Sibling Differences in Divorced Families Author(s): Susanne C. Monahan, Christy M. Buchanan, Eleanor E. Maccoby and Sanford M.

Dornbusch Reviewed work(s): Source: Child Development, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Feb., 1993), pp. 152-168 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1131443 . Accessed: 14/07/2012 13:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Child Development.

http://www.jstor.org

Sibling Differences in Divorced Families

Susanne C. Monahan, Christy M. Buchanan, Eleanor E. Maccoby, and Sanford M. Dornbusch
Stanford University
SANFORD E.; and DORNBUSCH, MONAHAN, SUSANNE C.; BUCHANAN, CHRISTY M.; MACCOBY,ELEANOR

differences in family processes and individual adjustment were examined for 133 sibling pairs (10-18 years old) in divorced families. Although all siblings differed, siblings who lived apart after their parents' divorce differed more than siblings who lived together, contradicting past research that found negligible effects of shared environment on sibling similarities. The possibility that siblings might live apartbecause they were initially more different was considered. This hypothesis was not supported in the limited tests permitted by the data. Differences in family processes were associated with differences in adjustmentfor pairs who lived together as well as pairs who lived apart. Recent work challenges the assumption that children in the same family experience a shared environment. Some have argued that similarities among siblings are primarily attributable to genetic influences (Buss & Plomin, 1984; Daniels, Dunn, Furstenberg, & Plomin, 1985; Rowe, 1983), and that environmental influences differentiate siblings, making them as different from one another as children in different families (Daniels et al., 1985; Dunn, 1983; Dunn & Plomin, 1990; Plomin & Daniels, 1987; Rowe & Plomin, 1981; Scarr & Grajek, 1982). In light of this, it is perhaps not surprising that adolescents in the same family often respond differently to a shared pivotal event such as divorce. Within divorced families, sibling correlations for adjustment outcomes like depression, delinquency, school outcomes, and feelings of being caught between parents are low to moderate (Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1991). Rowe and Plomin (1981) outlined a conceptual framework for understanding differential sibling experiences, identifying family composition (e.g., birth order, gender), sibling interaction, parental treatment, and extrafamilial networks (e.g., peer groups, teachers, television) as areas in which siblings may experience nonshared environments. Researchers have found that siblings experience different environments (e.g., Dunn, 1983; Snow, Jacklin, & Maccoby, 1981), and different environments are associated with differences in sibling adjustment. In a study measuring differences in environment, Daniels and Plomin (1985) found that adolescents believed that they were treated differently by siblings and by peers and, to a lesser extent, by parents. In addition, Daniels et al. (1985) found that differential sibling adjustment was predicted by differences in parental treatment (i.e., parent reports of differences in how they treat their children and differences in individual child reports of how their parents treat them). For example, the sibling who was expected to do more chores was less delinquent; similarly, the sibling to whom mothers reported being closer was less emotionally distressed. The association between differences in these types of family processes and differences in sibling adjustment is not surprising because we know that differences in processes are related to differences in children's adjustment across families. The relation between demographic factors (e.g., birth order, sex) and sibling differences has also been investigated, and found to explain only 1% to 10% of the variance in differential sibling adjustment (Plomin & Foch, 1980; Scarr & Grajek, 1982). Daniels et al. (1985) found that other demographic factors such as family size, birth spacing, level of father's education, marital status,

M. Sibling Differences in Divorced Families. CHILDDEVELOPMENT, 1993, 64, 152-168. Sibling

This research was supported by the W.T. Grant Foundation, grant 88119688 to Eleanor E. Maccoby and Sanford M. Dornbusch. We would like to thank Sue Dimicelli for her technical assistance, and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments on
earlier drafts of this paper. Address correspondence to the authors at the Center for the Study of

Families, Children, and Youth, StanfordUniversity, Building 460, Stanford,CA 94305-2135.

[Child Development, 1993, 64, 152-168. ? 1993 by the Society for Researchin Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/93/6401-0007$01.00]

Monahan et al. and ethnicity were also weak predictors of differences in developmental adjustment, each explaining less than 2% of the variance in sibling differences. In the same study, only 1%to 4% of the variance in adjustment differences was predicted by age difference, although the sample had a limited age range. Because children who are not at the same developmental stage may be treated differently or may respond differently to similar events and family processes, researchers should control for the effects of age on sibling differences, especially when there is a wide age range within the sample. Previous work on nonshared environments provides direction for understanding sibling differences in divorced families. When considering postdivorce adjustment, however, there are environmental factors of interest that are specific to the divorce situation; for example, siblings may experience different residential arrangements or patterns of visitation with the nonresidential parent. When siblings live in different residences (i.e., have a split-residence arrangement), this may be viewed as an extreme case of nonshared environment. While they share the same parents and a history of living together and of family disruption, they do not currently share a home environment. If the unshared environmental elements within a home differentiate siblings as much as environments across homes differentiate unrelated children, then we would expect that siblings who live apart after their parents' divorce will look no more different than siblings who live together. Alternatively, if sharing a home environment operates to cause sibling similarities, we would expect that siblings who live apart after a divorce will look more different than siblings who live together. If living in separate residences is a differentiating factor, the magnitude of sibling differences should depend on the total amount of time siblings have spent in a shared or split residence. Sibling differences may also be influenced by differences in the total amount of visitation contact that each child has with the nonresidential parent. A sibling who sees his or her nonresidential parent frequently may adjust better, or

153

ent residential history, that may be associated with sibling differences in adjustment. Second, we will attempt to replicate findings concerning the association between withinhousehold nonshared environments and differences in sibling adjustment. Because adolescent adjustment is associated with affective relationships between parents and children (e.g., Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1992; Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990; Guidibaldi, Cleminshaw, Perry, Nastasi, & Lightel, 1986) as well as styles of parental control and management (Buchanan et al., 1992; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Dornbusch, Ritter, Mont-Reynaud, & Chen, 1990; Guidibaldi et al., 1986; Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992), we will examine both of these aspects of the home environment. Method Sample Our sample of sibling pairs was drawn from the Stanford Adolescent Custody Study. See Buchanan et al. (in press) for a more detailed description of the procedures and the sample for that study, including information on the ethnicity and socioeconomic status of subjects. Adolescents whose parents had filed for divorce in two northern California counties between September 1984 and March 1985 were interviewed approximately 41/2 years (T4) following their

parents' separation. Their parents had been interviewed by telephone 6 months (T1),
11/2 years (T2), and 31/2years (T3) after sepa-

ration as part of a related project, the Stanford Child Custody Study (see Maccoby, Depner, & Mnookin, 1990, for a description of that sample). Interviews with adolescents, averaging 1 hour in length, were conducted by telephone. In order to maximize the reliability and validity of the informationcollected, interviewers went through a minimum of 35 hours of training, much of which focused on developing and maintaining rapport with the adolescents. Prior to scheduled interviews, interviewers mailed respondents a copy of the scales needed to answer questions. Adolescents who lost the scales sheet or did not receive it in the mail were asked
to copy the scales onto a sheet of paper as the interviewer described them. At the conclusion of the interivew, adolescents were sent 10 dollars and a letter thanking them for participating. For the current study on sibling differences, we selected all sibling pairs in

conceivably worse (see Johnston, Kline, & Tschann, 1989), to the divorce situation than does a sibling who seldom sees the nonresidential parent. This paper has a dual emphasis. First, we will explore divorce-specific environmental influences, such as similar or differ-

