opposite sex: male. When males with sisters are compared

with those with brothers, the findings of Sutton-Smith et al quoted above

are not corroborated. The scores of the boys in the MM dyad do not

differ in any respect from that of M1F and FM2.

3(b). Same-sex Opposite sex: female. The clearest differences in

this table are those between girls with a brother and those with a sister.

There are statistically significant differences on all four measures;

girls with sisters are more positive to their siblings (p< .01), reveal

less negative feelings towards them (p< .01), less friction (p< .01),

and show slightly less jealousy (p< .05), than girls with a brother.

This finding is as predicted in the introduction to this section and

is in line with empirical findings of Koch (1955) who reports that the

two girls have harmonious relationships and as a dyad have the lowest

incidence of reported quarrelling (Koch 1960). In Bowerman and Dobash's

survey (1974), 75% of girls with a sister reported themselves as close

to their sibling, compared with 64% of the total sample. In later

life the good relationships between sisters are often maintained;

Cummings and Schneider (1961), in their review of American kinship patterns,

report that the sister-sister relationship is one of the most enduring,

rivalling at times that between husband and wife.

Girls with a brother, by contrast, are more likely to report that

their mother favours him (Chapter 4). Opposite-sex dyads are named

'creative-conflict' by Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg (1970), because of

the high incidence of both conflict and creativity in these families.

Findings here are therefore consonant with previous research.

4(a). Same-sex Opposite sex: first-born. The first-born in the same-

sex dyad report themselves as more positive (p< .02), and as experiencing

less sibling friction (p< .05), than the first-born in an opposite-sex

dyad. The differences are in the expected direction and in keeping

with what has already been said about the same and opposite-sex dyads.

The fact that there is no difference between the comparative scores

is surprising in view of the fact that Koch (1955) found that first-born

in opposite-sex dyads were particularly jealous and the mother's report

(Chapter 4) shows a preference for the second-born in cross-sex dyads.

4(1)). Same-sex Opposite sex: second born. There are no statistically

significant differences between the younger members of the same and

cross-sex dyads on any of the measures. In her analysis, Helen Koch

(1955), found that although the first-born in an opposite-sex dyad was

more jealous and competitive than second-borns, in the same-,sex dyad

the opposite applies and the second-born is more jealous and competitive;

this, she claims, is due to the greater contact of the second-born same-

sex sibling with his/her older and generally more successful sibling.

This possibly boosts the negative scores of second-born children in

same-sex dyads, so that they are only slightly less than the scores of

the second-born in the more generally conflictful opposite-sex families.

Discussion

The clearest findings in this table relate to sex of subject and

sex of sibling. Girls predictably report more positive attitudes to

their siblings than do boys, although whether this reflects a difference

in attitude and behaviour or is simply a test factor, it is not possible

to say. Since girls are probably socialized into more positive family

attitudes, they may 'really' feel more positive to their siblings, and

may also be more susceptible to social desirability factors when doing

the Children's Test and therefore report a more glowing picture of their

sibling relationships.

A factor possibly more important than sex of subject is sex of

sibling, although this factor operates only on girls. Boys with a

brother have scores almost identical to those of boys with a sister.

For girls, however, sex of sibling is a critical factor; girls with

sisters are more positive and less negative on all measures than are

girls with a brother. Reverting to the introductory discussion, girls

may model themselves on their brothers more than vice versa, since they

see their brothers as having more direct power, possibly utilizing that

power more effectively, and since their brothers appear to be favoured

by their parents, especially if younger, they may copy those masculine

 -

behaviours that seem to find favour with their parents. There is also

les sanction on girls copying boys ('a tomboy') than vice versa ('effeminate'

or a scissy'). In an e:cperimental situation on imitative behaviour,

Bandura, Ross and Ross (1963) noted a 'differential readiness of boys

and girls to imitate behaviour exhibited by an opposite sex model...boys

show a definite preference for the masculine role, whereas ambivalence

and masculine role preference are widespread among girls'. In the same

experiment, where female models appeared to have high reward power and

males to be recipients of that power, many children reinterpreted the

power relationship to make it consonant with the wider cultural stereo-

type in which males have power (i.e. allocate resources) and females

are the recipients of the resources.

The same tendency of girls to be more influenced by their brothers

than vice versa is also found in the work of Brim (1958). Girls with

a brother, both older and younger, were rated by their teachers as having

more 'masculine traits' than girls with a sister. The effects are

particularly marked for the younger members of the two-child family

(i.e. MF2 compared with FF2). For boys the same effect applies but

it is marked only for the younger member of the dyad (i.e. FM as compared
2
with MM2). Similarly, Bigner (1972), in a study of sibling influences

on the sex role preference of second-born children, found ME2 to be

more 'masculine' than FM (p< .001) and FF more 'feminine' than MF

2 2 2
(p< .01), and that in general males had more influence on their younger

siblings sex role preference than did females.

The method of investigation was by use of a semi-projective test;

the results of Bigner's work confirmed the general hypothesis that siblings

have a marked influence on the subject's sex role preference. It is

also consonant with work indicating that sex role preference is more

variable for girls than for boys, and girls are therefore more susceptible

to influence affecting their sex role preference.

 —/sy -

The greater influence of boys on their female siblings is a recurrent

finding in sibling studies. In terms of sibling effects, Koch (1954)

found that subjects with brothers were superior to subjects with sisters

on verbal meaning and quantitative tests, but findings were restricted

to the two to four-year age gap. Schoonover (1959) found that siblings

with brothers were better on language, literature, social science and

arithmetic tests and, more generally, Altus (1966) found that more girls

with older brothers attended college than girls with older sisters.

How do these influences operate in the family setting? In the

sibling relationship? And in the Children's Test as a measure of the

sibling relationship? In terms of the sex role assimilation hypothesis

advanced previously, girls with brothers acquire more aggressive traits

from them. If the allocation of a negative item to a sibling is seen

as an act of aggression, albeit a minor one, then these girls will have

higher negative scores. By contrast, girls with sisters, if they are

more 'femininized' by each other, will reveal more concern about maintaining

good sibling relationships; or at the very least of presenting an image

to the interviewer that is congruent with an ideal of the 'happy family'.

If girls with brothers are less inhibited about expressing their

aggression directly (i.e. in a more masculine fashion) then we would

expect more overt conflict in these sibling dyads and less inhibition

about expressing that animosity to the interviewer. In contrast to

the all female dyad, the scores of girls with brothers will reveal a

more conflictful picture of sibling relationships, a picture that approximates

more to that generally given by boys. This line of inquiry is explored

in more detail in the next section.

The first analysis of sibling relationships reveals no clear ordinal

position effects, although the first-born in same-sex dyads appear to

be more positive and experience less friction than first-born in opposite-

sex dyads. Since these effects are possibly due to concealed sex effects,

which are apparently more important, discussion of ordinal position

effects is deferred, until the influence of sex can be separated out.

Table 5.6

Mean Scores to Sibling on Positive, Negative, Friction and Comparative

Differences according to Sex, Ordinal Position and Sex of Sibling

Subject Description Mean Score to Sibling

Sex Ord. Pos. Sib. Sex Pos. Neg. Frit. Comp.

6 0.5*** 5.0*** 3.3*** 2.0

7 3.9 2.7 1.0 1.0

N I F 10 0.8 4.8 3.6 2.2

10 0.8 5.1 3.4 2.9
II II II 6 1.2 4.8 4.8** 3.7***
7 2.4 4.0 1.9 1.0

II II F 10 0.4 5.2 4.4 2.5

F TT N 10 1.3 5.2 2.9 2.4

** p< .02 (two-tailed) *** p< .01

Ordinal Position effects in same and cross-sex dyads

1. The table makes it clear that the first-born girl with a younger

sister F) is more positive than any other first-born child, indicating

that the difference in Table 5.5 between first-born in same and opposite-

sex dyads was almost entirely due to the contribution of this girl.

The score of 111 M is almost identical to that of the first-born in the

opposite-sex dyads.

