View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Maternal Differential Treatment and Child Adjustment: A Multi-Informant Approach

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Maternal Differential Treatment and Child Adjustment: A Multi-Informant Approach
Language: English
Authors: Coldwell, Joanne, Pike, Alison, Dunn, Judy
Source: Social Development. Aug 2008 17(3):596-612.
Availability: Blackwell Publishing. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8599; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: customerservices@blackwellpublishing.com; Web site: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jnl_default.asp
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2008
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Siblings, Mothers, Emotional Adjustment, Parent Child Relationship, Adjustment (to Environment), Child Rearing, Foreign Countries, Young Children, Behavior Problems, Negative Attitudes, Discipline
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom (England)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00440.x
ISSN: 0961-205X
Abstract: The study aimed to replicate previous links with children's adjustment as well as using children's reports of maternal differential treatment (MDT) to test whether difference scores or favouritism scores demonstrate stronger links with child outcome. Finally, it tested for a unique prediction of children's adjustment from distinct aspects and informants of MDT. The sample consisted of 173 working- and middle-class English families with two children aged four to eight years. Mothers provided reports of the mother-child relationship, and both mothers and fathers provided reports of the children's problematic behaviour. The children also provided reports of parent-child relationships and perceived favouritism via a puppet interview. Results confirmed moderate links between MDT and children's adjustment and showed that difference scores provided a better prediction of adjustment than did the favouritism scores. Finally, the results showed that mothers' reports of differential positive feelings were the most salient aspect of MDT for older siblings whereas mothers' reports of negative feelings and positive discipline were the most salient aspects of MDT for younger siblings.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 33
Entry Date: 2008
Accession Number: EJ802151
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHKJfOEtM6rLhgznej2R4BkAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDECX0BxnBEDWJ1Ff7gIBEICBmtnjGDUnpr9aE27dwAoijFnNlFcFZ8xfQqIcKblT6Q6rsOJP0TvRXRfcZu1KPEfumfCOWMGQwk8Gig1LlHzf4RL-wpN9IX3rgkZXk8XjyITN8_4dEIT_q4-Zz7is2D8DfJgB1mc1AL7CaJ7ody8yzCv_hboZgsky7kQsHASEehkiFHVWfmuX2B_sBqEsnADDGwXhaqxHf7D1wMg=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0033158960;bsp01aug.08;2019Jun26.08:57;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0033158960-1">Maternal Differential Treatment and Child Adjustment: A Multi-informant Approach. </title> <p>The study aimed to replicate previous links with children's adjustment as well as using children's reports of maternal differential treatment (MDT) to test whether difference scores or favouritism scores demonstrate stronger links with child outcome. Finally, it tested for a unique prediction of children's adjustment from distinct aspects and informants of MDT. The sample consisted of 173 working‐ and middle‐class English families with two children aged four to eight years. Mothers provided reports of the mother–child relationship, and both mothers and fathers provided reports of the children's problematic behaviour. The children also provided reports of parent–child relationships and perceived favouritism via a puppet interview. Results confirmed moderate links between MDT and children's adjustment and showed that difference scores provided a better prediction of adjustment than did the favouritism scores. Finally, the results showed that mothers' reports of differential positive feelings were the most salient aspect of MDT for older siblings whereas mothers' reports of negative feelings and positive discipline were the most salient aspects of MDT for younger siblings.</p> <p>Keywords: parental differential treatment; child adjustment; parenting</p> <p>Differential parental treatment has been consistently related to child adjustment (e.g., Daniels, Dunn, Furstenberg, & Plomin, 1985; Dunn, Stocker, & Plomin, 1990). The present paper serves to extend this literature in two ways. Firstly, in addition to obtaining parent reports, we examined children's own accounts of maternal differential treatment (MDT) as early as four years of age. Secondly, we set out to examine two different methods that purport to measure parental differential treatment—difference scores and direct ratings or favouritism scores. These two methods are described in a similar manner conceptually, but to our knowledge there has been no direct comparison of the two methods within one sample. To place the study in context, we present a conceptual framework, followed by a brief review of differential parental treatment and its association with children's outcome, as well as a review of the two different methods of measuring parental differential treatment (PDT).</p> <hd id="AN0033158960-2">Conceptual Framework</hd> <p>One of the primary drivers of PDT research has been findings from behavioural genetic research indicating that children in the same family often turn out quite different from one another (Plomin & Daniels, 1987). This highlighted that although the overwhelming majority of socialisation research considers <emph>between</emph>‐family differences, <emph>within</emph>‐family differences may be the key to understanding the development of individual children within families. In a review piece, Turkheimer and Waldron (2000) point out the limits of PDT in predicting children's outcomes; nevertheless, the evidence reviewed is consistent in showing robust (although modest to moderate) links between PDT and children's outcomes.</p> <p>Family systems theory (Minuchin, 1988) also emphasises the inter‐dependence of relationships within families, providing a formal framework for conceptualising the dynamics whereby a parent's relationship with one child can have multiple meanings dependent on that parent's relationship with the child's sibling. From these and other theoretical frames (e.g., ideals of equity from social exchange theory; Huston & Burgess 1979), it has been posited that differential treatment of siblings by their parents may be an important factor in explaining variance in children's outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0033158960-3">Parental Differential Treatment</hd> <p>Research has shown that both parents and children perceive PDT (Brody & Stoneman, 1990; Daniels et al., 1985). Estimates of the frequency of differential treatment occurring have ranged from three families in 10 (Ross & Milgram, 1982) to 65 percent of a sample of 127 students (Brody, Copeland, Sutton, Richardson, & Guyer, 1998) reflecting differences in measurement and sample characteristics. On the whole, agreement between family members (in particular siblings) regarding the presence of differential parenting is reasonably high. Brody et al. (1998) found that siblings' reports of favouritism were significantly correlated, and once sibling pairs had agreed that someone was favoured, there was a high level of agreement as to which sibling it was. Kowal, Kramer, Krull, and Crick (2002) found that 46 percent of the sibling dyads in their study agreed about the occurrence and direction of preferential and equal maternal affection. However, studies have found discrepancies (e.g., Tein, Roosa, & Michaels, 1994) between parent and adolescent reports of differential parenting, in addition to systematic differences (with parents perceiving themselves as more supportive than children perceived them to be) between parent and child reports of parenting (e.g., Gaylord, Kitzmann, & Coleman, 2003). Furthermore, Gaylord et al. (2003) found that these differences in perceptions have unique relations to children's psychosocial adjustment. Observational measures also support the idea that parents' behaviour differs towards children in the same family (e.g., Brody, Stoneman, & McCoy, 1992). Kowal and Kramer's (1997) study highlighted the fact that it is not just the presence of parental differential treatment that should be considered, but that children's <emph>perceptions</emph> of PDT and whether it is seen as fair are especially key.