154

Child Development
shared a residential arrangement, four had shared an arrangementat only one interview wave, 14 had shared an arrangement at two interview waves, and 14 had shared an arrangement at three interview waves. Measures Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the measures used. For household organization,parental monitoring, closeness to the residential parent, and average parentchild conflict, we used the adolescent's report about the primary residential parent. For adolescents in dual residence, the mean score of the child's reports of each parent was used. Similarly, the residential parent's perceptions of child irritabilityat T1 and parental involvement at T3 were used. For adolescents in dual residence, if both parents' reports were available, then a mean score was computed. Children living in dual-residence arrangements perceived relatively similar environments across homes;2 using a mean score to represent their experiences allowed us to approximatethe overall environment of dual-residence children. We did, however, perform all analyses using the scores for the dual-resident parent with whom the child spent the most absolute time (mean scores were still used for adolescents who split their time exactly evenly between homes), and the results did not change. Parent's education.-A 7-point scale
was used to indicate the highest level of ed3 = grade 9-12, 4 = high school graduate

families where two children had been interviewed. In addition, we selected two siblings from each family in which three or more siblings had been interviewed. From these larger families, we selected same-sex pairs because there were fewer boy-boy or girl-girl pairs than mixed-sex pairs in families where only two siblings were interviewed. When there was more than one same-sex sibling pair in a family, the sibling pair was selected randomly. This procedure yielded 136 sibling pairs. Adolescents ranged in age from 10 to 18 years. Sibling age difference ranged from 0 (twins) to 7 years; the average age difference was 2.8 years. Fifty-eight of the sibling pairs were mixed-sex (with sister older in 26 of the pairs and brother older in 32 of the pairs), and 75 were same-sex pairs (35 sister pairs and 40 brother pairs). At the time of the adolescent interview (T4), 86 of the sibling pairs lived primarily with their mother, 12 lived primarily with their father, 10 lived in dual-residence arrangements, and 25 lived in split-residence arrangements (19 mother/ father, 4 mother/dual, 2 father/dual).1Three sibling pairs were excluded from the analyses because one of the siblings had not lived with one or both parents in the past year, leaving 133 sibling pairs in the final sample. Sibling residence had also been assessed in each of the three previous interviewing waves. Considering all four available time points, the majority of pairs (84) had lived together in the same residential arrangementsince their parents' separation; 15 pairs had shifted residence at least once, but had shifted together; 19 pairs were split when only one sibling shifted residential arrangement; and in 14 pairs, both siblings shifted residential arrangement, but independently of each other. Thus, a total of 99 pairs had shared a residential arrangement at all time points since their parents' separation; of the remaining pairs, two had never

ucation completed, where 2 = grade 0-8,

5 = some college, 6 = college graduate, 7

(with or without some non-college training),

= some graduate or professional training, and 8 = completed graduate degree. Child irritability.-Child irritability was a composite of three questions from the interview of the residential parent at T1. Parents were asked how often the child resisted when the parent asked him or her to

at least four overnights every 2 weeks, at least 1 week out of the month, or at least 3 months (not all vacation) each year with each parent. Children in split-residence arrangementshad different residential arrangements. 2 Our sample included 26 adolescents who lived in dual-residence arrangements.Paired t tests indicated that dual-residence adolescents experienced significantly different environments across their two homes, although the magnitude of the differences was substantially lower than the size of the differences reported by siblings living together in a sole-residence (mother,father) arrangement.This may indicate that a child in a dual-residence arrangementexperiences a more similar environment across two homes than does a sibling pair within a single home. Alternatively, there may be a problem with reportingbias where a single reporterperceives two settings to be more similar than two reporters perceive a single setting to be.

1 Residencerefersto de factoresidencerather thanlegal custody.Children in mother residencespent11ormoreovernights in father Children residence every2 weekswiththeirmothers. Children in dualresidencespent spent 11 or moreovernights every2 weeks with theirfathers.

Monahan et al.
TABLE 1
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OLDER SIBLING Na Demographics: Parent's education ........ Age ................................. Preexisting characteristics: Child irritability (T1)... Father hostility (T1) ..... Mother hostility (T1).... Family processes: Involvement of primary residential parent (T3)................. Household organization.......................... Parental monitoring...... Closeness to residential parent................... Closeness to nonresidential parent........... Average parent-child conflict........................ Caught ........................... Psychosocial adjustment: Depression .................... School deviance............ Substance use ............... Antisocial behavior....... Grades............................ School effort.................. "Worst of three" ...........
a

155

YOUNGER SIBLING M
...

M 5.3 14.3 8.1 5.7 5.3

(SD) (1.3) (2.3) (2.3) (2.2) (2.2)

(SD)

Min 2.5 10 4 1 1

Max 8 18 14 10 10

133 266 194 86 115

12.8 8.0 ... ...

(1.9) (2.2)

238 266 256 266 228 256 266 266 265 266 266 266 246 266

8.0 36.9 11.6 35.4 31.7 2.0 5.1 16.6 8.3 8.5 5.7 5.6 14.3 113.8

(2.3) (9.1) (2.4) (7.1) (8.2) (.9) (3.1) (6.7) (2.6) (3.5) (1.2) (1.8) (3.8) (15.0)

8.5 38.3 11.7 35.4 32.7 1.9 4.7 15.4 6.7 7.0 5.6 5.8 15.0 109.3

(1.7) (9.3) (2.3) (7.6) (8.5) (.9) (2.8) (7.3) (2.3) (2.4) (1.2) (1.7) (2.7) (13.3)

2 9 5 10 10 1 0 0 4 6 5 1 5 83.7

10 54 15 45 45 5 12 30 16 24 11 8 24 168.1

Parent'seducation, motherhostility, and fatherhostility are family-level measures;N indicates the number of families for whom this measure was available. For all other measures, N indicates the number of children for whom the measure was available.