There are sharp differences on three of the four measures; the

exception is the comparative score where the difference between means

is not significant. There are two possible explanations of this rather

low score: a study by Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg (1965) of sex role

identification and anxiety, found that M1M was above average in

levels of anxiety at age six and eleven, and is the most conforming of

males. His anxiety and conformity suggest that when confronted with

a touchy subject his reaction may be defensive, hence the low comparative

score. Alternatively, there are certain reasons for believing that MIM

does not experience the jealousy often attributed to the first-born.

In Koch's work (1955) he has a low jealousy rating (lower than all other

first-borns), and Rothbart (1971) reports that in an experimental situation

the mother is more positive to him than to his younger brother. She

argues that the first-born male has a special place in his mother's

affections and is not easily displaced by a younger same-sex sibling.

Moving ahead a little, there is some indication that the latter explanation

is more plausible, since Mil has the highest comparative score of all
2
children in two-child families.

2. When the elder members of the opposite-sex dyads are compared,

i.e. M F and F the scores are very similar in. every respect, and
1 1
moreover very close to the score of the first-born male with a younger

brother (191). This further endorses the finding that the effect of

a brother is to move the score of F M. so that it is indistinguishable

1
from that of the first-born boys (i.e. to 'masculinize' it).

3. Of the second-born, the boy in the same-sex dyad (1 2) has a score

significantly different from that of the girl in the same-sex dyad on

two counts, friction (p< .02) and comparative (p< .01). This is in

line with all that has been said about the comparative harmony of the

two-girl family, and the competitiveness and quarrelsomeness of the

two-boy sibling group.

On the friction count, both first-borns are said to be bossy and

to use direct power tactics (Sutton-Smith & Rosenberg, 1968) and as

such are likely to be given high friction allocations by their younger

siblings. However, the frequency with which such tactics are employed
 -

may vary with sex and first-born boys may use them more with their siblings

than first-born girls. Other evidence supports the notion that the

amount of aggression actually employed by first-born boys and girls

to their younger same-sex siblings, may vary (Sears, 1951). It can

be argued that the younger boy with an older brother, who is likely

to be more aggressive and assertive, will resist his power attempts

and conflict ensues. This dyad has the highest incidence of quarrelling

(Koch, 1960). By contrast the two-girl family has the lowest quarrelling

score, suggesting that the first-born girl may seldom resort to direct

power attempts, or that her power attempts are complied with.

The other area of difference is the comparative or jealousy score.

Koch (1955) found that first-borns in opposite-sex dyads were more likely

to be rated as jealous by the teachers than the second-horns, but in

the same-sex dyads the relationship was reversed and the second-born

was more likely to be rated as jealous. Work by Rothbart (1971) suggests

that this may vary according to the sex of the children. In an experimental

setting, in which mothers and their first and second-born children were

involved in problem-solving situations, mothers showed more 'intrusiveness'

with first-borns than with second-born children (aged five-years), with

differences according to the sex of the first-born. Mothers were 'supportive

and cautious in directing their boys but more demanding, exacting and

intrusive towards their first-born girls'. Rothbart's explanation has

psychoanalytic overtones; she suggests that the Oedipal link between

mother and first-born son, makes her temper her pressure on this boy

but for the first-born girls no such tempering exists. This may mean

that the second-born boy with an older brother (MM2) has fewer expressions

of approval from his mother. Sears et al (1957) report that mother is

colder towards the second-born boy, if she already has a son. By contrast,

the second-born girl with an older sister does not experience the rivalry
her mother is reported to feel towards her older sister (iothbart, 1967,

quoted Sutton-Smith & Rosenberg, 1970). Further, Koch (1955) reported that

her mother favours her whilst her father is closer to her older sister.

4. Junior members of opposite sex dyads differ only on their friction

score (p< .05, one-tailed direction predicted) where FE2 has a higher

score than MF2. F11,1 is characterized by Koch (1955) as aggressive

and assertive and she probably takes up a mother-surrogate role vis a vis

her younger brother, and is bossy and domineering. He probably resents

this (as a male) and directly confronts her using similar power tactics

and since he has a good chance of overthrowing her, probably the best
1
of all second-borns, the confrontation is acrid and prolonged. In

Koch's work (1960), this boy has the highest quarrelling score. In

terms of the model outlined in the introduction, where sex and ordinal

position are bases for sibling power, this dyad is unstable; she has

ordinal-position power and he the power associated with sex, so the

power struggle may be protracted. In the other opposite-sex dyad,

the two criteria are consonant; the older boy has more power, and hence

the friction score is low since the power relationship is stable.

Table 5.7 holds sex and ordinal position constant, and compares

the effects of like and opposite-sex siblings, on sibling affect.

1
These statements are subject to modification depending on age-spacing
and differences in personality. A very strong first-born girl may
easily resist the challenge of the younger boy, and similarly a younger
sibling with a very strong personality may easily overcome the age-
based power of the first-born.
 Table 5.7
Mean Scores to Same and Opposite Sex Sibling

on Positive, Negative, Friction and Comparative

Subject Mean Score to Sibling

Sex Ord. Pos. Sib. sex N. Pos. Net. Frio. Com..

6 0.5 5.0 3.3 2.0

N I F 10 0.8 4.8 3.6 2.2

F I F 8 3.9** 2.75** 1.0** 1.0**

10 0.6 5.1 3.4 2.9
TI II M 6 1.2 4.8 4.8 3.7
II II F 10 0.4 5.2 4.4 2.5
7 2.4 4.0 1.9 1.0
F II ivi 10 1.3 5.2 2.9 2.4

** p< .02 (two-tailed)

1. First-born boys appear to be unaffected in their attitudes to

their sibling by the sex of that sibling.

2. First-born girls, however, are strongly affected by the sex of

their younger sibling, and there are significant differences on every

sibling-related measure.

3. There are no significant differences between second-born males

in their attitudes to their older sibling. One score of interest is

the comparative score, where the younger brother of a brother appears

to be more jealous: this level of difference might possibly be significant

in larger samples.

4. Second-born girls with brothers are less positive and more generally

negative to them, but the differences do not reach the necessary level

of significance. These sample sizes are very low and it is possible

that the differences may prove significant with a larger population.

Note that second-born boys score higher than any other group on

the friction measures, indicating that they react more to the domination

attempts of their older siblings as suggested in the introductory section.

 In the following table, the scores of each dyad are considered:

Table 5.8
•Mean Score to Sibling on Positive, Negative, Friction
and Comparative in each Dyad

Sex • Ord. Pos. Sib. Sex N. Pos. 11 . Fric. Com

6 0.5 5.0 3.3 2.0*

TI II TI 6 1.2 4.8 4.3 3.7

10 0.8 4.8 3.6 2.2

F II 14T 10 1.3 5.2 2.9 2.4

8 3.9 2.75 1.0 1.0

7 2.4 4.0 1.9 1.0
10 0.6 5.1 3.4 2.9
Ivt II 1' 10 0.4 5.2 4.4 2.5
* p< .05
1. The only significant difference in the score of children within the

same dyads is that between the elder and younger brother in the all-male

dyad, where the comparative score of the younger boy is significantly higher.

Incidentally, this boy is also more positive and shows more friction, suggesting

that he might have an overall greater involvement with his brother than vice-

versa.

2. The scores in the older boy/younger girl dyad are generally similar;

she is slightly more positive to him and he is the only one of the first-borns
1
whose friction score is higher than that of the younger sibling.

3. The two-girl family has the highest positive scores, and the lowest

scores on all other measures. The first-born girl most markedly so.

4. There are three factors of interest in the score of the FM dyad: one,

the positive and negative scores are almost identical, suggesting a general

similarity of sibling attitudes; two, he, along with the other second-born

boy feels strongly the interference of an older sibling as indicated by high

friction allocation; and, three, the girl has the second highest comparative

score, suggesting that she is jealous of her younger brother, who is her

mother's favourite (Chapter 4).

1
If subjects are ranked according to the frequency with which they report that
their sibling is victorious in a quarrel, the distribution is: FF0, ML,, MlE,
LiM, AF2, FIN, PlF (Koch, 1960). Mg is the only first-born t4ho
does not seem to be able to get the better of his sibling, a result in e;:act
agreement with his friction score on this test.
 These scores are test representations of sibling attitudes.