</p> <p>The focus of the current investigation is sibling pairs in early to middle childhood. A previous study of children aged 10–18 also included reports of PDT from both parents and children (Pike, Reiss, Hetherington, & Plomin, 1996). Although parents reported substantially similar treatment of their children, the children themselves reported only moderate similarity in parental treatment (thus indicating substantial PDT from the children's perspectives). A puppet interview technique has been developed (see Measelle, Ablow, Cowan, & Cowan, 1998), providing a tool for gaining consistent and meaningful reports from children as young as four years of age. As far as we are aware, the present study is novel in including children's perspectives on differential parenting and the sibling relationships during early childhood.</p> <hd id="AN0033158960-4">Difference Scores</hd> <p>Dunn et al. (1990) utilised what they called a 'simple differences model' to measure within‐family variation. This is created by subtracting one sibling's score on a measure from the other sibling's score on the same measure. Simple differences models have been used to relate sibling differences on an environmental measure (in this case maternal treatment) to sibling differences in outcome (in the current study children's adjustment). Relative differences are signed differences (e.g., older sibling (OS) minus younger sibling (YS) scores) and convey information about the magnitude and direction (i.e., which sibling is favoured) of the difference. Differential parenting as measured by difference scores has been related to self‐esteem (McHale, Updegraff, Jackson‐Newsom, Tucker, & Crouter, 2000), children's adjustment (Feinberg & Hetherington, 2001; McHale & Pawletko, 1992), and emotionality (Brody et al., 1992). For example, Feinberg and Hetherington (2001) obtained parent and child reports of parental warmth/support and conflict/negativity, which were then used to calculate difference scores. They found that more negativity and less warmth directed to a child vs. his/her sibling were associated with the child displaying higher levels of antisocial behaviour.</p> <hd id="AN0033158960-5">Favouritism Scores</hd> <p>A second approach to the assessment of PDT is a more direct approach that asks siblings to assess parental treatment of themselves in comparison to their brother or sister (e.g., Brody et al., 1998). The measure used most often is the sibling inventory of differential experience (Daniels & Plomin, 1985), which asks children to compare their own experiences to those of their sibling. Their responses are coded on a 5‐point scale where a 3 indicates that both siblings are treated equally, a high score indicates that the parent shows more affection or control to the sibling than to the target child, and a low score indicates that the parent shows more affection or control to the target child than to the sibling. As with the difference scores approach, perceived differential treatment (e.g., parental control and affection) can then be related to children's adjustment (e.g., Brody et al., 1998; Kowal et al., 2002). Thus far, no consistent pattern has emerged to differentiate findings from the two methodologies.</p> <p>The only study we are aware of that made use of both difference scores and direct ratings was Dunn et al.'s (1990). They used videotaped observations of mothers interacting with their children and calculated difference scores of affection and warmth from these observer‐coded interactions. In addition, mothers were interviewed about their own demonstrations of differential affection and control (yielding favouritism scores) towards the two children. They found that differences in maternal affection as reported in the interview were negatively correlated with children's internalising scores (i.e., when older children received more affection from mothers than younger children, they were less likely to show internalising problems than OSs not receiving favourable treatment) whereas the difference scores from the observations were uncorrelated with outcome. This suggests that direct ratings of differential treatment are more predictive of outcome than difference scores. However, it should be noted that informant and PDT methodology were confounded—different methods for different reporters were used. In the current study, the same method was used (child interviews) to yield <emph>both</emph> difference scores and direct ratings.</p> <hd id="AN0033158960-6">Current Study</hd> <p>The present study has the advantage of using two different methods of calculating maternal differential treatment as well as two reporters in the case of the difference score approach. Our hypotheses were as follows:</p> <p></p> <p>• 1</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> We predicted that in line with previous research, PDT would be linked with children's adjustment.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 2</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Following previous research (Dunn et al., 1990), we predicted that favouritism scores would demonstrate stronger links with child outcome than child‐reported difference scores.</item> </ulist> <p>Finally, we tested for a unique prediction of children's adjustment from maternal reports of distinct aspects of PDT.</p> <hd id="AN0033158960-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0033158960-8">Sample and Recruitment</hd> <p>Over 100 schools in the south of England (UK) were approached and asked to send letters to parents of children in reception classes (four‐to‐five‐year‐olds) and year 1 classes (five‐to‐six‐year‐olds) who had an older brother or sister aged eight years or younger. Interested parents returned a reply slip to the school. It was not possible to estimate refusal rates accurately as although approximately half of the schools approached agreed to participate, many were unable to target specific children and sent letters to all children in these classes. In addition, letters were sent home via the children; therefore, there was no guarantee that parents received our letters.</p> <p>The sample consisted of 173 families with at least two children. Eighty‐three percent of the older children in the study were the eldest child in their family, and 79 percent of the younger children in the study were the youngest in their family. For ease, the older child taking part in the study will be referred to as the OS and the younger child as the YS. Sixty‐three percent of the families who took part had two children, 31 percent had three, and 6 percent had four or more children. Fifty‐five were single‐mother families and the remaining 118 were two‐parent families. Of the 118 two‐parent families, both mothers and fathers were seen in 105 families (87 percent). In the remaining 13 families, mothers and children were seen but fathers declined to participate. Overall 39 boy–boy pairs, 52 boy–girl pairs, 41 girl–girl pairs and 41 girl–boy pairs took part. The average age of the OS taking part in the study was 7.4 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 10.02 months), and the average age of the YS was 5.2 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 7.29 months). There were no significant differences between the children's mean age across family type. Families came from a mix of working‐class and middle‐class backgrounds and there was a wide range of educational attainment among the families, although single mothers left education at a significantly younger age than parents in two‐parent families (<emph>t</emph> (124.16) = –3.12, <emph>p</emph> < .01 (equal variances not assumed)) and held jobs of a significantly lower occupational status than mothers in two‐parent families (<emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib169" id="ref1">169</reflink>) = 2.18, <emph>p < </emph>.05). The families were almost exclusively White (92 percent of mothers), reflecting the population from which this sample was drawn.