to 5 = usually agrees cheerfully and willingly), how often the child lost his or her
temper (1 = never to 5 = very often), and

do something (1 = usually resists or argues

how often the child was irritable or sullen alpha for this measure was .83.
(1 = never to 5 = very often). Cronbach's

felt lonely, felt "low" or depressed, felt nervous) symptoms in the month preceding the interview (Buchanan et al., 1991). Cronbach's alpha for these items was .83. cents told us how often in the preceding 12 months they had copied homework, cheated, come to class late, and skipped class (Dornbusch, Mont-Reynaud, Ritter, Chen, & Steinberg, 1991). Cronbach's alpha for the school deviance measure was .70. Substance use.-Using a scale ranging told us how often in the preceding 12 months they had smoked cigarettes, bought beer, used a phony ID, been drunk, smoked marijuana,and used a drug other than marijuana (Dornbusch et al., 1991). Cronbach's alpha for this measure was .83.
from 1 = never to 4 = often, adolescents ing from 1 = never to 4 = often, adoles-

School deviance.-Using

a scale rang-

Father hostility/mother hostility.-Interviewers rated the general hostility of each parent toward the ex-spouse at T1, using a scale where 1 = someone who speaks quite favorablyabout the ex-spouse to 10 = someone who is extremely bitter, hostile, and critical.
from 0 = never to 3 = 3 or more times, ado-

Depression.-Using

a scale ranging

lescents told us how often they had experienced 10 physical (e.g., headache, stomach ache, trouble sleeping) and emotional (e.g.,

156

Child Development
Antisocial behavior.-Using a scale always, adolescents told us how often certain routines occurred in their homes: eating an evening meal with family members, knowing when family members would arrive home in the evening, studying in the same place each day, eating at the same time each evening, being expected to be home for dinner, knowing who was responsible for chores, chores getting done when they were supposed to, having a regular time for cleaning the house, and being able to count on getting telephone messages (Buchanan et al., 1992). The household organization composite was a sum of these items for the residential home, with a Cronbach's alpha of .78. Parental monitoring.-To measure monitoring,we asked adolescents how much their residential parent really knew about where they went at night, how they spent their money, what they did with their free time, where they were most afternoons after school, and who their friends were (Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Kraemer, 1990). Responses were rated on a scale where 1 = doesn't know, 2 = knows a little, and 3 = knows a lot. Cronbach's alpha for this measure was .75. Closeness to residential and nonresidential parent.-The closeness measure was a composite of items asked about each parent. Closeness to the nonresidential parent was not computed for siblings in dual residence. Using a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = very, adolescents responded to nine questions regarding issues such as how openly they talked with their parents, how comfortable they felt admitting fears to parents or asking for help from them, how close they felt to their parents, how interested their parents were in them, and how often their parents acted affectionately towards them (Buchanan et al., 1992). Cronbach's alpha for this measure was .88 for the residential parent and .91 for the nonresidential parent. Average parent-child conflict.-We asked adolescents whether they had discussed the following topics with their residential parent in the preceding 2 weeks: doing chores, having friends over when their

cents told us how often in the preceding 12 months they had carried a weapon to school, gotten into a physical fight at school, damaged school property on purpose, stolen something of value from another person, and gotten in trouble with the police (Dornbusch et al., 1991). Cronbach's alpha for antisocial behavior was .53. Grades.-Adolescents were asked to describe their grades in recent years using categories ranging from "mostly A's," "about half A's and half B's," "mostly B's," to "mostly below D" (Dornbusch et al., 1987). Categories were ranked from 1 (lowest) to 8 (highest). High school dropouts did not answer this question, and for the purposes of analysis were assigned a score for grades equal to the grade for the tenth percentile ("about half C's and half D's"). School effort.-The school effort composite consisted of four items, adapted from Natriello and Dornbusch (1984). "How often do you really pay attention to the classwork during your classes?" and "In general, how often does your mind wander in your classes" were rated on a 6-point scale where addition, there were two questions measuring the amount of time spent on homework. These four questions were not asked of high school graduates. Cronbach's alpha for the four items was .55. "Worstof three".-Because adolescents may exhibit adjustment problems in different ways (i.e., one might become depressed while another acts out or slacks off in school), a score was constructed that represented an adolescent's worst problem. After standardizing depression, delinquency, and school effort by assigning a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16 to each, "worst of three" was defined as the maximum of the three scores. Involvement of the primary residential parent.-Parental involvement was a single item asked of the child's primaryresidential parent in an interview at T3. Parents were
given examples of types of involvement and then asked, "Thinking of what is relevant to you, how involved are you in your child's life?" Responses ranged from 1 = low involvement to 10 = high involvement. Parents responded separately for each child that lived with them. Household a organization.-Using scale from 1 = almost never to 6 = almost 1 = almost never and 6 = almost always. In

ranging from 1 = never to 4 = often, adoles-

parents were not home, letting their parents know where they were when they were out of the house, curfews, which friends they spent time with, and other things they could or should have done. For the discussions they had, they were asked to rate how angry the discussions were, using a scale from 1

Monahan et al.
Adolescents who had not discussed any of these topics with their residential parent were assigned the lowest conflict score, 1. This conflict scale was adapted from Steinberg (1988). Feelings of being caught between parents.-The following paired questions were asked about each parent: "Does mother ask questions about father [and father about mother]?" ("yes" or "no" response); "How often does mother ask you to carrymessages to father [and father to mother]?" (scale and "How often do you hesitate to talk about dad to mom [and mom to dad]?" (scale variable representing the maximum score for each of the three pairs was created; these variables were then standardized and added together with the standardized score for "How often do you feel caught in the middle between your parents?"(scale ranged from 1 composite that ranged from 0 to 12 (Buchanan et al., 1991). Cronbach'salpha for the "caught"composite was .64.
= never to 4 = very often), creating a caught ranged from 1 = never to 4 = very often). A ranged from 1 = never to 4 = very often); = not at all angry to 5 = extremely angry.