Three of the four measures can be considered as negative or hostile

in nature and as such their allocation might be considered as an aggressive

act. Therefore, where the inhibitions on aggression are higher we

would expect that the scores on these three measures would be lower.

Similarly, they are concerned with family and emotional relationships,

and as such they might elicit a different response set from girls and

boys because of their differential socialization in this area.

Both these test factors may well have a corollary in the real

situation; a taboo or inhibition on aggression may operate both in

the test context and extrapolating beyond this into the home. Like-

wise a more positively biassed response on this test, may reflect a

strong concern to create good relationships in the family setting.

In respect of aggression, we would expect differences between the first

and later-born (Sears, 1951; Goodenough & Leahy, 1927), and between

boys and girls (Sears, 1951). In terms of family concern, girls would

be expected to be more affected. Both sex and ordinal position effects

are further modified by sex of sibling.

The influence of sex, ordinal position and sex of sibling on the

sibling affect are considered in more detail in the next section of

the chapter.

I FIRST-BORN GIRLS

Sears (1951), in a study of aggression in children, found that

first-born girls showed hardly any aggression at all and that all boys

manifest more aggression than the girls, indicating that the responses

are sex-typed. It might be argued that the doll play setting, with

its close resemblance to the domestic setting, inhibits the expression

of direct aggression in girls, and that in another setting girls might

manifest more direct aggression. The definition of aggression as purely

physical (hitting) or perhaps crude verbal attacks, may minimize the

amount of female aggression. If aggression is defined as an act intended

to hurt or injure another in some way, then its manifestations will

be many and varied. Girls, with their superior verbal abilities during

childhood and their greater social (and emotional?) competency, may

give vent to their aggression through more covert and insidious means.

Means that are dependent on knowing the adversaries' weak spot, and

capitalizing on that knowledge. In this sense teasing and making fun

of another may be more hurtful than physical aggression. It may also

be more successful, when utilized between brother and sister, since

there may be a taboo imposed by the parents on the boy hitting the girl

and so the boy's means of retaliation are restricted.

Similarly girls may solicit the help of others in aggressing,

that is, they may call in parents, teachers or other sympathetic adults

to fight their battles for them ('He hit me'; 'he took my book';

meaning 'Now you punish him'.) The very devious may even provoke a

quarrel and instigate an attack so as to invoke the wrath of the adult

avenger! On a less insidious level, and a similar theme, girls show

more 'pro-social aggression' than boys. They are more inclined to

invoke the rules being broken and the punishment attached.

Since statements about aggression in children are often referring

to physical aggression, which is usually the only type of aggression

visible to the outsider, sex differences in this respect should be treated

with some reservations.

It is apparent from the research here that it is only first-born

girls with suers who show very little sibling-directed aggression;

first-born girls with younger brothers have similar scores to first-

born boys. Sex of sibling is therefore of critical importance in deter-

mining the attitude of the first-born girl to her sibling; it is more

important to first-born girls than to any other children in two-child

families.

If first-born girls are more positive and less hostile to their

siblings when female, what are the precise factors that lie behind this

result? In all respects except sex of sibling the girl with a brother

and the girl with a younger sister are the same. As first-born females,

both will have been subject to similar regimen from their parents.

Both will have experienced more restrictions on aggression than later-

born children and than boys. As first-borns they are both equally

likely to be parent-oriented and dependent and as girls they will have

been socialized into typical female concerns of family and domestic

issues. Research also indicates that until the age of ten or so the

sex preference of girls is more variable than that of boys (i.e. in

their pre-teen years girls are more likely to show preference for masculine

activities and concerns - a cross-sex preference. Boys, by contrast,

show own-sex preference very early and are constant in that preference.*)

and girls are therefore more susceptible to the influence of male models

than vice versa.

As first-borns, both are usually displaced, but most importantly,

they are displaced in one case by a male sibling and in the other by

a female sibling. This difference has a critical effect, both on their

attitude to that sibling and in terms of their general development.

A. First-born girls with a younger male sibling (F1M)

If the second child is a brother, he belongs to a sex with a higher

status in society; he is favoured by their mother; he is encouraged

to display a different repertoire of behaviour to his older sister,

a repertoire that seems to be more effective in achieving its ends.

Since he has potentially higher power (in society) and more real power

vis a vis their mother, and his overt expression of aggression may be

intrinsically more attractive, he provides a model well worth emulating.

* Bigner, 1972
Hence the indications in the test that she matches his masculine aggression

and has a score that is almost identical to the first-born males in

the sample.

In Koch's work (1955), this girl appears to be very stimulated

by her younger male sibling and scores very high on teacher-rated positive

characteristics. She is said to be enthusiastic, curious, cheerful,

ambitious and tenacious. She also scores high on negative characteristics,

such as jealousy, competitiveness, quarrelling and aggression. In

projective tests she shows a preoccupation with the mother-child relation-

ship and believes that her mother favours her younger brother; she

is also reported to quarrel with him a great deal. Koch's finding

with regard to the relationship between these children is confirmed

in the reports of the girl. She is correct in believing that her mother

favours her younger brother and, as a result, has a relatively high

jealousy score (the second highest). Since she appears to be jealous

of his favoured position in the family (and possibly his favoured position

in society), has ordinal position power, and a masculine model for direct

expression of aggression, she is likely to make her feelings apparent

through direct poaer attempts over him. As a male in a favoured position,

it is very likely that he uill retaliate, hence the conflict in this

dyad (Koch, 1960).

B. First-born girls with a younger female sibling (2 F)

1
If the second-born child is a girl, then she has no special advan-

tage because of sex. The elder child's superiority as elder is there-

fore confirmed. As a first-born girl she may be drawn into a mothering

role (Koch, 1955; Cicirelli, 1976), an activity which further reinforces

her higher status and aligns her with her powerful parents. Since

her sister will also be socialized into domestic and emotional concerns,

a surface harmony may become the norm between these two girls. The
first-born girl is more likely to be bossy and more directive, but unlike

the younger brother, the younger sister is more likely to comply with

the power attempts, although some signs of the incipient rebellion may

be seen in the less positive and more negative allocations of this girl

compared with her older sister.

The second-born girl is reported by some researchers to be favoured

by their mother (Koch, 1955; Rothbart, 1967), and there is a weak (non-

significant) indication of this in the mother's report. If she is

displaced in her mother's favour, FlF is not displaced from her higher

status in the sibling position. She is the girl most likely to be

victorious in any quarrels (Koch, 1960), and as a first-born daughter

imbued with a sense of responsibility (Bossard & Boll, 1954). Any

jealousy she feels is likely to be concealed since this girl curbs her

aggression and has a high identification with her mother and therefore

with her mother's family and domestic concerns.

Age-gap and differences in personality and ability may modify

or completely alter these general schema.

 - /57

II FIRST-MUT BOYS

First-born boys in many senses have the same experiences as first-

born girls and develop some of the same personality traits. They are

subject to the parenting of new parents, generally made anxious by this

situation and are more parent-oriented and dependent as a result.

As first-borns their aggression is more curtailed although as

boys they are probably allowed to give vent to their aggression more

openly than are girls. As first-born males they are likely to have

a high status both in their families and to a slight extent in the society

as a Whole.

C. First-born boys with a younger brother (1.1111)

At six, this boy is characterized by Koch (1955) as competitive,

quarrelsome, teasing and insistent on his rights. He also alleges

that his mother favours his younger brother. Rothbart's work suggests

that although his mother shows signs of 'anxious intrusiveness' towards

him in a problem-solving situation, she is less critical of him than

is the mother of a first-born girl. And she further suggests that

the mother feels a special attachment to the first male child and does

not easily transfer her affections to a subsequent male. Bowerman

and Dobash (1974) report that MiMs see themselves as closer to their

siblings than their siblings are to them, and with age there is a marked

decrease in positive feeling between these boys.

