Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 12, pp. 387-399, 1991 0891-4222/91 $3.00 + .00 Printed in the USA. All fights reserved. Copyright © 1991 Pergamon Press pie
Preschool Siblings of Handicapped Children: Interactions With Mothers, Brothers, and Sisters Debra I. Lobato Rhode Island Hospital and Brown University Program in Medicine
Carol 1". Miller and tinda Barbour University of vermont
Laura J. Hall* University of Massachusetts
John Pezzullo Rhode Island Hospital
The purpose of this investigation was to examine similarities and differences between young (aged 3 years to 6 years 9 months) siblings of handicapped and nonhandicapped children in their behavioral interactions with their mothers, brothers, and sisters. Behavior of mothers toward the different groups of children also was examined. Results revealed few differences between sibling groups in the quantity or quality of their interactions with family members. In comparison to the matched control children, siblings of handicapped children engaged in more parallel play and social play, and were more nurturing but no more likely to interact aggressively or to be commanding or directive with their brothers or sisters. Mothers in the experimental group were found to target sig*Laura J. Hall is now at the department of Disabilities Studies, Victoria College, Victoria, Australia. The authors are grateful to the children and families who participated in the project. The assistance of Dr. Ricardo Barrera, Christine DiBlasio, Paola Bellabarba, Martha Fay, Lisa Kay, Jeanne Logozzo, Donna Motley, Jennifer Harter, and Tina Meisell is also gratefully acknowledged. This project was funded by Grant Number G008300345 from the U.S. Department of Education. Requests for reprints should be sent to Debra J. Lobato, Ph.D., Child Development Center, Rhode Island Hospital, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI 02903. 387
388
D . J. L o b a t o et al.
nificantly more nurturant behaviors toward their children compared to control mothers and were significantly more likely to deliver commands, directives, and reprimands to siblings of handicapped children than to any other ehiM. Results are discussed in terms of their correspondence to previous observational and interview research.
Psychological adjustment of siblings of handicapped children increasingly has become a topic of interest (Dyson, 1989; Lobato, 1983; 1990; Powell & Ogle, 1985). "Adjustment" has been examined most frequently in terms of mothers' (Breslau, Weitzman, & Messenger, 1981; Breslau, 1982; Dyson, 1989; Lobato, Barbour, Hall, & Miller, 1987) and teachers' (Gath, 1973; 1974; Gath & Gumley, 1987) perceptions of siblings' behavior as measured on standard child behavior rating forms. Information based on parent and teacher reports has yielded conflicting results. While some of these investigations suggest that siblings of handicapped children are similar to their peers in overall behavioral adjustment (Ferrari, 1984; Lobato et al., 1987; Dyson, 1989), there also are indications that siblings may have more specific behavioral problems related to anxiety, depression, and aggression than are reported by parents of nonhandicapped children (Breslau, 1982; Lobato et al., 1987; Tew & Laurence, 1973). When data are generated via direct contact with siblings themselves, however, siblings of handicapped children have not been distinguishable from other siblings matched for age, birth-order, socioeconomic status, and marital status of their parents. Having a brother or sister with a significant developmental disability exerted no direct influence on children's responses on measures of interpersonal empathy, social competence or self-esteem, and understanding of developmental disabilities (Lobato et al, 1987). This discrepancy in results between studies utilizing caregiver reports and those utilizing child reports invites a question regarding the bias of parent-generated research on the psychosocial development of siblings. Namely, do the parent-identified differences between young siblings of handicapped and nonhandicapped children reflect true differences between the groups of children or between their parents' perceptions? By collecting naturalistic, observational data of family interaction, the potential bias of parent-report can be avoided. Previous naturalistic observations of children with retardation and their siblings have revealed interesting differences between siblings of retarded and nonretarded children. Namely, among siblings of children with mental retardation is a tendency toward more prosocial and fewer agonistic behavior patterns when compared to their matched peers (Abramovitch, Stanhope, Pepler, & Corter, 1987; Stoneman, Brody, Davis, & Crapps, 1987; 1989). Generally, siblings of delayed children assume greater caretaking and managing roles as com-
Sibling Interactions
389
pared to their peers, and this is especially true of older sisters of retarded children. While the quantity and affective quality of interactions between siblings of retarded and nonretarded children appear generally similar, for older siblings of mentally retarded children, increased childcare responsibilities also have been identified, and these have been associated with less positive interaction and more conflict between siblings (Stoneman, Brody., Davis, & Crapps, 1988). The previous observational studies focused exclusively on siblings of children with mental retardation and covered a wide age range of children. The current project focuses specifically on siblings aged 3 years to 6 years 9 months, since it is during their young years that siblings often have the greatest access to one another, and it is during this time that characteristic patterns of interaction are being formed (Dunn, 1985). Behavioral data on the children's interactions with each other and with their mothers were collected to answer four major questions: 1. Are the interactions between siblings influenced by one child's handicapping condition? 2. Does their mothers' presence affect the quality or quantity of the children's interactions? 3. Do mothers of handicapped children act differently toward their children than do mothers of nonhandicapped children? and 4. Do mothers act differently toward their handicapped children than they do toward the children's siblings and controls? Based on previous literature and clinical observation, it was hypothesized that the interactions of handicapped child-sibling pairs would be characterized by a lower quantity and different quality of interaction in comparison to matched pairs of nonhandicapped siblings. It was predicted that the handicapped child-sibling pairs would exhibit a higher proportion of caretaking and instructional exchanges with a lower rate of sibling-targeted aggression, especially among female siblings. Differences in the behavior of mothers toward children in the experimental and control families also were expected, with greater degrees of reprimands and commands directed toward siblings, especially female siblings, of handicapped children. METHOD
Subjects Subjects in the current project were drawn from a sample of 46 children who participated in a larger sibling study on sibling adjustment (see Lobato et al., 1987). The original experimental group consisted of 24 children who
390
D. J. Lobato et al.
had a brother or sister with a significant handicapping condition. For the analyses of the current observational data, the sample was reduced by two families for w h o m appropriately matched controls could not be recruited and b y a n o t h e r two f a m i l i e s who did not w a n t to p a r t i c i p a t e in those aspects of the study i n v o l v i n g home videotaping. Thus, the final sample consisted of 20 children, aged 3 years to 6 years 7 months, whose brothers or sisters had the f o l l o w i n g h a n d i c a p p i n g c o n d i t i o n s : D o w n s y n d r o m e (n = 2); spina bifida (n = 1); cerebral palsy (n = 7); profound hearing loss (n = 1); blindness (n = 1); nonspecific global developmental delay (n = 4); W i l l i a m s s y n d r o m e (n = 1); and m u l t i p l e disabilities due to c o n g e n i t a l hydrocephalus (n = 1), head injury (n = 1), and u n k n o w n etiology (n = 1). The control group consisted of 20 children, aged 3 years to 6 years 9 m o n t h s , w h o s e brother or sister was apparently healthy and d e v e l o p i n g normally. Control children and their families were recruited from local day care centers, preschools, and pediatric practices. As reflected in Table 1, the families were matched in terms of the n u m b e r of children, relative birth orders, sex, ages, age spacing (within 6 months) of the target sibling and handicapped child, and marital status of the parents. All but one experimental and one comparison family contained two children; the other families had 3 children.