157

Results
Measures of Sibling Differences We considered three general issues in constructing our measures of sibling differences: (1) which model of sibling differences (e.g., difference scores, residualized gain scores) was most appropriate for the questions we were addressing; (2) given our decision to use difference scores to represent sibling differences, whether we should use relative or absolute sibling difference scores; and (3) how to adjust for differences in our measures due to age. In this study, we hypothesized positive relations between aspects of environment (e.g., time shared, magnitude of differences in perceived parenting practices) and the magnitude of differences in reported adjustment. Rovine (in press) argues that the use of difference scores is appropriatewhen testing hypotheses predicting the magnitude of sibling differences. Because we did not hy-

pothesize that the older sibling's rank in the

distribution of all older siblings was related to the younger sibling's rank in the distribution of all younger siblings, residualized gain scores were not appropriate(Rovine, in press). Relative difference scores are used when birth order hypotheses are tested; the sign (+ or -) of the difference indicates which sibling, the older or younger, reported a higher score on a given attribute (Rovine, in press). In this study, we did not test a birth-order hypothesis. Because we were interested in any difference between siblings, regardless of its direction, we computed difference scores as the absolute value of the difference between the two siblings. Although we were not interested in questions of birth order, we did want to accurately characterize differences between siblings given their differences in age. Across the sample, age was strongly related to individual scores on most of our process and adjustment measures.3 Simple absolute difference scores did not adequately account for differences in parenting or adjustment that would be expected based on age differences. For example, one sibling pair-an 18year-old boy and his 15-year-old brotherhad identical depression scores of 16. Although their raw scores were the same, the older sibling's score was about the same as the average 18-year-old's score in our study, while the younger sibling's score was higher than the score of the average 15-year-old in our sample. Because of their age difference, these siblings were more different from each other regarding depression than their raw scores indicated. To adequately characterize this discrepancy, we converted individual raw scores for measures of family process and individual adjustment into residual scores, where an individual's residual score represented the degree to which he or she deviated from the average score of his or her age cohort on a given measure. These residual scores were then used to create the sibling difference measures.4 In sum, discrepancy scores were used to represent sibling differences, and these scores were computed as the absolute value of the difference between the two siblings' age-residualized scores for any given measure.

3Age was positively associated with feeling caught between parents, depression, school deviance, substance use, antisocial behavior, and "worst of three," and negatively associated with parental involvement, household organization, parental monitoring, closeness to the residential and nonresidential parent, grades, and school effort. Only average parent-child conflict was not related to age. 4 We also performed analyses using difference scores without age residuals. Results using residuals are, if anything, more conservative.

158

Child Development
most part, the sibling correlations for adjustment were significant but low, ranging from .15 for depression, school effort, and "worst of three" to .27 for substance use. The correlations for sibling perceptions of family processes were somewhat higher (as high as .35 for feelings of being caught between parents). The sibling correlations were low enough to indicate that children in the same family frequently differed in their reported experiences of family processes and, especially, in their adjustment. Not surprisingly, sibling correlations based on residential parent reports of child irritability at T1 and parental involvement with each sibling at T3 (one reporter for both siblings) were higher than the correlations using individual child reports (different reporters for each sibling) of processes and outcomes.

Analyses
We employed a variety of methods to address the research questions: (1) How different are siblings from one another? and (2) What factors predict sibling differences? Sibling similarities were examined using intraclass sibling correlations; we then explored, using correlations, simple regression, and analysis of variance, the effects of level of parent's education and siblingpair sex composition on sibling differences. We used analysis of variance to investigate whether the size of sibling differences varied across residential arrangements. Pearson correlations were used to test the association between total amount of shared time in a residential arrangement and sibling differences, and to explore whether differences in perceptions of family processes were systematically related to differences in perceptions of sibling adjustment. Finally, we used correlation and discriminant analyses (e.g., logistic regression, contingency table analysis) to explore the possibility that sibling differences were the cause, and not the effect, of nonshared environments.

Level of Parent's Education and Sex Composition

Same-sex pairs of siblings were not more similar to each other than opposite-sex pairs. We used ANOVA to predict process and adjustment difference scores with sex grouping. Sex grouping predicted differences in school deviance, F(2, 129) = 2.50, p .10, and antisocial behavior, F(2, 130) = - p - .05. Post-hoc t tests indicated that 4.42, sister-sister pairs reported larger differences in school deviance than did brother-brother

Sibling Correlations
Intraclass sibling correlations for perceptions of family processes and self-reported psychosocial adjustment (see Table 2) are based on age residual scores. For the

TABLE 2
SIBLING INTRACLASS CORRELATIONS

Correlation Preexisting child characteristics: Child irritability ................................... .61**** Family processes: Involvement of primary residential parent (T3).......................55**** Household organization........................27**** Parental 09 monitoring............................... Closeness to residential parent............33**** Closeness to nonresidential parent.... .32**** Average parent-child conflict ...............27**** 35**** Caught ..............................................
.15* .16* .27**** .03 .22*** 15* .15*

(N) (97) (86) (133) (123) (133) (115) (123) (133)

(133) (132) (133) (133) (133) (113) (133)

Psychosocial adjustment: D epression............................................ School deviance .................................... Substance use ....................................... Antisocial behavior............................... Grades .................. School .............................. effort......................................... "Worst of three" ...................................
.10. .05. p Sp -5 .01. *p .001. .0001. . p
+p

Monahan et al.
pairs (t = 2.18, p .05), and that brother- larger differences in brother pairs reported antisocial behavior than did sister-sister pairs (t = 2.88, p - .01) or opposite-sex pairs (t = 2.25, p : .05). In general, however, sibling perceptions of family processes and individual adjustment did not vary significantly across brother-brother, sister-sister, and mixed-sex pairs. Sex grouping explained 4% of the variance in school deviance, 6%of the variance in antisocial behavior, and less than 3% of the variance in sibling difference scores for the other measures. The size of sibling differences was also largely unrelated to parental education. Level of parent's education was significantly
differences in parental monitoring: siblings whose parents had more education reported smaller differences in monitoring. Other differences in family processes and sibling adjustment were not, however, correlated with level of parent's education. Differences in parental involvement at T3, household organization, closeness to the nonresidential parent, substance use, antisocial behavior, grades, and "worst of three" had negative but insignificant correlations with level of parent's education, ranging from less than -.01 to -.14. Correlations between level of correlated (r = -.21, p .05) with sibling