In the maternal section of this research there is no clear evidence

that the mother favours MM2, although the high score on the comparative

section gi-ven by MN suggests that it is the younger and not the older
2
brother who is jealous. These findings are in line with the speculations

of Rothbart that the mother retains her closeness to the first-born

and also corroborative of Bowerman and Dobash's findings that M1M is

the more positive (or less negative) to their sibling. (M1Ms allocate

fewer friction and comparative items than their brothers.) For 11 11

1
the advent of a new sibling is threatening only on account of any charac-

teristics the new boy has gut individual. Depending on age-spacing

and talent the dominance of the first-born is confirmed. If the second-

born boy is closer to the mother however (and the evidence here is mixed)

the more parent-oriented first-born may react by more domineering behaviour

towards the younger boy, re-emphasizing his general status in response

to lack of status in his mother's eyes. Sex-typed aggressive and assertive

behaviour on the part of the first-born male will be matched by similar

behaviour on the part of the younger brother, hence the high incidence

of quarrelling among these boys.

Jealousy and envy may be twin themes in the relationship between

these two boys. If the mother switches her attention from the first-

born to the second-born male, then the displaced first-born may experience

jealousy of his younger sibling, .rho now occupies pride of place in

his mother's affections. However, two same-sex siblings almost inevitably

will be compared and will compare themselves; ceteris paribus the older

boy will have superior talents (age-related) and may flaunt these abilities.

The younger boy may be envious of the talents of the elder and the fact

that he will later acquire those same talents is of little comfort since

his older brother will then have moved on to some other higher level.

In the maternal interview, the mother reports herself as .slightly

closer to la ; the difference is not statistically significant, and

2
the difference between the scores of M M and MM is less than between
1 2
any other first acid second-born. On the comparative section, HI.I2 has

a significantly higher score than his older brother, suggesting that

perhaps he is the one who feels most jealous. This would endorse the

speculations of Rothbart, that the younger brother

of a brother is favoured by their mother. They do, however, run

counter to Koch's findings that LiMs think that their mothers favour

their younger sibling. In this research, ;Allis also think that their
mothers favour Li and the mother herself reports a more positive relation-
2'
ship with 1112. (Lleither difference is statistically significant - see

Chapter 4.)

D. First-born boys with a younger sister (X1F)

According to the hypothesis set out at the beginning of the chapter,

the first-born boy with a younger sister has his status 'doubly' emphasized;

both as male and as the first-born. However, the evidence from the

preference section suggests that the younger girl is favoured by their

mother, but this does not appear to affect the comparative score of the

older boy. This is rather difficult to explain on the face of it,

but it may be that the first-born male is so secure in his worldly status

that the greater indulgence of the mother towards his younger sister

is not seen as a sign of special privilege but as typical treatment

of a girl or a younger sibling, i.e. the behaviour of the mother is

not because she prefers the younger girl but because she is younger and

she is a girl:

This boy has one unusual Score, he allocates more items to his younger

sister on the friction section than she does to him. In all other

dyads it is the second-born who has the higher friction score. It

is difficult to interpret this result (which is not statistically sig-

nificant) but it may be that since a younger sister is less easily absorbed

into the play of an older brother her presence is seen as more of an

interference, than any other second-born. Where children are of the

same sex, their interests and concerns are likely to be similar and

they can play together quite easily; a younger brother can be more

easily assimilated into the games of his older sister (e.g. 'house'

or 'school') than a younger sister of a brother can be drawn into male

pursuits.
(1560)
In hoch's work this boy sees his sister as victorious in their

quarrels more often than any other first-born. She endorses this viewpoint.
The explanation may be that he is severely restricted in the type of

aggressive tactics that he can utilize towards her because of her sex.

In Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg's work on sibling power (1968) this boy

was not as clearly characterized as other first-borns as using high-

power strategies. MF by contrast, both siblings agree, is likely

2
to scratch and pinch (p< .001), ask parents for help (p< .05), complain

to parent (p< .001), cry, pout and sulk (p< .01), all of them with great

effectiveness since she is more often the victor. Though whilst apparently

less powerful than he (as a girl and as the younger child) she is none-

theless using her power more effectively. She can call on powerful

allies (parents) because she appears to be weak, and can use physical

aggression (scratching and pinching) where her older brother cannot.

This is a clear vindication of the view that the more obvious types of

Dower strategy are not necessarily the most effective.

III SECOND-BOltii GIRLS

Second-born children do not have the experience of being the only

child relating solely to anxious and concerned parents, and subsequently

displaced by another child. As a result they are generally less parent

and adult-oriented, less anxiously reared. These differences have

effects on the typical personality traits of the first and later-born

1
children.

Later-born children are found to be more aggressive, possibly

because the aggression of the first-born is generally directed at the

1 .
Question 21 asks the mother to describe her children and in two-child
families a typical characterization is the anxious, introverted first-
born and the more relaxed and extroverted second-born child. This
is similar to the findings of Dean (quoted Lasko,1954) that the first
child was described as more worried, sensitive and more dependent
on adults, while the second was more affectionate, independent and
physically aggressive towards peers.
 —/S7-

parents and is therefore more stringently controlled, whereas the aggression

of the second-born is often aimed at the older sibling and is tolerated

more by the parents.

Second-born children are confronted with two possible models whereas

the first have only one. Second-born children can model themselves

after both their parents and their siblings and sibling influences act

more powerfully on the personality of the second-born than the first

(Brim, 1958). In terms of attitude to the sibling as expressed in

more
the Children's Test, second-born girls are/affected by the sex of their
1
sibling although the differences are not significant , nor are they as

marked as the differences between the first-born girls.

E. Second-born girls with an older sister (IT )

2
The girl with an older sister receives very strong feminine in-

fluences in her family, from both her mother and her elder sister.

The elder sister may adopt a 'mothering' role towards her which may

have a slightly 'smothering' effect. Depending on age-spacing she

is drawn into her sister's orbit and may constantly play an inferior

role to her older sister and this has a slightly depressing effect on

the younger girl (when age-spacing is 2-4 years) (Koch, 1956).

There is a slight (but non-significant) indication that she is

the favourite of her mother and this finding agrees with the American

research of Rothbart (1967) and Koch (1955). Koch also reports that

the father tends to favour her older sister. On these ratings she

is less positive and more negative and gives more friction items than

her older sister, suggesting tnat she is less happy with the relation-

ship than her older sister. Although there are differences on every

other measure, the comparative scores are the same, suggesting that

although the younger girl is dominated more by her older sister, she

has little reason to be jealous of her (since she is more indulged by

their mother?).

1
It is possible that the differences might reach the level of statistical
significance in larger samples.
 P. Second-born girls with an older brother (E F )
2
This girl does not have the congruity of models as does the second-

born girl with a sister. She models after both her mother and her

older brother (Brim, 1958). This has a strong effect on her personality.

She is rated the most interested in creative occupations of all girls

in two-child families (Sutton-Smith et al, 1964), the more achieving

(Altus, 1966; Douglas, 1964) than FF2; is more often rated a 'tomboy'

(Koch, 1956), and teacher-rated as quarrelsome, tenacious, competitive

and popular (Koch, 1955).

These characteristics are generally assumed to be the result of

assimilating some of the masculine qualities of her brother (i.e. independent,

aggressive, achieving and athletic). The girl with an older brother

is the most 'masculine' of all girls in two-child families at

six, as rated by her teacher (Koch, 1956), and has the most 'masculine'

self report of all girls at eleven and nineteen (Sutton-Smith & Rosenberg,

1965). The view of sex role development implicit in these descriptions

of certain behaviours as typically masculine or feminine,stemsfrom the

notion that 'sex role development involves the acquisition of a variety

of structurally differentiated repertoires throughout the development

period. The modal sequence for a boy is to acquire the beginning of

the affective-humanistic repertoire at his mother's knee during the

first five years, the athletic-aggressive repertoire from his peers

during the next ten years, and the entrepreneurial-managerial repertoire

from his teachers thereafter. Analogously the girl acquires in turn

the affective-humanistic, the nurturant-domestic and the feminine-

glamorous repertoires.' (Sutton-Smith & Rosenberg, 1970, p.149)

Within this model the girl with an older brother appears more 'masculine'
and
by her own rating (1965),/by her interest in entrepreneurial activities

(Sutton-Smith, Roberts & Rosenberg, 1964).