TABLE 1.
Subject Characteristics Experimental n = 20
Control n = 20
Siblingage Male Female
36-79 months 57.5 months 59.5 months
37-81 months 61.75 months 63.75 months
Siblingbirth order lst-born male lst-born female 2nd-bornmale 2nd-bornfemale
n=9 n=7 n=3 n= 1
n=9 n=7 n=3 n=1
Handicappedchild/Control Age range Mean age Male Female
16-91 months 44.2 months n = 12 n=8
11-108 months 48.4 months n = 12 n=8
Family income Range Mean
6000-70,000 20,563
9000-50,000 25,930
Family constellation Single-parent Two-parent
n=7 n = 13
n=7 n = 13
Sibling Interactions
391
Videotaping Procedures Families were videotaped in the living room or den area of their homes following parents' and children's provision of written informed consent and completion of other evaluation procedures involved in the larger sibling adjustment study. While these other data were collected by one member of the research team, another member set up the videotaping equipment. For the purposes of reducing reactivity, parents and children freely wandered into the taping room when they were not otherwise occupied. Videotaping sessions were scheduled at times fathers from two-parent families reported that they would be home, though only five were actually present when the research team arrived. Of these fathers, two actually participated in the videotaping. Due to this small number, the analyses reflect comparisons between experimental and control sibling dyads with and without their mothers only. The order of videotaping sibling-sibling and mother-siblings interaction was counterbalanced across subjects. Families selected three toys from their own collection and were given three toys from the experimenter's collection that they could play with during taping. The families' television remained off throughout the sessions. During sibling-sibling taping, parents were instructed to remain outside of the room, usually in an adjacent kitchen. When mothers were videotaped with the two children together they were instructed simply to p l a y with b o t h of their c h i l d r e n t o g e t h e r . E a c h sibling d y a d and mother-siblings triad was videotaped for 15 min for a total of 30 min of data. Longer videotaped observations were not planned in consideration for the intrusiveness of the research procedures as a whole. The date, time, and a stopwatch function were recorded in the upper right hand comer of each videotape. This enabled videotape observers to code behaviors within prerecorded 15- s intervals.
Measures of Behavior and Videotape Analysis Assistants were not told the subjects' experimental groups, though some were clear because of the visibility of the children's handicaps. Behavior codes were recorded at the end of every 15 s, as measured by the built-in timer on the television screen. Assistants coded all behaviors of one member of the dyad or triad and then replayed the tapes, sequentially focusing on the behavior of other members of the dyad or triad during parallel 15-s intervals. Behaviors and their definitions are presented in Table 2. Certain discrete behaviors were amenable to interval-by-interval freq u e n c y recording. These were Nurturing Behavior, Aggression, and Commands/Directives. The total frequency of occurrence of each of these
392
D. J. Lobato et al.
TABLE 2. Definitions of Coded Videotape Behaviors Behavior
Definition
Parallel play
Each member of the dyad is separately involved with his or her own play activities and uninvolved with each other (e.g., sibling plays with doll while child reads).
Social play
One or both members of the dyad attempt to or succeed in reciprocally engaging in a playful sequence of social behaviors without the use of objects (e.g., sibling and child wrestle).
Object play
One or both members of the dyad attempt to or succeed in reciprocally engaging in a playful sequence of social behaviors with the use of objects (e.g., child brings book to mom and she reads it).
Physical contact
One member of the dyad makes physical contact with the other person. It does not include social play behaviors that require contact (e.g., wrestling) but is a more supportive behavior that can be part of or within another behavioral sequence (e.g., mother puts child in lap to read book).
Provides instruction
One member of the dyad attempts to or succeeds at teaching or showing the other member how to do something (e.g., sibling shows child how to roll on floor).
No interaction
No interaction occurs between the dyad for the entire interval, including any entire interval during which one person plays alone but the other is unoccupied.
Nurturing behaviors
One member of the dyad praises or positively recognizes through gesture or word the desirable behavior of the other (e.g., mom pats sib on back after sib does puzzle), verbally or nonverbally expresses affection in a noncontingent manner (e.g., sib hugs mom), or attempts to help or do something for the other (e.g., sib retrieves something out of child's reach).
Commands/ Reprimands/Directives One member scolds or reprimands the other contingent on an undesired behavior (e.g., sibling tells child not to throw blocks), or one member asks or tells the other to do something without attempting to teach him or her (e.g., morn tells child to pick up toy). Aggression
One member of the dyad is verbally or nonverbally hurtful toward the other. This includes hitting, kicking, grabbing, yelling, spitting, or insulting
behaviors within the 15-min videotape sample was then computed for each d y a d a n d u s e d in l a t e r a n a l y s e s . D u e to t h e i r m o r e i n d i s c r e t e a n d s u s t a i n e d n a t u r e , o t h e r i n t e r a c t i v e b e h a v i o r s w e r e m o s t a m e n a b l e to m e a s u r e m e n t v i a w h o l e o r p a r t i a l ( 1 5 - s ) i n t e r v a l r e c o r d i n g . T h e s e i n c l u d e d P a r a l l e l Play, S o c i a l Play, O b j e c t Play, Physical Contact, Provides Instruction, and No Interactions. The percenta g e o f i n t e r v a l s in w h i c h t h e s e b e h a v i o r s o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n t w o p e o p l e w a s c o m p u t e d f o r e a c h d y a d a n d u s e d in l a t e r a n a l y s e s . Interobserver agreement on behaviors coded within each interval was m e a s u r e d o n a p o i n t - b y - p o i n t b a s i s . O b s e r v e r s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d to b e i n
Sibling Interactions
393
agreement if all entries for the interval were identical. For intervals during which more than one behavior occurred, an interval was considered an agreement only if the multiple codes were the same. An interobserver agreement ratio was established on 25% of the videotapes using the formula: number of interval agreements divided by the number of agreements plus number of disagreements multiplied by 100. Overall agreement for the videotapes ranged from 76% to 94%, with an average agreement ratio of 84%.
Analyses Each coded behavior from the videotapes was analyzed with a mixed repeated measures factorial analysis of variance in which sex of sibling and family type (experimental vs. control) were between-subjects factors. The mothers' presence or absence during the siblings' interaction or dyad membership (i.e., mother-sibling vs. mother-handicapped child/control) were repeated measures factors. Normalizing square root transformations were conducted on frequency measures of behavior (i.e., nurturing, aggression, commands/reprimands, and directives) in order to achieve homogeneity of variance. RESULTS
Children's Interactions With Each Other Table 3 presents the mean percentage of observation intervals in which the children engaged in parallel play, social play, and object play, had physical contact with each other, provided instructions to one another, or were not interacting. Similar to other investigations (Stoneman et al., 1987), children in all groups did not interact with each other at all during a substantial percentage of the coded intervals (means ranged from 39% to 86%). A significant sex effect (F = 6.58, p = .02) was revealed for the percentage of intervals during which interaction occurred, indicating that girl siblings interacted more with their brothers and sisters than did boy siblings. Analysis also revealed a significant difference between subject groups in the rates of parallel play (F = 9.72, p = .007). Children in the experimental groups, regardless of sex of sibling and regardless of whether the mother was present or absent, engaged in more parallel play (M = 14.38%) than did children in the control groups (M = 7.04%). In addition, there was a significant effect (F = 9.57, p = .07), which indicated that children in the experimental groups tended to engage in social play in more of the intervals (M = 7.25%) than did children in the control groups (M = 2.25%). In both groups of children, social play occurred more often when the mother