159

parent's education and differences in closeness to the residential parent, parent-child conflict, caught, depression, school deviance, and school effort were also low but positive, ranging from less than .01 to .06. Parent's education explained 5% of the variance in differences in parental monitoring and between 0% and 2% of the variance in other sibling difference scores. Residence Factors and Sibling Differences Analysis of variance was used to predict differences in sibling reports of family processes and child adjustment with T4 residential arrangement (mother, father, dual, split). Siblings in split residence were significantly more different from one another than siblings who lived together in mother, father, or dual residence with regard to parental involvement, household organization, closeness to the nonresidential parent, average conflict with residential parent, substance use, and school effort (see Table 3).
Although differences in other process and adjustment scores did not vary significantly by residential arrangement, the magnitude of the differences was consistently higher for split-residence siblings than for siblings who shared a residence (e.g., parental monitoring, closeness to the residential parent,

antisocial behavior, "worst of three"). Residence explained between 1%and 13%of the variance in sibling difference scores. Although siblings in split residence generally reported the largest differences in processes and adjustment, siblings living in the same residence were also significantly different from one another. Using paired t tests, we compared sibling scores within each of the four residential arrangements and found that, for all measures, differences between siblings were significantly greater than zero (p .05). Are the greater differences among sibling pairs in split residence the result of siblings living in different residences at T4? Or are differences the result of a greater total amount of time that siblings have spent living apartsince their parents' separation? To look at this, we created a measure, which we call "shared time," to indicate the number of interviewing waves at which siblings shared a residential arrangement.Values for this measure ranged from 0 to 4 (mean = 3.5, SD = 0.9). Table 4 shows the zero-order correlations between amount of shared time and age-adjusted sibling differences in family processes and adolescent adjustment. The correlations confirm that the more time sibling pairs spent in a shared residential arrangement, the more similar were their reports of family processes and individual adjustment, implying a cumulative effect of shared time. Sibling differences were not simply determined by whether or not siblings had been split at the time of the fourth interview, but also by the amount of time they had been apart. Although shared time explained fairly small amounts of the variance in difference scores (24% for parental involvement at T3, and between 0% and 12%for the other difference scores), it was a more powerful predictor of differences than demographic factors such as sex grouping and level of parent's education. Paired t tests indicated that siblings who had never lived apart(n = 99), and thus presumably had the greatest shared backgrounds, still differed significantly in their reports of processes and adjustment, pointing to the effects of within-home nonshared
environment, in addition to the differences that stemmed from having lived in different households. The findings on split residence suggest that either (1) different households provide sufficiently different environments to provoke sibling differences in adjustment, or (2)

o
0

vv
C-1 VcCOcD cCVc) C-1

V
CO C-1C-1

V
CO)

V
C O)

M 0 ,

O - c

--,i

Io

C)i --.

C ,.,

i-c.1.-.,5

mo Cmm Ooo0mmom

om

z
w

"olH
0,

" C00r-i C,

Ci

qC" --" " -"4

aq I M

-" -- 4 ,..-4 "O---4coin

i

z z u

mmmmmm m NMMm mmm ~~~~-C-1 0

-..;5 ,.4 ,-,-4,..-,.. .. ,.N ,.4

0-4 ~

~m C- C1 -

m i

oi , 44M;oM;

C#) Z>4l A1)

r-4 r-4f"- "-A "T "-A,

co

4~~~)
0
L

~
co

~
00-c

co)o
?rr

cde

r cinc

c Io

o~~-o
0 C-1 m 1 00 Ci)-C~1 in

-~-40OC<O

00

00

040

O~~O
mJ bbI

4
w

~O

v
V

**Q,) C:0.+ NQr.

Ao 4 ,,ow vvVo

Monahan et al.
TABLE 4
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONSBETWEEN SHARED TIME AND DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONSOF FAMILY PROCESS AND PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT

161

Correlation with Shared Time Family processes: Involvement of primary residential parent (T3)................................ Household organization................................. Parental monitoring ....................................... conflict......................... Average parent-child Closeness to residential parent ..................... Closeness to nonresidential parent............... .............. Caught........................... .. Psychosocial adjustment: Depression ..................................... School ............... deviance......................... .............. Substance use........................................ Antisocial behavior ......................................... Grades .............. School ............................................. effort .............. "Worstof ................................... three"...................................... + p - .10.
* p ** p

(N) (117) (133) (123) (123) (133) (115) (133) (133) (132) (133) (133) (133) (113) (133)

R2 .24 .03 .03 .07 .03 .04 .00 .00 .00 .12 .06 .00 .05 .01

-.49**** - .18* -.17+ -.26** -.17+ -.25** -.02 .02 -.02 -.35** -.25** - .06 -.23* -.12

**** p 5.0001.

***p

.05. .01.

.001.

siblings who differ most select into, or are placed into, different households. The first possibility implies that siblings in the same household have more similar experiences than siblings living in split households, and that these similarities predict similarities in who are most different from each other on some preexisting dimensions may be more likely to end up living apart after divorce. Siblings may select environments based on their differences, or parents may select for them. In other words, sibling differences may be the cause and not the result of differences in environments. Next we address these possibilities. Nonshared Environments and Psychosocial Adjustment
adjustment. Alternatively, however, siblings

that had never lived apart because we were concerned about confounding the effects of differences in perceptions of family processes in the same household with the effects of living in separate households.
differences

As the results in Table 5 show, sibling

in peceptions of family pro-

cesses were generally positively associated with differences in reported adjustment. Ninety-eight correlations were performed. Of the correlations that were significant at p
< .10, 33 were positive, while only two were

negative, indicating that larger differences in perceptions of environmental influences were associated with larger differences in reported adjustment. For example, differences in sibling reports of household organization were positively associated with difTo address the hypothesis that different ferences in depression, substance use, environments provoke different adjustment, grades, school effort, and "worst of three." we looked directly at the association beLikewise, larger differences in parent-child tween sibling differences in perceptions of conflict were associated with larger differfamily processes and sibling differences in ences in substance use, antisocial behavior, self-reported adjustment. Table 5 presents school effort, and "worst of three." the Pearson correlation coefficients and the grades, amount of explained variance for (1) all sibCorrelations between differences in ling pairs, including those who had lived perceptions of family processes and differapart, and (2) the subsample of sibling pairs ences in reported adjustment weakened who had always shared a residential arrange- somewhat when the sample was limited to ment. We included data on the subsample those pairs who had always shared a residen-

TABLE 5
CORRELATIONSBETWEEN DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONSOF FAMILY PROCESSESAND DIFFERENCES IN REPORTS OF PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT

PAIRS WHOHAVE
ALL SIBLING PAIRS ALWAYS LIVED TOGETHER

(N = 94-133) FAMILY PROCESS

(N = 72-99)