 As second-born in an opposite-sex dyad, she is reported to be

favoured by her mother, but if she is indulged this does not apparently

represent a threat to the superiority of her older brother as the first-

born male. However, should she be close in age and more vigorous and

challenging to her older brother, then this creates possibly the most

threatening situation faced by first-borns, since this boy stands to

be undermined by a younger sibling and by a girl and doubly dethroned:

IV SLCOID-BORN BOYS

There is almost an inherent contradiction in the term 'second-

born boy', since second-born implies low status and boy implies higher

status. How this contradiction reconciles itself is dependent to a

large extent on the sex of the older sibling. The fact that both second-

born boys have the highest friction scores hints at the resistance they

may put up against accepting their lower status in the pecking order

and the 'pecking' of their older siblings. In Koch's study (1960)

the two dyads with younger male siblings, i.e. MN and FM, have the two

highest quarrelling scores.

G. Second-born boys with an older brother

Sears et al (1957) reported that the mother's attitude to the

birth of a new child was a function of the existing family configuration.

Mothers who had a boy were less enthusiastic about their pregnancy than

mothers who had girls. As a consequence, mothers appeared to be less

warm to their second-born sons, if they already had a boy. (The same

effects are not observable for a boy who follows a girl, nor for a girl

who is second-born.)

The younger brother is faced with an elder male sibling after

whom he models very strongly: hence the characterization of this boy

as the most 'masculine' of boys (Sutton-Smith and hosenberg, 1970).

Since both boys are likely to have sex-linked competitive behaviours

strongly developed, and depending on age-spacing, they are likely to

spend more time together as same-sex siblings do, their relationship

is marked by competition and quarrelling.

The greater skill of the first-born means that he is likely to

be the more successful member of the pair, in terms of physical and

mental competency (depending on age-spacing and individual abilities).

His more domineering behaviour elicits a high friction score from M2

and the possibility that he is closer to their mother elicits a high

comparative score from MM2. (The only one that is significantly different

from his siblings' comparative score.) 4e have already suggested that

since the evidence on maternal preference is mixed, both in this research

and elsewhere, this score might represent a measure of envy on the part

of the younger boy rather than jealousy, or possibly an amalgam of the

two feelings.

H. Second-born boys with an older sister (FM )

2
This boy had the highest preference score from the mother and his

sister has the second highest jealousy score. All of the characterizations

of the boy with an older sister suggest that he is spoiled and indulged

by his mother. This has rather negative effects on his personality.

In Koch's research he is said to be quarrelsome, exhibitionistic, with-

drawn and depressive (1955), compared to boys with older brother he is

less achieving.

This boy has a very close relationship with his mother who indicates

that she is rather indulgent of him; as a male he is inclined to resent

the attempts at domination by his older and jealous sister, and meets

her aggression with equally forthright responses. Therefore they are

inclined to quarrel rather a lot. Compared to the boy with an older

brother he gives a low comparative score to his sister. This endorses

the view presented by the mother and sister that he is the favoured

child in the family.

This is an interesting dyad, in that the apparently less favoured

position of the older girl vis a vis her mother has beneficial effects

on the development of this girl, who on Koch's ratings at six scored

highest on all positive characteristics (also on jealousy and competitive-

ness).. For the younger boy, however, the reverse seems to apply.

His favoured position in the family encourages in him the development

of characteristics ill-suited to the world of school and childhood.

'FM is characterized as withdrawn and depressive rather than

2
outgoing and enthusiastic.... He is rated as low on gregarious-

ness and friendliness and yet is seen as quarrelsome, exhibitionistic,

selfish and uncooperative with his peers, as well as given to

teasing. He is rated as a cissy, not tenacious, not ambitious,

not competitive and not insistent on his rights.' (Sutton-Smith

and Rosenberg, 1970, p.147)

The favoured position of this boy seems to foster a strong sense

of self-esteem in these boys according to Rosenberg (1965), who goes

on to hypothesize that such is the self-esteem that parental warmth

fosters in him, that he is relatively impervious to the usual desires

for social participation, leadership and academic success.

These images of two-child sibling groups are necessarily over-

simplified: but taking the introductory hypotheses concerning age and

sex-linked power, the results of the maternal preference section, and

empirical evidence from various other sources on sibling affect and

power, they offer plausible interpretations of the sibling interactions

within two-child families. One important structural variable has not

been considered in any detailed way and that is the precise effects
 - /6 -

of age-spacing, although its possible significance has been indicated

at several points in the discussion. The other set of variables are

impossible to include in such an analysis since they relate to individual

variations within the families; variations in talent, special status

both within and outside the home, special links and relationships within

the family, etc. These individual variations may upset, modify, or

reverse the tendencies outlined previously. The significance of the

upset can be predicted in some cases, as in the case of the older boy

and younger girl, where the threat possibly posed by a younger female

sibling can be seen in terms of the model as doubly threatening to the

position of the older boy.

Many of the relationships between siblings have been related to

the effects of sex role assimilation between siblings. The extent

of sex role assimilation in itself is a variable and ono of the factors

influencing the degree of sex role assimilation is the emphasis laid

by parents on sex roles and their discrimination. If parents assist

children in determining what is appropriate sex-linked behaviour, then

the amount of sex role assimilation will be limited. A great deal

of space has been given to two-child family relationships because of

the significant amount of research among two-child families which has

to be matched with the results here. The increase in family size from

two to three-child families complicates the picture enormously and in-

troduces a whole new set of variables and with four children the picture

is complicated even further.

 - /-

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ThREE-CHILD FAMILIES

In three-child families there are different structural pressures

operating in the sibling group. The possibility of cross-generational

matching - one parent to one child - is ruled out, because this leaves

one child out in the cold. Within the sibling group, there will be

two children of like sex and one child of opposite sex. Rosenberg

and Sutton-Smith (1964) have shown how sex role identification is affected

by family size and sibling constellation. In the two-child family,

children assimilate some of the sex-linked role characteristics of their

sibling (Koch, 1955, 1956; Brim, 1958, Rosenberg & Sutton-Smith, 1964,

Bigner, 1972), so that the boy with a sister scores higher on clinical

measures of femininity than does the boy with a brother. In the three-

child family, however, the pattern is reversed; the boy with two sisters

does not show increased femininity, but increased masculinity. This

the authors refer to as 'counteractive phenomena' and suggest that boys

with too much feminine influence within the family, resist the assimilation

of feminine characteristics and counteract it in some way. They conclude,

'that increasing the siblings beyond the two-child family dramatically

alters the family structure and the contribution of ordinal position

to personality development' (Rosenberg & Sutton-Smith, 1964, p.318).

Simmel (1950) pointed out that there are special characteristics

to the triad, and it is often likely to devolve into two against one.

Caplow (1968), in a study of 50 three-child families, found that in

23 of the families all three of the children agreed that there was a

sibling coalition. In 21 of these coalitions the siblings were of

the same sex and often close in age. Caplow concludes that siblings

team up on the basis of likeness and similarity, the most common basis

being sex.
 Within the three-child family there are three possible and recognized

ordinal positions, each with its special advantages. The eldest generally

have the superior status of being the first and most competent members

of the sibling group. They may often be given special responsibilities

to care for and oversee the younger children in loco parentis. This

delegated power and their greater general ability reinforces the stature

of the first-born. The youngest child in a three-child family is often

regarded as the 'baby' of the family and is indulged (Sears et al, 1957;

Lasko, 1954). In Chapter 4 the special regard that the mother has for

the youngest was clearly demonstrated and was also recognized by the

other children. The middle child may have a rather difficult position

unless he/she can successfully challenge the eldest for supremacy in

the sibling group. Most of the research relating to the middle child

has negative connotations. In some families the middle child may occupy

a special position because of sex difference and there is some evidence

that the father may take a special interest in the single-sex child

(see Chapter 4). By sheer dint of personality, others may overcome

the difficulties endemic in their ordinal position.