394
D. J. L o b a t o et al.
TABLE 3. Mean Percentage of Intervals for Sibling Interactions With Mothers Present and Absent Experimental Group Boy
Control Group
Girl
Boy
Girl
Behavior/Dyad
Mean %
SD
Mean %
SD
Mean %
SD
Mean %
SD
Parallel play 1 Mother absent Mother present
14.3 10.00
14.71 13.12
21.0 14.14
11.03 9.62
8.90 6.58
9.54 7.94
8.50 3.57
7.16 4.76
Social play 2 Mother absent Mother present
6.00 3.00
15.78 6.32
18.79 3.57
25.29 3.78
1.10 1.58
2.33 4.99
5.71 1.43
15.12 3.78
Object play Mother absent Mother present
18.40 5.50
24.49 10.92
31.43 19.71
23.34 21.91
22.65 17.31
20.78 17.47
27.40 24.29
23.35 35.17
Physical contact 3 Mother absent Mother present
1.50 2.00
3.38 4.22
2.14 12.43
3.93 20.89
3.75 0
8.44 0
.76 5.00
2.00 9.13
Provides instruction Mother absent Mother present
1.20 1.00
2.57 3.16
.86
2.27 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
46.14 73.86
23.12 23.03
No interaction Mother absent Mother present
72.30 33.00 86.000 20.11
0
72.00 79.61
22.87 62.86
54.17 39.04
40.46 14.75
SD = Standard Deviation. 1Group effect: F = 9.72, p = .007. 2Group effect: F = 5.49, p = .03; group X dyad effect: F = 9.57, p = .007. 3Dyad X sex effect: F = 6.11, p = .03.
was absent (M = 7.13%) than when she was present (M = 2.37%, F = 9.57, p = .007). Sisters of handicapped children engaged in the greatest amounts of social play (M -- 11.18), though the interaction effect of sex failed to reach statistical significance (F = 2.56, p = .13). A significant interaction between dyad and sex was found for physical contact (F -- 6.11, p = .03). As compared to male siblings, physical contact occurred most frequently among female siblings of both handicapped and nonhandicapped children when their mothers were present than when mothers were absent. There were no significant differences in the rates of object play, while occurrences of instructional behaviors were too low for meaningful comparisons. T h e b e h a v i o r s c o d e d as f r e q u e n c i e s w e r e N u r t u r i n g B e h a v i o r , Aggression, and Use of Commands and Directives. These data are presented in Table 4. Children within the experimental group were the only ones to display any nurturing behavior toward each other (all means < 1, 5 of 8
Sibling Interactions
395
m e a n s = 0), y i e l d i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t g r o u p e f f e c t (F = 6.03, p = .03). Aggression also was very infrequent (all means < 1.5, 3 of 8 means = 0). There were no significant differences between groups, sexes, or dyads in the occurrence of reprimands or commands, though siblings in both experimental and control families gave more directives (M = 1.1) than did their handicapped/control brothers and sisters (M = .4), F = 4.80, p = .04. This finding is not surprising since the siblings typically were the older o f the two children.
M o t h e r - C h i l d Interactions
Three mothers from the experimental group decided not to be videotaped alongside their children, though they allowed the videotaping of their children. Their mother-child data, as well as those of their matched controls, were not analyzed, reducing the sample size of mother-child dyads within each group from 20 to 17. Means and standard deviations in the rates of occurrence of interactive behaviors between mothers and their children are presented in Table 5. Analysis of the percentage of intervals in which the mother and child engaged in parallel play, social play, or object play, or had physical contact, provided instruction, or were not interacting revealed only one significant finding. This finding was that regardless of sex of sibling and regardless of
TABLE 4. Mean Frequency of Nurturing, Commands/Reprimands, and Aggression Between Siblings With Mothers Present and Absent
Experimental Group Boy Behavior/Dyad
Girl
Mean FrequencySD
Nurturing Mother absent Mother present Commands/Reprimands/ Directives Mother absent Mother present Aggression Mother absent Mother present SD = Standard Deviation.
Control Group Boy
Mean FrequencySD
Mean Mean Frequency SD Frequency SD
.70 0
2.21 0
1.00 .57
1.53 1.13
0 0
1.10 1.70
1.45 3.27
1.29 0
1.49 0
0
0
1.14 0
2.19 0
.20
.42
Girl
0 0
0 0
0 0
1.40 2.27 .80 1.03
2.86 .86
3.58 1.57
0
1.00 2.65 .14 .38
0 .10
.32
396
D. J. Lobato et al.
TABLE 5. Mean Percentage of Intervals for Mother-Child Interactions Experimental Group Boy
Control Group
Girl
Boy
Girl
Behavior/Dyad
Mean %
SD
Mean %
SD
Mean %
SD
Mean %
SD
Parallel play 1 Mother/Sib Mother/HC
25.20 22.30
21.64 17.85
16.86 19.00
7.19 13.05
5.00 7.15
4.08 9.6
5.29 2.14
9.14 2.67
Social play Mother/Sib Mother/HC
2.00 5.50
4.83 7.98
.71 5.00
1.89 7.64
9.00 0
21.18 0
1.43 1.43
3.78 3.78
Object play Mother/Sib Mother/HC
55.80 41.20
37.26 28.85
36.57 51.14
20.81 17.68
45.20 50.84
36.23 35.17
73.14 75.00
33.89 37.53
Physical contact Mother/Sib Mother/HC
6.00 32.50
14.10 46.98
8.57 24.14
18.42 33.07
13.00 5.11
31.99 10.98
5.00 12.14
13.23 27.97
5.10 4.50
8.44 8.64
5.00 2.86
5.77 5.67
1.50 0
3.38 0
4.86 6.43
6.09 11.07
31.10 32.30
39.69 33.34
43.43 35.14
18.69 25.69
29.00 48.56
24.92 32.03
38.86 13.57
40.54 19.73
Provides instruction Mother/Sib Mother/HC No interaction Mother/Sib MotherfrtC
HC = Handicapped or conlxol child; SD = Standard Deviation. 1Group effect: F = 14.65, p = .0005.
which mother-child dyad was under observation, there was more parallel play in the experimental group (M = 21.35%) than in the control group (M = 5.10%), F = 22.21, p = .003. As can be seen in Table 5, mothers rarely engaged in social play or provided instruction to their children, and there was no interaction at all during an average of 13.57% to 43.43% of the intervals. The most common behavior was object play, for which mean percentages ranged from 36.57% to 75.00% of the intervals. A significant dyad X group interaction effect (F = 7.18, p =.02) was revealed in the analysis of the percentage of interactive behaviors initiated by the mother. Regardless of the sex of the sibling, mothers in the experimental group initiated more interactive behaviors in total with their h a n d i c a p p e d children (M -- 7 5 . 5 9 % ) than they did with the target nonhandicapped siblings (M = 49.57%) as compared to control mothers with their handicapped/control children (M = 51.26%) and their siblings (M = 64.71%).