R
.00 .00 .00 .06 .00
.03

R2
- .07 -.03 .02 .33** .00
.33*

Primaryresidential parent's report of parental involvement: Depression ......................................... -.05 School deviance .04 Substance use .................................... .................................. .06 Antisocial behavior............................ .25** Grades .04 School .................................................. effort .17+ "Worstof three" .06 ........................................ Child'sreportof household ................................. organization: D epression ......................................... .16+ School deviance .04 Substance use .................................... .................................. .14+ Antisocial behavior............................ .08 Grades 19* ............................................... School effort...................................... .31*** "Worstof three" .30*** Child's report of parental ................................. monitoring: D epression ......................................... .12 School deviance .03 Substance use .................................... .................................. .16+ Antisocial behavior .13 Grades................................................. ............................. - .04 School effort....................................... .01 "Worstof three" .17+ Child's report of closeness to the resi................................. dential parent: Depression ......................................... -.21* School deviance .13 Substance use .................................. .07 .................................... Antisocial behavior ............................ .25** Grades 05 ............................................ . School effort....................................... .18+ "Worstof three"................................. 05 Child's report of closeness to the nonresidential parent: Depression ......................................... -.05 - .05 School deviance ................................. Substance use .................................... .16+ Antisocial behavior .12 Grades ............................. .32*** School .................................................. effort....................................... .06 "Worstof three" 14 ................................ Child's report of parent-child conflict: D epression ......................................... .02 School deviance .13 Substance use .................................... .................................. .23* Antisocial behavior............................ .25** Grades .16+ School .................................................. effort....................................... .28** "Worstof three" .22* Child's report of caught in the middle ................................. between parents: Depression ......................................... -.05 School deviance ................................. -.03 Substance use ................................... 15+ Antisocial behavior............................ .20* Grades .19+ School .................................................. effort....................................... -.03 "Worstof three" -.07 ...............................
*p
+p

.00 .00 .00 .11 .00

.11

.00 .03 .00 .02 .01 .04 .10 .09 .01 .00 .03 .02 .00 .00 .03 .04 .02 .00 .06 .00 .03 .00 .00 .00 .03 .02 .10 .00 .02 .00 .01 .05 .05 .03 .08 .05 .00 .00 .02 .04 .04 .00 .00

.07 .17+ .04 .12 .12 .15 .26* .30** .18+ .06 .06 .10 - .15 -.01 .22* -.20* .18+ -.02 .24* .08 .13 -.07 -.04 .01 .17 .09 .18 -.02 .13 .02 -.05 .03 .12 .19+ .27* .12 - .06 -.04 .00 .15 .20* -.05 -.02

.00 .03 .00 .01 .01 .02 .07 .09 .03 .00 .00 .01 .02 .00 .05 .04 .03 .00 .06 .01 .02 .00 .00 .00 .03 .01 .03 .00 .02 .00 .00 .00 .01 .04 .07 .01 .00 .00 .00 .02 .04 .00 .00

.10. .05.

** p .01. *** p - .001.

****

.0001.

Monahan et al.
tial arrangement. Nonetheless, the effects continued to operate in the same directionlarger differences in perceptions of family processes were associated with larger differences in adjustment. For example, in the whole sample, differences in average parent-child conflict were significantly associated with substance use, antisocial behavior, grades, school effort, and "worst of three"; in the subsample of siblings who had always shared a residential arrangement, however, only associations with differences in grades and differences in school effort remained significantly associated with differences in conflict. The decrease in the magnitude and significance of the correlations reflected not only a decrease in the sample size but also the fact that the whole sample had a larger range of differences in perceptions of environmental influences than did the subsample. Overall, differences in household organization and differences in parent-child conflict seemed to be the most powerful predictors of differences in sibling adjustment. Nonetheless, differences in other family processes also proved important; differences in the perceptions of each family process were related to differences in reports of at least one adjustment measure. Even though sibling differences in processes were correlated with differences in adjustment, the two differences might not "match" in a meaningful way. Conceivably, for example, when siblings differ on how much conflict with a parent they report, it might be the sibling who reports the most conflict who is better adjusted on outcome measures. In order to make sure that the dif-

163

ference scores were related in a meaningful way, we examined the mean levels of the adjustment variables for the sibling in each pair who was higher on a process variable and the sibling who was lower. We found that sibling differences in environmental influences were meaningfully related to the differences in adjustment; siblings with higher scores in parental involvement, household organization, parental monitoring, and closeness to parents and lower scores in average parent-child conflict and feelings of being caught between parents had better adjustment than their worsescoring siblings (data not shown). Siblings who are different from one another in adjustment or personality variables related to adjustment may be more likely to live apart. Several preexisting factors may account for differences in residence. Siblings who differ in temperament may end up living apart. Because older children are more likely to make their own residence decisions and to shift residences to avoid conflict with a parent (Maccoby & Mnookin, in press), the age of the older child and the age difference between siblings may be associated with differences in residence. Sex difference may be an important factor predicting split residence; mixed-sex pairs may be more likely to live apart than same-sex pairs. Parents' hostility toward each other may also be associated with differences in residence: higher levels of parental hostility may divide the loyalties of siblings and result in split-residence decisions. Table 6 summarizes the associations between the preexisting factors and shared

Predictors of Nonshared Environments

TABLE 6
PREDICTORS OF SHARED TIME AND SPLIT RESIDENCE AT T4

Zero-Order
Predictor Child irritability (T1) ........... Age difference ...................... Age of older sibling ............. Age of younger sibling ........ Mixed sex Father hostility ............................... (T1)............. Mother hostility (T1) ............
+ p- s.10. *p .05. ** p - .01. *** p .001. **** p .0001.

Zero-Order
(N) (98) (133) (133) (133) (133) (72) (86) Correlation with Split Residence .01 -.23* .17* .00 .04 .20+ -.03 (N) (98) (133) (133) (133) (133) (72) (86)

Correlation with Shared Time -.11 -.28** -.22** .00 .02 -.21+ .05

164

Child Development
home environment, we found no evidence supporting the claim that background factors or early differences in child temperament predicted differences in family processes.

time and split residence at T4. The results are reported as Pearson correlation coefficients. Shared time and split residence at T4 were related to age difference and age of the older sibling (p .01). The older the elder - time siblings spent in a sibling was, the less shared residence and the more likely siblings were to be split at T4. Similarly, the greater the age difference, the less time siblings spent in the same residence and the more likely the pair was to be split at T4. Given that we removed the effects of age from our difference scores, the fact that older children were more likely to be in splitresidence arrangements, and to have shared less time with a sibling, cannot explain the greater differences that were found in sibling pairs after age effects were controlled. Because split residence at T4 was a dichotomous variable, we also performed logistic regressions predicting split residence at T4 with child irritability, age difference, age of the older child, age of the younger child, mother's hostility, and father's hostility; the results of these analyses were consistent with the Pearson correlations. We performed a contingency table analysis of split residence at T4 by sex grouping, with similarly consistent results. Although we had very little longitudinal information on the psychological adjustment of the children in our study, we did have parents' reports of child irritability at T1. We found that neither split residence at T4 nor shared time was predicted by differences in child irritability at T1. A higher initial level of father hostility toward mother was weakly associated with less time in a shared residence and a greater likelihood of a sibling pair being split at T4. When we predicted differences in sibling adjustment with a multiple regression model including shared time and father's hostility, however, the effects of shared time increased while the effects of father hostility disappeared. Higher initial father hostility toward mother was, therefore, not a direct cause of the greater differences in adjustment among split-residence siblings. Instead, the level of hostility was indirectly related, through shared time, to differences in adjustment. The R2 for sibling differences in some of the adjustment measures increased substantially when level of father's hostility was added to the shared-time model (e.g., R2 of substance use from .12 to .30, antisocial behavior from .06 to .22, and "worst of three" from .01 to .07). Although we suspected that preexisting factors might also predict differences in