In the work of Sears et al (1957) the middle child had more house-

hold chores to do and even when family size was held constant this

relationship persists. He was praised less often for good behaviour

compared with the youngest child. The mother also reported that the

middle and youngest quarrelled with their siblings more. She placed

more restrictions on the aggression of the middle and youngest child

towards their siblings, and she was more tolerant of sibling-directed

aggression in the eldest child.

 -/6S"

Table 5.9

Scores on Positive, Negative, Friction and Comparative

by Sex and Ordinal Position

Sub'ect Kean Score to Sibling

Sex Ord. Pos. N. Pos. Neg. Fric. Comp.

is All 38 2.8 5.5 4.5* 3.4***

F All 32 2.9 6.0 3.5 2.2
- I 25 2.8 5.0* 3.9 2.3
- II 27 2.7 6.0 3.9 3.5**
- III 18 2.9 6.2 4.8* 2.6

P: I 14 2.6 4.9 4.2 3.0

N II 15 2.9 6.0 4.1 3.8
M III 9 2.8 5.5 5.2* 3.3
F I 11 3.1 5.1 2.5** 1.5
i II 12 2.6 5.9 3.7 3.2**
P III 9 2.9 7.0* 4.4 1.9

* p< .05 ** p .02 *** p< .01

Table 5.9 sets out the results on four measures for children in three-

child families. Analysis is t-test (two-tailed) on adjacent pairs

after chi-square 'goodness of fit'.

1. Sex. Boys show more friction towards their siblings (p< .05)

and express more jealousy (p< .01) than do girls. This is in line

with the results from two-child families which revealed a more positive

attitude to siblings among girls than among boys.

2. Ordinal Position. There are no ordinal position differences

on the positive measures, the mean scores are practically identical.

On the negative score the more inhibited first-born score less than

do both younger siblings (p< .05), which is in agreement with evidence

given so far on the greater inhibition of the first-born. The score

of the third-born on friction measures is interesting, since it reveals

the disadvantages of being the youngest. As the youngest and most

vulnerable member of the sibling group this child is probably subject

 - /644 -

to the domination and power attempts of older siblings and the reaction

to this is reflected in a high friction score. Being at the bottom

of the sibling pecking order can be a rather uncomfortable position,

for the youngest probably has to put up with a certain amount of ordering

about and bossing by the older children. So, if the position of youngest
•
has its advantages vis a vis the mother, it has certain disadvantages
•
vis a vis older siblings. That the third child is favoured by his

mother and, therefore, not likely to be jealous, can be seen in the

comparative scores of the three ordinal positions. The youngest and

the first have similar scores, both significantly different from the

middle child (p< .02).

The difficulties faced by the middle child have already been sketched

and in Chapter 4 the mother reported that the middle-born were more

likely than any other position to be 'difficult'. There is only a

little research that is concerned with the middle child, but most of

it has negative associations. They show more negative attention getting

(Gewirtz, 1948), are most changeable (Brock & Becker, 1965), are less

often given affectionate nicknames by their parents (Clausen, 1966),

and are least popular (Sells & Roff, 1963).

It is not possible to say of whom the middle child is most likely

to be jealous, and it may indeed be a mixture of two feelings, both

measured by the comparative section: a feeling of envy of the superior

advantages and skills of the first-born and jealousy of the special

relationship between the mother and the youngest. The direction of

feelings is considered in Tables 5.10 and 5.11

3(a) Sex - Ordinal Position. The scores of boys in different ordinal

positions show no differences on comparative scores; the middle-born

child has the highest score but the difference is not significant.

All three boys have quite a high comparative score and no one ordinal
 -/6

position stands out. On friction the weaker position of the youngest

is again apparent (p< .05). Boys who are youngest in a family of three

may experience and report greater friction with their siblings than

youngest girls, because they may resist the attempts to dominate them

by their older siblings; third-born girls may be more amenable in this

respect.

3(b) Among the girls the third child is more negative than the other

two ordinal positions (p<.05), the first child reveals less friction

(p< .02), and the middle-born child appears as the most jealous (p< .02).

The difficulty that exists with the interpretation of these results

lies in the fact that the sibling constellation of each ordinal position

occupant is unknown. Some of these results can be understood without

knowledge of the sibling group to which the child belongs; for example,

the first-born girl probably experiences less friction because by virtue

of her sex and ordinal position she is likely to take on a proxy maternal

role towards her younger siblings (Cicirelli, 1976). She may elicit

a high friction score in others but she herself is unlikely to be in

direct conflict with her younger siblings. Why should the middle girl

be more jealous (relative to other girls) than the middle boy? The

intermediary variable may be the sibling composition of the families

of these girls. Six of the twelve middle-born girls are 'sandwiched'

between two boys, whereas only three of the fifteen middle boys are

in the equivalent position. If sibling constellation is the relevant

factor in explaining the difficult position of the middle-born girl,

far larger samples will be required for the careful elaboration of the

principles at work in three-child families. Why are girls apparently

affected more than boys? Do middle-born boys have more success at

challenging their older siblings for their supremacy of position?

Is this particularly true if the first-born is female?

 To indicate, although weakly, some of the possible effects of

sibling constellation, Table 5.10 and 5.11 set out the scores given

by boys and girls in each ordinal position to male and female siblings.

The cell sizes are in many cases too small for statistical analysis
and all statements are therefore tentative.

Table 5.10

.1locations of Friction and Comparative Items to Siblings

Three-Child Amilies

Subject N. Sibling:
Ord. Pos. Sex Friction Comp.

I, (7) 3.0 2.1

II 2.6 1.6
P (7) 2.1 1.0
I (14)
is (5) 1.9 1.6
III 1.7 1.6
F (9) 1.4 1.6

(9) 2.7 1.9

1 2.6 1.8
F (6) 2.5 1.7
II (15)
II (7) 1.4 1.3
III 1.5 2.0
F (8) 1.6 2.6

II (6) .i7 .,C La

I 3.2 1.9
F (3) 2.7 2.0
III (9)
ti (4) 2.2 3.2
II 2.0 1.5
F (5) 1.8 0.2
1. For the first-born male, the second-born elicits more friction

than the youngest, and a second-born male more than the second female.

As a general rule it would be expected that the siblings who are closest

to each other in age would report more friction with each other, since

they are probably more often in contact with each other. For the same

reason conflict between same-sex siblings should therefore be higher.

(This is the case for males but as Table 5.11 reveals, not for females.)

In two-child families, the first-born males report equal friction with

both younger male siblings and younger female siblings, and NiF is more

irritated by his younger sister than she is by him. (An unusual report

for first-born children.) in three-child families, a second-born female

sibling seems to be less irksome to her older brother than a second-

born male; the addition of a third child seems to lessen the powers

of the second-born girl to irritate her older brother. Perhaps with

the addition of a baby to the family the second girl is encouraged to

deflect her attentions from her older brother and to take up a maternal
■
role Iris a vis the new baby. The second-born male also elicits a high

comparative score, reinforcing the report of the mother (see Chapter 4)

that where the first and second are of the same sex the first is more

likely to be thought 'difficult', or jealous.

2. The second-born boy also gives a higher friction score to the

more powerful first-born, but unlike the first-born does not appear to

differentiate between male and female first-born siblings. This result

is remarkably similar to the two-child family patterns: boys in the

second-born position allocate higher friction scores to their older

sibling, regardless of the sex of that sibling. For the second-born

boy the domination of an older sibling is irksome, whatever the sex

of that sibling. For the first-born boy (in the three-child family)

only a second-born male sibling is a real threat. On the comparative

side, the most marked score is that to third-born girls; it is possible

that if the second-born male is in turn displaced by a younger opposite-

sex siblings, he reacts as the first-born in two-child families reacts

when displaced by an opposite-sex sibling and scores higher on jealousy.

3. The third-born boys give the highest friction scores to their

siblings, again a reaction to their lowly position in the pecking order.

Like the first-born males they also react more vigorously to a male

than to a female sibling on friction counts. On the comparative measure

the second-born male gets the highest score from the youngest, but since

there are only four boys in this category, the statement is very ten-

tatively made.