</p> <hd id="AN0033158960-9">Procedure and Measures</hd> <p>Families were visited at home where mothers and children were interviewed, and questionnaires were completed separately by the mothers and fathers. A brief description of the content of the measures is given below.</p> <p> <bold>Mother–Child Relationship—Mothers' Reports. </bold> Mothers completed four questionnaires regarding different aspects of the mother–child relationship.</p> <p></p> <p>• 1</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Expression of affection inventory (Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992). This is an 18‐item scale in which mothers were asked to rate how often they did various things with their children, for example, 'give each other a hug/kiss or other sign of physical affection'. This was rated on a 7‐point scale ranging from 'more than once a day' (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref2">7</reflink>) to 'not at all in the last month' (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>); thus, a higher score indicates a more affectionate behaviour. Internal consistencies were.78 for both OS and YS.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 2</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Parental feelings questionnaire (Deater‐Deckard, 2000). Mothers were asked to rate how true seven statements regarding their feelings towards each child were. These included statements such as 'sometimes I feel very impatient with my child' and 'I usually feel quite happy about my relationship with him/her'. These were rated on a 5‐point scale ranging from 'definitely untrue' (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>) to 'definitely true' (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>). Two subscales were derived from this measure: positive parental feelings (older children α = .70, younger children α = .69) and negative parental feelings (older children α = .80, younger children α = .83). A high score indicates respectively more positive and more negative feelings than a lower score.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 3</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Parental discipline interview (Deater‐Deckard, 2000). This six‐item questionnaire (adopted from the interview) asked mothers to rate how often they used various methods of discipline with their children. These were rated on a 5‐point scale where 1 represented 'never' and 5 'usually'. Two subscales were derived: positive discipline (e.g., 'be firm and calm with child') and negative discipline (e.g., 'give a smack or slap'). Internal consistencies ranged from.52 for negative discipline (both children) to.58 for positive discipline towards older children. Again, a high score indicates respectively more positive and more negative discipline than a lower score.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 4</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Parent–child conflict (Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992). Mothers were asked to rate how often they and each child disagreed about 11 different issues such as bedtimes, their child's behaviour towards their sibling, and TV on a scale ranging from 'more than once a day' (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>) to 'not at all in the last month' (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>). A high score thus indicates more conflict. Internal consistencies were.86 for both children.</item> </ulist> <p> <bold>Mother–Child Relationship—Children's Reports. </bold> The Berkeley puppet interview (BPI; Ablow & Measelle, 1993) was used to obtain children's reports. This technique obtains questionnaire‐type data from young children using forced‐choice interview questions from two puppets. During the audiotaped interview, two identical puppets make opposing statements about a member of their family (e.g., 'my mum is nice to me', 'my mum is not nice to me') and then ask the child about themselves (e.g., 'how about your mum?'). Positive and negative statements are counterbalanced, and statements from all of the subscales were randomly assorted. Children's responses were subsequently coded on a 7‐point scale, where 1 is the most negative score and 7 the most positive. When a child chooses a response option as expressed by the puppet, a code 2 (for a negative response—'my mum is not nice to me') or a code 6 (for a positive response—'my mum is nice to me too') is used. When a child amplifies a statement (e.g., 'my mum is horrible to me' or 'my mum is really nice to me'), a code 1 (negative) or 7 (positive) is used. A code 3 or 5 indicates a response that is qualified in some way (e.g., 'my mum isn't nice to me most of the time' or 'my mum is nice to me most of the time'). Finally, a code 4 is used when a child indicates that both response options apply to them. Inter‐rater reliability for the scales was excellent, α > .90.</p> <p>The interview is composed of three subscales. Two subscales relate to the mother–child relationship (warmth/enjoyment and anger/hostility) and one relates to parental differential treatment (shared/non‐shared environment).</p> <p>The parent–child relationship subscales of the BPI each contain six items. The warmth/enjoyment subscale includes items such as 'my mum is nice to me' vs. 'my mum is not nice to me' and the anger/hostility subscale contains items such as 'my mum is mean to me' vs. 'my mum is not mean to me'. As this was one of the first times that the family relationship subscales have been utilised (but see Ablow, 1998; Measelle, 1998 for details of the development of the instrument and family relationship items), we first conducted factor analyses to verify the proposed subscales (details are available from the first author). These analyses supported distinct warmth/enjoyment and anger/hostility relationship quality subscales for the children's reports of the parent–child relationship. Internal consistencies for the BPI subscales were as follows: warmth/enjoyment α = .67 and.65 for OS and YS, respectively; anger/hostility α = .74 and.62 for OS and YS, respectively. After initial coding (see procedure above), scores were calculated such that higher scores indicate more anger/hostility and warmth/enjoyment, respectively.</p> <p> <bold>Perceived Favouritism—Child Report. </bold> The shared/non‐shared environment subscale of the BPI contains five items including 'my mum is nicer to me' vs. 'my mum is nicer to my brother/sister' and 'when my brother/sister and I argue, my parents shout at me' vs. 'when my brother/sister and I argue, my parents shout at my brother/sister' and provides a 'direct' measure of children's perceptions of differential parenting. A score of 4 on this subscale indicates that the child perceives equal treatment. A score higher than 4 means that the child reporting considers themselves to be the more favoured sibling whereas a score lower than 4 indicates that the child's sibling is the more favoured. Internal consistencies for this subscale were α = .53 and.64 for OS and YS, respectively</p> <p> <bold>Children's Adjustment—Parent Report. </bold> The strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997) is a parent report of children's strengths and difficulties. Mothers and fathers were asked to indicate how true different statements of behaviours were about their child within the last 6 months, using a 3‐point scale ranging from 'not true' (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>) through 'sometimes true' (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>) to 'certainly true' (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref10">3</reflink>). The total difficulties (adjustment) scale was formed by items measuring four scales: hyperactivity (five items: e.g., 'restless, overactive, cannot stay still for long'); emotional symptoms (five items: e.g., 'many worries, often seems worried'); conduct problems (five items: e.g., 'often fights with other children or bullies them') and peer problems (five items e.g., 'rather solitary, tends to play alone'). The SDQ is highly correlated with the child behavior checklist (Achenbach, 1991) (e.g.,.76 for total difficulties; Smedje, Broman, Hetta, & von Knorring, 1999) and has been found to demonstrate test–retest correlations of.85 for the total difficulties scale (Goodman, 1999).