Discussion
The sample of siblings from divorced families offered an opportunity to examine the shared and nonshared environments of adolescents, and their relation to sibling differences in adjustment. Contrary to the conclusions of some past researchers (e.g., Daniels et al., 1985; Dunn, 1983; Plomin & Daniels, 1987; Rowe & Plomin, 1981; Scarr & Grajek, 1982), we found that a shared environment was a major source of similarities among siblings: siblings who lived apart after their parents' divorce were more different than pairs who lived together. Siblings who were living apart when we interviewed them reported larger differences in household organization, closeness to the nonresidential parent, parent-child conflict, substance use, and school effort than did those living together. Likewise, parents of "split" siblings reported larger differences in the level of parental involvement with the two siblings than other parents. More time in a shared residence was related to smaller differences in most of the family process and psychosocial adjustment measures, although not significantly so in the cases of feeling caught between parents, school deviance, grades, and "worst of three." Although sibling pairs who lived apart were more different than pairs who lived together, there were also significant differences between siblings who shared a residence arrangement. Paired comparisons of sibling reports confirmed that siblings who lived together differed in their perceptions of their home and reported different adjustment. Thus, we conclude that nonshared environments within the same home do exist, as has been claimed (Daniels et al., 1985; Dunn, 1983; Dunn & Plomin, 1990; Plomin & Daniels, 1987; Rowe & Plomin, 1981; Scarr & Grajek, 1982), but that these environments are not as different as environments across households. Not surprisingly, sibling correlations for family processes were somewhat higher than those for individual adjustment. Daniels et al. (1985) found that intraclass sibling correlations of child reports of family processes ranged from .18 to .29, while the correlations of their reports of adjustment were lower, ranging from .12 to .20. The relatively

Monahan et al.
high sibling correlations for parents' reports of parental involvement and child irritability were consistent with Daniels et al.'s finding that parents tended to report more similar sibling experiences than did the siblings themselves. In general, differences in perceptions of the environment and psychosocial adjustment were not related to sex composition of sibling pairs nor to level of parent's education, confirming previous findings that demographic factors explain extremely small amounts of the variance in difference scores (Daniels et al., 1985; Plomin & Foch, 1980; Scarr & Grajek, 1982). Daniels et al.'s (1985) findings regarding the association between differences in family processes and differences in adjustment were also confirmed: we found that pairs who reported more different perceptions of family environments also reported more different adjustment. Differences in perceptions of family prohousehold organization cesses-especially and parent-child conflict-were related to differences in all of the adjustment measures and were the strongest predictors of differences in depression, school deviance, antisocial behavior, grades, school effort, and "worst of three." Shared time was the strongest predictor of differences in substance use. Previous research has shown that household organization, measured as a familylevel variable, is associated with positive adjustment, particularly in divorced families (see Guidibaldi et al., 1986; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1976, 1978). A structured home seems to facilitate positive academic adjustment, perhaps making it easier for a child to concentrate on academic work by removing the distractions of irregular schedules. Similarly, established routines seem to foster positive affective adjustment. Our results indicate that household organization, as reported by adolescents, is important: differences in perceptions of household organization are associated with differences in adjustment. Why were differences in household organization especially strong in predicting differences in adjustment? We found it somewhat puzzling that siblings differed as much as they did in their reports of household organization in the same home. Of the family process measures, household organization seemed to capture aspects of the household that should be most consistent across children. Our results indicate, how-

165

ever, that perceptions of household organization are, to a large extent, child-driven. Perhaps reports of household organization vary depending on a sibling's awareness of or involvement in routines. For example, a child who is highly engaged in the home and a child who is involved in a lot of activities outside the home may have different levels of awareness of any household routines that do exist. Even if routines are objectively the same for each sibling, adolescents who have different expectations or hopes for their home life may perceive a given set of routines in different ways. Household organization may be a proxy for the extent to which the adolescent's expectations of the home are being met. It would not be surprising to find that siblings who differ in their satisfaction with the household also differ in their adjustment. Although previous research has found that parent-child relationships mediate adjustment in both divorced and intact families (see Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Crouter, MacDermid, McHale, & Perry-Jenkins, 1990; Hess & Camara, 1979; Hetherington et al., 1978), the results of the present study of sibling differences indicate that adolescent perceptions of the coherence of the general home environment may be equally important. Differences between siblings in parentchild conflict were also associated with differences in several measures of adjustment. The relation between parent-child conflict and all of the adjustment measures except for depression and school deviance indicates an association among externalizing problems. Because all of the adjustment and family process measures (except parental involvement at T3) were reported in the T4 interview wave, we could not determine the causal order of the relations between differences in family processes and differences in sibling adjustment. Thus, adolescents who are involved in a great deal of overt conflict with their parents may react by acting out behaviorally in other contexts. Conversely, adolescents engaged in deviant behavior and who are performing poorly in school may experience more conflict with their parents over their behavior. Based on theoretical considerations and previous research, we suggested that both within-household, nonshared environments (e.g., differences in perceptions of family processes) and same-family, betweenhousehold environmental influences (e.g., split residence, shared time) may result in

166

Child Development
parent's T3 report of parent-child closeness correlated .32 with the adolescent's report of closeness at T4. Similarly, adolescent reports of parental monitoring were correlated with a T3 item asking parents about how difficult it was to keep track of their child (r = -.30) as well as with a composite of monitoring items asked of the residential parent at T3 (r = -.22). The residential parent's T3 report of the adolescent's school progress was correlated with the adolescent's T4 reports of grades (r = .44) and school effort (r = .33). The fact that we also found relations between differences in family processes and differences in adjustment when process is reported by parents (e.g., parental involvement) and adjustment is reported by adolescents gives us further confidence in our results. Nonetheless, the relations reported based on a single source are likely to be somewhat inflated. Data gathered by multiple or independent observers would help to remedy this problem. Multiple observers (e.g., both parents' and children's perspectives) would increase confidence in the validity of the measures, while independent observers would provide objective information about adolescent experiences, enabling researchers to address the question of which is more important in differentiating siblings measured differences in the -objectively environment, or differences as perceived by the actors. This research addressed the question of whether differences in sibling and parent reports of environmental factors predict differences in sibling reports of adjustment. We asked adolescents to report their experiences of family processes and their perceptions of their adjustment, and from those reports we constructed scores to represent the differences between siblings. Other approaches to the study of sibling differences are to be encouraged, but it should be recognized that they may address slightly different questions. For example, an adolescent may be asked to directly compare his or her experiences with those of a sibling (e.g., Daniels & Plomin, 1985). Siblings who report that they are treated more differently by their parents may also differ more in adjustment; the relation that this methodology would demonstrate, however, is that children's perceptions of differential parental treatment are related to differences in adas we found, that differences justment-not, between two children's perceptions of a particular environmental factor are related to differences in adjustment.