The allocations made by girls to their siblings are set out in

Table 5.11, and in some respects parallel those of the boys. (see

Table over page)

1. For the first-born girls as for boys, there is more friction ex-

perienced with the second-born. However, same-sex second-born siblings

do not elicit more friction for girls, but a male sibling elicits more
1
friction from all girls in three-child families. Similarly, in the

two-child families, the girl with a younger brother (FIN) has the highest

friction score of all girls. It is frequently reported in sibling

studies that male siblings appear to be more stimulating than female

siblings, and if the friction items are a measure of daily tensions

between siblings, there seem to be more conflicts between children and

their male siblings than between children and their female siblings.

2. For the second-born girls, the high friction score given to them

by the first-born is reciprocated. The comparative allocations are

distributed more or less equally among both first and third-child, which

makes it difficult to interpret the high comparative score of the middle

girl. To elucidate this result further, would require some insight

1 The second-born is an exception, giving more friction items to younger

sisters.
into the effects of sibling status on these middle-born girls. The

sample sizes here are too small to afford such an insight.

Table 5.11

Allocations of Friction and Comparative Items to Siblings

Three-Child Families
FEM-ILES

Subject N. Sibling:
Ord. Pos. Sex N. Friction Comp.

I. (6) 2.0 1.2

II 1.7 1.0
F (5) 1.4 0.8
I (11)
1.1 (6) 1.0 0.3
III 0.8 0.6
F (5) 0.6 1.0

, (7) 2.7 1.4

I 2.3 1.3
F (5) 1.8 1.2
II (12)
M (9) 1.0 1.8
III 1.3 1.8
F (3) 2.3 1.6

M (5) 1.6 0.4

I 1.4 0.3
F (4) 1.2 0.3
III (9)
M (6) 3.5 1.8
II 3.0 1.5
F (3) 2.0 1.0

3. The third-born girl reacts most strongly on both counts to the

second-born boy, to whom she gives a high friction and a quite high

comparative score. Since the comparison group of second-born females

consists of only three children, the likelihood that this finding will

have more general applicability is dubious.

Summary

Although the results are very tentative, the direction of the

allocation of friction and comparative items suggests: (1) with exceptions,

a male sibling seems to attract more friction items than a female sibling;

(2) the clearest exception (and this is found also in two-child families)

is that of the second-born boy, who does not seem to differentiate between

a male and a female sibling and allocates equal friction items to them.

Although the middle-child appears to be more jealous, especially

the middle-born girl, the direction of her allocations does not hint

at the forces behind this feeling. The comparative items go equally

to the first and third child. This is most probably because the relevant

consideration must be the total family constellation. The relation-

ship, for example, of a first-born boy to his younger brother will probably

vary considerably depending on whether that second. brother is followed

by a sister or by another brother. On a similar theme, Rosenberg

Sutton-Smith (1964) found that anxiety in children was closely related

to their position in different sibling compositions. Thus a boy with

one younger brother is high in anxiety, but with two younger brothers

is low in anxiety. A boy with one younger sister is low in anxiety,

but with two younger sisters he becomes high on anxiety. Similar findings

are reported for girls. Because of the low cell frequencies in this

research, it is not possible to compare the position of children in

the same ordinal position and of the same sex, in families of different

types.

The data presented here show three characteristic patterns for

each ordinal position. The first-born has low negative scores, a finding

in keeping with the more controlled and inhibited picture of the first

child. The second, particularly the second-born girl, scores highest

on the comparative section of the test. This is in agreement with

the report of the mother that this child is more difficult

and also matches other evidence indicating that the position

of the middle-born child generally has rather more disadvantages than

advantages. In Chapter 3 the clear statement that the youngest was

the mother's favourite was made. In this chapter we can see that

although the youngest may stand in a privileged position in relation

to the mother, in the sibling group he may have a rather lowly position

and become butt of many power attempts by the other two children.

Third-born boys, in particular, seem to react against this domination.

Looking more closely at the direction of the friction and comparative

allocations, it appears that the first and second-born are more likely

to report conflict with each other than with the third, and that for

almost all children a male sibling is more likely to elicit a friction

reaction than a female sibling. The failure to find clear trends to

explain the high comparative score of the middle girl suggests that

sibling constellation might be the relevant intervening variable.

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN FOUR-CHILD FAMILIES

If a little is known about family relationships in three-child

families, nothing seems to be known about the structure of relation-

ships in the four-child family. Sometimes, second, third and fourth

child are grouped together under the rubric 'later born'; sometimes

second and third are lumped together under the classification 'inter-

mediate', both categories probably concealing more than they reveal.

Two separate strands of evidence to date suggest that the four-child

family differs fundamentally from smaller families. On the use of

Nobody, distinctions that applied in the two and three-child family

failed to reach significance in the four-child family. These are

mostly differences relating to sex. The second piece of evidence comes

from the report on maternal preference, where there were no patterns

of favouritism evident in the four-child family.

The two-child family may be differentiated on the basis of sex

and age/ordinal position. In the three-child family there is a clear

ordinal position distinction that the mother makes relevant, and possibly

for the father a sex distinction. The suggestion has already been

made, that the increase in family size from three to four may signal

a radical change in the structure of relationships within the family;

the essence of the shift being a change from role or status-based differen-

tiation to a more individualized differentiation, on the lines set out

by Bossard 82 Boll (1955) in their study of pe,Isonality roles in the

large family. LJ.though Bossard 82 Boll confined themselves to studying

families of six or more children, the family of four may embody some

of the same trends.

Within the four-child family there are eight kinds of male first-

born child, depending on the type of family constellation he heads (and

similarly eight types of second, third and youngest child). It is

apparent, therefore, that to have any kind of a check on ordinal position

or sibling status effects would require an extremely large sample.

Within the sibling group children may have a variety of models both

of their same-sex and of the opposite sex. Two girls and two boys

will, all other things being equal, probably group together on the basis

of sex; with three children of one sex and one 'singleton', a coalition

may form between the same-sex siblings isolating the single-sex child.

To create and maintain an identity, independent of sex or ordinal position,

is likely to be one of the main concerns of children in larger families.

Krout's (1939) concept of 'filial value' would suggest that the singleton

might have a special position in such families, although there was no

evidence that this was the case, in the matter of maternal favouritism.
The scores of each sex and ordinal position are set out in Table 5.12:

Table 5.12

Allocations of Friction and Comparative Items to Siblirws

Four-Child Families

Ilean Allocs. to Sib.

Sex Ord. Pos. i. Fric. Comp.

is All 21 5.5 3.9

2 All 29 4.6 3.7
- I 15 4.2 2.4
- II 14 5.3 4.0
- III 14 5.3 4.0
- IV 7 4.1 3.8
I 6 4.8 3.0
1,1 II 5 5.0 3.2
n III 7 5.3 5.4
i. IV 3 3.3 2.7
F I 9 3.8 2.0
F II 9 5.4 4.4
F III 7 4.7 4.3
F IV 4 4.7 4.7

1. As on other measures on the Children's Test, there are no differences

between the friction and comparative scores of boys and girls in four-

child families. If the sex assimilation hypothesis holds in families

of four, then the variety of models available for any child to choose

from means that sharp sex differences are minimized, and unlike girls

in two and three-child families, girls in four-child families are not

more positive to their siblings than boys.

2. Middle-borns (i.e. second and third-born children) score slightly

higher on friction than the first and the youngest. On the comparative

measures the first-born has a low score, and the third-born a rather

high score. The low score of the first-born contrasts with the rather

similar scores of the three later-born children, suggesting that in

four-child families the first-born retains a profile similar to that

of other first-borns, but later-borns are variously affected by their

sibling status. In all three family sizes, the first-born share the

experience of having been very close to the parents, of probably having

been somewhat anxiously cared for, and then of having been displaced

by a younger sibling. This tends to make the first-borns dependent

and adult-oriented, developing personality traits that endure as the

sibling constellation changes. So in the four-child family on such

measures as Use of Nobody and Involvement with Parents, when other

differences fade, the distinction between the first-born and later-born

children is retained.

The highest score, that of the third-born, may be due to the fact

that these are the children who have most recently been displaced.