</p> <hd id="AN0033158960-10">Difference Scores</hd> <p>In order to calculate MDT from the 'indirect' ratings made by the mothers, the mother–YS questionnaire scores were subtracted from the mother–OS questionnaire scores. For example, for maternal expression of affectionate behaviour (for which a high score indicates more affectionate behaviour), a positive <emph>difference</emph> score indicates that the OS receives more affectionate behaviour than their YS whereas a negative score indicates that the younger sibling receives more affectionate behaviour. This same pattern for difference scores is the same for positive parental feelings and positive discipline. This calculation was then repeated for scales for which a high score indicates more negative behaviour (i.e., parent–child conflict, negative parental feelings, and negative discipline). For these scales a positive difference score indicates that the OS, for example, receives more negative discipline than the YS, and a negative score indicates that the YS receives more negative discipline.</p> <p>Difference scores using the children's reports were calculated in a similar manner. That is, the YSs' ratings of maternal warmth/enjoyment were subtracted from the OSs' ratings of warmth/enjoyment. In families where the OS reported more warmth/enjoyment with their mother than did the YS, a positive difference score emerged, and where the YS reported more warmth/enjoyment than the OS, a negative difference score emerged. A similar procedure was used for the children's reports of anger/hostility from their mothers.</p> <hd id="AN0033158960-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0033158960-12">Preliminary Analyses</hd> <p>Once created, difference scores indicate the direction and magnitude of parental differential treatment. For a sample as a whole, however, the mean of these difference scores is not informative. That is, the mean in each case nears zero even though there are often large differences between the ways in which the siblings are treated by their mothers. This is due to the fact that those families in which the OS has a higher score than the YS are 'cancelled out' by other families in which it is the YS that has the higher score. It is instead the distribution of the difference scores that demonstrates the existence of MDT. For the parental reports, variances for the difference scores ranged from.07 to.80. In the case of the children's reports, the variances were 1.11 and 2.47 for warmth/enjoyment and anger/hostility, respectively. Thus, children's reports indicated higher levels of MDT than did the mothers' own reports.</p> <p>Next, to test for gender differences, we conducted <emph>t</emph>‐tests for the favouritism scores and child adjustment measures. No differences were revealed for paternal reports of levels of problem behaviour. However, among the older siblings, girls reported more perceived favouritism than boys (<emph>M</emph> = 4.26, <emph>SD</emph> = .86 and <emph>M</emph> = 3.90, <emph>SD</emph> = .91, respectively). Mothers also reported higher levels of problem behaviour for boys than for girls for both OSs (<emph>M</emph> = 11.79, <emph>SD</emph> = 6.46 and <emph>M</emph> = 9.01, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.90 for boys and girls, respectively) and YSs (<emph>M</emph> = 10.71, <emph>SD</emph> = 5.87 and <emph>M</emph> = 8.94, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.48 for boys and girls, respectively). In addition, we compared children in same‐sex vs. opposite‐sex dyads for all of the differential treatment and child adjustment measures. One significant difference emerged, although in an unexpected direction—mothers exhibited more differential treatment towards same‐sex than towards opposite‐sex sibling pairs (<emph>M</emph> = .26, <emph>SD</emph> = .66 and <emph>M</emph> = .05, <emph>SD</emph> = .56, respectively). As these results rule out mediation by gender for links between MDT and child adjustment, gender is not included in the following analyses.</p> <p> <emph>Hypothesis 1</emph>. MDT will be linked with children's adjustment.</p> <p>In order to test our first hypothesis we conducted a series of correlations, which can be seen in Table 1. First, we examined the children's favouritism scores and found that these were not significantly associated with the children's total difficulties (first row, Table 1). Next, we calculated correlations using the child‐reported difference scores. Child‐reported differential warmth/enjoyment was negatively correlated with older children's problem behaviour as reported by mothers, indicating that when older children reported less warmth/enjoyment from their mothers than did their sibling, their parents report higher levels of problem behaviour. Due to the nature of difference scores, child‐reported differential warmth/enjoyment was modest to moderately positively associated with younger children's problem behaviour (both maternal and paternal report), again indicating that when the YS considers their sibling to receive more warmth, their parents report higher levels of problem behaviour. Maternal differential anger/hostility was also modestly positively correlated with maternal and paternal reports of older children's problem behaviour, indicating that when they report a more negative relationship with their mother than their sibling does, parents report higher levels of problem behaviour. Differential anger/hostility was modestly negatively correlated with paternal reports of problem behaviour for YSs, again indicating that when the YS considers himself or herself to receive more anger, his or her father reports higher levels of problem behaviour. Although it was not significantly correlated with maternal reports of problem behaviour for YSs, as with the other significant correlations it was in the expected direction.</p> <p>1 Correlations between MDT and problem behaviour</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th>SDQ total difficulties (maternal reports)</th><th>SDQ total difficulties (paternal reports)</th></tr><tr><th>OS</th><th>YS</th><th>OS</th><th>YS</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Children's reports</td></tr><tr><td> Perceived favouritism</td><td>−.00</td><td>.07</td><td>.04</td><td>.09</td></tr><tr><td> Maternal differential warmth/enjoyment</td><td>−.19*</td><td>.14*</td><td>.01</td><td>.39**</td></tr><tr><td>(−.11)</td><td>(.10)</td><td>(.13)</td><td>(.33**)</td></tr><tr><td> Maternal differential anger/hostility</td><td>.22**</td><td>−.10</td><td>.18*</td><td>−.18*</td></tr><tr><td>(.11)</td><td>(−.08)</td><td>(.04)</td><td>(−.09)</td></tr><tr><td>Mothers' reports</td></tr><tr><td> Differential affectionate behaviour</td><td>.01</td><td>.06</td><td>.02</td><td>−.01</td></tr><tr><td>(.02)</td><td>(.03)</td><td>(.03)</td><td>(−.02)</td></tr><tr><td> Differential conflict</td><td>.32**</td><td>−.34**</td><td>.26**</td><td>−.26**</td></tr><tr><td>(.17*)</td><td>(−.16*)</td><td>(.15)</td><td>(−.18*)</td></tr><tr><td> Differential positive feelings</td><td>−.30**</td><td>.24**</td><td>−.11</td><td>.21*</td></tr><tr><td>(−.07)</td><td>(.03)</td><td>(.12)</td><td>(.01)</td></tr><tr><td> Differential negative feelings</td><td>.29**</td><td>−.38**</td><td>.21*</td><td>−.41**</td></tr><tr><td>(.11)</td><td>(−.21**)</td><td>(.08)</td><td>(−.33**)</td></tr><tr><td> Differential positive discipline</td><td>.07</td><td>.12</td><td>.17*</td><td>.26**</td></tr><tr><td>(.06)</td><td>(.08)</td><td>(.13)</td><td>(.18*)</td></tr><tr><td> Differential negative discipline</td><td>.25**</td><td>−.30**</td><td>.20*</td><td>−.31**</td></tr><tr><td>(.16*)</td><td>(−.17*)</td><td>(.08)</td><td>(−.22*)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Correlations in parentheses are partial correlations controlling for absolute levels of parenting towards the children.</p> <ulist> <item>2 *  <emph>p</emph> < .05,</item> <item>3 **  <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> <item>4 MDT = maternal differential treatment; SDQ = strengths and difficulties questionnaire; OS = older sibling; YS = younger sibling.