differences in adjustment. Our results support the importance of both in that split residence, amount of shared time, and greater differences in family processes were all associated with greater differences in adjustment. We found that siblings who spent more time apart after divorce differed more in their experiences of family processes and in their reports of adjustment. Were these relations an artifact of initial selection? Do siblings who are initially most different spend less time in the same household? We examined the alternative hypothesis that differences in adjustment or personality lead to split residence. Our findings indicated that early differences in child irritability were not associated with the occurrence of split residence at T4 or the amount of shared time over the 41/2 years following parental separation. Although initial level of father hostility was associated with siblings spending more time apart, father hostility did not explain sibling differences in adjustment. In fact, when the level of initial father hostility was controlled, the effects of nonshared time increased. We also found that background factors and early child differences did not predict differences in family processes. Although our tests were limited, we did not find much support for the claim that early sibling differences lead to residence differences or differences in experiences within the same home. Our information on the amount of residential time siblings had spent together was largely based on prior parental reports obtained at several successive time points following the parents' separation. Therefore, the relation between shared time and sibling similarities cannot be attributed to samesource bias. However, because the data on family processes and adjustment were largely gathered from a single source-adolescents-at a single time period, the findings on the relation between differences in processes and differences in adjustment may have a common response bias. Given this situation, what information do we have concerning the validity of the adolescentreported measures? The little information we do have indicates that the measures are reasonably valid. In those cases where we have some earlier parental indicator of an adolescent-reported construct, correlations between T4 adolescent measures and earlier parental reports of treatment and adolescent adjustment were statistically significant and in the direction expected. The residential

Monahan et al.
In sum, while siblings differed from one another in all family situations, it was not the case that siblings in different homes were as similar as siblings in the same home. The finding that siblings who lived apart after divorce were more different than siblings who lived together, even though they came from the same nuclear family, should encourage researchers to reconsider the importance of shared environment and to focus on the effects of both shared and nonshared environments.

167

References
Astone, N. M., & McLanahan,S. S. (1991). Family structure,parental practices, and high school completion. American Sociological Review, 56, 309-320. Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Caught between parents: Adolescents' experience in divorced homes. Child Development, 62, 1008-1029. Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1992). Adolescents and their families after divorce: Three residential arrangements compared. Journal of Research on Adolescents, 2, 261-291. Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Crouter,A. C., MacDermid, S. M., McHale, S. M., & Perry-Jenkins,M. (1990). Parentalmonitoring and perceptions of children's school performance and conduct in dual- and singleearner families. Developmental Psychology, 26, 649-657. Daniels, D., Dunn, J., Furstenberg, F. F., & Plomin, R. (1985). Environmental differences within the family and adjustment differences within pairs of adolescent siblings. Child Development, 56, 764-774. Daniels, D., & Plomin, R. (1985). Differential experience of siblings in the same family. Developmental Psychology, 21, 747-760. Dornbusch, S. M., Mont-Reynaud, R., Ritter, P. L., Chen, Z., & Steinberg, L. (1991). Stressful events and their correlates among adolescents of diverse backgrounds. In M. E. Colten & S. Gore (Eds.), Adolescent stress: Causes and consequences (pp. 111-130). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257. Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Mont-Reynaud, R., & Chen, Z. (1990). Family decisionmaking and academic performance in a di-

verse high school population.Journal of Adolescent Research, 5, 143-160. Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling relationships in early childhood. Child Development, 54, 787-811. Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1990). Separate lives: Why siblings are so different. New York:Basic. Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M., & Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model of the impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of disrupted parenting. Child Development, 61, 1112-1123. Guidibaldi, J., Cleminshaw, H. K., Perry, J. D., Nastasi, B. K., & Lightel, J. (1986). The role of selected family environment factorsin children's post-divorce adjustment. Family Relations, 35, 141-151. Hess, R. D., & Camara,K. A. (1979). Post-divorce family relationships as mediating factors in the consequences of divorce for children. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 79-98. Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1992). Coping with family transitions: A family systems perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(2-3, Serial No. 227). Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1976). Divorced fathers. Family Coordinator, 25, 417-428. Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1978). The aftermathof divorce. In J. H. Stevens, Jr., & M. Matthews (Eds.), Mother-child,fatherchild relations. Washington, DC: NAYEC. Johnston,J. R., Kline, M., & Tschann,J. M. (1989). Ongoing post-divorce conflict in families contesting custody: Effects on children of joint custody and frequent access. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 576-592. Lamborn, S., Dornbusch, S. M., & Kraemer, E. (1990, March).Parental monitoring strategies in an ethnically mixed sample. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Atlanta. Maccoby, E. E., Depner, C. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1990). Coparenting in the second year after divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 141-155. Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (in press). Dividing the child: The social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Natriello, G., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1984). Teacher evaluative standards and student effort. New
York: Longmans. Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 1-60. Plomin, R., & Foch, T. T. (1980). A twin study of objectively assessed personality in childhood.

168

Child Development
Scarr,S., & Grajek,S. (1982). Similarities and differences among siblings. In M. E. Lamb & B. Sutton-Smith(Eds.), Sibling relationships: Their nature and significance across the lifespan (pp. 357-381). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Snow, M. E., Jacklin, C. N., & Maccoby, E. E. (1981). Birth order differences in peer sociability at 33 months. Child Development, 52, 589-595. Steinberg, L. (1988). Reciprocal relation between parent-child distance and pubertal maturation. Developmental Psychology, 24, 122128.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 680-688. Rovine, M. (in press). Estimating nonshared environment using sibling discrepancy scores. In E. M. Hetherington, D. Reiss, & R. Plomin (Eds.), Separate social worlds of siblings: Impact of nonshared environment on development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rowe, D. C. (1983). A biometrical analysis of perceptions of family environment: A study of twin and singleton sibling kinships. Child Development, 54, 416-423. Rowe, D. C., & Plomin, R. (1981). The importance of nonshared environmental influences in (El) behavioral development. Developmental Psychology, 17, 517-531.