They are mostly quite young children (only seven of their younger siblings

are old enough to be able to complete the test), and therefore still

closely tied to their mother with only weak peer group affiliations.

3. Among the boys there is an increasing gradient of friction to

the third-born and then a low score from the fourth. (Since there

are only three fourth-born boys, this score is not considered.) The

increase in friction with the move down the pecking order is predictable.

On the comparative measures, the third-born boy has a very high score

(5.4 from a possible total of 7). The reasons are probably as set

out in the previous paragraph: viz. the close emotional bond that still

exists towards the mother and the most recent experience of displacement.

4. Among the girls only the first-born have a characteristically

low score. Among the other three ordinal positions there are no differences.
 Within the four-child family the possibility of clearly defined

structural roles diminishes, and other more individually-based differences

come to the fore (Bossard & Boll, 1956). There is no way in this research

that these differences can be captured and their clarification requires

larger samples and more clinical investigations.

To a large extent, the premises behind this research assume that

the relationship that children have to their parents and particularly

their mother, is of fundamental importance when interpreting the relation-

ship that they have with each other. Although this may apply to two

and three-child families, it may be of far less importance in the four-

child family. Here the sibling group may develop a cohesion of its

own, and rivalries and jealousies in the group may exist independently

of the parents and their actions. Bossard & Boll (1954) found that

in interviews with members of large families (six or more children),

their sense of emotional security stemmed more from their siblings than

from their parents. Older siblings took on parental roles and res-

ponsibilities and were rewarded by receiving the affection that in smaller

families generally goes to the parents. The family of four is not,

by the standards used by Bossard & Boll, a large family, but it may

contain some of the same influences and forces. Since the possibility

of taking up ordinal position roles, like middle, eldest or youngest,

does not exhaust all the possibilities in four-child families where

1
there would be two middle children , other differences are created.

These may be individually-based differences, and only the first-born

Even in the three-child family, the position of the middle child is

clearly defined only in one sense - that it is between the eldest
and youngest. The eldest and youngest have implicit role prescriptions
in their position (be responsible; to be spoiled/indulged), but not
so the middle child. The implicit role prescriptions are present
in the cultural stereotypes for each ordinal position.
with his unique experience of having had his parents to himself, retains

a similarity to other first-borns.

AG1;-SPACING

It is clear that one of the most relevant factors in discriminating

between children, is on the basis of their age. The further apart

the children are in years, the greater the difference in treatment, and

the less the tendency to compare with each other. Similarly, the closer

the children are in age the more similarly they will be treated; twins

should be treated exactly the same and any marked differences would

require some kind of explanation. In a situation in which macro-

differences are diminished, micro-differences between individuals may

become more prominent. In this case, though twins should be treated

exactly alike in theory, both the children themselves and/or their parents

may strive to create differences and these micro-differences legitimize

variations in their treatment. In their work on the large families,

Bossard & Boll found recognizable personality types emerged in almost

every large family, and what is more interesting that every person had

a different personality role. If there was already one studious type

in the family, it was unlikely that subsequent siblings would become

the same type. There is a grey area in age-spacing where the children

are similar enough for some purposes and different enough for others;

this lies between two and four years. In Helen Koch's data, although

there were clear ordinal and sex effects, the most marked effects are

those that are attributable to age-spacing. The two to four-year age

gap heightens all other effects at six years. Subsequent work by

Sutton-Smith & Rosenberg (1970) indicates that these effects have a

lasting influence.
 The hypothese7, that there would be more friction, jealousy and

general negative affect at the two to four-year age-spacing than at

greater or lesser age-spacing, were tested. The total amount of negative

interaction was also calculated and the two groups compared. The results

are sot out in Table 5.13:

Table 5.13

Negative Affects at Different Age-Spacing

All Children: N = 189

Lean Allocation to Sib.

Age-Spacing in months Fric. Comp. Neg. out. Total Ag.

Between 24 - 47 2.2 1.3 3.3 7.3

-23 and 48+ 2.0 1.4 2.6 6.0

P< N/s .01 .05 .01

The hypothesis is confirmed for all measures except friction.

The age-spacing of two to four years is critical because the children

are close enough in age to play together and to be generally treated

in a similar fashion; at the same time they are sufficiently different

in age for one to be more powerful, more physically and intellectually

able and therefore to overshadow the younger. Also, at this age-spacing,

the younger child may by dint of talent and ability threaten the status-

based superiority of the first-born, thereby upsetting what the first-

born may regard as his natural supremacy in the sibling group. (Several

examples of this are given in Chapter 7.)

There is a possibility that this result merely reflects the greater

general involvement of siblings two to four years apart. To check

on this, a similar comparison is z:ade of the positive items.

 Table 5.14

Positive Affects at Different Age-Spacing

All Children: N = 189

Mean Allocations to Sib.

Age-Spacinr- in months Pos. out. Dependency Sharing Total Pos.

Between 24 - 47 1.2 0.6 1.3 •0

-23 and 48+ 1.4 0.6 1.2 3.2

None of these means is significantly different, suggesting that

the greater negative involvement is not part of a more general involvement.

1. In two-child families, sex of sibling is an important factor in-

fluencing the attitudes of girls to their siblings. The effects

are most pronounced for the first-born.

2. In two-child families, sex of sibling is not an important factor

for boys; with the exception that second-born boys with older

brothers are more likely to give them a high comparative score.

3. In three-child families there are recognizable characteristics

for each ordinal position: (i) the first-born appears to be more

inhibited; (ii) the middle, especially gills, to be more jealous;

and (iii) the youngest, especially boys, to allocate high friction

scores to their siblings - a reaction to the bossing and domineering

of their older siblings.

4. In two and three-child families, girls are generally more positive

to their siblings than boys; the same effects are not seen in

four-child families.

5. Overall males seem to elicit more friction from their siblings

than females. Exceptions are the second-born boys, whose friction

 is mostly with the first-born and regardless of the sex of the

older sibling.

6. There are no clear indications of sibling interactions in four-

child families, suggesting that different principles may be operating

here. Only the first-born in four-child families retains a profile

similar to other first-borns.

7. At the intermediate age-space of two to four years, there is more

negative affect between siblings (with the exception of friction)

than at lesser or wider age-spacings. There is no similar pattern

for positive affects.

Far2:XT

As a. check on the children's report of jealousy, there is also

a report from the mother on the same subject.

the two-child family, two-thirds of the mothers reported that

there was jealousy and fourteen specified a jealous child; ten children

specified were first-born and four second-born. Eight mothers said

that both their children were jealous and eleven said 'none'. Chi-square

test with Yates correction on those specified as jealous was significant

at p< .05 level, indicating that the mother was more likely to think

the first-born child jealous.

Although this complements neatly the mother's report of favouritism,

it does not match up with the direct reporting of the first-born then-

selves. They are, in fact, less likely than the second-born to allocate

comparative items to their siblings, and referring back to the data on

inhibition and the use of Eobody (Chapter 3), it may be inferred that

the first-born are denying their jealousy.

The mother also reports that twelve of the fourteen 'jealous'

children are from opposite sex dyads in which the second-born got
significantly higher preference choices. Referring to the Children's

Test reports, it is apparent that although the first-born in opposite

sex dyads allocate more negative and friction items to their younger

siblings, they do not allocate more comparative items.

Within the three-child family, there is a slightly higher reporting of

jealousy with twenty-two of the twenty-nine mothers reporting some kind

of jealousy. The following table sets out the distribution of the

mothers' replies.

Table 5.15

Mother's Answer to Question about Jealousy

Three-Child Families: N = 29

Ohild's ord. pos.

I II III All None

N.* 14 12 1 1 7

`, age 48 41 3 3 24

* number exceeds 29 since some mothers named two children

There are no differences between the percentages of boys and girls

cited, but of the nineteen families in which only one child is said to

be jealous, all are first or second-born. Twelve belong to families

in which the first and second are same-sex (7571, of such families) and

seven to families in which the first and second are opposite-sex (5e

of such families.

Within the four-child family, there are no clear patterns in the mothers'

statements about jealousy, no sex-linked or ordinal position-linked

effects.