Sibling Interactions
397
T h e m e a n frequencies of nurturing behavior; c o m m a n d s , reprimands, and directives; and aggression are presented in Table 6. Analysis revealed a sign i f i c a n t e f f e c t for g r o u p on r a t e s o f n u r t u r i n g b e h a v i o r s , w i t h g r e a t e r amounts d i s p l a y e d within the experimental group ( F = 9.84, p = .007). There was a tendency for greater displays of nurturing to occur with handicapped children as c o m p a r e d to their siblings or controls, though the group X d y a d effect failed to achieve statistical significance ( F = 3.24, p = .09). There was a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r g r o u p on r a t e s o f c o m m a n d s a n d r e p r i m a n d s ( F = 12.44, p = .003). Regardless o f sibling sex, mothers in the experimental group delivered more than twice the n u m b e r of c o m m a n d s and directives to their children than control mothers. Aggression was not observed frequently enough to yield meaningful comparisons (7 of 8 means = 0).
DISCUSSION P r e v i o u s investigations have described m o t h e r s ' and teachers' tendencies to report that siblings o f h a n d i c a p p e d children have m o r e b e h a v i o r a l problems than their p e e r s (Breslau et al, 1981; Breslau, 1982; Gath, 1972; 1973; L o b a t o et al., 1987). Results of the current observational study, however, r e v e a l e d few differences between siblings of h a n d i c a p p e d and nonhandic a p p e d children in the quantity or quality of their actual interactions with TABLE 6. Mean Frequency of Nurturing, Commands/Reprimands, and Aggression Between Mothers and Children
Experimental Group Boy Behavior/Dyad
Mean Frequency SD
Nurturing1 Mother to sibling Mother to HC Commands/Reprimands/ Directives2 Mother to sibling Mother to HC Aggression Mother to sibling Mother to HC
Control Group
Girl
Boy
Girl
Mean Frequency SD
Mean FrequencySD
.60 1.00
.97 1.49
.71 2.57
.95 2.88
.30 .10
.48 .32
1.33 1.70
1.78 3.27
1.13 1.46 0 0
1.25 .67
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
.43
1.13 0
HC = Handicapped or control child; SD = Standard Deviation. 1Group effect: F = 9.84, p = .007. 2Group effect: F = 12.44, p = .003.
Mean Frequency SD 0
0 .14
.38
2.09 .99
3.63 1.25
3.96 1.83
0 0
0 0
0 0
398
D. J. Lobato et al.
their mothers, brothers, and sisters. Differences that did emerge revealed generally more positive types of interaction, similar to those that have been observed by others (Abramovitch et al., 1987). In comparison to the matched control children, siblings of handicapped children engaged in more parallel play and social play and were more nurturing, but were no more likely to interact aggressively or to be commanding, reprimanding, or directive with their brothers or sisters. The present data confirm previous conclusions (Lobato et al., 1987) that the closer one gets to observing or interacting with siblings of handicapped children themselves (as opposed to interviewing their mothers), the more similar they appear in relation to their peers, especially during their early childhood. Differences in mothers' behavior toward children in the experimental and control groups were few. Though there was no significant difference between groups of children in the quantity of their interactions with their mothers, mothers initiated more interaction with their handicapped children than with siblings or control children. This may be related to the fact that the handicapped/control child also was the youngest child and developmentally least mature in all but four families and, therefore, required greater adult initiation for interaction to occur. Among the clinically interesting differences that did emerge in the behavior of mothers of handicapped and nonhandicapped children were the rates of nurturance displayed and the number of commands and reprimands delivered. Regardless of sex, siblings of handicapped children received twice as many directives, scolds, and reprimands from their mothers as did control children, even though the videotapes revealed few differences between the groups of siblings in the rates of behaviors (e.g., aggression) one typically would consider deserving of scolds and reprimands. Perhaps this greater frequency of scolds and reprimands represents the behavioral correlate of mothers' tendency to report more behavioral adjustment problems among siblings of handicapped children even when sibling-based reports of their own adjustment appears no different from that of their peers (e.g., Lobato et al., 1987). It is important to balance this observation with the fact that mothers in the experimental group also displayed more nurturing behavior toward their children than did control mothers. Though other investigators have indicated that siblings of handicapped children have different, more managing, roles with their handicapped brother or sister (Abramovitch et al., 1987: Stoneman et al., 1987; 1989), we found no difference in the rates of instructional behaviors between our experimental and comparison groups. Because siblings appear to assume the manager role more as they get older (Stoneman et al., 1989), the preschool-aged subjects of the current investigation simply may have been too young for such sibling role asymmetries to emerge. It is possible that
Sibling Interactions
399
the greater amounts of nurturance observed between handicapped child-sibling dyads mirror the greater rates of maternal nurturance and represent the developmental underpinnings of the manager role described in previous investigations of older siblings. While these differences in behavior of mothers toward siblings of handicapped children is interesting and clinically relevant, it should be examined in a larger sample, across a longer time period and different ages. In addition, there is a continued need for future studies to examine the quality of parents' interactions with all of their children and how this affects and is affected by a child's health and developmental status. REFERENCES Abramovitch, R., Stanhope, L., Pepler, D., & Cotter, C. (1987). The influence of Down's Syndrome on sibling interaction. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28,865-879. Breslau, N. (1982). Siblings of disabled children: Birth order and age spacing effects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 85-96. Breslau, N., Weitzman, M., & Messenger, K. (1981). Psychological functioning of siblings of disabled children. Pediatrics, 67, 344-353. Dunn, J. (1985). Sisters and brothers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dyson, L. (1989). Adjustment of siblings of handicapped children: A comparison. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 14, 215-229. Ferrari, M. (1984). Chronic illness: Psychosocial effects on siblings - chronically ill boys. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25,459-476. Gath, A. (1973). The mental health of siblings of congenitally abnormal children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 13, 211-218. Gath, A. (1974). Sibling reactions to mental handicap: A comparison of brothers and sisters of mongol children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 15, 187-198. Gath, A., & Gumley, D. (1987). Retarded children and their siblings. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28,715-730. Lobato, D. (1983). Siblings of handicapped children: A review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 13, 347-364. Lobato, D., Barbour, L., Hall, L. J., & Miller, C. T. (1987). Psychosocial characteristics of preschool siblings of handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 329-338. Lobato, D. J. (1990). Brothers, sisters, and special needs: Information and activities for helping young siblings of children with chronic illnesses and developmental disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Powell, T. H., & Ogle, P. A. (1985). Brothers and sisters: A special part of exceptional families. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., Davis, C. H., & Crapps, J. M. (1987). Mentally retarded children and their older same-sex siblings: Naturalistic in-home observations. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 92, 290-298. Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., Davis, C. H., & Crapps, J. M. (1988). Childcare responsibilities, peer relations, and siblings conflict: Older siblings of mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 93, 174-183. Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., David, C. H., & Crapps, J. M. (1989). Role relations between children who are mentally retarded and their older siblings: Observations in three in-home contexts. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 61-76. Tew, B., & Laurence, K. M. (1973). Mothers, brothers, and sisters of patients with spina bifida. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 15, 69-76.