</item> </ulist> <p>An inspection of correlations using mothers' reports of differential treatment (also contained in Table 1) revealed moderate associations between differential conflict, differential negative feelings and differential negative discipline, and total problems in both older and younger children. All of these correlations were in the expected direction, indicating that siblings receiving more favourable treatment within families tended to display less problematic behaviours. Differential positive feelings were significantly correlated with maternal reports of OSs' problem behaviour and both maternal and paternal reports of YSs' behaviour. Differential positive discipline was significantly correlated with paternal reports of both OSs' and YSs' problem behaviour, but not with maternal reports. Again, all correlations were in the expected direction. Differential affectionate behaviour was not correlated with problem behaviour in OSs or YSs. In all, 23 out of 40 correlations were significant.</p> <p>As a more stringent test, we then controlled for absolute levels of parenting by conducting partial correlations of these same associations. For example, the correlation between differential conflict and maternal reports of OSs' total difficulties was.32. We then conducted a partial correlation controlling for the absolute level of conflict directed towards the OS, yielding a correlation of.17. In essence, these partial correlations represent the link between within‐family variations in parenting, controlling for between‐family variation. Of the child‐reported difference scores, one correlation (out of a possible eight) was still significant (child reports of warmth and paternal reports of YSs' total behaviour) compared with six significant correlations in the previous condition. Nine of the maternally reported difference scores were significant in this condition (out of a possible 24) compared with 17 in the previous condition. Details of all correlations are contained in Table 1.</p> <p> <emph>Hypothesis 2</emph>. Favouritism scores will demonstrate stronger links with child outcome than child‐reported difference scores.</p> <p>As a preliminary analysis, we assessed the degree of inter‐correlation between the MDT scores yielded from the puppet reports. As shown in Table 2, these correlations were negligible to moderate in magnitude (.03–.36). In order to test whether favouritism scores demonstrate stronger links to child outcome than difference scores, we first inspected the correlations as described above (see Table 1). Contrary to expectations, the favouritism scores yielded negligible, non‐significant correlations whereas the difference scores yielded a number of modest to moderate correlations. In order to confirm these findings, a series of multiple regression analyses were conducted. The purpose of this analysis was to test for an independent prediction of the children's SDQ scores from the two child report assessments of maternal differential treatment. The dependent variable in each regression was children's outcome (total difficulties). Independent variables were the three different reports of MDT‐perceived favouritism, maternal differential warmth/enjoyment, and maternal differential anger/hostility. Table 3 contains a summary of these analyses. For older children's total difficulties as reported by both mothers and fathers, maternal differential anger/hostility provided a unique independent prediction. In the case of the YSs, maternal differential warmth/enjoyment provided a unique independent prediction of paternally reported total difficulties. Perceived favouritism did not provide a unique independent prediction of children's outcome in either case. Thus, difference scores provided a 'better' prediction.</p> <p>2  Inter‐correlations among Children's Reports of Maternal Differential Treatment</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1. Maternal differential warmth/enjoyment</td></tr><tr><td>2. Maternal differential anger/hostility</td><td>−.36**</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3. Perceived favouritism: younger sibling report</td><td>.20**</td><td>−.26**</td><td /></tr><tr><td>4. Perceived favouritism: older sibling report</td><td>−.13</td><td>.12</td><td>.03</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 **  <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> <item>3  Regression Analysis: Prediction of Siblings' Adjustment from Children's Reports of MDT</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th>SDQ total difficulties (maternal reports)</th><th>SDQ total difficulties (paternal reports)</th></tr><tr><th>OS</th><th>YS</th><th>OS</th><th>YS</th></tr><tr><th>β</th><th><italic>t</italic></th><th>β</th><th><italic>t</italic></th><th>β</th><th><italic>t</italic></th><th>β</th><th><italic>t</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Perceived favouritism</td><td>.07</td><td>.83</td><td>.16</td><td>1.78</td><td>.08</td><td>.75</td><td>.11</td><td>1.08</td></tr><tr><td> Child report: maternal differential  warmth/enjoyment</td><td>−.14</td><td>−1.52</td><td>.14</td><td>1.52</td><td>.08</td><td>.73</td><td>.38</td><td>3.60**</td></tr><tr><td> Child report: maternal differential  anger/hostility</td><td>.19</td><td>2.05*</td><td>−.06</td><td>−.69</td><td>.23</td><td>2.03*</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.47</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="center">Total <italic>R</italic> = .26</td><td align="center">Total <italic>R</italic> = .22</td><td align="center">Total <italic>R</italic> = .22</td><td align="center">Total <italic>R</italic> = .40</td></tr><tr><td align="center"><italic>F</italic> (3, 129) = 3.21*</td><td align="center"><italic>F</italic> (3, 128) = 2.08</td><td align="center"><italic>F</italic> (3, 86) = 1.41</td><td align="center"><italic>F</italic> (3, 86) = 5.57**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 *  <emph>p</emph> < .05,</item> <item>7 **  <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> <item>8 MDT = maternal differential treatment; SDQ = strengths and difficulties questionnaire; OS = older sibling; YS = younger sibling.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0033158960-13">Which Aspects of Maternal Reports of PDT Provide a Unique Prediction of Child Adjustment?</hd> <p>In order to address this question, a series of regressions was carried out. The dependent variable in each regression was children's problem behaviour as reported by either mothers or fathers. Independent variables for 17 of the 20 regressions were the five different measures of MDT–maternal differential conflict, differential positive feelings, differential negative feelings, differential positive discipline, and differential negative discipline as reported by the mothers. Neither maternal differential positive feelings predicting OSs' adjustment as reported by fathers nor maternal differential positive discipline predicting maternal reports of both siblings' adjustment were included in the relevant regressions as the correlations between these variables were not significant (see Table 1). Maternal differential affectionate behaviour was not included as it was not correlated with children's problem behaviour (see Table 1). Table 4 contains a summary of these analyses. For maternal reports of older children's problem behaviour, only maternal differential positive feelings provided a unique independent prediction. For paternal reports of younger children's problem behaviour, maternal differential negative feelings and differential positive discipline provided a unique independent prediction.