Preschool Siblings of Handicapped Children: Interactions With Mothers, Brothers, and Sisters Debra I. Lobato Rhode Island Hospital and Brown University Program in Medicine
Carol 1". Miller and tinda Barbour University of vermont
Laura J. Hall* University of Massachusetts
John Pezzullo Rhode Island Hospital
The purpose of this investigation was to examine similarities and differences between young (aged 3 years to 6 years 9 months) siblings of handicapped and nonhandicapped children in their behavioral interactions with their mothers, brothers, and sisters. Behavior of mothers toward the different groups of children also was examined. Results revealed few differences between sibling groups in the quantity or quality of their interactions with family members. In comparison to the matched control children, siblings of handicapped children engaged in more parallel play and social play, and were more nurturing but no more likely to interact aggressively or to be commanding or directive with their brothers or sisters. Mothers in the experimental group were found to target sig*Laura J. Hall is now at the department of Disabilities Studies, Victoria College, Victoria, Australia. The authors are grateful to the children and families who participated in the project. The assistance of Dr. Ricardo Barrera, Christine DiBlasio, Paola Bellabarba, Martha Fay, Lisa Kay, Jeanne Logozzo, Donna Motley, Jennifer Harter, and Tina Meisell is also gratefully acknowledged. This project was funded by Grant Number G008300345 from the U.S. Department of Education. Requests for reprints should be sent to Debra J. Lobato, Ph.D., Child Development Center, Rhode Island Hospital, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI 02903. 387
388
D . J. L o b a t o et al.
nificantly more nurturant behaviors toward their children compared to control mothers and were significantly more likely to deliver commands, directives, and reprimands to siblings of handicapped children than to any other ehiM. Results are discussed in terms of their correspondence to previous observational and interview research.
Psychological adjustment of siblings of handicapped children increasingly has become a topic of interest (Dyson, 1989; Lobato, 1983; 1990; Powell & Ogle, 1985). "Adjustment" has been examined most frequently in terms of mothers' (Breslau, Weitzman, & Messenger, 1981; Breslau, 1982; Dyson, 1989; Lobato, Barbour, Hall, & Miller, 1987) and teachers' (Gath, 1973; 1974; Gath & Gumley, 1987) perceptions of siblings' behavior as measured on standard child behavior rating forms. Information based on parent and teacher reports has yielded conflicting results. While some of these investigations suggest that siblings of handicapped children are similar to their peers in overall behavioral adjustment (Ferrari, 1984; Lobato et al., 1987; Dyson, 1989), there also are indications that siblings may have more specific behavioral problems related to anxiety, depression, and aggression than are reported by parents of nonhandicapped children (Breslau, 1982; Lobato et al., 1987; Tew & Laurence, 1973). When data are generated via direct contact with siblings themselves, however, siblings of handicapped children have not been distinguishable from other siblings matched for age, birth-order, socioeconomic status, and marital status of their parents. Having a brother or sister with a significant developmental disability exerted no direct influence on children's responses on measures of interpersonal empathy, social competence or self-esteem, and understanding of developmental disabilities (Lobato et al, 1987). This discrepancy in results between studies utilizing caregiver reports and those utilizing child reports invites a question regarding the bias of parent-generated research on the psychosocial development of siblings. Namely, do the parent-identified differences between young siblings of handicapped and nonhandicapped children reflect true differences between the groups of children or between their parents' perceptions? By collecting naturalistic, observational data of family interaction, the potential bias of parent-report can be avoided. Previous naturalistic observations of children with retardation and their siblings have revealed interesting differences between siblings of retarded and nonretarded children. Namely, among siblings of children with mental retardation is a tendency toward more prosocial and fewer agonistic behavior patterns when compared to their matched peers (Abramovitch, Stanhope, Pepler, & Corter, 1987; Stoneman, Brody, Davis, & Crapps, 1987; 1989). Generally, siblings of delayed children assume greater caretaking and managing roles as com-
Sibling Interactions
389
pared to their peers, and this is especially true of older sisters of retarded children. While the quantity and affective quality of interactions between siblings of retarded and nonretarded children appear generally similar, for older siblings of mentally retarded children, increased childcare responsibilities also have been identified, and these have been associated with less positive interaction and more conflict between siblings (Stoneman, Brody., Davis, & Crapps, 1988). The previous observational studies focused exclusively on siblings of children with mental retardation and covered a wide age range of children. The current project focuses specifically on siblings aged 3 years to 6 years 9 months, since it is during their young years that siblings often have the greatest access to one another, and it is during this time that characteristic patterns of interaction are being formed (Dunn, 1985). Behavioral data on the children's interactions with each other and with their mothers were collected to answer four major questions: 1. Are the interactions between siblings influenced by one child's handicapping condition? 2. Does their mothers' presence affect the quality or quantity of the children's interactions? 3. Do mothers of handicapped children act differently toward their children than do mothers of nonhandicapped children? and 4. Do mothers act differently toward their handicapped children than they do toward the children's siblings and controls? Based on previous literature and clinical observation, it was hypothesized that the interactions of handicapped child-sibling pairs would be characterized by a lower quantity and different quality of interaction in comparison to matched pairs of nonhandicapped siblings. It was predicted that the handicapped child-sibling pairs would exhibit a higher proportion of caretaking and instructional exchanges with a lower rate of sibling-targeted aggression, especially among female siblings. Differences in the behavior of mothers toward children in the experimental and control families also were expected, with greater degrees of reprimands and commands directed toward siblings, especially female siblings, of handicapped children. METHOD
Subjects Subjects in the current project were drawn from a sample of 46 children who participated in a larger sibling study on sibling adjustment (see Lobato et al., 1987). The original experimental group consisted of 24 children who
390
D. J. Lobato et al.
had a brother or sister with a significant handicapping condition. For the analyses of the current observational data, the sample was reduced by two families for w h o m appropriately matched controls could not be recruited and b y a n o t h e r two f a m i l i e s who did not w a n t to p a r t i c i p a t e in those aspects of the study i n v o l v i n g home videotaping. Thus, the final sample consisted of 20 children, aged 3 years to 6 years 7 months, whose brothers or sisters had the f o l l o w i n g h a n d i c a p p i n g c o n d i t i o n s : D o w n s y n d r o m e (n = 2); spina bifida (n = 1); cerebral palsy (n = 7); profound hearing loss (n = 1); blindness (n = 1); nonspecific global developmental delay (n = 4); W i l l i a m s s y n d r o m e (n = 1); and m u l t i p l e disabilities due to c o n g e n i t a l hydrocephalus (n = 1), head injury (n = 1), and u n k n o w n etiology (n = 1). The control group consisted of 20 children, aged 3 years to 6 years 9 m o n t h s , w h o s e brother or sister was apparently healthy and d e v e l o p i n g normally. Control children and their families were recruited from local day care centers, preschools, and pediatric practices. As reflected in Table 1, the families were matched in terms of the n u m b e r of children, relative birth orders, sex, ages, age spacing (within 6 months) of the target sibling and handicapped child, and marital status of the parents. All but one experimental and one comparison family contained two children; the other families had 3 children.
TABLE 1.
Subject Characteristics Experimental n = 20
Control n = 20
Siblingage Male Female
36-79 months 57.5 months 59.5 months
37-81 months 61.75 months 63.75 months
Siblingbirth order lst-born male lst-born female 2nd-bornmale 2nd-bornfemale
n=9 n=7 n=3 n= 1
n=9 n=7 n=3 n=1
Handicappedchild/Control Age range Mean age Male Female
16-91 months 44.2 months n = 12 n=8
11-108 months 48.4 months n = 12 n=8
Family income Range Mean
6000-70,000 20,563
9000-50,000 25,930
Family constellation Single-parent Two-parent
n=7 n = 13
n=7 n = 13
Sibling Interactions
391
Videotaping Procedures Families were videotaped in the living room or den area of their homes following parents' and children's provision of written informed consent and completion of other evaluation procedures involved in the larger sibling adjustment study. While these other data were collected by one member of the research team, another member set up the videotaping equipment. For the purposes of reducing reactivity, parents and children freely wandered into the taping room when they were not otherwise occupied. Videotaping sessions were scheduled at times fathers from two-parent families reported that they would be home, though only five were actually present when the research team arrived. Of these fathers, two actually participated in the videotaping. Due to this small number, the analyses reflect comparisons between experimental and control sibling dyads with and without their mothers only. The order of videotaping sibling-sibling and mother-siblings interaction was counterbalanced across subjects. Families selected three toys from their own collection and were given three toys from the experimenter's collection that they could play with during taping. The families' television remained off throughout the sessions. During sibling-sibling taping, parents were instructed to remain outside of the room, usually in an adjacent kitchen. When mothers were videotaped with the two children together they were instructed simply to p l a y with b o t h of their c h i l d r e n t o g e t h e r . E a c h sibling d y a d and mother-siblings triad was videotaped for 15 min for a total of 30 min of data. Longer videotaped observations were not planned in consideration for the intrusiveness of the research procedures as a whole. The date, time, and a stopwatch function were recorded in the upper right hand comer of each videotape. This enabled videotape observers to code behaviors within prerecorded 15- s intervals.
Measures of Behavior and Videotape Analysis Assistants were not told the subjects' experimental groups, though some were clear because of the visibility of the children's handicaps. Behavior codes were recorded at the end of every 15 s, as measured by the built-in timer on the television screen. Assistants coded all behaviors of one member of the dyad or triad and then replayed the tapes, sequentially focusing on the behavior of other members of the dyad or triad during parallel 15-s intervals. Behaviors and their definitions are presented in Table 2. Certain discrete behaviors were amenable to interval-by-interval freq u e n c y recording. These were Nurturing Behavior, Aggression, and Commands/Directives. The total frequency of occurrence of each of these
392
D. J. Lobato et al.
TABLE 2. Definitions of Coded Videotape Behaviors Behavior
Definition
Parallel play
Each member of the dyad is separately involved with his or her own play activities and uninvolved with each other (e.g., sibling plays with doll while child reads).
Social play
One or both members of the dyad attempt to or succeed in reciprocally engaging in a playful sequence of social behaviors without the use of objects (e.g., sibling and child wrestle).
Object play
One or both members of the dyad attempt to or succeed in reciprocally engaging in a playful sequence of social behaviors with the use of objects (e.g., child brings book to mom and she reads it).
Physical contact
One member of the dyad makes physical contact with the other person. It does not include social play behaviors that require contact (e.g., wrestling) but is a more supportive behavior that can be part of or within another behavioral sequence (e.g., mother puts child in lap to read book).
Provides instruction
One member of the dyad attempts to or succeeds at teaching or showing the other member how to do something (e.g., sibling shows child how to roll on floor).
No interaction
No interaction occurs between the dyad for the entire interval, including any entire interval during which one person plays alone but the other is unoccupied.
Nurturing behaviors
One member of the dyad praises or positively recognizes through gesture or word the desirable behavior of the other (e.g., mom pats sib on back after sib does puzzle), verbally or nonverbally expresses affection in a noncontingent manner (e.g., sib hugs mom), or attempts to help or do something for the other (e.g., sib retrieves something out of child's reach).
Commands/ Reprimands/Directives One member scolds or reprimands the other contingent on an undesired behavior (e.g., sibling tells child not to throw blocks), or one member asks or tells the other to do something without attempting to teach him or her (e.g., morn tells child to pick up toy). Aggression
One member of the dyad is verbally or nonverbally hurtful toward the other. This includes hitting, kicking, grabbing, yelling, spitting, or insulting
behaviors within the 15-min videotape sample was then computed for each d y a d a n d u s e d in l a t e r a n a l y s e s . D u e to t h e i r m o r e i n d i s c r e t e a n d s u s t a i n e d n a t u r e , o t h e r i n t e r a c t i v e b e h a v i o r s w e r e m o s t a m e n a b l e to m e a s u r e m e n t v i a w h o l e o r p a r t i a l ( 1 5 - s ) i n t e r v a l r e c o r d i n g . T h e s e i n c l u d e d P a r a l l e l Play, S o c i a l Play, O b j e c t Play, Physical Contact, Provides Instruction, and No Interactions. The percenta g e o f i n t e r v a l s in w h i c h t h e s e b e h a v i o r s o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n t w o p e o p l e w a s c o m p u t e d f o r e a c h d y a d a n d u s e d in l a t e r a n a l y s e s . Interobserver agreement on behaviors coded within each interval was m e a s u r e d o n a p o i n t - b y - p o i n t b a s i s . O b s e r v e r s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d to b e i n
Sibling Interactions
393
agreement if all entries for the interval were identical. For intervals during which more than one behavior occurred, an interval was considered an agreement only if the multiple codes were the same. An interobserver agreement ratio was established on 25% of the videotapes using the formula: number of interval agreements divided by the number of agreements plus number of disagreements multiplied by 100. Overall agreement for the videotapes ranged from 76% to 94%, with an average agreement ratio of 84%.
Analyses Each coded behavior from the videotapes was analyzed with a mixed repeated measures factorial analysis of variance in which sex of sibling and family type (experimental vs. control) were between-subjects factors. The mothers' presence or absence during the siblings' interaction or dyad membership (i.e., mother-sibling vs. mother-handicapped child/control) were repeated measures factors. Normalizing square root transformations were conducted on frequency measures of behavior (i.e., nurturing, aggression, commands/reprimands, and directives) in order to achieve homogeneity of variance. RESULTS
Children's Interactions With Each Other Table 3 presents the mean percentage of observation intervals in which the children engaged in parallel play, social play, and object play, had physical contact with each other, provided instructions to one another, or were not interacting. Similar to other investigations (Stoneman et al., 1987), children in all groups did not interact with each other at all during a substantial percentage of the coded intervals (means ranged from 39% to 86%). A significant sex effect (F = 6.58, p = .02) was revealed for the percentage of intervals during which interaction occurred, indicating that girl siblings interacted more with their brothers and sisters than did boy siblings. Analysis also revealed a significant difference between subject groups in the rates of parallel play (F = 9.72, p = .007). Children in the experimental groups, regardless of sex of sibling and regardless of whether the mother was present or absent, engaged in more parallel play (M = 14.38%) than did children in the control groups (M = 7.04%). In addition, there was a significant effect (F = 9.57, p = .07), which indicated that children in the experimental groups tended to engage in social play in more of the intervals (M = 7.25%) than did children in the control groups (M = 2.25%). In both groups of children, social play occurred more often when the mother