</p> <p>4  Regression Analysis: Prediction of Siblings' Adjustment from Parental Reports of MDT</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th>SDQ total difficulties (maternal reports)</th><th>SDQ total difficulties (paternal reports)</th></tr><tr><th>OS</th><th>YS</th><th>OS</th><th>YS</th></tr><tr><th>β</th><th><italic>t</italic></th><th>β</th><th><italic>t</italic></th><th>β</th><th><italic>t</italic></th><th>β</th><th><italic>t</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Differential conflict</td><td>.19</td><td>1.77</td><td>−.13</td><td>−1.24</td><td>.21</td><td>1.57</td><td>.07</td><td>.57</td></tr><tr><td>Differential positive feelings</td><td>−.18</td><td>−2.03*</td><td>.06</td><td>.66</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>.03</td><td>.25</td></tr><tr><td>Differential negative feelings</td><td>.05</td><td>.417</td><td>−.22</td><td>−1.92</td><td>.08</td><td>.54</td><td>−.33</td><td>−2.43*</td></tr><tr><td>Differential positive discipline</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>.21</td><td>2.17*</td><td>.20</td><td>2.13*</td></tr><tr><td>Differential negative discipline</td><td>.06</td><td>.63</td><td>−.08</td><td>−.78</td><td>.05</td><td>.43</td><td>−1.08</td><td>.28</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="center">Total <italic>R</italic> = .38</td><td align="center">Total <italic>R</italic> = .40</td><td align="center">Total <italic>R</italic> = .34</td><td align="center">Total <italic>R</italic> = .46</td></tr><tr><td align="center"><italic>F</italic> (4, 150) = 6.20**</td><td align="center"><italic>F</italic> (4, 150) = 7.18**</td><td align="center"><italic>F</italic> (4, 98) = 3.17*</td><td align="center"><italic>F</italic> (5, 97) = 5.33**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>9 *  <emph>p</emph> < .05,</item> <item>10 **  <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> <item>11 MDT = maternal differential treatment; SDQ = strengths and difficulties questionnaire; OS = older sibling; YS = younger sibling.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0033158960-14">Discussion</hd> <p>A novel aspect to this line of research was the use of puppet interviews with the young children. In line with the success of this interview technique in previous studies (e.g., Ablow et al., 1999; Measelle et al., 1998), children as young as four years of age were able to provide consistent (as indicated by reasonable internal consistency) and meaningful accounts of their family relationships. Ascertaining the children's own views may be particularly important in the case of family relationships, as previous research has demonstrated the importance of children's perceptions and interpretations of events in the context of sibling relationships (Kowal & Kramer, 1997). In addition, previous reports indicate that parents overestimate the consistency of their relationships with children within the same family (Pike et al., 1996), highlighting the importance of incorporating multiple perspectives of family relationships.</p> <p>The current study went beyond confirming previously reported associations between MDT and children's individual adjustment. Four findings emerged from the current study. Children's reports yielded larger estimates of MDT than did the mothers' reports; moderate links were revealed between MDT and the children's adjustment, many of which still held when between‐family differences (absolute levels of parenting) were controlled; difference scores provided a better prediction of adjustment than did the favouritism scores; and mothers' reports of differential positive feelings were the most salient maternally reported aspect of PDT for OSs whereas mothers' reports of differential negative feelings and positive discipline were the most salient aspect maternally reported of PDT for YSs. These findings are discussed below, followed by limitations and future directions.</p> <p>Replicating findings from adolescents (Pike et al., 1996), children's reports (both when asked directly about favouritism and via the construction of difference scores) indicate that parenting is differential. It is noteworthy that in comparison, the mothers reported few differences in their treatment of the children. This may be due in part to the parental reports stemming from a single rater whereas the children's reports utilised the ratings from both children. However, research has also demonstrated that children's subjective experiences of PDT are more salient than actual PDT (e.g., Kowal & Kramer, 1997; Kowal et al., 2002). This subjective contribution can only be reflected by the children's reports. We suggest that an implication of this finding (especially in conjunction with Kowal and Kramer's findings) is that parents should attend not only to their own parenting behaviour but also to their children's perceptions of it.</p> <p>Because it is unusual for parents to report large disparities in the treatment of their children, it is somewhat surprising that the correlations with child adjustment were no smaller than those emerging from the children's reports. Perhaps in those cases where parents do report a difference, the differential treatment is particularly salient in terms of the children's adjustment. It is the strictly within‐family nature of these findings that separates them from the pervasive parenting–child behaviour links (see Parke & Buriel, 1998 for a review). The robust although modest to moderate associations suggest that in the midst of a global 'family atmosphere', differences in the treatment of siblings within the family can correlate with siblings' behavioural outcomes. These analyses pinpoint the ways in which the dynamics within a family may affect children irrespective of between‐family variation.</p> <p>These results may be interpreted to mean that differences in parental treatment necessarily lead to differences in children's adjustment. It is, of course, possible that differential sibling behaviour leads to differences in parental treatment or that a third variable may be responsible for these associations. Because both the parenting and adjustment measures were assessed at the same time, this study cannot address the direction of effects. These associations may, in fact, be child driven. For example, a child's greater display of problematic behaviours might cause that child to receive more parental negativity than does the sibling. A more likely scenario is that this is a bidirectional relationship in which the children and their mothers affect each other (Bell, 1968). Longitudinal research is still sparse in this area; however, extant sources do report links between PDT and subsequent child behaviour (e.g., Brody et al., 1992; Conger & Conger, 1994; McGuire, Dunn, & Plomin, 1995), indicating that these associations are not a transient phenomenon.</p> <p>The main unique element of the paper—comparison of the 'favouritism' vs. 'difference score' approach to measuring PDT—yielded somewhat surprising findings. Perceived favouritism scores did not provide a unique prediction of children's outcome at all. This contrasts with Dunn et al.'s (1990) research, which found that difference scores (from observer ratings) did not predict outcome whereas maternal reports of differential treatment (favouritism scores) did. However, the current study provides a better comparison of the two methods as they were used with the same reporter. This finding awaits replication, but should it hold, the methodological implication is that when time is short, researchers should be encouraged to obtain 'straight' parenting measures. These contain information about both absolute levels of parenting quality as well as providing the raw material for the construction of difference scores that are more predictive of child outcome than are favouritism measures.</p> <p>We are also aware, however, that the lack of associations with the favouritism scores may be due to social desirability pressures. There were a lot of answers from the children indicating that their mothers treated themselves and their sibling 'the same'. Anecdotally, these were also the questions that elicited irritation from the children when they were prompted to ensure that this 'in between' answer was accurate. In addition, there are possible statistical reasons for the lack of significant links with the favouritism measure. The measure yielded relatively small variance estimates, as well as having the lowest internal consistency of all the variables. Both of these factors can limit estimates of covariance.