394
D. J. L o b a t o et al.
TABLE 3. Mean Percentage of Intervals for Sibling Interactions With Mothers Present and Absent Experimental Group Boy
Control Group
Girl
Boy
Girl
Behavior/Dyad
Mean %
SD
Mean %
SD
Mean %
SD
Mean %
SD
Parallel play 1 Mother absent Mother present
14.3 10.00
14.71 13.12
21.0 14.14
11.03 9.62
8.90 6.58
9.54 7.94
8.50 3.57
7.16 4.76
Social play 2 Mother absent Mother present
6.00 3.00
15.78 6.32
18.79 3.57
25.29 3.78
1.10 1.58
2.33 4.99
5.71 1.43
15.12 3.78
Object play Mother absent Mother present
18.40 5.50
24.49 10.92
31.43 19.71
23.34 21.91
22.65 17.31
20.78 17.47
27.40 24.29
23.35 35.17
Physical contact 3 Mother absent Mother present
1.50 2.00
3.38 4.22
2.14 12.43
3.93 20.89
3.75 0
8.44 0
.76 5.00
2.00 9.13
Provides instruction Mother absent Mother present
1.20 1.00
2.57 3.16
.86
2.27 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
46.14 73.86
23.12 23.03
No interaction Mother absent Mother present
72.30 33.00 86.000 20.11
0
72.00 79.61
22.87 62.86
54.17 39.04
40.46 14.75
SD = Standard Deviation. 1Group effect: F = 9.72, p = .007. 2Group effect: F = 5.49, p = .03; group X dyad effect: F = 9.57, p = .007. 3Dyad X sex effect: F = 6.11, p = .03.
was absent (M = 7.13%) than when she was present (M = 2.37%, F = 9.57, p = .007). Sisters of handicapped children engaged in the greatest amounts of social play (M -- 11.18), though the interaction effect of sex failed to reach statistical significance (F = 2.56, p = .13). A significant interaction between dyad and sex was found for physical contact (F -- 6.11, p = .03). As compared to male siblings, physical contact occurred most frequently among female siblings of both handicapped and nonhandicapped children when their mothers were present than when mothers were absent. There were no significant differences in the rates of object play, while occurrences of instructional behaviors were too low for meaningful comparisons. T h e b e h a v i o r s c o d e d as f r e q u e n c i e s w e r e N u r t u r i n g B e h a v i o r , Aggression, and Use of Commands and Directives. These data are presented in Table 4. Children within the experimental group were the only ones to display any nurturing behavior toward each other (all means < 1, 5 of 8
Sibling Interactions
395
m e a n s = 0), y i e l d i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t g r o u p e f f e c t (F = 6.03, p = .03). Aggression also was very infrequent (all means < 1.5, 3 of 8 means = 0). There were no significant differences between groups, sexes, or dyads in the occurrence of reprimands or commands, though siblings in both experimental and control families gave more directives (M = 1.1) than did their handicapped/control brothers and sisters (M = .4), F = 4.80, p = .04. This finding is not surprising since the siblings typically were the older o f the two children.
M o t h e r - C h i l d Interactions
Three mothers from the experimental group decided not to be videotaped alongside their children, though they allowed the videotaping of their children. Their mother-child data, as well as those of their matched controls, were not analyzed, reducing the sample size of mother-child dyads within each group from 20 to 17. Means and standard deviations in the rates of occurrence of interactive behaviors between mothers and their children are presented in Table 5. Analysis of the percentage of intervals in which the mother and child engaged in parallel play, social play, or object play, or had physical contact, provided instruction, or were not interacting revealed only one significant finding. This finding was that regardless of sex of sibling and regardless of
TABLE 4. Mean Frequency of Nurturing, Commands/Reprimands, and Aggression Between Siblings With Mothers Present and Absent
Experimental Group Boy Behavior/Dyad
Girl
Mean FrequencySD
Nurturing Mother absent Mother present Commands/Reprimands/ Directives Mother absent Mother present Aggression Mother absent Mother present SD = Standard Deviation.
Control Group Boy
Mean FrequencySD
Mean Mean Frequency SD Frequency SD
.70 0
2.21 0
1.00 .57
1.53 1.13
0 0
1.10 1.70
1.45 3.27
1.29 0
1.49 0
0
0
1.14 0
2.19 0
.20
.42
Girl
0 0
0 0
0 0
1.40 2.27 .80 1.03
2.86 .86
3.58 1.57
0
1.00 2.65 .14 .38
0 .10
.32
396
D. J. Lobato et al.
TABLE 5. Mean Percentage of Intervals for Mother-Child Interactions Experimental Group Boy
Control Group
Girl
Boy
Girl
Behavior/Dyad
Mean %
SD
Mean %
SD
Mean %
SD
Mean %
SD
Parallel play 1 Mother/Sib Mother/HC
25.20 22.30
21.64 17.85
16.86 19.00
7.19 13.05
5.00 7.15
4.08 9.6
5.29 2.14
9.14 2.67
Social play Mother/Sib Mother/HC
2.00 5.50
4.83 7.98
.71 5.00
1.89 7.64
9.00 0
21.18 0
1.43 1.43
3.78 3.78
Object play Mother/Sib Mother/HC
55.80 41.20
37.26 28.85
36.57 51.14
20.81 17.68
45.20 50.84
36.23 35.17
73.14 75.00
33.89 37.53
Physical contact Mother/Sib Mother/HC
6.00 32.50
14.10 46.98
8.57 24.14
18.42 33.07
13.00 5.11
31.99 10.98
5.00 12.14
13.23 27.97
5.10 4.50
8.44 8.64
5.00 2.86
5.77 5.67
1.50 0
3.38 0
4.86 6.43
6.09 11.07
31.10 32.30
39.69 33.34
43.43 35.14
18.69 25.69
29.00 48.56
24.92 32.03
38.86 13.57
40.54 19.73
Provides instruction Mother/Sib Mother/HC No interaction Mother/Sib MotherfrtC
HC = Handicapped or conlxol child; SD = Standard Deviation. 1Group effect: F = 14.65, p = .0005.
which mother-child dyad was under observation, there was more parallel play in the experimental group (M = 21.35%) than in the control group (M = 5.10%), F = 22.21, p = .003. As can be seen in Table 5, mothers rarely engaged in social play or provided instruction to their children, and there was no interaction at all during an average of 13.57% to 43.43% of the intervals. The most common behavior was object play, for which mean percentages ranged from 36.57% to 75.00% of the intervals. A significant dyad X group interaction effect (F = 7.18, p =.02) was revealed in the analysis of the percentage of interactive behaviors initiated by the mother. Regardless of the sex of the sibling, mothers in the experimental group initiated more interactive behaviors in total with their h a n d i c a p p e d children (M -- 7 5 . 5 9 % ) than they did with the target nonhandicapped siblings (M = 49.57%) as compared to control mothers with their handicapped/control children (M = 51.26%) and their siblings (M = 64.71%).