</p> <p>Finally, we used maternal reports of parenting to tease out which particular aspects of differential treatment were the more important predictors of adjustment. For OSs, maternal reports of differential positive feelings emerged as most important, and for YSs, maternal reports of differential negative feelings and positive discipline emerged as the most important predictors of adjustment. Thus, we suggest that differential parental feelings are particularly salient. Whereas differences in discipline or overt displays of affectionate behaviour may be seen as justifiable under certain circumstances (e.g., differences in children's ages), a difference in parental <emph>feelings</emph> is particularly poignant, indicating that a parent actually <emph>likes</emph> one of their children more than the other. Although it is rare for mothers to report any sizeable differences in their feelings towards their children, where it does happen it is not difficult to imagine this circumstance being 'damaging' to the disfavoured child. Equally plausible, it may only be in the case of a child demonstrating high levels of problematic behaviours that mothers 'allow' themselves to admit having differential feelings towards their children. In either case, these findings indicate that PDT in the domain of feelings may be particularly key.</p> <hd id="AN0033158960-15">Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>Although this study went beyond confirming previously reported associations between MDT and children's individual adjustment, it was limited in that it only considered two children within a limited age range in each family. In addition, although the current sample included working‐ and middle‐class families, the geographical area from which the sample was drawn is primarily White. Future research including ethnic minority groups and families across different cultures has the potential to increase the generalisability of current findings or to uncover cultural variations reflecting differing family processes. Furthermore, mothers' and children's views on the fairness and justification of MDT were not considered in this study. Previous research (Kowal & Kramer, 1997; McHale et al., 2000) has indicated that where children feel that MDT is justified, it may have fewer implications for negative outcome. In addition to this, the methodological implications of this study could be applied to other outcome measures often examined in this literature—in particular sibling relationship quality. Longitudinal analyses could also begin to unravel the direction‐of‐effects issue. In addition, longitudinal analyses could explore the nature of PDT itself. Differences in siblings' treatment by their parents may be quite stable over time, indicating a stable although differential influence. Alternately, these effects may be transitory in nature.</p> <hd id="AN0033158960-16">Conclusions</hd> <p>We draw three main conclusions from this report. Firstly, given that the children's reports are able to predict outcome, the puppet method of obtaining young children's views on family relationships is an extremely useful research tool that allows access to the views of children at a younger age than has been obtained using other methods. Secondly, difference scores are more informative and more predictive of outcome than favouritism scores. This study has the advantage that by examining both methodologies for measuring differential treatment within the same sample, it highlights the fact that difference scores and perceived favouritism are not measuring the same construct and should not be used interchangeably. We would suggest that a possible reason for this discrepancy is that social biases and social desirability influence the perceived favouritism scores as it is clear that a direct comparison is being made. Finally, parental feelings towards their children may be a key feature in <emph>effective</emph> differential treatment.</p> <hd id="AN0033158960-17">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>This research was supported by a grant from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. We would also like to thank Anna Harrison for co‐ordinating the project and Eva Syngelaki and Christopher Illingworth for their assistance in data collection. Finally, we are grateful to the schools and families that participated in this project.</p> <ref id="AN0033158960-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref3" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ablow, J. C. (1998). Marital conflict: Young children's perceptions and adjustment. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref9" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ablow, J. C., & Measelle, J. R. (1993). The Berkeley puppet interview: Interviewing and coding systems manuals. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Department of Psychology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref10" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ablow, J. C., Measell, J. R., Kraemer, H. C., Harrington, R., Luby, J., Smider, N., Dierker, L., Clark, V., Dubicka, B., Heffelfinger, A., Essex, M. J., & Kupfer, D. J. (1999). The macarthur three‐city outcome study: Evaluating multi‐informant measures of young children's symptomatology. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1580 – 1590.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behaviour checklist/4–18. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 81 – 95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brody, L. R., Copeland, A. P., Sutton, L. S., Richardson, D. R., & Guyer, M. (1998). Mommy and daddy like you best: Perceived family favouritism in relation to affect, adjustment and family process. Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 269 – 291.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref2" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brody, G. H., & Stoneman, Z. (1990). Sibling relationships. In G. H. Brody, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Methods of family research: Biographies of research projects, Vol. 1: Normal families (pp. 189 – 212). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & McCoy, J. K. (1992). Parental differential treatment of siblings and sibling differences in negative emotionality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 643 – 651.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Conger, K. J., & Conger, R. D. (1994). Differential parenting and change in sibling differences in delinquency. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 287 – 302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, D., Dunn, J., Furstenberg, F., Jr., & Plomin, R. (1985). Environmental differences within the family and adjustment within pairs of adolescent siblings. Child Development, 56, 764 – 774.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, D., & Plomin, R. (1985). Differential experience of siblings in the same family. Developmental Psychology, 21, 747 – 760.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deater‐Deckard, K. (2000). Parenting and child behavioural adjustment in early childhood: A quantitative genetic approach to studying family processes. Child Development, 71, 468 – 484.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, J., Stocker, C., & Plomin, R. (1990). Nonshared experiences within the family: Correlates of behavioral problems in middle childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 113 – 126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feinberg, M., & Hetherington, E. M. (2001). Differential parenting as a within‐family variable. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 22 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaylord, N. K., Kitzmann, K. M., & Coleman, J. K. (2003). Parents' and children's perceptions of parental behavior: Associations with children's psychosocial adjustment in the classroom. Parenting Science and Practice, 31, 23 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 38, 581 – 586.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, R. (1999). The extended version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 40, 791 – 799.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1992). Coping with marital transitions: A family systems perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57, 1 – 242.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huston, T. L., & Burgess, R. L. (1979). Social exchange in developing relationships: An overview. In R. L. Burgess, & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 3 – 28). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kowal, A., & Kramer, L. (1997). Children's understanding of parental differential treatment. Child Development, 68, 113 – 126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kowal, A., Kramer, L., Krull, J. L., & Crick, N. R. (2002). Children's perceptions of the fairness of parental preferential treatment and their socioemotional well‐being. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 297 – 306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGuire, S., Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1995). Maternal differential treatment of siblings and children's behavioral problems: A longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 515 – 528.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McHale, S. M., & Pawletko, T. M. (1992). Differential treatment of siblings in two family contexts. Child Development, 63, 68 – 81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Jackson‐Newsom, J., Tucker, C. J., & Crouter, A. C. (2000). When does parents' differential treatment have negative implications for siblings? Social Development, 9, 149 – 172.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Measelle, J. R. (1998). Self‐perceptions of young children: Developing the means to understand the family determinants and behavioural significance of four‐to seven‐ year‐olds' views of self. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Measelle, J. R., Ablow, J. C., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (1998). Assessing young children's views of their academic, social, and emotional lives: An evaluation of the self‐perception scales of the Berkeley puppet interview. Child Development, 69, 1556 – 1576.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Minuchin, P. (1988). Relationships within the family: A systems perspective on development. In R. A. Hinde, & J. Stevenson‐Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 7 – 26). Oxford: Clarendon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (1998). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological perspectives. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 463 – 552). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pike, A., Reiss, D., Hetherington, E. M., & Plomin, R. (1996). Using MZ differences in the search for nonshared environmental effects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 695 – 704.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 1 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross, H. G., & Milgram, J. I. (1982). Important variables in adult sibling relationships: A qualitative study. In M. E. Lamb, & B. Sutton‐Smith (Eds.), Sibling relationships: Their nature and significance across the lifespan (pp. 235 – 249). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smedje, H., Broman, J. E., Hetta, J., & Von Knorring, A. L. (1999). Psychometric properties of a Swedish version of the 'strengths and difficulties questionnaire'. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 8, 63 – 70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tein, J. Y., Roosa, M. W., & Michaels, M. (1994). Agreement between parent and child reports on parental behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 341 – 355.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turkheimer, E., & Waldron, M. (2000). Nonshared environment: A theoretical, methodological, and quantitive review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 78 – 108.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Joanne Coldwell; Alison Pike and Judy Dunn</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib169" firstref="ref1"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ802151
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Maternal Differential Treatment and Child Adjustment: A Multi-Informant Approach
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Coldwell%2C+Joanne%22">Coldwell, Joanne</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pike%2C+Alison%22">Pike, Alison</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dunn%2C+Judy%22">Dunn, Judy</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Social+Development%22"><i>Social Development</i></searchLink>. Aug 2008 17(3):596-612.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Blackwell Publishing. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8599; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: customerservices@blackwellpublishing.com; Web site: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jnl_default.asp
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2008
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Siblings%22">Siblings</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mothers%22">Mothers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Adjustment%22">Emotional Adjustment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adjustment+%28to+Environment%29%22">Adjustment (to Environment)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Rearing%22">Child Rearing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Negative+Attitudes%22">Negative Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discipline%22">Discipline</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00440.x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0961-205X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The study aimed to replicate previous links with children's adjustment as well as using children's reports of maternal differential treatment (MDT) to test whether difference scores or favouritism scores demonstrate stronger links with child outcome. Finally, it tested for a unique prediction of children's adjustment from distinct aspects and informants of MDT. The sample consisted of 173 working- and middle-class English families with two children aged four to eight years. Mothers provided reports of the mother-child relationship, and both mothers and fathers provided reports of the children's problematic behaviour. The children also provided reports of parent-child relationships and perceived favouritism via a puppet interview. Results confirmed moderate links between MDT and children's adjustment and showed that difference scores provided a better prediction of adjustment than did the favouritism scores. Finally, the results showed that mothers' reports of differential positive feelings were the most salient aspect of MDT for older siblings whereas mothers' reports of negative feelings and positive discipline were the most salient aspects of MDT for younger siblings.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 33
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2008
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ802151
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ802151
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00440.x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 596
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Siblings
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mothers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Adjustment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adjustment (to Environment)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Rearing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Negative Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discipline
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Maternal Differential Treatment and Child Adjustment: A Multi-Informant Approach
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Coldwell, Joanne
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pike, Alison
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dunn, Judy
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2008
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0961-205X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 17
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Social Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1