Sibling Interactions
397
T h e m e a n frequencies of nurturing behavior; c o m m a n d s , reprimands, and directives; and aggression are presented in Table 6. Analysis revealed a sign i f i c a n t e f f e c t for g r o u p on r a t e s o f n u r t u r i n g b e h a v i o r s , w i t h g r e a t e r amounts d i s p l a y e d within the experimental group ( F = 9.84, p = .007). There was a tendency for greater displays of nurturing to occur with handicapped children as c o m p a r e d to their siblings or controls, though the group X d y a d effect failed to achieve statistical significance ( F = 3.24, p = .09). There was a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r g r o u p on r a t e s o f c o m m a n d s a n d r e p r i m a n d s ( F = 12.44, p = .003). Regardless o f sibling sex, mothers in the experimental group delivered more than twice the n u m b e r of c o m m a n d s and directives to their children than control mothers. Aggression was not observed frequently enough to yield meaningful comparisons (7 of 8 means = 0).
DISCUSSION P r e v i o u s investigations have described m o t h e r s ' and teachers' tendencies to report that siblings o f h a n d i c a p p e d children have m o r e b e h a v i o r a l problems than their p e e r s (Breslau et al, 1981; Breslau, 1982; Gath, 1972; 1973; L o b a t o et al., 1987). Results of the current observational study, however, r e v e a l e d few differences between siblings of h a n d i c a p p e d and nonhandic a p p e d children in the quantity or quality of their actual interactions with TABLE 6. Mean Frequency of Nurturing, Commands/Reprimands, and Aggression Between Mothers and Children
Experimental Group Boy Behavior/Dyad
Mean Frequency SD
Nurturing1 Mother to sibling Mother to HC Commands/Reprimands/ Directives2 Mother to sibling Mother to HC Aggression Mother to sibling Mother to HC
Control Group
Girl
Boy
Girl
Mean Frequency SD
Mean FrequencySD
.60 1.00
.97 1.49
.71 2.57
.95 2.88
.30 .10
.48 .32
1.33 1.70
1.78 3.27
1.13 1.46 0 0
1.25 .67
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
.43
1.13 0
HC = Handicapped or control child; SD = Standard Deviation. 1Group effect: F = 9.84, p = .007. 2Group effect: F = 12.44, p = .003.
Mean Frequency SD 0
0 .14
.38
2.09 .99
3.63 1.25
3.96 1.83
0 0
0 0
0 0
398
D. J. Lobato et al.
their mothers, brothers, and sisters. Differences that did emerge revealed generally more positive types of interaction, similar to those that have been observed by others (Abramovitch et al., 1987). In comparison to the matched control children, siblings of handicapped children engaged in more parallel play and social play and were more nurturing, but were no more likely to interact aggressively or to be commanding, reprimanding, or directive with their brothers or sisters. The present data confirm previous conclusions (Lobato et al., 1987) that the closer one gets to observing or interacting with siblings of handicapped children themselves (as opposed to interviewing their mothers), the more similar they appear in relation to their peers, especially during their early childhood. Differences in mothers' behavior toward children in the experimental and control groups were few. Though there was no significant difference between groups of children in the quantity of their interactions with their mothers, mothers initiated more interaction with their handicapped children than with siblings or control children. This may be related to the fact that the handicapped/control child also was the youngest child and developmentally least mature in all but four families and, therefore, required greater adult initiation for interaction to occur. Among the clinically interesting differences that did emerge in the behavior of mothers of handicapped and nonhandicapped children were the rates of nurturance displayed and the number of commands and reprimands delivered. Regardless of sex, siblings of handicapped children received twice as many directives, scolds, and reprimands from their mothers as did control children, even though the videotapes revealed few differences between the groups of siblings in the rates of behaviors (e.g., aggression) one typically would consider deserving of scolds and reprimands. Perhaps this greater frequency of scolds and reprimands represents the behavioral correlate of mothers' tendency to report more behavioral adjustment problems among siblings of handicapped children even when sibling-based reports of their own adjustment appears no different from that of their peers (e.g., Lobato et al., 1987). It is important to balance this observation with the fact that mothers in the experimental group also displayed more nurturing behavior toward their children than did control mothers. Though other investigators have indicated that siblings of handicapped children have different, more managing, roles with their handicapped brother or sister (Abramovitch et al., 1987: Stoneman et al., 1987; 1989), we found no difference in the rates of instructional behaviors between our experimental and comparison groups. Because siblings appear to assume the manager role more as they get older (Stoneman et al., 1989), the preschool-aged subjects of the current investigation simply may have been too young for such sibling role asymmetries to emerge. It is possible that
Sibling Interactions
399
the greater amounts of nurturance observed between handicapped child-sibling dyads mirror the greater rates of maternal nurturance and represent the developmental underpinnings of the manager role described in previous investigations of older siblings. While these differences in behavior of mothers toward siblings of handicapped children is interesting and clinically relevant, it should be examined in a larger sample, across a longer time period and different ages. In addition, there is a continued need for future studies to examine the quality of parents' interactions with all of their children and how this affects and is affected by a child's health and developmental status. REFERENCES Abramovitch, R., Stanhope, L., Pepler, D., & Cotter, C. (1987). The influence of Down's Syndrome on sibling interaction. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28,865-879. Breslau, N. (1982). Siblings of disabled children: Birth order and age spacing effects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 85-96. Breslau, N., Weitzman, M., & Messenger, K. (1981). Psychological functioning of siblings of disabled children. Pediatrics, 67, 344-353. Dunn, J. (1985). Sisters and brothers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dyson, L. (1989). Adjustment of siblings of handicapped children: A comparison. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 14, 215-229. Ferrari, M. (1984). Chronic illness: Psychosocial effects on siblings - chronically ill boys. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25,459-476. Gath, A. (1973). The mental health of siblings of congenitally abnormal children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 13, 211-218. Gath, A. (1974). Sibling reactions to mental handicap: A comparison of brothers and sisters of mongol children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 15, 187-198. Gath, A., & Gumley, D. (1987). Retarded children and their siblings. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28,715-730. Lobato, D. (1983). Siblings of handicapped children: A review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 13, 347-364. Lobato, D., Barbour, L., Hall, L. J., & Miller, C. T. (1987). Psychosocial characteristics of preschool siblings of handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 329-338. Lobato, D. J. (1990). Brothers, sisters, and special needs: Information and activities for helping young siblings of children with chronic illnesses and developmental disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Powell, T. H., & Ogle, P. A. (1985). Brothers and sisters: A special part of exceptional families. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., Davis, C. H., & Crapps, J. M. (1987). Mentally retarded children and their older same-sex siblings: Naturalistic in-home observations. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 92, 290-298. Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., Davis, C. H., & Crapps, J. M. (1988). Childcare responsibilities, peer relations, and siblings conflict: Older siblings of mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 93, 174-183. Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., David, C. H., & Crapps, J. M. (1989). Role relations between children who are mentally retarded and their older siblings: Observations in three in-home contexts. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 61-76. Tew, B., & Laurence, K. M. (1973). Mothers, brothers, and sisters of patients with spina bifida. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 15, 69-76.
